geez, OW, what is sad is that your distorted reading of the situation.
You use the US model as some sort of touchstone of interpretation. In the US the corporations and the state are one--this is the empire.
In the US, CNN is an effective propaganda tool of the corporate/state nexus. In a true social democracy, this hoodlum clown, Ravell, would have beengl punished for participating in the coup, and Globo would be history.
What is sad is that you fret about Venezuela, when your own corporate/state group of thugs murder millions through this propaganda.
Yet you fret about Venezuela. geez, cognitive dissonance.
Well, SR, I'll give you this. At least you managed to write your comment without saying that the Venezuelan government is justified for investigating and threatening a media site for reporting on an event before official government sources acknowledged its existence.
Hopefully this means you have some democratic ethos.
Slave Revolt, you do not deserve the country you live in. Pack up and go to Venezuela, it is the only coherent thing you can do.
ow, sorry, I know I shouldn't say so: "I TOLD YOU SO!!!"
BTW ow, and don't dodge the question: do you still think Pdvsa is running smoothly and does not have serious problems??? I have another "I told you so" ready to shoot at you.
Well, there is precident to consider. Globo and Ravall have an inclination toward using mass media to subvert and destabilize the elected government.
Again, in a democratic society they would have have the franchise shut down, in a moment.
The elected government has the franchise on directing the flow of information during a national disaster. Period.
"The elected government has the franchise on directing the flow of information during a national disaster. Period."
What national disaster? There was a mild earthquake in which I believe no-one was killed.
Now in the case of Katrina we had a true disaster and we had a government that didn't even know there were thousands of people stuck at a convention center and slowly starving to death until CNN broadcast that fact to the whole country (including the idiots that were supposed to be in charge of the rescue). Was CNN wrong to expose the extreme incompatance of the government in a moment of crisis? I certainly think not.
Ravell and Globo can suck big time. But reporting news and being as critical as you want of the government are pretty widely accepted freedoms.
Impartial, certainly there are many who can tell me "I told you so" I am not sure you are one of them. You haven't been here that long.
Regarding PDVSA do you have some information that is not publically available. As far as I know the company is functioning fine, it just has a whole lot less money as all oil companies do right now.
"Well, there is precident to consider. Globo and Ravall have an inclination toward using mass media to subvert and destabilize the elected government."
Right SR. Great. You know, after 9/11, there was a precedent to consider. Muslim extremists have an inclination toward doing crazy shit and killing whoever they can.
So I assume you have no issue with Iraq or Afghanistan?
Go away. You're as useless as ever.
Eric, I don't understand your point with Iraq or Afghanistan. Please, explain.
----------------------------------------
Slave,
You are now a social democrat? Give me a break! Democrat my foot.
In a social democracy you would be able to speak your mind not just in a private media outlet but in national TV. Actually, as an example: in German and Dutch and Belgian PUBLIC TV you can have this: a chancellor/prime minister debating openly with the opposition - not just one party but several ones - and a lot of very harsh criticisms flowing back and for.
I don't like Angela Merkel. Still, sometimes I have seen German journalists in STATE TV asking her such hard questions that I have felt sorry for her. They have done the same with each one and all the others.
Globovision sucks big time but at least they do dare to have open discussions where Chavismo can speak their mind. We don't have that in public national-wide VTV. Globovision can be seen only by a fraction of Venezuelans because you need cable TV or a dish or live in Caracas.
CEPR ( in particular Mark Weisbrot ) and Venezuelanalysis are both propaganda outlets devoid of any intellectual honesty whatsoever - that's hardly news.
OW,
To the rhetorical question at the end of your post, the answer, sadly, is yes, Venezuelanalysis, (and Weisbrot, and SR, BoRev, etc.) will all walk down the path to Castroism together.
Call it ideology, religion, kool-aid, whatever, in the end these guys have all bought into a kind of faith system that allows them to walk through the looking glass together into that surrealistic twilight that enables them to interpret Chavez's actions as moving toward greater freedom and democracy - as expressed in Cuba. H.G. Wells would have loved it...
The sad fact is that even as Wilpert, Weisbrot, et al cheer the demise of free speech and the onset of dictatorship in Venezuela, none of them would dare live in it, for they know that under systems such as that coming to Venezuela, they know that they could never, ever, write subversive thoughts like those you express here and get away with it.
The final - and even sadder - irony of all of this is that Chavez and his supporters are right; this is all happening as a result of free elections. You can truly and sadly say that Venezuela and Venezuelans are getting what what they deserve and want...
Wilpert is husband to one of the employees at the Venezuelan consulate in Boston (or some other US city).
Venezuela is a sad case. There are two main groups:
1) a bunch of people who only care about themselves and whose only mission, to quote a blog of one of them, is
"ver salir salir a Chavez del poder"
and
2) a group of people
who pretend to help the poor, who know how to talk the talk to the poor but who basically also care about themselves and have no respect for democracy (of course, they say they do, but theirs is a "participatory" democracy)
This latest group has caused more harm than the first, but Venezuela has no chance while either of them rules.
There are lots of people who believe they will be different. Mostly they don't bloody care about improving the standard of living of all Venezuelans. The ones blame problems on "the lazy", the others on the "thieves".
Most on both sides are lazy thieves who don't want to accept their own responsibility.
"...will Venezuelanalysis gladly walk down that path with them?"
Yes. Most definitely.
You miss two things that make the Conatel investigation even more depressing. First, Globo didn't "bash" the government as Venezuelanalysis claims. It simply pointed out that the government's seismic office web server was down. Every time there is a quake here that happens. It will be a big problem if there's ever a more serious quake. Globo, like any news outlet would, then used its second choice - the U.S. Geologic Survey. And rightly, even nationalistically, complained that it had to rely on a U.S. agency for information about a domestic disaster.
Second, Conatel was just handed over last night to a new agency. The Telecommunications Minister must have pushed back on these investigations, one way or another. In any case she's now out of a job, her ministry has been disbanded, and the rich "chavista" who couldn't win an election despite all of Chavez's campaigning, Diosdado Cabello, is now in charge of Coñotel. I mean Conatel. No, it makes no sense that the infrastructure ministry would be in charge of investigating misuse of the airwaves, but I guess Chavez's circle of loyalists is shrinking.
SR's silence is deafening.
hedgey,
Good points.
6 hour workweek.... keep squeezing what remains of the private sector.
This will have looong lasting consequences....
SR's central point still stands however, that Globo et al in the private media are/were not disinterested parties but active participants (on whatever level) in an opposition seeking to not criticize but facilitate teh overthrow of the Chavez gov't. Comparisons to the US or European media are instructive in pointing towards better models of journalism but are apples and oranges when thinking about Venezuela. SR's point about corporate media serving empire is prehaps rhetorically over the top but pretty muc hture. As any anti-chavista will tell you who controls the messaging and how is fundamental to how politics, economics, all of it play out on the ground. It builds consent.
All that said, Chavez needs to keep his hands off the private media as much as possible. It's counter-productive, it stifles legitimate dissent, and I'll buy a slippery slope argument here. The earthquake thing is a prime example of overreach on a minor issue, at least as the facts stand now. And these situations where you need a critical media, where political expediency can stifle mobilization of resources to face a humanitarian crisis.
At least you managed to write your comment without saying that the Venezuelan government is justified for investigating and threatening a media site for reporting on an event before official government sources acknowledged its existence.
OW, this isn't what the government is investigating them for. You've simplified it and manipulated it in order to try to make it sound ridiculous, and, in the process, have become an applogist for Globovision's irresponsible use of a media.
Globoterror's crime is not that they reported that there was an earthquake. (Please point to any government officials who have said that, or what you base that comment on).
Globoterror's crime is taking advantage of a moment of emergency to give the impression that the government was not prepared, or capaple of responding to a potential national disaster, creating a feeling of instability in the country.
Now, I agree that this time it was a pretty minor offense, and that the government is making too much out of it. But I think it was the last straw for Chavistas. Globovision uses any and every little occurance to try to destabilize and create unease among the population. It is one thing to criticize the government. It is another to try to use your media to try to create mass unease among the population by making them think the government is not able to respond to an emergency, or that the country is on the brink of chaos.
I remember a time a couple years ago when Globovision was reporting this "urgent breaking headline" about how the government was "taking over their installations" and was going to shut them down. They had the thumping suspense music in the background and it really did create the feeling that the country was on the verge of something terrible. Turned out it was all a lie, and globovision had to admit later that the government never took over any of their installations. But it didn't matter. They had already created unease among the population.
Your CNN example is pretty pointless. The obvious difference is that during Katrina the US government REALLY WAS very unprepared and there REALLY WAS a situation of chaos and emergency. CNN wasn't trying to take advantage of a minor ocurrence to create a feeling of unease. They were reporting about a real tragedy that was happening.
Globovision, on the other hand, takes advantage of situations that clearly are not a national emergency, and tries to use them to create the false impression that the government is totally incompetant and incapable of responding. They did the same thing with Swine Flu, when the truth is that Venezuela hasn't even been barely hit by Swine Flu, if at all.
Taking advantage of these things to create a sense of mass fear and unease is their crime. They've been doing it for years. I think enough is enough.
the government had a strong case against Globovision after the coup, and didn't pursue it
the station was clearly acting in concert with the coup plotters
but the government let it pass, and now finds itself dealing with this sort of petty nonsense
I've written about this a long time ago, but, instead of permitting the manipulation of a system whereby the corporate licensees get rich (frequently by picking fights with the government) and the government panders to its base (by engaging in acts of faux belligerence against them), in an ongoing farce, the goverment should broadly democratize the media dismantling the system entirely
SR is correct on his fundamental point: no rational person would describe the corporatized media, as it exists, not only in the US, but in Europe, Japan, China, and much of Central and South America, as part of the foundation of a socially democratic society, rather it is an essential means by which the dissemination of information is contained within socially acceptable bounds by an economic elite
and governments around the world have facilitated it by giving corporations licenses that provide them sole access to the airwaves, as well as monopolies that allow them to control cable systems
any purported "social democrat" that defends this system is a neoliberal capitalist, pure and simple, which is not to say that the Chavez governmental response is any kind of meaningful opposition to it, as I have said, they merely feed upon one another
Geez...first these dollar/eurokinder became tired of the Leninist...then of the Marxist, now they do like the Social Democrat, which was kind of softy before...
Richard, you have no idea what democracy is.
And you obviously don't speak any other language than English and perhaps Spanish.
Tell me where you can find an open media. Tell me what country has ever been social democrat according to you.
then what is democracy?
and whom does it serve?
And you obviously don't speak any other language than English and perhaps Spanish.
Tell me where you can find an open media.
Actually, the "media" was much more open before the advent of radio and television, because anyone and any group with a printing press and distribution system could publish and get their message out to a lot of people.
Just look at how broadsheets, leaflets and newspapers proliferated in use in the 19th Century and into the early 20th, as people became more literate and more capable of pooling together the resources to publish and distribute. And, of course, they were hard to control, it required police suppression.
Now, with radio, television and cable dominant, they are much easier to control, just turn the airvwaves and rights of way into a "public" resource, and then auction them off to the highest corporate bidders, which is generally what has been done. Indeed, the term "media" as a descriptive term came into creation partially because of these features.
To presume that there is anything "democratic" about this is nonsense, as is the notion that media in this form, under this sort of corporate control, is going to do anything except propagandize on behalf of the wealthiest, most powerful people in society. Unfortunately, this IS a relatively new development historically, and it will have to be reversed if we are going to abandon the current neoliberal order.
SR, you know what your problem is?
You don't seem to realize that the left and the right, and even those in the middle do nothing more than pull for their own interests. Its human nature. What Globo does on its small coverage area, the government does trough VTV, ANTV, Telesur, etc... but I don't see you complaining or even talking about it.
You "hate" how the "right" and cnn and the empire manipulate everything but you turn a blind eye when the government ignores crime, sidesteps the constitution and violates its own laws.
Even if Globo participated in the coup back in 2002, so did Chavez back in 1992... so whats the difference? That you can identify and side with one side of the spectrum shouldn't make you blind to the whole picture.
OW,
Las mascaras se van cayendo. Poco a poco se ve como el CEPR,Venezuelananalysis and the "experts" that have always supported the government will continue to support it out of blind faith... porq por los reales baila el mono.
Richard, give me a break. First of all: you have the internet. It is just for an elite like you and me, but there people can find their voice and their ears, whatever they think.
Then you have the TV and radio channels in the German, French, Dutch, Scandinavian sectors. You even have some in Britain. You can see how prime ministers and top businessmen get grilled
on a regular basis here; you will probably now say it is all faked. It is far from optimal but 1) it is way better than in the US or Latin America, 2) it is way way better than what you have in Venezuela.
In Venezuela Globo can reach only less than 30% of the population and most Venezuelans don't read, they simply don't bloody read, anything, unless it is perhaps some on crime description, baseball results and horse races.
That hasn't changed since the military-president is there, quite on the contrary.
Globo sucks and yet you can hear there often Chavistas talking and protesting. You do not get it in VTV or other military-government channels.
You are talking about "social democracy" as if it were a unique system. Thanks God real social democrats know they are part of the game of democracy where there is always competition, when only governments are social democrat or liberal a la UK or a la continent or conservative or whatever, but not a whole system.
Just show me your proposals. They will all be based on much more force and control by one single bloody group.
if I try to broadcast over a licensed frequency, I can be fined thousands upon thousands of dollars, and put in jail, that's the American system you defend, it depends upon financial and criminal penalties to be enforced, now that's force
my view is that the notion of licensed frequencies should be eliminated to the greatest extent possible, and reallocated locally,and this could be done in many way, say, as just one example, per lottery for use over a designated period of time
also, the notion of "interference" is used to deny access even when it doesn't exist, or has a marginal consequence, and this should no longer be done
it is always amusing to experience the interests of capital defended in the language of personal liberty
It is always amusing to experience the interests of fascism how on the name of "people" .
"should be eliminated": who is going to eliminate that? the state? which state? which people? and what if other "people" oppose?
Lottery? Who shall participate? What periods? What channels? TV? Radio?
Who is going to cover and even listen to such a thing? THINK THINGS THROUGH, for Goodness sake, and see where the control falls. It will never be in that magic thing you call people but on some other interest that is no more kosher and no more "people" than what we have now.
And even if those are the top countries:
http://www.internetworldstats.co...s.com/
top20.htm
People are getting access to almost whatever they want now on the Internet, at least outside such countries as Cuba and China.
Or do you propose to "suggest" very strongly to people what they should read as Chavez wants?
Kepler: you didn't need to prove my point again
and good to see you confirm my implicit point, that the state, through the granting of the licenses, has, in collusion with large corporations, created a permanent property right for media conglomerates that otherwise didn't exist, shouldn't exist, but can rely upon people like you defend it
do you really believe that the only way to regulate media is by granting it to the highest bidders and using the power of the state to fine and incarcerate anyone who challenges it?
apparently so
"will Venezuelanalysis gladly walk down that path with them?"
Definitely. They defend their "revolution" till the bitter end and defend even such ridiculousness as this new "procedure" against Globovisión.
Shortly after a brief earthquake near Caracas last Monday, Ravell reported unofficial information before authorities had made informed declarations about the situation, and used the occasion to bash the government for not responding quickly enough.
- So, according to V'Analysis, the media are only supposed to report once the government has given them "informed declarations" - well that for sure is how VTV acts, but not a serious media outlet. It means basically that it is only legitimate to report "offically sanctioned" information.
- Bashing the government is now considered an offense, yet more evidence of how V'Analysis thinks.
- Usually, a serious media outlet would say "cónchale, nos ganaron!" - how can we make it better next time, what did *we* do wrong? However, mediocre Chavismo prefers to "shut them down when you cannot beat them".
And, now, consider this: you could say exactly the same about VTV and other government media: "...its virulently pro-Chávez spin on the news, sympathy for violent government protesters, and its biased coverage of last November's regional and local elections." Naturally, you won't read this on their site. 
And, what's more, is that VTV is supposed to be the *national* TV channel, implicitly for *all* Venezuelans, not just those that elected Chávez (!)
the "socialist" as opposed to the "anarchist" approach, is to combat centralized corporate media with centralized proletarian media
needless to say, it's a failure, and ignores the fundamental problem, the concentration of media in the hands of either a corporate elite, or a bureaucratic one
Richard, learn German or Dutch please, and let's talk later. What media? We have internet. What is this anarchist approach? Think it through. You have been trying to bring some form of anarchism for over a century now.
As I said, there is more out there than CNN/Fox and Televisa. You are just another "anarchist/socialist/ping-pong" gringo looking for a cause but never thinking things through.
Be concrete. What will that "anarchy" be like?
It will turn out sooner or later to something ugly, much worse than what we have right now.
And you prove my point by sticking fluffy words and not telling us concretely how you envisage that media.
And anyway, we are talking about Venezuela and its Chavista dictatorship. You will bring in anarchism. Que c.. tiene que ver el culo con las cejas, carajo?
Sire, wie sagt man das auf Englisch?
Richard, for once I agree with you.
Only that a frequency cannot be used by two parties without interference, at least not with analog receivers.
"Now, with radio, television and cable dominant, they are much easier to control, just turn the airvwaves and rights of way into a "public" resource, and then auction them off to the highest corporate bidders, which is generally what has been done. "
"and good to see you confirm my implicit point, that the state, through the granting of the licenses, has, in collusion with large corporations, created a permanent property right for media conglomerates that otherwise didn't exist, shouldn't exist, but can rely upon people like you defend it
do you really believe that the only way to regulate media is by granting it to the highest bidders and using the power of the state to fine and incarcerate anyone who challenges it?"
No, there's another way: A private property system for the airwaves. No "licenses". Just a property deed to a frequency, on a given region. That the government cannot take or fiddle with. How is it to be transferred or given? Buy at market price! Somebody will not sell a frequency to you? Buy another one.
A media conglomerate wants your frequency? Pay the asked for price. Or no price, if you don't want to sell.
But then the govt. would be cut off from the deal, and RCTV under such a regime could not be closed down.
Tosh those are all subjective views. Was a given government prepared? Wasn't it? Is the government great or is it horrible?
Those are all opinions and there should always be open and free discourse of those opinions.
And those who constantly lie and exagerate will become known for that. But it is not for anyone from on high to decide that, not me, not you not the VEnezuelan government.
When they acted against RCTV they could say that RCTV actively participated in the coup and assisted it - they allowed their airwaves to be used by coup participants to call on others to surrender. So there the government had a legit reason to act.
But that is not what they are bringing up against Globo and if that is the real issued than bring that up, not non-sense about how you think they are spreading panic or despair.
Richard,
It would be great if there was true popular control over the media. I did a post on a system that the Dutch had that VEnezuela could emulate.
Unfortunately, in Venezuela you have the private media on one side and the government media on the other - neither is controlled by the citizenry and both are heavily propogandistic.
Further, I think the days that the government could claim to be totally out gunned by the private media are long gone. I think at least in broadcast media the government actually gets more exposure for its views these days.
Richard,
You are a disgrace to the USA. You like to write all this crap from the comfort of your US lifestyle. Go and live in the hell that Chavez has turned Venezuela into. Go and try to make a living there. Go and live your Venezuelan dream and then we can have an informed conversation. Until then, you are just another hypocrite.
Hard to imagine a stupider solution than the one Lorenzo supplied.
Chavez declared that the kind of crap media that is Globovision would not be allowed anymore on public airwaves. This is long overdue. The locos can watch it on cable anyway.
Btw, the president of Globovision made a statement today denying that there was a coup in Venezuela in 2002. Thats about all you need to know about them.
Elliv,
You have no clue. Globovision CAN ONLY BE WATCHED BY CABLE TV OUTSIDE CARACAS!
Why don't you stop living in your nice capitalist Sweden and go to Venezuela? You are such a fascist prick pretending to want things for a social revolution, but you keep being a kronabarna all the same who just wants her "team" win, fuck human rights.
Your lot has no future in Sweden, so you have this wet dream about seeing one day a Venezuela where we get what you want.
Your lot do not make up even 1% of the Swedish population, but you are excited they got power in Venezuela.
This same kronachild Elliv said in Ccs that "they also prosecute Chavistas" and as prove of that mentioned "some governor and the like". Fuck off!
That said governor was a guy who had previously walked away from Chavismo. If you keep close enough to Chavismo, no matter what you stole you won't be bothered.
Kronabarna Elliv, can you tell me how come
1) Chavez Senior
2) a current Chavista governor
3) Aristobulo Isturiz
ALL HAD WRONG PAPER TRAILS when they voted? They claimed they voted and got a different vote on their paper?
Can you tell me why Minister Maduro said over 50% of Venezuelans registered to vote abroad had SIGNED FUCKING SIGNED a petition in support of Chavez when nobody we know in any country ever saw such a petition AND 90% of us voted against it? Why even though we voted against it they have never published those results in the CNE site?
(and we all have the actas and we have written to the CNE with registered letters and have got no fucking response)
You really are a prick. You live in a democratic country enjoying capitalism and pluralism and the possibility to see real social democracy compete with conservatives and others and try to talk about a country you have no idea about
Wow
You are still not recognizing that Chavez is elected and still ranting about tampered votes? LOL that is so 2004 Kep.
You know democracy is also about respecting the election results even if your guy lose. Thats the problem with you, Globovision and the rest of the locos.
Hey Kepler why are you still enjoying "capitalism and pluralism" in Europe while Venezuela badly need every "freedom fighter" in the struggle against the rrrrrrregimen? There is still time Kepler!
Que c.. tiene que ver el culo con las cejas, carajo?
Sire, wie sagt man das auf Englisch?
Kepler | Homepage | 05.15.09 - 7:28 pm | #
It's pretty self-explanatory I think . I am not sure whether there is an equivalent English expression for it.
Elliv,
Because two close relatives were seriously shot (both now handicapped for life) and two others, friends of relatives living in slums were shot dead.
Because several others have been robbed.
Because the murder rate has increased in Venezuela from whopping 19 per 100000 to over 75 in the last 10 years. Because I don't want my children to have to learn crap at school about socialism when the president's daughter is in the most expensive school.
Because my sister was forced to march in one "Clase Media en Positivo".
Please, can you explain the very concrete questions I made about results abroad and about the paper trail? You won't.
Do you want the links?
http://venezuela-europa.blogspot...ing-
system.html
I know Chavez is, like Pinochet for a time, like Stalin for longer time, like much bigger and minor crappy people still very popular.
That does not take massive manipulation.
As I said: why has the CNE not published results for votes abroad since 2006? WHY?
Why can such an electronic system fail even so often with the paper trail?
Elliv, when was the last time you created a piece of software?
Wow
You are still not recognizing that Chavez is elected and still ranting about tampered votes? LOL that is so 2004 Kep.
You know democracy is also about respecting the election results even if your guy lose. Thats the problem with you, Globovision and the rest of the locos.
The CNE hasn't released full results for the last few electoral processes. That is a fact, not opinion. It's a violation of electoral law, and any citizen is within his rights to complain about it and demand accountability. To pretend otherwise is to endorse corruption.
THAT's the problem with you and the rest of the pampered PSFs: The rule of law is all well and good for your own civilized homelands, but who needs it in a "revolution"?
Elliv,
I don't make coups like the Chavezes and Carmonas. I say to a governmental body as citizen please explain and give us the results for all the Venezuelans who voted abroad. We made it through established channels. We have received no answer. Don't you have the right to know how many votes were cast in Göteborg after 2 or 3 years? Don't you have the right, specially if the government says that over 50% of those who could vote in Göteborg voted for a Nazi party and you were in one of the places where the vote was cast and saw it with your eyes that almost all voted against and you know people in every sector of Göteborg and they say similar things?
Are you then attempting against democracy if you demand results to be published, whatever they are?
We are talking here about Maduro saying most of those people actually signed for Chavez. Please, answer THIS: DID OVER HALF VENEZUELANS REGISTERED TO VOTE ACTUALLY SIGNED A PROPOSAL SUPPORTING THE REFERENDUM?
WHAT WAS THE FINAL VOTE OF VENEZUELANS IN THE REFERENDUM OF 2007 AND 2008 ABROAD?
I am talking about abroad because the lie there is more easily tracktable. Can you stick to that for a moment? Just let's talk about that.
Here the results:
http://www.cne.gov.ve/divulgacio...p?
cod_estado=99
Nothing.
Why? Because it would revealed Maduro lied.
Again: Maduro said OVER HALF OF US ABROAD SIGNED SUCH A PETITION. I know a lot of Venezuelans in Germany, France, UK, Benelux, a couple even in Norway, lots in Canada and the US, Chile and even Russia. I have got the ACTAS from most countries. We know how many voters are in other countries.
About 90% voted against Chavez abroad. We know it is much higher than in Venezuela, but let's stick for a moment to this problem: we have the actas, we know the vast majority rejected abroad the proposal and yet Maduro claimed over 50% of us signed supporting the proposal and the government hasn't revealed the results for this year or for the one of 2007.
As for the votes in Venezuela: about 10% of the votes are unaccounted for. In the last referendum you even had that the amount of "absentees" (not proportion) went down from the first report to the second, among many other irregularities.
Ow,
I am trying to understand how many deals Venezuela has with China for oil.
Our friend Chris wrote this piece of news two years ago:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/...s.com/news/
2812
You pointed at this:
http://www.oilandgaseurasia.com/...s/p/0/news/
4604
And there is this:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Chi...s/
KE06Cb01.html
I wonder if the agreements proper can be read by normal citizens.
Has anyone commented on the Cargill takeover yet?
More short term fixes in hopes that oil rebounds.
Ravell and Globo can suck big time. But reporting news and being as critical as you want of the government are pretty widely accepted freedoms.
Well, that's not what you were saying five years ago, OW. In fact, I specifically recall a communication from you in which you said that the Chavez government would have been justified in shutting down the opposition stations. So it seems a bit dubious to me that your newfound concern is actually rooted in some set of principles. I would wager that, if the Chavez government had followed your economic prescriptions more closely, you wouldn't much care about the fate of Globovision.
I suppose I could be wrong, though.
Unfortunately, in Venezuela you have the private media on one side and the government media on the other - neither is controlled by the citizenry and both are heavily propogandistic.
That's mostly true, but you don't propose any alternative. The bottom line is that only states and corporations have the resources to set up major newsgathering operations. This is true the world over.
It makes little sense to criticize the existing media structure if you're not willing to offer suggestions as to how we might begin to move beyond corporate or state control of mass communications.
When they acted against RCTV they could say that RCTV actively participated in the coup and assisted it - they allowed their airwaves to be used by coup participants to call on others to surrender. So there the government had a legit reason to act.
But that is not what they are bringing up against Globo and if that is the real issued than bring that up, not non-sense about how you think they are spreading panic or despair.
ow | Homepage | 05.15.09 - 8:28 pm | #
Funny OW, because this is simply your opinion, and it is a pretty naive one.
Why would they still want to go after Globo because of the coup? That obviously isn't their reason, or they would have done it a long time ago. Their reason now is that they are tired of Globovision manipulating and generating fear among the population.
If you can't see the difference between legitimate criticism of the government, and attempts at generating mass panic, then there's no helping you. The distinction is extremely obvious.
Oh, and I notice you didn't address my comments about your Katrina - Globovision comparison. I take it that means you accept that it was a bad comparison?
What is amazing OW, is that you are now coming to the defense of an oligarchy-controlled, corporate television channel that offers nothing valuable to Venezuelan society, and whose only mission is to topple a democratically-elected government because of their own narrow economic interests.
They are not simply wanting to criticize the government. They are wanting to destabilize and remove that government from power through undemocratic means. (just listen as many of their most frequent guests call on the people to overthrow the government, e.g. Rafael Poleo)
But the larger question is why you would think that shutting down Globovision would have any negative consequences for Venezuela. Do you really think that there will no longer be any freedom of speech once Globovision is gone?? Are you honestly going to make that argument? Do you really think people in Venezuela can't speak their minds, and don't have venues where opposition voices can be heard? Let's not be ridiculous here.
If you want to see what it looks like when a country has no opposition voices, go next door to Colombia.
In Colombia, with all its lousy violations of human rights, there is an independent Judiciary that can throw into prison people who are very close to the government. In Venezuela the Judiciary chants "uh, ah, Chavez does not go away". Since when judges in a democratic country chant that, as if they did not know there is pluralism and anything can happen in the next elections?
In Colombia opposition magazines are not harassed the same way as in Venezuela. The president is not insulting them because they oppose the (stupid) attempt at Chavetizing the terms of president that Uribe is considering.
Justin,
It is better to have a lousy governmental and a lousy extreme oppo channel than only one channel, the governmental one.
It would be much better if Venezuelans had something as the Germans have: two TV channels that are state-owned but complete independent. Pity most remaining PSFs are gringos who don't speak anything but English and a little bit of Spanish. You could watch German ZDF and ARD and realize how they can criticize without mercy both government and opposition. You can also see in those channels how the chancellor, the Liberals, the Social democrats, the Linke and the Green all debate openly in the same room and hard questions fly back and forth for everyone to see.
That makes a huge difference.
Chavismo and people like you promote a conversacion de sordos: you reject any debate with the opposition, sometimes you do say "oh, debates has to be carried out by el pueblo", but by el pueblo you mean the part of the pueblo you select, usually a mob that does not allow the others to talk.
It would be much better if Venezuelans had something as the Germans have: two TV channels that are state-owned but complete independent. Pity most remaining PSFs are gringos who don't speak anything but English and a little bit of Spanish.
I apologize for not speaking German. Lord knows it would really come in handy out here in the western United States.
You could watch German ZDF and ARD and realize how they can criticize without mercy both government and opposition. You can also see in those channels how the chancellor, the Liberals, the Social democrats, the Linke and the Green all debate openly in the same room and hard questions fly back and forth for everyone to see.
Sounds good to me.
Chavismo and people like you promote a conversacion de sordos: you reject any debate with the opposition, sometimes you do say "oh, debates has to be carried out by el pueblo", but by el pueblo you mean the part of the pueblo you select, usually a mob that does not allow the others to talk.
Uh, spare me the nonsense about what you think I think or what you think I say because your strawmen arguments are really quite lame.
First off, I actually don't think that Globovision is going to be shut down, so I'm not going to speculate on the issue until I've seen otherwise.
As for the ideal media system, I completely concur with the notion that more open debating forums would be healthy for any democracy (including the United States), but I rarely see people like you putting forth any concrete proposal to that effect. Instead, you typically employ a double standard. You constantly complain about the Chavez government's control of its media but then you never bother explaining how people like Marcel Granier and Alberto Ravell are any more entitled than the Chavez government to control the public airwaves.
In an ideal world, neither states nor corporations would be able to oligopolize public discussion.
But as long as people like you focus only on the problem of state-sponsored propaganda and ignore corporate domination of major media, it's hard to imagine how you could see yourself as occupying any sort of moral highground on the issue.
Justin, I have no shares in Globovision. I can protest to them and I have actually written a couple of times to them and I have been vocal in oppo blogs, as many other oppo people. You will hardly see that kind of criticism among Chavistas about their proposals.
If you go to Ccs you will see how many criticize Globo, even if they support it. Try to see something like that on the other side.
Globovision sucks big time, I puke when I have tried to watch it, but at least they give the floor sometimes to the Chavistas, including ministers who never go to the interviews. Nothing like that has ever happened with the government...well, there was once one channel that did that for 2 weeks and then the journalists got sacked.
Anyway: if the state introduced decent journalism, Globovision would be forced to improve radically. The thing is right now Globo, in spite of being "in the hands of the corporates and the CIA" offers an atom more of debate than VTV.
Much more so in El Nacional/El Uniuversal: you can read there well-known Chavista writers, even if in minority, and anti-Chavez. You can read comments by Chavistas and non Chavistas. Try to find the same thing among the state-media.
Rosales, as corrupt and stupid and anything he may be, asked several times for debates with Chavez. Nothing. The opposition have asked several times for a live debate on crime to the ministers of 'Justice' to no avail.
As for proposals: many proposals, very concrete ones, have been put forward on this and other issues.
One again very current on education:
http://venezuela-europa.blogspot...cation-
for.html
I hope the government FINALLY pays attention to us AND does not make a farce out of the PISA programme.
Finally: control the airwaves? CONTROL THE AIRWAVES?
Have you been lately to Venezuela? Have you tried to watch TV outside Caracas? Do you know how many people live outside Caracas?
70% of Venezuelans cannot watch Globo or RCTV because they have no cable, no internet and don't live in Caracas. Those satellite dishes in the shanty towns in Caracas are not the norm!
Chavez can force and forces his cadenas several HOURS a week countrywide and VTV can be watched in every tiny town (if people wanted, what counts is whether they can or cannot).
In Germany, in Scandinavia, in the Benelux etc most people don't get their news in the private channels because what the state offers is critical enough about both sides, they can trust those channels relatively well, they know the journalists are completely independent and can grill WITHOUT PITY both the bloody chancellor or prime minister or the opposition.
sorry, not completely, I suppose you will never have "completely", even a blogger is dependent on his education and environment.
Still, it is the best so far. And then there is the Internet (but in Venezuela the internet is still for a minority and those who do have some access still don't know how to look for relevant sources, from there that what we need above all is an education system that teaches people to be very critical.
How different was the information given by Globovision from that reported by the government?
Anon III:
Basically, the temblor happened, Globo called FUNVISIS (govt. agency reprting on seismic activity). THeir website was down, a phone call to them was cut off and they went to the US Geological survey website, extracted the info as to intensity, location etc. and reported on it before the government channel did.
The government called this terrorism.
Thanks, revbob22. So, if the government would have reported the same information first, the citizens would not have been "terrorized'?
Apparently so.
You must realize, that the incident was an excuse to try to continue to build a case against Globovision.
I'm not here to defend Globo, but they are the last major over the air TV outlet left that contradicts the government. Whether they are broadcasting the TRUTH, or broadcasting the TRUTH as they see it is up to the viewer. But at least they did not cave in, like Venevision did.
RCTV got shut down for a number of reasons, some valid in some folks eyes, and some not valid.
My belief is that Mr. Chavez brooks no dissent, so whenever he can, he will harass, fine, and send hoodlums to media outlets that do not toe the line. Some did not have the stomach for that, so they folded. Others have vowed to continue fighting for what they see as an inalienable right to speak and be heard, and let the viewer decide if they agree or not and therefore whether they will tune in, or not.
Having that choice is important. Letting someone decide that for me, is undemocratic.
Justin, I have no shares in Globovision. I can protest to them and I have actually written a couple of times to them and I have been vocal in oppo blogs, as many other oppo people. You will hardly see that kind of criticism among Chavistas about their proposals.
That's bullshit. Within Chavismo, there are a ton of people who aren't enamored with Canal 8's programming and openly express criticisms of it. One even hears such criticisms from within the state apparatus itself.
Much more so in El Nacional/El Uniuversal: you can read there well-known Chavista writers, even if in minority, and anti-Chavez. You can read comments by Chavistas and non Chavistas.
Chavista commentaries in El Universal?? Sure, like, one every six months. El Universal's columnists are almost invariably anti-Chavista hacks. There might be one moderate voice sprinkled in there on occasion (such as Margarita Lopez Maya), but I would wager that something on the order of 95 out of 100 columns in El Universal are rabidly anti-Chavista. It's op-ed page is every bit as absurd as Globovision.
I'm not here to defend Globo, but they are the last major over the air TV outlet left that contradicts the government. Whether they are broadcasting the TRUTH, or broadcasting the TRUTH as they see it is up to the viewer. But at least they did not cave in, like Venevision did.
Venevision "caves in" no more than, say, CNN, ABC and CBS "cave in" to U.S. Administrations. It is a well-established fact that Venevision and Televen air both opposition and Chavista viewpoints fairly equally.
Justice,
List the people who are anti-Chavistas in Ultimas Noticias. Tell us when people who oppose Chavez have been given the floor to talk in VTV. Chavistas can talk in Globovision a lot. In fact, you see them very often threatening the people of Globovision with allowing to do that and talking using the microphone. When do you see that in VTV? When do you see the VTV journalist giving the microphone to angry opposition people?
Please, show us examples of Chavistas doing that not in obscure forums as you see in El Nacional and El Universal.
Ibsen Martinez someone? Brito?
Venevision "caves in" no more than, say, CNN, ABC and CBS "cave in" to U.S. Administrations. It is a well-established fact that Venevision and Televen air both opposition and Chavista viewpoints fairly equally.
Venevision is fairly neutral, and so is TELEVEN.
If you can recall, enither TELEVEN nor Venevision reported on the student protests and ignored the whole RCTV debacle. Their coverage might be "neutral" but they carefully "pick" what not to report, to avoid problems with the government.
When do you see that in VTV? When do you see the VTV journalist giving the microphone to angry opposition people?
Practically every other night on La Hojilla. Ever heard of Jorge Amorin? This is exactly what he is famous for; interviewing angry opposition people.
Basically, the temblor happened, Globo called FUNVISIS (govt. agency reprting on seismic activity). THeir website was down, a phone call to them was cut off and they went to the US Geological survey website, extracted the info as to intensity, location etc. and reported on it before the government channel did.
This is a gross simplification of what happened. As I explained above, Globovision's crime is not that they reported the temblor before the government. Their crime is that they tried to take advantage of the temblor to generate panic among the population by making them believe that the government was not able to respond to a national emergency.
Nobody was trying to create panic. They reported the facts. You fascists aren't going to shut down Globovision without tens of thousands of students on the street and vilification from the international community. It'll be one more nail in the chavista coffin.
Tosh, you are pretending to be stupid or you are really like that? You know those people are in anger, losing their patients (which occurs more often among Chavistas, only that Chavistas then take out their guns and shoot at oppos). I mean people who want to discuss things.
You don't see VTV interviewing people who go and ask in front of VTV to answer/explain/contradict what the government is saying.
You don't see people in debates where both groups have equal time.
Your thug-president rejected time after time open debates with Rosales and others, the same your thug-ministers.
You are payed for writing propaganda for the Venezuelan government. I am payed for developing software in Europe.
The government is indeed incapable of responding to emergencies. Chavez was - just one tiny example - responsible for the deaths of many more people in 1999 than what Catrina caused in New Orleans.
When people asked him to postpone his 99 referendum and declare an emergency, he rejected it. He also rejected US help unless it met his conditions.
Chris, you are a criminal.
Nobody was trying to create panic. They reported the facts.
Yeah, sure, JSB says so. I guess we should just all believe him.
You fascists aren't going to shut down Globovision without tens of thousands of students on the street and vilification from the international community.
Haha, you mean like when they took away RCTV's concession?
It'll be one more nail in the chavista coffin.
Keep dreaming. This reminds me of when all you oppo morons said that Chavez would not be able to win the referendum for term limits.
Should we add this to the list of all the thousands of times you've been wrong?
Tosh, you are pretending to be stupid or you are really like that? You know those people are in anger, losing their patients (which occurs more often among Chavistas, only that Chavistas then take out their guns and shoot at oppos). I mean people who want to discuss things.
Hahaha! No, you said "angry opposition people." That is exactly what Amorin does. He interviews angry opposition people, and many times they discuss things without losing their patience. Apparently you are pretty clueless about what VTV actually broadcast. Not surprising.
Your thug-president rejected time after time open debates with Rosales and others, the same your thug-ministers.
Yes, for the same reason why most people here ignore you. Some people are simply too stupid to debate with. Did you actually want Chavez to explain to everyone why La Negra was a total fraud, and a ridiculously stupid proposal?
You are payed for writing propaganda for the Venezuelan government. I am payed for developing software in Europe.
Am I actually supposed to respond to that?
This is exactly why Chavez chooses not to debate with morons. The discussion immediately degenerates into a childish rant when you have been proven wrong.
The government is indeed incapable of responding to emergencies. Chavez was - just one tiny example - responsible for the deaths of many more people in 1999 than what Catrina caused in New Orleans.
Oh, so now Chavez is also responsible for the deaths in Vargas? Wow, we are just getting dumber and dumber by the second.
You're right Kepler. Thousands of people died from mudslides in Vargas 10 years ago. Chavez should have magically stopped the mudslides with his magical powers. He didn't. So, that gives Globovision the justification to generate panic among the population whenever there is a small tremor.
Wow, your reasoning is incredible.
And you're still wondering why Chavez won't debate with you morons?
Chris, you write for Venezuelanalysis.
You haven't learnt anything in life but a wee bit of history, not less biased than what the red neck creationists learn, just from the other side.
Guardia Civil demanded to stop the referendum and evacuate people before the whole disaster happened. Chavez did not want to. Besides, he was slower to respond than even George W. Bush in New Orleans.
There were plenty of advance warnings that something was going wrong in the cliffs of Vargas. However, someone was asleep at the wheel, same situation as the announcement of the Caracas tremor.
AS another one who was there, that day in 1999, I can state as FACT that Defensa Civil made more than one recommendation to postpone the referendum.
Instead, Chavez sent the trucks to round up the vote, and promptly dropped them back home, where many died.
Had he thought more about what was coming, and wasn't blinded by power, his cal lshould have been to postpone the referendum.
And just so we're clear, I spent the next 10 days ferrying food, water and offering transport to those in need. THe largest response in those early days of the disaster came from ordinary individuals acting on their own. All Chavez could think about was how not to accept US aid (desalinization plants) while accepting the use of Blackhawk helicopters to evacuate people.
According to some accounts, mostly from PDVSA techs using ground radar systems it was estimated that anywhere from 50,000 up to 100,000 people lie buried along the Vargas coast.
That is another "gift" of the Chavez legacy, putting power before the people he was supposed to protect.
And as for creating panic, Tosh, the statement is so absurd as to almost not even deserve comment.
It's time for you to change your tune on that one, since your wacko government has now dropped that idiotic statement.
Keep up with the script, will ya?
Moron.
ow
I came to check to see if the blog was still alive, and to tell you truth it probably would be better off dead.
True, you make a commendable effort to question the coming shut down of Globovision air broadcast, but it is a weak text, hiding behind a critic of Venezuelaanalysis, a now rather discredited source of news, a site that should be read as a leftist blog. I mean, we need to infer that you oppose the closing of Globovision!
And the previous post was dedicated to Weisbrot, which is today an equally useless endeavor.
These posts do not free you from your burden of guilt at having supported for so long, even past the time PODEMOS bailed out, a proposition that had run its course. That was your clue then, but you missed it. Look at how Ismael has been recovering since then!
Now look at the result of your posts: Tosh screaming his same old tired repetitive harangue whose objective is to distract from what is really going on through insults and change of subjects. Just like Chavez by the way. You even get Justin to write things that show how out of phase he is, how ignorant of Venezuela today he has become, relying on V anal for his "facts". Stunning to read how stuck he and Tosh are in a circa 2003 mentality.
Venezuela has changed, dramatic things are happening, order is collapsing as MD at public hospitals fear for their lives. I mean, just this break down of the moral authority that is carried by an emergency room doctor is enough to tell you how fucked up the country is after 10 years of Chavez, how fast the social contract is breaking down as the socialism of XXI century is becoming fast a free for all. Heck, even the Diosdados in power are visibly more concerned at hiding their loot and "raspar la olla" than arranging any of the myriad of problems besotting us.
Far from me to make any suggestions but your time would be better spent condemning outright the present regime and focusing on what should be saved from it. Wasting your time with people like Tosh (Cris Carlson of V anal) is just playing into the hands of the chavista propaganda that has been using you for too long without any real rewards we know of. And certainly not moral or ideological rewards we might have been able to observe. However condemnation of your sift has been swift. Did you not notice?
Anyway, of course you do what you please. I leave you just thanking for the reads of just a couple of entries from Justin and . They are enough to comfort me: they and the people they represent have always been silly communist who now are fast transitioning to fascism. I love it!
PS: Tosh, if you decide to write on this entry, please include the latest updates on me being paid by Obama and as to approximately how long after Globo is shut down you will coming to Yaracuy with your pals to rough me up. At this point I cannot expect nothing less from you.
revbob22, the usual figure mentioned for the Vargas death toll is around 30,000. However, once a better count was made a couple of years later, the count was about 65,000. I got this info directly within the entrails of the beast. It never got published, why bother, life and the revolution must go on. These people were not of any use any more anyway.
Venezuela has changed, dramatic things are happening, order is collapsing as MD at public hospitals fear for their lives.
Funny, isn't it, how the opposition never cared about public hospitals until Chavez came to power, and, even now, they aren't concerned about the quality of care for the people who go there, no, it's the fact that MDs are afraid to go to work.
Yes, the classic Primero Justicia constituency, the public hospitals exist for the doctors, not the patients. It's important to get these sorts of things straight.
Estes,
You don't care for the poor, you only care about your Starbuck "socialism". Don't be a sissy, go to live "real socialism" in Venezuela.
Nowadays the poor are over three times more likely to get a bullet in their brains than in 1998 and it is not due to the CIA.
And next time your body stops functioning, just swallow a Cuban tablet. That will do.
You even get Justin to write things that show how out of phase he is, how ignorant of Venezuela today he has become, relying on V anal for his "facts". Stunning to read how stuck he and Tosh are in a circa 2003 mentality.
Is that all you got, Duquenal? That we're so 2003?
Well, let me tell you something, big fella. The Venezuelan opposition can't simply reinvent its identity in the course of six years. People like you and Leopoldo Lopez want to pretend that the opposition's failures are all just an image problem that can be changed with a simple public relations makeover. Well, I hate to break this to you, big fella, but reinventing your political identity is a lot more complicated than, say, giving a Venezuelan beauty queen some breast implants.
You see, the Venezuelan opposition's problems are much deeper than the image that you and Leopoldo Lopez would like to project of yourselves. Your problem lies with who you are and what interests you represent. No matter how much people like you would like to repackage yourselves as Obama-loving progressives, you're never gonna get away from the fact that you represent the interests of the privileged.
The bottom line is that the Venezuelan opposition is still the same opposition it was six years ago, with the same class base, and the same petty class interests that drive it. Your attempt at a public relations makeover is not going to change this essential fact.
Daniel, looking at Justin's reaction, you hit the bullseye. Congrats.
Thank you Charly!
Hey Duqenal,
I have a challenge for you: Can you make any comments that aren't useless ad hominem attacks?
And as for creating panic, Tosh, the statement is so absurd as to almost not even deserve comment.
Hey, great argument. It is absurd because you say so I guess?
It's time for you to change your tune on that one, since your wacko government has now dropped that idiotic statement.
Oh really? Here's what the Defensora del Pueblo said today:
"Cuando se lanza una información de que en Venezuela no hay Estado, estamos desprotegidos, se pudo haber generado una ola de pánico. ¿Era ese el propósito de esa información?. Es muy serio lo que hizo, no es ridículo"
Care to change your statement? Or simply admit that you are wrong, and making things up as you go?
Hey, great argument. It is absurd because you say so I guess?
The concensus seems to be that the goverment over reacted to Globo's reporting of the earthquake. I think you are the one who should show something to prove that they "tried to create panic".
So reporters create panic now by doing their job? By criticizing the response (or lack of) from the government?
How is this looking to create panic?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H...h?
v=HJ5wUQJTXtY
should I translate the stuff for you?
should I translate the stuff for you?
Tank | 05.19.09 - 12:25 am | #
Well Tank, that isn't the statement that the government has complained about, so that is pretty irrelevant now isn't it?
You could, however, just watch Ravell's statements yourself, and admit that what Ravell was saying was a blatant lie.
Even his own employee contradicts him by telling him that they DID in fact contact Funvisis, and that they are indeed monitoring the situation.
Ravell wanted to create the impression that the government wasn't even responding to the situation, which was a blatant lie.
Tosh
Show us how it is done.
Daniel,
I am discussing the topic at hand, not making childish ad hominem attacks on people because I don't like what they are saying.
When you are mature enough to actually debate the topic at hand, and not simply make personal attacks that have nothing to do with the topic, then please come back and discuss.
Estes,
You don't care for the poor, you only care about your Starbuck "socialism". Don't be a sissy, go to live "real socialism" in Venezuela.
Nowadays the poor are over three times more likely to get a bullet in their brains than in 1998 and it is not due to the CIA.
And next time your body stops functioning, just swallow a Cuban tablet. That will do.
Kepler | Homepage | 05.18.09 - 9:06 pm | #
Can someone translate this for me? I got lost somewhere after "Starbuck "socialism"".
It is worth noting that people on the left have complained about the murder rate in Venezuela for quite some time. My guess is that they were doing it long before the opposition discovered that they could use it against Chavez.
For the record, I have never advocated that anyone or any country follow the path of the Cuban Revolution, and it is quite telling that Kepler consistently, when confronted with non-Marxist-Leninist leftist perspectives, feels compelled to construe them as such.
My comment about Daniel, MDs and Venezuelan hospitals is, of course, on target. Professionals and middle class people who serve in government funded employment often fall into the trap of believing that the program is for them, and not the people that the program is supposed to assist. It happens in a lot of places.
When I was in Venezuela in 2005, I heard a Primero Justicia representative push the same argument, the public hospitals are unsafe. I'm sure they are. What was her solution? Expansion of volunteer programs among professional medical personnel. I'm not making this up. Yes, Primero Justicia basically wanted to shut the system down.
Of course, there is a perverse logic. Such an approach would naturally make the poor entirely dependent upon upper middle class medical professionals, and hence, reduce the probability that they would risk losing whatever level of care that they would receive by politically challenging them.
Not to mention that it would be looked upon very favorably by Primero Justicia's neoliberal allies in the National Endowment for Democracy. Reducing social expenditures and creating new investment opportunities for privatized services would be at the top of the NED agenda.
Do the oppo folk here posting about fascism actually know anything about how fascism functioned in Europe? Fascists are totalitarians. They don't let thugs run around selling cocaine and lawlessly blowing holes in people's heads. They control things.
Daniel, looking at Justin's reaction, you hit the bullseye. Congrats.
Charly | 05.18.09 - 9:30 pm | #
----------------------
Thank you Charly!
Daniel Duquenal | Homepage | 05.18.09 - 9:35 pm | #
Sorry to interrupt your love session, boys, but I have a question for you.
Can you tell me one substantive thing that is different about the Venezuelan opposition today relative to six years ago?
Justin,
Your question is worthless because you have your idea about what the opposition six years ago was and how it should theoretically "redeem" itself for you to - theoretically - consider it as an alternative to Chavismo.
First of all: the opposition, like opposition in every place around the world, is a word used to reflect on any group that opposes a given government.
In the US part of the opposition are Starbuck sociasts like yourself (who now have as fashion the non-Marxist-Leninist socialism or the Autonomous groups - in shapes and colours depending on your city or country) are part of the opposition as well as white supremacist groups and the Republicans and the Green Party and yet people are not asking you the stupid question "how do you OPPOSITION differ from six years ago"?
Justin, you don't get it: the incredible high levels of crime in Venezuela are due to an increased level of injustice, lack of real social programmes, not "quickly throwing some crumbles to the people at election time", lack of plans for sustainable development, lack of real jobs (not street vendors in a Wild West environment considered "legal workers") and extremely corrupt police plus a failed drug policy that is even worse than the one followed up by the government KKK blokes and you, Green party and socialists oppose in the US.
do you really believe that the only way to regulate media is by granting it to the highest bidders and using the power of the state to fine and incarcerate anyone who challenges it?
apparently so
Richard Estes | Homepage | 05.15.09 - 6:30 pm | #
Actually Richard, it's worse than that. The airwaves (at least in the US ) were given away for a song to the oligarchs not in return for money really but rather in consideration of their formidable clout. They have bid up the prices among themselves buying and selling frequencies but originally the airwaves were little other than gifted to the rich and cloutful.
Richard Estes, last time I talked to a Chavista he said all foreigners should be expelled from Venezuela if they don't believe in the "revolution" (whatever that revolution is). When I asked him what foreigners he was talking about he said it was all those people whose parents and grandparents came from Europe and had "stolen all our money". When I asked him how many they were, how you differentiate them from the "real Venezuelans" etc, he just stopped talking. I have had this kind of conversations with many Chavistas and I have read similar stuff over and over again.
So, am I to assume all Chavistas are like that?
But I do know how their great Führer thinks and what it means when they all say they stand by him.
Passing through,
Have you THOUGHT THROUGH any alternative?
Do you know what the situation in Venezuela is?
Estes,
We discovered the issue of crime when the boyfriend of one of my best friends was shot dead going to work and when another friend was shot and almost died at noon in the middle of Avenida Bolivar and when a cousin almost bled to death because of some other robbers and a nephew was left naked and barefooted in the road after being robbed. My cousin almost died in hospital because another guy came in at the same time and even though the other guy was much better off (also shot) his friends threatened the emergency doctors to give him "VIP treatment".
My cousin was saved because another cousin of mine, who is a surgeon, arrived afterward and fixed the situation.
Probably we were doing those discoveries at the same moment you were finding out where Venezuela was in your globe, after you realised its new leaders were wearing red berets and chanting slogans about helping the poor.
Actually, the murder rate in Venezuela shot through the roof very soon after Chavismo came to power. I was following the statistics on murder because I knew this was already an issue. You can see clearly how the slope in the chart gets a dramatic angle from 99 onwards.
"Socialismo, patria o muerte", you "non-Leninist-non-Marxist (Starbuck), anti-fascist anti-neo-Liberal autonomic|anarchist chaps.
Piss off your half-baked ideologies and half-through wet dreams projected unto other countries. There is more than blue versus red tin soldiers, carajitos.
