From www.ft-ci.org
VENEZUELA: In view of the referendum on the constitutional amendment
Spoil your ballot or abstain!
By LTS of Venezuela
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Once again, the national scene is polarized, facing elections, this time, because of the new attempt by Chávez and the government to win approval of the possibility of indefinite reelection of the President. Demoagogy is gushing forth on all sides, both from the right-wing bourgeois opposition extolling the defense of a supposed "democratic alternative," and from the government, talking about a supposed "expansion of the power of the people." We revolutionaries of the Liga de Trabajadores por el Socialismo (LTS) have established our position between the bourgeois opposition's right-wing political project, that seeks to tie the country hand and foot to imperialism, and that of Chávez, who, in searching for greater autonomy from imperialism, is proposing a national development project tied to groups of a supposed "nationalist" bourgeoisie, against which, we call for spoiling one's ballot or abstaining, from a perspective of workers' absolute class independence. We unequivocally maintain that the anti-imperialist struggle Chávez talks about can only be led consistently and to the end by the working class and its independent organization, which is precisely what Chávez is preventing, as has been shown for all these years.
An attempt to avoid a catastrophic scenario for chavismo: the possible departure of Chávez
Chávez and the government managed, in spite of the severe setback of losing some governments like Miranda and Carabobo, as well as the Metropolitan Distract, to recover a part of the percentage of votes lost in the 2007 referendum on the constitutional reform, with which they achieved a certain majority of votes at an overall national level in the last regional elections. This momentary political circumstance is what they are using to attempt to change the constitution again to permit Chávez to be a candidate for the presidency indefinitely. In addition, the elections were planned just before the world economic crisis began to deal harsh blows in the country, and the government, like every bourgeois government, began to "confront it" with anti-popular economic measures that will fall on working people.
Chavismo, as a regime and a political movement, arranged itself around the figure of Chávez: he is the direct "leader" of the masses, above the parties and machines that back him, as well as the articulator between the different factions in conflict within chavismo. If Chávez were unable to run again in the next presidential elections (2012), it would not only mean an abrupt change in the arrangement of the regime if chavismo kept the presidency, but it would also involve a change as regards the political movement, since there would immediately take place the dreaded process of searching for a successor, which puts at risk tne very continuation of chavismo in power, since there is no suitable presidential candidate with Chávez' attraction. This, without any doubt, will be the reason for the most virulent, brutal internal disputes, from which chavismo will surely emerge very much more fractured and weakened than now.
The absolute key fact of this whole situation is that Chávez' political project -- bourgeois nationalist development of a semi-colonial country -- is inseparable from the Bonapartist traits of the regime, that is, from the need for a strong presidential figure, both politically and legally, that would be capable of fulfilling the role of the nation's "arbiter," as well as being the country's "strong man" facing imperialism: being the guarantor of peace against a new social explosion -- which implies "mediating" and "disciplining" the parties in conflict -- and bargaining with the imperialisms in order to use a larger portion of the surpluses they removed in "national development." That is precisely the hard core of Chávez' project, admitted by the man himself innumerable times. That is what would enter into open crisis if Chávez could not run again for the presidency of the Republic in the coming elections.
The rancid pro-US right wing and its exaggerated "alternative"
The right-wing bourgeois oppostion, that could survive and revive in the national political life, thanks to Chávez' policies and pacts, is only repeating its accustomed and empty phrases about "democracy" and "freedom," that were trampled on for working people many times during all the years of the Punto Fijo Pact, by the right-wing opposition itself, and again during the brief attempt at the bosses' pro-imperialist dictatorship, headed by the unfortunate Carmona Estanga. This right-wing bourgeois opposition has nothing to offer workers and the people, but it makes use of the servility of most of the Venezuelan left to Chávez, as well as his authoritarian characteristics, to practice demagogy about the people's needs and about "democracy." But it is only the most shameless demagogy: it is obvious that unemployment, low wages, the people's health, lack of housing and land for the campesinos, does not bother them, much less are they worried by the lack of "democracy" for the people, the murders of workers' leaders, like the case of the 3 workers' leaders assassinated in Aragua, repression against the fishermen of Güiria, or the killing of 200 campesinos, that has taken place up to now, by killers paid by landowners, or, most recently, the brutal murder of the two autoworkers at the hands of the Anzoátegui state police, where the chavista Tarek Willian Saab is Governor. In none of these cases are they making much of the lack of freedom and democracy! What really worries them is that if the amendment passes, the possibilities of recovering political command of the country would be more difficult for them.
