Showing posts with label Latin America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Latin America. Show all posts
Wednesday, 11 September 2013
Monday, 9 September 2013
40 years ago this week I was at a Labor Party conference in Ireland. The news came in. The US military and CIA thugs had carried out their military coup in Chile. The US economic thugs at the University of Chicago, known as the Chicago Boys, drew up the agenda and the Chilean working class entered a nightmare of mass killings and mass poverty. All in the name of and organized by US capitalism and its profits and power and control.
It is these same thugs who lied to get the US people to agree to attack Iraq and Afghanistan. It is these same thugs who are now trying to convince the US people to attack Syria. It is sickening to watch talking head after talking head leave out any mention of the use by the US of chemical weapons in places like Vietnam and Iraq.
There are a few lessons to be learnt.
You cannot believe a word that comes out of the mouth's of the capitalist representatives and powers. They will say whatever they think will further their cause. They will not mention anything they think might hurt their cause. They insist that Syria hand over chemical weapons but there is never a word about the massive stock pile of nuclear weapons in the hands of the Zionist regime next door in Israel.
There is another lesson to be learnt from remembering the Chilean coup. Social democracy and the Stalinist parties and forces at the time were adamant that Allende was carrying out the right policy by not confronting the Chilean capitalist state, by leaving the Chilean capitalist state intact. A few of us disagreed and said the the Chilean capitalist state organized and backed by US capitalism would not respect the vote of the Chilean people. They would organize a coup. We explained that capitalism only believes in what we could call bourgeois democracy. That is it only tolerates democracy if capitalism and the capitalist class rules. As soon as it begins to lose its control then it will move to other means, military coups, civil wars, fascist methods. This remains true today. US and world capitalism are gearing up to confront the international working class and put it down in blood if it can. See the full body armor and automatic weapons on the cops surrounding peaceful pickets here in the US on this blog a few days ago.
The international working class must be clear on this. It only has a future if it organizes to overthrow the capitalist state and overthrow capitalism. We have to end the system and its state apparatus entirely and replace it with a democratic socialist world.
Sean.
It is these same thugs who lied to get the US people to agree to attack Iraq and Afghanistan. It is these same thugs who are now trying to convince the US people to attack Syria. It is sickening to watch talking head after talking head leave out any mention of the use by the US of chemical weapons in places like Vietnam and Iraq.
There are a few lessons to be learnt.
You cannot believe a word that comes out of the mouth's of the capitalist representatives and powers. They will say whatever they think will further their cause. They will not mention anything they think might hurt their cause. They insist that Syria hand over chemical weapons but there is never a word about the massive stock pile of nuclear weapons in the hands of the Zionist regime next door in Israel.
There is another lesson to be learnt from remembering the Chilean coup. Social democracy and the Stalinist parties and forces at the time were adamant that Allende was carrying out the right policy by not confronting the Chilean capitalist state, by leaving the Chilean capitalist state intact. A few of us disagreed and said the the Chilean capitalist state organized and backed by US capitalism would not respect the vote of the Chilean people. They would organize a coup. We explained that capitalism only believes in what we could call bourgeois democracy. That is it only tolerates democracy if capitalism and the capitalist class rules. As soon as it begins to lose its control then it will move to other means, military coups, civil wars, fascist methods. This remains true today. US and world capitalism are gearing up to confront the international working class and put it down in blood if it can. See the full body armor and automatic weapons on the cops surrounding peaceful pickets here in the US on this blog a few days ago.
The international working class must be clear on this. It only has a future if it organizes to overthrow the capitalist state and overthrow capitalism. We have to end the system and its state apparatus entirely and replace it with a democratic socialist world.
Sean.
Tuesday, 20 August 2013
 |
| J. F Dulles and Allen Dulles |
AFSCME Local 444, retired
Much of the world knew it but as is often the case, most of the American people, living with perhaps the most censored and controlled mass media in the advanced capitalist economies, had no idea that the US was behind the overthrow of the secular democratic regime of Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran in 1953. The US also ousted the government of Guatemala the following year deposing President Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán.
Much of the world knew it but as is often the case, most of the American people, living with perhaps the most censored and controlled mass media in the advanced capitalist economies, had no idea that the US was behind the overthrow of the secular democratic regime of Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran in 1953. The US also ousted the government of Guatemala the following year deposing President Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán.
Guzman was taking steps to distribute land to the peasants and introduce other economic reforms that were holding back development in that country. The United Fruit Company, a US multinational owned 42% of the arable land in Guatemala at the time and the CIA’s covert operation was set in motion to do what the CIA is there for, defend the US corporation’s profits at all costs. The excuse in the US media was the illegal invasion was necessary to repel communist tyranny in the US’s back yard.
The US Dulles brothers were influential in both coups as John Foster Dulles was secretary of state under Eisenhower and his brother Allen ran the CIA. They were both on the payroll of United Fruit Company as well. In fact, the Eisenhower administration was well connected to the UFC just like government and the private sector is today:
John Foster Dulles, who represented United Fruit while he was a law partner at Sullivan & Cromwell – he negotiated that crucial United Fruit deal with Guatemalan officials in the 1930's – was Secretary of State under Eisenhower; his brother Allen, who did legal work for the company and sat on its board of directors, was head of the CIA under Eisenhower; Henry Cabot Lodge, who was America's ambassador to the UN, was a large owner of United Fruit stock; Ed Whitman, the United Fruit PR man, was married to Ann Whitman, Dwight Eisenhower's personal secretary. You co uld not see these connections until you could – and then you could not stop seeing them. The Fish that Ate the Whale, p. 186. By Rich Cohen,
The Mossadegh government was about to nationalize the Iranian oil industry that was in the hands of British imperialism at the time and the British asked for US assistance. The New York Times reports that George Washington University, under the Freedom of Information Act, obtained documentation confirming the CIA’s role in the ouster of Mossadegh, the most explicit proof to date.
These are just two examples of many instances of interference in the affairs of other countries and we could throw in the installation of Mobutu and the resulting deaths of some two million Congolese under that dictator’s rule after the murder of Lumumba by pro US/Belgian forces. Pinochet, Marcos, the murderous Shah of Iran the US installed after removing Mossadegh, the thugs that rule Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, Osama bin Laden, the former CIA agent are all the Pentagon’s babies.
Perhaps we Americans might reflect on these historical facts and consider the source when we are fed propaganda by the 1%’s mass media about reactions to US foreign policy. Especially as we could end up supporting a conflict with Iran over supposed nuclear weapons. One can’t blame the Iranians for wanting nuclear weapons though they have repeatedly denied that their nuclear policy is anything but peaceful; the US never invaded North Korea and there’s a lesson there.
Given the history, US government/CIA credibility when it comes to bringing the truth to its own population is pretty poor. As for the Iranians and other victims of US corporate foreign policy, some people have reason to be a suspicious.
A decent book on the US overthrow of the democratic government of Iran in 1953 is All The Shah’s Men by Steven Kinzer
Tuesday, 2 July 2013
by Michael Roberts
The mass protests, demonstrations and actions that have shaken and still are shaking the pro-capitalist governments of Turkey, Brazil and Egypt show that the key emerging capitalist economies are not immune from the slump that has engulfed the advanced capitalist economies. The advanced economies still contribute some 55-60% of world GDP (depending on how you measure it). They remain the dominant influence over the world capitalist economy.
The Great Recession and the subsequent weak recovery have led to a significant fall in trade and investment flows to the emerging economies, particularly to the largest so-called BRICS (Brazil, Russia, China, India and South Africa). Their growth rates have also begun to fall away. In addition, the largest by far of the BRICS, China, is experiencing a 2-3% pt fall in its super-fast growth rate and that has been enough to cause sharp drop in the demand for commodities (agricultural and raw materials), the main exports of other emerging economies. So the crisis is a world-wide one.
Take Brazil. The nationwide street demonstrations of the past few weeks have sent shockwaves through Brazil’s political elite. There is widespread discontent with a ruling class that is seen as self-serving and corrupt. More than a million Brazilians have poured on to the streets in recent weeks to protest against a litany of grievances, from corruption and poor public services to outrage at billions of pounds in taxpayers’ money being spent to host the 2014 World Cup. It seems that the carnival for Brazilian capitalism of recent years is now over.
How has Brazil’s carnival of capital played out? We can look at the Brazilian economy from a Marxist viewpoint by analysing the movement in the rate of profit for the whole economy. Using the Extended Penn World Tables as my source data and my own calculations, I reckon the rate of profit in Brazil moved like this.
So between 1963 and 2008 (the latest year, I have), the rate of profit declined secularly by about 19%. But this secular fall was really the product of the very large decline in the rate of profit from 1963 to the early 1980s and 1990s. Over these 20 years or so, the rate of profit fell over 30% while the organic composition rose 23% and the rate of exploitation fell 17% – a classic example of Marx’s law of profitability at work.
But from the mid-1990s, Brazil’s’ ruling elite adopted neo-liberal policies designed to restore the rate of profit. Between 1993 and 2004, the rate of profit rose 35%. The organic composition of capital rose 20% as foreign investment flooded into new industries (autos, chemicals and petroleum), but the rate of exploitation rose even more, up 55%, as more Brazilians entered the industrial and agro processing labour force with intensive capitalist production methods, while wages were held down.
