The
Left and Venezuela
By
Claudio Katz
July 29, 2017 "Information
Clearing House"
- During the last two months Venezuela has been
faced with a terrible wave of violence. It has
already resulted in more than 60 deaths along
with looted schools, burned public buildings,
destroyed public transportation and emptied
hospitals. The major media, however, simply
engage in a running stream of gruesome
denunciations of the government. They have
installed the image of a dictator in conflict
with the opposition democrats.
But the statistics do not corroborate that
narrative, especially when it comes to those who
have fallen. When the number had risen to 39, an
initial report pointed to only four who were
victims of the security forces. The remainder
had died in looting or shoot-outs within the
opposition mobilizations.[1] Another assessment
noted that 60 per cent of those killed had
absolutely nothing to do with the clashes.[2]
These characterizations are consistent with the
estimates that attribute most of the murders to
snipers linked with the opposition. More recent
inquiries report that most of the victims lost
their lives through vandalism or settlements of
accounts.[3]
There are numerous denunciations as well of
incursions by paramilitary groups linked to the
Right. And there are indications that much of
the violence enjoys local protection from
municipalities governed by the opposition.[4]
Those death tolls are consistent with the
fascist brutality that led to setting afire
persons associated with Chavismo.[5] Burning
alive a partisan of the government is a practice
more closely linked to the Colombian
paramilitaries or the criminal underworld than
it is to the traditional political
organizations. Some analysts even estimate that
out of a total of 60 deaths, 27 were of
sympathizers of Chavismo.[6]
Others say that within the opposition marches
there are some 15,000 persons trained as shock
groups. They are using balaclavas, shields and
home-made weapons to create a chaotic climate
and establish “liberated territories.”[7]
Assessing the Violence
The assessments presented by the opposition are
diametrically opposite, but have been refuted by
detailed reports on the victims.[8] Since no one
acknowledges the existence of “independent”
assessments, it is appropriate to judge what is
happening, bearing in mind the antecedents. In
the guarimba of February 2014, 43 persons died,
the great majority of them unrelated to the
political clashes or police repression.
Similarly, we need to assess how the opposition
reacted when faced with an equivalent challenge.
Its governments finished off the “Caracazo” of
1989 with hundreds of deaths and thousands of
wounded.
The situation in Venezuela is dramatic but this
does not explain the centrality of the country
in all the news reports. Situations of greater
seriousness in other countries are totally
ignored by the same media.
In Colombia, since the beginning of the year, 46
social movement leaders have been assassinated
and in the last 14 months 120 have perished.
Between 2002 and 2016 the paramilitary forces
massacred 558 mass leaders, and in the last two
decades up to 2,500 tradeunionists have been
murdered.[9] Why no mention by any broadcaster
of repute of this ongoing bloodshed in
Venezuela’s nearest neighbour?
More terrifying is the scene in Mexico. Every
day some journalist is added to the long list of
students, teachers and social fighters who are
assassinated. In the climate of social warfare
imposed by the “anti-drug trafficking actions,”
29,917 people have disappeared.[10] Should not
this level of killings attract more journalistic
attention than Venezuela?
Honduras is another hair-raising case. Along
with Berta Cáceres 15 other militants have been
murdered. Between 2002 and 2014 the number of
assassinated environmental defenders has risen
to 111.[11] The list of victims of the horror
who are ignored by the hegemonic press could be
extended to Peru’s political prisoners.
Moreover, very few know of the suffering
confronted by the Puerto Rican independence
leader Oscar López Rivera during his 35 years of
imprisonment.
The majority of the Latin American population
simply does not know of the tragedies prevailing
in the countries governed by the Right. The
media’s double standard confirms that
Venezuela’s prominence on the television screens
is not due to humanitarian concerns.
Forms of a Coup
The media coverage shores up the opposition’s
promotion of a coup. Since they cannot carry out
classic disturbances like those that led to
Pinochet’s coup, they try to remove President
Maduro through the dislocation of society. They
repeat what was attempted in February 2014 in
order to commit an institutional coup similar to
the ones carried out in Honduras (2009),
Paraguay (2014) or Brazil (2016). They hope to
impose through force what they will later
validate in the ballot boxes.
The Right lacks the military force used in the
past to return to government. But it is trying
to recreate such intervention by staging
skirmishes at military barracks, setting fire to
police stations or marching on military
headquarters.
