A Gringo Glimpse of the Bolivarian Project - "De Pana" Newspaper

By Lila Goldstein and William Finucane Santiago

An Article for "De Pana" newspaper in Caracas Venezuela: http://www.depana.org.ve/

As U.S. students witnessing the Bolivarian process here in Venezuela we have been en-heartened and amazed by the achievements of this revolution which continues to move forward. In November the opposition was given a boost when their candidates won positions in five states and some urban centers. Media in the United States and all over the globe claimed that the Venezuelan president did not have the power and persuasion that he once had. Being in this country only a month it is clear that this setback for the revolution has been blown out of proportion and the socialist current in the country has remained strong. This is evident in the results of the February 16th referendum to remove term limits.

Although many in the United States are apathetic towards Venezuela there is a base support for Chavez and the alternative that he represents. In leftist and radical circles he is revered, but in 2005 when he offered assistance by giving oil to poor neighborhoods in the United States, such as the South Bronx, and sent aid during hurricane Katrina, he struck a cord with many of the working class and people of color across the country.

The most impressive facet of this process for us has been experiencing the participatory and open nature of the revolution. Those outside of Venezuela are shown an inaccurate depiction of the Bolivarian process, we are told that Chavez is dangerous and centralizing state power. It is apparent from our experience here that while Chavez provides direction and unity at the national level, the revolution itself is carried out by the people from below, by the popular ministries, and by persons working outside the government those who have been empowered by this government to make their own revolution. This is the process we are excited to learn from which develops with each new phase of the transformation from capitalism to socialism.

There are still obstacles on this road, that of the private media which lies,and that of the private companies who monopolize expertise and refuse to participate in the stripping of their own privileges, but these are recognized by the revolution and with the deepening of the revolution there comes more resolve to defeat these enemies of economic and political democracy.

Venezuela is truly a remarkable example to the world and we thank all who struggle for justice in this country for sharing your experiences with us.

Ay, No es No, y Si es Si, and never the two shall meet...

by Quincy Saul
February 15th, 2009

Today, the people of Venezuela will vote on a constitutional amendment that will (or won’t) allow the president to run for another reelection. The country has divided itself between the ‘Yes’ campaign, which supports the amendment, and the ‘No’ campaign, which wants to keep a legal limit on Chavez’s leadership. In the capital city of Caracas, which is the center of political mobilization for both Chavistas and the opposition, everyday life is simultaneously electrified and paralyzed by the upcoming decision. Every street is covered with posters and graffiti. Almost every day for the last several weeks there have been marches and parades. The city is split between two slogans: ‘Claro que Si’, and ‘No es No’.

At stake in the hearts and minds of many Venezuelans is nothing less than the future of the country. For those who support Chavez, the whole revolutionary process hangs in the balance. He is the only leader capable of unifying all the revolutionary elements and movements in Venezuelan society towards a common vision, they will tell you. Meanwhile, those who oppose Chavez see this as possibly their last opportunity to get rid of him.

The leaflets and banners of the opposition, which fill the the rich neighborhoods, warn you in the most dire and urgent terms about the dangers of what they are calling “indefinite reelections”. Like the Chavistas, they use national symbols to legitimize their agenda; the Venezuelan flag, and the words Simon Bolivar. On most of their propaganda, Bolivar’s famous quote reads: “…nothing is more dangerous than allowing the same citizen to remain in power over a long period of time.” A very few of those who will vote ‘No’ today are people who consider themselves revolutionaries, and share Bolivar’s concern. The vast majority of the opposition, however, are upper-middle class people, whose historical privilege and power the revolutionary process threatens.

In response to the allegation of the opposition that the amendment calls for ‘indefinite reelections’, a recent letter by Hugo Chavez, distributed by his supporters, and titled ‘El Despliegue’, or ‘The Unravelling’ reads in part:

“Every time that I hear a petit-yankee say that the amendment is “indefinite reelection,” I remember Shakespeare in Macbeth: ‘... a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing’... Simply, reelection is definite, or it isn’t. Look: the act of reelection necessarily signifies the definite call to elections; the definition of a date for popular voting and an exactly defined period of mandate; the Constitution defines the terms, from four to six years, for all offices of popular election... Nothing exists then, that resembles what the petit-yankees call ‘indefinite reelection’!”

Whatever drives these constituencies, be it politics or privilege, ideology or income, love or rage, dignity or indignation, the divide between them is stark and tense. Walking through a neighborhood with the wrong t-shirt will get you yelled at and spit on, if not worse. To an outsider, or to the naive, this tension may at first may seem unfortunate, dangerous, and simplistic. But from another perspective, these polarized politics are a reflection of the very real polarization that has existed for centuries in Venezuelan society. In Caracas, a cosmopolitan architecture of skyscrapers, malls and stock tickers is encompassed on all sides by shantytowns which spread haphazardly into the surrounding countryside. A culture of poverty and struggle encircles a culture of malls and museums, a culture for which the peoples and plights of the shantytowns barely exist. The structure of Venezuelan society is systematically divided -- is it such a surprise that its politics are? Whatever happens tomorrow, it is about time that politics reflect history, class and culture.

