Why
Can't the US Left Get Venezuela Right?
By Shamus Cooke
July
13, 2017 "Information
Clearing House"
- As Venezuela's fascist-minded oligarchy
conspires with U.S. imperialism to overthrow
the democratically elected government of
Nicolas Maduro, few in the U.S. seem to
care.
Instead of denouncing rightwing
violence that aims at regime change,
many on the U.S. left have stayed silent, or
opted to give an evenhanded analysis that
supports neither the Maduro government nor
the oligarchy trying to violently overthrow
it. Rather, the left prioritizes its energy
on lecturing on Maduro’s “authoritarianism”
and the failures of “Chavismo.”
This
approach allows leftists a cool emotional
detachment to the fate of the poor in
Venezuela, and clean hands that would
otherwise be soiled by engaging with the
messy, real life class struggle that is the
Venezuelan revolution.
A “pox
on both houses” analysis omits the U.S.
government’s role in collaborating with
Venezuela’s oligarchs. The decades-long
crimes of imperialism against Venezuela is
aided and abetted by the silence of the
left, or by its murky analysis that
minimizes the perpetrator’s actions,
focusing negative attention on the victim
precisely at the moment of attack.
Any
analysis of a former colonial country that
doesn’t begin with the struggle of
self-determination against imperialism is a
dead letter, since the x-factor of
imperialism has always been a dominant
variable in the Venezuelan equation, as books
by Eva Gollinger and others have
thoroughly explained, and further
demonstrated by the ongoing intervention in
Latin America by an endless succession of
U.S. presidents.
The
Venezuelan-initiated anti-imperialist
movement was strong enough that a new
gravitational center was created, that
pushed most of Latin America out of the
grasp of U.S. domination for the first time
in nearly a hundred years. This historic
achievement remains minimized for much of
the U.S. left, who remain indifferent or
uneducated about the revolutionary
significance of self-determination for
oppressed nations abroad, as well as
oppressed peoples inside of the U.S.
A
thousand valid criticisms can be made of
Chavez, but he chose sides in the class
fault lines and took bold action at critical
junctures. Posters of Chavez remain in the
homes of Venezuela's poorest barrios because
he proved in action that he was a champion
for the poor, while fighting and winning
many pitched battles against the oligarchy
who wildly celebrated his death.
And
while it’s necessary to deeply critique the
Maduro government, the present situation
requires the political clarity to take a
bold, unqualified stance against the
U.S.-backed opposition, rather than a
rambling “nonpartisan” analysis that
pretends a life or death struggle isn’t
currently taking place.
Yes, a
growing number of Venezuelans are incredibly
frustrated by Maduro, and yes, his policies
have exacerbated the current crisis, but
while an active counter-revolutionary
offensive continues, the political priority
needs to be aimed squarely against the
oligarchy, not Maduro. There remains a mass
movement of revolutionaries in
Venezuela dedicated to Chavismo and to
defending Maduro’s government against the
violent anti-regime tactics, but it’s these
labor and community groups that the U.S.
left never mentions, as it would pollute
their analysis.
The
U.S. left seems blissfully unaware of the
consequences of the oligarchy stepping into
the power vacuum if Maduro was successfully
ousted. Such a shoddy analysis can be found
in Jacobin’s recent article, Being
Honest About Venezuela, which focuses
on the problems of Maduro’s government while
ignoring the honest reality of the terror
the oligarchy would unleash if it returned
to power.
How
did the U.S. left get it so wrong?
They’ve allowed themselves to get distracted
by the zig-zags at the political surface,
rather than the rupturing fault lines of
class struggle below. They see only leaders
and are blinded to how the masses have
engaged with them.
Regardless of Maduro’s many stumbles, it’s
the rich who are revolting in Venezuela, and
if they’re successful it will be the workers
and poor who suffer a terrible fate. An
analysis of Venezuela that ignores this
basic fact belongs either in the trash bin
or in the newspapers of the oligarchy.
