Venezuela cement is nationalised

[Eugene]

Source: BBC News

Page last updated at 04:04 GMT, Friday, 4 April 2008 05:04 UK

Venezuela cement is nationalised

President Hugo Chavez has announced the immediate nationalisation
of Venezuela's entire cement industry.

In a TV address, he said his government could not allow private
companies to export cement that was needed to tackle a severe
housing shortage.

Mr Chavez promised they would be paid fair compensation for the
forthcoming state takeover of what he described as a strategic
industry.

-snip-

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7329838.stm

[Peace Patriot]

1. I would like to see some nationalizatons of strategic industries here.

In fact, we need to start with simply manufacturing our voting machines and our bullets HERE.

Goddamit.

We can't even manufacture our own voting machines--we let them be manufactured in miserable sweatshops in the Philippines*?!?

This has really, REALLY gone too far.

Fuck free trade. There are certain things that MUST be manufactured here. There are also certain industries that need to be nationalized, and run for the benefit of the country and the people. Oil, for one. It's time. Probably all energy production. Forestry really should be stopped. Period. No more. It's killing the planet--and is also endangering water supplies. We MUST find alternative building materials. We must! Air travel should be nationalized, obviously. And trains and buses should be subsidized (and run on "green" energy.) Banks and financial institutions of various kinds should be nationalized--at least until they are straightened out and operating for the public good. And I would be for kicking every corporate news/entertainment monopoly off our PUBLIC airwaves, and re-introducing competition, with small independent production companies and a one-station/one-business rule.

I would consider nationalizing food production--and ridding it of toxic pesticides, hormone-fattened meat, and corporate monoculture--but there might be better, non-nationalization solutions to producing healthy foods, on the small, local scale that is best. Bust up the corporate monopolies, and seize and re-distribute their land, for the common good.

We are facing meltdown, in all sectors of our economy, due to excessive profiteering and wretched, malfeasant business practices, by huge, unaccountable, multinational corporations. We need to re-introduce nationalism, strong government, protecting our critical industries, and a whole new "New Deal" that protects our workers, our communities and the planet, and that establishes FAIR trade with the rest of the world. We are so far behind on this. South America is zooming ahead of us. We are the sovereign people of this land. What we say goes. We can structure our economy, our government, our political culture and our society however we think best. Corporations have no rights here. NONE! They are entities that WE charter and permit to do business. It's time to bust them. It's time to show them who's boss--in the land of the free, home of the brave. And if they don't like it, they can go play with the sheiks of araby.

[Redstone]

51. Oh, yeah, THAT would help. How did those "State-Run Industries" work out in the USSR?

Pretty well, I'd guess, since there's such a red-hot collector's market for such "State-Run-Industry" products as ZIL and Volga cars.

Redstone

[Warren Stupidity]

61. Yeah that norwegian oil industry just sucks ass

or not.

[SpikeTss]

83. Very good reply ;-) n/t

[Endangered Specie]

62. Well now, in all fairness, state manufactured AK-47s are in very high demand

;)

The USSR's greatest exports:
Vodka
Ak-47
Suicidal Novelists

[Peace Patriot]

88. This is NOT the USSR! Russia had absolutely no experience of, or tradition of, democracy

prior to the communist revolution. The same is true of China, when it underwent a communist revolution. No democratic tradition or experience of democracy. Thus, both of these revolutions quickly became authoritarian. They went straight from the autocratic Tsar to the autocratic Stalin, with hardly a breather in between. And China also went quickly from warlords and corrupt royalists to Mao.

It took over 200 years for us to lose our democracy to autocratic rule by global corporate predators--but WE have those 200+ years of democracy as our core experience. That is the critical difference between how Russia and China nationalized industry, and how we might nationalize some critical industries, like oil, in a general deconstruction of global corporate predator rule, which would include, say, busting ALL corporate monopolies and re-creating COMPETITION.

In our situation, the global corporate predators are now the autocrats, with Bush-Cheney (and some collusive Democrats) as their puppets, their "front men." There is, indeed, little difference between Bush-Cheney/Exxon Mobil rule and Stalinist rule, except that all the profit goes to a super-rich, private elite, which doesn't even have national loyalty. Whatever Stalin did, in his mad delusionary state, he did for "Mother Russia." What is Bush-Cheney doing it for? They have looted everything in sight--they have utterly destroyed air safety, national security, emergency services, the military, the banking/finance system, the justice system, local/state budgets, environmental regulation, the medical system, jobs, manufacturing, you name it--to enhance the wealth of the sheiks of araby and multinational corporations.

But I digress. My point is that the USSR is not a proper or accurate model for us. We have a STRONG democratic tradition. So, if we were to nationalize oil, and deconstruct corporate monopolies, it would play out very differently here. In fact, that is what we MUST do in order to RECOVER our democracy. We must stop equating corporate rule with freedom! It is not. It is fascism. Freedom is when a "little guy" business has a chance against a big business. Freedom is when a small family-run grocery store has a chance against the big chains. Freedom is when all creativity, industriousness, entrepreneurship and trade are not SMOTHERED by enormous, multinational corporate entities that write the rules and control our government. In order to address corporatocracy, we need to BUST 'EM. And busting the oiligarchy would be a good first step--both as an example to the others, and as a way of regaining control of our economy and our government.

The Stalinist boogeyman is often used to scare off anti-corporatist ideas. But you are really insulting the American people--as some DUers often insult the Venezeulan people--in presuming that WE would fall prey to Stalinism, if we nationalized our oil, or took other strong governmental measures to FREE OURSELVES from global corporate predator rule.

[JackRiddler]

118. Just cling to the USSR as the only example forever...

How did the privatization of the UK railways work out?

What about Enron basically becoming the marketplace for energy sales? How did that work out?

How has Social Security done as a public initiative, and how well will it do if privatized?

How about the war? How is that doing as a largely private mercenary enterprise?

Etc., etc.

[yurbud]

143. note that the poster said ''some'' not ALL. I don't think the state should own car companies but...

they SHOULD prevent the big companies from snuffing out innovative competitors.

[DuaneBidoux]

131. He digs his own grave (in concrete I might add).

Most will say, when all fails and with a thousand other variable the country sinks, but it will none-the-less sink.

This is becoming an ever increasingly sad day for true democracy.

You want a workable Democratic society in the world look at Sweden, but they did not steal half the country, they made sure there was something for all.

[Judi Lynn]

2. Here's a thought-provoking reference to the housing problem you might want to read:

~snip~
The housing problem in Venezuela did NOT begin with the Chavez administration.

