在超現實喜劇《蒙提·派森的飛行馬戲團》中，我最愛橋段是委內瑞拉工人階級上街遊行、呼籲國家採取新自由主義經濟改革。好吧，那一幕並不存在，是我瞎編的，不過也恰恰說明了這一慕有多麼荒謬，以至於我們只能想像它在《蒙提·派森的飛行馬戲團》中出現。但這種荒謬性並不妨礙《電訊報》在社評中做出以下論斷：「今天，國有化在委內瑞拉成了罵人的髒話，人們正強烈呼籲各大產業再次私有化。」 這樣的論斷被英國媒體視作常識，完全無需提供任何佐證，甚至不必假借某個虛構出來的名叫費爾南多的農民之口說出上述言論。
他們的結論——因為委內瑞拉的社會主義出了毛病，所以「失信的社會主義意識形態必須被丟進歷史的垃圾箱」——再次說明作者是多麼魯莽自利、輕慢無知，才拼湊出一篇符合編輯部立場的文章。他們連連貫的句子都寫不出，甚至寫得還不如那篇讀起來牙齒都磕絆不斷的《科爾賓同志的宮廷政變》（Comrade Corbyn’s Palace Coup）。
《電訊報》一向不負眾望地精彩扮演著所有西方報紙中最魯鈍的角色。一方面出於對國際自由主義的熱忱，另一方面出於對其他國家社會、歷史、政治環境的無知，《電訊報》代表了西方的一種意識形態。在這種意識形態裡，每個人都想成為西方人。
在垃圾箱中翻找食物的加拉加斯人
從委內瑞拉的失敗推導出社會主義永遠行不通，這樣的邏輯就跟拿一臺不插電的洗碗機來證明天下所有洗碗機都將無可避免地失靈沒什麼兩樣。
委內瑞拉的問題在於，它不具備任何使社會主義或其他任何政治哲學正常運作的條件。馬杜羅總統採取的非理性經濟政策本身，只是該國治理問題表現出來的症狀。實際上，西方在分析委內瑞拉的悲劇時，是把馬杜羅政權政策錯誤和政府腐敗割裂開來的——換句話說，他們認為即使在相對廉潔的政治環境下，該國政策仍是具有破壞性的。
然而看看委內瑞拉的歷史我們就會知道，這兩個因素是無法割裂開的。西方明明懂得這個道理卻裝作無知，是因為他們早已想好了結論，再找理由來套這個結論。然而，看看委內瑞拉獨立運動之父西蒙·玻利瓦爾的研究結果，我們就會發現該國還有許多深層歷史問題沒有得到解決，而今天社會主義失靈只是這些問題的表面症狀。
現代委內瑞拉是一出放縱與混亂的悲劇，其豐厚的自然財富竟然成了其經濟欠發達和持續革命的原因。500年前，當西班牙「徵服者」登陸委內瑞拉時，這片土地已經非常富裕，因此沒有必要建立像北美那樣創造和傳播財富的組織機構。由於土著居民沒有被消滅，作為殖民者的「克裡奧爾精英」（出生在南美的西班牙白人）在當地仍然是少數民族，而在1811年委內瑞拉獨立後，他們卻以1％的人口擁有了當地幾乎全部土地。在這一群體發動政變之後，馬克思主義政治學成為了一種令人難以抗拒的意識形態。如果將反對革命但鼓勵改革的英國憲法與委內瑞拉憲法進行對比，差異無比強烈。據我上一次統計，委內瑞拉的憲法已經更新到第26部了。
哪怕曾經深陷挫敗，哪怕曾遭流放他鄉，哪怕已經去世200年，西蒙·玻利瓦爾對當代委內瑞拉的了解程度仍然超過當今西方世界的任何人。玻利瓦爾曾經提出，代議制不適合委內瑞拉，因為「我們當中既沒有行政官，又沒有金融家，也很少有商人。」現代自由主義者當然更無法接受玻利瓦爾的結論。他曾經這樣問道：「鑑於我們的種族混合情況和道德記錄，我們能否承受得起一個法律在領袖之上、原則在人民之上的體制？」
1828年的委內瑞拉是一個除了人之外，既沒有財產也沒有法律的國家，玻利瓦爾正是在這樣的環境中頒布了憲法，規定了自己作為終身獨裁者的角色，賦予了自己選擇繼承人的自由——查維茲後來也享受了這樣的特權。
委內瑞拉國父西蒙·玻利瓦爾（1783-1830）
帶著歷史眼光，我們現在可以回過頭看一下委內瑞拉今天如何制定政策。西方媒體在報導中將委內瑞拉政府管制價格和扭曲市場的行為——它們無疑是笨拙和欠考慮的——視為馬克思主義經濟學的實踐結果。
但西方媒體的經濟理性主義僅僅是一個煙霧彈，它是為了掩蓋那條同時受到玻利瓦爾讚美與譴責的悖論，即凌駕於法律之上的人。根據委內瑞拉令人摸不著頭腦的外匯政策，該國可以同時以三種匯率進行交易，政府高官可以輕易買賣美元套現5萬倍差價。這叫做社會主義，還是後現代脫離責任制軌道的玻利瓦爾專制主義？
但希望仍然存在：有證據表明委內瑞拉問題可以得到解決，並且政權決策錯誤和腐敗是不可切割看待的。玻利維亞社會情況與委內瑞拉比較相似，但它卻成功實現了類似的政策目標。
玻利維亞的社會主義者成功地維持了經濟的強勁增長，並在更困難的情況下顯著減少了貧困。縱觀玻利維亞的財政記錄，管理不善的歷史更久：過去50年裡，玻利維亞的通貨膨脹率平均為281％，但目前僅為3.01％。委內瑞拉的同時期通脹平均水平為94％——儘管也很高，但與玻利維亞相比顯然是小巫見大巫，但委內瑞拉現在通脹卻高達13,000％。
