Hugo Chávez and Socialism

A contribution to the international debate

Tony Saunois, CWI, London

This is an abridged version, translated for our Chinese readers. The full version of Hugo Chávez and Socialism is available at socialistworld.net

The coming to power of Hugo Chávez, in 1998, opened a new chapter in the class struggle in Latin America and internationally. His election victory was a by-product of a mass rejection of neo-liberalism and a demand for an end of the corrupt two party oligarchies which had ruled Venezuela for decades.
From an international perspective, as the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI) noted at the time, the election of Chávez was also extremely significant. From the 1990s, it was the first government to come to power that was not prepared to tamely bend the knee to the demands of US imperialism and apply neo-liberal policies.

Initially, Chávez spoke of a ‘Bolivarian revolution’ a ‘third way’ a system that was more ‘humane’ and ‘democratic’. At the time he did not speak of socialism. Yet nine years later, as a consequence of a series of clashes between the revolution and counter revolution in the form of the attempted coup in 2002, the bosses lock out in 2002-3, a recall referendum campaign in 2003 and numerous elections and struggles the issue of socialism has been put back on the political agenda. Venezuela is now declared a ‘Bolivarian Socialist Republic’ and the building ‘Socialism in the 21st century’ is the stated objective of Chávez and his regime.

The government has introduced a series of significant reforms to help the most oppressed and downtrodden. These have been paid for by the bonanza in revenue which the state has procured from the rising price of oil. The most profound reform has been made in the provision of health care. The government also provided access to subsidised food items. Reportedly, 15,726 food stores selling subsidized food have been established. Overall the central government’s central spending has massively increased from 8.2% of GDP in 1998 to 13.6% in 2006. If the social spending by the state oil company, PVDSA, is included, the figure increases to 20% of GDP. In other words, social spending per person has increased by 170% between 1998-2006. As a result of these reforms and the growth in the economy, overall poverty has been reduced from its peak of 55.1% in 2003 to 30.4% at the end of 2006.

International debate and discussion

The stormy events in Venezuela have aroused tremendous interest amongst socialists and workers internationally. All socialists have a responsibility to express in words and deeds solidarity with the Venezuelan workers and youth especially when they are threatened with attacks by imperialism and counter revolution. But genuine internationalism also includes an exchange of ideas and experiences of the workers struggle in different countries. Through such an interchange of experiences it will be possible to assist the Venezuelan workers find the right road to defeat capitalism and counter revolution. This does not mean those outside Venezuela arrogantly giving lectures about what is necessary. The CWI has never adopted this approach. Genuine dialogue, however, can assist workers in all countries reach the right conclusions regarding the programme, tasks, methods and actions necessary to carry through a successful socialist revolution.

Marxists welcome every positive step forward in the struggle in Venezuela. At the same time, especially when dealing with crucial issues of revolution and counter revolution, it is necessary to recognize deficiencies and weakness in the programme and methods that are put forward by the leaders. These can become obstacles for the socialist revolution. If this is not done, then such weakness can open the way for set backs, defeats and the victory of the counter revolution. More favorable conditions than those which currently exist in Venezuela and Bolivia have been lost because of a failure to resolve such weaknesses.

The magnificent Spanish revolution between 1931-7 – during which the working class and peasants controlled four fifths of Spain – was lost to the fascist forces of Franco. This was not due to the lack of determination or heroism by the Spanish workers who displayed enough courage and initiative to make ten revolutions. It was lost because crucial questions of programme, organization and the building of a mass revolutionary party were not resolved. It is necessary to propose what concrete steps are needed in programme, method and action to take the revolution forward.

Unfortunately, some who subscribe to Marxism, for example, the comrades of the International Marxist Tendency, (whose ideas we commented on in ‘Revolutionary Socialists and the Venezuelan revolution’, produced by the CWI in 2004) and others, regard such criticism as “carping sectarianism from the side lines”. Trotsky was also criticized in a similar vein for his warnings, comments and analysis during the Spanish Civil war. It is wrong for Marxists to regard such a discussion as “sectarian” or portray it as “carping criticism”.

