Mediaboss Marketing

While Venezuela has slid into an economic and political cataclysm under authoritarian President Nicolas Maduro, the political right-wing in the United States has consistently used the example of the countrys failed economy as a reason why leftist politics should be dismissed altogether. What theyre missing is that Maduros authoritarianism isnt just contrary to the economic egalitarianism established by his predecessor Hugo Chavez, the corruption, greed, and elitism of the democratically elected government is directly at odds with everything socialism represents and everything the people of Venezuela long for.

The largest failure of the government, despite the overwhelming corruption, is the inability to set up a sustainable economy, which has resulted in extreme food and medicine shortages as well as astronomically high inflation and trade disparities. The vast natural resources in Venezuela, which include one of the biggest oil reserves in the world, should make it an extremely profitable society, but those resources are instead used to directly profit the people in the authoritarian regime. The countrys economy did not diversify to support all the Venezuelan people before this economic downturn the way Hugo Chavez originally envisioned. To a certain extent, Chavez carried out his socioeconomic reforms but pursued less savory results in various bids to increased his executive power, which gave Maduros administration more elbow room for corruption.

This is where the valid argument that dangers arise from putting a highly centralized system into the wrong hands comes into play. The possibility of a socialist government being taken over by a corrupt president like Maduro is, of course, high. There is no disputing this, but to say that the problem is equitably distributing the resources of the country would be like saying that capitalism is to blame for the abuse of the free market or our bought politicians, or overall harm on the planetbut American capitalists wouldnt say that.

The imminent degradation of the environment, unethical agricultural production, and an immoral financial services industry steeped in voracity are all consequences of corrupt and immoral capitalism. The wealthiest companies in the world abuse their power and shift economic opportunity to benefit their companies by lobbying for laws that are favorable to themselves but not the workers or the world at large. Not only can capitalism result in immoral consumption, corruption, and limitless greed, we critique the ideology when we should be critiquing the corrupt individuals. Unfortunate consequences of human nature and capitalism lead to disparities in income equality around the world and oppression of the lower class. Yet we still only blame socialism for its flaws while there are plenty of faults to explore in capitalism.

Weve abandoned impoverished Detroitand Flint, we poison the water and steal the land of indigenous Native Americans for the capital gain of oil pipelines, and we incarcerate 2.3 million peoplemore than any country in the worldfor profit in privately owned prisons. Yet we dont blame capitalism for these things, in part because these examples directly conflict with the stated values of the economic dogma: equal opportunity and free competition.

Of course, this is not to suggest that Venezuela isnt an extreme example of corruption, but just as capitalism shouldnt be blamed for these faults, socialist ideas are not what has led the country to starvation and commodity shortages like many in the United States suggest.

Under Hugo Chavez, there were significant strides forward that were never sustained, partly due to the incompetency of the Maduro government and partly due to their immense insatiability and corruption. Venezuela under Chavez saw progress for the people in reforms establishing universal health care, raising life expectancy, strengthening social security, providing adequate education, and even improving political participation despite the presidents bid for broader powers and diminishing non-party institutions to cripple political opposition.

How can the principles of universal health care, access to education, and attempts to mitigate hunger as well as poverty be associated with Venezuelas failed socialist experiment, when relative prosperity came to the people when these policies were implemented? From a long history of tyrannical leftists and Red Scare brainwashing, socialism is equated with tyranny in the United States despite the central goal of the ideology being an equitable, classless society. Though here it exists on a different scale, we dont disparage capitalism for those who pursue unfair circumstances, detriment to the workers, or harm to the natural world, despite these things being inherent to rampant free market consumerism, avarice, corruption, and labor exploitation.

The failure of Venezuelas leaders to sustain a prosperous economy out of the fiscal opportunities innate to Venezuela has resulted in anything but an equitable society. But even more so, what really matters is the intent. Instead of having the peoples welfare in mind, Maduros band of tyrants are the beneficiaries of a sinking economy, while the rest of the society lacks the collective wealth that was once within their reach. The government consistently uses anti-Americanism, which has been perpetrated by Chavez and other leftists in the Americas, to blame the United States for sanctions and economic woes instead of doing the right thing: abstaining from corrupt activities and remaining accountable to their people.