The right-wing opposition busts a gut talking about "alternatives," but as good bourgeois, they are only showing, very conveniently, the superficiality of the matter: the possibility that those who govern may alternate. This is in no way what is essential in the debate for the exploited and impoverished masses in bourgeois society; the problem is not how many different people who govern can alternate. The problem is that they all govern in order to maintain class society; they are all part of "democracy for the rich," against the people. Those who govern, change, but the social system, private ownership of the means of production and life in the hands of some few people and wage slavery for us, for the majority that produces everything, does not change: this is the meaning of bourgeois alternation. Thus, the right wing is cynically trying to equate its bourgeois interest in running the country with the genuine democratic aspirations of the workers and the people. The openly pro-imperialist bourgeois project is what is behind the "No" vote.
Seeking to recover from strategic weakness
The government has already entered a stage of strategic weakness, beginning with the loss of the December 2 referendum, owing to the defection of some 3 million votes. That situation was not reversed by the recent victory in the regional elections, where, despite keeping a majority in races for governors and mayors, it suffered a setback, compared to what it had previously, but also in a large part of the most economically and politically important zones of the country, where more than 40% of the population is concentrated. Chávez will not be able to continue governing as before, we said after December 2, and that is what characterizes the new political moment: the institutional repositioning (governors' and mayors' offices) of the bourgeois opposition, as well as the incipient workers' struggles, outside of the government's official leadership, confirm this. It is also confirmed by the very fact recently of having had to propose unlimited re-election for the rest of the "popularly" elected offices, as a last-minute maneuver to try to assure getting the majority of votes, at the cost of having, in case it passes, to accept the permanent existence of regional leaders ("caudillos") to challenge Chávez, a scenario that he had always rejected.
In this national setting, Chávez and the Venezuelan bourgeoisie in its entirety will have to "reach an agreement" on minimum points for the leadership of the country, as they already did before: the agreements after the coup d'état and after the strike to sabotage PDVSA, as well as the big agreement on the 2004 recall referendum, are clear examples of how they realized minimal agreements to direct the national situation through "institutional and regular channels", that is, so that the class struggle of that time would not be exacerbated. Chávez no longer has the leadership and appeal among the masses that he had a few years ago, and he does not have the guaranteed absolute majority of votes either, that were the basis of his power to "referee." That is why the regime cannot continue the same, and Chávez must negotiate some agreements with the bourgeois opposition.
Facing that scenario, and the setting of an enormous historical crisis of world capitalism, that has not yet hit the country, but that will undoubtedly strike with great turbulence, certainly for Chávez, "his life depends on it," in this election, since he wants to avoid arriving the least bit weakened at a possible negotiation with the right-wing opposition. If he loses, it will be disastrous, and he will do what he has always done, to yield constantly more to the bourgeois opposition and make the mass movement pay the price (releasing coup-plotters, increasing prices, freed from any controls, repressing the most radical struggles, no large raises in wages, etc.). If he wins, he will reposition himself to negotiate with the right wing under better conditions, and in order to "discipline" the most daring and radical sectors of the workers', campesinos' and popular movement. That is why Chávez will use a possible victory to increase his control over the mass movement (workers, campesinos, poor communities) to block any radical and politically independent, truly anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist cause.
