Sundays With Hugo -- Hundreds and Hundreds of Them
One of the big stories this weekend will be the near-certain re-election of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. He enters Sunday's election with a comfortable double-digit lead. And why not? Apart from whatever legitimate popular support he has, he apparently has also stamped his face, his image, his slogans onto every available surface -- including the packages of pasta sold in government-subsidized food shops. You can read about that in Alexandra Starr's colorful report from Caracas.
Armchair revolutionaries from Madison to Santa Monica will no doubt be cheering for Chavez, fully convinced that from their safe distances they know what is best for the Venezuelan people. So what if the guy is a little pushy and a little nutty, at least he's anti-Bush and he's feeding the poor (one might ask if he also makes the trains on time).
But it just won't be middle-class lefties applauding Hugo. According to this marvelous piece that ran originally in The Guardian earlier this month, despite Chavez' blustering about imposing socialism, Venezuela's rich are actually getting richer. Underneath the surface of Chavez' radical rhetoric, what's mostly going on is lavish state spending and subsidies fueled by record-high oil prices, a high-octane edition of old-fashioned patronage politics. That's a lot different than any fundamental restructuring of the economy, any strategic national development plan or any re-ordering of grossly unequal property rights and relations.
In the end, Chavez is one more (but a lot wealthier) Peron-like populist who represents no real threat to the elite.
What is being threatened are the already unreliable institutions of Venezuelan democratic society. Let's be clear that the corrupt political establishment that pre-dated and to a great degree produced Chavez should be given credit for that. But Chavez has contributed to the slide.
Just a few days ago, Chavez publicly dedicated his coming to victory to Fidel Castro, hardly the most re-assuring thought for those who value open, civic society. Some months ago Chavez also raised the possibility of re-writing the constitution to allow for unlimited successive re-election. Not a happy thought.
In the short term, Chavez is also threatening to shut down privately-owned TV stations after his re-election. And, please dear Chavistas, don't waste any breath telling me how irresponsible and right-wing these stations are. Whatever their political color, you don't shut them down by mandate. If silenced, they will only be replaced by electronic versions of those pasta packages i.e. instruments of wall-to-wall state propaganda.
It's a shame that the Venezuelan people don't have better political choices as I see Sunday's election as strictly lose-lose. It's either go with the opposition and risk restoring the rule of a disgraced and dysfunctional traditional political class. Or re-up the uber-ego of Chavez and risk the forfeiture of democratic institutions. The satisfaction of eating state-subsidized spaghetti wears off after the first 20 years or so of one-man rule.
And what happens when and if the price of oil falls?
The whole Venezuela story, of course, is complicated by the overheated hostility toward Chavez pouring forth from Washington. The intransigent Bush position coupled with the juvenile swagger of Chavez make for a contentious U.S. foreign policy debate, but only distracts from a serious discussion of what best serves the people of Venezuela. Any people deserve something better than what's being offered on Sunday.
December 1st, 2006 at 7:23 pm
Pobre Venezuela: Tan cerca de petróleo, tan lejos de Dios.
December 1st, 2006 at 9:40 pm
As a Chavista, albeit critical, I am truly disturbed by the threat to (have a referendum in which the question is asked if the public is in favor of a) shut down TV stations, but context is in order…..like the openly pro-coup, pro-illegal sedition - and I don’t use the term lightly - employed by said networks. I disagree strongly with the idea, but these networks have called for assassination at some points.
Further, there is a strong case that can be made that Chavez has actualyl been good for some sectors of the “nouveau riche boli-bourgeoisie” (boli = bolivar.) This does not neccesarily mean any degree of corruption, rather that state-run mixed economies have benificiaries. But there is probably a good deal of cronyism and patronage. Chavez himself recently called this the biggest threat to the revolution - the ongoing enriching of “Chavizta” managers, and especially sectors that do government contracts. If this isn’t corrupt and is simply enriching people, there is no problem with such a thing.
But I think the most important thing that Marc omits here is that the opposition is openly fascist, calls for military coups regularly, and is heavily racist, calling Chavez a monkey. Its not just Washington thats hostile - in fact, I don’t doubt that Washington will become less hostile, as recent CFR reports advise the government. Its the right wing, proto-fascist opposition that would be ten times worse than anyone’s fear of boogie man Chavez.
Armchair revolutionaires? “Middle Class left?” Also the people of Venezuela who will celebrate…
December 1st, 2006 at 11:16 pm
Jeez Marc, can’t we at least wait till his second term to decide if he’s the reincarnation of Peron?
The Guardian article seemed more spin than substance. Where’s the economic data to support the thesis that the rich are getting richer? Any investigator trying to prove that thesis should be able to support it with facts and figures instead of anecdotal evidence.
“Billions of dollars have been spent on improving healthcare and education for the country’s poor”. At least the people of Venezuela will be healthy enough and savvy enough to decide what’s best for them, regardless of the inclinations of the IMF, armchair lefties or pessimistic curmudgeons and thier idealized visions of what constitutes a ‘true Allendeista’.
