tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post1227081620729580005..comments2024-02-21T05:16:22.788-05:00Comments on Two Weeks Notice: A Latin American Politics Blog: The politics of credible threat Part 2Greg Weekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15765114859595124082noreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-51005774274217716652008-02-20T19:26:00.000-05:002008-02-20T19:26:00.000-05:00But seriously. My first comment was:Isn't a social...But seriously. My first comment was:<BR/><BR/><I>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><BR/><BR/>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.Miguel Centellashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412326196288989046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-89537304593120802462008-02-20T19:24:00.000-05:002008-02-20T19:24:00.000-05:00Cantinflas!(How's that?)Cantinflas!<BR/><BR/>(How's that?)Miguel Centellashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412326196288989046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-42114396052185120672008-02-20T19:22:00.000-05:002008-02-20T19:22:00.000-05:00Really, Miguel, I have more important things to wo...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?Justin Delacourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01343303383195336825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-66309283930118662002008-02-20T19:20:00.000-05:002008-02-20T19:20:00.000-05:00earlier you took me to task for suggesting that bo...<I>earlier you took me to task for suggesting that both Mussolini and Chavez improved their country's economic conditions.</I><BR/><BR/>What? Apparently you're functionally illiterate, Miguel. And you never said anything about Venezuela's economic conditions improving under Chavez until just now.<BR/><BR/>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.Justin Delacourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01343303383195336825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-8095567653041491382008-02-20T19:07:00.000-05:002008-02-20T19:07:00.000-05:00you have to be a pretty blind idealogue to ignore ...<I>you have to be a pretty blind idealogue to ignore the fact that poverty in Venezuela has been drastically reduced.</I><BR/><BR/>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.Miguel Centellashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412326196288989046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-52479191876208743072008-02-20T19:05:00.000-05:002008-02-20T19:05:00.000-05:00No, it's not all propaganda, but what you (unsurpr...<I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, because cheap tennis shoes are more important than milk. I see. How silly of me to emphasize food over consumer products.Miguel Centellashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412326196288989046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-58275300927367083852008-02-20T19:04:00.000-05:002008-02-20T19:04:00.000-05:00I've also read the CEPR report before ... let's se...I've also read the CEPR report before ... let's see if I can summarize it:<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>3) But overall, the Venezuelan economy is pretty sound and likely to continue expanding -- so long as investment doesn't suddenly dry up.<BR/><BR/>Conclusion: Venezuela is economically better off than it was in the past, after a lengthy recession during the 1990s.<BR/><BR/>Did I pass the literacy test?Miguel Centellashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412326196288989046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-70784448377074301892008-02-20T18:56:00.000-05:002008-02-20T18:56:00.000-05:00So all those stories about milk and other basic fo...<I>So all those stories about milk and other basic food shortages are just propaganda?</I><BR/><BR/>No, it's not all propaganda, but what you (unsurprisingly) fail to understand is that popular consumption can be sky-high <I>at the very same time</I> that you have shortages of some goods.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>I showed you the numbers. You haven't shown me squat. That's par for the course from you, unfortunately.Justin Delacourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01343303383195336825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-68885804411349601912008-02-20T18:55:00.000-05:002008-02-20T18:55:00.000-05:00The complete paragraph, btw, was this:Venezuela is...The complete paragraph, btw, was this:<BR/><BR/><I>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. <B>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.</B></I><BR/><BR/>So, yes. It's quite complex.Miguel Centellashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412326196288989046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-31929529592590123712008-02-20T18:46:00.000-05:002008-02-20T18:46:00.000-05:00Thanks for the link, btw. I like openDemocracy. An...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:<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>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? ...<BR/><BR/>"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 <B>whose high expectations have only been partly met</B> (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 <B>food shortages</B> - 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."</I>Miguel Centellashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412326196288989046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-86268601670013261172008-02-20T18:41:00.000-05:002008-02-20T18:41:00.000-05:00Popular consumption is through the roof. So all t...<I>Popular consumption is through the roof. </I> <BR/><BR/>So all those stories about milk and other basic food shortages are just propaganda? Got it. Thanks for the clarification.Miguel Centellashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412326196288989046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-12444385880401059962008-02-20T18:24:00.000-05:002008-02-20T18:24:00.000-05:00Finally, as to your economic analysis ... If makin...<I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>Like I've said before, you obviously don't know Venezuela from your asshole. Venezuela's poverty rate has been <A HREF="http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela_update_2008_02.pdf" REL="nofollow">cut in half</A> 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 <A HREF="http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/democracy_power/why_chavez_lost" REL="nofollow">Stephanie Blankenburg</A>, 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)."