12. The Venezuelan Revolution¶
Core Argument¶
Chapter 12: The Venezuelan Revolution¶
The Venezuelan revolution stands at a crossroads, its fate determined by a fundamental contradiction: despite nearly a decade of mass struggle, the oligarchy retains its economic stranglehold through ownership of land, banks, and key industries. Hugo Chávez has proven himself a consistent anti-imperialist fighter, but the Bolivarian Movement lacks a clear programme and strategy, producing vacillation and dangerous revolutionary fatalism. This fatalism—borrowed from nineteenth-century Liberalism and reformist Social Democracy—assumes the masses will triumph regardless of leadership mistakes, while the masses themselves grow disillusioned as corruption goes unpunished and essential goods remain scarce. The defeat of the December 2007 constitutional referendum saw Chavista support fall by two million votes, not because the revolution moved too fast, but because it moved too slowly.
The objective conditions for socialism in Venezuela are favourable but will not last indefinitely. Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution applies in a peculiar way: Chávez began as a revolutionary democrat but has concluded that the tasks of national-democratic revolution cannot be achieved within capitalism. Chávez himself has cited Trotsky, arguing that revolutionary conditions have been historically squandered by cowardly leaderships, including Stalinist parties and the Communist International. His January 2005 declaration for socialism was a major step forward, but reformists immediately sought to water it down.
Heinz Dieterich's "Socialism of the 21st Century" is exposed as a defence of a mixed economy that leaves capitalist property relations intact—that is, capitalism itself. Dieterich argues that the bourgeois state remains intact, that eighty percent of media is in hostile hands, and that any step toward socialism would cause system collapse. This is a counsel of despair. The task is to destroy the bourgeois state and expropriate hostile media. Dieterich's advocacy of Lenin's NEP is dishonest: in Russia, the working class had already taken power and expropriated the bourgeoisie; Dieterich opposes such expropriation entirely.
The key to revolution is the active, self-moving masses, who have repeatedly saved and pushed the revolution forward despite lacking a genuine Marxist party. Dieterich, like all intellectual snobs, denies their creative role. He ignores class composition, referring only to unspecified "majorities" or "marginalised people," while Marx based revolution on the proletariat because of its role in production and its resulting collectivist consciousness. Dieterich argues that to win the middle class, we must not go too far in attacking capitalism. This is wrong: the way to win the lower petty bourgeoisie is to take the offensive against big capitalists, not to make concessions.
Piecemeal nationalisation creates contradictions, aggravates capital flight, and encourages capitalist sabotage. A national plan of production decided by workers is needed. The reformist wing, including Venezuelan Stalinists, defends a two-stage theory and opposes touching private property, acting as a fifth column for counter-revolution. General Baduel's opposition to constitutional reform represented a counter-revolutionary offensive; Dieterich attempted to act as arbiter, but the conflict is fundamentally a class question. Baduel advocates a "socialism" without nationalisation—precisely Dieterich's "Socialism of the 21st Century," which is actually capitalism.
The counter-revolution escalates economic sabotage through organised scarcity, with sixty-four percent of milk industry capacity idle. Price controls must be given revolutionary Leninist content, with elected bodies of inspectors from communal and factory councils mobilising the masses. Private processing plants must be expropriated and nationalised under workers' and peasants' control. The most urgent task is forming armed action committees and a people's militia. Chávez's call for universal arming of the people is correct.
Victory or terrible defeat are the only alternatives. Those promising an easy path of class compromise play a reactionary role, disarming the masses. In isolation, the Venezuelan revolution cannot ultimately succeed, but it would not remain isolated long. Revolutionary Venezuela must appeal to workers and peasants across Latin America. A socialist plan of production controlled by the working class would bring immense increases in production, genuine democracy, and a flowering of culture.