The September elections have posed some serious questions before the Bolivarian Revolution. The opposition has organized a noisy campaign in the media to present themselves as "winners", despite the fact that they lost. What is the purpose of this campaign? A minority cannot turn itself into a majority, no matter how loud it shouts. But such a campaign can be advantageous to the counterrevolutionaries both inside and outside Venezuela.

 

In the outside world, the aim is to step up the campaign of disinformation about the situation in Venezuela that is being systematically organized by the imperialists and their hired media. Inside Venezuela, the opposition wants to use the election result to influence public opinion, pressing for "pluralism", "more tolerant legislation". They have even insolently demanded the "liberation” of two prisoners, Biagio Pilieri and José "Mazuco" Sánchez, who were elected to the National Assembly while in prison for corruption and murder.

 

As we predicted, the election has served to embolden the counterrevolutionaries. Added to this we have the events in Ecuador with the attempted coup d'etat against Rafael Correa, which is a direct warning to the Chavez government. The author of these lines has consistently supported the Bolivarian Revolution and defended it against its enemies. My personal loyalty to the Revolution cannot be doubted. But I have always spoken my mind honestly and made criticisms that I considered to be just. If these criticisms have annoyed some people, I am very sorry. But I will not cease to defend my point of view in order to avoid treading on a few toes. The fate of the Revolution is too important for it to be decided by diplomatic considerations.

 

The Bolivarian Revolution has many friends as well as enemies. The vast majority of its friends are ordinary workers, peasants, revolutionary youths and progressive intellectuals. They are honest and loyal friends. But there are also some false friends: people who originally showed no interest in the Bolivarian Revolution, and later jumped on the bandwagon. They applaud politely when Chavez makes a speech, but in reality they show not the slightest interest in fighting for socialism.

 

Flatterers are not real friends but hypocritical mercenaries who will desert you in the hour of need. How many flatterers have passed through Miraflores in the last eleven years, only to end up in the camp of the counterrevolution? A true friend is not somebody who constantly praises you and agrees with everything you say. A true friend is somebody who is not afraid to look you straight in the eye and say: “My friend, I think you are making a mistake.”

 

The recent election results revealed both the strong and the weak points of the Bolivarian Revolution. It showed the loyalty and determination of the workers and peasants to defend the Revolution and defeat the counterrevolution. This determination of the masses has been the motor force of the Revolution from the beginning. It has saved the Revolution at every critical juncture. It saved it again in the 26 September elections. But how long can this loyalty be maintained unless the Revolution is carried through in a determined manner?

 

What conclusions should we draw?

 

On October 2nd, following the recent elections to the Venezuelan National Assembly, President Chavez made a speech in the Teatro Teresa Carreño at a meeting with the newly elected PSUV members of the National Assembly. The whole speech can be found online in sixteen parts: Chávez: "la extrema derecha nunca abandonará la carta del golpismo". [4]

 

The speech makes many correct points. The President emphasised the success of the PSUV in preventing the victory of the counterrevolutionary opposition. “We defeated the counterrevolution, without any doubt,” he said. There is no doubt that the election result represented a victory in the sense that the Revolution successfully blocked the counterrevolution, which was attempting to win a majority of the National Assembly. After eleven years, this shows that the Revolution still has important reserves of support in the masses.

 

But it is equally undeniable that the opposition has advanced and is in a stronger position than it was before. In the course of his speech, Chavez said that the causes for the loss of one million votes (since 2009) must be investigated and admitted that it might be a reflection of local or regional problems. Unless we recognise these problems and take steps to correct them, the consequences for the Revolution will be very serious indeed. It is therefore necessary to arrive at a balanced appreciation of the elections that really takes into account the mood of the different classes in society.

 

What conclusions should we draw from the election results? The answer to this question depends on one's point of view. Ultimately, it will depend on the interests of which class you defend. The counterrevolutionaries who defend the interests of the oligarchy, which they attempt to disguise with a false “democratic” rhetoric, will argue that it shows that the Revolution is in retreat and that the opposition is now in a position to win a majority in the Presidential elections of 2012.

 

The reformists, who represent the influence of bourgeois ideas within the Bolivarian Movement, will argue in the following way: the elections prove that we do not have sufficient support to press ahead with revolutionary policies and expropriations that will alienate the middle classes. We must therefore slow down the pace of change, take a step back and arrive at a compromise with the bourgeoisie and the opposition in the “national interest”.

