WHAT DISTINGUISHES OUR PARTY – The line running
from Marx to Lenin to the foundation
of the Third International and
the birth of the Communist Party of Italy
in Leghorn (Livorno) 1921,
and from there to the struggle of the Italian
Communist Left against the degeneration
in Moscow and to the rejection
of popular fronts and coalition
of resistance groups – The tough work
of restoring the revolutionary doctrine and
the party organ, in contact
with the working class, outside the realm
of personal politics
and electoralist manoevrings
Inside: – USA: - After the Nightmare of the Election in the USA and the Dissection of its Corpse
- Against Trump or Against Capitalism:
Democracy is Fascism, Fascism is Democracy - Community or Class? - Immigration - Build Working Class Resistance: Class Unionism - Build Working Class Resistance: Need for Class Party – United Kingdom: - Strikes on Southern Rail: Trouble on London Underground - The Fundamental Issue of Safety of Driver Only Trains – Venezuela: - Report by our Comrades: Crisis, Inflation and Workers Struggle - On the Situation in the Coast of Carabobo State (Puerto Cabello and Moron)
- Plain Speaking about Chavismo and Anti-chavismo: A path to Socialism? - A Struggle Against the Bourgeoisie? - Anti-imperialism? - Do they Govern in the Workers’ Interests? - A Struggle Between Capitalism and Socialism? - Nothing New under the Sun
After the Nightmare of the Election in the USA and the Dissection of its Corpse
After the nightmare of the election in the USA and the dissection of
its corpse - It is obvious to Marxist theory, and backed by abundant
historical evidence, that whenever any of the political actors takes
their turn in power they become the most impotent person on Earth,
unable to deviate from the prescribed and catastrophic trajectory of US
capitalism by even a fraction of a degree.
Democracy, or rather its periodic orgiastic electoral rites, which
have survived it and replaced it for more than a century, is now a
mystifying word, empty of meaning, but highly useful for distracting
workers from their real problems.
Anti-fascism and anti-populism are both forms of fascism and populism. The only real historical alternative is between us - the communist
party and the trade union movement - and the whole damn lot of them
together: today, there is only one party of the bourgeoisie.
We understand the recurrence of the term “post-democracy” as a sign
of the times, but it is clear to us that the bourgeoisie will continue
obsessively to apply its media apparatus, projecting fake oppositions
and simulating social struggle, so it can avoid the real class struggle.
Against
Trump or Against Capitalism
The
election of 2016 represents the true contemporary existence of
capitalism. Clinton’s manipulation of the Democratic primaries, the
“leaks” by the Republicans, the Russian “hacks” and the
manipulations against minority voters in many States. Here is your
democracy. To the buyer beware!
Democracy
is fascism, Fascism is democracy
All
governmental positions taken in the present society are there to
maintain the status quo of property relations. The only allowed
question is how to best maintain those relations? That range falls
between leftist populism and fascism. The decision of whether to have
in place a liberal populist of the FDR stripe or authoritarian
populist of the Trump variety is a reflection of the needs of
capitalism to deal with specific issues.
What
remains is the need to prop up the dictatorship of capital – the
system itself.
Community
or Class?
All
over the world, bosses and bourgeois governments of all colours
attack the living conditions of the working class, because an
increase in its exploitation is the only real option they have
to keep the capitalist economy holding together, as it is inevitably
heading towards a breakdown and a world war between the States.
Likewise
for racism, the question is not race but of class; and that’s why the
immigrant proletarians should not be deluded that they can solve
their problems by relying on abstract bourgeois ideals. To fight
sickening racism with anti-racism, in terms of superficial moralism
and respect of cultures, is not only helpless but is harmful because
it does not challenge any of the profound material bases of this
reactionary ideology. The only true anti-racist struggle is and will
be the class struggle, because it unifies workers beyond races and
nationalities, and it leads them to going beyond capitalism.
