Following up on yesterday’s post about Chávez threatening to cut off oil exports to the United States, it occurred to me that recently he has been making a wide variety of domestic nationalization threats as well. I hadn’t paid close attention, but they really start adding up:
Banks
Milk plants
Food distributors
Asphalt companies
Idle land
So we have a string of relatively recent threats but no actions taken. Chávez may be painting himself into a corner with this combination of escalating rhetoric and inaction. Capitalism is thriving in Venezuela, but in large part because investors and business owners believe their private property to be safe. Acting upon all those threats would cause a serious ripple effect. On other hand, not acting on them makes him more and more like a paper tiger, in a domestic environment in which the opposition is feeling stronger after the defeated constitutional referendum.
85 comments:
So we have a string of relatively recent threats but no actions taken. Chávez may be painting himself into a corner with this combination of escalating rhetoric and inaction.
This analysis reminds of Gore Vidal's addage: "The United States is the United States of Amnesia. Nobody remembers what happened before Monday morning." Regardless of what you or I may think of Chavez's threats of nationalization, it is simply erroneous to suggest that those threats have no credibility to them. Less than a year ago, Chavez nationalized CANTV and a bunch of foreign oil rigs. So to suggest that Chavez has no bite to his bark is simply false.
Capitalism is thriving in Venezuela, but in large part because investors and business owners believe their private property to be safe. Acting upon all those threats would cause a serious ripple effect. On other hand, not acting on them makes him more and more like a paper tiger, in a domestic environment in which the opposition is feeling stronger after the defeated constitutional referendum.
Notice the false dichotomy you set up here. Either Chavez will nationalize them all (at great expense to the Venezuelan economy) or not nationalize any of them (at great expense to his own credibility). Any cursory modeling of the game in question would quickly reveal that the options on the table for Chavez are far more diverse than the two stark choices you lay out.
"Any cursory modeling of the game in question would quickly reveal that the options on the table for Chavez are far more diverse than the two stark choices you lay out."
And the non startk & diverse choices in the game product of your cursory analysis would be?
Justin makes an interesting & insightful point. Chavez may use rhetoric against several companies, but only nationalize some (not all).
The consequences of that logic, of course, are even more interesting. What does the increased "uncertainty cost" do to decisionmakers? Do investers become risk-averse (he might seize *ours*)? Or do they gamble (he won't seize *ours*)? At this point we're essentially modeling high stakes power ... although a game in which the dealer has a gun in his lap. (And, no, I don't mean that Chavez is a thug, I mean that the state, as both Bakunin & Weber put it, is defined by its ability to use violence.)
And what does that level of uncertainty do to public opinion? It's not that Chavez loses credibility ... it's that perhaps Chavez loses *meaning*. In other words, public opinion begins to wonder: "does he mean it *this* time?" How does one model trust, legitimacy, accountability, and representation in such an environment?
It's not that Chavez loses credibility ... it's that perhaps Chavez loses *meaning*. In other words, public opinion begins to wonder: "does he mean it *this* time?"
Well, to assess whether Chavez loses meaning (or credibility), I think it's necessary to look at his original statements in context (which the English-language press rarely does). This is a bargaining game (designed to induce private producers to produce under a particular set of conditions). I think it's important to point out that there's a difference between a threat and a commitment. Chavez has made no commitment to nationalize anything, and it seems fairly obvious to me that his first-order preference would be that the private sector step up production and distribution under a particular set of conditions set by the state.
"It seems fairly obvious to me that his first-order preference would be that the private sector step up production and distribution under a particular set of conditions set by the state."
Very particular conditions. Meaning whatever Chavez wants any given day.
So no a word about your cursory model.
So no a word about your cursory model.
Miguel already explained it, big guy. I'll leave it to you to connect the dots.
So the cursory model is:
1) He will nationalize all.
2) He will nationalize any.
3) He will nationalize some.
WOW!
Perhaps he will also nationalize some partially!!
Man you are brilliant.
..but how is that different to what Greg says?
"This is a bargaining game (designed to induce private producers to produce under a particular set of conditions)."
No, it's a game for tyrants: "Produce according to my dictation, or I'll seize your assets."
"..his first-order preference would be that the private sector step up production and distribution under a particular set of conditions set by the state."
This from Justin, the guy who regularly rails here against "authoritarians."
Isn't a socialist model (massive expenditures on public works, housing, education, sports, etc) in which private corporations still operate independently -- but under directions (threats) from the chief executive -- also known as "national socialism"?
I forgot to add that such an ideological model should emphasize national unity over class divisions, with a powerful almost cultish emphasis on "fatherland" (in spanish: "Patria").
"Isn't a socialist model (massive expenditures on public works, housing, education, sports, etc) in which private corporations still operate independently -- but under directions (threats) from the chief executive -- also known as "national socialism"?"
Yes, it is.
This makes me wonder whether there are any types of companies that are more or less likely to be expropriated given possible domestic reaction. Would that reaction be the same for Venezuelan food producers as for foreign-owned oil?
Isn't a socialist model (massive expenditures on public works, housing, education, sports, etc) in which private corporations still operate independently -- but under directions (threats) from the chief executive -- also known as "national socialism"?
This is a rather silly form of propaganda. All states regulate private producers, whether those regulations be in the form of taxation, environmental regulations, price controls or what have you. All states also seek to enforce compliance with those regulations. Reasonable people can disagree and debate about what forms and degree of regulation create socially optimal outcomes, but those who insist on making hysterical comparisons to Nazi Germany are not really interested in real discussion.
..but how is that different to what Greg says?
