[NYTr] Venezuelan General Lays Out "Profoundly Democratic" Model of Socialism

[nytr at olm.blythe-systems.com]

Venezuelanalysis - Jul 23, 2007
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2103

[Editor’s note: General Raúl Isaias Baduel held a widely reported speech
on the occasion of his leaving the office of Defense Minister. The
event was also one in which Chavez swore in the new defense minister
and a new military high command. Baduel is a long-time friend of
President Chavez, who co-founded the MBR-200 with Chavez, the
clandestine movement that was later to organize the 1992 coup attempt
against then-president Carlos Andrés Perez. [correction from earlier
version: Baduel did not participate in that coup and thus was able to
remain in the military.] More recently, Baduel was instrumental in
bringing Chavez back into office during the April 2002 coup attempt.
Baduel’s speech ruffled some feathers in Venezuela because some
believed that he was issuing an indirect criticism of Chavez. A more
charitable interpretation, though, is that he was merely telling the
country in which direction he believes 21st socialism must go.]


“Our Model of Socialism Must Be Profoundly Democratic”

By Gen. Raúl Isaías Baduel
Outgoing Defense Minister of Venezuela

English translation by Chris Carlson

I want to begin this speech by thanking from my soul, in the first
place the almighty and eternal Lord, for having given me the privilege
to serve him from this position, being protected by his powerful hand.
And to all the people that with your help, work, dedication, and
exchanges, aided me in bringing my time at the front of the Ministry of
Defense to a happy conclusion.

I want to give a very special thanks to the President and Commander in
Chief of the Bolivarian Armed Forces for the trust that he held in me,
assigning me to this responsibility. To you, my Commander in Chief, my
friendship and affection.

My fellow soldiers deserve to be mentioned as well, who make up around
me a team of invaluable contribution, the successful result of our
daily labor, it would have been impossible without them. To them, my
eternal gratitude and my friendship forever, whatever road they may
take.

Today, as a command from the lord and from my superiors, I will be
succeeded by General Gustavo Reyes Rangel Briceño, a colleague and a
friend, whose virtues and religious principles will greatly serve him
during his time in this position. To you, my colleague and friend, my
best wishes and may God’s guidance illuminate all your decisions.

I have had the honor to hold the position of Minister of Defense, a
position that requires whoever holds it, by principle and by law, to
show his judgment in the direction of the men and the strategy and
policy of the state, with a view toward the future so that the citizens
of our nation, who today are in an unprecedented political and social
transition, know the professionalism of his actions, and, as a
consequence, can rest knowing and trusting the decision of their
Military Commander, and the institutions of the Venezuelan government.

When I say that we find ourselves in an unprecedented transition, the
political and social order that our nation is experiencing, among other
things, I am referring to the process of construction of a new
political, economic, and social order that we have denominated 21st
Century Socialism. The term socialism, unfortunately, does not have a
homogenous and fixed meaning for everyone who uses the term and from
there comes, perhaps, the uncertainty and uneasiness that is created in
some sectors of the country when it is only mentioned. The call from
President Hugo Chavez to construct 21st Century Socialism implies the
urgent necessity to formalize our own theoretical model of socialism
that is adapted to our historical, social, cultural, and political
context.

We have to admit that this theoretical model, for the time being, does
not exist, nor has it been formulated and I am guessing that as long as
it remains so, there will remain uncertainties in some social groups.
As I have said, on the other hand, we must invent 21st Century
Socialism, yes, but not in an unorganized and chaotic way, but rather
taking advantage of the tools and the framework of references that
science gives us.

We must invent our own model, with logic, with methodology, with order,
and consciousness. On the Aló Presidente TV show on March 27th, 2005,
Mr. President indicated, and I quote, “The socialism of Venezuela will
be built according to the original ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels.”

More recently last Monday, in the graduation event at the Institute of
Higher Studies for National Defense, Mr. President demanded from us
deep research and analysis and constructive criticism.  Reiterating
what I have mentioned before, if the base for the construction of 21st
Century Socialism is a scientific theory of Marx and Engels, what we
build definitely has to be what we construct on top of it. It cannot be
anything less or we risk that our construction will be nothing more
than a humble hut built upon the foundation of a skyscraper.

[Applause]

We have listened in recent times to some theorists who want to
contribute to the construction of a specifically Venezuelan socialist
model, about how inconvenient it would be to repeat the errors made in
countries known as socialist, among them the emblematic example of the
extinct Soviet Union. However, I think that the errors that these
theorists point to belong exclusively to the failures of the political
order of the Soviet model, for example, with respect to the
relationship between the revolutionary party and the government, and
between the party and the population, or in the danger in making the
same errors of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which became n
organization that substituted and displaced the society, and ended up
being controlled by the Central Committee of the Party.

In the political order, our model of socialism must be profoundly
democratic. It must explain once and for all that a system of socialist
production is not incompatible with profoundly democratic political
system and division of power. In this aspect, I think that indeed we
should separate ourselves from the Marxist orthodoxy that considers
that democracy with a division of powers is only an instrument of
bourgeois domination. As our President pointed out in an interview with
Manuel Cabieses, the director of the magazine Punto Final, I quote, “In
the political line, one of the determining factors of 21st Century
Socialism must be participatory democracy, popular power, everything
has to be centered in the people. The party must be subordinated to the
people, not the other way around.”

However, the errors of the political order are not the only errors that
we should consider. We must not forget something fundamental. Socialism
is, in a strict sense, a system of economic production, just like the
capitalist system that it must replace is also a system of economic
production but in subjugating terms against the human condition, and
therefore, with an abysmally different focus.

They also committed errors of an economic sense in the socialist
countries. Against those, we also must be on guard so to not repeat
them. The economic errors of these socialist countries, like the Soviet
Union, include the insufficient creation of wealth. Despite having
achieved advanced industrialization, having a centrally planned economy
and having 5-year plans, the Soviet economy could not be profitable. It
could not create the wealth necessary to keep its population
comfortable.

One of the great paradoxes and contradictions of the Soviet economy is
reflected in the fact that the nation came to depend on imported wheat
coming from its archenemy during the Cold War, the United States of
America, in order to feed its population. As example of that, in 1979
the US government of the time sent the Soviet Union 25 million tons of
corn and wheat. The Soviet Union could not take the definitive step
forward to reach the same levels of efficiency in the creation of
wealth as its capitalist competitors, even though it achieved notable
advances in social material, in education, sports, health, and art
among others. Certainly we do not want to repeat these errors either.
We cannot permit our system to be transformed into state-led
capitalism, where the state is the only owner of the means of
production.

A country can make the error of nominally calling itself socialist, and
in reality practice state-led capitalism. During some time, and after
the stage known as war communism, the Soviet Union still called itself
a socialist republic while actually practicing state-led capitalism, at
the urging of Lenin himself. At that time, between the years 1921 and
1927, the stage that is known as the new political economy, this action
was justified, alleging the economic errors of the so-called communism
of war that led to the rebellion of Kronstadt and other events that
almost liquidated the Bolshevik revolution.

This period of war communism that went from 1917 to 1921, was
characterized, above all, by failure, failure in agriculture and
failure in industrial activity. The policy of total nationalization of
all the agricultural companies, industry, and the general discontent
ended in anarchy, hunger, and anti-communist rebellion. The prices went
up vertically, while the production fell, and the currency lost value
and stopped being a normal mode of exchange. Agricultural production
was one-third of its volume in 1913. Industrial production corresponded
to 13 percent of its level in that same year and train traffic was 12
percent. It is estimated that in 1921 five million people died of
hunger in the Soviet Union. War communism left the message that you
cannot implant abrupt changes in the economic system, such as the
sudden abolition of private property and the brutal socialization of
the means of production, without it having negative repercussions in
the production of goods and services and without consequently
generating general discontent in the population.

Lenin coined the term state-led capitalism to refer to what he
considered to be the ideal transitional phase between capitalism and
socialism. This means a co-existence, for a period of seven years, of
capitalism with socialism. Private ownership of small and medium-sized
means of production was permitted. However, the state reserved for
itself the large means of production. The bank was nationalized but
trade was left in private hands and they allowed products to be sold at
the prices that the market fixed.

One of the attractive things that classic socialism has always
practiced is the underlying idea that a socialist system must be able
to have a more equitable and fair distribution of wealth than a
capitalist system where the immense inequalities are the order of the
day. But there is something that we must not forget, that perhaps many
times we overlook, that before wealth can be distributed, it must be
created. You cannot distribute something that does not exist. That
formula has not been invented yet. The model of socialism that we
develop must be that one. One that shows us the socialist road toward
production and creation of wealth first and later allows equitable
distribution of that wealth among those who generate it. Or as Marx
would say, I quote “From each according to his ability, and to each
according to his needs.”

