Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela and commander of the Bolivarian Revolution, died on March 5, 2013, after a long battle with cancer. There are many who will criticize Chávez and his legacy. Some are from entrenched upper classes, who want to maintain inequality and protect their privileges, and so oppose anything that Chávez or Bolivarian revolutionaries do. Others, however, are friends of the people, but tend to look at everything with a critical eye out of adherence to abstract notions of human rights or democracy.

We have a different view of Chávez and his legacy.

Of course we disagree with many of Chávez’s ideas and positions. Of course we understand that the Venezuelan revolution is far more complicated than one person. Of course we recognize that it has many problems, that it needs to institutionalize people’s power, that it needs to beat back the bureaucrats and sycophants and put spending, investment and development funds firmly in control of the people and their class representatives, and that this can only be achieved by sharpening the class-struggle within PSUV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela) and among the peoples’ forces. Of course we recognize that the revolution has a long way to go, and that perhaps Chávez himself did not push it as far as he could and should have. Of course we recognize that Chávez’s positions on Iran, Libya and Syria were not fully acceptable and were guided more by exigencies of Venezuela’s foreign policy than by principles of proletarian internationalism — we unequivocally oppose imperialism’s interventions in these countries, yes, but we must also stand for the people’s right to rebel against repressive and increasingly neo-liberal rulers imposing their own brands of capitalism on their societies.

But we must not forget…  When everyone else was talking about the wisdom of invading Afghanistan, Chávez was calling it for what it was — US terrorism. When everyone else was bowing down to the destructive economic policies of neo-liberalism imposed by international financial institutions, Chávez was calling it for what it was — imperialism. When everyone else was saying that regional integration was a pipe dream unless under the dictates of imperialism, Chávez was putting forward something else — regional integration on fraternal grounds of solidarity and resistance to imperialism. When everyone else was saying that socialism is stupid, Chávez was chosen by millions to lead a movement that put mass literacy, healthcare, food security, land reforms, worker-run factories, and so much more squarely back on the agenda and back in the imagination. When everyone else was saying that mass movements, people’s power and revolution were no longer possible, Chávez was calling it for what it was — a temporary setback, a way for us to learn from mistakes of the past, a stepping stone to a better and brighter future.

Not for a second and not for a moment do we condone his failures. But not for a second and not for a moment to do we forget the contributions that this person has come to symbolize. Not for a moment do we forget the millions who have risen up and who have used their voices, their hands, and their faith to raise the banner that says now and will say for a long time to come — ¡Viva la Revolución Bolivariana! Long live the Bolivarian Revolution!

We learn from the struggle, from its failures and its successes. God forbid we ever abandon it; let us take it to our graves.

Viva Chávez. Todos somos Chávez.

Long live Chávez. We are all Chávez.