Saturday, December 28, 2024

 

Interview with IssA, Algerian Anarcha-feminist Activist

From liberté ouvrière, on 26 septembre 2024

You are a feminist activist in Algeria, and the country is currently going through a huge popular movement, the Hirak, which has been going on for over 2 years, stopped for a while during the pandemic and is now starting again... How do you fit into it as a feminist? We talk a lot about the "feminist square".

The country experienced a social revolution that began on February 22, 2019, and it is by far its spontaneous, independent, but nevertheless coordinated character that propelled the various social demands. We see an Algeria that can be plural, and how this plurality can constitute a determined, peaceful force, in the face of a devastating power. Maturity and social solidarity have created a break within the system in place. And this fault is the popular movement, it is the Hirak.

As a feminist activist and militant, I bring my own demands as a citizen to this popular movement. My demands are for the moment purely feminist because the emergency in my opinion remains women, and no fraction of the earth can be truly free, without women being so in turn. As a result, I campaign against all forms of sexist domination, including patriarchal domination which remains omnipresent in our society and which takes root in all spheres of life. Concerning the feminist square, although I campaign within a feminist association, I remain independent, and I join the march among the hirakists without distinction or registration of any kind: today I can march alongside the socialists, tomorrow alongside the communists, that does not make me a socialist, nor a communist, but an independent citizen, in my own right, who fights alongside the various minorities.

In the street, during the marches, how was the specific statement of the feminists in the street understood? Some "progressives" said that we had to be united above all against the system and that this was not the time. What do you think about that?

Yes, of course, and this is by far my greatest disappointment both as a human being and as a citizen. We are constantly told that "this is not the time" and this has been the case since independence. That said, having learned from history, we will not let past mistakes be repeated. Our demands are part of both urgency and survival. There is no democracy without equality, otherwise it is a big farce. So at some point we have to stop: and those who come to thwart our demands should learn about the meaning that democracy conveys.

The fight remains tough, because by asserting opinions that do not fit into any current of thought in Algeria, we already feel very alone. But from there to seeing pseudo-progressives silence the most basic demands is extremely infuriating.

What is the current situation of women in Algeria?

It is difficult and violent. The recent and terrible attack on nine female teachers in Bordj Badji Mokhtar bears witness to this. Violence against women is a universal problem that affects millions of women around the world, regardless of their culture, social background or level of education.

We even have difficulty getting the word "femicide" recognized. It must be recognized in the media. This is also my fight, as a journalist and as a feminist... The increase in investigations into this reality, the pressure from women's movements and human rights associations could lead to significant progress in legislation if the mobilization were stronger, if we were better supported.

In Algeria, existing data is rare and quite fragmentary. Some statistics nevertheless exist, and come from the associative world. These have provided information showing that here, as elsewhere, it is within the family space that women are most exposed to various forms of violence. The family code condemns women in and outside the family unit to be minors for life. For example, inequality in inheritance, with women only being entitled to a small share, means that their economic situation is "almost" never equal to that of a man. All that remains for them is empowerment, the conquest of economic independence, and it takes a lot of courage to leave their home, study for a long time and work afterwards. Most end up getting married under the various economic and social pressures and become tools of reproduction. This is the very principle of patriarchy. Another study shows that Algeria has the highest rate of female engineers in the world while there are only 18% of women in the labor market.

We could talk about 3 major historical moments in the struggle of Algerian women: that of the Moudjahidat, of the "twenty years barakat" generation, and yours, that of social networks, of hyper connectivity. What is your link with this rather recent past?

For my part, I am a direct descendant of the generation that chanted "repeal of the family code" rather than the one that chanted "amendment". There is no possible amendment in what is a code of contempt. I regret that this has created cracks in the Algerian feminist movement. After all these years, and after the experiences lived, some are still struggling in vain to obtain marginal changes. The situation of women has not really improved. There is therefore continuity with the action of "twenty years barakat" (twenty years of family code is enough) undertaken by the associations SOS women in distress and Tharwa N'Fadhma N'Soumer, of which I am a member.

Are there new feminist issues? New demands?

Yes, of course. For example, there is the emergence of another feminist struggle, that of Eco-feminism. More than ever, we are faced with systemic crises whose origins and roots are deep, and there is the need in which we find ourselves to provide a response. This structural crisis seriously compromises the ecological systems that make life possible. This represents a serious threat to the livelihoods and rights of peoples. We know that when water systems are threatened, the fundamental right to water is also threatened. When monocultures increase, biodiversity is lost or when climate change is exacerbated, food production is threatened. We must dismantle the system of oppression and exploitation that is also reproduced in nature. What is new is that we are making the link between patriarchal domination, its violence, its contempt, and the uncontrolled, productivist, in a word capitalist, domination over nature.

You are part of an association, which one?

Yes, as I told you, I am part of the feminist association Tharwa N'Fadhma N'Soumer (you said who this woman was).

It was created by two tireless feminist activists, Ourida and Yasmina Chouaki in 1997 for the repeal of the Family Code and the establishment of civil and egalitarian laws.

For almost two years, we have brought a new form of organization that is innovative in Algeria. Many associations are organized in a very hierarchical and pyramidal way. We have organized ourselves into a collegiate office, with a rotating presidency, which also allows new activists to assert themselves in the struggle and to acquire certain mechanisms both on the ground and by having access to training like the "old ones".

Are there many feminist associations? Do they exist throughout the country? What are their differences? Do they work together?

Yes, certainly, there are many feminist associations on Algerian territory, the most flagrant difference that exists between these associations, as I said, is linked to the demands concerning the Family Code; some are radical and demand its pure and simple repeal, while others opt for reform by demanding for example simply the repeal of articles of law. However, it is the very existence of this code that legitimizes the overwhelming domination of patriarchy.

Our association works extensively in collaboration with the feminist association FARD Algerian Women Claiming Their Rights, present in Oran, or the feminist association Assirem yellis n'Djerdjer of Tizi-Ouzou who share the same values ​​and the same demands.

You define yourself as an anarchist. I know few people who define themselves as such in Algeria. What does that mean to you? It must not be obvious.

The path is very long to truly be one, but I am working on it and I am tending towards this philosophy of life because it constitutes for me the solution to all our ills. Over time we have seen the damage caused by the vertical organization of society, and humans continue to run towards their own end by remaining in devastating positions.

Being an anarchist and feminist in Algeria "Anarchaféministe" is a daily struggle since this fraction of the earth is the cradle of everything that anarchy condemns, this means preparing oneself for a certain solitude: I am talking about the solitude of the spirit.

How did you learn about this political philosophy? There is no anarchist political movement in Algeria.

The first time I heard about anarchism I was still a teenager. An inveterate lover of erudition, knowledge in all its forms, during my research activities, I encountered this philosophy that immediately won me over. As I read between history and definitions, passing through figures such as Louise Michel, Élisée Reclus, Bakunin and many others, documenting myself on what this notion was until then ignored, I stopped feeling alone.

In Algeria, although I have already come across some people on my path who define themselves as anarchists, to date I have not encountered any political movement that subscribes to this vision.

What link do you make between feminism and class struggle?

Feminism aspires to free itself from subjugation to the patriarchal system, which constitutes by far the very first hierarchy and manifestation in Algerian society of the domination of men over women. Thus, the fight against patriarchy for the emancipation of women is inseparable from all the struggles against the exploitation of humans by humans, against economic oppression, the State and against the system in place that has been eating away at the country since independence. Freedom and justice are a whole that cannot be fragmented.

What link do you make between anarchism and feminism?

In my opinion, anarchism and feminism are intrinsically linked since both challenge any form of subjugation of hierarchy and domination between one human person over another human person. Anarchy advocates a decision-making process that is intended to be egalitarian, participatory, and consensual. Feminism fights against the oppression and domination of women by men and for their emancipation by establishing equality between the sexes. Also, feminism insists that the decision-making process be deliberative and consensual. For these reasons, anarchism cannot contradict feminism and vice versa.

 

The rise of the black-brown in the NATO heartland


We create the anarchy we'd like to see in the world
Belgian national-"anarchist" Jacques Guy Martin fighting with Ukrainian neo-nazis

When I discussed some of these things in the comments here some people said I should write a blogpost about it, and since I have nothing else to do at the moment, here goes. This report is mostly written from the perspective of participants and supporters of the CNT-b union in Belgium but it is not any official CNT-b text, it is solely my (Tim Declercq) own personal report and responsibility.

- The first few months of war

Almost immediately after the start of the war in Ukraine in February 2022 calls were spread by some self-proclaimed anarchist groups to provide weapons and other support to people fighting in various Ukrainian militia groups. In particular these calls were spread by Vrije Bond, a group which I was still a member of at the time (I had joined in 2015). We quickly found out that many of the people being supported were part of various fascist militia groups, including the Right Sector and others. I discussed this with other people from Vrije Bond but they refused to budge and insisted on supporting these calls and not telling people about the fascist connections. So on 7 April 2022 I decided to leave Vrije Bond, it is one thing to unknowingly sponsor fascist militia groups, it is quite another to do so knowingly and willfully while trying to hide that from the people being asked to give money.

At the same time discussions about this were taking place between people from the CNT-b, where it was decided that we would refuse to support ultra-nationalist and fascist tendencies and would not move away from our position of class struggle and proletarian internationalism. As was further decided, anti-fascist groups were informed of the presence of these people in fascist militia groups, and a text exposing this was published on the Dutch Indymedia.[1] The text in question was almost immediately censored by the Indymedia team and moved to the hidden section of the site, an act of censorship that would turn out to be quite prescient for what was still to come.

- The secret union-busting campaign

At this point we are in the middle of 2022, and all that was standing in the way of this new black-brown alliance was the anarchist unions. It was at this point that Vrije Bond engaged in an extensive union-busting campaign. It should be said here that we are no strangers to union-busting efforts, after the CNT-b's involvement in the great railway strike of 2016 which came within an inch of overthrowing the government we got a good taste of this. I myself was forced into early medical retirement, Peter was getting dragged through the court system for "subversive" publications during the strike while every effort was being put into sabotaging his solidarity campaign, new laws were passed taking away railway workers' right to strike, new regulations were introduced for State Security screenings of railway personnel, etc.

The first union that would drown under the weight of this campaign was the Radical Riders union in Amsterdam (Netherlands), a union of delivery riders which had managed to win numerous fights.[2] One of its leading members, the Jewish comrade Sjerp van Wouden, informed us of an extensive use of anti-semitism during this campaign. Presumably the brown part of the black-brown alliance didn't like Jews so much, which is hardly surprising seeing how great fans they are of Stepan Bandera, Roman Shukhevych, and other Holocaust criminals.[3] The campaign against the CNT-b, and me and Peter Terryn in particular, was no less extensive though quite less effective. In this case we are talking about visits to the social center Het Groot Ongelijk in Louvain to intimidate people, death threats by the brown part of the alliance, putting people on a Myrotvorets-like website, as well as passing along names of activists to State Security. This last part did force us to pretty much lock everything down.

- One year of war

Having gained dominance in the self-proclaimed radical-left scene, the black-brown alliance had gained the self-confidence to operate more openly and brazenly. Whereas up until then most of the effort had gone into covering up and hiding the fascist connections through extensive use of censorship and secret campaigns against groups and individuals standing in the way (in particular the unions and some social centers), by now it was decided to be more open about the new alliance. As such the idea was enacted to organize a common demonstration with ultra-nationalist groups where they would march together through Brussels behind fascist slogans. This demonstration was timed for February 2023, one year after the start of the war, and was organized by several Vrije Bond groups, some self-proclaimed anti-fascist groups, and ultra-nationalist Ukrainian groups. And so this cacophony of black and brown made its way through the streets of Brussels behind screams of "Glory to the Nation! Death to its enemies!" ("Slava natsi! Smert vorogam!"), "Ukraine über alles!" ("Ukraina ponad ushe!"), and various OUN-B slogans such as "Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the heroes!" ("Slava ukraina! Heroijam slava!").[4]

Undeterred by any of this, we at the CNT-b and Het Groot Ongelijk maintained our principled opposition to this new brown-tinted nationalism that was sweeping through our movements, and remained committed to class struggle and proletarian internationalism. By now we had also gotten in touch with revolutionary trade unions in the region there, from the Donetsk miners union to the KRAS-MAT, which allowed us to fill in the details of our understanding of the situation. Despite the censorship we continued to expose these connections with ultra-nationalists and fascists in Ukraine. For example another, more detailed, exposé was published on the Dutch Indymedia.[5] Not so much because we expected it not to be censored (it quickly was) but more so as to ensure that a dated public record exists of these things so that nobody can pretend later that they "didn't know."

The censorship campaign was by now no longer limited to Vrije Bond and Indymedia NL, but included a good part of the self-proclaimed anti-fascist movement in Belgium, including Anti-Fascistisch Front and leading members of Blokbuster and CAB. By and large the very same people who had also engaged in the campaign against CNT-b after that railway strike, how little things change... All of whom were rather desperately censoring any mention of these things and banning anyone in their groups talking about it, while the promotional and sponsorship events for this new black-brown alliance were continuing at a high rate. The censorship also started hitting literally anything the CNT-b supported, even entirely unrelated to the alliance with Ukrainian ultra-nationalists, for example our calls for the Rouvikonas firetruck fundraisers or our calls for support for the Anepos solidarity convoys to Greece.

- Two years of war

The attempts by Vrije Bond to get anarchists to throw their weight behind this black-brown alliance have only accelerated. No longer content with just asking people to sponsor their friends, they have started asking people to themselves emulate and follow in the footsteps of Sergey Petrovichev ("CONTINUE THEIR WAY! WAY TO FREEDOM!" in all caps and exclamation marks).[6] It is rather a bit unclear what exactly they mean by this, as Maxim Martsinkevich is dead so it's rather difficult to take selfies with him, and White Rex doesn't hold events in Belgium or the Netherlands so it's rather difficult to make promotional material at their events.[7] At the same time, cracks have been opening in the facade due to the publications on LibCom confirming much of what we had been saying for the past 3 years.[8] Leaving the censors scrambling to cover up their role in this affair, which will inevitably fall flat on its face due to our diligence in ensuring the existence of a dated public record of it all. So make no mistake, over here in Belgium/Netherlands this information was known and discussed within a month after the start of the war.

All in all, it is rather sad that some things which have nothing to do with this had to suffer, such as the Rouvikonas firetruck fundraisers, but the positive side of this is something mentioned by an Italian comrade: "The one good thing about this war is that it shows which groups are run by the State."

Tim Declercq

1. https://web.archive.org/web/20220813005332/https://www.indymedia.nl/node...

2. https://vrijeteelt.nl/verklaring-sjerp-van-wouden-bij-royering-uit-vrije...

3. For example from Sergey Petrovichev's group: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid0i8PmU378oKsohWvb...

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeYzkjv1CFY

5. https://web.archive.org/web/20230921213124/https://www.indymedia.nl/node...

6. https://www.vrijebond.org/first-international-day-of-commemoration-of-th...

7. From the Facebook account of Sergey Petrovichev: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3293046094106365

8. https://libcom.org/article/collaboration-pro-war-anarchists-far-right-ma... and https://libcom.org/article/myths-and-truth-about-enemies-our-enemies

Pictured with this article is the Belgian national-"anarchist" Jacques Guy Martin who went and fought with one of the nazi groups in Ukraine, and was well received by some self-proclaimed anarchists upon his return. (I didn't really know which picture to add to this article, so I figured this one was quite topical)



Going Forward: An Update from

 the Editors

 

We create the anarchy we'd like to see in the world


From It's Going Down

A week ago, It’s Going Down published a statement announcing that we were putting this project on hiatus after ten years. Tired and burned out, we were gambling our absence wouldn’t be missed. In short, the response from readers, friends, and long time collaborators was overwhelming and clear: many feel this project is important and should continue. We appreciate all of the incredibly kind words and those who took the time to reach out to us.

With this encouragement in mind, we have decided to continue publishing at It’s Going Down and operating the platform for the near future. Going forward, we want to focus on quality over quantity and also attempt to cultivate again a culture of report-backs and movement journalism as we go into the second Trump period. We also realize that this isn’t 2017 anymore; the site may be updated less as it has been in the past.

We also want to salute all of the new (and old) anarchist and autonomous media projects that have sprung up in the last few years: hopefully we can continue to be part of a burgeoning grassroots media eco-system where we learn and grow from each other.

A few updates:

Moreover, if you are interested in contributing to the columns In Contempt, which features a roundup of news, action, and updates about political prisoners, repression, and abolition, or This Week in Fascism, which discusses the far-Right and antifascist resistance to it, please reach out to us at: info [at] itsgoingdown [dot] org. Have other ideas? Drop us a line!

Lastly, since folks have asked if they could help donate to support our work, we want to instead encourage people to donate and help sustain mutual aid and autonomous infrastructure in their local areas. If you can, also consider helping these organizations and their work:

Life, finds a way. So will we. See you soon.

How We Built a Mass Socialist Party in 10 Years, w/ Belgian MP Peter Mertens
December 28, 2024
Source: Break Through News

Peter Mertens, Secretary General of the Workers’ Party of Belgium (PVDA-PTB) sits for a wide-ranging interview with Brian Becker, longtime socialist organizer and founding member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. They discuss everything from Europe’s economic and political crisis, the window of opportunity for socialism, the U.S.’s goal of encircling China, to how the PYB renewed itself as a mass force in Belgian politics by changing its internal culture and digging deeper roots into the working class. The interview is full of lessons and insights from the movement in Europe and the United States. Mertens is a member of the Chamber of Representatives since 2019, and as a Municipal Councillor in Antwerp since 2013.

 France

A government that won’t last



Saturday 28 December 2024, by Fabienne Dolet

Will France have a government at Christmas? That was the question in September. We didn’t think we’d reach the same point on Christmas Eve. With more weariness, however. Because history is repeating itself: after the fall of the Barnier government, we have François Bayrou as Prime Minister, who once again cannot survive without the goodwill of Marine Le Pen. The fact that Xavier Bertrand, who hasn’t been in government since 2012, is one of the names mentioned is a real casus belli for the far right Rassemblement national (RN)! As a result, delays and procrastination. Again! As for the nominees, it’s business as usual. Valls as Minister for Overseas Territories, Darmanin as Minister for Justice, Borne as Minister for Education.

Of course, Bayrou has probably overestimated his ability to unite on the basis of his name alone, after thirty years of wanting to accede to the position. He has also underestimated many aspects of the situation: taking a Falcon to go to Pau at a time of climate emergency; forgetting the cyclone in Mayotte at a time of social and democratic emergency and announcing the government on the day of national mourning; defending the accumulation of mandates, after having voted for the non-accumulation of mandates ten years ago; measuring that he has not been elected for more than twenty years to the National Assembly.

Above and beyond his personality, it’s an entire project that’s taking on water. The country is divided, and the National Assembly that emerged from the polls in July reflects this. The cause: the project of the bourgeoisie embodied by Macron, and all those leaders who don’t want to let go of their anti-social policies and gifts to the bosses when the social and ecological situation demands a different way of thinking. They dismantled and denigrated solidarity in the name of ‘trickle-down’ and set themselves up as a bulwark against the far right... only to end up as a fortress defending social inequalities and racist policies. The boat is sinking, and it will take a lot more than a Bayrou to overcome the chaos they have sown. This ‘government of returnees’, as Libération puts it, is looking more and more like a ‘government of puppets’ in the hands of the RN!

The national unity achieved around the special law passed on 18 December does little to disguise the fact that the bourgeois order, however enlightened, is being undermined, giving ever more power to tycoons like Bolloré and Musk, who are ready to saddle up the far right and the worst defenders of a racist and unjust social order. However long the Bayrou government lasts, we need stronger resistance and, above all, victories so that an emancipatory social project for all can see the light of day.

24 December 2024

Translated by International Viewpoint from l’Anticapitaliste.

P.S.

If you like this article or have found it useful, please consider donating towards the work of International Viewpoint. Simply follow this link: Donate then enter an amount of your choice. One-off donations are very welcome. But regular donations by standing order are also vital to our continuing functioning. See the last paragraph of this article for our bank account details and take out a standing order. Thanks.




International Viewpoint is published under the responsibility of the Bureau of the Fourth International. Signed articles do not necessarily reflect editorial policy. Articles can be reprinted with acknowledgement, and a live link if possible.

 

The Venezuelan working class under Maduro (2013-24): Part 1 — Introduction

Published 

Maduro with PDVSA workers

[Editor’s note: Below is part one of an extensive essay written by Venezuelan Marxist Luis Bonilla-Molina, originally published on his blog as “ La situación de la clase trabajadora en Venezuela (2013-2024)”. Due to its length, LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal is publishing our translation in fourth parts: Introduction (below); The first Maduro government (2013-18); The second Maduro government (2018-24); and the July 28 presidential elections.]

