Yesterday’s conference of Hands Off Venezuela was attended by between two hundred and two hundred and fifty people by my guess. There were lots of speakers. I didn’t bother taking notes of what they said but they included John Mc Donnell, Matt Wrack of the FBU (another Saturday with a member of the Wrack clan), Tony Kearns of the CWU, Jeremy Dear, Alan Woods, the virtually omnipresent Derek Wall and the new Venezuelan ambassador Samuel Moncada. Moncada is a big improvement on his predecessor. You can work out within the first two minutes of his speech that he is in favour of the revolution. Despite listening to the previous ambassador three or four times I was none the wiser whether he was for the revolution,against the revolution or just cheesed off at having to speak at a public meeting. The new man spoke enthusiastically about the new constitution which reduces the working week to thirty six hours and prevents banks and other lenders from re-possessing the homes of people who are unable to pay their mortgage. It also guarantees the right to university education and protects all citizens from discrimination on the basis of gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation. For on the spot reports have a look at HOV’s site where Darrell Cozens is reporting and Gringa Diary where an Australian comrade is recording events. You would have to be a rock hard sectarian to see this new constitution, which will be voted on next Sunday, as anything other than a deepening of the revolutionary process.

There were two speakers from Venezuela. Guadalupe Rodrigez, Coordinaadora Simon Bolivar, 23 Enero explained how in that barrio they took over the police station and have replaced it with a community education centre. That is the sort of thing that happens in revolutions. A young man, whose name I’ve forgotten spoke about the factory occupations and how they are training a militia to defend the revolution.

There were four uncontroversial resolutions and then the one that I proposed. The text is below. The uncontroversial ones were on the magazine, organising for next year’s union conferences and so on. The first straw in the wind that my resolution on the environment might be controversial was during the discussion on the magazine. Someone suggested an amendment that it be produced in an environmentally sustainable manner. A large handful voted against this. Perhaps they want it to be printed on the skins of endangered animals or produced by small children using dangerous chemical and flown in from Australia.

The argument hinged around a couple of things. On the one hand there was an amendment, which I argued against, saying that the oil companies should be nationalised under workers’ control. My view is that this is not something that a solidarity organisation needs to, or should, take a position on. Socialist Resistance is all in favour of nationalising industries under workers’ control. Shoehorning this Trotskyist formula into a resolution on developing links with ecologists who are supporting the Bolivarian revolution rather misses the point, in particular when the democratic aspect of development has already been included in the original text.

The other criticism seemed to rather miss the point and seemed to imply that we were asking the Venezuelans to stop exporting oil. That was easy to rebut. It is those of us in the developed world who need to change our system of production and consumption.

It seems to be the special role of SR to provide controversy at HOV’s conference. Last year it was over the organisation’s decision to support John Mc Donnell. We did briefly dally with the idea of putting a resolution asking HOV to take a view on the Respect split but decided to focus on the environment instead.

(By the way, if anyone from the Crown Prosecution Service sees the video of the debate please disregard my comment about shooting Queen Elizabeth. It was a facile attempt to burnish my revolutionary credentials and further proof of my inability to distinguish between exaggerating for comic effect while talking shit in a pub and making a political argument.)

But what the debate did reflect was an underdeveloped approach to the question of the environment among a broad section of socialist opinion. This was borne out by the discussion on twenty first century socialism. The environment was barely mentioned and global warming not at all.

An encouraging aspect of this year’s conference is that HOV, with a lot of support from John Mc Donnell, is to work hard to put an end to the detrimental division between it and the Venezuela Information Centre and an open letter is being circulated.

If anyone who was at the conference wants to chip in please do.

This conference notes that the previous model of economic development in Venezuela has resulted in severe ecological degradation in many parts of the country.

Conference also notes that it is the country’s working class and poor who have been most adversely affected by this disregard for environmental considerations which the race for profits has created.

Conference further notes

  • The plan by the Environment and Natural Resource Ministry to reduce the air pollution levels in Caracas by 80 percent in 2007, with the goal of being pollution free by 2010.
  • The improved protection of waterways and fishing areas, especially those affected by oil exploration and drilling.
  • The protection of unique ecological areas and indigenous lands, such as the 3.6 million-hectare Imataca Forest Reserve.
  • The assistance given to thousands of coffee-growing families in the Andes region to establish environmentally sustainable organic coffee and vegetable co-operatives.
  • The banning of the cultivation of genetically engineered crops on Venezuelan soil and the establishment of a large seed bank to maintain indigenous seeds for peasant movements around the world.

Conference agrees to show our full support for such important developments by trying to disseminate information about the revolution’s commitment to Venezuela ‘s environment in our publications.

Conference also expresses its concern that a few large mining and energy projects – like the opening of further coal concessions in the Sierra Perija or the plan for a gas pipeline through the Amazon basin to Argentina – appear to repeat the old pattern of disregard for the environment and have brought opposition from indigenous groups and environmentalists in Venezuela and other countries of Latin America.

