Monday, February 4, 2019
Venezuela Fake Coup, Truth About Kamala Harris, & Yellow Vests
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLkzE8-tQyk
Bayer-Monsanto Merger: Endangering Our Health, Food, Farms & Planet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=u6e8Jf3n-Bk
Sherrod Brown: Medicare for All Not 'Practical.' Progressives: 'OK. Thank You, Next.'
"Fight for single-payer
or get kicked out of Washington trying."
While not a 2020 presidential
candidate yet, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) broke from the pack of announced and
expected Democrats on Friday by coming out against Medicare for
All—characterizing a system that would cover everybody and leave nobody as not "practical"—and
was greeted by
a widespread reaction of "Thank
you, Next" and "Adios"
from progressives no longer willing to entertain half-measures when it comes to
solving the nation's healthcare crisis or bolstering the private insurance
industry.
"I know most of the
Democratic primary candidates are all talking about Medicare for all. I think
instead we should do Medicare at 55," Brown said during a question and
answer session at the Chamber of Commerce in Clear Lake, Iowa. Brown said that
reducing the age or letting people over 55 buy into the existing Medicare
system early would have a better chance of getting through Congress.
"I'm not going to come
and make a lot of promises like President Trump did ... I'm going to talk about
what's practical and what we can make happen. And if that makes me different
from the other candidates so be it," Brown said.
Progressive critics like Splinter's
Libby Watson, however, took issue.
"You know what isn't
practical?" she added. "Spending twice as much as other rich nations
for worse outcomes."
"It's always 'practical'
to leave people behind, and maintain corporate power," tweeted Michael
Lighty, a healthcare policy expert and founding fellow at the left-leaning
Sanders Institute. But with the right kind of "leadership," he noted:
"We can make the necessary possible."
Ahead of Brown's comments,
Watson on Friday wrote a
long and detailed column explaining why the kind of "Medicare at
55" or "Medicare buy-in" plan the senator is proposing—basically
a public option, but available only to certain segments of the population—is
not just bad policy, but bad politics.
It's not necessarily that what
Brown is calling for would "make things worse," she argued,
"it's that things are already catastrophically bad, and anything that just
tinkers around the edges keeps us in dire straits." And by not taking the
fight over healthcare to the next level by demanding a policy that would
actually solve the problem, Brown is exemplifying the worst tendencies of the
Democratic Party's old guard:
Democrats frequently admit
defeat before they've even got their trousers on. This is one of the major
differences between establishment Democrats and the newly popular leftist
politicians, like Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: They understand that
you don't turn up to a knife fight with a banana and a shirt that says I Am So
Frightened on the front. But prominent Senate Democrats and at least one
presidential candidate have already shown that they're willing to compromise on
single-payer. That is not how you win a fight.
As The Hill notes,
"Brown has increasingly been seen as a presidential candidate since his
reelection victory in November, when he easily won another term in a state that
voted for President Trump in the 2016 election." The senator, the outlet
added, "has been cast as a Democrat who could win states in the industrial
heartland that the party lost to Trump in 2016, such as Michigan, Wisconsin and
Pennsylvania."
But Brown's comments on Friday
appear very out of touch with national voter sentiment—whether in the mid-west
or elsewhere—by calling a solution that garners
massive (and growing)
public support, and which
studies show would be less expensive and more cost-efficient than the
current profit-driven system, not politically realistic:
For Watson, however, not even
the strong polling numbers tell the whole story. "Single-payer supporters
don't say we should have the policy because people support it,"
she wrote. "We believe it's good, just, and more humane than our current
nightmare, and that the conventional wisdom that it would be deeply unpopular is
wrong."
While all the Democratic 2020
candidates will ultimately be pressed on their solution to the nation's ongoing
healthcare crisis, Dr. Carol Paris, former president of Physicians for a
National Health Program, which advocates for a single-payer system like
Medicare for All, told Think
Progress this week that anyone who runs must demonstrate they understand
that only Medicare for All—a system with "No co-pays, no deductibles, no
need for supplemental policies, no private insurance"—has the ability to
confront the current system's inherent failure.
"I want to know that
candidates," she said, "are using that term to mean improving
traditional Medicare and expanding it to everyone from birth to death residing
in the United States."
Because they've taken great
pains to lay it out clearly and succinctly, other Medicare for All proponents
like the Democratic Socialists of America have said the American people should
"accept nothing less."
In the closing argument of her
column, Watson put it this way:
The American healthcare system
is fundamentally broken. We spend twice what other rich nations do for much worse
outcomes, with the highest infant mortality and the lowest life expectancy.
Like the Affordable Care Act before it, the public option would preserve the rotten
system that leads to this. It is motivated by a cowardly, straight-up wrong
idea of pragmatism, the kind of half-hearted idea that Democrats—willingly
bullied for 30 years by Reaganite, anti-government, Chamber of Commerce-funded
slimeballs—think is all we can possibly achieve.
"Fuck that," she
concluded. "Fight for single-payer or get kicked out of Washington
trying."
Updated: Sen. Brown spars with
Iowa Democratic voter over his refusal to embrace Medicare for All.
On Friday night at meet and
greet event at the home of a local Democratic leader in Black Hawk County,
Iowa, Sen. Brown was pressed on his Medicare for All stance by Ruth Walker, a
78-year-old retiree from Cedar Falls. The following transcript of the
"lively exchange" was posted Saturday morning in a
news story by Cleveland.com reporter Seth A. Richardson:
Walker: “It isn’t like it
won’t work. I think advocating part way measures is not going to work. We tried
part-way messages and it doesn’t work.”
Brown: “I want to get there,
but I want to help people’s lives.”
Walker: “But we’ve been doing
this forever. We need to get there.”
Brown: “I understand that. I
understand that. We missed by one vote getting Medicare-at-55 because of one
guy.”
Walker: “I mean
Medicare-for-all. That’s the problem, though.”
Brown: “I know you did. I know
you did. I understand that, but we are no closer to Medicare-for-all today than
we were 15 years ago.”
Walker: “We haven’t been
advocating very long.”
Brown: “OK, well, I want to
improve people’s lives today. I know Congress won’t pass Medicare-for-all.”
Walker: “They will if they
found out the people are brought – educate the people.”
Brown: "Well I try to
educate the people. But I want to help people make their lives better right
now. If we can pass Medicare-at-55 tomorrow, two things would happen: a whole
lot of people’s lives would improve and a whole lot of voters would think that
the next step is to do more.
"My ideology says
universal coverage today, just like yours. But I want to see people’s lives
better. We’ll keep having this debate and people will say, ‘Medicare-for-all.
Medicare-for-all,’ and nothing will change. I think if we can make that change
of Medicare-at-55 or Medicare-at-50, it will make all the difference in the
world and then we get to the next step. Otherwise it’s this sort of tilting at
windmills where everybody feels good saying, ‘I’m for Medicare for all. I’m for
Medicare-for-all,’ but nothing changes.
“And I want to educate people
too, but I want to change people’s lives and help people now. We have a
different disagreement there. We want to end up in the same place, but we’ve
got to get Congress to act as quickly as we can when we were so close before.”
Malcolm X Warned About These Bourgeois Hustlers
By Teodrose Fikre
January 30, 2019
Barack Obama was not an
outlier but the norm when it comes to the tokens who are paraded by Democrats
to represent faux-progress and counterfeit diversity and Kamala Harris is the next in line, says Teodrose
Fikre of the Ghion Journal.
Growing up, one of my biggest
heroes and the person I wanted to emulate when I got older was Malcolm X. This
was during my time of militancy and youthful rebellion, when I thought the only
way to arrive at justice was through a revolution. The insurgent within me was
captivated by Malcolm X’s take no prisoner approach and the way he spoke harsh
truths to the status quo.
It was not until I matured and learned through hardship and
indigence that I realized Malcolm X’s power was not his fiery rhetoric but his
unifying message after returning from Mecca. However, as much as I’ve become an
admirer of El Hajj Malik El Shabazz’s latter days, there are still aspects of
his earlier reflections that ring true given the times we live in.
What I’m referring to are not
his blistering speeches where he would call “white” people devils or his
addresses where he echoed the teachings of Elijah Muhammad—Malcolm X himself
walked away from that type of demagoguery. Rather, what intrigued me the most
was his dissection of the political and social dynamics that kept “black” folks
subjugated.
To this day, one of the most
compelling arguments that Malcolm X made about the evils of both political
parties is found in a speech he gave about the political and economic
state of “black” America. He brilliantly exposed the false-distinction between
Democrats and Republicans as a choice between the lesser of the same evil.