Because Greg laid out only the two starkest of options, effectively setting up a false dichotomy whereby Chavez must either nationalize them all (at great expense to the Venezuelan economy) or not nationalize any of them (at great expense to his own credibility). That's what's different.
But no matter. Greg could say the earth is flat and, if I objected, you'd come rushing to his defense.
such an ideological model should emphasize national unity over class divisions...
Nobody accuses Chavez of that. That "ideological model" is much closer to the rhetoric of Aznar, Uribe and Calderon than to the rhetoric of Chavismo.
"All states regulate private producers"
Not all States have a President cherry picking industries to nationalize and improvising "particular" conditions.
"Those who insist on making hysterical comparisons to Nazi Germany are not really interested in real discussion."
You have compared Uribe to Hitler in this very same forum.
Even now you are doing it:
"That "ideological model" is much closer to the rhetoric of Aznar, Uribe and Calderon than to the rhetoric of Chavismo."
"Reasonable people can disagree and debate about what forms and degree of regulation create socially optimal outcomes, but those who insist on making hysterical comparisons to Nazi Germany are not really interested in real discussion."
Hilarious for Justin to put himself in the "reasonable people" category. Apparently, threatening producers with nationalization unless they operate at a loss...is not much different than paying corporate taxes.
"..could say the earth is flat and, if I objected, you'd come rushing to his defense."
Which is pretty much the SOP for Justin "Hugs for Hugo" Delacour every time someone criticizes Chavez.
You have compared Uribe to Hitler in this very same forum.
I've made verifiably-sound comparisons of certain political characteristics (such as Paul's rhetoric about "poisoning" minds with the "wrong" sorts of ideas), but I'm very careful not to equate Aznar or Uribe with Nazis. Miguel shows no such care in his characterization of Chavismo.
That the political right --and not Chavismo-- rhetorically celebrates "national unity over class divisions" is a verifiable fact. The suppression of any discussion of class divisions is a hallmark of the political right the world over. The American right, for example, reflexively disparages any talk of the disparity between the "haves" and the "have-nots" as "class warfare." The same is true of the Chilean right. The same is true of the Colombian right. And the same is true of the Mexican right.
And I'm quite sure that you're incapable of actually debating my point.
Which is pretty much the SOP for Justin "Hugs for Hugo" Delacour every time someone criticizes Chavez.
Actually, no, it's not true that I object to any criticism of Chavez. I'm perfectly open to criticisms based upon sound, methodical analysis. What I expect is that people like Greg get their facts straight and be methodical in their analysis, which is unfortunately often not the case on issues surrounding Venezuela.
"That the political right --and not Chavismo-- rhetorically celebrates "national unity over class divisions" is a verifiable fact."
Chavez engages in the same sorts of class struggle crap all Marxists do, but he also uses the "Fatherland" rhetoric, as Mcentallas pointed out. That's just fact.
"The suppression of any discussion of class divisions is a hallmark of the political right the world over."
Justin does have a point here. Communists like himself "the world over" love to play evil rich vs. noble poor propaganda games.
Another evasive justification of Delacour's doctrine: "What's good for me it's not good for you"
Comparing Uribe and Aznar to Hitler is as intelligent, or absurd, as comparing Chavez with Hitler.
National Socialism has a lot more to it than your alleged suppression of "discussion of class division", and yes, it does have a lot in common with Chavism, namely: militarism, nationalism; collectivism; anti-Semitism; cult to personality…
For instance, this quote from Hitler could have come from Chavez:"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property."
But then, on the other hand National Socialism was also: Anti-Communist; Meritocratic; Racist, etc., etc.
So it would be simplistic to equate Chavism or Uribism to Nazism.
It would be nice if you relax and understand that when, for instance, Mcentellas made the first allusion to National Socialism, he was just making a witty, even humorous comment that points out the terribly contradictions of Chavism. He wasn’t trying to write a dissertation with “verifiably-sound” argumentation.
Try and be modest. You will feel better. Your opinions are not always "verifiably-sound", "based upon sound, methodical analysis" they are actually, with some exceptions, just opinions and if you accept my point of view they tend to be boring and single minded.
Justin:
I didn't make a direct comparison between Chavez & Hitler (though I can see how you might think I implied one, since you do the same frequently when comparing Hitler to Uribe, Bush, or your demon-of-the-week).
What I wrote was "national socialism" which is a category much broader than either Hitler or Nazism. Fascism in the 1920s-1930s saw itself as a rejection of both the "excesses" of Marcism & liberalism. As such, it saw itself as a "national socialist" model (or even "true" socialism). Here I would refer you to the extremely excellent sociological study of Facists by Michael Mann titled, aptly, "Fascists" (Cambridge UP, 2004). Or you could read a similar take on it in some of the contributor's chaptes in Francisco Panizza's "Populism and the Mirror of Democracy" (Verso, 2005). I've used both texts in undergraduate courses at Dickinson.
Hence, my comment was neither hysterical nor hyperbole. It was analytical. There is a long tradition of "national-populism" in Latin America that drew inspiration from 1920s "national socialism" in Europe (such as Vargas's Estado Novo in Brazil and Peron's Argentina). For an interesting deconstruction of the Peronist ideology, see Mariano Ben Plotkin's "Mañana es San Peron" (SR Books, 2003).
Here's Miguel's idea of serious scholarly argumentation. He starts with a obviously loaded --and, yes, hysterical-- rhetorical question: 'Isn't what Chavez does called national socialism?'
Miguel knows, of course, that "National Socialism" is a German concoction, from which the term "Nazi" (short for "Nazionalsozialistisch") derives.
He then quickly backtracks and says "I didn't make a direct comparison between Chavez & Hitler" and that "my comment was neither hysterical nor hyperbole" but rather "analytical."
Uh, no, Miguel, your comment was infantile (and emblematic of someone who doesn't know how to engage in serious debate). This is why you're not worth my time. You don't see me blurting out hyperbolic garbage like: 'Isn't what Uribe does called National Socialism?'
Most any other scholar would cringe at such an obviously crass form of argumentation.
Modesty is not a virtue of you. Try harder camarada. Socialists should be humble.
"Most any other scholar would cringe at such an obviously crass form of argumentation."
Perhaps Justin should provide another link from a pro-FARC website to further illustrate his thesis.
Perhaps Justin should provide another link from a pro-FARC website to further illustrate his thesis.
Ah, yes. Thanks to Paul, I now know that anyone who laments the Colombian state's human right abuses or opposes a trade agreement with that country is "pro-FARC." God bless you, Paul.
"..who laments the Colombian state's human right abuses or opposes a trade agreement with that country is "pro-FARC."
Or perhaps, when someone repeatedly links a pro-FARC turd like Garry Leech. Hey Justin, next time your on your knees licking Chavez's boots, ask him to define "pro-FARC."
Or perhaps, when someone repeatedly links a pro-FARC turd like Garry Leech.
No, Paul, I've read Leech's stuff, and he's not "pro-FARC." He's pro-peace. He favors a negotiated settlement, and so do I.
Delacour, You are funny. This blog wouldn't be the same without you. I am glad you spend so much time here. As a loyal reader of this blog I thank you for your simplism.
Well, gee, anonymous, perhaps if you actually learned how to formulate a rudimentary argument, you could spice things up yourself.
Just say you are welcome. Don't have to be that modest.
presidente venezolano Hugo Chávez de "demagogo lloricón" sin rasgos redimibles, que le disgusta en su totalidad.
"Estuvo a punto de perder el poder. Se protegió en la iglesia. Lloraba. Es un hombre sin sustancia, un Mussolini tropical de cuarta. No tiene mucha importancia", dijo el intelectual en una entrevista con AP. "Me parece un demagogo lloricón".
Y reiteró que el sistema político de Venezuela no es socialismo sino fascismo.
"Mussolini con plátanos. Banana Mussolini", agregó.
Preguntado si el mandatario venezolano tenía algún rasgo redimible, Fuentes replicó: "Para mí, no, quizás para Dios, sí".
El autor de "La región más transparente" comparó al mandatario venezolano con Fidel Castro, a quien calificó de "hombre respetable".
"Uno es autentico, el otro es un farsante", apuntó diferenciando a los presidentes. "Uno no puede estar de acuerdo con Fidel, pero hay que respetarlo .... El otro es un improvisado ... que no va durar mucho".
Fuentes, quien está en Los Angeles para participar por primera vez en un taller literario dado por una universidad mexicana en Estados Unidos, recalcó que le disgusta todo de Chávez, pero que no es nada personal.
"(Es la) función que (Chávez) cumple, su pretensión dictatorial, esta manía de dictador latinoamericano, de tipo autoritario, de distraer sus fracasos internos creando problemas exteriores", explicó.
Al mismo tiempo, criticó el culto a la personalidad que se le rinde al presidente venezolano.
"De eso vive Chávez, del culto a la personalidad", acotó.
Fuentes, quien en noviembre cumple 80 años, también fustigó al presidente estadounidense George Bush.
"Yo creo que el gran fracaso de la presidencia de Bush es que creyó que entraba a un mundo que iba a dominar ... y ya vemos que no así", agregó. "Se les vino abajo el proyecto porque el mundo actual ya no admite una sola potencia".
The author is Carlos Fuentes
"No, Paul, I've read Leech's stuff, and he's not "pro-FARC."
Oh, of course he is. Who do you think you are fooling? Funny how you left your master Chavez out of your reply, though.
"He favors a negotiated settlement, and so do I."
So you see the kidnapped human beings as bargaining chips. I gotcha.
There's nothing to negotiate, the guerillas have no standing or credibility. The government already offers a generous amnesty for terrorists who surrender. That's far more than they deserve.
So you see the kidnapped human beings as bargaining chips.
The Uribe government itself recognizes hostages as bargaining chips. If the Uribe government didn't recognize hostages as bargaining chips (however reluctantly), it never would have launched into prisoner exchange talks in the first place. To recognize that hostages are bargaining chips is to recognize reality, however much one might not like the reality he or she confronts. And it's not as if Uribe's people are in any position to wax moralistic on the question, given their own use of paramilitaries as auxilary forces to carry out the state's dirty work.
Welcome to the world of realpolitik, Paul. Adversaries in military conflict have little time for ethics. For both sides, the conflict is primarily a question of power, not of ethics. Once you recognize the realities of power, you'll also recognize that all your moralizing is nothing more than hypocritical propaganda designed to keep up a war in which ethics will forever take a back seat.
"To recognize that hostages are bargaining chips is to recognize reality" Delacour would make a great mafia soldier
"Welcome to the world of realpolitik". Delacour lives in a student room in the US.
"The conflict is primarily a question of power, not of ethics"
Well power and ethics are different cathegories. One thing doesn't exclude the other. Unless you don't care about ethics.
"The Uribe government itself recognizes hostages as bargaining chips."
Wrong-o. The Uribe government recognizes the FARC as terrorists.
They have some terrorists in captivity they see as bargaining chips, the hostages are seen as kidnapped human beings. There's a difference to those of us who don't draw a moral equivalence between your guerilla friends and the democratically elected government of Colombia.
