April 13 marked the third anniversary of the defeat of a coup against the democratically elected president  Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. In honor of the event, citizens held massive local celebrations and an international solidarity conference: “Encuentro Mundial de Solidaridad con la Revolution Bolivariana.” Solidarity activists represented more than 20 countries.

Shift to the Left

Although, the majority came from other Latin American countries, Canada had a strong delegation. The party from the U.S., however, was small; a few from California, a strong delegation from Boston and  some from Florida and Chicago. It is not clear if this small turnout is due to lack of publicity or lack of awareness of the importance of the Venezuelan revolution in the U.S. Participants took part in one of eight workshops: agrarian reform, housing, worker management, citizen participation, alternative media, indigenous people, women or education. Each workshop was held in a different part of the country. There were also hundreds of Venezuelan activists participating in the conference who were able to use the conference for a discussion of their current challenges. The following observations are mainly a reflection of the citizen participation workshop I attended.

The revolution unfolding in Venezuela today is the leading edge of a massive social and political shift to the left that is happening throughout Latin America from Chile up through Mexico. The past decade of globalization (what they call “neoliberalism”) has brought increased poverty and economic decline throughout the region. The result has been a shift away from governments beholden to the free market and toward leaders and parties representing the poor and working people, who are the overwhelming majority.

This process has gone the furthest in Venezuela. In the early years of his presidency, Chavez was a supporter of the “third way,” a reference to attempts to build an alternative to both the capitalist and the old Stalinist economic models. He and other leaders now speak openly and often about their conclusion that the capitalist model is a dead end (sometimes quoting the Pope) with no future in Latin America: socialism is the only road forward.

 How this new direction toward socialism will unfold remains to be seen but there are indications that it will be a dynamic new road that could serve as a model for all the Americas. What is most often discussed is the desire to build a socialist society marked by a massive increase in popular democratic involvement. The forms of this new democracy are still being worked out. There has been a massive increase in local community councils and cooperatives to address economic and social organization at the local level. The conference was a forum for activists throughout Latin America who are involved in similar efforts to increase democratic participation under more difficult circumstances.

 Education is a primary weapon in raising cultural and political awareness in the poorest communities. There is a literacy campaign along with a series of “missions” aimed at enabling people to return to school and finish high school. A new university “Universidad Simon Bolivar” has been built to massively expand college opportunities for students who had no access to the privileged university system before the revolution.

Beyond Protest to Empowerment

 Local democratic participation is woven through the new national constitution that was enacted in the wake of Chavez’s election in 1999. In order to get many new services, a local community must organize itself, discuss and vote on its priorities and often form local cooperatives to carry out the work. They speak openly about the limitations of classic representative democracy where one can only hope that an elected official remains honest and works for the people. As another local leader put it, “Sometimes laws are not the answer, we have to empower people.” This is in contrast to the historical culture of Venezuela that has been marked by passive complaining and the demand that the government do something to provide for its people.

Part of the impetus for this massive expansion of democratic institutions is the fact that when Chavez was elected in 1999, he represented a weak, newly created party called the MVR — Movement for the Fifth Republic. While popular, the party is underdeveloped. Some fear it is used by many to get elected or to get jobs. The old state apparatus, with thousands of functionaries accustomed to the old ways of doing little is still intact and a major obstacle to social change. As one activist put it, “We have won the government but not the state.” Rather than purge, the strategy has been to set up a parallel government that provides direct social services to the poor (social service “missions,” clinics, food distribution, schools, micro-credits, etc.). Community councils that provide organization and representation down to the level of block committees are being set up to take over some aspects of local administration. Through this process two very important improvements are taking place: new layers of the population are learning what it means to be active, empowered citizens and a new layer of leaders in the government and economy is being trained.

In addition, there are increasing efforts to turn major workplaces over to workers’ management. This effort began in bankrupt industries (a major paper mill) and is now spreading to major state-owned businesses. In addition to nationalized oil, the country has major aluminum, mining and iron ore industries owned by the state. These industries were poorly run and often corrupt. A “revolution within the revolution” is now underway to eat away at the old, corrupt modes of management and transform these industries into dynamic producers of wealth, jobs and resources to benefit the whole society. The road chosen has not been to simply choose better managers or better bureaucrats. In the major aluminum factory, Venalum, there have been, in the past month, discussions, debates and elections to choose new leadership of the plant from within the ranks of the workers. The goal is a workers’ management that will revive production, efficiency and integrity in the plant. Most importantly, a new model of plant management and new layer of leadership from the shop floor has a chance to emerge. This process is complex, difficult and has few healthy precedents. There will be many mistakes along the way. The key is to have the time needed for such a major transformation to develop.

Che Guevara spoke often about the problems of a bureaucratically planned economy in the model of the old Soviet Union. He advocated the development of a conscious and politically active population. Through the conference discussion and in projects around Venezuela, you can see this process unfolding. Often the major players are women. Chavez makes a point to highlight the development of women as leaders when he speaks. The Venezuelans do not feel they are reinventing the wheel. They are openly looking to the experience of others for examples. When the mayor of the mountain city of Merida was discussing the multiple problems they were facing, he stated “If we have a problem, it has probably been solved somewhere else in Latin America.” In his opening speech to the conference, Chavez called the Bolivarian revolution, “A humble daughter of the great revolutions of the world.” When speaking of deep, cultural change, he encourages a shift from the mentality of “me” to one of “we.”

