Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Quiet Revolution: Venezuelans Experiment with Participatory Democracy
Selling goods to passersby on the street, Jenny Caraballo describes her local communal council. "Some of our members are homemakers who want their community to be pretty," Caraballo says while trying to make eye contact with potential clients in 23 de Enero, a barrio popular that is one of many rough areas in Caracas, Venezuela.
Members of the 13 de Abril communal council, located in the worker residential district 23 de Enero in Caracas, deliberate over and plan community development projects. (Photo courtesy of Sílvia Leindecker) The balmy weather southwest of Caracas, in the state of Táchira, does
not stop Pedro Hernandez, 77, from playing chess with his retired
friends in San Crist-bal's city square. "Before, the government didn't
help the people," he says. "Now they give us benefits. "Now there is
culture, dance and programs free to the public and organized by our
communal council." Hernandez does his part by organizing chess
tournaments.
And in the picturesque mountain town of Merida, Alidio Sosa says: "The councils are a symbol of how the old parties are dead and won't ever come back-the parties of the past never concerned themselves with the community."
Hugo Chávez, Venezuela's megalomaniac president who has spearheaded the country's Bolivarian revolution and garnered so much attention, is not the only one shaking up the country's political system. A community-based revolution is underway in Venezuela. Ordinary people all over are changing how their communities are governed.
In the past four years, hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans have been organizing tens of thousands of consejos comunales (communal councils). Each council is composed of about 150 families in urban areas, while in rural and indigenous areas, each council is composed of 20 and 10 families, respectively. The councils are involved in everything from road building and maintenance to cultural activities and events, housing improvements, and providing basic services like water and electricity-all while struggling for the official government recognition that provides the opportunity to get funding for their community projects.
Communal councils were modeled after participatory democracy in Kerala, India, and community budgeting practices pioneered in Porto Alegre, Brazil. In Kerala, citizens play an important role in conceiving and implementing development projects at the local level. Since 1989, Porto Alegre has successfully run a system of decentralized planning whereby citizens determine local spending priorities through a series of public meetings. Communal councils in Venezuela embody both of these municipal participatory reforms.
The councils are both Chávista and anti-Chávista; working-class and oligarchical. The former mayor of Carora, Julio Chávez, told Michael Albert of Z-Net and Greg Wilpert of Venezuela Analysis in September 2008:
The communal councils are an expression of the territory where people live, and within that area they are the natural leadership. In some communal councils, our candidates, ones supporting the revolution, were not elected, but instead anti-Chávistas were elected. In our area there is a communal council that belongs to the oligarchy, essentially. They aren't with us, but they have invited us to meetings where we discuss their concerns.
The paperwork required to start and maintain a council is one of the greatest obstacles to communal council organizing. Completion of a multi-step process, including conducting a census and numerous elections, is required. Despite these complexities, councils have taken on government bureaucracy by creating a participatory model of governance that bypasses large institutions and municipal officials.
Local officials and bureaucrats feel threatened by this growing form of self-governance, which is fueled by billions of dollars from the central government. Of the many national Bolivarian social projects, the communal councils have arguably become the most popular and successful innovations of the Chávez administration.
Beyond bureaucracy
Most of Venezuela's workforce is divided between an informal economy, in which people hawk consumer goods in the street, and the government agencies connected to the nationalized petroleum industry, which accounts for more than half of government revenue and about 90 percent of the country's exports. Given the large amount of funding state agencies receive based on petro-dollars and the under-employment outside the public sector, government bodies have strong incentives to prolong their own existence. This breeds an Orwellian bureaucracy of sorts, which roils the Venezuelan public.
Communal councils are an effort to combat Venezuela's bureaucratic red tape and the corruption related to it. But they are also the latest manifestation of Venezuela's long tradition of community activism and social struggle.
The councils were not immediately successful, given the challenges inherent to community organizing. The first attempt at participatory democratic reform was the 2001 institution of Bolivarian Circles. These neighborhood councils were largely viewed as electoral organizing arms of the Chávez administration.
Local Public Planning Councils (CLPPs) were next, but elected council leaders found it difficult to rub elbows with powerful public officials while representing districts which contained, in some cases, upwards of 1 million people. By 2005, most CLPPs were deadlocked and ineffective.
The third try has been the charm. Communal councils sprung up across the country in the wake of National Assembly legislation in November 2006. Their success is attributed to their more decentralized and democratic structure-each council is run by and serves a relatively small number of people.
Direct inspiration for the Law of Communal Councils was drawn from Cumaná, a coastal state capital located some 250 miles northeast of Caracas. In Cumaná, communal councils had been operating successfully because citizens were comfortable deliberating in small, community-oriented bodies. The Cumaná experience was translated into a national success story, as the number of officially sanctioned communal councils rose from about 21,000 in 2007 to 30,179 by 2009, with some 5,000 more slated for formation.
This organizing frenzy was accompanied by significant federal funding. Starting at $1.5 billion in 2006, funding for communal councils increased to $5 billion by 2007. That same year, laws governing the distribution of petroleum revenues were modified so that 50 percent of funds-the portion previously directed to state and municipal governments-went to communal councils.
Despite the abundance of financing, legislation limits each council to project spending caps of between about $14,000 and $28,000. The caps mean projects can do little more than pave a new road, so councils frequently depend on volunteer labor, a problem for impoverished communities. Still, councils are often able to rely on volunteers due to the councils' popularity. A lack of competitive contracts for council work has also been a source of criticism from opponents of the government.
An ‘alternative economy'?
New laws passed by the National Assembly since November 2009 have helped councils expand their focus into the economic sphere. According to the legislation, councils should now promote new forms of "social property, based on the potentialities of their community," through a tax-exempt "social, popular, and alternative economy."
Since the councils were created in part to combat bureaucracy, some reforms aim to streamline council finances and prevent corruption. Financial management of the councils was transferred from communal banks to finance commissions with elected council administrators, and recall measures were instituted for council spokespersons (elected citizens who manage the councils). Ostensibly, these measures grant more financial autonomy and independence from meddling local officials, who often feel threatened by or are in conflict with the councils.
