Home > How is socialism bad when it helps those who need it most?

How is socialism bad when it helps those who need it most?

by Open-Publishing - Wednesday 4 January 2006
8 comments

Governments USA South/Latin America Mary MacElveen

by Mary MacElveen

There are times where the good news coming from Venezuela is overshadowed by those closely monitoring what weapons have been purchased by the Chavez administration, or how he will interact with Bolivia’s president-elect Evo Morales.

In my opinion both are treated by those who oppose President Chavez as if the sky were falling in.

The opposition, both in America and in Venezuela, should sit down and take a deep breath.

Some are alarmed at President Chavez’ fire-in-the-belly use of words ... but that is to be expected of a Leo ... since we share the same birthday, I too am guilty of using such forceful words.

I believe that why people in Washington, D.C. ... and those who oppose President Chavez in Venezuela ... are against him is that he is does not come from a wealthy background but one of comparative poverty. He is not a member of the "Billionaires Boys Club" and has a better understanding how the poor live.

While I am in no way poor, but rather part of the middle class, I am increasingly aware that Bush does not have a clue as to how I and millions of others live life’s realities ... but leaders such as President Chavez do, and for once, we have a world leader who understands.

The best leaders often come from the same humble backgrounds as those they were elected to serve. Elitists such as Bush are often seen in the company of power-brokers or they are off raising funds for upcoming campaigns instead of attending to the people’s business.

But, that is the nature of the beast here in America.

Even if, by some miracle, an elected official here in the states does come from humble beginnings he or she is forced to feed the beast or be destroyed by their opposition.

So, what is the good news coming from Venezuela that no one is speaking of? According to Bloomberg: "Venezuela’s economy grew 9.4% in 2005 as President Hugo Chavez boosted government spending and increased subsidies for the South American country’s poor."

So much for the sky is falling scenario. A socialist leader ... or "leftist" leader as the American media loves to portray him ... increased subsidies. I can almost hear Washington and the opposition in Venezuela howling at this one.

President Chavez must be doing something right since: "Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of a country’s production of goods and services, expanded for a ninth quarter in the October-to-December period."

Who says that those on the left cannot handle an economy? This proves the opposite.

According to Morgan Harting, an analyst with Fitch Ratings in New York: "There are many signs that the economy is growing briskly.’’ He then went on to add: "Government spending is rising and many of the funds are being transferred directly to social programs, whose recipients tend to spend as soon as soon as they receive the funds.’’

If you are an American reading this, you may remember the first Bush tax cuts where many received paltry checks ... those checks were issued in hope of stimulating the economy, but that never came to fruition. People tended to save those checks for a rainy day and it has been raining cats and dogs for a long time for many Americans.

As funds in Venezuela are being transferred into social programs, just recently here in America, funds to many social programs have been cut.

How is socialism bad when it helps those who need it most?

I would like to ask that of the Venezuelan opposition ... why would you oppose helping your fellow Venezuelans?

Since oil accounts for half of Venezuela’s revenue and, as reported by Bloomberg, the price has increased from US$23 dollars a barrel to $45.33: If the revenue is going back into the hands of the people through the funding of social programs, I would say this is a good thing.

Also reported: "Exports for the year rose 43% to $55.6 billion from $38.7 billion in 2004. Oil exports rose 51% to $48.3 billion from $31.9 billion." I would say to the American consumer, or whoever purchases CITGO gas, to continue to do so. At least the profits are used for the people in Venezuela ... our American oil companies, while making a hefty profit, pocket them and share them with already rich shareholders.

According to Harting he stated that the economic growth was: "somewhat higher figure than our forecast.’’ I bet you anything that Washington was betting that President Chavez would fail miserably in handing the economy. Their statement would have been: ’See socialism does not work.’ Perhaps spending Venezuela’s money wisely is how this economic expansion occurred.

You did not see President Chavez funding an immoral war and spending his country’s capital to help companies like Halliburton.

Speaking of how to spend a country’s capital ... and this is directed to the Venezuelan opposition ... it has now been reported that this (USA) government will not be funding the rebuilding of Iraq after we bombed it. People such as Maria Corina Machado should be ashamed of themselves for cozying up to the likes of Bush, and I do hope that SUMATE sees just how destructive this Bush administration is. Bush spent US$ billions of America’s capital and we will not be able to afford rebuilding this war torn country, Iraq.

According to the UK Guardian: "The Bush administration has scaled back its ambitions to rebuild Iraq from the devastation wrought by war and dictatorship and does not intend to seek new funds for reconstruction."

