The revolutionary process in Venezuela: report to DSP NC, October 2005
By Roberto Jorquera
“This revolutionary process needs to belong to the people of Venezuela. We need deputies that belong to the revolution”, said Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel at an election rally in the state of Miranda on October 11. “With our lives we will defend the revolution”, Rangel continued.
Venezuela is in the midst of a mass electoral campaign in the lead up to the December 4 National Assembly elections.
Jonah Gindin in an article recently reprinted in the web-based news service Venezuelanalysis.com wrote:
“In the working-class neighbourhood of Catia on Caracas’ west side, the streets are strewn with refuse; even the public spaces, the plazas and street-shopping laneways are neglected. Caracas’ west side is part of the sprawling district of Sucre, one of Latin America’s largest and one of Caracas’ oldest barrios. At a meeting called by local activists last January, Catia residents complained that the Sucre district council wasn’t doing its job, that the head of the district council was inept and wholly corrupt. Not only was the council neglecting garbage collection and other community services for which they were responsible, they were extorting small businesses in the area.
Typically, the head of the district council is not an elected position, but rather one appointed by the mayor. But Catia isn’t your typical barrio, and communities here are tired of waiting for their participation to be mandated from above. So the neighbourhood’s myriad social movements (Catia is renowned for its militancy) formed the Frente Unido (United Front) and took over the Sucre district council building. The peaceful occupation lasted a few days, until the Frente negotiated a truce with the pro-Chavez metropolitan mayor. The old head of the district council would be fired, and a new one would, for the first time, be elected’’.
Throughout Venezuela there are similar stories, communities taking over police stations such as in 23 de Enero Barrio and demanding that the police leave the area. In the 23 de Enero Barrio the community has put forward a proposal to the local authorities that they be allowed to establish their own police force. After the killing of three students earlier this year Chavez on [his weekly TV program] Alo Presidente stated that he was prepared to abolish the entire metropolitan police if they did not tackle corruption within the police force. In some areas the military has been used rather than the police for security due to the low level of trust the people and the government have of the police force.
In factories throughout Venezuela workers continue to gain the confidence to take over their workplaces and demand the implementation of cogestion “comanagement”. The (National Union of Workers) UNT has supplied a list of 800 factories that they say should be taken over by the workers.
The national government has increased the amount of funding that it is suppling to the state sector with moves to establish a state mining and steel industry that would compete directly with the private sector. Furthermore, Chavez has made it clear that state subsidies to the private sector would be eliminated and companies would now be forced to pay their taxes. All this has sparked outrage amongst big business.
On the land reform question, peasants are demanding that the land reform law be enforced and plots of over 1000 hectares be divided up. The Chavez leadership has also stepped into the debate and has told the large landholders that their time is up.
In the urban areas people are taking over more unoccupied buildings, in the block leading up to MiraFlores (Presidential building) alone, five buildings have been taken over (their owners nowhere to be seen).
This is what revolution looks like
The revolutionary process that has unfolded in Venezuela since the election of Hugo Chavez in 1998 and the establishment of the new constitution in 1999 has been characterized by some key dynamics. It is these dynamics that are essential to understanding the revolutionary process that continues to develop.
It is also important to note that the April 11, 2002 attempted military coup was a major turning point for the Venezuelan process. The coup that was organised by the Venezuelan bourgeoisie, sections of the Venezuelan military and with US collaboration raised the level of confrontation to a new stage.
In response, the Chavez leadership began a major political, economic and social offensive. Firstly there was the establishment of the missions, which have had the aim of solving the key social and economic problems that the majority of Venezuelans had faced to date. Many of the missions are now in their second stage of development and new ones have been set up. Though key advances have been made in health and education there is still a large amount of work to do in this area.
On an ideological level late in 2004 Chavez began to raise the question of socialism, which has opened up a massive nationwide debate about the ideological framework and direction of the Venezuelan revolution. At the April 2005 International Solidarity Conference Chavez made it clear that he no longer believed that capitalism was a feasible system and that socialism was the only option for the future. On May 1, 2005 Chavez once again in a speech that lasted over two hours set out the political framework for the revolution. On a historical level, the May 1 speech could be compared to Castro’s 1961 Havana declaration that drew out Cuba’s political direction.
The socialist character of the revolution is being brought forward though there is still much discussion to have amongst the revolutionary forces and the masses in Venezuela on what that really means in practice.
