of counter-revolution – in part driven
from within the Chavista movement itself.
This involves sections of the
old elite which have gone over to Chávez. They are now making massive
profits. To this must be added the new rich – the ‘Boli-burguesia’ (Boli-bourgeoisie).
There is a strong element of what unfolded in South Africa where a
section of the ANC enriched itself following the fall of apartheid,
becoming a new upper-middle class and even a section of the capitalist
class. This process is well advanced in Venezuela – in the name of
socialism.
Ricardo Fernandez Barruesco,
for instance, started in the food industry but now owns Banco Canarias,
Bolivar Banco and others. A decade ago, Wilmer Ruperti was simply
another businessman. Today, he is a shipping tycoon and billionaire,
Venezuela’s richest man. He made his fortune during the lock-out, using
his tankers to ship oil. Since then he has been richly rewarded with
lucrative contracts with the state-owned oil company, PDVSA.
The growth of the
Boli-burguesia is likely to continue in the coming period. Chávez is
faced with a declining economy – industrial production set to fall
10.25% in the third quarter of 2009. Identifying 54 issues that need to
be confronted, Chávez stepped up his appeal to the private banks – some
of the richest in Latin America – to help stimulate the economy by
increasing credit to the commercial sectors. (Ultimas Noticias, 22
September) Although some ‘nationalisations’ have received a lot of
international attention most of them have ended up as joint ventures.
The whole thrust of economic policy has been to increase state
intervention but to run it as a mixed capitalist economy.
Clogging up the system
AT THE BEGINNING of the world
economic crisis, Chávez denied that Venezuela would be affected. That
was before the oscillating oil price began to hit the economy.
Incredibly, PDVSA increased its debt level by 146% in 2008, owing an
estimated $12 billion to contractors. As most of the social programmes
are financed by PDVSA, its increased debt adversely impacts on them.
Expenditure on them was cut by 58% in 2008 compared with 2007. Further
cuts are planned. When inflation – at 30%, the highest in Latin America
– is taken into account, economists estimate that the real value of the
2009 budget will be 30% lower than 2007. To these cuts must be added the
devastating consequences of bureaucracy, corruption and inefficiency,
which have seriously undermined even the most popular misiones, the
state-run supermarket, Mercal, and price controls on basic goods.
Barrio Adentro health
clinics, opened to widespread acclaim, are now frequently closed and
fail to operate. Complaints by Cuban doctors prompted Fidel Castro to
write to Chávez warning him that the health system was not functioning.
Chávez proclaimed that something must be done. It is as though Chávez
had nothing to do with the problem! Why was a letter from Castro
necessary to alert the Venezuelan government of a crisis in its own
health sector?
The popular reforms have
become clogged up in a mesh of bureaucracy, corruption and lack of
overall planning. The introduction of unified planning in the health
sector alone, run through democratic workers’ control and management,
could have been an example of what is needed in the rest of the economy.
Unfortunately, the health sector is plunging deeper into crisis. The
introduction of new clinics was accompanied by stagnation and cut-backs
elsewhere in the sector. Outside Barrio Adentro clinics a visit to the
doctor brings a bill for a consultation.
Basic facilities like the
kitchens and laundries at El Agodonal, one of Caracas’s largest
hospitals, have been closed or have not worked properly for years and
are causing infections. A walk around this hospital, once visited by Che
Guevara, reveals repair projects standing idle. Between 2007 and 2009
the government authorised more than two billion bolivars for hospital
repairs and infrastructure but all the projects have stalled. El
Agondonal operates at 30% capacity. Despite the number of Cuban doctors
in the country there is a 30% deficit of doctors nationally.
The absence of genuine
democratic workers’ control and management is allowing the cancer of
corruption and bureaucracy to eat away at the effectiveness of the
reform programmes. There has been an explosive growth in state
bureaucracy. Chávez has six vice-presidents. The state employs two
million of the twelve million-strong labour force. The number of
administrators working for PDVSA has increased 266% since 2002.
In the centre of Caracas a
new bus lane stands incomplete, overrun with cars and motor bikes. It is
a victim of bureaucratic mismanagement and corruption, and the Russian
contractor who took the money and ran. Cuts in power and water supplies
are common. The nationalised electricity company employs 42,000 workers,
split into over 200 separate management departments. Chávez claims that
the cuts are due to changing weather patterns. In reality, they are a
monument to the lack of serious investment and bureaucratic
mismanagement. Chavez’s solution? Shower for three minutes: one to wash
down, another to soap and a third to rinse off!
