SYNERGY WITH THE DEVIL (Chávez's Venezuela's very close ties to US)

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/070108ta_talk_surowiecki

THE FINANCIAL PAGE
SYNERGY WITH THE DEVIL
by James Surowiecki Issue of 2007-01-08

A year ago, progressive activists and policy wonks descended upon Caracas, Venezuela, for the World Social Forum, a kind of Davos conference for the global left. People packed into the Caracas Hilton to listen to panel discussions on the evils of neoliberalism and the threat posed by U.S. hegemony, and Hugo Chávez, the President of Venezuela, gave a speech to a crowd of some ten thousand in which he called for “socialism or death.” It was a striking demonstration of Chávez’s importance as an anti-capitalist symbol. And yet, only six months earlier, in the very same hotel, Chávez’s government had hosted a rather different meeting of international luminaries. The attendees were American businessmen, and the meeting was a trade fair intended to convince American companies that Venezuela was friendly to foreign investment and eager to expand trade with the U.S. <snip>

Chávez’s rhetoric might not be out of place in “The Little Red Book,” yet everyday life for many Venezuelans today looks more like the Neiman-Marcus catalogue. Thanks to the boom in the price of oil, many Venezuelans have been indulging in rampant consumerism that might give even an American pause. In the past year, auto sales have doubled, property prices have soared (mortgage loans are up three hundred per cent), and, thanks to this buying frenzy, credit-card loans have nearly doubled. And while Chávez has done a good job of redistributing oil revenue to the Venezuelan poor, via so-called misiones, designed to improve education, health care, and housing, and has forced oil companies to renegotiate contracts, there has been no nationalization of industry, relatively little interference with markets, and only small gestures toward land reform. If this is socialism, it’s the most business-friendly socialism ever devised.

Even stranger, Chávez’s demonization of the U.S. has had little or no impact on business between the two countries. The U.S. continues to be Venezuela’s most important trading partner. Much of this business is oil: Venezuela is America’s fourth-largest supplier, and the U.S. is Venezuela’s largest customer. But the flow of trade goes both ways and across many sectors. The U.S. is the world’s biggest exporter to Venezuela, responsible for a full third of its imports. The Caracas skyline is decorated with Hewlett-Packard and Citigroup signs, and Ford and G.M. are market leaders there. And, even as Chávez’s rhetoric has become more extreme, the two countries have become more entwined: trade between the U.S. and Venezuela has risen thirty-six per cent in the past year.

Chávez has been the beneficiary of excellent timing: oil prices have quintupled since he took over, allowing him to hand out billions of dollars to the poor. But he has done little to diversify the nation’s industrial base and lessen the economy’s dependence on oil, while his few tepid ventures into state ownership or coöperatives will have no meaningful economic impact. The result is that the ties between the U.S. and Venezuela have actually tightened. And there is only so much Chávez could do to loosen them without wrecking his economy; most Venezuelan oil is heavy with sulfur, and the refineries that are best equipped to handle it are in the U.S. It’s far easier and cheaper to ship oil from the Orinoco Basin to Corpus Christi than to a refinery in Shanghai. In any case, it’s far from clear that most Venezuelans want those ties loosened at all; Venezuela has traditionally been more America-friendly than other South American countries. Baseball is bigger in Venezuela than soccer, and there are Subway and McDonald’s franchises throughout the country. <snip>

an enemy of the US.

I normally like the New Yorker, but in this case I think Mr. Suroweicki is making more of this than is there. The things he holds up as "suprising" really aren't. I also think he's jumping to conclusions. Chavez was never anti-capitalism, if you define capitalism mainly as a free market system. He's a Bolivarian, not a Marxist, and while he was influenced in his thinking by some Marxists, that don't make him one.
Chavez hasn't made independence from oil a priority presumably because Venezuela has humongous oil reserves, dirty as it may be. And if by "the devil" in 'synergy with' and 'to deal with the devil' the author is refering to the Bush junta, he's way off target. If he means the U.S. and it's foreign policy, he's also way off. Chavez is constantly working with & forming economic deals and alliances with other world powers besides the U.S.A. too, so the author is stretching to say that Venezuela would "wreck it's economy" if it distanced it's ties with us, and "American consumers and companies are central to the economic performance of his regime." Settle down Mr. Suroweicki. Take a breath.
The main tenets of Bolivarianism (according to wiki) are...
1. Venezuelan economic and political sovereignty (anti-imperialism).
2. Grassroots political participation of the population via popular votes and referenda (participatory democracy).
3. Economic self-sufficiency (in food, consumer durables, etc...).
4. Instilling in people a national ethic of patriotic service.
5. Equitable distribution of Venezuela's vast oil revenues.
6. Eliminating corruption.
I'd add 7. workers' rights.
All things Chavez has made good on.
What I get from Chavez is that he gets pissed off with the U.S. practicing this arrogant, Monroe doctrine, interventionist, imperialist, meddling, elitist, manipulative, privatizing, anti-union, anti-worker, anti-socialist, exploitative big stick with big mouth do-what-I-say, capo di tutti capo crap. Trying to assasinate and depose him haven't endeared him to us either, I'll bet.
The major oil companies along with other multinationals obviously tried to make him their puppet/slave and he wasn't having any of that. So they operate, they just don't make the same obscene profits as elsewhere and the Venezuelan brown people get a cut and better treatment. Hence the booming economy and businesses, since the people for once have some disposable income.
The author writes "(Chavez's)..few tepid ventures into state ownership or coöperatives will have no meaningful economic impact." Cut me some slack dude, break wind outside please. The ventures haven't been "few' or "tepid", and I'd be willing to let anyone explain how they've had "no economic impact." That's not what I've been reading, and some of the reports come from Venezuelans and reporters that've spent alot of time in the country.

