Venezuela's Chavez announces plans for 'collective property' under shift toward socialism

[IChing]

Source: The Associated Press

CARACAS, Venezuela: President Hugo Chavez announced Sunday that his government's sweeping reforms toward socialism will include the creation of "collective property."

Vowing to undermine capitalism's continued influence in Venezuela during his television and radio program "Hello President," Chavez said state-financed cooperatives would operate under a new concept in which workers would share profits.

"It's property that belongs to everyone and it's going to benefit everyone," said Chavez,>>>>snip

Read more: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/25/america/LA-GEN-Venezuela-Chavez.php

---

This is gonna be interesting

[Big Pappa]

1. Yes it will.

:popcorn:

[obaman08]

2. This man was elected right?

Many times I hear the MSM refer to him as a dictator and not president. What is the history?

[EFerrari]

4. He was, unlike Junior. n/t

[Prophet 451]

6. He was elected

Three times no less.

I'm not sure where the "dictator" stuff keeps coming from but, assuming we rule out blatant lying, I'd imagine it comes from his role in the failed coup against president Perez in '92. He's a complex man and his policies have been hugely controversial within Venezuala (outside Venezuala, they're almost universally seen as a negative).

Wiki bio

[Skink]

15. I think you can be a Socialist Dictator.

He has consolidated things into one party rule. The times in SA demand I think.

[EFerrari]

16. Well, no. The legislature gave him specific powers for a specific task

and for a specific time period.

[Solon]

36. How did he consolidate things when the opposition boycotted the last elections?

Let's say, during the 1996 elections, the Republicans REFUSED to field ANY candidates for federal office and refused to support any Republican incumbents, what do you think would have happened. The Democrats would have had a large majority in Congress, but you can't accuse the Democrats of "consolidating" power under such conditions. When an opposition party or coalition refuses to participate in the democratic process, you can't accuse those parties or coalitions that DO participate in those systems of being dictatorial.

Chavez hasn't outlawed the opposition, the opposition made itself irrelevant, and if they actually WANT to compete for power in Venezuela, they must do so through the ballot box rather than through the barrel of a gun.

[Judi Lynn]

37. We've had a poster or two attempting to plant that assertion earlier. Everyone knew the opposition

was going to take a real beating in that election, after the coup, the opposition-owned media news blackout, the oil lockout strike, the recall election, all of which ended very badly for them, not to mention the grotesque car-bombing of the prosecutor who was preparing trials of the coup leaders.

There was no mystery for anyone acquainted with opposition politics what had happened when they decided to boycott the election. It is the very lowest kind of opportunism, not to mention outrageous misrepresentation to claim Chavez has destroyed the political opposition.

How can ANYONE be that deluded? I suspect they aren't, but that they hope they can convince others who are too lazy to stay alert and learn something, that this is the situation.

[Solon]

40. The thing that pisses me off...

Is the fact that they so voraciously attack Chavez as being a dictator and "Anti-American" and a bunch of other shit, yet, there are plenty of right wing, pro-US dictators in the world, why don't they actually condemn REAL dictators, kings, and others who DON'T have a democracy in the first place. Seriously, where's the criticism of Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia, or hell, even Putin in Russia, who seems to have overextended his power quite a bit. Why don't they concentrate on REAL dictators, or would be dictators, and leave the democracies of the world alone?

[Judi Lynn]

83. I think they are so far gone they would excuse vicious, murderous right-wing dictators

has people having to use extreme measures to protect "their countries" from leftists.

When it's all spelled out, it always comes down to their approval of absolute evil in all forms of destruction of those they believe might weaken the death grip the right-wing always seeks over others.

Once they have wormed their ways into power, had the ability to demand some human beings kill off any threats to them, real or only imagined, they will NEVER step down. They are absolutely NOT democratic people.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. He has not consolidated things into one party rule.

Venezuela has open elections that are internationally monitored. There are opposition parties and there are no major barriers to participation. The opposition to Chavez chose not to run in the last election, resulting in a legislature that is overwhelmingly aligned with Chavez's Bolivarian Party, but this is not a one-party socialist dictatorship.

[Freddie Stubbs]

80. Hitler was elected too

[ProudDad]

81. You're wrong - Please get the facts straight. Hitler was NOT elected.

It's time to quit spreading that lie.

"In the presidential election held on March 13, 1932, there were four candidates: the incumbent, Field Marshall Paul von Hindenburg, Hitler, and two minor candidates, Ernst Thaelmann and Theodore Duesterberg. The results were:

Hindenburg 49.6 percent
Hitler 30.1 percent
Thaelmann 13.2 percent
Duesterberg 6.8 percent

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, almost 70 percent of the German people voted against Hitler, causing his supporter Joseph Goebbels, who would later become Hitler’s minister of propaganda, to lament in his journal, “We’re beaten; terrible outlook. Party circles badly depressed and dejected.”

---

"On January 30, 1933, President Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler chancellor of Germany. Although the National Socialists never captured more than 37 percent of the national vote, and even though they still held a minority of cabinet posts and fewer than 50 percent of the seats in the Reichstag, Hitler and the Nazis set out to to consolidate their power. With Hitler as chancellor, that proved to be a fairly easy task."

----

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp



It was Hitler's version of 9/11 - the Reichstag fire - that allowed him to take power. Sound familiar?

[olddad56]

97. Hey, neither was W, another interesting similarity.

[ProudDad]

103. You noticed that?

9/11 = Reichstag fire...

[Zynx]

140. Not "elected" in our sense, but legal and hardly unusual in a parlimentary system

[Moochy]

89. You lose

You brought up Hitler, you lose.

[originalpckelly]

3. Chavez: Leanings of Socialism for Make Benefit Glorious Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Same old movie, same old ending.

So when does the greedy dictator start taking control of land to "collectivize" it? Will the people actually own the land, or will el Presidente?

[EFerrari]

5. Do you ever watch anything besides Faux?

[originalpckelly]

8. Oh you got me, I'm a big old freeper. I've only got 10,000 odd posts...

and I work on investigations against Republicans, but yep you got me. I'm freeper.

:eyes:

:sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

11. What evidence do you have that Chavez is greedy?

Because he started literacy programs so people could read their own constitution?

Because school kids get hot meals?

Because he's making it possible for people to buy their homes?

Because he's the only leader with the balls to call out Junior?

Really, the only answer I can come up with is that Faux is your only source.

[Big Pappa]

13. Having the

balls to call out "junior" is not that hard. Hell DU does that everyday. Bush equals bad does not mean Chavez equals good.

[EFerrari]

14. No, it doesn't and that doesn't cover the issues I raised.

And, I've never seen a DUer at the UN calling out Bush to an applauding world community.

Yet, that is.

lol

[ProudDad]

82. Not a freeper

just a capitalist tool...

Have fun in your capitalist paradise.

[hack89]

90. So progressives can't believe in capitalism? nt

[ProudDad]

104. Obviously

some folks who call themselves "progressive" believe in capitalism such as the execrable DLC "think tank" PPI

http://www.ppionline.org/

Those of us who believe in progress for the entire human race instead of just the favored few will just have to find another label -- "progressive" seems to have been co-opted by the corporatists. :shrug:

Maybe Venezuelans?? :evilgrin:

[scarletwoman]

106. I'd be happy to go with "Bolivarian Revolutionary", but it's kind of a mouthful.

The longer I live, the more it appears to me that capitalism has morphed into a parasitic infestation on the planet that will eventually kill off the host body unless radical measures are taken to purge it.

sw

[ProudDad]

112. It has the seeds of its own destruction

built into it.

The trick will be to let it destroy itself without taking all mammalian life on Earth with it...

[hack89]

128. So rejection of capitalism is a perquisite to be a progressive?

why not call your selves socialist? Are they one and the same?

[ProudDad]

131. I AM a Socialist and PROUD OF IT

Actually an Anarcho-Syndicalist but then who's counting.

I've self identified on this board for YEARS as such...

[IndianaGreen]

109. W.E.B. DuBois said of capitalism that nothing good can come out of a system based on greed

Bush has shown the world the true rapacious nature of capitalism, and for that alone, the Left is grateful to the American dictator.

[hogwyld]

111. Capitalism is a failed economic policy

Where the few rich control whoever is left. True progressives want an egalitarian and sustainable human endeavour, while at heart, capitalism is parasitic at it's core.

[David__77]

25. There are plenty of real Democrats who take bad int'l positions.

They are real Democrats who want to maintain US domination of the whole globe. Chavez, of course, is a freely elected leader. The opposition was soundly rejected.

[EFerrari]

28. Yeah, imperialism. It's been so productive so far.

:(

[lostnfound]

21. I thought these things usually end in US backed bloody coups..

followed by 15 or 20 years of brutal paramilitaries propping up rightwing greedheads using whatever means they find useful...until they rid the landless peasants of their desire to be politically relevant.

He actually did start taking control of some of the land, however, a few years ago. An acre here, an acre there .. pretty soon there's enough for an alarmist BBC article about it and 200 Mockingbird columns.

