"When Hugo Chávez came to power in 1999, there was hope. He was a man who championed the poor in what has always been a deeply divided society. He was a vibrant and controversial figure who wanted to lead a socialist revolution in Venezuela.
But Chavez was helped by strong commodity prices that funded his ambitious social programmes. With a fall in oil prices, President Maduro has had no such luck - and little of the charisma his predecessor had. During his leadership, the country has fallen into economic decline." (The BBC)
Yes, strong commodities benefited Venezuela and other countries for a while, but a new socio-economic project cannot be built on a temporary boom or in one country or some "islands". That is impossible in a global capitalist system. The experience of Venezurla has proved that any faltering in the boom affects not only state revenues but also any deepening of popular democracy. And if the new leadership, whatever ideas and ideals it believes in, doesn't provide, sections of the population, if not not the majority, would turn against it.
From a socialist perspective, one of the reasons that led to the current situation is that Chaves did not clip the power of the big capitalists. It is not that Chavez "messed up"; it is that he did not go far enough and that the project did not materialise regionally.
From a socialist perspective, one of the reasons that led to the current situation is that Chaves did not clip the power of the big capitalists. It is not that Chavez "messed up"; it is that he did not go far enough and that the project did not materialise regionally.
Without the integration of the Latin and South American countries, using the vast available resources and manpower, there cannot be a socialist project. The experiences of the 1950s-1970s in the region, as well as elsewhere, confirm that big powers will never let a country get out of their orbit. A Saudi-Arabian or a Russian-with-a-pro-Western regime would be tolerated, but not a Chavez, Morales, or Correa one.
Comments