MANY EUROPEAN revolutionaries think their focus should be on convincing Latin American socialists to build Leninist parties - rather than on supporting the mass movements.
In fact, the growth, success of the self-confidence of the mass movement is a precondition for the building of any kind of mass political organisation. Counter-revolution is certain to be attempted in Venezuela and Bolivia: both mass mobilisations and socialist organisation will be needed to make the revolution permanent.
Recent revolutionary upsurges in Latin America have combined mass mobilisations, guerrilla struggles and electoral struggles. There is an exceptionally high level of debate within the Latin left, which builds on exceptionally deep struggles over the last century, but it has shown little interest in building revolutionary parties modelled on Lenin's Bolsheviks.
Many on the European left consider the absence of a revolutionary party to be essential. However, as pointed out by Tami Peterson in the March issue of SR, where the state has been overthrown in Latin America it has been by armed struggle rather than Bolshevik parties.
Everything we have seen in Latin America, and elsewhere, suggests that will be no peaceful road to socialism. If the Bolivian and Venezuelan masses continue to advance, they will most likely face the pressure of internal counter-revolution. It will be backed by the US, rather than a US invasion:
These countries are too populous, and the masses too well advanced, for the sort of interventions we have seen in Haiti and Panama. Even so, there is no guarantee that the masses would defeat counter-revolution, any more than they could in Chile.
Guns and militias
There were millions of guns, militias and warnings in Chile. To defeat counter-revolution the masses will need to be confident that they stand a chance of victory. Our solidarity here can materially help the development of their confidence.
The 'political logic' of their struggle points them towards power, but the process of solidarity can make the masses more successful, more confident, better organised and more able to build solidarity between workers and peasants. A victory for them would resound across the continent, and worldwide.
The Latin American masses would be more confident of victory if they built mass revolutionary parties.
The Cuban revolution
could not have been consolidated without the building of a communist party.
In Nicaragua and Grenada, radicals learnt from the Cuban experience and built revolutionary parties: the FSLN and New Jewel Movement. The development of the PRS in Venezuela is also a powerfully positive development.
However, British Marxists have often misunderstood the role of a party: some have argued that revolution is impossible without a Marxist party, even to the point of denying the revolution in Cuba because a Marxist party did not lead the revolution.
These comrades considered the building of a party to be the precondition for building the movement.
Do not put the cart before the horse. It would be a sectarian error to think that a mass party can be built without a confident movement that produces a growing vanguard. Furthermore, workers and peasants have come to power without Marxist parties: in Cuba, it was necessary to build a party after the revolution. In other countries, the masses pushed parties that were not Marxist far to the left. The masses picked up other workers' parties and mass organisations and used them like blunt weapons to challenge the remorseless attacks of neo-liberalism.
In Venezuela, Chavez has been pushed far to the left of his original reformist programme. It would be mistaken to think that Chavez opposes popular power, or that he would not fight.
In Bolivia, the movement is in front of Morales. A decisive showdown with imperialism is on the cards. The outcome depends on both the masses and the solidarity movement.
Solidarity as countwerweight
A powerful and vigorous solidarity campaign would be a counterweight against compromisers and counter-revolutionaries, both inside the mass movement and in the camp of imperialism. If counter-revolution wins, then the prospects for world socialism will be weaker.
There is a pressing need to deliver material solidarity with the struggle against imperialism in Latin America. For the new generation, the viability of socialism is being tested out there. A failure of the movements there would have a chilling affect internationally.
Marxists in the imperialist countries have a special role here, and a special shame. The Latin American masses face a fragile, compromised ruling class that is the dependent agent of the British and American capitalists. When BP and British Gas sink their fangs into Latin America, the life blood of the continent comes here.
Under imperialism's continuing pressure, the mainstream of the British workers' movement has failed to mobilise to support struggles against imperialism in Korea, Algeria, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua and elsewhere.
Although British workers also fight BP and British Gas, the workers movement has yet to lift a finger in support for the demands of the Bolivian and Venezuelan masses.
Now, as then, conservative pressure on these organisations was too strong to bring them into the solidarity campaigns. Many British Marxists have also accommodated to this pressure. Some have argued that the only way to support revolution abroad was by building their revolutionary party in Britain.
Following in their footsteps, many of today's Marxists prioritise propaganda and economic struggles at home over internationalism. The rewards are clear: it is easier and more familiar to mobilise for the defence and extension of the material interests of organised workers at home than to work systematically and consistently in solidarity with those in the developing world.
Anti-war movement
Internationalism has been strengthened by the millions-strong demonstrations against war in Iraq. So did the mass demonstrations against the British and US war in Vietnam.
However, those demonstrations did not push the mainstream of British Marxism into ongoing solidarity campaigning. Some socialists dismiss solidarity as passive well-wishing.
In fact, concrete and tangible work is needed to support the progressive demands of the oppressed masses and to directly work towards their success though political campaigning, trade union solidarity, material aid and support their Latin American activists in this country.
Some British Marxists argue that while material solidarity can raise awareness in Britain, the struggle of British workers at home against capitalism and war is more important. Certainly, a left-wing defeat for Blair would show that the class struggle continues in this country.
However, the class struggle is international. There can be times when the material support of British socialists for a struggle abroad can make a bigger difference than focussing on `bread and butter' struggles at home.
A hundred demonstrations in London could not compensate for counter-revolution in Bolivia and Venezuela. A defeat there would be a defeat for the left internationally, as the defeat in Chile also was.
Furthermore, campaigning in solidarity with the Bolivian and Venezuelan masses shows not only that we can fight, but also we will fight with them when they face the threat of counter-revolution. Showing that they are waging our common struggle, and that they can count on our material support, will have a deeper impact.
If we cannot rise to support the struggle in Latin America, then we cannot be expected to develop revolutionary consciousness in the British masses.
[Photograph: a Venezuelan rally beneath a banner reading "VIVA LA UNIDAD DE LOS...", with portraits of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and a third figure]