Almost a year has passed since I last wrote an essay on socialism in Venezuela and Latin America. A lot has happened during that time, and I reckoned that it was time to ‘revisit’ the subject with a second, more in depth, essay.
Revisiting ‘The Socialism Of The 21st Century’ & the '
Bolivarian Revolution' in Latin America [1]
Almost a year has passed since I last wrote an essay on socialism in Venezuela and Latin America. A lot has happened during that time, and I reckoned that it was time to ‘revisit’ the subject with a second, more in depth, essay.
The appeal of socialism as an ideology, a theory, an aspiration is as strong today as it was in the past, but its realisation, practical application continues to be difficult and problematic. Why is that so? Who is to blame? What can be done about that? Was Hobbes right who argued -- a long time ago and quite convincingly in the Leviathan -- that man is bad by nature and that social life would not be possible without his submission by superior authority, symbolised or represented by the ‘Sovereign’?
Or was Rousseau right who believed that man is good by nature, but corrupted by society -- see Emile and the Social Contract -- ? Both seem to be right and wrong at the same time, and to have a point. The matriarchal societies of the past (in the Trobriand Islands on the Pacific Ocean, for example); and, even of the present (the Mosuo society in south-western China, for instance) suggest that Rousseau was right because these societies were sexually-free, peaceful, caring and egalitarian.[2]
The patriarchal societies -- which dominate our contemporary world and are, in striking contrast, sexually hung-up (the ‘sexploitation’ that is ubiquitous is the indirect proof of it), violence-prone, and characterised by greed and selfishness -- suggest that Hobbes was right. So are men bad and women good? It is not that simple, of course, since there are obviously bad women, as there are good men; but, undeniably, men are guiltier than women for the terrible state that the global human ‘civilisation’ finds itself today. Therefore, as a general rule, it is a good idea to empower women so that they share power with men; then, perhaps, humanity will have, in some distant future, a better chance of building a culture of peace that will be freer, gentler and more egalitarian.
*
What is the difference between ‘The Socialism of the 21st Century’, which appears now to be emerging in Latin America, and the socialisms of the 20th and the 19th centuries? It seems to me that the main difference is that ‘The socialism of the 21st Century’ needs to be democratic; whereas its 20th and 19th century counterparts were not. Soviet style socialism was, at a minimum, authoritarian and, at a maximum, totalitarian; and that is the problem with Cuba’s socialism presently. Despite admirable achievements, in the fields of education and public heath especially, there are no real freedoms of thought and expression in Cuba. The question is: Could a socialist party win free and multi-party elections in Cuba? I believe that they could, and Cuba, almost certainly, will have to follow that path after Fidel’s death.
*
Democratic socialism should not be confused with social democracy. The latter, which flourishes in Western Europe, combines effectively elements of socialism and capitalism. Its most advanced forms exist in the Scandinavian countries. There, the welfare of the people, of all the people, citizens as well as non-citizens, is an unquestionable priority. The system works well in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc. because these countries are wealthy, developed, and have a deeply-rooted egalitarian ethos. That is by far not the case in Latin America whose oligarchic elites are notoriously selfish and lacking a civic spirit. That is why the establishment of socialism in Latin America will involve a long and violent struggle.
Introduction
Astonishing as it may seem, income and wealth disparities are greater in Latin America than in the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa. Impressionistic evidence of this shocking contrast can be observed in the rich neighbourhoods and the slums in the big cities; for example: in Rio de Janeiro, in the luxury condos of Barrade Tijuca and the favelas of the surrounding hillsides; and, in Caracas, in the wealthy estates of Alta Mira and the poor barrios of the vicinity. Land distribution in Latin America is notoriously unequal: a small number of large landowners called latifundistas control vast estates that sometimes equal the size of small countries in Europe; whereas the large majority of the campesinos either own small plots of land, or nothing, and are labourers in the big estates.
In Latin America, 95 per cent of the bank loans go to a few hundred big corporations; 60 million small and medium-sized businesses, and small farmers, receive the remaining 5 per cent. Public health is very deficient in Latin America; to give but one example, 94 mothers out of 100,000 die giving birth -- in Bolivia, the poorest country in Latin America, that proportion is 230 mothers out of 100,000 births (in Canada, by way of comparison, only 8 women out of 100,000 die giving birth; in other words, almost 30 times more women die in Bolivia giving birth than in Canada.[3]
*
In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez was elected president in November 1998. At the heart of his electoral platform was the pledge that, henceforward, the country’s massive oil revenues (Venezuela is the world’s fourth oil exporter) would be used to eradicate poverty and to promote development: illiteracy would be eliminated; health clinics, electricity and piped water would be brought to the barrios. Chavez kept his promises in the years that followed his election. The oligarchy, deeply worried, organised, in the summer of 2002, with the support of the United States, a coup d’état to overthrow Chavez. The attempt failed after two days, owing to massive popular resistance.
