"Either the revolution is socialist, or it is not a revolution"
Basic questions and Marxist answers about Venezuela
Dear Yosef: From our point of view, we who are active in the Fracción Trotskista - Cuarta Internacional do not consider that any "Bolivarian revoution" exists. At least, not a revolution as we Marxists understand it. Either the revolution is socialist, or it is not a revolution. That is, one cannot say that there is a revolution underway when the bourgeoisie has not been expropriated, and the pillar of the state continues to be the bourgeois armed forces, that especially defend the right to private property, as is established in the Bolivarian Constitution, proposed by Chavez. Undoubtedly, Chavez has done some things for the Venezuelan masses, but in reality he has only spread the poverty. In Venezuela there continues to be an 80% poverty rate, the enterprises continue under bourgeois ownership, like the mass communications media, that outdo each other in making pro-coup and anti-government propaganda. Soldiers and members of the opposition that together with the US planned the coup d'état two years ago and the oil shutdown last year are all at large thanks to the laws of chavismo.
Now I will answer your questions:
(1) If the bourgeoisie still possesses state power, can we say that there was a revolution or not?
There was no revolution, since the main bases of the regime's institutions (the courts, the armed forces, Congress and the government) continue in the hands of the bourgeoisie or with a bourgeois program. That is, in Venezuela, there was NOT nor is there a revolution (at least not from the Marxist point of view).
(2) To what class does the Venezuelan party "Patria Para Todos," that supports Hugo Chavez, belong?
The PPT party, like Chavez' MBR 200 (movimiento bolivariano revolucionario) and the MVR (movimiento quinta república), are all bourgeois parties. Beyond the fact that some of these parties have a big majority of the workers and campesinos of Venezuela among their voters and members, their program is openly bourgeois, and none of them raises the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, nor a real break with imperialism (beyond the populist discourse of President Chavez).
(3) On the other hand, if the party "Patria Para Todos" is bourgeois, can we say that the chavista movement constitutes a popular front (impoverished masses linked to bourgeois politicians)?
The party in the government is not a popular front; it was not formed from the beginning as a front among parties of the bourgeoisie and workers' organizations or of the left; rather, from the beginning Chavez' party was formed by a mixture of soldiers, office holders from the old regime reconverted to populists, old parties of the center-left that supported Chavez' candidacy, and some professionals that advised it. None of the workers' or campesinos' mass organizations ever formed an organic part of the present party in government. Therefore, it is not a popular front, but a government with populist hues, but unfit to give the masses big victories through its program, since in the last analysis, it is bourgeois.
(4) Can we conclude that Hugo Chavez is a bourgeois politicians because he is the President of a bourgeois republic?
Yes, he is a bourgoeis politician, not only because he is at the head of a bourgeois republic, but because his program is one of defending private property in the hands of the bourgeoisie; this led him to confront the workers that, during the bosses' shutdown last year had occupied the factories so that they would not shut their doors. Faced with the protest of the workers, who asked him to expropriate these factoriess and give them to their workers, he answered them that(bourgeois) "justice" had to decide that, that ended up returning the factories to their (coup-plotting) owners.
(5) Is it necessary to organize a Leninist party in Venezuela, or can we expect that the Bolivarian movement (headed by Hugo Chavez) will be able to lead a socialist revolution in Venezuela?
It is more necessary than ever to build a revolutionary Marxist party in Venezuela. The Bolivarian movement does not want, nor is it its aim to fight for, a socialist revolution; rather, its aim is to "democratize" Venezuelan society and "make it more egalitarian," but in no way does it fight to expropriate the bourgeoisie and move forward to the break with imperialism and on the road of socialism. All the measures that the Bolivarian forces and President Chavez raise, go no further than slogans of the bourgeois nationalist type. A Leninist party in Venezuela that consistently fights for socialist revolution, that resolutely struggles against reaction, that organizes the workers and brings together their revolutionary and internationalist vanguard, is needed. A party that prepares to intervene at the decisive moment to take power in Venezuela, expropriate the bourgeoisie and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat on the road to socialism.
(3) On the other hand, if the party "Patria Para Todos" is bourgeois, can we say that the chavista movement constitutes a popular front (impoverished masses linked to bourgeois politicians)?
The party in the government is not a popular front; it was not formed from the beginning as a front among parties of the bourgeoisie and workers' organizations or of the left; rather, from the beginning Chavez' party was formed by a mixture of soldiers, office holders from the old regime reconverted to populists, old parties of the center-left that supported Chavez' candidacy, and some professionals that advised it. None of the workers' or campesinos' mass organizations ever formed an organic part of the present party in government. Therefore, it is not a popular front, but a government with populist hues, but unfit to give the masses big victories through its program, since in the last analysis, it is bourgeois.
(4) Can we conclude that Hugo Chavez is a bourgeois politicians because he is the President of a bourgeois republic?
Yes, he is a bourgoeis politician, not only because he is at the head of a bourgeois republic, but because his program is one of defending private property in the hands of the bourgeoisie; this led him to confront the workers that, during the bosses' shutdown last year had occupied the factories so that they would not shut their doors. Faced with the protest of the workers, who asked him to expropriate these factoriess and give them to their workers, he answered them that(bourgeois) "justice" had to decide that, that ended up returning the factories to their (coup-plotting) owners.
(5) Is it necessary to organize a Leninist party in Venezuela, or can we expect that the Bolivarian movement (headed by Hugo Chavez) will be able to lead a socialist revolution in Venezuela?
It is more necessary than ever to build a revolutionary Marxist party in Venezuela. The Bolivarian movement does not want, nor is it its aim to fight for, a socialist revolution; rather, its aim is to "democratize" Venezuelan society and "make it more egalitarian," but in no way does it fight to expropriate the bourgeoisie and move forward to the break with imperialism and on the road of socialism. All the measures that the Bolivarian forces and President Chavez raise, go no further than slogans of the bourgeois nationalist type. A Leninist party in Venezuela that consistently fights for socialist revolution, that resolutely struggles against reaction, that organizes the workers and brings together their revolutionary and internationalist vanguard, is needed. A party that prepares to intervene at the decisive moment to take power in Venezuela, expropriate the bourgeoisie and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat on the road to socialism.
No comments:
Post a Comment