Socialism in the Twenty First Century
Many researchers of the socialism campaign of the 21st century prefer to treat the word “socialism” as a misnomer. Hence, the ‘socialism’ that we talk of in this paper does not involve the political aspect but seeks to examine the term in the aspects of their style, rhetoric and actions. This paper takes only as broad overview of the topic, highlighting the major aspects without delving to the possible in depth analysis that could have been possible in a work of lesser scope. This paper has been prepared keeping this intention in mind.
Cuba & Its Tryst with Socialism
Whenever Socialism is thought of in regard to the Western Hemisphere, Cuba is mentioned in the same breath. Notably, however, Cuban socialist revolution preceded the present socialism wave, which seems to be sweeping many nations, and possesses some basic differences. Interestingly, when Fidel Castro first ascended to power in Cuba, Hugo Chavez the Venezuelan President was only five years of age.
In the middle of the twentieth century, despite President Carlos’ best efforts, increased corruption and the resulting disillusionment let to the formation of People’s Party of Cuba – Orthodoxo. Led by Eduardo Chibas and his protégé Fidel Castro, this party identified itself to be nationalist, anti – imperialist and socialist in mandate. Fidel Castro came to power after his July 26th Movement succeeded in overthrowing the Batista regime. Fidel and Raul Castro who rose to power were helped majorly by Ernesto ‘Che’ Geuvara who disappointed by the poverty and hunger in Latin America went along with the brothers to help them in their uprising. He went on to become the second in command in Cuba and the prime diplomat globally representing Cuban Socialism. He left Cuba in 1965 to encourage similar revolutions first in Congo and then in Bolivia. He was captured by the Bolivian forces and executed summarily thereby becoming a martyr for the cause of socialism.
However most of the Cuban policies were dictated by the external environment and the then prevalent Cold War rather than internal policies & mind frame. It was only after the Bay of Pigs incident in 1961, when a US supported armed uprising failed miserably, that Castro who had been reluctant in adopting socialism, publicly announced his intentions to do so and started strengthening his ties with the Soviet Union. The failed invasion led to public embarrassment for John F. Kennedy, the then US President and led the socialist movement and Castro himself to gain more popularity than what they already had. This led to the covert Operation Mongoose which was a covert terrorist operation by the US government to overthrow the communist forces in power. The Cuban Missile crises in 1962 brought to the fore, the unity of Soviet Union and Cuba against USA and got the US to publicly agree that it would never again invade Cuba. The deal, however, failed to lift the embargo that US had put on Cuba and had it not been for USSR initially and after its disbanding Venezuela who supplied oil to Cuba in exchange for its doctors the socialist government in Cuba would have fallen in a few years time.
Castro who initially appeared reluctant to embrace Communism, later attributed his Marxism-Leninism to be a result of both will and circumstances as a result of forced dependence on the then Soviet Union following steadfast opposition from USA.
And here is where the difference between Cuban Socialism and Venezuela’s socialist movement becomes evident. Whereas Cuba is often viewed as a puppet of the erstwhile U.S.S.R., Venezuela has embraced socialism on its own. Cuba was forced to rely on the Soviet Union to keep itself afloat during many crises that it experienced over the decades. These crises led to the uniting of the Cuban population and no strong opposition ever built up against Fidel Castro. The Cuban education system has been the biggest beneficiary of this socialist regime with Cuban free education system ensuring that Cuban professionals are being sought after world over. It is this educational system which has churned out great doctors some of whom were ‘exported’ to Venezuela in return for oil as mentioned earlier. However, the human rights violations, especially the recent incident where many gay Cubans were sent to work camps forcibly, have rendered Castro himself apologetic. The regular exile and imprisonment of political dissidents only goes to show that this is a means of quelling repressions. In spite of these short comings, Fidel Castro continues to enjoy majority support from the Cuban population.
With U.S.S.R. no longer in a position to support Castro, he has begun softening his stand off late. He ceded some political powers to his brother and initiated some reforms to prevent Cuban economy from failing. With the ever changing situation in Cuba and the recent thaw in US Cuban mutual relations, it is becoming increasingly difficult to predict the future of Cuba
Hugo Chavez’s “Socialism of the 21st century”
In 2005, at the Fifth Global Social Forum, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez made an announcement that he would be leading his country towards the “Socialism of the 21st century”. The oppressed masses of Venezuela lauded their president while the rest of the world balked at this statement. However, it is interesting to see whether over a decade since his announcement, President Chavez has managed to live up to his promise or not.
