Venezuela

The Party of Revolution and Socialism

Interview with Stalin Perez Borges

Stalin Perez Borges, trade union leader and long-standing Trotskyist militant, is at the heart of the revolutionary process in Venezuela. He is one of the four "national coordinators" of the new - and today majority - trade union confederation, the UNT. He is also a member of the "initiating committee" of a new party that is being formed, the Party of Revolution and Socialism.

The following interview, conducted by Fabrice Thomas and Yannick Lacoste, was first published in the September 22nd, 2005 issue of Rouge, weekly paper of the LCR (French section of the Fourth International).

Can you give us your analysis of the present stage of the process that is underway in Venezuela?

Stalin Perez Borges: The revolutionary process is continuing, but there are contradictions at work and it is being undermined by corruption and inefficiency. In the recent elections for municipal and neighbourhood councils, there were clashes between the rank and file of the ’Chavist’ parties and sections of the party leaderships, which bureaucratically imposed their candidates.

For the moment, the confrontation within the revolutionary process with these conservative bureaucratic governmental sectors is essentially verbal. But we think that it can in the future become much sharper and lead, especially if the confrontation with imperialism becomes more tense, to a considerable deepening of the revolutionary situation.
Stalin Peres Borges at May Day rally

What is the situation on the trade union level?

With the crises of the coup d’etat against Chavez in April 2002, the oil blockade by the bosses at the end of 2002 and the beginning of 2003 and the open treason of the old confederation, the CTV, the workers understood the need to take their trade union organizations into their own hands.

It is on the basis of this taking place, on a nationwide scale, that anew trade union confederation, the National Workers’ Union (UNT) was established. The UNT has been considerably strengthened. It is now the confederation which comprises the majority of trade union organizations in the country.

It is difficult for the moment to give a figure for its real strength, but we can say that we have more v\than a million members and that the immense majority of unions are affiliated to the UNT. There are four tendencies. We are waiting for the next congress to know whether the bureaucratic sector - a reformist current which includes many corrupt and incompetent leaders - has the majority.

There is also the current of the "Bolivarian Workers’ Force", which is close to the government and which is also a reformist current. And then there is the "classist current", many of whose cadres have been involved in the recent formation of the Party of Revolution and Socialism (PRS).

Can you tell us a bit more about the PRS?

The formation of the PRS is a consequence of this battle in the UNT. In most of the meetings that were organized across the country, the majority of those who intervened demanded the formation of a force distinct from those which today support Chavez, that is to say the MVR, the PPT, Podemos, the Communist Party and some others.

Seeing this need, we decided to establish the PRS. We think that in the present situation the workers need a political organization which defends their interests, which is for class independence and which has a well-defined anti-imperialist project.

Within our trade union current, some people reproach us for having this project. We have to carry out both tasks; build the UNT as a trade union confederation that is independent of political parties and from the government, and build a political party for the workers.

The discussion around the formation of the PRS is at present being conducted by five distinct political groups. Other organizations will be able to broaden out our political platform, and we hope to be able to announce the official launching of the PRS at the beginning of next year. We want to plan a founding congress. We already have a paper, Opcion socialista ("Socialist Option").

This project has involved us in organizing a number of events: on July 9, we held a national meeting which brought together 450 people in Caracas. We have organized and will be organizing other meetings throughout the country to proclaim the need for a new organization. We have produced a political platform to serve as a basis for discussion. [1]

What difference is there between the PRS and the official Chavist parties that exist at present?

The organizations in the leadership of the process are reformist, Stalinist or ultra-left, and they do not help to fight against the bureaucratic character of the state.

It is necessary to ensure the transformation that the popular masses are demanding, which requires greater participation by ordinary people. The population has acquired - this is a characteristic of the process - a certain amount of power. It is no longer possible for either leaders, ministers or bosses to impose anything on them.

This combat against bureaucracy, against corruption and against reformism is beginning to show results that are significant for the future of the country.

They also used "Lenin" and, after 1957, "Sputnik".

When the coup occurred in Chile, the DINA (secret police) checked identity cards on every street corner. Even the most innocent "Stalin" was taken away to be tortured.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
Huh. Kinda cool. Really, as long as the electoral system is such that it doesn't backfire, the more progressive groups the better. Time will tell what this one's like; the problems this guy's talking about do seem to be important, but they're also pretty intractable and can spring up in groups even as they rant against them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mamitalinda:
Stalins are rampant in Latin America.

---

quote:

---

Chavez is doing an incredible thing for Venezuela. All this will accomplish - or try to accomplish - is split the vote and get him out.

---

quote:

---

Chavez is doing an incredible thing for Venezuela. All this will accomplish - or try to accomplish - is split the vote and get him out.

---

As for the issue, I don't see why another left party is necessarily "splitting the vote". Chavez has done a lot of good for Venezuela ... but in a way that is the problem, no? Isn't it a bit too much of a one-man-show?

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
As for the issue, I don't see why another left party is necessarily "splitting the vote". Chavez has done a lot of good for Venezuela ... but in a way that is the problem, no? Isn't it a bit too much of a one-man-show?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Albertan:

80% of Venezuelans disagree at this point.

---

quote:

---

It may not be well recalled, but the Nicaraguan Sandinistas were actually a coalition of left forces.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
It may not be well recalled, but the Nicaraguan Sandinistas were actually a coalition of left forces. They included "Los Doce", a group of influential left-liberals, as well as various socialist and communist strains.

Sandino himself was mostly an anarchist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thrasymachus:
They lost the election. People chose peace over continuing to stand up to the States. Additionally, some people, when given the option, don't choose socialism. I guess Cuba won't have that problem in the near future.

---

The main issues were:

1. The war

2. The draft

3. The economy

Chamorro's main campaign slogan was: "Only I can bring peace". That was because everyone knew the US wanted her to win, and would cease backing the contras if she were elected.

Daniel Ortega mishandled the draft issue. About ten months before the elction, he said that the war had been going so well that they could soon end the draft before the election. That was a huge issue because virtually no one was draft exempt, from 15 year olds up to people in their forties.

As the election approached, Ortega said that he would end the draft, but only after the election.
Many people disbelieved this.

3. Economy: It sucked. For example, when I first went there, in 1980, a piece of chicken cost 7 cordobas at a modest restaurant. In 1990, the cost was more like 70,000 cordobas. People's savings thus disappeared.

While there were many effective programmes to insure that everyone had enough to eat, and even minimal housing, it was pretty much a full-time effort to do so. Life was really hard.

Chamorro campaigned as if she offered the possibility of breaking out of that cycle, which had gone on for ten years. People had hopes.

Equating Trotskyism with Stalinism is like equating Joe Clark with Stephen Harper, Svend Robinson with Bev Desjarlais, Lincoln Chafee with Trent Lott, or (since you all asked so nicely) Leung Kwok-hung with Mao Zedong. (which is -- ironically -- the best of these examples, as Leung's ideas are pretty well all cribbed from Trotsky and from modern left-libertarian intellectuals like Noam Chomsky while Maoism was just airy-fairy philosophical bullishit justifying the application of ultra-Stalinism on the Chinese peasantry)

[ 02 October 2005: Message edited by: America is Behind ]