Fortnight Publications Ltd.

Chavez SocialismAuthor(s): Mark LanghammerSource: Fortnight, No. 450 (Feb., 2007), pp. 12-13Published by: Fortnight Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25561860 .

Accessed: 26/06/2014 05:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Fortnight Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Fortnight.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 131.238.16.30 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 05:46:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

D- Mark Langhammer / socialism

Mark Langhammer reports on a recent visit to Venezuela and describes the efforts of Hugo Chavez to build a new form of socialism and to defend it against US efforts to undermine the project.

Chavez socialism December's Venezuelan presidential election saw the incumbent President, Hugo Chavez re-elected with 62.89% of the vote. The poll represents a stunning blow to his main rival, Manuel Rosales and the US backed opposition.

In the week preceeding the election, Caracas was a lively city. Large street rallies were held, invariably good natured,

with a sea of red shirts, caps, berets, bandanas and wristbands - latin american salsa music to the fore, klaxons blaring and a carnival atmosphere prevailing. Touring a range of polling stations across Caracas - in both "Chavista" and opposition territories - the long queues at polling booths were orderly. Turn out was high at 75%. The electronic voting system worked well, with public transport free on election day, and the two day pre-poll electioneering embargo (and alcohol sales embargo), aimed at reducing street tensions, was largely respected.

Arriving in Caracas, immediate impressions were of a very poor society.

Basic shanties ("ranchos") clinging to the hill slopes, with poor or non existent water supplies, we passed broken down, or overheated cars leading to an untidy city thick with the fumes of diesel and oil. Like

Cuba, cars are kept on the road for 30 or more years and street mechanics abound. Some excellent modern infrastructure, such as the city Metro sits side by side third world living conditions. Without a comprehensive social welfare system, a vibrant street selling culture abounds. A

brand aware, fashion conscious and beautiful people, seemingly wedded to a globalist consumer culture is juxtaposed with a people and society asserting their independence, alive to the twin threats of

Yankee imperialism and globalist neo liberalism. Immediate thoughts were on how a country so rich in oil, gas, vast tourism and hydro-electric potential, a climate to support a lucrative coffee crop, cattle ranching, and food (particularly fruit) production could have so much of its population living in dire poverty?

Our delegation had a hectic programme of events, many laid on by Venezuela Solidarity, and by MvR (Movement for the Fifth Republic)

National Assembly member, Augusto Medina Montiel. We met senior economic official, Haiman El Troudi (a former chief of staff to Chavez) hearing his progressive ideas on the developing vision of "Socialism in the 21st Century" - neither state socialist nor neo liberal.

From literacy projects to preparation for Co-op employment schemes, from neighbourhood soup kitchens, to the Co Op food Mercals, from the Consejos Comunales (Community Councils) to the urban land committees, we saw that the 'Bolivarian Revolution' has activated a layer of the poorest in Venezuelan society.

The result is a popular, empowering and humane political vision - with a highly politicized, involved, active and increasingly organized civic society.

Encouragingly, it is also free of dogma or

'4 4

*??4 4

,44?

II r ?

?

hectoring ideological language. The Chavez factor is important.

Chavez is the son of two teachers, modestly raised. A former paratrooper, he was an effective lecturer in the national military college. A born teacher, his pedagogical style has been honed with his own radio and TV shows. He is highly effective and watchable communicator, at times evangelical, messianic, but equally caring. A man with a "big heart", someone who has touched a very deep well of need.

Chavez is from the socialist camp, but reaches way beyond factions and party formations. Before the establishment of

MVR (Movement for the Fifth Republic), a formal party structure was long eschewed by Chavez. He has long worked for civilian and military collaboration. In view of covert US efforts to destabilize the regime, that Chavez is a military man has helped secure robust counter intelligence efforts.

Chavez's appeal is primarily 'national' - or 'Bolivarian' He preaches national sovereignty, Latin American solidarity and unity and has broached the issue of a Latin American NATO and a single regional currency. He is pledged to work for a restoration of the 18th Century Gran

Columbia (Columbian, Venezuela, Ecuador unity), linking with Cuba, Argentina and Brazil to form a bulwark against neo-liberal and USA interference. It is the manner in which he has connected and activated previously disengaged and impoverished sections of society - the indigenous peoples, the companeros (small farmers, 10,000 of whom rode on horseback through Caracas last year in support of Chavez) and women in society - that has made the difference. Chavez is of mixed race and looks recognizably indigenous. A barely submerged racial hate amongst the wealthy Eurocentric opposition goes some way to explaining the fear felt for the Chavez administration.