In May 2010, about 15,000 elected spokespeople participated in workshops-conducted by the government's Foundation for Development and Promotion of Communal Power-on how to implement the new reforms.
Socialist communes created through additional federal initiatives since last November represent an effort to strengthen councils and expand their scope into the economic realm. As of February 2010, more than 184 communes-each of which coordinates between various councils around the country-were being organized to help councils focus on "social-productive" projects and provide Venezuelans with access to cheaper goods. These projects include growing medicinal and agricultural plants in the coastal state of Miranda, and operating nonprofit arepa shops, which sell food in Caracas at half the market price. Other initiatives take advantage of cheap goods produced or distributed by certain communes.
An experiment evolves
"Before, neighborhood associations took on the responsibilities of many of the community's needs," says Caraballo, the community activist in Caracas. "Now, the communal council does much of the same work, but with the financial support of the government-giving us more resources to do the things we need to do."
As with any experiment in participatory democracy, the councils are not perfect. Dedicated citizen activists are often overburdened with what arguably should be governmental responsibilities. In addition, much of Venezuela's most important communal council work is being done by un- or under-employed volunteers often mired in poverty.
Others are concerned that citizens still lack a way, other than elected officials, to be part of higher-level government decisions that impact their lives. Some Venezuelans ask: Why can't councils also have a say over foreign, macroeconomic and national policies that impact their communities?
Lofty pronouncements about communal councils from federal officials abound. Chávez himself has declared the councils to be "the great motors of the new era of the Revolution," "a basic cell of the future society," and "fundamental ... for revolutionary democracy." Yet questions remain about the future role of councils in larger political and economic spheres.
If they continue to push for and realize the ambitious aim of assuming the powers of bloated, sometimes corrupt, bureaucracies, they could perhaps overtake local government's function altogether.
Regardless of how they evolve, if local citizens control the future of the councils, they will surely remain an important part of the far-reaching political changes that have reshaped Venezuela during the last decade.



45 Comments so far
Show All"Hugo Chávez, Venezuela's megalomaniac president who has spearheaded the country's Bolivarian revolution and garnered so much attention, is not the only one shaking up the country's political system. A community-based revolution is underway in Venezuela. Ordinary people all over are changing how their communities are governed."
Megalomaniac my ass! Chavez is once again smeared by the US press with not one scintilla of evidence offered to support this libel.
Furthermore, the idea that these community organizations are something that just happened to spring up, with nothing to do with Chavez's government and policies, is simply absurd and excruciatingly ignorant.
Of course Chavez is behind organizing a participatory democracy in Venezuela. This month's Monthly Review has a great article on what this move is all about. Read the article "Latin America & Twenty-First Century Socialism: Inventing to Avoid Mistakes".
http://monthlyreview.org/
Thanks, Struggle, for the link!
Settle down dude. No smeaing by the US here. Community organizing is something you should get into. I do it and it's great. Can't keep obsessing over Washington 24/7/365.
Yes, 4thefuture. Hard to believe that a supposedly progressive publication like In These Times falls into the rhetorical sewer of the MSM.
The community-based revolution was engineered in large measure by Chávez's government, which supports and nurtures it as an alternative to the comprador mentality that still permeates much of the middle class and the oligarchy that owns most of the media and considerable sectors of the economy. Worker-run factories and farms are to be the backbone of the economy and self-sufficiency.
I'm shocked that In These Times would parrot those anti-Chavez lines.
"The community-based revolution was engineered in large measure by Chávez's government, which supports and nurtures it as an alternative to the comprador mentality that still permeates much of the middle class and the oligarchy that owns most of the media and considerable sectors of the economy. Worker-run factories and farms are to be the backbone of the economy and self-sufficiency.
I'm shocked that In These Times would parrot those anti-Chavez lines."
Could you explain how these are "anti-Chavez lines"?
Local participation always makes a difference. I do it and I like it. Can't worry too much about Washington alone 24/7/365/4.
Imagine a law in the US that, recognising the power of technology to disconnect physical limits from logical operations, says everyone can elect to represent themselves, or can delegate their representation to anyone they like, as long as the prospective delegate agrees.
What kinds of changes would that produce?
I have not been a fan of Chavez and did not like what I saw when I was there a couple of years ago. But if this is true and the funding for these councils is coming from the central government, if he is still trying to make them successful, if he can indeed pull the power from the rich few, I am going to have to rethink my view of Hugo.
Struggle has a great link below to an article about this and this "In These Times" article seems to indicate real progress which was not there before.
Funny that an anti-socialist like yourself would approve of participartory councils.
In the past, Socialism was hijacked by by power-hungry heirarchies who largely held onto their power _only_ becasue of the continuous state-of-war-and-economic-war the Capitalists would wage against them.
But, Socialism, and Communism, have always been about the devolution of governamce to participatory community councils and councils of workers who control the productive enterprises. What do you think the Russian word "soviet" means? And absent the brutal wars and economic wars wages on it by the Capitalists, it can actually start to take on this libertarian participatory form.
I'm not a socialist. I have never seen the system work one single time as an economic system. I have yet to see it work as a social syatem either unless supported by a capitalist (regulated) economic system as in Europe.
That said, that does not make me in any way an anti-socialist. I know exactly what "soviet" means, my historical knowledge is fairly good and History was what one of my degree's is in.
In fact I find it strange that you think I'm an anti-socialist.
For all I know Socialism may end up working for Venezuela, just because something hasn't worked, doesn't mean it can't.
You know, arguments like you guys are having (and right out in public) are really not the thing...you know, socially acceptable...in this country at this time. I'm sure the FBI would classify you both subversive and put you both on the no-fly-no-walk list. Just a friendly word of caution.
Thanks for the word of warning. But we are not "arguing", we are "enlightening" each other. World of difference!! Is that your door or mine Sabo?
I'd really prefer that you would have replied to my points. I explained to you why "socialism" apears to have not worked, as well as what actual socialism - particularly the Anarcho syndicalist and libertarian versions - would look like.
