Following the massive student protests in support of the constitutional reforms and the revolutionary process on November 21, Venezuela's workers' movement met the next day, with around 1500 representatives from workplaces gathering at the Teatro Teresa Carreno to plan the campaign to ensure a "Yes" vote in the referendum on constitutional reforms on December 2.
Many of these workers were committed to one trade union current or another in Venezuela's highly factionalised union movement. Inside the building, each trade union grouping began to shout slogans to challenge the others. The atmosphere was getting heated as each group tried to out-shout the other.
Then came the slogan from someone in the audience — "Socialism to put an end to imperialism!", taken up by all the groups reflecting the desire for unity amongst to ensure a massive "Yes" vote. It is unfortunate that one or two of the leaders of the National Union of Workers (UNT — the new trade union federation formed in 2003 after the old, discredited Confederation of Venezuelan Workers backed right-wing attempts to over the Chavez government) have called for a "No" vote, going against the feelings of unity and the wishes of large sections of the working class.
However, the different groups soon resorted once again to trying to out-shout the others and the atmosphere was becoming antagonistic and aggressive. The organisers put on music to try and calm things down.
A major feature of the meeting was the speech by Chavez himself, who arrived to exalted cries of "Chavez! Chavez! Chavez!" There was a very large group of taxi drivers present who stand to benefit directly from the proposed changes to the constitution, which will allow them to receive pensions for the first time through the establishment of a social fund.
Each section was greeted in turn by Chavez. Each section responded in turn with cheers. He recounted how he liked to be with workers, as when he was younger he too had been a worker before entering the military. He had returned from France the day before to a mass rally of students in support of the "Yes" vote. Part of the reforms includes changing university system to further serve the majority, not the minority.
Chavez explained that the esqualidos (reactionaries) had announced a march of "No return" on Miraflores, the presidential palace, but they will not be allowed to. This was in response to violent threats made by John Goicochea, the chief voice of all the reactionary students groups who studies at the Catholic University — the most expensive university where fees alone are 5 million bolivars a month. (For instance, cement workers for French multinational LaFage who had protested just days against lay-offs earn 750,000 bolivars per month.)
Similar right-wing student demonstrations have seen violent rioting, with sections of the city set alight, buildings destroyed and police officers shot. Chavez proclaimed that such a violent demonstration should be prevented. The workers responded with cries of "That's the way to govern!". The workers want firm action to be taken against the reactionaries and their paymasters (the US government and local oligarchy).
Chavez drew from a range of historical experiences. In 1979, the brutal US-backed dictatorship of the Shah was overthrown in Iran. The US supported the Saddam Hussein dictatorship in its war against Iran. Chavez said there was no chance of a US invasion against the Venezuelan revolution, explaining "We have a million people in arms and if necessary we will arm the whole people".
Chavez also pointed out that in Russia, the 1917 Bolshevik-led revolution was isolated and invaded by troops from a large number of countries — including Britain, France, Japan, Canada and the US. Chavez explained that the best workers went to the front to fight off the invading imperialist armies. The revolution was isolated and the bureaucracy took power.
Chavez argued that the Cuban Revolution has lasted a long time due to a deep relationship with the masses, however in Nicaragua, with the 1980s Sandinista-led revolution, the road of reformism led to tragic results. Chavez argued that you cannot adapt to capitalism, it doesn't work.
He emphasised again and again that the working class is the vanguard of the revolutionary process for socialist power, but he also castigated many trade unions for not being able to rise above the arena of purely trade union demands. If this does not happen then the political level of the working class would not rise to the level needed to carry out the task of being the motor force of the revolution. Chavez argued that the only way to guarantee "popular power" is if the working class plays the leading role.
Under the constitutional changes, he continued, the workers' councils in the factories will establish relations with peasant, student and communal councils. If this happens, then what occurred in the Soviet Union and Nicaragua won't happen.
These councils will receive money from the state to carry out specific projects, such as distributing gas bottles for cooking from the state oil company. The budget for next year had been set and 46% will be devoted to social projects and infrastructure. "What other country does this?", Chavez asked.
Chavez sees the councils in different areas as alternative organs of power more closely related to the people, and therefore theoretically more responsive. This is also a way to bypass the cumbersome and obstructive state bureaucracy. Chavez stated, "workers councils will come into being in the factories, in the workplaces, but they should reach out to the communities and be fused into other councils of popular power: community councils, students' councils, etc."
"What for?", Chavez asked. "To shout slogans? To go around shouting long live Chavez? No! To change the relationships in the workplace, to plan production, to take over piece by piece the functions of the government and to finish up by destroying the bourgeois state." In a sign of the radicalisation of the revolution, Chavez called for the "destruction" of the bourgeoisie as a class, whereas he previously has referred only to the "oligarchy".
It is obvious that the newly-formed councils that are emerging will decide themselves to a large extent what their remit will be. For example under the one proposed reform to the constitution, workers' councils will enable workers to democratically manage any enterprise that is considered "social property", while another proposed reform talks about the participation of workers in the running of public enterprises. Constitutions, or agreements, are pieces of paper that reflect the balance of forces between two or more parties at any given moment in time. The reality of the power of the councils will be fought out in the workplaces, the universities and the neighbourhoods.
The bosses will fiercely resist any attempt to take away their right to manage their property. Workers' councils will not be set up to decide what colour paint should be on the walls! The workers, the state bureaucracy and the bosses will all have different conceptions of the role of workers' councils. For workers, it will be to defend and enhance conditions and to assume an ever-increasing role in the management of the company — a step towards workers' control.
Chavez's final words were on the need to learn from the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky on how people can run society, as well as from Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci on the role of workers' councils. Chavez's words demonstrate that in the run up to the referendum, political positions are hardening on both sides of the class divide.
The likelihood is that the "Yes" vote will win. There is tremendous loyalty towards Chavez from all those who had previously been excluded from wealth and power. The reforms of the past nine years have lifted people out of misery and degradation and given them real hope for the future. Disposable incomes have risen by 50%.
But there is also inflation and shortages of essentials like milk. There is obviously sabotage by the bosses who are stockpiling or cutting production in an attempt to discredit Chavez and the revolution. The bosses have stopped investing and many factories are running at only 50% of capacity. The bosses are able to sell all that they produce in an expanding market, they don't invest and therefore make super profits.
While a majority vote for the constitutional reforms is likely, the fear for the revolution is high abstention in the vote, with only a 50% turnout. In the presidential elections of December 2006, the turnout was 75% with Chavez winning 63% of the vote and a real mandate. The bureaucrats in charge of the "Yes" campaign have plenty of colour (red), plenty of music and songs, but very little explanation of what the reforms actually mean. The opposition has been producing full-page adverts in the press with a detailed analysis from their perspective. There have been outright lies, such as each newborn child will belong not to the family but to the state, and that freedom of religion will not be allowed. They seek to frighten people into voting "No", or abstaining.
A resounding "Yes" vote will embolden people and take the revolution forward. Whatever the result, however, there will be a period of sharpening class struggle as workers, students and people in the barrios pursue their demands for better living standards and far more control over their lives. The Venezuelan people have awoken to political life, and won't be easily put back into the cupboard. As Engels said, "The appetite increases with the eating". The same process will also spew out those in the movement who have been consciously or unconsciously holding it back, who have no stomach for the fight to end capitalism and establish socialism in Venezuela.
[Abridged from