Despite the boom of the last decade, average household net-adjusted disposable income in Brazil is still way lower than the OECD average of $23,047 a year – and that’s the average. Over 16 million people are still living in what is deemed extreme poverty, with monthly incomes of below 70 reais (about $33). Some 80% of men are in paid work, compared with 56% of women and 12% of employees work very long hours, higher than the OECD average of 9%, with 15% of men working very long hours compared with 9% for women. Around 7.9% of people reported falling victim to assault over the previous 12 months, nearly twice the OECD average of 4.0%. Brazil’s homicide rate is 21.0, almost ten times the OECD average of 2.2, one of the highest in the world at 21 per 100,000. Violence is concentrated among young people and over the past decade and a half, violence – including armed violence – has become a major social problem in the country. And Brazil’s regional disparities remain very high: average GDP per capita varies from just 46% of the national average in the Northeast region to 34% above the average in the Southeast.
Under the government of former president Lula and the commodity boom, there were some important gains for the working class: a social protection system, increasing credit at low interest rates for workers and universalising health and education. The Bolsa Familia, or family allowance programme, is the most visible face of these policies. Between 2004 and 2011, the number of families benefiting from income transfers more than doubled, from 6.5 million to 13.3 million, representing nearly one-quarter of the population. In the more isolated regions, payments under this programme have become the principal engine of the local economy. Another pillar of government policy, adopted through negotiations with the unions, was to raise the minimum wage and associated pension. It went up by 211% in nominal terms between 2002 and 2012, for a real inflation-discounted increase of 66%. Unemployment rate plunged from 12.3% to 6.7% and the labour force expanded at a 1.6% yearly rate.
However, during this boom, Marx’s law of profitability was still at work. From 2004 the rate of profit began to fall (down 8% to 2008 and more since), as wages shot up and the rate of exploitation dropped 25%. It was only the continued boom in food commodity prices that kept growth going.
The fall in profitability since 2004 was mirrored in other major emerging capitalist economies (see my post on Turkey for a similar trend, http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/turkey-cant-see-the-trees-for-the-woods/). In my paper, A world rate of profit (roberts_michael-a_world_rate_of_profit), I show that the rising rate of profit in the emerging economies was able to push up the overall world rate of profit through the mid-2000s, but not since then.
When the global slump came in 2008-9, the emerging capitalist economies could not avoid the consequences. In the case of Brazil, it seemed that rising commodity prices plus a deliberate policy by the government to increase state-financed investment had enabled Brazil to avoid the worst of the slump compared to others.
But prices for Brazil’s key agricultural exports began to falter from 2011 onwards. In the last year, global commodity prices fell back sharply and profitability began to fall further. Now Brazil’s export profitability is some 20% below its best years before 2004.
Brazil’s GDP growth has consequently slowed since 2011. There has been a sharp fall in manufacturing investment and exports over the past two years. While public investment increased by 0.4% points to 5.4% of GDP, it has not been enough to compensate for the fall in the ratio of private investment to GDP from 14.3% to 12.7% last year. Industry has not even returned to its pre 2008 crisis production level.
The government has tried to get private sector investment going through tax cuts and incentives for the corporate sector but only at the cost of running up a deficit on its budget. Interest costs on the public debt have been mounting, forcing the government to cut subsidies to transport, housing and education on which the majority rely. It was the last straw to spend huge amounts on football and the Olympics (partly to boost capitalist sector profits) at the expense of basic public services. Thus the eruption of protest.
What now? Dilma Rousseff’s approval rating has sunk by 27 percentage points in the last three weeks. The share of people who consider Rousseff’s administration “great” or “good” plummeted to 30% from 57% in early June, according to a Datafolha opinion poll, the sharpest drop for a Brazilian leader since 1990, when Fernando Collor outraged the population by freezing all savings accounts in a desperate attempt to stop hyperinflation. 81% said they support the demonstrations. Asked if the protests had resulted in positive changes, 65% said yes.
The unrest has prompted a flurry of government promises to improve public services and other measures aimed at quelling the protests. In the past week alone, Brazil’s Congress voted on a battery of bills promoting issues popular with the protesters, and the supreme court ordered the arrest of a lower house representative convicted of corruption. Rousseff is now seeking congressional support for a non-binding referendum to ask Brazilians how they would like to see the political system changed.
But while the government appears to be making paper concessions, in reality it has no intention of reversing its neo-liberal policies. Finance minister Guido Mantega made that clear when he said that he will “raise taxes or cut public spending to compensate for any future subsidies it offers to support struggling sectors”. Profitability in the capitalist sector will not recover without further hits to living standards and economic growth will remain low as long as the world economic recovery remains weak and China slows down. The carnival is over.
The mass protests, demonstrations and actions that have shaken and still are shaking the pro-capitalist governments of Turkey, Brazil and Egypt show that the key emerging capitalist economies are not immune from the slump that has engulfed the advanced capitalist economies. The advanced economies still contribute some 55-60% of world GDP (depending on how you measure it). They remain the dominant influence over the world capitalist economy.
The Great Recession and the subsequent weak recovery have led to a significant fall in trade and investment flows to the emerging economies, particularly to the largest so-called BRICS (Brazil, Russia, China, India and South Africa). Their growth rates have also begun to fall away. In addition, the largest by far of the BRICS, China, is experiencing a 2-3% pt fall in its super-fast growth rate and that has been enough to cause sharp drop in the demand for commodities (agricultural and raw materials), the main exports of other emerging economies. So the crisis is a world-wide one.
Take Brazil. The nationwide street demonstrations of the past few weeks have sent shockwaves through Brazil’s political elite. There is widespread discontent with a ruling class that is seen as self-serving and corrupt. More than a million Brazilians have poured on to the streets in recent weeks to protest against a litany of grievances, from corruption and poor public services to outrage at billions of pounds in taxpayers’ money being spent to host the 2014 World Cup. It seems that the carnival for Brazilian capitalism of recent years is now over.
How has Brazil’s carnival of capital played out? We can look at the Brazilian economy from a Marxist viewpoint by analysing the movement in the rate of profit for the whole economy. Using the Extended Penn World Tables as my source data and my own calculations, I reckon the rate of profit in Brazil moved like this.
So between 1963 and 2008 (the latest year, I have), the rate of profit declined secularly by about 19%. But this secular fall was really the product of the very large decline in the rate of profit from 1963 to the early 1980s and 1990s. Over these 20 years or so, the rate of profit fell over 30% while the organic composition rose 23% and the rate of exploitation fell 17% – a classic example of Marx’s law of profitability at work.
But from the mid-1990s, Brazil’s’ ruling elite adopted neo-liberal policies designed to restore the rate of profit. Between 1993 and 2004, the rate of profit rose 35%. The organic composition of capital rose 20% as foreign investment flooded into new industries (autos, chemicals and petroleum), but the rate of exploitation rose even more, up 55%, as more Brazilians entered the industrial and agro processing labour force with intensive capitalist production methods, while wages were held down.
Over the last three decades Brazil became a major agricultural producer and exporter to the world market. Leading exports include soybeans and products, beef, poultry meat, sugar, ethanol, coffee, orange juice, and tobacco. Brazil’s agrifood sector now accounts for about 28% of the country’s GDP. Brazil’s is now the world’s third-largest agricultural exporter (in value terms), after the US and the EU. Rapid export growth was accompanied by changes in the composition of agricultural exports away from tropical products to processed products – up the value-added scale. Processed products now account for about three-fifths of agricultural exports.
And Brazil, like some other emerging economies, benefited from some other favourable external factors that supported the neo-liberal policies at home. Food commodity prices rose. In a way, it was like the discovery of North Sea oil that helped Britain’s Thatcher government in the 1980s. The income windfall to Latin America from persistently high commodity prices over the past decade has been unprecedented. It averaged 15% of domestic income on an annual basis and close to 90% on a cumulative basis.
And Brazil, like some other emerging economies, benefited from some other favourable external factors that supported the neo-liberal policies at home. Food commodity prices rose. In a way, it was like the discovery of North Sea oil that helped Britain’s Thatcher government in the 1980s. The income windfall to Latin America from persistently high commodity prices over the past decade has been unprecedented. It averaged 15% of domestic income on an annual basis and close to 90% on a cumulative basis.
he income windfall from persistently high commodity prices over the past decade has been unprecedented. The windfall averaged 15 percent of domestic income on an annual basis, and close to 90 percent on a cumulative basis (see Chart 2). – See more at: http://www.economonitor.com/blog/2013/05/after-a-golden-decade-can-latin-america-keep-its-luster/#sthash.bfZQvDxX.dpuf
So a combination of rising commodity prices driven by Chinese demand, productivity gains as the rate of exploitation rose and the expansion of employment from the rural areas boosted profitability and growth for a decade. After the 2002 crisis, GDP growth averaged above 4% per year until 2010. This led to significant improvements in living standards and life in general. But the iniquities of capitalist development remained embedded in the system. Inequality of income and wealth in Brazil remains at extreme levels, exceeded only by post-apartheid South Africa – and when measured by a gini coefficient per capita, Mexico. Note Turkey is next.
Despite the boom of the last decade, average household net-adjusted disposable income in Brazil is still way lower than the OECD average of $23,047 a year – and that’s the average. Over 16 million people are still living in what is deemed extreme poverty, with monthly incomes of below 70 reais (about $33). Some 80% of men are in paid work, compared with 56% of women and 12% of employees work very long hours, higher than the OECD average of 9%, with 15% of men working very long hours compared with 9% for women. Around 7.9% of people reported falling victim to assault over the previous 12 months, nearly twice the OECD average of 4.0%. Brazil’s homicide rate is 21.0, almost ten times the OECD average of 2.2, one of the highest in the world at 21 per 100,000. Violence is concentrated among young people and over the past decade and a half, violence – including armed violence – has become a major social problem in the country. And Brazil’s regional disparities remain very high: average GDP per capita varies from just 46% of the national average in the Northeast region to 34% above the average in the Southeast.
Under the government of former president Lula and the commodity boom, there were some important gains for the working class: a social protection system, increasing credit at low interest rates for workers and universalising health and education. The Bolsa Familia, or family allowance programme, is the most visible face of these policies. Between 2004 and 2011, the number of families benefiting from income transfers more than doubled, from 6.5 million to 13.3 million, representing nearly one-quarter of the population. In the more isolated regions, payments under this programme have become the principal engine of the local economy. Another pillar of government policy, adopted through negotiations with the unions, was to raise the minimum wage and associated pension. It went up by 211% in nominal terms between 2002 and 2012, for a real inflation-discounted increase of 66%. Unemployment rate plunged from 12.3% to 6.7% and the labour force expanded at a 1.6% yearly rate.
However, during this boom, Marx’s law of profitability was still at work. From 2004 the rate of profit began to fall (down 8% to 2008 and more since), as wages shot up and the rate of exploitation dropped 25%. It was only the continued boom in food commodity prices that kept growth going.
The fall in profitability since 2004 was mirrored in other major emerging capitalist economies (see my post on Turkey for a similar trend, http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/turkey-cant-see-the-trees-for-the-woods/). In my paper, A world rate of profit (roberts_michael-a_world_rate_of_profit), I show that the rising rate of profit in the emerging economies was able to push up the overall world rate of profit through the mid-2000s, but not since then.
When the global slump came in 2008-9, the emerging capitalist economies could not avoid the consequences. In the case of Brazil, it seemed that rising commodity prices plus a deliberate policy by the government to increase state-financed investment had enabled Brazil to avoid the worst of the slump compared to others.
But prices for Brazil’s key agricultural exports began to falter from 2011 onwards. In the last year, global commodity prices fell back sharply and profitability began to fall further. Now Brazil’s export profitability is some 20% below its best years before 2004.
Brazil’s GDP growth has consequently slowed since 2011. There has been a sharp fall in manufacturing investment and exports over the past two years. While public investment increased by 0.4% points to 5.4% of GDP, it has not been enough to compensate for the fall in the ratio of private investment to GDP from 14.3% to 12.7% last year. Industry has not even returned to its pre 2008 crisis production level.
The government has tried to get private sector investment going through tax cuts and incentives for the corporate sector but only at the cost of running up a deficit on its budget. Interest costs on the public debt have been mounting, forcing the government to cut subsidies to transport, housing and education on which the majority rely. It was the last straw to spend huge amounts on football and the Olympics (partly to boost capitalist sector profits) at the expense of basic public services. Thus the eruption of protest.
What now? Dilma Rousseff’s approval rating has sunk by 27 percentage points in the last three weeks. The share of people who consider Rousseff’s administration “great” or “good” plummeted to 30% from 57% in early June, according to a Datafolha opinion poll, the sharpest drop for a Brazilian leader since 1990, when Fernando Collor outraged the population by freezing all savings accounts in a desperate attempt to stop hyperinflation. 81% said they support the demonstrations. Asked if the protests had resulted in positive changes, 65% said yes.
The unrest has prompted a flurry of government promises to improve public services and other measures aimed at quelling the protests. In the past week alone, Brazil’s Congress voted on a battery of bills promoting issues popular with the protesters, and the supreme court ordered the arrest of a lower house representative convicted of corruption. Rousseff is now seeking congressional support for a non-binding referendum to ask Brazilians how they would like to see the political system changed.
But while the government appears to be making paper concessions, in reality it has no intention of reversing its neo-liberal policies. Finance minister Guido Mantega made that clear when he said that he will “raise taxes or cut public spending to compensate for any future subsidies it offers to support struggling sectors”. Profitability in the capitalist sector will not recover without further hits to living standards and economic growth will remain low as long as the world economic recovery remains weak and China slows down. The carnival is over.
Friday, 21 June 2013
by Stephen Morgan
More than one million people in over 100 cities in Brazil have taken to the streets as President Dilma Rousseff postponed a trip to Japan to hold an emergency meeting about the crisis.
More than one million people in over 100 cities in Brazil have taken to the streets as President Dilma Rousseff postponed a trip to Japan to hold an emergency meeting about the crisis.
Britain's Independent is reporting that more than 300,000 people protested in Rio de Janeiro and another 100,000 in Sao Paulo, as part of an escalation of nationwide unrest from "the Amazon jungle city of Belem, Porto Alegre in the south, the university town Campinas north of Sao Paulo and the northeastern city of Salvador." The New York Times quotes a student demonstrator who is an organizer of the Free Fare Movement, which began the protests, as saying "The intensity on the streets is much larger than we imagined. It’s not something we control, or something we even want to control."
The protests are no longer confined to students and the middle classes, but have galvanized all sections of society, including the inhabitants of the notorious slums of Rio de Janeiro, who have created a group called Occupy Alemão, named after the poverty stricken Complexo do Alemão district. The government has said it will annul the increased fares for public transport, but there are now so many social grievances and demands being made that the government doesn't know how to respond. Demonstrators are demanding better health, education and an end to corruption among many other things, while decrying the massive amounts spent on the present international soccer tournament being held in Brazil and the investments being made to showcase Brazil as the host of the coming soccer World Cup and Olympics. Referring to the unrest, Al Jazeera's reporter on the ground said that "It is overall a leaderless movement. What we're seeing is the government not just trying to spin the story, but also trying to understand what it is the protesters want, what [they] can deliver."
Violence has escalated with police firing massive amounts of tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets into the crowds. In the capital Brasilia, police fought running battles with youth who attempted to torch the Foreign Ministry and other government buildings. At one point, Military Police had to be called in to defend the Presidential Palace. Most of the protesters, however, are peaceful and many chanted slogans against vandalism, although they have not been spared by the police tactics. One group of peaceful protesters complained to the media of being hunted down by riot police, while sheltering from violence in a bar. The Telegraph says that in Rio, 40 people were injured and one 18 year old boy, known as Marcos Delefrate, died and others were taken to hospital after an enraged motorist, who was unable to get through a street, drove his car into the demonstrators. It maybe that the increased force used by the police and the growing number of casualties could now add fuel to the fury.
The New York Times says that the official media is also coming under attack, after what many see as consistently biased reporting, portraying the protesters as hellbent on violence. In one incident, a TV van was set on fire and and a reporter was attacked. People are turning instead to citizen journalism and reporting events themselves online. One group has sprung up calling itself, N.I.N.J.A., which means Independent Journalism and Action Narratives in Portuguese. The New York Times called it "a makeshift, roving production studio," as the organizers roamed the streets using smartphones, camcorders and "a generator held in a supermarket cart." In only two days, the numbers of protesters has quadrupled and there seems to be no end in sight to the unrest. Indeed, the demonstrations could well mushroom into something far larger over the coming weekend.
The protests are no longer confined to students and the middle classes, but have galvanized all sections of society, including the inhabitants of the notorious slums of Rio de Janeiro, who have created a group called Occupy Alemão, named after the poverty stricken Complexo do Alemão district. The government has said it will annul the increased fares for public transport, but there are now so many social grievances and demands being made that the government doesn't know how to respond. Demonstrators are demanding better health, education and an end to corruption among many other things, while decrying the massive amounts spent on the present international soccer tournament being held in Brazil and the investments being made to showcase Brazil as the host of the coming soccer World Cup and Olympics. Referring to the unrest, Al Jazeera's reporter on the ground said that "It is overall a leaderless movement. What we're seeing is the government not just trying to spin the story, but also trying to understand what it is the protesters want, what [they] can deliver."
Violence has escalated with police firing massive amounts of tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets into the crowds. In the capital Brasilia, police fought running battles with youth who attempted to torch the Foreign Ministry and other government buildings. At one point, Military Police had to be called in to defend the Presidential Palace. Most of the protesters, however, are peaceful and many chanted slogans against vandalism, although they have not been spared by the police tactics. One group of peaceful protesters complained to the media of being hunted down by riot police, while sheltering from violence in a bar. The Telegraph says that in Rio, 40 people were injured and one 18 year old boy, known as Marcos Delefrate, died and others were taken to hospital after an enraged motorist, who was unable to get through a street, drove his car into the demonstrators. It maybe that the increased force used by the police and the growing number of casualties could now add fuel to the fury.
The New York Times says that the official media is also coming under attack, after what many see as consistently biased reporting, portraying the protesters as hellbent on violence. In one incident, a TV van was set on fire and and a reporter was attacked. People are turning instead to citizen journalism and reporting events themselves online. One group has sprung up calling itself, N.I.N.J.A., which means Independent Journalism and Action Narratives in Portuguese. The New York Times called it "a makeshift, roving production studio," as the organizers roamed the streets using smartphones, camcorders and "a generator held in a supermarket cart." In only two days, the numbers of protesters has quadrupled and there seems to be no end in sight to the unrest. Indeed, the demonstrations could well mushroom into something far larger over the coming weekend.
Monday, 17 June 2013
Here is a short glimpse of the protests that have broken out in Brazil, spurred by price increases particularly in transportation. The world is erupting with protests from below from China to Brazil, Greece to South Africa, in Russia, India and throughout the planet. Workers of the world cry out for an international working class organization and leadership that can draw together all these struggles against capital and hasten the transformation of global society away from capitalism and the rapacious struggle for profits toward the production of human needs in harmony with the nature.
Sunday, 2 June 2013
 |
| Pablo Neruda |
*****************
SANTIAGO, Chile -- Forty years after the death of Chilean poet Pablo Neruda, a judge has issued an order for police to make a portrait of and find the man who prosecutors allege may have poisoned him.Neruda's death was attributed at the time to prostate cancer but the case's plaintiff lawyer, Eduardo Contreras, says there is new evidence showing he was likely murdered by agents of dictator Augusto Pinochet.
