Many writers have noted one or another of his historic
contributions highlighting his anti-poverty legislation, his success in winning
popular elections with resounding majorities and his promotion of universal
free public education and health coverage for all Venezuelans.
In this essay we will highlight the unique world-historic
contributions that President Chavez made in the spheres of political economy,
ethics and international law and in redefining relations between political
leaders and citizens. We shall start with his enduring contribution to the
development of civic culture in Venezuela and beyond.
Hugo Chavez: The Great Teacher of Civic Values
From his first days in office, Chavez was engaged in
transforming the constitutional order so that political leaders and
institutions would be more responsive to the popular electorate. Through his
speeches Chavez clearly and carefully informed the electorate of the measures
and legislation to improve their livelihood. He invited comments and criticism
– his style was to engage in constant dialogue, especially with the poor, the
unemployed and the workers. Chavez was so successful in teaching civic
responsibilities to the Venezuelan electorate that millions of citizens from the
slums of Caracas rose up spontaneously to oust the US backed business-military
junta which had kidnapped their president and closed the legislature. Within
seventy-two hours – record time – the civic-minded citizens restored the
democratic order and the rule of law in Venezuela, thoroughly rejecting the
mass media’s defense of the coup-plotters and their brief authoritarian regime.
Chavez, as all great educators, learned from this
democratic intervention of the mass of citizens, that democracy’s most effective
defenders were to be found among the working people – and that its worst
enemies were found in the business elites and military officials linked to
Miami and Washington.
Chavez civic pedagogy emphasized the importance of the
historical teachings and examples of founding fathers, like Simon Bolivar, in
establishing a national and Latin American identity. His speeches raised the
cultural level of millions of Venezuelans who had been raised in the alienating
and servile culture of imperial Washington and the consumerist obsessions of
Miami shopping malls.
Chavez succeeded in instilling a culture of solidarity
and mutual support among the exploited, emphasizing ‘horizontal’ ties over
vertical clientelistic dependency on the rich and powerful. His success in
creating collective consciousness decisively shifted the balance of political
power away from the wealthy rulers and corrupt political party and trade union
leaders toward new socialist movements and class oriented trade unions. More
than anything else Chavez’ political education of the popular majority
regarding their social rights to free health care and higher education, living
wages and full employment drew the hysterical ire of the wealthy Venezuelans
and their undying hatred of a president who had created a sense of autonomy,
dignity and ‘class empowerment’ through public education ending centuries of
elite privilege and omnipotence.
Above all Chavez speeches, drawing as much from Bolivar
as from Karl Marx, created a deep, generous sense of patriotism and nationalism
and a profound rejection of a prostrate elite groveling before their Washington
overlord, Wall Street bankers and oil company executives. Chavez’ anti-imperial
speeches resonated because he spoke in the language of the people and expanded
their national consciousness to identification with Latin America, especially
Cuba’s fight against imperial interventions and wars.
International Relations: The Chavez Doctrine
At the beginning of the previous decade, after 9/11/01,
Washington declared a ‘War on Terror.’ This was a public declaration of
unilateral military intervention and wars against sovereign nations, movements
and individuals deemed as adversaries, in violation of international law.
Almost all countries submitted to this flagrant violation
of the Geneva Accords, except President Chavez, who made the most profound and
simple refutation against Washington: ‘You don’t fight terrorism with state
terrorism’. In his defense of the sovereignty of nations and international
jurisprudence, Chavez underlined the importance of political and economic
solutions to social problems and conflicts – repudiating the use of bombs,
torture and mayhem. The Chavez Doctrine emphasized south-south trade and
investments and diplomatic over military resolution of disputes. He upheld the
Geneva Accords against colonial and imperial aggression while rejecting the
imperial doctrine of ‘the war on terror’, defining western state terrorism as a
pernicious equivalent to Al Qaeda terrorism.
Political Theory and Practice: The Grand Synthesizer
One of the most profound and influential aspects of
Chavez’ legacy is his original synthesis of three grand strands of political
thought: popular Christianity, Bolivarian nationalist and regional integration
and Marxist political, social and economic thought. Chavez’ Christianity
informed his deep belief in justice and the equality of people, as well as his
generosity and forgiveness of adversaries even as they engaged in a violent
coup, a crippling lockout, or openly collaborated and received financing from
enemy intelligence agencies. Whereas anywhere else in the world, armed assaults
against the state and coup d’états would result in long prison sentences or
even executions, under Chavez most of his violent adversaries escaped
prosecution and even rejoined their subversive organizations. Chavez
demonstrated a deep belief in redemption and forgiveness. Chavez’s Christianity
informed his ‘option for the poor’, the depth and breadth of his commitment to
eradicating poverty and his solidarity with the poor against the rich.
Chavez deep-seated aversion and effective opposition to
US and European imperialism and brutal Israeli colonialism were profoundly
rooted in his reading of the writings and history of Simon Bolivar, the
founding father of the Venezuelan nation. Bolivarian ideas on national
liberation long preceded any exposure to Marx, Lenin or more contemporary
leftist writings on imperialism. His powerful and unwavering support for
regional integration and internationalism was deeply influenced by Simon
Bolivar’s proposed ‘United States of Latin America’ and his internationalist
activity in support of anti-colonial movements.
Chavez’ incorporation of Marxist ideas into his world
view was adapted to his longstanding popular Christian and Bolivarian
internationalist philosophy. Chavez’ option for the poor was deepened by his
recognition of the centrality of the class struggle and the reconstruction of
the Bolivarian nation through the socialization of the ‘commanding heights of
the economy’. The socialist concept of self-managed factories and popular
empowerment via community councils was given moral legitimacy by Chavez’
Christian faith in an egalitarian moral order.
While Chavez was respectful and carefully listened to the
views of visiting leftist academics and frequently praised their writings, many
failed to recognize or, worse, deliberately ignored the President’s own more
original synthesis of history, religion and Marxism. Unfortunately, as is
frequently the case, some leftist academics have, in their self-indulgent
posturing, presumed to be Chavez’ ‘teacher’ and advisor on all matters of
‘Marxist theory’: This represents a style of leftist cultural colonialism,
which snidely criticized Chavez for not following their ready-made
prescriptions, published in their political literary journals in London, New
York and Paris.
Fortunately, Chavez took what was useful from the
overseas academics and NGO-funded political strategists while discarding ideas
that failed to take account of the cultural-historical, class and rentier
specificities of Venezuela.
Chavez has bequeathed to the intellectuals and activists
of the world a method of thinking which is global and specific, historical and
theoretical, material and ethical and which encompasses class analysis,
democracy and a spiritual transcendence resonating with the great mass of
humanity in a language every person can understand. Chavez’ philosophy and
practice (more than any ‘discourse’ narrated by the social forum-hopping
experts) demonstrated that the art of formulating complex ideas in simple
language can move millions of people to ‘make history, and not only to study
it’..
Toward Practical Alternatives to Neoliberalism and
Imperialism
Perhaps Chavez greatest contribution in the contemporary
period was to demonstrate, through practical measures and political
initiatives, that many of the most challenging contemporary political and
economic problems can be successfully resolved.
Radical Reform of a Rentier State
Nothing is more difficult than changing the social
structure, institutions and attitudes of a rentier petro-state, with deeply
entrenched clientelistic politics, endemic party-state corruption and a
deeply-rooted mass psychology based on consumerism. Yet Chavez largely
succeeded where other petro-regimes failed. The Chavez Administration first
began with constitutional and institutional changes to create a new political
framework; then he implemented social impact programs, which deepened political
commitments among an active majority, which, in turn, bravely defended the
regime from a violent US backed business-military coup d’état. Mass
mobilization and popular support, in turn, radicalized the Chavez government
and made way for a deeper socialization of the economy and the implementation
of radical agrarian reform. The petrol industry was socialized; royalty and tax
payments were raised to provide funds for massively expanded social
expenditures benefiting the majority of Venezuelans.
Almost every day Chavez prepared clearly understandable
educational speeches on social, ethical and political topics related to his
regime’s redistributive policies by emphasizing social solidarity over
individualistic acquisitive consumerism. Mass organizations and community and
trade union movements flourished – a new social consciousness emerged ready and
willing to advance social change and confront the wealthy and powerful. Chavez’
defeat of the US-backed coup and bosses’ lockout and his affirmation of the
Bolivarian tradition and sovereign identity of Venezuela created a powerful
nationalist consciousness which eroded the rentier mentality and strengthened
the pursuit of a diversified ‘balanced economy’. This new political will and
national productive consciousness was a great leap forward, even as the main
features of a rentier-oil dependent economy persist. This extremely difficult
transition has begun and is an ongoing process. Overseas leftist theorists, who
criticize Venezuela (‘corruption’, ‘bureaucracy’) have profoundly ignored the
enormous difficulties of transitioning from a rentier state to a socialized
economy and the enormous progress achieved by Chavez.
