Paralysed Venezuela vs Thriving Bolivia: Two Faces of Socialism

By Hernán Luis Torres Núñez – Aporrea.org:



Hernán Luis Torres Núñez, a frequent economics commentator on leftist Venezuelan community forum Aporrea, argues that Venezuela should learn from Bolivian president Evo Morales’ pragmatic style of governance for “21^st century socialism”. 


A few days ago a friend asked me if I’d written about the situation in the country again. I answered no, because the government hadn’t taken any action on the economy that served as an excuse for me to write something. The only thing that’s happened worth mentioning is the assassination of Robert Serra, which is in an area of events that isn’t my strength. Also I don’t like speculating about this type of issue, above all because the investigations haven’t finished solving the crime.

However it should be pointed out that not making decisions is a way of deciding. That is, maintaining the status quo is a way of signalling that although the situation is very difficult, making decisions can worsen the situation. This reminds me of the second government of [Rafael] Caldera [1994 - 1999]. When he was elected he put the economy in the freezer and let time pass. Caldera was clear that the economic adjustment measures of [former president] Carlos Andres Perez [1989 - 1993] had cost him his job. [Caldera] finally implemented these measures two years into his term, when the political atmosphere had calmed down.

These are very difficult times for the Venezuelan economy. We can’t exaggerate when we see indices of inflation and shortages of all kinds of products (because we no longer see the shortages indicator); when we see that dollars [for imports] are sporadically shared out to different economic sectors at a drip drop; when we see that oil is dropping to 80 dollars a barrel; when we have three official exchange rates to the dollar, each one overvaluing the bolivar and generating deep distortions in the economy; when we see that property prices reach 50 million bolivars (US $7.9 million at highest official rate); when the prices of used cars are crazy, etc. Therefore we can speculate that no economic decisions are being taken to stabilise the situation because these would have a very strong impact on Venezuelans’ quality of life. A strong devaluation toward one exchange rate, a generalised increase in prices (which has been happening surreptitiously), a petrol price increase, and a possible tax rise would make poverty rates violently shoot up. This situation would put the government against the wall, as its banner all these years has been the eradication of poverty. The goal of zero poverty would be smashed to smithereens.

On the other hand, it’s important to point out that politicians pursue power, and once obtained, they try to keep it for the longest time possible. Good economic performance is something that can favour the politicians in government, and bad management sooner or later ends up taking its toll and hastening the fall of the governors, above all if we live in an effective democracy. By virtue of what’s happening in the economy and with parliamentary elections next year, the fear of losing political power is a close possibility. As such, in these moments political calculation can impose itself over economic reality.

Meanwhile, Evo Morales has just won his third term in Bolivia, and overwhelmingly. Bolivia is experiencing economic growth, and in 2015 is expected to be the country that grows most in the region. There is a construction boom in La Paz, with new shopping malls full of foreign brands. In Bolivia there are no currency controls, and yet, international reserves reach 48% of GDP. It appears that there hasn’t been capital flight, and rather Bolivia is today a very attractive site for foreign investment. An important reduction in poverty has also occurred.

The opposition to Morales’ government, that at one point backed the division of the country, has softened its posture. Apparently Evo Morales has been capable of gaining the support of the middle class and some business. The conflict of his first years in government has given way to social, political and economic stability.

All of this drives us to think about what the key to success in Bolivia is, a country with far less resources than Venezuela but that has been capable of establishing a successful popular government, very different from the Venezuelan case. It’s necessary in the field of Venezuelan socialism that the Bolivian case is studied and the necessary lessons taken.

I’ve often heard the argument that other countries don’t have anti-patriotic parasitic bourgeoisies, a reasoning that seems contradictory and a little naïve, because in some way it’s saying that the success of socialism depends on the kindness and patriotism of the bourgeoisie, which is nonsense. The industrial bourgeoisie in all countries behaves in the same way, it invests to profit, and if it can’t profit it moves its capital somewhere else. We can’t forget that there was a moment that the Bolivian bourgeoisie and its half moon movement wanted to remove Morales from power the underhand way. If today the Bolivian bourgeoisie is investing and not encouraging capital flight it’s because it trusts that its investment will be respected and will perform well. All of this has occurred due to negotiation between the Bolivian bourgeoisie and Evo’s government.

