Log in

View Full Version : Socialism in Ecuador: "In ALBA we don’t talk about competition"



cyu
15th January 2010, 02:03
Excerpts from http://links.org.au/node/1460

it is integration based on fraternal solidarity, not between competitors, which has been the great mistake in the past. The integration that we have sought, above all in recent years, has been orientated towards trade, to having larger markets and competing between us. In ALBA we don’t talk about competition, we speak of coordination in energy, finances and even in defence, but coordination, not competition.

Chavez has a lot of experience with petrol in the area of the Caribbean where he gives petrol without considering the market prices but considering the costs and the need for help and other circumstances. We are doing a lot of this. We are seeking food sovereignty and sovereignty in health, producing our own medicines, guiding ourselves by planning and coordination, without competition and without this relationship to the market.

Supply expresses the costs of production and the social costs of producing; demand expresses preferences, the usefulness to the consumer, but in practice with an unequal distribution of income, price represents anything, not the intensity of preference.

Ecuador’s minister of agriculture said that the land was "not considered to be a commodity, but for its social function, as a means of production, a place for settlement and a way of living".

avoid what has occurred in the past – peasants cheated and left without land. But the land is going to be theirs and the communes’; it is not going to belong to the state.

It is similar to the new campaign in Cuba to distribute lands... if they don’t produce, the land will be taken back.

We are also going to distribute 130,000 hectares of state land and we are drawing up an inventory of all the unproductive private lands to distribute – around one and a half million hectares. This is why they are desperate to destabilise us so quickly.

Socialism for the 21st century is a process of construction which tries to take the best of traditional socialism, but also of other socialisms that have existed, like Andean socialism, agrarian socialism and also, at least in Ecuador, you note the social doctrine of the church, liberation theology... In Cuba, they declared the state to be atheist when the people were believers. This created big conflicts and impeded, perhaps pointlessly, significant support because there were many Catholics committed to the revolution. They recognised the mistake and rectified it decades ago. A much better and legitimate strategy is to guide religion to be revolutionary also. This is what liberation theology did. Basically the message was "enough with this theology that tells us to endure exploitation in life because after death you are going to have the Kingdom of Heaven". No, the Kingdom of Heaven must be made here – it is the kingdom of justice. You have to struggle against injustice. 21st century socialism is based on this search for social justice, and it coincides with the social doctrine and liberation theology. This project can be joined by atheists, practising Catholics – because I am a practising Catholic. It doesn’t contradict my faith which, on the contrary, reinforces the search for social justice.

A great example provided by Cuba is that in its poverty it has known how to share, with all its international programs. Cuba is the country with the greatest cooperation in relation to its gross domestic product and it is an example for all of us. This doesn’t mean that Cuba doesn’t have big problems... Of course ALBA is largely inspired by the good things of the Cuban model, like solidarity, trade between peoples based on solidarity, not for profit, cooperation for development.

ls
15th January 2010, 02:10
cyu, do you support ALBA?

Che Guevara
15th January 2010, 02:34
cyu, do you support ALBA?

Although this question wasn't aimed toward myself, why wouldn't one support ALBA?

That's an honest questions.

My personal opinion is, any sort of 'bloc' that bands socialist countries together, is a good 'bloc'.

pranabjyoti
15th January 2010, 05:39
The problem with ALBA is that, it is limited to Latin America only and yet it haven't shown any initiative to make a block with the people of other poor countries of the world, specially from Asia and Africa.

What Would Durruti Do?
15th January 2010, 05:48
Although this question wasn't aimed toward myself, why wouldn't one support ALBA?

That's an honest questions.

My personal opinion is, any sort of 'bloc' that bands socialist countries together, is a good 'bloc'.

Yes, I'm sure a bloc that bands socialist countries together would be great. Now where is this bloc and these imaginary socialist countries you speak of?

FSL
15th January 2010, 06:55
Just about any european country is 10 times more socialist than Ecuador.
If they are now creating more small owners, that 10 there might end up being 20 or 30.

It seems like they've totally forgot the "control the means of productions" part along with the "produce to satisfy needs". Venezuela produces just as much oil as OPEC demands and shuts down factories because of lack of power. I doubt Ecuador has any different plan.


What you get when the modern socialism rejects the excesses of real socialism.

RedSonRising
15th January 2010, 07:07
Their open emphasis on placing productive land and resources in the hands of laborers themselves in a communal fashion validates the building of socialism in Ecuador, I think, and shows that whatever flaws "Socialism of the 21st" century has, its pragmatic but effective and genuinely proletarian-based progress shows promise. The bit about compromise with religion is also important. Too much alienation occurs on the left by atheists who do not understand how to respect people of spiritual faith. In Latin America this is a just and strategically beneficial move.

I would like to see a study that compares the Bolivarian States- while agreeing in terms of ideological philosophy and general policy, the specific condition of the workers varies, from what I have heard, with Venezuela's State creating more hassle and stagnation than revolution, while evidence such as this suggests more success in Bolivia and Ecuador. Just a thought. Overall this is good news, Ecuador's policy reform had been lagging under Correa and his rhetoric, and now it seems to be catching up.

FSL
15th January 2010, 07:34
Their open emphasis on placing productive land and resources in the hands of laborers themselves in a communal fashion validates the building of socialism in Ecuador, I think, and shows that whatever flaws "Socialism of the 21st" century has, its pragmatic but effective and genuinely proletarian-based progress shows promise. The bit about compromise with religion is also important. Too much alienation occurs on the left by atheists who do not understand how to respect people of spiritual faith. In Latin America this is a just and strategically beneficial move.

I would like to see a study that compares the Bolivarian States- while agreeing in terms of ideological philosophy and general policy, the specific condition of the workers varies, from what I have heard, with Venezuela's State creating more hassle and stagnation than revolution, while evidence such as this suggests more success in Bolivia and Ecuador. Just a thought. Overall this is good news, Ecuador's policy reform had been lagging under Correa and his rhetoric, and now it seems to be catching up.


The land will be owned by them, the products will be owned by them, they'll be just as free as anyone to speculate. It would be a step up if that land was confiscated from landowners but breaking up state owned land and giving it away? That's how Russia privatized its public property in the 90s.
Is property over land abolished? No. So, if one of these collectives does an average job in speculating and secures a small profit margin, what's to stop this land (previously public) to be then sold to modern feudal lords?

The Venezuelan state creates hussle because it's a bourgeois state and its aim is to secure the rights of the bourgeoisie. There is less hussle coming from Bolivia or Ecuador because in comparison we have there an even smaller challenge to the rulling class.


Funnily enough, there is talk of "Cuban poverty" among other things in the article in the op. Sure, we'll applaud Cuba on its efforts but we must talk about its immense poverty, no way we can ignore that much misery.
Cuba has a higher standard of living than any of the resourse-rich, modern socialist countries, while doing what is considered "impossible!!!", not tolerating big capital. They might want to think why this is.

cyu
15th January 2010, 20:37
do you support ALBA?

I think calling for 100% support of any organization or politician is stupid. Everyone makes mistakes - when they do, still trying to support what you know are mistakes is highly illogical. I prefer to support policies - if they do something I like, then I'll support that policy. If they do something I don't like, then obviously I'd oppose it.

It's like saying I don't support 100% of anybody's DNA. Obviously some parts of that DNA can be improved - maybe removing a cancer gene here, or heart disease gene there.

cyu
15th January 2010, 20:40
It would be a step up if that land was confiscated from landowners but breaking up state owned land and giving it away? That's how Russia privatized its public property in the 90s.
Is property over land abolished? No. So, if one of these collectives does an average job in speculating and secures a small profit margin, what's to stop this land (previously public) to be then sold to modern feudal lords?



Depends on how you define property in that society, of course. One old anarchist definition of control over resources is that you can only control it when you are using it. Thus "selling" to a landlord makes no sense. Unless the landlord is personally going to be using that land, then control just reverts back to whatever farmers or employees he hires to use the land.