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
