<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div id="container" class="container font-size5 content-width3">
<div id="reader-header" class="header" style="display: block;"
dir="ltr"> <font size="-2"><a id="reader-domain" class="domain"
href="https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/13/why-cant-the-u-s-left-get-venezuela-right-2/">https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/13/why-cant-the-u-s-left-get-venezuela-right-2/</a></font>
<h1 id="reader-title">Why Can’t the U.S. Left Get Venezuela
Right?</h1>
<p class="post_meta"> <span class="post_author_intro">by</span>
<span class="post_author" itemprop="author"><a
href="https://www.counterpunch.org/author/shamus-cooke/"
rel="nofollow">Shamus Cooke</a></span> - July 13, 2017<br>
</p>
</div>
<hr>
<div class="content">
<div id="moz-reader-content" class="line-height4" dir="ltr"
style="display: block;">
<div id="readability-page-1" class="page">
<div class="post_content" itemprop="articleBody">
<p>As Venezuela’s fascist-minded oligarchy conspires with
U.S. imperialism to overthrow the democratically elected
government of Nicolas Maduro, few in the U.S. seem to
care.</p>
<p>Instead of denouncing <u>rightwing violence</u> that
aims at regime change, many on the U.S. left have stayed
silent, or opted to give an evenhanded analysis that
supports neither the Maduro government nor the oligarchy
trying to violently overthrow it. Rather, the left
prioritizes its energy on lecturing on Maduro’s
“authoritarianism” and the failures of “Chavismo.”</p>
<p>This approach allows leftists a cool emotional
detachment to the fate of the poor in Venezuela, and
clean hands that would otherwise be soiled by engaging
with the messy, real life class struggle that is the
Venezuelan revolution.</p>
<p>A “pox on both houses” analysis omits the U.S.
government’s role in collaborating with Venezuela’s
oligarchs. The decades-long crimes of imperialism
against Venezuela is aided and abetted by the silence of
the left, or by its murky analysis that minimizes the
perpetrator’s actions, focusing negative attention on
the victim precisely at the moment of attack.</p>
<p>Any analysis of a former colonial country that doesn’t
begin with the struggle of self-determination against
imperialism is a dead letter, since the x-factor of
imperialism has always been a dominant variable in the
Venezuelan equation, as <u>books by Eva Gollinger</u> and
others have thoroughly explained, and further
demonstrated by the ongoing intervention in Latin
America by an endless succession of U.S. presidents.</p>
<p>The Venezuelan-initiated anti-imperialist movement was
strong enough that a new gravitational center was
created, that pushed most of Latin America out of the
grasp of U.S. domination for the first time in nearly a
hundred years. This historic achievement remains
minimized for much of the U.S. left, who remain
indifferent or uneducated about the revolutionary
significance of self-determination for oppressed nations
abroad, as well as oppressed peoples inside of the U.S.</p>
<p>A thousand valid criticisms can be made of Chavez, but
he chose sides in the class fault lines and took bold
action at critical junctures. Posters of Chavez remain
in the homes of Venezuela’s poorest barrios because he
proved in action that he was a champion for the poor,
while fighting and winning many pitched battles against
the oligarchy who wildly celebrated his death</p>
<p>And while it’s necessary to deeply critique the Maduro
government, the present situation requires the political
clarity to take a bold, unqualified stance against the
U.S.-backed opposition, rather than a rambling
“nonpartisan” analysis that pretends a life or death
struggle isn’t currently taking place.</p>
<p>Yes, a growing number of Venezuelans are incredibly
frustrated by Maduro, and yes, his policies have
exacerbated the current crisis, but while an active
counter-revolutionary offensive continues the political
priority needs to be aimed squarely against the
oligarchy, not Maduro. There remains a <u>mass movement</u> of
revolutionaries in Venezuela dedicated to Chavismo and
to defending Maduro’s government against the violent
anti-regime tactics, but it’s these labor and community
groups that the U.S. left never mentions, as it would
pollute their analysis.</p>
<p>The U.S. left seems blissfully unaware of the
consequences of the oligarchy stepping into the power
vacuum if Maduro was successfully ousted. Such a shoddy
analysis can be found in Jacobin’s recent article, <u>Being
Honest About Venezuela</u>, which focuses on the
problems of Maduro’s government while ignoring the
honest reality of the terror the oligarchy would unleash
if it returned to power.</p>
<p>How did the U.S. left get it so wrong?</p>
<p>They’ve allowed themselves to get distracted by the
zig-zags at the political surface, rather than the
rupturing fault lines of class struggle below. They see
only leaders and are blinded to how the masses have
engaged with them.</p>
<p>Regardless of Maduro’s many stumbles, it’s the rich who
are revolting in Venezuela, and if they’re successful it
will be the workers and poor who suffer a terrible fate.
