Venezuela: What is Really Cropping up There?
Venezuela was not much known to Indians. In the field of the Latin American glories, particularly football, art-literature, music-dance and grand revolutionary upsurges, Venezuela didn't figure notably till the start of this century. And she is a small Latin Am country, though not very small ? having nearly 27.75% of India's geographical area (of which less than 3% is arable) and less than 2.5% of Indian population. But almost all the bigger or smaller neighbours of this country are very well known to all of us here in India for different reasons: Columbia (to her west), Brazil (to her south), the Caribbean Island states (the Caribbean Sea is to the north and north east of her) ? i.e., the West Indies, Cuba, etc, and lastly, the somewhat less known Guyana (to her south east). So it came as surprise when we learned that Venezuela is the Fifth Largest Petroleum Producer of the World, [before the start of the second world war, it was the largest oil exporting country in the world!] or, say, it produced more than 90 Billion Kilowatt-Hour of electricity per year (almost 20% of Indian figure, well before 2000), almost half by Hydro-electricity and per capita electricity consumption here is highest in Latin America!
The country achieved independence from Spain in 1821 as a part of Gran Colombia under the leadership of its most famous son, Sim?n Bol?var. Venezuela, along with what are now Colombia and Ecuador, was part of the Republic of Gran Colombia until 1830, when Venezuela separated and became a sovereign country. Much of Venezuela's 19th century history was characterized by periods of political instability, dictatorial rule of the caudillos or 'directors', and social turbulence. The first half of the 20th century was marked by periods of dictatorships, overtly from 1908 to 1935 and from 1948 to 1958. The Venezuelan economy shifted after World War I from a primarily agricultural one to an economy centred on petroleum production and export. Since the overthrow of Gen. Marcos P?rez Jim?nez in 1958 and the military's withdrawal from direct involvement in national politics, Venezuela has enjoyed an unbroken tradition of 'civilian democratic rule' of Latin American type, i.e., like an US satellite, for forty years. The Social Democratic Acci?n Democr?tica (AD) and the Christian Democratic Comit? de Organizaci?n Pol?tica Electoral Independiente (COPEI) parties dominated the political milieu at both the state and federal level.
From CARACAZO to the election of Hugo Ch?vez Fr?as as President
Caracazo / Sacud?n : Caracas is the capital of Venezuela. The word Caracazo is made by Caracas with -azo as suffix to mean something like "a blow to Caracas". The word Sacud?n comes from the verb sacudir, "to shake". These words imply something that shook the capital. 27 February 1989 saw a wave of protests, riots and looting and finally, state sponsored genocide. Measures taken by the then president P?rez included privatising state companies, tax breaks for the rich, reducing customs duties, and generally decentralising and diminishing the role of the state in the economy - all the 'famous' prescriptions named structural reforms of the WB-IMF combine that was already in vogue in many Asian, African and Latin Am countries - and which will come further fiercely as steps of 'globalisation' within a couple of years thence. Specifically, the caracazo was sparked off by the drastic rises in fares on public transport. The protests and rioting began in Guarenas (a town near Caracas), on the morning of 27th February 1989. They quickly spread to the capital and other towns across the country. By the afternoon, there were disturbances in almost all quarters of Caracas, with shops shut and public transport not running. Overwhelmed by the looting, the Government declared a state of emergency, put the city under martial law and crushed the protests with great violence. Estimates of the number of civilian deaths range from 400 to 5000!
The military, which was used to crush the revolt, was also shaken, at least partly. As Ch?vez recalls in his "Understanding The Venezuelan Revolution"1 (talks with Marta Harnecker): "A Venezuelan writer once wrote that on that day the Venezuelan people took to the streets and they still have not left them". Such a popular outburst was previously unthinkable in that country. Moreover, the military has also started changing, and that dates back to the mid-eighties. Not only Ch?vez, but also a number of army officers were long time in contact list of underground left-guerrilla fighters, among the latter was Hugo's elder brother Ad?n Ch?vez. His interview2 (By: Alan Woods) confirms this: "It was at that time that my brother Hugo was serving in the National Armed Forces as a young officer. A small group of officers who were unhappy about the situation in the country and who thought that something had to be done to change it was set up. ?we kept in touch with the patriotic officers giving them any support we could. A civilian-military movement was consolidated [perhaps 'consolidation' of a 'civilian-military movement' is rather exaggeration, we'll see what happened in 1992 ? ed FAPP], the Bolivarian