By Arthur Shaw

Granma, the highly regarded proletarian newspaper in Cuba, reports:

“CARACAS.— Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez announced February 21 that he is about to undergo surgery in Havana ….Chávez underwent a medical check in the Cuban capital on February 18, during which a lesion of close to two centimeters in diameter was detected in the same area from which a tumor was removed in June of last year. He explained that he would be treated by the same medical team who performed the earlier operation…. The President stated that he is to continue working with members of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), as well as his ministerial team and the Bolivarian National Armed Forces.” http://www.granma.cu/ingles/ouramerica-i/22feb-chavez.html

This is not good news for Pres. Chavez, for the electoral prospects of the PSUV in the Oct. 7 presidential election, and for the continued passing of state power from the Venezuelan bourgeoisie to the working class in Venezuela.

Lenin defines revolution as a passing of state power from one class to another class. In Venezuela, less than half of the power of the state has so far passed from a pact of Venezuelan bourgeoisie/US imperialists to the working class.

The revolutionary leaders, the party, class, and masses reacted with poise to the bad news about Chavez’ medical condition. The revolutionary forces are confident that they will prevail in the Oct 7 presidential election with or without Hugo Chavez as their candidate.

Since so much depends of the contingent outcome of the surgery to be performed in Havana on Chavez, the planning for the presidential campaign should assume a similar contingent character. The campaign should make plans for all political operations with Chavez as one contingency and without Chavez as another contingency.

There is nothing disloyal about contingency planning.

If Chavez pulls through, that will be great. But if he is unable to run for re-election, then the revolutionary forces will still be ready to fight and win.

In the contingency that Chavez is unable to run for re-election, how will the PSUV candidate be chosen?
A selection by Chavez, a party convention and a primary election are the three main choices. In this very contingent situation, a primary election may be the best choice because the whole of the revolutionary forces, liberals, populists, social democrats, patriots, and socialists, etc., will be able to demonstrate their superior electoral ability by the magnitude of the turnout of voters in the revolutionary primary. In addition, Chavez can endorse whomever he wants in the primary election.

The reactionary primary on Feb. 12 used massive vote fraud to balloon the actual turnout of about 1.5 million voters to a fraudulent turnout of 3 million voters. The bourgeois media all over the world, especially the vile bourgeois media in the USA, were carried away with joy and delirium when Venezuelan reactionaries alleged their big lie about a 3 million turnout. These reactionaries burned 100% of the voter notebooks, important electoral documents related to the turnout, in violation of and in contempt for a court order issued by the supreme court of Venezuela.

The results of a revolutionary primary will exceed the actual reactionary turnout of 1.5 million and even exceed the fraudulent reactionary turnout on Feb. 12 of 3 million.

Most likely, all or most of the candidates in the revolutionary primary will be current cabinet ministers.
Again, if Chavez recovers, the campaign can continue with the existing plans.

Via http://inter.kke.gr/News/news2012/2012-02-16-metra/
.
A life of hell for the working class, for all the people who toil is being prepared by the black front of the coalition government-Troika-plutocracy. Their agreement on the measures which have been announced is only the precursor for infinitely worse measures, which they will bring with their “new agreement” by June 2012.

The new memorandum of impoverishment which was voted on 12.2 includes amongst other the following measures:

1. Salaries
Reduction of basic salaries by 22% (National General Collective Agreement-NGCA, sectoral and professional agreements).
The basic salary for the newly hired workers will be further reduced by 10%, besides the 22% reduction i.e. a reduction of 32%.
Abolition of sectoral bargaining agreements.
Freezing of wages till 2015.
Full time employment will be converted to part-time employment, upon the decision of the employers.
Automatic wage increases based on seniority are suspended till unemployment falls below 10% , in fact they are abolished.
Collective bargaining agreements will last for maximum three years.
All collective bargaining agreements which apply today will expire one year after the adoption of the new memorandum.
Review of the new NGCA by the end of July in order to align with the basic salary in rival countries (Portugal, Turkey, Central and Southeastern Europe).
Abolition of one-sided recourse to arbitration.

