Friday, August 31, 2007

Misiones, State and Revolution, pt 2: Social Reproduction

A while ago, I wrote an entry concerning the 5 ‘motors’ of the Bolivarian Revolution. More than an organizing thematic or a template for nifty billboards, these 5 motors are reminders of is so revolutionary about the Bolivarian project. Case in point: today's installment of my series of entries re-thinking the state through the misiones Bolivarianas.

One doesn't have to have read Foucault to appreciate that capitalism and the state (to the extent that the two can be separated) do not reproduce themselves through blatant and obvious shows-of-force. Indeed, the most effective use of power, its most efficient production, occurs when state and capital can mold willing subjects, cloak our subjection (meant in both registers--subjection as in being subject-to as well as in being created as a subject) in the robes of 'choice' and 'liberty' (ahh...liberalism!). While "capital-p-Power" certainly retains the capacity to use violent and immediate force (indeed, it remains defined by such expressions), the use of violence by the state all too often signals a weak point, or at the very least the incapacity of the state to rule through its ideological and consent regimes. (There is a reason, after all, that the first thing Pedro Carmona and the other coup-mongers did back in 2002 is send the military to the streets to kill off uppity Bolivarians).

All of this is to say that the Bolivarian Revolution carries with it an authentically revolutionary appreciation of the situation in Venezuela, and the conditions underwhich it can be successful. Transforming the Fourth Republic reality of Venezuela they have inherited requires more than rewriting the constitution, more than establishing laws that are more favorable to the majority of Venezuelans. While these reforms of the state are indeed necessary and provide the necessary space for actual change to occur, the process can only be successful in the reproduction of capital and state Power is disrupted. This is the long, hard work of revolution, without which the Bolivarian Revolution is doomed to being referred to as 'an experiment' by future generations of Venezuelans and others who want to create a better world.

In this regard, the 5 motors provide us with a roadmap of what is to be done, and the misiones allow us to make it happen.

The First Motor, the enabling laws, is nothing new to Venezuela or the region. They have been used by every president since the end of the Pérez-Jiménez dictatorship either to get rid of urban guerrillas through various constitutional and unconstitutional means (Raphael Caldera's first presidency, 1969-74), nationalize important sectors of the economy (Carlos Andrés Pérez’s first presidency, 1974-79) or privatize them (Andrés Pérez’s second time around [1989-1993]). The difference between these past examples and those of Chávez has been that Chávez is looking not to avert an immediate crisis (Caldera), hand out benefits in order to gain popularity (Andrés Pérez) or meet the demands of international financial institutions (Andrés Pérez again) but rather to bring about a future where these sorts of measures are no longer necessary.

The second motor, constitutional reform, looks to make the potentials of the 1999 constitution reality, and to deepen the revolutionary process.

The fourth, the new geometry of power, is an authentic decentralization. That is, whereas previous rounds of decentralization allowed for more formal democratic participation by allowing local and regional officials to be popularly elected (previously, they were appointed by the president), this more often than not just made for the localization of strong man politics and more intense nepotism. This motor calls for power to be exercised in the country outside of Caracas and Maracaibo. It replaces ‘liberal’ or ‘representational’ with protagonistic democracy.

The third and fifth motors are absolutely essential for understanding the role of education and social reproduction in the Bolivarian revolution.

Third and fifth motors

The third constituent motor of Bolivarian Socialism, ‘Moral y Luces’ emphasizes the necessity of education and revolutionary commitment in the construction of a new society. Like Che Guevara’s much toted ‘New Man’ of the post-revolutionary period, the Bolivarians recognize and emphasize that the world they have inherited and been formed by – the morality, instrumental rationality and social hierarchies of the fourth republic in Venezuela and neoliberal capitalism the world over – are neither desirable nor sustainable for the vast majority of the world’s human and non-human population. In order to change this reality, to make a new society, one needs to produce new men and women.

These new men and women, full social beings respected for more than their capacity to sell labor and die quietly are the propellants of the fifth motor, the explosion of communal power. This, the most radical of the motors, is the real withering of the state which is taking place more and more with every new project planned and executed ‘from below’ here in Venezuela. This is what is most threatening to the opposition and their masters in Washington. That is to say, that is to say, aside from the explicitly racial formation of anti-Chávez and anti-Chavista sentiment, the most threatening aspect of the Bolivarian Revolution is the intense dialectic being formed between the extreme poles of constituting and constituted power in Venezuela. Political power is increasingly tending towards Chávez or the base communities, all mediating institutions and positions are being pushed aside.
(Hence the seemingly asinine response of the opposition to Chávez’s constitutional reforms proposed recently. Rather than arguing that the proposals should be approved or disapproved en bloc as demanded by Chávez, the opposition is demanding the proposals be voted on one by one. Three important things here: first, they know they cannot win an outright victory against Chávez by voting the entire package down. Separating out the reforms allow them to put all their energy into attacking those reforms that are most noxious to their interests, such as redrawing the political-territorial map of the country or the end of an autonomous central bank. Secondly, debating the proposals one by one can perhaps buy them a bit of the appearance of rationality, which have heretofore been sorely lacking. Third and finally – and here members of Chávista-affiliated parties like Patria Para Todos (PPT) and PODEMOS have just as much at stake as opposicionistas – such a maneuver makes them and their function look necessary. If developments continue apace in Venezuela, with Chávez announcing x, y, or z reform which the population at large can either approve or disapprove, or with the Communal Councils of x, y, or z municipality directly designing policies or infrastructural development without having to go through layer upon layer of absentee ‘representatives’ or state bureaucrats, the National Assembly may become all but obsolete.)

