Socialist quintessential

By Andres F. Guevara B.

Venezuela it's experiencing hard times. Virtually there is no space in the country that is not subject to painful misfortunes. One day a refinery blows, the day after the parliament approves regulations of questionable constitutionality. Many rights are constantly violated. Amid the whirlwind of experiences people forget other events that were amazing in their time.

No wonder that as a result of the Republican erosion an important sector of the population it's against Bolivarian socialism. After all, the supporters of this political ideology have taken control of the country since 1999. In this sense, looks pretty reasonable to attribute much of socialist management of the ills afflicting the country.

To be against the Bolivarian socialism is, thus, a legitimate act and so far allowed in Venezuela. However, some people in their opposition to the Bolivarian socialism does not hesitate to describe the current administration as the ultimate manifestation of "liberalism" or a government of "rights". At this point arises for us a fundamental question: Why they do it?

Defining liberalism as a political philosophy is not easy. However, we believe that a liberal is someone who loves freedom, has faith in progress, is open to change, and practices tolerance and solidarity [1]. Carlos Alberto Montaner in his essay What does being liberal? [2] set forth a sort of list of what he sees as the fundamental beliefs that characterize liberals:

We believe in freedom and individual responsibility as supreme values of the community.

We believe in the importance of tolerance and acceptance of differences and pluralism as essential virtues to preserve peaceful coexistence.

We believe in the existence of private property, and legislation for protection, for both, freedom and responsibility, can be really exercised.

We believe in living within a rule of law governed by a constitution that safeguards the inalienable rights of the person and in which the laws are neutral and universal to promote meritocracy and nobody has privileges.

We believe that the market -a market open to competition and non-price controls is the most effective way to conduct financial transactions and to allocate resources. At least, much more effective and morally just that the arbitrary designation of winners and losers that occurs in collectivist societies designed for "social engineers" and directed by commissioners.

We believe in the supremacy of civil society composed of citizens, not subjects, who voluntarily and freely secreted some type of state for their enjoyment and benefit, and not vice versa.

We believe in representative democracy as a method of collective decision making, with assurances that minority rights can not be violated.

We believe that the government, the less the better-always composed of public servants, totally obedient to the laws, is accountable under the law and subject to constant inspection of citizens.

Comparing the features exposed by Montaner with practice and preaching of Bolivarian socialism is imperative. The Bolivarian socialism shares nothing with liberal thought. The same test could be done with basic texts of the liberal doctrine-from classical liberalism of John Locke to the tenets of Murray Rothbard and we will find that in any way  the Bolivarian socialism approaches to liberalism.

Cleared the conceptual doubt on the foundations of liberal thought, we wonder what could be the reason that certain public pundits generate this semantic confusion in the audience who receive his speech.

A first reason may be ignorance. Just who know the subject is expressed on developing its content. We believe, however, that qualifying someone as ignorant is a gesture of pride and arrogance. Additionally, many of these public pundits have studied political theory at length, even to get doctorates and academic awards in the best universities in Venezuela and worldwide. Thus, it looks doubtful that people with similar levels of education ignore the foundations of liberal thought.

In this sense, in our view, the fundamental cause of the semantic smear towards liberalism (and consistently to capitalism) is due to the vested interests around the socialist ideology in Venezuela.

Today socialism in Venezuela is very discredited as a result of the Bolivarian administration. There has been no policy, measure or law that has not been done in the name of "socialism". Despite its obvious failure (not only in Venezuela but anywhere in the world where they have been implemented), there are still people of good will believe that socialism is still an ideology able to give mankind a better world.

That is why we consistently observed substantial efforts to disseminate the idea that ​​Bolivarian socialism is not the "true socialism" but it is an authoritarian government of the "right" and "liberal" as it leaves the mercy of helplessness its citizens. According to these people the true socialism is in examples such as Brazil and Europe, especially in the case of the Scandinavian countries.

Is beyond the scope of this article to explain why we believe that these assumptions are incorrect and why, as Hayek rightly raised in his time, socialism as a form of thinking is rooted deeply totalitarian.

Coupled with the failure of the Bolivarian administration valiant effort to impose "true socialism" the result is more than obvious: the only way to discredit and oppose the current government without sullying the ideology in which it is believed is attributing to the Bolivarian administration a qualifier against what it truly is. Thus, in unison they Bolivarian administration claims that it is "liberal" and "right".

Such conduct constitutes a gesture of intellectual hypocrisy. Additionally, hinders the study and discussion of political theory in the country, a feature which is now more than ever requires a solid foundation for the formation of future generations.

No doubt those who still believe in socialism in any of its forms have a huge challenge ahead: achieving success doing exactly what they claim to oppose and repeatedly failed. Following this quote attributed to Albert Einstein: "The definition of insanity is to continue doing the same thing and expecting different results."

That challenge, however, can not give rise to abuse and prostitution of language semantics of words. Proponents of liberal culture can not allow vested interests to continue tarnishing socialism around the word "freedom" to pursue the attainment of a single harvest ideas of servitude and slavery. Against this background, keeping quiet is not an option.

Originally published in CEDICE

---

[1] Javier Ocampo López, ¿Qué es el conservatismo colombiano? en José Tomás Esteves,¿Conservadores o liberales? Cuaderno del Centro de Divulgación de Conocimiento Económico No. 72, Caracas, Venezuela, 2000, p.8

[2] Carlos Alberto Montaner ¿Qué significa ser liberal? El cato, publicado el 6 de febrero de 2009. Disponible en: http://www.elcato.org/que-significa-ser-liberal [Consultado en septiembre, 2012] 

We deserve it

We deserve it

" They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Benjamin Franklin

By Andrés F. Guevara B.

I will start from a sad premise: Venezuelans do not deserve freedom. And is that during the pseudo-state established by the Bolivarian socialism, little or nothing has been done to defend the sacred value of liberty.

There are staunch critics of the Bolivarian socialism. I correct. There are staunch critics of the President of the Republic. People criticize him day and night. Often, you may hear that the president is an ignorant, a chatterbox, a continental Santa Claus.

Surprisingly, the gentleman, the much-vaunted and criticized, was superimposed on the most lucid minds of Venezuelan intellectuals. Every analysis has failed to explain how the "ignorant" has more than a decade in power.

The problem, in our view, lies in the fact that people criticize the man but not the system. The chavezcentrismo public opinion has neglected the backbone of the crisis: the historical evidence shows that socialism, in all its aspects, creates doom and misery to the people who adopt it as a system of government.

The chavezcentrismo reflects a harsh reality. Currently, most of the Venezuelan political forces are socialists. For over sixty years, both political parties and the electorate have been adopted as a substrate for their governments ideas of social democracy, social Christianity and, recently, communism.

Faced with this range of options, those who struggle for power can not deny their own ideas. So they claim that Chávez administration it is not socialism, that “true” socialism is what is observed in European countries, with Sweden and Spain as a paragon of dreaming.

There is a terrible cliché that most intellectuals are leftwing. The image of the establisment critical, nested in an air of ineffable knowledge, calls for a "fair world". These intellectuals have created the idea that there are two lefts, and that the world should move toward the moderate left to which they belong.

These intellectuals have legitimized the discourse of Bolivarian socialism. Conscious or not, every time they say that the "plan" employee is wrong, but you must use another "plan", that the State should be the primary guarantor of health, education, labor rights, social rights and a host of clichés, progressive intellectuals tend to legitimize the power structure of Bolivarian socialism.

If there has been a champion of statism that’s the President of the Republic. But his statism did not come from nowhere. It succeeds because the population seconds it. As dogma of faith, now seems indisputable that the “Social” State must intervene in neuralgic areas involved in the life of the individual.

A semantic subtlety. But behind the discourse of intellectuals are hidden enemies of freedom.

It is unfortunate that it is in professional, academic and cultural circles in which these ideas are more widespread. Behind preparation of these educated men, hides the fatal conceit (Hayek) to believe that thanks to their intervention the nation will be saved from its ill-fated destiny. It seems that the higher degree of culture, the greater the degree of belief in big government in Venezuelan intellectuals.

If after sixty years of statism the most prepared in Venezuela continue to believe that interventionism is the solution, what hope is left?

Within the "elite" in Venezuela, almost none. Their privileges, obtained as a result of its proximity to the state, will hardly separate them from their statist conception. They will pray to the gods that Bolivarian revolution succumb to stand up on its ruins as another planner leadership. In the interlude, while they can, they will survive as collaborators.

The only glimmer of light may lie in the poorest. They are who feel must the state power. The poor are who suffer the consequences of statism. If we can settle in the lower strata the idea of freedom, the entrepreneurship over the grant, creation of wealth over the distribution, responsibility over the gift, you may shatter the ideals of the progressive establishment.

This is a complex task. It implies reversing a speech established for decades and, incidentally, supported mainly by those in power to spread ideas. We cling to a quote of Bastiat: "The plans differ, the planners are all alike." Don’t be an accomplice of the underground tyrants.