Revolutionary Movement 200 (MBR-200). They were reading, discussing and finally decided that they had to rescue the revolutionary ideas of Sim?n Bol?var, Sim?n Rodr?guez and Ezequiel Zamora." From Marta's article "Why The Venezuelan Military Is Different"3 we know that the Venezuelan military was not under the [humanely] corroding / eroding influence of military training in and/or by US imperialism; that military had that much 'democratic' practices as to make possible for those coming from the bottom layers of the society to climb up the career ladder; and there were some other 'uniqueness' of that army where Ch?vez belonged. [Though these 'reasons' seem to be almost 'incredible' ? a country where the military was involved in the General Marcos P?rez Jim?nez period till 1958, a country infested by 'left guerrillas' in the general Latin Am backdrop of post-1960s period, the US dependence and hence interest on Venezuelan oil, etc were enough for the US not to leave the military untouched; and then a 'democratic' military set-up in an US satellite is nearly unthinkable! ? ed FAPP] Ch?vez has described in details the formation and activities of this group within the army in his book.4 This military group planned for a mass-cum-military uprising along with a political party Causa?R. But ultimately that party didn't show up on the fixed day, Feb 4, 1992 [except one fraction led by Ali Rodr?guez, a respected figure in Venezuelan politics, later became Secretary General of OPEC, Petroleum Minister, CEO of state owned Petroleum giant PDVSA, Foreign Minister, etc, and he doesn't belong to the Party of Ch?vez] and the plan turned up to an abortive military coup. Some 6000 army men were taken prisoners along with Ch?vez. He took responsibility of the coup and called upon his fellows, in a live TV broadcast, to surrender arms "for now". This queer few-minutes' TV speech took him to limelight. Later, in November another military revolt took place. From jail Ch?vez called for abstention in the presidential election of 1993. 52% abstained polling.5 [If only Marta gave us the voting % in previous and later elections we could judge better the effect of Ch?vez's call of abstention! ? ed FAPP] In 1994 Ch?vez was released from prison. He and his group travelled extensively throughout the country talking with people about the change needed, about need of a new constitution and constituent assembly. Consulting the mass base, his group, now a party named Movement For Fifth Republic, filed the candidature of Ch?vez in the presidential election in 1998. Ch?vez won securing 56% of votes polled.
Some Important Aspects Of 8 Years Of Ch?vez Era
A constituent assembly election took place in July 1999 after a referendum called for it in early that year. Within 5 months a new constitution was ready and got approved by another national referendum. Accordingly, on the basis of the new constitution presidential election took place in July 2000, and Ch?vez was re-elected.
But by then already a new 'plan' was underway: Plan Bolivar 2000 - started on 27th Feb 1999, exactly 10 years after the Caracazo. Its aim was forming a strong civilian-military alliance and the initiators were the loyal to Ch?vez military personnel. 40,000 soldiers got down to work, work of helping people as much they could, in road-building-repairing, house-building-repairing, transportation, helping to form cooperatives, fixing things, education projects, primary health and vaccination projects, and so on so forth. It was an unthinkable and unforgettable experience for the common people: Military helping the common erstwhile deprived people, state 'profit' [of petroleum business] getting pumped for peoples' welfare? has the world turned upside down!
President Ch?vez [and Venezuela too] had come to limelight internationally through the turbulent days of 2002-2004: An attempted coup d'?tat, plus 'strikes' [!!] by the big capitalists, and simultaneously, the rise of the proletariat and its 'independent' and new organisation(s), then finally, the recall-referendum. We would like to borrow from an article by Diana Green and Barry Lipton6for the sake of brevity, only with changes in some words for easier understanding. "The opposition came to a head when the Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce (FEDECAMARAS) called for a (second) general strike in April 2002. The biggest and almost 'sole' central Trade Union CTV (Venezuelan Labour Confederation) joined the call of FEDECAMARAS and launched a three-day general strike on April 9. On April 11, segments of the armed forces, in alliance with the political opposition, and the CTV (by most reliable accounts) staged a coup d'?tat. Military officers kidnapped the president, imprisoned him on an island, and announced a new government, to be headed by the leader of FEDECAMARAS, Pedro Carmona. Local TV stations congratulated themselves on air for stage-managing such a successful manoeuvre. However, the public outcry in defence of President Ch?vez was so overwhelming that only 48 hours after the replacement government was sworn in, Ch?vez was returned and reinstated in triumph." There were enough of evidences regarding the US connection in this coup.
