>
> * A translation of a March 2008 interview conducted by the French
> anarchist Charles Reeve with two members of the El Libertario group
> http://www.nodo50.org/ellibertario in Caracas, the nation’s capital, which offers
> some stark insights into the reality of the situation.
>
> This month (February 2009) marks the tenth anniversary of Hugo Chávez’s
> coming to power in Venezuela, and ten years of the “Bolivarian
> revolution”. This process has included waves of state intervention in the
> economy and fervent rhetoric against US imperialism. But while some on the
> left see this Chavista movement as the new “socialism for the 21st
> century”, A more radical critique has argued that it is actually more like
> an old-fashioned attempt at modernisation by a technocratic élite
> (including an ex-situationist as second-in-command of the ministry of
> information and propaganda); that increased bureaucratic power over
> capital is not inherently progressive; and that the “revolution” in
> Venezuela allows for very little working-class control or initiative from
> below.
>
> Here we present a translation of a March 2008 interview conducted by the
> French anarchist ‘Charles Reeve’ with two members of the El Libertario
> group in Caracas, the nation’s capital, which offers some stark insights
> into the reality of the situation. Looking at various aspects of the
> Venezuelan economy and living standards in the country, it argues that
> Chavismo and the mythology of the “Bolivarian revolution” conceal a raft
> of neo-liberal reforms and attacks on workers’ rights, and that we must
> break out of the dynamics of Chávez vs. the opposition in order to build
> an autonomous working-class alternative.
>
> º _The origins of “Chavismo”, between caudillismo and the social movements_
>
> Charles Reeve (C.R.) – we are amazed by the shallowness of political
> debate in Venezuela. All discussion centres on the “dynamics of Chavismo”.
> Rarely do we see it analysed through the wider perspective of the general
> Latin American situation, as a specific case of left populism. Questions
> such as how to characterise the current period, what explains these
> developments and the temporary weakening of US political control over the
> region are hardly taken into account. This despite the fact that changes
> in the political space occupied by the régime will largely depend on
> external factors, such as the future path of US policy, transformations in
> the Cuban system and finally the cycles of oil prices.
>
> Miguel (M.) – There is a lot of talk nowadays of a left turn in Latin
> America. There have indeed been several governments elected who belong to
> traditional left tendencies. For us, there are two main currents. On the
> one hand are governments brought to power after great social movements,
> such as is the case in Bolivia and Brazil, countries with a long history
> of struggle. Apart from these – and more particularly, in Venezuela – the
> so-called “left” governments have not come to power off the back of social
> movements or grassroots struggles. They belong to a cultural set more
> linked to Latin American populism of the caudillo variety. It is clear in
> our eyes that all such governments meet the needs of a situation of
> political crisis. It is impossible to understand the rise of Chavismo
> without looking back to the caracazo of 1989. These riots in Caracas left
> thousands dead. The pact which had existed between the various forces in
> politics was thus broken and society faced a crisis of governability. This
> concern was most acute within the ruling class itself. All the more so
> given that these riots opened up a cycle of struggle in Venezuelan
> society, with the emergence of grassroots organisations independent of the
> old left political parties. Some people called this “a new civil society”,
> particularly as regards the student movement and even the movements in the
> poor barrios. For example, the Human Rights group, with which I work, came
> about in these years. The same went for environmentalist groups and
> women’s groups. So people who identified with leftist ideas escaped the
> control of the parties. For its part the workers’ movement mostly remained
> dominated by social democracy (and the Acción Democrática party), with a
> few fringes controlled by groups of the authoritarian Marxist left. During
> the 90s there was real turmoil in Venezuelan society, with popular
> struggles organised in opposition to A. Perez, the social-democrat
> president responsible for the 1989 massacres. This turmoil led to huge
> changes in society. Three years later, in 1992, there was an attempted
> military coup: a recurrent event in the history of this country, where the
> army has often intervened in political life. Despite their failure, within
> a few years these putschist army men, in particular Chávez, had managed to
> recuperate the whole of this popular resistance movement. Chávez’s appeal
> in part came from the fact that he was able to make himself seem in tune
> with the popular movements of the 90s.
>
> That is how this powerful resistance movement fell behind this figure and
> became part of a new institutional arrangement.
> This was a dialectical integration: well known activists in these
> movements were also on the look-out for some institutional role: in their
> eyes, indispensable for carrying out their plans.
>
> This “civil society” was new, having existed for barely a decade and had
> carved out very little space of its own in society. It had little
> experience in terms of concrete social engagement and anti-authoritarian
> organising. So now, rather surprisingly, we find the cadres of this new
> “civil society” in power with Chávez. The blank cheque they have given in
> part results from this inexperience and lack of a concrete project. Here
> we find the imprint of the country’s cultural make-up. Even if revolutions
> define themselves by breaking with such paradigms, we have to say that
> Chávez himself is repeating the whole caudillo, statist and militarist
> tradition long established in Venezuela. He has breathed fresh life into
> this culture.
>
> From the start one of the characteristics of Chavismo has been
> improvisation. We should attribute this to the lack of experience on the
> part of most members of the grassroots movements who have joined Chávez.
> Individuals who have never organised even a small co-operative were, like
> a lightning flash, possessed with the idea of “forming co-operatives” and
> found themselves at the head of the Ministry of Co-operatives… which soon
> after decreed the creation of 200,000 co-operatives throughout the
> country!
>
> Venezuela is a society that has long lived off its oil revenue. The left
> has always claimed that all is necessary for the distribution of this
> revenue to be more equal is for the state to take control of oil
> production… In Venezuela, controlling the state means controlling the oil.
> A mechanical interpretation: once you have the oil, everything can be
> sorted. Magical voluntarism!
>
> I will return to the weakness of the theoretical analysis of “civil
> society” groups which you have mentioned. We must understand that in
> Venezuela we are today living through a rerun of the old Cold War left
> schema based on confrontation between capitalism and the socialist
> countries. Thanks to its oil resources and the importance of oil to the
> world economy, the Chávez government today positions itself as one of the
> leading forces in this conflict. Much as this confrontation existed before
> the coming of Chavismo, after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Eastern
> Bloc, the forms of imperialist domination are not the same. It is as if
> reality has changed but the Chavistas haven’t realised! The régime is
> trying to answer new problems with old schemas. Both the Chavistas and the
> opposition, still have Cold War theoretical stances. To put it another
> way: given the lack of critical thinking and theorising, new practice or
> fresh reflection, they fall back on old ideas and old strategies.