The sphere of power

The sphere of power

"I know sites of memory,

To give effect to the memory"

Polar ad with Carlos Olivier

By Andres F. Guevara B.

Traditionally, Venezuela has been a pepsicolero country. Unusual distinction, as the main competitor of Pepsi, Coca-Cola, is considered by many as the first beverage company in the world and a Titan in advertisement.

It’s not that Coca-Cola and other soft drinks do not have a significant portion of the Venezuelan market. These data are handled accurately by advertisers, creative and marketing research professionals.

But when it comes to Pepsi in Venezuela, it transcends the liquid and reaches the threshold of public memory. For reasons peculiar to the uniqueness of our country, the life of Venezuelan Pepsi is accompanied by the same way as has been surrounded by traditional brands: Toddy, Fama de America, Savoy, Galletas María Puig, Maizina Americana.

It would be nice to remember the experiences that each individual has lived around these brands. Yes, brands. And all that they imply: consumption, money, marketing, capital, exchange of goods and services with a pricing system. Unfortunately is not that way. You can’t light a reminder when your home is threatened.

In a press release from the agency ABN it was reported that the Mayor of Caracas, a follower of the opinions of the Bolivarian Socialism, upheld the order of removal of the "Pepsi Globe," located in the Tower Plaza Polar Venezuela.

The mayor explained its decision by which presumably the "Pepsi Globe" does not meet the architectural standards and local laws.

It does not take to be a genius to understand the underlying problem. The Bolivarian government, based on a legalistic argument, seeks to eliminate another manifestation of the "global capitalist system" which is to remove remaining traces of the rule of law and individual freedoms.

The government knows that a revolution involves undermining the basis of the previous regime to build a new order.Rousseau clean slate. In this context, the possibility that citizens can see the "Pepsi Globe" at the top of a building poses a threat.

The tragedy of communism in the making is that its end is known beforehand. Poverty, ignorance and brutality. That is the communist GDP. Its legacy.

Pepsi, an American transnational company linked to Polar, the largest private company in Venezuela, are the spearhead of what most abhors Communism: entrepreneurship, free enterprise, improvement of the individual by himself without the crumbs of the State.

Sunk in misery, it will not take much time for the Venezuelans to recall other times. Stages of their life in which to see a native soap opera in prime time did not amount to fetch water in the desert. Periods in which the flour was not a luxury on the shelf and the ability to watch election results did not depend on official state bulletin.

These images are kept inside the memory. Remain there. Nested. Latent. But the government machinery will not rest until burying them to shine the classic iconography of the left.

But let's be fair. Assume the contrary view. Suppose that the "Pepsi Globe" violated the rules of the council. Even in this case, the measure is irrational. Pepsi must be guaranteed the right to defense, to due process. The possibility of going to court and seek an injunction for the realization of the administrative act does not create a detriment to the company. In the worst case, if it were established that the administration was right, would have to assess whether there is a responsibility of the State for the damage done to Pepsi.

Things seem to be a dream. Justice in Venezuela went to a party. The Pepsi Globe is much more than brass painted with colors. It reflects our rainbow of misery.

Pirates from Macaracuay

I remember when I was a child. Venezuela wasn’t a paradise for sure, but there were certain aspects that reminded me that things could be different. For instance, when I was a teenager I memorize how every Friday –an in special occasions or holidays even on Thursdays- I went with my family to the Video Store from Altamira (Video Color Yamín) or Los Palos Grandes (Blockbuster Video) to rent a video game or a movie.

Mostly, I enjoyed Super Nintendo or Nintendo 64 games. My devotion to the PSX came later. And I almost spent my adolescence watching martial arts or action movies. They were all original pieces and despite piracy existed it wasn’t the rule of the Venezuelan market.

Today it is almost impossible to find in Venezuela an original movie or video game. Why? It is because of the technological improvement? No. Because from ten years from now Venezuela is under a regime that doesn’t believe in intellectual property and the own right that the creator has to explode and gain benefits of its own creation.

The population doesn’t realize that the cheaper triumph of piracy implies the failure of their dignity, because the market speaks, yes, and it tells you that Venezuelans do not deserve the original, the quality and the best. Your wages and incomes can’t match the real price of the box set from Amazon or Barnes & Noble. Like a dog bone you must eat a second class copy of everything.

Fifteen years ago the square of Macaracuay –part of the Caracas Baruta’s county- was filled by mountains and trees. Now it seems like an underground Chinese market. The police don’t do anything. How they could? Who’s going to absorb the poor “employee” that is the innocent front page of a deeper and criminal problem?

