Editorial
What
is the Issue in Venezuela?
There has been a lot of speculation about Venezuela and its president, Hugo Chavez, since the narrow defeat of his constitutional reforms last month. Some commentators have claimed that the defeat seriously undermines Chavez’ attempts to build “socialism for the twenty-first century”. Others, by contrast, have tried to portray the defeat as a victory of sorts for Chavez, presenting him as a great statesman for his gracious acceptance of the referendum results. Some supporters of Chavez have even welcomed the results because they believe that his proposed reforms would have concentrated too much power in the hands of the president. Still others have supported the reforms, claiming that the building of socialism requires the concentration of powers in the hands of one man.
Almost all of the commentaries and speculation regarding the referendum results have centred on the issue of socialism. Apart from the fact that there is an almost complete lack of scientific analysis of precisely what Chavez’ “socialism for the twenty-first century” really amounts to, the bottom line is that all of this speculation misses the main point in regard to Venezuela and the role being played by President Chavez.
It is really irrelevant whether or not Chavez is building socialism in Venezuela or what kind of socialism he envisions. That is a matter for the people of Venezuela to sort out; they have a right to build whatever social and economic system they desire, without interference from abroad. They have a right to set oil royalties at a level that they deem fair and to use the revenues from the sale of oil for whatever purposes they see fit without threats of sanctions or military interventions by U.S. imperialism. They also have the right to establish whatever economic, political and military alliances they feel are necessary to ensure the survival and prosperity of their country.
If Chavez feels that it is desirable to link the independent development of Venezuela to the mission of the working class to build socialism, so be it. However, support for his policies should not be contingent on what he claims to be building. Many before him have claimed to be building socialism in order to cover up their conciliation and collaboration with imperialism and the collapse of their so-called “socialisms” has inflicted tremendous harm on the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements.
For almost 50 years Cuba has stood as a symbol of unflinching opposition to U.S. imperialism and as a staunch supporter of the oppressed peoples of the world. Within that context, whether or not Cuba represents a model for building socialism is essentially irrelevant. Cuba has managed to maintain its independence from U.S. imperialism despite great difficulties and many twists and turns in international politics. It could not have accomplished that feat if the Cuban state did not serve the interests of the Cuban people or if the Cuban people did not support the Cuban state. The content and orientation of the Cuban revolution is a matter between the Cuban people and the Cuban state. It is sufficient for the rest of the world’s people that Cuba has resolutely opposed U.S. imperialism and its hegemonic machinations around the world.
This should also be the standard of support in the case of Chavez and Venezuela. If Chavez continues to oppose U.S. imperialism and defend the independence of Venezuela and other countries threatened by imperialism, he deserves the support of the world’s people. That support should not be conditional on whether or not Chavez is building socialism in Venezuela, nor on the relative quality of that socialism. Those who insist on making the issue in Venezuela a matter of socialism (and especially those who are attempting to use Chavez’ “socialism for the twenty-first century” to oppose the socialist projects of the twentieth century) are doing a disservice both to the struggle for socialism and the struggle against imperialism.