Fuck el liberatario, and their right-wing supporting pro-capitalist bullshit.

JoaquinWrote:
What the fuck are you talking about? because they don't support Chavez they're capitalist?

I think he is referring to their support of the employer lockout "strike" against Chavez.

Evidence?

FedaykinWrote:
Fuck el liberatario, and their right-wing supporting pro-capitalist bullshit.

this is the left wing of reactionary anarchism speaking. go join a socialist group RISE and stay the fuck out of real anarchismo

Duke, we all get it: you're bitter because you spent several years as an anarchist. As understandable as that is, your inane jokes got boring long ago.

Paul: Thats an extremely serious charge to make against the CRA. You need to back it up or take it back.

ProliverWrote:
Duke, we all get it: you're bitter because you spent several years as an anarchist. As understandable as that is, your inane jokes got boring long ago.



Paul: Thats an extremely serious charge to make against the CRA. You need to back it up or take it back.

It's publicly documented on their own website that they thought the employer lockout was more worthy of support, and they referred to it as a "general strike".

Paul isn't entirely wrong, there was a faction of people within the CRA who issued a statement endorsing the bourgeois-led oil "workers" strike a few years back. But it is my understanding (which comes from a trusted Venezualan comrade who is ex-NEFAC and living in Caracas for the past couple years) that CRA is a loose synthesis-style network, and there are a variety of anarchist tendencies or "factions" represented. Supposedly the position Paul brings up is a minority position within the CRA (ie, the enemy of my enemy is my friend). There are also pro-Chavez tendencies. The dominant position is, apparently, a principled stance against Chavez (that takes into account U.S. imperialist pressures, bourgeoise opposition, etc.), with a active focus on the bolivarian circle assemblies and developing popular power on the barrio level. That said, I think the whole scenario of confused positions and minority factions utilizing the group's press as a platform is a strong argument against sythesis-style organizations.

I agree but theoretical and tactical unity are only worthwhile if there are worthwhile theory and tactics to base them on.

I think I can safely base myself in classic anarchism (rather than any post-left revisionist bullshit) when I say that anarchism is against all bourgeois forces no matter how left-wing.

I don't know enough about the 'oil-worker's strike' (or CRA's writings on it) to argue about it, but let's remember that the bolsheviks said that the counter-revolutionaries were behind the Kronstadt uprisings, not to mention Spain, Hungary, etc.

I do know that Chavez' regime is capitalist and that therefore the oil-workers have legitimate reasons to strike - not only are they being exploited, the profits being taken from them are being used to buy oilfields in Bolivia and the rest of latin america (the epiphany of anti-imperialism, yeah?). I would also hope that any anarchist (or anarcho-syndicalist, like the CRA) organization would try to draw out the oil-workers and seperate them from the 'opposition' which would try to use them for its own purposes.

Calling El Libertario "Right-wing, pro-capitalist" is a ridiculous comment. Is the "left-wing" then "anti-capitalist"?

Maybe Paul should read something from the situationists, or for that matter anything written by anarchists written before WW2, if he's going to support the "revolution" in Nepal yet say that some Venezuelan anarchists are "right-wing, pro-capitalist". If he's read a large quantity of Bab Avakian's work then I'm sure he can handle Debord or Sam Dolgoff.

MaRKWrote:
Paul isn't entirely wrong, there was a faction of people within the CRA who issued a statement endorsing the bourgeois-led oil "workers" strike a few years back. But it is my understanding (which comes from a trusted Venezualan comrade who is ex-NEFAC and living in Caracas for the past couple years) that CRA is a loose synthesis-style network, and there are a variety of anarchist tendencies or "factions" represented. Supposedly the position Paul brings up is a minority position within the CRA (ie, the enemy of my enemy is my friend). There are also pro-Chavez tendencies. The dominant position is, apparently, a principled stance against Chavez (that takes into account U.S. imperialist pressures, bourgeoise opposition, etc.), with a active focus on the bolivarian circle assemblies and developing popular power on the barrio level. That said, I think the whole scenario of confused positions and minority factions utilizing the group's press as a platform is a strong argument against sythesis-style organizations.

I dunno, this seems really suspect to me...

Why would anyone be in a political organization with people who supported a right-wing lockout? Why would anyone even consider as acceptable the logic of "better a right wing dictatorship than a left-bourgeois leadership that wins material gains for the working class while promoting pan-latin american anti-imperialism"?!

I think anyone credible would immediately dissasociate themselves from the CRA for even having people say shit like that. And while I agree it's an argument for specific anarchist organizations, I also think it's a strong rebuke of the CRA and its actual membership for allowing that shit to go on - synthesist or not.

Oliver, the cutest syndicalistWrote:
I agree but theoretical and tactical unity are only worthwhile if there are worthwhile theory and tactics to base them on.



I think I can safely base myself in classic anarchism (rather than any post-left revisionist bullshit) when I say that anarchism is against all bourgeois forces no matter how left-wing.



I don't know enough about the 'oil-worker's strike' (or CRA's writings on it) to argue about it, but let's remember that the bolsheviks said that the counter-revolutionaries were behind the Kronstadt uprisings, not to mention Spain, Hungary, etc.



