President Chavez: A 21st Century
Renaissance Man
by
James Petras
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. Thus concludes James Petras in this
analytical reflection of the thirteen years of elected presidency of the iconic
Venezuelan leader.
Voltaire Network | 15 March 2013
Introduction
President Hugo Chavez was unique in
multiple areas of political, social and economic life. He made significant
contributions to the advancement of humanity. The depth, scope and popularity
of his accomplishments mark President Chavez as the ‘Renaissance President of
the 21st Century’.
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 rightwing 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
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario