The Guardian 15 March, 2006
Latin America in revolt:
Insights from Venezuelan Communist
Carolus Wimmer is a deputy to the Latin American Parliament for Venezuela and head of the International Bureau of the Communist Party of Venezuela. He was also special adviser to the Chairman of the country’s National Assembly from 2001-2002 and Chairman of the International Relations Committee of the National Assembly from 2002-2003. He founded the theoretical journal Debate Abierto (Open Debate) in 1997 and produces a weekly radio program dealing with social and political questions.
He recently completed a very successful speaking tour of several Australian cities at the invitation of the Venezuela Solidarity Network, which includes the Communist Party of Australia. In Adelaide, he took time out of his busy schedule to speak with Bob Briton of The Guardian about the dramatic changes taking place in Venezuela and Latin America and the challenges still facing the Bolivarian Revolution.
Guardian: During your tour you’ve spoken about the difficulties facing the movement for social change in Venezuela; the fact that Hugo Chávez might have won the presidency but that the movement does not have "power". Could you explain this for our readers?
Carolus Wimmer: In 1998, you’re right, Chávez won the presidency. The Communist Party — our party — has supported him from the beginning of the campaign in ’97. We were the first party to decide to support Chávez in that electoral campaign but, of course, there was a great alliance involved in the process. Most alliances are tactical ones. At the moment, I’m not sure whether they will continue towards socialism and we must remember that this was a first, non-violent step towards national liberation.
Our Party defines this as a time of struggle for national liberation where you have many other parties, groups, organisations as your partners. It is also important to note that there are not only political organisations in the government — we are not in the government [see response to next question] — but also personalities from the armed forces. It is a mixed government and on the political side there are different ideologies represented with different programs for the future.
Okay, so we must fight for power in the economic sector. We are still living in a capitalist country, a capitalist society but we are now beginning a transformation to redistribute control over the economy. Ultimately, we have to achieve control by the workers of most parts of the economy and other parts of the state. But during this transition, like in other countries which are moving towards socialism, for a long time there will be different possibilities of economic relationships.
We do not nationalise the private sector. For the moment we are only thinking to ensure that control of the greatest part of the economy is in the hands of the state, control of the great nation-wide industries — for example the oil industry — and that the other parts are under the control of the workers directly, especially in the form of co-operatives. Of course, we will accept joint ventures between national enterprises or companies and international state-owned or privately-owned companies. There are many possibilities but we are working towards the goal that the majority of the economy is under state control or workers’ control.
G: Could you describe the relationship the Communist Party of Venezuela has with the government of President Chávez?
CW: We can say that as a result of discussions in our Party, we have decided that for the moment we must concentrate our efforts on mass work in the working class and the social movements. We have been very successful in this, especially in mass work with women, youth and the peasants. It’s our task at this stage of the revolution to strengthen the organisation of the mass movements and to carry out ideological work in the social movements. We believe nobody else will do it and so, as a small party, at the moment we cannot commit our cadres to a government which is multi-class and multi-ideological. It’s not the task of our Communist Party for the time being.
We must point out that we do support Chávez, we do support the political process of national liberation but we also reserve the right to criticise the government. It is a dialectical relationship and our Party is historically the best prepared organisation to make clear criticism if the government doesn’t defend the interests of the working class in its plans, if it takes measures which do not correspond with the political program of liberation and if, within the government, certain forces act and sometimes make neo-liberal decisions.
G: You’ve mentioned that the Bolivarian Revolution has had considerable success in gathering the support of the social movements. Would it be fair to say, however, that it has had a fairly troubled time with the trade unions — the biggest mass organisations of the working class?
CW: Yes, there are different reasons for this. Firstly, in 1998 when Chávez first came to the presidency, almost all the great organisations of the workers — the trade unions — had been destroyed. It was a task that neo-liberalism had set itself, to destroy the mass organisations in Venezuela — not only of the working class with the trade unions — but also of the students and those of the women. It was a plan to totally control the society and for that reason the working class was also in a very bad situation.
Additionally, at the beginning of this century we have to say, because of the faults and corruption in the Venezuelan trade unions, most of the workers had left these organisations. They didn’t see the leaders as representing them. The Communist Party is working to reverse this situation. We are conscious that a revolution without the working class is always in danger and that in working for national liberation we can never go to socialism without the organised and conscious working class.