Its plan combines sabotage of the economy with
riots by armed groups which, in contrast to
Colombia, act anonymously. These actions are
mingled with the criminal underworld and they
terrorize merchants.[12]
The actions include fascist methods sponsored by
the most violent currents of anti-Chavismo. They
appropriate the insurgent symbolism forged by
the popular movements and present their pillage
as a heroic gesture. Their leader Leopoldo López
is not some innocent politician. Any court
operating under the rule of law would have
sentenced him to life imprisonment for his
criminal liability.
The Right promotes a climate of civil war in
order to demoralize the Chavista bases, affected
by the lack of food and medicine. It is explicit
in its call for foreign intervention and
negotiates with the creditor banks an
interruption in the country’s access to credit.
The opposition hopes to lynch Maduro in order to
bury Chavismo. It takes its battle to the
streets, in the conquest of public opinion and
the collapse of the economy. It considers
elections as nothing more than a simple
coronation of this offensive.
But it is confronting growing obstacles. The
predominance of the violence in its marches
alienates the majority of those who are
discontented and wears down its own
demonstrators. As it did in 2014 the rebuff of
the fascists undermines the entire opposition.
Maduro’s steadfastness, moreover, deters
attendance in the marches. They have not managed
to penetrate the popular neighborhoods where
they still confront the risk of an adverse armed
conflict.[13]
The big bourgeoisie in Venezuela incites the
coup with the regional support of Macri, Temer,
Santos and Peña Nieto. For months it has been
promoting a destabilizing plan in the OAS. But
it has failed to get results in that area.
Proposed sanctions against Venezuela have been
unsuccessful because of the opposition of
various foreign ministries; they have failed to
achieve the unanimity with which Cuba was
expelled from the OAS in the 1960s.
Notorious, as well, is the United States’
promotion of coups with the aim of regaining
control over the major crude oil reserve on the
continent. The State Department wants to repeat
the operations it used in Iraq or Libya, in the
knowledge that after overthrowing Maduro no one
will remember where Venezuela is. It suffices to
see how the media omit any mention in the news
of the countries where the Pentagon has already
intervened. Once the adversary is liquidated,
the news turns to other issues.
The strategic goals of imperialism are not
registered by those who highlight the flirtation
of some U.S. newspaper with the Venezuelan
president or the verbal ambiguities of
Trump.[14] They imagine that those irrelevant
facts illustrate the absence of any conflict
between the United States and Chavismo. But it
does not register with them that the immense
majority of the press is maliciously attacking
Maduro and that the multimillionaire in the
White House denies each day what he said the
previous day.
Trump is not indifferent or neutral. He simply
delegates to the CIA and the Pentagon the
implementation of a conspiracy that is designed
through the Sharp and Venezuela Freedom 2plans.
Those operations include espionage, troop
deployment and cover for terrorism.[15] They
develop in a stealthy way while the major media
outlets discredit any condemnation of those
preparations. They question especially the
“exaggerations of the left” so that no one will
disturb the conspirators.
Some analysts think the presence of Chevron in
Venezuela – or PDVSA’s continued business in the
United States – illustrate a tight association
between the two governments.[16] They conclude
from this relationship that there is no coup
scenario. But those connections do not alter in
the least the Empire’s decision to overthrow the
Bolivarian government.
The activities of U.S. corporations in Venezuela
(and of their counterparts in the United States)
have persisted from the outset of the Chavista
process. But Bush, Obama and Trump have sought
to recover direct imperial control over the oil.
They cannot get this through a strained
relationship between partners or clients. They
want to install the model of privatization that
prevails in Mexico and to expel Russia and China
from their backyard.
Attitude of the Left
If the diagnosis of a reactionary coup is
correct, the position of the left should not
give rise to disagreements. Our main enemies are
the Right and imperialism, and to crush them is
always a priority. This elementary principle
must be reaffirmed at critical times when what
is obvious can become confused.
Whatever our criticisms were of Salvador Allende,
our central battle was against Pinochet.
Similarly, we adopted a corresponding line of
conduct toward the Argentine gorillas of 1955 or
the saboteurs of Arbenz, Torrijos and the
various anti-imperialist governments of the
region. This position in Venezuela today points
to the need for common action against the
rightist escalation.
When a coup is on the horizon, it is
indispensable to single out those who are
responsible for the crisis. Those who cause a
disaster are not the same as those who are
powerless to resolve it.
