Venezuelan elections: Why the IMT supports Chávez

The presidential election due on
October 7 represents a decisive moment in the history of Venezuela. The
outcome of this election will have a major impact throughout the
continent and internationally. It goes without saying that the Hands Off
Venezuela campaign is actively supporting the Bolivarian candidate Hugo
Chavez and fighting against any attempt of the oligarchy and
imperialism to sabotage the elections. The IMT stands firmly for the
re-election of Hugo Chávez. Why have we taken this position?

Chavez at rally, September 2012. Photo: chavezcandangaThe
victory of Hugo Chávez in 1998 represented a historic advance of the
workers and peasants of Venezuela. According to the UN Economic
Commission on Latin America there was a 21 per cent reduction of poverty
rates between 1999 and 2010. Illiteracy has been abolished. For the
first time free healthcare has been provided for the poor.

All these gains would be threatened by a victory of the opposition.
It is the elementary duty of every genuine revolutionary to defend these
gains. Whoever is not able to defend the gains of the past will never
be able to advance to the final victory.

The opposition’s claim that it will not reverse Chávez’s reforms is
not to be trusted. Let us take just one example: housing. The Housing
Mission has built thousands of homes for the poor. In May, information
minister Andrés Izarra announced that the programme was on target with
200,000 units built since it began in 2011. The polling firm Hinterlaces
indicates that, with a 76 per cent approval rating, the Housing Mission
is the most popular government social programme. Yet the opposition
coalition MUD calls the Housing Mission “a fraud and a failure” and
criticizes the government for expropriating land to build housing.

When Capriles won the governorship of Miranda State in 2008, he
unleashed his supporters against the Cuban doctors participating in the
healthcare programs of the revolution, and generally attempted to close
down the different social programs by expelling them from premises
belonging to the governorship, etc. It was only the active mobilisation
of the people in the streets that managed to defend the gains of the
revolution.

The new Labour law recently reduced the working week from 44 to 40
hours, and pre- and post-natal paid time off has been increased from 18
to 26 weeks. On leaving a company, for whatever reason, workers will
receive a payment based on their last monthly salary multiplied by the
number of years of employment – a major trade union demand. This is at a
time when in Europe, all governments are worsening workers’ conditions
of employment.

Capriles has attacked the law on the grounds that it “does nothing to
deal with unemployment or to benefit those with unprotected casual
jobs”. That means that these reforms would be abolished by the
opposition.

But it is not just a question of defending the conquests of the last
13 years, of preserving the reforms, the gains in healthcare and
education, the Missions and other programmes in the interest of the
workers and the poor. It is above all, the need to defeat the bourgeois
counterrevolution and thus prepare the way for a decisive advance for
the Revolution, which has not yet accomplished its fundamental goals.

The opposition says it is defending “democracy” against
“dictatorship”. But the same opposition was behind the failed coup in
2002. If they had succeeded then, it would have been the end of
democracy in Venezuela. The example of Chile shows the fate that would
have been in store. Capriles himself, as the Mayor of the Caracas
district of Baruta, participated in the attempt to storm the Cuban
embassy during the April 2002 coup, in flagrant violation of its
diplomatic status.

The bourgeois opposition showed its contempt for democracy and
elections by its decision to boycott national elections in 2005. Now,
however, opposition leaders are falling over themselves to “defend” the
1999 constitution – which they have always opposed tooth and nail,
although it was approved by an overwhelming majority in a popular
referendum.

Nobody can place the slightest trust in the democratic credentials of the opposition.

What the opposition stands for

The opposition claims to represent the middle classes. But that is a
lie. The opposition represents the interests of the oligarchy – the big
landowners, bankers and capitalists. They are completely subservient to
the imperialists and the big oil companies that dominated and plundered
Venezuela for generations.

The wealthy people hate Chávez, because they fear that he means to
eliminate private property. They are motivated by class resentment
toward the poor, who, after generations of neglect, have benefitted from
progressive government programmes. The opposition is not the
representative of the middle class but its political exploiter.

The candidate of the opposition, Henrique Capriles Radonski, calls
himself a reformer. He claims not to stand for any sort of ideology. We
have heard this story many times before: “I am non-political: that is, I
am right wing.” But it is sufficient to cast a glance at the party to
which this “non-ideological” politician belongs, to immediately grasp
the real situation.

Capriles claims to be “progressive”. He says he will not repeat the
“mistaken policies” of pre-1998 Venezuela. But the very parties that
endorse his candidacy were responsible for these policies, which were
not at all “mistakes” but were the direct expression of the interests of
the super-rich clique that ran the country.

But the masses are not naive. They are not deceived by Capriles’
demagogy. They see that behind the smiling mask there lies concealed the
ugly physiognomy of the oligarchy, which, if it returns to power, will
trample them underfoot.

Capriles belongs to the Justice First Party (MPJ), a right-wing
bourgeois party that stands for “private enterprise” and opposes the
intervention of the state in economic life. This is ironical at a time
when so-called “free enterprise” has been exposed as a gigantic fraud on
a global scale.

Does Mr. Capriles not know that the capitalist system is in a deep
crisis everywhere? When the private banks in the US collapsed in 2008,
what did they do? Did they confine themselves to singing the praises of
“private enterprise”? No, they ran to the state and demanded that the
government hand over billions of dollars of public money to save them.

The failure of “private enterprise” is the reason why every
government in Europe is deep in debt. They say there is no money for
schools, hospitals and pensions, but there is plenty of money for the
bankers.

In the last weeks an opposition leader revealed a document, written
by the economic advisors of the Capriles campaign, with details about
their real plans if he were to be elected. The document puts forward a
classic austerity package, proposing cuts in pensions, social spending,
the social programs, the “opening up” of PDVSA and other state-owned
companies to private investment, etc. The plan is so scandalous that it
led to four smaller parties in the joint opposition platform (MUD)
withdrawing their support for Capriles and a whole host of other
opposition figures also distancing themselves from him.

The workers and peasants understand what is at stake. At every
decisive turn they have rallied to defend the Revolution against its
enemies: the landowners, bankers and capitalists and the imperialists
who stand behind them. They understand that a vote for Chávez in these
elections is a vote against returning to the bad old days when a tiny
handful of wealthy oligarchs decided everything and the poor majority
counted for nothing.

Despite the opposition’s claims that it is winning, Chávez is
presently leading in the polls. The Datanálisis survey gave Chávez a
lead of anything between 43.6 per cent and 27.7 per cent over Capriles.
It also showed that 62.4 per cent of voters rate the president’s
performance as above average; while only 29.4 per cent consider it poor.
These findings may be believed, since the owner of Datanálisis, Luis
Vicente León is well known to be a supporter of the opposition.

Capriles and US imperialism

Chávez is regarded as Public Enemy Number One by Washington, who sees
him as the main instigator of opposition to US imperialism in Latin
America. Chávez energetically condemned the coup against President
Fernando Lugo of Paraguay. Prompted by his friends in the U.S. State
Department, Capriles criticized Chávez for recalling his ambassador from
Asunción and cutting off the supply of oil to Paraguay.

Capriles pledges to re-establish friendly relations with the U.S.,
that is, to make Venezuela subservient to Washington, as it was in the
past. He promises a thorough revision of Venezuela’s aid programmes and
alliances with the rest of Latin America. That means a break with Cuba,
Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua, to please his “allies” north of the Rio
Grande.

Shortly before stepping down as president of the World Bank in June,
Robert Zoellick declared that “Chávez’s days are numbered” and, with the
elimination of his government’s foreign subsidies, other nations such
as Cuba and Nicaragua will “be in trouble.” Zoellick sees a Capriles
victory as “an opportunity to make the western hemisphere the first
democratic hemisphere” as opposed to a “place of coups, caudillos, and
cocaine.”

These words accurately express the attitude of US imperialism to the
elections of October 7. They see this as a decisive event. If the
opposition wins, it will mean putting the clock back to the situation
before 1998, when Venezuela was ruled by the big US monopolies. But if
Chávez wins it will be a devastating blow to the counterrevolution, as
Michael Penfold warns in in Foreign Affairs: “If Chávez wins in
October, a vast majority of the opposition’s political capital will be
dashed; in many ways, it will be back to square one.”

That is why the imperialists and their local agents single out Chávez
for special treatment. The expropriations, the reversal of “neoliberal”
economic measures, the creation of a popular militia, the refusal to
bend the knee to pressure from Washington, the attacks on capitalism and
appeals for socialism – all this is a dangerous and explosive mixture
that acts as a powerful catalyst to revolutionary tendencies in Latin
America.

Yet another goal outlined in Chávez’s electoral platform is the
expansion of the power of community councils. Several hundred “communes
in construction” are to be involved in such areas as gas and water
distribution. Chávez proposes to promote the creation of new communes to
represent 68 per cent of the population. The communes are to be granted
the same prerogatives as state and municipal governments, including
budgeting, participation in state planning and, eventually, tax
collection. All these measures represent a gradual encroachment of the
state in economic life.

The imperialists fear that a Chávez victory in October will mean
further deepening of change in Venezuela. Chávez has said that the
period 2013-2019 must see new state incursions into commerce and
transport, to the detriment of middlemen, through the creation of
“centres of local distribution for the sale and direct distribution of
products.” This tendency towards new expropriations may eventually
threaten the very existence of capitalism in Venezuela.

The real difference

The division between the two camps is the division between two
antagonistic classes: on the one hand, the millions of poor people,
workers and peasants, urban poor and lower layers of the middle class,
on the other, the big landowners, bankers and capitalists and their
well-to-do middle class hangers-on.

The real difference centres on the question of private property: the
question of economic policy and in particular, expropriations. The
overwhelming majority of Chávez supporters are from the former strata
and they stand firmly for socialism, for the expropriation of the
landowners and capitalists.

The Bolivarian bureaucracy has attempted to water down the socialist
programme. Instead, they speak of a “mixed economy”, in which monopolies
and oligopolies will face competition from public companies. This is
the old idea of a “third way” between capitalism and socialism, which
President Chávez has correctly described as a farce.

It is not possible to make half a Revolution. In the last analysis,
one class must win and the other class must lose. Partial
nationalization can never work because it is impossible to plan what you
do not control, and it is impossible to control what you do not own. An
economy which is only partly owned by the state cannot be properly
planned.

At the same time, all the attempt to “regulate” capitalism in an
attempt to improve the situation of the masses (through price controls,
foreign exchange controls, etc) will prevent the normal functioning of a
market economy, creating a chaotic situation of inflation, a flight of
capital, falling investment, factory closures, artificially created
shortages, hoarding and speculation with basic food products,
bureaucratic bungling and mismanagement. In other words, you will get
the worst of all worlds.

The private sector, which still controls a significant part of the
economy, is in the hands of the enemies of the Revolution. The
capitalists are doing everything in their power to sabotage the economy
through a strike of capital. It is necessary to expropriate the land,
banks and big business in order to put an end to this sabotage.

But Capriles has pledged to halt all expropriations. “I’m not going
to squabble with businessmen or anyone else,” he says. Naturally! How
can he squabble with the people whose interests he represents, and to
which he belongs? Capriles himself comes from a wealthy business family
with multiple interests (real estate, industry, media). He is also the
former mayor of the municipality of Baruta, an affluent area of Caracas.

He promises to create three million jobs during his presidency. How
is this miracle to be accomplished? By lifting restrictions or
conditions on foreign investments, that is to say, by handing Venezuela
on a plate to the same big foreign oil companies that plundered it in
the past. Not accidentally, the alliance of parties that support
Capriles, the Democratic Unity Table (MUD), advocates “making flexible”
the legislation that asserts state control over the oil industry “to
promote competition and private participation in the industry.”

The Revolution is not finished

A Chávez victory will encourage the swing to the left in Latin
America at a moment when capitalism is in a deep crisis on a world
scale. It will further undermine U.S. influence at a time when its plans
for Iraq and Afghanistan are in ruins. On the other hand, a defeat for
Chávez would put the clock back to pre-1999 Venezuela. It would deal a
heavy blow to the Left everywhere. It would leave Cuba completely
isolated, providing a powerful impetus to the pro-capitalist elements on
the island.

