Progressives Should Oppose the Chavistas

Feb 28 2014
I fell in love with Venezuela when I read 'Green Mansions' as a kid and my visit for business in 2012 reinforced that love. The people I met were generous, open, uncluttered by phoniness and extremely desirous to get opportunity to succeed.

It is a beautiful country. From the valley floor in Caracas you can take a tram to the top of the highest mountain that over looks the city, and from the tram you can hear the monkeys in the trees just below chattering. Its jungles to the south, near Brazil, hold the Yanomamo, maybe, (in the 1960s) the last true primitive people. The Caracas valley sits in the perfect balance between the briskness of the mountains and the warmth of the equator. The city was founded in 1567. 


In the election of October 2012, about 49% of the people voted for the opposition candidate, (plus or minus – the totals were disputed) Henrique Capriles Radonski, a center-left progressive economist former mayor of a suburb of Caracas. He vowed to pursue market friendly economic policies combined with income re-distribution. He is committed to the fair play that is required for democracy and that differentiates him from the Chavistas.

The best rebuttal to the protesters against the Chavistas and those like me who support those protesters is that Radonski lost the election, therefore the results should be respected. However – when human rights are severely violated, property is seized without legal authority, or by authority that is so rigged as to make it illegitimate in the eyes of reason, then it is not unreasonable to take to the streets and demand reform. 

Maduro is committed to 'a road' (as in 'the Socialist Road') not a plan. As a former bus driver I suppose that is natural for him. The policies of the Chavistas are more slogans than practical proposals to solve the countries problems. Rodonski would have had access to the kind of left-center administrative talent that could actually make a positive economic difference to Venezuela's impoverished  communities – which are to be clear incredibly poor and primitive. The slums built on muddy hills overlooking Caracas go on seemingly forever, with no services, physical or otherwise. 

I don't think anyone who calls themselves a 'progressive' should support the Chavistas. This isn't the 1930s. Politics is not as black and white as it used to seem to be. American (or rather U.S.) indifference is now more of a threat to countries like Venezuela than U.S. imperialism.

 The Chavistas have many similarities to Mussolini's Fascists, in that they use intimidation and thug tactics to remain in power. By not controlling the civil violence (not pursuing justice against murderers) they keep every one else an extreme state of personal stress. There were over 24,000 homicides in Venezuela (pop 30 million) last year. In the U.S. (pop 300 million) there were about 18,000 murders. That level of violence is almost the equivalent to a state of siege. The police are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chavistas, as are the courts. 

You can not expect people to not respond politically.  The protesters are demonstrating vociferously against that 'state of siege' and against other actions that seriously depress the whole of Venezuela's economy. I think all Progressives should realize that “Fascist Redistribution” is more Fascist than it is socialist. But I know labels such as 'fascist' are misappropriated all the time. At this stage of history all words are loaded and have been used for too long, by too many to not be easy to misuse. But if it acts like a duck etc. I have no problems with 'Double Think' on that issue.