Is Chavez becoming a liability?

purple'n'gold

I wouldn’t worry too much about Chavez. He’s just one more dictator in a long line of dictators in South America. He will be gone when the CIA gets around to it. They are busy with more pressing matters at the moment.

RedPlanet

purplengold wrote:

I wouldn’t worry too much about Chavez. He’s just one more dictator in a long line of dictators in South America. He will be gone when the CIA gets around to it. They are busy with more pressing matters at the moment.

Cheerleading for America's meddling in the internal affairs of other soveriegn states huh?

RedPlanet

Sand wrote:

If Chavez wants a person gone - theyre gone. Theres no independant judiciary in Venezeula. He has packed every institution with his supporters and sycophants and has attacked and reduced any threat to his power - witness the attacks on the media recently, which has had the desired effect of intimidating the surivors.

oh my, i didn't realize the seriousness of that situation! :rolleyes:

It almost reminds me of the illegal wiretapping of American citizens by Bush, the sacking of 9 US Attorneys for their political persuasion and the subsequent perjury by the US Attorney General over the matter.
Thing is tho, America deserves our particular scrutiny since it pursues a meglomanic foreign policy that results in war and terror.
Venezuela on the other hand, well they don't really do anything to anybody, they don't have WMD's, they don't invade other countries or any of that carryon.

What do you think Chavez is trying to do? Improve the lot in life of ordinary Venezueleans it seems. AFter all he made universal Health Care a human right in that country. What has Bush or any of those other dictators people like Purple n' Gold cheer for, done for anybody?

Sand

oh my, i didn't realize the seriousness of that situation!

It almost reminds me of the illegal wiretapping of American citizens by Bush, the sacking of 9 US Attorneys for their political persuasion and the subsequent perjury by the US Attorney General over the matter.
Thing is tho, America deserves our particular scrutiny since it pursues a meglomanic foreign policy that results in war and terror.
Venezuela on the other hand, well they don't really do anything to anybody, they don't have WMD's, they don't invade other countries or any of that carryon.

What do you think Chavez is trying to do? Improve the lot in life of ordinary Venezueleans it seems. AFter all he made universal Health Care a human right in that country. What has Bush or any of those other dictators people like Purple n' Gold cheer for, done for anybody?

Well thats a lot of text. Lets see what you said. I think it went something like

"Well, allow me to respond to that valid point you raised Sand....OH MY GOD! Look over there, look quickly its an elephant!!!!!"

bobbyjoe

purplengold wrote:

I wouldn’t worry too much about Chavez. He’s just one more dictator in a long line of dictators in South America. He will be gone when the CIA gets around to it. They are busy with more pressing matters at the moment.

Isn't the reason the CIA have more pressing matters at the moment because they were meddling in other countries previously.
Chavez isn't doing anything that doesn't happen in most countries. But because he's coming from the left instead of pandering to the rich minority he has to be vilified as a threat. The way western media reports on him as some kind of dictator tells me more about the western media than Chavez.

democrates

RedPlanet wrote:

Venezuela on the other hand, well they don't really do anything to anybody, they don't have WMD's, they don't invade other countries or any of that carryon.

What do you think Chavez is trying to do? Improve the lot in life of ordinary Venezueleans it seems. AFter all he made universal Health Care a human right in that country. What has Bush or any of those other dictators people like Purple n' Gold cheer for, done for anybody?

It's precisely because left policies are being tried out in Venezuela on a scale like nowhere else that Chavez is geopolitically and potentially historically relevant.

Even if he's not trying to become a dictator, if he goes too far in creating a single point of failure he's handing an easy job to the CIA or his local nobility to oust him and all that work could be set in reverse, back to elitist capitalism and no credibility for alternative socio-economic proposals.

purple'n'gold

RedPlanet wrote:

Cheerleading for America's meddling in the internal affairs of other soveriegn states huh?

I’m not cheerleading for anyone, let alone Bush, who I regard along with that reprobate Cheney as dangerous lunatics. I am simply reminding people that that’s the way the world works. The USA will not allow anyone they regard as a dictator to upset the status quo in their back yard.

AbusesToilets

t almost reminds me of the illegal wiretapping of American citizens by Bush, the sacking of 9 US Attorneys for their political persuasion and the subsequent perjury by the US Attorney General over the matter.
Thing is tho, America deserves our particular scrutiny since it pursues a meglomanic foreign policy that results in war and terror.
Venezuela on the other hand, well they don't really do anything to anybody, they don't have WMD's, they don't invade other countries or any of that carryon.