"I explained to you why "socialism" apears to have not worked, as well as what actual socialism - particularly the Anarcho syndicalist and libertarian versions - would look like"
Exactly. And that is simply my point. My only point. Socialism has not worked anywhere its been tried. For whatever reasons people want to assign to it...say the Soviets hi-jacked it in Russia, you could argue that Socialism has that exact flaw.
But it matters little to me why it hasn't worked, its the simplr factr that it has not. Thats my only point.
Past that, I would say that I don't expect it will work because of human nature. Look at the Communes of the 60's and 70's here, every one ended for the same reasons. Some weren't carrying their share and some wanted to run things themselves. I believe you need a change in human nature for them to work.
"particularly the Anarcho syndicalist and libertarian versions - would look like".
Would look like. Possibly. But my point is that a capitalist economy and there are different versions, has worked, demonstrably worked and produced the highest standard of living in the world, no matter the carps about it. Even our poor are envied.
"I'm not a socialist. I have never seen the system work one single time as an economic system."
In the 25 years or so following WWII in the West , social democrats were in charge of most governments in the West. Mass social movements and unions were extremely strong and in some cases (like Sweden in the mid 1970's) they actually pushed for entirely replacing capitalism, not making it more humane with large bits of socialism thrown in. THAT period is better than the neo-liberal/neo-classical horror show that followed. Lower marginal tax rates, lower corporate tax rates, trade and financial liberalization, the destruction of unions, handing over state functions to private corporations, etc. What have been the effects? Stagnating or declining wages for the majority of the country, much slower (progressively slower in fact) growth, inequality has exploded, the country has been de-industrialized, amongst other things. In other words, an across the board disaster. Social democracy did the West well. Socialism has also worked well in the developing countries as well, relative to capitalism. Cuba is not a paradise, it has its own problems, but look at Cuba's educational system, health care system, bio-tech industry and things like malnutrition and starvation (the lowest in Latin America) and they compare well compared to the "capitalist" basket cases in the developing world, especially in the region.
Capitalism does not "work" in developing countries. It has NOT lead to development, poor countries that have taken the capitalist path are still exporting mainly (a few, with little to no diversity) raw materials, and the terms of trade relative to industrial products doesn't allow them to ever increase their living standards. The are still dominated and controlled by international finance, and have no economic sovereignty. When they've moved towards a "free market" they've seen inequality explode, environmental destruction grow and they've seen their growth rates slow. Capitalism has "worked" for a handful of countries, a handful of people in the developing countries and global capital (especially financial capital). It hasn't even done what Marx expected it to, which is to lead to economic development that he thought would be the basis of socialism.
If you want to know how capitalism "works" and who it works for, study what happened in France when Mitterrand was first elected and tried to implement policies that French voters wanted but what international finance didn't. The virtual senate of finance vetoed what the people of France wanted, there was a U turn and the rest is history.
I could have sworn, by the way, that I gave you a bunch of links before on Venezuela, and how the "social economy" works there. If not, here you go (the second on the "social economy" is an interesting podcast by economist Robin Hahnel, who talked about some of the modern history of socialism):
http://www.zcommunications.org/venezuela-not-what-you-think-by-robin-hahnel
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=15741671350
Here's something on Venezuela's community run media (as ours is stolen in front of our eyes):
http://www.zcommunications.org/venezuelan-community-media-by-liz-migliorelli
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5282
You are arguing that Capitalism doesn't work for the most part as near as I can tell.
There isn't a Social democracy afloat that does not or has not depended on a capatilist economy. Period. At no time were the economies in western Europe Socialist. Not ever. The economies that were? Eastern. I hope you aren't arguing they were successful.
As near as I can tell, you are arguing that after WW2 the countries of Western Europe wanted to go straight socialist but were prevented by someone in someway, otherwise threy would be successful Socialist countries today?
"THAT period is better than the neo-liberal/neo-classical horror show that followed. Lower marginal tax rates, lower corporate tax rates, trade and financial liberalization, the destruction of unions, handing over state functions to private corporations, etc. What have been the effects? Stagnating or declining wages for the majority of the country, much slower (progressively slower in fact) growth, inequality has exploded, the country has been de-industrialized, amongst other things. In other words, an across the board disaster"
This the way it reads in context is referring to Western Europe. Looks more like the attack on us. Clarify please.
All the wonderful measurements of Cuba you point to would indeed make it a Paradise, its one of those "The trains run on time arguments" I'm sorry but if Cubas were so wonderful, people would be trying to get there in herds. They are not. What they are doinhg is trying to get out. Cuba is not a successs because it is still a military dictatorship, not a Socialist country.
By the way, I know better than to trust our governments figures, I don't know why you'd want me to believe theirs.
You did. And they had the local councils when I was there, even in the mountains, they simply didn't work. Nor did I see many of the things claimed in those links. I grant you a small rural area and a few days in the city are not defining, but what I saw and what I heard did not jibe. They also claimed there were no press gangs at work either, but I can tell you there were.
Just because I argue that the capitalist system has worked well in the past here and other countries and that I simply have never seen a successful Socialist country, doesn't mean for one moment that I tout it for developing countries or anyone else. It requires a framework.
One of the biggest problems I have posting here is that If I am negative on something, people automatically assume that means I favor the opposite or would never favor the same thing I just said no to under different circumstances or different places.
There are some like you here that talk about things in full terms, but many others that are so simplistic, even naive in their thinking, its hard to speak to them.
In any case could you clarify your first paragraph for me a bit more. Maybe I'm just slow.
There isn't a Social democracy afloat that does not or has not depended on a capatilist economy.
------------------------------------
I think you have it backwards, in much the same way slaveowners used to say that slaves "depended on" being owned -- that Black people didn't have the nous to make it on their own. The reality, of course, was the reverse: the slaveowners depended on the work of the people they held in slavery, who were *prevented* from making it on their own even after Emancipation.
