Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Servant Corps]

Venezuela's politics
Commune-ism
Yet another method to entrench the president's power
Jul 15th 2010 | CARACAS

WHEN Jorge Urosa, the archbishop of Caracas, said recently that Hugo Chávez was installing a “Marxist-communist” regime in Venezuela, the country’s leftist president called him a “troglodyte” and accused him of “instilling fear in the people.” Yet Mr Chávez, an avowed socialist, is openly seeking to introduce what looks like a novel form of communism. After taking over the courts and provoking an opposition boycott of legislative elections, he is now targeting state and municipal governments, currently the last bulwark against his rule among elected officials. By forcing them to compete for resources with pliable “communes”, he may starve them to death.

In June his legislative allies approved on first reading a draft bill creating the commune, a “socialist local entity…on the basis of which socialist society is to be built,” with legislative, judicial and executive functions. The communes are supposed to be partly self-sufficient, thanks to a “socialist productive model”, outlined in a separate bill, that will replace the existing capitalist economy. But in practice, the state will provide most of their resources, determine which communes can register, and impose “development” laws and decrees.

Darío Vivas, the vice-president of congress, says the bill will “develop popular participation in the most democratic way possible.” But the opposition calls it a scheme to increase Mr Chávez’s power. Each commune will “regulate social and community life [and] guarantee public order, social harmony and the primacy of collective over individual interests.” Their courts will have jurisdiction over all residents, even though the communes are exclusively intended for socialists. Meanwhile, states and municipalities will be forced to transfer part of their revenues to the communes. Since communes can span municipal borders, they could move public funds from opposition-led districts to government-friendly ones.

The project flies in the face both of the constitution and of public opinion. Mr Chávez first tried to establish communes through a constitutional-reform package in 2007, which was narrowly rejected in a referendum. Many key articles in the proposed communes law were taken from the failed reform. Mr Vivas insists that “if we were to ask those questions today”, the reforms would pass. But recent surveys suggest the reverse. According to a June study by Hinterlaces, a polling firm, only 31% of Venezuelans support Mr Chávez’s “21st-century socialism”, whereas 80% prefer private to communal property.

The bill still requires a second reading to become law. But although a more plural congress will be elected in September, new members will not be seated until January, allowing the outgoing assembly to pass unpopular laws without electoral repercussions. Moreover, even while the bill awaits approval, the government says that over 200 communes are already in formation. A local referendum in which as little as 15% of the electorate casts a vote will be enough to bring them into existence. Faced with declining popularity, Mr Chávez is wasting little time in setting up new means to wield his authority.

Interesting to see how this would go down.

[Footkerchief]

It's considered polite to link your sources.

[Servant Corps]

You're right. My bad, I just didn't want this article to be archived in the "pay-gate" where you have to pay money to look at the article, so I rushed my post without giving sources.

[Creamcorn]

I give him a 50% chance of actually having this happen. 20% on actually thriving. Anyway, what's that whole inability to thrive in communism about anyway?

[Astramancer]

Anyway, what's that whole inability to thrive in communism about anyway?

My opinion (based on nothing more than armchair economics): The same thing that causes capitalist economies to fail -- corruption.

The biggest difference is that a capitalist society is more resilient to crippling corruption.  The major players have a pretty big vested interesting in making sure the system doesn't outright fail, as quite a bit of their wealth and power is tied up in the economy, whereas in Communism, you theoretically *don't have* wealth or power, so your corruption is all about taking actual wealth, like gold and stuff.

Capitalism:  I will be corrupt to create (perhaps unsafe) jobs and thus keep the economic juices flowing (with a % into my pockets).
Communism: I will be corrupt to redirect a % of the economic juices into my pockets.

Sure, they both have the same end result (the rich get richer), but communism seems to cut out the middle-man of "economic growth" because the state already has a controlling interest in "economic growth" aspect.

At least, that's the (admittedly skewed) way I've always seen it.

I am actually all for communism, if you can get rid of the whole corruption aspect (ha!).  Keep in mind that Soviet Russia went from a largely animal-driven economy (wagons hauled by animals and whatnot) to a superpower with space flight and nuclear weapons in the course of 50 years....  and that's pretty impressive in my book.

[Renault]

Oh good. Another thread on economics. My blood pressure had almost normalized; I'm glad we caught this in time.

[Nikov]

It will be great to see how much about economics everyone has not learned over the last five months.

PS. Fuck Chavez.