Harry Targ
But the story of 21st century resistance is not just about countries, alliances, new economic institutions that mimic the old. Grassroots social movements have been spreading like wild fire all across the face of the globe. The story can begin in many places and at various times: the new social movements of the 1980s; the Zapatistas of the 1990s; the anti-globalization/anti-IMF campaigns going back to the 1960s and continuing off and on until the new century; or repeated mass mobilizations against a Free Trade Agreement for the Americas. (Harry Targ, “The Empire in Disarray: Global Challenges to the International Order,” The Rag Blog, April 10, 2013).
On Imperialism and Resistance
Theories of imperialism emphasize the role of capital accumulation, the drive for ever larger profits, the exploitation of workers and peasants, and the expropriation of land. The needs of the economic system are typically served by military force when profits cannot be gained through other means. Also social control in poor countries is achieved by building alliances between ruling classes in rich and poor countries.
This story of imperialism explains
much of human history. But the pursuit of profit, the capacity to exploit, the
conquest of land, and the institutionalization of policies that maximize the
interests of the powerful generate resistance. That too is part of the story.
In the twenty-first century, countries such as China, India, and Brazil are
demanding that some of the rules of economic exchange be rewritten. Groups of
marginalized nation-states have joined together to form political and economic
organizations on every continent. Most importantly, social movements have
emerged all across the globe around critical issues. And because of new
technologies, movements in one geographic space are now visible to all.
Latin American Resistance and
Counter-Resistance
Perhaps the most interesting and
inspiring forms of resistance over the last 25 years have been observed in
Latin America. Cuba, the long-isolated nation which has inspired revolutionary
ferment in the Global South, has been joined by political regimes throughout
the continent. In this century resistance has come from grassroots organizing
and electoral processes. These have led many countries in the region to adopt
radical reforms, economic populism, and visions of twenty-first century
socialism. The Bolivarian Revolution, so named by Hugo Chavez, spread from
Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Uruguay, to Nicaragua. Modest adaptations of
radical reform surfaced in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and for a time Paraguay
and Honduras. These countries embraced some or all of the following:
--the construction of socialist
parties to run candidates for local and national office.
--cooperation in the establishment of regional international organizations such as the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), The Bank of the South, The Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), The Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR), and various bilateral agreements including Cuba’s exchange of medical practitioners for Venezuelan oil.
--the articulation of common Latin
American responses to traditional United States and European global hegemony.
This includes demands for change in European and North American control of
voting power in international organizations such as the IMF, opposition to the
Free Trade Agreement of the Americas proposed by the United States, and demands
that the United States normalize relations with Cuba.
--the establishment of alternative
forms of local political power.
--the construction of agricultural and
industrial cooperatives.
--the emergence of grassroots
organizations.
--the recognition of indigenous
rights.
--the realization that the
distribution of wealth and power between and within countries needs to be
changed.
In sum, theories of imperialism,
hegemony, dependency need to be complemented by an understanding of the theory
and practice of resistance. Mobilizations as varied as the thousands of groups
attending the World Social Fora to the politics of the Bolivarian Revolution,
to Arab Spring, to Occupy are all part of the story of the twenty-first
century. However, narratives of imperialism and resistance must also be
sensitive to “counter-resistance.” History does not move in a steady course.
Conflict and struggle are experienced all along the way. And therefore
theorists and advocates of twenty-first century socialism must be cognizant of
and be prepared for counter-resistance and reversals in the progressive flow of
history.
Counter-Resistance and Defeat in
Venezuela
Recently peoples’ movements suffered
defeats in elections in two countries: Argentina and Venezuela. In Argentina, a
neoliberal opposition party candidate, Mauricio Macri, defeated the hand-picked
choice of incumbent president Christina Kirchner in October. And, in parliamentary elections in Venezuela
on December 6, the Roundtable of Democratic Unity (MUD) won two-thirds of the
legislative seats over the incumbent Chavista party, the United Socialist Party
of Venezuela (PSUV). This latter defeat in particular will have significant
consequences in the near-term future for policies, programs, and left movements
throughout the region.
Why did the PSUV incur this first
major loss since the rise to power of Hugo Chavez in 1998? The answer to the
question involves both external and internal causes. Externally, the loss was
influenced by United States programs initiated years ago to intervene in the
internal affairs of Venezuela. The United States trained and funded opposition
political forces, encouraged a military coup to oust Chavez from power, and
gave support to the wealthy class, to do whatever would bring down the
Bolivarian Revolution.
