John Riddell, in his
review of your book "The Venezuelan Revolution, a Marxist perspective", wonders
if a small Marxist current like the one you lead can influence the course of
events in the world and says that at least you have the merit of going part of
the way together with the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela. How was this
possible? How did you manage it? Did they contact you? Tell us how your first
meeting with Chavez was and how the relation between the International Marxist
tendency, the government of Hugo Chávez and the sectors that support it are
developing. Do you really believe you can influence events in Venezuela in
some way?
History shows that a small group with clear ideas can play a decisive
role in certain historical situations, while a big mass party with incorrect
ideas can be transformed in a given moment into a great zero. It is sufficient
to recall on the one hand the Bolshevik Party which, at the beginning of 1917
was a small minority in Russia,
and on the other hand the collapse of the Social Democratic and Communist
parties in Germany
in 1933.
It
is true that the Corriente Marxista
Revolucionaria is as yet very small in Venezuela, but we are very strong
in ideas, and that in the last instance is the only guarantee of success. I
might add that it was precisely the strength of our ideas that led to my first
encounter with President Chávez, who had read my book Reason in Revolt, which he liked and which he has been so
kind as to recommend on several occasions.
As to the influence we might have in Venezuela, that depends in part on
the work of the Venezuelan Marxists, in part on the experience of the masses.
In general the masses do not learn from books but from experience. But in a
revolution the masses learn more in one week than in a decade of normal life.
Lenin used to say that for the masses an ounce of experience is worth a ton of
theory – and he was a great theoretician.
The masses have already learnt many things in this decade of
revolution. They know how to distinguish their real friends from their enemies
(even when these wear a red shirt). We could put it this way: although the
masses may not know exactly what they want, they know full well what they do
not want. The development of consciousness continues: the influence of the
reformists is declining and that of the most revolutionary wing, together with
that of the Marxist tendency that I have the honour of representing is growing.
You have openly
expressed your admiration for President Chávez. However, you have said that you
consider that the Bolivarian Revolution is "incomplete". What do you mean by
this?
The Bolivarian Revolution is a revolution in the sense that Trotsky
explained in The History of the Russian Revolution, that is, a situation
in which the masses participate actively in politics and try to take their
destiny into their own hands and change society from the bottom. But it is
unfinished because it has not yet succeeded in expropriating totally the
oligarchy and the old state apparatus remains more or less intact. As long as
things continue like this, it cannot be said that the revolution is
irreversible. President Chávez once compared it to the myth of Sisyphus, who
was condemned to roll a heavy boulder to the top of a hill, at which point it
always rolled back to the starting-point. The problem is that if this
particular rock rolls backwards, it will crush a lot of people.
Trotsky once said: "truth and not lies is the motor-force of history".
What, in your opinion, is the truth of the Bolivarian Revolution? And what are
the lies? Are we in the presence of a real transformation of Venezuelan
reality, heading for socialism of the xxi
century or is it all a deception that will end in the consolidation of a new
political and economic elite that has nothing in common with revolution or
socialism?
The great truth is that in a revolution – that means also the
Bolivarian – in the end one class has to win and the other lose, and that
throughout history no ruling class has ever surrendered without a pitiless
struggle. The great lie consists in empty and vainglorious declarations to the
effect that the Bolivarian Revolution "is irreversible" and other such stupid
and irresponsible nonsense which merely attempts to deceive the people and lull
it to sleep instead of arousing it to struggle against the danger of
counter-revolution.
As for the so-called theory of
socialism of the XXI century, I think it is an attempt to distort the ideas of
President Chávez and to divert the process towards reformism. People like Heinz
Dieterich are striving by all means to water down the revolutionary message of
the President and fill it with a completely reformist one. They are opposed to
nationalisations, they preach reconciliation between the classes, that is, they
are trying to teach the tiger to eat lettuce. And they call this nonsense
"realism"! I am writing a book against the ideas of Dieterich and the
reformists, and I hope to make clear the difference between Marxism – the
authentically revolutionary theory – and this caricature.
What other criticisms
would you make of the Bolivarian Revolution, apart from the fact that you
consider it to be incomplete?
Some time ago Hugo Chávez asked me the same question. I replied in the
following way. Your revolution is a real source of inspiration for millions.
