Executed folk singer Victor Jara’s song “El derecho de vivir en paz” (the right to live in peace) has become the anthem for the rebellion unfolding in Chile. Written in 1971 as a tribute to the struggle of the Vietnamese people, it became a popular song of the Chilean workers’ movement, which at the time had high expectations and aspirations to build a new country under workers’ control after the election of the socialist government of Salvador Allende in 1970.
I was born in Chile the year Allende came to office, and my family fled the country in 1975, two years after the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet took power in a coup. While I have no memories of those years, my entire life has been shaped by those events. During my childhood and early adulthood, my parents would go through in detail not only what they experienced but also what thousands of others experience during those times.
Mum and Dad spent countless hours telling me and my brothers and sister the history of Chile and the struggle that had taken place. They spoke of their aspirations – and those of millions of others – to build a socialist society and their willingness to fight for it. They spoke of the struggle under Pinochet, of the disappearances, torture and repression that so many faced. Many of my family were forced to flee the country to all the corners of the world (Australia, Cuba, France, Sweden). My story is not unique; it happened to millions of others. The brutal dictatorship that overthrew Allende not only got rid of a government and a dream of a new Chile but also repressed and destroyed an entire generation.
Now, Chile is finally shaking off that legacy. The slogan of the new movement – Chile despertó (Chile has awoken) – indicates that the people are aware of the history but will no longer be silent. The movement, sparked by high school students campaigning against a metro fare rise, has spread across all generations and is once again demanding what was hoped for and dreamt of in the late 1960s. 
It is no coincidence that many of the songs from the late ’60s and the Allende period are again sung at every mobilisation. This movement is not about reform but about taking back what was brutally repressed in 1973. The protests have re-inspired an entire population to begin the process of building a country run by the people, not the billionaires and international capital. The hope of a new Chile, crushed by Pinochet’s dictatorship, is blossoming once again.
The explosiveness of the mobilisations has startled and unnerved many liberal commentators. It is for this reason that very little has been said about Chile in the mainstream press. The unfolding struggle is not only the most significant to hit Chile in several generations; it is also significant for the rest of Latin America – and the world. “The fact that protests are roiling one of Latin America’s most prosperous nations suggest a similar situation could easily happen elsewhere”, Bloomberg senior editor John Authers wrote on 22 October:
“Outside the country, Chile has been seen as the living embodiment of the economic policies installed under Pinochet by the ‘Chicago Boys’ – a group of economists, many of whom had been trained in free-market ideas at the University of Chicago. Chile’s pension reform, in which everyone must pay into private pension plans overseen by the state, was used as a template by countries around the region, and has allowed a steady buildup of patient local capital. Meanwhile, globalization allowed Chile to benefit from its huge supplies of copper. In relative terms, its success is undeniable. In 1975, just after Pinochet had taken over power, Chilean gross domestic product per capita lagged Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and even its neighbor Peru. Now, it has more wealth per capita than any of them. It has avoided the crises that bedevilled the rest of the region.”
The liberals and the right have for decades held up Chile as Latin America’s success story, using it as an example of what nations could do to drag themselves from poverty. It has been used to highlight the “benefits” of privatisation and the opening of national markets to international capital. What is always ignored is that the “Chilean Oasis” is built on 17 years of military dictatorship, brutal repression and an economic and social system that excludes the majority from gaining any benefits. Chile is one of Latin America’s wealthiest countries, but also one of its most unequal.
But things have begun to change dramatically. A popular slogan is “No son 30 pesos, son 30 años” (it is not about 30 pesos but about 30 years), referring to the period since the collapse of Pinochet and the country’s long experience of neoliberal policies. This is clearly not just about reforms but a fundamental change in the political, social and economic system. It is an unfolding revolution. Reflecting the cross-generational dynamic of the current uprising, among thousands of placards that have appeared, one read: “Bourgeoisie, shake in fear, as the children of the workers have come out on the streets”. Another read: “We will not return to normality as normality was the problem” – highlighting that what was considered Chilean democracy was in fact an extremely unequal society carefully guarded by a military force that brutally quelled all social resistance. 
Chile is no stranger to mass protest. Throughout the dictatorship, people resisted. After the fall of Pinochet in 1990, Chile experienced a variety of protests by various sectors. More recently, high school and university students have been at the forefront of mobilisations for free education, among other things. But this new movement has radicalised quickly. From initially opposing a metro fare increase (the 30 pesos), it has progressed to the demand for a constituent assembly to rewrite the Chilean constitution, which was drafted under Pinochet in 1980. It is clear that the political, economic and social system based on that constitution has no legitimacy. 
Billionaire president Sebastián Piñera continues to say that he is listening to the people and is willing to make changes, but there can be no illusions that the system can be changed from within. The entire structure has been built on repression and privatisation of all services and resources. Much was achieved during the Allende government that helped transform Chile into a much more equal society. However, the limitations of trying to work within the system were also evident. Not only did Allende and thousands of other Chileans pay for it with their lives, but millions also had to endure 17 years of brutal military dictatorship. 
Unfortunately, the Communist Party of Chile and the forces within the Frente Amplio (Broad Front) have learnt nothing from those experiences. “The Frente Amplio and the Communist Party are posing as the left at the same time they are agreeing to participate in negotiations with Piñera”, Dauno Tótoro of the Revolutionary Workers Party argued recently in an interview with the website Left Voice. “And they’re also calling for a ‘constitutional accusation’ (a type of impeachment) against Piñera. In other words, they’re trying to subvert the rebellion by channelling it toward a constitutional solution. They want to make the people believe it’s possible to remove Piñera through a parliamentary vote.”
The problem is that such an approach could take steam out of the mass movement. And even if Piñera could be removed, the system that he presides over would remain under whoever were to replace him.

