Semantics and Chavez

[Deus Ex Machina]

I was reading the BBC site this morning "President Hugo Chavez has pledged to nationalise key Venezuelan companies, as part of plans to transform the country into a full socialist state."

And I was wondering why, someone who plans to use the full power of the state to gather power into the state is somehow a 'socialist".

He looks eerily like a fascist to me.

 

[Cleon]

Right...Because every country with a nationalized industry is a fascist regime.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Right...Because every country with a nationalized industry is a fascist regime.

amazing how you managed to construe a fiction out of misreading what was plainly written.

A talent, a veritable talent!

So someone who happens to loudly proclaim that he (or she) is a "socialist" is free to grasp power, consolidate it and then enforce the power of the state as one entity is a 'socialist" whereas someone who grasps power, sonsolidates and enforces it as one entity while wearing a balck shirt - is a fascist? It's a question of wardrobe then?

If you are a dictator and wear tweeds you are a socialist, if you wear sort of butch looking outfits, you're a fascist?

 

[Tony]

He looks eerily like a fascist to me.

Based on what? Fascist and socialist are not mutually exclusive.

 

[drkitten]

So someone who happens to loudly proclaim that he (or she) is a "socialist" is free to grasp power, consolidate it and then enforce the power of the state as one entity is a 'socialist" whereas someone who grasps power, sonsolidates and enforces it as one entity while wearing a balck shirt - is a fascist? It's a question of wardrobe then?

No, but it is a question of ideological reasons for the grasping of power, &c.

From Wikipedia : "Fascism (IPA: [ˈfæː.ʃɪ.zm̩]) is a political ideology and mass movement that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community." The key word here is nation; fascism is largely an outgrowth of jingoism, nationalism, that sort of thing. To continue, "the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, anti-liberalism, and anti-communism." "

There are of course other authoritarian movements. Communism, especially under Stalin, was notoriously authoritarian, but also notoriously anti-nationalistic, anti-corporate, and pro-communist.

Chavez is a self-proclaimed socialist, bu he's also demonstrably anti-nationalist (he's a big proponent of South American integration) He's demonstrably anti-corporatist.

So unless you're one of the people who believe that the Fascism and Communism/Socialism are identical, and that there were no political/ideological differences between Stallin/Lenin/Mao and Hitler/Franco/Mussolini, Chavez looks to me to be a much better example of left-wing class-warfare-based authoritarians.

 

[Pardalis]

Right...Because every country with a nationalized industry is a fascist regime.

I agree, nationalizing something doesn't necesserally mean fascism, or socialism.

 

[Ziggurat]

To continue, "the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, anti-liberalism, and anti-communism."

This is indeed a bit of a semantic game, and has been ever since the term was expanded beyond Musolini. Key elements vary depending on the speaker. For example, in my own opinion, obscurantism and mythologizing the past (which DO apply to Chavez) are more central to fascism than corporatism (communism does obscurantism but not really mythologizing the past). Obviously my opinion on the definition is not universal. But it certainly is true that there are different flavors of harmful authoritarian ideologies, and which particular word you use to describe any particular flavor is fairly secondary. It seems to me Chavez fits some definitions of fascism but not others, which again, does make the question a bit of a semantic issue.

 

[marksman]

I was reading the BBC site this morning "President Hugo Chavez has pledged to nationalise key Venezuelan companies, as part of plans to transform the country into a full socialist state."

And I was wondering why, someone who plans to use the full power of the state to gather power into the state is somehow a 'socialist".

He looks eerily like a fascist to me.

He is not considered a socialist because he is nationalizing State industries. He is considered a socialist because he identifies himself and his plan for Venezuela as socialist.

Here we go again. There was an entire program of nationalization in Latin America in the 1970's and it flopped. And this one will likely flop, as surely as almost every attempt to centrally manage a country and protect it from competition has flopped.

Here is an informative analysis of Venezuela from acclaimed historian Francis Fukuyama.

 

[Darth Rotor]

This is indeed a bit of a semantic game, and has been ever since the term was expanded beyond Musolini. Key elements vary depending on the speaker. For example, in my own opinion, obscurantism and mythologizing the past (which DO apply to Chavez) are more central to fascism than corporatism (communism does obscurantism but not really mythologizing the past).

