What We Can Expect From Chavez's Fourth Term
The following interview with Michael Lebowitz was recently published in Novosti, a left-wing newspaper in Zagreb, Croatia.
Michael A. Lebowitz is professor emeritus of economics at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada. He author of The Socialist Alternative, Beyond Capital: Marx’s Political Economy of the Working Class, Build It Now: Socialism for the Twenty-First Century and Following Marx: Method, Critique and Crisis. He was director, Program in Transformative Practice and Human Development, Centro Internacional Miranda, in Caracas, Venezuela, 2006-2011. His most recent book is The Contradictions of "Real" Socialism: the conductor and the conducted, released in mid-July 2012 by Monthly Review Press.
* * *
Novosti: What we can expect from Hugo Chavez’s fourth term of office as president of Venezuela?
Michael Lebowitz: I think it is essential to recognise the extent of change that has occurred in Venezuela under Chavez. Venezuela has been a rentist economy, relying upon oil revenues; and the culture that grew up around oil rents [prior to Chavez’s coming to power] has been one overwhelmingly of corruption and clientalism. Venezuela suffered very significantly as a result of neoliberal policies which involved cutbacks in social services, the ending of subsidisation of necessities and the general process of privatisation. The situation in the 1990s was one of disaster – something not uncommon in Latin America in that decade (and certainly very familiar now in Europe).
When Hugo Chavez was elected at the end of that decade, he came into government with the support of social movements and the poor, but also of the middle class which understood that this situation could not continue. (At the time Chavez was calling for a good capitalism, an end to neoliberalism, a third way; he learned as he went along.)
And what Chávez has proceeded to do is of enormous importance. In particular, he has channeled resource revenues from oil into education and health – something so critically needed by the poor, who are the overwhelming majority of the population. These are measures that can be understood as populist but also as meeting the real needs of people and which can permit their capacities to develop.
Yet, it is not only the direction of oil wealth to the people that is been characteristic and unique in Venezuela. There has also been a very significant process of empowering people – of creating institutions that permit people to function democratically and to make decisions that affect their lives.
I’m describing, in particular, the development of the communal councils, institutions at the local neighborhood level in which people have the power to deal with problems that affect their own communities. These communal councils come together to form communes to deal with larger problems.
This is a process that has been described by Chavez as one of creating the cells of a new socialist state. As well, there is a process of development of workers’ councils. Here again it is a process of transforming people, of creating the conditions in which they are able to develop all their capacities. In particular, the Bolivarian Revolution has been creating people with a sense of dignity and pride.
These are very important achievements. But they don’t happen smoothly, and it is important to recognise there are many contradictions within Chavism. There are three groups and tendencies within Chavism. One can be found at the base with the social movements, the communities and portions of the working class. Another is composed of those individuals and groups that have risen with Chavez but, having enriched themselves through their positions and through the continuation of corruption and clientalism, now think the revolution should be over – and it is for them. (They are often referred to as the “boli-bourgeoisie”.) A third group is committed to continuing the revolution but doing so entirely from the top down; its perspective is one of ordering the advance of socialism, and it does not want to leave decisions at the bottom.
While Chavez himself is very vocal about the theoretical importance of building at the base and allowing people to develop their capacities through their own protagonism, he is impatient and often supports those who don’t have the same orientation.
So, what will happen in Chavez’s next term of office? That depends on class struggle within the Chavez camp. It would be a struggle which revolves around Chavez’s party (the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, PSUV), which contains all these elements but in which the top-down orientation has dominated and at the same time dispirited many people at the base.
Assuming Chavez continues in good health, it is possible that the revolution will be deepened at the base through his initiatives. He understands the problems and he stressed the importance in the election campaign of creating a front between the PSUV, other parties of the left and the social movements. If Chavez is not around to unify the various forces within Chavism, however, I think there could be a major struggle.
There are two types of economic and political systems that exist today in Venezuela – socialist and capitalist. Can we talk about a coherent and consistently functioning socioeconomic system in Venezuela?