Contreras said Dr. Sergio Draper, who originally testified that he was with Neruda at the time of his death on Sept. 23, 1973, is now saying there was another doctor named "Price" with the poet. But Price did not appear in any of the hospital's records as a treating doctor and Draper said he never saw him again after the day he left him with Neruda. Moreover Price's description of a blond, blue eyed, tall man, matches Michael Townley, the CIA double agent who worked with Chilean secret police under Pinochet.
Townley was taken into the U.S. witness protection program after acknowledging having killed prominent Pinochet critics in Washington and Buenos Aires.
For Contreras, whoever the man was, "the important fact is that this was the person who ordered the injection" that allegedly killed Neruda.
Neruda's former assistant Manuel Araya also said he believed the poet was poisoned by Pinochet's agents.
The Nobel Prize winner's body was exhumed on April 8, and is being analyzed by Chilean and international forensic specialists.
The Nobel Prize winner's body was exhumed on April 8, and is being analyzed by Chilean and international forensic specialists.
Sunday, 14 April 2013
To those Americans who take the time to investigate what our government does in other countries, this comes as no surprise. US capitalism has a long history of interference in nations whose governments do not wish to be mere conduits for US foreign policy and US hegemony as the piece below points out. The first US personnel in Vietnam were CIA operatives whose task it was to destabilize that country. The coup that overthrew the democratic secular regime of Mossadegh in Iran, the assassinations of Latin American leaders including the democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende is well documented.
It is no wonder so many nations struggling to make their own way in the global community are so paranoid about US presence, not just its raw military presence but organizations from the US that claim to be otherwise. The CIA has used religious organizations and NGO's as fronts for their its destabilization efforts. I was in Macedonia at the end of the nineties and there were numerous evangelical missionary groups there, spreading the gospel apparently. But many Macedonians I met were very suspicious of them, thought they were fronts for CIA activity. They are not wrong.
The piece below is from the Green left Weekly.
**********
Venezuela: WikiLeaks shows US use 'human rights' to cover imperialist aims
Monday, April 15, 2013
Former US ambassador to Venezuela William Brownfield.
Cables leaked by WikiLeaks show Brownfield's role in promoting opposition groups to oppose Venezuela's government.
In the week leading up to Venezuela’s April 14 presidential elections, whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks published a classified cable indicating that US-based aid organisations were working to overthrow the government and defend US corporate interests in the Andean country.
Cables leaked by WikiLeaks show Brownfield's role in promoting opposition groups to oppose Venezuela's government.
In the week leading up to Venezuela’s April 14 presidential elections, whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks published a classified cable indicating that US-based aid organisations were working to overthrow the government and defend US corporate interests in the Andean country.
Many of the initiatives sound well-intentioned, such as ones supporting an environmental lobby group and a garbage collection program in Caracas.
However, USAID/OTI support for these benign-sounding groups was part of a larger, four-pronged project.
The ultimate aims of the embassy were described by then-US ambassador to Venezuela William Brownfield as “penetrating Chavez’s political base ... dividing Chavismo ... protecting vital US business ...[and] isolating Chavez internationally”.
According to Brownfield, the “strategic objective” of developing opposition-aligned “civil society organizations[sic] ... represents the majority of USAID/OTI work in Venezuela”. However, among the dozens of groups mentioned in the document, the usual suspects of US interventionism also make appearances.
According to the document, OTI funded a Freedom House program in Venezuela with US$1.1 million, while Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI) provided grants totalling $726,000 on behalf of OTI.
DAI has a long history of working to undermine governments that oppose US hegemony, and this isn't the only time its operations in Venezuela have raised questions.
In 2002, DAI worked with the National Endowment for Democracy to fund a right-wing propaganda campaign during the 2002 oil industry lockout that sought to bring down Chavez’s government.
The groups is now being sued by the family of a subcontractor who was jailed in 2009 while working in Cuba.
Alan Gross was working with a USAID initiative to install satellite communication systems for civil use, when he was arrested by Cuban authorities for “acts against the integrity of the state”, and is now serving a 15-year prison term. His wife, Judy Gross has accused DAI of misleading him, and failing to provide adequate training.
Documents released by DAI in court certainly indicate that there was more to the initiative than DAI and USAID previously admitted. On January 18, DAI submitted records in the case that state the communications equipment was being provided to communities to “provide a base from which Cubans can 'develop alternative visions of the future'”.
In its court filing, DAI further stated that it is “deeply concerned that the development of the record in this case over the course of litigation could create significant risks to the U.S. government's national security, foreign policy, and human rights interests”.
In other words, DAI would rather keep its agenda in Cuba secret, because national security takes priority over a jailed subcontractor.
Like DAI, Freedom House prioritises US geopolitical concerns over human rights.
Some of Freedom House's past exploits include supporting the Vietnam War, opposing calls for the US to join the International Criminal Court, failing to condemn Guantanamo Bay and receiving funds from far-right groups such as the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.
However, Freedom House really shines when it comes to interfering in elections, like it did in 2004 in Ukraine.
During the Ukrainian presidential campaign, it administered funds to the Poland-America-Ukraine Cooperation Initiative (PAUCI), which allegedly financed groups campaigning for presidential candidate Victor Yushchenko.
At the time, the US State Department spokesperson Richard Boucher responded to allegations that government funds were being poured into Yushchenko's campaign, telling media: “Our money doesn't go to candidates. It goes to the institutions that it takes to run a free and fair election”.
One such US-funded NGO was the International Centre for Policy Studies — of which Yushchenko was a board member.
When Brownfield wrote the leaked cable in 2006, Freedom House had $1.1 million in USAID/OTI funding to play with in Venezuela.
According to its website, Freedom House still operates in Venezuela to “strength[en] democratic institutions in order to improve democratic governance”.
Its more recent activities include contradicting Supreme Court rulings in both January and March.
On both occasions, Freedom House uncritically regurgitated interpretations of the Venezuelan constitution from the main opposition coalition, the Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD).
Like in the 2004 Ukrainian elections, it appears that Freedom House has chosen to focus its efforts on backing its preferred candidate, rather than pursue its stated goal to “strength[en] democratic institutions”.
As illustrated by the WikiLeaks document, the relationship between the US embassy in Caracas and groups such as Freedom House and DAI is close. In 2007, Brownfield was accused by the Chavez administration of interfering in internal affairs. On March 5 this year, the day Chavez died, two US embassy officials were expelled after the government accused them of trying to ferment another coup.
Indeed, there is a shared imperative to end the revolution, whether through violence or seemingly innocent “civil society” activities.
Though the methods vary, there is one constant in Washington's approach to Venezuela; regime change at all costs, and regression to the neo-colonial relationship of the pre-Chavez years. [Ryan Mallett-Outtrim is a Green Left Weekly journalist living in Merida, Venezuela.]
Friday, 12 April 2013
 |
| Schneider, murdered by the CIA |
by Richard Mellor
Most Americans would not have heard of Rene Schneider. Schneider was a Chilean general, the commander of the Chilean military at the time of the election of the socialist president Salvador Allende which caused concern among the military and the CIA. I came across his role in a book the title of which I cannot remember. He impressed me because by all accounts, he was a conservative. But he was a constitutionalist and despite pressure from right wing sections of the military, supporters of Pinochet and the CIA, he was opposed to military interference to change the result of a democratic election. Chile’s military had a history of non-intervention in these affairs and Schneider believed in preserving it. In other words, he seemed to have some principles.
Unfortunately, he had some powerful enemies, not so much in Chile, but in Washington. Kissinger, Nixon and the CIA wanted him out of the way. Even a democratically elected socialist like Allende in what US imperialism considers its home turf was unacceptable. A US backed coup to replace the elected leader with one more subservient to Washington and Wall Street would be all the easier if Schneider was out of the way.
Most Americans would not have heard of Rene Schneider. Schneider was a Chilean general, the commander of the Chilean military at the time of the election of the socialist president Salvador Allende which caused concern among the military and the CIA. I came across his role in a book the title of which I cannot remember. He impressed me because by all accounts, he was a conservative. But he was a constitutionalist and despite pressure from right wing sections of the military, supporters of Pinochet and the CIA, he was opposed to military interference to change the result of a democratic election. Chile’s military had a history of non-intervention in these affairs and Schneider believed in preserving it. In other words, he seemed to have some principles.
Unfortunately, he had some powerful enemies, not so much in Chile, but in Washington. Kissinger, Nixon and the CIA wanted him out of the way. Even a democratically elected socialist like Allende in what US imperialism considers its home turf was unacceptable. A US backed coup to replace the elected leader with one more subservient to Washington and Wall Street would be all the easier if Schneider was out of the way.
The US claimed in the aftermath that they simply wanted him kidnapped but after some botched up attempts he was eventually assassinated as he defended himself from US stooges. $35,000 was given by the CIA to the kidnappers as "humanitarian" assistance.
According to the preceding source, “When Alexander Haig, Kissinger's aide was asked "is kidnapping not a crime?" he replied "that depends."
 |
| Letelier: murdered by the CIA's man in Chile |
These people died, and are were demonized by the US media for the same reason Venezuela’s Chavez is, they wanted control of their own resources and more of the wealth of their country to stay there rather than to end up in the hands of foreign multi-nationals. Countless others throughout the world, opposition to Hussein in Iraq, opponents of the Shah in Iran, fighters for democratic rights and self determination throughout the imperialized nations, have died at the hands of the CIA directly or at the hands of its proxy’s. Present at the death of Argentinian revolutionary Che Guevara was a CIA man.