The above is notable because Evo Morales has declared himself a Marxist and admirer of Fidel [Castro], however, it would appear that he is also a pragmatic man who understands that socialism of the 21^st century has to be radically different than that of the 20^th, something that the person who was our economic flag bearer, [former minister Jorge] Giordani, could never understand and less so put into practice. Strong applause for Evo Morales.

October 14, 2014

Translated by Venezuelanalysis.com.

 

Source: Aporrea.org

Rednecks in Chavezland

By John Little - Opednews.com:


One of the most bizarre features of my time here in Venezuela is the incredibly hypocritical way the redneck Americans who are here with me react to their foreign surroundings. They can’t stop praising almost everything about Venezuela, yet they also condemn almost everything about Venezuela.

Huh? “Splain, Lucy!”

It’s a given that all the rednecks consider Chavez to be a dictator. They can spout verbatim the entire Fox News storyline on Chavez and his horrible government. They have absolutely nothing good to say about him, about Socialism in general, and about how he is the epitome of all things evil.

But when they get sick and go to the free clinic just across the street from the main office, they are delighted that they are attended to immediately and at no charge. They grin from ear to ear when they go to the local pharmacy store and walk right up to the counter, order their medicine, and pay pennies on the dollar for it. They sing praises to the high heavens that they don’t need to schedule an appointment to see a doctor, and pay for it, then get the prescription, then go to the pharmacy and wait up to a day or two to get their medicine.

But Chavez is never, ever mentioned in all this glee. No one bothers to state that it’s because of socialized medicine that they are so well taken care of in such a “backward” country. It would be unconscionable for any redneck to actually equate their great medical attention to the current government of the country. That’s forbidden.

The rednecks are quick to complain about the violence. “It’s all Chavez’s fault,” they readily say.

“I always take my knife with me, wherever I go,” Cajun states. “They ain’t taking my money from me without a fight. Unless there’s more than three of them. Then I have to accept I’m gonna get the crap beat out of me.”

Cajun’s a good ol’ boy from Louisiana. He knows all about being taken hostage, having been one twice in Nigeria. He didn't have a problem with it since the Nigerians allowed him to drink and eat as he pleased. The oil company he was working for always promptly paid the ransom demand to free him and the others and he readily admits that the perks there are so great that he’d love to do another oil rig there.

But this is Venezuela, not Nigeria. And the inordinate amount of violence is preached everywhere here, especially on the American channels that are so popular here, like Fox and CNN. Yep, guess what, all Venezuelans get to watch as much American propaganda TV as they want, thanks to Chavez’s supposed “lack of free speech.” Just one more thing the rednecks quickly discuss until they mention what they saw the night before on CNN or Fox. Then, it’s as if they were in another country watching the show and magically returned to Venezuela once the show was over.

Cajun’s never been attacked. Nor has any of the other rednecks. In fact, when you ask them individually, they admit that the level of violence appears to be less than their home town of Tulsa, or Houston, or Atlanta, or elsewhere. But of course, that’s got to be because of all the minorities back home, not Chavez in Venezuela.

Now don’t get me wrong, the city here has its share of violence. Like I’ve mentioned earlier, I read the newspaper daily. There seems to be some malfeasance going on in surrounding communities everyday. That’s not a good sign. That’s also one of the reasons I’d like to see a few more cop cars on the streets. I guess old habits die hard.

But compared to the US, things are extremely calm. I never hear police, fire or ambulance sirens during the evening. In fact, I haven’t a clue what they sound like. Well, I did hear a police siren the other day and it sounded extraterrestrial to be honest. Apparently, the police were hungry for a Big Mac and didn’t want to wait their turn to park.

