Wednesday, October 14, 2009
End of the line (sort of)
I will officially be bringing an end to the other americas blog. All subsequent post will be at a new site tedmatt.wordpress.com This will hopefully be a more colabrative project and hence be updated far more often. For my personal analysis and commentary please visit me at http://www.zmag.org/zspace/northlander Those of you not familiar with Znet should do yourself a favor and check it out. Thanks for reading!!
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Venezuelan Referendum pt II
In applying the dialectical method as a means of examining the Bolivarian Revolution one is struck by the self contradictory nature of Chavez and his program. The essence of Bolivarian policies are aimed in two directions; alleviating the social, economic, and political inequalities that exist in Venezuela and the move to a participatory democracy that is based on popular participation amongst citizens at all levels of governance. One contradiction of the Bolivarian process that arises is the need for a strong centralized authority to implement reforms and policies that move in the direction of egalitarianism and popular participation. This is popular empowerment from above (centralized authority) as opposed from below (mass social movements). The contradiction lies within the need for power to be concentrated in a vertical hierarchy in order to end up with a horizontal distribution of governmental and political power.
Within this contradiction lies another, namely in the individual of Chavez himself. The movement that Chavez has led in office these past ten years, what he has called the Bolivarian Process, has undeniably gained and held a popular mandate. But the movement itself is heavily dependent on Chavez, as no other major leaders have emerged. Without other independent centers of leadership and vision the Bolivarian project is in danger on becoming overly dependent on Chavez. A program with the stated goals of egalitarianism and participatory democracy clearly needs to free itself of being of any one sole leader, however inspiring or intelligent he or she may be. As has all too often been the case in the past when individuals assert their special and unique importance as leader of the ‘revolution,’ the regime holds power develops authoritarian tendencies. Often this is accompanied by leader worship or the cult of the personality. The case of Fidel and the Cuban Revolution, whatever one’s opinion on the matter, is a case in point.
These internal contradictions bring up us back to the original questions at hand in this essay, the implications of end of term limits in Venezuela. It now becomes apparent that term limits are viewed by both supporters and opposition as a mechanism for disrupting the progression of the Bolivarian Revolution. Importantly, both sides view the disruptive potential as centered around the contradiction inherent in Chavez currently indispensable leadership. While the supporters of the referendum understand that this will allow Chavez to continue at the helm of the Venezuelan state and hence allow the Bolivarian process to expand and deepen, there is far too little emphasis on the potential negatives. While the referendum affects all levels of government it is ostensibly focused on the office of the president. With the constitutional possibility of seeking a third term in office, Chavez is ensuring the continuation of the process while at the same time undermining it by placing constraints on the emergence of new leaders and divergent opinions. This dialectical opposition is at the heart of the referendum.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Reflections on the Venezuelan Referendum Pt. 1
The people of Venezuela voted yesterday in a national referendum to abolish term limits on all elected governmental offices. First, a quick breakdown of the numbers and how the day passed. According to Venezuela's National Electoral Council about 70% of the 16 million eligible voters took part in the vote. The final vote in favor was about 55% to 45% against. In contrast to a national referendum that took place in 2007 which included 69 other constitutional changes, yesterdays vote was limited to the sole issue of term limits. International observers, as well as the opposition, have declared the vote legitimate and transparent, with the Paraguayan representative asking that Venezuela help provide technical support in installing a similar system in Paraguay. The transparency is based on a dual system of electronic voting along side a paper vote to ensure a material record of the vote making it virtually impossible to tamper with the ballots. On top of the dual vote is open overseeing of the vote counting by both supporters of government policy as well as members of the opposition. In other words, the Venezuelan people have clearly spoken their minds on the issue of term limits and a clear majority are in favor of the abolition. The real question is what implications arise from this referendum and what interests stand to gain from it.
The abolition of term limits for elected officials is in itself not inherently undemocratic. If fact the argument for the opposite, that term limits are in their nature undemocratic, can be more easily made. One only has to look to the many parliamentary democracies of the North to see multiple examples of this in action. Leaving aside the various criticisms of Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution in the mainstream media around the world as having authoritative and dictatorial tendencies, the changing of the constitution to allow Chavez to run for a third term of office in 2013 and Venezuela's unique historical development certainly brings up concerns worth thinking about.
The development of socialism through democratic means was attempted in various counties in the world to some degree throughout the twentieth century. The case of Venezuela is really no different except for the epoch in which it is taking place, the twenty first century. After the collapse of the USSR and world Communism, the triumph of liberal democratic capitalism was proclaimed by the imperial apologist and liberal theorists as the "end of history." There were suppose to be no alternatives to the cure-all prescription of neoliberal economic policies, at least to those proponents of TINA and a unipolar world. Out of this imperialist worldview came the revolt of the dispossessed peoples of the South. In the past, social democratic states were established in Europe following the mass immiseration of the general population that was the result of WWII. The basic reforms that were undertaken in Europe in the 1940's and 50's are, in substance, very similar to the direction that Venezuela is heading today, although they differ in form. Private capital is being left in place by the state and it is still flourishing in 'socialist' Venezuela. It is perhaps the form of Venezuela's path towards a social democratic state that makes the question of term limits a divisive issue not only in the country but also in the world. This of course is due to divided opinion about the leadership of Hugo Chavez.