Your question is worthless because you have your idea about what the opposition six years ago was and how it should theoretically "redeem" itself for you to - theoretically - consider it as an alternative to Chavismo.
Well, now you're contradicting Duquenal. Duquenal laments my "circa 2003 mentality," but the bottom line is that he --and you-- can't tell us one measly difference between the leading sectors of the opposition "circa 2003" and the leading sectors of the opposition today.
In other words, you can't answer the question. You can't tell me one substantive thing that is different about the Venezuelan opposition today relative to six years ago.
First of all: the opposition, like opposition in every place around the world, is a word used to reflect on any group that opposes a given government.
I'm talking about the leading sectors of the opposition. Is there a dime's worth of difference between Accion Democratica "circa 2003" and Nuevo Tiempo today? Is there a dime's worth of difference between Primero Justicia of 2003 and the Primero Justicia of today?
Those are the questions that you have to answer because it's YOUR side that still lacks the confidence of the majority of the Venezuelan people.
Is there a difference between the Chavez who invited Pérez Jiménez back to Venezuela and now? The one who said he would seek dialogue with the opposition the day before the last referendum and the day after said there won't be any dialogue?
Between the one who claimed not to be a socialist and the one who said he is a socialist/Marxist/Leninist/whatever-they shoved in front of his eyes?
Majority? You are talking about the 54% the CNE declared? Is that a permanent majority? Was it not 63% in 2006?
And please, why did Maduro say over half the Venezuelans registered abroad SIGNED (NOT SAID, BUT SIGNED) a petition i n support of Chavez when I know nobody but a handful did that and I know over 90% of Venezuelans abroad actually rejected the referendum? And why the CNE has rejected publishing those results that would contradict very clearly what Maduro said?
What majorities are we talking about? What is your proof? Said CNE? Or the Cartner Center of 2004?
Justin
Considering that my entry did not mention opposition parties I do not see why you wish to discuss this topic with me in particular.
Tosh
Forgive us! Reading your entries one would be fooled in observing that you are not following your announced dictum! But if you say so,we''ll take your word for it.
Anyone notice how neither Tosh nor Justin respond to the Vargas tragedy and its aftermath?
Nor is there a peep about Mr. Peligro's behavior befoer and after?
Are they aware that in the very words of the director in the CIPC, in his estimation over 35% of violent crimes committed in Venezuela are by the police?
So from what script are you reading this week?
Well Tank, that isn't the statement that the government has complained about, so that is pretty irrelevant now isn't it?
You could, however, just watch Ravell's statements yourself, and admit that what Ravell was saying was a blatant lie.
Even his own employee contradicts him by telling him that they DID in fact contact Funvisis, and that they are indeed monitoring the situation.
Ravell wanted to create the impression that the government wasn't even responding to the situation, which was a blatant lie.
So how about you provide a proof of what the government is complaining about?
Because I'm finding it hard to understand how Globovision was looking to create panic by repeating over and over "There are no major damages, no casualties, everyone should stay calm and remain at home"
True they bashed the government's agency for not picking up the phone. But to be fair, they deserved it. Also, calling the government out (even if its a lie) is hardly a reason for the response this has received.
They even mentioned they had spoken to the director of FUNVISIS who was on his way to his office.
Ravell said they could not expect an answer from FUNVISIS since many other government actors were probably trying to get info as well and that communication could be difficult. Which only shows that the government WAS moving to obtain information.
What probably set Mr. Peligro off was that the information Globo had was credited to the US GEOSURVEY and not FUNVISIS. Talk about inferiority complex!
I would not be surprised to see some official actually blame the US for the quake itself!
Probably those DIRECTV boxes had something to do with it.
Anyone notice how neither Tosh nor Justin respond to the Vargas tragedy and its aftermath?
When you start blaming a president for a mudslide that happened in the first year of his presidency, the topic becomes so utterly retarded that one cannot possibly respond. Besides, you guys do just fine discrediting yourselves with these ridiculous claims.
So how about you provide a proof of what the government is complaining about?
Ravell's comment is easy to find on the internet.
True they bashed the government's agency for not picking up the phone. But to be fair, they deserved it.
No, actually Ravell said that the call got dropped, not that they didn't answer the phone. And why would they deserve to be attacked for that? Ravell tried to say that they weren't even monitoring the situation, when that was clearly a lie.
So let me get this straight Tank. Just because Ravell's call got dropped, that means that FUNVISIS deserves to be totally discredited and lied about, saying that they are totally incompetent. Hmmmmm. Once again, Tank is the king of logic.
Also, calling the government out (even if its a lie) is hardly a reason for the response this has received.
Tank | 05.19.09 - 11:30 am | #
I agree. If this were Globovision's only offense, the government would not be justified in responding this way. However, Globovision has been doing this kind of shit for years.
Remember when they tried to say that the Chief of Police had "planted" the molotov cocktails Tank? Remember when they tried to say that the Chavista students were responsible for all the violence at the UCV last year? They never even mentioned that it was the opposition students who were trying to light the Facultad on fire. Remember when they tried to say that the Police had attacked peaceful marchers during the RCTV scandal? Turned out the "peaceful" marchers had broken the barricade and were throwing rocks at the police. And on and on and on.
There are so many instances where they have been caught lying that its not even funny. What IS funny is that you guys keep believing them despite it all.
Forgive us! Reading your entries one would be fooled in observing that you are not following your announced dictum!
Oh really? I am not discussing the topic at hand? Is that the claim you want to make now? Hahahaha! Can someone please hold Daniel's hand and help him find his way back to his own sorry-excuse-for-a-blog? He appears to be lost over here.
There are so many instances where they have been caught lying that its not even funny. What IS funny is that you guys keep believing them despite it all.
Theres also so many instances where they have been the only ones with the balls to REPORT THE NEWS that one could imagine why we don't want globo shut down.
When was the last time someone talked crime or health on VTV? When was the last time there was someone from a non PSUV party discussing on the government channels? When was the lats time someone critiziced the government in VTV, Telesur, ANTV, etC?
Yes. Globo sucks, however they are the best source of news because they don't bow down to Chavez.
This is well-said:
"Yes. Globo sucks, however they are the best source of news because they don't bow down to Chavez."
They aren't the best source of news because they provide good information. Or compelling analysis. Or are prompt with their stories. Or whatever. They're good because "they don't bow down to Chavez."
Nice. Kind of a microcosm of how the opposition thinks of itself, right? Not democratic. Bereft of a social vision. Unorganized. Corrupt. But against Chavez.
Theres also so many instances where they have been the only ones with the balls to REPORT THE NEWS that one could imagine why we don't want globo shut down.
Studies have shown that Globovision is the most biased channel of them all, even more than VTV.
Other private channels report the news too, but they aren't trying to destabilize the government, and using every chance they get to try to generate fear and panic among their viewers. There is an important distinction there.
When was the last time someone talked crime or health on VTV?
I wasn't aware that VTV was the only other channel.
When was the last time there was someone from a non PSUV party discussing on the government channels?
Yes, they are fairly excluded from government channels, but they certainly have a voice on other channels. RCTV, Televen, Venevision all interview opposition voices all the time.
Are you honestly going to make the claim that the Venezuelan opposition is not heard anywhere other than on Globovision?
With crime such a problem I'd guess that what is needed is a strong hand both in the form of the state and armed population. Also panic mongers, subverters of order would be silenced.
Since much of the crime is drug related I'd at least investigate forms of drug legalization or decriminalization. While the world's main source of drug money, guns, chemicals and drug culture urges other nations to sacrifice their people, their police, their soldiers, judges, prosecutors to it's "war on drugs" virtually no law enforcement in the US loses life or limb in this supposed "war." Could it be someone is being played for a sucker?
Excuse me Tosh, but I did not blame Chavez for the mudslides. I blamed him for his response before (ignoring warnings from credible sources and busing people right back into the eventual path of the mudslides).
During(slow response, private citizens practically the only ones ggetting much needed food and water to stranded folks)
After (rejecting no strings attached help, prolonging the suffering).
You can warp your own mind if you want, don't warp my words.
Max, CHavez is more bereft of a social vision than even Bush. Chavez's thugs have stolen more than the worst adecos, Chavez has a series of nice haciendas in Barinas, Chavez has given free social houses (actually very nice ones) to his daughters for free (I put here twice the government URL to the site where you can check out they got the houses for free for good)
You are so thick, someone just needs to wear red clothes and use the word "poor" for you to get your pseudo-socialist orgasm.
Excuse me Tosh, but I did not blame Chavez for the mudslides. I blamed him for his response before (ignoring warnings from credible sources and busing people right back into the eventual path of the mudslides).
During(slow response, private citizens practically the only ones ggetting much needed food and water to stranded folks)
After (rejecting no strings attached help, prolonging the suffering).
Did you hear all that on Globovision?
Do the oppo folk here posting about fascism actually know anything about how fascism functioned in Europe? Fascists are totalitarians. They don't let thugs run around selling cocaine and lawlessly blowing holes in people's heads. They control things.
max | Homepage | 05.19.09 - 2:07 am | #
Of course they don't. But, actually, its more an internal projection of the impugnity that the elite believes that it should be exercise in relation to everyone else onto Chavez.
That, and a belief that someone who doesn't identify with a European background is, by definition, fascist, which is, of course, quite humorous, because, as you know, fascism was brought to life in Europe.
Max, CHavez is more bereft of a social vision than even Bush. Chavez's thugs have stolen more than the worst adecos, Chavez has a series of nice haciendas in Barinas, Chavez has given free social houses (actually very nice ones) to his daughters for free (I put here twice the government URL to the site where you can check out they got the houses for free for good)
You are so thick, someone just needs to wear red clothes and use the word "poor" for you to get your pseudo-socialist orgasm.
Kepler | Homepage | 05.19.09 - 1:27 pm | #
You obviously haven't been following events in the US for quite some time. Bush, and his successor, Obama, have authorized a looting of resources that is literally unprecedented in human history, estimated by one Guardian business writer as approximately 11.6 trillion dollars funneled into the financial sector with nothing in return.
Yes, that's 11.6 trillion, not to mention that it is being put into the financial sector so as to facilitate the oligopolization of the US economy.
This is the terminal weakness of the opposition line on Chavez. They perpetually criticize the Chavistas as corrupt, while remaining dependent upon the most corrupt cabal experienced to date, the transnational elite, centered in the US, which they must steadfastly refuse to criticize. Obviously, it's a hard case to make.
Their "wet dream", to quote Kepler, is to obtain power on a similar scale in Venezuela, so that they can be accepted into the fraternity as junior brothers and sisters.
Max,
Unless they are themselves part of those profiting from the drug sales.
Estes,
You are a US American, so even if fascism was born in America, one can see it can grow strong elsewhere as well.
Tosh,
Do not play dumb. revbob22 already told you HE WAS THERE. Be a man and accept that you are wrong about the events of Vargas.
Richard, you don't care for Venezuela, as others have said here, you get a wet dream out of a guy whose pretends to piss off the enemies you have at home (funny, still you don't have the cojodes to abandon your capitalist privileges and help build the "revolution" in suchc places as Cuba or Venezuela)
That is a Starbuck socialist.
Do not play dumb. revbob22 already told you HE WAS THERE. Be a man and accept that you are wrong about the events of Vargas.
AnonIII | 05.19.09 - 2:11 pm | #
Hahahahahaha!!! Is that really you Anon? Or is this some kind of impostor trying to make you look dumb?
I do not know which Anon you are referring to. I hardly comment on this blog but I had to say something about your childish refusal to admit you were wrong about those events.
I do not know which Anon you are referring to. I hardly comment on this blog but I had to say something about your childish refusal to admit you were wrong about those events.
Wow, it really was you, and you're not even ashamed to admit it!
Anyone who thinks saying "I was there" is good enough back up for all these claims about a massive national emergency is clearly an idiot.
A lot of people were there. And a lot of those people wouldn't agree with what moron said. I can't believe I even have to explain this.
Tosh,
I do not know how old you are but, really, personal attacks make you look very infantile.
Grow up!
I am wondering why people still keep debating Tosh (Gringoinvenezuela?). He just should be admonished like the brat he is. Lots of hot air coming out of that half brain. As long as Venezuelanalysis has contributors of his caliber, we are safe.
OW,
If I may suggest a topic for your next post: 6 Hour Workdays & Prestaciones Sociales.
I am wondering why people still keep debating Tosh
Charly, I'm not sure which comments you are talking about but, except for a few, the oppo morons here DON'T debate me. The only thing they can do is engage in ad hominem attacks because they are completely incapable of even addressing my arguments.
If only you and others would actually contribute something to the debate here other than useless ad hominems (of which you just provided another perfect example), this would be a much more interesting discussion.
As long as Venezuelanalysis has contributors of his caliber, we are safe.
Haha, this comment made me laugh. What exactly would you be safe from Charly? You guys have lost almost every single major election in the last ten years. How much worse could it possibly get?
Oh man, the kid is twitchy.
Poor Charly, that's the best he can come up with. You gotta feel sorry for him.
Tosh, it can get worse. Look at Zimbabwe or Cuba.
Hey, guys, the thugs:
http://www.notitarde.com/pais/pais1.html
tosh
you need to expand your vocabulary. if you keep using ad hominem as much you are going to make it a verb, as in "stop adhominenizing me!"
More evasions from Kepler and Duquenal, I see. Instead of honestly trying to answer the question of whether there's a dime's worth of difference between the Venezuelan opposition today and that of six years ago, Kepler's idea of a response is to ask whether Chavez has changed.
Well, the relevant political fact is that Chavez has had a strong popular mandate to do what he does, so it hasn't been politically incumbent upon him to change. To be sure, Chavez did move further left between 2003 and 2009, but the question of whether or not Chavez has changed is not the most pertinent one because most Venezuelans continue to support Chavez. Even Datanalisis just came out with a poll showing 60% support for Chavez.
Meanwhile, the leading sectors of the opposition have been rejected by the majority of the Venezuelan people.
So, as of this point in Venezuelan history, the relevant political question is not whether Chavez has changed but rather whether the opposition has changed.
I'll be waiting on your answers.
Yeah, Chavismo will reign for a thousand years. Where did I hear that? Berlin 1944?
No, Caracas 2009.
Tssk, tsssk, Justin....
But first we must agree on terms. For example, do an election a regime justify? If I remember well Saddam got a 100% a few days before the invasion which found a lot of people willing to help the invaders. Or your favorite regime in Cuba: are the results there something like a 99%?
But let's not go to such extremes and assume that indeed Chavez elections are legit.
My favorite one is the April 1999 referendum that he won with 90% on the first question. I was in the 10% that voted NO becasue, you see, I have known long ago that constitutions are only as good as the people who apply them. Needless to say that everyday since then I have felt validated of my NO vote which was the correct vote.
In case you still do not get my drift, people have the right to make an ass of themselves at the polling stations and as such even a 90% victory as that April vote do not make the victory right.
So, deal with such basic electoral concepts before you want to discuss opposition politicians. With me or anyone else for that matter.
Hey Tosh, try to spin this one:
http://www.eluniversal.com/2009/
...9A2336293.shtml
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
let's not go to such extremes and assume that indeed Chavez elections are legit.
Extremes?
Francisco Toro clearly suggests that "Chavez elections" are legit. Are you now implying that your fellow oppositionist is a Chavista extremist?
Justin, Justin....
You will really go to any length to find a topic where you think you can have the upper hand.... Heck, even dragging in here poor Quico as your knight in shinning armor. It is a sad day when PSF need to justify their arguments through some of the rare erratic columns of Quico (columns by the way that they do not understand as his style allows for the bizarre projections of their own phantasms, but I digress).
My point was not election, it is the application of the constitution, it is that an election is not enough to certify a democracy, that people are allowed to vote for the tyrant who will screw them. At this point in Venezuela, nobody cares about legit elections anymore since Chavez will not respect their results, TWICE already.
Justin, you really need to update your argumentation topics to Venezuela today. Heck, you do not seem even to receive the party line correctly!.
Justin, apart from what Daniel said:
we don't follow lines, we all have our own ideas.
I asked very concretely:
Is the paper trail good?
Why did the paper trail of Chavez Senior, Aristóbulo Isturiz and a Chavista governor all became corrupted?
How do you explain Maduro said over 50% of Venezuelans registered abroad SIGNED a petition supporting the referendum and Chavismo (i.e. CNE) has not published the votes abroad but we know the votes show about 90% against Chavez? (abroad things were done manually)
Daniel, what else can you expect from these folks?
Typical of them to change the argument when they realize they have nowhere else to go.
"Justin, you really need to update your argumentation topics to Venezuela today. Heck, you do not seem even to receive the party line correctly!.
Daniel Duquenal | Homepage | 05.20.09 - 9:05 am | #"
Hence why I keep asking them to study the script before they open their mouths.
sorry, "all came as invalid"
Francisco Toro clearly suggests that "Chavez elections" are legit. Are you now implying that your fellow oppositionist is a Chavista extremist?
Francisco Toro's point is that the system is solid. But he also wonders why the governments not released the complete results of the last 2 elections.
Numbers don't add for the last "election", we are missing over 5% of the vote.
The last time the "opposition won", there was an irreversible trend with a margin of 1% with over 10% of votes to be counted, 10% in major Chavista areas.
So:
No final results = No Clean election, regardless of who wins. All votes must be counted, results must be released. That hasn't happened during the last 3 elections... which means, its all a charade... and Francisco Toro acknowledges that.
Looks like that satellite is a bust, or at least it was last weekend.
http://www.americanthinker.com/
2...venezuelan.html
But then we're just oppo morons ad homenizing!
More on the satellite with PICTURES! ...for Tosh/Chris:
http://www.noticierodigital.com/...ic.php?
t=469330
It's the VICTORY OF THE IF!!!
Justin
Daniel might have a point: elections and opposition politicians are not the major worry of Venezuelans today. Here, put some spin on that:
http://www.talcualdigital.com/Av...=20745&
secid=3#
The Chavez government is authorizing the cocaine dealing that is sapping its popularity and led directly to opposition wins in some metropolitan centers in the 2008 regional elections? Interesting theory.
As for being bereft of a social vision: not liking/ someone's social vision is very different from them not having one. The Venezuelan opposition doesn't have one, which is why it can't win elections.
Max,
Please, show me an URL with a plan for sustainable development of the government that has been in power for a decade with the biggest oil boom of our petrostate.
Then read my ideas on my blog and some of the proposals for development.
Also: explain to me why the Chavista education minister is refusing to let Venezuela join the PISA programme for education evaluation?
It is a sad day when PSF need to justify their arguments through some of the rare erratic columns of Quico
So I'll take that as a yes, you're saying that your fellow oppositionist Francisco Toro dabbles in "extremes" when he suggests that Venezuelan elections are legit.
Needless to say, you have a rather strange definition of extremism.
Justin,
I answered ot your comments in regards to Quico's post. So don't take it as a "yes" and read what people write before you reply with more nonsense.
I bet you and Tosh would also justify the cut in the budget for universities. How is it possible that in a country that needs more R&D, more education and frankly has a sub-par educational structure the government cuts corners in educations while it bows to acquire more military planes... IN THE SAME WEEK?
Daniel might have a point: elections and opposition politicians are not the major worry of Venezuelans today.
Notice that all of you skirt the basic question of why the leading sectors of the opposition --Nuevo Tiempo, Primero Justicia, etc.-- have been in the political wilderness for more than 10 years now.
At some point, you're going to have to come to terms with your own side's political failures. You're going to have to come to terms with the fact that a coherent political movement can't define itself merely by what it is against. You're going to have to come to terms with the fact that all politics is relative and that, as long as you insist on defining yourselves merely by what you're against, most of your fellow Venezuelans won't have much reason to believe that you offer anything constructive for your society.
So don't take it as a "yes" and read what people write before you reply with more nonsense.
Oh, I read your contortions about Quico's post. What it all boils down to --as you well know-- is that even Francisco Toro begrudgingly acknowledges that Venezuelan elections are legit.
The bottom line is that your side can't credibly point to a single case in which an electoral victory for Chavez was not legitimate. You can't point to a single case in which any certified observation mission --whether it be from the EU, the Carter Center or the OAS-- found a Chavista victory to be tainted. That's the bottom line.
So I would suggest that you stop trying to blame your own side's political failures on others and start thinking about what your own side has done to embed itself in the political wilderness for so many years now.
Justin: that's not possible
The opposition defines itself quite consciously in terms that distance it from the general population. Look at how they talk about people who vote for Chavez, they use the most offensive language, frequently with obvious racial overtones, associating indigenous and black with ignorance. And, of course, they do the same with poor people generally.
Just as they do with Chavez himself. That's because their identity is dependent upon their manufactured feeling of superior by being whiter, wealthier and more cultured than everyone else. Hard to win elections with that, villifying the much of the populace, although it does give you an advantage with it comes to qualifying for NED and AFL-CIO grants.
Justin, carajo, you don't understand it?
Do we want to go point by point?
OK, European Union "excellent work":
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle3319910.ece
You will simply dismiss it as...as what?
Please, go ahead.
Also: answer what I asked about the elections
abroad. Do you admit Minister Maduro LIED ABOUT MOST OF REGISTERED VOTERS ABROAD
SIGNING SIGNING SIGNING
SIGNING (got it? signing!!)
in support of Chavez's referendum?
90% of Venezuelans abroad voted against the referendum but the CNE has not published our
votes.
About the Carter Center: the guys had no fucking clue about IT, they are people like you, with no fucking knowledge of anything but their political studies.
A binary is a binary. It is a black box. You can test it as many times as you want.
The actas? We did not have the actas but a fraction, the CNE did not counted those they claimed they were going to count and besides
the paper trail is not printing what people vote for. There is PROOF FOR THAT!
Te vas a hacer el loco y no vas a responder a eso?
Geez...there is no honesty in you. You are no better scum than people like the Rumsfeld-Bush supporters.
Ester,
You have really no principles. The racist here is you and all your bourgeois pendejos sin fronteras.
The vast majority of Venezuelans are mixed and that goes for all groups.
There is racism, but I have seen as much racism if not more among the Chavistas.
How many times have I read them talking about "esos extranjeros de mierda" who came to Venezuela generations ago and do not belong in Venezuela? And actually my Chavista relatives are the most racist people I know
(by the way, I am the descendant of black slaves and Europeans)
As for the wealthiest: the wealthiest are right now the Ancien Regime together with the boliburgueses. Chavez clan, the Diosdado Clan, the whole profiteers of the so-called revolution talk all the BS they want about the poor but in reality they steal from them.
The Chavez clan is the largest land owner in Barinas. The Ramirez and Rodriguez follow.
Estes,
Why is Chavez and his ministers opposed to the PISA programme?
WHY? Why does the government want to improve the quality of education for state schools?
Please, explain me what happened with this:
http://www.cne.gov.ve/divulgacio...p?
cod_estado=99
Justin: as I said, the opposition has no program, but to pose the question presumes that it is a political enterprise centered around substantive ideological values that result in coherent policy development
but, as you can see here, it is not
The bottom line is that your side can't credibly point to a single case in which an electoral victory for Chavez was not legitimate. You can't point to a single case in which any certified observation mission --whether it be from the EU, the Carter Center or the OAS-- found a Chavista victory to be tainted. That's the bottom line.
I cant credibly confirm that they were legit either.
We don't have the full results, which btw the constitution states we should have.
Millions of votes have not been counted during the last 2 elections, the final results were never released. And I'm talking about one election in which the opposition won. How can we trust results that are not complete?
Gravatar Justin: as I said, the opposition has no program, but to pose the question presumes that it is a political enterprise centered around substantive ideological values that result in coherent policy development
The opposition has not one program but many because they are not ONE political party. MAS has a proposal, PJ has their own vies, heck the students have their own proposal. So before you speak, you should look them up, listen to interviews, etc..
The government has no proposal. Well they had one a few years ago, and they did the opposite of it.
Ester no te va a prestar atención. Le he pedido varias veces a ese PSF que me muestre dónde está el programa del chavismo. Nada.
Justing, just a few points to clarify things:
- you can interpret my words whichever way you want and I will not correct you. i have long ago learned that it does not matter what i write, PSF like you will only look for the possible tidbit that they will quote out of context and interpret it in the very worst possible way. circa 2003 i might have cared, today i think that i have already spent too much time in this oil wars outing, for a post by the way directed at the host who has remained silent, by the way.
- the best way to discourage debating is to impose your conditions and your subject to the debate/discussion/argument. if nobody wants to debate you on the opposition it is becasue 1) your ideas on that are clearly outdated, 2) you want it on your terms and yours only. you and tosh are one of the same on this, by the way. oh, and i have written enough on the opposition in my blog, more than any other blogger possibly. i hate redundancy. my input in this thread would not be anymore valuable than in my blog, so why do you care so much?
- you are running late in finishing your dissertation on a topic that in a few months, even weeks, might have become totally irrelevant. using us to try to prove you right in front of your committee is probably not going to work out well.
- and of course you could start acting as you preach. for example you did skirt the points raised by berenice or tank, or even myself.
Justin: as I said, the opposition has no program, but to pose the question presumes that it is a political enterprise centered around substantive ideological values that result in coherent policy development
but, as you can see here, it is not
Indeed, there is nothing in the way of a political proposal here. These folks would prefer to wax hysterical about Chavez with a non-Venezuelan audience than to offer one measly point about what proposals they have for Venezuela and its people. It's a sad spectacle.
So how about that $400 million dollar satellite?
Justin, are you pretending you don't understand? I wonder...
1) Daniel meant the opposition has different programs. Look: I suppose you, Justin Starbuck socialist, have a programme for the US. Your programme is different from the one of White Supremacists and the Green party. Am I wrong?
2) What is your plan for the US?
3) As for me, you can see part of mine in my blog, in ideas
Now Justin is going to say something else that does not honestly touch any of the points I just wrote. There is no point in writing to those guys.
Look: I suppose you, Justin Starbuck socialist, have a programme for the US. Your programme is different from the one of White Supremacists and the Green party.
That's a false analogy. There's no comparison between my position towards Obama and yours toward Chavez. I'm not in formal opposition to the Obama Administration. Most people of my political persuasion voted tactically for Obama and will probably have little choice but to do the same in 2012. My position towards Obama is identical to that of the leftist intellectual and union activist Bill Fletcher. Our position is that it is our job --the job of progressive social movements-- to try to push Obama in a progressive direction. When Obama comes under ridiculous attacks from Rush Limbaugh and the like, almost all U.S. leftists will defend him against such attacks. You see, that's what principled people do. We don't align ourselves with any old Obama-basher simply because we don't agree with many of Obama's policies. It is well understood among 95% of American leftists that the people who most vociferously attack Obama are considerably worse than Obama, so we would never align ourselves with such people.
The Venezuelan opposition, on the other hand, has no such principles. You guys will align with any old rich, racist scumbag and his mother because you have no real principles other than your hatred for Chavez. You've all reached such a level of hysteria that you wouldn't bat an eye about marching alongside extremely retrograde elements who happen to share your hatred of Chavez. You've yet to learn the lesson about how you were so easily used and manipulated by real-life, ultra-rightist golpistas such as Pedro Carmona and Isaac Perez Recao.
And for all the reasons listed above, you remain in the political wilderness.
As I was saying, circa 2003....
As I was saying, circa 2003....
Once again, Duquenal, you refuse to even discuss whether your side has changed since 2003. Your refusal to even discuss the question suggests to me that you know that the Venezuelan opposition has not really evolved since the days of the coup.
Kepler
As far as the airwaves go, radio and television frequencies should not be private property. Technically they are not, they belong in almost every nation to the state. They can be shared out among labor, community, po;itical party, student,civic and religious groups and also state broadcasting. Their use can be rotated to allow fair access.
Justin, you are no intellectual.
I asked to reply to the questions 1 and 2.
Now, tell me (please, refer to the number of questions)
q3) how I aligned with Carmona
q4) how I am a racist
q5) please, tell me the percentage of poor people in Venezuela
Geez...I really wonder if they are so thick or pretend to be thick.
Justin, you can only see the US system and think on those terms. There are only two parties with a chance there. It should not be that. There is more than two possibilities but you never had the balls to go effectively for other chances. In many other countries there are more than 2 parties that shape the scene.
Let's do it simpler for you.
You, like me, disliked and rejected Bush.
In the period of Bush there were marches against him. There were many people who marched against him in the US.
I can pick up any group of those and say: "hey, Justice is a supporter without principles of one of those groups".
And you call yourself an intellectual.
You are not and besides, you are the racists who has no knowledge about Venezuela and who is trying to teach us something.
As for retrogrades: you are the one who would march next to Chavez. That guy is the new Gomez of Venezuela. He is
- still a clear admirer of Perez Jimenez,
-he has a clear hatred towards the "Europeans", which is not better than the hatred of "Europeans" against blacks, Indians, etc
(the funny thing is he has probably more European blood than I do)
-he, as refusing to call off the 1999 referendum in spite of repeated warnings about Vargas THROUGH DAYS, is responsible for more deaths than Bush for N.O.
- he is responsible for the murder of hundreds of people in 1992 (he also was connected with the second coup) in a bloody coup that had no reason as 1) CAP was going out anyway two years later and 2) Chavez did not prosecute the many high level military involved anyway and 3) Chavez could have done something after CAP was gone if he had proofs
- he is responsible for a failed economy
- he has given social villas for free to his daughters
- his family is the main landowner of Barinas
etc, etc.
I did not have to do anything with Carmona. The 1 million people who marched on April 2002 did not have a clue.
Please, read the Silence and the Scorpion.
By the way: you are in for the killing of 1000 Palestinian women and children in Gaza.
You voted for Obama and he could have stopped it.
You are in for the killing of several hundred Afghani lately.
What a Starbuck socialist you are!
Oh, Justin! But almost everyone has evolved since 2003, the opposition, me, and even Chavez in a way.
The ones that have not evolved are people like you, still stuck on the 24 hours Carmonazo when what Chavez has done since is much worse than what Carmona threatened to do.
This is why it is pointless to discuss with you: you are stuck on a single item to justify any other atrocity, to disqualify any one that crosses your path.
But if you want to prove me wrong, why don't you start by discussing in earnest with Kepler. Or am I the only interesting target? For that you should talk to Tosh: he is preparing a gang to come to San Felipe and beat me up. You might enjoy the trip, the rains have started, it is all green again
As far as the airwaves go, radio and television frequencies should not be private property. Technically they are not, they belong in almost every nation to the state. They can be shared out among labor, community, po;itical party, student,civic and religious groups and also state broadcasting. Their use can be rotated to allow fair access.
They should not.
They also shouldn't be used to strengthen the power of the governing power, advertise one political agenda and ignore the problems of society such as crime, education, etc.
Today any government related media outlet is nothing more than an outlet for government related propaganda that serves no purpose to society. If the opposition had access to VTV, Telesur, ANTV, Avila TV, Radio Mundial, etc... Globovision would not have the power it has... it would not even be a factor in day to day politics.
This is why it is pointless to discuss with you: you are stuck on a single item to justify any other atrocity, to disqualify any one that crosses your path.
You mean by calling everyone here who supports Chavez a "PSF"???
Yes, I think I understand Daniel. It certainly is pointless to discuss anything with someone who is more interested in attacking the PERSON, and not even addressing their argument.
Tosh, it does not help even if we put numbers on the very concrete questions we ask you, you will beat around the bush.
Adiós.
The 1 million people who marched on April 2002 did not have a clue.
And that's precisely the problem. Much of the Venezuelan opposition doesn't even understand the logical consequences of its actions, much less the deeply retrograde forces that lead it around by the nose.
And once again, I've yet to see one constructive proposal from you folks as to what kind of political project you advocate for Venezuela and its people.
And once again, I've yet to see one constructive proposal from you folks as to what kind of political project you advocate for Venezuela and its people.
And we have yet to see one from you.
All you and Tosh do is find ways to justify the actions of the government regardless of whether they make sense or not.
There are a lot of proposals on Quico's blog as well as in Kepler's blog. If you haven't read the its because you don't want to.
Justin, I put them in my blog under "Ideas". I told you to go there.
It is mostly not about ideologies, it is about basic ethics. You fundamentalists don't get it. I am for pluralism, for the permanent competition between different political ideas in a democratic environment as we see in Europe.
The system is far from perfect in Germany or the Benelux or Scandinavia but it would be a huge evolution.
Something I don't discuss in those ideas is I would rather have a parliamentarian system where everyone can discuss openly and not have the constant monologues Chavez is forcing Venezuelans to listen.
Well, I think those who went and marched were still more responsible than the ones who still this year supported Perez Jimenez supporter and chief Barinas thief Hugo Chavez.
Adiós. I asked the questions, I see I lose my time with you.
q3) how I aligned with Carmona
You support a political movement, and many of its leaders, who were cheering as Carmona installed himself as a dictator, and began a witch hunt against Chavista officials. They also ordered the Metropolitan Police to fire on Chavistas in the streets, killing 50 - 60 people on April 13th.
The people who you continue to support today Kepler, including Globovision, RCTV, Ledezma, Leopoldo Lopez, etc. etc., were ALL cheering as all of this happened. So, yes, you are aligned with Carmona.
-he, as refusing to call off the 1999 referendum in spite of repeated warnings about Vargas THROUGH DAYS, is responsible for more deaths than Bush for N.O.
How would calling off a national vote have saved people from a mudslide that destroyed their homes?
- he is responsible for the murder of hundreds of people in 1992
False. There are 13 reported deaths from the 1992 coup.
- he is responsible for a failed economy
Oh really??? Last time I checked he governed during the largest economic expansion in Venezuelan history.
Even now, as countries like Mexico watch their GDP fall 8.2%, Venezuela could very well show growth this year.
- he has given social villas for free to his daughters
If there were any truth to this the media would be all over it.
But even if it were true, I don't see how it is relevant to the overall picture of the Chavista political program. Rosales, meanwhile, supposedly has something like 8 homes.
- his family is the main landowner of Barinas
Total nonsense. I have asked you guys a million times to give evidence of this. You have never given me anything more than repeated allegations from different sources, zero hard evidence.
Please, read the Silence and the Scorpion.
Hahahahaha!!! That book is the biggest joke in the world. It doesn't even mention the Neustadl testimony, or the role of the media. It doesn't mention how the coup plotters openly admitted to their "plan" on national television. It makes the totally unsubstantiated claim that Chavistas were responsible for the shootings, with ZERO evidence to back that up. It doesn't even mention the recordings of the Metropolitan Police as they said they were "neutralizando los talibanes" from atop La Nacional.
Kepler, admit it, you love that book because it tells you what you LIKE to hear. Not because it describes the reality.
By the way: you are in for the killing of 1000 Palestinian women and children in Gaza.
You voted for Obama and he could have stopped it.
You are in for the killing of several hundred Afghani lately.
What a Starbuck socialist you are!
Actually, many of those who voted for Obama did so because they thought he would be NOT AS BAD as Bush, not because they support his politics.
But I know, that is too complex for Kepler to understand.
There are a lot of proposals on Quico's blog as well as in Kepler's blog. If you haven't read the its because you don't want to.
Tank | 05.21.09 - 1:02 pm | #
Like what? You can't even name one?
"ninguna constituyente ha dado como resultado un sistema autoritario".
Roberto Viciano jurista español
" No volveran más nunca " !!!!!!
Tosh, just use the link. Learn to use the Internet.
Even people like you can learn.
End of conversation. Nobody answer my questions. I put my ideas in Ideas (just go to the right part and click there), apart from that I do have ideas about a specific parliamentarian system similar to the German one, but that or any other are not enough if the other issues are not tackled.
ADIÓS.
I wasted hours here.
In fact, Tank, why don't we do a little exercise here. Why don't you just tell me where you stand on the following issues where we have made our positions clear:
Free trade
Land Reform
Privatization
Export-oriented development vs. Regional integration
Foreign Investment
The short-comings of Liberal Democracy
Free-market capitalism and its contradictions
What proposals do you offer regarding the above issues? In all these years I haven't heard any proposals from the opposition regarding these (and many other) important topics.
End of conversation. Nobody answer my questions.
I just answered your questions above.
Even people like you can learn.
But apparently people like you can't even read?
Karl, los burguesitos estos parecen recién salidos de un curso del Opus dei. Es tan previsible:
Chris Junior explains things as if they were axioms:
"explain why your system does not work and why ours does, if you don't, you lose the debate, hahahahah"
And the other Starbuck socialist:
"hahaha, you really beat the hell out of those white racist rich neoliberals, hahahahaha"
Funny Kepler. You want answers to your questions, but once you get them this is all you can come up with? I can see how really interested you are in debating. Hahaha!
And we have yet to see one from you.
Indeed, you're not gonna see prescriptions from me as to how your country should be governed because I don't feel it's my place to micro-manage the politics of your country. Devising policy prescriptions for Venezuela --and developing a coherent political program for you and your fellow Venezuelans to discuss and debate-- is your job. But, unfortunately, none of you seem to be up to the task, as all I ever see from you is one hysterical tirade after another about the guy that you're against.
Indeed, you're not gonna see prescriptions from me as to how your country should be governed because I don't feel it's my place to micro-manage the politics of your country.
Well, I disagree with you on this Justin. I do think we can advocate for policies that we think are beneficial for a country, even if it isn't ours.
But Tanks assertion is pure nonsense. We have given solid positions on all the most important issues, just as I listed above.
They, on the other hand, don't even understand what the major issues are in the first place. Hence Kepler's constant focus on totally irrelevant tidbits like Chavez's daughter getting a house from the government, or Venezuela's participation in PISA.
I mean, they actually think these are pressing issues!!! That's the funniest part of it all.
all I ever see from you is one hysterical tirade after another about the guy that you're against.
Not only that, but they also hysterically attack anyone who supports Chavismo with all kinds of insults, but with absolutely ZERO real argumentation.
I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but attacking the messenger DOES NOT prove wrong their message. It is very simple logic.
Well, I disagree with you on this Justin. I do think we can advocate for policies that we think are beneficial for a country, even if it isn't ours.
Well, if you were in my line of business (U.S. academia), I think you would recognize that the inclination of American technocrats to try to micro-manage the politics of societies that they don't really understand is part of the problem.
It's one thing if you live in the country and immerse yourself in its life and culture. It's quite another matter if you live in the ivory tower.
Justin,
Some of my ideas are in http://venezuela-europa.blogspot.com, go to the right part and click on Ideas.
Or are you pretend you did not read this comment? I suppose so.
Like what? You can't even name one?
We have discussed proposals on education, oil wealth redistribution, education, the judicial system and even election processes. You can feel free to go trough the archives of CaracasChronicles. (sadly it doesn't have a good search engine, but its there.)
You can also check Kepler's views on his own blog, which is pretty good. In fact, you can even look at the party project or "manifesto" that Katy(JC) put together over at CCS Chronicles.
I don't have the time or the drive to post my views on Free trade, Land Reform, Privatization
, Export-oriented development vs. Regional integration, etc because I am not the one on the driving seat of Venezuelan economic development. I am not the president.
However, I do criticize and point out what I clearly don't agree with such as political prosecution, the lack of checks and balances, the unnecessary military spending, the cut in the budget for the schools, the lack of transparency in the country's finances and even the lack of transparency when it comes to the elections.
It saddens me that someone can support a government that is not only corrupt (because most governments are) but that has little respect for due process, closes down on dissidence and has no checks and balances. Maybe it makes you feel all iffy inside when the AN or the judges chant Pro-Chavez slogans, to me its sad.
I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but attacking the messenger DOES NOT prove wrong their message. It is very simple logic.
Sometimes you should read your own writing you are the one who ends up his arguments by saying nobody else (besides you) has a brain and calling people morons.
By the way, those are rather hands-on ideas, I decided on purpose to leave the ideological stuff aside because I believe it is not that the issue, but what real humans do with things and what formal mechanisms they establish to make law be accomplished.
I will go into the points Chris Junior wrote minus the "they failed" as that is HIS assumption, but I will put that in my blog in Spanish: agrarian reform (I am totally for it, with 200% transparency, taxes and clear ideas on taxation levels in each state and use of those taxes etc), electoral system (random selection as we do in Germany and Belgium and Netherlands) , very good education for ALL (which is not a trivial issue but the main one, something you do not recognize),
and so on.
Ah, free trade, just this: there has never been real bilateral free trade. I am for going step by step, protecting the local industries as Germany and the US did before and promoting regional integration not on a day but via decade-long work. Among other things.
Chavez is destroying local industries, he is just changing from importing some from the US to China and Iran.
He hasn't brought deals for Venezuelan producers vis-a-vis Argentine or Brazil, but only for Argentinians and Brazilians. The only thing he got was their silence while he gets more power and destroys democracy.
That is not promoting integration.
We have discussed proposals on education, oil wealth redistribution, education, the judicial system and even election processes.
Let's see, you listed education twice, but not what you propose.
As for oil wealth, the only thing I've seen is La Negra, which was so ridiculous is was funny.
The only thing you've said about the judicial system is that you DON'T agree with it under Chavez. You haven't said how you would reform the system.
And, as for election processes, you've given numerous excuses for why you can't win, but nothing concrete on how to make it better.
Again, list your proposals, not just a list of topics.
I don't have the time or the drive to post my views on Free trade, Land Reform, Privatization
, Export-oriented development vs. Regional integration, etc because I am not the one on the driving seat of Venezuelan economic development. I am not the president.
In other words, you don't have any proposals. I mean, seriously, how hard is it to simply give your position on Free Trade or Land Reform? Does it really take that much time? You've wasted far more time here slinging insults.
The reason is clearly because you don't know what your position is, which is EXACTLY JUSTIN'S POINT!!!!!
You can also check Kepler's views on his own blog, which is pretty good.
If I wanted to discuss Kepler's blog, I would go discuss it over there.
But I'm not going to do that because there isn't anyone who is even interested enough to comment there. In other words, it is such a joke that no one even takes it seriously.
You can feel free to go trough the archives of CaracasChronicles.
I have tried to discuss these issues at CC, but they either ignore you, or flat out erase comments they don't like.
In other words, it is not possible to discuss proposals there. Many of their posts are completely ridiculous and demonstrably false, but they won't allow anyone to say that there. They simply delete the comments.
Why is it that when we ask you to give concrete proposal you simply point us in the other direction? Is it that hard to say where you stand on these issues?
Sometimes you should read your own writing you are the one who ends up his arguments by saying nobody else (besides you) has a brain and calling people morons.
Yes, but I don't do that INSTEAD of addressing your argument.
I address your argument, AND THEN I call you a moron. That is much different than simply ignoring the argument, and trying to attack the messenger.
And, I never bring up your personal life. You guys regularly bring up people's personal lives, where they work, where they live, what kind of lifestyle they live, who their parents are, etc. etc. etc.
You do all of this in an attempt to discredit the person, INSTEAD of simply addressing the point they are making.
THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ah, free trade, just this: there has never been real bilateral free trade. I am for going step by step, protecting the local industries as Germany and the US did before and promoting regional integration not on a day but via decade-long work.
Ah Kepler, so naive...
The problem is this Kepler, the industrialized nations have put together this little thing called the WTO (maybe you've heard of it?) which requires nations to eliminate protectionist policies, or else they get punitive trade restrictions. Not to mention the veto power of large multinations who often times not invest in a country that places restrictions on investment.
So how exactly do you intend to protect domestic industries in light of these challenges?
You see Kepler, Germany and the US developed at a time when international competition was not so intense, when the technological gap between developed and underdeveloped was not nearly as great, and when multinational corporations did not control the majority of the world's trade and technology.
And you didn't address even half of the topics listed above. Care to take a stab at any others?
MET, going to bed, was eating
You know Tosh, the person that does the most talking is usually the one that is wrong.
Your personal live is this, you work for Venezuelan Analysis.
In regards to my views.. am I supposed to spend hours typing it all here for your amusement? Some of us do work and cant afford to spend more than 10 minutes typing comments in a blog.
See Toshy, one thing you don't understand is that its not only that the government has in some cases followed policies a lot of us consider mistaken, its their lack of efficiency even when the policies they follow are good.
So even if their ideology was the right one, even if all their proposals were incredibly good and would lead Venezuela to a golden age, they are just so inept at following trough with their promises, at holding individuals or institutions accountable for their results that it makes all the "intellectual" debate nothing more than useless mambo-jambo.
Its been 10 years and not only do we have the same president, we still have the same idiots he surrounded himself with, people who have proven to be unable to do their jobs. But it doesn't matter how much they screw up.. they will be rotated to another ministry or institution soon enough. Because in the revolution, its not about performance, its about loyalty...
Warned you guys, Keplar, Tank, Daniel, etc., you are wasting time and energy trying to get this Tosh (Chris?) character to be serious. He just keeps a big board to keep track of the points he thinks he scores.
In regards to my views.. am I supposed to spend hours typing it all here for your amusement? Some of us do work and cant afford to spend more than 10 minutes typing comments in a blog.
The most obvious question comes to mind: If you aren't here to debate these issues, why the hell are you here?
So even if their ideology was the right one, even if all their proposals were incredibly good and would lead Venezuela to a golden age, they are just so inept at following trough with their promises, at holding individuals or institutions accountable for their results that it makes all the "intellectual" debate nothing more than useless mambo-jambo.
That's all fine and dandy. The point here, however, is that the opposition doesn't have any counter arguments, or any concrete proposals of their own, yet you guys lend your strong support to them.
So, even if they could somehow be more efficient than the Chavez government, they'd be more efficient at doing what exactly? You don't know. And you apparently don't care. That is exactly Justin's point. You guys don't have a political project, other than being AGAINST something.
That is, quite frankly, retarded.
Warned you guys, Keplar, Tank, Daniel, etc., you are wasting time and energy trying to get this Tosh (Chris?) character to be serious. He just keeps a big board to keep track of the points he thinks he scores.
Yes, it is such a "waste of time" to debate with me that people like Charly, Impartial, JSB, and other morons find it necessary to come in here and make comments like these about 3 times per thread.
You guys are so transparent its not even funny.
tosh
what do you mean we do not want to debate, we have no issues we can defend?
i did ask you for a very simple question: when were you going to come to beat me up in yaracuy as you promised last year? can't you even reply to a simple question?
justin
you are ignoring me and yet you claim that nobody wants to engage you. what gives?
after all the only thing that's stopping me to debate you is to establish first ground rules and clear definitions of what we would agree to discuss. after all that should not be too difficult for you to establish, you are allegedly an academic objectively trained in political sciences. are you not?
is it my escualido sweet rich bourgeois food breath?
ow
thanks for the hosting and sorry you did not reply.
i hung around waiting, forced to once again easily puncture the usual suspects' hot air, but that is as much time as i can give to your blog. it was fun this time around though, i might not wait that long to come back for a visit.
think of my suggestion for your blog, discussing what is worth saving from chavismo in a post chaevz era (even if he starts an open dictatorship for the next 20 years, it will still be a "post chavez" era, one where a few nincompoops thought that a golpista could turn into a democrat).
justin and tosh
same old same old. if one day you get serious and responsible about arguing. let me know. you know where to find me. now go ahead, trash me at will, you got the last word comment. mighty nice of me, no?
what do you mean we do not want to debate, we have no issues we can defend?
Uh... exactly. Thanks for admitting it.
i did ask you for a very simple question: when were you going to come to beat me up in yaracuy as you promised last year? can't you even reply to a simple question?
Because I never said anything of the sort.
But when you are mature enough to actually debate issues, instead of coming here to simply make childish insults, do let me know. I'd have fun showing you how utterly ignorant you are.
after all the only thing that's stopping me to debate you is to establish first ground rules and clear definitions of what we would agree to discuss.
Hahahaha!! Yeah Justin, he's willing to debate, but first he needs to establish "ground rules" (rule #1: we can't discuss things that make Daniel look stupid) and "clear definitions."
What's the problem Daniel? Can't handle a simple debate? My lord, these guys sure do us a favor in making themselves look pathetic.
The most obvious question comes to mind: If you aren't here to debate these issues, why the hell are you here?
I'm here to comment in a post that talks about the sad way the goverment closed Globovision. What are you here for? How is this post about economic development, import susbtitution and my views on capitalist and socialism?
That's all fine and dandy. The point here, however, is that the opposition doesn't have any counter arguments, or any concrete proposals of their own, yet you guys lend your strong support to them.
Support them?
I support their criticism of the government because I agree with it. Im tired of the inefficiency and the corruption of the current government. That doesn't mean I necessarily support UNT, AD or COPEI. Do I have my preferences? Of course I do, but Chavez is at the wheel, so hes decisions are the ones that affect the country and its citizens, hes the one that is held accountable for the problems under his government just like Caldera was before and CAP before him.
You on the other hand stick to the same subjects over and over and apologize for every mistake the goverment makes. For you every decision they make is ok, you support 90% of them and whatever you don't support or cant justify you ignore and derail onto another moot conversation about "development". Listen kiddo, this country is not going to develop without capable people who are held accountable for their actions lead it. Chavez and his ministers can do whatever they want, and nobody holds them accountable.
We have discussed proposals on education, oil wealth redistribution, education, the judicial system and even election processes. You can feel free to go trough the archives of CaracasChronicles. (sadly it doesn't have a good search engine, but its there.)
But the point is that folks shouldn't have to refer to the Caracas Chronicles to understand what you think about the issues. The issues --not the personage of Chavez-- should be central to the entire discussion. Folks shouldn't have to spend hours on end trying to pry one measly statement from you about the issues. You don't seem to contemplate how boring this gets when you, Kepler and Duquenal completely sideline the issues and instead launch one hysterical tirade after another against Chavez.
Glad to see that some of you are finally trying to talk about what you're actually for, but you're going to have to spend a lot more time wrapping your heads around the issues if you want to be taken seriously by your own populous.
Justin misspelled "populace."
I will go into the points Chris Junior wrote minus the "they failed" as that is HIS assumption, but I will put that in my blog in Spanish: agrarian reform (I am totally for it, with 200% transparency, taxes and clear ideas on taxation levels in each state and use of those taxes etc), electoral system (random selection as we do in Germany and Belgium and Netherlands) , very good education for ALL (which is not a trivial issue but the main one, something you do not recognize),
and so on.
Ah, free trade, just this: there has never been real bilateral free trade. I am for going step by step, protecting the local industries as Germany and the US did before and promoting regional integration not on a day but via decade-long work. Among other things.
Well, that sounds just fine, but you're missing what's crucial. How exactly do any of your prescriptions cohere with what the leading sectors of the opposition actually plan to do? It's all fine and dandy to tell us your pie-in-the-sky ideas, but the relevant question is this: What is the likelihood that a real-life opposition government would carry out land reform, expand education, and build up domestic industry through developmentalist policies? What is the likelihood that a real-life opposition government would assure the poor continued access to basic health care and cheap food?
If you can't answer these questions satisfactorily, you have no basis for arguing that the leading sectors of the opposition are prepared to govern in a manner that satisfies popular demands to the degree that the Chavez government has satisfied such demands.
Justin misspelled "populace."
I stand corrected on the spelling of the noun.
Actually, many of those who voted for Obama did so because they thought he would be NOT AS BAD as Bush, not because they support his politics.
But I know, that is too complex for Kepler to understand.
Indeed, the point is so elementary that we shouldn't have to explain it to anyone here, much less to a guy who actually thinks he's well-educated.
But the point is that folks shouldn't have to refer to the Caracas Chronicles to understand what you think about the issues. The issues --not the personage of Chavez-- should be central to the entire discussion. Folks shouldn't have to spend hours on end trying to pry one measly statement from you about the issues. You don't seem to contemplate how boring this gets when you, Kepler and Duquenal completely sideline the issues and instead launch one hysterical tirade after another against Chavez.
This post is about Oil Wars views, not mine.
Also the only reason I mentioned those links its as an answer to the claim that "you guys" or "the opposition" has no proposals. There are thousands on the web, just look for them.
Actually, many of those who voted for Obama did so because they thought he would be NOT AS BAD as Bush, not because they support his politics.
And a lot of the opposition would just vote for anyone, like Alicia Machado because they think she could be better than Chavez.
Oh look Chavez wants to "create" a big corporation. So what does he do, he takes a bunch of already created and well run business and expropiates them:
http://www.noticias24.com/actual...tor-briquetero/
Yeah.. we are so going to develop.
Ceramic is for oligarcs. From now on every new house will have dirt floors.
Justin/Tosh, how is Chavez going to pay for all these nationalizations? Does he have the money?
Justin,
Chavez has not satisfied such demands. He woke up hopes once again and he could use the biggest oil boom Venezuela had for several decades in a row to keep popularity up. Now that is collapsing and the many gullible who voted for him (the same who once voted twice for CAP and Caldera) are now mostly tired or very afraid. That is your 60% popularity.
In a couple of months you will see that popularity will keep increasing and repression too.
the oil bubble lasted for about two years. chavez was elected for his first term in 1998 and survived his biggest political challenges - the coup and oil strike- when oil prices were relatively low. as of now oil prices are back at about 60$. this 'the apocalypse is right around the corner' talk is what has been said year after year about chavez. it didn't happen before, it wont happen now.
Chavez has not satisfied such demands.
By what standard? What are you measurements, Kepler?
Between 2003 and 2007, Venezuela's poverty rate was cut in half. Moreover, the CEPAL data indicates that Venezuela has overtaken Costa Rica to become the least inequitable country in Latin America (among the countries for which there is data on inequality).
Year after year, Latinobarometro's polling indicates that Venezuelans are more inclined than most other Latin Americans to view their country as democratic.