But why was the US govt keen to unseat Ch?vez? Bythat time there were already several reasons, as for example: R The way Ch?vez govt was running the country was not strictly according to the dictates of the US imperialism or the rules of Globalisation, e.g., not abiding by the 'reform' measures prescribed by the World Bank?IMF, decreed increase in minimum wages in mid 2000; pumping a good part of oil profit for 'public welfare', etc.R Venezuela was one of the rare regimes to oppose the US war against Afghanistan and condemned US terror [Ch?vez: "You can't fight terror with terror."]. R Ch?vez strongly opposed setting up 2003 deadline for finalising FTAA ? the US project of dominating the American continent; he [along with president Lula of Brazil] foiled the US backed 'consensus' over this in the April 2001 Quebec summit [now Ch?vez has a big support among masses, including some heads of states, in Latin Am for his alternative trade agreement proposal ALBA].R The way Ch?vez and his govt was 'manipulating' OPEC with their Ali Rodr?guez as the Secretary General of OPEC [since Jan 2001], making close ties with Iran and Iraq, etc, and then the ever-increasing trend of oil prices? didn't please the US.7 The OPEC began contemplating the possibility of shifting to Euro from US$. [In Sept or Oct 2005 Venezuela shifted two third of its $ reserves, about $20 billions from US to Euros in a Swiss bank.] R Ch?vez signed an oil-deal with Cuba that gives Cuba petroleum at a subsidised rate. [To make things worse for Mr Bush, Ch?vez sent as much help as possible to the Hurricane victims of the US, and from last autumn the Venezuela govt owned petroleum company in the USA, CITGO, has started providing the US poor with very much subsidised cheap 'heating oil' after the US govt stopped many such welfare measures. Profit from CITGO ($500 Millions, i.e., more than Rs 2300 crores, in the first 8 months of 2005) gets totally spent for welfare measures.] R From an article by Stuart Munckton (of the Australian Democratic Socialist Party) we find8 "Chavez announced the formation of the Bolivarian Circles in May 2001. The Circles were aimed at organising the movement on the street level, developing structures of peoples' power and spreading the ideas of the revolution. The Circles are groups of between 7-14 people who help organise their community to implement reforms as well as to defend the process against the counter-revolution. They are armed, and the opposition has made the disarming of the Circles a central demand, one that the government has resisted. There were said to be 8000 at the time of the coup, and today more than 2 million people are organised into them, more than 10 per cent of the adult population." [Bolds & Italics ours]
The first 'general strike' of the Capitalists-Old-TU combine was on early 2002. And their last ditch fight as 'general strike' was held between Dec '02 and Mar '03, which was particularly aimed to cripple down the petroleum and energy industries to a standstill. The most significant thing in this period is that for the first time in Latin American history a military coup failed. And the April 11 '02 coup d'?tat failed because the masses poured out on the streets and went to the barracks, they called their army-men-friends to save the president and the 'revolution'; and the overwhelming army-majority, including the majority of generals and top-officers, came out to save the president and the revolution. In some provinces, Governors and assemblies too refused to acknowledge the replacement-govt [see Jorge Jorquera's vivid account 9]. But, here the 'masses' didn't yet had noticeable fraction of organised industrial proletariat. Interestingly, in his book [with Marta] Ch?vez needed the word 'proletariat' or 'working class' only rarely in a more than 200 pages book!
The organised industrial proletariat came in the arena, and when they came they did that solidly during the Dec '02 and Mar '03 episode. Let us see a part of the interview10 withRub?n Linares, national coordinator of the UNT [The new central TU formed on May 2003] "We must say it clearly, during the stoppage and sabotage of December 2002 and January 2003, there was workers' control in the two most important state owned companies. In the [oil company] PDVSA there was workers' control. It was us, the workers, who restarted production in the company after the managers had left, and we did so without managers. In the case of [electricity generator and supplier] CADAFE the workers guaranteed the supply of electricity throughout the stoppage/sabotage. It was the workers who did it; there was real workers' control. ?" Obviously, to him "workers' control" meant continuation the production by the workers!
On the other side, the organised proletariat was getting more and more disgruntled with the old central TU, which once, say, till the mid-seventies, was to some extent 'for-the-workers', but surrendered and got aligned with the capitalists from the eighties, was thoroughly undemocratic and betrayed the working class interest. There were a few signs of new, embryonic, un-crystallised revolts starting from the TU 'election' in Ford factories in the year 2000. In 2002 the old-bosses'-TU ? Capitalist nexus and their hostile posture against the 'progressive' govt became extra obvious thro' the Coup attempt and strike. The people surrounding the organised proletariat were beneficiaries and supporters [many of whom active supporters] of the new regime, and that too influenced the proletariat. All these gave the 'impetus' to the proletariat to get dissociated from the old-TU, to rebel, to start fight and getting organised.
When the strike started, the president gave call to resist and foil the strike and sabotage-attempts. The army and the 'communities' came forward to foil attempts of sabotage guarding closely the oil pipeline-networks, power transmission networks, etc. And the proletariat too, including ex-workers, came out against the "bosses' strike" taking the charge of continuity of production in spite of non-cooperation and sabotage of the managements and their stooges, in petroleum and electricity. From early 2003 came a spurt of formations of 'new' unions in different industries. In May that year they formed an umbrella organization, UNT. Within a couple of years the UNT could get in its fold an overwhelming majority of workers; a great majority in govt. owned industries and also single majority in the private sector industries. May Day Rally of the UNT gathered several hundred thousands of workers as per many reports! [Quite recently there has been some internal disputes and conflicts leading to confusions and disarray in the first congress of elected representatives within this TU organisation ? but that's another story.]