Roberto Jorquera

Towards a new Chile

The lyrics of Chilean musical group Quilapayún are known by millions around the world: “El pueblo unido jamas sera vencido, La patria está forjando la unidad. De norte a sur se movilizará”. (The people united will never be defeated, the country is building unity, from north to south it will mobilise.) The song was written in June 1973, only months before the brutal repression of the Chilean working class by the dictator Augusto Pinochet, who assumed power in September. Over the last week in Chile, these lyrics have been heard loudly throughout the country in a united way.
On 13 October, the government of billionaire president Sebastián Piñera announced a metro fare increase of 30 pesos (about six cents) during rush hour. Secondary school students, who have led anti-government mobilisations over the last decade, immediately began a protest of fare evasion. Discontent and resistance have been building throughout Chile since the restoration of parliamentary democracy in 1990. However, the current mobilisation is by far the largest since Pinochet’s fall and politically is the most significant. For the first time in decades, people have lost the fear to protest that has been so embedded because of memories of the 17 years of brutal military dictatorship.
The movement quickly developed from a protest against the metro fare rise to one against 30 years of neoliberal shock therapy. Opposition is both broad and nationwide. There have been many reports of tens of thousands of people demonstrating in every major city and various smaller towns and areas throughout Chile. Video footage has been shared around the world showing the brutal repression imposed by the carabineros (Chilean police force). The violence has been directed not only against those involved in the protests, but also against civilians displaying sympathy with the protest movement. Brutal scenes of police violence have been reminiscent of those under Pinochet.
There are reports that Baquedano metro station in Santiago, the capital, was turned into an imprisonment camp and torture chamber – one video emerged showing prisoners forced to run naked in front of military personnel while being beaten. Since then, the authorities have reportedly cleaned up the station and removed any evidence of human rights abuses. The Piñera government also imposed a state of emergency that instituted an overnight curfew for the first time since the overthrow of Pinochet.
More than 10,000 troops have been deployed throughout the country to repress the protest movement. There is video footage showing them going door to door during the night arresting those who participated in the protests. Other footage shows carabineros randomly hitting people along the side of the road with batons and raiding and looting shops and filling their cars with TVs and other electronic devices. The director general of the carabineros told reporters: “We are not trained to harm the community; on the contrary, we are here to serve the community”, while Piñera said that the government is “at war with a horrible enemy”. The footage and the statements have only fuelled the protest movement, which has lost the fear that has haunted the population since 1973. 
Toward the end of October, in an attempt to quell the mass protest movement, Piñera changed his tone. “It is true that problems accumulated for many decades and that different governments were not able to recognise this situation in all its magnitude”, he said. “I recognise and apologise for this lack of vision.” The president pledged to increase the minimum pension by 20 percent and increase the state’s contribution for the middle classes and women, fast-track a law to introduce a state critical illness cover, cut prices of medicines for the poor and guarantee a minimum wage of US$480 a month. However, the government’s true thoughts were betrayed by Cecilia Morel, Piñera’s wife, who was recorded saying: “We’ve been overrun, it’s like an alien invasion. We’re going to have to cut back on our privileges and share with the rest of them”. 
The concessions have done little to quell the protest movement that so rapidly moved from being anti-fare-rise to demanding more systemic changes. Piñera hoped to coopt some of the opposition, following his promises of concessions with a proposal for cross-party negotiations. Those who have agreed, such as the Christian Democrats, have been condemned by the protest movement, which called a two-day general strike on 23-24 October and called for the largest march in Chilean history to take place on 25 October. The movement is not interested in small reforms. 
Many worker organisations supported the strike and have since called for further political and industrial action. The CUT (Central Union of Workers) supported the two-day general strike. However, initial support from it and other unions was for a national strike but with workers staying home. Mass pressure forced them to support a national mobilisation of protest action. Other worker organisations have called for consejos comunales (communal councils) reminiscent of those formed by workers under the socialist government of Salvador Allende to defend against Pinochet’s impending coup. The Chilean dock workers’ union stated: “We are committed to political and social change and thus propose that the union movement demand a constituent assembly of workers and the people. Only such an assembly would be able to discuss a new political, industrial model of development, labour relations, the re-nationalisation of copper and natural resources”. 