>
> So Chávez has created the ALBA, the Bolivarian Alternative for Latin
> America and the Caribbean, a new institution intended to build new
> relationships between Latin American countries and become a counterweight
> to US hegemony. To achieve this it seeks alliance with the Russian
> Federation, Iran and China… countries which in our eyes are part of world
> capitalism. But there is all sorts of propaganda about Chavista
> Venezuela’s leading role in a so-called new movement for anti-imperialist
> “liberation”. As if this country is in the vanguard of some global
> upheaval! Always following the old model of the Cold War, bloc against
> bloc… that is how this government portrays itself to the outside world.
> That some comrades in Europe and elsewhere promote this image saddens us,
> since it means that they cannot see beyond the Chavista spectacle and
> cannot see the real contradictions of the situation.
>
> In the past, the left rarely won more than 10% in presidential elections
> in Venezuela. In the early 90s the left had weak social roots, testimony
> to the weakness of its ideas. Today, these organisations are in power with
> Chávez and are doing all they can to take up once more all the positions
> they have abandoned over the years. The construction of socialism,
> building popular power, the relationship between state intervention of the
> market… all the debates which ran out of steam in the 90s are now taken up
> again by those who are now part of the state. We might point out that in
> terms of anti-globalisation and Third Worldist groups worldwide, the
> lessons being learnt from Venezuela are more than modest, particularly in
> comparison with the Argentinian and Brazilian experiences. The only idea
> is that of the epic anti-imperialist hero Chávez – David against Goliath.
> In the last analysis, a bourgeois figure. But the theoretical elaboration
> on this is practically nil.
>
> To conclude, I will repeat the point that, looking at the political
> activity taking place in Caracas, one can only say that the lessons we
> have all learnt from the régime are exactly those we already knew before
> Chávez came to power! They already had some history. That is the case, for
> example, with the mobilisations of the “23 de Enero” barrio of Caracas (1)
> where a large number of committees had been active since 1989. Chavismo is
> given credit for the activity of these movements, but they did nothing but
> follow their own logic.
>
> º _“Chavismo”, a melting-pot_
>
> C.R. – Let us discuss propaganda and ideological struggle and its
> importance for the Chavista régime. It is banal to remark on the role of
> the majority of leftist groups in this project, and more original to look
> at the new Chavista nomenklatura and individuals such as Barreto, the
> (locally) well-known professor who is currently mayor of Caracas. This is
> a man who invited Negri to Caracas, speaks of “biopolitics”, claims the
> tradition of Foucault and who has developed unusual post-modern theories.
> He uses post-leftist rhetoric to carry out the same old bureaucratic
> measures. A vast confusion – in which Chávez participates – citing
> everyone from Trotsky to Chomsky and beyond… even more out of the ordinary
> is the behaviour of a man like Eduardo Rothe, who wrote for
> l’Internationale Situationniste and is now the number two in the Ministry
> of Information/propaganda.
>
> M. – One of the characteristics of South American populism is its woolly
> ideology! What is the content of the “Bolivarian process”? It’s totally
> empty! In reality the whole “process” centres on the Chávez personality
> cult. When we discuss this with comrades from abroad we always emphasise
> two points. Firstly, how it is simplistic to see Chavismo as the left and
> the opposition as the right: the best way of not understanding anything!
> Second, to take account of the economic context: Venezuela is experiencing
> one of the richest periods of the last thirty years in terms of oil
> revenue. We have to go back to the ‘70s and the nationalisation of the oil
> by the social democrats to find an economic situation as favourable to the
> ruling powers as this. We must also note that the structure of command in
> the Venezuelan armed forces, the institution from which Chávez and most
> leading figures in the current régime emerged, is less differentiated by
> class than in most Latin American countries. The armed forces have allowed
> for a certain degree of social mobility, and individuals from the poorer
> classes’ access to a military career has been one of the ways of
> redistributing oil revenue. That said, the Venezuelan army was formed
> during the Cold War and until very recently was part of the American
> counter-insurgency school. The armed forces were responsible for the
> massacre in 1989. I want to emphasise there that there is absolutely no
> leftwards dynamic in this institution. There are more conservative and
> more nationalist sections of the army, and those who are both things at
> once. There are army men close to the Communist Party and other left
> parties like “Patria para Todos”. But many of those who initiated the
> movement around Chávez, and who are today in his new PSUV, come from the
> old social democratic tradition. The thing that brings this jumble
> together is the leadership figure, the president! Between 2002 and 2004
> this group consolidated itself against its enemies, namely threats of an
> anti-Chavista coup or United States intervention. But from 2004 onwards
> the rhythm of the mobilisation of Chavista and anti-Chavista forces came
> to be determined by the electoral calendar. Their central objective is to
> win votes. Taking this stance, a lid was put on the significant internal
> differences in the Chavista camp in order to guarantee a united front
> against the enemy.
>
> It seems that this second period came to an end with the bad results on
> 2nd December 2007, when Chávez lost the referendum on constitutional
> reform. The charm and the myth of the leader’s invulnerability took a hit,
> and since then the differences among the Chavistas have been more clearly
> visible. Chávez, for his part, has now done enough sloganising to breathe
> new life into the iconography of the Venezuelan left. In doing so he has
> counted on the support of individuals who in the past took part in
> guerrilla and other such movements, legitimising his discourse as a left
> discourse, as anti-conformist, as a clean break. Now a number of
> personalities of the old left, as well as some from the new left, are
> coming into the Chavista scene. We have mentioned the ex-situationist
> Eduardo Rothe, but there have been others, like the former guerrilla
> leader who became CEO of the nationalised oil company PDVSA… I will not
> reduce all this to politically opportune posturing: there is also an
> attempt to win ground inside a contradictory and shallow movement in order
> to push their own agendas.
>
> Isabel (I.) – the case of Barreto, the current mayor of Caracas (in 2008),
> is indicative. He is a man who first spread his wings politically at the
> university, starting from post-modernist political precepts. It is
> important to remember that Chavism has never been a monolithic movement,
> but one which adapts to circumstance and whose supporters have similarly
> changed attitudes according to circumstances.
>
> That is also its strength. The Chavismo which of the initial abortive
> military coup; the Chavismo which wins elections; and the Chavismo which
> survived the 2002 coup are all different things. At the moment we are
> again experiencing change. In 2002, at the time of the anti-Chávez coup,
> many activist and political factions were directly involved in the
> institutions of state. Until then Chávez had never called himself a
> socialist, Marxist, Marxist-Leninist or whatever… throughout these years
> he had argued for a social project quite different from traditional left
> perspectives.
