A look at the history of the Chávez government reveals a vacillation between timidity and boldness: the greater the mass pressure, the greater the boldness.
Thus Chávez was notably conciliatory towards the right after the coup. The Supreme Court also absolved the leaders of the coup instead of putting them on trial.
However, after the bosses' lockout, Chávez acted decisively against the elite's control of the oil industry, sacking the major directors as well as (rather more dubiously) thousands of administrative and other workers who had sided with them.
But he also blocked demands by radicalised oil workers for self-management and a constituent assembly of the petroleum industry.
Now, after the referendum, his plans for "deepening the revolution" include curbing the power of the right-wing media and judiciary, although on past form he will rely on government intervention rather than bottom-up initiatives to do this.
He also plans to expand public investment, but partly, as before, in order to attract private investment.
Chávez is a populist. Like the Latin American populists of the thirties and forties, he has used the strength of a sector of his country's economy- in this case oil - to fund significant reforms, taking advantage of US imperial overstretch.
He employs charismatic, radical rhetoric, and bases himself on the support of the poor, but he has not yet gone beyond the framework of capitalism and, judging by his statements after the referendum, he has no intention of doing so.
Unlike previous populists, Chávez has helped to stimulate a process with a degree of mass involvement which has begun to open up perspectives of a different sort of society.
The kind of party and union structures which Perón in Argentina, for example, employed to control the popular movement seem to be lacking.
However, the extent to which mass self-activity genuinely operates is very difficult to gauge from this distance.
The famous "Bolivarian circles" (named after Simon Bolivar, a nineteenth-century Venezuelan who fought for South American independence) are supposed to be local Chávez (top left) has been
able to mobilise mass support, including a huge demonstration throughthe streets of Caracas (bottom
left and above). NO committees of Chávez supporters responsible for developing popular participation and distributing resources.
The Chavista leadership estimates participation in these circles at two million, or almost ten percent of the population.
However, comrade recently returned from Venezuela argues that the Misiones, or social programmes, have a much higher public profile.
But simply to describe Chávez as a populist is to leave the reader with a still shot of a constantly moving process, the outcome of which is not fixed.
Will Chávez heroically defend his reformist project to the death, like Allende in Chile in 1973, or end up as a neo-liberal masquerading as a radical, like Lula in Brazil, or even, under mass pressure, move towards socialisation of the means of production?
The only example so far of a left nationalist leader taking the third option is Castro in Cuba, and he had the support of the Soviet Union, which no longer exists.
Within the mass movement, an independent socialist voice is necessary, one that supports Chávez when he takes progressive measures, but also clearly and fearlessly explains his limitations and sets out an independent class strategy, including calling for councils of action in the workplaces and poor neighbourhoods to combat rightwing sabotage and subversion.
Only the self-organisation of the workers and oppressed can defend Chávez against another coup; it is also the only defence against Chávez changing his mind.
One encouraging sign is the appeal by the independent National Union of Workers (UNT) after the win for the No' side in the referendum:
"This must be a 'No' to the payment of the external debt and to privatisations. We want to turn this victory of the "No' into a 'No' to capitalist exploitation."
The UNI, which was founded a year ago, in opposition to the corrupt, pro-coup union federation (CTV), now organises the majority of unionised workers.
It also calls for nationalisation of the banks and workers' control over less productive and newly formed enterprises.
The movement will need to fight for these sorts of demands in order to maintain its forward momentum and to safeguard even the democratic and social gains that it has achieved so far.
If it does this, then the process of the "Bolivarian revolution" will be superseded by a dynamic of permaFi.e. socialist revolution.
Useful websites: www.zmag.org, www.venezuelanalysis.com, www.marxsite.com Harry Sloan A GROUND-BREAKING agreement in two German electronics plants at the end of June appear to have triggered a fresh employers' offensive in France and Germany demanding a lengthening of the working week.
4,000 Siemens workers in North Rhine Westphalia were confronted with a management demand that they agree to work an extra 5 hours each week for no extra pay - lengthening hours from 35 to 40 - or face closure and the transfer of production to Hungary.
As IG Metall union leaders collapsed and accepted the deal, claiming that it was a "one-off", the leader of the German employer's association BDA hailed it as a landmark, which he hoped would "help create a new collective bargaining culture".
Immediately afterwards, other employers including Bosch and the truck and engineering firm MAN were slapping down demands for similar concessions from their worktorces, while DaimlerChrysler announced plans to increase the working week to 40 hours for its research and planning staff.
Construction industry bosses are looking to increase their working week from 39 to 42 hours.
By mid-July over 60,000 DaimlerChrysler workers were leading mass protests over the new working hours proposal, while the boss of Mercedes Car threatened to switch production from Southern Germany to north Germany and South Africa unless dramatic cost savings could be made - at workers' expense.
General Motors is also threatening to end production of its Opel models unless concessions are made by the unions.
And in August Volkswagen demanded its 170,000 workforce accept a 2-year pay freeze, rejecting an IG Metall claim for a 4 per cent increase and a 10year job guarantee. The company, which is projecting profits this year of 1.9 billion euro, wants to cut its labour costo by 2 billion euro over the next six years.
The chief executive of MAN insisted that "The trend towards the 40-hour week is unstoppable, and that sometimes means more work for the same money".
The imposition of de facto wage cuts on German manufacturing workers is clearly part of a drive to screw further profits from them - despite warnings from government economic advisors that a further round of wage cuts could harm the prospects of the economy climbing out of its current sluggish growth.
German retail sales fell 5 per
cent in May compared with the previous year. However government been on forcing Defying
through further neo-liberal style "reforms" in Chancellor the labour market, with Schroeder cross-party support, is losing despite vocal opposition
from the trade unions. popular
The first victims of support the latest agreement will
be 1.5 million unemployed, who will face reductions in state benefits from next January as earnings-related benefits are replaced by flat-rate payments: but the new policies will also restrict future claimants to just one year of earningsrelated payments if they lose their jobs.
New measures are also to be taken to force more unemployed into work, with the target of reducing the 4.4m jobless figures by up to 20 percent.
The German employers' example has been eagerly seized upon by their French counterparts, who have never accepted the reduction in the working week from 39 to 35 hours by the Socialist-led government, which was phased in from 1999.
The harsh lesson is that one local concession by the unions can open the floodgates to wholesale attacks.
The unions must forge much stronger links across Europe and internationally to stop anew "race to the bottom" on pay and conditions.