Most protesters agree with this sentiment. They are increasingly viewing this as a moment of potential to dramatically reconfigure the political terrain. A central demand is for the abolition of the constitution, which was introduced on 11 September 1980 by Pinochet. Though some changes have been made, the framework remains. For example, Article 22 states: “Chileans have the fundamental duty to honour their fatherland, to defend its sovereignty and to contribute to the preservation of national security and the essential values of the Chilean tradition”. Article 23 states: “The law will establish ... penalties to be applied to trade union leaders who intervene in political partisan activities and to the leaders of political parties who interfere in the functioning of trade union organisations”.
Many laws limit union activists from participating in political structures and criminalise political activity. Furthermore, under the façade of democracy, Chile is firmly controlled by the military and the carabineros, which violently repress any signs of civil unrest. Their role is firmly enshrined in the constitution as the force that governs public order. With little to no oversight of their actions, the carabineros can impose their will with little official scrutiny.
**********
Chile is considered exceptional in South America – a beacon of wealth and stability seemingly untouched by the continent’s recent history of left wing insurgencies and governments. So the outbreak of this movement has caused alarm in establishment circles. “If it can happen in Santiago, it could happen anywhere. That is the uncomfortable message that the rest of the world should take from the sudden breakdown of civil order in Chile”, John Authers, a senior editor at Bloomberg, wrote the day before the general strike. 
But Chile’s status as one of the wealthiest countries in Latin America hides the reality that the political and social system has not fundamentally changed since the dictatorship, and the country has undergone a ruthless neoliberal experiment since the early 1990s. The country has one of the highest levels of economic disparity in the world, and the government spends a smaller share of total economic output than every other nation in the OECD. The incomes of the richest 10 percent are around 26 times the incomes of the poorest 10 percent of the population. Much of the tax on higher income earners is avoided, while the poor are forced to pay ever increasing taxes and higher costs of living such as in housing, education, health and basic food.
Though the mobilisations have been the largest in decades and there is a great unity of the people, there is a lack of political leadership by the traditional left parties and a large section of the trade union movement. Despite opposition parties’ passionate speeches in the Congress, including by the Communist Party, they push for a negotiated settlement and reforms rather than fundamental change. A political realignment is taking place, bringing together a coalition of new political leaders who do not want to participate in the current political structures.
“The student protests had clear leadership and very clear and defined demands. These protests have no leadership structure. They’re decentralised, dispersed. People are protesting for all kinds of different reasons”, Jennifer Pribble, an associate professor of political science at the University of Richmond, said in an interview with US journal Foreign Policy. “It’s a much more difficult line to respond to because you have no one to sit down at the table with.” 
This is significant, as it has galvanised a broader layer of people on a national scale outside of the control of the traditional left parties that have, in most cases, lost significant credibility. Though sections within these established organisations – such as the Communist Party and the CUT – still hold on to revolutionary ideas, many have become comfortable within the current political and social terrain and are unwilling to take the protest movement onto the streets.
It is unclear how long this rebellion will last and what changes it may achieve, but there is no doubt that Chile desperto – Chile has awoken. Decades of brutal repression under Pinochet and decades of repression under so-called democracy have not destroyed the people’s willingness to fight back. The younger generation, which has experienced only neoliberal democracy, is fed up with the inequality and lack of opportunity and is uniting with the older generation that experienced Allende and 17 years of brutal dictatorship. For the first time since the late 1960s, in the words of Chilean musical group Inti lllimani, there is the real feeling that “esta vez no se trata de cambiar un presidente, sera el pueblo quien construya un Chile bien diferente”. (This time it is not just about changing a president, but the people will construct a very different Chile.)

Chile has awoken!

Ever since the election of Hugo Chávez in 1998, the political terrain in Venezuela has been volatile. On the one hand has been the increasing confidence of the working class to demand a restructuring of the social, political and economic system in the country. On the other hand, the ruling elites have done everything possible to sabotage and confront the Bolivarian revolutionary movement head on.
Tactics employed by the opposition have included attempted military coups, economic sabotage, recall referenda, daily political propaganda through various media outlets, an international economic and political campaign and sustained political protests.
To understand the current crisis, we need to look at the class forces mobilising against the government and the demands that they have raised. The Mesa de la Unidad Democrática (MUD – United Democratic Roundtable), which was formed in 2008, has brought together a significant coalition of right wing forces that represent the most powerful private economic sectors in Venezuela. Also in the mix are centre left forces, which have joined the call for the removal of current president Nicolás Maduro. Added to these forces, US imperialism continues to aid and abet the national bourgeoisie. As Latin American TV network Telesur reported on 17 May:
“[S]ince at least 2009 the US Department of State has budgeted at least US$49 million in total to support right wing opposition forces in Venezuela … In a more detailed breakdown of the 2011 US$5 million budgeted for Venezuelan economic support, the budget indicates that US$1 million was designated specifically for the support of ‘political competition and consensus building’.”
Yet the battle in Venezuela is not just between the right and left. It is also being carried out within the Bolivarian forces. Particularly since the death of Hugo Chávez, left currents within the Bolivarian revolution have become increasingly critical of the leadership of the governing United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) for accommodating to the right wing opposition and failing to progress economic change that would take control of private sections of the economy and bring them under workers’ control.
A key weakness of the current leadership of the Bolivarian revolution has been its reliance on the current national political institutions such as the National Assembly and mayoral and governorship structures. Even under Chávez, these structures were at odds with the working class, which has mobilised in its workplaces and through institutions such as the communal councils, communes and various missions, and a variety of social, political, economic and cultural grassroots organisations. Many of these organisations have been in constant political debate with elected officials who have not represented the interest of the working class.
Similar debates occurred in Chile in the early 1970s between the left forces – organised around the Cordones Industriales, left organisations such as the Revolutionary Left Movement and sections of the Socialist and Communist parties – and the pro-Allende forces that called for negotiations with the political right. The failure of the process under Allende to align itself with the revolutionary sections of the working class and the inability to confront the economic elites led to the right being able to organise a coup.
The Venezuelan process shows much similarity, with the leadership unwilling to confront the economic elites by nationalising the key economic sectors. The Bolivarian process has consistently mobilised millions, who have called on the government to deepen the process and confront the political elites by transferring political power to working class organisations such as the communal councils and various other social and political movements and organisations. Jorge Martin from Hands off Venezuela, a solidarity group based in the UK, argues:
“There is a struggle, you could say, between the revolutionary rank and file, and the bureaucracy and the reformists within the Bolivarian movement. The bureaucracy and the reformists try to prevent and block the revolutionary initiative of the masses while the revolutionary initiative of the masses is the one and only factor that has saved the revolution at every single turn. But the more this situation goes, the more difficult it is for people to continue mobilising at the rank and file level, particularly in the situation of severe economic crisis.”
What has been achieved?
The Bolivarian revolution has achieved enormous gains since Chávez was first elected. Numerous missions have been the backbone to economic, political and social change that has benefited the working class. Yet, while it has challenged the old political elites, the process has not dramatically impacted the large private sector that still dominates the Venezuelan economy.
The process has increased the political confidence of the working class, which has consistently defended it from every major opposition attack. The establishment of communal councils, socialist communes, workers’ control of factories and various other political forms of organisation has raised the confidence of the working class. The social missions have been critical in raising social, economic and cultural levels. Anderson Bean, writing at US website SocialistWorker.org on 17 May, made the following assessment of the process:
“The emphasis on popular power and participatory democracy is clear in the 1999 Chavista constitution, and this has given rise to various institutions such as social missions, participatory budget allocation, co-management of state-owned factories, community radio, communal councils and the communes.
“But the PSUV left little room for popular participation in the party itself. Though in the party’s early years, hundreds of militants participated in community assemblies, and various currents within the party had representatives who could make proposals, it was still a highly centralised party, with Chávez at the top of the pyramid.
“The PSUV relied on the unquestioned authority of Chávez, and it never developed a collective leadership beyond him. This worked for some time because of Chávez’s charisma and his ability to connect with people in the popular sectors, but after his death and the election of Nicolás Maduro, the limits of the model became more obvious.
“Under Maduro, the extent to which popular participation was permitted in the PSUV and society at large decreased further. A ruling bureaucracy within the party and the government became more powerful. This bureaucracy controls the large public sector budget and has made alliances with various parts of the private sector.”
This highlights the key challenges facing revolutionaries in Venezuela. The struggle is just as much with the leadership of the PSUV as with the right wing opposition. However, a key challenge for the revolutionary forces is not to provide political ammunition to the right wing opposition led by the MUD. The gains of the Bolivarian revolution must be actively defended, but key to this defence will be the mobilisation of the working class to take control of the key economic sectors.
Communal councils
On 29 March, Katrina Kozarek wrote at the news site Venezuelanalysis.com:
“Socialist revolutionaries from across the country … [called] on the government of president Nicolas Maduro to endorse a proposal to provide constitutional recognition of communes. Currently, the commune movement has broad legal recognition, but isn’t included in the country’s constitution. However, commune supporters are optimistic that could soon change, with Maduro recently calling for constitutional reform. ‘The commune is the essence of the people’, said Frank Corrales from the Guerrero JiraJara Socialist Commune.
“Speaking to Venezuelanalysis during a rally on Tuesday, Corrales said, ‘We know what we really need [and] … it is in us to truly prepare, from the grassroots, the transformation of this state into a truly communal state. We have to keep transforming the state, into a socialist state, where the largest possible amount of happiness is brought to all of the people. The commune or nothing!’, he said.”
In response to the current crisis, the government has called for a new constituent assembly – the first since the 1999 rewriting of the constitution. The assembly will include 500 directly elected delegates and a further 250 elected from social movements. The procedure and timing are yet to be finalised.
The consensus among all political forces involved is that the government must take some responsibility for the recent confrontations, including for its increasing political persecution even of those who support the Bolivarian revolution but are critical of the government. Economically, it has failed to take control, thus leaving it to the discretion of the private sector, which has turned production on and off, increased hoarding and raised prices to create a sense of political chaos and instability.
On the other hand, the US-funded opposition, headed by MUD, has made it clear that no negotiations will be entered into while the working class – represented by a variety of political, economic and social organs – is demanding that the process be deepened to protect the gains that have been made since 1998.