But to return to Rene Schneider. I did a quick search of the recently released Wikileaks information, some 1.7 million files and cables, many of them documenting events of the late 60’s and 70’s and including comments by Henry Kissinger. I found the following although there’s no doubt more. It is a cable sent to the state dept. on the death of Gerald Ford. It refers to an article in a Chilean newspaper of the time pointing out that:
“….it was during the Ford administration that Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier, a military regime opponent, was murdered in Washington and that the Church Committee report revealed that the CIA had conducted covert operations in Chile from 1963 to 1973, and even participated in the murder of Chilean General Rene Schneider.”
The cable explains that relations between the Chile and the US became strained during the Ford administration (remember Ford pardoned Nixon. They stick together these folks) and that:
“The reason is that the Church Committee, formed to investigate CIA and FBI illegal activities in the Watergate case...revealed the CIA's participation in General Rene Schneider's assassination ...and in covert operations against Salvador Allende and his government, as instructed by President Nixon.... Henry Kissinger, who played a key role in this policy...met privately with Pinochet in Santiago in June 1976 to express Washington's support.” Wikeleaks released US diplomatic cable
People spend hours on the Internet, this writer included. Wikileaks has released a treasure trove of in formation about their phonydiplomacy. Take some time to hunt around for issues that might interest you. If you’re a blogger share this stuff with your readers. “The Real News” has asked for people to send in links to cables and Wikileaks info that they will address as resources allow. I intend to send this. Rene Schneider, although a military man and a conservative was a principled individual. He was not a socialist, just a person who believed the people had spoken through the electoral process and although it's most likely he disagreed with Allende's views, he believed it wasn't the responsibility of the military to interfere. Orlando Letelier, Allende, Patrice Lumumba, Che Guevara and the countless others that have died at the hands assassins in the pay of the CIA deserve our attention. We can help give voice to some of the history suppressed by the capitalist merchants of death.
The Real News: Facebook.com/therealnews also you tube
Thursday, 11 April 2013
Tuesday, 19 March 2013
 |
| Guatemalans set up a “disappeared wall” during one of the protests to demand the trial of Ríos Montt. Photo: Natasha Pizzey-Siegert source |
Afscme Local 444 retired
Today, the trial of one of Central America’s most murderous dictators begins in Guatemala. Efrain Rios Montt is being charged with genocide and crimes against humanity for his role in the murder of as many as 200,000 people, mostly members of the Mayan community, during Guatemala’s civil war that lasted 26 years from 1960 to 1996.
As with other stooges of US capitalism and the CIA in Latin America, hopefully Rios Montt will get his just rewards. But we see this all the time, secondary figures like Rios Montt, Slobodan Milosevic, Assad being labeled war criminals, if these people are guilty of crimes against humanity what about the people that were behind them?
The US through the CIA supplied the Guatemalan dictatorship with arms along with the Israelis. Ronald Reagan said of Rios Montt, "President Ríos Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment. ... I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice."
US capitalism’s interference in the affairs of Guatemala has deep roots. In 1954 a CIA sponsored coup overthrew the democratically elected government of Jacobo Arbenz on behalf of the United Fruit Co. and other big landowners. Arbenz had introduced land reforms that threatened the domination of the United Fruit Company over Guatemalan society. Only 2% of landowners owned 72% of the arable land, much of it unused. United fruit alone held 600,000 acres of mostly unused land. The Guatemalan colonel that the CIA selected to replace Arbenz immediately outlawed hundreds of trade unions and returned more than 1.5 million acres to United fruit Co.
Instrumental in planning the coup were the Dulles brothers, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother, Allen Dulles who was director of the CIA. These two also helped orchestrate the CIA coup that overthrew the secular democratic government of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953 and replaced him with the murderous Shah. They were former partners of United Fruit’s main law firm in Washington. By 1985 some 75,000 people were dead or had disappeared at the hands of the Guatemalan dictatorship; a huge amount in this tiny country. Some 150,000 Indians fled to Mexico and beyond. Many of the brothers and sisters we see on the streets as day laborers are from this area.
Instrumental in planning the coup were the Dulles brothers, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother, Allen Dulles who was director of the CIA. These two also helped orchestrate the CIA coup that overthrew the secular democratic government of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953 and replaced him with the murderous Shah. They were former partners of United Fruit’s main law firm in Washington. By 1985 some 75,000 people were dead or had disappeared at the hands of the Guatemalan dictatorship; a huge amount in this tiny country. Some 150,000 Indians fled to Mexico and beyond. Many of the brothers and sisters we see on the streets as day laborers are from this area.
 |
| Hilary with Mubarak: a friend of the family. |
It is the support the US gives these undemocratic regimes that allows civil conflict to go on for so long causing tremendous suffering for the population. The regime of Hosni Mubarak, the murderous Egyptian dictator was also a recipient some $2 billion of US taxpayer money. As Egyptians were fighting for democratic rights and an end to Mubarak’s tyranny and torture chambers, Hilary Clinton, then US Secretary of State told Egyptian TV that "We consider Egypt to be a friend." And that "I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family. So I hope to see him often here in Egypt and in the United States."
Behind Rios Montt and the slaughter of 200,000 Guatemalans in this conflict stood George HW Bush, Oliver North, Ronald Reagan and all these other far more important war criminals. The same with Mubarak, Milosevic, Gaddafi whose police were trained by the British.
We must not lose sight of this when these small fry are paraded to the world as orchestrators of crimes against humanity and genocide. They are never from Britain or the US. The US predatory war in Iraq has slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s and displaced hundreds of thousands more. The western support for the so-called Syrian opposition is them yet again linking up with very dubious characters as they did with Bin Laden and others; it is not workers they look to, but any section of the ruling class or religious hierarchy that will allow multinational corporations to continue to plunder the region’s resources. . Let’s also not forget that up until 1999, every Taliban government official was on the payroll of the US government.
The world has yet to enjoy the pleasure of seeing mass murderer Henry Kissinger brought to the dock. The blood of Rene, Schneider, the constitutionalist Chilean general is on Kissinger’s hands, as is Allende’s and the deaths of some 3 million Vietnamese.
While Guatemalan’s should rejoice at Rios Montt being brought to trial these events are of limited significance as long as their masters roam free.
Wednesday, 13 March 2013
 |
| Venezuela extreme poverty rates. Source |
by Richard Mellor
The latest Bloomberg Business Week has a piece on Hugo Chavez, more accurately on his failures as they see it. He never completed his “Bolivarian revolution” that Business Week refers to as a “vaguely defined utopia.”.
The latest Bloomberg Business Week has a piece on Hugo Chavez, more accurately on his failures as they see it. He never completed his “Bolivarian revolution” that Business Week refers to as a “vaguely defined utopia.”.
The problem now this respected journal of the 1% claims, is whether or not “Chávez’s supporters can continue to afford Chavismo.” The problem that the coupon clippers have with Chavez’ policies is that he “..bolstered his popularity among Venezuela’s 9 million poor by subsidizing food and housing, expanding education and health care, and reducing poverty
Yep, that’ll make you popular for sure. Not with Business Week and its readers, but with the vast majority of workers and particularly the poor and in this part of the world, the indigenous population. US capitalism considers Latin America its own back yard and Chavez wasn’t playing by the rules.
Chávez’s critics blamed him for the nationalization of more than 1,000 companies or their assets, as well as currency controls and price caps, which they said discouraged investment…” Business Week write, and this “..created food shortages, and fueled inflation. Above all, his critics condemned Chávez’s use of Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), the state oil company, as a source of nearly unlimited funds for social programs."
 |
| Unemployment |
The nerve of Chavez; he used the nation’s oil wealth to feed, cloth, educate and provide millions of people with security. This is the vague utopia that BW must be referring to. Business Week doesn’t explain how these policies created fuel shortages but I might hazard a guess that it has something to do with the economic war US capitalism launched against Venezuela and Chavez in retaliation for his refusal to give oil away to the US energy giants. Venezuela sits on the largest “proven” oil reserves in the world and before Chavez the US oil giants had a great deal for oil at bargain basement prices in partnership with a Venezuelan ruling elite that took their cut in the plunder of the country’s resources.
Exxon and ConocoPhillips are still trying to get money out of Venezuela for nationalizing what they refer to as “their”fields with “inadequate compensation.” According to BW, oil production is down since the nationalization as Venezuela lacks some of the technology and human capital to maintain the fields. This is also part of US capitalism’s war against the nation for its opposition to the market and refusal to hand over billions in oil revenue to international investors. If the next president were to stop funding social programs through the state and introduce market friendly policies it will be able to “recruit outside partners to help repair the fields. Says” BW.
US capitalism and global investors have not simply waged an economic war against Venezuela for the nation’s transgressions, there is a global strike of human capital as the energy companies have somewhat of a monopoly on the possession the human capital (engineers, geologists, scientists etc.) necessary for oil production. With the rise of China and Russian capitalism this dynamic has changed somewhat one would think but the technique and know-how necessary for oil production is still mainly the possession of the established conglomerates.
There is not much detail in Business Week’s article about the incredible gains made since Chavez came to power, the object is to focus on the problems, problems generated by the response of the owners of capital to the policies of the Chavez government. Venezuela sends 97, 000 barrels of oil a day to Cuba that sends doctors to Venezuelan clinics in return. This irks the US capitalist class. It’s staggering when one reflects that for more than 50 years, the US government has waged a violent economic war against the tiny Island of Cuba while it has supported numerous murderous undemocratic regimes throughout the world. Regimes like the Saudi’s, Mobutu, the Shah of Iran etc. Cuba supplies doctors to impoverished overseas countries and the US supplies attack helicopters.