"If the Uribe government didn't recognize hostages as bargaining chips (however reluctantly), it never would have launched into prisoner exchange talks in the first place."
Uribe unwisely released Granda(captured in your master's Bolivarian paradise) and 150 some other terrorists in an effort to get the FARC to release some hostages. The FARC, as always, proved unworthy of the efforts. Uribe also had to play along with the Chavez/FARC propaganda bonanza that fooled nobody, except maybe a Dorm Room Revolutionary or two.
In any case, the Uribe record in Colombia vindicates his philosophy: "For us, the military path is just as valid as the path of negotiation."
"Adversaries in military conflict have little time for ethics."
That sentiment is really just your own little rationalization for supporting thugs like Chavez who ally with FARC terrorists.
"Once you recognize the realities of power, you'll also recognize that all your moralizing is nothing more than hypocritical propaganda designed to keep up a war in which ethics will forever take a back seat."
The "realities of power" are Uribe's 5 year FARC ass kicking, resulting in a more secure, more prosperous Colombia, while the guerillas defect and run away into the jungle. Another reality is your master Chavez's now openly supporting the terrorists who kidnap and murder Colombians. Perhaps he'll swing the balance back in the other direction.
Anyway, I can see why you would say "ethics forever take a back seat," at least while the communists have Uribe's boot on their necks.
"Adversaries in military conflict have little time for ethics."
Alberto Gonzalez?
Dick Cheney?
Your President Bush?
No!
Justin Delacour
Uribe unwisely released Granda(captured in your master's Bolivarian paradise) and 150 some other terrorists in an effort to get the FARC to release some hostages.
Whatever you think of the move, it simply proves my point that Uribe has recognized the FARC hostages to be FARC bargaining chips. And just as Uribe is no dummy, Tirofijo and Mono Jojoy aren't stupid either. They hold hostages because they know the hostages are bargaining chips. And when Uribe agreed to prisoner exchange talks, he once again affirmed his recognition of FARC hostages as bargaining chips. And, in the future, Uribe --or some other Colombian leader-- will continue to have to deal with the fact that the hostages are FARC bargaining chips.
Geographically, Colombia is one of most hospitable countries in the world for guerrillas to operate, so, sooner or later, the Colombian state will figure out that there is no alternative to going back to the negotiating table with the guerrillas. Better sooner than later, for the sake of the innocent.
"it simply proves my point that Uribe has recognized the FARC hostages to be FARC bargaining chips."
Uribe recognizes them as people kidnapped by savages. You're the one coldly dehumanizing them as "bargaining chips."
"And just as Uribe is no dummy, Tirofijo and Mono Jojoy aren't stupid either. They hold hostages because they know the hostages are bargaining chips."
Brilliant! Of course they view them as bargaining chips, as do you, instead of kidnapped human beings. I never disputed the FARC's point-of-view.
And why are you still calling them "hostages" when your master Chavez clearly designated them as "prisoners-of-war?"
"Colombia is one of most hospitable countries in the world for guerrillas to operate,"
And the Uribe government has shown them plenty of inhospitality, with good results. I'm hoping the aid Chavez gives the guerillas won't reverse the trends any. Obviously, you operate from a different perspective there in your dorm room.
Speaking of Colombian geography, where are those pictures of your trips there?
"And just as Uribe is no dummy, Tirofijo and Mono Jojoy aren't stupid either. They hold hostages because they know the hostages are bargaining chips."
If Uribe publicly contemplates bargaining for hostages, the simple objective fact of the matter is that he recognizes the hostages to be FARC bargaining chips. That's just a plain and simple fact, Paul. This has nothing to do with whether any of us want to see hostages as bargaining chips. In Colombia's civil conflict, they've become bargaining chips regardless of how much any of us might wish that they hadn't.
I still contend that making a comparison to national socialism is NOT the same as saying "so-and-so is like Hitler".
Like other ideologies (liberalism, socialism, etc) fascism is a broad category that includes MORE than merely Hitler. Saying a political project resembles national socialism is NOT the same as saying someone is a Nazi.
For someone who likes Grascian analysis, I would've expected Justin to know his Italian intellectual history a bit better. The term "national socialism" was used by Gaetano Mosca to describe Italian fascism, when explaining why Mussolini and other former members of the Italian socialist party broke w/ the International to develop their own movement. As the "first" fascists (a distinction Micahel Mann, who I cited) points out, fascism should be identified w/ Italian fascism and its subsequent strains. Some (including Mann) have even wondered whether Nazism should qualify as a type of fascism at all, or whether it is something else.
Justin, I've read Grasmsci (it was required reading for comps). Have you read Mosca or Michels? Have you read the sociological literature on ideologies or nationalism? Have you read the critical theorists like Adorno or Habermas on the subject? There's more to sociological analysis than just Gramsci.
"In Colombia's civil conflict, they've become bargaining chips regardless of how much any of us might wish that they hadn't."
Yeah, Realpolitik and all that. The Revolucion "...has little time for ethics."
The term "national socialism" was used by Gaetano Mosca to describe Italian fascism, when explaining why Mussolini and other former members of the Italian socialist party broke w/ the International to develop their own movement.
Another absurd comparison from a so-called scholar who couoldn't honestly debate an issue if his life depended on it.
Justin:
Before you continue, why not look at some of the bibliography I suggested? Making an analytical between to fascist ideology and populism has been done by a wide range of scholars. Being offended is not a reason to object in the absence of *REAL* scholarly work on just such a subject. In my opinion, "real" academics are willing to explore all sorts of questions w/o crying "foul!" to a specific line of inquiry.
