I've sent this letter to the Weekly Worker in response to their churlish "critique" of my recent articles on Venezuela.
Marxism vs Chávez apologetics
For years the CPGB has been silent on Venezuela, content with its role as a left-wing gossip sheet.
Now Nick Rogers (Weekly Worker, 1 December) has produced a rambling essay, notable only for its lack of originality and pitiful political analysis.
Rogers makes a snide little jibe at my recent articles in Solidarity, where I characterise Chávez as a Bonapartist figure and emphasise that the new trade union confederation (the UNT) and socialists such as the PRS should oppose him.
Rogers denies Chávez is a Bonaparte, because he says “Bonapartism describes a type of regime in which an essentially authoritarian figure exercises executive state power outside the norms of bourgeois constitutional rule”. Such jibberish cannot be allowed to pass for Marxist analysis.
Marx called Bonapartism “the rule of the praetorians”, a regime where the bourgeoisie, to preserve its social power, relinquishes political power. Engels thought it was the normal form of bourgeois rule, “it promotes the great material interests of the bourgeoisie even against the bourgeoisie”. Trotsky said Bonapartism occurred where the bourgeoisie was “compelled to tolerate – in order to preserve its possessions – the uncontrolled command of a military and police apparatus over it, of a crowned ‘saviour’… the aim of Bonapartism is to prevent explosions.”
The historical example of Bonapartism I cited in Solidarity – Trotsky’s analysis of Mexico under Cardenas – took place within the realms of the Mexican constitution. One might make the same point about other forms – making Rogers’ objection merely juridical cretinism.
Rogers also denies Chávez is a Bonaparte essentially because the Venezuelan state hasn’t yet conducted widespread repression of the working class. He overlooks the use of armed force during the floods in 1999, or against indigenous people in Pemón and against steelworkers last year, a warning of things to come when the class struggle sharpens. But instead of preparing Venezuelan workers for an assault, Rogers prefers to console them by promoting Chávez’s constitutional propriety.
Rogers appears to believe that it’s up to the Venezuelan bourgeois whether Chávez is a Bonaparte. At least my analysis has the merit of specifying which class Chávez represents – the interests of Venezuelan national capital. Rogers ignores the substantial links between Chávez and business, preferring to present Chávez merely as a social democrat because he’s got some ex-Communist supporters. If Chávez is a social democrat, would Rogers favour socialists joining his MVR party, or voting for it? He describes the MVR as a “shambles” – though no doubt with some advice from the CPGB this could be sorted out.
But then there is hardly anything Marxist about Rogers’ piece. It has no grip on the potential tendencies of the regime and how it is likely behave towards the working class and its organisations – through co-option or repression. This is exemplified by the short, passing references to the UNT and PRS. For all his talk of the working class, there is little on the concerns or struggles of socialist workers, or on the form independent working class politics might take in Venezuela. The AWL believes Chávez is an opponent of Venezuelan workers; Socialist Appeal preach (not very) critical support. The CPGB need to decide which side they are on.
Rogers finishes with a peculiar flourish. Instead of highlighting the issues for working class independence, he raises the unique demand for a Constituent Assembly and a “sixth republic” in Venezuela. No doubt consoled by some weighty concerns about economism or a mechanical analogy with Russia before 1917, inserting some kind of “democratic” stage, his programme drops from the air with little basis for it in the previous 5,000 words.
In short, the Weekly Worker is better off remaining silent, or just sticking to chatter.