So the data just doesn't corroborate your argument, Kepler.
Sooner or later, you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that, regardless of what you or I think of Hugo Chavez, the man has achieved enormous political success. Meanwhile, the leading sectors of the Venezuelan opposition have been a political failure for more than a decade now. That's the incontrovertible fact.
Any political opposition that's been in the political wilderness for a decade has two choices. It can either (1) rectify its ways so as to improve its political prospects or (2) bury its head in the sand and stay in the political wilderness indefinitely.
The choice is up to you.
Justin, betwen 2003 and 2007 the oil price went up from 30 to 70 dollars a barrel. That is more than double.
That is the Alpha and the Omega of Venezuela, very unfortunately.
So it does not have anything to do with Chavez.
Venezuelans will anyway just notice it when they get their hands into their pocket and find no money. Northern Europeans feel a crisis when they see they cannot save as they were planning to.
"the oil bubble lasted for about two years. chavez was elected for his first term in 1998 and survived his biggest political challenges - the coup and oil strike- when oil prices were relatively low. as of now oil prices are back at about 60$. this 'the apocalypse is right around the corner' talk is what has been said year after year about chavez. it didn't happen before, it wont happen now.
Anonymous | 05.22.09 - 1:32 am | # "
Is that Criss again?
I will have to copy paste here as the bloke does not know how to use a browser.
Oil price:
1998 12.28 Chavez is elected
1999 17.48 Chavez comes to power
2000 27.6 price is higher than year beore
2001 23.12 price is higher than year before
2002 24.36 price is higher than year before
2003 28.1 price is higher than year before
2004 36.05 price is higher than year before
2005 50.64 price is higher than year before
2006 61.08 price is higher than year before
2007 69.08 price is higher than year before
2008 94.45 price is higher than year before
2009 46.18 > this will go up again, but already there is less money. Still, Chavez will try to steal from oppos (not from the rich, just from the rich who are not pro-him) to keep it up while there is this decrease
Anonymous, oil prices are still much higher than they were in the 10 years before Chavez was elected.
Justin,
Whatever all opposition groups may do things won't be easy.
I can give you a thousand proofs of this, but just answer about this one: Maduro said over 50% of REGISTERED VOTERS abroad signed (wrote down their signature) supporting Chavez this year. That is false. Over 90% of people who voted (50% didn't) voted against him. We have the actas abroad because it is easy, here we don't have Chavez thugs pointing at us with guns, here they cannot count things just electronically. All is manual. We saw the votes, one by one. We communicated with all other Venezuelans in other countries. 90% of us voted against Chavez.
Why is Minister Maduro saying over half of us SIGNED a paper in support of Chavez?
Several institutions have ASKED the government several times to publish the results abroad. It hasn't.
How come if we have the most modern system in the world even 10% of votes are still missing and the government refuses to publish results for them?
Chavez is still popular, but less than those numbers say and Chavez knows he cannot allow those numbers to drop, whatever people may think.
As for the opposition leaders: I can only do so much.
Justin,
you say,
"regardless of what you or I think of Hugo Chavez, the man has achieved enormous political success."
I will remind you that so did Hitler.So did Bush for many years.
But I will remind you that when " success" is based on unfair controls, the success cannot be used with any meaning.
Chavez has 'Success' at what?
The answer is coercion.Success at coercion.
Justin,
Let's discuss a bit your homepage profile and your choice of words.
First of all, being a doctoral candidate in any area means nothing nowadays with politically correct education taking away the requirement of intelligence.I just recently wrote a dissertation for my daughter in law and it took me all of 2 weeks( except for the research part)- I wrote the paper without research and then she found the data to back up my ideas- and I am far from genius levels.However a minimum level of Intelligence is more important than education for which you are a living proof.
Secondly I must say you are not old enough to have the experience it takes to understand that arrogance shows an inexperienced brain.
Thirdly, your astrological sign of Taurus is more suited to the simple and practical understanding of physical reality than to complicated mental endeavors, which are far more suited to the air signs, of Libra,and Aquarius and secondly to fire signs like Leo or Sagittarius, or Pisces with mercury in Aquarius .Many Taureans however make excellent cooks and/ or musicians.
Emotionally Taurus is stubborn, and more sensual than sensitive.....it takes sensitivity to understand subtle situations.
For those who think Astrology is a bunch of bull, ask Justin why he chose to describe himself this way.
ps,
the sign of Taurus is represented by the BULL
pun intended
Ah, that explains the whole enchilada Firepigette.
He's missing four letters from his sign.
I'll give you a hint, the first one's an S
rev,jaja
Support them?
I support their criticism of the government because I agree with it.
This is exactly our point Tank. You support anything that is CRITICAL of the government, without actually understanding what their position is. You support Globovision for one simple reason: they oppose Chavez. You don't understand what Globovision's political positions or interests are. That is the point.
That doesn't mean I necessarily support UNT, AD or COPEI. Do I have my preferences? Of course I do, but Chavez is at the wheel, so hes decisions are the ones that affect the country and its citizens, hes the one that is held accountable for the problems under his government
Yes, but in the real world we cannot simply oppose a government because there are certain problems or things we don't like about that government.
In the REAL world of politics, there are certain choices we have to make. One of those is if the political opposition would be better than the current government, or if there is a viable alternative to the current government.
But, in order to do that, we have to ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THE OPPOSITION STANDS FOR!!! We have to actually know what the opposition would be likely to do if they got in power, and how that would be better than the current government.
The thing about you Tank, is that you hate this government, so you just lend your support to anyone who is against it, without actually understanding what their interests are, what policies they support, and what they would likely do once in power.
If you can't even state your position on major issues like Free Trade and Land Reform, then how could you possibly know which political movement you support, and why you support it?
And a lot of the opposition would just vote for anyone, like Alicia Machado because they think she could be better than Chavez.
Except the obvious difference is that you don't even know where Alicia Machado stands on the major issues. (If you do, please list her positions)
Leftists who voted for Obama in the US know exactly where he stands, and they don't agree with him, but they see him as a better option than the Republicans.
There is a significant difference between the two Tank that you don't want to recognize.
Justin,
Let's discuss a bit your homepage profile and your choice of words.
First of all, being a doctoral candidate in any area means nothing nowadays with politically correct education taking away the requirement of intelligence.I just recently wrote a dissertation for my daughter in law and it took me all of 2 weeks( except for the research part)- I wrote the paper without research and then she found the data to back up my ideas- and I am far from genius levels.However a minimum level of Intelligence is more important than education for which you are a living proof.
Firepig,
Allow me to rephrase your argument:
"Justin,
I can't refute your arguments, so instead I'm going to attack you for things that are totally unrelated to the topic at hand.
First of all, I'll start out by trying to question your intelligence. Of course, whether or not you are intelligent has no bearing whatsoever on the truthfulness of your argument, but it makes me feel good to insult your intelligence, and it is a desperate attempt to discredit you.
Secondly, I am going to try to discredit you by questioning your age and experience. Again, this is a simply another ad hominem attack, which has nothing to do with your argument, but it is another pathetic attempt to discredit you.
Thirdly, I am going to attack your personality, and try to pretend that somehow your personality does not allow you to understand things.
Making these desperate attempts to discredit you is the best way for me to counter you since I cannot possibly give a reasonable answer to your arguments."
Oh look Chavez wants to "create" a big corporation. So what does he do, he takes a bunch of already created and well run business and expropiates them:
http://www.noticias24.com/actual...tor-briquetero/
Yeah.. we are so going to develop.
Tank | 05.21.09 - 10:45 pm | #
Why would this impede development Tank?
Why would expropriation of firms mean Venezuela is not going to develop?
Most of the Newly Industrialized Countries, like South Korea, Taiwan, China, etc. had very large state-controlled sectors during their most rapid development years.
If anything, a large state-controlled sector is positively correlated with development in the third world, and certainly in the NIC's.
1998 12.28 Chavez is elected
1999 17.48 Chavez comes to power
2000 27.6 price is higher than year beore
2001 23.12 price is higher than year before
2002 24.36 price is higher than year before
Hahaha, two things are really funny about this Kepler.
First, since you're so smart, can you please tell me which number is bigger: 27.6 or 23.12 . You seem to be a bit confused about that.
Secondly, you fail to recognize WHY oil prices began to increase so rapidly as soon as Chavez came to power. This was BEFORE 9/11, BEFORE the wars in the Middle East.
Oil prices tripled in Chavez's first two years in power because of his efforts with OPEC to protect the price. And, for the same reason, oil prices did not fall as far this year, and we are seeing them now begin to go up again. This is all because of a refortified OPEC that protects world prices. THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT POLICY DIFFERENCE FROM THE OPPOSITION!!!!
In other words, your reasoning doesn't make any sense. You try to claim that Chavez is not responsible for the economic expansion and decreased poverty because that is all due to oil prices. However, since higher oil prices are due to Chavista policies, your reasoning doesn't make any sense!!!
Justin,
I attack you directly like you have also done to others.Please see above.Must I quote?This blog has a big problem with people speaking past each other.
Calling a spade a spade is not necessarily an ad hominem attack..
If at this point we say that Chavez behaves in an ignorant way for such and such reasons, is that an invalid argument?Or an ad hominem attack No, I think not.Experience shows us his lack of credibility.
However if we were to accuse the Dalai Lama of self centered intentions we might need more proof.
You have proven here that you do not listen and answer.You ignore facts, and talk around people.
This is enough to question your credibility.
the last anonymous was me firepigette
Justin, betwen 2003 and 2007 the oil price went up from 30 to 70 dollars a barrel. That is more than double.
That is the Alpha and the Omega of Venezuela, very unfortunately.
So it does not have anything to do with Chavez.
Kepler, since you didn't even address Justin's statement, a few questions:
1. How does the oil price doubling have anything to do with the decreased inequality that has taken place under Chavez?
2. How does the oil price doubling have anything to do with Venezuelans in general viewing their society as more democratic?
3. Does a stronger, more unified OPEC keep oil prices higher? Could that have anything to do with why Chavez has enjoyed higher oil prices, and why oil prices have not collapsed to their pre-Chavez levels?
Thanks.
If at this point we say that Chavez behaves in an ignorant way for such and such reasons, is that an invalid argument?Or an ad hominem attack No, I think not.Experience shows us his lack of credibility.
Thank you for demonstrating that you have no clue what an ad hominem attack is.
Tosh,
To have a plan is less intelligent than to have a vision.Many people with a plan will soon find that plan B or plan C, becomes more viable.
I have a vision that I want to improve my mother's health, and I can make a tentative plan, but more important is the vision, because as everyday unfolds and life changes I need to be able to see clearly in the moment..
Also at this point in time the simple need to get Chavez out has to be the most important vision, that requires a flexible plan.First we have to see what the circumstances are after Chavez leaves to be able to determine the proper and exact initial plans....
When we are faced with a deepening dictatorship , the main plan and focus is to restore democracy.
Most opposition will agree with capitalism with important and well organized social benefits.That is enough for now.
So stop repeating, what is not true.
This is enough to question your credibility.
Anonymous | 05.22.09 - 1:08 pm | #
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!
Oh Firepig, I swear, you must be trying to look stupid.
You see, the whole POINT is that you cannot prove someone wrong by questioning their credibility. That is the whole point of what an ad hominem attack is!!!
It is a logical fallacy!
Also at this point in time the simple need to get Chavez out has to be the most important vision, that requires a flexible plan.First we have to see what the circumstances are after Chavez leaves to be able to determine the proper and exact initial plans....
Thank you for conceding our point. This is EXACTLY what Justin and I have been saying. You don't have a political project. You just want to get rid of Chavez.
At least you are honest about it. The rest of these oppo morons try to pretend they have a project, and they tell us to go look at other websites to find it.
I have to admit, at least you are honest Firepig.
Saying what is true is not an ad hominem attack.
example : a 2 year old is inexperienced.
Your age, your words, and your lack of follow up is documented on this blog.Most of what I clarify have just been the words on your own personal profile.
Lately there are more and more Chavistas who call Nelson Boccaranda who call him under the table to complain about Chavez.This is one of the reasons that Chavez is cracking down on the remaining free press because it is an outlet for the discontent of his own followers who don't dare to denounce wrong doings openly.
When people begin to call anything 'against' or anything that clarifies a lie, an ad hominem attack, then freedom of denouncement is lost.
Not exposing any plans and not having them are different ball games .
And obviously you did not get my use of proper definitions.
Exposing plans to Chavistas would be useless.Do you need to be presenting better plans than Chavez to justify stopping his dictatorship?
Saying what is true is not an ad hominem attack.
example : a 2 year old is inexperienced.
Again, you don't understand what an ad hominem attack is.
Just to use your example, the fact that a 2 year old is inexperienced does NOT mean that everything a two-year-old says is false. That is a logical fallacy. That is exactly what ad hominem is.
You see, regardless of how stupid, or inexperienced, or lacking of credibility a person is, you still have to actually prove that what they are saying is false. Simply pointing out that they are stupid or inexperienced DOES NOT prove them wrong.
This is not a difficult concept. I think Firepig might actually be dumber than Kepler. Amazing!
Chavez has 'Success' at what?
Chavez has been in power for over 10 years and still has a public approval rating of 60 percent (according to an opposition pollster, no less). That's what we call political success.
Not exposing any plans and not having them are different ball games .
Exposing plans to Chavistas would be useless.
Wait, so you do have a political project, but you have to keep it a secret???
Wow, that sounds like a good way to get people to vote for you!!!
Tosh,
I never said that everything a 2 year old said is false either.I speak of inexperience.
It is hard to prove anything with you when you distort what others say.
I won't bother with your points( lies)...I will however expose -time and time again -your lack of ability to discern the truth
getting people to vote for the opposition, is the point man, however not exposing plans to criminals is survival.
Justin,
Then Bush was a success for many years as well
Some people care more about integrity than success; perhaps you are not one of us.
Ow: GDP figures for the first quarter were released a couple of days ago: with US annualized decline of 6.3%, Mexico over 21%, Japan 15.2%, China somewhere similar . . . the reason I post this is I am wondering where Venezuela fits in all this, and, as I have said before, what numbers came out in relation to other countries in South America
maybe, if I can find the time, I look it up myself
Yes, Firepig has Kepler beat. No doubt about that. Kepler is a genius next to this guy.
Tosh,
guy ? since when has "ette" been anything other than a female ending?
education education education
getting people to vote for the opposition, is the point man, however not exposing plans to criminals is survival.
Uh, "not exposing" your plans for governance is simply anti-democratic. The whole reason for party platforms, public debates, etc. etc. is that they provide the public some means of holding political actors accountable. If you don't believe in "exposing" your plans for governance, you don't believe in democracy.
1 I did not say that plans were not exposed
2.I said exposing them to Chavistas could be counterproductive or useless
3, if we have a real democratic election THEN we can compare plans and programs so that the electorate can make a choice based on those.
If you have a emergency situation, where day by day, more freedoms are taken away, the priority is different :It becomes one of survival and Restoration of democracy.
It is absurd to say that one should only support the opposition if their plans are programs are convincing enough, otherwise we can just abstain and let Chavez complete his permanent take -over of the country.
typo , sorry
It is absurd to say that one should only support the opposition if their plans or programs are convincing enough
Opposition includes left wing, moderate and right wings.
Before making ONE plan for government , we need to establish democracy first.
Then we present our various plans, and subsequently carry out honest elections with the different parties represented in the CNE, instead of just Chavistas.
It is absurd to say that one should only support the opposition if their plans or programs are convincing enough
No, my dear, it's not absurd. You see, the whole purpose of participating in a democratic system is to convince others that your plans for governance will better serve your country's interests than your opponents' plans. If you refuse to engage in such a debate, you have no business claiming that you are a genuine proponent of democracy.
Some people care more about integrity than success; perhaps you are not one of us.
Well, unfortunately for you, most Venezuelans don't see the opposition's leaders as having a great deal of integrity. For the opposition to change that state of affairs would require that it rectify its ways.
"1. How does the oil price doubling have anything to do with the decreased inequality that has taken place under Chavez?"
Increased oil prices increase governtment revenues allowing Chavez to spend more on social programs and the poor.
"2. How does the oil price doubling have anything to do with Venezuelans in general viewing their society as more democratic?"
Oil income boosted GDP growth (mostly through increased spending). Happier people tend to be more positive. Otherwise not much.
Chavez made the poor feel more included - and the poor are the majority. I give Chavez credit for this. He made it feel like he was governing for them, that democracy was working cuz the poor put him in power.
"3. Does a stronger, more unified OPEC keep oil prices higher? Could that have anything to do with why Chavez has enjoyed higher oil prices, and why oil prices have not collapsed to their pre-Chavez levels?"
Probably. To some extent I agree, but there are lots of factors outside Chavez's control here. SA controls OPEC not Chavez. The shock to oil prices now is exogenous. Chavez helped boost oil prices in late 90s, but lately Chavez has been a bit too hawkish. They should have settled for a lower price band instead of driving prices up too high. They got greedy.
Does OPEC promote price stability? Nope. Higher prices? Sure. Lower production? Sure. Higher profits for Venezuela? Hard to say.
I think Chavez will start cheating with OPEC if prices fall too much and the political fallout starts.
Justin,
You are forgetting about the most important part of events:
sequence:
Opposition includes left wing, moderate and right wings.
Before making ONE plan for government , we need to establish democracy first.
Then we present our various plans, and subsequently carry out honest elections with the different parties represented in the CNE, instead of just Chavistas
Justin,
Spelled out even more simply:
You cannot debate plans without having a democracy first.
We have a situation now where Chavistas say they are here to stay by whatever means necessary AND against everyone else .
When and only when we have a democracy( I repeat) parties will have the freedom and safety to present viable plans and options.
The opposition is NOT a monolithic organization.They consist of different parties, ngo's and other groups who don't have A plan in common, but rather a goal: to stop Chavez from eliminating their very existence.
For Chavistas to demand that the opp have a unified plan of government is a way of disqualifying any opposition so that they stay in power permanently.
note: Colombian GDP has been contracting for the last two quarters (-0.7% and -0.3%) while Venezuela has been slightly above 0.0 for the last two quarters
is Venezuela struggling through ahead of the curve, or is the financial hurricane about to make landfall there?
"Yes, but in the real world we cannot simply oppose a government because there are certain problems or things we don't like about that government.
In the REAL world of politics, there are certain choices we have to make. One of those is if the political opposition would be better than the current government, or if there is a viable alternative to the current government."
Outstanding comment Tosh!!! So in Cuba you would say that nobody has the right to talk about the government since there is no organized opposition. If Chavez gets his way, Venezuela is heading in the same direction.
Question: would you like Venezuela to end up like Cuba? By this I mean politically and economically. Please elaborate. Thank you.
You cannot debate plans without having a democracy first.
I'm sorry, dear, but Venezuela is a democracy. If Venezuelan elections weren't free and fair, the opposition wouldn't have been able to defeat the first constitutional referendum. Neither would the opposition have been able to pick up some major states in the last gubernatorial elections. Nobody with eyes that see can maintain that Venezuela lacks free and fair elections.
So the bottom line is that you live in a democracy. It is therefore time for you to start acting like democrats. You can start by doing what democrats in every other part of the world do: offer concrete policy proposals so that your fellow citizens can make up their own minds about what they think you have to offer.
That's how democracy works, my dear.
"I'm sorry, dear, but Venezuela is a democracy". As if the test for a democracy was elections. In such case Saddam Hussein was the greatest democrat. Way above election, what differentiate a democracy from a totalitarian state is the respect for the Rule of Law. In Venezuela its foundation is the constitution over which Chavez pukes and shits day in day out not to forget a judiciary that is licking his ass for privileges. So much for your democracy. Answer this one: is Castro a democrat? After all he is the intellectual father of His Nibs.
Justin, you have to go back to kindergarten.
Democracy is much more than that. First of all: we won because we actually got many votes than that. The was massive cheating, that is the reason they have not released the 10% of the votes
even if the official difference is 1% (that simply is worse than what happened in Bush's first term, which is to say a lot)
Secondly: there is no point in winning several states to them have Chavez take away illegally most of the powers of said states.
Venezuela was a democracy, even if dysfunctional, before Chavez came to power.
Stalin won many elections. So does Lukashenko. In both cases I am completely sure they were more popular than Chavez.
Justin,
I would call your denomination of Venezuela as a democracy , a double standard.
No, maybe I would more accurately describe it as a lie.
Now I have to determine (or at least have a good idea) of WHY you choose to lie, because otherwise our conversation will turn into a boring." yes it is and no it isn't, and we will get nowhere.
Justin , First of all I notice that you do not describe yourself accurately on your homepage profile.An accurate description would be less commercial and include more aspects of yourself like feelings, and or defects of character.You seem to have bought into the internet narcissistic illness of painting yourself only in a good light.
I think that is a start.We need to determine just what your reason for this is.
.
Lukachenko is a good example of a dictator who runs elections which of course are only to appear democratic ,yet they are not.
Lukachenko puts any important opposition in jail or they are run out of the country.Do not attempt to argue with me here. as I i know Belarus- NOT from some stupid PC college courses but from REAL life.
One thesis that I wrote for my daughter in law compared Lukachenko to Chavez.
The appearance of something and its reality are unfortunately not the same always.
Just look again at your personal profile page.
Justin,
Venezuelan democracy?
A new form of false democracy where the leader does not allow for a change of plan or a change of mind?Over and over again Chavez states that he will remain...
"Caracas, Feb 5 (IANS) Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who completed 10 years in office two days ago, has said his ‘Bolivarian Revolution’ has entered a new phase and will continue to remain forever, EFE news agency reported Thursday. “The Bolivarian Revolution is here to stay,” Chavez said while inaugurating a military parade here to commemorate the failed coup he headed on Feb 4, 1992."
Now we can look into WHY you bullishly call a dictator a democrat.We will look into why you yourself do not believe in honesty, at least when it comes to your politics.
As if the test for a democracy was elections.
Well, the general consensus among political scientists is that the existence of free and fair elections is the linchpin of procedural democracy. According to the most conventional of standards, competitive elections themselves are the most fundamental institution of a democracy.
In such case Saddam Hussein was the greatest democrat.
That is the most absurd comparison I've heard here yet. The hyperbole and ignorance of you folks are quite astounding. Venezuela has free and fair elections (i.e. competitive elections). There is absolutely no comparison between Venezuelan elections and Iraqi "elections" under Saddam. In Iraq, an opposition couldn't defeat a constitutional referendum backed by the president. In Iraq, the opposition couldn't have newspapers, radio stations, and television channels with which they could attack the government. In Iraq, you would never see the opposition win governorships in major states, much less take 40% of the vote in regional elections nationwide.
Don't waste my time with nonsense, people.
The bottom line is this: Venezuela is a democracy. So I will repeat: The opposition should start acting like democrats by doing what democrats in every other part of the world do: offer concrete policy proposals so that your fellow citizens can make up their own minds about what they think you have to offer.
Justin, I asked you very specifically why Minister Maduro said over half the registered voters of Venezuela abroad signed a petition in support of Chavez's referendum of 2009 even though that is a lie (he would be sued in democratic countries), 90% of us actually voted against it. Also explain why the CNE has not published those results (actually, not since 2006).
Explain also how a referendum is clean if as in 2007, 10% of the votes were not counted in spite of the announce difference being 1% (it does not matter who won).
Why did the government say the paper trail is proof things work and yet the paper trail of a governor of Chavismo, of Chavez's daddy and of Aristóbulo Isturiz did not function?
Why did the governor did not go to jail for tearing to pieces that paper trail, like people from the opposition who did the same?
And then: don't tell us what so-called political scientists know. Besides, you are neither a scientist nor an intellectual.
"Man", I wouldn't leave my wallet or anything unattended next to you.
http://venezuela-europa.blogspot...ing-
system.html
there is no point in winning several states to them have Chavez take away illegally most of the powers of said states.
To take control of the ports is not to take away "most of the powers of said states." There is nothing even remotely out of the ordinary for the central government to have control of the ports. Moreover, the central government's takeover of the ports is a national policy, not a discriminatory policy against the opposition. Just as the central government has taken control of the ports in the five opposition-governed states, it has done the same in the 17 Chavista-governed states.
Of course Justin,
You cannot and will not explain what Kepler asked you to explain.As you yourself admit TO BEING " Taurus" , the bull.A bull will keep charging till his death with all the thickheaded lack of understanding that comes with the territory.
You think you can repeat a lie over and over for others to be deceived.However, There were NO fair and honest elections .Lying has become a common problem among US academics , in order to survive.Many of us would rather be poor and have a bad job than succumb to such lies.We have the peace of mind that comes with integrity as well.
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/
...i_its_hard.html
As Justin will not even acknowledge that respect for the Rule of Law is fundamental to a functioning democracy, this discussion will just go round and round. Got better things to do so chao and good luck Kepler Firepig and Tank with those characters.
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/
...i_its_hard.html
Charly, you are right, complete waste of time.
Justin, I got tired. I stop bothering with you. Go finish your PhD. Yeah, "political scientists"...en mi jardín hay mejores especialistas en ciencias políticas.
Se llaman lechugas.
You're grasping at straws, folks. You can't argue that Venezuela is not a democracy on account of the fact that Chavez and his ministers sometimes make erroneous or unpleasant statements. Democracy is not defined according to the words that emanate from the mouths of statesmen. Democracy is defined according to whether there are institutions in place for political actors to compete freely and fairly. Those institutions exist within Venezuela, so it is time for the opposition to start acting like democrats and offering concrete policy proposals so that your fellow citizens can make up their own minds about what they think you have to offer. Period.
Now, as for the final vote tally for the defeated 2007 referendum, Kepler is once again grasping at straws. Even Primero Justicia has stated that they found no inconsistencies with CNE results. You're obviously in desperation mode if your so-called example of an unclean election is the one that the opposition won! Give it up, fella.
The bottom line is that all your ranting and raving about Chavismo deflects attention from the fact that the opposition has no concrete political proposals for the country.
OK, I do this last time: I wrote in Ccs about that error by PJ. I tell you an inside story (not that I belong to PJ, but I know a lot of people who took part in the election checking). I know it is an anecdote.
PJ and the rest only had a fraction of the actas.
They were enough to show a lot was going wrong, but also that they did not have them all.
Why?
1- no resources
2- very bad organization (which is the oppo's fault)
3- it is extremely dangerous in a country with so many guns around (murder rate of 75 per 100000 makes bloody Mexico "secure") and Chavista thugs.
The oppo left people including relatives of mine, defending votes in the most dangerous places and did not go to pick them up or the actas ever. Most of those people simply left when the schols closed and took the actas home.
Now, I once also was defending votes in Tocuyito, one of the most densily populated areas of Carabobo. That was for the Firmazo. It was scary. We had in front of us motorizados showing their guns and threatening us. When the actas were ready, we took them in one car, two Chavista cars going after us. We gave the actas and fake actas to 4 other cars waiting for us somewhere we had agreed earlier and so the Chavistas had no clue which car to follow and attack. It was a dangerous moment.
This has got much worse since 2003.
We simply have hardly witnesses in those places. I talked to several people in PJ in 2007. They told me they felt the best was to accept the results "because we won and if we went for it we would get a dangerous situation and
anyway, it would show we were missing a lot of actas (from the places we could not cover for security reasons, resources or lack of organization)
I told them the results were going to haunt us and they did.
Anyway, you did not explain how a country can have 1% of difference only and 10% of missing votes in areas that are the most Chavistas of all and yet the counting is stopped.
You did not tell me what worth is a paper trail in Venezuela.
Just this:
Justin,
I know "movements" are composed of people and there is no such thing as a saintly "process".
Institutions are made up of people and those in Venezuela are absolutely filthy, completely filthy. They were very dirty before, but they are more rotten than ever.
In general I distrust any political party. I know most politicians are profiteers. Now, I would never ever defend any political group and count only a fraction of the skeletons they have in their drawers just because I am closer to their belief. There is something which is is called ethics and that something forces me to say something is a murder when it is a murder and something is fraud if it is fraud.
You are behaving like those from the Opus dei who still say the Catholic church is never in fault, it is only "some people in that church", never the institution
Once again, the bottom line is that people like Kepler keep up the fiction that Venezuela lacks free elections because they want to deflect attention from the fact that they have no concrete political proposals for the country.
Why can't you evolve, folks?
In the wake of Chavez's presidential victory in 2006, Teodoro Petkoff was mature enough to admit the legitimacy of Chavez's victory. Why can't you just take a hint from Petkoff and move forward, folks? It is time for you to accept the will of the Venezuelan people and to play by the basic rules of democracy.
If you want to develop a viable opposition, you're gonna have to start engaging in debate about the issues rather than screaming "fraud" for time immemorial.
Justin, the supposed "45%" of the population count as well.
I expressed very clearly about the paper trail, which did not function even to Chavez Senior.
A Chavez governor tore his to pieces and nothing happened to him, several oppos did the same and went to prison.
You claim "fiction", but you do not address the very concrete data I have given you and also about Maduro. When a head of an institution lies through the teeth you say that is just a detail and institutions are fine in Venezuela.
I understand you are bad in maths, but anyone knowing a little bit of statistics knows what it means to declare 1% difference fine if 10% of the votes are unaccounted and they are from vastly-pro CHavez areas.
Once more the bottom line is you are living in a fantasy world like the people before you who thought Stalin and Hitler, Pinochet and many others were fine.
End of conversation.
I agree not to argue facts with Justin: a waste of time.
I am preparing a rather long comment that will analyze his behavior , to be posted in another moment.
What a drag, discussing with this guy.What scares me though is that there are quite a few like him here in USA;They are a dime a dozen.
"Once again, the bottom line is that people like Kepler keep up the fiction that Venezuela lacks free elections "
I'd say elections are free, but not as fair as they could be. Chavez blatantly uses state resources to his advantage. Chavez is clearly still very popular so he may have won anyway. Heck, he even won the 'term limit' referendum despite that being an unpopular idea. Why? He made it a plebiscite on his rule and harnessed his popularity to it.
That being said, Justin do you support Chavez's moves since the referendum?
...and yes, the fraud decisions is pretty stale and the evidence largely unconvincing. Moving on is a good hat tip...
That being said, Justin do you support Chavez's moves since the referendum?
My philosophy is that it's not my place to pass judgement about every move the Chavez government makes. The notion that those of us in Europe or the United States are somehow in a position to micro-manage the politics of Venezuela is a vestige of the imperial mindset. These are questions for Venezuelans --not Americans and Europeans-- to settle.
I'm interested in the bigger picture of the process by which Venezuelans settle their political differences. What the Venezuelans on this blog need to realize is that they're never going to make for a healthy Venezuelan politics by running to the outside world every time they don't get their way. If these folks want to effect policy in their country, they need to act in the manner of real democrats who engage their own populace about what kind of a future they would like to see for their country.
Justin: Amen!
Tor, answer to the concrete statements I pointing at in this thread (1%, 10%, false statements, refusal to publish votes of Venezuelans abroad, paper trail not working, oppo not having the actas)
Justin,
With Americans I suppose you mean "US Americans", right?
Justin, no wonder you have problem..you wrote:
"My philosophy is that it's not my place to pass judgement about every move the Chavez government makes. The notion that those of us in Europe or the United States are somehow in a position to micro-manage the politics of Venezuela is a vestige of the imperial mindset."
Placing a judgment is not automatically followed by micro managing, yet putting the 2 together in this sequence, gives an impression that you have a valid reason not to answer because by answering you would be micro managing which you claim you do not do.
This sort of error in logic or manipulation does not allow for a true dialogue.
One might speculate if you do this on purpose or if you do it unconsciously...my guess is that it is a combination of both.
Charly, Justin is manipulating again. Observe:
"they need to act in the manner of real democrats who engage their own populace about what kind of a future they would like to see for their country"
While this is true, we are not able to do that properly at this moment due to fear,oppression, depression, surviving daily with high crime levels, and the fact that the opposition is not united into one single party.When Justin ignores the sequence of events in their proper place he manipulates data and image.
Everyday it is getting harder and harder for the opposition to concentrate on anything but getting rid of a dictatorship and mere survival.
The other fallacy is the belief that a plan will convince the popular classes, who according to Chavistas, more represent Chavez.
This shows a total lack of knowledge of how Venezuelans think and feel- especially those in the barrios.Barrio folk are more swayed by primal emotions.Just look at the fact that a golpista won their hearts before there was even any mention of a so called plan.There was only a goal.
Charly do not let yourself be manipulated by the likes of Justin.Think first. He places true statements in the middle of a mind game...... and he will never talk straight to any of us.
It is a shame that more people interested in politics do not know more about human behavior, after all human behavior is behind everything that politics represent.Why do people think and act as they do?
One of the most important phenomena in behavioral politics is the psychological defense mechanism of identifying with the enemy.This is seen in a greater or lesser degree where FEAR becomes the single most driving force in a given time frame.
Take US politics for example.I mention this because Justin is from USA.Being a citizen of USA in the context of world politics definitely has its difficulties.As we have engaged in unpopular wars, and especially after 9/11,many citizens have become fearful of our enemies, which has only increased with time due to hate rhetoric.
Not everyone reacts in the same way to fear.Some retaliate, some deny, some make a self centered plan to capitalize on fear, others support retaliation, some involve themselves in recreation fantasy,some isolate themselves, and some become depressed.However the most dangerous defense is the one of identifying with the enemy ( hiding from self and others) to avoid retaliation.
I will explain more later... but we all have a defense.It is my definite impression however that Justin and others like him are attempting to eliminate fear through hiding true motives.How do I see this? It is simple: by observing his patterns of thought and reaction.
More later.
"The notion that those of us in Europe or the United States are somehow in a position to micro-manage the politics of Venezuela is a vestige of the imperial mindset."
Just asking for an opinion as the basis for an healthy debate on the issues. Nothing imperialist about that. Even if we want to, we're not micro-managing anything from this blog :p
"Tor, answer to the concrete statements I pointing at in this thread (1%, 10%, false statements, refusal to publish votes of Venezuelans abroad, paper trail not working, oppo not having the actas)"
Do you think this made a material difference in the vote? What you point to is not ideal, but hardly enough to make the election be considered 'not free'. Fair? Well, that is a different story.
While this is true, we are not able to do that properly at this moment due to fear,oppression, depression, surviving daily with high crime levels, and the fact that the opposition is not united into one single party.
If you're depressed about the poor state of the opposition's leadership and the lack of political unity in your ranks, try doing something about it, my dear. Don't come running to the United States --in the manner of a traditional comprador class-- because you folks can't get your political act together. You'll never see me run to another country for help because the U.S. Left is small and disorganized and has very little influence on the political process here. For U.S. leftists like myself, our marginalization is a problem that we have to take responsibility for and work to change through painstaking political work among our fellow citizens. The same holds true for the Venezuelan opposition. Don't come running to the United States to bail you out of a political mess that you made for yourselves. It's time for you to take some responsibility for the situation in which you find yourselves.
And I'm sorry, dear, but Venezuela's crime rate is not holding you back from engaging in politics. On that score, I invite you to take another cue from Teodoro Petkoff.
The other fallacy is the belief that a plan will convince the popular classes, who according to Chavistas, more represent Chavez.
Barrio folk are more swayed by primal emotions. Just look at the fact that a golpista won their hearts before there was even any mention of a so called plan.There was only a goal.
Such sterotypes and defeatism are emblematic of the deap-seated classism that has been so damaging to the Venezuelan opposition.
Firstly, these "barrio folk" constitute a very large percentage of Venezuela's population. To abandon the barrios would be to abandon democracy altogether. Democracy involves majority-rule, my dear. To build a political majority, you have to make inroads into the barrios.
Welcome to the politics of 21st Century Venezuela.
Moreover, it is a fallacy that the opposition can't make inroads into the barrios. One need look no further than Petare to see that, when Chavistas fail to combat crime or collect garbage, the opposition can make inroads into the barrios. The opposition is never going to have majority support in the barrios, but it will have to make some inroads into them if it ever seeks to win.
Just asking for an opinion as the basis for an healthy debate on the issues.
The notion of a "healthy debate" presupposes that we sitting here in the United States and Europe have sufficient information to reach well-informed opinions about every move the Chavez government makes. Having studied U.S. press coverage of Latin America, I've come to the realization that there is so much selection bias with regard to which facts and interpretations are presented to us (and which are not) that the very notion that U.S. citizens can engage in a "heathy debate" about a country like Venezuela is rather questionable.
I doubt very seriously that Europe is all that different.
Tor,
Definitely I think Chavez won the last referendum.
He also won in 2004 and 2006. Still, Chavez has tampered with results a lot, enough to influence future votes. And that is for me enough.
Lukashenko could win without twisting results but if suddenly he would get "just 60", a snowball would start to roll. Same thing in Venezuela with results that go below 52%.
Luka needs at least 80%, Chavez at least 60%, even if they get more than 50%.
Is that free? Well, be it, it is far from kosher and this tinkering has consequences for the next elections.
Lukashenko could win without twisting results but if suddenly he would get "just 60", a snowball would start to roll. Same thing in Venezuela with results that go below 52%.
Luka needs at least 80%, Chavez at least 60%, even if they get more than 50%.
First of all, Kepler has zero evidence to back up his claims of vote-tampering in Venezuela. Secondly, the notion that voters are Pavlovian dogs who go whichever way the wind blows is really quite silly. There is no evidence to indicate that a closer vote will affect future votes. Kepler's poorly substantiated argument is based upon the belief that there is such a thing as a "bandwagon effect," whereby the perception of political movement in one direction or another will cause more and more people to move in that direction. This belief stretches into both the Chavista and opposition camps and causes both sides' pollsters to tilt their polls in favor of their respective sides in hopes that they can generate a bandwagon effect. However, more recent studies suggest that the "bandwagon effect" may actually be a myth; there is no conclusive evidence that the perception of movement in one political direction causes voters to move in that direction.
"has zero evidence to back up his claims of vote-tampering in Venezuela."
What is for you "non-zero evidence"?
That you personally plus Noam Chomsky and the Carter Centre go to Venezuela and find a group of Chavistas you personally know forcing people to vote for Chavez by pointing at the with a Kalashnikov?
Or that the Carter Center now declares so?
I particularly would like to know what proofs beyond the Carter Centre there could be.
As for the EU, you can see in the link I gave you 'the truth about EU observers" the kind of "observation work" they carried out.
"that the very notion that U.S. citizens can engage in a "heathy debate" about a country like Venezuela is rather questionable."
there are lots of local sources available online; both government and anti-government. As long as you can read spanish we can access almost everything that locals can.
Justin,
"Such sterotypes and defeatism are emblematic of the deap-seated classism that has been so damaging to the Venezuelan opposition."
Reality is never defeatism.Only reality can help us go forward into a goal.
Calling a truth a stereotype is not true because we say so.
It is a truism that most people in general react more to primal emotions than to ideas.Emotions are the rogue elephants of a 3 brained being .
While it is true that the intellectual center can control an emotion with great difficulty, and it is the only center that can control emotions,it is however far more difficult when people are not well educated.Even most well educated people , though they think they are being rational, are swayed more by primal emotion.
Many people think they vote more with their heads, but in reality it is feeling that predominates.
It shows me that you do not live in Venezuela.Venezuelans are even more prone to vote with their emotions than some other folks of some other countries....but all in all, it is a human condition to do so.
There are many reasons for this.One good book( and easy to read) on this subject is:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Politica...g/dp/
1586484257
I will explain later, how many who think they are ruled by ideas are only identifying with the enemy through fear, though it is likely unconscious.
If we convince the enemy that we think like him, then maybe, just maybe we won't be attacked.Those who reason this way of course do not do it consciously.
It is interesting to ponder on how this is influencing many US Americans prone to support Chavez who just happens to hate our country.It is not normal or healthy to support someone who hates one's own country, yet some do.
This coupled with the emotional pressure of being in the IN group that considers itself progressive or something of this nature, makes powerful self destructive politics in the name of 'only trying to improve us'.
I wonder how many people would be truly progressive if the name were changed to "Safe Choices".Even if the ideas were progressive, the name alone would deter most from identifying.It would take a very independent person to go for that one.
Unfortunately those whose tendencies run in the above way are very far from independent.
Justin and Richard have been spot on in this debate. Why do the super-rich deserve a louder voice than anyone else in society? Why do they deserve to undemocratically sway the opinions of the population?
The undemocratically inclined revert to form in this debate, and it is no surprise that they bow down to US imperial terrorism and its pathological economic program.
In the end analysis it is about power and social class--and the perks that some enjoy. Real democracy puts the fear of dog into them--and they simply can't debate these issues with a level of integrity to where the debate actually moves us all along.
Of course, these same folk won't waste much time bemoaning the millions
murdered as a function of the corporate/state nexus and its warped, necrophilic and racist ambitions.
s
Justin, I wish you would pay a bit more attention to Haiti, and Obama's pathetic, anti-democratic program toward that island nation. The Huffington 'left' in this country certainly shows its limits with respect to this issue.
Hi, Slave was just a couple of months ago an Obama lover, he has fallen out of love rather fast.
Justin says:
"Kepler has zero evidence to back up his claims of vote-tampering in Venezuela."
I would like to point out to the audience( if there is one) that when Chavez supporters demand proof they often ask for the kind of definitive paper proof that Chavez continually suppresses and eliminates.Even when there is some documented proof,or circumstantial evidence, Chavistas will call them all lies despite strong evidence.....
Perhaps if Justin lived in Venezuela he would see the proof with his only living eyes, which is far better than his deluded belief system .
This is a tactic being used all over the world by the unscrupulous .
Two things:
1) Justin, would you refer to a male debater as "my dear" in an attempt to condescend to them, or are you really that sexist?
2) Slave said "Why do the super-rich deserve a louder voice than anyone else in society? Why do they deserve to undemocratically sway the opinions of the population?"
I agree. So why do those who have become very rich off of following Chavez deserve to undemocratically sway the opinions of the population (through massive propagandistic television media, using public funds to paper Caracas with advertisements about how great Chavez is, etc.)?
Look, I think the opposition is as pathetic as Justin does. And I fully agree with him when he states that the opposition needs to focus its energies on connecting with the poor masses, as opposed to just railing against Chavez all day. But there are two things I can't wrap my head around:
1) How people Justin and Slave Revolt fail to see the obvious authoritarian tendencies and policies of the Chavez administraiton.
2) How vociferously they support Chavez, as if he is some important historical actor for the left.
He is an signifi ant historical figure.
Indeed, brave enough to call out the US on it's terrorism.
Eric, you through out nebulous terms, but what really matters is what the Venezuelan people think. Your program of imperialism, Eric, is being rejected.
It is not Chavez that is your problem--it's the popular classes that have your panties twisted.
Slave,
How did US imperialism exploit the Venezuelan masses before Chavez, and how is Chavez correcting that?
Eric,
They know that Chavez is authoritarian yet they lie about it....isn't that obvious ? The facts are as plain as day but they insist they are not true.The problem is they do not care if he is authoritarian because they identify with him emotionally.
Engaging the barrios is a must, but manipulating them like Chavez does is one of the cruelest manifestations of political power I have yet seen.
Engaging the barrios is to empower people not to create more dependence.Cleaning up the crime would be a good start.
I used to live in Los Frailes de Catia back in the 70's when there was much less crime and many people back then had hopes and means.When the illegal Colombians starting moving in, and crime escalated during the 80's people started losing their energy.My Aunt lost her house because she was too afraid to stay and even afraid to go back to claim the house.Now with Chavez crime is off the charts.Few people can live like that and improve their situation.
It is silly and deceptive to talk about the barrios without totally understanding this.
Right firepigette, "manipulating" the barrios, partly through social programs, is so much worse than just ignoring them entirely like the final 4th Republic governments did.
And give me a break, that's one of the cruelest manifestations of power you have seen? Are you blind? Genocide in Sudan, a war of aggression in Iraq, starving the entire population of North Korea, etc. etc. etc.
I don't agree with the propaganda of Chavismo, but your characterization of it is far from reasonable.
1) Justin, would you refer to a male debater as "my dear" in an attempt to condescend to them, or are you really that sexist?
Might I remind you, Eric, that you've yet to actually contest one substantive point I've made in this discussion. If I've offended you by calling a woman with very child-like arguments "dear," I apologize to you, but I must say that the weakness of your approach becomes very transparent when the best that you can do is nitpick over trivial matters that have nothing to do with the crux of my arguments.
there are two things I can't wrap my head around:
1) How people Justin and Slave Revolt fail to see the obvious authoritarian tendencies and policies of the Chavez administraiton.
The problem with a sweeping statement to the effect that the Chavez government has "obvious authoritarian tendencies" is that your argument lacks specifics. I don't like dealing in generalities. I like dealing in specifics. If you consider some set of policies to be "authoritarian," I expect you to specify which policies you consider to fit that label. Then, and only then, can we begin to discuss your points by contextualizing them and putting them into comparative perspective.
2) How vociferously they support Chavez, as if he is some important historical actor for the left.
Once again, I like dealing in specifics, not generalities. Naturally, I have my own opinions about Venezuelan politics (and most certainly consider Chavez an important historical actor for the left), but if you actually read this thread carefully, you'll see that I haven't made one statement of advocacy for the Chavez government within the thread. That's just not what the discussion has been about. So for you to pass my points off as "vociferous" support for the Chavez government suggests to me that you're not reading very carefully.
Justin, I have been so specific here.
Let's turn it around: have you seen any authoritarian policy by Chavez or any unfair way of manipulating elections apart from excessive use of government resources for propaganda?
Please explain.
No, forget it, Justin. You have no decency whatsoever. I have asked you very specifically about irregularities that are serious and you said nothing.
Chavez ministers declaring live any state employee would be sacked? Nothing. PDVSA's president declaring what he said? Nothing. Police protecting marches of Chavistas to the very centre of Caracas but that area forbidden for even a dozen anti-Chavistas, nothing (if you say "what is the evidence, FUCK OFFFFFF, learn Spanish and look for it yourself or have a thousand relatives live in Venezuela)
Es realmente un sujeto abyecto.
All those fucking laws passed through the Assembly are a violation of people's rights.
Nothing.
I don't waste my time anymore with that silly bourgeois eternal student of "political science". Intellectual, yeah...intellectual Bush, intellectual my cactus.
there are lots of local sources available online; both government and anti-government. As long as you can read spanish we can access almost everything that locals can.
But you can never understand Venezuelan politics in the same way that Venezuelans do without spending some time there. That became immediately obvious to me when I spent some time there in 2004 and 2005. Only by spending time in Venezuela does it become completely obvious that the notion that Venezuelans can't freely debate the issues is completely ludicrous. I can walk up to any kiosk in Caracas and have my pick of a wide spectrum of newspapers, most of which are rabidly anti-Chavista. That's more than I can say about the United States, where there is nothing in the way of ideological variety on your average newspaper stand. (In fact, there is hardly such a thing as a newspaper stand here nowadays).
Nevertheless, one could hardly glean this basic observation from what we read about Venezuela (in either Spanish or English). The level of hysteria in both U.S. and Venezuelan papers would lead one to believe that anti-Chavista journalism is some sort of quasi-clandestine activity that Big Bad Hugo is progressively stamping out with each passing year. It is precisely because of such a level of misinformation that people outside Venezuela will tend to have little to contribute to the discussion about the country's politics.
I have asked you very specifically about irregularities that are serious and you said nothing.
Actually, Kepler, your so-called examples are usually so incoherent that they don't merit discussion.
Chavez ministers declaring live any state employee would be sacked?
Well, this is the first time I've seen you bring up such a case. I would agree that, when PDVSA's president threatened to fire people who didn't vote for Chavez, he engaged in an authoritarian act. But what I also recall was that he came under criticism from certain sectors of Chavismo for making the threat. The bottom line is that the ballot is still secret, so it was really an idle threat. I certainly don't agree with the threat, but one can't extrapolate from an isolated authoritarian act that the government has generally "authoritarian tendencies." To establish that the government has generally "authoritarian tendencies" would require the demonstration of a much more widespread pattern of behavior.
Police protecting marches of Chavistas to the very centre of Caracas but that area forbidden for even a dozen anti-Chavistas
Well, I don't know the specifics of the case, but what I do know is that the Venezuelan opposition has very little problem organizing marches provided that it gets a permit beforehand. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the Venezuelan opposition has more freedom than the U.S. anti-war movement in how it goes about its marches. In the United States, the cops corral protesters into areas where they can't disturb traffic. Do we call the U.S. government "authoritarian" on account of that fact? No. Thus, if we put the matter into comparative perspective, I very seriously doubt we could justify calling the Chavez government "authoritarian" on account of how it deals with protests.
All those fucking laws passed through the Assembly are a violation of people's rights.
Well, you're gonna have to be a little more specific, Kepler.
Ow,
Oil production and export discussed for the nth time:
http://www.eluniversal.com/2009/
...m_1403039.shtml
the comment section of this blog is completly decoupled from ow or Flanker posting new entries.
If there is nothing new elsewhere on the internet, one can allways be sure that there is a bunch of new comment postings on oilwars.
Justin, "I can walk up to any kiosk in Caracas and have my pick of a wide spectrum of newspapers, most of which are rabidly anti-Chavista"
What difference does it make if we have Some freedom to rant and rave, when Chavez has the power and uses it to do whatever?When I lived in the barrios the only newspaper people would read( out of lack of education and habit) was "Ultimas Noticias"Most of it was sensational.Not much real news.You could put a million normal newspapers for free at their doorsteps and they would go unread, and Chavez knows that very very well.
Freedom of speech is not freedom of ranting and raving, it is the freedom that your speech can make a difference.
Chavez is the cruelest I have seen- I did not compare him to any other country: I speak of Venezuela only.
As for proof, you need to live in Venezuela to really have it.You cannot have it coming from your gringo mindset and living only a short time in a country so different from your mindset that there is no hope for you to understand.There are even many gringos who live their forever but remain only gringos because it takes a special desire and love to adapt to others.
Most of my proof consists of knowing thousands of people intimately , having myself lived there the first years of his regime, and experiencing how it controls the situation.The proofs are too numerous to document on a blog.They are also too intimate to give names for police perusal.This is how Chavez gets away with his psychological murder and mayhem...he has woven a web of lies like an invisible net creating a canopy over our beloved country, and those idiotic US Americans and Europeans who find themselves looking for the wrong kind of attention, put their noses where they have no business, in order to look for Kudos by joining the bandwagons of the far and extreme left who wish to impose an ideology and not a well workable system.
What difference does it make if we have Some freedom to rant and rave, when Chavez has the power and uses it to do whatever?
Actually, you have total freedom to rant and rave, and it makes a huge difference. It means that you have the means to participate in civic life and proselytize on behalf of an alternative political project. If you instead decide to abandon any kind of constructive dialogue and scream hysterically into your microphones that you have no freedom of speech (a contradiction in terms), don't be surprised when most Venezuelans turn their back on you.
When I lived in the barrios the only newspaper people would read( out of lack of education and habit) was "Ultimas Noticias"Most of it was sensational.Not much real news.You could put a million normal newspapers for free at their doorsteps and they would go unread, and Chavez knows that very very well.
First off, Ultimas Noticias is actually owned by anti-Chavistas. The paper runs both pro-Chavista and anti-Chavista commenaries in its op-ed page, so you can't tell me that people who read Ultimas Noticias don't have access to anti-Chavista perspectives. They do. (In fact, I've picked up editions of Ultimas Noticias in which most of the commentaries in the op-ed page were anti-Chavista.) Of course, the paper's news pages are more sympathetic to the government, but that's because the market to which Ultimas Noticias caters is more sympathetic to Chavismo. Almost all the rest of the country's newspapers cater to a non-poor, anti-Chavista market.
The bottom line is that the opposition has ample means to get out its message. To the extent that people decide that the opposition's message doesn't resonate with them, that's called freedom of choice. In a democracy, you have the freedom to proselytize on behalf of this or that political project and to decide which political messages make sense to you and which do not.
I think it is you who displays a genuinely authoritarian temperment, firepigette. Your strange view of "democracy" is that the people must concur with everything you say in order for the society to qualify as a "democracy." If they don't concur with your viewpoints, the people are brainwashed and "democracy" is no more. No doubt Pinochet would have agreed with your rather odd conception of "democracy."
Justine,
In a slum you are beaten up if you express your ideas opposing Chavez. I have relatives living in slums. Actually, the thugs of each slum - the ones with the guns and the ones who have killed one or more - are mostly very much Chavez supporters (as well as honest but gullible people) and they have all under their control.
If you go there as a gringo who is with the robolucion you will be welcome by those thugs and they will protect you.
Go otherwise, even as a typical Venezuelan.
You really need to improve your Spanish. The vast majority of comments in Ultimas Noticias in the printed version is very pro-Chavez. You assume every slum family has Internet access.
Also: try to be frank for once in your life. In what cities and towns did you "live in the slums"? List them all unless they are so many.
Chavismo lost in very poor Petare and then they started to "redefine" Petare and put it outside the very municipio, Petarenos turned out to be "bourgeois".
In Miguel Pena, a huge and much poorer slum in
Valencia (half a million people) you don't have any Globovision (but for a couple with cable, but really less than 1%) and yet 41% voted now against the reform (it was actually near 50% in 2007 and in 2007 there were less strangely unreported centres, see esdata for exquisite details on where the centres were that were not counted for)
Hey guys, don't you have anything better to do than go back and forth knowing full well that the other party is not listening and will not change?