The National Assemblys Comptrollers Commission said last year that $70 billion, or 16% of Venezuelas overall GDP, was siphoned from public institutions. The National Assembly Commission determined one of the most corrupt institutions in the government is the state-owned oil company Petroleum of Venezuela (PDVSA). It makes up over 90% of the countrys export revenue and 25% of its GDP. A congressional probe recently stated that $11 billion was missing from the PVDSA, which is more money than the annual GDP of five Central American countries. In addition, there was a case investigated during the probe in which $4.2 billion was laundered in Andorra, the tiny tax-haven of a country between France and Spain. The commission also stated that there were nearly twenty cases like these that they were investigating.

This corruption is found at all levels of government, military, and bureaucracy. To sustain these extraneous profits for politicians and bureaucrats, the Maduro government has eradicated the health care system by cutting its funding, and has failed to provide adequate food for their citizens. Foods high in fats, sugars, and carbohydrates are cheaper in the country and have resulted in increased obesity in Venezuela, only adding to the health crisis.

The Economist described how the military is involved in businesses like food production and other nationalized entities ripe for exploitation. Though the argument could certainly be made that nationalizing key components of daily life can lead to this sort of nefarious abuse of power, capitalism is abused incessantly by businesses, politicians, and lobbyistsonly less noticeably. It is not the socialist system in Venezuela that was pursued democratically, desired by the majority, and beneficial to many that should be liable for the countrys failure. The people who are supposed to uphold the laws are acting against them with impunity. Just as the failure of health care privatization to provide affordable medical services isnt attributed to capitalism, the common notion that socialism is responsible for Venezuelas poor health care is misguided and uninformed.

These purveyors of corruption clearly arent concerned with creating a society of equitythey cultivate a class of elites while the rest of Venezuelans are starving in Soviet-reminiscent bread lines (which is another country whose reprehensibility is attributed to socialist ideas) without adequate health care. While the people go hungry and die in desperate riots, the elite live with luxury in a completely classist, non-egalitarian society. There is even a full blog dedicated only to depicting government politicians and bureaucrats guilty of corruption and their expensive watches.

The corruption is widespread and widely known in Venezuela, so why do we blame socialism? It is not the ideology that is at work here, just like socialism wasnt practiced during the Soviet Union or in modern China. We dont hold capitalism in the United States to this catch-all criteria, so why do we hold socialism to a double standard? If the economic dogma of capitalism isnt being fairly practiced in the country that preaches its benefits the most, the negative slant on socialism is a part of sustaining the globally inequitable, yet undeniably profitable, economic system at home, and is used as proof that leftist democratic socialism itself is to be dismissed.

The elites robbery of money and resources from the people of Venezuela is directly in opposition to the ideas of democratic socialism. It creates a clear class distinction in Venezuelan society, like others before it. While Maduros government halts the pursuit of socialist ideas that had gained decent progressusing them to foster inequitythe economy is plummeting, the Venezuelan people are starving, health care is failing, and crime has proliferated, making Venezuela one of the most dangerous countries on Earth. If the democratically elected socialist government was taking the actions voters wanted them to, then why would they be persistently rioting in the streets in valiant protest against the despot and his corrupt, regime even though many citizens supported the socialist policies of the past? The answer is simple: corruption, avarice, and exploitation yet again.

If Maduro and his government truly fulfilled the stated values of egalitarian democratic socialism, people wouldnt be starving, there wouldnt be bread lines, there wouldnt be medicine shortages, there wouldnt be inflation, and there wouldnt be riots. There would be the promise of resources despite an economic recession, there would be equal opportunities for all and hope for better.

