BTW, the chart came from this site:
http://www.globalissues.org/Geop...de/
Spending.asp
which also contains lots of other very, very interesting data and information. Check it out.
Amazing. Truly amazing. Russia is not even in the top 5 any more. And the US' #1 enemy--Iran--doesn't show up either.
Without a real enemy, it's clear Washington had to invent one--islamo-fascism--to keep its top industry ("defense") happily pigging out at the trough.
I notice in another chart from that site, the 2008 US-vs-world spending chart which is broken down differently, that spending for all of Latin America is listed as $39 billion.
That's right--all of Latin America, which would presumably be roughly all of South America, all of central America, plus Mexico, plus a few islands presumably including Cuba, spends just $7 billion more than that little black budget (is admitted to be).
My advice to the U.S. rulers is to look for a truly permanent justification for enormous military spending. "Communism" is somewhat out of fashion these days and doesn't suffice. One may expect that "islamofascism" or "terrorism" also will wear out as pretexts. So, isn't there some potential ominous threat that will always be there?
What about the threat of an alien invasion from outer space? There are probably millions of advanced civilizations out there, and some of them are surely against "freedom" and "our democratic values"?
I offer this initial advice to the Pentagon for free, but am willing to come and present my in-depth "Strategic Galactic Defense Initiative" for a suitable consultancy fee. 
Hey, boneheads. We have a world to defend. Dangerous rogue states like China, North Korea, Russia, Serbia, Cuba, Syria, Iran, the FARC are all kept in check by American power. We keep commerce flowing freely on the high sea and terrorism under control. Protected by our shield, the world continues to prosper. Hell, we should start charging protection fees but we do it for free because it is the right thing to do. The world needs American power and you all know it.
Sorry, off topic:
http://
desarrollosostenibleparav...iminalidad.html
I made the graph. I did not have all the months for before 2005, so I started it from Dec 2004. I remember I wrote several times at the end of 2004 to Notitarde telling them it should be informative if they had for every month a count of the murders for the previous month and better, references to the year, to the development in other countries around and graphs. Until then they were mostly reporting week by week, in a very Venezuelan manner.
They should do what I did with the graph.
They also had the numbers for before 2005, but all spread in articles, without summing it up.
I hoped I could be wrong with this one, but no, I am not: the government does not care a fig.
I think the expenditures are necessary to continue Venezuela's war on drugs (see recent headlines) and to defend against violations of its sovereignty by FARC border crossings. It's clear that FARC is determined to continue to violate the sovereignty of Ecuador and Venezuela and it's good to see the Venezuelan military stepping up to the tasks needed, including taking out their drug-running counterparts, so Colombia won't have to act. Good soldiering, I say.
AMERICA!! FUCK YEAH!!
http://www.teamamerica.com/
Come on guys! An Empire needs to arm itself and excert brute military force the way empires have always done throughout history. That is a simple truism. Nonetheless, I want to point out that several more enduring and powerful empires than the US have in the past already been sent to the dustbin of history, DESPITE their overwhelming military superiority: Spain in the eighteenth century comes to mind, when it was smoothly superseded as global hegemon by the dutch. What is interesting though in the present juncture, is that the US empire will go down the toilet not despite its huge military spending, but precisely BECAUSE of it.
Well, Moyhabin certainly has a point. US military expenditure has been putting pressure on the US economy for some time, and I notice that of late years the buildup has been growing rather faster than the economy has grown. Sooner or later if military spending keeps on taking up more of the GDP a breaking point must be reached. It's well worth reading the late Seymour Melman on the impact of the military economy on the broader economy.
And of course with the US economy being mismanaged in other areas as well, that breaking point seems to be coming like the oncoming train's light at the end of the tunnel.
We keep commerce flowing freely on the high sea and terrorism under control. Protected by our shield, the world continues to prosper.
Indeed. Look at Iraq prosper, and Afghanistan. The US has invaded Haiti countless times. And look at it prosper now! Or, take Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia. Constant bombing of those countries sure made them prosper!
Actually, studies show that "US power" has actually increased terrorism in recent years, and the number of terrorists attacks has increased sharply since the invasion of Iraq.
So, looking at the facts, the US is making terrorism worse, not better.
But, take a step back for a second and ask yourself what is the cause of "terrorism" in the first place?
Osama Bin Laden's number 1 issue is the presence of US military in the Middle East. Number 2 is US support for Israel's military occupation of Palestine.
So, it would appear that the very cause of terrorism itself is US military power in the world.
So, as morons like cazador would reason, we need US military power to fight terrorism, which is caused by US military power in the first place.
Circular reasoning?
Another country less where Hugo I the Rich can go once he is thrown out of power:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/afric...ica/
7326968.stm
Will Robertito come over to Venezuela while Hugo rules?
Will it be worth it, to buy a ticket from Africa to Venezuela for just a couple of years?
Hey, boneheads. We have a world to defend. Dangerous rogue states like China, North Korea, Russia, Serbia, Cuba, Syria, Iran, the FARC are all kept in check by American power.
China? Wait, when was the last time they attacked another country? Never?
Cuba? Oh yes, so horribly threatening. I don't know what we would do if the United States weren't protecting us from the ghastly power of the Cuban military! (they'll bomb us with sugar cane)
Serbia? Yes, what a monstrous powerhouse! Surely they would totally dominate all of Europe if the United States didn't keep them in check!!!
Iran? When was the last time they invaded another country? Never?
Russia? Their military spending didn't even make the chart.
North Korea? Oh god, they might invade California and dominate the world!!! Surely we need the largest military in the world to control this huge powerhouse! They have like 2 nuclear bombs. The US has thousands.
The FARC? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, a couple thousand guys in military fatigues in the jungle. They can't even topple the Colombian government. What a massive threat to the United States!
Ingrates!!!
Oh, by the way, Anonymous, in the first two months of 2008 alone the FARC suffered 247 killed, 226 captured and 360 desertions (the smart ones). Won't be long and the "couple of thousand guys in fatigues" will be gone.
"US set to spend $50bn against HIV", BBC, today. Oh, how must suffer you ingrates!!!!
"Oh, by the way, Anonymous, in the first two months of 2008 alone the FARC suffered 247 killed, 226 captured and 360 desertions (the smart ones). Won't be long and the "couple of thousand guys in fatigues" will be gone."
Don't forget to subtract out innocents killed by the army and dressed up to look like guerillas. After that the number is what - maybe 20?
How does that compare to the amount of people who get killed in Carabobo, Venezuela?
"How does that compare to the amount of people who get killed in Carabobo, Venezuela?"
