|
|
Venezuela at a crossroads
President Hugo Ch�vez continues to rally workers
and poor behind his Bolivarian revolution and �anti-imperialist
alliance�. While enjoying massive popular support, however, there are
signs that economic imbalances and rising corruption are beginning to
threaten some of the reforms implemented so far. KARL DEBBAUT, a recent
visitor to Venezuela, reports.
"THE BEST PRESIDENT we have ever had". This is how
Rosa Soja, an employee of the Selfex factory in the south east of the
capital, Caracas, described to me how she rated President Ch�vez. The
employees, mostly women workers, have been occupying their workplace for
the past eight weeks after the employer declared bankruptcy and
disappeared. The 250-strong workforce without work or pay were left with
only one option: occupy the factory, guard the machinery and buildings
and hope that, in one way or another, production might be restored to
give them back their livelihoods.
The situation the Selfex workers face is not
exceptional. Small-scale conflicts are breaking out between the working
class and the employers all over the country. Employers actively
involved in sabotaging or stopping production altogether attempt to
frustrate the demands and the confidence of the workers, which has been
strengthened by the repeated victories of the Ch�vez movement over the
opposition. The employers, the main component of the opposition forces
around the old, Washington-dependent elite, are resorting to economic
sabotage to frustrate the workers and poor. Their ultimate aim is to
undermine the social basis of the Ch�vez government, fully restoring the
rule of the tiny minority of Venezuelan society that used to have full
access to the wealth in pre-Ch�vez times.
For now, the economic sabotage, government
bureaucracy or corruption seem unable to dent the personal authority and
prestige of �El Comandante�, as Hugo Ch�vez Frias is frequently called
by his supporters. Yet, a warning is needed that a failure to solve the
pressing problems of the working class and poor could lead to
disillusionment amongst sections of the working class.
A massive demonstration organised to commemorate the
failed, Ch�vez-led, coup of 4 February 1992 marked the start of the
presidential election campaign due to take place in December. About a
million-and-a-half people came out to celebrate what is generally
regarded as the beginning of the political struggle that led to the
election of Ch�vez as president in 1999 and the start of the �Bolivarian
revolution�. The march was a show of strength, at one point stretching
over twelve kilometres.
The majority of demonstrators attended of their own
free will, conscious of the political objectives at stake. This mass of
working-class and poor Ch�vez supporters was accompanied by
representatives of the government, public-sector employees and workers
from different government agencies who were encouraged to be present.
Many felt, quite rightly, that a show of strength
was needed to answer the verbal attacks earlier in the week by
representatives of British and American imperialism. US foreign
secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, had compared Ch�vez to Hitler and Tony Blair
called on Ch�vez to return to �democracy�, ie follow the economic
diktats of the US, IMF and World Bank. The opposition organised its own
demonstration in Caracas on the same day but only succeeded in getting a
few thousand people together.
Corruption and bureaucracy
AT THE END of the demonstration an enormous crowd
gathered to hear Ch�vez speak on the Avenida Bolivar in the centre of
Caracas. Over a two-mile stretch, a red block stood across the six lanes
of the avenue listening to the speech, unmistakably enjoying how Ch�vez
ridiculed Bush, Rumsfeld and Blair. This was not the most significant,
nor the most politically skilful, part of the speech, however. The
biggest roar from the crowd came when Ch�vez spoke out against
bureaucracy and corruption. In his own words: "There is only one
political process that cannot survive unless it is an efficient process.
This process is called revolution".
He said that he would not hesitate to sack ministers
if they are found to be inefficient, bureaucratic or corrupt in any way.
Many of the demonstrators must have felt that progress after seven years
of Ch�vez could have been greater if not for the inefficient state
bureaucracy which is more often than not corrupt. Equally mistrusted are
the majority of the politicians, even the ministers in the Ch�vez camp,
with whom the population feels no affinity because they are usually the
sons and daughters of the professional (middle) classes.
The Selfex workers, nurses who protested the week
before in front of the Mira Flores palace or the workers at Mercal, a
fast expanding network of shops and supermarkets selling staple foods at
a 40% discount, all have the same stories to tell: "We support the
president, he is an honest and caring man but he is all on his own".
