"This call from President Chavez for "unity" of political and ideological forces allied to the revolution is a standard feature of the revolutionary class struggle or process that has already wrestled power from the bourgeoisie."

21st Century Socialism

Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez invites democrats and revolutionaries allied with the Revolution to unite into a single organization the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, to guarantee irreversibility and step up the process of change toward socialism.  Twenty-three parties allied themselves with Fifth Republic  Movement (MVR), Chavez’s party, to reelect Chavez on Dec.3 this year. Of the twenty-three allied organizations, only three are major political forces in Venezuelan politics -- For Social Democracy (PODEMOS), Homeland For All (PPT), and the Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV).  

On December 18, 2006, Chavez told everybody that his party, the MVR, was going to dissolve to motivate the other twenty-three parties to join the new "United Socialist Party."

By "socialist," the democrats, revolutionaries, the overlap between the two, and the sovereignty folks in Venezuela seem to mean, something like, an economy in which the public property of the people, as opposed to the private property of the bourgeoisie, predominates in the means of production  and the profits arising from the operation of the largely state-owned means of production are distributed to people without undue preference for bourgeois status.

"Individuals, under the 21st century socialism, enjoy an absolute right of private property in their consumer goods, especially in their toothbrushes and underwear."

(Vulgar bourgeois ideology and propaganda sometimes claim that the Venezuelan socialism of the 21st century denies private property of the individual in consumer goods, like toothbrushes and underwear, as well as in the means of production and other capital goods, like factories, malls, hospitals, airlines, and banks. But this is patent nonsense designed to brainwash fools. Individuals, under the 21st century socialism, enjoy an absolute right of private property in their consumer goods, especially in their toothbrushes and underwear.)

There seems to be a consensus in Venezuela that, under its 21st century socialism, private property of the bourgeoisie will remain in a minority portion of the means of production, distribution, and communication for the fabulously rich capitalists in Venezuela to exploit for some time. But, again, the proletarian state or, more precisely, the state with a growing proletarian content will hold the mass of the means of production, distribution, and communication.

To a substantial degree, the state in Venezuela already holds the mass of the means of production, given its holdings in PDVSA, the government-owned oil company (the second largest company in all of Latin America after the Brazil oil company). The state also has a presence in the means of distribution with its holdings in the Mercals, the government subsidized food markets. The state has a presence in the means of communication with its holdings in the very extensive and powerful government-owned media.

Plus, the various "missions" are also largely means of distribution that the state owns and largely controls.

So, Venezuela has already made discernible progress toward its celebrated 21st century socialism. Now, the country wants to consolidate and deepen this progress before it advances to future goals.

What’s more, public property in the means of production, distribution, and communication is rapidly growing in Venezuela, squeezing the bourgeoisie and the US imperialists a little bit. This however doesn’t mean that the private sector, a set-aside for the bourgeoisie, is not rapidly growing, too.

This call from President Chavez for "unity" of political and ideological forces allied to the revolution is a standard feature of the revolutionary class struggle or process that has already wrestled power from the bourgeoisie.

Unity - A reason to "throw up"?

One hundred and thirty three years ago, in somewhat different circumstances, Frederick Engels in a June 20,1873, letter to August Bebel, wrote something about "unity" and he didn't think highly of it.

"One must not allow oneself to be misled by the cry for 'unity.," Engels wrote. "Those who have this word most often on their lips are the ones who cause most of the discord ... who provoke all the splits, clamour for nothing so much as for unity. These unity fanatics are either narrow-minded people who want to stir up everything into one non-descript brew, which, the moment it is left to settle, throws up the differences again but in much sharper contrast because they will all be in one pot ... or consciously want to adulterate the movement. It is for this reason that the biggest sectarians and the biggest brawlers and rogues shout loudest for unity at certain times. Nobody in our lifetime has given us more trouble and has caused more quarrels than the shouters for unity."

In other words, Engels believes that ‘unity" makes people "throw up."

From personal experience, I can attest that some of my unions have made me … as well as others … "throw up."