Kepler, how dare you mention killings in Carabobo. That is media terrorism!
OW,
The only innocent about to die is Ingrid Betancourt.
BTW, five more died FARC today. Like sands in an hourglass...
General Spear's question was why is Venezuela spending far beyond what the defense forces are. Where is the treat? Maybe it is Aruba?
As usual, all of you got off topic and did not discuss the issue of excessive Venezuela's military spending. Most of you were more interested in putting a black hat on the USA.
If I was a Venezuelan on the way to the store to buy food and drove by seeing a multi million dollar Russian jet parked at the airport I'd be mighty upset at the store when there was no rice, cooking oil or milk available.
Anon2, I think you are the one off topic or who didnt' understand the post:
why is it for an American general to comment upon Venezuelan military spending when he is a) not affected by it and b) belongs to an institution that spends far more.
Further, there is plenty of rice, cooking oil and milk available. Lets not wast time discussing old problems 
The title of your article was "Where's the Threat?"
As a common citizen I can ask the same question as the general.
I forgot the threat is the USA. I remember now Chavez on TV with Ted Koppel saying he had documents showing the invasion plans that the USA had for Venezuela. Koppel has never come back with a report that Chavez had provided the documents as promised. Another empty promise by Chavez! What's new??
As I recall he did, but the governments excuse was they were some war game excercise.
The U.S. clearly is a threat, in fact far and away the main military threat in the world. The Iraqis, Afghanis, Lebanese, Grenadans, Serbs, Sudanese can all attest to that.
Let other countries defend themselves if they need too ... give the US citizens their tax money back, I'm certain everyone could use it during the "non-official" recession.
An outrageously large military budget with an outrageous amount of wars is nothing less than a threat to the rest of the world ... why do you think all the countries (even Europe) are forming blocs?
I recall another Empire that liked to war all over the place having a military budget it could not keep up with in the end ... Roman.
People are losing their homes in the US while paying taxes to defend people who are given free housing and stipends in Israel ... stupid Americans.
Youre reaction to the nationalisation of the cement industry
Also youre reaction to the idea that the state may take over a supermarket chain as reported in el universal
Youre reaction to the state upping its stake in cantv to 90% and also to buy the rest of the 10%
Youre reaction to the windfall tax on oil profits
Answers please OW
OW, also we need your reaction to the NINE submarines Chavez is getting from Russia. With the subs, jets and rifles from Russia maybe Chavez ought to decree that Russian to be Venezuela's second language. I can see it now a Venezuelan trying to read a Russian manual and saying..it is Greek to me.
What on earth is Chavez going to do with nine submarines?
Frigging A right, ow!
The U.S. will be in a much better shape in all senses when it stops playing policeman of the world. Safer from foreign enemies too.
It is sad how seeing that the U.S., having just the right kind of Constitution and foundational principles (which forbade expressly an standing army and anything approaching National Security Agencies, or taking ANYTHING from citizens not directly related to a practical purpose), is becoming a victim of the power bestowed on it's government by it's own industrial and social success.
All that money should be in the hands of taxpayers, where it belongs.
Though I did not like the conclusions, of say "Sicko" of George Moore; having lived in a socialized medicine system that does not work (Italy) I can only say that I would rather that all that money (private or public) were spent on something useful for a change.
What on earth is Chavez going to do with nine submarines?
Counter-question: by what means does a certain hyperpower arrive at the coasts of countries "in need" of the hyperpower's brand of "freedom"? Have you heard of a device called an "aircraft carrier"?
Buying subs is therefore perfectly reasonable for Venezuela. But I think the following would have been a smarter way to bolster the country's defense:
.... the Russian-made Yakhonts missile. It flies at close to Mach 3 (three times the speed of sound), can hit a squirrel in the eye, and has a range of 185 miles. .....By their own admission the Russians developed the Yakhonts missile for export......
http://www.rense.com/general64/fore.htm
The USA maintains a naval presence in the Persian Gulf to keep the shipping lanes open so that ALL nations can receive oil. Question....if the US Navy wasn't there do you think Ahmadinejad might or might not close the Strait of Hormiz and maybe make oil go to $200??
Trond, you could build a lot of schools with the money spent on those submarines. The school where I studied as a child is a mess now, it is overcrowded. By the way, the area has one of the highest murder rates in Venezuela (which has a higher murder rate than civil-war Colombia)
Submarines won't deter the US. I think they are just for some guys to get commissions, the same as Saudi princes get commissions for their arm deals with the US.
How good is your nearest public library in Norway?
I wish we had a 1/100 of that for Venezuelan children. Buying toys for the military children won't help us.
I'm not a big fan of large scale military spending. But critiquing a given piece of military spending on the basis that it would do more good spent on something useful is largely pointless. Sure, it's true, but it's true of all military spending. It's a given.
So there are two possible stances. One, there shouldn't be a military at all. Or, two, military spending that serves real and serious defensive needs is OK. At which point one can argue over what constitutes a real defensive need, and what is the best way to deal with it.
So, Kepler, is your position that Venezuela should have no armed forces? Presumably not. So the kids argument is irrelevant. The real argument you present is
"Submarines won't deter the US."
(and implicitly aren't useful for anything else)
You may be right, but I'd want to see a more fleshed-out argument. One thing to keep in mind is that while it's absolutely plausible that the United States might invade Venezuela and that a naval component would be involved in such an invasion, it seems to me unlikely that they would use their whole military to do it. They've got a bunch of stuff tied up in the Persian Gulf and are likely to for the foreseeable future. Plus, they have a whole ton of resources devoted to all their hundreds of bases and "lilypads" around the globe. Plus, there are logistical issues in long distance force projection, which will get more difficult if the US base in Ecuador is shut down. So the question isn't "can Venezuela stop the United States Military". The question is "Can Venezuela stop the amount of force the US would be willing and able to redirect to an invasion of Venezuela?"
That's potentially a much more practical goal. For instance, even if one posits that the submarines in question would have serious trouble taking out an aircraft carrier, they could sure as hell nail a troop transport. And how many US politicians would be happy to support a military action that could see a thousand or more casualties before the troops hit the beach?
Submarines can also do patrol stuff and shit. Nonetheless, I do wonder if antiship missiles and torpedoes might be a better investment. If we're unlucky, maybe we'll get an evaluation of their effectiveness when the US bombs Iran.
I wonder slightly if the Venezuelan government has any of it's priorities right. Because they are NOT surely those of Venezuelan citizens.
We, the Venezuelans, are more concerned about criminality, homegrown and Colombian (in the border, in the form of illegal armed groups). We are more concerned about shortages.