“Foxes and wolves usually are
of the same breed. They belong to the same family—I think it’s called canine.
And the difference is that the wolf when he shows you his teeth, you know that
he’s your enemy; and the fox, when he shows you his teeth, he appears to be
smiling. But no matter which of them you go with, you end up in the dog house.”
It took a mean mugging by
reality—one that shook me out of cognitive dissonance—for me to realize that
Democrats are no different than Republicans. They differ in their methods, but
in the end they feast on us regardless of their gang affiliation. Both parties
are subsidiaries of corporations and oligarchs; our entire political system is
based on two
factions bamboozling their respective bases while manufacturing
dissension on all sides.
Gone When They Get Your Vote
Now that I’ve shed my
political blinders, I see how this game is played. I’ll be honest here and
admit that Democrats irritate me more than Republicans for this one simple
reason. I’ve come to expect Republicans to be malicious—there is honesty in
their advertisement. However, it’s the Democrats who smile like foxes as they
pretend to be our allies only to stab us in our backs the minute they get
elected. They have maintained power for decades by successfully treading on the
pains of marginalized groups as they concurrently enact legislation and
regulations that inflame the very injustices they rail against.
If there is one group that has
been leveraged the most by Democrats, it’s the descendants of slaves and
“black” diaspora as a whole. For generations, supposed liberals—who now call
themselves progressives—have cunningly used the pains of “African-Americans” to
further their own agendas. The Democrat’s most loyal voting bloc have time and
time again been taken advantage of only to be tossed to the side as soon as
Democrats gain power. They talk a good game and pretend to be for us right up
until election day, soon as the last ballot is counted, they are nowhere to be
found.
It’s on this front that
another observation by Malcolm X comes into clear focus. One of the things that
really grabbed my attention while I was reading his autobiography is the way
Malcolm described the dynamic between the impoverished masses and the black
bourgeoisie during the Civil Rights Era.
“There are two types of
Negroes in this country. There’s the bourgeois type who blinds himself to the
condition of his people, and who is satisfied with token solutions. He’s in the
minority. He’s a handful. He’s usually the hand-picked Negro who benefits from
token integration. But [it’s the] masses of Black people who really suffer the
brunt of brutality and the conditions that exist in this country.”
What Malcolm X was describing
was the class hierarchy within the construct of race. He railed against the
select few “negroes” who willingly stepped on their own people in order to
advance their own selfish ambitions. Malcolm X was against integration for this
reason; he realized that a modification of a racist system that benefits a
fraction of society while keeping the majority repressed was morally bankrupt.
This same realization eventually dawned on Martin Luther King Jr when he confided to
his closest advisers that he might have “integrated his people into a burning
house.”
Fast forward fifty years and
it’s evident that the bourgeoisie “negroes” who Malcolm X talked about have
been unleashed by the establishment to work against the interests of their
people. As the majority of “African-Americans” suffer economic inequalities and
are burdened by financial uncertainties, black politicians, pundits and
so-called “activists” are enriching themselves while they pretend to be
fighting injustice.
Forget Plymouth Rock, the
biggest hoodwink of them all that landed on us was a boulder named Barack.
After losing a Congressional primary to Bobby Rush in 2000, Obama’s inner
circle realized that he was not embraced by “African-Americans” in Chicago
because many did not see him as one
of them. He quickly adapted and learned the art of duplicity; Obama
perfected his ability to talk eloquently about our issues and suffering as a
means to an end. The end was his unabated ego. After he scaled the heights of
politics, he ended up enacting
policies that exacerbated the wealth gap. For his brazen act of
betrayal, Obama was rewarded handsomely.
The Audacity of Trope
Barack Obama was not an
outlier but the norm when it comes to the tokens who are paraded by Democrats
to represent faux-progress and counterfeit diversity. Kamala Harris is the next black bourgeoisie in line
who is hoping to use the plight of African-Americans and the tribulations of
“black” folk to win the White House. After spending a career locking up brown
and “black” folk with impunity and resurrecting the ugly legacy of penal
slavery, she is now shamelessly pretending to be the next coming of Sojourner
Truth—hers is the audacity of trope.
Given the fact that too many
are conditioned to think in binary fashion, I must take a pause here to clarify
one thing. This is in no way to excuse the pernicious nature of Republicans and
the vile racism of Donald Trump. After all, not only are Republicans insidious
when it comes to the way they treat “African-Americans” and minorities as a
whole, the party of Trump uses the same playbook of feigned concern to dupe
their respective side. However, the more I observe the rank opportunism of the
Democrat front-runners, the more I appreciate the sagacity of Malcolm X.
It’s not only politicians like
Barack Obama and Kamala Harris who traffic in this most insincere form of
paternalism, there is a whole cottage industry of black opinion leaders and
gate-keepers who actively work against our interests while passively speaking
against injustice. They abound on TV, in the press and throughout social media;
the surest way to make a name for oneself is to be a part of the “woke” intelligentsia
who lull their people into collective comas.
Adding insult to injury is the
fact that these same bourgeoisie mouthpieces are not only using the pains of
the oppressed to advance themselves, they are now employing the injuries of the
masses to deflect well-deserved criticism.
Identity has been weaponized,
instead of addressing the structural nature of racism and sexism, folks like
Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton and identity politics shysters across the
political spectrum are turning the victims of systematic oppression into human
shields to intimidate anyone who dares to question their
record. Enough is enough!
The Talented Tenth
There is a broader problem
beyond these two-faced grifters. The truth is that the “black” community has
become bifurcated; the bourgeoisie class feeling the blessings of capitalism
and enterprise while the vast majority are burdened by consumerism and debt.
DuBois once talked about the “talented tenth”, an educated sector of blacks
leading the bottom 90% out of bondage. Sadly, the talented tenth has been
convinced to seek self-enrichment and forget about collective wellness.
What is true of
“African-Americans” is true of society as a whole. In this richest nation,
there exists a breathtaking chasm between the few who have much and the many
who have little. Keeping this dynamic in place is a pyramid scheme that
transfers wealth upward being kept by the greed of politicians and the
indifference of the proletariat. We are being swindled by hustlers to keep this
most depraved system intact.
I don’t expect leaders to be
perfect, very few of us are guilt free when it comes to the iniquities of the
status quo. We all have have our battles as we vacillate between our better
angels and the allure of our desires. All we can do in life is seek to do
better; after all, Malcolm X’s very narrative is one of mistakes followed by
atonement. My aim is not to be pious nor pretend purity from people, I have way
too many planks in my eyes to demand others act blameless. However, there is a
vast difference between those who perpetrate infringements by commission versus
the rest of us who transgress through omission.
I would be the first person to
applaud Harris, Obama, Trump or any politician who sincerely admit their
mistakes and try to make amends. Far from doing so, these con artists pretend
to do the right thing as they pour fuel on the fire. There is a reason why
hypocrisy is the most egregious sin; it’s hard to be forgiven when the offender
is lying about his penance.
Malcolm X is painted by many
in mainstream media and academia as a firebrand who preached from the pulpit of
exclusion. But those who know his history understand very well that who he was
when his journey concluded was vastly different than the caricature of Malcolm
X that is presented by the institutions of power he spoke against. It never
fails, first kill the messengers then co-opt their message. The truth is that
he changed his approach, disavowed divisive rhetoric and embraced inclusive
justice.
These were the words uttered
by Malcolm X as he spoke against the system of inequality that shackles
billions around our planet into lives of servitude and bondage. His decision to
pivot from friction and instead seek the light of universal justice is the
reason why he was silenced, the status quo rewards charlatans but has a way of
killing off unifying voices.
On this front, the status quo
has succeeded beyond its wildest imagination. We are now being led by a
procession of overseers who pretend to be Moses. This hustle will not work too
much longer however, more and more people are waking up to their deception and
refusing to be doormats of Democrats, Republicans or anyone else. If we are to
find redemption, it will not be from the top nor will the revolution be
televised.
As I noted earlier, I’ve come
a long way from my days of would-be revolutionary. Malcolm X had an
eye-awakening moment in Mecca upon seeing a broad sea of humanity praying in
unison. I had my mecca moment by way of shelters and homeless missions and
observing a diverse dissection of Americans made invisible by the malice of the
gentry and the indifference of society. It’s for this reason that I
disavow sectional movements and pray for a day where all of us
unite beyond our trivial differences. We have more that unites us than the
issues that divide us; when we realize this is the day we will get the change
we all have been waiting for. The revolution that matters is not the one of the
gun but the one our hearts.
Thursday, January 31, 2019
Sorting through the lies about Venezuela
Challenging United States
hegemony is never an easy course. A county need not be socialist — it is enough
to either voice aspirations toward socialism, or merely demonstrate a pattern
of not doing as Washington dictates.
So here we go again, this time
with Venezuela. Ironically for a country that the corporate media insistently
claims has been ruled by two “dictators” (remember that Hugo Chávez was
routinely denounced in the same ways that Nicolás Maduro is today) it would be
difficult to find a country with more opportunities for grassroots democracy
and for everyday people to participate in the decisions that affect their lives
and neighborhoods. There has been backtracking on some of this, and there are
legitimate complaints about the top-down manner in which the ruling United
Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) is run. The U.S. government is in no
position to point fingers, however, given its history in Latin America and the
widespread voter suppression that is a regular feature of U.S. elections.
It is also preposterous to
assert that “socialism has failed” in Venezuela, when 70 percent of the
country’s economy is in private hands, the country is completely integrated
into the world capitalist system and it is (overly) dependent on a commodity
with a price that wildly fluctuates on capitalist markets. Venezuela is a capitalist
country that does far more than most to ameliorate the conditions of capitalism
and in which socialism remains an aspiration. If something has “failed,” it is
capitalism. Leaving much of the economy in the hands of capitalists leaves them
with the ability to sabotage an economy, a lesson learned in painful fashion
during the
1980s in Sandinista Nicaragua.
Before delving into the
significant problems of Venezuela, largely due to the economic war being waged
against it by the U.S. government and the economic sabotage within by
Venezuela’s industrialists and other business interests, it is worthwhile to
briefly examine some of the democratic institutions that have been created
since the Bolivarian Revolution took root in 1998.
Communal councils organize at
neighborhood level
The base of the Venezuelan
political system are the communal councils. Various political structures
designed to organize people at the grassroots level have evolved into a system
of communal councils, organized on a neighborhood level, which in turn build up
to communes and communal cities. These are direct-democracy bodies that identify
and solve the problems and deficiencies of their local areas with the direct
support and funding of the national government. After decades of neglect by
previous governments, there were no shortage of problems to tackle.
Like many institutions of the
Bolivarian Revolution, these have roots in grassroots organizing that pre-date
Hugo Chávez’s first election.
The Barrio Assembly of Caracas
emerged in 1991 as something of a general assembly representing local
groups, coming into being after demonstrations marking the first and second
anniversaries of the “Caracazo” uprising were dispersed by soldiers firing on
them from rooftops. (The “Caracazo” uprising was a massive revolt sparked by
popular resistance to an austerity package dictated by the International
Monetary Fund.) Later versions of these assemblies organized on the
eve of the 2002 coup attempting to overthrow President Chávez; among these
assemblies’ accomplishments were distributing 100,000 fliers calling for a
march on the presidential palace to defend the government.
The communal councils are the
base of an alternative government structure, one intended to bypass municipal
and other local governments and to eventually replace them. This was an attempt
to provide a concrete form to the concept of “constituent power,” the idea that
people should be direct participants in the decisions to affect their lives and
communities. Legislation passed in 2006 formally recognized the communal
councils and the form quickly gained popularity — there were an estimated
30,000 in existence by 2009. These councils are formed in compact urban areas
containing 200 to 400 households in cities and 20 or so in rural areas. All
residents of the territory are eligible to participate. In turn, communal
councils organize into larger communes, and communes into communal cities, to
coordinate projects too large for a neighborhood or to organize projects
necessarily on a larger scale, such as improving municipal services.
Communal councils are required
to propose
three projects that will contribute to development in the community;
funding for approved projects will usually come from national-government
bodies. An interesting development is that many (in the case of councils
studied by researchers, a majority) who have taken active roles in the communal
councils were not politically active before the 2002 failed coup. Generally,
women outnumber men among the active participants, and it is often older women
taking the lead. The culture of participation that the councils encourage and
that the Bolivarian government is paying vastly more attention to solving
social problems and the needs of the poor than prior governments has facilitated
the organizing of women, and the new activity of women in turn is breaking down
traditional macho attitudes. That pensions are now much stronger, proving
material security, also enables participation. Health committees tackling
problems of illness, access to contraception and motherhood are often where
participation begins. Once involved, women sign up for training programs, with
more women then men taking advantage of these.