Marxism is the science of perspectives and, therefore, helps to prepare the working class for the struggles it will have to face against the ruling class. Has the IMT fulfilled this role in the analysis they have put forward? It has not done this. In some countries the IMT’s activity has focused on solidarity for Venezuela but, while praising Chávez, which it is necessary to do when he has taken a positive step in the interests of the working class, the IMT have failed to put forward sufficient warnings and criticism of his political mistakes and deficiencies.

Poverty and economic growth

Against the background of vicious attacks on the working class by governments throughout Latin America and internationally, it is understandable that Chávez, and now Morales, have won enormous sympathy from workers and youth, internationally. Together with Cuba, and now possibly Ecuador, they are seen as the only governments to stand up to US imperialism and offer a left, radical alternative to neo-liberalism. However, at the same time, massive poverty remains in Venezuela – over 30% of the population. While health, education and food subsidies have helped millions, there is a massive crisis in infrastructure. The mass of the population in Caracas remain trapped in squalid housing conditions in the ‘barrios’ on hill tops overlooking the city. Unemployment has fallen – from 15% in 1999 – but it still remains relatively high at 8.3%. This is despite the economy having grown by 76%, since 2003.

It is not possible to resolve these massive social problems, which still remain, despite the reform programme, within the confines of capitalism. The reforms have been mainly financed by the massive growth in government revenue that has resulted from the high price of oil. Half of government revenue now comes from oil. This means that Venezuela is still held in the economic straight-jacket, like most economies in the neo-colonial world, of being dependent on a limited commodity to export. Under capitalism it is not possible to fully develop these economies to overcome this limitation because of the grip of imperialism and dominance of the world market.

The dependence on oil poses the question what would be the consequence of a change in world economic situation which triggered a fall in the price of oil? This would have potentially devastating effects in Venezuela. In addition to these threats to the reforms that have been introduced, are the constant attempts at sabotage of the economy by the capitalist class as a means of trying to undermine support for Chávez. There are regular shortages of beef, sugar, corn, eggs, oil, chicken and sometimes coffee.

Despite the economic growth it is clear that widespread poverty remains, along with all the other social problems, like social alienation, found in capitalist society. This is reflected in the high levels of crime and violence in Caracas and the other major cities. The main reason for this is the continuation of capitalism and the failure, so far, to defeat it. The popular reforms Chávez introduced, and his other radical policies, have brought him into collision with the interests of capitalism. Here is the classic contradiction of reformism. The crucial question is what programme and organization is necessary to resolve this clash of class interests.

Chávez’s contradictions

Jorge Martin of the IMT, like many other commentators on Venezuela, now goes some way in recognizing some of the contradictions now emerging in Venezuela under Chávez. Martin argues, “Chávez clearly reflected this [the contradictions in the economy] when he threatened nationalization of the banks and the Argentine owned SIDOR steel works.”

Chávez may have reflected the contradiction which exists when he threatened nationalization of the banks. Yet this was not carried out and Chávez continues to preside over what is still fundamentally a capitalist economy despite his proclamations supporting socialism. Marxists always adopt a positive attitude and welcome progressive steps forward taken by the working class which advance its interests. But the role of Marxists is not to provide a left cover for the wrong policies, deficiencies and prevarications of the leadership of the movement. It is to help workers and youth involved in the struggle to find a way forward for the revolution and break through contradictions and obstacles that exist. Above all, it is necessary to assist workers to build their own independent organizations, with a programme to achieve a successful revolution. This is not the approach of the International Marxist Tendency. Rather, the IMT tries to act as benevolent advisers to the Chávez leadership, neglecting the reality of what happens on the ground.

In his document, Jorge Martin, when dealing with the ‘nationalisations’ that Chávez has undertaken, argues: “Some people have argued that these are not real nationalizations because they have been carried out with compensation.” Jorge Martin continues: “However, if we want to understand the real meaning of these nationalizations, we have to look at how the workers and the capitalists have reacted to them”. He then explains that the workers’ welcomed them, set up a ‘Socialist Batallion’ of the newly formed PSUV and demanded workers’ control. This positive reaction by the workers concerned is very significant. The enthusiastic response from the workers, however, reflects more what they thought they were getting rather than what was actually on offer.

The capitalists reacted by reducing foreign direct investment by US$1,050 million in the first quarter of 2007. Undoubtedly this reflected the fear of imperialism of the processes unfolding in Venezuela. Yet, however significant the reaction of the workers and capitalists are, they do not explain the limitations of what Chávez has actually done.

