<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Monday, May 12, 2003 By: Ambassador Alfredo Toro Hardy

Venezuelan scholar & diplomat Alfredo Toro Hardy writes: Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri made a distinction between imperialism and empire. Imperialism would be none other than the expansion of the sovereignty of the ruling super power over their dominated spheres. Empire, on the other hand, is a form of power expressed by means of an international consensus on a set of rules and beliefs.

The essence of the empire is to be a form of power that has permeated the collective conscience and determined its values (Empire, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2000). Michel Foucault talked about the existence of two forms of society: the “disciplinary society” and the “society of control.” The first is that in which social command is imposed through an apparatus that stipulates and regulates a set of norms of behavior and sanctions, its obedience or disobedience. In the second form of society, in contrast, the norms of behavior have been internalized by the citizens, becoming part of their own mind set (Dits et écrits, Paris, Gallimard, 1994).

Joseph Nye proposed the distinction between “hard power” and “soft power.” The hard one is established through conventional power formulas such as coercion and military might. The second is articulated through the “universality of a country’s culture” and its ability to create a set of “favourable rules and institutions” that allows for its dissemination (Bound to Lead: The Changing Character of American Power, New York, Basic Books, 1991).

The common denominator among all the former proposals is the essence of real power: that which is the product of a general consensus that has been internalized as part of a society’s own core of beliefs.

The extraordinary merit of the United States of America had been to achieve a form of power as the one previously described. Never before in human history had a hegemonic power been able to transcend, in such a way, the boundaries of coercive power, to create an international consensus around its values and project them as the nucleus of a universal culture and framework.

By the end of the 90s, the United States had managed to create a global coalition by way of markets, international institutions and security alliances. Furthermore, it had managed for globalization to take, to the most remote corners of the world, the essence of their beliefs, their life style and their popular culture. The real nature of their power lied in the implementation of what Ignacio Ramonet has named “the single thought.”

A good description of that single thought could be found in the following words by Benjamin Barber ... “In the old times capitalism had to capture the political institutions and the elites in order to control politics, philosophy and religion and, in this way, impose an ideology at its service. Today it markets, as one of its most profitable products, ideology itself” (Jihad vs. McWorld, New York, Ballantine Books, 1996).

That was, indeed, the true nature of American power.

Immersed in archaic understandings of the nature of power, the Bush team has been destroying ... step by step ... an international order and a system of consensual rules and beliefs, of which the United States was the main artificer and beneficiary.

With these changes, they have rearwarded from empire to imperialism, from the society of control to the disciplinary society and from soft power to hard power. Having attained the utmost of post modern power, United States has gone back to conceptions of international power akin to the thought of the 17th century.

Alfredo Toro Hardy is a Venezuelan scholar and diplomat who has held many ambassadorial posts, including Washington D.C., London, Brazil, Chile etc. Author of several books, he writes regular editorial commentaries in the Spanish-language Venezuelan media and VHeadline.com Venezuela. You may email Ambassador Toro Hardy at embvenuk-despacho@dial.pipex.com

Estados Unidos y la naturaleza de su poder

Diplomatico y escritor Venezolano, Alfredo Toro Hardy: Hardt y Negri establecieron una distinción entre imperialismo e imperio. El imperialismo no es otra cosa que la expansión de la soberanía de la potencia dominante sobre las esferas sometidas a su dominio. El imperio, por el contrario, es una forma de poder que se expresa por vía de un consenso internacional en torno a un conjunto de reglas y creencias.

La esencia del imperio es un poder que ha penetrado la conciencia colectiva, determinando sus valores ( Empire , Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2000). Michel Foucault planteó la existencia de dos tipos diferentes de sociedad: la 'sociedad disciplinaria' y la 'sociedad de control'. La primera es aquella en la que el comando social se impone por vía de un aparato que prescribe, regula o sanciona el cumplimiento o el incumplimiento de un conjunto de normas de comportamiento. En la segunda, por el contrario, las normas de comportamiento han sido interiorizadas por los ciudadanos, haciéndose parte de su propia estructura de pensamiento (Dits ét crits , París , Gallimard, 1994).

Joseph Nye planteó la distinción entre 'poder duro' y 'poder suave'. El duro es aquel que se establece a través de fórmulas convencionales de poder como la coerción o la superioridad militar. El suave se expresa a través 'del universalismo de la cultura de un país' y de su habilidad de establecer 'un conjunto favorable de reglas e instituciones' que permita la promoción internacional de ésta (Bound to Lead: the Changing Character of American Power , New York, Basic Books, 1991).

El denominador común de todos los planteamientos anteriores es la esencia del verdadero poder: aquel que ha llegado a ser interiorizado.

Benjamin Barber ha hablado acerca del poder inédito resultante de la sinergia entre las tecnologías de la información y el entretenimiento, lo cual se ha traducido en un 'control sobre el alma humana'. Según sus palabras: 'Antiguamente el capitalismo tenía que capturar las instituciones políticas y las élites para controlar la política, la filosofía y la religión y, de esta manera, imponer una ideología a su servicio. Hoy elabora como uno de sus productos más rentables a la ideología misma' (Jihad vs. McWorld , New York, Ballantine Books, 1996).

El merito extraordinario de Estados Unidos fue haber logrado un tipo de poder como el antes descrito. Nunca antes en la historia humana una potencia hegemónica había logrado trascender de forma tal los límites del poder coercitivo, para generar un consenso internacional en torno a sus valores y lograr proyectar los mismos como esencia de un orden y de una cultura universales.

Para finales de la década de los noventa Estados Unidos había logrado conformar una coalición global integrada por vía de mercados, instituciones internacionales y alianzas de seguridad. Más aún, había logrado que la globalización llevara a los más remotos rincones del planeta la esencia de sus creencias, su estilo de vida y su cultura popular. La verdadera naturaleza de su poder quedaba determinada por la implantación de aquello que Ignacio Ramonet bautizó como 'el pensamiento único'. El triunfo del segundo Bush echó por tierra todo ello.

Inmerso en concepciones arcaicas con respecto a la naturaleza del poder, el equipo Bush fue destruyendo paso a paso un orden internacional y un sistema consensual de reglas y principios, de los cuales Estados Unidos fue el principal artífice y el mayor beneficiario. Con ello ha logrado involucionar del imperio al imperialismo, de la sociedad de control a la sociedad de disciplina y del poder suave al poder duro.

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Sunday, May 11, 2003 By: Paul Volgyesi

Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 21:33:03 +0200 From: Paul Volgyesi sanbasan@interware.hu To: Editor@VHeadline.com Subject: Way of life

Dear Editor: VHeadline.com commentarist Oscar Heck pretty well summed up what reasonable people think of the US these days, Canadians or not...

The only only thing you seem to have gotten wrong ... and I'm certainly not blaming you for it, since I was as much surprised by it as most people will be, is "...most people in Canada do not own guns."

According to Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine", Canadians actually own more guns per capita than "Americans" except that ... as you rightly got it this time in the second part of the same sentence "... violent crime is minimal."

Ironically, this seems to vindicate the N.R.A's motto: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Anyway, for the "way of life," I suggest replacing the present US anthem with the song "Sixteen Tons," changing the title to "Sixteen Cards" and "company store" to "MasterCard n' Co."

As for Chretien, I'll rip you off the part of your piece about him and email it to him, since as much as I despise politicians as a race, he deserves to be thanked for what he did ... you just saved me the time and effort to formulate!

And to extend your extolling the virtues of "unsanitary" food outlets on beaches and streets ... and considering the number of Venezuelans they kill each year compared to "sanitized" Global Fast Food joints-created endemic global obesity ... I'd say that as long as you have to live under state or other terrorism (wherever, whichever), you're ultimately much better off and freer in a Latino Mickey Mouse than in a WASP "Law and Order" (whose?) environment, where nanotechnology permitting, they'll soon charge for (privatized) air inhaled.

It may be more violent (though the ultimate numbers may not even support that), it also more humane, even when inhumane. (Hope I'm still on this side of comprehensibility)

In respect to this American Way of Life ... which 90% of the citizens of the Third World dream of (no kidding, just watch what they watch on TV and what they buy, eat and drink when they can afford it!), I was asking myself whether it was worth it quality-wise back in the 60s ... knew it wasn't in the 80s ... and can't figure out today how come anybody ever got conned into it. It's so gross!

And I'm not even dreaming it. The New York Times ran a piece a couple of weeks ago saying that Americans work 350 hours more per year than Europeans. That's nine weeks a year, and Europeans are still fighting to work less!

Weren't we all told as kids that progress was about man working less, machine working more?

Since all that happened, ever since is about man working more, woman working even more and kids dropping out of school for having to work, anyone who can't figure out we got the Grand Screw Royal is mentally retarded and fair game for Global Manipulators, since they're asking for it, sorry, begging for it.

In over 40 years of watching the world around me, I've never seen any serious American movement for decent vacation, meal and rest time. This doesn't fit into Protestant work ethics. In good old sloppy Catholic Middle Ages ... adding religious feasts to Sundays ... the peasant worked less than 180 days/year. Since Protestants started working 480 and felt guilty for meal and sleep time, they all got richer than Catholics, individuals and countries alike.

The US is the epitome of this ... basically for having been colonized by Protestant Fundamentalists. They also eat ... or rather gulp in ... food largely unfit for humans, and get neurotic and aggressive from it and for being overworked and kept in constant anxiety. Don't take it from me, it exactly agrees with Michael Moore's works on the causes of American agressivity. (Finally a social student who comes from the "social" and not from politics or academe.)

So not wanting the American Way of Life is fast becoming more of a survival strategy than a political statement of fad.

