Bolivarian Socialism, What Is It?

"Si saber no es un derecho, seguro será un izquierdo." ~Silvio Rodríguez

There is a definite trend in Latin America towards the left. Over the last decade governments have grown increasingly cold towards Washington D.C. One can simply look at a map of South America and find that only few country’s governments are still taking orders from Crawford, Texas: Colombia, Paraguay, Ecuador and Peru (though changes towards the left are possible in the upcoming elections in Ecuador and Peru). The most obvious inspirations for this tack away from the “Washington Concensus” (a policy of neoliberal economics between the U.S. and Latin America) have been the Bolivarian Revolution, Hugo Chavez and Venezuela. Some have called what is happening in Venezuela “progressive,” “populist,” “socialist,” “democratic social reform,” or have even called it “revolutionary,” but the most commonly held belief is that this swing to the left in Venezuela—as well as the rest of Latin America—is inspired primarily by a sentiment of anti-U.S. imperialism. From this belief stems the hope that an end to U.S. intervention and meddling in the region will precede an end to suffering. This is an unfortunate perception because it only gives us half of the picture.
Credit must be given to Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution for reinventing socialism for the 21st century and showing the rest of the world a way towards a more socially just future. Chavez’s unorthodox and open-minded approach to revolution is unique and deserves a more critical analysis. It should also be noted that the positive results and advancements of social justice are a result of the right of unfettered self-determination from inside Venezuela’s democratic government. In this case, as it is in all other, it was not due to the “benign intent” of white men in Washington making empty declarations of “freedom and democracy.” While the impact of the U.S. imperialism in Latin America over the last couple of centuries has been decidedly devastating, and an end to U.S. intervention would logically do a lot to reverse perpetual poverty and war, it should be recognized that the unprecedented achievements of the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela in such a short time is rooted—more than anything else—in the radical departure from capitalist/neoliberal economics and its decisive path towards a new kind of socialism.
This shift to the political left is marked by several major events over the last seven years, but it is undoubtedly highlighted by the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela. The ripple effect of the radical changes made by Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, is being felt throughout the Latin American region and has incited the wrath of the U.S. government who, according to Chavez, is planning his assassination and has even practiced war games (Operation Balboa) to invade Venezuela. There is little reason to doubt Chavez’s fears considering the U.S. government’s involvement in a failed coup attempt in April of 2002, as well as the recent fatwa issued by religio-politico Pat Robertson to “assassinate” the Venezuelan leader. What cannot be denied is that Venezuela’s revolutionary changes, radical social advances and its fierce anti-imperialist rhetoric has inspired popular social movements throughout Latin America and has bolstered other countries struggles to throw off their own chains of oppression.
Shortly after Chavez was elected, he advanced his social program by having 20,000 Cuban doctors brought into Venezuela to take care of people that had previously never seen a doctor in their lives. Chavez also brought in many more Cuban educators that began an unprecedented literacy program to empower the disaffected illiterate masses through education. He recognized, as did Castro, that if people are educated they can better defend themselves from the negative effects of anti-revolutionary propaganda. It is likely that Chavez received much of his inspiration from the Cuban Revolution and Castro himself. However, there is something that sets Chavez apart from previous revolutionary projects.
Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution continue to buck the traditional trends of popular socialist movements from the past. Primarily, Chavez has—as of yet—not followed in the dictatorial footsteps of Soviet Bolshevism, Chairman Mao or the Cuban Revolution. One can even observe the peculiar expressions of some doctrinaire socialists who express frustration that Chavez is not following “the prescriptions” of socialism. It is as though they learned nothing from the past, and are concerned only that Chavez is not confining himself to a strict socialist doctrine. As a result, they are unable to recognize that Chavez’s departure from their stagnate socialist doctrine may indeed be the reason the Bolivarian Revolution has been successful thus far.
Chavez has done several things that would unnerve the likes of Castro, Mao, or Stalin. For example, 1) Chavez has not limited free expression. Chavez still faces a vituperative media which consists of an ultra-conservative corporation that owns twelve channels that are fiercely anti-Chavez. Chavez has refused, up to this point, to put any restrictions on the media or any other form of peaceful demonstration. Additionally, 2) he has not stifled the electoral process, as many of his predecessors had. During a referendum vote to remove Chavez from office in August of 2004, international election observers called it a transparent and fair election of the highest standard—especially compared to the 2004 presidential elections of the U.S. (Chavez won that election with nearly 70% of the vote). 3) Another difference is that Chavez did not execute or even imprison the plotters of the coup from 2002. Finally, 4) Chavez has still not expropriated all of the land and natural resources of Venezuela (though the redistribution of land is an important aspect of the revolution), but he has seen to it that all of Venezuela’s wealth from its natural resources was immediately used to benefit Venezuelan people.
The most striking difference of Chavez and other revolutionary leaders has been his effort to “decentralize” the government. This completely breaks with tradition. Chavez has encouraged the growth of grassroots organizing in the form of local level cooperatives. He believes this will eliminate the “corrupt bureaucracy” by putting the decision and means of making local level changes in the hands of cooperatives. When Chavez was elected into office in 1999, there were 762 cooperatives in Venezuela. Today there are 83,769 cooperatives that are concerned with “local development.” The cooperative policies “are adjusted to their specific conditions and employing local resources, equity and human development are prioritized. The official interpretation of ‘endogenous development’ also emphasizes the importance of local, diversified and sustainable development, and the commitment to respect Venezuelans’ different cultures and identities.” By embracing this kind of grassroots organizing, Chavez is genuinely placing the “means of production” (the central tenet of socialism) in the hands of the masses. Chavez is truly decentralizing his government and preventing all kinds of potential corruption and the concentration of power that led to the atrocious oppression in the Soviet Union.
Chavez has also reached out to other, more radical movements in Latin America and within the Bolivarian Revolution, namely the Worker-Occupied Factory Movement. In October of this year, Venezuela hosted the first-ever WOFM conference in Caracas. Chavez spoke at this conference inviting these spontaneous anarchists to advance their movement. Chavez spoke of the "potential of the workers in our continent to break their chains and leave capitalism behind". Again, Chavez is showing himself to be unafraid of letting the social revolution spread its wings through his explicit endorsement of the WOFM. Critical observers, including radical economist Michael Albert (founder of South End Press and author of Parecon, Life After Capitalism), have commented that “the Bolivarian revolution is most ideologically clear […] regarding political democracy and political participation where it seems to be already committed to a well conceived, compelling and innovative institutional vision that outstrips what any other revolutionary project since the Spanish anarchists has held forth.” By including the most radical proponents of social revolution in the advancement of this most definite human trend (libertarian socialism), “Chavez appears to be a remarkable detonator of insights, himself moving leftward at a great pace.”
It may be giving Chavez too much credit, but he very well may recognize that every previous socialist project stalled as soon as clamps were put on the most radical elements of the social revolution that had demanded a further shift to the left. Typically this happens through the concentration of power, the limiting of debate and criticism within the left-wing itself, and finally, through the rooting out and persecution the avant-garde. Up until this point, Chavez has not reacted as such and this may indicate his appreciation that people cannot be asked to be patient forever and once they see the potential of radical socialism they will clamor. Chavez has, up to this point, encouraged an open-minded and limitless approach towards socialism and the result has been the historically unique and radical Bolivarian Revolution.

