[Marxism] Jorge Martin response on Venezuela referendum, int'l solidarity

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The following is a comradely and informative response from Jorge Martin
to my criticism of his article and the issues I raised about the
Venezuela solidarity movement in the United States.  On the latter and
perhaps most important issue, he convinces me that THE SOLIDARITY
ORGANIZATION IN LOS ANGELES DID NOT ATTEMPT TO MOBILIZE OPPOSITION TO
THE VENEZUELAN GOVERNMENT DECISION ON THE REFERENDUM IN THE UNITED
STATES, BUT WAS PETITIONING AGAINST THE IMPERIALIST PRESSURE BEFORE THE
DECISION WAS ANNOUNCED.  I am satisfied and relieved by his explanation.

On the issue of the referendum, I am not convinced at all but I am glad
that it is possible to have a civil, clarifying discussion on the
issues.  Basically, it seems to me, Martin argues that the behavior of
the bourgeois, imperialist-backed opposition gave Chavez PLENTY OF
EXCUSES to reject the referendum, and he should have taken advantage of
them.

Chavez seems to have concluded that given the finding of the electoral
commission and the fact that everyone knows that the opposition has a
real breadth of support, this would be a self-defeating course.

In fact, I think there are two basic issues.  One is simply, is the
Bolivarian constitution now outmoded by the advance of the struggle and
polarization (much as the bourgeois-democratic but quite radical 1940
Constitution in Cuba, which July 26 leaders were genuinely devoted at
the beginning of the revolution, became outmoded as the revolution
emerged clearly as a worker-peasant revolution, not a
bourgeois-democratic shift.  If this is true, the argument should be
made openly as Lenin did concerning the Constituent Assembly, and as
Castro did concerning the transformation of the Cuban revolution from
democratic to socialist (and democratic).  I am not convinced that
Venezuela is at that point.

Secondly, I believe that charting a road forward in Venezuela today is
best accomplished in the way it is being carried out, by the leaders and
revolutionary population joining in military training and organization
of the people, deepening the agrarian reform, measures to fight or
relieve unemployment, and so on. If there is to be confrontation, it
should be over these issues and not whether to hold the referendum.

The referendum process -- which will be a confrontation, although I
believe the Chavez government would have been wrong to provoke a
confrontation on THIS  issue -- will offer opportunities to deepen the
revolution.  And of course, the business of improving the lives of the
people ought to and I believe will continue throughout the process.  The
legitimacy of the revolution is not on hold until the votes are counted.
Fred Feldman


Dear Fred,

I have read your post to the Marxism list. I am not subscribed but I
follow it from time to time, particularly looking for any interesting
analysis on Venezuela.

I thought I would write a reply to your comments and I would be grateful
if you could circulate it to Marxmail (as I said I am not subscribed) or
other lists where you have posted your original comments. 

This I do in the spirit of comradely debate. I am completely convinced
of the importance of the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela and of the
importance of international solidarity work to defend it. This
solidarity work has to be conducted, as you correctly say, in a non
sectarian way and since you are a loyal supporter of the revolution I
think clarifying these points can only help the solidarity work that we
are all conducting in different ways.

in solidarity,

Jorge Martín
jorge@xxxxxxxxxxx

The recall referendum in Venezuela - a reply to Fred Feldman

Having read Fred Feldman's post to Marxmail (Jorge Martin (Woods
tendency) and Hugo Chavez http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/msg49268.html) I
think that a couple of clarifications are in order.

The main objections by Fred Feldman to my article on the recall
referendum (Venezuela: Bolivarian masses anger at referendum decision
http://www.marxist.com/Latinam/venezuela_ref_dec.html) are on its
political line on the one hand and on the political orientation of the
Venezuela solidarity movement and its character.

On the first question Feldman basically argues that the opposition had
collected enough signatures to trigger the recall referendum and that
therefore there was no other option (within the law and the Bolivarian
constitution) than to accept the result and allow the referendum to go
ahead.

The point is that there is plenty of evidence that there has been
widespread fraud in the signature collection process from the beginning
to the end. The National Electoral Commission. I am sure you are
familiar with these, but I think they should be re-stated. First of all
the opposition said they had collected 3.8 million signatures. This
figure is important since it is just above the 3.75 million votes Chavez
got when he was re-elected in 2000 and it would mean that the opposition
would be able not only to trigger a recall referendum, but also to win
it (to recall the president they need not only to win the referendum but
also to do it with more votes than the number he got when elected). When
the opposition, finally and after a long delay, handed in the signatures
to the National Electoral Commission, there were only 3.4 million, thus
400,000 signatures disappeared "mysteriously". The National Electoral
Council ruled in March 2nd, 2003 that 876,017 had to be revalidated due
to the fact that the forms where they are contained present similar
calligraphy ("planillas planas"). Another 143,930 signatures were
rejected due to signers not being registered to vote, minors, foreigners
or not authorized to vote. 233,573 signatures were invalidated for other
irregularities, including ID number or name not coinciding with each
other, amendments made to the forms, removal or alteration of security
features in the forms such as serial numbers. Some of these signatures
rejected were later added to the revalidation process bringing the
number of signatures that had to be revalidated to nearly 1.2 million. 

