How to Rewrite History

While the power to rewrite history is only available to a select few, the process is relatively simple. The first step is to create a foreign enemy; one that is hell bent on the destruction of life as we know it. Immediately after the moment has passed suspicions will arise in the direction of the enemy. In the after math, seemingly random and obscure facts will form the "official story," subsequently replacing the "original stories," reducing them to mere "conspiracies."

This is how you rewrite history.

A prime example can be found in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The subject has never really fueled my imagination beyond the Oliver Stone film. Like every good student of Civics I know the President was shot by Lee Oswald. Some of the details are a little hazy: his Communist ties, the type of rifle, his exact location. But in the end the assassin was killed by Jack Ruby, and America closed the book -- save a few "conspiracies" that persist to this day.

The "original stories" include dozens of rubber-neckers running to the "grassy knoll," with a barrage of film footage capturing the chaos. Nevertheless, Lee Oswald was picked up immediately after leaving the building he worked at. Of the many interviews that captured his statements, Mr. Oswald repeated that he had no idea why he was being held, and was refused any type of legal representation. He was abused by the police, and eventually murdered before any trial by his peers.

This is how you rewrite history.

But thankfully "we the people" now have access to the social control mechanisms of media, allowing us to capture the lost footage which was buried in the deluge of the official story. Such power in our hands help put an end to the demonization of foreign enemies, and block the hypnotic beat of the war drums as the "official stories" flood our media. This power is nothing less than Truth in the hands of the American people -- a power which must be wielded as a weapon to protect the values of our Democracy.

The World According to Dr. Tricky

Here's an old site I stumbled across called Dr. Tricky's Kung Fu Lounge. He's got a handful of poorly illustrated maps of the world according to America, Texas, amongst others. Take a look at some of these below:

The World According to America



The UK According to America



The World According to Texas



And they call us Uneducated!

Declaration of War vs. The People

On October 23, 2007 the U.S. Government declared War on the American People. By a vote of 404 to 6, the U.S. House of Representatives approved HR 1955: The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This act designates every American who acts -- OR PROMOTES ACTION -- against the U.S. Government to be a TERRORIST. Simply put: If you've ever said that George W. Bush should be hanged as a war criminal, you sir, are a Terrorist.

While the news has been unremarkably disinterested since the bill was introduced back in Mid-April of this year, the press has been provided with sound bytes where the lack of funding is quoted repeatedly, along with the intention to merely study the habits of would-be terrorists. Those who oppose such a bill would be assumed to have "something to hide," or considered a sympathizer for the Terrorists, without completely understanding the ramifications.

Up until now the Government has primarily focused on people who were directly connected to terrorist organizations. Those investigated and accused ranged from foreign aide organizations to a university professor in South Florida. Although the majority of cases have ended in mistrial, some speculate the total number of 'Black Listed' Americans to be somewhere in the ballpark of 770,000. That was before the Government considered its own Citizens to be Terrorists.

Once this bill passes through the Senate and is signed into Law by the President, it will no longer be safe to speak out against the Government. Any word spoken across telephone lines, or written and recorded on the Internet, could potentially be scrutinized by the Department of Homeland Security, and lead more innocent victims to secret prisons to be subjected to violent acts of torture.

I urge everyone reading this to contact members of the press, to call or write your local Senators, and beg them to protect your Constitutional Rights as Free Citizens. Our Democracy requires your action BEFORE the next election. The cost of failing to do so could be greater than any of us currently imagine. Help stop the Declaration of War Against the American People before it is too late.

Imagine the Possibilities on Television

What if you could be anything you've ever wanted, just by turning on the television or surfing the web. Imagine if you could do whatever someone else is doing simply by watching them do it. Would you watch your favorite TV shows to socialize with the stars? Or turn on a karate flick and kick the crap out of your brother?

As strange as the question sounds, scientists are learning the phrase "Monkey See, Monkey Do" is a lot closer to how our brain functions than we originally thought. The act of watching a baseball game fires off the same areas of our brain than if we were actually swinging a bat or catching a ball. We learn to do by watching others do it.

But imagine if learning was as simple as Rainman counting toothpicks on the floor. By studying the brain activities of savants such as Kim Peek and Daniel Tammet, Scientists may one day learn how to simulate the effects in our own minds. In other words, you might seriously want to consider what you're watching!

Let's take a look at the latest National Nielsen ratings to see what Americans are learning to do:

1. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation - Flip on the switch and tune in the worst of human depravity. Whether by field examinations or intensive lab work, most Americans would choose to dissect human cadavers in an effort to uphold the law. Sounds pretty intense to imagine everyone taking samples everywhere they went.

2. Dancing with the Stars - Suddenly life explodes into a hot and sexy, twisting, turning parade of people dancing to and from work and school; to the dentist, at line in the bank; a slow waltz for funerals, and a Cha-Cha-Cha before dinner. This might just be a solution to the Obesity Epidemic!

3. Grey's Anatomy - Two things are apparent: America wants Drama, and America wants Health Care. While I admit the idea of a Nation of Doctors would come in handy, I'm not entire sure I understand the Soap Opera. It does make sense, however, for a healthy life to follow a life that is healthy.

4. Desperate Housewives - At this point we've fallen into the realms of pure decadence, where we are all free to live life like a Hollywood movie. The lights are bright, the pace is fun and exciting, with twists and turns around every bend. I'm just thankful to have an Off button on our current technology.

5. House - A final look at what American's are learning to do reveals more Doctors, more Drama, more Mystery, more Romance; more of a good story that takes you on an Adventure with a beginning, middle, and an end (with a whole lot of commercialism thrown in-between).

Unfortunately, it seems that relatively few of us are doing exactly what we'd rather be doing. Instead, we're staring into a television tube which promises the impossible, as if we are seeking comfort in the dreams we're being sold. Though ultimately unobtainable, the dream is so much better than reality.

Fortunately, along with the advances in technology comes an evolution in the way we think. As the old world showed us promises to lure us into buying the dream, the new world is built on our own dreams. Through user created content and direct audience participation, we're building a new world in our image.

This means that the next time you flip on your screen, and adjust your learning capabilities to maximum potential, you'll enter a world filled with guides to build green houses, and videos that show you how to nit. In no time at all you'll be a master of your world, with a single press of the button.

Ron Paul Round-Up

Paul introduced The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.

Defining embryos and fetuses as persons would make abortion murder and outlaw fetal stem cell research and some contraception and fertility treatments.

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to PROHIBIT ABORTION.

Ron Paul's bill to provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
http://tinyurl.com/yuo3ta
Ron Paul's bill to prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.
http://tinyurl.com/2h6y7w
Ron Paul's bill to limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.
http://tinyurl.com/2sts73
Ron Paul was the only member of congress to vote against a bill (HR 180) to prohibit spending federal tax dollars on companies doing business with genocidal warlords in Darfur.
http://tinyurl.com/2cazda
Ron Paul voted against establishing Bill HR 5252 Amendment 987(Jun 2006)[169], which would have legally protected network neutrality.
http://tinyurl.com/27xg44
Ron Paul failed to vote against the FISA amendment that legalized warrantless wiretapping of US citizens.
http://tinyurl.com/2p3t65
Ron Paul believes that all federal taxation should be eliminated.
http://tinyurl.com/yuvdk2
Ron Paul wants to eliminate the federal reserve and replace the U.S. dollar with a currency based on the gold standard.
http://tinyurl.com/2dhx28
Ron Paul wants to amend the constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship.
http://tinyurl.com/2gh52n
Ron Paul wants to end US membership in the UN
http://tinyurl.com/yoajxb
Ron Paul wants to build a 700 mile wall between the U.S and Mexico.
http://tinyurl.com/2yunzn
Ron Paul opposes universal health care.
Ron Paul is a fundamentalist born-again Christian who believes there is a war on Christmas being waged by the secular left.

