Woods, Alan The Venezuelan Revolution: A Marxist Perspective

 Woods, Alan (2006). The Venezuelan Revolution: A Marxist Perspective (Third Edition) 

---- 맑스주의적 분석은 어떻게 다를까 궁금해서, 이 책의 1,000 단어 요약+평론 써주세요.

===

앨런 우즈(Alan Woods)의 저서 <베네수엘라 혁명: 맑스주의적 관점 (The Venezuelan Revolution: A Marxist Perspective)>에 대한 1,000단어 분량의 요약 및 평론입니다.

이 책은 앞서 추천한 로리 캐롤의 책과는 완전히 정반대의 지점에 서 있습니다. 로리 캐롤이 서구 자유민주주의 기자의 시선에서 <개인의 권력욕과 시스템 붕괴>를 보았다면, 앨런 우즈는 트로츠키주의(Trotskyist) 이론가의 시선에서 이 사태를 <자본가 계급과 노동자 계급의 사활을 건 전쟁>으로 해석합니다.

---

[도서 정보]

• 제목: 베네수엘라 혁명: 맑스주의적 관점 (The Venezuelan Revolution: A Marxist Perspective)

• 저자: 앨런 우즈 (Alan Woods)

• 출판년도: 2006년 (3판)

---

1. 요약 (Summary)

<혁명의 본질: 민주주의 문제가 아닌 계급 전쟁> 저자 앨런 우즈는 국제맑스주의경향(IMT)의 지도자로, 우고 차베스와 개인적인 친분을 맺고 조언을 제공했던 인물이다. 그는 서구 언론이 베네수엘라 사태를 <독재 대 민주주의>의 프레임으로 보도하는 것을 철저히 배격한다. 대신 그는 이를 고전적인 맑스주의 시각, 즉 <계급 투쟁>의 관점에서 분석한다. 베네수엘라의 혼란은 차베스의 기행 때문이 아니라, 오랫동안 국가를 지배해 온 <베네수엘라 과두 지배층(Oligarchy)>과 제국주의 세력(미국)이 자신들의 기득권을 위협하는 대중 운동을 분쇄하려는 반동적 시도 때문에 발생한다는 것이다. 따라서 이 책에서 2002년의 쿠데타와 석유 파업은 헌정 질서의 위기가 아니라, 기득권층이 노동자 정부를 전복시키려 한 자본 파업으로 규정된다.

<아래로부터의 혁명과 대중의 역할> 이 책의 핵심 주장은 차베스가 혁명을 만든 것이 아니라, <대중이 차베스를 만들었다>는 것이다. 우즈는 차베스라는 인물의 카리스마보다 그를 지지하는 <무산계급(Proletariat)>의 역동성에 주목한다. 2002년 쿠데타 당시 차베스가 체포되어 권력을 잃었을 때, 그를 구출하고 대통령궁으로 복귀시킨 것은 군 장성들이 아니라 빈민가에서 쏟아져 나온 수십만의 군중이었다. 저자는 이를 러시아 혁명에 비견할 만한 역사적 사건으로 평가하며, 베네수엘라 민중이 서구의 예상보다 훨씬 더 급진적이고 혁명적인 잠재력을 가지고 있다고 주장한다. 차베스는 이 거대한 파도 위에 올라탄 서퍼일 뿐이며, 때로는 대중이 차베스보다 더 왼쪽으로 가기를 원한다고 분석한다.

<멈춰 선 혁명의 위험성> 맑스주의자로서 우즈가 차베스 정부에게 보내는 가장 강력한 경고는 <혁명을 중간에서 멈추지 말라>는 것이다. 그는 베네수엘라가 여전히 자본주의 경제 체제 안에 머물러 있다고 비판한다. 차베스가 석유 수익을 빈민에게 나눠주고는 있지만, 은행과 주요 산업, 토지의 대부분은 여전히 사적 자본(부르주아지)의 손에 남아 있다는 것이다. 우즈는 <혼합 경제>란 불가능하다고 단언한다. 자본가들의 경제 권력을 완전히 몰수하여 국유화하지 않는다면, 그들은 경제적 힘을 이용해 끊임없이 태업(Sabotage)을 하고 물가를 조작하여 결국 혁명 정부를 무너뜨릴 것이라고 예언한다. 즉, <사회주의로 완전히 이행하지 않으면 혁명은 필연적으로 패배한다>는 것이 그의 진단이다.