Venezuela, Bolivarian Revolution, and Chavez

"The trust of the people in their leaders reflects the trust the leaders have in the people." --Paulo Freire


The social improvements made in Venezuela over the last six years need to be thoroughly investigated and then appropriately recognized. Bringing more attention to the achievements of this "socialist" revolution are essential for the greater struggle for social justice in our world. It is easy to be cynical about the usually predictable reaction many Americans have towards socialism. For instance, most can't accept fact that "socialism" is capable of rewarding the widest section of any society with more equality, freedom and dignity than capitalism. (Furthermore, the material comforts that Americans have experienced through the capitalism of the U.S. has always come at a very high cost for masses of people who are intentionally obscured without a voice). However, I have also found that many non-socialist Americans are presently poised to listen because of growing dissatisfaction, the relentless campaigns of socialists around the world, and the shining examples being provided in countries such as Venezuela and Cuba. Many Americans are so disaffected by the politics and economic reality within the U.S. that such a discussion at this point in time is more possible than usual. In order to help translate the outrage masses of Americans feel towards the reality that they can't get basic health care, a dignifying job with a dignifying wage, etc., revolutionary leaders and educators must begin with what Paulo Freire describes as an essential faith that people will sense their oppression and work to overthrow it. Such faith is "essential" since most people will live up to the expectations the leaders have of them. Freire said that we must help people understand that their "ontological vocation is to become more fully human," but the first step is to exhibit a faith in people that they are capable of realizing such an existence. Finally, the quesiton remains as to how to counter the negative propaganda that Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution face in order to amplify the message of positive gains being made by --gasp-- socialism! How do we get those Americans that are "too" comfortable to listen?

While it may be more effective to relate working class struggles here to the improved dignity experienced by peasants and working class of Venezuela, what issues are the middle class of the U.S. likely to be sensitive to in order to improve their hearing? I recently got into a discussion with a teacher from a very conservative area of Montana that began as a discussion of the overly-punitive nature of our schools and led to a full-blown discussion of Socialism. What I found was that this teacher was very intrigued and inquisitive about alternatives to tried, tested and failed attempts of market principles to solve the problems of equality in the U.S. What else can revolutionary leaders do to improve their chances of reaching out to more people? Interestingly enough, I have found that my family is the most difficult set of people to communicate these seemingly obvious facts about socialism to despite their own tendency towards socialist thinking.