In addition, U.S. policy has
pressured Latin American governments to resist collaboration with its Venezuelan
nemesis. Its policy tilted more toward Venezuela’s historic adversary,
Colombia. In 2010 the U.S. constructed seven new military bases in Colombia to
exacerbate tensions between those two countries.
Also, the price of oil on the
world market has dropped precipitously over the last four years, thus depriving
the Venezuelan economy of its most lucrative export-earning commodity.
Along with the 17-year United States
campaign to overthrow the Bolivarian Revolution throughout the region, internal
forces impacted significantly on the December 6 election defeat of the PSUV. Although
the Chavez/Maduro regimes have prioritized new grassroots political
institutions and have encouraged the expansion of cooperatives, particularly in
the rural areas, Venezuelans in some communities were frustrated by
bureaucratic stifling of local initiatives and political corruption. Also, while
there has been a radical redistribution of the right to healthcare and food, in
recent years these benefits have become scarce and accessing them has become
more time consuming. Finally, as a result of economic crises, inflation has
skyrocketed and basic consumer goods have become unavailable or unaffordable. Venezuelan
voters were frustrated by current economic crises even though the 17 years of
Chavista rule has led to substantial declines in poverty and the Cuban doctors
have made health care readily available to those who formerly did not have access to it.
Finally, PSUV victories and the
passion for Venezuela’s peaceful revolution drew substantial support from its
charismatic leader, Hugo Chavez. With his death, a less appealing Nicholas
Maduro was not able to maintain the authority of his predecessor.
Lessons Learned
What are some of the lessons to be
drawn from the defeats in Latin America, particularly in Venezuela?
First, history reveals that
successful resistance over imperialism and domination often leads to reaction,
or what might be called “counter-resistance.” Activists should be aware that
reversals in the face of organized reaction are likely and they therefore
should not despair.
Second, progressives in the United
States should continue to oppose militarism, subversion, and economic
strangulation targeted against regimes that challenge traditional hegemony. In
addition they might more effectively explain how communities and nations in
Latin America are constructing alternative institutions such as workplace and
agricultural cooperatives and alternative organizations of peoples’ power.
Third, the consequences of the election for Venezuela itself are unclear. But it can be assumed that MUD will use its two-thirds majority in the parliament to reverse the policies of economic populism, political change, and Venezuela’s positive relationships with other countries, particularly Cuba. Maduro, however, is still president and he will resist efforts to reverse the gains of the Bolivarian Revolution.
Fourth, ultimately the future course of the country will be determined by the grassroots formations already created by the Bolivarian Revolution. If the people stand up to protect their cooperatives, their alternative local decision-making bodies, their new lives, then MUD (a fractious coalition of center-right and right-wing forces) will have limited powers to reverse the last seventeen years of the construction of twenty-first century socialism. And the level of intensity of the defense of the Bolivarian Revolution is relevant to observe throughout Latin America as well.
Fifth, MUD will probably prioritize a
reversal of Venezuelan/Cuban relations and the other agreements Venezuela has
made to provide oil for resource poor nations. The ramifications for the
economies of these countries might be large, as would the loss of Cuban doctors
to the Venezuelan people.
Sixth, and of more long-term
consequence, poor countries have to figure out ways to construct
vibrant and diverse economies that do not depend on a single temporarily valuable natural resource for export. History is replete with accounts of countries which gained temporary wealth because of gold, silver, nickel, or singular agricultural commodities such as sugar or tobacco. They then became victims of conquest and vulnerable to declines in global demand. In the case of oil, extraction means environmental devastation. In countries such as Ecuador and Brazil oil exploration, even if the profits derived from it are shared with the population at large, generates justifiable anger among indigenous people who object to policies that destroy local communities and their ecology.
vibrant and diverse economies that do not depend on a single temporarily valuable natural resource for export. History is replete with accounts of countries which gained temporary wealth because of gold, silver, nickel, or singular agricultural commodities such as sugar or tobacco. They then became victims of conquest and vulnerable to declines in global demand. In the case of oil, extraction means environmental devastation. In countries such as Ecuador and Brazil oil exploration, even if the profits derived from it are shared with the population at large, generates justifiable anger among indigenous people who object to policies that destroy local communities and their ecology.
Finally, most regimes that have come
to power through struggle have gained legitimacy from charismatic figures. In
Latin America, Simon Bolivar, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, and most recently Hugo
Chavez, for example, have excited the imagination and enthusiasm of their
people. Charismatic authority has been both a blessing and a curse as people
struggle to build a better future. Twenty-first century socialism will be built
on passion and enthusiasm but it is more likely to endure if that passion and
enthusiasm is based on all those who construct it, not a small number of leaders.