Immigration
While
it is an illusion for foreign workers to expect that racism is
defeated through the abstract ideals of bourgeois equality, the
class-conscious proletariat should embrace and sincerely welcome the
struggle for total extension of civil and labour rights to anyone who
sells their labour power to Capital. To win this struggle, immigrants as
well as native workers must recognize themselves as members of the
single world class. The struggle will have many facets, but it can only be pursued within a strong class trade union movement, tending towards a single defensive front for the entire working class, both indigenous and migrant. A trade union
organization that will fight against the threat of the loss of the
migrant workers’ residence or work permit in case of dismissal.
Build
working class resistance – Class unionism
Only
the revolutionary movement of the proletarians of all countries,
united in the same struggle against the common enemy, the
bourgeoisie, will solve the problems of forced migration but also
those of the exploitation of man by man, laying the necessary
foundations for future Communist society.
Movements
like Fight for $15 and OurWalmart have been positive for working
class efforts to improve its conditions. But the benefits of these
groups have been undercut by the needs of business unions such as
SEIU and UFCW. These unions put their efforts into elections and not
what workers can accomplish through their own efforts. So the significant
efforts of Fight for $15 were diverted – pre-nomination! – to
supporting Hillary Clinton, who is hostile to unions and working class organization.
These
days, ‘Class Unions’ like the ILWU, UE and IWW are needed –
unions that are run by their memberships and which fight hard to the end
for their causes. Worker Centers, like Coalition of Immokalee Workers
and the Solidarity Network movement are also important movements
building an independent working class resistance to immiseration.
Build
working class resistance – Need for class party
The party emerges as the centralizing organ of the working class, understanding and responding to events, and building resistance to the attacks of capitalism in preparation for the final assault on power and the transformation of society. This party is the International
Communist Party. If you are curious as to how to
move the working class forward towards this transformation of society, please contact us.
United Kingdom Strikes on Southern Rail
The Southern Rail franchise, owned by the Govia
Thameslink Railway (GTR), which controls about a fifth
of the British railway network, operates the passenger train
services from the South East Coast of England to the
London area. Govia’s proposal to alter the role of train guards on Southern Rail by transferring the closing of train doors to drivers provoked resistance from members of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT), commencing April 2016.
The issue of Driver Only Operated (DOO) trains as
demanded by the bosses of Southern Rail is viewed as the
start of a campaign by other rail companies to introduce
the same changes on other train lines, especially in the
North and Midlands.
In June RMT announced two industrial actions which
would hit Scotrail and Southern Rail services. A series of
strikes affecting Scotrail was announced for June/July,
which were then deferred to August, and later called off by
RMT to allow further negotiations between Scotrail and
the RMT leadership. The rail bosses tried campaigns using
social media and delivery of letters to individual train
guards, in order to bring pressure to bear on them, which
only led to a much larger vote for strike action.
RMT stated it had a policy for no extension of DOO on
any route or service and for the guard to be in full
operational control of the power-operated doors. The RMT
has made it clear that the union is totally opposed to any
proposals for extending DOO, reducing or abolishing the
safety role of the guard in operating the doors. It is one
thing for union leaders to voice opposition to changes – it
is clear that it is the guards who are the ones whose future
is under threat, and it is the rank and file who are the
motivating force sustaining the opposition to implementing
DOO.
The strike on Southern Rail by RMT guards, against the
implementation of a new “on-board role” of On Board
Supervisors (OBS) from 21st August, was set for 21st
June. The change of roles between drivers and guards had
already taken place on modernised trains running on other
lines, which had been agreed by Aslef, the train
drivers union. Most of the trains used on Southern Rail are
anything but modern.
RMT are reported to have offered a seven-point plan based
on retaining the guards’ role as at present, but suggesting
changes to the Revenue Protection Officer (RPO) role. The
role of the RPOs is usually to target people who are
leaving stations who have not paid the full fare (whether
by mistake or not) or trying to pay the fare at the end of
their journey.
