Hi Ow,
There is some circumstantial evidence that cooperatives can perform as efficiently as capitalist enterprises. One would expect such, since they are subject to the same market discipline.
Yugoslavia was the only modern country to experiment with cooperative ownership on a large scale. They did, for a period of about 15-20 years, sustain the highest growth rate in the world, and were probably the highest performing communist country. A large number of Yugoslavs today express nostalgia for their old system. If i recall correctly, their GDP at the time of the fall of the communist system (1990) was higher than that of Greece, and similar to that of Spain or Portugal. (After 1990, it collapsed due to the civil wars). The one notable drawback of the Yugoslav economy was a high unemployment rate, which has been tied directly to the fact of worker ownership (i.e. worker cooperatives usually preferred to increase productivity rather than expanding the number of workers, in order to reduce the number of people among whom they would have to share profits).
Republican Spain briefly had a phase in which worker cooperatives dominated the economy (during the civil war). The cooperative experiment was brought to quick end when the Left lost the civil war. In spite of that, there are a number of cooperatively owned companies in Spain (the Mondragon group) which have performed well in the succeeding years.
The cooperative factories that were set up during the Allende revolution in Chile tended to perform well and in some cases actually increasd output after they were nationalized. That was ended by the US trade cutoff and by the coup of 1973. See Peter Winn's book about the Yarur textile workers.
Individual cooperative enterprises in places like Argentina, western Europe and Israel have generally proved themselves to be quite competeitive. Moreover, small scale agriculture in Latin America (a good part of which is cooperatively owned) has historiclaly tended to be more efficient per unit of land than the oligarchical plantations. (To speculate about why might take us too far afield- but it seems clear that a farmer is going to take better care of a piece of land when he depends on it for his survival, than when it's just another small marginal increment in his vast holdings.) Cooperative farms in Nicaragua tended to do quite well, at least up until the civil war and the cutoff of aid and trade dealt a deathblow to the entire economy.
If cooperative firms endure the same market discipline as capitalist firms, and if the workers can resist shortening their working hours and raising their own wages to unsustainable levels, then there is at least one good reason in theory to expect that a cooperative companny could outperform a capitalist one. Since it doesn't have to pay out dividende (capitalist profit), a cooperative company can devote every last dollar that's left over after subtracting costs of production and workers' wages, to in
Thoughtful critique, OW - makes me want to get Wilpert's book as I think I probably share his optimism more than your caution, but then Colombia desperately needs positive inspiration and optimism such as Venezuela's Bolivarian revolution!
Unfortunately, Wilpert's book is not likely to be available in Colombia for the forseeable future (and literacy isn't total and the relative paucity of bookstores means that books are priced way out of the reach of most people anyway.)
I could order on the internet, but the mail service in Colombia is privatized, so believe me, there's no chance that a parcel from the US is going to reach an address in Bogotá.
What are the chances that I could pick it up in Caracas ?
nice post.
About coops...
Firms and workers anywhere can choose to form cooperatives, but they don't. Why? It is probably because cooperatives don't work in most cases (or other organizational forms work better).
One major problem with coops is financing. Lets lets a couple workers have a bright idea. They all chip in their savings and investment in comercializing this idea. However, there is a problem: they don't have enough money. What can they do?
(1) Take on debt. This gives them more capital to invest. However, at some point the bank will say: You guys have too much debt so I'm not going to lend more.
(2) Take money from an investor. The investor invests because he has faith in the project, but he will only do so if he can share in the potenial future profits from the worker's bright idea (and the more he invests the more he wants to share). However, a coop does not allow this investment since the coop would only allow the investor to get an equal share as the other workers. So the investor does not invest.
This is a serious problem for the coop. So what is left. The state chips in, but which coop should be state-financed. Why should the state finance coop A, but not coop B?
another coop problem is this. What if 20% of the workforce is retiring next year? What do they care about? They want to steal as much as possible. THey don't care about investing or the future of the firm. Why? They can't sell their share since they are only entitled to it as a worker. Yugoslavia faced many of these problems or workers trying to capture rents instead of trying to increase the collective value of the co-managed firm.
...interesting reading on corporate governance under different firm structures is here. It is an academic paper, but a easy (for an academic paper) and good read...it discusses labor-managed firms, SOEs, capitalistic firms, Yugoslav co-managed firms etc...
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
pape...0#PaperDownload
this is good too...
http://
www.economics.harvard.edu...rveyCorpGov.pdf
I realize these are both academic papers and use somewhat advanced language, but both reflected the cutting edge of governance research in academia at the time they were published (1979 and 1997). There are newer ones, but these two survey the literature and are written in a more accessible way.
"Without being in Chavez’s head this is impossible to know. But it strikes me as equally likely that Chavez was a socialist all along and simply moved further along that path as he overcame obstacles and potential threats and the path became clearer."
I listened to many of Chavez's speeches (hours and hours) in 2001-02 and I agree with Wilpert. It does not seem like Chavez had any specific economic system in mind. He seemed to be learning. one thing was clear though, he wanted to help the poor, but he was still not sure exactly how to achieve this and what strategy to pursue.
I also think the 2002-04 turmoil molded Chavez and radicalized his strategy and thinking. Personally I sympathize much more with the 01 Chavez than the version of Chavez I see these days. Somehow he seemed more humble, more genuine, less power hungry, more tolerant...now all that is gone and he seems to think that he alone can paint the future path of the revolution...and that way of thinking will long-term be his and his movements undoing (combined with flawed economics).
Some important things have been done this year. Ending of RCTV broadcastings. The state takeover of CANTV and electric sector. Creating PSUV. Very close to securing ending of term limits so Chavez can run again 2013. There was more reason to be worried last year last year. This year important things have been done.
Thoughtful, cogent, and fair analysis OW.
You do cut to the quick of many obvious flaws with Wilpert's take on Venezuela. However, I couldn't help but think as I was reading this that you would have developed a much, much more interesting critique had you bothered to read Noam Chomsky's interview with Eva Gollinger.
Chomsky's criticism of the RCTV affair is much more close to your position, OW, than it is my or elliv's, interestingly.
My problem with the direction of the Bolivarian project is that it doesn't go deep enough. Chavez gets low points in the participatory aspect of governance--and the project suffers from an inability to take imaginative ideas and translate these into viable, transcendent practices.
This is not to say that real progress hasn't been made on many fronts, as Wilpert's work illustrates. But this is to acknowledge that there is much work to be done--and that this work needs to be propelled by the people, becoming democratically ascendent and transcending the fetters of classism and capitalism. The 'strong leader' model is incapable of bringing Venezuela to a reality where poverty is minimal, and that the basic social democratic advances we see in Northern Europe can even be actualized.
But this is a process, for sure, and one can hope that Chavez engages with the thought of both Wilpert and Chomsky and reflects deeply enough so that corrective action can be taken in a timely manner.
The fate of democracy in Latin America depends on it.
Lastly, with respect to cooperative models of business organization--this is very difficult to pull off. I say this from experience. Most people in the US and in the world domianted by the oligarchs have been configured as mere consumers--dumbed down and lazy. Such people in the context of my ecological business are poison.
Therefore, I would say that a left critique of the phenomenon of 'alienation' is appropriate for Venezuela at this juncture. If the heretofore super-exploited of Venezuela can't be bothered to shoulder the responsibliity of taking power, then the oligarchs will surely be ready to relieve them of such a burden before too long.
"Chavez calls time on whisky boom"...
"Venezuelans are to face a limit on the amount of luxury goods they can import, says President Hugo Chavez.
He singled out the high consumption of whisky as an example of the way consumerism was harming society."
"In 2006, Venezuelans drank 106m bottles of Scotch whisky - almost four per person, and nearly 10% of UK exports."
"Mr Chavez said he was ashamed of this "excessive" consumption and would curb importers' access to dollars for purchasing whisky and other luxuries."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...cas/
7021870.stm
Why does it go from "President Hugo Chavez" to "Mr Chavez" ?.
"Venezuela's chocolate revolution"...
"Deep inside Venezuela's tropical forest a quiet revolution is taking place."
"In the shade of the trees, pink cocoa pods ripen ready for the next harvest in early November."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/busin...ess/
5235804.stm
I think this whiskey restrictions won't be well received among most Chavistas. They are the first on whiskey binges in the Las Mercedes area and elsewhere.
Dutton, don't be silly. Mr Chavez or President Hugo Chavez: that doesn't matter. Everyone knows now Hugo the First. The BBC writer thought he or she could just call him like that.
A journalist says "Boris Becker", "the man from Leimen" (well, in Germany they say that even if Leimen is a small town), "the red-haired Boris", etc. The same with everybody, presidents included (yes, also Bush)
I just google and there was a myriad of "Mr Brown" referring to Gordon Brown as prime minister. One example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_ne...ics/
7015995.stm
So: it is not a CIA-sponsored conspiracy within the BBC
Jees...
Paul,
I understand the book will be coming out in Spanish soon and I'm sure that will be in Caracas.
Alternatively, Greg Wilper edits Venezuelanalysis and lives in Caracas. You might be able to touch bases with him and pick up a copy there.
Again the book is really great and my review really didn't do justice to it at all. I'm sure you'll find it worth whatever effort you have to put into finding it.
Kepler
But unlike "President Hugo Chavez" "Mr Brown" doesn't deserve our respect.
So there are no “fundamental contradictions” here nor is it the fault of market mechanisms. Rather, these policies, which threaten to take Venezuela’s economy off a cliff and most of Chavez’s accomplishments with it, are the result of deliberate government policies. Presumably the government has its reasons for following these policies (maybe its near constant electoral campaigns lead it to always want the economy running at fever pitch?) but if they aren’t changed soon it should be clear who will be responsible for the day of reckoning which will inevitably come.
I'm not sure where you're getting this OW. This is actually one of the areas in which this government has done better than any other government in Venezuelan history. They are taking clear steps to become independent of oil. Of course they are very far from achieving this, but this is also something that will obviously take a long time.
First, the government now enforces taxes, one of the main recommendations by the oil dependency expert Terry Karl Lynn. This decreases direct state dependence on oil revenue.
Second, the government has built up huge financial reserves, and has paid down international debt. Making any drop in oil prices that much more manageable and lessening its impact. (they won't be "going off a cliff" like during previous busts because they have a significant cushion here)
Third, they are using currency controls to carefully regulate imports. While imports have increased, so has national production, including manufacturing, agriculture, etc. As national production continues to increase to meet demand, imports can easily be brought down by controlling dollars through CADIVI.
Fourth, Chavez has made significant efforts to increase industrial capacity, including new steel industry, efforts to create a petrochemical industry, and various industrial ventures such as Iranian cars, tractors, Argentinian food technology, Chinese and Brazilian shipbuilding technology, etc. etc.
Fifth, loans to Argentina, Bolivia, NIcaragua, etc. provide for stable state income across several years, as do the discounted oil programs that Chavez has engaged in with Petrocaribe, Petrosur, and these kinds of initiatives. This increases the amount of state income that is independent of oil income, since these countries are paying for their oil supplies over a 20 year period.
I would say that these "deliberate governmen policies" are doing exactly what they need to do. That is, decrease dependence on oil revenue, and create a sustainable productive system. That seems to be the direction they are going.
"First, the government now enforces taxes, one of the main recommendations by the oil dependency expert Terry Karl Lynn. This decreases direct state dependence on oil revenue. "
This is true and good. But it doesn't change the overall economies dependence on oil revenue and hence tax revenues will still fluctuate with oil revenues.
"Second, the government has built up huge financial reserves,"
What huge financial reserves? The FEM which is what those would be are almost zero. The foreign currency reserves are a decent size but can't really be spent to support general government expenditures. FONDEN has some money, but not a lot that isn't already committed.
Even by a very generous estimate maybe the country has $30 billion that stashed that it could spend. Oil income to the government last year was about $50 billion. If that fell to half of that rate that is a loss of $25 billion and you can see the reserves only cover that for a little more than a year.
"and has paid down international debt"
That was true in 2005 and 2006 but I don't know if it is anymore. Remember, PDVSA has taken on lots of debt which is really government debt (it has to be paid from the same oil earnings everything else gets paid from). That almost never gets counted but if it did debt might be edging back up.
"While imports have increased, so has national production, including manufacturing, agriculture, etc. As national production continues to increase to meet demand, imports can easily be brought down by controlling dollars through CADIVI."
Imports are growing by about 30% a year while industrial production is growing by 8 or 9%. So this is not getting better, it is getting worse. That is, now a greater proportion of what Venezuelans consume is not produced in Venezuela than before. CADIVI is giving out huge amounts of money (at very bad rates for the government!) and a lot of that is going to import consumer goods.
"imports can easily be brought down by controlling dollars through CADIVI."
I think you have the cart before the horse here. You bring down imports (or make them more expensive by devalueing the currency) and that is what stimulates domestic production. Right now, domestic Venezuelan production is losing market share to cheap imports due to the Bolivar being so overvalued.
"Fourth, Chavez has made significant efforts to increase industrial capacity, including new steel industry, efforts to create a petrochemical industry, and various industrial ventures such as Iranian cars, tractors, Argentinian food technology, Chinese and Brazilian shipbuilding technology, etc. etc."
Until these goods are produced and are successfully sold for money this doesn't ad up to anything. Right now non-oil exports are stuck at $6 billion per year. That is the key number that has to be increased. Until it is increased significantly Venezuela will remain dependent on oil. So watch that number - so far it is flat. When it goes up is when your comment above will be shown accurate.
"Fifth, loans to Argentina, Bolivia, NIcaragua, etc. provide for stable state income across several years, as do the discounted oil programs that Chavez has engaged in with Petrocaribe, Petrosur, and these kinds of initiatives. This increases the amount of state income that is independent of oil income, since these countries are paying for their oil supplies over a 20 year period."
I dont' think that is much money. Most Argentinian debt has since been sold by the Venezuelan govenrment. So how much is Venezuela still owed? Maybe a few billion? I don't know but I'm pretty sure it isn't going to be enough to make up for any significant drop in oil prices.
Also, note we are onlly talking about the country surviving an oil price decline. But it needs to do better than that. Even if oil stays the same it needs to grow the rest of the economy, particularly exportable manufactures, to really improve peoples standard of living. So far there is no sign that is happening.
I don't expect miracles overnight, but I would like to see movement in the right direction. So far on this front I don't even see that. Venezuela is still stuck at that $6 billion non-oil export number.
George, are you a socialist? I shit on titles. Mr President? Mr Chavez? Mr Brown?
Ow, thanks for your review.
That book seems more like a wish list than discovering something new, though.
600000 people have houses in 8 years...cool.
How many houses where built again? I will check it out again.
Among those in the so-called "cooperatives" are many friends and relatives. Almost anyone who wants to work for the government in one or another and is not an employee needs to register there. Before, they were just not called cooperatives. You have more chances to get better contracts if your name is not in the Maisanta list.
That is not job creation. The same thing with the bloody Bolivarian schools. Most are just old schools renamed.
Ow, do you know that if I want to earn some money by cleaning up streets somewhere in Los Teques with a team, some brooms and my van, I need to go to the government, to register a "cooperative" and MY van needs to be painted with the symbol of Miranda? And then I get the contract? What is so impressive about it? It all goes back to the oil income. Very few cooperatives are actually producing other thing than services to the State.
Thanks for your effort, anyway.
I wonder why Chavez is so interested in the private health sector if we have a very good health system (don't we?). Private clinics are now worried because people are running to the public hospitals in droves.
And now the schools...whoever does not want to spend hours explaining crap about Che Guevara and Hugo the First goes to jail.
Socialism, Fatherland or Death,
Kepler
Even by a very generous estimate maybe the country has $30 billion that stashed that it could spend. Oil income to the government last year was about $50 billion. If that fell to half of that rate that is a loss of $25 billion and you can see the reserves only cover that for a little more than a year.
They are the highest international reserves ever in Venezuelan history. And, yes, they might not last long if oil drops significantly, but the Chavez government also tends to set the budget well below oil prices to prepare for this.
So, while spending would definitely have to decrease some, there would not be any "collapse" as many seem to think.
But, on top of that, as you well know, oil prices are being very well controlled. Meaning the prices will probably never fall very drastically, thus giving the government time to accomodate spending if prices start to come down.
I think you have the cart before the horse here. You bring down imports (or make them more expensive by devalueing the currency) and that is what stimulates domestic production. Right now, domestic Venezuelan production is losing market share to cheap imports due to the Bolivar being so overvalued.
Well, you're right that imports have grown a lot, but I think you're wrong about what stimulates domestic production. One thing that is vital for building national industry and increasing national production is to have a growing domestic market, to have a domestic market with buying power. That seems to have been the strategy of the Chavez government, and that is what has caused increased imports. But, that's the inevitable result until domestic production can get developed. So, until that production gets built, you'll see a big increase in imports. But these imports can be easily controlled when they need to be. When they begin to be replaced.
I don't expect miracles overnight, but I would like to see movement in the right direction. So far on this front I don't even see that. Venezuela is still stuck at that $6 billion non-oil export number.
ow | Homepage | 10.01.07 - 10:30 am | #
Yeah, but I think Venezuela could quickly increase that number if they wanted, but you have to take into account what KINDS of exports you are going to promote. You could promote more export of raw materials, or export of basic manufactured goods.
But the Chavez government seems to be taking the route of creating a vertically-integrated industry. That is, using the raw materials and producing finished goods like petrochemicals, steel, etc. to be used in more complex manufactured goods.
So that means manufactures are not being exported, but rather kept inside the country in order to supply developing national industry. I think in time this will give Venezuela the ability to produce more advanced goods for export. The more advanced the goods, the more development and wealth for Venezuela.
But, in the end, a lot of this seems to be pretty far down t
But, in the end, a lot of this seems to be pretty far down the road. Yesterday Chavez was talking about his government's plans for economic development. They are five-year plans, and they go all the way to 2044. That's probably how long it will take to really develop the country.
Kepler, if you weren't just interested in spouting opposition propoganda you would enjoy the book too.
You would definitely like his chapter on Chavez's foriegn policy where he points out that cavorting with governments that don't respect human rights and don't further social justice in their own countries doesn't help 21st Century Socialism in Venezuela either.
BTW, Kepler, an opposition friend of mine who signed against Chavez now works teaching in Mission Sucre. No explaining Che crap either. Wonder how that happened?
Kepler
You just don`t get it. It`s not the title it`s that the leader represents his or her nation and should be respected on that bases. Of course that respect has to be earned and warranted.
Tor,
The co-op movement in Venezuela does seem big and I do need to learn more about it.
It is essentially funded by the government. I didn't see any stats in Wilperts book on how many are now financially independent and self-supporting, which is obviously the key metric. Without out accomplishing that the movement is clearly going no-where.
When Wilpert said Co-ops could be just as efficient as any other kind of business what went through my mind was why aren't they then using it in the oil industry? The oil industry is all run top down just as a traditional for profit business is. It would seem even they don't have enough confidence in that model to test it on the goose that is laying the golden eggs.
George,
Maybe you should send the BBC a list with those world leaders who 'deserve respect' and those who don't.
"Maybe you should send the BBC a list with those world leaders who 'deserve respect' and those who don't.
Santiago Garcia
What a good idea.
They don`t know the difference between a terrorist and a world leader.
"El Reg has naturally tested a few obvious names on the site. Ones which throw up a both-names indication of terrorist links include "George Bush", "Tony Blair," and interestingly, "Gordon Brown", Britain's chancellor of the exchequer. Names which seem to be in the clear include "Oliver North" and "Hugo Chavez"."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/200...ebsite_jollies/
So one mistake with "Oliver North" but nothing is perfect.
"They are the highest international reserves ever in Venezuelan history"
Yes, but that is in nominal terms, not real terms. Remember, US dollars in the 1970s were worth a lot more than they are now.
"the Chavez government also tends to set the budget well below oil prices to prepare for this."
yes and no. It is true the initial budget is very conservative by having low revenue projections. But it also leaves off a lot of expenses. For 2006 the government did have a surplus but it was VERY, VERY slight, so that if expenditures stay the same and revenue were to drop it would quickly be in a deficit - unless it cut back expenses quickly. It couldn't maitain anywhere near the same rate of spending if oil prices were to drop.
"But, on top of that, as you well know, oil prices are being very well controlled. Meaning the prices will probably never fall very drastically, thus giving the government time to accomodate spending if prices start to come down."
Without a doubt the Chavez governmetn has done an excellent job about this. But a lot is still out of their control. If the Iraq war ends with a) a US victory prices will drop as the US will surely use control of that oil to ramp up production and break OPEC and b) with an insurgent victory the new Iraqi government might also want to ramp up production to rebuild their devestated country.
Hopefully oil prices will remain robust. But as the saying goes - hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
"One thing that is vital for building national industry and increasing national production is to have a growing domestic market, to have a domestic market with buying power."
Yeah, but it is the buying power in DOLLARS that has gone way up. Imports are getting cheaper and cheaper every year because Venezuela has inflation, meaning their are more Bolivares and Venezuelan goods are more expensive in Bolivares, but Bolivares still buy the same amount of dollars they did three years ago. So everything that is imported is getting cheaper and this has a very predictable effect - people buy imported goods rather than Venezuelan produced ones. This is a totally insane policy that will never allow for Venezuelan industry to develope if it is continued.
"Yeah, but I think Venezuela could quickly increase that number if they wanted,"
How so? And why wouldn't they want to?
"They are five-year plans, and they go all the way to 2044. That's probably how long it will take to really develop the country."
Sure, but it shouldn't take that long to get that $6 billion number to at least increase - yet it isn't. And with the bad policies currently being followed it isn't likely too. Just watch that number over the next couple of years and see if it increases. It is highly doubtful that it will just as it hasn't up to now.
Ow, there are exceptions, of course, specially because Chavistas have found out most skilled people oppose Chavez.
They are not as dumb as the people from the Khmer Rouge, mind.
I know also several who work for the government, although several do not get the same contracts as others do as they are not Chavistas (highly respected, but...)
Seymore Hersh on planned invasion of Iran...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y...h?v=ywE7-
AB4caM
Bush and the Changing Meanings of "Success" in Iraq...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b...h?
v=byZUsLzSNdI
How so? And why wouldn't they want to?
By exporting more raw materials or basic manufactured goods. But the government has done the opposite by passing laws that assure these basic goods are reserved for domestic use.
What this means is that the government doesn't want to export basic industrial good (steel, basic petrochemicals, for example) but rather use them to create vertically-integrated industry. So, instead of just simply trying to increase exports, which they could do by maximizing exports of steel or aluminum, for example, it seems they are trying to promote more advanced production by using that steel and aluminum in national industries.
Sure, but it shouldn't take that long to get that $6 billion number to at least increase - yet it isn't. And with the bad policies currently being followed it isn't likely too. Just watch that number over the next couple of years and see if it increases. It is highly doubtful that it will just as it hasn't up to now.
ow | Homepage | 10.01.07 - 12:07 pm | #
Well, I don't think it would be that hard, for the reasons explained above, but I think you are asking for a lot in little time. Remember, this was a totally deindustrialized country by the time Chavez came to power. Nearly all state industry was privatized and most productive industry had collapsed due to lack of protection. Venezuela was actually importing a lot of basic manufactures, and even raw materials by the 1990's.
We are talking about a country that has almost NO industrial base to stand on, and thus has to totally rebuild even the most basic industries like steel plants, aluminum, basic plastics, chemicals, and even the oil industry.
Before you can even THINK about exports, you've got to build that basic capacity again.
The other thing that has made this slow for Chavez is that he's done it democratically. Places like South Korea just had totally repressive military regimes that didn't have to worry about opposition. The CIA helped South Korea repress leftits of all kinds while the government carried forth the policy that they wanted, with huge amounts of US financial aid.
Anon, you are very creative. Your explanation about why we are not exporting reminds me of the strategical movements backwards Hitler did during WW2: it is all about strategy. We leave Minks?
It is because we are preparing an even bigger offensive. We are now at the Oder? Now is that we are about to roll back...
I am sure even Hugo I wouldn't have thought about it;
Social democracy having been “pushed aside” would probably be news to people in much of western Europe. That there may have been cutbacks in some social programs would hardly seem a reason to be so dismissive of a social system which seems to provide a very high quality of life to tens of millions of people in the world today.
But for billions more not so much. You have to realize that these social democracies exist with their “high quality” of life solely because they live off the rest of the people of the planet. They maintain the capitalist system , as we know it today with the its main tenet of capital accumulation(profit), intact. In order for the economic elites to maintain their rates of profit “cutbacks” to the demos will be the order of the day. I am convinced that this social democracy that you are enamored with is a transition point that Venezuela is currently in towards its stated goal to a socialism of the 21st century. But it is not an end in itself like in Europe.
Further, while Wilpert later goes on to describe a very egalitarian and just society where capitalism has been replaced by things like “self-management” and exchange is dictated through “participatory planning” these concepts have never been fully implemented nor endured anywhere.
The egalitarian and just society of the 21st century socialism is the stated goal. The government has taken many big steps in that direction. Many important economic institutions are now under State or Coop control. The state itself is now firmly under elected government control; PDVSA; CANTV;MERCAL and more than 100,000 cooperatives. Now the key challenge now(barring attacks from the world capitalist powers) is to over come the paternalistic –clientalism(leading to corruption) culture that Wilpert mentions as one of the obstacles for the movement. The manner in which the PSUV has begun is a good start.
I find this emblematic of much of the debate on Venezuela. While the virtues of capitalism and socialism are heavily debated in this blogger’s opinion Venezuela doesn’t need capitalism or socialism per se – it needs an economic system that will allow for the quickest economic development possible.
I repeat , a United South América /United América with the formation of a regional trade bloc, like the European Union, will be the way to go as far as economic development is concerned. Venezuela cannot develop by itself without this key factor, I think
. “A united front, with import-institution for the region, will help it create and grow new industries. As GIV has pointed out, ‘... no one is saying you don't export. What we are saying is that you must first protect industry, using import substitution, and once industry is developed you can export.’ Once these industries are on their feet then they can do what South Korea(and USA, Europe, Japan etc)does now.”
OOps sentence should read.
--- Venezuela cannot develop by itself and compete with the world capitalist powers without this key factor, I think.
Avila:
I'll go over those points later when I have more time.
But seeing as I know you read the book just wondering what you took away from it and what the stand out points were for you.
And maybe what if anything came as a surprise to you?
I haven't read the book but I'm looking forward to finding and reading it.
One thing that concerns me about Venezuela's current political process and Chavez's policies in general is that they seem to be completely separated from the notion of optimizing the use of resources, and in those cases where there are regulations they simply are not enforced.
For example, I attended a speech a couple of days ago with the director of Minambiente in Tachira State, at auditorio Alí Primera here in San Cristóbal. The guy said that in Venezuela some 150.000 Hectares of forest are being cut down every year. That is a conservative figure because I found some numbers that are even more disturbing:
http://www.premioreportaje.org/a...te=junho%
202006
The guy said: "we have to start enforcing laws", and he noted that Mision Árbol plans to plant 1MM trees in four years equivalent to 150.000 Hectares. You are doing nothing here, exchanging 600.000 Has of mature trees with 150.000 Has of saplings in the next four years.