I do know that Chavez' regime is capitalist and that therefore the oil-workers have legitimate reasons to strike - not only are they being exploited, the profits being taken from them are being used to buy oilfields in Bolivia and the rest of latin america (the epiphany of anti-imperialism, yeah?). I would also hope that any anarchist (or anarcho-syndicalist, like the CRA) organization would try to draw out the oil-workers and seperate them from the 'opposition' which would try to use them for its own purposes.



Calling El Libertario "Right-wing, pro-capitalist" is a ridiculous comment. Is the "left-wing" then "anti-capitalist"?



Maybe Paul should read something from the situationists, or for that matter anything written by anarchists written before WW2, if he's going to support the "revolution" in Nepal yet say that some Venezuelan anarchists are "right-wing, pro-capitalist". If he's read a large quantity of Bab Avakian's work then I'm sure he can handle Debord or Sam Dolgoff.

Fundamentally the statement that "anarchism is against all bourgeois forces no matter how left wing" is true, but at the same time a position needs to be more nuanced than that.

First of all it's important to recognize crucial divisions within the bouirgeois factions, and to understand how those divisions play an active and meaningful role in shaping class contraditions broadly and also the specific policies within a nation-state.

For example, in Venezuela the role of the national bourgeois becomes multi-faceted because there are sections of them in opposition to the comprador-bourgeoise... there is an anti-imperialist struggle where it is important to be in alliance with all these other anti-imperialist forces. Look at China - the Chinese would not have been able to resist the Japanese invasion if there hadn't been a broad anti-imperialist alliance.

Anarchists need to rid themselves of this myopic view as seeing the present adminstration of whatever nation-state as being their primary adversary. The reality is that the economic system is the primary adversary, and the core group in power of the adminstration in these comprador states can sometimes be an oppositional group to the one whose itnerests the comprador state actually serves -- this is surely thie case in Venezuela.

To suggest that the Chavez regime is "the problem" is simplistic and ignores the logic that, each regime will be succeed by another under this system. I don't think Chavez is perfect or a communist, but there is a framework there where they are building space for revolutionaries to organize openly without serious state-repression, have an active and leading role in the restructuring of the economy, and to arm themselves in large factions for anti-imperialist struggles.

Oliver, I don't think you should compare the right-wing lockout in Venezuela with Kronstadt... the situations are very different. Please research and study the right-wing lockout - you will see how odious it was, how it was supported by all the right-wing business leaders, the corrupt military officers, and US-backed forces and businessmen. This is not denied by anyone.

The oil workers did not have legitimate reason to strike either - they were striking to ensure continued foreign control of the oil fields, because their corrupt, right-wing business union that was backed by US interests wanted to see those oil operations remain in US hands.

The is also a point where I think the reductionism of anarcho-syndicalism becomes a problem - whereas this kind of syndicalism leads to the idea that its 'every factory for itself" in a capitalist economy, libertarian communism recognizes the need of the economy to be subordinated to the needs of the community and the broadly working class forces in an area.

it is clear in Venezuela that the broad masses of working class and impoverished support the nationalization of the oil industry, and the use of oil revenues to improve social programs and arm left-wing anti-imperialist circles for possible resistance.

Frankly if thie CRA were a real anarchist organization, which they are clearly not, they would have been attacking the oil workers along with the corrupt US-backed interests -- they would have been setting up barricades and attacking the right-wing demonstrations, not participating in them. The CRA just come off as cheap propaganda for US interests, whether that's their intention or not.

you know what, I can't even believe this is a debate.

The CRA should just be flat out denounced by anyone with a shred of allegiance to the working class, or by anyone who even remotely considers themselves an anti-imperialist.

I really urge you guys to research the issues behind this before further posts.

El libertario is a monthly paper - I don't have the time to read everything they've ever written. You need to back up what you're saying - at least link to an article that shows what you're talking about. For instance, the article i'm current;y reading says:

"What anti-chavism did in its forty years of government, which
was basically ((puntofijismo)), is substantially the same as what Chavez and
Chavism have done in four long years of negotiations: simple, insignificant,
social-democratic reforms which were only implemented to keep them in power,
corruption, factionalization, cronyism, and political scheming."


I'll come back to your claims about anarcho-syndicalism

I dunno, this seems really suspect to me...

Why would anyone be in a political organization with people who supported a right-wing lockout? Why would anyone even consider as acceptable the logic of "better a right wing dictatorship than a left-bourgeois leadership that wins material gains for the working class while promoting pan-latin american anti-imperialism"?!

I think anyone credible would immediately dissasociate themselves from the CRA for even having people say shit like that. And while I agree it's an argument for specific anarchist organizations, I also think it's a strong rebuke of the CRA and its actual membership for allowing that shit to go on - synthesist or not.

I mean, historically there have been some contradictary -- and in my opinion, questionable -- positions around electoralism, relationships to anti-colonialist struggles (ie. Algeria), etc. in the French FA. Its not exactly unprecendented in synthesis groupings to have widely divergent views.

I have no idea what the actual debate on the ground in Venezuela was. I don't speak Spanish, and only know what I read in translation or hear from comrades who have visited or live there. There very well could've been a shitstorm of resignations or expulsions. I have no idea.

I don't think the FA would have supported a PCF government as it attempted to sack 19, 000 workers.

In fact that sounds a lot like the "socialist" Millerand, and no anarchist worth their salt would have ver supported him.