When Chavez first attempted to usurp control of Venezuela in a coup in 1992 against the then President Carlos Perez, he along with his Bolivarian Revolutionary Army was unsuccessful. Soon thereafter, Chavez was elected President of Venezuela, garnering an impressive 56.2 percent of the vote with an anti corruption election manifesto.
According to a report from the Centre for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, USA, real GDP of Venezuela has grown by 94.7% in just over five years, cutting poverty by more than 50 percent and extreme poverty by 72 %.
Inequality of wealth has been greatly reduced, and public facilities of healthcare and public education have progressed drastically; for example, clean water access has increased 12 % from 1998, and access to sanitation facilities by 20 % within the same time frame. Averaging more than 13 % since 1998, rate of unemployment fell to less than 10 % for the first time in the year 2007. Most impressive of all, these figures were made possible while decreasing the fiscal deficit from 30.7 % of the GDP in 1998 to 14.3 % in 2008.
Though Chavez seems to have achieved the impossible overcoming several obstacles, several problems still persist. The Corruption Perceptions Index has climbed steadily over the past decade and the present ranking of Venezuela is as poor as possible; not to mention the repression of the opposition by Chavez. The critics of Chavez and other Latin American leaders with Leftist viewpoints use data like this and cite human rights violations and repressions of democracy in all countries which have embraced socialism as their own. Even though Venezuela has become increasingly polarized under Chavez’s rule, he still enjoys the support of a majority of Venezuelans as is evident from his restoration to power following the coup in 2002 and his winning of the 2006 election by garnering 63% of the electoral vote.
Economically, the Venezuelan economy has expanded majorly due to its petroleum exports. In fact, researchers across the globe have observed that the Venezuelan economy would have failed but for the oil exports. Thus, Venezuela must diversify its oil based economy and avoid the present course of action that it has employed for its growth. A jolt to the current oil export based growth pattern could reverse Chavez’s political fortune and rapidly erode his massive popularity. Presently however, Chavez continues to enjoy the success of his exploits and continues to help other world leaders in their endeavour to achieve similar success.
Conclusion: Where Will the Twenty First Century Lead Us?
The fall of socialism in Soviet Union seemed to reinforce the belief that capitalism was the only right ideology. However, recent events in Europe and United States have shaken up every one. This combined with the rise and the success of socialist parties, in Europe and Latin America, has put the capitalist system under a lot of strain. In recent elections in Latin American nations more radical leaders with socialist ideas are coming to the fore, but the current regime of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is attracting everyone’s attention. The question whether old socialism is making a comeback or whether a new socialism is coming to the fore remains to be answered. Even before the ascension of Chavez to power, Venezuela was influenced by socialistic ideas (Reform and Revolution, 2006). However, it was Chavez, who made socialism the mandate of the government. (Glüsing, 2006, p. 1; Reform and Revolution, 2006, p. 3; Wilpert, 206, p. 1,). Aiming for ‘zero misery’ (Rosenberg, 2007, p. 15), Chavez lays forth his motive to be the guardian angel of the poor people. He aims to transform Venezuela into a ‘Global Player’ (Glüsing, 2006, p. 2) while attempting to alleviate the standard of living of the poor in Cuba by enhancing education and investing in social programs and letting the poor have more say in the political proceeding of Cuba. Though these claims may seem novel to poverty stricken people, nonetheless, Chavez’s promises and visions seem unrealistic for Venezuela, which has made humongous profits from its oil resources since the 1920s. Chavez has sought to change the situation by trying to invest the profits from petroleum sales to better the situation of poor people and not to just maximize profits. As per the observations made in the paper, a lot has changed in Venezuela’s economic, political and society since Chavez ascended to power. The Venezuelan government is now focusing on the expansion of non-private forms of ownership and has introduced a new economic production unit the “Social Production Enterprises” which downplay the profit making and emphasize on cooperation, reciprocity, equity etc.
All citizens are treated as equals and all businesses run under the state, collective or mixed ownership patterns. The high revenue that Venezuelan government gets through sale of oil is used to finance the socialistic programs. This has reduced the number of people living in extreme poverty by nearly half since 1998. Thus as far as ownership and means of production go, Chavez has transformed Venezuela using socialism. However, the practices followed do raise the question whether this socialism is indeed different from the socialism followed in Cuba and erstwhile U.S.S.R.
