Stephen Cho | Coordinator of the Korean International Forum
1. Testament of Hugo Chávez: “Comuna o Nada”
“Comuna o Nada (Communes or Nothing)” is moving since it is revolutionary, and all the more moving in that it was his testament. In the final days of his life, on October 20, 2012, during the first and last meeting of his newly formed cabinet, Chávez spoke these words as if they were his last will, engraving them into the consciousness of his revolutionary comrades. Humanity has long remembered similar words of truth: “Liberty or nothing,” “Independence or nothing,” “Revolution or nothing,” “Socialism (or communism) or nothing.” At its core, “Comuna o Nada” shares the same essence. For Chávez, the comuna was liberty, independence, revolution, and socialism. This means the comuna shares the same essence as liberty, independence, revolution, and socialism. More precisely, the comuna embodies the revolutionary capacity, while liberty, independence, and socialism embody the revolutionary goal. In the sense that the revolutionary goal can only be fulfilled through strong revolutionary capacity, the comuna is both the revolutionary capacity and the revolutionary goal.
The comuna is the government, the organ of power. More concretely, it refers to both the legislative and executive branches, to both decision-making and implementing bodies, to both the government and the assembly. “Government and assembly” encompasses both the central and local levels. Thus, the comuna represents the system of people’s democracy and centralism—the institutions and order of democratic centralism. In perspective, the exercise of Democratic Centralism must be understood as dependent on the advance of the comuna. In short, the comuna is people’s democracy itself; it is the people themselves. This is what Chávez entrusted to his revolutionary comrades—as his final testament, and as his most precious legacy.
The comuna is founded upon the front. The people’s government presupposes a people’s front. Not the power of any single class or stratum, but the united front that embraces all the classes and strata that make up the people—this people’s front of the masses is the essential foundation of the people’s government. In other words, the comuna is a people’s government that includes not just one class or stratum, but all the classes and strata that constitute the people. Although Hugo Chávez did not state it explicitly, the idea of the united front is contained in the comuna.
Why is it not the party, but the front and the government? This is where Chávez’s distinctiveness lies. This explains why Chávez emphasized Simón Bolívar, rather than a communist representing Venezuela or Latin America. This is also why Chávez did not join the Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV), but instead founded the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV). During Chávez’s time, the PCV was a close ally of the PSUV. The fact that the PSUV included various political forces with different ideologies and positions, including the PCV, means that this party was essentially not a vanguard party but a mass party—not a class party, but a united front party. In the course of revolution and construction, a vanguard party may broaden its class base to the masses and develop into a mass party, while a mass party can deepen its revolutionary and class character to become a vanguard party. Revolution and construction require that organizational building be carried out creatively in accordance with the demands of the people and objective conditions. It is therefore logically consistent that Chávez—who from the beginning pushed forward the Bolivarian Revolution and founded the PSUV—emphasized the government rather than the party, and the people rather than comrades, in his final testament.
Of course, it is the party that leads the government, and comrades and vanguards stand at the forefront of the people. In this sense, the importance of the party, comrades, and vanguards cannot be overstated. However, humanity has not forgotten the historical lesson that, in the course of revolution and construction, parties often fell into revisionism and dogmatism, committed errors in their lines and policies, and became bureaucratic and ultimately alienated from the people. As revolutionaries, we reflect painfully on why the communist parties of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe lost their ruling status and were abandoned by the people. In that sense, even if the party leads revolution and construction, we must deeply internalize a truth that may seem ordinary yet is profound: the highest position in society belongs not to the party, but to the people. And when we emphasize the people and their government, the importance of the party as a political leadership organ is naturally emphasized as well. The conclusion is that it must be the people, not the party. This truth is embodied in “Comuna o Nada.” It should be seen as reflecting Chávez’s summation of past revolutionary history.
Although Chávez once nearly lost his life in a counterrevolutionary coup after the revolution, his revolutionary forces never lost control of state power—not even once. This was not only because Chávez’s party was strong, but also because the people’s support for Chávez’s movement and party was unwavering and resolute. Chávez placed emphasis not only on the party, but also on the comuna as a united front and as a form of government. He continuously reflected on how to strengthen the comuna, to enhance its functions, and devoted himself wholeheartedly to that endeavor. It was precisely this steadfast commitment that enabled the Chavista forces to lead the revolution and construction with the unyielding support of the people. For this reason, the Bolivarian Revolution continues to be inherited, deepened, and developed under its faithful successor, Nicolás Maduro, even after Chávez was assassinated by imperialist forces. Maduro said, “The comuna is the great center of direct democracy and the shield against imperialism.” The reason Chávez did not die—even in death—and continues to live vividly among the people is embodied in his words: “Comuna o Nada.” The spirit of Che Guevara’s slogan, “Hasta la victoria siempre (Until victory, always),” finds its continuation in Chávez’s call, “Comuna o Nada,” which continues to guarantee the victory of the Venezuelan people and the Bolivarian Revolution.