The question of nationalization

Marxists support nationalization of the major companies. The imperialists and big national capitalists who have robbed and plundered Venezuela at the expense of the mass of the population do not need or deserve compensation. At the same time, if there are small share holders, sections of the middle class who have some savings, the working class has no interest in punishing them. Democratic committees, representing the workers in the companies, the poor and the population, as a whole, including small business people and the middle class, should be elected to investigate all claims for compensation, which should be paid on the basis of proven need. With a genuine revolutionary socialist programme, the workers’ movement needs to take all the necessary steps to try and split the middle class, and not drive it into the arms of the counter revolution. The real enemies are the big share holders, capitalists and imperialists.

However, the question posed with the ‘nationalizations’ in Venezuela is that the major monopolies and banks have not been touched and there is no democratically planned nationalized economy. It is [also] necessary to clearly raise the question of how nationalized industries should be run and managed democratically, by and in the interests of the working class. The demand for workers’ control in the industries concerned has been an important discussion in Venezuela. The need for elected committees in the workplaces, to be responsible for the day-to-day functioning of factories, is an urgent task. These committees need to be elected by the workers themselves, receive no special privileges and with the delegates to them subject to immediate recall. This is distinct from the government and union appointed bodies which have been set up in Venezuela.

There needs to be a system of democratic workers’ management in the nationalized companies. The boards of such companies should be comprised of elected representatives of the workers in the industry, the wider population, and representatives of a workers’ and peasants government to integrate the industry into the overall planning of the economy. Such a system of democratic workers’ management is distinct from workers’ control, which applies to the day-to-day running of workplaces, and can also be fought for in private companies, to act as a school to prepare workers to manage industry and the economy as a whole, when capitalism has been defeated.

It is necessary to distinguish between phrases and deeds. What Chávez has done is to re-nationalise the telecommunications and some electricity generating companies. While this is a welcome step, it is not enough. As the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) points out in its report, ‘The Venezuelan Economy in the Chávez Years’ (July 2007) “The recently nationalized companies were compensated fully for their assets…”.

The CEPR also point out that 80% the electricity generating companies nationalized were already, in fact, owned by the state. In the Orinoco oil basin, the government increased the amount of tax revenue paid by the private sector. In essence, it has re-negotiated joint ventures which have limited the amount of assets foreign companies can hold.

Venezuela is one of the only major oil producing countries in the developing world that allows foreign investment in oil production! Even US allies such as Mexico and Saudi Arabia, for example, do not!
The programme that has, so far, been introduced by Chávez has many of the features of Keynesian reformism that were introduced in many countries during the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s. As a friend of the Chávez regime, Tariq Ali explained in his book, ‘Pirates of the Caribbean – Axis of Hope’: “New Bolivarianism combines continental nationalism and social-democratic reforms fuelled by oil revenues.”

Keynesianism and reformism

In these cases, through an increase in state expenditure and state intervention in the economy, a series of reforms were introduced which benefited the working class. This was used to justify the idea of a reformist road to socialism – of incremental steps encroaching on capitalism until it was eventually replaced by socialism. The capitalist class has never permitted such a development without directly intervening to defend its interests and its system. During periods when its interests are decisively threatened, the ruling class will attempt the bloody crushing of the working class through a military coup, like in Chile in 1973. During the 1930s, in a different historical period, the bosses looked to fascism to save their system, as they did in Hitler’s Germany and in Franco’s Spain, for example.

Venezuela is in a somewhat unique situation, in that very few left radical regimes which have come to power in the neo-colonial world have had such an oil bonanza to pay for reforms. This has given Chávez a certain room to maneuver and to maintain his base of support. Without the oil, if he had not defeated capitalism and established a nationalized planned economy, it is unlikely his regime would have been able to maintain itself in power. The impending onset of a downturn or recession in the world economy is likely to trigger a fall in the price of oil, as demand falls. Such developments have happened before in Venezuela. The left of centre nationalist populist Carlos Andrés Perez government was able to introduce some significant social reforms between 1974-79 using revenue from oil. However, all of these social reforms were brutally destroyed and reversed in the 1980’s, as a major economic recession gripped Venezuela.

