Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Seeds of Latin America's Rebirth Were Sown in Cuba
There was one region that saw the bankruptcy of neoliberalism - and now the rest of the world is having to catch up
On 9 October 1967, Che Guevara faced a shaking sergeant Mario Teran, ordered to murder him by the Bolivian president and CIA, and declared: "Shoot, coward, you're only going to kill a man." The climax of Stephen Soderbergh's two-part epic, Che, in real life this final act of heroic defiance marked the defeat of multiple attempts to spread the Cuban revolution to the rest of Latin America.
But 40 years later, the long-retired executioner, now a reviled old man, had his sight restored by Cuban doctors, an operation paid for by revolutionary Venezuela in the radicalised Bolivia of Evo Morales. Teran was treated as part of a programme which has seen 1.4 million free eye operations carried out by Cuban doctors in 33 countries across Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa. It is an emblem both of the humanity of Fidel Castro and Guevara's legacy, but also of the transformation of Latin America which has made such extraordinary co-operation possible.
The 50th anniversary of the Cuban revolution this month has already been the occasion for a regurgitation of western media tropes about pickled totalitarian misery, while next week's 10th anniversary of Hugo Chávez's presidency in Venezuela will undoubtedly trigger a parallel outburst of hostility, ridicule and unfounded accusations of dictatorship. The fact that Chávez, still commanding close to 60% popular support, is again trying to convince the Venezuelan people to overturn the US-style two-term limit on his job will only intensify such charges, even though the change would merely bring the country into line with the rules in France and Britain.
But it is a response which also utterly fails to grasp the significance of the wave of progressive change that has swept away the old elites and brought a string of radical socialist and social-democratic governments to power across the continent, from Ecuador to Brazil, Paraguay to Argentina: challenging US domination and neoliberal orthodoxy, breaking down social and racial inequality, building regional integration and taking back strategic resources from corporate control.
That is the process which this week saw Bolivians vote, in the land where Guevara was hunted down, to adopt a sweeping new constitution empowering the country's long-suppressed indigenous majority and entrenching land reform and public control of natural resources - after months of violent resistance sponsored by the traditional white ruling class. It's also seen Cuba finally brought into the heart of regional structures from which Washington has strained every nerve to exclude it.
The seeds of this Latin American rebirth were sown half a century ago in Cuba. But it is also more directly rooted in the region's disastrous experience of neoliberalism, first implemented by the bloody Pinochet regime in the 1970s - before being adopted with enthusiasm by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and duly enforced across the world.
The wave of privatisation, deregulation and mass pauperisation it unleashed in Latin America first led to mass unrest in Venezuela in 1989, savagely repressed in the Caracazo massacre of more than 1,000 barrio dwellers and protesters. The impact of the 1998 financial crisis unleashed a far wider rejection of the new market order, the politics of which are still being played out across the continent. And the international significance of this first revolt against neoliberalism on the periphery of the US empire now could not be clearer, as the global meltdown has rapidly discredited the free-market model first rejected in South America.
Hopes are naturally high that Barack Obama will recognise the powerful national, social and ethnic roots of Latin America's reawakening - the election of an Aymara president was as unthinkable in Bolivia as an African American president - and start to build a new relationship of mutual respect. The signs so far are mixed. The new US president has made some positive noises about Cuba, promising to lift the Bush administration's travel and remittances ban for US citizens - though not to end the stifling 47-year-old trade embargo.
But on Venezuela it seemed to be business as usual earlier this month, when Obama insisted that the Venezuelan president had been a "force that has interrupted progress" and claimed Venezuela was "supporting terrorist activities" in Colombia, apparently based on spurious computer disc evidence produced by the Colombian military.
If this is intended as political cover for an opening to Cuba then perhaps it shouldn't be taken too seriously. But if it is an attempt to isolate Venezuela and divide and rule in America's backyard, it's unlikely to work. Venezuela is a powerful regional player and while Chávez may have lost five out of 22 states in November's regional elections on the back of discontent over crime and corruption, his supporters still won 54% of the popular vote to the opposition's 42%.
That is based on a decade of unprecedented mobilisation of oil revenues to achieve impressive social gains, including the near halving of poverty rates, the elimination of illiteracy and a massive expansion of free health and education. The same and more is true of Cuba, famous for first world health and education standards - with better infant mortality rates than the US - in an economically blockaded developing country.
Less well known is the country's success in diversifying its economy since the collapse of the Soviet Union, not just into tourism and biotechnology, but the export of medical services and affordable vaccines to the poorest parts of the world. Anyone who seriously cares about social justice cannot but recognise the scale of these achievements - just as the greatest contribution those genuinely concerned about lack of freedom and democracy in Cuba can make is to help get the US off the Cubans' backs.