 

The Marxists, who represent the most consistent revolutionary trend, say that what the elections showed is a growing discontent and impatience among the masses with the slow pace of the Revolution. The bourgeoisie, which still controls key points in the Venezuelan economy, is sabotaging production, refusing to invest and closing factories. The counterrevolutionaries are taking advantage of the economic sabotage to attack and undermine the Revolution. In order to defend the Revolution, it is necessary to take serious measures against the landlords and capitalists, to end their power once and for all.

 

It is easy to see that the first two trends are in fundamental agreement. The only difference between them is that the open counterrevolutionaries do not hide their hatred of the Revolution and their determination to overthrow it by every means at their disposal, whether parliamentary or extra-parliamentary, legal or illegal, peaceful or violent. The reformists defend the existing bourgeois order, but they conceal this fact under a hypocritical guise of “moderation”, the need “not to go too fast”, “not to alienate the middle class”, not to be “too extreme” and so on and so forth.

 

Some, like Vice-president Elías Jaua, advocate “a Great Patriotic Bloc”. What does this mean? The forces that support the Revolution are very clear: the workers, the peasants, the urban poor, the revolutionary youth and the progressive intellectuals, that is to say, all the living forces of Venezuelan society. They already represent a “popular bloc”. What other forces do you want to include? This ambiguous language is intended as a screen to include the so-called progressive national bourgeoisie. But such a thing does not exist and has never existed.

 

This is a trap for the Revolution. The next step will be to say: We cannot go too fast. We must take into consideration the views of our bourgeois “allies”! We must not alienate the middle class etc., etc. As we shall see, this is extremely dangerous because it will weaken the revolution and divert it from its real aim, which is a thorough transformation to the benefit of the workers and peasants.

 

No conciliation with the bourgeoisie!

 

In his speech, the President showed he was aware of this danger. He stressed that there will be no reconciliation with the counterrevolutionary opposition and that there is no prospect of compromise with the bourgeoisie. Answering the reformists who advocate a “third way” between capitalism and socialism, Chavez said: “There is no room in this Revolution for a third way.” And he warned: “There is no conciliation with the bourgeoisie and the counterrevolution.”

 

This will be welcomed by every genuine revolutionary. But elsewhere in his speech, the President criticises what he refers to as “extremist” views expressed by some (unnamed) people:

 

“There are other opinions, like those who say: 'We did not reach our goal' or 'they beat us because the revolution has not advanced, because we have to expropriate all the banks and all the companies and I do not know how many other things. Let us see. I think that nobody here, honestly, should get carried away by their particular opinion or personal views. This morning in 'The Lines of Chavez' I have tried to get as close as possible to the truth, and not to get carried away either by one extreme or the other.”

 

It is self-evident that the Revolution must strive to avoid extremes. It must strive to adopt a correct line that will enable it to defeat its enemies and advance to the attainment of its fundamental goals. Impatience is a mistake and to proceed too fast, too soon can be as dangerous as to do the opposite. But what does this extremism consist of? According to the President, it is a trend that advocates expropriation of everything, including small businesses, an ultra-left policy that would alienate the middle class, and the President added: “There are not four or five million oligarchs”.

 

This is obviously true. Many middle class people and small proprietors have indeed been poisoned and deceived by the opposition. It is necessary to win them away from the counterrevolution. The question is: how is this to be achieved? The question of the middle class and how to win it is obviously a key issue. It has never been the intention of the Marxists to expropriate the property of the middle classes. This was already explained in The Communist Manifesto where Marx and Engels speak on private property:

 

“We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

 

“Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

 

“Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

 

“But does wage labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

 

“To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

 

“Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.”

 

“When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.”

 

These words of Marx and Engels adequately convey the position of the Marxists with regard to private property.

 

How to win the middle class

 

An argument often used by the reformists is that it is necessary to win over the middle class and therefore we must not go too far in attacking capitalism. The first half of this statement is correct, but it directly contradicts the second half. It is both possible and necessary to win over a large section of the middle class, but we will never succeed in doing this if we accept the policies of the reformists, which can only alienate the mass of the petty bourgeoisie and push them into the arms of the counterrevolution.