Different circumstances for Engles and Chavez

What most distinguishes Engels' circumstances from those of Chavez is that Chavez leads a movement that has largely won state power, but Engels in 1873 was a leader of a movement that was still fighting for power. Engels saw ideological unity … based on his work and that of Marx … as the chief task and he saw that the "shouters for unity" weren't mature enough for Marxism. Engels feared that organizational and political unity, absent ideological clarity, of diverse left forces would soon "throw up" their differences, leaving everyone spewed and stinking.

"With Chavez, an impressive degree of political unity or, at least, coordination has already been achieved"

With Chavez, an impressive degree of political unity or, at least, coordination has already been achieved, as evidenced by Chavez two reelections and the left composition of the Venezuelan legislature. With Chavez, political and organizational unity may be the best and easiest path to ideological unity.

Some left parties allied with Chavez and therefore the objects of unification complained that a sector of the greedy bourgeoisie, a sector of the useless and repulsive middle class, and a sector of opportunist proletariat belong to Chavez party. These left parties also complain that these counter-revolutionary sectors have ensconced themselves in the bureaucracy where they intrigue against the Revolution.

All of this is also true of all of the left parties allied with Chavez. So, these glaring deficiencies ... or, if you like, similarities ... are grounds for unity, not division. None of the left parties will be contaminated by unity because they are already so similar.

Carolus Wimmer has been a member of the Venezuelan Communist Party (PCV) since 1971 and is the party’s international relations secretary. He is the founding director of the journal Debate Abierto (Open Debate) and produces several radio programs on Venezuelan state-run National Radio

Here is how Wimmer replied on February 22, 2006, when asked "What is the chance of building a new party, or alliance, to unite the MVR and the other political parties and create a new leadership?"

"The future will show if this can happen.  There is widespread agreement that we need it,  but at the moment we do not propose a new party. We are not yet ready. A party needs a program, a more or less united ideological vision and a more or less agreed idea of a structure. And a lack of egoism. 

"There are some important historical leaders, like the director of the newspaper Diario Vea, who have been arguing for a new party. But, in my opinion, any decision of the leaders to establish a new party without the involvement of the members will not  be accepted unless it is fully discussed from the bottom to the top.

 

"On the other hand, there are great ideological differences. The MVR [Chavez party], for example, is a movement around Chavez, but it is not Chavez. He stands outside the party. There are even some right wing people, originally from Democratic Action [AD] and COPEI,  [two bourgeois-controlled parties] who are now in the MVR. Some members are just looking for jobs in the strongest government party. And if you are looking for a program of the MVR, you won’t find it. 

 

"It is very difficult to agree among the parties at present. We

are looking for an alliance. It is important  that we sit around the table to make common decisions, but right now there is no table. Widespread political discussion is essential. Also, it is not enough to make an alliance only for elections. Our objective is not just to have eight parliamentarians."

So, Wimmer, presumably speaking for the Communist party of Venezuela on Feb. 22 this year, first expects ideological unity which, he believes, does not yet exists. He also wants the members, not just the leaders, of the various groups to be involved in the unification, if any. He doesn't like the reactionaries or the liberals in Chavez party. He insists on a discussion of differences ... at the "table" and "common decisions" ... between the parties allied with Chavez and the Chavez party. He seeks more from unification than just an electoral alliance and winning elections.

That pretty much states what the Venezuelan Communists had to say, ten months ago, about unity. There was very little difference between Wimmer’s comments and the violent attitude of Frederick Engels, in 1873, about "unity." Some of the reasons for Wimmer's grieving over "unity" seem petty -- for example, too much "egotism" and "no table."

What was shocking about Wimmer's Feb.22 comments on unity is the disdain that he shows for electoral alliances and winning elections. Winning elections and legislative struggle are the principle things that political parties do, as opposed to schools, think tanks, and talking shops. And parties will not be very successful in legislative struggle if they can’t win elections, although their talking shop may flourish.