None of that means the global crisis now engulfing Latin America isn't potentially a threat to all its radical governments, with falling commodity prices cutting revenues and credit markets drying up. Revolutions can't stand still, and the deflation of the oil cushion that allowed Chávez to leave the interests of the traditional Venezuelan ruling elite untouched means pressure for more radical solutions is likely to grow. Meanwhile, the common sense about the bankruptcy of neoliberalism first recognised in Latin America has now gone global. Whether it generates the same kind of radicalism elsewhere remains to be seen.
- Posted in
140 Comments so far
Show AllJust a bit out of date on Venezuaela. And lets see how the Feb. 15th election goes before heaping more praise on Chavez.
If the Venezuelan people wanted to remove term limits then I would have no problem with that but seeing how the people of Venezuela have already said they don't want to remove the term limits i have a problem with Chavez. He seems to think that it's okay for him to keep pushing constitutional referendums until he gets the results he wants. That isn't what i consider to be a practicing democracy.
Chavez needs to honor the will of the people and the people have already spoken...
Sioux Rose
Remove the board from your own eyes/own nation's acts & perspective, before casting out in judgment of another. I'd love to see poverty eradication programs based on a fairer distribution of profits gotten from too many of America's giant industries, those in bed with the legislators and/or buying access through their lobbying whores. This nation has MUCH to learn from the leadership "down under."
He asked the people to vote on over 60 amendments to the constitution at once. How can we say, logically, that they rejected the ONE amendment they'll now be voting on? It was a huge mistake he made in putting the amendments all together. If they reject the motion by itself, he should accept it and step down. If he doesn't, and it would be the first time he didn't accept the results, the people should remove him by other means.
Regardless of what people think about Chavez, like Thomas, the people in Venezuela do NOT want to reverse the gains or the policies of the Bolivarian Revolution.
Thomas, if Chavez is gone but his socialist ideas stay in place because the people support them, what will you have to say? Will you still pray for their continued poverty?
Wilber1
Don't be absurd.
"Will you still pray for their continued poverty?"
Thats predictable and pathetic. No where in my post did you find anything like that. Apparently if anyone disagrees with a cherished fantasy the only answer is to post insulting, untrue, and unsupported remarks.
Chavez isn't that socialist in the first place and secondly socialist policies couldn't be maintained without that oil money in any case no matter who wants what. Hasn't happened anywhere yet.
I can be wrong, no doubt, but from what I saw last year, what he's done, he resembles and is taking the path of every tin pot dictator we've seen in South America.
I'm also curious how you know what the people of Venezuela want? The farmers and rural folk I talked to weren't that thrilled about him. The folks that had their son's drafted into the army everyone claims he doesn't have weren't topo keen on him either. Some in the city were enthusiastic.
I have never lied in my life. And I certainly didn't see that in the area we were in.
I have just removed something I shouldn't have said and I apologize to the rest of you for posting it for even a few minutes.
I am surprised this little twit has drawn me in again, it took me a bit to recognize who it was and I won't be responding again.
You're right -- you can be wrong. And I know what they want, because they told me when I was there (not to mention the vast support he has in the polls and the fact that Venezuelans are happier with their democracy Americans are). Even people who have benefited very little from Chavez -- I'm talking the Wayuu, Yukpa and Bari and other indigenous, support Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution. It is a people's movement above anything else. It is unbelievable how engaged the people are in the political process. When I asked people if they thought the movement would end if Chavez was not re-elected, they all were quite offended by the notion that this was all about him. Ask any member of the upper class elite, and they don't like him. Culturally, they have been taught to fear and abhor anyone who represent the people. Like our fundamentalists have been taught to oppose anyone who tolerates abortion. It isn't perfect, but it is doing amazingly well considering the financial power and backing of his opposition. The biggest gains can't be measured in oil prices, GDP or material goods. They are in the morale and happiness of the people. In their access to healthcare and education. In their access to sport, culture and enterprise -- and land rights, environmental protections, and ability to participate in political life. Americans are so shallow in how they measure progress.
Did you even listen to the protesters?
The leading issue was the term limits. Most if not all of the amendments would have passed but the term limits were the red line.
Even today the students are still protesting the idea of removing term limits.
Why don't you concede that the people of Venezuela don't want to remove term limits?
Steelgray, look at the declassified documents from the NED, CIA, USAID and other US organizations regarding Venezuela. Eva Golinger has them in full in her book "The Chavez Code". A good portion of the funds went to the student groups. That isn't to say that that is where ALL the support is coming from, some of it is from domestic sources, but a good portion of that goes directly to the opposition. The Heritage Foundation and the International Republican Institute has been very involved with students as well.
Most independent polls show support for the ending of term limits by about ten points. Some are closer, the opposition's polls are ALWAYS far different than everyone else;s, guess who the media here tends to focus on? So it isn't clear which way it will go yet.
