6. Marxists and the Venezuelan Revolution¶
Core Argument¶
In this chapter, the authors advance a rigorous defence of dialectical Marxism against the mechanical, economic determinism they identify as prevalent in Britain—a sterile and reformist outlook that abandons revolutionary agency. They argue that genuine Marxism demands a “feel” for the mass movement, not a predestined schema of history. The subjective factor is decisive: the absence of a strong Marxist leadership on a world scale may delay revolution, but the masses will act regardless, particularly in the ex-colonial world. Sectarians who insist that revolutions must be led by a Marxist party are condemned as idealist and metaphysical. Instead, a dialectical approach, as exemplified by Trotsky, begins from the facts themselves.
The Venezuelan Revolution is presented as precisely such a fact. The masses have gathered around Hugo Chávez, who broke the dam of the old order. The secret of his success lies in the masses; their fervour for him is a tremendous power. Sectarians, trapped in formalism, dismiss Chávez as “bourgeois,” failing to grasp that the middle class can come over to the side of socialist revolution. The class nature of a political movement is determined by its programme and class basis, not the class origin of its leaders. The Bolivarian Movement is characterised as petty-bourgeois revolutionary democracy, which has not abolished capitalism. Yet the state is no longer controlled by the bourgeoisie, forcing the oligarchy to rely on extra-legal methods. Drawing on Lenin, the authors note that the state consists of armed bodies of men, and in exceptional periods it can gain independence from the ruling class. Army officers can be won to revolution, as in the Portuguese Revolution, where the Armed Forces Movement nationalised 80% of the economy before reformists wrecked it. Venezuela is thus a variant of the Permanent Revolution: either the revolution expropriates the bourgeoisie and moves toward socialism, or imperialism and the oligarchy liquidate it.
The relationship between Chávez and the masses is dialectical: the masses personify the revolution in him, but the objective logic of events is distinct from their perception. The revolution’s progress is marked by the rise and fall of leaders as the pendulum swings left. After the 2002 coup and the bosses’ lockout, opportunities for swift socialist transformation were lost. The situation is now polarised between antagonistic classes. Marxists must pursue a united front policy with revolutionary petty-bourgeois elements—“together but not mixed up”—while maintaining class independence. The correct position is: unconditional defence of the revolution; critical support for Chávez; support for the left wing within the Bolivarian Movement; defence of Marxist ideas within that left wing; and building independent proletarian organisations. A Marxist party cannot be built outside the mass movement; it must unite Marxism with the masses. The authors conclude by citing Ted Grant: Marxist-Leninist forces will emerge from within the ranks of the mass organisations, and nothing of lasting substance can be created outside them.