[davekriss]

42. Reminds me of this from Steve Kangas

Given that the U.S. has exercised one failed coup against Chavez so far, no wonder the man rails againts Bush. The U.S. MO, as described by Kangas:

CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: "We'll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us." The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictator’s security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be "communists," but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.

This scenario has been repeated so many times that the CIA actually teaches it in a special school, the notorious "School of the Americas." (It opened in Panama but later moved to Fort Benning, Georgia.) Critics have nicknamed it the "School of the Dictators" and "School of the Assassins." Here, the CIA trains Latin American military officers how to conduct coups, including the use of interrogation, torture and murder.

The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that by 1987, 6 million people had died as a result of CIA covert operations. Former State Department official William Blum correctly calls this an "American Holocaust."

***

You'll have to google up a cite as my link is dead. So is Steve Kangas. Conveniently (for people like Richard Scaife). Steve apparantly committed "suicide" by putting two bullets in the back of his head in the bathroom of Scaife's offices. Go figure? Repression at home?

[Judi Lynn]

86. This should work. I found out about this writing when another DU'er posted it long ago.

Very, very worthwhile reading:

The Origins of the Overclass
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-overclass.html

Thanks for bringing it up. I've made copies to share with others, as well.

[scarletwoman]

92. Dare I hope that I might have been that DUer? It was one of the first things I posted here,

back in late 2001 when I first joined DU. I posted it repeatedly for the first couple of years that I was here -- and still throw it out every once in awhile.

I'm not looking for ego strokes, I just sorta hope that I've done some small good during my time here on DU.

sw

[Judi Lynn]

100. I forgot to note who posted it, dagnabbit! Most definitely could have been you.

I have started trying to remind myself in the last few months to include a note to myself of the contributor so I will be able to acknowledge the donor when I post it again.

It's something any thoughtful person should read, isn't it?

You bet you've done a LOT of good here, scarletwoman. I have purely positive associations WHENEVER I see your name. :hi:

[Megahurtz]

102. And Yes You've Done Good.

You have no idea. :wow:

[Megahurtz]

101. Wow, Thanks for THAT Link! n/t

[lostnfound]

115. Ought to be copied and distributed widely, like Thomas Paine. nt

[yurbud]

88. "greedy" is an odd charge to make. He could be personally wealthy beyond imagination

if he just played ball with the oil companies and Bush on the terms they dictate--they would probably still call him democratic if he cancelled elections and named himself president for life.

Instead, his current course of action have made him the object of the wrath of the world's only superpower, and he only survived the coup attempt because his people rose up to support him.

He may yet be assassinated by Bush.

Most people who are greedy like to keep body and soul together so they can enjoy the money.

[Bolshy]

136. I can smell the delusion from here

it's called ending exploitation and giving it to the workers. Oh, and it works.

[Prophet 451]

7. Could go either way

It could work well or it could end up a disasterous medley of corruption and incompetance. Based on his track record, I'd say let's give him the benefit of the doubt and see how it works out.

[scarletwoman]

9. Well, it could hardly do worse than capitalism. I hope it works. (nt)

[Prophet 451]

10. Me too

If he can reign in the more "enthuasiastic" parts of his admin (every admin has them), it's got to be worth a try.

[Amused Musings]

12. I do not think his socialist policies will work

in the long run. That being said, the status quo before Chavez was unacceptable and a new approach had to be taken. The Venezuelan people seem to approve of his policies as can be seen in both his popularity and his successful re-election campaigns. I do not bear the man ill will and wish him good luck. I also approve of his low cost oil programs in this country. I do not think he was correct in nationalizing foreign industries because this causes capital flight and will scare away future foreign investment but it is the right of any sovereign country to take foreign assets as long as their is just compensation as he has done. I also fear that price controls on food will lead to severe shortages. I hope he knows what he is doing.

Besides, his jabs at Bush make me chuckle.

[BayCityProgressive]

17. I believe they will work

Many countries from Chile to Norway have some nationalized industry and it works fine. Venezuela has been much better off since all of the reforms. As for food shortages, much more food is actually being consumed now that people can afford it..so that contributes to the shortages. Please check out this thread when reading this story.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x501566

[Amused Musings]

18. Ah, good point about the food situation NT

[KittyWampus]

55. That bullshit article pretends the food shortages are non-existent by saying food's bought up

by people with plenty of money. So many people with so much money in Chavez's wonderful economy they buy up all the food and the shelves are empty.

That is nonsense and indicates the piece you cite is pro-Chavez propanda.

The shelves are empty largely because Chavez set price controls and the suppliers weren't making enough money so they sit on the products. And then there is the fact that domestic food production is also not sufficient thereby making food importation necessary.

It's Chavez's fucked up, incompetent method of dealing with inflation that is the problem here.

Because if we take the opinion piece you posted at it's word, the glowing Chavez economy with everyone having money to spend CAUSES OR PERPETUATES INFLATION and the food suppliers have every right to charge more money for their products since the demand has risen.

Yet the best any knee-jerk Chavez supporter can do is try and shift the argument by blaming food suppliers for being greedy.

Furthermore, Chavez has nationalized land but not invested in agri-business so there's enough food.

So Venezuela, under Chavez must IMPORT food and thus needs to convert it's money into foreign currency.

Yet your article falsely states that Venezuelans only buy Venezuelan products and spend their currency internally. That is not true.

Macro-economics is very complex. Chavez is not an economist and has been doing piecemeal attempts at solving problems and implementing plans. His attempts to solve a problem over here causes a problem over there.

I support social democracy and the blending of some socialism with capitalism. But any clear headed analysis would take into account the need for Chavez to start taking a much more comprehensive approach.

[Jim Sagle]

19. This is what I like about the nation-state system.

It might work, it might fail, or it might yield mixed results. In any event, it'll be none of our fuckin' business to interfere.

[BayCityProgressive]

20. HA

"In any event, it'll be none of our fuckin' business to interfere. "

it may not be our business but I am sure we will continue trying. The elites don't want any bad examples. If the reforms DO work, that means they could spread and diminish their dominance here and abroad. Just look at all the calls for universal healthcare. Canada, Israel and Europe have it and it works well and so people here want it. If this "collective property" or "co-op businesses" work...people here will want that too. There are many people in positions of power who would not be pleased with this.

[scarletwoman]

91. "The elites don't want any bad examples." You just said a mouthful!

That's the whole reason for the war on Vietnam. See: Even Now We Lie to Ourselves About Vietnam

"The central goal of U.S. policy-makers in Vietnam had nothing to do with freedom for the Vietnamese people, but instead was to make sure that an independent socialist course of development did not succeed."

That's why Iran's Mossadegh (who wanted to nationalize the oil industry) was overthrown by the CIA.

And that's the reason for the unremitting attacks and false propaganda about Venezuela and Chavez.

sw

[lostnfound]

23. Hope you are right but there's a concensus against that.

"The Washington concensus".

[davekriss]

43. The Washington Consensus is becoming...

...increasingly irrelevant. As long as Bandar W. Bush props up oil prices, Venezuela will be self financing and beyond the reach of the IMF, WTO, and U.S. Treasury. The only thing now that will rein Venezuela in would be CIA funded and CIA logistically supported coup, or the overt barrel of a U.S. gun ala Iraq or even Panama.

[gravity]

24. So we shouldn't worry about the wellbeing of other nations?

[Jim Sagle]

26. Not when "worry" is a fig-leaf for self-serving aggression. (See Iraq.)

[gravity]

27. Illegally invading a country is not worrying

I guess with Bush, we forgot the concept called diplomacy.

[Jim Sagle]

29. I'm glad we're on the same page about Iraq.

[gravity]

22. The inevitable decline of Venezuela

Just like every other socialists nation in the 20th century.

[reprobate]

31. Quite a statement there, grqavity. Just untrue, unfortunately.

The US was instrumental in causing the failure of the USSR, starting back in 1917 during the revolution. Capitalism is inherantly antithetical to social democracy. The capitalist insists that he has the god given right to sweep up all the wealth he can by privatizing every good and service he can talk or bribe the government into approving.

The socialist on the other hand, insists that those who produce the wealth share in the wealth, ie, the worker should receive a share of the profit that his labor produced.

Essentially what we have here is the fight between human greed and human cooperation. In my opinion if we look at the two on a scale of social and civil evolution, capitalism would fit on the primitive end of the scale, while socialism, particularly social democracy, is a far more advanced and evolved system.

Looked at another way, capitalism is a zero sum game, while socialism is a plus sum game, in which everyone wins.

[gravity]

32. I'm basing my assessment off the failure of every

socialists state compared to success capitalist countries. Socialists policies have their place, but when you take away private property and make policies that go against directly against the free market, then it's going to fail. Capitalism is still going to take place, but it's going to be a black market.

There are better ways Chavez to help the poor which can include wealth redistribution. Allowing people to have private property and reap benefits from personal investment are whats going to make the economy grow though.

Also economies regardless of philosophy are not zero sum games. When GDP grows, people are generating new wealth that wasn't their before.

[Solon]

38. Can you name one Capitalist country?

One that doesn't support or subsidize it "free market" economy? Can you name one nation that is, at this point in time, purely socialist or purely capitalistic?

Also, economies ARE zero sum games, that's just a fact, all nations on the planet have limited resources, and even new technologies can only make up for such limited resources, when they come about. Mostly this is related to energy, which we only have a limited amount of, and regardless of what new "magic wand" technology is always just around the corner, we have to face up to the fact that our infinitely growing economies are based on finite resources. Some time in the near future, those two realities will collide, and ones going to win, I just shudder to think of the impact of that on us.

In Venezuela, I see that Chavez is trying to CREATE opportunity where none existed before, farmers were given NEW land, land that the rich SQUATTED on, without even a damned title to the land to begin with. So the land was seized by the government, or retaken, which is probably more accurate, and while in the past, it laid unused, now its utilized by farmer run co-ops to produce food. Before Chavez was elected, Venezuela was an importer of food, now food production within the nation is increasing, to the point where prices for that food is decreasing, and they can sustain there own population without imports.

Chavez's government also retook control of PDVSA, the government owned oil company, which, in the past, was used by the rich as a really expensive money laundering operation, and now the profits from it are redistributed to the citizens. The government is investing in public steel production, gave land to indigenous people, and investing in energy production. The government is trying to diversify the economy of the country, and, when certain private interests ask for money from the government, the governments wants them to be locally owned and employee run which seems to be more than reasonable to me.

If you were to try to categorize Chavez's political beliefs, he would be either a Libertarian Socialist or an Anarcho-Syndicalist. Basically believing that, while some industries and services need to be nationalized, like Health care, Energy, major industry(steel, etc.), other parts of the economy can be federally supported, but locally run, through co-ops, village and city industries, etc. All of which are run through democratic institutions, and even allow for completely private businesses to flourish within certain markets, like smaller goods and services.

[Amused Musings]

35. couldn't one argue that human nature

does not change and that the twentieth century is replete with the failures of trying to create "the socialist man (or woman for that matter)? Arguing that socialism is more "evolved" I think is like arguing the opposite of social darwinism but using the same flawed reasoning.

I also think that you set up a false dichotomy between socialist and capitalist. I understand your critique of capitalism but socialism in practice does not necessarily yield the result you describe- if resources are improperly allocated (due to a natural lack of total information in central planning) then it would be a lose-lose situation. I notice you use the term zero-sum game when describing capitalism but typical economic transactions are not zero sum or else you would be trading your good or service for something you consider to be of less value-therefore no trade would occur in the first place.

I don't think that there is some Manichean struggle between "greed" (I would use competition) and cooperation and only one can win out. it is possible to find balance. I hope I do not come off sounding combative, I guess I just have not been convinced that socialism is a panacea.

[Odin2005]

74. That has more to do with the failings of Marxist-Leninist ideology then with socialism, per se.

"does not change and that the twentieth century is replete with the failures of trying to create "the socialist man (or woman for that matter)? Arguing that socialism is more "evolved" I think is like arguing the opposite of social darwinism but using the same flawed reasoning."

That has more to do with the failings of Marxist-Leninist ideology, not the notion of socialism itself. Socialism doesn't necessarily mean Marxism, unfortunately they are often used as synonyms.

[reprobate]

75. Amused, thank you for the reasoned reply. Unlike some who foam at the mouth

when their god capital is bad mouthed.

Please note that I do not advocate socialism as such, tho it might have seemed so in my rant. I advocate social democracy. Which I envision as one in which those goods and services which the society deems necessary for the continued physical and economic health of the individual and the state economy are owned in common. I could point out one or two of these, but have done so in a post above.

Several nations use this model to good effect and their people enjoy better health outcomes than we do, a healthier and more enjoyable retirement, too. And there is nothing to keep anyone there from opening his or her own business.

I will disagree with you on one point though. Having reached the status of Sexy Senior Citizen, I can attest that there really is a force in the world which uses Greed and avarice to gather more and more to itself, or should I say 'to themselves'? 'Competition' suggests and even playing field such as a horse race or basketball game in which the rules are given and apply to both sides. Such is not true for Capitalism, which uses greed to gain control of those that make the rules. Need I mention our current administration to make my point?

A capitalist system regulated by the people would be necessary for true competition, but in our current situation that is not possible. At one time in our nation it was, because a corporation that acted against the interest of the people could face the death penalty - it's charter was pulled so it no longer existed as an entity.

Which brings up something else which shows the workings of greed in our system. IMHO the one USSC decision which is always given to justify the concept of "Corporate Personhood" was the case of Santa Clara county v Southern Pacific. Read it for yourself and tell me if you can find any reference to 'corporate personhood' or corporate human rights. I could find it nowhere in the decision. It's said that this was put into the summary of the decision written by the Chief Justice's clerk, who by the way was a past employee of Southern Pacific. So apparently what we have is a bribe of a lower employee by a corporation that resulted in most of the problems we face as a society now, because the corporate personhood concept is responsible for the corporate bribery of politicians that goes under the euphemism of 'campaign contributions', which is really the cost of corporate ownership of politicians.

But I go on too long. Have a good day and a better tomorrow.

[KittyWampus]

53. OMG, what utter crap. "Capitalism is inherantly antithetical to social democracy"

what about European countries like Sweden or even Germany?

[reprobate]

71. Sweden is a social democracy. Most of europe is too, at least in part like universal healthcare.

A social democracy can be defined as one which has decided that certain services which are necessary for the well being of both the individual and by extension the state, should be owned in common. It says nothing about banning private enterprise. I'll also say that since the commonly owned supplier does not have to worry about profit or stockholder dividends, it can produce and supply at lower rates than the privately owned corporation.

One example of which I'm familiar is the local electric supplier, Orlando Utilities, which has always supplied power at far lower cost than Progress Energy, and Florida Power before they were bought out.

And remember, Greed Is Good. It's what has gotten us into out current situation in which we face runaway greenhouse effect, well paying jobs flowing out of the country and a middle class, which was the envy of most of the world for near a century, losing all that it worked for all those years.

All good things, you would agree. Right?

And all the effects of predatory capitalism.

[northzax]

57. The US was instrumental in causing the failure of the USSR

well yes, but aided much more by the brutal incompetance of the people running the USSR. You know why collectivism has never worked on either a large scale or long term? cause people don't actually like it. it is completely antithetical to human nature. it's a great idea, until you factor in human beings and free will.

the thing that killed the USSR was the people running the USSR. Ever been to an actual collectivized state? the USSR? mid-80s PRC? North Korea? any of the dozens of failed versions that sprung up in the post-war era? not particularly pleasant places.

[reprobate]

69. I take your point. But in fact none of these were social democracies.

They were all dictatorships. And if anything runs counter to human nature it's totalitarianism.

[Odin2005]

73. Not to nit-pick, but Social Democracy isn't socialism.

It's regulated Capitalism with a strong welfare state.

[Odin2005]

72. Most so-called "socialist" states weren't/aren't socialist.

A society is socialist if there is no class of parastitic economic elites (in Capitalism these elities are rich investors). In most so-called "socialist" states there was/is a group of party bosses and/or high-level bureaucrats that acted as an economic elite.

[NashVegas]

125. Decline? Decline Implies Some Sort of Former Glory

Which VZ has never had!

[Bolshy]

133. You wish

just like every other delusional capitalist.

Socialism has succeeded and will succeed.

[w4rma]

30. I think it's a mistake for him to use socialist rhetoric when he can just say "public property".

Like public parks.
public utilities.
public schools.
public transportation.
public roads.

etc.

[EFerrari]

33. That may be an American trigger but not one in Latin America. n/t

[Bolshy]

139. Public means of production?

I don't see anything wrong with his rhetoric. Marxist analysis is indispensible in these situations and efforts, and so Marxist rhetoric is very much warranted IMO.

Your point is well taken, however.

[Hardrada]

34. Viva Chavez!

And I liked the other Chavez too who was organizing the grapepickers so long ago now>

[hogwyld]

39. I wish we could get some of that here

I would love to have programs to take care of our own instead of pumping billions into this unjust war and bloated pentagon. We need to have collective property here as well so that those less fortunate can enjoy a piece of the American dream as well.

[Peace Patriot]

44. The Corporate Media, Venezuela and Bush

I suggest www.venezuelanalysis.com for some basic understanding of Venezuelan politics and the Bolivarian revolution, and its profound impacts on Latin America. It is, of course, the Venezuelans' right to elect whomever they want to public office, and to pursue whatever policies are in their interest as a people--provided that this takes place with free and fair elections and with constitutional government--both of which are very much the case in Venezuela. But I think, apart from any imperial ambitions of the Bush Junta, and the long history of brutal US/corporate interference in Latin America, we have a natural interest in developments there, and may well be, ourselves, profoundly affected by them--for instance, the Bolivarian ideas of Latin American self-determination and regional cooperation are becoming very popular, and, combined with some concrete initiatives, by Venezuela and other leftist (majorityist) governments, are leading to the creation of a South American "Common Market" (and perhaps even a common currency--to get off the US dollar). So we need to pay attention, if, for no other reason, our own self-interest. And, if you pay attention, you can't help but form opinions, and even strong views, about the momentous political events that are occurring there.