The frustration and anger amongst some sections of the workers, urban poor and peasants today, during a period of economic growth, would be greatly re-enforced in such a situation. Chávez, having already been in power for nine years, in that situation, could see deep disappointment affecting large layers of the masses. These developments would be an even more fertile ground for reaction to re-group its forces. This could possibly take place in a similar way to how the Sandinista FSLN was voted out of office when the pro-imperialist right won elections in 1989, following frustration, disappointment and exhaustion at the failure of the revolution in Nicaragua to go forward and overthrow capitalism. Now Daniel Ortega has been returned to power in Nicaragua having made his peace with capitalism and Catholic Church, and scandalously agreed to abortion being completely illegal.

Chávez, Trotsky and populist trends

The latest speeches of Chávez, supporting socialism, and referring to Trotsky, represent a very important change and a welcome step forward; but it also important for Marxists to distinguish between words and deeds. Chávez is not the first leader to defend Trotsky in words but then fail to apply his method and ideas in practice. In Spain in the 1930s, Andrés Nin adhered to Trotskyism, for a period, but later broke with Trotsky when he helped found the POUM (Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification) in 1935. Nevertheless Nin and his party were still dubbed ‘Trotskyist’ but, against Trotsky’s advice, they joined the pro-capitalist Popular Front Government in Catalonia in 1936.

More recently Miguel Rossetto, in 2003, a member of the United Secretariat of the Fourth International at the time, which subscribes to Trotskyism, joined president Lula’s neo-liberal Brazilan government as Minister of Land Reform. When Chavez came to power he had many of the features of a radical, populist nationalist. Now he is defending, in very radical speeches a more classic version of reformist socialism.

The left radical, nationalist populist trend which Chávez reflected has a strong tradition in Latin America, although it can also be seen in other continents, as well. Populism, by its nature has many features and can be of both a left and right variety. However, the radical left populist forces in Latin America today have generally developed where the independent organizations of the working class that defend socialist ideas are weaker. The leaders of these movements reflect the anguish of the masses but limit the programme to reforms within capitalism. They generally have not emerged from the independent organizations or parties of the working class but from the military or radical left petty bourgeois parties. Since Chávez came to power on a radical nationalist populist basis he has verbally gone further to the left and defended the idea of socialism and more classic ideas of reformist socialism.

A parallel economy

What Chávez is attempting to do is to try and construct a ‘parallel’ economy and state, alongside the existing capitalist monopolies and state machine. Under certain conditions, for example, where a situation of ‘dual power’ exists, it may be possible for such a ‘parallel’ economy to temporarily develop and make some advances. ‘Dual power’ is the term given by Marxists to a situation where the ruling capitalist class is not fully in control of the economy or state because it is being challenged by a revolutionary movement of the working class which has developed to such a degree that the ruling class cannot govern society. In a situation of dual power, although it has challenged the rule of the capitalism, the movement of the working class has not yet taken power completely into its hands and defeated the ruling class. Such a situation cannot last indefinitely and will either result in the working class taking power or the capitalists will reassert their control over the economy and the state machine. However, this is not yet the situation which exists in Venezuela.

Despite his verbal threats to nationalize the banks and some other industries, Chávez has not done this. For example, the subsidized state supermarkets (Mercal) run in tandem to the private food chains. Chávez is also trying to strengthen his support within the armed forces to use it as instrument in the “service of the people.”

The capitalist class will fight to the bitter end to try and prevent the state sector becoming gradually strengthened, until it ‘overtakes’ and replaces the economic and state levers of capitalist power. In the 1930’s, when the social basis existed for it, the ruling class turned to fascism in Spain, Italy and Germany. Today, the ruling class will be prepared to resort to brutal military dictatorships.

Permanent Revolution

Chávez has said that he supports Trotsky’s Theory of the Permanent Revolution. The Theory of the Permanent Revolution explains that historically the tasks of the bourgeois revolution – the solution of the land question, development of industry, a solution to the national question, securing of national independence and establishing a parliamentary democracy – were carried through by the national bourgeoisie. This was accomplished during the bourgeois revolutions, mainly in the 17th and 18th centuries, in Europe, which swept away feudalism. However, in the modern epoch of imperialism, in the neo-colonial countries where the tasks of the bourgeois revolutions remain to be completed, they cannot be accomplished by the national capitalist class. They are too weak and corrupt, and remain shackled to imperialism.

