EnMasse

[elmateo]

I'm sorry but any significant change does not come with soft-comfy glove approach. That is a mythic political tactic that does not exist for anyone anywhere. It only exists when the hegemony of a political system has been established and any dissent is easily subdued when the government placates those demands while not fundamentally rupturing the hegemonic order. This is thusly labelled as a 'democracy' while all other systems are 'totalitarian'. It's a false-dichotomy that is constructed both to legitimize the hegemony and to further stigmatize political movements with programs of social, political and economic transformation.

Cuba has been a successful transformation because it was able to remove powerful conservative elements in the society, millionaires fled the island to Florida and lost their political domination of society. This is 'totalitarian', where as to have them stay in powers of disproportionate and exploitative power to advance their own personal interest in the furthering of social inequality is considered 'democratic'. I'm not sympathetic to this characterisation at all.

There is a 'slippery-slope' and strawman construction of such 'totalitarian systems' which does not appear in reality. Does a billionaire want to become a millionaire or a millionaire merely a very comfortable middle class person? Probably not, and furthermore they have the resources (cost-benefit analysis) to expend to maintain their political-economic position in society. That gets spent in different ways: in the media, in institutions, in corruption, in paramilitaries, etc.. But much of that is legitimized by this falsely just claim that carry out plans that do reduce a small group of individuals excessive wealth to benefit a much greater section of society and to protect such transformations is 'totalitarian'.

In 19th C and before liberal writing, Chavez would not be labelled a 'totalitarian' but a representative of the 'tyrant of democracy'. His crime would be acting out in favour of the masses too much, carrying out the reforms that benefit the most people - the scariest problem with democracy. Such an argument is very consistent through out all political theory, it just comes with a contemporary packaging of discourse.

[lawlibrarian2]

Yes, Canada does at times resemble a "corrupt petro-state".

Not exactly a good thing.

There is a worldwide problem of corruption, financial and otherwise.

Is Venezuela more corrupt than Wall Street? Probably not.

But intenational studies by NGOs like Transparency International are based on in-country surveys. This year, Venezuela scored - according to Venezuelans themselves - as the most corrupt country in Latin America. Guess what? Mexico (conservative), Colombia (conservative) etc. were also considered very corrupt by their own populations. So, again, in Latin America, there is no surprise that the decades-old traditions persist, on the Right, the Centre or the Left.

A few years ago, Transparency International looked at corruption in the justice system, zeroing in on things such as the percentage of people who responded they had to bribe a justice official to get a case heard in court or to get a legal document or write issued. Being a law librarian, this is an issue that caught my attention. Places like Pakistan (pro-US) were the most corrupt, but Venezuela (anti-US) scored way near the top.

There is no way one can spin this issue into support or opposition to the US-dominated Empire. Historically, there have been examples of corruption in all kinds of regimes.

So, good for Chavez if he finally says he wants to deal with widespread corruption.

But the problem is very deep-rooted, as any of us familiar with Latin America will know, and many of the people around him may be involved. That is why they coined an entire new word for the phenomenon in Chavista Venezuela: bolibourgeoisie

[Fidel]

Richard M. Nixon referred to it as "the backyard", and that "people don't give a shit about the place." It's basically been a war on democracy in Latin America since Monroe Doctrine. And the Yanks are still pursuing those policies in the backyard.

While East Germans were shooting a few thousand to death who dared climb over a wall, Uncle Sam was training Latin America's military and paramilitary leaders to commit genocide against hundreds of thousands of indigenous people, socialists, union leaders, and human rights activists in Central and South America. Election rigging and political assassinations were the norm for many years. And the US military and CIA were still active in perpetrating a coup against Haiti's democratically elected leader and an attempted coup against Hugo Chavez in this decade.

I think some of what bothers our elitists here in North America is that people like Chavez and Aristide are still more popular among voters in those countries than any of the rightwing lackies they've propped up as well as their own popularity in first-past-the-post elections here.

And the CIA learned long ago not to trust the judgement of the Miami gusanos after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. If Cubans know anything, it's that Cuba would become another Haiti or El Salvador, Honduras etc under an oppressive US-managed democracy.
_________________
Democracy should more appropriately be referred to as Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. - George Washington

[Rufus Polson]

Well, I *did* talk about Chavez, Venezuela, and the administration more generally. But nobody seems interested.

