Venezuela: Revolution, Party and a New International
Venezuela has entered a
decisive phase of its revolutionary process, which has advanced
rapidly, and without pause, since 1999. The failed attempt to reform
the constitution in the December 2, 2007, referendum opened up a
conjuncture of sharp contradictions in the short and medium term and
modified the institutional framework in which this period will develop;
but it does not modify the content of the confrontation underway. The
forces of the revolution will be unleashed, along with those of the
counterrevolution.
Expressed in 69 articles, the reform had four
objectives as its central aim: to transfer political power to the
councils of popular power (workers’ councils, peasant councils, student
councils, etc); to promote and institutionalise the existence of
popular militias; reorder the national design of the state (new
geometry of power); and provoke a new and more dramatic transference of
wealth in favour of the working class and the people as a whole. In
summary: the dismantling of the bourgeois state and the beginning of
the construction of a state of the workers, peasants and the whole of
the people.
The electoral defeat will change the form and perhaps
the rhythm of this march, nevertheless, the transition towards
socialism will elevate itself to a qualitatively superior level in
relation to what we have lived through during the last eight years. [1]
Never so starkly has the dialectic of
reform-revolution been evident. Never before has the contradiction
between means and ends been so strident. Starting from the certainty
that [Venezuela’s President Hugo] Chavez will maintain a line of
intransigent confrontation in the face of the opposition bloc, behind
which operates the White House, two unknown factors will become
clearer: the importance of the level of abstention (that is, the
percentage of the population who remain apathetic and have not joined
the ranks of the revolution) and whether the opposition will hold off
or not from resorting to the only recourse they have left: violence.
Inversely to all other previous examples, the
revolution in Venezuela began via the institutional road. Chavez won
the December 1998 elections, since which he has advanced, step by step,
in the partial solution of social problems, raising the consciousness
of society, recuperating national sovereignty and finally, clashing
against the foundations of the capitalist system. That was the path
taken in order to accumulate forces, with methods and with individuals
buried within bourgeois state apparatus, barely offset in some cases by
the will of the revolutionary cadres in government functions.
With the eruption of the new government, this power
entrenched itself in the state as it was composed – or, better said,
decomposed. Throughout this period the inherent contradictions were
expressed through the figure of the head of state and government, Hugo
Chavez, in a never before seen situation in the history of social
struggles. The reforms as a whole — often made through pragmatic paths
that led in a direction contrary to that sought after – were only
foundations on which to raise this revolutionary project.
In different latitudes, individuals prone to
developing concepts elaborated and stated by others for different
circumstances, but incapable of taking as their starting point living
phenomena, understanding them and responding to them, saw this
situation as a repetition of “dual power’’. A repetition sui generis
of the situation that Russia lived through between February and October
1917, with the government of the bourgeois state on one side and the
workers’ and social movement on the other. Chavez was only
“infiltrated’’ in there, an ally who could be counted on, whilst the
workers’ movement and the popular masses were organised into a
revolutionary party. This jovial expression was transformed into a
category, a pseudo-theoretical interpretation that inverted reality: it
placed tiny groups and charlatans in the role of the vanguard and
Chavez as a prisoner of the bourgeois state.
It might seem like the tiniest of differences on the
theoretical level, but this crucial error (that takes the appearance of
a theoretical elaboration, but in almost all cases had as its
foundations an unfortunate combination of myopia and cowardice),
created a sectarian dynamic that rapidly transformed itself into
counterrevolutionary positions, manifested in calls to vote against the
constitutional reform, or the height of inconsistency entering as
secret fractions, gnashing their teeth, the United Socialist Party of
Venezuela (PSUV), the party organised under the impulse and initiative
of Chavez. In the least grave cases of this mortal deviation, vanguard
groups and cadres stood firmly in the rearguard, playing the role of a
deadweight, acting against the revolutionary impulse.
No matter how you look at it, the fact is, that the
political phenomenon underway in Venezuela is a revolution, without a
doubt, whose social roots lie in the Caracazo of 1989, but which, due
to the combination of the actual social formation of the country and
the historic international moment in which it is situated, has
developed within the bourgeois institutional system; with a powerful
but atomised social movement, where the workers’ movement is not
present in an organic manner; without a party in a strict sense of the
word and with the unusual gravitation around an individual figure to
provide definition of sense and rhythm with which the class struggle
advances.