Recently the new offensive is on the economic sphere with increased moves for more workers’ control and nationalization of industry and the breaking up of large land holdings. It is these new offensives that are bringing the Chavez leadership and the masses in much more direct confrontation with the Venezuelan bourgeoisie.
We need to stress that there is a revolutionary socialist process that is being undertaken in Venezuela. Our campaign slogan should be – “This is what revolution looks like.”
In summary we can say that the following key dynamics characterise the Venezuelan revolutionary process to date.
1. There has been increased mass mobilisation particularly since the defeat of the April 11 coup in 2002. Together with the creation of structures which allow and encourage popular participation in discussing and implementing government policies.
2. Further development of the civil/military alliance which is characterized by the establishment of People’s Defense Committees and military training.
3. Increasing transformation of the Venezuelan economy in terms of increasing workers’ control of industry, further nationalisation, massive investment in creating new state-owned industry and a process of breaking down large landholdings.
4. A broad and deep discussion amongst the masses regarding the question of how to implement socialism.
5. A massive push to internationalise the Bolivarian revolution, through political intervention at international forums but also through the implementation of the ALBA (Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas). A revolutionary socialist globalisation.
6. Increasing discussion on how to unite the revolutionary forces not only within Venezuela, but throughout the world, to combat the hegemony of imperialism. Calls for more unity amongst the revolutionary forces.
7. Campaign proposals [see appendix]
Mass mobilisation
The revolutionary process that has developed in Venezuela is beginning to enter a new stage that will bring it into increased and direct confrontation with the bourgeoisie. The recent statements by Chavez that he will enforce the constitutional article that does not allow for land ownership of more than 1000 hectares has sparked outrage amongst the Latifundistas (large land owners). “The latifundio is one of the most powerful obstacles for the development of the country and as long as it exists, it is impossible to begin the foundations of progress,” said Chavez. Venezuela’s 1999 constitution, in articles 306-308, explicitly outlaws the existence of latifundios. The precise definition of these has varied, but it is generally considered to be a landed estate of over 1000 hectares that is idle.
The peasantry have also increased their campaign for land redistribution which they have paid for with their lives. Over 170 peasant leaders have been assassinated by latifundistas and paramilitary death squads. These paramilitary death squads consist of those organised and funded within Colombia and those that are directly organised and funded by large landholders within Venezuela. The increased demands by workers and the UNT to increase the level of workers’ control and demanding the nationalisation of over 800 factories has also sparked serious concerns amongst the big bourgeoisie.
Since the election of Chavez in 1998 the masses have been involved in the process. However the political dynamics have increasingly changed. It is the independent political action of the masses that are increasingly determining the pace and direction of the process. However it is also important to note that Chavez is key to the process. There is an alliance of Chavez and the masses against sections of the process that have stalled and/or actively sabotaging the process. Whenever the process has come under attack from within such as sabotaging of industry and from outside such as direct US interference the masses have been mobilised on the streets. There are regular mass protests of over one million people which serve not only to inspire and unify the masses against aggression but also set the political dynamics and direction of the process. These rallies form part of the open discussion that is being undertaken in Venezuela in relation to the future of the socialist project.
The masses are increasingly involving themselves in the process on a variety of different levels. What is called the “organised communities” is expanding daily; in their workplaces, their places of study and in the political arena the masses are increasingly setting the agenda. This is truly a revolution from below. But the Chavez leadership is also playing a critical role in directing the process.
On a national level the main task that has been set is the reorganisation of the economy. Central to this is the creation of state enterprises, geared to serve the Bolivarian process as opposed to the pro-bourgeois ones found in capitalist economies, in the main sectors of the economy, further development of workers’ control and increased level of nationalisation of industry. This is part of the process of further involving the masses in the economy. Chavez has raised the debate and discussion that occurred in the early years of the Cuban Revolution. Increasingly the masses are reading Che’s writing on political economy and on the organisation of industry under socialism. Another topic of discussion that has been taken up has been Che’s writings on how to tackle bureaucracy within a socialist economy.
Nationalisation and workers self-management
In recent moves the government has put money aside for the creation and development of a state mining and steel production industry. It has also stressed the importance of the already existing state companies such as ALCASA (aluminium plant), PDVSA (oil production) and PEQUIVEN (petro-chemical). The social missions are almost totally funded by these industries. As part of the further restructuring of the Venezuelan economy the government has begun the removal of any subsidies to foreign companies and demanded that they pay their taxes.
