(From Perspectives on Anarchist Theory, fall, 2003)
Populist movements have always been a problem for Latin American anarchists. On the one hand, they seem to share goals that are dear to anarchists: they build mass, working class mobilizations, often articulate a strong anti-imperialist message, and celebrate the virtues of popular culture. On the other hand, they are always centered around charismatic political leaders and are fundamentally state-centered, hierarchical projects. Brazilian, Argentine, and Mexican anarchists struggled to build an alternative to the populist movements in their respective countries before World War Two with varying degrees of success.
This problem has returned for Venezuelan anarchists in the form of Hugo Chavez’s “Bolivian revolution” and comrades from the magazine El Libertario have initiated a rich dialogue on the subject.(1) Here we present excerpts from an interview they conducted with Alfredo Vallota, a professor of philosophy and author of the book, Bitácora de la utopía: Anarquismo para el siglo XXI (Utopia’s Binnacle: Anarchism for the 21 st Century).
Chuck Morse
- – - – -
Why was the attempted coup d’etat led by Chavez on February 4 th, 1992, a retreat? There are people that suggest that it was a transition towards something else…
Of course, but transitions can be backwards. In this moment, the political leadership had disconnected from the interests of the base. The structures of power were transformed into an oligarchy that didn’t see anything but its immediate interests. The political structure had ruptured, something that did not happen the first years of the project of 1958.(2) But, to replace an oligarchy with another one, a militarist oligarchy, is a backwards transition. It does not contain any mechanism for resolving the problems of the base, the disconnection of the leading economic and political oligarchy from the interests of the Venezuelan population. For this reason, I consider it a step back, politically speaking. The political structure should have established a connection with the population through the political parties, but it did not do so, and a group of soldiers had the resources to do it.
Is it possible to find parallels with what occurred on the 4 th of February with other historical moments in other latitudes or it is a uniquely Venezuelan event?
It has its own particularities. If one is referring to the military coups that took place in Chile or Argentina, these had an ideological content and Chavez’s coup has none. Chavez’s coup is simply a coup for the sake of power, taking advantage of circumstances, but it does not have an ideological structure. It has been in power for almost 5 years: could someone tell me what are the five fundamental points of the Bolivian revolution? There aren’t any.
Some analysts associate Chavez with the historic examples of Fascism and [Argentina's populist tendency of] Peronism. Do links exist?
There are links. Chavez’s [movement] has the same connotations as Peronism. That is to say, it never had an ideology. In Peronism, there was a revolutionary left, a unified right, the industrialists of national capital, the capitalists of import and export, the armed forces, and left-wing Peronist guerillas. Everything fit within Peronism, [but] it was just a name and a person. The proof is that [former Argentina President] Menem was a Peronist, and he was and is the perfect neo-liberal. López Rea, who founded the equivalent of the Bolivian circles, with the Triple A was a Peronist also. [Peron's third wife and one-time Argentine President] Isabel was a Peronist. In this sense, Chavezism is similar to Peronism.(3) With Fascism, certain policies can be identified, except that fascism has a more defined ideological force than Chavez possesses.
If we put the opposition (to Chavez) under the magnifying class, do you see novel elements? Is it a socio-political movement or the re-composition of the old leadership trying to restore itself to power?
The positive thing that I see is that the people have participated. The people participate in both sides. Everyone has been obliged to take part. Not in the best manner possible, because it would have been much more useful to participate in the constructive, not destructive work. That is the defect. But the participation, abandoning an absolutely flaccid and disdainful situation for a public concern, for a political concern, and limiting itself to the vote every five years without greater participation… the people see that this has brought them to disaster. The problem is that this participation has been carried out in a habitual or customary way, a way that tries to structure itself in the traditional manner: that is to say, organizing itself to follow leaders, searching for someone to represent them.
What things can be rescued with Chavezism?
As in the other faction, there has been a positive participation of the base. However, the official movement’s difficulty is precisely that it requires the support of the base, but it is an authoritarian project. So, all the organizational models that are stimulated and that can orchestrated have a very low limit: they are immediately pressured, co-opted, limited, and disciplined.
A fundament of the anarchist movement is to regard power as a social relationship as well as an institution. What is Chavez’s relation with the distinct factors of power? Are there antagonisms or relations?
Anarchism is one of the few currents that is raising ideological discussion today. There is not much outside of this, because there are not many philosophical fundaments for raising such discussions: conceptions of man, of society, of technology, and also the aspirations of the old ideologies. Thus, the absence of this discussion generates a void… This void is filled by the struggle for power in whatever forms.
The Chavist movement is immersed in an anachronistic ideology because it still personalizes power, but power does not have subjects whom it owns. That is to say, today we personalize the policies being carried out by the United States, but Bush is not the owner of this power. Three years ago, there was Clinton and now who is it? Nobody…. One of the problems that Chavez has had is that this personalization of power cannot be implemented because the forces of power are larger than he is.
What can anarchism propose as a contemporary alternative?
We can understand power as an historical error in the progress of humanity. Anthropology has shown that for thousands of years humans lived without power. Power isn’t necessary. For thousands of years humanity lived with an economy of reciprocity…. Power is the possibility that an individual or group influences the decisions, the actions, in the spaces and environments, of the other. All power leads to an oligarchy because power does not distribute itself, it does not soften. Power is avaricious, it condenses. What is there to do? Dissolve power. Anarchism’s great project is to dissolve the asymmetry of power. How? There are thousands of alternatives and there is not only one solution. To advance “one” solution would be a doctrine of power, a manifestation of power.
In the context of Latin America, Venezuela has a very brief anarchist tradition. What is its significance for local social movements?
It is true that it does not have a history as an organized movement. There are countries in Latin American that have much more historical force: Argentina, Uruguay, Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, and Peru have anarchist movements that have existed for a hundred years…. But, the past is not always the future, and the Venezuelan anarchist movement now has a presence in the Latin American anarchist movement, and it also has a presence in the international anarchist movement. Interestingly, there are various aspects in the Venezuelan anarchist movement. Inherited, like always in traditional anarchism, is the desire to inform the people about their conflicts, their solutions, their alternatives, their possibilities, and actions. In this moment I believe that anarchist publications in Venezuela are the only ones with a open and explicit ideological content that circulate around here. Without a doubt, I would say that anarchism is a contemporary ideological alternative, not of the majority, but also not ignored. And the proof is that the Chavezist movement has put out pamphlets and notes warning its militants of the risks of anarchism.
Translation from Spanish by Chuck Morse.
- – -
Notes
- This interview was published in on April 14 th , 2003 in El Libertario Annual subscriptions (6 issues) are $5 US or $11 US (slow and fast mail, respectively) for readers outside of Venezuela. Send subscriptions to E. Tesoro, apartado postal 6303, Carmelitas, Caracas, Venezuela.
- Here Vallota refers to the 1958 election of president Betancourt.
- The Bolivian Circles are popular groups organized to support the Chavez government.