You see a recurrent pattern: Cheap cars and gas instead of more public transportation (massive transportation projects are non-existant in cities like Puerto La Cruz, Maracay or San Cristóbal); No family planning and population projected for 50MM people in a couple of decades; OW has written already on the issue of trash on everywhere. Most Chavez's announced factories are not precisely enviromental friendly: like the cell phone factory or every oil or petrochemical project... And of course, as the post reads: there's no saving up for a rainy day.
Yes, there have been some positive developments, like the program to exchange incandescent bulb for energy saving ones, but I'm sure that was a measure to slow down for a while the accelerated growth of energy consumption more than a ecological policy.
I fear developmentalism as being implemented in Venezuela will bring further problems in the future and that we are starting to see in the present: reduced streamflow of rivers, increased pollution in overcrowded cities and no sense of conservation.
Yesterday Chavez talked about excessive consumption in general, but he singled out hummers and scotch. I don't think people can grasp these ideas about rational spending and consumption if you don't start by giving the example.
No family planning and population projected for 50MM people in a couple of decades
Definitely. And Chavez was just talking yesterday about the huge numbers of lives they are saving with the health programs. That's wonderful, of course, but is also going to only make the problem of population that much worse. I'm pretty surprised that they haven't done anything about family planning. Anyone have any idea why that is? Wonder what the Cuban health system does with family planning?
There is family planning in Venezuela. Here is an educational poster on it in a CDI:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums.../100_5926-
1.jpg
Last week Ultimas Noticias reported that Venezuela had the highest rate of teen pregnancy in Latin America. So for whatever reason the family planning efforts are not proving that effective.
Probably has to be a lot more than a poster in a CDI for it to work! They need to put together a whole educational campaign, provide free drugs, condoms, etc.
Wilpert's book is a fairly decent one, but by no means an excellent one. In my perception, it is excessively conventional, treading too much on issues that are characteristically important for progressive gringos with little classic understanding about the main and burning debates concerning socialism and the transition towards such system. There is hardly no reference to the crucial experiences of the Soviet Union, China and Cuba -and why socialism has failed in all three. There is too much economicism, excessive emphasis on "achievements" versus "shortcomings" (as if it was mostly a matter of attaining a "balanced view" and not a deep insight into the treacherous meanders of trying to advance towards a new society), and little discussion -if any at all!- of the central question announced in the the book's title: the issue of power. How to transform it? What to do with the State? How to effectively transfer power from the top to the bottom of society? etc, etc. A good book for political tourists, enthusiastic dilettantes and beginners, but not for engaged militants. The big and burning issues of the transitional period remain unaddressed.
"the issue of power. How to transform it? What to do with the State? How to effectively transfer power from the top to the bottom of society? etc, etc. A good book for political tourists, enthusiastic dilettantes and beginners, but not for engaged militants. The big and burning issues of the transitional period remain unaddressed."
It is an analysis, not a how to guide. Wilpert is not advocating for a certain method of transforming the state - though does cover that to some degree in the appendix and say what he thinks a truly socialistic state would look like. So to a certain extent you are correct.
However, he does point out what is REALLY happening in Venezuela and how in fact power is to a large extent moving up and becoming more concentrated in the Presidency - which is one of the major problems confronting the country right now. Clearly, we can debate theory all we want. But if that theory doesn't correspond to what is happening in the country then it is just idle talk. So you really do have do what Wilpert did - discuss the theory AND how that theory is being implemented.
Of course, it should be noted Chavez himself hasn't really addressed your questions on power either.
It is an analysis, not a how to guide. Wilpert is not advocating for a certain method of transforming the state - though does cover that to some degree in the appendix and say what he thinks a truly socialistic state would look like. So to a certain extent you are correct.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Well, unfortunately, that is what we need. Not a political tourist guide, but a deep theoretical essay addressing the burning issues of the transitional period. In order to do such, you must be versed on the history of the socialist movement, and retrace current issues raised today by the Venezuelan experience, to the debate between Anarchists and Marxists during the First International concerning the issue of the State and Power. There is simply no other fruitful way to make progress in this shaky terrain.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
However, he does point out what is REALLY happening in Venezuela and how in fact power is to a large extent moving up and becoming more concentrated in the Presidency - which is one of the major problems confronting the country right now. Clearly, we can debate theory all we want. But if that theory doesn't correspond to what is happening in the country then it is just idle talk. So you really do have do what Wilpert did - discuss the theory AND how that theory is being implemented.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Concentration of power in the hands of one individual is not good, but the real problem lies elsewhere: in the concentration of power at the top of the State and the gradual disempowerment of the people. In Cuba, for example, once Fidel dies, the State's top officials and the burocracy will still have most of the power, and the people will remain powerless. There is now a power structure in place that turns Fidel into a mostly emblematic figure, with little relevance otherwise. It's within that power structure that the real problem exists. It's that power structure (which as we know is mostly interested in reproducing itself through time) which hinders any possibility of true Socialism coming into existence in Cuba. Once that power structure is consolidated, there is little hope left for any true democratic and revolutionary advance towards a new and better society. That power structure is a structure for class domination: the domination of a burocratic bourgeosie over the vast majority of the people. When that form of class oppression comes into being, the revolution normally dies along with it. Chávez is not the problem, but the new ruling class that is gradually forming at the top of the State apparatus. Personal concentration of power by Chávez is nothing but a symptom (of lack of real popular empowerment) but not the cause. Right now, the situation in Venezuela is in flux, with many contradictory forces and processes taking place. If Chávez is
BTW, Venezuelanalysis published this post with a RESPONSE from Greg Wilpert. I assume people read the post, but if you want to get the authors response they are there.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/
BTW, right below it is what looks like a very interesting article on the new PSUV and internal political democracy. Haven't read it yet but...
Cont...
If Chávez is able to grasp correctly the essential problem of all transitional process -people's empowerment versus burocratic oppression- and establish and sustain a firm alliance with the masses beyond and above the burocracy, then the revolution will prosper. Otherwise it will fail, as so many did before.
Social democracy having been "pushed aside" would probably be news to people in much of western Europe. That there may have been cutbacks in some social programs would hardly seem a reason to be so dismissive of a social system which seems to provide a very high quality of life to tens of millions of people in the world today.
OW, I strongly disagree with you on this one. Social democracy has little to nothing to do with what provides a high quality of life to people in Europe.
It has a lot more to do with the economic system, which has been based on the exploitation of much of the world for the last 500 years. I think that after 500 years of plundering, enslaving, colonizing, and robbing most of the world of their wealth, it would be pretty hard to claim that it is their "social democracy" that has created this quality of life.
Europe became quite a wealthy empire by basically colonizing the whole world. And the effects of that are still felt today. So, Europe developed their industrial might during this period of colonization, and still maintains this industrial system that dominates world production (now including the US and Japan). They still dominate the world markets with their production, in exchange for the resources of the third world. It is the same colonial system, only we don't call it that anymore.
So it has little to do with the political system, as many political systems would probably prosper in these conditions.
Also, I'd have to say that much of what has created greater equality and good social conditions in Europe had a lot to do with centuries of labor class struggle to make those gains. There is nothing about "social democracy" that would have granted these gains right off. Working class people had to fight for them.
ow, who is this chap that keeps posting under "anon" that you seem to know? why doesn't he use his real name?
Sorry for not putting my real name. But its a great strategy for avoiding the kind of retarded trolling that many times goes on here. When I don't put my name, the trolls seem to magically go away.
Mr Dutton, you could do better by linking to Sy's latest (and please read carefully):
http://www.newyorker.com/
reporti...08fa_fact_hersh
Anon, why don't you just make up a name?
But let me get this straight, when you post under your real name you get flack from "retarded trolls" but when you post as "anon" "the trolls magically go away."
Those must be some good mushrooms you are on.
Seriously, who are you and what have you done to incite such hate from "trolls" ?
Son, how old are you?
Anon, you do not have to apologize to me. I do not know you nor am I offended by you. I just find you quite odd and a tad amusing.
Anonymous, the historical record bears your version out-social democracy in Europe is the result of decades of social tumult, world wars, and the desire for relative peace when the political rightwing was propped up in power after WWII with US support.
Today the capitalist class would smash all the gains made by the European working classes if they could get away with it.
More, the affluent consumerist lifestyle of the European working and ruling class is a direct result of centuries of colonial expansion--and present day neo-colonial policies that parasitically feed-off the so-called 'third world'.
Aliva is entirely correct that South America needs to expand democracy so that the ruling classes are brought into some type of discipline--and that the nations unite with a common market. This is one way to develop.
But trying to copy the Asian tigers will not work--because developement today takes place under a new set of conditions.
What is certain, however, is that it will not be a technocratic elite taht will advance the interests of the heretofore marginalized and exploited. The work of emancipation can only be brought forward by those suffering under the boot of oppression. Same as it ever was.
But, as I have stated repeatedly--the ecological crisis makes sustainable development a necessity,and it makes Western style consumer driven economies percarious.
Re-think and re-develop the conception of what is 'wealth', and 'poverty'. And this will require a renewed scrutiny of the problems of the affluent societies that are leading humankind quickly to the brink. I just havent' seen the willingness and the imagination required come to the forefront of Bolivarian process yet.
bill
Already seen it. The question is will the UK go with Bush?. I think they will.
Hugo the First, according to a post in Aporrea, said he wanted Venezuela to grow to 50 million people or even to 200 million people.
http://www.aporrea.org/imprime/a...ime/
a35808.html
I wonder where exactly he said it.
Ow, have you other sources? I can't find them.
Venezuela does not produce but a tiny fraction of its food and expansion is limited as a large part of the surface is not good for agriculture.
I think the Hugo strategy is this: population explosion, more misery, blame it on the USA
and on capitalists, more Chavistas.
George, did you see it or read it because your question is not relevant as nobody knows what type of attack and when it will happen if it happens.
Don't assume it will happen under Bush. I actually see the likelyhood greater under Hillary. But it could happen tomorrow as the trigger could be a hair.
But to answer your question, of course Britain and the rest of the free world will be on board including many not-so-free countries.
Recall only three countries voted to support Iran at IAEA: Syria, Cuba and Venezuela.
Mr Revolt,
What???!!!???
You lost me there chap!
OW, first, I am curious as to why you don't post about Noam Chomsky's analysis of Venezuela--that would make for an interesting discussion in conjunction with Wilpert's book.
Next, yes, reading Wilpert's response to your idea about social democracy in Europe and your neoliberal model of devaluing the currency makes interesting reading. Wilpert's argument appears more cogent. It is not as though Chavez is simply blind to the likely result of a currency devaluation.
More, I have stated all along that promoting domestic industry is more important that trying to Asian-tiger Venezuela's way out of poverty.
Indeed, one of the huge problems with the global capitalist economy is the unsustainable, ecologically devastating carbons that are released into the atmposphere. And as I have repeated (like a broken record), Venezuela should be developing the society to be one of the most ecologically freindly in the world. But Chavez has fallen short on this task--big time.
In summary, I regret not having been able to read Wilpert's book, but the resulting discussion has been very informative.
OT: today one of my customers and I got into a heated debate about Venezuela. His spanish teacher is Venezuelan--and has told him about the Chavez 'dictatorship'. The guy is 82 (and, yes, learning and improving his Spanish!--there is hope for Slave yet 
) and he gets a lot of his information from the corporate media. In short, this man is decent--but thouroughly indoctrinated into the corporate mainstream way of viewing the world. If he wasn't a decent guy to begin with, I would not likely have even developed a mini-debate with the man. More, if we lost the project that we will be working with him on, it wouldn't substantially hurt our company at this juncture.
But he took our disagreements in stride--and we parted on amicable terms. This anecdote simply points up the tremendous informational/ideological herdles that left-progressives/socialist must negotiate to advance even basic, humanist policy platforms. Tough row to hoe.
Only Syria, Cuba and Venezuela? I see a pattern 
bill--I don't think that I ever found you....chap. 
bill
You could well be right bill, these people are a law unto themselves. In truth there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. I think it will happen under Bush. As for...
"George, did you see it or read it because your question is not relevant as nobody knows what type of attack and when it will happen if it happens."
What question did I ask?.
I believe it will be an attack to try and bring about regime change in Iran and not an all out attack. Of course the USA will want a right wing government in Iran. I can tell you this there has been a lot of activity at air bases here in the UK. Someone was on the radio saying that he lives beside one and there had been a lot of coming and going way beyond normal. Make of it what you will?.
OW et al: Borev links to a hilarious Washington Post interview with Ecuador's President Correa.
Do you think that the average WP reader can understand how pathetic the interviewer's line of questioning is? Just asking.
Really, it is totally pathetic, but worth the read.
Keep it up Borev--you have found a permanent niche uncovering the worst US propaganda/reporting/distorting about Venezuela and Latin America. Nice.
OW, sorry for the late response work got in the way.
Wilpert gives a good overview of the policies of the Bolivarian government anchored in reality(theory is nothing without praxis). What I took away from his overall analysis is that given the democratic nature of the overall movements and acts made by the Bolivarian government it has gained strength to withstand the covert/subtle attacks from without and within the country for the people's empowerment.
Some thoughts and questions:
-The formation of new state owned companies managed by the state or co-managed with its workers is a big step towards diversifying while moving towards a more just economy. However as Wilpert points out, “ ... as long as the oil industry and other state-owned enterprises are run as typical corporations, as they currently are, self-management is being prevented in some of the country's most important industries.”(p.192) How do you balance participative democracy( the main thesis of the 21st century socialism) with the current ecomomic reality especially when it comes to very important industries like oil?
- The problem of patronage-clietantalism is something that could definitely eat the movement from the inside. Like in every period of transition there are elements with old habits of the the 4th republic that dress themselves in a red franela and call themselves revolutionary. Even worse are the “super revolucionarios” in public positions that are infected by the clientism bug.
It is hard to judge honestly without actually being in the country but during periods of transition you walk a fine line between protecting against 5th columnists and regular every day“ni-ni's” who only care about getting that plasma tv. Wilperts solution of having some kind of a multi-disciplinary task force [that] would study the problem from all its angles and would be authorized to make policy recommendations(p.213) sounds reasonable.
-The concentration of power upwards in the presidency during this period of transition(economically, culturally, politically away from capitalism today) is realistically warranted. The example that this movement is setting for the rest of the world definitely will not be left untouched by the G7.However looking at the many actions of the president during past crisis I think we can agree that he is not the one we have to worry about. The other public administrators however are another matter.Mayhobin hit it on the head.
“If Chávez is able to grasp correctly the essential problem of all transitional process -people's empowerment versus bureaucratic oppression- and establish and sustain a firm alliance with the masses beyond and above the bureaucracy, then the revolution will prosper. Otherwise it will fail, as so many did before."
Moyhabin, I really like your analysis of the bueracratic elite vrs. people empowerment. This does, in a nutshell, describe the forces that play out in these battles. And I think this tendency is at the root of what troubles OW about the direction of the Bolivarian project.
I don't think that the problem is solved by changing the Federal structure, for example. A change in the structure of government might allow for more democratic representation and a more horizontal distribution of power. How the communal counciles are to be developed and incorporated is crucial. Chomsky makes this point.
And I will state again that I don't believe that Chavez is judged PODOMOS. When they went to the media, they played their hand. They were testing the boundries, the limit-points.
Chavez hasn't survived this long by being politically clumsy.
Completely agree Slave, and I also think that Bo Rev is hilarious - it's a must read that I can't imagine the humourless supporters of capitalism ever thinking up - too busy studying their bank balances.
The utter vacuity of the mainstream press that Bo Rev shows up was what inspired me to write my own articles - you know you get to the point where you're reading something in the Washington Post, NYT or London's Guardian, and you're thinking, 'I know more than the guy who wrote this,' and then you start to lose all respect for these 'prestigious' 'newspapers of record' and see them for the inhouse magazines of the elite clubs that they are.
Anyway, Rafael Correa has just stomped all over the rightists once more - despite the media's claims (and desperate hopes) that he would only get 40 to 50 seats in the Constituent Assembly, the people gave him 80 in Sunday's elections!
Trust me, we are going to do everything we fucking can to drag Colombia into the twenty-first century to join Chávez and Correa!
Trust me, we are going to do everything we fucking can to drag Colombia into the twenty-first century to join Chávez and Correa!
Paul | Homepage | 10.01.07 - 11:05 pm | #
That would be the final nail in the coffin for Washington. But will also be extremely difficult and unlikely I think. Don't you think any leftist regime would be immediately under attack from the paramilitaries?
Trust me, we are going to do everything we fucking can to drag Colombia into the twenty-first century to join Chávez and Correa!The problem the left has in Colombia is the FARC. If they were to disarm and reform themselves into a political party, maybe they could get somewhere in 10 or 20 years. As is, they've made a horrible name for themselves.
George baby, knock yourself out!
http://www.americanthinker.com/
2...ageddon_at.html
In the 2002 period, it was easier to defend Chavez. It was him against the oligarchy.
Things have come to a point, where the contradictions have to be resolved. What kind of socialist party is Chavez building? Allowing capitalists to join? What about the armed foeces? What to do about deliberate sabotage of the economy?
I'll know next year.
Caro baby, knock yourself out!
Scroll down and look for...
"Ultra-right Christians begin campaign to end the world"
"The former US Attorney General, John Ashcroft, is one of them."
http://tinyurl.com/3cub54
Deliberate sabotage to the economy? Do you mean ineptitude by the Chavistas?
Man, the Chavistas I know were the worst in my class, always. After many years I decided to track them back and after a couple or two, I could see who had become a Chavista by their behaviour during secondary school: the thugs, the ones with no ethics, the worst of the worst. Those are now the big guys in ministries of every kind now.
Before at least there was a mixture of different people.
As for Colombia: the FARC are just bloody drug dealers.
From Iraq to Burma
Hypocrisy Rules the West
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Shame has vanished from Western "civilization." Hypocrisy has taken its place.
On September 28, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown could be heard on National Public Radio decrying the use of violence against democratic protesters by the government in Burma. Brown declared the British people's revulsion over the violence inflicted by the Burmese government on its people. But Brown said nothing about the violence the British government was inflicting on Iraqis and Afghans.
http://counterpunch.org/
roberts1...ts10012007.html
Man, the Chavistas I know were the worst in my class, always.
-----------------------
Don't worry Leper. Here you stand unchallenged as the stupidist participant.
Isn't this little imbecile a complete joke? I mean, just read the silly inanities this moron writes. In his parallel universe, Chávez smokes crack, Chavistas are all stupid, and our opposition is made out only of geniuses.
Which of course begs the question: How come we are always winning while they are complete fuck-ups?
"But Brown said nothing about the violence the British government was inflicting on Iraqis and Afghans."
Moyhabin
Look at what he is doing to his own people...
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=770
Moyhabin, I really like your analysis of the bueracratic elite vrs. people empowerment. This does, in a nutshell, describe the forces that play out in these battles. And I think this tendency is at the root of what troubles OW about the direction of the Bolivarian project.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
You and I are on the same wavelength, and I think we both understand how the future will shape-up: the reactionary opposition (btw, reactionary, the perfect definition: those who react against any change within the old status-quo) is already going down the toilet, while new interest groups are emerging within the revolution (the State) itself that will eventually coalesce and try to form a new ruling elite. We have to hit them hard now while the iron is still hot. We recently obtained a resounding victory when the unions mobilized against the PDVSA techno-burocracy and forced it make some concessions. However, this is just the beginning. If managers, burocrats and elite mafias take control of our country, we are lost. The revolution will decline and die. Corruption and cronyism will become entrenched and chronic. The return to the old ways will be just a matter of time.
Pretty darn sad, George! The Labour party has become a whore house under these assholes "leadership"!
Moyhabin,
Why? Because we live in a petro state and there are higher oil prices, as simple as that, and the average Venezuelan doesn't care a bit but for what is in for him there, even if his country goes to pot.
If you think "duration of government" is a measure of success, you would say then Zimbabwe is a success story and so was Gomez's. Hugo's pal Mugabe does not even need high oil prices.
The same silly people who voted twice for CAP voted twice for Caldera and many of them are also voting several times for Chavez and everything they can say is "they lie to us". Nobody in Venezuela assumes his or her responsibility.
What is the secret there? None.
In two years time the Venezuelan government will start to collapse. What will your brothers Fidel and Vladimir Perez do?
Moyhabin,
I left my country while you ruin it the same way as many people left Nazi Germany, because there was no way for the moment. We will return then and no, it won't be via the gringos.
Of course there are lots of stupid irresponsible people among the non-Chavistas. Opposition is a
label for anyone who is not for Chavez and there are countless groups who do not have much in common with each others, the same way as in any other country. The opposition in Germany goes from the Green Party to Neonazis to extreme left. They have little in common.
Your lot alone are carving your own destruction.
It is a pity that many poor will have to suffer.
Last time I went to Venezuela I saw the same or more street children, taking drugs on the streets, I saw many more beggars and the morgues were chock-a-block with the people Hugo I said he cared about.
Of course, there are many more Made-in-China toys, there are many luxurious cars and the big Chavistas are parading their wealth in the chic restaurants of Caracas.
Kepler
I have been meaning to ask you this...You don`t like Capitalism-Socialism or Communism yet you come on here and have a go at the so called "Chavistas" yet NEVER tell us what you think would be the best system of government or what your version of government should be. Please enlighten us all.
Our minister of Interior is the man who said the US Americans were watching us through the TV decoder of a private US channel.
THAT is our minister of Interior and that is just an example of how qualified these guys are. The only thing they are good at is gaining power, stealing and distributing part of it to those who lick their asses.
"Things have come to a point, where the contradictions have to be resolved. What kind of socialist party is Chavez building? Allowing capitalists to join? "
YOu got that right. And forget about the capitalists... look at what is happening to people who open their mouths:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/...m/analysis/
2666
Personally, I felt it was 2007 that was going to make or break the BoRev. It was after teh election, the deck was pretty much clear of any opposition, no elections, an economy doing well, etc. So I thought that in 2007 the true direction of this movement would be clearly definted. I still think that is true. The only thing is I don't like the direction.
It would be nice if it turned around in 2008, but I doubt it.
ow
Thanks for the link.
It is a case MAYBE of fear. The constant fear of the USA that is the driving force behind what is appearing to happen, distrust is creeping into the minds of some in government. Well it has happened before. Time will tell but it doesn`t bode well for the Venezuelan political process?.
"Biggest blitz by paras since WW2 to crush Taliban"...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle2558244.ece
"It is a case MAYBE of fear. The constant fear of the USA that is the driving force behind what is appearing to happen"
That may be, but it is also just an exceuse. It isn't easy building a different society when you have lots of enemies. But there are two ways to fail. One is that your enemies overthrow you (ie Allende). Another is that you destroy your own movement through bad policies and repression (is Castro). Both are failures. And you have to be carefull not to let the response to one possibility drive you to the other.
"Moyhabin, I really like your analysis of the bueracratic elite vrs. people empowerment. This does, in a nutshell, describe the forces that play out in these battles. And I think this tendency is at the root of what troubles OW about the direction of the Bolivarian project."
It is buereaucratic elite and excessive power in one person versus genuine democracy and power in the hands of the people that is troublesome. And to the extent that there is a buereaucratic elite is largely the fault of that one person in whom so much power is concentrated.
For example, it is the buereaucratic elite that runs the TV station that replaced RCTV, TVes. Why? Because Chavez didn't democratize it so that average people control how it is run. So a handfull of buereaucrats run it.
I don't think these are accidents and mistakes. They are deliberate and bad policies.
Avila,
I thought the same thing about the oil industries and the co-ops as I read the section. Obviously even the people promoting them don't trust co-ops THAT much.
"-The concentration of power upwards in the presidency during this period of transition(economically, culturally, politically away from capitalism today) is realistically warranted. The example that this movement is setting for the rest of the world definitely will not be left untouched by the G7.However looking at the many actions of the president during past crisis I think we can agree that he is not the one we have to worry about. "
I'm not clear why any concentration of power is warranted. Ultimately more democracy is desired. Yet somehow that democracy is going to be built after power is more concentrated? That doesn't make sense. It is taking the country FURTHER away from the stated goal. What is more, the movement is now strong so this is precisely the time to build democracy.
"I think we can agree that he is not the one we have to worry about"
Hopefully, but nothing should ever be based on trust. People might have said the same thing about Castro in 1960...
Did you pick up on the part where he apparently says to people who disagree with something in cabinet meetings "I'll remind you you are speaking to the president"?!?!?! If people in his own cabinet meetings behind closed doors can't speak freely (even accepting that he makes the final decisions) who can?
Actually, it would be good if the Anons would choose anything of a moniker as I'm not sure if it is one person or two (anon1) and (anon2) would even suffice.
'The problem the left has in Colombia is the FARC. If they were to disarm and reform themselves into a political party, maybe they could get somewhere in 10 or 20 years. As is, they've made a horrible name for themselves.'
- Anon
The Farc are meaningless to Colombian workers and the democratic left in Colombia. At no time have the guerrillas ever been involved in organising workers, the marginalized in the barrios or the displaced - in fact, it is the Farc that have caused thousands of people to be displaced, and not because of 'crossfire' with paramilitaries, but as a deliberate tactic of war.
The guerrillas may once have had a reason (Colombia's inherent inequality, inequity and poverty) to take up arms, but their origins are more in the Liberal-Conservative violence in the late Forties. Local party bosses and caudillos would arm the peasant workers under their patronage and set them against each other.
The Farc have long since lost any ideological reason to be, and now use extortion and force peasant workers to pay 'taxes' on their coca to fund their (self selected and elitist) war. Here's what one real Communist thinks of them:
http://ciudadbolivaramerica.blog...a-
saramago.html
But it is a favourite tactic of the Colombian elite and their press to continue associating the guerrillas with the left, and it has worked for decades. What is different now is that Chávez (and Correa and Morales, and even Lula and Kirchner to some extent) have given Colombians the space to organise a democratic left that can't be tainted with this lie or dismissed so easily.
Just as the Colombian elite is worried about Chávez's influence:
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/...tent/view/904/
1
they are equally worried that Colombians are taking a turn to the left:
http://ciudadbolivaramerica.blog...o-
colombia.html
George, I have seen the different systems and I know quiet well also the different conditions in which socialist countries evolved. I speak Russian, I kept in touch with Russia and other countries in the Eastern Block since I was a wee child and saw how things evolved and I think I got a little bit of knowledge of how things evolved in the US as well as my dad kept going there (he got a scholarship, we had scholarships before Chavez). I see how the "think tanks" of the "revolution" pretend to be doing things that are finally different when at most they are recreating bits of things that failed together with some Caribbean Banana-republican flavour.
My parents never wanted to belong to any party, always refused being adecos, copeyanos or MAS or whatever. Because of that my dad had it twice as difficult in his work as professor and my mom as school teacher. Still they kept by their principles and were respected. The kept a healthy distrust of those who are too long in power, a love for asking always: how can we do things better for us and for the rest?
Like Robbin Williams said: politicians are like diapers, you have to change them often.
I believe the problem goes beyond socialism versus capitalism. There are few things where I am an absolutist. For one, I am a Republican.
I find it an ofense to call somebody "King" or "Lord". I also know soviets or councils can never be the main motor of any country. They are doomed to failure. They can be a good alternative sometimes. Else, they will always be "hijacked" by a group or by a set of mafias. Always.
Most people use political ideas simply as labels and it doesn't matter what the others believe in as long as they have the same label as you (like Kundera wrote, it is more about imagology than ideology). Others do believe in some ideas but think any single abstract idea can be immutable and can be forced onto everyone else. They will do anything to force the others accept those ideas. Both groups are false, the profiteurs and the fundamentalists.
I think the world is too complex to be doing a classification on "left and right".
I believe any government, whether from left or from right, needs and must promote competition and pluralism. You cannot have that just by forming one party and saying everything needs to be done within a framework else the system collapses. Sooner or later people will become fed up and the system will collapse anyway, not before leaving lots of scars.
You need a system above all with a LOT OF TRANSPARENCY and with clear rules to ask a dialog among conflicting parties.
THE people (not Hugo People) should be able to see and preferably participate in discussions by their leaders and the opposition.
I like systems where the prime minister is forced to answer on a regular basis very difficult questions by the people or at least by their representatives, where you know how much REALLY REALLY REALLY the ones in power earn and everybody knows that that s
About the anons:
what about Anon(GIV) and Anon(Esc)?
"OW, I strongly disagree with you on this one. Social democracy has little to nothing to do with what provides a high quality of life to people in Europe.
It has a lot more to do with the economic system, which has been based on the exploitation of much of the world for the last 500 years. I think that after 500 years of plundering, enslaving, colonizing, and robbing most of the world of their wealth, it would be pretty hard to claim that it is their "social democracy" that has created this quality of life.
Europe became quite a wealthy empire by basically colonizing the whole world."
That is true to a significant degree. Although I think they mainly developed off expoiting their own populations. But colonization and slavery did play big roles.
The point though is to develope and idustrialize but you don't necessarily have to do it the way they did it. South Korea didn't have colonies. Neither did Tawain. Neither does China today.
But you do have to make sacrifices. You do have to INVEST more and CONSUME less. You do have to export more. You do have to improve the quality of education, not just the quantity.
For an extended period of time people have to work more and harder and get less in return so that the surplus can be reinvested in factories, equipment, infrastructure etc. to develope.
Anyone who thinks you can develope by cutting the work week to 36 hours, by having a consumption binge while exports stay flat, by eliminating entrance exams rather than helping students improve so they can pass them is going to turn out to be very mistaken in my opinion.
Your other point is that social democratic gains were only run through struggle. That is absolutely true. But I think that is always true and will be true under any system. I don't think there will ever be any system, even a 21st Century Socialist one, where people can demobilize and not have their gains taken away by someone (capitalists, statist bureaucracy, a strong leader, etc.).
Anyways, my main point here is Venezuela has to create a LOT more wealth and right now I see the policies they are pursueing as doing more to undermine wealth creation than promote it.
My last link about Colombia should be:
http://ciudadbolivaramerica.blog...a.blogspot.com/
Did you pick up on the part where he apparently says to people who disagree with something in cabinet meetings "I'll remind you you are speaking to the president"?!?!?!
Where did you see this?
It is buereaucratic elite and excessive power in one person versus genuine democracy and power in the hands of the people that is troublesome. And to the extent that there is a buereaucratic elite is largely the fault of that one person in whom so much power is concentrated.
-----------------------------
It depends OW. If Chávez and other leaders within the process become identified with the class interests of the emerging burocratic burgeoisie, or wether he will continue to maintain his allegiance to the impoverished masses, the peasants, the indigenous groups, the lower middle classes, the historically marginalized and disenfranchized, the honest and decent progressive intellectuals and the working class in general. I see Chávez as a man of integrity, someone who emerged from very humble origins and who feels and understand the plight of the vast majority of Venezuelans -which is not the case with most other upper level Chavistas. If he relinquishes power right now in the current political juncture we are in, it will only be to transfer it to the burocratic burgeoisie. It will not be traferred to the people themselves, because the mechanisms that would insure people's power in Venezuela, are yet too incipient. It is imperative that at this particular moment Chávez retains as much decission power as possible while relentlessly fomenting people's power through several policies, institutions, and legal changes. You have to keep in mind OW, that this is a completelly novel experiment. People themselves have hardly ever had any power at all. It is an exception in modern history. Only during some brief moments at the beginning of a triumphant revolution, or at local level as during the Barcelona Commune, the Kronstadt Commune, the Makhnovitchia, the Paris Commune, the Shanghai Commune, etc., have common people had any real power. In the US, as well as in most of the capitalist world, people have no power whatsoever...except the one that they can muster through fierce resistance. Democracy is for all practical purposes defunct, or merely perfuctory in those nations. So I have little qualms with Chávez concentrating power in his hands in the present juncture: he is not taking it away from the people, but from the stupid, inefficient, corrupt, cynical, lazy, greedy, incompetent and anti-revolutionary State burocracy and political class (be it Chavista or not). However, if I see that Chávez turns away from his commitment to the people, starts favoring the new emerging ruling elite, becomes an autocrat, or begins to enact reactionary policies, I will stand firmly against him. I trust I won't need to do so. However, my principles are clear and they are non-negotiable. Besides, I see revolution taking form and rising all over Latin America. This is a transnational struggle. One that knows no borders, and which will be this time all the way to end. We will free ourselves from imperialist domination and compulsive foreign tutelage; we shall de
Cont...
We will free ourselves from imperialist domination and compulsive foreign tutelage; we shall destroy the oligarchy; and we shall advance in continental coordination towards la Patria Grande that Bolivar imagined. We will be socialist and profoundly democratic. Humanistic and tolerant, but firm against entrenched elites, until people can reign supreme.
Ow, I agree with you on several issues.
Still, there are a couple of wee comments.
1) China IS behaving like the colonizers.
You should see the awful conditions in which many people work there now (and I also have friends from there, I have friends from anywhere )
China is doing lots of things that are not kosher at all in Sudan, in Namibia, in many other places we hear little about. China is a USA in the making.
2) how are you going to have more growth with less consumption? This is a difficult question and I believe no one has THE answer. On one side we are straining our environment, but on the other, we cannot stagnate as the system would collapse. People cannot produce more just more and not consume more. People do need to invest and save.
It is a problem for any country: what do we with our increasing level of automation? Many people cannot keep up with it. Do we put them in tourist offices? Do we make them politicians?
Moyhabin:
Thanks for the detailed response. I understand the logic of what you are saying - it is clear and somewhat persuasive. I'm not sure I agree with it completely - I have to think about it more.
It is also scarey. What if Chavez isn't so incorruptable and well motivated or doesn't remain so? What if he is for some reason removed from the scene and that extreme power falls to someone else?
It seems very risky.
Further, I'm still not 100% sure this is what he is really doing. I mean why wasn't there even internal democracy within the MVR or now the PSUV?
Anyways, thanks for the good response. It was thought provoking, like Wilpert's book
Moyhabin, what humble origins are you talking about?
There was nothing special about Chavez's parents.
They were school teachers, like mine. He claims he did not even have shoes. Rubbish. Rubbish (I already said here my dad became later a prof, but
well after we all had shoes).
In fact, I wonder how his parents can have the land they have by being teachers. My parents could never have that.
Chavez can talk like someone from Petare, but he did not have less opportunities than the average Venezuelan of his time.
It is also scarey. What if Chavez isn't so incorruptable and well motivated or doesn't remain so? What if he is for some reason removed from the scene and that extreme power falls to someone else?
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Yes, that is a calculated risk we shall have to take. Meanwhile, our motto is: "Crear, crear, poder popular". The stronger popular forms of direct democracy and horizontal power become established, the lesser the risk. However, revolutions are always a risky business: if you fail you die. There is hardly never any other alternative. History never advances through a royal highway. It marches hesitantly through a narrow and windy path, between a steep ravine and a high mountain.
They were school teachers, like mine. He claims he did not even have shoes. Rubbish. Rubbish (I already said here my dad became later a prof, but
well after we all had shoes).
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
What happened to you? When and why did you turn out to be a fucking "desclasado" and "arrivista"?
It is also scarey. What if Chavez isn't so incorruptable and well motivated or doesn't remain so? What if he is for some reason removed from the scene and that extreme power falls to someone else?
What extreme power? Does he have much more power than any normal president? After all, he still has to work with an assembly that is elected by the people. He is still subject to a referendum, and he still has to get reelected every 7 years. He can't change the constitution without a referendum, and people can challenge any law he makes with a referendum.
I can see where you are worried that he is concentrating power, and he is to some extent. But much of the reason he has so much concentrated power right now is simply because there is no decent opposition, and the assembly is totally under his control. The great thing is that it looks like the future opposition to this movement is going to also come from the left, PODEMOS and those types. That's quite an accomplishment really.
I concur, OW--Aliva, Anonymous, and Moyhabin have been invaluable to this discussion. My only gripe with you is that you seem to avoid Chomsky's analysis like the plauge--or, at least you don't engage it. Chomsky's discussion jibes nicely with the trust of your concerns OW--and would have augmented the depth of this discussion of Wilpert's work.
Moyhabin, I really enjoy reading your analysis of these unfolding events. Especially this--"It is imperative that at this particular moment Chávez retains as much decission power as possible while relentlessly fomenting people's power through several policies, institutions, and legal changes."
I thouroughly concur--and I see Chavez as a protagonist at this juncture. What is key is how Chavez helps structure 'people power'. This is a make-or-break issue. If the communal councils become nothing but a vacuous shell, a parody of people power, then the Bolivarian elites will simply carry on with business as usual for decades to come. The Bolivarian party will become like the Peronists in Argentina: a left/right party that serves monied elites and maintains status quo oppression.
Again, very nice, productive discussion. My framework of awareness has been increased significantly. This is why I hang out on this blog. Rarely am I even compelled to check out what the rightwing oppo blogs are sqwaking about--given that their arresting the play of discourse has made their blogs fucking stale.
The great thing is that it looks like the future opposition to this movement is going to also come from the left, PODEMOS and those types. That's quite an accomplishment really.
Anonymous | 10.02.07 - 10:20 am | #
Anonymous, and I think that Chavez knows this very well. He is aware of the incredible implosion of the elitist, pro-US rightwing--and he is aware that there needs to be a truely oppositional alternative so that those opposed to Chavez have a place to chanell their collective energies. But what is unforgivable, are the political parties that would plot with US imperialism to continue comprador parasitisim--this is what the traditional parties in Venezuelan engaged in, traitorous attacks against the soverignty of their own country.
Do you guys see that the more any movement had hung on any one individual, the worse it gets?
Why are you so pathetically dependent on individuals? Stalin, Lenin, Mao (yes, even Mohamed)...you really love to follow.
Moyhabin says "In the US, as well as in most of the capitalist world, people have no power whatsoever...except the one that they can muster through fierce resistance. Democracy is for all practical purposes defunct, or merely perfuctory in those nations. So I have little qualms with Chávez concentrating power in his hands in the present juncture: he is not taking it away from the people, but from the stupid, inefficient, corrupt, cynical, lazy, greedy, incompetent and anti-revolutionary State burocracy and political class (be it Chavista or not). However, if I see that Chávez turns away from his commitment to the people, starts favoring the new emerging ruling elite, becomes an autocrat, or begins to enact reactionary policies, I will stand firmly against him."
Totally agree Moyhabin. Also, I respect that fact that you engage the concept of 'democracy' in an accurate way in your analysis. Elites in captialist countries use the term 'democracy' for purely propgandistic effect--because, deep down, the majority of humankind support the democratic impulse, social equality, etc. Many liberals here in the US don't bother to think deeply about the meanings of these concepts--because they are priviledged in the order of things, they have a stake in perpetuating exploitation and disenfranchiesment.
To really engage democracy through people power is to be revolutionary--and it means that you will be hated the economic elites and their miserable middle class/managerial class allies.
The truth of the US and most places is that the middle classes are profoundly undemocratic.
Kepler,
I wonder if you ever see any of this kind of reflective, self-critical kind of conversation among the opposition?
Do they ever question the direction their movement is going? (they don't even have a movement)
Do they ever discuss their ideology? (they THINK they don't have ideology, haha!)
I'd like to see this kind of deep discussion on Caracas Chronicles, for example. But all you have are a bunch of gringo wanna-be Venezuelans who will use any piece of irrelevant information to try to ridiculize the revolution.
Kepler, you ass--strong individuals are necessary to lead a movement in the beginning. The corrupt, undemocratic capialist elites are already powerful and unified. You expect that those getting fucked the worst (the majority) will simply spontaneously unite with a program that will displace their oppressors?
Oh, that is right--you support the capitalist oppressors. I forgot
Anonymous, correct--the Venezuelan elites have not political ideology save for re-hashed neoliberalism that they regurgitate from the pages of The Economist and Milton Friedman. They are comprador whores in every sense of the term. Five hundred years of service to empires makes their reflex-obsequiousness to empire well evident.
Notice that for the Venezuelan upper classes, Iraq is simply a 'mistake' on the part of the empire--not an outragous crime against humanity. This position tells you all you need to know about their craven ethics, their moral retardation. They are on their knees, staring at the crotch of the gringo beast. Pathetic.
For this crowd I thought up the innovative and revolutionary 'oligarch plow': hook ten oligarchs and their quisling managers up to a plow. You don't need oxen, or polluting tractors--all you need is a whip (the stick) and a US dollar on a long bamboo pole extended infront of the oligarchs (the carrot). Should work like a charm if we ever get the chance to try it out.
Anonymous, "opposition" is not a movement. "Nazism, Chavism, Communism, white supremacy" ARE movements.
"opposition" means one opposes a given government, so as I said, people have different positions.
Slave Revolt, I have seen much deeper conversations. They are refreshing as they are often based on own thoughts and not regurgitations of some theorists. I am of course excluding those who belong to the extreme groups.
They are not just repeating what they learnt through indoctrination. When I read your contributions I often am reminded of the books I used to read, from Chto delat', by Lenin, to all the myriad of indoctrination crap published in Moscow until the end of the eighties.
Kepler,
Why don't you go back to Caracas Chronicles where you can go on and on about suitcases, tuna cans in Peru, funny things Chavez said years ago, graverobbing, and listen to Katy cry about her taxi breaking down in Caracas.
You can hear some of the most pathetically shallow Venezuelans who wish they WEREN'T Venezuelan, look up anything they can get their hands on in order to put Chavez in a bad light. They will cry about a "new elite" but I've never seen ANY recognition of the REAL economic elite that is still very well and alive, and still would like to dominate Venezuela like before.
That is the kind of nonsense that is discussed overthere, and that is where you belong. You aren't capable of having the kind of discussions we have here.
Look at Ecuador. Correas party who was just created got over 60% of the votes.
This shows what a sorry joke the "democracy" is in the capitalist oligarcic systems. People have no representation. If finally a alternative that people find trustworthy shows up, the whole politcal establishment are washed away. Same happend in Venezuela, as would happend in most of latinamerica. The problem is offcourse to find this opening. In Venezuela in happend through military rebellion. In Ecuador not.
They are not just repeating what they learnt through indoctrination.
What is funny is that they are so naive that they aren't even aware of capitalist indoctrination.
Indoctrination only works when you THINK you aren't being indoctrinated.
Kepler thinks he is thinking for himself. What is funny is that he SOMEHOW has the EXACT SAME ENEMIES as Washington. He hates Iran, Venezuela, Chechnya, etc.
But he doesn't seem to have any issue with fascist Colombia, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Great Britain, or other US allies.
What more evidence do we need of how deeply indoctrinated Kepler is?
I meant to say Russia, not Chechnya
Through the heavily indoctrinated eyes of Kepler, the socialist dictators are the worst thing ever, but he seems totally incapable of any criticism for those dictators that were set-up and supported by the capitalist world. (Somoza, Suharto, Trujillo, Pinochet, etc.)
He seems to not understand that Latin America has suffered the last one hundred years at the command of this kind of capitalist authoritarianism. But he is so brainwashed that the only evil he sees is RED!!! Stalin, Mao, Castro!!! hahahaha. Your position is pathetic Kepler, and laughable.
Yes it's "funny" that when oppos speak on "bad" countries they always end up with Syria, Cuba, Iran, North Corea, Zimbabwe, Belarus. Exactly those who are attacked by Washington and media. The ability to independend thinking seems very low.
Yes, I have notice that too. Also, they seem to always defend Israel with respect to what they are doing to the Palistinians. And lets not forget their position on Lebanon last year.
Getting back to Wilpert's book he did point out how it is probably not helping the cause of 21st Century Socialism to befriend repressive countries like Syria, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe and Belarus. I agree.
I think something that is key here is lets not permit the stupidity and irrationality of the opposition lead us into also being stupid and irrational in the opposite direction. The enemy of our enemy isn't necessarily our friend.
Yes it's "funny" that when oppos speak on "bad" countries they always end up with Syria, Cuba, Iran, North Corea, Zimbabwe, Belarus. Exactly those who are attacked by Washington and media. The ability to independend thinking seems very low.
elliv | Homepage | 10.02.07 - 11:04 am | #
Exactly, and then they say, "I don't support Bush," but they have all the same enemies as Bush. Funny how that works isn't it?
I've never once heard Kepler denounce the constant paramilitary murders in Colombia, or when the US overthrows democratically elected governments like Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti, or Hamas in Palestine.
He is quick to criticize the Soviet Union or Cuba, but seems incapable of criticizing the US for its colonialism of the entire world, for taking the world to the brink of nuclear war, the invasion of Vietnam, bombing of Laos, invasion of Central America, or support for brutal regimes around the globe.
And then he tells us that we are indoctrinated. hahahaha!!!
Ano, I speak about things you don't see here. I speak about things they do not see in other blogs.
I was the one who mentioned on an earlier post about Chechnya, for instance, as I speak Russian and I have been involved a lot in the Russian-Chechnyan issue. At Amnesty each group chooses a set of countries for which they will work more.
This is based on different factors, one of them being
who speaks what languages and know more about that culture.
I told Elliv I would go back to that later, did not feel like it. She can find lots of information on her own if she can use the Internet.
Elliv, even though there are lots of violations of the freedom of expression in the United States, you can still find lots of protests there.
Do you think you can have someone like a Korean Chomsky talking about things he doesn't like in North Korea, or one in Zimbabwe, Syria, etc?
Do you think you could protest the same way you, kronabarna, can do in Sweden if you were in those countries?
Don't be silly.
There are more chances that an average anti-Chavista will criticize processes in the US or in Saudi Arabia than a left fundamentalist like you to criticize what is in North Korea. Enjoy your krona while you defend North Korea. What a hypocrite!
HAHAHAHA!!! I like how Kepler always seems to feel the need to mention that he speaks Russian in all his posts.
Hey Kepler, guess what, NO ONE CARES IF YOU SPEAK RUSSIAN. IT ISN'T THAT NEAT. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO SPEAK RUSSIAN, SO STOP TELLING US ABOUT IT
Yes, Chomsky can say whatever he want in the United States, but no one will hear him. So what's the difference?
In the United States probably less than 1 percent even knows who Chomsky is. He is NEVER on TV, never discussed in public discourse, never mentioned in the media.
It is a form of censorship that is much more effective than censorship by force. When you force someone underground it makes people interested in knowing what he has to say. But if people don't even know Chomsky exists, how could there be a better form of censorship than that???
GIV, why don't you then go to North Korea and start writing for their leader? Someone has to write in English for him.
You need a strong man behind you.
Ano, I have, in other posts, specially in DD and in Salon's.
But have you done something about Iran? About Cuba? No.
What a guy! Making the revolution from Starbucks!
Kepler
Thanks for the reply. I never knew one existed until I read your reply, you are a right wing hippy.
"Did you pick up on the part where he apparently says to people who disagree with something in cabinet meetings "I'll remind you you are speaking to the president"?!?!?!"
"Where did you see this?"
Well in the UK...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po...ics/
7010326.stm
"China is doing lots of things that are not kosher at all in Sudan, in Namibia, in many other places we hear little about."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...fic/
7023908.stm
Getting back to Wilpert's book he did point out how it is probably not helping the cause of 21st Century Socialism to befriend repressive countries like Syria, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe and Belarus. I agree.
NO, I really disagree here. Ever since the end of colonialism third-world countries have been trying to build a united movement against imperialism. This needs to happen, regardless of incidences of repression in different countries.
I mean, then you could also say that Venezuela should cut off relations with the United States, Colombia, Israel, Australia, Mexico, Guatemala, etc, because they are also represive. And, actually, much more so than places like Belarus, Cuba, Iran.
Venezuela should not aid any regime in repressing its population, nor should it express support for repressing them, but Venezuela needs to ally with countries that are interested in fighting the imperialist. There will never arrive the moment when there are dozens of unrepressive third-world countries in a position to fight imperialism. I think you've got to take what you can get in order to end a much greater form of repression: imperialism.
George, and you are a Scottish genius.
You are afraid of transparency.
You are as fundamentalist and one-sided as any Muslim fundamentalist.
GIV, why don't you then go to North Korea and start writing for their leader? Someone has to write in English for him.
You need a strong man behind you.
Kepler | 10.02.07 - 11:22 am | #
Actually, I write in support of a movement which is supported by nearly 70% of Venezuelans. I am hardly supporting the "leader," but rather the population.
Anon, imperialism is not only US American or British. Imperialism will come from any government that can get more power. Iran is meddling in the affairs of lots of nations in the Middle East.
China will be the next empire.
Ano, it is not 70% It is 99% and it is growing. In one year, you will say 180% of the population supports Chavez.
Anon, imperialism is not only US American or British. Imperialism will come from any government that can get more power. Iran is meddling in the affairs of lots of nations in the Middle East.
China will be the next empire.
Kepler | 10.02.07 - 11:32 am | #
HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Yeah, Iran is the empire!! Jeez, Kepler, could you be any more stupid?
Let's think about it for a second. Iran is completely surrounded by the US military. On one said they have US-occupied Afghanistan. On the other side they have US-occupied Iraq. In the north they have the US client regime of Turkey. Across the gulf they have the US client regime of Saudi Arabia. To the south US ally Pakistan.
Nearby is the Israel client of Israel, armed with hundreds of nuclear weapons, and with full US support.
Yes, definitely Kepler, Iran is the empire in the Middle East!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Anon,
I am not talking about having diplimatic relations or commercial relations - that is not the problem.
The point is Chavez outright befriends them and often touts them as good goverments of the people and promotes them as models for others.
For example, he said if Castro had the power he could "set the world right in ten years". That is a just a totally insane remark, given what Castro is like and what he has done in Cuba, and to say it is shows disregard to the problems Cubans face. It also doesn't create confidence in people around the world that you are truly building a new and better system when you praise old reactionary ones.
I'm not clear why any concentration of power is warranted. Ultimately more democracy is desired. Yet somehow that democracy is going to be built after power is more concentrated? That doesn't make sense. It is taking the country FURTHER away from the stated goal. What is more, the movement is now strong so this is precisely the time to build democracy.-OW
Indeed. I agree. But like I said before the elements of the old and also new elite are firmly entrenched in the public administration. These self serving a-holes need to be deprived of power and starved until they no longer have the ability to sabotage.
"Did you pick up on the part where he apparently says to people who disagree with something in cabinet meetings "I'll remind you you are speaking to the president"?!?!?! "
I did. However the book did not mention at what period of time this occurred. The context of such a comment is always important, I think.I don't have the book with me at the moment but I going to have go over some parts.
The truth of the US and most places is that the middle classes are profoundly undemocratic.
Slave Revolt | 10.02.07 - 10:37 am | #
Slave I have noticed this as well. They love their procedures but can't stand the thought of the riff-raff(the great majority) excercising power that will very likely cut in to their percieved opulence.
Look at Ecuador. Correas party who was just created got over 60% of the votes.
This shows what a sorry joke the "democracy" is in the capitalist oligarcic systems. People have no representation. If finally a alternative that people find trustworthy shows up, the whole politcal establishment are washed away. Same happend in Venezuela, as would happend in most of latinamerica. The problem is offcourse to find this opening. In Venezuela in happend through military rebellion. In Ecuador not.
elliv | Homepage | 10.02.07 - 10:51 am | #
Yes. As soon someone creeps through the cracks that is trusted by the majority, in the eyes of the elite and their managers, the whole "democratic"system is now useless(for them). M-Fers.
For example, he said if Castro had the power he could "set the world right in ten years". That is a just a totally insane remark, given what Castro is like and what he has done in Cuba, and to say it is shows disregard to the problems Cubans face. It also doesn't create confidence in people around the world that you are truly building a new and better system when you praise old reactionary ones.
Well, Chavez has said a ton of dumb things. And this is not among the dumbest. And yes, these kinds of things could hurt support, but only among those who support the movement very superficially.
After all, are you really going to stop supporting him because of something Chavez SAYS??? I think we could all agree that the alliance with Cuba is a very important one, and definitely necessary for uniting and integrating Latin America. Those who are more conscious would analize what the Bolivarian movement is all about, and what it is actually DOING, and not stop supporting it simply for things Chavez has said.
The alliance with Iran is also very important. Same with China. Venezuela is getting some very important technology and investment from both of them. So, regardless of dumb things Chavez says, I totally support these alliances.
"George, and you are a Scottish genius."
How can that be I can`t speak Russian?.
"You are as fundamentalist and one-sided as any Muslim fundamentalist."
No Kepler you are wrong I seek a better way for us ALL to lead our lives. To care for all and not just for ourselves. I learnt a long time ago that at the end of our lives we realise (well some do) that ALL we ever had was each other.
That is a just a totally insane remark, given what Castro is like and what he has done in Cuba, and to say it is shows disregard to the problems Cubans face.
---------------------------------
This is how most of us are here in Venezuela, OW. We shoot our mouths quite often and say things that are foolish but don't carry much intent. It's idiosincratic. I know Chávez loves and admires Fidel (after all he was the ONLY one who came to his rescue when he was about to be killed), but believe me, deep in his heart, he's not inclined to follow his path. I mean, Chávez, despite his love for bombastic claims, is essentially an intuitive and brilliant pragmatist, and a very proud and independent person. He will only follow his heart; and his heart has no indulgence for dictatorship of any kind. If he admires Fidel, is mainly for the same reasons most Latin Americans do: because despite it all he has been able to challenge US imperialism for five decades, and succeed at it. Most USAmericans don't understand this. But for us it's self-evident. Sometimes Chávez may be somewhat square-minded in his views of the revolution marching forward as an organizaed and disciplined army, instead of as a coordinated assembly of clearly individualized and distinct hearts and minds. However, his undying love for freedom and for the most humble people of this nation (which are the vast majority), have made of him a natural democratic leader. He doesn't need to spout any beautiful and self-righteouss democratic rhetoric, such as so many pseudo-democratic leaders in the US and elsewhere. They indulge in all sorts of demagogic declamations, while they send men and women to die and kill by the hundreds of thousands. Chávez is a born democratic leader, he carries that impulse in the marrow of his bones. But I concede that only time will have its last say concerning Chávez and the fate of our revolution.