A similar thesis was (you'll perhaps remember) advanced about women right up into the '70s: women weren't allowed certain jobs (which at various times included managing our own affairs, voting, owning property, doing "men's work", etc) because we supposedly "couldn't" perform them, and the evidence for our incapacity was that few or none of us could show successful performance of such jobs. The circularity of the "argument" was of course studiously ignored.
Semi-socialist nations have never "depended on" Capitalist economies, they've always been prevented from having anything else. The Swedes very nearly changed that in the '70s, but funked the job at the last moment, the Capitalist FUD barrage having been successful in undermining their will. I daresay the majority regret that failure now.
800M people the world around--about 1 person in 7--voluntarily choose socialism in everyday life despite the pressure from Capitalism to abandon it. That should tell you something.
"800M people the world around--about 1 person in 7--voluntarily choose socialism "
What about the other 6?
" they've always been prevented from having anything else."
Its an argument I've certainly heard before, but I never hear who prevented them from doing it.
Yes I remember the silly arguments about womens limitations. I always used the bottom against the wall and stretch out the chair demo...sure made a lot of guys look the fools they were in insisting there was nothing women could do that they couldn't do better...heh-heh. Made a few bucks too!!
I have to say that if it were an answer, someone would have made it work, somewhere, somehow. Socialism promises to take care of you if you agree to accept its rules and dictates. Thats very attractive to many people. But where are these 800 million that are being supported by socialist economies? Which countries do they live in?
Lets be careful and make sure you understand I'm speaking of the economic system, not a capitalist social society. And a regulated capitalist system with oversight and laws, not what we have now.
I would say if it continues as it is now and I'm wrong about the American people, if they don't throw the slime out of our country and restore the framework we had,if we don't stop our own government from attacking us, I may go Socialist myself and emigrate. Our Nation will be no more.
"There isn't a Social democracy afloat that does not or has not depended on a capatilist economy. Period."
Excuse me, but capitalism, as I pointed out, has NEVER worked when left to itself. It hasn't. It also has not benefited anything more than a minority of the world's population and countries. Before universal health care, before trade unions gained the rights they have, before universal public education, before publicly funded and administered pensions, before true welfare programs (if you are interested in the pre-social democratic social programs within the capitalist economy you should look up an economist named Karl Polanyi, particularly his book called "The Great Transformation". In it he talks about he Speenhamland and the Poor Laws in England and how horribly ineffective they were, compare that to what followed under socialist leadership), all gained by the left and socialists, capitalism was a brutal, inhumane system. The reforms instituted by social democrats were finally allowed because enlightened capitalists realized that if they didn't implement these types of reforms far more radical changes would have been implemented. You can SAY that social democracy relied on capitalism, or you can argue that it saved capitalism, especially in countries where the left was and is VERY powerful and where the system would have imploded on itself due to its own contradictions (as it is doing now and has been doing in slow motion in this country over the last 40 or so years, in Europe since at least the Maastricht Treaty).
Besides, capitalism has succeeded for things that have nothing to do with capitalism and "free markets". Colonialism and imperialism (for example Britain destroying India's, Egypt's modern Bangladesh's industrial base for fear of competition a few centuries ago), slavery, the forced debt peonage of IMF/World Bank/BIS policies has nothing to do with the capitalism, the unfair terms of trade between developing and rich countries, monopolies and oligopolies, the reliance on making others pay for the costs that capitalists create (especially regarding the environment), economists call these costs externalities, none of this has anything to do with capitalism, especially the capitalism they teach in economics departments across the country. They are either authoritarian violence or pro-rentier policies that have far more to do with feudalism than anything else.
There is a South Korean economist named Ha Joon Chang that has written numerous books about exactly what policies have and haven't lead to development. He said that TWO countries could have said to have developed along traditional capitalist/free market lines, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Every other country, and especially the US and Britain, developed with MASSIVE state intervention. The US was the most protectionist country in the world, by a mile, from the early 19th century until about WWII, Britain was second. Most of our technological advances have come out of the largest socialist institution in the world, the US military. Chang's homeland was and is called "capitalist", but in practice it wasn't much different than the old USSR. State control and planning of the economy, strong foreign ownership rules, the strongest capital controls in the world (was actually a crime punishable by death to export capital at one time), no respect at all for intellectual property rights, the state controlled and helped run the banks and this happened with a one party state. They copied Japan, who did the same. Again, the movement away from these policies has not in any way benefited the majority of people.
"All the wonderful measurements of Cuba you point to would indeed make it a Paradise"
You could, if you played dumb and pretended to not get my obvious point, even if I prefaced what I said by saying that Cuba had its own problems and wasn't perfect.
"What they are doinhg is trying to get out."
Interesting. Say, how many Mexicans are trying to leave capitalist Mexico for the US? Mexican immigration has grown considerably since their move towards a "free market" in 1985, it has exploded since NAFTA, due to the horrible effects of neo-classical economics in practice. El Salvadorians? How about Haitians? Why do so many people from Turkey go to Germany? Why do so many Palestinians go to Israel looking for work? Why do so many people flee to South Africa from surrounding countries? Could it have more to do with the lack of development of those countries, could it have to do with the connection between our (the West's) wealth and their poverty (poor countries whether they be socialist, capitalist, or something else)? Feel free to compare Cuba's human rights, which have improved considerably since the 1970's by the way, to the US's friends in the region, Colombia, Mexico, Peru and Honduras. As I said, Cuba does well in many ways in comparison to other developing countries, especially in the region. If you want to criticize some of its human rights violations that is ok, as long as you apply a uniform standard and realize that countries close to the US are FAR worse and our press says nothing about them. They also have gotten worse over time while Cuba's has improved.
"As near as I can tell, you are arguing that after WW2 the countries of Western Europe wanted to go straight socialist"
No, that is not at all what I said. I said something that is not arguable. That the social democratic period of Europe was far better than the "free market" period that has followed and I said SOME countries in Europe like Sweden debated whether or not to completely do away with capitalism during this period, which they did. I also asked you to comment on what the financial capitalists did to France when Mitterand was elected. It really is telling, if you don't know the background.