An analysis of Venezuela that ignores this basic fact
belongs either in the trash bin or in the newspapers of
the oligarchy. Confusing class interests, or mistaking
counter-revolution for revolution in politics is as
disorienting as mistaking up for down, night for day.</p>
<p>The overarching issue remains the same since the
Venezuelan revolution erupted in 1989’s Caracazo
uprising, which initiated a revolutionary movement of
working and poor people spurred to action by IMF
austerity measures. How did Venezuela’s oligarchy
respond to the 1989 protests? By killing hundreds <u>if
not thousands</u> of people. Their return to power
would unleash similar if not bloodier statistics.</p>
<p>In Venezuela the revolutionary flame has burned longer
than most revolutions, its energy funneled into various
channels; from rioting, street demonstrations, land and
factory occupations, new political parties and
radicalized labor-union federations and into the
backbone of support for Hugo Chavez’s project, which, to
varying degrees supported and even spearheaded many of
these initiatives, encouraging the masses to participate
directly in politics.</p>
<p>Chavez’s electoral victory meant — and still means —
that the oligarchy lost control of the government and
much of the state apparatus, a rare event in the life of
a nation under capitalism. This contradiction is central
to the confusion of the U.S. left: the ruling class lost
control of the state, but the oligarchy retained control
of key sectors of the economy, including the media.</p>
<p>But who has control of the state if not the oligarchy?
It’s too simplistic to say the “working class” has
power, because Maduro has not acted as a consistent
leader of the working class, seeming more interested in
trying to mediate between classes by making concessions
to the oligarchy. Maduro’s overly-bureaucratic
government also limits the amount of direct democracy
the working class needs before the term “worker state”
can be applied.</p>
<p>But Maduro’s power base remains the same as it was
under Chavez: the working and poor people, and to that
extent Maduro can be compared to a trade union president
who ignores his members in order to seek a deal with the
boss.</p>
<p>A trade union, no matter how bureaucratic, is still
rooted in the workplace, its power dependent on dues
money and collective action of working people. And even
a weak union is better than no union, since removing the
protection of the union opens the door to sweeping
attacks from the boss that inevitably lower wages,
destroy benefits and result in layoffs of the most
“outspoken” workers. This is why union members defend
their union from corporate attack, even if the leader of
the union is in bed with the boss.</p>
<p>History is replete with governments brought forth by
revolutionary movements but which failed to take the
actions necessary to complete the revolution, resulting
in a successful counter-revolution. These revolutionary
governments often succeed in breaking the chains of
neo-colonialism and allowed for an epoch of social
reforms and working class initiative, depending on how
long they lasted. Their downfall always results in a
counter-revolutionary wave of violence, and sometimes a
sea of blood.</p>
<p>This has happened dozens of times across Africa, Asia,
and Latin America, where the class divisions are
sharper, where imperialism plays a larger role, and
where the class dynamics are more variegated: the poor
are poorer, there is a larger informal labor force, a
larger section of small shopkeepers, larger rural
population, etc.</p>
<p>Winning significant reforms under capitalism is
incredibly difficult, even in rich countries; it is
twice as difficult in former colonial countries, due to
the death grip the oligarchy has on the economy plus the
collaboration of imperialism, which intervenes in
financial markets — or with bullets — to prevent the
smallest reforms.</p>
<p>The example of Allende’s Chile could be compared to
Maduro’s situation in Venezuela. Allende was far from
perfect, but can anybody claim that Pinochet’s coup
wasn’t a catastrophe for the Chilean working class? In
Venezuela the counter-revolution would likely be more
devastating, as the oligarchy would have to push back
against decades of progress versus Allende’s short-lived