Communes often organize
enterprises to provide employment for local residents and to help supply needed
basic goods. One example is the El Panal 2012 Commune in
Caracas. El Panal operates several enterprises and a communal bank. One of the
enterprises is a sugar-packaging plant, and there are also bakeries. El Panal
activists are also creating links with neighboring communes in Caracas and in
other parts of the country. Links are also being created with the countryside
— a “Pueblo a Pueblo” initiative brings together urban communities and
farmers to distribute food directly, eliminating intermediaries and
speculators. El Panal also regularly organizes food fairs at which meats,
vegetables and other basic foods can be bought at discounts, well below market
prices.
Tackling social problems
through missions
There are also the social
programs known as “missions” that are based on the direct participation of the
beneficiaries. Begun in 2003, there are more than two dozen missions that seek
to solve a wide array of social problems. Given the corruption and inertia of
the state bureaucracy, and the unwillingness of many professionals to provide
services to poor neighborhoods, the missions were established to provide
services directly while enabling participants to shape the programs. Much
government money was poured into these programs, thanks to the then high price
of oil, which in turn enabled the Chávez government to fund them.
Among the approximately two dozen
missions are Alimentación, which incorporates the Mercal network that
provides food at subsidized prices and a distribution system; Cultura, which
seeks the decentralization and democratization of culture to ensure that all
have access to it and stimulate community participation; Guaicaipuro, intended
to guarantee the rights of Indigenous peoples as specified in the constitution;
Madres del Barrio, designed to provide support to housewives in dire poverty
and help their families overcome their poverty; Negra Hipólita, which assists
children, adolescents and adults who are homeless; Piar, which seeks to help
mining communities through dignifying living conditions and establishing
environmental practices; and Zamora, intended to reorganize land, especially
idle land that could be used for agriculture, in accordance with the
constitution.
Venezuelan political scientist
and historian Margarita López Maya summarized the breadth of
the missions in a Socialist Register article:
“Missions (programs bypassing
uncooperative or ineffective state agencies), such as Barrio Adentro (free 24
hours a day primary health care and disease prevention for low income groups),
Mercal (state distribution of food at subsidized prices), Robinson 1 and 2
(literacy and primary education for adults), Ribas and Sucre (secondary and
university education for those who had missed or not finished these), Vuelvan
Caras (training for employment), and the Bolivarian schools, where a full day
schedule has been restored, with two free meals and two snacks a day, plus free
uniforms and textbooks: all these undoubtedly had a positive political impact.
The government has also invested in the social economy, as in the “ruedas de
negocios,” in which the creation of cooperatives is encouraged in order to
supply goods and services to the state sector. The government has also created
a system of micro-financing with the Women’s Bank, the Sovereign People’s Bank,
and so on, which make small loans to lower income borrowers.”
Struggles for economic
democracy
In the workplaces, there are
experiments with co-management, cooperatives, socialist production units and
workers’ councils. These forms have been contested — an ongoing multiple-sided
struggle over what constitutes “workers’ control” of industry and what forms
such control should take continues. Cooperative enterprises are enshrined in
the constitution, and a 2001 law mandates that all members be included in
decision-making and that an assembly of all members has final decision-making
power over all topics. Temporary workers can be hired for a maximum of six
months, after which they must be accepted as members. A state ministry was
created to provide assistance to cooperatives and small businesses, including
the facilitation of securing contracts from state companies.
There are difficulties
here. One
significant problem were instances of cooperatives being formed only
in order to acquire the start-up capital provided by the government, or were
small companies that converted to being cooperatives only on paper to take
advantage of preferential priority for state contracts or to obtain subsidies.
In response to these irregularities, the government began to require coops
obtain a “certificate of fulfillment of responsibilities,” which includes
financial audits and demonstration of work within their local community.
Nonetheless, there are many examples of successful cooperative enterprises.
There are also socialist
production units. These are nonprofit, state-owned enterprises that are managed
democratically by a combination of their workers, local communal councils and
the national government. These enterprises are intended to provide local
services, such as transportation and distribution of cooking gas, and the
creation of production. Although workers are directly involved in
decision-making at these enterprises, the state also has a role, which can
sometimes lead to tensions. The goods produced are most often distributed
through the Mercal state-owned chain of supermarkets that provides food at
subsidized prices, and PDVAL, a state-run food-distribution network. These are
often operated at a loss, as they are intended to provide needed goods and
services to communities at steep discounts.