Economic Crisis Without Capitalist Austerity
Throughout the crisis-wracked capitalist world, ruling
labor, social democratic, liberal and conservative regimes have imposed
regressive ‘austerity programs’ involving brutal reductions of social welfare,
health and education expenditures and mass layoffs of workers and employees
while handing our generous state subsidies and bailouts to failing banks and
capitalist enterprises. Chanting their Thacherite slogan, ‘there is no
alternative’, capitalist economists justify imposing the burden of ‘capitalist
recovery’ onto the working class while allowing capital to recover its profits
in order to invest.
Chavez’ policy was the direct opposite: In the midst of
crisis, he retained all the social programs, rejected mass firings and
increased social spending. The Venezuelan economy rode out of the worldwide
crisis and recovered with a healthy 5.8% growth rate in 2012. In other words,
Chavez demonstrated that mass impoverishment was a product of the specific
capitalist ‘formula’ for recovery. He showed another, positive alternative
approach to economic crisis, which taxed the rich, promoted public investments
and maintained social expenditures.
Social Transformation in a ‘Globalized Economy’
Many commentators, left, right and center, have argued
that the advent of a ‘globalized economy’ ruled out a radical social
transformation. Yet Venezuela, which is profoundly globalized and integrated
into the world market via trade and investments, has made major advances in
social reform. What really matters in relation to a globalized economy is the
nature of the political economic regime and its policies, which dictate how the
gains and costs of international trade and investment are distributed. In a
word, what is decisive is the ‘class character of the regime’ managing its place
in the world economy. Chavez certainly did not ‘de-link’ from the world
economy; rather he has re-linked Venezuela in a new way. He shifted Venezuelan
trade and investment toward Latin America, Asia and the Middle East —
especially to countries which do not intervene or impose reactionary conditions
on economic transactions.
Anti-Imperialism in a Time of an Imperialist Offensive
In a time of a virulent US—EU imperialist offensive
involving ‘pre-emptive’ military invasions, mercenary interventions, torture,
assassinations and drone warfare in Iraq, Mali, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and
Afghanistan and brutal economic sanctions and sabotage against Iran; Israeli
colonial expulsions of thousands of Palestinians financed by the US; US-backed
military coups in Honduras and Paraguay and aborted revolutions via puppets in
Egypt and Tunisia, President Chavez, alone, stood as the principled defender of
anti-imperialist politics. Chavez deep commitment to anti-imperialism stands in
marked contrast to the capitulation of Western self-styled ‘Marxist’
intellectuals who mouthed crude justifications for their support of NATO
bombing Yugoslavia and Libya, the French invasion of Mali and the Saudi-French
(‘Monarcho-Socialist’) funding and arming of Islamist mercenaries against
Syria. These same London, New York and Paris-based ‘intellectuals’ who
patronized Chavez as a mere ‘populist’ or ‘nationalist’ and claimed he should
have listened to their lectures and read their books, had crassly capitulated
under the pressure of the capitalist state and mass media into supporting
‘humanitarian interventions’ (aka NATO bombing)… and justified their
opportunism in the language of obscure leftists sects. Chavez confronted NATO
pressures and threats, as well as the destabilizing subversion of his domestic
opponents and courageously articulated the most profound and significant
principles of 20th and 21st Marxism: the inviolate right to self-determination
of oppressed nations and unconditional opposition to imperial wars. While
Chavez spoke and acted in defense of anti-imperialist principles, many in the
European and US left acquiesced in imperial wars: There were virtually no mass
protests, the ‘anti-war’ movements were co-opted or moribund, the British
‘Socialist’ Workers Party defended the massive NATO bombing of Libya, the
French ‘Socialists’ invaded Mali- with the support of the ‘Anti-Capitalist’
Party. Meanwhile, the ‘populist’ Chavez had articulated a far more profound and
principled understanding of Marxist practice, certainly than his self-appointed
overseas Marxist ‘tutors’.
No other political leader or for that matter, leftist
academic, developed, deepened and extended the central tenets of
anti-imperialist politics in the era of global imperialist warfare with greater
acuity than Hugo Chavez.
Transition from a Failed Neo-Liberal to a Dynamic Welfare
State
Chavez’ programmatic and comprehensive reconfiguration of
Venezuela from a disastrous and failed neo-liberal regime to a dynamic welfare
state stands as a landmark in 20th and 21st century political economy. Chavez’
successful reversal of neo-liberal institutions and policies, as well as his
re-nationalization of the ‘commanding heights of the economy’ demolished the
reigning neo-liberal dogma derived from the Thatcher-Reagan era enshrined in
the slogan: ‘There is no alternative’ to brutal neo-liberal policies, or TINA.
Chavez rejected privatization – he re-nationalized key
oil related industries, socialized hundreds of capitalist firms and carried out
a vast agrarian reform program, including land distribution to 300,000
families. He encouraged trade union organizations and worker control of
factories – even bucking public managers and even his own cabinet ministers. In
Latin America, Chavez led the way in defining with greater depth and with more
comprehensive social changes, the post neo-liberal era. Chavez envisioned the
transition from neo-liberalism to a new socialized welfare state as an
international process and provided financing and political support for new
regional organizations like ALBA, PetroCaribe, and UNASUR. He rejected the idea
of building a welfare state in one country and formulated a theory of
post-neo-liberal transitions based on international solidarity. Chavez’
original ideas and policies regarding the post-neo-liberal transition escaped
the armchair Marxists and the globetrotting Social Forum NGO pundits whose
inconsequential ‘global alternatives’ succeeded primarily in securing imperial
foundation funding.
Chavez demonstrated through theory and practice that
neo-liberalism was indeed reversible – a major political breakthrough of the
21st century.
Beyond Social Liberalism: The Radical Definition of
Post-Neo-Liberalism
The US-EU promoted neo-liberal regimes have collapsed
under the weight of the deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Massive unemployment led to popular uprisings, new elections and the advent of
center-left regimes in most of Latin America, which rejected or at least
claimed to repudiate ‘neo-liberalism’. Most of these regimes promulgated
legislation and executive directives to fund poverty programs, implement
financial controls and make productive investments, while raising minimum wages
and stimulating employment. However few lucrative enterprises were actually
re-nationalized. Addressing inequalities and the concentration of wealth were
not part of their agenda. They formulated their strategy of working with Wall
Street investors, local agro-mineral exporters and co-opted trade unions.
Chavez posed a profoundly different alternative to this
form of ‘post-neoliberalism’. He nationalized resource industries, excluded
Wall Street speculators and limited the role of the agro-mineral elites. He
posed a socialized welfare state as an alternative to the reigning
social-liberal orthodoxy of the center-left regimes, even as he worked with
these regimes in promoting Latin American integration and opposing US backed
coups.
Chavez was both a leader defining a more socialized
alternative to social liberation and the conscience pressuring his allies to
advance further.
Socialism and Democracy
Chavez opened a new and extraordinarily original and
complex path to socialism based on free elections, re-educating the military to
uphold democratic and constitutional principals, and the development of mass
and community media. He ended the capitalist mass media monopolies and
strengthened civil society as a counter-weight to US-sponsored para-military
and fifth column elites intent on destabilizing the democratic state.
No other democratic-socialist president had successfully
resisted imperial destabilization campaigns – neither Jagan in Guyana, Manley
in Jamaica, nor Allende in Chile. From the very outset Chavez saw the
importance of creating a solid legal-political framework to facilitate
executive leadership, promote popular civil society organizations and end US
penetration of the state apparatus (military and police). Chavez implemented
radical social impact programs that ensured the loyalty and active allegiance
of popular majorities and weakened the economic levers of political power long
held by the capitalist class. As a result Venezuela’s political leaders,
soldiers and officers loyal to its constitution and the popular masses crushed
a bloody right-wing coup, a crippling bosses’ lockout and a US-financed
referendum and proceeded to implement further radical socio-economic reforms in
a prolonged process of cumulative socialization.