Keep up the good works,

Paul Volgyesi sanbasan@interware.hu

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Sunday, May 11, 2003 By: Joel Pozarnik

VHeadline guest commentarist Joel Pozarnik writes: The Venezuelan society is highly divided. It can be compared to the divisions of the French society during the Affaire Dreyfus, at the beginning of the 20th century. People have lost their own identity. They are no longer “Juan” or “Luis”, but only “Chavista” or “Anti-Chavista”” complains Dr. Manuel Barroso, a specialist of the Venezuelan culture. Families are divided. Some children blackmail their parents with not allowing their children to see their grandfathers again if those latter do not change their political opinion.

Since the beginning of the democratic period in 1958, the dominant Venezuelan culture has always been political. However, the political debate has not always been so tense. As I will try to suggest in this article, one of the causes of this division might be found in the strategies followed by President Hugo Chavez to control the ideational resources.

A second reason might be found in the images and representations that each political group has of itself and its opponents.

A third reason can be found in the presence of a profound culture of mistreatment within the Venezuelan society.

Both political groups claim to be antagonistic, and however, they behave quite similarly because they are inserted in the same culture. Finally, I will try to suggest that the actual political confrontation might be playing a very positive role in the emergence of a different culture in the country.

Political anthropologist Donald Kurtz mentions that “political power (…) derives fundamentally from the control of resources” and those resources can be subsumed “under material (tangible, human) and ideational (ideological, symbolic, informational) resources.”

Because he wants to be “the voice of the poor”, the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias cannot count on a strong tangible and economic support to remain in power. Since 1998, capital flight to foreign countries is sometimes evaluated up to US$35 billion ... that might be why he has devoted time and effort to control ideational resources ... “Ideational resources help leaders to convince others of the legitimacy of their authority and enhance (their) abilities to acquire additional material resources” also comments Donald Kurtz.

"Ideational" has been used by Kurtz, as a synthetic concept to designate ideology + symbolism + information. (Political Anthropology, D. Kurz, Westview Press, 2001)

A political ideology ... the first aspect of ideational resources ... can be described as a “system of hypotheses, principles, and postulates that justify the exercise of authority and power, assert social values and moral and ethical principles, set forth causal connections between leaders and the people they govern, and furnish guides for action," adds Daniel Kurtz.

President Chavez Frias claims to be inspired by the ideas of Simon Bolivar, Ezequiel Zamora and Simon Rodriguez, who belong to the glorious past of the Venezuelan nation. However, his agenda is modern and refers mainly to the anti-globalization issues, the economy being at the service of mankind in contrast with the “salvage neo-liberalism,” the representative and participative democracy in contrast with the dictatorship of political parties (“partidocracia” and “cogollocracia”), the right of the indigenous people and the use of land. He has labeled his movement as a “peaceful and armed revolution.”

It means that it is based on an alliance between part of the civil society and the military, so that a legal and institutional process within an ideological concept of non-violence can at the same time be strong enough to resist to any undemocratic attempts to stop it.

The use of the term “revolution” is not new in the Venezuelan history ... Delia Da Silva Nunez mentions at least 9 political movements called revolution since 1830. A political symbol, the second aspect of ideational resources “may be anything in the social and physical environments that helps to convince people to follow and support a leader or leadership structure.(…)(They) may establish and maintain a leader’s identity and intentions,” mentions Donald Kurtz.

President Hugo Chavez Frias uses very few visible symbols and he dresses differently according to the circumstances: he might use the red beret, reminiscent of the beret used by Che Guevara ... or a military uniform ... as a sign of power. He can dress in a very formal costume and tie, or in an informal, casual and sometimes folkloric way (The “liki-liki”). His symbolic image might consist of dressing like almost anybody else ... despite the fact that he is the President.

The informational strategy, the third aspect of ideational resources, both includes and produces knowledge. Hugo Chavez has become the “teacher” of his people. Through the Sunday program “Hello President” (“Alo Presidente!”), he explains, in simple terms, complex political, economic, social and international issues. He uses appropriate style and language to get the message understood by the 14-16 millions people who live in the slums (“barrios”). The middle class generally feels frustrated by this kind of communication because it uses other types of communication codes.

There is no doubt that in those program and in mass concentrations, President Hugo Chavez is a passionate orator, able to win the hearts and minds of his followers ... however, he can also speak in a much more sophisticated manner according to the audience. He has become the only credible channel able to transmit political, social and economic knowledge to the bulk of the population.

Before 1998, the Venezuelan population was attended by politicians mainly only during electoral periods ... they were sometimes offered some kind of material compensation for their vote. It seems that now, they are “educated” every Sunday by their “teacher,” the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela ... which might be interpreted, in itself, as a demonstration of care and respect.

By doing so, Chavez Frias himself has become a symbol. Leaders can become powerful symbols and embody the values and ideals of a political community. First of all, because he is a descendant of “Maisanta” ... a revolutionary leader of the past ... President Hugo Chavez Frias personally embodies the war against colonialism. Because he personally led the failed “coup d’etat” against President Carlos Andres Perez and his neo-liberal politics, he also embodies the fight of a people against foreign economic interests.

