The campaign for Venezuela's presidential election on December 3rd is
already well under way. But this is far from a normal election. On
December 3rd what is really at stake is the future of the Bolivarian
Revolution.
Having been soundly defeated on a number of occasions, the opposition
(i.e. the oligarchy) became demoralised, divided, and lost the capacity
it had had to mobilise hundreds of thousands amongst the middle classes
of the East of Caracas. The defeats of the attempted coups also meant
that the most reactionary sections of the Armed Forces purged
themselves out of the Army. At the same time these events strengthened
the confidence of the masses in their own forces and their resolve to
defend the revolution. This left the oligarchy, in the short term,
unable to carry out a new coup attempt.
But it would be a dangerous mistake to think that they have reconciled
themselves to the idea of acting only within the limits of
parliamentary democracy. Their aim is to get rid of Chavez and to smash
the revolutionary movement and spirit of the masses. And they know very
well that, for now, they cannot achieve this in a clean election
contest. In this field they have been also soundly beaten, in the
recall referendum in August 2004, in the state governor elections in
October 2004 (where they only won in 2 of the country's 23 states) and
then in the council elections in 2005 (where they only won about 25% of
local councils).
Even thought they might be forced to participate in electoral contests,
for lack of a better plan, this is just a tactical move. At the time of
the recall referendum in August 2004, they tried to cry "fraud" in
order to "justify" an international intervention.
In the National Assembly elections of 2005, the tactic used was
different. The opposition pulled out at the last minute complaining
about lack of transparency. This was a clear signal that the Venezuelan
capitalist class is not interested in parliamentary democracy, since it
does not produce the results they want.
This time round, the opposition seems to be using a combination of both
tactics. First of all they managed to rally behind a united candidate
(quite an achievement), Manuel Rosales, the current opposition governor
of the oil rich state of Zulia in the border with Colombia. Rosales
represents a more shrewd type of opposition politician. Rather than
opposing frontally the extremely popular social programmes of the
Chavez government (the Misiones), he has introduced copycat versions of
those in Zulia under a different name (and without the revolutionary
element of self-organisation of the masses that many of the misiones
contain). In his election campaign he has declared that he will keep
the misiones if he is elected. In fact, he has made some many promises
of social assistance that he is the genuine populist candidate in this
election!
The opposition is still making a lot of noise about irregularities in
the electoral register, about the unsafe nature of electronic voting
machines, etc. But Rosales has promised to stay in the race until the
end and not to withdraw. Through their control of private mass media
they are moulding public opinion to the idea that Chavez's lead is
being reduced and that the gap between him and Rosales is closing. As
we get close to election day, they can very easily produce opinions
polls "showing" that this is a very close race, that both candidates
have more or less the same voting intentions, … and then when the
results show Chavez winning by a comfortable margin to organise a
campaign saying there has been fraud, appealing to the armed forces and
the "international community" to intervene, etc.
While the opposition is relatively weak, one of the main dangers for
the Bolivarian revolution comes from within. There is a whole layer of
officials in the state apparatus and in the structures of the
Bolivarian movement who are preventing the revolution from going
forward and being completed. Chavez himself is very much aware of this,
and in a recent interview he warned that this is now the main threat
facing the revolution:
The Threat from Within
"The main threat is within. There is a constant bureaucratic
counter-revolution. I am an enemy on a daily basis. I have to walk
around withj a whip, because I am being attacked from all sides by this
enemy, the old bureaucracy and a new one which resists changes. So much
so that I have to be constantly en guard when I give an instruction,
and follow it up so that it is not stopped, or diverted, or minimised
by this bureaucratic counter-revolution which exists within the state.
This would be one of the elements of the new phase that we are entering
in: the transformation of the State."
This raises two different problems which are linked. On the one hand
the Venezuelan state apparatus is still the same capitalist state
apparatus of the IV Republic. A whole number of activists who come from
the revolutionary movement now occupy positions in Ministries and
institutions, but the basic structures and most of the personnel is
still the same. This means that there is constant sabotage of decisions
taken by the government or the different ministers. When rank and file
organisations have to deal with state institutions they find themselves
blocked at all levels by functionaries who have been in those positions
for 10, 15, 20 years, who are there clearly to serve the interests of
the ruling class.
One of the main lessons Marx and Engels drew from the experience of the
Paris Commune, is that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of
ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." (The
Civil War in France). The experience of the Bolivarian revolution over
the last few years is a damning confirmation of this idea, and there is
a growing discontent within the revolutionary movement with this state
of affairs.
