The present wave of social revolutions that swept Latin America began in 1992, with the storming of the San Carlos Barracks by then-Lieutenant Hugo Chavez. We have seen a series of revolutions in the region since, ushering in new, more progressive economic models. As a result of this, extreme poverty has plummeted in Bolivia, from nearly 50% in 2000 to 13% in 2020; 20 million Brazilians have been lifted out of poverty; participatory democracy has been introduced in Venezuela; and over 10.5 million affordable social housing units have been constructed across the region; delivering the greatest blow to US imperialism in Latin America since the Cuban revolution in 1959 by charting an independent foreign policy free from US dominance.
Though Chavez’s 1992 coup failed, and he was forced to command everyone to stand down, he finished with the famous words:
“Friends, for now our objectives could not be achieved… now is the time for a rethink; new possibilities will arise again, and the country will be able to move definitively towards a better future.”
This coup attempt occurred during a period of civil discontent in Venezuela, known as Caracazo, which saw mass public demonstrations and the subsequent massacre of thousands of demonstrators by President Carlos Andrés Pérez. The demonstrators had been protesting against Pérez’s decision to accept International Monetary Fund loans proposed by Washington, with the typical stipulations for austerity and privatisation measures that would ensure price hikes, declined public services and increased poverty for the masses.
Whilst in prison, Chavez did indeed rethink his strategy, and eventually won the Presidential election in 1999. Chavez succeeded as he rose to fame as a champion of the people, with a clear vision for the country’s future as one that is no longer indebted to US imperialism and willing and able to improve its own society— otherwise known as his intense opposition to neoliberalism.
He opposed the Monroe Doctrine, and inspired other Latin American leaders to follow suit. The Monroe Doctrine, developed in the early 19th century, proclaimed the US’ absolute dominion over South America, stripping the nations there of any sovereignty. The Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeono describes US imperialism:
“Latin America is the region of open veins. Everything, from the discovery until our times, has always been transmuted into European— or later United States— capital, and as such has accumulated in distant centers of power. Everything: the soil, its fruits and its mineral-rich depths, the people and their capacity to work and to consume, natural resources and human resources. Production methods and class structure have been successively determined from outside for each area by meshing it into the universal gearbox of capitalism…
Our defeat was always implicit in the victory of others; our wealth has always generated our poverty by nourishing the prosperity of others — the empires and their native overseers. In the colonial and neocolonial alchemy, gold changes into scrap metal and food into poison.”
Simon Bolivar led the successful anti-colonial resistance to Spanish rule of the Americas in the 19th century, reemerged in the 21st century as the namesake of Chavez’s ideology. Bolivarianism evoked the Venezuelan officer’s role in the regional independence of Latin America, and linked his legacy with the modern opposition to imperialism.
Chavez summarised Bolivarianism into 5 points:
- Calling for the recovery of sovereignty over the nation’s resources and decisions.
- Promoting regional unity and integration to jointly confront the challenges of history.
- Putting into motion a process to counter the manufactured consent of the mainstream. media and to democratise communications.
- Putting into a place a democracy where people have direct participation and are leading agents of their own transformation.
- Consolidating the popular character of the armed forces within the revolution to guarantee the project’s comprehensive defence through civil-military unity.
It’s clear that Bolivarianism provides a progressive framework in South America. It stands against imperialism, supports regional self-determination, encourages widening democratic participation and the reintegration of the military into a project of civil defence.
As a result of these progressive characteristics, the Bolivarian project is sincerely allied with the Cuban revolution. Fidel Castro and Chavez fostered a great friendship as fraternal comrades. This support led to the creation in 2006 of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), a joint Cuban-Venezuelan socio-economic alliance for a new independent international order in the region. Based on the principles of Bolivarianism, it served as a counter to the US-dominated regional organisations, such as the Organization of American States.
Ignoring the cruel US sanctions, Venezuela began supplying approximately 96,000 barrels of oil daily from its state-owned oil company to Cuba, and in exchange, Cuba sent 20,000 doctors and thousands of teachers to Venezuela’s most economically disadvantaged regions. The agreement also allowed Venezuelans to access specialised medical care in Cuba free of charge. ALBA continues to live up to its ideals, most recently, by launching the ALBA 2030 project during its 2019 conference. The initiative boldly seeks to establish agricultural self-sufficiency across its member states, in order to achieve “food sovereignty”— nullifying the exploitative international relations that use food scarcity as a bargaining chip. In addition to this, ALBA 2030 aims to create a gender observatory to evaluate and build policies to promote equality and guarantee the rights of women and children.
