The United States terrorized Latin America with fascist dictators throughout the 20th century. In the 21st century, the Latin American peoples have made a famous “left turn”. Today, no government of Latin America, at least openly, does not call itself right. In Mexico, Colombia, Panama, Honduras, Chile and Guatemala, the so-called right-centrists are in power. “Radical” leftists are Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador, and the semi-left is Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, El Salvador and Peru. Of course, with certain reservations and “stumbles” in individual countries. In the information space this division on the right and left is connected with the adoption or rejection of the so-called neoliberal policy imposed by the United States.
In journalism, Latin American leftism is also considered to be the “strengthening of the socio-economic functions of the state,” that is, a certain turn of the bourgeois state towards respecting the class class interests of the bourgeoisie in a more intelligent format than frenzied colonialism. It should be recognized that, due to the specifics of Latin American statehood, the ruling groups in these countries tend to have some maneuvering between the bourgeoisie, including the latifundists, and the masses of the people, that is, some shy form of redistribution of wealth that developed rich imperialist states have long introduced into everyday life for their peoples .
In addition, the central problem of any power in Latin America is dependence on the United States. And the movement towards national independence is associated with the support of the popular masses, and therefore with a tendency towards socialism or with a game in socialism. All world practice has shown that the bourgeoisie by the end of the XIX century turned into the most cowardly social class in history. There is no real national, non-Prudential bourgeoisie and, it seems, will never exist . This is a historical abstraction, which is quite applicable to the well-known anti-feudal struggle, but it is completely unfit for modern conditions. In practice, real entrepreneurs betray their people every time, no matter what oligarchic capital they have. The boldness of the bourgeoisie manifests itself only in the presence of total military and technical superiority. In other cases, they operate in a secretive manner and always go for “partnership relations” to please the European and then the Washington elder brothers.
Consequently, the only way to have a national dignity and a relatively independent physiognomy of the US is to rely on the proletariat. Only the popular masses of Latin American countries really want national independence, and not only from the US as an imperialist, but also from their local white “elite” as direct agents of the CIA.
It is clear that reliance on the masses is manifested in the strengthening of the state, including its social functions. The whole mountains of paper are covered with eulogies and splashing hatred of funerals about the fact that Venezuela and Bolivia nationalized oil and gas and together with Brazil, Ecuador, Nicaragua launched large-scale social programs to eliminate illiteracy, introduce free medicine, provide pensions and eliminate poverty. But only Venezuela announced the construction of a kind of socialism, the truth is not just socialism, but socialism as much as the 21st century!
Enchantments of this “left turn” in the eyes of the intellectuals of the townsfolk are supplemented by the peaceful, democratic coming to power of these regimes, under a blatant rattling about popular interests and the Latin American revolutionary process. In the eyes of politically uneducated leftists, an alternative to “Bolshevism with its dictatorship” emerges. Every sympathizer of socialism wants to make a revolution in white gloves, composes a beautiful fairy tale about how a brave and courageous leader like Hugo Chavez will come to power and enlighten the bourgeois class, transform capitalism into socialism.
But what does Chavez’s experience tell us in reality?
First, in connection with the general cultural development of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, it is increasingly difficult to recruit the masses, and Chavez, for example, held back in 2002, unlike Allende in 1973. The documentary film “The revolution will not be shown on TV” in general should be considered a visual aid for how the revolutionary government should not behave. All this democratic demagogy and moral pomp of self-sacrifice, the government of clerical rats and concessions to military fluctuations is an indicator of extreme political illiteracy and immaturity. The fact that Chavez retained power and was not killed was a happy coincidence, connected with the cowardice of the bourgeoisie and the indecisiveness of the military.
Secondly, Chavez’s spontaneous unscientific socialism, infatuation with Trotskyism and contempt for the revolutionary theory affected both the futility of reforming capitalism in favor of the people, and on ways to retain power. Over the past 20 years, 18 referendums have been held in Venezuela. The support of the Chavists for democracy in the conditions of the parallel existence and well-being of the bourgeois class, its parties, the freedom of the bourgeois media is bordered on idiocy. Instead of building communism, Chávez, and now Maduro, spend the whole day in public relations and fighting the floods of lies of oligarchic TV. At the same time they consider themselves to be real heroes because they, with their Indian face, win in controversy and election of fair-haired European women from the Caracas ruble, shamelessly discussing the charms of class inequality. All these carmons do not even hide their connections with the CIA. And our leftists are touched: “Oh, what charisma, what credibility!”.