Wherever you look piracy is abroad. And my fellow citizens seem to accept it in servitude.

Together in Perú

Together in Perú

By Andrés F. Guevara B.

There’s no secret when the time comes to talk about the existence of political prisoners in Venezuela. This circumstance, however, is not the only way in which the opposition to the Bolivarian government manifests the subsistence of many values that have disappeared from our country. Next to the local prisoners, there’s also a brand new tendency of forced disagreement: the exile.

It has been told that the ones that left our country choose such decision by their own possibilities. The government, thus, never pressured anyone to leave Venezuela and say goodbye to their homeland. In consequence, is up to each person to make the decision to leave or stay in Venezuela fighting for democracy or kneeling itself towards tyranny.

This argument, however, constitutes a huge lie. Throughout centuries, history has shown us the reality that the countrymen never leave their own land unless there´s no security that their lives and basic fundamental human rights are going to be guaranteed. The responsibility of these main rights lies in the State. The State is in charge to assure property, police and justice, leaving the individuals managing freedom in other aspects of their lives.

Taking this argument into consideration, a good part of the Venezuelan opposition leaders have been forced to leave Venezuela, as a consequence of their political chasing. It happens that most of them choose Perú as the place for exile. We don’t have anything against this nation; however, should the whole opposition exiled gather in the same place?

Manuel Rosales (former Zulia’s governor), Carlos Ortega (former president of the Venezuelan Workers Confederation), Nixon Moreno (former student leader), among others, are living their exile in Perú.

Each country has its own right to concede or not the condition of asylum. Not every exiled has the condition of asylum. However, it seems that there is a sort of pattern in which every Venezuelan seeking for asylum ends in Perú. By this practice, I believe that there are two consequences at least that could affect the opposition movement internationally.

First, there’s the control aspect. If you stand all together in the same place, there’s the risk that you are going to be watched by the government and you are not going to have the liberty of action in order to manifest you disagreement. It’s pretty hard to control many points of dissidence: Europe, United States, the rest of Latin America. By doing this the government would not be able to “cover the sun with one finger”, as the Venezuelan popular saying states.

Secondly, is important to mention the risk that the Peruvian government is taking in connection with the diplomatic relations with Venezuela. Sooner or later (probably sooner taking into consideration the explosive character of the Venezuelan president) this policy of Perú would lead to an unnecessary conflict with Venezuela. Remember: Venezuela’s isolation will only affect Venezuelans, but will not end the oppression against liberty.

As the Venezuelan government increases repression as the main instrument to assure their permanence in power, more exiled will appear in the front line. It’s our decision to choose wisely how this circumstance may become useful towards the cause of freedom.

1957 The year that Venezuelans lost their fears

Lots of words had been written about the government of Marcos Pérez Jiménez. Many people believe that this administration was the last dictatorship in Venezuelan history. Others consider it as one of the richest and prosperous periods in the country’s record. Putting in one side both points of view there’s something that can’t be denied: January 23 of 1958.

This date marks the end of Perez Jiménez’s regime. At a first glance, we can fall into temptation by simplifying things and convert “January 23” into a merely propagandistic issue. “Democracy triumphed, it was a victory of the people” is the common comment made by the analysts.

But, have we been truly involved in the real meaning of this date in Venezuelan history? This question, according to my judgment, is the one that allows the development of Simon Alberto Consalvi’s “1957 El año en que los venezolanos perdieron el miedo”. This book studies the factors that conducted Venezuela to the date that we all know as “23 de enero de 1958”.

1957 was a year of pronouncements and definitions. Just in the moment when the government modified the Venezuelan oil policies, favoring with new concessions the foreign companies and investors, just in the moment when the government seems to have everything under control, there was a little bird out of cage that represented a huge obstacle: presidential reelection.

According to the Constitution of 1953, Perez Jimenez couldn’t run again for office. Therefore, he prepared a plebiscite that was totally illegal. Suddenly, the society started to wake up from a large period of silence that generated an amazing democratic wall. This democratic spirit is collected by Consalvi in his book.

The author offers a recompilation that shows the most important documents that conducted to “el 23 de enero”. Thus, you may find manifestos of “la Junta Patriótica” together with articles published by Luis Herrera Campíns and Rómulo Gallegos in the exile. Finally the book contains the statements made by several of the principal professional associations that gathered lawyers, doctors, intellectuals and woman from Venezuela, among with the crucial pastoral chart written by Monseñor Arias Blanco.

