On Elections and Collective Emancipation: A Conversation with Robert Longa
Orinoco Tribune, August 13, 2024 —
key cadre from El Panal Commune discusses US interventionism and Venezuela’s participative and protagonistic democracy.
The Alexis Vive Patriotic Force is a Chavista and Guevarist organization in the heart of the 23 de Enero barrio in Caracas, where it has carefully built the El Panal Commune. It began this project even before communes became part of the official discourse, relying on hard work and grassroots organizing. Today El Panal has a thriving economy centered on social property. In this interview, communal spokesperson and Alexis Vive founder Robert Longa responds to our questions about Venezuela’s participative and protagonistic democracy and about the recent presidential elections that took place in a context of imperialist and fascist aggression.
Before we discuss the recent presidential elections, could you give us an overview of Venezuela’s democratic project as you understand it?
The 20th century ignited the rebel flame of insurgent movements across Latin America, a phenomenon Régis Debray famously theorized as “foquismo,” attempting to capture the essence of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara’s guerrilla tactics in the Sierra Maestra. The strategy spread like wildfire through Nuestra América. That era, however, also saw the first attempt to move toward socialism within the constraints of liberal democracy, with Chile’s Popular Unity government [1970-73].
Yet, this democratic experiment was brutally cut short by Pinochet’s fascist coup in 1973, which was backed by US imperialism. The experience left our continent with a bitter aftertaste: the establishment would not respect the rules of its own game – bourgeois democracy – when the outcome went against its interests!
Later, in 1989, the Soviet bloc began to crumble, and some proclaimed the “end of history.” Shortly after, however, a new wave of resistance swept across Latin America, challenging the neoliberal order. In 1992, Hugo Chávez and other red-beret-clad officers – heirs of the 1989 popular insurrection – stormed history. Two years later, in 1994, the EZLN issued its inspiring “First Declaration from the Lacandan Jungle” in Mexico. Meanwhile, in the mid to late 90s, the Argentinian Piquetero movement emerged forcefully while the Indigenous peoples of Bolivia organized their combative resistance to neoliberalism.
These movements and many others were evidence of a resurgent popular resistance – proof that history was far from over! Latin America was standing tall once again, but its movements had not yet gained enough force to deal a real blow to the system. Instead, they were collective expressions of discontent.
However, there was a process of accumulation underway, and Chávez’s election triumph in 1998 was one of our early victories. Chávez was followed by Evo Morales, Néstor Kirchner, Rafael Correa, and Luiz Inácio “Lula” Da Silva coming to power via democratic processes. These men were not isolated phenomena but rather the political expressions of vibrant and robust social movements that had been gaining momentum across the continent.
Interestingly, according to Venezuelan journalist Domingo Alberto Rangel, Madeleine Albright, who was Secretary of State in the early days of this era, viewed the changes sweeping the continent as a necessary revitalization for the system. Even though figures like Lucio Gutiérrez in Ecuador and Ollanta Humala in Perú did fit this narrative, Albright’s overall assessment missed the mark. The deeper, more transformative nature of some of the processes of change went far beyond mere adjustments to the status quo.
As the first decade of the 21st century began to unfold, Chávez – who initially embraced Anthony Giddens’ “Third Way” – and the Bolivarian Revolution underwent a rapid and profound radicalization. In 2001, Chávez introduced 49 Enabling Laws, which included important steps like the nationalization of hydrocarbon resources and a radical land reform.
By 2004, the Bolivarian Process had declared itself anti-imperialist and, by 2006, socialist. And how was all this done? Democratically, but with a democracy that is not just formal but can open new paths, because it’s truly connected to the people and not to the interests of a few.
All these initiatives were promoted within the framework of Venezuela’s constitution and were ratified by regular elections. And yet, imperialism did everything it could to overthrow Chávez. Why?
Indeed, every step toward sovereignty and substantive democracy was met with violence: a coup in 2002, the oil sabotage of 2002-2003, the Daktari Paramilitary Operation in 2004, along with continual efforts to disrupt both Venezuela’s economy and its electoral processes.
