Why can't the left get Venezuela right?
By Shamus Cooke
July 14, 2017 — Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal reposted from Venezuela Analysis — 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.
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.
All anti-imperialists, by
All anti-imperialists, by definition, must oppose US intervention in other countries, regardless of the nature of their governments. Many opposed US intervention in Afghanistan against the Taliban government, against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Those who even try to argue that there is no need to oppose regime change against a government that is not progressive, or not progressive enough, have gone over to the other side of the fence.
Mike Gonzalez's article referred to, which also appeared in Socialist Worker - and a shorter version in In These Times - is not representative of the US left. But it does provide some intellectual cover for liberals who look for a "left" excuse to avoid taking a stand against US regime change.
Venezuela
Thank you for the article. The best summation I have read on Venezuela so far. This is in contrast to the euphoria over Chavez and Chavismo supposeldy re-writing the principles of Marxism, Leninism on the one hand and the dismissal of the Venezuelan revolution by others. What the writer probably means by protest from the left can be better described as a "critique". A critique is what was missing for so long. Like most half-revolutions in the Third World, this could end in tears. But the important thing is to push for more audacity on the part of the revolutionaries in Venezeula, which could take the form of a split in the Maduro's party into a social=dmocratic and mass revolutionary blocks. Clearly the way to victory lies in mass mobilisation as well as a class line.