Wednesday
Feb032010
A Response: Why Venezuela Isn't Iran
Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 22:36 
The folks at The Flying Carpet Institute respond to Josh Shahryar's article, "Venezuela: Twitter Revolution’s Next Stop?":Some pundits have recently tried to compare the recent upper middle-class mobilizations against the government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to the ones occurring in Iran since last summer’s Presidential election. As proof of the similarities, the author notes the technological aspects of the mobilization, such as activity on Twitter. He furthermore notes that Venezuela is "a population subjugated to ill-planned economics, a strongman unwilling to leave power, and a government ever more keen to restrict its citizens' rights to freedom of speech".
Venezuela: Twitter Revolution’s Next Stop?
This is a very superficial analysis of events that can be overturned with a range of empirical evidence. However, I will confine myself to some obvious facts. For instance, the Chavez Government hasn’t resorted to executions of opposition members like the Islamic Republican regime in Iran. The "curbed free press" of Venezuela isn’t actually that curbed. In no other country in the recent years has the ruling class shown its teeth so openly against a popular reformist government, through "Chilean" methods like assassinations, employer lock-outs, and pot-beating upper middle-class housewives. What Western media reports also fail to show are the (even if somewhat modest) attempts of the Chavez Government to support the growth of communal radio programmes that are intended to challenge the corporate media monopoly.
Let us now turn our heads to Iran. Here, the neoconservative Ahmadinejad regime, elected by the narrow confines of the system of Velayaat-i-faqih (ultimate clerical authority), has followed a policy not unlike the one followed by neoliberal governments throughout the rest of the world: it has privatized enterprises and tried to crush unionized labour by introducing contract labour. At the same time it has tried to cushion the results of its policies with populist measures. In Iran, those populist measures are called "free potatoes", in the US and elsewhere they are called "No more taxes!" or "charity". Chavez was instrumental in forming the UNT trade union federation, the backbone of the Left in the Chavista movement. Ahmadinejad on the other hand, was responsible for the severe crackdown on organizations like the Tehran Bus Drivers´ Union.
So what does bring Venezuela and Iran together? One can and should criticise Chavez´s praises of Ahmadinejad. They have no relation to reality and are based on a completely absurd understanding of the situation. Ironically, they resemble the West’s depiction of Ahmadinejad as an uncompromising "radical", something that is far from the truth. Islamic Iran has shown that it is able and willing to cooperate with the US and Israel on a number of issues when this suits its interest (Iran-Iraq War, Afghanistan, Iraq).
But it’s not the similarities of the systems that brought the two countries together. It’s the fact that they are both faced by an American onslaught. The Obama administration has shown its real colours by silently embracing the Honduran coup against Manuel Zelaya, making obvious that it is prepared to follow the same ends in Latin America as the previous Bush administration but with different means. Meanwhile, not a week goes by that doesn’t see verbal threats of sanctions (the US) or the possibility of an upcoming war in Lebanon (Israel) to finish off the Iranian challenge.
One should not forget that the US --- or anybody else in the West --- isn’t diametrically opposed to the concept of political Islam. Instead, what any imperial hegemon fears most is the concept of resistance, irrespective of its colours. To equate Venezuela with Iran is false. It implies that the Islamic regime is a consistent anti-hegemonic regime that empowers organized labour and supports forms of democratic self-organization, while enjoying genuine popular support among the mass of people.
Reader Comments (28)
Why venezuela isnt iran? because chaves did something for the people. most of the people dont know that but he manage to decrease the number of poor for 50% in the last 10 years - from 50% of the population to 25%. he gave mslions of people the chance to get education, free health care (they had none before), jobs and so on. he showed to the lots of people that they are not frogoten anymore - those people will forget him. but dont forget that he is a big investor all public infrastructure (like roads and so on). he doesnt just give money to the poor.
when he became president there were 600 000 students. now there are 2 400 000 of them. and education is blood of economy.
yes i agree that he uses some totalitarian princips and that is defenetly not good. it is easy to see that he is military person and that army is his favourite tool.
and yes venezuela has economical problems. some say that this is because bad economical planing. but wast the whole world in crysis? and wasnt this crysis because of bad economical planing in wall street? and i dont know for any twitter revolution in usa :D
venezuela is not like iran because there are no real alternative. yes there was a neoliberalisctic capitalism, but it made millions poor and destroyed the economy (when world had big economical growth).
so thats why mst of venezuelians who DONT support chavez say: chavez is bad, but opposition is even whorse.
they might protest against him, but only a few of them for opposition.
and what is difference between rebel and revolutionary? rebel doesnt agree with the system, but he doesnt have alternative.
you might think that i am chavez lover, because i wrote some things others dont want to read, but i am not. i hate those who do not respect civil rights, but must also say, that civil rights are unussful if you live in places like favele (dont remeber what is the venezualean name for favele).