In the 1960's and 70's the nominally democratic governments undertook significant infrastructural improvements, but the mass of a poor society were largely disengaged from political life. The economy slumped in the 80's and was subjected to brutal IMF backed neo-liberal reforms which sharply affected the poorest. From the 1989 "Caracazo" riots, Chavez's rise was linked to the gradual politicization and mobilization of a vast

PAGE 12 FORTNIGHT FEBRUARY 2007 MARK LANGHAMMER

This content downloaded from 131.238.16.30 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 05:46:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

'underclass' of the excluded. Following a failed coup in 1992 and a period in jail,

Chavez was elected as President in 1998. The core of Bolivarianism, following

the endorsement of the 1999 Constitution, is the two laws relating to land and hydrocarbons. The sovereign attitude to land and hydrocarbons adopted by the

Chavez administration is what appears to have offended the bourgeois interest. Agrarian land reform, for instance, has antagonised some rich landowners. It sets limits on the size of landholdings, taxes underutilised land and property, redistributes un-used government land and can vest fallow land (private or public) for the purpose of redistribution and development by food production co operatives. Much of the agrarian reforms are based on securing a strategic food supply in case of future embargo from the

US or others, underlined by food shortages over the 2002-03 bosses strike, or "lock out".

Movement towards socialism has been gradual and experiental - culminating in "Socialism for the 21st Century" in 2006 - a doctrine opposed to statism and totalitarianism. At its economic core is the notion of 'endogenous' growth - growth "from within", based on "the integral development of the human being". The range of social 'Missions' and grass roots community initiatives put empowerment, or "popular organisation" at the heart of Bolivarianism.

How "revolutionary" is the Bolivarian development? Although the means of production is still largely in private hands, strategic state enterprises, and significant numbers of smaller co-operatives are tilting the balance. "Hosting" principles aimed at civilizing the terms of entry for foreign direct investment are in train. A significant sphere of economic activity, not given over to the aim of private profit, has been created.

The state hasn't greatly interfered with private wealth but has been an active player in redistributing state wealth. Venezuela has, to a degree, changed the terms of "the market". Chavez has opposed the various US promoted "Free Trade" agreements and has instead entered a range of trading agreements based on reciprocity. Oil for doctors (with Cuba), oil for cows, and software (with Uruguay), oil for city technology in waste and traffic

management (with London) are examples. Similar agreements exist with Argentina, and Ecuador. This non market trade emphasizes solidarity and co-operation over competition. The extent or scale on which this could be developed remains an open question.

The system of government itself, freed up by massive oil revenues, has been able to avoid the sway and influence of private capital. The use of the military for civic purposes loosens the propensity of the state to regulate for capital. The "bottom up" popular involvement of citizenry has also helped to put "people first" rather than private capital.

There are dangers to the Bolivarian project, all linked to high levels of US investment in opposition political parties, trade unions, and civil society groupings under the guise of "promoting democracy" An attempted coup in 2002 failed, as did the December 2002 "bosses strike" or lock-out. The "recall" referendum of 2004 failed too, as did the 2005 boycott of the

National Assembly elections. Each assault on Venezuela's democracy has been met by increased politicization, and increased democratic support.

Key to US efforts have been the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), with a current annual budget to "promote democracy" in Venezuela of over $1,000,000, and USAID, which has a $5,000,000 budget. All funds support active opponents of the democratically elected government, with not one cent,

penny or Bolivar going to any group remotely sympathetic to the Chavez regime. US support for "promoting democracy" is a one way street.

A Miami based terrorist hub of self exiled Venezuelans has been richly tolerated, with the assassination of

National Prosecutor Daniel Anderson seen as the tip of a large iceberg. A recent assassination attempt on Chavez, by Columbian irregulars was foiled. How far the Bush administration is prepared to go to remove what Condaleeza Rice described as "a real problem" for the region remains to be seen.

The Bolivarian Revolution is a highly encouraging development, but a "work in progress." The spirit is one of popular involvement and localized organization.

Whilst high levels of active participation may dip over time, the humane philosophy underpinning the economic and social development of a "rich, poor" country is highly commendable. As an alternative to neo-liberalism, it is venturing in a positive direction, traveling in hope, content to face hurdles and 'events' in a pragmatic frame.

Venezuela hasn't broken free. The Bolivarian revolution is under constant threat. But it has chosen a very interesting and hopeful path.

This article is an extract from a longer report, which is available on request at

mlanghammer@ dsl.pipex. com

I

SOCIALISM FORTNIGHT FEBRUARY 2007 PAGE 13

This content downloaded from 131.238.16.30 on Thu, 26 Jun 2014 05:46:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions