Marxism inside the Socialism of the 21st century

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

In a forum entitled "Socialism: theory and history", dictated in Cumaná, Venezuela, we presented to the assistants information about the socialist ideology, making emphasis in the Venezuelan government's version of this political philosophy.

There, we described the Socialism of the 21st century as a disordered doctrine that mix elements from liberalism, democracy, populism and bolivarianism, but whose dominant influence is the classical Marxism. This argument was explained analyzing the regime's symbols (red color and five-pointed star), its class struggle rhetoric and economic statism, and considering the foreign policy of Miraflores of maintaining close relations with extreme leftist governments like Cuba.

Sixth Congress of the CPC: Paper socialism

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

In the Sixth Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba, the guidelines that will govern the economic model of this Caribbean nation in the coming years were agreed. To maintain the facade of a dictatorship that still endures despite Fidel's convalescence, and the pride of not admitting internal idealogical conflicts, the discourse that graced the event was "socialism, revolution and more socialism", without making a stop at the anti-communist reforms of Raul Castro, or openly discussing the increasingly evident crisis of faith of the upper levels of government in the Marxist philosophy.

The previous Congress had occurred in 1997. At that meeting, the final document mentions the word "socialism" only three times, while the same word is invoked 26 times in the document prepared in 2011; demonstrating the Cuban leadership's desire to emphasize the socialist character of the post-Fidel era.

But the repetition of the word socialism, more than before, does not help if the signs that the Cuban regime shows illustrate serious internal contradictions. Fidel told the world few months ago, "the Cuban model no longer works even for us", while the Communist Party shouted the "continuity and irreversibility of socialism" at the past week's convention. Who should we believe?

Although Cuban politicians tried to keep the revolutionary rhetoric, the final document coyly warns a socialism that is unlike that of Fidel. The text says, for example, "the economic system will continue to prevail based on the socialist ownership of all the people over the fundamental means of production". We note the intentional inclusion of the word "fundamental" in the declaration, which leaves the door open for private sector participation in non-strategic areas of the Cuban economy, as Raul has been allowing in the small farming and other business.

Classical Marxism, in which Fidel believed, has among its ideological pillars the collective ownership of the means of production and the abolition of private property, regardless of whether these resources were fundamental or not. They may include 26 times more the word socialism in the conclusion of the Sixth Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba, but the socialist ownership of some means of production, the fundamentals, sounds more like a mixed economy model than a socialist one.

---

Related articles:

• The Fidel Castro we didn't know
• The Cuban Perestroika
• Cuba, living without the US?

The Cuban Perestroika, cultural impact

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

The Berlin Wall fell down, the Soviet Union disappeared, the United States won the Cold War, China opened up to capitalism, the standard of living in South Korea is better than in North Korea and, generally, socialism proved to be a failure in all regions where it was tested. But in Latin America, many of these events were seen as distant stories that had nothing to do with local realities.

Like a teenager in love, many continued to believe in the myths of the fantasy, so for politicians, intellectuals, businessmen and ordinary Spanish speakers, the dictatorship of Fidel remained the same paradise of freedom and social welfare that existed only in the heads of the hippies. "In Cuba, health care is free, people are really happy and roses are redder", phrases like these could be heard in Latin American universities and centers of power even at the beginning of the XXI century.

Unfortunately for the regional communist thought, denial is a psychological defense mechanism that is not very reliable for keeping secrets. The truth has begun to explode in the Mecca of the Latino communism, so the re-structuring of the Cuban model will be something so close that would teach Latin American what they should have learned long ago about socialism. And as one day Castro's Cuba influenced many to insist on Communist system's error, it should now provoke the discredit of that ideology in the area.

Unlike the twentieth century, this socialist collapse is not happening in Europe or Asia, but in one of the most important symbols of the Latin American culture, so its impact should be greatest in the island and its sphere of influence.

