Venezuela: imperialism, post Chavismo, and resistance from below (part 2)

In part 2 of his article on Venezuela Mike Gonzalez looks at the implications of Trump’s attack for the wider region, resistance and international solidarity. 

Read part 1 of this article here.

María Corina Machado, daughter of one of her country’s wealthiest families, and brief owner of the Nobel Peace Prize before she gave it to Trump, led a violent right-wing opposition to undermine the Chávez project from the beginning. But Trump has now withdrawn his backing for her, acknowledging that she lacked support.  

We now know that the post-Maduro government will be led by Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s vice president, and that most of the existing Chavista leadership will remain in Trump’s promised protectorate. Most people were astonished by the news, which was followed by shots of Caracas’s empty streets, which were described as calm. 

That is not what the frightened and demoralised inhabitants describe. It was the silence of fear after the display of sheer destructive power over the city. Clearly what lay behind Trump’s decision was containment in the aftermath of the attacks. The US military had previously concluded that the overthrow of Maduro could lead to widespread violence. Without the continuing control of the Chavista bureaucracy there would have been a reaction from the people, and against the return of the viciously anti-Chávez right, which would certainly retaliate against Chavistas if given half a chance. There is plenty of evidence that the deal with Trump was reached before the attack, as Delcy’s nomination makes clear. 

For the left across the world, Chávez’s election in 1998 and his Bolivarian Constitution were a source of hope and inspiration, of anti-imperialism in practice. But after his mysterious death in 2013, the government of his replacement, Maduro, oversaw a deepening economic crisis. There was widespread economic sabotage and massive shortages of food and medicines, which were due to the inefficiencies and corruption of the state sector as well as US sanctions. Though Maduro insisted that his government was the continuation of Chavismo, and exploited Chávez’s image and popularity at every turn, it was run by a new layer of people who had made careers, and a great deal of money, in the state bureaucracy which was rife with corruption.

More importantly, the grassroots organisations – trade unions, cooperatives and community organisations – which were supposed to be the foundation of 21st century socialism, and the PSUV (‘the United Socialist Party of Venezuela’), were controlled from above and increasingly repressed. The new bureaucracy, still calling itself Chavista, used the PSUV as an instrument of patronage and manipulation. As the economic crisis grew worse, 7 million Venezuelans left the country in search of work and as a reaction against state repression. Some exiles joined demonstrations on 3 January praising Trump for arresting Maduro. The awakening will come very soon as Trump takes all the country’s oil profits and people will again be facing scarcity and shortages on a massive scale. 

The majority of those who left – the poor – crossed the borders to Colombia, Peru and Chile or north to the US, where they would find themselves persecuted or threatened with expulsion. Meanwhile a new state bureaucracy, claiming to continue the policies and ideas of Chávez, grew wealthy on corruption and the diversion of state funds, while the internal gulf between rich and poor was visibly widening within Venezuela. The armed forces enjoyed major privileges – higher wages, housing, special shops and so on – as the government was increasingly militarised and the state party, the PSUV, was an instrument of patronage and control for the new bourgeoisie, the boliburguesía.

Trump has said he will send his own appointees to run the oil industry together with the bureaucratic state, which despite the country’s enormous reserves is in a poor condition after years of mismanagement and neglect. Trump has already promised huge subsidies to the multinationals. It will be the Venezuelan population that pays for that as public spending collapses and the oil earnings will take years to become available. 

A cynical deal

The post Maduro government, led by Delcy Rodríguez, will keep most of the existing Chavista leadership in place in Trump’s promised protectorate. Clearly what lay behind Trump’s decision was containment in the aftermath of the attacks. The US military had previously concluded that the overthrow of Maduro could lead to widespread violence. Without the continuing control of the Chavista bureaucracy, there would have been a reaction from the people, and against the return of the viciously anti-Chávez right, which would certainly retaliate against Chavistas. Trump recognised María Corina Machado did not have the necessary support.  

The decision to return the existing bureaucracy to power, minus a few of its original members, is evidence of collusion between Trump and elements of the Chavista leadership. One general turned and provided the Americans with information on Maduro’s whereabouts. While Maduro is to go on trial in the coming days, and no doubt be subject to public humiliation, it is unclear whether or not he will return as his ex-colleagues now back in power are demanding. If that did happen, it would not be to return and lead resistance to the occupation, which he made no attempt to mobilise in practice as president, but to legitimise the new collaborationist regime, as the members of Maduro’s government have already done.

Before the attack, Defence Minister Padrino López promised that 4 million militias would defend Venezuela. Yet there was no reaction, no call to arms, no mobilisation of the popular organisations. It is clear that there was no intention to resist on the part of the so-called Chavista leadership  which presents a unified face but which is internally divided into several factions that are likely to become involved in an internal battle for power while controlling and containing the population. Trump’s assumption is that they can contain internal conflict in conditions of deepening economic crisis as Venezuelans pay the price of war. 

We know that Trump’s views on how to run a state involve extreme violence, the suppression of personal and civil liberties and pernicious racist immigration policies. It will be no surprise if state violence increases in Venezuela too as the majority population begins to realise that they will bear the cost of the extraction of Maduro’s government, and as they seek to defend the capacity of the collective organisations – trade unions, cooperatives, collectives etc – to develop their own response. The truth is that the Chavista leadership reached a cynical accommodation with imperialism to ensure their own political survival. And that will not be lost on the millions of Venezuelans who mobilised in support of Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution. 

When Chavez declared the creation of the PSUV, it was presented as a mass party of participatory democracy. But it was not the expression of an organised working class response nor did it lead to the creation of new organs of power from below. It was a top-down structure, the party of the state. Its leadership was announced, not elected. And it was dominated by a new class, the beneficiaries of new patronage, the ‘bolibourgeoisie’. Corruption and profiteering were rife, and when Chavez died in 2013, Chavismo had already changed. The PSUV became an instrument of control and patronage, through schemes like the CLAPS, the distribution of food to members. It still carried the weight of Chavez’s reputation, despite the obvious privileges enjoyed by those who claimed his inheritance. The Chavista bureaucracy became increasingly repressive, not only of the right-wing opposition, but of working-class organisations, trade unions,and critics from within Chavismo. 

Maduro’s announcement of the Arco Minero project was an early sign. It referred to the Orinoco Basin, some 12% of the national territory; it is a rich biodiverse area and the location of much of Venezuela’s mineral wealth. The project Maduro announced amounted to the privatisation of those resources, opening them to multinationals , including Chevron, and to foreign interests. It was a plan that Chávez had rejected before his death because of its environmental and social impact. Not only was the project implemented but the whole area was placed under military control, as was much of the oil industry. 

The kidnapping of Maduro is a warning to every Latin American government. For that reason alone it must be denounced and every instrument used to expose its real purpose. As resistance develops in the face of the deteriorating conditions that will face most Venezuelans, the watchword must be solidarity with the people and the resistance organisations developed at the grass roots. But there can be no calls for solidarity with a regime that has delivered the country to imperialism or any of its members who remain in control of the country. They cannot claim to have led a revolutionary government that was overthrown. It was a surrender on agreed terms. 

Chávez himself was deeply committed to the idea of a united Latin American front against imperialism. Faced with Trump’s constant threats, that will be hard to build between governments, many of whom have also compromised, or are frightened at the prospect of forever wars. But internationally and across Latin America a different kind of solidarity movement can be built with trade unions, popular organisations, cooperatives and the Latin American left.

Chavista legacy

The Chavista project remains in the popular memory in Venezuela, but it is not the Chavismo of an authoritarian state. From Trump’s point of view it made sense to deal with the existing government which still had some authority and sway over the majority. The news reports outside Venezuela showed people celebrating. Some were refugees who were deluded enough to imagine that Trump would bring democracy to the country and dismantle the authoritarian structures Maduro had created. The bourgeoisie had no such illusions. From their safe refuge in Miami and Spain they echoed María Corina’s call to abolish the Missions – the social programmes that had flourished under Chávez –  and to privatise the oil industry. It is very likely that there will be cracks within the government as new opportunities for power emerge while Trump and his right-wing allies take revenge on the Chávez project.  

Ripples across Latin America

The first test may be Cuba as Rubio and Trump have threatened. Cuba is dependent on Venezuelan oil and economic support. If that lifeline is cut, there will be devastating consequences.  Cuban medics and teachers who staffed the Venezuelan missions will be sent back, though that will produce a reaction among the poor and working class with whom they were popular. Will the Chavista leadership bow to Trump’s attitudes to Cuba? 

Maduro did not lead a revolutionary government but a corrupt bureaucracy. Nevertheless, his kidnapping and trial sends a message to every Latin American leader with an independent project. Lula, the Brazilian president and a symbol of independent politics, has condemned Trump’s threats. A different faction of Chavismo has taken over in Venezuela, but it has already made very clear that, far from defending Chávez’s radical programme of transformations, it has accommodated to Trump and represents a ruling class defending its own interests and not those of the country’s poor and working class. 

There will be resistance as the situation deteriorates. It will take many forms when the initial shock of the invasion has passed. Every example, however limited, should be supported by the left outside the country. The defence of Venezuela is an international obligation. If ‘Hands off Venezuela’ is a slogan heard across the world it will be possible to support and inspire that resistance. In the face of Trump’s neo-fascism and aggression, international solidarity can inspire resistance. And in the US itself the growing anti-Trump protests are the beginning of such a movements, as the response to the Minneapolis murder by ICE has shown. The supine attitude of Congress and Senate and the hesitation of politicians in Europe to denounce imperialism suggest that the existing institutions and laws will not work to bring that about. It is a rising tide from below that will give confidence to the real Chavistas in Venezuela and their equivalents across Latin America.

Hands off Venezuela, for international solidarity and resistance from below.

Read part 1 of this article here.

Mike Gonzalez is emeritus professor of Latin American Studies at Glasgow University, the author of several books and pamphlets on the history and workers movements of Latin America and a longstanding revolutionary socialist.