Therefore it is clear that there was widespread fraud in the original
process of signature collection. The opposition protested against this
decision by the CNE and called for civil disobedience and organised
burning street barricades, defended with Molotov cocktails and fire arms
(including rifles). At the same time opposition groups, in connivance
with opposition controlled police forces tried to organise provocations
in working class and poor neighbourhoods in the capital. In El Valle
they closed the main road and fired on the offices of the Popular
Revolutionary Assembly. In El Paraiso they fired on the offices of the
recently created National Union of Workers (UNT) and offices of the MVR
and the PPT (two Bolivarian parties, part of the current government)
were assaulted and set on fire (with one MVR activist dying as a
result). I explaining, which I am sure you are aware of, just to
underline the point about the undemocratic character of the opposition,
and the fact that for them legal means (ie the recall referendum) are
just part of a wider campaign including the use of undemocratic, illegal
and violent means. Also these well orchestrated riots (la guarimba)
showed they knew it would be very difficult for them to get the
necessary signatures re-verified.

During the re-verification process, about ten days ago there were also
plenty of irregularities. These are reported in detail in an excellent
article by Gregory Wilpert and Martin Sanchez (Venezuela?s Signature
Re-certification Ends Without Major Incident but with Many Minor Ones
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1284), but amongst them
are the fact that thousands of forged ID cards and materials to make
them were found in Accion Democratica offices in several parts of the
country, workers who were threatened into verifying their signatures,
and deceased people appearing not having been removed from the electoral
register. Clear proof of electoral fraud is the fact that nearly 74,000
people whose "signatures" "appeared" in the original sheets, went to
declare they had never signed. Further to this, CNE member Jorge
Rodriguez announced that between 15,000 and 50,000 people who had died
had not been removed from the electoral register that was being used for
the re-verification process, despite the fact that this information had
been sent by the competent bodies to the Electoral Register Commission.
This figure by the way coincides with the 15,000 signatures that the
opposition has allegedly collected over the necessary 2.4 million. 

This is the main reason why I argued in the article that the decision
was wrong. At the very least from a consistent democratic position,
investigation of all irregularities and punishment for those responsible
of electoral fraud should have been demanded. To do otherwise is to give
in to the arguments of imperialism and the opposition who assumed from
the beginning that the if there was no referendum it would only be
because Chavez is a dictator. You assume that enough signatures and give
these reasons: 
"Does anyone really doubt that are well over the required amount of
people in the country who are opposed to the Venezuelan
revolution?  A couple years ago, the dominant TRADE UNION in Venezuela
was determined to overturn the revolutionary government led by Chavez.
They were smashed in a battle waged in the working class as well as
among the Venezuelan people as a whole, but does anyone doubt that they
had a base among the oppressed and exploited, not to mention among the
bourgeoisie and middle classes?  More than enough to qualify a recall
referendum under the constitution! That is for sure. "
It is clear that there are a lot of people in Venezuela who are opposed
to the revolution. However, from a consistent democratic point of view,
never mind a revolutionary one, they have to proof this by actually
collecting the 2.4 million signatures. And here another factor comes
into play: the demoralisation of the social base of the opposition.
After having been defeated twice in important attempts to overthrow
Chavez (April 2002 and December 2002), the mass of mainly middle class
supporters of the opposition became demoralised and demobilised. This
was particularly the case after the defeat of the bosses lock-out and
oil sabotage in December 2002/January 2003. At that time the oligarchy
was able to mobilise hundreds of thousands of people in the streets, day
in day out, for about 50 days. And they were soundly defeated. After
that the opposition has not been able to mobilise people in any large
numbers. Last Saturday, in the best of conditions for them since they
feel they have won a major victory with the calling of a recall
referendum, they gathered according to Reuters just 60,000 people.  You
yourself admit to this when you say that: "My guess is that the fakery
in the signatures was a response to laziness in the bourgeois forces
about waging a real fight". That is correct. Not so much laziness but
rather demoralisation, lack of faith. But then you are implying that it
does not really matter whether they collected the signatures or not,
just whether there is enough people in the country who oppose the
revolution. 