That is the most important thing. But it does have some weak points, for
example, the absence of a clearly defined programme and policy, and the lack of
politically educated cadres; in other words, the lack of a revolutionary party,
the lack of a revolutionary leadership.
It is true that later there have been attempts to remedy some of these
failings. For example, the President has proclaimed the socialist character of
the Revolution – something that our Tendency has been advocating from the very
beginning. But this idea is meeting with stubborn resistance from the
reformists and Stalinists. The battle is not yet won.
What do you think of
the criticisms of the Venezuelan opposition that the President has displayed
authoritarian attitudes and that his condition as a military man does not
favour the democratic rules of play? For example, what is your opinion about
his declared intention of remaining in power for an unlimited term and his
comments about a "peaceful but not unarmed" revolution? Are socialism and
democracy incompatible?
Why should they be? Socialism is democratic or it is nothing! Of
course, when I speak of democracy I do not refer to the vulgar caricature of
bourgeois democracy – which is only another name for the dictatorship of big
Capital. What democracy exists in the USA, where there are supposed to be two
parties that, as Gore Vidal explains very well, are really only one party
representing different wings of the bourgeoisie. In order to be President of
the USA
one has to be a millionaire. What kind of a democracy is that?
The protests of the Venezuelan opposition are pure hypocrisy. They have
lost the elections and referendums, one after another. They lost again last
December when Chávez obtained the biggest majority in the history of Venezuela. And
they cannot say that this was a fraud! These elections were the most highly
scrutinized in the history of the world! They were all out there in Caracas, searching with a
magnifying glass for even the smallest evidence of fraud. If they had found any
they would have shouted it from the rooftops. But they did not find anything.
These elections provide a very
clear mandate to the Bolivarian government – a mandate for fundamental change
in society. That is what the masses are really demanding! Hugo Chávez must
carry out the wishes of those who voted for him, the workers and peasants, the
poor people and the youth, ignoring completely the howling of the
counterrevolutionary opposition, which is nothing but the mouthpiece of the
corrupt and reactionary oligarchy and its master in Washington. We must take
drastic and urgent measures. It is high time to carry out the expropriation of
the oligarchy!
Concerning the
question of the media and information in Venezuela, ever since Hugo Rafael
Chávez Frías assumed the Presidency of the Republic in December 1998, the
government has been reducing the freedom of the press, which is defined as "the
guarantee by the government of freedom of expression for citizens and
associations, including those dedicated to the collection and broadcasting of
information" while strengthening the media owned by the state, which are
dedicated to the transmission of programmes of an "ideological" character.
Isn’t this contrary to human rights? Is socialism against rights?
Come on, now! How can we speak of freedom of the media, of the means of
communication, when all these are owned by a handful of rich men like Rupert
Murdoch? The so-called freedom of expression in Britain
and the USA
is a joke in very bad taste!
Of
course, socialism must respect human rights. But let us start by defending the
rights of the overwhelming majority of the population who, until now, never had
any real rights or a voice to express their opinions. What we should do is to
nationalise the press, the radio and television, but not leave these things in
the hands of the state (we do not want a totalitarian state as in the USSR) but
to guarantee access to the media to any party, social or trade union
organization according to the number of members, votes in elections, etc. they
have. Thus, the PSUV would have several daily papers and more than one TV
station, and the owners of RCTV could have a small monthly journal like El Militante
which they would be free to sell at the bus stops… That is to say, we would
give the bourgeois the same rights they give to us, neither more nor less.
What do you think of
the case of Radio Caracas
Televisión, a company with more than 50 years of history, which had its licence
cancelled by the government in May?
As far as RCTV is concerned, everybody knows that this was a
counterrevolutionary ("golpista") station. If I were to criticize the
President, I would say he should have acted a lot sooner against this nest of
vipers. And he should not only have closed them down but he should have
arrested the bosses and put them on trial.
Yet again, the orchestrated campaign over this issue is just plain
hypocrisy. I can assure you that if a British TV company had attacked Blair in
the same way that this lot did to Chávez, advocating a coup and even the
assassination of the head of state, they would be in prison before their feet
could touch the ground. No! The
problem here is not that we "have gone too far", as Heinz Dieterich and others
think, but that we have been too soft. For example, how many of the April 2002
conspirators are behind bars? As far as I know, not one. This would not be the
case in the USA,
I can assure you!
Many chavistas are sceptical
about the President’s appeal to form the PSUV, because they fear that it may be
an attempt to control and silence internal dissent. What do you think about
this? Is a single party an instrument suitable for promoting a "revolution
within the revolution" which is what you support?
On the one hand, it is evident that the working class needs a political
party and also that the old parties that made up the MVR were very bad, totally
taken over by the bureaucracy and the reformists. Therefore, it seems to me
that the proclamation of the PSUV could be an important step forward, but only
on condition that it is a genuinely revolutionary party, that is, a democratic
and class party, controlled by the working class rank and file and not just
another bureaucratic apparatus for the careerists and opportunists. Here also
the presence of a strong Marxist tendency is absolutely necessary.
Your book on Venezuela has
been translated into various languages, including Urdu. This has made Chávez
and the Bolivarian Revolution known in countries like India and Pakistan. Do you really think that
what is happening in Venezuela
is an example for the world? If so, why?
It is true that my book has been a great success because it fills a
vacuum. Unfortunately, a great part of the Left internationally has not
understood the significance of the Bolivarian Revolution, although this
situation is changing rapidly, as people begin to find out what is going on in Venezuela. In
all this a very important role has been played, and is still being played, by
our international campaign Hands off Venezuela.
Why is the Venezuelan revolution
important for the rest of the world? Well, in the first place, all this should
not be happening! After the fall of the USSR the bourgeoisie succumbed to a
mood of euphoria. They spoke of the end of socialism, the end of communism, of
revolution, even the end of history. Now Venezuela has turned all these
delusions on their head! The Bolivarian Revolution is like an echo of those
famous last words of Galileo: "Eppur si muove!" (And yet, it moves!).
In the last period capitalism has demonstrated that it is incapable of
satisfying the most basic necessities of the masses. On all sides we see more
hunger, more diseases, more misery, more wars. But there is also an increasing
reaction by the people. Classical physics says: every action produces an equal
and opposite reaction. That is also true in politics! The mass movement
increasingly tends to question the capitalist system – even in the USA. And Venezuela
offers a point of reference for these movements. That is why the imperialists
are hell-bent on destroying the Bolivarian Revolution at all costs, because it
gives an example to millions of exploited and oppressed people in America and
further afield.
In Venezuela there is a class struggle
that has an increasingly sharp and ferocious character. We still do not know
how it will end. But we do know on what side of the barricades we are! With the
workers and peasants and against the bourgeois, bankers and landowners! With
the revolutionary youth and the vanguard that wants to carry the revolution
forward, striking hard blows against the counter-revolutionaries, and against
the timid reformists and cowardly and treacherous bureaucrats!
If anyone had any doubt about
whether we should support the Bolivarian Revolution, it is only necessary to
see the attitude of US
imperialism, which does not conceal its plans to overthrow Chávez and is
backing the counter-revolution. This detail is sufficient to convince anyone of
the necessity to rally to the defence of the Bolivarian Revolution. But in
order to defend it seriously, it is absolutely necessary to go further, liquidating
the economic power of the oligarchy. It is not sufficient to talk about
socialism; it is necessary to make it a reality! And this can only be done when
the working class takes power into its hands.
Once
the working class takes power into its hands, the Bolivarian Revolution will
lose its ambiguous and indecisive character and will acquire an irresistible
strength, passing beyond the narrow national frontiers and transforming itself
rapidly into a continental revolutionary movement. The conditions are more
than ripe for this! Today there is not a single stable bourgeois
regime in all Latin America – from Tierra del Fuego to the Rio Grande. The great vision of the
Libertador, Simon Bolivar, of the revolutionary unification of Latin America, would be feasible for the first time. But
it would only be possible in a Socialist Federation of Latin America, which in
turn would be the first step towards world socialism.
London, 6 June, 2007
[Note: to be published
shortly in Revista Humania del Sur, Revista de Estudios Latinoamericanos
Africanos y Asiáticos de la Facultad de Humanidades y Educación de la
Universidad de Los Andes, Mérida – Venezuela, http://www.saber.ula.ve/humaniadelsur/]
