|
|
Venezuela: a new phase in the struggle
FOLLOWING BUSH’S re-election, US imperialism has again
adopted a more aggressive posture towards the government of Hugo Chávez. In
January, the new US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, used her appearance
before the US Senate committee to attack Chávez. His government poses a "major
threat to the whole region" she warned, and the US "cannot remain indifferent to
what Venezuela is doing beyond its borders".
To emphasise the point, a former US ambassador to Venezuela
(currently in the State Department), wrote an article justifying US donations,
since 2001, of more than $20 million to opposition organisations and parties
through the National Endowment for Democracy and the US Agency for International
Development (USAID). The leaders of the failed coup in April 2002 and
instigators of the December 2002 ‘lock-out’ were referred to as "Venezuelans
seeking to protect their democratic rights". (El Nuevo Herald, Miami, 12
January)
US imperialism regards the Chávez government as an obstacle
to its interests in Latin America and wants to remove it from power. Crucially,
Washington does not see Venezuela, which accounts for about 15% of US oil
imports, as a safe supplier. This renewed fear about the stability of
Venezuela’s oil supply has arisen as Chávez has opened negotiations with China,
Russia and Iran with a view to lessening Venezuela’s dependency on the US
market. Consequently, 33 operating agreements signed during the 1990s, mainly
with US companies, are being re-evaluated. One US company, Harvest Natural
Resources of Houston, which receives all its oil from Venezuela, has been told
to suspend its oil exploration there. The worsening crisis in the Middle East,
especially in Iraq, has increased the importance of Venezuelan oil for the US.
Bush wants a ‘safe pair of hands’ on the pumps.
It is also no accident that the renewed threats of reaction
come as the Chávez government is taking some steps in a more radical direction:
the seizure of a 13,000 hectare cattle ranch owned by the British meat-packing
tycoon, Lord Vestey; and the nationalisation of Venepal, a paper producing
company – the first nationalisation carried out by Chávez after six years in
power.
The seizure of Vestey’s land was significant. Venezuela,
like other Latin American countries, is highly urbanised – only 12% of the 25
million population live in rural areas. However, most working-class and poor
families in the cities retain important family links to the countryside, and the
plight of the rural poor is strongly present in their political awareness. Sixty
percent of agricultural land is held by a mere 1% of the population, and the
existence of vast private estates (‘latifundios’) owned by multi-national
dynasties, such as the Vestey family, symbolises the wealth and power of the
ruling class and imperialism. So when the state governor of Cojedes, Johnny
Yánez, arrived with 200 National Guard troops at Vestey’s El Charcote ranch and
seized it (‘intervened’ as it is known in Venezuela), this enjoyed overwhelming
mass support. Prior to this seizure, the agricultural reform programme had only
distributed land to peasants from farms already in state ownership.
This ‘intervention’ has provoked opposition amongst other
big landowners who fear that they could be next. And it remains unclear if this
step will be reversed, should the commission appointed to determine the
ownership of the land decide that it had been ‘legally’ purchased by Vestey.
The Chávez government subsequently announced the
nationalisation of Venepal. The workers at this plant, which originally employed
nearly 2,000 people, have been in conflict with its owners for years. Directors
of the company were present at the swearing in ceremony of the reactionary
government of Pedro Carmona, which overthrew Chávez for a few hours in a coup in
April 2002. They joined the employers’ ‘lock-out’ later that year and then
declared the company bankrupt in 2003. The workers responded by occupying the
plant. Eventually, a short-lived agreement was reached but, in 2004, the
employers closed the plant yet again. Again, the workers occupied and organised
a series of protests. They marched to the capital, Caracas, demanding government
intervention. This resulted in the recent nationalisation decree.
The seizure of Vestey’s latifundio and the expropriation of
Venepal arose out of mass struggle. They may indicate that Chávez is being
driven to adopt more radical measures, following his attempts to appease the
ruling class after his victory in the 2004 recall referendum victory.
When nationalising Venepal, Chávez declared that capitalism
is based on slavery and "that is why in Washington they are angry, because we
want to liberate ourselves from capitalism. In the same way, they were angry
many years ago with the ideas of liberator Simón Bolivar". Significantly, at the
recent World Social Forum in Brazil, Chávez, for the first time, spoke of the
need for socialism. Every day he becomes more convinced, he said, "that it is
necessary to transcend capitalism. But capitalism can’t be transcended from
within capitalism itself, but through socialism, true socialism, with equality
and justice. But I’m also convinced that it is possible to do it under
democracy, but not in the type of democracy being imposed from Washington".
It is welcome that Chávez now mentions socialism as an
alternative to capitalism. It is not enough, however, just to support the idea
of socialism. A programme to achieve it is also necessary. Unfortunately, Chávez
is not advocating a clear programme that will allow the working class to
overthrow capitalism and establish a socialist planned economy. This is what is
now urgently needed in Venezuela and the whole of Latin America.
