By El Libertario, Venezuela Saturday, Feb. 21, 2009 at 6:24 PM
[email protected] *A translation of a March 2008 interview conducted by French anarchist Charles Reeve with two members of the El Libertario group www.nodo50.org/ellibertario in Caracas, the nation’s capital, which provides important insights into the situation.
This month (February 2009) marks ten years since Hugo Chávez came to power in Venezuela, marking a decade of the “Bolivarian revolution.” This movement has included significant state intervention in the economy and strong anti-US imperialism rhetoric. While some on the left view this Chavista movement as “socialism for the 21st century,” others argue that it resembles a traditional modernization effort by a technocratic elite. This critique emphasizes that enhanced bureaucratic control over capital is not necessarily progressive and that the “revolution” in Venezuela provides little room for working-class initiative or control.
This text presents a translation of March 2008 interview with Charles Reeve and two members of the El Libertario group in Caracas, offering insights into the Venezuelan economy and living standards. It suggests that Chavismo and the myth of the “Bolivarian revolution” mask a series of neoliberal reforms and assaults on workers’ rights, advocating for a break from the Chávez vs. opposition dynamic to forge a working-class alternative.
º _The origins of “Chavismo,” between caudillismo and social movements_
Charles Reeve (C.R.) – We’re astonished at the superficiality of political discussion in Venezuela. Debate focuses mainly on the “dynamics of Chavismo.” Rarely is it examined in the broader context of Latin America, as a case of left populism. Issues like how to characterize the current period and the weakening of US political control are seldom discussed. These shifts in the political landscape are largely influenced by external factors such as the trajectory of US policy and oil price cycles.
Miguel (M.) – There’s much talk about a leftward shift in Latin America recently. While several governments have emerged from social movements, we believe two key currents exist. On one hand are the governments that rose from significant social movements, like those in Bolivia and Brazil. In contrast, the so-called “left” governments in Venezuela haven’t arisen from grassroots struggles; rather, they belong to a cultural tradition closely tied to caudillo populism. The rise of Chavismo can’t be understood without referencing the caracazo of 1989, which sparked a cycle of struggle and the emergence of independent grassroots organizations, allowing people to embrace leftist ideas outside traditional political parties.
This “civil society” was nascent, lacking substantial experience or independent organizing capability. Surprisingly, we find its members now in power with Chávez, having granted him a blank check, partly due to their inexperience. Chávez has revitalized longstanding authoritarian, statist traditions in Venezuela.
Venezuela has historically been reliant on oil revenue, and leftists often argue that state control of oil is key to equal distribution. However, such mechanical interpretations overlook that true progress extends beyond mere state control. Today, we observe a resurgence of Cold War left ideologies depicted as a confrontation between capitalism and socialism—which not only appears outdated but ineffective in addressing contemporary challenges.
Chávez launched ALBA, the Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America, positioning his government as a counterbalance to US hegemony while aligning with nations contributing to global capitalism. Unfortunately, this indicates a failure among some international allies, who seem unable to recognize the real contradictions within Venezuela.
Historically, leftist parties in Venezuela allotted less than 10% of votes, reflecting weak ties to social movements. Today’s leftist organizations, now in power with Chávez, strive to revive previously shelved debates on socialism and social power. Though lessons from Venezuela are modest compared to Argentina or Brazil, the narrative of an anti-imperialist hero, Chávez, persists, lacking robust theoretical backing.
Ultimately, political activity here reveals that all lessons learned under the Chávez regime echo those predating his rise to power; the “23 de Enero” barrio’s mobilizations, for example, were largely independent of Chavismo.
º _“Chavismo,” a melting-pot_
C.R. – Let’s address propaganda and its significant role under the Chavista regime. It’s crucial to examine new Chavista leaders like Barreto, Caracas’ mayor. His rhetoric, drawing from a mix of influences, often results in bureaucratic measures disguised in post-modern jargon. This presents a vast confusion, with Chávez referencing everyone from Trotsky to Chomsky, while figures like Eduardo Rothe, a former leftist, now occupy high posts in propaganda.
