Reversing the Feminization of Poverty: Women Fostering Socialism in Venezuela

The Oxford Dictionary defines poverty as “the state of being extremely poor.” This definition is far from addressing the mixture of components that characterize poverty. A more comprehensive description is one provided by The United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (UNECLAC or ECLAC). Their research has “linked poverty with the following: insufficient resources, lack of skills or assets, insufficient participation in society, powerlessness, restricted access to social and symbolic capital among other social and political problems (Social Programmes 140.)” The ECLAC also argues, “Poverty prevents people from fully sharing the benefits of development. . . . In this sense, it entails diminished citizenship.”

Some economist, sociologist, and politicians believe it is the responsibility of governments to relieve both causes and effects of poverty. If the goal of a government were exactly this, it would prove beneficial to consider the later description of poverty and proceed to inquire about what factors contribute to these situations. Only then may the governing body or social organization step forward to reverse poverty.

Persons or groups that believe that governments are not responsible for alleviating poverty often adhere to the "neo-liberalist" philosophy of self-sufficiency and independence. An example of neo-liberalist thought would be the minimal social programs in the United States compared to other western countries, or the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the lack of support for building social capital. Several Latin American countries have accepted loans from the IMF thus have experienced the affects of neo-liberalism. Economist and ex-Chief Economics advisor for the IMF, Joseph Stiglitz, contests that such loans come at a great expense to the developing world and their citizens. Governments are required to open markets to the global economy thus losing jobs and increasing poverty rates. The demands on governments to halt social welfare spending only compound the situation. The region as a whole has experienced suffering, exploitation, industrial development, and increased poverty rates. (Stiglitz 23)

Venezuela is one country that has dealt extensively with the IMF and the realities of poverty. In the last ten years, they have become familiar with how to reverse and alleviate poverty. Women have remained central to the governments anti neo-liberalist policies given that women represent seventy percent of those living in poverty. This "Feminization of Poverty," is a consequence of several factors not limited to the following: competitive global markets, unequal pay for women verses men, and the notion that household work does not hold economic value. Minimal welfare assistance only exasperates the situation (Kottak 333-335, Beechey 7, 41). In 1995, women represented seventy percent of the eighty percent of Venezuelans that lived in poverty. In 1998, this social phenomenon became the concern of newly elected president Hugo Chavez. While poverty rates have fluctuated since 1995, they have progressively reduced from 80% in 1995 to 42% in 2005 (CEPR).

These statistics while debated among American organizations and International organizations such as the United Nations nevertheless illustrate significant changes and deserve further inspection. If Venezuelan's socialist reforms prove to withstand time and the negative affects of the global economy, developing counties could likely benefit from the experiment. Having said this, I wish to explore how the Bolivarian Revolution (Hugo Chavez’s socialist revolution against poverty and the negative effects of globalization) has influenced women emerging from poverty (as the ECLAC has defined it) and how these women integrate into, communal, political, and economic society. By incorporating women into the workforce with equal pay (cooperatives and article 88 of the 1999 Constitution), educating society (Missions) and by fostering participatory democracy have and will women and men will be more likely than those living in western societies to live a healthy life outside of poverty?

Capitalist Exploitation?

Veronica Beechey, Senior Women's Studies Lecturer at Open University addresses both global markets and household labor in her book, "Unequal Work." A simplified outline of Karl Marx's perception of Capitalisms, describes why the exploitation of women in capitalist society is so wide spread. For one, the industrial boom created the opportunity to employee unskilled and smaller build people (women and children). According to Beechey neo-liberalist models "generally assume that males are responsible for the household expenditures and not women," female labor holds less value than masculine labor (42-45). Certain industries thrive on this cheap female labor.

The global textile industry is one such enterprise. Employing thousands of women, paying less than substantial wages (many third world countries do not even have minimum wages) and in extreme cases even keeping them permanently on campus. This allows for longer working hours, and thus more production for global markets. In the past, such markets as clothing and farmed goods were domestic products, produced and sold locally thus maintaining a local economy (45).
Venezuelans are moving again towards this substantiation by fostering growth of cooperatives. A meager 762 cooperatives existed in 1998, the year Chavez came into office. This number exploded, and by mid 2006, 83,769 cooperatives were registered with the National Superintendence of Cooperatives (SUNACOOP). The ratification of Venezuela’s 1999 Constitution is accountable for the expanding cooperative networks. The “2001 Law of Cooperatives” declares that “social responsibility and commitment to the community are the chief interest of cooperatives, and there the government will continue to provide economic and building support” (Harnecker 9). Supporting citizen’s rights of ownership and cooperative action, Article 88 of the constitution provides rights for both Men and women to work. It is this awareness that has not only created a place for women to work but encourages them to participate in all aspects of society.

One such woman shared her victories with Betsy Bowman and Bob Stone. Zaida Rosa is one of 209 female workers who cooperatively own a textile cooperative in Caracas. She works only seven hours a day. Even though her income amounts to less than minimum wage (on the account that herself along with the other owners are paying off their start-up loans) Zaida is hopeful that with time profits will allow for pay to increase. In addition to equal pay and a stable job, Zaida declares, “My family is a lot happier – I’ve learned to write and have my third grade certificate” (1).

The education Zaida acquired transpired from large cooperatives as an additional part of the Bolivarian Revolution. These larger cooperatives (with excess of a thousand workers) contribute to a variety of social welfare programs. “Social Production Enterprises [as they are referred to by Venezuelan Law:] are required to set aside a portion of profits to fund health, education, and housing for the local population” (Bowman.) These programs invest in social capital: investment in people, linking networks together to benefit an organization or in the case of Venezuela, to strengthen society.