Ch�vez used the events around 4 February to announce
a 15% rise in the minimum wage, as part of a package of social measures
welcomed by workers. The new minimum wage will be around 465,750
bol�vares or �125 a month. The problem the workers face in many
workplaces is how to force the employers, state and private, to apply
the laws on wages, job protection and workers� rights. Some workers are
beginning to draw the conclusion that the revolution cannot be something
that is dropped from above but needs to be built up from below through
the initiative of the masses and their organisations.
This is a major challenge for the Venezuelan working
class. Its low level of auto-organisation is a historical legacy, partly
influenced by the ideological counter-revolution of the 1990s. These are
objective reasons not excuses. During the first year of the Russian
revolution, Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky, who were at the head of a
working class possibly less culturally and economically developed than
its Venezuelan counterparts, were very conscious of the need to develop
the organisations of the working class. For the revolution to succeed it
was central that the working class, in alliance with the poor peasantry,
created its own instruments of state power. The Bolsheviks encouraged
the initiative of the masses and, indeed, would not have succeeded in
wrenching control from the hands of the bourgeoisie without it. The
council of people�s commissars fought hard battles with a many-headed
resistance of the propertied classes. With central state power hardly
existing, the decrees issued by the commissars called upon the masses to
use their own committees to control the production, accounting and
financing of the firms they worked in.
Emergency measures to stop economic sabotage
THE BOSSES� LOCK-OUT in December 2002 and January
2003 was defeated by the independent activity of the most important
layers of the industrial working class. Oil workers broke the lock-out
in the oil industry by taking back some of the installations and
restarting production. Workers in other industries followed their
example and the establishment of a new trade union confederation, the
UNT, broke the power of the old and corrupt CTV federation, hand in
glove with the ruling elite.
Now that the Ch�vez government has enforced price
controls on basic foodstuffs to combat inflation and keep cheap food
available for the majority of the population, the producers are reacting
with a partial strike of production. Through much of December, for
example, coffee, cornflower and other basic products disappeared from
supermarket shelves. Venezuela is one of the few Latin American
countries which is dependent on imported food and milk to satisfy the
basic needs of the population. This, in itself, is a damning
condemnation of the national bourgeoisie and the exploitation by
imperialism which destroyed domestic food production. According to
reports in the Western press, Alimentaria Internacional, an importer of
powdered milk, has cut back its imports to "practically zero". Other
milk producers have �refocused� their production to goods that fall
outside the regulations, leading to the absurd situation that there is
yoghurt and cheese in abundance whilst milk is scarce. The strike by
coffee producers in December was the most vocal. When the government
raised the price of the green coffee that farmers sell to roasters by
100%, while leaving processed coffee prices unchanged, producers took
action. They refused to roast the beans, leading to empty shelves in the
supermarkets, until the government agreed to raise retail coffee prices
by 60%.
These examples illustrate the helplessness of the
Ch�vez regime in its fight with the employers. As long as the threats to
expropriate factories that shut down operations are not put into action,
or steps taken to nationalise the leading heights of the economy under
workers� control and management, there is little the Bolivarian
government can do against this sabotage.
Only a few factories have been nationalised and,
although the ensuing debate in these workplaces over workers� control or
co-management is hugely important for the future development of the
class struggle and the revolutionary process, it would be an immense
error to try and present this as the overall situation. The majority of
the working class is not involved in this process and, on the contrary,
has to fight for even the basic recognition of their rights as workers,
such as securing the minimum wage for everyone, the correct payment of
wages and overtime, and the right to organise in trade unions.
Socialists need to build working-class organisations with a fighting
programme which takes up the day-to-day demands of the working class and
poor, linking them with the necessity of nationalising the leading
heights of the economy under democratic workers� control and management.
Is poverty declining?
CATHOLIC BISHOPS LAST month claimed that poverty was
"accelerating rapidly". The Ch�vez government responded with statistics
suggesting that poverty had "begun to decrease, slowly and
progressively". The fact of the matter is that the bosses� lock-out in
2002 had an important effect and increased the suffering of the working
class and poor. By 2003, a quarter of Venezuelans were living in
�extreme poverty� unable even to feed themselves adequately. There are
enough reasons to doubt the figures of the Catholic bishops, not least
that they are well known for their political interference on behalf of
the oligarchy. At the same time, the government figures can be
questioned. The bottom line is that the working class proved itself
capable of defending its interests and remaining firm in the face of an
onslaught by the employers, even if this has brought with it an increase
in poverty in the short term.