The Educational Misiones: Robinson, Ribas, and Sucre

These three misiones, like misión Barrio Adentro, are perhaps the most well known of the Bolivarian missions. By 2005, Misión Robinson I, a basic literacy curriculum, succeeded in making Venezuela an ‘illiteracy free’ country, having sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers and volunteers into the most dangerous and underdeveloped parts of the country as teachers.Misión Robinson II extends part I’s scope to cover primary school subjects like math, geography, literature, science and social studies. Students are often ‘non-traditional’ in their age and background, being predominantly adults from the sectors of Venezuelan society traditionally excluded from educational opportunity.
Misión Ribas (in which I teach English in La Vega, a large barrio in the south western part of Caracas) offers secondary education to graduates of Misión Robinson. In addition to directly providing education to students and citizens, the misión provides resources and scholarships as their studies require more and more attention. Misión Sucre does similar things for higher education, pursing and guaranteeing access to private and public universities. Sucre also includes the foundation and development of the Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela in Caracas in 2003, though perhaps more importantly the misión includes the formation of more than 20 university level specialization and regional schools throughout the country.

Related to the concrete developments of the educational misiones has been the call by the government to end the entrance exam regimens for the nation’s private and public schools. It is telling, then, that the so-called ‘student movement,’ which discredited themselves as tools more quickly than any movement in the history of moving, has shifted the focus of their ire from the ‘closing’ of RCTV to Primero Justicia’s ‘Misión Vida’ and the demand for ‘autonomy’ of the university from the state in policy if not funding. This is classic class power at work. As the Bolivarians rightly point out, the ostensible ‘meritocracy’ of university admission is actually a rather robust filter that works to keep the majority of the poor out of universities. The fact that the revolution takes education so seriously (perhaps because, rumor has it, Chávez is up reading Negri long after I’ve fallen asleep watching illegal downloads of US-cooking shows) is both a testament of its recognition of the import of education to maintaining the current formation of class power as well as an absolutely necessary component of the building of a new society.

Misión Vuelvan Caras/Che Guevara

The terrain of Misión Che Guevara (formerly known as Misión Vuelvan Caras) is the very reproduction of the socio-political reality of Venezuela and the way it is and will be imbricated in global capitalist production. It not only argues that capitalism is fundamentally bad for human development, it seeks to produce actual and actualizable alternatives. The misión starts from an analysis of the role of poverty and unemployment in capitalism, human tolls it contends are the consequence of a social system that treats things like people and people like things. From the text of the misión’s mission statement:

“Unemployment and poverty are the main problems associated with capitalist production. The dependency produced by an import and mono-productive economy based in oil has made many nations forget the fruits of the earth and the creative capacity of their people, putting in place a market that only benefits the most powerful, pushing to the side small and medium sized productors.
“Misión Che Guevara is a program that celebrates the creative power of the people, through their protagonistic participation in the production of goods and services. In this way, the Bolivarian Government is pursuing a new model of development – from within the people – whose objective is to advance national production.”

That is, the new path initiated by Misión Che Guevara is one where the path of development emphasizes living labor, whereas capitalist development emphasizes commodity production. It furthermore extends this fundamental Marxist insight into the nature of capitalist society to the trap of monoproduction suffered by so many postcolonies in general and oil economies like Venezuela in particular. This is key. The Bolivarian revolution seek to redistribute the wealth of the oil economy, this much is obvious. However, the truly revolutionary task being undertaken is the redistribution of national production tout court – the transformation of what Venezuela ‘does.’ Without changing the composition of productive processes within the Venezuelan economy, the Bolivarian Revolution’s ability to provide for the poorest Venezuelans will be determined by the demands of the international market. More importantly, without changing what it means to work – that is, without changing the role of human labor power and creativity from its current position as an alienated commodity sold to an exterior force and inserted like so much machinery into the productive process to that of protagonist within the productive process, affirming rather than negating its creative capacity through human interaction – the Bolivarian Revolution will limit itself by failing to adequately diagnose the task it faces.

Thus, Misión Che Guevara emphasizes ‘endogenous development’ by which it means
“to develop all that we need to live from inside our society, without having to depend on other countries. [Endogenous Development’ is the social, cultural and economic transformation of our society, based in taking back our traditions, respect for our environment and egalitarian relations of production, allowing us to transform our natural wealth into products we can consume, distribute, and export to the outside world. It is also:
“To facilitate the ability of communities to develop the agricultural, industrial and touristic potentials of their regions.
“To incorporate persons who have up to this point in history been excluded from educational, economic, and social systems.
“To build productive networks where we all participate in an equality of conditions where we have access to knowledge and technology.
“To put the infrastructure of the state which have to this point been abandoned (state industries such as industrial cities, factories, idle lands, among others) at the service of the people in order to produce goods and services.
“It is, finally, to transform ourselves in order to transform society.”

‘Endogenous development’ thus not only means (finally) bucking the ‘why build it when you can buy it’ mentality of petro-states, it also means the revolutionary integration of economic and socio-cultural aspects of human life.
(One of my favorite examples from within Caracas: the predominantly youth-based artists' collective "Tiuna, el fuerte." And! they're online at
Projects which fall within the ambit of Misión Che Guevara range from artists’ collectives and youth hip-hop organizations in urban Caracas to agricultural centers in Aragua. Participants in the Misión also take part in other misiones – in the educational misiones as students or in Misión Arbol as organizers and workers, for example. The point that is always emphasized, however, is the trading of the egoistic pursuit of individual gain for the furtherance of the collective both in means and ends. Traditional wage labor structures are replaced by communally owned and directly democratic workplaces, cities transformed from what is increasingly a collection of privatized and fortified pods of nuclear families and smaller to sites which foster the participation of whole communities, and so forth.

The misiones in general, and these 4 (5, if you want to count both stages of Robinson separately) recognize that the terrain of contemporary anti-capitalism is the terrain of social reproduction. Leninist models of a dialectic between the seizure of state power and the distribution of power to workers' soviets, while important precedents, cannot obtain in Venezuela without significant adaptation. Work here is so informalized, so pre- and post- industrial (to the extent that such temporal descriptions edge on the absurd, and not just for 'industrial'--categories like the 'modern' and 'colonial' need to be used with rather heavy qualification in Venezuela if not the world over) that previous strategies and tactics of the class struggle should be seen as fellow travellers' examples rather than necessary antecedents and roadmaps. By centering so much energy and focus in 'the social,' the Bolivarian Revolution allows for a more fluid and expansive disruption of Capitalism in Venezuela, openning up more space for positive transformation and more occasions for victory celebrations.