To understand the situation of the Venezuelan working class, it is important to analyse the Maduro government — and Madurismo — in its three phases. While complementing each other and together expressing a strategic continuity, each phase has its own emphases. In the first period (2013-18), Maduro concentrated on consolidating the political project of the new bourgeoisie and crushing the political representatives of the old bourgeoisie. In the second period (2018-24), Madurismo assumed a Bonapartist character as it sought to: a) become the key factor in solving Venezuela’s crisis of capitalist accumulation (from 1983 onwards), b) forge an agreement between these two sectors of the bourgeoisie, c) implement an anti-worker package, d) and take initiatives to re-establish relations with the United States as a stable oil supplier (as occurred after the start of the war in Ukraine). The third period, which began after the July 28 presidential elections, has involved Madurismo becoming increasingly authoritarian, as it seeks to demonstrate its complete domination and capacity to lead Venezuela out of its long crisis, even at the cost of the loss of legitimacy derived from the electoral situation.

Maduro assumed power as the successor to [former president Hugo] Chávez amid an extremely complex situation. To deal with the tasks arising from this new situation, Maduro broke with the original Bolivarian project (Chavismo) to build his own project (Madurismo). This rupture was evident in the speech he gave to the National Assembly when he first took office as President of the Republic. Maduro assumed office amid a context of demands and contradictions that had developed into struggles for power:

• With the departure of Chávez (who had administered the contradictions generated by the birth of a new rich elite), the new bourgeoisie that emerged between 2002-13 started demanding that Maduro take control of the political situation. This required a 180-degree turn from the multi-class program that Chávez had implemented, and which contained within it two parallel projects: creating a new bourgeoisie and promoting forms of popular power. This meant that numerous state policies to promote popular power (expropriation of land and its redistribution to peasants, capitalist companies being reactivated under worker’s control, a percentage of the state budget being assigned to social programs, greater state control over oil income) clashed with the accumulation pretensions of the new bourgeoisie, which sought to consolidate itself as the new ruling class. Forced into the position of having to succeed someone who exerted as strong a leadership as Chávez, Maduro did not have the personality and ability to forge relationships and balances of forces that could help him deal with the pressures coming from the new bourgeoisie (and, perhaps, he did not want to given his own ties with them);

• This meant having to unify and consolidate Madurismo as the political representative of the new bourgeoisie. Under Chávez, various second-tier leaders had emerged who were capable of challenging Maduro for hegemony in terms of political control. In this context, the demands of the new bourgeoisie served as an opportunity for Maduro to consolidate his initially weak leadership. Simultaneously, it was necessary to reduce the power of other political factions within the PSUV [Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela, United Socialist Party of Venezuela] and government. This reorganisation implied sidelining — and, where necessary, persecuting — former comrades fulfilling roles as party or state officials, either because they continued to defend Chavismo’s multi-class program or because they openly favoured becoming representatives of the new bourgeoisie but wanted to weaken Maduro’s power in order to replace him before the 2018 presidential elections. Maintaining the discourse of Chavismo was useful in terms of the masses, but when it came to dealing with power struggles, it was necessary to forge Madurismo as the de facto expression of the new leadership demanded by the new bourgeoisie;

• The situation was complicated because it required isolating and sidelining high and middle-ranking party and government leaders who wanted to keep promoting the kind of initiatives that Chávez envisioned within the 21st century socialism that he first announced in December 2004 and January 2005. Continuing the rhetoric of 21st century socialism was useful for keeping the social base united as new ideas, such as fomenting entrepreneurs and business opportunities, were promoted as part of constructing a new hegemonic discourse. But this rhetoric was dangerous for the strategic interests of this new fraction of the bourgeoisie. Moreover, amid growing international conflicts, Madurismo’s hollowed out socialist discourse allowed it to maintain its international alliances and the support of the campist left, as it improved its relationship with the US;

• One complication that arose was the relative autonomy expressed by the political leaderships of allied parties in the Gran Polo Patriótico (GPP, Great Patriotic Pole), who in many cases did not agree with the new political program promoted by the new bourgeoisie. A strategy was therefore required to reign in potential dissidents. What began as a trial run with the legal interventions carried out against Bandera Roja (BR, Red Flag), from the right-wing opposition, and the Movimiento Electoral del Pueblo (MEP, People’s Electoral Movement), which was part of the GPP, became the means for dealing with any splits or dissidents. In the end, every single left-wing party in the GPP faced legal interventions and were stripped of their electoral registration;

