The current systemic crisis of capitalism coincides with the development of progressive and revolutionary processes, fundamentally anti-imperialist and anti-oligarchic ones, particularly in Latin America, whose many inherent contradictions generate expectations in different directions.
One of the common features of such political processes, in addition to their questioning of the U.S. imperialist domination in the region, the demand for national sovereignty and a better distribution of wealth, attributes which themselves make them worthy of support from consequently revolutionary forces, is that their social vanguard has been assumed by radicalized sectors of the petty bourgeoisie and middle class professionals, including an important role of the so-called emerging national bourgeoisie, not monopolistic, interested in taking the reins of economic dynamics in opposition to the strategy of global hegemonic control of the transnational monopolies.
This inter-bourgeois confrontation has a particular definition in Venezuela, with an oil rentier economy, where virtually all the economic and social dynamics revolve around the resources generated by oil exports, activity under state monopoly, so that the various bourgeois factions try to take control directly or indirectly of the state apparatus and the management of oil revenues.
In this context emerged the diversionist approach of the "socialism of the 21st century", more forcefully raised by the leadership of the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela, followed by the progressive governments of Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua, and also assumed by opportunist political currents from other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.
This historical fact has been the cradle of the revival of several old "theories" and concepts, presented with original and native appearance, labeled as endogenous, but which ultimately involve the denial of class struggle and the revolutionary role of the working class, the rejection of the scientific theory of the proletariat and the need for its organic instrument, the political party founded on the principles of Marxism-Leninism.
Thus, from the leadership of the Venezuelan process, some sectors spread theoretical concepts introduced by social-reformist theoreticians, "postmoderns" and reviewers of Marxism, bringing the "crowds" (Antonio Negri and Paolo Virnoto), “the People” (devoid of a sense of class) and the regional communities to the category of historical subjects of the revolution. The problem with these categories is that they are generic and abstract, not historically specific and therefore lack of specific class content. Speaking of "crowds", for example, juggles or at least distorts the class struggle that takes place not among the many and the few, but between the exploited and the exploiters, regardless of their numerical strength. Moreover, by emphasizing in a superlative way, from the leadership of the revolutionary process and the government, the central role of territorial communities, they skip or even attempt to stop the organizational and socio-political development needed by the working class and other workers, from their workplaces and by industry branches in the dynamics of class struggle for the abolition of capitalist relations of production.
At the same time, the governing bodies of the process spread the negation of dialectical materialism and the disqualification of the operation of the laws of social development (Kohan), trying to give theoretical support to voluntarism and subjectivism, to the detriment of the materialist conception of history. Within this explosion of ideological diversion, anti-communism makes its way easily into the discourse and political practice, on behalf of the socialism of the 21st century, making concessions to bourgeois ideology and the anti-communist blackmail of psychological warfare of imperialism, weakening the political and moral force of the Bolivarian revolution against the plans of the counterrevolution.
This situation is explained to a large extent by the still insufficient quantitative and qualitative strength of the Venezuelan working class, which has so far prevented the working class to play a relevant role during the process of change underwent by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, although there are undoubted increasingly manifestations of a growing political consciousness of the working class and working people of Venezuela, which favours the development of a political line for the defense, consolidation and deepening of the revolutionary changes. Some of these positive expressions are the mass actions in favour of the approval of a revolutionary new Organic Law on Labour and the struggle to advance the establishment of a new model of corporate governance, particularly in those companies owned by the state, under the principle of workers' control with the establishment of the Socialist Councils of Workers, as instruments for the exercise of the collective leadership of the workers in the productive processes, in struggle to dismantle the oppressive capitalist relations of production and destroy the bourgeois state, promoting the formation of a revolutionary consciousness in the working class.
The Socialist Councils of Workers, as conceived by the PCV, will fully comply with its revolutionary class role, to the extent that the workers who assume their construction and development raise their consciousness, from class in itself to class for itself, unlike the "workers' councils" that emerged at the initiative of social reformism in some European countries.
According to the analysis made by the Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV), the changes in these years in the frame of the so-called Bolivarian Revolution are, up to this point, the result of a social-reformist practice with a patriotic and progressive tendency, with a decisive role from sectors of the petty bourgeoisie. This reality will be transcended only by a new correlation of the popular and revolutionary forces led by the working class, which will ensure the consolidation of national liberation and the creation of the conditions for real progress towards the strategic goal of the seizure of power by the working class and the advance in the construction of socialism.
The Bolivarian Revolution is then approaching to a crossroads and a historical dilemma whose outcome will be determined by the correlation of class forces operating inside: or to consolidate a process of progressive reforms that preserve the foundations of the capitalist system or to move towards a transition dismantling the bourgeois state apparatus and replacing the current dominance of capitalist relations of production.