It is tragic, as criminality alone kills many more Venezuelans than any hypothetical war. And who knows how many more are killed by malnutrition, or formerly eradicated illnesses making a comeback.
As for war, Chavez should do well by NOT provoking Colombia. NOT cutting trade with Colombia. NOT continuing to help the FARC.
Or insulting our neighbour latin-american countries and interamerican institutions.
Or passing so much hot air about the U.S.A, Spain, Mexico and Colombia.
He would do better keeping his nose OUT of the elections in latin american countries. Peru, Salvador, Mexico come to mind. He lost and the new presidents are not sympathetic to his crass attempts at intervention.
Most Venezuelans want peace, domestic and abroad; the latter through friendship with everyone in the Americas. That is the real security and real peace.
I mean, if Chavez does not get it, Venezuelans have got it, and will change presidents if he does not change. You know, for all the empty rethoric about governing until 2021, he is just a president. A totally interchangeable piece.
If he doggedly continues with his stupid failure of a "Revolution", he will be replaced by someone who cares about the well-being of Venezuelans instead. Our interests come first.
The hard leftists and their opium dreams have no place here. Govern the frigging country, we told him come 2 December 2007. Or else.
Just to address a few points:
I don't think anyone has to worry about Iran taking over foreign straits. Iran has never attacked another country. Last war it had was Iraq instigated with US backing ... chemical weapons and all. Heck Iran didn't fight in the Arab-Israeli war; Iranians aren't Arabs, they're Persians.
Only the US and Germany did such silliness and sometimes Britain.
I don't recall Vz attacking anyone except maybe the Spanish colonial military ... but then so was the all of Latin America and the rest of the world at the time.
Just about everyone was fighting from The Americas to Europe.
I think as long as Vz buys military weaponry with Vzn funds, no one should care but Venezuelans. As for Colombia, its too much to bother listening to a "welfare" country. No one cares to hear a bunch of shit talk from a welfare country.
The US General, well, what do you expect when the prevailing US Govt. thought is might makes right? Most of the citizens do not agree with their country's policies. When you think about it, the US military isn't that big, the very reason National Guard units are making up a large portion of the troops overseas. So, who on earth is the US spending all that taxpayer money on; certainly not on the citizens themselves?
Colombia, Israel, Pakistan, India, Egypt, Saudi Arabia?
Bosque, look at Iran's recent history. They took over the American Embassy in Nov. of 1979...which is US soil according to all international law... and kept hostage 52 people for 444 days.
The UN Security Council has imposed sanctions against Iran.
Ahmadinejad claimed the Holocaust never happened.
He wants to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.
His people captured the British sailors who were in international waters which caused a spike in oil prices.
He looks like a rogue leader to me. He is the type if you let him take an inch he will take a mile.
Talking about a threat.....go figure.
I stopped read borev...he can not write anything without using the F word. Just goes to show he has a limited vocabulary.
Come on Mr liberal ow youre reaction to the above points
Meanwhile,
Venezuela STEPS UP Efforts To Thwart Cocaine Traffic
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...8040602158.html
OT
La gestión del Presidente Chávez cuenta con un respaldo de 66,5% de los venezolanos, mientras que 57,2% considera que su propia situación personal ha mejorado durante los últimos 3 años, según los resultados obtenidos por la encuesta Barómetro de Gestión y Coyuntura Política, realizada por el Instituto Venezolano de Análisis de Datos (IVAD).
http://www.radiomundial.com.ve/y...oticia.php?
4685
I would say good numbers that few presidents can match.
Elliv, our dear Swedish number wizard. I still remember something about some numbers she came up with, something about 101.8% of coverage or the like.
The Instituto Venezolano de Análisis de Datos?
Oh, I see. Very impartial institute.
Elliv, have you ever been to Venezuela?
Oh, you did for a Social Forum thingie?
And what else? What did you know about Venezuela before?
You don't like the numbers Kepler, you seem irritated starting asking me personal questions? Yes it's a trustworthy institute.
Kepler, stay with Keller and those institutes that have kept you belive Chavez have been increasingly unpoplar since 1999. LOL.
Also youre reaction to the idea that the state may take over a supermarket chain as reported in el universal
Youre reaction to the state upping its stake in cantv to 90% and also to buy the rest of the 10%
Youre reaction to the windfall tax on oil profits
Answers please OW
Steve la fevre | 04.04.08 - 11:21 am | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
OW, where the fuck are my answers???!!! Do you agree with expropriations??? Come on answer, or are you too scared to go on record to show your true colours???
NEVER MIND THE JOKES STEVE LA FEVRE THIS IS SERIOUS WHERE IS MR OW!!!!!!!HA HA AHA
Elliv, is it too intimate to ask you about how you know Venezuela? Oh, my! Are you blushing? I take 20 meters back. Don't be hopeful. I ask that because it seems a wee bit silly from you to be claiming things when you have not several ways of getting first-hand information, just your sites. I have relatives and friends in Venezuela and they have mostly an average income. None has as much money as any of the Socialist ministers or even second helpers to them, a lot are actually very poor, some are middle class.
Kepler, respect that people have different views and stop harass anyone that don't agree with your fanatic anti-CHavez stance. Thanks.
Are you the one who called me asshole because I highlighted the numbers you were using at that time just literally did not add up?
I wish the co-owner (together with his family) of La Chavera , La Malaguena and Los Cocos, among other haciendas, would respect the Venezuelan people. Instead, he claims all his opponents are scum, that he will only give power to another "revolutionary" (whatever that means for him).
I respect other people. I am for a system where there is pluralism, where there is not one unique system, where conservatives, liberals, socialists and anyone else can have access to power and each one can check what the others are doing.
Do you?
Well, Kepler, if we're going to argue about who's got a right to comment, I'd say that I'd rather hear the comments of someone who has not been to Venezuela but actually thinks about it, than the comments of someone who lives in Venezuela but is scum.
You fit in the latter category. So fuck off. Respect other people my ass. You spend most of your time in ad hominems because you know damned well your actual arguments suck rocks. Well, sauce for the goose, shithead.
Steve - Chavez should confiscate not expropiate the cement industry. These transnationals have sucked enough money out of Venezuela. Enough is enough.
He should also nationalize the Spanish banks here.
Windfall profits should also be taxed to the hilt - it's our oil, not theirs. If they don't like it then leave as Exxon and Conoco did.
"I am for a system where there is pluralism, where there is not one unique system, where conservatives, liberals, socialists and anyone else can have access to power and each one can check what the others are doing." - Kepler
This is precisely how Venezuela is, Kepler. More democracy is very difficult to achieve.
