PSUV ON ELECTIONS
The process organized by the political leadership of the PSUV is an important lesson for democracy. First, a call is pending since 2006 when President Chavez himself spoke of the need to generate coherent ideological supporters of his government, thus ensuring progress in the consolidation of the Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci call the hegemonic bloc.
Secondly, this process opens up the space on the directionality of the principal socio-political party today. This is not just thinking what is the way to go, also includes the way it is perceived that way and that must mean a great discussion with the bases. Resolve the contradiction between the bases and the party bureaucracy is vital, not only for the future of the PSUV also for the progress of the Bolivarian project itself.
The dilemma of what to do is one of the main topics of discussion of the revolutionary parties. That choice try to be answered by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin in the preludes of the Russian Revolution and now aims to be answered by those serving in the PSUV. But as we point to two major thinkers of socialism to validate the process of democracy that must end in a large socio-political discussion, we note what we call dangers of this new consummate choice.
Leon Trotsky, said in the Revolution Betrayed (1936) that the mixture of the party structure with the state bureaucracy had killed the ability to critique and advance the revolutionary party. What Tronski concerned with this? He was referring to the gradual elimination of social leaders emerged next to the dynamism of the political transition from Czarist Russia to revolutionary Russia. In this passage is given a set of actions arising from the popular enthusiasm organization achieved by the proposed radical change in the October Revolution, but this was slowly numbed by the excessive zeal and control the party bureaucracy, which was stripped of his animosity revolutionary militants to replace obedience and self-interest of a new elite: the official bureaucracy. This risk is present in the results on Sunday. I disagree with the fact that, councilors, mayors, members of the state apparatus also move to control the party apparatus. This removes a space that can be occupied by those actors who are responsible for organizing social responses from their actions in the Land Committees, Water, Community Councils, tables energy techniques, members of the missions, to a set of actors who have gained prominence and now threatened by some of these "officials" are engaged only there to look after their own share of power. We must be fair to say that not all of these officials fall within this parameter, but many of them.
This danger, not only had been warned by Troskie. Gramsci himself had also said in his philosophical and political writings in the Journal of the Carceli (1929-1933) when he warned that the Italian Communist Party had become a party of officials and was no longer a revolutionary workers party.
The fact that the Congress ideology present this set of officials, causes you to lose the revolutionary impulse. This is so for one simple reason: the bureaucrat does not think the reality, only acts as a cog in the machinery of state, filling out paperwork, meeting procedures. Until that happens, the social revolutionary and committed actor has to interact with actual problems, to organize and deal at the same time. The logic of action of the actor involved is substantially less complicated than the official fossil. Troskie knew that, Gramsci and Rosa Luxemburg, to name just three (3) notorious Marxist thinkers. Even Iztvan Meszaros, who has just won the Freedom Award warns him by pointing to threats of this type of behavior in construction of socialism. Sunday
experience, indicates that those who have been elected to Congress will provide the foundation ideological future of the party and the revolution, must consider these dangers and threats that ended the twentieth century socialism and can be an ultimatum to XXI century socialism. Some time ago someone told me that the XXI century socialism did not exist, that is true. Nor was there liberalism and capitalism before Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke will think, so the commitment from all militant revolutionary is to think that reality, but seeing it from the experience of what happened - and their mistakes, in the twentieth century. We will wait to see if this conference ideological is able to visualize this problem. I have hope so.
Dr. Juan Eduardo Romero
Historian
18/11/2009
0 comments:
Post a Comment