Even the limited agrarian
reform has been affected. Since 1999, the state has taken over
approximately 2.5 million hectares of land. In 1999, the quantity of
meat produced was 17.4 kilos per person per month, enough to satisfy
almost all of the domestic market. Production in 2009 is expected to
fall to 7.8 kilos per month, compelling the state to import more than
50% of the meat consumed in Venezuela.
Price controls and shortages
THE WORKING CLASS would be
prepared to accept hardship for a temporary period of time if it were
necessary. To do so, however, it has to be convinced that it must defend
the socialist revolution and feel that the leaders and activists are
also prepared to make such sacrifices. When there is growing inequality
and corruption, workers will not accept attacks and cuts in living
standards.
The price controls which were
introduced bear little relation to the price goods are sold for on the
street due to shortages, speculation and corruption. Even Mercal has
hiked prices on many basic food items. Rice was increased 29%, milk 68%
and pasta 78%. While these state supermarkets still offer much cheaper
prices these increases directly affect the poorest sections of the
population. Ironically, 20 years after the collapse of the Berlin wall,
the shortages, empty shelves, and massive queues make a trip to Mercal
reminiscent of the former Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe and the
Soviet Union. It is not uncommon to have to search four or five shops to
find milk.
During the Allende government
in Chile (1970-73) shortages of some goods developed as a result of
sabotage by the employers who were preparing for Pinochet’s military
coup. The consequences of these shortages were partly overcome by
democratic workers’ and popular organisations. The factory committees,
cordones – and JAP in the shantytowns – organised food distribution on
the basis of need and availability. Price speculation was controlled for
a temporary period as they established basic food prices. Unfortunately,
these types of organisations do not exist in Venezuela.
The Chávez regime is coming
up against the irreconcilable contradiction that arises from attempting
to maintain reforms without overthrowing capitalism and introducing a
democratic socialist planned economy. Marxists welcome all reforms which
benefit the working class and poor. The capitalist system, however, will
not allow a permanently ongoing programme of reforms, and will attempt
to roll them back. This was demonstrated during the massive
revolutionary movements in Mexico (1910-20) and Bolivia (1952). The
failure to defeat landlordism and capitalism in both cases meant that
the massive gains won during both revolutions were eventually destroyed.
That process is underway in Venezuela.
The active involvement of the working class
THE PROBLEMS HAVE been
compounded by the methods used from the outset of this revolution. It
has been ‘led’ from the top, using bureaucratic methods without the
conscious, independent organisation of the working class and masses with
checks and controls from below. This reflects Chávez’s military
background and the weakness of an independent movement of the working
class and poor. The best of the traditions of the working class need to
be incorporated into a bold revolutionary movement with the programme
and methods necessary to defeat capitalism. At the same time, weaknesses
need to be overcome. A socialist revolution cannot be carried through by
glossing over problems.
In Venezuela, unlike Chile,
Bolivia or Brazil, historically the independent organisation of the
working class has been very weak. The first real Venezuelan trade union
federation, CTV, was not formed until 1936 and did not really start to
function until the 1950s. The Communist Party was not formed until 1931
– under clandestine conditions and as a Stalinist party from its
inception.
This weakness was one of the
factors which allowed Chávez and his supporters to assume the leadership
of the movement and shape its character. The British writer, Richard
Gott (in his book, In the Shadow of the Liberator) describes a
discussion on the question of a general strike and uprising between
Chávez and the veteran Venezuelan left-wing guerrilla leader, Douglas
Bravo: "That is exactly what Chávez did not want. Absolutely not. Chávez
did not want civilians to participate as a concrete force". Bravo said
that in a heated argument Chávez pronounced that "civilians only get in
the way".
Chávez did everything
possible to avoid the active involvement of the masses. In 1992, he
launched a radical populist military rebellion which was defeated.
According to Bravo, a meeting of student, civil and other organisations,
including junior army officers like Chávez, agreed 8 February for a
joint civil/military uprising. To avoid involving the civil population,
Chávez jumped the gun and organised his defeated coup on 3 February.
Unfortunately, Bravo’s guerrilla experiences and developments nationally
and internationally have led him to renounce ‘Marxism-Leninism’, and
embrace ‘left humanism’ as an alternative to the Chávez regime.
