In Venezuela, very much is being done, and said, to deepen, to intensify the social revolution, to perform the "revolution in the revolution". Although this is imperative, it implies sailing into unknown, stormy, human seas, over whose surface mighty, practical hurricanes sweep, and in whose dark, profound waters are lurking all kinds of ideological rocks and fascist man-eaters.

Concerning the above, in previous Latin American social revolutions, in the turbulent revolutionary epoch of Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and Régis Debray, a similar situation had generated very complex questions, still unresolved, unanswered till today. Nonetheless, what we should avoid in Venezuela, is to end up in total tactical, strategic and "ideological" confusion. To us, by now, the concept of "Revolution" should be crystal clear. After all, we have been studying, acting and thinking it, ever since the 12th Century in Northern Italy.

Also numerous erudite scholars have studied it more precisely since the "French", "Industrial", "American", "October" and "Cuban" Revolutions ... yet we, the majority of Latin Americans, Africans, Asians, etc., still have severe scientific and philosophic difficulties to grasp this trans-historic phenomenon. Over the last years, in various books and articles, published on Internet, we have tried to throw some light on the meaning, essence, existence and transcendence of Revolution. See: http://www.geocities.com/juttafranz/publications00001.html )

Marxists, like Bertolt Brecht, always underlined that "the work of liberation is the work of the workers themselves". The revolutionary vanguard co-ordinates, but it cannot do everything, should not do everything, should not organize and dictate all regional and local political activities, else a serious, detrimental, political conflict may result between the leadership and the masses, between the central revolutionary government and the community workers. However, revolutionary contradictions within the political movement are the powerful pistons of the liberatory "process"; with dialectical contradictions the revolution is in its element, comes into existence, radicalizes itself.

Che Guevara touched the core of this matter: "The duty of a revolutionary is to make the revolution". As long as every revolutionary knows what is the "revolution" no confusion will rage within the liberation movement. This means that every revolutionary must know the práxis and theory of the Bolivarian Revolution, without this, s(he) cannot revolutionize the revolution, cannot deepen it, cannot radicalize it.

Surely, the responsibility of the Bolivarian Revolution lies in the hands of all Bolivarians across the globe, it is not mainly a Venezuelan or Latin American issue. Respecting the laws of Venezuela, its Constitution, this revolution does not prohibit "extranjeros" to participate directly in the sacred matters of global, human emancipation. Thus, in this revolutionary spirit, we will make the following general remarks and observations.

However, even in academic circles, because of the usage of "politically correct", of ossified, generalized, propagandistic, sociological concepts, like the "nation", the "people", "all human beings", the "Americans", the "sovereign", the "Opposition" ... all who are supposed to make the revolution or the counter-revolution ... the very dialectical social, historic essence of Revolution vanishes into thin air. The danger is that the furious class struggle in Venezuela and Latin America is being veiled, declared irrelevant, obsolete, as not being a quintessential element of global, social revolution. This is why such absurdities like a national "Alliance between Labour and Capital" could occur in Brazil; for the working masses, this "Class War" (Lula) now already is bearing fatal results.

The fons et origo of all social revolutions, the matrix of modern "social change", of the "process", was the combined French and Industrial Revolution in Europe, and its subsidiary in North America. Revolution itself is a social class invention, a bourgeois, democratic, capitalist "discovery", was produced in the womb of a specific mode of production, feudalism, based on a specific types of material energy, within the trans-historic process of Labour, of History.

It took over 500 years to socially recognize itself, to materialize itself, to capitalize its economic base, to conquer political power. In fact, the revolution itself was the trans-historical, logical telos, the aim, of the original accumulation of capital, reaching from Plato's "Republic" to Hobbes' "Leviathan", towards Orwell's "1984", from Ancient Europe to "Old Europe" (Rumsfeld). The eventual, final, revolutionary victory of the bourgeois, democratic, capitalist, social classes in the 18th to the 20th centuries, was the result of two millennia of fierce class struggles on the European continent. Every single war, and there were hundreds of them, every invasion, every crusade, every rape and plunder, concerned the accumulation of capital, of power, of wealth. All were violent class struggles, now and then, interrupted by "Holy Alliances", "Alliances for Progress", dialogues, reconciliation, "peace talks", etc. All modern revolutions, including the Bolivarian Revolution, have these trans-historic birthmarks.

