What is the Trotskyist opinion of Hugo Chavez

I'm undecided if I am pro or anti Chavez,

On the one hand he is one of the few recent examples of a non-capitalist leader. and he does have the backing of Fidel(not that I am 100% behind him either).

But on the other hand he is not a communist, he is a state socialist. and his anti-imperialist stance has (as far as I'm aware) got him into bed with religious fundamentalist and genocidal tyrants (this is of course information I have received via the bourgeois press).

So what is the Trotskyist analysis of him and his government?

I think that Chavez' government represents a stage from which genuine socialist revolution could emerge as a viable means of social development - what I would call a transitional state. That said, his political platform is essentially populist in nature, and has not found an effective balance between the economic development initiatives as proposed by the state, and the demands of the working class for power. Chavez, due to the heterogeneity of his political support and the limits of the bourgeois government apparatus that he controls, is unable to effectively use the resources of the state to facilitate the total expropriation of the bourgeoisie.

I voice conditional support for Chavez, and have no problem defending the regime politically - I also have no problem voicing opposition to the bureaucratic structure and occasional anti-worker actions demonstrated by the PSUV.

There is no perfect revolution.

Trotskyism, not being a monolithic movement, doubtlessly has several views on Chavez.

Make up your own mind, instead of letting someone tell you what to think.

As revolutionaries we, of course, support the reforms that Chavez has enacted. The misiones; which extended education and health care to millions and the land reform which distributed more than 2 million hectares (1 hectare equals 2.47 acres) These reforms, financed by income from Venezuela's oil industry, have taught more than one million people to read, given millions access to doctors and placed more than 3 million in primary and secondary schools.

However, these reforms and Chavez's rhetoric about "socialism of the 21st century" do not translate into the overthrow of capitalism. Capitalist property relations still exist in Venezuela. The bourgeoisie have not been expropriated. Chavez has used a lot of socialist rhetoric but has temporized at times and made compromises with the national ruling class. He's also made statements about arming the working class and making socialist revolution. It's very clear that he's a nationalist in the sense of opposing imperialist exploitation of Venezuela, but whether he's a consistent socialist is a claim we can, and should, dispute. The emergence of the "boli-bourgeoisie" is something we should pay particular attention to. This layer of Venezuelan bourgeois figures has allied itself with Chavez and enriched itself at the expense of the Venezuelan workers and farmers.

I would characterize Chavez as being a radical populist and not a consistent socialist. He puts on his socialist identity like some of us would put on a winter coat. It's a useful garment to wear when trying to build opposition to imperialist moves against his regime, but the fit is not so good.

That said, the threat of imperialist attacks, and of internal counter revolution financed and promoted by the US, remains and we would be obliged to defend Venezuela against imperialist attack. We are not, however, obligated to cheerlead for Chavez as so many left forces, including some Trotskyists, seem compelled to do. The longer the full expropriation of the bourgeoisie is delayed the more time is bought for the reaction to organize itself. Making a revolution "halfway" is the road to disaster.

The Bolivarian revolution undermined by its own contradictions

The failure to expropriate the bourgeoisie is leading to the undermining of the critical reforms that build popular support for the regime. Widespread bureaucratic corruption is causing dissatisfaction amongst the workers who have previously supported Chavez and the government or its supporters have resorted to repressive tactics against workers organizations and strikes.

• the state oil company PDVSA increased its debt in 2008 by 146% and owes $12 billion to contractors. Consequently the misiones, which are financed by revenues form the PDVSA are facing budget cuts of 58% in 2008 in comparison to 2007.
• health clinics have been forced to close either part time of completely. The main hospital in Caracas, El Agondonal, is in ill repair and operates at 30% capacity. Rates of infection have skyrocketed
• Bureaucratic inefficiency frustrates the delivery of health, education and affordable food. The state owned super market chain, Mercal, has raised prices on basic food items and shelves are often empty. Inflation is the highest in Latin America at 30%. Rice up 29%, milk 68% pasta 78%.
• Food production suffers. For example, meat production was 17.4 kilos per person per month in 1999. Now the rate is 7.8 per person per month. Venezuela imports more than 50% of its meat consumption.

The failure to expropriate the bourgeoisie, the fact that the Chavistas have avoided building real mass organizations to challenge the rule of the bosses, the fact that they have not nationalized the commanding heights of industry and instituted a democratic workers control, the bureaucratic corruption and inequality -- all are factors leading to apathy and demobilization of the base of the revolution. The Chavistas are under the false impression that the working masses can be led from above without their active participation in the process.

There are other troubling developments in the last year of so -- the increased use of state repression against workers who are on strike or organizing against cuts and in defense of their rights. There were more than 400 strikes covering all industrial sectors in the period 2008--2009. Strikes have been banned, union elections interfered with by the state and the rhetoric of the government has been couched in terms of "defending socialism" against the workers. Workers leaders at Toyota were assassinated.

The PSUV is an instrument of the state against the workers. It's a multi-class formation where workers self-organization within the party is discouraged. In an alarming turn of events, the PSUV sent 100 party leaders to China for "ideological" training. The PSUV has also organized local "socialist patrols" which act as vigilante goon squads against workers organizations.

New international or cover for Chavez's foreign policy?

I'm not enthusiastic about the prospects for a new "Fifth International" to emerge under Chavez. It seems to me this project is more of a cover for his increasingly putrid foreign policy (support for the Iranian and other anti-worker regimes) and less about building a real alternative for the oppressed and exploited.

On the other hand, I think a more nuanced approach may be in order. Tactically, I would not want us to oppose this new international full stop, but to raise certain questions about the class forces and make a clear statement of what a revolutionary international would look like.

An international with clear revolutionary, anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist politics. One that advocates for the self-organization and self emancipation of the oppressed and exploited. An international that does not serve the foreign policy interests of any particular state or regime. An international that supports the independence of the working class and its organizations from the bourgeoisie. Chavez has started a discussion and we should not abstain from it. Neither should we cheer lead or water down our politics to do so as some have done.

I think we're all conflicted because he has only gone half way. At best. But, and this is my personal opinion on the matter, if the people of Venezuala are adequetly fed, clothed, and sheltered without regard to class, then he's been successful as a ruler.

I worry a LOT about not expropriating the wealth and power of the bourgeoisie though. Capitalism is SO insidious and regulating it is ALWAYS a crapshoot. I like to say regulating capitalism is like riding a tiger. It's VERY hard to do and you're always in danger of being eaten. Any and all "reforms" that he's instituted could be gone in a relative heartbeat.

When Trotsky was living in Mexico, you had the Lazaro Cardenas government there, which was pretty similar to the Chavez government now in Venezuela. So this is definitely a phenomenon Trotsky wrote about.

He referred to the Cardenas regime as a "Bonapartist" regime, i.e. a dictatorship basically, but one which gave some reforms to the workers and peasants to get their support, so as to be able to resist pressure from U.S. imperialism.

Sounds like a pretty good description of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to me.

The secret to understanding Chavez is one little three letter word. Oil.

Chavez has a lot of it. So he can do things other leaders of Third World countries can't, because he can afford to. At least as long as he keeps selling Venezuelan oil to the USA, so that America doesn't get too mad at him.

-M.H.-

To be brief, hasn't Chavez been in power for 12 years now, and Venezuela is still a bourgeois state with a market economy? And don't even Chavez' most devoted followers, the Grantists of the IMT, admit that "the commanding heights of the economy" are still in the hands of the exploiting class?

In other words, Chavez and chavismo are to revolution what Milli Vanilli was to music, i.e., 300% phoney.

With socialist greetings