Charges against Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez have been leveled for years. These include, “Chavez has won a loyal following among the poor through multibillion-dollar social programs including subsidized food, free university education and cash benefits for single mothers. " Shocking crimes against humanity, right? Almost up to the Abu Ghraib level. And now that nasty Chavez is talking about, gasp, nationalizing the oil leases of Exxon-Mobil. Where will this madman stop? You can almost see Bush getting out his road map and squinting down at it, tracing the route through Mexico. Wrong turn there, Georgie, that is the way to Canada. Think towards your non-extradition hide out in Paraguay.
The quote continued, "Chavez insists he is a democrat and will continue to respect private property - though he has boosted state control over the oil industry and has said he might nationalize utilities.”
As Jon Stewart and other prominent American critics point to Venezuela and the actions of Hugo Chavez, re-elected by an overwhelming majority to the office of President, accusations that Chavez is, gasp, horrors, a socialist, also abound.
Ignorance is so exasperating, especially from those who should know better. Chavez himself makes this mistake, using the dreaded“S” word. How could they all be so wrong? But wrong they are. Chavez is not a socialist, but socialists lurk all across the United States and it is time to expose them.
Let's begin by defining our terms. What is a socialist? Thanks to the Internet, this is a question easily answered.
“An "economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class. In practice, such a distribution of wealth is achieved by social ownership of the means of production, exchange and diffusion." (7)
The programs provided to poor Venezuelans are funded through income generated through the Venezuela Petroleum Corporation, a corporation owned by that nation. Venezuela nationalized the petroleum industry in the mid 70s, long before Hugo Chavez had anything to say in the matter. The programs he provides pay for education, housing, subsidies on food for the poor, and aid to single mothers. The list may strike you as familiar; America funds similar programs, the difference being that here they are funded through the seizure of private property through taxation. Is America therefore a socialist state? The short answer is yes, we are – though we carefully disguise this fact through rhetorical flights of fancy that employ the images of a free people who are still handling social needs locally. We all actually know that these programs were seized by the Federal Government beginning in the 1920s and then the taxes collected explicitly to fund such programs as Social Security were cheerfully converted to making the State even bigger and more oppressive. The term for this is Bait and Switch. Those who have encountered con men before will understand.
What Chavez is doing in Venezuela is not socialism. He is taking the money generated from something no one earned and using it to improve the condition of those who otherwise would continue to exist in poverty. This is artful use of found money. The oil will not last but the benefits of education and better infrastructure will last, lifting Venezuela out of the condition that has existed since Europeans arrived to begin grabbing and selling off their resources.
The source of the money matters. Today Alaskans receive money from the State of Alaska as a share of the money generated by the Alaskan oil production. Is Alaska a socialist state? No, because it is found money shared out as those in the State agree is best.
The definition of socialism hinges on the source of the wealth. It is not socialism when the property is 'found' and not the product of those who happen to be in possession. Private property is that property that is the creation of an individual using their energy, intelligence, and innovation. Such property is justly earned when it is acquired without deceit, manipulation or violence. Property not justly earned is stolen, by definition. No one who knows the history of the oil industry can have any illusions about how their wealth was acquired. All oil is stolen property, pretty much.
Naturally, as a life-long Republican and Libertarian I am opposed to socialism, but this is not socialism. It looks like spending the money on one good, services for poor Venezuelans, instead of other potential goods, for instance secreting the money in a Swiss bank account or buying their own private islands. Hugo Chavez was duly elected as CEO of this country; it is difficult to see why it is any concern to anyone else; the people of other nations do not owe us an explanation of what they do with their own resources.
Additionally Chavez reportedly is investing significant R & D money to ensure that an alternative to the use of oil becomes available to Venezuelans so they will not be caught up short. Hard to argue with this kind of forward thinking.
The oil was under that chunk of real estate before anyone now living was there; before they were never HUMAN. But as individuals who live on specific pieces of land we all understand that living someplace may bring hazards or rewards for which we are not responsible. Naturally occurring events are defined by insurance companies as, “Acts of God.” Living in Pompeii in A. D. 79 turned out to be hazardous. Living in an area that experiences subsidence due to the extraction of the underlying reservoir of oil may also prove to be hazardous but a human element of causality has been introduced. We know that oil is a naturally occurring substance. Extracting it from the layers of the Earth in which it is found may have a long term impact not now understood and subsidence of the land covering it is always a possibility. Its extraction is cheap; selling it turned small bands of Arabs without two camels to rub together into an international power, all through the accident of location. However, location, occupying the land where the oil is being extracted, does make those living there vulnerable to the potential problems of subsidence, toxic spills, and potential incineration, for instance if the oil blows up, which has been known to happen.