It is no coincidence that those groups and
individuals who, with irresponsible superficiality, condemn a supposed
cult of personality on the part of Chavez, are the same ones who refuse
to commit themselves to constructing a revolutionary force in the given
circumstances, facilitating the intervention of groups and individuals
with social and/or political interests contrary to a revolution …
within official political militancy, as well as in the government
itself. Considering all differences, an analogy can be made with the
conduct of infantile leftists in Argentina who, when the possibility
existed to construct a political instrument of the masses out of the
Central de Trabajadores de la Argentina (CTA, Argentine Workers
Centre), refused to commit themselves to this process, only to
afterwards condemn the outcome of that attempt, where the absence of
those who call themselves revolutionaries contributed to tipping the
balance of forces in favour of the reformist and conciliatory
individuals and structures.
But the same did not occur in Venezuela: due to the
gravitational pull of Hugo Chavez, the forces of revolution have
imposed themselves and now the world is witness to the transition of
this country towards socialism, via unprecedented paths.
Revolution and violence
Although there has not been a lack of violent
episodes over the last eight years – including regular assassinations
of peasants, a coup, sabotage of the petroleum industry and innumerable
failed attempts against the life of Chavez – the transformations that
have occurred in the political landscape, the relation of forces
between classes, and the state apparatus, have occurred in peace and
within the framework of democratic institutions.
This prolonged phase, during which profound
transformations have occurred, has led to a belief that a revolution
can be concluded without clashing frontally with the class enemy that
exists within and outside the country’s borders. But such a similar
illusion was not part of the plans of Chavez and his closest team, who
from the first moment took up the task of winning ground within the
armed forces, renewing armaments, enlisting defence plans in the face
of possible invasions and other forms of territorial aggression, and
above all, the formation of revolutionary popular militias, known as
the reserves, which today organise some one million armed men and women.
It is not only legitimate, but absolutely correct, to
make the biggest feasible effort to postpone for the maximum time
possible a frontal clash with the enemy. Of course, this can only be
said if at the same time not a single moment is wasted to raise the
political consciousness of society in regards to the constant threat of
imperialism and its local partners, at the same time as organising a
revolutionary armed force capable of confronting and defeating this
inexorable challenge.
In this sense, by winning more time, two key factors
can be achieved: one, the conquest of more and more popular contingents
– workers, peasants, students, professionals, small producers and urban
and rural traders – to the ranks of the revolution or, which in essence
is the same thing, diminish to the maximum extent possible the social
ranks of the enemy; two, pose the confrontation in the sphere of the
Latin American territorial and political terrain, that is, if on the
one hand a different relationship of forces against imperialism is
created, then on the other there is posed the necessity of making all
the necessary tactical steps forward to synchronise the unequal march
of the processes that are unfolding in the region.
The position adopted by ex-general and former
minister of defence Raul Baduel accelerated suddenly the march towards
a bellicose confrontation. It is obvious that Baduel’s identification
of the constitutional reform as a coup, along with his call for a No
vote, imply a formal alignment with imperialism and its war plans
against the socialist Bolivarian Revolution.[2]
Even all the effort in the world will not be
sufficient to postpone this confrontation. In Venezuela, it is
necessary to complete the organisation of the PSUV and with this
political instrument undertake with the maximum of energy the tasks put
forward by the reform of the constitution. In Latin America, it is
necessary to push with a similar will the construction of mass
revolutionary parties and advance with an affirmative response towards
an international organisation capable of taking up on all terrains a
conclusion forgotten by many: that the socialist revolution — the
abolition of capitalism, the construction of a society of free men and
women — supposes a confrontation with imperialism that, due to the
logic of its will and necessity, will be necessarily violent.
The old debate between “armed struggle’’ or
“peaceful road’’ has now been surpassed by this restating in a new
international and regional context, summarised in the pressing urgency
to organise the masses into revolutionary parties and to prepare
ourselves in all spheres so that, due to the massive nature and
military capacity of the peoples, the violence is postponed and
minimised as much as possible.
For reasons everyone should be able to comprehend,
Critica has a debt with developing this essential debate at a
theoretical level. However, this is not true regarding the political
application of this strategy. It should not be necessary to underscore
that the historic challenge facing us requires, now more than ever, to
put the charlatans, reformists and infantile leftists in their places,
through arduous theoretical work, as part of spearheading and being
able to guarantee overcoming the formidable tasks ahead.
The United Socialist Party of Venezuela
Since the beginning of 2007, Chavez has affirmed
without evasion the necessity of all revolutionary organisations to
dissolve in order to pave the way towards a united party, of the
masses, for the socialist revolution. As is known, the three largest
organisations that have accompanied Chavez and his Movimiento Quinta
República (MVR, Movement for the Fifth Republic) throughout these
years, refused to accept the call. One of them (PODEMOS), decimated by
the exodus of its ranks to the PSUV, aligned itself, without even
worrying about keeping up appearances, with the most reactionary and
bellicose opposition. The other two (Partido Comunista y Patria para
Todos), who were also reduced to their minimum expression as their
militants signed up to the PSUV, nevertheless decided to support, with
some disgruntlement, the constitutional reform. [3]
The fact is that 5,770,000 citizens signed up as
aspirant militants to the PSUV, beginning the process of organising the
party over this base.
As the November edition of America XXI reads:
"The process of election of delegates to the
Founding Congress was completed in October… [with] 1674 delegates
elected from the Socialist Circumscriptions (CS), made up of between 8
and 12 Socialist Battalions, which in turn elected seven members
(spokesperson, alternative spokesperson and five heads of commissions)
to the CS…Although the realisation [of the congress] will be difficult,
the objective is that these three instances act simultaneously, in a
never before seen process of exchange between the grassroots and the
delegates in order to debate and vote on the essential documents put to
the consideration of the Congress: the Declaration of Principles,
Program and Statutes. [4]Through a suitable combination of congress plenaries,
meetings in different regions, and report backs from delegates with
debates in their corresponding circumscription, plus the simultaneous
functioning of the Socialist Battalions, there will be an attempt to
reach the maximum possible level of democratic participation of the
whole membership. The most modern technologies of communication will
contribute to the objective of putting information at the disposition
of everyone and channel the debates in both directions: from the
grassroots to the delegates and vice versa, who will have at their
disposition the use of a web page, email and mobile telephones.No technical resource will be able to overcome the
impact of the absence of the workers’ movement as an organised force,
influencing and imposing its mark as a class in the functioning of this
massive organisation. At the same time, no one can dodge the absence of
a tradition of revolutionary mass organising, to which has to be added
a opposing tradition: that of Accion Democratica (AD, Democratic
Action), which for decades was sowed in consciousness through a
methodology at the service of capital and an established political
structure.The crucial fact that the impulse for the
construction of the PSUV came from Chavez, and afterwards was
articulated through functionaries from different spheres of government,
will also weigh in an ambivalent manner on this historic birth.
Nevertheless, until now, the dialectic established firstly between
Chavez and the thousands of promoters, then the millions of aspirants
and finally the whole of the grassroots and middle cadres has prevailed.All of this will reach a boiling point with the
realisation of the congress. Regardless of whatever faults there are in
the results that emerge [out of the congress], the workers, the people
as whole – especially the youth – that is, the whole of the country,
will have taken an immense leap forward. The championing in word and
deed of the notion of the party, at the beginning of the 21st century
and following the traumatic collapse of the political apparatuses that
at one stage were parties only to be later metamorphosed in order to
adapt to the global capitalist system, is probably the most
transendental contribution that the Bolivarian Revolution has produced
up until now.”
In effect, the championing of the notion of the
revolutionary party is an immense leap forward, and not only, nor
principally, for Venezuelan revolutionaries and the Venezuelan masses.
Now, more so than at the beginning of the Bolivarian Revolution, in
this conjuncture the full, absolutely transparent participation of all
genuine revolutionary militants from any country is vital. Given the
conditions in which it is born, the PSUV will immediately face
innumerable risks of all types.
We are dealing with, no more and no less, the same
risks that have beset all and every true revolution. Confronted with
this, there is no room for doubt regarding the decision that any
Marxist revolutionary should take: confront these risks, armed with
their theoretical arsenal, their practical experience and their resolve
to relentlessly struggle against capitalism.
Therefore, in Latin America, the falseness of the
capricious and ridiculous stereotype of the Leninist theory of the
party and its defence of the professional revolutionary remains exposed
for all to see. This last notion was equally distorted and perverted in
order to be utilised as theoretical loincloths by ignorant and
inefficient bureaucrats, whose wisdom only served to repeat verses and
guarantee their own survival. The true conception expounded by Lenin in
all his works and symbolised in What is to be done, is reappearing in
the new Latin American scenario. Tens of thousands of militant cadre
will comprehend the necessity to join in action with the masses, in
organisations where the ideas of scientific socialism needs to win
space as a force capable of interpreting, intervening, relating to
masses in motion, organising, elaborating, divulging and defending
their strategy and tactics through revolutionary praxis.