 

In his speech the President says:

 

"Within this bipolar Venezuelan reality [i.e. the division Between Opposition and Revolution], it is important to note that although we accept and act within this reality, we will not become a sectarian extreme. Someone told me long ago that we do not have a policy toward the middle class. It seems that we are handing the middle class over to the enemy. And there is something that we have to understand: the middle class is not an enemy of the revolution! No. Neither are the small proprietors. Just look at Cuba. It is important to analyze what is happening in Cuba. Especially when we consider the positions taken by some comrades and some revolutionary analysts who would be very happy if tomorrow I would sign a decree expropriating all small businesses and small industry. It would be madness!”

 

To propose the expropriation of all small businesses and small industry would most certainly be madness, and anyone who advocated such a thing would deserve to be referred to the nearest psychiatric clinic. But the Marxists have never advocated such a thing. What we advocate is the expropriation of the property of the oligarchy: the big banks, monopolies and latifundia. Neither do we consider the middle class as one reactionary mass, to be dismissed as enemies of the revolution. On the contrary, we consider it essential to develop policies that are capable of winning over important sections of the middle class and breaking the hold of the oligarchy over them. But in order to do this, we must have a correct understanding of the position of the middle class (the petty bourgeoisie) in capitalist society.

 

The exploiting classes are a small minority of society. They could not rule without the help of a large number of sub-exploiters and sub-sub exploiters. Using their economic power and their control of the mass media, they have mobilized the mass of middle class Venezuelans to oppose the revolution. Under the false flag of “democracy” they have organized street riots and clashes. Their shock troops are the sons of the rich the “sifrinos” – wealthy parasites, fanatically opposed to the masses. The enraged petty bourgeois resent the concessions made to the poor, which they see as a threat to their own privileges. They make a lot of noise when required, but they are really just human dust, easily scattered to the wind when confronted with the movement of the masses.

 

However, the petty bourgeoisie is not a homogeneous class. There are contradictions within the middle class that can be expressed in splits in the opposition. The upper layers of the middle class are composed of privileged elements – prosperous lawyers, university professors, bank managers and politicians – who stand close to the oligarchy and are its willing servants. The lower layers – the small shopkeepers, small peasants, bank clerks, etc. – stand closer to the working class and can be won over. However, the way to win over the lower ranks of the petty bourgeoisie is not to make concessions to their leaders (really their political exploiters) but to take the offensive against the big bankers and capitalists, to show an attitude of absolute firmness and decision.

 

A section of the opposition consists of people who have been deceived by the counterrevolutionaries. They can be won over to the side of the revolution. The way to win them over, however, is by carrying out measures to expropriate the big capitalists and adopting measures in the interests of the small shopkeepers and small businessmen. They must be convinced that the revolution is invincible and that their interests are best served by joining forces with the working class against the big banks and monopolies.

 

The so-called bourgeois democracy is a gigantic fraud, behind which lurks the dictatorship of big capital. This dictatorship oppresses not only the workers but also the middle class. What is needed is not the hollow fraud of formal bourgeois democracy – in which real power is in the hands of the big banks and monopolies – but a real democracy – a democracy of the working people, based on the collective ownership of the land, the banks and industry.

 

It must be made clear that these measures of nationalization are aimed only at the big capitalists, bankers and landowners. We have no intention of nationalizing small businesses, farms or shops. These play no independent role in the economy, since they are utterly dependent on the big banks, supermarkets, etc. We will appeal to the small shopkeepers, etc., to support the programme of nationalization, which is in their interests.

 

The nationalization of the banks will enable the government to grant small businesses cheap and easy credit. The nationalization of the big fertilizer plants will enable it to sell cheap fertilizer to the peasants. And by eliminating the middlemen and nationalizing the big supermarkets, distribution and transport companies, we can provide the peasants with a guaranteed market and a fair price for their products, while reducing prices to the consumer.

 

The nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy is not an act of aggression or revenge but, on the contrary, a necessary means of defence of the revolution. The measures taken by a revolutionary government are not aimed at the property of the workers and peasants or the small proprietors who make up nine-tenths of the population, but only against the one-tenth of the population who have the lion’s share of property in this society.

 

Cuba

 

---