Look, it’s obvious that Chavez isn’t the ’sharpest tool in the shed’ but, in his first term, he found himself on the wrong end of probably at least a dozen assault rifles. He persevered. Let’s celebrate the South American challenge to US hegemony and IMF oppression and give Chavez a few more years before we write him off as Peron redux. That decision is up to the people of Venezuela…
December 2nd, 2006 at 12:44 am
Jcummings: It is absolutely ridiculous to assert that the entire opposition is “fascist.” You can’t possibly believe that. It is a grand coalition that stretches from the right to the center-left and includes an amalgam of parties and movements including, by the way, much of the Marxist left (the people whose ideas you are closest to) The presidential candidate is actually a liberal and his CHIEF STRATEGIST is Teodoro Petkoff, the dean of Venezuela’s Intellectual Left.
I have to say this is rather dangerous thinking on your part. To call the opposition fascist is as wrongheaded as simply writing off Chavez as a totalitarian. Calling them fascists you delegitimize all of their voices and render the democratic institutions impotent.
As to the TV stations… so what? There’s ALREADY a new Chavista law in place that makes it a crime to “insult” the President. I imagine that a call to assasintation falls under that category. Why temporize on such a core issue. Shutting down opp. media is wrong, period. And it IS the ante-chamber to outright authoritarian rule.
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:01 am
Excellent report. We need liberals like Marc to turn up the heat on the Castroite beast in Venezuela if America will ever wake up and rescue the Venezuelan people.
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:13 am
Petkoff is an ex-guerilla opportunist who helped implement extreme neoliberal policy. He trades well on his left-past, but he is beyond apostasy.
Even if not the entire opposition is as I described, they don’t keep out the coup-mongers. If this was a simple democratic opposition, they’d cut thessse folks off, but they need them as shock troops. And on TV in recent months, that law you describe, if it exists, is regularly flouted, as recently as two days ago.
Yes, an opposition like this should be delegitimized.
Oh yeah, give me some examples of actual Marxist left that supports the openly pro-neoliberal Rosales?
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:34 am
As I said though, I’m foursquare against any media shut-downs.
December 2nd, 2006 at 11:39 am
Incidently, I was just reading some of the “opposition” websites - and they openly hope for a coup. Everyone knows Chavez is polling way ahead - leaps and bounds. Their plan is that Chavez’s declaration of victory will be followed by thei claiming (and convincing their shock troops) that Chavez comitted fraud (impossible - and not at all pragmatic considering his legitimate lead) - and calling for mass mobilizations which will be inevitably repressed - and then - appealing to the military and pushing for another coup. See Vcrisis.com.
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Marc should ask himself why one South American country after another - Brasil, Argentina, Equador, Bolivia, Chile, and Venezuela - are all ruled by governments of a left-wing stripe with the Andean group neo-Marxist and Castroite. Why have they turned their backs on the US? Why the rejection of neo-liberal “Free Trade” policies. Why the ties to Cuba and, let us not forget, China?
Maybe the people are just misguided and, like Nicaragua, in thrall to armchair leftists who mesmerized them into voting for you-know-who (quick alert Elliot Abrams!). Maybe Marc should go down there and set them straight that this is not what Allende wanted. Maybe, like Brecht said in 1953 when the uprising occured in E Germany - the uprising occuring now in Mexico - the people have lost the confidence of the governing class and new elections must be held to get a new people.
December 2nd, 2006 at 3:23 pm
I wouldn’t call Kirchner, Lula and Bachelet very similar to Chavez. One factor that some seem to ignore is the fact that at his heart, Chavez is militaristic; he did attempt a coup against an elected government. Kirchner, Bachelet and Lula all have sought to achieve their ends solely via democratic means and all three were imprisoned (and in Bachelet’s case, tortured) by military governments.
December 2nd, 2006 at 3:27 pm
Chavez’s Coronation Reelection…
Tomorrow’s election in Venezuela seems more like a coronation of Hugo Chavez than a reelection and everyone should find this disturbing. There are plenty of reasons to be disturbed: The rich are getting much richer (hat tip to Marc Cooper):Billions…
December 2nd, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Wait a minute I’m confused. The article cited above says that the oil boom has allowed Chavez to spend billions on health care and education programs for the poor and create socialist cooperative but the economy is still, deep down, capitalist. And his Marxist friends think he’s betrayed them while the rich don’t like the guy - even though growth is way up in a fashion that leaders like Fox only could dream of. So what is the problem? He’s a boor? He makes crude jokes? Too much like the inhabitants of the slums around Caracas?
Help me. I mean why should I, in a country ruled by corrupt, sociopathic, incompetent losers care who rules in Bolivar-land?
Oh wait, I know. Rumor has it that Chavez will ban Venezuelan ball players from getting big bucks in the US major leagues ala Cuba. No wonder shrub is upset. Hey the Rangers have enough problems and I want my Angels to get some hitting. Them’s fightin’ words!
December 2nd, 2006 at 4:00 pm
“It’s a shame that the Venezuelan people don’t have better political choices”
Its a shame we don’t either. Should we send them John Tester? I’d rather keep him for ourselves.
December 2nd, 2006 at 5:02 pm
There are lot’s of things that Chavez is doing that we applaud, like the care for the poor through education, food stuffs, and heath care. These should all be pointed to and emphasized.
What is specifically needed is a maturity in how the Chavez government operates. If someone has a difficulty with the far right elite and their cries for coup’s than instead of shutting them down there should be a poliferation of alternative media, not a sole pro-government station in opposition, and threats to close down the other stations.
Employment is an issue that needs devlopment, and this can answer both infrastructure and the lone enrichment of an elite at the same time. In other words, we need to take a step up so that we reduce this wide gap between rich and poor. At the expense of sounding simplistic, there are many ingredients to successful statehood.
However, there must be adjustment legal underpinnings to ensure true growth among the newly employed - so that they do not end up being the exploited masses in a different set of circumstances. The stucture of business and corporations must be addressed, so you do not end up with the same capitalistic monolith that we face in America - which grows worse every day.
It is the failure to make these steps that cause criticism, because after a while it just produces this deadly tension - an eraged and engorged elite, and the rest of the population having basics supplied by a government, period. If Chavez wants to show the stuff he is made of we have to move from these elementary initial conditions into a self-sustaining nation that is beneficial to everyone.
So, I agree somewhat with Marc, that the question of “where is all this going” is valid. On the other hand, there must be positive answers rather than a mere bashing of the regime.
December 2nd, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Marc “CIA” Cooper: “In the short term, Chavez is also threatening to shut down privately-owned TV stations after his re-election. And, please dear Chavistas, don’t waste any breath telling me how irresponsible and right-wing these stations are. Whatever their political color, you don’t shut them down by mandate. If silenced, they will only be replaced by electronic versions of those pasta packages i.e. instruments of wall-to-wall state propaganda.”
What you fail to recognize is that waging war on the counter-revolutionaries means peace for the proletariat. Freedom for the opposition is nothing more than the slavery of the masses to their propaganda. Ignorance of that propaganda strengthens the proletariat’s faith in the party and in comrade Chavez who is only doing what is necessary– burning democratic institutions in order to save them.
Viva Chavez! Viva la revolucion!
December 2nd, 2006 at 7:13 pm
RLC: I dont want to be an arrogant ass, but don’t you think given my personal history that it is just BEYOND absurd for you to lecture me on why South Americans are voting on the left???? I have certain level of investment in blood in this matter so dont be a jerk and tell me why Latin Americans vote for the left. PLEASE. I find your chatter on this so painful that it makes me wince. I am not the one telling the people of Venezuela who they should choose or not. but you are telling them what sort of egomaniacal tinpot they should settle for!
Precisely because I do understand these movements — up close, personally and in a high level of detail– I know that Chavez is a fraud.
As to JCummings… you are outright slandering Petkoff. I think he has duly earned his credentials as respectable social democrat. You might not like that, but soc dems are not “fascists.” The Chilean Socialists also administer a stripe of neo-liberal economics. And while not my cup of tea, I dont think they are fascists.
Here is a quick bio on Petkoff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teodoro_Petkoff
I dont know how good your Spanish is. But I read his magazine Tal Cual and it is a liberal, left of center publication that is also Anti-chavez.
I continue to be aboslutely flabbergasted by the way that not only radicals like cummings, but nice mainstream libs like Lo Cicero are so quick to wave off the manuevers of a president who so clearly is intending to never relinquish personal power. I guess the lessons of the last century are learned slowly and that there are still those who scoff at “bourgeois democracy.” I personally find it inadequte. Unfortunayely, competing forms such as “peoples democracy” have proven much worse.
December 2nd, 2006 at 7:39 pm
I accept our diferences here, Mr. Cooper, but you do know that Petkoff supported the 2002 coup.
Oh, I remember Marc referring to Michael “Torture Lover” Ignatieff as a solid social democrat…luckily - see CBC.CA - he got his ass handed to him when he and his NED crowd were prevented from taking over the Canadian Liberal party.
I don’t think Chavez’s government is unblemished. I think government that shuts down media is terrible and must be opposed. I also think that failing to condemn the oposition, including Petkoff who I didn’t refer directly to as a fascist, though he collaborates with them in backing their coups….is dishonest.
Now perhaps you will be honest and defend the coup, just as I would defend Chavez’s aborted 1992 adventure…
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:06 pm
Seeing as I oppose military coups, jcummings, I opposed not only the 2002 coup attempt against Chavez but also his aborted attempt in 1992. So if anyone is confessing to support military takeovers, it looks like it is you.
Sorry to disappoint, but here is what I wrote the week of the attempted 2002 coup. And I was being completely honest:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020506/marccooper
Would u prefer ur crow with or without sauce?
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:19 pm
There’s no crow. I read the piece at the time it was written. By failing to condemn, and in fact, venerating people who participated in the coup, and by criticizing Chavez in reporting about the coup, you don’t seem to be foursquare against the coup, as far as I can see.
Its well known that Chavez’s attempted coup was while not at all a “democratic” practice (something that is a hollow concept in our sweet and low vs. splenda capitalist democracies) definitely something that endeared him to the left, and helped consolidate the long-gestating, somewhat “Free Officer” (See Egyptian history) like movement within the military left. It did not succeed, but it endeared him to the public, in particular his “history will absolve me” like moment when he was allowed to talk the Venezuelan public on television.
I will fully acknowledge that democracy is preferable, but in non-democratic states, like most “democracies,” action depends on the situation, as someone once put it, “as radical as reality.”