Another area that cracks me up to no end is in the language arena. Apparently, all the rednecks think that some language program called Rosetta Stone will instantly transform them into bilinguals. They seem to be both amazed and depressed at the fact that Venezuelans speak a language other than English and that not every single Venezuelan is fluent in American Southern English.

Rednecks are funny. They have never heard of the expression, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” They think they’re in the US, only with great Socialist perks that they can take advantage of. They praise the country they’re in, yet condemn the government that gives it to them. Hypocrisy 2010, it’s all the rage in Venezuela.

June 17th 2010

venezuelanalysis

Bahamas Blog International

The Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) goes beyond cooperation, says Mexican economist

HAVANA, Cuba (ACN) -- The Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) is an institution that goes beyond cooperation among its member countries as it includes monetary and financial integration, said Mexican economy expert.

Jaime Estay, with the Autonomous University of Puebla spoke about the topic on the third day of sessions of the 12th International Meeting on Globalization and Development Problems underway in Havana.

The academician said ALBA has found solutions to deal with the current world financial crisis generated by a global monetary disorder resulting from the weakness of the US dollar and by policies implemented by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Estay pointed out that Latin America is leading national and multilateral actions at regional level to mitigate the negative effects of the crisis on local economies.

The Mexican expert described as inadmissible that Group 20, constituted by industrialized and emerging nations, were entrusted with the responsibility of adopting the measures to overcome the world economic crisis.

G-20 undertook the roll without paying attention to the fact that the UN General Assembly, made up by 192 member countries, was summoned for a meeting to analyze the world situation deal and ended with plans of actions set up.

Estay said G-20 has not touched structural features of the global economy and mentioned as an example of such behavior the fact that the IMF has paradoxically grown stronger lately instead of having disappeared for being one of the leading originators of serious monetary and financial problems.

Likewise, attending Havana’s meeting, Manfred Brenefeld, with the University of Ottawa, Canada, warned that the crisis has driven the world to follow the path to social democracy or fascism in certain countries, politically speaking.

According to the Canadian expert, the most effective and plausible way would be social democracy, but as a prelude to new true socialism, which he said should be credible and possible for the peoples.

Our mission is to make that Socialism understandable, Brenefeld said.

With some 1,000 Cuban and foreign participants, the 12th Int’l Meeting on Globalization and Development Problems will run until next Friday, March 5 in Havana.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog International

Populism in Venezuela

It's a familiar tale. A new leader emerges in a poor country that has lots of wealth but a highly unequal division of income. He pledges to transform the society with generous social programmes, and by using the state to take much of the economy out of the hands of private capitalists, orienting it to the people's needs. But within a few years, the economy stutters, shortages spread, and those goods which can be obtained sell at inflated prices. Poor people suffer. Disappointed by the revolution, they turn against it.

This time, it's Hugo Chávez's Venezuela. But the story has played out countless times before elsewhere, and no doubt will play out countless more times in other lands. Indeed, some readers might even have read the narrative of Jamaica in the 1970s in this story.

Venezuela is a country rich in oil, riding the commodity boom. But try telling that to residents of Caracas, where water is now rationed and power cuts are common. President Chávez is telling his compatriots just to be snappy in showers, saying he can do it in only three minutes. He blames the water and electricity shortage - Venezuela has the world's third-largest hydroelectric dam - on El Nino. That seems a bit rich in a country with such a large river system.

There are probably more banal forces at work. As I once argued in one of my books, stable political systems are founded on two overlapping regimes: an accumulation regime, and a distribution regime. The first refers to how an economy's output is generated, the second to how it is distributed.

Citizens expect to get their fair share out of the system - distribution. But that means the system must deliver a growing economy, to satisfy a growing population's rising demands - accumulation.

Balance

Chavez

Too much investment means too little spending and vice versa. A balance has to be struck. When it breaks down, a political crisis develops.

