[p2p-research] interview about venezuela - nterview with William I. Robinson:

[Michel Bauwens]

*Chavez's "Bolivarian revolution" has been very popular with the poor. Could
you describe out how the Venezuelan society has changed since Chavez came to
power?*

First of all, let us acknowledge that the Bolivarian revolution has placed
democratic socialism back on the worldwide agenda. We went through a period
in the 1990s where most were scared to even talk of socialism, when it
seemed that global capitalism had reached the apex of its hegemony and when
some on the left even bought into the "end of history" thesis.

The Bolivarian revolution has given the poor and largely Afro-Caribbean
masses their voice for the first time since the war of independence from
Spanish colonialism. The Chavez government has reoriented priorities to the
poor majority. It has been able to use oil revenues, in particular, to
develop health, education and other social programs that have had dramatic
results in reducing poverty, virtually eliminating illiteracy, and improving
the health of the population. International organisations and
data-collecting agencies have recognised these remarkable social
achievements.

However, as someone who visits Venezuela regularly, I would say that the
more fundamental change since Chavez came to power is not these social
indicators but the political and socio-psychological awakening of the poor
majority -- a broad process of popular, grassroots mobilisation, cultural
expression, political participation and empowerment. The old elite and the
bourgeoisie have been partially replaced from the state and from formal
political power -- although not entirely.

But the real fear and resentment of the old dominant groups, the panic and
their hatred for Chavez, is because they have felt slip from their grip the
ability to exercise cultural and socio-psychological domination over the
popular classes as they have done for decades, nay centuries. Of course,
there still plenty of other mechanisms through which the bourgeoisie and the
political agents of the *ancien regime* are able to wield their influence,
particularly through the mass media that is still largely in their hands ...
and this is why the "media battles" in Venezuela play such a prominent role.

That said, there are all kinds of problems and contradictions internal to
the Bolivarian revolution.

*How widespread are nationalisation plans under Chavez and is there any
evidence so far that they bring the desired results? *

The obvious major economic change has been the recovery of the country's oil
for a popular project -- and even at that there is still a PDVSA [state oil
company] bureaucratic oligarchy. Other key enterprises, such as steel, have
been nationalised. And the cooperative sector -- with all its problems --
has spread. Nonetheless, let's be clear: economic power is still largely in
the hands of the bourgeoisie.

Let us recall that the Venezuelan revolution is unique in that the old
reactionary state was not "smashed" as it was in other revolutions. The
strategy of the revolution has been to set up new parallel institutions and
to also try to "colonise" the old state. But the Venezuelan state is still
largely a capitalist state. The key question is how can a transformative
project move forward while operating through a corrupt, clientalist,
bureaucratic and often inert state bequeathed by the ancient regime?

If revolutionary and socialist forces come to power within a capitalist
political process how do you confront the capitalist state and the brakes it
places on transformative processes? In fact, in Venezuela, and also in
Bolivia and elsewhere, prevailing state institutions often act to constrain,
dilute and coopt mass struggles from below.

In my view, in Venezuela the biggest threat to the revolution does not come
from the right-wing political opposition but from the so-called "endogenous"
or "Chavista" right wing, in that chunks of the revolutionary bloc,
including state elites and party officials, will develop a deeper stake in
defending global capitalism over socialist transformation.

*The revolution has been going on for over a decade now. Is it maturing or
is it reaching a stage of decline and deformation?*

I would not say that the revolution is in "decline" or "deformation".
Rather, we need to be more expansive in our historical analysis and even
theoretical reflection on what is going on at this historical juncture of
21st century global capitalism and its crisis. The turn to the left in Latin
America started out as a rebellion against neoliberalism. The
post-neoliberal regimes undertook mild redistributive reform and limited
nationalisations, particularly of energy resources and public services that
had previously been privatised. They were able to reactive accumulation. But
post-neoliberalism that does not now move towards a deeper socialist
transformation runs up against limits.

The Bolivarian process faces contradictions, problems and limitations, as do
all historic projects! I would say that both the Venezuelan revolution and
also the Bolivian and Ecuadoran processes, may be coming up against the
limits of redistributive reform within the logic of global capitalism,
especially given the crisis of global capitalism. Anti-neoliberalism that
does not challenge more fundamentally the very logic of capitalism runs up
against limitations that may now have been reached.

It may be that the best or the only defence of the revolution is to
radicalise and deepen the revolutionary process, to push forward structural
transformations that go beyond redistribution. The fact is that the
Venezuelan bourgeoisie may have been displaced in part from political power
but it is still very much in economic control. Breaking that economic
control implies a more significant change in property and class relations.
This in turn means breaking the domination of capital, of global capital and
its local agents. Naturally this is a Herculean task. There is no clear way
forward and each step generates complex new contradictions and Gordian
knots. Of course these are matters the whole global left must contemplate.