So, lawlibrarian, what do you think of the police reforms?
Also, given that a Venezuelan NGO dedicated largely to dealing with abuses in the police and justice system says that a massive overhaul of the judiciary is needed, and that you yourself suggest that corruption in the judiciary is widespread, what kind of approach would you suggest that could take steps towards reforming the judicial system and getting rid of corrupt judges, *without* laying oneself open to charges of interfering with the independence of the judiciary?
And, while that corruption remains widespread, what approach would you suggest to the problem of impunity for those who have money with which to bribe and influence to peddle? Should the government in all cases just wince and bear it when someone is let off by a corrupt judge? Or should they take some sort of steps to interfere, in an attempt to ensure that nobody is above the law, despite that ironically this endangers the independence of the legal process? Is there a good decision available in such a situation?

Where are we on the general concept of nationalization as a response to banks which are insolvent and/or engaged in illegal financial manipulations? Is this less important than the question of how well run the trial of an individual banker has been?
Mr. Magoo is against such nationalizations, apparently. I'm by and large for 'em. Others don't seem to think they're important, that the real policy issue is individual trials--indeed, that in a policy response which includes both nationalization and individual trials, the nationalization portion is so insignificant that it's reasonable to characterize the entire policy response as "scapegoating".
I find this an untenable position. Even if much of the financial sector remains in private hands, their behaviour is going to be very different if they are aware that the government does not consider that inevitable or even very desirable, and that if they violate financial regulations they may lose their whole enterprise to the public. I suspect that a financial sector living under the very real threat of nationalization as a penalty for wrongdoing will be much more careful in its dealings.

[elmateo]

[elmateo]

And while we are talking about how Chavez is to blame for all of Venezuela's historical problems, the US is opening up bases in the Dutch Antilles as well.

However much they claim "they are not armed" I'm more than suspect about this. Considering that US planes were used in the bombing of Ecuadorian sovereign territory, flown out of Manta Ecuador, despite having no basis in the agreement for this, I do not hold much trust for what the Dutch Antilles have on paper nor the whole pretext of the 'drug war'.

[bshmr]

One of numerous background articles that say something about what Chavez has done for the bulk (80% of the population which was in poverty and subjugated). This one will have to do -- as I was looking for before Chavez 1) elites were bulldozing areas for airports, etc with impunity, 2) police were prejudiced, corrupt thugs, and 3) literacy and health depended on wealth. This alludes to 12-person neighborhood governing committees innovations and has testimonials.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2003/01/chaos-and-constitution

[thwap]

[Fidel]

Nobel Peace Prize winner preparing to wage war on democracy in South America Interview with Eva Golinger
_________________
Democracy should more appropriately be referred to as Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. - George Washington

[Hephaestion]

Venezuela: anti-narcotics efforts improved since we ended cooperation with the USA

[elmateo]

Chavez for the first time has picked up Marx's Capital (a present from his finance minister for Christmas) and told people this, adding marxism to the many things he taken on. The right-wing is in panic mode, reading Marx is like reading Mein Kampf or pure evil. Even though for most literate people Capital is an interesting and dry analysis of why capitalism is incoherent and tends towards contradictions. It stands as one, if not the, most important (political-)economic texts ever written.

(in spanish: http://politica.eluniversal.com/2010/01/16/pol_art_por-primera-vez-... )

[TS.]

I just ran across a document produced by a group called the Centre for Democracy in the Americas reporting on a research trip that they took to Venezuela in July and August 2008. The report seems to be generally supportive of Chavez, though not uncritical. The report is primarily focused on the operation of the community councils as a method of local governance and citizen involvement/control of government, but includes interviews with both pro-Chavez government figures (including the Minister of Finance) and opposition figures (including Leopoldo Lopez, who was disqualified in the election for mayor of Caracas). There is also an interview with an official from the Pan-American Health Organization talking about the healthcare system under Chavez. I found it to be an interesting read, and very factual.

A direct link to the PDF is here, and the homepage of the Centre for Democracy in the Americas is here. The Centre also produces reports on visits to other countries, and they can be found in the "Publications" section under the "News and Information" tab.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

[A_J]

Interesting article about Cuban involvement in Venezuela.

While Chávez worries about the impending invasion by "the empire", Venezuela seems to find itself virtually under Cuban occupation:

[Rufus Polson]

Bwahahahaaa!
Oh my god! Virtually under Cuban occupation!
Oh noes! The eeevil Cubans are coming!
. . . can you hear yourself?