Well, Canadian dollar boy, you showed your style.
As for the submarines: the US won't invade Venezuela and if it did, submarines won't do anything to them.
Instead the subs are just an excuse for enriching some people (the same people who have the huge haciendas in Barinas and the ones who talk about socialist revolution while wearing the finest Italian clothes in a third world country). You can go to your favorite Starbuck in Canada and while drinking a latte talk about how you intend to change the world and pretening to be a future Che Guevara.
Venezuela is a poor country, not like Canada. Instead of spending millions in submarines, Chavez should start thinking to do something about improving the education, the health services and so on. People like you just talk and talk and talk but you are completely incapable of producing real alternatives. You just talk about how bad Bush et alia are, but you produce no concrete plan for anything.
You don't decide who has the right to comment.
I find it a pity people like you can pretend to be commies while profiting from such a capitalist system as Canada.
Instead, you should be in Venezuela, in a slum, knowing what it is to be afraid of getting murdered every day;
OT
"I wonder if the deans and other faculty at Wesleyan University are aware of what patently false and dishonest drivel their collegue, Dr. Rodriguez, publishes?"
Do you still agree with this after reading the rebuttal?
Kepler, you worthless scum, quit impersonating me and stick to the facts. You seem to have a problem with it. ow, your silence is deafening!!!
The original topic of OW's article was.."Where's the threat?" He goes on to say it is the USA.
I would say a better choice is North Korea.
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/1670
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/
Am...n_holocaust.htm
http://members.aol.com/bblum6/ec...um6/
ecuador.htm
How could the current distribution of property and wealth have emerged from any sort of democratic process? bblum
Do we need more than this to fight Chavez?
U.S. Army Outlines Fiscal Year 2009 Budget
Category: Army
The U.S. Army announced on the 4th of February the details of its budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, which covers the period from the 1st of October, 2008, to the 30th of September, 2009. The FY 2009 budget request is $140.7 billion.
The FY 2009 budget is structured to provide trained and equipped forces to the combatant commanders, balancing immediate warfighting needs with the development of future enhancements. The Army will focus on regaining balance in the near term in order to provide strategic flexibility and to build capacity for future challenges.
The Army's FY 2009 budget addresses these five key themes:
1) Sustain American Soldiers, Families and Civilians
Recruit and retain quality Soldiers.
Improve quality of life for American Soldiers, Families, and Civilians.
Continue medical improvements.
2) Prepare Soldiers for Success in Current Operations
Adapt and enhance the rigor of institutional, individual, and collective training.
Train Soldiers and units to conduct full-spectrum operations as part of a joint, interagency, or multinational force.
Fully implement the Army Force Generation model to increase readiness of the Operating Force over time.
3) Reset to Restore Readiness and Depth for Future Operations
Fund procurement programs to sustain readiness and strategic depth.
Retrain Soldiers to accomplish the full spectrum of missions they will be expected to accomplish.
Revitalize American Soldiers and Families.
4) Transform to Meet the Demands of the 21st Century
Upgrade and modernize U.S. Army units in order to remain an agile, globally responsive force.
Change the organization to become more deployable, tailorable, and versatile.
Implement institutional change in order to support more effectively and efficiently an expeditionary Army during an era of persistent conflict.
Develop leaders who can handle the challenges of a joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational environment.
5) Grow the Army and Restore Balance
Increase Active Army end strength to 532,400.
Increase Army National Guard end strength to 352,600.
Provide necessary forces in an era of persistent conflict.
Reduce stress on deploying forces by increasing dwell time at home station.
Budgeting for Military Personnel
The Army's objective is to provide combatant commanders with fully capable units manned by well-led, well-trained, and well-supported Soldiers. Current and future funding levels are critical indicators of U.S.A.'s commitment to recruiting and sustaining the All-Volunteer Force. This budget request emphasizes manning the force, taking care of Soldiers and Families, and sustaining the quality of Army personnel.
The FY 2009 budget differs significantly from previous years' submissions in that it funds a permanent base budget end-strength increase of 43,000
sorry, the site
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/ar...php?
forumID=951
santa
"Do you still agree with this after reading the rebuttal?"
At least in part. His cherry picking dates for the Gini coefficient was pretty bad.
And it is still quiet likely Chavez has ramped up social spending while previous governments ramped it down - we won´t know until someone coughs up all the year by year data which has yet to happen.
So I think its a debate that is not completely done yet.
"So I think its a debate that is not completely done yet."
it would be interesting to compare Chavez with the governments in the late 70s and early 80s. I imagine it is even harder to find the data to do a fair comparison.
Personally I found FR's conclusion surprising, but he does make some convincing points as well as some not so convincing ones. I don't doubt Chavez's commitment to the poor, however, I do doubt the effectiveness of many of his policies especially long term. Also Chavez does not seem to realize that many of the distorsions in the economy are very regressive (Cadivi, gas subsidies).
It would help if the government was better at delivering data that could be easily analyzed so that outside experts could study the effectiveness of various initatives (i.e. the missions). Both sides complain that the data is inadequate.
Tor, how thick can Chavez be not to see those distortions are very regressive, that they are, in fact, very destructive and that they are ruining ways of helping the poor and preventing an economic collapse when oil prices go down or just don't rise further?
The guy might be an ignorant but he cannot be so stupid. He takes that, the same way as he accepts his whole family owns half of Barinas.
In fact, I think he accepts that more willingly than he accepts the way his family is shamelessly enriching itself (I happened to talk with a cousin of his who lives here, nice stories about his tantrums when his hermanitos do things that are too flashy). The first thing helps him remain in power: the people who keep him there are not the poor, but the boliburguesia, which in itself knows how to give crumbles to the poor while hoarding most of the gains.
The boliburguesia as well as a big part of the Ancien Regime are the ones profiting.
He is fine with that.
I reckon Hugo Chavez is as caring or uncaring for the poor as Carlos Andrés Pérez ever was.
During CAP's government there were lots of institutions being created (universities, lots of scholarships, hospitals and so on), while at the same time he was piling up a fortune.
Things turned sour for CAP on his second term, with so low oil prices. He still tried to build a marble villa for his lover in Los Roques, bad timing.
IMHO:
Venezuelan military spending should worry Venezuelans... As much as the militarization of society under socialism.
Particularly, as Venezuelans get mowed down by criminality. Which is not stopped by air superiority fighters.
As Venezuelans find not even the most basic food staples. Which are not brought in by submarines.