Cuba is a small country geographically and economically, but ideologically, this nation affects the region like no other, even more than States such as Mexico, Brazil or Argentina. A lot of Latin American politicians wait for Fidel before expressing any opinion, only that this time, the philosophy of the Cuban government points to anti-Communist reforms (privatization and economic liberalization), which could mean an ideological earthquake for the left in Brazil and Spanish America.

---

Related articles:

• Shock measures a la Cubana
• The Fidel Castro we didn't know
• US legislative elections, Chomsky and Stiglitz

Evo, what has Marxism done for the environment?

Authors:
Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri and José Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

In the present age, one would expect the global warming debate to be focused on the development of renewable energy, the more efficient management of natural resources, the geo-engineering, the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, and the legal reforms that can cushion the impact of human activity on the planet. Unfortunately, a Latin American government trying to divert the discussion to issues specific to a time before the Internet could not miss at the Summit of Climate Change in Cancun, revisiting the idea of dismantling capitalism as the great panacea for saving the world from all the problems that afflict it.

"Either capitalism dies or Mother Earth dies", was the approach that brought Evo Morales to Mexico, returning us to a time when foreign policy was based on the acceptance or rejection of Marxism. But of course, for those who live in Latin America it is nothing new to see a politician explaining each event with the Leninist ideology, or that leaders like Chavez and Morales never knew the failure of communism in all regions where it was tested.

What can socialist regimes teach us about environmental policy? The worst nuclear disaster happened on Earth occurred in Chernobyl, then one of the republics of the USSR. The title of global largest emitter of carbon dioxide is held by China. Much of the water consumed in Vietnam has so much pollution that the issue has repeatedly been qualified by UNICEF as a "pressing environmental problem". North Korea has serious air pollution records because that nation produces enough of its energy from coal. And Laos is one of countries with highest deforestation rate, while Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia lost respectively 1.97%, 0.55% and 0.45% (per year) of its trees between 1990 and 2010.

Clearly, the socialist models have no moral authority to criticize capitalism for the environmental degradation, so it's obvious that the solution to climate change is not in the Communists schemes of economic organization.

---

Related articles:

• Chavez's attitude to the Costa Rica-Nicaragua case
• US legislative elections, Chomsky and Stiglitz
• Hyper-inflationary Statism

The Fidel Castro we didn't know

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

In 1962, Fidel Castro threatened the U.S. with nuclear missiles, however, in the XXI century, the former Cuban dictator seems to prefer to launch rockets against other targets, this time directed at Latin American leftist ideology, of which himself was a notorious representative.

"The Cuban model doesn't even work", echoed last week across the international press. Normally someone would hear this phrase and would think it is from a speech by Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, but no, not even are words from a neo-conservative Republican, they belong to the commander of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro, no more and no less.

For less counter-revolutionary phrases than this, Castro sent to jail dozens of people, many were shot and several others were beaten, tortured, or lynched. Notwithstanding, Castro now says something similar and his words receive the respect of all the spokesmen of the revolution, and there is no one who dares to imprison him. A fact that, paradoxically, is in agreement with the sentence Fidel said about the Cuban model, since it is also an example of the double standard of Castro's socialism.

Amazingly, Castro spoke these words when the world is just emerging from the financial crisis that many believed would destroy capitalism, and less than 20 days before the parliamentary elections in Venezuela, where his main wannabe, Hugo Chavez, will face a tough fight for the control of the legislature.

This year, Fidel has made several controversial comments. Initially, he said that socialism and communism are the same, then admitted that he made a mistake by brutally persecuting homosexuals (they were imprisoned and made to work in concentration camps), then he called for respect for the Israeli people, and now claims that the Cuban political-economic model, that that the Latin American left presented as an unparalleled wonder, is not adequate to generate social welfare even in Cuba, which debunks some of the ideological tenets of radical leftism both in and outside Latin America.

They said the poverty in Cuba was the product of the U.S. trade embargo, but Fidel's words show he's aware that the real culprit is the socialist model that he copied from the Soviet Union.

Years ago, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, in his article "The Fidel Castro I know," spoke about the same legendary leader who was promoted by the Cuban Revolution's propaganda. But the current is a more real character, the Fidel Castro we didn't know.