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Constitutional Reforms

This will be the first post in an inevitable series of posts reflecting on the recently proposed changes to the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999. For more details and on-going debate on the reforms, you might want to check out the goings-on at

On Wednesday Chávez came to the National Assembly to deliver his proposed package of Constitutional reforms. In true Chávez form, the speech lasted over four hours, and touched on much more than the 33 (of 350) articles of the 1999 constitution he would like to change. Private media outlets in Venezuela have almost exclusively focused on the changes he would like to make to articles pertaining to the executive – a change in term length from 6 to 7 years and the removal of term limits – as evidence of his pretensions to ruling Venezuela ad infinitum. These are, unsurprisingly, decidedly not the most important of his proposals. And let’s face it, the opposition is less upset with the idea based on any sort of democratic principle than it is aware that they don’t have a chance in hell of ever competing with Chávez electorally. This betrays yet another misperception on the part of the opposition. The other reforms envisioned by Chávez are indeed more threatening to their pretensions of one day returning to power. That is to say, should the majority of the other reforms – which the National Assembly now has to debate and approve or reject – have their intended effect, the presidency itself in the new Venezuela will become increasingly obsolete.

Here are, thematically organized, the reforms Chávez wants to make to the 1999 Constitution other than the changes to the norms governing the executive. Generally speaking, the reforms make ‘soft’ elements of the old constitution ‘hard’ – from an ‘ought’ to a ‘will’ or provide details where they were previously lacking.

1. Territorially, Chávez wants to realign the country’s geo-political landscape according to the new geometry of power—an authentic ‘decentralization,’ if you will. This takes a few forms. On the one hand he wants to change the language of Article 11 to allocate more power to the federal government in times of natural or national emergency. On the other, he wants to open up the field of possibility for new forms of local power to be created and exercised. For example, the constitutional recognition of communes and the emergence of the Distritos Federales would, he asserts, allow for entrenched regional powers to be unseated by popularly initiated and federally backed exodus. The key to this is making a longtime slogan of Chavismo reality, and making public or popular power the true key to sovereign power in Venezuela. For example, proposed changes to article 136 read:

“Public power is distributed territorially in the following form: popular power, municipal power, state power, and national power…the people is the depository of sovereignty and it exercises this power directly through popular power. [Popular power] is not born in suffrage nor in any election, but is born in human organization…popular power is expressed in the organization of communities, communes and the self government of cities through communal councils, worker councils, peasant councils, student councils and other entities signaled by he law”
Thus whereas nearly every liberal constitution in the world—including the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999—ostensibly finds its authority in the sovereign people in the theoretical ultimate instance and the watered down spectacle of regular elections, these proposed changes look to make popular power a fact of quotidian existence.
----A bit of background: in Venezuela, mayors and governors have only been popularly elected since the 1980s. This reform was seen as a major step towards de-centralization by many political scientists and other observers who see the key to ‘democracy’ as being strong institutions. However, Venezuelan decentralization, such as it was, more often than not served only to add a degree of democratic legitimation to a still functioning corrupt system.

(Although it should be noted that there were important inroads made by parties such as La Causa R [Radical Cause] in Caracas and in the oil producing areas of the south which should be understood as part of the prehistory of the Fifth Republic. On the subject of Venezuela’s ostensible ‘democracy’ during the Fourth Republic, it is also important to note that many social scientists considered the country to be the ‘democratic exception’ surrounded by dictatorships and civil war torn neighbors. This despite the fact that the country was BY DESIGN run exclusively by two equally corrupt parties (AD and COPEI) that banned third parties and regularly assassinated opponents.)----

Though Chávez did not outline a specific plan in this respect, he also called for the reorganization of Caracas. This move is both necessary and dangerous in that the current organization, a strange form of power sharing between 5 mayors and one ‘mayor-mayor’ is not only hard for gringos to understand, it also makes addressing the problems of the capital city – from infrastructural concerns to road and garbage maintenance, to who has the right to issue parking tickets, to astronomical crime rates and the ever-expanding population – all but impossible. However, of the 5 municipalities 3 of them – Chacao, Baruta and El Hatillo – are for all intents and purposes the heart and soul of oposicionismo. Centralizing, or at least aligning the jurisdictional map of Caracas is without a doubt a necessary first step in addressing the problems of the capital, but the opposition will without a doubt battle to the death to maintain their islands of power. They would be stupid not to.

2. Chávez also proposed to constitutionally restrict the working day to 6 hours. While this is massively important in terms of workers’ rights, the vast majority of non-state or petrol sector employment takes place in the informal sector, which definitionally doesn’t care what the constitution says.

On a related front, he wants to modify article 112, which allows workers to ‘freely’ choose how and where they want to work in order to include new forms of property – communal, public, mixed and social – in addition to the more standard of private property. Article 114 will also be revised. Whereas in the 1999 constitution questioned monopolies and described them as contrary to the interests of the people, they would now be banned, as will the latifundio (Article 307).

This last point is also rather interesting in that Chávez seeks to change the government’s responsibility vis-à-vis food production from providing ‘alimentary security’ to ‘alimentary sovereignty.’ In other words, this reform would constitutionally mandate the government to develop domestic production of necessary foodstuffs which are now being imported. The project, then, is not only to massively realign the productive structure of the country – from a petrol-import-economy to a self-sufficient sovereign one – but also to do it while in the process of developing new forms of land ownership. Not only will the emphasis be on the small farmer, agricultural production in the new Venezuela will take place on collective farms, communes, mixed use government-private sector initiatives and common public space. The days of the massive plantation worked by campesinos are over.

3. Chávez also called for the full-scale state-ization of the Banco Central de Venezuela. In other words, he is seeking to politicize and revolutionize the Venezuelan Central Bank. More on this later.

4. The Armed Force will also undergo a thematic overhaul, incorporating militias for the popular defense of the country and the revolution in asymmetrical warfare situations. Chávez has often remarked that the Bolivarian Revolution is “peaceful, but armed” and of late has emphasized the fact that the only real external threat the country faces is the same as any other in the world: The United States. The fact that the empire to the north (and west, hola Colombia!) has a military and a military budget that outstrips the GNP of most countries means that Venezuela simply cannot fight toe to toe with the giant and would be stupid to try.