For instance:
http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=851187&lang=eng_news
Some 51.5 percent of people now back a constitutional amendment to end term limits for all elected officials, up from about 37 percent in December, according a survey of 1,300 likely voters by the polling firm Datanalisis.
It is none of our business what Venezuela does, but I won't concede what isn't the case. I do think that this could be dangerous in the long run, but Chavez will have to run and the people can remove him in between terms if they wanted to, so it is THEIR choice.
The polls are showing that the majority of the people are supporting the amendment to the term limits.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4152
Sioux Rose
In my mind Latin America is demonstrating the long-term wave of the future. Its transformation to governments that more truly represent the will of the people, as opposed to the old privileges of the fiscal elites, is a THREAT to the way the U.S. does business. Imagine the embarassment that a poor nation like Cuba does a better job of providing health care for its citizens than this rich nation, about as generous as the fictional character of Scrooge.
The future of mankind calls for similar developments throughout the world, and Latin America has set precedents that cannot be denied. The U.S. media may try to demonize the heads of these nations who have called for a fairer distribution of national resources (based on the percentage of profit allowed to be extracted by the global corporations who arrive to exploit indigenous resources) but the truth has a way of getting out there.
As Americans steadily watch their pensions dry up, their housing values dwindle, their medical coverage not cut it, they may begin to hold suspect such lofty notions as "freedom" and "democracy" and "free trade." Of course it would help much if the media was not touting 24/7 the voices of those whose paychecks depend upon their promoting the very policies that favor the "landowners" while leaving the serfs out to dry.
Cuba does have a very good health system but then again how many of those doctors would remain in Cuba if it weren't for the fact that Castro has made Cuba into the worlds largest prison. The Cuba people aren't allowed to travel outside of the country!!
You are praising a dictator.
By the way aren't they still rationing food in Cuba? Yeah, i'll take American freedom and prosperity over that every time.
If I may correct you, Cuban doctors travel all over the world practicing medicine. They could leave at any time. Didn't you read the article? The Cuban government even offered to send Cuban doctors and engineers to New Orleans. The US refused them.
Dictatorship takes many forms.
---USAn---
The US is the world's largest prison -- by far.
Cuba is a poor island country that has withstood 50 years of siege. It has also had to deal with hurricanes that this summer devastated the country. The US cannot even afford health care for its people, let alone a decent life for many, even though it is the richest country in the world's history.
No comparison is even possible, nor reasonable, nor sane.
Tens of thousands of Cuban doctors travel outside of Cuba every year to administer aid worldwide, almost none of them defect. In fact, far more American doctors leave the US as soon as they make enough money to scram.
Cubans ARE allowed to leave their country. Anyone over sixteen can apply for an exit visa and expect that in time it will be granted. Restrictions on Cuban travel come from other countries, mostly in the form of financial requirements that are difficult to meet when you live next door to the world's most ruthless bully who's been trying to squeeze the life out of you for 50 years.
Rationing too, has to do with the barbaric US embargo, which has ironically compelled Cubans to eat healthier foods grown closer to home, and thus live longer and happier. Cuba now produces most of it's own food, all organically grown.
You can take American prosperity. No one else wants seems to want it anymore. Taking into account debts and mortgages, more than 90 percent of American families have no assets.
You can keep American freedom too. It's all form and no substance. Your most cherished right - that of free speech - prohibits only government, not the most powerful corporate entities that rule you, from suppressing it. You are free to say anything you want, as long as it is off the plutocrats' property, which is most of the land you love, and as long as those who have wealth and power are free to do what they want to you regardless of what you say.
If you think you've got it so great, then you must try to compare yourself to any other first world country, and give up your bragging rights over a small third world island, who's only beef with your country is that your stink travels more than 90 miles when the winds blow south.
"Rationing too, has to do with the barbaric US embargo, which has ironically compelled Cubans to eat healthier foods grown closer to home, and thus live longer and happier."
Would you care to explain how our embargo stops Cuba from buying ot trading for food anywhere else in the world? Its not a blockade, its an embargo on American companies doing business there. Your assertion is absurd.
I would also suggest you busy yourself with the stink from your own country before worrying about others.
"I would also suggest you busy yourself with the stink from your own country before worrying about others."
See your above comments on Venezuela Thomas, follow your own advice.
I don't believe I suggested that either Cuba or Venezuela were stinking or smelling in any way.
I am sick of the little minds that cannot get past their small viewpoint. If you want to talk only to nasrrow minded, intolerant folks there are a couple more just like you here.
Fair enough.
Of course I know about the limitations of trade we set. That means they can't trade with any other country? You believe that they can't get food from any number of countries because all the countries in the world are afraid of us. Come now.'
If you were or are a professor, you should know enough about geoploitics to know that what you are claiming is disingenous.
Let us give an example of US laws.