Inevitably this situation has a kind of parallelism with the year 2007 that Venezuela recently experienced. The constitutional reform would have conducted the country towards a socialist system filled with a doubtful democratic condition. Many people asked if the Venezuelans will loose their fear once again as a consequence of the violation of their freedoms and democracy.

Recent fact seems to forecast a favorable wind to this issue. However, this is a process that is only beginning and it would be risky to establish final conclusions. When we read Consalvi’s book we can find out that there’s always the possibility to learn, and most of all, to understand an event that functions as a motivator of all the believers in freedom and democracy from Venezuela and Latin America.

Venezuela’s 2008 political prognostic

Venezuela’s 2008 political prognostic

By Andrés F. Guevara B. (Tupi)

When we talk about the year 2007 we can say anything but that it wasn’t a relevant period for Venezuela. If we study closely the facts that the country faced during the last year we can conclude that there are several events that were developed such as the start of Chavez’s second presidential period, the closure of the oldest Venezuelan TV channel RCTV, the appearance of new forces in the political field (specially the student movement) and finally we should make reference to the constitutional amendment project that was refused by the people in a voting procedure.

In one statement, we’re in front of a burden year. The big question that follows is: What should we wait from 2008? Taking as base the past image we can say that this year will be a direct consequence of what we lived during 2007. Perhaps, such idea may sound obvious, but isn’t. 2008 will be a year based in a two way path that leads towards democracy or dictatorship, the same conflict that Venezuela is facing for more than a decade.

Without doubt, the biggest loser in this battle is “el chavismo”. After the constitutional reform was rejected (even when the government tries to make us believe that such defeat wasn’t that great) two forces emerged. The defeated was no other than the radical socialism, the Marxist-Leninist extreme left-wing follower, the socialist proposal that threats human rights, the individual being, property.

When more than a half of the country (according to the results given by the National Electoral Council until this date) refuses a “vision of nation” by democratic ways, the ones who gave life to that proposal are in a great hurry. “How we can push forward this project?” is the question that now the government leaders make to themselves in order to consecrate a new way of life for Venezuela.

Thus, the only way to establish socialism in Venezuela is through the violation of the State of Law, still more shamelessly than the project of constitutional reform presented in 2007.

That will be the main axis on which it will turn the 2008: to implant the socialism of century XXI in a “de facto” way. It is not that in the last years the government hasn’t been doing this, but this year will be more obvious. There’s now a necessity of political survival that didn’t exist in the past, and if there is something certain is that the Venezuelan government can deal with anything but not with democracy, because it constitutes the greatest venom for authoritarian desires. Remember: the government has the sun to his backs.

The 2008 will come accompanied by the flagrant violation of the 1999 Constitution. This chart will be molded like a piece of kindergartens plastiline to create deformed figures. The evils well-known will extend: greater corruption, increase of the fiscal expenditure, missed oil policies… In one phrase: economic chaos. Like a watchmaker who knows exactly when the second marker approaches the completed hour, within some months the government will lament the policy of monetary reconversion, false proposal that masks the inflation that will come.

We shouldn’t talk about the foreign policy. The tense relations with countries that traditional and necessarily are strategic partners will bring terrible consequences. The “freezing” (neologism in the terminology of diplomacy) of relations with Colombia and Spain cannot bring worse auguries. The isolation, as it’s has been demonstrated through out history, does not take to anything but to desolation. The civilizations that were opened to commerce and to the world are those that have been most prosperous: Phoenicians, Romans, Carthaginians, English, Americans. It is not just luck that the Asian countries (traditionally isolated societies against the Barbarians of the West) have become wide open to the world, generating power and growth.

In the matter of recovering spaces of participation, the 2008 will be a crucial year for the opposition as a result of the municipal and regional elections. The key of success will be in the respect of leaderships and not their imposition. Most of all the unity sense.

If the opposition goes divided to the elections will be defeated. The governmental machinery, still debilitated, does not have to be taken lightly, because limitless resources of the State are behind, watching and waiting to take advantage of the smallest mistake.

What comes appears, as minimum, interesting. Those who think that this year in Venezuela will be filled by linearity are wrong. If 2007 was characterized by democratic conquers, 2008 shows up as stage of consolidation. Therefore, the battle will be taken to new spaces. The government, however, blindly focused in the imposition of the process based in socialism will not rest and will not give easily that power that pretends to keep everlastingly. Will this desire surpass the democratic and libertarian wall made by the society? The answer we will live it in the next months.