Wake Me Now

Try a Google search on “Venezuela Citgo” and see what comes up.

The first site in the list “confirms” the claim that Chavez “has vowed to bring down the U.S. government.” Then a blog posting from 2006 calling for the boycott of Citgo (owned by a Venezuelan corporation) has this to say:

Buying at Citgo or 7-Elevens supports terrorism and the destruction of America.

Boycott them both.

Join the War on Terrorism.

Lots of venom there. Or what about this USA Today article from 2006 that basically structures its argument on the claim that Venezuela needs American business and therefore should get with the program. Like we’re basically telling them to give it up already. The article points to Citgo’s many humanitarian donations before backing those investors who “saw the move as a stunt by Chávez aimed at embarrassing the Bush administration.” Wow.

Here’s a NYT article from 2002 openly lamenting PDVSA’s decision to replace current American Citgo executives with Venezuelans. But don’t many American corporations stationed overseas prefer that their executives be American? Well sure. So why should we take issue with a Venezuelan corporation choosing to install their own executives? Seems reasonable that they should want to.

A more recent posting by a blogger includes an article (italicized throughout with the blogger’s own remarks) that basically condemns the country of Venezuela for wanting a return on their Citgo investment. The authors seem genuinely ignorant of the concept that corporations may not all be required to be ran the same way, with profit margins not automatically given higher priority over community concerns. Novel idea, huh?

Citgo was wholly owned by American corporations prior to being sold to Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA). The stock is not publicly traded, and PDVSA is a state-owned corporation of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The Bolivarian Republic, by its socialist design and spirit, is intended to help the people.

We Americans tend to operate under the prevalent pure capitalist and typical corporatist mindset, but who said everyone has to follow those rules? Personally, I think those rules suck. They create too significant of a socioeconomic gap between those at the top and its corresponding hyper-competitive market. It’s a system that disproportionately benefits the elite because they are able to monopolize and crowd out competition in business while receiving tax breaks and welfare from our government. That’s not a free market in my understanding of it. Politicians receiving kickbacks and campaign contributions from corporations corrupts our political system, making corporate cronies out of those we elect. We the people might want something else, a system that strives to benefit society as a whole instead of one that grossly disproportionately favors the elite.

I mean, what is socialism really? It receives so much negative hype, but I’d be willing to bet most folks aren’t really all that familiar with the concept. I wasn’t either, despite reading about it in textbooks throughout my undergrad studies. That it was just one step closer to communism is all I really cared to understand, so I, like many others, didn’t take the time to look into it fully. Here’s how Merriam-Webster defines Socialism:

A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.

In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.

(my emphasis)

Okay.

Wikipedia has this to say:

Socialism is a socio-economic system in which essential industries, social services, property and the distribution of wealth are publicly and cooperatively owned and democratically controlled with a view to equal opportunity and equal benefit for all. ^[1] Since the ownership and distribution of wealth is controlled by the whole community as a collective, and not individually or by groups of individuals that do not comprise a whole community, socialism has been identified with communism. In a practical ideology, members of the community would contribute as much as reasonably possible, yet they would be capable of consuming as much as reasonably necessary.

Since the 19th century, socialism has coalesced into several movements with differing and sometimes conflicting ideas, such as those focused on reform and revolution. Some revolutionary socialists, influenced by the Soviet model of economic development, have championed complete nationalization (state ownership) of the means of production. Reformist socialists, on the other hand, have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies.

Sounds like the same sort of challenges our democratic mixed economy in the United States faces, with us leaning more the other direction toward privatization. Basically it’s about trying to strike a balance, with socialism focusing more on communities and the general social realm compared to capitalism which promotes individualism and places the greatest emphasis on free trade and open markets. Both represent pursuits of freedom, both economically and politically, it’s just a difference in prioritization within each respective idealized vision.

That money and power must be the name of the game and people’s livelihoods are a secondary concern is but just one ideology. There are balances to be struck in any society, and it will likely vary by nation and culture. Socialism and capitalism are not opposing ideologies, but rather different ways of seeing a government’s role in terms of economic control. Both capitalist and socialist economies can be democratic societies. As Merriam-Webster accurately pointed out above, we tend to equate socialism with communism, which is a whole separate ideology.

So what is communism exactly? One Wikipedia entry describes it this way:

Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production.^[1]

Communism attempts to offer an alternative to the problems believed to be inherent with capitalist economies and the legacy of imperialism and nationalism. Communism states that the only way to solve these problems would be for the working class, or proletariat, to replace the wealthy bourgeoisie, which is currently the ruling class, in order to establish a peaceful, free society, without classes, or government.