Curiously enough, those living there, for instance in Venezuela before that industry was confiscated by the government, benefited least from the presence of the potentially harmful oil being extracted. As a matter of tradition we observe the practice of ceding control of resources to those with a valid claim on the land where those resources are located or, at their option, to the government who orders the business of the people who entrust them with governing. The oil therefore seems to belong to all of the people who live in Venezuela although for a good long time only a small percentage of those people were allowed to profit from its presence. Should those who got the lion's share for so long make restitution? Probably. But that is up to those involved. Perhaps other residents of Saudi Arabia should take note of this curious oversight.
If someone is going to assert a right to profit from pumping oil, which arguably belongs to everyone occupying the land under which the oil sits, then you would think that those individuals would recognize an obligation to ensure that those who do not profit would not pay the costs of potential liabilities, such as having their children incinerated by faulty piping necessitated by the transport of such oil, as in the case of Koch Industries. But in fact those who are most likely to profit from pumping out oil are likely to demand that those in power, for instance Congress, cancel any potential liability if damage is done. In America, oil companies often pay those in Congress to zero out their potential liabilities, for instance in the case of the Liquid Natural Gas they are so eager to import.
Responsible capitalism and private property means accepting full liability for costs extracted from those who do not directly benefit from profits. Alabama recently received a 3.5 billion dollar judgment against Mobil-Exxon for diddling on royalty payments. Presumably, if a corporation can be held liable for cheating in its bookkeeping it should be liable for other damages even to the full extent of the damages done.
Melinda Pillsbury-Foster is the author of GREED: The NeoConning of America and A Tour of Old Yosemite. The former is a novel about the lives of the NeoCons with a strong autobiographical component. The latter is a non-fiction book about her father and grandfather.
Ms. Pillsbury-Foster has been active in politics since the Goldwater Campaign. She left the Republican Party to join and become active in the Libertarian Party in 1973, working as an activist and party officer until she left the Libertarian Party in 1988 when she returned to the Republican Party and became active in the National Federation of Republican Women.
She is also the the founder of the the Arthur C. Pillsbury Foundation
with 'isms' and using oxymorons like ' responsible capitalism' , the article is right to the point: GW and his cronies are not even the followwrs of capitalist dogma-they are SOBs at power and do not represent any class. But.. I have mentioned before and I am insisiting that 'isms' do not matter and please, folks, stop playing with something people went through and discarded after miuch death and suffering. The US is the only country in the wolrd who still plays with definitions: we picked up the Jumanji books and play with them while all the world is already enlightened: there are no ideologies in reality- they are the tools of the powerful. Capitalism as a way of life as way as Socialism as way of life are religions, as such as much ephemeric as other religions are, being the tools of the big shots. What does exist is strive to power and His Majesty the Chance. If they both coincide in a good man or in a good group ( by that I mean a certain group which pursues not just greed) people are lucky. Otherwise they are screwed.
That simple. Hey, in all fairness Liberitarians exist but the 'ism' of theirs does not- their principles of non - intrusive govt are the principles of ' we want to screw the people ourselves whenever possible and do not share with anyone'. This is not to insuilt- just to state that people do not change when they follow certain movements- they just change hats.
That is , of course with best wishes.
by
Mark Sashine (55 articles, 19 quicklinks, 256 diaries, 3701 comments)
on Friday, May 18, 2007 at 6:58:41 AM
Tim, you are absolutely right. Hugo Chavez was duly elected by the people. The only reason the extreme mainstream right wing media and GWB are concerned about Venezuela is because of corporate big money interests. The CIA was involved in a coop to overthrow Chavez and the people prevailed. Religious leaders here called for his assasination. If our leaders were as interested in equality here in the U.S.A. we wouldn't be in the situation that we're in today.
by
Ron McCallie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 74 comments)
on Friday, May 18, 2007 at 1:03:37 PM
About 50 years ago, when I was only 34 years old and had learned that neither governments nor corporations existed and functioned by any guidelines that made the least bit of ethical sense, I was fortuynate enough to learn of Henry George, Silvio Gesell, Frederic Bastiat, A. J. Noch, Dr. Julius Hensel, and a few other forward-thinking individuals with visions ahead of their times.
At 84 years of age, I've moved to Costa Rica with my 91-year-old wife, to do some sociological and agronomical research to see if I can make a contribution to keeping this planet livable.
After that as an introduction, I have two questions which you may be willing to answer for me. 1) Have you read the major books of the men I named above? and 2) are you willing to enter into a discussion by email of what I've worked out during the last 50 yers that shows what governments should be (including a very precise definition of what 'socialism' is and is not by definitions of classical political economy?) and a step-by-step practical plan to get us there?
Hoping I will hear from you, I remain convinced of the possibility of having worldwide Peace and Plenty by twnenty-twenty.