The UNT is planning to take over 800 more factories with the help of the military in some cases. These factories are the ones that are currently paralysed including ones owned by Parmalat, Heinz and Coke. The UNT has made it clear and has been backed up by the government that factories that are not being used will be taken over and then property rights will be sorted out. Such actions are well within the revolutionary constitution of Venezuela.
The constitution states that the government can take over factories if they deem it a social neccessity. The formula defining social neccessity seems to be expanding daily. These actions are bringing the process into more direct confrontation with the Venezuelan and foreign bourgeioise.
Some of the factories that have been taken over and declared community property and the workers have formed cooperatives within those factories. The question of workers’ control of industry and what that means is a question that is increasingly being debated in public. A law that looks at the question of co-management in factories was put to the National Assembly in May. The law was drafted by the UNT. Though the question is posed as cogestion, which translated into English means co-management, it really means workers’ control of industry. This is the way that people pose it in the factories and I think how we should understand it. However, workers’ control is at different levels throughout the country.
During my visit to CVG Venalum, which is the largest aluminium plant in Venezuela and where the cogestion process has received national attention, it was clear that workers are, first of all, part of management, but also there is no longer so much of a separation between management and the workers. There are regular meetings to discuss what is being produced, how it is being produced and what quantity and quality is being produced. So management is effectively in the hands of the workers. No significant decision is taken without the active participation of the workers. The process is also being opened up to the local community. Increasing discussions are being held between factories and the local community about the role it plays in the local economy and the national economy. In the case of CVG in Ciudad Guyana, they discuss what projects the company should be supporting in the local area.
A very similar situation is also taking place in INVEPAL, the other main experiment with cogestion. The other significant aspect of this experiment is that this was the first nationalisation that took place under Chavez. Up until now the Chavez government has been a bit reluctant to nationalise any property or industry, but at the May 1 demonstration Chavez specifically said that from now on the government would nationalise any factory or land that was not being utilised. The government will also increase pressure on private factories to produce to their full potential. The government would also provide the funding to help make this happen on the condition that workers played a role in the management of the factory which would also look at the redistribution of the profits of the factory concerned. The workers seem very confident that Chavez will back up their demands, but also workers constantly talk of their rights that are enshrined in the constitution. In the face of any attack, they will automatically quote an article from the constitution that defends their rights. Even on a bus out of Merida state, where a state official was charging an exit tourism tax, a man refused to pay based on an article in the Constitution. Workers are increasingly gaining the confidence to take over their factories.
Expropriations
Over 500 members of the community, predominantly workers and cooperative members directly or indirectly employed by the Central Azucarero Cumanacoa (sugar plant), in the town of Cumanacoa, Sucre, turned out on September 23 to hear the news that the National Assembly would be expropriating the factory in three days’ time. Fred Fuentes interviewed Josa Gregorio Villarroel, the North East regional coordinator of the Ministry of Labour at a recent workers’ co-management conference, for Green Left Weekly:
“How does this expropriation fit into the issue of food sovereignty?
“In Venezuela there existed, until recently, a direct dependency on petroleum which continues to be our principal source of energy. But this dependency meant that those that governed Venezuela turned their face away from the countryside. The majority of the products we consumed in Venezuela were imported. What is being proposed now? Within the government’s strategy for agro production, Venezuela needs to produce, we have some of the best quality land, we have the necessary technical personnel, with the structures required to put the land to produce. However, here there was a monopoly on the ownership of land. Many people declared themselves owners of land that was not theirs and left them idle. What is happening now is that we are redistributing this land. In this case, in what has to do with this sugar plant and with much of the land which has been recognised as off public utility and strategic for the feeding of the Venezuelan people the expropriation is being carried out to favour 172 workers, 533 producers and more than 3230 workers on sugar plantations. With articles 299 and 115 of the constitution, it is possible to expropriate for the cause of public utility. What does that mean? It goes through a legal process, it is declared of public utility, it is not that the property right is not recognised, property rights are recognised but the state assumes the payment for that property, which is what is going to be done with this sugar plant.”
“What is changing is that perverse dynamic of the capitalist economy [regarding] what was the distribution of work, what were salaries, the separation of manual and intellectual labour, here what we are trying to bring in is horizontality where the workers are the owners of their proper companies. In Venezuela we have not been used to see this, a town in a stadium talking about the company. This is a change in paradigms which tells us, as representatives of the government, that we are going in the right direction.”
“How does the Ministry of Labour see the issue of co-management?
