Logic of violence in Venezuela
Hugo Chávez blames Venezuela's high murder rate on capitalism:
"They want to attribute the violence to me," Chavez said. "Violence is one of the visible and terrible effects of social injustice, of capitalism, of the model the bourgeoisie imposed on us."
His basic argument, then, is that capitalism increases violence, and socialism decreases it. But if murder rates are either constant or rising in Venezuela, that means he is saying the country is either the same or more capitalist than when he took power over a decade ago. That might be true, though by this logic it means he is also saying that he isn't socialist at all, and has achieved no socialist goals.
10 comments:
Chavez would never admit that we had made an error or that his government or ideology was to blame for some ill.
In other countries (including the US), politicians have sometimes found it advantageous to say "mea cupla", albeit in their own way. Is Chavez's incapability or unwillingness to admit error unique him, his ideology (my guess is Castro has never admitted error either) or is it something unique to Latin American leaders?
sorry, my last post should have said "he made an error"
"They want to attribute the violence to me," Chavez said. "Violence is one of the visible and terrible effects of social injustice, of capitalism, of the model the bourgeoisie imposed on us."
This is an oversimplification, obviously. It's also an oversimplification to invert the argument so as to claim that, in light of Venezuela's atrocious homicide rate, Venezuela's current president must be no less capitalist than his predecessors.
According to CEPAL's most recent data, Venezuela had the lowest recorded level of economic inequality in Latin America as of the most recent year on record (2008). In fact, it was the lowest recorded Gini coefficient for any Latin American country over the past 19 years. Thus, while it is true that the murder rate in Venezuela is horrifying, the reality seems to be that Venezuela's high homicide rate has persisted IN SPITE OF a significant decrease in the level of economic inequality in the country.
In other words, factors other than the country's distribution of wealth appear to be driving the country's high homicide rate.
Criminologists looking at Latin America generally agree inequality is one of the biggest predictors of crime. In the US, researchers call the relationship between violent crime and inequality "strong and robust"
In Latin America, we see this pretty clear - though not perfectly of course. Cuba has the lowest crime rate in Latin America - and also the lowest inequality rate. Crime in very high in unequal places like El Salvador, Brazil, Colombia and Jamaica.
In Venezuela, we don't have directly comparable statistics. The 75 murders for every 100,000 people stat that everyone is quoting comes a supposed recent survey of 20,000 that no one has actually seen (except El Nacional). We don't know if its methodology was sound). But supposedly the same survey reported in 2007 that crime was down since 2003.
But let's concede crime is up in the last few years under Chavez - at a time when poverty and inequality have fallen considerably. What is going on? Well the obvious answer is the rise of drug money and gangsterism. As Colombia has put more pressure on their groups, many have migrated to Venezuela. Fights over the drug trade in the slums can ebb and flow based on local factors like control.
But Justin is right - making such an unjustified leap in logic just to tar Chavez is unfair. It is possible Chavez was right about inequality and crime in the macro sense. But that other factors are aggravating the rate in Venezuela, despite drops in inequality.
Crime in very high in unequal places like El Salvador, Brazil, Colombia and Jamaica.
True, but the homicide rate in Chile, on the other hand, is very low for a developing country, in spite of the country's high level of economic inequality. In fact, one figure I saw recently indicated that Chile's homicide rate was four times lower than that of the United States (and vastly lower than that of Venezuela). The Chilean example causes me to question whether we can simply assume a causal relationship between inequality and violent crime. My guess is that the rate of violent crime is more directly related to (1) the capability of the state to enforce the law and (2) the level of access people have to basic weaponry.
My brother lived in Chile and assures me it is no panacea as far as crime goes. He and many of his friends were robbed. No one walked through the center of this small city at night, etc. The first thing I find ranks Chile 5th in the world in total crimes/per capita. Yeah, the lack of guns helps bring down homicide rates - and there are many complicated factors in crime, of course. But violent burglaries are high, from what I can tell.
I did not mean to suggest a causal relationship with inequality - but it is absolutely one of the most important factors. Of course, there are always outliers, but research finds a clear correlation.
And just to connect the dots. Even good capitalists admit capitalism causes inequality. And no, Chavez has not brought about a socialist society. But inequality has been reduced pretty dramatically.
I did not mean to suggest a causal relationship with inequality - but it is absolutely one of the most important factors. Of course, there are always outliers, but research finds a clear correlation.
I'm sure you're right that, in cross-national studies, there's a correlation between the level of inequality and the rate of violent crime. But a correlation is not the same thing as a relationship of causation. Societies that have strong, efficient states tend to be both more equitable and less violent. So you could conceivably have a correlation between crime rates and the rates of inequality because the relative strength (or weakness) of different countries' states affects both crime rates and levels of inequality.
ConsDemosaid..
(my guess is Castro has never admitted error either)
He recently admitted that the way the state treated homosexuals during the the early years of the revolution was a grave mistake that he now regrets.
Read here his regret and admission. Who would of thought.
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/09/fidel_castro_takes_responsibil.php
Chavez also admits errors as much as any other leading in Latin America (when has Uribe or Calderon ever apologized). He was very contrite after the coup and referendum loss, admitting he tried to go too far. He's also admitted "errors" in the initial handling of the electricity situation - and been forthright about crime, saying his Government needs to do more.
Post a Comment