I'm not trying to engage in high school debate rules. I'm trying to expand your understanding of the scholarship. Take a look at the Ben Plotkin book no Peronism. Since I doubt Peron is a hero of yours, the links between Peronism & European fascism will be easier for you to swallow. Then, compare Peronism and "Bolivarianism" and see if you find similarities.
One of the most important points Michael Mann makes in his book "Fascists" is that fascism is often misunderstood precisely because it is too closely linked to Nazism, w/o recognizing the broader category "fascism" that in reality existed. His book offers a close detalied look at Italian, Spanish, Romanian, and Hungarian variants. In the Panizza book, Benjamin Arditi, Panizza, and Ernesto Laclau make comparisons between fascism & populism across a range of countries. They argue that contrary to superficial views, fascism-populism can be understood as a "dark underbelly" of the democratic impulse (but one that overly emphasizes the us-other distinction).
Before you continue, why not look at some of the bibliography I suggested?
Miguel,
Before you continue, why not try developing some basic debating skills. No matter the length of your bibliography, a serious scholar doesn't make outlandish comparisons between Mussolini and Chavez and then expect serious people to listen to him.
You're not worth my time.
Justin:
So, you're not going to read some scholarship (widely respected scholarship) that does explore the ideological relationship between fascism, populism, democracy, and nationalism?
And can I expect you *NOT* to make similar remarks about Bush, Uribe, etc. in the future? Because ... it seems you've just established that no comparisons between Mussolini and modern political figures are "serious" and "worthy of your time". Or are such comparisons only valid a priori as you determine them?
But seriously. The "Populism and the Mirror of Democracy" is an important recent book exploring the fuzzy edges of modern democratic theory. And I doubt anyone considers Benjamin Arditi, Francisco Panizza, or Ernesto Laclau (and their co-authors) as anything other than serious scholars.
No, Miguel, we're not gonna play your silly games. If you wanna seriously discuss Venezuelan policy, then you're gonna have to learn to do so without making outlandish comparisons to the Axis powers.
Justin:
For the last time: I did not say "Chavez is just like Hitler" or "Venezuela is just like fascist Italy". What I stated was that there is an ideological core to fascism that extends beyond just the two most well-known Axis powers and that has influenced Latin American populism-corporatism since the 1920s. Such a statement has been well acknowledged in scholarship, including some recent ones which I have cited.
Historically, fascists played prominent role in Peronismo, Varguismo, Aprismo, and MNRismo. Their goals were essentially the same as in Europe: a strong state, creating an "integrationist" nationalism (one which transformed "Indians" into "peasants"), a strong anti-foreign & anti-imperialist rhetoric, a rejection of liberal doctrines (both economic & social), a high degree of personalised leadership, and near-constant efforts to mobilize and organize the population.
If I'm not worth your time or playing silly games, then stop responding w/ a simplistic "Unfair!" or "You can't argue to save your life" (is that even really a "counter-argument" properly so called?!). Either: A) stop responding to my comments or B) make a counter-argument for why fascism has no influence in contemporary Latin American populism.
make a counter-argument for why fascism has no influence in contemporary Latin American populism.
Here's Miguel's idea of a scholarly argument.
Peron = fascist sympathies
Peron = populist
Peron = Very broad category of "Latin American populism"
"Latin American populism" = fascist roots
The awesome leaps of logic in your so-called "argument" are so poorly thought out that I wouldn't even say that that qualifies as an argument. First you have to put forth an actual argument before I respond with a counter-argument. I'm not going to entertain garbage.
Justin:
Again, please re-read the history of Peron & Peronism. I've referenced the Ben Plotkin book. There are others. You may want to look at some of them. If anything, you'll note that Peron almost joined the Axis powers and that his admiration for Mussolini (in speeches & his own writings) has been long established. Or perhaps why so many Nazi officers were granted asylum ini Peron's Argentina after 1945. Or that after he was removed from power in 1955, Peron sought asylum in Franco's Spain. These might be good hints, non?
You seem to think I'm a lousy arguer. But your reliance on straw men is a poor substitute for actually citing academic literature. Or even the political history of the region.
Other populists with known "fascist" sympathies include:
- Getulio Vargas in Brazil (he came to power with support of the fascist "Integralist" movement to found an Estado Novo modeled on Portugal's fascist regime)
- Carlos Ibañez del Campo in Chile (he campaigned with the Chilean Nazi party in 1938 elections)
- Gualberto Villarroel in Bolivia (his ultra-right RADEPA was closely tied to the Nazis, and his regime is still the first of the MNR's government legacy)
These are three examples. One could include Mexico's PRI, which drew inspiration from Italian corporatism as a means to integrate political forces while avoiding liberalism & socialism (fascism/corporatism was the original "third way").
Anyone who dislikes right wing politics should take time to familiarize oneself w/ its long, complicated intellectual history.
Again, please re-read the history of Peron & Peronism.
You don't get it, do you, Miguel? The point is that whatever sympathies Peron had with fascists tells us absolutely nothing about Chavez's left-populism or about "Latin American populism" in general. That's the problem with your so-called "argument."
You seem to think I'm a lousy arguer.
That would be an understatement.
Yes, looking at the similarities between Peron & Chavez tells us nothing. I guess people like Umberto Eco & Roger Griffin (Oxford political theorist who specializes in fascism & its history) are idiots, too.