"and those idiotic US Americans and Europeans who find themselves looking for the wrong kind of attention, put their noses where they have no business"
Tell that to FOX news, El Pais, Washington Post, EU parlament etc etc.
The oppos cheer when Chavez is bashed by foreigners.
Chavismo lost in very poor Petare
False. Chavismo lost in the broader Municipio of Sucre, of which Petare is a part. If you actually look at the votes from Petare itself, I guarantee you that you will find that the Chavista candidate won Petare. I've examined a Datanalisis poll from the eve of the election. Chavismo lost Sucre because something on the order of 85 percent of the middle and upper strata (strata A, B and C) supported the opposition candidate. Conversely, about 65 percent of the poorer strata (D and E) in Sucre supported the Chavista candidate. If you do the math, you'll see that it's pretty much impossible that the opposition candidate could have won Petare.
In what cities and towns did you "live in the slums"?
You're obviously confusing me with somebody else. I never said I lived in the slums. I've visited Petare, Santa Cruz del Este and La Vega, but I've certainly never lived in the slums of Caracas. What I can tell you is that, on the day of the 2005 municipal elections in Santa Cruz del Este, I saw the Tupamaros and the minority opposition folks conversing and going about their business in peace. I don't claim to speak for other barrios, but that's what I saw there on election day.
"and those idiotic US Americans and Europeans who find themselves looking for the wrong kind of attention, put their noses where they have no business"
Tell that to FOX news, El Pais, Washington Post, EU parlament etc etc.
The oppos cheer when Chavez is bashed by foreigners.
Indeed, their argument is completely incoherent. Whenever gringos parrot the opposition's talking points, these folks are lovin' it.
Eliv, One thing is to opine and report honest news and another is to stick your nose where it doesn't belong, especially to lie which is what Justine is doing.
On one hand it is a matter of degree, and on the other a matter of how one does it.
To sit here and lie through the teeth about our country is a heinous crime in my book.
The lack of humility in pretending to know what you do not know is in a class a apart.We see with our own eyes.His eyes are gringo eyes.
My mother was recently in a hospital where most of the nurses were Jamaican.Often I thought they were angry when they supposedly were not. It takes years and years to know and become part of a culture in order to really understand events, feelings, needs, and goals.
Eric,
Handouts are not jobs.They are manipulations.Handouts are great in an emergency, but not as a life plan.
Not controlling the crime is the biggest manipulation.
The level of education has been reduced to almost nothing.Another manipulation
Justine, and by the way Justine, if a news source lies, I also blame them.I hate the news sources.
Parroquia: PETARE
PETAR, NO SUCRE:
Alcaldesa o Alcalde de Municipio
CARLOS OCARIZ Adjudicado
103.402 Votos 55,80 %
JESSE CHACON
80.871 Votos 43,64 %
http://www.cne.gov.ve/divulgacio...t=00&ca=00&
v=02
Justine thinks I am like Pinochet because I said the following:
"Opposition includes left wing, moderate and right wings.
Before making ONE plan for government , we need to establish democracy first.
Then we present our various plans, and subsequently carry out honest elections with the different parties represented in the CNE, instead of just Chavistas"
Gee, I wonder if he has now lost his mind, or if he is merely lying again?
Elections have nothing to do with Pinochet who was a dictator quite similar to Chavez in his basic attitude but without the ability to project himself as an authentic so called " democrat"....
Then of course he gets a lot of help from his psf friends as well..
oh and Justin,
Classicism does not describe someone like me who married into a humble family , lives the life,becomes one with it and loves it.
Classicism describes a University Yuppy who while living in cushy lala land pretends to speak for those who don't.
Classicism describes a University Yuppy who while living in cushy lala land pretends to speak for those who don't.
And where exactly do you live, dear?
Justin,
You say you don't like to generalize.I say this to you:
Specifics exist because generalities do.So one should not be proud of using only one of these realities.We need to recognize and use both realities.
It is quite humorous to me and I rotfl, that someone could make the statement that they do not like to use generalities, because anyone saying so is making a general statement instantaneously.
There is a time and place for both and an understanding that comes with each
Justin,
I lived in Venezuela most of my life, in many different circumstances( sometime in barrios, other times not) but always among my humble family, and to me they are far happier, nicer, and more magical than anyone else.When I speak for them, I speak for myself.We are one family.
I wonder why you speak for those you do not know well, understand or are not a part of you?
It shows a superior attitude when psf's begin to preach what is best for a people they are not a part of.
Parroquia: PETARE
PETAR, NO SUCRE:
Alcaldesa o Alcalde de Municipio
CARLOS OCARIZ Adjudicado
103.402 Votos 55,80 %
JESSE CHACON
80.871 Votos 43,64 %
I'm talking about the barrios of Petare, not the middle-class residencias that are included in the Parroquia. Datanalisis already divulged the data indicating that the barrios of Petare are still predominantly Chavista. (Look at the data on stratum E).
To be sure, Chavismo is not as strong in Petare as it would like to be, and the fact that the opposition has made some inroads into the barrios speaks to some of Chavismo's weaknesses. But it is completely misleading to assert that the poor of Petare are now in the opposition camp when the votes to which you point include those of many non-poor people.
Justin,
Even if it were true that most Chavistas are among the so called poor, that does not justify Chavez becoming a dictator.
The excuse that Chavez wants to help the poor was also used in its time to justify Stalin and Mao as if that gives you a free pass to start by cutting corners , increasing authoritarianism and even after reaching a full blown dictatorship,t
they cling to the argument: " oh But he's helping the poor "
My God, how the unscrupulous and superior acting use the poor instead of really helping.
Specifics exist because generalities do.
Actually, it's the other way around, firepigette. One's generalizations are justified only to the extent that he or she can point to a pattern of specific behaviors consistent with the generalization.
Justine thinks I am like Pinochet because I said the following:
"Opposition includes left wing, moderate and right wings. Before making ONE plan for government , we need to establish democracy first.
No, actually, I think you're like Pinochet because you don't respect the outcomes of democratic elections. The Venezuelan people have spoken, and your side has lost repeatedly. It's time for you to come to terms with your own side's political failures and to engage in a constructive form of politics.
Justin,
We have lost what has been stolen.
"Actually, it's the other way around, firepigette. One's generalizations are justified only to the extent that he or she can point to a pattern of specific behaviors consistent with the generalization. "
This is correct just as it is correct the other way around.They both exist relative to each other.So I repeat, if you don't use one then you actually negate the other.There is no white without black, no hot without cold.
When you use the word" poor" you generalize quite a bit.Not only do you generalize but you do so without a clear definition.You also assume that the barrios are full of the " poor in need"
Little do you know.Some are poor in need economically,others psychologically,but some are not.I would bet my life that given a test of barrio knowledge, you would surely fail.
"Actually, it's the other way around, firepigette. One's generalizations are justified only to the extent that he or she can point to a pattern of specific behaviors consistent with the generalization. "
This is correct just as it is correct the other way around.
No, firepigette. Facts alway precede generalities. Facts can confirm generalities, but generalities cannot confirm facts. This is Social Science 101.
Gee,That may be so, but still generalities exist.
if social science 101 says so, it must be true, right?
I rest my case, on this last telltale gaff of yours.
You are a university yuppy waanabe revolutionist, who can't think outside 101.
First of all we were not arguing which comes first we were basically arguing the existence of both specifics and generalities.They mutually depend on each other.
Perhaps Einstein would not have written the GENERAL theory of relativity if he had limited himself to specifics first.
He had a general idea and then researched the specific components to confirm it.
In holistic thinking one often grasps the entirety before one looks at the specifics.The 2 are intertwining, simultaneous levels of reality.
oh and Justin,
So think twice before you say :
" Once again, I like dealing in specifics, not generalities. "
This basically means you like to ignore half of what is real.
First of all we were not arguing which comes first we were basically arguing the existence of both specifics and generalities. They mutually depend on each other.
No, they do not mutually depend on each other. A generality depends upon a specific set of facts. Facts do not depend upon the hypothesis of a generality.
They do not exist without each other, therefore they are simultaneous.
Oh and forgot to say,.I was being kind when I said you ignored 1/2 of reality.
The truth is, that since both generality and specificality exist simultaneously,otherwise the specifics could not be generalized nor could the general be broken down into specifics:
So when you ignore one, you actually ignore the truth of the other, meaning that you are 100 % out of reality.
Justin....get out of your 101's...live in the real world.Spend some time living in Venezuelan barrios.....maybe it will knock some sensE into your head.
Let me help you clarify: I know it's hard for you:
What comes first is a function of sequence.
Multiple Actions are in sequence, concepts are not.
Unfortunately, firepigette, you lack not only basic reading comprehension but also a basic understanding of the scientific method.
One need look no further than the example you give of Einstein to demonstrate that you're contradicting yourself.
You write:
He (Einstein) had a general idea and then researched the specific components to confirm it.
Notice that Einstein does not look to his general idea to confirm the specific components. No, he looks to the specific components to confirm his general idea. Get it? The general idea and specific components do not "mutually depend" upon one another. Generalities depend upon specifics, not the other way around.
The point is they are simultaneous, whether or not something is discovered first or not,and depending on the way one's thinking processes work, they might be discovered first or not.But discovery and existence are not the same.
Most visionaries look first to the large picture and then work their way backwards.
Others might attempt to find the large picture through analyzing or accumulating data from the specifics....but any one who cannot see that the 2 are mutually dependent,and have to exist simultaneously cannot grasp the fundamental nature of reality.
When Einstein said:
"Imagination is more important than knowledge.
he said it all: That for him the vision comes first.The method second.
The point is they are simultaneous, whether or not something is discovered first or not,and depending on the way one's thinking processes work, they might be discovered first or not.
To say that generalities and specifics are simultaneous is to say nothing at all. The whole point here is that a generality can be mistaken or misleading. The only way we can seek to determine if a generality does or does not distort or oversimplify an issue is by looking at the relevant facts.
Of course a generality can be mistaken or misleading, and so can a specific.
As we see here on this blog, people are not agreeing on the specific facts.
But I suspect that social science 101 , asks people to refrain from generalizations so they can keep us politically correct.I mean if a large percentage of whites are committing crimes , we wouldn't want to offend them would we.
And if we stick to specifics, then what meaning does just one white have in the scheme of things
Now if ANYONE SAYS that a large percentage of barrio people are not educated enough to understand the underpinnings of the Chavez government, it would be considered by a US AMERICAN social scientist, an over generalization....yet how many are willing or capable to prove this by studying each and every case?And how can you know that the subjects of the study are telling the truth and not just saying what they consider most convenient.
Yet, when it comes to knowing what the barrio people need in general, there are a thousand so called expert voices generalizing.
Now if ANYONE SAYS that a large percentage of barrio people are not educated enough to understand the underpinnings of the Chavez government, it would be considered by a US AMERICAN social scientist, an over generalization....yet how many are willing or capable to prove this by studying each and every case?
My own sense is that relatively few Venezuelans --whether formally educated or not-- form their opinions of the Chavez government on the basis of some theoretical abstraction about whether the Chavez government is "authoritarian" or not. Rather, the real motives behind most Venezuelans' political inclinations have to do with their perceptions about how Chavismo affects their social position within Venezuelan society.
The lower-class base of Chavismo supports the government because the base perceives that the government improves their social position within Venezuelan society.
Conversely, the middle and upper-class base of the opposition tends to use the charge of "authoritarianism" against Chavez as a form of subterfuge that disguises the opposition's primary motives. The primary motive of the middle and upper-class base of the opposition is to extricate a perceived threat to their own social position within Venezuelan society. This has nothing to do with democracy.
If it was really "authoritarianism" that the opposition was so concerned about, how exactly do you explain why so many of the readers of the Caracas Chronicles adore a truly authoritarian figure, Alvaro Uribe? The threats that Alvaro Uribe poses to Colombian journalists, human rights activists and trade unionists make Hugo Chavez look like a choir boy by comparison. So how exactly can you folks explain the fact that, as of less than a year ago, Alvaro Uribe was the favorite foreign leader of the supposedly "anti-authoritarian" readers of the Caracas Chronicles (most of whom are obviously middle to upper-class Venezuelans)?
What a Starbuck socialist you are!
Actually, many of those who voted for Obama did so because they thought he would be NOT AS BAD as Bush, not because they support his politics.
But I know, that is too complex for Kepler to understand.
Tosh | 05.21.09 - 1:08 pm | #
US progressives should take up Kepler's challenge to oppose Obama's retrograde policies, his war in "Afpak" built around lies regarding 9/11, his false dichotomy between "combat" and "non combat" troops in Iraq, (A US soldier by definition is a "combat troop") and Obama's talking about leaving 55,000 of them after the "combat troops" depart from what he once called an illegal intervention.
The power of the Israel Lobby has to be taken on too. Obama hints he'd like to loosen their grip. If that's true he needs all the help he can get. It was B. Obama who warned his following that he needed them to hold his feet to the fire. Why? Regardless of whatever his true intentions might be the system, the lobbies, the permanent government, the old boys, the media and the 45% ragingingly ignorant US public are a lot to go up against.
Why on earth those €/$ kids allways try to sell a discussion package Venezuela/Colombia?
why so many of the readers of the Caracas Chronicles adore a truly authoritarian figure, Alvaro Uribe?
Why not discuss Venezuela in context with Brazil or Chile, which also have left leaning Governments that are moderate, though?
In Colombia there is a civil war raging for 50 years or so. You simply can't compare the 2 countries. Uribes popularity inside and outside of Colombia is only understandable before that background.
What a Starbuck socialist you are!
Actually, many of those who voted for Obama did so because they thought he would be NOT AS BAD as Bush, not because they support his politics.
But I know, that is too complex for Kepler to understand.
Tosh | 05.21.09 - 1:08 pm | #
US progressives should take up Kepler's challenge to oppose Obama's retrograde policies, his war in "Afpak" built around lies regarding 9/11, his false dichotomy between "combat" and "non combat" troops in Iraq, (A US soldier by definition is a "combat troop") and Obama's talking about leaving 55,000 of them after the "combat troops" depart from what he once called an illegal intervention.
The power of the Israel Lobby has to be taken on too. Obama hints he'd like to loosen their grip. If that's true he needs all the help he can get. It was B. Obama who warned his following that he needed them to hold his feet to the fire. Why? Regardless of whatever his true intentions might be the system, the lobbies, the permanent government, the old boys, the media and the 45% ragingingly ignorant US public are a lot to go up against.
In Colombia there is a civil war raging for 50 years or so. You simply can't compare the 2 countries. Uribes popularity inside and outside of Colombia is only understandable before that background.
Prior to Alvaro Uribe, Colombian presidents did not use their bully pulpit to explicitly attack (and thereby endanger) journalists, human rights activists and trade unionists. The zealousness with which Alvaro Uribe attacks his critics goes far far beyond what the exigencies of civil conflict demand.
So if the Venezuelan opposition was really so concerned about "authoritarianism," it certainly wouldn't cozy up to a guy like Alvaro Uribe.
US progressives should take up Kepler's challenge to oppose Obama's retrograde policies, his war in "Afpak" built around lies regarding 9/11, his false dichotomy between "combat" and "non combat" troops in Iraq, (A US soldier by definition is a "combat troop") and Obama's talking about leaving 55,000 of them after the "combat troops" depart from what he once called an illegal intervention.
I don't think Kepler could give a rat's ass about what horrors the United States is responsible for in the Middle East. Kepler is too busy aligning himself with the most retrograde of U.S.-backed elites in his own country to take his own rhetoric seriously about Obama.
Justin,
" The lower-class base of Chavismo supports the government because the base perceives that the government improves their social position within Venezuelan society."
There is some truth to that one.It is called envy, and feeding the devils- ( the devils being the negative emotions of course) and envy can be increased by hate rhetoric and lies which is what Chavez does for his own benefit.
He tells people lies to foment their hatred.That is one of the cheap shots he uses to obtain votes, besides the fear card of course
Basing a platform on envy and hatred-He should be jailed for life.
I remember, sitting on a bus a few years after Chavez and some cackling old ladies looked at me with hatred because I am white,and screamed and laughed
" we've got the power now"
Before Chavez we would have exchange stories, and share some laughs.
Justine, you are the caricature of a PSF, not more nuanced than a creationist don't touch my gun" bloke.
I know very little of the Middle East, but I probably know more about it than you about the University of New Mexico or its campus or your thesis and I have stated my opinions very clearly when I saw that relevant.
I have to go on working.
Parroquia: PETARE
PETARE, NO SUCRE:
Alcaldesa o Alcalde de Municipio
CARLOS OCARIZ Adjudicado
103.402 Votos 55,80 %
JESSE CHACON
80.871 Votos 43,64 %
And the last eferendum, in PETARE not SUCRE:
Porcentaje
SI 91864 43,52%
NO 119197 56,47%
Of course, Chavismo started to define Petare suddenly in the strangest way.
No wonder Chigüire wrote this:
http://www.elchiguirebipolar.com...ills-
90210.html
Son puros catires ricos.
I don't think Kepler could give a rat's ass about what horrors the United States is responsible for in the Middle East. Kepler is too busy aligning himself with the most retrograde of U.S.-backed elites in his own country to take his own rhetoric seriously about Obama.
Justin | Homepage | 05.26.09 - 6:58 am | #
It' s not about Kepler. It's about what our country is in the world.
So how exactly can you folks explain the fact that, as of less than a year ago, Alvaro Uribe was the favorite foreign leader of the supposedly "anti-authoritarian" readers of the Caracas Chronicles (most of whom are obviously middle to upper-class Venezuelans)?
Justin | Homepage | 05.26.09 - 2:13 am | #
oh, you mean the guy that is trying to amend the constitution so that he can run for a 3rd term?
Justin says:
"Well, I don't know the specifics of the case, but what I do know is that the Venezuelan opposition has very little problem organizing marches provided that it gets a permit beforehand."
So here is a case where he himself admits he doesn't knows specifics, yet he generalizes quite nicely"
Man this guy is confused 
Justin says:
"The problem with a sweeping statement to the effect that the Chavez government has "obvious authoritarian tendencies" is that your argument lacks specifics. I don't like dealing in generalities. I like dealing in specifics"
jajaja
Justin said:
"More evasions from Kepler and Duquenal, I see. Instead of honestly trying to answer the question of whether there's a dime's worth of difference between the Venezuelan opposition today and that of six years ago"
I will give you the difference Justin:
The Opposition is more threatened, more oppressed, and more terrified.Maybe oppression and fear mongering is not worth a dime to you, but then again you are not a democratic.
Easy folks. We are talking about an investigation and possible fine or 1-3 day suspension, based on laws already on the books. The car deal (the reason for the office raid) is far more serious but completely seperate. The capitalist media though seems intent on conflating the two issues.
Which brings us to the second and more profound issue of the relationship between an elite-owned media versus democracy. This issue deserves serious thought and deep reflection, not reliance on pithy platitudes. When you are dealing with a redistributive socialist project, and a press owned by the richest people in society, the results are as we have seen - predictably nasty. That is where ethics and responsibility would theoretically come in under neoliberal thought. But we know that in Venezuela, these niceties have come to mean absolutely nothing. When you abdicate ethics and responsibility (as Globovision clearly has) you should not be surprised that people are going to wonder why they are effectively subsidizing the broadcast of that crap to the entire country.
Neoliberal captialist doctrine says the richest and most powerful people have a right to control the information in a society. They can totally ignore all the good news and focus incessantly on the bad. That is freedom they tell us. There must be a better way. Venezuela and others are trying to find it - not by following Cuba or anyone else. There will be missteps. But for believers of social justice to defend the "rights" and "freedom" of the powerful to do whatever they would like to distort the reality to the Venezuelan people is very disturbing to me. Particularly, when that is combined with a criticism of attempts by the Chavez Government to level the playing field a tiny bit.
Man this guy is confused
Uh, if I were you, firepigette, I'd quit while you're behind.
You are literally so confused that you make assinine statements like this one:
Specifics exist because generalities do.
Given that your understanding of causality is literally backwards, you might want to consider brushing up on elementary logic before attempting to debate the issues.
For anyone who is interested, you might want to check my post today over at American Leftist about Israel, Venezuela, Bolivia and purported uranium sales to Iran
Justin, Specifics exist because generalities do, and generalities exist because specifics do.
All things are double, one against another. This means that to everything there is an opposite which makes it exist and also opposes it.
In the same way existence has to be infinite and finite at once
If you cannot see that they ARE because of a relationship, then all I can say is please remember, Taurus is an Earth sign, which means mind is practical and not theoretical,or epistemological, so don't sweat the big stuff.Over and out.
Firepigget,
они никогда не изменяют.
Kepler,
A change would be a many splendered thing and so miraculous , as now I begin to see why many would say,
" leave it up to God."
Firepig,
They are not Venezuelans, they don't vote in Venezuela, they have no influence and they are completely dishonest, as blind as the most pathetic KKK/Black Panther/Chinese nationalist/Pinochet loving/white supremacist/Stalin admiring bloke.
Kepler,
the 2 extremes form a Union in the end,
I worry about the future of our world.
thank you richard, justin and tosh. your comments are refreshing. the crew you correct needs it desparately.
Hammer,
You are so incredibly delusional, like the people who supported major thugs such as Hitler and Stalin and "minor ones" like Chavez and Mugabe.
Read the two latest posts here:
http://devilsexcrement.com/
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the new independent report that PDVSA commissioned to put to bed all the crap about 2.3 BPD production levels. They retained a British consultant called Inspectorate to crunch the numbers. The figure is 3.1, just as has been said all along. I guess the IAEA, the US Energy Department and a whole lot of media owe a big apology. I'm not holding my breath though.
Hammer,
You are so incredibly delusional, like the people who supported major thugs such as Hitler and Stalin and "minor ones" like Chavez and Mugabe.
Read the two latest posts here:
http://devilsexcrement.com/
Kepler | Homepage | 05.27.09 - 1:22 pm | #
Ludicrous that Chavez is mentioned here, but what about some other real ones like Bush, Sharon and Blair???
Guess the cat has got his tongue. Can't be a card carrying member of the "Opposition" and acknowledge their true crimes.
Ester,
Because that is why we have you here.
I have criticized them a lot in other blogs and from time to time here as well A LOT.
But as you and the other Starbuck socialists are here, I just need to focus on those you never, neither here nor anywhere else would criticize because they are part of the "good ones" in your stupidly simplistic world
Oil closed at over $63 a barrel today, and even accounting for the fact that much of Venezuela's crude is heavier, and therefore, less expensive, it continues to raise the question that I have suggested here periodically: would you rather be selling cars, PCs, flat panel televisions and other manufactured goods on the international market instead of oil?
indeed, would have you wanted to have allowed your populace to consume over the last 4-5 years, or would you have wanted to invest the funds in manufacturing that has now been rendered redundant by the global recession?
the point here is that short term and long term economic policies should not always be congruent, look at the recent GDP declines in manufacturing centers like China, Japan, Mexico and South Korea, annualized over 15% in Japan, over 20% to Mexico
long term, the ideal is a diversified economy of services, manufacturing and resources, but that doesn't mean that pouring investment into redundant facilities is a good idea, anyone who suggests that Venezuela should have been investing in manufacturing in the last 4-5 years has to answer the question: and to whom would the country be selling these goods today?
Justin: Uh, "not exposing" your plans for governance is simply anti-democratic. The whole reason for party platforms, public debates, etc. etc. is that they provide the public some means of holding political actors accountable. If you don't believe in "exposing" your plans for governance, you don't believe in democracy.
So tell me, Mini-tosh, are you calling you new messiah "anti-democratic"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k...h?
v=kq_NjLc1s2M
Need to change the script, man or you'll lose your minion privileges.
please. miguel octavio's latest post over at the devil's excrement is sophistical trash. i dismantled it about an hour ago:
http://www.maxajl.com/?p=1262
Max, you should change the picture of the plant on your blog. It should be a poppy. You are under drug influence. Take care and grow up.
Ow, did you see now Chavez is looking for more money in Japan...again?
It is incredible, we still have oil revenues that are over 300% what we had in 1998 and Chavez has had to get into loans for so many billions!
And unlike other countries we don't export anything but oil.
Qué imbéciles estos tipos!
http://www.eluniversal.com/2009/
...a_1407047.shtml
Samán dice que Pfizer prefiere ahora importar porque es mejor negocio...pero no se pregunta porqué es mejor negocio. Realmente este tipo de parásitos cree en el culto cargo
Kepler:
that doesn't qualify as a response.
please. miguel octavio's latest post over at the devil's excrement is sophistical trash. i dismantled it about an hour ago:
I don't really see much dismantling going on.
Where are the results of the Venezuelan-Brazil cooperation? all we have so far is a bunch of stalled projects.
We would not need Brazilian money if we had saved when we had excess money.
Why are we expropriating ceramic factories and rice factories?
Why not just use that money and build more? Compete with the private sector?
Now the government"owns and runs it" but it really doesn't change much, but efficiency.. and we know the track record of the government on efficiency.
Except, when the government owns it, it doesn't have to distribute profits nor pay CEO salaries. Depending on the terms of the nationalization, the government either has an additional revenue stream or has decommodified a part of the Venezuelan economy.
As for the rice factories: when Cargill is adding flavoring and food color to get around price controls, because said controls don't allow for sufficient profits, and the government nationalizes, its going to be able to produce more rice and sell it at controlled prices.
As for Octavio's post, if you have any specific comments, let me know. The rhetorical flick of the wrist, "I don't really see much dismantling going on," isn't something I can respond to.
Justine,
In a slum you are beaten up if you express your ideas opposing Chavez.
Kepler, this is nonsense. Can you provide any backup for that statement?
I used to go around taking photos of Rosales posters in barrios all over Venezuela. There are actually many barrios that are opposition strong-holds, and even those that are very pro-Chavez are actually amazingly respectful of opponents to Chavez.
I once witnessed (and filmed) a very civil debate in 23 de Enero between pro-Chavez and anti-Chavez people. I was impressed how respectful they were of each other, and how they allowed each other to express their ideas, even though they disagreed.
Tor:
"1. How does the oil price doubling have anything to do with the decreased inequality that has taken place under Chavez?"
Increased oil prices increase governtment revenues allowing Chavez to spend more on social programs and the poor.
Indeed Tor, but the phenomenon of decreased inequality cannot be explained simply by citing increased oil prices.
With that logic you could simply explain away anything and everything the government does by saying "well, oil prices increased."
Yes, oil prices incresed, but the Chavez government made the concious decision to put more revenues into programs that would decrease inequality in society. This is something that the neoliberal free-market, free trade policies of the right have proven to NOT do. In fact, they do the opposite. Inequality usually increases with these policies.
Outstanding comment Tosh!!! So in Cuba you would say that nobody has the right to talk about the government since there is no organized opposition. If Chavez gets his way, Venezuela is heading in the same direction.
Question: would you like Venezuela to end up like Cuba? By this I mean politically and economically. Please elaborate. Thank you.
Impartial, the concept works in exactly the same way in Cuba. If you think that the government that would likely come to power if the current regime was deposed would be more beneficial to the Cuban people, then they are worth supporting. My opinion is that the kinds of policies that an anti-Castro government would put in place would actually be much worse than Castro's current regime. Again, it is the same decision. You can't just throw around your political support behind the opposition to a regime without considering what the likely impact of their policies would be.
As for Venezuela being like Cuba, not only is that a ridiculous notion, but I think Venezuela has done a great job of adopting certain things from Cuba, (such as their healthcare system, literacy programs, more participatory style democracy) while rejecting other more negative things (controlled press, limited elections, restrictions on travel, etc.)
Firepig,
They are not Venezuelans, they don't vote in Venezuela, they have no influence and they are completely dishonest, as blind as the most pathetic KKK/Black Panther/Chinese nationalist/Pinochet loving/white supremacist/Stalin admiring bloke.
That a boy Kepler! When you just can't refute their argument, just resort to a good ol' ad hominem attack like this one!
Never fails!
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the new independent report that PDVSA commissioned to put to bed all the crap about 2.3 BPD production levels. They retained a British consultant called Inspectorate to crunch the numbers. The figure is 3.1, just as has been said all along.
Ah, once again the oppo-morons are proven wrong.
I wonder if they are trying to go for a record or something?
indeed, would have you wanted to have allowed your populace to consume over the last 4-5 years, or would you have wanted to invest the funds in manufacturing that has now been rendered redundant by the global recession?
...
long term, the ideal is a diversified economy of services, manufacturing and resources, but that doesn't mean that pouring investment into redundant facilities is a good idea, anyone who suggests that Venezuela should have been investing in manufacturing in the last 4-5 years has to answer the question: and to whom would the country be selling these goods today?
Richard Estes | Homepage | 05.27.09 - 7:21 pm | #
These are interesting questions Richard. And I think OW has been totally off-base by obsessing so much about investment in manufacturing. Although it certainly is important, it is not the only intelligent use of resources.
I have tried to explain to OW that the problem with his analysis, as you also point out here, is that the MARKET where Venezuelan goods will be sold is much more important than anything else. What good does investment in manufacturing do when you don't have a feasible market in which to sell manufactured goods? I think one of the major things that OW does not understand about development is the role of markets, and world terms of trade.
However, to answer your final question, where they would sell their goods, I think Chavez has had an answer to that for a long time. However, it is not something that can happen overnight. The market is created through a process of integration and South-South cooperation, to create a bloc of nations that have control of a large enough internal market to fuel development of major industries, and to also carry weight in world negotiations to aquire better terms of trade on an international scale.
Except, when the government owns it, it doesn't have to distribute profits nor pay CEO salaries.
True, but most nationalizations have been paid at a premium and government employees assigned to run the ship still make as much as a CEO (think Rafael Ramirez.)
Also the nationalization will bring a decay in production, even if at least temporal. The track record of the efficiency of nationalizations is weak... to say the least.
Depending on the terms of the nationalization, the government either has an additional revenue stream or has decommodified a part of the Venezuelan economy.
At what cost?
The opportunity cost is extremely high, billions could have been used to develop our already lacking infrastructure if not to develop new industries.
As for the rice factories: when Cargill is adding flavoring and food color to get around price controls, because said controls don't allow for sufficient profits, and the government nationalizes, its going to be able to produce more rice and sell it at controlled prices.
Once again true, but only to an extent.
If Cargill is violating the law they should be punished, fine them.. but it doesn't justify a nationalization.
Also, price caps create deadweight loss in the economy. Private investors should be rewarded for their willingness to take risks. The government arbitrarily set up price controls that private companies cant meet in several cases. Producers are not willing to take losses on products and between CADIVI, the price controls and the inflexible labor laws the overhead costs in Venezuela are extremely high right now.
So yes, the government will take over. Produce the same amount of rice or maybe a little more by investing a lot of money that could have been invested in a project that would bring higher revenues to society.... but somehow this makes sense to you.
oh and lets not forget that the governments is financing this "acquisitions" with debt. So the opportunity cost is even higher.
Tosh the illiteracy free myth was dismantled a while ago, just like the "this government spends more on social programs than the previous ones" propaganda. In terms of GDP percentage this government spends just a little more than Caldera's government did.
On Illiteracy:
http://
frrodriguez.web.wesleyan...._Illiteracy.pdf
http://
frrodriguez.web.wesleyan....ponse_to_RW.pdf
On the social spending:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/
20...revolution.html
http://
frrodriguez.web.wesleyan....t_to_Defend.pdf
http://www.apiur.org/inmuebles/
h...construido.html
"I'm surprised no one has mentioned the new independent report that PDVSA commissioned to put to bed all the crap about 2.3 BPD production levels. They retained a British consultant called Inspectorate to crunch the numbers. The figure is 3.1, just as has been said all along."
Link? I'm curious. We all know it is easy to get close to the 3.1 number from 2.3 by adding stuff OPEC does not count as crude that PDVSA does produce.
"Indeed Tor, but the phenomenon of decreased inequality cannot be explained simply by citing increased oil prices."
Fair. It also reflects government priorities i.e. spending more on social spending, Mercal, Missions etc. However, increased oil prices made also this extra spending possible. Oil prices gave Chavez a windfall and he spent it by distributing more to the poor.
"This is something that the neoliberal free-market, free trade policies of the right have proven to NOT do. In fact, they do the opposite."
It doesn't have much to do with this at all. The government simply spent a windfall. It could have spent it by investing in the future i.e. education, infrastructure, diversifying the economy, trying to make the economy more competitive, beefing up institutions etc. It has done some in some of these areas, but could have done more. Most importantly it should have saved more.
Moreover, the current economic problems can quickly erase any improvement in inequality as government programs are cut and inflation eats into increased wages.
"Jeff",
You are citing Francisco Rodriguez, an opposition economist dedicated to attacking the Chavez government.
The research you cite above was all completely dismantled right here:
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/pu...usehold-survey/
and here:
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/pu...-numbers-right/
I find it very funny that all you oppo morons love to cite this Rodriguez character simply because he says what you WANT to hear (amazing that you actually want to hear that poverty hasn't been lowered in Venezuela), without actually taking a close look at the evidence he provides.
There is not a serious analyst on the planet that would try to make the claim that poverty has not decreased significantly under Chavez. Rodriguez tries to make that claim.
"It is precisely because of such a level of misinformation that people outside Venezuela will tend to have little to contribute to the discussion about the country's politics."
there are lots of government sources especially now. TV-channels, radio stations, newpapers and official sources are all available to any listener, viewer or reader. There are also lots of blogs.
Granted living in Venezuela helps you see some things for yourself (as you correctly pointed out; and as personal experience has shown me), but living there can also subject you to 'seeing only the trees but not the forrest problem' as you become to immersed in the details of everything bickering, sensationalism and polarization that is Venezuela reporting.
However, increased oil prices made also this extra spending possible. Oil prices gave Chavez a windfall and he spent it by distributing more to the poor.
Yes, but he also played a major role in tripling oil prices during his first 2 years as president, worked to increase tax revenue, and stopped loopholes that send PDVSA funds overseas, giving his government more money to spend on social programs.
You can try all you want to take all the credit away from the Chavez government, but it is just not the reality.
It doesn't have much to do with this at all. The government simply spent a windfall. It could have spent it by investing in the future i.e. education, infrastructure, diversifying the economy, trying to make the economy more competitive, beefing up institutions etc. It has done some in some of these areas, but could have done more. Most importantly it should have saved more.
It does indeed have a lot to do with this, because free-market, free trade policies were the likely alternative to Chavez's policies. Had the right wing opposition been in power, this is undoubtedly the kinds of policies they would have pursued, which would have resulted in an INCREASE in inequality, as they do in most cases.
If you can show me that other oil booms in Venezuela, or anywhere, have resulted in DECREASED inequality, then I will concede that Chavez deserves no credit for the decreased inequality, that it had nothing to do with his policies, and that it was simply a result of the oil price. Good luck trying to prove that.
It could have spent it by investing in the future i.e. education, infrastructure, diversifying the economy, trying to make the economy more competitive, beefing up institutions etc. It has done some in some of these areas, but could have done more. Most importantly it should have saved more.
Well, it is a no-brainer to say that the government could have "done better" or could have "done more". That will be true in almost any case at any time.
But that debate really isn't as important as the debate about what would have likely happened in the event that THE ALTERNATIVE (which you and Kepler support) were in power.
If the opposition parties were in power, they likely would have adopted the kinds of neoliberal policies that the right wing all over Latin America supports, which would have resulted in increased inequality. (not to mention the fact that neoliberals support a small state, decreased social programs, etc. which means most of the social programs probably would not have ever been implemented under a right wing government)
Moreover, the current economic problems can quickly erase any improvement in inequality as government programs are cut and inflation eats into increased wages.
Tor | 05.28.09 - 4:29 pm | #
Yes, no government could continue to improve social conditions in a dooms day scenario like this. But, in the real world, this does not appear even remotely likely. Inflation is decreasing, and the government easily has enough money to continue the social programs for years to come. Not to mention the fact that oil prices are likely to increase over the next few years.
Inflation is decreasing
wtf...
Inflation is decreasing
wtf...
Tank | 05.28.09 - 5:04 pm | #
Tank, inflation is almost 3 points lower so far this year than it was for the same period last year.
If that is not a decrease in inflation, I'm not sure what is.
But, hey, believe what you want to believe man. Facts don't seem to matter much to you anyway.
This video is unreal!
http://devilsexcrement.com/2009/...la/#comment-
646
True, but most nationalizations have been paid at a premium and government employees assigned to run the ship still make as much as a CEO (think Rafael Ramirez.)
Also the nationalization will bring a decay in production, even if at least temporal. The track record of the efficiency of nationalizations is weak... to say the least.
Look, a corporation owned by the government is running on a different logic than one running in the marketplace. In general, nationalizations are good. They can obviously be handled badly. But the removal of the need for profit (and concomitant extraction of surplus from society/diversion to privileged sectors) is a good thing.
At what cost?
The opportunity cost is extremely high, billions could have been used to develop our already lacking infrastructure if not to develop new industries.
As we've seen, new industries wouldn't exactly be doing too well if they'd been developed in the last couple years. Where would you prefer they divert the money?
Once again true, but only to an extent.
If Cargill is violating the law they should be punished, fine them.. but it doesn't justify a nationalization.
Nationalizations are their own justification. You must be making the bizarre error of assuming corporations have property rights. They don't, period.
Also, price caps create deadweight loss in the economy. Private investors should be rewarded for their willingness to take risks. The government arbitrarily set up price controls that private companies cant meet in several cases. Producers are not willing to take losses on products and between CADIVI, the price controls and the inflexible labor laws the overhead costs in Venezuela are extremely high right now.
This is standard capitalist ideology. Price caps if properly designed reduce profit margins. You're assuming "the market" should determine the "reward" for private investors risks. But why shouldn't that reward be socially determined? And if not acceptable/below the cost of production, then nationalize the company. Capital has no rights and no privileges.
So yes, the government will take over. Produce the same amount of rice or maybe a little more by investing a lot of money that could have been invested in a project that would bring higher revenues to society.... but somehow this makes sense to you.
We will see. The food shortages that've plagued Venezuela certainly will be gone, that's for sure. But presumably there's some higher revenue that will accrue to "society" that I'm missing.
Look, a corporation owned by the government is running on a different logic than one running in the marketplace. In general, nationalizations are good. They can obviously be handled badly. But the removal of the need for profit (and concomitant extraction of surplus from society/diversion to privileged sectors) is a good thing.
To an extend, they do run on a different logic. However they still need to make enough money to cover their costs. Also, by paying a premium to nationalize a company, increasing its overheads and paying the same salaries (or more) will not make it any more efficient. BIC has been bankrupt twice in the last 10 years, now the goverment will also run the Banco de Venezuela. How can we assume that this nationalization is "for the better" with their track record of managing banks?
The BCV is poorly managed, BIC is poorly managed, Banco del Tesoro is poorly managed (compared to their peers on the private sector). Why take over ANOTHER bank?
Nationalizations are their own justification. You must be making the bizarre error of assuming corporations have property rights. They don't, period.
First of all, Corporations do have property rights as per the Venezuelan Constitution.
On another note..I think you are making the mistake of assuming any nationalization is good.
Nationalizations should be a carefully thought out process, not a spur of the moment thing or a reaction to breaking price controls.
This is standard capitalist ideology. Price caps if properly designed reduce profit margins. You're assuming "the market" should determine the "reward" for private investors risks. But why shouldn't that reward be socially determined? And if not acceptable/below the cost of production, then nationalize the company. Capital has no rights and no privileges.
Even if "socially determined" there needs to be a method to the madness. You cant simply put a price cap above the costs of producing the goods unless you subsidize the goods. As of today, in Venezuela corporations do have rights and privileges. The Constitution, even if those that wrote it don't respect it, exists.... which you seem to ignore.
We will see. The food shortages that've plagued Venezuela certainly will be gone, that's for sure. But presumably there's some higher revenue that will accrue to "society" that I'm missing.
Even if you justify the nationalization of Cargill because of the scarcity of products (which is a result of price controls, CADIVI and labor laws.. but lets follow your logic) you cant apply the same logic to the ceramic companies, cement companies and Banco de Venezuela.
As we've seen, new industries wouldn't exactly be doing too well if they'd been developed in the last couple years. Where would you prefer they divert the money?
Each one of this nationalizations will cost billions!!
Billions that could have been spent on housing, on recycling (even Chavez
(continuation...)
Billions that could have been spent on housing, on recycling (even Chavez acknowledged the trash problem tonight), education (not "misiones", no more band-aid fixes... but infrastructure in every town), Healthcare (Barrio Adentro isn't what it was a few years ago) or even fixing our highways which are a disaster.
We are not even satisfying local demand, we import EVERYTHING.
Tank - for many of the nationalizations the government will pay with bonos del estado. Smart, huh?
OT - I remember the Duquenal wrote here that he would never comment on OIl Warts again. Well, you can see what a liar he is and still is on his own blog.
Tank - since you don't live in Venezuela you cannot possibly know what is the state of the roads or anything.
How do you know that Barrio Adentro is not what it was? There's ONLT 535 CDI's functioning now.
OW - your sentence at the end referring to Cuba just proves how far to the argumentation lines of the opposition you have moved.
BTW oil is recovering quite nicely all thanks to Chávez and his policies
BTW oil is recovering quite nicely all thanks to Chávez and his policies
Anonymous | 05.29.09 - 4:48 pm | #
LMAO
LMAO
Sire | 05.29.09 - 5:34 pm | #
Sire is going to try to deny that oil prices are recovering? And he's going to try to deny that it OPEC production cuts have anything to do with it?
I think these oppo morons really are trying to break a record here!
Hey, as long as you guys are trying to break records for being wrong so much, why don't you all give us your position with respect to Vargas Llosa and the people of Cedice.
Do you support the same policies that Vargas Llosa supports for Latin America?
Or, perhaps first I should ask, do you even KNOW what Vargas Llosa stands for? And how do you feel about this person giving advice to the Venezuelan opposition?
Tosh
Daniel and Miguel already posted on it. Why don't you try to discuss it over there? Are you going to show Chavez how it is done?
Daniel and Miguel already posted on it. Why don't you try to discuss it over there? Are you going to show Chavez how it is done?
Berenice | Homepage | 05.30.09 - 12:52 am | #
In other words, you can't simply answer these very basic questions.
Once again, when asked a simple question, you direct us to go elsewhere to find the answer.
Why is it that you can't answer?
And, by the way, it isn't even possible to debate on the opposition blogs because they simply delete (or in Daniel's case, edit over the top of them) any comments that they don't like.
Ironically, those who claim to be so in favor of "freedom of expression" can't even practice what they preach on their own blogs.
What an idiot Chavez!
He does not dare to debate with Vargas Llosa!
He has never ever wanted to debate publicly with anybody.
His attitude towards life is reflected in this episode of his younger life: when a girl rejected his advances, he place the head of a dead donkey in front of her house.
"Tienes que quererme", seems to be his eternal message.
And the dumb and the tarifados do that, as long as coins keep coming in, no matter Chavez destroys in the processes chances for sustainable development.
Venezuela does have what it deserves.
Tosh,
"
Ironically, those who claim to be so in favor of "freedom of expression" can't even practice what they preach on their own blogs."
Lately I love this blog because of the illogical statements some are making as I need to just laugh a little :
Tosh, When Daniel edits his own private blog he is exercising his right to freedom of expression on his own private blog.
If he were not allowing others to exercise their rights on their own blogs then he would be limiting freedom of expression.
Those without blogs are free to create their own.
Freedom to lie and intimidate others is not freedom, because when one attempts to bully others through this kind of intimidation it is an assault on freedom.Therefore Daniel does the correct thing when he edits.
Do you agree with his definitions of unacceptable? Maybe not, which is why you have the freedom for creating your own blog.
Daniel has the right and the freedom to represent his point of view and his idea of acceptable on his own blog.
In the end we go back to the million dollar question.Tosh are you lying or are you really that confused?
I think A little bit of both.
Hey, as long as you guys are trying to break records for being wrong so much, why don't you all give us your position with respect to Vargas Llosa and the people of Cedice.
Do you support the same policies that Vargas Llosa supports for Latin America?
Or, perhaps first I should ask, do you even KNOW what Vargas Llosa stands for? And how do you feel about this person giving advice to the Venezuelan opposition?
Tosh | 05.29.09 - 10:26 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Shoot, a few days ago somebody posted something along the lines of "you cannot ignore a true statement because you do not like the person who is giving it". Tosh, remember who said that? Man, I wish I had time to go back and sift through all the crap that that person wrote.
I have to say that Chavez got a moment of lucidity and backed off the challenge. He was going to be pummeled by Vargas Llosa, an outstanding intellectual.
Tosh - Ironically, those who claim to be so in favor of "freedom of expression" can't even practice what they preach on their own blogs.
Tosh | 05.30.09 - 12:57 am | #
Not a truer word has been written on this thread.
Daniel threatened to ban me because I wrote that there was no evidence outside of the opposition media which maintained that Chavez controlled all the state powers. He simply called my comment "lies".
Let's face it, Daniel is a liar and a total hypocrite. "It's my blog, so I control the threads". Great, Daniel, you prove Tosh's words correct.
On a private blog people have the right to conduct affairs as they wish Tosh.
Anything other than that would be limiting freedom.
If you were banned it is because he is allowed to have his own private house.
Anonymous = Tosh = GIV = John = Shit for Brains.
To paraphrase Hannah Arendt who said it so well:
The iron band of the totalitarian left leaves no space for the sphere of private life with its capacities for experience and thought and would as consequence severely limit our private capacity for action
Tosh
Since like your self imposed boss you are a compulsive liar, notified by a reader (not firepig by the way), I felt the need for a return comment in this incredibly long and vapid thread. The good thing is that you will be probably one of the few that will read this comment as it is embarrassing to me to have to write an additional comment.
The reason why you are banned in my blog is not for your ideas, it is becasue of your inability to expose them in three comments or less without insulting folks. And you know that becasue I wrote it more than once.
There is no room in my blog for spoiled brats, chavistas or anti chavistas. Learn to behave and you will be again allowed to write in my comment section as well as the one of Miguel or Quico, by the way.
But of course you prefer to stick to blogs like this one where you are allowed to rant and insult at liberty, and even to threaten folks with physical harm as you did towards me. You are a coward like Chavez becasue you will "debate" only in situations where you have a chance to drown your opponent with lies and invectives.
This very same thread is a monument to your intolerance. Not to mention yet another shining example of your selective understanding of what you read, implying an absolute lack of intellectual probity.
AS Firepigette suggested, open your own blog and let's see what happens in your comment section. Or is it becasue you know that the only way you will attract attention to you is by writing 25% of the entries in this blog threads?
Daniel - what a hogwash attitude. You limit freedom of expression and do not obey your own rules on your blog.
Hypocricy and manipulation are your closest allies and you cannot stop yourself insulting anyone in the government since you have a pathological condition of irrational hate.
Impartial - well written hding behind your keyboard. Cowardly piece of dog shit.
The zenith of debating has now been reached: "Cowardly piece of dog shit". Sure provides the right framework for the development of ideas. Sounds like a mini-version of "Alo Presidente".
Sire is going to try to deny that oil prices are recovering? And he's going to try to deny that it OPEC production cuts have anything to do with it?
I think these oppo morons really are trying to break a record here!
Tosh | 05.29.09 - 10:11 pm | #
No, the LMAO concerned the "all thanks to Chávez and his policies".
I have to say that Chavez got a moment of lucidity and backed off the challenge. He was going to be pummeled by Vargas Llosa, an outstanding intellectual.
Well, personally, I've never seen anything from Alvaro Vargas Llosa that impressed me, but you're entitled to your opinion. The notion, however, that Chavez is supposed to publicly debate a non-Venezuelan intellectual about Venezuelan politics is completely absurd. Vargas Llosa has probably spent a grand total of 20 days in Venezuela. By what absurd logic does that entitle him to an audience with the Venezuelan president?
If random British and Australian intellectuals were to propose a public debate with the U.S. president about U.S. politics, the U.S. public would quite logically wonder what business it is of Australians and Brits to tell us how to govern ourselves. Likewise, what business is it of Vargas Llosa to tell Venezuelans how to govern themselves? By what strange logic does this globe-trotting free marketeer deserve an audience with the Venezuelan president?
Justin
Your comment could be taken more seriously if you had kept your Vargas Llosa straight. At least now we know that you are not fit to debate on anything about Latin America.
By what strange logic does this globe-trotting free marketeer deserve an audience with the Venezuelan president?
Justin | Homepage | 05.30.09 - 2:53 pm | #
Hey, Timberlake, doesn't your heroe arrugón portraits himself as a latin american leader and victor over capitalism? Why not debate with other latin americans about it? Chavez se cagó, face it.
Justin,
The question would be the other way around. Why would the banana republic military deserve that a real intellectual would talk to him?
Heads of state, from Norway's prime minister to Germany's chancellor or the US president do debate with all kinds of people.
Clearly, Mario Vargas Llosa is a CIA agent.
http://www.aporrea.org/tiburon/n...on/
n135336.html
Okay, so I now see that Mario Vargas Llosa has joined his son Alvaro and the others to bash Chavez in Caracas. The fact remains that none of these right-wing globe-trotters is entitled to an audience with the Venezuelan president.
If the Venezuelan opposition wants a debate with the president, it might want to consider developing a serious leadership of its own rather than trying to get the Vargas Llosas to carry its water.
Justin
Please enlighten us and name one case where Chavez has held a real public debate in even conditions with anyone. And discussing the sex of socialist angels with Fidel does not count.
By the way, that inane comment of Chavez that Mario was not in his league is a good way for me to put you down once again. To be in the same league as I am so that you could debate with me the nature of the Venezuelan opposition, I suggest that you start by showing me/us that you are able to criticize Chavez and the PSUV as much as I do criticize the opposition when necessary. This being said, you will understand that I am not holding my breath.
The fact remains that none of these right-wing globe-trotters is entitled to an audience with the Venezuelan president.
Chávez extended the challenge, in typical grandstanding, run-his-mouth-now-think-it-over-later style, then got cold feet when Vargas Llosa turned the tables on him and requested a one-on-one debate with equal time for both participants.
Chávez arrugó, y lo demás es cuento.
And I hope I'm not the only one disgusted by Chávez's elitism about being "president" and thus not Vargas Llosa's equal. The president should be the #1 public servant, not a neo-monarch that cannot "lower himself" to the level of the commoners.
BTW, everybody on this issue is quoting the expression "arrugó", first appearing on one of the best blogs on the subject. No need to repeat this original, there is a perfect expression in English for it; he just chickened out.
AS Firepigette suggested, open your own blog and let's see what happens in your comment section.He did. Then he foolishly put pictures of himself on it and everyone realized that he's a gringito in his 20's living out his "Starbuck Socialism" fantasies. Then he took it down.
Interesting:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/ne...pKRs&
refer=news
To be in the same league as I am so that you could debate with me the nature of the Venezuelan opposition, I suggest that you start by showing me/us that you are able to criticize Chavez and the PSUV as much as I do criticize the opposition when necessary.
Vargas Llosa may be Triple-A, as Chavez says, but Duquenal is still warming the bench for the worst Little League team in Venezuela. What's most pitiful about people like Duquenal is that their whole purpose in life is to plead with non-Venezuelans to carry their water for them. If you want to join the big leagues, you should (1) stop trying to get the Vargas Llosas and the Americans and the Europeans to carry your water for you and (2) start seriously engaging with your own populace.
Nobody is arguing that the PSUV doesn't have its own problems, but one problem the PSUV does NOT have is an inability to engage with its own country's populace. Until such time as you figure that one out, you'll continue warming the bench for your fellow little leaguers.
Please enlighten us and name one case where Chavez has held a real public debate in even conditions with anyone.
As long as the opposition has no serious leadership, Chavez won't need to debate them. That's the point.
The president should be the #1 public servant, not a neo-monarch that cannot "lower himself" to the level of the commoners.
Uh, Mario Vargas Llosa ain't no "commoner." He is a very arrogant right-wing intellectual who has no business demanding an audience with any president, much less with the president of a country that is not his own.
Justin, don't even lower yourself to answer Duquenal. It would be impossible to debate him since he would censor your posts or go off at such a tangent taht the debate would be sabotaged.
What's all this blog show about Vargas Llosa and Chavez? Just ignore it. Everyone will forget it in 48 hours. Vargas Llosa has the temerity to demand a debate with Chavez? He should stick his request where Daniel would also enjoy it and go back to Spain, or Peru or whereever he lives.
"As long as the opposition has no serious leadership, Chavez won't need to debate them. That's the point."
Justin dixit
Daniel: Please enlighten us and name one case where Chavez has held a real public debate in even conditions with anyone.
Justin: As long as the opposition has no serious leadership, Chavez won't need to debate them. That's the point.
Ah Justin! This is why it is useless to debate with you. If you cannot be forthright in such a simple point why should we put attention to anything else that you write?
There has been three presidential elections under Chavez and in none of them there was a debate with the leader of the opposition, be them Salas Romer, Arias Cardenas or Rosales. If you cannot bring yourself to even write such a simple sentence as "I think that Chavez should have debated at least Rosales", a Rosales who was a unity leader from the start, then really you lack any seriousness, any intellectual integrity. No wonder you have not finished your dissertation yet.
As long as the opposition has no serious leadership, Chavez won't need to debate them. That's the point.These are elementary school arguments.
Anonymous/Tosh/Cris Carlson/Max
It is tough to see that all the people you really want to play with want nothing with you.
Is it your bad breath?
Your unkempt hair?