The constant resorting to petitio principii will be
of no use, that is, the evocation of some god of revolutionary action
in whose name actions are carried out, with the same legitimacy that
the pope assumes in acting as the representative of the Holy Spirit.
That is why the first condition for coming aboard the
Latin American revolutionary torrent from revolutionary Marxist
positions is to break all and any nexus with the pseudo-theoretical
arguments and sectarian practises of the infantile leftist tendencies.
A Latin American international organisation
Critica has for a long time set out and defended its
ideas regarding a mass revolutionary party.[5] Nevertheless, with the
birth of the PSUV, and the revolutionary resolve represented by Chavez,
the task of raising the consciousness and organisation of the masses to
another level is now posed.
In his August 25 intervention, in front of the
promoters of the PSUV, President Hugo Chavez said that 2008 would be
the moment to “convoke a meeting of left parties of Latin America and
organise a type of International, an organisation of parties and
movements of the left in Latin American and the Caribbean’’. Chavez
explained: “There is a resurgence of the consciousness of the peoples;
the movements, leaders and leaderships of this new left, of this new
project, need to continue to grow.’’
The last experience of this type was the Foro de Sao
Paulo (FSP, Sao Paulo Forum), originally convoked in this Brazilian
city, in 1990, by the Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT, Workers Party,
Brazil) and the Partido Comunista de Cuba (PCC, Communist Party of
Cuba), as an “Encounter of Parties and Organisations of the Left in
Latin America and the Caribbean’’.
From the beginning, a strong ideological debate
existed within this organisation. At the first encounter a condemnation
of capitalism and a correct characterisation regarding the structural
crisis won out. The following year, in Mexico, held in the midst of the
collapse of the Soviet Union, a shift towards adaptation began, with
the FSP taken to the verge of splitting. Two principal blocs formed:
those that, faced with this new situation, looked towards finding their
place in what at the time was called the “new world order’’, and those
who held revolutionary socialist positions.
The principal forces of the more than 100
organisations that made up the FSP were the PT, PCC, Frente Farabundo
Martí para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN,Farabundo Marti National
Liberation Front, El Salvador), Frente Sandinista de Liberación
Nacional (FSLN, Sandinista National Liberation Front, Nicaragua),
Partido de la Revolución Democrática (PRD, Party of the Democratic
Revolution, Mexico), Frente Amplio (FA, Broad Front, Uruguay) and the
Partido Socialista de Chile (PSCh, Socialist Party of Chile).
Despite the fact that a split did not occur in
Mexico, and that the resolution of the second encounter did not adopt
the position proposed by the rightwing, ever since then the FSP has
been systematically pushed towards reformism.
The ideological battle was fought out basically between four currents:
a) PCC
b) social democracy
c) social christianism
d) diverse organisations who called themselves Trotskyists, each of them very different in regards to each other.
As is known, at that time Cuba entered into the
“Special period‘’. The PT had come out of a defeat in the 1989
elections. The FSLN had already incorporated itself into the [social
democratic] Socialist International. The FMLN had confirmed that it had
reached a strategic military deadlock and began peace negotiations.
Meanwhile, the world, and in particular Latin America, entered into the
“neoliberal’’ decade.
In the ensuing encounters of the FSP, beyond the
speeches made and declarations approved, it became clear that the
position of two of the four currents had converged: social democracy
and social christianism. The Trotskyist tendencies withdrew from the
FSP (and became debilitated to the point of extinction). The
revolutionary current headed by the PCC (made up of a big majority of
the organisations of the whole hemisphere) did not cohere itself, with
its role diluted to the point of being limited to a few good speeches
at each encounter, without generating any consequences.
Today, the FSP is an empty shell in the hands of
those most opposed to any revolutionary ideas, and specifically to the
Bolivarian Revolution. Beyond individual positions, within the
leadership structures of the PT, PRD, FA and PSCh, Chavez is a synonym
for Lucifer. It should be specifically pointed out that in November
2001, in the encounter in La Habana, it was not possible to reach an
agreement to send a delegation in solidarity with Chavez in the face of
the evidence of an escalating coup plot. Recently, the PRD delegate who
habitually represents this party in the FSP participated in the
congress of the Venezuelan Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS, Movement
Towards Socialism) [which is part of the opposition].