Ron Paul supporters seem to be composed largely of people who oppose the war in Iraq, but for some reason believe they have no choice but to support a Republican over any Democrat (in addition to the smaller number of hard-core true believers). These casual supporters need to be aware that the vast majority of his views are bizarre and extreme.

Ron Paul is the candidate backed by the White Supremacists...
http://tinyurl.com/36k9rw
... to the point they even arranged to have supporters bussed to the straw polls in Iowa...
http://tinyurl.com/32kwtb
...and extensively cover anything Ron Paul, see e.g....
http://tinyurl.com/2mfyvq
Ron Paul has reciprocated the love from the White Supremacy groups by giving interviews to David Duke.
http://tinyurl.com/2jqhan
The 9/11 Truth movement also endorse Ron Paul, see e.g....
http://tinyurl.com/399wqb

He wants to ban abortion, legalise the teaching of creationism and remove the seperation between church and state. His politics stink of Christian fundamentalism and to believe otherwise is a fantasy.

A vote for Ron Paul endorses irrationality, dishonesty, bigotry, racism, fundamentalism, obscurationism and an incredibly retrograde and backwards worldview. If you vote for Ron Paul, you are voting for these things. You don't get to pick and choose and claim that your vote endorses a "balanced budget" and not "a 19th century style deportation project estimated to cause over a hundred thousand deaths".

JOIN THE RON PAUL ANTI-SPAM ARMY! COPY AND PASTE THIS ENTIRE POST INTO ALL RON PAUL STORIES! IT DRIVES THE SPAMMERS NUTS! BURY DOWN RON PAUL ARTICLES! TAKE A STAND AGAINST RON PAUL AND HIS ARMY OF SPAMMERS IN THERE NEVERENDING QUEST TO RUIN DIGG!LET THEM KNOW WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT UP WITH THEM OR THEIR SPAMMING TACTICS ANYMORE ! TAKE BACK DIGG FROM THE SPAMMERS !

An Open Source Religion

When I was a young teenager I snuck into the attic over our garage and dug through the old boxes filled with books and papers from my Father's college days. Being the good Dungeons & Dragons geek that I was as the time, I pocketed a small book of the world's religions -- seeing the opportunity to compare it to my copy of Gary Gygax's Demons and Deities. Reading through the book connected my imagination to the workings of the real world, opening the Christian beliefs that had been instilled in me to a world of possibilities, filled with a host of new gods and alien faiths.

I carried this book with me through my own college experiences, signing up for classes on comparative religions. By my early twenties I was snapping my fingers with the poets, bouncing back and forth between Buddhism and Taoism -- whichever proved more beneficial to my intellectual debates. However, neither choice resulted in the spark of Faith that believers carry through the darkness. Regardless of the number of conversations I won I never got to carry the title of Believer. After nearly twenty years of searching for the Truth I believe the light has finally been revealed.

The movie Zeitgeist begins with the idea that Jesus is an anthropomorphism of the Sun; and that he shares his story of a birth from a virgin mother, his crucification, his death and subsequent rebirth, etc., with numerous religions from around the globe, as far back as 10,000 years or longer. To make it even easier: If you're looking for the son of the Creator, you have no further to look than in the sky above your head. Just because the Christians have their own version of the story doesn't mean they own the rights to the original source.

The movie continues to point out the number of similarities to these religions -- but not to discount their truth. The fact that so many shared the same dates, used the same ideas, and told the same stories reveals a deeper connection to our world and the cosmos -- not some magical fantasy filled with Hells and redemptions. It shows the 12 disciples as the 12 segments of the sky defined by the twelve constellations, more commonly referred to as the Zodiac. The story of His birth and death, along with the subsequent celebrations, is a story of our lives through the seasons, along with our progression through the ages.

In that so many religions have sought to control this story shows us the power it has over us. The failure of Christianity is the lie it propagates in order to control its followers. However, the same could be said of Science in its dismissal of our connection to the planet and the stars as being merely circumstantial. The Truth revealed in the original source is known by the plants who turn their attentions, along with the animals that gather en masse, according to the rhythms of the sun and the stars. Our connection to the source is of great importance if we are to continue living on this planet.

I believe the first step in connecting to the Source is to start by reclaiming the code for ourselves. Much has been written by the ancients on the location of the stars and the effects their alignment had on our planet. Further writings reveal an even greater connection to our planet and its place the the cosmos -- another fact that is vital as we enter into a new age, one that leaves the fish of the Messiah behind us, and welcomes the water bearer as we enter the Age of Aquarius. The Mayans believe this will happen in the next decade so we might want to begin as quickly as possible!

So begins the world's first Open Source Religion.

Zeitgeist: Mother of All Conspiracies

The Internet Age has produced a number of independent, high quality films that are primarily composed of numerous YouTube videos stitched together with dramatic narration. The latest is a film entitled Zeitgeist which could be described as the 'Mother of All Conspiracies,' as it begins with the foundations of Christianity, travels through the myths surrounding 9/11, and end with the New World Order directed the elite international banking community. What makes this film so important is the underlying call to act against the forces which currently seek to destroy our Democracy.

Hardly anything in the film is new, as we've seen such atrocities enacted on our Freedom before. When America provoked the Japanese trough trade embargoes and looked the other way after Australia warned us of their route towards Pearl Harbor; when America sent the Lusitania into German waters after their embassy took out an ad in 50 East Coast newspapers warning us it would be attacked; when an incident at the Gulf of Tonkin turned out to be the same ruse used against us time and time again -- our Freedoms have been attacked before.

But to question what is happening right before our eyes is an intentional act of stupidity. While the government was performing over five dozen anti-terrorist scenarios around 9/11 including one on the World Trade Center; while every single plane involved in the attack simply disappeared before our very eyes along with almost a hundred videos of the attack on the Pentagon; while every single news outlet reported explosions in the World Trade Center before and during the collapse; while we responded by destroying not one but TWO nations on the similar grounds of false pretense; while America sits back at watches television that AT ITS MOST LIBERAL exposes these atrocities then sends us to SLEEP: Goodnight America, and Good Luck.

Wake Up America, and Get Angry! These "Invisible Dictators" hi-jacked Democracy back in 1913 when they used the same scare tactics against our banking system to provoke a financial crisis which lead to the creation of the Federal Reserve -- a privately held, multi-national Corporation that is "no more Federal than Fed Ex," subsequently destroying the Gold Standard and coercing the American public into giving back their gold under the duress of incarceration. In that same year our Constitution was attacked through direct taxation of our income, which currently takes over a third of every American income to pay off the interest of the money borrowed from the Federal Reserve! We are slaves to the system through financial servitude -- for this reason alone WE SHOULD BE PISSED OFF!

But instead, we rely upon the upcoming elections between Pepsi or Coke? Will you elect the same mouth pieces that have been chanting the lies of the war to carry us into Iran, or will you elect the better half of the president who sat back and watched these same planned attacks on American soil ten years before September 11th -- that will also lead us into a war with Iran? Or will you wake up to the New World Order of Private Corporations who have "Unionized" the European banking institutions, and seek to do the same throughout North America with the creation of the Amero? Do you not see the violent "Unionization" happening in South America or throughout the Middle East?

If that doesn't piss you off to the point of a Revolution, what the HELL does the New World Order have to fear from your "attacks?" Allowing the Democrats to win the majorities means nothing to the minority who loan our monies to us with interest. Their term limits span those set by our puppet government, and if their actions weren't so obvious to those without their blinders pointed towards the media spectacle of bread and circus, I would say THAT is not only a "weird ass dictatorship" -- but the WORST Dictatorship our world has experienced.