玻利維亞的大宗商品貿易不如委內瑞拉繁榮，2004年社會主義總統埃沃·莫拉萊斯開始執政時，該國年度出口創匯僅22億美元，到2014年增長到168.5億美元；而同時期的委內瑞拉，出口收入從230億美元增長到1530億美元。
國際貨幣基金組織預測委內瑞拉通脹率將在年內突破20,000%
玻利維亞之所以沒有陷入委內瑞拉的局面，是因為莫拉萊斯政府在經濟繁榮期間節省開支，造成預算盈餘而非赤字。1982年，玻利維亞也經歷過與今天委內瑞拉類似的社會經濟崩潰，通貨膨脹率一度高達24,000％。但自那以後，由於多民族取得共識拿出有力的解決方案，玻利維亞遵守政治實用主義，取得了一系列改革的成功，其中文化敏感性、軍政分離、鼓勵外資、淡化意識形態發揮了核心作用。這個良好的政府解決了「徵服者」遺留下來的問題。西方媒體試圖給出委內瑞拉問題的答案，但卻忽略了當地的具體情況，也從來不提以上這些已被證明的成功實踐，尤其是軍政分離。
《金融時報》撰文稱，「（委內瑞拉社會抗議的）目的不是政權更迭本身」，然後立馬提出了一個關於政權更迭的願景——「而是一個遵守憲法、穩定經濟、允許選舉和釋放政治犯的政府」。哥倫比亞總統也提出類似觀點：「希望政權內部得到軍事支持的勢力恢復民主和憲法的合法性，並迅速舉行選舉。」
《紐約時報》曾表示「問題的關鍵在於，如何趕在馬杜羅完全摧毀委內瑞拉之前讓他下臺。」緊隨這一斷言之後，《紐約時報》又看似漫不經心地提醒讀者，委內瑞拉擁有世界上最大的石油儲備，然後再繼續寫道：「但這決不意味著美國將像川普暗示的那樣採取軍事行動……很難看到川普政府領導的政權更迭將如何大幅改善委內瑞拉的局面。」這段話似乎在暗示，如果坐鎮白宮的是歐巴馬，美國搞政權更迭就沒有問題。
這一次，美國自由派致力於創新馬克思主義辯證法，提出「不搞政權更迭的政權更迭」政策。三個事實至關重要：首先，委內瑞拉的政治犯主要是2002年軍事政變的領導者；其次，自由主義智庫歐亞集團的拉美研究主任在委內瑞拉競選之前表示，即使選舉自由公平，馬杜羅還是會贏得勝利；第三，委內瑞拉唯一具有公信力的憲法，是社會上不成文的憲法且它宣稱正式憲法不具公信力。因此，《金融時報》和哥倫比亞總統所呼籲的那種亟待恢復的自由民主制度根本就沒有在委內瑞拉存在過。委內瑞拉當前的憲法來自軍事政變，而其針對的政府原本獲得大多數人民的支持，因此新憲法本來就不具備合法性。
《紐約時報》的建議是增加制裁力度，對反政府勢力給予支持，這顯然是個欠考慮的方案。馬杜羅威脅那些不投票給他的人要撤銷他們的糧票，而且經濟制裁造成的傷害往往落到最窮的人頭上，所以西方如果採取這樣的措施，反而會讓委內瑞拉總統把自己的問題歸咎於美國，拉美政治家很擅長借題發揮抨擊美國。此外，如果西方支持委內瑞拉反政府勢力，那麼選舉更談不上自由公平了——天天炒作「通俄門」的《紐約時報》應該最了解這一點。
西方的侵犯將被視為新自由主義在委內瑞拉復闢的嘗試，馬杜羅的核心投票者對此堅決反對。在實行新自由主義政策的20年裡，委內瑞拉貧困人口增加了45％。查維茲之所以廣受擁戴，正是因為他成功將貧困率從50％降低到25％，極端貧困人口減少了三分之二。儘管我不認為反對派領導人應該被關押入獄，但西方精英必須明白，委內瑞拉人很難相信一個受美國支持的政權不會實行高壓政策。把個別阻礙委內瑞拉民眾人生機遇和自豪感的人物投入大牢，並不會讓委內瑞拉人沮喪退縮。
29年前的加拉加斯大騷亂的起因，是佩雷斯總統按國際貨幣基金組織——他此前曾稱該組織為「殺人的中子彈」——的建議實行了新自由主義改革。這場騷亂造成的死亡人數可能高達2000，它還廢止了原來憲法中大部分保證個人自由的條款。
馬杜羅的支持來自對新自由主義失望的選民
委內瑞拉上一次新自由主義實驗導致的社會動蕩可能比今天更加嚴重。政權更迭的威脅陰雲籠罩——但那毫無疑問是西方預期的結果。在西方人看來，社會主義是西方的發明（就在大英圖書館裡），並且西方已經意識到它行不通，世界其他地區也終將慢慢意識到這一點。
西方認為在富有馬克思主義意味的「發展階段論」中，西方領先於世界許多步——而其他國家很快就會發現他們的道路是錯誤的。因此，在自由主義者眼中社會主義的失敗成了一種自我實現式的預言，使他們無法察覺特殊環境因素的作用。然而，西方必須審視他們的堅定信仰，即全球中低收入國家正在朝著時尚的自由主義模式「發展」。因為現實證明，中俄等發展中國家並沒有朝著「自由主義」發展。
這便是今天的白人至上主義。西方以一種墮落的方式回應委內瑞拉危機，展現出西方當代思想甚至還不如帝國主義時代的思想——儘管那已經是種族主義的代名詞。按照自由主義的邏輯，侵略或帝國主義等幹涉手段，能夠加速西方政治體製作為一種普世性目標的到來，因而有助於減輕被幹涉國民眾的痛苦。