QUOTE FROM ARTICLE -- "One should not forget that the US — or anybody else in the West — isn’t diametrically opposed to the concept of political Islam. Instead, what any imperial hegemon fears most is the concept of resistance, irrespective of its colours. "
********
At times the West is diametrically opposed to political Islam and at other times it isn't. Ronald Reagan was aware of the benefits Saudi exportation of the Wahhabi brand of Islam in the Middle East and North Africa. It was an effective tool for liberation theology in that it could be used to thwart Soviet communist influence in the region. Side by side with the United States, Bin Laden too emerged as victor in the Cold War. Unfortunately, for the United States, political Islam (political terrorism) went global. So, we can argue that al-Qaeda's motives are just as political as they are theological. The targets of the 9/11 attacks were symbols of American economic power and military might.
One thing: Iran and Venezuala are on ideologically opposite poles. Their relationship is one of convenience. It is convenient for both parties since "an enemy of my enemy is my friend." Chavez also courted the secular socialist Saddam Hussein a decade ago - even allowing him to drive his Mercedes-Benz. Chavez was on the same ideological pole as Saddam.
Scott, I'm not sure about the similarities between Iran and Venezuela either. But I don't buy your primary argument that their respective treatment of unions is the major crack in their similariries.
AN would love to support unions if he thought that they would help him in preparing the world for the imminent return of the Hidden Imam. He is not privatizing industries because he is a capitalist, he is doing it to reward his cronies and bribe people to stick with him.
IRI also makes a lot of claims about reduction of poverty and increase in healthcare, education, utilities, etc. And they have actually invested much in those areas especially in geographies that their core base of traditional familes reside (i.e., farmingvillages and small towns).
I don't have a lot of unbiased research about Chavez and Venezuela, so I won't comment on that side.
They are similar in that they are run by demagogues. They are also both illiberal, Venezuela increasingly so. The media restrictions going on in that country are not as severe as Iran, but they are real and alarming (see http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13905538 and http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14179203, both restricted to subscribers). Your attempt to portray the situation as "intended to challenge the corporate media monopoly" is similarly alarming and, frankly, brings your judgment into question. My concerns are compounded by your characterization of America as an "imperial hegemon" and that the two countries are offering "resistance" to its "onslaught". I won't even go into your ridiculous characterization of the situation in Honduras.
I've followed your site for information on Iran ever since the election, but I have to say I found this post both unprofessional and disappointing. Its language is best reserved for state-controlled media in illiberal regimes and student union newspapers.
I have to apologize. I stand by my earlier comments, but they were misdirected and should have been reserved for the folks at "The Flying Carpet Institute". Your quality work has given me high expectations of EA; I have no such expectations from "The Flying Carpet Institute".
Sorry.
This attack on Night Owl's piece is obtuse. The reasoning behind it is completely opaque to me. It seems that the criticism rests primarily on the notion that
a.) Chavez doesn't execute folks with the same regularity or brutality as the coup in Iran.
b.) Chavez has better relationships with organized labor than the Iranian regime.
c.) Iran is willing to work with the west and Chavez is busy standing up to the colonial bully.
Leaving aside the veracity of the arguments (I think at least two of the three are patently false), they lead one to utter that childhood expression which lies at the heart of most systems of justice and philosophy - "so?". None of these issues lie anywhere near to the central point Josh was making. Even if conceded, they would be irrelevant. Josh's argument is well laid out and cogent. The rebuttal...not so much.
We have here a pretty clear case of someones agenda getting in the way of fundamental analysis. Look, from his other writings and from occasional statements made here, I have a pretty good idea where Scott and company are coming from politically. It happens to be a different outlook than the one I have. Despite this, his reporting and analysis are all intellectually honest and I respect him for it, differences or not. I wish I could say the same for the flying saucer institute.
That's well said, Jack.
I wish I was as thoughtful and articulate as Jack. Well put.
Well thank you gents. But, I'm not really that thoughtful and articulate. I just finished off a bottle of Domaine Lafond Chateauneuf du Pape that I have been trying to resist for months. My inner muse really dug it.
@ Jack
Yours is a very strong argument on the dangers of alcohol. Congratulations.
The central point Josh was making: *In both countries, oppositional students use twitter.* His arguments to prove his point are indeed “well laid out and cogent”. But his point doesn’t prove anything about an alleged similarity of the political situation in both countries. That’s what the Flying Carpet Institute forcefully showed.
The three points a) to c) in your posting are not the “notion(s) on which the criticism rests primarily”. They are the refutation of Josh’s assertion:
“… a story much similar to Iran’s. A population subjugated to ill-planned economics, a strongman unwilling to leave power and a government ever more keen to restrict its citizen’s right to freedom of speech.“
If you have any arguments to defend the alleged parallels between the political situation in Iran and Venezuela against their refutation, just name them.
@ Nick
There are two countries that were enjoying the attentions of a country that you would not like to be characterized as “imperial hegemon”: Afghanistan and Iraq.
There are a lot of other countries that were at some time or other characterized as part of an “axis of evil”: Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Sudan, and so on. I am pretty sure the majoritiy of the populations of these countries would regard the above-mentioned attentions as “onslaught” if they were to receive it, regardless of their political position or opposition.
It’s a question of dead bodies, you know.
There are a lot of other countries that were at some time or other characterized as part of an “axis of evil”: Sudan
It’s a question of dead bodies, you know.
********
Yeah, dead bodies. You're not kidding.
Outside.
I was extolling the virtues of Chateauneuf du Pape, not alcohol. there is a difference. Much like the fact that there are differences between the political situation in Venezuela and Iran. I don't think Josh's piece sets out to prove perfect equivalency. If that is the straw man I am jousting I readily admit defeat. His contention, as I take it, is a general observation that the nature of revolutions is changing, and that these two nations are good and somewhat similar examples of those changes. In other words I believe he was commenting more on the nature of the discontented than on the nature of the government that makes them so.
If one wishes to focus on the systems however, I realize that the argument can be made that the political systems are very different, even perhaps polar opposites. One is socialist and one is theo-fascist. While the political science text books define these as opposite ends of the spectrum, I do not agree. I have always been one who didn't see a lot of distinction between Hitler and Stalin's systems. Sure the speeches which kicked off both movements came from a different philosophical place, but they rapidly wound up in the same practical circumstances. One man makes the rules and if you don't like it you will be jailed, tortured, shot, hung raped or exiled. Sometimes multiple combinations of the above. I also suppose that one can argue that Venezuela is not a dictatorship at all. That the government enjoys widespread support. Particularly among the poor and working classes. This seems to be a focus of the Flying Carpet Institute piece. I can't judge the truth of this from my vantage point, but It seems to me that the majority of the folks down there would take a do-over if it was offered to them. If I am wrong however and Chavez has popular support, it just proves the similarities even more. I mean, in Iran, AN just won an election with 62% of the vote. His support was so fervent among some of the more rural and poor districts that they turned out in excess of 100% of the voting population. Sounds pretty similar to the support Chavez enjoys to me.
The debate over Venezuela and Iran is affected a lot by the fact that for eight years America suffered under a government that many of us knew was taking the country to war under false pretenses. The 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudi, so we invade Afghanistan? We know our true enemy is a loose network of religious fanatics who operate as a criminal gang, so we invade Iraq? Those things made no sense and people are right to be upset about them.
And yes, very unfortunately, Bush made loud noises that Iran was next on the list for invasion. I'm sure it would have been if that party had continued in power. It's completely understandable that there are now many Americans and other westerners who are totally cynical about any reports of oppressive governments anywhere in the world. After so many lies, people no longer trust anything they hear. If you tell them someone is a terrible dictator they just say, "Oh sure, tell us another one, warmonger!"
This is where social networking can help. We've got people in the mainstream media bombarding us with messages all coming from their various agendas, and nobody knows what to believe, but when we hear the actual voices of the people on the ground, through their blogs, videos, and tweets, we can get a clearer picture of what's really happening. There truly are some people in this world who do need everyone's help, and when we listen to what they're saying we can figure out how to help them. And, surprising to many neocons I'm sure, the thing that these people all seem to be saying is, "Things are bad here, but please don't bomb us."