It has been there for a very long time ...

When US oil companies started to exploit Venezuela's black gold back in the 1920s and the people from the rural areas began an exodus to the oil fields in the state of Zulia, the consequence of oil revenues led the State to begin to build up a bureaucratic infrastructure (ministries, state companies) concentrated in Caracas with enough financial resources to develop the country's infrastructure (roads, schools, hospitals) mainly in the biggest states capitals ... progressively abandoning rural areas, the haciendas and the people living and working there.

This migration ... giving birth in Venezuela to an economic mono-productive model ... produced overcrowding in the nation's capital, Caracas, because the State became the main employer after oil industry nationalization in 1975 and the need for administrative employers in the burgeoning State apparatus both in Caracas and the main western cities (Maracay, Valencia, Barquisimeto, Maracaibo).

From 1920 to 1975, foreign oil companies (mainly Creole, a subsidiary of Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, and Royal Dutch Shell) only built fenced "oil camps" (private dwellings) for their employees (American managers and a few Venezuelan mid-range aides), with American-style houses fully-equipped with all basic services (drinking water, electric power, cooking gas) and in some cases "comisariatos" (supermarkets), schools, and medical centers for the employees' children, while the rest of the population (manual laborers working in the oil fields) lacked all these and had to live in the mud in precarious houses on very low wages.

From 1975, living in the golden age of high oil prices because of the OPEC oil embargo, the so-called Fourth Pepublic was unable to manage the housing crisis, in fact intensifying it ... and a greater part of the current problem comes from the fact that the private building industry (like most of the so-called private sector in Venezuela), was unable/unwilling to self-invest enough in housing because of a very particular phenomenon that affects all businessmen in Latin America, specially in mono-producing countries like Venezuela: i.e. their parasitic mind-set.

Indeed, given the fact the State had all the financial resources (and had many institutions like Banco Obrero-Workers Bank, INAVI-Housing National Institute, with their respective incompetent and corrupt bureaucracy) and played a dynamic role in the nation's economy, the few private national investors and entepreneurs could keep up with the pace of the State and rather depended on it to survive as a class ... a growing dependency only on State contracts to build houses.

What Mr. Romero does NOT tell our readers is that most of those building sector entrepeneurs filled their pockets with the award of State contracts to build public works (hospitals, houses, roads, stadiums) and that many of those works were not finished or were poorly built ... indeed, many of the contracts were awarded through political lobbying and bribery.

If you ask why those felonies were not punished, it is because the construction company owners were also part of the corrupt and ineffective political class.

More:
http://quebec.indymedia.org/en/node/24087

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You will find this material also very well detailed in a fantastic book written in 1973, Open Veins of Latin America by Eduardo Galeano. It is tremendous, and substatiates the link I just posted.

[Oerdin]

3. This isn't good.

I wish some of the posters here, luckily but not in this thread so far, wouldn't be so blindly psychofantic for Chavez. Many of the moves he has made have been bad for the long term democratic interests of his country. So much concentration of power in the hands of one man is bad when George W Bush does it and it is bad when Chavez does it. Why is this so hard to understand for some people? when you have a President who can virtually rule by fiat then it isn't a good idea to go nationalizing businesses because it opens things up for yet further abuse. It can be used as a political weapon by stealing the assets of the democratic opposition, it becomes an object of corruption & cronyism in the wrong hands, and generally leads to less efficient companies because companies end up getting subject to political considerations instead of the best of the best interests of the business itself.

[harmonicon]

9. capitalism and democracy are completely unrelated

Over and over, Chavez has proven himself to be an incredible strong adherent to democratic process. We would be so lucky to have a president who cared so much for the will of the people. If you don't like state socialism, that's fine, but to equate capitalism and democracy is a red herring.

[Acadia Blue]

46. You are absolutely right. China now has capitalism and it is about

as undemocratic and totalitarian as it gets.

[Canuckistanian]

89. Capitalism works BEST in fascist dictatorships

Without all those nasty regulations, trade unions, environmental protections and consumer advocacy groups.

It's a corporate dream world.

[DuaneBidoux]

132. I like to think of Sweden here.

They have a core of capitalism surrounded by a democratically instituted state to pay for the true costs of capitalism. It works, fairly well, for both the capitalists and the people. I think it is the perfect (or as close as we will get) to the ideal democratic capitalists country).

And by the way, they never simply take industries without trying to create, if possible, a "win-win" situation for all sides involved. One thing is for sure, they never sweep down and steal an industry from owners without due process (a word I think means something even here in Bush's USA).

(to be honest i would take any European system over what is happening in Venezuela).

[AlphaCentauri]

91. Neo-cons always try to pitch capitalism and democracy together in their propaganda, but never mind ....

kingdoms and theocracies like the saudis or the Kuwaitis

[awoke_in_2003]

14. "bad when George W Bush does it ...

and it is bad when Chavez does it". Hmm, when Bush does it, it is to get us into a war with a country that posed no threat to us just to make a select few rich. When Chavez does it, it is to ensure the well being of his population, ie health care, education, housing. But of course, when someone tells the fat cats to fuck off, he is instantly the bad man.

[fascisthunter]

20. Or When People Tell the Rich They Can't Profit from a Service

and raise prices without any checks and balances from the average citizen. Everything must be profit driven, therefore it must be expensive, for the more expensive a service, the more profit the rich and powerful make for themselves.

[Acadia Blue]

47. Yea, Halliburton stock is flying high too! It tripled since Iraq...

Its hard to believe that so many people still trust these criminals.

[fascisthunter]

19. The Citizens Acquire "that" power When something is Nationalized

as long as a government is ellected through a Democratic system, which it has.....

He is empowering the citizenry, as we once were here in the US before Republicans and Corporate Democrats (faux democrats) started privatizing everything. Once services are privatized, the people are less empowered to change the direction of those services through democratically electing officials to govern over those services. When you privatize a service, you give up the power to a private entity, usually a corporation that is neither accountable to a tax payer or the people paying for that service, for they cannot vote for CEO's and the like. Oh, and those services become very expensive due to greed for profit. When it's nationalized or socialized, that service is forced to be more efficient and cheaper, because most of us, do not like paying for high taxes.

What you just said is a common fallacy, one of which I hear allot from the mainstream (corporate/private) media and the Republican Party itself.

[bean fidhleir]

98. It always fascinates me, the number of people who see an unelected oligarchy as "more

democratic" than a single elected leader. It's as though a gang committing gang rape is "more democratic" than the freely-chosen lover enjoying consensual sex.