Adjectives such a flamboyant, charismatic, polemical, outspoken may all justifiably be applied to Chavez in one way or another. Certainly his opponents, and there are many of them in Venezuela and abroad, do not approve of his policies or his actions. They loath to see their final chance to rid themselves of him as president at the end of his current term in 2012 be wiped away by a popularly backed and transparent vote. The prospect of Chavez's reelection and the continuation of the Bolivarian Revolution is at this time very likely and it is understandable that the opposition raise all manner of objections to it, some valid some not. These are to be expected and deserved to be examined, but I believe the real examination needs to come not from the opposition but from the supporters of the Bolivarian Revolution.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
The Worst Place to Live in the World
Where is the worst place in the world to live today? If you said Iraq then guess again. Darfur? Getting closer, but still not quite there. The answer my friends is the Democratic Republic of Congo. You hear a lot about Iraq and Darfur these days for two reasons. The terrible humanitarian situations in both places and the fact that they happen to sit on large reserves of oil certainly merit out attention. On the other hand take DRC, or Somalia, or Haiti. Somalia gets a little more attention because the country is mostly Muslim and we all know that they have to be watched. Haiti, well its just some poor little island full of black people in the Caribbean whose leader is not named Castro, so who cares about them. But DRC is heads and shoulders above the rest of these countries for the level of destruction and chaos that reigns there.
A war has been ragging in that country, formally known as Zaire, since 1996. The causes can be traced back to genocide of Tutsis by Hutus in neighboring Rwanda in 1994. Many of the perpetrators of that horrible event now reside in DRC where they continue to be a major contributor to the current conflict. The war, which at its height involved five neighboring countries in a massive regional war reminiscent of Europe in the previous few centuries, was officially declared to be over in 2004. Up to 4 million died in the conflict over those 8 years. Yet today three years after the war is over up to 38,000 people are still dying every month in DRC. Institutionalized rape has become a favorite form of terror perpetrated against Congolese women. And not just women either. There have been reports of children as young as 10 months, mere infants, being raped. For anyone who did not understand the gravity of using rape as a means of terror this illustration should be clear enough. The only possible reason for raping an infant is for the message it sends to others.
The last scientific report released on the number of those killed was in 2004. A new report is to be published within the next month. Estimates are placing the likely number as high as 6 million since 1996.
When was the last time you read or heard about the plight of the people in the Democratic Republic of Congo? When is the last time Bush mentioned the conflict ragging there? But then again why should anyone give a shit about the Congolese, they are black and even more importantly they do not have any resources we want.
A war has been ragging in that country, formally known as Zaire, since 1996. The causes can be traced back to genocide of Tutsis by Hutus in neighboring Rwanda in 1994. Many of the perpetrators of that horrible event now reside in DRC where they continue to be a major contributor to the current conflict. The war, which at its height involved five neighboring countries in a massive regional war reminiscent of Europe in the previous few centuries, was officially declared to be over in 2004. Up to 4 million died in the conflict over those 8 years. Yet today three years after the war is over up to 38,000 people are still dying every month in DRC. Institutionalized rape has become a favorite form of terror perpetrated against Congolese women. And not just women either. There have been reports of children as young as 10 months, mere infants, being raped. For anyone who did not understand the gravity of using rape as a means of terror this illustration should be clear enough. The only possible reason for raping an infant is for the message it sends to others.
The last scientific report released on the number of those killed was in 2004. A new report is to be published within the next month. Estimates are placing the likely number as high as 6 million since 1996.
When was the last time you read or heard about the plight of the people in the Democratic Republic of Congo? When is the last time Bush mentioned the conflict ragging there? But then again why should anyone give a shit about the Congolese, they are black and even more importantly they do not have any resources we want.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Blackwater, Privatization, War and Fascism
I have to preface this entry with a little explanation. The following is basically a reaction I wrote the other night to the latest controversy to deveop over the use of private contractors in US military ventures abroad. I just let the words flow out of my head and I have decided to leave them in their original format without and editing or further investigation of details that could add relevant content to the article.
The Major problem with the Blackwater corp. and other mercenaries is not that they are above the rule of seemingly any law, it is not that they act if often reckless means killing without regard or investigation, it is the fact that they represent the privatization of war. Another ugly head of the military-industrial complex has appeared, or perhaps reappeared is a better term, for mercenary armies are by no means a new invention. But the mercenary army acting under the guise of the capitalist system is a rather new development that has many ramifications beyond its counterparts from antiquity and the middle ages. At the heart of the matter is the neo-liberal objective of broad privatization of all aspects of life, from health care to the military to natural resources to public infrastructure to social security. Nothing is to be left untouched. And when I say neo-liberal I mean the group of neo-cons that made up the core of the Bush administration and still to day posses broad power, although perhaps not as much as in the past. The policies and programs of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz among others have been implemented with these ideological goals in mind. I have to make the distinction here between the neo-liberals in charge of the US now and the neo-liberalism as it was first developed by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of economists. Although Friedman and his followers were devoted to privatization, they left a few things off the table that they considered to be untouchable. One of these things was the military/defense forces. This is where Rumsfeld enters the picture. His reorganization of the Defense Department has centered around the idea of privatizing as much as possible, a step that the father of neo-liberalism hesitated from advocating.
Well lets fast-forward a couple years and now the US is engaged in a war in Iraq and Afghanistan and seriously looks to be contemplating a third front in Iran. Blackwater has played a key role in this process. Allowing the US to embark on its imperialist adventures while at the same time avoiding the tremendously unpopularity of the draft. These neo-cons were around for Vietnam, hell a lot of them worked in the Nixon administration, they saw what happened in regards to public and military protest and civil disruption due to the conscription army. With a private military force at their disposal they are free to just hire more and more mercenaries to make up for any shortfall in the traditional armed forces.