Conference therefore urges the Bolivarian government to submit all such development plans to the strictest environmental and socio-ecological standards and to direct democratic control by the communities concerned.


Technorati : ,

10 responses to “Hands Off Venezuela conference”

  1. sorry not to be around for the envi motion….my three kids sat through me and four other speeches, so I took them off to Beowulf and Forbidden Planet… incidentally when you re ten year old enjoys a speech it must be gripping, so Matt Wrack wins the prize here.

    environment/climate change is big with Chavez and while I don’t want to add to divisions, having just joined HOV, the Ken/VIC conference a fortnight ago contained an environmental panel which was virtually a rally for ecosocialism….green section is going to be put together in the united socialist party and generally I think ecosocialism is stronger in Latin America than in any other party of the world…of course big with Cuba.

    and viva Hugo Blanco! http://luchaindigena.tk/

    I think the new ambassador Samuel is great and for the revolution and has already done masses of outreach, third time I have heard him speak since he took the post two weeks ago….hope this answers one of your questions.

    also by the way pleased with the news from Australia!

    Like

  2. Did you forget the hustings tonight?

    Like

  3. S – just too knackered to leave the house.

    Like

  4. “You would have to be a rock hard sectarian to see this new constitution, which will be voted on next Sunday, as anything other than a deepening of the revolutionary process.”

    Oh, I wish I had a pair of those rose tinted spectacles of a pabloite – the world always looks so beautiful!

    An excerpt from an article I wrote for PR7 (out next week) which also has a lot of positive things to say about Venezuela

    “Unfortunately while there were many positive proposals put forward (in the constituional amendments) – such as shortening the working week and lowering the voting age to 16 years – there were many negative ones, mostly involving concentrating more power in the hands of the President and making popular recall and initiative more difficult.

    Nor was it possible for the electorate to pick and choose which to support, it had to vote for two blocks of amendments, both containing good and bad proposals.

    The overall thrust of the negative proposals were to add to the already strong elements “semi-bonapartism” in the Venezuelan state, reinforcing the executive power of the President over and above the National Assembly and the electorate. The presidential term was extended to seven years and the restriction on presidents’ standing for more than two terms removed. The President is given control over all officer promotions in the army.

    Under the amendments the President can declare a state of emergency without the Supreme Court’s approval and it can last indefinitely (instead of the 180 day limit existing previously). During such times “the right to information” is suspended, as is the right to due process before the courts.

    The proportion of voters signatures needed to initiate constitutional changes and consultative referenda is increased to 20%-25%, while the numbers needed to recall elected officials is increased to 30%, almost guaranteeing the impossibility of achieving such a large numbers of signatures. …

    Hugo Chavez might think that this was the most “important battle of the Bolivian revolution” but a constitution is a constitution. As Lenin used to remark “fine words butter no parsnips”, and the finest worded constitutions in the world are only made reality if the masses enforce their provisions through action. The likelihood is that the fine phrases will remain just that, while the new presidential powers will be used to the full – worse they hand an anti working class weapon into the hands of any future authoritarian, right-wing Presidency.

    Stuart Jelly-hard Trotskyist

    Like

  5. I attended the HOV conference being a member of both HOV and VIC.

    It was encouraging that the conference supported positive initiatives to help bring about better working relations between both organisations, as it is ridiculous that they should not be able to find areas on which they could both work together ,such as media response to bias reactionary British media reporting on Venezuela.

    The problem I have with HOV, as with much of the left when it organises ‘conferences’ and ‘workshops’ is that it never allows adequate time or space for any real kind of debate and discussion, so most people who attend remaim passive listeners.

    When often having more practical sessions , getting people together to work out strategies and ideas might well be much more beneficial and lead to a more active membership and a more effective growing campaign.

    What’s more the motions for the confernce are not sent out in advance.I dont know what it says in the HOV constitution but it seems a bit irregular to me that members are supplied with the conference motions only on the day of the confernce.

    If they were sent in advance members have time to think about them, submit amendments and then maybe would be more likely to participate in a lively dicussion and debate.

    On the question of climate change..it was very revealing listenning to the responses to Liam’s crucial motion.

    Some people seem to want to think that ‘Ecology’ and the ‘environment’ are ‘central’ to the Bolivarian Revolution, which is clearly not the case.There are of course many positive developments on going within Venezuela but lets not avoid discussion or deluding ourselves that is better than it is. There is no benefit to this form of defensive solidarity.

    Others seem to pay lip service to Global climate change and how devastating it is and say that it will only be dealt with when there is Socialism and we have control of the means of production and that it is the prime repsonsiblity of the imperialist heartlands.