>
> C.R. – Do you mean to say that Chavismo is a confused ideological space, a
> sort of “melting pot” where diverse tendencies co-exist and where each
> current or clan looks to conquer ground to promote its ideas?
>
> I. – You could say that. Until the results of the 2007 referendum, they
> remained united against the common enemy. Since then, for the first time
> deep disagreements have been expressed openly…
>
> M. – I repeat, in Venezuela’s history left groups have rarely held power
> and always lacked a “tribune of the masses”. Now, suddenly, they’re
> experiencing a situation where there is talk of “socialism”, where there
> is a charismatic figure capable of “mobilising the people”. These left
> politicians now find themselves in harmony with these mobilisations. They
> are part of the authorities and have a tribune of the people as
> represented by Chávez. For these groups, this development is seen as a
> “gain”. Now there is no question of abandoning “the processes of
> government”! They are gaining ground and continue to justify anything and
> everything in the name of this or that tactic. Above all they must avoid
> losing the tribune represented by the régime. These groups are ready to
> legitimise and justify anything.
>
> º _“Chavismo” and the neo-liberal model_
>
> I. – Chavismo has another characteristic beside its links with the
> traditional left. The régime’s project is tied into the current
> international situation, which supports a global drive for capitalist
> rule. I will explain: nowadays it is easier to implement the plans of
> neo-liberal capitalism in a country with a left-wing government which uses
> populist slogans without provoking real mobilisation on the part of
> workers. For us, that is Chavismo’s principal role. Of course, I am not
> saying that all the people and groups who support Chávez are conscious of
> this. I repeat, Chavismo does not have a homogenous supporter base. There
> are those who think the régime is doing the best it can to improve the lot
> of the people… there are even thous who are convinced that today we are
> experiencing a unique opportunity to “build socialism”. We, for our part,
> think that this neo-liberal role can be seen in the régime’s policies on
> oil and trade, and indeed in its whole economic agenda. This manipulative
> populist rhetoric covers up the real agenda of clearing the way for the
> implementation of the neo-liberal model, to a greater extent than ever
> before.
>
> C.R. – Chavismo as the spearhead of neo-liberal policies: quite an
> original take on things! From this standpoint, can we see the rise – or
> the creation – of a new private sector emerging from the Chávez years: one
> based on the new networks of patronage and corruption?
>
> I. – But obviously! In Venezuela such networks have always been integral
> to the functioning of society. Initially the Chavistas tried to break with
> this set-up. But in reality there were but minor changes in the structures
> of bureaucracy, and corruption and patronage continued. There are few
> studies of this issue. But at an empircal level we can state that it is
> plain to see in the oil and financial sectors where the government has
> introduced its plans. In the co-operative sector, for example, cliques
> have identifiably appropriated projects to build centres of economic power
> from which they can make personal gains.
>
> C.R. – What is the place of the military caste in these new structures of
> economic power? Do they directly control any private enterprises?
>
> I. – Almost all ministries are under the control of the military bureaucracy.
>
> M. – We have to emphasise several different points here. In Venezuela,
> given the importance of oil revenue to the economy, the state has always
> subsidised private companies, like a sort of mixed capitalism. The
> wealthiest bosses who have emerged have always had ties with the state.
> Within global capitalism, Venezuela has fulfilled the role of cut-price
> oil producer. With the current transformations, Venezuelan entrepreneurs
> in traditional sectors like the service sector and manufacturing have been
> progressively sidelined by entrepreneurs more linked to modern industries
> like communication, transport and finance. These domestic developments are
> linked to the evolution of globalised capitalism. The way things are
> going, it looks like the new Chavista state has installed a new capitalist
> caste whose role is to defend the central importance of oil to the
> economy.
>
> The top of the military bureaucracy have always finished their career in
> the private sector, as landowners or executives. Today their economic role
> has increased now that army men are in place at all levels of the state
> apparatus. Chávez has particular reliance on the military bureaucracy,
> which he has confidence in and which is charged with stepping up
> efficiency in the management of the economy. It is a well-established
> bureaucracy which benefits from significant material and financial
> privileges and good living standards. What’s more, it benefits from total
> legal impunity.
>
> I. – The Venezuelan people have always looked upon their children’s access
> to military careers in a favourable light, and as a means of social
> advancement. That is why the government speaks of “soldiers, part of the
> people”. But this is totally demagogic and fake: when you go into the
> military, you are separated from the people.
>
> º _Corruption protected by the “leader”_
>
> C.R. – Let us return to the issue of corruption. Among the masses the
> recurrent explanation given for the failures of the régime is corruption,
> as if were some simple dysfunction. Well, firstly, corruption is actually
> a “normal” part of the capitalist system. No capitalism without corruption
> exists, and the capitalist classes came about and became strong on the
> basis of corruption: the history of north American capitalism is a good
> example of this. So is this an attempt at concealing the implementation of
> a neo-liberal model which you have described? And people see this as a
> mere dysfunction?
>
> I. – This explanation has the advantage of keeping the image of the leader
> intact: Chávez is a good leader but surrounded by bad, corrupt people.
> This is a lie, but a useful lie which serves to protect the régime’s
> populist image and emotional ties with the leader. Things would be
> different if the workers were more aware of their rights and better
> understood their situation. On the contrary, the constant complaints about
> corruption express ambiguous attitudes: they are addressed to the
> government and accept its authority. No matter what, you can rely on the
> government to resolve your problems. The idea of ‘corruption’ serves the
> interests of the régime.
>
> I will give the example of life in the barrios. All this so-called
> “socialist” process has done little to increase solidarity, self-help and
> co-operation between people. On the contrary! If you live in a bad barrio,
> you look to move to a less run-down one. In general you look to solve your
> own needs rather than improving living conditions in general. The solution
> for such problems is far from being seen as a collective effort. The
> solution is always The Government. The idea of corruption is situated amid
> this void of independent activity by the people themselves. It’s
> unfortunate, but that’s how things are.
>
> º _Propaganda and reality_
>
> C.R. – It is not easy to compare the situation in Brazil with Venezuela.
> The populism of the Partido dos Trabalhadores is different from Chavismo.
> The story of the PT is one of a classic socialist party, emerging from a
> powerful workers’ movement, whose cadre are absorbed into the state
> apparatus. As we have discussed, the history of Chavismo is more linked to
> the military revolt after the mass riots of 1989.