A continuing area of
contestation are state-owned enterprises. Some argue for state ownership with
employee participation, others argue for full autonomy of enterprises and the
workers in them, and there are gradations in between. There are managements
that don’t wish to cede decision-making authority to their workforce, and there
are government officials, despite being part of the Bolivarian movement, who
oppose workers’ control, sometimes because they believe in top-down control by
the state. There are examples of state-owned companies in which management
structures have changed multiple times as different factions temporarily gain
control.
The push and pull of competing
interests and tendencies is exemplified in the case of the state-owned
aluminum smelter Alcasa, which had a well-functioning system of workers’
control under co-management that reversed its debt problems; then had a new
director appointed who ignored the co-management structure, with an
accompanying fall in productivity and return of corruption; and then a return
to co-management when President Chávez named a new company president selected
by the workers. Workers’ control was reinstated with new structures, and because
of the precarious financial situation caused by the corruption of the middle
period, workers began designing parts to be produced internally instead of
buying them from suppliers as previously done. More difficulties arose when a
dissident union aligned with the local state governor attempted to stop
production, and although unsuccessful, caused a significant disruption. Yet
another change in management by Chávez led to a renewed deterioration in
co-management, and struggles at Alcasa continued.
Economic warfare at home and
abroad
Shifting from a traditional
capitalist economy toward a participatory economic democracy can’t be expected
to be smooth sailing, especially when this attempt is being done in a country
with subaltern status in the world capitalist system. President Chávez had to
withstand three successive attempts to remove him — the 2002 coup, 2002-03
bosses’ lockout and the 2004 recall referendum. Five times he was elected
president, never with less than 55 percent of the vote, and overall he won 16
of 17 elections and referendums in which his movement participated. The
election system put in place by the Chávez government was declared by former
U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s Carter Center to be “the
best in the world.” None of this prevented the late president from being
furiously denounced as a “dictator.”
Once he died, however, the
attacks were stepped up by the revolution’s opponents, apparently believing
that the loss of the leader would make the revolution vulnerable. In reality,
the Bolivarian Revolution has always been a movement propelled by millions who
will not readily give up the many gains they have achieved and which pushed the
late president to go further. Venezuela also has a long tradition of strong, organized
movements, which predate the Bolivarian Revolution. Despite the difficulties of
recent years and increasing popular disapproval of President Maduro, those
movements do not want their gains to be reversed. During the Chávez years,
unemployment and poverty were drastically reduced and people were able to
participate in the political process for the first time.
So how much of Venezuela’s
serious economic problems are the fault of the current president? Some of the
blame can be laid at his doorstep, but mostly for his inability to act in
timely fashion and allowing problems caused by outside forces to deepen. A
serious mistake that has ran through the past 20 years is that no progress was
made on reducing Venezuela’s heavy reliance on oil exports. When oil prices
were high, the government was content to let the money flow and use it to fund
social programs and finance a wide variety of projects. But the later crash in
oil prices left the government vulnerable. By not diversifying the economy,
much less is earned when the inevitable falls in price arrive and it becomes
difficult to maintain consumption because so many consumer products must be
imported.
The over-reliance on a single
export commodity would be difficult to overcome by itself. But greatly
compounding Venezuela’s problems are U.S. sanctions, a currency that
became drastically overvalued, and an inflationary spiral resulting from that
overvaluation that incentivized black markets and smuggling. Poor management on
the part of the government of President Maduro has intensified the damage done
by those factors. Although the Venezuelan government set an official exchange
rate for its currency, the bolÃvar, the effective exchange rate was determined
by international currency speculators and thus the value of the bolÃvar is not
in the control of Caracas.
Speculators caused the value
of the bolÃvar to be reduced by 97 percent in 2017, and further drastic
reductions in the currency’s value continued well into 2018. The value or
output of the Venezuelan economy hardly declined by anything remotely
comparable, so there are other factors at work for such a drastic reduction in
exchange value. But because the Maduro government did not adjust the official
exchange rate when the bolÃvar came under attack, the spread between the
official rate and the de facto rate widened to the point that vast
opportunities for smuggling and black-market operations were created. That in
turn caused shortages and hyperinflation.