The way Chavez has dealt with this so far has been by trying to by-pass
to a certain extent existing institutions while creating others. For
instance the social plans in the fields of education, health and others
(misiones) were actually not implemented through the Ministries of
Health and Education, but rather directly into the communities. The
problem is that, lacking a proper structure of control and
accountability on the part of the workers and the communities
themselves, bureaucracy has also reproduced in many of these new
institutions. The problem is therefore not only the old bureaucracy of
the IV Republic, but also this new bureaucracy of which Chavez talks,
which disguises itself as "Bolivarian" but in reality is playing a
counter-revolutionary role.
The latest attempt to deal with this problem is the creation of
Communal Councils. These bodies are based on mass assemblies of 200 to
400 families in urban areas and they have the power to elect and recall
community spokespersons. Communal Councils (of which there are now
thousands across the country) are also supposed to get direct funding
from the state in order to deal with issues in the areas where they
operate. This, potentially, could be the basis for a new form of state,
one which is firmly under the control of working people. The problem
arises when these councils co-exist with the present state apparatus,
are not part of a nation-wide centralised structure (and therefore
their real power is limited) and with the fact that Venezuela still has
a capitalist economy (so these councils cannot really plan or manage
the economy in their areas). Unless the current state apparatus is
destroyed and replaced by a new form of state, one based on elected and
recallable delegates from factories, workplaces, communities, etc. the
problem of bureaucracy will reproduce itself once and again.
Reformists and bureaucrats
The other side of the problem is that of the reformist and bureaucratic
sections of the Bolivarian movement. Those who reluctantly accept
Chavez's attacks on capitalism and his appeals for socialism, but who
in reality are basically social democrats, who think that the
revolution has already gone far enough, and above all, that one must
respect private property of the means of production.
The division between left and right at all levels of the Bolivarian
movement is sharpening. A whole number of recent incidents are an
indication of this. At the end of August we saw the polemic between
Caracas Mayor Juan Barreto and Vice-president Jose V Rangel over the
expropriation of two golf courses in the East of Caracas. This was
significant because it was the first time that there was an open split
in the Bolivarian leadership on political issues. And the demarcation
lines were clear: Rangel argued that "in no way do we accept violating
the right of property, as it is described in the constitution", while
Barreto answered that if "we keep in silence", in order not to "scare
off a part of the middle class" this will "demoralised our people".
The Bolivarian masses are clearly becoming impatient when they see that
after more than 7 years of the revolutionary process, still the
majority of the people live in poverty and the progress of the
revolution is being constantly stalled bureaucrats, reformists and the
fifth column. One of the places where the anger of the rank and file of
the revolution has acquired an organised expression is the Andean state
of Mérida, with the formation of the Front of Socialist Forces. On
October 8, this coalition of rank and file revolutionary organisations,
participants of the education misiones, left wing political
organisations, trade unions, land reform committees, etc, called a
demonstration under the banners of "Chavismo with Chavez", "With Chavez
towards socialism" and "With Chavez without bureaucrats". Without the
support of any of the official chavista parties or state institutions,
the march gathered a red tide of more than 12,000 people
(http://venezuela.elmilitante.org/index.asp?id=muestra&id_art=2734).
Briceño, a spokesperson for the Front, explained "our unwavering
support for our president Hugo Chávez," but added that "we are sick and
tired of false leaders who take their positions and forget about their
responsibility towards the people, while they have lucrative
appointments which allow them to buy expensive cars".
Mérida is one of the very few places where the rank and file
revolutionary opposition to the bureaucracy in the Bolivarian movement
has reached such an organised expression, but the attitude of masses is
similar everywhere.
The problem of bureaucracy and lack of democracy does not only exist
within the state apparatus but also, and probably more dangerously,
within the structures of the revolutionary movement itself. The main
government parties (MVR, PPT, PODEMOS) are thoroughly discredited as
instruments through which the rank and file can express themselves.
This is made worse by the way in which candidates from the Bolivarian
movement have been selected for the different elections in the last few
years. Basically they have been appointed from above without any
consultation to the rank and file and its organisations. The Bolivarian
masses have still voted for them, but only because they were "Chavez's
candidates".
In order to address this problem Chavez has now started to talk about
the new for a united party of the revolution. This idea has met with a
lot of support by the rank and file, which see it as a way of getting
rid of the bureaucratic structures of the parties that do exist now.