US capitalism and global investors have not simply waged an economic war against Venezuela for the nation’s transgressions, there is a global strike of human capital as the energy companies have somewhat of a monopoly on the possession the human capital (engineers, geologists, scientists etc.) necessary for oil production. With the rise of China and Russian capitalism this dynamic has changed somewhat one would think but the technique and know-how necessary for oil production is still mainly the possession of the established conglomerates.
There is not much detail in Business Week’s article about the incredible gains made since Chavez came to power, the object is to focus on the problems, problems generated by the response of the owners of capital to the policies of the Chavez government. Venezuela sends 97, 000 barrels of oil a day to Cuba that sends doctors to Venezuelan clinics in return. This irks the US capitalist class. It’s staggering when one reflects that for more than 50 years, the US government has waged a violent economic war against the tiny Island of Cuba while it has supported numerous murderous undemocratic regimes throughout the world. Regimes like the Saudi’s, Mobutu, the Shah of Iran etc. Cuba supplies doctors to impoverished overseas countries and the US supplies attack helicopters.
 |
| Gini Coefficient |
Business week and its clients have high hopes, “A market-friendly president would probably cut the costly subsidies many Venezuelans enjoy for gasoline and food, seriously trim the ranks of the bloated civil service…” all in the hope of attracting capital and foreign investment. Workers in the US should think about this: In a somewhat similar way, we are being demonized much like Chavez is by the mouthpieces of US capitalism like BW and the mass media. Public services are attacked for the same reason and privatization is presented as the alternative. In auto, it was the autoworkers the 1% blamed for the crisis in that industry, generations of families that helped make this country a global power. The guilty always blames their victims.
The mass media refers to the public US workforce and sector as “bloated” just as it does with regards to Venezuela. The venom and demonization of Chavez, Cuba US trade unions or any force that undermines the market, either physically or ideologically is capitalism defending itself. Capitalism was dragged form the abyss by state/public money and cannot abide anything that undermines the view that the market has the answer to all things. It is this that draws capitalism’s ire, not a lack of democracy or dictators. The US has supported or installed some of the most ruthless undemocratic regimes on the planet. We have had numerous posts on Venezuela and the Chavez legacy. We posted a balanced assessment on this blog a few days ago from South Africa’s Democratic Left Front:
The mass media refers to the public US workforce and sector as “bloated” just as it does with regards to Venezuela. The venom and demonization of Chavez, Cuba US trade unions or any force that undermines the market, either physically or ideologically is capitalism defending itself. Capitalism was dragged form the abyss by state/public money and cannot abide anything that undermines the view that the market has the answer to all things. It is this that draws capitalism’s ire, not a lack of democracy or dictators. The US has supported or installed some of the most ruthless undemocratic regimes on the planet. We have had numerous posts on Venezuela and the Chavez legacy. We posted a balanced assessment on this blog a few days ago from South Africa’s Democratic Left Front:
Given the potent anti-capitalist symbolism that Chavez represented, it is not a surprise that capitalists, the imperialist United States of America (USA) and Europe, neo-liberals, post-liberation political elites and mainstream media including the ANC-controlled South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) produced false propaganda that Chavez was a dictator, a populist and so on. Strange dictator he was: since he was first democratically elected in 1998, there have been 17 elections and referenda, all of whom were declared free and fair by international bodies, and most of which he won. He was elected with 56% of the vote in 1998, 60% in 2000, defeated a coup in April 2002 on the back of mass power, received over 7 million votes in 2006 and secured 54.4% of the vote in October 2012. Even the former US President Jimmy Carter conceded that “of the 92 elections that we've monitored, I would say the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.” Beyond the state and formal democratic institutions, Chavez also opened the path to the emergence of nascent participatory democracy institutions such as communal councils with competencies to plan and allocate resources, solidarity and communal enterprises, cooperatives and financing institutions like the Women’s Development Bank.
Chavez's problem and shortcomings laid elsewhere. No social transformation or a transition to socialism can ever depend on one person or through a compromised political infrastructure in a self-declared socialist state or even in a self-proclaimed socialist party. Any such change crucially depends on the self-organised and critically conscious class power of the vast majority of poor and working people. The still-to-be achieved socialist alternative that Chavez envisioned was clearly different from Stalinism, as he grappled with how it must be based on democracy and popular participation, and how this socialist alternative must learn from the self-proclaimed ‘socialist’ but ultimately disastrous and failed statist experiments of the 20th century. Read more here.
One of the “experts” BW quotes in its article is Peter Hakim. And who might he be? Hakim worked for the Ford Foundation in New York and Latin America (in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Peru). He has been a member of the board at the World Bank, Council on Competitiveness, Inter-American Development Bank. Having enemies like these is a good thing.
The death of Chavez is a loss for workers throughout the world.
Saturday, 9 March 2013
Greg Palast defends the legacy of Hugo Chavez The so-called liberal New York Times, Pat Roberson the Catholic Church and all the other apologists for capitalism all vilified Hugo Chavez. Chavez made mistakes and was by no means perfect but by any standard what he accomplished in Venezuela, for the poor, the indigenous and working people of that country put him head and shoulders above his critics. He is vilified for the same reason public sector workers and public services, (socialized medicine, the USPS) are vilified in the US---it undermines the lie that the market is the most efficient way of producing social needs. Here's a few reasons why they hated him.
Chavez on racism: "Racism is very characteristic of imperialism and capitalism. Hate against me has a lot to do with racism. Because of my big mouth and curly hair. And I'm so proud to have this mouth and this hair, because it is African." - Hugo Chavez, September 21, 2005
Chávez on Women: "Women] work so hard raising their children, ironing, washing, preparing food … giving [their children] an orientation … This was never recognised as work yet it is such hard work! ... Now the revolution puts you first, you too are workers, you housewives, workers in the home."
“No part of the human community can live entirely on its own planet, with its own laws of motion and cut off from the rest of humanity.”
“I have said it already, I am convinced that the way to build a new and better world is not capitalism. Capitalism leads us straight to hell.”
“I hereby accuse the North American empire of being the biggest menace to our planet.” “A coup happened in Venezuela that was prepared by the U.S. What do they want? Our oil, as they did in Iraq”
"That's why Pat Robertson, the spiritual adviser of Mr. Bush, is calling for my assassination. That would be much cheaper than an invasion,”
“[The planet] is being destroyed under our own noses by the capitalist model, the destructive engine of development, ... every day there is more hunger, more misery thanks to the neo-liberal, capitalist model.”
Chavez on racism: "Racism is very characteristic of imperialism and capitalism. Hate against me has a lot to do with racism. Because of my big mouth and curly hair. And I'm so proud to have this mouth and this hair, because it is African." - Hugo Chavez, September 21, 2005
Chávez on Women: "Women] work so hard raising their children, ironing, washing, preparing food … giving [their children] an orientation … This was never recognised as work yet it is such hard work! ... Now the revolution puts you first, you too are workers, you housewives, workers in the home."
“No part of the human community can live entirely on its own planet, with its own laws of motion and cut off from the rest of humanity.”
“I have said it already, I am convinced that the way to build a new and better world is not capitalism. Capitalism leads us straight to hell.”
“I hereby accuse the North American empire of being the biggest menace to our planet.” “A coup happened in Venezuela that was prepared by the U.S. What do they want? Our oil, as they did in Iraq”
"That's why Pat Robertson, the spiritual adviser of Mr. Bush, is calling for my assassination. That would be much cheaper than an invasion,”
“[The planet] is being destroyed under our own noses by the capitalist model, the destructive engine of development, ... every day there is more hunger, more misery thanks to the neo-liberal, capitalist model.”
Thursday, 7 March 2013
Here is a documentary about Hugo Chávez and the U.S.-orchestrated coup attempt of April 2002. It was filmed by a crew from the Irish national television broadcaster RTE, who were in Venezuela to do a feature on Chávez and, fortuitously, were able to record a full-length video documentary of the coup. The images of the events presented in this video contradict explanations given by Chávez's opposition, the mass media, and the US State Department, and the White House. They provide compelling evidence that the coup was the result of a conspiracy between various old guard and anti-Chávez factions within Venezuela and the United States.
Wednesday, 6 March 2013
The international media that supports the strategists of capital have been delighted at the news of the death of Venezuela’s socialist president Hugo Chavez. And they are now predicting the quick demise of Chavez’s government and political movement, either by defeat in the ensuing presidential elections or by some ‘popular’ uprising against his ‘autocratic’ and ‘dictatorial’ rule. We’ll see.
The pro-capitalist media both inside and outside Venezuela has been unending in its claim that Chavez was a dictator and yet, as one commentator put it, “Every sin that Chávez was accused of committing—governing without accountability, marginalizing the opposition, appointing partisan supporters to the judiciary, dominating labor unions, professional organizations and civil society, corruption and using oil revenue to dispense patronage—flourished in a system the United States held up as exemplary.”
Over the last 14 years, Chávez submitted himself to fourteen national votes, winning thirteen of them by large margins, in polling deemed by Jimmy Carter to be “best in the world” out of the ninety-two elections that he has monitored. And in the last presidential ballot, which Chávez won with the same percentage he did his first election yet with a greatly expanded electorate,even his opponents have admitted that a majority of Venezuelans liked, if not adored, the man. And why was that?
