By Matthew Siano:
Vijay Prishad in his work
The Darker Nations recognizes that
the worlds’ historically oppressed and excluded populations represent
one of the most powerful forces for historic change towards social and
economic justice. The rise of the Third World movement was a
manifestation of these popular forces that developed before and after
World War II in rejection of the bipolar, First World market capitalist,
and Second World state socialist models. The Third World movement
represented “the Darker Nations”, or the worlds historically oppressed
and excluded majority, through the formation of international
organizations, national liberation movements, and alternative
development projects. Over time, due to a number of internal
contradictions and external pressures, the Third World movement lost
much of its political power, but not its’ importance to the lives of
those people it represented and all those who desire global justice.
Vijay Prishad only briefly mentions the Bolivarian Revolution in his
book, and when he does he brushes it off as a colonels coup. Judging by
the various similarities between the Third World movement and the
Bolivarian Revolution, as well as by the entirely new context through
which the Bolivarian Revolution has arisen; I believe that the
Bolivarian Revolution represents a novel resurgence of the values and
ambitions of the Third World movement.
Today, the First World, with the United States as its vanguard,
operates through organizations like the IMF, World Bank and NATO, and
has achieved a level of economic and military power that borders on
hegemony. Through these institutions, many nations in the former Third
and even Second World face the threat of neocolonialism. The
neocolonialism of our time often wears a human face or obscures its true
intentions through structural adjustment, debt bondage, capitalist
culture, and NATO military “humanitarian” intervention. With a lack of
any real check on these powers, it is now more important than ever that
the voices and wills of the majority of the world achieve political and
economic power, and organize themselves internationally to defend their
collective demand for equality and justice.
In many ways, the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela is working
towards this reality, and has already achieved economic and political
empowerment of a large part of its historically oppressed and excluded
population. In the context of a unipolar neoliberal world order, the
Bolivarian Revolution has built upon many of the ambitions of the Third
World movement. By championing regional integration, international
nationalism, and by directly challenging First World ideology that there
is no alternative to neoliberal capitalism, Venezuela is becoming
possibly the vanguard of a new World movement. This new World movement
builds upon the Third World movement by learning from its failures and
striving towards similar goals of global justice and dignity for the
historically oppressed and excluded.
Popular Power
The Third World movement was a manifestation of popular
power. This popular power took various forms that included armed
anti-colonial resistance (Algeria), non-violent anti-colonial resistance
(Ghandi, India), and massive grassroots organizing with national
liberation or socialism as its demand. A major failure of the Third
World movement was that it did not live up to its promise of
participatory democracy. Some nations within the Third World such as
Saudi Arabia did not even have a semblance of democracy, while others
like Tanzania took extremely top-down approaches to their ambitions.
Even nations that had emerged from a long anti-colonial struggle and
developed strong support like Algeria, “did not fully live up to its promise of radical democracy, where
every person would be constituted by the state as a citizen, and where
each citizen in turn would act through the state to construct a national
society, economy and culture” (122, Prishad).
This failure to include popular forces into the Third World struggle
made various states “vulnerable to the counterrevolution of the old
social classes of property and the disgruntlement of those in whose name
it ruled” (123, Prishad). Furthermore, the failure to include popular
forces deprived the movement of its initial energy, and stifled much
creative potential that may otherwise have been able to manifest.
The Bolivarian Revolution and government are also rooted in popular
power against oppression. One of the earliest manifestations of this
popular power came with the Caracazo. During this event, tens of
thousands or more people, representing the millions most effected by the
new neoliberal “shock” package proposed by Carlos Andres Perez and the
First World, took to the streets in protest of rising prices, inequality
and poverty. The popular power of this movement was violently
repressed, but later manifested as political and economic power with the
democratic election of Hugo Chavez and the creation of a new
constitution.
Likely in response to the failure of Third World nations in their
top-down approaches to global justice and national development, the
Bolivarian Revolution has emphasized the construction of a participatory
democracy. The government has facilitated this by granting legal
authority and logistical support to the creation of communal councils;
by opening up opportunities for referendum on national issues; and
through its laws that support protagonist action. Participatory
democracy is antithetical to the assumption of the First World that only
representatives and technocrats know what is best for the majority.