December 2nd, 2006 at 11:42 pm
Here is a little link that shows some of the challenges I spoke about earlier. It is not that the issues of employment are not being addressed, it is the opposition they face. Read it for yourself:
http://www.dollarsand sense.org/archives/2006/0706bowmanstone.html
December 2nd, 2006 at 11:43 pm
http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/2006/0706bowmanstone.html
December 3rd, 2006 at 4:19 am
I don’t normally get involved in these discussions about Chavez because I know very little about South America and its politics and history. Of course, very few of the people who are commenting on this here do either. But what strikes me as strange is the assumption by some that because Chavez is seen as a leftist then he should be defended even if he is an authoritarian demogogue as I think Marc has repeatedly and convincingly argued. This is the same attitude that has shielded Castro from criticism on the left (I wonder how leftists who defend Castro justify the notion that his medical condition should be a state secret.)
On the other hand, if Chavez wins the election and observers declare it was fair, then that will also have to be accepted as the judgement of the Venezuelan people, even if they will have elected a demogogue. It won’t be the first time that has happened.
btw Pinochet has gone into the hospital with a heart attack. Since it does not look as though he will ever face judgement for his crimes, shall we just bow our heads and pray for his speedy death? Amen.
December 3rd, 2006 at 4:22 am
Whoops, I spelled demagogue wrong. Apparently that is a common mistake.
December 3rd, 2006 at 7:45 am
You can think what you want about Chavez. I think he’s a demagogue, in the best sense of the term…
The problem I have is slippery support for people who back coups.
December 3rd, 2006 at 7:45 am
The commentary on this thread leads me to ask the obvious question, “has anyone posting here been to Venezuela in the past two years”? If you have, the idea that Venezuela is suffering under some Castroite dictatorship is laughable. I have commented before on this blog that Chavez has not gone nearly far enough to expand the public sector and weeken the private sector. It is certainly to his credit that Chavez has created a social welfare and educational system that proir to his presidency was nonexistent. In addition, and in my opinion, he has empowered thousands grassroots groups and enterprises by providing the social space for collectives and local governance. There is an actual revoutionary tendancy occuring at the grassroots level in Venezuela. Chavez is to be given credit for opening the space for this bottom up, or poor people’s movements, to occur. However, Chavez can be critizied for basically reproducing a new system of elites. The old displaced elities are pissed about this fact and they are, of course, the leaders of the floundering opposition. It is also a fact that many of the leaders of the old elite are tied to the traditional media outlets. At best Chavez’s first term can be viewed as a more endogenous type of third wayism. Contrary to some repressive castroite authoritarian state, that many on this thread and in the U.S media try to label the current environment in Venezuela, under Chavez’s rule the middle and upper classes are partying like it 1999. What is occuring in Venezuela is very similar to a Clintonite consumerist boom. This is leading to cronyism and the creation of an new elite. For someone that believes the road to social equality and the expansion of the public sector are the road to the future, the developement of a new monied and political elite is disturbing.
December 3rd, 2006 at 7:50 am
““has anyone posting here been to Venezuela in the past two yearsâ€?”
Since rjf raises this question as a prelude to his comments, there is an implication that he not only has been to Venezuela during the past two years but that his visits there involved in depth reporting and observing on what was going on–otherwise he can claim no special expertise. Since rjf does not identify himself and I have no idea who he is–perhaps others here do–it would be helpful if rjf provides these details about himself. Otherwise I would have to conclude that he has no other qualifications to talk about Venezuela than anyone else here.
December 3rd, 2006 at 8:29 am
btw as a general rule I think it is fine if some people here blog anonymously, especially if all they are offering is their opinions, informed or otherwise. But if someone here is claiming some special expertise, eg in this case that they know the situation in Venezuela first hand, then for their comments to have any credibility they had best identify themselves so we can judge that expertise for ourselves. I don’t think anyone here would have confidence, eg, in any statements I might make about human evolution or radiocarbon dating if they did not have reason to think that I was an expert in those areas.
December 3rd, 2006 at 10:20 am
RJF,
One needn’t go to Iraq to know that things are steadily deteriorating there. Indeed, I find the UNESCO report on gun violence in Venezuela disturbing and I certainly don’t believe that UNESCO is a tool of the elites or of the Bush administration.
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:24 am
While we are having confessions about Venezuela here, I have not been there for quite some time. However, I find it strange that in my contacts with people who do live there, that I am hearing complaints even from those of the communist party. This is because I do have a product related position regarding Ven. I might add, that these contacts I have are both cooperative and corporate, it does not matter what the employment scenario - people are pissed off regarding a “new elite,” etc.
December 3rd, 2006 at 12:00 pm
So there’s a new elite in Venezuela? Did you expect a proletarian revolution that cast off property relations foreverandever?
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Randy, I agree violence is a huge problem in Venzuela. It, in effect, is a point in case statment that Chavez still has not gone far enough to reform or take control of institutions like the local and even federal police . Illict and informal economies are rampant. Corruption is an obvious problem. Brazil, as you are well aware, has similar problems. I hope Lula uses his second term to address the root causes of social inequality and economic alienation that leads to crime and corrution.
To use your Iraq example, look at Iraq under Saddam. In Iraq there was massive gun ownership by the general population, yet very low murder rate. That was because Saddam was a vicious authoritarian dictator that put the fear of god into his population and the government alone had consolidated the use of violence as a means of population control. I am certain that in Venezuela, no one is going to claim that the trains are running on time. Hopefully, in his second term Chavez will restructure law enforcement and set up programs and policies that will effectively address crime and corruption.