2. Pensions- social contributions
Reduction of pensions by 300 millions euro annually. The new cuts will affect both basic and auxiliary pensions.
Further cuts in basic pensions of several pension funds which will apply retrospectively from 1/1/2012.
Merging of all auxiliary pension funds by June 2012 and the beginning of s study “a sustainability factor that adjust benefits to promptly eliminate any future imbalances should they occur” which will lead to new cuts to auxiliary pensions as well as to retirement compensations.
2% reduction of the social contributions of the employers through the abolition of the contributions for the Workers’ Housing Organization and social benefits. The respective organizations will close down.
New reduction of the contributions that the employers pay for IKA (the biggest pension fund of private sector workers) from 1/1/2013 by 3%.

3. Employees in public sector- Former state-owned enterprises- Banks
Abolition of permanent employment in former state-owned enterprises and banks and reduction of salaries
New dismissals of 15.000 employees in public sector 2012, through “labour reserve”.
Reduction of employees in public sector, who work with temporary contracts, by means of not renewing contracts.
Cuts of 636 million Euros on the salaries of the employees in public sector who are paid according to special wage scale by the end of July 2012.
New cuts on the salaries in public sector by means of revising the wage scales.
Reduction of the number of public sector employees by 150,000 till 2015 and employment in line with the rule of 1recruitment for 5 exits.
Reduction of the overall intake in academies (military, police) that guarantee automatic employment in public sector.
Closure of public organizations and entities by June 2012

4. Additional measures in 2012
Reduction in the sector of healthcare and pharmaceutical spending by 1.1 billion Euros.
Cuts in a series of social benefits, by enacting criteria based on income.
Reduction of benefits for families with more than 3 children.
Reduction of operational and consumption spending of the state by 300 million Euros.
Cuts on several entities supervised by the ministries of Education and Culture by 200 million Euros.
Reduction of expenditure on the overtime of doctors in hospitals by 50 million Euros.
Reduction of Public Investment Programmes by 400 million Euros.
Reduction of expenditure on military equipment for the defense of the country.
A new tax system in June 2012 which will abolish a series of tax breaks which have remained for sections of the workers. Larger tax exemptions for big capital

The myths regarding the crisis must be rejected

This massacre of the working class-popular gains which are being implemented by the memorandum of 12/2/2012 as well as Memorandum 1 (2010) and the so-called Medium-term programme were not discovered now, they were clearly described from the Maastricht Treaty to the “Strategy for the Euro 2020” which were agreed on by all the governments in the EU before the crisis. The crisis is of the capitalist system itself and not of the debt as various bourgeois and opportunist claim. The capitalist crisis is the opportunity and pretext for the imposition of measures now which have been already scheduled and are necessary of the competitiveness and profitability of the European monopolies. These are reactionary measures which have as their urgent goal extremely cheap labour power and the mass eradication of small and medium-sized businesses. Without radical changes at the level of the economy and power, as long as the capitalist monopolies are dominant everywhere within the EU there cannot be a pro-people solution, as the opportunist forces, such as SYN/SYRIZA and the forces of the “European Left Party”(ELP). The various so-called pro-people funds, the utopian humanization of the ECB, the various loans which will again be paid for by the people either through Eurobonds or through renegotiation which is proposed by the ELP or through the separation of the debt into allegedly moral and odious debt which again means that the people will pay.

Such management proposals serve capitalist profitability and incriminate the people, so they must be rejected.

The response of the KKE and the class-oriented labour movement

The responsibility now lies with the people. It is necessary for the worst to be prevented. For this to be realized, the basic direction of the people’s movement must be the overthrow of capitalism. The only way out is the working class popular power with disengagement from the EU and unilateral cancellation of the debt. There is no other solution for the people.

In this course of intensifying class struggle, the overthrow of the government and elections will be a link in the class struggle and beneficial for the people, provided that they use it as a weapon to cause an even greater rupture in the political system. Now the question for the people and every worker, for the unemployed, the self-employed, the poor farmers, for young people and women who belong to the popular strata, for every individual is not just their liberation from the parties of the plutocracy, but their support for the KKE. In this way will the rupture be substantial.