(translations by qms)

In Terms of Revolución: Venezuela and Democracy

William Finucane Santiago

Feb 15, 2009

With only hours left before Feb 15 when voting starts on the referendum here in Venezuela the political climate is tense and the contradictions of Venezuelan society are at their most obvious. The amendment which if passed would allow executive offices to be reelected past a second term is fiercely dividing Venezuela along class lines. Its clear that there are a few points about the Venezuelan situation that do not get to the US public but which are necessary to understand. These are the role of Hugo Chavez as the sustainer of the Bolivarian revolution, the role of the bourgeoisie at present and historically in the economy and politics of Venezuela, and the role of the revolutionary working classes of the barrios.

Firstly Hugo Chavez as a political vessel for the revolution right now is indispensable, though certainly not perfect. There are problems with bureaucracy within the revolution as the government begins to play a more active role in the social transformation. The bureaucracy and corruption which are present are vestiges of the old regime, of the capitalist overlords whose culture of governance is challenged in the Bolivarian state but which continue in this still capitalist system. The real test of the Bolivarian Revolution will be if it can overcome both this history of bureaucracy and corruption and address fully the immediate needs of the people on whom elections depend. It is important to remember that before Chavez Venezuela had only lackeys of imperialism as presidents and dictators, not the imagined dictatorship that CNN and others create around Chavez, but the real dictatorship of Marcos Perez Jimenez followed by the trap of puntofijismo1 which locked the Venezuelan system into an exclusive three party system and persecuted dissenters. Chavez's United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) is democratic and respects the democratic process. All of the achievements of this peaceful revolution have come about through electoral means in a trend that can be seen spreading across Latin America. In Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador national democratic referendums have been used as a way to circumvent and undermine the monopoly political power of the traditional bourgeoisie and open up radical possibilities of peaceful change for the vast majority of the people. Hugo Chavez has been elected twice and survived a referendum on his presidency precisely because of the open democratic process. This latest referendum to remove term limits is not (as the US media would have us believe) a vote to create a dictatorship, but a vote to allow the people of Venezuela to continue on the revolutionary trajectory they have put themselves on. Only Hugo Chavez has been able to bring together the left of Venezuela and provide a peaceful space for revolution. Continuing this peaceful revolution is the only measure which will avoid a civil war in this country between those bourgeoisie who have power and the vast majority of impoverished Venezuelans who have now become empowered. That only Hugo Chavez has been able to do this is perhaps the biggest weakness of this revolution.

Another main concern for the success of this revolution is its lack of a defined ideology for guiding economic development. Much of the Bolivarian Revolution is a revolution against the elite and the middle class in the social sphere specifically having to do with racism, sexism, access to education, access to health, access to credit, and access to political power. In all of these areas the government is taking the initiative to address these basic human rights. However in the construction of this alternative system which ostensibly is to replace the old there seems to be a lack of a Marxian understanding of the historical development of the capitalist mode of production and therefore of the specific nature and mechanisms of capitalist exploitation. Instead there is a culture of community, the creation of participatory institutions and workplaces which do indeed challenge the capitalist system but which do not work together to jointly defeat the capitalist economy. Even where a Marxian understanding of the means of production does exist, it has not yet created a unified challenge to the capitalist mode of production. This critique is especially valid when applied to the new governing class of Bolivarian intellectuals many of whom are from the middle classes. At the front of the construction of the revolution and its ideology though are the popular classes and the people of the barrios who are constructing for themselves with the help of the government their 'own forms of socialism'.2 These are the groups which are most organized and most ready to deal with the threats to the revolution both from the bourgeoisie and from the state.*

The bourgeoisie are slowly losing their grip on power and claim as is repeated to us in the US that their freedoms are being eroded, that the system of government is breaking down and that they are being persecuted. Firstly in regards to persecution, over that past week interviewing participants in this revolutionary process it has become clear that the opposition in Venezuela understand nothing of persecution the way the socialists, communists and leftists of this country do. Those who remember the days of the disappearances and political assassinations of leftists cannot help but laugh at these claims of persecution. Secondly in regards to the erosion of freedoms it is clear that the opposition is speaking in hyperbole. If for no other reason than that they are still freely expressing their opposition in speech and action on the street and at the polls (not to mention the vast majority of privately owned media which is anti-Chavez and yet somehow is still allowed to operate daily in this 'dictatorship'). The only freedom that the Chavez administration has been taking away from the elite of Venezuela is the freedom to exploit their poor and working class compatriots. A quote by opposition student organizer David Smolansky from the Andres Bello Catholic University sums up the attitude of the opposition 'escualidos' (Literally 'thin ones' used by supporters of the revolution to refer to members of the opposition): “[Before Chavez] it was never bad to be rich, poor, or middle class, Christian or Jewish. This had always been a paradise of coexistence.”3 The implication here is that Chavez has made it 'bad to be rich' and 'bad to be poor'. The reality is that the rich create the conditions for poverty. Opposition rhetoric relies heavily on an idealization of the past common to all reactionary movements. To be poor has always been bad, but with Chavez there is a window of opportunity.

