Welcome PSUV:

But What about the ‘New' Party of the Working Class of Venezuela

S. Majhi

Socialist Party — Why

Classes, and persons too, feel the need of a party out of various reasons, and various situations compel them to think of having a party. The working class needs its own party, which is nothing else than the organised advanced detachment of the working class itself, to lead it for its struggle for socialism — in the courses through a socialist revolution that proclaims the start of the social revolution; then through the transition period, in which the class makes ‘despotic inroads' on Capital as Marx and Engels foresaw in their Communist Manifesto, using its instruments, e.g., the ‘state' under its control or “the dictatorship of proletariat”, etc… and ultimately reach the goal of a classless society, socialism, where classes ‘wither' away, and so will be the fate of the party of the class. [For the sake of simplicity, we are not distinguishing here the 1st and 2nd phases of socialism, and that is out of the ambit of the present topic too.] Working class feels this, realizes this, in the face of the regime that exploits and oppresses them and other toiling people, a system, to change that they need to fight a political battle, and that raises the necessity of the class party of the proletariat. Lenin also saw and taught us that in ‘backward societies' it is possible, and is imperative for the class, to draw the other toiling people, especially the toiling peasants, towards socialism through certain ways — and he was so confident on this possibility (and necessity) that he was not even inclined to ‘expropriation of kulaks' in general in the post-Nov-revolution days [kulaks were peasants too and so take part in major farming activities, according to Lenin's classification, even if they are exploiters who extract surplus value exploiting agro-labourers, and were seen to be prone to ‘hoarding' and other vices] as for example in his 1921 speech in the 10th Party Congress.

Our Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez had told his realisation about the necessity of a socialist party in Venezuela frankly, though that may sound strange to advanced class-conscious workers of the world. We are quoting here those often quoted lines that appeared in so many pro-Venezuelan regime [or process] sites from the website of the famous Hands Off Venezuela campaign. “Human beings are transitory,” he said. “The party must be eternal, the most powerful revolutionary motor.” Chavez recalled his recent visit to Havana and that Castro had explained why he (Castro) can die but the Cuban Revolution will continue. On the other hand, Castro apparently said that without Chavez the Venezuelan “revolution would be carried away in the wind.” “I realize that unfortunately he is right,” said Chavez on Saturday. “If I die this revolution will be carried away in the wind because we don't have a party, a big political machine, a big political direction,” he said. And so he advanced the idea of forming United Socialist Party of Venezuela [PSUV].

The Reawakening in the Making

The workers and other toiling people of Venezuela could have assured Chávez that he didn't need to worry about the future of ‘Venezuelan revolution', as course of history in general and social movements too are decided by so many complex things and obviously not by any particular individual; though of course individuals have very important parts to play in setting direction of certain social movements, which in turn influence the course of history to some extent. The Russian or Chinese revolution did not get ‘carried away in the wind' simply by the death of important leaders like say, Lenin, or, Mao. Rather, history teaches us that the working class couldn't hold the real ‘prime motors', state and the class party of the proletariat, at their control ; things slipped out of their hands when they were taking some initial steps of the ‘transition' phase. And only at a later stage the ‘seemingly' or so-called ‘actually existing' socialism -s or so called socialist states that were actually in the phase of transition to socialism crumbled down manifestly, roughly around 1989-91. And things became clear almost to the last person of the class that the first offensive march of the international socialist movement (1848 – 19??) was defeated. Not a single communist party, the class party of the proletariat, worthy of its name is there. The old communist parties degenerated, got rotten and became just bourgeois/petit-bourgeois reformist parties. And this defeat is all the more painful and humiliating, as the defeat didn't occur evidently in a frontal war with capitalists of the world combine — as was in the case of our glorious Paris Commune, for which the workers feel proud even if that was defeated. But then, after all these, what happened to the course of class struggle?