Is it easier to get people to listen to the concrete examples emerging from Venezuela and be sensitive to the overuse of terms such as socialism bearing in mind the conditioning most Americans have towards "socialism"? That is, should we let Venezuela, Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution's positive gains speak for themselves and then set the hook that what is happening down there is socialist? As an educator, finding points of access to my students is as important as any information and evidence I have compiled. I find this access through listening which is not always easy in public education that demands so much rote assessment. But I tend to agree with Freire that as my faith in my students wanes, so does their faith that they can change anything in their future. The result is inevitably that they stop caring.

How do we talk about the growing socialist movements of the world? What else beyond maintaining faith in people would Paulo Freire have to say?

Self-Managed Behavior vs. Typical Behavior Plans

Morality cannot really be imposed on a child, but must instead arise out of his/her own trials and tribulations. Likewise, this principle applies to behavior. A child must not be expected to intrinsically appreciate “appropriate” behavior that they have not manifested to be “appropriate” from within themselves. Building “Social Contracts” with peers through trial and error, while at the same time providing an emotionally safe environment to discuss what is and is not working, are essential needs for fostering the growth of intrinsically-motivated children. Therefore, formulaic behavior management plans employed by public schools throughout this country must be scraped onto the heap of Skinnerian Behaviorism that has only led to failed attempts to control and “manage” human lives. Conversely, “self-management” is logically the only approach to child-rearing and classroom management to have any long-term positive effect since it is generated from within; and at the same time, a child/student’s self-selection of an “appropriate” behavior is clearly the least coercive and least harmful, hence, the most desirable. Finally, only self-management can claim a genuine belief in the much-hoped-for goal of educating youth to be “self-reliant, independent, and critical-thinking.” It is necessary to state that there are instances when the assertion of authority is legitimate and not capricious: SAFETY. Such cases need only be discussed within context. If a child were about to run out into a street it is easy to prove that the assertion of authority was not arbitrary but legitimate.

When is the Resort to Violence Acceptable?

“A new society rises out of the actions that are taken to form it…” Noam Chomsky

Blogging has helped me grow. Through an extended debate on my last post concerning the moral validity of violence as a means to achieve revolutionary hopes, I was provoked and challenged by thoughtful bloggers that contributed to the debate until I finally stumbled upon a parallel debate on violence that Noam Chomsky had with Hannah Arendt and Susan Sontag, et. al. The debate truly opened my eyes and expanded my thinking on the moral dilemma of violence within a revolution. Although a perfect answer remains elusive even to the likes of these brilliant intellectuals, the argument provided by Noam Chomsky is the most rational discussion I have ever encountered on the topic. I strongly encourage a thorough read of this debate and would welcome any further discussion on this complex issue.

To read this debate, go to:
http://www.chomsky.info/debates/19671215.htm

Don't Listen to Corporate Media

Chris Matthews called violent protestors in Argentina "idiotic". He called them idiots for destroying their "own" town. Matthews is not alone in such short-sightedness. Most of the mainstream media portray corporate property as somehow beneficial to the general public. In fact, most Americans would likely agree with this point of view despite reality. That is, we somehow stumble blindly through life believing "our towns" belong to us. However, look closely at what these "idiots" were destroying: multinational banks, Burger King, McDonalds, etc.

The "piqueteros" of Argentina (the large majority of the violent protestors) have been struggling since the dramatic collapse of the Argentine economy in December 2001. Their means of protest became control of the streets and highways with blockades. Through these blockades they have been able to pressure their government to face problems that capitalism and neoliberal institutions have caused. they have forced an otherwise moderate politician in Nestor Kirchner to respond to their pressure. However, these protests also represented an opportunity for the "piqueteros" to step up the pressure with an international audience watching.

To the "piqueteros" the Fourth Summit of the Americas (Mar de Plata, Argentina 11/04-11/06) represents everything that has gone wrong in Argentina and Latin America in a "race to the bottom." Noting the outrage most Latin Americans feel towards the neoliberal plans that emerge from these summits and that has led to widespread increases in poverty, it is not hard to understand these riots. What's more, the property these Argentines are destroying is definitely not theirs. In fact, such property is an affront to the working class around the globe. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon reminds us that "property is theft." So where Chris Matthews sees the breaking of corporate glass as "idiotic", I say it is a necessary step towards recognizing the negative effects of corporate greed. We can only hope that this is the start of an ever-intensifying pressure on the glass-ceiling of capitalism.