However, and more importantly, I think, is the civic project of building a citizen army (as opposed to the mercenary style of public-military service currently employed in the Empire). This of course ruffles the feathers of the democracy fetishists who have long decried the ‘militarization’ Venezuelan society (by this I mean the social scientists and apologists for capital that see democracy as synonymous with formal institutions separated by firewalls). Keep in mind that the function of the Armed Force in the Bolivarian Revolution has been increasingly as a public servant – first in the Plan Bolívar 2000 and subsequently in many of the Misiones, public works projects and national emergencies. It is hoped by Chávez and others that the development of civilian militias will not only help organize the population to more effectively take control of their own lives, but also induce in them an identification with the state and nation to replace the cynicism germinated by 40 years of kleptocracy.

(Which, of course, opens a whole different can of worms which I will flag here and mention in subsequent posts. The revolutionary government has done more for the majority of the Venezuelan people than any other government since independence. This all but an undeniable fact at this point. However, it largely remains ‘developmentalist’ in its discourse and its policies.)

5. Chávez also seeks to incorporate the Misiones and communal councils into the constitutionally defined governing structure of the country. So, while the 1999 constitution states that the right to education and health care are the patrimony of every Venezuelan and that all sovereignty resides in the pueblo not in the final term but in the immediate, the proposed changes would mandate the mechanisms for making it so. The misiones thus become definitionally the duty of the government to the people and communal power becomes ever more the direct expression of governance. Also, the current project of delivering direct budgetary and fiscal powers to communal councils will be included in the constitution.

Thus we get yet another example of the dialectic between Chávez, a dialectic increasingly antagonistic to any attempt at mediation. Institutional political power is increasingly realized and exercised at the poles of the traditional map of power – on the one end the power of the executive, with Chávez propelling the initiatives and innovations of the revolutionary process. On the other, there is the increasing responsibility, creative influence, benefit and activity of the organized population. Quite apart from the dreams of moderate Chavistas to turn Venezuela into a Scandanavian-style welfare state social democracy, constitutional reforms and quotidian political reality here in Venezuela point toward the need for a pushing beyond a friendlier face to capitalist develepment.

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Gender Violence and the Bolivarian Revolution: a recent example

Luis Felipe Acosta Carles, the (Bolivarian) governor of Carabobo state, has been posting a series of billboards throughout the state capital, Valencia, trying to raise public awareness of the media’s role in creating/exacerbating the problems facing Venezuela today. Usually the billboards and posters include some sort of image, a condemnation, and the tagline: “Security is the responsibility of all.” The point here is that opposition media outlets have been outspoken in their critiques of the government’s inability to do something about the violent crime rate throughout the country.

Here’s the latest installment: (The text reads: "Inciting sex brings rape. Security is all of our responsibility." This is, more or less, a tit-for-tat (pardon the expression) with the local media. On the one hand, the media accuse the government of doing nothing alleviate the security situation in the state and the country. On the other, they regularly publish material that tacitly approves of one particular form of violence and criminality -- against women)

Now, you’ll notice that the images all seem to be taken from the pages of newspapers, and appear to be features of some sort, not ‘just’ advertisements (not that that would in anyway make the disembodied bethonged ass of some beachgoer staring out at you from page 13 any less disconcerting, it just provides a [weak] cop-out for the editorial board).

Predictably, and not without justification, many feminist organizations have pointed out that the posters are deeply ambiguous. While the governor’s intentions may indeed be to unpack the semiotic link between the objectification of women and their socially-sanctioned rape-ability and to highlight the media's role in the construction of said link, the message on the boards themselves runs rather close to blaming the victims of rape. Not to mention the fact that, heh, if you want to get rid of something, if you really and truly and sincerely think something is bad, and you really and truly and sincerely want to be rid of it, then you probably shouldn’t plaster it all over town. In the words of Iris Hernández, a local council member from the (Chavista) Movimento de la Quinta Republica (MVR), “[these billboards] reflect in a direct form, explicitly and subliminally, the offense…danger, victimization, and inferior situation made by the fact of being a woman.” In other words, the women printed on the pages of oppostition newspapers were objectified by said papers. Carles on re-objectified them when he re-printed their images in order to make political points against his enemies.

Hernández, accompanied by other officials--all within the ranks of Chavismo, added, “These billboards, with their message, violate the laws and dispositions of the Bolivarian constitution of Venezuela…and even more from a legal point of view they themselves incite rape” (El Carabobeño, 11 Agosto, 2007). The Bolivarian Constitution has been noted by many as one of the most progressive in the world, especially as regards individual and group liberties. State sanctioned of group-specific violence is, suffice it to say, is not included among its articles, nor is it looked upon kindly.

[It bears noting, however, that the opposition has not failed to jump on the issue. Just one quick visit to, a popular opposition news and discussion site, finds many active plans to capitalize on the situation. And as if we needed more evidence as to the general rancidness of the opposition, among the discussions one can encoutner many psuedo-feminists talking about the 'rights of women being trampled by these fascists' laughing and agreeing with Nazi innuendo and claiming that the governor wants to rid the state of (female) pornography because he is gay, just like the rest of the dictatorship (sic)]

Acosta Carles’ response: “I’m not against women wearing bikinis on the beach, I like it when Claret [his wife, who accompanied him for the speech] wears her bikinis, but the beach is one thing and the media is another.” He then added a biblical reference for good measure (hint:) to criticize those within Chavismo who have criticized his billboards. The logic (?) of the biblical reference is that these ‘opportunists of the revolution’ are selling Carles down the river in order to get in the spotlight and Chávez’s good graces. He continues, “and they ask me for security…but this is a security plan, to raise the awareness of the media to not use pornography. And now they say [I] ought to go to jail. Ah, but they don’t attack the media who publish all these beauties and bodies, all this staged beauty, physical but untouchable, but no one still, not even my own fellow party members, have presented me with a plan to guarantee peace and tranquility in the state.”
(El Carabobeño, 11 Agosto, 2007)

So is it, “hard working man trying to do what’s right just to be nagged and nagged by the bitchy opportunist feminazis?”