This distinction applies in the economic field.
The errors committed by Maduro are both numerous
and unjustifiable, but those guilty of the
present damage are the capitalists. The
government is tolerant or incapable, but it does
not belong on the same plane. Those who commit
the monumental error of drawing a line of
identity between both sectors[17] confuse
responsibilities of a different nature.
The government’s mistakes have been demonstrated
in the inoperative system of currency exchange
rates, the unacceptable external debt, or in the
lack of control over prices and smuggling. But
the collapse of the economy has been caused by
the affluent who manipulate the currencies,
trigger inflation, handle imported goods and
limit supplies of basic goods.
The Executive is unresponsive or acts mistakenly
for many reasons: inefficiency, tolerance of
corruption, protection of the bolibourgeoisie,
connivance with millionaires disguised as
Chavistas. That’s why it does not cut support to
the private groups that receive cheap dollars in
order to import dear. But the collapse of
production has been carried out by the ruling
class in order to overthrow Maduro. Not to
recognize that conflict is to display an
unwonted level of myopia.
This blindness prevents recognition of another
key fact at this time: the resistance of
Chavismo to the rightist onslaught. Albeit with
methods and attitudes that are highly
questionable, Maduro is not surrendering. He
maintains the vertical structure of the PSUV, he
favours the banning of the critical currents,
and he preserves a bureaucracy that strangles
responses from below. But unlike Dilma or Lugo
he does not give in. His conduct is the exact
opposite of the capitulation carried out by
Syriza in Greece.
This stance explains the hatred of the powerful.
The government has made the excellent decision
to withdraw from the OAS. It has abandoned the
Ministry of Colonies and carried out the rupture
that the left has always demanded. This decision
should arouse the overwhelming support that very
few have expressed.
Like any administration under attack from the
Right, the government has resorted to force in
its self-defence. The establishment media
denounce that reaction with unusual hysteria.
Forgotten are the justifications habitually made
by governments of another character when they
face similar situations. But Maduro has also
been challenged conversely for his relative
indulgence toward the fascists. He has simply
adopted guarded measures in response to the
opposition savagery.
In its response the government has of course
committed injustices. That’s the regrettable
cost of any significant confrontation with the
counter-revolution. These mishaps have been
present in all battles with the reaction, from
Bolívar to Fidel. There is a need to avoid
self-indulgence in this delicate terrain, but
without repeating the slanders propagated by the
opposition.
Maduro is directing his fire against the
Rightist brutality and not against the people.
So it makes no sense to compare him with Gaddafi
or Saddam Hussein. He has not carried out any
massacre of left-wing activists or participated
in war-mongering adventures instigated by the
United States. The analogy with Stalin is more
ridiculous, but it reminds us that the spectre
of Hitler hovers over many of the opposition
leaders associated with Uribe or nostalgic for a
Pinochet.
Social-Democratic Positions
In recent months, as well, among the adversaries
of the Right there has been an increase in views
that blame Maduro for Venezuela’s agony. These
opinions repeat the old social- democratic
posture of joining with the reaction at critical
moments.
They question the legitimacy of the government,
using the same arguments as the opposition.
Instead of accusing the CIA, the escuálidos [the
squalid ones, a Venezuelan phrase for the filthy
rich], or the OAS, they concentrate their
objections against Chavismo. They do this in the
name of a democratic ideal that is as abstract
as it is divorced from the battle to determine
who will prevail in the running of the state.
This position has affected various “critical
left” thinkers [pensadores del post-progresismo]
linked to autonomism. Not only do they accuse
Maduro for the present situation, they say he
has reinforced an authoritarian leadership in
order to maintain the model based on hydrocarbon
rents.[18]
This characterization is very similar to the
liberal thesis that attributes all of
Venezuela’s problems to populist politics,
implemented by tyrants who are squandering the
resources of the state. Only they use language
that is more diplomatic in its diagnosis.
Other views of the same order point more
categorically to the responsibility of the
Chavista leader. They call on us as well to
avoid “the conspiratorial over-simplification of
blaming the Right or imperialism” for the
country’s troubles.[19] But are the conspirators
of the reaction imaginary? Are the murdered, the
paramilitaries and the plans of the Pentagon
paranoiac Bolivarian inventions?