Evolution of the Pledge

Here's a quick history lesson on the evolution of the Pledge of Allegiance in the United States.

1892

“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”

1892 to 1923

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

1923 to 1954

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

1954 to 1984

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

1984 to Present

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United Corporations of America, and to the Economy for which it stands: one Nation under Contract, with Terms and Conditions for all.”

America Hangs to the Right

In a recent conversation someone snidely remarked: "Maybe you should explain the differences between Conservatives and Liberals in American politics." A variety of definitions were given, ranging from the Dixiecrats to the Neocons, and all the little Independents in between. The simplest explanation described an axis, where Conservative thought appeared on the Right and Liberal to the Left. All in all, I'd call the conversation a basic primer to American Politics.

But when the conversation came to include those from outside the American borders a different picture arose; one that showed our Left as a fairly Conservative notion. When you broadened the spectrum a little wider than our basic education you see alternatives such as Communism and Socialism. From our American perspective, these ideas are either outdated or completely Evil; or simply put, they're not American. We don't have "Commie Pink-o Fags" in our Government, and even the great Ron Paul: The Republican Hope of the Internet preaches against the tenets of Socialism.

What disturbs me about this picture is that America doesn't look as free as I used to believe. In fact, we seem more similar to the "Muslim Extremists" than I initially imagined. And while pictures and imaginations lend themselves well to Academia, in reality, our Government has been at war with these ideas since the Cold War. All the Wars and Conflicts have been a part of the same battle for control. Where the Left would hand control over to the greatest number of Citizens, the Right keeps the power in the hands of the Few. It seems that America wouldn't have it any other way.

When I imagine myself on this spectrum I consider the fact that an Open Democracy would fall to the Left -- possibly the most extreme form of Liberalism that one could imagine. But upon closer inspection the images drawn on an Open map reveal clusters of nodes that connect on a multi-dimensional plane. The very concept of our ideas lying somewhere in 2-Dimensional space sounds more like a Flat Earth philosophy. It appears that the idea of an Open Democracy might not fit in the minds of the people simply because we've never thought of the world in those dimensions.

Ultimately, when asked if I'm Conservative or Liberal, I'd rather answer that I'm Open to new ideas.

Middle East Quiz

Question: Which country alone in the Middle East has nuclear weapons?
Answer: Israel

Question: Which country in the Middle East refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspections?
Answer: Israel

Question: Which country in the Middle East seized the sovereign territory of other nations by military force and continues to occupy it in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions?
Answer: Israel

Question: Which country in the Middle East routinely violates the international borders of another sovereign state with warplanes and artillery and naval gunfire?
Answer: Israel

Question: What American ally in the Middle East has for years sent assassins into other countries to kill its political enemies (a practice sometimes called exporting terrorism)?
Answer: Israel

Question: In which country in the Middle East have high-ranking military officers admitted publicly that unarmed prisoners of war were executed?
Answer: Israel

Question: What country in the Middle East refuses to prosecute its soldiers who have acknowledged executing prisoners of war?
Answer: Israel

Question: What country in the Middle East created 762,000 refugees and refuses to allow them to return to their homes, farms and businesses?
Answer: Israel

Question: What country in the Middle East refuses to pay compensation to people whose land, bank accounts and businesses it confiscated?
Answer: Israel

Question: In what country in the Middle East was a high-ranking United Nations diplomat assassinated?
Answer: Israel

Question: In what country in the Middle East did the man who ordered the assassination of a high-ranking U.N. diplomat become prime minister?
Answer: Israel

Question: What country in the Middle East blew up an American diplomatic facility in Egypt and attacked a U.S. ship, the USS Liberty, in international waters, killing 34 and wounding 171 American sailors?
Answer: Israel

Question: What country in the Middle East employed a spy, Jonathan Pollard, to steal classified documents and then gave some of them to the Soviet Union?
Answer: Israel

Question: What country at first denied any official connection to Pollard, then voted to make him a citizen and has continuously demanded that the American president grant Pollard a full pardon?
Answer: Israel

Question: What Middle East country allows American Jewish murderers to flee to its country to escape punishment in the United States and refuses to extradite them once in their custody?
Answer: Israel

Question: What Middle East country preaches against hate yet builds a shrine and a memorial for a murderer who killed 29 Palestinians while they prayed in their Mosque.
Answer: Israel

Question: What country on Planet Earth has the second most powerful lobby in the United States, according to a recent Fortune magazine survey of Washington insiders?
Answer: Israel

Question: Which country in the Middle East deliberately targeted a U.N. Refugee Camp in Qana, Lebanon and killed 103 innocent men, women, and especially children?
Answer: Israel

Question: Which country in the Middle East is in defiance of 69 United Nations Security Council resolutions and has been protected from 29 more by U.S. vetoes?
Answer: Israel

Question: Which country in the Middle East receives more than one-third of all U.S. aid yet is the 16th richest country in the world?
Answer: Israel

Question: Which country in the Middle East receives U.S. weapons for free and then sells the technology to the Republic of China even at the objections of the U.S.?
Answer: Israel

Question: Which country in the Middle East routinely insults the American people by having its Prime Minister address the United States Congress and lecturing them like children on why they have no right to reduce foreign aid?
Answer: Israel

Question: Which country in the Middle East had its Prime Minister announce to his staff not to worry about what the United States says because "We control America?"
Answer: Israel

Question: What country in the Middle East was cited by Amnesty International for demolishing more than 4000 innocent Palestinian homes as a means of ethnic cleansing.
Answer: Israel

Question: Which country in the Middle East has just recently used a weapon of mass destruction, a one-ton smart bomb, dropping it in the center of a highly populated area killing 15 civilians including 9 children?
Answer: Israel

Question: Which country in the Middle East routinely kills young Palestinian children for no reason other than throwing stones at armored vehicles, bulldozers, or tanks?
Answer: Israel

Question: Which country in the Middle East signed the Oslo Accords promising to halt any new Jewish Settlement construction, but instead, has built more than 270 new settlements since the signing?
Answer: Israel

Question: Which country in the Middle East has assassinated more than 100 political officials of its opponent in the last 2 years while killing hundreds of civilians in the process, including dozens of children?
Answer: Israel

Question: Which country in the Middle East regularly violates the Geneva Convention by imposing collective punishment on entire towns, villages, and camps, for the acts of a few, and even goes as far as demolishing entire villages while people are still in their homes?
Answer: Israel

Question: What country in the Middle East is the United States threatening to attack because of fear that it may be a threat to us and to our allies?
Answer: Iran

Redefining our Corporate Economy

The concept of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) didn't sell too well in the 90's, mostly because it wasn't for sale. The modern businessman carrying the manta that "you get what you pay for" didn't see much value in a product that didn't cost a dime. In response to these concerns, advocates dropped Free Software from the title, and Open Source was born. As the image of shoddy software developed by hobbiests faded, the reality of Linux and other Open Source projects revealed an affordable alternative.

At the same time, the Cold War had effectively put an end to all things Socialist, making the concepts of Free and Open particularly dangerous to an economy that had steadily been progressing towards privatization. In order to survive, the Corporate Economy had to reflect upon itself in this same light. The image of rich and powerful board members wielding the power of nations was described by enthusiasts as highly responsive Free Markets which promised higher qualities at lower prices.

The consequences of a Corporate Economy are apparent to most Americans. While the media describes the actions of Enron and Exxon Valdez as a few bad apples, few can deny the effects that McDonald's and Wal-Marts have had in transforming our communities into freeway exits and temporary strip malls. If left unchecked, the Free Market would stop at nothing to charge for every inch of life that can produce a profit, without any respect to the communities that depend on them.