• Since it was impossible to erase with the stroke of the pen the advances made in building popular power, participatory and protagonistic democracy, and community control, along with the radicalism generated as a result of the prevailing culture of people’s self-organisation, it was necessary to further co-opt and control from above organs of popular power, compared with what had occurred between 2003-2013. The strategy adopted was to convert them into administrators of community investment projects while suppressing any initiative towards genuine territorial, political and democratic control. While some popular power initiatives that resisted this logic survive at a local level, little by little these organs have been taken over from above;

• Adding to the complexity of the situation was the fact that oil prices began to fall to the point of basically hovering around the cost of production and export. This led to an abrupt collapse in a key sector of capitalist accumulation and the social income redistribution model inherited from the Chávez period;

• The US and powerful European nations assessed that Maduro’s leadership was extremely weak and began to intensify their interventionist policies;

• The old bourgeoisie and their right-wing political representatives also viewed Maduro as standing on shaky foundations and able to be removed from power. That is why they initiated several destabilisation and insurrectional attempts between 2014-17;

• Maduro’s narrow electoral victory [in 2013] enabled the political right to create a strategy for the 2015 parliamentary elections to win a majority in the National Assembly. But far from promoting an inter-bourgeois agreement, their focus was on removing Madurismo from power and crushing the new bourgeoisie. Madurismo responded by forming a parallel parliament — in the form of a “Constituent Assembly” — that reduced the impact of the opposition’s control of parliament;

• When Maduro took power, progressive forces internationally were starting to show signs of exhaustion and needing political and leadership renewal. The deepening authoritarian turn in Nicaragua [under President Daniel Ortega] complicated the alliances that had been built. The following years saw mobilisations and the removal of progressive forces from power in Brazil and Bolivia, and the accelerated deterioration of popular support for similar forces in other countries. The inability of progressive forces to go beyond a capitalist program with a social agenda and pursue an anti-capitalist path undermined its image and eroded its social base;

• As this was occurring, the extreme right and neo-fascists were gaining strength internationally. This generated a new polarisation between conservatives and progressives, to Maduro’s benefit. While strategically reorienting the Bolivarian project towards something closer to neoliberalism, Maduro was able to frame this shift as part of the fight against fascism.

In contrast to Chavismo, which was the social extension of Chávez's leadership and ideas, and was based on an alliance between the party and the state/military, Madurismo began constructing a collective civic-military-police leadership. In order to become hegemonic and long-lasting, it sought to establish itself as the political representative of the new bourgeoisie. During its first phase (2013-18), its aim was to crush the old bourgeoisie and its political representatives. In its second phase (2018-24), Madurismo sought to play the role of an arbiter able to unify the two competing bourgeois sectors through its sui generis Bonapartist policies.

The political right — and much of the left — have underestimated Maduro and Madurismo. Although Maduro is no intellectual, he is a master pragmatist and knows how to use economic power to build alliances. He knows his limits and has worked to develop shared leadership by unifying interests. In underestimating Madurismo, its adversaries have played into his hands. With each battle, Maduro has further consolidated his power and weakened his opponents. This was particularly the case between 2013-24, when he managed to weaken and politically control the right, while intervening into and taking over left-wing parties. Maduro also crushed the right’s insurrectional attempts through the use of police-military force on the streets.

However, Maduro has also increasingly underestimated the level of people’s discontent with deteriorating material living conditions. This meant Maduro did not fully appreciate the possibility that María Corina Machado (MCM) — herself having suffered multiple defeats at the hands of her opponents within the right — and then her preferred presidential candidate, Edmundo González Urrutia (EGU), could see such exponential grow in their support.

An important part of the intelligentsia (of all ideological persuasions), who should have been able to help build popular alternatives to Madurismo, instead succumbed to emotions derived from the impossibility of establishing a broad intellectual dialogue with those in power. This only contributed to the successes of Madurismo’s persistent and consistent pragmatism. Their contempt for Maduro’s lacklustre performance meant many of these intellectuals were incapable of recognising Madurismo’s bourgeois class character.