Without answering this elementary question, that
position also dismisses any comparison with what
happened in Chile in 1973. However, it does not
explain why that analogy is inapplicable. It
takes for granted that the two situations differ
without noting the huge similarities in respect
to the shortages, the conservative irritation of
the middle class or the intervention of the CIA.
The disputed parallels with Allende are,
however, accepted in the case of the first
Peronist government, which is viewed as a direct
antecedent of Chavismo. But is the resemblance
located in the years of stability or in the
moments prior to the coup of 1955? The
preoccupation with the escalation of violence
suggests that the similarity is in relation to
that latter period. And in a situation of that
type what was the priority? Confront Perón’s
authoritarianism or resist the gorillas?
No
Advertising
- No
Government
Grants
-
This
Is
Independent
Media
|
The
social-democrats and “critical left” point to
the authoritarian Maduro as the main cause of
the current situation.[20] That’s why they
downplay the danger of a coup and reject the
need to prepare some defense against the Right’s
provocations.
But the consequences of this attitude are
demonstrated whenever the oligarchs and their
bandits return to government. The recent events
in Honduras, Paraguay or Brazil do not even
arouse alarm among those who demonize Chavismo.
They object as well to the extractivism,
indebtedness and contracts with oil companies.
But they do not explain if they are demanding
anticapitalist and socialist alternatives to
these obvious failings of Maduro. The same
applies to the shortages and the speculation.
Are they urging him to act with greater firmness
against the bankers and the big commercial
cartels? Do they propose confiscations,
nationalizations, or direct popular control?
By adopting these initiatives one could imagine
building bridges with the government, but never
with the opposition. The detractors of Chavismo
sidestep this difference.
‘Critical Left’ Appeals
The social-democratic viewpoint characterizes
the urgent call for peace signed by numerous
intellectuals. This statement promotes a peace
process, rejecting both the authoritarian turn
of Chavismo and the violent attitude of
right-wing sectors.[21]
The call favours equilibrium to overcome the
polarization and resorts to a language closer to
that of the foreign ministries than to the
popular activists. The tone is in conformity
with the implicit attachment to a theory of two
evils. Against both extremes it proposes to take
the middle road.
But this equidistance was immediately belied by
the fundamental responsibility it assigned to
the government. And not only does it overlook
the harassment of the Right, but imperialism is
barely mentioned in passing.
The text was met with a powerful reply sponsored
by the REDH [Network of Intellectuals, Artists
and Social Movements in Defense of Humanity] and
signed by many intellectuals. This criticism
rightly objected to the fascination with
conventional republicanism and noted the
pre-eminent gravitation of extra-constitutional
forces in critical situations.[22]
The liberal relapse of the post-progressive or
“critical left” thinkers recreates what happened
with the social-democratic Gramcians in the
1980s. The animosity of that group toward
Leninism and the Cuban revolution is comparable
to the present hostility to Chavismo. A number
of those who signed the call have passed through
both periods.
But the present social-democratic variant is
late and lacks the political reference once
contributed by the Spanish PSOE. The
social-liberal turn of that party has completely
demolished its initial progressive imaginary.
That it is now orphaned explains, perhaps, the
present re-encounter with the old liberalism.
In some cases this evolution is the culmination
of the division that has affected distinct
variants of autonomism. The positions taken
toward the Bolivarian process have triggered
this fracture. Those who chose to line up with
the opposition are suspicious of those who
“cling to Chavismo.”[23]
But this latter sector has thought through the
previous insufficiencies and has come to
understand the need to fight for the state power
with socialist perspectives related to Latin
American Marxism.
In contrast, the other segment continues
navigating in the ambiguity of generalities
about anti-patriarchism and anti-extractivism
without offering any concrete example of what is
proposed. Absorbed by the liberal universe,
their enigmatic vagaries no longer enrich
left-wing thinking. Between their forgetfulness
of the class struggle and their fascination with
bourgeois institutionality, their denunciations
of extractivism are becoming a picturesque
curiosity.
Absent-Minded Dogmatism
A discourse that is convergent with social
democracy is also disseminated using sectarian
arguments. In this case Maduro’s is portrayed as
a corrupt government, submissive and adaptable,
that is consolidating a dictatorial regime.[24]
On other occasions that same illegitimacy is
described with more indirect or sophisticated
categories (de facto president, Bonapartist
chief).
