Fixing the bathroom in a school isn’t socialism: interview with Orlando Chirino

This interview appears in the summer issue of Permananent Revolution (no9)

Orlando Chirino has become a very contentious figure in the workers’ movement in Venezuela both for refusing to join the government’s new party, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), and for calling for a blank vote in the constitutional reform referendum initiated by Hugo Chávez last year. Largely because of these positions, he was recently fired from his job at the state oil company PDVSA, and there has been an international solidarity campaign against his dismissal.
I spoke to Orlando Chirino on 24 March in Ciudad Guyana, in the midst of the workers’ struggle at the steel works SIDOR. We don’t agree with all his positions or his entire political trajectory, but we believe he has made an important and courageous stand in resisting the pressure by the Chávez government to place the workers’ movement under state control. We would like to make his views known to an international audience, in order to clear up some misconceptions which have been spread by Chávez supporters within Venezuela and internationally.
Comrade Chirino is currently a member of the “International Workers’ Unity” (UIT) a Trotskyist international current centred in Latin America based on the political heritage of Nahuel Moreno. As is the case with most Venezuelan trade union leaders, Chirino speaks extremely quickly and for long stretches. We have done our best to provide an accurate and readable English translation of the interview, but to judge Chirino’s political positions fully it is best to read statements of his in Spanish.
Wladek Flakin, REVOLUTION,
Independent youth organisation, Berlin, May 2008

Comrade Chirino, as a leader of the workers’ movement in Venezuela, how do you analyze the situation after the referendum for a constitutional reform on 2 December of last year?
In the first place, the result of the referendum was a defeat for the government, for its new party the PSUV and for its trade union bureaucracy. This marked the end of one period and the beginning of another, in which President Chávez, not only in his speeches but also in his concrete policies, has shifted further and further to the right, making greater concessions to the bourgeoisie at the national and international level.

Can you give some examples of this shift?
If you think about his policies in regards to the summit of Río [with Colombian president Alvaro Uribe and Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa], it’s evident that this was a capitulation to Uribe and US imperialism. Also the decision to lift or make more flexible the price controls on most basic foodstuffs was a capitulation to the Venezuelan bourgeoisie. Chávez even made a decree which suspended, for six months, the regulations stipulating that import companies, in order to maintain their licences, have to respect certain labour standards such as allowing collective contracts, discussing with workers’ representatives, paying workers who are victims of labour accidents etc. The regulations said if a company didn’t comply with this, their license was to be removed so they couldn’t import. But these have been suspended for six months. This is the clearest expression of the shift to the right.

So the government’s latest policies mean taking back workers’ rights that had been won in the past?
Exactly. At the moment, the government is negotiating with multinational corporations – for example with auto manufacturers – and these negotiations are taking place without any participation by the workers’ movement and the trade unions.
That’s why I said the shift to the right is also visible at an international level. The most serious example is that the government (which we’ve called anti-trade union in the past) has put the Labour Ministry at the service of the PSUV and the trade union bureaucracy, in order to attack and try to defeat the trade union movement. By that I mean they attack the class-based trade union movement which fights for autonomy and independence. More concretely I’m referring to the C-CURA1 and also myself. As you know, I’ve been fired from my position at PDVSA for political reasons.

What do these attacks mean concretely?
Look at the struggle that’s underway at SIDOR. First the government tried to impose an arbitration council on the workers. As this was openly rejected by the workers and their trade union, the government tried to set up a parallel union. Now, the third attempt by the government to serve the Argentinian multinational Ternium-SIDOR in this conflict is that the government and the owners are trying to impose a referendum on the workers. But this kind of democratic consultation is a question exclusively for the workers and their trade union, not the National Electoral Council [CEN] and the owners.
The workers and their trade union will carry out a consultation when they believe there is any possibility of reaching an agreement with the company. These are three pieces of evidence which show that the government wants to destroy the workers’ struggle. They know if the SIDOR workers win, that will force a qualitative change in the government’s policies, because it will mean a defeat of the unilateralism with which they try to control the workers’ movement.

How have they tried to do this?
Last year on May Day, the government, with the reserves of the Venezuelan state, organised the May Day rally, decided on the speakers, published the manifesto, etc, going over the heads of the UNT completely. The year before, it had been the UNT that organised the May Day rally. But under this Labour Minister the government is trying, in general terms, to destroy the autonomy and independence of the trade union movement.

And Chávez has spoken out against trade union autonomy, hasn’t he?
That was on 24 March of last year at the meeting to launch the PSUV. In the speech (which was crucial for us of C-CURA in our decision not to join the PSUV) he said that trade union autonomy was just “poison from the Fourth Republic”. This was right at the beginning of the formation of the PSUV when the first proposals for the new party were being made.
Losing the 2 December referendum was a defeat because more than three million people who had voted for Chávez in the last elections stayed at home; a part of the Venezuelan workers voted “No”, a part voted blank, but the largest part abstained. It’s a clear rejection of the government’s policies. What are all these policies aiming at? In SIDOR, today is an important day – the top leadership of the PSUV is here, as well as a commission selected by the President of the Republic, for a secret meeting to try to negotiate a solution between Ternium-SIDOR and the workers (and to weaken tomorrow’s national meeting of trade union leaders for solidarity with SIDOR), to try to impose a referendum and avoid an indefinite strike.

Is it normal in Venezuela for the National Electoral Commission (CEN) to organize referendums within workplaces?
No, no, no. This kind of referendum is a normally question for the trade union. The CEN is committing a serious abuse of power. All bourgeois democratic governments in Venezuela tried to control the trade union movement, but they did it via their trade union bureaucracy, via their leaders in the workers’ organisations. Today it’s the state, going over the heads of the trade unions, that is trying to control the workers directly. The bureaucrats of the Bolivarian Socialist Workers’ Force (FSBT)2 don’t have any representative in the leadership of SIDOR’s trade union, SUTISS.
It’s evident that in this period, the concrete facts about collective contracts – not only in SIDOR but in all sectors of the working class – show the government refusing to negotiate with workers. They want to impose the referendum not because they think they’re going to win, but as a means to dismantle the trade union movement altogether.
The organised workers in SIDOR oppose the company’s proposals, but there are also 1,800 workers from the -management level, who are mostly technical personnel, and the company uses them as a contingent. That’s 1,800 votes the government and the bosses are counting on, as well as many new workers just entering the plant who might also vote for the company’s proposal. But these people, who would vote in the CEN referendum, have nothing to do with the contract at SIDOR.

Is this case alone enough to talk about the government’s “anti-worker policies”?
To give another example, since 2004 they have refused to discuss with public sector workers about their collective contract at a national level. The contract ran out in 2004. If you combine this contract from 2004 with an inflation of 22.5% last year, with a projection heading towards 30% for this year and the food shortages, much of which has been provoked by sectors of the right, it’s a salary that has been pushed down massively. At a time when they won’t discuss the collective contract and there’s high inflation, it’s obvious that there’s a lot of pressure to struggle, and lots of people are struggling, for example blocking streets.
I’ll give you an example – yesterday the employees of the Labour Ministry occupied a ministry office in Caracas. What were their demands? It’s been 17 years since their collective contract was last discussed – that’s eight years under the Fourth Republic and nine years under the Fifth Republic!

Weren’t you occupying the Labour Ministry last year?
That’s a different story, but I’m happy to tell it: 17 trade union leaders who had been delegated by almost 100 trade unions of the base went to present a proposal for a collective contract to the Labour Minister. But he refused to accept it, even though article 51 of the constitution specifies that every functionary is obliged to receive complaints and proposals. The 17 of us occupied the office and they brought armed thugs [pistoleros] to drive us out. The next day the minister went on TV to say that the workers themselves had driven us out of his office. And we had no right to present a response – the state TV gave us no possibility. We’re still waiting for him to call us up to discuss the contract.

How does the workers’ movement reflect this?
At the UNT congress of 25-27 August 2006 – and this is recorded, since we distributed the records around the world – of the 1,750 delegates at least 1,100 supported the positions of C-CURA. After that congress the government and its trade union bureaucracy, the FSBT, sabotaged the UNT. They left the congress and they never came back. Since then there hasn’t been a meeting of the UNT executive – not one meeting since May 2006.

So two years without a trade union centre?
Almost two years. I said I’m a national coordinator of the UNT, but I can’t speak for the coordination since it doesn’t meet or make decisions. After that, the nomination of the current Labour Minister José Ramón Rivero, who is one of the leaders of the FSBT, was intended to develop its anti-worker and anti-trade union policies. -Rivero, who was a member of our party at one time33, and his trade union tendency have consistently opposed elections within the UNT.
The UNT was born on April 5, 2003, so it will be five years old soon. The original coordination was named for a transitional period of one year and then there were to be elections by the base – universal, secret, direct elections. But the government and its trade union bureaucracy couldn’t permit elections because yesterday, today and I suspect also tomorrow, the C-CURA would win them easily. So what do they do? They split the UNT, build up parallel trade unions and they’re talking about setting up a pro-government trade union centre.
At the congress, a big question was that of autonomy. In the first congress, in the discussions about the declaration of principles, they wanted to remove the part about autonomy because they said under a socialist government it wasn’t necessary for trade unions to be independent.

That’s what Trotsky said around 1920/21, but it’s difficult to compare the Soviet workers’ state with the Venezuelan state.
Clearly. And even in the 1920s, under a workers’ state, Trotsky was mistaken!