I think it is essential to understand that there is always incoherence and dysfunctionality in a process of transition. When the elements of a new society coexist with the elements of the old society, each deforms the other. Each functions less efficiently than it would in the absence of the other. Accordingly from the perspective of the old, all the problems of incoherence are the result of the attempt to introduce the new. And from the perspective of the new, all the problems of incoherence are the result of the continued existence of the old.
Despite the process of reversing privatisation and expanding the state sector, and creating new institutions of decision making at the community and enterprise levels, capitalism is still present in the banking system, in large agricultural estates and especially in imports and the import-processing sector (and of course in the private mass media).
If Venezuela is to advance in building a new kind of socialism, it of course must overcome these elements of capitalism. However, I don’t think that is a priority. For me, far more significant at this time is to strengthen and deepen the socialist elements by expanding workers’ management in state sectors and increasing democratic decision making from below. Chavez made a very important statement a few years ago, referring to the state sectors in oil, steel, aluminium, iron ore, etc. He said, “what we have now is state capitalism. Without workers’ control, you cannot have socialism.”
I agree, and I think that moving on such questions is an essential part of class struggle in Venezuela and to advance the process right now.
Recently, we have seen a TV show about the election in Venezuela on our national [Croatian] television. More or less, all the participants in the TV show agreed that the social reforms provided by the Chavez government are just some sort of political bribery directed at poor people. What is your opinion about this?
Well, I’m not certain that such social reforms would be a bad thing, even as political bribery given that they are dealing with enormous material deficiencies for the poor and are making up for the crimes of previous governments. But there is of course much more to this.
After all, providing health facilities, education and adequate housing are essential for creating the conditions in which people are able to develop their own capacities. How can anyone criticise this?
Compare such policies to the austerity programs that punish people (especially the poor) for the disasters created by capitalism! Compare this to policies that bribe banks! I think that the participants in those television programs reveal more about themselves than they reveal about the actions of the government of Chávez.
The system of cooperatives was designed as an alternative to standard capitalist corporations. Has there been any improvements and progress in that area?
I think that measured by the number of successful cooperatives, there are great limits to relying upon small cooperatives as an alternative. Many such cooperatives have failed or discontinued – just like small businesses and small cooperatives elsewhere.
There are some cases in rural areas where there are very successful cooperative processes. But, in general, I think the most important aspect of the major cooperative initiative in Venezuela has been that the cooperatives have been schools of socialism – thatis, they have given people experience in the process of making decisions themselves. I think the real alternative to the capitalist corporation will be workers’ management of state enterprises.
Is there anything in socio-political system in Venezuela what we can apply in European political context?
Yes, of course! You don’t need oil to have protagonistic democracy. You don’t need oil to create communal councils and communes that make decisions about neighbourhoods and communities. You don’t need oil to introduce workers’ management and transparency by opening the books of all enterprises and government.
Venezuela has taken important steps to develop a protagonistic democracy, a revolutionary democracy in which people transform both their circumstances and themselves through their practice. It has done so in a poor country with a culture of clientalism and corruption. I think that European countries are in a position to take that same road without the same problems.
What will happen with the “Bolivarian revolution” and with “socialism of the 21st century” in the next period?
In the October 2012 election in Venezuela, it was absolutely essential to defeat the right-wing opposition, which wanted to turn the clock back. Chavez’s victory keeps the door open for the advance of the Bolivarian revolution. That victory was not only important for Venezuela but for many countries in Latin America – not only those governments closely associated with Venezuela (such as Cuba, Bolivia and Ecuador) but also governments strengthened by Venezuela’s insistence under Chavez upon a sovereign Latin America. And certainly, too, for the social movements elsewhere in Latin America (and not only Latin America) for which the Bolivarian revolution has provided hope.
It is not clear yet how much of this victory will extend to the election of state governors in December. The particular link that Chávez has forged with the masses does not extend to all candidates of his party. It never has. In this case, too, some of those choices of candidates (choices made by Chávez and his advisers in the PSUV rather than from below) are quite unpopular at the base; and this could lead to significant abstention or to support for other left candidates who support the Bolivarian revolution but not the internal processes and actions of PSUV.
This remains to be seen but I think the general prognosis is one for significant struggle within Chavism.