<관료주의라는 내부의 적> 우즈는 외부의 적인 미 제국주의만큼이나 위험한 내부의 적으로 <볼리바르 운동 내부의 관료주의>를 지목한다. 붉은 셔츠를 입고 차베스 만세를 외치지만, 실제로는 출세주의자이거나 혁명의 급진화를 가로막는 우파적 관료들(제5열)이 정부와 당을 장악하고 있다는 것이다. 이들은 노동자들의 자주 관리(Workers' Control)를 방해하고, 위로부터의 지시만을 강요하여 대중의 열기를 식게 만든다. 저자는 차베스에게 기존의 부르주아 국가 기구(사법부, 경찰, 행정부)를 그대로 둔 채 개혁하려 하지 말고, 이를 해체하고 노동자 위원회에 기초한 새로운 국가를 건설해야 한다고 조언한다.

---

2. 평론 (Critique)

<왜 맑스주의적 분석이 필요한가: 현상의 이면을 보는 틀> 주류 경제학이나 자유주의 정치학 서적들이 베네수엘라의 실패를 <포퓰리즘의 방만한 재정 지출>과 <독재자의 무능>에서 찾을 때, 앨런 우즈의 분석은 완전히 다른 층위의 통찰을 제공한다. 그는 베네수엘라 사회의 극심한 양극화가 단순한 정치적 견해 차이가 아니라, 화해 불가능한 경제적 이해관계의 충돌임을 명확히 한다. 왜 베네수엘라의 상류층이 그토록 차베스를 증오했는지, 반대로 왜 빈민층은 경제가 망가지는 상황에서도 차베스를 종교적으로 숭배했는지 이해하려면, 로리 캐롤의 책보다는 이 책의 <계급 분석>이 훨씬 더 유용한 도구가 된다. 이 책은 차베스 지지자들의 분노와 열망이 어디에 뿌리를 두고 있는지를 가장 구조적으로 설명해 준다.

<진단은 날카로우나 처방은 위험하다> 우즈의 진단, 즉 <어설픈 개혁은 반동을 부른다>는 지적은 베네수엘라의 훗날 상황을 보면 어느 정도 적중했다. 사유 재산을 남겨둔 채 가격 통제만 시행했던 차베스의 정책은 실제로 생산 중단과 암시장 형성이라는 자본의 보복을 불러왔기 때문이다. 그러나 우즈가 제시하는 처방, 즉 <완전한 몰수와 국유화, 계획 경제로의 이행>이 과연 해결책이 되었을지는 의문이다. 그는 소련의 붕괴를 스탈린주의 관료제 탓으로 돌리며, 진정한 <노동자 민주주의>가 실현된다면 계획 경제가 효율적으로 작동할 것이라 믿는다. 하지만 현대 경제의 복잡성을 고려할 때, 시장의 가격 기능을 완전히 배제한 중앙 통제(그것이 노동자 위원회에 의한 것이라 할지라도)가 베네수엘라 경제를 구원했을 것이라는 주장은 지나치게 낙관적인 이념적 믿음으로 보인다.

<차베스에 대한 비판적 지지> 흥미로운 점은 이 책이 차베스에 대한 <용비어천가>가 아니라는 점이다. 트로츠키주의자답게 우즈는 차베스의 <보나파르트주의적 기질(계급 간의 중재자처럼 행동하려는 경향)>을 경계한다. 그는 차베스가 군대 내의 명령 체계에 익숙하여 대중의 자발적인 통제를 억누를 위험이 있음을 지적한다. 이는 서구 언론의 <독재자 비판>과는 결이 다르다. 서구 언론은 <차베스가 너무 급진적이어서 문제>라고 했지만, 우즈는 <차베스가 충분히 급진적이지 않아서 문제>라고 비판한다. 이러한 관점은 독자에게 베네수엘라 정권 내부의 알력과 노선 투쟁을 입체적으로 볼 수 있게 해준다.

<이념의 필터를 감안하고 읽어야 할 책> 이 책은 중립적인 학술서가 아니다. 뚜렷한 정치적 목적(세계 혁명의 완수)을 가진 팜플렛의 성격을 띤다. 따라서 <제국주의의 음모>, <부르주아지의 태업>과 같은 용어들이 매우 빈번하게, 그리고 증명 없이 사실로 전제되어 사용된다. 경제 붕괴의 원인을 정책 실패나 유가 하락보다는 자본가들의 악의적인 방해 공작에서 주로 찾는 점은 분석의 객관성을 떨어뜨리는 요인이다. 하지만 바로 그 편향성 때문에 이 책은 가치가 있다. 차베스 정부의 핵심 브레인들과 지지자들이 세상을 어떻게 바라보았는지, 그들의 <세계관(Weltanschauung)>을 가장 정확하게 보여주는 1차 사료에 가깝기 때문이다.