Ryan Beitler is a journalist, fiction writer, traveler, musician, and blogger. He has written for Paste Magazine, Addiction Now, OC Weekly, and his travel blog Our Little Blue Rock. He can be reached at ryanrbeitler@gmail.com

Continued here:
What's the Matter with Venezuela?: It's Not Socialism, It's Corruption - Paste Magazine

I've seen people on social media claiming the Bible doesn't bother to advocate any particular economic order. Supposedly, if a nation chooses capitalism, socialism, or any other "ism," we shouldn't imagine that God cares one way or the other.

This assertion is one fruit of a sort of Christian preaching that fails to apply the Word of God to every area of life, in favor of focusing exclusively on the warm fuzzies you have in your heart because of Jesus.

Don't get me wrong: I'm all for warm fuzzies, but the Bible is about more than that.

In fact, the Scripture assumes free markets, and that is practically the only economic arrangement we see in action throughout its narratives. We see private individuals engaged in open, unhindered trade, buying and selling their own possessions, free from government interference.

There are a couple of odd exceptions, but we'll save those for later articles, as they do nothing to argue with this thesis.

For now, it's important to note that the Bible outlaws all forms of mandatory collectivism, including the "soft socialism" that we live with today. It does this with one, simple commandment: the Eighth. "Thou shalt not steal." (Exodus 20:15)

How does the Eighth Commandment outlaw socialism? By establishing a right to private property.

You can't steal from your neighbor unless he actually owns stuff. Contrarily, collectivist theories (including our homegrown socialism) assume government ownership of all money and means of production.

The government may let you keep some stuff (and thanks be to government) but in a pinch, it just passes a new law and confiscates it.

Am I exaggerating? Try not paying your property taxes on that home that you "own," and you will eventually be shown in no uncertain terms who actually owns it.

But God has said, "Thou shalt not steal." Now, you wouldn't know it from listening to many modern pulpits, or the 24-hour news channels, but this is also talking about government. The king wasn't allowed to break the laws that you and I have to keep. (See for instance the rules for kings in Deuteronomy 17:14-20.)

Government can't do immoral things just because it is the government, including immoral things like thieving.

Am I a radical in any of this? No, I'm a Christian and an American. I recommend re-reading the first paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence if it's been a while. Note where the founders thought our rights come from, and what the job of the government is regarding those rights.

Government should preserve God-given liberties, not destroy them.

Socialism can't happen without theft and coercion through threat of unjust violence. It is therefore anti-God and should get no hearing among us.

Gordan Runyan is the pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Tucumcari. Contact him at:

reformnm@yahoo.com

Go here to read the rest:
Bible outlaws all 'soft socialism' - Quay County Sun

By Marcus Day and George Marlowe 20 June 2017

The 2017 Peoples Summitorganized by sections of the Democratic Party, the trade unions and pseudo-left organizationsattracted a heterogeneous audience in Chicago. As with last years Summit, attendees were predominantly middle class, including former Vietnam-era antiwar protesters and members of liberal organizations in and around the Democratic Party, as well as college students the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democrats are recruiting to run for office.

In addition, several young people and others interested in socialism, including some openly hostile to the Democrats, attended. Some spoke with the World Socialist Web Site.

Jess Mazour is a community organizer in Des Moines, Iowa. She noted that the financial crisis of 2008 had politically radicalized her. Before 2008, I wasnt even aware of why capitalism was a problem, she said. I graduated with a ton of student loan debt and I work at a non-profit that doesnt pay a lot of money.

Jess spoke at length about the issues that motivated her to come to the Peoples Summit. Our country doesnt have an adequate health care system to deal with the issues that everyone faces, including mental health care. Health care needs to include mental health too. More people in the younger generation suffer from mental health issues.

When asked what she thought of the Obama administration, she immediately said, A failure. He deported more people than any other administration. The drone program was absolutely disgusting. He didnt do anything he promised and then he passed a terrible health care bill too. I voted for him the first time but I didnt vote for him the second time.

She added that she wants an alternative to the two-party system. But Im not against using the current system to advance our issues either. There has to be a living wage and everyone needs access to health care and other basic rights.

Our reporters explained that the fight for the social right to health care, jobs and education are revolutionary matters today, and it would take a political movement of the working class to break the economic and political stranglehold of the corporate and financial elite and replace capitalism with socialism. To claim as Bernie Sanders and his supporters do that such a change could come about through transforming the capitalist Democratic Party into a peoples party, they said was a political fraud.

Asked about the conflict within the ruling class and the neo-McCarthyite hysteria pumped out by the Democratic Party against Trump, Jess said, I think the Russia issue is a distraction from issues that affect my community.

Sam and Vanessa Ely recently moved to Chicago from Texas. I work at a distribution company, Sam said. We were both big Bernie supporters in Texas and came here to learn more.

I was not really affiliated with the Democrats. Like a lot of people, I was not happy with the way things were handled in the elections. The Democratic Party has claimed that its the party of the people, but they use identity politics to manipulate minorities and working class people. The way they treated Bernie and progressive voters was really just a turnoff to me.

With Obama, we had war and drone bombings of innocent civilians. That was not OK. Just because the US deems someone a threat, that doesnt give them the right to kill innocent people. The budget also continues to rise for the military. Donald Trump is now giving a huge budget for the military. Obama did the same thing. And Trump is also making cuts to Meals on Wheels and social programs. Why should we keep having these wars and increasing our military budget?

Jennifer, a junior studying environmental geology at Beloit College in southern Wisconsin, came to the summit with Food and Water Watch, a health and environmental NGO. She said she supported Sanders in the 2016 election primaries, and that she had wanted anyone but Trump to become president.

Jennifer noted the informal and unserious atmosphere of the summit, saying, I feel like there are a lot of people wandering around, and not taking the talks super seriously.

Our reporters explained the WSWSs analysis of the Peoples Summitthat it was a political trap to contain social opposition within the Democratic Party, and that what was necessary instead was a break with bourgeois politics and the building of a mass socialist movement.

Jennifer asked the reporters how they would define socialism, to which they responded that it would entail workers democratically controlling societys wealth and resources to meet human need, not private profit. In contrast, they said, What is capitalism today? A society based on enormous inequality, and war, and repression. As socialists, we fight for building a mass antiwar movement in the working class, for peace, and for equality.

I feel like thats what Im really into, Jennifer responded. Im completely antiwar.

Read the original post:
People's Summit attendees discuss Democratic Party, war, socialism - World Socialist Web Site

An outright majority in Frances parliament for a movement founded just over a year ago is clearly a huge achievement. Emmanuel Macrons fledgling force has captured the imagination of the entire world following yet another exceptional election win on Sunday.

Those left stunned by the blitzkrieg-style success of La Rpublique en Marche! (LREM, or The Republic on the Move!) should not, however, overlook a development that is arguably of far greater significance: the sudden death of Socialist France. That 351 out of 577 MPs will now make up the Macron cohorts in the National Assembly is remarkable, but the fact that a Socialist Party (PS) that was in government until last month will have as few as 29 seats is absolutely astonishing.

Such figures mean that the party of Franois Mitterrand, the longest serving president in the history of the Fifth Republic, is now a relatively powerless minority. Franois Hollande, who began his career as an advisor to Mitterrand, was a PS head of state with a comfortable parliamentary majority but he did not dare seek re-election because he knew wipe-out was coming.

Both Hollande and Mitterrand once represented the triumph of the romantic left one in which apparatchiks inspired by the class struggle and the excesses of capitalism were able to fight for social justice from within the Paris establishment, rather than from the street. The PS galvanised the immense revolutionary spirit of the French people and turned it into a formidable democratic unit. Now it is an anachronism that could only muster 6 per cent of the vote during the May presidential elections which saw Macron enter the Elyse Palace.

Macron says door 'remains open' for Britain to stay in EU

In terms of historical developments, this is on a par with the decline of the British Liberal Party before the First World War. A radical new movement Labour hastened the demise of the Liberals in the UK, and in France LREM is having the same effect on the Socialists.