Around the beginning of the 19th Century, the trans-historic class struggle in Europe, the Revolution, concentrated itself around two class contradictions, which again contradicted each other: the aristocratic-absolutist "ancien regime" versus the bourgeois-capitalist "reign of terror". The former, the "nobility versus clergy" wanted peaceful reform, dialogue and reconciliation; the latter, the "bourgeoisie versus proletariat", preferred violent revolution, the guillotine. Both contradictions composed the total Revolution, they formed the various faces, the various sides of the one and same "French Revolution".

Everything that came thereafter just reflected the equal, unequal and combined developments of this very same world revolution, of Imperialism, nowadays called "Globalization". Surely, beyond doubt, the social intention of the colonial revolutions of the 20th century was to improve the life conditions of the impoverished masses, to introduce reforms, to launch projects to minimize the misery, poverty and suffering of the peoples ... all these within the world capitalist system, within the alienating labour process, within the limits of the bourgeois, democratic revolution.

Historically, the poor, the outcasts, the helots, the labouring classes were in the front line of sacrifice, of being bombarded, massacred and annihilated, and yet ... with few exceptions, for example, the Cuban revolution ... in the end they were betrayed by their "liberators", by the very "freedom fighters" of yesteryear, for example, in Stalinist Russia, in Rain-Bow South Africa. This betrayal can be detected in the very French Revolution, that is why its Negation, the Hegelian Left, Marxism was born, wanted to complete the revolution.

Thus, what happened to the Great October Revolution in Russia, how many millions of workers and peasants were sacrificed under Stalin, especially during the Second World War? What became of the magnificent Chinese, Vietnamese, Algerian, Yugoslavian Revolutions? What happened to the three centuries of heroic struggle against slavery, feudalism, liberalism, capitalism Apartheid, fascism and imperialism in South Africa? In their efforts to bring about "change within the system", to introduce the very historic goals of the bourgeois, democratic, capitalist revolution, they were all devoured by the Leviathan of Globalization, by the imperialist realization of the French Revolution. constructing the omnipotent State, bringing about agrarian reform, sovereignty, industrialization, building a national bourgeoisie, national capitalism, developing the nation, political parties, a civil society, nationalism, etc. Venezuela, Latin America, Beware!

More than 200 years of revolutionary experience should be sufficient to teach us, that by means of social reforms, industrialization, capitalist economic diversification, obsolete feudalist agricultural projects, we cannot liberate ourselves from Euro-Yankee hegemony within the current world, imperialist, corporate system. Also, we should know by now, no matter how necessary they may be currently, that concessions, prayers, impunity, alliances, dialogues and reconciliation with the oppressing national and international classes will never ever emancipate the billions of manual and intellectual wage slaves on the planet. As immediate, short term measures, to launch the revolution, they may be }applicable, but they should not become the golden rule. There is no recipe for social revolution, we have to make and think, and to transcend, our own revolution, but the global system, the "new world order", "civilization", function under certain developmental laws, and they have to be taken into consideration in any class struggle, within any revolution.

There is no reason whatsoever to ignore the class nature of modern capitalist society. Not even the fear that the "Opposition" or Washington would nominate us as "Castro-Communists" should stop us; in any case, they are already doing it, and even then, this should be a revolutionary honour, as Castro has said it to Chávez: "Excelente!"

Social classes, the class struggle, even socialism and communism, were not discovered by Marxists. The early, original Christians, terrorized by Nero and Caligula, were communists; famous French historians spoke about the class struggle long before Marx was born, even Bishop Kingsley of Britain spoke about religion as "the opium of the people", long before the Communist Manifesto was written. Even the very bourgeoisie had introduced "terrorism", a reign of terror, directly within the very French Revolution. In its class struggle it was merciless; its class enemies lost their heads under the guillotine, even its own leaders like Danton and Robespierre had to believe in it.