Bourgeois pundits grinned gleefully ‘the end of history': but unluckily for them history only chose a path previously un-thought-of . After a spell of frustration, passivity, disarrayed-ness, helplessness, etc on the one hand, and having been driven back to the wall by the assaults of Thatcher-Regan-and the likes and Structural Adjustments etc in the 1980s and then finally by the fiercer attacks of ‘Globalisation' from the early 1990s on the other, the workers are slowly but steadily coming back in the arena. This is happening in spite of that defeat, in spite of absence of a true party of the class. A reawakening of the class struggle is taking place objectively through the new struggles the workers are launching, their new organisations that are being built up from below, and most importantly, by their rejection of and rebellion against the ‘old' betrayers, old rotten parties, some of whom are still bearing the names of ‘communist party', and old trade unions, old lines, practices, etc . This objectivity is manifest in different ways in different places; naturally one shouldn't look for any uniformity in the birth or springing up of new sprouts. Movement, at this stage, evidently will follow previously uncharted paths ; and as the old communist movement never faced this situation we should not expect or try to find out suitable quotations from chosen leaders either to find out all our necessary lines in clear cut terms, or, what is more, in support of some approach of one's own choice . Rather we have the time-tested methods of scientific socialism like ‘concrete analysis of concrete conditions'.

Venezuela — Reawakening — Problems & Confusions

In our previous article on Venezuela (written in Aug 06 and in print version ‘Nov 06') we tried to focus the facts, problems and prospects of the reawakening that is taking place in Venezuela. We mentioned the absence of a revolutionary working class party in Venezuela as a weakness. We also mentioned the comment of veteran leader Guillermo Ponce in 2003 in this respect (Revista Punto Final 14-28 May, 2003 issue no: 539, to be found at http://www.puntofinal.cl/ ) and also the inadequacy of the comment. Besides that, we didn't know at that time any other comment of any Venezuelan leader on this urgent matter, but that's our limitation; later we came to know that the point had been already raised by the leader of UNT (C-CURA), i.e., the bloc within UNT named Current–Classist-United-and-Autonomous, supposedly the largest bloc within the UNT, Orlando Chirino in his interview with ‘International Socialism' posted on June 1, 2006, where he said, “WE are absolutely convinced that workers not only have the challenge to construct a powerful centred union, but also have to construct a political instrument that fights consciously for a true programme of socialism in the country, for the actual participation of the base, developing social control and participating in the management of companies. We believe that like this, just as the bourgeoisie have their parties, reformism also has its parties for example, the so called parties of the Block of Change that are now rejected by the majority of the people, we believe that the workers have the legitimate right to create, without any attempt at self-proclamation, the necessity to construct our own party…” (read the interview at http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=204). Surely Orlando Chirino was not alone in Venezuela bearing the thought of necessity of a class party of the proletariat.

Incidentally, while trying to form an opinion on the PSUV, its creation process, etc and while probing the problems-&-prospects of forming a working class party , one must take into account relevant things – the most important is the general setting or backdrop of current international situation: the already mentioned Defeat of The First Offensive March of the International Working Class Movement, the absence of party of the proletariat and also any international centre etc resulting disarrayed-ness, frustration, helplessness, directionless-ness etc of the class, and then the attacks of imperialism, the exploitation, loot, plunder by its TNC-s, the alignment of the bourgeoisie of the world with the policies of Globalisation. And in this general backdrop we are to see the unfolding of the particular, in this case the Venezuelan movement itself. We tried to approach that in our Nov 06 article. Another important factor: We do not see now the “rising international revolutionary movement” as we saw earlier in history, safely we can say that happened thrice in the 20th century: (1) just after the Nov '17 revolution in Russia, which continued till almost 1921; (2) at the later period of second world war and after the second world war what is sometimes called the Tumultuous Forties; and (3) during mid and end 1960s. In today's condition of global balance of forces, we mean precisely at this moment, it is really difficult for a country to, using Lenin's expression, “hold on” a proletarian power; and Venezuela is far from attaining this ‘proletarian power'. [Have the zealous agitators for expropriation of bourgeoisie appreciated this factor!] The intentions are clear: –