Whom he quotes in the second paragraph of the story, not excerpted here. Suroweicki is taking the quote that was so breathlessly repeated in the US media and demonstrating why it is more rhetoric than not—how increasingly strong the economic ties between the two countries are.

Also, he acknowledges quite plainly, in that same graf, that he "gets" what you get from Chavez: "... And, just last month, after he was overwhelmingly reëlected to the Presidency, he dedicated the victory to Castro and proclaimed it “another defeat for the devil who tries to dominate the world.” "

His whole thesis, in fact, is that "deep-seated ideological and political hostility between countries is often less of an obstacle to trade than you might think," as he states, and further illustrates, in the other graf not quoted here.

I think in a six paragraph essay, in which he uses the word 'rhetoric' three times, the author does a fine job of deconstructing Chavez' supposedly shocking quote and apparent anti-Americanism. I think your own crude rhetoric is misplaced.

I usually do, so please don't assume people are uninformed just because you don't happen to agree with them.
I'm wondering what part of my post you thought was "crude rhetoric"? My description of our foreign policy for the past 50 years? It was dead accurate.
Do you honestly think people don't understand the difference between Americans and American foreign policy? I would think that'd.....be.....obvious.
The author makes a false case, and uses flawed facts. That was my position, and I stand by it, you're welcome to pick it apart using.....facts.
In this case, I'm certain the author used "devil" to refer to Bush as did Chavez. And I'm just as sure (and annoyed) that another author is catapaulting the BS that Bush=America.
Chavez sold oil directly to Americans at a great discount just when we needed it, American capitalists didn't, they did just the opposite, they raised the price of oil at a critical time.
Then the oil companies conspired to lower the price of oil (and did it) just before the elections to help the republicans. Proven.
There are different kinds of capitalists, another point the author missed (or avoided). I made that point, and you also apparently missed that.
Chavez is a smart, principled man, so he understands not to confuse American businessmen with average Americans or businessmen from other countries. He understands the difference between (crude rhetoric coming...) venomous little reptiles (represented by Bush and the republicans) and ordinary, decent folk.
The author's article serves to obscure and misrepresent that fact. I expect more from writers of non-fiction. So should you.

in your first post. The answer was in the piece—he was explicitly referencing Chavez' speech at the UN, in which Chavez was explicitly referring to Bush—and it seemed helpful to point you to it. I don't understand where you are getting the idea that Suroweicki might be implying that the devil is Americans. He says nothing about the American people in this piece, nothing. Why do you feel compelled to correct him on a point he has not made?

He does makes a point that you accuse him of not making: you say Chavez understands the difference between American businessmen and Bush, and that Surowiecki obscures and misrepresents that fact. But he makes the point right in his opening paragraph!

For some reason you think this is an anti-Chavez piece. It doesn't read that way to me at all. The case the author wants to make, he makes—that rhetoric is often very different from practice when it comes to international trade. The case you want him to make, the points you fault him for not making—Chavez selling oil to poor Americans vs. American companies who didn't; American companies manipulating prices before an election; a detailed explication of the different kinds of capitalists and the different shades of socialism—would simply be a different article. It would be an in-depth study, not a one page overview. You are complaining about an apple because it isn't an orange.

You also are reading things into this essay that aren't there. Suroweicki doesn't hold anything up as 'surprising'; he doesn't call Chavez a Marxist. I suppose I can see where you might take issue with the word "tepid"—except that the author uses it to support the point that Chavez is not the raging socialist he is made out to be (by others, and sometimes by himself), that he is quite business-friendly. I do think you are hollering where you haven't been hurt.

Oh, and the crude rhetoric to which I referred was "break wind outside please."

If you carefully read my post, I wasn't expressing uncertainty about whether Suroweicki was refering to Bush or the American people, but there's cause to do so. I never implied or said that. There is some ambiguity as to whether he was referencing Bush or U.S. Businesses, hence his pointing out the contrast between Chavez's pro-socialist, pro-Castro declarations and then his hosting of a business trade fair a month later.