Though their road was not at all rosy. The management-old TU tried all possible legal and muscle powers, suspended / retrenched leading activists, frightened workers of closures, ? ? all such techniques which are known to the 'new TU' activists of India. The govt came to some aid; it decreed retrenching / suspending activists and closures for TU activism as 'illegal'. But the management-old TU bosses know numerous 'tricks' to put as much hurdles as possible in front of the new-TU-movement. As for example lets see a news item11: "Caracas, Venezuela, November 16, 2005. Twenty-five workers are on the 17th day of a hunger strike over the project to extend line 3 of the Caracas Metro, one of the Chavez government's signature infrastructure projects. ? Geobrain is owned by the multinational engineering company Odebrecht. The Venezuelan government is paying Odebrecht to extend Line 3 of the Caracas Metro system. The strikers say Geobrain has not paid them their full wages, their social security or their production bonus. ?" Then, another one, dated Sept 26, 200512: Nestor explained that "we say we are living in a real democracy, but there are still parts of the old democracy that remain. To form the union, we have to do it clandestinely and together, under the eye of the firm, hiding from the bosses because if they find us, although they are not [legally] able to fire us, they do. This is part of the reality we live in Venezuela." So, foreign and native capitalists are still very much 'alive and kicking' in Venezuela!
And many within the state-machinery, including the judiciary, actively aid them. As high a public figure as Ali Rodriguez said in an interview, 13 "The main obstacle for advancing towards the objectives that are proposed in the Bolivarian constitution of Venezuela is the administrative structure of the state." William Izarra, currently the National Director of the CFI-s [Centres for Ideological Formation] and the Deputy Foreign Minister in charge of the Middle East, Asia and Oceania said,14 "The structure of the state is still that of the [pre-Chavez] Fourth Republic, which means that the electoral structures hinder the participation of the people?" The govt. is giving up its owned factories for worker's control in the way the involved workers think fit. It is even expropriating private sector factories that are nationally necessary but left idle by the owners for various 'reasons' - but such acts are 'recent', i.e., after the win in recall referendum15. The recall referendum16 was held on 15th August 2004 (declared on 08.06.2004) though the opposition didn't manage to get the minimum necessary 20% valid support. Ch?vez won the referendum securing 59.25% of votes cast.
Ms A Vera-Zavala in her famous and debated commentary17 gave a precise account of what is going on in Venezuela that inspired mass-participation and mass support towards the 'revolution' or 'process' going on there [we consciously put revolution within single-quote marks, and we shall analyse that later in this article]: "The social missions, misiones, could be divided into four main areas: education, vocational training, health, and nutrition. Misi?n Robinson is for basic education and is the weapon to erase illiteracy in the country. Misi?n Ribas prepares high school students for university education. Misi?n Vuelvan Caras is to train workers and prepare them for future employment. Misi?n Barrio Adentro has taken in Cuban doctors to serve in small community built clinics in the barrios, the Venezuelan word for slums. Misi?n Milagro (miracle) performs operations on patients with cataract and glaucoma and makes people see again. Misi?n Mercal is the name for the subsidized food shops you find all over the country. Another food program provides free food to barrios; community members prepare it and give one cooked meal a day to children, single mothers, pregnant women, elderly people etc.
"All the missions are run by communities. They organize the set up of the clinics, the education halls, recruit voluntary teachers, make schedules and solve thousands of problems that come up. They do it on voluntary basis and they reach out to many. The health program, Barrio Adentro I, was launched in April 2003 and has already passed over 100 million consultations. People who have never seen a doctor in their entire life before have now had multiple encounters. ? ?
"People here know repression and exclusion; they have lived it on a daily basis since the squatting of the newly built colourful modern blocks on January 23rd 1958, the day the dictator, Perez Jimenez, was overthrown. That was a time of mobilization and popular democratic aspirations, until the people were betrayed and the neighbourhood repressed. This time there has been no treason.
"On my way down from 23 de Enero I see a slogan, written big in red and black on a wall: Al pasado no regresaremos jam?s! We will never return to the past! This seems to be very well rooted in people's minds. They know things have changed, and to the better, that is why they are the ones making the revolution real, but not without criticism." And Ms Vera-Zavala concludes: "The parallels are the new tracks created to go around the old ones - parallel lines never intersect. In that way, you avoid confrontation in a country were opposition has been violent and people need time to consolidate and build and not only confront. But people are impatient to see the parallels become the main tracks." [Italics ours ? ed FAPP] We do not know if Ch?vez had time to read her article, but we found Ch?vez later saying, 18 "Venezuela is approaching a, "post-capitalist society," but that people had to be patient. He said, "We cannot speed up. We cannot drive ourselves crazy. We must be conscious that this is a process with a far off deadline, this has always been the case." ?
After the referendum victory the Ch?vez govt has become more outspoken against US imperialism and in favour of what Ch?vez calls ? Socialism of 21st century. Venezuela votes against every US imperialist motion in the UN and other international forums. Victory of Evo Morales as the president of Bolivia, the first Ethnic Indian to become a President of any American country, has added to the Anti-US imperialist current in Latin America. From eminent citizens like the great footballer Diego Maradona to commoners all stood strongly behind the ALBA proposal of Ch?vez and against US imperialism, and that pressurised the Argentine govt to speak against the USA in the last summit of American countries.