---

[사용자를 위한 한 줄 요약]

서구 언론의 <민주주의 대 독재> 프레임을 넘어, 

차베스 지지 세력이 세상을 바라보는 <노동자 대 자본가>의 전쟁 관점을 이해하고 싶다면, 그리고 왜 그들이 <혁명은 멈춰서 실패했다>고 믿는지 알고 싶다면 이 책이 정답입니다.

===

<한국어 | 약 1,000단어 요약+평론>

<요약>
앨런 우즈의 <The Venezuelan Revolution: A Marxist Perspective>는 ‘차베스라는 인물 전기’가 아니라, 2002년 쿠데타 시도 이후 전개된 볼리바르 과정(차비스모)을 <계급투쟁과 국가권력, 소유관계>의 관점에서 해석하려는 정치적 개입서에 가깝습니다. 책은 단일한 “한 번에 쓴” 연구서라기보다, 사건이 진행되는 동안 쓴 글들을 묶은 <기사/에세이 모음집>이라는 성격이 강합니다. marxist.com+2books.google.com+2

우즈가 반복해서 세우는 기본 구도는 다음과 같습니다. 베네수엘라에서 벌어지는 충돌은 ‘좋은 정책 vs 나쁜 정책’의 경쟁이 아니라, (저자 표현을 빌리면) <기존 지배계급(부르주아·올리가르히)과 그것을 둘러싼 대외 권력> 대 <민중/노동자 다수의 동원> 사이의 힘겨루기이며, 이 힘겨루기는 선거만으로 자동 해결되지 않는다는 것입니다. 그가 보기에 2002년 4월의 쿠데타 시도, 이어진 정치적 대립과 경제 전쟁(특히 석유 부문을 둘러싼 충돌)은 이 계급적 대립이 표면화된 결정적 분기점입니다. marxists.org+1

핵심 논지는 “혁명은 반쯤만 할 수 없다”는 명제로 정리됩니다. 즉 국가기구와 경제의 핵심 부문이 여전히 사적 소유와 기존 엘리트의 통제 아래 남아 있다면, 개혁이 일정 성과를 내더라도 <반격(쿠데타·경제 마비·자본도피·사보타주)>의 가능성이 상존하고, 장기적으로 혁명 과정은 후퇴하거나 왜곡된다는 주장입니다. 이런 논리에서 우즈는 ‘급진화’의 방향을 구체적으로 제시하는데, 요지는 <결정적 산업·금융·유통 부문의 사적 소유를 건드리지 않으면, 국가가 대중의 기대를 지속적으로 충족시키기 어렵고 정치적 주도권도 잃기 쉽다>는 것입니다. marxists.org+2Marxist Books+2

또 하나의 축은 <지도력과 조직> 문제입니다. 우즈는 차베스 개인의 역할을 크게 평가하는 편이지만(대중 동원을 가능하게 한 지도력), 동시에 개인 의지로는 한계가 있으며 ‘혁명적 위기’ 국면에서는 <노동자·민중의 자율적 조직, 국가 관료주의와의 긴장, 아래로부터의 통제>가 중요하다고 봅니다. 여기서 관료주의는 “혁명을 지키는 장치”가 될 수도 있지만 “혁명을 질식시키는 장치”가 될 수도 있는 양면성을 가진 것으로 다뤄집니다. (이 대목은 맑스주의 전통의 ‘국가론/이행기 국가’ 논쟁과 닿아 있습니다.)

대외적으로는 베네수엘라가 고립된 섬이 아니며, 혁명 과정이 살아남으려면 <국제적 확산 또는 최소한 국제적 연대>가 필수라는 국제주의 논리를 강조합니다. 라틴아메리카의 역사적 ‘분절’(지역 통합의 좌절)을 언급하며, 볼리바르의 통합 구상을 오늘의 혁명 전략과 연결하려는 시도도 나타납니다. marxist.com

정리하면, 이 책은 차비스모를 “민주주의 제도 변화”나 “정책 조합”으로 설명하기보다, <소유관계의 변환을 둘러싼 미완의 혁명>으로 규정하고, 혁명 과정이 직면한 위험을 ‘반혁명(쿠데타/경제적 압박)’과 ‘내부의 관료주의/타협’에서 동시에 찾습니다. books.google.com+1

<평론 | 맑스주의적 분석은 무엇이 다른가>

1. <분석 단위가 ‘제도’보다 ‘계급·소유’에 있다>
   Corrales·Penfold 같은 정치경제/제도 분석은 “선거 경쟁이 어떻게 비대칭으로 변하는가, 견제·균형이 왜 약해지는가, 석유렌트가 어떤 유인을 만드는가”를 중심으로 체제의 작동 원리를 설명합니다. 반면 우즈는 같은 현상을 보더라도 원인을 <사적 소유와 국가권력의 계급적 성격>에서 찾고, 해결책도 <소유의 전환(국유화/노동자 통제)>으로 귀결시키는 경향이 강합니다. 즉 ‘왜 하이브리드 체제가 되는가’보다 ‘왜 혁명이 완결되지 못하는가’가 중심 질문입니다.

