One place, Two faces of Vending

Venezuela has caught the attention of the US popular press, which sees that country as the front line in the war between capitalism and socialism. One battlefield is the sidewalk in Caracas, where thousands of vendors ply their trade. Two recent articles illustrate very different perspectives on vending. One wonders if they are reporting on the same phenomenon.

The first is a May 11 article from the New York Times. How that piece views vending is betrayed by the headline, "Vendors' Removal Brings a Venezuelan Gem Back to Life." The article reports how Caracas local government officials aligned with Venezuela's Socialist President Hugo Chavez removed vendors from Sabana Grande, a boulevard in Caracas. The article explains that the street vendors were "associated with black-market sales and crime." What kinds of crime? The Times piece explains that the city suffers from violent crime. With a population of 4 million, Caracas tallied more than 169 killings the month before. The paper does not directly accuse the vendors of murder. But the practice of vending is smeared just the same. The Times piece contends that vending signifies disorder, and that disorder leads to violence.

Reporting from the other side of the battlefield is a May 17 piece from the Associated Press, "Vendors Show Woes of Chavez Revolution." This article reports that President Chavez has failed to deliver on promises to improve the lives of street vendors. Vendors are portrayed as self-reliant survivors, if not capitalist heroes, in an economy mismanaged by the government. While "Chavez's increasingly heavy hand on the economy has frustrated formal businesses with restrictions such a price and currency controls, the street level economy is ruled by supply and demand." Street vendors are "toiling" and "grinding out a living." They practice capitalism "in its most savage form."

One war. Two sides. Every struggle needs a symbol. But what happens when opposing combatants
pick the same one?