VENEZUELA: REVOLUTION BRINGS MASSIVE SOCIAL GAINS

"The Venezuelan economy in the Chavez years", a study released in July by the Centre for Economic and Policy Research, reveals massive social gains for the poor and working people in Venezuela as a result of the pro-people policies promoted by the government of socialist President Hugo Chavez. The study, by Mark Weisbrot and Luis Sandoval, also provides a detailed look at the state of the Venezuelan economy, which has experienced significant economic growth. The authors argue that, contrary to suggestions widely made in the corporate media (which the authors refer to as "conventional wisdom"), this growth is unlikely to end any time soon.

VENEZUELA

Venezuela: Revolution brings massive social gains

Stuart Munckton

29 September 2007

A key component of the Bolivarian revolution — as the process of change led by the Chavez government is known — is the redistribution of wealth to tackle the problems of the poor via the implementation of "social missions", government-funded social programs in a growing range of areas, including health care, education, food provision, employment, land reform, culture and the environment.

The Chavez government inherited a country devastated by neoliberalism, with a significant increase in poverty during the two decades prior to Chavez's election. The report shows that social spending by the government from 1998 (when Chavez was first elected) to 2006 has increased by 170% per person in real (inflation adjusted) terms. However, this figure excludes social spending directly carried out by the state-owned oil company, PDVSA, some US$13.3 billion in 2006. When this spending is factored in, the increase is 314% per person since 1998. In 1998, social spending was 34.7% of total public expenditure; by 2006 it was 44%.

The report points out that "the most pronounced difference has been in the area of health care", with an increase of primary care physicians from 1628 in 1998 to 19,571 today. Since 2004, as part of Mission Miracle — a joint program with Cuba that provides free eye operations — just under 400,000 people have had their vision restored. In 1999, there were 335 HIV patients with antiretroviral treatment provided by the government, compared to 18,538 in 2006.

The authors report that the government "has also provided widespread access to subsidized food". By 2006, there were 15,726 stores offering mainly food items at up to 40% below market prices. Combined with a large number of kitchens providing free food to the very poor, in 2005 67% of the population benefited. This doesn't include those that benefited from a free school meals program (1.8 million in 2006, up from 252,000 in 1998).

Access to education has also dramatically increased, including more than 1 million people participating in free adult literacy classes, leading to Venezuela eradicating illiteracy by UN standards.

The report also shows significant drops in official levels of poverty, and points out that these figures do not include the benefits associated with provision of free health care and education or subsidised food. Since 2003, when the economy faced a crisis as a result of sabotage by the rich elite as part of their attempt to overthrow Chavez, the percentage of households in poverty has dropped from 55% to 30.6%, and those in extreme poverty from 25% to 9.1%.

These social gains are combined with ongoing attempts to involve the poor and working people in directly participating in the affairs of government and exercising power over decisions that directly affect them through new institutions of popular power, such as the communal councils. This attempt to create a "participatory democracy" is closely linked to the social gains, because the missions, such as Mission Robinson (literacy) and Mission Barrio Adentro (health care), are organised outside the existing state institutions (which are often corrupt and bureaucratic) and involve direct community participation.

The corporate media, unable to ignore the extent of the social gains, usually imply they are purely the result of economic growth, fuelled by abnormally high oil prices, that will collapse either due to "oil prices eventually declining, or as a result of the government's mismanagement of economic policy".

However, the authors take issue with such claims, and provide the economic data to back up their argument. The report gives an indication of the extent of economic growth — a "remarkable" 76% since 2003. It points out that this cannot be compared to economic growth fuelled by high oil prices in Venezuela during the 1970s, which was followed by an economic crisis when prices dropped.

Despite a higher rise in oil prices between 1973-77, Venezuela's only economy grew by 31%. The authors conclude that it "seems likely that the government's expansionary fiscal and monetary policies, and perhaps other policies (eg: exchange controls ... which have kept more capital within the country)" are likely to be key factors in the current expansion.