That sounds contrary to a lot of what we all hear or are taught about communism, doesn’t it? That’s because communism has different meanings for different people. Self-described anarchist communists oppose all forms of political power, hierarchy and domination, where as Stalinism used propaganda to establish a “personality cult around an absolute dictator, as well as extensive use of the secret police to maintain social submission and silence political dissent.” Communism as we know it has always involved dictatorial power, but some believe the concept of true classless communism has yet to be fully explored on a large scale. Take for instance Christian Communists:

Christian Communism is a form of religious communism centered around Christianity. It is a theological and political theory based upon the view that the teachings of Jesus Christ compel Christians to support communism as the ideal social system. Although there is no universal agreement on the exact date when Christian communism was founded, many Christian communists assert that evidence from the Bible suggests that the first Christians, including the Apostles, created their own small communist society in the years following Jesus’ death and resurrection. As such, many advocates of Christian communism argue that it was taught by Jesus and practiced by the Apostles themselves.

Christian communism can be seen as a radical form of Christian socialism. Also, due to the fact that many Christian communists have formed independent stateless communes in the past, there is also a link between Christian communism and Christian anarchism. Christian communists may or may not agree with various parts of Marxism.

In general, Christian communism evolved independently of Marxism, and most Christian communists share the conclusions but not the underlying premises of Marxist communists.

(emphasis theirs)

Interesting. I refer to that form of communism as social and egalitarian communism. It involves choosing to live in close proximity with others of the same persuasion in order to share resources. Sounds fine to me. This is typically what we shun and label as “cults” in the United States. Like the Branch Davidians. Here’s how one blogger describes Christian Communism:

I do not advocate laziness; I do not advocate that some would do no work and yet benefit from the work of others or anything closely resembling such. I am however advocating for Communism, absolutely so. Not the Stalin, Marx, Trotsky, or any other popular sense of the word Communism but instead scriptural Christian Communism. And by Communism I mean Community. The origin of the word community is the Latin munus, which means the gift, and cum, which means together, among each other. Community literally means to give among each other. I am therefore advocating for Christian “giving amongst each other”. So we can call this Christian Communism or Christian Community or whatever, it doesn’t really matter the name, label, etc.

Good call. The labels are getting confusing. Time to come up with some new terms. Like “communitism” or perhaps communalism when referring to community living. When many of us think of communism, it remains synonymous with dictatorial power.

So then what is the bad communism we’re always hearing about? It’s dictatorial socialism. That’s all it is. Our media has perverted the true meaning of these political and socio-economic ideologies by turning them into hollow buzzwords.

We Americans live(d) in a democratic capitalist society, but just like socialism, capitalism is vulnerable to corruption and authoritative rule. Neoconservative agenda is currently pushing our society toward a dictatorial capitalist state, which requires us to trade in or give up a number of our rights and freedom. Dictatorial capitalism is commonly referred to as fascism. Also known as the Corporate State. David G. Mills had this to say:

The structure of fascism is the union, marriage, merger or fusion of corporate economic power with governmental power. Failing to understand fascism, as the consolidation of corporate economic and governmental power in the hands of a few, is to completely misunderstand what fascism is. It is the consolidation of this power that produces the demagogues and regimes we understand as fascist ones.

While we Americans have been trained to keenly identify the opposite of fascism, i.e., government intrusion into and usurpation of private enterprise, we have not been trained to identify the usurpation of government by private enterprise. Our European cousins, on the other hand, having lived with Fascism in several European countries during the last century, know it when they see it, and looking over here, they are ringing the alarm bells. We need to learn how to recognize Fascism now.

You know what I’m about to say to us now: Wake up America. Of course a democratic socialist state appears threatening to those supporting and advancing what is amounting to a fascist/corporatist society (whose a major world power, no less). It is believed that American society needs oil to survive and maintain its record high standard of living, but we the people of the United States don’t need oil at ever-increasing rates to survive, our military does. At least it does now and will continue to so long as it’s made to pursue the imperialistic imperatives of those currently installed in the White House.

Notice how much of the criticism against America uses the word “imperialist.” Dictionary.com defines Imperialism as:

1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.

2. advocacy of imperial interests.

Right. An empire, much like Rome in its heyday. Or during its second attempt. So basically it’s in everybody’s best interest to NOT continue ignoring how out of hand our government and political system has gotten, lest we Americans bring about the exact thing we are/were trying so hard to avoid. It may not be communism, but it’s just as dangerous and oppressive, if not more so.

What makes the concept of communism really bad in our minds isn’t the socialism, it’s the oppressive dictatorial power. Capitalism holds appeal for most people only so long as it’s operating within a democratic framework. The same can be said for socialism. Whether we agree on the nationalization of a major oil company or how to negotiate trade agreements, both economic systems implemented within democracies DO have to worry about being overtaken and controlled by an authoritarian political regime. Whether socialist or capitalist, it really comes down to preserving democracy for the people.

Isn’t the point in having an economy to support human life, not the other way around?