A Canadian living In Canada and working for a Canadian firm sold water purification equipment to Cuba. This equipement was used by the Government of Cuba to help ensure Cubans had a clean supply of drinking water.
Under the US Law, this is a crime.
The person in question was later transferred to a branch office in the United States. He was arrested for what he did in Canada (where it perfectly alright to sell water purification equipment to Cuba) and thrown in a US prison.
Now what he SHOULD have been doing is pulling a page out of the books Od Dick Cheney, and the like and that is selling Chemical weapons and armanents to places like Iran, Iraq and North Korea.
Water purification equipment is a HIGH crime. It helps keep people alive , especially Children.
Weapons of war helps to KILL the same and it something the GOvernmnet of the USA whole heartedly supports.
Sellin
I'll tell you EXACTLY how the US embargo prevents Cuba from trading with the rest of the world - the US REFUSES TO TRADE WITH ANYONE WHO TRADES WITH CUBA. More precisely, any ship that docks in Cuba is banned from docking in a US port for six months. So, you can basically choose between trading with Cuba or trading with the US. What kind of choice is that?
Excellent post, Jesus H. Christ!
"By the way aren't they still rationing food in Cuba? Yeah, i'll take American freedom and prosperity over that every time."
No one is praising a dictator, they're praising the success of the Cuban Revolution. It is downright silly though to compare the freaking US to Cuba. You compare Cuba to the Dominican Republic or Haiti, and the US to France or Germany. If we followed your logic, we might as well compare Haiti to Canada.
It is a given, given the differences in wealth and consumption between the developed and underdeveloped world, that countries like Cuba are going to be poor. There is a finite amount of resources and the West consumes so much that poverty for the majority of the world is a given. If consumption levels increase in the poor countries and they shake the control of the financial markets our standard of living will decrease. Until then, it only makes sense to compare Cuba to other poor countries, and if you do there is really no comparison. Does the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Guatemala, El Salvador or Bolivia (Morales has been in charge only a few years) have better healthcare, educational or agricultural systems? Are they better at poverty, starvation, literacy? Then what lessons can they learn from Cuba? That question, using the logical comparisons I gave, isn't asked for obvious reasons.
We already know, you don't have to tell us about yourself.
I've been to Cuba and lived with the people in the late 90s. Yes, they had rationing coupons then, as they do now again, and I won't point out the reasons why, like a war blockade that has been going on since 1962 by the "civilized" bohemoth to the North and the current neo-liberalism meltdown. They also have no one homeless, no one starving, no one without medical care, no one without shelter, and no one without free education through PhD/MD. Everyone has access to medical clinics which are within walking distance. If the doctor misses making a house call, the doctor is fined. What a friggin' concept. If a Cuban fails to make his doctor's appointment, it becomes the MD's responsibility to go to the patient. The thinking is that the patient may be very ill and could not make it.
The best thing about Cuba is that no one in the country has any debt. Can you imagine it? No debt. The concept is antithetical to their society. Here, it is endemic, and it has led to homelessness, evictions, home losses, 50-million without health insurance, and pushing 10% unemployment, and all the other current ills that we are trying to spend ourselves out of. Does anyone really believe that the so-called stimulus is going to work?
By the way, it is NOT "American" freedom and prosperity to which you are alluding to. It is United State's (dwindling) freedom and (lost) prosperity. Greed is good, as we have seen. No? Cubans are Americans also, being that they like the United States are in North America. Why does one country out of dozens in the Americas (North and South) have the arrogance and audacity to consider only itself as being "America". Simple. Go ask any bully in your neighborhood. You'll find out why. A good reading of Jose Marti's writings is in order.
By the way, steelgray, let's see you, as a "free American" travel to Cuba. You can't! You know why? Because you live in a "free country" that won't allow you to go. The Cubans welcome you and will treat you well and issue a travel visa without stamping your passport. After all, they don't want you coming from the land of the free to get into trouble for visiting them and practicing your "freedom".
Ummm-- seems to me that the US was pretty pissed when Castro let everyone just leave. They INSISTED that Castro not let them leave. And we just round them up and return them when they do. So what are you saying anyway? The US imposes the most cruel embargo one could ever imagine on a country -- trying to literally strangle the people to death to get them to overthrow their leader. And you know what? They preferred to be strangled and keep Castro (who, at various times OFFERED to step down) than let the US get one little toe back into their country. And it is not true that they are not allowed to travel outside the country -- they just have visa processes that make it not quite as easy. But for Cubans wanting to travel to the US, that is as much about the US visa process as it is about Cuba. When I went to the World Social forum, there were TONS of Cubans there, so I don't think you have your facts straight. I am sure that poverty prevents a lot of people from traveling -- just like our poor don't get to travel the world.
Maybe they wouldn't have to ration food in Cuba if your American "freedom and prosperity" didn't oppress them.