You don't need to be a genius to speak Russian. As Ano' said, millions of people speak Russian. Every foreign language can give one an additional view of certain things, though, and more access to the people who speak it as mother tongue.
I think there are many people who care for the rest and are not Chavistas. We just think pluralism is not a thing for hippies only.
Yeah Leper, but your childish desire to display yourself as a cosmopolitan and sophisticated being whose natural place is in the "white man's world", is pathetic and shameful. You pepper your idiotic writings with all those German and Russian vocables, as if that would make them more appealing. Well you are wrong. They only turn into a more repugnant cocksucker.
Detailed account of the role of the world’s most powerful mercenary army in Iraq and elsewhere...
http://www.muslimedia.com/
blackw...lackwaterbk.htm
Kepler
Nothing wrong with being a Hippy it`s the right wing bit I have trouble with.
Moy, you are a frustrated bloke. Your childhood must have been a big trauma. I am sorry for you.
George, I think the trouble with you guys is that you believe there can only be right or left visions of the world. The same thing goes for quite some from the "right" part.
Anonymous, "opposition" is not a movement. "Nazism, Chavism, Communism, white supremacy" ARE movements.
"opposition" means one opposes a given government, so as I said, people have different positions.
Kepler | 10.02.07 - 10:49 am | #
Kepler you are correct. But you should add to it that they also offer viable alternatives to the ideas and policies of said government. In the case of Venezuela, they are simply 100% en contra or against no matter what. If it's an idea that came from the Chavez Gov. then it's bad. Hence me calling them "contras."Hopefully PODEMOS could change this and not just be part of the contra.
Aliva, you should read the last post of Ccs.
You should have read the proposals by Primero de Justicia and their programme (even though there are a thousand things that could be done better).
You should have read the proposals I have written on education several months ago here.
The government has done nothing on getting Venezuela off oil dependency. Apart from distributing some money from the extra oil revenues, it has only thrived on resentment.
How can PODEMOS do something when the president is saying they are traitors and already part of the opposition?
Moy, you are a frustrated bloke. Your childhood must have been a big trauma. I am sorry for you.
-------------------------
Hahahahaha
Right. Now you are an expert in Moyhabin. Hogwash, pretty much like your expertise on Venezuelan politics, or German and Russian, for that matter.
Believe it or not, my childhood was absolutelly wonderful.
"opposition" means one opposes a given government, so as I said, people have different positions.
Kepler | 10.02.07 - 10:49 am | #
-----------------------------
When applied to the Venezuelan experience this has to be the greatest load of manure ever written on this blog. The main thrust of the opposition is made of disgruntled and putrefied old mummies form the Adecos and Copeianos failed tradition. In addition, there are some eternal losers, such as Pompeyo and
Petkoff, and a few guffballs of the extreme "left" (most probably some CIA financed goons).
Frank Talk from Defense Department Official
"I Hate All Iranians"
By GARY LEUPP
It ought to be political suicide. A Bush administration official (specifically, the Defense Department's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs) told a group of six members of the British Parliament, "In any case, I hate all Iranians." Three MPs attending the meeting have confirmed this to the British tabloid The Daily Mail.
http://counterpunch.org/
leupp100...pp10022007.html
I think there are many people who care for the rest and are not Chavistas. We just think pluralism is not a thing for hippies only.
Kepler | 10.02.07 - 12:49 pm | #
Ha, pluralism. That's another of the ideas of the liberal democratic model that you and the other morons at Caracas Chronicles continue to cling to, totally naive of the inherent flaws in the model. (then they deny they have "ideology")
Pluralism would be nice, and we could all dance in the park and sing fun songs and hold hands. But, you see, in the real world there is something called class warfare, class struggle, and a huge conflice of interests between the imperialist transnational capital class versus the rest of the population.
So, as long as we have immensely powerful groups looking to break any movement against their interests, constantly trying to coopt any movement and bring it under their control, there is limited room for pluralism.
You see, we'd like to be able to include the Leopoldo Lopez's of the world, and other philosophers from Primero Justicia, but they are intimately linked to the interests of Washington, to reinstalling elite control over the country, and to sabotaging any and all moves for emancipation from an exploitative economic system.
Kind of like the pluralism of Washington, where it would be nice to see a poor person in the White House, or even a few in the Congress. Where we'd like to have a communist party, or an anti-imperialist party, a party that is against free trade, for example, or against the militarization of the country. But they don't exist.
There is no such thing as "pluralism" in this world Kepler. This is an idea that has been beat into your head long ago by those who support the status quo, and who have no concept of class conflict.
Moyhabin
What do you think of my link above?.
Let me check it out George.
That link is impressive George. It makes my blood boil. People are being massacred in Iraq simply for being in the wrong spot at the wrong time, and here we have fascist morons coming to lecture us on "pluralism".
Anonymous, "opposition" is not a movement. "Nazism, Chavism, Communism, white supremacy" ARE movements.
"opposition" means one opposes a given government, so as I said, people have different positions.
Kepler | 10.02.07 - 10:49 am | #
Another retarded statement by Kepler. There are also many different positions within Chavismo. But what they share is that they SUPPORT the government, the revolution, instead of oppose it.
Chavismo is made up of many different parties, and so is escualidismo. Chavismo gernally believes in communism or socialism, or some alternative to capitalism.
Escualidismo generally believes in capitalism, liberal democracy, and generally has no conception whatsoever of imperialism. To them, imperialism doesn't exist.
But is a total distortion to say that the opposition is not a movement. They are fairly united, organized, they all vote for the same candidates, and are actually quite politcally active.
If there were a similar group of people in any other country that was holding marches and protests every couple weeks, holding press conferences, denouncing the government, we would DEFINITELY call it a "movement."
We could only dream of having such a united movement against the government in the United States.
Anonymous, how often have read Marx for Dummies?
Class war...what is your solution? How would you envision the world once things have settled down after your so-called revolution? What classes are there going to be?
Man, we live in the XXI century.
GIV,
"NO, I really disagree here. Ever since the end of colonialism third-world countries have been trying to build a united movement against imperialism. This needs to happen, regardless of incidences of repression in different countries."
This is gang mentality. You seem to think that because you perceive there to be a greater evil - imperialism - you can justify using gang tactics (repression, murder etc.) and hanging out with shady characters to fight this evil. That doesn't work in the justice system. The system correctly perceives that these tactics and affiliating with these these people is unwanted regardless of the aims.
It is the same in international politics. None of the countries that are mentioned are remotely democratic. They repress their own people and violate human rights with their own borders to justify staying in power. It is also a question of degree. Even though many more countries may be guilty of these things these countries are among the worst (think about it. You said Australia was worse than Belarus and Cuba???).
Chavez could just hang out with proper democratic leaders like Lula, Kirchner, Ortega, Morales and Correa and nobody would have any problems.
"In the north they have the US client regime of Turkey."
This is very wrong. Turkey is not a client regime and relations have cooled considerably in recent years. Sure Turkey is not hostile in any way, but client? Pick different words.
"This shows what a sorry joke the "democracy" is in the capitalist oligarcic systems. People have no representation. If finally a alternative that people find trustworthy shows up, the whole politcal establishment are washed away. "
??? Doesn't this show that democracy works? Afterall you can't vote for somebody that is not on the ballot. Nobody ever prevented Correa-like candidates in Ecuador. Also Ecuador has voted for other figures that claimed to represent change before.
Kepler,
Capitalism creates huge economic and social inequality. Out of this inequality come huge class differences. No matter what century we are in, this will be the case under capitalism.
The fact that you think being in the 21st century makes history irrelevant shows a profound ignorance and ahistorical view of the world.
You know what they say, "If you don't know your history, its like you were born yesterday."
This seems to apply well to Kepler. Seems like you were born yesterday.
This is the idea behind putting the economy in the hands of everyone, not in the hands of a few powerful private groups. If the economy is in the hands of everyone, and profits are shared among the society, instead of hoarded by private groups, you won't have these huge class differences that create the conflicts behind everything.
This isn't that complex of an idea. Some of the world's most influential people have been talking about it for the last 2 centuries.
ow,
" BTW, Venezuelanalysis published this post with a RESPONSE from Greg Wilpert. I assume people read the post, but if you want to get the authors response they are there."
It is respecful, but pretty lame. You should reply to his reply.
GIV, you don't know more history than most people here, including me, even if you went to university only for that.
Can you answer the question about what classes will come after your dream revolution takes place?
Like mathematicians and cleaning men, technicians, inventors and physicians, cleaning men and artists. What is going to happen to classes for them?
Well...I am wasting my time. It is like trying to explain evolution to Osama Bin Laden.
"Capitalism creates huge economic and social inequality. Out of this inequality come huge class differences. No matter what century we are in, this will be the case under capitalism."
It doesn't have to.
Does Norway or Sweden have huge class differences and huge inequality?
Not really.
Are Norway and Sweden capitalist?
Mostly.
Government tax the richer more heavily and use some of this money to provide benefits and level the playing field (create equal educational opportunities for example).
One issue I've had with you in discussions is that I think you need to define these concepts. What do you think of as capitalism? (besides just private ownership of the means of production).
I don't know if an indefinite back and forth will get anywhere.
I really think people are not getting the significance of the export issue and how local Venezuelan industry is getting undermined. Plus there are a lot of misconceptions out there.
Maybe I will do a post that will have more on this but this is where not having the talent to a) explain economic ideas simply yet accurately and b) do nice power point slides really hurts me. I can think of who to ask but I'm pretty sure I'd be told to go fuck myself
This is gang mentality. You seem to think that because you perceive there to be a greater evil - imperialism - you can justify using gang tactics (repression, murder etc.) and hanging out with shady characters to fight this evil.
No. Wrong. As I said, no one is supporting repression or even justifying it. It is shameful anywhere it happens.
But this isn't what is happening. No one is "hanging out" together, or working together to repress anyone. These countries are simply coming together to form economic alliances, and political agreements that will be to the benefit of both countries. These kinds of things contribute to the development of both economies.
It is nothing like the cooperation that takes place between the US and Israel, for example, where they actively cooperate to repress the palestinian people, and attack the Lebanese.
It is the same in international politics. None of the countries that are mentioned are remotely democratic. They repress their own people and violate human rights with their own borders to justify staying in power. It is also a question of degree. Even though many more countries may be guilty of these things these countries are among the worst
So Belarus is worse than the United States? Cuba is worse than Israel? Iran is worse than Colombia? Hmmmmm. Me thinks someone is a bit brainwashed.
But it doesn't really matter in the end who is worse than who. If you went around conducting your foreign policy taking into consideration all the internal conflicts and repression of every country on the planet you could hardly do business with anyone! And that wouldn't be good for anyone, because no country would be able to develop.
Chavez could just hang out with proper democratic leaders like Lula, Kirchner, Ortega, Morales and Correa and nobody would have any problems.
And Venezuela wouldn't be able to get the technology and investment that they need to develop their economy, to build industry, strengthen their military, to access financing, etc. etc. etc.
But what is perhaps the most naive part of your position is that you don't seem to have any problem with countries that have relations with the United States. Need I remind you that the United States has murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the last few years?
I challenge you to find a regime with a worth record anywhere. But you are so hypocritical that you don't care about these deaths. No, you are focused on some repressed unions in Iran, and some human rights abuses in Belarus. The position is completely ridiculous.
Ano, why don't you go to Belarus and see with your own eyes? Or to Iran? Please, do the following experiment: go to your daddy's home town with a T-shirt of, say, the Green party...you might get some words from some right-winged people at most. Go to Iran and wear a T-shirt saying you are a socialist.
Go then to NY and say: "elections now". Go to Minsk and say the same thing. You have no fucking idea, man. What a waste of time. Your dad could just have given the money he used to have you go through university to some Latino or black there who could have studied instead of you.
In spite of the lack of rights US Americans have, it does not compare to any of those rogues states. Brain-washed? How many times have you talked to any of those people (apart from the Cubans payed to do things in Venezuela)?
Does Norway or Sweden have huge class differences and huge inequality?
GOD you are naive. Is there inequality between Sweden and the Congo? Is there inequality between Europe and its former colonies?
Government tax the richer more heavily and use some of this money to provide benefits and level the playing field (create equal educational opportunities for example).
This is not at all what creates equality in these countries. Sure, this helps, but in order to have economic equality you have to have a developed industrialized country where the economy is productive.
Not an economy like in most of the third world which is based on the export of raw materials and the import of most everything else. This is what creates inequality in the third world. And, yes, it is very capitalist. These economies were FOUNDED on the colonialism of the capitalist world.
One issue I've had with you in discussions is that I think you need to define these concepts. What do you think of as capitalism? (besides just private ownership of the means of production).
Tor | 10.02.07 - 3:23 pm | #
One issue I've had with you is that you think you can talk about a world economic system like capitalism, and limit it to only one country.
I'm sorry, but unless the country doesn't have trade relations with anyone, you can't talk about the economic system as if it were an island.
The capitalist system of the first world has HUGE impacts on the countries of the south. Until you get this, there is no use discussing anything with you.
BTW, the other issue that makes it not that worth while is we have very different ideas of what the country should do. When you read the book you will see he definitely believes in a socialist model - lock, stock and barrel. Read the appendix first and you'll clearly see that.
On the other hand, I think Venezuela should just copy South Korea - to the extent that if I were the one calling the shots there I would try to find out how many of the South Korean government planners and economists I could lure to work for Venezuela
So right there that is going to make for a big disconnect.
God Kepler, you are just incapable of understanding this.
Sure, there are not as bad of human rights abuses in NY as there are in Iran perhaps. That isn't the point. The US doesn't repress their own population too much. They prefer to do it to other countries.
So, did you want to compare the abuses in Iran to the US murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?
Did you want to compare the elections in Belarus to dropping bombs on houses in Afghanistan?
Should we talk about the plight of activists in Iran and compare it to the thousands of Lebanese murdered last year?
Did you want to compare human rights in Cuba with the murder of hundreds of labor activists in Colombia last year? With the revealing of mass graves filled with poor farmers in Colombia?
Jesus Kepler. Wake up.
GIV, are the inventors of the things you will use part of the working class? And the engineers?
Are we all going to be working class? What will be the meaning of "working class"? Definitely not blokes like you, Starbuck communists...
Ow, do you know what I fear? That once the Chavez regime falls, the word "socialism" will be tarred for decades in Venezuela and South America in general. We need people with constructive ideas from every democratic sector.
Kepler you are brainwashed beyond help, Is Venezuela also a rough state? Answer please yes or no.
"Ow, do you know what I fear? That once the Chavez regime falls, the word "socialism" will be tarred for decades in Venezuela and South America in general. We need people with constructive ideas from every democratic sector."
That can be a problem if things turn out badly. I think to say Cubans probably wouldn't be that receptive to anything "socialist" right now just because of the bad connotations Castro has given that word there.
BTW, working class is pretty simple - it is people who derive their income from their own work and not the work of others or ownership of companies.
No, Elliv.
Venezuela is the most democratic government on Earth. It is the mother of all democracies. It also has the best constitution on Earth, as our leader commandant Hugo Chavez Frias said. And in a few months we are going to have an even better constitution because, as Chavistas said, it is imperative to have a reform.
Could you please go over to Venezuela? I would sign any petition to ask for you to become a Venezuelan as soon as possible. But please, renounce to your Swedish nationality for good.
Answer my question Kepler. Do you find Venezuela a rough state?
Ow, it is not that simple. I will talk to you about it later.
Kepler, answer my post above:
So, did you want to compare the abuses in Iran to the US murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? Would that be a fair comparison?
Did you want to compare the elections in Belarus to the US dropping bombs on houses in Afghanistan?
Should we talk about the plight of activists in Iran and compare it to the thousands of Lebanese murdered last year?
Did you want to compare human rights in Cuba with the murder of hundreds of labor activists in Colombia last year? With the revealing of mass graves filled with poor farmers in Colombia?
Interesting blog with posts on South Korean development:
http://onepearsallandhisbooks.bl...as-
triumph.html
Elliv, I told you in the first word: no.
OW,
I see where you are coming from with the South Korea stuff. But I have to disagree with you there.
First of all, Venezuela doesn't have the capacity to do this. South Korea had practically unlimited financing, access to Japanese and US technology, and priveledged access to the world's best markets.
Venezuela has none of that. But instead is trying to build alternative sources of financing, is looking for technology from Argentina, Iran, Brazil, Russia, and China.
And, I really think we cannot forget, that South Korea did this with total brutal authoritarianism. The CIA aided them in repressing the left, murdering communists, and it was a total dictatorship. I mean, I don't think anyone wants that in Venezuela.
So I think its more complicated than that. Venezuela has a totally different situation than SK had then.
But, even if Ven COULD use that model, I wouldn't support it. Because it repeats all the same mistakes over again. It has extreme concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a chaebol-owners. The working class is repressed, and has frequent protests to raise wages and improve conditions.
I don't know about the plight of the farmers. But aren't the South Korean farmers the ones who are famous for lighting themselves on fire at the WTO meetings? Doesn't sound like a model to follow.
Why Kepler, Venezuela close down independent media (rctv), register and harass dissidents (tascon list), threatens to jail democracy activists (sumate), throw dissident leaders in jail for 20 years (ortega), having elections fixed by regime puppets (cne).
Venezuela sure seems like as much rough state as Belarus no?
Ano,
Different answers:
any murder is a crime and the fact that the US is responsible for deaths (which I fully condemn)
does not make up for the murders of others.
John killed 10. Jane only 8. Thus: Jane is cool.
That is your reasoning.
Gees...
What the Colombian paramilitary do has no fucking excuse for the leftiest narco-guerrilla.
Do you know how many people have been murdered by the FARC?
They have no excuse whatsoever.
More people have been murdered in Iran since the "revolution" came to power than in Lebanon during the Civil War (thus, a war where more people died than in the bloody war of last year).
OK, don't read a serious book. Read something easy-pissy-Japan-easy, for you. Read Persepolis. It is with nice cartoons, beautifully painted, for you.
Then, if interested, I can provide you with decent literature to read about the massive murders in Iran. Now there are few socialists left hiding. Most are abroad.
Most of the people they currently hung or stone to death are just ladies who are not Islamic enough. Just a couple of hundred per year as opposed to many thousands at the beginning
(socialists and communists many, the same who had helped to get rid of the Shah).
And then the usual wiping and slashing for those caught with another one of the opposite sex without being married (of course, provided none is married, because in that case stoning is due).
OH if only Sire and Tor could read this:
In the aftermath of the Korean War the South Korean government pursued a policy of import substitution industrialization, with high tariffs on imported manufactures set in order to encourage the development of local industry. The main beneficiaries of this policy were what came to be known as the chaebol. The chaebol were, by the 1990's, vast conglomerates with tentacles extending through virtually every level of the South Korean economy.
....
South Korea's economic triumph owed far more to the adaptation of development techniques more usually seen in socialist states than to the theories of the Chicago School.
any murder is a crime and the fact that the US is responsible for deaths (which I fully condemn)
does not make up for the murders of others.
John killed 10. Jane only 8. Thus: Jane is cool.
Exactly.
So then why do you only condemn Venezuela's relationship to Iran? This is what we are talking about here. Shouldn't you also be condemning those countries in the world who have a friendly relationship with the WORSE human rights abuser; the United States?
So then you should be condemning Germany's relations to the United States, just like you condemn Venezuela's ties to Iran?
You should be condemning Colombia for having a friendly relationship to Washington, just as you would condemn Venezuela's dealing with Belarus?
It you admit that the United States is responsible for grave human rights abuses, why are you not condeming those countries that have ties to them?
Why is it that you only focus on the countries that have a relationship with the much SMALLER human rights abusers like Belarus, Cuba, and Iran???
Please, do explain.
The ineffable Leper sometimes refers to a job he putatively holds. I wonder, is that job to come here every minute of everyday to spew venom? Do you get paid by words or by minute?
Anonymous | 10.02.07 - 4:21 pm | #
---------------------------
You have crushed the little moron endlessly. I suppose you are just using him as a punching bag of convenience in order to make some interesting clarifications. Otherwise, I admire your patience. The guy is hopeless. If he could, he would love to have been Pocahontas and marry a white colonialist and live happily ever after. Do you know the meaning of the concept "malinchismo"? Well, you probably do. It applies wonderfully to the Leper.
Moyhabin,
I guess I just enjoy getting him in a corner and watching him flail around hopelessly trying to escape. Muahahahaha!!
In the end he just stops responding, because he knows he has nowhere to go. I suppose you could say it is entertaining for me. Is that bad?
Ow, what do you think about what I said about South Korea? Don't you agree there are some serious problems with that model, and that it would be pretty difficult for Venezuela to implement it anyway?
So then why do you only condemn Venezuela's relationship to Iran? This is what we are talking about here. Shouldn't you also be condemning those countries in the world who have a friendly relationship with the WORSE human rights abuser; the United States?
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
I usually agree with all your arguments, which are articulate, intelligent, well informed and convincing. However, I will have to disagree here with respect to the above comment. I really don't see any equivalence between the US and Iran. I mean, the first one is a global empire; one that has intervened in our domestic affairs for almost 150 years; killed tens of thousands of people in Latin America alone at one point in time or another; sponsored the most abhorrent regimes in Latin America; destroyed many democratic governments; invaded our lands hundreds of times; invaded and destroyed entire sovereign nations in Asia; prompted the most horrendous genocide in the last 50 years; etc., etc.; while the Iranian regime, despicable as it may be, is firendly to us, invests in our economies with no strigs attached, has never done any harm to us, and it's only a distant ally.
Is that bad?
'''''''''''''''''''''''''
No. It's frankly admirable.
I really don't see any equivalence between the US and Iran. I mean, the first one is a global empire; one that has intervened in our domestic affairs for almost 150 years;
Of course, Moyhabin, there is no equivalence. I was simply trying to make a point to Kepler, who seems to think Iran is worse than the United States.
He condemns the fact that Venezuela carries out trade with Iran, but doesn't seem to have any problem with Venezuela doing trade with the United States or Colombia, who are both much worse regimes than Iran. So, my question to him is, why do you have a problem with one, but not the other? ESPECIALLY when the second one is much more guilty of human rights abuses.
My personal opinion is that a state should not be propping up any terrible regime, or aiding them in comitting crimes (such as US financing and arming states like Israel and Colombia, and actively aiding them in their state violence).
But Venezuela is by no means propping up Iran or Belarus. They are simply making economic deals that will be beneficial to both sides. And I think all third world countries should do the same, and have relations with any country that could be benefitial to their development, regardless of what Washington demands from them.
After all, that is what economic sovereignty is all about.
Thank you. We fully agree.
"Ow, what do you think about what I said about South Korea? Don't you agree there are some serious problems with that model, and that it would be pretty difficult for Venezuela to implement it anyway?"
You mean from before? If I recall correctly your objection is Venezuela couldn't do it because the U.S. wouldn't give it the access it gave S. Korea to its markets.
My response it that is probably true. But Venezuela can get access to other markets that could serve the same purpose - namely China. It could make market access, technology sharing, techinical assistance in setting up industries, etc. a quid pro quo for China getting access to Venezuelan oil.
So I definitely think South Korea is the model that Venezuela should be following (except of course for the dictatorship and repression) and it really bothers me that it doesn't seem to even be getting consideration.
Did you have other objections?
Have you ever been to South Korea, OW? I know for sure that most Venezuelans would be profoundly unhappy living in such societal and economic arrangement. A shielded corporate society, permeated by a strong undercurrent of fascist collectivism that favors a small and very aggressively entrenched elite, and a terrible lack of any truly spontaneous and creative joi de vivre. It sends shivers down my spine just to thinks of such possibility for Venezuela.
Yes. I lived there for a little while.
I'm pretty sure most Venezuelans would be pretty happy there. maybe not from a cultural and food point of view - but from an economic point of view certainly. Quiet frankly it is almost getting to the point that South Koreans live better than people in teh U.S. do.
I am even more sure that they would love to have the South Korean standard of living in Venezuela.
Oh the food is great. Certainly much more exciting than our rather limited Venezuelan popular cuisine. I personally love Kim'chi. But life there is dull, grim, and gray. I found it quite unbearable, although I made some good Korean friends. But believe OW. The privileges that the corporate elites have in Korea, are obscene, completelly unacceptable. They have private armies of mercenaries and goons that squash all other common people. Youa re born into a certain social and economic niche, and your are destined for life to remain within it. Awful. We Venezuelans are irreverent, confrontational, spontaneous, party prone, and immensely optimistic. We love change and mobility, and are great survivalists. At least the most popular classes. No, South Korean model is not good for us. In fact, no external model is. We have to create our own in collaboration with the rest of Latin America.
Did you have other objections?
ow | Homepage | 10.02.07 - 5:50 pm | #
This is what I said earlier:
OW,
I see where you are coming from with the South Korea stuff. But I have to disagree with you there.
First of all, Venezuela doesn't have the capacity to do this. South Korea had practically unlimited financing, access to Japanese and US technology, and priveledged access to the world's best markets.
Venezuela has none of that. But instead is trying to build alternative sources of financing, is looking for technology from Argentina, Iran, Brazil, Russia, and China.
And, I really think we cannot forget, that South Korea did this with total brutal authoritarianism. The CIA aided them in repressing the left, murdering communists, and it was a total dictatorship. I mean, I don't think anyone wants that in Venezuela.
So I think its more complicated than that. Venezuela has a totally different situation than SK had then.
But, even if Ven COULD use that model, I wouldn't support it. Because it repeats all the same mistakes over again. It has extreme concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a chaebol-owners. The working class is repressed, and has frequent protests to raise wages and improve conditions.
I don't know about the plight of the farmers. But aren't the South Korean farmers the ones who are famous for lighting themselves on fire at the WTO meetings? Doesn't sound like a model to follow.
If by standards of living you mean material possessions, maybe you have a point. But if you mean by it integral quality of life, encompassing spiritual and psychological well-being, we Venezuelans are a much happier crowd than poor South Koreans. I'm sure that most South Koreans would love to have our innate joie de vivre.
"South Korea had practically unlimited financing,"
Not true. I'm pretty sure they had to borrow lots of money and they've always had lots of debt. By contrast Venezuela has lots of money, from you know what.
"access to Japanese and US technology,"
So does Venezuela. There is no embargo against Venezuele so it could get technology the exact same way South Korea did - buy it or set up joint ventures. Also, technology is not as important in the beginning when you start out competing in low tech, labor intensive industries which is what you have to do anyways.
"and priveledged access to the world's best markets."
This is the biggest problem. A couple of things. First, they do have access to the US and European markets although to what exact extent I don't know.
But even if they didn't, see my China idea above.