The problem is that Blackwater and others, as a private company operating under the free market capitalist system, are driven by profit. It is there goal as a company to generate profit and growth; it is what drives competitive capitalism. And what is Blackwater’s business? They describe themselves as professional warriors. So lets that the next logical step; what kind of environment does Blackwater need to ensure contracts? (Contracts handed out by governments, namely the US government, which means the taxpayer is paying for it, according to congressional hearings the US pays for 90% of Blackwater’s revenue) Well the answer is almost self evident, they need chaos, they need war zones, they needed continued conflicts. They also just happened to be in a position to help extend conflicts, since they have armed personnel in the middle of said conflicts. Do you see the problem? Providing security to their clients in a war zone is suppose to let their clients accomplish whatever it is that they want to do in a secure environment, in this and most cases the US government with the objective of building a nation that is free of conflict. Well if the US succeeds in this endeavor, and it is nowhere close at the moment, then Blackwater is out of contracts and the business fails. I see three paths out of this dilemma for Blackwater. 1 – rely on the US to keep engaging in other conflicts, hence a continuation of the market and new contracts are signed. 2 – take steps to ensure the current conflicts they are involved in stay conflicts; hence they keep the contracts they have. 3 – Increasingly fill the void left by the neo-liberal privatization of the military begun by Rumsfeld and take over more and more sectors of the American military that have traditionally been subject to public funding. Number 3 is interesting to think about in a historical context, especially that of the ancient world where the empires of different states share many similarities with the US empire. The classic example is Rome. It began is ascendancy and conquest with the military might of its legions, whose ranks were filled with roman citizens. Over a period of time the Romans themselves lost the will to fight in the legions and left the tasks to others, first other italic people, then other peoples of the empire and finally to the barbarians coming from northeastern Europe and the steppes of Asia. Using money earned from the pervious conquests, the rulers of Rome depended more and more on others to do the work for them with the belief that it would lead to the same results, and it did, for a while. The ‘barbarization’of the legions had its effect though. Some parallels can be drawn from this comparison if closely examined.
My guess is that the way things are going now it is going to be a combination of all three paths that Blackwater takes. The company is certainly taking some public knocks now, only because it is the largest and most visible at the moment, but there are other private mercenary companies that are operating in Iraq that the public doesn’t hear about. If Blackwater ends up collapsing due to it being a target because it is the leader in the industry or because of its own mistakes, rest assured another company will rise to take its place.
That is unless we as a government and much more importantly as a people rethink exactly what the implications of employing private mercenary companies to do our fighting. Profit drives the private company and the mercenary companies business is war. This is a completely different level of the M-I-C than say a nuclear weapon producer like Westinghouse. The market for nukes isn’t going anywhere at the moment or anytime soon and there doesn’t have to be active warfare going on for the company to sell its weapons. In fact war, at least of the thermo-nuclear variety is highly unfavorable to Westinghouse; if it happens there will be no one left to buy any more weapons (or make them). Conventional war might actually stimulate the nuke market though, certainly proliferation and international instability does, so that is still a huge problem. But with Blackwater and others like it the mere presence of international instability and tensions is not enough; they need war/chaos to be taking place. There is no place for Blackwater in a world that is free from large conflicts.
As already noted this is a capitalist system is built upon the drive for growth and profits by companies. It is fundamentally against Blackwater’s interest for a stop to the warfare initiated by Bush. Well that’s not quite fair, he didn’t initiate it he only intensified it greatly. The military doesn’t fundamentally need warfare, as it is a public service, although of course it pushes for it. But defense forces can be scaled down in times of peace, however painfully the political steps may be. But the intertwining of government with private corporations that derive profit from war and destruction is a dangerous scenario. Blackwater is only one of the companies, others such as Halliburton profit off of different results of war, but war remains the key. This growing closeness of private business is incredibly dangerous as it takes the power away from the people and puts in the hands of the companies. It is they who financially support the politicians and in this sense determine who is in control. Who better than those who favor policies that will benefit the companies? It is instructive to note the Eric Prince, CEO of Blackwater, is a Republican backer and his family has major ties to the party and the Bush campaign. Dick Cheney ran Halliburton before becoming VP. These companies and individuals supported the ascendancy of the neo-cons and they have reaped the benefits many times over. We are witnessing before our eyes the move towards the corporate state. This my friends is the move towards fascism. It happened in Germany in a democratic republic. It happened in Spain after a civil war. It happened in Chile after a military coup. There are many paths to fascism and they by no means follow an easily mapped out path. But they do follow a general direction that has end results that we can point to. One is the emergence corporate-state. Another is the growth of executive authority. Another is political repression and terror on the local population. We are seeing some of these factors begin to play themselves out. If we do not put a stop to it then it is only a matter of time before the hammer falls. Do you want to be under it when it does? - 04.10.07 Buenos Aires
The Major problem with the Blackwater corp. and other mercenaries is not that they are above the rule of seemingly any law, it is not that they act if often reckless means killing without regard or investigation, it is the fact that they represent the privatization of war. Another ugly head of the military-industrial complex has appeared, or perhaps reappeared is a better term, for mercenary armies are by no means a new invention. But the mercenary army acting under the guise of the capitalist system is a rather new development that has many ramifications beyond its counterparts from antiquity and the middle ages. At the heart of the matter is the neo-liberal objective of broad privatization of all aspects of life, from health care to the military to natural resources to public infrastructure to social security. Nothing is to be left untouched. And when I say neo-liberal I mean the group of neo-cons that made up the core of the Bush administration and still to day posses broad power, although perhaps not as much as in the past. The policies and programs of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz among others have been implemented with these ideological goals in mind. I have to make the distinction here between the neo-liberals in charge of the US now and the neo-liberalism as it was first developed by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of economists. Although Friedman and his followers were devoted to privatization, they left a few things off the table that they considered to be untouchable. One of these things was the military/defense forces. This is where Rumsfeld enters the picture. His reorganization of the Defense Department has centered around the idea of privatizing as much as possible, a step that the father of neo-liberalism hesitated from advocating.