A long government of timid patches
The essential element in the unquestionable fall of the strength of Chávez, for some years, has been the failure to solve the basic problems of the country's working and impoverished masses. As has been shown, the pro-imperialist opposition has not advanced considerably in votes, but it is the government that is losing while its rank and file abstains. The problem is that after 10 long years of governing, with enormous levels of support and the workers', popular and campesinos' movement's willingness to fight, with big defeats dealt to the most ambitious and violent attempts of imperialism and its servants, Chávez and his government have been unable to solve even a single one of the structural questions of working people satisfactorily. Most impoverished campesinos continue to be landless; the numbers of reduced unemployment hide the fact that it continues to be the scourge for the poorest groups in the population. In addition, the levels of precarious employment and flexible work are being maintained and even increasing; the work created is, for the most part, uncertain; wages continue to be quite miserable, compared to the needs of the immense majority of working-class families, needs that are scarcely partially alleviated by the food subsidies the government grants and its "assistance." The drama of the lack of housing persists among more than a quarter of the population; access to health care, which presents more "successes," continues, however, to show enormous inequalities between the rich and upper middle-class strata of the population and the problems poor people go through in order to get decent health care; without mentioning that despite all the boasting and demagogy about justice for women, women's emancipation – and especially that of poor and working women, the most exploited and oppressed people under capitalism – relative to domestic slavery and the power to decide about their own bodies and reproduction, has not advanced even a millimeter.
VENEZUELA: In view of the referendum on the constitutional amendment
Spoil your ballot or abstain!
By LTS of Venezuela
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Once again, the national scene is polarized, facing elections, this time, because of the new attempt by Chávez and the government to win approval of the possibility of indefinite reelection of the President. Demoagogy is gushing forth on all sides, both from the right-wing bourgeois opposition extolling the defense of a supposed "democratic alternative," and from the government, talking about a supposed "expansion of the power of the people." We revolutionaries of the Liga de Trabajadores por el Socialismo (LTS) have established our position between the bourgeois opposition's right-wing political project, that seeks to tie the country hand and foot to imperialism, and that of Chávez, who, in searching for greater autonomy from imperialism, is proposing a national development project tied to groups of a supposed "nationalist" bourgeoisie, against which, we call for spoiling one's ballot or abstaining, from a perspective of workers' absolute class independence. We unequivocally maintain that the anti-imperialist struggle Chávez talks about can only be led consistently and to the end by the working class and its independent organization, which is precisely what Chávez is preventing, as has been shown for all these years.
An attempt to avoid a catastrophic scenario for chavismo: the possible departure of Chávez
Chávez and the government managed, in spite of the severe setback of losing some governments like Miranda and Carabobo, as well as the Metropolitan Distract, to recover a part of the percentage of votes lost in the 2007 referendum on the constitutional reform, with which they achieved a certain majority of votes at an overall national level in the last regional elections. This momentary political circumstance is what they are using to attempt to change the constitution again to permit Chávez to be a candidate for the presidency indefinitely. In addition, the elections were planned just before the world economic crisis began to deal harsh blows in the country, and the government, like every bourgeois government, began to "confront it" with anti-popular economic measures that will fall on working people.
Chavismo, as a regime and a political movement, arranged itself around the figure of Chávez: he is the direct "leader" of the masses, above the parties and machines that back him, as well as the articulator between the different factions in conflict within chavismo. If Chávez were unable to run again in the next presidential elections (2012), it would not only mean an abrupt change in the arrangement of the regime if chavismo kept the presidency, but it would also involve a change as regards the political movement, since there would immediately take place the dreaded process of searching for a successor, which puts at risk tne very continuation of chavismo in power, since there is no suitable presidential candidate with Chávez' attraction. This, without any doubt, will be the reason for the most virulent, brutal internal disputes, from which chavismo will surely emerge very much more fractured and weakened than now.