As Venezuelans see an emerging Boliburguesia get richer, and get above any and all laws, both in the books, and of taste and sobriety. Oh, this elite DOES gets richer by the spending on the aforementioned useless items.
Worry not, ow. The U.S. Southern Command is not the main threat to the Great Leader of the Poor.
The main threats are poverty, crime, rampant corruption, political attrition and it's own incompetence in governing the country without resort to brute force. Reality bites. Sooner or later.
I only hope that we will not become another Zimbabwe or, worse yet, another Cuba, where a dying tyrant fights tooth and nail, against admiting defeat to old age and to the basic failure of "revolutionary "socialism.
Socialism fails with inevitability, and "revolutionary" Socialism leaves no doubt about it's failure because, you know, generalized poverty cannot be hidden. The other kind, the partial socialism under a democratic socialism guise, has the enormous successes of private enterprise and personal freedom both as its source of funding and as the cloak to hide its deficiencies and lacks.
OW will you answer steve la fevre point about the nationalisation of cement. I know the announcement was a great shock and embarrasment to you and your petit bourgeois friends but please comment on it at least if only to shut steve up.
"Tor, how thick can Chavez be not to see those distortions are very regressive, that they are, in fact, very destructive and that they are ruining ways of helping the poor and preventing an economic collapse when oil prices go down or just don't rise further?"
I don't think Chavez is the brightest bulb in the house when it comes to economics. He may be good intentioned, but he is ignorant about some basic economics and especially about what has and not worked in the past.
I think he sees the problem with the gas subsidy; he addressed it last year and talked about how unfair it was. Why he has not had the guts to follow up these comments with action beats me.
As for what will happen if (when) oil prices fall, it seems like his government pretends this will not happen any time soon. They plaster over failings with more and more oil money. It can't last...one day discourse and reality will collide like those two trains Quico posted.
Tor - it's been 9 years plus since the opposition has been talking about oil prices falling. Yes, there will be some gyrations and even a fall back to 70 80 dollars.
You still keep on banging the same drum. How many more years do you want? Until 2013 when Chavez will be forced to stand down? That's another of your forlorn hopes.
Quico - he didn't even call the reform defeat and gets so much credit for being WRONG since he started his blog in 2000 if my memory serves me well.
Reality is that Chavez is still in power so suck and enjoy it.
"Personally I found FR's conclusion surprising, but he does make some convincing points as well as some not so convincing ones. I don't doubt Chavez's commitment to the poor, however, I do doubt the effectiveness of many of his policies especially long term. Also Chavez does not seem to realize that many of the distorsions in the economy are very regressive (Cadivi, gas subsidies)."
I concur completely.
On a related matter the BS regarding the state of the economy is coming fast and furiously from both sides recently. That is why it has been almost too depressing for me to post about it. But I will (soon hopefully), even though it probably won't lessen my depression over Venezuela being screwed because neither side has a clue.
Regarding the data I don't know if that is a fair complaint. Is data from a comperable country like Colombia or maybe Chile much more complete?
Third world countries aren't likely to have as comprehensive as data set as more developed ones plus data will likely be less reliable as so much of the economy is "informal".
"As for what will happen if (when) oil prices fall, it seems like his government pretends this will not happen any time soon. They plaster over failings with more and more oil money. It can't last...one day discourse and reality will collide like those two trains Quico posted."
In paying attention to the opposition media recently I have to say that it is not just Chavismo where reality and rhetoric are in conflict but the opposition rhetoric is very out of touch with reality too.
In other words, pretty much all political discussion in Venezuela that I can see is pretty out of touch and all sides no more care for basing their assertions on actual facts or logical reasoning than your average Venezuelan driver cares about stopping at red lights.
Doesn't bode well...
And the train wreck won't just be Chavismo. It will be the whole country. In fact maybe this is all just one big ongoing train wreck that started decades ago and will likely continue for decades more.
Come on ow, answer steve la fevre points if you can swallow your embarrasment
OW, come on, is it that hard to come clean on your position? You know your hypocrisy is being exposed for the world to see. I demand answers else I will stop coming into your blog.
OW, come on, is it that hard to come clean on your position? You know your hypocrisy is being exposed for the world to see. I demand answers else I will stop coming into your blog.
Steve la fevre | 04.09.08 - 6:13 am | #
Please don't answer ow :D
Ow, read Collapse, by Jared Diamond. I foresee a Rwanda-Haiti-Zimbabwe kind of future if we don't heed the alarm.
I hope in May the proposal we have will be distributed to the whole world. It will come from academia, not from political parties. Would you be interested in supporting something that is good and fair as opposed to evil and crooked? If so, let me know.
It won't be a Wunderwaffe, but it will be good for the country.
Steve, the answer is I don't really know enough about it to give a very informed answer. But my guess, based on what I do know and see with the management of the Venezuelan economy, is that it probably isn't a good thing.
Venezuela desperately needs wealth generation centers apart from petroleum. If this were going to help accomplish that I would maybe be in favor of it. But I highly doubt that it will.
More likely, it will simply be one more sector being subsidized out of the very finite and fragil petroleum wealth and be a net consumer of wealth rather than a net generator of wealth.
So Steve, answer this question - what quality of live do you think most Venezuelans are going to have as long as essentially only one company in Venezuela generates most of the wealth and most other people just live off of what income that one company generates? Would it be a standard of living you would want for anyone you care about?
Typical arguments of a social democrat ow but thanks for answering at last. In a planned economy production would be geared to need not profit so people and only people would get their fruits of their labour mate. Under a socialist system you would produce to a quota and not create surplus value for the capitalist. Youre obsession with generating wealth is the argument of the capitalist not the socialist. By the way chavez hs just nationalised sidor the big steel maker. Your reaction to that news please sir.
"In a planned economy production would be geared to need not profit so people and only people would get their fruits of their labour mate. Under a socialist system you would produce to a quota and not create surplus value for the capitalist. Youre obsession with generating wealth is the argument of the capitalist not the socialist."
This shows you don't even understand the difference between capitalism and socialism. In any economy you have to produce more than you consume - ie you must have a surplus. It is that surplus that can then be invested in maintaining or even increasing overall production - something Venezuela desperately needs.
The difference is that under capitalism the surplus is controlled by a tiny minority (the capitalists) and some of it is consumed by them to support their extremely high cost lifestyle. Under socialism in theory the decisions of how to controll the surplus are made democractically by the society as a whole and none is expropriated to make a small minority rich.
The problem with Venezuela is that it doesn't have enough of a surplus which prevents it from investing enough to grow faster and make itself indepenedant from oil. This new state owned firms look to be net consumers of wealth not creaters of wealth. As such they don't help Venezuela under either system - capitalism or socialism.
" maybe this is all just one big ongoing train wreck that started decades ago "
Already moving the goal posts.
yeah steve, that was a really unintelligent comment. without wealth generation, we'd all still be hunter and gatherers, desperately trying to hold off starvation. we'd all be worse off than even the poor in venezuela currently are today. as ow rightfully points out, socialism is concerned with generating wealth as well. socialism vs. capitalism is about the MEANS of production, not that which is produced itself.
me thinks it's high time for you to brush up on your marx. doing so may also help you understand why a marxist revolution is impossible in venezuela. i'll give you a hint: it's never reached the point of being a post-developmentalist capitalist state. good luck.
all these self-proclaimed socialists running around without the slightest idea of what socialism is. it doesn't bode well for my leftist hopes...
OW and Eric,
There is at least one reason to hope that _at best_, if administered properly, a socialist Venezuela might be able to generate more wealth than a capitalist one. Under socialist management, the surplus value produced by the workers can (ideally) go entirely into investment, while under capitalist ownership a portion of the surplus goes to investment and a portion goes to luxury consumption by the capitalist owners.
This is predicated of course on the idea that when the factory is under socialist management the workers aren't going to vote themselves a raise and just eat up the surplus the same way (or worse) that the capitalists would have done. That's what the government needs to keep them from doing, if necessary. Venezuela needs to invest as much of its surplus as possible- it needs to develop its agriculture and manufacturing sectors.
As long as we're talking about what Socialism is and isn't, I'd like to try to banish a few phantoms.
Socialism is about who owns what. Specifically, it's about the people, whether directly or perhaps via the state or some mix of those, owning the means of production such as factories, mines etc., rather than private people personally owning those things (whether directly or via stockholdings etc.)
That's pretty much it. So, Socialism is *not*
--about a planned economy. Socialism *can* have a planned economy, whether centrally planned or planned in a more decentralized way, but does not require any such thing. In fact I'd say some planning is almost certainly desirable; in states which claim that planning should be eschewed in favour of the market, we find it always creeping back in as "black planning" such as military Keynesianism and piecemeal corporate bailouts. "Black planning" doesn't work as well as planning that's seriously thought out in the open, just like "black markets" don't work that well.
--about the absence of markets. There can perfectly well be markets under socialism. There is a lot of discussion about whether that's a good idea. I'd certainly say that ideally the role of markets should be more limited than it is today in Canada, but I'm somewhat uncertain about just how important a role they should have. I'd tend to advocate dropping them from the obvious places and then trimming here and trimming there and putting them back in a given sector if something breaks. And making sure that everything we replace them with is democratic.
--about the absence of competition. There can perfectly well be competition among firms under Socialism. If you have one shoe-producing workers' co-op, and another shoe-producing workers' co-op, they can certainly compete with one another, either in a market system or even in a non-market system (e.g., in a system where shoe-production quotas are allocated among worker-owned firms by votes of representatives of local councils, retail co-ops and relevant supply co-ops, the shoe co-ops can compete by persuading these voters that they are more efficient, treat their worker-owners better, operate in a more environmentally friendly way, are better integrated into their community, depend more on local inputs and technology, deal more equitably with their suppliers or whatever).
So--planning, markets, and competition: All optional but perfectly possible under socialism. An argument on the merits of any of these is therefore not actually an argument about the merits of socialism, merely about what flavour/s of socialism might be desirable.
Contrariwise, we've had capitalism both with planning and without competition; technically, you could have capitalism without markets although it would look kind of weird. Actually, it would look sort of like the US military procurement system . . .
Meanwhile, as to surpluses and what to do with them, and who would do it best.
One question is, who would optimally handle the issue of whether to consume surplus now or invest for a better future: A class of wealthy owners, a government bureaucracy, or the people directly.
I gotta say, the time horizons of the class of wealthy owners, when left to themselves to make decisions, don't impress me a whole lot. The more deregulation there is and the less government intervention, the more the capitalist class seem to turn to emphasis on next quarter's returns and maximum immediate extraction of profits at the expense of longer term growth.
The government is better, there. But autocratic governments are often unstable and in any case aren't making their plans for the people's benefit, while democratic governments tend to pander to people's shortest term instincts.
Ordinary people, though, frequently plan for
--Full ownership of a home that won't be a real benefit for 20-30 years
--Retirement
--Education of their children
and so on. They have a better track record for long term planning than either of the other groups.
Another question is, for whom will the surplus be invested? Ideally it should be invested for the (medium to long term) common good. But there is every reason for private investors to oppose any such purpose to investment. And even government bureaucracies are likely to either be captured by special interests, develop interests of their own, or simply be too far from the supposed beneficiaries of investment to invest wisely on their behalf.
Yet another point is the result of taking some surplus for today rather than postponing until later. All else being equal, a socialist economy raking off the same cut as a capitalist economy will be a better place to live and also higher growth, because the money distributed today will be used to improve the lives of everyone rather than a small minority, and because it would result in broad-based increases in consumer spending, which stimulate the economy better than increases in wealth for small wealthy elites.
Finally, there's the question of democracy. The point of democracy, whether in economics or politics, has little to do ultimately with getting the best government. The point is that people are people, and as they are affected by government and by economies, they should be in control of them. My life, my decisions. Our collective lives, our collective decisions. Nobody has the right to dictate to the people how they shall live or how the economy they produce, consume and live in shall be run. It doesn't *matter* if that someone is wiser than the people in question, and knows better than they what's good for them. It's nobody's place to tell people how to live. A full democracy necessarily involves some kind of socialism, because in capitalism ownership of productive resources and as a result many of the conditions of productive life are outsid
A full democracy necessarily involves some kind of socialism, because in capitalism ownership of productive resources and as a result many of the conditions of productive life are outside democratic reach, controlled by a small unaccountable group. From that perspective, whether it works better is almost beside the point.
"This is predicated of course on the idea that when the factory is under socialist management the workers aren't going to vote themselves a raise and just eat up the surplus the same way (or worse) that the capitalists would have done."
Among other things that is what I am afraid of. And its not just that workers might vote themselves a huge increase - a government could nationalize and industry precisely to give a select group of people a benefit rather than truly run the company in the national interest. The nationalization of the SIDOR steel complex sure does look like that could be the case.