This drift of the FSP contributed in a significant
manner to the destruction and/or neutralisation of tens of thousands of
cadres and middle cadres in Latin America.
Conjuncture
The dispersal of forces who define themselves as
favouring a revolutionary solution – and are willing to fight for it –
is today the principal point that imperialism and the national
bourgeoisies count in their favour.
Out of those militant sectors dragged towards
reformism by their leaderships, we can presume that a percentage is
willing to join an alternative that once again proposes what it was
that convinced them to enter into political activity. Another
contingent coming from that period is dispersed in innumerable
organisations, a good part of which should also be in a position to
incorporate themselves into an international movement that contributes
to the creation, orientation and development of national organisations
of important political weight. But it is highly probable that the most
important contingent of militants for a new Latin American
revolutionary alternative will be unorganised youth who today are
politically active, but whose forces are dispersed in social
organisations, small newspapers, community radio stations and other
expressions of militancy without a strategy to struggle for power.
If it is left solely up to the existing
political-organisational relations and definitions at the national
level, we cannot expect to see, at least for a long time, the
recomposition of these militant contingents.
The permanence of tens of thousands of cadres and
activists in this current state, despite the fact that this immense
force today sees itself compelled towards the perspective of Latin
American revolution, will assure, in a relative short timeframe, the
destruction in high proportions of this revolutionary force.
On the contrary, the existence of a general political
orientation, of a recognised leadership, could put into action a
powerful revolutionary human force that is today inert, saving from
degradation and subsequent destruction, hundreds of thousands of
militants across Latin America.
This capacity for orientation and leadership can only
be based on revolutionary leaderships with deep roots, prestige and
sufficient energy in front of this collection of revolutionary
militants. Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, as symbols and representatives
of the revolutions in Cuba and Venezuela, are today the only possible
centre that could play this role.
Moreover, the long-term attack already put in train
by imperialism, with the resolute collaboration of social democracy and
social christianism, urgently requires defining positions, marking out
a general strategic line of action and organising grand human
contingents to impede the counterrevolutionary pincer advancing
forward, drowning in blood the growing revolutionary process in Latin
America.
At the Ibero-American summit in Santiago, this
alignment became graphically clear: the social democratic [president of
Spain] Jose Rodriguez Zapatero defended the neoliberal strategy and
“social cohesion’’ under capitalism. He even tried to impose this on
the meeting, with a blatant manoeuvre in this closing speech, violating
the methodology of the summit. Faced with the response by Chavez, the
Spanish president Zapatero did not hesitate to come out in defence of
the fascist Jose Maria Aznar, ex-president of Spain. The social
democracy-social christianism-fascism convergence was clear for
millions to see during this episode, topped off by the sharp remarks of
the king and his later abandonment of the meeting during the
denunciation made by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega.
At the trade union level, this convergence has
already taken an organic form over the last few years, with the coming
together of the union confederations of the Vatican and social
democracy in the International Trade Union Confederation, that is now
beginning to articulate itself in Latin America, where in Argentina it
counts on the support of some wings of the CTA.[6]
The first step in advancing towards the organisation
of a Latin American-Caribbean political structure that, despite the
fact that it depends on the decision of Chavez and Fidel to undertake
the task, will from the beginning have an international projection.
Conceptual bases
Throughout history there have been, conceptually and
in practice, four anti-capitalist international organisations. The
First, in which Karl Marx and Frederick Engels were key figures in its
foundation, brought together different anti-capitalist revolutionary
currents. It emerged directly out of the impulse of the workers
themselves in struggle against the system in Europe; the two principal
currents were those who would shortly become known as Marxists and the
anarchists.
The Second, defined as social democratic (with the
meaning that this word had at that time, the inverse of what it is
today) was based on the grand mass socialist workers’ parties which, at
the time, had been formed in all of Europe, in the United States and in
various Latin American countries.
The Third, founded by Vladimir Lenin and Leon
Trotsky, defined itself as communist, counterposing itself to the
social democrats, who by then were identified by the position of
subordinating the interests of the workers to those of the bourgeoisie
of each country; the mass social democratic parties all split paving
the way for the emergence of communist parties, which founded the Third
International with this name.
The Fourth, in reality, never became a truly
international organisation deeply rooted in the working class. It was
born as a result of the Stalinist degeneration of the Soviet Union and
the extension of this collapse to the organisation, program and
policies of the Third International from its Fifth Congress onwards.
