ORIGEN DEL SOCIALISMO DEL SIGLO XXI. Heinz Dieterich Steffan. es un sociólogo y analista político alemán, residente en México. HEINZ DIETERICH STEFFAN SOCIALISMO DEL SIGLO XXI BASES DEL MODELO El desarrollismo democrático regional. La economía de. 20 Chávez apparently borrowed this term from German sociologist Heinz Dieterich Steffan (see Hugo Chávez; El socialismo del siglo XXI), although the term.
|Published (Last):||20 February 2004|
|PDF File Size:||20.19 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.74 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
El socialismo del siglo XXI en el contexto de la nueva izquierda latinoamericana.
Master en Relaciones Internacionales. De la Universidad del Flinders de Adelaida en Australia. The reforms undertaken by referring to the ideology of XXI century socialism in these countries were characterized by an intensification of the process of transformation of the state structure and the relations between the state and society, continuing with the nationalization of eieterich of the ep, the centralizing of the political apparatus of State administration.
However, in the last four years, in some countries where the socialism of the XXI Century has been implemented, the civilian population has been demonstrating against this type of regime. The aim of this article is to present an analysis stwffan the political ideology called socialism of the XXI century and its implementation in Venezuela, Argentina, Dxi and Bolivia. In order to comply with the main purpose, the first part of the document provides an overview of some concepts developed by the theory of XXI century socialism and sheffan factors that differentiate it from the socialism that was developed in Eastern Europe in the second half of the twentieth century.
In the second part, the article examines a perspective of the nonconformity of the so-called New Latin American left, we take into consideration the specific case of Venezuela during the presidential mandates of Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro which were characterized by an authoritarian and populist regime; likewise in Argentina during the corrupt governments of Nestor Kirchner and Cristina Fernandez, in Ecuador under the populist regime of Rafael Correa where he has obtained some robust economic performance but has worn out in a constant sitlo with the media and opponents, and in Bolivia under the command of Evo Morales waving flags of authoritarianism and the movement of Indigenism.
Finally, the article focuses its attention on reviewing the aspects where it is considered that this model has failed by using some analysis factors as reference such as corruption, the violation of the freedom of expression, the disrespect of private property and the disregard of the rights of political minorities.
The initial part of this article aims to clarify the concept of socialism of the XXI xiglo, its theoretical interpretation and its differentiation with the socialism developed in Eastern Europe in the second half of the twentieth century. This author contends that the main lesson of the Chavista project was the need and importance of combined socialism with democracy, not a liberal democracy, but a participatory and direct democracy.
Similarly, Dieterich says that the division of socialisjo is the basis of the State of bourgeois right and the only contribution of it to advance in the political coexistence. Stages of the socialism of the XXI century. In the same way, another important author is Anthony Giddens in his article entitled Beyond the left and the right. The future of radical policies in which he summarizes the main aspects of the twenty-first century socialism in six key points:.
The twenty-first century socialism in theory should deliver the constituent power to its depository in a real and effective way, i. For the twenty-first century socialism the institutions have values.
And within the institutions, those that allow free communication are of great importance mainly, dteffan alternative media and the deliberative forms of democracy. The individual self-government is linked to the social self-determination. Must have open mechanisms of collective deliberation and decision, so that solving the problems is a matter of public opinion, it is more difficult for people to pursue their individual self-interest. Equality must be regarded as a significant influence.
Must provide the foundations of health, education, freedom and justice that allow citizenships to share responsibility for their decisions.
Recognizes individual rights such as habeas corpus, freedom of expression, residence, movement, inviolability of correspondence, of domicile Giddens, It is important to distinguish the main conceptual contradictions between socialism developed in the twentieth century in the political regimes of Eastern Soialismo and the one implemented in Latin America in the twenty-first century in Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina and Bolivia.
Specifically, he highlighted the differences in regard to beinz, ethnic, geographical, cultural traditions and historical practice, etc. Monedero argues in a similar way, that the socialism of the XX century, quite the contrary was deeply statist, it was capitalist in regard to the exploitation and alienation of workers and productivity, colonial, predator of nature, based on a simple idea of progress.
In this article, Monedero summarizes the important differences between the two types of socialism taking as reference some analysis factors such as: In the sigko above, we can see notable differences between the two ideological visions.
On the one hand, the socialism of the XX century based its scientific reality on scientific socialism developed by Marx and Engels, sought the internationalization of the labor movement, stressing the importance of the worker as a hero of the society, where the party, the union and the family are highlighted in the social sphere and the national state in the political field. On the other hand, the Latin American Socialism is based on a socialist state that in theory, is concerned with the social aspects of its population, is sustainable, respects the environment; the community is organized in social movements and the citizenship has natural rights and duties.
The clearest example can be found in the Venezuelan version of XXI century socialism which presents a strong blend of historic Bolivarian nationalism, Marxism of the twentieth century and Latin American populism. The fall of the socialist regimes in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union raised an important effort to communities of academics, intellectuals, parties and progressive groups around the dietfrich to redefine the positions of the left, distinct from the undemocratic aspects which prevailed in the eastern regions of Europe during the second half of the twentieth century Magallanes, The increase in the number of governments that are assigned to the socialism of the XXI century was a result of the crisis dwl disappearance of neoliberal governments that dominated Latin America since the mids until the end of the decade of Its disappearance was accelerated by a series of socialism uprisings that drove the rise of left-of-center governments with programs of rejection of the neoliberal socio-economic doctrines and the promise of fundamental changes in favor of the large majorities.
This ideological conception sought primarily to give responses to the serious problem of underdevelopment in which the region lives due to the social imbalances, injustice and inequality Hamburger, In fact, not all the endeavours today are new or are reprints of the past. The socialist governments in Latin America have recently suffered the most uproarious defeats, since Chavez in to strengthen the emergence of the twenty-first century socialism.
To the defeat of Correa in the local elections in Ecuador inwe can add the fall of kirchnerismo in Argentina and the chavism in the past elections of Venezuelan legislative in The latest defeat, which was unthinkable until a few months ago, suffered by Evo Morales who had the purpose of extending its mandate, seems to confirm the theory of the beginning of the end of the twenty-first century socialism in Latin America, which had a very short period of time, 17 years approximately.
Dieterich, Heinz 1943-
There are common symptoms and particular features of the crisis of the political and economic system socialisko some countries of the region that have been implementing the socialism of the XXI century. Among those are the inability to counter the power of the private monopolies of the media, even in countries that have adopted laws and concrete measures to break the backbone of the right in Latin America.
In each of these countries, in each one of the crisis faced by those Socailismo, the leading role has been of the private media, acting so brutal and overwhelmingly against the governments which have benefited from its successes and with broad government popular support.
Below are the experiences of Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador and Bolivia under socialist regimes in the past twenty years. The rise of the Bolivarian forces to power led by Hugo Chavez Frias in constitutes one of the most emblematic cases of rotation to the left that has occurred in Latin America.
Policies implemented by the previous governments were abolished with a style of confrontation that sought to remove from the Venezuelan political spectrum the bipartisanship and any other political expression.
Algunas consideraciones acerca de “El socialismo del siglo XXI” de Heinz Dieterich Steffan
This political regime turned around the central and emblematic figure of Hugo Chavez and public policies depended on the particular juncture by which crossed the country at a given time. The creation of a new socialist ethic supported by humanist schools of thought of socialism and the nationalists of Simon Bolivar. The construction of a revolutionary and leading democracy, understood as the one that transforms the weakness of the individual in collective force.
The reality experienced by the Venezuelans in recent years is far from the utopia raised by the idealists who forged this model at the beginning of the government of Hugo Chavez. In the economic sphere we can see that despite the fact that more than a trillion dollars coming into Venezuela, by concept of oil revenues, during the past 14 years, the failure of the Venezuelan economic system is reflected in the shortages of basic commodities, and in the inability of the population to meet their primary needs, the shortage of basic consumer goods such as the toilet paper is one of the most grotesque example.
The reality of Venezuelan society was characterized by a totalitarian regime that constantly disrespect the fundamental rights of citizens such as freedom of the press, disregard for the rights of minorities and disrespect to the private property among others. The Venezuelan journalist Carlos Ball president of the Center for the dissemination of the Knowledge Economy for Freedom Cedice Freedom considers that in a democratic society the existence of private media, apart from political and economic power is essential.
When the main mass media is at the service of the dominant political project and is related to a single guideline, plurality disappears as well as the possibilities of exercising critique, these are key components of all order based on respect for public and individual freedoms, the balance between society and the State and the cooperation between the Powers Ball, In Venezuela, unfortunately, people saw the first step of a plan to override the freedoms of thought and expression with the cancellation of the license to the TV channel Radio Caracas Television RCTV that during 53 years was on air because they declared opposition to the Chavista regime.
Government also threats the Red Globo Vision of being closed soon. For Ball, this issue had serious repercussions since. Do we have freedom? I do not think so. At least not a true freedom, but the one that comes from the whims of a regime that allows us to breathe because it is vital, but not because it is a government of laws Ball,p.
The legislative and judicial systems have also been founded under the power of the president of the Bolivarian Republic and the followers of his revolution. Historically, almost the entire Venezuelan legislative body National Assembly has been the president followers, with the exception of the current period where the opposition won the most recent legislative elections.
In the past legislative elections, the resignation of many opposition candidates was presented on the grounds due to a lack of guarantees from the National Electoral Commission CNE charged in previous elections with electoral fraud in favor of Hugo Chavez.
However, Chavez and Maduro, are not true socialists or communistsbut despots that will not stop in their objective to subjugate the Venezuelan people through the eradication of the freedom of expression, free enterprise and the right to private property, and on the concentration of all the civil power and economic power in the hands of the President forever he.
The Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States is investigating cases of political discrimination in Venezuela. The Government has compiled a list of Similarly, all workers of the state petroleum corporation PDVSA that were part of the oil strikes against Chavez were dismissed.
In this way, there are no equal rights for the entire population to benefit only the adherents to the Chavista revolution. This regime was characterized by a populism oriented to polarize politically the country by the concentration of public power in the hands of the presidential couple, by the constant attacks on the media opponents in the newspaper El Clarin especially because of the corruption in the highest spheres of government.
Populism on the family Kirchner. Similarly, Socialiismo notes that in Argentina during the mandate of the Kirchner, government was embarked on a process of political polarization, although different from other Latin American countries by the three following reasons.
The first, because beyond the progressivism, the Kirchnerist model was deeply peronist, capable of combining political courage and a traditional organizational legacy, which reveals a pragmatic conception of social change and the construction of hegemony, based on the classic model of social participation under state control and the figure of the leader.
The second, because the kirchnerism never intended to promote dynamics of democratization, in contrast to what it has happened with governments in Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador, which addressed constitutional processes of participatory character and led to extend the frontiers of rights Svampa, And the third, because unlike the governments of Venezuela and Bolivia, which can be considered as populist because beyond their limitations, pointed to the redistribution of social power and the empowerment of the subordinate sectors.
In Argentina, the most outstanding example is the stellar vocation of the middle classes, their political empowerment in a context of widespread consolidation of the big economic players. However, this does not mean that the popular classes are absent, sheffan forgetting their trade union traditions, opening new fronts of conflict and struggle, the subaltern classes may increasingly become the guests of stone Svampa, The letter K in Argentina has been used by the media to identify the regime sitlo the married couple Kirchner.
These authors argue that the spouses Kirchner ruled in the margins of the Congress and other institutions of horizontal accountability.
For example, in just 6 months, at the beginning of his mandate, Nestor Kirchner enacted supreme decrees, a rate correspon-ding to 38 decrees per month. Similarly, Kirchner retained the emergency powers delegated to the Executive by the Diteerich during the crisis ofand in dietegich Congress granted a wide discretionary power to modify the budget after its legislative approval. Similarly, the Kirchner concentrated Executive Power with regard to the provinces.
This was done through the development of new sour-ces of income, particularly tariffs on exports and charges for public services unlike existing taxes were not shared between the federal and provincial governments. As a result, the participation of the provinces within the total income declined to just half of what had been a decade ago.
It is a tabloid that, despite characterized by prudence with military governments as democratic, has had a strong influence on the decisions of the powers throughout the time. It is the main Argentine newspaper with the largest circulation in the Spanish-speaking world Aruguete, 8 de febrero de socialimso With an average of The dominant position of the group, was broadly made heibz by the good relationship between dietericj holding company and the government of the day.
It actually had a break point in the year This initiative was endorsed by the National Congress on 10 October with the enactment of Law No. Although article provided for a term of one year to the adequacy of the multimedia that exceeds the limits imposed by the new regulation, a wave of legal resources has allowed the Group not to divest until the time comes Aruguete, In addition, Sel argues that in the case of Argentina, although coverage is not complete, the SCA Law was established to achieve this objective.
With regard to the election and with the emergence of the TDA, the supply of public channels increased with guidelines and thematic profiles that offer complementary contents such as tourism, cinema or science, vieterich others. The digitalization is founded on the steffna of the universality of service, a basic principle of the human right to information that had never been implemented in this way Sel, In the same vein, the SCA law awards are established under the title of authorizations to public, provincial, municipal and university media.
The feedback is understood as the intervention of the public in the broadcasting of television programmes through questions, criticism or opinions. That is to say, interaction of the public according to the rules of the programs or television channels. In this sense, this is the interactivity as a kind of feedback Sel, According to Repoll during the governments of Nestor Kirchner and Cristina Fernandez an open confrontation with the multimedia group Clarin existed, due to the constant Government opposition to this medium of communication.
Kirchnerist Governments harassed this daily newspaper in all the unimaginable ways; among the most noteworthy were the supply rationing for newsprint, inspections of finance and the constitution of the Bicameral Commission of the congress whose action ended by expropriating the newspaper, surrendering it to the General Confederation of Labor Repoll, The information of the Federal Chamber does not specify how many of those complaints became formal judicial inquiries but prosecutors made the corresponding requirements.