The Venezuelan government bases its budget on much lower oil prices than exist in the market (budgeting for $26 per barrel in 2006, when the market price was actually $60.20 per barrel). The result is that government revenue ends up much higher than budgeted for. So despite public spending dramatically increasing, the government has maintained a balanced budget. Other factors that could help the government survive a sudden drop in oil prices without cutting social expenditure, or other measures that might cause a recession, include a low level of foreign debt, a current account surplus and massive foreign currency reserves (in excess of $40 billion in total).

Perhaps the economic issue to get the most attention from the corporate media is inflation, which is used to suggest "irresponsible" spending by the Chavez government risks creating a crisis. Here, too, the authors puncture the myth. While inflation has grown over the last year, and is relatively high at just under 20%, this is much lower than in the period immediately before Chavez's election. In fact, just over a year prior to Chavez's election it reached a high of nearly 120%. The authors argue that while it would be a problem if inflation continued to rise (it appears to have stabilised) it would only cause major problems for the majority of the population if economic growth were to stall.

The final claim made to suggest that the economy could face a crisis and imperil Venezuela's dramatic social gains is that the government's nationalisations and other policies that adversely affect corporate interests will scare off private investment. However, the report shows that since 2004, investment has grown significantly. Fixed gross capital formation grew by 49.7% in real terms in 2004, 37.9% in 2005 and 33.5% in 2006. While figures that break this down between private and public investment are only available for 2004, in that year private investment outstripped public investment. The report points out that a drop in private investment does not need to prove a problem providing public investment increases to take its place — something the Chavez government is well-placed to do.

This goes a long way to destroying one of the key justifications for neoliberal economic policies that seek to give as much control as possible to corporations through deregulation and privatisation — the claim that unless you give the corporations what they want, they will refuse to invest and will take their capital to a country with less restrictions on their ability to make a profit.

However, in Venezuela the government has done the opposite of what neoliberal economists recommend and implemented measures hated by the corporate rich — such as strict currency controls, price controls, nationalisation of strategic sectors of the economy, repeated increases in the minimum wage, polices that strengthen workers' rights and ability for unions to organise, increasing taxes on the rich, and massively cracking down on corporate tax evasion.

Far from fleeing, private investment has increased. With the economy growing, corporations are still looking to invest. The reason is that there is a finite amount of resources and markets globally, for which there is already intense competition among different corporate interests for control over. Venezuela has shown that corporations will often be forced to accept restrictions on their operations (making some profit is better than none), and that the argument that corporations will refuse to invest is often an excuse used to justify policies that shift more wealth from the poor to the rich.

The report points to some of the potential problems facing the Venezuelan economy, such as an overvalued currency, and also points out that "in the long run, diversifying the economy away from its dependence on oil is also a major challenge" — something the Chavez government is attempting to achieve. However, the authors conclude that "it does not appear that the current economic expansion is about to end anytime in the near future. The gains in poverty reduction, employment, education and health care that have occurred in the last few years are likely to continue ..."

None of these gains are the product simply of the goodwill of the Chavez government, but of revolutionary struggle by millions of Venezuela's working people. The Chavez government would not still be in power if it was not for the direct action of the working people to defeat a US-backed coup in April 2002 that briefly overthrew Chavez, and a lockout by bosses in December that year.

It is Venezuela's urban and rural working people who are working to implement the missions and other pro-people policies, and are increasingly, through grassroots bodies like the communal councils, taking direct control over society. Chavez and revolutionary activists repeatedly emphasised that the revolution has only just begun. The explicit aim of the revolution to construct a socialist society with a democratically planned economy that serves the needs of the working majority and the environment. This means the revolution faces further battles against powerful interests.

Chavez has explained that while the social missions don't amount to socialism, they are potentially "building blocks" for a socialist society. They break with the logic of capitalism, and by solving the most pressing needs of the poor and involving working people in their organisation, they lay the groundwork for a much deeper transformation in which working people, not the corporate rich, run society — a "socialism of the 21st century".

Source: Green Left

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.