Surveys realized after the “coup d'etat” shows that 80% of the population was backing him ... and this event was then called “The Rebellion of the Angels” by author Angela Zago. Furthermore, the Presidents of the democratic era belonged in some way to the white European ethnic group, who was economically, politically and ideologically dominant in the country.

Hugo Chavez Frias belongs ethnically to the Black and Indian communities, who constitute the vast majority of the population ... and its poorest sectors. When addressing them, his generous and idealistic ideas, his capacity to generate “abundant emotions,” his sense of humor (“chispa criolla”), his popular expressions and his claims for social justice, reflect the life, the way of being and the aspirations of an important part of the population. He is not the first President to use numerous popular expressions: President Luis Herrera Campins (1978-1982) also used to mention expressions from the region called Los Llanos.

The problem is that the ideational resources, for their own nature, do not favor conciliation as much as tangible resources do. Through clientelism, the State was used to satisfy people from all political parties, because economic interest can always be managed in an appropriate way to smooth political differences. But in the ideational field, the individuals are challenged not only in their superficial material interests, but also in their profound conscious and unconscious beliefs, fears, representations, hopes and systems of values. Reactions might thus be much more radical in favor or against the proposed ideas.

By focusing on ideational resources, Hugo Chavez Frias has opened the gate to a highly emotional confrontation within the Venezuelan society. However, it might be legitimate to ask why the tensions have gone so far ... some economic interests have certainly been fragmented by some new policies ... but the anthropological point of view seems to suggest that the tensions the tensions also come from the antagonist and unrealistic representations and images each political side maintains of itself and “the others”.

The “Chavistas" see themselves as the “people” (“El pueblo”) ... the vast majority of the Venezuelan population ... in contrast with “The very few” (“Los Escualidos”) from the opposition. They even call themselves the “anti-few” (“Los Anti-Escualidos”), meaning that they define themselves in a clear opposition to the rest of the society.

However, social and political realities are more complex ... their social base is effectively made of unemployed and under-employed people which are the vast majority of the Venezuelan population. But President Chavez Frias has only been elected with 56.5% of the votes in December 1998 and his political alliance holds only a slim majority of seats in the National Assembly (AN). This difference between their perception of being an overwhelming majority and the real relation of political forces, might explain why they might tended to underestimate the force of their political opponents.

They describe their opponents as a corrupt oligarchy and middle class that have robbed the oil revenues from “the people” to their own particular benefits. Consequently, “the people” has to take the power and to fight against them if social justice has to come in the country.

Here again, realities are more complex ... even if corruption has plagued the society in general, the Venezuelan oligarchy has almost disappeared in the globalization movement. Most economic groups have sold their companies to foreign companies and sent their money abroad. The middle class is passing through a process of impoverishment and is now unable to reproduce the standard of living of the past generation. This tendency to name a scapegoat for the poor economic performance might hide some important obstacles to the economic development, that are to be found in the very culture, all across the society.

The “Anti-Chavistas” describe themselves as the “democrats.” They use expressions such as “Full liberty” (“Libertad Plena”) to name the organization in charge of their communications via email. One of their political associations is called “Democratic Coordination” (“Coordinadora Democratica”). Once more, realities are more complex.

Some of them have clearly participated and supported the “coup d’etat” in April 2002 and the so-called “general strike” of December 2002- January 2003. In fact, in a country that was still a dictatorship 45 years ago, democracy is still not yet a cultural conviction ... and particularly among the economic elite. That might be the reason why they have also overestimated their capacity to mobilize an electorate that has serious doubts about their democratic vocation.

They describe the President as a “communist” and a “dictator” and his supporters as “hooligans”, “chavistas hordes” (“hordas Chavistas”), “delinquents” (“delicuentes”), “scruffy” (“zarapastrosos”, “chusma”) and “killers” (“asesinos”). Some of them live in permanent fear that the “Chavistas” will one day come to kill them and to take their property away from them.

Once again, realities are more complex ... if the followers of President Chavez Frias are to be found in the poor rural and urban sectors of the population, some of his loyalists are also to be found in the middle class, the intellectuals and some productive sectors, while his opponents of the economic sector tend to belong to the import sector. Furthermore, some of his economic policies have been classical if not liberal, and the political situation in Venezuela has sometimes been much closer to a certain kind of anarchy than to a dictatorship ... this difference between the perception of their opponents and reality might explain their failure to gather sufficient support to bolt President Chavez Frias out of power.

In fact, in terms of images and representations, both sides are closer than they might imagine, because they belong to the same culture. Both have made an extensive use of the Venezuelan flag as a demonstration of their common pretext to represent and defend the interests of the country.

T-shirts, socks, shoes have appeared with the colors of the Venezuelan flag ... that might be a first cultural new trend generated by this confrontation ... Dr. Manuel Barroso considers that since the beginning of the democratic era, Venezuelan society had shown no strong interest for the State and the national interests.

The 80s generation was called the “stupid generation” (“generacion boba”) for its sole interest in material goods and superficial entertainment ... everything was about individual interests. It is almost the first time in modern history that the Venezuelan people seem to be identified with a larger national community. Even if it is still in a superficial manner, the movement might open the gate to new attitudes as responsible citizenship. Nationalism was basically a glorification of the past ... it might become a capacity to “assume ourselves as we really are,” to work for the common wealth, through education, health services, education, work, housing, personal security.

Both sides present very similar attitudes, because they represent themselves as the saviors of the nation, and the other as a danger that has to be dominated or even, eliminated.

The representation of the other, as somebody that must be treated in a harsh way, is very profound in the Venezuelan nature ... according to Dr. Manuel Barroso who comments that “the Venezuelan culture is a mixture of different ways of thinking and behaving that could be resumed in three main characteristics: the culture of lack of care, mistreatment (“maltrato”) and ignorance. All these generating a culture of poor self-esteem, also called the culture of exclusion (“marginalidad”).

Interpersonal relations are plagued with mistreatment at home, at school, university, work and also in the political system. An example of mistreatment and disqualification in the political sphere is to be found in in a short three column article published in “La Razon” where President Chavez is described as a “psychopath” and a “clown.” The “peaceful revolution” is called “rob-olution.” The General Attorney, Dr. Isaias Rodriguez ex Vice-President of the Venezuelan Bolivarian Republic, is qualified as “ignorant of the law” and as an “atrociously ridiculous” “lapdog.” The President of the state oil company, Dr. Ali Rodriguez Araque, ex General Secretary of OPEC, is called “Ali Baba” and is described as “robbing public funds with impudence and greed.” Another example is to be found in the pejorative way President Hugo Chavez Frias has referred to the population living in the residential areas of Caracas.

“Dialogue we need and dialogue we miss in the private and public spheres … there cannot be dialogue in a culture of low self-esteem, in a culture of exclusion” Dr. Manuel Barroso comments.

In fact, the confrontation might not only be political but also cultural ... “cultural creation and the formation of consciousness are political processes” linked to an “historical process and to class structures and relationships” comments William Roseburry.

The actual confrontation within Venezuelan society is not changing the dominant culture in the sense that it was, and still is, political. However, if an emergent culture is to include elements of the past that have been excluded, and to give new meaning to elements that have not be excluded, political confrontation might engender a new cultural reality.

“Chavismo” is trying to replace the North American cultural influence by national and holistic values, representative democracy by participative democracy, the growth of the country by the growth of its inhabitants, urban development by rural development, imports by national production, lack of self-esteem by the belief in the empowerment of the people, an admiration for foreign countries by a faith in their own country, the protection of corporatist interests by the protection of the interests of the people, the culture of exclusion by a more republican-type integration.

Along with an economic, political and social process of changes, “Chavismo” has challenged the dominant culture through new ideational resources, images and representations. It has generated violent and emotional reactions of approval and rejection. It has introduced an ideological debate in a commercial and materialistic society, as well as a “tender care” for the poor, in an individualistic society.

However, “Chavistas” and “Anti-Chavistas” are similar when they both maintain important gaps between their own images and representations, and the political reality on the ground. They have increased the common interest for the nation, as well as the political component of the Venezuelan culture. They both have remained prisoner of the Venezuelan culture of mistreatment, exclusion, ascription (“Amiguismo-compadrazgo”), imitation (“Copismo”) and facility (“Facilismo”).

Was it really avoidable?

Will they succeed to avoid it in the future?

...it might well be their common challenge.

Joel Pozarnik is the founder and director of Intelego, an independent risk management company specialized in Latin America. He is a researcher and consultant dedicated to the political, economic, social and cultural understanding of Venezuela. A graduate of the ESSEC French Business School; MSc. of LSE in Comparative Politics (Latin America); and The London University in Social Anthropology. He is starting a Doctorate in Political Science at the Institute of Advanced Latin American Studies (La Sorbonne). A native of Paris (France), he had residence in Venezuela 1982-2000 working with international companies for 10 years and in consultancy for 8 years on issues management, market analysis and organizational structure. He was general manager of the Venezuelan French Chamber of Commerce (1990-1992), and general secretary to the Federation of European Chambers of Commerce in Venezuela (FEDEUROPA). He is currently a member of the Issue Management Council (USA) and has published around 30 articles. You may email Joel Pozarnik at intelego@hotmail.com

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Sunday, May 11, 2003 By: Hector Dauphin-Gloire

Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 11:56:45 -0400 From: Hector Dauphin-Gloire montonero22@hotmail.com To: editor@vheadline.com Subject: PDVSA, Legal Rights and Moral Right

Dear Editor: The recent exchange between Mr. Daniel Burnett and Mr. Gustavo Coronel was illuminating. I respect both men's point of view, and while I agree with Mr. Burnett much more than with Mr. Coronel, I feel like there are some underlying issues which neither letter fully addressed.

Mr. Burnett argues that the managers of PDVSA had no right to shut down an industry of national importance and to try and dictate the policy of their industry; that decisions about the future of PDVSA need to be made by the shareholders of the company (in this case by the State) and not by the workers and managers. Presumably, Mr. Coronel disagrees.