Dem itall wrote:
"he does makes a point that you accuse him of not making: you say Chavez understands the difference between American businessmen and Bush, and that Surowiecki obscures and misrepresents that fact. But he makes the point right in his opening paragraph!"

You've got to read my posts (and the articles I comment on) more carefully. I say nothing of the sort.

I said Chavez understands the difference between the American business community which is represented by the republicans and Bush...and the American people. That's a big, fundamental point.

"For some reason you think this is an anti-Chavez piece."

No, I think this is an innaccurate piece that draws flawed conclusions. But now that you mention it, it could be read as anti-Chavez.

"The case you want him to make, the points you fault him for not making—Chavez selling oil to poor Americans vs. American companies who didn't; American companies manipulating prices before an election; a detailed explication of the different kinds of capitalists and the different shades of socialism—would simply be a different article. It would be an in-depth study, not a one page overview. You are complaining about an apple because it isn't an orange."

Nonsense. Apples and Oranges are both fruit. The points I make are central to the thrust of the original article. I can't help it if you don't see that.

"You also are reading things into this essay that aren't there. Suroweicki doesn't hold anything up as 'surprising'; he doesn't call Chavez a Marxist."

Look, we really have a diametrically different grasp of the meaning of this article. So I'll go to the trouble of dissecting the piece.

The author made the exact point that it was surprising that Chavez was apparently a Marxist...

"A year ago, progressive activists and policy wonks descended upon Caracas, Venezuela, for the World Social Forum, a kind of Davos conference for the global left." (Marxist)

"Hugo Chávez, the President of Venezuela, gave a speech to a crowd of some ten thousand in which he called for “socialism or death.” It was a striking demonstration of Chávez’s importance as an anti-capitalist symbol." (Marxist)

"And yet, only six months earlier, in the very same hotel, Chávez’s government had hosted a rather different meeting of international luminaries. The attendees were American businessmen," (Contrast=surprise)

"To people on both the left and the right, Hugo Chávez is a kind of modern-day Castro, a virulently anti-American leader who has positioned himself as the spearhead of Latin America’s “Bolivarian revolution.” He calls for a “socialism of the twenty-first century,” (Marxist)

"just last month, after he was overwhelmingly reëlected to the Presidency, he dedicated the victory to Castro and proclaimed it “another defeat for the devil who tries to dominate the world.”
(Marxist...here the devil could be the American foreign policy, obviously Bush doesn't make and implement American foreign policy alone, and the Bush admin didn't start the exploitative, murderous foreign policy of the U.S. for the past 50 years)

"Chávez’s rhetoric might not be out of place in “The Little Red Book,” (Marxist)

"yet everyday life for many Venezuelans today looks more like the Neiman-Marcus catalogue." (contrast/ Marxism)

"many Venezuelans have been indulging in rampant consumerism that might give even an American pause" (contrast/ Marxism)

"there has been no nationalization of industry, relatively little interference with markets, and only small gestures toward land reform." (innaccurate and dismissive)

"If this is socialism, it’s the most business-friendly socialism ever devised."
(Translation: "we thought he was a communist, but he's in bed with American capitalists." More innaccuracies. The most business-friendly form of socialism is right here in the U.S., being little resembling socialism at all, though the rightwingers would call it rampant socialism)

"Even stranger, Chávez’s demonization of the U.S. has had little or no impact on business between the two countries."
(another stab at "suprise!" Chavez never demonized the U.S., he demonized G. Bush and his foreign policy. And to say that Chavez has had little or no impact on business between the 2 countries is a denial of the facts. It misleads people who read this and aren't familiar with Chavez's reforms and accomplishments. It also ignores the main reason the U.S. govt and big business hates Chavez so virulently. Obviously)

"even as Chávez’s rhetoric has become more extreme, the two countries have become more entwined:"
( The author implies that Chavez makes empty declarations, claiming to be anti-imperialist and pro-worker but actually doing nothing in that direction and being in bed with American capitalists. That's what it says. I'm not misinterpreting it. With complimentary remarks like that, who needs enemies?)

"Chávez has been the beneficiary of excellent timing: oil prices have quintupled since he took over, allowing him to hand out billions of dollars to the poor."
(Chavez was just lucky, not principled and pro-active)

"But he has done little to diversify the nation’s industrial base and lessen the economy’s dependence on oil, while his few tepid ventures into state ownership or coöperatives will have no meaningful economic impact."
(here we have pure negative misrepresentation. Chavez has done a great deal to advance state ownership of key industries, fighting privatization where appropriate and encouraging the free market where appropriate, and he's literally facilitated a boom in Co-ops, and the economic impact has been enormous. To write information that robs someone of the credit that they deserve is unfair, mendacious and counter-productive.)