Well lets fast-forward a couple years and now the US is engaged in a war in Iraq and Afghanistan and seriously looks to be contemplating a third front in Iran. Blackwater has played a key role in this process. Allowing the US to embark on its imperialist adventures while at the same time avoiding the tremendously unpopularity of the draft. These neo-cons were around for Vietnam, hell a lot of them worked in the Nixon administration, they saw what happened in regards to public and military protest and civil disruption due to the conscription army. With a private military force at their disposal they are free to just hire more and more mercenaries to make up for any shortfall in the traditional armed forces.
The problem is that Blackwater and others, as a private company operating under the free market capitalist system, are driven by profit. It is there goal as a company to generate profit and growth; it is what drives competitive capitalism. And what is Blackwater’s business? They describe themselves as professional warriors. So lets that the next logical step; what kind of environment does Blackwater need to ensure contracts? (Contracts handed out by governments, namely the US government, which means the taxpayer is paying for it, according to congressional hearings the US pays for 90% of Blackwater’s revenue) Well the answer is almost self evident, they need chaos, they need war zones, they needed continued conflicts. They also just happened to be in a position to help extend conflicts, since they have armed personnel in the middle of said conflicts. Do you see the problem? Providing security to their clients in a war zone is suppose to let their clients accomplish whatever it is that they want to do in a secure environment, in this and most cases the US government with the objective of building a nation that is free of conflict. Well if the US succeeds in this endeavor, and it is nowhere close at the moment, then Blackwater is out of contracts and the business fails. I see three paths out of this dilemma for Blackwater. 1 – rely on the US to keep engaging in other conflicts, hence a continuation of the market and new contracts are signed. 2 – take steps to ensure the current conflicts they are involved in stay conflicts; hence they keep the contracts they have. 3 – Increasingly fill the void left by the neo-liberal privatization of the military begun by Rumsfeld and take over more and more sectors of the American military that have traditionally been subject to public funding. Number 3 is interesting to think about in a historical context, especially that of the ancient world where the empires of different states share many similarities with the US empire. The classic example is Rome. It began is ascendancy and conquest with the military might of its legions, whose ranks were filled with roman citizens. Over a period of time the Romans themselves lost the will to fight in the legions and left the tasks to others, first other italic people, then other peoples of the empire and finally to the barbarians coming from northeastern Europe and the steppes of Asia. Using money earned from the pervious conquests, the rulers of Rome depended more and more on others to do the work for them with the belief that it would lead to the same results, and it did, for a while. The ‘barbarization’of the legions had its effect though. Some parallels can be drawn from this comparison if closely examined.
My guess is that the way things are going now it is going to be a combination of all three paths that Blackwater takes. The company is certainly taking some public knocks now, only because it is the largest and most visible at the moment, but there are other private mercenary companies that are operating in Iraq that the public doesn’t hear about. If Blackwater ends up collapsing due to it being a target because it is the leader in the industry or because of its own mistakes, rest assured another company will rise to take its place.
That is unless we as a government and much more importantly as a people rethink exactly what the implications of employing private mercenary companies to do our fighting. Profit drives the private company and the mercenary companies business is war. This is a completely different level of the M-I-C than say a nuclear weapon producer like Westinghouse. The market for nukes isn’t going anywhere at the moment or anytime soon and there doesn’t have to be active warfare going on for the company to sell its weapons. In fact war, at least of the thermo-nuclear variety is highly unfavorable to Westinghouse; if it happens there will be no one left to buy any more weapons (or make them). Conventional war might actually stimulate the nuke market though, certainly proliferation and international instability does, so that is still a huge problem. But with Blackwater and others like it the mere presence of international instability and tensions is not enough; they need war/chaos to be taking place. There is no place for Blackwater in a world that is free from large conflicts.
As already noted this is a capitalist system is built upon the drive for growth and profits by companies. It is fundamentally against Blackwater’s interest for a stop to the warfare initiated by Bush. Well that’s not quite fair, he didn’t initiate it he only intensified it greatly. The military doesn’t fundamentally need warfare, as it is a public service, although of course it pushes for it. But defense forces can be scaled down in times of peace, however painfully the political steps may be. But the intertwining of government with private corporations that derive profit from war and destruction is a dangerous scenario. Blackwater is only one of the companies, others such as Halliburton profit off of different results of war, but war remains the key. This growing closeness of private business is incredibly dangerous as it takes the power away from the people and puts in the hands of the companies. It is they who financially support the politicians and in this sense determine who is in control. Who better than those who favor policies that will benefit the companies? It is instructive to note the Eric Prince, CEO of Blackwater, is a Republican backer and his family has major ties to the party and the Bush campaign. Dick Cheney ran Halliburton before becoming VP. These companies and individuals supported the ascendancy of the neo-cons and they have reaped the benefits many times over. We are witnessing before our eyes the move towards the corporate state. This my friends is the move towards fascism. It happened in Germany in a democratic republic. It happened in Spain after a civil war. It happened in Chile after a military coup. There are many paths to fascism and they by no means follow an easily mapped out path. But they do follow a general direction that has end results that we can point to. One is the emergence corporate-state. Another is the growth of executive authority. Another is political repression and terror on the local population. We are seeing some of these factors begin to play themselves out. If we do not put a stop to it then it is only a matter of time before the hammer falls. Do you want to be under it when it does? - 04.10.07 Buenos Aires
Monday, October 1, 2007
The Other September 11
The pieces I have written about Argentina have focused mainly thus far on different events and movements that I have had the opportunity to see unfolding around me. Writing about these social currents helps bring me to a better understanding of them as I am forced to put thought and analysis into what might otherwise be simple experience. But I thought I would try something a bit different with this article and address some other issues in the Latin American world. With that in mind here we go.