Having travelled to Venezuela recently and listened to many people who
have participated in community councils or participatory democracy in
other more direct ways, it is quite apparent that these changes are
building a society that encourages participation by its members in their
own political and economic reality. It is most encouraging that the
citizens of Venezuela have legal authority through the constitution to
challenge the government, and the institutional framework through
community councils and other organizations to do so. While there does
still exist bureaucracy between these social forces and the government,
it is a good sign that people are encouraged to self-organize to
challenge the government, instead of being repressed or ignored.
Economic Autonomy
Economic autonomy, or economic self-sufficiency and
determination, was equally as important to the Third World movement as
political sovereignty. Many Third World nations realized that the
economic policies promoted by the First World were the direct cause of
their poverty and lack of development. A question arose:
“How can sufficient capital be harnessed to do the important work of
reconstruction for economies battered not just by the world depression
of the 1930s and the wars of the 1940s but by the centuries of colonial
depredation?” (64, Prishad).
A possible answer to this question was Import Substitution
Industrialization (ISI), which sought to limit their nations importation
of goods from First or Second World countries with higher value-added,
by producing those products within their own nations. This ISI model was
accompanied by social investment in infrastructure and programs, and
nationalization of key industries. The ISI model had its own
contradictions, some of the most significant being that its main
intentions were to protect domestic industry, and that this in turn led
to the development of a national capitalist class detached from the
interests of national liberation and the history of that struggle. This
national capitalist class pushed the Third World into integration with
the First World through globalization, which eventually destroyed one of
the primary pillars of the Third World movement, economic autonomy.
The Bolivarian Revolution too has championed economic autonomy
through endogenous development and a move away from neoliberal policies.
The macro-level changes to the Venezuelan economy in many ways appear
similar to the economic policies of ISI, including social investment,
nationalization of key industries, price regulations and currency
control. The Venezuelan government has achieved significant reductions
in poverty and inequality, while increasing access to education and
health care, primarily through reforms like these. What is inspiring
about the Bolivarian Revolution and government is that they have
realized the limitations of ISI development, and have sought out a
social economy through endogenous development. Endogenous development
according to the Venezuelan government is “a means to achieving the social, cultural and economic
transformation of our societies, based on the revitalization of
traditions, respect for the environment, and equitable relation of
production” [2].
How endogenous development has manifested most significantly has been
through the creation of a social economy, which attempts to break down
capitalist work relations, and move away from capitalism towards
democratic and participatory economics.
The creation of a social economy in Venezuela has been a slow
process, which at first was primarily promoted through missions like
Vuelven Caras and later
Che Guevara that
sought the creation of cooperatives. Cooperatives were understood to be
a model that creates more equitable work environments, while promoting
the values of solidarity. The social economy is also present in various
worker-run and/or expropriated industries that have been granted legal
recognition or are in the process of doing so. Socialist Production
Enterprises (EPS) are another way the Bolivarian Revolution has sought
to socialize the economy, by integrating production into the structure
of the communal council. There are, however, some contradictions within
the social economy. One is that many of the cooperatives facilitated by
the government have not lived up to their expectations as real
alternatives to capitalist relations, either in the workplace or with
the community. Another is that the social economy has grown at a
sluggish pace, and is still not a significant portion of overall
economic activity. However, the very existence of a social economy is a
powerful example of alternatives to neoliberal capitalism, and the
growth or decline of this sector could very well determine the health of
the Bolivarian Revolution in the future.
Internationalist Nationalism
International nationalism was a theory for the
construction of nations within the Third World movement, which built
itself upon “the history of their struggle against colonialism, and
their program for the creation of justice” (Prishad, 12). International
nationalism manifested in the form of organizations like the G-77 and
the Non-Aligned Movement, while pushing to democratize the United
Nations, which was viewed as “a crucial forum for the Third World to
raise issues of colonial barbarity and use the General Assembly as a
medium to broadcast previously hidden atrocities before the world”
(Prishad, 103). Unfortunately over time nations within the Third World
movement began to move away from internationalist nationalism towards
cultural nationalism that emphasized linguistic, racial or religious
unity. This type of nationalism was deeply rooted in the pre-liberation
social forces, and developed symbiotically with globalization. Saudi
Arabia became a strong and sad example of cultural nationalism, which
developed symbiotically with globalization in order to “open [the]
economy to stateless, soulless corporations while blaming the failure of
well-being on religious, ethnic, sexual and other minorities” (275,
Prishad).
The Bolivarian Revolution is named after a revolutionary leader that
helped to liberate many Latin American countries from Spanish colonial
rule. The international nationalism of Venezuela today is not only
apparent through its various references to Simon Bolivar, who believed
in a
Gran Colombia and the political unity of Latin America.
The Venezuelan government since 1998 has built international relations
with regional countries that in many ways challenge the international
relations of the First World. The formation of the Bolivarian Alliance
for the Peoples of Our America’s Trade Agreement for the People
(ALBA-TCP) was initially a counter to the neoliberal Free Trade
Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) that has become focused on Latin
American and Caribbean integration. ALBA has already proven to” allow
for the creation of new forms of exchange and communication between
countries that were once isolated” [3]. These new forms of exchange
involve direct commodity trades such as oil for doctors with Cuba. In
regards to new forms of communication between countries, Venezuela has
established the regional television station Telesur, and launched the
communications satellite Simon Bolivar, while also opening up the space
for meetings between ALBA countries. Furthermore, Venezuela has been
participating in trade agreements and commodity exchanges with members
of the South American Nations (UNASUR). As a whole the organization is
seeking the creation of alternative economic structures between
participating nations, while basing its success on the well-being of its
people rather than by profitability.
A more recent development with significant historical precedence is
the formation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States
(CELAC) in December of 2011. CELAC was pushed for hard by Hugo Chavez,
and its first meeting was held in the capital of Venezuela, Caracas. The
United States and Canada are intentionally absent from CELAC, due to
their domination of previous organizations like the OAS. The official
stated objectives of the organization are to “to deepen integration and
political, social, economic, and cultural unity and to promote
sustainable development” [4]. Leaders such as Rafael Correa have
proposed an alternative Latin American human rights watch to combat the
plethora of U.S. funded human rights organizations. At the meeting,
Chavez also stated: “It’s an honour for Venezuela [to host the summit]… many talk about
the dream of Bolivar [for a united Latin America] but few talk about it
as a project, about actually putting it into practice. Today we’re
laying down the first stone, a fundamental one for the unity of Latin
America and for our real independence.” [4]
All of this certainly suggests that Latin America is moving further
towards regional integration, seeking cooperation economically and
politically to challenge the dominant First World of neoliberalism and
imperialism. Venezuela and the Bolivarian Revolution have been at the
forefront of this movement towards integration, through the formation of
ALBA, the hosting of and push for CELAC, and increasing cooperation
with UNASUR.
Conclusion
Within the context of a unipolar world order, the Bolivarian
Revolution has been a critically important accomplishment of popular
power. Its goals and values align with the historical struggles of the
Third World movement, but in an evolved form that has learned from
history. Venezuela today is living evidence that the historically
oppressed and excluded are the protagonists of history, and that their
struggle for political and economic justice has not ended.
Works Cited
Prishad, Vijay.
The Darker Nations. New York
: The New Press, 2007. Print
[2] Gobierno Bolivariano de Venezuela:
http://www.pdvsa.com/index.php?tpl=interface.en/design/readmenu.tpl.html&newsid_obj_id=1947&newsid_temas=92
[3] Tahina Ojeda Medina , 7 Years on from the Creation of the ALBA –TCP : Venezuela Analysis
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6972
[4] Ewan Robertson, CELAC Holds First Meeting of Triumvirate Countries, Designates Priorities: Venezuela analysis
http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/6746
June 26, 2012