Justin thinks I'm a bad arguer because he's locked into high school debating rules and some notion of Gramscian "war of position". I'm not trying to argue or score points. I'm trying to discuss some relevant academic literature. I wonder why Justin can't counter w/ a citation for a single author/work.
(FYI: I don't use "fascist" as an epithet in a spitting contest; I use it as an analytical category.)
Yes, looking at the similarities between Peron & Chavez tells us nothing.
You've neither laid out the so-called "similarities" nor explained how these so-called "similarities" tell us anything about the ideological roots of "Latin American populism." All you you've done is drop names, which is a tell-tale sign that you can't debate.
Part of the problem is that you know very little about Venezuela or Chavismo.
Yes, I only taught a seminar on Latin American populism. I bow to your infinite wisdom.
And I laid out the comparison in brief terms early on. But let me summarize:
A state-declared "social" economy which rejects liberalism yet in which private corporate capital is nevertheless protected (even courted); with an emphasis on public, ritualized performance based on charismatic, personalist leadership; combined with an emphasis on nationalism & origin myths.
How's that?
And in some circles, dropping names (rather than trying to score clever points) is seen as a sign that someone reads.
Yes, I only taught a seminar on Latin American populism.
Which tells me nothing about your knowledge of Venezuela, which looks awful skimpy to me.
Perhaps. But your unfamiliarity with--and refusal to look at--the academic literature does speak volumes. In my grad school days we were expected to read. A lot. Some of it even sank in.
A state-declared 'social' economy which rejects liberalism yet in which private corporate capital is nevertheless protected (even courted); with an emphasis on public, ritualized performance based on charismatic, personalist leadership; combined with an emphasis on nationalism & origin myths.
That description is so ridiculously vague that most early European social democracies would fit the first half of the bill. Recall that, in comparative politics, we distinguish between social market economies (Scandinativia, etc.) and liberal market economies (the Anglo-American systems). Most social democratic systems do not qualify themselves as liberal either, so you're not giving anybody much to work with here.
If your lone valid points are that Chavez is charismatic and that he mythologizes Bolivar (in the same way that virtually every left-wing movement in Latin American history mythologizes certain independence figures), bravo. But that provides you with zero basis for comparing Chavismo to fascist dictatorships. Try again, Miguel.
Look again at your own counter-statement:
You concede that the first part of my statement would apply to Scandinavian social democracies (also known as corporatist regimes). Then you acknowledge that the second and third parts fit Chavez.
The Scandinavian regimes don't use hyper-nationalist rhetoric or ritualized, public performances led by charismatic leaders. If they did, they would move closer towards fascism-populism, which is a combination of all *three* elements.
I would also caution against the idea that all left-wing movements have such national mythology projects. First, because some have argued that fascism is actually a bastard child of socialism (particularly those who tie it to the syndicalism of Georges Sorel). Second, because Marxism-Leninism had little of that kind of impulse before Stalin (who himself has often been compared to Hitler). There's also a difference between celebrating historical figures (like Bolivar) and turning them into the object of a state-sponsored cult.
Since I never said that Chavez was a fascist, but rather that his style of populism has roots in some of the ideological currents from which fascism sprung .... which was a blend of social policies (public housing, higher wages, low unemployment, literacy campaigns, etc) w/o an economic restructuring and combined with nationalist, anti-liberal rhetoric and a charismatic figure (in other words, a combination of all three elements) ... then you seem, in the end, to have conceded the whole argument. Point, set, match.
Thanks!
Just for clarification:
Not all social democracies are corporatist. But the literature has long looked at Scandinavian regimes (particularly Sweden) as a form of neo-corporatism (cf. Peter Katzenstein's work on this).
Since I never said that Chavez was a fascist, but rather that his style of populism has roots in some of the ideological currents from which fascism sprung ....
Well, by that stellar logic, we could just as well make outlandish comparisons of any modern ideology to fascism. The social democrats have corporatist bargaining systems. So did the fascists. Bush and the modern right denounce the language of "class warfare." So did the fascists. The list could go on and on. Your conflation of populism with fascism is no more tenable than the conflation of any of these other ideologies with fascism.
which was a blend of social policies (public housing, higher wages...
Oh really? Mussolini, Hitler and Franco raised the wages of the working class? Try studying up, Miguel. Mussolini and Hitler wouldn't have been the darlings of the business community in the early '30s if they had done much of that.
More awesome leaps of logic on your part, of course. The argument seems to go like this. Peron sympathized with Mussolini. Peron was also a populist who raised working class wages. Therefore, the raising of working class wages somehow becomes a fascist legacy.
These are really stupid arguments, Miguel.
Straw men do tend to be stupid, yes.
Two things:
1) Fascism is not an either/or category; like other ideologies (liberalism, socialism, conservatism) it's a matter of degree.
2) Actually, economic conditions did radically improve in Hitler's Germany, which is why many in the 1930s (including many in the US) spoke openly about the "German miracle."
You are also being reductionist. It is not ONLY the raising of working class wages that makes fascism. It's part of a package. This is why in yet another seminar class (Democracy and Its Discontents) we explored the similarities and fuzzy boundaries separating liberalism, fascism, and socialism and how each claims to represent a vision of the "democratic ideal".
But, yes, several fascist regimes had strong labor components. Hitler not only had the brownshirt SA (an almost exclusive working class organization), he also had the similar paramilitaries oraganized in the rural countryside, and various others. Again, look at the Michael Mann book (he also has an extensive chapter on Hitler). Like Griffin, Mann points out that there is a significant sector of the working class in most countries that can be swayed to support right-populist leaders (as they are currently doing in much of Europe today) by focusing on issues such as race (or immigration), unemployment, and "moral" values (gay bashing is always popular).