Communism seems to mythologize the future.

DR

 

[Merko]

Here is an informative analysis of Venezuela from acclaimed historian Francis Fukuyama.

Ok, if that's who you call an 'acclaimed historian' (no tongue-in-cheek) then I understand your position in the Chomsky thread a bit better. It would be hard to find someone less based in reality than Fukuyama.

It is very funny to see how he's trying to invent a split in Latin American politics where Chavez and Morales would be on one side - with Lula and Calderon bizzarely sharing camps on the other side. Yes, Chavez and Morales are on one side of the Latin American leftist camp. Lula is on the other side. But there is a gorge between Lula and Calderon.

Only a few years back, the ideological lackeys at the US Royal Court characterised Lula as likely to be part of a Latin American 'axis of evil'. Then they got worse problems: Chavez, Morales, Ortega...

It was getting a little crowded on the axis. Putting the largest Latin American country in political isolation would be difficult. Trying to put most of the continent there.. well, now even someone like Fukuyama may feel sligthly affected by reality. So they had to tighten the criteria. When the failure to dissuade the election of Morales backfired, the US administration appears to have partly learned its lesson in Nicaragua, even though some thinly veiled threats no doubt helped boosting Ortega's candicacy.

But even though Ortega is siding squarely with Chavez and Morales, he just doesn't seem to be important enough for the axis presently.

So, does the proposed Venezolan nationalisation of the oil industry mean Venezuela is now doomed to end up like Cuba? Or could it perhaps develop like another country with a nationalised oil business: Norway?

I don't know. It clearly depends more on what Chavez does for and against private enterprise in Venezuela, rather than just the oil business, a natural monopoly.

But I'm ready to make one prediction: The supposedly deep political split between Latin American leftists will never be a reality outside of Washington.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Here is an informative analysis of Venezuela from acclaimed historian Francis Fukuyama.

Tee Hee, would this be the Fukuyama who tried to write himself out of a job as historian by declaring "the end of history?"

(Yes, playing word games here.)

FWIW: the command ecomomy game does seem to be a loser's gambit. So too is "the permanent warfare state" game, which makes me worry about the US, and to a lesser extent Israel. That said, I wonder how far the price of oil has to fall for Venezuela to start seeing major downturn in economic options. Hugo seems to be riding the black wave.

DR

 

[marksman]

Ok, if that's who you call an 'acclaimed historian' (no tongue-in-cheek)

Yeah, I guess it's weird how I think a guy with a Harvard PhD in Political Science, who is a Professor of International Political Economy and Director of the International Development Program at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at the Johns Hopkins University might be an "acclaimed historian." It's also convenient how you ignore my equal regard for Atilio Boron, left-wing Argentine political sociologist and director of EURAL (Center for European and Latin American Research) in Buenos Aires, and has been Professor of Political Science at FLASCO (Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales) and at the Universidad de Buenos Aires.

Or my equal disdain for both non-historians left-wing Chomsky and right-wing Patrick Buchanan.

So, does the proposed Venezolan nationalisation of the oil industry mean Venezuela is now doomed to end up like Cuba? Or could it perhaps develop like another country with a nationalised oil business: Norway?

You are confusing two types of nationalization. One in which a government seizes private property, thus depriving itself of the capital and institutional managerial experience that helped craft it, and a government like Norway, who has developed the oil industry from the ground up.

But will Venezuela end up like Cuba? Unlikely, since Cuba doesn't have a major natural resource akin to Venezuela's oil. More likely it will end up with the abject corruption and oligarchy that follows other oil-rich nation-states with no other major industries. (Unlike Norway, but like, for example, Saudi Arabia.)

I refer you to Fareed Zakaria (another acclaimed historian I presume you don't care for) and his book The Future of Freedom for more discussion of this phenomenon.

The supposedly deep political split between Latin American leftists will never be a reality outside of Washington.

I don't disagree. I don't think the leftists are a bloc at any rate. I don't wholly agree with Fukuyama, but his synopsis of the history of Latin American nationalization is pretty astute.

 

[marksman]

Tee Hee, would this be the Fukuyama who tried to write himself out of a job as historian by declaring "the end of history?"

