Baltic Platform
Dear comrades!
We are closely watching the progress of socialist construction in Venezuela with a sense of comradeship and solidarity. It is important for us to see how the leadership and the people of Venezuela strive to utilize the rich revolutionary experience of other countries and peoples. Moreover, they do this not by mechanically applying it to local conditions, but by deeply analyzing and extracting what is essential and can be useful, taking into account the current state of Venezuelan society while preserving national traditions.
Hugo Chávez was a passionate patriot of his country and wanted it to be truly sovereign. He clearly understood that in a country with such natural wealth, there should be no poverty, and the Venezuelan people love their homeland and are capable of being the power in their own country and skillfully managing its wealth.
Hugo Chávez came to the conviction that the prosperity of the country and its people can only be achieved through the construction of a socialist society. He saw the possibility of achieving such a great goal in the consolidation of the efforts of the entire society. To this end, Hugo Chávez put forward the unifying slogan “Comuna o Nada!” (“Communal or Nothing!”).
In our view, this became the key link, as V.I. Lenin said, by pulling which one can pull the whole chain, i.e., achieve the goals of the revolution. The Venezuelan people’s commune was not proposed by Hugo Chávez by chance as the foundation of the entire system of power in the country. He thought a lot about this issue and consulted with many, including Fidel Castro. As a result, Chávez firmly decided to follow the path of creatively developing the experience of the Paris Commune and the Councils born out of the revolution in Russia.
My speaking time is limited, so I will only address a few aspects of the political experience of the revolutionary Councils created by the Bolshevik Party in Russia, which has obviously been analyzed and proved useful for the people’s communes in Venezuela.
Sometimes we hear that the desire to make the commune a unifier of all the people, not just its revolutionary part, contradicts the experience of the Russian Bolsheviks, who allegedly did not want to allow any other parties to work in the Soviets.
This is a deliberate lie propagated by those hostile to socialism. It aims to isolate the so-called “middle strata” of the population from Marxist parties in bourgeois countries, imposing a distorted view of the “totalitarianism” of the socialist revolution.
However, the facts of the history of the Great October Revolution, as well as the real strategy and tactics of the Bolsheviks during this period, completely dismantle this “concept.” This did not go unnoticed by Chávez and his comrades.
For example, what did the Bolsheviks propose during the struggle for power when V.I. Lenin returned from exile to Russia and presented his “April Theses”? They proposed that all power be transferred to the Soviets, where the majority belonged to the Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries, with the participation of the Bolsheviks. But the Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries rejected this proposal and formed a coalition with the bourgeois parties.
As a result, the creation of a democratic government by the Soviets composed of Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, in which the Bolsheviks might not have been included, did not materialize.
A few months later, during the Kornilov uprising, the Bolsheviks again offered a compromise to the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, who still held the majority in the Soviets. They were urged to reject the coalition with the bourgeois parties. This proposal from the Bolsheviks was also rejected.
In both cases, in April and September 1917, the acceptance of the Bolsheviks’ proposals would have guaranteed the peaceful development of the revolution. As a result of the refusal of these proposals, the Bolsheviks had no other path to victory in the socialist revolution except for armed uprising.
But even after the victory of the October armed uprising, during the Second Congress of the Soviets, the Bolsheviks expressed their willingness (in response to L. Martov’s proposal) to negotiate for the creation of a power that would be recognized by all of democracy. However, the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries sabotaged this opportunity as well.
Nevertheless, even after this, the Bolsheviks agreed to expand the composition of the government by including representatives of small-bourgeois parties and groups, but on the condition of recognizing the transfer of power to the Soviets and the first decrees of Soviet authority on peace and land.
Today, bourgeois propagandists conceal the fact that even after the Mensheviks and right Socialist Revolutionaries refused to recognize Soviet power, their party organizations and Central Committees continued to exist legally, and they enjoyed the freedom of assembly, discussion, and press. Representatives of these parties participated in various conferences, congresses, spoke in debates—including with “oppositional criticism”—and took part in elections to Soviet bodies. These circumstances required the Bolsheviks to engage in persistent and well-argued ideological struggle against their opponents. And that is exactly what happened at that time. What talk can there be of totalitarianism here?
Thus, the Bolsheviks positioned themselves as active supporters of united action among all democratic forces, advocating for the creation of a genuinely democratic government based on a coalition with political parties capable of defending the interests of the working people.
Today, we see that this experience of the Bolshevik Party of Russia is evidently taken into account by the leadership of Venezuela. This explains their aim to unite all democratic forces of society around the people’s communes and to establish, on this basis, a truly people’s government.
The experience of the Russian Bolsheviks is also valuable in that it teaches how to apply diverse tactics of political struggle. To achieve the goals of the socialist revolution, the peaceful path should be utilized to the fullest extent possible. This is feasible on the condition of a correct assessment of the economic and political development of society, as well as the ability and readiness of counterrevolutionary forces to mount organized resistance against the popular masses supporting the revolution. It is important to understand the sentiments within the army and the state of relations among representatives of different national groups.
As a result of a thorough evaluation of these and other factors—which at the time demonstrated the overwhelming superiority of the revolutionary forces—the Bolsheviks managed to establish Soviet power peacefully in 79 out of 97 cities. Where the bourgeoisie refused to voluntarily hand over power to the revolutionary people, it had to be taken by force.
To conclude what has already been said, I would like to note that V.I. Lenin called for studying the experience of Russian Bolshevism, but under no circumstances copying it. Lenin aimed to make accessible to the international communist movement “that which is universally applicable, of general importance, and obligatory in the history and modern tactics of Bolshevism” (Collected Works, vol. 41, p. 30). At the same time, Lenin emphasized that the general patterns of socialist revolution do not exist in a pure form but manifest themselves in specific particular forms in different countries.
We sincerely wish success to the movement toward socialism of the people of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. We express unconditional confidence that the movement initiated by Hugo Chávez and continued by his successor, President Nicolás Maduro, the popular movement “Communes or Nothing!” will help defend the country’s sovereignty and make it prosperous.
Thank you for your attention.