What do you think Chavez is trying to do? Improve the lot in life of ordinary Venezueleans it seems. AFter all he made universal Health Care a human right in that country. What has Bush or any of those other dictators people like Purple n' Gold cheer for, done for anybody?

The difference being that in the US there are investigations into the actions of Gonzales et al and his actions and the administrations receive aquite a bit of media scrutiny.
And it's all well and grand declaring universal health care a human right but it doesn't make it any more likely to be successfully implemented. Especially if the governments pursuit of nationalization of industry and utilities scares away foreign investment.

The Corinthian

purplengold wrote:

I’m not cheerleading for anyone, let alone Bush, who I regard along with that reprobate Cheney as dangerous lunatics.

Don't bother explaining it. The "you're anti-Chavez, ergo you're pro-America" argument has been trotted out here so many times, no matter how irrational it is or how many rejections of this being the case are made, that it's pointless to repeat yourself any further.

I can only surmise that this inability to comprehend is as a result of either a deliberate misdirection in the argument or the product of the "four legs good, two legs bad" school of political theory.

bobbyjoe

AbusesToilets wrote:

The difference being that in the US there are investigations into the actions of Gonzales et al and his actions and the administrations receive aquite a bit of media scrutiny.
And it's all well and grand declaring universal health care a human right but it doesn't make it any more likely to be successfully implemented. Especially if the governments pursuit of nationalization of industry and utilities scares away foreign investment.

He's doing a lot more for health and education than any previous government there has. Why would the nationalisation of industries and utilities scare away foreign investment? All it scares away is the energy companies who have been fleecing the country anyway.

bobbyjoe

The Corinthian wrote:

Don't bother explaining it. The "you're anti-Chavez, ergo you're pro-America" argument has been trotted out here so many times, no matter how irrational it is or how many rejections of this being the case are made, that it's pointless to repeat yourself any further.

I can only surmise that this inability to comprehend is as a result of either a deliberate misdirection in the argument or the product of the "four legs good, two legs bad" school of political theory.

Similarly if someone sticks up for Chavez it doesn't mean their Stalin or want to live in North Korea.

The Corinthian

bobbyjoe wrote:

Why would the nationalisation of industries and utilities scare away foreign investment? All it scares away is the energy companies who have been fleecing the country anyway.

What does 'fleecing the country' mean? By that I mean, today there's one set of rules on what you can invest and call your own and there is no guarantee that tomorrow those rules will be the same. What defines 'fleecing the country' is concentrated in one man, who could change his mind at a whim tomorrow. And I'm not taking your word that he won't.

bobbyjoe wrote:

Similarly if someone sticks up for Chavez it doesn't mean their Stalin or want to live in North Korea.

Naturally. But if someone though sticks up for Chavez and goes on a communist/socialist/anarchist rant about the US/Capitalism/the West, then it their political views become obvious for the latter rather than the former reason.

bobbyjoe

The Corinthian wrote:

What does 'fleecing the country' mean? By that I mean, today there's one set of rules on what you can invest and call your own and there is no guarantee that tomorrow those rules will be the same. What defines 'fleecing the country' is concentrated in one man, who could change his mind at a whim tomorrow. And I'm not taking your word that he won't.

I mean foreign companies paying ridiculously small amounts of Royalties and tax for extracting oil. Now that revenue is going to Venezuela instead of foreign shareholders.
The country is still a democracy if the people don't like what Chavez is doing they can stop voting for him in all those elections and referendums he's won.

The Corinthian wrote:

Naturally. But if someone though sticks up for Chavez and goes on a communist/socialist/anarchist rant about the US/Capitalism/the West, then it their political views become obvious for the latter rather than the former reason.

Depends what you consider a communist/socialist/anarchist rant. Some people consider social welfare/health care and education communist/socialist. Also if someone is going to call Chavez a dictator or "turning into a dictator" then his actions would need to be compared to other countries. Comparing Chavez's actions to other countries one finds that many of the so called Liberal Democracies do the same things.

purple'n'gold

The Corinthian wrote:

Don't bother explaining it. The "you're anti-Chavez, ergo you're pro-America" argument has been trotted out here so many times, no matter how irrational it is or how many rejections of this being the case are made, that it's pointless to repeat yourself any further.

I can only surmise that this inability to comprehend is as a result of either a deliberate misdirection in the argument or the product of the "four legs good, two legs bad" school of political theory.