On 7th Jul the RMT offered to defer all action for three
months providing the employers pulled back from
implementation of the changes to door closing procedures,
in order for negotiations to take place. This was rejected
by the rail bosses.
GTR had confirmed plans to implement the new on-board
role from 21st August to be undertaken by guards in their
revised roles, which GTR say will protect all jobs and
bring benefits to passengers across the Southern network.
Trouble on London Underground
As if to counter preconceived notions that the attacks on
rail workers is only by private sector rail bosses, conflict
started to move to locally-controlled public sector services.
Merseyrail has already stated that it too wants to introduce
DOO especially when new modernised trains are
introduced.
During the summer the introduction of a Night Service on
London Underground was presented and the new Labour
London Mayor Sadiq Khan was out and about on the
Brixton Underground station.
Members of RMT and Aslef were balloted on whether to
launch a campaign of industrial action. The Night Service
was introduced in August with train drivers having been
recruited for a 16 hour per week contract to run that
service. It then emerged that the Night Service train
drivers had been “blocked” from applying for other work
on London Underground (LU) for at least 18 months. With
a fixed period of employment for 16 hours per week they
would not be paid overtime for working at night while
other employees who worked on London Underground and
also for the Night Service would be paid overtime. This
was condemned by RMT leadership as “blatantly
discriminatory” against the train drivers. An Aslef official
stated: «The vast majority of Night Tube drivers took up
the job because they saw it as a stepping stone to a fulltime
train driver’s job. They believed LU’s assurances that
they would have opportunities to progress, not to just
spend year after year working every Friday and Saturday
night».
Subsequently a planned 24 hour strike was called off while
the issues went to arbitration. The London Mayor Sadiq
Khan welcomed the suspension of strike action saying
«negotiations can now continue without unnecessary
disruption for commuters».
The Fundamental Issue of Safety of Driver Only Trains
The issues in dispute revolve around different terms, that is
Driver Only Operated (DOO) and Driver Only Controlled
(DOC). The rail bosses keep using the DOO term as being
perfectly safe for the train to leave solely under the control
of the driver, and by implication that the train can be run
with only the driver present. The opposition to DOO, in
favour of DOC, is that there needs to be a second person
on the train in case of safety issues arising. It is in fact
misleading to put it as “it is safe for the train to leave under
the sole control of the driver” when the issue would be
“who deals with an emergency when it arises?”.
The chief concern of train drivers is what would happen if
the only competent person present is the train driver after
the train departs. If an emergency arises, no matter what is
the cause and whether there is a threat to life or limb or
not, the train driver would have to stop and secure the train
first before leaving the cab and find out what has
happened. The driver would then have to go down the
train, that is if the train is not jam-packed with passengers
(which could then necessitate getting down from the train
and walking down the track to the carriage(s) concerned)
to deal with the emergency. Then the crucial dilemma
would arise: does the driver stay to deal with the
emergency or get the train to the next available station for
assistance. The consequences of such a situation could
lead to the train driver concerned being blamed for the
consequences of delays. Ultimately the pressure will be on the train drivers to
concede taking out the train without a guard being present.
The present situation is that there has obviously has to be a
driver present for the train to be ready to leave, but if a
guard is not present, the train is cancelled. “Overcoming
this problem” could very well be the hidden agenda in this
whole dispute, and not just the introduction of modernised
trains at some future date.
The train drivers are well
organised in their own skilled union, Aslef. Aslef are well
used to protecting themselves as a trade union, without
qualms about disadvantaging other unions on the railways.
Aslef resorted to an overtime ban and with the shortage of train drivers available, this led to many cancelled trains.
Before taking on the train drivers the rail bosses would
naturally try to get the guards to agree in principle to the
proposed change in role of closing the train doors. The
train guards continued to resist changes, making public
announcements about the consequences of trains running
without a competently trained second member of the train
crew – access for disabled passengers with
wheelchairs, especially at undermanned stations, became
an important issue.