Or, is it “Short sighted particular interests shoot themselves in the foot and aid the opposition who do EVEN LESS about gender violence than the Revolution?”

Perhaps more interesting than anything else in Carles’ response is the way that he both touches upon truth while embodying the criticisms levied against him. On the one hand, he is right to point out that the private media’s depiction of women in Venezuela gives one the impression of a 24-7-365 taping of ‘Girls Gone Wild.’ On the other, his defense does just as little as his strategy to combat gender violence as the strategy itself.

A few quick anecdotes are in order: RCTV (gawd, i miss freedom) ran a spot on the ‘Venezuelan Women’s Football Team’ (before its concession ran out, of course) which featured 11 models in thongs and glittery bikini tops kicking a ball while the male commentator repeatedly whistled at their giggles and jiggles. Basic cable features a show called ‘Naked Wild On,’ featuring cheesy voice-overs a la ‘America’s Funniest Home Videos’ explaining to the audience at home that the unsuspecting nude sunbather ‘wants it.’

This of course doesn’t even begin touch on the imbrication of race and gender. Any guide book or trivia collection about Venezuela proudly notes that the country has accrued more international beauty pageant titles than any other country in the world.

(1981’s Miss Univers, Irene Sáez, ran for president as COPEI’s candidate against Hugo Chávez in the 1998 elections. She finished fourth with 2.8% of the vote.)The question, of course, is why are almost all the images of 'venozolanas lindas' a bunch of cracker descendents from mid-20th century oil-boom immigrants?

Much like Miss Universe, the image of beauty all too often presented to the public by the private media here is all but a carbon copy of a North-American male’s media-infected idealization of ‘pretty.’ In effect, the Venezuelan private media’s depiction of women simultaneously feeds and produces a fairly typical dual white male fantasy structure which defines the good, the right and the beautiful. First, 'women' (because women outside the mold are something else...) are skinny (but always well endowed in the chest), white and blond. Hence, the prototypical fantastic ‘she’ carries the necessary maternal traits (large breasts-milk-sustenance-protection) while providing a positive pole of colonial identification (white-goodness) as well as the ‘youthly beauty’ (and privileged social position) of remaining thin.

Second, women are there for the taking. Available, subservient, on display. Madonna and Whore. And, it is of course up to the male in the equation to decide when the ‘she’ gets to be which. The interaction of these fantasies, as they reinforce one another, plays into a third, that of the male protector, of the ultimate comodification of the woman as the object to be held – displayed proudly but never to be shared. This relationship is not reciprocal.

So what precisely does this exercise in by and large second wave feminist analysis have to do with the governor of Carabobo misguidedly plastering T & A on the streets of Valencia? On the one hand, he registers the way private media inculcates particular forms of desiring which can lead to the violent expression of that desire should reality not align itself with the fantastic structure of the subject (violent, it should be noted, for the subject experiencing the trauma as well as the focus or occasion of their frustration). “All these beauties and bodies, all this staged beauty, physical but untouchable.” The key word is of course ‘staged.’ Carles points out the plastic nature of the content, the ultimate unreality of it all, while still betraying the degree to which he remains enfolded within and influenced by it. He then performs the desiring of this beauty as well as the frustrating denial of consummation (physical but untouchable). The result is that this defense of his actions reinforces their problematic nature.

On the other hand, for Carles it is okay for women to expose themselves in certain situations, certain ‘appropriate’ zones (the beach). It is, however, decidedly not okay for the female form to be exposed outside of his control. By this, I do not mean to approve of the private media’s depiction of women. Rather, my contention is that this particular response has less to do with women even as objects to be protected (even if that were a goal to be pursued) and more with control. One could, presented with this situation, find a road other (note I did not say between) than the puritanical and the permissive. I am suggesting a path which approaches sexuality not as an always already commodified ‘thing’ or amalgam of things – breasts, asses, vulnerable snap shots and the like – that are contained either in their prohibition from the public or in their widespresad use in advertisements.
In other words, a de-fetish-ization.
The truly revolutionary work, work in the spirit of the Bolivarian revolution, would here be to address the social and psychological structures which entice such an excited response, from those who would censor it as well as from those who would exploit its allure. Such working-through would necessarily be collective to be effective, and would, I hope lead not to a general ‘de-sexing’ of reality, but rather to non uni-directional forms of sexuality that have more to do with pleasure, and less to do with fantasies of control.

The added touch of his wife presented for his defense (the equivalent of ‘heh, I’ve got black friends’ after dropping the N-bomb at a party), while politically necessary, is further symptomatic of the contradictory nature of his position. This contradiction – between fighting against sexual violence while unknowingly reinforcing many of its preconditions – is perhaps to a certain degree inevitable as one begins to wrestle with our gendered inheritances. It is incumbent on the revolutionary to approach these situations prepared to work through the socializations of the old order, understand that we are just as imbricated in them as anyone else, to be self-critical and sincere in our efforts to jettison them.

In other words, Carles’ campaign is right on target, his execution dubious if not deplorable, and his response to criticism anything but revolutionary.

Tuesday, August 7, 2007

Misiones, State and Revolution (pt 1)

This will be part one of a series of short essays/long blog entries introducing the work and the context of the various 'misiones bolivarianas' that are at the center of the Bolivarian Revolution. The entries are still in a fairly rough form, and most of the numbers are from official sources (which have proven to be most accessible), so I have yet to cross check things. The gist of what this project entails is an analysis of two central claims levied against Chávez and the Bolivarians. The first is the notion that the misiones represent little more than populist excess and are hence unsustainable. The second is that the Bolivarian Revolution is a purely top-down affair, without significant or authentic popular participation or benefit. in the process of this discussion, I will also outline and examine some of the challenges the misiones pose to the way we understand the state and revolutionary transformation.