The experience of the 1917 Russian Revolution showed that the resolution of these tasks falls to the working class in the neo-colonial countries, with the support of the poor peasants, radical sections of the middle class and others exploited by capitalism and landlordism. However, having taken power, the working class immediately comes into collision with capitalism and landlordism. Overthrowing capitalism and landlordism, and establishing a nationalized and democratically planned economy, is the only way to develop the productive forces. To achieve this, and to begin the task of developing the resources necessary to begin to build socialism, becomes wholly interlinked with spreading the socialist revolution internationally, including to the industrialized imperialist countries.

However, the idea of the ‘permanent revolution’ can also be wrongly used and totally distorted to justify a policy of incremental steps being taken – one at a time, little by little, until eventually capitalism disappears and “grows” over to socialism. In that sense, it is claimed the revolution is “permanent”. During the Spanish civil war [1936-37], the Stalinists counterposed to the ideas of the permanent revolution the ‘stages theory’ of first defeating the fascists, then developing capitalism, and only when these tasks had been achieved could the socialist revolution be posed.

It is extremely positive that Chávez has put the idea of the permanent revolution on the political agenda in Venezuela. The crucial question is how it is understood and applied. Jorge Martin of the IMT favorably quotes Chavez, when he invited the ruling class to participate in developing the national economy. If they refuse Chávez warned: “We will take away the levers of power that they have, one by one”. [My emphasis – TS].

Martin concedes that the Venezuelan state is still “in the main, a capitalist state apparatus” and if “it remains untouched it will become a tool for smashing the revolution”. But it is already being used to attack workers who have been involved in struggle. More than 5,000 petrol workers at Anzoátegui have been involved in strike action during September this year. These workers continued to work during the bosses lock-out in 2002-3. At one demonstration, the police were turned on the marches and opened fire with live ammunition, wounding three workers. Health workers who occupied the Ministry of Labour were subject to a vicious attack and locked in the government building by thugs and denied food and water for days. These, and other attacks on workers involved in struggle, reflect a section of the state machine that still supports the right-wing reaction and also a layer of Chávez’s regime who are opposed to the working class undertaking any struggles to defend their class interests.

Is Jorge Martin arguing that capitalism can be overthrown by taking away the capitalists’ levers of power “one by one”? The experience of Venezuela has already shown that the capitalists would seriously fight such an attempt at carrying through a revolution by incremental steps. The history of the international workers’ movements is tragically littered with failed attempts to achieve socialism in this way.

Lessons of the Portuguese Revolution

The developments in the Venezuelan state machine, and especially the army, are of crucial importance. The army has increasingly been incorporated into government and the running of society. Of the 61 ministers that have served in the Chávez government between 1999 and 2004, 16 (or 26%) were military officers. Following the 2004 regional elections, of the country’s 24 governors, 22 were supporters of Chávez. Of these, 41% come from a military background. Chávez has an important base of support in the army but these forces are not homogeneous. Despite the radicalized layer which exists amongst the junior officers, the process of radicalization has not gone anywhere like as far as it did in Portugal from 1974-75.

Following the April 1974 overthrow of the Caetano dictatorship in Portugal by the junior army officers, the masses moved into struggle and a revolutionary process began to unfold. Reaction made repeated efforts to halt this and on 11th March 1975 a group of reactionary army officers attempted a coup. This provoked a massive social explosion and revolutionary ferment. In response, the workers took to the streets and factories and banks were occupied. The coup collapsed and not a single regiment could be found to act for the counter revolution.