The absolute key fact of this whole situation is that Chávez' political project -- bourgeois nationalist development of a semi-colonial country -- is inseparable from the Bonapartist traits of the regime, that is, from the need for a strong presidential figure, both politically and legally, that would be capable of fulfilling the role of the nation's "arbiter," as well as being the country's "strong man" facing imperialism: being the guarantor of peace against a new social explosion -- which implies "mediating" and "disciplining" the parties in conflict -- and bargaining with the imperialisms in order to use a larger portion of the surpluses they removed in "national development." That is precisely the hard core of Chávez' project, admitted by the man himself innumerable times. That is what would enter into open crisis if Chávez could not run again for the presidency of the Republic in the coming elections.
The rancid pro-US right wing and its exaggerated "alternative"
The right-wing bourgeois oppostion, that could survive and revive in the national political life, thanks to Chávez' policies and pacts, is only repeating its accustomed and empty phrases about "democracy" and "freedom," that were trampled on for working people many times during all the years of the Punto Fijo Pact, by the right-wing opposition itself, and again during the brief attempt at the bosses' pro-imperialist dictatorship, headed by the unfortunate Carmona Estanga. This right-wing bourgeois opposition has nothing to offer workers and the people, but it makes use of the servility of most of the Venezuelan left to Chávez, as well as his authoritarian characteristics, to practice demagogy about the people's needs and about "democracy." But it is only the most shameless demagogy: it is obvious that unemployment, low wages, the people's health, lack of housing and land for the campesinos, does not bother them, much less are they worried by the lack of "democracy" for the people, the murders of workers' leaders, like the case of the 3 workers' leaders assassinated in Aragua, repression against the fishermen of Güiria, or the killing of 200 campesinos, that has taken place up to now, by killers paid by landowners, or, most recently, the brutal murder of the two autoworkers at the hands of the Anzoátegui state police, where the chavista Tarek Willian Saab is Governor. In none of these cases are they making much of the lack of freedom and democracy! What really worries them is that if the amendment passes, the possibilities of recovering political command of the country would be more difficult for them.
The right-wing opposition busts a gut talking about "alternatives," but as good bourgeois, they are only showing, very conveniently, the superficiality of the matter: the possibility that those who govern may alternate. This is in no way what is essential in the debate for the exploited and impoverished masses in bourgeois society; the problem is not how many different people who govern can alternate. The problem is that they all govern in order to maintain class society; they are all part of "democracy for the rich," against the people. Those who govern, change, but the social system, private ownership of the means of production and life in the hands of some few people and wage slavery for us, for the majority that produces everything, does not change: this is the meaning of bourgeois alternation. Thus, the right wing is cynically trying to equate its bourgeois interest in running the country with the genuine democratic aspirations of the workers and the people. The openly pro-imperialist bourgeois project is what is behind the "No" vote.
Seeking to recover from strategic weakness
The government has already entered a stage of strategic weakness, beginning with the loss of the December 2 referendum, owing to the defection of some 3 million votes. That situation was not reversed by the recent victory in the regional elections, where, despite keeping a majority in races for governors and mayors, it suffered a setback, compared to what it had previously, but also in a large part of the most economically and politically important zones of the country, where more than 40% of the population is concentrated. Chávez will not be able to continue governing as before, we said after December 2, and that is what characterizes the new political moment: the institutional repositioning (governors' and mayors' offices) of the bourgeois opposition, as well as the incipient workers' struggles, outside of the government's official leadership, confirm this. It is also confirmed by the very fact recently of having had to propose unlimited re-election for the rest of the "popularly" elected offices, as a last-minute maneuver to try to assure getting the majority of votes, at the cost of having, in case it passes, to accept the permanent existence of regional leaders ("caudillos") to challenge Chávez, a scenario that he had always rejected.
In this national setting, Chávez and the Venezuelan bourgeoisie in its entirety will have to "reach an agreement" on minimum points for the leadership of the country, as they already did before: the agreements after the coup d'état and after the strike to sabotage PDVSA, as well as the big agreement on the 2004 recall referendum, are clear examples of how they realized minimal agreements to direct the national situation through "institutional and regular channels", that is, so that the class struggle of that time would not be exacerbated. Chávez no longer has the leadership and appeal among the masses that he had a few years ago, and he does not have the guaranteed absolute majority of votes either, that were the basis of his power to "referee." That is why the regime cannot continue the same, and Chávez must negotiate some agreements with the bourgeois opposition.