"This the way it reads in context is referring to Western Europe"
Tell that to Eastern Europe then please. Tell Latvia, Poland and the rest how wonderful the post-communist period has been. Whatever you want to say about the communist period, which was brutal, you could not say that that what has followed has improved those people's lives. In numerous ways it has gotten considerably worse. Talk about how bad social democracy is, and how wonderful "capitalist" (ie pro-financial) reforms are to Iceland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and the UK. Tell that to Latin America, who have pulled themselves out of their neo-liberal nightmare by ignoring our economic advice.
Here's an article about post-communist Eastern Europe by a great economist, Michael Hudson:
http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson02152010.html
Here's an article, if you're interested, by the same economist called "Neoliberalism and the Counter-Enlightenment", articulating what I'm saying much better than I am:
http://michael-hudson.com/2010/05/neoliberalism-and-the-counter-enlightenment/
"I simply have never seen a successful Socialist country"
There are many schools of socialism, but one of the fundamentals is the social ownership of the means of production. In other words, the workers own the means of production. That hasn't existed on an economy wide scale ever. It has been dominant many times, and it HAS worked, which I did point out, but all economies are mixed.
That goes for "capitalism". Have any idea what the most economists teach "capitalism" is? Most economic theorems that prove how efficient and wonderful capitalism is are based on un-realistic assumptions. They assume that there is "perfect information" (which is never the case), or "perfect competition" (which is never present), that externalities aren't dominant (they are), that transactions costs are always low (which they aren't), that entry and exit costs are low (which they usually aren't), amongst other things, assuming THAT the free market is...
Just garbage. The free market economics that is used to justify most capitalist policies in the last few decades have no basis in reality and have been a disaster.
All economies to this point have been mixed. However, it is not arguable, the periods where countries in the West were closer to "socialism" was much better than the periods where policy was closer to a "capitalism". Same goes for most every other country. I lived in China for a year and a half. I traveled around the country, taught and talked to endless amounts of people. All of them said that their reforms were a mixed bag. The environmental destruction has been massive and is unsustainable, the social dislocation is not something that jives well with Chinese people (neither is the explosion in inequality), the differences in wealth between the coastal regions and big cities and inner China and the countryside is staggering. The government even admitted that there were over 60,000 protests and riots a few years ago due to governmental policy and the government also said that most of those riots are a result of the market reforms. The rural health care system has been severely harmed as has education, since the market reforms. I lived near Hong Kong, so many there were in favor of the reforms, but they are the victors and the reforms are not sustainable. The government said that the economy has to grow at least 10% a year to fend off social unrest. That isn't indefinitely possible, especially considering we live in a world of finite resources. China is talking about improving domestic consumption, which would be good for them. However, in a world of finite resources that will leave less for others. So, who loses out?
"Excuse me, but capitalism, as I pointed out, has NEVER worked when left to itself. It hasn't."
But it works beautifully when NOT left to itself...which is our problem now, the regulations, protections and oversight have been stripped away.
Post Communism is hard as I hear it. And it should be. You can't go from no freedom and just let Mommy government provide and they didn't provide well. Our poor lived better. Feet usually tell you the truth. If its any good, people want in, if its bad, people want out. I rest my case on that proof which stands alone.
"Iceland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and the UK" economies could no longer cover the checks written by their Social socities. And don't think for a minute France and all the others are not having to make changes, cut the 'good" life.
Japan would be a perfect illustration of how to teach Capitalism.
"Just garbage. The free market economics that is used to justify most capitalist policies in the last few decades have no basis in reality and have been a disaster."
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!
Your description of China jibes with what I have been told, I haven't been there, but have friends from there and others that have lived there for short periods and visited. Almost word for word when you put what they say together.
But without their reforms they would have stayed to the lowest common denominator till the end of time. A fancier North Korea.
Who loses out? The folks that have been getting most of course. As more people join real economies, there is less to go around. Won't hurt us to do with less will it? Europe? The only thing that concerns me is China may needs more land, even now.
"But it works beautifully when NOT left to itself"
It works well for WHOM? Are you claiming that capitalism has worked well for anything more than a minority of the world's countries and populations? Has it worked well in Africa (it has been implemented, look at what the ANC has done in South Africa. Has has that worked for South Africa?)? Did capitalism benefit South America? According to whom? It is impossible to get elected in South America if you say the words IMF and are in favor of what amounts to traditional capitalism, the capitalism they teach in economics departments across the country.
"Post Communism is hard as I hear it. And it should be. You can't go from no freedom and just let Mommy government provide and they didn't provide well."
As bad as communism was, people had health care, they had education, they had jobs. All of that has crumbled. They get to enjoy the abstract "freedom" and now have the freedom of not going to school, dying much earlier and having no jobs to feed themselves. I don't know why it should be this way, they got rid of communism on the assumption that capitalism would improve their lives, and it hasn't. They now have new masters and have seen their living standards decrease. Honestly, have you read about Eastern Europe's post communism experience?
"Feet usually tell you the truth."
I'll say this again, many people are fleeing so called capitalist countries. You say they are fleeing "failing" capitalism. What the hell is that? It's capitalism. Your argument doesn't hold water, as I said above, it has everything to do with the differences in wealth, regardless of the economic system their home countries employ.
"Japan would be a perfect illustration of how to teach Capitalism."