There is nothing more convincing than Bolshevism, than objective scientific truths , and it is not necessary to win the sympathies of the Venezuelan people against the degenerate opposition. Especially, as already mentioned, with the “ethnogenesis” of Chavez or Maduro.
Third, the unscientific ideology of Chavism naturally demonstrated complete political bankruptcy in building “socialism” by redistributing income in favor of the people . If Chavez read not only the Diary of Che Guevara, but opened, for example, Marx and Engels, he would have known Marxist criticism of various distributive utopianism.
It is regrettable to note that despite the theoretical defeat of Marxism by anarchism and socialist utopianism as early as in the 19th and 20th centuries, a number of people’s leaders, with perseverance envied by sheep, are trying to build socialism or something like socialism by intervening the state they lead in Distributive relations in the economy. This is not only Chavez, but also Kadaffi, Niyazov and similar “unicums”.
The management of capitalism from the top of the bourgeois state in the interests of the proletariat, the attempt to reform capitalism into a kind of socialism, will always fail. Because the problem of capitalism is not so much in the bourgeoisie itself within a particular country, even if not politically isolated to the very end, but in the market that all presidents are so afraid of giving up all self-taught, self-taught people. It is the element of market relations that ultimately accumulates in the hands of the magnates the surplus product of the whole nation, how many it can not be swept out by the state in favor of the broad masses. As soon as oil prices fell, Venezuelan “socialism of the XXI century” went around the world, fell into the ordinary bourgeois economic crisis.
Chavez, instead of building socialism, built hospitals and schools, not realizing that socialism guarantees hospitals and schools, and hospitals and schools do not guarantee anything other than sincere gratitude from the people and several beautiful ethnic songs. Instead of leading the people to communism, the chapists performed his immediate desires, indulging liberal-democratic illusions and anticommunist fears.
Thus, the Chavism is another reading of the experience of Allende, a typical populist president without a distinct scientific program of social restructuring, without a party, without reliance on the working class and with pathological fear of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
However, Maduro in the last few days demonstrates that Chávez’s experience of 2002 has been overwhelmed. Acts more resolutely and harshly, arrested oppositionists, suppressed the insurgency, dismissed the prosecutor general. This is good, but it is extremely inadequate, and in the long run to retain power and, moreover, to offer its supporters a sane program of getting out of the crisis. The output is possible exclusively by Bolshevik methods.
In this regard, we propose the following theses for the Bolivarian revolution.
1. The power of the people’s forces must be based on the working class , on the mass organizations of the working class, whether they are public authorities, or trade unions, or any other large organizations. Head of the masses in the field should be the strongest and most reliable chavista.
2. The power of the people’s forces must be a form of dictatorship of the working class, that is, do not dispose of formal legal instruments, but be guided by revolutionary scientific expediency. The game in democracy interferes with the political training of the working class, it daubs the cause with demagogy. Democracy should be exclusively for the working majority and the poor.
3. The power of the people’s forces must fully implement the economic interests of the working class, that is, it is necessary to completely expropriate the bourgeoisie, declare a monopoly on foreign trade, and prohibit the activities of parties and organizations of the bourgeoisie, including the media. Any political half-measures always lead to the defeat of the revolution.
4. The power of the people’s forces can not effectively and safely use the bourgeois state apparatus, despite the fact that the chavista has been in power for ten years already. All force services must be reformed from the loyal revolution of the working masses and the poor. The old bourgeois apparatus must be thoroughly divided and established new organs of power.
5. The form of state power should be as simple and convenient for the revolution as possible. At the moment, given the lack of full-fledged political party in Chavism, the military dictatorship of Maduro or the most authoritative comrades seems most appropriate.
6. Ultimately, in order to ensure the stability and progress of the revolution, to retain power and a strong stand against imperialist predators, the Chavism must be transformed into a political party of the avant-garde type.
7. Only the experience of Bolshevism is the true treasure trove of revolutionary communist construction. It is necessary to use it creatively.
These considerations were transferred to the Ambassador of Venezuela in the Russian Federation.
Donate to translation — BTC 16x8ZWjmPXcyigi4WdhdN3urP12YU7Ph5B