M. Balter, I don’t know what to say, I find your questions valid on one level and sad on another. I do not find it necessary to provide my personal information on a blog I infrequently post on. However, I will state that I have family and friends in Venezuela and have been going to the country since 1994. I am high school teacher and have also taught middle school, a much more demanding task. Not that its relevant but five years ago I organized trip that took a group of 12 students on a summer program to Venezeula. Last year we went to Mexico. This past August was my most recent trip to Venezuela . I doubt any of this qualifies as an expert or a professional, which as I read your post, is a prequisite for validity. What I find confusing in your post is that you claim to have little knowledge of latin America or Venezuela but you seem to immediately side with people who admittedly have no first hand knowledge of what is occuring on the ground in Venezuela. I have to take your unquestioning trust in their opinion– that Chavez is taking the country toward a dictorial hell– as having something to do with the profession of journalism. In which case, you seem to be saying, all other on the ground factual observation is reduced to the lowly realm of unprofessional opinion.
I made claim to two facts in my initial post. First, that Chavez opened the political space for grassroot movements to expand and these bottom up movements are the source of an actual revolutionary current. Second, that the old media elite are leaders of the floundering opposition. I will concede to Randy here, you probably do not need to go to Venezuela to validate these facts. I believe if you take the time to surf around that some professional journalist’s have made similar discoveries.
December 3rd, 2006 at 1:20 pm
rjf, you made quite a point in your original post about the lack of Venezuelan experience you detected in the comments by others here. That remark alone made my query relevant. In future, make your points without making invidious comparisons between your knowledge of Venezuela and that of others and you will get no grief from me.
December 3rd, 2006 at 2:19 pm
RJF et al: Certainly spending time in Venezuela offers some advantages to understanding it. But in itself means next to nothing. For that matter, the hundreds of thousands, or millions, who have attended opposition rallies in Venezuela also live there and would seem to disagree with your view of things. I imagine another litmus test could be: who actually lives and works there versus those who visit there on political junkets.
I dont raise that question, but some would, in the same way you are raising yours. That’s why I think, in the end, your point about having visited there recently is a very, very minor one — with all due respect.
I have never imagined Venezuela as a “dictatorial hell.” I do, however, see Venezuela as place where the current president is intent on consolidating his personal political power and that of, indeed, a new elite. Unfortunately, as many experts both within and outside of Venezuela have documented, much of that new elite are in fact military commanders who have become Chavez’ cronies (and who I would bet dollars to donuts will eventually unseat him). I doubt very seriously if these army guys are Bolivarian Socialists. But I would hope in this world we would have now learned to overlook the cynical labeling that this or that elite adopts for personal gain — unless, that is, someone actually believes China is governed by Marxist revolutionaries!
As to your specific comments RJF, I spent much of my formative years in Latin America and worked as translator to Salvador Allende. When I arrived in Chile I lived with two exiled Venezuelan guerrillas who taught me Spanish (to this day my spanish is an odd amalgam of carribean and southern cone accents and the Venezuelan exiles appear in the first pages of my book on Chile).
I have maintained an interest and certain level of knowledge about Venezuela over the years. I have been to Venezuela on several occasions though not since Chavez has come to power. I follow events there with some, but not an obsessive, interest but I do trust my capacity to understand the sort of complicated events that are taking place there.
My bet is that Chavez will not create a repressive totalitarian state. The wide-ranging private sector and attendant civil society would make that a difficult task to carry out. But I do think while he is, according to your terms, opening up space for a grassroots revolutionary tendency, he is also closing down space for rational, political debate. Labelling, as he has, the entirety of his opposition as “facsists and terrorists” is precisely the language and mind-set of a totalitarian — but as in all his endeavors Chavez doesnt live up to his rhetoric (fortunately). I suppose you and I differ on this because I am an unabashed partisan of “bourgeois democracy” and I sense that you have a different set of values. So be it. I’d much rather see Chavez opening up civil-based, transparent democratic institutiuns than I would favor him enocuraging what you call “grass roots revolutionaries.” History has shown us, unfortunately, that when the latter actually achieve power you are left with nothing grassroots and absolutely nothing revolutionary.
More than any other historic figure, Chavez resembles Juan Domingo Peron. So do the respective social movements built by each man. Both men ably exploited the international conjuncture, finding pivotal spots for their personal buck-the-big-dogs-posture between competing imperial power blocs. Both used export revenues to spread around ample chunks of pork to the disinherited. Indeed, Evita Peron would toss them money off the back of a campaign train! Peron single handedly built the Argentine trade movement into the allpowerful CGT. He nationalized the British-owned railroads. He railed against the Americans ( Or Braden or Peron was his 1947 campaign slogan). He constructed the most wide ranging welfare state in the Western Hemisphere where (at least as recently as the 80’s) metal workers enjoyed 5 weeks of vacation and lodging in seashore cottages.
But like Chavez, Peron’s regime was leveraged on military institutions (and transitory export income). When Peron became inconveniet, he was flicked away like a mosquito by all those radical Peronista military commanders. Senor Chavez should take note.
Beyond that, Peron was hardly a revolutionary. Indeed, he was more a fascist than a socialist (though there were and are plenty of muddle headed socialists who revered him). I lived in the midst of this madness in the 1970’s and it was absolutely mind-boggling to see how many leftists were struggling to support a social movement that was simultaneously producing nazi death squads.
What is most disturbing to me about Chavez is his naked, tin-pot level demagogy. Even Peron was better in this regard. Peron spoke to the masses as an inspirational teacher with a grand vision. Chavez speaks to their darkest impulses, brazenly exploiting all of the envies, disappointments and injustices suffered by the bottom half of the population. Sorry, but I do believe Chavez would actually be saddended is they stopped being poor as they no longer would be dependent on him.
December 3rd, 2006 at 2:19 pm
“One needn’t go to Iraq to know that things are steadily deteriorating there.”–Randy P.
That’s for sure. George Bush has been to Iraq several times and I have never been, but I know much more about the country than he does. So does Randy and so do most of us here.
December 3rd, 2006 at 2:26 pm
Marc I know you have a lot more experience in Latin America than I do but what I am trying to suggest is there may be good reasons for the behavior of Chavez and others. Given what happened to Arbenez in 1954 and Allende in 1973 one would be a fool in that part of the world to conduct national policies that conflict with the interests of the US and not take measures to control the opposition. It may not be pretty but the alternative is to play nice while you’re strangled. Rather like the lesson of Iraq to countries like Iran and N Korea is get a bomb as soon as you can.
Again I claim no expertise on Venezuelan politics but I do know how to read and the reports of respected international groups that elections there have been free and fair (frankly the dissenting view coming from the US State Dept lacks credibility considering the source) are enough for me. I know it was the policy of Woodrow Wilson to intervene South of the border in order to teach the benighted to only elect good men but until we can say the same I’ll not try and second guess the people who elected Chavez.
December 3rd, 2006 at 2:32 pm
RLC: So what’s your point? If one has doubts or criticisms of Chavez one should so what? Keep silent.
December 3rd, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Even if what Marc is saying is correct - I think for example that Peron was not all bad - it does not justify a failure to distance himself from people who supported the coup. The reason that Chavez and his supporters call his oppostion “terrorists and fascists” is that they either refuse to play the democratic game - it is they who are failing in their role in a democracy - or play the game alongside “extraparliamentary” rightist and coup-mongering maneouvers. That of course includes Teodoro Petkoff and other turncoats.
December 3rd, 2006 at 2:33 pm
And I wouldn’t worry too much about the current boom being transitory. Given Bush’s Mesopotamian misadventure Chavez is almost assured of high oil prices for the indefinite future. In fact, given the location of his oil outside of the Straits of Hormuz I’d say he has us literally over a barrel!
December 3rd, 2006 at 2:35 pm
One should deliver that criticism in context…ie I am heavily critical of Hamas, particularly the part of their manifesto that invokes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I also recognize that they are elected, and that they wouldn’t be in power, or so reactionary, if not for Israeli actions. A simple critique of Hamas plays into the hands of Israel (and the Dahlan gangs in Palestine) just as a critique without context of Chavz plays into the hands of the States….Criticism is fine - within a reasonable context..
December 3rd, 2006 at 2:38 pm
My point is past events affect future conduct. I neither condone nor condemn. That is why I consider myself a “Realist” in international affairs. Sorry if I can’t make that clearer to you. You have every right to you’re position butI hold to the Hippocratic nostrum that in world affairs “First do no harm” is sage advice.
I make an exception for genocide. I’d commit to Darfur tomorrow. Funny how that is never done, isn’t it?
December 3rd, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Jcummings: Talk about authoritarian language! Criticism is OK withing reasonable contexts! Hopefully you will be issuing the guidelines for what is reasonable. And the meme about “playing into the enemy’s hands” is another great oldie from defensive authoritarians. Wouldnt want to give fodder to the class enemy, comrade!
LOL.
I expect more from you than those burned-out phrases.
My criticism of Chavez –might I say– is always in context and is more than reasonable, in any case.
If you want to talk about those who actually do play into the hands of Washington, you might adrress your concerns directly to Colonel/President Chavez himself! Instituting sweeping, even radical social change does not require:
1) Sucking off Gaddfi and Aminijead in public.
2) Mooning the U.S. on every occasion possible
3) acting like a taunting jackass on the rostrum of the UN.
If, however, your real goal is to polarize popular support among the disenfranchised thru demagogic posturing, then I guess the above –baiting, provoking and mocking the enemy let alone playing into his hands– is a great strategy.
December 3rd, 2006 at 2:57 pm
P.S.
JC… the Venezuelan leftist party MAS, the most innovative, non-stalinist and non social dem formation historically is in opposition to Chavez.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_Socialism_(Venezuela)
December 3rd, 2006 at 3:58 pm
I’ll concede to the authoritarian language, because as far as I’m concerned, it is warranted. Your criticism of Chavez, as far as I can see, is not in context. A single paragraph on how the opposition has absolutely no respect for democratic norms (despite your contention that Chavez may well be the same) would suffice. Besides, why take my bait about context (claiming that you contextualize) - when it is “authoritarian” to ask that you contextualize?
For the record, I am not a fan of Venezuela’s relationship with Libya or Iran in that he unfortunately legitmates their leaders - but diplomatically its acceptable. Uncle Sam after all needs Iranian help pretty bad - and I don’t see you joining the ranks of critics of that…I think there is more to it than meets the eye. Chavez is far more influential - and popular - among the Arab/Persian world than their own leaders. The ideas that he imparts- youtube a talkhe did on Al Jazeera, are quite radical and are gaining influence on that stage. Among the Lebanese who are opposing the US/Saudi client regime these days are plenty of Chavistas.