You received a lot of attention because you called for a blank vote in the referendum for a constitutional reform. A number of activists from the workers’ movement, some even calling themselves Trotskyists, accused you of helping the opposition, calling for counter-revolution etc. Why did you call for a blank vote?
First off, we need to go back to 3 December 2006, when the president won the election with 63.7% of the votes. It was a fact that the workers, peasants and popular masses of this country gave their support to Chávez, and we supported him as well. As a workers’ leader I was also in favor of defeating the right, which we did. It was a smashing victory. It was the first time after the attempted coup that the right, behind their candidate Rosales, acknowledged Chávez’s victory. The hope of the millions of us who voted for Chávez was that he would begin with the dismantling of the bourgeois state, which is capitalist, which is the most powerful obstacle against the advance towards equality, socialism, justice, full social security, an end to exploitation, etc.
We had a clear position that this was the right time to organise a constituent assembly – sovereign, popular and independent, you understand. Chávez won, and 15 days later he said he was going to make a new party, the PSUV, and present a constitutional reform to the country. Now what did we question about the reform? The method for working out and presenting the reform was anti-democratic and openly caudillo-like.4 Chávez picked a commission which worked from 15 December, when he named it, until the first days of August. Only he knew what they were doing and which articles they were planning to reform. So that lasted . . . January, February, March, April, May, June, July . . . more than seven months.
The commission proposed to reform 33 articles of the constitution. Chávez threatened that if even one single comma were removed, he would withdraw the whole project (the constitution gives him the power to make proposals but also to withdraw them if they’re changed). So there were only three months to review these proposals, from August to 2 December, before the referendum took place.

But what were the contents of the reform you objected to?
Of the proposals that jumped out at me, at our international current and at our team here, one example involved the question of property: the constitutional reform didn’t just defend private property, it added amongst the new concepts of property, the concept of “mixed property”. In our opinion, this is a step back from the current constitution, because in the current constitution the country’s natural resources – in the sea, beneath the earth, all of that – are the property of the state. But the constitutional reform would have opened the door for multinational corporations, via mixed property, to own up to 40% of these resources.
In fact, before the proposed reform there was an event that we criticised enormously, which was the problem of the concessions in the Orinoco delta. The multinational corporations there had worked on a contractual basis. But all the multinational corporations (with the exception of Exxon Mobil) now form part of joint ventures with PDVSA. This means they went from being contractors to owning 40% of the project.

But wasn’t it the case that they used to control 60% of the projects in the Orinco delta and now can only control 40%?
Well no, they used to get 60% of the profits but in terms of property, they didn’t have anything. The rules had to be changed because in reality they weren’t paying the state anything – certainly their contributions were raised significantly. But our fundamental criticism was about these joint ventures. The constitutional reform spoke about socialism in order to give 40% of our natural resources to multinational corporations!

Were there other proposed reforms you opposed?
And the social vision had a strong Bonapartist5
element. In regards to what was called “the geometry of power” – indefinite re-election was introduced only for the president; there was to be only limited re-election of governors, mayors, etc. New municipalities and communities could be created by the president and he would have the power to name vice-presidents to rule over the new territories.
In practice this means if we won the governorship of the state of Carabobo (let’s assume I became the governor of Carabobo because that’s where I live) and implemented socialist policies from below, the president could name a vice-president and take over all the resources in that state. The president might say, “Well, I wouldn’t do that to Orlando Chirino in Carabobo, only to Miguel Rosales in the state of Zulia” but the power would still be there
There was also a horrible thing about the workers in public administration. Article 141 of the current constitution says they are at the service of the citizens. The reform would have changed that to say they are at the service of public power. So if you’re a governor and I work for your administration, I’m at your service and not at the service of the citizens directly. If I form a union, you have a powerful weapon to fight against that. Finally, we looked at the question of councils: communal councils, workers’ council, farmers’ councils, students’ councils, etc.

On the international left many people see these councils as organs of self-government for the masses or even soviet-type bodies which will replace the bourgeois state in Venezuela.
From that point of view, we would defend the councils – we aren’t against them. On the contrary, if the workers, farmers, women, students etc. decide to use these councils to develop their democracy, to intensify their struggles, to broaden their organisations – if they use them as organs of management, consultation, debate, representation – then it’s important to work with them.
But what the constitutional reform proposed was a type of council like in Cuba, i.e. councils controlled by “the Party” and its people who are sent to the factories, councils that are unequivocally opposed to the trade unions (and are thus in favor of the bosses). We defended and we still defend the trade unions as the most important instruments of workers’ struggle.
I can give 15 or 20 more examples, but that’s just three things from the 33 articles proposed by the president. Afterwards, in the debate in the National Assembly, 36 more articles were added, and they were even worse.

Do these councils have the resources to act independently of the state?
When we talk about dividing the budget in this country, 25% goes to the governors and mayors, and 5% was to be destined to the communal councils (that was the original proposal, they later raised it to 10%) – the other 70% is controlled by Chávez. That’s how the budget was distributed.
The constitutional reform contained a strong element of increasing the president’s power, without any doubt, and strikes against the autonomy of the trade union movement. Establishing the workers’ councils in the constitution – who was that directed against? Against the trade union movement. Because the government was looking for a form it could use to get the trade unions to submit to its control, but it wasn’t able to.
That should explain my position, from the point of view of the trade union movement in Venezuela. What else do you want to know. We presented this position to the working class vanguard, not only here but internationally. We maintained that it was important to discuss the content of the reform, whether it would establish socialism or not. I know my position provoked strong reactions – there are sectors that love me and others that hate me because I pointed out there was not one single social improvement contained in the reform, not one step towards socialism

The reform was presented as a vote on socialism.
You can’t tell me it’s socialism just because a hospital works. In the developed capitalist countries hospitals work too. Therefore, from an ideological perspective, from the point of view of consistent Marxists, of Trotskyists, we had to oppose the reform. I thought we had to vote “No”, but openly I submitted to the decision of my organisation [the “International Workers’ Unity” or UIT]. An International Executive Committee came to Venezuela to discuss the question and we ended up deciding to call for a blank vote.
My position was that we were capable of explaining to the working class and the vanguard that the reform didn’t have anything to do with socialism – that a blank vote wasn’t a rejection of socialism, and this position didn’t have anything to do with the right.

So how do you respond to accusations that by opposing Chávez in the referendum you were supporting the counter-revolution?
You won’t find an honest worker or workers’ leader who has any doubts about my supposed sympathies for imperialism. In the epoch when I was linked to the guerrilla [of the MIR], Chávez was just entering the military academy.
The root of the problem is what kind of government is this? What is its programme? This is an anti-worker government. When there are meetings in Miraflores palace [the government headquarters] with the president and the representatives of businessmen and workers, we ask: who are these representatives, how are they selected? With the government there’s no doubt – it was elected by popular vote. But who are these businessmen? And above all: isn’t the government itself picking who will represent the working class? We oppose this kind of “tripartism”, and all forms of “social dialogue” designed to co-opt the workers’ representatives and strangle any kind of mobilisation based on class independence.
It’s a fact that the president has unilaterally determined the minimum wage in Venezuela. Since the fall of the dictatorship in 1958 until now, there were always -workers’ struggles to raise the minimum wage, to force the president and the legislative branch to make laws. Well, these struggles have been eradicated. There are no more discussions with the workers. The minimum wage is now whatever Chávez says it is. There are no discussions for collective contracts – or when there are, like right now in the oil sector, the minister hand picks the negotiating committee which is supposed to represent the workers. This is combined with attacks against our tendency.

Don’t the workers benefit from the minimum wage?
The organic law of labour obliges the president to revise the minimum wage, to sit down with the different sectors and work it out. He has revised it, but he doesn’t consult anyone. He sent us a letter last year to inform us of his decision, but we didn’t respond.
What do we think? Our current wants to discuss and debate, but he imposes measures like that. If you receive the minimum wage, you get an increase, but people who are slightly above the minimum don’t get anything. There have hardly been any raises beyond the minimum wage for the last five years, which means 71% of the public sector workers in this country are now earning the minimum wage. Of the economically active population, more than half live off the minimum wage.

And how much is that wage currently?
614 Strong Bolivars, which is US$280 at the official exchange rate.

And that in a very expensive country.
Yes, super-mega-expensive [“supercarisísimo”].)