Well, we have to go back to before Chavez. Venezuela’s economic fortunes are tied to world oil prices. Petroleum prices began to fall in the mid-1980s. Venezuela had grown lopsidedly urban, with 16 million of its 19 million citizens living in cities, well over half of them below the poverty line, many in extreme poverty. In Caracas, as in many other Latin American countries, poor people lived, cut off from municipal services. The spark came in February 1989, when a recently inaugurated president who had run against the IMF said that he no choice but to submit to its dictates. He announced a plan to abolish food and fuel subsidies, increase gas prices, privatize state industries and cut spending on health care and education. That’s when opposition to the rule of Venezuela’s rich, in league with American imperialism and the IMF, began.
When Chavez finally came to power he promised broad reforms, constitutional change and nationalization of key industries under his so-called Bolivarian Revolution. In some ways (but not all!) that was no more than even right-wing governments had done. After all, a real vicious dictator, General Pinochet of Chile, who led a coup to overthrow the democratically elected President Allende with the backing of the CIA back in 1973 that led to thousands of deaths and ‘disappearences’ had also presided over the nationalisation of Chile’s key asset, the copper mines – and they remain nationalised to this day. Like the PDVA, the state oil company in Venezuela, Chile’s Codelco is a major contributor to the government coffers. Codelco pays income tax, all dividends go to the government and it also pays a 10% tax on the export value of copper products.
Venezuela, rich in natural resources and with one of the largest oil and mineral reserves in Latin America and the Caribbean, is also a country with huge potential to reach sustainable economic and social development. Chavez’s programmes, aimed at helping the poor, included free health care, subsidised food and land reform. This succeeded in decreasing poverty levels by 30% between 1995 and 2005, mostly due to an increase in the real per capita income. Extreme poverty diminished from 32% to 19% of the population.
A recent IMF report (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=40024) showed that the gini coefficient (a measure of inequality of income between the top and bottom income earners) in the US had jumped from 30.5% in 1980 to 38.6% in 2010, the largest rise in the whole world with the exception of one country, China, where it has risen from a relatively low 28% to a very high 42% during ‘the move towards the market’ in China over the last 30 years. The most equal society in the advanced capitalist world is Norway (24%), which is also the richest. All the Scandinavian ratios are relatively low while Germany and France are in the middle (low 30%). Only the UK at 33.5% is close to the US – the rise since 1980 in the UK has matched that of the US, making it the most unequal society in Western Europe!
But there was one country that has become more equal over the last 20 years – Venezuela. And all that improvement was under the presidency of Chavez, with the gini coefficient falling from 45.4% in 2005 to 36.3% now. Venezuela is now the fairest country in Latin America on this measure. Brazil maintains its status as the most unequal, while South Africa with a hugely rich tiny white minority has the infamous status of being the most unequal country in the world (63%).
Oil gives Venezuela a competitive advantage in international trade. But it also throws the domestic economy off balance, as it accounts for more than 30% of the gross domestic product (GDP), approximately 90% of exports and 50% of fiscal income. When Chavez first came to power, the price of oil was less than $20 a barrel; by 2006, it was more than $60 and rising. Chávez was able to pour money into social programmes and engage in a burst of petrodiplomacy – subsidising like-minded governments not only in Cuba but also Bolivia and Nicaragua. Even many poor Americans benefited from aid from Venezuela. When the US Congress decided to cut 25% from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, Citgo Petroleum Corporation, a subsidiary of Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, said that it would be continuing its six-year-old program of providing heating oil to poor Americans free of charge.
What does the future hold for Chavismo? Any new government will be desperate to sustain revenue and to see oil prices remain as high as possible. The power to achieve that, however, lies elsewhere and in economic terms Venezuela is a price taker. It must deal at whatever price the market sets and in the end that means relying on the Saudis to maintain Opec discipline.
Venezuela’s relative isolation has meant that the currency, the bolivar, had to be devalued in order to sustain dollar-based oil exports. More dollar revenues had a price, inflation spiralled, way more than in other Latin American countries (see the graphic below of inflation since 1999). That hit the savings of the middle-class, in particular. As a result, significant opposition to Chavismo has been maintained, even among relatively lower middle-class strata. And in the last couple of years, oil revenues began to mark time, forcing Chavez to cut back on government spending and devalue even more. As a result, living standards stopped rising and social problems (especially crime) began to erupt.
Also, investment in extracting the massive oil reserves has been lacking, partly because foreign investment and expertise have been absent. This is the blackmail card that international capital has to play. ‘We shall invest, if you end Chavismo’ and return to being a compliant oil producer for American energy needs (Venezuela is America’s biggest provider of foreign oil). It remains to be seen how the Vice-President Madero and the Chavistas deal with this blackmail. We can only hope that the spirit and determination of Hugo Chavez will prevail.
Thursday, 14 February 2013
 |
| The oil industry's gift to Ecuador |
My knowledge of the situation in Ecuador is limited but as I read this interesting piece from Professor James Petras, a couple of things stood out. One is that it's quite clear that income can be wrung out of the global oil giants, something we in the US need to recognize. Correa has increased oil tax on multinationals from 20% to 85%, no small change, and much of the added revenue has been used to improve social conditions for a large and diverse section of Ecuadorian society. But this progress is entirely dependent on high oil prices and hardly stable as 50% of Ecuador's export earnings come from the sale of this one commodity.
But for now, Correa and others in the region have been able to "buy" a certain amount of stability. However, this situation is a very precarious one, subject to global economic conditions and this deal with the global energy giants. I think the other issues are the inability of US imperialism to simply dictate policy in this region and especially to force policy through military or partial military intervention relying more on covert CIA type activities. The US is bogged down in the Middle East, expanding its role in Africa against Islamic forces and in Asia to contain China. The Chinese presence in Latin America has also changed the situation there. Then there is Venezuela and Bolivia.
But for now, Correa and others in the region have been able to "buy" a certain amount of stability. However, this situation is a very precarious one, subject to global economic conditions and this deal with the global energy giants. I think the other issues are the inability of US imperialism to simply dictate policy in this region and especially to force policy through military or partial military intervention relying more on covert CIA type activities. The US is bogged down in the Middle East, expanding its role in Africa against Islamic forces and in Asia to contain China. The Chinese presence in Latin America has also changed the situation there. Then there is Venezuela and Bolivia.
I cringe when people like Prof Petras refers to groups like the FARC as "Marxist" as from what I know of FARC, their approach is more guerrilla based, but it is interesting as he points out that this deal with the energy giants has marginalized more radical social movements but will continue to create continued environmental disasters and clashes with the Indigenous Movement over land acquisition and pollution.
These scenarios have been played out many times before as individual nations under the yoke of imperialism and the global market try to find a national solution to a global problem and I would think that the revolutionary tradition of the Latin American masses will exert itself again in the period ahead. (RM)
These scenarios have been played out many times before as individual nations under the yoke of imperialism and the global market try to find a national solution to a global problem and I would think that the revolutionary tradition of the Latin American masses will exert itself again in the period ahead. (RM)
Ecuador: Left-Center Political Regimes versus Radical Social Movements
James Petras :: 11.02.13
Introduction: On February 17, 2013, national elections will take place in Ecuador in which incumbent left-center President, Rafael Correa, is likely to win with an absolute majority against opposition candidates covering the political spectrum from Right to Left.
Since he was first elected in 2006, Correa has won a string of elections, including presidential elections (2009), a constitutional referendum, a constituent assembly and a ballot on constitutional amendments. Correa’s electoral successes occur despite the opposition from the main Indian organizations, CONAIE (Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador) and CONFENIAE, the principle public sector teachers unions, environmental NGOs and numerous radical intellectual, academics and trade union activists. He also has routed the traditional pro-US right-wing and liberal parties, successfully defeated and prosecuted the subversive intent of the mass media moguls and survived an aborted police-military coup in 2010. Unquestionably Correa has demonstrated his capacity to win repeated elections and even increase his margin of victory.
The electoral successes of Correa raise fundamental issues which transcend the immediate context of Ecuadorean politics and reflect a general pattern throughout Latin America. These issues include: (1) the relation between mass social movements and left of center electoral parties and politicians. (2) The relation between pro-active extractive capitalist development strategies (mining, oil, agro-business), inclusionary social policies and anti-imperialist regional foreign policies. (3) The inverse relation between the growth and consolidation of a left-center regime and the decline and weakening of radical social movements. (4) The problem of the initial convergence and divergence between radical social movements and left-center political leaders; as they move from ‘opposition’ to political power. (5) The shifts in power between movements and electoral politicians, with the former exercising greater capacity to mobilize during the period of opposition to the Right and the latter dominating and dictating the political agenda subsequent to securing electoral office.
The Politics of Post Neo-Liberalism
Correa’s “citizen based” electoral movement, operates from positions in government and eschews any ‘class framework’. In fact in its broadest terms, it appeals to and directs government programs to both the urban poor and the big foreign petroleum multi-nationals; the small and medium size business people and the Guayaquil business elite; workers in the informal sector and the public sector professionals and employees, the returning immigrants from Europe (especially Spain) and the construction, real estate and communication elite.
In foreign policy Correa has supported and has the backing of the Cuban and Venezuelan governments and is a member of ALBA; it has received large scale low interest loans from China (in exchange for oil investment and trade agreements) and retains commercial ties with the US and EU. Correa has backed greater Latin American integration and signed off on major public-private petrol contracts with US and European oil companies. He claims to be a socialist but condemns the Marxist FARC and praises the Colombian regimes’ ‘neo-liberalism’; questioned the illegal foreign debt (lowering it by 60%) and at the same time retains the dollar as Ecuador’s currency and opens indigenous territories to foreign capital exploitation.
In a word Correa’s “post neo-liberal policies” combine ‘nationalist populist’ and neo-liberal policies more than a program for the 21st century socialism that he proclaims.