In January 2005, in a speech to the 5th World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, Chavez declared that ‘The Socialism of the 21st Century’ would be built in Venezuela and in Latin America. Less than two years later, Chavez was re-elected president with 61.5 per cent of the popular vote (38.5 per cent went to Manuel Rosales, the candidate of the united opposition). In the spring of 2007, Chavez declared that he wanted to ‘deepen’ Venezuela’s ‘Bolivarian Revolution’ by integrating the 24 political parties that had supported him in the presidential election – i.e., the Communist Party, Podemos (We Can), Patria Para Todos (Homeland For All), etc. -- in a single party called the ‘United Socialist Party of Venezuela’ (USPV). Chavez also decided not to renew RCTV’s (Radio Caracas Television) licence to broadcast and, despite violent street demonstrations by university students, he stuck to its decision.[4]
*
The ‘Bolivarian Revolution’ is on the march in Latin America as well. In 2006, two Chavez ‘soulmates’, Rafael Correa of Ecuador and Evo Morales of Bolivia, were elected president of their respective countries. Daniel Ortega, the former Sandinista leader, became the president of Nicaragua. Cuba’s Fidel Castro – who was supposed to be dying of cancer (according to the CIA) – has recovered from a serious abdominal illness. In December of that same year, thirteen Latin American heads of state – including Luiz Inacio ‘Lula’ de Silva of Brazil, Michelle Bachelet of Chile and Nestor Kirschner of Argentina -- met at Cochabamba, Bolivia, at the invitation of Evo Morales, for the second ‘Summit of the South American Community of Nations’ (Comunidad Suramericana de Naciones, CSN). The purpose of that meeting is to build a ‘Latin American Union’ modelled roughly on the European Union – unlike the latter, however, the initiative has an explicitly people-oriented dimension, and a parallel grassroots ‘Summit for the People’s Integration’ was also held at Cochabamba simultaneously with the heads of state meeting.[5]
Chavez launched the Alternativa Bolivariana para las Americas (ALBA) in December 2001, at the Isla Margarita, at the Third Summit of the Association of Caribbean States. ALBA is fiercely opposed to the US-promoted Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The first ALBA agreement was signed, on December 14, 2004, in Havana, between Cuba and Venezuela; Bolivia joined the treaty in April 2006. That same year Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia signed a ‘People’s Trade Agreement’; in addition, bilateral trade agreements were concluded between Venezuela, on the one hand, and Uruguay, Argentina, and Haiti, on the other. ALBA’s ambitions go well beyond international trade; these including: plans for a free health care system, a Social Emergency Fund; a Development Bank of the South, and a regional petroleum company. But ALBA is, so to speak, the new kid on the block where Mercosur -- whose members, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and, as of July 2006, Venezuela, form 75 per cent of South America’s GDP, and 65 per cent of its population -- is the 800-pound gorilla. These five countries also have large reserves of natural and energetic resources: water, wood, oil and gas.
WHAT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED SO FAR
In Venezuela
The core principle of ‘The Socialism of the 21st Century’ is popular participation. Economic development is redefined as people-oriented (as opposed to profit-oriented). Popular participation takes place at all the levels of the social, economic and political pyramid: at grassroots level, it is carried out by ‘local planning councils’ -- one per 200 to 400 families -- and by ‘workers’ committees’ in the cooperatives and government-supported enterprises; at the top, the people have the right to ‘co-nominate’ candidates to the Supreme Court, the National Electoral Council, and the Moral Republican Council; they are also entitled to ‘audit’ the various state and municipality budgets, and to introduce ‘initiatives’ that can lead to referendums.