The top-down militaristic
approach of the Bolivarian movement has been one of its characteristics.
The CWI has warned many times about the consequences of this: "…without
the democratic check of the working class, those sections of the
military who find themselves playing a leading role can inevitably
develop administrative or bureaucratic tendencies towards commandism.
Without a clear understanding of the role of the working class in the
revolution and being subjected to its democratic check and control, even
the most well-intentioned officers develop such tendencies and attempt
to impose their will over the working class from above". (Revolutionary
Socialists and the Venezuelan Revolution, 2004)
Increased repression
THE CHÁVEZ-LED state machine
has begun to use Stalinistic forms of repression against the working
class and those who criticise the government. Under the pretext of
defending the ‘socialist revolution’, critics are denounced as
‘counter-revolutionary’ or ‘agents of imperialism, the CIA and MI5’. In
one instance, a CWI supporter was told by a PSUV official that it is
only permissible to speak of "Chávez, Fidel, Che, Mao but not of the
counter-revolutionary Trotsky". This is despite Chávez’s previous
endorsement of Trotsky in one speech.
These methods are reminiscent
of those used by CP leaders during the Spanish civil war in the 1930s.
In Spain, the working class rose against the fascist Franco rebellion,
eventually controlling four-fifths of the country. The old capitalist
state lay in tatters as the working class advanced. However, the working
class did not establish its own state. The policy of the Stalinists was
to hold back the socialist revolution and reach an agreement with a
section of the ‘progressive’ capitalist class. As a consequence, the
capitalist state was reconstituted and the revolution was defeated.
Those opposing the CP were denounced and often executed as
counter-revolutionaries. This is not the situation in Venezuela today.
But the use of quasi-Stalinist methods is a shadow from Spain.
Repressive methods are also
being used directly against workers who have moved into struggle to
defend their rights. In 2009, there has been a significant increase in
strikes over wages, conditions and rights. According to some estimates,
there were more than 400 labour disputes in the year to August 2009,
involving the steel, electricity, iron ore, aluminium, transport, health
and other sectors.
When metro workers in Caracas
were preparing for strike action to defend a collective contract, Chávez
threatened to put them under military rule. Using laws related to
‘national security’, strategically important areas such as the metro and
hospitals have been designated ‘zonas de emergencia’ where protests and
strikes are outlawed. In Zulia state, when petrol workers took action to
be incorporated into a collective contract, 40 members of the national
guard attacked the workers, arresting and holding the union leader for
17 hours.
The world media gave much
attention to Chávez’s launch of the ‘socialist’ cell-phone, Viagra,
which went into production on 1 May 2008. Little coverage has been given
to the appalling conditions of the workers at Vtelca, the company which
produces it. Compelled to work extra shifts with no guarantee of extra
pay, management has used every means at its disposal, including the
national guard, against the workforce which attempted to form a workers’
council and elect health and security representatives. In breach of the
labour laws, 60 workers were eventually dismissed for a ‘lack of
commitment and dedication’ to the job.
Sections of the working class
have been driven into desperate action. In PDVSA, 1,400 workers demanded
that they be incorporated into a collective contract rather than be left
in a ‘holding’ company with no fixed contract. These workers had no
confidence in their union leaders. Twenty-seven went on hunger strike,
sewing their lips together to prevent themselves from eating. During the
dispute, sections of the rightwing-led university students were
protesting against the new education law – some also went on hunger
strike. Chávez and his regime attacked the workers for being manipulated
by right-wing, counter-revolutionary students!
A section of the old
right-wing trade unions has also tried to reconcile itself with Chávez.
In crucial elections for the leadership of FUTPV, the national oil
workers’ federation, the winning slate was headed by Wills Rangel with
the backing of the government and PSUV (the ruling party set up by
Chávez after the 2006 elections). Rangel was a former trade union bureau
member of the social democratic party, Acion Democratica, one of the
main parties of the pre-Chávez political establishment. Rangel only
broke with AD in 2003.
At a subsidiary of the
nationalised SIDOR company, hundreds of workers have been excluded from
collective contracts. They took strike action, facing police repression
and arrests. One union leader who is critical of the government,
declared: "Socialism in the 21st century means workers in handcuffs".
Sections of workers are being denounced as counter-revolutionary in the
name of socialism while the forces of reactionary capitalism are allowed
to present themselves as defenders of democratic rights and ‘friends’ of
the working class.