Let us get things straight, historically, there is nothing pacific, Christian or Gandhist about workers' social revolutions, about class struggles. Because of their eternal megalomania, the conquerors, the Conquest, the "Opposition" (see April 11, 2002, in Caracas), the ruling classes decide the violent ways and means of authentic class struggles. Who resists class rule is not the originator of violence and terror; as Sorel pointed out: we did not invent violence, we are born in violence, we are being killed by social order.

We are being eliminated by the mighty overlords, by the CIA, by paramilitary "death squads", by military coups, by conspiracy and sabotage. Venezuela, the government of president Chávez already had its fair share of these violent machinations. Hence, to ignore the class struggle, is to ignore revolutionary práxis and theory, class práxis and theory, emancipatory self-defence, is to make a myopic "revolution", only immediate social reform, is to be swallowed up by the Moloch of Globalization. Worse even, negating the raging class struggle is extremely dangerous, because in its absence, the social revolution will lose its mass support, its true, real popular base. This situation the Bolivarian Revolution by no means can afford, it would be suicide, it would be equivalent to throwing its very hard won Latin American class gains into the imperialist corporate quagmire of the ALCA, into the open blood-sucking tentacles of the Washington global, fascist octopus.

"Profundizar la Revolución" can only mean "to radicalize the revolution", that is, to grasp the Latin American problems at their very radix, at their capitalist, imperialist, corporate, fascist roots. This is a very serious issue, it is the declaration of class war, it could cost hundreds of thousands of lives, it means foreign intervention, occupation and genocide. But, this is happening all the time, since half a millennium already, and it is currently happening daily in Colombia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. And, Bush and Kerry, according to the plans of Corporate America, are hell-bent to totally occupy and militarize Latin America in the near future.

Nowhere in history, capitalism and capitalists ever have stepped down from their privileged thrones peacefully, not in Russia, not in China, not in Cuba, not in Vietnam, not in Chile, not in Central America, and, in spite of temporal reverses, they always come back, more violent than ever. On April 11, 2002, we, here in Venezuela, had a glimpse of this fascist grimace.

Deepening the revolution means to arm ourselves with whatever means necessary ... in the long run, impunity, dialogues, reconciliation, concessions, are not precisely the most effective revolutionary arms. Instead of eliminating the class enemy, they annihilate the popular base of the very social revolution.
Certainly, over the last six years, in spite of minor errors, the Bolivarian Revolution has accomplished (and is still realizing) remarkable victories; precisely this emancipatory force, this global momentum should be defended at all costs.

Presently, the revolution is not in danger, but we have to be on guard more than ever. Generally, the greatest revolutionary victory, dialectically, very often turns out to be the Achilles' Heel of the very Revolution. Look what happened to the victory of Dien Bien Phu against Euro-American imperialism! Hence, comrades, beware! The deliberations made above are only intended to explain some fundamental factors that concern deepening or radicalization of any social revolution. There is much more to explain, but the above suffice as serious food for revolutionary thought and action, for emancipatory práxis and theory.

The emancipatory character of the Bolivarian Revolution is that it is original, is authentic, is new. For this very reason it is vulnerable, and yet invincible. In central issues, strategy and tactics, it acted precisely in a way that the national and international enemies least have expected. In a very short period of time, it politicized millions of Venezuelans and Latin Americans, as had not happened since the very French Revolution itself. It armed the people and it popularized the army. It awakens genuine popular hopes that yearn for realization already since centuries, especially of the indigenous peoples of Latin America. This is a tremendous victory, but, at the same time, a huge responsibility, that has to be treated with ultra-care, with loving carefulness.

Like in the case of Fidel Castro, or of Lenin, the outcasts of bourgeois society have elevated their President Chávez to a national and international figure, to a social reality. Since the days of Simon Bolivar, never ever an individual was so socialized, and never was Venezuelan society so individualized, never was a revolution, the first one ever to occur in Venezuelan history, so "transcendentalized", so near to an emancipatory exodus, out of the closed capitalist system. This emancipatory latency and tendency, this real possibility of liberation at the eleventh hour, this Venezuelan tip of the revolutionary iceberg, is that what fascinates the world that still daydreams about human happiness, humanism, beauty, truth, love. solidarity and future.