One could argue that Venezuela was ripe for the Bolivarian revolution because years of rising oil prices hadn't translated into popular gains. The regime was too focused on accumulation. But Mr Chávez has arguably bent the stick too far in the other direction. By distributing oil-price windfalls in the early years of his revolution, he certainly made himself popular. But the resultant under-investment in capacity and infrastructure (previously, profits were being reinvested) has created a situation in which supply can't keep up with rising demand. There results inflation, and shortages.

Defenders of such revolutions will often blame capitalist scheming for undermining a socialist revolution. That's often too crude an analysis. Socialism concerns itself primarily not with the management of distribution, but with the management of accumulation itself. At its heart lies the belief in some form of common ownership.

Noble though the intentions may be, rushing to distribute the profits of a capitalist economy arguably does not amount to socialism, but populism. It is inherently unstable as a political strategy. Ultimately, it fails the very people it is intended to benefit. Not surprisingly, Mr Chávez's approval ratings are falling.

With legislative elections due next year, Mr Chávez may face a dilemma. Should voters turn against his party, he could accept their verdict. Or, as is often the temptation for populist leaders in these circumstances, he could stiffen his resolve and harden the revolutionary stance of his government. The last stage of a doomed revolution is all too often authoritarianism.

One can only hope that if, and when, that moment comes, Mr Chávez will prove to be as good a democrat as Michael Manley was when his electorate terminated his revolution.

jamaica-gleaner

Bahamas Caribbean Blog International

Ronald Reagan Caribbean Legacy

Ronald Reagan and Grenada

Reaction To Reagan’s Role In The Caribbean

By Charles Fawkes

Nassau, The Bahamas

02/07/2004

HOUSE OF LABOUR: Reaction to last week’s column “Reagan’s legacy in the Caribbean", through e-mail and by way of telephone was swift and furious.  It is perhaps articles like that one that answers the question, "Is anybody listening?”  In one of the e-mails sent, the reader wondered if this column could shed some light on the fate of the seventeen Grenadians charged and jailed with murder, and manslaughter in the political incident that ended in the death of Maurice Bishop- the former Prime Minister of Grenada and his supporters.

To be honest this was a tall order.  I had long ago stopped following the development regarding those who were regarded as the counterrevolution in the experiment where Grenadians were attempting to establish the second workers state in the Caribbean.  However, after considerable research and a few phone calls to some of my Caribbean comrade’s- one recent article by Rich Gibson a professor of education at San Diego State University provided some insight.  What follows are excerpts from the lengthy article entitled “ The Grenada 17, The Last Prisoners of the Cold War Are Back” where Gibson argues: “The invasion of Grenada, more than 20 years ago, presaged many of the events that blowback on the US today: unilateral warfare, official deceit about the motives for war, a massive military moving against an imagined foe, stifling the press, leaders proclaiming their guidance from God, denials of human and civil rights, systematic torture and subsequent cover-ups-and a hero who refused to go along.  Many of the players in the Bush administration who promise perpetual war today cut their teeth on the invasion of Grenada.

On March 13, 1979 a revolution took place in Grenada, the first in an African Caribbean country, the first in the English-speaking world.  The people who made up the revolutionary cadre were young, average age around 27.  The uppermost leadership was predominantly middle class, educated abroad.  They called themselves the New Jewel Movement (NJM).  The revolution, or coup as some called it, was popular, replacing a mad dictator named Eric Gairy who spent much of the tiny country's (pop 100,000) resources investigating the reason Grenada was a favorite landing point for flying saucers.

At the time of the uprising, Eric Gairy was in the US visiting with Nazi war criminal (and United Nations Secretary General) Kurt Waldheim.  Gairy simply didn't return.  Maurice Bishop, Jacqueline Creft, Bernard and Phyllis Coard, were among the key New Jewel leaders.  Bishop and Coard had been childhood friends.

The NJM leadership was socialists, though their socialism was eclectic-hardly the doctrinaire image the U.S. later created.  They borrowed judiciously and won investments from any government they could, from the British to the USSR to Iraq and Cuba (which provided mostly doctors, construction specialists, nurses, and educators).  The exacting Brandeis-educated Bernard Coard, leading the financial sector, was recognized throughout the Caribbean as a rare, honest, economist.