But the main problem remains, what will be the structure of such a
party? If it is a repetition of the different organisational forms that
have been used up until now (mostly top down, without any
accountability), this will be a new failure. Only an organisation based
on genuine democratic principles (election and right of recall of all
representatives by the rank and file) can serve the needs of the
Venezuelan revolutionary movement.
The struggle for workers control and a socialist economy
The bureaucracy has also been busy trying to water down and sabotage
the experiences of workers' control that have developed in Venezuela
since the expropriation of Venepal in January 2005.
A whole range of forces have gathered to prevent these experiences from
going any further. On the one hand there are those who have argued,
publicly and in private, that there should be no workers control or
participation of the workers in the management of state owned companies
in strategic sectors (particularly oil and energy). Workers in both
industries have responded by saying that they are very aware that these
are strategic interests involved but that this is a precisely one of
the main reasons why they should be under the direct control of the
workers and the communities (that is, under the direct control of the
Venezuelan people), and that the sabotage of PDVSA in December 2002
shows that un-elected, unaccountable managers and directors cannot be
trusted to defend the interests of the country, never mind the
interests of the revolution. This deliberate blocking of workers
control (or as it is known in Venezuela cogestión) has already killed
the experience of workers participation in the electrical company
Cadafe, leaving behind a legacy of demoralisation and cynicism amongst
trade union leaders there.
There are those who argue, incredibly, that the workers of Venezuela
have neither the political level of consciousness, nor the cultural
level, to implement workers control, and therefore that this is a
discussion for the long distant future. This idea was put forward for
instance by Jacobo Torres, from the Bolivarian Workers' Front (one of
the tendencies within the UNT), at a meeting organised by the British
TUC in Brighton. He added that "regardless of what some have been
saying" there is "no workers control in Venezuela" and "least of all in
the basic industries in Guayana"
(http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/british_tuc_solidarity_latin_america_2.htm)
This flies in the face of reality. In the state owned steel mill
Alcasa, in Guayana, the workers elect the different managers of the
company, these are subject to the right of recall by the workers and do
not receive a higher wage than what they had before. If this is not
workers' control, whatever the name it takes in Venezuela, what is it?
Not only this, but both in the case of Alcasa, and in the case of the
oil workers' during the lock out, Venezuelan workers have given enough
proof that they have the necessary political and cultural level to
exercise workers control.
The political position put forward by Torres and others in the
Bolivarian and trade union movement, is just a rehash of the old
Stalinist two-stage theory, which argued that revolution should be
clearly divided into two stages: first the struggle for national
liberation and democracy, and second, in the long and distant future,
the struggle for socialism. The problem proponents of this theory have
is that Chavez has clearly stated that the aim is socialism and the
debate is open in the revolutionary movement. The capitalist class of
Venezuela, as we explained at the beginning, when faced with the first
measures of a genuine national and democratic revolution (not a
socialist one), decided to organise an armed uprising! What clearer
example do you want of the fact that one cannot separate one from the
other. As soon as you start carrying out, in a serious fashion, the
tasks of the national democratic revolution, you are faced with the
simple fact that the enemy you are facing is not only imperialism, but
also the local owners of banks, land and industry, that is, the
capitalist class.
But the development of workers' control has not only been stopped by
the sabotage of the bureaucracy and the reformists. Unfortunately, the
main factor has been the inaction of the trade union leaders. On a
number of occasions Chavez has made an open appeal for workers to take
over factories where the employers have sabotaged production. He event
went as far as drawing up a list of 700 companies that were paralysed
and another 500 that were semi-paralysed and made an appeal for workers
to occupy them.
What did the UNT leadership do? Instead of taking up the call and
organising the workers in different regions to actually occupy these
factories and demand the state to expropriate them under workers
control, they basically did not do anything. Even former Minister of
Labour M Cristina Iglesias, publicly criticised UNT leaders for their
inaction on this front! Some will argue that, after all, Chavez was
only calling on workers to occupy factories that had already been
abandoned by their owners, and that this is not a socialist measure at
all. Strictly speaking this is true. But just imagine the impact of
workers occupying 700, or even 100 factories and demanding
expropriation under workers control, and then these factories being
expropriated by the government. This would have seriously put the
debate about workers control in private and state owned industry, and
the need for democratic planning of the economy, at the top of the
agenda for the workers' movement. In fact, already now, many conflicts
over wages and conditions, end up with the workers discussing the issue
of occupation and of expropriation (as in the case of Sanitarios
Maracay). In a revolutionary situation like in Venezuela there would be
no Chinese wall separating bankrupt companies from active ones which
are attacking workers rights and conditions, nor any division between
private and state owned enterprises.