For the socialist model that we propose to be successful, it must find
the way to make the Venezuelan people more productive. In the past,
during the Fourth Republic, the governments used the excessive wealth
generated by the oil boom to finance all kinds of economic help and
subsidies. Many Venezuelans came to depend entirely on official aid.
Instead of teaching Venezuelans how to create wealth through work and
effort, it taught them to ask for help from the government.

When the oil boom ended, the government suddenly found itself without
the funds to continue subsidizing the national economy. It was at that
time when the country fell into the crisis, the worst of all Venezuelan
history. Our model of socialism must and has to avoid the repetition of
those errors. We need to learn…

[Applause]

We need to learn from the errors made during the last four decades and
avoid repeating them at all costs.

And our President’s call to construct and invent 21st Century Socialism
has also been accompanied by some guidelines and directives such as
that our model must and has to be profoundly Christian, based in the
ideas of social justice, of Christ our savior.

I think it is pertinent to quote a passage of the bible that
illustrates well what our Lord Jesus thought with respect to the
creation and distribution of wealth. It is the known passage of the
talents, found in the book of Mathew, chapter 25, verse 14 to 20. Jesus
says there, and I quote, “it is just like a man about to go on a
journey, who called his own slaves and entrusted his possessions to
them. To one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another,
one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey.
Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and traded
with them, and gained five more talents.  In the same manner the one
who had received the two talents gained two more. But he who received
the one talent went away and dug a hole in the ground and hid his
master’s money. Now after a long time the master of those slaves came
and settled accounts with them.”

With that, Jesus Christ goes directly against the absolutist concept of
property that prevailed during that time and that some seem to still
hold, that one can do with their property as they please. This
contradicts our Lord Jesus because of the obligation of settling the
accounts according to the use of moral, intellectual, and material
goods, and the settling of accounts means a harsh punishment. The bible
continues by saying, “The one who had received the five talents came up
and brought five more talents, saying, ‘Master, you entrusted five
talents to me. See, I have gained five more talents.’ His master said
to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a
few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy
of your master.’ Also the one who had received the two talents came up
and said, ‘Master you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained
two more talents.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and
faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in
charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’”

To each one he demanded from them according to their ability. To each
one according to their talents, to each one according to the goods that
he had received. He could not demand the same from the one who had
receive five, as from the one who received two. The duties of human
beings are not comparable. Our responsibility, although of the same
nature, is different for some than for others. From he who has received
much, much will be demanded.

In the end, Jesus Christ, condemns hoarding in this passage very
clearly and plainly, when Mathew says, and I quote, “And the one also
who had received the one talent came up and said, ‘Master, I knew you
to be a hard man, reaping where you did no sow and gathering where you
scattered no seed. And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent
in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’ But his master answered
and said to him ‘You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I
did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed. Then you ought to
have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received
my money back with interest. Therefore, take away the talent from him,
and give it to the one who has the ten talents, for to everyone who has
shall be given and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does
not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. Throw out the
worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be
weeping and gnashing of teeth.’”

>From who he had given little, he demanded little. But even so, he did
not fulfill even a little, to hell with this man. Hell is, in the
bible, the inevitable punishment for he who having the possibility,
does not produce; for he who has the ability, does not use it, for he
who is poor because he has been given little, does not use the little
that he has for the good of others.

In order to achieve the goal of creating wealth in a different way from
the capitalist model, our socialism must educate the people, as the
famous teacher Simon Rodriguez said, I quote “There cannot be a
republic without the people.” In order to educate the people, Simon
Rodriguez would suggest the implementation of what he called in a
visionary manner, social education. Simon Rodriguez affirmed in 1828
the following: I quote, “The customs that form social education produce
a public authority. It is not a personal authority but an authority
sustained by the will of all. Not the will of only one converted into
authority. The authority is formed through education, because to
educate is to create will. Authority is developed in customs which are
necessary effects of education, and it returns to the education because
of the tendency of the effects to reproduce authority. It is a
circulation of the spirit of union among partners, as are the blood and
the body of each associated individual, but circulation begins through
life.”