>
> Here I shall mention the analysis of some of my friends in Brazil. They
> argue that the PT’s coming to power was not the outcome of social
> struggles but on the contrary brought to completion the crushing of
> autonomous currents in these movements by the PT and trade union
> bureaucracy. The PT’s victory was the political expression of the
> normalisation of a radical social movement.
>
> Among the people who support (”critically”, they say) the populist
> régimes, in particular Chavismo, some have the idea that every
> amelioration of living conditions represents a positive factor for future
> struggles, and that we ought to support these régimes for that reason. You
> are arguing the opposite, saying that the institutionalisation of popular
> movements tends to enfeeble them. Firstly, it makes them dependent on the
> state. We are not seeing any new attitudes emerging in the popular
> consciousness, but rather a reinforcement of the values of letting others
> have control, fatalism, individualism and atomisation. This is also
> apparent in Brazil, where the establishment of an aid system for the poor
> (Bolsa Familia) has made millions of poor proletarians dependent on a
> miserable amount of money set aside by the government each month and
> distributed to individuals by banks. This leads to individualisation and
> atomisation. In these aid systems, attitudes of solidarity do not grow,
> but in fact disappear.
>
> What do you think of this argument that “despite everything, these régimes
> are better than what there was before”?
>
> I. – Solidarity is something that has to develop among communities of
> workers, based on their own desires. But if everything is run according to
> a state-imposed agenda, collective needs are not met, only those
> determined from on high. Look at the so-called grassroots organisations
> the régime talks about so much and which are often portrayed as “People’s
> Power” or even “the Fifth Estate”. The organisations have always been
> dependent on the state. After the 1989 caracazo we saw an independent
> current among community organisations, but as we have said, these same
> organisations have been incorporated into the new state and have become
> vehicles of the Chavista project. Abandoning their autonomy in order to
> strengthen a so-called revolutionary government, they legitimise their
> stance by saying “but now things are going to get better!”. All this
> expresses a number of failings. People have to understand that they can
> organise independently of the state. But there is an enormous political
> polarisation which dominates all these activities: you are with Chavismo
> or against it. The Chavista grassroots organisations against the
> oppositionist ones. The new communal councils should, in principle,
> represent the communities who elect them. But in reality there are
> Chavista ones where there is no place for critics and anti-Chavista ones
> where Chavistas are not allowed. The form of these councils is determined
> by the state. So where are the real, concrete interests of collectives
> represented?
>
> M. – For my part, I am not afraid to say that living standards have not
> improved; people are living in ever worse conditions. This despite the
> fact that Venezuela now has the highest GNP per capita in Latin America, a
> figure comparable to some European countries. The working classes rely on
> the help the government gives them. Of course, the existence of health
> centres in the barrios is a good thing, when they’re running. But in this
> country the situation of poor women, in particular as regards childbirth,
> is deteriorating. The public health system is in a disastrous state.
> Venezuelan prisons reproduce societal violence to the extent that they are
> among the most violent on the continent. In 2007 alone there were 427
> deaths in jails, out of a prison population of 20,000. This aggravation of
> social problems is the expression of a social fragmentation which our
> famous “revolutionary process” does nothing to combat. On the contrary, it
> reinforces individualist attitudes. We are told that we are building “21st
> century socialism” and yet what we see is an increased number of shopping
> centres. Luxury car sales have never been so strong… All this shows the
> flowering of values which have nothing to do with the attitudes socialists
> have expressed throughout history. To conclude: there are slogans and
> propaganda, but this does not correspond with the concrete results and is
> not related to the means actually used. The Chávez government disposes of
> enormous financial means thanks to its oil wealth, and also has immense
> political capital. So all the official discourse can to explain the lack
> of results is that one little word: imperialism….
>
> I. – We must look beyond the current régime and beyond Chavismo. What
> should be put into question are the habits of living and consuming in a
> country which has lived off oil revenue for years. Venezuela is a society
> where materialist alienation is very strong. The Latin American country
> with most mobile phones, where women’s cosmetics are most widely sold, and
> more… It is the ability to possess such goods which gives people the
> impression of increased living standards. But the quality of food,
> healthcare, education, and the ecological situation, are essentials which
> do not fit into this picture.
>
> M. – The situation in Caracas is a good example of this. Urban decay and
> the loss of public space, social breakdown, everyday violence and the
> decline in public transport are far from corresponding to what is
> materially possible for the capital of an oil-producting country.
>
> C.R. – The capitalist class appropriates most of the oil revenue, without
> the slightest interest for meeting the general interests of society. At
> this level there is seamless continuity between the régimes of the past
> and Chavismo.
>
> M. – Exactly! For us, nothing essential has changed. Among the ruling
> class there are some who have broken with the new authorities and others
> who support it. The best example is that of Gustavo Cisneros, one of the
> big modern Venezuelan capitalists, a man connected to the world market, a
> “global entrepreneur”. He manages the Venezuelan Coca Cola operation and
> invests in the communications sector. This man carries out all his affairs
> while maintaining excellent relations with the current government, which
> he has a conciliatory and even eulogistic attitude towards. “Money has no
> ideology”, he says!
>
> º _Co-operatives in the service of casualisation_
>
> C.R. – Now let’s talk about the co-operatives movement. A Venezuelan
> friend said that the government’s co-operatives movement, in the last
> analysis, amounts to a sort of institutionalisation of labour precarity
> and black market work. He mentioned the recent (2007) strike by dustmen in
> part of Caracas, during which the strikers asked for Barreto, mayor of
> Caracas, to intervene – he who quotes Foucault and invited Toni Negri
> over. The mayor told them that he could do nothing, since they had
> accepted the transformation of the old company into a co-operative. Which
> meant that there was no collective bargaining, since the workers were
> considered to be associates of the co-operative on the same level as the
> administrators!
>
> M. – Of course, we have a totally different idea of co-operatives. For us,
> a co-operative is an initiative which comes from below. For the Chavistas,
> on the contrary, enterprises in what they now call the “social economy
> sector” must operate in the form of state-aided co-operatives. Every day
> people start organising co-operatives – people who are totally foreign to
> the spirit and practice of co-operativism… because it is the quickest way
> of getting contracts and state credit! In many industries the law obliges
> the state to give priority of tenders to “co-operatives” above private
> enterprises. So many malign people have started creating co-operatives in
> order to win contracts with government bodies. That as the case with the
> public roads enterprise you mentioned. A private enterprise was thus
> transformed inter a co-operative to win the tender, and at a stroke the
> workers lost all their rights and bonuses. They now have three-month
> renewable contracts, such that the “co-operativist” (in reality, the new
> name for the boss!) has no duties towards them. Thanks to this lie, after
> a few months it could be said that there were 200,000 co-operatives… All
> this in order to make propaganda showing that society has changed. But it
> is all artificial, created by decree.
