Here we go again! Rumors, rumors. Conspiracy, arrests of paramilitary forces, secret meetings in Puerto Rico and Margarita, student 'guarimbas', dangerous marches, workers strikes, killings, clandestine arms factories, fascist propaganda machines, bad weather in the hottest and driest seasons, heavy rains, permanent headaches.
In La Florida, Caracas, Globovision informs us that unknown persons threw a hand grenade at the office of the opposition party, “Action Democrática” (AD). Some say that it was AD itself, others claim that it was the marauding “terrorist” Bolivarians. This is a world of contradictions. In Venezuela, truth itself is a flowing contradiction.
According to President Chávez, members of a mafia group of policemen and civilians, led by the body guard of a Rabbi, were finally arrested a few days ago as a result of the terrorist attacks on the Jewish synagogue perpetrated in Caracas last January 30. What are all these about?
Yes, this is symptomatic. In Venezuela, we have elections again, as we all know. These elections will be a referendum to amend certain articles of the constitution.
The issue is to obtain something that, for decades, has been democratic and normal in many countries such as Great Britain and Germany and elsewhere; to allow leading public governmental figures the possibility of being freely re-elected by popular vote, as long as the sovereign nation deems it necessary.
The real “problem” for the deposed “opposition”: “No! Chávez must go! We are chosen to stay forever in power!”
The “solution” for the “chavismo”: “Yes! Chavez, elected by a free democratic popular vote, must stay!”
And, what is the talk of the town?
“The extreme right is coinciding (or meets up) with the extreme left!”
Comrades, no matter what euphemistic or “revolutionary” interpretation we give to such a political statement, it is extremely dangerous and could easily be understood in a counter-revolutionary way. Such unscientific declarations indicate a serious theoretical question, a logical theoretical dilemma within our ranks, even within the Bolivarian Revolution itself.
On the one hand, this kind of world outlook is formal logical to the Aristotelian extreme: 'A' always = 'A'; it should never be changed by any extreme, not from the right, not from the left, not from above, not from below, not by anything radically different than 'A'.
This leaves no room for social, for socialist revolution, to surpass the third law of formal logics. Such an ideology cannot operate within relative directions, within changing extremes. It nurtures static illusions, it conserves the status quo, and it cultivates 'peaceful, non-violent', eternal, structural, intra-systemic exploiting reforms and dominating reformism. It simply does not serve the existential class interests of the global toiling workers.
In a word, it is counter-emancipatory.
On the other hand, such an attitude negates contradiction, theory and dialectics, the logical science of motion, of change, of revolution. Who denies contradiction, who cannot identify unity, the dialectical unity of 'unity and contradiction', who cannot contradict 'unity and contradiction'? He or she will have great difficulty acting and thinking in the real world of labor and capitalism and developing praxis and theory because our current problem is a global contradiction of multiple contradictions, of a myriad of quantitative and qualitative changes.
To understand both sides of the February 15 referendum, below is a revision of the simple dialectical, logical terms.
The two extremes, the two sides of any process, of one and the same process, are its limits of existence, of growth; its Affirmation (its 'Sí'), and its Negation (its 'No'). An Affirmation without a Negation and vice versa is plain nonsense. To be a subject you need an object and vice versa. To create a revolution you need a counter-revolution. To vote for a Yes, you need a No! Both of them reflect the true reality of current Venezuelan economics and politics.