I hav'nt a clue what you are talking about.

FYI

Imagine a similar discussion going on in Venezuela under the heading 'Is Bertie (or Bush) becoming a liability?', with multiple sides arguing over what actions would or would not legitimise the overthrow of the current democratically elected Irish (or US) regime.

I wonder does this sort of concept of global political chess exist in the minds of Venezuelans, or have we been so desensitised to the idea that 'we', the 'morally superior' Westerners have a monopoly on what 'democracy' (or some similar concept of our choosing) should be. Is this simply an extension of the imperial mindset; that we have been granted the right, or the responsibility, depending on which way you look at it, to 'fix' other countries?

Funny that.

Sand

I wonder does this sort of concept of global political chess exist in the minds of Venezuelans, or have we been so desensitised to the idea that 'we', the 'morally superior' Westerners have a monopoly on what 'democracy' (or some similar concept of our choosing) should be. Is this simply an extension of the imperial mindset; that we have been granted the right, or the responsibility, depending on which way you look at it, to 'fix' other countries?

Actually FYI something that has stunned me - and I mean this truly and deeply - is how willingly certain "Westerners"/socialists sacrifice the political freedoms and rights of others.

Think about it - youre playing a game of chance with Chavez. Hes tried to sieze power through force. Hes tearing down every single check and balance on his power. Hes arming his supporters. Hes denouncing anyone and everyone who criticises him as insulting the *country itself* - thats a hell of a megalomania issue right there.

You think - hey, they didnt need those legal rights and protections anyway. Im sure Chavez is a nice guy and itll all be okay for him to have complete and total power.

I dont. I would never, ever, ever accept such a concentration of power and influence in any regime I would have to live under. And you know what - I dont think you would either. I think if Bertie implemented even a quarter of what Chavez has done youd be denouncing him as an evil dictator.

You apply different standards to Venezeula because as a "Westerner" you hold your rights to an accountable government with individual liberty as not something youd gamble with - no matter how nice Bertie might say he is. But you dont view the rights of Venezeulans as being all that important. Youll happily gamble them on the chance that Chavez is the real deal. Even if youre wrong, its Venezeulans who suffer the fallout. No loss, right?

Whose got the superiority complex again?

FYI

It is you Sand that is delusional.

How are we sacrificing the freedoms of others exactly?

To even consider the idea 'we' are playing a game of chance with Chavez is absurd. Completely and entirely devoid of any logic. We are not playing a game of chance with Chavez, the Venezuelan people, who have elected him 9 times!!! are playing this game of chance. And for the poor people of Venezuela this game of chance is finally, after years of corrupt regimes, offering them a real future.

No of course Chavez is not perfect, but it is an imperfection borne out of hundreds of years of 'Western' meddling, 'Western' plundering and 'Western' slavery. To avoid putting Latin America's situation in it's historical context is simply to further extend the crimes treated to them since their 'discovery'. A context made all the more complicated by the political situation Venezuela finds itself in, threatened by the most powerful country in the world and demonised by the rest of the 'superior West'.

You won't even address the idea that Venezuelans might be sitting some where in Caracas discussing whether the Irish people 'deserve' regime change. Why? Because it is too, absurd.

The Corinthian

bobbyjoe wrote:

I mean foreign companies paying ridiculously small amounts of Royalties and tax for extracting oil. Now that revenue is going to Venezuela instead of foreign shareholders.

Do you have facts to back that up please?

The country is still a democracy if the people don't like what Chavez is doing they can stop voting for him in all those elections and referendums he's won.

You're kind of missing the point of what happens when you erode and undermine a democracy. If you allow any party or individual to do so, eventually the will always win every election and referendum.

Depends what you consider a communist/socialist/anarchist rant. Some people consider social welfare/health care and education communist/socialist.

I note you neglected to read the latter part of what I said: "a communist/socialist/anarchist rant about the US/Capitalism/the West". That should answer your question.

Also if someone is going to call Chavez a dictator or "turning into a dictator" then his actions would need to be compared to other countries. Comparing Chavez's actions to other countries one finds that many of the so called Liberal Democracies do the same things.

Other countries have been repeatedly compared.

purplengold wrote:

I hav'nt a clue what you are talking about.

There's a surprise.

RedPlanet

but Sands, you do tolerate real dictatorships.
We all do.
We buy their petrol, it powers our entire economy.
We heat our homes with their oil.