Confusing class interests, or mistaking
counter-revolution for revolution in
politics is as disorienting as mistaking up
for down, night for day.
|
No
Advertising
- No
Government
Grants
-
This
Is
Independent
Media
|
The
overarching issue remains the same since the
Venezuelan revolution erupted in 1989’s
Caracazo uprising, which initiated a
revolutionary movement of working and poor
people spurred to action by IMF austerity
measures. How did Venezuela’s oligarchy
respond to the 1989 protests? By killing
hundreds if
not thousands of people. Their return
to power would unleash similar if not
bloodier statistics.
In
Venezuela, the revolutionary flame has
burned longer than most revolutions, its
energy funneled into various channels; from
rioting, street demonstrations, land and
factory occupations, new political parties
and radicalized labor-union federations and
into the backbone of support for Hugo
Chavez’s project, which, to varying degrees
supported and even spearheaded many of these
initiatives, encouraging the masses to
participate directly in politics.
Chavez’s electoral victory meant — and still
means — that the oligarchy lost control of
the government and much of the state
apparatus, a rare event in the life of a
nation under capitalism. This contradiction
is central to the confusion of the U.S.
left: the ruling class lost control of the
state, but the oligarchy retained control of
key sectors of the economy, including the
media.
But
who has control of the state if not the
oligarchy? It’s too simplistic to say the
“working class” has power, because Maduro
has not acted as a consistent leader of the
working class, seeming more interested in
trying to mediate between classes by making
concessions to the oligarchy. Maduro’s
overly-bureaucratic government also limits
the amount of direct democracy the working
class needs before the term “worker state”
can be applied.
But
Maduro’s power base remains the same as it
was under Chavez: the working and poor
people, and to that extent Maduro can be
compared to a trade union president who
ignores his members in order to seek a deal
with the boss.
A
trade union, no matter how bureaucratic, is
still rooted in the workplace, its power
dependent on dues money and collective
action of working people. And even a weak
union is better than no union, since
removing the protection of the union opens
the door to sweeping attacks from the boss
that inevitably lower wages, destroy
benefits and result in layoffs of the most
“outspoken” workers. This is why union
members defend their union from corporate
attack, even if the leader of the union is
in bed with the boss.
History is replete with governments brought
forth by revolutionary movements but which
failed to take the actions necessary to
complete the revolution, resulting in a
successful counter-revolution. These
revolutionary governments often succeed in
breaking the chains of neo-colonialism and
allowed for an epoch of social reforms and
working class initiative, depending on how
long they lasted. Their downfall always
results in a counter-revolutionary wave of
violence, and sometimes a sea of blood.
This
has happened dozens of times across Africa,
Asia, and Latin America, where the class
divisions are sharper, where imperialism
plays a larger role, and where the class
dynamics are more variegated: the poor are
poorer, there is a larger informal labor
force, a larger section of small
shopkeepers, larger rural population, etc.
Winning significant reforms under capitalism
is incredibly difficult, even in rich
countries; it is twice as difficult in
former colonial countries, due to the death
grip the oligarchy has on the economy plus
the collaboration of imperialism, which
intervenes in financial markets — or with
bullets — to prevent the smallest reforms.
The
example of Allende’s Chile could be compared
to Maduro’s situation in Venezuela. Allende
was far from perfect, but can anybody claim
that Pinochet’s coup wasn’t a catastrophe
for the Chilean working class? In Venezuela
the counter-revolution would likely be more
devastating, as the oligarchy would have to
push back against decades of progress versus
Allende’s short-lived government. If it came
to power the street violence of the
oligarchy would be given the resources of
the state, aimed squarely at the working
class and poor.
Maduro
is no Chavez, it’s true, but he has kept
most of Chavez’s victories intact,
maintaining social programs in a time of
crashing oil prices while the oligarchy
demands “pro-market reforms.” He’s
essentially kept the barking dogs of the
oligarchy at bay, who, if unleashed, would
ravage the working class.
The
oligarchy has not accepted the balance of
power that Chavez-Maduro have tilted in
favor of the working class. A new social
contract has not been cemented; it is being
actively fought for in the streets. Maduro
has made some concessions to the oligarchy
it’s true, but they have not been
fundamental concessions, while he’s left the
fundamental victories of the revolution in
tact.
The
social contract we call Social Democracy in
Europe wasn’t finalized until a wave of
revolution struck after WWII. Although
Maduro would likely be happy with such a
social democratic agreement in Venezuela,
such agreements have proven impossible in
developing countries, especially at a time
while global capitalism is attacking the
social democratic reforms in the advanced
countries.
The
Venezuelan ruling class has no intention of
accepting the reforms of Chavez, and why
would they so long as U.S. imperialism
invests heavily in regime change? A ruling
class does not accept power-sharing until
they face the prospect of losing everything.
And nor should Venezuela’s working class
accept a “social contract” under current
conditions: they have unmet demands that
require revolutionary action against the
oligarchy. These contradictory pressures are
at the heart of Venezuela’s still-unresolved
class war, which inevitably leads either to
revolutionary action from the left or a
successful counter-revolution from the
right.
Thus,
for a U.S. leftist to declare that either
side is equally bad is either bad politics
or class treachery. Many leftists went
bonkers over Syriza in Greece, and they were
right to be hopeful. But after radical
rhetoric Syriza succumbed to the demands of
the IMF that included devastating neoliberal
reforms of austerity cuts, privatizations
and deregulation. Maduro has steadfastly
refused such a path out of Venezuela’s
economic crisis.
This
is why Maduro is despised by the rich while
the poor generally continue to support the
government, although passively but
occasionally in giant bursts, such as the hundreds
thousands strong May Day mobilization
in support of the government’s fight against
the violent coup attempts, which was all but
ignored by most western media outlets, since
it spoiled the regime-change narrative of
“everybody hates Maduro.”
The
essential difference between Maduro and
Chavez will make or break the revolution:
while Chavez took action to constantly shift
the balance of power in favor of the poor,
Maduro simply attempts to maintain the
balance of forces handed down to him by
Chavez, hoping for some kind of “agreement”
from an opposition that has consistently
refused all compromise. His ridiculous
naivety is a powerful motivating factor for
the opposition, who see a stalled revolution
in the way a lion views an injured zebra.
Venezuelan expert Jorge Martin explains in an
excellent article, how the oligarchy
would respond if it succeeded in removing
Maduro. Their ensuing program would probably
include:
1)
massively cutting public spending
2)
implementing mass layoffs of the public
sector
3)
destroying the key social programs of the
revolution (health care, education, pension,
housing, etc.)
4)
there would be a privatization frenzy of
public resources, though especially the
crown jewel PDVSA, the oil company
5)
massive deregulation, including turning back
rights for labor and ethnic-minority groups
6)
they would attack the organizations of the
working class that came into existence or
grew under the protection of the
Chavez-Maduro governments
This
is “Telling the Truth” about Venezuela. The
U.S. left should know better, since the
ruling class exposed what it would do during
the Caracazo Uprising, and later when they
briefly came to power in their 2002 coup:
they aim to reverse everything, using any
means necessary. The documentary “The
Revolution Will Not Be Televised” is still required
watching about the 2002 coup.
Maduro
may have finally learned his lesson:
Venezuela’s crisis has forced him to double
down on promoting the interests of the
poor. When oil prices collapsed it was
inevitable the government would enter a deep
crisis, and it had only two choices: deep
neoliberal reforms or the deepening of the
revolution. This will be the litmus test for
Maduro, since the middle ground he sought
disappeared.
Rather
than begging for money from the
International Monetary Fund —which would
have demanded such Syriza-like reforms —
Maduro instead encouraged workers to
takeover idle factories while a General
Motors factory was nationalized. A new
neighborhood-based organization, CLAP, was
created that distributes basic foodstuffs at
subsidized prices that benefits millions of
people.
On May
Day this year, in front of hundreds of
thousands of supporters, Maduro announced a
Constituent Assembly, an attempt to
re-engage the masses in the hopes of pushing
forward the revolution by creating a new,
more progressive constitution.
It’s
true that Maduro is using the Constituent
Assembly to overcome the obstruction of the
oligarchy-dominated National Assembly —
whose stated intention is to topple the
government — but the U.S. left seems
indifferent that Maduro is using the
mobilization of the working class (the
Constituent Assembly) to overcome the
barriers of ruling class.
This
distinction is critical: if the Constituent
Assembly succeeds in pushing forward the
revolution by directly engaging the masses,
it will come at the expense of the
oligarchy. The Constituent Assembly is being
organized to promote more direct democracy,
but sections of the U.S. left have been
taken in by the U.S. media’s allegations of
“authoritarianism.”
If
working and poor people actively engage in
the process of creating a new, more
progressive constitution and this
constitution is approved via referendum by a
large majority, it will constitute an
essential step forward for the revolution.
If the masses are unengaged or the
referendum fails, it may signify the death
knell of Chavismo and the return of the
oligarchy.
And
while Maduro is right to use the state as a
repressive agent against the oligarchy, an
over reliance on the state repression only
leads to more contradictions, rather than
relying on the self-activity of the workers
and poor. Revolutions cannot be won by
administrative tinkering, but rather by
revolutionary measures consciously
implemented by the vast majority. At bottom
it’s the actions of ordinary working people
that make or break a revolution; if the
masses are lulled to sleep the revolution is
lost. They must be unleashed not ignored.
It’s
clear that Maduro’s politics have not been
capable of leading the revolution to
success, and therefore his government
requires deep criticism combined with
organized protest. But there are two kinds
of protest: legitimate protest that arises
from the needs of working and poor people,
and the counter-revolutionary protest based
in the neighborhoods of the rich that aim to
restore the power of the oligarchy.
Confusing these two kinds of protests are
dangerous, but the U.S. left has done
precisely this. Maduro is accused of being
authoritarian for using police to stop the
far-right’s violent “student protests” that
seek to restore the oligarchy. Of the many
reasons to criticize Maduro this isn’t one
of them.
If a
rightwing coup succeeds in
Venezuela tomorrow, the U.S. left will weep
by the carnage that ensues, while not
recognizing that their inaction contributed
to the bloodshed. By living in the heart of
imperialism the U.S. left has a duty to go
beyond critiques from afar to direct action
at home.
Protesting the Vietnam war helped save the
lives of Vietnamese, while the organizing in
the 1980s against the “dirty wars” in
Central America limited the destruction
levied by the U.S.-backed governments. In
both cases the left fell short of what was
needed, but at least they understood what
was at stake and took action. Now consider
the U.S. left of 2017, who can’t lift a
finger to re-start the antiwar movement and
who supported Bernie Sanders regardless of
his longstanding affection
for imperialism.
The
“pink tide” that blasted imperialism out of
much of Latin America is being reversed, but
Venezuela has always been the motor-force of
the leftward shift, and the bloodshed
required to reverse the revolution will be
remembered forever, if it’s allowed to
happen. Their lives matter too.
Shamus Cooke is
a social service worker, trade unionist, and
writer for Workers Action (
www.workerscompass.org
). He can be reached at shamuscooke@gmail.
The
views expressed in this article are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of Information Clearing House.
Abby
Martin Busts Open Myths on Venezuela's Food
Crisis: 'Shelves Fully Stocked'
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Abby-Martin-Busts-Open-Myths-on-Venezuelas-Food-Crisis-Shelves-Fully-Stocked-20170711-0031.html
