Decisive moments in Venezuela
Right-wing forces backed by the Venezuelan ruling class
called an ‘indefinite general strike’ in December in an all-out offensive to
overthrow president Hugo Chávez and his radical populist government. TONY
SAUNOIS, secretary of the Committee for a Workers’ International, reports on a
country plunged into social and economic chaos.
THE REACTIONARY ‘STRIKE’ is the most serious crisis Chávez
has faced since the failed coup attempt in April 2002. That coup was defeated by
a spontaneous mass movement of the poor from the shantytowns with the support of
sections of the army rank and file. Following those events, the Committee for a
Workers’ International (CWI) warned that "it is now essential that the working
class and oppressed in Venezuela seize the initiative and take the necessary
steps to overthrow capitalism and establish a democratic workers’ government
with a revolutionary socialist programme. If this is not done then the wounded
beast of US imperialism, and the vengeful ruling class of Venezuela, will
prepare to strike again". (Defeat for US Imperialism and Reaction in Venezuela,
17 April 2002)
It was vital that the masses take the offensive by building
independent committees of workers, the urban poor and rank-and-file soldiers,
linking them locally and nationally. This would have required the adoption of a
revolutionary socialist programme to abolish capitalism. Unfortunately, this did
not take place. Reaction again threatens to unseat Chávez and a massive class
polarisation has opened up in Venezuela.
The ‘strike’ has been called by the Co-ordinadora
Democratica, made up of older capitalist politicians, the employers’
organisation (Fedecamaras), the Catholic church hierarchy, and the corrupt CTV
trade union leadership, which organises about 18% of the workforce. The
character of the ‘strike’ – more like a lock-out – is revealed by the fact that
the employers continue to pay the wages of those taking action. Mark Weisbrot
reported in the Washington Post: "Outside the oil industry, it is hard to find
workers who are actually on strike. Some have been locked out from their jobs,
as business owners – including big foreign corporations such as McDonald’s and
FedEx – have closed their doors in support of the opposition". (12 January)
The rich elite has been able to exploit the fears of the
middle class because of the absence of a strategy to deal with the economic and
social crisis. The government has been unable to satisfy the needs and demands
of middle-class people devastated by the worsening economic situation. Inflation
has soared to 30%, eroding their savings. Unemployment has rocketed to nearly
20%, and 70% of the population lives below the poverty line. And, although much
of the ‘strike’ has been a shutdown by management, big sections of relatively
privileged workers, including white-collar workers and technicians, have
supported it. According to some reports, even dockers in Caracas have been
seduced into joining.
Lessons have not been learnt from April’s attempted coup.
Instead of seizing the initiative, Chávez attempted to placate the ruling class.
This was similar to the mistakes made by Salvador Allende in Chile following a
failed coup attempt against his socialist Popular Unity government in June 1973.
Allende brought high-ranking officers into the government – including Augusto
Pinochet – who then proceeded to plan and execute the blood bath on 11 September
1973.
Taking half measures
CHÁVEZ DID REPLACE some of the coup conspirators at the head
of the army. The counter-revolutionary ‘nest’ was not destroyed, however, as
recent events have shown. The appointment of ‘loyal’ officers is not enough. It
is necessary to form committees of rank-and-file soldiers with the power to
elect and replace officers if necessary. These bodies should bring to trial
those involved in the attempted coup and those acting against the democratic
interests of the masses.
In the state oil company, PDVSA, key administrative posts,
including directorships, were given back to the rightwing, which used them
predictably to plan this ‘strike’. The control of PDVSA, which is almost a state
within a state, is of crucial importance, a central battleground between Chávez
and the opposition. The appointment of some government supporters to the board
of PDVSA is insufficient. The introduction of democratic workers’ control and
management is essential. The board should be comprised of one third elected
representatives of the workers and management in the oil industry, with two
thirds representing the working class as a whole. A workers’ government could
then plan production and use the oil wealth in the interests of the population.
The failure to take these and other steps has given the
opposition time to prepare its attack. The massive class polarisation and the
renewed threat of reaction show that the half-way house which Chávez has tried
to build cannot stand indefinitely. Incremental, limited reforms do not fully
satisfy the working or middle classes. But they irritate the ruling class and
provide it with the pretext to overthrow radical governments threatening its
interests.
Since April the social and economic crisis has deepened. The
latest offensive could yet succeed in sweeping the government aside. This was
the preferred outcome for the Venezuelan ruling class and the US administration.
They fear that another failed coup attempt would deepen the divisions in society
and increase the mobilisation of the masses, propelling Chávez in a more
radical, left direction. A successful coup supported by the US, however, would
complicate the position of imperialism throughout Latin America, especially
following the left-wing election victories of Lula in Brazil and Lucio
Guitiérrez in Ecuador.
They now appear to be attempting a negotiated settlement
based on an idea raised by former US president Jimmy Carter. This would involve
shortening the presidential term and calling early elections. There is, however,
no guarantee that this plan would work. Given the strong base of support for
Chávez, the hatred of the corrupt political establishment and the splits within
the ruling class, it could still be possible for Chávez to win under these
conditions. Two questions are raised: how to avert the threat from the right?
