HA HA! Take that Chavez!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I agree with Kid. Venezuala should have never made any deal with the oil companies in the first place, then the citizens of Venezuala would still have all their oil.

I am sure when they paddle bare foot over their fields they would be content knowing their precious oil is safe and sound, unmolested by pumps and well and pipelines from nasty imperialists. I am sure it would be doing them all sorts of good down there.

I didn't say they shouldn't have made any deals. Everything seems to be working out well in Venezuela. I've got no complaints.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Do you understand what the words empty and threat mean when put together?

That's why I said they want everything, not just the oil.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Agathon


Did I include all military coups in my statement? No I did not. Try again, Len.

Just pointing out that the hero of the people has a failed coup on his record. It was mostly in jest.

Are you denying that pre-Chavez the Venezuelan oil industry was set up to enrich a small minority of the population, whilst giving the majority of citizens no benefit at all. Do you deny that the "La Apertura" programs were privatization programs engineered by the same people with much the same aims? cf. Bolivia.

If so, I think you must be one of the very few people who deny that.

No I'm not denying it - I'm saying I'm not assuming it. I don't know the terms of the deal(s), and I don't know how said deal(s) stack up against others elsewhere in the world (specifically, up against deals negotiated with democratic governments).

So far, the only one presenting any sort of backup information in this thread has been Flubber. Your posts advertise knowledge about how these deals were terrible. Ok, educate me. I'm willing to learn.

Not at all. Money made through unethical actions and exploitation of tyrannical governments is somehow different, don't you think?

Yes.

Why are we supposed to feel sorry for Exxon again? I forgot where Chavez practices were killing people. Somehow that must have slipped my mind.

I don't feel sorry for Exxon, and haven't argued that anyone should. This isn't emotional for me.

Don't you mean that it is sociopathic behaviour.

Label it as you please. They're fighting over the punitive damages award, IIRC. AFAIK, they paid the damages assessed for the actual spill. To the extent said damages were set too low, that's a mistake made by the judge/jury.

Hmm... maybe the best way to deal with such a case in the future is to set cleanup criteria and simply order the company at fault to clean the area up to meet the criteria (within a certain timeframe), whatever the cost. Since cleanup costs *always* go up once you start on a project, the court then avoids handing out a damages award that is ultimately too low. The risk for increased costs is transferred to the at-fault entity (Exxon, in this case). I like it

-Arrian

[Arrian]

General question for Agathon and Che:

Setting aside global communism for a moment, how *should* one do business overseas, given that the majority of the world is governed by undemocratic regimes?

The possible answers as I see them:

1) Don't.
2) Do business, but nothing that doesn't provide a quick return on investment (thus, if 10 years down the road there is a coup + nationalization, you're already in the black).
3) Do business, assume that your investment will be nationalized at some point in the future, and build that into your deal with the corrupt/evil/etc autocrats.
4) Do business and bend over backwards to provide benifits to the locals. Hope/pray that if a revolution comes, your investment will be spared nationalization.

1 is economic suicide. 2 and 3 make sense to me. 4 gives me warm fuzzies, but seems unrealistic.

-Arrian

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Doesn't he find it emberassing to make the repeatedly make the same threat and not carry it out? One might come to the conclusion that he's afraid to.

Its an empty threat. If Venezuela actually refused to sell to the US, there might be a very short term supply hiccup as people scrambled around to re-route a bit of oil. But the bottom line that as large as Venezuelan production is, its not large enough to be a real problem.

So venezuela can sell ALL their oil to India and China or something and then there would just be tankers of Saudi crude rerouted from INdia China to the States. Given the geography all that would really happen would be an increase in tanker traffic.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I didn't say they shouldn't have made any deals. Everything seems to be working out well in Venezuela. I've got no complaints.

Short term they will do well by taking producing assets at a time when oil prices are very high. But will they maintain their production rates? Will they be able to access the latest techniques?

[Flubber]

found this article here

http://www.marxist.com/chavez-measures-capitalism-venezuela090107.htm

I just wondered what the APOLYTON communists make of it. It seems pretty normal communist talk to me4 but I wondered ifhere was anything with which our resident communits would disagree or wish to elaborate.

Chavez announces radical measures against capitalism in Venezuela
By Fred Weston
Tuesday, 09 January 2007
President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela during the swearing in ceremony of his new cabinet gave a fiery speech in which he announced a series of radical measures. If carried out they would be a serious blow against the power of the oligarchy and imperialism in Venezuela. The proposals he made reflect the sharp turn to the left in the country as a whole. They reflect the real mood of the masses and their desire for radical change and an end to capitalism in the country.