Before going farther we would like to mention that, in this background, when ‘socialism' is not an ‘In Thing' generally, it is really interesting to note, and we noted that in our article, a sizeable section of Venezuelan toiling masses including workers are showing positive interest towards ‘socialism', whatever insufficiency be there in their realisation about ‘socialism' or with whatever ‘unconscious' appeal of socialism be there in them. To the extent that the proposed PSUV consolidates and crystallises this aspiration of the masses be that not yet ‘conscious', and helps that to let that blossom through initiatives from below, it is welcome. But… well, there are many ‘but-s'!

Anyway, after the call of Chávez we saw a lot of enthusiasm in Venezuela and in the international ‘left' media too regarding PSUV. But sadly we are seeing so many discussions, several lengthy articles… approving the PSUV and the process of its formation without taking all the above factors into account! On the other hand, several articles critical to the PSUV are also available in the web world, but those too are not taking these factors into consideration. (Ranging from Venezuela's PSUV and Socialism from Below By: George Ciccariello-Maher in MRZine [Wednesday, Mar 28], or Central committee of Socialist Worker-New Zealand's May Day's Statement [Venezuela's Revolution Is Globally Significant in http://www.debateabierto.net/Home/English/27052007Venezuelasdeepening/tabid/307/Default.aspx – where they wrote “Is the unfolding Venezuelan revolution the most important leap forward for the workers' cause since the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution? The answer from delegates at Socialist Worker-New Zealand's recent national conference was a unanimous “yes” ” ] to ‘Political Parties and Social Change in Venezuela' by Sujatha Fernandes in ZNet [Thursday, Mar 22], or as in http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/73433/index.php Venezuela: ‘The Revolution In The Balance' by CWG, … …different angles of discussions, criticism are available!)

And in the mist created by the defeat and the sheer pressure of many prejudices and misconceptions inherited from the past movement it is all the more necessary to ‘rehabilitate' the correct revolutionary essence of Marxism, correct revolutionary conceptions. And Venezuela is no exception. ‘Socialism' is often taken to mean whatever one likes or thinks as ‘socialism' although in a totally wrong, non-Marxist way! As for example we cite only two. (1) Often Nationalisation is confused with socialisation, and nationalisation plus a ‘socialist' party in power and/or a benevolent ‘welfare' state is taken to be socialism. (2) Socialism – as a movement – is assumed to be as if a ‘non-class' movement or movement of an amorphous, heterogeneous ‘people'. Of course if ‘people' means ‘workers, peasants and other toiling masses' then peasants and other toiling masses can surely be won over towards socialism through prolonged struggle and endeavour of the working class – this is what Lenin taught us. But socialism, if that means scientific socialism, is essentially a principle of the working class, and only working class , as this is the only class which out of its objective existence strive for a classless society, fight for abolition of classes. Orlando also gave a hint of it although in an oblique manner in his recent interview when he said: “ The president has to understand that because of what we call the class instinct, and the levels of class and revolutionary consciousness, as well as because of their relationship with the bosses, the behaviour of workers is different from that of peasants, communities, or students. ” (Interview with Orlando Chirino, by Aporrea.org, http://www.newsocialist.org/index.php?id=1307 .) Then again, in www.vheadline.com recent news story dated July 20, 2007 we see, “ For us it is very clear: without the working class there is no socialism, and there will be no possibility of creating it in this country,” said Máspero [Marcela Máspero is a member of the national coordinating committee of the UNT and works as an organiser of, among others, the Chemical Workers' unions – editor FAPP]. She emphasized the movement's desire to participate in the political process being carried forward in the country and emphasized the importance of converting the “bourgeois” state into a “socialist” state.” It is indeed amazing to find the near absence of words like “proletariat”, “proletarian”, “working class” etc in the socialist discourses of the president and some other promoters – couldn't the old-timers, veteran members of the past communist movement like, to name a few, Guillermo Ponce , Carlos Lanz and of course Marta give some proper elementary course on Socialism to the president and the promoters of PSUV there?