By then the MFA (Armed Forces Movement), a radical organization of army officers that had led the April 1974 uprising, issued a declaration saying the revolution is a “transition to socialism”. Seventy per cent of the economy was nationalized. The London ‘Times’ carried an article with the headline: “Capitalism is dead in Portugal”. It almost was. However, because it was not snuffed out, capitalism was able to regroup and make a come back. This was done through the agency of the Socialist Party which had begun to turn to the right and was being advised by Germany’s Social Democratic Party, which in turn was acting as a conduit for the American CIA.
.
The Cuban revolution

Jorge Martin then goes on to ponder what type of regime would be established if Chávez were to go all the way and overthrow capitalism and landlordism. “It would be wrong to think” he says, “that the abolition of capitalism in this way [Chavez taking away the capitalist levers of power one by one] would lead to the creation of a Stalinist regime like the ones that existed in the Soviet Union or East Germany”.
The overthrow of capitalism would undoubtedly represent a huge step forward. But how it was done and by which class would be important in determining the character of the regime that would emerge and the attitude Marxists and the working class would need to adopt towards it.

This raises one of the most important questions: The question of the conscious and independent organization of the working class, and its ability to put itself at the leadership of the socialist revolution. It is the working class, because of its collective consciousness and role in production, which can play the leading role in overthrowing capitalism and lay the foundations to build socialism through the establishment of a democratic workers’ state. Without this collective, democratic check, even genuine forces coming from radicalized sectors of the army, or guerilla organizations, invariably adopt a top down approach. They often want the support of the masses but do not want the working class leading the movement.

This outlook has been clearly expressed by Chávez in the past. The British writer Richard Gott (who is very supportive of Chávez) in his book, ‘In the Shadow of the Liberator’, gives a revealing account of a meeting which took place involving Chávez prior to the failed coup he led in 1992. The question of involving civilians and calling a general strike in the attempt to remove the old right-wing corrupt government was discussed. Chávez, according to one participant, intervened bluntly, stating: “Civilians get in the way”.

The experience of the Cuban revolution (omitted by Jorge Martin) has important lessons for Venezuela. The abolition of capitalism and landlordism in Cuba represented an enormous step forward. The gains of the revolution, in the form of the planned economy, a free health care system, abolition of illiteracy and other social gains, are defended and supported by all socialists and the CWI.

The regime which took power, with Fidel Castro at its head, was tremendously popular and enjoyed mass support. During and following the revolution, there was an explosion of revolutionary ferment. The government established popular committees, Committees for the Defence of the Revolution – CDR’s. In these, large numbers of workers initially participated. There were even elements of workers’ control in the factories in relation to the day to day functioning of the managers and production.

At the same time, there were also important weaknesses. While the masses enthusiastically supported the revolution, it had not been led by a politically conscious movement of the working class. Because of a combination of factors, it was the guerrilla movement, under the leadership of Castro’s ‘July 26th Movement’, which led the revolution. The working class played an auxiliary role and only moved into struggle in an unorganized way, once the guerrilla war was won. This was to have crucial consequences for the character of the regime which was established. It was enormously popular but it was not a regime of workers’ democracy. From the beginning, it was a bureaucratic regime which ruled from the top down. The CDRs, in effect, became transmission belts for the decisions of the regime. The crucial element of democratic workers’ democracy was absent and deprived the planned economy of the oxygen it needs to fully develop.

It did not take the same horrific form of the grotesque dictatorships that developed in the former Soviet Union or were imposed in Eastern Europe. But a bureaucratic caste came to power and there was not real workers’ democracy. Should Chávez eventually move to overthrow capitalism, without the conscious leadership and organization of the working class and the establishment of a workers’ democracy, a bureaucratic regime would inevitably be the result. This is a crucial element in the process now unfolding in Venezuela.

Jorge Martin writes that the re-negotiated contracts and joint ventures in the Orinoco basin in Venezuela have “strong resemblances to the way the Cuban revolution proceeded in the first two or three years”. This is an overestimation of both the rhythm and stage of development of the struggle in Venezuela. The Cuban revolution developed much more rapidly when Castro took power. This followed a US decision to slash sugar imports in response to the land reform being enacted in Cuba and the nationalization of foreign petrol companies in June 1960. Oil had been imported from Russia but the US companies in Cuba refused to refine it. The Cuban government appointed administrators to all refineries owned by Texaco, Esso and Shell and then nationalized them. When sugar imports were cut by the US, Castro immediately nationalized all foreign assets. In October, 383 large Cuban industries were nationalized, along with the banks, and capitalism was stuffed out in less than a year.