In December he won a massive victory, the biggest ever since the Bolivarian Revolution began. The balance of forces is now weighted very heavily in favour of the Venezuelan masses. Chavez has absolute control of parliament and massive support among the population. The conditions exist for snuffing out capitalism once and for all.

The list of measures announced by Chavez would mean striking at the very heart of Venezuelan capitalism. It is not by chance that an article that appeared in the Washington Post yesterday, commenting on his speech, appears under the title "Chavez accelerates Venezuela's socialist revolution". The title encapsulates very well what is happening in Venezuela. The serious bourgeois analysts understand what the Marxists understand. Capitalism could be eradicated in Venezuela quite easily.

In his speech Chavez emphasised that Venezuela has entered a new phase, which he defined as the "National Simon Bolivar Project of 2007-2021", which would aim to build "Bolivarian Socialism". Tomorrow, Chavez will speak again at his own swearing-in ceremony, where he says he will outline in more detail what this project will consist of, but already he has pointed to five main points, five "motors" of the revolution: a special "enabling" law, further constitutional reform, popular education, reconstruction of the organs of state power, and explosion of communal power.

The enabling law is the main plank of his proposals. It would allow Chavez, over the coming year, to push through a series of decrees. He specifically pointed out that a central part of the law would include the nationalisation of key industries that had been privatised by past governments, such as the Venezuelan telecommunications company CANTV (privatised in 1991) and the electricity industry. Earlier this year he had already threatened to nationalise CANTV if it did not adjust its pension payments to come in line with the minimum wage.

He was very clear about what needs to be done. He said, "All of that which was privatised, let it be nationalised", which received a big applause. He added that the aim was to establish "social ownership over the strategic sectors of the means of production."

He also plans to increase state control over the oil industry. At present there are four Orinoco Oil Belt projects that the state runs as joint ventures with the US companies Exxon Mobil, Conoco, and Chevron, France's Total, Britain's BP, and Norway's Statoil, but the state has a minority share in these. Now Chavez proposes taking a majority share, thus strengthening the state's control over these important projects which account for 18% of the country's oil production.

He announced that the text of the law is ready and would soon go to the National Assembly.

He also proposed new constitutional reforms. He did not specify what kind of reforms he is proposing but in his speech he said he would base himself on the "popular power, the true combustible", referring to the need to base the revolution on the grassroots, the people that have consistently supported the revolution. He added that, "We're moving toward a socialist republic of Venezuela, and that requires a deep reform of our national constitution... We're heading toward socialism, and nothing and no one can prevent it."

One specific reform he did mention was that of establishing greater control over the Central Bank. The Bank is presently independent. Chavez wants to remove this. As he pointed out, this independence makes it an instrument of "neo-liberalism". This is a correct decision. The central bank directors have systematically put up opposition to Chavez's policy of using state funds to alleviate poverty and carry out genuine reforms. They have used the independence of the bank to defend the interests of the unelected oligarchy that wishes to maintain its control over the fundamental levers of the economy.

Other measures he outlined included that of setting up a "Bolivarian popular education." He explained that this would "deepen the new values and demolish the old values of individualism, capitalism, of egotism."

He stressed the need to give a greater say in running things to the poorer areas of the country, clearly indicating the need to shift power to the masses that support the revolution. He said that what needed to be done is to "dismantle the bourgeois state" because all states "were born to prevent revolutions." This is to be done by giving more power to the newly set up Communal Councils and by developing them from the bottom up with the aim of creating a new state based on these Communal Councils.

Before his speech he had already taken a firm decision not to renew the broadcast concession to the RCTV, a TV Company that has consistently supported all the undemocratic manoeuvres to remove Chavez. It supported the 2002 coup and the sabotage of the oil industry. Chavez has been attacked for this by the Opposition and imperialism. They want the freedom to manoeuvre and plot against the democratically elected government of Venezuela. Imagine if in the USA a private TV channel supported a coup attempt to remove Bush. How would the Republicans react? That TV station would not survive one day longer.

Another measure that had already been announced, and that can be seen in the same light as the ones announced yesterday, is the removal of Vice-president Jose Vicente Rangel and his replacement by Jorge Rodriguez. Rangel had come to be seen as a representative of the most moderate elements within the Bolivarian leadership and he specifically had opposed the expropriation of the Caracas golf courses announced by the mayor Barreto at the end of August last year. At that time Rangel said the government was fully for the respect of private property.