Because of my interest in our own election system and its ill results, I've paid particular attention to the electoral conditions in Venezuela, as Bush/US and corporate news monopolies have demonized Venezuela's president. They call him "increasingly authoritarian" and a "dictator" (while ignoring Bush's egregious tyranny and ripping up of our own Constitution), but there is no evidence for these charges against Chavez. None. I've looked into every one of them, and find them baseless. First of all, Venezuela has the cleanest elections in the world. They have been repeatedly certified by the Carter Center, the OAS, and EU election monitoring groups, who have been permitted to send hundreds of election monitors to crawl all over Venezuela during elections and vote counting. Also, Venezuela uses electronic voting, but it is an open source code system (anyone may review the code by which votes are counted--unlike here, where the code is a "trade secret" owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations), and, significantly, Venezuela hand-counts FIFTY FIVE PERCENT of the ballots, as a check against machine fraud. (Know how much WE handcount? If you don't know, you should look into it.*) The elections are clean. Chavez has been repeatedly elected, the last time with 63% of the vote.

So he's doing something right. Secondly, private corporations with rightwing and far rightwing political bias own all the news media in Venezuela, and excoriate Chavez and his government--and, by implication, his many supporters--day in and day out. Chavez has no lack of criticism--most of it unconstructive whining and bile from the rich elite (think 24/7 Faux News). One of the TV stations--RCTV--actively participated in the violent military overthrow of the government, in 2002--an ultimately unsuccessful coup--hosting meetings of the plotters and spreading disinformation (such as that Chavez supporters were shooting anti-Chavez supporters--the opposite turned out to be true--and misinforming members of the military that Chavez had resigned--also not true). The coup leaders kidnapped Chavez and suspended the National Assembly (Congress), the Supreme Court and all officials and agencies of the elected government. When Chavez was restored to rightful power by the people of Venezuela (in a remarkable uprising, chronicled by an Irish film crew, in the documentary "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised"), Chavez and his government did nothing at first, about RCTV. No invasion of the studios or shutdown of the station or arrests or indictments. They simply waited until RCTV's license to use the public airwaves came up for renewal, recently, and denied them the license for failure to serve the public interest. And they only did this to the most guilty corporate station.

This is used as a prime piece of evidence of Chavez's "authoritarianism." If Faux News called for Nancy Pelosi's kidnapping and the shutdown of Congress and the Supreme Court, and participated in the enactment of such a plot, wouldn't we be justified in denying Faux News a license to use the public airwaves? How can the public airwaves be permitted to be used in the overthrow of the legitimate government? No society would permit it.

Much is made of one-party rule, but this, too, has been by choice of the Venezuelan voters, who have time and again voted for Chavez and Chavistas to represent them, and it is not exactly true anyway. There are many parties in Venezuela. It has one of the liveliest political cultures in Latin America. Chavez is struggling to pull together a new socialist party. He receives a lot of criticism from the left, among his own ranks, as well as the right. It's true that Chavistas dominate the National Assembly. But how that happened illustrates the absurdity of rightwing politics in Venezuela--and of the charge that Chavez is some sort of "strongman" ruler. (I actually wish they would get their act together better--and there are some signs that that is happening.) In the National Assembly elections, two years ago, the right was throwing a typical temper tantrum about election fraud (no evidence of it), so the election commission asked them, "What do you want, to assure you that the elections are fair?" They said they wanted the fingerprint voter ID suspended--that it was being misused. The commission granted their request. THEN, the idiots boycotted the elections anyway. But the real reason they did so, obviously, was that they were going to get creamed. They thus lost seats that they might not have lost, had they participated--and the National Assembly ended up with a lopsided Chavista majority. (But to illustrate the variety of the political spectrum, some candidates on the right didn't go along with the boycott.) The right has gained in maturity since then. Their presidential candidate specifically disavowed a rightwing plot this last December, to disrupt the government just after the election and foment another military coup attempt.

Another often-mentioned charge, i.e., "authoritarianism," is the recent economic powers that the National Assembly granted to Chavez. The powers are temporary, and involve things like stopping supermarket food hoarding, and encouraging coops and other innovative economic structures, and these same powers have been granted to other presidents in the past. It is nothing new. A comparable development, in our own history, would be FDR's administration, in which strong economic measures were needed to recover from the massive looting by the capitalists and the super-rich that brought about the Great Depression--and Congress, which, like FDR, represented the millions of people who had been impoverished, granted FDR strong powers to deal with the problem. Venezuela's economic and social indicators are all up, with private sector growth one of the highest indicators. But Venezuela, like other South American countries, is recovering from decades of brutal exploitation, and it is, uniquely, trying to leverage its oil profits to build a diversified economy for the future, by means of education and social and economic uplift. They know their time of oil prosperity is limited. They are doing their best to use that windfall well--with massive education and literacy programs, universal health care, building infrastructure and low cost housing, funding small businesses and coops, land reform and food self-sufficiency programs, support for indigenous arts (as opposed to imported corporate monoculture), and many other far thinking projects.

Chavez seems clearly to believe in dispersed power, and has established many policies toward that end, for instance, encouraging maximum participation by local communities in formal decision-making bodies. Local communities decide what they need. A school? A coop? A road? Housing? A medical center? They create their plans and apply to the government for various kinds of assistance. The poor in Venezuela, and throughout South America, have never been consulted like this before--and their needs have been utterly neglected by rich elites. Further, illiteracy has been virtually wiped out in Venezuela, very quickly. And one thing I really noticed in "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," was the frequent mention--by ordinary people--of their Constitution. They had all READ it! And, further, they were passionately committed to it. They were outraged that the military had violated it. THAT is public participation. And, although many love Chavez--and were greatly concerned that he was being harmed--it was the violation of the rule of of law--of constitutional government--that bothered them the most. A million Venezuelans surrounded Miraflores Palace (the seat of government) in defense of their Constitution! (It's enough to make you weep!)

What critics of Chavez here need to realize is that Venezuela is undergoing a democratic revolution, from the bottom up. Chavez is an expression of this revolution, and certainly an eloquent spokesman of it, and a leader of it, but he is not a "strongman" or a "dictator." He is a genuine leader, a genuine president, in the FDR mode (who was also called a "dictator" by the rightwing and the rich elites of his era). The Venezuelan people would not put up with a dictator. It is an insult to them to presume that they would. It is THEY who are creating this revolution. Chavez is lucky to have followed his own personal path to meet it. That path led him from a youthful revolt against an oppressive and brutal rightwing government, early in his military career (a leftwing cabal in the military which tried to take over the government), to his own conclusion that electoral change was possible, and that constitutional government and democracy are preferable. The rest of Venezuela had meanwhile decided the same thing, with many people working long and hard at the grass roots level to make it a reality. It is interesting that Chavez's popularity began when he was in jail, being punished for the revolt. He was, even then, expressing the popular will--but had gone about it the wrong way. Permanent change has to be based on democratic consent and process, and the rule of law.

One final criticism, in the rightwing litany of Chavez's faults, is that he wants to be reelected for a third term. FDR was elected to four terms as president (and this, too, was fuel to the right, re FDR being a "dictator"). He has not suggested that elections be suspended and that he be crowned king. He wants to be REELECTED, by the people, in open and fair elections. The Constitution limits the president to two terms. It will require amendment (voted on by the people). If they have a good thing--a leader they like, and whose policies are beneficial--why shouldn't they amend their Constitution so that they can reelect him?

Power is always dangerous and tempting. And politicians always need to be watched carefully, particularly when they want laws changed that keep them in power. But, if we have a completely screwed up view of this situation--created by relentless lies and propaganda by moneyed interests--which is unfortunately the case with many people in the US (and some here at DU), we cannot judge this Chavez desire with any objectivity. So what if the Venezuelans want Chavez to stay in office? My parents and grandparents wanted FDR to say in office forever (and he did, indeed, die in office, in his fourth term). It could be viewed--and I think Venezuelans view it (we shall see)--as an equitable meeting of the minds. Chavez likes his job. They like Chavez. So keep him there.

The Bolivarian revolution--named after Simon Bolivar, who led the struggle to free South America from colonial rule, and dreamed of a "United States of South America"--has spread to Bolivia and Ecuador, where similar popular, democratic revolts have occurred, and leftist presidents have been elected--Evo Morales, the first indigenous president of Bolivia, and Rafael Correa, a US-educated leftist economist with connections to the indigenous community. These three--Chavez, Morales and Correa--have very similar notions of government (democracy, from the bottom up, empowerment of the vast poor populations), and of regional cooperation, and they have been joined by Argentina. A particular regional project has been the Bank of the South, which began when Venezuela helped to bail Argentina out of World Bank/IMF debt and its onerous repayment conditions. Argentina was a basketcase, as the result of corporate rule. Argentina is now well on its way to recovery, and has thus been made a healthy trading partner for Brazil, Venezuela and other countries.