“We had a Ministry of Labour, which I represent, that was a morgue for workers. They would only go there after they were fired from a job. This Ministry of Labour changed its vision of what social and labour relations for the workers should be and this is why the ministry is involved in this. This is a situation that began as part of a labour conflict. It began as a labour conflict but confronted with this conflict we are not proposing the traditional methods that the justice system gives us to solve the problem. We are using an alternative, because the other way would be to simply get the workers and order the boss to rehire them the traditional way, now we are involving them with direct participation in running the company. What do we do as the Ministry of Labour? This. We tell the workers you can be the owner of your company because involved in issues are workers’ entitlements, if this closes, this municipality loses all its history. What we are involved in is creating a different dynamic to that of the Ministries of Labour around the world.”
“If there is a break in relations between bosses and workers, the Ministry of Labour gets involved, not us. We are involved in changing that dynamic, this is why we are participating directly in what is self-management and co-management, explaining to the workers, as we said in the speech, it is not that you will do what you like, now you have to do double because on this depends their family and the maintenance of their homes.”
“Is the Ministry of Labour involved in the creations of the Companies for Social Production (EPSs)?”
“In all the ministries there has been a break in what is the traditional state apparatus. The Ministry of Labour used to go to the companies that had labour conflicts. What is being proposed now? We are breaking paradigms, creating a new vision of what the social reality should be. What is the use of a Ministry of Labour if it can’t help organise workers. Why can’t the Ministry of Labour stand in front of workers that are being exploited and help organise them into trade unions. It is a different vision because that is how the minister and the whole ministry have taken up the role. Within the project of the nation, which is the constitution, the necessity is established to make a break with the capitalist economy that promotes greed, individualism, lack of solidarity. With these EPSs what we are interested in is carrying out the project of the constitution. We believe that it is the workers who know their company, they were the ones who sold their labour power now they should sell it to themselves and enjoy the benefits of their work.”
“It is impossible to explain how a sugar plant can exist here and belts of misery exist next to it. But the company never invested, never assumed its social responsibility. The workers at the sugar plant have to assume this responsibility. They have to attend to the problems of malnutrition, hunger, they have to open up the food hall, put it to function not just for the workers but for the people who don’t have the resources, extend their hand to mission Barrio Adentro, the Cuban doctors, do social work, give talks to the high school students, to the young people. This is part of a company which has a social criteria, not like the monster that we see stealing labour power and surplus value from workers. We believe that it is the workers who know their companies best, they were the ones who sold their labour power now they should sell it to themselves and enjoy the benefits of their work.”
Debates within the UNT and workers’ movement
There are still many unions not in the UNT and even more workers not in the unions. An even bigger challenge is how to relate to the over 50% of workers who are in the informal sector, and how the UNT can help to organise this sector. There is also tension between the UNT and the government on the question that the advances on workers’ pay and conditions is progressing too slow.
Part of the problem of drawing in more unions is the fact that since the UNT’s inception, there have been battles against some bureaucratic tendencies within the UNT itself – union leaders who got involved in the UNT when they realised that the CTV was a sinking ship. One front for this battle is in SUTISS, the union that covers the strategic state-owned steel plant SIDOR. The current leadership of SUTISS, some of whom have positions in the national leadership of the UNT, are holding back internal elections for their own union.
Workers in the PDVSA have also talked of bureaucratic practices once again taking hold within the three different unions that cover this important sector. The fact that there are three unions, and talk of a fourth, within PDVSA also shows another issue that the workers’ movement faces. At the August regional meeting of the UNT in Carabobo, it was clear that there were a number of very intense disputes for coverage within workplaces between unions who are all affiliated to the UNT.
In general, a big challenge is to break the influence of some of the old culture of bureaucratism and squabbling for positions. The other problem is the connection of the workers’ movement, particularly the UNT, with other sectors of Venezuelan society. It was noticeable that the only discussions that took place at the regional meeting involved current industrial disputes and the internal functions of the UNT. No mention was made of any broader struggles or events in the community.
Another example is the lack of UNT presence at marches organised by other sectors, such as the march of campesinos from the countryside to the presidential palace on July 11. The march was directed against imperialism and the assassination of peasant leaders and for agrarian revolution – the war against the latifundista for unity from below, and for socialism, but the campesinos marched alone.
This problem has also been reflected in some of the issues faced with co-management. How to ensure that co-management does not simply become a change from private to collective control of the company wealth, but rather is socialised and put to the use of the entire community is something that has to be seriously debated in the movement.