The Trade Unions
Some in the UNT leadership (as we have seen in the case of Jacobo
Torres) are actually opposed to workers' control (or at least they are
opposed to workers' control being posed now, as opposed to in the long
and distant future). But what is more worrying is the attitude of some
of those in the left wing of the UNT leadership who have not taken this
issue seriously. For instance, leading members of the CCURA left wing
of the UNT, who are promoting the new Party of Revolution and
Socialism, argued against participation in the Latin American Gathering
of Worker Recovered Factories, because, they said, this was a
gobiernero meeting (a pro-government meeting). Surely, it is a good
thing if the Ministry of Labour promotes such a meeting (as long as it
does not try to interfere with the conclusions that the workers should
draw at it). But even if one was in political opposition to the
organisers of the meeting, the worst thing one can do is … abstain from
it! To his credit Orlando Chirino did participate in the meeting, but
most others in CCURA followed the sectarian advice of PRS leaders.
The PRS leaders have also abstained in general from participating in
the movement of occupied factories, Freteco, which was only set up on
February this year, and which now organises the overwhelming majority
of factories under cogestión in Venezuela. The only tendency in the
labour movement which proposed the setting up of such a front and has
workers consistently to develop it, has been the Revolutionary Marxist
Current (CMR http://venezuela.elmilitante.org/)
The recent National Gathering of Freteco was in this respect an
indication of what is possible. The worker activists behind Freteco,
starting with those leading the experience of workers' control at
Inveval in Los Teques, have had to resist enormous pressure on the part
of the state bureaucracy to water down the content of their struggle,
and more recently to put an end to workers' control altogether.
This is still a young movement, learning from its own mistakes. This
was the case for instance at Invepal, the paper mill in Morón. Here the
workers decided to disband the union after the expropriation. They felt
that since they were in control now and elected the directors, they did
not need one. This was a serious mistake, and the new elected directors
moved away from the original aims of the struggle. But the most
important point is that finally, in October 2005, a mass workers'
meeting decided to remove them and elected a new team. This was not
negative, but on the contrary, as the workers explain, it shows how
workers' democracy, accountability and the right of recall are the only
genuine weapons against bureaucracy.
Because of the existence of a body like Freteco, the workers involved
in this struggle, apart from giving each other elementary solidarity,
have also been able to discuss their experiences and to generalise
their conclusions. If an organisation like this (based on elected
delegates at each factory) existed for the whole of the revolutionary
movement, that would be a major step forward.
The workers at Inveval and Invepal, and other occupied factories,
despite all difficulties, show that workers are perfectly capable of
running industry in a democratic way. But they are also very conscious
that they cannot remain small islands of socialism within a sea of
capitalism, and that their struggle is only a part of the general
struggle for the expropriation of the capitalist class as a whole and
the running of the Venezuelan economy under a democratic plan of
production.
The Venezuelan economy remains a capitalist economy. Key sectors remain
in private hands and some of them in the hands of multinational
companies. This is the case with the banking sector for instance (in
the hands of two Spanish based multinationals), telecommunications, the
distribution of food, the mass media, etc. These capitalists have shown
once an again their irreconcilable opposition to the Bolivarian
revolution, even though this has not so far threatened private property
of the means of production directly.
The issue of who controls the economy must be resolved in the next
stage of the revolution. These levers of economic power cannot be left
in the hands of the counter-revolution, which will not hesitate in
using them to smash the revolution, when it feels the time is right.
Turning Point for Revolution
Thus, summarising, we can say that the December 3rd elections are a
crucial turning point for the Venezuelan revolution. The masses will
mobilise to achieve a resounding victory on December 3rd, but after
that they will expect, and demand, solutions to these crucial problems:
the state and the bureaucracy, the democratic organisation of the
revolutionary movement and above all the question of the economy.
In this conditions, the ideas of Marxism which are already being widely
discussed in the movement, will find an even keener audience.
The Venezuelan revolution can only solve this contradictions by
decisively moving in the direction of socialism, that is, a
nationalised and democratically planned economy and a genuine workers'
state based on elected at recallable delegates at all levels.
This would have a massive impact in the already fertile ground of
revolutionary Latin America and open the doors for continent-wide
revolution.