There have been rumours that you are planning to leave the UNT and join the CTV6. What is the background to this?
We consider one of the best conquests of this revolutionary process was its trade union central, the UNT. Why? Because it was the fruit of a tremendous victory, the fruit of a defeat of imperialism in the lock-out/sabotage of late 2002, early 2003. If they had won the CTV would have been strengthened. But they lost, and the UNT was born. The UNT was the opposite of the CTV, which was born of political parties, especially the PCV [Peruvian Communist Party] and the AD [Acción Democrática]. In 1958 with their deals, they helped established the bourgeois democratic regime. These deals included an agreement to lower the salaries of workers in public administration and block strikes, which is the best example of their class collaboration.
What did I say in this situation? When the debate in the UNT began, the most bureaucratic and corrupt sectors – who today are in the PSUV, who today are deputies or ministers – said that workers who aren’t with Chávez can’t be part of the UNT, that trade unions who are against the process can’t be in the UNT. In the UNT executive committee, which included other comrades, I was the only one to oppose this position of exclusion.
I believe the trade unions are the organs of all workers regardless of their politics or ideology. From there, the big difference emerges, because if the trade union is truly democratic, if it truly wants autonomy, then we need to win all the workers who are still confused for the fight against capitalism. If we can’t convince them, they have the right to present their opinions at every point in the class struggle, as we will present ours. The trade unions aren’t political parties, they’re organisations of all workers. Now the party we want to build up, that’s different. Someone who believes in capitalism won’t join us.
In one year we turned the UNT into a reference point in this country. I used to visit Miraflores as if it was my house. The old Labour Minister elaborated many policies based on debates he had with me. In the moment of the confrontation, i.e. of the coup and the sabotage and all that, I was building up the Bolivarian trade union movement, because a part of my organisation [the PST, Socialist Workers Party] didn’t understand the dynamics of the movement and was super-sectarian in regards to Chávez. I left that organisation and I wasn’t active for two years. I dedicated myself to building up the reference point. I discussed with Chávez. I was one of the first trade union leaders Chávez listened to, along with others of course. We told him about the history of the workers’ movement.
But what happens? The UNT is born and for the first year it functions, but then it breaks down. Many trade union leaders coming from COPEI and AD sign up and set up a bureaucracy close to the government

What is the status of the CTV now?
The CTV still exists, of course as a minority trade union central, much weakened. But I want to explain this little rumour from aporrea.org.net [a Venezuelan left website] and other sources. I don’t have any illusions in the leadership of the CTV. At the point when it supported the 2002/3 strike-sabotage, this leadership ceased to be a workers’ organisation and became a political party executing pro-imperialist policies.
But the CTV still exists – why? It organises more than a few workers in the education, health care and technology sectors. We say that the Venezuelan trade union movement is in a deep crisis: a crisis of identity, of unity, of autonomy, of everything. It’s necessary to refound the trade union movement, to give it a programme that’s revolutionary, socialist, based on class independence and self-determination, with a clear position on the foreign debt (because this country under the Chávez government pays the debt better than under previous ones).
This is the debate we want. If you’re from the CTV and want to participate in this debate, we accept you. You have 20 minutes to explain your position. Those of the FSTB continue their policy of excluding the CTV. Now that we’re the majority trade union, we can win debates like this.
I never asked to have meetings with the CTV leadership, never. But the other currents of the UNT have been incapable of winning the trade unions of health care and education workers from the CTV. We work on this, and I go to these debates because I want to win the base. That’s the clear policy. Our position is that there should be elections in the UNT because, as I said, it’s a great conquest of the workers.

So you do favor a common central with unions currently organised in the CTV?
If we win the UNT elections, our policy would be to call a big congress of workers, with base delegates of all workers to unify the trade union movement in a single central, with a leadership legitimised by the workers themselves, elected directly via a universal and secret ballot. That would be the first time in Venezuela that we’d have a single central like that. Through discussions by the workers as a class, we could spread consciousness about what kind of government this is and what kind of country we want.
At bottom, bureaucratic sectors of the UNT want to wash their faces: they say the whole CTV is putschist etc. to distract from the fact that their own policies are the same or worse. They’re not connected to the ruling class via AD, rather now it’s through the PSUV.
When I came here two weeks ago, they attacked me, saying I was trying to destabilise the country by organising a strike at SIDOR and things like that. I believe that the workers of SIDOR have a right to strike and that all revolutionaries should support them, organising a national solidarity committee to build up an indefinite strike and stop anyone from entering the factory.
To repeat, I am very far from having any illusions about building up a new trade union leadership in this country together with the CTV leaders, who were putschists and seized control of the workers’ movement during the confrontation. In the trade unions, they don’t even hold elections. Our policies are completely different from theirs.

Moving on to the question of Chávez’s new party, in your opinion, what is the character of the PSUV and how do you view the possibilities for revolutionaries working inside it?
After 24 March, 2007, when the president attacked trade union autonomy and the organisers of the PSUV attempted to carry out that policy, from that moment I said openly and firmly that I’m opposed, that I’m totally against the PSUV. Even back then, before it was founded – now it has a programme and statutes – I said that it wasn’t a revolutionary party. From the point of view of internal democracy it wasn’t even clear how it was going to function; its structures had absolutely nothing to do with a Leninist party. It was profoundly anti-democratic. The process of foundation drowned any possibility of independent and revolutionary sectors participating.

That was your estimate a year ago. How do you balance the experience of the PSUV after the founding congress?
The delegates were completely knocked over by the top leaders of the government. Even though the delegates voted, the election of the national leadership was totally un-democratic. Why? The congress gave a list of 300 names to Chávez, and Chávez filtered these very well and picked 69 who could be elected. This way, even if the ones he most favoured weren’t elected, there would still be people close to him.
For example, it was a progressive development that Diosdado Cabello, a leader of the right wing of the Chavistas, was not amongst the 15 principal members of the leadership, even though he was a principal cadre of Chávez (he ended up as one of the 15 alternate members of the leadership).

The general, Müller Rojas, didn’t have such a good showing either, did he?
Müller Rojas was up for election, but even before the election he had already been named the first Vice-President of the party. Chávez has the power to name the Vice-Presidents – he didn’t just choose the 69 candidates for the leadership, from which the congress could choose 30, he has also been given the power to name as many Vice-Presidents as he considers necessary. He divided the country in four regions and named a Vice-President for each one.
Another progressive development was that none of the military candidates ended up among the 15 principal leaders of the national leadership. But the principal leaders, who are civilians, are profoundly dependent on Chávez. One extreme example is the PSUV leader Aristóbulo Istúriz – the day after election he went on television for an interview and he said: “The people say I do what Chávez tells me to do. He is the maximum leader. What do you want me to do, what Mickey Mouse tells me to do?”
That’s the main problem. But another problem is to create illusions that there’s some possibility of changing the nature of this party – it’s not a revolutionary party, it’s a centrist party. Even the comrades of Marea Socialista7, people like Gonzalo Gómez who won a place as a delegate, don’t have a chance to intervene in the debates.

Marea Socialista was present at the PSUV founding congress?
Marea had one single delegate, Gonzalo Gómez. That was out of a total of 1,677 delegates. As I said, the congress elected the national leadership in an anti-democratic way, and the upcoming election of regional leaderships will use the same method – the battalions elect 60 candidates which they send to the national leadership, and the national leadership picks the 15 principal and 15 alternate -members of the regional leaderships. That’s the methodology. There is no debate, no possibility to present documents. Right now there’s a battle going on about selecting the candidates for the elections at the end of the year, and Chávez has said that anyone who presents themselves as candidates too early will be expelled.
There is no possibility there to set up a revolutionary current, a tendency, a fraction to participate in these debates. Further, a party that is openly connected to the government can’t be an instrument of the working class. We are in the phase of raising the banner for the construction of a revolutionary workers’ party in Venezuela, which we will build up in the class struggle
For example, we are participating in the struggle of SIDOR, we are arguing for a workers’ party. There are workers’ leaders here in this state who in the past were Chavistas. Today they talk to you and say that what is happening here, day by day, makes it clear that the workers need our own party.

What are the next steps for setting up a workers’ party?
Next month we have a meeting to strengthen C-CURA and we have decided to legalise our party in four states. That way, by next year we can have a national party. The four states are Aragua, Carabobo, Cojedes and Anzoátegui.

What exactly happened to C-CURA? Is the tendency divided, are there two C-CURAs or two tendencies in the same C-CURA?
To start at the beginning, C-CURA is a tendency we found ourselves forced to constitute on 18 February, 2006. The C-CURA was formed by people who were members of the PRS6 but also comrades of different organisations, it was a political and trade union organisation with different tendencies, including members of the MVR [Movement for the Fifth Republic] and the Tupamaros. But the fundamental cadre were broadly Trotskyist.
By 18 May, we had managed to win a majority at the UNT congress. That was a great triumph for C-CURA and it became the unquestionable majority tendency in the country, with lots of political respect. This led the government to develop a policy of destroying C-CURA.
When does the crisis in C-CURA begin? When the president introduces his project of reform, because sectors of C-CURA without a long tradition of political militancy, who were more Chavistas than Trotskyist, aligned behind Stálin Perez Borges and the Argentinean MST and the position of supporting the Chávez constitutional reform proposals. The people who came together in this way didn’t have a clear programmatic identity. Their principal identification was the constitutional reform – whoever was against the reform was against Chávez, that’s how they saw it.
There was no decision of C-CURA to join the PSUV. There was a meeting at which we agreed there were two political tactics. We told the minority, “if you want to go to the PSUV, then go, we believe it’s necessary to build up a workers’ party, and we’ll work on that”. If we agree on political questions then we can support a battle in the PSUV. But that’s not what happened. The comrades openly assimilated with a policy of open capitulation to Chavism.
We recognised that we had to let these people have their own experience. But this relationship broke down, and the comrades started a policy of spreading rumors in aporrea etc, saying C-CURA had decided to join the PSUV, that I wanted to join the CTV etc. These comrades did their part in the referendum campaign, expecting the “yes” vote to win easily, but the result was the exact opposite. After that, many leaders who had left us returned to C-CURA. There was a national meeting to make a balance sheet of the results and to discuss the policies for defending a great conquest of the workers which the government wants to destroy.
Well, certain leaders called on us to organise a national meeting. They came to my house with a letter, and I asked Stálin Perez Borges to sign up to a meeting. We owe it to the members to explain to them our positions about the constitutional reform and to examine them in light of the results. The results were that the right and imperialism was strengthened. The truth is that they refused to participate in this meeting – they just published a declaration about a “so-called meeting”. After that, they voted to organise their current separately from C-CURA, and since then they haven’t returned. You’ve seen they no longer use the name C-CURA. They don’t use it anymore. They used to be “Marea Clasista y Socialista”, now they’re just the “Marea Socialista” current. Now we have many differences and I honestly believe they’ve given up the struggle for a revolutionary party in this country

To me it seems impossible that a trade union leader join a party with bosses and state ministers.
Of course. I said “I’m not going to join a party with exploiters, military officers and fascists.” There are businessmen who violate the rights of the workers and there are corrupt state bureaucrats in the PSUV. Also there is no possibility for working at a grassroots level because there’s no democracy.
The question of how to relate to Chavism – that’s where the crisis in C-CURA came from. We never had a policy of entryism in Chavism. In certain moments we gave critical support to the president, for example in the last presidential elections. This was part of a tactic to maintain a dialogue with Chavista workers. But we always fought for workers’ political independence.
There were two big mobilisations, on 15 July 2006 and 8 February 2007, right in front of the Miraflores palace. These mobilisations were against joint ventures. There were up to 10,000 workers protesting and their demands included an emergency increase in salaries and workers’ control – which meant an objective opposition to Chavism. But unfortunately, some comrades couldn’t resist the pressure of Chavism and gave up independent class politics.