In other words, once US imperialism realized the Bolivarian Revolution’s commitment to sovereignty, it applied every strategy from their multiform warfare playbook, short of outright military invasion. Yet, none of this made Chávez retreat. Instead, each attack was met with a counterpunch by the left.
For the Alexis Vive Patriotic Force, Chávez represents in early 21st century Latin America what Lenin embodied for many revolutionary movements in 1917: an anti-imperialist leader who reactivated the socialist project with force, with a strategy and, most importantly, with the people.
Additionally, Chávez promoted Latin American integration, a legacy passed down from [independence hero] Simón Bolívar. Of course, it wasn’t just Chávez; it was the pueblo that had committed to participatory and protagonistic democracy – a conception that exceeds the limits of liberal democracy – who pushed this movement forward.
I am emphasizing participatory and protagonistic democracy, because it is key as we think about the July 28 elections, which is one moment in a much larger project that is not limited to the election of our president (or representatives, governors, or majors), but goes far beyond the framework of liberal democracy.
Moreover, the elections on July 28th must be understood from a class perspective, something that some of our purported friends around the world seem to be forgetting. As Marx and Engels wrote in the Communist Manifesto: “The history of humanity is the history of class struggle, of the poor against the rich.”
The Venezuelan bourgeoisie, represented by Edmundo González and María Corina Machado, want us to remain their servile chauffeurs and domestic workers. They envision a world where we are mere commodities. Meanwhile, the bosses of González and Machado in the US seek to continue bleeding Venezuela – and Latin America in general – just as the Spanish did in Potosí.
You’ve mentioned that Venezuela’s formal democracy – including, of course, the July 28 presidential election – is not the most important part of the complex whole that is the Bolivarian process. Could you elaborate on this idea?
Electoral processes are just one tactical moment in our broader struggle. For the Bolivarian project to continue, it was crucial for Nicolás Maduro to win, and he won. But the true foundation of our democracy lies in its participatory and protagonistic nature. This means that the construction of popular power is essential, and the communal assembly – what we in El Panal call the “patriotic assembly” – is actually the highest democratic authority for us.
In a recent speech, President Maduro mentioned that he is the one holding back the forces of violent revolution. He was right: if we had to face a fascist with a chainsaw [a reference to Javier Milei] in the presidency, I know that revolutionary violence would emerge.
Maduro is safeguarding peace, which is crucial for the communes to accumulate force and advance toward emancipation. Of course, for us, true emancipation comes only through the commune, which has little to do with the bourgeois democracy that takes us to the ballot box.
We worked tirelessly to secure Maduro’s victory, and we are very happy with the outcome. Moreover, we are fully committed to defending this victory against the local fascists and US imperialism.
But they should remember that if there were an attempt to overthrow our government, a popular insurrection would follow, one that would be joined by members of the military. Nobody should take this lightly.
How did El Panal Commune organize people both before and after the elections?
During the campaign, our organization met frequently, and we organized assemblies and other activities in the commune. These include an operations center that tracked media and social media trends while mapping the commune’s territory in terms of its strengths and weaknesses as a way of defending the revolution.
We also went door-to-door to get out the vote. We made calls to thousands of people to explain the importance of the election to them. Now, in the post-electoral process, we are doing our part in defending the revolution, as we always do.
However, for a revolutionary organization, conjunctures should not be approached with spontaneity; they should be strategically leveraged. Lenin was right when he emphasized this in What Is to Be Done? This electoral and post-electoral period is precisely such a moment for us at the Fuerza Patriótica Alexis Vive.
Who will change our country? It won’t be the guarimbas [fascist street protests], it won’t be the terrorists serving imperialist interests, and it will not be the sanctions. While winning elections is a precondition, it is the organized pueblo who will bring about the necessary changes.
As the elections drew near, we held many debates in which we consistently emphasized both that the government must address the legitimate demands of the people who suffer the consequences of the economic war against Venezuela, and also that we, the communards, are the ones called upon to transform the world!
As the US attempts to overthrow the Venezuelan government, it’s useful to take stock of the historical moment. Do you think that US imperialism is in decline?