These developments were a
consequence of Venezuela’s integration into the world capitalist system and the
country’s heavy reliance on imports. Food and consumer goods intended to be
sold at discounts in state stores were diverted to the black market, where
profiteers sold them at prices several times higher or smuggled them into
Colombia for huge profits. Government officials have repeatedly
discovered vast quantities of consumer goods hidden
in warehouses by local capitalists who are artificially causing
shortages.
Hardening financial sanctions
United States government
sanctions on Venezuela prohibit any U.S. persons or banks from providing
financing or purchasing any debt issued by the Venezuelan government or the
state oil company PDVSA, the purpose of which is to make it more difficult for
the government to raise funds internationally or to restructure debt.
These sanctions are
effectively extra-territorial. A non-U.S. bank that seeks to handle a
transaction in U.S. dollars (the currency most often used in international
transactions) has to do so by clearing the transaction through a U.S. bank; a
U.S. bank that cleared such a transaction would be in violation of the
sanctions. The Obama administration intensified the U.S. financial war on
Venezuela by absurdly declaring the latter a “national security threat” and the
Trump administration has issued a succession of decrees tightening the screws.
The latest, issued on January
28, freezes all property and interests of PDVSA subject to U.S. jurisdiction —
in other words, blocking Venezuela from any access to the profits generated by
PDVSA’s U.S. subsidiary, Citgo, or any PDVSA activities in the United States.
The Trump administration expects Venezuela
to lose US$11 billion this year, The New York Times reports.
That move is in addition to repeated calls by the Trump administration for an
overthrow of the Venezuelan government, threats by President Trump to invade,
and the Trump administration “recognizing” the opposition leader Juan Guaidó as
president although Guaidó has never run for the position and is largely unknown
to the Venezuelan public. An added insult is the appointment of death-squad
cheerleader Elliot Abrams to “oversee” a “return to democracy,” an idea that
would draw laughs if Abrams’ history in Latin America during the Reagan
administration weren’t so deadly.
Successive U.S.
administrations have subsidized opposition groups — an estimated US$100 million
has been poured into Venezuela in an effort to subvert the elected government.
Alan MacLeod, a specialist in
media studies, summarized the extra-territorial
effect of U.S. sanctions:
“[T]he sanctions strongly
discourage other countries from lending money to the country for fear of
reprisal and also discourage any businesses from doing business there too. A
study from the 2018 opposition Presidential candidate’s economics czar
suggested the sanctions were responsible for a 50%
drop in oil production. Furthermore, Trump’s sanctions prevent profits
from Venezuela-owned CITGO from being sent back to Venezuela. Trump has also
threatened banks with 30
years in jail if they co-operate with Caracas and has intimidated
others into going along with them.”
President Maduro is repeatedly
called a “dictator,” an epithet endless repeated across the corporate media.
But when a portion of the opposition boycotts, can it be a surprise that the
incumbent wins? The opposition actually asked the United Nations to
not send observers, a sure sign that they expected to lose a fair election
despite their claims that the election would be rigged. Nonetheless, a
coalition of Canadian unions, church leaders and other officials declared the
election to be “a transparent, secure, democratic and orderly electoral and
voting process.”
Unfortunately, there is every
reason to be concerned, given the hostility of U.S. governments and capitalists
to any intent to become independent of the U.S. or to direct economic activity
to benefit local people rather than maximizing the profits of U.S.
multinational corporations. The United States has militarily invaded Latin
American and Caribbean countries 96 times, including 48 times in the 20th
century. That total constitutes only direct interventions and doesn’t include
coups fomented by the U.S., such as Guatemala in 1954 and Chile
in 1973. Guatemala was attempting nothing more “radical” than a
land reform that would have forced United Fruit to sell idle land at
United Fruit’s own under-valuation of the land (a self-assessment made by
United Fruit to avoid paying a fair share of taxes). The U.S. overthrew the
government and instituted what would become a 40-year nightmare of
state-organized mass murder that ultimately cost 200,000 lives. The Chilean
effort to build a humane economy was ended with the overthrow of Salvador
Allende and the installation of Augusto Pinochet and his murderous regime that
immiserated Chileans.
Dissimilar results can hardly
be expected if the U.S. were to succeed in overthrowing the Venezuelan
government and installing a right-wing government that would reverse the many
gains of the past 20 years. Hands off Venezuela!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)