Any other political choice does not frighten them, does not make life difficult for them, but facilitates a political solution which will come in succession so that the massacre of the people can be implemented. It will facilitate the promotion of new reserves for the bourgeois political system, possibly of new parties or party alliances, which will seek the most effective deception and subjugation of the people. Only the alliance with the KKE can serve the people’s interests, because a pro-people political line can exist only in people’s power. But this is not enough; today workers must not consider themselves merely as voters. They must be active, contribute to the unions on a daily basis, to the struggle committees in the workplaces, to the people’s committees concerning every problem of the people so that the anti-people offensive meets a practical answer till the final confrontation for power.

e-mail: cpg@int.kke.gr

By Arthur Shaw

“After three years of governing – fulfilling some promises and breaking others – the word “change” is a tricky brand for the president to espouse,” reported Reuters, the second largest bourgeois media outlet in the world. http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-slogan-looking-replace-hope-change-060705685.html

“Change” was truly a great campaign theme for Obama in 2008.

But today, Obama’s first-term record of “fulfilling some promises and breaking others” doesn’t sound like change any more. Rather, this “fulfilling some promises and breaking others” sounds like the same old thing the voters had before Obama.

Reuters says Obama fulfilled some of his promises. Were these the promises Obama made mostly to the Capitalists, Wall Street, and the rich? Were the promises he broke the ones Obama made mostly to the working class and middle class?

When Reuters writes “the word ‘change’ is a tricky brand for the president to espouse,” it seems to be warning or advising the president not to use “change” … again … because, on one hand, liberal and independent voters are more likely to remember the promises Obama broke than the promises he fulfilled. On the other hand, reactionary voters are more likely to remember the promises which the reactionary forces allowed Obama to fulfill in order to make the Capitalists happy. But reactionaries will never see Obama as a conservative. The reactionaries, at most, see him only as a sometime or inconsistent copy of a conservative.

The theme is an important part of a campaign. Here’s how the Democratic National Committee estimates the importance of the theme in the DNC’s celebrated “Campaign Manager’s Manual” used by some elements of the Democratic Party:

The theme is a positive statement about the kind of leadership a candidate brings
to the issues and the concerns of the voters. The success of a campaign hinges on
developing the right theme and projecting that theme through every available means
to the voters. In designing the theme, the key question to ask is: How do we touch
or move our targeted voters? A campaign should address the issues of concern to
the voters, not solely the interests of the candidate or campaign staff. You must
understand what will motivate voters before developing a theme.

It may be hard for the Obama campaign to satisfy the requirements, stated in the celebrated Manual, for a theme.

For example, one of the Manual’s requirements for a theme is “A campaign should address the issues of concern to the voters, not solely the interests of the candidate or campaign staff.” The issue of most concern to many liberal and independent voters may be: Can liberals trust Obama? But a theme that addresses this issue only reminds voters of a perceived weakness of Obama.

In other words, it’s not the type of thing a campaign wants as its theme. After all, a theme usually underlines the strength of a candidate.

Reuters reports the Obama campaign is secretly going around, all over the country, testing possible themes on targeted audiences.

So far, none of the possible themes turned targeted audiences on.

Indeed, most of the tested themes turned targeted audiences off.

Perhaps President Obama’s campaign staff would be well served to test some campaign themes which are relevant to the interests of working people.

by Arthur Shaw

In the ongoing presidential races in the USA and Venezuela, we see in both instances an emerging paradox between the original and the copy.

In the USA, the GOP presidential primaries pose the question of which one of the candidates is the original reactionary and which ones are copies. Each of the GOP candidates declares himself or herself to be the original reactionary and each claims all of her or his opponents are phonies or copies.

In the USA, it is possible that all four of the remaining GOP candidates … Santorum, Paul, Romney, and Gingrich … are original reactionaries.

The paradox between the original reactionary and the copycat will likely emerge in the general election between Obama and whoever is his GOP opponent.

Many US liberals suspect Obama to be at least a copycat reactionary and some liberals believe Obama is a lot worse than a copycat. These suspicions that Obama is a reactionary copy may significantly influence the liberal and independent turnout for Obama in 2012, as these suspicions influenced the 2010 turnout in the legislative elections.

To further split the reactionary sector of the US electorate, Obama may suggest through super-PACs that he is the original reactionary because he can use his undeserved credibility as a liberal to sell reactionary programs and ideas to liberal and independent forces who will likely resist more forcefully the same programs and ideas if they were presented by flaming reactionaries. This possibility has not been overlooked by many outlets of the bourgeois media in the USA, which are slobbering over super-PAC funds.