Imperialism now is like a wounded hyena desperately hunting for prey, which makes it all the more dangerous. This desperation is evident in the proxy war it is carrying out against Russia, its direct involvement in the genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza, and its attempting to foster a larger conflict in the Middle East. Meanwhile, imperialism hasn’t forgotten its strategic “pivot” to Asia, where its military deployment is large and growing every day.
Although the US is losing ground in the world, this doesn’t make it any less dangerous, or guarantee its collapse. What does that mean for us in Venezuela? Our country holds the world’s largest oil reserves, and a tanker ship departing from our coast takes five days to deliver hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil to the US as compared to the 45 days that a tanker takes to reach the US from the Middle East.
Additionally, we have vast natural gas reserves and an abundance of highly coveted minerals, including rare earth elements. Finally, Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia, and Ecuador have large extensions of the Amazon forest within our frontiers, and imperialism has already indicated that they want it to themselves by claiming it as a “reserve for all of humanity.”
What does all of this mean? We live in an increasingly dangerous world, where traditional warfare persists but is not the only method of imperialist aggression. In their desperation, imperialism will resort to biological warfare, orchestrated famines, and genocides.
They are on a permanent and systemic offensive against the wretched of the earth. This is, no doubt, dangerous, but it also presents an opportunity for the peoples of the world to unite.
The National Electoral Council reported that Nicolás Maduro won 51% of the vote. This is significant, especially considering that these elections were far from “free and fair,” with the main opposition candidate, Edmundo González, backed by a still tremendously powerful US imperialism, while Maduro has had to navigate nearly a decade of brutal sanctions.
However, this should also be a moment for a reckoning since Chavismo has lost some ground perceptually when compared to the 2018 presidential elections. What do you think are the implications?
Indeed, every revolutionary process must undergo moments of reckoning, and I believe we’re capable of doing so. But I also think it’s worth highlighting that our president has transformed into a true leader during the course of this electoral process. What do I mean by this? Maduro has been Venezuela’s elected president since 2013. However, he, along with the Venezuelan people, experienced a truly traumatic event – the assassination of Comandante Chávez – which brought Maduro to the presidency at an unexpected time.
From the moment he took office, the attacks intensified, and Maduro had to preside over a nation that was both grieving and under a growing imperialist siege.
Nicolás Maduro didn’t come from the Sierra Maestra, nor did he lead a civic-military insurrection. Our president came from a political career that took him from the National Assembly to being Chávez’s minister of foreign affairs.
Maduro has faced unprecedented challenges: he has been blackmailed on an international scale but nevertheless guided the country through its worst crisis, which was generated by the brutal US blockade. Maduro and the pueblo have endured the guarimbas, blackouts, drone attacks, and even an attempted paramilitary invasion. Yet, he has not wavered. This is extraordinary. I would argue that now Maduro the president has also become Maduro the leader of the Bolivarian Process.
He has forged his leadership with “nervios de acero” [nerves of steel], as he himself would say. We are now entering the third phase of the Bolivarian Revolution, where we hope to witness the displacement of existing social relations in favor of the full emergence of the communal model, and we hope to do it in lockstep with our president. In that sense, initiatives such as the communal consultations are a promising first step.
We must move from resistance to emancipation. If we do this, I’m sure that Chavismo will reap 10 million votes in the next presidential election.
To wrap up, I’d like to hear a brief reflection on the role of the communes in Chávez’s strategic vision for the revolution.
Commune or Nothing! This was Comandante Chávez’s final call in his “Strike at the Helm” [2012] speech, where he emphasized that the commune is not just an institution or a specific place. The commune represents a model that must become the body and soul of our revolution. For Chávez, there is no distance between the commune and the socialist project. Without the commune, the Bolivarian Revolution would lose its direction and 21st-century socialism would lack a distinctive identity.
Our revolution is deeply rooted in Latin America, in the América Morena [*] that draws strength from its history. But our revolution is also grounded in the present and committed to changing everything that needs to be changed [an allusion to Fidel’s definition of revolution] on the path to full emancipation. We have a long road ahead, but if the road is communal, the future will be bright.
Note
[*] “América Morena” represents a conceptual and ideological effort to acknowledge and celebrate the diverse cultural and racial identity of Latin America, rooted in the region’s history of colonization, resistance, and cultural diversity.