在目睹了伊拉克的遭遇後，西方變得前所未見的「仁慈」起來，允許發展中國家按照各自的步伐朝國際自由主義堅定不移地「發展」，西方在不把自身信條強加於其他國家的同時，也沒有像大英帝國那樣對殖民地內部投資，甚至沒有像美國佔領伊拉克那樣提供安全保障，就連今天最糟糕的做法，也不過是實行嚴酷的制裁，偶爾轟炸一下這些非西方國家——而這兩種做法傷害最深的，便是已經生活在水深火熱中的窮人。
施加國際援助的條件應該是政府廉潔程度，而不應該與具體的政治經濟條件和政策掛鈎。要改變政治和經濟狀況，休克療法絕對行不通，必須在國家政府主導下，以靈活變通的方式逐步實現。只有這樣，主權國家才能夠鋪設自己的發展道路。
如今的西方已經不再為發展中國家製造恐慌，不再痴迷於建構使當地安全得不到保障、使財富聚集於部分人手中的政治制度，而能做到嚴於自律，不再唾罵那些對國家財政政策沒有責任的普通男女——這樣的西方可真是自由的典範啊！
（觀察者網何懿潔譯，楊晗軼校，翻頁閱讀英文原文）
My favourite sketch in the surrealist comedy series Monty Python’s Flying Circus is the one where working-class Venezuelans take to the streets, demanding neoliberal economic reforms. Okay, I made that one up myself. But it speaks to the absurdity of the idea that we can only imagine it in Python. This did not stop The Telegraph from making such an assertion. As their editorial explained, 『today, nationalisation is a dirty word in Venezuela, and people are clamouring for their industries to be privatised again』. This is seen as common sense, so no evidence needs to be given - not even a fake quotation from a fictional farmer named Fernando.
Their conclusion - that, because it didn’t work in Venezuela, 『the discredited ideology of socialism must be consigned to the dustbin of history』 - is just another example of their conjuring editorial positions out of reckless self-interest and blithe ignorance. It’s not so much a coherent sentence as the sound of teeth chattering at the prospect of Comrade Corbyn’s Palace Coup - they admit so much in the headline. Not even well-meaning, The Telegraph has been, consistently, spectacularly, the densest of all Western broadsheets. (Like being the gayest of The Village People, this is no mean feat.) Fired by the zeal of International Liberalism and an ignorance of local social, historical, and political circumstances, The Telegraph is representative of an ideology in which everyone wants to be them.