"ties between the U.S. and Venezuela have actually tightened. And there is only so much Chávez could do to loosen them without wrecking his economy"
(Poor hapless Chavez and Venezuela, they need father America-norte or they will crumble, since they have a hollow economy and are so weak and isolated, like recently freed slaves.)

"Venezuelan oil is heavy with sulfur, and the refineries that are best equipped to handle it are in the U.S. It’s far easier and cheaper to ship oil from the Orinoco Basin to Corpus Christi than to a refinery in Shanghai."
(Yes, Venezuelan oil needs to be heavily refined, but it doesn't need to be refined in the U.S.. And Venezuela is capable of reducing it's dependence on foreign refiners. Again, the author tries to imply that Venezuela is dependant on the U.S., for good or ill. Bull)

"Venezuela has traditionally been more America-friendly than other South American countries. Baseball is bigger in Venezuela than soccer, and there are Subway and McDonald’s franchises throughout the country."
(Here the author, deliberately or not, is mixing his points and clouding the thrust of his apparent thesis...something that raises red flags with me....he first tries to paint Chavez's antipathy as directed towards Bush and the corporate U.S. pirates, but now here he subtly morphs it with the Baseball crack into being against the average America Joe.)

"So, while he’s going around the world giving speeches about how the goose should be killed, he relies on the golden eggs to keep himself in power."
(here the author makes 2 horsecrap statements in one sentence, the idea that corporate America is a golden goose laying golden eggs, and that Chavez is DEPENDANT ON corporate America to stay in power. Just the opposite is true, corporate America has been trying to assasinate Chavez and enslave it's people. Here's where I tell the author "Look, don't PISS DOWN MY BACK AND TELL ME IT'S RAINING...OK?)

"Chávez’s supporters and detractors alike assume that, soon enough, his deeds will begin to live up to his rhetoric"
(More Chavez-bashing. Chavez's supporters already know that Chavez is short on rhetoric and long on action, that's why he's the most popular leader in the whole world.)

"But deep-seated ideological and political hostility between countries is often less of an obstacle to trade than you might think. Japan, for instance, is South Korea’s second-largest trading partner, despite the fact that Korean resentment toward Japan runs very high, thanks to a long history of Japanese imperialism in the region. China, meanwhile, treats Taiwan as a rebel province, and has threatened military action if it attempts to declare independence, but foreign trade between the two countries totals nearly sixty-five billion dollars"
(Clever, but flawed. Japan and Korea cannot be compared to the relationship between Venezuela and the U.S.. Neither country conducts foreign policy like us, and their situations regarding resources are very different. As for China and Taiwan, the trade between them only came about after China embraced free-mkt capitalism, and the holdover aggressive posturing by the Chinese is well, rhetoric. Here's a genuine case of comparing apples and oranges. The U.S. corporate community is characterized by imperialism. Another difference is that Taiwan, China and the U.S. have dismal records on workers and human rights, Venezuela OTOH, is looking like a beacon of hope.

"Trade does not, as Enlightenment thinkers like Thomas Paine believed, always bring peace in its wake, “operating to cordialize mankind.” (Think, after all, of the First World War.) But the benefits of trade often excuse even the most grievous of sins."
( Trade often brings peace, but it does not excuse "the most grievious of sins". I realize the author is speaking in terms of pragmatism, but Hitler was a pragmatist. Countries can choose who they deal with, and use trade as a form of lever to show disapproval. It's done all the time, and I've been calling for Chavez to use that lever more for a long time. Chavez has been in talks with China and India for oil deals. I hope he drops the U.S. market and goes to them.)

"Sometimes, it just makes sense to deal with the devil."
(Hey Mr. Suroweicki, keep your cynical moral ambiguity to yourself.)

conclusions of your own. "Contrast=surprise" is an example of you reading in what I do not think is there. And how you can read "Baseball is bigger in Venezuela than soccer" as being a crack about Chavez being against the average American Joe is really beyond me.

I appreciate your lengthy attempt to show me what you mean, and actually a couple of your points do resonate. Suroweicki's goose/golden eggs thing is facetious and condescending and his declaration that loosening ties with the U.S. too much would wreck Venezuela's economy is certainly arguable.

But it is downright fanciful to take this phrase—"Chávez’s rhetoric has become more extreme"—and declare flatly that the author is implying that "Chavez makes empty declarations, claiming to be anti-imperialist and pro-worker but actually doing nothing in that direction and being in bed with American capitalists." And then, stunningly, in the next sentence, to claim that your restatement is not interpretation on your part, but "what it says" in the article!

You just don't like that the author has not written the piece you would have written—about all the positive things Chavez has done for Venezuela.

And by the way, I would suggest you stop telling people that they are not carefully reading your posts. Perhaps it is how you are phrasing your thoughts that is not producing the clarity you desire.