<BR/><BR/>So please, Miguel, just go away. You don't know what you're talking about. That's your primary problem.Justin Delacourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01343303383195336825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-5571800531037355292008-02-20T13:03:00.000-05:002008-02-20T13:03:00.000-05:00Boz:You raise some good points. Yes, Vargas' popul...Boz:<BR/><BR/>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).Miguel Centellashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412326196288989046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-40415393983549245532008-02-20T12:51:00.000-05:002008-02-20T12:51:00.000-05:00And growing up in a GM town, I've spent enough tim...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.<BR/><BR/>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).Miguel Centellashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412326196288989046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-67198035052529922942008-02-20T12:47:00.000-05:002008-02-20T12:47:00.000-05:00You've read Berman's seminal article? That's great...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!<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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?Miguel Centellashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412326196288989046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-6201152890504178342008-02-20T12:36:00.000-05:002008-02-20T12:36:00.000-05:00If you've ever actually spent time w/ working clas...<I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>The bottom line is that the organized working class has been the base --the foundation-- of social democracy in the industrialized world.Justin Delacourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01343303383195336825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-68516873116880349322008-02-20T12:23:00.000-05:002008-02-20T12:23:00.000-05:002) Actually, economic conditions did radically imp...<I>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."</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><I>It is not ONLY the raising of working class wages that makes fascism. It's part of a package.</I><BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>The base of Peronism, however, was the organized working class. <BR/><BR/><I>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".</I><BR/><BR/>Really? Real-world fascism claims to represent a vision of the "democratic ideal"? Not the fascism I'm familiar with.Justin Delacourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01343303383195336825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-3438595519737797392008-02-20T11:52:00.000-05:002008-02-20T11:52:00.000-05:00Miguel,Above you mention Getulio Vargas' Estado No...Miguel,<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.bozhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13233148632004720002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-59327698317892523802008-02-20T11:36:00.000-05:002008-02-20T11:36:00.000-05:00Straw men do tend to be stupid, yes.Two things: 1)...Straw men do tend to be stupid, yes.<BR/><BR/>Two things: <BR/><BR/>1) Fascism is not an either/or category; like other ideologies (liberalism, socialism, conservatism) it's a matter of degree. <BR/><BR/>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."<BR/><BR/>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".<BR/><BR/>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).<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>To reverse your own tortured logic:<BR/><BR/>Chavez raised wages, raising wages is a socialist move, ergo Chavez is a socialist.<BR/><BR/>Wow. Brilliant. As if only socialists raised wages. Or as if raising wages was both a necessary AND sufficient condition for socialism.<BR/><BR/>Being good at reducing complex things to one-dimensional parodies isn't "good argumentation" either.Miguel Centellashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412326196288989046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-32957269793827496202008-02-20T10:53:00.000-05:002008-02-20T10:53:00.000-05:00Since I never said that Chavez was a fascist, but ...<I>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 ....</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/><I>which was a blend of social policies (public housing, higher wages...</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>These are really stupid arguments, Miguel.Justin Delacourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01343303383195336825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-19022228809989227092008-02-20T02:46:00.000-05:002008-02-20T02:46:00.000-05:00Just for clarification:Not all social democracies ...Just for clarification:<BR/><BR/>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).Miguel Centellashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412326196288989046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-64499926895414807492008-02-20T02:40:00.000-05:002008-02-20T02:40:00.000-05:00Look again at your own counter-statement:You conce...Look again at your own counter-statement:<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Thanks!Miguel Centellashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412326196288989046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-36960297992642947592008-02-20T02:26:00.000-05:002008-02-20T02:26:00.000-05:00A state-declared 'social' economy which rejects li...<I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.Justin Delacourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01343303383195336825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-88961743453695964862008-02-20T02:20:00.000-05:002008-02-20T02:20:00.000-05:00Perhaps. But your unfamiliarity with--and refusal ...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.Miguel Centellashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412326196288989046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21674624.post-54463161101362072532008-02-20T02:13:00.000-05:002008-02-20T02:13:00.000-05:00Yes, I only taught a seminar on Latin American pop...<I>Yes, I only taught a seminar on Latin American populism.</I><BR/><BR/>Which tells me nothing about your knowledge of Venezuela, which looks awful skimpy to me.Justin Delacourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01343303383195336825noreply@blogger.com