Well, ow, even if you're right, if the corp is run by a typical multinational it's kind of six of one, half a dozen of the other. The multinational isn't going to invest in production, it's going to take profits. Except if the multinational takes them, they go right out of the country. If the workers take them, they spend them in Venezuela. And they, you know, live better, which is good in itself.
"You still keep on banging the same drum. How many more years do you want?"
Yup, because it is the key factor. If oil declines or stagnates for an extended period the government is in trouble. So far oil has continued climbing, but with economic trouble brewing in the US I doubt we'll see much higher prices in the next years.
"Reality is that Chavez is still in power so suck and enjoy it."
Actually it is good Chavez is in power. People need to see him fail and there are plenty of years left for that to happen. 2007 saw increasing problems in areas such as crime, inflation and scarcities despite high oil prices. Unless the government improves it will be even worse without plenty of oil money to plaster over its failings.
"I don't know if that is a fair complaint. Is data from a comperable country like Colombia or maybe Chile much more complete?"
Not sure. As you point out data from less-developed countries tends to be not as good as what we'd expect from richer countries. I am not sure about how Venezuela stacks up, however, both Weisbrot and FR seemed to complain about the data (or lack of it) on the success of social problems. Ancedotally I've read complaints about the government not being very transparent, but again I'm not sure how it compares to say Colombia.
The only area I'm investigated some - infrastructure - I found both Mexico and Chile way ahead of Venezuela in terms of providing information.
My point was simpler. If I were a revolutionary and I was implementing new, innovative solutions to combat poverty (like the missions) I'd make sure data was available to researchers to prove that my revolution was doing the right thing. Literacy program is disputed? Here is the data. Have at it. Don't like Barrio Adentro? Here is the data. It works. Just sweat the numbers.
If you want people power you need to be transparent and offer up data so the people can make better choices. You should do this whether or not Colombia does the same.
This may be somewhat idealistic, but it is worthy goal for the government to aspire to.
"as a result many of the conditions of productive life are outside democratic reach, controlled by a small unaccountable group."
that is not even true. This small group is subject to (1) personal taxation, (2) business taxation, (3) regulation on business, (4) disclosure and (5) regulation on the competition in its industry. Democracy decides (1) - (5). If democracy desires it can squeeze any small unaccountable using any of the tools above.
You may argue that business will lobby and hijack (1) - (5) and use them to further their self-interest, but this is an argument for improving democracy not eliminating private business.
The problem with SIDOR for example is that it is mostly being nationalized to favor its workers. Are SIDOR workers the electorate? No, they are just an interest group like any other. Are SIDOR workers the poor? No. Will a nationalized SIDOR be more efficient (and generate more tax revenues for the state). History says no.
plg,
great post. easy to read and to undersand, too. thank you for so much clarity regarding the issues of socialism, capitalism and democracy.
Tor: 1-5 really don't touch very much. Seriously. They leave a whole lot of stuff assumed. Labour is a "market", for instance. Most importantly, the firm is organized as a hierarchy, with owners at the top, their designated controllers below that, and general workers at the bottom with the role of exchanging obedience for however much money they can get in the "market". Thus, capitalism regardless of your 1-5 means that for most people, half their waking life or so is spent in a subservient role where they have no decision making power and must obey a master. The fact that this has become the background assumption in our society does not make it fun--and indeed, the hatred of that condition and of the boss runs deep through our folklore, music, literature--all through our culture. And it is not necessary--co-operative ownership *and management* is possible and effective; take the reclaimed factories in Argentina, for instance.
Unions go some way to limiting the arbitrary powers of ownership--but only so far, and they are only able to do so by setting up an opposition which is an ongoing stress for the workers and which only the union must keep within bounds (the union can't push hard enough to kill the firm's profitability, but the firm can and has gone so far as to fire all the workers and hire replacements, or even to kill workers to intimidate the rest). Even powerful unions, though, leave the basic structure intact, a structure which is essentially part-time Feudalism. In capitalist employment, the feudal lord only owns your butt once you clock in, instead of all the time, and you're only tied to the land (your workplace) for that designated time. On the other hand, the employer doesn't have the responsibilities to you of a real feudal lord either.
But it's this kind of fundamental condition of working life under capitalism that I was referring to when I said "many of the conditions of productive life are outside democratic reach".
Say, anyone remember the Simpsons Halloween episode where Mr. Burns becomes a vampire, Homer is supposed to stake him and he says "Can I do it? Can I kill my boss? Can I . . . Can I really fulfill the American dream?"
That's the kind of thing I mean by part of our culture.
Tor,
I know of not a single so called socialist revolutionary movement since 1917 that had been interested in some form of transparency.
One of the first things they do is reduce it further. National plans are inflated.
In some societies where they could afford that, they employed hundreds of thousands of political
enemies to get some production done in gulags and other types of concentration camps.
In Venezuela it is the oil plus the stealing of the poor without them noticing it (have you checked Miguel's page and his description of the new ways of making money for Chavistas?)
Chavistas reject any kind of debate unless it is the farce they organize in which:
- their mobs shout at any one trying to denounce, declare things their leaders don't like
- the moderators are themselves
- opposition are threatened
- the media has no real access to showing the whole farce.
Some time ago, IT people managed to show in Holland how their electronic system could be cracked down. They did not prove it had ever been cracked down by someone, just THEY could do it. What did Netherlands do? They decided to call up two independent commissions
to do a further research. Both came to the same conclusion. Result? The digital voting system has been suspended until further improvements are carried out.
Now, let's get back to some poorer countries:
in South America,
Argentina (not the best in transparency, but push to that by some group of non socialist people)
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Uruguay
and Peru
are taking part in the PISA study of the OECD.
Venezuela is not.
Actually, only Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Paraguay DO NOT take part in that very comprehensive study about the education of the average children.
Venezuela stopped taking part in international evaluations in the area of education a couple of years after Hugo Chávez Frías of Sabaneta came to power. Venezuela stopped sending numbers of murders to the United Nations in 2002.
Has anyone seen how the case against the Chavez family was dropped? Everybody in Barinas knows what those guys own there and what not.
Have you seen how the Anderson case is developing? By the way, the Chavismo is saying now they know very well the FBI is behind it.
Ow, the FBI? Probably the Salvation Army as well.
Purple Library Guy,
That was a perfect exposition of the definitive nature of socialism. Socialism can of course exist with markets and competition, Tito's Yugoslavia is a great example. Conversely, the USA or Britain during WWII were capitalist states that involved a great deal of central planning. Out of curiosity, what would a non-market capitalism look like in theory?