Misión Árbol

Venezuela is covered by 50 million hectares of forest land, a figure which represents 56% of the national territory, 5.6% of forestland in South America, and 1.3% of the world’s forest coverage. Of that number, official estimates put losses of forestland due to human intervention at approximately 140,000 hectares (0.3%) annually. Reforestation attempts to this point have only been able to replant approximately 15,000 hectares annually. In its one and a half year lifespan, Misión Árbol boasts the formation of 1,902 Conservation Committees, with 1,327 community and educational and 46 institutional nurseries either built or in development. All told, over twenty-six and a half millions plants have been seeded, with nearly 4.3 million planted.

Since June 2006 Misión Árbol (Mission Tree) has sought to reverse the ecological trend towards deforestation and industrial/urbanization which holds true in Venezuela as much as it does throughout the region. According to its mission statement, this misión of national scope’s goal is to replace the model of capitalist development which “encourages the exploitation of natural resources in an indiscriminate manner, bringing about their progressive deterioration and impoverishment.” The impetus for the project is thus rooted in an understanding of the political and economic context it seeks to transform in order to bring about, “in the ecological sphere[,] participatory and protagonistic democracy.”

This phrase is repeated throughout the mission statements of the various Misiones Bolivarianas, and references the desire of the revolution not simply to make all the positive initiatives a reality – according to the historical pattern of rentier-state populism(s), that can be done by throwing enough money at a problem, which ultimately results in their moral and fiscal bankruptcy – but to address the socio-political factors underlying the problems. In the example of Misión Árbol, to simply plant trees in the Llanos or Gran Sábana of Venezuela would only provide the fodder for future clear cuts. The logic of the revolution in this particular project is thus not only to plant trees and tell people that cutting them down is ‘bad’ but rather to bring about a new model of human social interaction with their natural environment. Thus the project explicitly states that it aims for the projects to be carried out neither by private nor state companies, but rather by the effected organized communities themselves. That is to say, the Bolivarian strand of Misión Árbol emphasizes the need for the communities themselves to develop new forms of stewardship and resource extraction more amenable to needs of the nation as a whole.

Thus, as in most of the misiones, the central axis of the project is the communal council, which has direct access to state funds and determines the distribution thereof according to the collective decision of the community.

Misión Barrio Adentro
Barrio Adentro is one of the most famous, and infamous, of the missions. It brings Cuban doctors (Cuba, it has long been said, exports doctors much the same way as the United States exports lawyers and wars) to parts of Venezuela which have never had access to affordable or proximate health care. The misión itself came about mid-2003, and has been comprised since then of various stages including the construction of clinics, provision of equipment, diversification of care available and expansion of the network of ‘modules’ or care centers throughout the country. In just one year, the misión was able to increase access to healthcare such that there is now one doctor for every 250 families or for every 1,200 persons. In four years, the misión has built 1,612 modulos with 4,618 under construction throughout the country to augment 4,800 pre-existing public ambulatory clinics.

The program continues to expand, with new iterations of the original Misión paying ever more attention to preventative medicine and whole-community health programs. It has also spurred on the formation of new but related misiones, such as Misión Milagro. Milagro was initiated in June 2004 with a specific focus on eye care and the stated goal of spreading its reach beyond Venezuela.

Perhaps more important than ‘cold statistics’ is that under the new system care is increasingly universalized – i.e. under the fourth republic, there might have been 500 doctors per person, but these numbers reflect the disproportionate amount of cosmetic surgeons, private clinicians, and hyper-specialists that by and large only served the richest members of Venezuelan society.

This previous reality is perhaps reflected most clearly in one of the biggest controversies surrounding Barrio Adentro: the fact that it utilizes Cuban – rather than Venezuelan – doctors. According to those Venezuelan doctors who have taken part in Barrio Adentro as organizers, planners, bureaucrats or practitioners, Cuban doctors were necessary precisely because the vast majority of Venezuelan doctors refused to take part in the program, even though the program initially sought them. The reasons, of course, vary. On the one hand, many refused to work for the proposed salary, given the fact that they could often make tens of times as much working in private clinics. There was also the fact that Barrio Adentro would take these doctors to parts of Venezuela that many of them had actively tried to avoid for the entirety of their lives – out of fear for their safety, racism, classism or – as is often the case – a mixture of the three. Finally, and not inconsequentially, given the fact that Barrio Adentro called for general family doctors, the hyper-specialization of doctors made them ill-qualified to deal with the quotidian – though by no means benign problems associated with poverty.

Cuban doctors continue to make up the vast majority of medical service providers in Barrio Adentro – and, anecdotally, Barrio Adentro modulos are still all but universally referred to here as ‘mis medicos cubanos.’ However, the government is trying to produce socially-minded domestic doctors to meet the needs of the country. Newly built medical schools are currently training over 17,000 Venezuelan doctors and a postgraduate residency program is training around 3,000 doctors in community medicine.

Aside from the care it provides on a daily basis to Venezuelans of all social classes, Barrio Adentro is also one of the best examples of how political discourse has shifted during the Bolivarian Revolution. At the outset of Barrio Adentro and its predecessors in the Plan Bolívar 2000, opposition parties attacked Chávez for attempting to turn the country into ‘another Cuba’ and questioned both means and ends of his massive social spending programs. Seven years later, the same parties which attacked Chavista ‘populist-communist-authoritarianism’ have shifted gears and now propose their own more conventionally recognizable as ‘populist’ programs in their pursuit to convince the majority of Venezuelans that managed neoliberalism is a better path than 21st Century Bolivarian Socialism.