That kind of thinking is really weird!

[bitchkitty]

106. What does psychofantic mean?

And who is it that has all the power concentrated in his hands? Are you talking about Chavez? I'm sure that you're going to post evidence of pending corruption and cronyism, right?

on edit - do you mean sycophantic? That's not really appropriate since agreeing with Chavez' actions can't be defined as sucking up to anyone; quite the opposite.

[Judi Lynn]

107. Ooooooh! I had no idea there was a word lost in there somewhere! When I saw "psychofantic" I sneered

internally and forgot it. It never occured to me the poster was actually thinking of an actual WORD.

Well, it's such an easy mistake, they're so similar!

[Texano78704]

133. And...

keeping two-thirds of the population in poverty is good for democracy? I mean, that is what the oligarchy that once controlled Venezuela did.

Or perhaps you prefer democracy at the barrel of a gun, a la Bush foreign policy. By what democratic process would you raise up the economic level of the majority of the population? By "free market forces?" May the Force be with you on that one.

I am a fan of Hugo Chávez, but no "psychofantic."

[LaloBorges]

30. And History will be repeated

"What Mr. Romero does NOT tell our readers is that most of those building sector entrepeneurs filled their pockets with the award of State contracts to build public works (hospitals, houses, roads, stadiums) and that many of those works were not finished or were poorly built ... indeed, many of the contracts were awarded through political lobbying and bribery."

The same thing will happen now with different actors as anyone who has paid attention to Venezuela's current political atmosphere can certainly understand that nothing has changed since the corrupt "Pseudo Democratic" days, only the players.

[Judi Lynn]

41. If you've bothered to look for information, you'll know it's significant that so many people are

being helped, rather than the tiny group of people who controlled everything at the gross expense of the general community.

You may also recall the matter of corruption has been the focus of people who are working to make the adjustments which will make it harder and harder for these excesses to happen.

The solution is NOT to surrender the forward progress toward improving the well being of the exploited and abused poor people of Venezuela by the unscrupulous monsters who found a way to live lavishly at the country's expense.

I trust the people of Venezuela who have suffered through outrageous, painful inequities to find the changes they MUST have to make their lives at least endurable.

[Acadia Blue]

48. Sounds a lot like Halliburton and the contractors in Iraq....

[bitchkitty]

87. Thanks for the reference.

I found it on Amazon, it's my next purchase:

http://www.amazon.com/Open-Veins-Latin-America-Centuries/dp/0853459916

[Judi Lynn]

103. Good news! You really have something to look forward to with this book. It's irreplaceable. n/t

[robcon]

4. The oil industry will be next, IMO.

He is hellbent on impoverishing Venezuela.

[JNelson6563]

6. No kidding.

If only this guy would sit down, shut-up and get his funding from the world bank/IMF! He could stash a way a fortune somewhere else in the world for later and get busy selling off natural resources to international corporations. Of course as always the terms from such philanthropic entities require nothing but "for your own good" stuff like: Cut your government work force by 40%. Reduce pay of the remaining work force by 40% while increasing their responsibilities (the work of those who lost their jobs). Don't forget social programs like schools. There is no place for such luxury when we're doing a corporate restructuring.

Yes, Venezuela is really missing the boat here and, worse, they seem to be going around urging others to do the same! Who in their right mind would not want to go into partnership with the benevolent WB/IMF? With fortunes to be had privatizing everything from oil and minerals to the water necessary to survive, OPPORTUNITY IS KNOCKING!

Julie

[awoke_in_2003]

15. I wish I was on the DUzy committee. nt

[ronnie624]

25. LOL. Very well put. n/t

[fascisthunter]

21. I Hope He Does Nationalize It. We Should Do The Same

fuck the rich greedy bastards who gouge on a daily basis. What's wrong with you.... are you invested in this gouge driven racket or something?

[Acadia Blue]

49. He would be helping Venezuela..........Our oil industry is controlling

and holding our country hostage. They won't even invest their huge tax subsidy in R and D for alternatives.
They own us.

[Solon]

65. You do realize that the Oil industry was nationalized well before Chavez was in office?

I swear, when people start talking shit without having ANY fucking clue about what they are talking about, I just want to scream!

[Peace Patriot]

86. Venezuela nationalized its oil long before the Chavez administration.

What Chavez has done is improve Venezuela's share of the profits in its own oil. It was 10% prior to Chavez--and all of it went to a rich oil elite, which utterly neglected their own country and people--failed to develop education, medical care, food production, local industry--they even IMPORTED machine parts for the oil industry. Chavez has negotiated a 60% share for Venezuela--a deal that Norway's Statoil, France's Total, British BP and even Chevron agreed to. (Exxon Mobil--greedy beyond belief--rejected the deal and went into first world courts and sought to freeze $12 billion in Venezuela's assets--in a punitive move to de-stabilize the country.*) And all of Venezuela's share goes to...guess what? Education, medical care, food production, local industry--all of the things that the oil money should have been used for in the first place. Now--because of the utter malfeasance of the rich in the prior era--Venezuela has to CATCH UP. They have enormous projects under way to bootstrap the poor, diversify industry, increase local food production, build infrastructure and create regional cooperation, regional trade, regional self-financing, and regional financial and political clout (for instance, through institutions like the Bank of the South and trade groups like Mercosur and ALBA).

Many countries have nationalized critical resources like oil. Even governments to the right of Chavez, in previous decades, understood that nationalizing the oil was critically important to Venezuela's sovereignty. The problem is that they then sold Venezuela's sovereignty away in the contracts with multinationals, and they did it out of greed for their own elite class. The Chavez government has provided a crucial corrective to that huge mistake, and has done while MAINTAINING the cooperation of foreign and multinational corporations, with the exception of Exxon Mobil which has a fascist/Bushite political agenda that overrides good business decisions, good legal decisions, common sense and any consideration of the general good of humanity.

Robcon, you often criticize the Chavez government's oil policy. How would YOU amend it? To give the lion's share of profits to multinational corporations and the super-rich? You think Exxon Mobil has the interests of the Venezuelan people at heart? You think they give a goddamn whether machine parts for the oil industry are imported or not? You think they give a goddamn about Venezuelan schools?

In my opinion, the Chavez government has been BRILLIANT in its strong advocacy of Venezuelan sovereignty, and in balancing the needs of the people and their economy with the need for business development. But what KIND of business? That is the question. Exxon Mobil taking everything--EXPORTING all the profits? The Chavez government has produced nearly 10% growth in the Venezuelan economy over the last five years, with the BIGGEST growth in the PRIVATE sector (not including oil).