The creation of a socialist economic sector is achieved mainly through: cooperatives, co-managed enterprises, and Social Production Companies (Empresas de Produccion Social, known as the EPS). The number of cooperatives has literally exploded, from less than 1,000 in 1998, to more than 100,000 in 2005; about 1.5 million people, or 10 per cent of the country’s adult population, now work in a cooperative. Co-managed enterprises are state-owned, but worker-controlled; they include: CADAFE, a major electricity company; and ALCASA, an important aluminium production plant. The Empresas de Produccion Social are seen as vehicles to introduce socialist principles; to qualify for state credits and contracts, these enterprises must demonstrate that they are ‘putting socialist values ahead of profitability.’ These values include: participatory planning and worker ownership. Several EPS were created in the fields of air travel, petrochemicals, and telecommunications.
The government has revived a number of ‘idle’ factories. These, belonging to the private sector, had been closed down by their owners owing to losing money. The government expropriated these factories, and then turned them over to their former workers and employees. These units benefit from government subsidies, but it is hoped that they will, eventually, achieve economic viability. Many more such ‘idle’ factories exist in Venezuela and are being evaluated by the government.
Social programs are the outstanding success story of the Venezuela’s efforts to build socialism. These include: free health care and literacy programs; subsidised food markets; loans to improve housing in the barrios; and land reform. In the barrios many programs are carried out by the Missiones (‘Missions’) which are largely run by the people themselves. The results have been spectacular: illiteracy has been literally wiped out in Venezuela; public health, thanks largely to the presence of Cuban doctors and nurses, has improved significantly; community kitchens provide daily lunch to pregnant women, children and old people; in well-equipped information centres, school children learn how to use computers to do their home work; and women entrepreneurs who want to start a small business are offered micro-credits.
Mobile teams of farmer-technicians belonging to the ‘Campesino a Campesino’ (From Peasant to Peasant) movement travel around the country to propagate innovative and sustainable agricultural practices in food production and cash crops, and to teach ways to protect the environment.
The previously semi-autonomous PDVSA, Venezuela’s oil company that has a monopoly, has been nationalised. It plays a crucial role in the building of socialism. Most experts believe that as long as the oil price remains at $ 50 or more a barrel Chavez will have sufficient means to build ‘The Socialism of the 21st Century’ in Venezuela and Latin America.
The main principles are: solidarity, ‘subsidiarity’, food security, ecological sustainability, cultural and biological diversity, parallelism, and the co-optation of the military into the system. Solidarity means helping the poor to achieve a decent standard of living. ‘Subsidiarity’, favouring local production whenever possible. Food security puts the feeding of the campesinos before the profits of the agro-business companies. Ecological sustainability maintains that the protection of the environment is a priority. Cultural and biological diversity aims to support and defend local cultures, and the animal and vegetal species. Parallelism is a strategy that seeks to create 'parallel’ economic and social structures and institutions – such as the cooperatives, co-managed enterprises, and Social Production Companies mentioned above – while leaving alone, in a transitional period, the privately-owned sector that controls a big chunk of the national economy; this has resulted in a win-win situation in Venezuela, producing high GDP growth rates (around 8 per cent) in the last few years. The co-optation of the military into the system has been a big plus; the strategy is referred to as ‘civilising the army’, and it is working; the army participates in the activities of the ‘Missiones’, particularly in food distribution, road construction, and transportation.
In Latin America
The creation of a ‘Latin American Union’ had been Simon Bolivar’s dream, not only the liberation of South America from Spanish colonialism and imperialism. He was, alas, unsuccessful.6 Chavez sees himself as a disciple and heir of Bolivar, who was born in Venezuela. As mentioned above, Chavez launched ALBA whose ‘Bolivarian principles’ are: solidarity, ‘complementarity’, cooperation, reciprocity, equity, and sovereignty. These principles are self-explanatory, except for sovereignty which means that member states will remain free, as the Union is constructed, to adopt strategies that take into account their dissimilar cultural and historical heritages, their size, and their unequal levels of economic development. The crucial question at this point is: How realistic is it to believe that ALBA’s ‘Bolivarian principles’ will eventually be adopted by Mercosur, which is a free trade organisation aiming at eliminating tariffs between its members completely in 2014?
The answer is: There are important disagreements between the two, but efforts are made to resolve them. Several ALBA/Mercosur meetings have been held lately -- in Rio, Madrid, Guadalajara, and Vienna. Mercosur supports big continent-wide projects to develop infrastructure – such as: La Iniciativa de Integracion de la Infrastructura Regional Sur Americana (IIRSA); and El Plan Puebla Panama (PPP); ALBA’s position is that IIRSA and PPP are likely to cause severe environmental damage, ‘hurt’ smallholder agriculture, and affect negatively the welfare of indigenous populations. Despite these difficulties, ALBA and Mercosur are working together, as indicated by the following half-dozen common concerns, activities and projects:
1. In 2005, when Colombia signed the FTAA (Free Trade Agreement of the Americas) which resulted in Bolivia’s losing its soya bean market in that country; Venezuela moved in, buying the entire Bolivian crop which has a total value of $ 170 million a year.