Marxists cannot but give full-hearted supported to the measures announced by Chavez. We have consistently argued that the Venezuelan revolution cannot stop halfway. Either it moves forward to the expropriation of the commanding heights of the economy, thus breaking the power of the oligarchy and imperialism, or the process could unravel, with the oligarchy using its control of the economy to carry out acts of sabotage and wear down the revolution.

The massive victory in the December elections was a clear signal that the masses want to move on and take on the oligarchy. Chavez's speech reflects this situation. It explains why he stated that, "Nothing or no-one will be able to push us off course in our pursuit of... Venezuelan socialism, our socialism." During his speech he specifically referred to the ideals of Marx and Lenin.

The reaction of the bourgeoisie internationally has been as could be expected. Alberto Ramos writing for Goldman Sachs has commented that, "These disconcerting policy announcements represent a clear turn into deeper nationalist and interventionist policies, which can lead to further erosion of business confidence and the country's macro and institutional fundamentals." Richard La Rosa, an equities trader at Activalores Sociedad de Corretaje CA said that, "We all expected some radical announcements after his swearing-in, but this took markets completely by surprise. We never imagined that he would name a company specifically. It left all of us in shock." He added that, "The big question in the marketplace is how are we going to be compensated? No one doubts of Chavez's intentions at this point." Many are making the comment that Chavez could go down the road that Cuba took back in the early 1960s, when Castro nationalised the bulk of the economy.

Chavez is to be sworn in tomorrow as President. This will be his third term in office and would take him up to 2013. The bourgeoisie in Venezuela and internationally is mounting a rabid hate campaign against Chavez as he moves further and further to the left. This is not by accident. Their real material interests are at stake here. If Chavez goes all the way he will receive the enthusiastic support of the Venezuelan masses. In the recent period Chavez had spoken about making the revolutionary process in Venezuela "irreversible". There is only one way of doing that: expropriate the bourgeoisie and build a revolutionary state based on the working class.

When he says that it is necessary to "dismantle the bourgeois state" he is absolutely right. The present state is riddled with agents of the old regime. The big majority of civil servants and top state officials is still made up of people appointed in the past to serve the interests of the bourgeoisie. They cannot be trusted. Every day, every minute they are manoeuvring to block any progressive reform. They are trying to slow down the revolution, hoping to wear it down and prepare the ground for a return of the old regime. Chavez has often referred to bureaucratism and corruption at all levels that are blocking the revolutionary process.

What is needed is to shift the centre of action to the masses themselves. The only force that Chavez can really trust is that of the Venezuelan working class, the peasants and the poor. Now is the time for committees to be elected in all the factories and other workplaces, in the working class neighbourhoods. These should elect delegates to higher bodies, eventually leading to a national body. This would be the instrument that could "dismantle the bourgeois state" and build a "revolutionary state".

It is to be noted that one of the few companies specifically mentioned as being up for nationalisation is CANTV, where workers and former workers have been fighting for their rights and demanding nationalisation for the last few months. This will surely provide a new impetus to the struggle of workers at Sanitarios Maracay for nationalisation under workers' control.

The UNT should take the initiative of calling immediately a National Workers' Conference to discuss these measures and take concrete steps of the workers in key sectors of the economy to organise themselves the struggle for nationalisation under workers' control and pre-empt any attempt of the bosses to sabotage them or strip them of assets or valuable information. Such a Conference should also call for a national day of action of factory occupations in which the 800 companies already mentioned by Chavez a year and a half ago should be taken over and with them all strategic sectors of the economy should also be occupied by the workers.

Chavez sees the need to "deepen" the revolution. He understands that the revolution cannot stand still. It must move on. He can see that every time he tries to push the process further, the bureaucracy comes up with a thousand and one obstacles. He feels that he cannot make this state machine do what he wants. The only road is therefore to break this machine and build a new one based on the workers.

In the next few days we will provide a more in depth analysis of what is happening in Venezuela, but what is clear is that an acceleration of the whole process is taking place in Venezuela. If the Venezuelan revolution were victorious in the coming period it would be seen as a beacon by the masses of the whole of Latin America and beyond. It would usher in a new period of revolutions. That is why all genuine socialists, communists, cannot but be enthused by the new turn of events and give their full-hearted support to the revolution. The bourgeoisie is lining up internationally, using all it has, its control of the media, the economy and so on, to strike blows at the Venezuelan revolution. It is our duty in all countries to counter this with all our might.