Chavez is not a dictator, dictators don't have elections.
Most dictators don't pursue policies that allievate poverty either.

Admit it Sands, the real thing you find wrong with Chavez is that he comes from the political Left.

If you were an adherent to the democratic values you advocate, then you'd be here shouting more loudly about Musharraf and Mugabe.
Chavez is like a espiring dictator-lite.

bobbyjoe

The Corinthian wrote:

Do you have facts to back that up please?

Before 2001 the royalty on light and heavy crude was 16.7% and extra-heavy crude 1%. In November 2001 light was raised to 30% and heavy to 16.6%. Chavez was promptly kidnapped in a coup organised by business leaders.
America of course recognised the coup leaders despite their fascist policies.

The Corinthian wrote:

You're kind of missing the point of what happens when you erode and undermine a democracy. If you allow any party or individual to do so, eventually the will always win every election and referendum.

How is he eroding democracy? He ban elections or something? Putting supporters on the supreme court, doesn't every government do that?
Suppose he closed down a tv station? He actually didn't and the station would not have survived in any other country in fact they got off more lightly than they would have practically anywhere else. You reckon the Venezuelan people are too stupid to elect their own leaders? Venezuelan elections are cleaner than American ones and allow outside observers.

The Corinthian wrote:

I note you neglected to read the latter part of what I said: "a communist/socialist/anarchist rant about the US/Capitalism/the West". That should answer your question.

If your saying that packing the supreme court with supporters it is a sign of becoming a dictator then its relevant to point out that the US does the same thing. If not renewing a license for a tv station is dictatorial then its relevant to point out that the US bombed a tv station. If rule by decree is dictatorial its relevant to point out that Bush does pretty much the same thing. South America has been ravished by unabated capitalism. look at Argentina and Bolivia. No wonder its turning towards the left.

The Corinthian

bobbyjoe wrote:

Before 2001 the royalty on light and heavy crude was 16.7% and extra-heavy crude 1%. In November 2001 light was raised to 30% and heavy to 16.6%. Chavez was promptly kidnapped in a coup organised by business leaders.
America of course recognised the coup leaders despite their fascist policies.

I see you don’t understand what a fact is. Firstly, you need to point out how the previous percentages were unfair. Looking at it 16.7% seems more than fair considering that it’s the petroleum company that is taking the risk, putting in the infrastructure and paying the salaries. Of course 1% could also be quite low. Realistically you would need to compare such percentages against other oil producing countries, in particular those in the developed World and the revenues generated by each type of oil.

Valid sources for your figures would also help your case if you’re trying to discuss facts, BTW.

Secondly, you may an unsubstantiated allegation with regard to the increase in oil prices and the attempted coup. That he was also threatening land ownership at the time might indicate that it was land owners rather than oil producers that were behind it. Or maybe both were in it together. Of course, we don’t know which because all you’ve given us is a claim with no facts behind it.

How is he eroding democracy? He ban elections or something? Putting supporters on the supreme court, doesn't every government do that?
Suppose he closed down a tv station? He actually didn't and the station would not have survived in any other country in fact they got off more lightly than they would have practically anywhere else. You reckon the Venezuelan people are too stupid to elect their own leaders? Venezuelan elections are cleaner than American ones and allow outside observers.

Eroding democracy is when you erode the institutions that diffuse, and thus maintain accountability, within democracy. Destroying the division between the political and legal branches of government is eroding democracy (every government puts their supporters in the Supreme Court, but they don’t create new seats so that they can pack it). Bypassing debate so you can rule be decree is eroding democracy. Effectively silencing media outlets that criticize you is eroding democracy (and reducing it’s effective viewership by taking it out of the reach of your average citizen from 33% to around 6% is exactly that).

FYI

The Corinthian wrote:

Of course 1% could also be quite low.

This is what you are dealing with!

Venezuela and oil risk? It's a modern day gold rush.

The Corinthian wrote:

(and reducing it’s effective viewership by taking it out of the reach of your average citizen from 33% to around 6% is exactly that).

Still fudging the figures too.

democrates

FYI wrote:

No of course Chavez is not perfect, but it is an imperfection borne out of hundreds of years of 'Western' meddling, 'Western' plundering and 'Western' slavery. To avoid putting Latin America's situation in it's historical context is simply to further extend the crimes treated to them since their 'discovery'. A context made all the more complicated by the political situation Venezuela finds itself in, threatened by the most powerful country in the world and demonised by the rest of the 'superior West'.