Let us recall the lessons of the Nicaraguan and other revolutions.
Multiclass alliances generate contradictions once the honeymoon stage of
easy redistributive reform and social programs reach their limit. Then
multiclass alliances begin to collapse because there are fundamental
contradictions between distinct class projects and interests. At that point
a revolution must more clearly define its class project; not just in
discourse or in politics but in actual structural transformation.

At a more technical level, we could say that the contradictions generated by
trying to break the domination of global capital are not the fault of the
revolution. Venezuela is still a capitalist country in which the law of
value, of capital accumulation, is operative. Efforts to establish a
contrary logic -- a logic of social need and social distribution -- run up
against the law of value. But in a capitalist society violating the law of
value throws everything haywire, generating many problems and new
disequilibria that the counterrevolution is able to take advantage of. This
is the challenge for any socialist-oriented revolution within global
capitalism.

Venezuela: Epicenter of Counter-Hegemonic
Bloc<http://www.solidarityeconomy.net/2010/02/08/venezuela-epicenter-of-counter-hegemonic-bloc/>

Posted: 08 Feb 2010 05:57 AM PST
Interview with William I. Robinson: The challenges facing 21st century
socialism in Venezuela


*``In Venezuela the biggest threat to the revolution does not come from the
right-wing political opposition but from the so-called `endogenous' or
`Chavista' right wing, in that chunks of the revolutionary bloc, including
state elites and party officials, will develop a deeper stake in defending
global capitalism over socialist transformation''' -- William I. Robinson*

Interview with *William I. Robinson*, professor of sociology, University of
California at Santa Barbara, by *Chronis Polychroniou*, editor of the Greek
daily newspaper *Eleftherotypia *

February 1, 2010 -- *ZNet* <http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/23797>

*Chronis Polychroniou: **There are scare stories coming from Venezuela. The
border is heating up, infiltration is taking place, a new Colombian military
base near the border, US access to several new bases on Colombia and
constant subversion. Is the regime concerned about a possible invasion? If
yes, who is going to intervene?*

*William I. Robinson: *The Venezuelan government is concerned about a
possible US invasion and certainly an outright invasion cannot be ruled out.
However I think the US is pursuing a more sophisticated strategy of
intervention that we could call a war of attrition.

We have seen this strategy in other countries, such as in Nicaragua in the
1980s, or even Chile under Allende. It is what in CIA lexicon is known as
destabilisation, and in the Pentagon's language is called political warfare
-- which does not mean there is not a military component. This is a
counterrevolutionary strategy that combines military threats and hostilities
with psychological operations, disinformation campaigns, black propaganda,
economic sabotage, diplomatic pressures, the mobilisation of political
opposition forces inside the country, carrying out provocations and sparking
violent confrontations in the cities, manipulation of disaffected sectors
and the exploitation of legitimate grievances among the population.

The strategy is deft at taking advantage of the revolution's own mistakes
and limitations, such as corruption, clientalism and opportunism, which we
must acknowledge are serious problems in Venezuela. It is also deft at
aggravating and manipulating material problems, such as shortages, price
inflation and so forth.

The goal is to destroy the revolution by making it unworkable, by exhausting
the population's will to continue to struggle to forge a new society, and in
this way to undermine the revolution's mass social base. According to the US
strategy the revolution must be destroyed by having it collapse it in on
itself, by undermining the remarkable hegemony that *Chavismo* and *
Bolivarianismo* has been able to achieve within Venezuelan civil society
over the past decade.

US strategists hope to provoke Chavez into a crackdown that transforms the
democratic socialist process into an authoritarian one. In the view of these
strategists, Chavez will eventually be removed from power through any number
of scenarios brought about by constant war of attribution -- whether through
elections, a military putsch from within, an uprising, mass defections from
the revolutionary camp, or a combination of factors that can not be
foretold.

In this context the military bases in Colombia provide a crucial platform
for intelligence and reconnaissance operations against Venezuela and also
for the infiltration of counterrevolutionary military, economic sabotage,
and terrorist groups. These infiltrating groups are meant to harass, but
more specifically, to provoke reactions from the revolutionary government
and to synchronise armed provocation with the whole gamut of political,
diplomatic, psychological, economic and ideological aggressions that are
part of the war of attrition.

Moreover, the mere threat of US military aggression that the bases represent
in itself constitutes a powerful US psychological operation intended to
heighten tensions inside Venezuela, force the government into extremist
positions or into "crying wolf", and to embolden internal anti-Chavista and
counterrevolutionary forces.

However, it is important to see that the military bases are part of the
larger US strategy towards all of Latin America. The US and the right wing
in Latin America have launched a counteroffensive to reverse the turn to the
left or the so-called "pink tide". Venezuela is the epicentre of an emergent
counter-hegemonic bloc in Latin America. But Bolivia and Ecuador and more
generally the region's burgeoning social movements and left political forces
are as much targets of this counteroffensive as is Venezuela.

The coup in Honduras has provided impetus to this counteroffensive and
emboldened the right and counterrevolutionary forces. Colombia has become
the epicentre regional counterrevolution -- really a bastion of 21st century
fascism.

-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100223/74715144/attachment.html>