By the middle of December Aslef was warning the
Government of a decade of strikes and industrial unrest on the railways. On 13th Dec the Southern Rail network was
brought to a halt by a strike by train drivers, affecting
300,000 commuters in the South East of England.
On 14th Dec the RMT started a “Safe trains for all”
campaign, warning that there would be attempts by other
train companies to introduce DOO trains, and that rail
companies will use this as an opportunity to force staffing
changes. The disputes involving RMT members had only
affected up to a third of the train services of Southern
Rail.
The dispute by now had moved decisively between Aslef
and Southern Rail bosses. Southern Rail was insisting
that trains could be operated safely with DOO, but by now
there was no mention of modernised trains or that the present
trains would be operated with only the driver controlling
the train. Arguments were batted backwards and forwards over the reliability of on-board cameras, which in many
cases were 15 years old.
On 22nd Dec Southern Rail bosses tried going
over the heads of the Aslef leadership by sending an
earlier offer rejected by the Aslef leadership in a letter
delivered to all the train drivers.
On 8th Jan Aslef imposed an overtime ban on the Southern
Rail network. About a quarter of the trains did not run
because of the unavailability of train drivers. Two days
later Southern Rail was brought virtually to a halt by the
train drivers’ strike. The following day a second
successive strike by 1,000 train drivers led to the
cancellation of nearly all of the 2,242 train services. Another strike was planned for 13th Jan – and three more
strikes were announced for 24, 25 and 27th Jan.
Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party Leader, had been seen
swanning around Aslef leaders with talk about joining
their picket lines, but was apparently silent about the RMT,
which is not affiliated to the Labour Party. Aslef puts
money into the labour Party while RMT doesn’t.
On 18th Jan the Aslef three day strike was called off by
the union leaders, along with the overtime ban being
lifted, so that negotiations could be held with the bosses of
Southern Rail.
Secret negotiations took place at the headquarters of the Trade Union Congress (TUC) over an eleven day period. The TUC was playing the role of arbitrator between the employers and the Aslef leaders. Significantly RMT leaders were not involved. On 2nd Feb Aslef announced
that an end to the dispute was in sight after winning a
“significant concession” from rail bosses. The details of
the bosses-union leaders deal was being kept secret, and
the nearly 1,000 train driver members of Aslef were to be
balloted on the terms of the TUC sponsored peace deal.
RMT leaders were declaring this deal to be “a shocking
betrayal”.
As the terms of this secret rail bosses/Aslef leadership
deal began to be released to the Aslef members there was
real anger expressed by rank and file members of Aslef.
Aslef leaders had agreed to eight “exceptional
circumstances” where trains could leave without a second
train staff member being on board. The agreed accepted
absence of the present role of the guard is where the
second crew member is rostered (down on the schedules
as due for work) and is not present for reasons of sickness,
lateness, delay (a previous train being late) right through
to... being accidently left behind at a station. There was
also an intention to train the On-Board Supervisor to deal
with emergencies. It seems as if the role of the guard is to
be transformed, if not eliminated.
Real anger was expressed by Aslef train drivers
when the terms of this secret deal were made known to them. On 16th Feb the results of the Aslef members’ secret
ballot were released – almost three-quarters of the
members voted and the bosses/union leaders deal was
rejected by a 54%-46% majority.
New negotiations have been promised between Southern
Rail bosses and the Aslef leadership. It seems certain that
the RMT will not at present be invited.
The instinctive solidarity of train drivers and guards on
the railways, and resistance to the attacks on living and
working standards of the workers on London
Underground, provide a basis for a real rank and file
movement, tending to overcome sectional and industrial
divisions, and keeping their struggles out of the hands of
trade union leaders who side with the bosses and their
state.