But all the variants coincide in underscoring
the fundamental responsibility of an
authoritarian government that is tearing apart
the country. The harmony of this focus with the
media narrative is striking. The main problem,
however, is not in the rhetoric but in the
practice.
Every day there are marches of the Right and of
the government. The champions of socialist
rigour have to ask themselves: Which of the two
mobilizations will we join? With whom will we
identify? If they think the government is the
main enemy they will have to make common cause
with the escuálidos of the guarimbas.
In Buenos Aires, for example, they called last
May for a mobilization demanding the ouster of
Maduro.[25] All the passers-by who observed this
march understood clearly who would immediately
occupy Venezuela’s presidency if the present
head of state were overthrown. And they noted
the total coincidence between this demand and
the messages issued daily by the news media.
This is not the first time that sectors of the
left have so clearly converged with the Right.
An antecedent in Argentina under the Kirchner
governments was the presence of red flags in the
soy farmers’ marches and the demonstrations of
the caceroleros [middle- and upper-class
opponents of the government banging pots and
pans]. But what was pathetic in Buenos Aires can
turn to tragedy in Caracas.
Other visions compare Maduro with the
opposition, arguing that under the masquerade of
an apparent contraposition hide huge
coincidences. So they speculate about the moment
when this convergence will become explicit.[26]
This curious interpretation contrasts with the
pitched battles between both sectors that
everyone else sees. So it is a bit difficult to
interpret the guarimbas, assassinations and
Pentagon threats as a fictitious quarrel between
two relatives.
The sole logic of this presentation is to
downplay the seriousness of the current
conflict, to interpret it as a mere
inter-bourgeois fight over the appropriation of
the rent. That is why Maduro’s totalitarianism
is seen as a danger equivalent to (or worse
than) the opposition.
The major problem in this focus is not its
absent-mindedness but the implicit neutrality
that it promotes. Since everyone is equal, the
self-coup attributed to the government is
compared with the coup promoted by the Right.
That equivalence is obviously false, however. In
Venezuela there are not two reactionary variants
in contention like, for example, jihadism and
the dictatorships in the Middle East. Nor is it
the type of competition between troglodytes that
in Argentina opposed Videla to Isabel Perón.
The clash between Capriles-López and Maduro
resembles the confrontation of Pinochet with
Allende, of Lonardi with Perón or more recently
of Temer with Dilma. Similarly the triumph of
the Right over Maduro, far from an engagement
between equals, would entail a terrible
political regression.
Confronted with this alternative, neutrality is
a synonym for passivity and represents a huge
degree of impotence in the face of great events.
It means renouncing participation and commitment
to genuine causes.
Since this attitude takes for granted that
Chavismo is finished, it limits its entire
horizon to writing a balance sheet of that
experience. But the biggest failure in political
action never affects unfinished or frustrated
processes. The worst thing is narrow-mindedness
in the face of major epic events.
Whatever one’s questions about Maduro, the
outcome in Venezuela will define the immediate
destiny of the entire region. If the
reactionaries triumph, the result will be a
scenario of defeat and a feeling of impotence in
the face of the Empire. The end of the
progressive cycle will be a fact and not a
subject for evaluation among social science
thinkers.
The Right knows this and for that reason is
stepping up the campaigns against the
intellectuals who defend Chavismo. The recent
broadside attack in Clarín is a foretaste of the
assault that is being prepared for a post-Maduro
regional setting.[27] The sectarians do not
register that danger.
Spurious Elections
In the immediate future there are two political
options at play: the Right demands that the
general elections be moved forward, and the
government has called a Constituent Assembly.
The opposition is only willing to participate in
elections that will ensure it first place.
Of the 19 elections carried out under Chavismo,
the Bolivarians won 17 and immediately
recognized the two that they lost. In contrast,
the Right never accepted their adverse results.
They always claimed there was some fraud or
resorted to a boycott. When they won in
by-elections they demanded the immediate fall of
the government.
In December 2015 they obtained a majority in the
National Assembly and proclaimed the overthrow
of Maduro. Then they attempted in various ways
to disregard the constitution, even by swearing
in deputies illegally elected and falsifying
signatures on petitions to recall Maduro.
Capriles, Borges and López are now calling for
spurious elections amidst the economic war and
provocation in the streets. They want elections
like those in Colombia where, in one election
after another, hundreds of popular activists are
murdered. They hope to gain at the ballot boxes
as in Honduras under the pressure of the murder
of Berta. They want the kind of elections that
are held in Mexico over the dead bodies of
journalists, students and teachers.