The unabashed greed of many Corporations has escalated to the point of corrupting our government. But instead of rising against the Kings which have invaded our Democracy, most interpret this as a failure our government. This apathy has given support to a "Strict Constitutionalist" as a Presidential Candidate, who seeks to devolve the development of Democracy to its origins, and remove control over the Economy from the hands of the people and place it instead under private jurisdiction.

While the Free Market is an admirable spin to the truth behind Private Ownership, the answer (as always) can be found in the Open Source model. Even though the Marketing Department has found a majority willing to buy burgers with questionable content, the people must be free to choose if they wish to be subjugated to miles of cheap plastic crap, or instead to produce better walls around New Orleans, or reduce the number of troops in the Weapons and Arms Race.

In other words, the Free Market should not be free to do as it decides -- anymore than anyone of us should be able to do as we will, regardless of the consequences to our people our our environment. We should be held by the same regulations held by those in the highest seats of Corporate power. Their freedom is our freedom, and our freedom is Open Source. If that three second sound byte isn't enough to convince you, consider the following choice:

A Nation Powered by Microsoft vs. a Nation Empowered by Linux.

Four Liberals of the Apocalypse

Ask any Liberal the number of catastrophes our world is currently facing and you're likely to get numerous stories, ranging from Global Warming to the newly popular Avian Bird Flu featured in the BBC's Pandemic. That's probably what makes the Republicans such lovable candidates as they generally tend to focus on just one: Terrorism. However, that leads to a relevant question: Are we focusing on the right threat? Or, are threats simply a form of "Shock Capitalism" intended to hold our attentions?

My fears are that most people have become so disenchanted by our current leaders that they're simply looking for a change. Some find solace in the nuance of a black or female leader, while others are willing to throw 200+ years of Democratic development out the window by supporting a "Strict Constitutionalist." The problem still remains that most of these candidates focus on the same hot button issue of the War in Iraq, with the exception of a few "non-candidates" who are running with the other hot button issue: Global Warming.

So we've got two hot button issues -- possibly three if you include Corporate Corruption -- but none of these reflect the fact that many local governments are preparing for a possible outbreak of the Avian Bird Flu. While the general public accepts it as news worthy, or at worst, another Liberal conspiracy to increase our tax dollars, the issue lags behind the tired discussions of Abortion Rights and Gay Marriage as quintessential planks in the two party platforms.

But there's something else we can take from the BBC's Pandemic Special. The model for a viral outbreak not only applies to biology and computer science, but to thoughts and ideas as well. When we tell someone an idea we have it carries from one person to the next -- assuming it has developed well enough to carry at the utterance of a few simple words. The hope we gain from watching the special is the possibility that Open Source will spread with greater ease than a possible mutation of the Bird Flu.

We also see two other Open Sources in the movie: the first being the physical connectivity of the planet, and the second: YouTube. When the military rolls in to lock down the town, allowing nothing but tight lipped doctors, with all the reporters kept behind the police lines. Thanks to the efforts of one little girl, people were able to experience the event and learn what to expect in advance. Such knowledge and reassurance is critical for any possible threat we face.

In this simple act we gain a glimpse at what might be the most important challenge we face: Open Communication. It is this type of communication that allows us share a medical solution to the outbreak, or a crystalline structure to gather sunlight more efficiently, or at best: the ability to decide for ourselves. This is the virus we must evolve in the minds of every life we touch, in order to transform our ideas of Democracy into a truly Open Source.

The Temptatious Dangers of Ron Paul

Many months ago I fell under the allure of Ron Paul -- the Republican Hero of the Internet. With all the support coming from sites such as YouTube and Digg, it was difficult not to notice the sensation which was taking American apathy by storm. People who once saw the government as a breeding ground for corruption and perversion began waving the Republican flag in opposition to the Totalitarian ruler at the helm of our Executive Branch. It wasn't until his appearance on the Colbert Report that I began to question the wisdom of a "Strict Constitutionalist."

Steven ended by naming a variety of organizations which Ron Paul responded to by raising his hand in support of their abolishment. Department of Education? Tear it down! Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, the IRS: ABSOLUTELY! (Raising his hand even higher to the amusement of the crowd.) UNICEF? Well, he would tear that one down last. Apparently the rights and well being of our children aren't so high on Ron Paul's list as to warrant their destruction right from the start. Really shows the compassion he shows for America's future.

In the immortally misquoted words of Bill Hicks: "The Anti-Marketing Market is a Huge Market!" So many Americans have become so overwhelmingly disenchanted by the corruption of the American Government that they've adopted a "Tear It All Down" mentality. Furthermore, the rising prices of every aspect of our lives have left many without the ability to keep up with all the new iPod models. These two attitudes have created an "Anti-Government" market which seeks to destroy any regulations that carry the stink of Socialism, selling the country instead on the benefits of Capitalism.

What surprises me is the fact that so many have failed to recognize the effects of Privatization -- what Noam Chomsky and the Bolivarian Revolution refers to as NeoLiberalism. Once our Oil and Energy were sold to private institutions the prices began to soar. As the country continues to decline we see the rise in Privatization in our roads, our schools, our medicine -- everything a society needs to both survive and prosper. Instead of control over these vital organs resting in the hands of the people, Ron Paul advocates issuing command to the Corporations, depending on the power of the dollar as the great equalizer.

To entrust the Almighty Dollar in place of our vote is to welcome a class division unlike any we've seen in this country, where the wealthy wield the power of governments (with enormous economies and privately funded militaries). While your dollar may carry enormous influence over McDonald's Dollar Menu, it won't mean squat when you go to fill up your gas tank, or pay your electricity bill, or post on the Internet where usage requirements prohibit the slander of your service provider, assuming you're able to afford them.

In order to get past the temptatious dangers of Ron Paul, you need something that he clearly rails again: A Plan. The Founders had a plan when they Drafted the Constitution. They knew that a single document would not protect our Democracy alone, that its Citizens would be required to be vigilant, and make the necessary amendments to protect them from the rich and the powerful who wield enough influence to shackle the people in the shadow of the Kings they fought so hard to overthrow. Tearing everything down is not the answer. Building a better tomorrow is.

Recognize that the Cold War has evolved into a War against the People. Every Democratic state our government has overthrown was an attempt to keep control over the resources out of the People's hands. Time and time again the Military Industrial Corporations have funded military dictators by supplying them with weapons and money, only to turn around around "free" the people by unleashing the American Government. We're currently caught in this same war, with the same players fighting for the same resources.

Allow me set the record straight by highlighting the fact that a Democracy is "by the people, for the people." This huge conspiracy that the eradication of Government is the only path to Freedom is a myth. The Government is Our Voice! We must be vigilant to make our vote count. Relying on the dollar to represent us is absolute insanity! The same Government you fear meddling in all your personal affairs would be replaced by a Corporation which dictates your rights to you. Such a choice would effectively mean the end of Democracy as we know it.

The solution is Open Source. Do NOT vote to silence your voice in Government, but instead: Show your support for the system that replaced the backbone of the Internet, the Internet Browser, the corrupt channels of media, the music and entertainment industry with Open Source. This is our revolution: The Open Source Revolution. We must carry this to the highest levels of Government in order to ensure that the People are in control, NOT the Corporations. We must be strong and enact the Open Source philosophy on our Constitution in order to ensure that Democracy remains "by the people, for the people."