---

Related articles:

• Questions after 50 years of Castrist revolution
• Socialist dictatorship vs capitalist hegemony
• Contradictions of the left in Latin America

Hyper-inflationary Statism

Authors:
Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri and José Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

Belarus is, in general terms, a nationalized economy, even so, prices there usually rise at hyper-inflationary rates (8.4% in 2007, 14.8% in 2008 and 13% in 2009).

Vietnam is also, in general terms, a nationalized economy, even so, prices there usually rise at hyper-inflationary rates (8.3% in 2007, 23.1% in 2008 and 7% in 2009).

And in Venezuela, the government has also almost always had the habit of owning many businesses, a trend that has increased during the 11-year rule of Hugo Chavez. Even so, prices in Venezuela usually rise at hyper-inflationary rates (18.7% in 2007, 30.4% in 2008 and 29.5% in 2009).

The point is, if the government in these countries supply an important part of the goods consumed by the people, why the big rise in prices? It is a reality that contradicts socialist theories. It was assumed that the fault was in the private sector, but while these nations have economies with strong Statist characteristics, in them, the goods increase in value at vertiginous rates. In fact, in these havens of nationalization, inflation is much higher than that of the capitalist countries, as can be seen if we compare their records with those of the United States, Canada, Japan or the European Union members. Where inflation has only rarely exceeded 3% in the last ten years.

Inflation is a monetary phenomenon that is given mainly by government spending and the amount of money it prints, so when a country is affected by hyper-inflation, the government is the main cause. Removing the private sector from the system is not a guarantee that the general level of prices will stabilize, as evidenced by the cases described above.

Related articles:

- Some contradictions of the left in Latin America

- Socialist dictatorship vs. capitalist hegemony

- Double-dip recession, Stiglitz's third mistake

The antagonism of Internet and socialism

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

It's a verifiable fact, the Internet is censored in every socialist country, with Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos and North Korea as the most vivid examples.

The Internet is censored in the socialist States because, given that in the communist countries the government is a dictatorship, the ruling oligarchy does not want citizens to learn of the abuses and inefficiency of the regime, or the freedom that exists in other parts of the planet. In the above mentioned nations, people can't access to sites like YouTube, Wikipedia, Google, Yahoo, MSN, Twitter, any media not approved by the government, instant messaging services -or Internet voice communication tools- such as Skype and messenger, etc. Furthermore, bloggers are considered terrorists and imprisioned in these regions, and the Internet costs are very high for those who dares to request the service at home, which in itself is a way to prevent people's access to cyberspace.

Of course, if we understand well what socialism is all about, we know that this system is enemy of all freedom of expression and human rights, so it should not surprise its well-documented history of repression against the global information network. This will be another historical stain for socialism and its supporters, having denied to millions the right to use the greatest scientific breakthrough of our time.

Related articles:

- Socialist dictatorship vs. capitalist hegemony

- Questions after 50 years of Castrist revolution in Cuba

- Some contradictions of the left in Latin America

Some contradictions of the radical left in Latin America

Authors:
Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri and José Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

Anticapitalist, but Venezuela makes money from oil, Cuba from sugar, and the FARC from drugs. All preferably negotiated in US dollars, and at the highest price that the free market is able to pay.

Anti-imperialist, but a follower of a political model imported from the Soviet Union.

Atheist, but a fanatic believer who cannot tolerate those who do not share its socialist faith.

Enemy of the development models invented by foreigners, but none of the founders of socialism were born in Latin America.

Preacher of class equality, but the party leaders always occupy the highest positions of power and live in opulence.

Critic of the FMI's academic discourse, but Marx, Engels and Lenin were intellectuals who tried to justify their proposals in a scientific manner.

Critic of the Pinochet dictatorship, but an admirer of Castro's dictatorship.

Critic of the private media, but the governments of Cuba and Venezuela are owners of large media chains, where the objective journalism is replaced by the communist party's propaganda.

Related articles:

- Socialist dictatorship vs. capitalist hegemony

- Education and health care for free in Cuba?

- First criticism of Liberation Theology

What did the Juanes concert in Cuba symbolize?

Authors:
Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri and José Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

For the hard-line Latin American democratic thought, the Juanes presentation in Cuba was interpreted as a betrayal, because it saw the show as a vote of recognition to the regime. However, this event could be read from another perspective:

Juanes, Miguel Bose and Olga Tañon are one of the most important representatives of the entertainment capitalism in Latin America and Spain. What these artists symbolize is globalization, current trends, status, individuality, consumerism, freedom, and values very different from those that once were promoted by the Cuban government.

In Fidel's Cuba, characterized by backwardness, repression, intolerance and isolation, it would have been unthinkable a show featuring open societies icons.

But by mutual agreement, the government of Cuba and the singers installed platforms at the emblematic Revolution Square, as if to demonstrate to Cubans the other world that exists outside of socialist oppression.

So the Juanes concert in Havana represents something never seen during the Fidel era: Cuba opening up to international culture. Symbols of change that undermine the foundations of the undemocratic regime built by Fidel Castro.

Related articles:

- Education and health care for free in Cuba?

- Questions after 50 years of Castrist revolution in Cuba

- Why the Castros do not want to return to the OAS

Contradictory servitude: Socialist dictatorship vs. capitalist hegemony

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

One of the most contradictory fallacies with which leftists fool people, state that as the United States and other capitalist powers remain the dominant military, economic and media force in the world, it justifies that every country that wants to get rid of "oppressive" capitalism should implant an indefinite dictatorship of resistance.

That is, Socialists proposed to end "the hegemony of the capitalist empire" through the creation of socialist dictatorships in every country of the world. Something similar to say that in order to be free you must first be a slave, or before you can have democracy you need a dictatorship, giving all the power to a socialist warlord to guide and oppress us while he combats the global capitalist supremacy.

From Lenin to Castro, many have used this story to deceive millions, but what people should be clear is that this argument is a lie to justify the violation of human rights and the indefinite retention of power by an ambitious oligarchy.

The road to freedom is built only with freedom, not with a contradictory servitude.

Related articles:

- First criticism of Liberation Theology

- Questions after 50 years of Castrist revolution in Cuba

- Education and health care for free in Cuba?

Education and health care for free in Cuba?

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

Saying that education and health care are free in Cuba does not consider all the real costs that a Cuban citizen has to pay for living in the Castrist political system, let's see:

In Cuba citizens receive government health and education services without paying cash for it -at least theoretically- but the regime does not recognize them any labor, political, or economic rights. Moreover the State's leadership is privatized for the exclusive use of Fidel Castro, or his relatives.

This is something similar to what happens in slavery, could we say that the slave has social security for free based on the fact that the slaveholder bears the full burden of health and housing costs for his servant? Obviously not, because the slave is obliged to pay with his live and rights for everything he get.

Ergo, each hour of class or health care received by a Cuban has a cost, but it is a veiled and non-negotiable transaction, where the Castrist regime offers these services to the people but ignores their human rights.

Related articles:

- Questions after 50 years of Castrist revolution in Cuba

- Why the Castros do not want to return to the OAS

- Coup if it is rightist, revolution if it is leftist

Questions after 50 years of Castrist revolution in Cuba

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

On January 1, the revolution that Fidel Castro and his henchmen imposed on Cuba completed 50 years. However, after 5 decades of socialism, Castro's political system still leaves several questions unanswered:

1. Why when the revolution triumphed, Fidel Castro announced that he was not interested in power and criticized the Batista's dictatorship, if in later decades he would establish an indefinite dictatorship?

2. Why after 46 years and a half as a dictator, Fidel Castro handed over power to his brother, without a referendum or elections? Could it be that this status is privatized for the Castro family?

3. If Fidel Castro is an example of morality, why he came to power in an armed revolution, formed guerrillas in various parts of the world and was involved in the nuclear threat of the USSR against the USA?