>
> I. – I would add that, after the oil workers’ strike, the government
> learned that it had to control the world of work. First it explained that
> the state would create a new form of organisation based on solidarity and
> where all workers would benefit from the same privileges. The
> co-operatives! At a stroke the government broke the services contracts it
> had with private companies (particularly for cleaning), which by law had
> to pay workers ’social bonuses’. The workers were laid off and forced to
> seek temporary work with these co-operatives now dealing with the state.
> They lost the bonuses and rights which they had previously (in theory at
> least) had. Moreover, many of these co-operatives disappeared as soon as
> they were created. So we are witnessing, as your friend is right to
> emphasise, the casualisation of work.
>
> º _Political pressure in the workplace_
>
> M. – All this is part of a broader tendency towards casualisation and
> “flexibility” in Venezuelans’ work conditions. The government’s recurrent
> discourse about trade unions is part of the same agenda. The government
> never ceases to emphasise the need to integrate the trade unions into the
> new party structures.
>
> The state is one of the main employers in Venezuela. After more than six
> years, 425 collective bargaining agreements for public sector workers are
> still waiting to be renegotiated! So there you go: a so-called socialist
> and revolutionary government which refuses to negotiate the collective
> deals for its own employees. They don’t give a damn about these workers’
> needs! And here we are talking about sectors which are fundamental to the
> functioning of the state, such as hospital workers and firefighters. Add
> to that the fact that the régime has pushed to the limit the loyalty of
> public sector workers to the state, which has always existed
> traditionally. You will not be recruited if you do not show Chavista
> sympathies, and you could even lose your job. The 2004 presidential recall
> referendum came about after a national petition, which is a constitutional
> right. Thirty percent of registered voters can demand a referendum.
> Oppositionists went around collecting signatures, and – we don’t know how
> – they were posted on a web page “Here are the people who signed against
> Chávez”! So what was meant to be private and confidential became public.
> There were numerous lay-offs on the basis of this list, and a significant
> degree of administrative harassment. A nasty little affair, and the
> international left said nothing! From 2002 to 2004 the polarisation in
> society reached its height. You went into a public office for some
> administrative matter or to do some papers, and were asked “Did you
> sign?”: meaning, “did you sign against Chávez?”! Since I am not even on
> the electoral lists, I was fine…
>
> Sure, in all societies there is political discrimination, but in Venezuela
> it is truly scandalous. If you want to work in a public service it is
> absolutely essential that you can prove your sympathy towards the régime.
> Another thing which you hear more and more of is the obligation for state
> functionaries to participate in the big demonstrations to support the
> president – sometimes on weekends – as if it was work time.
>
> I. – I will add a concrete example. A few months ago the president of the
> Institute for Consumer Protection, INDECO, publicly stated that if a
> supermarket refused to sell products under the pretext of problems with
> their inventory, in fact they were hiding attempts at monopoly. This was a
> lie, since there is a real lack of goods. Because of this, he was replaced
> by a representative of a harder Chavista bent. This individual had already
> had a number of ministerial posts and had purged everywhere he had worked!
> Upon his arrival at INDECO he started again – service directors, although
> mostly Chavistas – were dragged out of their offices by heavies and were
> only allowed to take away their personal possessions. My sister works for
> this body. Although not a Chavista, she had never had any problems at work
> before. But in the mix of this re-organisation of the institution, they
> forced her as well as her colleagues to participate in the 27th March 2007
> march in support of Chávez. The pressure became so unbearable that my
> sister ended up resigning.
>
> C.R. – Do you think that this hardening of the régime and this obsession
> with total control will end up counter-productive, weakening its
> popularity? Problems are mounting and they find ever more bureaucratic
> answers.
>
> I. – Yes, this clean-up justified in the name of the Chavista paranoia
> about the next coup, in fact means strengthening totalitarian tendencies.
>
> º _The renewal of social struggles under Chavismo_
>
> C.R. – In the first months of 2008 we saw the development of working-class
> struggles in Venezuela, in sectors as diverse as steel works and
> hospitals. In a society extremely polarised between pro and anti
> Chavistas, the trade union movement appears sharply divided, between the
> old anti-Chavista social democrat unions, the new Chavista unions and
> still others who are more politically independent, like the metalworkers’
> union. In the current circumstances every struggle tends to be
> characterised as ‘manipulated’. The recent strike threat by steelworkers
> was immediately attacked by the Minister of Labour as “manipulated by the
> opposition”. Today, what degree of autonomy is possible for struggles?
>
> M. – We think that the results of the 2nd December 2007 referendum
> represent a turning point. That day, the Chavista government announced
> that it was to embark on a process of self-critique. By comparison to what
> had gone before, we could say to ourselves “look, something positive”. But
> the plan was never given any substance! For years we have been living to
> the rhythm of the electoral process. It was said that the referendum
> result could perhaps bring about a movement of struggle and that there was
> at least a change for social movements to find their own dynamics,
> political space and outlooks. We are indifferent to whether the individual
> personnel are Chavistas or oppositionists: the state is unable to satisfy
> the demands of struggles, and the space for autonomous action has to
> increase.
>
> On International Women’s Day the Chavista women’s organisations mobilised
> against imperialism! What was the relationship of this with the needs of
> women here: help with maternity, health conditions and domestic violence?
> Similarly, the student movement that broke out in 2007 against the closure
> of a TV station was unable to formulate its own demands. For their part,
> the Chavista students were also mobilised, but this time in favour of the
> closure. That was it! And what were their demands about the conditions of
> students and the socialist educational agenda? They had none! They had no
> objectives of their own. On both sides the mobilisations were organised
> from above. In reality, we have to say, sadly, that the people are
> prisoners of the electoral calendar and its partisanship. All energies and
> all mobilisations, whether Chavista or anti-Chavista, are geared towards
> electoralism.
>
> I. – It used to be that it was impossible to go on strike in an election
> year without being accused of being a “guarimbero” (2). In 2007 there was
> a transport strike, the small owners demanding an increase in ticket
> prices and arguing that they did not earn enough to maintain the lines.