Hollandes incompetence had a great deal to do with this. Before the start of his five-year tenure in 2012, he said: I dont like the rich. His attempts to introduce atop rate of income tax of 75 per cent led to entrepreneurs leaving France. The result of such initiatives was predictable enough: unemployment rocketed, along with the cost of living, as violent street demonstrations became the norm. Just like under Mitterrand in the early eighties, U-turns were essential so as to prevent economic collapse.

In Hollandes case, this involved appointing financially astute civil servants such as Emmanuel Macron, a former Rothschild banker, to try to bail the country out. Contrary to silly myths, Macron was by no means Hollandes protg. He was not even a member of the PS while an unelected finance minister, and was certainly not brought in to keep the Socialists in power under another name. Macron was solely seen as a bright problem-solver who could get things done.

Instead of using talent like Macron to bolster their overall image, however, the PS split between market-friendly social liberals, and the hard left. Most disastrous of all was the manner in which senior ministers just gave up on their party once it was obvious that Macron would prevail.

It was Hollandes Prime Minister Manuel Valls, a classic PS success story who rose from Spanish immigrant to the second highest office in the French state, who announced that the party was dead and gone, and that he wanted to join LREM. This was within a couple of days of Macrons presidential victory.

French president Emmanuel Macron offers refuge to American climate scientists

Perhaps the most disgraceful and most telling conduct came from Sgolne Royal, another of Hollandes most senior lieutenants who was drawn to LREM in recent weeks. Not only was she a former PS presidential candidate, but the mother of Franois Hollandes four children. Despite failing to win a parliamentary seat in 2012, Royal seemed to believe that entitled dinosaurs like her had a right to govern thanks to nepotism.

Hollande caused outrage when he made the mandate-less Royal his Ecology Minister in 2014. The deeply cynical Royal even expressed anger and surprise towards Macron when he declined to keep her on in the job this month.

Champagne socialists are referred to as la Gauche Caviar (the Caviar Left) in France, and there are plenty of others like Royal: those who owe their pampered, moneyed lifestyles to the PS, but who betray democratic socialism whenever it suits them. There was no question of them standing up for their party in the face of the Macron Miracle. They simply capitulated.

LREM is not aparty in the conventional way that the LR and PS are. It is a voting bloc with Edouard Philippe, an LR veteran as prime minister, and plenty of PS turncoats also in Macrons cabinet. New recruits who will now form the presidential majority in Parliament include scores of ordinary people from civil society, along with other pragmatic (some might say opportunistic) politicians from the left, the right, and the Christian democrat MoDem group. The proportion of women in the National Assembly is close to 40 per cent for the first time.

Yes, turnout was low in the second round of parliamentary elections (almost 43 per cent), and there are already concerns about the possibility of an unrestrained hyper-presidency, but opposition to Macron is, in fact, just as likely to come from within his eclectic coalition as it is from outside. LREM rejects extremism, whether from the far right National Front or the radical leftist La France Insoumise (France Unbowed).

A vital rebooting of French democracy is underway, as a progressive young president tries to halt the march of aggressive populism. Macron is not dictating any ideology, nor indeed any rigid programme. He is a consensus politician, who is prepared to listen, and to compromise.

In such circumstances, the PS had every opportunity to fight for its core objectives. Instead, it displayed a shameful defeatism that belies its important role in the development of modern France.

Excerpt from:
Macron's latest success heralds the death of French socialism and it was socialist defeatism that caused it - The Independent

It's clear that for anything resembling socialism to succeed, movements like Occupy and Podemos, electoral challengers like Bernie Sanders, sympathetic elected officials and an anti-capitalist party alongside a left movement, all need to be in the mix. (Photo:Waywuwei / Flickr)

Anti-capitalism needs a viable political party. Whether it's a big one, like the Democratic Party -- which Bernie Sanders' supporters are hoping to influence and dreaming, perhaps, of taking over -- or a robust third party that's openly socialist, it's clear that without a party that operates in conjunction with left movements, it will be difficult to achieve goals like Medicare for All, free higher education, student loan forgiveness, environmental and climate protection, and substantially shrinking the military and the vast prison system. Something on the order of Mlenchon's "France Unsubjugated" movement, which is solidly anti-capitalist, rejects the centrist austerity consensus and won a substantial portion of the national vote in the recent primary, would be up to the task.