At this moment in Venezuela, when the overwhelming majority of the working class still has strong illusions in the Chávez government, do you think the call for a workers’ party will have a serious resonance?
Yes, and the problem is as follows. We are not talking about the presidential elections. Today’s Chavismo isn’t even half of yesterday’s Chavismo. He still has 45% support, but it used to be over 70%. The most important thing I’m going to tell you is this – there is a strong resistance from below, and there are strong sympathies for leaders who fight. I’m not saying that Chávez isn’t a popular figure – he enjoys the support of 45% while all other political figures are around 8%, 10%, 12% . . . But the problem today is that the polls are predicting Chavismo will lose something like eight governorships

So it’s important that workers who are becoming disillusioned have a left alternative, so they don’t have to switch to the right?
Exactly. It’s important to build our party. The people who are disillusioned with Chávez aren’t running to the opposition. This has opened a big political space which, in our opinion, can be filled with a great sympathy for revolutionary positions. For example, I’m from the state of Carabobo, and Chavismo is in a terrible crisis – the governor is constantly losing support. That’s why we believe it’s very important to create our party and offer an alternative for the workers.

What would you say about the class character of the Venezuelan government? Internationally there have been many debates, some Marxists calling it a bourgeois government – as I would – other a workers’ and peasants’ government, a “hybrid” government or one of indefinite class character.
Obviously it’s a bourgeois government, totally capitalist. We characterise the government as a form of bonapartism sui generis [of a special kind], in which the government has to mobilise the masses, but in order to defend the class interests of the bourgeoisie. It is ridiculous to think of this government as revolutionary. Workers’ control of industry doesn’t exist, and even cogestión [co-management] is under-developed. You can see the capitalist nature of the government here in the SIDOR conflict, where the national guard – directly under the control of the -President – repressed the workers and destroyed 53 of their private cars. Of course it’s a bourgeois government.

So how do you respond to the talk about the “Venezuelan revolution”?
From a classic point of view, there’s no revolution. There have been important conquests by the people, won via their mobilisations – missions like “Barrio Adentro”, literacy campaigns, etc. But these conquests don’t necessarily lead to abolishing capitalism. Just fixing the bathrooms in a school doesn’t mean we’re living in socialism. If you don’t advance, expropriating industry, then corruption and bureaucracy will grow and the capitalist system will be strengthened.
So is there a possibility of changing things by struggle from below? The problem is that the communal councils are managed by the state bureaucracy and the PSUV. They are organs of control, not self-organisation. If you work for a state institution, for example, and raise some problems in your communal council, you can face repression from your employer and the council’s funds can be cut. That’s how these communal councils work. But if you’re referring to projects of workers’ councils, I can repeat what I said before – if these projects emerge from the workers and peasants themselves, if it’s an autonomous instrument they created, obviously we should participate – a revolutionary party should try to win such councils for its perspective.

What kinds of developments do you expect in the coming year? Will there be increasing conflicts between the Chávez government and its social base?
If the strike of SIDOR wins, there will be a political crisis in the country. It’s not that I expect conflicts – we are in the midst of conflicts right now. It’s everywhere – in the streets, in the hospitals that don’t work. Just yesterday there was a strike in an office of the Labour Ministry. The workers shut it down spontaneously. Workers in the oil sector are watching what happens at SIDOR, because if you remember the government imposed a collective contract on them with very few improvements, a very bad contract. They got a raise of 30 Strong Bolivars for the next two years, but they had been demanding 45. The electricity plants are involved in a huge strike right now. The government had to make some retreats because the trade unions made lots of protests – well they’re Chavistas but they are also class-based. They fight. The workers in the aluminum sector are also beginning a struggle.

So you see this as a new stage in the class struggle which is beginning?
Trade union leaders who are close to the government keep losing support. Just look at the hatred for the Labour Minister.

So the struggle for a revolutionary workers’ party is a question of the coming months?
I agree, but remember, we want to build the party by being the best fighters for the workers in this country. But we can’t limit ourselves to the trade union struggle. Two years ago, when Chavismo was much stronger, it was much more difficult to explain to the workers the need for a political instrument, not just for trade union struggles, but also for political struggles. But the experiences of SIDOR, the conditions of slavery and the repression by the government are elevating the workers’ political consciousness.
Why are we doing this now? One reason is that the state elections are approaching, and in the course of the electoral struggle there are people who want to become active. You can be the best fighter amongst the workers, but it’s important to present them with a political party they can support.

Thanks for all this information.
You’re welcome. I hope I could clear up, in English, those rumours regarding me and the CTV.

Endnotes
1. C-CURA, “Class Unity Revolutionary and Autonomous Current”, was a far left current within the UNT which at one time formed a majority of the UNT leadership.
2. The Bolivarian Socialist Workers Force (FSBT) is a tendency within the UNT. It played a major role in fragmenting the UNT at its second congress in May 2006, opposing leadership elections in the UNT leadership as a “distraction” from campaigning to re-elect Chavez. José Ramón Rivero, a leader of the FSBT, became Labour Minister using his position to further his trade union faction’s position and becoming increasingly unpopular as he tried to undermine the workers on strike at SIDOR. In the middle of April he and the FSBT announced at a press conference that they were forming a new trade union federation and that workers should leave the UNT. Within days Chavez sacked Rivero and replaced him with Roberto Manuel Hernández, a former member of the Venezuelan Communist Party.
3. Chirino is referring to the PST (Socialist Workers Party) the Venezuelan section of the LIT-CI, a Morenoite grouping that was dissolved in 1999.
4. Caudillo is the Latin American term for a cult-like leader – often but not always military.
5. Bonapartist - where a strong leader rules the country appearing to be independent of the interests of the main social classes whilst, in fact, ruling on behalf of the bourgeoisie.
6. The Confederation of Workers of Venezuela (CTV) was the old bureaucratic and corrupt trade union movement, which was in the pocket of the old governmental parties swept away by the electoral landslide that brought Chavez to power. The CTV actively supported first the April 2002 coup against Chavez and then the lockout launched by the bosses at the end of 2002 to try and oust him from power. While the CTV still exists amongst sectors of workers it has never recovered its former influence.
7. Marea Socialista (“Socialist Tide”) is a tendency inside the PSUV which is also part of C-CURA. Led by, amongst others, Stalin Pérez Borges, it disagreed with the majority of C-CURA which was against joining the Chavez party.
8. The Party of Revolution and Socialism (PRS) was a still-born attempt to form a revolutionary organisation. It was initiated in the second half of 2005 by many of the leaders and members of C-CURA, including Chirino and Stalin Perez Borges, but it never cohered as a properly founded organisation.

Thu 03, July 2008 @ 09:41

Bookmark with:

What are these?

discussion of this article

Wladek said…

Thanks for posting the interview!

Could you add a link to REVOLUTION (http://www.onesolutionrevolution.org) ?

Thu 03, July 2008 @ 11:31

Arthur Bough said…

A very interesting report. It would be good to get PR's take on Cirino's comments. My own view is that Cirino's position is sectarian. Throughout the dialogue here he talks about the PSUV not being a revoluitonary Party, not being a Leninist Party and so on. But the first task for a Marxist is to establish a WORKERS PARTY where none exists. Setting constraints on the programme of such a Workers Party requiring it to be revolutionary, or Leninist or whatever is sectarian. As Engels pointed out the job of Marxists is to bring together the forces of a Workers party, and then to raise its level.

Counterposing the PRS to the PSUV also to me seems sectarian. The PSUV has won the support of around 5 million workers, whereas the PRS is better known outside Venezuela than it is inside. Clearly, workers have to be conscious of the dangers arising from the role of Chavez in this development. It is necessary to oppose any moves to incorporate the PSUV, and more importantly the Trade Unions into the State. But given the large number of workers already in the PSUV that is precisely why socialists must be in their to help organise and warn the workers against such developments, to bring together the much larger forces if possible that can be the basis of an independent Workers Party.

In the meantime a report in Venezuelanalysis suggests that workers at a grass roots level are being able to utlise the emchanisms of the PSUV to further their objectives. It appears that the attacks on the workers at SIDOR were instigated by the Governor Rangel Gomez, who was slate for the elections by the PSUV, but workers from SIDOR and other factories were able to organise to get him removed.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3494

Union Militants challenge and remove right-wing candidates from PSUV lists for upcoming elections.