First of all, the only dictator that I see in this picture is Bush.

So while the US also shifted funds to build 10 new prisons to keep pace with the insurgency, those funds will be taken away from restoring the "electricity grid and sewage and sanitation system."

This is capitalism at its finest, folks.

The Pentagon stated: "The US never intended to completely rebuild Iraq" and then went onto say: "This was just supposed to be a jump-start." I would have to once again agree on how President Chavez has labeled Bush as "Mr. Danger" ... to go in and bomb a guiltless people then not to restore their country ... the world should label Bush as "The Terminator."

So, when people see President Hugo Chavez meeting with Bolivia’s president-elect Evo Morales to discuss the direction of their respective countries, my message is the sky is not falling and Venezuela’s economic growth proved that fact.

You see under socialism it is indeed possible to thrive and not merely survive.

Mary MacElveen

mary@vheadline.com

http://www.vheadline.com/MacElveen

Forum posts

  • Very nice article. Full of truth. You say "Bush does not have a clue as to how I and millions of others live life’s realities." Reminds me of his daddy when he was Prez. Went into a supermarket and was amazed that they had a scanner to read prices. Didn’t realize there was such technology. A total disconnect from real people.

  • Mary has several flawed points here. First, the US government has expressed concern over the threats to democracy posed by Chavez. Indeed, international observers issued a negative report on the fairness of the last election. Other than that, you can’t count on more than two fingers the number of times Bush has mentioned Chavez in a public speech in 5 years. By contrast, Chavez launches a daily barrage against America using insulting and threatening language, which is completely disrespectful of our country. So, you know Mary, when someone insults you publicly, you’re less inclined to want to work with them. Who is really instigating all the conflict here, Mary?

    Second, many of the U.S. government policies would be considered socialist. 80% of the U.S. budget is spent on entitlement programs that help the poor and elderly and provide free education to America’s children. Chavez seems completely unaware of this, but he simply believes that more government intervention is required, and at Venezuela’s current level of development, he could be right. America’s poverty rate is 10% and has held steady there for decades. So, we don’t need as much government intervention to fight poverty as a country where 50% of the citizens live below the poverty line.

    Marxist socialism has been proven a failure after 70 years of brutal repression and dictatorship in Russia and Eastern Europe that left the citizens of those countries as virtual prisoners. The ONLY places where pure socialism has worked are countries that have 1. A huge trade surplus 2. Complete control of their borders. Kuwait is a good example of this and a few Northern European countries, but even Sweden is struggling lately with a mass exodous of their young people.

    America has neither of these two critieria at the moment, so socialism would not work here. We need a more market-based economy but at the same time, we spend a helluva lot of money on "socialist" programs.

    My point here is that the differences propogated by the Chavez’s of the world are greatly exaggerated. America is a compassionate country that helps poor people all over the world

    • 205/106 I have observed a number of flaws in your response to Mary. I note that you ask 8 questions, I will offer answers to 4 if your still interested I will deal with the others at your request.

      1) Venezuela is not a Marxist or socialist country

      In a nation in which 80% of the people are poor by any measure
      And since he took office, the private sector is a larger percent of the total economy than before his election,
      A key provision of the new constitution (in Articles 83 - 85) mandated quality health care as a "fundamental social right and...responsibility of the state...to guarantee it...to improve the quality of life and common welfare." It proposed doing it by establishing and administering a national public health system proscribed from being privatized.
      In 2004 it had raised the literacy rate to an impressive 99% of the population having so far enrolled nearly 1.4 million people, nearly 1.3 of whom have successfully completed the program. In the Americas, only Venezuela and Cuba have virtually eliminated illiteracy. In the U.S., the Department of Education estimates that over 20% of the population is functionally illiterate.

      Why does Chavez have problems and speaks badly of the USA here’s a few reasons

      THE USA was the only country to officially recognized the Coup for 30 hours or so before being chastised by member countries of the OAS.

      International Development (USAID). These agencies, in turn, provided funding to Chavez opposition groups (USAID through its Office of Transition Initiatives - OTI) which, in turn, were involved in staging the mass and violent street protests leading up to and on the day of the coup. NED and USAID also funded other destabilizing activities such as the crippling oil strike in late 2002 and 2003 and the August, 2004 recall referendum that failed to unseat the President. The documents Golinger obtained clearly showed the U.S. State Department, National Security Agency and White House had full knowledge of these activities and must have approved of them.

      The referendum was certified by the OAS and the Carter Center.