There is no other word for this but brilliant. No other previous government has accomplished this. You keep predicting doom. But it is isn't happening. A mixed socialist/capitalist economy with a strong component of social justice was what was NEEDED--to boost local optimism, creativity, industriousness and growth.

Again, what would YOU do? What is YOUR plan for Venezuela? All you do is cry gloom and doom. Funny thing, though, it is the Bushite oil-profits-to-the rich economy that is facing real gloom and doom. Us.

-----

*Edit to include note: An English court just threw out Exxon Mobil's lawsuit against Venezuela--so its punitive effort to freeze Venezuela's assets is probably dead. But they and their Bushite puppets are trying other means to destabilize Venezuela, for instance, by getting the U.S./Colombia to bomb Ecuador, to try to get a war started in South America. Chavez headed them off on that one as well. According to Brazil's president, Chavez was "the great peacemaker" in that situation.)

[Texano78704]

134. Umm, it already is

But let's forget that half of the top twenty oil companies are nationally owned, okay?

[SteinbachMB]

5. Chavez is an idiot.

He didn't win that stupid referendum (or whatever it was called) a few months ago, and now he's gonna do whatever the hell he wants, anyway. He's mad with power-and oil money- and the two don't mix well in the hands of a would-be tyrant.

[harmonicon]

10. This is completely unrelated

So, Chavez didn't win a referendum that would have guaranteed equal rights for homosexuals (as well as other things), and you get mad at him for nationalizing industry. Chavez's government is one of the most democratic in the western world. If he's corrupt, I'd love to have some of that style of corruption in the US.

[SteinbachMB]

13. Most democratic?

If he would have won that referendum he would have been the ruler of that country for 30 years. Everything else on the ballot was window dressing to hide the fact that he wanted to rule Venezuala like Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Thank goodness the Venezualen people voted NO.

[harmonicon]

16. I call B.S.

It would have given the people the opportunity to be elected indefinitely, sure, but he gave the people the choice, and I think even if the referendum had passed he still would have followed the will of the people if voted out. When has he ever done something that was anti-democratic? I don't know of a single instance.

[KaptBunnyPants]

32. If we would have won the referendum, the people could elect him for 30 years, if they chose to.

Term limits are anti-democratic as the arbitrarily limit the choices people have to decide for themselves who governs them. A good and a bad leader both want to have long terms, including FDR, who is the reason that we have term limits today. The Right hated how much he shifted the political landscape, and they wanted to prevent future presidents from achieving so much change. As long as the people of Venezuala want Hugo to be their president, why shouldn't they be allowed to vote for him?

[auburnblu]

114. If "we would have won"?

Do you live in Latin America? I know Chavez is a hero to many on here, like Fidel, but sometimes I get the feeling many on DU could care less about the freedoms or lives of residents of Cuba or Venezuela. It seems like what is most important is that Castro and Chavez do as they please and have a tight grip. The "we" comment is telling, maybe some on here think if Chavez controlled all of Latin America he would ask a DU supporter to be his Minister of Enlightenment. Thank goodness the citizens voted down his king for life idea. Sad so many on here don't see what a good thing that is for the freedom of the residents of Venezuela.

[Judi Lynn]

115. Use you head. If you look at the sentence you see the poster made a typo!

Here's what he wrote: If we would have won the referendum, the people could elect him for 30 years, if they chose to."

For Christ's sake, all you have to do is look at the context of the entire sentence, you schmuck. You were in such a hurry to try to make a stinging insult, if possible, you couldn't have cared less if you knew what you were talking about.

Keep your wits about you, and don't race in here to attack Democratic Underground people personally. Either address the material, or forget it. The rules advise you to forget making personal attacks.

In case you've not had the time to reflect properly, you are out of bounds attempting to red-bait ANYONE. We're well past the days of Joe McCarthy. Red baiting just doesn't have the punch around normal people you would have wanted. It's a crude, clumsy attempt to slur someone, and it won't work here.

Here's another look at your abjectly pathetic post:

If "we would have won"? Do you live in Latin America? I know Chavez is a hero to many on here, like Fidel, but sometimes I get the feeling many on DU could care less about the freedoms or lives of residents of Cuba or Venezuela. It seems like what is most important is that Castro and Chavez do as they please and have a tight grip. The "we" comment is telling, maybe some on here think if Chavez controlled all of Latin America he would ask a DU supporter to be his Minister of Enlightenment. Thank goodness the citizens voted down his king for life idea. Sad so many on here don't see what a good thing that is for the freedom of the residents of Venezuela."

Brilliant!

[Judi Lynn]

116. Here are some examples of typos you might recognize, since they're yours:

You can't be serious
You seem to imply that this wonderful member of society may not have been shot if he hadn't asked this lady if he could admire her jewelry. You sir are not enlightened, I feel strongly that this gun toting nut would have stalked this guy down her wheel chair no matter what.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=128303#128424

You are "enlightended"
If let's say in a major U.S. city, the city council is 80% African-American and the African-American members get together and say, only African-Americans should be considered for certain leaderships job openings in the city. If an Asian, White, r Latino tries to apply, nope. Then the council influences hiring in that way, then that is racist. To say simply becase of someone's skin tone that they can't be racist is laughable.

If a white guy who is responsible for hiring for a job looks at a resume and says Asian name, not interested solely based on that, that is racist. If an African-American guy is responsible for hiring for a job looks at a resume and says Asian name, not interested solely based on that, then get ready, shock of shocks, is also being racist.

This type of nonsense is why this country struggles to have a meaningful dialouge on race.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5360235#5407434

[Peace Patriot]

93. Our own FDR ran for and won FOUR terms in office. He was "president for life"!

I gotta a laugh at these "Chavez is a dictator" critics--Chavez, a guy who puts his own power TO A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE!

Go away! I mean, really, get informed, get a clue, THINK, for once! THINK! Venezuela has the most transparent elections in the world. They put us to shame with their election system. Chavez puts lifting term limits TO A VOTE ALL VENEZUELANS; he loses by a hair (50.7% to 49.3%), quickly concedes and moves on.

And if he had WON that referendum? He would have run again in 2012, with the VOTERS DECIDING whether to keep him in power or not. THE VOTERS DECIDING--just as WE did with FDR (before the rightwing here put term limits on the president in the 1950s--purpose: no more New Deals!).

Chavez has run a scrupulously lawful, beneficial government for ten years. WHY do people keep predicting that he is GOING TO BECOME a "dictator" SOME DAY? It's ridiculous.

