Dodaj nową odpowiedź

It is a well-established fact that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez takes a lot of abuse from the media – both inside and outside of his country. His self-proclaimed ‘Bolivarian Revolution,’ – which seeks to improve the lives of Venezuela’s poor majority through a series of oil-financed social programs – is widely depicted as populist cover for a precipitous slide into a totalitarian dictatorship. Propaganda pouring out of the Cuban exile community in Miami that is distributed by local media outlets and right-wing think tanks such as the ironically-named Accuracy in Media has accused Chavez of harboring a homosexual obsession with Cuban President Fidel Castro – and has even leveled claims that his government has provided material support to elements of ‘Al Qaeda.’ On the basis of this preponderance of disinformation, many progressives have developed a reactionary tendency to dismiss even legitimate critics of Chavez’s policies as either “aiding the enemy,” or worse, of actually “working for the CIA.”

While there is no doubt that the effects of Chavez’ policies are greatly appreciated by a large majority of Venezuelans – as evidenced by El Presidente’s overwhelming and sustained success at the polls – it is also true that by embracing the virtues of social justice and cloaking himself in anti-imperialist rhetoric, Chavez has earned the unconditional support of peace activists, social democrats and café revolutionaries all over the world.

Charged with the task of leading a global counter-current to the international economic model of U.S. hegemony known as the ‘Washington Consensus,’ Chavez has been more than happy to assume the role of antagonista to George Bush – and the Yankee-brand imperialism that his smirking visage evokes in the hearts and minds of the world’s poor. In its place, Chavez has vocally supported a vision of a multi-polar world, and has stressed the importance of regional integration and alternative trade agreements as a means of counteracting Washington’s influence in South America.

As a result of the popular success of the Bolivarian Revolution, Chavez has been credited with playing a role in the election victories of left-wing governments which have swept across the continent: Evo Morales in Bolivia, Michelle Bachelet Jeria in Chile, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and now Rafael Correa in Ecuador. The extent to which Chavez can claim credit over the electoral results of his South American neighbors is largely overstated, though it varies from country to country. In Bolivia, for instance, the previous three governments had already fallen to street protests by the time Morales was elected into office on a platform of rolling back neoliberal reforms; Ortega has been a perennial candidate since his Sandinista movement was defeated at the polls after nearly a decade of “low-intensity warfare” and economic sabotage at the hands of the American government and their proxy Contra armies; Chile has been undergoing a period of introspection since former dictator Agusto Pinochet ceded power in 1990; Ecuador has had its own share of troubles with the IMF and capricious transnational oil companies.

The continent has, in general, been on the receiving end of history since Cortés sailed over to the ‘New World,’ in 1503. It’s not surprising that in an age of nearly universal ‘representative democracy,’ the people of South America, when given a chance, would vote in politicians who spoke in terms of revoking neoliberal policies and increasing social spending.

Without discounting the obvious benefit of increased social spending and the renegotiation of contracts signed by unrepresentative governments in the pocket of avaricious corporations, it is apparent that in its rush to support the political process emerging in Latin America, the ‘international left’ has overstated the transformation of the continent’s political and economical landscape.

Regional Integration or Pipe Dream?

The regional integration plans often touted as national projects by the Venezuelan government are largely based on the framework of previously existing trade agreements, and are financed by multinational corporations who draw their funding from the IMF, such as the Corporación Andina de Fomento (CAF). Mercosur, a regional trade pact that was created in 1994 to link the “economic development” of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay has recently been expanded to include Venezuela – with Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru currently awaiting full membership to the bloc. Chavez wants to incorporate Mercosur as part of the more grandiose IIRSA (Iniciativa de Integración Regional Sudamericana), a project that seeks to integrate the nations of South America through large joint infrastructure projects, such as the trans-Amazonic pipeline that, when finished, will link the gas reserves of Venezuela’s Orinoco Delta to southern Argentina, running a distance of over 10,000 km – much of it through sensitive regions of the Amazon rainforest.

It is this further integration of South America into the system of global capitalism that draws the ire of those who find themselves further ‘left’ than Chavez’s government. While many of these political groups are cautiously optimistic of the ‘Bolivarian Revolution,’ they nonetheless do not practice self-censorship in their appraisal of the current political climate and what they see as its main failings. These groups include the indigenous inhabitants of regions where infrastructure projects threaten the existence of their way of life, socialist and Marxist allies of Chavez’s ruling MVR political party and the more militant social iconoclasts of South America’s anarchist movement.

By far the most definitive English-language analysis of the Venezuelan anarchist movement was penned by a member of the Red Anarchist Action Network (RAAN) – who goes by the pseudonym Nachie. I was recently brought into contact with Nachie, via email, who was doing preliminary research into the status of the Canadian anarchist movement. While I was hardly in a position to comment on the overall viability of the movement (anarchism is, at best, confined to the very fringes of Canadian society – at least in Ontario, where I live) I was able to learn much from his efforts in Venezuela. Coincidentally, I was in Venezuela at the same time as he was conducting his research, although I was nowhere near as successful in making contact with local anarchist groups – I managed to meet a few scattered anarchists during my travels, but spent most of my time talking to Chavistas and taking in mainstream Venezuelan culture. I was, therefore, quite humbled to read his critique of the ‘Bolivarian Revolution,’ – written from the point of view of a curious North American anarchist – entitled The Civil War in Venezuela: Socialism to the Highest Bidder.

For anyone interested in an objective analysis of Hugo Chavez’s ‘Bolivarian Revolution,’ especially as it relates to anarchist and anti-statist ideology, “The Civil War in Venezuela” is a must read. It is extremely extensive in its scope (the article reads more like a small book, as it is 66 pages long) and covers its subject matter with amazing detail and breadth. The image of Venezuelan society it paints is extremely accurate, and its description of Chavismo echoes many of the same conclusions that I came to during my four-month stay in the country, but would never have been able to articulate in such a comprehensive manner. I cannot stress enough to GNNers reading this blog: READ THIS WORK! [If not in its entirety, then at least the chapters dealing with Venezuela’s history, the Venezuelan anarchist movement and the Revolutionary Tupamaro Movement (MRT)]

El Libertario: Issue 30