That you grab the ball and refuse to release it?
That you steal people's lunch money?
That you threaten all the time to beat them up or else?
If you cannot bring yourself to even write such a simple sentence as "I think that Chavez should have debated at least Rosales"
Personally, I don't think Chavez had any obligation to share the stage with a person of such low character as Manuel Rosales.
Let me tell you a little something about real-world politics. When your opponent is weak (like Rosales was), you don't give him a stage to attack you personally. Only when your opponent is formidable should you agree to a public debate. Until such time as the opposition offers a formidable candidate, Chavez won't have any need to agree to a public debate.
Rosales won the debates with Chavez in Zulia which was why he won the positions of Governor and Mayor, despite the piles of Chavez propaganda and Alo Presidente.So because Rosales was too formidable to beat in elections, Chavez decided to get rid of him.He was attacked by Chavez because he was too strong for Chavez's fearful nature.
To Justin and others:
The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campuses is well documented, and I can see some people commenting here were very easy prey.
All ideologies are in essence a form of totalitarian thinking.Ideologists believe in a philosophy and then based in that conclude that certain things have to be true.Anything that contradicts their reality must be forbidden otherwise it is perceived as threatening and in this way are then forced to live a lie.
How many people use their objectivity, their eyes and ears to determine lies? Not too many; so lies repeated on and on, later become truths to them.
In the case of the Chavez government it requires the total power of its State to demand that people live a lie ; so in this way its ideology superimposes certain IDEAS over the continual unfolding of the actual truth , in order to pretend to a single, static, unchanging absolute idea (which is totalitarianism) .
Justin
Thank you for allowing me to state my case: you are not a democrat, you think in brute strength.
I think we should establish objective boundries as to whom should be able to debate Chávez. An ex-Presidential candidate, heralded litterary legend and possible Nobel prize winner in the future, for example, isn't strong enough to go around bothering mister C.
That said, Chávez should only debate actual Presidents of socialist countries that aren't yanki proxies, who drink 20 coffees per day and can pitch 60 Mph curveballs.
Until the coup-mongering, fascist, sionistic, retarded and moronic opposition can come up with such a specimen, they should just shut up and enjoy all these democratic advantages that they obviously don't see because they're brain washed by Globo.
He'll fix that soon, though, and we'll all be able to thank him for that.
Ave Chávez, morituri te salutant.
Justin's brute strength = the bull= the ox = justin's own self description( view his profile )
and common left wing intellectuals aren't "strong enough" to go around bothering an "ex-Presidential candidate, heralded litterary legend and possible [heh] Nobel prize winner in the future." That said the latter should only debate other "ex-Presidential candidate[s], heralded litterary legend[s] and possible [heh] Nobel prize winner[s] [of] the future" until the fascist communist totalitarian keynesian social democrat Chavez takes away their god given right to live off the labor of the poor. ok maybe he wont do the last part, but its fun watching the spectre of communism haunt the more reactionary elements of the bourgeoisie.
Tosh, do you know who Francisco Rodriguez is and who he used to support or are you just spilling your script without thinking?
BTW, I also posted his rebuttals to your apostle Wiesbrot.
And Justin/Mini-Tosh, I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge your messiah is anti-democratic according to your own standards:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k...h? v=kq_NjLc1s2M
The link got screwed-up somehow, here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k...h?
v=kq_NjLc1s2M
As long as the opposition has no serious leadership, Chavez won't need to debate them. That's the point.
The president of a country has no need to listen to his constituents. Awesome.
Daniel--
You are one dumb motherfucker, there's no question about that. Since you've been to my page, you know that I'm my own person, Tosh is his own person--kind of like how even though Francisco Toro and Miguel Octavio are both quasi-literate ideologues with sycophantic followings and delusions that they have more than 4 errant brain cells knocking into one another within their skull, they're still different people, if cut from that same, arrogant cloth.
Good try though.
As for the various Rodriguez/Weisbrot debates--
anyone interested can work their way through the various files, they're all available online.
In each case, Weisbrot had the last word, taking apart Rodriguez's (dishonest) arguments. But check for yourselves.
How many personalities does that chiflado has?
Charly
I think we should continue rattling his cage to see how many more avatars we do get.
Rosales was too formidable to beat in elections
Ah, yes. So formidable that Chavez beat him by a meager 26 points in the 2006 presidential election. I guess I just forgot how formidable Rosales was.
Justin,
The latest elections were the Regional ones in 2008 Justin... you are you stuck in 2006 .
WTI above US$68 on NY. Anotehr hope dashed for the escualidos.
Does it matter how amny identites Ihave. You still cannot answer the arguments.
Anonymous,
When a person suffers from multiple personality disorder, it is of no use to answer one of the personalities when the majority are not even conscious....
This disorder seems to feed the need for different ego solutions .
Quite obviously if you were not so fearful you could integrate all of them into one .
Anonymous,
68? So? Chavez is desperately selling out Venezuela because he does not have cash now.
http://desarrollosostenibleparav...-de-
brasil.html
Kepler, Kepler... don't you ever know how to contextualize such news?
No cash? And the $ 30 billion in the reserves?
The 4.3 billion is for housing projects. Inform yourself. The headline on the link you posted is completely misleading. All the joint companies in the faja are 60% controlled by PDVSA. Now, how is that selling out?
It's called business. No one ever mentioned that venezuela was selling out when Brazil financed 85% of the second bridge over the Orinoco. Why the opposite point of view now?
Think what you want but this sort of propaganda will just fizzle out as does most of the oppo disinformation.
"$ 30 billion in the reserves?"
That is a good question. What happened with that money?
Zhongguoren hen gaoxing!
Los chinos están súper contentos.
Anonymous/Tosh/Cris Carlson/Max
It is tough to see that all the people you really want to play with want nothing with you.
Is it your bad breath?
Your unkempt hair?
That you grab the ball and refuse to release it?
That you steal people's lunch money?
That you threaten all the time to beat them up or else?
Daniel Duquenal | Homepage | 05.31.09 - 10:17 am | #
Hahahaha, am I really supposed to respond to this???
Wait, and I'm the one that is "immature" and "childish"???
Oh Daniel, thanks for that. It was hilarious.
Tosh, do you know who Francisco Rodriguez is and who he used to support or are you just spilling your script without thinking?
BTW, I also posted his rebuttals to your apostle Wiesbrot.
Of course I know who he is. I also understand why the evidence he uses to make his case is insufficient and invalid.
And, wrong, you did not post rebuttals to what I posted. Check again my friend.
The latest elections were the Regional ones in 2008 Justin... you are you stuck in 2006.
Well let's just put it this way, firepigette. Manuel Rosales is no match for Hugo Chavez. Even Francisco Toro knows that.
Daniel--
You are one dumb motherfucker, there's no question about that.
Max, meet Daniel.
There is no room in my blog for spoiled brats, chavistas or anti chavistas. Learn to behave and you will be again allowed to write in my comment section as well as the one of Miguel or Quico, by the way.
In other words, you censor your blog when people who you don't like comment there. That is why this debate cannot take place there, and has to take place on OilWars, where no one is censored.
Try not to be such an obvious hypocrite Daniel, and people might take you a bit more seriously.
Kepler - for your information the biggest part of the international resveres are in the Bank of International settlements in Basilea.
Help! There's no money. Venezuela is broke. Sure, that's why international investment advisors are recomending buying Venezuelan government bonds and the rating agencies have lifted the debt rating a notch or two in the last month.
Help, Kepler. What should we do?
WTI above US$68 on NY. Anotehr hope dashed for the escualidos.
Yeah, I thought Venezuela was supposed to be in shambles by now? Wasn't the whole economy supposed to have crashed? Wasn't the government supposed to be broke by now?
Yep, just another of those opposition falsehoods. How many are we up to now in just this thread alone? Anyone willing to go back and get a count?
No, the LMAO concerned the "all thanks to Chávez and his policies".
Sire | 05.30.09 - 12:36 pm | #
Oh, I see, so you're just going to deny that Chavez had anything to do with a fortified OPEC. Either way you're full of shit.
But I can't help but notice that NOT A SINGLE OPPO MORON could answer my questions above about Vargas Llosa.
Do you know what policies he supports for Latin America? Do you agree with him? If not, why is the Venezuelan opposition bringing in a guy that supports neoliberal policies to be their leader?
These aren't hard questions. Why can't anyone answer?
No cash? And the $ 30 billion in the reserves?
Do you know what reserves are for?
Max,
I see you decided to disappear after my rebuttal and now you show up calling people "dumb motherfuckers"?
Quite an intellectual, aren't you?
Do you know what reserves are for?
We've been through this Tank, and you oppo morons were proven wrong, like always.
Reserves are not exclusively for backing up the currency, as the recent transfer of $12 billion to Fonden showed.
There does exist a thing called EXCESS RESERVES.
Mark up another one of the oppo morons!!!
Alguien sabe sobre la nueva paternidad de Thugo Chávez con la chica que mandaron a sacar de Venezuela?
Y en otra: alguien sabe del marido de la cubana de seguridad, marido que fue asesinado?
Tosh - these oppos don't answer because they have no idea about Vargas Llosa and will swallow anything served up on a silver platter if some media idiot tells them that it is "anti-Chavez. Nothing more to it.
Kepler - please come up with something more substantial instead of Noticiero Digital type runmors.
Tosh - these oppos don't answer because they have no idea about Vargas Llosa and will swallow anything served up on a silver platter if some media idiot tells them that it is "anti-Chavez. Nothing more to it.
Exactly my point. I'm just seeing if I can't get them to realize that for themselves. They are a bit slow though, so I'm not holding my breath.
Yeah, Tosh, Vargas Llosa is very pro-Chavez. We are just so slow!
Yeah.
There does exist a thing called EXCESS RESERVES.
The term used was reserves, not excess reserves. And btw... you could spend your reserves and harm the economic health of your country.
On another note...excess reserves are not $30B.
Whatever we are burrowing today, will be repaid by future generations. We shouldn't be borrowing today... but that ship has sailed.
burrowing = borrowing.
Yes, Tank, we are still paying debts from CAP 1.
Yes, Tank, we are still paying debts from CAP 1.
Exactly. We should not be borrowing more, specially when we had the revenues to save.
Burrowing is correct. Chavez is burrowing like a red-clad CAP
Tank - economics lesson #1:
The amount a country can safely borrow depends on its overall GDP.
For example, the US owes around 75% of its GDP. Graet Britain about the same.
Venezuela's total debts are just under 18% of its GDP. Now, if that is not conservative for a rabid left wing government (I knew you would like that) I do not know what is.
Thus, all this hot air about borrowing too mech etc. - just go away and think about it. I also suggest you check the CIA World Fact Book and you can see all the GDP's and debts of all countries.
It's obvious that you just read propaganda without really knowing what the economic rules of the game are.
The term used was reserves, not excess reserves.
Thanks for demonstrating that you have no clue what excess reserves are.
And btw... you could spend your reserves and harm the economic health of your country.
Sure, you COULD do a lot of things, but until you can actually demonstrate that transferring excess reserves to fonds like Fonden harms the economic health of the country you COULD just be full of shit.
On another note...excess reserves are not $30B.
No one said they were. But until now you didn't even know a thing called excess reserves existed.
Remember back when all you oppo morons (led by Quico this time) were claiming that the government couldn't use the reserves to shore up lost revenue? Well, unsurprisingly, you were wrong once again.
Whatever we are burrowing today, will be repaid by future generations.
Wow, is that how that works??
We shouldn't be borrowing today... but that ship has sailed.
Tank | 06.01.09 - 3:55 pm | #
That is total nonsense. All governments borrow money. What matters is if they keep debt at a manageable level, which this government is doing.
It's obvious that you just read propaganda without really knowing what the economic rules of the game are.
Our GPD is totally dependant on oil prices and debt its actually close to 25% of GDP for 2008.
Our GDP (Nominal) in 2008 was the highest EVER, approximately $320B up from $145B in 2005 and $88B in 2000.
That right there shows you how volatile our GDP is.
So that 25% could become 75-85% of GDP in no time... For an undeveloped economy, that depends entirely on oil exports this is not a good sign.
Want to play with the statistics? Look at non-oil GDP or try to normalize GDP. The numbers change drastically.
Spin it any way you want, the numbers speak for themselves. (You can also scroll down and read OW's comments on this).
Tank - you are confusing what percentage oil exports make up of Venezuela's foreign earnings and what percentage the petroleum industry represents of the total GDP.
Check it out. It is surprisingly low. Thus, you can call GDP as being volatile but the fact remains that venezuela's borrowing (and that was the strting point of this discussion) is very low in terms of current GDP and 2008 GDP.
remember GDP grew 0.3% in the first quarter.
I'd get off this subject if I were you since there's no way that venezuela is "overborrowing" as you and Kepler want to fanstasize.
Tank - Venezuela's total debt (including internal debt) is not where near US$80 billion. It's near US$54 billion.
25% - what BS fantasy are you selling.
I'd get off this subject if I were you since there's no way that venezuela is "overborrowing" as you and Kepler want to fanstasize.
Anonymous | 06.01.09 - 5:13 pm | #
Anon,
I'm pretty sure these oppo morons get pleasure out of being wrong over and over and over again. How else can you explain the fact that they are wrong about almost everything they say?
Tank - you are confusing what percentage oil exports make up of Venezuela's foreign earnings and what percentage the petroleum industry represents of the total GDP.
Oil accounts for about 30% of our GDP and 90% of our exports. I would hardly consider that not significant.
That's almost $100B.
Also remember GDP takes into account output, income and expenditures. Oil affects all three, as oil revenues dry up the government will have less money to spend and less money to pay salaries with (cut headcount becomes necessary).
Check it out. It is surprisingly low. Thus, you can call GDP as being volatile but the fact remains that venezuela's borrowing (and that was the strting point of this discussion) is very low in terms of current GDP and 2008 GDP.
OW makes the same point.Total debt needs to include all debt.
http://haloscan.com/tb/oilwars/
8...025722033399134
I'm pretty sure these oppo morons get pleasure out of being wrong over and over and over again. How else can you explain the fact that they are wrong about almost everything they say?
Tosh this is exactly why I try to not to get in arguments with you. You have no respect for nobody. You must think highly of yourself when you can call everyone that does not agree with you a moron, and all opposition oppo-morons.
Get off your high horse, you aint that smart. None of us is.
Tosh: the opposition is against borrowing by Chavez, because the neoliberal capitalists seek to exploit this recession by concentrate more and more power in themselves by eliminating competition, as is currently happening in the US
but, if it was borrowing for their interests, the financial sector, they would be OK with it, as is happening through the Treasury and the Federal Reserve in the US, with smaller, healthier companies finding themselves at a disadvantage in comparison to larger, financially distressed companies subsidized by the US Treasury
how can they create oligopolies for themselves if the Venezuelan economy doesn't collapse??
the opposition wants to adopt an American model, with people like Vargas Llosa as an inspiration
but, you already know all this
Tank - despite 9 months or more of the "crisis" unemployment is still going down in Venezuela. Wherer it has gone up is in the states where the opposition won on November 23rd as well as in certain alcldias - Alcaldia Mayor, especially and in Táchira.
as oil revenues dry up the government will have less money to spend and less money to pay salaries with (cut headcount becomes necessary).
Wow Tank, is that how it works? As oil revenues dry up the government has less money? Wow! I never knew that.
Unfortunately, all you doomsayers have been proven wrong time and time again. The government has always budgeted conservatively (even right now the price of oil is higher than what the government budgeted for this year), and has saved up a significant amount of cash to last through any times of low revenues.
I wonder how many times these opposition guys are going to have to be proven wrong before they begin to question their constant doom day predictions?
Tosh this is exactly why I try to not to get in arguments with you. You have no respect for nobody. You must think highly of yourself when you can call everyone that does not agree with you a moron, and all opposition oppo-morons.
Same goes for you buddy. Except you're even worse because you also don't have any respect for the truth, or facts, or evidence. You simply believe any crap nonsense that you read in the retarded opposition media that you love.
Get off your high horse, you aint that smart. None of us is.
Tank | 06.01.09 - 7:02 pm | #
You don't have to be smart to not be wrong over and over and over again. You just have to care about finding out what the truth is before spouting nonsense.
Oil accounts for about 30% of our GDP and 90% of our exports. I would hardly consider that not significant.
No one said oil is not significant. That isn't the argument. The argument is whether the total debt is unmanageable. Unless you think GDP is going to fall drastically this year, which is pretty unlikely, you have no argument.
Thank you Tosh. That's what Tank cannot get thru his thick skull. Their argument is "borrowing = Bad", therefore implying debt is unmanageable, which it is not.
I really wish I could see the world the way you guys do. Black & White, Oppomorons & Chavistas, Good or Bad.
Must have hit a nerve there for all of you to attacking me with arguments such as:
"Unfortunately, all you doomsayers have been proven wrong time and time again."
The world isn't gonna end, as Globovision would say, because the government runs out of money. Quality of life simply is gonna decrease, the government will manage at the expense of the population...
Flame away.
Tank Out
I really wish I could see the world the way you guys do. Black & White, Oppomorons & Chavistas, Good or Bad.
That a boy Tank! When you've been proven wrong just forget about the topic at hand and start in with the ad hominems!!
The world isn't gonna end, as Globovision would say, because the government runs out of money.
Why would the government run out of money when the current price of oil is above what they budgeted for?
In other words, you censor your blog when people who you don't like comment there. That is why this debate cannot take place there, and has to take place on OilWars, where no one is censored.
Tosh
This is no debate here whatsoever. Where? I am just telling you a couple things straight while you are insulting pretty much everyone. Then again this is the Chavez style of "debate" as we saw last week.
Of course imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. Thus you should get a bonus anytime soon. Keep it up!
This is no debate here whatsoever. Where?
There certainly isn't debate happening with you because you're way too childish and irresponsible to even engage.
But there is a pretty fruitful debate happening with others, which is why this thread has nearly 500 comments, and dozens of people participating.
I am just telling you a couple things straight while you are insulting pretty much everyone.
Yes, it sure is curious how you seem to feel the need to keep coming over here to "tell me how it is."
Look Daniel, you better run back over and hide behind your censored blog, because over here you wouldn't last 2 minutes without having your arguments totally destroyed.
"Why would the government run out of money when the current price of oil is above what they budgeted for?"
Because the budget that has that lower price has the country taking on about $16 billion more in debt just to finance the Bolivars budget. The country is also starting to take on significant amounts of foriegn debt. Further, the budget with the lower price also was a budget that reduced expenditures. The economy slowed to a virtual dead stop in Q1 (.3% growth) BEFORE the budget was cut so in subsequent quarters it will very likely go into a recession.
Furthermore, the Bolivar Dollar exchange rate remains unchanged. Yet prices keep going up.
For example Chavez increased the minimum wage by 20%. Given that the exchange rate is fixed that means they will need 20% more dollars to pay for the minimum wage increase (and this applies to all government expenses not just minimum wage payments). Yet rather than the amount of dollars they get going up it has gone down due to the price decline. And of course, this will get worse and worse every year that they leave the exchange rate the same while they have high inflation. It was only affordable with oil prices increasing significantly each year. But now that they have declined its a big problem. That is why they had to take drastic measures like not giving PDVSA workers any pay increases (which in Venezuela these days is equivalent to a 25% pay cut over the course of a year).
So the recent run up in oil prices is definitely good news for Venezuela and does help them significantly. But Venezuela still has very big imbalances and is getting more and more boxed in by its unresolved economic imbalances.
"Tank - Venezuela's total debt (including internal debt) is not where near US$80 billion. It's near US$54 billion."
I don't think that is correct.
I think the states foriegn debt is about $23 billion and the internal debt is at least $30 billion after counting the new debt they are taking on. Then PDVSA had $16 billion in debt, BANDES has $8 billion in debt so that right there is about $77 billion. Plus they are talking about taking loans from Brazil and Japan.
So $80 billion seems about right.
Because the budget that has that lower price has the country taking on about $16 billion more in debt just to finance the Bolivars budget.
Uh, and they'll run out of money exactly how? If the current price of oil is higher than what they budgeted for, then the additional debt isn't necessary, and can be paid off with the additional revenue.
The country is also starting to take on significant amounts of foriegn debt.
Apparently you don't even have the numbers for total debt, so how exactly can you say it is significant?
Further, the budget with the lower price also was a budget that reduced expenditures. The economy slowed to a virtual dead stop in Q1 (.3% growth) BEFORE the budget was cut so in subsequent quarters it will very likely go into a recession.
This is an unrelated matter, and ALSO does not mean the government will run out of money.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but there is a little thing called a world-wide economic crisis going on right now, and no Latin Ameican economies are expected to show much growth this year , if any at all. Venezuela is hardly among the worst of them.
Mexico's (a model you have complimented before) shrank significantly in the first quarter.
For example Chavez increased the minimum wage by 20%. Given that the exchange rate is fixed that means they will need 20% more dollars to pay for the minimum wage increase (and this applies to all government expenses not just minimum wage payments).
Less than half of their revenues are in dollars. So, no, they won't need 20% more dollars.
Furthermore, the Bolivar Dollar exchange rate remains unchanged. Yet prices keep going up.
What prices? A lot of their imports have gotten less expensive since the crisis.
So the recent run up in oil prices is definitely good news for Venezuela and does help them significantly. But Venezuela still has very big imbalances and is getting more and more boxed in by its unresolved economic imbalances.
ow | Homepage | 06.01.09 - 9:19 pm | #
By "economic imbalances" you mean an overvalued exchange rate. You obsess about this a ridiculous amount. But they are in no way boxed in. They can adjust the currency whenever they want.
"WTI above US$68 on NY. Anotehr hope dashed for the escualidos.
Yeah, I thought Venezuela was supposed to be in shambles by now? Wasn't the whole economy supposed to have crashed? Wasn't the government supposed to be broke by now?
Yep, just another of those opposition falsehoods. How many are we up to now in just this thread alone? Anyone willing to go back and get a count?"
I have never agree with those who have asserted Venezuela's economy is about to collapse. Clearly it isn't.
At the same time though the boom they've enjoyed due to a spectacular run in oil prices seems to be over. Economies are like big ships - they don't change on a dime. They take a long time and some pretty big forces to move them. Venezuela's economy has finally ground to pretty much a halt. All their tradables except maybe agriculture are in outright decline - oil, mining, and manufacturing.
If you look at the manufacturing GDP numbers over the past two years there has been essentially ZERO growth in manufacturing over the past two years. That is, manufacturing in Q1 of 2009 is the same as Q1 of 2007.
So the question then becomes, unless oil really picks up and starts booming again where will Venezuela's growth come from?
It sure isn't apparent that they have anything else in their economy that will replace oil as a generator of wealth. Given that, its hard to see what will allow Venezuela to get its growth up above 3% anymore.
Richard Estes,
For a while you've asked what other countries, besides China, seem to be outperforming Venezuela.
I would say you should follow the news on Vietnam. Their slowest growth seems to be 3.5% and they expect around 5% or 6% for the year, both numbers significantly better than Venezuela's.
Economies are like big ships - they don't change on a dime. They take a long time and some pretty big forces to move them. Venezuela's economy has finally ground to pretty much a halt.
Wow, such enlightening analysis OW. And which Latin American economy is doing better?
If you look at the manufacturing GDP numbers over the past two years there has been essentially ZERO growth in manufacturing over the past two years. That is, manufacturing in Q1 of 2009 is the same as Q1 of 2007.
Well, that is what you would think if you only looked at the numbers, and had no clue about what is actually happening in the country.
But what the numbers don't explain is that there has been a lot of reorganization and reorientation of manufacturing towards new endeavors, nationalizations of major industries, ect. which don't necessarily show up in the growth numbers.
Not everything can be evaluated strictly by looking at growth numbers, for the millionth time.
So the question then becomes, unless oil really picks up and starts booming again where will Venezuela's growth come from?
The government will continue to invest massive amounts of money into things like agriculture, food processing, basic consumer good industries, and growth will be driven largely from the domestic market.
Given that, its hard to see what will allow Venezuela to get its growth up above 3% anymore.
3% growth isn't bad if it can be on a consistent basis. Venezuela can't be compared to other countries which had access to the world's most lucrative markets. They have to develop depending on internal markets.
I would say you should follow the news on Vietnam. Their slowest growth seems to be 3.5% and they expect around 5% or 6% for the year, both numbers significantly better than Venezuela's.
ow | Homepage | 06.01.09 - 9:35 pm | #
Again, you naively worship growth numbers. But you apparently don't understand the difference between economic growth and economic development. There is a huge difference. Chile also has shown high growth for years, but very little signs of economic development.
I don't know the details in Vietnam, but just because a country has high growth numbers it doesn't mean diddly squat.
Yes Tosh, I am totally destroyed......... You win, I surrender to your magnificent intellect and leave for the second time this thread, with my tail between my legs, to lick my wounds.
Will that make you happy?
Yes Tosh, I am totally destroyed......... You win, I surrender to your magnificent intellect and leave for the second time this thread, with my tail between my legs, to lick my wounds.
How could you be destroyed when you haven't said anything of any substance?
You better go back to your own blog and debate with your little circle-jerk of morons. I see right now on your blog that you all are busy debating whether Chavez has swine flu or hemorrhoids. Now THAT takes some real intellect!
Hahaha! But please do come back from time to time Daniel. We need the comic relief.
Looks like Oilwars has turned into Tosh's mouthpiece. What happened?
Chile also has shown high growth for years, but very little signs of economic development.
Well, it's one thing to say that you don't like the Chilean "model" but quite another to suggest that there hasn't been development there. It cannot be denied that growth is an important component of development. Weisbrot is as much of that view (of growth) as OW is. Of course, a country needs more than just growth to develop, but stagnation in the rate of growth puts serious limits on a country's ability to develop.
I don't like the Chilean "model" either, but the country's export-led growth combined with moderate redistributive measures HAS significantly reduced the level of poverty in Chile since the Pinochet years. I think there are much sounder to ways to develop than Chile's, but to deny its successes simply on account of our misgivings about the "model" doesn't really contribute to a proper understanding of the issues.
Tank,
I didn't respond to your "rebuttal" because it didn't rebut my comment; it laid bare our differences. But I'll see what I can do.
To an extend, they do run on a different logic. However they still need to make enough money to cover their costs. Also, by paying a premium to nationalize a company, increasing its overheads and paying the same salaries (or more) will not make it any more efficient. BIC has been bankrupt twice in the last 10 years, now the goverment will also run the Banco de Venezuela. How can we assume that this nationalization is "for the better" with their track record of managing banks?
The BCV is poorly managed, BIC is poorly managed, Banco del Tesoro is poorly managed (compared to their peers on the private sector). Why take over ANOTHER bank?
Nationalizations are processes which take years to play out. As I recall, when Chavez broke the oil strike, effectively consummating the re-nationalization of PDVSA, it took some time for production levels to recover (which, of course, some dispute, but the recent audit suggests that they've recovered rather strongly. It may be concealing re-imports of processed crude--haven't had time to look at it). Anyway, you're right that there's no justification for a nationalization if and only if the company is consequently run into the ground.
Have we seen this? And in any event, what were/are the social costs? They can't simply be assumed--such things need to be cataloged. But this isn't really our issue (and other than the banks the other nationalized companies seem to be doing more-or-less okay). You write,
First of all, Corporations do have property rights as per the Venezuelan Constitution.
This isn't the place to delve into classical liberal, liberal corporatist, and libertarian socialist understandings of rights, natural law, positive law, etc. I'll simply say that if the Venezuelan constitution enshrined the right to murder babies, people wouldn't have the right to do so. There'd be a legal document saying that it was permissible. But that's a different story. Whatever the constitution says, by their very nature, corporations have no rights. Rights inhere in persons and other living things. not illegitimate private tyrannies.
On another note..I think you are making the mistake of assuming any nationalization is good.
I'm assuming that the tendency to remove property rights from a private tyranny and vest them in an (at least theoretically) democratically controlled political apparatus is a good thing.
Nationalizations should be a carefully thought out process, not a spur of the moment thing or a reaction to breaking price controls.
They should be carefully thought out, but social change is messy business. As for breaking price controls, it's as good a reason as any.
Even if "socially determined" there needs to be a method to the madness. You cant simply put a price cap above the co
Even if "socially determined" there needs to be a method to the madness. You cant simply put a price cap above the costs of producing the goods unless you subsidize the goods. As of today, in Venezuela corporations do have rights and privileges. The Constitution, even if those that wrote it don't respect it, exists.... which you seem to ignore.
You're correct. I don't accept the stipulation that corporations have rights, just like I wouldn't accept the legitimacy of constitutional provisions enshrining the right to murder children. Would you? I assume the answer is no. So you're operating with an a priori framework of what rights or laws could or couldn't be legitimate, too. (unless you're a pure constructionist? the law is legitimate because it's the law, and the law is what it says it is?)
Even if you justify the nationalization of Cargill because of the scarcity of products (which is a result of price controls, CADIVI and labor laws.. but lets follow your logic) you cant apply the same logic to the ceramic companies, cement companies and Banco de Venezuela.
I don't know what this means.
Each one of this nationalizations will cost billions!!
Billions that could have been spent on housing, on recycling (even Chavez acknowledged the trash problem tonight), education (not "misiones", no more band-aid fixes... but infrastructure in every town), Healthcare (Barrio Adentro isn't what it was a few years ago) or even fixing our highways which are a disaster.
We are not even satisfying local demand, we import EVERYTHING.
Right. Development is HARD.
Well, it's one thing to say that you don't like the Chilean "model" but quite another to suggest that there hasn't been development there.
In what way has there been economic development in Chile? Decreased poverty does not mean economic development has taken place, and there are many scholars who dispute just how much poverty has really been reduced there.
But you cannot make the claim that economic development has taken place simply because poverty has (supposedly) been reduced. There are many countries in which poverty has been significantly reduced, but that remain relatively undeveloped economies. Cuba is an example that comes to mind immediately.
I know of no one that considers Chile a developed country, or even approaching that status. After all, what major industries that are Chilean-owned have been developed over the last few decades? Most of what Chile produces are still basic raw material or very simple manufactured goods.
Justin,
I'd recommend you read one of my favorite development economists James Cypher on the topic of Chile.
Is Chile developing? He sure doesn't think so:
Why has the Chilean "miracle" stagnated? CORFO, the Fundación Chile, and ProChile—the core triangle of state institutions responsible for the stealth development policy—are no longer receiving the funding to create new export sectors. In theory, the large forestry companies and others involved in resource processing could expand and upgrade their exports, but Moguillansky's work has demonstrated that these corporations are unwilling to take risks and plow their profits into new economic activities. They have no intention of making the long-term investments in machinery and equipment, personnel and technology, and marketing that would be necessary to develop, for example, a strong, dynamic furniture-making sector. (this is the same thing in Venezuela, by the way, which is why OW is so naive for thinking private capital will "develop" industries there if given the incentives) The same criticism was raised by the vice-president of Chile's Institute of Mining Engineers and by the Association of Metallurgy Industries, who argued that Chile needed an industrial policy (i.e., state intervention directing investment to strategic new sectors) to develop copper processing and the manufacture of copper-intensive products. Currently, only 1% of the copper mined in Chile is processed or turned into manufactured products in the country.
As Moguillansky stresses, Chile's financial/industrial groups are not interested in technological modernization. In a study of 15 similar nations, the United Nations ranked Chile next to last in its index of technological capabilities, and 13th in terms of expenditures on research and development by private firms. Yet, in spite of all this, and because of the role of state intervention in the past, Chile does have a somewhat competitive manufacturing sector: metalworking exports in the manufacturing sector in 2002 were larger than processed food exports and nearly equal to fresh produce exports. Other manufactured exports include plastics, containers, and textiles. With large investments and a new government policy fostering technological research and development and massive labor training, Chile could develop high value-added manufacturing. High wages flowing from a strongly unionized manufacturing sector could, in turn, enlarge the internal market for industrial products. Both forestry and mining have great potential in terms of expansion into clusters of high value-added industries. Both would demand the massive participation of a trained, skilled industrial work force. Support for these sectors is logical from the standpoint of development economics; however, it would create more favorable conditions for unionization and, because independent unions in Chile have always been political as well as economic organizations, this would help bring the working class back into the political arena. Such a development would threaten to revive fundamental struggles not only over the distribution of income, but also over the institutional organization of the economy—the worst fear of Chile's economic, political, military, and religious elites.
http://dollarsandsense.org/
archi...0904cypher.html
Now, does that sound like a country that is achieving economic development??
Again, economic growth is a very different thing than economic development. Sure, you need growth to have development, but you don't necessary have development just because you have growth. Chile has lived off a growing export sector that can no longer sustain itself because they are not modernizing their technology, nor are they investing in expanding domestic capacities, and are therefore exhausting their opportunities for growth.
In what way has there been economic development in Chile? Decreased poverty does not mean economic development has taken place
By that standard, you could just as easily argue that Venezuela isn't developing. I don't think that's true, by the way, but I also don't think it's true of Chile. Poverty-reduction is an integral component of development. By reducing poverty, you increase families' ability to keep their children in school, which means that you increase the country's stock of human capital --its skill base-- in the process of reducing the level of poverty.
But you cannot make the claim that economic development has taken place simply because poverty has (supposedly) been reduced.
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. I explain above why I consider poverty-reduction to be an integral component of development, and I'm quite sure that most development economists --people like, say, Amartya Sen-- would agree with me on that point.
There are many countries in which poverty has been significantly reduced, but that remain relatively undeveloped economies. Cuba is an example that comes to mind immediately.
You've yet to lay out what your definition of "development" is. According to the UN's human development index, for example, Cuba doesn't fair too poorly. It also has a relatively advanced education system and thus a high level of human capital. No doubt many of its economic sectors are poorly developed, but it also has some highly developed sectors (such as in medical vaccines).
I know of no one that considers Chile a developed country, or even approaching that status.
But that's not the argument. The point isn't about whether Chile --or any other Latin American country, for that matter-- has reached the abstract status of a "developed country." Nobody has made that argument. The question is about whether Chile has undergone significant development since the Pinochet years. It's one thing to argue --correctly, in my view-- that the Chilean "model" is light years away from being optimal (on account of a whole series of problems, including the ones that you mention about continued dependence on primary exports). But it's quite another thing to argue that a country that HAS indeed cut poverty in half since the Pinochet years has not undergone significant development. I just don't think the latter argument is tenable.
Moguillansky's work has demonstrated that these corporations are unwilling to take risks and plow their profits into new economic activities. They have no intention of making the long-term investments in machinery and equipment, personnel and technology, and marketing that would be necessary to develop, for example, a strong, dynamic furniture-making sector. (this is the same thing in Venezuela, by the way, which is why OW is so naive for thinking private capital will "develop" industries there if given the incentives)
But you're missing something here. The issue in Chile is that the business community is so powerful and so ideologically committed to neoliberalism that it has managed to stop the kind of state interventionism designed to steer its investments in certain directions. Lagos' original plan was to push the country in a more high-tech direction through limited state interventionism, but the Chilean business community's opposition was just too much for Lagos to overcome.
So the example you give isn't really sufficient to demonstrate that state-led capitalist development can't be viable. Rather, what it demonstrates is that the Chilean state is not sufficiently autonomous from the business community to push such a model of development.
Max,
Why is the education minister refusing to bring about transparency in education to Venezuela? Why are Venezuela's thugs refusing to let Venezuela join the PISA programme?
Why so much fear people can talk about the fact that the average Venezuelan has the lowest level of education in South America, by far and well under Bolivia?
Kepler--
Here was your last "comment" to me.
"Max, you should change the picture of the plant on your blog. It should be a poppy. You are under drug influence. Take care and grow up."
Is there a reason I should take your current question seriously or try to answer it?
NEWSFLASH
Another proof of the wonderful socialist management:
Electricidad de Caracas tuvo pérdidas por Bs F 300 millones
For how long have they been in control of EDC? this has got to be a new world record.
PS. Justin, we're still waiting for you to rationalize how your messiah isn't anti-democratic according to the own standards you expressed...
"No soy socialista"
I'll keep bringing this up, until you stop dodging it.
Max,
Perhaps you have grown up? I am an optimist.
By that standard, you could just as easily argue that Venezuela isn't developing.
Absolutely. Reduction in poverty is not enough to say development is taking place, whether in Cuba, Venezuela, Chile, or anywhere.
Poverty-reduction is an integral component of development. By reducing poverty, you increase families' ability to keep their children in school, which means that you increase the country's stock of human capital --its skill base-- in the process of reducing the level of poverty.
Sure, I didn't say poverty reduction isn't an integral component, but poverty reduction in itself is simply not enough, nor is increasing the stock of human capital. That is the whole point here. These two elements by themselves do not constitute development. One of the most important elements to economic development is technological progress and innovation, and the development of independent industries.
So, in other words, you could improve your human capital all you want, but if you aren't making any progress technologically, or developing new industries, you'll simply have a lot of very educated and skilled workers, with no jobs for them, which is what Cuba's situation is, for example. And Chile has a similar problem. They have made very little progress technologically, has not developed any major industries, and has a pretty high level of unemployment as a result.
But it's quite another thing to argue that a country that HAS indeed cut poverty in half since the Pinochet years has not undergone significant development.
Well, there is actually a lot of debate about whether poverty really has been reduced as much as is claimed, and the evidence is pretty convincing that it hasn't.
But, either way, again, poverty reduction is only ONE component of what economic development is. So, you can reduce poverty all you want, but it is not accompanied by the other components, as I explained above, economic development is not happening.
But you're missing something here. The issue in Chile is that the business community is so powerful and so ideologically committed to neoliberalism that it has managed to stop the kind of state interventionism designed to steer its investments in certain directions.
Actually, I think you're missing something here. The fact that Chile is still dominated by a largely rentista capitalist class, (instead of an industrial bourgeoisie like in most developed economies), which is only looking for easy, risk-free profits, and is not interested in investing their profits into further expanding domestic industry, is a pretty good indicator that they are not progressing towards development.
One of the great lessons of countries like SK, Taiwan, China, etc. is that before they initiated development they basically eliminated the oligarchy, expropriated their wealth, and set the country in a new direction with state-dominated industrial plans. (Tank would benefit from understanding this). That has never happened in Chile, and until it does, development will be impossible.
So the example you give isn't really sufficient to demonstrate that state-led capitalist development can't be viable. Rather, what it demonstrates is that the Chilean state is not sufficiently autonomous from the business community to push such a model of development.
I'm not making the claim that state-led capitalist development is not viable. It certainly is viable, at least in the short term.
The problem with Chile is that state-led capitalist development is basically impossible for the reasons listed above: the oligarchy is too powerful and will not allow it. So, as long as the oligarchy remains, it will be very hard, if not impossible, for economic development to take place.
Can they decrease poverty through the growth of their export sector? Absolutely. That is what they have done. Is it economic development? Nope. Is it sustainable? Nope, not unless you think they can continue to increase exports indefinitely without the price of those exports falling in world markets.
The same thing goes for places like Vietnam. I don't know the details, but I am very sceptical that anything even approaching economic development is happening there.
I'll keep bringing this up, until you stop dodging it.
Jeffrey | 06.02.09 - 11:04 am | #
Hey Jeff, talk about dodging things, when are you going to respond to the fact that Weisbrot destroyed Rodriguez's argument?
You apparently didn't read what I posted above, because it was a direct rebuttal of what you posted. Rodriguez did NOT respond to Weisbrot's latest rebuttal.
I see how you like to dodge these things when they become uncomfortable.
NEWSFLASH
Another proof of the wonderful socialist management:
Electricidad de Caracas tuvo pérdidas por Bs F 300 millones
By the way Jeff, this doesn't prove anything. The whole point of nationalizing a firm like Electricidad de Caracas is that the state now does not have to worry about it being profitable to invest in new infrastructure, expanding service, etc.
So, simply showing that the company lost money doesn't mean anything. Much of these losses could be because the state is making a lot of new investments, or that the state is no longer paying Electricidad de Caracas what it used to when it was private. In fact, it says this in the article:
Otro punto importante es el crecimiento de las cuentas por cobrar, que pasaron de 249,7 a 792,2 millones de bolívares fuertes entre 2007 y 2008. Aquí destaca el aumento de la deuda (de 65,4 millones a 77 millones de bolívares fuertes entre los dos períodos mencionados) de los entes gubernamentales con la empresa.
So, in other words, you'll have to make a better argument than that if you want to say that the government is doing something wrong.
One of the most important elements to economic development is technological progress and innovation, and the development of independent industries.
None of which can be done without a huge stock of human capital.
So, in other words, you could improve your human capital all you want, but if you aren't making any progress technologically, or developing new industries, you'll simply have a lot of very educated and skilled workers, with no jobs for them, which is what Cuba's situation is, for example. And Chile has a similar problem. They have made very little progress technologically, has not developed any major industries, and has a pretty high level of unemployment as a result.
Well, it seems to me rather dubious that Chile could have sustained the rates of growth it did over the last 20 years without having advanced technologically. Even in primary export sectors, technological advancements in the means of extraction can and do occur. It's wrong to assume that no technological advancement can occur under a neoliberal export-led model. To be sure, it's not the optimal level of development, but I still think it's quite untenable to argue that no development has occurred in Chile.
None of which can be done without a huge stock of human capital.
Fine, but you still aren't getting the point. Human capital isn't enough by itself.
Well, it seems to me rather dubious that Chile could have sustained the rates of growth it did over the last 20 years without having advanced technologically.
It is not dubious at all when you understand that the oligarchy is simply not interested in investing their profits in expanding and upgrading production. This is actually a very common problem in underdeveloped countries. Paul Baran has written extensively about it.
And, apparently you didn't read Cypher's or Moguillansky's analysis.
IAs Moguillansky stresses, Chile's financial/industrial groups are not interested in technological modernization. In a study of 15 similar nations, the United Nations ranked Chile next to last in its index of technological capabilities, and 13th in terms of expenditures on research and development by private firms.
But if you don't want to take it from Cypher, just show me where they have made significant progress technologically?
What advanced industries does Chile have? What industries are progressing technologically?
By reducing poverty, you increase families' ability to keep their children in school, which means that you increase the country's stock of human capital --its skill base-- in the process of reducing the level of poverty.
By the way, Justin, I have to point out that this isn't necessarily true. Theoretically you could pull many families out of poverty, but only bring them barely above the threshold (which is what has happened in Chile) so that they still are unable to afford sending their children to school, or a university, etc. The statistics show that they are no longer in poverty, but that does not mean they they don't live in very poor conditions.
Further, if the school system is largely privatized, and public schools are low quality, then that makes it even that much more unlikely that lower income people will be able to send their kids to a quality school. And, if higher level jobs are not widely available, it wouldn't make much sense for a poorer family to pay to send their kid to a private university if he wasn't going to be able to find a job afterwards anyway.
So there are a lot of factors at play here. Lowering poverty does not automatically improve education levels.
Justin,
Coincidentally some Chilean guy just commented on Chile's poverty reduction over here:
http://www.maxajl.com/?p=1235#comments
the Concertacion has reduced poverty to some 20% with about 12% indigence, down from about 40% in 1990. However, this poverty reduction has been almost entirely based on short contract, low wage employment in combination with targetted state subventions of rent and some bills. Thus, the poor are uniquely vulnerable to being plunged back into poverty, and are constantly hovering on or just below the poverty line. This system doesn't take people into wealth, it sustains them a centimetre above the poverty line. The whole system is based on state income from the copper industry (which is only 40% state owned), and as such is only sustainable while stocks of copper, or global demand for it continue. At the moment the crisis is forcing the government to come up with ever more subventions, including direct ones of 40k pesos to each family,
I want to add one point: I don't take my stance with masturbatory obscurantists like Arturo Escobar or primitivists like Zerzan, but it is worthwhile to at least clarify what you guys mean when you say "development."
Of course, it's commonly agreed that Europe and the US are developed entities (Europe, a much more civilized place than the US) but without being irredeemably corny and mushy-headed, in my view development is ultimately about people's self-realization, in the socialist sense. So it's true that this involves a reduction in mindless labor, which will have to be effected via improvements in the technological base, as Tosh writes (and a Chilean leftist commenter over my way just scathingly attacked Chilean development policy, Justin, for what it's worth).
My only issue here is that defining development in such a way as to exclude human development from the total calculus seems problematic. Development is about how people live their lives. Technological development may help or hinder it, but regarding it as an end-in-itself was one of the many, many failures of Soviet development policy (as were many strains of Marxism vis-a-vis the peasant question. I cannot recommend David Mitrany's Marx Against the Peasant strongly enough).
Also, I've been annoyingly insisting on the importance of agrarian reform for a couple months here--but not only to create an internal market, or to break the spine of the landed oligarchy, or to create food sovereignty, but because I think a functional, communal agrarian economy is a good in itself.
I realize this line of thinking often leads to a romanticizing of peasant poverty, or a relativistic view that simply derides "development" as some Euro-centric claptrap. I don't mean to say that.
Finally, a link:
http://monthlyreview.org/mrzine/
...dell170608.html
My only issue here is that defining development in such a way as to exclude human development from the total calculus seems problematic.
Max,
I don't think anyone is excluding human development. I am simply saying that human capital is not enough in itself.
Development is about how people live their lives. Technological development may help or hinder it,
Sure, but unless the country progresses technologically, they are going to be forever dependent on imported technology.
Also, I've been annoyingly insisting on the importance of agrarian reform for a couple months here--but not only to create an internal market, or to break the spine of the landed oligarchy, or to create food sovereignty, but because I think a functional, communal agrarian economy is a good in itself.
Yes, your calls fall on deaf ears around here. I'm not sure anyone here (certainly not OW) understands the importance of agrarian reform to development. I would go so far as to say that without agrarian reform there will NOT EVER be economic development in Latin America.
Tosh - all nationalized industries from para of what coul dbe called Venezuela Inc. therefore, if the oppos want to play the game of pointing at EDC and say. "Look, it lost 300 million" we should say that all the nationalized companies should be looked at as a whole and see if they made a rpofit overall.
As you rightly point out, you do not have to make a profit necessarily since that is a capitalist notion which is there to make the private shareholders rich.
Tosh - all nationalized industries from para of what coul dbe called Venezuela Inc.
Exactly, and if EDC is not making money because the state isn't paying full price, or at all, for its services, then what difference does that make?
When the state pays EDC it is simply taking money from one pocket and putting it into the other pocket. So it makes very little difference.
I am not saying that the state isn't mishandling Caracas de Electricidad. That certainly is possible. But you can't demonstrate that by simply showing that EDC is losing money.
Finally, a link:
http://monthlyreview.org/mrzine/ ...dell170608.html
max | Homepage | 06.02.09 - 1:53 pm | #
Very interesting Max. I especially like the last little anecdote:
I will conclude with a story told by the Peruvian Marxist and Indigenous leader Hugo Blanco. A member of his community, he tells us, conducted some Swedish tourists to a Quechua village near Cuzco. Impressed by the collectivist spirit of the Indigenous community, one of the tourists commented, "This is like communism."
"No," responded their guide, "Communism is like this."
"So, simply showing that the company lost money doesn't mean anything. Much of these losses could be because the state is making a lot of new investments, or that the state is no longer paying Electricidad de Caracas what it used to when it was private."
This shows your complete ignorance on common Venezuelan history.
The state has always had a HUGE debt with EDC. It just increased when your beloved sect got in control of it. They never stopped paying to EDC because they just never did.
And please explain this:
"Much of these losses could be because the state is making a lot of new investments"
Fact or wishful thinking?
Tosh:
I would be the last person in the world to endorse the Chilean "model," and I certainly don't disagree with the criticisms of it that you offer. My point is that you overstate your case in a manner that is dogmatic and deeply ideological. For you to assert that Chile hasn't undergone significant development since the Pinochet years (despite the sustained growth it has undergone) is analogous to the Venezuelan opposition's absurd arguments that Venezuela hasn't experienced significant reductions in poverty and inequality (despite all of CEPAL's evidence to the contrary). Here you're doing exactly the type of thing the Venezuelan opposition routinely does: allowing partisanship and ideology to trump basic facts.
In a study of 15 similar nations, the United Nations ranked Chile next to last in its index of technological capabilities, and 13th in terms of expenditures on research and development by private firms.
Which "15 similar nations"? That would be important to know. If you're comparing Chile to East Asia, I'm sure that's true. I doubt, however, that Chile fairs so poorly relative to the rest of Latin America.
the Concertacion has reduced poverty to some 20% with about 12% indigence, down from about 40% in 1990. However, this poverty reduction has been almost entirely based on short contract, low wage employment in combination with targetted state subventions of rent and some bills.
But the fact remains that short contract, low-wage employment is preferable to no employment, and subsidized rent is preferable to not being able to pay one's rent.
And notice what you're doing here. You're applying a set of standards to Chile that you would never apply to Venezuela. No doubt many Venezuelans who are no longer below the poverty line aren't much above it either. Would you attack Mercal on account of the fact that it doesn't put poor people into the ranks of the middle class? No, you would rightfully applaud the fact that Mercal softens the poor's economic hardships by increasing their purchasing power. So why wouldn't you adopt the same attitude toward a Chilean program that subsidizes the poor's rent? There's a fundamental disconnect in your basic logic here.
This is like arguing that Lula's bolsa familia program doesn't contribute to development because it's piecemeal and just barely puts some families above the poverty line. All those points are undoubtedly true, but if putting families just above the poverty line is enough to keep their children in school, the program is still contributing to the country's long-term development.
The state has always had a HUGE debt with EDC. It just increased when your beloved sect got in control of it. They never stopped paying to EDC because they just never did.
Regardless, what you are saying is that the government doesn't pay itself for electricity service. What difference would it make? Why would they need to pay themselves whey're just taking money out of one hand to put in the other.
What you aren't getting here, is that showing that the company has losses doesn't prove anything. Your article also states how EDC has taken over electricity service from other electricity companies.
Fact or wishful thinking?
Jeffrey | 06.02.09 - 3:11 pm | #
You tell me Jeffrey. I'm speculating just like you are. The truth is we don't know, and the evidence you've tried to present doesn't tell us anything.
The difference here is that YOUR wishful thinking is that the government is failing, and EDC is being poorly managed. Are you also hoping and praying that Venezuelans will suffer?
Theoretically you could pull many families out of poverty, but only bring them barely above the threshold (which is what has happened in Chile) so that they still are unable to afford sending their children to school, or a university, etc.
The relevant correlation is that, as the level of poverty goes down, the level of school attendance goes up. Assuming the cost of education is a constant, reducing the level of poverty will increase the average family's willingness (and ability) to bear that cost.
"So $80 billion seems about right." (talking about Venezuelan debt)
Let´s assume it is 80 billion USD. That is grossly 3000 USD of debt for each Venezuelan, which could seem a lot at first. Now how much are those 3000 USD really worth and what do you compare them against? Ow wrote above:
"For example Chavez increased the minimum wage by 20%. Given that the exchange rate is fixed that means they will need 20% more dollars to pay for the minimum wage increase (and this applies to all government expenses not just minimum wage payments). Yet rather than the amount of dollars they get going up it has gone down due to the price decline."
The price decline? the price of oil is going up. Maybe you meant the amount of dollars you are receiving due to the exchange rate. Since our last exchange of ideas some weeks ago the dollar has devaluated around 8% (ow said then that the Euro was jumping erracticly and going up right now simply because investors - seeing that the economy is starting to do so well - could afford to expand their portfolios into riskier investments).
You know I have my own ideas on this which will only be proven or disproven as time passes, but today I was reading the news (I always read news, as you may have guessed) and I found some very interesting ones which help put things into perspective:
1. Leap in U.S. debt hits taxpayers with 12% more red ink
http://www.usatoday.com/news/was...5-28-
debt_N.htm
Everybody in the United States owes 121,953 USD. That is more than 40 times what each Venezuelan owes. Imagine what our so-called quality of life would be (and any other country's citizens for that matter) if we could endebt ourselves and dilapidate that sort of money. This is the kind of thing that prove that behind all the pretty arguments of the opposition there are some pretty shitty economic paradigms that are fortunately starting to crack (and eventually will, either in this or in the many crises to come).
2 and 3. Administration: Highway fund to go broke in August
http://www.google.com/
hostednews...VqobvwD98IO7N00
Oregon jails begin charging inmates nightly rates
http://www.yahoo.com/s/1080164
You see, the US administration has its priorities so wrong that it doesn't have money to pay for highways or inmate expenses but escalates tensions in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Everytime they need money to pay for ordinary stuff like this (or extra-ordinary stuff like the 4,9 billion BankUnited's failure cost the FDIC last week) they have to emit more debt which is getting costlier and riskier for investors. That's why Chinese economists have been repeating it so much lately...
http://news.xinhuanet.com/
englis...nt_11461910.htm
... and countries like Russia have dumped the dollar as their basic reserve.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ind...xt=va&
aid=13691
The dollar is just a piece of paper that people has thought to be very va
The dollar is just a piece of paper that people has thought to be very valuable for some time and the US is doing everything it can to make it worth crap pretty soon.
That means that Venezuela will continue to make more dollars for selling its oil (not because of demand but because the dollar is worth less), while its debt in dollars will be worth less too and its reserves in gold and other currencies will be worth more (as it is starting to happen already).
I said I'd come back in a couple of months after we could evaluate how things are going, but since I'm here already I say:
Keep an eye on the increase in the mortgage rates in the US; on the increase in the mortagage delinquencies; on the US monetizing its crazy deficit and devaluing the dollar even more; on the weird effects that the crisis will have, for example, in the mortgage ladden Gulf Coast counties during this hurricane season; on the US creating even more imbalances in Asia and the Middle East thanks to our guy in the white house and his change-lovin' pals.
