Leandro A. Estrada is a color scientist and passionate for sports, food, and chemistry. Born in Bogotá, Colombia, he grew up in Venezuela, where he completed his undergraduate studies in Chemistry at the Universidad Simón Bolívar.
He then came to the U.S. in 2005 to join Bowling Green State University's Ph.D. program in Photochemical Sciences, completing his degree in 2010.
Leandro is the author of over 15 peer-reviewed scientific articles, published in cutting edge journals of the American Chemical Society and the Royal Society of Chemistry (G.B.).
This is his first “non-scientific” article and, as his cousin, I am honored to have him share his thoughts with you about the current sociopolitical situation that is oppressing the country of our youth: Venezuela.
In these lines, I would like to share my views about why the Venezuelan people, since the rise of Chavismo and the early warnings of the Cubanization of Venezuela, have suffered a slumber from which many have tried to wake up and miserably failed - in the most likes of Wachowskis' “Matrix”. Within these ideas, I will touch on the “sentiment” of the lower class and its reflection on the seats of power since Hugo Chavez's first election. This “sentiment”, infused by the romanticism of the Cuban Revolution ideas, has been the poison that keeps Venezuela restrained from progress while virally spreading throughout Latin America as reflected in the accomplice smiles of the majority of its leaders.
It is my hope to shower the reader with fundamentals and help him/her understand why in Venezuela “15 = 0”: fifteen years of protest equals to zero results.
As a Venezuelan, I wanted to exercise my right to speak about the current situation in the country where I grew up; thus, I take the liberty of summarizing my thoughts regarding the protests that have taken place, both internally and outside the country, within the last two months. I am in no mood to criticize nor promote some sort of grudge, rather to share what I see from the perspective of an expatriate living on American soil for a little over 8 years.
I begin by congratulating the massive wave of people (both Venezuelans and non-Venezuelans) who have taken to the streets their concerns about the legitimacy of the human rights and the states of apathy, neglect, and corruption that the current administration has been exercising for over 15 years. The main goal of the opposing forces has been fulfilled: to draw the attention of the international community towards the social impudence and abuse of power that the Chavismo/Madurismo has been practicing these days. I call this the main target, unfortunately, because the ultimate goal of calling for a change that benefits the nation as a whole is IMPOSSIBLE due to the following:
1) The current government presents no signs of caring for the national collective, rather the sympathizer.
2) The opposition has no clear plans that lead us to think that change is imminent.
Still, a section of people have finally awakened from a long slumber to activate a protest demanding a fair distribution of goods and equal safety to ALL Venezuelans. Alas, the most crucial of all sectors is yet to wake up; that who most fully represents the Venezuelan people: the lower class.
In the first part of this article called "Fifteen Years of Protests, Zero Results" (symbolized by 15 = 0) I want to focus on answering two out of three questions that support why this apparently wrong mathematical relation actually describes correctly the aforementioned setting. The first two of these questions have marked the political preference of the lower class:
I. What is socialism for the government?
II . What is socialism for the lower class?
In the second part, I will answer the last question that completes the crucial trio:
III. Why has the opposition been inefficient in promoting change?
To do this, I will start my thesis by historically reviewing a couple of examples of effective opposition and how they marked a path to the overthrow of the government in power and the consolidation of different ideologies. I will highlight the common features among these examples and which of these features I managed to identify as overlapping with those springing from the current situation in Venezuela. Finally, I will conclude by highlighting the unique features of the current situation in Venezuela and give my opinion on what needs to change if we want to have an effective opposition should we want to get out of this oppressive yoke.
We will be posting each part once a week to allow sufficient space for digestion and consideration of views, comments, and constructive criticism that lead to the improvement of these for the benefit of all.
I look forward to your read next week…
“By their fruit you will recognize them” – Matt. 7:16
The fruit borne by the tree of "Chavismo" after 15 years in the making is in essence different to that promoted by the literary canons of Democratic Socialism (whose concept, in my opinion, is still pretty vague). In a nutshell, both “Socialistic” ideas promote:
1. The Social ownership of all the systems of national production.
2. An economic system under the principle of "production for use", which aims to meet the economic demands and basic needs of the group. This is antagonistic to the “savage capitalism”, whose idea is to devote production for the accumulation of capital and collection of benefits for the sake of a few “deserving” individuals.
3. The equal participation of each individual in the proposal, development, and implementation of laws, rules, and other agreements that promote the generation and use of resources for the benefit of society.
Regarding the first point, it is true Chavez’s administration has expropriated a large amount of private resources under the excuse of taking the production into a “sweet spot” in terms of volume/cost balance. Sadly, the increasing import of goods is simply a result of the ineptitude of the government to achieve this, disguised with the added “benefits” of opening new market venues, theretofore inexistent, and establishing closer relationships with international suppliers, theretofore unnecessary. The breaking point is the out-of-control cronyism, which determines who finally inherits the expropriated goods. Thus, it is natural to witness the corporate collapse and mismanagement of internal resources that results in the absence of products of various sorts in the national market.
The choice of these " leaders" is disproportional to their academic/industrial training, which makes virtually impossible the task of carrying expropriated companies towards the aforementioned economic balance. The discontent of talented Venezuelans is justified by the repression of thoughts other than the Chavista ways to achieve the economic goals. "Patria, socialismo o muerte" – Fatherland, socialism or death – is indigestible among those with unbiased judgment and the cognitive tools to manage the national resources properly. The lack of choice is a flag of repression and attacks against freedom of expression, respect, merit, and creativity: standards of comprehensive education.
In reference to the second point above, the global society in which we live IS CAPITALIST. Thus, the socialistic ideas can only be applied to Venezuela from the outside in. The current oil market aims to accumulate capital and collect benefits for the sake of a few individuals (i.e. Capitalism) and Venezuela is not an exception. That implies that the so-called “repartition of goods” to enhance the “production for use” system and minimize imports is a mere lie.
A genuine socialistic government must offer a plan to minimize imports and a direct approach to producing technologies that enable economic progress and result in the betterment of the nation’s quality of life. Unfortunately, the increasing shortages afflicting the Venezuelan society these days are far from being a fairy tail, or a joke. The diversion of dollars to benefit other “allied” countries, and the luxuries of the "boliburgueses" – a well-known social class funded with equity primarily generated by the Venezuelan Oil Industry (PDVSA) – are two of the many facts that point to the aforementioned reality.
Concerning the third point, this political movement called “Chavismo” is hostile to any of the ideas of Democratic Socialism because it only incorporates unequal participation of each of the individuals in the group in the proposal, development, and implementation of laws, rules, and other agreements that promote the generation and use of resources for the benefit of the collective. Rather, it solely includes those who demonstrate loyalty to the regime (i.e. the so-called “enchufados”) and does not hesitate at the time of overriding the constitution for the benefit of this small group at the expense of the wellbeing of the whole nation.
It is then easy to draw conclusions by observing the tendencies of the regime during this 15 years term: the “Democratic Socialism” that exists in Venezuela is neither Democratic nor Socialistic. Given the clear circumstances, I wonder, again:
- What does "Socialism" mean to the government?
Based on the above, I speculate that "Socialism" for the government means POWER.
POWER to perform their capitalistic dreams that even in the wildest of these would have never been possible.
POWER to feed the self at the expense of others, in the likes of Robin Hood, by taking from the “rich” to give to the “poor” – even though they determine who the “rich” is and who the “poor” is.
POWER to feel like a rock star, where in any of their destinations there is always a committee of people waiting to remind them how "well" they are doing when shouting their complete support for the continuation of the "anti-Yankee, antifascist, anti-coup” revolution.
POWER to exercise their little-exercised right to do good for their country through the maximization of their contribution and minimization of that of the opponent under slogans of battle that blends the Bolivarian culture of revenge with “NAtionalsoZIalismus”-style propaganda. Of course, this exercise relies in the large differences in resources that both sides have: I hope the term "parallel government" sounds familiar these days.
- What does "Socialism" mean to the lower class?
As for my neighborhood friends, socialism represents IDENTITY.
Booming with slogans like "no return", socialism is a mere reflection of the social problem Venezuela has been dragging since its independence from the Spanish yolk. That problem was inherited from the Spanish conquistador culture when the rich oppressed the poor and exploited them without remorse for their own benefit. This oppression continued until the dictators were outnumbered by the oppressed due to the poor economic decisions made by the country’s governments after the boom of oil in the 1930s and its subsequent nationalization in the 1970s. Socialism represents the means of revenge of the lower classes to the long-standing Bourgeois oppression.
The answers to these two fundamental questions set the identification of a serious problem: the population is easily manipulated as it has always failed in solidifying a legitimate identity.
Next week, I will answer the last question set at the beginning of this reflexion:
III. Why has the opposition been inefficient in promoting change?
This question acquires a different meaning when reflecting upon the identification of the social phenomenon developed above. I will let it sink in to your heads for a bit and look forward to your comments.
So long!
L.
Sources:
http://fusion.net/justice/story/venezuela-protest-tracking-detainees-avoiding-violence-441509