And again, Venezuela doesn't need a huge amount to be bought from it. Right now they export about $6 billion in non-oil goods. If they could quadruple that to $24 billion that is significant for Venezuela but next to nothing in terms of how much China or the US imports. So getting sufficient market access is something they could almost certainly get.
"Venezuela has none of that. But instead is trying to build alternative sources of financing, is looking for technology from Argentina, Iran, Brazil, Russia, and China"
The financing I already covered - that is not a problem. As far as tech goes, that is fine. But the key point is that the technology gets used to create value added products that compete on world markets and make money for Venezuela. If they don't do that (ultimately), it is a waste of time.
"And, I really think we cannot forget, that South Korea did this with total brutal authoritarianism. The CIA aided them in repressing the left, murdering communists, and it was a total dictatorship. I mean, I don't think anyone wants that in Venezuela."
This is a very valid point. No country that I am aware of has ever gone from truly poor to truly developed while being a democracy. So Venezuela would have to be the first and it is NOT easy. The one thing I can think of is that with the oil resources Venezuela can still have a safety net of social program with things like the missions AND at the same time be making big investments in industry. Further, Chavez is immensely popular and has lots of credibility with the population. So if he told people they would have to make a decade or so of sacrafice to help their long term well being, and the well being of their children, I think they could do it.
"Because it repeats all the same mistakes over again. It has extreme concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a chaebol-owners. The working class is repressed, and has frequent protests to raise wages and improve conditions."
Sure it is still a capitalist society. But it is an affluent one where even workers get a standard of living that would be the envy of
continued...
Sure it is still a capitalist society. But it is an affluent one where even workers get a standard of living that would be the envy of most Venezuelans. Yes a Korean worker is poor compared to the owner of the company. But they are wealthy compared to a Venezuelan barrio dweller. Plus they have fought for and won significant gains in wages and social programs. Even when Venezuelan's fight for gains what do they get - next to nothing because there is nothing to win unless you work for PDVSA or maybe the government.
Becoming like South Korea doesn't put you in heaven or a workers paradise. But it does put you in a much better place than where Venezuela is right now. Lets remember, the most brutal oppresor is poverty.
Lets remember, the most brutal oppresor is poverty.
------------------------
Nope. The most brutal oppresor is oppression itself. And South Koreans (besides being an occupied country) have plenty of it to go around many times. Poverty is a relative notion. Queen Elizabeth thought of herself as wealthy beyond belief, Nonetheless her standards of living, materially wise, were lower than most upper middle class families in today's England. So who's poor? It depends to whom you compare different social groups. Poor people feel miserable especially when they compare themselves with the rich elites, and not based upon an abstract measuring device, which is only meaningful for Sociologists and Economists pondering about poverty within their invory tower.
Not true. I'm pretty sure they had to borrow lots of money and they've always had lots of debt. By contrast Venezuela has lots of money, from you know what.
Yes, they did borrow money, but that is also financing. And it was practically unlimited. That isn't the case for most of the third world, who is hit with harsh conditions if they want to borrow money internationally.
Second, in addition to unlimited financing, they had pretty incredible amounts of US aid. Even according to the very article you quoted:
Additionally, there were several factors at work within South Korea that played an important role in helping that nation's economy take off. One was the enormous, and constant, infusion of American money, due to the US military's role in protecting South Korea's frontier from Kim Il-Sung's Stalinist North Korea
So does Venezuela. There is no embargo against Venezuele so it could get technology the exact same way South Korea did - buy it or set up joint ventures.
This is false. US and multinational corporations aren't interested in setting up vertically-integrated industries in Venezuela. They want to globalize production, not set up the whole production line in one country.
If Venezuela wants the technology to build cars, for example, they need to have a vertically-integrated productive system. They simply can't get that from the US. Coronil's The Magical State explains this pretty well. So Venezuela has gone elsewhere to find it.
Becoming like South Korea doesn't put you in heaven or a workers paradise. But it does put you in a much better place than where Venezuela is right now. Lets remember, the most brutal oppresor is poverty.
ow | Homepage | 10.02.07 - 6:36 pm | #
But OW, everything that we lament about the current state of affairs in the US, and in the world for that matter, is caused by exactly this capitalist model. So, while Venezuela may gain in the short run, should we really be promoting a model that is going to repeat all of the injustices of the current world system?
Afterall, we know that capitalism eventually turns into imperialism. If we want to avoid that kind of injustice, we have to promote a system that won't lead us back to where we are currently.
By contrast Venezuela has lots of money, from you know what.
Well, a lot of the oil money is used just for the regular day to day operation of the government, schools, hospitals, government salaries, etc. So I think Venezuela will need external financing. And that is why they are looking for investment from China, Iran, Russia, Brazil, etc. I think if Venezuela can keep that income coming in, plus the oil prices high, they just might be able to pull it off.
But if oil falls, they might have to turn to borrowing, in which case, if they don't have alternative sources, they will run into problems.
they do have access to the US and European markets although to what exact extent I don't know.
I almost guarantee that if Venezuela started exporting cars, the US would not give them priveledged access to their markets like they give South Korea. Maybe they would, but I kind of doubt it. We already have US Congressman talking about nationalizing Citgo for god's sake.
But Chavez has definitely made efforts to increase access to China's markets. Trade between them has increased quite a bit in recent years. For now Venezuela is only exporting oil, of course, but if that trade relationship can develop, perhaps that would be an option.
Afterall, we know that capitalism eventually turns into imperialism. If we want to avoid that kind of injustice, we have to promote a system that won't lead us back to where we are currently.
Anonymous | 10.02.07 - 7:01 pm | #
Which is something I am sure that Chavez and his closest advisers are fully aware of(Capitalism becoming Imperialism).
In the mid-19th century for example, right in the beginning of the industrialist revolution right around here in Boston, there was a rich literature of working class people, what were called factory girls, young women coming from the farms to work in the mills, or Irish artesians, immigrants in Boston, very rich literature, it was the period of the freest press ever in the country and it was very radical.
They had no connection with European radicalism, they had never heard of Marx or anything else, and it was simply taken for granted that wage labor is not much different from slavery, and if you rent yourself to somebody that's no different from selling yourself. - Noam Chomsky interviewed by Eva Goli
I am dumbfounded by this. Who would of thought in the USA! What? I must know more!
Ow,on Chávez's acceptance of criticism, Wilpert writes," Sometimes, when faced with criticism, Chávez's reaction has been , ' I remind you, you are speaking to the president."(p.203) However he does not mention what the context was. In the endnotes for chpt. 6 he writes, "16. This is based on experiences recounted to the author by several people who have been close to the president and who wish to remain anonymous."
Actually in the Civil War in the United States, a lot of the northern workers actually fought under that banner, were against chattel slavery and they were against wage slavery. And the standard slogan of the people was "the people who work in the mills ought to own them and run them". It took a long time to drive that out of people's heads. -Chomsky
You are so stupid. You think because one does not answer you win.
Do you know what time zones are? You should know it by now as your master Hugo knows about it so well. I was eating.
So then why do you only condemn Venezuela's relationship to Iran?
> Not only, I have condemned others, see oppo blogs, I have gone to protests here, where I live, to the streets, I have sent petitions.
DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
I am discussing about Venezuela in this blog and I am discussing about what Venezuelan criminals like Hugo the First are doing. I have discussed those things on another place, but I am not discussing everything here. I am against the current German government, I am not discussing it here (but even they are more critical of the US or Russia or Iran - with whom they do business - than Chavez of Iran).
As OW said already, one thing is to have relationships and another one to approve and say the guy (like Mahmoud Dick) is a champion of democracy when the guy is even suppressing those you claim to be a champion of (socialists).
At the end, you are a bloody hypocrite. Venezuela is doing most of its money from selling to the USA. In fact, most big chavistas have accounts in the USA.
It is pathetic: you and repressed Moy jump in glee thinking you have "crushed" me or whatever. What a couple of wankers!
Ano, Venezuela exporting what to China apart from oil? You are a joke, GIV
Ow, from The Economist (I know, it is frowned upon by you):
"Thanks to economic growth and social programmes, the government claims that only 30% of Venezuelan families now live in poverty, down from 55% at the peak in 2003. But according to a new report by the central bank, income inequality has widened slightly under Mr Chávez: the Gini coefficient—a statistical measure of inequality—has gone from 0.44 in 2000 to 0.48 in 2005."
And I am sure it kept going up in the last times.
The XXI century socialism will turn out to be more corrupted than Acción Democrática.
At least AD did more thing during their first years (before Pérez Jiménez).
Mr Kepler, I think you should lay off a bit. You do a fine job but you need to take a break chap.
One more thing, Anon is GIV. What does GIV stand for and why can't the turd use that? Some lazy bastard!
Mr Kepler, you are talking to the wall and the room is empty (ok 4 visitors are online).
Chavez is unmasked and Venezuela is going to hell in a hand basket. Everyone in the know knows what is going on. Why waste your time with that delusional young lad? Don't pitty the fool.
Now to some poetry by Rumy which is very applicable to Venezuela today:
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
Mr Anon or GIV or whatever the hell your name is, I am interested in debating you.
What will it be?
Mr Anon?
Are you there?
Would you like to start. Choose your subject. Any subject of your choosing.
From Iran to Colombia to the US, but I would rather debate Venezuela current events. Lets debate something within your area of expertise. I am making it easy for you now.
Don't worry about me. I'm just a retired school teacher who taught at CIC in Caracas from 1973 to 1984. My wife is from Merida and my two daughters were born in Caracas.
I was born in Alabama but raised in Australia...
Mr Anon or GIV: Do you believe in the Christian God and the Lord Jesus Christ? Or do you believe in Evolution?
Just want to clear that before we begin our debate.
OW, I agree strongly with Moyhabin--trying to copy South Korea because it of the consumerist life-style of the working classes seems senseless, and also an insult to the Venezuelan culture. The elites in S. Korea turn the masses into alienated machines. Not a model to emulate, at all.
More, as Moy aplty points out, poverty is a relative concept. I have met farmers in Guatemala that live a much more fulfilling life than most people in the US. There is plenty to eat, places to swim, time with family and friends.
Not only is hyper-capitalism a la S. Korea alienated, it is destroying the Earth's ecology.
The Guatemalan farmers that I stayed with lived in a healthy environment and enjoyed their lives totally.
This is not to say that imporvement could not be made, but, again, poverty is a relative, cultural/class construction.
The truth is that Venezuela is trying to develop something that is unique and brings value fulfillment with the masses.
Capitalism is an ecological dead-end, as well it is alienating, it destroys the soul. I don't think that the Venezuelan people have come this far to be turned into hyper-exploited robots that produce wealth for a new over-class.
More, OW, the protestant work-ethic comes very much to the fore of your hopeful projection--telling the historically exploited to work hard for ten years to achieve significant material advancement. This is good if these energies are geared toward building cooperatives--but simply to make more priveledged sectors richer?! Fuck that.
bill, the crack-pipe, it's calling you
Afterall, we know that capitalism eventually turns into imperialism. If we want to avoid that kind of injustice, we have to promote a system that won't lead us back to where we are currently.When Russia was a more serious super power, it did a lot of the same things?
This is false. US and multinational corporations aren't interested in setting up vertically-integrated industries in Venezuela. They want to globalize production, not set up the whole production line in one country.No country is really interested in investing Venezuela right now. The ones that do are at high risk and tend to keep a majority of their assets outside of Venezuela - just in case the government tries anything funny.
Some of the comments on this thread have been almost laughable. South Koreans being jealous of Venezuelan life? Venezuela not having access to US markets (as long as you ignore all the oil sold, and the fact that Venezuela has no other real exports)? Venezuela not having near infinite funding? Not having access to the best markets (China, India, Russia)? Not having access to technology (China, India, Russia again)?
I am discussing about Venezuela in this blog and I am discussing about what Venezuelan criminals like Hugo the First are doing.
Okay, let me get this straight. Hugo is a criminal because he has stated his support for Ahmadinejad? I wonder if that would stand up in a court of law? "Well, he SAID he supported him, I guess that makes him guilty!" hahahaha!!!
So, I wonder why you never seem to be concerned about Chavez' friendly relationship with Uribe? Iran's repression doesn't even compare to the horrible mass killing that has been going on under Uribe. But, no, you never even express the SLIGHTEST concern about that relationship.
But, according to your logic, what counts is what you SAY, not what you DO. So, just as long as you don't VOICE support for someone, it is okay to do business with them. Is that right Kepler? Because you say the problem you have with Chavez and Iran is what Chavez SAYS about the Iranian leader. But you don't seem to mind Venezuela's huge economic relationship to the US, or China, or Colombia, because Chavez doesn't VOICE support for them. What you are saying is that the only thing that matters is what one SAYS about other regimes, not what one does. Is that right Kepler?
one thing is to have relationships and another one to approve and say the guy (like Mahmoud Dick) is a champion of democracy when the guy is even suppressing those you claim to be a champion of (socialists).
This is a total lie. And I have asked you several times to show any evidence of suppression of socialist in Iran, and you have failed, over and over and over again.
What you have shown are abuses that can be found in many countries across the world. Even inside the US.
Either show us the evidence that socialists are being suppressed...... or stop making the claim. Its really not that hard Kepler.
Funny I wrote up a post about South Korea with links, quotes and all and my computer froze and crashed. I tried again and again it froze and crashed. Maybe God is trying to tell me that it is worthless try to convince ow that he's wrong about anything.
Keeping it simple before my computer freezes yet again.-
South Korea was built up during a reign of extreme repression and dicatorship. You aren't advising a similar path for Venezuela are you?
In 1989 the "miracle" came undone but not to worry- the G7 came and "bailed out South Korea" (that is to say they printed up money that was given to South Korea's creditors to the tune of 57 Billion 1989 dollars.) This of course was an inflation tax imposed upon the entire planet and of course there was no vote about it. Do you imagine the G7 doing this for Venezuela's credit?
Thus the South Korea model of development would be about as useful to Venezuela as the Rudy Giuliani/Bernard Kerik crimefighting model.
At the end, you are a bloody hypocrite. Venezuela is doing most of its money from selling to the USA.
This is really REALLY stupid. So it is hypocritical to SELL something to someone who you criticize? And not only to sell it, but sell it for a very high price?
Why is that hypocritical? Its just common sense. If I don't like someone, even if they are my worst enemy, I'll still take their money from them. Why wouldn't I? Especially if it is the biggest economy in the world, and NOT selling oil to them would significantly reduce oil income and be bad for all Venezuelans.
How exactly is that hypocritical?
And since you also agree that the United States is a major human rights abuser, what would you suggest Kepler? That Venezuela just stop doing business with the United States.
I assume then that you think ALL countries in the world should stop doing business with the USA? Come on, let's not be a hypocrite. If one country shouldn't do business with the US, then NO country should. Right???
When Russia was a more serious super power, it did a lot of the same things?
Everyone knows that Russia was anything BUT socialism. It was more like state capitalism.
No country is really interested in investing Venezuela right now.
They weren't interested in setting up industry in the 1970's either, during a huge economic boom. There has been a whole book written about this, The Magical State. I suggest you read it.
But, No country??? Hmmm. Let's see, here are some of the countries who are now investing in Venezuela: Russia, China, Brazil, Argentina, Iran, Belarus, Spain, Italy. That's just off the top of my head. Did you want to rephrase that statement?
Venezuela not having access to US markets (as long as you ignore all the oil sold, and the fact that Venezuela has no other real exports)? Venezuela not having near infinite funding? Not having access to the best markets (China, India, Russia)? Not having access to technology (China, India, Russia again)?
It is likely that if Venezuela began to export something that could be competitive on US markets, the US would put up protections. They often do this, even when they have free trade agreements. So, in NAFTA they put up protections against certain Mexican agricultural products. Against Canada they put up protections against lumber, and pharmaceuticals.
Of course Venezuelan oil has access, and you don't have to be a real genius to figure that one out. The US is extremely dependent on oil.
Near infinite funding? Are you kidding? Do you think the oil money is infinite or what? The oil revenues total something around $60 billion. After paying for operational expenses a significant amount of that is gone. State revenues are significantly lower than that, and then you have all the costs of the government. It doesn't leave a lot to finance development. That is why previous governments have taken out loans, despite oil booms. Doesn't sound too infinite to me, does it to you?
Access to markets? China does not have an extremely open economy. They often require firms to set up joint ventures in order to have access to their market. The state completely controls many of the major industries. It is not exactly a given that Venezuelan manufactures would have the kind of access to China that South Korea has to the United States during its development.
No one said they don't have access to technology from those countries. They are actually GETTING technology from China and others.
"If Venezuela wants the technology to build cars, for example, they need to have a vertically-integrated productive system. They simply can't get that from the US"
They don't have to get it from the US. South Korea got it from Japan. I think they used Japanese made engines in their cars for a long time. Venezuela could get an auto industry from:
U.S.
Japan
Germany
South Korea
Italy
France
Sweden
and maybe
Russia
Spain
China
Between all those countries I have no doubt they could get what they need.
"Well, a lot of the oil money is used just for the regular day to day operation of the government, schools, hospitals, government salaries, etc. So I think Venezuela will need external financing."
Venezuela has lots of money, and I'm sure more potential money than South Korea got.
Lets say they get $40 billion per year from oil. Would ten billion be too much to spare for developing industry? No, that would probably be sufficient.
They are already spending it you say? Well, sort of. They are spending it very poorly. Remember, by the government keeping the Bolivar overvalued they are ripping off...the government. THe government only gets 2,150 Bolivares for every dolar it changes. IF they changed the exchange rate to 3,000 alll of the sudden the government has a LOT more money to spend. This is but one more reason to devalue.
Who loses from that? Simple, the middle class comsumers are are binge spending now. But consumption should be cut back anyways.
There are other ways to get more money too:
1) increasing the price of gasoline to reduce consumption. If Venezuela could reduce gasoline consumption by 100 or 200k barrels per day that would bring in billions more that they could use for development.
2) cut back on the bloated and overpaid government workforce.
3) increase tarrifs on consumer items like cars.
4) stop wasteful expenditures like spending billions to buy already existing companies (CANTV, the electric companies, etc.)
Just doing a few of these things would give Venezuela plenty of money to put into industrial development
BTW, on the financing I left out they have lots of private financing too. Venezuelan banks have lots of money to lend. But because of perverse incentives they are lending it to people for consumption - trips, cosmetic surgery, cars, houses, etc - instead of loaning it to business for investment in industry.
Also the government could stop the non-sense of giving people $8,000 for their morgages to buy homes which only helps boost existing home price and use that money for industrial development.
I think you can see VEnezuela has LOTS of financing options. Truthfully, I see that as the least of their problems.
"I almost guarantee that if Venezuela started exporting cars, the US would not give them priveledged access to their markets like they give South Korea. Maybe they would, but I kind of doubt it. We already have US Congressman talking about nationalizing Citgo for god's sake."
As I said they can export to other markets, namely China. China is already a big market and in the next decade or two it will be huge.
Also, Venezuela isn't going to start exporting cars anytime soon. Generally you start out with more labor intensive industries and work your way up.
I think using the South Koran method is the best way - having the state assist private industry in an export led model. I think it is more efficient and already a proven model that has worked in an number of countries.
However, even if the VEnezuelan government wanted to use state industries or co-ops to develop I would be ok with giving that a shot.
But, I don't think they are making a real and serious effort with those either. THe most basic thing you have to do no matter the model is you have to make incentives for investment rather than consumption because for any economy to grow quickly you have to have really high investment rates (in China I think it is 40 to 50% right now).
Yet VEnezuela is on a consumption bing right now with consumption way favored over investment. Here are some fo the manifestations and cuases of that:
1) the currency is way overvalued. This boosts imports and makes VEnezuelan exports non-comptetative. THInk of it Venezuela isn't even using an Import Substitution Model because it is importing like crazy
2) interest rates are negative so people have an incentive to take loans to consume and not to save money in banks
3) look at the GDP numbers. Manufacturing is growing, which is good, but it is growing much more slowly than most everything else - transportation, commerce, communication, construction, etc. That shouldn't be.
4) note what sector the private investment is in now in Venezuela - it is in shopping malls. The private sector isn't afraid to invest - but they will only invest will they will make money. You can make lots of money in commerce because it is booming. YOu can't make nearly as much money in manufacturing because it is growing much more slowly and is being undermined by imports.
Not that I really want to get into an argument with an idiot, but Kepler's quote:
"Gini coefficient—a statistical measure of inequality—has gone from 0.44 in 2000 to 0.48 in 2005."
Although true, does not really say much about Venezuela's current inequality. Remember, 2005 was still only one year after the beginning of the economic recovery from the actions of the opposition. Had you measured the Gini index in say, 2003, you probably would have found it to be above 0.5. As everybody knows, the downturn in 2002 and 2003, although affecting the whole economy, had a especially adverse effect on the already poor. I'm almost sure that when they get the numbers for 2007 the Gini index will have fallen to substantially lower levels.
"Mr Anon or GIV: Do you believe in the Christian God and the Lord Jesus Christ? Or do you believe in Evolution? "
GIV, I am very happy this guy bill asked that question first. That means you won't have to waste your time debating an ignorant fanatic. And, anyways, qué tiene que ver el culo con las pestañas?
Between all those countries I have no doubt they could get what they need.
The car companies of most of those companies are multinationals. As I said earlier, multinationals aren't interested in setting up industry in one country. It is too small a market. They are working with a global production line. That isn't compatible with Venezuela's interests because a global production line means each country makes one thing, or a couple things. Maybe Venezuela would make the plastic parts or something, according to the demands of the multinationals needs, and export that. It doesn't create the kind of vertically-integrated industry needed to modernize. It creates industry that is intimately linked to and dependent on the multinationals.
So, they go to someone who IS interested in setting up the whole production line in Venezuela: Iran.
I'll have to answer the rest later. I'm sure Venezuela could be much more efficient in spending, but I think you are wrong about the financing. South Korea got a tremendous amount of US aid and US and Japanese loans. Like the article you cited said, there was a massive infusion of US money.
And spending $10 billion a year on industry? That would take up 25% of the national budget. Seems to be a pretty big chunk. I think if the government had enough money to finance their own industry they wouldn't be looking for investment from other countries. But they are getting a lot of investment from a lot of different countries.
I'll see what I can find about this.
OW,
This is what I found on US financing of South Korea:
South Korea's industrialisation was propelled by….
--massive supplies of foodstuff from the U.S.A. in the 1950s and the 1960s enabled food prices to be kept low while a land reform was in progress.
--massive transfers (aid and grants) accounting for 50-90 % of non residential investment in the first twenty years of the "miracle" (see Boxes 2 and 4) made possible a development planning protected from transnational corporations and foreign indebtness
--Korea's two major markets were United States and Japan, and those markets, because of political reasons, were open to Korean (and Taiwanese) manufactured goods in favourable conditions until well into the 1990s.
--From the 1950s to the 1960s, Korean and Taiwanese "miracles" were United States' responsibility, from the 1970s onwards, they have been Japanese responsibility. In 1969, in the well known Nixon-Sato communique on Asian international relations, the US made it clear that it was Japan's responsibility to safeguard American interests as well as Japanese interests in South Korea. In september 1969, Nagano Shigeo, president of the Fuji Iron and Steel Corporation, when delivering a loan of US$ 140 million to finance South Korea's Pohang Steel Mill
They weren't interested in setting up industry in the 1970's either, during a huge economic boom.So nothing has changed. No lesson was learned.
But, No country??? Hmmm. Let's see, here are some of the countries who are now investing in Venezuela: Russia, China, Brazil, Argentina, Iran, Belarus, Spain, Italy. That's just off the top of my head. Did you want to rephrase that statement?Is that a joke? If by "investing", you mean Venezuela is paying top dollar for their products, then I guess, you could say those countries are "investing" in Venezuela.
It is likely that if Venezuela began to export something that could be competitive on US markets, the US would put up protections.As long as Venezuela has oil, I don't see them ever producing any other competitive product. Why bother with all the hassle when all your revenue squirts out of the ground? Why develop something new when you can make a small fortune doing nothing? I hate to say it, but generally speaking Venezuela has a very poor work ethic. Oil booms and timelessly foolish socialist ideas are to blame.
Near infinite funding? Are you kidding? Do you think the oil money is infinite or what? The oil revenues total something around $60 billion. After paying for operational expenses a significant amount of that is gone. State revenues are significantly lower than that, and then you have all the costs of the government. It doesn't leave a lot to finance development. That is why previous governments have taken out loans, despite oil booms. Doesn't sound too infinite to me, does it to you?Here's where your short term history fails you. Venezuela currently has more money than they've had in years. It is near infinite, as shown by government spending/waste. For a country of this size and population, it has plenty of money right now. So much that almost anyone can get it for free.
Access to markets? China does not have an extremely open economy. They often require firms to set up joint ventures in order to have access to their market. The state completely controls many of the major industries. It is not exactly a given that Venezuelan manufactures would have the kind of access to China that South Korea has to the United States during its development.Again, you typically have to have a product before you can enter their market.
No one said they don't have access to technology from those countries. They are actually GETTING technology from China and others.You're right. I read your initial comment too quickly.
Pepito, tu eres guevon, maricon o pendejo? No te has dado cuenta que GIV usa las palabras 'God' and 'Jesus' constantemente?
Es una buena pregunta y no tiene nada que ver o decir de Bill.
Donde estas maricon para verte la cara de mal parido hijo de puta?
Me parece que GIV o Anon o como cono se llame el mariquito gringo ese es otro mal parido hijo de puta porq le tiene miedo a Bill.
Pepito, maricon te repito la pregunta: donde estas guevon para partirte la jeta.
GIV, are you a steer or a queer? You sound like a queer to me. You fucking delusional foreigner. What a disgrace you are to your parents. Do they have any idea of the bullshit you write? Maybe I should contact them.
GIV, is this the whore that gave birth to the defect called Chris Carlson?
http://tinyurl.com/yumwrh
Does she have any idea of the shit you write? Of course she does, she's your mother and she knows her son is fucking nuts.
Now tell me there is no corruption in Venezuela you delusional immature communist pussywhipped piece of shit.
GIV, which one is your girlfriend?
http://tinyurl.com/2h8zz2
LMAO
Is that a joke? If by "investing", you mean Venezuela is paying top dollar for their products, then I guess, you could say those countries are "investing" in Venezuela.
Not a joke at all. China has invested billions in Venezuela, operating a joint oil company, shipyards, building a railroad system.
Iran has also invested billions, setting up an auto industry, tractor factory, petrochemicals, joint refineries.
Brazil has done similar things, Argentina is investing a lot, setting up joint factories inside Venezuela.
I mean, really, shouldn't you get a little informed about what is happening in Venezuela before you come in here and spout off totally ignorant remarks as if they had some merit?
As long as Venezuela has oil, I don't see them ever producing any other competitive product. Why bother with all the hassle when all your revenue squirts out of the ground? Why develop something new when you can make a small fortune doing nothing? I hate to say it, but generally speaking Venezuela has a very poor work ethic. Oil booms and timelessly foolish socialist ideas are to blame
Because oil doesn't create even close to enough wealth for the whole country to live off of. That's why its a poor country, and that's why Rosales idea to just give out the oil wealth to everyone is stupid. It's not enough money for 30 million people to live off of, let alone to live well.
Socialist ideas? Well, the first time socialist ideas were expressed by a Venezuelan government was two years ago in 2005. So I hardly think that is to blame.
As for your racist ideas about Venezuelan work ethic. I won't even comment. Anyone who understands economics knows exactly why Venezuela is poor. There is no question about it, it is just basic economics. But, those people who are ignorant will attribute it to race, much like slave owners did 200 years ago. Blacks are poor because they are inferior, right?
Here's where your short term history fails you. Venezuela currently has more money than they've had in years. It is near infinite, as shown by government spending/waste. For a country of this size and population, it has plenty of money right now. So much that almost anyone can get it for free.
Care to back any of those retarded statments up? Actually Venezuela had a lot more income in the 1970's because a.) the oil boom was more of a boom than currently and b.) because the government engaged in massive borrowing. But the country was not developed at all. This government is actually putting quite a bit of investment into industrial projects.
THe government only gets 2,150 Bolivares for every dolar it changes. IF they changed the exchange rate to 3,000 alll of the sudden the government has a LOT more money to spend. This is but one more reason to devalue.
Inflation is already very high, and the government is doing everything they can to control it. Devaluing would just make inflation go through the roof and be bad for the economy.
There are other ways to get more money too:
1) increasing the price of gasoline to reduce consumption. If Venezuela could reduce gasoline consumption by 100 or 200k barrels per day that would bring in billions more that they could use for development.
Chavez has mentioned doing this, and I'm not sure why they haven't. But this would hit the poor the hardest. And might hurt the economy to an extent. Higher gas prices can slow business down too.
2) cut back on the bloated and overpaid government workforce.
Part of what a country needs to develop industry is to first have a domestic market to buy their production. A huge portion of the population works for the government, and that kind of serves as a way to spread income out among them and keep the domestic market strong. But, yes, certainly some of the higher salaries could be cut. This is definitely something I have always thought was stupid.
3) increase tarrifs on consumer items like cars.
There is no need to put tarrifs on cars. They can just simply begin to replace imported cars for locally produced cars and progressively decrease through CADIVI the amount of dollars given to car importers, and that way limit imports. But you can't limit the importation of cars until you are actually ready to replace them with nationally produced cars. (well, you could, but I don't see the sense in it)
4) stop wasteful expenditures like spending billions to buy already existing companies (CANTV, the electric companies, etc.)
Well, these are strategic sectors that will require significant investment and expansion in the future for the industrialization of the country. But, I will remind you, South Korea also had all of these sectors under state control, and other important sectors too. I think this is pretty crucial for successful development.
shit for brains, are the extra 3 million persons you cite the phantom voters in the REP?
can you be more about these investments and the amounts invested?
Shipyard where? What Brazilian and Argie investments? Break down the Chinese and Iranian sums. Venezuela already has auto industry since before you were born. You mean Iranian Peugots assembled from SKD and CKD kits you fucking moron. The same for the US owned Canadian Massey Ferguson tractors that are seventies technology being assembled SKD in Venezuela you fucking idiot. Tell me about those refineries... what and where? Not even a fucking link you twit? Inform me you asshole. That is what they pay you for after all but you do a crappy ass job at it. Maybe it's because they pay you to disinform? OR are you fanatical and delusional because you are all pussywhipped with your first girlfriend who happens to be a poor and dumb Venezuelan broad?
I know you lost your viriginity in Venezuela.
ASSHOLE Chris Carlson: go read the corruption post in the Devil's Excrement and then tell me it ain't true. You are so fucking delusional. Go get help.
YOU ARE FUCKING STUPID CHRIS.
Shit for brains, explain to me Economics. Why are Venezuelans still poor? You need to explain things in simple terms and with references and links for us ignorant people. Otherwise what the hell do you think you are doing here?
We have a fucking economist now. What did you graduate in again? Latam political studies? When? Last year? How old are you? 25? What work experience do you have besides translating articles and writing news articles? And now you know how to run the country? You know it all don't you?
Then why are you eating shit?
The only "retarded" person here is you Chris Carlson.
I really would love to see my boyfriend kick your puny ass in front of your girl.
"But, I will remind you, South Korea also had all of these sectors under state control, and other important sectors too. I think this is pretty crucial for successful development."
SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE IDIOT. THANK YOU FOR REMINDING ME
Not a joke at all. China has invested billions in Venezuela, operating a joint oil company, shipyards, building a railroad system.Care to provide proof to your claims? According to your figures investments from Iran and China alone must be at least 4 billion. I wonder what the latest FDI reports have to say on the subject. Last I knew they had dropped but were recoving slowly. However no where to the extent that you claim.
Iran has also invested billions, setting up an auto industry, tractor factory, petrochemicals, joint refineries.
Brazil has done similar things, Argentina is investing a lot, setting up joint factories inside Venezuela.
I mean, really, shouldn't you get a little informed about what is happening in Venezuela before you come in here and spout off totally ignorant remarks as if they had some merit?
Because oil doesn't create even close to enough wealth for the whole country to live off of. That's why its a poor country, and that's why Rosales idea to just give out the oil wealth to everyone is stupid. It's not enough money for 30 million people to live off of, let alone to live well.Venezuela has so many possibilities with the amount of money coming into the country at this point in time. Creating a good playing field for developing new industries, however, will not work with the current laws and monetary policies.
Socialist ideas? Well, the first time socialist ideas were expressed by a Venezuelan government was two years ago in 2005. So I hardly think that is to blame.Most people in Venezuela remember what happened the last time the government nationalized everything it could. It's history repeating itself.
As for your racist ideas about Venezuelan work ethic. I won't even comment. Anyone who understands economics knows exactly why Venezuela is poor. There is no question about it, it is just basic economics. But, those people who are ignorant will attribute it to race, much like slave owners did 200 years ago. Blacks are poor because they are inferior, right?You crack me up. Work ethic (whether it be good or bad) is a choice. Why do you think the foreigners own some of the most profitable businesses in Venezuela?
As for Venezuela being poor, there are many reasons why. Oil booms and busts are one and have played a very hard role on the economy. This one will be like the last, as history once again is repeating itself.
Care to back any of those retarded statments up? Actually Venezuela had a lot more income in the 1970's because a.) the oil boom was more of a boom than currently and b.) because the government engaged in massive borrowing. But the country was not developed at all. This government is actually putting quite a bit of investment into industrial projects.It's easily proven. Venezuela has a lot more money right now (thanks to oil prices). Money is being thrown around l
CHAMO, TE GANASTE EL PREMIO: ERES EL GUEVON MAS GRANDE QUE HE VISTO
DILE A TU NOVIA PENDEJA QUE DEJE DE DARTE CUERDA O ES QUE ELLA ES MAS PENDEJA QUE TU
WILL ALL THE ANONYMOUS POSTERS CUT IT OUT.
DON'T YOU HAVE ANY CREATIVE BRAINS? MAKE UP A NAME!
Anonymous, just who do you think you are? Who is scripting your comments for you?
CHRIS HAS NO BALLS
IN SPANISH FOR YOUR GIRLFRIEND:
NO TIENES BOLAS. NO PUEDES DEBATIR Y RESPONDER. TE COMIERON LA LENGUA GUEVON
SHUT UP BITCH
Anonymous, as Chavez would say: "Te tengo bien, bien espionao"
SORRY CASANDRA.. I THOUGHT IT WAS BALL-LESS CHRIS CARLSON FROM MERIDA
SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS... MY KEYBOARD GOT STUCK
"I almost guarantee that if Venezuela started exporting cars, the US would not give them priveledged access to their markets like they give South Korea."
Can you give me any evidence that in the automotive sector that SK had better (or privileged) access?
Korean cars are barely imported into the US until the mid-90s and only in serious numbers after 98-99. Now the Santa Fe and Sonata are built in Alabama.
THIS IS TOO FUNNY... TWO GIRLS GANGING UP ON CHRIS AT THE SAME TIME.
CHRIS, THIS IS AS CLOSE AS IT GETS TO YOUR THREESOME FANTASY.
I'M GOING TO BED. GOODNIGHT.
BTW, CASANDRA:
"ANONYMOUS" IS "GIV"
(DUMB) "GRINGO IN VENEZUELA"
"However, even if the VEnezuelan government wanted to use state industries or co-ops to develop I would be ok with giving that a shot."
State assisted private industry has worked to some extent. Coop or SOE lead development has not so giving that a shot is - at best -stepping into the dark. Why risk it?
UN CHAMO PENDEJO EN MERIDA. COMUNISTA Y ENAMORADO DE UNA POBRE PENDEJA. TODO LO HACE POR ELLA...
LAST ONE: VENEZUELAN ASSEMBLED IRANIAN PEUGOTS WOULD NEVER PASS U.S. EMISSIONS AND CRASH TESTS AND WOULD NEVER BE COMPETITIVE IN BUILD, QUALITY, PERFORMANCE AND PRICE.
GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS CHRIS AND GO VISIT GM OR FORD VENEZUELA. THEN GO VISIT THE IRANIAN ASSEMBLY FACILITY YOU IGNORANT MORON.
Care to provide proof to your claims? According to your figures investments from Iran and China alone must be at least 4 billion.
Yeah, and it looks like its a heck of a lot more than 4 billion:
http://www.prensa-latina.com/art...%7D&
language=ES
http://www.apfmercosur.com.ar/de...p?
cod_des=46555
Chris,
First there was Eva on her initial tour of duty in Merida. She calls herself "la jeva de Chávez". Now here you are in Merida. How marvelous. In your case they are grooming you so as to pass you around in one of their "ballets rosados". Te lo van a dejar rojo rojito.
PRESS RELEASES FROM CUBAN COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA MEDIUMS DON'T COUNT.
JUST LIKE CHAVEZ'S PLEDGES, COMMITMENTS, AGREEMENTS, PROMISES, AND WORD DO NOT COUNT.
BESIDES, WHO CARES WHAT CHINA AND IRAN ARE DOING. CHINA WILL INVEST BILLIONS IN THE FAJA NOW THAT THEY PULLED OUT OF CANADA.
TELL ME SOMETHING I DO NOT KNOW SUCH AS LOCATION OF IRANIAN HIGH EXPLOSIVE FACTORY.
CASANDRA, WORD IS THAT EVA FUCKED CHAVEZ.
THAT IS A CHAVEZ HABIT OF SLEEPING WITH WOMEN AROUND HIM.
NOTICE HE IS AT A LOSS FOR WORDS
"Maybe I will do a post that will have more on this but this is where not having the talent to a) explain economic ideas simply yet accurately and b) do nice power point slides really hurts me. I can think of who to ask but I'm pretty sure I'd be told to go fuck myself"
It is not hard. Just think simply. For instance, you could take the example of a businessman trying to start a business or a business with a good idea that tries to export. Have two scenarios (the current regime and an alternate regime). Compare the outcomes.
It would help for many here to see things from the businessmans point of view. Afterall businesses invest and invest creates jobs and exports. It helps to think about why and when businesses invest and what incentives they need.
If I were to teach this, I'd probably use the example of a hypothetical business in excel with different scenarios and potential investment projects. You can put excel tables or simple calculations in PPT slides.
Tor,
You wrote ""I almost guarantee that if Venezuela started exporting cars, the US would not give them priveledged access to their markets like they give South Korea."
This is almost a moot point. First, Venezuela would have to have the necessary infrastructure in order to produce huge volumes of auotmobiles in order to supply the US market.
Secondly, Venezuela has never been inclined to enter into any kind of free trade agreement with the US. Venezuela would have to agree to remove currency controls and reciprocate by allowing GM products such as Hummers to be given entry with minimal tariffs. Better yet none. Not likely
"You wrote ""I almost guarantee that if Venezuela started exporting cars, the US would not give them priveledged access to their markets like they give South Korea.""
No I didn't. GIV (anon) did. I was replying to it.
by the way.
http://www.latinbusinesschronicl...le.aspx?
id=1682
Tor,
My appologies. Mil diculpas.
GIV,
I checked out your blog. Nice photos. You have some fairly decent ones given your camera (average point and shoot by the looks of it). For the record your pictures want me to get on the first plane bound to CCS.
I have a project for you. Go and talk to business owners in Merida. Ask them questions about why they invest and if they are investing or not. Ask them what they think of currency controls and other government policies. Ask them why they hire/don't hire workers. Ask them about the cost of doing business. Ask them about expansion plans. Ask them whether they are optimistic. Try to target a variety of businesses (size (small, tiny, medium), type (coop, private)) and sectors (small supermarkets and retailers should be easy to talk to).
This would not only be an interesting blog topic, but it would help you understand how Chavez's policies effect business, investment and employment. It may also help you see some of ow's points.
The oppos on this blog repeatedly try to use Chavez' friendly diplomatic relations with Iran as a big argument against Venezuela's current gvt. I recommend this link:
http://www.counterpunch.org/
wals...sh10012007.html
Anon,
You made a lot of points and I want to continue this important discussion but can't do it at the moment.
Later I will.
Yeah, and it looks like its a heck of a lot more than 4 billion:Like most proposals from the government, it would be wise to wait until they come to frutation before including the numbers as FDI.
http://www.prensa-latina.com/art...%7D& language=ES
http://www.apfmercosur.com.ar/de...p? cod_des=46555
What would be an even more interesting figure is the proposed FDI in Venezuela, compared to the actual.
Almost forgot...
Even more interesting would be the non-oil FDI.
Looks like my post from above was cut..
Care to back any of those retarded statments up? Actually Venezuela had a lot more income in the 1970's because a.) the oil boom was more of a boom than currently and b.) because the government engaged in massive borrowing. But the country was not developed at all. This government is actually putting quite a bit of investment into industrial projects.It's easily proven. Venezuela has a lot more money right now (thanks to oil prices). Money is being thrown around like it is nothing, hence inflation. Want some free money? Call up CADIVI.
What industries are being developed? Iranian made cars and tractors? That's nothing but a political show, and enormous waste of money. If the government was serious about developing Venezuela's car industry you could easily contact a major car company. There are plenty in the world.
I can see los primitivos escuálidos have been quite agitated as of lately in this blog. Could it bee because their blogs are languishing? You can always count on them to provide some comedic relief.
Moyhabin, and the stale nature of the oppo blogs has everything to do with thier reflexive and constant censorship and banning.
When you arrest the play of discourse, creativity is killed--these oppo blogs end up as nothing but echo-chambers for politically correct thought.
This is a tendency that can effect all political groups and movements. And, thankfully, OW recognizes this basic truism very well--and thus he has never engaged in censoring the most hateful attacks and comments.
This is why OW's posts, over the course of a week, will get hundreds of comments. Compare this with the oppo blogs (where we are banned or censored)--enough said.
Of course SR. They are "democratic", we are not. They monitor their blogs and stifle debate, we don't. The good news is that with foes like this we can only win.
What industries are being developed? Iranian made cars and tractors? That's nothing but a political show, and enormous waste of money. If the government was serious about developing Venezuela's car industry you could easily contact a major car company. There are plenty in the world.
-----------------------
You must be the smartest among the moronic opposition crowd that just went through the blog spewing venom in all directions. Thus I will briefly address your claim. Venezuela has done more towards veritable industrialization in the past eight years (despite all the dirty tricks thrwon at us by the opposition and US imperialism), than in the past eighty years. If we brought US, Japanese or Korean car industries into the country, it would be in fact de-industrializing. They only would bring an assembly plant, but not the full techonological packet. That is the great difference with the Iranian car industry. It's the whole enchilada. Not merely a maquiladora. Countries like Mexico have many of those, and they only deepen economic dependency.
Seems Oil Wars is now the nr 1 blog in english on Venezuela, even among oppos..
What industries are being developed? Iranian made cars and tractors? That's nothing but a political show, and enormous waste of money. If the government was serious about developing Venezuela's car industry you could easily contact a major car company. There are plenty in the world.
I already explained why major car companies are not willing to set up a vertically-integrated industry in one country. Its not a big enough market for that, so they won't make the investment. I also explained that Venezuela tried once to bring major US corporation into Venezuela to transfer technology, and the car companies simply weren't interested. They even said so. They want a global production line, not a country by country production line. So Venezuela would just produce one part of the car. That doesn't help Ven build a national car industry.
That's why Venezuela brings in a car company that IS interested in setting this up. Hardly a political show. The technology is being transferred over 5 years, to build the components here.
I have a project for you. Go and talk to business owners in Merida. Ask them questions about why they invest and if they are investing or not. Ask them what they think of currency controls and other government policies. Ask them why they hire/don't hire workers. Ask them about the cost of doing business. Ask them about expansion plans. Ask them whether they are optimistic.
Tor, have you been to Venezula recently? I don't think you even have to talk to business owners. Investment is going crazy. There are new businesses, new apartment complexes, new malls popping up all over the place.
I know several business owners, and they aren't very happy with the new labor laws, because they have to actually give their workers good pay, and benefits. But they complain about that, while they still make record earnings. As much as they all hate Chavez, the ferries going to Margarita are completely packed. Flights between Maracaibo and Miami are full every single day.
Ow is exactly right on this one. The middle class hates his guys, but they are living great. Why do you think imports are up so much? Because people have a lot of money to spend. And when people have money to spend, businesses benefit.
Now, of course these busineses are not productive. And that is the problem. But they never WERE productive. They are simply doing the same things they used to do on a bigger scale. It will take huge state intervention to build up the kinds of infrastructure necessary for productive industry. But they are beginning to do this, building steel plants, petrochemicals industries, etc.
"Tor, have you been to Venezula recently? I don't think you even have to talk to business owners. Investment is going crazy. There are new businesses, new apartment complexes, new malls popping up all over the place."
Its been 18 months, but I don't have to go to get the general idea.
http://www.automotriz.net/articu...os/
aindexx.html
http://www.sambilmall.com/
http://oilwars.blogspot.com/2007...e-
shopping.html
"I know several business owners, and they aren't very happy with the new labor laws, because they have to actually give their workers good pay, and benefits. But they complain about that, while they still make record earnings. As much as they all hate Chavez, the ferries going to Margarita are completely packed. Flights between Maracaibo and Miami are full every single day."
Sure, but are they investing or just milking the boom? Why are the business owners not investing more? Do the labor laws make them hire fewer or more employees? What do they think of the future? What impedes them from investing more? From increasing productivity? What do they think of coops? Price controls?
Talk to some more of these guys. It would be especially interesting if you could talk to companies that are - or could be - exporting.
"Now, of course these busineses are not productive. And that is the problem. But they never WERE productive."
True.
"They are simply doing the same things they used to do on a bigger scale. It will take huge state intervention to build up the kinds of infrastructure necessary for productive industry. But they are beginning to do this, building steel plants, petrochemicals industries, etc."
SOEs are not more productive (and SOEs will never replace small businesses anyway). You don't need state intervention to build infrastructure. You can build highways, educate people and simplify export proceedings.
Petrochemicals? I saw Chavez's announcement. Why will this succeed when Pequiven has been a failure all these years?
Heavy industry? CVG has been an SOE all along except Sidor since 9
without much success. Why will this initative be different.
We started an interesting debate on CC only to be extinguished by the owners over there, but I posted something about governance in SOEs.
Your main objection to capitalist companies is that they lobby and influence politics. This is true. As you pointed out many former (and future policymakers) sit on company boards. The corporate world is tied to the poltical world.
However, SOEs are political. They are not just tied to the political world. They are the political world. Politicans appoint the leaders of SOEs. Politicans monitor the leaders of SOEs. So why would SOEs not influence and lobby to an even greater degree than capitalist companies?
SOEs have a history of trying to capture rents that should be given to the people. PDVSA in the 90s was an example. PDVSA workers make huge salaries and enjoy lavish benefits. Talk to anyone in
Sure, but are they investing or just milking the boom? Why are the business owners not investing more? Do the labor laws make them hire fewer or more employees? What do they think of the future? What impedes them from investing more? From increasing productivity? What do they think of coops? Price controls?
It is my impression that they ARE investing a lot more. There is new construction going on all over the place, new apartment buildings going up, new malls being built, businesses that are expanding.
I'm telling you, I am most familiar with the scene here in Merida, and its nuts. There are new building being constructed left and right. It definitely doesn't seem like a place where people are afraid to invest.
I have a close friend who owns a towing service. He hates Chavez guts, but he just bought two new tow trucks, took his whole family to Margarita. His brother is a high oil exec in a private oil company, and he is just starting to build a whole new apartment complex here in Merida.
However, SOEs are political. They are not just tied to the political world. They are the political world. Politicans appoint the leaders of SOEs. Politicans monitor the leaders of SOEs. So why would SOEs not influence and lobby to an even greater degree than capitalist companies?
This could be somewhat true. But its also quite a bit different. And it all depends on how the enterprise is structured. If it is state-owned, then it doesn't have any legal commitment to maximize profit at any cost, like private corporations. It has a legal commitment to follow the state policies, which could be to engage in massive social spending, pay the workers high wages,(no wonder public sector workers tend to make more money, better benefits, than private sector) slow production down, produce only what is needed. Only if the state has some irrational desire to maximize profits without any regard for anything else, there is no reason why a socialist enterprise would do this. And this is the key point with corporations. They are legally obligated to be totally irrational with maximizing profits at any cost. When people like that run the political system, you've got some MAJOR problems.
Also, the ideal socialist enterprise would be structured with worker control, little to no hierarchy. This means a much smaller inequality of wealth, and thus, making a society without as big of class conflicts. The workers, who also control the enterprise, would identify much better with the general population.
"It is my impression that they ARE investing a lot more. There is new construction going on all over the place, new apartment buildings going up, new malls being built, businesses that are expanding."
There is a consumption boom so a lot of investment is going in that direction. The problem is that there is little investment geared towards exports or competing with imports. Apartments, tow trucks and malls are known as non-tradeables (you can't sell your apartment in Merida to a guy in Atlanta).
"If it is state-owned, then it doesn't have any legal commitment to maximize profit at any cost, like private corporations."
...but they should be maximizing state revenues right? The point of a SOE steel company afterall is to provide revenues for the state. THe point of PDVSA is to maxmize royalties and taxes for the Venezuelan state. That is almost the same as maximizing profit.
"It has a legal commitment to follow the state policies, which could be to engage in massive social spending, pay the workers high wages"
The state should use resources as efficiently as possible. Why? It will allow it to spend more resources on good things like alleviating poverty, schools, research etc. So SOE need to be as efficient as possible for the state's resources to reach as widely as possible.
"And this is the key point with corporations. They are legally obligated to be totally irrational with maximizing profits at any cost."
...but subject to the rules of law, taxes and regulations that are established by the people. They are also constrained by competition.
"When people like that run the political system, you've got some MAJOR problems."
This is a valid point as I stated in my post. They need to be monitored by the state. The state needs to tax them, regulate them and impose competition. Clearly companies try to avoid this, but in most cases company leaders and board members do not work for the government directly despite trying their best to lobby, bride, twist and influence.
SOE managers maximize rents (i.e. steal resources). They may not explicitly maximize the SOEs profits, but they may maximize other stuff instead (like jets, offices, perks, quiet time etc.) How to you prevent SOE managers from doing this? You monitor. Who monitors? The state, but the SOE managers are often the very state that monitors (RR is a flagrant example).
"Also, the ideal socialist enterprise would be structured with worker control, little to no hierarchy. This means a much smaller inequality of wealth, and thus, making a society without as big of class conflicts. The workers, who also control the enterprise, would identify much better with the general population."
Not necessarily. The workers will try to steal resources and award themselves large pay increases. Workers typically identify with themselves not the population.
Also it is very hard to run anything without some kind of hierarchy or bureaucracy. Companies or governme
There is a consumption boom so a lot of investment is going in that direction. The problem is that there is little investment geared towards exports or competing with imports. Apartments, tow trucks and malls are known as non-tradeables (you can't sell your apartment in Merida to a guy in Atlanta).
Yes, but this has nothing to do with Chavez. This is how it has always been in Venezuela and throughout much of Latin America. You don't export things if it is just easier and more profitable to just get involved in commercial enterprises. In fact I've read whole books about this written by Venezuelan authors in the 1970's. The Magical State also partially touched on this. This has been the case in Ven for a long long time.
Contrary to what you think, before you can start exporting and being competitive on the world market, you've got to build up a decent industry. You don't do that without some serious state protection and aid. There isn't an example of this ever happening anywhere in the world without serious state planning and intervention.
The Chavez government has made much more progress in this direction than any government in Venezuelan history. And there is just no question about it. CAP couldn't even get a little tractor factory up and running. Under Chavez Venezuela has been producing thousands of tractors a year.
they should be maximizing state revenues right? The point of a SOE steel company afterall is to provide revenues for the state.
Well, they should, but they don't have so much pressure to do so, so they won't be going to such extents to do it.
You see, capitalist firms have to worry about keeping their head above water. They have to worry about their competitors, and they have to try to not get eaten by a bigger fish. This creates quite a desperation to maximize conditions for profit making.
Socialist firms just simply don't have these conditons. They aren't going to be paying paramilitaries in Colombia to kill labor leaders, for example, as Chiquita did. Its just nonsense. They will try to maximize income, but there is a big difference between doing that, and being irrationally obsessed about it.
..but subject to the rules of law, taxes and regulations that are established by the people.
Again Tor, its like you live in another world when you say things like that. Did the people ever write up the labor safety laws in the United States? Did they write up the water pollution laws?
In Venezuela it was the US oil companies that wrote the Hydrocarbon law of 1922 that lasted all the way to the 1950's. And that is a perfect example. Many times it is the very industry itself that writes the laws that regulate them.
Did the "people" of the United States have any say in how the TV media was structured? Absolutely not. It was just totally given away to major corporations, with no public discussion about whether or not it should be community-run, state-run, public-run, non-profit, or anything like that.
SOE managers maximize rents (i.e. steal resources).
The people have direct say in who is going to run these enterprises (or they should in any democratic society). If there is corruption, if they aren't following the law, then the people can get rid of them.
The difference with capitalist enterprises is that the people have no say whatsoever in who runs these companies. Is the guy being corrupt and buying jets, hoarding the companies profits, having undue influence over the government? Well, the people can't really do much, can they? No one ever voted for him, and they can't vote him out of there. They could ask their politicians to regulate him. We all know how well that works.
But as far as perks, stealing resources, etc., a lot of that is simply human nature, and would happen in any kind of firm. The difference is that a socialist firm would be much less likely to a.) go to great lengths and do things that are damaging to society just so that they can save a few bucks and, therefore, b.) create huge inequality.
After all Tor, can you really imagine the development of someone like Cisneros under a socialist system? What motivation would a socialist enterprise have in adquiring a massive portfolio of assets? They don't have competition, they aren't worried about getting beat by the next guy. So I see little reason why wealth would ever become so concentrated in the hands of a few people. This is of tremendous importance.