This capacity to endure more suffering is limited,
however. The working class can make sacrifices on condition that there
is a perspective that the human capital spent, the increased suffering,
will result in ending long-term poverty and changing society decisively.
If that perspective is taken away, by a profound change in the character
of Ch�vez�s policies or a collapse of the confidence the working class
and poor have in their own capacity to act in their class interests, the
counter-revolution can inflict further defeats on the working class.
The Venezuelan economy recovered after the bosses�
lock-out, and the increased state revenue from the high price of oil on
the world market has given the government the means to invest in the
missions, public infrastructure and the extension of the state sector.
Venezuela�s annual revenue from oil exports has quadrupled since 1998.
However, while it is true that the measures taken by the government have
helped the poorest sections of Venezuelan society, to date two-thirds of
the poorest families still live on $2 a day or less.
This gives an indication of the limits of what can
be achieved under capitalism and also provides the basis for a vicious,
populist campaign by the bourgeois press. By comparing the amount the
Ch�vez government has spent on its policy of building �anti-imperialist�
alliances with other Latin American countries with the amount of money
that would be needed domestically to eradicate poverty they are fuelling
existing doubts, for the moment mainly amongst the middle classes, about
whether Ch�vez�s international policy can transform the plight of
Venezuelans and fellow Latin Americans living under the same horrendous
conditions.
According to the bourgeois press, Ch�vez has spent
$25 billion on economic solidarity with other governments in the region,
including Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Caribbean islands, Cuba, Ecuador,
Guyana, Indonesia, Paraguay, the Dominican Republic and Uruguay. In the
US, the Ch�vez government also gave $2 billion to assist victims of
Hurricane Katrina and supplied cheap winter fuel to thousands of poor
inner-city families.
At the same time, the newspapers point out,
investment of $48 billion could eradicate poverty in Venezuela in the
next five years. However, they conclude, after seven years of
�Bolivarian revolution�, the richest 10% of the population still receive
half the national income while the poorest 10% have access to less than
2%.
It is undoubtedly true, as in every capitalist
state, that the �redistribution� of wealth through the state favours the
propertied classes. This unequal distribution of state resources is
repeated in an even more unequal fashion in the private sector.
Unfortunately, the guiding idea of the Ch�vez government, up till now,
is that this is an imbalance that can only be corrected by more state
intervention and investment in favour of the poorest sections of the
population without fundamentally interfering in the sphere of
production. What is more, the Venezuelan government is attempting to
follow this strategy whilst relying on the same state apparatus that
only yesterday worked in the service of the oligarchy.
The tragedy of Ch�vez�s policy is that it will
ultimately fail the working class and poor if it does not break
decisively with capitalism at home and abroad. Only on the basis of a
democratically planned economy will it be possible to put the productive
forces to work in the interests of the working class and the poorest
sections of society.
The Venezuelan capitalist class, dependent as it is
on imperialism, will try everything in its power to turn back the
present reforms. Although weak politically at present, its fundamental
position in society, as private owners of the productive forces, has not
been challenged decisively. It will use all possible means to tire and
frustrate the masses, to split the more vacillating layers from the core
of Ch�vez support and to prepare to strike decisively against the
revolutionary process. We have mentioned it many times before, and will
many times again: it would be foolish to forget the lessons of Chile and
Nicaragua.
Workers need to act independently
THE ONGOING DEBATE on �socialism in the 21st
century� is of extreme significance for Venezuela, as it is for the
international working class. The steps taken by the Ch�vez government in
refusing to be part of the worldwide neo-liberal conspiracy and its
insistence that another world is possible if it is socialist are a
pointer to the movements which will develop as the working class takes
action to defend its interests against capitalist exploitation. We are
now at a crossroads, in the run-up to the next presidential election in
December. The most likely scenario is that Ch�vez will win. The election
campaign in and of itself can provide a new impulse for the movement and
push Ch�vez and the government further to the left.
In this process the workers need to build
organisations � trade unions and political parties � that allow them to
work out their own politics. To learn in practice which measures are
necessary to defend their class interests, to gain experience in the art
of class struggle and prepare the overthrow of capitalism. No Marxist
would deny how certain outstanding personalities can have an above
average influence on developments under the right conditions. The need
for the working class as a whole to possess its own instruments of
struggle, however, is a question independent of the talents, strengths
or weaknesses of one individual. In this sense, the challenge lying
ahead for the Venezuelan working class and poor is the choice between
revolution and counter-revolution. This is not the same as a personal
loyalty test to the individual Ch�vez. The key question is programmatic.
It is a question of the development of fighting organisations for the
defence and deepening of the revolution connected with the working out
of a correct programme for the establishment of socialism in Venezuela
as a first step towards a socialist federation of Latin America and the
world.
Rosa Soja is right. Hugo Ch�vez Frias is the best
president the Venezuelan working class has ever had. The reforms he has
initiated are important. The experience the working class has gained in
defending the Ch�vez regime from reactionary forces will prove a
priceless weapon in its armoury in the fight for genuine, democratic
socialism.
The WSF in Caracas
OPPPOSING IMPERIALISM was the theme of the sixth
World Social Forum (WSF) which took place in January in Caracas,
Venezuela. Similar meetings were also organised in Mali and Pakistan,
in an attempt to decentralise the World Social Forum into meetings of
the Americas, Africa and Asia. Later this year the European Social
Forum will take place in Athens, Greece.
The organisers claimed 80,000 participants, with
over 2,000 activities organised. CWI members from Belgium, Brazil,
Britain, Chile, Germany, the Republic of Ireland and the United States
attended this event.
The attendance figures given by the organisers
seem inflated. The WSF was smaller than last year�s gathering in Porto
Alegre, Brazil, and many of the meetings and activities suffered from
a low turnout or got cancelled all together.
Nevertheless, this year�s event was important,
taking place as it did in Venezuela where the Ch�vez administration
speaks of �socialism in the 21st century� � and against the background
of several elections around Latin America in which candidates in
opposition to neo-liberalism, or seen by the population as opposing
the US-led neo-liberal consensus, have been victorious. The election
of Evo Morales in Bolivia is a case in point. But there was also the
surprise surge of Ott�n Sol�s in Costa Rica�s recent presidential
elections, where voters punished the leading pro-trade candidate,
Arias, in a backlash against the Central American Free Trade Agreement
(CAFTA), Central America�s free trade pact with the US. Arias had been
widely tipped for an easy victory, but Costa Rica�s electoral board is
in the midst of a recount with the difference between the two leading
candidates as few as 5,000 votes.
It was a surprise therefore that the opening
demonstration of this year�s WSF was a much understated affair. The
paper published by the WSF organising committee claimed a very modest
15,000 participants. The demonstration suffered from the absence of
any real mobilisation of the Venezuelan people, of the pro-Ch�vez
political parties or any trade union presence in an organised form.
This made it an almost exclusively foreign affair.
The lacklustre nature of the WSF stood in sharp
contrast to the lively political developments taking place in
Venezuela itself. Maybe this is why some participants to the WSF
started to predict its imminent demise.
As some of the governments around Latin America
are experimenting with what it means to challenge neo-liberalism, the
WSF�s moratorium on political parties is proving to be a pointless
measure. It limits the debate on what alternative to capitalism is
possible and how to fight concretely for this alternative to take
shape. Conversely, the WSF organisers are not able to take up parties
like the Brazilian Workers� Party (PT), for example, when it uses the
event and attempts to restore its corruption-tainted reputation by
posing as a great socialist force for change. The PT leaflet
distributed at the WSF promised that the PT still was a fighting force
for socialism and that, "take or give a day, we will reach it".
The most important question for workers and youth,
in Venezuela and elsewhere in Latin America, is how to overthrow
capitalism and start to build a socialist society. Unfortunately, this
debate was not the main theme of the WSF. What is clear is that the
working class and the activists in the local communities will need to
build their own space to discuss the lessons of their different
struggles.
|