Our model must break the bad customs of the past, of teaching rights to
the people, but not duties. Our socialist model must teach the people
what they have to do in order to obtain what they don’t have. Our
socialist model must teach the people that things don’t appear
magically, but rather you must obtain them through effort and work.
That must be the task of true social education that allows the
formation of the citizen that we need in order to acquire the potential
that this beloved, blessed, and god-protected Venezuelan land is
capable of. In that sense the Bolivarian Armed Forces can contribute a
lot to the construction of a model since education in the armed
institution has always been reversed. We have learned and practiced
that our duties are the first priority of importance, and just as is
pointed out in our rules, the principal and fundamental duty of every
soldier is civic duty, the duty of citizenry; to be a citizen with some
very special characteristics, a citizen that is at the service of the
rest of the citizenry.

The fulfillment of duties is one of the greatest things a soldier
ponders. We can attest to this in recent years, and above all with the
popular approval of the 1999 Constitution, our duties and
responsibilities have increased, since now we have besides the inherent
traditions of security and defense of the nation, and the cooperation
in the maintenance of internal order, the active participation of the
Armed Forces in national development has been added to our duties. We
have been fulfilling this last mission faithfully and effectively and
it is an honor for the institution to be taken into account in order to
carry out national development. However, we consider that it is
necessary to refine the legal instruments that regulate and permit the
Armed Forces to better carry out this task with more administrative,
operative, and financial efficiency.

The Venezuelan people gave the Military a clear duty in Article 328 of
the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. There the
Venezuelan people gave us, speaking in military terms, an objective
that can be translated as guaranteeing the independence and sovereignty
of the nation, and assuring the integrity of the geographic space. The
Venezuelan people also told the members of our Armed Forces how through
the exercise of three fundamental missions: military defense,
cooperation in maintaining internal order and active participation in
national development are the three missions that must be in perfect
equilibrium. And for that, the people assigned us the custody of the
weapons of the Republic to defend their interests and be administrators
of legal and legitimate violence of the state. But more than
administrators of violence we must be promote and maintain peace, and
generate tranquility and provide a certain path toward the development
of our country.

I share with you the words of the good Pope, the Saint, Pope John Paul
II, the guarantor, the pilgrim of peace, of happy and unforgettable
memory. I quote. “In a climate of agreement and respect for justice, an
authentic culture of peace can mature, capable of extending to the
international community and navigating the pages of Vatican Council,
finding us en the Gaudium Ex espezz, happiness and hope.” I quote,
“Peace is not the mere absence of war, nor can it be reduced to the
simple equilibrium of adverse force, but rather it is the fruit of
order rooted in the human society by its divine founder, and men
desirous of a perfect justice will have to carry it out.”

The National Armed Forces must be an instrument of power for political
democracy, peace and development, whose actions are framed in the
challenge that the national will demand and leadership with a view
towards to the vindication of the institutions and procedures in
benefit of the national collective. At this point begins a time of
reflection for this humble soldier of the Parachute Infantry.

And in finishing I want to share with my fellow soldiers, and knowing
my admiration for the eastern cultures, some precepts of the Code of
Buddhism. These are the seven principles that govern the Code of
Buddhism, the moral guide of the majority of samurais: be faithful to
him and your honor will grow. Break it and your name with be insulted
by future generations.

First principle: GI, Honor and Justice. Be honorable in dealings with
everyone, believe in justice.

Second principle: YU, Heroic Value. Rise up among the people that are
afraid to act. Hide yourself like a turtle in its shell is to not live.
Heroic courage is not blind, it is intelligent and strong. It replaces
fear for respect and precaution.

Third principle: JIN, Compassion. Develop a power that must be used for
the good of everyone. Help your peers in everything. If the opportunity
does not emerge, go out of your way to find it.

Fourth principle: RIE. Courtesy. A samurai is courteous even with his
adversaries. He receives respect not only by the force of action, but
also by his manner of dealing with others. The authentic interior force
of the samurai becomes evident in times of haste.

Fifth principle: MEYO. Honor. The decisions that you make and how you
carry them are a reflection of who you are in reality. You cannot hide
from yourself.

Sixth principle: MAKOTO. Absolute Sincerity. When a samurai says that
he will do something, it is as if he has already done it. Simply by
saying it he has put in march the act of doing it. Speaking and doing
are the same action.

Seventh principle: CHUGO. Duty and Loyalty. The words of a man are like
his fingerprints; you can follow him wherever he goes.

May Yahweh, the supreme creator of everything, bless and guard forever
the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

Ladies and gentlemen, infinite thanks.