I'll come back some other time and post other news.
The relevant correlation is that, as the level of poverty goes down, the level of school attendance goes up. Assuming the cost of education is a constant, reducing the level of poverty will increase the average family's willingness (and ability) to bear that cost.
Not in the presense of the factors I listed above. Why would you pay to send you child to school if it wouldn't increase their chance of gaining better employment? Why would you pay to send your child to school if your disposable income is barely enough to cover your regular expenses? You might not be considered "in poverty" but you still don't have enough disposable income to pay for a decent education.
And you'd also have to take into account the quality of education. What if public schools are of very low quality? Will an increase in attendance really make much of a difference in the country's human capital?
But, if you can show some statistics that show education stats have improved in Chile in recent years then you would have a better case. All I am saying is that a reduction in poverty does not automatically translate into better education levels.
My point is that you overstate your case in a manner that is dogmatic and deeply ideological.
No, it actually isn't ideological at all. It is fact based, and I have cited scholars that say the same thing. Are you going to try to claim that James Cypher is also simply an ideologue?
I think you don't have a very clear understanding of what economic development is. Poverty reduction is only one component of it. Unless the other components are present, economic development is simply not taking place.
But the fact remains that short contract, low-wage employment is preferable to no employment, and subsidized rent is preferable to not being able to pay one's rent.
This is an absurd argument. With that logic you could literally say ANYTHING is better than nothing, so you could make the claim that ANY efforts by a government are producing development, because they are better than nothing.
You're applying a set of standards to Chile that you would never apply to Venezuela. No doubt many Venezuelans who are no longer below the poverty line aren't much above it either. Would you attack Mercal on account of the fact that it doesn't put poor people into the ranks of the middle class?
No, I would not attack Mercal, but I would also not make the claim that Mercal is producing economic development. It clearly isn't. Yes, subsidized food helps the poor, but it is inevitably unsustainable if other policies that produce development are not present.
I would also not make the claim that just because poverty has decreased in Venezuela that that automatically means that economic development is taking place. That is an absurd argument, but that is what you are saying regarding Chile.
you would rightfully applaud the fact that Mercal softens the poor's economic hardships by increasing their purchasing power. So why wouldn't you adopt the same attitude toward a Chilean program that subsidizes the poor's rent? There's a fundamental disconnect in your basic logic here.
I think the disconnect is in your understanding of my argument. Just because I would applaud social programs that help the poor, it does NOT mean that I would make the claim that those social programs are producing economic development.
if putting families just above the poverty line is enough to keep their children in school, the program is still contributing to the country's long-term development.
Again, not necessarily. Education is only one piece of the pie. A country can have an excellent education system, but still have an undeveloped economy. Again, Cuba is a good example of this.
I think what you aren't understanding is that to have economic development you have to have ALL the pieces of the puzzle. You can't claim that economic development is happening just because you have one or two pieces.
It is great to reduce poverty and improve education levels. But that alone will NOT automatically translate into economic development without other important components.
Likewise, you cannot make the claim that a country is developing just because it is doing one or another of these. Development requires that all of the components are present.
No, I would not attack Mercal
Well, if you wouldn't attack subsidized food for poor Venezuelans, how in the hell does it make sense for you to belittle subsidized rent for poor Chileans? You're applying two sets of standards here, which indicates to me that you've yet to work out the logic of your argument.
It is fact based, and I have cited scholars that say the same thing. Are you going to try to claim that James Cypher is also simply an ideologue
A quote from James Cypher is not a "fact-based" argument. The simple growth figures and poverty reduction figures over a 20-year period are certainly more relevant to an assessment of whether Chile has undergone some development than Cypher's quote.
I could cite 10 other scholars with all sorts of wonderful things to say about Chile, but I won't bother to do so because I don't buy those arguments either.
What solidifies one's argument is not whether some scholar agrees with the argument but rather whether the relevant data supports it.
But, if you can show some statistics that show education stats have improved in Chile in recent years then you would have a better case.
I'll get back to you on that.
Well, if you wouldn't attack subsidized food for poor Venezuelans, how in the hell does it make sense for you to belittle subsidized rent for poor Chileans?
I didn't belittle it actually. The comment you are referring to comes from a Chilean who commented on another blog. I posted the link above the comment.
However, I think it rightly can be belittled, because in the absense of policies that will continue to improve the lives of these people, subsidizing their rent is simply a bandaid fix. It is not something that can really be applauded, because it is not a viable solution to their problem.
In fact, it could be argued that these subsidies are simply a way to keep the poor pacified while the wealthy elite enriches itself at their expense. Inequality is incredibly high in Chile. A very few are making a lot of wealth, while a large percentage are living on the border of poverty.
A quote from James Cypher is not a "fact-based" argument.
I posted a pretty extensive article of his that addresses this very question. Apparently you didn't read it.
The simple growth figures and poverty reduction figures over a 20-year period are certainly more relevant to an assessment of whether Chile has undergone some development than Cypher's quote.
Again, you apparently aren't understanding what my argument is. No, simple growth and poverty reduction are NOT enough to say that Chile has undergone economic development. Again, economic development is more complex than that. Has life improved for many Chileans? Sure. Does that mean economic development is taking place? Nope.
I could cite 10 other scholars with all sorts of wonderful things to say about Chile, but I won't bother to do so because I don't buy those arguments either.
They can say as many wonderful things as they want, and they might not be wrong about a lot of it, but unless they can prove that the OTHER components of economic development are taking place (i.e. technological progress, development of independent industries, etc.) then they cannot correctly claim that economic development is taking place.
Well, if you wouldn't attack subsidized food for poor Venezuelans, how in the hell does it make sense for you to belittle subsidized rent for poor Chileans?
By the way, Justin, I know what you are getting at here, but this comparison isn't totally valid. Mercal actually does have an added benefit that contributes to development in that it promotes and distributes locally produced food, which is an added stimulus to domestic producers, and theoretically would lead to the development of domestic food industries.
For example, I once met a guy in Barinas who was growing fruit and making pulp from them for fruit juices. He was selling all his production through Mercal, and claimed that before Mercal he would not have had a way to sell his production all across the country.
I do understand your argument. However I think social policies that are not actually accompanied by long-term solutions (such as Chile's rent subsidies) can be righfully criticized as band-aid fixes.
Tosh, why don't you post all this crap in Justin's blog?
By the way: do you have some links about the magnicidios of 1999-2000 against Chavez?
I am trying to put all the list here but there are so many hits on the Internet:
http://desarrollosostenibleparav...-
asesinato.html
Regardless, what you are saying is that the government doesn't pay itself for electricity service. What difference would it make? Why would they need to pay themselves whey're just taking money out of one hand to put in the other.
You obviously haven't ever managed anything that needs financial sustainability, have you?
What you aren't getting here, is that showing that the company has losses doesn't prove anything. Your article also states how EDC has taken over electricity service from other electricity companies.
Other state-owned broke companies I might add
Funny how you "missed" this:
En los números llama la atención que los ingresos por ventas de energía eléctrica disminuyeron de 2,07 millardos a 1,6 millardos, en los dos períodos mencionados.
So they took over other markets and their sales decreased. Yeah, wonderful management skills.
Again, have you ever managed anything that requires financial sustainability?
The difference here is that YOUR wishful thinking is that the government is failing, and EDC is being poorly managed. Are you also hoping and praying that Venezuelans will suffer?
You're such a good demagogue you could make a living out of politics, Tosh. You almost made me cry out of guilt.
I think it rightly can be belittled, because in the absense of policies that will continue to improve the lives of these people, subsidizing their rent is simply a bandaid fix.
More ideologically-based double standards, Tosh. Mercal and Barrio Adentro don't pull poor Venezuelans out of the informal sector either, but (1) that's no reason not to support them and (2) you do support these programs in spite of the fact that they don't resolve all the poor's problems either.
Your two-track logic goes something like this. If Chavez employs social welfare policies for the poor, he deserves praise. If, on the other hand, the Concertacion and Lula do the same thing (albeit to a lesser degree), it's just "a bandaid fix" that is "not a viable solution" to the problems of the poor. Well, tell that to the poor mother of four in Brazil's Northeast who wouldn't be keeping her kids in school if it weren't for bolsa familia.
None of these rudimentary welfare programs should be belittled because (1) they do provide solutions to the most pressing problems that millions of poor people face and (2) there is a wealth of evidence to suggest that the incipient development of a welfare state actually expands people's conceptions of what their social rights are. In other words, the argument that these programs simply "pacify" the poor is not well-subtantiated. Over the long run, they are more likely to have the opposite effect insofar as they expand people's conceptions of their social rights.
Your two-track logic goes something like this. If Chavez employs social welfare policies for the poor, he deserves praise. If, on the other hand, the Concertacion and Lula do the same thing (albeit to a lesser degree), it's just "a bandaid fix" that is "not a viable solution" to the problems of the poor.
Wow, you're really having a hard time understanding this aren't you? It isn't that complex.
I don't support Chavez because of things like Mercal. Mercal is a good policy, but by itself is not something that will really solve the overall problems of the poor. Good social policies deserve praise when they are accompanied by policies that will generate long term solutions, not just band-aid fixes.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
None of these rudimentary welfare programs should be belittled because (1) they do provide solutions to the most pressing problems that millions of poor people face
No, not all social programs provide solutions, because many times they are not accompanied by the correct macro economic policies that will generate long-term solutions.
I'm sorry, but simply because you are giving things to the poor does not mean you are providing any solutions. If that were the case then the U.S.'s food aid program should also be praised, even though it actually many times prevents poor countries from achieving food sovereignty, and harms local producers.
(2) there is a wealth of evidence to suggest that the incipient development of a welfare state actually expands people's conceptions of what their social rights are. In other words, the argument that these programs simply "pacify" the poor is not well-subtantiated.
I'd be interested in seeing that evidence. But, regardless, the point remains. There are some social programs that serve as band-aid fixes, and in which case can be considered to be inferior to other social programs which are accompanied by policies that will create long term solutions.
I find it very hard to praise a government for helping the poor with their rent, while at the same time that government has made the choice to endorse policies that keep wages low (thus necessitating the subsidized rent) and unemployment high, while letting the wealthy capitalists line their pockets.
Sure, they're throwing a bone to the poor, while at the same time choosing policies that almost guarantee that their situation will not improve.
You obviously haven't ever managed anything that needs financial sustainability, have you?
Ah, yes, when your argument no longer works, start attacking the messenger. That's the definition of the good 'ol ad hominems that you oppo guys are so famous for.
Funny how you "missed" this:
En los números llama la atención que los ingresos por ventas de energía eléctrica disminuyeron de 2,07 millardos a 1,6 millardos, en los dos períodos mencionados.
So they took over other markets and their sales decreased. Yeah, wonderful management skills.
Again, this could be attributable to a number of things. But it does not necessarily mean it is being poorly managed.
Just admit it Jeff. You don't know any better than I do if it is being poorly managed, and none of what you have posted proves that.
The government isn't looking to make a profit with EDC. (ever heard of positive externalities?) They are looking to expand service and increase infrastructure. Since their goal isn't to make a profit, it is hardly worthwhile to try to gauge their success based on that element.
Again, have you ever managed anything that requires financial sustainability?
More ad hominem.
You're such a good demagogue you could make a living out of politics, Tosh.
And more ad hominem.
Well, that's a wrap Jeff!
I don't support Chavez because of things like Mercal. Mercal is a good policy, but by itself is not something that will really solve the overall problems of the poor. Good social policies deserve praise when they are accompanied by policies that will generate long term solutions, not just band-aid fixes.
But the only ground-breaking policies that the Chavez government has ever introduced are its social policies. All we can really say, at this point in history, is that the Chavez government is better at managing an oil boom than the opposition would be because the Chavez government has much more egalitarian inclinations. I haven't seen anybody establish much beyond that. The jury is still out about whether the state can efficiently manage the expropriated sectors.
To me, the Chavez government's social policies are, in and of themselves, very important because they will alter Venezuela's class structure in ways that increase the likelihood of a more equitable form of development.
Nevertheless, it's quite dubious to suggest that Venezuela is some sort of model for the rest of Latin America. Some policies that may be appropriate for a major oil-exporter are not necessarily viable for other countries in the region.
if you can show some statistics that show education stats have improved in Chile in recent years then you would have a better case.
CEPAL indicates that, between 1999 and 2005, secondary school enrollment in Chile increased from 79.5% to 90.8%. For a mere seven-year span, that seems pretty impressive to me.
http://websie.eclac.cl/sisgen/Co...or=185&
idioma=e
But the only ground-breaking policies that the Chavez government has ever introduced are its social policies.
Are you kidding? Ever heard of communal councils? Ever heard of the socialist factories? Ever heard of strict limitations on foreign investment? Ever heard of oil sovereignty, OPEC unity, capital controls, import quotas, renationalizations, efforts towards South-South cooperation, Latin American immigration, etc. etc.
The social policies are probably the least interesting part of the whole Chavez strategy.
All we can really say, at this point in history, is that the Chavez government is better at managing an oil boom than the opposition would be because the Chavez government has much more egalitarian inclinations. I haven't seen anybody establish much beyond that. The jury is still out about whether the state can efficiently manage the expropriated sectors.
Sure, the jury is still out about whether or not Chavez will be successful, or whether or not the strategy will be sustainable. But he's certainly shown a lot more than simply being better at managing the oil boom. He's shown a whole new strategy for addressing the problems of underdevelopment through South-South cooperation. He's shown that he understands the inherent problems of capitalism, and seeks to build an alternative. He's shown that he understands the issue of imperialism, and seeks to address it. This is a hell of a lot more than just managing an oil boom better.
Nevertheless, it's quite dubious to suggest that Venezuela is some sort of model for the rest of Latin America. Some policies that may be appropriate for a major oil-exporter are not necessarily viable for other countries in the region.
Well, yes and no. I think in some ways they certainly can be a model. Obviously other countries don't have the luxury of having that kind of cash flowing in, but other countries can follow Venezuela in orienting their economies more towards each other (integration) and not all towards the US and Europe. They can attempt to use their internal markets to fuel development instead of trying to use the export model, etc.
Tosh--
I didn't mean to suggest that anyone had suggested that human development wasn't a part of development.
And you're right, in the current world-system, manufacturing and service-based economies offer more hope and more chances for human development as a general rule than primary-exporting commodities. Nationalizations are the only reasonable route to doing so in Bolivarian Venezuela, pace the protestations of the opposition (and if the nationalizations are such an atrocious idea, why is it that the owners of the companies being nationalized are so furious about them?)
But this is unsustainable. In fact, all development of any sort anywhere (except for Cuba, although not for the reasons Justin cites) has been more-or-less unsustainable, because ecologically destructive, and exceeding sustainable per-capita carbon emissions. The ecology sets the limits for long-run sustainability.
On Chilean and Brazilian social welfare policies: let me talk about Brazil, because I'm not qualified to talk about Chile. Under Lula, land has become more concentrated. Income as a whole has concentrated, with the largest sectors of monopoly capital, tied to transnational capital, growing fast while other sectors stagnate. Meanwhile, Brazil's agro-exports are increasing, effectively contributing to a partial Dutch Disease that has weakened the Brazilian manufacturing base, by exploiting the ecological commons of Brazil--the Cerrado, the Amazon, soil fertility. And Lula gives the sops of Bolsa Familia to the poor (Chico de Oliveira calls this a modality of depoliticization).
Justin: this is sustainable? I don't quite see the double standard, since Chavista economic misiones (no more or less sustainable than much any economic activity on this earth, though, Tosh) occur within the context of macroeconomic policies that seem to be generally orienting Venezuela on a path towards something that may resemble development.
I don't accept that they are bandages, since the reasons for the repeated bleedings are partially being addressed. In Brazil they are not (and they are too piecemeal to represent a strategy of "real breaks," as Poulantzas put it.)
To me, the Chavez government's social policies are, in and of themselves, very important because they will alter Venezuela's class structure in ways that increase the likelihood of a more equitable form of development.
But Lula's policies won't, I don't think, and it's worth asking why this is so. There's a point at which we can grimace and say, Bolsa Familia is better than no Bolsa Familia. Plainly, this is so. It's foolhardy to wish away reforms that better people's lives (incidentally this is something Corrales and Ortega did in a recent sublimely shitty article in the Journal of Democracy).
But we need to examine the context and substance of such reforms, too.
Tosh
Just out of curiosity I did the math on the last 50 comments of this thread, and I counted 27 from you. Take or leave a couple of comments considering the speed of the screen.
And yet one does not have the sensation that a point is being made except that if we do not agree with you then we are less than nothing.
I have to congratulate you, you have managed to make Oil Wars comment section your own blog.
I wonder at this point if you remember right now, as you read this, which was the original article of Burnett.
Just out of curiosity I did the math on the last 50 comments of this thread, and I counted 27 from you. Take or leave a couple of comments considering the speed of the screen
Damn, I was going for 75%. I'll try to do better next time.
And yet one does not have the sensation that a point is being made except that if we do not agree with you then we are less than nothing.
I'm sorry that your inferiority complex doesn't allow you to have a debate without feeling like less than nothing.
I have to congratulate you, you have managed to make Oil Wars comment section your own blog.
Hey man, look at it this way, any time you'd actually like to debate real things, instead of just engage in desperate attempts to discredit me, you should know where to find me.
Now you better get back to your blog where they are debating whether or not Chavez has hemorrhoids. Now THAT is important stuff!!!
I wonder at this point if you remember right now, as you read this, which was the original article of Burnett.
Daniel Duquenal | Homepage | 06.03.09 - 1:28 am | #
We've discussed his original article and much, much more.
But I know, we can hardly compete with the brilliance over on your blog. Did you guys ever figure out if Chavez has swine flu or not? I know I'd sure be interested in finding that out.
Ever heard of communal councils?
The communal councils are indeed ground-breaking, but they're more akin to social policy than economic policy.
Ever heard of the socialist factories?
Sure, but we've yet to see if these will be successes or failures.
Ever heard of strict limitations on foreign investment?
There's nothing particularly ground-breaking about this. The government's policies toward foreign investment are largely dependent upon oil prices. When the price goes up, the government can drive a hard bargain with foreign investors. When the price goes down, the government loses bargaining leverage.
Ever heard of oil sovereignty, OPEC unity
Sure, but that's of relevance to a relatively narrow set of players. The existence of oil sovereignty and OPEC unity is certainly important for Venezuela, but it doesn't have much broader relevance as a symbol of alternative development because most of the developing world doesn't have oil.
capital controls, import quotas
Nothing particularly ground-breaking here. Those have existed before in Venezuela.
renationalizations
Again, the jury is still about how successful these will be.
efforts towards South-South cooperation, Latin American immigration, etc. etc.
This is important, but the bottom line is that (1) ALBA is really too marginal to make much of a difference, (2) Mercosur and the Bank of the South are still handicapped by a lot of internal divisions, and (3) the viabililty of such cooperation is largely dependent on whether the regional left can hold onto power. In other words, South-South cooperation is still in a fragile state and has yet to acquire the level of institutionalization that would indeed be ground-breaking.
The social policies are probably the least interesting part of the whole Chavez strategy.
No, the social policies are really the basis of Chavismo's hold on power. For most of the Venezuelan people, all the rest of what you mention is still pretty pie-in-the-sky. It is largely the Missions that have sustained Chavez's popularity.
Councils...hehe, you wise men really think this is a new invention. Do you know how to say "council" in Russian? Soviet.
What is the achievement? How will this turn out different from the soviets you had in every factory, neighbourhood, farm in the USSR?
( and mind: I don't think we are even going there, this is just some Zimbabwean-Cuban-oil-rich banana republic attempt)
How will the Venezuelan soviets be more transparent, free of pressure from Chavista thugs with weapons who threaten the rest?
(Jeff knows what I am talking about as he has actually worked in the barrios)
Latin American immigration? He?
Integration, you mean? What is the mechanism in place for economic convergence? The criteria?
Social factories? Oh, my God! Ow has made a good effort to explain that in previous posts so that even you, Tosh, can understand if you want.
On Chilean and Brazilian social welfare policies: let me talk about Brazil, because I'm not qualified to talk about Chile. Under Lula, land has become more concentrated. Income as a whole has concentrated, with the largest sectors of monopoly capital, tied to transnational capital, growing fast while other sectors stagnate.
CEPAL's gini coefficient data doesn't corroborate your point about greater income concentration in Brazil. Rather, income inequality has undergone a moderate drop in Brazil during Lula's presidency, and a big part of the reason is bolsa familia. The level of income inequality there is still horrible, of course, but --as you begrudgingly concede-- bolsa familia is better than no bolsa familia.
Look. Brazil, like Chile, is a country with an extremely powerful bourgeosie that not only controls almost all the media but can also cause all sorts of economic problems for any government that would aggressively challenge the bourgeosie's interests. In this respect, Brazil and Chile are different than Venezuela insofar as the Brazilian and Chilean governments do not exercise the kind of leverage over the business community that the Venezuelan state wields because the Brazilian and Chilean governments do not --and cannot-- exercise nearly as much control over their countries' export sectors.
Given the economic structures of Brazil and Chile and the correlation of class forces that these structures reinforce, I'm basically of the view that there really isn't any alternative to a gradualist "social-democratic" project in Chile and Brazil. However much we may have misgivings about the policies of the PT or the Concertacion, the bottom line is that a revolutionary project is just not in the cards in those countries, meaning that the PT and Concertacion remain the only real option for the left in the two respective countries.
"And yet one does not have the sensation that a point is being made except that if we do not agree with you then we are less than nothing. " - Daniel Duqenal.
This is the pot calling the kettle black. Since Daniel has blocked all chavistas from commenting on his blog as he has no arguments, except for snide insults and censoring comments.
I must congratulate Tosh is taking time to make his points cogently and coherently. Only to twisted minds such as Dnaiel's does it make sense to count comments.
If Tosh wants to comments 24 hours a day, it's up to him. If I want to coment twice a day, that's up to me. This is a typical form of escuálido crtiicism made worde by Daniel's personal life style which is contrary to sapphic tendencies.
Regardless, what you are saying is that the government doesn't pay itself for electricity service. What difference would it make? Why would they need to pay themselves whey're just taking money out of one hand to put in the other.It makes a huge difference. Every government entity doesn't feed off the same slush fund, as you suggest it should. That's why there are such things as budgets. It also acts as a forms of checks and balances.
A question for Tosh, do you believe the CIA was planning on shooting down Chavez' plane on its way to the inauguration as he has claimed?
Ah, yes, when your argument no longer works, start attacking the messenger. That's the definition of the good 'ol ad hominems that you oppo guys are so famous for.
Says the guy who calls everyone who dare to disagree with him idiots/morons.
Verdugo no pide clemencia, Toshy, so stop whining like a bitch in heat.
The fact that you miss facts that contradict basic management principles just because you can't accept anything negative coming from your sect proves that you either have zero management experience (which measures your credibility on the topic being discussed) or you are just too blinded by the light. If it makes you feel better to label it as ad hominem attack, be my guest, it's not like I care nor that you have any moral high ground about it.
Again, this could be attributable to a number of things. But it does not necessarily mean it is being poorly managed.
The government isn't looking to make a profit with EDC. (ever heard of positive externalities?) They are looking to expand service and increase infrastructure. Since their goal isn't to make a profit, it is hardly worthwhile to try to gauge their success based on that element.
Again, the fact that you speculate about positive externalities you can't even point out, while ignoring the fact that decreasing sales after expanding their service added to the increase of customers' debt is a pretty obvious sign that things aren't going well proves you have never read a balance sheet. In fact, I doubt you can tell a balance sheet from a grocery list.
More ad hominem.
It's just that you speak with such authority about topics you obviously know nothing about just because of your need/job to defend your cult, it's pretty hard not to. You make it too entertaining to let it pass.
You're such a good demagogue you could make a living out of politics, Tosh.
And more ad hominem.
Well, that's a wrap Jeff!
C'mon Tosh, even such a thick guy as you would agree that sentimental, demagogical and dichotomical comments that try to instrumentalize human suffering (something your cult is well known for) just to make your adversaries look as "the bad ones" is a pretty cheap and mediocre debate technique. It may work with other fundies like you, but I'm a nihilistic atheist so it won't work with me.
By the way, I dedicate this article to Tosh, Justin and the other brilliant socialist CFOs who post here, it can be seen on the newspapers this morning:
Edelca no tiene para pagarle ni a la mitad de su personal
Calculan que las cuentas por cobrar llegan a BsF. 8,6 millones para fin de año.
Sólo recauda 10% de lo facturado a clientes interonectados. PDVSA y 10 industrias de Guayana acumulan deudas.
La empresa analiza un plan de acciones con el fin de obtener los recursos necesarios "para salvaguardar la operatividad". Entre otras medidas está la reprogramación o suspensión de los contratos en ejecución.
Of course, this will be rationalized as great news for those highly regarded CFO stars who have managed hundreds of organizations to financial solvency. I mean, it is widely accepted among these bookstore socialists that the fact that endangering the operativity of any company is a sign of wonderful managemet skills.
The communal councils are indeed ground-breaking, but they're more akin to social policy than economic policy.
Well, they're actually a political entity, so you could say they are a political reform, but they also have a HUGE economic impact, in that one of their central purposes is to manage economic entities, such as the socialist factories, and carry out economic activities in their communities.
There's nothing particularly ground-breaking about this. The government's policies toward foreign investment are largely dependent upon oil prices. When the price goes up, the government can drive a hard bargain with foreign investors. When the price goes down, the government loses bargaining leverage.
No, their foreign investment policies don't depend upon oil. They have been searching for foreign investment from places like China and Iran that will agree to stricter terms of tech transfer, etc. Many of these investments have nothing to do with oil. This kind of policy is pretty ground-breaking in third world right now, especially since most countries are trying to attract any kind of foreign investment, regardless of the terms.
The existence of oil sovereignty and OPEC unity is certainly important for Venezuela, but it doesn't have much broader relevance as a symbol of alternative development because most of the developing world doesn't have oil.
Not necessarily true. The idea of creating cartels for primary goods has been discussed in other sectors as well, such as natural gas, coffee, etc. I'm not sure if it would be viable in these other sectors, but its an idea.
Nothing particularly ground-breaking here. Those have existed before in Venezuela.
So a government should only be applauded for using policies that have never ever been used before? Enacting capital controls and strict conditions on foreign investment is something to be applauded, and can be considered ground-breaking in the middle of a neoliberal age.
Again, the jury is still about how successful these will be.
Sure, but what would be the alternative? We don't know how successful Mercal has been either, yet you're ready to applaud that. You don't know how successful Chile's rent subsidies are either, yet you are already applauding that. What's the difference?
In other words, South-South cooperation is still in a fragile state and has yet to acquire the level of institutionalization that would indeed be ground-breaking.
But does that mean the Chavez government should not be applauded for moving in this direction? It is a ground-breaking move for a Latin American country to move towards integration with countries like Iran and China and advocate this type of South-South strategy, regardless if it ultimately is not successful.
You said that the only ground-breaking policies of the Chavez government are the social policies. I'm saying that's not true.
For most of the Venezuelan people, all the rest of what you mention is still pretty pie-in-the-sky. It is largely the Missions that have sustained Chavez's popularity.
That sounds like a personal opinion to me. It could be true, but there are also a hell of a lot of people that feel a personal connection to Chavez, and who understand his political vision too. I know plenty of pro-Chavez people who have never set foot in a mission.
Either way, you don't only applaud a government for the policies that make him popular. You should applaud a government for the kinds of policies that seek long-term solutions to the most pressing problems. The social programs don't really do that.
In this respect, Brazil and Chile are different than Venezuela insofar as the Brazilian and Chilean governments do not exercise the kind of leverage over the business community that the Venezuelan state wields because the Brazilian and Chilean governments do not --and cannot-- exercise nearly as much control over their countries' export sectors.
I'm pretty sceptical about that. I think they could if they wanted. They CHOOSE not to, because they aren't revolutionary governments.
When Chavez came to power he didn't have much control over the economy, the media, or even many parts of the state. It was a long hard political battle, but he has taken back control and gained a lot of leverage over the business community.
Of course, each country's situation is different, but I see no reason why a revolutionary government in Chile, or Brazil, could not wage the same battle. In fact, if development is ever going to happen, they'll have to.
Given the economic structures of Brazil and Chile and the correlation of class forces that these structures reinforce, I'm basically of the view that there really isn't any alternative to a gradualist "social-democratic" project in Chile and Brazil.
TINA? You really think there is no alternative?
Well, if you're right, then Chile and Brazil are doomed. Economic development will be practically impossible in either of these countries until the power of the oligarchies is eliminated. Otherwise, the kind of state-led industrialization plans needed to develop the economy will simply not be possible.
What about the CIA's plot on Chavez? Does anyone here actually believe Chavez that the CIA was going to shoot down his plane?
No, their foreign investment policies don't depend upon oil.
I said they largely depend upon oil prices, and I think that much is fairly obvious. You overemphasize the ideological component of the government's decision-making and fail to recognize that the policies have as much to do with bargaining leverage as ideology.
Chavez didn't start driving a hard bargain with the foreign oil companies until prices really picked up. When the prices dropped precipitously last year, the government lost bargaining leverage and started granting more concessions to the foreign oil companies. The reasons are clear. When prices go up, the state can drive a much harder bargain because, even with stricter terms of investment, the companies are gonna make money when prices are up. When prices go down, pressure builds for the government to lessen those restrictions so as to entice investment.
So I think this is as much about bargaining leverage (i.e. power relations) as it is about ideology.
Many of these investments have nothing to do with oil.
Well, I guess that depends on how you define "many." I suspect non-oil investment is still fairly marginal.
The idea of creating cartels for primary goods has been discussed in other sectors as well, such as natural gas, coffee, etc. I'm not sure if it would be viable in these other sectors, but its an idea.
Well, that idea long pre-dates Chavez and, in any case, it isn't ground-breaking until such time as cartelization spreads.
It is a ground-breaking move for a Latin American country to move towards integration with countries like Iran and China and advocate this type of South-South strategy, regardless if it ultimately is not successful.
I certainly applaud the initiatives (and not just on Chavez's part but also on Lula's). However, it's not ground-breaking until such time as the proposals become reality.
They CHOOSE not to, because they aren't revolutionary governments.
This is a very voluntarist and unrealistic conception of the way politics works. Lula is not a revolutionary because the conditions don't permit it. Just look at Brazil's history, Tosh. Lula lost THREE presidential elections prior to finally winning in 2002. The Brazilian electorate had been opting for neoliberal candidates since 1989. Lula had no choice but to moderate his program.
And let's not pretend that political and economic conditions don't shape Venezuelan politics as well. It's well worth noting that Chavez didn't declare himself a socialist until 2005. It's not just a coincidence that this political shift came in the midst of an upturn in the price of oil.
When Chavez came to power he didn't have much control over the economy, the media, or even many parts of the state. It was a long hard political battle, but he has taken back control and gained a lot of leverage over the business community.
But that's a COMP
Oops, the last part of my response got cut off. I'll post that bit later.
jsb - yes I do believe it. All these claims are pooh-poohed by the opposition. The only time they will ever believe that there is a plot to ,kill Chávez is when they see his cadaver.
CIA killed Torrijos; forced Aristide into exile; helped overthrow Pinochet; ousted Arbenz; Organized dirty war in Nicaragua. La Cia tiene el prontuario más nefasto de la historia.
But you, Mr. Smart Ass give them the benfit of the doubt.
"jsb - yes I do believe it. All these claims are pooh-poohed by the opposition. The only time they will ever believe that there is a plot to ,kill Chávez is when they see his cadaver."
If the CIA was really out to kill Chavez he'd probably be dead by now given the number of alleged attempts. As your examples show the CIA might meddle and by ruthless, but it is not incompetent.
All the examples are dated and from the cold war era. The CIA today is more accountable and by most account a different agency.
I said they largely depend upon oil prices, and I think that much is fairly obvious.
In what way are Iran's investments in auto production, tractor production, food processing, etc. dependent upon oil prices?
In what way are the numerous Argentinian and Chinese investments in consumer goods dependent upon oil prices?
The terms of foreign investment might be dependent on oil prices when we are talking about invesment IN THE OIL SECTOR. But that is not the only place foreign investment is taking place.
Chavez didn't start driving a hard bargain with the foreign oil companies until prices really picked up.
You're only talking about investment in the oil sector. I never specified the investment policies in the oil sector. Either way, your point doesn't make much sense. Yes, Chavez's policies in the oil sector might depend on the price of oil, but at least they are making an effort to get as good as terms as they can. That is very different from what a the right wing would do, and deserves to be applauded.
Well, I guess that depends on how you define "many." I suspect non-oil investment is still fairly marginal.
Even if investment is marginal, does that mean they should not be applauded for trying to acquire investment that will contribute to development? You have very strange logic.
Well, that idea long pre-dates Chavez and, in any case, it isn't ground-breaking until such time as cartelization spreads.
Chavez has set an example for other countries to follow by promoting this idea, and proposing it at public forums.
Whether or not other countries can successfully carry it out is totally out of Chavez's control.
Likewise, just because an idea pre-dates Chavez, doesn't mean he shouldn't be applauded for reiterating it.
Certainly Chile is not the first country to invent rent subsidies, yet you think they should be applauded. Why so contradictory Justin?
You seem to be trying very hard to say that Chavez should not be applauded for his policy choices for one bogus reason or another. Again, very strange logic.
Well, if you're right, then Chile and Brazil are doomed. Economic development will be practically impossible in either of these countries until the power of the oligarchies is eliminated. Otherwise, the kind of state-led industrialization plans needed to develop the economy will simply not be possible.
Tosh | 06.03.09 - 1:27 pm | #
So you're basically saying that if Chile and Brazil don't jump into the "21st century socialism" bandwagon, they' won't be able to develop.
How the hell do you come to that conclusion? How are Chile and Brazil doing right now compared to Venezuela? What are each country's projections for the next 3-5 years?
This is a very voluntarist and unrealistic conception of the way politics works. Lula is not a revolutionary because the conditions don't permit it.
Oh really? So in other words Lula has no choice but to follow the policies he has chosen, and has no human agency or free will to choose more radical policies?
Just look at Brazil's history, Tosh. Lula lost THREE presidential elections prior to finally winning in 2002. The Brazilian electorate had been opting for neoliberal candidates since 1989. Lula had no choice but to moderate his program.
Chavez also moderated his program in order to get elected, but that doesn't mean he had to continue down the path of moderation once he was in power. Instead he took immediate action to change the balance of forces. Lula has done nothing of the sort.
It's well worth noting that Chavez didn't declare himself a socialist until 2005. It's not just a coincidence that this political shift came in the midst of an upturn in the price of oil.
So now you are going to say that Chavez only decided to shift towards socialism because of oil prices? Come on Justin, this is becoming pretty ridiculous. You are starting to sound like the Venezuelan opposition claiming that everything Chavez does is dependent on oil.
By November 2001, with the leyes habilitantes, Chavez had shown that he was truly going to take a more radical path. His shift towards socialism in 2005 was not nearly as significant because the business community was already well aware of his intentions, and the balance of forces had been significantly altered by that point.
So you're basically saying that if Chile and Brazil don't jump into the "21st century socialism" bandwagon, they' won't be able to develop.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..... That's not what I said. Reread the statement genius.
I have to say, after having an intelligent debate with Justin, it sure is a slap in the face when morons like Mario pop up with such stupid remarks.
I have to say, after having an intelligent debate with Justin, it sure is a slap in the face when morons like Mario pop up with such stupid remarks
Intelligent debate... you have derailed another thread on OilWars. I would support you opening a blog, you clearly have the time and the writing skills. So why not?
Why spend so much time on OW's comment section derailing every thread into useless debates that have nothing to do with the blog post? In your own blog you egt to pick the topic..
If the CIA was really out to kill Chavez he'd probably be dead by now given the number of alleged attempts.
Uh, really? There are a reported 638 attempts on Fidel Castro's life over a period of 50 years.
All the examples are dated and from the cold war era.
Wrong. Aristide was overthrown in 2004. Noriega in 1989.
The CIA today is more accountable and by most account a different agency.
Tor | 06.03.09 - 4:33 pm | #
Different? Oh, well if you say so Tor I guess it must be true.
Tosh
"after having an intelligent debate with Justin"
This by itself gives the point to Daniel.
Daniel is an arrogant bastard but I must say that after scanning through your comments I understand very well that he does not want to engage you.
By the way, I went on your suggestion to check his thread on Chavez missing reasons. It was rather amusing, something that has left this blog long ago. And it even contained a comment from you. So, what gives? Is he banning you or not?
Intelligent debate... you have derailed another thread on OilWars.
Great argument Tank. So unless we only strictly talk about the topic in the original post somehow our debate isn't intelligent? I'll remember that next time you post on something unrelated to the original post.
And I notice that you don't have anything to contribute to the debate, so instead you'll just attack those who prefer to debate?
If you don't want to debate, go somewhere else.
Daniel is an arrogant bastard but I must say that after scanning through your comments I understand very well that he does not want to engage you.
Of course not. His arguments would be completely dismantled one by one, just as yours would if you had any. But I see you don't come here to discuss ideas. You just come to make snide useless remarks.
By the way, I went on your suggestion to check his thread on Chavez missing reasons. It was rather amusing, something that has left this blog long ago.
This blog isn't supposed to be humorous. If you want comic relief, go read Daniel's nonsense.
And it even contained a comment from you. So, what gives? Is he banning you or not?
berenice | Homepage | 06.03.09 - 5:16 pm | #
Wow, you're right Berenice, the fact that Daniel let one of my comments through totally proves that he doesn't censor his blog. You're a genius.
Tosh, you are definitely good at hijacking blogs and Daniel is perfectly right to put you in the right place when you try to savage his. Congratulations. However as far as debating your nonsense, piss off! This thread has close to 600 entries and nothing of substance came out of it.
All the examples are dated and from the cold war era.
OH, and let's not forget the 2002 attempt to overthrow Chavez. The 1999 overthrow of Milosevic, the 2004 Orange Revolution in the Ukraine. Bolivia right now!
It is pretty apparent that CIA front groups like the NED are still working to overthrow governments around the world.
Can you blame him for censoring you?
You engage and debate every single post, insult everyone who disagrees with you and then act as a victim.
If anyone has a discussion with a commenter that isn't you, it becomes impossible to follow it because a) you hijack it or b) You make 30 random comments in between (yes im exaggerating). So... I don't blame him for censoring you, you are a troll.
Cant you make your arguments more concise? Do you feel a need to just go on and on all the time?
Its the "comments" section, not your own blog...
Tosh, you are definitely good at hijacking blogs and Daniel is perfectly right to put you in the right place when you try to savage his. Congratulations. However as far as debating your nonsense, piss off! This thread has close to 600 entries and nothing of substance came out of it.
Charly | 06.03.09 - 5:34 pm | #
Hahaha, I always find it amusing that these oppo morons feel the need to come in here and make these useless remarks.
If there's nothing of substance here, then why are you so threatened by it?
Cant you make your arguments more concise? Do you feel a need to just go on and on all the time?
Its the "comments" section, not your own blog...
Tank | 06.03.09 - 5:36 pm | #
Yes, I know it is so hard to scroll through the comments. Did you need a tissue?
Tank - Daniel does not ban people for making too many comments he bans people since he cannot abide being wrong. He's totally anti freedom of speech.
As far as Tosh is concerned he's the only one making sense here as well as Justin.
If anyone has a discussion with a commenter that isn't you, it becomes impossible to follow it because a) you hijack it
IN other words, I respond to it.
or b) You make 30 random comments in between
Every single one of my posts is in direct response to something someone else has said.
The truth is that you just don't like what I'm saying, so you're being a big cry baby about it. It couldn't be more obvious.
The real waste of space is this kind of comment that makes no productive contribution to the discussion.
For the millionth time, if you don't want to debate, don't come here. If you want a good ol' circle-jerk among opposition morons, you can find that at Daniel's blog, or at Caracas Chronicles.
If you say something here, I'm going to challenge it. Get used to it.
Not threatened the least bit, you just attract my sadistic instincts, it is too much fun to prod an immature pseudo-intellectual, simply cannot pass the opportunity.
"I wonder if the folks at Venezuelanalysis would think it right that the FCC investigate CNN for having unflattering coverage of the U.S. governments handling of the Hurricane Katrina aftermath, consistently implying that the U.S. government was inept and incompetent, and often disseminating information which the U.S. government itself had not made public?"
I am impressed! Cannot believe we agree on something... (although I would have loved to see more criticism from CNN TO Gov. Blanco from LO as well).
Cheers,
Not threatened the least bit, you just attract my sadistic instincts, it is too much fun to prod an immature pseudo-intellectual, simply cannot pass the opportunity.
Charly | 06.03.09 - 5:46 pm | #
Keep telling yourself that Charly. Maybe someday you'll start to believe it.
When Chavez came to power he didn't have much control over the economy, the media, or even many parts of the state. It was a long hard political battle, but he has taken back control and gained a lot of leverage over the business community.
But the structure of Venezuela's economy is completely distinct from those of Brazil and Chile, so you can't use the Venezuelan experience as a guide to what's currently possible in Chile or Brazil. It was indeed a struggle to take back control of PDVSA, but it's a hell of lot easier for the Venezuelan government to gain control of a state oil monopoly than for the Chilean, Brazilian or Argentine governments to gain significant leverage over large and diverse privately-controlled export sectors that are quite independent of the state.
So it's not clear at all that Venezuela's experience could serve as a particularly useful guide to other Latin American countries.
It will never ever happen in Chile or Brazil and that is great for them.
Yes, Chavez's policies in the oil sector might depend on the price of oil, but at least they are making an effort to get as good as terms as they can.
As they should. My point is that, if it's largely a matter of shifting the terms of investment according to a change in the price of oil, you can't make it out as if this is some ground-breaking move that makes the Chavez government so superior to other moderately progressive governments in the region. I mean, even the Chileans do that. When the price of copper went up not long ago, they jacked up the royalties that foreign investors had to pay. And now the Brazilians are talking about asserting greater state control over oil exploration.
Naturally, I applaud that the Chavez government doesn't give away the store to foreign investors like the opposition would, but driving a hard bargain with oil companies in boom times is just smart policy, not revolutionary policy.
Even if investment is marginal, does that mean they should not be applauded for trying to acquire investment that will contribute to development?
But we still have to wait and see if this will contribute to development. All you have to do is read a little Venezuelan history to see that, during the other oil boom in the '70s, CAP tried to get foreign investors to build up industry in Venezuela on terms that also looked favorable to Venezuela.
I'm naturally hopeful that this round of investment will not fail like CAP's projects did, but one can't simply assume that these investments will contribute to development without seeing some results.
And if such investment is marginal, it might not be that important.
just because an idea pre-dates Chavez, doesn't mean he shouldn't be applauded for reiterating it.
But notice that you're moving the goalposts here. The question was not about whether cartelization of primary exports is a laudable idea. The question was about whether Chavez's example has been so ground-breaking on an international level. For me, that's yet to be established.
My own sense is that what's been most ground-breaking is at the domestic level. Largely by means of its social policies, Chavismo may very well be cementing its role as the country's dominant political force for generations to come.
Tosh,
Care to comment what is going on with all the people from the expropriated companies Pdvsa is not taking in??? Or is this just another fabrication of the oppo-morons???
Boy, as Quico calls it, Hurricane Feces is about to make landfall and you are at the beach buying an ice cream cone. hahahahahahahahahahahaha
So in other words Lula has no choice but to follow the policies he has chosen, and has no human agency or free will to choose more radical policies?
Naturally there's always some wiggle room in politics, but I don't believe that Lula had the option to pursue radical policies, much less revolutionary ones. The existing correlation of forces in Brazil just didn't permit that.
Chavez also moderated his program in order to get elected
Not to anywhere near the degree that Lula did.
but that doesn't mean he had to continue down the path of moderation once he was in power.
Chavez didn't have to be moderate, but Lula did because Brazil is not Venezuela. Venezuelans were prepared for a relatively radical break with the past because they had undergone such a long and sustained level of economic decline that they were quite open to radical change. The political conditions in Brazil were much less opportune.
Instead he took immediate action to change the balance of forces. Lula has done nothing of the sort.
Once again, Chavez could change the balance of forces in a way that Lula could not because the basic structures of the two countries' respective economies are completely distinct.
So now you are going to say that Chavez only decided to shift towards socialism because of oil prices?
Oil is a huge factor. Not just prices, per se, but the whole political legacy that oil brings to the table. By Latin American standards, Venezuela has always been a relatively state-centered economy in which people are accustomed to looking to the state to resolve problems. If you combine that legacy with the radicalizing effects of a long economic decline in the '80s and '90s, you can begin to see how Venezuela would go in the political direction it did.
"To concentrate on local resistances, to send endless teams of anthropologists out to study the countryside, amounts to diverting attention from the main sources of difficulty, the makes of government policy in Delhi. More about that in a moment. Behind the weak push of the market lies the failure to channel into industrial construction the resources that agriculture does generate. One further step, taken with a glance at other countries, shows that the course of historical development in India was such that no class grew up with any very strong interest in rechanneling the agricultural surplus in such a way as to get the process of industrial growth started. The Nationalist movement owed its popular support to the peasantry and was, through Gandhi, suffused with its ideology.
This is about as far as a sociological analysis can penetrate. My own strong suspicion is that it already goes too far and that Nehru personally ought to bear a very large part of the blame. Too great a concentration on circumstances and objective difficulties leads to the mistake of forgetting that great political leaders are the ones who accomplish important institutional changes despite such obstacles. Nehru was a very important political leader. To deny that he had a great deal of room to maneuver seems absurd."
Lula, operating within the constraints imposed by mobile capital, could never be what Nehru could have been. No question. But nor are we talking about filtering processes as extreme as those that produced an Obama. With Obama, he could implement more radical change, but frankly, if he were likely to do so he would never have been elected president in the first place. The structure chose the man.
In Brazil, things aren't so straightforward. Recall that the PT is still partially radical, at least some of its sectors. Lula's betrayal is conditioned by structures, sure, and the trade-union bureaucracy that the PT has devolved into, sure. But the oligarchy didn't want Lula in 2002, nor in 2006, and won't want Rousseff in 2010. They recognize that the PT is a potential vehicle for threatening change. And Lula bears responsibility for not implementing it.
In Brazil, things aren't so straightforward. Recall that the PT is still partially radical, at least some of its sectors.
But the Brazilian people didn't elect the PT. While they elected Lula as president, they never gave him a Senate or a Chamber of Deputies with anything close to a PT majority. So Lula is left with NO CHOICE but to negotiate a lot of compromises with non-leftist parties.
But the oligarchy didn't want Lula in 2002, nor in 2006, and won't want Rousseff in 2010.
That's completely irrelevant. The point is that the Brazilian oligarchy has the capacity to do serious damage to any president that really threatens its interests. If the oligarchy were to go from passive to active opposition, its power would be overwhelming because it controls not only the banks and the means of production but also the propaganda apparatus. And, unlike Chavez, the Brazilian president doesn't have the option of taking control of a major sector of the economy.
Tosh
Ooooh.... looks like Berenice did stir something, in you and others!
But it forces me to come back, again, to set you straight (though I know it is impossible but it is so much fun to watch you react to it, another thing I disagree with Berenice I suppose).
1)You are not censored for your ideas, as unoriginal those might be, you are censored becasue you seem unable to write a comment without using the word moron or ad hominem and 2) one of the reasons for my rules is that I AM NOT INTERESTED in having more than 2-3 dozens comment per post. There is one simple reason for that: I do not have the time to comment as you do. Sorry, maybe when the CIA finally starts sending those checks I might be able to quit my daytime job and comment more.
Why don't you take the challenge? Try to prove that you are not a troll by following my rules for half a dozen posts of mine and thus prove that if you are so verbose it is by natural talent and not because you suffer of some fundamentalist missionary complex. Heck, I am even willing to lighten a little bit my rules for you, like allowing you to insult back if you are insulted first. Maybe even a extra 2-3 comments f you can keep them under three short paragraphs.
I am being your Vargas Llosa right now but I am sure you will be my Chavez.
So it's not clear at all that Venezuela's experience could serve as a particularly useful guide to other Latin American countries.
Justin | Homepage | 06.03.09 - 8:00 pm | #
And its not clear at all that it CAN'T serve as a guide either. The only argument you have made is that the economies are "different". Well, of course they are. That is a no-brainer. But that doesn't prove that similar efforts cannot be made in those countries, despite the differences in the economy.
One could imagine a revolutionary Chilean government, for example, which mobilizes the masses in support of taking over large sectors of the economy, etc. In fact, that was done once, back in 1970. It failed because Allende didn't take measures to protect from getting overthrown.
As they should. My point is that, if it's largely a matter of shifting the terms of investment according to a change in the price of oil, you can't make it out as if this is some ground-breaking move that makes the Chavez government so superior to other moderately progressive governments in the region.
Again, you go back to oil, I guess because you think your argument is stronger there.
I was never talking about oil investment in the first place. OF COURSE terms of investment in oil are going to be somewhat dependent on the prices of oil. Another no-brainer!!!
What is ground-breaking is a strategy to search for productive investment through South-South integration. Much of that has nothing at all to do with the oil sector.
All you have to do is read a little Venezuelan history to see that, during the other oil boom in the '70s, CAP tried to get foreign investors to build up industry in Venezuela on terms that also looked favorable to Venezuela.
Well, at least now we can see that you don't get what the key difference is here.
CAP tried to get favorable investment terms from the largest US and European multinationals which had no reason to agree to the terms. And so CAP's projects mostly never even got off the ground.
Chavez, on the other hand, has tried to build strategic relationships with other "southern" allies like Iran, China, Argentina, Belarus, etc. which are much more willing to give favorable terms of investment.
Try all you want to deny that this is ground-breaking. You're just digging yourself a hole.
But notice that you're moving the goalposts here. The question was not about whether cartelization of primary exports is a laudable idea. The question was about whether Chavez's example has been so ground-breaking on an international level.
No, it is actually you that has moved the goal posts over and over again here. First you said that the only ground-breaking thing Chavez had done were the social policies. When I showed you why that is not true, you then tried to deny that Chavez should be commended for any of his other policies, on all kinds of technicalities (that idea pre-dates Chavez! That hasn't been successful yet! That has been done before in Venezuela! That policy is dependent on oil prices!)
Your argument is continuing to get more and more ridiculous.
Naturally there's always some wiggle room in politics, but I don't believe that Lula had the option to pursue radical policies, much less revolutionary ones. The existing correlation of forces in Brazil just didn't permit that.
That is just a lame excuse. The "correlation of forces" tried to not permit Chavez to do it either. Remember? They almost killed him, overthrew him for 48 hours, completely shut down the economy for months, etc. etc.
They tried to not permit Chavez to do it too. He prevailed. Lula didn't even try.
Oil is a huge factor. Not just prices, per se, but the whole political legacy that oil brings to the table.
Again, this is another no-brainer statement. Of course oil is a big factor in Venezuela. But that isn't the argument you were making above. You tried to say that Chavez turned socialist because there was a surge in oil prices.
Once again, you're making a weak attempt to take credit away from Chavez for his policy choices.
Why don't you take the challenge? Try to prove that you are not a troll by following my rules for half a dozen posts of mine and thus prove that if you are so verbose it is by natural talent
No thanks Daniel. I have no interest in debating whether or not Chavez has hemorrhoids, or whether or not he overdosed on his meds yesterday. The circle-jerk on your blog may find that intellectually stimulating, but for me its monumentally ridiculous.
But if you're so interested in debating, why don't you just do it here on neutral ground? Why is it that you hide over on your blog where you can erase and censor comments? Why is it that you cannot post a single comment here that has any argumentative substance?
I think we all know why.
I am being your Vargas Llosa right now but I am sure you will be my Chavez.
Daniel Duquenal | Homepage | 06.04.09 - 1:10 am | #
Hey, that's a pretty good analogy, Daniel.
Here you are, placing conditions on whether or not you will debate, just like Vargas Llosa.
Here I am, openly debating with whoever wishes to come in here and debate, just like Chavez.
There you are, lacking in any argumentation, any ideas, any concrete political program for Venezuela, like Vargas Llosa.
Here I am, discussing concrete policies day in and day out.
However, I do have to give Vargas Llosa some credit. He is a literary genius. Daniel, as Max put it, is just one dumb motherfucker.
The point is that the Brazilian oligarchy has the capacity to do serious damage to any president that really threatens its interests.
As they do in Venezuela. They overthrew Chavez, and shut down the entire economy, remember?
If the oligarchy were to go from passive to active opposition, its power would be overwhelming because it controls not only the banks and the means of production but also the propaganda apparatus.
As did they in Venezuela, that is until Chavez made moves to neutralize the propaganda apparatus, nationalized the banks, and took over major sectors of the economy.
And, unlike Chavez, the Brazilian president doesn't have the option of taking control of a major sector of the economy.
I'm not sure that is true Justin. Certain sectors could be nationalized, or the state could intervene in one way or another.
Sure, Brazil does not have one industry that accounts for such a massive portion of its economy, (Chile does) but regardless, efforts could be, and MUST be made if state-led development is ever going to happen.