> The government paid no attention to their demands and everyone dug their
> heels in. So the workers who protested against the lack of transport were
> in turn accused of being “guarimberos”. What’s more, the government
> threatened to create a “co-operative” (see!) which would replace the lines
> on strike. Of course, there was no possibility of solidarity emerging. The
> same thing happened in the strikes by teachers and by doctors in the
> public health system. The doctors occupied the hospitals and demanded the
> renegotiation of their deal. The government refused any discussion and
> called them “guarimberos”. So then Chávez met with a group of pro-régime
> doctors in a large theatre hall in Caracas and magnanimously said to them
> “I’ll give you a 30% raise!”. With no discussion of the deal! People end
> up defeated, giving in to the authoritarian and demagogic methods of the
> government.
>
> C.R. – So you’re suggesting that this situation is now changing…
>
> I. – Yes, I think today attitudes are more open. People say “I am neither
> of the opposition nor a “guarimbero”, I am not a Chavista – or not – but
> am a worker and want to be listened to!”. We saw this recently in the
> nursery nurses’ and transport workers’ strikes. “We are workers and we
> want our rights respected”. These movements represent a change in people’s
> consciousness.
>
> M. – There are contradictions between the leadership of the régime, who
> are constantly trying to channel protests into the electoralist camp, and
> the deep discontent of the base, the poorest layers of the population who
> tend to pose their demands up front. We can only hope that this divide is
> accentuated. It is this contradiction which can create a space for people
> to win back their own sets of objectives and their own interests. This is
> the only way that, in the long term, autonomous space can be created.
>
> º _Dissent among the Chavistas_
>
> I. – As we have already emphasised, the political process of Chavismo has
> experienced a series of changes. Since 2007, two things have become clear:
> the first is that Chávez could lose power. The second is that Chávez does
> not necessarily represent the interests of the majority of the population.
> In December 2007, we saw that the project Chávez argues for has raised a
> number of doubts, even among the Chavista left, some sections of which
> were very critical. The fragmentation was real. You could see that
> Chávez’s charisma was weakening. That is why we think that at the present
> time, what is most interesting politically is what is happening inside the
> Chavista movement and the critiques arising in its ranks. It represents
> the discontent of activists who feel that their political space is more
> and more controlled from above. Since last year, the “missions” (3) have
> been going very badly, with less and less financial means. For example,
> half of the “Barrio adentro” (4) health centres have been shut for want of
> equipment, medicine or doctors… The “Robinson mission”, the avant-garde of
> the “missions”, designed to combat illiteracy, is no more. Other
> “missions” have not given the expected results. We are witnessing a crisis
> of expectations. The first two years, propaganda was still able to pretend
> that the process was going ahead as planned and we only had to wait. The
> results could be manipulated for electoral ends. But when, after four or
> five years in power, there are still no improvements… This is true with
> the universities too – Chávez initially promised twelve new universities,
> then thirty… but nothing ever happened… After six years of unconditional
> popular support, the hopes ended up collapsing, which explains the current
> implosion of the régime.
>
> M. – The results of the December 2007 referendum confirmed our
> expectations: the Chavista public had nothing to do with a “socialist
> movement” and did not at all identify with the so-called socialist
> project. The majority of the Chavista electorate voted against his
> socialist constitution. But still Chávez continues to have strong
> emotional ties to the masses. There is nothing socialist or revolutionary
> about this: it is mobilisation around a charismatic figure, Hugo Chávez.
>
> I. – There is a joke people tell about Chávez, of coarse Venezuelan taste.
> It’s the story where the fiancé asks his fiancée to go to bed with him,
> and she says “No my love, not now!”. And he insists, “But yes, but yes,
> but yes!”. Chávez proposes a socialist constitution and the people say no,
> we don’t want it! Instead of going forward with a positive alternative he
> tenses up and shows himself to be more authoritarian. After all, this guy
> is a soldier. This attitude leads to division, which is almost emotional
> in type, since Chávez is an emotional figure. Notwithstanding, if Chávez
> happens to decide to use authoritarian means to resolve some problem of
> the masses, the charismatic ties can be patched up again.
>
> M. – One further aspect must not go without mention – the importance
> Chavismo gives to international affairs. The support he gives to
> “friendly” régimes is less and less tolerated. “He is busy with others and
> not us!”. “Why does Chávez say that he wants to help them build hospitals
> in Nicaragua when the ones here are in such a pathetic state?”. This is
> what we are accustomed to hear: “We want answers to the problems here, and
> now!”. After the defeat of the December 2007 referendum Chávez did
> everything he could to recover his image on the international level. So
> that’s why we have this constant show, the world a stage.
>
> º _The spectre of anarchy?_
>
> C.R. – In March 2008 a plain clothes policeman put a bomb in the
> headquarters of the bosses’ organisation. A man linked to the régime, he
> did it with his policeman’s card in is pocket! The Minister of the
> Interior spoke of the actions of a “small anarchist group”… Why speak of
> an anarchist group in reference to an action which was, by all accounts,
> an operation of the secret services?
>
> M. – Chávez’s Interior Minister is one of the most sinister characters in
> the régime. He is a mercenary, a man who made his career in the army’s
> secret services and responsible for the massacre of a guerrilla group in
> 1988.
>
> I. – This sort of talk is nothing new. Each time there are actions which
> take place outside the control of the régime’s institutions and
> organisations, they cry “anarchism”. Chávez himself came on TV to say that
> this terrorist action was the work of “anarchist groups”. Of course, we
> could get worried that this was part of a clamp-down strategy, but I think
> it’s more that it’s an easy explanation. As yet there have been no
> consequences for us as a result of our activism. We are few in number, but
> are on our guard. In any case, at a recent meeting of his new PSUV party
> Chávez said “There is no place for anarchists in the PSUV”. There is a
> place for “obedient, critical socialists” but not for anarchists
> (laughter).
>
> º _“Revolutionary tourism”_
>
> C.R. – You often refer to “revolutionary tourism”… in early March 2008, in
> the TV programme “Alo Presidente!” Chávez appeared, surrounded by a group
> of young members of the German party Die Linke.
>
> M. – What happened with the anarchist movement in Cuba is particularly of
> interest, given the resemblance between the two situations. They are two
> governments who present themselves to the outside world as revolutionary
> and progressive. So the régime chooses a certain number of sights for
> sympathisers to go and tour round. But this is quite the caricature: they
> organise international conferences on occupied factories without the
> participants visiting a single occupied workplace. They organise big
> international Masses, the World Social Forum, the International Camp of
> Anti-imperialist Youth, the International Forum of Intellectuals for
> Peace, etc. All this as an attempt to constantly feed the propaganda and
> publicity for the régime.