In Venezuela, the processes are drawn out over a much more protracted time scale and have not yet gone as far. Only a handful of companies have actually been nationalized in Venezuela. Although capitalism has not been overthrown in Venezuela, there is already the emergence of strong bureaucratic elements within the Bolivarian movement and the state machine. This is a reflection of an important weakness which still remains in the movement. The absence of a strong, conscious, independent, organised movement of the working class and the lack of a genuine mass revolutionary socialist party and leadership.

Independent organization of the working class

If the socialist revolution is to be carried through in Venezuela, and a genuine workers’ and peasants’ democracy established, these obstacles need to be overcome. These complications arise from two important factors, both international and national. Firstly, they reflect the setback of political consciousness and organisation of the workers’ movement internationally, following the collapse of the bureaucratic dictatorships in 1989-92.

The regimes in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union were based on a nationalized planned economy, which despite the monstrous nature of the regimes that ruled in the name of ‘socialism’, strengthened the idea that a socialist alternative to capitalism is possible. The collapse of these regimes provided the opportunity for the ruling class internationally to launch an ideological offensive against the idea of socialism and class struggle. The old workers’ parties embraced capitalism and were transformed into openly capitalist political parties. The lack of a powerful socialist alternative to combat these ideas allowed the political consciousness and organization of the working class to be thrown back. The new wave of struggle in Latin America represents the first important steps of a new generation of workers and youth to overcome these setbacks.

Secondly, the question of the traditions of the working class in each country is very important. In Latin America, there are broadly two main traditions in the workers’ movement. In countries like Chile, Bolivia, and Brazil, the workers’ movement succeeded in building its own independent political organizations.

Alternatively, there is a tradition of left, radical, populist nationalist movements, led by sections of the bourgeoisie or petty bourgeoisie, often from a military tradition. These were particularly powerful in countries like Peru, Argentina, and also Venezuela. This can often result in the mass movement looking towards ‘the leader’, the ‘caudillo’, to introduce social and economic reforms from above rather than through the organization of a conscious movement from below.

In Venezuela, the masses at specific conjunctures have entered the arena of struggle – in a spontaneous way from below, when the threat of counter revolution was posed. For example, at the time of the coup in 2002, the bosses lock out 2002-3, the attempt to remove Chávez through the re-call referendum in 2004. More recently, in the Presidential election in 2006, when in the first stages it seemed there was a serious threat from the right wing. Following each movement, which were spontaneous and from below, and not as a result of the leadership, a political radicalization took place.

All revolutions have there own rythm and tempo passing through different ebbs and flows. The 1917 Russian Revolution passed through the February revolution, the period of reaction during the July days, and other important phases, before the working class took power in October. This was possible because of correct and accurate assessment of the mood and consciousness of the working class and masses at each stage by the Bolshevik party and, in particular, the crucial role played by Lenin and Trotsky. However, in Venezuela, the process is unfolding over an extremely protracted period of time, with far fewer incursions, so far, being made into capitalism. This has been due to the combination of Chávez being able to finance reforms from oil revenue and weaknesses in the political consciousness, leadership and level of organization of the masses.

The UNT and PSUV

The building of independent organizations of the working class – political parties and combative trade unions, democratically controlled by the working class, and democratic committees of struggle and defense, is one of the crucial tasks now facing the Venezuelan working class.
Chávez and the leadership of the movement launched trade unions from above, through the establishment of the UNT (National Union of Workers). More recently, they launched a new party, the PSUV, and called for an “explosion of communal power”. Workers Councils, Communal Councils and other organizations have been decreed by Chávez. Government propaganda has now called for the “progressive transfer of all power, political, social, economic and administrative to the communal power” to do away with “the old structures of the bourgeois capitalist state which only serve to stop the revolutionary impulse of the masses”.

The launching of the PSUV could be a welcome step. But if it is to become a genuine, independent instrument of struggle for the working class it cannot simply be built as the result of a decree from above. Any organization formed in this way, unless seized hold of and transformed by the working class, will inevitably be bureaucratic, top-down, and not an instrument of struggle for the working class.
The formation of the UNT, which unionises about 12% of the workforce, while representing a step forward, at the same time, is heavily bureaucratized. The leadership remains un-elected and has not yet developed into a real instrument of struggle for the working class. It was formed, in part, reflecting the demands of workers for a new union confederation as opposed to corrupt, pro-capitalist CTV (Venezuelan Workers’ Confederation), and also the need for Chávez to establish a union base after the bosses’ lock out, which was supported by the CTV.

