This article has a number of interesting items in it. One of them toward the end jumped out at me, because some rightwing wag recently posted that Chavez had announced that he is a Marxist. I don't care much if he did or didn't. I tend to think of Marxists as much too ideological for my taste. Whenever I read an avowed Marxist--or someone who thinks/writes like a Marxist--I often have the thought that they need to grow a vegetable garden or something--volunteer to teach at a nursery school? have a rip-roaring love affair? Something seems to be missing from their lives, they are so "in their heads," looking at the human race as a traffic engineer might look at a traffic grid, as something to be managed with straight lines. Traffic engineers love one-way streets, the ultimate insult to human choices. That's your Marxist--a one-way street. (I'm talking about some Marxist adherents, not Karl Marx himself.)
Chavez has never struck me as Marxist. He is a much too practical and human sort of leader--very slippy/slidey on the Marxist scale of things. So I was not inclined to believe it and I value accuracy. Did he say it or not? I recall that the source of that OP wasn't very reliable.
Anyway, here is what he actually said and the context in which he said it:
--------------------
"What makes the current state of global affairs historically unique, said Chavez, is that it represents “all crises united into one... it is much more than an economic crisis; it is a moral crisis, a crisis of values, that engulfs the entire world; it is a financial, food, environmental, and climate crisis.”
This crisis is also “a demonstration that not only is capitalism not the only alternative for humanity... twenty years have passed since the ‘end of history,’ and this crisis is a demonstration that capitalism and neo-liberalism constitute the most horrifying perversion!”
Venezuela’s construction of “21st Century Socialism,” commonly referred to as the “Bolivarian Revolution” in reference to Latin American independence hero Simon Bolivar, is responding to this crisis with an approach that is influenced by both Christianity and Marxism, said the president.
“This revolution, and I say this as a Christian, is profoundly Christian. Long live Christ the revolutionary redeemer!” Chavez exclaimed. “Christ was a socialist, I believe it. Who could imagine that Christ was capitalist? Christ was more radical than all of us combined.”
Chavez mentioned the influence of other heroes from Latin American history, including Cuba’s Jose Marti, Venezuela’s Francisco de Miranda, and Nicaragua’s Augusto Sandino, but he made special mention of German philosopher Karl Marx, saying, “Marxism is the most advanced proposal toward the world that Christ came to announce more than 2,000 years ago.”http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/5077(The is in the section called "Global Crisis" in the article, "Chávez’s Annual Address Includes Minimum Wage Hike, Maintenance of Social Spending in Venezuela".)
-----------------------------
Does that sound to you like Chavez is saying, "I am a Marxist"? He says he is first of all a Christian. Then he mentions several influences on the Bolivarian Revolution including Marx.
This opens up the fascinating topic of Latin America's unusual social composition--Catholic countries which are, right now, some of the most democratic and leftist countries in the western world. They have some of the most dinosauric, fascist Catholic prelates in the world, and some of the most radical leftist ones. "Liberation theology" was born in Latin America. A "Liberation theology" bishop is now president of Paraguay--a very influential man, close to all of the other leftist leaders, especially the most leftist ones--Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Chavez. A "Liberation theology" bishop in El Salvador--who was slain on his altar by US-supported rightwing death squads during the Reagan reign of horrors--is a martyr of the Left, as well as of the Church--as are a number of priests and nuns who died for their advocacy of the poor in Latin America.
Our country was founded by committed secularists, bound and determined to NEVER let religion be "established" as a function of government in the USA. So, unless we are familiar with and close to Latin Americans, we don't have much understanding of this mixing of religion, politics and government, in Latin America--and we are appalled when we see it here. How is it that a social movement like that led by President Evo Morales in Bolivia can, on the one hand, get a Constitution passed by the voters that dis-establishes the Catholic Church in Bolivia, yet, at the same time proceeds to implement Christian ideals of care for "the least of these"--the poor--in government policy, in close alliance with the former Catholic bishop, president of Paraguay, and of course with the Indigenous tribes of which Morales is a member?
Personally, I love these puzzles. And Chavez represents one of them: Christian beliefs about the poor, Bolivarian revolution, socialism--yet fostering a 10% economic growth rate, 2003 to 2008, with the most growth in the
private sector--and a tinge of Marxism, which is generally associated with atheism and materialism (belief in creating paradise here, not in the beyond).
------------------------
Another notable item in this article. Chavez was discussing the continued full funding of social programs, despite the worldwide recession, then:
"'There is an important, appreciable difference between the poor of the past and the poor who remain now. Now, they have food, medical care, and free medicines, Chavez said, mentioning the expansion of primary health care coverage to nearly 100% of the population. 'Some day, they will get out of their situation, through these transitory programs.'”This is the first I've read of Chavez saying that these "bootstrapping" (my word) programs are "transitory." That's a pretty interesting statement, because it means that the Chavez government is committed to business, industry, the marketplace, full employment and economic prosperity. The aim of the Chavez government and its many supporters is a decent, fulfilled life for all Venezuelans--not just stopgap measures to relieve suffering. I had assumed this before because of the Chavez government's strong commitment to education, and spectacular successes in that arena. They have also cut poverty in half and cut extreme poverty by 70%, but they clearly intend something more--a modern industrial/technical society, which requires business, industry and "the marketplace," but with a socialist conscience--full employment, spreading the wealth around and, of course, good care for the vulnerable (children, the sick, the elderly).
-----------------------
And one more thing: The article starts off about Chavez's announcement of a 25% increase in the minimum wage:
"In his annual address to the National Assembly, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced a 25% increase in the minimum wage this year, promised that funding to health care, education, and other anti-poverty programs will not be cut, and spoke of the influence of both Christianity and Marxism on his government’s policies.
“'In the year 2009 we declared ourselves in a position of economic defense, that we would do all we can to defend ourselves as a people, guarantee employment, protect salaries, social security, and social investment, which we define as of maximum priority,' said the president."----
This minimum wage increase was necessary because of the government's recent devaluation of the bolivar. Most analysts considered the devaluation necessary and a positive sign (of the government's confidence in the economy). But they did it at the risk of pushing up already high inflation (--a product of previous hot economic growth). Standard & Poor liked the devaluation. Where it's getting criticism is from the Left. Here is a leftist and Chavez supporter who doesn't like how the government handled the price increases (inflation) just after the devaluation and makes some good suggestions.
Currency Adjustment: Necessary, but is it Socialist?January 22nd 2010, by Gregory Wilpert - Correo del Orinoco International
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5094Wilpert seems to think that Chavez government is currently being more "marketplace" than "Marxist." And I tend to agree. They had to increase the minimum wage to keep up with inflation--or risk a worker revolt. But they were mainly pleasing the financial markets by the devaluation. And this speaks once again of the Chavez government's practicality--as opposed to ideology. As with the unfathomable mixture of Catholicism with right and left politics in Latin America, and also Indigenous religion and environmentalism into that mix (reverence for Mother Earth--'Pachamama'), the mixed socialist/capitalist economics we see in Latin America don't follow
any ideology. Pragmatic humanism is the phrase that comes to mind--dealing with what is, and trying to figure out what works, for the common good. I find the lack of ideology and the sense of experimentation in Venezuela and other leftist countries in Latin America refreshing--after watching the so-called 'debate' on health care here. Nothing like entrenched multinational insurance corporations for lunatic rigidity--a one-way street--all revenue into their pockets. They are the ideologists.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