4. If the Cuban regime is an example of political achievements, why political parties are not allowed, many dissidents are kept prisoners, labor unions are prohibited and human rights are not respected?

5. There is talk about the benefits of Castro's educational system, but why are its technological and scientific achievements nonexistent?

6. If the Castro regime has made Cuba a sovereign country, why was a satellite state of the Soviet Union until the fall of the Berlin Wall, and today is so dependent of the dollars sent from Venezuela and the United States?

7. If the Cuban medicine is so advanced, why Fidel Castro was treated by a Spanish specialist -Dr. Jose Luis Garcia Sabrido- when he fell into serious health conditions?

Over the time that has passed, the castrist model has nothing to promise, because it has a history of 50 years of failures that speak for themselves.

Related articles:

- Obama's victory will give a blow to the Latin leftism

- The invasion of Georgia and the leftists' double standards

- Is indefinite reelection the best option for Venezuela?

A Marxist theology. First criticism of Liberation Theology

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

The Liberation Theology is a political theory born in Latin America, linked to part of the Catholic and evangelical hierarchy that seek to address poverty mixing Christian and Socialists concepts.

For the theologians of liberation, capitalism is a "social sin" guilty for the poverty that afflicts the world. For them, this economic system is the cornerstone of poverty, so we can't solve inequality until we replace capitalism.

In the Liberation Theology, capitalism's classes -bourgeois and proletarian- prevent the realization of a world of equals. Furthermore, "imperialism" of the developed world on the developing world destroy any chance of escaping poverty in the exploited regions.

For that reason, according to the Liberation Theologians, Christians must take the "class struggle" and fight on the side of the oppressed to dismantle capitalism -even using violence if necessary- However, this message is closer to Marx than to Christ, because Jesus never spoke of "capitalism", "class struggle"or "imperialism", and much less to carry out violent revolutions, as Marx did.

We can highlight in the Liberation Theology its concern about poverty and its desire for a more equal world, but this can also be recognized in Marxism -theoretically- The problem is that both ideologies fail in the proposed solutions. For example, fomenting the class struggle is as sponsoring racism, because these ideas have incited hate and violence in the societies where they have been promoted.

Another problem with the theology of liberation is that, in practice, it has encouraged the active participation of Catholic priests and evangelical pastors in anti-democratic governments. Such was the case during the communist regime in Nicaragua -Sandinism- and the current Venezuelan government.

Under the socialist administration of Sandinista National Liberation Front in Nicaragua, several pastors and priests, followers of this theology, manipulated dozens of religious communities making them believe that the Jesus' teachings can be achieved in Marxist revolutions. Thus were born groups such as "Christians for the Revolution," "The People's Church" and "Revolutionary Parishes”. Movements that for one side spoke of Christ and the poor, but that on the other justified the establishment of a Communist dictatorship that violates human rights.

With regard to Venezuela, we have the issue of the Reformist Catholic Church, a Venezuelan religious sect born under the auspices of the Hugo Chavez's government and linked to the liberation theology movement. This congregation professes socialism, chavism and Christianity as complementary concepts.

For these reasons we argue that the theology of liberation is a Marxist theology, inconvenient to the true Church, because in theory and in practice its slogan of "opting for the poor" really means "choosing the radical left".

Related articles:

- Obama's victory will give a blow to the Latin leftism

- The invasion of Georgia and the leftists' double standards

- Is Barack Obama a socialist?

Russia’s invasion of Georgia showed the leftists' double standards

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

When the government of George W. Bush waged war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the international Left went into hysteria, outraged by what they said was a violation of the self-determination right and an abuse of power by the Yankees.

But when the Russian government decided to illegally invade the defenseless nation of Georgia, bringing in its wake a wave of killings and human rights violations, the international Left looked elsewhere and said nothing.

Rather, their radical representatives, those like Hugo Chavez who dream of the return of the tyrannical Soviet Union, were devoted to insulting the Georgian people, prompting the Russians to use their military power to conquer Georgia and all the former soviet republics.