Among the workers too there are some changes, in the realm of ideas and also actions. Jonah Gindin in a Monthly Reviewarticlereports19: The co-management workshop closed on Saturday, April 16, 2005, with a series of clear resolutions, aimed at leaving no question as to the role of workers in the continuous development of Venezuela's revolution. I have translated and included some of them here. "# The direct and democratic participation of workers in the management or co-management of productive and distributive processes is the only mechanism to guarantee and consolidate the Bol?varian Revolution. # The experiences that we have had up to now tell us that it is only possible to develop worker participation in state-owned companies. We reject any idea of converting workers into small property owners in co-managed or self-managed enterprises. # The participation of the community is fundamental to the entire process of co-management and self-management in order to break with social exclusion in the development of an alternative model of production. Co- and self-management are political acts that concretise the alliance between the people who should be in control of the state and the working classes. It is not a corporatist economic pact between state, factory-owner, and a privileged caste of worker-functionaries. # The participants unanimously express their absolute solidarity with the Cuban people and the Cuban Revolution...and extend their solidarity to all the peoples who suffer aggression in the anti-imperialist struggle, in particular to the heroic peoples of Iraq and Haiti, confronting the U.S. invasion of their territory." Many web sources are telling us that not a few of the workers and worker-leaders are inclined to 'socialism'; perhaps majority of the UNT leaders subscribe to this idea; quite a few workers are reading 'socialist', 'Marxist' literatures including some works of Lenin, and discussing them, etcetera.
Let us see another example, this one an interview by Marta Harnecker with Gustavo M?rquez, an elected member to the management20: Marta Harnecker: How long have you worked in the plant? Gustavo M?rquez: Eight years. Marta Harnecker: What is the main task that you have given yourself? Gustavo M?rquez: My objective is to promote the process of joint management. My primary goal is to succeed in implementing the production plan; But not to produce only to produce, but also to reduce costs, and to form working groups among the workers. Marta Harnecker: What did you tell the workers that convinced them to choose you? Gustavo M?rquez: I suggested moving to a horizontal managerial structure. We are going to recognize that every worker has an opinion and I will listen to him or her with my ears. It is advantageous that we have all been companions and that we all come from below. I will not shut myself away in an office; I am a man of the area. If a thermal motor needs to be fixed, I will be there to do it. I am the same. We are not going to establish a difference between manager and technician. We are all workers. Marta Harnecker: How do you feel about managers receiving the same salary as before? Gustavo M?rquez: Up to now I have lived with that salary and I will continue doing so. My goal is not to earn more but to make this plant produce. ??" Well, things like this suggest that scores of Venezuelan workers in 'nationalised' industries are seriously experimenting with the idea of "Workers' Control", whatever they mean by it and however way they are gripping it! Even talks of changing production relations are there21!!
Among common people too, the idea to label oneself as 'socialist' even in this era of defeat of the international socialist movement, is not uncommon in Venezuela. According to an opinion poll22 just a year ago, "Finally, in terms of ideological self-definition, the poll states that 26.4% of Venezuelans support socialism, 15.5% support capitalism, 7.8% support neither type of system, and the rest (49.5%) did not answer or were undecided." 26.4% is, not ignorable, though 'socialism' means so many varied things these days. The Reuters was shocked when they found that the CEO of the State run Aluminium giant, Carlos Lanz, gave instruction to the workers via a written communiqu? that they need to take guerrilla warfare training from him to get prepared for any By the way, several such ex underground activists like Lanz are now placed in key govt chairs. And Lanz was not talking of any invented danger. Many evidences suggest that the USA is always in some move or other, sometimes concurrently hatching number of plots, against Venezuela.
It may sound paradoxical that so many 'revolutionary' things are happening but a 'revolutionary' party, a single party does not exist! We have found at least a Venezuelan Leader concerned about this. "We need the party of the revolution", said Guillermo Ponce, a veteran Venezuelan left and Head Of Political Command Of The Bolivarian Revolution ? a political apex body of the Venezuelan 'revolution', in an interview with Punto Final ? a respected Chilean left magazine. He said, "Weaknesses? The main weakness of the revolutionary process is the absence of the party of the revolution. What I mean? We have in Venezuela many revolutionary parties that support the process, but lack one able one to unify to all. The government lacks a mass and control post in the street that unifies the efforts and the resources of all the revolutionaries. The absence of an only party of the patriotic revolutionaries and debilitates the action of the government in all the areas and is a remora in the revolutionary process. Evidently, it is part of the inheritance of the old political culture (sectarianism, protagonism, favouritism) that we have not been able to exile."23 But then the party pointed out by him is not categorically a proletarian socialist party ? that party what Venezuela [and perhaps all countries of the world] needs! However, since May 2003, when he said about this party, till this time in 2006, we have not noticed any marked progress in this field.
There are many other things happening in Venezuela that the readers will surely like but we cannot but give here only some glimpses due to space problem. Interested readers may find thousands of info and articles on Venezuela and Latin America in the Websites of venezuelanalysis.com, Green Left Weekly, ZMAG/Znet, Monthly Review / MRzine, Punto Final, Workers World, Counterpunch, Narco Sphere/narconews, and of course the 'Hands Off Venezuela' campaign, etc.