The Struggle

Parties exist for waging electoral, legislative and executive struggle, not just babbling at the "table." Legislative and executive struggles decide whether power is exercised in accordance with certain preferred public policies and with the rule of law. Electoral struggle decide the personnel who will exercise the power. Wimmer, on Feb 22, sounded like one those abtentionist and bizarre creatures who believe that revolutionaries should concentrate only on administrative and legislative struggle ... that is, on whining, sniveling and bitching ... largely against bourgeois officials, and shun or, at least, play-down electoral struggle and alliances which can defeat bourgeois officials whom some revolutionaries love to bitch about.

Well, a lot things can change in ten months.

Support from the Communist Party of Venezuela

On Dec. 19, 2006, Granma, revolutionary Cuban newspaper, reported:

"Spokespersons for the Communist Party of Venezuela indicated they will support the creation of the new organization which they said should have its own ideological framework and not be a  mishmash of groups, reported Prensa Latina.

"The stance of the communists urges widespread participation in the forming of the new party  and not a distribution of quotas among the existing groups that decide to join.

"

Chavez states that the aim of the single revolutionary  party is to guarantee irreversibility and step up the process of change he has  led since 1998 during his 2007-2013 term in office.

Among the parties supporting Chavez’ December 3 landslide reelection victory under the Bloc for Change banner were MVR, the number one national  political force, Por la Democracia Social (Podemos), Patria para Todos, and the Communist Party.

"Chavez states that the aim of the single revolutionary  party is to guarantee irreversibility and step up the process of change he has  led since 1998 during his 2007-2013 term in office."

The PCV has called for a big meeting of members, not just the leaders, on December 21 to discuss and vote, up or down, on unity. Evidently, the results are presumed.

When we combine the Wimmer’s Feb. 22 comments and the Dec.19 article in Granma, we get some startling implications or, more correctly, guesses. Since Wimmer wanted ideological unity first, this unity has somehow been achieved, at least between the MVR , Chavez party, and the PCV, the Communists. Since Wimmer wanted the members of the various parties, not just the leaders, involved in the process of unification, either the members are involved or Wimmer has been pushed aside. Since Wimmer didn't like the reactionaries and liberals in Chavez party, Chavez' party will likely kick out at least some the reactionaries. Since Wimmer suffered because there was "no table" for him to discuss differences with the Chavez party, Wimmer is likely sitting at a some table, right now, babbling himself into a state of intense gratification. Since Wimmer wanted more than an electoral alliance, PCV has likely outgrown its silly conceit that it is a coordinate or equal partner with the Chavez party in the exercise of power, requiring "common decisions."

To many, the idea of already having achieved ideological unity between MVR and PCV sounds preposterous. But we must ponder what Wimmer means, if anything, when he says "The MVR, for example, is a movement around Chavez, but it is not Chavez. He stands outside the party." If Wimmer is right, then the Granma Dec. 19 article hints that the unity is not between MVR and PCV, but between PCV and Chavez who is "outside" of the MVR.

What "ideological unity" means to the Communists

Still we have not explaind why the Communists were at least, at one time, shy and coy about unity. In other words, we have not attempted to explain what, if anything, Communists mean by ideological unity. Primarily, ideological unity does not really exist because there are factions in most or all Communist Parties, pulling in opposite directions. So, the question is: Which faction has the upper hand in the party? Contrary to appearances this is more of philosophical than a political question. Marxist and Leninist ideology about power boils down to four or five questions.

1. What is the state?
2. Second, what is the form of the state?
3. Third, what is the content of the state?
4. Fourth, does the form have priority over the content or does the content have priority of the form?

The ideological disunity or, more correctly, disarray within Communist parties usually arises from different answers to the fourth question, but the other questions are also sources of a considerable degree of discord. This is not to say that dissension among Communists does not arise over questions other than the four listed above, because Communists will split over anything, especially trifles.

The form of the state is how the state exercises power -- autocratic, democratic, oligarchic, monarchic, etc. The content is who exercises power of the state … regardless of how it is exercise … the bourgeoisie, the middle class, proletariat, small framers, lumpens, etc.

Revolutionaries generally believe that content takes priority over form, therefore the proletariat is justified in holding power whatever form the workers adopt in the exercise of power. On the other hand, democrats generally believe that form takes priority of content, therefore all power that is not democratically exercised is illegitimate, however proletarian the intentions.