While that's fair enough, it doesn't amount to a case for excessive power concentration.

Lenin took the Marxist line that it would be necessary for a short while to have central command so that Russia could be repaired. He outlawed private enterprise causing a famine (during which he signed orders for the red army to shoot farm or food production workers who weren't working hard enough).

He copped on and re-introduced private enterprise as part of the New Economic Program, things began to improve, but he died, Stalin took over, repealed the NEP and we'll never know what might have happened if real socialism were attempted there.

Venezuala is grand central for socialism, nowhere else is it being attempted to this degree. Chavez could easily F it up with this single point of failure, he's giving ammunition to the right every time he makes it about himself rather than the work, every time he takes extra powers for himself instead of empowering Venezuelan democracy. If he's so popular why does he find democracy so inconvenient?

FYI

democrates wrote:

If he's so popular why does he find democracy so inconvenient?

Funny then that he has been elected 9 times, and in much less contentious circumstances than those 'democrats' in Washington.

democrates

FYI wrote:

Funny then that he has been elected 9 times, and in much less contentious circumstances than those 'democrats' in Washington.

That' the whole point, with so much support why did he transfer powers to himself from parliament?

Comparing with Bush is interesting but really a sidetrack, Bush and his cohorts are borderline evil and ruining the USA and the world in their pillaging, that's a given, the test for Chavez is how well he does at implementing social democracy.

There is no example to compare with as it's never been done before, that's what I want to see either proved or disproved as an alternative. Chavez is just one man, it's how the system works for the people that's important. Yes there are social improvements, but in parallel there's a 'great powerful leader' position emerging step by step, that's not my idea of the road to social democracy.

Chavez talks of 21st Century Socialism, why is that not 21st Century Social Democracy? Is the view that electing an autocrat every few years is ok so long as there's bread on the table? Any improvement of the peoples lot is welcome, but it's all at permanent risk with that single point of failure.

FYI

democrates wrote:

That' the whole point, with so much support why did he transfer powers to himself from parliament?

Venezuelans appear much more politically active than the majority in Western democracies. It is unfair to them to characterise the political direction of the country as one that is predetermined by one solitary figure.

You might find this article interesting:

A View from the Barrios
Hugo Chávez as an Expression of Urban Popular Movements
by Sujatha Fernandes
April 07, 2007

The radical trajectory of president Hugo Chávez in Venezuela has been a highly controversial topic among Latin Americanists, democratization experts, policy makers, and activists. Some lament what they see as Chávez’s disregard for the rule of law and the breakdown of the party system. They compare him to other neopopulist leaders who bypassed traditional institutions and created direct linkages with the masses. Others defend his greater concern with addressing historic problems of poverty and entrenched inequalities than maintaining the order of traditional institutions.

Following the debt crisis of the 1980s, and subsequent waves of privatization and neoliberal restructuring in Venezuela, poverty increased dramatically. The percentage of the population living below the poverty line went from 36 percent in 1984 to 66 percent in 1995. Given these stark disparities, a radical approach like that of Chávez could be justified to increase social spending and redistribute wealth.

Yet Chávez’s supporters, like his detractors, seem to place a high degree of agency in the hands of Chávez himself as the sole figure responsible for crafting policy, designing programs, and providing orientation to an otherwise incoherent mass. Neither side addresses the role of popular social sectors in shaping the agenda of the Venezuelan Revolution. My own defense of Chávez comes not only from an endorsement of his pro-poor policies and programs, but from my belief that he represents a certain territory fought for and won by popular consciousness.

During the nine months that I lived in a popular barrio of Caracas while carrying out field research between 2004 and 2007, I witnessed the flourishing of grassroots social movements, from community radio collectives to Afro-Venezuelan cofradías organizing local fiestas, health committees, and mural collectives. While commentators lumped together these diverse groupings as “Chavistas,” or the “Chavista movement,” many community organizations and popular leaders in the barrios did not identify as Chavistas. Rather, they have alternative sources of identity that come from their barrio or parish (Barrio Sucre, Barrio Marín, 23 de Enero, San Agustin, Petare), and which form the basis of alternative social and community networks (Coordinadora Simón Bolívar, Cayapo, Radio Negro Primero, Ciudadela de Catia).