January 9, 2007

[onodera]

In December he won a massive victory, the biggest ever since the Bolivarian Revolution began. The balance of forces is now weighted very heavily in favour of the Venezuelan masses. Chavez has absolute control of parliament and massive support among the population. The conditions exist for snuffing out capitalism once and for all.

Isn't that what you call democracy?

[Flubber]

This more recent article is more balanced and even points out some of the good things Chavez has been doing.

Posted on Mon, Dec. 3, 2007


Venezuela voters give Chavez a defeat
In a referendum to radically alter the constitution and give him unchecked power, he fell shy with 49 percent.
By Ian James

Associated Press

CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez suffered a stinging defeat in a vote on constitutional changes that would have let him run for reelection indefinitely, the chief of National Electoral Council said today.
Voters defeated the sweeping measures by a vote of 51 percent to 49 percent, Tibisay Lucena said. Turnout was just 56 percent, Lucena said.

Chavez called it a "photo finish" immediately after the results were announced.

The referendum on constitutional changes was a critical test for a leader bent on turning this major U.S. oil provider into a socialist state. An emboldened opposition and clashes during student-led protests in recent weeks had prompted fears of bitter conflict in Chavez's closest race in years.

Earlier yesterday, many of the populist Venezuelan leader's supporters had taken out joyful "victory" caravans.

While initially downcast, as the evening wore on and Chavez postponed a speech set for 7 p.m. local time, the president's opponents expressed growing confidence that they would emerge victorious.

A victory would have given Chavez near-absolute political power. It would have allowed him to continue nationalizing privately owned companies, giving money to the poor, aiding political allies in Latin America, strengthening his alliance with Communist Cuba and sharpening his conflict with Washington - even though his country is the fourth biggest supplier of oil to the United States.

Chavez and his political allies already control Venezuela's Congress, the Supreme Court, and 20 out of 22 governorships.

After the polls closed, it appeared that perhaps only half of the registered voters turned out for the referendum. Many Chavez opponents had called on voters to stay home to avoid legitimizing a result that they believed was preordained.

The government reported arresting 45 people on election-related charges, but, despite a smattering of complaints by the opposition, the election appeared to have been conducted without major controversy.

Low-income Venezuelans said they expected that Chavez, with a victory, would continue showering government benefits on them.

Reynaldo Tarazona, 53, a taxi driver, said he was studying English and tourism free at the Bolivarian University in Caracas established by Chavez.

"Chavez is not only for the poor in Venezuela but for making the entire world more just for the poor," Tarazona said after voting for the proposed changes.

Chavez has spent billions of dollars of Venezuela's oil income in aid aimed at helping the poor throughout Latin America and at building political support from other regional leaders.

Many better-off Venezuelans said that passage of the proposed changes would leave them contemplating whether to join tens of thousands of others who have left the country in recent years rather than be governed by Chavez.

Jose Rodriguez, 48, an official with the Caracas Lions baseball team, said he already had an appointment for today at the U.S. Embassy to apply for a visa to move to South Florida. He is also investigating the possibility of moving with his family to Panama.

"Chavez wants communism, the same system they have in Cuba," Rodriguez said after voting in the upscale Chacao neighborhood. "Private property isn't safe."

In fact, Chavez didn't spell out what he meant when he talked of bringing a "21st-century socialism." He has nationalized the main phone company and a major utility and forced foreign oil companies to give the government a majority stake in their oil fields or leave the country - as ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips have chosen to do - as the economy boomed on record oil prices.

Among the most hotly debated changes were those that would have allowed Chavez to seek unlimited reelection.

Proposed changes would have reduced the work week to 36 hours, and allowed maids, taxi drivers and other members of the informal economy to begin collecting pensions.

Chavez used the full machinery of government to push for a "yes" vote in the referendum, including blanketing the state TV and radio channels with "yes" ads. He muzzled the main opposition television channel, RCTV, earlier this year by not renewing its operating license.

But poor people in Venezuela say he has improved their lives. The poverty rate in Venezuela declined from 49 percent in 1999, when Chavez took office, to 30 percent in 2006, the U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean reported last month.

Opponents of the referendum included the Catholic Church hierarchy, the country's biggest business group and human-rights groups.



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

Changes Chavez Is Proposing
Key constitutional revisions sought by President Hugo Chavez's government:

Lengthening presidential terms from six to seven years and eliminating term limits to allow the president to run for reelection indefinitely.