This small peek into the life of Zaida, a previously unemployed, Venezuelan woman in her fifties, has allowed for some assessment of the revolutions mission to build social capital. While the poverty rate in Venezuela is still startling, the decline is just as shocking. After exploring just a few direct effects of cooperatism, one could assume the relationship with the lowing poverty rates. However, the possible benefits of cooperatives do not stop at steady incomes and welfare programs. Citizens are participating in democracy. Some arguments exist regarding the true definition of democracy, what it looks like, how it functions, and some attempt to decipherer who benefits most from democratic organizations. To put these questions in perspective, let us explore the following two questions. How do cooperatives provide democracy and does this democracy affect poverty?

Exploring Democracy

Thomas Patterson; author of “The American Democracy,” describes structural challenges facing democracy that lacks full democratic participation; poverty. He references research stating, those who live in poverty are less likely to participate in democratic processes due to inability, lack of knowledge, and most significantly those living in poverty feel alienated: the feeling of personal powerlessness that includes the notion that government does not care about their opinions (199). We could then assume if women constitute seventy percent of those living in poverty that they also are the least represented in government and other democratized organizations. Such obstacles to wholesome democracy had many Marxist and feminist believing that democracy was in fact a tool or illusion of the bourgeoisie to create a new struggle or an illusion to hide the effects of capitalism. Democracy was seen a way to unite people in something that actually had little significance comparatively to the exploitation of natural and social resources (Escobar 41-43). The move for democratizing a growing neo-liberalist society translated into what the ECLAC and Patterson describe as lack of political access and representation.

These are the exact obstacles that Chavez has attempted to alleviate with something many are calling “Participatory Democracy.” Venezuela is part of the “Pink Tide” of Latin America. A trend that started in the mid-70’s when socialist thought seemed to mature from the regions experience with authoritarian regimes, the majority of which were supported if not facilitated by the United States government. The experiences rendered during this era pushed Marxist, socialist, and feminist alike to rethink their opinion of this idea. Democracy. Soon, structured socialist began promoting democracy as means to socialist goals such as labor rights, social welfare and locally centered economy. The rise of democratically elected leftist, sometimes socialist governments in Latin America is the “Pink Tide.” Not quite the red scare, not quite liberalisms, rather a mix of welfare state, local economic stimulation verse global and participatory democracy.

More radical than most of the Pink countries in the region, is Venezuela. Hugo Chavez has attempted to embrace the true definition of democracy, “Rule by the governed” is Chavez’s motto. When considering Patterson’s correlation between poverty and democratic participation, it is easy to understand why this new “participatory democracy” seems to have resonated with the eighty percent of the population that once lived in poverty (Harnecker 2). You might wonder how participatory democracy is any different from what we have here in the United States. Unfortunately, in the United States democracy is understood more as the right to vote and not necessarily the act of voting. According to the ECLAC, poverty is lack of resources that allow an individual such as Zaida to participate in making choices for herself. Now, reflect back to the Social Production Enterprises. By helping the government fund health, education, housing and offering stability to thousands of Venezuelan cooperative owners, Chavez has stimulated local and regional democracy.
How do these cooperatives provide democracy?

For example, prior to Zaida’s experience with the textile cooperative where and how did she participate in democracy processes? Though not stated by Zaida given her demographics and the overwhelming fact that unemployed citizens rarely have the opportunity to vote in local and national elections, her experience were presumably limited. Given her new circumstances, she now participates in the cooperative general assembly as well as the local assembly that decides how to spend revenue. Possibly more significant, is the community assembly. Amazingly, Chavez’s locally focused experiment has created new communities of cooperatives. Networks of cooperatives rely on each other for business and support; These “Nucleus of endogenous development” achieve three things. First, they funnel funds back into the community and into social welfare programs that are funded a few of the cooperatives, second by relying each other instead of appealing to the most cost efficient international company they support and stabilize local cooperatives and lastly the networks depend on participation; democratic processes to move forward, build schools and infrastructure.

While democracy in countries such as the United States also have local city communities; the actors often have to be voted in and as explored previously, the average citizen still feels alienation and thus sees no direct correlation between their participation and their situation. This is not the case in Venezuela. Since people are directly funding the development and actively making choices with almost immediate repercussions, it seems their participation is almost mandatory.

Since, 1998 women in Venezuela have embarked on new experiences. Have these experiences altered their experiences significantly? With the poverty rates dropping, it is easy arrive at a positive conclusion. Going by the guidelines from the ECLAC, women are in fact living less in poverty than in the seventies and eighties. Nevertheless, the chronological period we have explored is small and possibly insignificant. Moving forward, begs the question; will the infrastructure with stand a change in office, or changes in oil prices; the second flow of income fueling the welfare system? Furthermore, the volume of cooperatives has not proved stable in the global economy. When faced with Neo-liberalism and globalization can Venezuela continue to sustain with out “selling out” or have they already by using oil revenues to fund the socialist revolution? While these questions are relevant economist, sociologist, and historians have already asked them.

What is most significant is not the “Bolivarian Revolution” or the Neo-liberalist structures. Factors that Marxist, feminist, and capitalist shed the least light might be the substantial factor to growth. People; women, more specifically. We have constantly been a side factor to markets, education, and healthcare except in local areas that depend on families for support. This is structure is being revisited in Venezuela, except today (verse pre-industrialization) women are supported with expanding education, participatory democracy and educated doctors and nurses. A Marxist once explained to me the theory that while capitalism was not the goal, rather a means to socialism. Tested machinery, management training, educational materials, and expanding infrastructure that alleviates characteristics of poverty all paved the way for socialism to strive. This socialist experiment is not complete, until proven, Zaida and her cooperative community are just lab rats.

SOURCES TO FOLLOW