>
> I. – There is one “revolutionary tourism” run by the state, and another
> more spontaneous kind involving people who have certain hopes and
> expectations about Venezuela. I think that the people who come in the
> latter state of mind are more free and ultimately see more than those who
> visit under the control of the state. Celebrities like Noam Chomsky and
> Naomi Campell come, are led around some barrio under construction for the
> benefit of the poor, to some co-operatives or to some state farm. Their
> visits are filmed in order to make propaganda.
>
> M. – We know that most people who come here want to see what they expect
> to see. Like those who visit Cuba. So it all depends on their ideological
> training. Visitors from more libertarian and critical backgrounds can
> accept seeing the good and the bad, while those from more traditional
> Marxist Leninist groups, Guevarists and Maoists, tend to confirm in their
> heads what propaganda has told them. For our part, whenever we meet
> comrades from abroad we tell them what we think of the situation. But we
> also say that they ought not just take our word for it, just as they
> shouldn’t believe the government! They have to open their eyes, visit what
> you can visit, walk around Caracas and the towns of the interior.
>
> º _Debord, Bolivar and the avatars of propaganda_
>
> C.R. – Gabriel, you are a keen reader of Guy Debord. What use would you
> make of his writings in order to understanding Venezuelan society?
>
> M. – I think that thirty years ago some words had a certain meaning – for
> example, if you were an anti-imperialist you aligned yourself with one of
> the Cold War blocs. Today, in a period of capitalist globalisation, you
> can call yourself an anti-imperialist and remain a partisan of
> neo-liberalism… In Venezuela socialists’ mentality is highly eccentric and
> you can’t be sure of what is being said. The spectacle as a representation
> of reality greatly interests me in understanding the situation I see. I
> think that the Chavista phenomenon is not analysed in a satisfactory
> manner by us or anyone else. The results of the December 2007 referendum
> surprised all intellectuals whether of left or right. So we must continue
> to reflect.
>
> C.R. – But it is a purely electoral rejection. What it really means is
> that people do not totally accept the image of reality portrayed by
> propaganda and that it does not conform to the reality of social
> relations. Which also implies that the forms of domination are in crisis.
>
> M. – Without doubt. Look at the Bolivar myth. It is the myth fundamental
> to Venezuelan nationalism, the myth of the liberator. It means that within
> nationalism there is this historic role for Venezuela, predestined to
> fight for the liberation of the Latin American peoples. With two
> corollaries: the Venezuelan has a universal epic and heroic role; and
> Venezuela is a rich country with poorly distributed wealth. Chávez
> perfectly embodies this culture. He is the man predestined to fight a
> second independence struggle, against the United States.
>
> I. – The hiatus came when people started to realise that the political
> remedies were far from enough to meet their needs. But there was this
> image of the régime and Chávez. Plans for the future collapsed faced with
> the disasters of everyday life. The régime drew much of its strength from
> cultural aspects: nationalism and in particular the image of the régime
> abroad. “Bolivarian socialism” and “21st century socialism” were presented
> as being able to answer concrete questions of hunger, housing and living
> conditions. In the elaboration of this propaganda it was necessary to give
> pride of place to people like Juan Barreto (mayor of Caracas) and Andrés
> Izarra. They knew how to sell Chavismo and the image of the régime to the
> outside world. Andrés Izarra, whose closest advisor is the ex-situationist
> Eduardo Rothe, is a leading figure in the régime. He dreamt up the
> document “If I was Venezuelan I would vote for Chávez” which all the
> “progressive” North American and European intellectuals signed. The idea
> was to show that the Chavistas weren’t alone in the world.
>
> C.R. – But all this was just a rerun of history… it’s in the tradition of
> historic Stalinism, the congresses of “progressive” artists and
> intellectuals in support of this or that progressive régime…
>
> I. – Yes, for you it’s déjà vu. But you must understand that here in
> Venezuelan this is a totally new situation. The country came out of a long
> reign of social-democratic rule financed by oil revenue and directly tied
> to the USA. These conflicts between left and right, neo-liberalism and
> anti-neo-liberalism, are new ideological struggles for this society.
>
> M. – My father was a rank-and-file member of the social democratic Acción
> Democrática. Later he abandoned politics. The oil was flowing, he had
> money and work and made his living. Today his is a Chavista and has
> ‘discovered’ the Cuban revolution! Chavistas’ attitudes are greatly naive.
> Now they are finding out about all these questions, as if they were
> experiencing some belated revolutionary adolescence…
>
> º _The condition of women: advances and retreats_
>
> C.R. – Have there been significant changes in the condition of women?
>
> I. – I am very pessimistic. Many women’s organisations have been
> integrated into the state. The régime itself has created various women’s
> bodies such as the Casa de la mujer. Women active in society are
> integrated into the work of such institutions. Only a small number have
> pursued work at grassroots level.
>
> In Venezuela the image of women in a consumerist world is above all
> characterised by association with sexual objectification. Every advert is
> about woman and her body. What are presented as the needs of women have
> nothing to do with women’s specific interests. So, unfortunately, woman is
> reduced to reproducing sexist ideas. If we want to measure women’s access
> to positions of authority, we can see that the régime has established a
> certain parity. For example, if you have a job in public administration
> you’ll have the same salary as a man would. The régime has also placed
> several women in positions of political responsibility. But these posts
> reproduce the system of oppression within the authorities themselves. They
> do not smash the structures of the system, but reproduce it with the
> figure of the woman-in-power.
>
> Through cultural factors and the weight of tradition, the fact is that in
> Venezuela the question of women’s conditions has up until now led to very
> few demands of their own. This has left the women’s movement more
> vulnerable to traditional political dynamics.
>
> A telling example. We have a law, two of whose most significant aritcles
> were revoked by the Chavista régime. According to one article, if a woman
> was attacked in her home by her husband or partner, he would be banned
> from returning home for 72 hours after his detention. This article was
> wiped deleted from the law. Another article was revoked with the
> consequence that if the home belongs to the man, the woman and the kids
> have to leave if they separate. That tells you well enough the weakness of
> women’s cause in the current climate.
>
> In Venezuela the issue of contraception is not taboo, even if it is a very
> religious country and we know how religion weighs on this matter.