Just because in your mind labor = socialist/left doesn't make it so. If you've ever actually spent time w/ working class people or lived in their neighborhoods (as I have) you will soon learn that many of them are not poster children for left-liberalism.
To reverse your own tortured logic:
Chavez raised wages, raising wages is a socialist move, ergo Chavez is a socialist.
Wow. Brilliant. As if only socialists raised wages. Or as if raising wages was both a necessary AND sufficient condition for socialism.
Being good at reducing complex things to one-dimensional parodies isn't "good argumentation" either.
Miguel,
Above you mention Getulio Vargas' Estado Novo. However, I think it might be more interesting to compare Vargas' 1934 constitution to Chavez's 1999 constitution.
From an institutional perspective, both documents succeed in providing certain increased rights (or at least the facade thereof) while also increasing the power of the executive and central government.
From a process perspective, both seem to be written as interim documents to rule the respective countries while the leaders consolidated power and prepared to take their movements a step further.
2) Actually, economic conditions did radically improve in Hitler's Germany, which is why many in the 1930s (including many in the US) spoke openly about the "German miracle."
You have a problem grasping basic political economy. In terms of the macroeconomic indicators, "economic conditions" also improved in Pinochet-era Chile in the late 1970s, but nobody ever accused Pinochet of raising wages. Pinochet, like Mussolini and Hitler before him, crushed the unions and thereby suppressed their wage demands. Chavez does no such thing.
It is not ONLY the raising of working class wages that makes fascism. It's part of a package.
No, you're sorely mistaken, Miguel. It's not part of the "fascist" package. It's part of Peron's package, but not of Mussolini's, Hitler's, or Franco's. Why do you think they crushed the unions, smart guy?
Populism and real-world fascism are, in fact, completely distinct political phenomena. Their class bases are completely distinct. Whatever Peron's sympathies for fascists, his class base was completely distinct from that of Hitler, Mussolini or Franco. Read Berman's article, for example. The base of Nazism was the German middle class and the petty bourgeosie, not the organized working class. Stephens shows how the organized working class and the Catholic Church were the two primary sectors of German society that resisted Nazism.
The base of Peronism, however, was the organized working class.
This is why in yet another seminar class (Democracy and Its Discontents) we explored the similarities and fuzzy boundaries separating liberalism, fascism, and socialism and how each claims to represent a vision of the "democratic ideal".
Really? Real-world fascism claims to represent a vision of the "democratic ideal"? Not the fascism I'm familiar with.
If you've ever actually spent time w/ working class people or lived in their neighborhoods (as I have) you will soon learn that many of them are not poster children for left-liberalism.
First of all, "left-liberalism" is an American oxymoron. Social democracy is part of the tradition of the left, but liberalism is not. Liberalism is bourgeois ideology.
I'm from a working-class family and have experience in union-organizing, so you can spare me your lectures about the American working class, Miguel. You don't know shit.
The bottom line is that the organized working class has been the base --the foundation-- of social democracy in the industrialized world.
You've read Berman's seminal article? That's great! I use it in my intro to comparative politics as a counterpoint to Putnam's "Bowling Alone" piece. Good job!
Now look at Michael Mann's 300 page volume, which looks at archival records of the kinds of people who joined fascist movements. He finds that a very significant share of them were working class people. So, yes, fascists did enjoy *some* measure of working class support. Like all classes, the working class is not monolithic. And as Mussolini pointed out, in 1914, the European working classes placed nationalism above class consciousness.
As for fascism and its relationship to the "democratic ideal" ... when I taught a similar course at Western Michigan University, I used the Ball & Dagger "Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal" textbook & reader. At Dickinson College, I instead used the Mann book, alogn with primary source readings taken from Roger Griffin's Oxford Reader on fascism. If you want an alternative to Ball & Dagger, there are a similar rival textbook by Nancy S. Love ("Dogmas & Dreams"). Of course, the connection between fascism and the "democratic ideal" is also one made by Laclau, Panizza, and Arditti (all European continental political philosophers, so you'd like them).
Obviously, fascism rejects liberal democracy (so does Marxism, of course). In its place, it presents a different kind of ideal: an organic (corporate) body politic (the "demos") who are sovereign ("kratein") over themselves through the agency of a powerful leader. It's a horrible distortion of Rousseau, of course. In reality, a Hobbesian nightmare. But it was Hobbes who's credited with the contract theory of government: the people willingly give over their share of sovereignty to the Leviathan.
Clearly, I don't endorse fascism. But I'm also not blind to the fact that "democratic" language has been exploited and abused for evil purposes throughout history.
Fascists don't claim to represent a vision of democracy, of course. In part, because they were critical of "bourgeois, liberal democracy" (like the Marxists, though the latter claimed to represent a true "people's democracy"). But the claim that the regime speaks "for the people" and represents them is a vaguely "democratic" claim.
Finally, as to your economic analysis ... If making life for average workers "better" is a hallmark of a good socialist (or even a liberal) regime: How do we explain the situations in Venezuela? I remember an oil-workers strike broken up by Chavez (or do some workers have the right to strike, but not others?). I've notieced a rising inflation (which reduces real wages). There's a shortage of basic foodstuffs. So are things better or worse in Venezuela?
And growing up in a GM town, I've spent enough time around working class people to not romanticize them. Yes, as Reuschemyer, Rueschemeyer, and Stevens point out, it was labor (and not the middle class) that pushed for democracy.