The opposition has callously attempted to take advantage of Chavez’s
illness prior to the election campaign. They stressed Chávez’s
“frailty,” in contrast to the alleged youthful good health and energy of
his opponent. In addition, they add, the chavistas do not have anyone
who could take his place. On this they have a point. It is an undoubted
weakness of the Bolivarian Movement and the PSUV that it depends so much
on one man.

Chávez has gone further than any other leader in Latin America in
challenging imperialism and capitalism and placing socialism back on the
agenda. This deserves recognition. But there are deep contradictions
within the Bolivarian Movement, where not everyone is in favour of
socialism or opposed to capitalism.

When Chávez was first elected president in December 1998, he stood on
a rather vague platform that did not mention socialism. But life
teaches. On the basis of experience, he has come out in favour of
socialism. That is a great step forward. But it still needs to be
implemented. True, there have been some steps forward: he has partially
nationalized some key sectors such as telecommunications, cement and
steel. He has repeatedly attacked the bourgeoisie and the oligarchy
(which is the same thing) and he has stood up against U.S. imperialism.

But the lack of workers’ control in state-run heavy industries such
as steel, has given rise to many difficulties and labour unrest. The
workers resent the bureaucracy that is trying to elbow them to one side
and usurp control of the Bolivarian Movement. All the attempts of the
workers to take the initiative and introduce elements of workers’
control and management, for instance in the basic heavy industries in
Guayana, with the support of the President, have been met with fierce
resistance and open sabotage on the part of the bureaucracy. Taking
advantage of the President’s illness, these elements are openly talking
about “chavismo without Chávez.” This represents the biggest danger for
the Revolution.

Today, thirteen years after the election of Chávez that final victory
has still not been achieved. As long as the land, the banks and big
enterprises remain in the hands of the oligarchy, the Bolivarian
Revolution will never be safe. The deep bond that exists between Chávez
and the Venezuelan masses is a reflection of the fact that Chávez
aroused them to political life and struggle.

The truth is that a big section of the Bolivarian bureaucracy was
never in favour of socialism. They have been constantly conspiring to
put the brakes on the Revolution, halt expropriations and above all
prevent the workers from taking control.

Le Monde Diplomatique recently revealed the attitude of the
right wing of the Bolivarian Movement, which has long been dreaming of
“chavismo without Chávez”:

“On a visit to Brazil in April 2010, he was asked about letting
another leader emerge. ‘I do not have a successor in sight,’ he
answered. But there may be a change in thinking. Last year Chávez told a
former adviser, the Spanish academic Juan Carlos Monedero, who had
warned of the danger of ‘hyperleadership’ in Venezuela: ‘I have to learn
to delegate power more.’ During his extended medical treatment, several
top leaders filled the gap and emerged as possible successors: foreign
minister Nicolás Maduro (a former trade union leader), who headed the
commission that drafted the new labour law; executive vice president
Elías Jaua (popular among the Chávez rank-and-file); National Assembly
president Diosdado Cabello (a former army lieutenant with a pragmatic
approach and strong backing among the armed forces). In May, the
critical Monedero remarked that formerly ‘some of us saw the
difficulties of continuing this process’ without Chávez, but ‘now we
have lost this fear because I see dozens of people who could continue
the process without any problem’.”

That there are “dozens of people” waiting to seize control of the
Bolivarian Movement the moment Chávez leaves the scene we do not doubt.
But the advocates of “chavismo without Chávez” have no wish to “continue
the process” of the Revolution. Rather, they wish to “continue the
process” of derailing the Bolivarian Revolution, of watering down its
programme so as to be acceptable to the oligarchy, halting the
expropriations and putting the whole programme into reverse. In other
words, they wish to implement the programme of the Fifth Column of the
bourgeoisie within chavismo.

The key to the success of the Revolution is that control of the
movement must be in the hands of the rank and file, not the bureaucrats
and careerists who have done so much harm to the Bolivarian cause. It is
the workers and peasants who have been the real motor force of the
Revolution. They and they alone, must be in control. The only people who
can lead the Revolution to victory are the workers and peasants
themselves.