The anniversary of the September 11 attacks was recently remembered in the US and around the world. Buenos Aires was certainly no exception as news coverage was rather extensive. There was one major difference though. In Argentina, the rest of Latin America, and a good part of the world September 11 has long been an infamous date that is associated with tragedy and death; it marks the anniversary of the 1973 military coup against the government of Salvador Allende in Chile. General Augusto Pinochet, a name that might ring a few more bells up north, was the leading force in the coup and went on to be a rather long lasting and oppressive dictator. Most North Americans simply are not aware that this event took place and are even less aware of the all the tragic implications and details involved. Unfortunately is only one in a series of similar events that have plagued the people of the Latin America for years.
Perhaps one of the reasons that we don’t learn about the toppling of the Allende government is because the coup was supported by the Nixon administration. It just doesn’t sound that great to say you were fighting a war in Vietnam to bring freedom and democracy to the people there while at the same time you were supporting the overthrow of a democratically elected government in favor of a military dictator in South America. But then again no one had ever really paid that much attention to South America before, so Nixon probably thought no one would really notice. Like so many other of his decisions this one turned out to be a mistake as well. You see there is essentially one reason why Allende and his government are different from all the other coups in Latin American history; Allende was a Socialist and his government represented the first time in the world where an openly Socialist government was democratically elected. Its one thing to talk about giving the people freedom and democracy but it is certainly another thing when they truly begin to use it to build a better society for all. The Chilean generals and the Washington politicians were well aware of this and they moved to put the people of Chile back in the place they belonged, firmly under their control.
When Allende assumed the presidency of Chile in 1970 international news organizations declared him to be the world first democratically elected Marxist leader. That is simplifying things somewhat. Allende gained power with the backing of the Unidad Popular (UP) coalition of leftist political parties. The Socialist Party and the Communist Party did indeed make up the two largest factions in UP, but there were also smaller non-Marxists parties aligned with it as well. This conglomeration of parties on the left backing a Marxist program was a key to gaining victory through elections, something many thought was impossible in Chile or indeed any country. Clearly the CIA did not see it as such an unlikely outcome as it had infused over $11 million dollars into Chilean politics between 1962-1970 in an attempt to prevent Allende from being elected. When he finally succeeded the US stepped up its efforts to eliminate him from the scene. Henry Kissinger, who was Secretary of State under Nixon, authorized the expenditure of $8 million dollars between 1970-1973 to ‘destabilize’ the economy, including money for right-wing strikes, to bring down the Allende government.
In fact when you actually examine what Allende accomplished or set out to accomplish in the three years he was in power it is clear that he was following a path of peaceful reform with the capitalist state and not a revolutionary overthrow of that system. There were modest challenges to the existing order, such as the nationalizing of the US-owned copper mines, but all in all Allende continued to push on reforms that were begun by the previous Christian Democrat government. The reforms amounted to an orthodox Keynesian plan for restarting the economy under the direction of the government, certainly nothing revolutionary as similar models had been followed all across Europe after the Second World War. The reasons behind Allende’s mild reforms are manifold, but it basically rested on his belief in the eventual success of the movement and the use of the current state institutions to build a socialist society directly at odds with those institutions. Perhaps his most fatal error was to believe right up until the end the military would obey its constitutional duty to uphold the democracy and not intervene.
That was all to change on the morning of September 11, 1973. Tensions had been rising for some time as the reactionary backlash against the modest reforms enacted over the past few years had lead to major disruptions in the country organized by industry bosses. Workers were also becoming frustrated with UP as they thought the pace of reforms should be sped up and not watered down to try to appease everyone. The line between opposing forces that Allende was trying to walk was turning out to be an impossible venture with those on the right becoming increasingly hostile and those on the left increasingly disillusioned. The hammer finally fell when the coup was launched. Allende, trapped in the Presidential Palace while it was surrounded and being bombed by the military, managed to transmit one final radio broadcast to the country. He closed his address with following,
Workers of my country, I have faith in Chile and its destiny. Other men will overcome this dark and bitter moment when treason seeks to prevail. Keep in mind that, much sooner than later, great avenues will again be opened, through which will pass the free man, to construct a better society.
Long live Chile! Long live the people! Long live the workers!
These are my last words, and I am certain that my sacrifice will not be in vain, I am certain that, at the very least, it will be a moral lesson that will punish felony, cowardice, and treason.
Whatever his faults or naivety in governing he truly was a man that had the best interest of the Chilean people at heart. It became clear that he was never going to willing resign as president to the coup plotters and he took his own life shortly after the speech rather that wait to be killed by the generals.
Allende’s end was a tragic one, but if anything it is just a representation of what happened to Chile as a whole. Tens of thousands were murdered or disappeared under the dictatorship for opposing the government, being perceived ‘subversives’, or simply to be made an example of. One such man was Victor Jara. In the preceding years he had emerged as the leader of the ‘new song movement’ in Chilean folk music. His songs with filled with praise of the brotherhood of humanity, the right to live in peace, and the socialist ideals popular among the followers of Allende. Immediately following the success of the coup thousands were rounded up by the military and placed in the national stadium in Santiago, which had been turned into a makeshift prison camp. Jara was among the prisoners and he paid a price like so many others for the ideal he represented. He first had his hands broken and mangled so that he would never be able to play the guitar again. It was a cruel punishment for simply being a musician but they couldn’t break Jara’s spirit and he sung songs for the other prisoners to help give them hope while they were all imprisoned together. After four days in the stadium he was dead, executed at the hands of the military.
