Communes and Worker’s
Control in Venezuela: Building 21st Century Socialism from Below,
by Dario Azzellini. Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2016.
by Steve Ellner
Published in
Science & Society, October 2019
Communes and Worker’s
Control in Venezuela combines an examination of the experiences of grassroots
bodies involved in neighborhood and workplace decision making and theoretical analysis
of the role of state institutions in the transition to socialism. The author
Dario Azzellini champions “the idea of a communal socialism” (54), while detailing
the ways that the old state’s bureaucracy during the presidencies of Hugo Chavez
and Nicolas Maduro has impeded the full development of a new state based on
popular participation. Azzellini points to the “centrality of territory in the
Venezuelan struggle” and adds that “the most active agent of change” in the
nation has been barrio and rural inhabitants. In contrast, industrial workers
are “frequently privileged” and have largely been led by corrupt trade unionists
“co-opted by the political system,” while “the building of workers councils”
has proven to be particularly “difficult” (32).
Azzellini relies heavily on a 2008 study of the Jesuit think
tank Centro Gumilla to refute “liberal critics” who warn that communal councils
undermine the existing institutional system of checks and balances. Contrary to
the allegations of anti-Chavista writers, the Centro’s data showed in its words
“‘a low level of state interference in the dynamics of the communal councils’”
(112-113). The study also demonstrates that, contrary to the allegations of these
same academics, 80 percent of the councils “admit differing political
positions” (115), and that there was no “difference in financing between different
socio-economic areas (which also tend to correspond to different political
preferences)” (107). Finally, the academic “liberals” criticize the communal
councils for being dependent on the central government and bypassing the
municipal government. Nevertheless, according to Azzellini councils that
respond to the central government are more likely to promote popular
participation than those “under the responsibility of local and regional
authorities” (108).
In some
ways, but not others, Azzellini’s analysis of socialist transformation
coincides with Lenin’s concept of dual power in which a new structure
eliminates (“smashes,” in the words of Marx and Lenin) the old state. The old
state in Venezuela include the bureaucrats who have resisted and sometimes sabotaged
the efforts of the communal councils (some of which are now grouped in
economically productive “communes”), which are the embryo of the new state. Nevertheless,
Azzellini defends the Chavista scheme of the old state’s “gradual substitution
by the communal state” (53) as opposed to the abrupt change produced by the
Soviet revolution of 1917. Furthermore, Azzellini recognizes that in spite of
the bureaucracy’s restraining role in the process, the relationship between the
old and new state in Venezuela is “complicated” (78). He thus shares with Lenin
the thesis that the revolution involves a rupture in which the old state is
replaced rather than transformed. Unlike Lenin, however, he does not view the
old state in its entirety as counter-revolutionary.
In his discussion of specific communal councils and worker
management arrangements based on his field work, Azzellini faults state
bureaucrats for shortcomings and setbacks, while expressing faith in the
capacity and commitment of the rank and file. In the process, he plays down the
positive role played by the old state in promoting popular participation. One
example of a “top-down” process of change originating from the old state was
the activist role played by the Popular Participation Ministry following the
passage of the “Law of Communal Councils” in 2006. The Ministry contributed to
the proliferation of communal councils throughout the nation by sending representatives
into low-income communities to inform inhabitants that financial support was
contingent on the creation of a council.
In the concluding chapter (Chapter 8), Azzellini appears to
be more insistent than in the rest of the book on the complex and dialectical relationship
between the old and new state. The chapter refers to a “two-track construction”
in which the old state “makes many processes possible” but at the same time
“makes them hard to accomplish, restrains them, and derails them.” He goes on
to describe the relationship between the governing powers from above and the
emerging powers from below as one of “cooperation and conflict” (263).
Several key issues regarding the role of the old state are
pertinent. First, is the old state basically an obstacle to the achievement of
change or does a struggle play out within it, as envisioned by Nicos Poulantzas
who referred to it as a “strategic battle field”? In Chapter 8, Azzellini
reinforces Poulantzas’ thesis by arguing that “the government and its
institutions are riddled with contradictions and class struggle” (274). Second,
is the emerging new state also subject to internal class struggle? Azzellini’s argues
that the communal councils are a “social relation,” as opposed to an
“administrative entity” (83). The use of the term would imply that the communal
councils are neither class-neutral nor simple class instruments. Chapter 8
implies that Poulantzas’ battlefield metaphor is applicable to the new,
emerging state by pointing to the “risk that the new from-below entity will
reproduce the logic and forms of constituted power, such as hierarchical
structures, representative mechanisms, division into leaders vs. led, and
bureaucratization” (276).
Third, is the problem of bureaucratic interference and
inefficiency to be placed in the same category as bureaucratic corruption?
While Azzellini basically considers the leftist government bureaucrats a major obstacle
to change, may their differences with the rank and file be considered at least
in some cases “contradictions among the people”? In contrast, corruption in
Venezuela has undoubtedly become a major impediment to the revolutionary
process. Fourth, what is the larger context in which transformation is taking
place? In any analysis of a revolutionary process, the insurgent actions against
the government (which is part of the “old state”) carried out by an opposition aided
from abroad and with immense resources need to be taken into consideration as
they tend to limit options, a factor Azzellini largely ignores.
Finally, were subjective conditions partly responsible for
the failure of numerous worker cooperatives and communal councils and the
resultant squandering of government revenue allocated in an effort to jumpstart
these bodies? In his analysis of individual cases, Azzellini generally places
the entire blame on state bureaucrats. However, many of these failures were due
to overly lenient terms of state support and lack of state controls, not
excessive state interference. The weakness of subjective conditions also
contributed to the failure of worker management schemes. In his chapter
“Workers’ Control, Workers’ Councils, and Class Struggle” Azzellini describes
how a Chavista union movement tied to the allegedly corrupt governor of the
state of Bolívar sabotaged the tenure of a worker-chosen president of the state
aluminum company Alcasa. Azzellini mentions all too passingly that the union
faction the “M21”, which according to him was the true champion of worker
management, was “divided into three tickets” (225) thus allowing the
anti-Chavistas to gain control of the union.
These critical comments are not meant to place in doubt the usefulness
of Azzellini’s study. The book presents considerable specific information on
grassroots democracy stemming largely from the author’s field work. Furthermore,
the theoretical analysis in the book’s concluding chapter frames issues that
are fundamental for any Marxist analysis of the state in Chavista Venezuela. The
same discussion illustrates that the mixed record of cooperatives and communal
and worker councils in Venezuela defies simplistic and romantic notions of
grassroots democracy. The examination of these cases demonstrates how much we
can learn from concrete experiences and how important it is to theorize on the
basis of such studies, and to resist the opposite tendency, that is, imposing
preconceived notions and theories on concrete situations.