Whether Obama comes off as reactionary copy or original or as a liberal copy, he may face a serious problem in terms of the turnout of voters in November because many liberals and independents don’t trust him.

In Venezuela, the race between Pres. Hugo Chavez and reactionary Henrique Capriles Radonski is more tricky.

The question is not who is the original reactionary but rather who is the original revolutionary.

Yes, believe it or not, Capriles Radonski, a full blown, shameless, and flaming reactionary for over 10 years, now impersonates a revolutionary or, to use Capriles Radonski’s own preferred term, a “progressive.”

Can Capriles Radonski pull off this farce?

Clearly, Capriles Radonski, the bourgeois regime in Washington DC under Obama, and the world capitalist media smugly assume that Capriles can and will pull it off.

Let’s first look abstractly at the paradox from the point of view of the copy.

The copy can argue the original is good or bad.

If the copy, on one hand, argues the original is good, then the copy seems to strengthen its opponent, because the opponent is the original. If, on the other hand, the copy argues the original is bad, then the copy makes itself inexplicable. After all, if the original is bad, why copy it? So, in the end, the copy will either strengthen its opponent or render itself inexplicable.

Now, let’s look more concretely at the paradox, also from the point of view of the copy.

“Speaking at the graduation of 1,215 community doctors yesterday in Caracas, Chavez stated that Radonski ‘has some advisors that have told him [Radonski] not to confront me [Hugo Chavez], but that’s going to be impossible…’ ” a largely working class newspaper reported recently. http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/6815

Will Capriles Radonski’s refusal to confront the original … that is, his refusal to confront Hugo Chavez … be seen by “some advisors” as Capriles Radonski’s affirmation that the original is good or bad or both or neither?

It seems to mean that “some advisors” of Capriles Radonski go for “neither.” But “some advisors” implies the existence of other advisors of Capriles Radonski who believe “neither” is nonsense.

It’s really too early in the race in Venezuela. So we must hesitate to guess boldly about things.

But most likely, Hugo Chavez is right when he hints “neither” is impossible because “neither ” negates the
presupposition for Capriles Radonski choosing to be a copy in the first place.

In other words, Chavez will compel the copy to say whether the original is good or bad.

Check out this video by David Rovics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBdYlvSQ2mA&feature=youtu.be

By Arthur Shaw

Over 60 percent of the Venezuelan people support socialism as a system that guarantees economic development, said Juan Scorza, director of the International Consulting Services (ICS).

The ICS carried out an opinion poll on the preferred economic system on January 23 among 1,200 people in major Venezuelan cities. ICS is a well-known liberal bourgeois research firm which often finds in favor of the revolutionary government and Pres. Hugo Chavez. Since there have been 15 major elections during the 14-year existence of the revolutionary government headed by Hugo Chavez, ICS is usually correct in its research findings, given the fact that the revolutionary forces and Hugo Chavez have won all but one of the 15 major electoral contests.

The ICS study also found only 21% of the Venezuelan people prefer capitalism. The Venezuelan reactionaries… who like to call themselves the “opposition” … may feel uneasy about this 21% popularity of capitalism, because this 21% implies that about half of Venezuelan reactionaries now have qualms about capitalism since reactionaries traditionally own about 40% of the Venezuelan electorate. The revolutionary forces should make “socialism or capitalism” a key issue in the October presidential election this year. That is, whether Venezuela will continue on its socialist path or will the country veer off course toward capitalism.

The ICS study found that an astonishing 80% of the Venezuelan people support “the missions.” The “missions” are social programs in health care, nutrition, education, housing, etc. that by-pass the government bureaucracy in their administration. Much of the government bureaucracy is infested with treacherous, corrupt, and incompetent middle class and bourgeois elements. In the main, competent left wing political forces … namely, anarchists, liberals, populists, progressives, and socialists, etc. … administer “the missions.”

Given the 20 point difference in popularity between socialism (at 60%) and “the missions” (80%), the Venezuelan people may believe the more popular “missions” are entities relatively independent of socialism. If so, the revolutionary forces must make the preservation or the destruction of “the missions” another key issue in the October presidential election. That is, whether Venezuela will keep or lose “the missions.”

Check out this link to a study guide for Marx’ Capital from the UK:

http://www.northdevoncommunists.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=32:karl-marx-capital-any-edition&catid=2:book-reviews&Itemid=4