The history of the coup and the long years that followed are filled with many such episodes of personal and national tragedies. Of course some were celebrating the turn of events. A US Defense Department memo dated October 1, 1973, actually goes as far as stating that September 11 was “our D- Day” and that “Chile’s coup de etat was close to perfect.” It probably doesn’t really surprise anyone to read that Nixon was involved in something so dirty and that he actually supported it. The point is that when we in the US remember the misfortunes that have afflicted us and let us also remember the misfortunes that we have inflicted upon other nations and reflect on the reasons why. These are not the sorts of things that are better to be swept under the rug and forgotten. Look at Iraq, eventually these things come back and bite you in the ass. We can learn from Chile not only about the mistakes that were made but also about what it takes to make a better place for all. It is a struggle, those with power are not simply going to hand it over to the masses, it will have to be taken from them. But without the struggle we will not only not make progress but we will slowly beat into submission.
The anniversary of the September 11 attacks was recently remembered in the US and around the world. Buenos Aires was certainly no exception as news coverage was rather extensive. There was one major difference though. In Argentina, the rest of Latin America, and a good part of the world September 11 has long been an infamous date that is associated with tragedy and death; it marks the anniversary of the 1973 military coup against the government of Salvador Allende in Chile. General Augusto Pinochet, a name that might ring a few more bells up north, was the leading force in the coup and went on to be a rather long lasting and oppressive dictator. Most North Americans simply are not aware that this event took place and are even less aware of the all the tragic implications and details involved. Unfortunately is only one in a series of similar events that have plagued the people of the Latin America for years.
Perhaps one of the reasons that we don’t learn about the toppling of the Allende government is because the coup was supported by the Nixon administration. It just doesn’t sound that great to say you were fighting a war in Vietnam to bring freedom and democracy to the people there while at the same time you were supporting the overthrow of a democratically elected government in favor of a military dictator in South America. But then again no one had ever really paid that much attention to South America before, so Nixon probably thought no one would really notice. Like so many other of his decisions this one turned out to be a mistake as well. You see there is essentially one reason why Allende and his government are different from all the other coups in Latin American history; Allende was a Socialist and his government represented the first time in the world where an openly Socialist government was democratically elected. Its one thing to talk about giving the people freedom and democracy but it is certainly another thing when they truly begin to use it to build a better society for all. The Chilean generals and the Washington politicians were well aware of this and they moved to put the people of Chile back in the place they belonged, firmly under their control.
When Allende assumed the presidency of Chile in 1970 international news organizations declared him to be the world first democratically elected Marxist leader. That is simplifying things somewhat. Allende gained power with the backing of the Unidad Popular (UP) coalition of leftist political parties. The Socialist Party and the Communist Party did indeed make up the two largest factions in UP, but there were also smaller non-Marxists parties aligned with it as well. This conglomeration of parties on the left backing a Marxist program was a key to gaining victory through elections, something many thought was impossible in Chile or indeed any country. Clearly the CIA did not see it as such an unlikely outcome as it had infused over $11 million dollars into Chilean politics between 1962-1970 in an attempt to prevent Allende from being elected. When he finally succeeded the US stepped up its efforts to eliminate him from the scene. Henry Kissinger, who was Secretary of State under Nixon, authorized the expenditure of $8 million dollars between 1970-1973 to ‘destabilize’ the economy, including money for right-wing strikes, to bring down the Allende government.
In fact when you actually examine what Allende accomplished or set out to accomplish in the three years he was in power it is clear that he was following a path of peaceful reform with the capitalist state and not a revolutionary overthrow of that system. There were modest challenges to the existing order, such as the nationalizing of the US-owned copper mines, but all in all Allende continued to push on reforms that were begun by the previous Christian Democrat government. The reforms amounted to an orthodox Keynesian plan for restarting the economy under the direction of the government, certainly nothing revolutionary as similar models had been followed all across Europe after the Second World War. The reasons behind Allende’s mild reforms are manifold, but it basically rested on his belief in the eventual success of the movement and the use of the current state institutions to build a socialist society directly at odds with those institutions. Perhaps his most fatal error was to believe right up until the end the military would obey its constitutional duty to uphold the democracy and not intervene.
That was all to change on the morning of September 11, 1973. Tensions had been rising for some time as the reactionary backlash against the modest reforms enacted over the past few years had lead to major disruptions in the country organized by industry bosses. Workers were also becoming frustrated with UP as they thought the pace of reforms should be sped up and not watered down to try to appease everyone. The line between opposing forces that Allende was trying to walk was turning out to be an impossible venture with those on the right becoming increasingly hostile and those on the left increasingly disillusioned. The hammer finally fell when the coup was launched. Allende, trapped in the Presidential Palace while it was surrounded and being bombed by the military, managed to transmit one final radio broadcast to the country. He closed his address with following,
Workers of my country, I have faith in Chile and its destiny. Other men will overcome this dark and bitter moment when treason seeks to prevail. Keep in mind that, much sooner than later, great avenues will again be opened, through which will pass the free man, to construct a better society.
Long live Chile! Long live the people! Long live the workers!
These are my last words, and I am certain that my sacrifice will not be in vain, I am certain that, at the very least, it will be a moral lesson that will punish felony, cowardice, and treason.
Whatever his faults or naivety in governing he truly was a man that had the best interest of the Chilean people at heart. It became clear that he was never going to willing resign as president to the coup plotters and he took his own life shortly after the speech rather that wait to be killed by the generals.