Two examples of this opposition tactic illuminate the profound impact of Barrio Adentro. First, Manuel Rosales, former presidential candidate, governor of Zulia (Venezuela’s richest state) and founder of the anti-Chavista ‘centrist’ party Un Nuevo Tiempo (UNT) basically ran in 2006 on the platform of out-Chávez-ing Chávez. That is, he campaigned on keeping many of the social programs that have made Chávez so popular but to calm the antagonisms produced by the Bolivarians in foreign policy and domestic class relations while slipping extreme neo-liberal policies in through the back door of populist programs.Emblematic of this was his proposed ‘mi negra’ plan, in which all Venezuelans would receive a debit account in which monthly percentages of the nation’s oil revenues would be deposited. (I will not go into the overt racism flowing through the campaign. For the moment, I will only note that very few people were fooled by Rosales' insistance that the double entendre was clever and not offensive DID NOT go over well, as evidenced by his being trounced in the polls). The logic was that Chávez was being fiscally irresponsible in his deployment of oil money into public works projects and foreign aid. Much better, according to the ostensible un-populist opposition bloc which Rosales headed, was to give direct cash handouts to the people. The proposal of course fell apart with the opposition attempt for the presidency, but it should be noted that their attempts to pull away some of Chávez's base of support by "out-Chávezing-Chávez" via an über-populist ploy failed precisely because of their failure to adequately diagnose Chávez and the dialectic that exists between Chávez and 'the people.' Indeed, the opposition's approach in 'mi negra' -- emphasizing self interest, egoism and market logic while attempting to hijack key Chavista issues like the fight against corruption and bureaucracy -- failed not only to properly diagnose Chávez and 'the people' but also the very nature of the so-called 'populism' it tried to mold to its own purposes.

A second example is Primero Justicia’s (PJ) current “Casas de Justicia para Todos” project (hereafter, Casas). The Casas are almost exact copies of the Bolivarian Misión Barrio Adentro, offering medical services, legal assistance and haircuts. PJ’s latest (early August, 2007) public relations campaigns continue to focus on Chávez’s ostensible misappropriation of oil wealth as a foreign policy tool but have increasingly centered on two other recent campaigsn. First, their ‘Misión Vida’ criticizes the government for its failure to resolve endemic insecurity and some of the highest murder rates on the continent. Second, they – along a few Chavista parties and every other opposition party – are highly antagonistic to upcoming constitutional reforms proposed by Chávez which are reported to include the potential for perpetual presidential re-election, the redrawing of Venezuela’s jurisdictional map and the incorporation of the misiones’ mandate into the ‘hard’ constitutional code.

The opposition analysis here attempts to paint Chávez’s apparent current priorities – Anti-Imperialist foreign policy, constitutional reform and the formation of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) – as distanced from the ‘bread and butter issues’ most directly important to the people of Venezuela. Of course, it is important to note that these critiques tend to disproportionately place emphasis on Chávez the man rather than the processes of the Bolivarian Revolution. Indeed, this choice illuminates a profound miscalculation on the part of the Venezuelan opposition. They try to present themselves as being ‘with the people’ whereas by and large ‘the people’ see Chávez as ‘one of us,’ and opposition politicos as a bunch of rich assholes. Thus, while in the specific instance of PJ’s Casas, it is apparent that the opposition has to a certain extent acknowledged that it cannot make a serious, constitutional, challenge to the Bolivarian Revolution without maintaining the façade of the social programs which have made it so popular here and inspiring around the world. However, their calculations seem to be based on the assumption that the appeal of the Bolivarian Revolution is rooted in nothing more than fickle and trite self-interest.

Time will tell.

Regardless, the obvious redundancy of Casas and the contradictions of managed neoliberalism put opposition parties like UNT and PJ at an inherent disadvantage when they enter this terrain. Whether or not they can actually ever ‘out-Chávez-Chávez’ is less important historically and politically than the fact that they have been forced by the momentum of the times to enter that terrain to begin with and what that means for the future of the Revolution in Venezuela.

Saturday, August 4, 2007

You have got to be kidding me.

Okay, I know this is supposed to be a blog about Venezuela and a gringo therein but I still read newspapers and such. But Saturday morning monkey-wrenched that.

Got my coffee, Got my toast, reading what the Guardian UK has to say about things, and I stumbled on this lil piece of evidence -- as if we needed more -- proving that Barak Obama AND Hillary Clinton are worthless human beings.

Here's Obama, who was trying to say that we SHOULD have invaded Pakistan, and SHOULD keep that option on the table. A reporter, who did their research and discovered that our buddies in Pakistan are nuke-o-riffic asked Obama if he'd be willing to use the bomb in the hard-to-invade border regions. Obama's stutteriffic response: "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance...involving civilians...Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

WHAT?!?!?!? 'Involving civillians?!?!?!' Do I even need to insert some sarcastic comment here?

Hillary's response is even better in its opportunism and horrible-ness: "Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons...Presidents, since the cold war, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

Okay, so we've got one prick trying to prove he's willing to invade anyone to out-Republican the Republicans and faltering non-sensically in the process, and the other prick telling us that we need to respect the sanctity of cold war institutions in the maintenence and furthering of US interests.

Recall a few days ago, when Raúl Castro gave the annual anniversary address to the crowds in La Habanna -- the first time in the history of the revolution that Fidel hasn't been able to give one of his trademark marathon speeches -- he made some serious waves amongst fellow travellers in Cuba and throughout Latin America. First, he openly criticized aspects of the Revolution, most notably in the area of inefficient state bureaucracies, the low salaries earned by most cubans, and the need for more foreign investment on the island. He also reiterated an offer he has made a few times now, to open talks with the US when a less insane regime holds the reins in Washington.

So much for that one, eh Raúl?

Here's the full text of the guardian story--

(P.S. While the Saturday morning NYT apparently thought they had given enough attention to the foreign policy gaffs of democratic hopefuls yesterday, there was at least this little gem by Simon Romero on US actor Sean Penn's current visit to the Bolivarian Republic. The story, fairly par for Romero's course (i.e. logically inconsistent and deeply anti-Chávez) reached a highpoint rather early in the article with:

"What followed, for a handful of journalists given the rare opportunity of accompanying Mr. Chávez on such a trip, was a glimpse into his government’s use of imagery and pomp to court public opinion both at home and abroad."

--note that Romero is able in this little nugget to make Chávez out to be BOTH Kim Jong-Il as well as Citizen Kane; the leader who doesn't meet with journalists -- and is hence secretive and untrustworthy and etc -- but yet is media saavy enough to manipulate dim-wittted holywoodies and their fans alike.)

okay, the guardian story, as promised.

Pakistan criticised the Democratic election contender Barack Obama yesterday over his warning that as president he might order military strikes against al-Qaida targets in the country's border areas.

As protesters burned the US flag in Karachi, Khusheed Kasuri, Pakistan's foreign minister, said: "It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say. As the election campaign in America is heating up, we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."