2. <규범적·전략적 처방이 훨씬 직접적이다>
   우즈의 글은 “설명”만이 아니라 “해야 한다”가 핵심입니다. 그래서 읽는 사람에게는 속도가 빠르고 선명하지만, 반대로 <반대 근거를 동등하게 검토하는 학술적 절차>는 상대적으로 약합니다. 이 점은 장점이자 한계입니다. 운동 내부의 토론 자료로는 강하지만, 여러 가설을 경쟁시키며 검증하려는 독자에게는 단선적으로 느껴질 수 있습니다. (실제로 좌파 내부에서도 ‘노선이 경직되고 일면적’이라는 비판이 제기된 바 있습니다.) John Riddell

3. <‘차베스’ 평가가 비교적 우호적이다>
   우즈는 차베스와 볼리바르 운동을 ‘반동’으로 보지 않고, 대중적·반신자유주의적 동원을 열어젖힌 진보적 계기로 해석하는 편입니다. 베네수엘라 내부에서 이 경향(IMT/우즈)이 일정 영향력을 인정받았다는 평가도 존재합니다. Venezuelanalysis+1 다만 이런 위치성 때문에, 책 전체가 “정권 비판”보다는 “혁명의 전진을 위한 비판(더 급진화하라)”로 기울어집니다. 독자는 이 편향을 감안하고 읽는 게 안전합니다.

4. <사건의 ‘체감 온도’는 높지만, 사회의 다층성은 덜 보일 수 있다>
   기사 모음집의 강점은 현장감입니다. 쿠데타, 석유 부문 충돌, 대중 동원 같은 국면을 ‘그때그때’ 해석하면서 긴박감을 전달합니다. books.google.com+1 하지만 그만큼 빈곤·범죄·지역·인종·종교·비공식 경제 같은 삶의 층위가 어떤 방식으로 차비스모와 결합/균열하는지(미시 사회학적 설명)는 상대적으로 얇게 지나갈 수 있습니다. 그래서 이 책은 <제도 분석서(예: Corrales·Penfold)>나 <르포/민족지>와 함께 읽을 때 더 균형이 잡힙니다.

5. <사후 전개(마두로 시기)의 ‘예측 적중’과 ‘설명 범위’를 분리해야 한다>
   일부 판매/소개 글은 “사회주의로 나아가지 못한 것이 오늘의 위기를 낳았다”는 식으로, 책의 경고가 현실화됐다고 주장합니다. Marxist Books 다만 이것은 우즈의 이론틀(미완의 혁명→반격/붕괴)을 지지하는 독해이기도 하므로, 실제 붕괴의 복합 원인(국제 유가, 제재, 정책 실패, 제도 약화, 생산 붕괴 등)을 비교 검토하려면 다른 계열의 연구와 대조가 필요합니다.

<결론>
이 책은 “차베스 체제를 어떻게 평가할 것인가”보다 “혁명은 어떤 조건에서 전진/후퇴하는가”라는 질문에 집중하는 <트로츠키주의 계열 맑스주의 해석>으로 읽는 게 정확합니다. 차비스모를 둘러싼 논쟁 지형을 넓히고 싶다면, 바로 그 점(계급·국가·소유의 렌즈)을 배우는 데 가장 큰 가치가 있습니다. marxist.com+2marxists.org+2

---

<English | condensed summary+review>

<Summary> Alan Woods’ <The Venezuelan Revolution: A Marxist Perspective> is best read as a <collection of interventionist essays> written as events unfolded, rather than a detached academic monograph. :contentReference[oaicite:10]{index=10} Woods frames the Bolivarian process—especially the period around the <April 2002 coup attempt>—as an episode of <class struggle> in which electoral victories do not automatically neutralize the power of entrenched property-holding elites and external pressures. :contentReference[oaicite:11]{index=11}

His recurring thesis is that a revolution “cannot stop halfway.” If decisive sectors of the economy remain under private control, the old ruling bloc retains levers for <economic sabotage, capital flight, destabilisation>, and eventual rollback. Hence his strategic conclusion: the process must move toward <socialist measures>—expropriation of key capitalist property and forms of workers’ control—if it is to survive and deepen. marxists.org+2Marxist Books+2 Woods also stresses the tension between mass mobilisation and state bureaucracy, and argues that internationalism matters because Venezuela cannot endure as an isolated experiment. marxist.com

<Review: how this Marxist lens differs>
Compared with institutional political-economy accounts (which focus on checks and balances, competitive authoritarian drift, and rent incentives), Woods’ explanatory “engine” is <property relations and the class character of the state>. That yields a sharper, more prescriptive narrative: not only “what happened” but “what must be done.” This is the book’s strength—clarity, urgency, strategic coherence—and also its limitation: it can feel one-sided, with less space for competing hypotheses and the social micro-textures that ethnography or journalism might capture. A left critique has even described the line as rigid or one-sided, while still acknowledging its influence in the broader Bolivarian milieu. John Riddell+1

Bottom line: if you want to understand <how Marxist (especially Trotskyist) strategy reads Chávez-era Venezuela>, this is an excellent “inside-the-debate” text. If you want causal explanation with broad comparative testing, pair it with institutional analyses and later collapse-focused studies. books.google.com+1

원하시면, <Corrales·Penfold vs Woods>를 <쟁점 8개 비교표>로 만들어 드릴게요(예: ‘원인 진단’, ‘국가/관료’, ‘석유의 의미’, ‘민주주의/선거’, ‘해법’, ‘국제요인’, ‘대중조직’, ‘실패의 정의’).

===





The Venezuelan Revolution: A Marxist Perspective


Alan Woods

3.71
14 ratings0 reviews
Alan woods is a well known contemporary marxist scholar he has also co-authored with ted grant, a book entitled lenin and what they really stood for

GenresHistoryNonfiction



178 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2005
Original title
The Venezuelan Revolution
==

Introduction

Rob Sewell

This book is a collection of articles by Alan Woods, which traces the history of the Venezuelan Revolution through all its most important stages right up to the present. The author has been a consistent champion of the Venezuelan Revolution since its inception. He helped to initiate the Hands Off Venezuela Campaign, which has been spectacularly successful and is now active in more than thirty countries. He is well known in Venezuela, which he has visited on several occasions and spoken to big meetings of Bolivarians, and given interviews on radio and television. He has also held personal discussions with President Chávez, which are recounted in this book.

It is worth pointing out that the author took a firm stand in support of the Venezuelan Revolution at a time when practically the whole of the Left took no interest in it and even denied that there was a revolution at all. Several of the articles reproduced here are aimed at combating sectarian prejudices towards the Venezuelan Revolution. Only very recently, after President Chávez has publicly come out in favour of socialism has there been a marked interest in Venezuela in the European Left, which still remains absolutely confused concerning its character and perspectives. However, as these articles will show, Alan has always pointed out that the only way forward for the Bolivarian Revolution is socialism:

“Right from the beginning we have pointed out that the Venezuelan Revolution has begun, but it is not finished, and it cannot be finished until the power of the Venezuelan oligarchy is broken”, he writes. “This means the expropriation of the land, banks and big industry under workers’ control and management. It means the arming of the people. It means the setting up of action committees linked up on a local, regional and national basis. It means that the working class must organise independently and strive to place itself at the head of the nation. And it means that the Marxist tendency must strive to win over the majority of the revolutionary movement.”

There can be no doubt that Latin America is currently in the vanguard of world revolution, and within the Latin American continent, Venezuela is in the front line of this revolutionary process. It would be no exaggeration to say that Venezuela is now the key to the international situation and the developing world revolution. It therefore follows that the class-conscious workers and youth in Britain and elsewhere must follow the events in Venezuela very closely and assist the revolution with every means possible.

This book by Alan Woods is essential reading for all those who want to understand what is happening in Venezuela today. But this is no mere description of events. It is a powerful Marxist analysis of the Venezuelan Revolution, its weaknesses and strengths, its contradictions and unique characteristics. The book was not written with the wisdom of hindsight. Every chapter, beginning with the coup of April 2002, was written as the events were unfolding, and traces the course of the revolution through all its vicissitudes.

These articles, which were published in our website Marxist.com, appeared almost simultaneously on the Spanish language website of El Militante. We know that they had a big effect within Venezuela itself. They struck a responsive chord in the revolutionary activists and many Bolivarians were keen to read and study them. They were immediately downloaded from the internet and printed out, pinned to notice boards and circulated by hand amongst the Bolivarian Circles and trade unions. This shows the degree to which our analysis corresponded closely to the living experience and aspirations of the masses.

It was the impact of Alan Woods’ articles that enabled us to come into contact with the most advanced and class-conscious elements within the Bolivarian movement. It demonstrated the possibility of establishing a dialogue between the Marxists and the Bolivarian activists and this has borne fruit with the creation of the Revolutionary Marxist Current, which is growing stronger every day. The secret of its success lies in its ability to link the immediate tasks of the national democratic revolution with the question of workers’ power. The article “Theses on revolution and counter-revolution in Venezuela” skilfully outlines a transitional programme, which acts as a bridge from the immediate day-to-day tasks to those of the socialist revolution.

The book is being published at a decisive moment. Events within Venezuela are unfolding with lightning speed. The coming to power of Hugo Chávez in 1998 opened the floodgates for social change. It marked the beginning of the Venezuelan Revolution as the masses poured onto the stage of history determined to put an end to the rule of the oligarchy. But, as Alan Woods has consistently argued, under present day conditions it is impossible to achieve these goals without a radical break with the bourgeoisie. This analysis has been shown to be correct. Over the past five years, the demands of the Bolivarian Revolution – in essence the demands of the national-democratic revolution – of national independence, land reform and increased democracy, have repeatedly come up against the constraints of capitalism and the ferocious resistance of the bourgeoisie, backed by US imperialism.

The Venezuelan Revolution, having scored a series of important victories, now stands at the crossroads. To succeed it cannot stand still. It has aroused the burning hatred of world imperialism and its local agents, the corrupt oligarchy, who are hell bent on its destruction. They can never be reconciled to the existence of the revolution, which acts alongside Cuba as a beacon to the masses throughout Latin America. That explains their continued attempts to overthrow the regime of Hugo Chávez, which is now being expressed in the efforts of the so-called anti-terrorist George Bush to organise a terrorist assassination of the President.

The frenzied hatred of the imperialists is no accident. The recent sharp turn to the left within Venezuela, represented by the nationalisations of Venepal and CNV and Hugo Chávez’s speeches in favour of socialism, expresses the forward march of the revolution. “I am convinced, and I think that this conviction will be for the rest of my life, that the path to a new, better and possible world, is not capitalism, the path is socialism, that is the path: socialism, socialism”, stated Chávez recently. This represents a decisive change in Hugo Chávez, who in the past tried to work within the confines of capitalism. Of course, the task now is to translate these words into deeds.

President Chávez has on several occasions made favourable references to Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution. This states that the tasks of the national-democratic revolution can only be achieved by the working class and oppressed masses coming to power and proceeding in an uninterrupted (hence “permanent”) manner to the socialist tasks. The revolution begins in one country but in order to succeed has to spread beyond its borders.

This idea expresses an objective necessity. In essence, this is the idea of Simon Bolivar, the great 19th century leader of the national democratic revolution against the Spaniards. Bolivar stood for the creation of a single democratic republic of Latin America and the Caribbean. But after his death, his ideals were betrayed by the bourgeoisie which divided the living body of Latin America into a series of national states. For 200 years the bourgeoisie of Latin America have shown their compete inability to solve a single one of the national democratic tasks.

The counter-revolutionary role of the bourgeoisie was already understood by Marx and Engels, who originally coined the term “Permanent Revolution”:

“… it is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent, until all more or less possessing classes have been forced out of their position of dominance, until the proletariat has conquered state power, and the association of proletarians, not only in one country but in all the dominant countries of the world, has advanced so far that competition among the proletarians of these countries has ceased and that at least the decisive productive forces are concentrated in the hands of the proletarians. For us the issue cannot be the alteration of private property but only its annihilation, not the smoothing over of class antagonisms but the abolition of classes, not the improvement of existing society but the foundation of a new one.” (Karl Marx, Address to the Central Committee to the Communist League, March 1850).

Nowadays the vision of Bolivar retains all its force and validity. But it cannot be realised by the so-called national bourgeoisie, which, as Lenin explained many times, is capable of playing only the most reactionary role. This has been amply demonstrated by the attitude of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie to the Chávez government. The perspective of Bolivar therefore remains an objective necessity, but in the context of the 21st century it can only be realized through the creation of a democratic Socialist Federation of Latin America, as a stepping-stone to a World Federation of Socialist States.

In the period of more than a decade since the collapse of Stalinism there has been an unprecedented worldwide ideological offensive against Marxism and socialism. We are informed that history has ended, that the only system possible is the capitalist system, and that revolution is off the agenda. The experience of Venezuela shows that this is false. The Venezuelan Revolution is a fact. And it is equally a fact that through its own experience it is coming to the same conclusions that were pointed out by the Marxists – and specifically by Alan Woods – in advance: that only by expropriating the landlords and capitalists and moving towards socialism can the Venezuelan Revolution succeed.