Allende’s end was a tragic one, but if anything it is just a representation of what happened to Chile as a whole. Tens of thousands were murdered or disappeared under the dictatorship for opposing the government, being perceived ‘subversives’, or simply to be made an example of. One such man was Victor Jara. In the preceding years he had emerged as the leader of the ‘new song movement’ in Chilean folk music. His songs with filled with praise of the brotherhood of humanity, the right to live in peace, and the socialist ideals popular among the followers of Allende. Immediately following the success of the coup thousands were rounded up by the military and placed in the national stadium in Santiago, which had been turned into a makeshift prison camp. Jara was among the prisoners and he paid a price like so many others for the ideal he represented. He first had his hands broken and mangled so that he would never be able to play the guitar again. It was a cruel punishment for simply being a musician but they couldn’t break Jara’s spirit and he sung songs for the other prisoners to help give them hope while they were all imprisoned together. After four days in the stadium he was dead, executed at the hands of the military.
The history of the coup and the long years that followed are filled with many such episodes of personal and national tragedies. Of course some were celebrating the turn of events. A US Defense Department memo dated October 1, 1973, actually goes as far as stating that September 11 was “our D- Day” and that “Chile’s coup de etat was close to perfect.” It probably doesn’t really surprise anyone to read that Nixon was involved in something so dirty and that he actually supported it. The point is that when we in the US remember the misfortunes that have afflicted us and let us also remember the misfortunes that we have inflicted upon other nations and reflect on the reasons why. These are not the sorts of things that are better to be swept under the rug and forgotten. Look at Iraq, eventually these things come back and bite you in the ass. We can learn from Chile not only about the mistakes that were made but also about what it takes to make a better place for all. It is a struggle, those with power are not simply going to hand it over to the masses, it will have to be taken from them. But without the struggle we will not only not make progress but we will slowly beat into submission.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Workers Movement in Action
After living in Argentina for over 8 months now I have had considerable amount of interesting experiences; some trying, some enlightening but for the most part they have always been interesting. A large portion of these experiences have brought myself into direct contact with the local culture here and have been very informative about the modern social and political climate. I almost always have to include the political side of things because politics here is something that has a daily and direct influence on people’s lives. The events of the past few years, especially the economic crisis of 2001, have shaped the lives and mindset of the citizens here. You can see signs of it everywhere in Buenos Aires, from the socialist slogans sprayed-painted on building walls, to the mass marches and demonstrations that have become an almost daily occurrence, to the hundreds of local assemblies that have sprung up in the different neighborhoods around the city. One of the more notable experiences for me came when I attended a meeting for the launch of a new political magazine at hotel conference center. The magazine was connected with various social movement and parties throughout the Americas, even including representative from the USA, so needless to say I was a bit surprised that it was being held in a very classy venue. I kept thinking to myself, ‘this setting seems a bit ironic for a meeting of socialist militants and thinkers.’ It was only later that I found out that the hotel I was sitting in was Hotel Bauen, a worker controlled and run cooperative. As I learned more I discovered that Hotel Bauen was only one part of a wider national movement by workers to take control their working environments. Let me explain a bit.
The movement, known as Movimiento Nacional de Empresas Recuperadas (National Movement of Recuperated Businesses) or MNER, began in the provinces independent of any party or organization when some factories were shut down because they were no longer making a profit. For the owners of the factories this made perfect sense being followers of the capitalistic model, where the goal is to generate profit. It follows that if the factories were no longer turning out a profit there would be no reason to keep them in operation under this model. Another factor leading to the closure of some factories was an increase in labor activism, which in turn led to serious conflicts between workers demanding improved working conditions and owners reluctant to make any concessions. Unfortunately for the workers this left them without jobs and in pretty dire straights. After a few months of unemployment and false promises by the former owners to reopen the factories, the workers took matters into their own hands.
After gathering together in small groups and discussing the common problems facing them as workers and a community, they decided to reoccupy the factories and start production again. They organized the production under a democratic system independent of any management or bosses and began to successfully operate the factories again. Following a cornerstone of Marxism – democratic control of the means of production by the workers themselves – the factory workers have succeeded in keeping the places running for over 5 years now.
Inspired by the example, other successful worker takeovers have spread throughout Argentina. The 2001 crisis have left no shortage of opportunities for these sorts of workers victories to rise from the ashes of the failed neo-liberal order that was adopted here in the 90’s. The movement has since spread to Buenos Aires, in this instance in the form of a hotel, Hotel Bauen, where the workers currently call the shots. The history of Hotel Bauen is an interesting one in itself. It’s a four-star hotel that was founded un the run up to the 1978 World Cup in Argentina, a time that saw large scale modernization and investment by the state, at that time under a military dictatorship. The state provided the owner of Hotel Bauen, Marcelo Iurcovich, with loans from the National Development Bank to help get the hotel up and running.
Now here is where it gets really interesting. During the privatization of state enterprises that took place during the 1990’s the National Bank of Development took its turn and was privatized and then absorbed into the larger National Bank of Argentina, bringing its debt owed it, including that of Hotel Bauen, with it. This privatization of the National Bank resulted in situation that almost defies belief. The debt owed the bank, and hence the state, by private companies was assumed by the state of Argentina as a means of making the bank more appealing to potential buyers. Did you get that? The money that the state loaned out to private interests in the 70’s is now money owed by the state to private companies today. This is the crazy logic that the Argentines have been living with since 2001. Of course money owed by the state means that the people are going to have to pay in the end and they did when in December 2001 3/4 of their savings were liquidated to keep the state apparatus from defaulting. The Hotel Bauen was closed shortly after this on December 28, 2001 due in part to the chaos it helped to create.
