jueves, 28 de mayo de 2015

¿Es Venezuela un país socialista?


En innumerables ocasiones he leído o escuchado la afirmación por distintos medios de que Venezuela no es socialista o que Venezuela no es comunista. Para poder determinar si Venezuela es un país socialista/comunista, debemos primero definir el termino.

Cuando le pregunto a las personas que afirman que en Venezuela no hay socialismo, ¿qué es el socialismo?, las respuestas se pueden resumir en las siguientes:

a) "que todos seamos iguales" Aquí iguales quiere  decir, iguales ante la Ley o con igualdad material de oportunidades

b)  "que haya igualdad para todos" De nuevo aquí "igualdad" se refiere a oportunidades.

c) "servicios públicos que funcionen".

Sin embargo, cuando vamos al Manifiesto comunista nos encontramos con que "Así entendido, pueden los comunistas resumir su pensamiento en esa frase: abolición de la propiedad privada"

Según Wikipedia: "El socialismo es el control por parte de la sociedad, organizada con todos sus integrantes, tanto de los medios de producción y comunicación como de las diferentes fuerzas de trabajo aplicadas en las mismas". Esta definición es bastante similar a la de Ludwing von Mises en el prefacio a la segunda edición en alemán de su libro Socialismo "El socialismo significa el paso de los medios de producción desde la propiedad privada a la propiedad de la sociedad organizada, el Estado".

Así pues, el socialismo no tiene nada que ver con "igualdad" sino con quien ostenta la propiedad de los medios de producción, si los individuos o el estado.

¿Y el comunismo?: Mises aclara que "El término «comunismo» no significa otra cosa que «socialismo». ... Unos y otros persiguen la socialización de los medios de producción."

Efectivamente, en la actualidad y en el ámbito político, el comunismo y el socialismo tienen nulas diferencias. Lo fundamental en ambos es que El Estado sea Socialista, es decir, que sea propietario de todos los medios de producción y, por tanto, el director de la producción y economía en general.

Partiendo de esta premisa, se define como socialista a toda doctrina o movimiento que aboga por la implantación de un estado socialista. Como tantos términos en ciencia política, el socialismo tiene distintas formas de implantación; es decir, buscar la implantación de un Estado socialista se puede hacer de diferentes maneras, existen las variantes pre y post-marxistas de socialismo (obreristas o nacionalistas) que se enfocan en el intervencionismo económico, los cooperativistas, los sindicalistas, los fascistas, y los socialdemócratas que buscan la redistribución de la renta mediante impuestos, entre otros. Pero en general todos están marcados por la implantación en diferentes formas de los diez puntos expresados en el Manifiesto Comunista:

"El proletariado se valdrá del poder, para ir despojando paulatinamente a la burguesía de todo el capital, de todos los instrumentos de la producción, centralizándolos en manos del estado, ...Claro está que al principio, esto sólo podrá llevarse a cabo mediante una acción despótica sobre la propiedad y el régimen burgués de producción, por medio de medidas, .... Naturalmente, estas medidas no podrán ser las mismas en todos los países. Sin embargo, para los países más avanzados, se podrán emplear de forma casi generalizada las siguientes medidas:

1. Expropiación de la propiedad inmueble y aplicación de la renta del suelo a los gastos públicos.
2. Fuerte impuesto progresivo.
3. Abolición del derecho de herencia.
4. Confiscación de la fortuna de todos los emigrados y rebeldes.
5. Centralización del crédito en el estado, por medio de bancos nacionales, con capital del estado y régimen de monopolio. (es decir, crear un banco central)
6. Nacionalización de los transportes.
7. Aumento de las fábricas nacionales y de los medios de producción, roturación y mejora de terrenos con arreglo a un plan colectivo.
8. Proclamación del deber general de trabajar. Creación de ejércitos industriales, principalmente en el campo.
9. Organización de las explotaciones agrícolas e industriales. Tendencia a ir borrando gradualmente las diferencias entre el campo y la ciudad.
10. Educación pública y gratuita para todos los niños. "

De alguna u otra forma estas  medidas se han tomado en Venezuela (no sólo desde 1998, sino desde mucho antes). Considere que la nacionalización de los hidrocarburos se realizo en 1974, así como el acero y el hierro. Además existen empresas estatales que monopolizan sectores completos de la economía, como electricidad, agua, telecomunicaciones, hidrocarburos, minería; y por su puesto tenemos control de cambio y control de precios.

Sin embargo, alguien podrá decir que el Manifiesto Comunista está descontextualizado y sí, es cierto. Prácticamente todos los países  tienen educación pública y no por eso se dirá que Australia, por ejemplo es un país socialista. En Europa los medios de transporte masivo son en gran medida estatales y no se dirá que toda Europa es socialista, además que todos los países (con pocas excepciones) tienen un Banco Central, nadie dirá que Suiza es un país socialista porque tiene Banco Central.

Así pues, mejor vayamos a la realidad actual, si el socialismo es la propiedad estatal de los medios de producción, estamos hablando de como el Estado interviene en la economía; así tenemos en la práctica tres niveles. Tomemos por ejemplo una panadería para ver como se aplican dichos niveles:

a) Nivel comunista. Como en Cuba, yo obtengo un permiso del Estado para ser "panadero" y así operar una panadería que es propiedad del estado y el Estado me asigna una remuneración. Así mismo el Estado fija cuotas de producción y precio de venta del pan.
b) Nivel fascista:   La llamo fascista porque era la que se practicaba en la Alemania nazi. Usted es el dueño de la panadería, pero el Estado le dice cual porcentaje de la producción debe usted darle a él.
c) Nivel socialdemócrata: La panadería es suya, pero el Estado le cobrará impuestos de acuerdo a su ganancia, mientras más gana, más pagará.

Por otra parte y es común a los tres niveles, la burocracía. Mientras más burocracia deba pasar para establecer mi panadería, ese Estado es más socialista.

Al final de todo, lo que hablamos es de libertad económica (sin descartar que el Estado puede intervenir en otros ámbitos de la vida del ciudadano). No existe un país 100% socialista ni tampoco un país 100% capitalista, todos son una mezcla de libertad y coacción estatal. Entonces, ¿cómo determinar si un país es socialista o capitalista?

Uno de los mejores indicadores de libertad económica es el Índice de la fundación Heritage. El mismo índice califica de países "libres" a cinco: Hong Kong, Singapur, Suiza, Australia y Nueva Zelanda, así que estos son los países capitalistas de referencia. Si vamos al otro extremo, los cinco países menos libres son: Corea del Norte, Cuba, Zimbabwe y Eritrea, estos son los países socialistas de referencia.

Un lector perspicaz habrá notado que en la lista final, mencioné sólo cuatro países, el faltante en la lista, responde a la pregunta del título de este articulo.

jueves, 14 de mayo de 2015

Against Gender Ideology


 Spanish version

1.              The really existing feminism as gender ideology

Feminism can be considered as a civic movement which was seeking right equality between men and women. It is logical to assume that this movement has changed according to the time and place due to the different circumstances it has faced.

According to my point of view, nowadays, Feminism is not as it has been denominated, but it is an ideology that refuses man's violence toward woman, only this kind of violence, since the movement does not refuse woman's violence toward man, woman’s violence on woman, or man’s violence on man; neither the movement refuses to assign social roles according to the gender, unless the assigning is for women’s best interest. For example, the movement calls for compulsory quotas to participate in the company’s Board of Directors, but it does not call for quotas to exercise mining; the movement claims that women gain slower wages than man, but it does not care that top models gain 35 times more than their men peers. This, and no other, is the really existing feminism.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s a group of women in the EE.UU, intellectually influenced by Simone de Beauvoir, Marxism, and Historicism, generated what is now known as Gender Ideology (GI), a redefinition of the Feminism, through a revision of the Marxism. To know more about the GHI, please watch this video.

One of the most important representatives of these women is Judith Butler, who holds the theory that the “gender performativity” (yes, you read that right! It is performativity, not preformativity).  In the introduction (page 25) to her book “Undoing Gender”, the author defines gender as:

“To understand gender as a historical category, however, is to accept that gender, understood as one way of culturally configuring a body, is open to a continual remaking, and that “anatomy” and “sex” are not without cultural framing (as the intersex movement has clearly shown).  The very attribution of femininity to female bodies as if it were a natural or necessary property takes place within a normative framework in which the assignment of femininity to femaleness is one mechanism for the production of gender itself. Terms such as “masculine” and “feminine” are notoriously changeable; there are social histories for each term; their meanings change radically depending upon geopolitical boundaries and cultural constraints on who is imagining whom, and for what purpose. That the terms recur is interesting enough, but the recurrence does not index a sameness, but rather the way in which the social articulation of the term depends upon its repetition, which constitutes one dimension of the performative structure of gender. Terms of gender designation are thus never settled once and for all but are constantly in the process of being remade.” (Fields in bold are mine).

According to this “gender activists”, the names “man” and “woman” should not embrace more than the physical differences; everything else people associate (social construct) to a subject by the fact to be that subject, man or woman, is that they define as gender. For example, if you buy blue clothes for your unborn child because he is a male child, you are reproducing a behavior already determined by the “gender role” pre-assigned to a person by you due to the irrelevant fact of his gender. Another example is when you go to a toy store and says “these are girls’ toys.”    


What is the problem with that? Simple, “gender roles” have been created by men to dominate and enslave women, defining and limiting their self-fulfilment to the “reproductive function.” Thus, Karl Marx wrongly identified the source of the social ills; “the story's engine” is not the class struggle, sex struggle is where discrimination and exploitation lie on.

According to GI, there is nothing naturally associated in being man or woman (apart from the physical differences in general and those genitals in particular); therefore, sexuality is not natural and shouldn’t be, on the contrary, it has to be freely built per each person according to his/her desires constituting the so-called “sexual-affective orientation (SAO).” In other words, “the most important is that everyone be happy” (a widespread argument amongst pro “same sex marriage” people.)

Being the SAO an autonomous construction from each person, who is free, equal in dignity, and has the same rights, every SAO is equally valid; which means that it shouldn’t be any distinction amongst homosexuality, heterosexuality, lesbianism, and any other SAO. This is the main argument from pro “same sex marriage” people.

As we have told, according to GI, gender roles produce behaviours that strengthen the social structure of men’s domination on women, such domination is put into practice because human behaviour make possible the emergence of social institutions to perpetuate such roles.  Amongst these institutions we have: chivalry, marriage, patriarchal system, maternity, and even language.

The society resulted after the abolition of these institutions would be that one which does not turn around the duality “man-woman”, but that one based on the “affective-sexual diversity”, where men and women were not just men and women, but they would be “plural-affective-sexual” persons.
    
Now, if the problem is “gender roles”, o better said, the institutions that reproduce them; thus, the solution is very clear: to eliminate such institutions. But, how do that?

2. Newspeak as an action plan

Theorically, GI is based on the deconstruction of these institutions (language, family, marriage, education, religion, maternity) in order to achieve the necessary society transformations. In practice and in to a large extent, this involves changing the meaning of words and inventing new ones, named by George Orwell “newspeak”; we already saw the example of Butler with her “performative.)”

·         Gender, instead of sex: The systematic use of this word is very important since the final objective is to overcome the man-woman binarism; by using “gender” it is possible to introduce a third party, who is “neuter.”
·         Affective-sexual orientation instead of “sex”: Thus, a law that said “it will be not established discrimination on grounds of race, sex, or religion,” GI states that such law should say: “it will be not established discrimination on grounds of race, affective-sexual orientation, or religion.”
·         Affective-sexual diversity: the same as above stated for speaking about the collective but not about the individual.
·         Homoparental: families from same-sex parents. ?
·         Homophobia: in a strict sense it would be the one who feels phobia towards homosexual, but in practice it is used to label anyone who shares any concept from the “hegemonic ideology.”
·         Hegemonic: This term is used to describe most of the relations given in society to establish that it is no natural but a gender roles product, for example, marriage. 

·         Reproductive right: Like the right to abortion. Do you notice the contradiction of the term?

·         Patriarchal: Probably, this is the most distinctive word of the gender ideologists, hardy another person says such word. In a strict sense, it would be a situation/institution/thing where the “father” rules, but as every newspeak word they use it with another meaning; in this case for referring to the humankind “story” where men have dominated women or the “State.”   

3. The State as an Instrument and Spain as an Example

The feminism has very ambitious objectives. Alison Jaggar writes in Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation:

a) «The destruction of the biological family, which was never visualized by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men different from those who have formerly existed. »
b) «The end of the biological family will also eliminate the need of sexual repression, male homosexuality, lesbianism, and extramarital sex will not be seen in the liberal way as alternating aspects out of reach of the state regulations, instead of that, even the homosexuality and heterosexuality categories will be dropped. Moreover, the institution of sexual relations between man and woman, where each one has a well-defined role will disappear. Finally, humankind will be able to revert its polimorphously perverse and natural sexuality. »
c) «Radical feminist equality means, not only equality under law not even the same basic needs satisfaction, but rather that women –like men- do not have to give birth.»

Such large-scale objectives only can be achieved by an only one: The Law! Thus, GI needs to rule on sexuality, that is politicizing the private and to rule on sexuality means to rule on morality.

Spain has been a country where gender ideology has been politically imposed and in a very speedy way during 8 years of José Luís Rodriguez Zapatero administration. Following, there is a chronology related to the rapid advance in the Spanish legal framework:

v Organic Act 1/2004 of 28 December on Integrated Protection Measures against Gender Violence:
Article 1. Purpose of the Act. 1. The purpose of this Act is to combat the violence exercised against women by their present or former spouses or by men with whom they maintain or have maintained analogous affective relations, with or without cohabitation, as an expression of discrimination, the situation of inequality and the power relations prevailing between the sexes.

According to our point of view, this Act has the following legal failures:

a) It violates the most basic principle of right to “equality before Law” when establishing a differentiation by sex regarding the perpetrator (if the same offence occurs between two lesbians, the Law does not apply.), establishing an “author’s offence,” which does not seen in Europe since Nuremberg laws of 1935.       
b) It violates the most basic principle of right to “equality before Law” when establishing a differentiation by sex regarding the victim, establishing women as special subjects of the law, that is, law provides "positive discrimination, " which is against the posture of searching for equality. If you are for this law you cannot be for equality before law and vice versa.
c) It follows from the above that, soft threats and coercions become offence only when the victim is a womanIf the victim is a man, even a child or an elder, then there is no offence. The criterion to draft a specific law, which make woman a special subject of law with more rights than an elder or a child, is not  is not clear.
d) It provides that the offence is committed “as the as an expression of discrimination, the situation of inequality and the power relations prevailing between the sexes." In practice, it is impossible to know if a man hits a woman because that man is a violent person who is assaulting people since he was a teenager or because he wanted to murder her to collect on insurance. In view of this impossibility, any aggression from a man to a woman comes within the category of this Act.
e) Finally, the constitutional right to the presumption of innocence is also violated since the mere submission of a complaint by a woman is enough to make the preventive arrest of a defendant. The word of the female plaintiff is over the Word of the defendant, reversing, in this way, the burden of proof. 

v    In June 2005, six months later, the Act for “same-sex marriage” was passed. This Act is really an amendment to the Civil Code, since it eliminates the restriction of definition of marriage to “a man and a woman.” That is, the concept of marriage has been changed.

We have to remember that for the GI, marriage is an institution created by men to slavery women, reducing their lives to the reproductive function. This point is highlighted by Simone de Beauvoir and Judith Butler in their writings. Moreover, for the GI, “man” and “woman” do not exist; therefore, this restriction does not make any sense.
v       A month later, on July the 3rd, to be precise, the Biometric Research Act (Ley de investigación biométrica) was passed. This Act goes forward on the issue of reproduction to one of Alison Jaggar’s main objectives, do you remember? “Radical feminist equality means, not simply equality under law not even the same basic needs satisfaction, but rather that women –like men- do not have to give birth.»
v   Five days later, on July the 8th, 2005, the Express Divorce Law (Ley de Divorcio Express) was passed, which is very useful for the GI due to their believing that marriage has any social function. 
v     In May 2006, the Organic Law of Education (Ley Orgánica de Educación) was passed. This Law provides that: Amongst the purposes of education are the full development of the student’s human personality and affective capacities, formation in respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, and the effective equality of opportunities for men and women, recognition of the affective-sexual diversity, as well as the critical assessment of inequalities, which allows overcoming sexist behaviors. Thus, it is assumed the whole content of what the Organic Law 1/2004, December the 28th, Integrated Protection Measures against Gender Violence, which clearly indicate its relation with the matter.
    v On March the 15, 2007 the Regulating Law on the Register entries in relation to the sex of the persons, was passed. This Law provides that: "This Law aims to regulate the requirements to access to the modification to the register entry in relation to the sex of a person in the Civil Registry, when said entry does not correspond with the real gender identity of the person. Also, the Law provides the change of the proper name, thus it does not in disagreement with the claimed gender." This means that if I “feel” I am a woman, I am able to go to the Civil Registry and ask for the change of my “gender” and my name, as well. This the practical manifestation of the GI, described at the beginning of this article, in Judith Butler’s theories.
v     In 2010, the “Abortion Law”, was  passed. We have stated that for the GI “maternity” is something from woman should be removed.  The individual should be released from his/her; therefore, the "right of abortion" is fundamental. Likewise, this Law provides in the Article 9 that: "a) the promotion of a sexuality vision in terms of equality and co-responsibility amongst men and women, with special attention to the prevention of gender violence, assaults, and sexual abuse. b) Recognizing and accepting sexual diversity."
Finally, this all law compendium, does not resolve any social conflict or legal problem because these laws go forward to an ideology, reason why all of them were passed in a short time. Specifically, the object is to achieve an anthrolopolycal change in the vision of the relationship amongst individuals and their sexuality. Precisely, the objective of gender ideology.

4.  The Mistakes of Gender Ideology

We do not agree with GI, for the following reasons:

First of all, as we said at the beginning, the GI is Marxism degenerated into the sexual realm, changing the disputing economical classes by disputing sexes. From our point of view, this has two failures: the first one is to assume that all men have the same interest in “dominatingwomen and the second one extremely which undervalue feminine intelligence. We do not think that men are fighting against women if we are talking about sociology, which is what the GI does; in such case, seeing human kind in two groups of homogeneous interests according with their sex; we would be talking about sexology and we would say that men fight against other men because of women, as well as women fight against other women because of some men, as we already stated here.

Secondly, historicism is a reductionism and simplicity too coarse to explain any social reality. Ludwing von Mises already saw the mistake of historicism: to deny the existence of the universal laws, independents from history. This reductionism is repeated in all materialist ideology. Nazism summarized all the source of problems to the races, Marxism to the social clases, and now, GI to sexes.

Thirdly, I don`t agree with its vision on sexuality as something “separate from the person,” to establish that “man” and “woman” do not have other differences more than their genitals. Complementarity man/woman becomes "optional" and maternity (and paternity) is untied from the integrity of the person. 

Our opinion is that sexuality is an integrant part of the person; it is a mistake to talk about the human being by separating its sexuality. Sexuality in so important in the human being, that is one of the two things which difference us from the rest of the animals (another reason as we stated here.

Fourthly, I don`t agree with its definition of marriage as an institution of men to domain women but less to slavery them to their “reproductive function,” for us it is an opinion quite far from reality. If a man wants to have children, he does not need to get married; in fact, marriage was used for woman “not stay alone” when having children.

The fifth reason is regarding future generations; the trivialization of sexuality is such that we are not sure about the effects on children who grow learning all these subjects related to formation of families. In fact, we already know more than one man in Spain, who refuses to get married and have children due to the legal framework, it is not a joke, the most rational a man can do in Spain is never have children.


Sixthly, the GI fails in its "theory of State", there is no such thing as a "Patriarchal State." The State is the monopoly organism of the Force that itself says that is legal and is comprised by three groups of persons according to its organization: The first group is comprised by politicians who momentarily are exercising power, that is, the executive and legislative powers; the second group is the one comprised by bureaucrats the so-called "Officers" from the King/President/Prime Minister to the officer, in an governmental institution, who places the seal on a form, to judges, policies, medical doctors, teachers, and others. Lastly, the third group does not formally take part of the State but they are groups of pressure of the civil society which make lobby to put pressure on the two other groups in order to obtain privileges from them; amongst those groups we have LGTB lobby, feminists, ecologists, large employers, all of them make noises in different ways to obtain that politicians and judges pass laws for their benefits.



The seventh reason is that intended society, as very honestly Alisson Jaggar says, a society in which the end of the biological family is reached and women do not have to give birth, without doubt is a society we do not want.

For all of that, our position is contrary to the gender ideology, or better said, to the feminism that really exists


*Translated by Aida Pacheco