government. If it came to power the street violence of
the oligarchy would be given the resources of the state,
aimed squarely at the working class and poor.</p>
<p>Maduro is no Chavez, it’s true, but he has kept most of
Chavez’s victories intact, maintaining social programs
in a time of crashing oil prices while the oligarchy
demands “pro-market reforms.” He’s essentially kept the
barking dogs of the oligarchy at bay, who, if unleashed,
would ravage the working class.</p>
<p>The oligarchy has not accepted the balance of power
that Chavez-Maduro have tilted in favor of the working
class. A new social contract has not been cemented; it
is being actively fought for in the streets. Maduro has
made some concessions to the oligarchy it’s true, but
they have not been fundamental concessions, while he’s
left the fundamental victories of the revolution in
tact.</p>
<p>The social contract we call Social Democracy in Europe
wasn’t finalized until a wave of revolution struck after
WWII. Although Maduro would likely be happy with such a
social democratic agreement in Venezuela, such
agreements have proven impossible in developing
countries, especially at a time while global capitalism
is attacking the social democratic reforms in the
advanced countries.</p>
<p>The Venezuelan ruling class has no intention of
accepting the reforms of Chavez, and why would they so
long as U.S. imperialism invests heavily in regime
change? A ruling class does not accept power-sharing
until they face the prospect of losing everything. And
nor should Venezuela’s working class accept a “social
contract” under current conditions: they have unmet
demands that require revolutionary action against the
oligarchy. These contradictory pressures are at the
heart of Venezuela’s still-unresolved class war, which
inevitably leads either to revolutionary action from the
left or a successful counter-revolution from the right.</p>
<p>Thus, for a U.S. leftist to declare that either side is
equally bad is either bad politics or class treachery.
Many leftists went bonkers over Syriza in Greece, and
they were right to be hopeful. But after radical
rhetoric Syriza succumbed to the demands of the IMF that
included devastating neoliberal reforms of austerity
cuts, privatizations and deregulation. Maduro has
steadfastly refused such a path out of Venezuela’s
economic crisis.</p>
<p>This is why Maduro is despised by the rich while the
poor generally continue to support the government,
although passively but occasionally in giant bursts,
such as the <u>hundreds thousands strong</u> May Day
mobilization in support of the government’s fight
against the violent coup attempts, which was all but
ignored by most western media outlets, since it spoiled
the regime-change narrative of “everybody hates Maduro.”</p>
<p>The essential difference between Maduro and Chavez will
make or break the revolution: while Chavez took action
to constantly shift the balance of power in favor of the
poor, Maduro simply attempts to maintain the balance of
forces handed down to him by Chavez, hoping for some
kind of “agreement” from an opposition that has
consistently refused all compromise. His ridiculous
naivety is a powerful motivating factor for the
opposition, who see a stalled revolution in the way a
lion views an injured zebra.</p>
<p>Venezuelan expert Jorge Martin explains in<u> an
excellent article</u>, how the oligarchy would respond
if it succeeded in removing Maduro.</p>
<p>1) they would massively cut public spending</p>
<p>2) implement mass layoffs of the public sector</p>
<p>3) destroy the key social programs of the revolution
(health care, education, pension, housing, etc.)</p>
<p>4) there would be a privatization frenzy of public
resources, though especially the crown jewel PDVSA, the
oil company</p>
<p>5) massive deregulation, including turning back rights
for labor and ethnic-minority groups</p>
<p>6) they would attack the organizations of the working
class that came into existence or grew under the
protection of the Chavez-Maduro governments</p>
<p>This is “Telling the Truth” about Venezuela. The U.S.
left should know better, since the ruling class exposed
what it would do during the Caracazo Uprising, and later
when they briefly came to power in their 2002 coup: they
aim to reverse everything, using any means necessary.