The Secret Government of Bill Moyers

This is the full length 90 min. version of Bill Moyer's 1987 scathing critique of the criminal subterfuge carried out by the Executive Branch of the United States Government to carry out operations which are clearly contrary to the wishes and values of the American people. The ability to exercise this power with impunity is facilitated by the National Security Act of 1947.

The thrust of the exposé is the Iran-Contra arms and drug-running operations which flooded the streets of our nation with crack cocaine. The significance of the documentary is probably greater today in 2007 than it was when it was made.

We now have a situation in which these same forces have committed the most egregious terrorist attack on US soil and have declared a fraudulent so-called "War on Terror". The ruling regime in the US who have conducted the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, are now banging the war drum against Iran. We have the PATRIOT act which has stripped us of many of our basic civil rights justified by the terror of 9/11 which is their own doing.

In Rememberance of Bill Hicks

Thirteen years ago, on this very day, Bill Hicks wasn't doing a fucking thing because he was dead. This underground, dark poet of comedy was virtually unknown in the United States, but a sensation the world over. During the 31 years he spent tearing the world a new asshole, Bill Hicks underwent a variety of transformations from a cocky little teenager doing stand-up about his parents, to a dark guru of mystical knowledge on the subject of human evolution. While much of his comedy was pointed at the ultra right-wing conservative class, his intentions were simply to open the eyes of his fellow Americans.

So why take the time to remember another mostly forgotten Lenny Bruce? If not for the magic of the Internet we'd certainly succumb to the same temporary punchlines spewed out by the same late night talk shows that censored Bill Hicks the first time around. Why is this more important than the War in Iraq, or perhaps, the identity of the female nerd in Beauty and the Geek? Because Bill Hicks dedicated the last few weeks of his life, while battling with Pancreatic Cancer, to show America the comedy act that The David Letterman Show refused to air, and instead, destroyed the film entirely.

The video above is an hour long documentary on Bill Hicks which ends with the act that he wanted America to see. It isn't his best work. You'll not see any impressions of the Devil or hear any revelations about feeding the hungry and exploring outer space as a unified planet. He wasn't out to break any more boundaries than he already had, but instead, offer the country a new perspective than they were used to. When the Corporate Executives decided that it wasn't up the standards of selling alcohol with half naked women, he dedicated himself to performing the act until his final performance, so that you could use your brain to decide for yourself.

If you're still curious to know why we should remember Bill Hicks today, it's because he provides a well-needed remedy to the ignorance and violence which is leading the American Nation down the same path of greed and destruction which existed longer than thirteen years ago. The situation has worsened to the point that our entire nation is engulfed in sheer stupidity, whereby the destruction of a couple buildings could inspire such a bloodlust as to unify the nation on a mission of revenge. And if you think that we're beginning to uncover the truth, you need to go back to Dane Cook bitching about his boy friends. Bill Hicks pushed an entirely different envelope.

He believed in the corruption which held a stranglehold on everything we think or feel. There wasn't any room for the RIAA or the Department of Homeland Security. This was seen by Hicks as another way the system commanded your servitude. He wasn't afraid to point out Corporate Slavery, but most importantly, he didn't believe in tearing it all down in the name of Destruction. He saw a light at the end of the tunnel that was brighter than most could conceive -- a world of infinite possibilities where every human was in touch with the Creator which would lead to eternal life if we could manage to get over ourselves.

So today we remember Bill Hicks, sitting up in Heaven with Saint Peter, laughing at all the prudish non-smokers bitching about abortion in Hell. We remember Bill Hicks in hopes of finding that same brutish voice in our own souls which tells us to get the fuck out of Iraq. Maybe we'll find the strength to shrug off the shackles of our Corporate masters, stop building bombs, and focus on those without food, education, or health care. If we can hear this voice of reason and learn to respect the ideas and nuance of our fellow man, maybe then we'll be able to evolve into the beings of Light that so many of us hope to achieve.

14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism

Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, published research on fascism in which he examined the fascist regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each fascist State:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarceration of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists; terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military are glamorized.

5. Rampant sexism - The government of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are intertwined - Government in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation are often the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated, or are severely restricted.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassinations of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Benito Mussolini - who knew something about fascism - had a more straightforward definition: “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”

Abraham Lincoln stated, “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed.”

Freedom from Choice

In ancient rome
There was a poem
About a dog
Who found two bones
He picked at one
He licked the other
He went in circles
He dropped dead

Freedom of choice
Is what you got
Freedom from choice
Is what you want

"Freedom of Choice"
by Devo

The Meaning of 21st Century Socialism for Venezuela

The following article written by Gregory Wilpert originally appeared on the VenezuelAnalysis.com website, July 11, 2006. This is a revised version of a paper that was presented at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Havens Center, April 11, 2006.

In what appeared to be a surprise to almost everyone, on January 30, 2005, in a speech to the 5th World Social Forum, President Hugo Chavez announced that he supported the creation of socialism of the 21st century in Venezuela. According to Chavez, this socialism would be different from the socialism of the 20th century. While Chavez was vague about exactly how this new socialism would be different, he implied it would not be a state socialism as was practiced in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe or as is practiced in Cuba today. Rather, it would be a socialism that would be more pluralistic and less state-centered.

“We have assumed the commitment to direct the Bolivarian Revolution towards socialism and to contribute to the socialist path, with a new socialism, a socialism of the 21st century, which is based in solidarity, in fraternity, in love, in justice, in liberty, and in equality,” said Chavez in another speech in mid 2006.[1] Also, this socialism is not pre-defined. Rather, said Chavez, we must, “transform the mode of capital and move towards socialism, towards a new socialism that must be constructed every day.”[2]

Given this rather vague explanation and the concrete policies the Chavez government has pursued in the past seven years, is Venezuela really heading towards something that could be called "Socialism of the 21st century"? That is, is Venezuela heading towards something that might be called a post-capitalist order in which the age-old dream of individual freedom, equality, and social justice (liberté, egalité, et fraternité, to use the motto of the French Revolution) becomes a reality for all its citizens?

Before we can answer that question, we need to clarify exactly what is meant by the term capitalism, which is a notoriously vague term. A relatively simple definition of capitalism identifies at least three predominant elements in a social order for us to call it capitalist. First, a capitalist order involves the private ownership of the means of production, that is, of land, factories, and other forms of capital that allows the production of sellable goods and services.

A second crucial element of capitalism, in its "pure" form, is that distribution and exchange are regulated via competitive markets. Competitive markets are an essential and integral aspect of capitalism, which help regulate not only distribution, but also prices and thereby guide what things are or are not produced. As long as owners are interested in making sure that they do not lose their investment to competitors who try to maximize their profit and who reinvest this profit in their business, all owners must aim to maximize profits. That is, private ownership of production combined with competitive markets also necessarily implies the pursuit of profit maximization.

Finally, the third essential element of capitalism is a regulatory system, a state, which helps correct capitalism's frequent dysfunctions and erratic behavior. That is, capitalism needs a state that not only makes sure that contracts between individuals, upon which exchanges are based, are adjudicated in cases where disputes arise, but also acts as a mediator in social conflicts, usually between owners and non-owners, who enter into frequent conflicts over issues relating to inequality. While social movements have historically managed to demand that the state responds better to their needs, mostly by democratizing the state, the state is to a large extent influenced by the owners of capital because these lobby, finance political campaigns and mass media, and generally wield much power in capitalist democracies.