Chavez’s originality, in part the result of trial and
error, was his ‘experimental method’: His profound understanding and response
to popular attitudes and behavior was deeply rooted in Venezuela’s history of
racial and class injustice and popular rebelliousness. More than any previous
socialist leader, Chavez traveled, spoke and listened to Venezuela’s popular
classes on questions of everyday life. His ‘method’ was to translate micro
based knowledge into macro programed changes. In practice he was the
anti-thesis of the overseas and local intellectual know-it-alls who literally
spoke down to the people and who saw themselves as the ‘masters of the world’
…at least, in the micro-world of left academia, ingrown socialist conferences
and self-centered monologues. The death of Hugo Chavez was profoundly mourned
by millions in Venezuela and hundreds of million around the world because his
transition to socialism was their path; he listened to their demands and he
acted upon them effectively.
Social Democracy and National Security
Chavez was a socialist president for over 13 years in the
face of large-scale, long-term violent opposition and financial sabotage from
Washington, the local economic elite and mass media moguls. Chavez created the
political consciousness that motivated millions of workers and secured the
constitutional loyalty of the military to defeat a bloody US-backed
business-military coup in 2002. Chavez tempered social changes in accordance
with a realistic assessment of what the political and legal order could
support. First and foremost, Chavez secured the loyalty of the military by
ending US ‘advisory’ missions and overseas imperial indoctrination while
substituting intensive courses on Venezuelan history, civic responsibility and
the critical link between the popular classes and the military in a common
national mission..
Chavez’ national security policies were based on
democratic principles as well as a clear recognition of the serious threats to
Venezuelan sovereignty. He successfully safeguarded both national security and
the democratic rights and political freedoms of its citizens, a feat which has
earned Venezuela the admiration and envy of constitutional lawyers and citizens
of the US and the EU.
In stark contrast, US President Obama has assumed the
power to assassinate US citizens based on secret information and without trial
both in and out of the US. His Administration has murdered ‘targeted’ US
citizens and their children, jailed others without trial and maintains secret
‘files’ on over 40 million Americans. Chavez never assumed those powers and
never assassinated or tortured a single Venezuelan. In Venezuela, the dozen or
so prisoners convicted of violent acts of subversion after open trials in
Venezuelan courts, stand in sharp contrast to the tens of thousands of jailed
and secretly framed Muslims and Latin American immigrants in the US. Chavez
rejected state terror; while Obama has special assassination teams on the
ground in over 70 countries. Obama supports arbitrary police invasions of
‘suspect’ homes and workplaces based on ‘secret evidence’ while. Chavez even
tolerated the activities of known foreign (CIA)-funded opposition parties. In a
word, Obama uses ‘national security’ to destroy democratic freedoms while
Chavez upheld democratic freedoms and imposed constitutional limits on the
national security apparatus.
Chavez sought peaceful diplomatic resolution of conflicts
with hostile neighbors, such as Colombia which hosts seven US military bases –
potential springboards for US intervention. On the other hand, Obama has
engaged in open war with at least seven countries and has been pursuing covert
hostile action against dozens of others.
Conclusion
Chavez’s legacy is multi-faceted. His contributions are
original, theoretical and practical and universally relevant. He demonstrated
in ‘theory and practice’ how a small country can defend itself against
imperialism, maintain democratic principles and implement advanced social
programs. His pursuit of regional integration and promotion of ethical
standards in the governance of a nation – provide examples profoundly relevant
in a capitalist world awash in corrupt politicians slashing living standards
while enriching the plutocrats.
Chavez’ rejection of the Bush-Obama doctrine of using
‘state terror to fight terror’, his affirmation that the roots of violence are
social injustice, economic pillage and political oppression and his belief that
resolving these underlying issues is the road to peace, stands as the
ethical-political guide for humanity’s survival.
Faced with a violent world of imperial counter-revolution,
and resolved to stand with the oppressed of the world, Hugo Chavez enters world
history as a complete political leader, with the stature of the most humane and
multi-faceted leader of our epoch: the Renaissance figure for the 21st century.
James Petras a former Professor of Sociology at
Binghamton University, New York, owns a 50-year membership in the class
struggle, is an adviser to the landless and jobless in Brazil and Argentina,
and is co-author of Globalization Unmasked (Zed Books).
No comments:
Post a Comment