Some Important Limitations And Confusions - Ignored / Generated By Many 'Left's
We have written somewhere above: we consciously put revolution within single-quote marks [as ? 'revolution'], and we shall explore that later in this article. We should try that now. But before that let us sum up some aspects from the picture we got till now. [1] What is happening in Venezuela clearly says that Venezuela is not 'just another' country, 'just another' bourgeois-'democracy'. [2] The govt here is at the lead of the people in their anti-imperialist, particularly, anti-US aspiration, truly nationalist aspiration to a large extent. [3] Venezuela could regenerate and fortify anti-US-imperialist current in Latin America. [4] The govt is not dittoing policies of the New World Order of Globalisation, particularly it is opposing the Free Trade Agreement as dictated by the US, continuing welfare measure by the masses, preserving [and now extending24] monopoly of state on some important spheres of production, ?etc. [5] Internationally, this govt is taking anti-imperialist stands on several occasions. The action of this govt in the recent Israel-Lebanon conflict has influenced the Lebanese masses, even Hezbollah cadres ? to the extent that in several places in Beirut picture-posters of Che Guevara and Ch?vez were seen there along with those of the anti-US Islamic fighting leaders.25 [6] The people of Venezuela have somewhat 'awakened', and most importantly, the workers and other toilers have started to move forward in the realm of thoughts, and also of actions, organisations ? people in general and the workers are not the same as they were before. No doubt, the govt of Ch?vez [and its activities] was a factor behind rousing the people; to this extent Ch?vez and his comrades in the govt overstepped the boundary of 'populist' or 'benevolent' "nationalist bourgeoisie"; and no doubt, that in turn, the workers and the toiling, oppressed people in general are trying to push forward the govt towards anti-US imperialism and its native cronies, towards a more pro-people state, etc. [7] There is, in a sense, an anti-imperialist, nationalist, current regenerating in Latin America. Perhaps it will not be an exaggerated generalisation if we say ? after a long interval of almost one sided offence of the bourgeoisie, the workers are again showing signs of restlessness, embryonic struggles and organisations-for-struggle are cropping up the world over. They are showing sign of summing-up the lessons of the defeat of the First Offensive March of the International Communist Movement of their own. The strivings of the Venezuelan workers are to be judged in this perspective. ? ?Whatever are the aspects we are going to place below will not diminish or fade these positive sides, moreover, our above 'list' of 'positive sides' is not at all exhaustive.
You may call a revolution ? a 'process' or anything, but a revolution is a revolution. And if you are a Marxist or Socialist then you must admit that a revolution destroys the old and create a new. The Venezuelan 'revolution' did not yet demolish the old state apparatus and is still not 'very near' to that. The State Machinery is only partially, only scratchily, changed; old latifundia remain almost totally; whereas a worthy Democratic Revolution inspire the masses to confiscate all landed estates, of course without compensation, on behalf of the new state, or the workers'-peasants' state, in case of a Peoples Democratic Revolution ? the old state is smashed, and that new state is created. And a Peoples Democratic Revolution is only a step, a good-bold-first step for a backward country to advance towards Socialist Revolution and Socialism. Though the Venezuelan govt has parcelled out its own land to several campesinos, the criticism remains valid. Now then, some commentators say, a revolution doesn't happen 'one fine morning'. But the French did not take more than one or two thousand mornings to do a lot after 1789. And so also the Russians did a lot within first 182 mornings after 7th Nov 1917. And how can one forget our great Paris Commune! One cannot change the meaning of the word 'revolution' for her/his convenience. By this we in no way de-recognise the urge for revolution among Venezuelan workers and toiling masses ? rather we want to point out to the task of making them conscious of the real tasks ahead for their real aspiration for change; it is not meant to show 'how little you have done so far' ? rather 'you need to march ahead to those goals, and surely you will reach there'. Surely there are and there might very well be constraints, serious snags and / or weaknesses [national, international, objective, subjective] towards achieving the revolutionary goal and march towards socialism, but revolutionary leadership makes the revolutionary masses conscious of the constraints in order to overcome them in future. They do not play down the limitations overtly or covertly. It will be foolish for us to try to point out or 'pass a judgement' on the constraints at the national level in Venezuela, or broadly, Latin America, from so far; and then who are we to pass 'judgements'! We are just a tiny fraction of International Proletariat working in India! But, being a part of the international proletariat we can add: the international situation is not at all that 'favourable' as it was during 1917-1920, or the 'end forties early fifties' or even the 'end sixties' of the last century. The international situation is really tough for a revolution to happen or to sustain, ['to hold on'? using Lenin's expression] and more so in a tiny country. Surely the Venezuelan comrades understand that ? and there is no question to 'undermine' the efforts of all those fighting comrades, all those workers and toiling masses there. We perfectly understand: Whatever deficiencies there are ? they are, in a way, the fruits of the defeat of the international communist movement. But nonetheless, a revolution is a revolution; and whatever odds our comrades there face, they will do that, we trust.