Moving away from capitalism, however, does not, by itself, mean that a society is moving towards socialism. After all, it could move towards feudalism or towards some other form of undesirable social organization. What, then, would constitute socialism or, more specifically 21st century socialism? Rather than engage in a long theoretical discussion of the matter, I will just provide a rough outline, based on what it is not (capitalism) and the fulfillment of certain social ideals or values. That is, I would argue that in contrast to the actually practiced socialism of the 20th century (mostly in Eastern Europe), 21st century socialism would fulfill all three aims of the French Revolution. State socialism of the 20th century fulfilled only the aims of social justice (or solidarity or fraternité) and, to a limited extent, of formal equality (since party members were “more equal” (Orwell) than non-members). 21st century socialism would thus have to fulfill (completely) the ideals of formal equality, liberty, and solidarity (or social justice). In other words, for 21st century socialism to distinguish itself from 20th century state socialism, it would have to be a libertarian socialism, which assures that the “free development of each is a condition for the free development of all” (Marx).

---

[1] Linking Alternatives II Conference, Vienna, May 13, 2006 (www.gobiernoenlinea.gob.ve)

[2] Ibid.

Is Venezuela Moving towards a 21st Century Socialism?

The following article written by Gregory Wilpert originally appeared on the VenezuelAnalysis.com website, July 11, 2006. This is a revised version of a paper that was presented at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Havens Center, April 11, 2006.

With these general definitions of capitalism and 21st century socialism, we can now see how the policies of the Chavez government compare to these.

Changing Ownership of the Material and Intellectual Means of Production

Taking each of the three elements of capitalism one at a time, one can first focus on the ways in which the Chavez government’s policies affect or transform the ownership of the relations of material (as opposed to intellectual) production. While the vast majority of Venezuela’s productive capacity is still either owned privately or by the state, one of the government’s main areas of emphasis has been to expand non-private forms of ownership and control, such as via cooperatives, co-management, and expanded state management/ownership.

For example, during the Chavez presidency the number of cooperatives in Venezuela has increased from about 800 in 1998 to over 100,000 in 2005 – an over 100-fold increase in seven years. Over 1.5 million Venezuelans are thus now involved in cooperatives, which represents about 10% of the country’s adult population.[3] The government has been actively supporting the creation of cooperatives in all sectors, mostly via credit, preferential purchasing from cooperatives, and training programs.

With regard to co-management, the government has been experimenting with several state-owned enterprises in this regard, such as the electricity company CADAFE and the aluminum production plant Alcasa. Depending on how these experiments go, the government is considering turning over more state-owned enterprises to co-management. These businesses will not be turned over to complete worker control, however, because, according to the government, they are too important for Venezuela to be governed only by the people that work there. That is, they have an impact for the entire society and thus, according to the principle of subsidiarity, the society, through its representatives in the state, should also have a say in how the enterprise is run.

Another strategy for changing the ownership and control over the means of production has been the expropriation of idle factories. Currently at least four production plants, which produce paper, valves, and agricultural products, have been expropriated and turned over to worker control. Working together with the national union federation UNT, the government is evaluating 700 other idle production facilities that could also be expropriated and turned over to former workers of these plants.

Finally, with regard to expanding state management, the Chavez government has created several new state-owned enterprises, such as in the areas of telecommunications, air travel, and petrochemicals. Also, it reined-in the previously semi-autonomous state oil company PDVSA and brought it under direct government control.

Of course, just because there are more enterprises that go against the logic of capitalism, that are in essence anti-capitalist endeavors, such as cooperatives, co-managed enterprises, and state-owned enterprises does not mean that Venezuela is now a post-capitalist society with regard to the ownership of the means of production. However, there is a definite movement in this direction. Whether such forms of ownership will become predominant within the Venezuelan economy it is too early to tell. The real test of the extent to which the government is willing to go in this direction will come if and when private capital is forced to become marginal in the overall economy. Whether such a direct confrontation will take place and how it will play out is impossible to say at this point.

However, creating a sphere of non-privately owned or controlled means of production by itself is not much of a change if such ownership and control follows the same principles as private ownership does, of maximizing profit above all else and of funneling non-reinvested profits towards elite consumption. Thus, so as to ensure that the cooperative, co-managed, and state managed enterprises follow a new set of principles, the Chavez government has created a new type of economic production unit, which is known as social production enterprise (EPS, in Spanish).

Social Production Enterprises are, “economic entities dedicated to the production of goods or services in which work has its own meaning, without social discrimination nor privileges associated with one’s position in a hierarchy, in which there is substantive equality between its members, planning is participatory and operate under either state, collective, or mixed ownership.”[4] In order to qualify as an EPS and thus for preferential treatment for low-interest credits and state contracts, companies must fulfill a list of requirements, such as to, “privilege the values of solidarity, cooperation, complementarity, reciprocity, equity, and sustainability, ahead of the value of profitability.”[5] If these values are indeed fulfilled, then one can say that with regard to ownership and control over the means of production Venezuela is moving away from capitalism and towards 21st century socialism.

Moves Away from Market Exchange

With regard to moving beyond market exchange for regulating production and distribution of goods and services, the Chavez government has mainly focused on using the state as a non-market based mechanism. That is, the state has been very active in redistributing wealth during the Chavez presidency, whether through its rural and urban land reform program, its oil revenue-funded social programs for free health care, education, and subsidized food markets, or the provision of subsidies and other support for key sectors, such as cooperatives and “endogenous development nucleuses.” Of course, while state redistribution mechanisms go against a basic principle of capitalism, these do not break the logic of capital as long as most exchange still occurs in a free market context, as is still the case in Venezuela. As such, such policies are more social democratic than socialist.

The principle of moving away from market-based distribution has also been valid in international trade for Venezuela. Not only has the Chavez government vehemently opposed the free trade agreements the U.S. has been promoting, but it is also involved in a large number of trade deals that are based on principles of solidarity instead of competition. For example, the Petrocaribe agreement provides for discounted financing of Venezuelan oil for Caribbean nations and also allows them to pay for oil with in-kind payments. In the most prominent case Cuba has been providing Venezuela with 20,000 doctors and medical assistants in exchange for Venezuelan oil shipments. Similar agreements exist with Argentina, Uruguay, and Ecuador.

Again, this kind of non-market based trade, which emphasizes cooperation, complementarity, and solidarity over competition is still far smaller than traditional market exchange. How and if the Chavez government can find ways to increase non-market based exchange mechanisms remains to be seen, especially since exactly how cooperative (instead of competitive) exchange could function on a large scale is still quite unclear in Venezuela.

Governance No Longer Guided by Private Interests

With regard breaking away from the third important element of capitalism—a system of governance that is under the sway of powerful private interests—Venezuela has advanced the most. There are at least three ways in which the Chavez government has done this over the past few years. First, it has had the opportunity to break free from the sway of private capital, due to the combination of massive oil revenues and the complete delegitimation of the old regime. Second, it has instituted forms of direct democracy and increased citizen participation in the state. Third, it has weakened the possibility that the military could be used to repress the civilian population, via what it calls civil-military union.

The first aspect is perhaps the most important because it has enabled practically all other anti-capitalist measures of the Chavez government. That is, Venezuela’s oil revenues, which increased, on a per-capita basis, from $226 in 1998 to $728 in 2005,[6] has been a bonanza that has given the Chavez government a tremendous amount of freedom from private capital’s ability to threaten with investment strikes. Also, the institution of capital controls in early 2003 further expanded the government’s independence from private capital. While most leftist governments, such as that of President Lula of Brazil, are constantly faced with the choice of pursuing progressive policies and alienating capital and thereby economic well-being or abandoning progressive policies and encouraging private investment, the Chavez government is by and large freed from this dilemma. Enormous oil revenues allow the government to invest, to pursue progressive tax policies and regulations, and to spend freely, without having to worry much about capital flight or disinvestment.