And why has the right been able to increase its support?
Venezuelan society is polarised, split down the middle.
According to recent polls, Chávez is supported by 30% of the population. The
accuracy of these polls is questionable, however, as every polling organisation
– like every national daily newspaper – is controlled by the opposition and is
actively involved in the campaign to bring down the government. Nonetheless,
while retaining overwhelming support in the shantytowns and poor areas of
Caracas, Chávez has lost the support he initially enjoyed amongst significant
sections of the middle class and maybe of some workers as well.
Chávez was swept to power with over 70% of the vote in
December 1998. In 1999 the parties which supported him won 91% of the seats in
elections to the newly established Constituent Assembly.
Chávez has struck some blows against the interests of
sections of the ruling class and their supporters – especially in the state
sector. He has taken a number of steps to curb corruption. Unoccupied land has
been distributed to the peasants, thousands of schools constructed and free
university education introduced. New ‘Bolivarian schools’ have provided
1,400,000 young people with an education and three meals a day. One hundred
thousand houses have been built for the poorest people.
Potential for socialism
HOWEVER, CHÁVEZ HAS not been prepared to break from
capitalism and adopt a revolutionary socialist alternative based on a
nationalised, democratically planned and controlled economy. Nor has he
introduced radical measures such as the nationalisation of the banks or
establishing a state monopoly of foreign trade to stop capital being taken out
of the country. Such a programme would, of course, meet with implacable
opposition from US imperialism and capitalists in Venezuela and the rest of
Latin America.
Latin America is in ferment, however, as illustrated by the
election of Lula and Guitiérrez and the mass movements against neo-liberal
policies which have rocked Bolivia and Peru. Revolutionary socialist policies
could win support across the continent, providing a basis from which capitalism
and landlordism could be overthrown and a democratic socialist federation of
Latin America established.
Chávez has attempted instead to do the impossible and
preside over a capitalist market economy ‘with a human face’. At the same time,
he has viewed the working class as an auxiliary whose role it is to support him
and his government, rather than as the decisive class that could transform
society.
Nonetheless, the measures he has introduced and his
opposition to US foreign policy – for example, denouncing the attack on
Afghanistan as ‘responding to barbarism with barbarism’ – have been a source of
irritation to US imperialism and the Venezuelan ruling class. US imperialism
desires a ‘safe pair of hands’ in government because of the importance of the
oil industry, which accounts for 80% of Venezuela’s national income. Venezuela
is now the second largest exporter of oil to the US, after Saudi Arabia. The
current ‘strike’ has cut US oil imports by 14%.
The social and economic crisis has been compounded by a
campaign of economic sabotage by the ruling class. During the first three months
of 2002 an estimated 10% of GDP was taken out of the country - $700 million in
three days in February – in what has become a steady flight of capital.
Chávez pointed out that the managers of PDVSA received
$50,000 a year. The average annual salary of the 22 ‘strike leaders’, directors
of PDVSA, is $426,000 – almost 100 times the per capita income of the average
Venezuelan (at $4,760)! The oil workers’ union leaders received salaries of
$24,000 a month before Chávez introduced legislation against them.
The directors and union leaders were also set to gain from
plans to privatise the state oil company. This was halted when Chávez changed
the constitution. The proportion of PDVSA’s income paid to the government has
declined from 80% in 1974 to 50% in 1998, and is 20% today – 80% disappears in
‘operating costs’. The struggle for control of these massive resources is
central to the current dispute: should they be used on public expenditure, or
should the oil magnates be able to enrich themselves and their ruling-class
cronies?
A tale of two plazas
THE CLASS POLARISATION in Venezuela is shown by the ‘tale of
two plazas’. In Plaza Francia, in the wealthy suburb of Altamira, "demonstrators
take breaks in the crêperie on one side of the square, negotiating through lines
of Harley-Davidson motorcycles". (Daily Telegraph, London, 14 December) In Plaza
Sucre, on the other side of town, "there, the skin is darker, the music a
cacophony of competing sound systems, the air filled with the smell of bus fumes
and barbecues. Among the stalls squatting illegally on pedestrian shopping
promenades, posters of a uniformed Chávez with a red beret and drawn sword are
for sale along with bootlegged video tapes and CDs. ‘There is another country
inside the one we live, one of privilege for the military and the oil workers.
Chávez is the only man who gives a damn about the poor’, said Edith Mezzich a
bespectacled former nurse…" (International Herald Tribune, 27 November)
As the ‘strike’ has dragged on the polarisation has
increased. Mark Weisbrot reported that, "in most of the city, where poor and
working-class people live, there were few signs of the strike. Streets were
crowded with holiday shoppers, metro trains and buses were running normally, and
shops were open for business. Only in the eastern, wealthier neighborhoods of
the capital were businesses mostly closed". (Washington Post, 21 January)
Maintaining the ‘strike’ has become more and more difficult.