    Well, given that we are a long long way from achieving Socialism in Britain, at this moment in time, nevermind taking control of the means of production.It’s a bit of a redundant argument…ie put the problem off till the Revolution comes…yawn…havent we all heard that cop out before.

    Moreover, it was argued that there would be no Bolivarian Revolution without oil…true enough! Conversely there will be no more Bolivarian Revolution or living Planet unless the present trajectory of global capitalism can be shifted away from it’s dependence on oil and the consequent massive production of CO2 emissions and the infinite economic growth model.

    The same applies to Venezuela.

    This applies to the idea of Socialism in the 21st Century .It hasnt got much choice.It has got to face up to the reality of global climate chaos and develop a form of Socialism that is sustainable.Ecology and sustainablity has to inform it’s development as part of the revolutionary process.

    What happens when the oil runs out?

    Just because Chavez has comented on the lunacy of the world population of car owners pumping out their CO2 emissions, that doesnt mean as some think that addressing ecology ,moreover the crisis on the global ecological system is “central ” to the Bolivarian Revolution and or the present Venezuelan capitalist economy..

    Included in the motions there was a recognition of some of the modest and positive developments in Venezuela, but it is clear and it needs to be faced up to that much more needs to be done and could be done in working towards sustainability eg investing in a developing renewable energy sources, reducing the dependency on oil.

    In other parts of the World such as in capitalist imperialist Britain , given the present weak state of the Left and the relative weakness of the green movement, we have to work together, demand and protest for, yes, radical change but also demand and progressive reforms now!

    Whatever form of Socialism we might all struggle for and support, as far as I can see it has to be fundamentally SUSTAINABLE.

    There is no other choice.

    The sooner more of the British Left wakes up to this fact and starts dealing with the practical problems involved we might then start developing more viable and realistic visions of Socialism.

    We all need to get behind and support the revolutionary process in Venezuela and the historic struggle for Socialism taking place there.

    Like

  6. I don’t want to sound like an ignoramus but what is the background to the three organisations – VIC, Hands Off Venezuela & Venezuelan Solidarity?

    I was considering joining HOV, it has a very impressive list of sponsors despite seeming to have strong links with a small leftist group (I find Socialist Appeal a little odd: Ultraleft on Latin America, part of the Labour Party in Britain!) I feel the leadership is a little uncritical and adulatory in it’s views on what is a very exciting process going on in Venezuela

    Like

  7. Interesting article by Glyn Robbins, one time Chair of Tower Hamlets Respect on Sustainable Council Housing:

    http://climateandcapitalism.blogspot.com/2007/11/public-route-to-sustainable-homes.html

    Like

  8. Stuart when you next see George ask him what I said about a comment from you on Sunday night. You did not disappoint. As for the constitution some of the measures that you describe seem perfectly reasonable in the context of defending the revolution. Have a look at Gringa Diary’s post on how the constitution is viewed in Venezuela. http://gringadiary.blogspot.com/2007/11/14112007-translation-psuv-doc-10.html

    Adam HOV was the first of the solidarity groups to be set up. Socialist Appeal, to my knowledge, was the first group in the English speaking left to appreciate the importance of what was happening. While HOV is strongly supportive of the revolution it does not have a taboo about criticising elements of it, though frequently from the viewpoint of revolutionary socialism.

    I don’t know anything about Venezuelan Solidarity.

    VIC tend to work more closely with and through the union bureaucracies and frowns on criticism of the regime.

    Like

  9. “As for the constitution some of the measures that you describe seem perfectly reasonable in the context of defending the revolution.” Liam

    Now which revolution might this be in Venezuela? Is it the one that guarantees the right of private property and the mixed economy in the constitution? Or the one that paid tens of hundreds of millions $ to the multi national oil companies to increase its stake to 60% in joint explorations? Or is it the one that leaves well equipped private hospitals untouched, while having to fly its citizens to Cuba for complex medical treatment? Or is the one where business has been making so much money in the last decade that Caracas is gridlocked by the bourgeoisie’s new imported 4by4’s and Mercedes (not very good for the environment)?

    If you mean ‘defend’ the very welcome and radical reforms introduced by Chavez – the Cuban basic medical centres, the subsidies for co-ops and Mercal food chain, the land reform, the rise in the minimum wage, housing reforms for the poor etc etc, then I absolutely agree with you.

    But Liam do you really think the best way to defend and extend these gains is to give exceptional powers to one man – the president. Why not give it to the National Assembly? Even better why not rely on the workers (UNT) and peasant organizations, the communal councils etc to defend these gains against the right-wing? Why not base the newly organised militia within, and responsible to, these organizations rather than make them part of the army under the control of a President as the new constitution does?

    Since when has Socialist Resistance and its supporters decided that relying on one man is the way forward in Venezuela rather than mobilizing the masses?

    Like

Leave a reply to Liam Cancel reply

Trending