The response from Pakistan was mirrored in criticism from Hillary Clinton and other Democratic rivals.

Mr Obama, in a speech on Wednesday, said President George Bush had chosen the wrong battlefield in Iraq and should have concentrated on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

He said he would not hesitate to use force to destroy those who posed a threat to the United States, and if the Pakistani president, Pervez Musharraf, would not act, he would.

That speech may have played well with Democratic activists and the public at large. But before any poll could be held to test reaction, Mr Obama showed uncertainty on Thursday in an interview with the Associated Press.

He appeared to be caught off guard when he was asked if he would use nuclear weapons against al-Qaida in Pakistan.

Mr Obama replied: "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance." He added: "... involving civilians".

Demonstrating a degree of unpreparedness, he went on to say: "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

Ms Clinton pounced, portraying herself as more savvy and dependable on foreign affairs.

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons," she said.

"Presidents, since the cold war, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

Joe Biden, another Democratic rival, described Mr Obama as naive, while Chris Dodd, who has only an outside chance of securing the nomination, said he was inconsistent.

Ms Clinton and John Edwards are almost neck and neck with Mr Obama in Iowa, where a caucus in January will provide the first election test.

Success in Iowa could be crucial, providing the impetus for the primaries in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. A poll in the Washington Post yesterday of voters likely to attend the caucus put Mr Obama at 27%, Ms Clinton at 26% and Mr Edwards at 26%.

Mr Obama and Ms Clinton, after largely avoiding criticising one another in campaigning over the last six months, have been exchanging personal jibes almost daily for the last two weeks over foreign policy.

Both will be attending a debate in Chicago today at a convention that brings together bloggers mainly from the left. Mr Obama will almost certainly receive a warmer welcome than Ms Clinton because of her 2002 vote for the Iraq war and their foreign policy positions.

Copyright Guardian News and Media Limited

Thursday, August 2, 2007

What exactly is a 'War on Kidnapping'?

Security and ever rising crime rates are about the only issues of substance opposition parties such as Un Nuevo Tiempo (UNT) and Primera Justicia (PJ) have among their various criticisms of the Bolivarian government. For example, in Caracas alone, WEEKLY murder rates often level off well over 100. Kidnappings are a common occurrence, as are armed robberies and the ‘collateral damage’ of ongoing gang wars – stray bullets, turf battles, and general intimidation tactics.

Many analysts assert opposition candidate Manuel Rosales did as well as he did in the 2006 elections for precisely this reason. The “ni-ni” vote (neither-nor; the coveted sector of the middle class which doesn’t vote because it is either too apathetic or cynical to give either the Bolivarians or the Escuálidos the time of day) is starting to be moved by the lack of significant advances on the violence front. The result, hopes the opposition, will be an increase in protest votes from previously under-mobilized sectors of the population.

Furthermore, the ‘student movement’ – which came about in defense of opposition television station RCTV and discredited itself faster than any movement I’ve ever heard of (see the analysis of the gringo in Venezuela – no relation – blog at: ) – has now shifted gears and dedicated itself to the ambiguous ‘Misión Vida’ of PJ.

So why, pray tell, does it seem like Manuel Rosales – leader of UNT and current governor of the state of Zulia – is doing all he can to INCREASE the number of kidnappings in his state?

Here’s the background: Zulia is the richest state in Venezuela, home to one of the most important ports in the country as well as large oil, coal, copper and other mineral deposits. It is also the westernmost state in the country, sharing a more than 400 kilometer border with Columbia. Hence it is also a key point for parallel economies such as narcotrafficking, kidnapping and other activities associated with Colombian paramilitaries.

Rosales recently announced a new initiative dubbed ‘Guerra a los secuestadores’ (War against the kidnappers) in which up to Bs. 100,000,000 will be paid for information leading to the release of hostages and/or the arrest of kidnappers. Immediately thereafter Pedro Carreño, the Interior and Justice Minister labeled the Rosales ‘war’ for what it is, an irresponsible and ill-thought scheme that only presents a new avenue for the kidnapping rings to make money.

Another fumble from the bumbling opposition? Probably not.

Gian Carlo di Martino, the mayor of Maracaibo (capitol of Zulia) has gone one step further, attacking Rosales in a series of full-page denunciations published in Venezuela’s largest dailies. Among the most damning critiques levied by di Martino is the accusation that Rosales established ties with Colombian paramilitaries when he took office in 2000. He notes that by 1999 local government efforts had reduced the kidnapping rate to 0 in the state, whereas there have been 29 so far this year. Mayor di Martino has called for federal intervention in Zulia, accusing Rosales and the regional police of being in bed with the secuestadores for political as well as financial reasons. publishing a full-page denunciation of Governor Rosales in the country’s largest dailies.

The link between opposition parties makes sense, given their common hatred of socialism and mutual benefactors to the north, but this latest development presents an incredibly new form of political opportunism and cynical strategizing. Rosales puts a ‘plan’ into action, making it look like he’s ‘doing something’ about crime. This plan, which he well knows, will more than likely encourage the ill he is ostensibly trying to attack. At the same time, the money flow to armed groups that are willing and planning for a future coup increases.

(For example, in May 2004 over 70 Colombian paramilitaries were arrested in el Hatillo, a district on the outskirts of Caracas. They were encountered on the farm of Robert Alonso, a Cuban-Venezuelan known for his anti-Castro and anti-Chávez antics. Investigations into the plans of the paramilitaries later uncovered ties to retired Venezuelan generals and A12 coup members Néstor González González and Francisco Usón Rodríguez. González González and Rodríguez are interesting cats. After the supreme court decided they shouldn't be prosecuted for their involvement in the kidnapping of the president and the suspension of the constitution, the pair 'symbolically' occupied Plaza Altamira, a park in the posh eastern part of Caracas, in October 2003 and declared their open resistance to the ‘Chávez dictatorship.’ At the time of the May 2004 incident, both retired generals had taken up residence in Miami.)

When the kidnapping rates either increase or remain the same, Rosales can once again strike out against the national government, accusing it of caring more about Cubans than Venezuelans, just like he did during the campaign.

Bloody incredible.