I think that his symbolic Anti-Americanism (as opposed to his political Anti-Americanism which I support) has been bad for him, and I expect it to change somewhat. Correa’s attitude in Ecuador and Morales’s more circumspect attitude are far preferable, while still moving in the same direction. Correa called Bush “noble.” This is not being a pupept, this is the Latin American left operating from an increasing position of strength, in which it is no longer neccessary to obsess over the Empire all the time.
This may surprise you but I’m not a dogmatic supporter of Chavez. I am a supporter of the broad left agenda that is sweeping Latin America, from neoliberal/centre/left to populist to social democratic (in the real sense)…as much about a transformation, as to have an alternate pole to the Northern elites…something that in my mind makes the world a safer place.
December 3rd, 2006 at 4:00 pm
MAS seem like a typical “socialist international” party, like the French Socialists or Israeli labor party….I may be wrong. I’d like to see their position on the coup and the opposition in general.
December 3rd, 2006 at 4:17 pm
I don’t see how any Chavez supporter can support this (look at all the photos).
As for the reliance on oil, Chavez is merely repeating the mistakes of other leaders in Venezuela’s history. According to this article> in today’s Times, Venezuela still imports more than half of its food and it’s non-petroleum manufacturing base is drying up. It is importing like mood because of the boom in oil and it is maintaining controls over its currency value.
If you want to drawan economic parallel in recent history, Chile in the early 1980’s was in similar circumstances. Copper was very valuable, the currency value was controlled by Pinochet’s government and imports ruled the day. La mierda golpeo el ventilador when copper prices tumbled.
In January 2003 I was in Brazil and I listened to an interview with Chavez on Globo. He made the point that Venezuela was rich in muerous resources including bauxite, gold, gemstones and had “hectare after hectare” of arable land. If the price of oil tumbles he’s in deep trouble.
December 3rd, 2006 at 7:19 pm
One of the developments that has to be exploited in the region is a Pan-Americas alliance. If one checks carefully you can see a full list of resources that can be utilized to stabalize economic growth and security among those nations. The growth of cooperatives has to be linked to not only internal development, but must become export minded so that the ratio of import to export can find a natural balance. This among many other issues should be on the docket, otherwise we face the spectre of a big fall when oil prices tumble as Randy Paul has stated.
Just because one does not want to fall into the trap of outside investment does not mean that you contain yourself. It is also in the interest of Ven. to form an alliance with unaligned nations, to move above the UN influence. Instead of endearing yourself by being magnaminous, put some give and take into a growing profitable circle of influence.
To tame the capitalistic elite core of business interest you go toe to toe with them in the world market, you do not merely cover your own rear so you are not embrassed by some sort of future embargo - only real interest in real world markets can produce real wealth for a growing enfranchised population.
December 3rd, 2006 at 8:08 pm
I don’t support it. One can support the overall politics of a country and its leadership (overwhelmingly re-elected it seems) without agreeing with some of the choices that country makes. I made that clear.
This guilt by association is such nonsense and clearly there to serve an agenda.
December 3rd, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Poppycock. The only agenda it’s there to serve is one of consistency. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
December 3rd, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Consistency is not how we should look at on one hand, the American Empire, and on the other, a country that - like just about every nation state on the planet - has a few repressive allies. I don’t support it, but given the conjuncture of forces on the planet right now, it is understandable.
In the name of consistency, why aren’t there any photos of the Venezuelan opposition with Opus Dei, P2, the CIA and terorrists? Only a knave would fidn those thugs preferable to Chavez.
TI wonder if you, in the name of consistency, circulate photos of every other world leader with their unsavory allies…. Do you have one for Chirac? Do you regularly circulate photos of Blair and Olmert? Musharaff?
December 3rd, 2006 at 8:58 pm
You’re dredging up strawman arguments. To liken Olmert with the likes of Lukashenko is silly.
Your comment rises to the intellectual level of a wingnut I once worked with. When he put a picture of himself shaking hands with G. Gordon Liddy, he made a point of showing it to me. When I asked him why he wanted a picture of himself with a convicted felon, his response was, “Nelson Mandela’s a convicted felon, too!”
It’s exactly like the argument the pro-war right makes when one criticizes the Bush administration for human rights abuses during the Iraq debacle and their response is what about what Saddam did?
Love the company you keep.
December 3rd, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Let me make it simple for you: you’re the Chavista, I’m not, nor am I a Chiracista, Blairista, Olmertista, Musharaffista, member of Opus Dei, P2, the CIA nor am I a terrorist.
If you choose to align yourself with Chavez, fine. You have to reconcile with some intellectual consistency how you can praise him for his goals despite his open and willing association with some pretty horrific characters.
Throwing the ball in my court does not abjure you of that responsibility. Disabuse yourself of that notion.
December 3rd, 2006 at 9:47 pm
Olmert is far worse than Lukashenko. I have nothing else to explain. We differ.
December 3rd, 2006 at 10:01 pm
I see by your blog that you are a Lula admirer, yet nothing beyond minor huffiness over his support of his comrade Hugo!!! The hypocrisy!! My lord
December 4th, 2006 at 11:08 am
Olmert can be voted out. Lukashenk can’t.
As per the rest of your comment, [BIG YAWN]
December 4th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
As tempting as it is to not drag this one out, I’d hardly call Olmert democratically elected. A mature democracy - even the US in theory - gives all their citizens equal access, not just to the vote (Palestinians are able to vote, often for either Palestinian, Communist or mixed-between-the-two parties) - but to the fruit of democratic citizenship. Not to mention the system of apartheid in the West Bank and Gaza.