Bill Manning, lsgift@gmail.com
by
billmanning (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Friday, May 18, 2007 at 6:55:34 PM
Capitalism or Socialism, that is the question. Or is it.
I too have begun to feel uncomfotable with this -ism vs. that -ism. But first about Chavez. I had a friend in college in the 70's who's father was a large land owner in Peru. He tried to convince me that transition in South America must include socialism of some form. He did his best to describe the situation as he was growing up. The situation was feudal. Peons worked on his father's land and retained a percent of what they grew, (say his father got 60%, the peon 40%, perhaps the proportions were different). His father supported the villages, providing seed, equipment, housing and when times were hard, distributing food. When times were good, his father became wealthy. The third player was the Church, they placated the peons with promises of reward after death. The Church also extracted a tithe from the peons while maintaining order. Each village was poor but had a magnificent church, paid for by the peons and landowner with many poor and few wealthy. My friend said that if you took the land from his father and gave each peon a small plot, they would lose it in five years and starve to death. The peons needed the social safety net, a direct transition to democracy/capitalism was impossible. That is how communism became popular, distribution of wealth with a safety net, in theory. In general, the Church and the landowners were cronies and ultimately the targets of guerrillas. Activist priests were targets of the landowners. My friend was proud of his father and not in favor of land re-distribution or communism but understood change was necessary.
I guess that's the Chavez strategy, an orderly transition with a safety net. He clearly understands capitalism and embraces it but he despises a King Leopold, who raped the Congo with his vision of Colonial Capitalism.
Note: I never understood Heart of Darkness in high school. Read King Leopold's Ghost and then read Heart of Darkness again, envision the perfect Colonial Capitalistic system with low expenses, just bullets and guns. Take land and resources from people that perceive land as communal. Create an ownership society where land is plotted and taxed. Create a system of money, brass rods, with which to pay taxes. Send people into the jungle to havest ivory and rubber so they can earn the brass rods to pay the taxes on land. If they refuse, murder and maim them, burn down their houses and destroy their food. "The horror, the horror."
There seems to be several flavors of capitalists. I can think of two. The slash and burn Mineralist and the Sustainable Agriculturalists. The Mineralists are suited to plow off mountain tops, polute the environment and extract oil and other resources and never look back. They prefer conquest to sustainability. They hate socialism as a drain on profits and a restraint on their power. The Sustainable Capitalist looks upon socialism as an investment, a price of doing business that ensures sustainable profits. Chavez appears to be a Sustainable Capitalist with a social agenda and Bush, a Mineralist with a differing social agenda.
I found an interesting concept of the purpose of Government, an appendix from a book of papers of Friedrich List.
APPENDIX B.
THE following instances (among others) in which the State has, with general assent of the public, interfered with the liberty of individuals in respect to their separate action, are adduced by the late Mr. Justice Byles
The State provides defences against external aggression. It conducts treaties with foreign nations. It preserves internal peace and order. It is the corner-stone of family ties, family duties, family affection, family education, by regulating and enforcing the marriage contract. It institutes and protects property. It regulates the transmission of property. It enforces the repair of highways by the several districts through which they pass, or by those who use them. It obliges each county to make and repair its own bridges. It maintains ports and harbours. It surveys and lights the sea coasts of the realm. It coins money, and prohibits interference with this monopoly. It regulates the issue of promissory notes payable to bearer. It provides a uniform system of weights and measures, and proscribes the use of any other. It assumes the distribution of intelligence by post. By the patent and copyright laws it gives bounties on the exertion of the inventive faculties, in the shape of a monopoly for a limited period. By requiring a public specification, explanatory of every patented discovery or invention, it takes care that the secret shall not be hidden from the public or die with the inventor. It imposes a bridle on the acquisition of property by corporate bodies. It protects the public health by the prohibition of nuisances of thousands of kinds, and by making provision for their removal. By the quarantine laws it prevents the importation of contagious diseases. It provides for the cleanliness of towns. It regulates the fares of hackney carriages and controls the drivers. It forbids inoculation for the small-pox, and artificially promotes vaccination. It assumes the distribution of insolvents' estates. It provides for the maintenance of the poor. It forbids perpetuities by avoiding all attempts to tie up property beyond a life or lives in being and twenty-one years afterwards. Though it tolerates all religions, it does not leave the virtue and happiness of the multitude without the support and direction of an established faith and worship. In the above cases Government interferes on behalf of the public. But there are others in which it does so to protect the helplessness or inexperience of individuals. Thus: It shields infants by avoiding their contracts and protecting their persons and property; And married women; And persons of unsound mind; And in many ways the helpless labouring poor. It forbids the truck system. ( Wiki- payment in script to be used in a company store)
It regulates the employment of women and children in mines and factories. It controls pawnbrokers—grinding the tooth of usury, and securing facilities for redemption. It prohibits and punishes, as we have seen, the use of unjust weights and measures; And the sale of unwholesome provisions; And the adulteration of coffee, tobacco, snuff, beer, tea, cocoa, chocolate, and pepper. To guard against fraud, it directs the form and manner in which wills shall be executed. If a man gives a money bond with a penalty if the money is not repaid at a day prefixed, the State forbids the penalty to be enforced. A purchaser of gold or silver articles cannot tell whether they are real gold and silver or not, or how much of the weight is precious metal, and how much is alloy. The State steps in to his assistance, and requires the assay mark of a public officer. A man buys a pocket of hops. He cannot always open it to see whether it is of the growth alleged or of uniform quality. The State interferes and makes it penal to mark or pack falsely. An attorney sends in his bill. The client cannot tell whether the charges are usual and fair. The State intervenes and provides a public officer who is empowered, not only to correct, but also to punish overcharges. The State compels the professional education of medical men and attorneys.