Then, Socialism is not, say, a Chevrolet or Ford car, so that you can say ? it's a 2004 model, that's a 1977 model, and so on. There cannot be any Socialism 'of the 21st Century' as there was no Socialism 'of 20th century' or 'of 19th century'. Socialists, in the Marxist sense, strive for Scientific Socialism. Marx and Engels also described many non-proletarian varieties of 'socialism' in their Communist Manifesto and put revolutionary criticism towards those. What we have seen in Soviet Russia [USSR] or China was not socialism ? rather we have seen striving for, glorious fights for socialism in the period of 'dictatorship of the proletariat'; we have seen Transition To Socialism. In that transition period a fierce struggle goes on between the forces of socialism and capitalism, as taught by Marx in his 'Critic To The Gotha Programme' and Lenin, in his 'State And Revolution'; and in both the USSR and the Peoples Republic Of China, the capitalist forces ultimately won. Entering in the phase of Transition does not give any guarantee whatsoever of ultimate victory of the forces of Socialism. Anyway, this transition phase, i.e. the era of thedictatorship of the proletariat was not Socialism in the true sense ? Lenin called Russia 'Socialist', but he said that very guardedly, only as denoting its intention of becoming socialist. So you haven't seen 'socialism of 20th century' as there was none so ? those actually existing socialisms were not socialism. It is better if we leave those fabrications of models of socialism immediately and come down to the true job, one of the most important tasks of the communists in these days: trying to find out the causes of failure of our past, the first offensive march of the international communist movement, and trying to find out what lessons we are to take from the aforesaid investigations. Our movement will be lot more enriched if learned brains of 'socialist' intelligentsia work in this direction and stop toying with those 'models' and model making.
It is true that senior revolutionary comrade like Marta [a Chilean exile living erstwhile in Cuba who came to stay in Venezuela to participate in what she calls "The Laboratory Of Revolution"] somewhat realises the point when she says, "As you can see, "socialism" did not begin in Venezuela when Ch?vez declared it ? And I speak of socialism in quotations, because in reality what has been initiated in Venezuela is not socialism, but a path that could lead to a society ruled by a humanistic and cooperative logic, where all human beings can reach their full development"; but we hope she will not take it otherwise - her position as depicted in that interview26 portrays confusions generated by the defeat of our international communist movement [e.g., the wording 'not socialism, but? development'] and an exaggerated and unreal evaluation of the Venezuelan present period [as for example, she cited Lenin's comment in the context of post-socialist-revolution Russia to justify their action in pre-socialist-revolution Venezuela].
The question of "Workers' Control" in Venezuela is also to be seen in proper perspective and realistically. The Russian experiments with "Workers' Control" teach us many worthy lessons. But point number 'zero', that is, before you come to the points of any real exercise of that "Workers' Control", is precisely the fact: You must have a Workers' State. "Workers' Control" was never meant only to describe factory-wise management by workers; rather it was also meant to be "Workers' Control" Over Whole Of The Economy. In Soviet Russia they could not very concretely solve all the questions and problems regarding that "Workers' Control"; at least Lenin never claimed that. During the War-Communism phase "Workers' Control" was virtually put on the shelves. Later, there were many worthy struggles by Lenin regarding the necessity of the party's fight for making real the workers'-peasants' inspection and so on. This is surely not a place to jot down, and that too, hastily, the Russian experiences and experiments regarding "Workers' Control". But one thing surely comes up ? a class that actually made a revolution, a class that fought successfully to break the imperialist blockade and win the civil war ? that very class did not and could not take up the real "Control" in their hands, at least till Lenin's active life. Nonetheless, the Venezuelan workers' pre-revolution experiments with "workers' control", which portrays their craving for taking up control, will surely enrich us.
Perhaps it will not be un-contextual if we mention here a few 'weak points' of the Venezuelan working class movement so far, as revealed by their interviews, articles, etc. Their "workers' control", whatever that is,is confined within govt owned factories. In the 'private sector', in the 'unorganised' sector, the UNT has only started making inroads.27 Class leadership of the proletariat over the society is still far away ? certainly one of the most 'happening' site in Venezuela is not the working class & its class struggle; still the centre 'stage' is overwhelmingly dominated by the State/govt and/or Ch?vez. But, potentially only this class can spearhead the struggle for socialism. No out-side force can do that on behalf of the proletariat. And another important weak point is ? a socialist revolution without a proletarian socialist party is unthinkable, isn't it!
Thinking of "Changing Production Relations", "The Pervert Dynamics of Capitalism", "post-capitalist society" etc as are said there by some leaders ? very courageous indeed, but all these are, really speaking, courageously foolish. Again think of Russia, as concrete history is easier to understand than abstract theories: An embryonic change in production relation during the so-called Lenin era was the Subbotnik movement started by the Moscow-Kazan Railway workers in the war-communism phase. Lenin wrote a great article on this: "A Great Beginning". But that movement could not sustain itself ? various reasons were there of course ? and later, it became a 'routine' affair. Changing Production Relations ? is a very good thing, but that can start after reaching a certain height of struggles in the transition period, i.e., in the dictatorship of the proletariat. In China we have seen some such struggles during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. So think twice before making such not-well-thought comments.