The Bolivarian project is not above criticism. It fundamentally disagrees with Marxism-Leninism regarding the strategy of defeating the ruling capitalist class. It is not revolutionary in the ‘armed’ sense, and, therefore, faces serious setbacks as capitalist forces utilise all their means to oppose progress and disrupt the Bolivarian project. In Venezuela this translated to the refusal of opposition officials to implement Mission Barrio Adentro— the channelling of Cuban doctors to deprived Venezuelan neighbourhoods under the ALBA agreement. In Venezuela, Honduras, and Bolivia ruling-class opposition translated into violent military coups; in Brazil it brought about a parliamentary coup; and in Ecuador and Peru the Bolivarian project collapsed in the face of shortsighted intra-party conflict.
Chavez was directly confronted with this issue in the infancy of the Bolivarian project in 2002. He was asked:
“Don’t you think that as the revolutionary process is radicalized it is more and more difficult to count on majority support from a group whose formation is very much influenced by the values of the ruling classes and that, therefore, is very susceptible to the campaign that the reactionary sectors launch against your government?”
He responded:
“Yes, I think that’s normal. I believe that this happens in any example anywhere in the world.”
Lenin was similarly confronted by this issue. A vanguard party was his solution— a disciplined, educated, militant party with influence across all sectors of society. The Bolivarian project does not account for the fact that the ruling class is determined and ruthless when you chip at its power, and is set back by its reluctance to adopt a more revolutionary approach.
The Bolivarian project is undoubtedly progressive and creates an international framework in direct opposition to neoliberalism and US imperialism. Of course, it is imperfect, but to fight against something because it is not exactly perfect is a dogmatic way of thinking— unproductive and harmful for communists.
As a case study, the position of the communists in the Spanish Civil War illustrates that the correct position is to provide support for the progressive forces at play, while the dogmatic left will seek to sabotage them as ‘imperfect’. George Orwell, the social-democrat journalist famous for his righteous exhortations against ‘totalitarian fanaticism’, attempted to justify the counterproductive efforts of the Trotskyist POUM militia, who clashed with the Republican forces in the middle of the civil war against the nationalists, in markedly dogmatic terms: “The workers’ militias and police-forces must be preserved in their present form and every effort to ‘bourgeoisify’ them must be resisted.”
Returning to Bolivarianism, it remains the defining progressive force in South American politics. In simple terms, it is our cause to defend what has benefited the working class. Anything else is to support the cause of the bosses, the cause of the imperialists.
The US will organise against us, they have already utilised their economic strength, their media, their arms against the Bolivarian revolution. If they are organised and fighting, then so must we, in defence of the Bolivarian project. It is the responsibility of the communists of South American countries to form their own line in relation to the Bolivarian revolution, and it is ours to oppose our ruling class and form our own line— not to blindly follow others. Communist parties and our sister organisations across the region have a diverse range of positions on the Bolivarian revolution, for instance, the Communist Party of Bolivia supports its version of the Bolivarian project. Meanwhile, the Communist Party of Venezuela have decided to end their long-term electoral alliance with Chavez’s party, in favour of supporting an opposing candidate. These positions are in relation to their own domestic relationships with the Bolivarian project: the Communist Party of Venezuela has faced repression from the Bolivarian government; the Communist Party of Bolivia has not.
Our stance in Britain is shaped by our own ruling class and its position, which is violently against the Bolivarian revolution. with constant overt and covert economic and military attacks. Britain has directly organised and financed military coups in Bolivarian countries, as well as taking measures to frustrate development and cripple the economies of these nations, such as freezing $2bn worth of Venezuelan bullion in the Bank of England. Our position must not be to support the complete annihilation of any alternative progressive international order. As Lenin establishes:
“The Socialist of another country cannot expose the government and bourgeoisie of a country at war with “his own” nation, and not only because he does not know that country’s language, history, specific features, etc., but also because such exposure is part of imperialist intrigue, and not an internationalist duty.”
We have our place within the belly of US imperialism, a place to organise and struggle, to rupture the belly of the beast from the inside. Anything else is to be a part of imperialist intrigue: in other words, our place is not to harm those attacking US imperialism from the outside— it is counter to the progress of humanity if we do so. So, go out and organise against your ruling class, and if you don’t win at first, friends, that is only for now. Rethink and new possibilities will arise again.
Berkan Çelebi, is a member of the YCL’s South Yorkshire Branch