It is nonsense to pretend that Lula could not take any steps in this direction. Even if he couldn't do as much as Chavez, he could take SOME steps in this direction. He could mobilize a coalition of forces to overcome the opposition to reforms, to overcome the power of the oligarchy, etc, he could move to neutralize the propaganda apparatus, etc.
The point is, he hasn't even tried. And that's why the oligarchy hasn't tried to overthrow him. They have realized that they aren't so threatened by him after all.
Chavez, on the other hand, has tried to build strategic relationships with other "southern" allies like Iran, China, Argentina, Belarus, etc. which are much more willing to give favorable terms of investment.
But just because Chavez tries to build up domestic industry by way of investment from these countries doesn't make it ground-breaking, Tosh. Nothing becomes ground-breaking simply on account of the fact that it is attempted. We can't establish that these investments are ground-breaking until such time as we actually know something about the results of the investments.
Now, before responding reflexively to the point, I would suggest that you think about what I'm saying. One problem, Tosh, is that you're often very reflexive and dogmatic in the way that you try to debate people, meaning that you sometimes don't really stop to think about what the other person is saying. So read carefully. I'm NOT suggesting that the investments from China, Iran, Belarus or Argentina are bad. What I've stated repeatedly is very simple: That we've yet to see the results of these investments, meaning that it's really too early to judge.
But, unfortunately, even the slightest expression of caution about what we don't yet know seems to send you into fits of hysteria, whereby you begin to erroneously equate equivocation with disloyalty to the cause. Such errors wouldn't be so common to your analysis if you would just calm down a bit.
One could imagine a revolutionary Chilean government, for example, which mobilizes the masses in support of taking over large sectors of the economy, etc. In fact, that was done once, back in 1970. It failed because Allende didn't take measures to protect from getting overthrown.
Here you suggest that an attempt to mobilize "the masses in support of taking over large sectors of the economy" is invariably a good and ground-breaking thing to do. The problem in your analysis of Chile is that your assumptions about the conditions that prevailed on the ground are rather sketchy. With regard to Chile in the Allende years, the country's Communist Party had it right. Given the Chilean right's influence over the military and the fact that Allende had the support of only a plurality (not a majority) of Chileans, the push for radicalization from below (against Allende's own wishes) was really a disastrous strategy.
No matter how many Troskyists from the rich countries will continue spouting the wild and callous revisionism that you repeat here, the brute fact of the matter is that radicalization from below under the circumstances of Allende-era Chile brought on disaster. There was nothing ground-breaking about Chile's radicalization from below because the whole project was destroyed. The Chilean coup was one of the most demoralizing events for the Left in modern Latin American history. The Chilean Left has yet to recover.
So I would suggest you think twice before offering up the Chilean experience as any sort of guide to action. It is no such thing. In reality, the Chilean experience should be used as a cautionary tale. In any given scenario, one's guide to action has to take into account the balance of forces in the country in question.
"Chavez, on the other hand, has tried to build strategic relationships with other "southern" allies like Iran, China, Argentina, Belarus, etc. which are much more willing to give favorable terms of investment."
Exactly. On that vein, he nationalized 4 Argentinean companies in the last months. This guy is a genius!!! hahahahahahahahahahahaha
Brazil is becoming a real WORLD power. Venezuela? Not so much. I think countries like El Salvador are right to follow Lula's model rather than Chavez, as much as it might hurt the PSF feelings.
Tosh says ,
"Here I am, openly debating with whoever wishes to come in here and debate, just like Chavez.
No Tosh, you are not debating when you have to use statements like the below to inflate your ego.:
"I have to say, after having an intelligent debate with Justin, it sure is a slap in the face when morons like Mario pop up with such stupid remarks.
Tosh | 06.03.09 - 5:02 pm | # "
Respectful political debate is practically non-existent here .Most disagreements quickly devolve into angry or disrespectful shouting matches, where personal insults are substituted for rational arguments.Most young males here seem to be lacking in the fundamental understanding that honor and maturity are not the following :
" I believe I am a super intelligent man and I believe such and such, the other guy believes something else, therefore the other guy is a complete moron."
The conditions of a civil debate and not a' free for all' are necessary in order to establish communication.A 'man' or boy who cannot accept that, has not matured enough to understand that setting limitations on his own conduct and the conduct of others is one of the primary conditions for honor, and maturity.
It is practically impossible on this blog to maintain a civil debate between adversaries.
I repeat a free for all is hardly a debate.
No Tosh, I have no interest in debating you.
You are the one always complaining about my cowardice. As expected, when I offer you a possibility to try, you balk away, claiming to do it here, at oil wars, because it is in neutral grounds when it is well known that the owner allows for physical threats and insults. You are even more delusional than I thought you were.
You are also very immature and ignorant of the things of the world. A blog is like a newspaper, people go to read it becasue they want to read it, just as people buy a given paper because they are willing to pay for it. No one is forced to give a tribune for people disagreeing with the editorial line becasue NO ONE IS FORCING ANYONE to go and read a blog, a paper or listen to a radio station or watch a given TV channel. The right of reply has been created because in some cases people simply do not have too much of a choice. But that is not the case in Internet where the choices are a given.
But I do not expect you to understand that since it has been long established that you have no idea what a remote control is for and find it perfectly normal that Chavez imposes himself through his cadenas. That is enough by itself to discredit and even ridicule any accusation that you may make about any form of censorship. As Chavez does, whenever given a chance you over extend your welcome.
But there is even a further reason for me not to indulge you here: as a blog owner I find it vulgar and rude to pepper other blogs with my comments. Something of course that you cannot understand and even less appreciate. But here I can indulge because with 600 comments in this thread it is a given that all seriousness and general interests have been abandoned for quaint back and forth. Nobody with half a mind will come today for the first time and wade through 600 comments.
OK, and for the third time I am trying to leave this thread. Please, be well behaved and do not make me come back once again.
Daniel is really so full of it it's shameful.
Anonymous
Yes, he is full of it, but he nailed it.
You guys are discussing Brazil and silly numbers when today they added Maracaibo's La Verdad in the list of media to shut down. Daniel is right, at least half of the 600 comments are irrelevant to Venezuela's reality. If I want to read on Venezuela today I have to read and filter Daniel's arrogance, Quico' silliness and Miguel's right wing rants. My heart breaks at seeing how a bright revolution is stolen and you guys pretend that there is nothing to worry about.
Nothing becomes ground-breaking simply on account of the fact that it is attempted.
Oh really? So the attempt to build communism in Russia in 1917 wasn't ground breaking? We know that it ultimately failed, but are you goign to make the claim that it wasn't ground-breaking?
We can't establish that these investments are ground-breaking until such time as we actually know something about the results of the investments.
With that logic then we could never offer our support to any government until years after the fact, when we can see the end result of their policies. That is nonsense.
By the way, have you seen the end results of the Chilean rent subsidies, or Mercal in Venezuela? If you can't provide results for those policies, why are they worth applauding?
But, unfortunately, even the slightest expression of caution about what we don't yet know seems to send you into fits of hysteria, whereby you begin to erroneously equate equivocation with disloyalty to the cause.
Not al all. You see, you're changing your argument now because you know that you can't maintain the same line as before. Before you tried to claim that the only policy that Chavez deserved to be supported for were his social policies. That argument is total nonsense.
I agree that we have not seen the end results of many of these policies, but that does not mean he does not deserve support for pursuing the kinds of policies that are likely to provide long term solutions (or at least MORE likely than what their alternative would be) to Venezuela's problems of underdevelopment.
As for disloyalty to the cause, who ever said anything about that? Your problem is not disloyalty, its that your argument doesn't make any sense.
No Tosh, I have no interest in debating you.
You are the one always complaining about my cowardice. As expected, when I offer you a possibility to try, you balk away, claiming to do it here, at oil wars, because it is in neutral grounds when it is well known that the owner allows for physical threats and insults.
Hahahahaha!! Thanks Daniel (or should I say, Vargas Llosa) for proving me correct.
I knew you'd come up with some lame excuse as to why you can't debate me.
Now, if you are trully going to keep playing the role of Vargas Llosa, you need to go tell all your friends that I'm the one that backed down.
Run along now. And, again, thanks for the comic relief!!!
So I would suggest you think twice before offering up the Chilean experience as any sort of guide to action. It is no such thing.
Again, this wasn't my argument. You tend you change what I am saying so that you can easily refute it.
I did not say Chile should be a guide to action. What I said is that a more radical government COULD take steps in that direction, and mobilize support to confront the interests of the oligarchy. Did Allende make mistakes? Of course. But does that mean that no Chilean government should ever pursue the necessary policies for state-led development again because of it? That seems to be your argument.
Your argument seems to be that since the oligarchy is very powerful, then that means the state cannot, and should not, confront their interests and move to overcome their dominance. You then use the example that Allende failed in the past to support your argument.
Of course any revolutionary government has to be weary of the balance of forces at any given time, and be practical about what steps are possible. But that isn't want Bachelet, or Lula, are doing. They aren't even TRYING to move in that direction. They aren't even attempting to confront the interests of the oligarchy.
There was nothing ground-breaking about Chile's radicalization from below because the whole project was destroyed.
Again, the notion that something has to ultimately be successful in the end to be considered "ground-breaking" is total nonsense.
The fact that Chileans democratically elected a socialist president to power was ground-breaking. Showing the world that it was possible to implement socialist reforms through the democratic system was ground-breaking. Implementing worker-control in factories for the first time in Chile was ground-breaking.
There are many things in the world that are ground-breaking, even if they aren't successful in the end. Again, the Russian Revolution is a good example.
"My heart breaks at seeing how a bright revolution is stolen and you guys pretend that there is nothing to worry about."
Stolen by who? By the owner of Globovision and Nelson Meserane? A lot of people where with Chavez at the beginning so I don't buy the "stolen" part. I would say that it never took off as it should... thanks to the madness of some, others had to abandon the boat... instead of being inclusive, it excluded a lot of human resources that could have been very valuable for the "proceso".
My heart breaks at seeing how a bright revolution is stolen and you guys pretend that there is nothing to worry about.
berenice | Homepage | 06.04.09 - 11:40 am | #
I don't understand this statement Berenice. We discuss pretty much any and everything regarding Venezuela here. If you want to talk about SPECIFIC policies, and not talk in such general and ambiguous terms, then we can discuss what you think is wrong with the revolution.
But simply saying the "revolution is stolen" is too general to respond to.
So the attempt to build communism in Russia in 1917 wasn't ground breaking?
Of course it was ground-breaking because it shaped the course of world history for the next 70 years. That is in no way analogous to a few industrial projects in Venezuela that we don't really know much about.
With that logic then we could never offer our support to any government until years after the fact, when we can see the end result of their policies.
No, you can support a project on account what direction you think it leads, but you can't logically conclude that all of its policies represent epic changes until such time as you've seen the results. The point is elementary.
By the way, have you seen the end results of the Chilean rent subsidies, or Mercal in Venezuela? If you can't provide results for those policies, why are they worth applauding?
Those policies are worth applauding on account of their immediate results. They soften the economic hardships that poor people face. For me, that's laudable in and of itself.
I'll respond to the rest of your shrill comments in a moment.
Tosh, you look like a schoolmaster the way you dress down Berenice.
Regardless of the tone of his remarks, Tosh is essentially accurate about Bachelet and Lula, they have made their accomodation with neoliberalism, and confine their attempts to addresss inequality to ones that do not challenge the primacy of international capital.
Yet, it is also true that their programs do ameliorate the harsh conditions of poverty in South America. Much in the same way that increased spending on social programs by Democratic administrations in the US does for the poor in the US. You can argue as to whether the true goal of these programs is to pacify segments of the populace that would otherwise respond angrily to such extremes of wealth and inequality, but, practically speaking, they do help people survive.
Unfortunately, it appears that the global recession is going to eliminate the feasibility of this mildly reformist approach. Already, here in the US, the horn of austerity is being blown. I suspect that we will see something similar in Central and South America, where the countries lack the ability to turn on the printing press like the Federal Reserve.
Justin,
I think you might review what the definition of ground-breaking is.
It simply means something that is new, or innovative, something that is pioneering.
Chavez certainly is pioneering a strategy of South-South cooperation for Venezuela, and he is certainly considered by many to be a pioneer in his integrationist policies such as ALBA, Banco del Sur, Unasur, etc.
Whether or not these policies ultimately succeed is beside the point. They may totally fail. But that doesn't take away from the fact that this strategy was ground-breaking (new, innovative, pioneering).
In fact, the most ironic thing about your argument is that the very policies that you initially claimed to be ground-breaking, Chavez's social policies, are IN FACT NOT GROUND BREAKING AT ALL!!!!
Subsidized food in Venezuela is certainly not anything particularly new or innovative. Nor is the Cuban health system (since it is a copy of a system that already exists, by definition it is not new, or particularly innovative.)
Chavez's social policies are brilliant, and certainly worth supporting, but they aren't particularly ground-breaking, nor are they sufficient to solve the countries problems.
So, in the end, I think you really need to rethink your argument. It really isn't making any sense.
Of course it was ground-breaking because it shaped the course of world history for the next 70 years. That is in no way analogous to a few industrial projects in Venezuela that we don't really know much about.
This disproves your argument that something cannot be called ground-breaking just because it doesn't ultimately succeed.
And you try to minimize the orientation of Venezuela's foreign policy by calling it a "few industrial projects." You clearly show that you don't even understand the significance of the South-South cooperation.
No, you can support a project on account what direction you think it leads, but you can't logically conclude that all of its policies represent epic changes until such time as you've seen the results.
Again, you change the argument when you realize your argument has been defeated.
Your original argument was that the only policies that merit support are Chavez's social policies. You've now backtracked, admitting that you CAN support other policies based on the direction you think think they lead. So which is it Justin? Which policies deserve support and which do not?
And no one claimed that all of Chavez's policies are "epic changes". You sure have a strange style of argument where you totally distort what the other person is saying so that you can hide the flaws in your argument.
Those policies are worth applauding on account of their immediate results.
Again, you are contradicting yourself. According to you, the policies that I cite here aren't worth applauding because we haven't seen if they will ultimately succeed or not, regardless of their immediate results (such as job creation, etc.)
However, policies like Chilean rent subsidies and Mercal ARE worth applauding because of their immediate results, and apparently we don't have to take into account whether or not they will ultimately be sustainable or not.
Very, very strange logic Justin. And, as I said earlier, it just keeps getting more and more ridiculous.
Tosh is too in love with the process to see its flaws...
My heart breaks at seeing how a bright revolution is stolen and you guys pretend that there is nothing to worry about.
The Revolution was never more than an idea... there has never been a plan, there are too many agendas and Chavez doesn't understand that to run a country you need more than loyal followers.
The "revolution" disappeared the day it became radical, the day it decided to consider 40+% of the population (the opposition) "enemies". There will be no development in a country where the government only works for half the people. Thats why we didn't develop before Chavez and why we wont develop with him.
Today the country is run by people like Max who don't believe that the constitution should be followed. The country is run by individuals who have done nothing to "earn" their positions of power but bow down to the wishes of one man. Diosdado, Cabello, Maduro, Rodriguez, DiMartino, ElAissami, Carrizales, etc... none of them have the skills to run a country. Yet they do.
You can argue as to whether the true goal of these programs is to pacify segments of the populace that would otherwise respond angrily to such extremes of wealth and inequality, but, practically speaking, they do help people survive.
Absolutely Richard. My point is simply that if they aren't sustainable in the end, (e.g. not accompanied by macro policies that will lead to development of the economy) how sustainable are these kinds of policies?
It is great that they are helping people with short-term survival, but I find it hard to praise them much if in the end they aren't going to solve the problem, and lacking any development of the economy, will likely not be able to be continued indefinitely.
This is the definition of a band-aid fix.
Unfortunately, it appears that the global recession is going to eliminate the feasibility of this mildly reformist approach.
That's just my point. Lacking economic development, will these kinds of policies even be sustainable?
It will be interesting to see what happens in Chile, for example, because it doesn't seem likely that they'll be able to continue to grow their export sector indefinitely.
Justin--
Urban Gini is down, rural Gini is up. Bottom 20 percent have seen their income share shrink in 2006-2008--it maxed out in 2006, which suggests that it was Cardoso's policies rather than Lula's which caused the decrease, a point of view shared by many analysts of Brazil. The data are more mixed than you suggest.
Given the economic structures of Brazil and Chile and the correlation of class forces that these structures reinforce, I'm basically of the view that there really isn't any alternative to a gradualist "social-democratic" project in Chile and Brazil. However much we may have misgivings about the policies of the PT or the Concertacion, the bottom line is that a revolutionary project is just not in the cards in those countries, meaning that the PT and Concertacion remain the only real option for the left in the two respective countries.
Really? Lula had to install noeliberals in key governmental positions? He had no choice in the matter? He did have a choice: he faced capital flight and attacks on the real and committed to the neo-liberal course he was already plotting earlier (in fact, he committed to more stringent policies in terms of a primary surplus than the IMF had suggested, hinting that he went beyond placation into outright subservience to the bourgeoisie). These were choices, not inevitabilities. conditioned by institutional strictures like the deterioration of the PT, structural factors like capital flight and an overweening Brazilian oligarchy, but choices. Are you gonna make me quote Marx to you?
I wrote, But the oligarchy didn't want Lula in 2002, nor in 2006, and won't want Rousseff in 2010.
You responded,
That's completely irrelevant. The point is that the Brazilian oligarchy has the capacity to do serious damage to any president that really threatens its interests. If the oligarchy were to go from passive to active opposition, its power would be overwhelming because it controls not only the banks and the means of production but also the propaganda apparatus. And, unlike Chavez, the Brazilian president doesn't have the option of taking control of a major sector of the economy.
But only irrelevant if you assume what your argument sets out to prove---that Lula's policies were the result of external factors beyond his control. If you don't assume that, and assume that the Brazilian oligarchy is rational, you wonder: why did they oppose Lula? Because they knew either that he was susceptible to social pressure from the organized left or could simply veer left, as Chavez did. Or a combination of the two. This isn't the place to settle the issue, plainly. but why did Lula have to cut public-sector pensions? Why did neo-liberals have to take key economic ministries? Why couldn't Lula have directed Rousseff to appoint leftists to Petrobras? Or settled a higher number of families? Simple structures pressing their agenda on a helpless former trade-union leader?
Do
Tank--
Get your attacks straight. Answer the question: if the constitution legalized--nay, ordered-- slaughtering children, would it be legitimate to do so? Would people who refused to slaughter children be pilloried for refusing to obey the law?
Of course not! So there are norms that exist that supersede the constitution. Law is a scaffolding for radical change. Buildings stand independently of their scaffolding.
Moreover, all constitutions are founded in violence, as are states. Law is itself an instrument for codifying violence, reflecting a temporary conjuncture of power and ideology. These issues are more complicated than simple braying about "people who don't care about the constitution."
Tosh is too in love with the process to see its flaws...
Nope, actually there are plenty of flaws. But we never even get a chance to discuss those here because the level of debate with oppo guys like yourself is so infantile and elementary.
Some of the real flaws are things like agrarian reform not being as comprehensive as it needs to be. Reformists inside the PSUV that seek to put the brakes on real change. Too many corrupt bureaucrats and not enough qualified personnel to run public companies.
The "revolution" disappeared the day it became radical,
That's a pretty funny statement since by definition a revolution is supposed to create radical, drastic change.
the day it decided to consider 40+% of the population (the opposition) "enemies". There will be no development in a country where the government only works for half the people.
Haha, I love this statement Tank. So, Venezuela isn't going to develop because Chavez isn't helping largely middle and upper class opposition?
It is always amazing how these oppo guys have absolutely zero conception of class. In the end it is what prevents them from understanding what is going on.
Tank, in society such as Venezuela's which is so divided along class lines, it is literally impossible for a government to "work for all the people." Most policies are going to hurt the class interests of one group or another. So your call for a government to work for "all the people" is pretty naive.
Today the country is run by people like Max who don't believe that the constitution should be followed.
That is a distortion of what Max said. His point was that constitutions are not untouchable, and many times justify injustices. Constitutions in the past have justified kings, slavery, discrimination, racism, etc.
His point is that just because something is in the constitution it does not mean it cannot be brought under scrutiny and questioned.
The topic at hand was the private tyrannies that are private corporations. You completely missed the point Tank, and now you come here to distort.
Diosdado, Cabello, Maduro, Rodriguez, DiMartino, ElAissami, Carrizales, etc... none of them have the skills to run a country. Yet they do.
Well, that's just your own subjective opinion. It is hardly possible to respond to it since you give nothing concrete to back it up.
What you don't seem to understand, Tosh, is that your method of argumentation is indicative of someone who has a lot of insecurities. Notice that, while I disagree strongly with many of your points, I don't feel the need to repeat ad nauseum that your arguments are "ridiculous." If you were really so confident about your points, you would let them speak for themselves rather than piling on insults that are really quite silly.
I suspect the reason that OW doesn't bother with you any more is the same reason that I'm going to give this a rest. Your method of argumentation is so reflexive that it appears to me to be more about your own ego than the actual issues.
I'm not interested in ego wars, Tosh. I'm interested in the issues.
I'm not interested in ego wars, Tosh. I'm interested in the issues.
Justin | Homepage | 06.04.09 - 4:04 pm | #
Well Justin, if that were true, you would have simply admitted a long time ago that your argument was silly, and had no basis.
But instead, in order to save face (ego), you continued to morph your argument over and over again, and distort what I'm saying, in a desperate attempt to win the argument.
If you were really so confident about your points, you would let them speak for themselves rather than piling on insults that are really quite silly.
I have not once insulted you. I have called your argument ridiculous, because it is.
It appears that you're the one that has now resorted to ad hominem attacks by implying that I have "insecurities" and ego problems.
Resorting to these kinds of personal attacks won't make your argument any less false, and it won't make my argument any less true.
He did have a choice: he faced capital flight and attacks on the real and committed to the neo-liberal course he was already plotting earlier (in fact, he committed to more stringent policies in terms of a primary surplus than the IMF had suggested, hinting that he went beyond placation into outright subservience to the bourgeoisie).
Well, I would quibble about the term "neoliberal." It's overused. Lula hasn't pushed privatization like Cardoso did. Lula gives lip service to "free trade," but that's it. He's kept the tariff regime in place. He's not only talking about joining OPEC but also increasing state control over oil exploration. So, personally, I wouldn't sum Lula up as a "neoliberal."
Certainly Lula hasn't altered Cardoso's course as much as I would like, but Lula didn't choose the conditions under which he would govern the country. Cardoso is the one who saddled the country with so much debt. At the very least, Lula isn't saddling future Brazilian presidents with such a level of debt.
Are you gonna make me quote Marx to you?
Well, that's up to you, but I'll be happy to quote him.
man makes history, but not under conditions of his own making.
No doubt man makes choices too, but Marx's point --and my own point-- is that the conditions limit the range of choices available to him.
No doubt man makes choices too, but Marx's point --and my own point-- is that the conditions limit the range of choices available to him.
Justin | Homepage | 06.04.09 - 4:35 pm | #
So, the question is did he make the right choices given the situation?
It certainly seems like he didn't take many of the steps that were available to him. Max gave a few good examples up above of place where he certainly could have gone a different direction, but chose not to.
Justin, Tosh, you are hijacking Ow's blog. Why don't you go to Justin's blog? Is it so boring there?
Ow,
When are you going to post about you-know-what in Venezuela? Unlike Justin or Estes, you are not an eternal PhD "student", you see the real things.
Some ideas:
mentality change: is that possible?
is it possible to force the debate Chavistas run away from?
education in Venezuela, your thoughts
but why did Lula have to cut public-sector pensions?
That wasn't a regressive policy decision. In a country in which public-sector pensions vastly exceed per capita income, it makes perfect sense to tax such pensions. That policy can be justified on the perfectly reasonable grounds that the middle classes need to pay taxes. So I just don't see the problem here. Just because the public-sector unions didn't like the move doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do.
Why did neo-liberals have to take key economic ministries? Why couldn't Lula have directed Rousseff to appoint leftists to Petrobras? Or settled a higher number of families? Simple structures pressing their agenda on a helpless former trade-union leader?
You may be right that Lula could have done more in the way of land reform and some other areas. My point isn't that Lula did everything he could but rather that a radical program wasn't an option at this juncture.
In the end, it takes a lot more than the president to move a country leftward. You have to have a military that is insulated from coup-plotting elites, leftist control of the legislative branch, and a base that pushes things in a leftist direction. If you're lacking any one of those conditions, a radical program is probably not gonna be viable. In Brazil and Chile, you lack all three.
Get your attacks straight. Answer the question: if the constitution legalized--nay, ordered-- slaughtering children, would it be legitimate to do so? Would people who refused to slaughter children be pilloried for refusing to obey the law?
But we are not talking about "any" constitution, we are talking about the recently passed Constitution that was enacted by the current government.
We also are not talking about the "slaughter of children" or genocide. We are talking about common laws that were agreed and put into paper for a reason. Don't change the subject.
So what are the "norms" that supersede the constitution of Venezuela? Whatever Chavez thinks?
When was the last time the AN seriously challenged or seriously discussed a law? When was the last time someone turned around and said "hold on Mr. President, maybe we should discuss this more"?
There is now law, there is whatever the fat man in palace orders. Men make mistakes, that's why we make rules and stick to them.
Moreover, all constitutions are founded in violence, as are states. Law is itself an instrument for codifying violence, reflecting a temporary conjuncture of power and ideology. These issues are more complicated than simple braying about "people who don't care about the constitution."
So how about you step out of your utopia into the real world?
How do you run a country with no laws? How do you treat the citizens "fairly" when you can change and amend laws on the go? How do you manage the country?
How was the constitution written by Chavez born out of violence? (didn't he claim that he wrote it at some point?)
Some of the real flaws are things like agrarian reform not being as comprehensive as it needs to be. Reformists inside the PSUV that seek to put the brakes on real change. Too many corrupt bureaucrats and not enough qualified personnel to run public companies.
If those are the first flaws that come to your head,, you truly are blinded.
In the end, it takes a lot more than the president to move a country leftward. You have to have a military that is insulated from coup-plotting elites, leftist control of the legislative branch, and a base that pushes things in a leftist direction. If you're lacking any one of those conditions, a radical program is probably not gonna be viable. In Brazil and Chile, you lack all three.
But Justin, Venezuela didn't have all of those either. They obviously didn't have a military insulated from coup-plotters. They didn't have leftist control of the legislature. They did have, to a certain extent, a base that pushed things to the left, but Chavez also was instrumental in pushing things that way.
I mean, the argument doesn't really stand up, because in Venezuela they demonstrated that even though they didn't have those things you listed above, they took the iniciative to CREATE those conditions. They took very concrete measures to mobilize the masses behind their political program, (yes the masses were already mobilized, but Chavez has increased that), they built a political coalition to help take control of the legislature, and they purged the military, and have worked to maintain their loyalty.
There might be limits to what Lula could do, because the conditions were different, but it certainly doesn't seem like he's even ATTEMPTING to push up against those limits.
And, as for Bachelet, well she's just totally sold-out to the oligarchy.
There might be limits to what Lula could do, because the conditions were different, but it certainly doesn't seem like he's even ATTEMPTING to push up against those limits.
And, as for Bachelet, well she's just totally sold-out to the oligarchy.
A little harsh, but essentially correct.
Bachelet has shown no willingness to challenge the political arrangements put into place during the Pinochet era, especially in regard to labor rights. Sadly, the country remains frozen in time because of the belief among centrists and leftists that the abandonment of those relationships risks the emergence of another Pinochet.
Lula decided, immediately upon taking office, that he would not challenge preexisting arrangements with the IMF.
In other words, they have disarmed themselves.
The recession is going to make life difficult for both of them, more difficult for them than for Chavez. After all, just look, that commodity with that inelasticity of demand costs over $69 a barrel today. Again, right now, would you rather be selling oil or cars internationally?
If those are the first flaws that come to your head,, you truly are blinded.
Tank | 06.04.09 - 5:31 pm | #
Thanks for demonstating my point Tank. The level of debate with someone like you is so infantile that its not even possible to seriously discuss these issues with you.
Again, right now, would you rather be selling oil or cars internationally?
Richard Estes | Homepage | 06.04.09 - 5:47 pm | #
That's an interesting question Richard, but I think its kind of a false dichotomy. Certainly the most desirable position lies somewhere in between, being neither totally dependent on primary goods exports, like Venezuela, nor being totally dependent on manufactured goods exports, like SK, Japan, or even Chile (to a lesser extent).
Again, this is why the Latin American integrationist approach is the right path. Using that big internal market to fuel industrialization means you aren't as dependent on world markets, but also can fuel industrialization and become independent of primary goods exports, achieve technological sovereignty, etc.
Haha, I love this statement Tank. So, Venezuela isn't going to develop because Chavez isn't helping largely middle and upper class opposition?I would have to agree with Tank on this one. You can't alienate 40% of the population and expect things to go smoothly. Luckily there has been enough oil money to keep most of the middle class pacified with cheap CADIVI dollars. And of course the upper class is happy with whatever corruption they profit from. If/when that money becomes more scarce, bad things can happen.
You can't alienate 40% of the population and expect things to go smoothly.
Nope, you probably can't expect them to go smoothly. But what does that have to do with development? And I guess you didn't read my explanation about class divisions.
They obviously didn't have a military insulated from coup-plotters.
True, but the difference is that Chavez himself comes from the military. He understands the military better than civilian leaders and has a lot of allies within it. Given the history, Chavez was in a much better position to be able to continue exercising significant influence over the officer corps while moving left. A figure without Chavez's military background would have a much more difficult time doing that.
They didn't have leftist control of the legislature.
Chavismo has controlled the legislative branch since 2000, Tosh.
They did have, to a certain extent, a base that pushed things to the left, but Chavez also was instrumental in pushing things that way.
Okay, so we agree the base was there.
That's at least two out of three. And we haven't even gotten into oil yet.
The simple fact of the matter is that there's just no comparison between Venezuela, on the one hand, and Brazil and Chile, on the other.
I mean, the argument doesn't really stand up, because in Venezuela they demonstrated that even though they didn't have those things you listed above, they took the iniciative to CREATE those conditions.
Actually, they did have some of those things I listed above.
But, moreover, your interpretation of events is overly voluntarist. As Chavez himself has acknowledged, he didn't create the conditions of popular hatred for the Fourth Republic. Those conditions were created by the country's long-term economic decline. The severity and duration of that decline was unprecedented in Latin America. Chavez took advantage of those conditions of popular hatred for the Fourth Republic to build his coalition, but he didn't create the conditions of said hatred.
"Uh, really? There are a reported 638 attempts on Fidel Castro's life over a period of 50 years."
...and how many of those are real?
"Different? Oh, well if you say so Tor I guess it must be true."
So for you the CIA today is the same as 30 years ago?
"Wrong. Aristide was overthrown in 2004. Noriega in 1989."
The cold war ended in 1989.
Aristide was complicated. It was certaintly not the type of CIA operation (covert and illicit) that Chavez is asserting.
Justin,
I think I'm going to cut off this conversation, because at every point--at every single comment I've written here--I've acknowledged structural and institutional constraints on Lula. I've simply added that there are choices.
Well, I would quibble about the term "neoliberal." It's overused. Lula hasn't pushed privatization like Cardoso did. Lula gives lip service to "free trade," but that's it. He's kept the tariff regime in place. He's not only talking about joining OPEC but also increasing state control over oil exploration. So, personally, I wouldn't sum Lula up as a "neoliberal."
Your privilege, but there are many who do:
Lula’s first term consequently was characterized by its adherence to the main neoliberal agenda, including very stringent economic programs aimed at debt repayment and “fiscal responsibility.” This was coupled with a much less ambitious program than originally conceived on behalf of the poor. While passing out some benefits to its constituents the PT has also promoted neoliberal structural reforms that directly undermine the overall position of workers. This has then constituted a kind of Latin American social-democratic “third way” strategy in which neoliberal ends are hegemonic.
--John Bellamy Foster
These included the reform - effectively partial privatisation - of an extremely unequal public pensions system, which nevertheless left the inequalities almost untouched; and amending Brazil’s relatively radical, albeit contradictory, 1988 constitution to facilitate the creation of an independent bank with the freedom to raise interest rates as high as it wants.
--Hillary Wainwright
There was nothing that would justify maintaining a policy of fiscal adjustment, still less the introduction of new measures such as raising the primary fiscal surplus target to 4.5 per cent of gdp, above the level recommended by the imf. The second conservative argument concerned the risks of inflation, which would prevent the reduction of interest rates—raised in the first month of the Lula government from already high levels. The economy was stagnant and unemployment high, undercutting any justifications based on inflation of demand; there was nothing to indicate that inflation was out of control.
Cardoso’s economic policy was not simply maintained but, with the hike in interest rates and raising of the primary fiscal surplus, taken a step further. In order to show that this was a strategic choice, in its first year the Lula government gave priority to two reforms in the style of World Bank ‘packages’ on social security and tax. The first had a clear privatizing slant.
--Emir Sader
I could go on, but the point is made.
Are you gonna make me quote Marx to you?
Well, that's up to you, but I'll be happy to quote him.
man makes history, but not under conditions of his own making.
No doubt man makes choices too, but Marx's point --and my own point-- is that
No doubt man makes choices too, but Marx's point --and my own point-- is that the conditions limit the range of choices available to him.
No. I quipped about quoting Marx to make a reference to a tradition of social science I think we share. Marx's point was about the conjuncture of structure and agency, not one, not the other.
The issue is emphatically not a radical program, which Lula could not push through without the aid of a mobilized working class (although reforms can lead to enhanced mobilization, no question). The issue is what role agency had, why is why I led off with the quotation from Moore about Nehru.
at every point--at every single comment I've written here--I've acknowledged structural and institutional constraints on Lula. I've simply added that there are choices.
Well, we don't really disagree, then.
Cardoso’s economic policy was not simply maintained but, with the hike in interest rates and raising of the primary fiscal surplus, taken a step further. In order to show that this was a strategic choice, in its first year the Lula government gave priority to two reforms in the style of World Bank ‘packages’ on social security and tax. The first had a clear privatizing slant.
--Emir Sader
But notice that, in the hour of truth (in between the first and second rounds of the 2006 presidential election), Emir Sader came out swinging for Lula.
http://www.brazzil.com/component...-2006/
9715.html
...and how many of those are real?
This film documents a good number of them, enough to make my point stand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
638..._to_Kill_Castro
So for you the CIA today is the same as 30 years ago?
This statement is too vague to respond to really. Yes, they are the same in some respects. I'm sure they are different in some respects too. But their overall function and purpose remains virtually the same.
The cold war ended in 1989.
Hahaha! Is this an attempt to blame the overthrow of Manuel Noriega on the Cold War?
Aristide was complicated. It was certaintly not the type of CIA operation (covert and illicit) that Chavez is asserting.
Tor | 06.04.09 - 7:44 pm | #
The point is that the CIA still works to remove certain leaders from power. Of course each situation is different, and that forces the CIA to change their strategy.
I'm not saying that the CIA was necessarily involved in whatever plot Chavez has denounced, I'm just saying that it isn't unrealistic to think they would attempt something like this, ESPECIALLY with rogue agents like Posada Carriles who tried to kill Fidel Castro in a similar way in Panama in 2000 and the US refuses to try him for it (or even condemn it).
True, but the difference is that Chavez himself comes from the military. He understands the military better than civilian leaders and has a lot of allies within it. Given the history, Chavez was in a much better position to be able to continue exercising significant influence over the officer corps while moving left.
Justin, Chavez was OVERTHROWN by the military, so he obviously wasn't able to have enough influence over them to prevent that.
Part of what saved him was that he had mobilized significant sectors of the population, and they pretty much forced the right wing to abandon power.
Chavismo has controlled the legislative branch since 2000, Tosh.
Yes, but how did they get control of it? Because they called for a constituent assembly which allowed them to call for new Assembly elections. This allowed them to take advantage of the high popularity of the Chavez movement at that time and win a majority of seats. Again, why could a Brazilian or Chilean government not do the same the shift the balance in their favor?
Chavez took advantage of those conditions of popular hatred for the Fourth Republic to build his coalition, but he didn't create the conditions of said hatred.
Justin | Homepage | 06.04.09 - 7:30 pm | #
Of course, this is a no-brainer. But you are failing to acknowledge that there is also a lot of discontent among Brazilians and Chileans that could be used to build a coalition. It might not be as strong as in Venezuela, but a good leader could mobilize enough people behind him to push through some important reforms.
As I said before, they might not be able to do as much as Chavez, but certainly they could do SOMETHING!!! Lula and Bachelet haven't even attempted to push the limits.
But, moreover, your interpretation of events is overly voluntarist.
And yours is overly apologist. However, as I think Max showed up above, many experts agree with me that Lula hasn't made the right choices given the conditions.
But notice that, in the hour of truth (in between the first and second rounds of the 2006 presidential election), Emir Sader came out swinging for Lula.
Yes, and Noam Chomsky supported Obama. That doesn't mean he agrees with his policies.
Justin, Chavez was OVERTHROWN by the military, so he obviously wasn't able to have enough influence over them to prevent that.
Part of what saved him was that he had mobilized significant sectors of the population, and they pretty much forced the right wing to abandon power.
I'd say that both sets of relationships --Chavez's relationship with the officer corps and his relationship with the base-- were important in turning back the coup.
It's important to remember that Chavez's relationships with the officer corps are the whole reason he ever emerged as a major political actor in the first place.
how did they get control of it?
They got control of it because Chavez had a lot of political capital with his people and could get his coalition elected. Chavez's extraordinary political capital was rooted in the country's long-term economic decline, which was unprecedented in the region.
It's not as if the PT doesn't have its radical elements and doesn't also try to win the legislative branch. The simple fact of the matter is that most Brazilians are not chomping at the bit for radical change.
And the Chilean Communist Party is a marginal player, in case you didn't notice. That's because Chile is a fairly conservative country. No man of destiny is gonna change that in the immediate term.
you are failing to acknowledge that there is also a lot of discontent among Brazilians and Chileans that could be used to build a coalition.
In case you haven't noticed, Lula has the highest approval ratings in Latin America, Tosh. Brazilians are actually pretty content with his milchetoast politics, and Chileans are probably a bit to the right of Brazilians.
You're under the illusion that all of Latin America is ripe for the taking by radical men of destiny, but that just ain't the case. There are some countries --like Bolivia and Ecuador-- that are ripe for a genuinely leftist politics, but there are also a number of countries where those conditions don't exist.
They got control of it because Chavez had a lot of political capital with his people and could get his coalition elected.
And Lula doesn't? As you say, he's the most popular leader in Latin America. He most likely could use that political capital to mobilize people behind more radical reform. He chooses not to.
It's not as if the PT doesn't have its radical elements and doesn't also try to win the legislative branch. The simple fact of the matter is that most Brazilians are not chomping at the bit for radical change.
And the Chilean Communist Party is a marginal player, in case you didn't notice. That's because Chile is a fairly conservative country. No man of destiny is gonna change that in the immediate term.
The exact same thing could have been said of Venezuela in the 1990's, right at the peak of popular discontent. Did the Venezuelan Communist party become anything more than a marginal player? Did the more radical parties control the legislative branch? Hardly. The PCV only got less than 2% of the vote in 1998.
So, based on your logic, you could have said in 1997 that "Venezuelans are not chomping at the bit for radical change"... "No man of destiny is going to change that.."
That would have been a pretty dumb thing to say.
In case you haven't noticed, Lula has the highest approval ratings in Latin America, Tosh. Brazilians are actually pretty content with his milchetoast politics, and Chileans are probably a bit to the right of Brazilians.
No, actually, the fact that Lula is so popular just shows what a lost opportunity it is. He could use his popularity to mobilize for change. Yet he chooses to maintain many of the same neoliberal policies of his predecessors.
You're under the illusion that all of Latin America is ripe for the taking by radical men of destiny
Once again, you distort my argument for your own gain. This is not what I am saying.
My argument is simply that Lula, Bachelet, and others, could easily have made more radical reforms, could have made better choices given their situations, and have CHOSEN to not push the limits and confront the oligarchy.
As Max and others (including many experts) have said, Lula has not taken advantage of the opportunity. You're simply being an apologist for him.
at every point--at every single comment I've written here--I've acknowledged structural and institutional constraints on Lula. I've simply added that there are choices.
Well, we don't really disagree, then.
Yes, except for the fact that you refuse to admit that Lula might have made any wrong choices, or could have chosen to do things differently.
So, you don't really agree. That's the problem.
you refuse to admit that Lula might have made any wrong choices, or could have chosen to do things differently.
No, Tosh, the problem is that you have a reading comprehension problem.
I've already clarified repeatedly that my point ISN'T that Lula did everything he could. What I said that a radical program wasn't an option at this juncture.
As you say, he's the most popular leader in Latin America. He most likely could use that political capital to mobilize people behind more radical reform.
I think a more sober interpretation would be that the major source of Lula's popularity is his moderation and his willingness to compromise.
Lula is a political chamelion. Somehow he manages to stay on friendly terms with just about everyone.
The exact same thing could have been said of Venezuela in the 1990's, right at the peak of popular discontent.
No, you're wrong about that. Chavez and his co-conspirators immediately struck a popular chord with the 1992 military insurrection. Venezuela was becoming ripe for the taking by a man of destiny because of the country's long economic decline and the people's growing disgust with the old system.
So, based on your logic, you could have said in 1997 that "Venezuelans are not chomping at the bit for radical change"... "No man of destiny is going to change that.."
Well, now you're just grasping at straws, Tosh. Venezuela in the '90s is a whole different ballgame than Chile or Brazil. The opening for a man of destiny became immediately apparent with the military insurrection. Why do you think Caldera felt the need to pardon Chavez in '94?
That would have been a pretty dumb thing to say.
Indeed, it would have been a pretty dumb thing to say.
Justin, have the decency to carry on this blogging wanking on your blog.
Bugger off:
"No, you're wrong about that. Chavez and his co-conspirators immediately struck a popular chord with the 1992 military insurrection.
"
There was no popular chord. The president was unpopular but the reaction to the coupsters was worse. The second coup (by Chavez buddies as Chavez was in prison) even had the gangsters threatening the people they would be bombed if they did not join. What kind of assholes!
Chavez's movement was as ripe as the Nazi movement in the thirties.
"Venezuela was becoming ripe for the taking by a man of destiny because of the country's long economic decline and the people's growing disgust with the old system."
MAN OF DESTINY. Jesus...and you are trying to get a PhD (well, never mind PhDs in social sciences can mean about anything from normal difficulty to a scam at a crappy faculty)
MAN OF DESTINY
"Yes, and Noam Chomsky supported Obama. That doesn't mean he agrees with his policies."
For Goodness sake, these blokes really love to drop those names. Saint George said this and Saint Joseph said that!
Worse than that.
Lula is a great man who wants to lead ALL Brazilians, not just the majority. Chavez should learn a thing or two from him. Funes is the future of latin America, Chavez is the past. Bachelet, Lula, Funes can be your model, or Pinchet, Fujimori, Peron and Chavez can be your model. History is on the side of the moderates.
jsb - Chavez, despite his rhetoric, has protected the middle classes and served their interests as well as those of the poor.
No, you're wrong about that. Chavez and his co-conspirators immediately struck a popular chord with the 1992 military insurrection.
This is utter bullshit continually repeated by the gringo-chavistas who couldn't find Venezuela on a map on 1992.
Nobody went out to the streets to support those coups, the whole popular support propaganda only exists in your mind and the minds of other looneys who are desperate to find a glourious battle as the start of their sacred cruzade.
Right before the persidential campaign on 1998, Chavez was very unpopular (he was campaigning for abstention back then) and nobody gave a shit about him. There are hundreds of polls that prove what I'm saying.
And on another note, this is an article I dedicate to Tosh, Oilwars' own CFO Superstar:
Pequiven aumentó 587% su deuda con los bancos
La Empresa petroquímica arrastra pérdidas de BsF. 110,5 millones.
Las cuentas por pagar a trabajadores y proveedores subieron 195% en el ejercicio del año pasado.
En un informe de la compañía se admite la escasez de personal calificado, "debiendo recurrir a costosas consultoras privadas".
I wonder if venezuelanalysis will ever mention this kind of info, you know, with all of the "información veraz y oportuna" thingy.
I've already clarified repeatedly that my point ISN'T that Lula did everything he could. What I said that a radical program wasn't an option at this juncture.
Justin | Homepage | 06.05.09 - 2:17 am | #
Oh, well please do point me to where you have said that Lula made wrong choices, and could have done it differently. I sure haven't seen it.
I think a more sober interpretation would be that the major source of Lula's popularity is his moderation and his willingness to compromise.
More sober? According to who exactly? You?
I have spoken to many MANY Brazilians who supported Lula initially because they expected more of a radical change. They have been sadly disappointed. In fact, the fact that the Brazilian electorate decided to elect a Labor unionist in spite of the fact that he was feared by the oligarchy, and viciously attacked in the media, is pretty indicative that the Brazilian population was looking for a change from the past.
So, your opinion about Lula is simply your opinion. Lula was actually pretty popular back when his political program was more radical.
Sure, a more radical Lula might lose some popularity among more moderate sectors, but he would GAIN in popularity among more radical sectors. The point is that he could use his popularity to build a coalition behind reforms. (And he could definitely afford to lose some popularity, and still have enough support to be successful)
But, why am I even arguing this, because you agree right? You agree that Lula could have done it differently?
Venezuela was becoming ripe for the taking by a man of destiny because of the country's long economic decline and the people's growing disgust with the old system.
You didn't address my point. The criteria by which you make the claim that Brazil does not have the right conditions for a more radical program are identical to the Venezuelan situation in the 1990's. Namely, radical parties were marginal, communist party had very little support, mainstream parties controlled the legislature.
So, I'm simply showing that the criteria that you use to prove your point are, once again, false. You better look for something else to back up your opinion.
Venezuela in the '90s is a whole different ballgame than Chile or Brazil.
This is just too vague a statement to mean anything. Of course Venezuela was different in some ways. But there were also a lot of similarities between these societies. So far, the differences you have tried to cite have not held up. The things you cite were actually NOT different in Venezuela.
Until you can show that the differences were sufficient to make a more radical program impossible in Brazil, you don't have much of a point.
(And, by the way, if you admit that Lula didn't do everything he could have, then aren't you admitting that he could have at least taken a more radical path? That has been my point all along. Nice to hear that you finally agree.)
Lula is a political chamelion. Somehow he manages to stay on friendly terms with just about everyone.
That's a funny statement, since that's certainly not the impression you get when you talk to people on the left in Brazil. I mean, for god's sake Justin, Lula's moderation pretty much caused the PT to splinter into several parties because people were so upset with his lack of real reforms.
Chavez and his co-conspirators immediately struck a popular chord with the 1992 military insurrection.
Yes, but Lula was also pretty damn popular in the 1990's, despite media attacks and hatred from the oligarchy.
In fact, Lula got some 27% of the vote in the 1994 elections, which is significantly MORE than any radical party got in the 1993 Venezuelan elections. La Causa R, which was probably the closest equivalent to the PT, got only 22% of the vote.
Why do you think Caldera felt the need to pardon Chavez in '94?
Oh, I guess I missed this one.
Well, the actual reason that Caldera did this is very simple and straightforward. His government in 1994 was very weak because he had very little support in the legislature. He needed to ally himself with the many smaller leftist parties to control more seats in the AN. In order to get an alliance with these parties he was forced to pardon Chavez.
Nobody went out to the streets to support those coups, the whole popular support propaganda only exists in your mind and the minds of other looneys who are desperate to find a glourious battle as the start of their sacred cruzade.
Well, Jeff, actually there were some reports of spontaneous civilian uprisings as well. But, no, I don't think a lot of people took action on that day.
However, talking to people in Venezuela my impression is that a lot of people were hopeful when they heard the news. They wanted to get rid of the CAP government, even if they weren't very sure abou this Chavez guy.
Right before the persidential campaign on 1998, Chavez was very unpopular (he was campaigning for abstention back then) and nobody gave a shit about him. There are hundreds of polls that prove what I'm saying.
Well, Jeff, by all means post those polls that back you up, because otherwise you're just full of it.
By May 1998, Chávez's support had risen to 30% in polls, and by August he was registering 39%. Chávez went on to win the Carter Center-endorsed 1998 presidential election on December 6, 1998 with 56.2% of the vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ven...ez.27s_campaign
Pequiven aumentó 587% su deuda con los bancos
La Empresa petroquímica arrastra pérdidas de BsF. 110,5 millones.
Again, I guess Jeff doesn't understand the concept of positive externalities and how state-owned companies seeking to create positive externalities many times don't seek to make a profit.
En un informe de la compañía se admite la escasez de personal calificado, "debiendo recurrir a costosas consultoras privadas".
Yep, as I mentioned above, I think this is one of the major weaknesses of the revolution.
"Yep, as I mentioned above, I think this is one of the major weaknesses of the revolution."
Weakness? Its a bloody brain drain for Pete sake. Governments such as Canada are making within Venezuela public open sales pitches to emigrate.
Tosh, do you want to make this thread more than 700 posts long today or 1000 for Sunday? Why don't you open your own blog? Same with Starbucks Socialist Estes and Starbucks Socialist Justin...oh they have their own blogs!
Kepler - just fuck off and leave people to debate. You have NOTHING constructive to say and this debate is way out of your league.
Skilling - get your facts straight. Chavez's MBR 200 campaigned for abstention in the 1993 elections Look at the results. Caldera won with less than 2 million votes.
This was not the case in 1998. Now, if Chavez had been so unpopular as you erroneously and idiotically maintain, why were there so few votes cast in the 1993 elections???
Chavez did strike a chord with the poor after the 1992 coup. Carneval 1993 - the kids in the abrrios dressed up as Comandante Chávez. What more popular support could you want. What a great symbol of solidarity.
The 1992 coups weakened the IV Republic fatally and it is obvious that the mpopular support was there since it manifested itself at the first opportunity Chávez had to stand for election. He still has overwhelming support now despite your feeble attempts to discredit him and this humanistic regime.
Charly - open sales pitches for Venezuelans to emigrate to Canada and Australia are nothing new.
If people want to leave, let them go. To talk about a brain drain to these countries is nonsensical. Check out the numbers of Venezuelans allowed into these countries each year - it's just a few hundred.
Most escuálidos who fear COMMUNISM go to Miami and clean bathrooms or work in Wendys. Such noble labor reflects their true intellecçtual capabilities and analytical capacities.
Tosh - I do not see that paragon of free enterprise USA Inc. making a profit for hundreds of years. I guess this is why Skilling would want to follow this shining example of efficiancy and level headedness!.
Anonymous, get your numbers right. It is far more than a few hundred. They even get accepted as refugees across the border from USA these days.
Charly - read the comment you dumbass. I was referring specifically to Canada and Australia.
So was I. No need to replace ignorance by insults. Go get your facts.
Well, Jeff, actually there were some reports of spontaneous civilian uprisings as well. But, no, I don't think a lot of people took action on that day.
fact? opinion? wishful thinking? or is it that you're just full of it? can you prove those "civilian uprisings were actually spontaneous or just civilians who took part in the conspiracy?
It's well known that the most primal and pathetic wing of the latinamerican left has always been desperate to find a way to give legitimacy to the chavista coups.
However, talking to people in Venezuela my impression is that a lot of people were hopeful when they heard the news.
I find it amusing that aguy who always asks for data, proof, who dismisses other people's opinions backs up his arguments whit his "impressions" from what a limited group of people say. You ain't no statitian, bro.
Well, Jeff, by all means post those polls that back you up, because otherwise you're just full of it.
I'll look for them when I have the time. But I'm surprised that you (the greatest expert on Venezuelan contemporary and 21st century's messiah history) need me to explain you that it is a commonly known fact that before Chavez entered the persidential campaign had been working on convincing people on not to vote and had very low popularity levels, and even when he started being named among the potential candidates he was surpased even by Irene Saez on popularity levels. What's going on Tosh? Not been doing your homework lately? Didn't know about Venezuela's existence back then?
By May 1998, Chávez's support had risen to 30% in polls, and by August he was registering 39%. Chávez went on to win the Carter Center-endorsed 1998 presidential election on December 6, 1998 with 56.2% of the vote.
So your point is that he became popular later and won the election, who's arguing this? you need to pay attention.
Again, I guess Jeff doesn't understand the concept of positive externalities and how state-owned companies seeking to create positive externalities many times don't seek to make a profit.
Again, Tosh, CFO extraordinaire, keeps talking about positive externalities he can't point at, but seems to be incapable of understanding what financial sustainability is about. As hard to believe as it may seem for you, non-profit organizations have to be financialy sustainable too, Tosh. Ever heard of the effect of inflation on the cost structure? add that to negative cash flows. The fact that they can't even pay their own workers should be a bad sign for anyone, but then again, for socialists liquidity is totally overrated, default is the new black.
Skilling - get your facts straight. Chavez's MBR 200 campaigned for abstention in the 1993 elections Look at the results. Caldera won with less than 2 million votes.
Again, opinion? fact? wishful thinking?
You know, I've heard that if you close your eyes and wish something really hard it may become reality.
This was not the case in 1998. Now, if Chavez had been so unpopular as you erroneously and idiotically maintain, why were there so few votes cast in the 1993 elections???
discontent? deception? complete loss of faith on the system?
We could spend days talking about possible cuases.