When I talked about South Korea, and their state lead economic development (again, it is not arguable), I mentioned that they copied Japan. They did. Japan's economic development was state directed. The government worked with giant conglomerates to plan production and consumption, the government controlled banking, it protected and supported its car companies for decades while they floundered and most of Japan's vaunted technology came out of a very famous governmental institution called the MITI. You can call that capitalism, Japan's development had nothing to do with anything a capitalist economist would call "capitalism". There was something called the East Asia Financial Crisis in the late 1990's (a crisis caused by foreign financial capitalists/parasites). When that happened the capitalist press here cheered it on, saying that these countries weren't "free market" like us, they were "crony" capitalist. Others on the right denied that they were capitalist at all and said that the IMF policies being forced on them were something that would benefit them and would force them to adopt the "correct" policies. Here's a great anarchist/socialist economist, if you're interested, on that crisis. Krugman called that crisis "the biggest fall from grace since WWII:"
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/50/046.html
My experiences in China were as I said them. The government has acknowledged that the population has reacted not so positively to many of those reforms. All reforms are not equal, some of them have helped China, some haven't. None the less, the reforms they've implemented are not sustainable and the negative effects are causing many there to want to stop further reforms, an increasing amount want to reverse them. By the way, the government in China is very much split on the Mao period, but they all agree that without Mao's investment in education, health care, the advancements on women's rights, land reform, investment in industry, amongst other things, China's takeoff would not have happened. China was on a long, downward fall from the beginning of the 19th century, Mao stopped and reversed that slide. The country was split along ethnic lines and was not united, Mao united the country. Far all the negative things you might say about Mao, it was during his time that China stood up on its own two feet again and began their climb upwards. It wasn't any damn capitalist who did that and they certainly had their chances.
I'm done. Good bye.
"Could it have more to do with the lack of development of those countries"
Of course it could. Israel didn't jump fully developed from the desert. A perfect point. Why are they still "underdeveloped" while Israel is thriving? Andf NO, its not because we give them the money which is what some of these callowe fools here would have argued.
"No, that is not at all what I said. I said something that is not arguable. That the social democratic period of Europe was far better than the "free market" period that has followed and I said SOME countries in Europe like Sweden debated whether or not to completely do away with capitalism during this period, which they did. I also asked you to comment on what the financial capitalists did to France when Mitterand was elected. It really is telling, if you don't know the background."
Got you. Though I would suggest that they were in a situation where the benefitted from our aid and protection, something many don't even want to acknowledge. Our military protected them then and to this day, which is a real advantage.
"I also asked you to comment on what the financial capitalists did to France when Mitterand was elected. It really is telling, if you don't know the background."
I do know something of it and I would argue its something akin to what s been done to OUR economy now, to our capitalist system, except worse in my opinion for France as she did not have our wealth to dissapate.
Capitalism gone wrong can be and is just as bad as any other system I know of. No mistake there. But I can point to countries where its an unqualified success for hundreds of years , while Socialist economies collapse everty time so far.
Every example you gave of failed "capitalism" where the citizens were leaving...I would point out to you what kind of system the country used they were going to. It wasn't Cuba. Not one was a Socialist economy. Again my point. Which is really simple, so far, hasn't worked.
"There is a South Korean economist named Ha Joon Chang"
Lets say he was correct (though as you know, I could find another South Korean saying exactly the opposite) so what if a country profits by protevtionism. Whats wrong with that? China is doing a bang up job of it right now. What kind of economy supportsd what you call the greatest "socialist " organization in the world? I don't accept his outline of South Korea as the old USSR at all. He apparently was never in Russia.
We'll disagree just on "human rights" and how wonderful Cuba is and how bad we are.
A pleasure to read rational arguments! And some areas I leave out because we are not different enough on our sides of the tasble to matter.
"Lets say he was correct (though as you know, I could find another South Korean saying exactly the opposite"
See, this is my problem with our discussion. There are these things called FACTS, that you can't argue against. For example, it is not debatable that Korea implemented those policies. I've read a lot about this, I know what I'm talking about, you can't just throw that to the side. South Korea was very much like the USSR, especially the post Stalin USSR. It wasn't exactly the same, but it was far closer to the USSR than America during that period. A person who said the opposite would have to ignore reality.
"We'll disagree just on "human rights" and how wonderful Cuba is and how bad we are."
Please just try to have an open mind. Where did I say Cuba was "wonderful"? I just said that Cuba's human rights record is far better than our allies in the region (not the US, although Cuba didn't kill 3-6 million in SE Asia, 1.5 million in Iraq, etc). It is. I'll give you a concrete example. In the 1970's Cuba persecuted gay people horribly. Now, Raul Castro's daughter, Fidel's niece, is one of the leading gay rights activists in Cuba. Cuba now has some of the most advanced rights in the world for gay people. Again, just one example.
"Every example you gave of failed "capitalism" where the citizens were leaving"
My obvious point was that these people weren't fleeing "socialism", they were fleeing poverty. The difference between Cuba and, say, America and Haiti and say France has nothing to do with what systems the poor countries adopt. We live in a world of finite resources. The US is just under 6% of the world's population yet we consume a little over 26% of the resources. Include in that Europe, Japan and a handful of other countries, and you see that there are simply not enough resources for most countries and people in the world to be anything but poor. GIVEN that Cuba, like other capitalist poor countries, has little resources of their own, they've done an amazing job. When poor countries try to industrialize, when they try to increase their living standards, we step in and attack them. Again, this isn't opinion, it is fact. The elites know that when a poor country increases living standards they consume more resources, leaving less for us to consume lavishly. When countries try to create an industrial base they are potentially going to take business from us. THAT'S why the British smashed Egypt's and India's industrial bases in the past and that is why we use the IMF and to a lesser extent the World Bank like we do.
"Of course it could. Israel didn't jump fully developed from the desert. A perfect point. Why are they still "underdeveloped" while Israel is thriving?"
Well, Israel was formed in large party by socialists, in case you forgot. The kibbutz system is a socialist system, a communal system. As far as why what would be Palestine is underdeveloped, well, if I have to explain that...
"Our military protected them then and to this day, which is a real advantage."
Really, from who, especially now? Many times our military, and NATO, protected governments from their populations. Look up Operation Gladio and other NATO "stay behind armies". See, when our government says we were "fighting communism", we weren't. It was a war against the left in general. Vietnam is a perfect example of this. The 1954 Geneva Accords said that an election was to be held in Vietnam within two years. We didn't allow that election, acknowledging (including Eisenhower himself) that if an election was held it was 100% certain that Ho Chi Minh would win in a landslide. So we didn't allow the elections, we supported right wing governments in the South that the people rejected, we attacked the only mass social movements in Vietnam because they were largely socialist and in the process killed millions of people. It was a "war against communism", but it wasn't. It was imperialism and a war against democracy, against a poor country that posed no threat to us.
