10. Socialism for the Twenty-First Century (February 2005)¶
Core Argument¶
In February 2005, Hugo Chávez opened a debate on “twenty-first century socialism,” yet the Bolivarian movement lacked the organisational structures to coordinate the revolutionary actions he called for. Workers were urged to occupy factories and pursue a “revolution within the revolution” against bureaucracy, but no national structure existed to generalise these experiences, decide policy, or elect coordinating leadership. The capitalist mode of production and the bourgeois state remained fundamentally intact. Chávez had concluded that capitalism could not solve poverty and exploitation, and he announced that nationalised companies would become Social Production Enterprises (EPSs), prioritising social benefit over profit. However, only about forty of eight hundred targeted enterprises were occupied; government bureaucrats and local authorities hindered the process, and the Unión Nacional de Trabajadores (UNT) failed to deliver support.
The EPSs faced insurmountable obstacles. There was no mechanism for rational resource allocation, no central inventory, and private sector sabotage was rife. The state did not own the full production chain, allowing private contractors to overcharge and disrupt operations. Most EPSs were too small to compete; only about ten per cent generated a surplus. Land reform redistributed over 4.38 million hectares, but state aid was inefficient and corrupt. The Bolivarian leaders had no perspective of ending capitalism, instead attempting to manage a mixed economy within the framework of bourgeois law. Marxists argued that the working class could not carry out socialist transformation using the existing bourgeois state apparatus.
Despite these contradictions, the majority of Venezuelans supported Chávez and sought to advance the revolution. Marxists faced the immediate task of organising the advanced layer of workers and training them as cadres with a correct programme and method. This would provide an alternative leadership to the reformists within the Bolivarian movement and win the Bolivarian masses to Marxism. This work had to be conducted from inside the Bolivarian movement, as no other avenue existed for merging with the revolutionary mass movement. Any alternative approach would have isolated the revolutionary layer from the popular masses, leaving them without a political direction capable of breaking decisively with capitalism.