I have a cartoon on my door at work -- it says "Not only does Cuba have a better healthcare system than the US, it has a better dictatorship, too!"
Tons of Cubans at the WSF...shocking.
How many Cubans did Castro let attend the WTO? Oh thats right, Cubans aren't allowed to attend any non socialist committee.
The US didn't want a massive influx of refugees but they did institute the 'dry land' policy.
The US has such a strict embargo on Cuba b/c Castro once tried to nuke the southern portion of the US.
I am curious though, when did he offer to step down?
We must hold fast to the belief that the democracy sweeping Latin America reaches the shores of the United States of America before the corporate pillagers can pour salt on our ruins and move on.
Chávez is now asking Big Oil for help. Venezuelan officials “have begun soliciting bids from some of the largest Western oil companies,” including Chevron and Royal Dutch/Shell. Chávez has grossly mismanaged his domestic energy industry, and the steep drop in oil prices has exacerbated the troubles facing Venezuela’s national oil company.
Chávez’s strength and influence have always been a function of his oil wealth, He has purchased well over $4 billion worth of Russian arms and spent more than $50 billion on neighboring countries. Now that oil prices have plunged Venezuela is mired in an economic crisis, the spending spree is over. Economic growth in Venezuela has slowed dramatically. The central bank says that annual inflation rose to nearly 31 percent in 2008, though some analysts believe the real figure is much higher. Either way, Venezuela now has the highest inflation rate in all of Latin America. Last Friday, Chávez announced that the government was seizing roughly 28 percent of the central bank’s international reserves—some $12 billion—in order to deal with the economic slump.
Chavez wasted an unprecedented opportunity during the oil boom and their economy is now in shambles.
Unfortunately, the Venezuelan leader is trying to prolong his presidency indefinitely. He is pushing for a constitutional amendment that would abolish term limits for elected officials and allow him to pursue reelection to a third term in 2012. (His earlier attempt to eliminate presidential term limits was defeated by voters in a December 2007 referendum.) It represents nothing but the predictable power grab by Chávez.
If Chávez succeeds in demolishing the remaining checks on his power at a time of severe economic pain, it could trigger large-scale political turmoil and violent unrest. The potential for serious bloodshed is very real, especially when you consider that Caracas has already become the murder capital of Latin America, if not the world. And the rural farmers have not shared in his largesse except to provide draftee's for his "defense" forces.
I have not shared the almost universal admiration here for Chavez, so its no surprise I view his collapsing state with little surprise. I think everyone here is going to find out the hollowness of Chavez's "democracy" this year.
As a Russian client he may yet survive, who knows.
In what way is holding a democratic referendum to remove term limits, something many democracies don't have a "power grab"?
The US didn't have term limits either, until Republicans, angry about FDR's four heroic terms, introduced the 22nd Amendment.
If the voters freely approve the removal of term limits, Chavez will still face free and fair elections every 6 years. If he isn't defeated, it's the failure of the opposition to convince the Venezuelan voters to vote for someone else.
I'd personally prefer that the Bolivarian movement not depend so much on a single charismatic leader, but that is for the Venezuelan people to decide.
Everything else you wrote is sheer propaganda from the wealthy business elite who have keep the great majority of Venezuelans in grinding poverty for five centuries.
Why, since the election of Obama, are we experiencing such a lurch to the right among "liberals"? Ronald Reagan's view would have been less arrigantly imperalist than those I've heard here from "liberals".
---USAn---
"In what way is holding a democratic referendum to remove term limits, something many democracies don't have a "power grab"?"
Removing term limits have only one purpose that I can see. Why do you suppose Chavez is so interested and persistent in having them removed? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
"Everything else you wrote is sheer propaganda from the wealthy business elite who have keep the great majority of Venezuelans in grinding poverty for five centuries."
Everything I put in my post is the absolute truth. I admit I got some of it from the NY Times, that bastion of right wingers. Every single bit is the truth. Now poerwer grab is just an oinion not a fact. So if its propaganda, would you lplease point out the false bits?
It happens to be what I think. I didn't see any great socialist Nirvana there, just a bunch of poor folks tryiong to get by. Maybe I didn't see enough, but thats what I saw.
I don't think there is any lurch to the right among liberals. I've been a liberal longer than you've been alive would be my guess. The problem comes from an insistance on ideology rather than facts.
I'm not in the habit of pushing propoganda for anyone, but I'll assure you if you look around here on CD there's plenty of it. Its just not viewed that way if it suits the ideology.
Hell, if I bother everbody here so much and they are so intolerant of different viewpoints, just say so and I'll go on down the road. Every one can just sit around in a circle. Nothing to do with your comment, just my feeling lately.
I didn't know I was writing a term paper. Goodness gracious.
Your intolerance is showing.
Hadn't given it a thought actually, but I'll make certain I do in the future. Thats a fair enough comment.