It would be a terrible error to join in
elections designed to prepare a Chavista
cemetery. Maduro is being asked to carry out
elections in a climate of civil war that would
be unacceptable to any government.
Venezuela is going through a situation that
bears some resemblance to the scene in Nicaragua
at the end of the first Sandinista electoral
term in office. The military siege and shortages
wore out an exhausted population who voted for
the Right out of simple fatigue. In those
conditions elections have a pre-established
winner.
On the other hand, comparison with the scenario
that led to the fall of the Soviet Union makes
no sense. Venezuela is not a big power imploding
internally at the end of a lengthy divorce
between the regime and the population. It is a
vulnerable Latin American country under attack
from the United States.
Some thinkers take for granted the oppressive
role of imperialism and suggest that this is not
a decisive factor in the present crisis.[28]
They assume that the persistent denunciations of
that domination constitute “a fact already
known” or a mere ritual of the Left. But they
forget that it is never pointless to emphasize
the devastating impact of aggression from the
North on governments that have become enemies of
Washington.
The entire spectrum of ex-Chavistas who are
joining in the call for general elections
confuse democracy with liberal republicanism.
They have lost sight of the way in which the
right to self-government is systematically
blocked by bourgeois institutionality.
This impediment is why the great majority of
constitutional regimes have lost legitimacy. It
becomes more and more evident that the ruling
class uses voting systems to consolidate its
power. It uses this control to run the economy,
the justice system, the news media and the
repressive apparatus. Real democracy can only
emerge in a socialist process of transformation
of society.
It is true that Maduro cancelled the recall
referendum, suspended regional elections and
proscribed some opposition politicians. These
measures are part of a blind reaction to the
harassment. But the Chavista leader is
confronting the hypocrisy of greater import
exhibited by the defenders of the present
electoral regimes.
It suffices to see how in Brazil the impeachment
was carried out by a group of outlaws with the
cover of the judges and parliamentarians who
manipulate the system of indirect presidential
selection. It never occurred to the OAS to
intervene against that vulgar violation of
democratic principles.
Nor did the establishment get indignant when the
Electoral College anointed Trump after he had
received a few million votes less than Hilary
Clinton. A ruling monarchy in Spain or England
seems natural to them, as do the clumsy schemes
that are used to manipulate each election in
Mexico. The sacrosanct democracy they ask of
Venezuela is completely absent in all capitalist
countries.
Possibilities of the Constituent Assembly
Obviously, the best opportunity for a
transformative Constituent Assembly was lost
several years ago. The present call is purely
defensive and is an attempt to contend with an
exasperating situation.
But it is useless to discuss only what has not
been done. There is still time left for those
balance-sheets. The important thing now is to
determine how this call can reopen a road for
popular initiative.
Before the call for the Constituent Assembly the
government was limiting itself to developing a
purely bureaucratic confrontation between one
state power and another. It relied on a struggle
from above by the Executive or the Supreme Court
against the National Assembly. Now it is finally
calling on the communal power and we will have
to see whether this idea translates into a real
mobilization.
There are numerous signs of weariness and
skepticism within Chavismo. But no one chooses
the conditions in which to fight and the main
dilemma turns on whether to continue or abandon
the struggle. Those who have resolved to dig in
their heels are calling for a revival of the
popular project.
Some left currents that are very critical of
Maduro’s management think this convening of a
Constituent Assembly could unleash a dynamic of
communes against the bureaucratic
operations.[29] They see the Constituent
Assembly as an imperfect instrument to
disentangle the dispute with corrupt
bourgeoisified and bolibourgeois Chavismo.
The Constituent Assembly could also help to
break the stalemate in recent months between
guarimbas and pro-government mobilizations. If
it is adequately tasked it could break down the
opposition front, separating the discontented
from the fascists.
But it is obvious that without drastic measures
on the economic and social front the Constituent
Assembly will be an empty shell. If the disaster
in production is not attacked through
nationalization of the banks, foreign trade and
the expropriation of the saboteurs, there will
be no recovery in popular support.
The palliative measures attempted in order to
increase participation of the base organisms in
the distribution of food are insufficient.
Radical measures cannot be postponed.
Whatever the alternative, it will not be easy to
redirect the economy after so many mistakes in
regard to the debt, the creation of special
investment zones or the tolerance of capital
flight.