The struggle in Venezuela

The electoral defeat suffered by the Bolivarian forces in Venezuela’s mid-term elections in early December is a major setback for the process that began in 1998 under Hugo Chavez. 
The result will no doubt have implications beyond the borders of Venezuela. The right wing Mesa de Unidad Democratica (Democratic Unity Roundtable, MUD) alliance, which now controls the National Assembly, is attempting to change Venezuela’s foreign policy and, more profoundly, undermine the combativity and sense of possibility of the anti-neoliberal movements that have shaken the continent over the last decade and a half.
Those who have been part of the numerous attacks on the Bolivarian process now hold governmental power. It is clear that the new Assembly will move relatively quickly to reverse the gains of the revolutionary process.
The challenge for the Bolivarian process now is to reorganise and retake the political initiative. President Nicolas Maduro’s call for a return to the streets is essential, and well overdue. Maduro has called for a period of reflection and debate, though it is unclear what exactly this will mean.
The results
Z.C Dutka reported for Venezuelanalysis.com on 8 December:
“The opposition holds a super majority of 112 seats, including three indigenous seats, of the 167-seat legislative body.
“The country’s opposition alliance Democratic Unity Roundtable now holds 109 seats while the United Socialist Party (PSUV) has 55. The three elected indigenous representatives, while officially independent, campaigned from the opposition platform and will likely support the MUD inside the Assembly.
“With a full two-thirds majority, the opposition will have the power to block new spending for social programs, grant amnesty to select prisoners, approve or revoke enabling laws, and remove magistrates of the Supreme Court. A two-thirds majority may also remove ministers and the vice president, revoke or modify organic laws, and convoke a Constituent Assembly to rewrite the Constitution.”
The president can veto National Assembly laws, but without its support has very limited power. The electoral results have delivered the radical right opposition legislative and administrative power for the first time since 1998.
Explaining the defeat
Some on the left have restricted their assessment of the defeat to the intense economic, political and media war that has been waged against the revolution. 
It is true that a major weakness of the revolutionary process has been its inability to take control of the economy, the majority of which has remained under the control of the capitalist class. This has allowed the right wing opposition to set the agenda. 
The capitalists have brought the revolutionary process to its knees through a prolonged economic war against the working class. The creation of economic instability has made life difficult, forcing the majority of Venezuelans to queue for hours for basic food items and daily essentials. The accumulated toll of this counter-revolutionary process peaked with the collapse of oil prices, which severely reduced government revenues.
However, the problem of building a revolutionary leadership post-Chavez has also been a key factor. The elections demonstrate the limitations of the revolution’s continuing reliance on bourgeois forms of democracy – its privileging of representative over participatory forms. 
The people of Venezuela have participated in some 17 elections since 1998. But parliament has remained a place for negotiating with the ruling class, rather than an organ of popular power. Though many social and economic changes have allowed the working class and social movement organisations into the political arena, the formal electoral system has not done anything to extend popular power. It is still firmly within the scope of the old political system.
Many of the political participation measures that have been introduced lie outside the formal structures of the local, municipal and national electoral systems. Real democracy in Venezuela has been in the communes, communal councils, workers’ councils and numerous other organs of popular participation.
Maduro argued on 10 Dec, at a gathering outside of the Miraflores Palace (the presidential building), “We will get out of this quagmire where the economic war and our own errors have landed us – where bureaucracy and corruption have enveloped the revolutionary policies’’.
The death of Hugo Chavez from cancer in 2013 was a severe political blow for the revolutionary forces. Though Maduro attempted to continue his legacy, there has been a political vacuum within the leadership. It not only has failed to counter the right wing political arguments, it has been conciliatory by calling for “national unity” on numerous occasions. 
There is also a longer term weakness. The United Socialist Party of Venezuela was founded in 2007 and has some 6 million members. It was meant to unite and represent all the revolutionary forces in Venezuela. However, since its founding it has been dominated by conservative and bureaucratic layers. 
The PSUV has been a broad electoral front rather than a political vanguard. It has not been the organisational form of the organised working class and its allies but rather has often been at odds with popular and working class institutions.
A new confrontation
Alternative political institutions that more closely represent the working class have been created in the form of communal councils, workers’ councils and numerous other political bodies. These bodies will now have to combat a more hostile National Assembly which will bring the process into an intense political confrontation in the coming months.
The possibility of defending the revolution will depend on the combativity of the most conscious sectors and the willingness and ability of the leadership to lean on this vanguard and open up a new period of struggle.