      The decision of four opposition parties in Venezuela to withdraw from elections this weekend raises important questions for the media. It is clear to anyone familiar with the situation that this is an attempt to discredit the election, by parties that (according to opposition polling) were indisputably expected to do very badly in the election. This is despite their control over the majority of the broadcast and print media in Venezuela, as well as most of the country’s national income and wealth.

      4) You state that the U.S. is a "compassionate country" My brief research from unclassified documents concerning only LATIN and SOUTH AMERICAN COUNTRIES questions this hypothesis in this way:

      1954: Guatemala
      CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup

      1959: Haiti
      The U.S. military helps "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of Haiti

      1961: The Bay of Pigs
      The CIA sends 1,500 Cuban exiles to invade Castro’s Cuba. But "Operation Mongoose
      Dominican Republic

      The CIA assassinates Rafael Trujillo, a murderous dictator Washington has supported since 1930. Trujillo’s business interests have grown so large (about 60 percent of the economy) that they have begun competing with American business interests.

      Ecuador
      The CIA-backed military forces the democratically elected President Jose Velasco to resign.

      1963: Dominican Republic
      The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Juan Bosch in a military coup.

      Ecuador
      A CIA-backed military coup overthrows President Arosemana, whose independent (not socialist) policies have become unacceptable to Washington. A military junta assumes command, cancels the 1964 elections, and begins abusing human rights

      1964: Brazil
      A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the democratically elected government of Joao Goulart

      Dominican Republic
      A popular rebellion breaks out, promising to reinstall Juan Bosch as the country’s elected leader. The revolution is crushed when U.S. Marines land to uphold the military regime by force. The CIA directs everything behind the scenes.

      1969: Uruguay
      The notorious CIA torturer Dan Mitrione arrives in Uruguay, a country torn with political strife. Whereas right-wing forces previously used torture only as a last resort, Mitrione convinces them to use it as a routine, widespread practice. "The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect," is his motto. The torture techniques he teaches to the death squads rival the Nazis’. He eventually becomes so feared that revolutionaries will kidnap and murder him a year later

      1971: Bolivia
      After half a decade of CIA-inspired political turmoil, a CIA-backed military coup overthrows the leftist President Juan Torres. In the next two years, dictator Hugo Banzer will have over 2,000 political opponents arrested without trial, then tortured, raped and executed

      1973: Chile
      The CIA overthrows and assassinates Salvador Allende, Latin America’s first democratically elected socialist leader. (The new leader will be woman the daughter of the man murdered by Pinochet !) Henry Kissinger played the lead role and is afraid of going to a number of European countries where he would be tried as a mass murdered...mostly pertaining to Laos, and Cambodia
      THE DATE OF THIS OVERTHROW MADE IT "THE FIRST 911" Sept 11, 1973, interesting and coincidently more than 3000 people disappeared as well.

      "Inside the Company"
      Philip Agee publishes a diary of his life inside the CIA. Agee has worked in covert operations in Latin America during the 60s, and details the crimes in which he took part

      Nicaragua
      Anastasios Samoza II, the CIA-backed dictator, falls. The Marxist Sandinistas take over government, and they are initially popular because of their commitment to land and anti-poverty reform. Samoza had a murderous and hated personal army called the National Guard. Remnants of the Guard will become the Contras, who fight a CIA-backed guerrilla war against the Sandinista government throughout the 1980s

      1980: El Salvador
      The Archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar Romero, pleads with President Carter "Christian to Christian" to stop aiding the military government slaughtering his people. Carter refuses. Shortly afterwards, right-wing leader Roberto D’Aubuisson has Romero shot through the heart while saying Mass. The country soon dissolves into civil war, with the peasants in the hills fighting against the military government. The CIA and U.S. Armed Forces supply the government with overwhelming military and intelligence superiority. CIA-trained death squads roam the countryside, committing atrocities like that of El Mazote in 1982, where they massacre between 700 and 1000 men, women and children. By 1992, some 63,000 Salvadorans will be killed

      1983: Honduras
      The CIA gives Honduran military officers the Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual - 1983, which teaches how to torture people. Honduras’ notorious "Battalion 316" then uses these techniques, with the CIA’s full knowledge

      Iran/Contra Scandal
      Although the details have long been known, the Iran/Contra scandal finally captures the media’s attention in 1986. Congress holds hearings, and several key figures (like Oliver North) lie under oath to protect the intelligence community US mines harbours International Court uphold charge