Chavez did strike a chord with the poor after the 1992 coup. Carneval 1993 - the kids in the abrrios dressed up as Comandante Chávez. What more popular support could you want. What a great symbol of solidarity.
Kids in barrios have dressed as Osama Bin Laden too. People in the barrios worship Los Santos Malandros Court (the saint thugs), what's your point again?
Again, if you close your eyes and wish really really hard what was just another failed coup may become a heroic cruzade.
The 1992 coups weakened the IV Republic fatally and it is obvious that the mpopular support was there since it manifested itself at the first opportunity Chávez had to stand for election.
You ain't no statitian either, huh?
He still has overwhelming support now despite your feeble attempts to discredit him and this humanistic regime.
Ah, the fundies.
Tosh - I do not see that paragon of free enterprise USA Inc. making a profit for hundreds of years. I guess this is why Skilling would want to follow this shining example of efficiancy and level headedness!.
Another CFO Superstar who thinks default is the new black.
Again, I'll say it slowly this time, just for you:
non-pro-fit... or-ga-ni-za-tions... have... to... be... fi-nan-cial-y... sus-tain-a-ble... too
I'd gladly draw you a picture if you still can't understand this.
If people want to leave, let them go. To talk about a brain drain to these countries is nonsensical. Check out the numbers of Venezuelans allowed into these countries each year - it's just a few hundred.
I think this guy is a living proof of the revolution full of unqualified people.
Do you have any idea of the amount of highly qualified Venezuelan professionals from the oil sector that have been recruited by Canadian and European companies?
Lula is a great man who wants to lead ALL Brazilians, not just the majority.
_____ is a great man who wants to lead ALL ________s, not just the majority.
Yes, right of the neoliberal handbook, a comment usually made US presidents and cabinet officials, as well as IMF representatives, to praise someone who is steadfast in imposing austerity upon a disgruntled populace at their direction.
Or, alternatively, in relation to the praise of American political figures, willing to allow US troops to be stationed in his or her country and launch attacks against others nearby.
That's an interesting question Richard, but I think its kind of a false dichotomy. Certainly the most desirable position lies somewhere in between, being neither totally dependent on primary goods exports, like Venezuela, nor being totally dependent on manufactured goods exports, like SK, Japan, or even Chile (to a lesser extent).
Again, this is why the Latin American integrationist approach is the right path. Using that big internal market to fuel industrialization means you aren't as dependent on world markets, but also can fuel industrialization and become independent of primary goods exports, achieve technological sovereignty, etc.
Tosh | 06.04.09 - 5:58 pm | #
As you may recall, we are generally in agreement on this. Indeed, it may soon become necessary as a matter of survival.
I have spoken to many MANY Brazilians who supported Lula initially because they expected more of a radical change.
Of course the Brazilian leftists whom you've spoken with in Venezuela would have liked to have seen more from Lula, but such anecdotes tell us next to nothing about what the general population of Brazil thinks.
Those of us on the left have a tendency to imagine that our own insular networks of leftist friends are somehow representative of broader publics. That's an illusion.
As the Italian revolutionary Antonio Gramsci astutely observed, to move a whole society to the left --to really change the way people think about the world-- is a gigantuan, painstaking task that doesn't just happen because we wish it to be so.
Lula was actually pretty popular back when his political program was more radical.
Not popular enough, as his three consecutive defeats at the ballot box demonstrated.
But, why am I even arguing this, because you agree right? You agree that Lula could have done it differently?
Lula could have done some things differently. He probably could have done a bit more in the way of land reform, for example, but he couldn't have challenged the oligarchy in the way that you think he should have.
The criteria by which you make the claim that Brazil does not have the right conditions for a more radical program are identical to the Venezuelan situation in the 1990's.
No, you're quite wrong about that, Tosh. The Venezuelan party system was undergoing an implosion in the 1990s. The first sign of its demise was the military insurrections and CAP's impeachment. Then, in the '94 presidential election, something unprecedented happened. Neither of the two top vote-getters in the presidential election were from the traditionally dominant parties (AD and COPEI). Caldera had broken from COPEI, formed his own party, and formed a coalition with the MAS, which is to say that Caldera moved a bit to the left so as to reinvent himself politically. The other top vote-getter was Causa R's Andres Velasquez, who was still part of the left at the time and came from a radical tradition. So the old party system was breaking down and the country was already moving left.
The Brazilian and Chilean party systems, on the other hand, have been very stable for the past 20 years. In Brazil, you have three major parties that have dominated the scene: the PMDB, the PSDB and the PT. Unlike in Venezuela in the 1990s, none of Brazil's major parties is undergoing rapid decline. The same holds true in Chile. So, in neither case do we have a situation in which a political vacuum emerges for a man of destiny to radically alter the political map.
The reason Lula couldn't do anything radical is that he has had to govern in coalition with the PMDB, which is not a leftist party. Similarly, it's not possible for Chile's socialists to move much to the left because
I find it amusing that aguy who always asks for data, proof, who dismisses other people's opinions backs up his arguments whit his "impressions" from what a limited group of people say. You ain't no statitian, bro.
haha, great argument Jeff. But its a little hard to provide statistics about "a feeling of hopefulness".
I won't hold my breath waiting for those supposed "polls" that back up your nonsense.
So your point is that he became popular later and won the election, who's arguing this? you need to pay attention.
No, Jeff, YOU argued that he was "very unpopular right before the 1998 election".
He obviously wasn't, as he had as high as 39% support.
Funny how even you can't keep your nonsense straight.
non-pro-fit... or-ga-ni-za-tions... have... to... be... fi-nan-cial-y... sus-tain-a-ble... too
No, actually state-owned enterprises many times take a loss ON PURPOSE because of the positive externalities for the rest of society.
I know this is really hard for you to undertand Jeff, but you might do a little R...E...A...D...I...N...G... up on it so you can understand it.
Again, Tosh, CFO extraordinaire, keeps talking about positive externalities he can't point at, but seems to be incapable of understanding what financial sustainability is about.
Talk about incapable of understanding!
The reason Lula couldn't do anything radical is that he has had to govern in coalition with the PMDB, which is not a leftist party. Similarly, it's not possible for Chile's socialists to move much to the left because they have to govern in coalition with the Christian Democrats, which is also not a leftist party. To try to implement a radical program when you have to govern in coalition with a non-leftist party is like banging your head against a wall. As long as the Left does not dominate the legislative branch, it's just impossible to push through radical legislation.
Chavez doesn't have that problem because the PSUV controls the National Assembly. But Chavez would have serious problems if the opposition were to take control of the National Assembly.
Namely, radical parties were marginal, communist party had very little support, mainstream parties controlled the legislature.
The Venezuelan Communist Party was marginal, as it is today, but the old party system was clearly in a state of crisis. AD and Copei hadn't yet been destroyed, but they were clearly in a state of rapid decline. Meanwhlile, the Left was in ascendance even before Chavez hit the campaign trail.
I mean, for god's sake Justin, Lula's moderation pretty much caused the PT to splinter into several parties because people were so upset with his lack of real reforms.
Spare me the hyperbole.
The few leftist departures from the PT are about as significant as PODEMOS' departure from Chavismo. They don't change Brazil's political map at all.
But its a little hard to provide statistics about "a feeling of hopefulness".
Quoted for posterity.
No, Jeff, YOU argued that he was "very unpopular right before the 1998 election".
Nope, I literally said, and you can scroll up to check for yourself: "right before the persidential campaign on 1998" (I even kept the original typo on "presidential") I hope you do know the difference between saying "right before the 1998 election" and "Right before the presidential campaign on 1998", right?
Now I'm wondering if you are just twisting my words to fit them to your flawed arguments and expecting I won't notice.
Seriouslly, man, this is even a more mediocre attempt than your previous "you just want the poor to suffer" rant.
Again, you should consider making a career as a politician.
And now, I'm gonna have to quote this:
Funny how even you can't keep your nonsense straight.
for posterity too.
No, actually state-owned enterprises many times take a loss ON PURPOSE because of the positive externalities for the rest of society.
Which in this case are? Full national blackouts?
You're either playing dumb or you are actually dumb by birth.
Are you aware for how long can a company that can't even pay its own workers operate?
Are you THAT illiterate at basic management?
It's so sad that you keep focusing on profits while I'm talking about sustainability. Do you even know what that word means?
Of course the Brazilian leftists whom you've spoken with in Venezuela would have liked to have seen more from Lula
Wrong, but nice try. Most of them are actually middle-class people in Brazil, that aren't particularly radical.
Those of us on the left have a tendency to imagine that our own insular networks of leftist friends are somehow representative of broader publics.
And you have a tendency to imagine that your opinion is the truth, without backing it up.
You think you know why Chavez is popular, with no back up, and you think you know why Lula is popular, with nothing to back it.
Not popular enough, as his three consecutive defeats at the ballot box demonstrated.
??? Again I guess you missed the point. I wasn't arguing that he was popular enough to win. I was arguing that he was about as popular as any leftist in Venezuela at the time.
And he DID win eventually. So I'm not sure what your point is. Even if he had to moderate his program to win, so did Chavez.
No, you're quite wrong about that, Tosh. The Venezuelan party system was undergoing an implosion in the 1990s.
I said BY THE CRITERIA YOU LISTED BEFORE!!! Once again, you distort what I say to your benefit.
Yes, the party system was quite different. I never said otherwise. I was simply showing you that the criteria you had cited were NOT much different in Venezuela.
The reason Lula couldn't do anything radical is that he has had to govern in coalition with the PMDB, which is not a leftist party.
When Chavez came to power the legislature was also dominated by opposition parties. But he took immediate action to confront that problem by calling for a constituent. He took advantage of his high popularity to gain control of the assembly. I'm not sure why Lula couldn't have attempted something similar.
Had he even ATTEMPTED to gain control of the assembly, and failed, then I would concede your point that the conditions were simply not there. But he didn't even try. That's the point.
The Venezuelan Communist Party was marginal, as it is today, but the old party system was clearly in a state of crisis. AD and Copei hadn't yet been destroyed, but they were clearly in a state of rapid decline. Meanwhlile, the Left was in ascendance even before Chavez hit the campaign trail.
Yes, this is all true, but this only explains how Chavez managed to get into power.
Since Lula also managed to get into power, this doesn't tell us why he couldn't have taken more radical moves.
He probably could have done a bit more in the way of land reform, for example, but he couldn't have challenged the oligarchy in the way that you think he should have.
I have not even said in what way I think he should have challenged the oligarchy, so how could you possibly make this argument?
Nope, I literally said, and you can scroll up to check for yourself: "right before the persidential campaign on 1998"
So I suppose May wasn't "before the presidential campaign"???
Get a clue Jeff.
Which in this case are? Full national blackouts?
You're either playing dumb or you are actually dumb by birth.
Are you aware for how long can a company that can't even pay its own workers operate?
Are you THAT illiterate at basic management?
It's so sad that you keep focusing on profits while I'm talking about sustainability. Do you even know what that word means?
Jeffrey Jeff Jeffy Jiffy Jeffo | 06.05.09 - 4:44 pm | #
These aren't arguments Jeff. They are hysterical responses that don't even address my point.
Here's an example of what some of the positive externalities are:
http://www.abn.info.ve/noticia.p...lo=184876&
lee=3
He probably could have done a bit more in the way of land reform, for example, but he couldn't have challenged the oligarchy in the way that you think he should have.
Actually, land reform is probably one of the biggest ways to challenge the oligarchy. So if he could have done that, that would have been big.
By the way Jeff, now would be a good time to post those supposed "polls" that back your nonsense up.
I won't hold my breath.
Kids in barrios have dressed as Osama Bin Laden too.
Not in Venezuela, Jeff, not in Venezuela.
I note that you quickly ran out of arguments when you were challenged.
Better to post on Noticiero Digital where everyone will agree with you.
Tosh - a quick story. I remember back in 1996 whne my nother in law came back from Guárico after spening a couple of months there. "Everyone is talking about Chávez", she enthused.
A that time veryone in Caracas was drooling over Irene Sáez and feeling bemused with Alfaro. In the provinces Chávez was in the street and working hard. he never got on TV but did manage to get on to some local FM stations.
This is an object lesson for the opposition. You ain't gonna win a thing operating from the studios of Globo. Not wo worry, it will be off the air soon when it cannot pay the huge fine it just received today.
Tosh, I'm enjoying this more than I could've ever expected.
You misquote me, I prove you wrong and then you twist your argument, again, pretending it didn't happen. You're such a stereotypical fanatic you start to seem more like a cartoon character.
And now I'm seriouslly wondering if you are getting what I'm talking about. I was just insulting you and having fun with you before, now I'm talking seriouslly.
I post information on EDELCA, a state owned company that's losing money to a point that it can't even pay its own workers and you reply by posting a link about government propaganda blaming it all on the world crisis.
Let's get this straight, first, you can't understand the liquidity needed by an organization (of any kind) to be able to normally operate and, second, you don't knoe how EDELCA and EDC are different.
Did you even read that article?
It's not just that it doesn't explain the fact that EDC's decreasing sales are a terrible sign considering that its customer base grew. But that idiotically written article is about the government "recovering the electrical system from its capitalist vices". Tosh, let me inform you that other than EDC, all electric companies in Venezuela have always been state owned, so EDELCA and the other companies' have been mismanaged by chavismo for 10 years. I also inform you that, thanks to your imaginary positive externalities, the Venezuelans experienced 3 national blackouts last year for the first time in decades (I'm 35 years old so I can't tell if it has happened before the 70s).
You misquote me, I prove you wrong and then you twist your argument, again, pretending it didn't happen.
Hahaha! Nice try Jeff. My original statement showed statistics for May 1998.
Who is changing their argument here?
And where are these "polls" that you talk about?
I guess we can now see that Jeff is totally full of shit.
Tosh, let me inform you that other than EDC, all electric companies in Venezuela have always been state owned,
Hahaha! This kind of nonsense from Jeff the expert!
Again Jeff, you are simply speculating that the things you cite are because of "mismanagement" and not because of other reasons.
Basically, you have no argument. Not only that, but even if certain state-owned companies WERE being mismanaged, it wouldn't be the revelation of the century, and it wouldn't change anything that we've been discussing here.
I think you need to learn how to properly construct an argument, and also how to explain why your argument is relevant.
Tosh - a quick story. I remember back in 1996 whne my nother in law came back from Guárico after spening a couple of months there. "Everyone is talking about Chávez", she enthused.
A that time veryone in Caracas was drooling over Irene Sáez and feeling bemused with Alfaro. In the provinces Chávez was in the street and working hard. he never got on TV but did manage to get on to some local FM stations.
Anon, you and I know that this is true, but these oppo guys have such an irrational hatred for Chavez that they'll go to any extent to deny any number of truths.
It reaches such buffonish levels that over on oppo blog CaracasChronicles they are talking about the imminent genocide that is about to happen in Venezuela!
Bullshit. Chavez was a lot on national TV. Actually, most of those who voted for him were the same middle class people who voted for AD and COPEI before.
Tosh, what are you going to do once Chavez is thrown out? Go to daddy Tosh Senior and work for him? Else it is McDonald's.
To the other asshole: hundreds of thousands of highly qualified Venezuelans (not usually lefty PhD students of Political Science but engineers and the like) have left Venezuela in the last 10 years, as never before.
What you forget is that a huge amount of people have double nationality (parents or grandparents immigrated to Venezuela)
Tosh, how many thousands of acres will the Chavez clan give in the reform?
Haha...these National socialists are sooo stupid!
Chavistas intentaron tomar la Casa Monagas por equivocación
Una comisión encabezada por Robert Serra intentó ingresar a la fuerza a la Corporación Metropolitana de Seguridad, pensando que allí funcionaba el Instituto Metropolitano de la Juventud
What I find entertaining the most is how you don't even mention the fact that EDELCA can't pay its workers. Those guys and their families' income is at risk and you're so inept at finance that you (a socialist) can't even acknowledge it, now that's interesting.
You are so shallow and focused on defending the hand that feeds you that you just can't see how seriously illiquid EDELCA seems to be. You couldn't be more illiterate at management and finance if you tried.
EDC's sales decreased while its customer base grew, and you keep dodging it. Why do you keep refusing to address it? c'mon man, try to rationalize how this is a good thing. You know you won't do it because you don't know how to.
Why not just be a man and admit it? you don't know shit about finance, you've never read a balance sheet and you have no clue about what's needed to keep an organization (of any kind) running for a long period of time.
All you can do in this blog is spilling other authors' theories out over and over.
And dismissing 3 national blackouts in 1 single year (which you probably didn't even know about) is the icing on the cake.
And adding more amusement to this, Anon is unconsciously supporting my other argument. He admitted Irene Saez was more popular than Chavez in urban areas, and I assume even a maroon like you both know where most of Venezuelan population live.
Jeff,
I've already addressed your points. I'm not going to keep repeating myself.
It is quite telling that you have to resort to these hysterical rabid personal attacks because your argument is so baseless.... not to mention your other argument which was proven to be flat wrong. I noticed you never brought that up again.
Some of these state-run companies could very well be mismanaged. (That would hardly be some ground-breaking revelation.) All I am saying is that the evidence you've provided doesn't necessarily prove that to be true.
Now, go take a sedative and try to control yourself.
Tosh's posts remind me of a story by Woody Allen where he writes the letters of two men engaging in a chess game by correspondence.
Tosh: "no, no, no, I just proved you wrong, hahahaha!"
Kepler - back in early 1997 Chávez was almost never on TV or given a chance to represent himself.
Yes, middle class people did vote for Cha´vez in the 1998 election. But with Mission Identity and getting more people on the CNE lists, more poor people could vote for hium later on.
Yes, Kepler, many professionsl left Venezuela, especially the fascists of PDVSA. However, in terms of emigrating to Canada and australia it's a few hundred per year. As I always say, if people want to leve the country they have every right to do so. And return if they wish.
Jeff - yes Irene was popular in 1997 is urban areas but she was dumped by COPEI and ended up with 6% of the vote.
It's who finished first not who is first out of the gate.
"EDC's sales decreased while its customer base grew" - a bit contradictory, my friend. Electricity consumption has been going up in a decade as we all know.
When Chavez came to power the legislature was also dominated by opposition parties. But he took immediate action to confront that problem by calling for a constituent.
The difference is that Chavez was stepping into a political vacuum. AD and COPEI were so discredited --and had undergone such a long-term decline-- that they couldn't even run their own presidential candidates in '98. So, yes, under those circumstances, a popular, charismatic political newcomer might be in position to remake the political environment.
The difference is that Lula was not stepping into a political vacuum. The PMDB and the PSDB were not parties in free-fall. So that option --the option of trying to remake the whole political environment by presidential fiat-- was just not in the cards in Brazil. Lula stepped into a political environment in which compromise was the only option.
Chavez 1998
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x...h?v=xh-
Ayms2h1M
book for tosh: http://tinyurl.com/nxu4t6
I know a lot in Canada and none is PDVSA, a lot are electronic engineers and the like.
As I said: there are a lot in Europe now. I live in Europe and I know what I am talking about. Yes, there are some of PDVSA, but most are precisely the ones Venezuela needed the most to diversify.
As for fascists: there is nothing more fascist in Latin America now than Chavistas.
Fatherland, Socialism or Death! Yeah, right.
Sí, mi comandante, a su orden, mi comandante.
Sorry, that anonymous was me.
Anyway: Venezuelans have the worst level of education of any mayor Latin American country and the Chavista thugs are saying about the best engineers "que se vayan".
Anyway: Venezuelans have the worst level of education of any mayor Latin American country and the Chavista thugs are saying about the best engineers "que se vayan".
What I always find interesting is that anti-Chavistas who enjoy wearing their professional status on their sleeves tend to be totally lacking in cultural sophistication when they talk about politics.
Must everything that you write be a hysterical diatribe, Kepler? Does the word "subtlety" mean anything to you?
Nope, you probably can't expect them to go smoothly. But what does that have to do with development? And I guess you didn't read my explanation about class divisions.I read your explanation of class divisions, and I think it's very telling that you expect a country to develop when 40% of its population is excluded.
Keep the dream alive.
"Hahaha! Is this an attempt to blame the overthrow of Manuel Noriega on the Cold War?"
No, but it was the same agency that fought the Cold War. I'm arguing that the agency gets away with much less these days i.e. after the Cold War ended. As for Noriega that was not a covert operation (neither was Aristide).
Chavez is alleging covert assassination attempt. When is the last time the CIA tried that? And even if they did why Chavez? He is no real threat to the CIA or the US for that matter. Is any other leader alleging CIA assassination attempts these days?
...and until Chavez actually produces any concrete evidence, I'm not buying. He typically makes a claim and then quietly forgets about it before getting to the facts of the supposed assassination attempt. He does claim to have evidence yet nothing worth mentioning is ever offered. If the attempts are real why is there never more evidence?
If the attempts are real why is there never more evidence?
And why aren't they flying people right, left and center in jail? Because they don't have a leg to stand on.
Tosh, what is your contribution to the Revolution? I see you spend hours writing here. During that time I work, you know, do stuff to produce goods and services. You may call yourself a revolutionary, but a escualido like myself does way more work and help the poor much more than you writing in this obscure blog.
With revolutionaries like you, no wonder why this revolution is on its last legs. hahahahahahahahahahahahha
O.W When are you closing this blog. You guys don't do any crap just wasting your freaking time. Starting with you O.W. what happened you don't like Chavez now?blah...blah...blah...
No, but it was the same agency that fought the Cold War. I'm arguing that the agency gets away with much less these days i.e. after the Cold War ended.
Well, you aren't really arguing that at all, you are simply asserting it without anything to back it up.
As for Noriega that was not a covert operation (neither was Aristide).
The overthrow of Aristide wasn't a covert operation??? Well, the US denies all involvement in it, so I'm not exactly sure how you define "covert", but they certainly weren't openly involved.
Chavez is alleging covert assassination attempt. When is the last time the CIA tried that?
Tor, Posada Carrilles tried to assassinate Fidel Castro in 2000 in a pretty similar way.
Is it that hard to imagine that Carrilles and his anti-Castro gang are at it again with Chavez and Morales?
And even if they did why Chavez? He is no real threat to the CIA or the US for that matter.
Well, if he's no threat to the US you might ask yourself why the US sends millions of dollars to his political opposition, threatens to place Venezuela on a list of state-sponsored terrorists for nonsense reasons, was involved in an attempt to overthrow him in 2002, regularly releases totally biased reports about the "human rights situation", etc. etc.
It is quite obvious Tor that a country like Venezuela, which is actively seeking to turn regional trade away from the US and towards internal markets and towards places like China, Russia, Iran, etc. is certainly a threat to US commercial interests. Venezuela is also a very vocal opponent of US aims in the region, opposes free trade agreements, nationalizes and otherwise marginalizes US firms, and supports leftist government across the region.
If you're failing to see how Venezuela is a threat to US interests then you really are lost.
...and until Chavez actually produces any concrete evidence, I'm not buying. He typically makes a claim and then quietly forgets about it before getting to the facts of the supposed assassination attempt.
Sure, I agree. Without evidence there is no way to know whether or not what Chavez is saying has any truth to it.
All I am saying is that it wouldn't be all that unrealistic for something like this to happen.
I'm guessing that they never do get really solid evidence of these kinds of things. I suspect that they catch word of something, or maybe find something that would indicate an attack might be in the works, and so they simply cancel the trip for security purposes. They might not have very solid evidence, but they had enough to take precautions.
I think most of their intelligence gathering for this kind of stuff is from spies that have infiltrated the radical opposition networks, and they probably hear rumours, etc. about future plans. There might not be any solid evidence of anything.
C'mon
Obama, Sarkozy, Zapatero and Gordon Brown are probably targeted by IRA, ETA and extremists every day
Comes with the territory
I don't see them throwing a fit about it every other week
Of course someones out to get C
Just like someones out to get Obama
Complaining about it is childish, specially without proof
Like Kobe complaining he gets fouled every time he tries to take an open jump shot
It's the NBA of politics
Shut up, play like a man or go to the WBA
Stop wasting people's time
"when 40% of its population is excluded" thi is BS.
Excluded from what? Higher education? UCV and USB have by far the highest budgets per capita and most (80%+) are middle class kids from private schools.
Politically? Also BS. Anyone can vote or be a candidate.
Really, get your facts in order.
Anonymous,
Why is the quality of public schools now worse than 10 years ago?
Why doesn't Venezuela take part in open evaluation schemes of its education as all other South American countries but Ecuador and Bolivia are doing?
I cannot answer this question Kepler but what evidence do you have that education (secondary/primary/higher??) is lower than 10 years ago. Who measured this and what was the methodology?
Coming from you it's just probably more propaganda.
Now I am curious:
What are positive externalities ?
Anyway: Venezuelans have the worst level of education of any mayor Latin American country
I guess Kepler would know
no wonder the opposition loses elections, they sh*t on their own people
major, right. I think you are satisfied and I hope your English and your Russian are as good as your mother tongue (it is Spanish, right?).
Shit? Chavez is shitting on Venezuelans, not me.
Venezuela was 41 of 41 countries that took part in the 1995-1998 International Reading and Comprehension tests (IEA). It took place 13 out of 13 countries in the UNESCO maths test for Latin American pupils of 1998.
It was well below Bolivia.
Since then the Chavista thugs have refused to take part in open evaluation tests.
beneath Bolivia
The comment about the "end of the Cold War" is endearingly naive.
Tor, do you actually think American foreign policy was determined by "Cold War" imperatives?
C'mon
Obama, Sarkozy, Zapatero and Gordon Brown are probably targeted by IRA, ETA and extremists every day
How many of these guys have been overthrow or assassinated by a foreign government's intelligence agency, as has happened in Latin America so many times?
Shut up, play like a man or go to the WBA
Stop wasting people's time
Vinz | Homepage | 06.06.09 - 5:59 am | #
Well, that's just brilliant Vinz. If radical groups are organizing a plot to assassinate you, just keep quiet! Don't tell anyone about it! After all, its just like getting a foul in basketball! Just play through it!
Hell, the US has certainly kept quiet about the radical groups that seek to kill US leaders. I mean, you know, they've only invaded and bombed a whole region of the world, killing hundreds of thousands of people who have nothing to do with it.
I suppose you are right. Chavez should follow the US and British example. Maybe he should just bomb southern Florida to smithereens?
These oppo guys. Just brilliant.
Tor, do you actually think American foreign policy was determined by "Cold War" imperatives?
max | Homepage | 06.06.09 - 1:26 pm | #
Yes, he does Max. We've been down this road before. Embarrassingly naive.
Max, do you think the Soviet Union's foreign policy was? And what was the Cold War actually about, in your opinion? Ты не имеешь ни малейшего понятия.
You see, your wee group of Starbucks socialists are in reality very similar to those gringos who loved those films where US heroes were eternally fighting against the eternally evil Soviets. In your case the eternally evil ones are the US Americans.
With revolutionaries like you, no wonder why this revolution is on its last legs. hahahahahahahahahahahahha
Impartial | 06.05.09 - 11:29 pm | #
Keep telling yourself that Impartial. It'll help you keep from getting too depressed.
Oh, and when is the economy going to collapse again? You guys have been talking about it since the beginning of the year, but I'm still not seeing it. Did you want to push your prediction back a bit now? Or maybe you just want to admit that is was all wishful nonsense to begin with.
Max, do you think the Soviet Union's foreign policy was? And what was the Cold War actually about, in your opinion? Ты не имеешь ни малейшего понятия.
You see, your wee group of Starbucks socialists are in reality very similar to those gringos who loved those films where US heroes were eternally fighting against the eternally evil Soviets. In your case the eternally evil ones are the US Americans.
Kepler | 06.06.09 - 1:53 pm | #
Allow me to translate Kepler's comment:
Max, I cannot answer your question about US foreign policy because I know you are right, so instead I will simply ask you a different question, and then I will say something in Russian to make you think I really know what I'm talking about. (As if speaking, or pretending to speak, Russian means you know more about anything)
Then, I will resort to a desperate ad hominem attack, and sling all kinds of insults at you, and others like you, because I don't really have an argument, nor can I debate these issues with you without looking like a total fool.
Tosh, I'd like to know your opinion on this. Feel free to explain all the "positive externalities" to us.
http://devilsexcrement.com/2009/...alism/
#comments
"Tosh, I'd like to know your opinion on this. Feel free to explain all the "positive externalities" to us."
I would like to know , also.
Anon I and III,
The concept is very basic. Many times a state-owned company will actually take a loss on purpose by undercharging for its services, making long-term investments that aren't profitable, etc. because of the positive externalities that it produces for society in general.
On the other hand, a private firm many times will not make certain investments or upgrades, will overcharge for services, etc. because they are concerned with short-term profitability. This is the whole purpose behind nationalization of strategic sectors so that the state can make the necessary investments to promote development.
Is this the case with EDC? I suspect that it is, since government officials have repeatedly said that they have had to make major investments in infrastructure.
However, I don't have any proof of that. It could also be true, as Miguel says, that it is being grossly mismanaged. My argument is simply that pointing to the fact that they have lost money doesn't really prove anything one way or the other.
The idea of electricity is to provide a service and improve people's quality of life. Not to make profits. Same with water. Same with roads. Same with public housing. Same with food.
Forget all your capitalist crap and just think about the population.
Ano, forget your communist crap. You tried already for a long time and it came to nothing but misery.
You are not going to tell the population how it should live. There are some people who are more creative than others and they should have the profits, you should serve in McDonald's.
In fact, Kepler, I once worked in KFC in Orlando. Those days it was "Kentucky Fried Chicken".
Interesting that capitalism will finally come to nothing but misery. Just go ask the people lving in tent cities in LA, Miami, Detriot and many other cities in the US.
Orlando? Perhaps we even met when I went to KFC there.
Tents come and go. Know your history, US Americans were living beyond their means, buying any shit they could not afford, so when they lose their jobs they are out. That is not capitalism.
Is this the case with EDC? I suspect that it is, since government officials have repeatedly said that they have had to make major investments in infrastructure.
I should add to this that the whole reasoning behind nationalizing these firms was just that, so that the state could make needed investments and upgrades, extend/increase service, etc.
Whether or not they are actually doing that I do not know, but it seems likely that that is the reason why the company has not been profitable.
Tosh,
How does that work? Where does the government get all the funds to take such huge losses? The losing morning on purpose does not just apply to the electrical company. It seems that they are taking huge losses on every major company. How is that sustainable?
"morning" SHOULD READ "money."
What the fuck is a "Starbucks Socialist"? I make my own coffee you addlepated dunce.
How does that work? Where does the government get all the funds to take such huge losses?
The same place they get funds for any kind of subsidy. The state is simply subsidizing production to the benefit of consumers as well as industry.
The losing morning on purpose does not just apply to the electrical company. It seems that they are taking huge losses on every major company. How is that sustainable?
AnonIII | 06.06.09 - 7:18 pm | #
Well, I'm not sure that is true. Huge losses in every major company? By what basis do you make that claim, and what is considered "huge"?
But in theory these subsidies can be sustainable because increased service at a cheaper cost is an additional incentive for the expansion of industries, and that expansion would generate increased tax revenue.
Tosh,
Why are you dodging my question? What is your contribution to the revolution? You spend so much time here that I can only conclude that this is it. Right?
Max, if you don't like the terminology "starbuck socialist", lets us call you an "Oil War Socialist", same useless blah blah less the coffee.
how about dispensing with the labels totally? i won't call you a racist reactionary desperately fighting a class-war against the dispossessed, and you won't make idiotic assumptions about what kind of socialist i am.
cool?
Racist? Reactionary? Desperate? Class warrior against the dispossessed? Idiotic assumer? That's too much in a single sentence, it leaves me speechless and I am right now going to confess my sins against "el lumpen" in my diary. May God or Karl show me the way to Damascus. I promise to work on these weaknesses and come back as the prototype of the NEW MAN that will devote every effort to build on earth the Socialist paradise. You have gor a convert in the making..
PDVSA aumentó ganancia neta en 50,06% y 8,9% en aportes al desarrollo del país
Caracas.- Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA) obtuvo una ganancia neta consolidada mundial por el orden de los 9 mil 413 millones de dólares durante el año 2008, de acuerdo con el Informe de Gestión y Resultados Financieros y Operacionales Consolidados correspondiente a este lapso anual, auditado por los Contadores Públicos Independientes KPMG Alcaraz Cabrera Vázquez y aprobado por la Asamblea de Accionistas realizada este sábado en la sede del Complejo MENPET-PDVSA, con la asistencia de la Junta Directiva de la Empresa encabezada por el ministro del Poder Popular para la Energía y Petróleo y presidente de la Empresa, Rafael Ramírez y del ministro del Poder Popular para Economía y Finanzas, Alí Rodríguez Araque.
La cifra alcanzada en la ganancia neta representa un incremento de 50,06% con respecto a 2007, cuando se registró por este concepto 6 mil 273 millones de dólares, lo cual presenta un aumento de 3 mil 140 millones de dólares, que demuestra la solidez financiera y operativa de la Nueva PDVSA, enmarcada en la construcción del Socialismo, la política de Plena Soberanía Petrolera y el Plan Nacional Simón Bolívar, Primer Plan Socialista.
Durante 2008 la Empresa continuó en crecimiento al contar con activos de 131 mil 832 millones de dólares; al tiempo que presenta un patrimonio neto de 71 mil 513 millones de dólares, 15 mil millones de dólares más que en 2007. Los ingresos operacionales mundiales alcanzaron los 126 mil 364 millones de dólares, 30 mil 122 millones de dólares más que en 2007.
Por otra parte, se invirtieron 15 mil 314 millones de dólares en el Plan de inversiones en el sector nacional, especialmente en las áreas de exploración y producción, gas, refinación y en las empresas mixtas. Esto demuestra que a pesar de la crisis mundial del capitalismo, PDVSA mantiene los niveles de inversión necesarios para garantizar la continuidad operativa y el crecimiento del sector, como lo refleja la creación y consolidación de nuevos negocios en el país, entre los cuales destaca la ampliación en la exploración y producción de gas costa afuera, el surgimiento de PDVSA Empresa Nacional de Transporte para el suministro de combustibles, y el fortalecimiento de las filiales PDVAL, PDVSA Naval, PDVSA Gas Comunal, PDVSA Industrial y PDVSA Servicios, entre otros.
Uno de los aspectos más importantes que arroja el Informe de Resultados Consolidado es que se redujo la deuda financiera de 16 mil 611 millones de dólares a US$ 15 mil 95 millones al cierre de 2008.
Se incrementan aportes a la Nación
La contribución de PDVSA a la Nación se ubicó en 53 mil millones de dólares, 9 mil millones de dólares más de lo consignado en 2007. Esta cifra incluye Impuesto Sobre La Renta, Regalías, Impuestos de Extracción, Impuesto de Registro de Importación, entre otros gravámenes; y 2 mil millones de dólares por concepto de dividendos.
Los beneficios de la principal industri
Los beneficios de la principal industria de los venezolanos han sido redistribuidos por el Gobierno Bolivariano en proyectos que impactan positivamente en la calidad de vida del pueblo venezolano. Durante 2008, PDVSA efectuó aportes al desarrollo social integral de la Nación por un total de 15 mil 133 millones de dólares, de los cuales mil 239 millones de dólares se destinaron a las Misiones y otros programas sociales, US$ 489 millones para el Fondo Social del Programa de Empresas de Propiedad Social, 998 millones de dólares para planes especiales de inversión en vivienda y hábitat y proyectos agrícolas, así como 12 mil 407 millones para el Fondo de Desarrollo Nacional (Fonden) orientados hacia la ejecución de obras y proyectos de infraestructura.
Solidez operacional
En el aspecto operacional aguas arriba, la producción promedio de crudo y líquidos del gas natural (LGN) a nivel nación se mantuvo en un promedio de 3 millones 422 mil barriles diarios.
En el nivel aguas abajo del negocio, la capacidad de refinación de PDVSA en el ámbito mundial aumentó a 3 millones de barriles diarios para el 31 de diciembre de 2008. No obstante, los volúmenes procesados, tanto en el circuito nacional como internacional, promedian los 2 millones 441 mil barriles diarios.
En relación con las exportaciones, la Nación llevó al mercado internacional un promedio de 2 millones 900 mil barriles diarios, lo que significa un incremento de 108 mil barriles diarios con respecto al año 2007, sobre la base de un precio de 86,49 dólares por barril de exportación de la cesta venezolana.
Este balance general consolidado mundial posiciona a PDVSA con una relación deuda/activo de 11,45% y una deuda/patrimonio de 21,11%, lo cual la ubica en los primeros lugares entre las empresas más importantes del mundo en el sector de energía y petróleo.
Los resultados obtenidos durante el año 2008 ratifican a PDVSA como la industria más importante de los venezolanos, soporte fundamental en la construcción del Socialismo y una de las principales empresas del mundo, al escalar hasta el cuarto lugar dentro de las compañías petroleras más grandes del planeta, de acuerdo con la revista especializada Petroleum Intelligence Weekly, lo cual evidencia el éxito de la Política de Plena Soberanía Petrolera del Gobierno Bolivariano.
ok, the good news is PDVSA made money hand over fist last year.
$53 billion dollars is what the Venezuelan government got from PDVSA last year.
Thing is what did Venezuela get for that $53 billion dollars? From what I can see, dropping industrial output, an overvalued currency, pathetically few investments and... anyones guess as to what else.
It is simply staggering the amount of money they are squandering.
Thing is what did Venezuela get for that $53 billion dollars? From what I can see, dropping industrial output, an overvalued currency, pathetically few investments and... anyones guess as to what else.You forgot foreign debt.
The concept is very basic. Many times a state-owned company will actually take a loss on purpose by undercharging for its services, making long-term investments that aren't profitable, etc. because of the positive externalities that it produces for society in general.That's a bit vague. What are the positive externalities they have achieved? What are they aiming for?
That's a bit vague. What are the positive externalities they have achieved? What are they aiming for?
Anonymous | 06.06.09 - 11:53 pm | #
Apparently you didn't read the rest of my post, where I clearly state that I have no proof that this is happening.
Besides, having only controlled the firm for a short time it would be pretty difficult to measure the positive externalities at this point in time.
Thing is what did Venezuela get for that $53 billion dollars? From what I can see, dropping industrial output, an overvalued currency, pathetically few investments and... anyones guess as to what else.
Key phrase is "from what I can see." Your vision is extremely limited since you make most of your analysis based strictly on GDP numbers, and a really distorted view of how economic development should take place (everyone follow the impossible to reproduce SK model!). You greatly understate (or don't state at all) the importance of agrarian reform (a massive amount of land has been redistributed under Chavez), increasing food production (veg production has increased 40% during Chavez years) and a new South-South foreign policy that has yet to be solidified. (Ecuador finally has joined ALBA, for exactly the reasons I have cited)
I have repeatedly cited books that you could read to give you a better understanding of these concepts. (One of the books I repeatedly cited for you last year was Brenner's book, The Boom and the Bubble, which accurately predicted everything that is happening now with the world economy)
As for the development stuff, Walden Bello is one of the most authoritative intellectuals on alternative routes to development, and he's published a ton of stuff.
And therein lies the problem with Tosh's whole positive externality idea. In theory it makes sense. But where's the evidence that these positive externalities are being generated?
If a government owned company is losing money, I think the onus is on the government to show the positive impact it's having. So what are those Tosh? Give us some concrete positive externalities, rather than just talking about them in theory.
And apparently Anonymous has a reading comprehension problem, since I've already addressed this above.
Apparently you didn't read the rest of my post, where I clearly state that I have no proof that this is happening.And obviously you didn't read the rest of my post (even though you quoted it) where I ask what exactly they are aiming for. Or are we supposed to just hope for the best?
Tosh, getting into an economic zone in Latin America is as meaningless as your face. ALBA is crap and countries get into it waiting to see how much money Chavez gives them for NOTHING.
Once he can't, they go out.
End of story.
"One of the books I repeatedly cited for you last year was Brenner's book, The Boom and the Bubble, which accurately predicted everything that is happening now with the world economy"
There are a lot other people with completely different economic and world models who predicted things more exactly. Ever read Nassim Taleb?
And Tosh: stop using ad honinem attacks!
(I just wanted to say that as well, and don't honinem me back, Tosh, or you will be sorry!)
BTW, the $53 billion in 2008 was $9 billion more than 2007 according to the statement which means that the government take in 2007 was $44 billion.
So in the past two years the Venezuelan government has had $97 billion free and clear from PDVSA. This doesn't even count all the oil taxes and royalties they get from the foreign companies operations in the Faja. If those operations account for about 15% of Venezuelan oil exports than that should be a minimum of another $10 billion in profit for the Venezuela government, more likely $15 billion.
All told, that would be $110 billion in two years just in oil profits and not counting regular tax income at all.
A staggering sum of money and just goes to show what absolute peanuts Venezuela's trivial industrial developments that I posted on a few months ago are.
" Thing is what did Venezuela get for that $53 billion dollars? From what I can see, dropping industrial output, an overvalued currency, pathetically few investments and... anyones guess as to what else"
"hidden incentives are at work"
Ow, We voted here in Europe. No Kalashnikovs in sight, no thugs pissing people of.
I voted manually, most people did, most places (manual) closed at 13:00, the ones with electronic vote at 15:00. A few minutes later results started to pour.
That all even if we don't have Tibisay Red Lucena and the world's best electoral system.
"But in theory these subsidies can be sustainable because increased service at a cheaper cost is an additional incentive for the expansion of industries, and that expansion would generate increased tax revenue."
Let's take the electrical industry...
In los barrios of San Felix and now Pto Ordaz, and there are numerous and very large, all ranchos have electricity, most of it for free.
Are these people going to subscribe because now the electrical company has been nationalized and the rate is cheaper? They are already getting it for free! Are the people who had their meters "fixed" are all the sudden having them "unfixed"?
OW has a hard-on for Cuba, venezulea, and other nations that are disobedient with respect to the neoliberal capitalist order.
His own country is undemocratic and murders hundreds of thousands to maintain its 'stuper-power' status. But, pay no mind to that--we have to shake in our boots that oligarch media in Venezuela might be taken off the pubically owned air
waves. LOL
OW, you have always been a bit of a flakey liberal of the imperial variety.
When I saw your obsequious comments to Daniel a while back (a comprador whore, undemocratic lacky and apologist for social oppression and US impositions on popular movements in the Americas), I knew you have lost it.
Pathetic.
Tosh, remember that for Ow it is simply foolish for Venezuela to be food independent. He is, evidently, an expert on agriculture.
OW is not down with 'redistribution'--or anything that might upset his truncated US liberal mindset.
But his attempt to lick the reactionary, anti-democratic Daniel's ass made me want to puke.
Sad. But the willful ignorance and willingness to protect his class interests and economic dogma were there all along.
Tosh, SR, Justin, looks like it is time to move to your own socialist blog although Justin has one but not much traffic there. It would be preferable than acting as parasites on the current one whose owner has a truncated liberal mindset.
"has a truncated liberal mindset..." with a US viewpoint of socialism. This viewpoint says, among many things, that the state controlling sections of the economy is socialism. Sorry OW, but that is not enough as the USSR and other failed bureaucratic dictatorships have clearly shown.
"Tosh, remember that for Ow it is simply foolish for Venezuela to be food independent. He is, evidently, an expert on agriculture."
You might as well take a look on FAO's statistics on Venezuela's food production for the past years on their Faostat system (updated to 2005).
As an exercise, get Venezuela's numbers from 1993 until 2005 for the different indicators. I'll just post one as an example:
http://faostat.fao.org/site/612/
...ageID=612#ancor
Cereals,Total +
1993 - 308603.00
1994 - 336745.00
1995 - 358378.00
1996 - 339503.00
1997 - 359542.00
1998 - 318432.00
1999 - 331444.00
2000 - 411506.00
2001 - 439079.00
2002 - 366158.00
2003 - 431422.00
2004 - 516592.00
2005 - 515895.00
See how it stalled from 1993 to 1998, then it started to grow, then it dropped sharply from 2002 to 2003 thanks to our oppo-pals (the same ones who think that CIA cold-war-type behaviors are a thing of the past) and then gave a big positive jump from 2004 on.
Now read the typical media whore article on Venezuelan agricultural production pretty much based on annecdotical evidence designed to confuse the ignorant.
http://www.noticias24.com/actual...-la-produccion/
The so called "agrarian consultant" Pedro Piñate and our friends at AP are trying to sell us that 1,2 million kilograms of meat per year is such a big amount. For a 13K hectare farm? Give me a break. This is a clear case of an incredibly big, highly inefficiently chunk of land that could clearly be subject to expropiation.
Through extensive production (just letting the cattle grace while rotating the pasturing fields) you can easily get some 2 tons of meat per year per hectare). For a 13.000 hectare farm that would mean about 26 million kilograms of meat per year.
http://www.imbiomed.com.mx/1/1/a...&
id_revista=162
If you intensified production (or at least you improved production through better practices) you could have from 8 to 30 (!) animals per hectare per year. Each cow raised for meat can weigh up to half a ton, and lives no more than a couple of years so you do the math.
http://www.laganaderia.org/index...id=37&
Itemid=28
Now, the whole assertion that there is a decrease in production comes from one particular case: "Hat El Chorote". It is true that in this particular case, the transition process hasn't gone well and production could definitely be much higher. Yet, according to the article, it is producing around 1.1 million kilograms of corn (about the same amount of kilograms as the meat it produced before). Considering that in Venezuela a good yield per hectare of corn goes around 3,5 tons we are talking about at least 320 hectares plantes (probably, around 400 to 500 hectares).
Interestingly, the same consultant Piñate, tells us that there is an additional undisclosed amount of other items being produced including beans, fruits and vegetables "as melons and tomatoes" (tomatoes are fruits too, so I guess there's more). So I guess the results of the expropiation in Hato El Chorote wasn't nearly as bad as they are trying to sell us.
Now, regarding meat production, if you want to see its evolution during the last years in Venezuela you can try again the Faostat database:
http://faostat.fao.org/site/612/
...ageID=612#ancor
Just choose the "Livestock" item and see how it has evolved in the past years, and notice the particularly terrible effects that the 2002-2003 economic sabotage had on meat production in Venezuela and how it still has to come to terms with both increase in population and, more importantly, in the increase of consumption.
Conclusion: In the particular case of agricultural production, the Venezuelan opposition (and so much more our oil-wars-loving oppo-pals) are completely clueless. We can discuss it whenever you want and I promise I won't write "ad-hominem" ever, no matter how obtuse and foul-mouthed you become (cheers to Tosh, man you definitely have some patience).
I understand that you don't and won't like agrarian reforms. I understand that you shiver whenever "expropriation" is mentioned. I also understand that you will be always unable to acknowledge the effect of Venezuela's government efforts on investing in securing food sovereignty.
Still, I think some ass-whooping... I mean, some good discussions could come out of it.
"Venezuela's government efforts on investing in securing food sovereignty."
They are becoming less sovereign over food every day.
Domingo,
Very interesting database. Thanks for linking to it.
I wish it was more up to date than 2005.
I checked per capita agricultural output in 1998 and 2005. In 1998 it was 94 and in 2005 it was 96, practically unchanged. So up to 2005 nothing was done. I guess we'll have to wait for more up to date data.
In los barrios of San Felix and now Pto Ordaz, and there are numerous and very large, all ranchos have electricity, most of it for free.Tosh,
Are these people going to subscribe because now the electrical company has been nationalized and the rate is cheaper? They are already getting it for free! Are the people who had their meters "fixed" are all the sudden having them "unfixed"?
As AnonIII pointed out, who's going to ensure they pay for the electricity? The same police that are committing crimes in Venezuela?
Remember the discussion we had a few months back when you kept bringing up how extrajudicial murders were up in Colombia? Why is it you're so silent on the Venezuelan police/military crimes?
Hey ow you are right, but look at the whole series:
Per Capita Production Index (base 1999-2001)
1998 - 94.00
1999 - 96.00
2000 - 100.00
2001 - 102.00
2002 - 98.00
2003 - 92.00
2004 - 88.00
2005 - 96.00
From 1998 to 2001 the production went from 94 to 102. 2002 was the year of the Leyes Habilitantes including Ley de Tierras and Ley de Pesca. The numbers proved Chavez right on agricultural production and I think perspectives were excelent, but the opposition (or better yet, the powerful economic groups and their opposition marionettes) did everything to derail Venezuela's economy. You have the results: Three lost years, and having to start - not from zero but from -6.
Look at what happened in 2002, 2003 and 2004. What pathetic results we got there, even though in 2005 there was a huge jump in production. If we had data for the following years I'm positive we would see even better numbers.
And now our oppo-pals come here with their clean faces pretending the we believe that they really give a shit on Venezuela's well-being?
Yeah I'm sure everything that hasn't worked out is the opposition's fault and the result of the oil strike.
Nothing at all to do with corruption, mismanagement, poor planning and poor execution.
You probably didn't "track" Venezuela in the 90's because it wasn't the "socialists pet project" but the 90's were not good on us Venezuelans, hence the few coup attempts, the economic crisis and the reason Chavez got to sit in the presidential palace.
btw.. its 2009, why are we discussing 2005 numbers?
hehehe...
We were establishing the framework of discussion and defining behaviour patterns for the production numbers. And yes, there is plenty of inefficiency and cheap politics (I know the agricultural sector from inside) but there is plenty of good too...
Just as there is also plenty of ill-intended actions from the opposition... and precisely the opposition and their leaders have still to do a serious mea culpa and simply accept te obvious: they simply don't want Venezuela to prosper.
I'm ok with that really, there's no surprise there and we have all chosen sides.
Now a simple exercise for whom-ever wants to debate seriously: Let's find and publish here production numbers for the last years for four key products - Soy, corn, rice and milk - to see how they are faring and what are the tendencies in the near future.
I know already who's gonna get a slap in their face, but it is a still a good starting point for serious discussions.
We were establishing the framework of discussion and defining behaviour patterns for the production numbers. And yes, there is plenty of inefficiency and cheap politics (I know the agricultural sector from inside) but there is plenty of good too...
Establishing? or more like claiming the "opposition" doesn't want Venezuela to progress?
If you singled out a couple people, maybe I would agree. However, opposition is a wide term.. too many people fall under the "opposition umbrella" for you to make such stupid remarks to start a debate.
We have yet to see the Plenty of good since there are no reliable stats except for the agricultural sector as a whole is down. Even if milk, soybean and cereal were up.. what does it matter if "Agriculture" is down?
The only slap in the face is the fact that agriculture, just like manufacturing has been flat. That we just spent the money from the biggest oil boom ever and have nothing to show for it except for a deeply divided country.
Establishing? or more like claiming the "opposition" doesn't want Venezuela to progress?
You have to admit Tank, most oppo guys hate to hear good things come out of Venezuela.
For example, when the price of oil dropped, they loved it. Many of the oppo analysts could barely contain themselves as they predicted economic collapse, even though they were wrong for the millionth time. Quico even posted an oil price ticker on his blog (notice how he never had it on there when the price of oil was high, because he doesn't like it when it is high)
Or how about illiteracy. The Chavez government undertook a nationwide program to teach people how to read (a very successful model developed in Cuba), yet the oppo guys just claimed that it was totally ineffective. Analysis like Francisco Rodriguez actually went to the trouble to try to show that illiteracy had not improved at all!!! And you oppo guys just couldn't get enough of it. You loved it that Rodriguez was saying this. You all cite this research every chance you get, even though it is totally counterintuitive to think that illiteracy would not decrease after a nationwide campaign!!! (not to mention the fact that Weisbrot picked it apart)
Then there's the economic indicators. You guys just love to hear indicators that show poor performance, and simply refuse to believe indicators that show progress. You ridicule the industrial projects, exaggerate crime statistics, exaggerate the state of public education, health, etc. and many of you oppo guys actually try to DENY that poverty has decreased significantly (again, Rodriguez)!!!!!
If you singled out a couple people, maybe I would agree. However, opposition is a wide term.. too many people fall under the "opposition umbrella" for you to make such stupid remarks to start a debate.
Yes, many different people fall under that umbrella, but almost all of you oppo guys support the same old politicians like Ledezma, Capriles, Leopoldo, Rosales, etc., so is there really that much difference?
We have yet to see the Plenty of good since there are no reliable stats except for the agricultural sector as a whole is down. Even if milk, soybean and cereal were up.. what does it matter if "Agriculture" is down?
Who told you that agriculture is down? Everything I've seen indicates that it has grown significantly, and has only been flat in a few areas, such as beef production.
That we just spent the money from the biggest oil boom ever and have nothing to show for it except for a deeply divided country.
Again, here's a good example of how you guys love to exaggerate, and make it sound like Venezuela has not progressed at all.
Does reduced poverty mean anything to you Tank? How about decreased inequality? Decreased concentration of land ownership? Increased political participation? Improved health statistics?
Certainly saying that Venezuela has nothing at all to show for it is not exactly honest, eh?
Does reduced poverty mean anything to you Tank? How about decreased inequality? Decreased concentration of land ownership? Increased political participation? Improved health statistics?
It doesn't unless its sustainable. Nothing points to the decrease in inequality and poverty being sustainable. But no point in debating something that we cant prove, so lets ride it out. I hope its sustainable, that would be a big plus.
Still our roads are in bad conditions, our highways are poor, our airports suck, the infrastructure is just not wha tit should be.
Same with most "Misiones", they are band aid fixes that will most likely not be sustainable in the long run.
So what did we get out of the oil boom?
T