Venezuela’s Bolivarian revolution defeated at the polls

United States president Barrack Obama signed a new executive order on 9 March declaring “a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the situation in Venezuela”.
The order escalates US aggression against Venezuela to a level not seen since the April 2002 coup. At that time, the United States, together with the domestic right wing opposition, staged a coup that was defeated within 48 hours by a people’s uprising in alliance with pro-government military units.
The executive order places Venezuela on the same level as Iran, Syria and North Korea. It provides the US president the authority to launch military action at any time.
Nine Venezuelan government officials have been targeted in response to the recent arrests by Venezuelan authorities of people who were planning aggression against the government.
Obama said: “We will continue to work closely with others in the region to support greater political expression in Venezuela, and to encourage the Venezuelan government to live up to its shared commitment, as articulated in the OAS Charter, the Inter American Democratic Charter, and other relevant instruments related to democracy and human rights.”
Opposition in Latin America
However, the Union of South America States (UNASUR), of which Venezuela is a member, released a statement that said: “The member states of UNASUR reject the executive order approved by the United States government which declares Venezuela a threat to national security.” UNASUR also called on the United States to overturn the order.
Online news service Venezuelanalysis.com also reported that the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States had already issued a statement against the increasing aggression by the United States due to the increased sanctions that Obama had already signed into law in December 2014.
“The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) reiterates its strong repudiation of the application of unilateral coercive measures that are contrary to international law”, the statement said. CELAC represents every country in the hemisphere except for the US and Canada.
Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro on 11 March requested decree powers to pass an “anti-imperialist law to prepare for all scenarios”. A key component of the decree was to order the military and the popular militias to undergo preparations to “defend the country’’.
On 14 March more than 100,000 people mobilised in central Caracas. The event was organised by the Ministry of Defence. Lucas Koerner, writing at Venezuelanalysis.com, reported: “Alongside active duty soldiers, participated members of the Bolivarian Militia, which was expanded by over 35,000 members by president Chávez in 2010. The Bolivarian Militia represents the foundation of a popular ‘civic-military alliance’.”
The following day, another mobilisation was held in support of the government. President Maduro spoke at the mobilisation, stating: “In name of the Venezuelan people, I call on all the popular movements, all of the solidarity movements, all of our sister peoples in the world, especially in Latin America and the Caribbean … to stay mobilised in order to speak the truth and demand throughout the world that president Barack Obama revoke the [executive] decree threatening Venezuela.”
Campaign by right wing 
Since the election of former president Hugo Chávez in 1998, the United States has tried different avenues to attack and destroy the gains of the Bolivarian revolution.
In another article, Koerner reported that “former Caracas metropolitan mayor Antonio Ledezma was arrested last month on charges of conspiracy and sedition related to the 12 February thwarted ‘Blue Coup’ attempt. A Venezuelan judge found sufficient evidence linking the opposition figure to air force officials involved in the coup as well as to right wing terrorist leaders such as Lorent Saleh, who was extradited by Colombian authorities to face charges last year.
“The other high profile Venezuelan opposition leader currently facing trial is Leopoldo López, who was indicted for his role in leading several months of violent opposition protests last year with the aim of affecting the ‘exit’ … of the constitutional government”, Koerner continued.
Ledezma and Lopez, together with Maria Corina Machado, were part of the attempted coup against Chávez in 2002. All three also signed the “National Transition Agreement” days before unrest in February this year. The purpose of the agreement was to call for an alternative government and encourage yet another coup.
Professor and writer James Petras provides some insights into why Obama has taken this road – namely that all other attempts to discredit or overthrow the Bolivarian revolutionary process have failed.
Petras argued on 15 March that, after the US-backed candidate failed to win the 2013 presidential election, “Obama attempted to boycott and discredit the Venezuelan voting process via an international smear campaign. The White House boycott lasted 6 months and received no support in Latin America, or from the European Union, since scores of international election observers, ranging from former president James Carter to representatives of the Organization of American States certified the outcome.
“In 2014, the Obama regime backed violent large-scale riots, which left 43 persons dead and scores wounded, (most victims were pro-government civilians and law enforcement officers) and millions of dollars in damages to public and private property, including power plants and clinics.
“Scores of vandals and right wing terrorists were arrested, including Harvard-educated terrorist Leopoldo Lopez. However, the Maduro government released most of the saboteurs in a gesture of reconciliation”, he wrote.
National Assembly elections are due later in the year. It is clear that the United States and the right wing opposition are planning to create further uncertainty and political and economic destabilisation such as was carried out in Chile against Salvador Allende in the early 1970s.
In response, the Bolivarian process has once again mobilised in defence of the political, social and economic gains that have been achieved since 1998. Due to a strong alliance between the working class and the pro-revolutionary sectors of the army and the popular militias, any US military aggression will be difficult not only to justify but also to implement.

US imperialism pushes for regime change in Venezuela

Teachers and support staff throughout NSW Catholic schools are facing a massive assault on their wages and working conditions in the proposed agreement being put forward by the Catholic Commission for Employment Relations (CCER).
The CCER has thrown out all notions of fairness for current and future staff. Independent Education Union general secretary John Quessy says that the draft agreement “threatens to increase hours of face-to-face teaching, scrap restrictions on class sizes, abolish all promotion positions, take away the right to a half-hour meal break and reduce sick leave”.
Support staff are threatened with pay cuts of between $6,156 and $17,417 per annum. Basic working conditions are also under attack. Among other things, the Catholic employers are proposing to remove a public holiday for employees who work 48 weeks a year, further reduce the minimum periods of payment for part-time employees, introduce junior rates of pay, and reduce overtime entitlements.
The Association of Independent Schools also is proposing significant cuts to wages and conditions. The agreement would apply to 200 schools in NSW and the ACT. For teachers it would mean a 5 percent reduction in the ongoing base salary over the three-year agreement (assuming inflation of at least at 2.5% per annum). Support staff are facing similar wage cuts.
In response the Independent Education Union has launched the 3Rs: Recognise, Respect and Reward Campaign.
Some 6,500 Catholic school teachers and support staff, 200 schools and thousands of students took part in three-hour stop work meetings in Sydney and Parramatta on 22 and 23 July. Stop-work meetings were also held in regional centres.