Its base of support was the Left Opposition in the Soviet Union and its
expression in the different communist parties across the world. It
later took the name of its principal promoter, Leon Trotsky, who was
assassinated in 1940, with the organisation in turn degenerating,
giving rise to innumerable organisations, almost always sectarian and
minuscule.
Today, due to objective and subjective reasons – laid
out over the years in these pages and which will not be developed in
this article – an international organisation cannot pretend to have the
ideological homogeneity that the Second, Third and Fourth
internationals had. On the contrary, its heterogeneous nature will far
surpass that of the First International, apart from the fact that it
will not result from the conscious and organised impulse of a workers’
vanguard with backing from the masses.
The point of support for such a heterogeneous
organisation will be the explicit decision to struggle against
imperialism and for socialism of the 21st century, assuming as its
starting point the unknown elements and ambiguities that this
definition implies.
To this ideological heterogeneity will correspond an
organisational criterion that, although obliging in terms of general
strategy of each member party or organisation, will allow the
participation of different organisations in the same country and will
not enforce unanimous criteria for political activity.
Nevertheless, the international could not be
assimilated into the concept of a united front. It is closer to the
criteria of a mass party, with ideological heterogeneity and political
homogeneity on central questions regarding hemispheric strategy, and
with all the flexibility that this requires given differences of
participation in each country.
This contradiction will be resolved in favour of
cohesion, political homogeneity and international coherence through the
organ of the international leadership, which could only be made up of
representatives of parties from those countries where no more than one
recognised organisation exists.
The organisation of a revolutionary international
with these characteristics, far from being a distant perspective is an
immediate necessity. Defence of the revolutionary processes underway in
Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador cannot be postponed, nor can
effort towards the recomposition of revolutionary social forces in the
rest of the countries in the region. Both tasks are beyond the
possibilities of the dispersed and confused militants in Argentina, the
country that most needs this Latin American anchor in order to lift,
rise up and recuperate its powerful revolutionary force.
[This is an updated version of an article first written for the November 2007 edition of Crítica de Nuestro Tiempo N° 36 http://www.geocities.com/nuestrotiempo/ultima/home.htm,
just prior to the December 2 referendum. The author updated it at the
end of February 2008. Critica de Nuestro Tiempo, International Journal
of Theory and Practice, was founded in 1991, since which it has
regularly defended the cause of socialism. This article was translated
exclusively for Links – International Journal of Socialist Renewal (http://www.links.org.au)
by Federico Fuentes. Luis Bilbao is a journalist, founder and director
of Critica de Nuestro Tiempo, and member of the Union of Militants for
Socialism (Argentina). Since the end of 2006 Bilbao has temporarily
resided in Venezuela, as director of the Latin America-wide magazine
America XXI, where he has collaborated in the creation of the United
Socialist Party of Venezuela and the process of building UNASUR, the
Union of South American Nations. Among numerous books, he has published
two long interviews with President Hugo Chavez through Le Monde
Diplomatique.]
Notes
[1] See reports and analyses about the
content of the reforms in America XXI, Issues No 30, 31 and 32,
corresponding to the months of September, October and November. www.americaxxi.com.ve
[2] It is worth noting in passing that this episode
revealed the real role of certain opportunists and
pseudo-theoreticians, such as Heinz Dieterich, who without an
intermediary period passed over from Stalinism to bourgeois-reformist
gibberish, marinated with appropriate resources in order to dazzle a
certain disorientated intellectual layer. With a pseudo-revolutionary
verbosity, this author cooked up a formula for a supposed new
socialism, which is nothing more than a road to take in order to avoid
the abolition of capitalism. His alignment with Baduel (worse still
disguised under a call to Chavez for reconciliation with Baduel,
arguing that the Yes and No vote in the constitutional reform where not
antagonistic), revealed the course that this type of itinerant
intellectual inexorable takes when the decisive hour of the revolution
arrives.
[3] On this debate, information can be found
principally in issue 24 and 25 of America XXI, in March and April 2007,
as well as in the following issues of this magazine.
[4] View the draft Declaration of Principles and Program at Links http://www.links.org.au/node/261
[5] The last contribution in this sense was “Theory and Practice of the Revolutionary Party’’ Critica No 34, October 2006, http://www.geocities.com/nuestrotiempo/34/34teoriaypractica.htm
[6] See the balance sheet of the Ibero-American Summit in “Argentina no callara’’, El Espejo 171, p. 8.