The documentary “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised”
is still <u>required watching</u> about the 2002 coup.</p>
<p>Maduro may have finally learned his lesson: Venezuela’s
crisis has forced him to double down on promoting the
interests of the poor. When oil prices collapsed it was
inevitable the government would enter a deep crisis, it
had only two choices: deep neoliberal reforms or the
deepening of the revolution. This will be the litmus
test for Maduro, since the middle ground he sought
disappeared.</p>
<p>Rather than begging for money from the International
Monetary Fund —which would have demanded such
Syriza-like reforms — Maduro instead encouraged workers
to takeover idle factories while a General Motors
factory was nationalized. A new neighborhood-based
organization, CLAP, was created that distributes basic
foodstuffs at subsidized prices that benefits millions
of people.</p>
<p>On May Day this year, in front of hundreds of thousands
of supporters, Maduro announced a Constituent Assembly,
an attempt to re-engage the masses in the hopes of
pushing forward the revolution by creating a new, more
progressive constitution.</p>
<p>It’s true that Maduro is using the Constituent Assembly
to overcome the obstruction of the oligarchy-dominated
National Assembly — whose stated intention is to topple
the government — but the U.S. left seems indifferent
that Maduro is using the mobilization of the working
class (the Constituent Assembly) to overcome the
barriers of ruling class.</p>
<p>This distinction is critical: if the Constituent
Assembly succeeds in pushing forward the revolution by
directly engaging the masses, it will come at the
expense of the oligarchy. The Constituent Assembly is
being organized to promote more direct democracy, but
sections of the U.S. left have been taken in by the U.S.
media’s allegations of “authoritarianism.”</p>
<p>If working and poor people actively engage in the
process of creating a new, more progressive constitution
and this constitution is approved via referendum by a
large majority, it will constitute an essential step
forward for the revolution. If the masses are unengaged
or the referendum fails, it may signify the death knell
of Chavismo and the return of the oligarchy.</p>
<p>And while Maduro is right to use the state as a
repressive agent against the oligarchy, an over reliance
on the state repression only leads to more
contradictions, rather than relying on the self-activity
of the workers and poor. Revolutions cannot be won by
administrative tinkering, but rather by revolutionary
measures consciously implemented by the vast majority.
At bottom it’s the actions of ordinary working people
that make or break a revolution; if the masses are
lulled to sleep the revolution is lost. They must be
unleashed not ignored.</p>
<p>It’s clear that Maduro’s politics have not been capable
of leading the revolution to success, and therefore his
government requires deep criticism combined with
organized protest. But there are two kinds of protest:
legitimate protest that arises from the needs of working
and poor people, and the counter-revolutionary protest
based in the neighborhoods of the rich that aim to
restore the power of the oligarchy.</p>
<p>Confusing these two kinds of protests are dangerous,
but the U.S. left has done precisely this. Maduro is
accused of being authoritarian for using police to stop
the far-right’s violent “student protests” that seek to
restore the oligarchy. Of the many reasons to criticize
Maduro this isn’t one of them.</p>
<p>If a rightwing coup succeeds in Venezuela <span
data-term="goog_1311214715">tomorrow</span>, the U.S.
left will weep by the carnage that ensues, while not
recognizing that their inaction contributed to the
bloodshed. By living in the heart of imperialism the
U.S. left has a duty to go beyond critiques from afar to
direct action at home.</p>
<p>Protesting the Vietnam war helped save the lives of
Vietnamese, while the organizing in the 1980’s against
the “dirty wars” in Central America limited the
destruction levied by the U.S.-backed governments. In
both cases the left fell short of what was needed, but
at least they understood what was at stake and took
action. Now consider the U.S. left of 2017, who can’t
lift a finger to re-start the antiwar movement and who
supported Bernie Sanders regardless of his longstanding <u>affection
for imperialism</u>.</p>
<p>The “pink tide” that blasted imperialism out of much of
Latin America is being reversed, but Venezuela has
always been the motor-force of the leftward shift, and
the bloodshed required to reverse the revolution will be
remembered forever, if it’s allowed to happen. Their
lives matter too.</p>
</div>
<p class="author_description"> <em>
<strong>Shamus Cooke</strong> is a social service
worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action
(<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.workerscompass.org">www.workerscompass.org</a>). He can be reached at
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:shamuscooke@gmail.com">shamuscooke@gmail.com</a> </em> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863.9977
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.freedomarchives.org">www.freedomarchives.org</a>
</div>
</body>
</html>