NSW Catholic Schools take industrial action

The victory of the late Hugo Chavez Frias in the 1998 presidential elections opened a new phase of working class struggle in Venezuela.
Since Chavez’s death last year, new President Nicolas Maduro has continued with the Chavista agenda. Consistent mass mobilisations of the working class, in some cases exceeding more than 1 million people, have made it clear that any attempt to overturn the gains of the Bolivarian revolution will not be easy.
There is much confidence among the working class, who continue to call for a deepening of the revolution, such as the recent call by auto workers for nationalisation of the industry. But in recent months, the country’s wealthy elite and the political right have been mobilising to create turmoil and attack the government and its supporters.
Eva Golinger, editor of Correo del Orinoco, has provided one of the best summaries of the current political situation, writing on 20 February: “The youth taking to the streets today in Caracas and other cities throughout the country, hiding their faces behind masks and balaclavas, destroying public buildings, vehicles, burning garbage, violently blocking transit and throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at security forces are being driven by extremist right wing interests from Venezuela’s wealthiest sector.
“Led by hard line neoconservatives Leopoldo Lopez, Henrique Capriles and Maria Corina Machado – who come from three of the wealthiest families in Venezuela, the 1% of the 1% – the protesters seek not to revindicate their basic fundamental rights, or gain access to free healthcare or education, all of which are guaranteed by the state, thanks to Chavez, but rather are attempting to spiral the country into a state of ungovernability that would justify an international intervention leading to regime change.”
There has been speculation in the international media that the student-led protests are part of a democratic movement to overthrow the repressive government of Nicolas Maduro. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The attempt by the right to destroy the last 15 years’ social gains has been relentless, including the 2002 kidnapping of Hugo Chavez and installing of a US-backed regime. Due to the mass mobilisation of the working class and a section of the army remaining loyal to the Bolivarian process, that coup was defeated within 48 hours.
Other attacks by the ruling class have included lockouts of workers and organised shortages in food and services through sabotage and hoarding. Though the government has control of the oil industry and has increasing control of services and industries such as electricity, telecommunications and manufacturing, the private sector under opposition control can still create enormous problems in the economy.
The recent protests began on 12 February and have continued mainly in the eastern region of Caracas and other strong opposition areas around the country. Tamara Pearson, a socialist activist who has been living in Venezuela since 2007, says that some of the protesters may be students, “but they aren’t fighting at all for the student cause … [T]heir aim is to get Maduro to resign, through a war of attrition.”
A central aim of the protest is to create an atmosphere of fear and anxiety among the population. “Their cause has been supported by a few large, peaceful opposition marches in Merida, Caracas, and around the country, but overall the strategy is pure intimidation and psychological and violent soft war”, says Pearson.
The December municipal elections were the first real test of the Bolivarian process without Chavez, and thus the opposition saw them as a chance to make inroads. However, its vote did not increase, so it resorted to other means to topple the government.
“Even in the best of times, it is hard for [the opposition] to win an election, so sectors are looking at other, non-democratic methods. It’s also about those far right, undemocratic sectors seeking to gain the upper hand”, says Pearson.
However, the current protests have divided the opposition, with some arguing that now is not the time to make the push for regime change.
In 2002, the opposition had support within the military. But since then the Bolivarian revolution has made major changes to the military’s structure, personnel, training and education.
Pearson argues that it is unlikely that sections of the military would split away and join the opposition, but “It’s hard to know what’s going on behind the scenes. One general has been found to have been training the violent opposition. But once that’s come out, their career is over.”
What is clear is that the United States administration supports the current unrest and is encouraging destabilisation attempts by the opposition. However, the Bolivarian forces have learnt many lessons from their own experience and those of Chile 1973. It’s clear that they will continue to mobilise in their millions to protect the gains of the revolutionary process.

Venezuelans stand up to right wing offensive

Since the death of Hugo Chavez Frias on 5 March, the Venezuelan capitalist opposition has gained confidence and been more forcibly advocating a counter-revolution. The renewed offensive by the opposition has created a scenario which raises the question of how stable and confident the Bolivarian revolution is to continue and be able to win over greater sections of the population. Another electoral contest will take place on 8 December for the municipal councils, which will once again test the revolutionary project. Challenges facing the revolution come not only from the capitalist opposition nationally and internationally but also from within the revolutionary forces themselves.
Red Flag’s Roberto Jorquera spoke to Tamara Pearson, a socialist activist who has been living in Venezuela since 2007 and has worked as a journalist for venezuelanalysis.com since 2008. We have also translated and abridged a recent statement by Marea Socialista militants Carlos Carcione, Stalin Pérez Borges, Juan García, Zuleika Matamoros, Gonzalo Gómez and Alexander Marín. Marea Socialista is a revolutionary group.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
‘We have a short amount of time’: Interview with Tamara Pearson
 
