Chavez once again porves he's a tin pot dictator in the making.

[chequita guevara]

parrots

[techumseh]

Chegitz has it right. The "strike" was management driven. It was not over wages and working conditions, but rather was a political action, attempting to stop the use of oil profits to fund health, education and housing programs for the poor, and ultimately to drive Chavez out of his elected office. It was supported by the Venezuelan elite and, unofficially, by everyone's favorite superpower. And Oerdin.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It was a lockout, not a strike. That's when the managers stop production, not the workers.

a lockout is when managers stop production in a labor dispute, which this was not. When middle managers stop production in dispute, not with blue collar labor, but with senior management, thats usually called a strike. In this case all the managers and professionals were in a dispute with the most senior management.

Call it what you will.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yes, Oerdin already quoted that and those numbers are already to be shown to be BS. Thank you for playing.

I missed that. I saw instead a link to a very badly laid out website on numerous oil issues, which had a graph citing numerous sources, and not quite clear on which number came from which source.

After that I didnt bother with your other sources.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
He's not a dictator yet. Though if Western reports are correct, and I have little reason to believe they are, he soon will be.

Then again, my local papers are somewhat more hysterical about Latin American socialists than in the rest of the country.

My wife's personal experience with the Venezuelan elite has left her very bitter towards them. She used to work at Bloomingdale's and Sax 5th Ave, and she said no other group of people treated her as if she was a servant so much as rich Venezuelans.

Rich Venezuelans very much have a sense of class hierarchy. They hate Chavez not because he may be a dictator. After all, previous dictators weren't unpopular. They hate him because he is common and works for the lower classes of Venezuela.

First, Venezuala hadnt had a dictator since 1958, when political and social conditions throughout the world were different. Second, most Venezualans alive today werent even alive then. Third, its ultimately not relevant. Plenty of folks who hated, say Lenin had no trouble with the Tsar. Plenty who hated Hitler had no problems with Stalin. Human pursuit of self interest is normal. It does not change the question of whether A. Chavez IS a dictator or attempting to become one or B. Whether his path, is, objectively, the best one for the poor and middle class people of Venezuala.

[Sava]

Originally posted by joncha
Also, he's got a woo parrot.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Your question is designed to provoke discussion, right?

Sure. Isn't that what the board is for?

I see that everyone just assumes the US would *****-slap Chavez if he tries anything militarily anywhere. I had assumed much the same but was curious if anyone thought that such an action would be ignored since Guyana is rather insignificant.

[Barnabas]

The other day I heard a discussion on radio, (in spanish) it mentioned chavez venezuela´s being a new form of government

"dictadura plebiscitada"

Which means a dictatorship, but every 4 years there is a referendum to let people vote and decide if they want to continue the dictatorship or end it

Chavez has always had popular support from 58% to 65% all the years he has ruled till now

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


50% of 1999's production would be 1.35 m/bpd. Presumably you know how to do math.

Read again. It says the state oil company's production has declined by 50% not that the nation's entire production declined by 50%. Are you deliberately misunderstanding this?

The same organization which has so mismanaged its oil fields is now getting total control of all oil fields in the country. That simply cannot be good for production.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Yes, Oerdin already quoted that and those numbers are already to be shown to be BS. Thank you for playing.

Sorry man but you must really be misunderstanding what it is saying.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Do you know why they are being replaced? Because they deliberately sabotaged production in order to try and force Chavez out of office. Do you remember the 2003 lockout? If you were the CEO of a corporation and your middle managers and engineers were sabotaging the company solely to get rid of you, would you keep them and let them destroy the company or fire them and replace them with less qualified but more loyal people?

In the last thread about Chavez I posted an article which quoted not people who were fired in 2003 but who were still working there in 2006. The political replacements were intensifying not abating. Currently everyone has to put posters and pictures at their work stations supportive of Chavez or risk being thought to have suspect loyalty and thus fired. This is an ongoing process which goes way beyond the 2003 strike.

BTW since when do commies abandon striking workers? The strikers' main goal wasn't to drive Chavez out of office, though I'm sure many wouldn't have cried if that had happened, but instead was to keep the state oil company professionalized. They were objecting to Chavez ordering political appointees taking over all the key locations and ignoring the trained scientists and engineers. Those people had kept the state oil company running for decades, it was their livelihood, and they were protesting what they saw as a threat to the viability of their livelihood.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It was a lockout, not a strike. That's when the managers stop production, not the workers.

Please show that this is true. My rememberance was that it was a nationwide strike to protest several Chavez policies especially price controls which had been set so low that it was unprofitable for companies to process basic commodities like coffee. You could hardly find any ground coffee at all in the country dispite the fact that Venezuela was a major coffee growing country.

Many state workers joined the strike in sympathy with the other strikers.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
The other day I heard a discussion on radio, (in spanish) it mentioned chavez venezuela´s being a new form of government

"dictadura plebiscitada"

Which means a dictatorship, but every 4 years there is a referendum to let people vote and decide if they want to continue the dictatorship or end it

Chavez has always had popular support from 58% to 65% all the years he has ruled till now

I could see that as a valid definition of Chevaz's rule. Given the amount of gerrymandering Chavez has done, the closing of opposition media outlets, the constent changing of the constitution to centralize ever more power on Chavez's hands, and the question of how true the vote numbers are I'd classify him as a pseudo-dictator like Egypt's Mubarrack. Mubarrack also goes through the motions of elections but bans the opposition from appearing on TV or radio, makes sure there aren't any ballot boxes in areas which support the opposition, then announces he overwelmingly won yet another term as president. Zimbabwe/Rhodisia is another example. The dictator there was democraticly voted in but once there he became more and more autocratic until in his lust for power he had destroyed what had been one of the best run economic successes in Africa. Chavez will do the same; his record pretty much proves it.

[Barnabas]

Well, maybe in the future, but in the last election (which are recent) the opposition participated, and said the result was real, the elections fair.

He has also been voted multiple times, if I recall correctly twice for president, and once the referendum for his constitution reform, and the three times he won.

If in the future the elections become like the ones in egypt, he will become just a plain, typical dictator, like Castro.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Well, maybe in the future, but in the last election (which are recent) the opposition participated, and said the result was real, the elections fair.

The vote itself was fair. There were concerns about govt restrictions on the press, esp the broadcast media, and pressure on govt workers (including in the oil industry) to support Chavez.

Not Castro, or even Mubarak, yet. Somewhere between Mayor Daileys (the elder) Chicago, and Putins Russia I think. Though with plenty of signs he intends to go past Putin when he has the chance.