The poor are far more accustomed to surviving hardship than the middle class,
who may drift back to work. The influential Venezuelan magazine, VenEconomía,
concluded: "To maintain it any longer, the strike will convert itself into an
act of suicide, with incalculable consequences for the middle class as much as
the government". (El País, 15 January)
The first days of the ‘strike’ enjoyed limited support
confined to McDonald’s, a few other fast food chains, supermarkets, and the
private schools of the rich. It was bolstered when the managers of PDVSA joined
it and, in particular, with the participation of tanker drivers and some dockers.
A propaganda boost was provided when a gunman killed three
people and injured 30 others on an anti-Chávez demonstration. The media blamed a
Portuguese national working in Venezuela and held the government responsible.
The video footage used to ‘prove’ the shooting, however, may have been taken
before the killings and the film is so blurred as to prevent definite
identification. It may well be a set-up by the opposition.
And now the situation has begun to change. The opposition
has been compelled to review its tactics as the ‘strike’ appears to be
weakening. It seems increasingly likely that it will collapse as society becomes
more polarised. There are elements of a civil war developing. The Financial
Times reported on 18 December that the military may be preparing to intervene.
This is a possibility, although it is not at all certain that the army tops will
be able to strike a decisive blow at this stage.
The state machine is split. Chávez was partly saved by the
intervention of sections of the army rank and file in April. Since then debates
have reportedly taken place amongst the 70,000-strong armed forces, in which
many rank-and-file soldiers and junior officers support Chávez. Officers
supporting Chávez have been promoted to leading positions. The right-wing
opposition is based mainly on the police in Caracas, under the command of the
right-wing mayor.
Need for organised resistance
MANY OF CHÁVEZ’S supporters amongst the poor are determined
to fight the attempts to remove him: "We are not going to cede power to the
‘counter-revolution’, we will defend it with force. It’s death or glory for us…
The people will defend Chávez with what they have – sticks, stones, bottles. But
if this conflict deepens to the point that we need to be armed, we will be
armed". (Financial Times, 19 November)
This determination must be given concrete expression if the
rightwing is to be defeated. If it is not organised and does not find a clear
revolutionary socialist expression, this mood of defiance could eventually
evaporate when faced with a decisive blow from the rightwing. It should be
remembered that only one week before Pinochet’s coup, 500,000 marched demanding
arms. When the decisive moment arrived, however, the workers’ movement was left
paralysed because of the failure of its leaders to carry through the necessary
preparation and action to defeat the coup.
The class polarisation in Venezuela may yet force Chávez to
take further radical steps in the short term. The army has been used to break
open a Coca-Cola bottling plant closed by the management. Soldiers distributed
bottles of water and drinks to the poor. Chávez has ordered military units to
take similar action against companies guilty of ‘hording goods’: "Those who
attempt to deprive the people of food and then complain that Chávez is arbitrary
are traitors to the nation", he declared. This has frightened capitalist
commentators: "US corporations with interests in Venezuela are facing increasing
risk of government intervention, or even expropriation, as President Hugo Chávez
moves to confront a general strike and consolidate his position, business
leaders warned yesterday". (Financial Times, 20 January)
Today the urgent necessity is for independent action and
organisation by the working class. The Bolivarian Circles, set up by Chávez,
must be expanded and strengthened to include elected representatives from all
the workplaces, shantytown dwellers and rank-and-file soldiers. Armed defence
detachments must be created in each local area. The Bolivarian Circles must also
be linked up on a local, city-wide and national basis, and a national congress
convened with the aim of forming a democratic government of working people with
a socialist programme that will break with capitalism.
An emergency programme for the economy needs to be
established. The basis of the programme would be the nationalisation of the
major companies, banking and finance, controlled and managed democratically by
the working class. The call should go out for skilled workers and the middle
class to join the struggle to rebuild the economy, planning it to meet the needs
of the mass of the population and not just the rich elite which exploits the
middle class as well as the workers and oppressed.
The establishment of a democratic socialist Venezuela, if
linked to an appeal to the masses of the whole of Latin America for solidarity
action and to overthrow capitalism and landlordism, would win massive support.
It would gain the backing of ‘latinos’ in the USA and through them the North
American working class. Ultimately, it is the only way to defeat US imperialism
and capitalist reaction in Venezuela.
If Chávez succeeds in riding out this crisis, the current
social and political issues will remain. There will be other attempts to
overthrow him, including the possibility of a military coup. This would provoke
massive turmoil throughout Latin America. The situation is not the same as the
1970s however. There is a profound hatred of military dictatorship following the
experience of living under the ‘iron heel’ of the likes of Pinochet. In
Argentina, where in many respects conditions are ripe for military intervention,
even the armed forces have opposed taking this road at this stage.
This does not mean that it is excluded, but that it will be
more complicated than in the past. Despite the fact that Chávez’s radical regime
has not implemented significant economic gains for the poor, he retains enormous
support. Chávez is seen as the only one ‘who speaks for us and cares about us’.
The poor in the shantytowns are aware of what a return to the old dynasty would
mean for them and remain resolutely opposed to it.
The stormy events in Venezuela are at the heart of the
social and economic crisis which is now unfolding throughout Latin America. They
illustrate, above all, the need to build new independent mass parties of the
working class with revolutionary socialist policies as the only way out of the
impasse which exists under capitalism.
|