But I also know that racism, anti-immigration, homophobia, and sexism are rampant in that demographic. Some of those are ripe issues for the kind of right-populism we've been discussing. People don't only vote their socioeconomic interests, they also vote their fears (and their hates).
Boz:
You raise some good points. Yes, Vargas' populist style is well established. I only wanted to emphasize that this style veered much closer to outright fascism after he abandoned the tenentes (Marxists) and embraced the Integralists (fascists).
Finally, as to your economic analysis ... If making life for average workers "better" is a hallmark of a good socialist (or even a liberal) regime: How do we explain the situations in Venezuela? I remember an oil-workers strike broken up by Chavez (or do some workers have the right to strike, but not others?). I've notieced a rising inflation (which reduces real wages). There's a shortage of basic foodstuffs. So are things better or worse in Venezuela?
Like I've said before, you obviously don't know Venezuela from your asshole. Venezuela's poverty rate has been cut in half from its peak of 55.1 percent in 2003 to 27.5 percent in the first half of 2007. Popular consumption is through the roof. According to the economist Stephanie Blankenburg, Venezuela is also "the Latin American country with the most equal income distribution (although this is small consolation since Latin America is infamous for its high income inequality)."
So please, Miguel, just go away. You don't know what you're talking about. That's your primary problem.
Popular consumption is through the roof.
So all those stories about milk and other basic food shortages are just propaganda? Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
Thanks for the link, btw. I like openDemocracy. And this article has some great quotes. Let's see, your quote is sandwiched between these two paragraphs:
It is in the area of economics, rather than on the high moral ground of pro-democratic passions, that the referendum was lost. Two factors were decisive here. First, there was (since the January 2007 presidential election) what amounts to a defection from the pro-Chávez camp of roughly 3 million people. Who are they? ...
"It is early for such a detailed assessment, but a socio-economic analysis of the composition of those 3 million disaffected in the Chávez camp will very likely reveal that two groups were at their heart - the very poor whose high expectations have only been partly met (the voter-queues in Petare and Katia, some of the of the poorest suburbs of Caracas, were strikingly short), and the losers in the lower- and middle-middle classes (many of whom - unhappy about past neglect and uncertain what the "route to a socialism of the 21st century" - must have joined the No queues). Recent food shortages - wholly unnecessary in a country awash with dollars, and the result of a mix of private-sector import sabotage and public-sector incompetence - cannot have helped."
The complete paragraph, btw, was this:
Venezuela is a middle-income country with a per-capita income just under $5,000 per year - comparable to that of South Africa, Brazil or Malaysia, and ten times the per-capita income of poor Latin American countries, such as Nicaragua. Thanks to Chávez, it is also the Latin American country with the most equal income distribution (although this is small consolation since Latin America is infamous for its high income inequality). A closer look at what happened to income distribution since Chávez came to power in 1999 reveals a clear pattern. The main winners have been the upper-middle classes, followed by the poorest sections of society; the losers have been the obscenely rich and the lower- and middle-middle classes.
So, yes. It's quite complex.
So all those stories about milk and other basic food shortages are just propaganda?
No, it's not all propaganda, but what you (unsurprisingly) fail to understand is that popular consumption can be sky-high at the very same time that you have shortages of some goods.
Nobody's arguing that popular sectors in Venezuela don't have things to gripe about or that some shortages haven't cut into Chavez's popularity, but you have to be a pretty blind idealogue to ignore the fact that poverty in Venezuela has been drastically reduced.
I showed you the numbers. You haven't shown me squat. That's par for the course from you, unfortunately.
I've also read the CEPR report before ... let's see if I can summarize it:
1) The Venezuelan economy actually worsened from 1998 to 2003 (when poverty peaked at 55%), then improved from 2003 through 2007 in part because the world price of oil increased (but also because of political stability).
2) Inflation is a growing problem, making non-oil exports expensive and flooding the country w/ cheap imports. But the government won't likely devalue its currency (although it since has, sort of) for fear of further spiking inflation.
3) But overall, the Venezuelan economy is pretty sound and likely to continue expanding -- so long as investment doesn't suddenly dry up.
Conclusion: Venezuela is economically better off than it was in the past, after a lengthy recession during the 1990s.
Did I pass the literacy test?
No, it's not all propaganda, but what you (unsurprisingly) fail to understand is that popular consumption can be sky-high at the very same time that you have shortages of some goods.
Yes, because cheap tennis shoes are more important than milk. I see. How silly of me to emphasize food over consumer products.
you have to be a pretty blind idealogue to ignore the fact that poverty in Venezuela has been drastically reduced.
I don't think I've ever argued that the economy hasn't improved under Chavez. If I remember correctly, earlier you took me to task for suggesting that both Mussolini and Chavez improved their country's economic conditions.
earlier you took me to task for suggesting that both Mussolini and Chavez improved their country's economic conditions.
What? Apparently you're functionally illiterate, Miguel. And you never said anything about Venezuela's economic conditions improving under Chavez until just now.
The problem with you is that you're so ignorant about the rudiments of political economy that you can't even distiguish between, say, GDP growth and wage growth. It's all one in the same for Miguel.
Really, Miguel, I have more important things to work on at the moment, so why don't you chime in with one more piece of utter idiocy so we can call it a day?
Cantinflas!
(How's that?)
But seriously. My first comment was:
Isn't a socialist model (massive expenditures on public works, housing, education, sports, etc) in which private corporations still operate independently -- but under directions (threats) from the chief executive -- also known as "national socialism"?
I guess I assumed that when "massive expenditures" are made on public works, etc. that people's lives improve. But since I apparently don't know my GDP from my PPP ... perhaps I was wrong.
Post a Comment