CLAUDIO KATZ Interviewed by LA Llamarada
Claudio Katz is an Argentinean economist PHOTO/Resumen
“Venezuela defines the future of the progressive cycle”
In your work on South America, you speak of the duality that has characterized the last decade. What exactly is that duality?
Claudio Katz: In my opinion, the so-called progressive cycle of the last decade in South America has been a process resulting from partially successful popular rebellions (Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador) that altered the relations of force in the region. They allowed us to take advantage of higher prices for raw materials and dollar income in a way that differed considerably from what prevailed in other periods. During this interval, neo-developmental and distributionist economic policy schemes existed alongside the neoliberal model. Politically, right-wing governments were now joined by center-left and radical governments. It was a period in which imperialism’s capacity for action was seriously circumscribed, with retreat of the OAS and recognition of Cuba. David finally defeated Goliath and the United States had to accept that defeat.
It was also a decade in which there were no Greek-style adjustments practically in any Latin American country. And there were important democratic victories. It is highly illustrative to compare South America with Central America. The level of aggression that is current in Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala contrasts with the public freedoms conquered in Argentina, Bolivia, or Brazil, a clear indication of the scope of this change. And Chavismo rescued the socialist project. For all these reasons South America became a point of reference for social movements throughout the world.
In a recent article I pointed to a “duality in Latin America” because this change in the political cycle and in the relations of force coexisted with a consolidation of the pattern of extractivist accumulation rooted in the export of basic raw materials and Latin America’s insertion in the international division of labor as a provider of basic products. That situation is natural for a neoliberal government — it forms part of its strategy. But for progressive, center-left governments, there is a tension with that structure; and for radical, distributionist governments, there is a conflict of huge proportions.
So, there were successful rebellions that resulted in distinct governments, some anti-liberal, but a situation was generated that sooner or later had to disappear, since they could not coexist with the extractivist model and the strengthening of the traditional dependent economic configuration of Latin America. What began to surface in recent months is that contradiction. And that is why the conservative restoration began, and with it the debate on the end of the progressive cycle. At year-end we are confronted by two crucial events.
First, the triumph of Macri, which is important because it is the first instance of a rightist return to the presidency. Beginning with the cacerolazos [the banging of pots and pans in street demonstrations], the Right built its political power, defeated Peronism, and formed a cabinet of “CEOcracy” for a country now governed by “its proper owners,” a cabinet straight out of the capitalist class.
The second event is more partial but more significant. In Venezuela the Right has won not the government but the parliament, in conditions of a brutal economic war, media terrorism, economic chaos generated by reactionaries. And Venezuela is the most complete symbol of the radical processes within the progressive cycle.
What is the situation, in this new continental setting, of the countries that far from duality have maintained not only the economic pattern but also the neoliberal policies?
Monthly Review Zine for more