Tuppence for Hugo Chavez

Here are a few words for Hugo Chavez; and why not? He had plenty of words for everybody else.

The first thing to say was he was not a socialist. This is not to do the man down. He was a reformer and a powerful inspiration. I am quite particular about my socialism however. There is nothing more damaging to socialism than Actually Existing Socialism. A socialist movement does not need to whip out a mat and pray to Caracas five times a day. Socialism is critical or it is nothing. The Bolivarian movement’s achievements and setbacks have been marked by the lack of one crucial aspect, namely workers power.

What did Chavez mean for Venezuela? Well, I’m being undoubtedly being phenomenally crude, but this is my opinion nonetheless. Bolivarianism can be judged on three things:

1) Is Venezuelaa more or less egalitarian society? That is a big question. Venezuelais still an unequal society. It is still a very good place to be rich. Nonetheless it has become a better place for the poor. Even since the beginning of the global depression the Venezuelan government has tried to uphold living standards, whereas in almost every other country it is standard statecraft to drive them down and down.

2) Is Venezuela practically independent, meaning has Venezueladeveloped at all beyond being an oil export country? Thanks to the global agricultural market most countries import food to survive. I remember reading that 90% of the country is uninhabited. A radical government with time and resources would try to rebalance the economy and make the country agriculturally self-sufficient. If this process is underway it is likely to be an ongoing project.

3) Is Venezuelaa less violent and corrupt society? Not by a long shot. The old state structure remains intact. The centres of power in civil society remain largely the same, even if sometimes nationalised.

These three problems inform each other. The state is corrupt because economic power is concentrated in a few hands; the oil industry has long been a state within the state. Power is concentrated in a few hands because society is unequal.

What does Venezuelamean to the world? Well here I’m on surer ground. Chavez message at its simplest iteration is that another world is possible. There is a devious irony though that the Bolivarian Republic defied neo-liberal orthodoxy by using the wealth from oil sold on the world market during the neo-liberal boom, much of it to the United States. Despite its government, Venezuela, as constituted, can never be a socialist hegemon because it is an integrated part of global capitalism.

What happens after Chavez? Who knows? Let’s hope the Chavez supporters intervene decisively, like they did in 2002, when they raised a popular movement that restored their leader to power after a coup. That would be something.

Minor interest: "self-styled..."

I was browsing through the Wikipedia entry for Tony Cliff yesterday when I came across an alarm bell phrase:

"The SWP is now the largest self-styled revolutionary party in Britain, and the leading group in the International Socialist Tendency".

Alarm bell phrases are ones that trigger suspicion, something's up. In this case I'm not so sure but it's worth dwelling on "self-styled revolutionary" for a moment.

All revolutionaries, in fact all political actors are self-styled. Politics is an art and therefore subjective. Mainstream politics has an aura of objectivity because it is the politics of the state. Neo-liberalism, the current state philosophy, only appears real because in the 70s and 80s certain political actors conspired to make it real. Marxism, which at one point is a political philosophy, also claims to be a science.

In their more sober momements bourgeois advocates acknowledge the scientific aspect of Marxism. How could they not at a time like this? But Marx has to be continually undone. When he died the only mainstream paper to acknowledge the funeral was the London Times. The obituary suggested his system would die with him. How many times now has Marxism been subdued only to come back to life?

Any radical theory brought to life, especially one connected with socialism, is generally described as "self-styled". It can't possibly be objective or practical, it can only be imposed. Have you ever had that argument, "stop trying to impose your views on me"? It actually means, "stop trying to convince me of something using argument backed up by observation and/or fact".

The "self-styled" insinuation is meant to undermine. The most recent example being the self-styled Rory Carroll's reporting from Venezuela. During the last decade the Bolivarian government defied neo-liberal gravity, something clearly wrong in that!