I have to say that in this case ... while I have no sympathy for the political, social, and economic model that Mr. Coronel believes in ... his statements are correct. I believe deeply in a socialism based on cooperative economics and worker self-management, and NOT in centralized economic power in the hands of the State.

Saying that workers in an industry should defer to the shareholders of the company is mirroring exactly what the apologists of the most right-wing forms of neoliberal capitalism argue.

For anyone who believes in equality, the idea that a man must defer in the workplace -- the place where most of us spend the greatest part of our waking hours -- to any arbitrary authority is unjust; and to any sincere believer in freedom, the idea that a person lacks control over their working life is equally hard to swallow.

This kind of control, where a person is not free, in collaboration with his fellow workers, to make decisions about his own workplace and working life, leads to alienation and turns each working hour into one more hour of drudgery.

Work is an important sphere of human life, and it should be a sphere, like others, that each person exerts control over ... either by himself or in collaboration with others. There is always a need for managers, to be sure, but these managers should come from among the workers themselves, so that there is no class separation between the one who takes orders and the one who carries them out.

The key point ... and this is one that has chronically been ignored by Leftists since the beginning of their infatuation with Marxism ... is that arbitrary authority in the workplace is EQUALLY intolerable whether it comes from a state bureaucrat or from a private capitalist.

Both capitalism and Marxism take away a man's individual or collective control over his own working life, the one giving it to the State, the other to a class of people (the capitalist class) who are separate from those that they employ, and whose primary source of income derives from their control over economic resources, and not from wages or salaries.

In truth, there is little advantage to one over the other ... being forced to take orders from the State is no better than being forced to take orders from a private individual. And until we have an economic order based on true freedom and equality, an economy of workers' cooperatives, small individual holdings, and a few State or private companies run in as democratic a fashion as possible, this state of affairs will continue.

Anyone who has ever felt used or ignored in one of their jobs ... and this is probably true of most people the world over at some point in their lives ... knows what I am speaking about.

So, in conclusion, when Mr. Burnett asks the questions: "Should PDVSA workers and managers, not the shareholders, have the right to decide about the future direction of their company?" and "Should they have the right to start a general strike to bring down the government?" my answers (in contrast to the "No" that Mr. Burnett expects) are "Yes" and "Maybe."

I believe in cooperative workers' control of economic resources, NOT in control by "shareholders" whether public or private, and so I would be a rank hypocrite if I denied that belief simply because in this case, PDVSA workers and managers are striking on behalf of a cause with which I disagree. I think that in general, workers and managers should be free to strike if they want -- certainly about economic questions that directly impact their company, and possibly about political questions as well.

Whether PDVSA had the right to strike to protest the appointment of a new leftist management, in my mind, is perfectly clear; they did. Whether they had the right to strike because they wanted to bring down the Chavez regime in my mind is less clear.

In the first case, they were merely trying to exert control over their own work environment, something which I cannot disagree with.

In the second case, they were trying to exert control over the future political course of the nation; a small but politically influential minority (the oil company workers and managers) were using their privileged political position to force a change of government.

That's not necessarily always a bad thing ... if the government is noxious enough, then it needs to go, whether a minority or the majority forces it out ... but neither is it necessarily a good thing.

Striking over political questions is quite a different thing than striking over economic questions; it can't be justified reflexively, it needs to be justified on a case-by-case basis.

Specifically, the answer is going to depend on whether or not Chavez was a corrupt tyrant who needed to be removed by any means necessary.

And that brings me to my final point.

The legal right of the oil company to go on strike is unquestionable; but that certainly does not morally excuse, in my mind, the despicable actions of those who participated in this winter's general strike or who tried their hardest to bring down one of the few governments in the world that is truly dedicated to social justice, to uplifting the poor, and to revolutionary reform.

We all have the legal right to do many things that are morally wrong. In the country where I live, I have the legal right to commit adultery, to spit at a homeless man on the street, or to write racist propaganda; nothing prevents me from doing any of those things but my sure knowledge that they are morally despicable.

The managers of PDVSA surely knew that they occupied a privileged position in their society due to their economic leverage; they surely also knew that the support for the government they hated was coming from the poorest and most suffering people in Venezuela.

Rather than throwing their lot in with those who were in dire circumstances and needed a leader to help them advance, these men chose to defend their own interests, and for the sake of maintaining their own rights and privileges ... and those of the oligarchy that controlled a hugely disproportionate share of Venezuela's tremendous wealth ... chose to bring down a government intent on redistributing that wealth.

I am not singling out any individual for blame here. Mr. Coronel, though I disagree with his viewpoint intensely, has made it sufficiently clear that he is a man of integrity who is undertaking considerable sacrifices to oppose what he sees as a corrupt tyranny.

While I believe he is wrong, I respect his intentions and integrity.

My opposition is not to the millions of Venezuelans, most of them middle class or below, who are opposed to the revolution out of sincere concerns for their country, concerns which I disagree with but respect nonetheless.

