Venezuelan elections: Cast a blank ballot

[Here's a translation of the latest article from the Venezuelan Trotskyists. It is of special interest in the United States, where the left entirely capitulates to the Bolivarian popular front headed by Hugo Chávez, thinking that their blind endorsement of class collaboration is some kind of "solidarity." Solidarity with whom? With what class?]

Presidential Elections in Venezuela
Faced with the lack of an independent working-class candidate: Cast a blank ballot

by Mario López
source: En Clave Obrera 8
Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Read the original in Spanish at:
http://www.ft-ci.org/article.php3?id_article=539

In the current electoral process we call for a blank-ballot vote, in the face of the lack of an independent working-class candidacy that represents the workers of Venezuela. Clearly the candidacy of Manuel Rosales [the candidate backed by the United States government] represents nothing other than the naked interests of imperialism and of the sectors of the national bourgeoisie closest to the Yankees; the same ones who defeated the Caracazo [a popular uprising in Caracas in 1989] with blood and fire, the same ones with their plans of servility to the IMF and World Bank, the same coup-plotters of April [2002], the bosses' lockout [of 2003] and the sabotage of the oil industry. The masses of workers and poor people know this and it's been a long time since they gave their support to these traitorous, starvation-causing, and repressive sectors! Therefore among the workers the discussion obviously turns on the program and the figure of [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chávez, who is said to lead a revolution and represent the interests of the exploited and poor people.

In earlier issues [of En Clave Obrera, the journal of the Venezuelan Trotskyists], we have explained in detail why, even when he confronts puntofijismo [the corrupt power-sharing agreement between Venezuela's three old capitalist parties] at the national level, even when he has driven the clique of Adecas [politicians from the traditional capitalist Acción Democratica party] and Copeyanas [politicians from the traditional capitalist Political Electoral Independent Organization - Social Christian Party or COPEI] from power, even though he has been the target of coup attempts from the bourgeoisie and the imperialists, which he rebuffed with the massive and militant support of the people, Chávez and his government, far from proposing a revolutionary, and thus anti-imperialist and truly anti-capitalist, program, are heading a program of reforms which do not stray outside the bounds of "national development" in the midst of an alliance between the state and sectors of the national bourgeoisie. It is a limited bourgeois-nationalist program, which is not capable of completing the struggle for national liberation, and even less so, the struggle against capitalist exploitation.

All the parties, groups, and activists that call themselves leftists in this country back the call for Chávez's reelection, including all the so-called Trotskyist groups that exist in this country. On this bandwagon we find everyone, from those who support Chávez unconditionally, who are an integral part of Chávez's party and its leadership, such as the "parties of change", the Communist Party and the UPV [Venezuelan Popular Union], to those who support Chávez "critically," "tactically" in order to "defeat the right wing," or in order to "accompany the masses," as is the case with most of the so-called Trotskyist currents. So it would seem that, whether one is a through and through Chavista, or claims to be an "independent" revolutionary or "revolutionary Marxist," there's nothing wrong with electorally supporting Chávez.

The main problem is that in any presidential election, what we are choosing are the political platforms for the nation of the various political formations, which represent distinct classes or factions of those classes. The vote for a particular presidential choice implies backing his political program and the class interests which it represents. With this perspective, even though it is not the program of imperialism and the sectors of the national bourgeoisie most closely allied to imperialism, Chávez's program nevertheless does not represent the interests of the workers and poor people, but a nationalist course. According to Rosales and Co., Venezuela must open its doors for imperialism to exploit our resources and workforce without interference, including the oil, with the state acting only as a guardian of the bourgeois legality and stability, and in this way to prepare the country for every Yankee imperialist initiative. It is a plan for complete surrender, without questioning the super-profits that the imperialists take away from us, resigning itself to the crumbs left for the bosses who are gears in the machine of transnational capital and for the state bureaucrats who favor these businesses. It is the program of the years of the decadence of puntofijismo.

As for Chávez, he proposes a central role for the state in the management of the economy, keeping property and the control of the oil profits in its hands, also negotiating with transnational corporations, but placing these under state regulation; thus, the oil profits in the hands of the state and the taxes levied on foreign capitalists are used for "national" development and production, that is, production by state-owned and private enterprises, as well as for social programs, and the development of cooperatives and small businesses. It is a program that lays claim for the "country" to the oilfields and to a portion of the imperialists' profits, with which it proposes to promote the growth of the national bourgeoisie (its alliance with Fedeindustria [a bosses' federation] and the ranchers' association Confagan is no accident). Its discourse on the level of international relations with Yankee imperialism is one of greater independence, which does not align itself with US politicians and seeks wider margins of action, along with alliances with other international or regional power centers such as China, Russia, and Iran, as well as reliance on the formation or regional blocs to negotiate better deals with imperialism [1] such as MERCOSUR, behind which stand the bourgeoisies of the other semi-colonial countries and the transnational corporations that operate within them. On the other hand Chávez is supported by a huge mass movement which hopes for solutions to its demands. All this is what earns Chávez the tenacious opposition of Yankee imperialism and the big national bourgeoisie.

But in Chávez's program, and after eight years of his government we see: no expulsion of the transnational corporations and expropriation of the imperialist capitalists which have robbed us for almost a century, no expropriation of the parasitic bankers and socialization of their riches, no expropriation of the exploitative national bourgeoisie and management of the economy under the control of the workers and poor people, neither any expropriation without compensation of the landlords and giving of their lands over to the poor peasants. Under Chávez's program and his government the bosses and bankers (national and international) have continued about their lucrative business, living off the exploitation and the poverty of the working class. In the final analysis this is a picture of the normal operation of any capitalist economy. Certainly, the majority of the workers and poor people believe in Chávez and trust that their problems will be solved by his hand. The fact that no important sector of the workers upholds an independent working class program is in large part the fault of the leadership of the workers' movement, particularly those who call themselves revolutionary Marxists, since they have refused to clearly explain what the real intentions of the government are, and to use the many struggles that the workers have been waging to show them that the reason why their major demands have not been met is the fault of the government. In this sense, it is the responsibility of the majority of the leadership of the PRS [Party of Revolution and Socialism, a new party based in the Venezuelan UNT union federation] which has not run a candidate of the workers themselves, of their own struggle against capitalism, when real possibilities existed to organize such a campaign. It is against this lack of a working class candidate that we call for voters to cast a blank ballot.

1. Bush and the Republicans' recent electoral defeat increases the possibilities for this type of international politics.

****
Workers and oppressed peoples of the world, unite!
Labor Action discussion group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/labor_action/
Working Class Emancipation email newsletter:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/emancipation_news/
****