If the PSVU is to become a genuine independent instrument of struggle for the working class it will be necessary to fight for it to become fully democratic, with an active rank and file and a revolutionary socialist programme. It will need to include the right of tendencies and political platforms to be organized and to be open for genuine debate and discussion and not be simply run by officials from the old parties. Above all, it will need a revolutionary socialist programme to overthrow capitalism. Unfortunately, the International Marxist Tendency (IMT) has not commented on how the PSUV was formed or what structure, programme and type of party it needs.
The decreeing of Workers’ Councils by the Chávez government is not the same as the building of committees of struggle by the working class.

The Workers’ Councils and Community Councils that the government has set up are not based on the election of delegates in the work places or communities, which are subject to recall. These councils are not linked together on a district or city-wide basis. As yet, they have a quite limited level of participation. They have more in common with the CDRs, which were set up after the Cuban revolution and which became the transmission belt for the government’s decisions from the top down. However, the CDRs had a much higher level of participation than is currently the case with the councils in Venezuela.

International socialist policy

It is not possible to successfully complete and develop the socialist revolution in one country. This is especially the case in the neo-colonial world although it applies to all countries. The domination of the world economy, the need to develop the national economy and the material base for socialism, as well as resisting the threat of the imperialist powers to defeat a workers’ and peasants’ government, means the revolution needs to be spread internationally.

The role of international policy for a socialist government is therefore of crucial importance. A workers and peasants’ democracy, with a revolutionary socialist programme, would need a clear perspective of spreading the revolution – beginning with the other Latin American countries. The idea of establishing a Democratic Socialist Federation of Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba, would offer the prospect of integrating these three economies, based on a democratic, state plan of production and workers’ democracy, and spreading the revolution to the rest of the continent. This, together with an appeal to the working class in the US for solidarity and support, is the way to defeat imperialism and to develop the international base of a socialist revolution.

Unfortunately, this has not formed the basis of the international policy of the Chávez regime. Rather, Chávez sought to form trade agreements with a series of pro-capitalist, viciously anti-working class regimes, in Russia, China and Iran, in an attempt to create an anti-US alliance – irrespective of in whose interests these regimes rule.

Scandalously, this led Chávez to heap praise on Putin, the Chinese regime, and more recently the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This same Ahmadinejad has brutally repressed striking bus workers in Tehran and others fighting for their rights.

A workers’ and peasants’ government with a correct policy may find itself isolated for a limited period of time and could be compelled to seek temporary trade agreements with various capitalist governments. This situation confronted the Bolsheviks following the Russian revolution. However, while it may be necessary to hold formal state relations, this does not mean it is correct to heap praise on so-called “revolutionaries” like the reactionary leaders Ahmadinejad and Putin. For a revolutionary socialist government, any formal relations would also need to be coupled with open, direct appeals and acts of solidarity from the trade unions and revolutionary party in a socialist country to the workers and masses in Iran, Russia and other countries.

But the approach Chávez adopts towards these regimes gives a further weapon to imperialism to attack Venezuela. It also damages the Chávez regime in the eyes of workers, internationally, not least amongst workers and youth in Iran and Russia, who struggle in opposition against Putin and Ahmadinejad. The need for a genuine socialist internationalist policy, with the perspective of spreading the revolution to other countries, beginning in Latin America, combined with an appeal to the Latino masses in the US and the working class as a whole, is an essential part of the programme, policy and action needed to win a successful socialist revolution in Venezuela. Such a policy is the only effective way to defeat the threat of imperialism and counter revolution.

Conclusions

The stormy events that are taking place in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and other countries in Latin America, raise crucial questions about how to achieve a socialist transformation of society. This document is presented as a contribution to that discussion, with the aim of helping to clarify how this is to be achieved. Through a combination of experience in the struggles unfolding, and an exchange of opinions which draw on the lessons of the historical international experiences of the working class, the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI) is confident the Venezuelan working class will find the way to building the organizations and programme necessary to carry through a successful revolution, as an integral step towards the establishment of a Democratic Socialist Federation of Latin America. This, in turn, can be a step towards defeating imperialism and capitalism, and building a socialist world.