That is precisely what several essays inRethinking Revolution: Socialist Register 2017advocate. Edited by Leo Panitch and Greg Albo, with 19 essays by different authors, two -- by Jodi Dean and August Nimtz -- attempt to resuscitate the idea of a vanguard party.Socialist Register 2017marks the centennial of the 1917 Russian revolution and so tries to draw lessons from it, a key one being a vanguard party. Though other essays in the book throw cold water on that idea, Nimtz's view is worth noting: Marx's writings on "independent electoral power and armed organization" of working people, memorized by Lenin, helped usher in the first-time-ever successful workers' revolution. Perhaps the problem here is with the term "vanguard," very popular back in 1917 but in 2017, not so much. Just a party, not necessarily a vanguard party, but just a party would do, as one of several elements necessary for socialism.

Indeed, these essays argue not only for a party, but also for other sources of power. It's pretty clear fromRethinking Revolutionthat for anything resembling socialism to succeed, movements like Occupy and Podemos, electoral challengers like Bernie Sanders, sympathetic elected officials and an anti-capitalist partyalongsidea left movement, all need to be in the mix.

These essays span a wide range of political developments, including eco-socialism in South Africa, the welcome rise of left Laborite Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, the heritage of Eurocommunism, how climate change will drive political uprisings, socialism in South America, the legacy of the Chinese revolution, the pitfalls of identity politics and much more, all linked together by the theme of how to bring about socialism. Of course, socialism has and will come about differently in different places, and one of this volume's aims is to articulate those differences and the distinct challenges socialism faces in various parts of the world.

"It doesn't take much imagination to associate climate change with revolution," writes Andreas Malm about the Middle East in his essay on revolution in a warming world. He mentions that the US military has long viewed climate change as a security threat, especially in the global South, envisioning "a century of permanent counterinsurgency in hot slums sliding into the sea." As global warming leads to famines and water shortages, people will revolt -- indeed, in the last century, famine had more than a little to do with propelling the Bolsheviks to power and then leading to disaster: "the scarcities seemed to allow for no other general course of action than a food supply dictatorship. Here the seeds of Stalinist counterrevolution were sown." That could well be what we are in for with climate change: famine, revolution and counterrevolution. If so, and if climate change is an inevitable corollary of capitalism, then anti-capitalism should land quickly on any thinking person's agenda; there is no time to wait for what Malm calls "the dawdling bourgeoisie." He also critiques the notion of the Anthropocene epoch, which implies that all of humanity is somehow responsible for climate change, when in fact it's wealthy Western countries that have left by far the biggest carbon footprint -- one that affects all people. "There are no jobs on a dead planet," he concludes.

David Schwartzman's essay on eco-catastrophism concurs, naming the two major threats to civilization: nuclear war and catastrophic climate change. "Only transnational class struggle on a scale not witnessed in human history has any chance of preventing catastrophic climate change," he writes. That struggle would be greatly assisted by coordination among various functioning anti-capitalist parties in different countries.

Besides nuclear war and catastrophic climate change, a third threat looms for humanity, if socialism does not succeed -- a threat not discussed in this volume: fascism. A fascist candidate recently made it all the way to the French election, while governments in the US, UK, Hungary, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Philippines and elsewhere have all lurched so far to the right that it would not take much to morph from reactionary to fascist. Meanwhile, centrist austerity will not only fail to counter fascism, but will create enough misery to fuel it: We have seen this happen many times in various countries since the 1920s. Where socialists have failed to organize, fascists have teamed up with capitalists to scorch the planet and dispossess billions, resorting quickly to the military. We saw this in the 1966 mass murder of leftists in Sukarno's Indonesia and in the South American dictatorships of the 1960s and '70s. Today, we are witnessing the murderous war on drugs in President Rodrigo Duterte's Philippines or, still nascent, in the anti-immigrant policy agenda of Trump's United States. In these precarious times, socialists and anti-capitalists everywhere have their work cut out for them.