This freedom, combined with the opposition’s recurring self-destruction (via the coup attempt, the oil industry shutdown, the failed recall referendum, and the boycott of the December 2005 National Assembly elections) is perhaps the main reason why the Chavez government has been able to pursue increasingly more anti-capitalist policies with every passing year in office. This stands in stark contrast to the history of most progressive governments, which time and again start out with radical rhetoric, only to eventually succumb to the demands of private capital.

The second way in which the government is shaking loose the influence of private capital is by introducing participatory democracy in numerous areas of the state. This is happening through local planning councils, citizen participation in social programs, and a variety of other institutionalized mechanisms for civil society involvement in government (referenda, selection of high-level state officials, and citizen audits of state institutions).

One of the most important forms of citizen participation are the local planning councils, which were launched in Venezuela in 2001, but were at first stillborn due to a variety of limitations in the local planning council law, such as creating councils that were too large to be manageable or participatory. A new effort was launched in early 2006 with the communal council law, which bases councils on units of 200 to 400 families and which practice direct democracy in their communities, allocating financial resources and creating local ordinances.

Participatory democracy in Venezuela also takes the form of citizen participation in the recently created “missions,” which provide education, health care, subsidized food, social services, land reform, and environmental protection. These missions, rather than being just imposed from above are largely directed by the citizens in any given community, in the form of health committees, land committees, and educational task forces.

Finally, there are the constitutionally guaranteed rights to participatory democracy, in the form of four different types of citizen-initiated referenda (recall, approbatory, abrogatory, and consultative), the right to conduct citizen-initiated audits of state institutions (contraloria social), and the right of civil society organizations to co-nominate candidates to the Supreme Court, the National Electoral Council, and the Moral Republican Council (consisting of Attorney General, Comptroller General, and Human Rights Defender).

Citizen involvement in all levels of government like this increases accountability and weakens the sway of powerful private interests. While citizens might still succumb to threats of disinvestment from private capital, at least they have more influence over decision-making than when elected representatives decide matters mainly under the influence of powerful private groups that are constantly lobbying them and paying for their electoral campaigns.

The third area where the Chavez government has made a conscious effort to enable a more direct democracy has to do with transforming one of the traditional means for suppressing citizen involvement and discontent: the military. Historically, the military in Latin America was used to repress the citizenry and to keep it from resisting the imposition of government policies it did not like. For Chavez and for most poor Venezuelans, the 1989 riots against IMF-imposed economic policies, which dramatically increased the price for public transportation and for many food staples, was an expression of discontent with the relatively undemocratic[7] government of Carlos Andrés Perez. This outburst of discontent was immediately suppressed with massive military force, which ended up killing anywhere between 300 and 3,000 poor Venezuelans.

According to Chavez, the reason Venezuela’s and Latin America’s military forces were able to repress their own populace so often and so easily was because the military was always kept separate from the population. That is, their lack of contact with civilians, their sequestration, made it easier for them to act without sympathy or remorse against their own people. In contrast, Chavez, following a Maoist maxim, argues that “the military should be to the people like the fish is to water.” The application of this principle is called “civil-military union,” and means, in practice, that the military should be as integrated as possible with the civilian population, being in constant contact with them and even taking on civilian tasks in the process. The military has thus become heavily involved in the various “missions,” often providing services such as food distribution, construction help, and transportation, for example. Furthermore, the civilian population is being asked to sign up for Venezuela’s military reserves, to learn to fight a guerilla war, should an outside force such as the U.S. ever invade. This, according to Chavez, is supposed to further strengthen the civil-military union.

Critics of this re-conceptualization of Venezuela’s military argue that it has militarized civilian society and could become a means for doing precisely what Chavez says it is supposed to ward against, of repressing the population. However, there is no concrete evidence for this. As any visitor to Venezuela can attest, the military in Venezuela has a far less militaristic presence in the general population than it did in countries where the military was indeed used for repression, such as in Argentina in the 1970’s or in El Salvador in the 1980’s. No one in Venezuela fears the military and its activity in the general population is limited to fulfilling the civilian functions mentioned above, but not to repress. Human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch do not cite the military as being perpetrators of human rights violations. Rather, in Venezuela, the main culprit in this regard remains (since long before Chavez’s coming into office) the notoriously corrupt and local government controlled police force. In other words, it would appear that rather than militarizing civil society, the civil-military union has served to “civilize” the military.

These three factors, the tremendous oil revenues, the creation of a more participatory democracy, and the “civilizing” of the military, have meant that the Chavez government is far freer to pursue policies that are independent of the powerful private interests that normally shape government policy in capitalist countries. The freedom the Chavez government enjoys to pursue leftist policies is unique in comparison to most of the rest of world in many ways. While there are other countries that enjoy such a freedom due to their wealth in natural resources (such as a state-owned national oil industry), these other countries tend to be in the hands of extremely conservative authoritarian regimes (such as in the Middle East) and have no interest in pursuing progressive policies.

This freedom has allowed the Chavez government to pursue policies that clearly move away from private ownership and control over the means of production, away from market-determined allocation and distribution, and towards what could be called more socialist economic and governance forms. However, this is clearly not the state-socialism of the 20th century, as was practiced in Eastern Europe and China and still is in Cuba. Rather, it is a more libertarian form of socialism, in that it actively seeks citizen participation and even forms of direct democracy.

---

[3] SUNACOOP (National Superintendency of Cooperatives), www.sunacoop.gob.ve

[4] “Empresas de Producción Social,” article in PDVSA’s corporate magazine, Siembra Petrolera, Issue, No. 1, Jan.-Mar. 2006, p.55

[5] Article 3 of Decree No. 3,895, of September 13, 2005, published in Gaceta Oficial No. 38,271

[6] Author’s own calculation, based on data from Venezuela’s finance ministry, the national statistics institute, and the Central Bank of Venezuela.

[7] Chavez’s Bolivarian movement, as well as many outside analysts, considered the period of 1958-1993 to be a fairly undemocratic period because state repression and an elite pact (Pacto de Punto Fijo) between the two main political parties prevented challengers from coming to power in this period.

Obstacles for 21st Century Socialism in Venezuela

The following article written by Gregory Wilpert originally appeared on the VenezuelAnalysis.com website, July 11, 2006. This is a revised version of a paper that was presented at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Havens Center, April 11, 2006.

The main obstacles to 21st century socialism in Venezuela fall into the two general categories of external and internal obstacles. The external obstacles are those that are external to the Bolivarian project, such as a domestic opposition that continuously seeks to undermine the Chavez government without engaging in the political process, a U.S. government that is intent on isolating the Chavez government, and domestic and international forces of capital that make 21st century socialism in one country extremely difficult to institute. The internal obstacles include the persistence of an anti-democratic political culture of patronage and of personalism.

The opposition includes practically all sectors that used to have a determining role in Venezuelan society, such as the former governing parties, the old union federation, the church hierarchy, big business, and almost all of the private mass media. The key problem for the Chavez government with this opposition is not so much its power, which it has lost steadily largely due to its own disorganization and failures, but its unwillingness to play the democratic game, as it did during the April 2002 coup attempt, the December 2003 oil industry shutdown, and the December 2005 boycott of the National Assembly elections. Rarely during the Chavez presidency has this opposition come forward with concrete proposals about how it would govern Venezuela differently. Currently the opposition is continuing on this track of denying the government’s legitimacy by threatening to boycott the December 2006 presidential elections, on the basis that the electoral registry is flawed. However, an audit by the Inter-American Human Rights Institute showed that errors in the registry were negligible. The gradual self-destruction of the opposition, though, has made the opposition less of an obstacle and has thus increased the government’s freedom to maneuver.

The second external obstacle to creating 21st century socialism is the Bush administration. From documents that have become available in the past few years it is clear that the Bush administration knew about the 2002 coup attempt in advance, but instead of opposing it beforehand or while it was in progress, Bush gave it support by denying that it was a coup and by blaming Chavez for his own downfall. Also, via the National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) the Bush administration has been funneling several million dollars per year to opposition groups in Venezuela, in an effort to create an opposition in its own image. And, in terms of applying overt measures against the Chavez government, the Bush administration has been applying a variety of minor economic sanctions[8] and has been conducting a campaign to isolate Venezuela internationally. All in all, each one of these measures has been a relative failure. For example, the opposition, despite its receiving funds and advice from the U.S., is hopelessly disorganized and of little consequence in Venezuela, following its many failures during the Chavez presidency.[9] The economic sanctions have little effect, given that Venezuela’s foreign currency income comes almost entirely from oil revenues, which the U.S. will not cut off. Last, the efforts to isolate Venezuela have met with little approval elsewhere in the world.

Finally, the third external obstacle is for many countries the most serious obstacle to progressive governing because of its ability to initiate an investment strike if a government initiates too many policies against its interests. Venezuela, though, with the recent boom in oil revenues (essentially since mid 2003) remains a lucrative place for investment, despite the government’s anti-capitalist rhetoric and its frequent tax increases for the oil industry. Also, capital flight has been held in check via a restrictive exchange rate policy. As a result, domestic and international capital is not that much of an obstacle now as it was earlier in Chavez’s presidency.

The much more serious obstacles to instituting 21st century socialism in Venezuela thus are the internal obstacles. The most serious of these is probably the persistence of a culture of clientelism-patronage. That is, there is much anecdotal evidence that despite Chavez’s criticism that previous governments were riddled with patronage systems, new forms of patronage have taken their place. While previously it was practically impossible for people who were not members of one of the ruling parties to get government jobs or services, evidence has emerged that although party membership is not an issue now, officials in the Chavez government are often preventing anti-Chavistas, as Chavez opponents are known, from acquiring government jobs and some kinds of services.

The most notorious example of this practice has been the so-called “Tascon List,” which pro-Chavez National Assembly deputy Luis Tascon set up, which lists all Venezuelans who signed the petition in favor of a recall referendum against President Chavez.[10] The original purpose of the list was to allow Chavez supporters to make sure that they did not appear on the list because they were concerned that the list fraudulently included many who did not intend to be on it.

Patronage that gives government jobs and services mainly to Chavistas not only counteracts Chavez’s campaign promise of creating a government that will not exclude anyone, but it also undermines the rule of law, thus providing an opening for corruption and the delegitimization of the government and it counters the principle of formal equality. More than that, patronage systems encourage a limited form of solidarity, which extends only to one’s own group (in this case one’s political group) and is fundamentally at odds with an effort to create a society in which solidarity includes all people, regardless of nationality or political beliefs.

The second internal obstacle is the latent personality cult around Chavez and the tendency towards personalistic politics in Venezuela in general. On the one hand, Chavez’s ability to bring people together in a large “Bolivarian” movement for radical change in Venezuela is practically unparalleled in recent Venezuela history. On the other hand, this ability has resulted in an extreme dependency of the movement on Chavez, to the exclusion of a clearly defined political program or political organization. Thus, if Chavez were to disappear from one day to the next, the entire movement would fall into a thousand pieces because it would have lost it unifying glue. This extreme dependence on Chavez also means that it is extremely difficult for Chavez supporters to criticize Chavez because every criticism threatens to undermine the project because it gives rhetorical ammunition to the opposition. A further consequence is that the lack of criticism insulates Chavez and makes it very difficult for him to test his ideas and policies against the outside world. Criticism from within the ranks is rarely present and criticism from outside the ranks is easily dismissed. The result is a strong potential for wrong-headed policies.[11]

The third internal obstacle is a strong tendency towards top-down leadership, not only by Chavez, but by everyone in the public administration. Despite the very real pursuit of participatory democracy at local levels, the government bureaucracy is still by and large a top-down operation, which Chavez’s military instincts have reinforced. Such leadership in the public administration further exacerbates the problems mentioned of a personalistic political culture, so that questioning of one’s superiors and correcting errors in the administration of public policies is extremely difficult.

Prospects

It is very probable that the Chavez government will continue on its course of increasing radicalization because it has managed to either defeat or avoid nearly all of the obstacles to governing that progressive governments normally face. That is, most governments face what some political scientists have called, the “contradictions of the welfare state,” whereby democratically elected governments in capitalist countries have to answer to two contradictory masters.[12] On the one hand, governments have to fulfill the wishes of the population that elected them, lest they be removed from power in the next electoral cycle. On the other hand, they have to fulfill the wishes of capital, lest they face a capital strike and economic crisis. These two pulls on governments is a serious problem because they tend to pull in diametrically opposite directions. Citizens generally want the government to protect them from the ravages of capitalism (advocating for regulations on businesses, environmental protection, workplace safety, protection from economic crisis, etc.), while capital wants to be as free of government regulations and taxes as possible. Following an effort to at least partially resolve this contradiction via debt spending, governments in both the First and Third World borrowed heavily, so that they could fulfill the financial needs of the welfare state, without having to tax either capital or the general population. However, once the debt crisis became too much of a burden, governments cut back government spending and by and large adopted neo-liberalism as a supposed way out of the contradiction. Neo-liberalism, though, did not resolve the contradiction, but shifted the balance of power in favor of capital.

Recently, though, with the failure of neo-liberalism to provide for any meaningful increase in people’s standard of living and with a dramatic increase in inequality, the peoples of Latin America have been voting against neo-liberalism and in favor of a wide variety of leftist governments. The contradiction between the pulls of capitalism and of the general population remains in nearly all of these countries. The only exception seems to be Venezuela, which, by virtue of its oil wealth, is far less dependent on private capital and thus on its demands. Added to this economic independence comes the Venezuelan old elite’s repeated failures to topple Chavez. Chavez, who started out as a fairly moderate politician in 1998, could thus easily afford to become increasingly more radical with each subsequent defeat of the opposition. Also, as someone who was not formed politically by a political party or ideology, but more as a result of his confrontations with state power, Chavez steers a path that is pragmatic and free from orthodoxies of any kind, thus opening him up to steering a more radical path, should opportunity and his perceived analysis of what Venezuela needs lead him in that direction.

In other words, while further advances in defining and applying 21st century socialism in Venezuela are very possible, due to the relative lack of external obstacles, it is the internal obstacles of the cultures of patronage and personalism that are most likely to threaten to derail the project. Figuring out how to overcome these obstacles, which would require a re-building of the state, in order to overcome patronage structures, and the creation of an effective political movement that does not depend on Chavez, in order to overcome personalism, remain the greatest challenges for 21st century socialism in Venezuela.

---

[8] These sanctions are the result of putting Venezuela on a variety of lists, such as one of countries that are not doing enough in fighting terrorism, fighting drug trafficking, and in fighting human trafficking.

[9] These failures include the April 2002 coup attempt, the December 2002 oil industry shutdown, the August 2004 recall referendum, and the December 2005 boycott of the National Assembly elections.

[10] There are probably nearly as many accounts of opposition employers using this list to weed out Chavez supporters. However, this does not excuse the practice, especially not for a government that originally campaigned against patronage systems.

[11] An example of such a wrong-headed policy is the recent passage of changes to the penal code, which slightly broadened penalties for insulting government officials. The law has been on the books for decades, but an increase of the maximum penalty for such offenses is anti-civil rights and did not serve any useful purpose.

[12] One of the main theorists of this thesis was Claus Offe, in his book, The Contradictions of the Welfare State, 1984, MIT Press