Venezuela will not be the same after the formation of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) — whose founding congress concluded in March. Nor will Latin America.
Since the call for its foundation by President Hugo Chavez over one year ago, it has been the cause of controversies, diatribes and doubts. Above all it was the object of violent attacks.
This was not without reason: to construct a party for the socialist revolution, in this historic moment, goes against conventional wisdom.
Due to ignorance or vested interests, the philosophical trend known as postmodernism extrapolated from the experience of the Soviet Union in order to come up with some categorical conclusions: socialism is impossible, revolution is unthinkable and a party is an inadmissible anachronism.
Huge sums of Euros provided by European social democracy feed these "social movements" and various "horizontalist structures" — a definition that would come to stress the identification of "verticalism" with "party".
With parallel generosity, although expressed in US dollars, other similar structures were created or coopted by the CIA.
Refusing to challenge capitalism
With left-wing labels, various infallible European theoreticians coincided with this push by explaining that, from now on, it was about "making revolution without taking power".
All types of absurdities were utilised to sidestep the necessity for revolution, the non-viability of capitalism and the need to create adequate political instruments in order to confront imperialism and its minions — instruments with which to unite, educate, organise and lead millions of men and women in struggle against this agonising system.
Nevertheless, there was still something missing: opposition to the concept of the party by those very same parties that define themselves as left. This omission was resolved in Venezuela when numerous revolutionary tendencies refused to participate in the construction of the PSUV.
The real cause of this opposition in Venezuela to the foundation of a party that united all those forces committed to the Bolivarian revolution, led by the Chavez government, lay elsewhere — with the reticence to confront the transition towards socialism.
The project underway had reached the point of no return: either socialist revolution or caricature of a revolution.
The list of names and organisations that openly or underhandedly opposed casting off the capitalist system — often as an unconscious reflex action — would surprise many.
The call for a mass party
After having raised the banner of the transition towards socialism, and received massive support when he was re-elected in December 2006, Chavez announcement the necessity to construct the United Socialist Party of Venezuela. In response, multiple fractures occurred.
Firstly, within the mass movement that supported the call. Support for creating the PSUV deeply eroded the membership of the different parties that backed the Chavez government, with 5.7 million people enrolling as aspiring members of the PSUV.
Secondly, some smaller segments, that until then had been part of the government, returned to the fold of the pro-imperialist opposition. (The most notorious examples of this were the party Podemos and retired general Raul Baduel, who had been defence minister until July last year.)
Thirdly, there were the splits produced within those forces committed to the revolution, but who, for different reasons, refused to carry out the colossal task of organising a mass socialist party.
The fourth bloc, in no way homogenous or organised but perhaps the most significant in numerical terms, were those individuals, generally from the middle classes, who had supported the government but who stepped to the side in the face of an impending transcendental decision: destroying the capitalist state.
All this translated into disorder, dislocation, paralysis, confusion and arbitrary behaviour — all with an irrational appearance, but which in the last instance were consistent with fear of the future. Society as a whole lived through this moment in a state of confusion, disorganisation and paralysis.
The PSUV advanced in leaps, but it also suffered from the effects of this state of affairs. And the enemy entered via these cracks with lucidness, determination and a perfect apparatus for mass political action. That is how we ended up with the unexpected result in the December constitutional reform referendum [which aimed to assist the transition to socialism].
Chavez was defeated for the first time at the ballot box since his election as president in 1998.
Dialectic of old and new
It was here that postmodern ideas reappeared with vigour, producing a paradoxical effect, although in some ways usual in the history of the class struggle. Those same people who held back on supporting the creation of the PSUV, without which nothing could advance in the Bolivarian revolution, discovered the weaknesses, faults and errors within it.
Now it was possible to oppose the creation of the party — and refuse to concretely initiate measures against capitalism — with abundant argumentation and by placing the blame on others.
Parallel to this was the relaunching of the construction of the PSUV. One out of every five of those who had enrolled, 1.2 million people, methodologically embarked on this task.
This mass began to regularly meet in order to study and debate notions that had been relegated during decades of reaction. It was a formidable battle of ideas; a cadre school of gigantic proportions.
With more or less democratic rigour, but invariably with the participation of all those who volunteered to involve themselves, grassroots elections occurred for delegates who would go on to give life to the founding congress over eight weekends (the last one on March 8-9).
They voted on a declaration of principles, program and statutes. Parallel to the congress sessions, the entirety of the ranks met in their local branches to discuss those same documents and approve, or not, amendments proposed by the delegates.
On the last weekend, a provisional national leadership was elected. The next step will be a universal vote of all full members to decide upon the definitive leadership at the end of the year. Before this, it will be necessary to resolve the mechanism for the selection and election of candidates for the elections for mayors and governors this November.
There was no lack of trip ups, arbitrariness and inexperience, which was inevitable with such a genuine representation of Venezuelan society. What is surprising is the clear preponderance within the congress of genuine representatives of the will of the grassroots.
We can presume that tendencies or groups organised around ideas or interests — not always compatible with the aims of the Bolivarian revolution — will recuperate lost space in the face of the obligated necessity of respecting democratic criteria.
The result, nevertheless, is unmistakable — this general project that marches towards socialism of the 21st Century, embodied in the figure of Chavez, now counts on a fledgling but powerful force organised as a revolutionary party.
No ceasefire
The battle (of ideas, of methods, of lines of action) will not end with the closing of the founding congress. In fact it is only beginning. From now on the absence of those who, having accumulated invaluable experience and knowledge but did not commit themselves to the project, will be noticeable and more sharply felt than even during the congress.
But the ideas of revolution, driven by political will, will produce miracles.
The party for the transition will, at the same time, surely be a party in transition. With its transcendental value, the documents voted by the congress will remain subordinated to a reality dominated by the immediate relationship of forces and the existing political culture.
It will take years of ideological, political and organisational struggle to forge an adequate instrument capable of constructing a new society. These multiple battles will occur simultaneously and inseparably from the confrontation with imperialism and the internal enemies of the revolution.
This is not a prediction of the future, it is occurring right now, with the imperial challenge of ExxonMobil (against the nationalisation of its assets) and the furious destabilisation campaign of the local bourgeoisie.
[Abridged from March edition of America XXI, http://americaxxi.com.ve. Translated by Federico Fuentes. A longer article by Bilbao, entitled "Venezuela: Revolution, party and a new international", can be found at http//links.org.au]