Perspectives on President Correa’s Government
The national-populist extractive policies and development strategy of the Correa regime has polarized opinion across the hemisphere and within Ecuador. On the extreme right Washington and its mass media acolytes view Ecuador as a radical ‘socialist regime’. They take at face value Correa’s embrace of “21st century socialism”, in large part because of his ties to Venezuela, membership in ALBA, renegotiation of the foreign debt and Ecuador’s giving political asylum (in its British embassy) to Julian Assange, the Wilkileak’s leader.
Echoing Washington’s ‘radical leftist’ label are the traditional and newly minted rightist parties (Sociedad Patriotica) who have been marginalized by Correa’s electoral successes. Their critique of Correa’s early nationalist policies, renegotiating the debt and prevailing oil contracts, is now tempered by his recent large scale, long term investment agreement with several foreign multinational petroleum companies. The Ecuadorean oligarchy while publically condemning Correa are privately busy negotiating public-private procurement agreements especially in communications, infrastructure and banking.
The Indian movement, CONAIE, peasants, the teachers union, the ecology-NGOs and some smaller leftist parties oppose Correa for his “sellout” to the big oil companies, his authoritarian centralized power, the expansion of exploitation in the Amazon region and territorial encroachment and threats to Indian lands, water and health.
In contrast to internal opposition from the social movements, the vast majority of leftist parties and center-leftist regimes in Latin America, led by Cuba and Venezuela, are staunch supporters and allies of the Correa regime based primarily on his anti-imperialist policies, support for regional integration and opposition to US interventionist and destabilization policies in the region.
Internationally Correa has widespread support among progressives in the US and Europe especially for his early policies questioning the legality of the foreign debt, his rhetorical proposal to conserve the Amazon in exchange for cash transfers from the EU/US, his renegotiations of the oil contracts and his anti-imperialist pronouncements. Most important, Correa has secured long term large scale financial aid from China in exchange for exploitation of its oil resources.
Buttressed by allies in Latin America and Asia, Correa has effectively resisted pressures from the outside from the US. Internally, Correa has built a formidable bloc of social and political forces which has effectively countered opposition from the oligarchical right as well as from the once powerful radical social movements. The sustained popular majorities backing Correa from 2006 to the present 2013 are based essentially on several factors - substantial increases in social expenditures benefiting popular constituencies and nationalist policies increasing state revenues. The entire Correa paradigm, however, is based on one singular factor – the high price for oil and the boom in commodity prices which finances his strategy of extractive capital led growth and expenditures for social inclusion.
The Social Bases of Correa’s Popularity
Correa’s electoral victories are directly related to his populist social policies financed by the substantial oil revenues resulting from the high prices and huge increase from the renegotiation of the oil contracts with the multi-nationals – an increase from a 20% to an 85% tax. Correa increased the health budget from $561 million in 2006 to $774 million in 2012, about 6.8% of the national budget. Clinics have multiplied, the price of medications has been reduced as a result of a joint venture with the Cuban firm Enfarm, and access to medical care has vastly improved. Educational spending has increased from 2.5% of GDP in 2006 to 6% in 2013, including a free lunch program for children. The regime has increased state subsidies for social housing, especially for low income classes as well as returning immigrants. To lower unemployment, Correa has allocated $140 million in micro credits to finance self-employment, a measure especially popular among workers in the “informal sector”. By effectively reducing the debt to foreign creditors by two-thirds (debt service runs to 2.24% of GDP), Correa has increased the minimum wage and pensions for low income retirees thus expanding the social security system.
Anti-poverty subsidies, payments of $35 monthly (increased to $50 two weeks before the Elections) to poor families and the disabled and low interest loans have allowed Correa to gain influence and divide the opposition movements in the countryside. Business elites especially in Guayaquil and the middle and upper echelon of the public sector especially in the petrol sector, have become important contributors and backers of Correa’s electoral machine.
As a result of State subsidies, contracts and the backing of business and banking sectors and the weakening of the opposition media elites, Correa has built a broad electoral base that transverses the class spectrum. The entire ‘popular alliance’ is, however, highly dependent on Correa’s pact with extractive multi-nationals. His electoral success is a result of a strategy based on the revenue from a narrowly based export sector. And the export sector is highly dependent on the expansion of oil exploitation in the Amazon region which adversely affects the livelihood and health of the indigenous communities, who in turn are highly organized and in a permanent ‘resistance mode”.
The Contradictions of Extractive Capitalism and Populist Politics: The Threats and Challenges to Social Movements
The oil sector accounts for over 50 percent of Ecuador’s export earnings and over one-third of all tax revenues. Production has oscillated around 500,000 barrels a day, with increasing shares sold to China and a decreasing percentage to the US. In February 2013 Ecuador signed contracts for $1.7 billion in investments to boost output in the Amazon fields with Canadian, US, Spanish and Argentine multi-nationals in association with the Ecuadorean state company Petroecuador.
The biggest oil investments in the history of Ecuador promise to increase the levels of oil spills, contamination of Indian communities and intensification of the conflicts between CONAIE and its ecological and movement allies and the Correa regime. In other words as Correa sustains and consolidates his majoritarian electoral support outside of the Amazon and adjoining regions with increased social expenditures based on rising oil revenues, he will further dispossess and alienate the movements of the interior.
Social inclusion of the urban masses and promotion of an independent foreign policy are based on an alliance with foreign extractive multi-nationals which undermine the habitation and economy of small producers and Indian communities.
The history of petroleum exploitation contamination up to the present day provides little evidence to support President Correa’s claims of environmental safeguards. Texaco/Chevron oil exploitation in the Amazon contaminated millions of acres, dispossessed scores of Indian communities and sickened thousands of inhabitants resulting in a judiciary award of $8 billion dollars in favor of the 30,000 indigenous people adversely affected.
Recently Correa’s proposed oil contracts with multi-nationals to exploit 13 blocks in the pristine Amazon region covering millions of acres and inhabited by seven Indian nationalities, without consulting the indigenous communities thus contravening his own newly written constitution. Powerful mobilizations, led by CONAIE and CONFEIAE (the Ecuadorean Confederation of Amazonian Indian Nationalities) on the 28th of November 2012 in Quito and in the regions targeted for exploitation, has caused several oil majors to delay drilling. In the face of determined Indian resistance, Correa has shown the authoritarian side of his regime: threatening to dispatch the military to occupy and forcibly impose a kind of ‘martial law’, raising the prospects of prolonged political warfare.
While Correa can and does win national elections and routs his electoral opposition in the big cities, he faces a resolute organized majority in the Amazon and adjoining regions. Correa’s dilemma is that unless he diversifies the economy and reaches a compromise via consultation with CONAIE, his dependence on new oil ventures drives him toward de facto alliance with the traditional export elites and greater dependence on the military and police.
The Latin American Context
Correa’s bet on an export strategy based on primary goods has created a potentially dynamic mega cycle of growth but it is increasingly dependent on high world prices for oil. Any significant decline in price would immediately lead to a precipitous fall in social expenditures, erode his social coalition and strengthen the opposition from the right and the radical social movements. Correa’s repeated electoral successes and his widespread support across the progressive and anti-imperialist political spectrum, has seriously weakened the radical social movements a pattern that has been repeated throughout Latin America.
In the previous decade, roughly the period of the 1990’s to the early years of the 21st century, the radical social movements took center stage in toppling rightwing, US backed neo-liberal regimes. Ecuador was no exception: CONAIE and its urban allies ousted the incumbent neo-liberal President Mahuad in January 21, 2000, and joined with Correa in driving the Lucio Gutierrez regime from power in April 2005. Similar mass struggles and social mobilizations ousted neo-liberals in Argentina and Bolivia, while movement backed center left politicians took power in Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay and Peru.
Once ensconced in power the center-left regimes adopted a commodity led export strategy, embraced partnerships with the MNC and built broad electoral conditions which marginalized the radical social movements; with the aid of increased revenues they substituted populist transfer payments for structural transformations.
Nationalist foreign policies were combined with alliances with big commodity based MNC. To the extent that class struggles emerged, the populist leaders condemned them and even accused their leaders of “conspiring with the Right” – thus questioning the legitimacy of their demands and struggles.
The post neo-liberal center-left regimes in Latin America, with their populist politics of ‘inclusion’ have been far more effective in reducing the appeal and influence of the radical mass social movements than the previous US backed repressive neo-liberal regimes.
Those social movements which opted to support and join the center-left regimes (or were co-opted) became transmission belts for extractive policies. Confined to administrating the regime’s anti-poverty programs and defending the extractive capitalist model, the co-opted leaders argued for higher tax revenues and social expenditures, and, occasionally, called for greater environmental controls. But ultimately the “insider strategy”, adopted by some social leaders, has led to bureaucratic subordination and the loss of any specific class loyalties.
Conclusion
National-populism is and will be challenged from within by its ‘allies’ among the MNC who will increasingly influence their ‘public sector partners’ and, from the ‘outside’, by the pressures from the world market. In the meantime as long as commodity prices hold and the nationalist-populist leaders continue their ‘inclusive’ social programs, Latin American politics will remain relative stable and the economy will continue to grow, but it will continue to face resistance from the alliance of eco-social and indigenous movements.
What lessons can be drawn from the past two decades of social movement – populist electoral party alliances? The message is both clear and ambiguous. Clearly movements which do not have an independent political perspective will lose out to their electoral allies. However, there is no question that because of movement action, the populist electoral class has legislated significant social expenditures benefiting the popular classes and pursued a relative independent foreign policy – an ambiguous legacy or unfinished history?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