Socialism, in its initial avatar, focused on universal togetherness and equality for all, focusing on the moral values of human being. However Chavez, as part of his “Socialism in the 21st Century” campaign insists on economical convergence of the population rather than other aspects. Since Chavez’s interpretation of socialism neither focuses on worker exploitation nor is built on the premise that labor produces profit hence it can be considered different to the socialism that Marx envisioned. However, the introduction of cooperatives and the similarity in their beliefs that a failed state has to be overthrown to establish socialism tends to show some similarities of their views. Concluding, Chavez has established socialism albeit with changes of his own and even though the new system has a lot of similarities to classic socialism; it has its own inklings which make it quite distinct in its own right.
Both Cuba and Venezuela have a similar story but many different problems. And they have both chosen to deal with their problems differently. While Cuba has sought help from the erstwhile USSR and the Venezuelan governments in times of crises, recently both Fidel and Raul Castro have mellowed down to a large extent and recently there has been a thaw in the Cuban – US relations leaving the world wondering whether socialism will survive in Cuba much longer. On the other hand, Venezuela has reached into its bounty of oil reserves and used the profits gained from oil exports to fuel its growth and keep socialism alive not only within its borders but has also fomented the sowing of seeds of socialism in many other Latin American countries.
There have been historical examples to show that the dreams of a single man have been enough to build and sustain an empire/nation for their lifetimes but things tend to go awry with their deaths. Famous examples of the same are Alexander The Great, Genghis Khan, Atilla The Hun and many more. On the other hand, leaders like Lenin & Stalin have left in their wake a strong second line of leadership. The Cuban leader Fidel Castro has in many ways groomed his brother Raul as the second in command but Hugo Chavez has failed to do so. What repercussions will this have on their respective nations, only time shall tell.
Leaders like Hugo Chavez tend to believe that their revolution will sweep the world but this is a belief which will be repudiated over time. Despite the immense success that this new movement has seen in its respective territories, the sustainability shall only be shown with time. Socialism has reared its head again in the 21st century, albeit in a different avatar than its twentieth century counterpart existent in some countries. Whether it will survive the test of time is something that will be a part of history books many decades from now.
References
Abouchar, A. (1979). Economic Evaluation of Soviet Socialism. New York: Pergamon Press.
Azzellini, D. (2006). Venezuela und das “Neue Lateinamerika”. Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik. Retrieved November 8, 2012 from http://www.bewegungsdiskurs.de/texte/gsr/Azzellini_Lateinamerika.pdf
Calcoen, S. (2007, December 3). Eerste nederlaag voor Chavéz. Mondiaal Magazine.http://www.mo.be
Crozier, B. (1987). Socialism: Dream and Reality. London: Sherwood Press.
Denis, R. (2006). Venezuela: the popular movement and the government. International Socialism, 110. http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=180&issue=110
De Waal, M. (2008, March 6). Nee hoor, het is nu vooral stoer doen. NRC.Next, p.4.
Gutiérrez, E. (2008, January 6). Chávez herschikt regering ingrijpend. Mondiaal Magazine.http://www.mo.be
Glüsing, J. (2006, December 12). “Jetzt sind wir zwei Teufel”, p. 248. Der Spiegel. Retrieved November 8, 2012 from http://wissen.spiegel.de/wissen/dokument.html?id=49911604&top=SPIEGEL&suchbegriff=sozialismus+kolumbien&quellen=%2BBX%2CWIKI%2C%2BSP%2C%2BMM%2CALME%2C%2BMEDIA&vl=0
Grant, S. L. & Brue R. L. (2007), The Evolution of Economic Thought, 7th edition, Thomson, South-Western.
Janicke, K. (2007, November 9) Chavéz: “Latin America Is Waking Up, and No One Can Stop It”. Retrieved November 8, 2012. from http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/2816
No author (2006). Dossier: Reform and Revolution in Venezuela. International Socialism. Retrieved November 8, 2012 from http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=158&issue=109
Profile: Hugo Chavéz (n.d.) Retrieved November 8, 2012 from http://news.bbc.co.uk
Rees, J. (2004). Socialism in the twenty-first century. International Socialism. Retrieved November 8, 2012, from http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=3&issue=100
Rosenberg, T. (2007, November 4.). The Perils of Petrocracy. The New York Times. Retrieved November 8, 2012, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04oil-t.html?sq=brazil%20socialism&st=nyt&scp=2&pagewanted=all
Temkin, G. (1996). Information and Motivation: Reflections on the Failure of the Socialist Economic System. Communist and Post-Communist Studies. Vol. 29. No. 1, pp. 25-41
Wilpert, G. (2006). The Meaning of twenty-firstCentury Socialism for Venezuela. Retrieved November 8, 2012, from http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1834
Wilpert, G. (2007). Changing Venezuela by Taking Power – Introduction. Retrieved November 8, 2012, from http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/changing_venezuela_intro