As for the "dominant trade union" wanting to overthrow Chavez in
December 2002, we must be clear that at that time the un-elected and
self appointed leadership of the CTV had lost any real support amongst
the working class and it could not even get its own oil workers
federation to support the bosses lockout. No major federation within the
CTV supported their call for a "general strike" and they subsequently
went on to form the UNT in August 2003. We should not fall into the trap
of the bourgeois media who presented the bosses lock out as a workers'
general strike. At that time the CTV was not the dominant trade union,
but rather an unelected and self-appointed clique, which had lost any
legitimacy amongst ordinary workers, that is why no section of the
workers followed their call. 

It is in this context that the Hands Off Venezuela Campaign, that our
tendency initiated back in December 2002 at the time of the criminal
bosses lock out, took the line that "with fraud there can be no
referendum", which is a basic democratic position shared by many within
the Bolivarian movement. Resolutions on the same line were passed by the
National Coordination of Bolivarian Circles, the National Workers Union,
the Bolivarian Workers Force and others. No one can define these
organisations as sectarian, and they represent millions of
revolutionaries within the Bolivarian movement. The mood was very angry
and this I reported in my article. 

The basic line of the appeal, which we issued on Wednesday, BEFORE
Chavez accepted the CNE provisional decision and BEFORE this provisional
decision had been made, at a time when there was strong pressure from
bourgeois public opinion to allow the referendum regardless of the
facts, was summed up in its title: "Hands Off Venezuela! No to
imperialist intervention! Defend and deepen the Bolivarian Revolution!
Without signatures there must be no referendum!"
(http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/statement.html) and concluded with
this paragraph which I think can be described as sectarian: 
"We strongly reject international pressure against a government and a
revolution which have substantially improved health and education, have
started an ambitious land reform programme and have opposed the
privatisation of the countries? natural resources, particularly oil. It
is not the time for any concessions to the undemocratic opposition.
Those opposition leaders responsible for violent undemocratic actions
against the democratically elected government must be put on trial and
sent to jail so that they pay for their crimes. We express once again
our strongest support for the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela."
I am sure that solidarity groups in the US took up this appeal, and some
were collecting signatures to it. I do not see anything wrong with this.
The appeal starts by opposing imperialist interference, supports the
revolution and explains its achievements, calls for the opposition
leaders involved in violent acts to be punished and expresses the view
that without signatures there should be no referendum. Furthermore, the
signatures to this appeal, including prominent left wing members of
parliament in different countries and trade union leaders, were
forwarded to the leadership of the Bolivarian movement and Chavez
himself, as a way of showing that world labour movement opinion had a
different position to world capitalist public opinion. 
At that particular point in time (between Sunday May 30th and Sunday
June 6th) the main axis of our solidarity work with the Bolivarian
revolution was to oppose what we saw as imperialist pressure to force
the leadership of the revolution to concede a referendum without having
collected the necessary signatures. I do not think that is sectarian.
Once the referendum is going ahead obviously the main task of the
solidarity movement is to help win it against what will be a concerted
campaign of lies and dirty tricks on the part of the reactionary
opposition and imperialism. 
We have been committed from day one to the unconditional defence of the
Venezuelan revolution. The campaign we initiated (Hands Off Venezuela)
got broad support from the labour and trade union movement international
(http://www.marxist.com/appeals/hands_off_venezuela.html) and is
organised around two basic principles: support for the revolution and a
struggle against imperialist intervention. 
The campaign has never been sectarian and has organised around basic
democratic principles that every consistent democrat can support. We
have got the support of dozens of members of parliament in Pakistan,
Germany, Greece and other countries, and hundreds of trade union
activists and leaders from around the world. Most of this people do not
support the political positions of In Defence of Marxism
(www.marxist.com), but they do support the basic statement of the Hands
Off Venezuela appeal.  More recently we got the support for the
revolutionary process in Venezuela from a group of important general
secretaries of trade unions in Britain
(http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/british_trade_union_support.html). We
have organised successful speaking tours in Italy, Belgium, France,
Germany, Denmark and Spain, always organised with the support and in
coordination with local left wing, labour movement and Bolivarian
organisations in these countries. Thanks to our work, on Saturday
national congress of the largest trade union federation in Italy, the
metal workers' union FIOM-CGIL with a membership of more than 200,000,
passed a resolution in support of the Venezuelan revolution, branding
the unelected leadership of the CTV as supporters of the coup and
calling for links to be established with the UNT. This was hard work,
since the official position of the socialdemocracy in Italy (the DS)
with majority support within the union, is to support the reactionary
opposition in Venezuela. This could not have been done without a
non-sectarian approach towards the left wing of the DS. 

So let me reassure you and any other comrades involved in the work in
solidarity with the Venezuelan revolution that our approach is, and has
always been, non-sectarian. As you will understand and I think agree,
this does not prevent us from raising our own political ideas and views
about the revolution and even to criticise a mistake of its leadership
when we think one has been made. These political questions we can
discuss and I am sure it will be an interesting discussion. 

Comradely,


Jorge Martin
jorge@xxxxxxxxxxx


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism