August 24, 2023
From The Red Phoenix

An illustration and photograph of Venezuelan poet Pío Tamayo.

An editorial by the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Venezuela (PCMLV). Translated from Spanish by Camilo Lazo for the Red Phoenix.

In this edition we want to address a topical problem, which is of great interest to the international and national communist movement. We want to start by saying that since the arrival of Marxist ideas in Venezuela around the 1920s, with the first attempts to build a Party of the proletariat, there have been clashes over the strategy and tactics to follow.

This ideological struggle between tendencies has led, since that distant time, to the existence of several tactics and not just one, as the revisionists would have one believe, which has always had legality and patronage in the state, and which they assume is the only manner of existence for those pretending to be the representatives of the communists of Venezuela.

Since 1928, with the actions led by Pío Tamayo, representative of the Communist International, the difference has been between those who worked to build a Party with the incipient proletariat and the national peasantry and those who considered going to the tail of the democratic bourgeoisie through of invasions and adventures of strongmen.

After assessing the initial historical process, we must now address the situation that is experienced worldwide today to locate the framework of what is happening, which is undoubtedly a sharpening of the fundamental contradictions of the time. This must be the first element to take into account to address the current situation and define the correct revolutionary tactic, either from the national or international perspective, since, as we have analyzed on several occasions, taking as reference some works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism and the Communist International, we live in the superior phase of capitalism, called imperialism by Lenin. Imperialism is not just the military expansionism of a nation, but is defined by the presence of some fundamental features such as: the imposition of monopolies, the dominance of finance capital, the export of capital, the struggle for the distribution of markets, and a new distribution of the world already distributed.

From these definitions we can then orient ourselves on firm bases to define what happens in the world, which countries meet these traits and which can be defined as imperialist, as opposed to the definition of dependent countries, which are the two main Marxist-Leninist categories with which to locate nations in today’s world: imperialist nations and dependent nations.

Based on these definitions, knowing the characteristics of imperialism and the current struggle between two large blocs at the international level, we can firmly assess the national problem:

We define the country (Venezuela) as dependent capitalist, historically subjected to the domination of powers in Europe and the United States, which is why we understand, without any doubt, that breaking imperialist oppression is the first-order task in advancing towards national liberation and socialism.

It is also important to make clear the heterogeneous composition of the Bolivarian process in which various tendencies struggle, some democratic and revolutionary-based, others corrupt and authoritarian, but in general forced to make agreements or alliances among themselves and with the popular forces to confront the common enemy.

The main opposition to the Bolivarian process, and the most dangerous due to its global ties, is led by Yankee imperialism and its puppets, who, even though they were born in Venezuelan territory, such as Guaido, María Corina Machado or Lorenzo Mendoza, are its direct representatives, and therefore our immediate enemies.

After evaluating all these elements, we can place ourselves more clearly in the current situation, where the TSJ (Supreme Tribunal of Justice, the head of the judicial branch of government –Ed.) has handed over the administration of the red rooster card to the former Secretary General of the state of Táchira, after the request for constitutional protection, which places before us, from the perspective of tactics, the existence of three lines:

1. The line of the Marxist-Leninists of Venezuela stands firmly on the premises of the anti-imperialist struggle for popular democracy and socialism, with a revolutionary policy which understands bourgeois legality as something secondary and fights mainly for legitimacy among the masses, assuming the unity of the revolutionary movement in the Popular Front. This line focuses on developing the class struggle against the representatives of the bourgeoisie, together with the working class, the peasantry, and the revolutionary communes, taking advantage of the cracks of bourgeois democracy to consolidate a link with the broad masses, a way to advance towards national liberation and socialism, applying a policy of critical support with demands in the face of a Bolivarian process, of a bourgeois democratic nature, attacked by the US-EU imperialist bloc.

2. The line of reformists who at all times have seen the Party as an instrument to negotiate quotas of power and, even in times of arduous armed struggle in our country and the world, have already been classified as traitors in the OLAS (Organization of Latin American Solidarity) for having placed the negotiation of their electoral legality with the pro-Yankee right-wing governments in exchange for abandoning their own peasant and guerrilla base. This opportunistic policy led them to support the reactionary Rafael Caldera and now to leave as advocates for the most rancid representative of the pro-Yankee bourgeoisie: María Corina Machado, going from unconditional support to opposition to the Bolivarian process in a struggle for handouts, which then leads to coincide with the most reactionary native right, the same line deviated from Red Flag.

3. The line of revisionists who in practice deny the independent Party of the proletariat and move behind the social democratic parties, dissolve in them, and assume their leadership. In reality, revisionists apply unconditional support and now legally take control of the rooster card in an expression of the struggle between elements of the old party, being favored by the institutionality of the State.

The revolutionary movement of Venezuela moves in these three main options. Of these, without a doubt, critical support with demands is the one that, from the point of view of theory and practice, represents the true Marxist-Leninist Communists of Venezuela. The others represent opportunism and petty-bourgeois tailists whose tactics are for negotiation and the fight for perks.

Categories: History, Imperialism, International, Revolutionary History, Venezuela, World History