Report by our Comrades in Venezuela Crisis, Inflation and Workers Struggle
On the situation in the coast of Carabobo State (Puerto Cabello and Moron)
In May 2016, collective bargaining agreements in some public and
private companies were being negotiated, while others had been already
signed. Since higher inflation rates are expected in 2017, most owners
are interested in signing these agreements before the end of 2016: it
is very likely that such wage increases will largely be absorbed by the
coming inflation, thus leading to production cost reductions for the
companies.
In many cases, during the negotiations between the unions and the
employers, wage improvements and bonuses were granted in return for
staff reductions.This type of agreement, only made possible thanks to
the betrayal of trade union leaders, backed by "labor consultants", has
led to significant employment reductions in different companies.
Workers in the meantime were offered compelling economic incentives if
they left their employment.
In the case of Traylog, which provides logistics services at the
Nestle warehouse in Moron, the number of workers who accepted the
incentive offer, was so great that the few remaining workers didn’t
reach the minimum number required by law to have their union
recognized. Now the situation is such that Nesltè may dismiss
all workers and resume its activity with a whole new staff.
The Ferralca, Tripoliven and Produven workers are meeting to discuss
the collective bargaining agreement. Our comrades are proposing a joint
meeting of the workers of these companies to unify all the demands and
action.
Meanwhile Ferralca broke with their "employment consultant", who also works for Traylog.
At Ferralca bosses attempted to push through a bonus wage tied to
the productivity of each worker. Union leaders and workers have
discussed the bonus and came to the conclusion that: a) it generates
divisions between workers, in the midst of the of collective bargaining
negotiations; b) it encourages the intensification of the working day
and the attitude that makes workers to steal other workers’ jobs; c) it
won’t be counted for social security funds; d) it would hold back the
recruitment of new workers as the company would produce more with the
same number of workers. Although a minority of workers remained willing
to accept the bonus, a majority of the assembly voted to refuse the
bonus and drew up a report to be delivered to the owner. Given the
forthcoming negotiation of the collective bargaining agreement, the
union has expressed the need to maintain unity and focus on the fight
for a wage increase: this direction is shared by all workers.
The workers of Ferralca, alerted to the arrival of the Servicio
Bolivariano de Inteligencia (Sebin), i.e. the government’s political
police, made it clear to the owner’s representatives that if their
union leaders should get arrested, they would have stopped work. The
company denied it had anything to do with the political police Sebin
visit, although everybody knew that if Sebin showed up it was because
the boss had called them. The provocative intervention of Sebin against
the union leaders occurred immediately after Ferralca workers had
blocked shipments for one shift following demands regarding work
clothing.
As for the PDVSA trade union workers, the union elections that were
scheduled for the 22th of September have been suspended and will take
place, if they will take place, in 2017, after the hypothetical
presidential referendum. The postponement of trade union elections
meets the need of the fraction of the PSUV [the ruling party] in the
Unitary Federation of Venezuelan Oil Workers, represented by Wills
Rangel, to gain time to make up for lost support of the majority of
workers in the sector. Postponing the elections also took place with
the complicity of the most important opposing current, that of
trotskist, Jose Bodas.
Unfortunately, the various rank and file groups of workers ended up
interested in the different options presented in the bourgeois
elections, ignoring the discussion of a program for the recovery of the
workers’ struggle. Comrades are preparing a leaflet about this.
Plain
Speaking about Chavismo and Anti‑chavismo
In
Venezuela, most of the reformist parties and groups active on the
left, parliamentary and extra-parliamentary, along with those who
describe themselves as center-left and as the “left” wings of the
conservative and right-wing parties, have accepted the notion that
the country has lived through a genuine “Bolivarian revolution”,
which raised the flag of “21st
Century Socialism”, in the words of its ‘great leader’.
Outside the country numerous groups, movements and parties have
rushed to support “the march of change” which, beginning in
Venezuela, will supposedly spread to Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina,
Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador, and
thus link up with the old Stalinists in Cuba.
Due
to the diplomatic pressure exerted by the United States and in the
wake of the devastation wrought by the capitalist crisis, the
reformist currents in Argentina, Paraguay, Honduras and (we think) in
Brazil, after having benefited in recent years from the accumulation
of capital mainly from China but also from Russia and elsewhere, have
now lost control of the government in these countries.
The
fact is, more so even than in Cuba, China and Russia, the “Bolivarian
revolution” is a
total farce and its program has nothing at all to do with socialism, even if we are fed
the idea, day in day out, about how opposed it is to the “right
wing”.
In
Venezuela there is just State capitalism.
Even before Chavismo got into government Venezuela was based on State
capitalism, dependent on oil revenue. But Chavismo talks about using
this revenue in the people’s favour. In fact the only new thing
about it is its capacity to drug the masses with the democratic
credo, with fame-seeking and popular participation and with the
illusion that the government represents the interests of the poor.
Chavismo was the political solution to the economic crisis in the 80s
and 90s, which allowed the national bourgeoisie and foreign
imperialism to maintain capitalist exploitation against a background
of social peace.
Learning
from the experience of those who rule Cuba, the Venezuelan
bourgeoisie spread the same lie: that the economic crisis is just
the product of the economic war conducted by a few “anti-patriotic”
entrepreneurs, by “right-wing” parties, and by imperialism. It’s
exactly what they want people in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia to
believe as well.
A
path to socialism?
No.
It isn’t. The course of the Venezuelan economy is capitalist in
every sense. Businesses, whether private or state-owned, produce
commodities on the basis of the exploitation of wage labor. The
possibility of accessing services and obtaining products is linked to
monetary exchange, even when the State is directly involved in their
distribution.
A
Struggle against the bourgeoisie?
No,
it isn’t. Despite the demagogic, high-flown speeches of the Chavista
leaders against “the bourgeoisie”, the government has always
managed to ensure that conditions are such that bankers,
industrialists and merchants can continue to appropriate high profit
margins. By imposing a cocktail of Keynes, Rooseveltian New Deal,
liberalism, corporativism and fascism, Chavismo has transferred the
oil revenue to the bourgeoisie.
State
purchases, dubbed “social” or “socialist”, have allowed
national and multi-national firms (Cuban, Argentine, Uruguayan,
Nicaraguan, Brazilian, Chinese, Russian, Portuguese, American, etc,)
to access Consumers previously beyond their reach. To Venezuela’s
badly paid population big business is now flogging food, medicine,
mobile phones, white goods, utility vehicles, health care, public
housing units, etc, etc.
But
this major market is today menaced by the drop in oil prices.
This
explains the launch of the “Great Mission” for “Food
Self-sufficiency”
advertised under the aberrant brand name “socialist commerce”,
put into effect by organizing the inhabitants of the various
districts into Local Committees for Supply and Production (CLAP)
charged with distributing, at administered prices, food and personal
hygiene products, which are in short supply, from various firms. This
demagogic mobilization, as well allowing the government to scrape
something together to compensate for the reduced oil revenue, and the
capitalist impresario to empty his warehouse, serves to placate the
masses, who are increasingly unhappy about food prices and the high
cost of living in general.
In
fact the local elections, the referendum (if it actually happens) and
the presidential elections are all coming up soon. The unique ability
of these opportunists lies in combining populist petty political
wheeler-dealing, by manipulating the means of information, with the
guarantee that the population will continue to receive a basic
minimum of staple goods, at the same time as it guarantees the profit
margins of the national capitalist production and the multinationals.
And
yet despite presenting the CLAPs as the “alternative to capitalism”
long queues form in front of the shops and stuff is sold on at
speculative prices. Large-scale rioting and looting has also taken
place.
Not
even the CLAPs can avoid getting caught in the web of corruption as
faction fights inside the Chavist movement and the government party
continue, which are minimized by the media and transformed into an
argument for an electoral contest between the Chavistas and the
opposition.