Chávez achieved a big redistribution of the rent
through new methods of popular politicization,
but he never managed to lay the foundations for
a process of industrialization. He clashed with
the opposition capitalists but not with the
internal bolibourgeoisie and he was unable to
deactivate the rentist culture that undermined
all attempts to build up a productive economy.
The hesitation to break with the capitalist
structure explains the adverse results.
The present context is more difficult because of
the sharp drop in oil prices and the blockage of
regional integration projects under the
conservative restoration. But it should also be
noted that all revolutionary processes take off
in adversity and the Constituent Assembly can
provide a framework for regaining the
initiative.
Some critics of this call object to the sectoral
and communal form of election. They say that
with this format the “assembly will be tricky,
corporatist or illegitimate.”[30] And here they
repeat the endorsement the Right makes (when it
suits them) of conventional constitutionalism.
That demand is not surprising when it comes from
establishment commentators but it is disturbing
when it comes from enthusiasts of the Russian
revolution.
After three decades of post-dictatorial regimes,
many have forgotten the duplicities of bourgeois
democracy. It might be remembered how Lenin and
Trotsky defended in 1917 the legitimacy of the
soviets and withdrew recognition of a
Constituent Assembly that rivalled the
revolutionary power.
The context in Venezuela today is very
different. However, the Bolshevik revolution not
only taught us to note the social background,
the class conflicts and the interests at stake,
it also indicated a path by which to go beyond
the hypocrisy of bourgeois liberalism and it
confirmed that acts of force against the
reaction form part of the confrontation with
rightist barbarism.
The Left will have to determine whether it
converges with the opposition in the boycott or
participates in the Constituent Assembly. There
is also a third option, with a very small
audience: “yes, no and the very opposite.”
In the rest of the region the need is for
solidarity. As in Cuba’s special period, we have
to put our shoulders to the wheel in difficult
situations. Let us hope that many compañeros
adopt this approach before it is too late.
Intellectual Regroupment
Venezuela is not only giving rise to intense
debates. It has also brought about significant
regroupments of intellectuals that endorse
counterposed appeals. This positioning has been
more relevant than the controversial details of
the distinct declarations. It has resulted in a
great division between camps.
The REDH text refuting the social-democratic
call was complemented by other compelling
responses.[31] The political demarcation has
been very rapid.
Despite the tension created by the manifestos, a
number of signatories ask that the fraternal
dialogue be maintained. That respect is
indispensable but the indignant reactions are
explained by what is at stake. If the Right
prevails, there will be plenty of time for the
lamentations and the seminars investigating what
happened.
Since the social-democratic statement contains
an appeal for peace, many thinkers rallied to it
in the spontaneous hope of slowing down the
violence. Taking a closer look at the contents
of the document, some withdrew their support and
others maintained it with defensive arguments.
They highlight their continuing solidarity with
the Bolivarian process or point out their
differences with other signatories.
But most significant has been the rapid and
generalized reaction that the anti-Chavista
document aroused and the great rejection the
social-democratic statement generated. That
instinctive reaction led to a sudden convergence
between left-wing intellectuals and radical
nationalism. If this interface were to be
consolidated, Venezuela will have awakened a
re-encounter of critical thinking with the
revolutionary traditions of Latin America. •
Claudio Katz is an
economist, researcher with Argentina’s National
Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET),
professor at the University of Buenos Aires and
a member of the Economists of the Left (EDI).
His web page, where this article first appeared,
is at
katz.lahaine.org.
Translated
from the original article by Richard Fidler
(with assistance from Federico Fuentes) and
first published in
Life on the Left.
Endnotes
1.
Marco Teruggi, “Radiografía
de la violencia en Venezuela,”
El Telégrafo 14-5-2017.
2.
Pablo Siris Seade, “Las
nuevas víctimas de las guarimbas en
Venezuela,”
Rebelion, 20-5-2017.
3.
Guillermo Cieza, “La
derrota política de la derecha venezolana,”
Resumen, 7-6-2017.
4.
Atilio Boron, “Venezuela
sumida en la guerra civil,”
Jornada, 26-5-2017; “La
‘oposición democrática’ en Venezuela: peor
que el fascismo,”
Cuba Debate, 25-4-2017.
5.
Carlos Aznárez, “La
cuestión es impedir que el fascismo se
adueñe de Venezuela,”
Resumen, 22-5-2017.