“Sayago, a worker from the ALCASA aluminum plant and pre-candidate for Mayor of Caroní, said the demand for Rangel Gómez’s disqualification has been endorsed by a “good part” of the workers in basic industry and especially by the workers at the SIDOR steel plant.”

I would make just a few other comments. Venezula is still a capitalist economy. I think that we should be careful about supporting statist measures such as price controls. The experiecne in Russia after 1917, even with a Workers State was not good in trying to impose such restrictions. The following account suggests that one result could already be the development of food shortages. This does not have to be deliberate attempts by Capitalists to sabotage the economy simply a normal response of capitalists and peasants to only invest Capital if the prices recieved ensure them a profit.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/26/business/control.php

International Herald Tribune article on food shortages

On the other hand it could be that anoter cause of food shortages is the fact that wages for the low paid were raised by 30% according to this article in Venezuelanalysis bringing about a sharp increase in demand that outstripped supply.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3407

Wages increased 30%

Thu 03, July 2008 @ 16:58

Wladek Flakin said…

While I agree with your (and Engel's) comments about the central importance of the working class organizing its own political party, I don't think it's accurate to call the PSUV a workers' party.

"Throughout history, Marxists have been at the forefront when the working class has formed its own political movements and parties, even when these formations have not had a revolutionary orientation. It is for these reasons that a number of Trotskyist activists in Venezuela and internationally advocate joining the PSUV. But is the PSUV even a “workers’ party”?
Doubtless many of its members are proletarian. But the class character of a party is not primarily dependent on its members, even if the large majority are workers and peasants. The ruling classes in capitalist society are numerically insignificant, so even the most thoroughly bourgeois party will count a majority of workers and peasants amongst its members and voters.
Trotsky explained that the class nature of a party isn’t defined by 99% of the members, but rather by the party’s leadership and the class interests the party defends. As was explained above, the “Bolivarian revolution” and the PSUV serve a section of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie who want a stronger position relative to US imperialism – they need to mobilise and organise the masses to implement this project. In this sense the PSUV isn’t a workers’ party. It wasn’t initiated by the activity of the working class, but rather by Chávez and the state bureaucracy. The PSUV is a plebeian-populist party."

http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/1969

Thu 03, July 2008 @ 18:38

PR webby said…

You can read more about our position on Venezuela in the latest issue PR 9.

Thu 03, July 2008 @ 18:51

Arthur Bough said…

Wladek,

I don't think you can define what is and what is not a Workers Party in such formalistic manner. It is necessay to analyse things dialectically. A Workers Party is not soemthing static, it is historically determined, and arises and develops as part of a process. Personally, I think TRotsky and before him Lenin are wrong, but wrong for understandable reasons.

Marx and Engels even after they had decided, in fact largely because they had decided, that the working class was the revolutionary class, joined the German Democrats. In terms of its ideology, and in terms of its leadership, and indeed in large part its membership, the Democrats were a bouregois Party. Some leninists argue that Marx and Engels later thought this had been a mistake. That is a fallacy. Even towards the end of his life Engels was writing to the US socialists explaining why they did that, and advocating a similar methodology. They did it because the German workers looked to the democrats as being their Party in terms of looking for solutions to their problems. They joined, therefore, in order to be able to talk to those workers, to gain their ear and stick with them. That is th antithesis of the attitude of most "Marxists" since which has been one of unreconstructed sectarianism.

The whole point as Marx and Engels set out was to act as the organised left-Wing of such a Party explaining through routine work alongside the workers why every mistake arose from the iandequacy of Programme. They should operate openly if possible, covertly if necessary to avoid being expelled or appearing as a separate Party. Trotsky himself in the 1930's in recommending joining the SFIO made the same point, and in relation to the Charleroi group even accepted that the group should keep its distance from the movement and call for the Fourth International if that facilitated that work.

It is understandable why first Lenin, and than Trotsky developed the idea of a Workers Party as effectively being nothing different from a Marxist Party. By the beginning of the twentieth century all the mass workers parties had developed as parties which adopted, at least nominally, a Marxist Programme. In fact, as Draper argues, these parties in reality owed far more to Lassalleanism and Fabianism than to genuine Marxism, and Leninism itself and its inheritors is absolutely wracked with Lassallean statist conceptions. Of course, if what you have by that time is mass Marxist workers parties why would you advocate going backwards, why would you argue for liquidating that programme in order to simply recruit a few more workers, rather the task would be to convince the remaining workers of the correctness of that programme.

But, that is precisely the point that you can't view the Workers Party statically, you can only evaluatre things from a historical perspective, from a perspective of analysing where the workers are, and in what direction is class conscioussness moving. The fact is that those conditions that existed at the beginning of the twentieth century do not exist - largely because Marxists screwed up sa a result of Leninism. Not even the situation that existed in the 1930's which could at a stretch cause Trotsky to believe that with the correct Programme and tactics the vast reservoir of working class militancy, and of class conscioussness that still existed in the leftward moving socialist parties, and centrist parties liike the ILP, and even to some extent in the decomposing and rightward moving CP's, could provide the basis for rapidly rebuilding large Workers parties with a revoluitonary Marxist politics. No one that looks at the world honestly can believe that we are in such a situation or that we are going to be in such a situation any time soon. That is what makes the calls for some new Workers party in Britain so adventurist and divorced from reality.

Iddeed, Lenin could only look to create revoluitonary parties, and Trotsky could only hope for a similar development, because of the whole history and development that had proceeded them i.e. the work of Marx and Engels and others through the First International, and of Kautsky and others in the Second International. You cannot run before you learn to walk, and unfortunately the working class again has to learn to walk, not just in Britain and Eastern Europe, but in Venzuela and elsewhere too. As Engels said the first priority is not the development of some pure Programme, but the bringing together of workers into a party they can recognise as their own. That is the precondition for making further progress.

You are absolutely, correct in terms of Programme the PSUV is not a Marxist Party. The leadership of that party has ties to sections of Venezuelan Capital, but that is true of most social-democratic parties too, given the nature of the Venezuelan regime workers have to be extremely careful about being incorporated into the State, but workers have to be wary of that with every social-democratic party too - just remember the Social Contract in Britain during the 1970's. Moreover, if you are not careful you can end up boycotting your own politics. If workers create their own Party are they to always refuse to become the Government, because that would automatically mean that workers were members of the Governing Party, that Trade Unions were linked to the Governing Party??? But yes, the natural dialectic will mean that at some point a crucnh will arise whereby the mass of the workers in the party - or else outside the party who formerly looked to it for their answers, but who now are mobilied to go beyond it - will come into conflict with the bouregois elements within that Party. Either those bourgeois elements will split, or else they will utilise their leadership position and control of he apparatus to begin to expel its left-Wing. That provides the natural basis for the establishment of a Workers Party that is not only based on the Workers and in the working class, but which increasingly develops a proletarian programme and leadership.

The fact is that neither in Britain nor Venezuela are we anywhere near that. It is necessary to stick with the workers and go through that basic work tht Marx and Engels did in establishing the basis of the First International, but today in the context of already existing bourgeois Workers Parties. To concentrate not so much on the need for purity of Programme of such Parties - though the Marxists should within their own ranks obviously seek the greatest clarity of ideas - but on the organisation, unification, and mobilisation of the broad proletarian masses. As Marx put it, one step forward of real progress is worth a dozen programmes. Or as Engels put it in relation to the US socialists,

"”….It is far more important that the movement should spread, proceed harmoniously, take root and embrace as much as possible the whole American proletariat, than that it should start and proceed from the beginning on theoretically perfectly correct lines. There is no better road to theoretical clearness of comprehension than "durch Schaden klug tererden" [to learn by one's own mistakes]. And for a whole large class, there is no other road, especially for a nation so eminently practical as the Americans. The great thing is to get the working class to move as a class; that once obtained, they will soon find the right direction, and all who resist, H.G. or Powderly, will be left out in the cold with small sects of their own.”

and,

“…What the Germans ought to do is to act up to their own theory --if they understand it, as we did in 1845 and 1848--to go in for any real general working-class movement, accept its faktische starting points as such and work it gradually up to the theoretical level by pointing out how every mistake made, every reverse suffered, was a necessary consequence of mistaken theoretical views in the original programme; they ought, in the words of The Communist Manifesto, to represent the movement of the future in the movement of the present. But above all give the movement time to consolidate, do not make the inevitable confusion of the first start worse confounded by forcing down people's throats things which at present they cannot properly understand, but which they soon will learn. A million or two of workingmen's votes next November for a bona fide workingmen's party is worth infinitely more at present than a hundred thousand votes for a doctrinally perfect platform.”

“…But anything that might delay or prevent that national consolidation of the workingmen's party--no matter what platform--I should consider a great mistake…”

Source

Engels. The Condition of the Working Class in England, Preface to the American Edition

Herein lies the difference between marx and Engels, and Lenin and Trotsky. Marxists have to recognise that we are living in times and conditions more akin to those faced by the former than the latter, and it is necessary to follow the advice they gave in such circumstances. That is the precondiiotn ofr developing a Workers Party more akin to that envisaged by the latter.

See also:http://boffyblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/marxists-and-workers-party.html

Sun 06, July 2008 @ 15:48

Wladek Flakin said…

Thank you for the long answer, Arthur. Unfortunately, I can't answer it with an equally long reply. But I think you are ignoring a key element which ruins the whole analogy: in 1848 the bourgeoisie represented a progressive historical force. Surely the key mark of the age of imperialism is that the bourgeoisie no longer has any progressive historical role to play?