Korea is too close, depending on the time period, to spend more time on.
"I just said that Cuba's human rights record is far better than our allies in the region (not the US, although Cuba didn't kill 3-6 million in SE Asia, 1.5 million in Iraq, etc).
I misread that or didn't see it! Agreed.
Oops, will be back later. My turn on our Habitat project and I've got the compressor.
THURSDAY:
What possesed me to give a day a week during August in Texas! 105...I'm getting too old for this.
While I agree they were fleeing poverty, that is my point, those systems inherently move to the lowest common denominator and the poor are really poor. Our poor are the envy of the world.
Your figures are correct, however there will never come a time when the worlds resources are divided "fairly"
Cuba was propped up for years by Russia, direct monies, etc. She was never on her own till recently.
WE have no argument about who does what to developing countries, except that scapegoating the US bugs the crap out of me. Most countries are involved here. Most of the elites and Corporations are involved. Most are interelated.
I believe we are about to change some of that.
By the way, there were about 1.5 million killed by us, mostly VC or NVA but too many civilians, and
Israel did indeed use the Kibbutz to start, but ASAP went to a capitalist economy as that is the only way to be efficiently productive. Socialist economies tend to order the same number of Underwear for both men and Women. Its the inherent flaw.
Palestine is undeveloped more because of the Arabh countries than Israel in my opinion, they generated the present situation. Israel is responsible for the continuing situation much like Obama to Bush.
From Russia and Red China unless you care to ignore history or the countries they occupied for 50 years. Look up Hungary 1956,etc. Would Russia have left Germany free but for us? Look up the Berlin Airlift...why were the Russians closing Berlin do you think? Revisionist history also irritates the heck out of me (no not you).
Now as to Viet Nam we have no quarrel. Shouldn't have been involved, should never have been there and interfering in someone elses civil war is not fighting Communism. Same for Korea in my opinion.
If you believe the World is a safe place, let me disabuse you of the thought. If you believe there is "Peace In Our Time" and Russia, China, Serbia, etc would not invade another country I've truly got a bridge to sell you. Why should their leaders be different than ours? Its just a different location.
When we withdraw, and I believe we are coming to that stage, many people are going to understand exactly what our unbrella meant to them, especially Europe. Its popular among the anti-military types to poo-poo threats, they did the same in the 30's. But reality is quite a different story. Mambe I'm wrong, I would be happy if I were, but we do not weant to become Cartheginians.
"She was never on her own till recently."
Not a fraction as much as South Korea or Taiwan was by the US. Western Europe was given MASSIVE amounts of money by the US, especially after WWII. The US wanted Europe reformed under certain polices and feared the left, especially in France, Italy and West Germany. All of that dwarfs what the former USSR gave to Cuba, which was more than anything much better terms of trade than poor countries are given within the capitalist market economy. Hell, it isn't much different than what the US has given to Colombia, to their detriment.
"By the way, there were about 1.5 million killed by us, mostly VC or NVA but too many civilians"
You should be ashamed. Every person we killed in Vietnam was a moral outrage. We had no right supporting the French as much as we did before we began to directly fight in Vietnam, we had no right to break up the 1954 Geneva Accords, we have no right to kill 3-6 million in SE Asia. There wouldn't have been resistance fighters if there were no foreign powers to resist. You could say we didn't kill many "civilians", the line was blurred in that war. "Free fire zones", kill anything that moves? I remember reading, I can find the exact quote if you'd like, from someone high up in the US military at the time. When asked about the My Lai massacre, he said that the event wasn't as extraordinary as many back home thought, because each unit had their own My Lai. More bombs were dropped on Vietnam than all bombs dropped during WWII. Who do you think those bombs fell on? "VC", ie the general public? US general Curtis LeMay wanted to "bomb the country back to the stone age". The country's agriculture and ecosystem were destroyed. When I was in China I wanted to volunteer at this center, organized by former US vets, that helps support children who are the victims of the horrible chemicals now in Vietnam's ecosystem, thanks to us. Children are STILL being effected by what we did to that country. Horrible mutations, diseases, birth defects.
"Israel did indeed use the Kibbutz to start, but ASAP went to a capitalist economy as that is the only way to be efficiently productive."
As you MAY know, the kibbutz is still around. People from the kibbutz system dispraportionately serve in the IDF, they are also extremely skilled. The Sephardic Jews actually feel discriminated against in the kibbutz system. They are usually poorer, working class people and the kibbutz, because of its success, is filled with more skilled workers. Israel has reformed their economy, and like others it has nothing to do with "efficiency". I am an economist, the way "efficient" is defined is ridiculous and 100% nonsense.
"Revisionist history" does suck, doesn't it? By definition, it is history that doesn't jive with the official story. So, for example, the revolution in Hungary in 1956 (which I've always been fascinated by for some reason) was people rejecting socialism and wanting a Western modeled capitalist society. The "revisionist historians" however point out that the proclamations by the people in the revolution, THEIR words, were calling for a worker run (not state run) socialism. They called for a revolution "from bellow" and what organized them wasn't a corporation or a business federation, it was workers councils. Many on the left who supported the revolution compared them to the soviets in Russia before they were crushed by Lenin and turned into instruments of the state.
Here's an example of this:
http://www.isreview.org/issues/51/hungary1956.shtml
"Despite the fact that the occupying army called themselves socialists, within the workers’ councils, the demand for socialism still existed. “We workers, students and armed forces under the leadership of the Miskolc Workers’ Council and Student Parliament demand a new provisional government, truly democratic, sovereign and independent, which will fight for a free and socialist country.”
http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=250&issue=112
"Listeners to a radio broadcast from Miskolc heard the following declaration on 25 October: ‘We have had enough! Enough of the autonomy of certain leaders! We too want socialism, but according to our special Hungarian conditions, reflecting the interests of the Hungarian working class and the Hungarian nation’.