They began a mass literacy project (led by Paulo Freire), quickly improved medical care, began to set up processing plants for fish and spices, and started building a jetport.  The country had a tiny landing strip only able to land prop planes, a problem for an economy tied up with tourist interests.  The plan in general, was to magnify national economic development by expanding existing forms of production (agriculture, small industries, tourism, etc.) and by creating a new class of technologically competent workers who might use their skills to create a role for Grenada in the information economy as well.  The far-sighted educational programs had a critical role in that project.

To claim that the NJM rule was a model of egalitarian democracy, as much of the chic left did at the time, would be off point.  It wasn't.  While international tourist-socialists danced during carnival in the beautiful houses allotted to revo leaders, democracy and equality went on the back burner in favor of national economic development.

With New Jewel under terrific pressure, The US quickly moved to crush the revo, made tourism nearly impossible for U.S. citizens.  It is fairly clear that the CIA made several attempts to murder key leaders.

Pressed externally, NJM grew more isolated from the people.  Rather than reach out to expand its initial popularity, the party turned inward.  The leadership tried to rely on a correct analysis and precise orders rather than to build a popular base.  Even though there was no question that Bishop would win elections, the NJM leaders refused to hold them.  Then In 1982 and 1983, sharp disagreements began to emerge within the entire organization.  Within four years, by 1983, the NJM was in real trouble.

The Central Committee passed motions blaming the people for the crises in the economy.  In 1983, the whole party voted overwhelmingly to reduce Bishop's role and elevate Coard to an equal spot, though the entire party, and Coard, knew he would never be as popular as the charismatic Bishop, and could never rule without him.  There were many reasons for the move; one of the more important being Bishop's lack of personal discipline, called "waffling".  The shift to shared leadership was made in the context of a revolution already in crisis.  Bishop agreed to the plan, but expressed concern that his work was being repudiated, that this might be a vote of no confidence.

On 19 October 1983, a mob of thousands led by Bishop marched past armed personnel carriers (APC's) lined up in front of his home, freed "We Leader" Bishop, and (under curious banners like "We Love the US") began to move to the town square.  No one in the APC's moved to stop the crowd.

As the crowd moved to Bishop's house, a Cuban military outfit arrived at the downtown Fort Rupert (now Ft George).  They had not reported in days and were turned away by the commander on duty from the NJM.  In the town square, where rallies were traditionally held, microphones were set up for Bishop to speak to the people.  Bishop could have easily mobilized nearly the entire population of the island to come to the square to support him-and that probably would have been that.

But now led by Bishop and his friends, the crowd turned and marched on a nearby fort where arms and TNT were stored.  Bishop demanded that the commander of the fort turn over his weapons.  He did, and was locked in a cell.

At this point, things become murky.  An award winning Grenadian journalist, Alastair Hughes, famous in the region for his resistance to the NJM and his courage, saw the crowd move to the fort and bolted home, rather than cover the news.  Bishop moved his cadre to seize the radio and telephone centers, as had the NJM in overturning Gairy a few years earlier.  From another fort on a mountain about two miles away, Peoples Revolutionary Army APC's were ordered to quiet the mob.

The soldiers on the APC's were for the most part, hardly crack troops; they were mainly youths who had enlisted to get the money to buy shoes for their families.  One had deserted out of loneliness and been brought back the previous day.  They rode on top of the carriers, in full view. As they approached the fort, fire came from the mob.  The commander of the first APC, one of the few experienced soldiers in the group and a highly respected officer, was killed.  Discipline appears to have evaporated on all sides.  Fire was returned.

No one knows exactly how many people were killed and wounded.  No firm count was ever made.  There are films of people leaping over a wall at the fort (why a film-maker was so poised with such a powerful camera is an interesting question).