When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. When Americans get to feeling like "something should be done about that," it's inevitable the first thing we will think of is using our mighty armed forces. We have to learn to expand our thinking and realize there are other ways to solve problems, and talking to the people in troubled areas is the best way to figure out how to do that.
"Things are bad here, but please don’t bomb us.” That's exactly the point. That is what it's all about!
May-be the problem on the American side is not only the mighty military force but the lack of experience with war in one's own land. The American Civil War was nearly 150 years ago.
And may-be a bit lack of phantasy. The shock after 9/11 was huge, right? Than just imagine how people would feeel if not 3,000, not 30,000, but 300,000 of them would be killed, and from a smaller population. Not only one part of town shattered and in ruins but many parts, and in many towns.
I guess that is difficult to imagine for American citizens, last but not least because the pictures of bombed places after the bombing are not shown in American TV. Or so I hear.
Quoting -- "May-be the problem on the American side is not only the mighty military force but the lack of experience with war in one’s own land. The American Civil War was nearly 150 years ago."
********
Many members of my family have experienced war on "their own" land. There are several Holocaust survivors in my family. Many American families have experienced it. My father and my grandparents lived in London during the Blitz. My father picked up the tb virus which lays dormant in his body. Americans of various races and ethnicities do know what war is like in "their own" land.
Your post shows how little you know about America and its people.
Yes, many immigrants knew about war - about war in the countries from where they came to the USA. But that is not the same as living among ruins. Of course these refugees from war take their memories with them. But memories are not hereditary. Their children only hear the descriptions, and that - believe me - is not the same as the experience itself. (Or would you think that the decriptions of memories of sex would be comparable to making the experience itself?)
Your post shows how little you know about war and its victims.
That's no problem. But not knowing of not knowing can make communication difficult.
I had a kid on my school bus that grew up in the Balkans in the 1990s. He has since graduated and is probably not more than 20 or 21. This conversation is pointless.
Yes, it is. So let's end it without hard feelings.
similarites :
both elected yet have dug in through fraudulous electoral practises.
both veering towards dictatorship
which means repression, protests, more repression, fraud, corruption etc
both use hatred of west as propaganda
both have oil
both were popular and aimed to spread oil wealth
Both will be replaced one day.
The first ones to discover similarities between the situations of certain groups in Iran and Venezuela were not the bloggers at Flying Carpet, but those groups themselves when they started supporting each other on Twitter and retweeting each other's messages and information. Same thing has happened between certain groups in China and Iran. Obviously they have noticed enough mutual similarities to want to support each others' struggle against the abuse of power by the authorities in each country. Nothing much more to make of it than that. I can't wait to see the tortured parallels people will be drawing when Tibetan Twitterers and their Iranian green movement counterparts start supporting each other :-).
And I agree with the point made by Outside about not much difference between socialist abuse of power and theo-fascist abuse of power.
@ Pessimist
Come on, why so half-hearted? Why stop at these points? Why not:
Both have about 40 „Special Economic Zones (SEZ)” (in Spanish: maquilladora) complete with special banking regulations for the “Free Trade-Industrial Zones”
Both are have protestors get killed by the hundreds
Both are incarcerating journalists by the dozens
Both make ample use of the death penalty
Both love their anti-semitic rhetoric
Because then the similarities wouldn’t look so persuasive any more?
@ Catherine
Why only Tibetan Twitterers and the Iranian green movement? Why not Uyghur protesters and the Iranian oppositional blogosphere? Because – surprise, surprise – that already happened during the clashes in July 2009:
http://ord-per.blogspot.com/2009/07/iranian-blogosphere-and-urumqi-tensions.html
@ Old Outsider
Oh, and I can assure you that these peoples (http://tinyurl.com/yzlrb7k) will be sharing their grievances with and receiving commiseration and encouragement from the Iranian oppositional blogosphere ............. as soon as they discover the internet!
Dear Catherine
I am too dumb to understand what you want to tell me. Please explain.
Is it that the Iranian oppositional bloggers are bleeding heart liberals? Or what?
Hi Old Outsider,
I was just kidding around with all the parallels being drawn between rather disparate countries/groups and some other nit-picky points in this thread. I thought your posts 21 and 22 were in the same vein - soryy if I misunderstood them. My post was not serious.