Unfortunately named books for $1000, Alex! Yes. It was a good book, although it's thesis -- that the success of liberal democracy over Marxism ended the political debate for all time was pretty shortsighted and wishful thiking on his part.

That said, I wonder how far the price of oil has to fall for Venezuela to start seeing major downturn in economic options. Hugo seems to be riding the black wave.

Pretty far. Saudi Arabia has done pretty well for itself on that wave. The problem isn't going to be that the economy will collapse (although that's what happened to Venezuela in the 1980's shortly after the last time it nationalized the oil industry).

The problem is that by putting its eggs in one basket, as Chavez apparently plans, means that his economy is going to face enormous incentive to become corrupt and noncompetitive in any other area, much like Saudi Arabia, which has no other source of wealth.

 

[Merko]

Yeah, I guess it's weird how I think a guy with a Harvard PhD in Political Science, who is a Professor of International Political Economy and Director of the International Development Program at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at the Johns Hopkins University might be an "acclaimed historian."

Well, I hold academia in very high regard - in fact I think the academic and scientific principles are the one thing that has moved our greco/roman/european/american civilisation further ahead than any other in history. However, academic titles don't outweigh being just plain wrong(TM). Mr Fukuyama has showed guts by risking his proverbial neck over a controversial theory. Unfortunately for him, he lost it. Fortunately for him, his influential friends still find him useful for some reason (I can't figure out why).

You are confusing two types of nationalization. One in which a government seizes private property, thus depriving itself of the capital and institutional managerial experience that helped craft it, and a government like Norway, who has developed the oil industry from the ground up.

Can't see why that would matter. I'm all for encouraging private enterprise to innovate and improve the economy. However, oil findings such as those in Venezuela are a natural monopoly, and.. well, ludicriously profitable. Even the Venezuelan oil could be mismanaged, no doubt. And if oil prices would fall significantly - I doubt it will happen - they will be much less profitable. But basically, they are a great source for national wealth and development, and there is no reason not to use it. It was not because of the ingenuity of the US oil companies that the Venezuelan oil got so profitable, but from dumb luck. The companies no doubt built up an infrastructure, but for that they have been very richly rewarded - and will be rewarded still more.

In other words, nationalising Venezuelan oil does not give a significant disincentive to economic innovation. The message is: if you do well, you'll be immensely rewarded.. but perhaps not infinitely rewarded.

More likely it will end up with the abject corruption and oligarchy that follows other oil-rich nation-states with no other major industries.

Maybe Cuba can teach Venezuela a lesson of how to refrain from high-level political cleptocracy and corruption, and Venezuela will return the favour by breaking Cubas economic isolation and, in the process, export values like freedom of speech.. just dreaming here, it might go the other way round right into a nightmare, as well.

I don't think the leftists are a bloc at any rate.

They certainly behave like a bloc, quite a bit. I would agree with Fukuyama that Lula and Chavez are on the opposite sides inside the bloc, but that certainly doesn't stop Lula from enthusiastically endorsing his friend.

I don't wholly agree with Fukuyama, but his synopsis of the history of Latin American nationalization is pretty astute.

I disagree. But I agree with him on one thing, which is the dangers of Chavismo. Not necessarily the policies - there are warning signs but I think it still looks hopeful - but the person-centered ideology.

 

[marksman]

Well, I hold academia in very high regard - in fact I think the academic and scientific principles are the one thing that has moved our greco/roman/european/american civilisation further ahead than any other in history. However, academic titles don't outweigh being just plain wrong(TM). Mr Fukuyama has showed guts by risking his proverbial neck over a controversial theory. Unfortunately for him, he lost it. Fortunately for him, his influential friends still find him useful for some reason (I can't figure out why).

But here's the thing. You decry me relying on Fukuyama based on your ridicule of his declaration of the end of history (a declaration I too would ridicule) but that have no problem stating where you agree with him.

What's the deal Merko? Isn't it hypocritical of you to criticize me for citing to Fukuyama where I happen to agree with him, when you have no issue doing the same?

Was I wrong to describe him as "acclaimed"? He is indeed acclaimed, isn't he?