Every
time that a national or multinational company hits a crisis, closes
down or threatens to close down, the government steps in with
funding, or acquires the bankrupt firms, “expropriations”, which
allow the capitalists to firms from the marketplace which are no
longer competitive whilst obtaining a corresponding compensation.
Sometimes a demagogic “workers control” is declared. While the
bourgeois government dons a socialist mask, in fact it is providing
financial assistance and perpetuating capitalist exploitation, taking
the burden of failed companies off the bourgeoisie.
Meanwhile
there is an increased military presence in almost every area of
government administration, although it hasn’t prevented a new mafia
of corrupt officials from replacing those of the 4th
Republic: soldiers and civilians enrich themselves from dawn to dusk,
despite the sharpening of the economic crisis.
Anti-imperialism?
No,
it isn’t. The whole of Chavista economic policy is geared towards
attracting foreign investment, with exploitation facilitated on easy
terms, and guaranteed profits to the multi-nationals. And although
they may define China and Russia as “socialist” and
“progressive”, their fight against the North American government
is only in words, and the oil trade continues unabated.
Do
they govern in the workers’ interests?
No,
they don’t. The Chavista bourgeois government has been anxious to
“modernize” existing laws by redefining workers’ protests of
all types as common crimes, regulated by the penal code. What is more
the government has placed a ban on demonstrations and protests in a
number of urban and industrial areas referred to as “security
zones”. Although the regime unions, which disorganize the workers
by collaborating with the bosses, undoubtedly predominate, the list
of trade unionists arrested and charged is getting longer. Instead of
the reduction in working hours promised by the government the working
day has actually been intensified and lengthened. Already under the
legal framework all-out strikes have been rendered impossible by
insisting that minimum services be maintained. In addition there is a
range of activities which have been classified as “essential” and
therefore subject to strike bans. The Chavistas, constantly using as
pretext the imperialist “menace” and the threat of a military
coup, have both threatened the use of force against the workers’
struggles and actually used it, dependent as ever on the co-operation
of the trade union bosses and federations.
The
aim of the government’s wages policy, which sets rises by
presidential decree, which run in parallel with the delay in signing
collective contracts, and with the complicity of the trade unions,
isn’t to improve the living standards of workers, but rather to set
a minimum standard of living to head off working-class mobilization.
The bourgeois government increases the nominal minimum wage each
year, but the underlying tendency is that of a constant reduction in
real wages.
Under
capitalism a “workers’ government” is not possible; it is just
a trap invented by the opportunists. The only workers’ government
possible is the dictatorship of the proletariat which can only arise
from the violent insurrection of the working class under the
leadership of its communist party. Its task will be to bring the
insurrection to a close by establishing the domination of the
proletarian class and to lead the socialist transformation towards a
society without classes, without private property, without
commodities, without money, without states, without bosses.
A
struggle between capitalism and socialism?
No.
it isn’t. The struggle between the Chavistas in government and the
right opposition is not between capitalism and socialism, despite all
the waffle being put out in the propaganda campaigns of these two
bands of political speculators. They are just fighting for control of
the government in order to administer the interests of the
bourgeoisie, reflecting inter-bourgeois and inter-imperialist
contradictions over the control of the country and its oil revenue.
Nothing
new under the sun
By declaring the bourgeois republic to be communist, by maintaining the
relations of capitalist production, by seeking to hide behind a
revolutionary phraseology which includes counter-revolutionary terms:
“socialist fatherland”, “socialist market”, “socialist form”, etc, the
so-called “Venezuelan revolution” offers nothing to the working masses
which opportunists in other parts of the world haven’t offered it
already.
The
international capitalist crisis takes its course, increasing the
contradictions between proletariat and bourgeoisie. The working class
will necessarily have to resume class struggle by lining up with its
party, the international communist party, by breaking with the regime
unions, by resisting appeals to defend the country, and by rejecting
all the false socialisms which try to breath life back into the
bourgeoisie and its capitalist regime.