[Hephaestion]

Are we supposed to be surprised that The Economist is flinging vitriol at Venezuela/Cuba? Who are they attempting to besmirch the most? It's all too confusing without a Program...
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin

[thwap]

[Rufus Polson]

There are actually *serious* issues in Venezuela right now. There's an electricity shortage and they're having major problems with it. There's frequent power outages, a couple hours a day in some places. Seems like there are three major causes, and there's a certain amount of squabble over which causes dominate. (Well, and the oppos probably have their own theories but I don't care what they are because the oppos in Venezuela are retarded conspiracy theorists)
1. Massive increase in electricity use over the past decade. Supply has increased, but been unable to keep up.
2. Some, particularly the unions, claim that sclerotic and obstructionist management has blocked supply increases and reduced efficiency. The workers want more control.
3. There have been drought conditions, perhaps related to global warming, which resulted in very low water levels behind the biggest hydro dam. This certainly isn't helping.

The government has reacted by trying to get supply on stream quickly and by pushing for energy conservation. This hasn't been as effective as they've hoped, and Chavez has actually declared a state of emergency on electricity so he can issue him some decrees for things to get done soonest.
Does all this demonstrate a lack of planning by the government? Is there a serious problem with the bureaucracy? There do seem to have been plans for increased capacity which were not acted on effectively. Is there perhaps even deliberate obstructionism happening? It's not like it would be the first time--look at some of the situations that have come up with respect to food. Would things be better if there were more worker control? Is Chavez going to be able to get the problem under control? Is the major issue here government incompetence or class struggle, or is it just that consumption has increased so fast it's just been bloody impossible for supply to keep up?

Older article:
Venezuelan Government Invests in Electricity Infrastructure
Newer one:
Electricity Emergency Declared in Venezuela, Special Measures Taken

Lots of questions. Much more interesting ones IMO than the Cuban boogeyman.

[Rufus Polson]

So just lately, Chavez has apparently been hanging out with a more low-key Arab boogeyman of the US: President Bashar Al-Assad of Syria, a dictator about whom we hear little as a rule. He doesn't seem unusually oppressive as these things go; his legitimacy would be about on a par with that of, say, the prince of Jordan, but any democratic credentials certainly even less plausible than Ahmadinejad's, or even Mexican president Felipe Calderon's. This is much of a piece with Chavez's more publicized finding of common cause with Ahmadinejad. So what do we think of this? Misguided betrayal of socialist ideals? Intelligent anti-imperialist realpolitik? Somewhere in between?

[Rufus Polson]

Meanwhile, the Venezuelan people continue to build from below.

Workers’ Control and the Contradictions of the Bolivarian Process

[Tehanu]

I have a new crush. No, this time a real crush, not a fake crush like the one I fleetingly had for Pamela Gorman.

Meet unabashed feminist socialist Lidice Navas, who is running for Congress in Venezuela, and who works for the Women's Development Bank.

[voice of the damned]

Since people on this thread spend a lot of time debating the pros and cons of Chavez, I thought this might be of interest here...

[thwap]

I don't think that Iran could afford to lose Chavez as an ally. So if Chavez was tossing homosexuals under the bus to appease some fundamentalist allies he was wasting his efforts.

Beggars can't be choosers.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!

[bagkitty]

VOTD... I have often observed that nation-states act pretty much in the same way as people do. I think the most reasonable interpretation was that the Venezuela delegation could not resist the chance to poke the U.S.A. in the eye, as opposed to trying to curry favour with Iran. Goodness knows, I totally understand the temptation.
_________________
Whom the hive does not cherish, it eats.

[thwap]

but was this a usa un initiative? if not, then it seems pointless if not counter-productive.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!

[voice of the damned]

[Rufus Polson]

Maybe the ambassador just thought it was a really stupid-sounding acronym and he insisted on only voting for group names with some panache. Or maybe it was paranoia--like, if it's a LGBT group the US is backing, it must be some kind of trojan horse, 'cause they're Out To Get Us.
Or maybe while Chavez himself is in favour of gay rights, the Venezuelan ambassador to the UN is a raging macho homophobe and didn't check back before he voted. I believe the country has plenty of them, including on the left.

[A_J]

Parliamentary elections were held yesterday for the 165-seat National Assembly.

Initial reports are that the Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela has won 90 seats to the Mesa de la Unidad Democrática's 61 - which, though a solid majority, deprives Chavez's party of the two-thirds majority necessary to enact major laws and make appointments to the supreme court and electoral council, etc. (Aljazeera).

Though the MUD did not win a majority of the seats, some sources are saying that they did receive 52% of the popular vote (The Telegraph).
_________________

[TS.]

The question now is whether the opposition will play a constructive part or simply oppose everything. Those parties need to earn back their democratic credentials.

