Surely these can’t be the only two choices: corrupt but negligent oligarchies where the poor suffer greatly but are free from egregious state interference, vs humane but control-freakish socialist states where everyone gets enough to eat but you have to be careful what you publish and are not allowed to travel.

I don’t think this is a choice, but two aspects of the same system. In a world system that is capitalist (imperial-neoliberal in its specific present form) any society that attempts to go another way must be attacked. Note that Haiti had a coup fomented against it within a year of the last attempt to overthrow Venezuela… and the investment opoportunities in Haiti are nearly nil now. They just can’t afford to let the slightest example of independence stand.

When a society is under attack, it is forced to militarize to some extent in order to defend itself. This reality doesn’t sit well with many of us because we all believe at some gut level that there is some “way” where everything works out right without these risks, compromises, and messes. Cuba is a perfect example… I think it is very arguable that without the kinds of measures they take (which are, btw, far less represseive than the US state’s daily encounters with, say, African America), the US would successfully undermine this encircled revolution. Encirclement matters. And the US knows it… it wants to force deeper social control in the encircles “enemies.”

The examples of Russia and China cannot be mapped onto other attempts to break away from the hegemon because of specificity of circumstance… and scale. By no stretch can anyone compare Castro, eg, with Stalin… and neither can be usefully compared with Mao except on the issue of bureaucratization in Russia and China. One of the things we have come back to again and again (the we here being De and me) is this question of scale, and the inevitability with a certain scale of state administration of bureaucraztization… an aspect of centralization. Cuba was forced to let go of much of that by the Great Emergency, and found it advantageous in the long run. Venezuela is moving there more directly and intentionally (see Hahnel’s first-hand observations from V).

We again come back to Dunbar’s number and the almost neurological tendency for humans to impose managers after the social circle exceeds the size of a certain band. We (DeAanander and I) hope to explore this question and the related and also-underexplored one of “biophobia” as it relates to all these questions when my dear friend gets through a kind of current Norwegian fjord she is navigating.

I would argue, given the extremely prudent and understated response to the corporate media after the last coup attempt that the Chavistas are leaning into the lenient side of the state power ledger — fully recognizing that the Bush administration and the American dominant class would like nothing better than for Chavez to become their own self-fulfilling caricature.

And my last post was not intended to in any way imply that rootless is somehow a dupe… if it came off that way, I sincerley apologize. I have great respect for rootless.

We’ll see over the next few days how things turn out.

OTOH the crack about silencing “independent” media is kind of a joke, given that V’s media (like our own) are the private megaphone of a handful of wealthy men intimately connected with US finance and biz (the comprador elite). So there’s another conundrum for us: what does “press freedom” mean in a place where the press belongs to the rich only? And we’re damn near there ourselves, so it’s an urgent question…

If I were a Venezuelan peasant and Chavism meant the difference between land and no land, literacy for my kids vs no literacy, basic medical care and none, hope and despair, and so forth, I probably wouldn’t be too fussy about the tradition of Euro-style parliamentary democracy. Maslow’s Hierarchy and all that… it’s a lot to ask of hungry people who’ve been beaten down for generations by the monster in the north, to look with our own weary historical skepticism on the guy who, at the moment, is the only leader in S Am to stand up to the Yanqui successfully (so far). If there’s a cult of personality forming there, at least he deserves it — at least, a hell of a lot more than Shrub, who somehow has one anyway despite having done nothing to help and much to harm the people who believe in him and wave their little US flags most fervently.

I’m also wrestling with a really disturbing aspect of the last couple of centuries, which is that societies allegedly based on democratic principles have not seemed to be very good at hanging onto them. The UK and US are well on their way into police-state territory, for example, with enormous losses in quality of life for just about everybody except the filthy rich, increasing censorship of research, governmental secrecy etc; meanwhile “poor oppressed Cuba” with its dictator-for-life and repressive media laws and travel restrictions has nevertheless managed to hang on to its social programmes, feed the people, provide better medical care than the average workingclass American gets, etc. In terms of hewing to original principles, the drift from ideals in Cuba seems to be less than the drift from ostensible ideals in US/UK — I mean, both the latter countries seem indecently eager to jettison such foundational values as habeas corpus and the Constitution, whereas Cubans still honour the Revolution and (seem to) practise solidarity (foundational values of their young state).