One place with bright prospects in this respect is South Africa, whose workers are, according to an essay by Patrick Bond inRethinking Revolution,"the world's most militant." Bond's article, "South Africa's Next Revolt: Eco-socialist Opportunities," lists "red-green (socialist-environmentalist) victories since the fall of apartheid in 1994: access to free HIV/AIDS medicines, the partial decommodification of municipal water and electricity services and workplace health and safety class action lawsuits." But on the downside, "neoliberalism has dug itself deep into social and environmental management since 1994." And there have been terrible defeats: South Africa's powerful and militant National Union of Mineworkers led a wildcat strike in 2012, in which 34 workers were massacred by police, basically on the orders of a former union leader turned government official.

Unlike South Africa, Bolivia pretty much alreadyissocialist. In Robert Cavooris's essay, he expounds upon the history of Bolivian neoliberalism and austerity and how it led to Evo Morales's victory and the success of the Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS). Cavooris argues that the rejection of neoliberalism throughout South America paved the way for outsiders to assume political control. Despite limited wage increases, he observes, the pink-tide states all put in place "popular welfare programs and worker subsidies." Unfortunately, as we have witnessed in recent years, without accompanying structural economic changes, for instance the nationalization of banks, these popular programs cannot hold off discontent, when, say, a worldwide slump in commodity prices (think oil in Venezuela) batters the country. The pink tide is not pink enough, according to Cavooris, who highlights "the distinction between a revolutionary transformation of the state and a doomed reformism." He writes that if "neoliberalism is thought abstractly as the dominance of the market over the state, then the presumed solution would be the wielding of state power to restore the balance."

For the troubles besetting the left and recently-left South American states, Cavooris prescribes "more power to the communes in Venezuela, more land for the landless movements in Brazil, more space for the self-management of unions in Bolivia and for the 'taken' factories in Argentina." Unfortunately, counterrevolution has already brewed in Brazil and Argentina. However, if an immensely popular left-wing leader like Lula makes a comeback in Brazil and if right-wing president Macri's penchant for privatizing and austerity stirs revolt in Argentina, things could change quickly.

In his essay on Venezuela, Steve Striffler argues that socialists must use electoral politics, despite ferocious counterattacks. "Attempts to change the structure, operation and even personnel of the state, while simultaneously confronting capital and putting key sectors of industry, finance and commerce under social control/ownership produces the fiercest opposition. This is precisely why, both Chavez and Morales recognized, the process must be accompanied by the creation of alternative organs, institutions and spaces of working class power." Striffler observes that this is an exhausting struggle, but a necessary one: The creation of a welfare state is not enough. "The power of capital must be broken," he writes. If not, the business elites will find a way to undermine socialism -- as they are currently doing in Venezuela and have done in Brazil and Argentina.

A salient difficulty besetting Venezuela and sabotaging its socialism is scarcity. "The opposition still possessed the capacity to seriously disrupt the economy," Striffler writes, adding that it was able to "generate political instability and undermine support for the government." Striffler observes that in a liberal democracy moving toward socialism, this will almost always be the case. Elites will fight back bitterly and not hesitate to reduce the country to poverty to further their aims, as has happened in Venezuela. "There is perhaps no better expression of this," Striffler writes about Venezuela, "than the periodic efforts by the business class to create a scarcity of consumer goods by reducing production, selling in alternative markets, limiting imports, or simply hoarding supplies, in effect promoting economic turmoil in order to foment political instability."

This has been going on in Venezuela for some time. Indeed, the recent lessons of socialism in South America couldn't be starker: While social welfare programs that provide housing, medicine, school and even cash payments to poor and working people are popular, in and of themselves they do not complete socialism's task. Capitalism must be confronted and restructured out of the picture, or it will come roaring back, dispossessing multitudes and roasting the planet, more destructive and chaotic than ever, and it will tear humanity's house right down to the ground.

Continued here:
On the Road From Anti-Capitalism to Socialism, We Need a Political Party - Truth-Out