The victory of a socialist revolution in Venezuela would shake the capitalist world to its very foundations. It would spread like wildfire throughout Latin American, where there is not a single stable bourgeois regime from one end of the continent to the other. A victorious socialist revolution in Venezuela would change the world. On the other hand, the defeat of the revolution at the hands of the oligarchy and its paymasters in Washington would deal a heavy blow against the movement of the masses everywhere. All conscious workers and militant youth therefore have a duty to defend the Venezuelan Revolution with every means at their disposal. A careful study of this book will be of immense assistance in helping the vanguard to understand the Venezuelan Revolution, the better to defend it and help it to triumph.

Rob Sewell, London, updated 12th August 2005

 Prev

==

==


This edition
Format
178 pages, Paperback

Published
April 19, 2005 by Well Red Publications

ISBN
9781900007214 (ISBN10: 1900007215)

ASIN
1900007215






About the author


Alan Woods73 books129 followers

Follow



Alan Woods is a Trotskyist political theorist. He is one of the leading members of the British group Socialist Appeal as well as its parent group, the International Marxist Tendency (IMT). He is political editor of the IMT's In Defence of Marxism website.

Woods supported the Militant tendency within the UK Labour Party until the early 1990s, when he and Ted Grant were expelled from the tendency and founded the Committee for a Marxist International (soon renamed International Marxist Tendency) in 1992. They continued with the policy of entryism into the Labour Party.

Woods has been particularly vocal in his support for the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela, and has repeatedly met with the socialist Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, leading to speculation he was a close political adviser.
===

Index

[BOOK] THE VENEZUELAN REVOLUTION: A MARXIST PERSPECTIVE
CHRONOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
REVOLUTION AND COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN VENEZUELA
VENEZUELA: THE REVOLUTION AT THE POINT OF NO RETURN
THE VENEZUELAN REVOLUTION IN DANGER
VENEZUELA BETWEEN REVOLUTION AND COUNTER-REVOLUTION
ENCOUNTERS WITH HUGO CHáVEZ
MARXISTS AND THE VENEZUELAN REVOLUTION
FOXES AND GRAPES – SECTARIAN STUPIDITY AND THE VENEZUELAN REVOLUTION
THE TARGETS ARE VENEZUELA AND CUBA: NEW INTRIGUES OF US IMPERIALISM
THESES ON REVOLUTION AND COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN VENEZUELA
AS AUGUST 15TH APPROACHES: WHY WE ARE FIGHTING FOR A “NO” NEXT SUNDAY
THE RECALL REFERENDUM IN VENEZUELA – A CRUSHING BLOW TO THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION
THE NATIONALISATION OF VENEPAL: WHAT DOES IT SIGNIFY?
CHáVEZ: “CAPITALISM MUST BE TRANSCENDED”
THE AGRARIAN REVOLUTION: REVOLUTIONARY REALISM VERSUS REFORMIST UTOPIA
GLOSSARY
ALL PAGES
===

https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1301/

Book Review – The Venezuelan Revolution: A Marxist Perspective

David Raby reviews a new book by Alan Woods, "The Venezuelan Revolution: A Marxist Perspective." Unlike legions of sectarian dogmatists and wishful idealists, Woods understood that revolutions do not develop according to a preconceived formula...

David Raby

August 21, 2005

TwitterFacebookTelegram

The Venezuelan Revolution: a Marxist Perspective

By Alan Woods

Wellred Publications, 2005

178 pages

Review by David Raby

Although many Marxists and progressive activists in general are still reluctant to recognise it, a real social revolution is under way in Venezuela, and this places the country at the centre of the international political struggle between capitalist globalisation (or imperialism, as it used to be called) and popular movements throughout the world. Moreover, the unquestioned leader of Venezuela’s “Bolivarian revolution”, President Hugo Chavez, is already (and deservedly) an international figure of comparable stature to Fidel Castro or Che Guevara.

The great virtue of this book, and of Alan Woods as a leader of the Revolutionary Marxist Tendency, is to have recognised this fact at an early stage and to have acted accordingly by promoting the Hands Off Venezuela campaign. Like this reviewer, but unlike legions of sectarian dogmatists and wishful idealists, Woods understood that revolutions do not develop according to a preconceived formula, and that the people (or the working class) cannot sit around forever waiting for a perfect Marxist-Leninist party to appear, any more than they can make revolution as a spontaneous and unorganised mass (as some dreamers in the international anti-globalisation movement seem to believe). From my perspective, Woods is still hampered by a somewhat doctrinaire view of the revolutionary party and the nature of revolution and socialism in our times, but any deficiencies in this respect are more than compensated for by his understanding of and support for the Venezuelan revolution.

In Venezuela, at least since the time of Chavez’s first election in December 1998, and especially since the failed coup of April 2002, the masses have burst onto the scene and become leading protagonists of the political process. Indeed, as argued by retired general Jacinto Perez Arcay, in a sense the people took to the streets during the Caracazo riots of February 27 to March 5, 1989 (against an International Monetary Fund deflationary package imposed by the social- democratic President Carlos Andres Perez), and have never looked back.

But the people involved in this spontaneous and directionless popular revolt (brutally put down on orders from Perez with hundreds, indeed possibly thousands, dead) found the leadership they lacked with the unsuccessful military-civilian uprising led by Lieutenant-Colonel Hugo Chavez on February 4, 1992. In the absence of an effective revolutionary party, it was Chavez and his Bolivarian Revolutionary Movement (MBR-200) who became in effect the vanguard of a popular revolutionary process that is still continuing, and the crucial point is that this vanguard role is recognised and accepted by the masses.

It is no use lamenting that this is not the type of vanguard party conceived by Marx, Lenin or Trotsky; as Woods points out, what many self-proclaimed Marxists have failed to understand is “the dialectical relation between Chavez and the masses”. They mumble about “populism”, but “show their complete inability to connect with the real movement of the masses”.

It is this same blindness to the real dynamics of popular movements that leads many sectarians to condemn participation in the Bolivarian movement and call for building a revolutionary party outside it; as Woods comments ironically, “So three men and a dog (or a drunken parrot) gather in a cafe in Caracas and proclaim the Revolutionary Party”. This is precisely what many dogmatists in Venezuela were doing for years before the Bolivarian Movement developed, and some of them like Bandera Roja (Red Flag) have ended up as counter-revolutionary provocateurs, which is the logical conclusion of such arrogance.

Woods and the Revolutionary Marxist Tendency are taken seriously in Venezuela, including by President Chavez himself, precisely because they have shown an understanding of the real situation in the country and of the practical leadership provided by Chavez and the Bolivarian Movement. Woods also correctly stresses throughout the need for the revolution to be further radicalised and to take more decisive measures against the bourgeois oligarchy and imperialism.

But where I part company with Woods is in his assessment of Chavez as a representative of “petty-bourgeois revolutionary democracy” who, while being supported in his progressive actions, must be pushed to the left by building “an independent revolutionary proletarian current”. This in my view is to underestimate the political capacity of Chavez and his intimate bond with the popular classes; it is this bond that is the real motive force of the Venezuelan revolution and which is driving it forward to take ever more radical actions.

Just as with Fidel Castro and the July 26 Movement in Cuba in 1959-61, so in Venezuela it is Chavez and the Bolivarian Movement who are leading the process forward together with the people. It was, after all, Chavez who surprised everyone in December 2004 by declaring, in his closing speech at the World Congress of Intellectuals and Artists in Defence of Humanity, that “we have to reclaim the legacy of socialism” and “find the way forward to build the socialism of the 21st century”.

Since then he has repeatedly returned to the theme of socialism, while taking measures such as the expropriation of the Venepal and National Valve factories and their conversion to a combination of state management and workers’ control, the acceleration of the agrarian reform and the signing of the ALBA agreement with Cuba, which strengthens ties between the public sectors of the two economies. Of course popular pressure was also involved in these decisions — Chavez cannot do things alone — but this popular pressure takes place primarily within and through the Bolivarian Movement, which is, as Chavez has explained, nothing else than the organised expression of the social movements themselves: the Circles, the Urban Land Committees, the Local Public Planning Committees, the UBEs (Units of Electoral Battle, now converted into Units of Endogenous Battle, i.e. grassroots committees for the promotion of self-sufficient development).

The people in the barrios have made it abundantly clear that they believe in Chavez and the MBR-200, but not in political parties of any kind. In Cuba, the old Communist Party and the Directorio Revolucionario ended up uniting with the July 26 Movement under the leadership of Fidel Castro, and other parties and organisations disappeared or became irrelevant; I predict that something similar will happen in Venezuela. Unlike Cuba, however, Venezuela will not be subject to the geopolitical pressures that led Cuba to adopt the Soviet model of socialism, leading to distortions of the Cuban process.

But these disagreements are part of the ongoing debate in Venezuela and outside about the future path of the first triumphant revolution of the 21st century. What is most important about this book is its contribution to the understanding and defence of the Bolivarian revolution. As Woods himself recognises, “The greatest danger for the Venezuelan Marxists is impatience, sectarian and ultraleft moods. The revolutionary Marxist current is at present a minority of the mass movement. We cannot impose our solutions on it …”

And outside Venezuela, while being analytical and critical, our main duty is to build solidarity with the process through Hands Off Venezuela and other organisations.

[David Raby is an honorary research fellow at the Institute of Latin American Studies, University of Liverpool. Reprinted from <http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org>.]

==

==

==