When Argentina's Nestor Kirchner and other South American leaders were told by US/Bush that they should "isolate" Chavez and Venezuela, Kirchner (and all others, apparently) refused, and Kirchner commented that Chavez is "my brother." Paraguay (where a big leftist movement is in progress, but a right/center government is still in charge) just last week joined the Bank of the South (finger in the air to Bush maybe?). Brazil's Lula da Silva (former steelworker, leftist) made a point of visiting Venezuela and Chavez for a big celebration of the opening of the Orinoco bridge between the two countries, two weeks before the Venezuelan election. Further, when Bush visited Brazil, Lulu publicly lectured him on the sovereignty of Latin American countries. And so--as a matter of fact--did the rightwing/corporatist president of Mexico, at the other end of Bush's tour.

Finally, Bush's purpose in South America was to "divide and conquer," with a particular target being Mercosur, the South American trade group that will likely be developed into a South American "Common Market." Bush's corporate masters wanted this idea killed. They offered "free trade" (global corporate piracy) deals to Uruguay, which had had some problems within Mercosur, to try to split them off. Last week, Uruguay (yet another leftist government) announced that it has declined the US trade deals and is sticking with Mercosur.

The utter failure of Bush's South American tour was capped by the huge rightwing scandal that is developing in Colombia, involving the head of the Colombian military--to which Bush has given billions of our hard-earned tax dollars in military aid--and rightwing paramilitary drug trafficking and murder, including a recently uncovered plot to assassinate Hugo Chavez. As more details of these plotters emerge, I expect disclosures of a wider plot to destabilize the entire Andean region and overturn the legitimate governments of Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. I think this is what was in the wind back in December, around the Venezuelan election--the plot against Chavez that the rightwing presidential candidate disavowed. I think something big is going on here, among Latin American leaders, and with regard to US/Bush involvement in these rotten schemes. And this may be why even the president of Mexico felt compelled to lecture Bush on Latin American sovereignty and even mentioned Venezuela in that context.

Upshot: Chavez is not just popular in Venezuela. He is popular in many countries, and the Venezuelans' Bolivarian ideas of Latin American self-determination and regional cooperation are affecting even rightwing governments--because the policies are so obviously beneficial. And the general notion of "Latin America for Latin Americans"--inspired by Venezuela--has really caught on. The rightwing leaders may not be all that sincere about it, but they are obliged to at least give it lip service. And the leftwing leaders (in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Chile--also Nicaragua) have all the momentum. They are the dominant force now in the OAS. Further, Peru, Paraguay, Mexico and Guatemala all have strong leftist movements in progress. They almost won the presidencies of Peru and Mexico, recently. Leftist government, with strong components of social justice and economic re-organization, to benefit the majority, is the future. Dinosaurs like Colombia are the "isolated" ones, and are of the past.

Our corporate news monopolies try to personalize this vast movement, by singling out Chavez for particular demonization--and I'll admit that Chavez, something of a clown and a showman, gives them occasion to. (We should know, though, that his antics, like calling Bush "the devil" at the UN, play to roars of laughter to the south of us.) But this is a grave misunderstanding of Latin America politics, of the profound change that is occurring there, and of its short and long term implications for the western hemisphere. And this disinformation has been quite deliberate. Our venal, greedy, lying, anti-democracy, war profiteering corporate media moguls don't want us to get any ideas about social justice and real democracy. They call up the specters of Stalin and Mao and "Castro" (their caricature) to smother our minds with fear and kneejerk reactions. They've done the same kind of brainwashing and propagandizing on the Iraq War, on Bush and his fascist policies, on leftist groups and politicians in the US, and on any development that threatens the oiligarchy. You can know them by what they hate. They hate Chavez. But, far more than that, they hate and fear the people who elected him, and they hate and fear us. That's why they engineered the "Help America Vote for Bush Act" (electronic voting controlled by Bushite corporations), and took away our right to vote.

----------------------

*(0% in many states; 1% in the best states.)

[scarletwoman]

94. WOW! Just -- WOW! What a superb post! I wish every DUer would read it and LEARN!

Outstanding summary!

[Megahurtz]

98. Yes, Great Post!

Bravo!:applause:

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

45. What's that? A quack in the distance?

The quacks get louder and louder from Hugo.

[Thothmes]

46. Collectivization

I have no particular qualms about President Chavez's actions. However, looking back over history, it strikes me that some these efforts in the past have turned into monumental failures. The Soviet program comes to mind, as does Mugabe's actions in Africa. My hope is that he can accomplish his aims without repeating these events.

[Peace Patriot]

56. Chavez is very well read--a very intelligent guy. And he seems to be conversant

with all the pitfalls. I read an interview of him in which he discusses the failures of Soviet and Eastern European communism. I think he called it "the mudslide." (This seems to be a political metaphor in Venezuela--maybe related to how the poor shantytown houses in Caracas regularly slide off the hills in heavy storms.) (--something the Chavez government is remedying with the development of low cost housing).

The South Americans are pursuing a mixed socialist/capitalist model, with a strong component of social justice. It's very like some highly successful European countries. It's not particularly radical. As Evo Morales has said (re negotiations about Bolivia's gas and oil reserves): "We want partners, not masters." The model of the heavy Stalinist state--so like the model of the heavy Global Corporate Predator state--is gone. It's past. Our Global Corporate Predator state is destroying the planet, not to mention slaughtering and oppressing people, including us. We have to change it, or the planet will die. And whether the planet dies or not depends quite a lot of our ability to restore democracy here.

I think we make too much of an association between capitalism and freedom, probably because we are all heavily propagandized about it. But, is five rightwing billionaire CEOs monopolizing all news and opinion in this country freedom? Is a few people becoming billionaires, and gobbling up all land, all money, all resources and all power, freedom? This is totally out-of-control capitalism. Capitalism gone mad. Capitalism eating its own. Capitalism self-destructing. We used to have some controls on it--and an uneasy balance between corporate responsibility to the common good, and corporate innovation and profitability. With Bush (and, really starting back with Reagan, and on through Clinton) that balance has been thrown way off. And now, we don't have anything like true free trade or a free market. We don't have competition. All is manipulated to keep the rich rich and make them richer, and to deny anybody else a chance, including the destruction of small business all over the country, and denial of fair wages and benefits to the workers who make the CEO's filthy rich, with vast extensions of this predatory attitude to other countries all over the globe, stealing resources, killing local agriculture and business, enslaving workers in sweatshops, and even invading a country and slaughtering a hundred thousand people for their oil. This is not healthy and the earth itself is crying out against it. It is unnatural. It is evil. And it will destroy us.

You can have trade and you can have socialism. You can have trade and you can have fairness. You can have all the fun, and creativity, and joy, and innovation, and adventurousness of trade, and still live sustainably on the earth, and take care of your community and the future. This THING that capitalism has become--predatory capitalism--is a great cancerous growth on our backs. We need to shed it. We really do. All these monstrous corporations need to have their charters pulled, and their assets seized for the common good--or, at the least, the monopolies need to be busted, and their power over our government removed, and the remaining businesses need to be regulated--for monopolistic tendencies, for environmental impacts, and for labor and human rights. We threw off King George in the first American revolution. We need to throw off Global Corporate Predators in American Revolution II.

This is where history has placed us--the people of the US--as the pivotal force at this great turning point in human history, between human suicide and human success. What our country does is crucial, because of its vast environmental and financial and policy impacts. And just about everything we are doing right now is wrong--and is pushing the human race toward suicide--the end of all life on earth. The very greedy and demented among us have gained fascist power over our government, and are engaging in an orgy of looting. They have taken away our right to vote, very deliberately, so that we can't stop them. Because, you see, Thomas Jefferson's great vision was true--that, with democracy, the best ideas rise to the top, and the best leaders rise to positions of power, and the worst ideas and the worst leaders are discarded. With democracy. With open debate. With a truly free press. With empowerment of the people through voting. With government of, by and for the people. And if there is a problem, democracy will find a way to solve it--because democracy creates a collective intelligence and will to survive. The fascists only know how to hoard. The democrats know how to think and to plan, because the democrats have the benefit of all human brain power. And, right now, in this country, the fascists who know only how to horde are suppressing the democrats who know how to think and to plan.

What Chavez and the Bolivarians are talking about is BALANCE. They are not "collectivizing" anybody against their will. They are democrats! They are encouraging and suggesting--and thinking and planning. They are responding to collective intelligence, the way we should be. That is is our heritage. It is being suppressed. We are suffering from this suppression--and our suffering may turn into a catastrophe for everyone and for the entire future of the human race.

Really, there is no model from the past to guide us now. We have gone too far down the road of planetary destruction. What I like about the Bolivarians--besides the joy of seeing the poor achieve rightful power--is their flexibility. They are not Stalinists. They are not "Castroites." They are not, like us, capitalists gone made. They are not like anything we have ever seen in Latin America. They are experimenting. And they are drawing on that collective wisdom that is so characteristic of democracy. And I think that therein lay the hope for the human race. Flexibility. Democracy. Collective wisdom. Capitalism forces us to think very egotistically--about our own individual welfare. Family life helps us pull out of ourselves a bit, but not enough. Democracy is how the many find wisdom and implement policy for the common good. Bushites--these crude fascists and criminals--have inflicted great harm on the natural, democratic processes that should be at work right now, to preserve life on earth and find a better way to live. All our resources and energy are being sucked up by their limited, mad hording instincts. And we have to find a way to put things back into balance, and to renew the inherently creative processes of democracy. And it's my belief that Priority no.1 in that effort must be transparent vote counting.

We have much to learn from the Latin American left. Even from Cuba, which works somewhat like a democracy, even though it isn't one (for many reasons, some of them not the Cubans' fault). Cuba has chosen economic democracy over political democracy. It's too bad they had to make that choice. But that's where history (and US anti-Castro plotting) landed them. In any case, they have managed to feed, house, clothe, educate and given gainful employment to all Cubans--with minimal impacts on the environment. Cuba has not suffered from corporate blight (like the tourist monstrosities of Miami and Hawaii) or corporate resource destruction. And they are very much into a democracy-like collective wisdom on a lot of different issues, among them farming and medicine. They furthermore managed to weather the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was hard. They are now very recovered. So in fact we DO have a model of the success of communism--albeit with a unique Cuban flavor.

But its political organization wouldn't sit well with most Americans, north or south, and it has not been copied by any other Latin American country, including Venezuela, which is very much a political democracy. The Venezuelans are sort of coming from the other end of things--experimentally: Given political democracy--which everybody wants--how do you create economic democracy, or at least true fairness and justice? Carefully, for one thing. Without upsetting things too much. Without depriving people of property and making them resentful. And without squashing the benefits of trade and innovation, and capital finance. They had a very dicey situation with the oil professionals' strike--wherein the rich oil elite (egged on and supported by the Bushites) was asserting its right to undue wealth from Venezuela's oil riches. They had gotten used to getting all the benefit of it--and having nice houses and fancy cars, etc. But it was very unfair that a tiny elite was the only beneficiary of Venezuela's main resource, when the rest of the country was suffering staggering poverty. Chavez fired them all--the most "authoritarian" thing he has ever done. Their strike was crippling the country, and was aimed at bringing down the government. He had little choice. Their last act was to sabotage the computers needed for mixing the oil. The Chavistas (poor workers) had to come in and learn all the systems, and repair it all, and get production going again--which they have done. If these oil professionals had shown some flexibility, and had not been led into coup-like mentality by the Bushites and their oil giant pals, they would still be employed today. This was some years ago, so they were probably still in denial about democratic change, and thinking that their wealth and power--and Bushite support--would insure their entrenchment, even at the cost of destabilizing the country and disenfranchising the majority.

Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower all did similar things, when true disorder threatened. There is a difference between "authoritarianism" and strength. A government HAS to have strength (as Chavez pointed out in the same interview I mentioned above*).

We should wish Venezuela and all the new leftist (majorityist) governments in Latin America well. They are trying to create good government--including good environmental policy (another thing that only seems to occur when collective democratic wisdom is at work). They are showing us the way. The lessons that keep coming up, again and again--that I think are applicable here, are these:

1. Transparent elections.
2. Grass roots organization.
3. Think big.

And I would add, patience. Our democracy was not destroyed in a day, and it will not be restored in a day. Think of what the Latin Americans have been through--decades of brutal oppression (often at our government's instigation)--to reach this point--a true, peaceful, democratic revolution. We can do it, too. And it is quite urgent, because of global warming and the US contribution to it--25%. (The World Wildlife Fund gives our planet 50 years, at current levels of pollution and consumption. 50 years to the death of the planet.) But it is not going to happen overnight. We need to develop the wise quality of endurance, even amidst our feeling of urgency.

--------------

*(http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1985 )

[Megahurtz]

99. Yes! ...Again!

:applause:

[Nevernose]

105. Holy cow -- really impressive

It's good. Clean it up and submit it to Harper's or The Progressive or Mother Jones or somewhere. Or maybe just shout it from the rooftops, I dunno.

[Thothmes]

117. Chavez

Thank you for your thoughts. I wish him success in his program.

[Odin2005]

76. That's why I prefer co-ops instead of state-inforced collectivization.

I disagree with the idea that socialism most be done through a planned economy.

[bemildred]

47. Should be very interesting.

Chavez doesn't seem to be contemplating "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" and any sort of forced march to modernization etc. etc., and secret police. We may finally see a challenge to the idea that employees and owners are by necessity separate classes with unalterably opposed interests. He isn't talking about collectivization, so much as economic democracy, and that is an idea that has worked well many times, and that continues to do so in many places.

[originalpckelly]

49. As someone who actually supports economic democracy...

I can assure you that a totalitarian leader taking private property away from others will not lead to the redistribution of that property to the good people of his country.

I don't know why people think Chavez is any less greedy than any other human being on Earth. There are always two sides to every person, one of them the altruistic side and the other the greedy side. They're inseparable. Even the holiest of nuns and monks are greedy.

The best hope we have is checking that greed in an economic system of government, one that is structured like a democracy. We must separate powers not unify them, and government owned collectivized property unifies power.

[KittyWampus]

54. Chavez is nationalizing land but not investing in agricultural means to produce food. He will fail

because he is not an economist nor does he have an overall plan to work from.

He is just acting then reacting to avert problems created by his first action. He starts with an abstract goal that sounds good but hasn't the means to put it successfully into reality.

I am pro- social democracy when it is carried out by competent people with an understanding of macro-economics.

Who is Chavez's Paul Krugman?

Since Venezuela is suffering food shortages and inflation and insufficient agricultural production, I'd venture to say he doesn't have one.

[northzax]

60. no, no, no, you defeatist!

this will totally work this time, because it's Chavez, and he doesn't like Bush, so that means he is infalliable.

sheesh, try to pay attention.

[twiceshy]

63. Farmings a tough business for experts on big tracts of land

Almost impossible for non-farmers on small plots Look at the success they had in Zimbabwe, NOT.

[EFerrari]

64. That's a very good question. I'm going to put it to the VIO and

maybe they'll answer it. They are usually very responsive.

[Peace Patriot]

65. I think that's a pretty good criticism of Chavez, but then one might also say it

of Nancy Pelosi "micro-managing" the war on Iraq. She's not a general. And she's not that brilliant military strategy, George Bush.

Ahem.

Democracy requires citizen control. Good leaders get the advice of experts, and then they do what they think best, taking all things into consideration, including humanitarian concerns and the will of the people.. The "experts" of global "free trade" were wrong about Argentina--and about nearly every economy in the world they got their greedy hands on. The "experts" have often been wrong--and maybe it's because they don't understand human beings and what motivates them.

"He is just acting then reacting to avert problems created by his first action. He starts with an abstract goal that sounds good but hasn't the means to put it successfully into reality." --cryingshame

Yes, I think there is some truth in this. But then, Chavez has been assaulted by a military coup, the oil professionals' crippling strike, a US-sponsored recall election, and plots to assassinate him (just exposed in the Colombian paramilitary scandals). Crisis after crisis, not caused by him or his government, but by malevolent forces, inspired by or funded by the Bush Junta. And he started out with an economy in acute crisis, from decades of rightwing corruption and bad policy. So the sense of Venezuela lurching from one crisis to another is in part due to deliberate interference.

I don't know who's advising Chavez on the economy. But I think that the general principles that I see are pretty good ones. You have a country where 75% of the people are poor to dirt poor, and a rich elite exhibiting no social responsibility--and you have temporary riches from oil windfalls. So, 1) you try to get better control of the main resource--oil (already nationalized, but not benefiting the majority at all), 2) you educate the poor--to start creating a bigger class of experts and knowledgeable people, 3) you start social/economic uplift programs--health care, micro-loans, coops, community centers, land distribution to small farmers and the indigenous, to give people hope and encourage/develop the talents of all members of society, 4) you create wider political participation--more and better ideas, wider empowerment, 5) build infrastructure (the pipeline, the Orinoco bridge, low cost housing, schools, medical clinics, hospitals), 6) find allies for trade and political support (Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Nicaragua, Cuba, Paraguay), 5) start looking to regional strengths and cooperation (like creating the Bank of South to bail Venezuela's neighbors out of World Bank debt, and developing Mercosur).

These are very sound principles. You can't build a healthy economy--or a future--when half the people are illiterate and most feel hopeless. And these are not just Chavez's ideas. These are ideas that have bubbled up from the bottom. That is somewhat the point of democracy.

I don't necessarily agree that what is required are "competent people"--by which I presume you mean technocrats and PhDs. Look what the technocrats did with the oil professionals' strike--out of greed and a bullying desire to prevent democratic change. And often you find that the people at the bottom know more about how things actually work than many so-called experts.

And if you compare Venezuelan economic management (spread the wealth) to Bushite economic management (loot everything in sight), I think Venezuela comes out pretty well. They are doing the best they can do with the resources they have--while we are doing the worst.

People who get all alarmed about inflation are almost always coming from the right, on the political spectrum. Inflation needs to be controlled, but, in a country like Venezuela, there are far worse things than inflation (if it doesn't get too out of hand), and government spending, improved wages/labor conditions, food subsidies and development are absolutely essential. As for food shortages and insufficient ag production, these are chronic problems in Venezuela, in part caused by land hoarding by the rich (taking it out of production by small farmers). The Chavez government's land reform policy is aimed at correcting it, but it will take time. Food production has in fact increased. And the private sector of the economy showed the most growth of all sectors last year. And these are in addition to dramatic improvements in overall income, literacy and health care stats.

What would YOU have Venezuela do?

[KittyWampus]

87. Pelosi doesn't claim to be a general and takes advice from generals. Retired and active

she seeks out the advice of experts like General Clark etc.

I am not interested in comparing Venezuela to the US. Two different economies and economic systems. Apples to oranges.

What Chavez is trying to do is highly problematic and would require well planned out, serious adjustments.

For all it's faults, the USA has had a fairly stable economy. Growing inequity, it's true.

[ProudDad]

84. Why are you so

enamored of the "dismal science"?

Economics is neither art nor science and as currently practiced is so tainted by capitalist "truths" and theories that I doubt any "economists" relevance.

And what makes you think Chavez hasn't read and understood Krugman?

Possibly better than you?

[bemildred]

66. You don't really think that everyone is greedy, and to the same degree, and in the same way

do you? All alike as peas in a pod?

[gorbal]

93. As soon as he "takes" property from someone, I hope I see the proof!

People keep saying he's going to "take property" but so far he has either appropriated unused land or signed deals with companies to buy half their stock holdings.

I don't think Chavez is any more angelic than anyone else, but then I see most people as mostly good, not greedy. I think he wants people to like him and remember him as a great leader. I see him as seeking a sort of "potlach" way to self-esteem.

Personally I am most comfortable with well-regulated capitalism as I want to live the way I'm used to with some changes. However any democratic society should feel free to follow their own path, and we should do our best to learn from them and try to see and seperate what works and what doesn't. We should not lump it all under "socialism" and ignore it.

[Odin2005]

77. It's about fucking time some socialists abandon Leninist BS.

[bemildred]

95. Indeed.

The botched Russian experiment was not something to emulate.

[DanWithAngel]

48. hugo may get his mugabe moment yet

i suppose if the citizens that don't want to live the socialist dream turn nightmare
could just leave the country and let this dustbin run its course.

[ProudDad]

114. Time to pay attention to the facts

The citizens in Venezuela overwhelmingly approve of President Chavez and his Policies...

Check it out...

There's NO similarity between mugabe and Chavez...

[DanWithAngel]

120. "overwhelmingly" is still less than 100%

I suspect the people that are not poor and hungry may not want to join those
that are. Removing the ability to work harder and acquire more in life than those around
you is a terrible thing for some.

socialism stands a chance only if everyone wants the same things in life.

while hugo stays in his castle and eats and enjoys the finest things in life his servants
do with less...much less.

[Judi Lynn]

122. Do you have any information on the President of Venezuela's "castle?"

It would be terrific to see a photo of that "castle," for sure.

By the way, that kind of gibberish won't work on most people. We are very aware that the presidents of ALL countries do not live in lean-to's and wear burlap bags with ropes around their waists.

Almost silly to try it here.

[DanWithAngel]

129. chavez should have no better housing than his people

i suspect his food, home and other expensive lifestyle are far above the average hugo voter.

almost silly to see him take away from those that have even less than he. he should do as he dictates.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

116. As is usually the case...

...if the affluent and educated decide that they don't like it there, they will flee.

[twiceshy]

50. I think socialism can work....

If you have an economy with a big cash cow like oil. And if you can keep the educated elites happy and contributing. Biggest problems I see in implementing socialism is to drive out or kill the best educated and necessary part of the population.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

51. Care to rephrase that?

So you are saying that in order to implement Socialism you have to drive out or kill the best educated part of the population?

Just trying understand what you mean, b/c that is the way your comment reads.

[northzax]

58. no, but in order to impose collectivism

you have to do something to keep people who would otherwise be making more money and getting more recognition happy. you ready to give up your house to get on a waiting list for a two bedroom apartment in a cinderblock tower? people who have more tend to be annoyed when that gets taken away from them.

[Bolshy]

141. Please analyze things

houses would seldom be touched in socialism. Houses are personal property, being used intimately in one's life. Yes, extravagant houses would be appropriated for public use, and houses would naturally become less varying in net wealth (not to say that they won't be different).

The reason those high-rises are built is because the people who are going to live there wouldn't have housing otherwise. That type of housing would be developed based on need and not profit. Perhaps you would like to tell the people in those high-rises that they would be better served living on the streets or homeless shelters of a capitalist society, but I doubt your appeals would be cared for.

Furthermore, "making more money and getting more recognition happy" means exploiting others and pursuing bourgeois interests. Socialist societies musn't tolerate this sort of detriment, and therefore people seeking to make profit and hamper the revolution must be suppressed.

The people who will have things "taken away from them" are the people that socialist societies have little use for (and no, that doesn't mean they'll be killed, it means they won't be allowed to exploit workers anymore). The businessman may lose, but that is because society and the workers win.

[twiceshy]

61. I meant the opposite.

You have to take measures to keep your intelligentsia.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

62. Thought that's what you meant.

Otherwise, I have a big target on my head. LOL

[UTUSN]

52. And the duck keeps quacking... Plus, "Associated Press" is BOLDED, haha!!1 n/t

[Skinner]

59. I suspect that this will not be such a good thing.

It is possible to create a workable system in which workers share in profits. But based on the fact that this is being referred to as "collective property" I suspect this will not be such a system. It could very well lead to less food being produced, not more.

To quote an old Russian teacher of mine, waxing nostalgic for the bygone days of the Soviet Union: "It's true that we were all poor. But we were all poor together." If people like being poor together, this system might well be a success.

[Imperialism Inc.]

78. It is simply not possible for the lands to produce less than they

already are. This will be done on the lands that were idle and with questionable or no title. So it is simply impossible to have less production than the land's current production , which is zero.

[northzax]

107. must all land be 'productive'?

in an economic sense?

[bemildred]

119. That is a different question.

The point is that the land supposedly being brought into production under Venezuelan land reform laws CANNOT be less productive than it was before, you can't have less than zero in this case. Or at least that is the theory.

As to your question, it is a good thing to allow land to lie fallow part of the time, in most climates.

However, as some other fellow pointed out, Venezuela has to import food, it has been that way for a long time, so this effort is motivated in part by a desire to become food independent, or perhaps less food-dependent, sort of like the US wanting to be oil independent; so it's not a matter of putting every inch into production, as such, but of making better use of idle assets of land and labor.

[happydreams]

126. The Soviet Union was not as it appeared

It was funded and controlled by bankers.

[bemildred]

67. UPDATE 3-Venezuela GDP strong, sees no devaluation plans

---

"We rule out any kind of devaluation (of the bolivar)," Cabezas told Reuters in an interview at the Inter-American Bank's annual meeting in Guatemala.

Cabezas said the economy, which grew 10 percent last year but sparked inflation, was looking strong enough for the government of leftist President Hugo Chavez to push ahead with a plan to scrap Value Added Tax (VAT) within three years.

Venezuela, which has already lowered a range of other taxes, says the tax elimination strategy would put more money in ordinary people's pockets and stimulate both consumer spending and the local economy.

Who does that sound like, eh?

"Even when VAT is the easiest tax to levy in Venezuela and across the world, it is the most negative of taxes," Cabezas said. "There's a readiness and the political will to eliminate it within two or three years."

Reuters

[bemildred]

68. A Note on Venezuela's Economic Performance

PDF from 2005, for the historical, as opposed to hysterical, perspective on Venezuela's economy.

It is sometimes asserted that Venezuela under President Hugo Chavez Frias (1999 to the present) has been an economic failure, as compared with the past. For example, a recent news article in the Washington Post referred to "Hugo Chavez, the populist Venezuelan president whose giveaways to the poor have slowed economic progress."1 Such claims are not supported by the evidence. From 1970-1998 per capita income in Venezuela fell by 35 percent.2 This is the worst economic decline in the region and one of the worst in the world -- much worse even than what happened to Africa during this period. Since the present government took office, per capita income growth is about flat,3 and will likely be positive at year's end. So the Chavez government can at least claim credit for reversing the terrible long-term economic decline in Venezuela, according to the standard reference sources on economic growth.

But there are other considerations. First, it would not be fair to hold the government accountable for the loss of output due to opposition actions aimed at toppling the government. The oil strike of 2002-2003 caused enormous damage; one might also include the military coup and other de-stabilizing actions. If not for these efforts, economic growth would almost certainly have been substantially higher and well above the average for the region. But the first point, about reversing the country's long economic decline, holds true even if one ignores the effect of opposition actions on the economy.

Also there has been a significant improvement in the lives of the poor -- the majority of Venezuelans -- in terms of access to health care and other services, as well as subsidized food.

It is therefore very difficult to construct an economic argument that the majority of Venezuelans are worse off as a result of the present government. One would have to produce a counterfactual in which this terrible 28-year economic decline that preceded the Chavez government would have reversed itself in the absence of any change in policies or government, and then the economy would have grown so much faster than the rest of Latin America that, even without any social programs for the poor, enough would have trickled down to them so that they would be better off than they are now. This is not a very plausible story.

http://www.cepr.net/publications/venezuela_2005_06.pdf

[happydreams]

124. Thanks for sharing this bemildred.

:hi:

[bemildred]

70. Hugo Chávez, the Media and Everybody Else

“Dr Insulza is quite an idiot, a true idiot <…> He’s playing the role of viceroy for the empire.” Echoing his inflammatory UN speech a few months back, in which he called President Bush the “devil” and on another occasion, “a donkey,” Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez lashed out at OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza, after the latter clearly strained protocol by denouncing Caracas’ decision to not renew the transmitting license of a rabidly anti-Chávez TV broadcasting station last December.

Following his landslide victory in the presidential ballot on December 3, with 63 percent of the vote, Chávez is embarking on a series of new initiatives involving the firing of officials now out of favor, insulting foreign officials like the unfortunate Insulza, and attempting to fortify the essential principles embodied in his “Bolivarian Socialism” by ruling by decree in certain designated areas for the next 18 months.

A few hours before taking the oath of office on January 10 for his third term, he set the nation’s polemical tone by declaring his intention to nationalize the country’s “strategic sectors,” which include the country’s most publicly- traded company Compania Anónima Nacional Teléfonos de Venezuela (CANTV), the electricity and gas sectors, and four lucrative Orinoco basin oil drilling operations. This would allow for the four foreign owners to be minority share owners in each instance. Chávez’s dizzying spate of new plans has been received as dead weight by his various detractors, who accuse him of taking Venezuela back to the bad old days of mixed economy, before the Clinton and Bush administrations had discredited the amalgam of private and public corporations known as a mixed economy. Rather, Washington insisted on privatization and total market accessibility. However, what the latter peddled as pure gold in terms of benefits to Latin America more often than not turned out to be base lead. But at the same time, Chávez has boldly demonstrated his personal courage, or perhaps imprudence, by staking out a renewed commitment to his Bolivarian Revolution and initiating his new presidency with a rash of socialist initiatives.

COHA

[genie_weenie]

79. This is nothing more than Feudalism.

168 people deciding for Venezuela. The members of Parliament will no doubt do very well, how well will the poor do. Obviously, what the US Regime says about Chavez is true, however. Sadly, I'm sure we'll eventually get around to fighting the "Just" Fight down in S. America, again.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/giuliani.chavez/index.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4496586.stm

[ProudDad]

85. For your edification

http://www.citgo.com/WebOther/AboutCITGO/Barrier.mp3

Nice try, bunkie...

[northzax]

108. a corporate press release?

don't really see the relevance here (And it is misleading: sure, CITGO is an American company, based in Houston,but it is a wholly owned subsidiary of PDVSA, which is wholly owned by the government of Venezuela.) once he made that mistake, it's hard to take the rest seriously.

[ProudDad]

113. You were trying to tie that slimeball guiliani

to Hugo Chavez.

Cain't do it...

This corporate slimeball hired rudy, not Hugo...

[Bolshy]

134. Give me a break

they are taking land away from people who use it for their own profit and putting it to use for the common good.

Obviously, you aren't familiar with the reality of Latin America, Venezuela or the great changes that are occurring.

[Joanne98]

96. I think it's a good idea. We should do it here!

[IndianaGreen]

110. An American version of a Bolivarian revolution would cause a major power shift

from the elites and the investor class to the creators of wealth: Labour.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

118. Sure Just like in China and USSR. No ruling elites there at all.

N/T

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[papau]

142. An American version of the Bolivar revolution is overdue - there should be no right to keep stolen

property just because you also stole the government and made the theft "legal".

Our national Parks are not "collectivism" or a "rejection of capitalism" - nor are city owned utilities.

Indeed the simple process of getting single payer national health, laws that in other countries are called "democratic socialism", tax rates that hit the real income of the rich - their investment income, tax rates that are high enough on the rich to provide an infrastructure for the common good, could give us a Bolivar revolution.

But as Chavez found out and is solving, there is the problem of right wing control of the media that needs to be solved - just fairness laws are needed - nothing like state ownership.

Indeed state ownership is vastly inferior as an economic engine to private ownership provided private companies are heavily regulated. The private company having "person" rights needs to end.

[DanWithAngel]

121. making America socialist

I assume by "here' you mean America. Are you ready to give up any "extra" you have outside
of what some elite in his kingdom says you can have? I'm not now nor will I ever be ready to
give up my dreams of living the life I desire.

[ProudDad]

130. Since you obviously don't know anything about Socialism

Let me enlighten you and release you from your unreasoning fears:

There is nothing in Socialism about "elites" taking your "extra" stuff...

There is nothing in Socialism about kingdoms or kings or capitalist bosses.

There is nothing in Socialism about you being unable to live the life you desire unless you crave the right to exploit others for your personal advantage. If that's your desire, in a Socialist system you'd be blocked by your fellow citizens from following those perverse desires. :shrug:

---------------------
Here are some links:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/what_is_socialism.php
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm

---------------------

socialism, general term for the political and economic theory that advocates a system of collective or government ownership and management of the means of production and distribution of goods. Because of the collective nature of socialism, it is to be contrasted to the doctrine of the sanctity of private property that characterizes capitalism. Where capitalism stresses competition and profit, socialism calls for COOPERATION AND SOCIAL SERVICE.

---------------------

so·cial·ism (sō'shə-lĭz'əm) pronunciation
n.

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. (Ed: for government substitute "We the People")

---------------------

Socialism

Political-economic doctrine that, unlike Capitalism which is based on competition, seeks a cooperative society in which the means of production and distribution are owned by the government or collectively by the people.


--------------------

Socialism, as concept and social movement, has played a vital role in American society as a voice of opposition to class and sex exploitation, to race or ethnic hatreds, to imperial cupidity, and to the acquisitive mentality of the dominant classes at large. Judged by the standard of the ordered class movements of other (especially European) societies, it has been relatively weak in the United States. Yet faced with the monolith of modern capitalism, it has been surprisingly versatile, at times actually threatening the system or forcing major institutional improvements through the promulgation of a popular alternative worldview and the organization of widespread social resistance.




Edited for tiny change in grammar

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

132. Who plans the economy?

Who makes the decisions?

Who decides how much money I can make?

Who decides what kind of house I can live in?

Who decides what the society needs me to do as a career?

All the answers to that question are NOT ME!

Keep your bullshit buzzwords for Socialism. While it is not perfect, Capitalism has more potential for INDIVIDUAL freedoms, than some illuminati sitting in a tower deciding what my career choice should be and how much I am going to be paid for it.

[ProudDad]

137. Answers

>>Who makes the decisions?
You and your neighbors do... Now isn't that a better idea
than some faceless capitalists -- like Ken Lay and Bill Gates?

>>Who decides how much money I can make?

It's an irrelevant question. Money in a capitalist system is just a marker for who's winning and who's losing. How you doing? Winning or losing?

>>Who decides what kind of house I can live in?
Uh, you do...

>>Who decides what the society needs me to do as a career?
Uh, you do...

>>All the answers to that question are NOT ME!
Only if you're not a member of "We the People"...

You don't know anything about Socialism, do you?

Fight your Fear. Follow the links, grasshopper, the answers are out there for you.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

144. Answers to your answers

1) Bullshit

2) Bullshit

3) Bullshit

Some central committee of people holding hands and singing Kumbaya is not the end result unless you live in Fantasy Land or the United Federation of Planets.

Money is not a marker for who is winning or losing, it allows you to escape from a barter system and have something that is universally valuable so you can perform a service and then trade for something else. In other words, if you need eggs, and you are a roller coaster designer (named Pennypacker for you Seinfeld fans), then you don't have to find a farmer who wants to build a rollercoaster to trade your services for eggs.

I know that Socialism is doomed to failure. That is all I need to know about it.

Oh wait, Cuba is the shining example, sure all countries can trade sugar and nickel for what they need when their currency becomes worthless on world markts.

[nick303]

138. Coming from someone who accuses someone else of being

"enamored of the 'dismal science'", I'm a bit skeptical of your plans for anyone.

[Bolshy]

135. Making America socialist would do wonders

That "elite in his kingdom" is actually the workers, meaning NOT the rich.

The "dreams of living the life I desire" is just that: DREAMS. The workers are exploited and deprived and used under capitalism; that system must be deposed. Socialism will see workers controlling their communities and sharing the fruits of labor.

[papau]

143. Dreams of wealth continue in a regulated taxed capitalist world fear mongers call "socialist"

Indeed control of the government - of life - that the rich have though unchecked media ownership ending - if we can make it end - will not affect your dream.

But you can bet that they will call what ever is done to free us from rich and corporate control an attempt at that "un-American" thing called socialism.

[happydreams]

123. Viva Democratic Socialism!! K&R

If the capitalists won't play ball, change the game! K&R