The workers will try to steal resources and award themselves large pay increases.
Also it is very hard to run anything without some kind of hierarchy or bureaucracy.
That just simply untrue. There have been tons of examples of successful cooperative projects, worker-controlled enterprises.
Will workers steal? Of course. Do they in capitalist firms too? Yes. So what's the difference? Workers can only give themselves a pay raise if there are resources for it. But the boss will no longer be able to take a large chunk and give the crumbs to the workers. Now income would be shared more equally.
"This is how it has always been in Venezuela and throughout much of Latin America. You don't export things if it is just easier and more profitable to just get involved in commercial enterprises."
That has been the problem in Venezuela. It is one of the reasons they are still a oil only country. As ow says Chavez can do more to fix this.
"you've got to build up a decent industry."
true, but the industry has got to start competing with imports. as for tractors I have yet to be convinced that this will not be another Encava.
"You don't do that without some serious state protection and aid. There isn't an example of this ever happening anywhere in the world without serious state planning and intervention."
Maybe, but this does not mean the companies themselves can not themselves be private. Chavez is encouraging coops and SOEs instead. Also you can channel state resources towards companies without direct intervention i.e. build a road to the plant, a new port, educate specialized workers, cut crime, simplifly export proceedings etc. Also the point of protecting companies is to eventually have them emerge as competive players on the global stage. You can protect some, but only to help them gain a toehold. Often countries end up protecting companies too long and they end up only gobbling up precious state resources. It is hard for the state to let go at the right time.
The last Anon was me
Also, Tor, I think there are some pretty obvious examples of the comparison between capitalist firms and public firms in the real world.
Just look at any public enterprise, state-owned enterprise. Do you hear about them setting up lobby organizations, financing political campaigns, repressing labor unions, cutting workers benefits, side-stepping environmental policies?
I certainly haven't heard about this happening. But I could give you a million examples of capitalist firms doing this. Seems to be a pretty clear indicator.
"Well, they should, but they don't have so much pressure to do so, so they won't be going to such extents to do it."
That is the point. They should have that pressure if not they waste resources.
The main argument for SOEs in oil for example is that private companies steal the country's wealth. So you nationalize and hope the national SOE will give the state higher revenues (i.e. steal less). But if the SOE has less pressure to produce revenues the state (i.e. the people) lose. SOEs do you no good if the SOE workers steal the resources and the state ends up with lower tax and royalty payments.
Ultimately, the state wants to convert resources (oil) into money that it can spend on stuff (social services). So it wants an efficient machine to convert oil into money. But if the SOE is less efficient (because it faces less pressure) then the state gets less money to spend on the people.
"You see, capitalist firms have to worry about keeping their head above water. They have to worry about their competitors, and they have to try to not get eaten by a bigger fish. This creates quite a desperation to maximize conditions for profit making."
Exactly, which is why they are more efficient. They face more market discipline.
"They will try to maximize income, but there is a big difference between doing that, and being irrationally obsessed about it."
They will try to maximize income and steal as much as possible from the state unless of course the state monitors them and stops them. People tend to be irrationally (or rationally) obsessed about themselves.
" Do you hear about them setting up lobby organizations, financing political campaigns, repressing labor unions, cutting workers benefits, side-stepping environmental policies?"
They lobby more directly since they are part of the political organization. They don't need outside lobby organizations (in fact, this would look bad).
The main problem with SOEs is not that they mercilessly pursue profits, it is that they waste resources and steal resources from the state.
Also it depends on the SOEs incentives. In Soviet Russia Statlin would set targets and managers would have to meet them or nasty things would happen. These companies did all sorts of things to meet the targets.
That has been the problem in Venezuela. It is one of the reasons they are still a oil only country. As ow says Chavez can do more to fix this.
This is debatable. But Venezuela has never had a government who has done more in this respect.
Maybe, but this does not mean the companies themselves can not themselves be private.
Of course they can be private, if you want to repeat the major problems of all the other developed countries. That is, compromised democracy, powerful private groups that control much of the country, imperialist exploitation of other countries, massive inequality, corporate-controlled society, etc.
Also the point of protecting companies is to eventually have them emerge as competive players on the global stage. You can protect some, but only to help them gain a toehold.
Yes, I agree with you, but only if you are working within a capitalist global economy. It could be possible to build a different world system in which competition on a global scale would not be necessary. But this is a whole different discussion, and highly theoretic.
They will try to maximize income and steal as much as possible from the state unless of course the state monitors them and stops them. People tend to be irrationally (or rationally) obsessed about themselves.
Tor | 10.03.07 - 7:58 pm | #
This is just totally false. This is like saying that you aren't going to hire a secretary because you know she is just going to rob everything she can possibly rob from you.
Why would she do that? It makes no sense whatsoever. She is risking her reputation, her job, and risking going to jail. It is totally irrations.
Sorry Tor, normal people are not this irrational.
Now, a corporation will do exactly this because they are legally obligated by their shareholder to maximize profit. If they don't show continued growth, the CEO is out on his ass. The company could get bought up by another company, the shareholders could lose big money.
So, what do they do? They cut costs, cut corners in ever way they can.
People are generally not totally obsessed about themselves. They have to be pressured to act in such irrational ways.
They will try to maximize income and steal as much as possible from the state unless of course the state monitors them and stops them. People tend to be irrationally (or rationally) obsessed about themselves.
Tor | 10.03.07 - 7:58 pm | #
I mean, just think about this statement Tor. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Are you this way? Do you steal as much as you can possibly steal from your employer?
Are the people around you like this, the people you know? Do they act like this?
This certainly isn't my experience in this world. People won't act in totally irrational ways unless they are either mentally ill, or if they have some tremendous pressure to act this way.
"Again Tor, its like you live in another world when you say things like that. Did the people ever write up the labor safety laws in the United States? Did they write up the water pollution laws?"
I never said corporations never hijacked government. In fact, they do so all the time. I could probably find 100 examples in a couple hours. That is not my point.
My point is that SOEs are even more likely to twist the system to their benefit precisely because SOEs are the state. They have incentives to waste state resources and appropriate benefits for the SOEs workers and management instead of the state that the SOE is supposed to serve (remember that stockholders in the SOE are the people not the workers and management).
"The people have direct say in who is going to run these enterprises (or they should in any democratic society). If there is corruption, if they aren't following the law, then the people can get rid of them. "
Yes, this is how it is supposed to work. In reality, the people vote every 4-6 years for a bunch of guys that make promises on 567 (to pick a random big number) issues. One of these issues is the management of the SOE. How direct is the accountability link? Sure, the people own the SOE, but governance is weak.
OFten the SOE is led by a crony of the leading party and these guys work together. Nobody gets punished unless there is a flagrant violation. The leading party also appoints the monitor and all these characters play golf on Sunday.
With private enterprises you can get similar issues, but at least the CEO is not appointed by the government. If the company does badly the CEO (or the company) will be dead.
"The difference with capitalist enterprises is that the people have no say whatsoever in who runs these companies. Is the guy being corrupt and buying jets, hoarding the companies profits"
Lots of stuff the people can do here. Increase competition (no more jets), have the SEC toughen rules on reporting or governance etc.
"having undue influence over the government?"
Populist politicans are much more likely to crack down on the greedy boss (friendly or not) than the SEO which is part of the government.
"They could ask their politicians to regulate him. We all know how well that works."
Often badly, but the point is that regulating the SOE often works even worse.
"The difference is that a socialist firm would be much less likely to a.) go to great lengths and do things that are damaging to society just so that they can save a few bucks and,"
two things here. If the socialist firm saves two bucks the government has more to spend on hospitals. The problem is socialist firm don't save two bucks.
If capitalist firms face stiff competition then the two bucks are passed on to consumers and we all (rich or poor) consume.
"therefore, b.) create huge inequality."
You can do a lot to adress this using taxation and distribution.
"What motivation would a soc
"Are you this way? Do you steal as much as you can possibly steal from your employer?"
Stealing does not mean literally carrying out the machine to the white van and selling them. It can mean that, but mostly it means wasting resources. You waste resources when you are lazy, when you get the BMW for the company when it would do to have a Aveo, when you claim you are sick when you're not etc.
"This certainly isn't my experience in this world. People won't act in totally irrational ways unless they are either mentally ill, or if they have some tremendous pressure to act this way."
True, but acting in ways that improve your own welfare is not irrational. Being lazy at work often improves welfare of the guy being lazy.
"she is just going to rob everything she can possibly rob from you.
Why would she do that? It makes no sense whatsoever. She is risking her reputation, her job, and risking going to jail. It is totally irrations."
That is the point. She will not do it since she has incentives (and morals not to). It does not have to be this extreme. People do whatever they feel they can get away with (legally and morally)She could be a bad (lazy or otherwise) worker. She could buy expensive lunches. She could be corrupt. All this stuff adds up.
"So, what do they do? They cut costs, cut corners in ever way they can."
the problem is SOEs don't do any of this and end up wasting the state money.
"People are generally not totally obsessed about themselves. They have to be pressured to act in such irrational ways."
People do what is best for them (mostly) given the incentives in place. The pressure gives them incentives not to be lazy. It is not irrational at all.
To develop society you need to give people incentives to work and excel. A bunch of folks sitting around being lazy with just waste state resources and not lead to any development.
Think about it. The state pays you to collect tolls on the tollway. Instead you go count cows in the neighboring field. That is theft. The people paid you to do something. You took the money and did nothing. Being laziness by failing to do your duty is theft (or wasting) state resources. Wasting resources is probably a less controversial way of putting it.
It is like paying for a lawyer and having the lawyer never show up.
To develop society you need to give people incentives to work and excel. A bunch of folks sitting around being lazy with just waste state resources and not lead to any development.
Tor | 10.03.07 - 8:35 pm | #
That's demonstrably false. The people who invented the internet, for example, were payed by the government. They had no profit incentive. And they created one of the most important tools in the world.
The same thing happened with the people who invented the personal computer. A couple guys working in their garage. They worked at something because they liked it, not because they wanted to get rich.
Tor, I'm not going to continue discussing this with you. Its just total nonsense.
Yes people act in their benefit. No, people do not act irrationally unless pressured to do so. A secretary is not going to do everything she can to steal. There is no reason for her to risk everything, her job, reputation, punishment, to do this.
A corporation will, and often DO, risk a hell of a lot to lower costs, mazimize profit. And you'd have to really be EXTREMELY blind to not see this.
Take Chiquita, paying paramilitaries to murder labor leaders. Would a normal rational person do this to cut their costs??? Of course not. Its not worth it. But Chiquita risked their reputation, their contracts, and risked going to jail. All to lower their labor costs. That is totally irrational behavior, that does not take place unless you have some serious pressure to do so.
People do what is best for them (mostly) given the incentives in place. The pressure gives them incentives not to be lazy. It is not irrational at all.
No, that isn't irrational, but stealing everything you can IS irrational. And people don't typically act this way. Repressing your workers and taking away their health benefits is very irrational. In public companies this very seldom happens. In private corporations it happens all the time.
You are totally confusing what people do for their own benefit, and the totally irrational behavior that corporations will have in order to maximize profit.
the problem is SOEs don't do any of this and end up wasting the state money.
Capitalist firms waste state money like crazy. Have you been paying attention to Iraq? Have you ever heard of government contracts? Most of the US economy is made up of arms production. What for? Why do we spend so much on arms? It is a total waste, but the arms companies are extremely powerful, they have a lot of weight, so we keep wasting an incredibly amount of state resources on arms.
The examples go on and on and on. Pharmaceuticals have most of their research paid for by public subsidies. Corporate welfare is rampant. There are the kinds of things that you appear to be totally ignorant of, and it makes you sound SOOOOO naive.
Tor, for heaven's sake, LAZINESS DOES NOT COMPROMISE DEMOCRACY. A worker being lazy is a problem. But is it as big of a problem as the arms industry having a stranglehold on the government? Let's get real here.
OFten the SOE is led by a crony of the leading party and these guys work together. Nobody gets punished unless there is a flagrant violation. The leading party also appoints the monitor and all these characters play golf on Sunday.
With private enterprises you can get similar issues, but at least the CEO is not appointed by the government. If the company does badly the CEO (or the company) will be dead.
And then another CEO takes his place and continues to to increase that what is asked of him, growth. Till when? Grow and grow and grow. Is that it? This continued rapacious growth is what makes capitalism evolve to imperialism. Tor will then say, “Well just have the government regulate it.”But in the real world it does not work that way simply because this endless growth eventually spreads to government and controls it. And liberal reperesentative democracy has no mechanism that will stop this from occuring. This growth spreads to all of society. But a cancer cannot live forever. Even it runs out of resources to live of off.
I already explained why major car companies are not willing to set up a vertically-integrated industry in one country. Its not a big enough market for that, so they won't make the investment.For starters, most large foreign companies would be foolish to invest like that with the current economic policies. The risk is way too high. Labor laws also make it very difficult to try to set up industry that large.
I also explained that Venezuela tried once to bring major US corporation into Venezuela to transfer technology, and the car companies simply weren't interested. They even said so. They want a global production line, not a country by country production line. So Venezuela would just produce one part of the car. That doesn't help Ven build a national car industry.Again, other countries have managed to do exactly what you're talking about with major car manufacturers. What makes them different than Venezuela? Less risk, fare labor laws, and a stable economy.
"That's demonstrably false. The people who invented the internet, for example, were payed by the government. They had no profit incentive. And they created one of the most important tools in the world."
...but mostly the internet was developed for profit. Sure, these guys came up with it, but getting it from there to where it is now has relied heavily on competition and private enterprise. I am not saying there is no role for state sponsered research...
"The same thing happened with the people who invented the personal computer. A couple guys working in their garage. They worked at something because they liked it, not because they wanted to get rich."
Sure, but again the computer is what it is due to intense competition among private companies. One thing is an invention, another is commercializing it, producing it, getting the price down and improving it.
"Tor, I'm not going to continue discussing this with you. Its just total nonsense."
...don't give up know
For starters, most large foreign companies would be foolish to invest like that with the current economic policies. The risk is way too high. Labor laws also make it very difficult to try to set up industry that large.
Look. There is no need to speculate. Go read about it. There is plenty of literature on this. It has nothing to do with current policies. They didn't want to do it back in the 1970's either.
Your argument is stupid and ignorant. They didn't want to do it in the 1970's for the same reasons that they don't now. Has nothing to do with Chavez.
Again, other countries have managed to do exactly what you're talking about with major car manufacturers. What makes them different than Venezuela? Less risk, fare labor laws, and a stable economy.
Anonymous | 10.03.07 - 9:49 pm | #
Like who? Care to give any examples?
There are a couple special cases that could develop because of massive US aid and assistance.
And there are some countries who have big enough markets that they can force corporations to make the kinds of investments necessary.
But, if its so easy, why doesn't Mexico have a national car industry? Why not Brazil? Why doesn't Colombia?
Is it that they are all just too stupid like Venezuela? Is this Chavez' fault there too?
"A corporation will, and often DO, risk a hell of a lot to lower costs, mazimize profit. And you'd have to really be EXTREMELY blind to not see this."
I never disagreed with this. That is the point of a company. But they will not risk legal and political reprecussions because that will hurt future profits. Society effectively helps shape their incentives by setting these rules.
"Take Chiquita, paying paramilitaries to murder labor leaders. Would a normal rational person do this to cut their costs???"
No, but most companies don't do this either. This is what drug dealers would do to eliminate competition or discipline underlings. Most people (and companies) don't go this far because society will punish them if they do, but people can do some pretty awful things when a lot (especially money) is at stake.
That's demonstrably false. The people who invented the internet, for example, were payed by the government. They had no profit incentive. And they created one of the most important tools in the world.It was during the cold war, and there was a huge technology race. Fierce patriotism made this happen.
The same thing happened with the people who invented the personal computer. A couple guys working in their garage. They worked at something because they liked it, not because they wanted to get rich.That's almost completely wrong, yet still debatable. Who exactly are you talking about? Bill Gates?
"but stealing everything you can IS irrational. And people don't typically act this way."
I said stealing can be thought of not just as literally taking stuff. Being lazy or shrinking is also wasting resources.
"Repressing your workers and taking away their health benefits is very irrational. In public companies this very seldom happens. In private corporations it happens all the time."
Think about this. Who loses when workers in SOEs get lavish benefits and high salaries? Who loses if PDVSA workers get incredible health benefits and never get fired or see their wages cut?
"totally irrational behavior that corporations will have in order to maximize profit."
why are you calling it totally irrational? Corporations compete so their actions are entirely rational. I think you are trying to say that they are hurting society.
...but mostly the internet was developed for profit. Sure, these guys came up with it, but getting it from there to where it is now has relied heavily on competition and private enterprise
There is simply no evidence of that whatsoever. These guys were creative and motivated enough to develop the internet. Who is to say that they and other independent people all over the world couldn't make improvements on it without looking for profit?
In fact, that's largely been what has happened. Much of Silicon Valley has sprouted up due to individuals studying together who were interested in innovating. They were really into this stuff. And they made some impressive innovations. Had absolutely nothing to do with profit or competition. Go read The Network Society, its all about this.
Look at open-based software. There are people making neat innovations there all the time. No profit, no competition.
In fact, it has been profit that has largely ruined the internet. So, something like 90% of the websites are porn. Why? Because that makes money.
Take google. Companies now BUY placing on google. So, you want to search for something? Yeah, you aren't exactly getting fair results. You are getting results that are paid for, bought, altered.
The internet has been largely commercialized, and now the same big corporations that already dominate our media culture are also beginning to dominate the internet. Sure, the internet is wider, more diverse, which lends for more options than TV, but large corporations are dominating it more and more.
It became a thing for profit, and its original function got changed drastically.
"Capitalist firms waste state money like crazy. Have you been paying attention to Iraq?"
That is because politicans pay them. In fact, they probably waste less money than if politicans asked SOEs to do whatever it is they want done.
"Have you ever heard of government contracts? Most of the US economy is made up of arms production. What for?"
This is different. We are not discussing this. We are saying that the country has a task and it wants either a private company (companies) to do it or a SOE. Like producing oil. Is an SOE or a private solution better? That is the question and my claim is that the private solution is in society's best interest. The examples about waste here are true, but irrelevant for answering this question.
In any event, lets say you have a arms equipment SOE. Do you think they'd try to come up with government contracts to avoid being shut down or not?
" that you appear to be totally ignorant of, and it makes you sound SOOOOO naive."
come on We were having a perfectly civil and respectful discussion.
"Tor, for heaven's sake, LAZINESS DOES NOT COMPROMISE DEMOCRACY. A worker being lazy is a problem. But is it as big of a problem as the arms industry having a stranglehold on the government? Let's get real here."
Actually laziness does compromise democracy because if people are lazy they don't care about politics and don't bother to vote, but that is beside the point.
This ignores the issue. We are discussing the following: if the government decides to do an arm deal should private or public companies do it. Which company would offer the best deal for the state's scare resources?
...as for stranglehold do you think a SOE arms sector would have a stranglehold on government? I mean it is almost impossible to fire government workers right? and the SEO leader is likely to have even better political contacts than the private CEO.
That's almost completely wrong, yet still debatable. Who exactly are you talking about? Bill Gates?
Anonymous | 10.03.07 - 10:19 pm | #
Its not wrong. Go read about Steven Wosniak.
I find it funny how you constantly try to prove me wrong about something, and you continuously fail miserably. hahaha. Its entertaining.
"But, if its so easy, why doesn't Mexico have a national car industry? Why not Brazil? Why doesn't Colombia?"
Brazil and Mexico both have many real car factories (not just car-lego factories like Venezuela) and both produce for export unlike the Venezuelan plants (execpt some minor CAN stuff).
Look. There is no need to speculate. Go read about it. There is plenty of literature on this. It has nothing to do with current policies. They didn't want to do it back in the 1970's either.I have more than read it, but then again you're probably too young to have actually seen any of it. It has everything to do with the policies at hand. Guess what? They are almost the same as they were back in the 70's. The same failures will also come.
Your argument is stupid and ignorant. They didn't want to do it in the 1970's for the same reasons that they don't now. Has nothing to do with Chavez.
Like who? Care to give any examples?Let's start with Malayisa. Do some reading and then come back.
Brazil has a large automotive industry. You should check it out.
you think the PC is what it is today only because of two guys in a garage?
this is beside the main point, but this is one of the odder claims I've seen in a long time.
Brazil and Mexico both have many real car factories (not just car-lego factories like Venezuela) and both produce for export unlike the Venezuelan plants (execpt some minor CAN stuff).Obvio!
Its not wrong. Go read about Steven Wosniak.Oh, the irony of it all! The PC dates much farther back than Woz. In fact, most of the developement that went into moving mainframe technology into PCs was done by large corporations.
I find it funny how you constantly try to prove me wrong about something, and you continuously fail miserably. hahaha. Its entertaining.
That is because politicans pay them. In fact, they probably waste less money than if politicans asked SOEs to do whatever it is they want done.
So you mean like the Army? The army is basically state-owned enterprise. Are they robbing billions in Iraq? Not at all. Its the capitalist firms that are robbing and not delivering on their contracts.
...as for stranglehold do you think a SOE arms sector would have a stranglehold on government? I mean it is almost impossible to fire government workers right? and the SEO leader is likely to have even better political contacts than the private CEO.
Tor | 10.03.07 - 10:32 pm | #
Utter nonsense. A socialist firm is not looking to make profit. They don't need to continue growing, to continue to have their shares increase. They are under no pressure whatsoever to grow, they can just keep producing at their capacity, and that is fine.
A private firm is under loads of pressure to keep growing. The stock has to keep going up or investors will drop it and the company goes bankrupt. So they are much more worried about looking after their interests in the government. They will spend MILLIONS of dollars financing politicians, lobbying against negative legislation, cutting labor costs, etc.
They have to. If suddently some certain legislature creates losses for them, they could go belly up. If workers suddenly get organized and demand wages or strike, the company could lose profits, and could go bankrupt, or lose market edge to another company, or get bought off.
Their very survival depends on this. A socialist firm's dependence doesn't depend on this at all. They don't have shareholders. It doesn't matter if they grow.
"In fact, that's largely been what has happened. Much of Silicon Valley has sprouted up due to individuals studying together who were interested in innovating. They were really into this stuff. And they made some impressive innovations. Had absolutely nothing to do with profit or competition."
Most of these guys were truely interested in innovating AND making money. Why else would they invest their own money in the companies...
...that is not to say that there are not people out there that do it for fun, but most people...
"It became a thing for profit, and its original function got changed drastically."
internet is so much better these days than in 1998...more diverse, more services. Personally I think the internet rocks. As for porn, sadly that is human nature...what are alcohol sales these days?
I said he was one of the people responsible for the PERSONAL COMPUTER, not the computer.
Stephan Gary "Woz" Wozniak (born August 11, 1950 in San Jose, California) is an American computer engineer and the co-founder of Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.), with Steve Jobs. His inventions and machines are credited with contributing greatly to the personal computer revolution of the 1970s. Wozniak created the Apple I and Apple II computers in the mid-1970s. The Apple II gained a sizable amount of popularity, eventually becoming one of the best selling personal computers of the 1970s and early 1980s.
By 1975, Wozniak withdrew from the University of California, Berkeley (he would later return to finish his B.S. degree in E.E.C.S., which he received in 1986 enrolled under the alias Rocky Clark) and came up with the computer that eventually made him famous. However, he was largely working to impress other members of the Palo Alto-based Homebrew Computer Club, a local group of electronics hobbyists. His project had no wider ambition.
"So you mean like the Army? The army is basically state-owned enterprise. Are they robbing billions in Iraq? Not at all. Its the capitalist firms that are robbing and not delivering on their contracts."
No. If a SOE did the contract instead of a private arms firm.
We are losing the main question: if the government wants something done (i.e. oil, coal, arms, whatever) should a private or public company do the job?
internet is so much better these days than in 1998...more diverse, more services. Personally I think the internet rocks.
Yes, but that isn't proof that it is a result of privatizing it. Most of what makes the internet so great are people working on their own, independently, without any search for profit.
Probably one of the most increible pages on the whole web is Wikipedia. There is absolutely no profit motive there. Just a lot of independent people who care about making it great. And it is an incredible resource. Really incredible.
We are losing the main question: if the government wants something done (i.e. oil, coal, arms, whatever) should a private or public company do the job?
Tor | 10.03.07 - 10:45 pm | #
Well, they wanted something done in Iraq. What did they do? They sent the army. It is a state-owned, non-profit organization. And it has been the only organization that hasn't been engaged in mass corruption.
So, look at the private mercenary companies. Blackwater, and others. These places are just totally corrupt. They just massacre people because its cheaper that way. They don't have to worry about the overall wellbeing of Iraq. They just get their paycheck, and kill people.
And they get a hell of a lot higher paycheck than the army. So, they do a WORSE job, and they get paid MORE?
I'm not sure there could be a better example. Thanks for bringing it up.
"Utter nonsense. A socialist firm is not looking to make profit. They don't need to continue growing, to continue to have their shares increase. They are under no pressure whatsoever to grow, they can just keep producing at their capacity, and that is fine."
No, but they are under pressure to keep doing something. If the SOE has nothing to do the government will eliminate the firm and reassign the workers. The SOE does not want this so it needs to generate business like arms contracts.
The socialist firm (full of self-interested workers and managers) is looking to capture benefits from the state. The bigger it is the more benefits and rents it can capture. A big SOE has more political power, more corporate jets, bigger swimming pools, escorts, who knows. Why not grow?
"A private firm is under loads of pressure to keep growing. The stock has to keep going up or investors will drop it and the company goes bankrupt."
Not all companies grow. Industries mature and decline. Companies have to innovate, merge or switch industry to survive.
"So they are much more worried about looking after their interests in the government. They will spend MILLIONS of dollars financing politicians, lobbying against negative legislation, cutting labor costs, etc."
...and so will SOEs to preserve all there benefits and cozy jobs.
"Their very survival depends on this. A socialist firm's dependence doesn't depend on this at all. They don't have shareholders. It doesn't matter if they grow."
...so they get inefficient and waste the state's resources. That is the point. Why should the state waste money getting coal inefficiently, when it could get it more efficiently and have more money to spend on roads and social services?
...and they DO have shareholders. The people are shareholders. The SEO is supposed to serve the people and maximize profits so the people get their moneys worth.
if the government wants something done (i.e. oil, coal, arms, whatever) should a private or public company do the job?
I think you could learn a lot Tor by studying the South Korean model. You were totally sold this lie about it, the free market nonsense. But go study it for real. REad about it.
They wanted something done, the South Korean government. They wanted to industrialize the country. What did they do? Go read about it.
First they nationalized all strategic sectors, electricity, telecommunications, banking, etc. They wanted something done. Did they trust it to the private sector?
Now, later on, when industry was on its feet, yes, they put them on the world market to compete. But, then again, they decided to be capitalist, and they needed to integrate into the capitalist world.
"They sent the army. It is a state-owned, non-profit organization. And it has been the only organization that hasn't been engaged in mass corruption."
