image The Very Reverend Dr. D. Wayne Love was the first person I heard float the idea of a Fifth International. He was performing with the Alabama 3 some years back at the Scala sharing the stage with a number of women who were toting AK 47s. Something about the setting made it seem a bit ultra left at the time.

It’s taken a while but someone serious has decided that the idea might be worth exploring. Step forward Hugo Chavez.

This piece is nicked from International Viewpoint. It’s by François Sabado, a member of the Executive Bureau of the Fourth International and seems to have been rapidly translated from French Trotspeak but you can get the general idea.

During an international meeting of left parties held in Caracas from 19-21 November, 2009, Hugo Chavez launched a call for a Fifth Socialist International which, according to him, should bring together left parties and social movements. According to the president of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, the Fifth International must be “an instrument for the unification and the articulation of the struggle of the peoples to save this planet”. In a world political situation marked by a total crisis of the capitalist system, this is a fact important enough to be underlined.

Indeed, leaders or parties who pose the question of an International do not grow on trees. That is the first merit of Chavez’s call.

All the more so as this call is accompanied by a declaration which denounces the systemic character of the capitalist crisis, beyond its financial and banking dimensions, and reaffirms the perspective of a socialism of the 21st century. It calls for an urgent mobilization against the new imperialist offensive in Latin America, by the US administration and the Latin American Right.

On the basis of this call, a broad world anti-imperialist front can be established, to mark its solidarity with the struggle of the peoples for their social and political rights, to oppose the new US bases in Colombia, to support, in particular, the mobilization of the people of Honduras against the new dictatorial regime.

In the trial of strength in which the imperialists are confronted with the struggles of the peoples, such a world front would constitute an important instrument to fight the power of the ruling classes, not only in Latin America but in the whole world.

We are ready, as we have been since the beginning, in solidarity with the Cuban revolution, the Bolivarian revolution, with the experiences in Bolivia and Ecuador, to fully commit ourselves to the common fight against the imperialist attacks imperialists and to take our full place in this world anti-imperialist front.

It is also within this framework that the process of construction of a new International would be posed. Chavez calls for the establishment of a Socialist Fifth International. That puts back on the agenda the discussion about a new International. Chavez situates the building of the Fifth International in continuity with the Fourth. We have already declared on many occasions: what do labels matter, if there is convergence over the content?  But the constitution of a new International implies a whole process around a programme, policies, and an organization, which must be carried out on the basis of a broad discussion with all the protagonists.

There is, indeed, a new historical period, where divergences between various revolutionary currents can be surmounted on the basis of “a common understanding of events and tasks”. From this point of view, it is not a question of discussing the historical balance sheets of different currents, but it is decisive to learn together the lessons from Stalinism and social democracy, so that the tragedies and the errors of the past are not repeated.

Each party, each organization, each current and each militant must contribute to this debate. As for the Fourth International, it has already formulated, on many occasions, its proposals:

* An anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist programme of emergency demands, which starts from the demands and the social needs of the popular classes, proposes a new distribution of wealth, public and social appropriation of the key sectors of the economy and leads on to the revolutionary transformation of society.

* Unity of action of all the organizations, currents and militants against the attacks of the governments and the capitalist classes.

* Independence of the social movements, associations and trade-union organizations with respect to parties and states.

* Solidarity with all struggles of peoples against all the imperialist powers.

* The fight against oppressions and the defence of the rights of women, homosexuals, young people and immigrants.

* The fight for governments of the workers and popular classes which satisfy the principal social and ecological demands and base themselves on the mobilization of the population and its control over the principal sectors of the economy. This perspective implies not participating in governments which manage the state and the capitalist economy along with the parties of the centre-left or social democracy.

* The central character of the self-emancipation and self-organization of peoples, in the perspective of overthrowing capitalism.

* An ecosocialist project which combines both the satisfaction of social needs and the respect and balance of our ecosystem. In this sense, we have much to learn much from the indigenous peoples of South America and their relationship to the land.

* Socialist democracy as a project of society: self-management of the economy, democracy and pluralism of parties and social movements.

These are some themes for discussion in order to advance along the road of bringing together all anti-capitalists on an international level. They are the first ideas that we will defend in the process of constitution of a new International.

Lastly, Chavez’s call for a Fifth International also constitutes a point of support when it poses the question of a new International, independently of the Second (Socialist) International of which organizations like the social democratic parties, the Mexican PRI and the Brazilian PT are members. But it is also necessary to clarify a question in the construction of a new International, that of the difference between state policies and the development of a political project. One thing is to conclude economic and commercial agreements with states which have anti-imperialist governments, to conclude such agreements with other states, including some which have reactionary regimes, or to oppose attacks of imperialism against certain countries. It is quite another thing to give political support to regimes like those of the Chinese Communist Party or the Islamic Republic of Iran… The project of the Fifth International cannot in
any way at all be associated with these regimes.

Once again, this call creates the conditions for a new international discussion, indissociable from solidarity with the Bolivarian revolution. It is in this spirit that the Fourth international, its organizations and its militants, will answer “Present”!

-François Sabado is a member of the Executive Bureau of the Fourth International and an activist in the New Anticapitalist Party (NPA) in France. He was a long-time member of the National Leadership of the Revolutionary Communist League (LCR).

 

23 responses to “Hugo Chavez, D. Wayne Love and the Fifth International”

  1. splinteredsunrise Avatar
    splinteredsunrise

    So, Chavez has joined Workers Power then? There really is no accounting for him.

    Like

  2. I’ve heard Tony Benn mention the Fifth way before either D Wayne or Hugo

    Like

  3. good piece, like the ecosocialist comment.

    Like

  4. Workers Power’s fifth international is quite different. The number 5 was supposed to represent the revolutionary Trotskyist content of the programme. Chavez Fifth represents the repudiation of it.
    In Chile over the summer, I went to a meeting with an NPA guy who mentioned they were thinking about a Fifth in France, so it obviously doesn’t just come from Chavez.

    Like

  5. splinteredsunrise Avatar
    splinteredsunrise

    So, who’s going to be first to call for the Sixth?

    Like

  6. Bill I met some of your comrades in the pub on the Sunday evening WP announced its plans for a 5th. They seemed to think that it was a bonkers idea rather than the “revolutionary Trotskyist content of the programme”.

    However I think Francois is jumping the gun. A Chavez speech lasts for hours and he tends to throw the kitchen sink into it and I’m not certain it’s worth putting a lot of weight on this particular notion. Apart from anything else the Venezuelan revolution does not have a real attractive power outside Latin America, other than among a tiny vanguard. Also, as Chavez points out in the same speech, Venezuela is still a capitalist state. As such it is not likely to contribute to a major realignment in the workers’ movement on a global level.

    Alan Woods has an interesting report here

    http://www.socialist.net/first-extraordinary-congress-of-the-psuv-chavez-calls-for-the-fifth-international.htm

    Like

  7. I agree with Liam and Splinty; I don’t this amounts to much. As Liam says, Venezuela is still a capitalist state and Chavez has not shone much revolutionary fervour in actually overturning capitalism or sticking to his own rhetoric about workers’ power when it comes to strikes. Indeed his government seems all too willing to brand anyone who raises disagreement as counter-revolutionary.

    I threw in the rest of my own tuppence worth here: http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/2009/11/24/chavez-fifth-international-is-not-a-step-forward/

    Like

  8. Can’t account for the missing words and typos in the above by the way. Silly me.

    Like

  9. Well yes I’d agree with them. I’m saying what WP thought – not what I thought!

    Like

  10. I should add its interesting to contrast how Chavez is viewed by the LA left and the European left. Let’s just say, its not nearly as positive.

    Like

  11. ‘Workers Power’s fifth international is quite different’ because it is made up of five people?

    While I agree with Liam’s points I think the USFI response was excellent and it would be great if workers power were showing up’ middle class greens’ like me by stressing their commitment to ecological politics.

    having said that despite my disagreements with them WP have been strong backers of Jerry Hicks which is good news.

    I am sure if the UK based left were vanguarding politics in Venezuela the revolution would be far more advanced than it is, I mean just look at their success over here (not!)

    Like

  12. On a different point, lets say for point of argument that the non-SWP/SP revolutionary left consists of WP, Socialist Resistance, PR and maybe quite a few, probably more than in those groups combined, non-aligned revolutionary socialist activists, what steps would we take to building a new revolutionary party in the UK?