To claim that Venezuela’s failure means that socialism can and will never work is no different from using an unplugged dishwasher as evidence of the universal, inevitable failure of such appliances. All the conditions needed for socialism, or any political philosophy, to function, are absent: this is the Venezuelan Problem. President Maduro’s senseless economic policies are itself just a symptom of endemic problems with governance in the state. Indeed, Western analysis of the tragedy has repeatedly made a distinction between the poor policymaking of the regime and the corrupt government - in other words, policies were seen as being destructive even in a non-corrupt political environment. An understanding of Venezuelan history teaches us that the two are indistinct. The West is wilfully ignorant because it has already decided on the conclusion to which its analysis will come. However, a glance at the findings made by the father of Venezuela’s independence movement, Simon Bolivar, can show us the deep historical problems which the country is yet to overcome - of which today’s socialism is merely a symptom.
It is modern Venezuela’s Bacchanal tragedy that its enormous natural wealth should be the reason for its underdevelopment and persistently revolutionary population. 500 years ago, when the Conquistadors landed, the country was already rich, so there was no need to build structures that could create and spread wealth, as was the case in North America. Since the indigenous population was not wiped out, the colonialists remained a minority - a Creole elite, which upon independence in 1811, owned nearly all the land despite consisting of only 1% of the people. Following subsequent coups by this group, political Marxism became a far more compelling ideology. Compare the supple British constitution, resistant of revolution but encouraging of reform, with Venezuela’s. It has had 26 of them - last time I checked.
Deep in despondency, and far away in exile, Simon Bolivar understood contemporary Venezuela more than anyone in the Western world today - and he's been dead for 200 years. Because 『we were neither magistrates, nor financiers, and seldom merchants』, he claimed that representative institutions were unsuitable for Venezuela. His conclusion is even more difficult for modern liberals to accept. He asked, 『with such a racial mixture, and such a moral record, can we afford to place laws above leaders and principles above man?』. In 1828, Bolivar enshrined a constitution where neither property nor law existed, but only the man - he, as dictator for life, with the freedom to choose his successor. This was a privilege Chavez would later enjoy.
We can now put modern Venezuelan policymaking into perspective. Western media outlets have reported the price controls and market distortions - undoubtedly clumsy and ill-conceived - as economic Marxism in action. But the economic rationalisation is just a smokescreen for that intractable affliction Bolivar simultaneously celebrated and decried: the man above the law. Based on the perplexing monetary arrangement in which Venezuela trades on three different currency exchanges, President Maduro and his cronies are able to sell dollars at 50,000 times the rate at which they buy them. Is this socialism, or the post-modern iteration of Bolivar’s unaccountable despotism?
However, there is hope: evidence that the Venezuelan Problem can be answered. It also shows that the poor policymaking of the regime and corruption are indistinct. Working in similar conditions, Bolivia has made similar policy goals successful. Its socialists have succeeded in maintaining strong growth and significantly reducing poverty in what are, arguably, more difficult circumstances. Bolivia has a greater history of fiscal mismanagement. Over the past 50 years, their inflation rate has averaged at 281%. It is currently at 3.01%. Over a similar period, Venezuela’s has averaged at 94% - by all means princely, but small by comparison. It is now at 13,000%. Bolivia has also experienced less of a commodities boom. When the socialist president, Evo Morales, came to power in 2004, the export revenue was $2.2 billion. By 2014, it had grown to $16.85 billion. On the other hand, Venezuela’s grew from $23 billion to $153 billion.
Bolivia doesn’t find itself sliding into Venezuela’s situation because during its economic boom, Morales』 administration saved, running budget surpluses rather than deficits. Since Bolivia’s experience of a similar socio-economic breakdown in 1982 (when inflation hit 24,000%), political pragmatism and successful reforms have been possible thanks to a strong plurinational settlement. Cultural sensitivity, the removal of the military from politics, and the encouragement of foreign investment (tempering ideological Marxism) were central to this. This good government was a resolution of the Conquistadors』 legacy. This - particularly the depoliticisation of the military - is not addressed in the answers to the Venezuelan Problem provided by the Western media, which ignore local circumstances.