Presidential Chat Show

The issue of how the leadership of this revolution is organized and how it is developing a coherent theory to lead is complex and challenging. It is clear that the role of Chavez is significant. His popularity is rising. His image is familiar. He has a regular five-hour television variety show called “Alo Presidente” that is used to educate the country about the challenges and prospects of the political process.

This is not just a cult of personality around a strong man/caudillo in the model of Juan Peron. There are thousands of dedicated politically revolutionary activists who are advancing the ideas and organization of the revolution throughout all sectors of society (except the wealthy). The organizational forms are diverse. There are “Bolivarian Circles” which are loose groupings of activists with modest organizational success. There are activists in the missions doing community organizing day in and day out. There are student organizations. There are two other left parties that support Chavez but do not appear to have much of a mass base. There are activists in the workplace, the best of which have built a whole new pro-revolutionary national union federation. So when one asks, where do people go for political organization and discussion, the answer is most often that they go to work organizing.

The opposition held a rally to commemorate the coup on April 13^th. There were fewer than a thousand present. By all reports, the opposition appears demoralized. It has played its strongest cards and lost. Chavez predicts it will attempt to distort next year’s election. For that reason, he is campaigning for 10 million votes as a goal to gain a mandate to continue the revolution.

Revolutionary Components

There are a number of features of the revolution in Venezuela that can work to enhance the potential for its survival both internally and against what will be increasing pressure from the United States.

This is a deep, thorough-going revolution that is in progress. This is not simply the election of another left populist government. There is a mobilization of a significant part of the population to fight for its class interests. It could be defined as a “Workers and Farmers Government.”

The Chavez leadership is a break from the models of social democracy and Stalinism that could set an example of a revolutionary direction for the rest of the continent. It is typical to see posters of Chavez flanked by Bolivar on one side and Che on the other. Because of the position of Venezuela geographically and economically, Chavez can play a role in the region that is more significant than that of Fidel and the Cubans.

The presence of oil at its current price means that, for the first time in history, a revolution has resulted in an immediate rise in living standards rather than in their collapse, as was the case in Russia, China and ¾ to a lesser degree--Cuba. The size of the nationalized industries inherited by the revolution means that they have the economic base to fund social programs and build broader support for the revolution. This power allowed them to withstand a massive capitalist strike in 2002 (similar to the strike that sank Allende in Chile). The government can also set up parallel economic institutions, such as state-owned food stores, to undercut the capitalists.

This economic base means that there is the potential to buy the desperately needed time to develop a new revolutionary layer of society capable of administering the state. There is less need to prematurely nationalize industries or collectivize land--a requirement that often outpaces the ability of a new society to effectively build its economic administration.

Peaceful Revolution

The defeat of the coup provides an opportunity to purge the army of many of its counterrevolutionary currents. Because the army can now be expanded to defend the revolution, and at the same time help in social and economic development, Venezuela is on a road radically different from Chile’s, where the army led the counterrevolution. The are plans to increase reserves from 200,000 to 500,000.

This revolution is embedded in a rising tide of left political movements from Chile to the Rio Grande. This is its most powerful defense and a major impediment to imperialist intervention, as the Bush administration openly complains.

This revolution has happened without a bloodbath, without mass public executions, without the need for a repressive state that curbs civil liberties and with massive democratic election victories. This robs the opposition and the Bush administration of ammunition in the propaganda war against the revolution. Many spurious charges have been, and will be, invented by the opposition. 

 There are sectors that want to push the revolution forward at a faster pace. This is true among farmers wanting land but frustrated by the slow pace of land reform. It is true among workers in the fight for workers’ control in a variety of industries. But the frustration appears to be correctly focused on the obstacles of the old state apparatus and the rich, thereby avoiding the rise of ultra-left pressure that might provoke a crack-down by the new state.

The popularity of Chavez within the unique history of the Venezuelan left appears to be a gravitational force for political unity that is holding down splits and sectarian battles that might otherwise hamper leadership development (as happened in Nicaragua).

The oil wealth is allowing Venezuela to develop what Che advocated ¾ trade based on human need rather than the market. Chavez has signed a trade agreement favorable to Cuba. He is trading oil to Argentina for pregnant cows, etc. This, along with efforts to build a Pan-American trading bloc, is creating a regional, political and economic bulwark against future U.S. intervention.

For the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union, a new model of socialism is emerging that has the potential to be an example and an inspiration for all of the Americas.

In the coming months, the Bush administration will increase its pressure on Venezuela. After all, it is sitting on “our” oil supply. The example of the revolution needs to be understood more widely in the U.S. This will be the necessary basis of a solidarity movement yet to be built. The example of Venezuela should be seen first hand. Coming opportunities include the “World Festival of Students and Youth” in August and the hemispheric meeting of the “World Social Forum” next February; both will take place Caracas. In addition, Global Exchange organizes “reality tours.”

For further analysis of the Bolivarian revolution, the Monthly Review articles by Marta Harnecker and others are excellent. Richard Gott’s In the Shadow of the Liberator is an extensive history of Chavez’s political development. He will soon publish a new history of the revolution. Current news and analysis from the perspective of the defenders of the revolutionary process can be found at http://www.venezuelanalysis.com and www. Handsoffvenezuela.org.

John Olmsted is a psychologist who writes from Portland, OR.