When announcing the nationalisation of Venepal, Chávez
declared that "the expropriation is an exception, not a political measure, nor a
government one. We won’t take land, if it is yours. But the company that is
closed and abandoned, we’ll go for them. For all of them". Socialists welcome
the expropriation of all companies abandoned by the capitalist class. But why
stop there? Why only take the bankrupt companies leaving those still functioning
and making a profit in the hands of the ruling class? Such partial measures will
not allow the economy to be planned by the working class to end the suffering
and misery facing the masses and poor. Yet such palliative steps will enrage and
terrify the ruling class and imperialism and strengthen their resolve to
overthrow the regime.
In Chile between 1970-73 the Unidad Popular (UP) government
of Salvador Allende supported the idea of socialism. It nationalised
approximately 40% of the economy, including multi-national companies, but the
leaders of the UP argued that the revolution should not go too far too fast
because it would provoke reaction. This allowed reactionary forces time to
prepare the ground for the coup on 11 September 1973, resulting in a bloodbath
for the working class.
In an echo of these arguments, Chávez stated at Porte Alegre
that "at the beginning of my presidency, many of my supporters criticised me and
asked me to go at a faster pace and be more radical, but I considered that it
was not the right moment because each process has several phases and different
rhythms that not only have to do with internal situations in each country, but
with the international situation at the time".
Each country does have particular rhythms and phases. Yet
understanding the specific conditions in each country does not mean putting a
brake on the revolutionary process. Unfortunately, this is exactly what Chávez
has done at each critical stage in the Venezuelan revolution. The
counter-revolution has been given time to regroup, and prepare its forces to
strike. Chávez has been saved on each occasion by the intervention of the masses
and the divisions and weakness of the Venezuelan ruling class. But this
situation cannot continue indefinitely. Revolution or counter-revolution –
through a military coup or a drawn out creeping back to power in a ‘democratic’
guise – must eventually triumph.
For the victory of the revolution the working class needs
its own independent organisations and to embrace a clear revolutionary socialist
programme, including a programme to take full control of the economy. What
Chávez seems to be advocating, however, is the construction of a parallel
economy of partially state-owned companies, co-operatives and ‘good private
companies’ which will compete with the major capitalist conglomerates.
Even the nationalisation of Venepal may only be temporary.
The government decree included a $6.7 million credit to restart production, with
speculation that it will be returned to the workers as a co-operative. Chávez
has spoken of the need to "advance towards co-management", a vague formulation
which can mean many things, including co-management with the former owners,
perhaps, or a scheme of workers’ participation within a state company.
Rather than a system of ‘participation’ by the working
class, the establishment of democratic workers’ control and management of the
economy is necessary if the revolution is to be victorious. This would need the
election of workers’ committees in all factories and workplaces, with delegates
elected and subject to immediate recall by mass meetings. In the currently
privatised sectors of industry such committees would introduce workers’ control
to undertake the day-to-day running of each workplace. This would also serve as
a school to prepare the working class for the tasks necessary to plan and manage
industry and the whole economy as part of a socialist planned economy.
In the already nationalised sections of the economy,
including the crucial state oil company, PVDSA, it is necessary to go further
and establish not only workers’ control but also a democratic system of workers’
management. The boards of directors of such companies need to be made up of
elected representatives of the workers in the industry, representatives of other
workers, the wider community and the government.
These workplace and local community committees would need to
link up on a district, city, regional and national basis to form the basis of a
new government of workers and peasants. They would need also to establish a
workers’ defence force, together with elected committees of rank-and-file
soldiers and sailors, with a system of electing all officers and purging the
state machine of reactionary pro-coup conspirators.
This type of initiative needs to be taken by the working
class itself. Unfortunately, such attempts at independent action by the masses
have been resisted by much of the officialdom at the head of the ‘Bolivarian
revolution’. This was reflected during the referendum campaign in 2004.
Frequently, local assemblies clashed with government representatives who
attempted to bureaucratically ‘impose’ organisers from above. Bureaucratic
‘leaders’ fear the independent organisation and initiative of the masses. Yet
for the revolution to advance, break with capitalism and defeat reaction, the
organisation of initiatives from below by the working class and all those
exploited by capitalism is critical.
US imperialism and the Venezuelan ruling class seem poised
to step up their attacks on Chávez. Reaction has thus far been defeated.
However, the masses of Venezuela do not have unlimited time. It is now urgent
that a mass revolutionary socialist party is built that, together with the
working class, will be able to take the revolution forward.
Tony Saunois
A longer version of this article is available on the CWI website at
www.socialistworld.net
|