The Financial Times has written that 『the aim is not regime change per se,』 before offering a vision of just that - 『rather an administration that abides by the constitution, stabilises the economy, allows for elections, and liberates political prisoners』. Colombia’s president has similarly suggested a 『rise of factors inside power that enjoy military support, restore democracy and the legitimacy of the constitution, and hold elections quickly』. The New York Times has stated that 『the question is how to get rid of Mr Maduro before he completes the destruction of his country』. This assertion is quickly - and coincidentally, I am sure - followed by a reminder that Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves, before continuing 『but that emphatically does not mean American military action, as hinted by President Trump… It’s hard to see how regime change led by the Trump administration would improve Venezuela’s lot』. The insinuation seems to be that regime change would be fine under the former tree-hugging, drone-driving fist-bumper-in-chief.
This time, with their policy of regime change but not regime change, it is the liberals engaged in the supposedly Marxist innovation of double-think. Three facts are essential: the political prisoners are mainly those who led the 2002 military coup; the director of Latin America for the liberal Eurasia group said before the recent election that Maduro would win even if it were free and fair; and the only constitution that has any credibility in Venezuela is the unwritten one that says constitutions have no credibility. Therefore, the FT and Colombia have called for the restoration of a liberal, democratic system which has never existed, and a constitution that has never had any legitimacy, by a military coup against a regime that has majority support. This resembles the 60s not only in its affection for military dictatorships, but warped sense of reality.
The New York Times』 solution of increased sanctions and support for the opposition is perhaps more thoughtless. Since Maduro apparently threatened to revoke food rations from those who did not vote for him, and sanctions tend to inflict most damage on the poorest, such Western moves will only allow the president to blame America for problems that are his own making. Latin American politicians are well-practised in this. Additionally, elections are neither free nor fair if the opposition is being backed by foreign powers - the Times ought to understand this better than most, given their paranoia over Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election.
Western aggression would be seen as an attempt to restore neoliberalism in Venezuela, of which there is genuine resentment amongst Maduro’s core vote. The 20 years of such policy saw poverty rise by 45%. Chavez’s popularity drew from his success in rolling much of this back, halving poverty from 50% to 25%, and extreme poverty by two-thirds. Although I don’t believe opposition leaders should be thrown in jail, Western elites must understand how difficult it is for Venezuelans to believe there would be any less political repression under a US-endorsed regime. The imprisonment of a few isolated figures hostile to their life-chances and sense of pride is unlikely to faze them. The Caracazo riots, in response to the reforms of a president who called the neoliberal IMF 『a neutron bomb that kills people』 before implementing the neoliberal reforms of the said organisation, saw up to 2,000 deaths and the suspension of most of the articles in the constitution guaranteeing personal liberty.
The last experiment in Venezuelan neoliberalism led to levels of social unrest arguably worse than that seen today. Its shadow looms large over the threats of regime change - yet it is undoubtedly the end the West has in sight. In Western minds, socialism is our invention (founded in the British Library), and one that we have realised doesn’t work - a finding that the rest of the world will slowly, but surely come to also. In the quietly bigoted idea of 『developmental stages』 (which has more than a hint of Marx to it), we are steps ahead of the world - by hook or by crook, they will soon see the errors of their ways. Thus the failure of socialism becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, blinding liberals from any examination of unique circumstances at play. However, the West’s conviction that the low and middle income countries of the world are 『developing』 (a term not used accidentally), and doing so towards the model of the en vogue liberalism of the time, is coming under greater scrutiny. It simply doesn’t bear out in the facts - nobody would describe China or Russia as becoming more 『liberal』.
This is today’s form of white supremacy. In a depraved kind of way, the Western response to the Venezuelan crisis shows how contemporary thinking is almost worse in this regard than during the age of empire - a time which has become synonymous with racism. In the logic of liberalism, it follows that intervention - by invasion or imperialism - expedites the coming of a Western political system (the universal end), and therefore alleviates suffering.
But in this post-Iraq world, we are at our most benevolent when we let 『developing』 countries get on with the inexorable march of International Liberalism alone - with less inward investment than that offered by the British Empire, and less security than that found in Occupied Iraq - rather than forcing our creed upon them. At worst, we inflict crippling sanctions, or less tactfully, bomb them - both of which hurt the already-suffering poorest most.
Certain political and economic conditions and policies should not be demanded in exchange for aid - only an insistence upon non-corrupt government. This mustn’t be done through shock therapy, but gradually. It should be state-led, but not dogmatic. If this is followed, sovereign states will be able to forge their own paths.
Nowadays, rather than inflicting the terror of creating political institutions which give the vulnerable security and create some wealth, we have the self-control to restrain ourselves to spitting in the faces of the normal men and women who have no responsibility over the fiscal policies of their state - how very liberal of us!