M. – South American populism, particularly Chavismo, is marked by vague ideology, with the “Bolivarian process” lacking clear substance. The Chavismo phenomenon centers around the charisma of Chávez. It’s simplistic to view Chavismo as solely leftist and the opposition as right-wing—such binary thinking obstructs understanding. Furthermore, the economic backdrop—comprised of unprecedented oil revenue—must also be considered.
The Venezuelan military, less class-differentiated, has historically enabled social mobility, but retains a conservative streak. The social context surrounding Chávez’s rise includes factions from both the Communist Party and older social democracy. His leadership, amid threats of coup and US intervention, shaped a newfound solidarity among diverse factions.
The failed constitutional reform referendum in December 2007 revealed fractures within Chavismo, challenging the image of a united movement. This moment marked a tipping point for the regime, which has resorted to authoritarianism when facing adversity. Chávez aims to rally support via emotional appeals rather than addressing real socio-political issues.
Many now voice dissatisfaction against the backdrop of entrenched socio-economic problems, feeling they are owed solutions to their immediate needs rather than international rhetoric. Frustration is growing as Chávez attempts to bolster his image while neglecting domestic challenges.
º _The specter of anarchy?_
C.R. – A recent incident involving a bomb at a boss’ organization headquarters has been attributed to “anarchist groups” by the Interior Minister—a claim revealing more about the regime than the alleged perpetrators. Corruption exists, but equating acts of dissent with anarchism appears to stem more from a need for control than a real understanding of the events.
Both the Chavista regime and critics recommended various protest methods. However, genuine dissent continues to be misconstrued and suppressed, limiting the scope for any independent action.
The state encourages support but, in reality, fails to address underlying issues like violence and poverty. Despite claims of “21st century socialism,” escalating private wealth and consumerism contradict the intended socialist ethos.
Chavismo’s legacy may ultimately be as a rebranded model of neoliberalism that legitimizes existing power structures while masking contradictions through populist language.
M. – The reality of Venezuela signifies a consistent class structure whereby, historically, wealth is siphoned from oil revenues. Traditional ties persist between business elites and governmental powers—showing that pressing social issues remain overlooked. The narrative portrays a progressive regime, yet the status quo endures.
º _Co-operatives and their implications_
C.R. – The government’s co-operatives are often critiqued as fostering labor precarity and linking workers to bureaucracy, eroding their rights further. Transforming existing companies into co-operatives nullifies collective bargaining, leading to disenfranchisement of labor.
M. – For us, co-operatives ought to imply bottom-up initiatives. Instead, Chavistas exploit co-operatives merely for state benefits. Subsequently, the essence of work mutates, as rights evaporate and form becomes confused with false promises of socialism.
I. – Political narratives push for casualization of work, and government rhetoric about trade unions signals incorporation into party structures rather than genuine representation—normative discussions remain off the table as voices are coerced.
In recent years, protests over inadequate conditions in public services underline worker discontent, confronting both Chavista and anti-Chavista paradigms for autonomy over their demands. Activism now increasingly asserts itself as separate from adherence to either side of the political spectrum.
º _Dissent within Chavismo_
I. – Chavismo’s evolution illustrates its fragile nature. The aftermath of the December 2007 referendum reveals discontent even among supporters, as expectations for progress were dashed due to unfulfilled promises—widespread sentiment for change grows.
Ultimately, the Chavista legacy shall be scrutinized for both its unyielding struggle and failure to deliver on core collective needs. The myth of a charismatic leader eventually reveals itself to be mere spectacle, often disconnected from the lived experience of citizens.
M. – Public sentiment underscores that issues persist beyond political rhetoric. The overarching dialogue needs to shift to genuine grassroots articulation, redefining the Chavista narrative to align more closely with real need and hunger for agency.