...you mean besides bungling the whole occupation, torturing prisoners and shooting innocents. I think they have been very competent.
They failed to do what they were supposed to do. Call it incompetency or corruption they wasted public resources.
...but again you avoid the question. There an arms contract for the Iraq war. Should a private or public company do it. supplying tanks for example...stop avoid the question.
The socialist firm (full of self-interested workers and managers) is looking to capture benefits from the state. The bigger it is the more benefits and rents it can capture. A big SOE has more political power, more corporate jets, bigger swimming pools, escorts, who knows. Why not grow?
You just totally miss the point. Over and over and over again.
Sure, they might want to grow. But if they don't grow, and just keep production even, they aren't going to go belly up. They won't crash, they won't get bought out.
A capitalist firm will. It is either grow, or die. Simple as that.
...so they get inefficient and waste the state's resources. That is the point. Why should the state waste money getting coal inefficiently, when it could get it more efficiently and have more money to spend on roads and social services?
But wait, you are contradicting yourself. Above you just said they DO have just as much incentive to keep growing. Now you say they don't, and that they are inefficient and wasteful??? Wait a minute Tor. You can't have both at the same time. Which is it???
"First they nationalized all strategic sectors, electricity, telecommunications, banking, etc. They wanted something done. Did they trust it to the private sector?"
Hyundai and the other conglomerates were always private...so yes, they trusted the private sector.
from your friend wiki (I agree that wiki is nice,but not always complete or accurate)
"There are several dozen large Korean family-controlled, government-assisted corporate groups which fall under this definition, and have played a major role in the South Korean economy since the 1960s. Some have become well-known international brand names, such as Samsung, Hyundai and LG .
The chaebol were powerful independent entities acting in the economy and politics, but sometimes they cooperated with the government in the areas of planning and innovation. The government worked hard to encourage competition among the chaebol in certain areas to avoid total monopolies."
They failed to do what they were supposed to do. Call it incompetency or corruption they wasted public resources.
HAHAHAHA. Tor, no one said a socialist enterprise would never fail. They didn't fail because they were searching for profit. They failed because they had a moron force them to take on a venture that was impossible. This is a total moot point.
...but again you avoid the question. There an arms contract for the Iraq war. Should a private or public company do it. supplying tanks for example...stop avoid the question.
Tor | 10.03.07 - 10:56 pm | #
A public company would be much better. They would produce what the state needs, nothing more. If they don't produce what the state needs, then management would have consequences (just like in any firm). You know, the receptionist in a capitalist firm isn't working to maximize profit. She's getting a pay check and doing her job for that check.
The same thing would happen with a public arms company. The manager gets a pay check to do his job.
Why is this better than a private company? Because a private company needs to keep growing. They are going to want the state to INCREASE the contracts. To INCREASE demand for arms. Next thing you know they are lobbying for war. They want war. They want military spending. Its just a total disaster. And this would never happen with a publicly owned company because they dont' need to grow. They produce what they are asked to produce, for a paycheck, just like most workers in the world, and period.
And Tor, no they don't have shareholders. That was about the biggest piece of nonsense I've ever heard. The people don't own stock, and can't pull their money out if the company stops growing.
Seriously, for supporting capitalism so much, you really have no clue how it works.
The government worked hard to encourage competition among the chaebol in certain areas to avoid total monopolies."
Tor | 10.03.07 - 11:02 pm | #
Wrong.
In 1977, Hyundai produced 16 products which had monopoly or semi-monopoly status, including automobiles, slate, steel, pipe and ships in the domestic market (Cho Dong-seong, 1991: 193)
At the time of HMC’s entry into mass production in the late 1970s, the Korean automobile
industry underwent a recession due to the combination of a political crisis and the second oil price shock. To enable it to recover, HMC was granted a monopoly over small-sized passenger cars under the Rationalisation Policy of Heavy and Chemical Industries of the Chun Doohwan government (1981-1989)
Consequently, shipbuilding was one of the key industries targeted in the Chun government’s Rationalisation Policy of Heavy and Chemical Industries. HHI (Hyundai) was given a monopoly of the production of marine engines.
Actually, it looks like the monopoloy of Hyundai was broken quite recently, meaning that "competition" had almost nothing to do with its successful development:
In the domestic market, the monopoly of HMC in small sized cars was broken by Daewoo and Kia Motor with the termination of monopolies in 1986. Domestic competition further intensified with the recent entry of two other chaebol, Ssangyung and Samsung.
"A capitalist firm will. It is either grow, or die. Simple as that."
THere is nothing inherently wrong with growing. Companies grow if people buy their products. If the industry is competitive the industry will evolve (grow or not) depending on consumer demand.
"But wait, you are contradicting yourself. Above you just said they DO have just as much incentive to keep growing. Now you say they don't, and that they are inefficient and wasteful??? Wait a minute Tor. You can't have both at the same time. Which is it???"
I said they had an incentive to grow AND be inefficient. Growth does not have to be efficient.
If the SEO grows by buying buildings it doesn't need that may (1) give the SEO bigger offices and (2) waste resources.
"The government worked hard to encourage competition among the chaebol in certain areas to avoid total monopolies."
Tor | 10.03.07 - 11:02 pm | #
Wrong."
Mostly. That does not mean there are exceptions. In fact, the Korean auto industry was a basket case until the mid-90s so maybe that semi-monopoly had something to do with it.
I said they had an incentive to grow AND be inefficient. Growth does not have to be efficient.
No. You claimed that socialist enterprises DO have motivation to grow. You said this;
The socialist firm (full of self-interested workers and managers) is looking to capture benefits from the state. The bigger it is the more benefits and rents it can capture. A big SOE has more political power, more corporate jets, bigger swimming pools, escorts, who knows. Why not grow?
THen, later, when it was more convenient for you, you claimed that the socialist enterprises are inefficent and wasteful because they don't have motivation to keep growing. YOu said this:
I SAID:
"Their very survival depends on this. A socialist firm's dependence doesn't depend on this at all. They don't have shareholders. It doesn't matter if they grow."
YOU SAID:
...so they get inefficient and waste the state's resources. That is the point. Why should the state waste money getting coal inefficiently, when it could get it more efficiently and have more money to spend on roads and social services?
So which is it Tor. Do they have the same incentives to grow as capitalist firms? Or are they inefficent and wasteful?
Mostly. That does not mean there are exceptions. In fact, the Korean auto industry was a basket case until the mid-90s so maybe that semi-monopoly had something to do with it.
Tor | 10.03.07 - 11:08 pm | #
Are you fucking kidding me?
Hyundai was the dominant chaebol for most of Korean history. They not only dominated the auto industry but also the shipbuilding industry, the chemical industry, the steel industry. They were are ARE huge. And they were a practical monopoly for much of their history. Only recently has the market opened up for other competitors.
Tor, you really don't know South Korea. And you try to act like you know about it. I suggest you read more about it. There is an excellent South Korean economist by the name of Chang. Check him out.
"This is a total moot point."
Yes, it is. Btw. the army is not really an enterprise. I mean where are the revenues?
"Why is this better than a private company? Because a private company needs to keep growing."
Actually growing and maximizing profits are not always the same thing. Sometimes companies maximize profits by slimming down.
"And Tor, no they don't have shareholders. That was about the biggest piece of nonsense I've ever heard. The people don't own stock, and can't pull their money out if the company stops growing."
Of course not. But the people are the owners (that is the idea at least). The fact that they can't pull their money out is one reason why SOE tend to be inefficient. Governance is very indirect. The owners VERY indirectly elect people who appoint somebody to run the firm. That is the only thing the shareholders can do to discipline management.
I said he was one of the people responsible for the PERSONAL COMPUTER, not the computer.No you didn't. You said he invented the PC. He in fact did not. The PC (in different forms) was available years before he started his work on it. He improved upon what was already available, and he did a good job of it. He also made a lot of money.
Now your latest comment of, "he was one of the people responsible for the PERSONAL COMPUTER, not the computer.", is correct.
That's all for now Tor. You have a lot of contradiction.
What is perhaps funniest about your position is that you totally don't understand the reasons behind socialism, and why people have been supportive of socialism for more than a century.
I guess you must just think there is this huge gaping whole in their theory and what they are advocating is going to just repeat the exact same thing that they want to fix?
Hahaha. I'd recommend you read some major intellectuals on this. They aren't stupid people.
You are right that socialist firms may not be as efficient. But they would be MORE efficient in many senses. They wouldn't produce wastefulness. They wouldn't need marketing, advertising, public relations, or any of those MASSIVE industries that waste all kinds of labor.
Its a long discussion. But you should really read about it before going into a discussion so naive. Go find out about what socialism advocates, and THEN talk about what you don't agree with. Not the other way around.
Ok, so I should have been more precise. The SOE has little incentive to cut costs, produce efficiently, maximize profits etc. so it gets inefficient.
Being inefficient may mean growing inefficiently (to capture more benefits). SOEs will often try to get bigger even if it is not efficient to do so or if it is they do so wastefully.
"So which is it Tor. Do they have the same incentives to grow as capitalist firms? Or are they inefficent and wasteful?"
Both, but capitalist firms are likely to grow faster if growth is optimal (and it is not always). That does not mean socialist firms do not have an incentive to grow (for the reasons I gave before).
You seem to see growth as evil. In industries with growing demand growth is needed. In fact, growth of companies also helps grow economies.
Yes, but that isn't proof that it is a result of privatizing it. Most of what makes the internet so great are people working on their own, independently, without any search for profit.Yes and no. Some of the other greatest things about the internet are for profit. The internet accelerated Just In Time delivery. The public can now order products cheaper by eliminating middle-men. Look at eBay. Wiki is a great not-for-profit project, but it's maker is definitely looking for profit:
Probably one of the most increible pages on the whole web is Wikipedia. There is absolutely no profit motive there. Just a lot of independent people who care about making it great. And it is an incredible resource. Really incredible.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/b...01010/ index.htm
"What is perhaps funniest about your position is that you totally don't understand the reasons behind socialism, and why people have been supportive of socialism for more than a century."
I do. It is just that the reasons behind this support are not convincing and have not performed particularly well over the past 100 years.
Hyundai was the dominant chaebol for most of Korean history. They not only dominated the auto industry but also the shipbuilding industry, the chemical industry, the steel industry. They were are ARE huge. And they were a practical monopoly for much of their history. Only recently has the market opened up for other competitors.So a monopoly can't be a "basket case"? I would think that with full control of a market that could be entirely possible.
"But they would be MORE efficient in many senses. They wouldn't produce wastefulness. They wouldn't need marketing, advertising, public relations, or any of those MASSIVE industries that waste all kinds of labor."
Companies wouldn't waste all that many if it did not increase their profits somehow. They choose to spend this money. If it was all a waste they'd be happy not to spend it.
"Are you fucking kidding me?"
...even you started losing your cool towards the end, this was a much better (and interesting debate) than others we have had.
should read: "even though" ...sorry...
The car companies of most of those companies are multinationals. As I said earlier, multinationals aren't interested in setting up industry in one country. It is too small a market. They are working with a global production line. That isn't compatible with Venezuela's interests because a global production line means each country makes one thing, or a couple things. Maybe Venezuela would make the plastic parts or something, according to the demands of the multinationals needs, and export that. It doesn't create the kind of vertically-integrated industry needed to modernize. It creates industry that is intimately linked to and dependent on the multinationals.
So, they go to someone who IS interested in setting up the whole production line in Venezuela: Iran
There are a bunch of things on this – I really think it is no issue at all. First, if they want to get the car company from Iran, then get it from Iran. What is wrong with that? But it shows not being able to get it is not an obstacle to developing like South Korea was. Secondly, they could get it from other countries too – China, Russia, France.
Also, are they really building a vertically integrated car industry? On the new cars are they actually making everything – engines, stamping the metal, making transmissions etc? That would be a huge investment and require a whole number of factories – I haven’t seen anything about it. In fact, isn’t the car assembly place from the Iranians outside Maracay on the highway to Valencia? If that was it is very small and boxed in by other buildings – that is definitely not going to be an integrated auto plant. Compare it to the Ford Rouge plant sometime outside Detroit which was an integrated plant.
Lastly, I am not sure why we are talking so much about the auto industry. It would NOT be a good idea to begin with that. When you are an underdeveloped country you want to begin with LABOR intensive industries not CAPITAL intensive industries. They cost less to start up, require less technology, and have higher rates of return on investment. That is why all successful industrializations (S. Korea, Tawain, China) start out with LABOR intensive industries like textiles, toys, etc, and only later move to cars, ships, heavy equipment.
This is why Chavez is making a mistake to talk about building up a chemical industry or steel industry. Those are the least advantageous industries to begin with and have a much greater probability of becoming white elephants. They require huge sums of money, don’t create that many jobs, and have low rates of return.
Inflation is already very high, and the government is doing everything they can to control it. Devaluing would just make inflation go through the roof and be bad for the economy.
Devaluation doesn’t create inflation, inflation creates an overvalued currency and the need for the devaluation in the first place. That is just the BS excuse the government keeps giving.
Think about it there hasn’t been a devaluation for years yet inflation is still high. Obviously something else is driving inflation – namely the government spending reserves converting dollars to bolivares twice is a factor.
The idea behind the devaluation is pushing consumers to buy Venezuelan products instead of imported ones by making the imported ones more expensive and the local ones cheaper by comparison. It also makes exports increase by making Venezuelan products cheaper to other countries.
China, South Korea, Tawain ALL kept their currencies weak while they were industrializing. In the US there are a lot of people upset about the Chinese currency being kept weak by China to help their exports. It makes no sense to say you want to substitute imports with local products and then make the local products uncompetitive via a overvalued currency. You are totally undercutting your own stated efforts which is exactly what we are seeing now in Venezuela.
You will have to devalue sooner or later no matter what. Better to do it sooner and get the positive benefits sooner. Also, you cannot build up internal industry before you devalue. I know people in Antimano who have a small sowing factory that makes knockoff jeans. Essentially they are going out of business slowly but surely because the imported jeans are cheaper (fake Venezuelan Levis are getting to be more expensive than the imported real Levis that is how fucked up this is). If they would devalue the currency all that industry would start up in a heart beat. Ask the Argentians who saw their industry revived after the peso had a huge devaluation a few years ago.
Chavez has mentioned doing this, and I'm not sure why they haven't. But this would hit the poor the hardest. And might hurt the economy to an extent. Higher gas prices can slow business down too.
Why would higher gas prices hurt the poor the most? They would hurt all the people driving cars – not the poor. The poor could be largely shielded by just keeping diesel for busses cheaper or maybe even having some busses only gas stations where they still got less expensive gasoline. Again, the government is mainly subsidizing the middle class here.
There is no need to put tarrifs on cars. They can just simply begin to replace imported cars for locally produced cars and progressively decrease through CADIVI the amount of dollars given to car importers, and that way limit imports. But you can't limit the importation of cars until you are actually ready to replace them with nationally produced cars. (well, you could, but I don't see the sense in it)
Why can’t you limit the importation of cars until you are ready to replace them?!?!?!?! You have to. It is a huge waste of money. I think the concept you are not grasping is that Venezuelans need to consume less and invest more. That is, instead of importing tones of consumer items, they need to import machinery and equipment for factories which they use to create more production, more industry, and more wealth in the future. Its like if you have a $100,000 you can go to the mall and spend it or you can maybe invest it in building a company. Right now, Venezuela is going to the mall and spending it.
BTW, on your discussion with Tor – he is right. The investments now are not investments that create more wealth – more shopping malls, houses, etc. They need that investment to be in textile factories, toy factories, appliance factories, etc, etc. But it isn’t because Venezuelan exports are made uncompetitive by an overvalued currency and some other bad economic policies. Yes, that happened before under previous governments and it was a disaster then so it is a mistake to repeat it now. The fact that most Latin American governments do this or have done it in the past doesn’t make it right – it is part of why they are all messed up.
Well, these are strategic sectors that will require significant investment and expansion in the future for the industrialization of the country. But, I will remind you, South Korea also had all of these sectors under state control, and other important sectors too. I think this is pretty crucial for successful development.
They already exist and there was already private investment in them. So why spend valuable state money just replacing private investment which then promptly leaves the country. The country needs more investment – not investment being bought out an then leaving the country. With that $2 billion dollars they could have almost built a full vertically integrated car plant – or appl
continued...
With that $2 billion dollars they could have almost built a full vertically integrated car plant – or appliance factories, or aluminum mills, or clothing factories, etc.
so I should have been more precise. The SOE has little incentive to cut costs, produce efficiently, maximize profits etc. so it gets inefficient.
You have finally admitted it. And this is the key. They don't have nearly as much incentive to cut costs, or to maximize profits. Therefore they have much less incentive to break the law, to take control of the political system, to repress labor, etc. etc. etc. It is much less compromising for democracy.
For example, when the US postal service was public, did you see them corrupting politicians? Were they financing campaigns, lobbying, or having any undue influence over government policy??? Of course not. But you did see this among many big private sector conglomerates. Its pretty obvious why.
Devaluation doesn’t create inflation, inflation creates an overvalued currency and the need for the devaluation in the first place. That is just the BS excuse the government keeps giving.
It most definitely could cause inflation. Import prices would go up and since Venezuela depends on imports so much it would lead to workers demanding more wages, and normal vendors raising THEIR prices to pay for higher priced imported items.
Look, the government is doing a ton of stuff to control inflation, which is too high, and can be a big problem if it isn't regulated. Devaluating would probably just undo all of these efforts.
Think about it there hasn’t been a devaluation for years yet inflation is still high. Obviously something else is driving inflation – namely the government spending reserves converting dollars to bolivares twice is a factor.
Of course other things are driving inflation. Inflation is not just caused by one thing. Economic growth causes inflation. Government spending, higher buying power among the population, more money circulating, higher miminum wage. All of these things cause inflation. But most of them are necessary to create a domestic market for goods.
Why would higher gas prices hurt the poor the most? They would hurt all the people driving cars – not the poor.
Uh, the Caracazo? This was a direct result of higher gas prices, and who was affected? The poor.
I'm not suggesting that there would ever be riots or anything because the same conditions do not exist. But the poor definitely drive cars. And many of the buses definitely use gas, not diesel. Which would make transport costs go up. And the poor are the ones who live on the most limited budget. There is no question that the poor would be affected.
However, I'm not suggesting that this is a bad idea. Raising gas prices moderately would probably not be a bad idea. But there is no question that the poor would be affected.
BTW, on your discussion with Tor – he is right. The investments now are not investments that create more wealth – more shopping malls, houses, etc. They need that investment to be in textile factories, toy factories, appliance factories, etc, etc.
Uh, in what way is he right? I said the exact same thing. The investments are in expanding already existing commercial ventures. There is little to no productive investment here. And I never said there was.
Here is the problem. It has little to nothing to do with Chavez' policies either. And this is a very fundamental lesson about Venezuela and the third world. There is little incentive for investors to undertake productive ventures. It is much more risky, and just a whole lot easier to get rich off commercial ventures, and rake in the oil rents. I recommend you read Domingo Rangel, he explains this. Or even The Magical State does a pretty good job of explaining this.
What needs to happen is the government needs to carefully guide this kind of investment, they need to intervene and help create the base for these kinds of industry. It will simply never happen if you leave it up to the private sector.
They already exist and there was already private investment in them. So why spend valuable state money just replacing private investment which then promptly leaves the country.
For the same reasons. They are strategic sectors. They are going to need to expand significantly if the country is going to industrialize. The private sector might see it as too risky to make these investments. After all, there is no guarantee that these new industries are going to succeed. They might just turn into a flop in a few years. And then the private sector won't make a good return on their investment.
So the state takes control of them, to ensure the necessary infrastructure for nascent industry. The same thing South Korea did, and any other industrialized country.
Also, are they really building a vertically integrated car industry? On the new cars are they actually making everything – engines, stamping the metal, making transmissions etc?
Yes, for now it is mostly just assembly. But they have an agreement for technology transfer, and have said they plan to produce a 100 percent nationally produced car in the next 5 years. I don't know how they plan to do this, if they are building other factories or what. But the idea is to transfer the technology for the whole production line.
That is why all successful industrializations (S. Korea, Tawain, China) start out with LABOR intensive industries like textiles, toys, etc, and only later move to cars, ships, heavy equipment.
This is why Chavez is making a mistake to talk about building up a chemical industry or steel industry
You might be right about this. Although since toys are mostly made from plastics, you would need the petrochemical industry before you could make toys, wouldn't you? In fact, when Chavez talked about the petrochemical industry they talked about making toys and other simple manufactured items from plastic.
Why can’t you limit the importation of cars until you are ready to replace them?!?!?!?! You have to. It is a huge waste of money. I think the concept you are not grasping is that Venezuelans need to consume less and invest more. That is, instead of importing tones of consumer items, they need to import machinery and equipment for factories which they use to create more production, more industry, and more wealth in the future.
You are not going to get people to invest by limiting imports. People are looking to blow money on a new car, if they can't get one (which it isn't exactly easy to get a car in Venezuela, there are wait times), they will probably just blow their money on something else, not invest it.
I think the problem with your theory is that you think Venezuelans will make productive investments. They won't. It simply won't happen. They never have in the past, and they won't in the future. The government has to get actively involved and try to force private capital into these kinds of ventures. Just like when CAP told car companies that if they didn't win the bid for the car industry, they would be eliminated from the Venezuelan market. Okay, there they have some major incentive to invest. But even THEN it didn't work. They just sabotaged the whole deal.
But I also think your thinking is very capitalist. After all, you want to get the private sector to invest. But why would Chavez want that? He wants to go to socialism. He doesn't want the economy to be controlled by the private sector. So what is Chavez doing? Setting up publicly owned factories, or cooperatives, that will produce and manufacture goods. They're goods will be more expensive than imports you say? Well, possibly, but imports can easily be cut back through CADIVI, forcing people to buy nationally.
He has said that private investment is also welcome, but I'm not seeing much of it.
You will probably say that this is all a bad strategy and won't work. Well, there is definitely no guarantee it will work. It is risky, and certainly has its detractors. But, if you really want to address the probems of capitalism, you have to get away from privately-owned means of production. That's the idea here I think.
I SAID:
so I should have been more precise. The SOE has little incentive to cut costs, produce efficiently, maximize profits etc. so it gets inefficient.
YOU SAID
"You have finally admitted it. And this is the key. They don't have nearly as much incentive to cut costs, or to maximize profits. "
So therefore you agree that SOEs are inefficient and therefore that they waste public resources?
i.e. the taxes the government gets from an SOE developing its minerals is less than from prviate industry.
"For example, when the US postal service was public, did you see them corrupting politicians? Were they financing campaigns, lobbying, or having any undue influence over government policy??? "
...they were too busy being inefficient and making sure their friends in government didn't privatize them or take away there sweet jobs or perks. Undue influence? SOEs do this all the time. Lets say government wants to privatize USPostal because the people demand it (hypothetical). Do you think USPostal would exert undue influence to prevent it? What about rival postal companies? What about increased monitoring of US postal managers? What about smaller offices at US postal HQ?
They don't finance the campaign. They are the campaign. SOE leaders are political appointees. They depend directly on the election. In fact, SOE leader often are mostly motivated by who wins and they may care much more about this than runing their company well.
"Uh, the Caracazo? This was a direct result of higher gas prices, and who was affected? The poor."
think about it. Who uses the most gallons of gas, the rich or poor? the guy with the JGC or the poor guy taking the bus? Who do you think the ridiculous gas subsidy benefits most per capita, the rich or poor? It is really no contest.
Just subsidize por puestos and buses temporarily and the poor will not riot.
So therefore you agree that SOEs are inefficient and therefore that they waste public resources?
i.e. the taxes the government gets from an SOE developing its minerals is less than from prviate industry.
As far as taxes go, no, probably not, because private firms have that extra incentive to illegally avoid taxes. This is just totally rampant in the United States. Corporations typically pay less taxes than poor families, party because they have constantly lobbied for lower taxes and have gotten them (corporate taxes used to be around 75% and are now in the 20% range), but they also just avoid taxes illegally. And there is very little enforcement of corporate taxes mostly because the corporations have also lobbied against fiercer tax enforcement. Democracy?? Yeah right. Try corporate control.
I have already said in previous posts that a socialist economy would probably be less efficient than a capitalist economy. At least efficient in the sense you are talking about. But a capitalist economy has EXTREME inefficiencies too. I recommend you read about this. There is a book called Economic Democracy, by Smith. Or The World's Wasted Wealth. These explain in detail how the capitalist economy is incredibly wasteful and inefficient.
Some people think that if we got rid of all these inefficiencies that most people would only have to work like 3 or 4 hours a day to keep our current standards of living.
But really Tor, this is really basic stuff. Go read about it. Otherwise this is kind of a dumb debate. If you aren't even aware of these things, how can we discuss it?
..they were too busy being inefficient and making sure their friends in government didn't privatize them or take away there sweet jobs or perks. Undue influence? SOEs do this all the time.
There is just no evidence of this at all. Can you show me evidence of a public institution that has undue influene? In fact, usually when governments decide to privatize them there is almost no resistance. Well, except for from the workers, which makes sense, because they know that a private firm will treat them worse.
But governments privatize firms all the time, I've never heard of ANY firm using their "friends in government" to prevent this. I suspect you are just totally pulling this out of your ass. If not, show a concrete example of when this has happened.
If it does happen, it certainly isn't effective. But the opposite is the case with private firms. If a government wants to nationalize a firm there is TREMENDOUS resistance to this. The firms lobby like crazy to avoid this, (unless, of course, they would be better off by getting out of an unsuccessful venture).
How about nationalizing the media in the United States? I'm sure you haven't been following that at all. But there are increased moves to put stricter regulations on the media in the states. To restrict their ownership, concentration, etc. And they have just fiercely resisted this, spending lots of money, buying off politicians like John McCain.
But, at the same time, there have been efforts to privatize PBS. Have you seen PBS go crazy? Not at all. The viewers don't want it, of course, because it will decrease the quality of the programming. And PBS probably doesn't like it either. But they have almost ZERO power to stop it.
What is the difference? One is operated for a profit, and thus is forced to worry about profit gains. The other is a non-profit public corporation, and doesn't have the pressure to keep growing, so they don't launch a campaign to keep themselves alive.
Not to mention which one has better programming. Competition plays no role whatsoever. In fact, "competition" makes the private channels significantly worse.
There have been studies done. A couple years ago a study found that people who watch PBS are the most informed people in the US. The people who watch the private channels actually believed several things that are entirely false. They believed, for example, that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11. That's just one example.
So, if competition makes a firm work better, why is it that the PUBLIC channel is the highest quality channel in the US? Do you see them laying around being lazy? Not at all. They are doing better work than the private sector guys.
An excellent post, OW! very objective, as a Venezuelan leftist, I am equally concerned by everything that you wrote and like you, I am not feeling that optimistic on some of the economic and democratic aspects that you have mentioned. Keep up the tremendous work! Have a nice weekend!
Commenting by HaloScan