Allowing the president to handpick provincial and municipal leaders.

Allowing the president to declare a state of emergency for an unlimited period.

Allowing the state to provisionally occupy property slated for expropriation before a court has ruled.

Prohibiting foreign funding for "associations with political aims." Critics warn this could be used to strangle human-rights groups.

- Associated Press

It appears that Venezuela may become the first recent transformation to full communism at a state level and probably the first to attempt it when the economy should be flush with cash. It should be an interesting experiment. One thing I have little doubt about

1. IF it "fails"(however such things are measured), many communists will state unequivocably that the failure was caused solely by capitalist intereference and

2. If it "succeeds", many capitalists would be equally unequivocal in stating that the oil resources were so rich that pretty much any form of government could have worked and that a capitalist system would have made the country even richer for the betterment of all.

Time will tell.




One big concern for Venezuela though has to be the flight of so many of their skilled people. Many of the 'better off' that have fled the country are the skilled engineers, geologists, doctors etc and it takes time and resources to replace these folks. Heck Canada can't find enough skilled folks already for our oilsands ( not able to train or recruit fast enough) so I can only imagine how difficult it might be for Venzuela

[Flubber]

MY personal take on Chavez and the recent Exxon Actions

1. A sovereign state can legally and legitimately expropriate. venezeuela had every legal right to do what it did under its laws. If Venezuela wants to discount private property rights they can-- those are the rules in venezuela now

2. If Venezuela has assets in places that do recognize private rights to property those are subject to the laws of those places so if Exxon can get compensation for the expropriation under the laws of the US or the UK, so be it.

Put simply-- Chavez can play by his rules in his yard but Exxon will play by US/ UK rules in the US/UK yard


Finally a question for the commies-- How would you feel if countries like the US and UK decided to apply Chavez's methods against him and nationalized any venezuelan state assets in their countries and then used the money for anti-poverty programs in their country??

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Flubber

1. IF it "fails"(however such things are measured), many communists will state unequivocably that the failure was caused solely by capitalist intereference...

You forgot the old standbye excuse - "He wasn't a real communist anyway."

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
It appears that Venezuela may become the first recent transformation to full communism at a state level and probably the first to attempt it when the economy should be flush with cash. It should be an interesting experiment. One thing I have little doubt about

1. IF it "fails"(however such things are measured), many communists will state unequivocably that the failure was caused solely by capitalist intereference and

As long as you are going to call it "full communism on the state level" capitalist interference is going to be a problem. Just like Cuba suffers from capitalist interference.

When there is no more capitalist interference then full communism on the world level can happen. But for that to happen the whole people of the world need to get behind the idea of a better, more just world for everyone, not just the previledged few. Hugo Chavez can only be a leader towards that goal. And in that I think that he's been a very good one thus far.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by onodera

In December he won a massive victory, the biggest ever since the Bolivarian Revolution began. The balance of forces is now weighted very heavily in favour of the Venezuelan masses. Chavez has absolute control of parliament and massive support among the population. The conditions exist for snuffing out capitalism once and for all.

Isn't that what you call democracy?

I have never said he is NOT duly elected. I don't know that anyone has maintained that. The most that has been said is that his reforms tend to concentrate power in his own hands. Take a look at the following article for some of the the things that were defeated

I am actually encouraged that he lost a referendum. It speaks to the fact that people are still voting freely

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wezil


You forgot the old standbye excuse - "He wasn't a real communist anyway."

Actually he's not, but he's pretty good anyway.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

As long as you are going to call it "full communism on the state level"

Do you have a better term? I used it becasue I knew/suspected that you would say that it has to be worldwide to work

Originally posted by Kidicious

But for that to happen the whole people of the world need to get behind the idea of a better, more just world for everyone, not just the previledged few.

My problems are these

1. Past "communist' regimes were not that great ( I know there were/are a ton of horrific capitalist regimes but at least there are a number of existing states that can be held up as 'capitalist' states that are working well

2. Your model seems to require that the entire world embrace one ideology. Since that cannot practically happen instantaneously, are you saying that it has to go through years of not working well but as more and more of the world flock to it

3. I am already behind the idea of a more just world for everyone as are many other people. I believe in universal health care, minimum standards of living, education for all, strict environmental standards and have no objection to redistributive policies . I believe in equality of opportunity (to the extent that can be provided) while it seems you believe in "equality of situation" (to the extent THAT can be provided.