6.
Manu Pineda, “La
mentira como herramienta de guerra en
Venezuela,”
El Diario, 29-5-2017.
7.
Marco Teruggi, “Análisis
del esquema de la ofensiva paramilitar,”
Hastaelnocau, 24-5-2017.
8.
Luigino Bracci Roa,
Lista de fallecidos por las protestas
violentas de la oposición venezolana, abril
a junio de 2017,”
Alba Ciudad, 9-6-2017.
9.
Manuel Humberto Restrepo Domínguez, “46
líderes asesinados evidencian una política
del horror,”
America Latina en Movimiento,
22-5-2017.
10.
TRIAL International, “Informe
de seguimiento presentado al Comité contra
la Desaparición Forzada,”
2-2-2017.
11.
TelsurTV “Asesinan
a Berta Cáceres, líder indígena de Honduras,”
3-3-2016.
12.
Marco Teruggi, “Llegó
la hora Venezuela,”
Resumen, 28-5-2017.
13.
Guillermo Cieza,
La derrota política de la derecha venezolana,”
Resumen 7-6-2017.
14.
Simón Rodríguez Porras, “Nueve
errores de Claudio Katz sobre Venezuela,”
La Clase, 11-5-2017.
15.
Ángel Guerra Cabrera, “Venezuela,
situación de peligro,”
La Pupila Insomne, 25-5-2017.
Also Telma Luzzani, “El
plan destituyente del Pentágono y el
secretario de la OEA,”
Tiempoar, 30-3-2017.
16.
Simón Rodríguez Porras, “Nueve
errores de Claudio Katz sobre Venezuela,”
La Clase, 11-5-2017.
17.
Simón Rodríguez Porras, “Nueve
errores de Claudio Katz sobre Venezuela,”
La Clase, 11-5-2017.
18.
Edgardo Lander, “Sociólogo
venezolano cuestiona la ‘solidaridad
incondicional’de la izquierda
latinoamericana con el chavismo,”
La Diaria, 23-3-2017.
19.
Maristella Svampa, “Carta
Abierta al Campo Militante Prochavista de la
Argentina,”
La Tecla Ene, 5-6-2017.
20.
Maristella Svampa and Roberto Gargarella, “El
desafío de la izquierda, no callar,”
Pagina 12, 8-5-2017.
21.
VVAA, “Llamado
Internacional Urgente a detener la escalada
de violencia en Venezuela,”
CETRI, 30-5-2017.
22.
VVAA, “¿Quién
acusará a los acusadores?,”
REDH, 5-6-2017.
23.
Maristella Svampa, “Carta
Abierta al Campo Militante Prochavista de la
Argentina,”
La Tecla Ene, 5-6-2017.
24.
Simón Rodríguez Porras, “Nueve
errores de Claudio Katz sobre Venezuela,”
La Clase, 11-5-2017.
25.
Nuevo MAS, “Bajo
la consigna “Fuera Maduro” escandaloso acto
en Buenos Aires de un sector del FIT en
apoyola derecha golpista venezolana.”
26.
Jorge Altamira, “Constituyente
‘a la Maduro’,”
18-5-2017.
27.
Gustavo Bazzan, “El
reclamo de Atilio Borón a Nicolás Maduro
para "aplastar" a la oposición en Venezuela,”
Clarin Mundo, 30-5-2017.
28.
Carlos Carcione, “Las
“lecciones” de algunos intelectuales de la
izquierda: ¿Quiénes son los sepultureros del
proceso bolivariano?,”
Question Digital, 16-5-2017.
29.
Stalin Pérez Borges, “Movimiento
EN LUCHAS: la convocatoria a la Asamblea
Nacional Constituyente es un reto que
debemos asumir,”
Aporrea, 9-5-2017.
30.
Gustavo Giménez, “Venezuela:
una Constituyente trucha,”
MST, 11-5-2017.
31.
VVAA, “Declaración
sobre Venezuela: Intelectuales en
solidaridad con el pueblo bolivariano,”
5-6-2017. Also, “LUCHAS
y otras organizaciones se pronuncian por una
salida democrática, revolucionaria y
socialista a la crisis venezolana.”
This article was first published by
The Bullet
-
The
views expressed in this article are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of Information Clearing House.
See
also -
America’s War On
Venezuela and the Fascists We Get to Fight It