It is certainly not directed at men like Mohammed Merhi, who is currently, if I remember right, still engaged in a hunger strike unto death to protest the Chavez government ... I don't oppose men like that, although I do disagree with their politics, in fact I fear their moral force, because if there is one thing that no State can successfully resist, it is men who are prepared to give their lives for what they believe is justice.

Britain learned that lesson with Gandhi, the United States learned it with the Viet Cong, and I hope to God that the Chavez government isn't forced to learn it again today.

I hope that the Chavez government can successfully persuade Merhi that it isn't the monster he imagines, that it and he are both lovers of justice; because against people with an inner courage of spirit, anything besides respectful persuasion is doomed to fail.

Again, I'm neither talking about Coronel nor about Merhi; rather, I'm talking about the union and business leadership, as well as their allies in the media, who acted out of self-interest.

The truest statement ever of morality comes from St. Augustine, who, in the 4th century said "One precept is left to you. Love, and do as you wish; if you accept, accept through love; if you protest, protest through love; if you correct, correct through love; if you tolerate, tolerate through love. Let the root of love be within, for of that root can nothing spring but good."

What defines moral good is not what one does, but rather the actuating factors behind why one does it. Behind any mass movement there is good and bad. The movement against slavery in the US included the good (Quakers acted out of love and a hatred of injustice) as well as the bad (fanatical racists who wanted no black people in the country, slave or free).

The Falange in Spain included the bad (landowners intent on preserving their feudal privileges) as well as the good (sincere and honest young men and women shocked by the atrocities of Stalinist Russia, who believed that the only possible bulwark against the horrors of Stalinism, was Fascism).

The same action might be praiseworthy in one circumstance, because it flows from love of justice, and indefensible in another, because it flows from self-interest.

A general strike to protest a government that is genuinely ruling in its own interest and not that of the people as a whole (the classic definition of tyranny) is something good; a general strike to preserve the loss of economic privileges possessed by a particular class is in itself an example of tyranny, something not to be praised but excoriated. It is for this reason that one cannot compare the coup d'etat in Ecuador in January 2000 with that of Venezuela in April 2002.

I say again, to all those who oppose the Chavez government, ask yourself why ... is it because you would be worse off under a Chavista government ... or is it because the most destitute of Venezuela would be worse off?

And are you sure they would be worse off ... after the sorry record of capitalist governments all across Latin America at improving their situation? after the undeniable fact that the left-leaning governments in Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile and Mexico, in spite of their many flaws, were in fact able to provide some basic nutrition, health care, education and basic sense of belonging to their poorest members? after their fierce loyalty and support of President Chavez, in spite of everything?

after the cooperative gardens, health clinics, and other examples of cooperative social living and social reform that the Chavez government has begun to carry out- though with difficulty, in the face of the massive and bitter opposition?

If your answer to this question is a sincere "Yes," then, while I disagree with you, I respect your opinion. But if it is a "No", then let's all again remember what St. Augustine had to say, and let us not let pride or self-interest blind us to the true nature of justice.

Hector Dauphin-Gloire montonero22@hotmail.com

<a href=www.gulf-news.com>gulf-news.com  |  | 11-05-2003

Lenin once remarked that there were decades in which history would stand still, and weeks when it would move forward by a decade. It seems that in the past few weeks it moved forward by a decade. In the past few weeks we witnessed not only the rise of the U.S. as the super power arranging the world order but also as the key player preventing any other power from being an effective partner in the international arena.

Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. had, in fact, maintained its superiority. The decline of the Soviet Union made America even stronger and more powerful. There were hopes that Europe would become an alternative power source to the U.S. but it has been hobbled by habits of weakness, and despite its unity, it is not yet apparent whether the EU will ever be able to play an effective role in international affairs.

In fact, the EU does not behave like a great power. Europe, therefore, could not become a rival to the U.S. In the absence of any counterparts, America was left alone to re-arrange the current structure of the world.

The absence of any major player that might compete with America is due to several factors. The U.S. has more military power than all of the five next powerful countries of the world combined. In addition, the U.S. military superiority is backed by an economy that is again as big as that of the five next economies combined (Germany, Japan, France, Canada, and England).

With all its military and economic superiority, the U.S. is also supported by a pervasive popular culture, a culture that favours power and authority. This explains why America would like to control the world and not allow any other power to emerge. So far the U.S. has used all that power for a distasteful cause.

The Americans indicated during the Iraqi crisis that they are willing to pay for those who supported them. And while some countries have the ethic not to support illegal actions, others chose to ignore ethics and opt for the lucrative U.S. support. The collation of the willing became nothing but a collation of the billing.

The French, Chinese, Germans and Russians all could be major players in international affairs if the U.S. wishes to allow them the space and the opportunity. But America insists on playing a unilateral role. In fact, Washington was working hard in the last few months to dismantle the Western alliance and expose the weakness of its unity vis-a-vis American power.

The U.S. has isolated the European states so they will play no role in the Middle East peace plan or in the conflict in North Korea or other issues of concern to the entire global community. France has tried to set itself up at the head of all countries that resent the American foreign policy and American hegemony, but its actions failed to produce satisfactory political results.

Germany, as well, tried to form an alliance with France, and oppose American superiority, but both countries failed to have a profound impact on America's attitude or foreign polices. If this situation persists, these countries and others will no longer be effective players in international affairs. America could be left alone to decide the future of the globe, and that could be very dangerous for America and for the rest of the world.

Since the late 1940s, the U.S. has assigned to itself the role of the dominant power and embarked on policies aimed to ensure that it maintains its stranglehold over world affairs. Washington also gave itself the right to interfere in any country's internal affairs and to redress the wrong doings of any nation. Such a task of policing the world has proved extremely expensive and complex.

It has meant that the U.S. should spend on its military capabilities more than any country in the world. Some policy-makers argued that America's national security deserves this lofty price. Others, however, were in favour of just the opposite.

During the Cold War, when the world was essentially divided into two camps: the U.S. and the Soviet Union, a number of American policy-makers, including Senator George Kennan and William Fulbright, argued that it was in America's interest to encourage Western Europe and Japan to claim their righteous place in the world arena in order to relieve the U.S. of the "burdens of bi-polarity".

Their argument was based on a sound belief that policing the world is a costly matter and could endanger American interests, rather than safeguard it.

They argued that by allowing Western Europe and Japan to defend their own interests, Washington would relieve itself of such burden. Nonetheless, the majority of American policy-makers held the view that the U.S. has to contain its allies as much as it had to contain the Soviet Union.

The slogan of "the White Man's Burden" has an interesting history among western powers. Almost a century ago it was Great Britain that carried the torch of this slogan, which also highlighted Britain's responsibility in policing the world. Now it is America's turn to do so and decide the fate of the world. By assuming such a task, both take their share of troubles and political surprises.

Washington, so far, has contained, and in many cases prevented, any power from developing its military capability and providing security to its own interests.

The zealots who craft America's foreign policy believe that America must continue to dominate the world, and in order to be able to do that, it must discourage, and in fact prevent, the advanced industrial nations from challenging its leadership or even aspiring to a larger global role. To do this Washington must retain its powerful role in the world, and do nothing to encourage other powers to challenge the American superiority.

To accomplish this end America must be ready to re-address those wrong doings which threaten America's interests or that of its friends and allies. This interpretation provides America with moral obligations not only to defend its allies but also to defend the whole world. In other words, America must be ready at any time to defend not only its interests but also that of its friends and allies.

Some critics argue that in pursuing such pervasive policy, America is treating its allies not as equal partners but as inferiors. Its "Adult supervision" policy is not in the interest of America because these states are developing a sense of dependency on the U.S. and accordingly not developing their own military capabilities.

Therefore, America needs to spend more on its military capability in order to meet the challenge of defending the interest of its allies.

However, those who are in favour of a greater American role argue that the American strategy requires a good calculation of the world situation. For instance, although most Americans believe that a free and democratic Iraq and nuclear free North Korea would be in America's interest, some argue that this situation would constitute a challenge to American national security.

The argument goes that the situation in Iraq and North Korea would probably require the presence of more American troops, which could lead to a U.S. pullback from other vital areas in the world that could, in turn, lead to another power becoming militarily more self-sufficient, leading to political and military rivalry among major powers.

A similar point is made on the heavy American involvement in the Gulf region. Many argue that it is oil which makes America's polices so entangled in the Gulf. But that is misleading. The Gulf provides America with only 25 per cent of its oil needs while the rest comes from other sources such as Venezuela, Canada and Alaska.

By pursuing a certain economic policy, the U.S. could free itself totally from its dependence on Gulf oil. However, with America's role in the world and its assumed responsibility for the stability of its allies like Japan and Western Europe and possibly China, America wants to discourage those powers from developing the means to rely on themselves to secure their oil supplies.

By acting on their behalf, the U.S. wants to send these countries a message that their oil supplies are secure, and therefore, they should not feel the need to create their own military power to secure their economic interests.

As a result, America would remain the sole power in the world. Despite their acceptable logic, American policy- makers fail to see that power is indeed a seductive matter. In its search for absolute authority, America might risk its own security. History has shown that when a state acquires too much power, others fear that it enhances itself at their own expenses.

This explains why great empires faced great universal resistance. America's recent involvement in Iraq crystallised fears of U.S. hegemony, prompting not only the emergence of anti-U.S. sentiments worldwide but also fear and doubt among its allies and supporters.

The role the U.S. has assigned to itself in the world today could trigger a hostile reaction towards itself and towards its interests worldwide. Beside its lofty price, America's role in world will make it, not the European Union or Japan, a vulnerable target to backlash.

Aggrieved groups throughout the world would direct their dissatisfaction and anger towards the U.S. and its interests worldwide. This highlights further the vulnerability of the U.S. For the sake of its national security, this is why America should accept the inevitability of the rise of new powers.

The witer is a visiting scholar, Georgetown University, Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.