What have been some of the challenges since the death of Hugo Chavez?
We are still organising, debating, painting murals, writing, planting and working as hard as before showing that a proportion of the population is conscious enough to fight even without Chavez’s rallying speeches and initiatives. The political stamina – marching and fighting after 16 elections and despite all the problems and attacks – is inspiring. The revolution has developed to a point where politics is a basic part of life.
However, I know PSUV activists who are utterly dedicated, honest revolutionaries, and others who are frankly reformist, opportunist and who promote capitalist values. For me the question is, “What are the challenges for the revolutionaries within the PSUV?” The main one is having some sort of an impact or influence – by organising as a faction, or a separate organisation, or through a website or newspaper or even the youth. In my opinion that organisation is necessary, because at the moment there are many bourgeois or reformist or corrupt elements that dominate the PSUV.
How strong is the opposition?
The opposition has grown, not just in terms of the number of votes they received on 14 April 2013 but also in terms of their actual mobilising power, their confidence and resolve. Their support extends across all classes; while it’s clearly predominant among business people and the rich, it also extends into the poorer and working class sectors, mainly I think as a result of the opposition’s ongoing and massive media campaign against the government and their economic sabotage. Their media campaign and their stunts, combined with, frankly, a lack of detailed information from the government, have, and will continue to have, an impact on a smaller portion of Chavistas who are not as ideologically strong or developed.
Now people are quite clear that the opposition will organise a recall referendum in three years, if it doesn’t manage to pull off anything sooner, and that we’ll probably lose that referendum. Therefore we know that we have a short amount of time to really take things beyond the point of no return so to speak, to really develop people’s ideological levels and organising ability, to the point where we either win that recall, or where we are organised enough to handle an opposition president.
Where to from here?
To deepen and protect the revolution, the activist bases and the revolutionary leadership need to be less disarticulated and start taking on more of a proactive role. But the government is seen to be, and is for now, the leadership – logical in a way, and in terms of many individual members of the government, often deserved. However, it is the grassroots organising – as workers, community, students, consumers, in cadre parties etc. – that is the antidote to all the bureaucracy, corruption and inefficiency. And everyone here knows that if those things aren’t truly smashed over the next three years, it will be hard to deepen the revolution, and we will definitely lose the recall.
I don’t think it’s possible or useful to try to predict what could happen in the future, at least in terms of a few years. All we can do is analyse are own strengths and weaknesses and the strategy of the opposition, within the current national and international economic framework.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
‘The time has come’
Marea Socialista
It is essential to analyse the full extent of the impact of the absence of Commander Chavez. The simple election campaign, based on a liberal bourgeois style by Chavista leaders ... is the empty shell of the legacy of Chavez. If you do not understand that we face a bourgeois state that guarantees the privileges of the local and transnational oligarchies and bureaucracies that administer them, we will rapidly lose the process.
The Bolivarian revolution is essentially a democratic revolution, a political revolution, distinct from the democratic revolutions in the anti-feudal sense that defined the classics of Marxism. It is an ongoing revolution with two determining events. Firstly the constituent assembly, discussion, approval and referendum that approved the Constitution of the Fifth Republic, which was an expression of some of the changes demanded by the poor people going back to the Caracazo and the proposals of the 4 February and 27 November 1992 insurrections.
Secondly was the popular rebellion of April 2002 and the defeat of the oil industry lockout and oil sabotage in 2002-03. This was a counter-revolution defeated by direct action. A revolution that is now at the crossroads, either moving towards anti-capitalist measures or moving towards a path of paralysis opening the way to the oligarchy to pass counter-reforms.
If the PSUV is to recapture the energy from the time of its founding, an internal revolution will be necessary to break with the vices, the deformations and clientelist degenerations it suffers today. A similar process of assimilation and depoliticisation and clientalism and cooption has been creeping into the union movement and social movements.
Thus, opening the floodgates of creativity and the revolutionary energy of our people is what will recover the political initiative. And more than a government of the streets, we will take the streets, the people, the workers, the youth, the indigenous people and revolutionary women to the government to debate and resolve with national organisation a leadership that will work towards revolution.
A revolution like ours cannot and should not have a single party of the revolution ... we must ensure that the public media, radio, television, give space to each political current of the revolution so as to help the development of a free debate of ideas for working people. At the moment it is not just a matter of breaking the media siege by the opposition against the elected government of 14 April 2013. We have to break our own media siege, open our means of communication to free debate and exchange of ideas amongst the various revolutionary currents, giving our organised people the ability to mobilise in a constituent assembly an indestructible fortress.
Now is the time to unleash the power of the people. Through that we will be able to save the revolution.

Towards a new Chile

Chile has awoken!

The struggle in Venezuela

Venezuela’s Bolivarian revolution defeated at the polls

US imperialism pushes for regime change in Venezuela

NSW Catholic Schools take industrial action

Venezuelans stand up to right wing offensive

Dynamics of the Venezuelan revolution

Other Media

Shop

Conferences

Manage Your Subscription

Contact Us