The above are but some instances of the mode in which nearly all governments have found it for the advantage of the community to interpose. What is the interposition of Government?
Simply the concentrated action of the wisdom and power of the whole society on a given point; a mutual agreement by all, that certain things shall be done or not done for the general benefit.—'Sophisms of Free Trade examined,' by a Barrister (the late Mr. Justice Byles), 1870.
Yes it is dated, but no indication of capitalistic or socialisitic leanings. Just protection from the excesses of human nature and an un-restrained market. Protecting the ability for a fair return on effort and orderly commerce, providing a measure of safety and security and initiating the delivery of some universal services. No mention of life-time employment for politicians nor a government in bed with lobbyists and corporate CEOs. No mention of privatization and profit making during the exercise of these activities. Just a government that benefits from a collective wisdom that is supposed to operate effectively and efficiently and provide some services without the need to morph into America, Inc. with a Sophistic CEO and Mineralistic President who are immume from any restraint, have an agenda that all services must be delivered in a form that makes the private sector a profit. As a result the services presumably benefit from the efficiency of the market, are somehow immune to the negative effects of quarterly profit demands, and provide additional jobs to people somewhere in the world, while making a few people absolutely filthy rich.
by
Bernard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 57 comments)
on Sunday, May 20, 2007 at 4:02:51 PM
I am sure you are sincere and you have quoted a large piece of text there. But I want to inject these comments for your consideration. However, your list was like a wish list for every nasty abuse that has been foisted on us for the last several centuries.
The State should stay out of family relations, property, the transmission of property, the monetary system, handling the mail, enabling theft through corporations at all, public health, and every other thing they have proven unequal to handling. That is about everything. The people do it better for themselves, honestly, they do.
Women should have equal standing under the Constitution (We don't, something of which you may be unaware, but should know.) Have you worked for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment? Here is the rule that should govern ALL human relationships and transactions.
You can not use deceit, coercion or force to achieve your ends. If you do the deal is invalid and you are liable for the full cost. (I call this the first and only principle of Benevolent Individualism.)
Theory is a fun thing to discuss while you are getting drunk on Saturday Night in college but the present mess derives directly from the itch of 'theoreticians' to experiment on US. I object. All ideas should be carefully beta tested for long enough so that people decide they work. Government should not be permitted to foist them on us.
Below I demonstrate the impact of a handy dandy idea foisted on women by Aristotle. The State is not the friend of women, we need to get that.
The Cult of the Omni-potent Sperm is actually pretty funny when you summon the images of that scene into the mind. Group jerks jerking off while their economy (yes, they had one) continued to function on the wealth produced most exclusively by the disfranchised. Women and slaves were the working population. Men who could vote did not work – unless jerking off and talking are forms of labor. They did become politicians, and presumably, lawyers. Women were slaves, but they didn’t get the use of the title. Slaves, after all, could buy their freedom in that day in age; women could not.
While ancient Greeks might not have understood the economic theory whereby they asserted ownership of the source of wealth, they certainly understood how to do it.
We will now consider the economic realities of the biological investment the two genders of humanity make in offspring. We will now dispose of the Cult of the Omni-potent Sperm once and for all. It has had a long run. Too long
Thanks to the good offices of such insightful individuals as Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations 1776) we have the cognitive tools provided through many generations of economists. Some of these, as with any profession that touches the edge of human knowledge did great work. Some of them were more or less eloquent idiots. But time is the proving ground for theory and we now know that although Keynes was brilliant in formulating macroeconomics he was also dead wrong about most other things.
Markets are the clearing houses of human exchange where individuals register their needs and find ways to have those needs met. So it is in apples and oranges, so it is in all aspects of our human relationships.
by
Melinda Pillsbury-Foster (141 articles, 1 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 121 comments)
on Sunday, May 20, 2007 at 6:24:14 PM
5 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