      1989: Panama
      The U.S. invades Panama to overthrow a dictator of its own making, General Manuel Noriega. Noriega has been on the CIA’s payroll since 1966, and has been transporting drugs with the CIA’s knowledge since 1972. By the late 80s, Noriega’s growing independence and intransigence have angered Washington. So out he goes

      1990: Haiti
      Competing against 10 comparatively wealthy candidates, leftist priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide captures 68 percent of the vote. After only eight months in power, however, the CIA-backed military deposes him. Overthrown again last year by US, France and Canada as main instigators

      SOME COMPASSION !!!

      cheers, jt

    • Well, JT, that’s because you only look at one side of the coin. I could list several dozen US or US-backed initiatives going on in South America (both public and private) that are helping the poor and sick of the region. Having witnessed Honduran relief first-hand, I can tell you the American response to the suffering there was massive. We sent so much stuff down there they couldn’t get it all unloaded fast enough off the ships.

      Many of the CIA nefarious activities, (and we have made serious blunders there) were in response to the Soviet prescence, which you completely discount. Fidel and his Soviet allies were wreaking havoc in South America during the Cold War, attempting to turn the entire region into Eastern Europe. So, faced with this threat, America had to respond. I notice you give no space or condemnation to the Soviets or hold them accountable for the considerable body count they racked up in South America.

      As for Chavez, well isn’t he himself a former coup-monger? South American countries have had a history of coups for the past hundred years or so, and America is not to blame for the instablity there. If Chavez policies can pull the poor of his country out of poverty then that’s a good thing. My problem is he wants to destroy (and he’s used the word destroy many times) the system that is working just fine in my country. America has a system that works for the majority of it’s citizens. If Venezuelans want a different system — that’s fine. All we ask is that you respect our different path.

    • 70/158

      I’m pleased you dropped in to share your comments and join the discussion. Before I deal with them I offer the following personal information. I have been studying history serious since I was 20 years old (1956) I have lived in the USA off and on for over 4 years in Latin America for 6.
      I have family who have immigrated to your country. I correspond regularly with friends and acquaintances in the various countries I have lived.
      I am not Anti-American but definitely Anti many US Gov. Foreign Policies of which I have extensive in depth knowledge coupled with personal experience. I belong to no political party but a few times I have voted The Green Party.

      When you witnessed the Honduran relief (of which I applaud) first -hand where you able to get into the areas of the Indigenous Peoples lands. I have heard directly and watched a CBC documentary showing people still traumatized (see 1983: Honduras above) and refused the army entry. I have found memories last long south of the border even in Mexico.

      I have often seen the word ‘nefarious’ and used it on occasion myself, never having previously checked the dictionary this is what I found: Crime–Transgression–Infamously Being Extremely Wicked. When you use it, in relationship to the CIA you do so with this definition in mind ?
      My understanding of the CIA is that it reports directly to the President, has a massive budget but for ‘security reasons’ can never be disclosed along with other tasks.. If you check my list I think you might reasonably conclude its primarily task is to serve US economic interests and that it supports dictators or eliminates elected governments as its primary function when those interests are seen to be threatened. ( most students of US history start with The Monroe Doctrine)

      I am familiar with J Edgar Hoovers inside spies substantial financial contributions in supporting and developing the CPUSA. You do recall the witch hunts of Joe McCarthy, a nightmare for you country internally, internationally very embarrassing to your allies. Even JFK got sucked in to this state of hysteria.. Many friends of the USA today see uncomfortably parallels in the GWOT..

      Georgetown University and others specializing in history looking retrospectively agree that the anti-communistic rhetoric was primarily used to misled events which were popular, secular, independent and populist movements. That is not to say that the FBI and Soviet Spies did not enjoy a lot of fun in the sun, but evidence of actual financial support from the USSR has been extremely difficult to come by. This is not the case in Africa or the Middle East however during the cold war.

      I have found American citizens generous and the poorer the more so especially in LA &SA. However the misperception of US Government generosity is at odds with the stats:

      On that league table, the US ranks twenty-second of the 22 most developed nations. As former President Jimmy Carter commented: ’We are the stingiest nation of all’. Denmark is top of the table, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the US manages just 0.1%. The United Nations has long established the target of 0.7% GDP for development assistance, although only four countries actually achieve this: Denmark, 1.01%; Norway, 0.91%; the Netherlands, 0.79%; Sweden, 0.7%. Apart from being the least generous nation, the US is highly selective in who receives its aid. Over 50% of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share eg 5 billion a year.
      http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/hateamerica.html#Foreign_Aid
      The chap who runs this site appears very rational and has collected information for his fellow country men so they may get a glimpse of how the world actually views you, the facts again are at odds with mainstream media and TV tales, sound bites and photo ops.