This piece titled Ideology Notes offers clear and basic explanations for how economic and political systems can be configured, with lots of helpful graphs and illustrations to make it easier to understand. These notes also include the most succinct and simple explanation of ideology I’ve read to date:

Your beliefs about human nature and the world you live in affect the way you feel about society. Society is organized in such a way that it reflects the beliefs of people and it helps them to reach their goals. These beliefs and goals are called ideology. All the world’s political and economic systems are explained and justified by ideology.

Ideology colours your perception of the world you live in, and it reflects your beliefs about human nature and society. Ideology also influences your beliefs about how society should be organized and governed.

(my emphasis)

I highly recommend any economics layperson like myself to seriously check out those notes. Very well done explanation for those of us who need a quick crash course and reality check. But I’d make one argument contrary to the author’s claim: The new extreme right isn’t as resistant to change when it serves to benefit those in power and is now driven in a direction far from what most consider the “good ol’ days.” Unless we’re talking about the “good ol’ days” from a fascist perspective. if it looks like business as usual for most Americans it’s because we’re not yet feeling the full impact.

Repeat after me: Socialism is NOT the enemy. It’s just an economic system for redistribution of wealth perceived to be more equitable in the minds of those who embrace its principles. Capitalism is not the enemy either. In fact, the two are just shades along an economic continuum. Most societies fall somewhere between the two with some utilities state-owned and others privately-owned while offering various forms of public welfare. What happened is we opened a global market where there are a lot of potential contenders, butting markets and economic ideologies against one another with each possessing very different social and political objectives. When a couple of the key player nations turn out to be pursuing imperialistic objectives, this is bad news for those they wish to “colonize.” (See: illegal invasion of Iraq)

Our American “ideal” is currently experiencing tremendous pressure toward the far right which, once fully realized, would be just as bad as any authoritarian dictatorship under communist rule. The only real difference would be a ruling class made up primarily of Corporatist capitalists (including corporation executives and investors) instead of a leftist dictator. But what real difference is that? Corporatism is authoritarian and oppressive by its very nature, hence why the vast majority of people on earth oppose (or eventually will renounce) the neoconservative agenda. Take note that authoritarian regimes on either end of the spectrum use force to secure and maintain power, and that goes for a corporatist state as well. This demonstrates how unpopular dictatorial rule really is, regardless of the economic system in place.

While corporatism must create a middle-class of consumers to purchase the goods and services businesses produce, giving the appearance of spreading the wealth, it also demands access to a large pool of workers unable to refuse low wages and poor working conditions, resulting in them receiving a disproportionate slice of the global economic pie. That’s no good and it will never last. Just like under communism, the people will revolt.

Forcefully and/or coercively pressuring ‘weaker’ nations to agree to your free trade conditions is bullying behavior that’s obviously unwelcome, but this is how the United States has treated and continues to treat Latin America, including Venezuela. It is but one contender saying “no” to U.S. pressures that benefit Americans more than them.

It seems perfectly logical that a nation would choose to resist and maintain control and autonomy over state-owned (fully owned) corporations, especially when the voting public values a socialist economic system. It’s called democracy. Venezuela is an example of a people and a country choosing to buck the global ’system’ a bit. The United States doesn’t have to like this, but it still is within the right of Venezuelans to reject the very paradigm fascists operate within.

And that’s the American roadblock right there: We have a hard time imagining what democracy might look like in a society where the majority of resources are shared. Not full-frontal communism where competition ceases to be rational, but an economic system where both private and public sectors exist, just like in the capitalism we experience, but with a higher value placed on the public sector (to varying degrees). It doesn’t have to be all or nothing, black or white, democratic capitalism or dictatorial communism. Socialism is that gray area, representing not merely an economic system but a socio-economic composition where social and economic interests strive to reach some sort of agreeable balance. It’s not the enemy of capitalist societies (we’re all socialist to some degree), it’s the enemy of the elite who wish to keep an unfair balance tipped in their favor. They’ll take communism or fascism, it doesn’t really matter. Fear of communism (dubbed as socialism all too often), largely manufactured by our government and powerful others in conjunction with mainstream media outlets, has had people running the other way so long that we’re now in the midst of the opposite extreme. A new extreme made all the more lucrative by technological and mass communication advancements allowing corporations and the First World economy overall to reach new heights that would have been inconceivable just a few decades ago.

Think about that.

What’s wrong with a government promoting the general welfare by offering universal healthcare or public education? What in that is so inherently evil? I can think of nothing. Protecting the sovereignty of your national and natural resources as a means to strengthen and eventually stabilize the national economy while promoting the general welfare of citizens sounds exactly like what any true democratic leader OUGHT to be doing.

“We must reclaim socialism as a thesis, a project and a path, but a new type of socialism, a humanist one, which puts humans and not machines or the state ahead of everything. That’s the debate we must promote around the world, and the WSF [World Social Forum] is a good place to do it.” — Hugo Chavez