The Chavez moderation, first qtr 2011

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

From the Chavez's Annual Report and Statement in the National Assembly, on 15 January, many people associate the moderation showed at the ceremony by the Venezuelan president with the leader's desire to be seen, in the international community, as tolerant and democratic. An idea with which we disagree.

Chavez has never been afraid of foreign repudiation; rather, he draws much of his domestic support by promoting conflict with the United States, Colombia and other nations. In addition, the Venezuelan president has always been keen to insult the principal figures of the OAS, Human Rights Watch and the Inter American Press Association.

For whom, then, is the image of moderation that Chavez shows since the beginning of the year? To us, the answer to this question has only three words: The Venezuelan voters.

Chavez is very concerned about having obtained less votes than the opposition in the parliamentary elections of September 2010, which adds to the growing discontent that exists in Venezuela against the government. Chavez knows he has little time to entice back voters, and that his authoritarian image is one of his most rejected attributes. Therefore, he is repeating the sheep costume that, in the past, has yielded good results for his revolution.

After trying to take control of Venezuela through two failed coups in 1992, Lt. Col. Chavez won the 1998 election with a false discourse of respect for human rights, inclusion and participatory democracy. Following the severe political crisis of 2002, Chavez returned to power, acknowledging his mistakes, talking about amnesty and promising to open dialogue with his opponents, trick that, along with the use of all national resources in the government propaganda, let him win the 2004 referendum. Next comes the 2006 presidential, which Chavez addressed with that campaign "for love", obtaining excellent results. And now, near the 2012 presidential elections, Chávez puts back the mask of moderation, hoping the Venezuelans are the same gullible voters of 1998, 2004 and 2006.

---

Related articles:

• Venezuela: Two maxi-devaluations in 2010
• The Cuban Perestroika, cultural impact
• The intellectual Anglo-Saxonism of Chavez

Cuba, living without the US?

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

"Latin American peoples can live without the United States as Cuba has shown for over fifty years", Fidel Castro said in his Reflections on January 10. Which could be taken as true, of course yes, but only if the Cuban dictator was talking about a game of dominoes, or subjects that have nothing to do with the island's politics and economy.

Trying to catch the point of the communist leader, we could talk about what Fidel understands for "living", because being a citizen of a country where workers are exploited without the restrictions of a labor rights system is not what we would call a dignified existence. Or we could make mention of the irreplaceable scapegoat role the U.S. has played in the Cuban socialist myth, which has served to justify 5 decades of internal oppression. However, it seems best to comment on some economic data that completely contradicts the argument of the alleged Cuban independence from the U.S.

All Cuban newcomers in United States follow 3 key steps: First, seek political asylum; second, look for work/housing; and third, ask where is the nearest office of Western Union.

Thanks to formal money transfer services, Cuba receives annually about one billion dollars to refresh its economy, not including what is sent through informal channels. Not a great figure compared with the overall volume of the Cuban GDP, but since the 90's, remittances represent for Cuba the first source of dollars, providing more than any other export sector of the island. And most of these funds comes from the United States Fidel says is irrelevant to Cuba.

Ironic, but true, since the Castros installed their family dictatorship, Cuba has had the need to change its communist godfathers. The USSR and China in the initial stage, Chavez's Venezuela in the present. However, the only external economy that has never failed to send dollars to Cuba is a different country: The United States of America.

---

Related articles:

• And what will Cubans say?
• Cuban oil dependency
• The Cuban Perestroika

And what will Cubans say?

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

After spending much of 2010 talking about the risks of atomic weapons and the alarming possibility of a nuclear disaster -that never came- by the tensions between Iran, Israel and the United States, Fidel Castro devoted the first column of 2011 , "What would Einstein say?" to the same subject, deliberately emphasizing an issue that is far removed from what really matters to his people: Cuba's problems.

From the man who threatened to launch nuclear missiles to the United States and who has ruled Cuba for over fifty years, the last thing we want to read is a list of nuclear accusations against the world powers, has he nothing to say about his own country? Rather than asking his readers about the possible reaction of Albert Einstein regarding the attacks allegedly directed by the Hebrew intelligence agencies and NATO against Iranian scientists, as Castro did in his "Reflections" of January 6, why not to ask Cubans about his country's poor level of development despite having tried communism for more than fifty years? What will Cubans say on the technological delay of the island, so far behind Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Colombia and Chile, specially in the field of information and communication systems? What will Cubans say about the huge number of political prisoners of the regime? What will Cubans say about the way Fidel handed the presidency to his brother as being part of the family heritage? What will Cubans say about the fact that their country is going to be one of the last of Latin America to adopt a democratic system?

It is to these anxieties of the Cuban people that Castro should devote his meditations, because the debate on Cuban policy is also "almost inexhaustible", Fidel, quoting the same phrase you used in your column referring the nuclear issue. And you can be sure that depending on you and your brother the transformation of Cuba in a democratic nation, the problem is more interesting for the world and your people than any other you want to philosophize. You already said enough about global warming, the growth of deserts and an imaginary nuclear war, now tell us more about Cuba.

---

Related articles:

• The Fidel Castro we didn't know
• Shock measures a la Cubana
• The Cuban Perestroika

Venezuela: two maxi-devaluations in 2010

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

Beginning 2010, Chavez surprised Venezuela enacting a maxi-devaluation of 100% against the bolivar, even though, according to his words of 2008 and 2009, the international financial crisis would affect only the capitalist countries.

However, problems remain, so this year, in May, Chavez proposes a new exchange rate system -SITME- as a formula that supposedly would stabilize the value of the bolivar by reducing the speculation. But this only succeeds in creating a new business for entrepreneurs linked to the revolutionary process and making even harder the Venezuela's international trade, which ends up generating more questions about the true value of the Venezuelan currency and promotes the scarcity of other primary commodities.

Seven months since the creation of the SITME, the same president who mocked the bailout of Greece was forced to order another maxi-devaluation, this time of 65%, due to the deterioration of public finances in Venezuela, and despite the recovery of oil prices in international markets. A movement that not only shows the inefficiency of the SITME-dollar system, but also means more inflation for the country with the world's worst annual change in prices.

Definitely, 2010 was not a good year for ALBA countries in budgetary matters: To balance the accounts of their governments, Rafael Correa, in Ecuador, had to reduce employment benefits of many public workers; Evo Morales caused a severe social unrest in Bolivia when tried to increase fuel prices in near 100%; Raul Castro, in Cuba, is moving forward in his plan to dismantle socialism by the lack of results in 50 years; and Chavez was not able to think something less unpopular than launching two maxi-devaluations in the same year. Maybe in 2005, Chavez would have solved with great pleasure the financial problems of his ideological comrades, but this is another Venezuela, one that no longer have the funds to support the mismanagement of public money, even as the world continues to witness the biggest oil boom of all time.

---

Related articles:

• Venezuela: Devaluation in 2011?
• The Cuban Perestroika
• Hyper-inflationary Statism

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 intellectual Anglo-Saxonism of Chavez

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

Every time Chavez has needed an ideologist to formalize the theoretical underpinnings of his political project (supposedly indigenous, African-American, anti-imperialist and friend of the marginalized), it is noteworthy that, contrary to what the bolivarian revolution preaches, he has always appealed to North American, German or British intellectuals.

When Chavez wanted someone to explain that he had been the victim of a coup in April 2002 and that his socialist revolution lived under constant threat from the United States, he did not seek an Amazonian Indian, he instructed Eva Golinger, American journalist and lawyer, to capture everything in a book - "The Chavez Code" - and in other publications.

Later, he needed someone to tell the world what the Venezuelan XXI Century Socialism is, and Chavez do not seek any national academic to entrust the task, but ordered to call the German sociologist Heinz Dieterich.

Sometime after, in 2009, Chavez decided that a film would revive faith in his leadership, but he doesn't seek the help of Venezuelan or Latin American filmmakers. He tried again with an Anglo-Saxon, Oliver Stone, who made for him a piece of political propaganda called "South of the Border."

Then comes 2010, chavismo gets fewer votes than the opposition in the September parliamentary elections, and this time, Chavez thinks he needs a thinker to develop a document for: 1) questioning the opposition victory, 2) re-selling the neocastrista project to Venezuelans, and 3) giving to the party the lines of action for the immediate future. But again, "el comandante" does not consider prudent to assign the task to any mulatto, so he sent for the Welsh Alan Woods.

There is clearly a racist pattern in Chavez when choosing his ideologist, especially considering that, in none of the cases cited, the Venezuelan president has hired black intellectuals from those lands, all of them are Anglo-Saxons with well-defined Caucasians features. Why he never resorts to Negroid people or Venezuelans as Professor Carlos Escarra, for example, for these assignments? Could it be that, in the logic of Chavez, the northern white is better creating ideas?

---

Related articles:

• South of the Border
• US legislative elections, Chomsky and Stiglitz
• Chavez on Twitter: devil and capitalism