The government’s move to expropriate the slaughterhouse FRIBASA, the Heinz tomato processing plant and PROMABASA, the wheat processing plant owned by Polar, one of the biggest Venezuelan corporations, created a frenzy in the right-wing media over “threats to private property” and “moves towards communism”.
Fred Fuentes recently interviewed Marcela Maspero, one of the UNT national co-ordinators, about this issue.
“Our responsibility has to do with accompanying this revolutionary process, giving the workers political direction, ideologically forming the comrades and helping them with the necessary solution like what happened in INVEPAL and INVEVAL (the first two factories that were expropriated and put under co-management ). There, there was a much longer process than those that are occurring now but it had to be like that because they were the first ones.
“We have done a census of the country, where we have found over 800 companies which are inactive at this moment, and which the owners, in front of this offensive are attempting to dismantle and remove the equipment from inside. They are trying to take it with them so that it is not possible to reactivate the factories.
“The UNT is soliciting that the national assembly issue a decree to protect these 800 companies which are inactive. To protect them and carry out an inspection because not all of them are strategic nor for agricultural production, nor are they from our point of view a priority to reactivate. There we would do a study in each region to see what are the priorities, according to the needs of the population in order to reactivate them.
“What happens is that we defend the protagonist participation of the workers. There are some sectors of the government who are committed to this policy and assume a commitment in this direction and sometimes they go ahead of the actual process of the workers themselves. Of course we don’t question this but rather celebrate and accompany it, but we like to always take steps based on the participation of the workers.”
“On May 1 Chavez began a discussion over whether the Venezuelan government was a workers’ government or not. How do you see this issue?”
“I believe this government is one which is inclined towards the defence of workers’ rights, it is inclined, or creates favourable conditions to change the traditional conditions that workers have had, including moving towards changes in the relations of production and I believe the president, Chavez, is committed to this.
“I could say that if the government was only Chavez then it would be a workers’ government but because unfortunately the government is not only him and there are all types of tendencies within the government we find ourselves confronted with what he talks about all the time, the bureaucracy, corruption.
“These are some of the big problems of the revolutionary process, which remains in management and public administration and this means that while the president dictates a policy to follow, there are functionaries, ministers, presidents of institutions and others who make their policy decisions based on what is convenient for them as was done before, seeing how it benefits their pocket, how it helps them achieve more power or strength in this process and take advantage of it.
“The dynamic of the process will leave all these people behind. That is why the protagonist participation of the workers is so important, the social control by the people and community over all these organisms, the controls that are established in the constitution.
“Our biggest preoccupation with this process of co-management, which are questioned in all the countries of Europe and by the old traditional trade unions, is that we make sure not to run the risk of converting our comrades into another neoliberal capitalist and we are able to see beyond that towards the necessity of the community, how we use this advantage to benefit those who have been excluded, who aren’t employed, how we go about creating a whole new socialist culture surrounding property and the generation of benefits.”
Urban land reform
In a recent article printed in Venezuelanalysis.com, Gregory Wilpert wrote, “Uh-Ah-Chavez no se va!” chanted the red-dressed crowd to the catchy beat of the band ‘Madera’. It was just like August 2004 all over again. Was this perhaps an event to celebrate the one-year anniversary of the defeat of the presidential recall referendum that was held almost exactly one year ago? No, this was something far more important. It was the celebration of the handing out of over 10,000 land titles to families living in Venezuela’s poorest urban neighbourhoods, in the barrios.
“The urban land reform is functioning as a catalyst for the mobilisation of Venezuela’s barrios. There has been problems with the Bolivarian Circles and UBEs (Endogenous Battle Units). It is a mobilisation that is independent of the government, but was jump-started by the government’s decision to issue land titles. It has led to the mobilisation of over 5000 land committees, representing a total population of more than five million Venezuelans, or 20% of the population. This makes the urban land committees Venezuela’s largest organised social movement.”
“The event, which was held last August 30 in one of Caracas’ main arenas, resembled a rally in the closing phase of the August 2004 recall referendum campaign. Participants had come from 22 out of Venezuela’s 23 states, representing 4298 land committees, and were obviously fired up to see Chavez symbolically turn over grants for 14 land committee projects. Altogether, the land committees have submitted 1200 grant applications for about $50 million of funds.”
The Urban Land Committees (CTU – Comites de Tierras Urbanas) were called into life with presidential decree 1666 on February 4, 2002. That is not to say that the president created the committees by decree, but rather that the decree established the legal parameters for the creation of such committees. The decree specified that Venezuelans who live in self-built homes on occupied land, which is the case for nearly all of Venezuela’s poor, can appeal to the government for title to the land. It is estimated that up to 60% of Venezuela’s population of 26 million live in such communities or barrios.