Sun 06, July 2008 @ 20:07

Arthur Bough said…

But, in 1848 Marx and Engels already saw the working class as the progressive class no the bourgeoisie. They didn't join the Democrats in order to be with the bouregoisie, but to be with the the workers. Had there been a Party that more reflected theworkers interests, and to which the workers gave their affiliation they would have joined that. That is the whole point of the section of the Communist Manifesto cited once again at the end of the 19th century by Engels, "The Communists do not estabolish their own party separate from the Workers Parties." In that context it is clear that Engels interpretation of "Workers Party" is not that settled on lateby Lenin, but that cocnept of the mass parties that at any historical juncture the workers give their support to.

How could a Marxist view that any differently? Conscioussness derives from being. The working class remains dominated by bourgeois ideas until such time as its being changes i.e. until it begins to transform the material relations of production via co-operative enterprise as Marx outlined. Until that material change is affected workers must continue to be dominated by bourgeois ideas, and those ideas must be reflected in its Party. That is why Workers initially give their support to bourgeois parties. But, the material changes that develop in society, the class struggle, the role of Marxists in explaining to workers their own development raise that conscioussness, until workers see the need for their own Party separate from those of the bourgeoisie to which they have formally been attached. The SDP arises in germany, other workers parties in otehr European countries, the Labour Party out of the Liberal Party etc. But, that same dominance of bouregois ideology still infects these parties. As Draper says, the SPD, seen as the best example, the most pure Marxist Party, itself was as much influenced by Lassalleanism and Fabianism as Marxism.

Given what I have said above I don't think that is surprising. The role of ideas and education can go only so far in trasnforming workers conscioussness. Ultimately, it is only through workers transforming the means of production - establishing co-operatives, learning to run their own lives and enterprises under capitalism that their class conscioussnes can be adequately transformed to go beyond capitalism. Trade Union struggle cannot do that ebcause as lenin himself said, it can only develop a sectional Trade Union conscioussness, not a class conscioussness. This I think is lenin's main mistake and that which later Leninists have continued. He recognised the problem of conscioussness, but resolved it in a different manner to Marx and Engels. They, recognising that being determines conscioussness, saw it as a relatively slow process, whereby social relations had to be changed in order that conscioussness changed. They believed as Engels puts it that you cannot force down workers throats that which they are not yet ready to understand. Lenin on the other hand is impatient for change, and believes that simply discontent amongst the masses is enough, provided that there is a sufficiently large, and disciplined enough vanguard. That way the issue is resolved by transforming the workers conscioussness after a transformation of their being, but the being is actually transformed, not by the workers themselves, but by a conscious vanguard that has control of the State. It is the manifestation of that same top down, statist Lassalleanism if not the Fabianism that poisoned Marxism.

Tue 08, July 2008 @ 13:03

Dimitris said…

comrade Arthur Bough your comments are very interesting. You advocate that the only criterion for a party characterised as a workers party is its working class base, regardless of its leadership and its policy, in the current period. So do you think that the Democratic Party in the US is such a party, because the majority of the more or less politicaly active workers vote for it and the unions support it? Secondly. Do you think that the concioussnes of the proletariat changes in a slow, progressive, linear way en masse? There is uneven concioussnes among the workers, depending in a variety of factors (education, political background or lack of it and most important experiences of strugle). Don't you think that the workers vanguard must organize in order to most effectively influence the mass of workers to adopt a winning orientation in the class strugle, and through theese victories a magority of the proletariat reach a higher level of class concioussnes? I am not saying that the vanguard organize itself in order to full the workers to support it in order to gain control of the state. Just that the vanguard has (and plays) a special role in the class strugle.
About the PSUV. I don't think we can characterize it a workers party in any sence. Until now it is a class alliance between those classes that support Chavez: workers, poor middle layers, unemployed and semi employed, poor farmers and a section of the bourgoisie and the state beraucracy. Each of these elements has its own class interests and tries to find policies to best advance those intersts. I don't think that the proletariat is or can be hegemonic in the PSUV. But the majority of the workers and poor people from the barios see this party as their party and try to express themselves from within it. Before the class strugle in Venezuela advances in a way that the workers loose their confidence in Chavez and Chavez himself and his goverment position itself in a more open way against the proletariat and the poor people, in favor of the bourgoisie, I don't think we will see masses of workers break away from this party and from Chavez. So I thing as long as there is even a small space for the marxists to try to advance a marxist programme and people who support this programme they should be doing this but they should not spread illusions that this party as a all could become a workers party.
The problem with Chirino is that by his tactics during the referendum and regarding the PSUV, he alienated the vast majority of the workers and poor people who still identify themselves with Chavez. This is not a strategy to built an independent marxist party.

Tue 15, July 2008 @ 03:25

Wladek Flakin said…

i agree with everything you wrote, Dmitris - except for the last few sentences. the PSUV is a multi-class party, but it's not like every class fights for its particular interests in the form of motions to the party congress. the very nature of class society assures the bourgeoisie, and the Bonapartist state bureaucracy that represents its long-term interests, will remain dominant within the party.

for this reason, I disagree that there is "even a small space" for Marxists in the PSUV. all members were required to support the Bonapartist constitutional reform, accept the undemocratic structures, refrain from forming tendencies etc. - i don't think it's a coincidence that all Marxists (and "Marxists") who have joined have capitulated politically to Chavismo.

in this sense i think Chirino's positions about the PSUV and the referendum were correct and also very brave: he was willing to defend the class interests of the proletariat even when most proletarians were enthralled with Chavismo. the outcome of the referendum showed beyond all doubt that there are millions of workers who weren't alienated by his positions, but agreed with him.

i think taking up Chavista positions in order to "be with the masses" is opportunism plain and simple - what good is an independent marxist party if it adopts the same tactics as the PSUV?!? (and to make the obvious analogy: Lenin's opposition to the war in April 1917 alienated plenty of workers, but the masses came around eventually, didn't they?)

in case you missed it, here's another plug for my article on the PSUV: http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/1969

Tue 15, July 2008 @ 20:14

Anonymous said…

comrade Wladek I am not saying that there is a chance that the proletariat could become dominant in the PSUV by fighting for a marxist programme or by any other way, I' m just saying that the majority of workers and poor people recognise this party as their party and Chavez as their leader. Politics is always concrete, revolutionaries must advance tactics that begin from where the people is and try to bring them one or two steps closer to their programme, relating of course to their own experiences of class strugle. Organizing inside the PSUV with a clear analysis about the limitations of this party and a clear perspective to win as many workers as they can to a marxist programme is not the same as capitulating to imperialsm during ww1. Remeber Trotsky urged his followers to join socialdemocratic parties during the thirties in some countries. Chavez hasn't turned against the workers and poor people in such a way that the most important fight facing the workers now is against him and his goverment. Remember he nationalised SIDOR and fired the hateful labour minister. Maby this is astrategy on his part to present himself as a champion of the people against some corrupted and inefficient elements in his goverment, maby he is sincere, I don't know and it's not important. The important thing is that by his policies he satisfies some of the workers demands and surely he has not alienated them. The best position in such circumstances is a critical support and the fight for an independent workers movement. But in Venezuela we only have a few hundred marxists that do not have illusions for a "socialism of 21st socialism". I don't think they should establish a small sect and call the workers to join them.
Furthermore the principal strugle in Venezuela remains the fight against the big bourgoisie, the right and their western supporters. Although the strugle against the bolibourgoisie and the state beraucracy gains momentum. It was because of this fact that Chirino was wrong. The proposed constitutional reforms had many faults (I don't think that if they were adopted they would make Venezuela an authoritarian regime, but that's another matter), but the political fight during the referendum took the form of a clear strugle between Chavez and his supporters (with illusions or not)on one side, and the right and its imperialist backers on the other. The victory for the NO united the opposition, gave it a new momentum and put severe pressures to Chavez to turn to the right in order to appease them. Chirino not only did not understand that but during the campaign, he shared a platform with the leadership of the reactionary CTV, and gave quite a few interviews to media of the right against the proposed reforms, in essence boosting their position. That's why I think he alienated a lot of workers and poor people. As you know the class strugle is not waged only in the factories, by the unions, even more in a country that has more of 50% of the population working in the informal sector.
Finaly I don't think that the three million who did not vote in the referendum were against the proposed reforms, if they were they would vote for the NO. It had more to do with the top down procedure (not consulting the people as in the last constitutional reform in 1999), the furious campaign of the right through the media and the sabotage in the economy, the all or nothing aproach etc. Of course those articles that gave Chavez all those powers did't help.

Wed 16, July 2008 @ 00:39

Dimitris said…

the previous comment was mine, just pushed the wrong buttons and my name was erased.

Wed 16, July 2008 @ 00:41

Wladek said…

Comrade Dimitris, I understand the idea of doing entryism in the PSUV, but I see a number of problems. It's true that "Trotsky urged his followers to join socialdemocratic parties during the thirties in some countries", but not as a long-term perspective as Grant and Woods would have us believe. Trotsky proposed a tactic at a time when these social-democratic parties had large and radical left wings that contained hundreds of thousands of workers searching for a revolutionary programme. So concretely, the French Trotskyists joined the Socialist Party as a revolutionary faction (with the agreement of the party leadership!) and has tripled their numbers by the time they were expelled seven years later. The contrasts to the PSUV are obvious: it's not just that it is prohibited to form a faction. Where is the centrist left wing? Where are the hundreds of thousands or workers trying to express their revolutionary desires through the PSUV? Let's not forget, the two semi-Trotskyist groups that joined the PSUV won a total of 8 (of 1600+!) delegates at the founding congress.