2. The Paris Commune, the Russian Soviets, and the People’s Government of the DPRK
Venezuela’s comuna is, of course, rooted in the long history of the people’s life and struggle in Venezuela, while at the same time it is connected to the broader historical experience of people’s governments shared throughout world history. Of particular importance are the Paris Commune of 1871, the world’s first proletarian government, and the Soviets of the Russian Revolution of 1917, the world’s first victorious socialist revolution. These two historical experiences provided revolutionary inspiration to national liberation revolutions, people’s democratic revolutions, and socialist revolutions in many countries, including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), and became classical historical experiences—paradigms of people’s governments—creatively embodied in each country.
The most important feature of the Paris Commune was that it was a government of the urban working class. Observing this, Marx put forward the idea of a worker-peasant alliance, stressing that the urban working class and the rural peasantry must unite—laying the foundation for the theory of the united front. Revolutionaries also drew from the lessons of the Commune the importance of the vanguard party, its leading core, and a guiding ideology. Based on this historical summation, Leninism emerged as the guiding idea, the Bolshevik Party as the vanguard party, and the Soviets as the organizational form of the united front. The first successful socialist revolution in human history—the October Revolution—was made possible, on the subjective side, by the decisive role of these three elements.
The common feature of the proletarian government and the people’s government lies in the leadership of the revolutionary party of the working class. Among all victorious national liberation revolutions, people’s democratic revolutions, and socialist revolutions, there has never been a case in which victory was achieved by the power of a single class alone. In other words, the theory of the united front—that all classes and strata supportive of the revolution must be embraced as one—has, without exception, proved to be of decisive importance. Historically, the implementation of this strategic organizational line has been possible only under the wise leadership of the revolutionary party of the working class. The united front line has thus been theorized as one of the essential conditions for revolutionary victory.
In other words, under the leadership of the revolutionary party of the working class, the proletarian government and the people’s government are essentially one and the same. The working class of the Paris Commune was the people, just as the workers, poor peasants, and soldiers of the Russian Soviets were the people. Yet the working class of the Paris Commune alone proved insufficient to defend the proletarian government—the gains of the revolution. From this grave lesson, the Russian Soviets—formed through the alliance of workers, poor peasants, and soldiers—emerged as a far firmer mass foundation, capable of consolidating the revolutionary victory and advancing toward socialist construction.
In developed capitalist countries, the revolutionary party of the working class must lead the uninterrupted revolution that advances from the lower to the higher stages after the victory of the socialist revolution, ultimately progressing toward a communist society. In colonies, meanwhile, it must lead the uninterrupted revolution that advances from the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal democratic revolution—or national liberation democratic revolution—to the socialist revolution. If the revolutionary party of the working class commits leftist or rightist deviations in the transitional stage from the lower to the higher phase, the socialist revolution itself, in extreme cases, can be shipwrecked—a fact confirmed by the experience of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe at the end of the 20th century.
Unlike in developed capitalist countries, in colonial countries the primary contradiction—and thus the foremost revolutionary task—is national liberation: the elimination of national oppression. The task of popular liberation—eliminating class oppression and socio-economic exploitation—is pursued simultaneously during the process of national liberation, but is fully carried out only after national liberation has been achieved. This entails two objective factors: the liquidation of anti-national and anti-popular forces on the human aspect, and the restriction of their ownership of the means of production on the material aspect. In short, this legitimate restriction of the political and economic power of anti-national and anti-popular forces is what has historically been referred to, since Lenin, as the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” As is well known, dictatorship is a dialectical concept—the other side of the same coin as democracy. In opposition to bourgeois dictatorship, Lenin clarified the revolutionary truth of proletarian dictatorship. He identified one of the key reasons for the failure of the Paris Commune in its lack of thorough implementation of this revolutionary principle—and he did not allow it to be repeated in the Russian Revolution.
Based on its experience with the “People’s Revolutionary Government” in guerrilla zones—liberated areas—during the anti-Japanese struggle, the DPRK established a people’s government in the northern half of Korea after the liberation on August 15, 1945, without falling into either leftist or rightist deviation. As a result, the anti-feudal democratic revolution following the anti-imperialist national liberation revolution was accomplished rapidly and smoothly. After carrying out a national liberation war against imperialism for three years (1950–1953), the DPRK swiftly advanced the task of socialist revolution—the establishment of socialist relations of production—in the three years from 1956 to 1958. Without resorting to violent methods, this task was achieved quickly and smoothly. Upon the ruins of colonial underdevelopment and war, the DPRK, based on the power of its subjective forces firmly united around the Party and the leader, succeeded in achieving the transformation of production relations into socialist ones, which entails the complete socialization of all means of production, even prior to the development of the productive forces through industrialization—an unprecedentedly creative revolutionary process in history. On the basis of the political strength of single-hearted unity and the transition to socialist relations of production—that is, the favorable condition in which the capitalist class no longer existed—the DPRK, in just 14 years, accomplished the great task of socialist industrialization by 1970. It is no coincidence that the DPRK, today armed with hydrogen bombs and hypersonic missiles, has joined the ranks of the world’s most powerful nuclear-missile states, standing firm against US imperialism. It is no exaggeration that the DPRK declares that, in the event of an emerency, it will assuredly accomplish “the independent and democratic development of society on a nationwide scale”—the task set forth at the 8th Congress of the Workers’ Party of Korea in January 2021—that is, the cause of national liberation and territorial integrity.