These popular movements claim distinct genealogies that predate Chávez, including the clandestine movements against the 1950s military regime, the post-transition era of guerrilla struggle in the 1960s, movements against urban displacement and hunger strikes led by worker priests in the 1970s, and cultural activism and urban committees of the 1980s and 1990s. At the same time, urban movements have participated in shifting clientilist relationships with the state, fostered by three decades of the redistributive welfare model, that was refashioned under Chávez. The approach of contemporary urban sectors towards the government contains these elements of autonomy as grounded in histories of local struggle and mutual dependency that has evolved over time.

The relationship between society and the state is reciprocal: just as the strong figure of Chávez has given impetus and unity to popular organizing, so the creative movements fashioned in the barrios help determine the form and content of official politics. To see Chávez as an independent figure pontificating from above, or popular movements as originating in autonomous spaces from below would be to deny the interdependencies that have made possible Chávez’s emergence and sustained access to power. At the same time, popular sectors have realized the need to chart an independent trajectory from the Chávez government, or “oficialismo,” as it is referred to, in order to defend the interests of their community and sustain their projects.

In my research on Venezuela and earlier on Cuba, I have sought to develop a framework for thinking about citizen-state interaction in contemporary societies, particularly as social movements across Latin America began to lay claims to state power. As compared to social movements that emerged in the 1990s such as the Zapatistas, who have defined their opposition to a repressive state apparatus in Mexico, social movements flourishing under moderate and radical leftist governments in the new millennium encounter a new state-society dynamic. I propose that we look at the interconnections, alliances, and points of collaboration between critical movements and the state.

At the same time, I note that critical social movements seek to build spaces of autonomy for themselves, especially in contexts of developing social revolutions. During earlier periods of the Cuban revolution, or the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua, the threat or reality of U.S intervention, combined with a more Leninist model of the vanguard party, reduced the autonomy available to grass roots movements. By contrast, social movements in contemporary Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Bolivia have managed to negotiate greater independence in relation to the state. They engage in decision-making in unaffiliated local popular assemblies based in the neighborhood, they carry out protests to register their disapproval of certain policy tactics, and they have their own forms of popular media produced by the community and for the community.

Community groups in the barrios have worked closely with Chávez since the beginning, but the movement for independent organization became most apparent in 2004 during the recall referendum. In November 2003, following a series of efforts by the opposition to oust Chávez from power, including a two-month general strike and a coup attempt, the opposition collected signatures as required by the 1999 constitution for a referendum to determine whether Chávez should be recalled from office. The required amount of signatures for a recall referendum was 20 percent of the population or 2.4 million people. The opposition presented 3 million signatures, but after a lengthy review, the Consejo Nacional Electoral (CNE) ruled that only 1.9 million of these signatures were valid. The opposition was given 5 days in May to validate those signatures that had been excluded, to see if they could come up with the required signatures. Chávez appointed a body of militants from his party, the Movimiento Quinta Republica, in a committee called Comando Ayacucho, in order to oversee the recall signature petition.

During these days, I heard about numerous cases of fraud from friends and people in the barrios. They said that the opposition had illegally used names of people who were dead or did not support the recall referendum, and in the case of the latter, some people went to dispute the use of their name. But for the most part the Comando Ayacucho failed to mobilize people from the barrios to contest cases of fraud, and they made frequent announcements saying that the opposition would not reach the target of 2.4 million signatures. So when the CNE actually announced in early June that the opposition did reach their target and the referendum would be scheduled for August 2004, people in the barrios felt shocked and betrayed by the Comando Ayacucho. On the morning of June 3, I was carrying out interviews in the parish of 23 de Enero. Some activists wondered if perhaps Chávez had brokered a deal with the opposition. Others said that the Comando Ayacucho was simply incompetent. In a series of local assemblies in La Vega, 23 de Enero, and other barrios, community leaders emphasized the need for self-organization, saying that barrio residents could not rely on the government and officially appointed committees to organize “on their behalf.”

In the lead up to the referendum, local networks and activists were key in organizing popular sectors in support of the “No” campaign to keep Chávez in office. Chávez replaced the Comando Ayacucho with the Comando Maisanta, and a vertically-organized structure of local units known as Unidades de Batallas Electorales (UBEs). Community groups cooperated with the UBEs and at times even incorporated into them, but for the most part these were tactical and temporary groupings to win the referendum. The driving force behind the “No” campaign came from organized community activists, who launched an aggressive campaign to register and mobilize voters to vote in the referendum. Community organizers set up Voter Registration Centers in all the parishes, and these were staffed around the clock by teams of local activists. Barrio-based radio and television stations and newspapers devoted space to explaining the importance of the referendum and encouraging people to vote for Chávez. As the day of the referendum grew closer, several radio stations located centrally, such as Radio Negro Primero, became News Centers, which gathered information and passed it on to other radio stations. Rather than Chávez’s charisma, his subsidized social programs, or the ineptitude of the opposition, the decisive factor in Chávez’s ultimate victory was the mobilizing role played by local barrio organizations.