International alliances or internationalism?
THESE DEVELOPMENTS HAVE
undermined support for Chávez and his regime. Inevitably, different
layers of workers and the poor are drawing different conclusions from
this process. While a growing number is moving away from the regime, a
layer of the most downtrodden and oppressed ardently support it. In some
areas, sections of these have been drawn into new ‘socialist patrols’,
established as local community branches of the PSUV. Sometimes these
‘vigilante’ groups have been sent into the metro and hospitals to
prevent workers’ assemblies from being organised, whipped up by
propaganda presenting these workers as privileged layers who support
counter-revolution.
It would be a mistake to
exaggerate this tendency. But it is emerging in some areas and is a
warning of the danger of splitting the working class and the urban poor.
And there has been a rapid acceleration of such methods. The PSUV has a
claimed membership of five million. It is divided into three categories
– full membership, sympathisers, and ‘the reserve’ (the largest
category) – reflecting how far the militarisation of the process is
developing. Some of these methods were initially borrowed from Cuba.
Now, it appears that much is
being imported from the regime in China whose influence has increased
alongside trade deals and joint infrastructure ventures. Chávez sent 100
top PSUV officials for ‘ideological training’ in China. His government
placed official adverts in the press on the anniversary of the Chinese
revolution praising the regime of Hu Jintao.
One of the Chávez regime’s
international strategies has been to attempt to form a bloc with anyone
in conflict with US imperialism. A genuine revolutionary socialist
government in any country may find itself isolated for a time until the
revolution develops elsewhere. Under such conditions there is nothing
wrong with a workers’ state forming trade and commercial agreements,
some of which may be forced on it. Exploiting splits and divisions
between imperialist powers would be entirely legitimate under such
conditions.
However, entering into trade
agreements is not the same as lavishly heaping praise on brutal regimes
which repress their own people. Commercial deals do not necessitate
praising the likes of Ahmedinejad of Iran as a great revolutionary
leader. According to Chávez, the mass movement against the Iranian
regime was all part of an imperialist plot. Chávez has added Libyan
leader Muammar Gaddafi to the list. Neither the Venezuelan nor Cuban
regime was even prepared to condemn the vicious slaughter of Tamil
people by the Sri Lankan government and vote against it in the UN! The
endorsement of dictatorial regimes by a regime claiming to defend
‘revolutionary socialism’ is indefensible. It can only damage the idea
of socialism around the world.
The future of the Chávez
regime is in the balance. Parliamentary elections to the national
assembly are due in 2010. Chávez is aiming for a two-thirds majority.
This seems unlikely at the moment. Yet to try and reach his objective,
the proportional representation system has been scrapped, re-enforcing
the idea that Chávez is heading a repressive regime, and further
undermining his support. This plays into the hands of the right-wing.
The threat of creeping counter-revolution remains as growing sections of
the population become more frustrated and disillusioned with the regime.
At the same time, the
prospect of more class battles and even big social explosions in
opposition to these attacks is present in the situation. Under such
conditions, especially with a sharp economic recession, it cannot be
excluded that Chávez could again take some further populist measures,
including more nationalisation or expropriation, and take other measures
against the Boli-burguesia and corruption.
Such steps would only resolve
the underlying problems if they were based on a conscious independent
movement of the working class with a programme to carry through the
socialist revolution. Even if capitalism were fully snuffed out, the
absence of workers’ democracy would prevent the movement developing
towards genuine socialism. The struggle for a socialist programme is
urgent, therefore, to breathe fresh life into the Venezuelan revolution
and defeat the threat of counter-revolution.
* A programme for socialist
change would demand:
* Workers’ control through
committees of elected delegates controlling the day-to-day running of
workplaces
* All officials to be
elected, subject to immediate recall, and to receive no more than the
average wage of a skilled worker
* The formation of an
independent democratic trade union federation with an elected leadership
under the control of the rank and file
* All company books
(including from nationalised sectors) to be opened for inspection by
workers’ committees
* Linking up the committees
on a city, state and national level
* The expropriation of the
banks, multi-national companies and top 100 families who control the
economy
* The boards of state-run
companies to be made up of elected representatives of the workers in the
industry/sector, wider sections of the working class, and from the
workers’ and peasants’ government
* The introduction of a
democratic socialist plan of production
* An appeal to the workers
and poor around the world for solidarity with the Venezuelan revolution
* For a federation of
socialist states in South America
