A system where individual rights, sovereignty and independence are respected

<a href=>venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Friday, May 09, 2003 By: Kira Marquez Perez

VHeadline.com commentarist Kira Marquez Perez writes: I was reading some of the very interesting letters that have been sent to VHeadline.com and have been thinking about the advantages and disadvantages of many economic and political systems in the world and about the influence (negative and positive) they’ve had on the history of humanity.

I was a little bit worried, however, about the threatening and aggressive tone of one of these letters.

To begin I would like to say that I totally agree that both: socialism and capitalism, have failed to achieve their goals until now ... although both systems were originally based on very good ideas:

Capitalism was meant to be a system based on individual rights, sovereignty and independence.

Socialism was meant to provide full participation by each individual in all aspects of society (be it economic, political, intellectual or cultural).

Theoretically, both systems sound excellent. However, in the practice, these two terms have often been mishandled to satisfy personal interests, and that has contributed to bring pain, frustration and poverty to many countries in the world.

Extremes are always bad ... radicals in both directions have been responsible for many wars and deaths throughout history.

On both sides, the list of radicals is long: Among the right-wing dictatorships we can mention: Francisco Franco (Spain), who named himself “El caudillo” (the leader) and controlled all powers in the country, including the Falange (the only political party permitted). Franco's very good relations to Adolf Hitler's fascist and nationalist Nazi regime, as well as his support to Germany during World War II, are very well known (Hitler had also supported Franco's actions during the Spanish Civil War between 1936 and 1939).

After the war, the victorious allies would have little to do with Spain because of Franco's pro-fascist policies. However, they became more friendly to Franco during the Cold War, because he was against Communism. The right-wing dictatorship of Benito Mussolini (Italy) also had excellent relations with the Hitler and Franco regimes. Hitler's regime (although it was called Nazionalsozialismus) had obvious racist and fascist tendencies and was focused on assuring “a pure white Aryan race,” with no Jews, Blacks, handicapped or any other foreign race from which Hitler deemed imperfect or inferior to the German race.

At this point I must recall a very painful editorial from “El Nacional” (October 14, 2002) in response to a huge pro-Chavez demonstration on the day before. (El Nacional 14/10/2002: “...el mismo lumpen de siempre, convertidos en sempiternos pasajeros de autobuses, con un bollo de pan y una carterita de ron...”).

In this editorial, a supposedly “prestigious Venezuelan intellectual” from the opposition called all participants of this demonstration: Lumpen (he did it in a very contemptuous way and using a level of Spanish which I find quite questionable for an "intellectual"). He also said that they ALL belonged to the type of person that carries a piece of bread and a bottle of rum in the hand. What an editorial! These words were clearly discriminating (like in the times of Hitler) ... that says a lot about El Nacional and its owners.

At this point I would like to apologize and say that most intellectuals in Venezuela have read, learned and traveled enough not to share these racial and social prejudices.

For some, Hitler was a radical leftist. For others, he was a right-wing extremist (depending on their own political tendencies). For me he was neither ... he was a totalitarian fascist, obsessed with heroism and protagonism ... who used some aspects of both political doctrines for his own convenience ... was willing to show his power through expansion and growth of what he thought was his empire and wanted to show that he was undefeatable.

Other examples of right-wing extremists were: Anastasio Somoza (Nicaragua), famous for executing journalists or intellectuals that opposed the regime and for bombing entire neighborhoods that were on strike; Augusto Pinochet (Chile), whose regime was characterized by executions and disappearances. At the start of his dictatorship, the military Junta closed down the National Congress and Constitutional Tribunal (the same thing that right-wing dictator Pedro Carmona Estanga did in Venezuela in April 2002). Chaing Kai-Shek (China), who is well known for his efforts for maintaining China's sovereignty but who ordered in 1927 the killing of thousands of communists opposing his regime. The list is long and includes other personalities like Manuel Noriega (Panama), Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines) and many more.

However, we also want to consider the left-wing dictatorships, who have also not been any better. Undoubtedly, the regime of Joseph Stalin (Russia) is on the top of the list.  Again, he was a radical with an obsession for heroism. His real name was Djugashvili, but he later changed it to Stalin which meant "man of steel." After 1934, millions of persons disappeared in Russia under Stalin's dictatorship.  Mao Tse-Tung was also a dictator who ruled for 25 years in China after defeating Chaing Kai-Shek. Other left-wing dictatorships are currently happening in Cuba, North-Korea and China and I wouldn't say that these countries are profitable (China has been using a “less radical” system in the last years that has produced some good results in the economical area. Concerning human rights, however, a lot still has to be done in this country).

Now let's analyze both types of dictatorships:

Have any of these personalities (going from Hitler to Castro) really respected the individual rights, the sovereignty and the independence of their countries (principle of capitalism)? No they have not.

Have any of them allowed full participation in economic, political and cultural activities (principle of socialism)? No, they have not done that either.

So… What are these people then? Are they socialists or are they capitalists?. Or did they only use socialism and capitalism to achieve personal wealth and power?

All dictatorships are bad ... however, a very sad issue is that some dictatorships have been more strongly criticized than others, depending mostly on economical interests. Several dictatorships have even been very strongly supported by other countries, due to economic, commercial or even racial reasons.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a system where individual rights, sovereignty and independence are respected AND where, at the same time, all members of society are able to grow economically, politically, intellectually and culturally?

That is the system that we want in Venezuela.

I've been around quite a bit in England, USA, France, Japan, Germany, etc.  In the USA (theoretically a mainly capitalist country) I saw several cities like New York and San Francisco with many beggars on the streets ... people who, in spite of the richness of their country and of the wealth of many other fellow Americans, had no house to sleep in and nothing to eat.  There were very beautiful areas but also quite ugly areas (specially surrounding New York) with poverty and crime levels approaching those of some barrios in Caracas.

That means that the system has not really been that efficient. Moreover, when you observe the results of self-styled capitalism in Latin America, you can definitely see that something is wrong (just take a look at Argentina). I think the reason is that capitalism has been in many cases mistaken with individualism.

On the other hand, in countries like Cuba or North-Korea (theoretically mainly socialist countries) the living standards of the majority are also not good ... again, the protagonism of the leaders has played a significant role.

I must say that the social-capitalist system in Germany seems (in my eyes) to work a lot better ... living standards are very good, with an almost imperceptible difference between rich and poor. Everybody in Germany has health insurance ... the "Sozialhilfe" and the "Arbeitslosengeld" are very good means for helping those who have lost their jobs until they start working again. But ... people in Germany pay their taxes (and they're quite high), because that's the only way to keep the "social" part of the system working. There are taxes on almost everything (TV, gasoline, etc). Besides, Germany is a highly industrialized country, with a world leading automotive industry (Benz, Audi, BMW, VW, etc) and these companies also pay high taxes that are then used to cover social needs and to build a better infrastructure in the country.

A capitalist country with a reasonable social system.

If capitalism and socialism are taken literally (and not twisted by extremists) then the solution could be a combination of both...