In any case, Bishop and other top leaders of NJM, including his pregnant companion Jackie Creft, were killed- after they had surely surrendered.  The remaining leadership of NJM imposed a curfew on the island.  In part because important documents taken from Grenada during the invasion remain classified in the U.S., no thoroughgoing investigation of this day's events has been possible.

Shortly afterward, on October 23 1983, 241 US troops were killed, blown up in their barracks in Lebanon by a truck bomb.

US President Ronald Reagan took to the TV, announcing he had discovered, through satellite photos, that the Cubans were building a secret Soviet Cuban military airstrip in Grenada-a direct threat to US security.

Reagan declared the US medical students to be in grave danger from the crisis in Grenada, said that the NJM was a threat to all regional security.  He got the organization of Caribbean nations to back him with a big payoff to those who went along-- and invaded a country the size of Kalamazoo with a massive military force, under a precedent_ setting news blackout.  The US had practiced the invasion of Grenada as early as 1981.

The invasion of Grenada (popular among most Grenadian people sickened by the long collapse of the NJM) was complete in a week.  It was, however, denounced as illegal by the U.N. Security Council, by Margaret Thatcher and the British government, and by a myriad of US congress people.

The US, however, quickly recaptured its post-Lebanon image as a military super-power.

Seventeen NJM leaders were charged with the murder of Bishop, Jacqueline Creft, and others, though most of them were nowhere near the incident.  The NJM leaders claimed they were tortured and signed transparently bogus confessions.  According to affidavits filed by former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark, and Amnesty International, the NJM leaders were denied attorneys.  They were tried by jurors who chanted "guilty" at them during jury selection, in trails led by judges hand-picked and paid by the U.S.  They were unable to make a defense in the kangaroo atmosphere.  Their lawyers were subjected to death threats and some fled.  Fourteen of the NJM members were sentenced to death.  In 1991, after an international outcry, the sentences were commuted to life.  Typically in the Caribbean, a life sentence amounts to around 15 years.

The New Jewel leaders are still serving time in a prison built in the nineteenth century.  The last prisoners of the cold war are black.  Their health is rapidly fading.  Despite immense obstacles created by prison officials over the years, the NJM prisoners are conducting one of the most successful literacy campaigns in the country.  Less than two in ten of the program' grads return to the Richmond Hill jail.

As of October 2004, the NJM prisoners will have served 21 years.  Phyllis Coard was released in 2000 to seek cancer treatment abroad, following an international campaign on her behalf.  She is still expected to return to the jail following treatment.

In October 2003 Amnesty International has issued a detailed report, demonstrating their conclusion that the Grenada 17 were denied due process in their trial: "the trial was manifestly and fundamentally unfair."  The selection of both judges and the jury were tainted with prejudice.  Documents that might have contradicted key prosecution evidence were denied the defendants.

In 2002 Rich Gibson interviewed Grenada's ambassador to the US, asking him why his government is so determined to keep the Grenada 17 in jail.  He replied that he, and the nation's current leader, Keith Mitchell, believed there would be riots if the Grenada 17 were set free.  The possibility of serious civil strife in Grenada, about anything but the corruption allegations aimed at the Mitchell regime, are actually quite negligible, as leaders of the opposition party and the country's leading paper, the Voice, told Gibson.

Gibson concludes, “I spent 1996 in Grenada interviewing many of the jailed NJM leaders.  To say they are innocent of everything is not the case.  To say they are innocent of the charges brought against them is.  The New Jewel leadership made serious mistakes.  The prisoners have issued extensive, indeed insightful, apologies to that effect, taking responsibility for the crisis of the revolution, but not for the murders they did not commit.  Their continued imprisonment is a mysterious yet great wrong that needs to be righted.  The truth of the Grenada revo, and its destruction, needs to be known.”

Hopefully this information shed some light on the current status of these imprisoned as a result of the crushing of the Grenadian Revolution.

Charles Fawkes is President of the National Consumer Association, Consumer columnist for the Nassau Guardian and organizer for the Commonwealth Group of Unions, Editor of the Headline News, The Consumer guard and The Worker’s Vanguard.