Missionary Capitalist: Nelson Rockefeller in Venezuela

Rivas, Darlene. Missionary Capitalist: Nelson Rockefeller in Venezuela. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. 290 pp.

Nelson Rockefeller, Standard oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller's grandson, not only carried the family name but added his own unique perspective to capitalism. In Missionary Capitalist, Darlene Rivas, an associate professor of history at Pepperdine University, analyzes Nelson Rockefeller's relationship with Venezuela from 1939-1953 and his attempt to add a social component to the activities of multi-national corporations in Venezuela. On a broader level she goes on to show "U.S.-Latin American relations through the lens of an individual's experiences"(p. 8). At the same time, however, Rivas points out that the Venezuelans also had a voice of their own during Rockefeller's attempt to implement social programs along with capitalistic investments.

Rockefeller, bom into wealth and power as the second son of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Rockefeller, had a strong desire to make a place for himself within his family. He adopted his father's view of internationalism and held that the developing world was important to the international economy. At the same time, his mother, Abby Aldrich Rockefeller, instilled ideals of religion, equality, and that there was a universal brotherhood of man in the world. Rockefeller initially became interested in global affairs on his honeymoon with his wife. While abroad, he observed three types of Americans living outside the United States-businessmen, diplomats, and missionaries. He saw the missionaries as the only Americans in touch with the local people. As such, they were the only people who did not further the world view of the "ugly" American.

Athough Rivas points out that the Venezuelans had their own agenda, her discussion of Venezuelan motives is sketchy. Clearly, Latin Americans have consistently lured U.S. capital investment into Latin America to further their own agendas. The Latin American elites welcomed foreign-funded social welfare projects in Latin America as a means to maintain their own power. If Rockefeller could finance these programs it would greatly benefit the local Venezuelan oligarchy. Rockefeller understood these local political forces, but to what extent is not revealed in this study. Rivas makes it clear that he was imbued with the idealistic notion of the American dream. She states: "Rockefeller sought to sell the American dream, to convince the world that the dream was achievable"(p. 224). Unfortunately, Rockefeller missed the fact that the elites only wished to maintain their own status. Even progressive elites, such as Romulo Betancourt, merely desired to suppress the masses and implement a thin veneer of reform.

The relationship between Rockefeller and Betancourt is a classic example of how Latin American elites wished to maintain status quo. Betancourt, portraying himself as an anti-imperialist, initially opposed Rockefeller and referred to him as "Johnny 10 cents, a hypocrite pretending at playing a humanitarian role while oblivious to the real needs of the Venezuelan people"(p. 69). But once Betancourt came to power in a 1945 coup, Betancourt and Rockefeller came to be close friends. Betancourt and his political party, Accion Democratica, needed Rockefeller's capital. Rivas states that Betancourt "sought private foreign capital to assist in the development of other aspects of Venezuela's economy, from steel to grain elevators"(p. 70). Rockefeller, already well established in Venezuela, from such projects as the Avila hotel, was a willing participant to help the government's social programs.

Rockefeller's ethnocentrism was a primary factor in the failure of many of his endeavors in Venezuela. He developed two principal agencies in Venezuela: the International Basic Economy Corporation, a for-profit corporation, and the American International Association, a non-profit entity to promote socially responsible capitalism. Through these two agencies and their subsidiaries Rockefeller sought to increase food production while simultaneously lowering prices. In the end, his primary contribution was not his original goals, but rather the improved production and marketing of milk and food items through his supermarkets. He admitted they relied too heavily on U.S. type methods, which were not applicable in Venezuela. Rivas states: "Despite his admission that U.S. methods were not always appropriate, Rockefeller remained convinced that the early projects were poorly conceived'^. 136). Rockefeller, by ignoring local custom, could not achieve his original goals.

The concept of viewing Latin American relations with the United States through one individual seems limited and provides a somewhat narrow focus. For example, historians have generally viewed Marcos Ferez Jimenez's dictatorship as friendly towards foreign investment. Rivas, however, claims that Rockefeller's distant relationship with the regime "provides new insight" into understanding the dynamics of U.S.-Venezuelan relations during the 1950s (p. 106). She concludes that "no one got very close to Ferez Jimenez and many, perhaps most foreign investors, looking to the future, tread cautiously with the repressive regime" (p. 106). Unfortunately, by basing her assumptions on the lone relationship (or lack thereof) between Rockefeller and Ferez Jimenez, she concludes that Rockefeller's relationship was typical of other foreign businessmen in Venezuela. Although this may or may not be true, the reader is not presented with sufficient evidence to justify the author's assertion.