In March of 2003, with the support of MNER, the hotel’s former workers occupied the building. While they struggled to gain ownership over the hotel they began to make repairs to the building and eventually reopened for business. Since 2003, the Bauen cooperative has gone from 32 to over 150 employees, opened a street side café (whose tile floors come from FaSinPat, another worker controlled ceramics factory) and have equipped over 200 rooms. The hotel today has shown rising profits and serves as a free meeting place for progressive and workers’ groups. It was at one such meeting for the opening of an inter-American political/social magazine that I first came into contact with the worker control movement.
With such striking success for workers there was bound to be a backlash from reactionary forces. This came in late 2005 when the hotel was informed that the legal right of the workers to run the hotel as a business was not permitted. State officials attempted to tape off the entrances to the hotel, but the workers quickly removed this tape and the hotel has remained in operation to this day. There is still an on going legal dispute though, with the former owner Iurcovich heading the opposition. It is a very heated issue in the city right now as private capital is determined, if not to stop the workers control movement, then at least see it come under state supervision and control. But the people and independent press have also taken up the issue on the side of the workers and over 50,000 volunteers have been mobilized in support.
It is an incredibly interesting movement and it is by no means limited to Argentina. Democratic worker controlled cooperatives have been sprouting up all over Latin America, most notably in Venezuela. As is usually the case, this is a movement that we in the USA, and specifically in the Northland, can learn a lot from. If you are interested in learning more about the Argentine movement there is a good book in English about the phenomenon by Naomi Klein called Sin Patron. Check it out and more importantly take an active part in the struggle. It is not an issue that is only confined to Argentina. ¡Hasta Socialismo Siempre!
The movement, known as Movimiento Nacional de Empresas Recuperadas (National Movement of Recuperated Businesses) or MNER, began in the provinces independent of any party or organization when some factories were shut down because they were no longer making a profit. For the owners of the factories this made perfect sense being followers of the capitalistic model, where the goal is to generate profit. It follows that if the factories were no longer turning out a profit there would be no reason to keep them in operation under this model. Another factor leading to the closure of some factories was an increase in labor activism, which in turn led to serious conflicts between workers demanding improved working conditions and owners reluctant to make any concessions. Unfortunately for the workers this left them without jobs and in pretty dire straights. After a few months of unemployment and false promises by the former owners to reopen the factories, the workers took matters into their own hands.
After gathering together in small groups and discussing the common problems facing them as workers and a community, they decided to reoccupy the factories and start production again. They organized the production under a democratic system independent of any management or bosses and began to successfully operate the factories again. Following a cornerstone of Marxism – democratic control of the means of production by the workers themselves – the factory workers have succeeded in keeping the places running for over 5 years now.
Inspired by the example, other successful worker takeovers have spread throughout Argentina. The 2001 crisis have left no shortage of opportunities for these sorts of workers victories to rise from the ashes of the failed neo-liberal order that was adopted here in the 90’s. The movement has since spread to Buenos Aires, in this instance in the form of a hotel, Hotel Bauen, where the workers currently call the shots. The history of Hotel Bauen is an interesting one in itself. It’s a four-star hotel that was founded un the run up to the 1978 World Cup in Argentina, a time that saw large scale modernization and investment by the state, at that time under a military dictatorship. The state provided the owner of Hotel Bauen, Marcelo Iurcovich, with loans from the National Development Bank to help get the hotel up and running.
Now here is where it gets really interesting. During the privatization of state enterprises that took place during the 1990’s the National Bank of Development took its turn and was privatized and then absorbed into the larger National Bank of Argentina, bringing its debt owed it, including that of Hotel Bauen, with it. This privatization of the National Bank resulted in situation that almost defies belief. The debt owed the bank, and hence the state, by private companies was assumed by the state of Argentina as a means of making the bank more appealing to potential buyers. Did you get that? The money that the state loaned out to private interests in the 70’s is now money owed by the state to private companies today. This is the crazy logic that the Argentines have been living with since 2001. Of course money owed by the state means that the people are going to have to pay in the end and they did when in December 2001 3/4 of their savings were liquidated to keep the state apparatus from defaulting. The Hotel Bauen was closed shortly after this on December 28, 2001 due in part to the chaos it helped to create.
In March of 2003, with the support of MNER, the hotel’s former workers occupied the building. While they struggled to gain ownership over the hotel they began to make repairs to the building and eventually reopened for business. Since 2003, the Bauen cooperative has gone from 32 to over 150 employees, opened a street side café (whose tile floors come from FaSinPat, another worker controlled ceramics factory) and have equipped over 200 rooms. The hotel today has shown rising profits and serves as a free meeting place for progressive and workers’ groups. It was at one such meeting for the opening of an inter-American political/social magazine that I first came into contact with the worker control movement.
With such striking success for workers there was bound to be a backlash from reactionary forces. This came in late 2005 when the hotel was informed that the legal right of the workers to run the hotel as a business was not permitted. State officials attempted to tape off the entrances to the hotel, but the workers quickly removed this tape and the hotel has remained in operation to this day. There is still an on going legal dispute though, with the former owner Iurcovich heading the opposition. It is a very heated issue in the city right now as private capital is determined, if not to stop the workers control movement, then at least see it come under state supervision and control. But the people and independent press have also taken up the issue on the side of the workers and over 50,000 volunteers have been mobilized in support.
It is an incredibly interesting movement and it is by no means limited to Argentina. Democratic worker controlled cooperatives have been sprouting up all over Latin America, most notably in Venezuela. As is usually the case, this is a movement that we in the USA, and specifically in the Northland, can learn a lot from. If you are interested in learning more about the Argentine movement there is a good book in English about the phenomenon by Naomi Klein called Sin Patron. Check it out and more importantly take an active part in the struggle. It is not an issue that is only confined to Argentina. ¡Hasta Socialismo Siempre!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