We earnestly hope that Venezuelan worker comrades will grip revolutionary Marxism, get rid of confusions generated mainly by our historical failure, and March Forward.
1 P 31, Understanding The Venezuelan Revolution, Hugo Ch?vez talks with Marta Harnecker, Monthly Review Press, 2005
2 Article no: 1426; Apr 20, 2005; www.venezuelanalysis.com
3 Why The Venezuelan Military Is Different ? by Marta Harnecker, Monthly Review, September 2003
4 Chapter 1, Understanding The Venezuelan Revolution, Hugo Ch?vez talks with Marta Harnecker, Monthly Review Press, 2005
5 P 17, Understanding The Venezuelan Revolution, Hugo Ch?vez talks with Marta Harnecker, Monthly Review Press, 2005
6 Article no: 1183; May 26, 2004; www.venezuelanalysis.com || Report on Venezuela's Trade Union Situation ? Diana Green and Barry Lipton;
7 counterpunch 08.12.2005 || Article by James Petras: Ch?vez Wins, Bush Loses (Again)! Now What?
8 Frontline 11 || The dynamics of the Venezuelan revolution ? Stuart Munckton, Australian Democratic Socialist Party
9 "The decisive action came from General Baduel, in charge of the Maracay-based parachutists brigade and a founding member of the MBR-200. He refused to recognise the Carmona regime and together with the people of Maracay, who had already taken over the streets and set up barricades in preparation for battle, defied the coup leaders. Word of Baduel's stance soon reached leaders of the popular movement and soldiers throughout the country. The order went out through the Bolivarian Circles and other mass organisations for people to march toward the army's barracks. They did so in their thousands, calling on the soldiers therein to support the movement and demand the return of Chavez." Venezuela And The New Latin American Revolution ? by Jorge Jorquera, Full text at dsp.org.au/links/back/issue24/Jorquera.htm
10 Article no: 1504; www.venezuelanalysis.com || Interview with Rub?n Linares, By: Jorge Martin - Hands Off Venezuela
11 News No: 1815; www.venezuelanalysis.com
12 Article no: 1564; www.venezuelanalysis.com
13 Article no: 1224; www.venezuelanalysis.com
14 Article no: 1468; www.venezuelanalysis.com
15 [Data collected from Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia on the web]
Article 72: All [...] offices filled by popular vote are subject to revocation.
Once one-half of the term of office to which an official has been elected has elapsed, a number of voters representing at least 20% of the registered voters in the affected constituency may petition for the calling of a referendum to revoke that official's mandate.
When a number of voters equal to or greater than the number of those who elected the official vote in favour of the recall, provided that a number of voters equal to or greater than 25% of the total number of registered voters vote in the recall referendum, the official's mandate shall be deemed revoked and immediate action shall be taken to fill the permanent vacancy as provided for by this Constitution and by law.
16 Article 6 of the New Venezuelan Constitution says: "The govt of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the political entities that are its components are based on persistent democracy, decentralisation, elective principle, responsibility, pluralism, and right to recall votes." [Pardon for an uneasy translation! ? SM].
17 Article no: 1445; May 11, 2005; www.venezuelanalysis.com
18 News no: 1801, dated 29.10.2005; www.venezuelanalysis.com
19 In her "Made in Venezuela: The Struggle to Reinvent Venezuelan Labour", which appeared also as article no: 1489, dated 28.6.2005; www.venezuelanalysis.com
20 Article no: 1407, dated 28.3.2005; www.venezuelanalysis.com || Co-Management Advances in ALCASA: Aluminium Workers in Venezuela Choose Their Managers and Increase Production. By: Marta Harnecker
21 See interviews cited in article no: 1576, Thursday, Oct 13, 2005, www.venezuelanalysis.com || "Venezuelan Land and Factory Expropriations as seen from the Labour Ministry and the Union Federation", By ? Federico Fuentes - Green Left Weekly
22 News no: 1702, July 27, 2005; www.venezuelanalysis.com
23 Revista Punto Final 14-28 May, 2003 issue no: 539 || (0025)http://www.puntofinal.cl/
24 Deirdre Griswold's report, Apr 8, 2006; www.workers.org/2006/world/venezuela-0413/
25 Hezbollah supremo Hasan Nasrallah's interview on Aug 14, see (0049) http://www.workers.org/2006/world/hezbollah-0831/
26 Interview with Marta Harnecker By: Ignacio Cirio ? Siete Sobre Siete; appeared as Article No: 1562, dated Sept 22, 2005 in www.venezuelanalysis.com
27 "There are still many unions not in the UNT and even more workers not in the unions. An even bigger challenge is how to relate to the over 50% of workers who are in the informal sector, and how the UNT can help to organise this sector." Fredrico Fuentes, Sept 26, 2005, article no: 1564 in www.venezuelanalysis.com
Comments:
No Comments for View