Is that site really Chavezian?

Note: I agree with you re. charisma. My role model for “charisma” is more along the lines of Oskar Lafontaine, combining charisma with the projection of an uncle persona.

The Fifth International is more along the lines of a “mass” party than a “vanguard” party, but back in the early 20th-century the two were identical (Lars Lih’s work on WITBD and emulating the SPD model).

This doesn’t change the point, therefore, that simply having the odd brilliant leader – and folksy charm is part of good oratory, ask the ancient Greeks – will not of itself raise the consciousness of workers. The proposed Fifth International must be assessed on its platform, and if it intends to be an International – an organisation of the most advanced layer of the working class in all countries – then this must be water tight.

Since it has Chavez himself as a motive force, I doubt it will be – and this is what I express above.

Education, by the way, doesn’t come through so-called “struggle.” That line of thinking which has predominated the left makes a fetish of action, action, action, and hasn’t done much to raise the theoretical level of workers in general. Education comes more through “schoolmastery” (not repeating the same mistakes from past episodes in organized labour’s history, for example).

In those circumstances it’s possible for agitation to have an effect, but a conviction that is not hard won is easily lost. Oratory will not prepare people to act as organizers and strike leaders, or to fulfil the other tactical roles required for actually winning some battles against the ruling class.

All the stuff about Kautsky and anarchistic “single-issue politics” is irrelevant to what I’m saying.

My approach towards the proposed FSI is the same as towards the PSUV, especially if the likes of the Honduran Liberals, the Mexican PRI, other parties more conducive to mere “anti-imperialist” solidarity, and ruling parties like the CPC are excluded. Based on such exclusion, I wouldn’t mind if Die Linke or the “Eurocommunist” Japanese Communist Party joined.

Michael Albert and his pareconists are aggressive in pushing for a “Participatory Socialist International,” and I wrote an article critiquing him and Chavez (if you’re interested via e-mail).

“Patient work by socialists of and amongst the working class will produce socialist cadres; they will not be commanded into existence by even the most gifted of Generals.”

You underestimate the subjective role of charisma. “Patient work” in the Kautskyan sense has been twisted the past decade or more to mean anarchistic single-issue politics, direct actions labelled as “battles” (Seattle), and pathetic discussion fora (World Social Forums).

At any rate, what’s being discussed isn’t the PSUV, which clearly has mass support and which all revolutionaries should work inside, with a critical stance towards the leadership. This is what a lot of Marxist groups have been doing, some belatedly, others not so much.

We’re discussing a Fifth International – and I think it’s perfectly legitimate to query who’s calling it together, and what forces it proposes to represent, and with what programme it convenes. There will be a time for a Fifth International – but I think the final paragraph of the above article makes very clear why I don’t think this is it.

Is my crime, in your eyes, not rather that I’m prepared to criticize Chavez?