Surely these can’t be the only two choices: corrupt but negligent oligarchies where the poor suffer greatly but are free from egregious state interference, vs humane but control-freakish socialist states where everyone gets enough to eat but you have to be careful what you publish and are not allowed to travel. And of course, the US/UK is on a course for the worst of both: a corrupt oligarchy plus a gulag system, kangaroo courts, travel restrictions, loyalty tests, intensive surveillance, warrantless arrests and searches, etc.

It would offend me no end to conclude that benign dictatorship is the best system of government — it’s repugnant to every principle I hold dear and seems ripe for decay and corruption even if it miraculously worked well once or twice. And yet I have to admit, and it’s deeply disturbing, that “democracies” seem to have been no better at maintaining genuine liberty or taming vicious predation, protecting the poor *or* basic freedoms than the Soviet system was at maintaining the best principles of socialism. I wish I understood why the “open, tolerant, democratic, free society” that I think most of us long for as an ideal, is so susceptible to take-over by wealthy psychopaths… I wish I understood why Cuba didn’t turn into a Stalinist or Red Guard nightmare (could it be simply because of its own localised Peak Oil experience which made that kind of manic Taylorism and centralism impractical?)

Well, Venezuela will have to muddle along as best it can with the US constantly stirring the s**t… on the whole, if the choice Venezuelans face is the Chavistas vs the US (if that is what the referenda are really about), then I suspect that were I there, I’d vote against the US no matter what that meant voting for. Chavez and his krewe would have their work cut out for them to inflict as much misery and horror on the country as the US has inflicted on multiple countries in S Am over my lifetime (and before).

Chavez is leading a struggle — one that has not shown even a sign of dictatorship — against imperial power in Venezuela. This is a national struggle… and it is driven by a sense of urgency.

Right now, the special circumstance of Venezuela, with its oil bringing in development capital at an astronomical rate, and having a hammer lock on enough of the US oil import fraction to give it some cover, is one where either they make the most of this advantage to consolidate the changes they can, or they see the window close, and watch every advance get frittered away through US-directed “managed democracy.”

There is little doubt from this old Latin America hand that every part of this referendum has a specific strategic purpose… and it is not to turn Chavez into the next Peron.

This is not the ideal time for the Chavistas, and they know it. They survived the last coup because they outwitted the US… and none of this has anything to do with Chavez’ ego. They need to go deeper and wider with the popular democratic programs, the people need to be further integrated into microdemocracy, the cultural revolution that has accompanied this process needs another decade…. but it’s not there.

Twenty different events could slam the door on the transient advantages Venezuela now has vis-a-vis the US… and its colonial surrogate class inside Venezuela. If every item (which I believe to be strategic) in this composite referendum were submitted to another oportunity for the NED to pump millions more into creating a result, the process could go on for years, while the US maneuvered its way back into control over Venezuela’s future, and tried to halt the tenuous continental drift of Latin America out from under US hegemony… which is being led now by the Bolivarian process.

This is not some replay of the 20th Century. And regardless of what any American thinks of the referendum, we have a moral obligation to oppose any US coup-plotting in Venezuela. I have been directly involved in one too many Southcom intelligence summary briefings in my past life to believe the US is not at war against any independence in Latin America… or that the coup plots being reported now are not very real.

[Panama 1981, Guatemala 1983, El Salvador 1985, Peru 1991, Panama 1991, Honduras 1991, Venezuela 1992, Colombia 1992, Haiti 1994... why would a US soldier spend so much time in these places?]

PS: Here is the world on Venezeulan dictatorship by a true American small-d democrat:

The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chavez

By Donald Rumsfeld
Sunday, December 2, 2007; B03

Today the people of Venezuela face a constitutional referendum, which, if passed, could obliterate the few remaining vestiges of Venezuelan democracy. The world is saying little and doing less as President Hugo Chávez dismantles Venezuela’s constitution, silences its independent media and confiscates private property. Chávez’s ambitions do not…

FULL

Regarding Rootlesscosmo’s concerns: It will be interesting to see how Venezuela votes. It feels to me like Chavez’s government is stacking the ballot initiatives out of a sense of urgency rather than political bullying. At this time, I believe Chavez and his crew clearly see what is coming and are trying hard to prepare their country for weathering the storm.