      I might add that military and social aid monies for southern countries is almost equal in amount.

      The Center for Media and Democracy has an excellent report on US Policy from 1975 to the present on the countries we are discussing—Plan Condor it may be found at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Plan_Condor

      “ Coup mongers” yes for Chavez and not a rationalization from me but you might wish to refer to the events with led up to his action, mass protests and slaughter of demonstrators;
      The clearest consequence of the caracazo was political instability. The free-market reforms programme was modified. In 1992 there were two attempted coups d’état, in February and November. Carlos Andrés Pérez was accused of corruption and removed from the presidency. Hugo Chávez, an organiser of one of the coups, was found guilty of sedition and incarcerated. However, he was subsequently pardoned by Pérez’s successor.

      In 1998, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights condemned the government’s action, and referred the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. In 1999, the Court heard the case and found that the government had committed violations of human rights, including extrajudicial killings. The Venezuelan government, by then headed by Chávez, did not contest the findings of the case, and accepted full responsibility for the government’s actions.
      Are you aware that Chavez upon becoming president put in the first recall act for a government. No country north or south enjoys such an opportunity to boot out a Gov after 2 yrs in office.

      I believe that Citgo gas being delivered to poor folks in the US may well be a political stunt but it puts pressure on the biggest profits ever for the US oil corporations perhaps to reciprocate if for no other reason than PR, and that must be a good thing.

      I think Venezuela respects your path, what they don’t respect is neoliberalism which has further improvise all poor countries. I watched in Mexico 1 million subsistence farmers driven from the land because they could not compete with the highly subsidized US Agra Corps under NAFTA.
      Canada to a lesser but still significant degree than theUS relies on our present explotative economic model to pollute and consume to such unimaginable degrees.

      I am also appalled that Canada joined the US and France and overthrew the government of Haiti and refuse to acknowledge this act. I am not happy that we supply the majority of small arms munition and depleted uranium etc etc the illusion that we are peacemakers is getting to be a bit of a stretch perhaps powder monkey fits well for us as the poodle image does for Blair.

      Poverty in Canada and the US is a full blown disgrace denial is a state of reality we really share.

      Canada and America do great things but when we don’t few can touch us for failure in the following extracted comment from an article intended to confront those of us who might believe we are Gods gift to humanity

      ”From 1945 to 2005, the United States attempted to overthrow 50 governments, many of them democracies, and to crush 30 popular movements fighting tyrannical regimes. In the process, 25 countries were bombed, causing the loss of several million lives and the despair of millions more."
      http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0107-29.htm

      cheers, jt

    • NAFTA created job losses in America too — every side took a hit and benefited at the same time from the trade agreement. the "neoliberal" policies Latinos complain so much about are the same ones that are fueling unbelievable economic growth in China and India. Funny, you don’t hear them complaining about the global economy too much. Same rules — different result.

      Latin America, despite the "revolutionary" mantra of Chavez, has already had leftist governments who failed as miserably as a more market-centered. Fidel Castro is a complete failure by any measure you want to use and especially morally. Ask the Cubans living in Florida about what his regime did to their family.

      It’s laughable to suggest the Russians weren’t active players in the region, along with Castro’s enthusiastic assistance. After all, what was Che Guevara doing on Bolivia anyway — that’s right fomenting violent revolution.

      Chavez will not solve the problems of the region with socialism. The problems are mostly cultural that have nothing to do with the economic model. Mexican families, for example, simply don’t place the same priority on education as Western families do. This is a fact, and it puts Mexico at a huge disadvantage. With China offering cheap unskilled labor AND highly skilled cheap labor Mexico and indeed many latin american countries are losing jobs that would be going to them to the Chinese. So, China is a far bigger threat to the region than "neoliberal" America. We really don’t have to trade with or build plants there — we can go to India and China.

      Morales promises that state ownership of resources is the answer. Tell that to the Mexicans and Iranians and Iraqi’s for that matter. Why hasn’t state ownership worked in their coutries? Iran has enormous wealth pouring into the counrty — and appalling levels of poverty. Socialism is a very expensive model and few countries have even remotely succeeded in making it work. Again, I lay out the two criteria: 1. Massive trade surplus (which Canada enjoys) 2. Tight control of the borders (which Canada does not do — hence there’s still significant poverty there)

      Yo didn’t convince me but good debate

    • If you have acquired one small bit of new information I’m happy.

      cheers, jt