By the way, all of this talk about needing 2/3 of the vote to pass "important laws" really depends on your definition of important. In the constitution of Venezuela, 2/3 are needed to pass "organic laws", which are laws that provide a "normative framework" for other laws, are designated as such in the constitution or those that "organize public powers or developing constitutional rights".

Lacking a two thirds majority, in other words, won't cripple the PSUV government. Basically what it means that that they can't change the basic legislative framework of the country without some opposition support, not that they can't pass a wide spectrum of laws.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

[Senor Magoo]

Interesting. I remember people moaning and groaning about the necessary "supermajority" needed to pass a PR change in BC, back when they held the referendum. Sounds like more or less the same thing (though I suppose Venezuela needs 66.6% and if I recall correctly, BC needed 60%). Personally, I agree with this. Making huge changes on the basis of 50%+1 seems a bit dodgy to me.

[Rufus Polson]

Heh. Yeah, I'm sure some sources are saying that. I'm almost as sure that some sources will not bother to mention the actual percentages when they come out.
It seems that while it's clear PSUV will have a majority, and won't have 2/3rds, the totals are still coming up. The Venezuelan system is kind of proportional but a bit odd; I think it involves some secondary counting to figure list seats of some sort. The latest on Venezuelanalysis has the PSUV up to 95, with seven seats still to be figured out. The state-by-state totals show major regional variations, with some states overwhelmingly PSUV and others, like Zulia state, very strongly for the opposition. There was also this:

[A_J]

[Rufus Polson]

I'm still not quite clear where either the opposition or Chavez are getting their numbers, given that same al Jazeera source saying

[Rufus Polson]

Well, it's now official; Chavez is a great and wonderful guy:

Venezuelan Government Promotes Chocolate Production

Nobody who promotes chocolate can be bad!

[Senor Magoo]

But will it be good chocolate, or what Mrs. M. and I call "Crayola brand"?
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,

[Raos]

Considering such "chocolate" is usually closer to candy, made more with sugar than cocoa, and that this is to promote Venezuelan cocoa, I'd expect (and perhaps hope) that this'll be real chocolate.

[Senor Magoo]

Didn't they just get finished nationalizing a couple of sugar refineries?
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,

[TS.]

Good to see that the PSUV government is continuing to push to diversify the economy, and to move from primary to secondary production. Selling oil is all well and good, but when a) you lack domestic refining capacity and b) it is the dominant part of your economy, you becoming dependent on relatively few buyers. This should reduce Venezuela's dependence on the United States.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

[Rufus Polson]

The whole "lacking domestic refining capacity" seems to be a generalized disease in oil-producing countries. I was shocked when I wrapped my head around the idea that they were putting the squeeze on Iran by preventing them from importing gasoline!

[TS.]

[DSquared]

Fighting for a PSUV which serves the poor:

[A_J]

[thwap]

Thanks for the info. I await corroboration from more reliable sources. over and out.
_________________
Man! I hate them fancy-lads!

[bshmr]

[DSquared]

[sparqui]

[Senor Magoo]

Assange must be really phoning it in. That, or maybe it's in conflict with government claims.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,

[A_J]

[DSquared]

[Rufus Polson]

Well, there is some indication that recovery in Venezuela is lagging recovery in other countries in the region. I'd be interested in any serious inquiries into why (e.g. whether imports are too high, perhaps due to the still-overvalued Bolivar, or whether it simply has tracked oil prices, or whether there has been some degree of capital strike, or some combination of these factors, or still others). In terms of GDP, there may even be some measurement issues--presumably things like cheap food from Mercal reduce GDP simply because lower price = lower GDP. If efforts to move towards a more social economy ever seriously take hold, that will distort GDP as well, as goods and services get pulled out of the market economy and cease to count as $$. I don't think that's happened yet to any really measurable extent though.
It does seem as if Venezuelan efforts to grow the economy in a more diversified way have not been very successful, at least in the manufacturing sector which has not grown noticeably over the last few years. I get the impression agriculture is doing rather better, though. And again, serious looks at why the weakness in manufacturing would be welcome.
At the same time, actual people have been hurt less by the recession in Venezuela than in most places because of the strong social safety net.

The rest of the cables appear to be pretty much what you'd expect: American diplomats, for whom Chavez is "the enemy", describing Chavez and his regime on negative terms, getting most of their information from coupsters whom they describe as democracy promoters and fund, and parroting that info to their superiors because they know it will please them. Whatever.

The enabling law--yeah, Chavez is a hardball politician. The claim, which I take with some salt, is that Venezuela’s Chávez Requests Enabling Law in Response to “Critical Situation” Caused by Rains and Floods

[DSquared]