ON BEING IN A HURRY

It is often one of the precious conceits of people on the left to imagine that "we" live in a special time, one of momentous transformation. Like the present-day generations that have seen the Y2K millennium, Marxists ride the cusp of a time-wave that enables us to look back, through the centuries of prehistory, and simultaneously forward, into what Engels famously called the realm of freedom, the beginning of genuine history. Our insight makes us impatient; we want to see decisive revolutionary change now, before we die. This psychology of imminence feeds a mood of political impatience, more than understandable given the enormity of suffering and oppression and the seemingly unlimited capacity of the existing society to resist change.

The compression of time is central to what I see as the two defining tragedies of the 2oth century. These are, first, the split in the worldwide left and working-class movement occasioned by 1914, and 1917; second, the onset of authoritarianism, bureaucratism, hyper-politicization and repression associated with the cult of the individual personality of Stalin in the 1930s USSR. These tragedies occur, of course, against the backdrop of the great forward movement of the Russian Revolution, and, eventually, the Chinese Revolution; the later demise or internal redirection of those revolutions have deep roots in the material insufficiency of the conditions for their success, but if the outcomes were not inevitable, they trace back to the twin tragedies of 1914-17 and the 1930s.

Both tragedies relate to the time-impatience issue. The split — between "third-camp" and "second-camp" positions — reveals an immaturity in both camps: their failure to see the contradictory unity of two requirements of the revolutionary vocation. These are: on one hand, the need to keep constantly in view the transcending moral vision of the left, through all of the temptations and immediacies of struggle; on the other, the need to support working-class movements full-heartedly and practically, when they take state power, in what will always be less-than-ideal conditions and faced with continuing threats to their existence. The immaturity lay in not realizing, and embracing, the inherent tension and unity in the two requirements, instead allowing that tension to result in political division and disunity. Both poles of this division reflect the time-impatience problem: one side in effect succumbing to shortcuts in the long drive toward socialist democracy by allowing and abetting authoritarian impulses; the other positing an abstract, millennial, perfectionist socialism while rejecting and vilifying the "real existing" variety. The authoritarian deformation, seen also in the cults of Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung, and a number of other revolutionary leaders in the Third World, was also nourished by time-impatience, although it undoubtedly has had roots in other material and cultural phenomena.¹

The time issue is a major feature of the unfolding Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela. A recent statement from Michael Lebowitz — North American Marxist political economist and long-time S&S contributor, currently resident in Caracas and activist in building dialog between the Venezuelan revolutionary process and its international supporters — puts the matter quite clearly. Entitled "Why Aren't You in a Hurry, Comrade?", it appeared in MRzine, the online version of Monthly Review. It addresses the February 1 signing by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez of an Enabling Law, which empowers Chavez to enact legislation in 11 areas, for a period of 18 months, without having to first pass it through the National Assembly. The move, along with Chavez' push for the various left parties that support the Revolution to dissolve themselves into a new single party in formation, has been criticized by both friends and enemies, within Venezuela and abroad. In view of the control of the National Assembly by Chavez' Movimiento Quinta República (MVR), following the boycott of the recent elections by the opposition parties, the drive for personal legislative authority and unified political organization seems both unnecessary and ill-advised. What is the hurry, the critics ask? In Lebowitz' summary: "A single party, rule by decree — isn't this the road to Stalinism and to the Gulag?"

Lebowitz points out that past Venezuelan presidents, and Chavez himself in 2001, used similar enabling legislation, which is therefore not without precedent in Venezuela. Conceding that "tempo can be the enemy of democratic processes," he nevertheless cites reports of visitors to the Communal Councils in the poor neighborhoods of Caracas, whose activities have been supported by the Chavista movement.² The people in the barrios, according to the reports, are full of "frustration and anger . . . with local and ministry officials who were holding back change"; they identify "with the impatience of Chavez, whom they trusted." One of Lebowitz' visitors noted that the people "are less interested in democracy as process than in democracy in practice." Thus, we should not be surprised that the Opposition's call for demonstrations against the Enabling Law went largely unheeded. "Should we be surprised that the people are in a hurry?" And then, of course, the parting shot: "The real question . . . is . . . why aren't you in a hurry, comrade?"

And so, the issue is joined. No one, of course, wants to seem hesitant or indecisive in the face of a need for serious measures, and the reality in Venezuela — as everywhere — is that the forces opposing change are deeply and functionally ingrained into the very warp of society, to a degree that often seems ineluctable and invites pessimism and retreat. Although Lebowitz does not answer his own question (why rule by decree when the Chavistas control the National Assembly?), other close observers report to me that timing of some of the projected legislative initiatives can be decisive, and that even without serious opposition in the Assembly the legislative process can take months, if not years. And, given the accumulated pain of poverty and suffering, can we ask the people to wait?

I also visited some of the Misiones — programs set up in the barrios to activate people and circumvent the dysfunctional and corrupt state welfare structure — during a trip to Caracas in October 2006, and I came away with a deep affection and respect for the people I met there. In one, the Misión Rivas, funds from the Venezuelan state oil company (PDVSA) are used to run classes for adults, and for children who would not otherwise be in school. I witnessed a math class, taught using videos created in Cuba. The students in this class ranged from eight-year-olds to grandparents. I felt the pride and sense of empowerment of the workers in the Misión and the students; also, as reported, their anger and frustration. It is difficult to "come to terms" with the enemies (personal and institutional) of revolutionary change, perhaps especially in countries that have been underdeveloped by imperialist predation. But, whatever laws emerge, either from the National Assembly or from Presidential decrees, their effectiveness will clearly depend on the consciousness, capacities, and organizational achievements of the poor, working people at the base, such as those I met. That simple idea, imprecise as it may be, is the single most important conclusion I was able to draw from an admittedly brief experience. And: development of this consciousness, those capacities and that organization — all of this cannot be hurried.

________________
1. The Chinese case is different from most others, in the remarkable organized mass mobilization of the Long March and social/economic construction in the liberated zones both prior to and after 1949 — a positive feature of the Mao legacy shared in fact by the Bolshevik experience but not present in all 20th-century revolutions.

2. The Communal Councils are new decentralized units of political activity, each containing 200-4o0 families in urban areas, and increasingly seen as the basis of a new state form from below. I am indebted to Michael Lebowitz for correcting some errors that appeared in the first draft of this essay.

Continue to next Page