If you were to describe Chomsky as "acclaimed" I wouldn't take issue with that. Chomsky is acclaimed. Heck, I'll go ahead and describe Chomsky, Buchanan, Fukuyama, Boron and Zakaria as all people who are "acclaimed".

Was it really necessary to try to deride me (falsely) as a neoconservative because I happened to agree with Fukuyama on a single point? Particularly as I already told you I agreed with some of Boron's points, which, I am sure you mutst be aware, could not be described as neoconservative?

Can't see why that would matter.

You can't see why it would matter that Chavez' nationalization program is likely to drive the management of Venezuelan oil from the country, requiring him to appoint less experienced people? Surely you can see the risks. I'm not saying they are insurmountable. Mexico eventually recovered after its petroleum nationalization program did the same thing, although even today, Mexico's petroleum company is rife with corruption.

But basically, they are a great source for national wealth and development, and there is no reason not to use it. It was not because of the ingenuity of the US oil companies that the Venezuelan oil got so profitable, but from dumb luck.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I happen to believe that competent management adds value to any enterprise, even oil production.

In other words, nationalising Venezuelan oil does not give a significant disincentive to economic innovation. The message is: if you do well, you'll be immensely rewarded.. but perhaps not infinitely rewarded.

I don't think I made that argument. The problem is that countries that are largely dependent on one natural resource rarely develop other industries to cushion fluctuations. Saudi Arabia manages to weather it by running enormous surpluses. But Chavez has promised all sorts of spending that could only be financed by high oil prices.

Mexico did the same and in the 1990's, when oil wasn't flying as high as they needed, they ended up borrowing against their oil reserves, essentially lending their oil to America s collateral.

Now, I don't think Venezuela under Chavez would ever deign to borrow money from the US. But could they end up in financial straits by overextending themselves based on optimistic oil price projections? Absolutely. MIght it not happen. Also, absolutely.

Maybe Cuba can teach Venezuela a lesson of how to refrain from high-level political cleptocracy and corruption, and Venezuela will return the favour by breaking Cubas economic isolation and, in the process, export values like freedom of speech.. just dreaming here, it might go the other way round right into a nightmare, as well.

I'm not sure how one goes about "teaching Venezuela a lesson of how to refrain from high-level Kleptocracy". Nor am I certain one can "export values liek freedom of speech" I've never seen it done absent military force (and even then I think it's obscenely rare).

As for whether they act like a bloc? They act like allies, as they should. They have common interests, common approaches to problems and common perceived enemies (namely, Bush). But some sort of monolithic bloc? No.

I agree with him on one thing, which is the dangers of Chavismo. Not necessarily the policies - there are warning signs but I think it still looks hopeful - but the person-centered ideology.

Heck, Latin America is a studied history in a procession of personality cults. Simon Bolivar, Juan Peron, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Chavez... I doubt Chavez will be the worst or the last.

 

[fuelair]

He is not considered a socialist because he is nationalizing State industries. He is considered a socialist because he identifies himself and his plan for Venezuela as socialist.

Here we go again. There was an entire program of nationalization in Latin America in the 1970's and it flopped. And this one will likely flop, as surely as almost every attempt to centrally manage a country and protect it from competition has flopped.

Here is an informative analysis of Venezuela from acclaimed historian Francis Fukuyama.

I just hope it flops very large and Chavez is around to see it flop large - but only for a day or two.

 

[marksman]

Actually, I don't. A flop would be incredibly painful and someone as paranoid as Chavez is not going to learn his lessons.

I hope Venezuela prospers. I hope after Bush leaves office, Chavez' more paranoid delusions about the US subside. I hope Chavez does not suspend elections and eventually is replaced peacefully when it is clear that although nationalization didn't cripple the economy, other nations, like Brazil, are following plans that lead to even better prosperity.

 

[steverino]

If that guy is still around next October I am going to place my penis in a potato and go as him for Halloween.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If that guy is still around next October I am going to place my penis in a potato and go as him for Halloween.

You {rule8} I just spilled my beer over that visual.

Two questions:

1. Who is the potato penis guy: Merko, Fukayama, or Chavez?

2. Baked, mashed, or scalloped potato?

DR

 

[Tmy]

Facist? Wasnt he just recently re-elected??