You write about the "fight for an independent workers movement", but how will that work when Marxists unite organizationally with the state bureaucracy and the bourgeoisie?

As for the content of the constitutional reform and Chirino's position towards it, I encourage you to read the interview right above your comments. It also responds to the accusations about the CTV.

While I agree that some of Chavez' policies deserve critical support, and also that his government must be defended against counterrevolution, I don't think this leads to a necessity to be in the Chavista party. That step could alienate important sectors of the vanguard (like Sanitarios Maracay and the workers of that city) who have already had enough negative experiences with Chavez.

Wed 16, July 2008 @ 15:39

Dimitris said…

Comrade Wladek, although you are right about the situation in the thirties and how Trotsky develepod the entryist perspective, I think it would be a mistake to limit this tactic as only apropriate for such circumstances (as in the thirties). After WW2 all the trotskyist groups in Britain entered the Labour Party and for many years, with remarkable results more or less. Surely there was not a revoloUtionary situation in the UK during the fifties or the sixties, but the mass of the workers, and the vanguard were inside the LP or voted for it. And today there is a case for revolutionaries being in Dei Linke or Rifondazzione a few years ago (I am not examining here what politics should one have inside these parties). It all depends on the state of the movement, the level of class concioussnes and of course the strength of the marxists. I understand that is much more difficult to operate in a party as the PSUV were tendencies are not permited. As for the only eight delegates, I think that's pretty much the real influence they have.

I had red the interview before starting comenting here. It is very informative. But the questions remain. It's not that it is wrong to try to unite the workers movement, so you for that purpose you may be forced to talk to reactionary people, like the leadership of the CTV. Chirino did not do just that. He shared a platform with those people during the campaign for the referendum, about the referndum, when they were openly allied with the right. Surely the political symbolism of that move, in these circumstances was not an agony about the unity of the workers movement. He does not say anything about that, or the interviews he gave to reactionary media during the campaign. I am certainly not saying that he is an agent of the right, just that he had bad politics. I think that even he is able to realise that the defeat of the constitutional reform signaled a major victory for the right.
Finaly I m not saying that it is an absolute necessity to be in the PSUV, in order to fight the right, just that it might be more productive given the circumstances. But even if you choose not to be there you must be very careful not alienate all those who are and of course not to give unexpected help to the right. In this case (and only this) the Comunist Party was more cautious about how it handled it's denial to join the PSUV.

Wed 16, July 2008 @ 17:49

Dimitris said…

Comrade Wladek, although you are right about the situation in the thirties and how Trotsky develepod the entryist perspective, I think it would be a mistake to limit this tactic as only apropriate for such circumstances (as in the thirties). After WW2 all the trotskyist groups in Britain entered the Labour Party and for many years, with remarkable results more or less. Surely there was not a revoloUtionary situation in the UK during the fifties or the sixties, but the mass of the workers, and the vanguard were inside the LP or voted for it. And today there is a case for revolutionaries being in Dei Linke or Rifondazzione a few years ago (I am not examining here what politics should one have inside these parties). It all depends on the state of the movement, the level of class concioussnes and of course the strength of the marxists. I understand that is much more difficult to operate in a party as the PSUV were tendencies are not permited. As for the only eight delegates, I think that's pretty much the real influence they have.

I had red the interview before starting comenting here. It is very informative. But the questions remain. It's not that it is wrong to try to unite the workers movement, so you for that purpose you may be forced to talk to reactionary people, like the leadership of the CTV. Chirino did not do just that. He shared a platform with those people during the campaign for the referendum, about the referndum, when they were openly allied with the right. Surely the political symbolism of that move, in these circumstances was not an agony about the unity of the workers movement. He does not say anything about that, or the interviews he gave to reactionary media during the campaign. I am certainly not saying that he is an agent of the right, just that he had bad politics. I think that even he is able to realise that the defeat of the constitutional reform signaled a major victory for the right.
Finaly I m not saying that it is an absolute necessity to be in the PSUV, in order to fight the right, just that it might be more productive given the circumstances. But even if you choose not to be there you must be very careful not alienate all those who are and of course not to give unexpected help to the right. In this case (and only this) the Comunist Party was more cautious about how it handled it's denial to join the PSUV.

Wed 16, July 2008 @ 17:50

Wladek Flakin said…

Comrade Dimitris, it seems like we'll have to discuss the whole history of post-war Trotskyism and the experiences with entryism in reformist parties. I'm not aware of any truly "remarkable results" - I think Trotskyist groups were able to grow in the Labour Party, for example, but by adapting to the reformist consciousness of the workers and the bureaucratic structure of the party. So Militant had 8,000 members - hurrah, right? - but they could hardly get any of them out of the Labour Party and into an independent revolutionary organization! And I personally can't imagine what revolutionaries would be doing in "Die Linke" right now, with its membership with an average age above 60!

But as for Chirino, it's important to realize how much information about him gets distorted by the Chavistas and Trotskochavistas on the way to the English-language internet. For example, the IMT claims, among other things, that he is responsible for Sanitarios de Maracay not being nationalized! So I'd be careful with the impression that he conducted a joint campaign with the right against the referendum – just see the statement here: http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/1811

UIT comrades pointed out that he can debate on a platform with a CTV representative - as a trade union leader he has to "share a platform" with capitalists all the time!

Finally, I think the CCURA was more than careful about the PSUV: "we need to stay open to the possibility of participating, comrades can make their own experiences, etc. etc." In fact, I think they tended towards spreading illusions in this bourgeois-nationalist party!

Fri 18, July 2008 @ 01:31

Dimitris said…

" And I personally can't imagine what revolutionaries would be doing in "Die Linke" right now, with its membership with an average age above 60!" This is the best situation one can imagine. The young and disciplaned cadres of a trotskyist organization in a party like this could gain the leadersip by simpy waiting and letting nature take its course!!!
I' m joking of course. About the entryism, I was not refering particularily to the Militant. They had a pabloist interpretation of a "sui generis entryism". they actualy believed that they could gain the leadersip of the LP and by nationalising the "200 monopolies" would abolish capitalism in Britain.
Anyway every tactics has its dangers. I personaly don't feel very comfortable to point to the venezuelan revolutionaries what to do, but I would like to find out more about the situation there, so if you have more information...

Sat 19, July 2008 @ 13:28

Arthur Bough said…

Comrade Dimitris,

“You advocate that the only criterion for a party characterised as a workers party is its working class base, regardless of its leadership and its policy, in the current period.”

If you read carefully, you will see this is not EXACTLY what I said. What I said was that you can only understand the term “Workers Party” dialectically, and not formalistically. What the Workers Party is changes over time, precisely because its development is a process. Take the Labour Party and the Liberal Party at the point at which the Labour party was being created. The Liberal Party still attracted more votes than the infant LP, I’m not sure about actual membership. But, a marxist views this dialectically. At the time it was clear that the working class was moving TOWARDS the LP, TOWARDS recognition of the need for a Party which was more exclusively ITS party than was the Liberal Party. Under those conditions I would have no difficulty in recognising the inevitability of that process, and recognising the LP not the Liberals as the Workers Party. The point is that at the present time we see no such process of development away from the LP, and towards a new Workers Party. But, in large part and for the purpose of elaboration I will go along with your statement.

“So do you think that the Democratic Party in the US is such a party, because the majority of the more or less politicaly active workers vote for it and the unions support it?”

In the context of what I have set out above, yes. For the same reasons that marx and Engels joined the German Democrats, I would currently join the US Democrats, and seek within it to mobilise rank and file workers both within the Party, and by using its authority, structures and resources, more importantly in the workers communities, and workplaces. I would seek to mobilise them not on the basis of electoralism, but on the basis of their own colelctive self-activity as Marx advised in the Critique of the Gotha Programme.

“Secondly. Do you think that the concioussnes of the proletariat changes in a slow, progressive, linear way en masse?”

No, I do not believe that. As Engels said in his letter to Bloch the process is far more individualistic and complex. However, what I do believe, along with Marx and Engels, is that Socialism can only be achieved through the “Winning of the Battle of Democracy”, and that again as Engels said, it is vital that the class moves as a class. I think the concept of vanguardism contained within Leninism is elitist, and dangerous. I do not deny or decry the existence or role of a vanguard, I simply believe that Marxists have to be wary of attempts to substitute the vanguard for the class, and thereby have to differentiate between a revoluitonary conscioussness within the class (i.e. a recognition that things can’t continue in the old way), for a socialist class conscioussness (i.e. the recognition not just that things need to change, but what they need to change to, and the ability to know how to achieve that).

Lenin and Trotsky both argued that in order to make a succesful revolution it was not necessary to have the majority behind you, only that the majority did not oppose you. That was the case in Russia. What they said was true, but carrying through a successful revoluiton to destroy the old is not the same as creating the condiitons for building the new. That does require the active involvement of the vast majority. The absence of that, and the absence of the material conditions for that in Russia was the major cause of the revolution being deformed from the beginning, for the ability of the burueaucracy to rise up as a Bonapartist clique, and for the ultimate defeat of the Revolution.

“Don't you think that the workers vanguard must organize in order to most effectively influence the mass of workers to adopt a winning orientation in the class strugle, and through theese victories a magority of the proletariat reach a higher level of class concioussnes? I am not saying that the vanguard organize itself in order to full the workers to support it in order to gain control of the state. Just that the vanguard has (and plays) a special role in the class strugle.”