Because some revolutionaries have difficulties handling the dialectics of form and content, their discussions of  ideological differences about power rarely assume the above character, but often mask it.

PODEMOS (Social Democrat Party)

The two parties other than MRV and CPV mentioned the Dec. 19 Granma article seem to have somewhat different worries about "unity" than the Communists whose concern centers around ideological purity. PODEMOS, for example, talks a lot about "democracy," so it wonders whether unity among the left parties will serve the interests of democracy. PODEMOS is very vague about what, if anything, it means by democracy.

PODEMOS is also worried about the keeping the impressive number of senior posts that its members now hold in the bureaucracy. This large number of senior posts in the bureaucracy is a kind of "cut" that PODEMOS gets as compensation for being so "democratic." PODEMOS seems to believe that it can, in principle, best safeguard democracy outside on the entrails of the Chavez party. But PODEMOS may not have much of a choice. For if it refuses to unite, it may lose all or some of its 15 legislative seats, a delegation second … in size … only to Chavez party in the National Assembly. If it refuses to unite, it may also lose all or some of the disproportionate number of senior executive posts its members occupy in the bureaucracy, a result that will inflame and enrage some of PODEMOS most influential members.

It's hard for the element within PODEMOS which is suspicious of Chavez’s attitude toward democracy to argue that the unification of like-minded or, at least, left parties is anti-democratic in word or spirit or effect, because the reactionaries who belong to the so-called "opposition" in Venezuela are also trying to unite. But the Right, in trying to unite, faces greater difficulties than the Left. Already the idea of reactionary unification has provoked profanities and fistfights at televised meetings and gatherings of the rightwing parties. So, if PODEMOS jumps from Left to Right, it will still encounter a call for "unity."

PPT - Patria para Todos (Homeland for All)

As for the PPT, it is extremely difficult to understand what it is and what it wants. Some say it a sovereignty party, whatever that means. What most distinguishes the PPT from MVR, PODEMOS, and the CPV is that the PPT's senior bureaucrats are generally competent and loyal and therefore occupy some of the most sensitive positions in the Venezuelan state. Of all the parties allied with the Revolution, the PPT was the first to voice its support for unity after the December 18 call for it.

If "unity" is either chiefly political or organizational or ideological. Then we can look at the political, organizational and ideological unifications as mere stages through which the process of unification passes. The unification process has already passed through the political stage with its splendid electoral and legislative alliances. Now, the process begs to pass through the organizational stage. Some people object to organizational unity because it is not the ultimate stage of unity. It’s only intermediate. But the stage of political unity was and is not ultimate. It is perhaps proper to begin with the initial stage, then proceed to the intermediate, and then culminate with the ultimate.

Not withstanding the slight differences in circumstances, Frederick Engels in 1873 understood how to attain ideological unity:

"Our view [his and Marx’s], which we confirmed by long practice, is that the correct tactics in propaganda [that is, in ideology] are not to entice away a few individuals and local groups here and there from   one’s opponent, but to work on the great mass, which is not taking part in the movement. A single individual whom has oneself reared from the raw is worth more than ten … turncoats,  who always bring the germs of their false tendencies into the party with them. And if one could get only the masses without their local leaders it would still be all right. But in fact one must take a whole  crowd of these leaders in the bargain, who are bound by their previous utterances , if nor by their previous views, and who must now prove  above all things that they not have deserted their their principles …."

This is one of the gems of Marxism on party matters.

What I get out of it is this:

First, the unification of "turncoats"  will not result  in ideological unity because  the "turncoats" are full of germs.

Second, the unification of people whom one has "reared from the raw" may result in ideological unity because of the absence of false tendencies.

Third, one "raw" equals ten "turncoats."

Fourth, ideological unity of the masses is easy if their leaders did not have to be taken "in the bargain" because the leaders want to prove that they have not deserted their principles.

Thus, it’s premature at the organizational stage to talk about ideological unity.

© Copyright 2006 by AxisofLogic.com

Please note: Reprints of this article may be published on the condition that the author and original source (Axis of Logic) be cited. We also ask that the article appear without modification, linked to the original source. Thank you!