Following Chávez’s success in the August 2004 referendum, social movements sought to assert themselves more openly. Urban activists have taken the initiative to organize street protests in the capital against aspects of government policy in solidarity with rural and indigenous groups. In March 2005 and January 2006, activists from the National Association of Free, Alternative, and Community Media (ANMCLA) came together with indigenous groups to protest the Chávez government’s plan to increase the extraction of coal in the oil-rich state of Zulia. The protesters pointed out that the plans would increase water contamination and health risks for the mostly indigenous population of the region, dependent on scarce water supplies. The protesters took on the language and symbols of the Chávez government itself to challenge its plans for coal mining. On their “No to Coal” placards, protesters utilized the “No” symbol of the pro-Chávez campaigners during the recall referendum, as a way of signaling the ways they have supported Chávez, who must now listen to their concerns. The signs referred to Chávez as “compañero,” but at the same time, the protesters were highly critical of a model of development that exploits scarce natural resources.

Urban social movements have long been engaged in struggles against environmental contamination, halting harmful industrial projects such the cement factory in La Vega in 1981, and during the coal protests in 2005 – 2006, urban activists expressed their solidarity with indigenous groups. As a result of the protests, the Chávez administration ordered commissions that confirmed the contaminating impact of the mining and they postponed plans to increase coal mining to 30,000 tons, although they did not meet protester’s demands to reduce it to zero.

An engagement with the experiences of popular classes in the Chávez era reveals a reality that differs from dominant assessments being made outside of the country. The U.S. State Department and some academics have attempted to demonize the Chávez government, labeling it an authoritarian regime and a security risk to the region. Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld compared Chávez to Adolf Hitler, referring to the Chávez government as an elected dictatorship. Yet the opposition in Venezuela retains an extraordinary degree of monopoly over the mass media, and all sectors have the rights to protest in the streets and to criticize the government.

Moreover, the active organization and involvement of formerly disenfranchized and marginalized sectors of the society makes contemporary Venezuela more participatory and inclusive than countries often touted as successful democracies. It is an ongoing, sometimes contested, and always negotiated synergy between state and society that lies at the base of the historic presidency of Hugo Chávez.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12523

democrates

Interesting article. In an earlier post I recognized the local democracy there, and there's no doubt that the grassroots can organise to keep Chavez in power versus the alternatives.

But when the choice comes down to Chavez or elitist capitalism, there's no contest. Hugo wants to unite the parties that support him now, that'll make one leader, and diminish the ease at which challengers on the left can gain a profile and challenge for the job. It's Hugo who appears on tv every Sunday too. Leadership and charisma are great but concentrated power and personality cult are another beast.

The article takes a fuzzy stretch to equate Chavez responding to some street protests with 'involvement' or 'participation'. The 'state' is referred to as though it were a seperate entity to the people with it's own agenda, in fact it's job is to be the right arm of all of the people, instead of street protests praying the great leader will listen there should have been a referendum triggered by x signatures.

The author seems to accept this half-baked situation of local direct democracy but national representative democracy. He also measures Venezuela against other countries instead of against what's possible.

The Corinthian

FYI wrote:

This is what you are dealing with!

What is it we're dealing with though? We're given a couple of percentages without any sources, comparisons with other royalty deals or contextual information (what is the breakdown of the oil pumped) and we're supposed to automatically assume that it's exploitation?

As I said, the 1% could be, while the 17% certainly does not look like it, but without something to back it's all just conversation.

Venezuela and oil risk? It's a modern day gold rush.

Seriously, what the fsck do you know about the oil business? To begin with, there are risks involved when exploring for oil where you may pump millions into a potential exploratory find only to find it's either unsuitable or too small to be viable. I'm actually astounded about how little some people seem to know about commerce or economics sometimes.

Hell, what better example of a business risk than having to factor in that the country in question is just going to rip up all their agreements with you.

Still fudging the figures too.

No, as you'll note from my previous post that is exactly the situation.

You might find this article interesting:

Do you ever read any source that isn't radically left wing?