The main mechanism for acquiring title to the land, which some have occupied for decades, are the land committees, where 100 to 200 families that live in a contiguous area elect about seven individuals to represent their community (the average size is 147 families). The committees then register with the National Technical Office for the Regularisation of Urban Land Tenancy. The technical office then provides the committees with training and help to measure out the families’ plots of land and to initiate the process of acquiring title to the land. In some cases, land committees have requested collective land titles.
The land committees, however, have evolved to do much more than just measure land and process title claims. The technical office encourages them to write a “barrio charter”, which lays out the history of that particular barrio and the community’s rules and principles. In addition, land committees have begun to form sub-committees that deal with public utility companies, such as water and electricity supply, sewage and garbage disposal, the organisation of cultural events, the management of security concerns, the initiation of neighbourhood improvement projects, and other issues. Most importantly, though, the CTUs empower communities in an unprecedented way, giving them a real sense of ownership over their habitat.
As of mid-2005, the National Technical Office has issued over 84,000 titles to 126,000 families, benefiting about 630,000 barrio inhabitants. With a total estimated barrio population of around 10 million, the project still has a way to go. Once most barrio inhabitants (not all can receive titles because many homes are on unstable ground or have competing ownership claims) have received titles, though, this will be one of the government’s greatest impact programs, aside from public health and public education.
As a matter of fact, barrio inhabitants, who generally build their own homes on occupied land, have built more homes than all government have built in Venezuela’s post-1958 era. Land committee organisers thus feel that it is high time that this labour and this contribution to Venezuelan society is recognised and legalised. For them, the land titles are the recognition of a social debt that society owes barrio inhabitants.
The project, according to one of its brochures, hopes to, “develop, with the participation and activity of the Urban Land Committees, a process of complete barrio transformation and the democratisation of the city.” The project’s legitimacy comes from the constitution, which states that all Venezuelans have a right to a home that is “adequate, safe, comfortable, hygienic, and supplied with basic essential services…” (Article 82). Since the government cannot guarantee this right on its own, via its public housing projects, it is up to Venezuelans themselves to claim this right.
Considering that housing experts estimate that Venezuela needs a minimum of 135,000 new homes per year and that there is an accumulated deficit of nearly one million homes, and that the private home building sector constructed even less than the public sector, Venezuela is facing a severe housing crisis. It thus appears that the only way out of this housing crisis is to help Venezuelans to help themselves as far as their housing is concerned. Government housing has only built around 35,000 homes per year.
In late November 2004, 820 delegates of the CTUs, in the presence of government representatives agreed on a proposal to the Housing Ministry, according to which CTUs would be more actively involved in solving Venezuela’s housing crisis. According to the proposal, CTUs would form a new organisational neighbourhood entity known as CPTH, which stands for Participation Centres for the Transformation of Habitat. CPTHs would consist of five-10 adjacent CTUs (1000 to 2000 families or 5000 to 10,000 individuals), as well as neighbourhood associations, health committees (which work with Mission Barrio Adentro), and Technical Water Committees (which work with the water company), among others.
The centres’ main objective is to function as a partner for the government in the improvement of neighbourhoods. That is, they are supposed to “promote, develop, and strengthen in a sustainable way the active participation of all members of the community in the processes of co-responsible self-management and management with the state for the complete and permanent transformation of habitat, as well as in the creation of new settlements.” (Brochure on Democratizacion de la Ciudad y Transformacion Urbana)
In effect, the Centres would be the new primary organisational unit for the diagnosis of what communities need, to plan projects, to implement training programs on community participation, to develop and strengthen the community’s capacity for holding local government accountable, among many other things.
The housing ministry and the various governmental bodies for funding projects thus have a primary partner for disbursing funds, which is exactly where the funds during the August 30 event were given.
More important, though, for solving Venezuela’s housing crisis, is a new proposal that has yet to be approved, which is to create new settlements. That is, the CPTHs are proposing to the government to aid in controlled land invasions. When a community realises that it is running out of space in its neighbourhood, it would have the local CPTH ask the housing ministry for land that families could settle in an organised manner, to build their own homes on this new land, with government support. Such new settlements would be called “pioneer camps”. According to the director of the National Technical Office, Ivan Martinez, the goal is to have communities build 20,000 homes in the second half of 2005 – a figure that would easily rival that of recent governmentally constructed homes.