...At Dunapentele, the former Sztálinváros, the workers’ council faced with the Soviet army declared:
Dunapentele is the foremost socialist town in Hungary. Its inhabitants are workers, and power is in their hands. The houses have all been built by workers themselves. The workers will defend the town from ‘fascist excesses’ but also from Soviet troops.
"Why should their leaders be different than ours?"
They ARE different than ours. WE, not they, are the most active and violent country in the world since WWII. It has nothing to do with capacity either. The Soviets had the capacity to do far more than they did. Yes, the conquered Eastern Europe, but that was (which the West generally acknowledged at the time) more about security than anything. Russia was decimated by the war and the West was always threatening. It doesn't justify it, but it wasn't the same as what the US did in Latin America and SE Asia. The USSR was not nearly as involved in international affairs as the US. It is not arguable, they didn't spend as much and didn't get as consistently involved in the internal affairs of other countries as the US did. They're gone now anyway and we haven't changed our policies since.
"Red" China has occupied whom? Just say it. China has dealt with countries on their borders, they aren't doing what the US is doing in places like Iraq and there is no evidence that they have plans to. When they invest in developing countries they don't have the same "structural adjustment" demands that you usually see with loans from the West. Occupation isn't always military in nature, you can economically occupy a country as well.
So, for example, the revolution in Hungary in 1956 (which I've always been fascinated by for some reason) was people rejecting socialism and wanting a Western modeled capitalist society. The "revisionist historians" however point out that the proclamations by the people in the revolution, THEIR words, were calling for a worker run (not state run) socialism. They called for a revolution "from bellow" and what organized them wasn't a corporation or a business federation, it was workers councils.
---------------------------------------
Interesting. That's only the second time I've heard that about socialist motives. The first time was in 1958, when I was sitting waiting to be interviewed for a job with a government agency The other person waiting was a Hungarian guy my age. His given name was Mihaly, and he'd actually fought in the uprising before fleeing for his life. He was very bitter about the US failure to support the rebels, and attributed it to the fact that many/most of them were socialists who wanted a socialist state not a capitalist one. So they were left to try to fight the Soviet tanks with rocks, mollies, and rifles. Which didn't work so hot as we all now know, though he was quite proud of the fact that the Soviets were made to pay more than they expected for their victory.
(He didn't get the job. Despite the 4 languages and active experience in his favor, he still had family in Hungary and was reckoned too vulnerable. I've often wondered what became of him. He was a rather porcine-faced kid built like a tank himself and with a scowl that could strip paint.)
I don't mind you little slurs usually, but don't call me a liar dummy. My bridges are still there. More than you will ever do. Talk, but no action, thats you.
You'll find few adults here, too many arm chair quarterbacks.
I don't mind your carping, I kind of enjoy your arrows! But I never lie.
AND! I got a letter from two of the kids that worked on #2 and all are still in good condition and in use. You can't burn the bridges I build!!
Seriously, are you doing projects there now? What?
One wonders if 4thefuture (9:12) and hoodeet (9:19) bothered to read the article before launching
their seemingly doctrinaire and dogmatic rants against ITT and, I suppose, CD for publishing the
revanchist ITT drivel.
Certainly, they skimmed rather too quickly over Mr Kennis' assertion that "...the communal councils have arguably become the most popular and successful innovations of the Chávez administration..."
What in the article could give basis to their indignant protestations that the Chavez government
(that is, where Chavez can exert his influence) is not instrumental in and supportive of the councls?
Jesus christ, people! Will you slow down and lighten up?
If anyone in my family had read the article, they would have (as 4thefuture did) zero in on Kennis'
"Hugo Chávez, Venezuela's megalomaniac president..." and made it the entire focus of the article.
Which it isn't! Just finish reading the damn sentence and you'll see that Kennis is giving Chavez and his creation, these remarkably independent councils, credit for advancing social reform. These
critics here are acting like New York Times readers. (I happen to agree that Chavez is a megalomaniac, and I don't like his jokes...which does not diminish my respect for what he's trying to do.)
Did they miss the reference to the Kerala model? Do they understand its significance?
Kinnis gives some insight into the dissociated nature of society and governance in Venezuela, and the extent to which there is a struggle for the reins between the Chavistas and the still-powerful
oligarchic remnant.
Which is to say (finally!) that it is a nicely written presentation, and I commend Kinnis, ITT and CD for their part in it.
I agree, the insertion of that one insulting word "megalomaniacal" into an otherwise glowing article (I didn't notice it as I skimmed down the the more subatantial discussion) is rather odd. It is as if the author picked it out of a Thesarus without being familiar the word's common usage.
How could you miss it? It was sticking out like a sore thumb of humor from an otherwise totally serious article. And I disagree about the randomness of the choice. As I stated, I think he is a megalomaniac, but he keeps the condition well under control. You can admire the guy without sharing Eva Golinger's total, unswerving devotion. He's doing good work, whether you'd like to have a beer with him or not
Just out of curiosity, why do you think Hugo is a megalomaniac?
I'd love to tip a few good cold Cervesa Polares and improve my Spanish with Hugo anytime.
One should be careful when attempting to interpret the actions of Chaves absent an understanding of the values of that significantly Indigenous country. Indigenous values are not Western values. The Indigenous value cooperation and reciprocity, not competition. These values permeate local lifeways. It is not surprising that decentralized local decision making specific to a particular place is being implemented. It is a natural lifeway to the people. These values were diminished during colonization and are now being re-implemented. These historic lifeways will serve Venezuelan's well. The locavore and slow movements are serving a similar purpose in the United States.
>>The Indigenous value cooperation and reciprocity, not competition
That is key. It is on this basis the First Nations peoples of Canada entered into the treaty making process. They did not WANT the "other side" to LOSE. In their tradition this was not a desirable outcome. They flet both sides of any treaty should prosper and benefit off the other mutually.
These are the values Canada MUST return to.
Mike Whitney on Chavez and Venezuela:
http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney08102010.html