This exposes the double standards with which the leftists deceive their followers. What the Socialists criticize is worse when they have the power.

Russia has left Georgia, due to protests raised by the civilized world, but we wonder when will the double standards disappear from the leftism?

Related articles:

- Obama's victory will give a blow to the Latin leftism

- Is Barack Obama a socialist?

- U.S. 2008 financial crisis: Origin & ideological implications

On Barack Obama’s comments about the redistribution of wealth: is he a Marxist?

Authors:
Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri and José Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

Seven years ago Obama expressed his dissatisfaction against the United States Supreme Court, considering that this institution has not ever been involved in the redistribution of wealth. And recently, Obama said that if elected president he would redistribute wealth.

These statements are now used by John McCain and his supporters to point out that Barack Obama is a Marxist. However, we have to say that these McCain’s attacks on Obama are not well founded.

The concept of "Redistribution of Wealth" or "Redistribution of Income" is not a socialist idea. It’s true that in theory the communists aspire to a more equal society, but that does not mean that socialism is the only ideology that includes the phrase "Distribution of Wealth" in its proposals.

The ideal of sharing the wealth is found in many political theories. It’s even implicit in ancient texts. The difference lies in how the redistribution is proposed. For example, there are those like us who think that taxes, education programs, opportunities for upward social mobility, charitable works and some state institutions can be used to reduce inequality. But there are also the socialists, who think that abolishing private property is the only way to redistribute wealth.

Therefore, Barack Obama´s remarks on redistribution of wealth are not sufficient to consider him a socialist. To do so it would be required that he affirm, or practice, ideas such as abolishing private property, dictatorship and centralization of power, support for communist guerrillas, attacks on Christianity, one-party system and elimination of individual freedoms.

So, it is wrong to assert that Barack Obama is a communist by believing in the Redistribution of Wealth. Rather, McCain made a big mistake accusing Obama of Marxist by expressing this idea. It could be misunderstood by the public as if the Republican candidate does not share the ideal of redistributing income.

Ironically, McCain also has a plan in his government’s program to combat inequality, but obviously he doesn’t know that such policies are based on the Redistribution of Wealth concept.

Related articles:

- Obama's victory would give a blow to the Latin leftism

- U.S. 2008 financial crisis: Origin & ideological implications

- Analysis of the OPEC meeting Oct. 24, 2008

Barack Obama's victory in 2008 would give a moral blow to the Latin American radical leftism

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

Some people are worried because they believe that if Barack Obama wins the presidency of the United States, will not be as critical as McCain against the abuses of the Latin American radical leftism.

But if we see it from a different point of view, perhaps Barack Obama also represents advantages for those who are opposed to the communist project that Hugo Chavez and his imitators want for Latin America.

We believe this because Barack Hussein Obama II is not a neoconservative. By contrast, Obama is a critic of the hard-line Republican, so it cannot be accused of defending the oil companies, or be a spokesman of the United States major corporations.

In addition, Barack Obama has an Arab name and is African-American -his father was Kenyan- something that will prevent him from being linked to the Anglo-American elite.

And finally, Barack Obama has always been a critic of the George Bush style of government. Especially the lack of diplomatic achievements and the way Bush conducted the war in Iraq.

Characteristics that make Obama, a man who represents everything opposite of what the Latin American left say about the United States.

As a result, if Barack Obama becomes the next U.S. president, the leftist Latinos will receive a great surprise in finding that, although Obama is not a neoconservative, he will oppose, in a different way, to the authoritarian governments and to the antidemocratic proposal of the Latin American radical left.

An opposition that will be very detrimental to Hugo Chavez and his imitators, since it would mean for the Socialists being criticized by someone, that in spite of racism and not being the flagship of the United States dominant groups, knew how to succeed with intelligence and democratic ideas.

Related articles:

- U.S. 2008 financial crisis: Origin & ideological implications

- Is Barack Obama a socialist?

- Punishment vote and anti-Bush sentiment in favor of Obama