Revolutionary organisation
There is further development of grassroots community organisation and moves for more unity amongst the revolutionary forces. This move is not only coming from Chavez himself but also amongst the masses. There is general political agreement amongst the revolutionary forces that more unity amongst themselves is necessary to defend the process.
Within the state apparatus there are moves to increase the level of democratisation. Various community based committees have been set up such as the Local Councils for Public Planning, Land Committees, Water, Education and Health committee, regular mass community meetings. However even though there is a move to increase these organisations there still exist a bureaucratic element that has tried to stall the process. All this is part of an ongoing debate about what structures need to be created so as to begin a process of withering away the old state structures which are still being dominated by layers that politically oppose the Bolivarian process.
Various organisations and workers’ committees have called for the creation of a new workers’ party to defend the revolutionary process. Though there is general political agreement with such a call amongst the masses and Chavez himself it is unclear how this process will take shape. There is speculation that there will be moves towards a new revolutionary mass workers’ party in the lead up to and after the presidential elections that are scheduled for December 2006.
On the question of political consciousness amongst the masses of Venezuelans, the most striking thing has been how they have taken up the call for socialism. Within the pro-Chavez camp no one has come out against such a call, at least not publicly. There is no doubt that you would have to be very game to come out against Chavez, but it seems to reflect more that people are actually at that level. In all the discussions that I have had with activists on the ground they are very happy to talk about socialism and what it means for the process as well as the close relationship that has been built up with the Cubans. The political level of the masses that has developed since 1998 is much more advanced than what is generally recognised in the international solidarity movement.
This is no social democratic “revolution” or just a fight for national liberation as many of the organised political tendencies around the world claim, but a conscious battle for socialism.
But even more interesting is that they are learning from the past and the problems that socialism has had and are developing their own formulas to develop it in Venezuela. They are learning very much from the Cubans and the problems that they had during the early years of the revolution. Chavez has increasingly quoted from Che Guevara on how to build a socialist economy. The debate about socialism is centered on the question of how to build a popular economy that can also trade in the international arena.
Part of this ideological formation is being carried out by the Ideological Formation Centres headed by Commandante William Izarra. Commandante Izarra has been running sessions for the last few years. Izarra has toured the country over the last few years for a three-month period holding weekly sessions that last up to seven hours. The one-day sessions discuss socialism, history of revolutions and tactics and strategies for the revolutionary movement. These centres have played a key role in providing political education amongst leading cadre of the revolution. They also tackle the question of the need for a united revolutionary party.
Civil-military alliance
Since the April 2002 coup there has been a steady cleaning out of the military. Those that participated in the coup were forced to retire, are still in court, or have fled the country. However there are still regular reports of corruption in the military. In the state of Bolivar a whole division was abolished because of deals that they were doing with foreign mining companies.
The civil-military alliance that has been created is a real response to defending the Bolivarian revolution. The defence forces are increasingly being integrated into the community. Factories, places of study, communities are part of a national defence plan. They train on the weekends and are assigned a military installation in preparedness of any possible invasion. There is the continued recruitment to the reserves which they aim to reach two million by the end of 2006. There has also been the establishment of the “Territorial Guard”, organisation of the reserves that have been recruited from the organised community. The Venezuelans have learned from the Cubans. Though Committees in Defence of the Revolution do not exist there are similar structures that play that role.
But most importantly is that the civil-military alliance is above all a political project. There is increasing political education within the armed forces. They also play a crucial role in the running of the missions. In fact they are the backbone to the establishment of an alternative state structure that is increasingly playing a more vital part which is already coming into conflict with the old state structure of the Fourth Republic.
Externally Plan Colombia is a political/military plan to control South America. Part of it includes further US military presence in Ecuador and Paraguay. Almost every South American country is surrounded by a US military base.
It must be said that the US is still willing to engage in direct military intervention in South America and Venezuela, it is not off the cards. Though they were defeated in April 11, 2002, US imperialism is fully aware that they can not allow the Bolivarian revolutionary process to succeed. The next year will be a testing year for the revolution, more so than ever before. For the US is aware that if they allow the Bolivarian revolution to consolidate any further they may have lost Venezuela for the near future.
However it is unlikely that such an intervention would occur in the near future. Though militarily it would be difficult for the US, I think that it is much more a political question for the US. Not only in Venezuela but throughout Latin America there is enormous support for the Bolivarian revolution. Any military intervention at the moment would create a social and political uprising throughout Latin America. For the US Venezuela has become another Cuba on this front.