Even if Olmert has the consent of a plurality of Jewish Israelis, his actions are far beyond anything that Lukashenko - no doubt a serious Stalinist thug- has ever done. This is not to say that Jewish Israelis don’t have more freedom have more freedoms (though not the freedom to non-religous weddings - and not the freedom to have any other denomination of Judaism besides Orthodox be entitled to being considered “Jewish”) - than Belarussians. That being said, Lukashenko is not occupying and destroying a society, uprooting people and killing people.
December 4th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
‘It’s exactly like the argument the pro-war right makes when one criticizes the Bush administration for human rights abuses during the Iraq debacle and their response is what about what Saddam did?’
Right, cuz a night’s High School-style hazing equals decades of slaughter and genocide.
And in the case of Israel, the victim who successfully fights back against ten bullies and teaches them a lesson becomes the bully, right?
Yeah I’m starting to get it, but I’ll just have to kill a few more brain cells before the new logic works for me. Got any more of that Koolaid?
December 4th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Duhh,
This is for both you and cummings: two worngs don’t make a right.
December 4th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Even if Olmert has the consent of a plurality of Jewish Israelis, his actions are far beyond anything that Lukashenko - no doubt a serious Stalinist thug- has ever done.
No doubt you know the old saying about opinions.
December 4th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Which one? I’m not being facetious.
Also - the concept of “right” and “wrong” and “Rights” and “Wrongs” and all such dichotomizing, decontextualizing obscurantism do not do justice to such an issue.
I assume there’s no argument over whether Lukashenko has killed thousands of people his country occupies over the last six years.
December 5th, 2006 at 1:12 am
“hardly the most re-assuring thought for those who value open, civic society.”
And so it’s obvious who’s yanking your chain, puppet.
Imperial stooge. Hack.
This whole piece is wretched, myopic middle-class tripe from top to bottom. Even when you make a point you’re wrong in your self-centered petit-bourgeois conclusions.
So I know it’s too much to demand that you take off those coke-bottle-bottomed, yellow-tinted goggles…
December 5th, 2006 at 1:23 am
Querido Comandante Gringo: Petit-bourgeois? That’s all I rate? Anyone who knows me can testify that my aspirations are purely haute-bourgeois!
JCummings: Have you ever noticed the recurring pattern of your argumentation? Your primary and favorite device is one of comparison. Better to be Cuban than Haitian. Chavez is better than Bush. Lukashenko is bad but Olmert is worse. How totally irrelevant. People live where they live. They dont live inside mathematical formulas.
I wonder how you make it through the day there in oppressive Canada? The weather is much better here in So Cal, the food is much better in Mexico, unemployment insurance and health care are better in Sweden, child care in Denmark is far superpior than in Canuckland, Venezuela has a much more progressive government, and the Cuban educational systems beats the hell out of Saskatchewan. It must be pure, infernal oppression for you up there on the fringe of the NATO empire.
December 5th, 2006 at 7:42 am
I actually think Saskabush probably beats Cuba out for education - believe it or not it is the most left-wing part of country. Living in a Salvaodrean/Mexican neighbourhood, the food I eat is pretty good. Health care in Canada, is in theory great, but in practice, very very bad, child care was good but the Tories cut it.
But So Cal weather? I like my four seasons, and not having to expend energy on AC all year round.
December 5th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
CommandanteGringo: “And so it’s obvious who’s yanking your chain, puppet. Imperial stooge. Hack.”
Right on. It bears pointing out what the sheep miss and that is that open civic society is nothing more than a tool of the counter-revolutionaries. What the revolution really needs is a dictatorship of the proletariat (or, rather, the vanguard ruling in our stead because the party knows best)… but maybe if we can silence the opposition we can get the masses to vote as we know they should and then we get to keep democracy after all. Yes. Yes, this is truly a masterstroke. Our glorious revolution is lucky to be lead by such men as Comrade Chavez. Viva Chavez! Up with the revolution! :raisedfist:
December 6th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
This discussion degenerated before I was able to interject but as a socialist who was part of a ten day human rights delegation last spring (credentials out of the way) my opinion is that the difference between Chavez and Peron (or more generally, any “caudillo” model) is that Chavez has a philosophical underpinning (endogenous development, a heartfelt rejection of neoliberalism) and has supported both a constitution which distributes rather than consolidates power and institutions and structures which implement these goals. (community councils, worker controlled factorys, cooperatives, collectives etc) Not something someone with dictatorial ambitions would encourage.
Latin America has contradictions difficult for the intellectual left to reconcile, its Christian faith, its patriarchical traditions, its hidden racism, its militaristic fetishism for starters. But given the reality on the ground in this moment in history, it is remarkable and fascinating to observe the adroit balancing act this charismatic leader has performed in comparison to other experiments in broad social change. (Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador) Be critical, of course, but do not let cynicism blind you to the possibility that this could be a deepening , popular movement unlike anything we have seen or attempted to analyze. Marc’s essay made it’s way to plenty of reactionary sites where it’s snarky tone is being emulated.
June 30th, 2007 at 6:17 am
part tester…
Hi. Very nice blog. I\’ve been reading your other entries all day long..lol….