The Venezuelan Case
Páginas: 19 (4505 palabras)
Publicado: 14 de julio de 2011
CITY UNIVERSITY LONDON
Department of Sociology
Global Political Economy
Dr. Anastasia Nesvetailova
The Venezuelan case: 21st century socialism
Grace Avilez
December 17th 2010
Introduction
On January 30th 2005, with the enthusiastic cheer of nearly 30,000 people that gathered on behalf of the 5th World Social Forum held in Brazil, Hugo Chavez challenged the principles of capitalism andopenly called for a 21st century socialism.
In a speech filled of quotes from Marx, Lenin, Mao, Castro and Che Guevara, the animated crowd overflowing the Gigantinho Stadium heard Venezuela’s president claim towards the end of the US hegemony era: “When imperialism feels weak, it resorts to brute force […] Nowadays, nobody defends neo-liberalism” (Simonson, 2005:30).
Chavez’ first publicdemand for a “New type of socialism, a humanist one which puts humans, and not machines or the state” (Ibid) arise in the midst of what was originally considered as a counterpoint to the World Economic Forum, the annual meeting of world’s political and corporate powers in Davos, Switzerland.
At least 155,000 people participated on behalf of 135 countries congregating amid the forum’s notion‘Another World is Possible’. The countries with the greatest representation besides Brazil (represented by president Lula Da Silva) were the United States, Italy and France.
The effects of Chavez’ words reflected the uprising rejection of neo-liberalism theories and US hegemony around the world. Is in fact possible for Chávez to establish a purely socialism State? To what extent Venezuelan socialdemocracy market depends on the American imports and exports?
Based upon these uncertainties and by means of investigating current issues and the variety of historic and contemporary theories, the essay’s purpose is to provide evidence to show that Hugo Chávez’ 21st socialism regime is in fact embedded and is dependent upon a broad capitalist framework.
1. Understanding hegemony: theoreticalapproaches
The emergence of Hugo Chávez’ 21st socialism revolution and the construction of a counter-hegemony bloc linked to the left, is based on a theoretical framework and the development of a political strategy.
In order to understand the foundations of this type of emerging oppositional movements, the thought of the Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci may offer the best framework (Harris,2007:3). Indeed, the practical implications of his notions on hegemony, historical blocs and the theory of passive revolution are manifest behind the policies of the Venezuelan 21st socialism regime.
Hegemony, in the Gramscian sense, is the way in which a predominating group establishes and maintains its rule by means of a consensual domination:
The supremacy of a social group, manifestsitself in economic, intellectual, political and moral leadership, to which the subalterns give their active consent, while domination (coercion) is used only exceptionally on those who do not consent (Gramsci, 1971, as cited in Muhr, 2008:42).
Considering that consent and coercion are in effect the centre of Gramsci’s theory, he respectively identified two ‘levels’ that constitute the social order.The civil society represents the ‘ensemble of private organisms’ through which cultural hegemony, e.g. the predominance of bourgeois values, or consensual domination is exercised. In contrast, political society (state) denotes the exercise of the ‘direct domination’ if consciousness cannot be controlled, and in which law becomes a repressive instrument (Ibid).
On his public interventions,Chavez has particularly introduced this concept:
“The conflict in Venezuela can be understood as one between the institutions of the state, which used to be controlled by this civil society, but no longer is […] To this old civil society, according to Gramsci, belongs the Catholic Church hierarchy, the mass media, and the education system as the principal institutions. The dominant classes...
Department of Sociology
Global Political Economy
Dr. Anastasia Nesvetailova
The Venezuelan case: 21st century socialism
Grace Avilez
December 17th 2010
Introduction
On January 30th 2005, with the enthusiastic cheer of nearly 30,000 people that gathered on behalf of the 5th World Social Forum held in Brazil, Hugo Chavez challenged the principles of capitalism andopenly called for a 21st century socialism.
In a speech filled of quotes from Marx, Lenin, Mao, Castro and Che Guevara, the animated crowd overflowing the Gigantinho Stadium heard Venezuela’s president claim towards the end of the US hegemony era: “When imperialism feels weak, it resorts to brute force […] Nowadays, nobody defends neo-liberalism” (Simonson, 2005:30).
Chavez’ first publicdemand for a “New type of socialism, a humanist one which puts humans, and not machines or the state” (Ibid) arise in the midst of what was originally considered as a counterpoint to the World Economic Forum, the annual meeting of world’s political and corporate powers in Davos, Switzerland.
At least 155,000 people participated on behalf of 135 countries congregating amid the forum’s notion‘Another World is Possible’. The countries with the greatest representation besides Brazil (represented by president Lula Da Silva) were the United States, Italy and France.
The effects of Chavez’ words reflected the uprising rejection of neo-liberalism theories and US hegemony around the world. Is in fact possible for Chávez to establish a purely socialism State? To what extent Venezuelan socialdemocracy market depends on the American imports and exports?
Based upon these uncertainties and by means of investigating current issues and the variety of historic and contemporary theories, the essay’s purpose is to provide evidence to show that Hugo Chávez’ 21st socialism regime is in fact embedded and is dependent upon a broad capitalist framework.
1. Understanding hegemony: theoreticalapproaches
The emergence of Hugo Chávez’ 21st socialism revolution and the construction of a counter-hegemony bloc linked to the left, is based on a theoretical framework and the development of a political strategy.
In order to understand the foundations of this type of emerging oppositional movements, the thought of the Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci may offer the best framework (Harris,2007:3). Indeed, the practical implications of his notions on hegemony, historical blocs and the theory of passive revolution are manifest behind the policies of the Venezuelan 21st socialism regime.
Hegemony, in the Gramscian sense, is the way in which a predominating group establishes and maintains its rule by means of a consensual domination:
The supremacy of a social group, manifestsitself in economic, intellectual, political and moral leadership, to which the subalterns give their active consent, while domination (coercion) is used only exceptionally on those who do not consent (Gramsci, 1971, as cited in Muhr, 2008:42).
Considering that consent and coercion are in effect the centre of Gramsci’s theory, he respectively identified two ‘levels’ that constitute the social order.The civil society represents the ‘ensemble of private organisms’ through which cultural hegemony, e.g. the predominance of bourgeois values, or consensual domination is exercised. In contrast, political society (state) denotes the exercise of the ‘direct domination’ if consciousness cannot be controlled, and in which law becomes a repressive instrument (Ibid).
On his public interventions,Chavez has particularly introduced this concept:
“The conflict in Venezuela can be understood as one between the institutions of the state, which used to be controlled by this civil society, but no longer is […] To this old civil society, according to Gramsci, belongs the Catholic Church hierarchy, the mass media, and the education system as the principal institutions. The dominant classes...
Leer documento completo
Regístrate para leer el documento completo.