The Bolivarian revolution is now beginning a process that directly comes into conflict with the bourgeoisie. Land redistribution, nationalisation and factory takeovers are starting to directly expropriate its profits. The missions have not affected the bourgeoisie significantly but these measures that are defended by the constitution will come into direct confrontation with the remaining bourgeoisie. So the next year in the lead up to the presidential elections will be critical for the revolution.
Significance of the Bolivarian revolution
The process that has been unleashed in Venezuela and continues to consolidate itself has enormous historical significance not only for Latin America but also for the revolutionary movement throughout the world.
The previous revolutionary waves that included the Cuban and Central American revolutions had a dramatic impact on the revolutionary movement around the world. The process that has developed in Venezuela is set to have a similar impact; in fact it can be argued that it already has. In Latin America there is no doubt that the Bolivarian revolution has impacted on the left and progressive movement throughout the continent.
Neo-liberalism has been exhausted and any attempt to bring it back to life even within the framework of leftist rhetoric is doomed to fail. Brazil is a perfect example of this. The Workers’ party government is being isolated from the forces that put it into power and is increasingly losing all political credibility. Venezuela is clearly showing that the socialist road is the only viable alternative for Latin America.
The revolutionary process in Venezuela is setting the benchmark for all other revolutionary struggles in the continent. Specifically it has taken up the argument that it is not good enough to struggle for reforms within the capitalist system but necessary to struggle for state power. The struggle for socialism is well and truly back on the agenda in Latin America and for the first time in 100 years US imperialism finds itself politically on the back foot in the region. Militarily it still has bases throughout the region in strategic places so the possibility of directly intervening in Venezuela or any other country that might follow its example is still a reality and can not be ruled out.
21st century socialism
The process in Venezuela has opened a discussion on the question of socialism of the 21st century. The battleground has been set in Venezuela. The discussion about socialism of the 21st century is a refreshing debate that has started to spread throughout the world. Throughout Venezuela a new slogan has started to spread, “Another world is possible if it is socialist”.
This also reflects the political framework of the Bolivarian revolution that fully understands the need to internationalise the Bolivarian revolutionary process. This is not just on an economic and social sphere but in a political sense. Increasingly the Bolivarian revolution has set the tone of political debate in international forums and conferences.
The process will continue to inspire a new generation of revolutionary activists as did the Vietnamese and Cuban revolutions. Our solidarity will be part of the struggle to defend the revolutionary process in Venezuela but it will also help us in developing our understanding of what revolution looks like.
Venezuela Solidarity Campaign proposals
1. GLW Bureau – Venezuela Analysis (Gregory Wilpert) has agreed to share office space in central Caracas. This will be free of charge and we can have access to a phone line and internet (we pay).
2. DSP National Venezuela Coordinating Committee (National Division of Labour) (includes – Dick N, Roberto J, Jorge J, Lara P, Allen J, Zoe K, Brianna P, Margaret G, Stuart M).
3. Branches should set up local committees of the Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network.
4. Petition campaign and sign on statement.
5. Venezuela solidarity motion to be put to Australian trade unions.
6. National Assembly Elections December 4, 2005. Organise activities in branches (eg. forums, pickets of US consulates, film nights).
7. GLW copy to organise through LA GLW copy Yahoolist. Produce a four page special liftout in GLW.
8. Publication program – pamphlets on specific issues such as Barrio Adentro (health), workers’ rights, democracy and popular participation, education, economy. Also to publish Venezuela dossier. Look at launching our own book by end of next year and launch at National LA Solidarity conference.
9. Continue with CISLAC as a national network and in some cities such as Melbourne it will meet to discuss campaigns such as Colombia, Bolivia and Cuba.
Tours:
10. Carolus Wimmer – tour in mid-February; discuss with branches to see who is interested.
11. Frente de Francisco de Miranda tour that coincides with Resistance Conference.
12. Tour for National Latin American Solidarity Conference 2006 (October). Either trade union leader or Commandante William Izarra
13. Organise Nelson Davila in 2006 to get to every branch.
Brigades:
14. World Social Forum January 24-29. Solidarity Brigade (January 31 –February 6) limit to 20 people. So far 12 people have confirmed. Translator/coordinator – Coral and Jim Mc (Walter Y will also be able to translate).
15. Trade union delegation May 2006 (exact dates yet to be worked out).
16. Presidential Election Solidarity Brigade. (December 5). 30 people have already expressed interest.