    Like

  13. Well, don’t you immediately face the problem that nearly all of the young people in those three groups are in the maddest outfit of the three and the one least likely to want anything much to do with the other two?

    Like

  14. Sure that is a problem. But lets be honest what are the alternatives?
    The SP are committed to their own particular projects, CNWP, No2EU (son-of) are about as undemocratic as its possible to be in their dealings with anyone who is not a member.
    The SWP are imploding/exploding but are generally moving away from joint work rather than towards it.
    Which leaves the rest.
    The AWL are pro-war Zionists.
    The CPGB are post cold war ex-Stalinists/proto
    Kautskyites and generally a mess.
    The Respect are basically liberal electoralists with a very limited shelf life.
    And then there’s the rest.
    My question is what forms could we arrive at to work together?

    Like

  15. billj- based on the above I think you’re just the person to build that united revolutionary group. Let me know when you launch it, I’m desperate to leave the ‘pro-war Zionists’

    Like

  16. I appreciate you might be upset. But you’ve only yourselves to blame.

    Like

  17. IMP – I’m reminded of Catch-22:

    Look Yossarian, suppose, I mean just suppose everyone thought the same way you do.
    Yossarian: Then I’d be a damn fool to think any different.

    bill j – if the SWP are imploding and exploding at the same time don’t they just have to get the balance right?

    Like

  18. Bill a more realistic option might be to aim for slightly larger propaganda groups. The lack of success in building even small organisations to the left of Labour suggests that the level of militancy and consciousness mitigate against building revolutionary formations on a party scale at the moment.

    On the upside our collaboration with the Green Left at the climate event and January’s dayschool on Palestine shows that it is possible for currents from very different backgrounds to work together. That might be one way of building something.

    http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/making-our-programme-common-sense-for-millions/

    Like

  19. BillJ

    lets say for point of argument that the non-SWP/SP revolutionary left consists of WP, Socialist Resistance, PR and maybe quite a few, probably more than in those groups combined, non-aligned revolutionary socialist activists, what steps would we take to building a new revolutionary party in the UK?

    That sounds quite accurate, and the only rational conclusion to draw from that would be to deduce that you have been wating your time, and should give up.

    Like

  20. Maybe they have.
    Yes we have been waiting our time.

    I agree with you Liam, I’m not suggesting a new party, there’s no point if people can’t work together without one, why should they be able to work together with one?
    I’m thinking of some other sort of broader co-ordination type partnership arrangements.

    Like

  21. Bill an example close to you is happening on January 23rd in Manchester. SR and Green Left have organised a seminar on climate change with members of the SP, SWP, Communist students and Respect participating.

    Like

  22. I know I went to the organising meeting last week!

    Like

  23. I think the people who suggest this call “does not account for much” are way off the mark. It is not true Liam that the “Venezuelan revolution does not have a real attractive power outside Latin America”. The struggles in Venezuela and Chavez’s espousal of “Socialism in the 21st century” have found interest and support across the world, especially in “the south”, precisely because it raised the banner of anti-neoliberalism when the free market capitalism and globalisation seemed unstoppable and hegemonic.

    I suspect a conference to discuss founding a Fifth Socialist International, that is specifically anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist (as the call was) will get a resonance well beyond Latin America. In that sense I think François Sabado has a better understanding than the rather insular English left who dismiss it. This is especially the case where the World Social Forum movement, under a reformist leadership, has run its course and is in an advanced state of disintegration.

    However we all know the problems. Chavez thinks that “anti-imperialism” is akin to socialism and includes in his sights people like Mugabe, the Chinese and Iranian dictatorships etc. But such people will run a mile from the idea of setting up an international socialist movement – that is the advantage for any revolutionaries who want to intervene in this conference.

    Not the person we would have chosen to take such an initiative. Not the parties, mostly pro-capitalist and reformist, we would have wanted to call it. But maybe a possibility to rally a new international left, explicitly socialist and anti-capitalist out of it. Perhaps that is why the British far left, in full flight from socialism and anti-capitalism is so dismissive?

    Like

Leave a reply to Derek Wall Cancel reply

Trending