We have our own confederation [of trade unions]; we are organising and preparing our cadres ideologically in this sector of the workers’ movement. We are sure in future that the working class will play an important role in these revolutionary times. When I speak of the organised working class, it must be made clear that workers currently support the revolution but more as individuals who live in the suburbs or who are active in other social movements, but not so much as members of trade unions or representatives of the working class.
G: The Bolivarian Revolution is now in its seventh year but it seems that the threats against it are increasing. As you point out, there is not a democratic opposition in Venezuela and there are reports of plans for destabilisation coming from the US. How secure is the revolution?
CW: Of course, I don’t know the future but we see this as a class struggle — an international class struggle — and if we have this idea clear in our mind, we know that imperialism and capitalism will not accept that people take power into their own hands; that workers control their factories and their industries; that the young people really decide their future; that women decide what they will do in society. For that reason we are not surprised that we’ve had and will continue to have more and more aggression directed against us — especially from the US imperialism.
Imperialism is in a very bad situation but, of course, it is still a mighty force and has a lot of destructive power. Because of this, there exists the danger of direct aggression. At the moment, however, we think they are trying to isolate our country politically and economically. They began their work directly in 2002 with the fascist coup — it only lasted 47 hours until the people won back their control — and later with the economic sabotage and the lockout by private companies. These are just examples.
We must be clear that imperialism will continue to be aggressive and we believe the only way we can defend the revolution is with greater organisation of the people, with more ideological and political consciousness and of course with policies on the economic and social front that really make it possible to present the people good results. We are in a competitive world and, for that reason, the left and the socialists must demonstrate that they are not just right theoretically but that in practice we can offer better results than capitalism.
G: The promotional material for your tour describes you as a member of the Latin American Parliament. Could you describe the process of integration that is going on in Latin America at the moment?
CW: The Latin American Parliament has existed for 41 years. There are 22 member states from Latin American and the Caribbean region — including Cuba — but up until now, while there was no policy of integration of the Latin American countries, this parliament had no great importance. Our relationships were mostly with the US but this has changed. Now we often have meetings between the different presidents of Latin America and the Caribbean and for this new situation the role of the Latin American Parliament will be different. It must help with Latin American integration; as parliamentarians we must elaborate laws that are valid for the whole region — not just for one country.
This year we, as a parliament, will promote great rallies to support Latin American integration under the peoples. We have to explain, we have to convince them of the importance of the integration of Latin America. It’s our work because we have to recognise that a large percentage of the people in Latin America are still dreaming the American dream. You can see it in Central America where many men and women leave their countries to go to the US. They hope to find a better way of life and because of this it is our task to promote the integration and the consciousness of the necessity of integration of Latin America.
G: In Australia we have read that the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA or ALCA in its Spanish abbreviation) promoted by the US seems to have been defeated and that the Bolivarian alternative ALBA put forward by Venezuela is becoming a very popular concept. At the same time we see that Venezuela has joined MERCOSUR — a traditional free trade pact with a number of other Latin American countries*. What are we to make of these different developments?
CW: Taking the first point, you’re right; it was a very important victory that in 2005 the US couldn’t sign the ALCA. It seems almost impossible what has happened because it was only in 2000 in Quebec, Canada, that all the presidents of the region except Chávez had decided to sign up to ALCA in January 2005. Only five years later, the US was defeated because most of the presidents who had allied themselves to Washington wouldn’t sign it.
There was more and more consciousness that it was against our economic interests and made us more and more dependent on the US. It wasn’t a bilateral agreement as the US had always promoted it but a unilateral one where our countries would lose everything — all our sovereignty — while the US would win everything. In 2000, Chávez was the only president who rejected this document and they called him "crazy". "He’s against history", "he’s against the majority"; but history in Latin America in recent years has changed so quickly that the "crazy" one now is Bush and not Chávez.
The majority of the people gave Chávez the right not to sign ALCA — but what to do? What is the alternative? We must have solidarity and an agreement for co-operative economic integration. The difference between ALCA and ALBA is that the North American ALCA agreement is competitive. Of course our countries, our weak economies, cannot go into competition with the strongest economic power in the world. For that reason we say that it shouldn’t be competitive, it should be co-operative and work in solidarity. We are trying it in Latin America.
For this integration in Latin America we must reinforce all the current organisations. For this reason we are entering as a member of MERCOSUR*. In former times, there was great opposition to Venezuela’s membership. Particularly before Lula became president, the previous Brazilian Government was opposed to the membership of Venezuela, as was Chile. The situation changed and now all the other governments have understood that it’s very important and useful for Venezuela to become a full member of MERCOSUR.
We must focus on the policy of integration. We must arrive at a community of the nations of Latin America. At the moment, we are looking forward to a community of the countries of South America and we are clear that this doesn’t mean that all the countries from the first moment must be members. We know there’s strong resistance from Colombia, we know of the resistance of Chile and Peru. More and more countries, however, are interested in this community. For example, the former government of Bolivia was against membership of the community. We are sure that now Bolivia has a new government with Evo Morales as president, that Bolivia will participate. We hope in the months and years to come, there will come to power in the various national governments, forces that are interested in integration.
G: Could you tell us about the alternative forms of trade that are already taking place in Latin America?
CW: It’s a difficult task we have to manage because, until now, all exchanges were dominated by the dollar. Of course, if I speak about co-operation and solidarity in trade we understand, for example, the government of Bolivia cannot pay in dollars for the energy we send to it. For that reason we agreed that most of the oil will be paid for in agricultural products. It makes the exchange more direct; it made it possible and ensures that it is co-operative.
In this way we do not need the dollar to carry on commerce. The same thing happens with other countries. It happens with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and with Cuba. It’s very interesting because normally you couldn’t imagine commerce without money. But if we were to go back in history when there was no money, we would make direct exchanges all the time. It makes it cheaper for our economies and we avoid the intermediate commerce that makes it no better — only more expensive. We give each country the opportunity to trade their products.
You know, especially for our countries agricultural products have a very low world market price. To change it into dollars often means that, with the result of the dollar exchange, they cannot really buy the products they want. In the direct exchange, we pay them high prices for the agricultural products. It’s a form of solidarity and justice because we know that most of the world prices for agricultural products are not just. It’s pressure from the great companies to lower the prices that is behind the widespread poverty in our countries. They are rich countries and important products, but in the world market there is a low selling price.
G: Our readers are familiar with the success of the programs (or Missions) of the Bolivarian Revolution to do with education, health, food distribution and so on. What are its next goals?
CW: Firstly, we have to continue the social programs. We began them; they have been very successful but with this young population, every year you have new people who need education, new people who need health and housing, for example. It’s never finished but we are conscious that the social programs as they are defined now are ongoing.
We also have before us the task of transforming the state. At the moment we have a capitalist state. This state is not useful for our transformation. We have resolved the current predicament with a parallel state. With the social missions and with the economic transformations we have been able to revolutionise the present state in Venezuela. We have to transform this bureaucracy. We say we have three internal enemies: bureaucracy; corruption and inefficiency. These three enemies are directly part of the old state.
It’s not sufficient to think we can reform it; that we can improve it. We must totally transform it. One of the next tasks is the transformation of the capitalist state to a state which helps the people, works for the people and acts in solidarity with the people. Another important task is the organisation of the people. If we speak of organisation in Venezuela we include the union of the civilian population and the armed forces. It creates a real possibility to defend our revolution because traditionally the armed forces in Latin America always fought against their people. It is our good fortune in Venezuela that the majority of the armed forces are really participating in the building up of the country.
This union of the civilian and the armed population is not only formal; you can see it in everyday life. In all the social movements you can see the civilian and armed population. Soldiers help with house construction, they are helping in the health system, soldiers are distributing food to the popular markets and, for those reasons, we are coming together more and more. The prejudices of both sides are steadily disappearing.
Also, we have begun to think about the new society. We must discuss and look forward to a non-capitalist society. What we are doing now is very good. We are pleased with the results, but they are not an ultimate solution for the problems of the people. One of the important tasks before us is to discuss socialism.
*MERCOSUR was originally a free trade agreement between Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay. It was founded in 1991. Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru now have associate member status and in December 2005, Venezuela was accepted as a new member. On December 30, 2005, it was announced that Bolivia would be invited to join as a full member.