Absolutely, but in order for the vanguard to do that it must remain in contact with the mass of the class, not arbitrarily separate itself from them. That is my whole point.
On the PSUV. I have no doubt that this Party contains other class elements. So does, and always has the LP in Britain, and pretty much all the Social Democratic Parties that grew up at the end of the 19th century. They are bouregois workers parties. That is no reason for Marxists not to recognise them as the parties that the class currently affiliates to, and consequently to which the marxists must direct their efforts. Engels once said that workers representation in Parliament was an index of the level of workers class conscioussness. I’m not sure with experience we can say that is correct. Rather I would say that the degree to which the Workers Party tends towards a more adequate Marxist Programme is an index of such development – PROVIDED THAT this party really is a Workers Party i.e. is the Party to which the mass of workers give their affiliation, their votes etc. But, what that means is that the material conditions on which those class ideas rest also has to be sufficiently developed – i.e. that is why Marx and Engels argued not for waiting for the revoluiton, but for workers establishing ownership of the means of production NOW, through the establishment of Co-operatives, not as some isolated utopian schemas, but as joined up, integrated elements of workers power, and class struggle. Without that change in the material base the working class can never go beyond that revoluiotnary conscioussness I spoke of earlier – which is merely a negative conscioussness – and the necessary batlle of democracy can never be won, making socialism impossible. The process is dialectical. Marxists help workers organise, workers learn the need for workers ownership of the means of production and establish co-operatives, this change in the material base itself acts back on workers conscioussness, and so on. At a certain point quantity turns into quality.

There are clearly dangers with the PSUV, but the example I have quoted elsewhere about the ability of the SIDOR workers to intevene in the PSUV slate formation to deselect Rangel Gomez shows precisely why Marxists have to be participating in this process. At some point workers probably will have to split from the PSUV to create an indpendent Workers Party, but the route to that for now runs through the PSUV not outside it.

Sat 19, July 2008 @ 19:55

Arthur Bough said…

Reply to Wladek,

Of course you are right that Marxists should not simply liquidate their positions in order to be members of the PSUV. But, I do not believe they have to. Incidentally, I don't think many Venezuelan workers have even heard of Cirino, let alone agreed with him over the referendum. Trotsky, argued that the Belgian section did not have to proclaim the idea of the Fourth International, because it would compromise them in the Socialist Party. Both Lenin and Trotsky argued that it was necessary to act accordingly within such parties so as to be able to carry out work. Lenin and the other Marxists at the end of the 19th century wrote even theoretical works in a form of code avoiding marx's name, and the term Marxism in order to get around the problem of censorship. Engels said that he and Marx and their followers had found that it was possible to work in the workers parties openly, and even as an openly organised group. But, the implication of what he was saying was that if necessary you operate not so openly.

Why make a fetish of wearing your heart on your sleeve in these matters. It is not a matter of principle. The point is to work with the masses, to remain with them, and to find ways around any form of control and censorship in order to do so. Moreoever, as I have said previously the example of the SIDOR workers shows that it is possible for workers to exercise their influence from the rank and file of the Party. It is certainly the case that if workers are to form a separate party the road to it will run through the PSUV, and a recognition by the mass of workers currently attracted to it, of the need for such a Party.

Sat 19, July 2008 @ 20:08

Arthur Bough said…

Comrade Wladek,

You are right that Trotsky advised the Entrist tactic as precisely that a tactic. Personally, I think that was wrong, and for the same reason that I think Lenin’s decision to split the Workers Movement was wrong. However, let us look at the facts and examine the situation dialectically rather than formally. As Trotsky put it the essence of dialectics is the recognition that the truth is always concrete. When Lenin split the Workers Movement there had been a catastrophic event. Literally, millions of workers who had been organised in Parties that nominally adhered to a Marxist programme had capitulated to bourgeois nationalism in WWI. A revolution had succeeded in Russia, led by Marxists that rejected that had stood against that capitulation, and had dissected the fundamental cause of that capitulation in the ideology of those Parties. Lenin and the other revolutionaries – indeed all Marxists at the time believed that capitalism had come to the end of its rope and socialism was imminent.

On the basis of that was his decision understandable even if wrong? In my opinion absolutely. The fact that daily tens of thousands, indeed millions, of workers were coming over to the banner of the Third International – even though in fact they did not in the most part change their ideas – must have made that decision look to be the correct one. Had the world actually gone through a period of revolution rather than reaction in the following two decades it probably would have been right. It didn’t largely for the reasons I have set out above.

What then of Trotsky. In the 1930’s there remained large – indeed compared with today huge – Parties which even in their Socialist guise were nominally Marxist, not to mention millions more in the Communist Parties. Still convinced that capitalism could no longer expand, Trotsky was still of the opinion that this was a revolutionary epoch, and that the working class would create revolutionary parties. If we look at the organisations of the Trotskyists of the time, they were far more substantial than those of today, there implantation in the class far more established than today. It is just about still credible at that time to see things from Trotsky’s Leninist perspective, and see a process which leads to these parties having the same kind of development that the Communist Parties did in 1920.

But, no one can realistically see such a process unfolding at the present time. The large workers parties no longer call themselves Marxist even, those parties are a shadow of their former selves, the Communist parties have simply disappeared, and the Trotskyist organisations amount themselves to perhaps no more than one hundredth of their past size. At the same time the workers movement itself has regressed terribly. In the 1930’s there were workers reading groups and so on, and still a thirst for knowledge amongst many ordinary workers. None of that exists today.

For those reasons trying to apply the ideas and methods of Lenin and Trotsky to today are meaningless in this respect. Rather we are at a point in history far more like that which Marx and Engels faced around 1860. The task that faces Marxists is to do that basic work that Marx and Engels did back them of building workers unity, of forging again the basic units of class struggle, and as they put it to set up no separate parties from the workers parties, not to try to force workers to accept ideas they cannot yet understand.

Sat 19, July 2008 @ 20:34

Arthur Bough said…

The problem with the Militant was not the Entrist tactic, but its politics, which were a mixture of sectarianism, opportunism, bouregois nationalism, and statism.

On the one hand they were sectarian because they saw their role as being simply to build their own organisation. They acted like a leach on the LP - but in that they were little different than any other Entrist group. Had they followed the advice of Marx and Engels, and seen their role not as a separate Party, but as the organised left-Wing of the Party they would have been more succesful, the LP would have developed more to the left, and it would have been much more difficult for the burueacracy to expel them.

As for they couldn't get the majority of their members out, I am led to say "so what". As the experience sicne has shown all those groups which stood aside from the LP have gone downhill. The only point in getting your members out is if there has arisen such a situation in which the working class is clamouring for a new Party. If only that were the case!

The Militant were sectarian in relation to other things as well in particular to struggles over racism, sexism, Ireland etc. positing an ultimatist "The answer is Socialism" to everything - on the other hand other TRotskyist groups at the time actually bent the stick the other way collapsing into bouregois nationalism, feminism etc. and largely removed the class struggle from their politics on these issues.

I suppose it all also comes down to your view of what constitutes workingc lass politics. Given my analysis of the state of the working class and the Labour Mvoement at the present time, and particularly given my view that the original views of Marx and Engels which relied on the development of a self-active class, have been distorted by Lassaleanism and Leninism into an elitist statism, my view is that the job of Marxists is to concentrate not on that "real politics" that leninists counterpose to routine activity, but is rather to integrate themselves and their activity into that very rutine, daily life and activity of the class. It is not to worry too much about the ability to produce a paper that nobody reads, or to hold student style debates with reformist and careerist politicians or union bureaucrats which make those with the intellect to score highly and feel good, but usually achieve nothing positive for real life workers, but is rather to become directly involved in working class commmunities, addressing ourselves to the problems of workers within them and encouraging those workers to organise themselves to provide the solutions based on workers ownership and control, to concentrate on workplace activity to build small cells of activists in each workplace that can encourage the activity of their workmates and so on.

Without that activity to rebuild the bedrock of the class and the labour mvoement, you can hold as many conferences and debates as you like, they won't mean a thing.

Sat 19, July 2008 @ 20:58

PR webby said…

hi Arthur
thanks for your contributions, but can you try to limit them to one at a time, so its more conversational? It helps the flow of the discussion. Obviously this isn't a rule only a request.

yours

PR Webby

Sun 20, July 2008 @ 11:33

Arthur Bough said…

Webby,

Sure. I had missed a number of posts by Dimitris and Wladek so there were several separate posts to reply to. It was just easier to take those posts one at a time for replying, and it meant that it wasn't one huge reply.

Tue 22, July 2008 @ 16:35

Arthur Bough said…

Webby,

Just as an aside, it would be useful if it were possible to edit your own comments, because if I forget something, or realise I have missed something, it means a separate post as is the case in fact now. Just a thought.

Also.

For more on this discussion above see my blog here:http://boffyblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/dialectics-at-work.html

Tue 22, July 2008 @ 16:50

Fixing the bathroom in a school isn’t socialism: interview with Orlando Chirino

Bookmark with:

discussion of this article

Wladek said…

Arthur Bough said…

Wladek Flakin said…

PR webby said…

Arthur Bough said…

Wladek Flakin said…

Arthur Bough said…

Dimitris said…

Wladek Flakin said…

Anonymous said…

Dimitris said…

Wladek said…

Dimitris said…

Dimitris said…

Wladek Flakin said…

Dimitris said…

Arthur Bough said…

Arthur Bough said…

Arthur Bough said…

Arthur Bough said…

PR webby said…

Arthur Bough said…

Arthur Bough said…

add to the discussion