Thomas you have a habit of having an opinion then cherry picking the facts and or stories that will support that opinion.
As example regarding Venezuala you claimed Chavez was creating an arms race in South America with his military spending. I called you on that with the FACTS wherein I showed he was spending LESS then the Governments before him and somewhat less then 2 percent of gdp.
You mention the collapse in the price of Oil and how Chavez blew it wherein he relied on that high price of oil to fund his programs. Again untrue. Chavez was selling his oil for 50.00$$ per barrel to other countries when the World Price was over 150.00$$. He entered into a number of agreements wherein in exchange for cheap oil to countries in Central America, and the Caribbean , those countries would provide doctors and teachers for the poor.
He allowed CITGO to sell that same cheap oil to Americans living in poverty. I suggest that if his success was based merely on the high price of oil and the revenues earned, he would not have been selling it for 50 dollars per barrel.
Your bringing up the term limits is emaningless given so many countries do not have term limits and Uribe in Columbia proposed that the term limits be removed in THAT country.
If 60 plus percent of people in a Country want to vote a person to a third term, I really do not see why it the business of anyone else to call it "Undemocratic".
As to economies in shambles, the banking system in Venezuala is in better shape then that of America. I have not seen Chavez give over 3 trillion dollars to bail them out.
The fact is EVERY economy in the World is suffering . The root cause of this world wide finacial failure was NOT Chavez and his Socialist policies in Venezuala. It was the the policies of the United States and the EU deregulating CAPITALISM.
If a leader is doing a good job, as judged by the nation's people in a free election, WHY SHOULDN'T he be able to be re-elected indefinitely???
Especially if the decision to remove term limits itself is by nationwide public referendum!
How many of the US's constitutional amendments EVER been ratified by public referendum? Have there ever been ANY referenda on national issues? It isn't even allowed in the USA! Based on these facts WHICH country is more democratic? It sure looks like Venezuela to me! and these are like facts and logic, not ideology.
Most countries don't have term limits. It is something largely peculiar to the USA - specifically it was a result of the republicans dislike of FDR, who rammed it through congress and the states by taking advantage of the postwar red-scare atmosphere of those days that's all! Now that was ideological!
No one is arguing that Venezuela is a "socialist nirvana". But, I have read reports of people who have travelled there post-Chavez, and am able to compare them to when I was in Venezuela in the corrupt COPEI/AD days, before things got far worse in the neoliberal Perez days. When I was there it was, without a doubt, a third-world country, today, while it isn't Sweden, much of it it would compare favorably to, say, the Appalacian/rust-belt region of the US where I now live.
Mr. More, your arguments are always seem to revolve around two principles:
1. If something is done a certain way in the USA, anyone who does it differently is inferior not democratic.
2. The USA is a shining city on a hill for all to emulate, and to be sure they emulate us, here's our iron fist!
So, once again, who'se being ideological here?
---USAn---
You're a horrible person, and you never learn from anything people bring up to give you a more objective picture of Venezuela. How many times have you posted this mindless garbage, to be shot down fith facts and objective assesments (for instance comparing Venezuela to other countries in its position, comparing pre-Chavez Venezuela to the Venezuela of today), and you never show a sign that it effects you in any way.
Essencially, you are HOPING that Venezuela fails. Tell us Thomas, in what way was pre-Chavez Venezuela better? What alternatives, that have worked elsewhere, would you suggest?
Let's go through this once again:
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/press-releases/press-releases/cepr-paper-r...
"The only consistent measure of the Gini coefficient (see Table 1) shows a substantial decline from 48.7 in 1998, or alternatively from 48.1 in 2003, to 42 in 2007. For a rough idea of the size of this reduction in inequality, compare this to a similar movement in the other direction: from 1980-2005, the Gini coefficient for the United States went from 40.3 to 46.9, a period in which there was an enormous (upward) redistribution of income."
http://www.embavenez-us.org/news.php?nid=4751
"The United Nations (UN) published a report this week that updated the 2008 Human Development Index (HDI). This index placed the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in 61st place out of 179 countries, with a high level of human development."
"...According to the UN, in 2006 a total of 75 countries had high levels of human development. 78 had medium levels and 26 had low levels. Venezuela, which is 61st with an HDI of 0.826, has had a high level of development since 2000."
"Venezuela has made progress in each of these components during the last decade, even though the report uses literacy rates calculated in the 2001 Census that took place four years before the UN declared Venezuela an illiteracy-free country." (Cuba and Bolivia are the only other countries in the region to have done so).
"Regarding the report, the INE maintains that the results reflect the economic and social policies developed by the Bolivarian government, given that in 1990, the HDI was 0.787 and in 2006 it rose to 0.826."
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N14444480.htm
According to the annual Latinobarometro survey, more than 80 percent of those living in continental Latin America and the Dominican Republic -- a region of 400 million people -- believe the government should control and oversee public services such as pensions, health and education, the annual survey showed.
...In Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, some 90 percent believe that pensions should be in the hands of the state. All currently have private pension systems. Seventy-eight percent of respondents in Chile also believe the telecoms system, privatized 20 years ago, should be in state hands.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:-WKyB5TpqPcJ:www.rethinkvenezuela.co...
Latinobarómetro 2008 finds that Venezuela has the region’s highest rate of support for democracy as the best system of government, and the second highest rate of satisfaction with the actual functioning of democracy. Satisfaction with democracy has shot up by 14 percentage points over a decade ago, when President Chávez was first elected. While Venezuela ranked two percentage points below the regional average on this issue in 1998, it is 12 points ahead of the regional average in 2008.
In the poll, Venezuelans were the most likely among all Latin Americans to view voting as the best way to affect political change. A full 80 percent held this view, compared to 55 percent in Chile. Venezuelans were by far the least likely to agree that it is impossible to influence political change, while Chileans were the most likely to agree. Meanwhile, though fifteen percent of Venezuelans said they had attended a protest, this country was the second-to-least likely to express the view that political change is best sought by protesting. This indicates a high level of confidence in official channels for political participation.
"You're a horrible person, and you never learn from anything people bring up to give you a more objective picture of Venezuela"
Well I don't think I'm a horrible person,in fact I can assure you I'm not, but does "agree with" mean learning? If I don't agree with what someone else here says even though they are wrong, does that make me a horrible person that won't learn?
But obviously you are not just a knee jerk insulter de jour. You have taken some time on this and please allow me time to read, consider and answer it point by point as it deserves. I would like you to read what I posted again, there wasn't anything in it that wasn't factual except "power grab" was an opinion not a fact. I went back and re read it myself and "collapsing state" could be construed as an opinion too.
Thanks.
You are one sick puppy.
I apoligize, I don't know you, so me calling you a horrible person might be going far. I do think you, however, are in the end hoping that Venezuela fails. You do nothing but point to problems facing Venezuela but never really explain why, other than calling Chavez names like dictator and repeating talking points that don't square with the facts.
Explain what EXACTLY you object to. If you admit the situation has improved in Venezuela at least on some levels, in what areas?
Ok. "(for instance comparing Venezuela to other countries in its position"
I am unaware that I have ever compared Venezuela with any other country at any time for any particular reason. The only thing I've ever said was about Venezuela and Chavez.
"Essencially, you are HOPING that Venezuela fails"
I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion? Because I believe Chavez is taking them down the same old path of a military dictatorship? Because I think he wasted a golden opportunity for the Venezuelan people? Because I don't see how farmers and the rural population are better off?
Confusing a negative view of Chavez with a negative view of Venezuela is the same as mistaking a contempt for Hamas (or any other terroists for that matter) with the Palestinian people. Its not one and the same at all.
"in what way was pre-Chavez Venezuela better"
I don't recall ever asserting that it was, in fact I'd feel fairly comfortable saying it wasn't. In fact since thats not what I believe I know I didn't.
"the UN declared Venezuela an illiteracy-free country"
Now as to the UN, I'm not one of their greatest fans either and the above is one of the reasons. Thats a declarative sentence with no qualifiers. Tell me you believe that?
Essentially I take their reports and findings with a grain of salt just as I do something from the Heritage Foundation.
Sick puppy.
How many more times are you going to change your sign on?
Farmers and rural folks in just about every country are almost always trained to vote for rightwing authoritarians so of course they'll bad mouth Chavez. Have you tried the suburbs and urban areas where people could use his help? Even in the last election, despite all the flip-flopping and pandering to the GOP Obama did, he still got pounded in the rural areas. Obama's already turning out to be a sick joke even though I'm trying to hold my breath and hope he and the Democrats don't concede to the GOP like crazy.
JWVerez
We were only in Caracus for one day going and one day coming both times so I, in fact none of the team got much chance to talk to anyone much other than our hosts. (the few folks we did talk to outside the hotel and away from our host's were enthusiastic about Chavez) And since they were the ones that brought us down to help with the bridges for the farmers and villagers I don't believe they would be a good representation of Urban or Suburban thought.
I have tried to point out fairly every time I've posted on Chavez that my personal knowledge is limited to the farmers and rural folks that we stayed with, that we talked to and a couple of instances of soldiers confronting all of us.
That's interesting. What you said reminds me of the times back in the 1930s and 1940s when the Age of Oil just so happened to rescue America from the Great Depression sort of like Venezuela's sudden rise in oil revenue undoing some of the damage. In the 1960s, I think the Democrats dominated in terms of getting the most donations from the oil giants but that changed in 1980 and after. I do fear that Chavez is about to find himself trapped if he cannot come up with backup insurance plans unless he wants to import more oil from Iran and Russia and then the US will froth like crazy with some silly fear that Iraq will be next or something like that.