> Contraceptives are freely on sale and distributed in schools, while the
> morning-after-pill is also available. There are many types of pills, some
> of which are not too expensive and are relatively accessible to young
> people. On the contrary, abortion is not allowed. Only miscarriage is
> recognised as abortion. There is also the problem of very young women
> having kids. I see that mostly as a cultural problem. Childbirth here
> remains the central thing which makes a woman a woman. A couple like us,
> in our thirties, without kids, are very rare. Everyone criticises you and
> most people think of it as proof that we are not at all normal. Here,
> childbirth is something fundamental. In the poorest layers of society
> motherhood is seen as a way out. Giving birth means young girls can leave
> their homes – often places of repression and violence against women – and
> start their lives again somewhere else. But, of course, violence is
> reproduced in the new circumstances, nothing changes and the demands for a
> change in women’s conditions is let drift. However, they do not see it
> like this, and for them motherhood is a means of starting afresh. It is a
> contradiction which is obvious to us, but it isn’t for young mothers.
>
> º _The discovery of libertarian ideas_
>
> C.R. – How did you arrive at libertarian ideas?
>
> I. – I studied sociology and took part in an editorial co-operative linked
> to the university. I was on the left, from a social-democratic background,
> but lots about the Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyists didn’t appeal to me.
> I grew closer to young anarchists and was also influenced by reading
> Camus.
>
> M. – For me the crucial moment was meeting an old Spanish anarchist who
> lived in my small town. As a young man I saw Guevara as a heroic Don
> Quijote figure, but I didn’t understand why my here was implicated in a
> political and social project involving the Soviet Union, an empire
> carrying out horrors in Afghanistan and dominated over other countries.
> When I found anarchist ideas, they answered my questions. I was won over.
> That was when I met the old anarchist who lived an hour away from me in a
> little farming town called Nirgua. He started giving me literature. This
> old anarchist was the first man in Venezuela to make pirate books – not to
> make money but to make them accessible to more people. Visiting him, I
> appreciated his ethics, his way of life, and his coherence. The Marxists
> who I knew had a clear idea of revolution but day-to-day behaved
> themselves in a manner I disapproved of. They had a double life – one as a
> militant, one day-to-day. There was a separation. So I read a lot and
> arriving in Caracas I made contact with the small anarchist circles. I
> also knew two old members of the Spanish CNT, Civil War exiles living in
> Caracas and with who I established strong emotional bonds. Later, one died
> and only Antonio Serrano was left. The old comrade from my little town is
> still alive and a few years ago we organised a meeting of young anarchists
> at his place. Venezuelan anarchism lacks real historical roots, making it
> less dogmatic.
>
> C.R. – Tell us a bit about your magazine El Libertario.
>
> M. – At first it wasn’t easy. We were part of the milieu comprising
> leftists and organisations from human rights campaigners to ecologists.
> With the coming of Chavismo, everything was quickly polarised and almost
> all of these organisations were integrated into Chavismo. But not us! The
> first years were terrible. We were completely isolated. After 2002,
> criticising the régime became an act of courage. In producing our little
> magazine – 1,500 copies per issue – I lost 90% of my friends, whether
> Chavista or anti-Chavista. No-one talked to me any more! If we criticised
> the opposition we were taken for Chavistas, if we criticised Chavismo we
> were treated like members of the opposition. And if you criticise the
> state you are accused of being an imperialist agent, a petit bourgeois
> intellectual and all the rest… As we were overcome with criticism and
> rebuttals we were forced to refine our arguments. We went beyond critical
> theory and started making analysis of concrete situations.
>
> I. – Those who criticised us were far from constructive. They did not
> discuss our arguments and ideas. It was always at the level of personal
> rebuttals and breaking emotional ties. We felt very isolated.
>
> M. – After the 2002 coup attempt against Chávez we were explicitly
> threatened with death. All this because we distributed a communiqué where
> we wrote “Neither Chávez nor Carmona, for self-management and life!”. Some
> went as far as saying that El Libertario had supported the coup d’état!
> Today the situation has changed. The readership of El Libertario certainly
> goes beyond our own milieu. The magazine is now read by people on the left
> looking for an alternative. We distribute 2,500 issues every two months,
> 60% by face-to-face sales. Our web page also gets a lot of hits. We’re
> always here, and we’ll go on!
>
> ====================
> Notes (by Marco G.)
>
> (1) The 23rd January barrio was the first high-rise estate built in
> Caracas. It is high up, a stone’s throw from the presidential palace,
> close to the capital’s administrative centre. This very poor barrio has
> for 50 years symbolised a high degree of struggle and clashes with the
> forces of order. The actions of its residents played a decisive role in
> bringing down the last dictatorship on 23rd January 1958… hence the name.
> Since, there has been a strong presence of leftist and far-left groups,
> cultural groups and various barrio associations.
>
> (2) A “guarimba” is something concealed, and by extension, a clandestine
> meeting of “wrong-doers”. In Chavista language the term “guarimbero”
> applies to all those who, for one reason or another, loudly protest
> against the situation. Treading them as such, it is understood that they
> are subversive forces disguised as honest citizens, or else individuals
> manipulated by the opposition.
>
> (3) After the failed April 2002 coup the Chávez government launched a
> programme of misiones (missions), far-reaching projects aimed at improving
> various aspects of the lives of the poorest people, in particular as
> regards health, education and nutrition. These misiones are organised and
> directly financed by the state oil firm PDVSA. They work outside of the
> control of the services of the corresponding ministries and are not
> subject – even at a formal level – to any parliamentary control.
>
> (4) The Mision Barrio Adentro (mission at the heart of the neighbourhood)
> is the mission designed to improve medical awareness in poor and rural
> areas (preventative medicine). This mission is based on Health Centres –
> free medical offices with doctors lodging in the district. The large
> majority of these doctors are Cubans (over 20,000) put at Chávez’s
> disposal by the Cuban state, which is supplied with petrol in return. An
> undefined number of these doctors have since disappeared into the wild…
> some have found refuge in Colombia. A particular form of set-up has been
> designed with the goal of supplying the health centre and the doctors’
> living space under the same roof. Many thousands of such buildings have
> been set up in the barrios of the biggest towns.
>
> [For more info about Venezuela and Venezuelan anarchists, in Spanish,
> English & other languages, see the website http://www.nodo50.org/ellibertario%5D
>
>
> [Text in photography: No Masters! No Gods! No Chavez! – anarchist
> graffitti in Caracas]
Brand neu: Top Videos auf MSN ClipClub! Schau Dir die besten Playlists an >> Play now!
KARAKÖK AUTONOME tr/ch 