It's true that multinationals often not to make great decisions about investment. The fact that we are running out of virtually every natural resource today is just one indication of the woefully short term horizon of capitalism. My point was just to indicate that _other things being equal_ (i.e. if workers are getting paid the same) then there could be more money freed up for investment under socialism.
Non-market capitalism would be a state where production facilities were owned by private interests, but the government decided where you worked and what possessions you should have. The price of these goods would be deducted from your pay. Quite likely the price of all prescribed goods would exceed your pay and you would end up progressively in debt.
This situation was historically approached on a private basis at single-employer towns at mines and so on, with the "company store". Realistically, we can hardly consider the situation at the "company store" a "market" in the economic theory sense.
Purple Library Guy,
Interesting. Wouldn't that non-market capitalism approximate the old indentured labor system? Or possibly the Nazis or the South African system under apartheid? South Africa was unquestionably a fairly advanced capitalism, it as equally unquestionably a society based on bonded labor that was little better than slavery (it was also, like you suggested, a mine economy). Hybrid states like Nazi Germany and South Africa do not appear to fit well into the Marxist system of modes of production.
While I have a lot of emotional sympathy for the Cuban model of socialism I think that in the end, at least for the foreseeable future, the Yugoslavian model is the only feasible one and the one that Chavez needs to follow. Perhaps the Yugoslavian model with a little bit of Cuba and a little bit of Scandinavia mixed in.
More specifically I would like to see a society that made skilful and effective use of material incentives (like Yugoslavia) but also did their best to supplement them with moral incentives through inspiration, exhortation, voluntary labor, etc. (like Cuba).
plg,
"Most importantly, the firm is organized as a hierarchy, with owners at the top, their designated controllers below that, and general workers at the bottom with the role of exchanging obedience for however much money they can get in the "market"."
Firms don't have to be organized that way. Some firms (i.e. partnerships between lawyers) have different structures. In fact, there are no rules against other forms of business like coops or worker owned (and some small business do use this model). However, it seems that big business is easier to organize along hierarchical lines. They are more productive that way. Increased productivity has been linked to economic growth. Why? It makes better use of scare resources, increases tax revenues, drive down prices etc.
"Thus, capitalism regardless of your 1-5 means that for most people, half their waking life or so is spent in a subservient role where they have no decision making power and must obey a master."
If you strive to give everyone equal opportunities (education etc.) then anyone can end up as bosses. Subservient is a strange term. You can always quit the job and do something else. You can start your own business. You can partner with someone. You can get a different job. However, ultimately since you vote in elections you do get to participate in setting the game rules in the economy.
"And it is not necessary--co-operative ownership *and management* is possible and effective; take the reclaimed factories in Argentina, for instance."
The main problems with cooperative ownership are (1) they tend to make decisions that favor current workers and (2) they can't raise capital except debt. You might say that (1) is good, but think again. What if all your workforce is going to retire tomorrow and you only own the firm if you work there (only existing workers are part of the coop). What would you do? Sell all the assets at fire-sale and make a huge dividend payment to existing workers. Afterall they will cease owning the firm when they retire so who really cares about the future? Which bank would want to lend to such a firm?
"On the other hand, the employer doesn't have the responsibilities to you of a real feudal lord either."
If you have skills the employer needs to make money then you have the bargaining power. If the economy is good then employees can bargain harder. It is not feudal. Employees can quit. They can get education and better jobs. Government should help workers get skills and education.
"the Yugoslavian model "
but that model didn't work that well did it?
Lots of intertesting comments here but let me just pick on this for now :
"If you have skills the employer needs to make money then you have the bargaining power."
Wage rates aren't determined by skill but by supply and demand. That is why barbers in the US make more money than Mexican barbers do even though they do the exact same thing and have the exact same skills.
Now you could say that having more skills makes is likely that the supply of what you do will be less relative to demand and you will therefore command higher wages. To some degree that is true, but not THAT true. The capitalists like to make sure there are lots of competators around so that they can keep wages down. Just look at all the lobbying they do on the H-1B visas.
Tor:
"Firms don't have to be organized that way. Some firms (i.e. partnerships between lawyers) have different structures."
Sure. But then, we don't live in a *purely* capitalist economy. Such a firm isn't actually a capitalist firm. If there isn't some holder of capital employing wage labour, it isn't capitalist.
"However, it seems that big business is easier to organize along hierarchical lines. They are more productive that way."
That's a bare assertion. It also begs the question of whether big business as we know it is really a good thing in the first place. Just as land reform involves breaking up huge, generally not-very-productive plantations, economic reform may demand breaking up huge businesses which, when all externalities are accounted for, may turn out to be more cost than benefit to the economy.
"If you strive to give everyone equal opportunities (education etc.) then anyone can end up as bosses."
Technically true, but basically irrelevant. Partly because most capitalist countries do not strive in that manner, and indeed the more dominant capitalism is the more it will inhibit any such striving. But mainly because the point isn't precisely who is on top of the pyramid and who is on the bottom. Anyone may be able to end up as a boss. But *everyone* certainly cannot. Bosses must be a minority. Subordinates must be a majority. If everyone somehow had precisely equal education and talents, the employer would have to draw lots as to who would be who, but the brute fact of some being on top ordering and many beneath, obeying would not change.
"You can start your own business (etc)"
Again, not everyone can do this, both for class/monetary reasons and simply because there isn't enough credit in the system to allow this to happen. People couldn't just spontaneously replace all the existing capital stocks owned by capitalists with spontaneous small business creation fuelled by the triumph of their will. In a good "job market", which monetary policy is in part designed to avoid for the sake of "labour flexibility", maybe you can get another job--in which the same basic conditions will apply.
"If you have skills the employer needs to make money then you have the bargaining power."
To do what? Make a higher wage, until enough more people with those skills are trained. Not to change the basic condition of employment. Not to have a voice in how things are run, or to not have a supervisor who can give you orders.
Amusingly, the only reason this argument even holds any water for money is due to market failure. Without market failure, how could there ever be a shortage of needed skills leading to people with such skills commanding a premium?
As to the problems with co-ops, I guess your argument is a good reason to try to avoid having co-ops where everyone's the exact same age and whose pension plan has no connection with continued health of the firm after their retirement. P
Problems such as you raise have apparently been known to occur, but they're pretty dashed rare and even then only existed in the context of buyout campaigns on the part of capitalist firms (which is only relevant in economies dominated by capitalist firms). The capital issue is kind of serious under our current financial system, but would not be in a political economy geared towards them. And all in all, your objections don't seem nearly as serious as the problems involved in firms owned by elites, especially ones owned by absentee stockowners.
Just for anonymus 2
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/
Commenting by HaloScan