We dealt with some other misconceptions [and ‘over-estimations'] too in our article, like that of “changing production relation(s)”, thinking of chalking out steps to socialism without even starting first few steps of democratic revolutionary agrarian transformation, and the ludicrous title “Socialism of 21st Century” too (as if socialism of 19th century , i.e., the basics of socialism taught by Marx and Engels, are outdated now!!) etc.

We understand that one of the most urgent tasks now is to sum up the causes of defeat taking into account concrete conditions of those days. In its absence everyone, even if unconsciously, is found to have been summing up the experience and also taking lessons from that in her/his own way, and in fact, many such things are contributing to increasing confusions! Let us explain this a bit: Suppose someone smartly says things like — In Russia they started with “All Powers to the Soviets” and finished at All Power to the Party! Well, it may look ‘smart' indeed to laymen, but advanced workers shouldn't think of applauding, rather they should grill that speaker with questions: (1) Why those millions who fought for their soviet power for long 3 years after being ruined by 4 years of World War couldn't hold all powers to the Soviets? Can you answer that citing historical references of objective reality that time there? (2) What debarred them from doing so? Are the Bolsheviks to blame, or they ‘conspired'? Either way you answer, you submit proofs, historical facts. (3) What you say about Lenin's insistence on re-making, re-building the whole structure from scratch? What you say about Lenin's efforts from sickbed for rejuvenating the party and the state? (4) What are the constraints, handicaps, difficulties, etc faced by proletariats of comparatively backward societies like Russia after revolution? It is claimed that the PSUV workers managed their sophisticated production-process during the strike of technocrats-bureaucrats, but why couldn't their Russian counterparts achieve that more than 80 years back? … There are many such pertinent questions, and just throwing some comments evading those questions with some ‘smart' ‘quote-of-the-day' like things cannot help revolutionary movement for socialism. We have heard enough of such clichés for decades.

What Advanced Workers May Do

But given the international scenario including the defeat of the old movement and the objectivity of struggle in Venezuela – if a party like PSUV emerges, and that is likely to emerge with ‘millions of members' at this present state of affairs, what the class-conscious Venezuelan workers should do? And what about Chávez's call of unity where erstwhile parties/groups will have to dissolve their separate organisational existence as a precondition of their joining this party? This again tells us to take recourse of concrete analysis of the situation. But then it is very difficult, nearly impossible, for people from so far a distance (and not conversant in Spanish) to know the concrete conditions of Venezuela. As much we can conjecture from the lessons of history is the following:

If advanced class-conscious workers remain segregated from a platform that united a veritable whole or majority of still un-class-conscious & to some extent pro-socialism toiling masses assembled within PSUV, they will perhaps face extra-difficulty in educating and organising on a class-line the comparatively rearward class elements and other toiling masses. Again, organising on a class-line means having a separate organisational entity, which cannot be maintained as per PSUV rules as we heard. But separate and to that extent ‘independent' ‘bloc' within PSUV – will that also be impossible or prohibited? What the PSUV ‘promoters' can say about Lenin's position of allowing different ‘blocs' or ‘platforms' within the Bolshevik Party, which he fought against and had that banned only under special circumstances in 1921?

The point is: the advanced class-conscious section of the Venezuelan workers must interfere in the political formation there; it would be definitely better and easier if they can do that from within ; but all the way they should maintain their separate and independent identity, line, effort, because this is vital from the angle of marching towards scientific socialism; they should have some clear-cut conceptions of today's concrete condition: reality of class struggle, balance of forces, dynamics of the defeat and emerging reality thereafter, etc; and on this only depends the future of the revolution and party in Venezuela. And for God's sake please forget the ‘old' line of thinking, the old fashion of labelling, including things like “I'm a Trotskyite”, “that's Stalinist” etc which don't have any meaning in today's circumstances of new struggles and new organisations.

go to top

Home Page >> International Question >> Welcome PSUV:...