Facing that scenario, and the setting of an enormous historical crisis of world capitalism, that has not yet hit the country, but that will undoubtedly strike with great turbulence, certainly for Chávez, "his life depends on it," in this election, since he wants to avoid arriving the least bit weakened at a possible negotiation with the right-wing opposition. If he loses, it will be disastrous, and he will do what he has always done, to yield constantly more to the bourgeois opposition and make the mass movement pay the price (releasing coup-plotters, increasing prices, freed from any controls, repressing the most radical struggles, no large raises in wages, etc.). If he wins, he will reposition himself to negotiate with the right wing under better conditions, and in order to "discipline" the most daring and radical sectors of the workers', campesinos' and popular movement. That is why Chávez will use a possible victory to increase his control over the mass movement (workers, campesinos, poor communities) to block any radical and politically independent, truly anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist cause.
A long government of timid patches
The essential element in the unquestionable fall of the strength of Chávez, for some years, has been the failure to solve the basic problems of the country's working and impoverished masses. As has been shown, the pro-imperialist opposition has not advanced considerably in votes, but it is the government that is losing while its rank and file abstains. The problem is that after 10 long years of governing, with enormous levels of support and the workers', popular and campesinos' movement's willingness to fight, with big defeats dealt to the most ambitious and violent attempts of imperialism and its servants, Chávez and his government have been unable to solve even a single one of the structural questions of working people satisfactorily. Most impoverished campesinos continue to be landless; the numbers of reduced unemployment hide the fact that it continues to be the scourge for the poorest groups in the population. In addition, the levels of precarious employment and flexible work are being maintained and even increasing; the work created is, for the most part, uncertain; wages continue to be quite miserable, compared to the needs of the immense majority of working-class families, needs that are scarcely partially alleviated by the food subsidies the government grants and its "assistance." The drama of the lack of housing persists among more than a quarter of the population; access to health care, which presents more "successes," continues, however, to show enormous inequalities between the rich and upper middle-class strata of the population and the problems poor people go through in order to get decent health care; without mentioning that despite all the boasting and demagogy about justice for women, women's emancipation – and especially that of poor and working women, the most exploited and oppressed people under capitalism – relative to domestic slavery and the power to decide about their own bodies and reproduction, has not advanced even a millimeter.
The reason for this can be sought in Chávez' own project: the search for increased autnoomy from imperialism, by proposing a national development plan tied to sectors of the local bourgeoisie, through an alliance between the state engaged in development and "nationalist" sectors of the bourgeoisie, without excluding specific groups of transnational capitalists. In this equation, the state will be the guarantor of the process, both as owner of the oil income, as well as articulating the "national interest," by convincing the workers and dragging them into a project of class conciliation, coexistence between the exploited and their exploiters. For this reason, Chávez has left the capitalist economic structure of the country intact, and thus the big bankers, businessmen and parasitic landowners, both Venezuelans and foreigners, have remained with their properties, businesses and robust profits and are on the increase, in spite of ten such turbulent years of government. This is the project that Chávez embodies, with his demagogic bureaucrats, and it is what he calls us to support with the "Yes" vote this February 15, as he seeks to use votes to strengthen his control over the mass movement, preventing its independent expression and organization.
Bourgeois alternatives and power for the "arbiter" of the nation
Faced with the arguments of the right-wing bourgeois opposition, the government responds by saying that in reality the "alternative" is guaranteed, because it will be the people who decide between the different candidates, certainly without talking about the class character of bourgeois democracy, of the "alternative." The problem is that in substance, both groups, under different forms of governing and regime, support this society based on exploitation. For that reason, even when one person is elected at each election or several alternate in the governments, what really exists is the continuation of the "dictatorship of capital": exploitation and oppression over the working masses and the people.
[To be continued]
No comments:
Post a Comment