…but I have been wrong about politics before.

Randy

***

Hugo Chávez Departs
Editorial
New York Times: April 13, 2002

With yesterday’s resignation of President Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan
democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator. Mr. Chávez,
a ruinous demagogue, stepped down after the military intervened and
handed power to a respected business leader, Pedro Carmona. But
democracy has not yet been restored, and won’t be until a new
president is elected. That vote has been scheduled for next spring,
with new Congressional elections to be held by this December. The
prompt announcement of a timetable is welcome, but a year seems
rather long to wait for a legitimately elected president.

Washington has a strong stake in Venezuela’s recovery. Caracas now
provides 15 percent of American oil imports, and with sounder
policies could provide more. A stable, democratic Venezuela could
help anchor a troubled region where Colombia faces expanded guerrilla
warfare, Peru is seeing a rebirth of terrorism and Argentina
struggles with a devastating economic crisis. Wisely, Washington
never publicly demonized Mr. Chávez, denying him the role of
nationalist martyr. Rightly, his removal was a purely Venezuelan
affair.

Public faith in Venezuela’s institutions began eroding well before
Mr. Chávez burst on the scene with a failed 1992 coup. Corruption
discredited both main parties, and a patronage-fueled bureaucracy
devoured the country’s abundant oil revenues, leaving many
Venezuelans desperately poor. Mr. Chávez was elected president in
1998 promising change he never delivered. He courted Fidel Castro and
Saddam Hussein, battled the media and alienated virtually every
constituency from middle-class professionals, academics and business
leaders to union members and the Roman Catholic Church.

This week’s crisis began with a general strike against replacing
professional managers at the state oil company with political
cronies. It took a grave turn Thursday when armed Chávez supporters
fired on peaceful strikers, killing at least 14 and injuring
hundreds. Mr. Chávez’s response was characteristic. He forced five
private television stations off the air for showing pictures of the
massacre. Early yesterday he was compelled to resign by military
commanders unwilling to order their troops to fire on fellow
Venezuelans to keep him in power. He is being held at a military base
and may face charges in Thursday’s killings.

New presidential elections should be held this year, perhaps at the
same time the new Congress is chosen. Some time is needed for
plausible national leaders to emerge and parties to reorganize. But
Venezuela urgently needs a leader with a strong democratic mandate to
clean up the mess, encourage entrepreneurial freedom and slim down
and professionalize the bureaucracy.

One encouraging development has been the strong participation of
middle-class citizens in organizing opposition groups and street
protests. Continued civic participation could help revitalize
Venezuela’s tired political parties and keep further military
involvement to a minimum.

November 30, 2007
100 Years of Myth-Making in Mexico
The Death of Latin America’s First Revolution

The Hundred Cycle
What are the Prospects for a New Mexican Revolution?

http://counterpunch.com/ross12012007.html

For example: what if I agree that the work week should be reduced but am not happy about reducing the national government council to an advisory body, or raising the bar to qualify future initiatives for the ballot? (Block A.) What if I enthusiastically approve of writing a prohibition on gender discrimination into the Constitution, but have misgivings about the President declaring open-ended states of emergency in which the right to information is suspended? (Block B.) Too bad; vote Yes or No. (I seem to hear an echo of Ring Lardner: ” ‘Shut up,’ he explained.”)

An impossible choice is no choice at all, as the Progressive-era creators of California’s Initiative and Referendum well knew when they explicitly prohibited ballot measures dealing with more than one issue. Yet the Venezuelan document deals with literally dozens; there isn’t even an attempt to group them according to subject matter.

In the circumstances, I have to go along with the signs I saw some demonstrators carrying in the news photos: “Asì No,” i.e. “not like this.” I hesitated before posting here; nothing any of us says will make a particle of difference to tomorrow’s outcome, after all. But I think we ought to remember that, though they’ve been vilely abused, democratic principles are still among the best protections the working people have, and one of those principles is that “take it or leave it” isn’t an acceptable demand for a state to make of its citizens.