2. Venezuela has agreed to purchase $ 3 billion worth of oil tankers from Brazil, creating thus hundreds of jobs in Brazil’s shipbuilding industry.
3. The Brazilian companies are building a new bridge on the Orinoco River in Venezuela.
4. Petrocaribe was created by Venezuela’s PDVSA and fourteen Caribbean countries, to provide the latter oil at prices that are significantly lower than the market prices; and payment is only 40 per cent in cash, the rest in very long-term instalments.
5. Thousands of Venezuelan and Bolivian patients have travelled to Cuba to receive free medical treatment; other Latin American and Caribbean countries have joined the project.
6. Telesur -- the Latin-American answer to the CNN, created in 2005 and owned by Venezuela (51 per cent), Argentina, Cuba and Uruguay -- is a great success.
THE ROAD AHEAD
Internal opposition -- formed by the bourgeois political parties, the old labour federation, the church hierarchy, the business community, and a great deal of the private mass media -- remains formidable as the RCTV affair has demonstrated once more. Close to 40 per cent of the population voted for Manuel Rosales, the opposition candidate, in the last presidential election; that percentage could get bigger if Chavez makes mistakes. Venezuela’s economy has grown at an average annual rate of about 8 per cent in the last three years, but lately dark clouds have accumulated -- such as relatively high inflation rates (around 15 per cent a year), and the loss of value of the national currency vis-à -vis the dollar.
The nationalisation of the electricity and telephone companies, and the non-renewal of the RCTV licence may have been justified, but ruling by decree and the absence of a parliamentary opposition (the latter having boycotted the last elections, the parliament is composed entirely of Chavez’s supporters) are dangerous situations. The opposition will never give up. And it will always have a very powerful ally in the shape of the behemoth of the north who will concoct ever more imaginative ways to get rid of Chavez.
The United States has at its disposal unlimited funds, a vast network of conservative think thanks, a formidable propaganda machine, and a military presence (in neighbouring Colombia). The good news is that the most violent and brutally effective method of overthrowing an ‘unfriendly’ leader and government in Latin America – a bloody coup d’état organised with the local military, similar to the one that killed Allende and brought down his socialist government in Chile -- appears to be a thing of the past.
And there is a world-wide movement of progressive forces – civil society organisations, NGOs, intellectuals, and even governments – that support ‘The Socialism of the 21st Century’ and the ‘Bolivarian Revolution’ in Latin America. Nevertheless, Chavez would do well to move gradually and cautiously, both in style and in substance. The latter means that the principle of parallelism is adhered to as much as possible. The decision to set up with Iran an ‘anti-imperialist fund’ of $2 billion to help ‘liberate’ countries from imperialism may also be going a little too far; also associating too closely with an international pariah state like North Korea. As for the former, using insulting terms against President Bush are unnecessary and probably counterproductive.
In the ‘department’ of self-inflicted wounds, the fierceness and viciousness of the opposition, which are real, do not necessarily mean that it is always wrong; it may, and it sometimes does, have some valid points of criticism, especially on issues having to do with corruption, crime and authoritarianism. These problems, of course, pre-date the Chavez government; but they have also continued under Chavez.
The ‘Tascon List’ scandal is still a good example of what not to do. The List was composed of names of opponents who signed a petition demanding a ‘recall referendum’ against Chavez. After the referendum failed, the Chavez government systemically excluded the people on the List (the so-called anti-Chavistas) from lucrative government jobs, contract and subsidies. While the wish to get revenge is understandable in human terms, it may have also caused a loss of quality in the performance of the government.
Secondly, good leadership is of course crucial and Chavez, thanks to his personal charisma, untiring work, and deep commitment, was able to create a powerful movement that advances the causes of ‘The Socialism of the 21st Century’ and the ‘Bolivarian Revolution’. But the personality cult around El Jefe (the Chief) and El Commandante (the Commander) may be problematic because it could insulate Chavez from healthy criticism that is very necessary, for the building of socialism requires pragmatism, as well as idealism. Another problem is that, despite real popular participation at all levels, there is, also, paradoxically, a strong tendency towards top-down leadership.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Latin America is clearly on the march. And there is hope in Latin America. The ‘Bolivarian Revolution’ and ‘The socialism of the 21st century’ represent that hope. Even in the United States, the land of unfettered capitalism, many researchers acknowledge that what is happening in Venezuela and Latin America is significant and may lead to a better system that may also inspire progressive forces elsewhere in the world, in Asia and Africa in particular.[7]
The stakes are very high, and the road ahead remains blocked with obstacles. But as long as the price of oil remains high – above $50 a barrel; Venezuela’s oil revenues more than tripled between 1998 and 2005, increasing from $ 226 per capita in 1998, to $ 728 per capita in 2005 – Chavez will have the financial clout to bypass the main economic threats of the opposition: economic boycotts, capital flight, and strikes.
But it still is important that Chavez combines his idealism and pragmatism effectively to carry out his socialist policies. For the foreseeable future the United States will continue to be Venezuela’s biggest market for oil and economic partner, even if the rest of the world -- China, India, Latin America, EU, etc. – is catching up fast. Flexibility and adaptability will be indispensable critical assets if Venezuela is to navigate successfully the delicate and dangerous relations with the powerful enemy of the North.
NOTES
1
www.Venezuelanalysis.com is probably the most important source of information on the ‘Socialism of the 21st Century’ in Venezuela – and Latin America. Therein, see: Gregory Wilpert’s The Meaning of the 21st Century Socialism for Venezuela (July 2006) and Participatory democracy in Venezuela (December 2005); as well as Michael Fox, Defining the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas – ALBA (August 2006) See also Cristina Marcano’s, ‘In Venezuela conditions for building the Socialism of the 21st Century have been created.’, in www.stwr.net. Eric Holt Gimenez’s, Campesino a Campesino: Voices from Latin America’s Farmer to Farmer Movement (Oakland, CA: Food First Books, 2006) focuses on the rural areas. Finally, the French translations of important texts can be found in: Réseau d’Information et de Solidarité avec l’Amérique Latine (RISAL) – www.risal.collectifs.net.
2 B. Malinowski studied in depth the matriarchal societies of the Trobriand Islands. Presently the leading researcher on matriarchy is Heide Goettner-Abendroth. She was behind the organisation of two world congresses on matriarchal studies: the first was held in Luxembourg, in 2003; the second, in San Marcos, Texas, in 2005.
3 B. Kliksberg, El Gran Tema: la Desigueldad, Bitacora, Universidad de la Republica (Montevideo, Uruguay, 2006).
4 Western human rights organisations and liberal media -- Reporters Without Borders, Le Monde, etc. – accused Chavez of muzzling freedom of expression. Supporters of the Venezuelan leader responded by pointing out that RCTV, a private television channel controlled by the opposition, has openly and systematically conspired against a democratically government; it has supported the 2002 coup d’état against Chavez; the 2002-3 oil industry shutdown, and the 2004 street protests and blockades. Moreover RCTV will continue broadcasting via cable and satellite TV. It should also be noted that the opposition controls a great deal of the mass media in Venezuela. The RCTV will be replaced by Venezuela Social Television. Finally, the British National Union of Journalists recently issued a statement supporting Chavez’s ‘Bolivarian Revolution.’ On the RCTV affair, see Gretchen Gordon’s report in www.democracyctr.org
5 Noam Chomsky’s interview, Toward an Alternative Future (in Latin America), was published in www.stwr.net (in January 2007). For Spanish speakers, see: Carlos Tantz, ‘En America del Sur: dos cumbres, dos rumbos de integracion’ in www.ipsnoticias.net The two important US allies in Latin America are: Felipe Calderon of Mexico and Alavaro Uribe of Colombia.
6 In the early-1960s, a wave of independence swept sub-Saharan Africa. Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana – and to a certain extent, Sekou Touré of Guinea -- tried to unite the sub-continent. The attempt failed owing to the selfishness of Africa’s political elites. Today – with the Millennium Campaign, the New Program for African Development (NEPAD) and the African Pair Review Mechanism (APRM) -- sub-Saharan Africa is emerging as an important actor on the international scene.
7 See two recent essays by Mark Weisbrot, Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C.: ‘Latin America: The End of an Era’, in the International Journal of Health Services, Vol. 36, No.4, 2006; and ‘Latin America. Doing It Their Own Way’, in IHT, on 29 December 2006.