While the opposition is allowed to impede of the revolution in a peaceful and lawful way, there is a greater challenge to the construction of 21st Century socialism which is the legacy left to the revolution by the bourgeoisie of the past. Contrary to Marx's understanding of the historical progression of modes of production4, the capitalist class in Venezuela as in most of the third world has not developed the means of production to allow for the planned economy to equitably meet the needs of all Venezuelans. Venezuela depends heavily on oil exports for its revenue and has limited endogenous industry. A total 93% of Venezuelan exports are petroleum.5 With the price of a barrel of oil falling from over $100 USD to now around $35USD this unbalanced export industry clearly leaves the Venezuelan economy open to exogenous shocks. Looking at a 2008 CEPR report and adjusting the figures to reflect the current oil prices it is clear that Venezuela will not be running a surplus in this economic climate if it continues to depend so heavily on oil exports. Imports to Venezuela in 2008 were at 43.2 billion USD and are projected to be 46.3 billion in 2009.6 Using the low estimate of 2.62 million exported barrels a day given by Weisbrot and Ray, at $30 and $40 per barrel Venezuela's oil revenue would be $28.67 billion and $38.35 billion respectively. Adding to this the 6.5 billion7 in average annual non oil exports, the total export revenue of Venezuela in 2009 can be projected to be between $35 and 45 billion USD. This will leave the nation with a minimal surplus (or perhaps a deficit) as has not been experienced during the recent oil boom. In addition to exogenous shocks this oil dependency also leaves Venezuela open to endogenous shocks from the capitalist class as occurred in 2001 and 2002 when a series of business strikes and the lockout of the state owned oil company PDVSA crippled the economy to destabilize the government and create conditions for the CIA backed coup in April 20028

While oil dependency continues to be a main obstacle to development, Chavez has not exacerbated this problem. Examining the growth in industry of Venezuela it is necessary to begin after 2004, a year in which statistics are artificially inflated by the bounce back from the recession caused by the elite business and oil strikes. Venezuela's manufacturing industries grew by %11.1 in 2005 and %7.2 in the next two years. Before Chavez took office Manufacturing Industries were shrinking and with the exceptions of 2002 and 2003 when the effects of the bourgeois strikes were still being felt, manufacture has had positive growth every year.9 Water and electrical infrastructure along with construction industries are also experiencing faster growth under Chavez.. Conversely the oil sector has been decreasing slowly over the last ten years, again with the exception of 2004 the year following the end oil strike.10 It can be said then that Chavez is not making the country any worse off financially than it would otherwise be under a neoliberal primary export based economy. It can also be said that were Chavez to create this traditional endogenous growth by weaning the country off oil exports, he would be no closer to the construction of a socialist economy, only to the construction of a more stable capitalism.

With the victory of this amendment to the constitution will come the deepening and entrenchment of the revolutionary process which is slowly moving Venezuela toward a socialist project. As in the past a endorsement from the people will embolden the government to take new steps toward securing a just and equitable society for Venezuelans. If however this administration fails to meet the needs of the Venezuelan revolution it is possible that in 2012 Chavez will lose the election and this would leave the door open to those who may not respect the rule of democracy as Chavez has. In this context a win for the amendments could be disastrous. If the amendments do not pass there will be an immediate affect on the revolution, some have said they will flee to other countries fearing persecution from the next government, others will stay to continue the struggle. Those that stay are prepared for repression typical of Latin American states facing revolution, disappearances, political assassinations, police brutality, and torture but vow to struggle against it. Whatever the outcome of the vote if the next administration does not respect the will of the people it will provoke revolutionary violence from those who will no longer accept oppression.

1 Pacto de Punto Fijo Unión Republicana Democrática, Jóvito Villalba. Ignacio Luis Arcaya. Manuel López Rivas . October 31, 1958

2 Interview with Professor of Anthropology at Universidad Central de Venezuela, Sandra Angeleri

* This subject necessitates a closer analysis than can be given in this essay and will be addressed in following analyses

3 Venezuelans demonstrate Peacefully both For and Against the Referendum Erik Sperling – venezuelanalysis.com. February 9, 2009

4 “The Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation” Capital A Critique of Political Economy Volume 1, Karl Marx

5 Oil Prices and Venezuela's Economy, Mark Weisbrot and Rebecca Ray - Center for Economic and Policy Research. November 2008

6 Oil Prices and Venezuela's Economy, Mark Weisbrot and Rebecca Ray - Center for Economic and Policy Research. November 2008

7 Oil Prices and Venezuela's Economy, Mark Weisbrot and Rebecca Ray - Center for Economic and Policy Research. November 2008

8 The Chavez Administration at 10 Years: The Economy and Social Indicators, Mark Weisbrot, Rebecca Ray, and Luis Sandoval - Center for Economic and Policy Research. February 2009

9 The Chavez Administration at 10 Years: The Economy and Social Indicators, Mark Weisbrot, Rebecca Ray, and Luis Sandoval - Center for Economic and Policy Research. February 2009

10 The Chavez Administration at 10 Years: The Economy and Social Indicators, Mark Weisbrot, Rebecca Ray, and Luis Sandoval - Center for Economic and Policy Research. February 2009