Sand

How are we sacrificing the freedoms of others exactly?

I never said "we". I dont share your cheerleading for the steady concentration of personal power by Chavez and the elimination of any check or balance to his power.

To avoid putting Latin America's situation in it's historical context is simply to further extend the crimes treated to them since their 'discovery'.

I am taking Chavez completly in context - in the context of every other populist leader who destroyed limits on his power under the pretext of bringing some utopia. Do you honestly think Chavez was the first to promise to better the situation of the poor and instead use their support to enslave them? Its a story thousands of years old.

But given your chit-chat about context I take it your admitting youd never accept Bertie introducing laws to allow him to appoint or fire judges on whim. But then, youre a westerner - westerners deserve accountable and liberal governments. Venezeulans though - well they dont, do they? Their rights can be removed if it suits your idealogy.

Thats the true arrogance of the support for concentration of power - the system of checks and balances protects *everyone*, regardless of their political agenda. It means there is a limit on even the most popular leaders power, that even the minority still have a stake and a say in their country - it stops democracy becoming 51% of the electorate persecuting the other 49%.

but Sands, you do tolerate real dictatorships.
We all do.
We buy their petrol, it powers our entire economy.
We heat our homes with their oil.

Chavez is not a dictator, dictators don't have elections.
Most dictators don't pursue policies that allievate poverty either.

Admit it Sands, the real thing you find wrong with Chavez is that he comes from the political Left.

If you were an adherent to the democratic values you advocate, then you'd be here shouting more loudly about Musharraf and Mugabe.
Chavez is like a espiring dictator-lite.

Ah Red, youre back with another useful contribution in the art of thread derailing. I've already gone on record regarding Musharraf. See - now you try. Ive zero idealogical loyalty to Musharraf. Hes a dictator, and hopefully will be replaced by a liberal democratic government shortly. Ill note there is still an independant judiciary in Pakistan, not in Venezeula though.Doesnt redeem Musharraf of course, but what does it say about Chavez when a dictatorship has a better system of checks and balances than his utopia?

Unfortunately, socialists will cheerlead for dictator after dictator - from a distance of course - so long as theyre leftist dictators. Afterall, their actions have to be seen in context, dont they?

As for Mugabe....well I remember he used to be a great liberator, a hero of the people, and well - his actions had to be understood *in the context* of Zimbabwe.

Didnt really turn out so well did it?

As for dictators not having elections? FFS :rolleyes:

FYI

The Corinthian wrote:

Seriously, what the fsck do you know about the oil business? To begin with, there are risks involved when exploring for oil where you may pump millions into a potential exploratory find only to find it's either unsuitable or too small to be viable. I'm actually astounded about how little some people seem to know about commerce or economics sometimes.

Well we really all should be bowing down to the all knowing Corinthian in this instance, I'm truly sorry. However the extent of your extensive knowledge ranges from: Oil - risky business (also a film staring Tom Cruise if I'm not mistaken) to emmmm, well that's it, but nevertheless it's pretty intriguing stuff.

Given your disdain for others lack of knowledge I can only assume that you understand the basic principles of risk as they exist within the capitalist system. Royal Dutch Shell make £1.5m an hour, so I'm assuming they understand the concept.

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2134967,00.html

The reality is, as you'll no doubt also know there are some ventures that are more risky than others, yet we have off the West of Ireland an oil company 'risking' everything to find a bit of gas. Well, that's not actually quite true really is it, the oil companies presently competing over Ireland's gas reserves knew the strategic potential in the fields for some time, but it was a) not economically viable to drill and b) at the end of a long list of places with more potential. Find out more here:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2001/0705/primetime.html

Oh and then there's Tony O'Reilly and his 'find', bloody hell he paid what? a couple of hundred grand for what might be worth billions!!!

The situation in Venezuela is both more clear cut and more complex. The potential much greater, but the risk also much greater.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1000

Why? you ask. Well in order to rape a country of it's natural resources you must have a contract in place that is binding (or some military junta willing to impose the 'contract'), now if you make deals with corrupt regimes there is a likelihood someone might want to overthrow them someday and renege on your deal. Yadda yadda yadda, you obviously know all this...

The Corinthian wrote:

No, as you'll note from my previous post that is exactly the situation.

And directly after that I pointed out the flaw in your figure manipulation.

The Corinthian wrote:

Do you ever read any source that isn't radically left wing?

Do you ever write anything remotely interesting?