Log in

View Full Version : Attitude to Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution



Socialism
28th February 2009, 23:53
Hello, first of all as I am new to this forum.

I think that the Bolivarian Revolution is a classic example of confirmation of Trotsky's Permanent revolution.

No doubt that the Bolivarian Revolution has been a bourgeois democratic revolution in a semi-colonial country. But what should the attitude of the communists be? I think that as communists we should support the anti-imperialist nature of this revolution and the struggle for Venezuela to pass from imperialist dominated, to a bourgeois democracy. Unfortunately, as Trotsky explained in his Permanent Revolution theory, the bourgeoisie is no longer progressive, as it is tied hand and foot to foreign capital. Hence the reactionary role of the bourgeoisie in Venezuela, who wholeheartedly supports the Opposition.

The Opposition in Venezuela is a reactionary force, who wants to preserve "all the old crap" , which is American corporations exploiting the resources etc. On the other hand the Chavistas have moved to the left in the past ten years. Just like Castro, Chavez has moved to the left and has realised that under capitalism, those essentialy progressive steps towards a national market and the end of imperialist domination cannot happen.

This is why he talks about "Socialism of the 21st century". Unfortunately socialism of the 21st century as he calls in is very confused, as Chavez is not a Marxist, same goes for the rest of the leaders of the Bolivarian movement. Some of them are even reactionary bureaucrats who due to their well-paying bureaucratic positions, have sold out the movement and have become reactionary.

What should the attitude of the marxists be on the "bolivarian revolution" then? I think that as marxists we should recognize the progressive anti-imperialist characteristics of the bolivarian revolution. At the sme time we need to point out that they cannot develop capitalism in Venezuela under alliances (popular fronts) , with the progressive bourgeoisie. They need to pursue a class independent way, that is nationalization of the comanding heights of the economy under workers control, expropriation of the oligarchy, the establishment of workers and peasants militias etc. All that with the proletairat being the leading force and the peasantry being its allies.

For that to happen a genuine revolutionary party needs to be build. But it is not enough to proclaim a genuine revolutionary party. There needs to be an independent organization of marxists in the PSUV which will agitate for its creation amongst the greater masses of workers, students and peasants who have been re-awakened and entered the political arena in the past 10 years.

In short we should support the progressive Bolivarian Revolution as we should not forget that Venezuela is a semi-colonial country and the building of bourgeois democracy, a national market and the ending of imperialist domination are progressive steps. On the other hand we should not forget that the bourgeoisie is reactionary and tied hand and foot with imperialism so it cannot perform these tasks. Only the proletariat can perform these tasks in alliance with the peasantry and combine these tasks with those of building socialism, nationaly and internationaly!

Oneironaut
1st March 2009, 01:01
Chavez has been in power for 10 years. The means of production are still privately owned. How long does the guy need? Chavez has been hesitant even under worker pressure to put the means of production under worker control. I see the Bolivarian Revolution as nothing more than a bourgeoisie revolution. Revolutions of this sort I do not support.

proudhon10
4th March 2009, 22:34
Chavez is one of the most progressive leaders in Latin America. So what if he uses democratic elections? This does not make him bourgeoisie! He is destroying the system within because his 1992 coup failed! He has the potential to become much more socialist, so we must support him so he can.

AvanteRedGarde
5th March 2009, 18:19
Actually, what you said invalidates trotsky's 'Permanent Revolution." You said yourself that Venezuela has very clear progressive characteristics.

It looks like you're promoting backwards logic. Start with an archaic theory, one which you yourself are dedicated too but has never produced an actual revolution, and and twist some currents event until it somehow supports the original theory.