A notable aspect of the DPRK’s experience in building a people’s government is that the revolutionary party of the working class, while firmly establishing the working class as the leading class within the people’s government, correctly implemented a revolutionary and popular united front policy that consistently bound together all the people who shared common interests at every stage of the revolution and construction. And that, in this process, by maximally elevating the educational and organizational role of the revolutionary party of the working class, both the anti-feudal democratic revolution and the socialist revolution were smoothly carried out as processes grounded in popular consensus. The DPRK has a unique historical experience of having carried out the transformation from private ownership of the means of production to popular collective ownership, and further to socialist collective ownership, by thoroughly prioritizing ideological education and advancing it through rational and voluntary methods—to the extent that it refers to itself as “one great family.” It is undeniably an outstanding revolutionary achievement, realized through the political strength of single-hearted unity—built upon a strong revolutionary party of the working class that, under its leadership, has established the working class as the leading class, taken the worker-peasant alliance as the social-class foundation, and steadfastly strengthened the united front of the entire people.
3. The 21st Century Revolution: People-Centered Plus Cutting-Edge Science
Defining the 21st century as a new era requires compelling justification. For us, the “21st Century” conveys a crucial lesson from the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the late 20th century, and it demands that future socialist revolutions and constructions must avoid both leftist and rightist deviations. More specifically, it is a historical reflection underscoring that the errors committed by socialist ruling parties must never be repeated. These errors include dogmatic stagnation and revisionist degeneration, bureaucratism, and great-power chauvinism and flunkyism.
Ultimately, this can be condensed into establishing the correct view of the status and role of the people in revolution and construction. In short, the people are the masters of revolution and construction and play a decisive role in them. Revolution and construction are undertaken for the people and by the people. The goal of revolution and construction is from the people’s independent demands, and its means and methods are from the people’s creative capacity. The people’s independent demands constitute the people’s cause, their creative capacity constitutes their strength and role. Only when the people’s cause is rightly defined and their strength and role are duly exercised can revolution and construction advance swiftly and powerfully without deviation.
The process of defining the people’s cause, strengthening their capabilities, and elevating their role is precisely the system of democratic deliberation and centralized implementation—democratic centralism. The decision-making and implementation systems of the people’s government must always safeguard this principle as the very pupil of their eye. Even as times change, the principles of democracy and centralization in decision-making and implementation remain immutable. When the people’s independent demands are democratically incorporated into government policy, and their creative capacities are centrally mobilized to implement that policy, the people become the true masters of power and can continuously enhance their role.
The regime, as the state-level decision-making and implementation system, can build a solid mass base only when it is founded on a people’s front that embraces all strata of the masses. If this people’s front—this people’s regime—is a train, then the revolutionary party is its locomotive. The revolutionary party of the people is the revolutionary organization of the people, formed by the vanguards of the people, firmly united under the people’s revolutionary ideology. It is both the revolutionary party of the working class the mass party of the working people, armed with the revolutionary ideology of the working class and united with the vanguards of the people, including the working class itself. This is why communist parties throughout the world often exist under the name “Workers’ Party,” alongside Communist Party.
The people’s independent demands are their consciousness of independence, and the people’s creative capacity is embodied in science and technology. This creative capacity has been developing at an accelerated pace, particularly since the 21st century, with the rapid advance of cutting-edge science—including AI—being nothing short of dazzling. In the establishment of a people-centered government, when policies are formulated for the people and implemented by the people, we are living in an era in which advanced science is assuming ever-greater importance. Science and technology are directly tied to the productive forces, and their accelerated development is so profound that it even calls for a reinterpretation of the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, as described in Capital.
As experts warn, imperialist forces seizing control of AI technology is as dangerous as imperialist USA being the sole nuclear power immediately after World War 2. In the current situation, where the imperialist camp is driving toward World War 3, the anti-imperialist camp must secure an unconditional and decisive victory, setting the direction and standards to ensure that cutting-edge science—advancing at the speed of light—is employed not by imperialist forces but by anti-imperialist forces, and not for the profit of a tiny handful of monopoly capitalists but for the benefit of the overwhelming majority of the people.
In 21st-century revolutionary theory, the industrial revolution of advanced science is as vital as the people-centered political revolution of the 21st century. The revolutionary task of inheriting and creatively renewing Lenin’s classic formulation, “Communism is Soviet power plus electrification (of the whole country),” in accordance with the conditions of our era—the 21st century—cannot be overstated. Today, the Soviet power is the comuna—the people’s government—and electrification is advanced science.