The flip side of this is that many international intellectuals seeking to analyse the situation in Venezuela have struggled to comprehend the relations of oppression that the new bourgeoisie has established over the working class, beyond any errors or actions imposed by circumstances. For the bourgeoisie, as a social class in Venezuela, the issue of worker-employer relations is substantive (in particular the mechanisms for regulating the right of workers to strike and for controlling wage increases when considering inflation and purchasing power). Several indicators demonstrate how the concerns and proposals of the bourgeoisie — the old bourgeoisie of the Fourth Republic (1958-1998) and the new bourgeoisie of the Fifth Republic (1999-) — have been accommodated through state policies. These include: the trajectory of the minimum wage and inflation over time; converting salary payment into bonuses as a means to undermine labour achievements such as Christmas (or additional months) and vacation pay and other social benefits; legislating to regulate substantive rights with regard to the freedom of association and right to strike; and the manner in which the state “administers” these rights. This must be combined with understanding the historic and current mechanisms that the bourgeoisie used to expropriate oil rent and its impacts on the material living conditions and democratic freedoms of the working class. These critical issues are ignored by this international intellectual class, which has failed to comprehend the shift that Madurismo represents within the Bolivarian project: while maintaining an increasingly tenuous continuity with Chavismo, Madurismo is a pro-bourgeois break with it that seeks to impose its own identity.

This probably has to do with the challenges in identifying the origins and structural causes of the crisis Venezuela is living through. The crisis of capitalist accumulation and political model of representation that erupted in 1983 — from which Venezuela has still not escaped — emerged within the framework of the start of neoliberal globalisation, the internationalisation of capital and the financialisation of the world economy. Since then, various political projects have tried to resolve this crisis.

The first project (1983-92) was tried by the existing social democratic and Christian democratic political forces [that had alternated in power during the Fourth Republic]. A second project (1993-98) emerged as a result of the dissolution of the Punto Fijo Pact [signed between the parties of the Fourth Republic] and the emergence of a new alliance based on a former historic leader of Christian democracy (Rafael Caldera) with sections of the left — parliamentary and extra-parliamentary, including the Partido Communista de Venezuela (Communist Party of Venezuela, PCV) — that had been excluded from the pact. This attempted multi-class alliance behind a neoliberal program became known as Agenda Venezuela. A third project (1988-94) involved the formation of a workers’ front led by Causa R (Radical Cause) and [trade union leader] Andrés Velásquez, which shifted from the left to the political centre. Finally, the fourth project, Chavismo, was a multi-class civic-military project (which included the PCV, that broke early with the Caldera government). It defended a Third Way based on a humane capitalism in which the traditional bourgeoisie was to be replaced by a new nationalist bourgeoisie.

An important section of the left that accompanied Chávez’s project did so — or least justified its support as such — on the premise that the crisis generated by this attack on the old bourgeoisie could generate a revolutionary situation and open a path to socialism. This section of the left became filled with unbridled joy when Chávez announced his intentions to build 21st century socialism, in many cases losing the capacity to structurally analyse the Bolivarian process's direction. The international left — an incestuous lover of geopolitics as a discourse of power — went into ecstasy with Chavismo’s call for a 21st century socialism, an emotional state from which it has not yet escaped. But 21st century socialism did not break with Chavismo’s multi-class project; rather it deepened its two constitutive lines: the promotion of forms of popular power and direct democracy within the popular movement; and supporting and funding the creation of a new bourgeoisie aligned with the Bolivarian political project.

Since emerging as a political expression, Madurismo has led to a sustained period of precarious material living conditions for the working class and a deterioration of political freedoms. Some of these are the results of structural factors inherited by Maduro (such as the crisis that began in 1983 and Chavismo’s errors) while others are of his own making.

Author’s note: I am grateful for the critical reading of the draft, as well as the comments and observations (partial or extensive) of Adelmo Becerra, Antonio Cunha Neto, Rose Mary Hernandez, Luz Palomino, Raul Gil, Oswaldo Coggiola, Pedro Fuentes, Ana Cristina Carvalho, as well as the contributions of Pedro Eusse, Manuel Sutherland, Victor Alvarez, Roberto Lopez, Tony Navas, Maria Alejandra Diaz.

Luis Bonilla is a university professor and researcher in pedagogy and social sciences. Member of the CLACSO Steering Committee and of the Latin American Campaign for the Right to Education. Research director of Other Voices in Education. Militant of the Fourth International.