I can't imagine what the farmers and rural folks would do if they started finding more of their land getting taken over for snorting out the remaining oil reserves much like the US. And since it's sour heavy oil, wouldn't that damage most of the farmlands?
Actually, the conservatism of rural and small-town people is a uniquely postwar USAn thing - and Canada and parts or Europe.
In Latin America, rural areas are populated by poor tenant farmers, largely of indigenous or mestizo ancestry, and it is the rural areas and small towns where there is real support for Chavez lies.
Latin American cities don't have suburbs. The rich live in fashionable districts in the central city, and it gets increasingly poor as you go out. The poor live in shantytowns that climb the steep slopes that rise out of the Caracas valley or in the flat scrublands to the west and south of Maracaibo - right where the rich suburbs would be if it were Los Angeles, or Dallas.
---USAn---
i am curious. we have in your first post:
"I have not shared the almost universal admiration HERE for Chavez, so its no surprise I view his collapsing state with little surprise."
which seems to imply that you are living in Ven'.
then we have:
"
'the UN declared Venezuela an illiteracy-free country'
Now as to the UN, I'm not one of their greatest fans either and the above is one of the reasons. Thats a declarative sentence with no qualifiers. Tell me you believe that?"
most persons, living in Ven', would offer their first-hand observations to contradict the idea that Ven' is 'illiteracy-free.' but you don't. is that because, as a William Buckley wanna-be, you don't want to get your hands dirty with anything so plebian as facts, or because i have misunderstood your use of the word 'here' in the relevant quote?
"Chavez wasted an unprecedented opportunity during the oil boom and their economy is now in shambles."
You are a third rate propagandist. My god. Venezuela has the highest rate of growth, according to the UN, of the human development index in the ENTIRE region since Chavez took over. Is that "waste" Thomas? So, expert Thomas, what could he have done differently? Tell us genius, you obviosly know more than the entire region. The WHO has hilighted Venezuela's advancement in healthcare. People now have healthcare clinics, schools and democratic rights that we could only dream of before Chavez or us here in the US.
In Venzuela, thanks to the constitution that was voted on in 1999, the people can put up the removal of a president if 35% of the country approves. This was put into practice a few years ago and failed. The results monitored by dozens of observers, including the Carter foundation. The people can put a law up for national referendum if 10% of the people want it overturned. Recently, his attempt at amending the constitution was rejected, which he accepted. It makes no logical sense to call Chavez a dictator, unless everyone else in the world is a dictator.
Venezuela also has large foreign reserves. Yes, they are going to struggle a bit thanks to the economic environment. Again, can your little mind put this in perspective? Is the US' economy in trouble? How about Europes? Is Asia's economy not struggling? Is the entire world not feeling pains economically, or is it Venezuela alone (depsite the gains everyone but Thomas acknowledges)? Oil prices dropping (they won't drop in the long run, prices are dropping for most natural resources around the world in case you haven't noticed, and you'll have to move once again to something else as far as hopping Venezuelans lose all of the social gains thanks to the Bolivarian Revolution). I swear, I've been hearing how Venezuela was going to fail in 2002, thanks to the right wing's economic sabotague (which caused far more economic harm then than this situation has to this point). Then it was the 2002 coup. Then the recall, which failed. Then it was the recent local elections. Then it was the constitutional amendments. I can't wait for the next prediction. Chavez is mortal, so eventually you'll be correct. Keep on trying little buddy.
"As a Russian client he may yet survive, who knows."
He bought weapons from Russia (have you said anything about the billions in weapons transfers to Mexico's horrible paramilitary aparatus in "Plan Mexico", or Colombia's drug cartel government? Said anything about the US leading the world in profits from the export of weapons? Didn't think so), and has cooperated on issues where the countries have a similar interest. If that condemns Venezuela, again, is that a principal you'd apply generally? What about the US and Saudi Arabia? Colombia, with the worst human rights record in the Western hemisphere?
What Venezuela has to do to succeed in the long run is to diversify its economy, and that is extremely hard thanks to the neo-liberal financial climate we live in. If the Banco Del Sur is successful good bye IMF in Latin America, it will be far easier. Have any idea what effect that will have, and has had, on the US Treasury?
"You are a third rate propagandist. My god. Venezuela has the highest rate of growth, according to the UN, of the human development index in the ENTIRE region since Chavez took over."
That was simply because of the oil money. And as far as I know, there was very little manufacturing or sustainable business's put in place during this time. Now that the oil moneyis not flowing there is nothing to sustain the level of spending.
I'll have to finish this later, but Socialist's seem to be in a lather over this and if you are a socialist, nothing I say or do will suit. I am not a socialist.