"Everything else on the ballot was window dressing to hide the fact that he wanted to rule Venezuala like Mugabe in Zimbabwe." --SteinbachMB

69 proposed amendments, and "everything" in them was "window dressing"? I think this "kitchen sink" approach was a Chavista political mistake. The evidence is that the voters were confused; also, that equal rights for gays and women activated the rightwing Catholic clergy. So, if the Chavistas had wanted to tailor the constitutional referendum for victory of some particular amendment (term limits), they WOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED equal rights for gays and women. That was not HIDING anything. It was a genuine policy of the Chavez government, that they were trying to get the people to vote for. If their proposal was underhanded--just to enhance Chavez's personal power--why did they include that?

Your analysis is so simplistic and uninformed that you can't even see the irony of your statement "Thank goodness the Venezuelan people voted NO." The Chavez government has had ten years to destroy election transparency, just as the Bushites have done here--to retain power. Have they done that? No! The evidence? There is lots of it, but YOUR OWN POINT--that the 50.3% of Venezuelans VOTED NO, and "no" WON--puts your own boogeyman Mugabe prediction to the lie.

And I'll bet you don't have a clue about the details of the Venezuelan voting system, vs. our own. How do you KNOW that 50.7% of Venezuelans voted "No"? Because the CHAVEZ GOVERNMENT has INSISTED on RIGOROUSLY TRANSPARENT vote counting!

You kneejerk anti-Chavistas are a scream. When Chavez wins--as he did the last presidential election (with 63% of the vote), you cry "fraud! fraud!," but when the vote proves your point, then you cite it as MORE evidence that Chavez is a "dictator." Whew! Those Venezuelans just saved themselves from a "dictator"--by the "dictator" holding a TRANSPARENT election!

:rofl:

[Acadia Blue]

50. Better than GW Bush who stole 2 elections and is bankrupting out

country and creating corporate socialism.

[Warren Stupidity]

63. Uh hmmm...

computer says bullshit.

He did indeed lose the referendum, so those reforms, some good and some not so good in my opinion, are not going to happen. Meanwhile, Venezuela remains more of a democracy than our republic, and within the existing constitutional framework the Chavez regime is continuing its economic reforms. If the people don't like what he is doing, unlike our system, they may at anytime recall him from office. Wouldn't that be a nice feature here?

[AlphaCentauri]

92. Chavez called GW the devil

Two of President Bush's staunchest domestic critics leapt to his defense Thursday, a day after one of his fiercest foreign foes called him "the devil" in a scorching speech before the United Nations.

"You don't come into my country; you don't come into my congressional district and you don't condemn my president," Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, scolded Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, was blunt in her criticism of the Venezuelan leader. "He is an everyday thug," she said.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/21/19167/5744

[Traction311]

110. True, but if Hitler were alive, he'd hate Bush too for meddling in the world affairs

Not everyone who hates Bush is good. The far-right hates Bush do, ask Pat Buchanan or David Duke.

[AlphaCentauri]

112. we certainly do not know if Bush would be member of the axis nations

Pat Buchanan or David Duke are just commodities of the far right if they find ground support for their agendas in the democratic party they would be democrats.

[Texano78704]

135. Anyone

and I mean anyone that actually listened to Chávez speech realized that he was speaking metaphorically about Bush (or was it a simile?). Pelosi as well as a lot of pompous right-wingnuts made a bad call on that one.

[olddad56]

120. and our leader isn't?

[Zorra]

7. I hope the Venezuelan people successfully eliminate all fascist control

of their country, and manage to create a balanced and equitable democracy that serves the overwhelming majority of the people to the most beneficial degree possible.

[Acadia Blue]

52. Like the USA?

[Zorra]

79. Uh, no. No relation. n/t

[Ordr]

8. National socialism.

Worked in the past, right?
...right?
*crickets*

[harmonicon]

11. go south

Cuba. Oh, sure they don't have giant plasma TVs, but they also have some of the best medical schools in the world and send doctors to impoverished parts of the US to take care of people our government has decided are worthless.

[Ordr]

12. Can you cite sources for that, other than the Michael Moore movie?

Seriously, because I've never heard such claims before that film came out.

[harmonicon]

28. couldn't find exactly what I was looking for, but here are some interesting things:

about Cuba giving free medical education to poor US citizens:
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/53087/?page=1
http://havanajournal.com/politics/entry/cuban_medical_schools_offer_free_scholarships_to_us/

about the having a lower infant mortality rate that the US:
http://www.cubanews.ain.cu/2008/0104mortalidad.htm

For many years now, Cuba has been at the forefront of cancer research, and is now catching up with research on AIDS.

I didn't get these ideas from Michael Moore. I don't think Cuba is the greatest country in the world, but I do think there are some things that they do very very well. During law school, my brother took a course at the University of Havanna, and was quite impressed. In many ways the people were poor, but he said they were all well educated, and that there was a real feeling of friendship and goodwill all around.

[Ordr]

33. Thank you very much for the links.

I wasn't accusing you of getting the ideas from Moore; he is the only one who I had heard up until today stating those facts.

[harmonicon]

39. No, I don't feel bad

I went and looked for links because it seemed like you were asking a real question (as opposed to when people ask in a bitchy rhetorical way). It was also interesting for me to look this stuff up, and I learned new things too.

[Judi Lynn]

40. Americans who've been interested in finding out more about Cuba have known about its medical program

for a long time, long, LONG before Michael Moore's film was released. By the time he decided to work on that project, it was already very familiar information to a lot of people.

You'll find a ton of information if you simply start looking for it. It's definitely available there for anyone who's interested. Americans on message boards have discussed Cuba's medical system since before 2000, which was, of course, well before Michael Moore's film.

Maybe this could be useful:

Learn from Cuba, Says World Bank
By Jim Lobe, IPS, 1 May 2001
WASHINGTON, Apr 30 (IPS) - World Bank President James Wolfensohn Monday extolled the Communist government of President Fidel Castro for doing "a great job" in providing for the social welfare of the Cuban people.

His remarks followed Sunday's publication of the Bank's 2001 edition of 'World Development Indicators' (WDI), which showed Cuba as topping virtually all other poor countries in health and education statistics.

It also showed that Havana has actually improved its performance in both areas despite the continuation of the US trade embargo against it and the end of Soviet aid and subsidies for the Caribbean island more than ten years ago.

"Cuba has done a great job on education and health," Wolfensohn told reporters at the conclusion of the annual spring meetings of the Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). "They have done a good job, and it does not embarrass me to admit it."

His remarks reflect a growing appreciation in the Bank for Cuba's social record, despite recognition that Havana's economic policies are virtually the antithesis of the "Washington Consensus", the neo-liberal orthodoxy that has dominated the Bank's policy advice and its controversial structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) for most of the last 20 years.

Some senior Bank officers, however, go so far as to suggest that other developing countries should take a very close look at Cuba's performance.

"It is in some sense almost an anti-model," according to Eric Swanson, the programme manager for the Bank's Development Data Group, which compiled the WDI, a tome of almost 400 pages covering scores of economic, social, and environmental indicators.

Indeed, Cuba is living proof in many ways that the Bank's dictum that economic growth is a precondition for improving the lives of the poor is over-stated, if not downright wrong. The Bank has insisted for the past decade that improving the lives of the poor was its core mission.

Besides North Korea, Cuba is the one developing country which, since 1960, has never received the slightest assistance, either in advice or in aid, from the Bank. It is not even a member, which means that Bank officers cannot travel to the island on official business.

The island's economy, which suffered devastating losses in production after the Soviet Union withdrew its aid, especially its oil supplies, a decade ago, has yet to fully recover. Annual economic growth, fuelled in part by a growing tourism industry and limited foreign investment, has been halting and, for the most part, anaemic.

Moreover, its economic policies are generally anathema to the Bank. The government controls virtually the entire economy, permitting private entrepreneurs the tiniest of spaces. It heavily subsidises virtually all staples and commodities; its currency is not convertible to anything. It retains tight control over all foreign investment, and often changes the rules abruptly and for political reasons.

At the same time, however, its record of social achievement has not only been sustained; it's been enhanced, according to the WDI.

It has reduced its infant mortality rate from 11 per 1,000 births in 1990 to seven in 1999, which places it firmly in the ranks of the western industrialised nations. It now stands at six, according to Jo Ritzen, the Bank's Vice President for Development Policy who visited Cuba privately several months ago to see for himself.

By comparison, the infant mortality rate for Argentina stood at 18 in 1999; Chile's was down to ten; and Costa Rica, 12. For the entire Latin American and Caribbean region as a whole, the average was 30 in 1999.

Similarly, the mortality rate for children under five in Cuba has fallen from 13 to eight per thousand over the decade. That figure is 50 percent lower than the rate in Chile, the Latin American country closest to Cuba's achievement. For the region as a whole, the average was 38 in 1999.

"Six for every 1,000 in infant mortality - the same level as Spain - is just unbelievable," according to Ritzen, a former education minister in the Netherlands. "You observe it, and so you see that Cuba has done exceedingly well in the human development area."

More:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/185.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Primary care in Cuba: low- and high-technology developments pertinent to family medicine
Journal of Family Practice, Sept, 1997 by Howard Waitzkin, Karen Wald, Romina Kee, Ross Danielson, Lisa Robinson

Cuba's accomplishments in primary care, while controversial, include several developments pertinent to family medicine. These accomplishments involve low-technology and organizational innovations such as neighborhood-based family medicine as the focus of primary care; regionalized systems of hospital services and professional training; innovative public health initiatives and epidemiologic surveillance; universal access to services without substantial barriers related to race, social class, gender, and age; and active programs in treatments such as "green medicine" and "thermalism." High-technology achievements include innovations in pharmacology and biotechnology, surgical procedures, and care of patients infected by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Limited access to Cuban publications, impediments to presentations by Cuban health care professionals at professional meetings, and the prohibition on importing products of Cuban biotechnology to the United States inhibit a detached, scientific appraisal of Cuba's accomplishments. Cuba's isolation from the US clinical and research communities has prevented interchanges that would improve primary care services in both countries.

~snip~
BACKGROUND

A well-organized and accessible health care system has enjoyed a high priority in Cuba since the revolution of 1959. Training programs have produced large numbers of physicians, nurses, and allied professionals, who practice in a system that assures access to services in even the most remote parts of the country Curricula for these training programs have been developed centrally by the national Ministry of Public Health after input from educators and practitioners in all areas of the country; the curricula have been implemented in large part through decentralized training facilities, including medical schools that have been established in each of Cuba's provinces.<1,2(pp197-203)>

Because the production of physicians came to exceed the country's internal requirements (Cuba's physician-per-population ratio is 1 to 255, as compared with 1 to 430 in the United States),<3,4> Cuba has been able to export primary care physician and specialist for periods of service in other Third World nations. Decisions to send physicians abroad have been in response to official requests by the governments of these countries. More than 10,000 Cuban physicians have served abroad, with as many as 1500 during a single period.<2(p157),5>

Efforts in preventive care have achieved greatly improved health indicators. For instance, the incidence of infectious diseases preventable by vaccines is lower in in any other nation at Cuba's level of economic development; immunization rates have remained for many years between 99% and 100% of the target populations.<6> During Cuba's recent economic crisis, the continued availability of vaccines has been facilitated through internal production of needed vaccines by Cuban biotechnology laboratories. Compliance is assured by routine epidemiologic surveillance at the neighborhood level by family physicians, in cooperation with the neighborhood-based mass organizations such as the Cuban Federation of Women and the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution. Such public health efforts have received wide recognition by international agencies including the World Health Organization and Pan American Health Organization; even critics of the Cuban political system have acknowledged Cuba's accomplishments in the medical field.

~snip~
Despite these changes, dissatisfaction persisted. As a result, in 1984 the government initiated the program of "Integral General Medicine" (Medicina General "Integral)<2(pp44-47),9,23-26> hi this program, before they make their choices between generalist and special careers, all residents receive 3 years of training in family medicine. This training includes rotations in each primary care specialty (internal medicine, pediatrics, and obstetrics and gynecology), as well as a longitudinal continuity experience based in a local neighborhood and supervised by family physicians. During their residencies, and afterward if they choose to remain family physicians, physicians live in the communities they serve, usually in an apartment within the same building that contains their practice site (consultorio). In general, a family physician provides primary care and preventive services for 700 to 800 patients who live in the immediate vicinity of the practice.

Each family physician is required to see every patient in his or her catchment area at least twice a year. The physician maintains a record of preventive services and conditions for all patients in the catchment area; this record is updated and reviewed at least monthly with a clinical supervisor, who is an academically based family physician. The monitored services and conditions include prenatal care, immunizations, cancer screening by Paparticolaou smears and mammography, risk factors such as smoking and hypertension, and follow-up for chronic conditions, as well as psychosocial problems and sources of stress in the family or at work. Under this surveillance system, it is expected that all patients in the catchment area receive preventive services appropriate for their age, sex, and risk factors. In our observations, we found that the family physician were knowledgeable and maintained surveillance records regarding all patients for whom they were responsible.

Family physician are supported by a system of laboratories, referral centers, and consultation resources based in local polyclinics and municipal hospitals. When patients require admission, they enter a municipal, provincial, or national hospital as their conditions warrant. Unless a patient is transported to a provincial or national hospital outside the local area, the family physician travels personally to the referral hospital. There, he or she meets with specialists responsible for the patient's inpatient management, coordinates inpatient services to assure continuity after discharge, and maintain frequent contacts with the patient to enhance the long-term patient-physician relationship. For emergencies, especially in urban areas, patients can decide to bypass the local family physician and can receive services directly in the emergency departments of referral hospitals. In this situation the emergency department staff attempt to contact the patient's family physician for subsequent follow-up. Through this organizational structure, Cuban health policy favors local primary care services within an organized system of consultation and referral for more specialized care.

Because Cuban educational policies have encouraged recruitment of medical students from all regions and social categories, entrance into the profession by students from historically lower social class positions has increased markedly since 1959. As in other fields of study, medical students receive free education, with no personal out-of-pocket costs or debts. This policy has allowed students from families with modest incomes to enter the profession at a much higher rate than in other countries of Latin America, as well as in the United States and Europe.<2(pp26-31)>

Financial barriers to health care access have been eliminated. Medical services remain completely free, although small co-payments are expected for most medications purchased at pharmacies. Income differentials between the highest paid professional and the lowest paid worker in Cuba, at approximately 4 to 1, are much lower than in other countries. Nevertheless, as in economically advanced countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom whose national health systems assure universal access,<32,34> social class may continue to affect health status in Cuba. The recent neuropathy epidemic is one example; low income workers (especially frequent smokers) developed neuropathy somewhat more frequently than higher paid workers.<13>

Problems of gender bias have diminished. Currently 48% of Cuban physicians and 61% of family physicians are women.<35> Women have assumed positions of authority at all levels of the health care system.<36> Gender differences in the frequency of invasive diagnostic or therapeutic procedures have not been thoroughly studied in Cuba.

Geriatric medicine has received emphasis, partly because the control of infectious diseases contributed to a demographic profile resembling that of the United States and other economically developed countries.<37> During residency training, an physicians participate in geriatric rotations.<38> Family physicians and internists who elect to receive additional training in geriatries provide services in the network of "old age homes" (hogares de ancianos) throughout the country. These institutions offer adult day care services; residential facilities for older single people and couples; exercise programs designed by a nationally coordinated program in exercise physiology, travel; and cultural activities.

One unique aspect of community participation in Cuban geriatric services involves the "grandparents' circles" (circulos de abuelos). These groups emerged in the late 1970s, responding to a recognition that neighborhood-based organizations can provide an additional source of care and support for older people. Currently, within most Cuban neighborhoods, the grandparents' circles offer opportunities for daily social interaction recreation, and service activities.<39,40>

More:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0689/is_n3_v45/ai_19891681/pg_1

[Acadia Blue]

54. Before Castro, Batista a corporatist pig oppressed everyone who

was not rich and we supported him just like we support all despots who serve our corporate socialists.

[Traction311]

82. I wouldn't want perfect free healthcare

If it meant I had to live in the stone age. Keep the free, good healthcare, and I'll keep my PDA cell phone, HDTV, car navigation, and Nintendo Wii.

[AlphaCentauri]

95. Not everybody can afford a PDA, HDTV, GPS or Wii

Timothy Roberts who lives under a bridge wipes tears from his eyes as other homeless people huddle to stay warm. "Being homeless is total despair," Roberts says.

[Traction311]

108. I understand if they can't afford it

But the option should be there for those who can.

[AlphaCentauri]

113. the option to be poor is malign that I can't imagine people with mental problems trying to choose to

be poor, some options in the lets have many choices world are inhuman.

[Traction311]

122. Not talking about an option to be poor

I was saying there should be an option for luxories, for those who can afford it.

[AlphaCentauri]

138. I know everybody wants options for luxuries but not for the poor

poverty has been pitch as an option, there are many "stereotypes" of poor people made by the vultures of the system and supported by the middle class.

[harmonicon]

104. I wouldn't mind

....seeing as I wouldn't want to own any of those things (which is good, because I can't afford them anyway). In fact, I think it would be totally frickin' awesome if you were taxed like mad so that you couldn't afford them either, if it meant fewer people had to go without medical treatment.

For every infant that dies in the US who wouldn't have died had they and their mother had the healthcare that is provided to Cuban citizens, I hope you get a strike in Wii bowling. I bet that makes it totally worth it.

[Traction311]

109. High taxation is a form of dictatorship

I am barely middle class and chose to spend my hard-erned money on a HDTV, GPS, PDA, and Wii. Big freaking deal. What was I supposed to do, instead spend the money on someone who doesn't give have free healthcare? Give me a break!

[harmonicon]

111. Yes, that is what you should do

"High taxation is a form of dictatorship".... uh huh.... oh, god, those poor Scandanavians with their highest standard in the world.

I've changed my mind about you getting the strike in Wii bowling. I hope you get a serious illness, have no insurance, have no one to help you, and die a very slow and painful death. I hope the Wii makes it all worth it.

Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe they have Wii in hell, and you'll be as happy as a clam.

[Traction311]

123. Put your money where your mouth is, tough guy

Why are you online right now? Why do you have a computer at all? For the price you paid for your computer and your monthly online bill, it can be going to the poor. Seriously, liberals like you cost us elections. How you can wish an illness on someone who you don't even know is a disgrace.

For the record, I support universal heath care for US citizens, similar to Canada's. The people there have great free coverage. They also have the option to buy a PDA, Wii, PS3, 70" HDTV, GPS, etc. if they can afford it.

[harmonicon]

124. Well, I get paid by a grant from a British university

some how those poor down-trodden Brits, suffering under a horrible tyranny of high taxes, have been able to give healthcare to all of their citizens and make a deposit into my bank account every month.

How can I wish an illness on someone I don't know? It's easy. Once I know that that person would have a child die in their own country so that they could have a video game, I know that that is a person who I don't think deserves to be on this earth.

As far as costing "us" elections. I don't ever want to be associated as part of an "us", if it includes the likes of you. I think the RNC might have a website.... did free republic shut down? Why the fuck are you here?

[Traction311]

136. So you think that everyone who doesn't agree with the Cuban government belongs on Free Republic?

I never said I'd rather have a child die, I said if free healcare meant we wouldn't have the option to buy the latest technology, then I don't want any part of it. What's wrong with Canada's? They have great free health care, and lots of people can still afford 2008 cars, GPS, etc. Why do you want Cuba's? Why should anyone have to sacrifice high tech toys to to get free health care? Why not have both? My position is in agreement with the party platform more than you. Hilary and Obama both favor universal healthcare without giving up luxories. Voilence and wishing death on people is for the right-wing. I hate when liberals do it, voilent revoltionary wannabee thugs.

[Judi Lynn]

137. You need to break down and try to get a little information on the history of the Western Hemisphere,

and the sordid history of U.S. policy toward other countries therein, and Cuba specifically, as the subject of an embargo put in place during Dwight D. Eisenhower's Presidency.

The vast majority of Cubans had NO luxuries to give up, and only a drooling idiot would even dream of trying to compare what they have endured as being in anywhere similar to the easy life of a total asshole in this country who won't even take the time to be aware that elsewhere life is damned difficult when the U.S. decides it's going to make your life a living hell.

If you can manage it, put aside your stupid toys and pick up a book, if you think you're up to the challenge.

Get off your fat ass and start trying to have a grasp of the subject you're attempting to discuss, for Christ's sake.

[Traction311]

139. I don't support the embargo

I think at one point it may have been necessary, but it has long outlived it's usefulness, and should have been repealed after the Soviet Union broke up. While I don't support their government, they are no threat to anyone at all.

Although we disagree, I am very liberal on almost all the issues, except for guns, and the reason for that is fear of right-wing dictatorships.

[Judi Lynn]

140. If you'd fear right-wing dictatorships, you would have been scared spitless by Fulgencio Batista,

with his DEATH SQUADS, his torture center in Havana, his gunning down of dissidents, torturing dissidents, having dissidents hung from trees and lampposts, thrown out of cars into the streets, etc.

Many people in Cuba fought back as hard as possible, and he used his American-donated aircraft and bombs on them. An American ambassador, Earl Smith, was on hand in Santiago de Cuba when a procession of mothers whose sons were murdered by the Batista government made its way through the streets to the city hall, carrying signs. When they got there, the government police turned fire hoses on them. Even his own soldiers eventually refused to continue to fight against their fellow Cubans.

Amazing how a right-wing mind "works," isn't it? The right-wingers who rage against what little they know about Cuba would NEVER have been happy with a national leader like that, a man who abused, tortured, and slaughtered so many of "HIS OWN PEOPLE," if he hadn't been a man after their own hearts. You may have noticed right-wingers think it's appropriate to torture and murder people who are not right-wingers, haven't you? I'm sure you have. Their morality is only for appearance. Rules and laws are only meant for the rest of humanity.

Here's an article written by a New York Times correspondant who was assigned to Cuba at the time:

New York Times
June 10, 1957.pp. 1, 10.

Populace in Revolt in Santiago de Cuba
By Herbert L. Matthews

Special to The New York Times

SANTIAGO DE CUBA, June 9 – This is a city in open revolt against President Fulgencio Batista.No other description could fit the fact that virtually every man, woman, and child in Santiago de Cuba, except police and army authorities, are struggling at all costs to themselves to overthrow the military dictatorship in Havana.

What applies to Santiago de Cuba can be applied with much the same terms to the whole province of Oriente, at least the eastern end of the island.It is the most heavily populated and fertile region of Cuba, and is traditionally the home of the struggle for Cuban liberty.If Havana had anything like the civic resistance movement of Santiago de Cuba, the Batista regime might have ended a long time ago.

It is one of the most extraordinary atmospheres ever encountered by this correspondent in many countries and during many periods of stress and war.The tension is almost palpable and is certainly very dangerous for the regime.Santiago de Cuba is a city living in a state of fear and exaltation, and it is the exaltation that dominates.

The fear is injected by what leading citizens of the city recently branded as a “reign of terror” imposed by the tough chief of police, Lieut. Col. José Maria Salas Cañizares, whom General Batista sent here two weeks ago to try to crush the rebellious spirit of the citizens.

For many months there have been waves of violence and of counter-terrorism by the authorities, but the last two weeks this correspondent was assured, have been the worst.The police chief, according to reliable witnesses, began his lesson to the inhabitants by having his men drive around the city to beat men and women haphazardly.In this way, Colonel Salas Cañizares let it be known that the people had better stay home in the evenings.

They are doing so, as far as could be seen, for Santiago de Cuba is almost a dead city after 9 or 10 o’clock at night, whereas it is normally gay and thronged with men and women at this hot time of the year.

Four Youths Slain
The worst act of terror, which the Santiagueros universally attribute to the police, occurred the night of May 27.The morning after, the bodies of four youths were found hanging from trees, two on one side of the city and two on an other.They had been tortured, stabbed and shot before they were strung up.
This caused such a sense of horror and revulsion that a large group of women of the city prepared last Sunday for a demonstration of protest, gathering first for a mass in the cathedral.A number of policemen, armed with submachine guns, were sent into the church to walk around and intimidate the women.The maneuver failed, but when the women tried to form a parade, it was roughly broken up, witnesses said.

Two mothers of the slain youths arranged to see this correspondent secretly late one night, along with some parents and relatives of other youths slain, as the relatives believe, by the police.At the last minute the relatives sent word that the police had threatened them with dire consequences if they talked too much.

However, many other persons have come forth, either openly or secretly, to tell of incidents.The risk was considerable for all such persons, for the police had been trying to keep the closest watch on this correspondent from the moment of his arrival three days ago.

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuban-rebels/NYT-6-10-57.htm

Here are photos of the mothers parade to meet the American ambassador:







The mothers, as they run up to speak to the U.S. ambassador:



The mothers as the police turn fire hoses on them:



On edit:
In case the large photos won't come through on this thread, I posted them in an earlier thread at D.U., and they seem to be visible there:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2638333

Post #38

[harmonicon]

141. You did say you'd rather have a child die than give up your Wii.

Thanks, thread-based message board.

You: "Keep the free, good healthcare, and I'll keep my PDA cell phone, HDTV, car navigation, and Nintendo Wii."

[AlphaCentauri]

94. oh no! giant plasma TVs are more important than people

:sarcasm:

[AP]

18. Yes. Sweden.

And just because Nazis called it that, doesn't mean it wasn't fascism.

[fascisthunter]

22. It Has....

You forget there are forces that don't want it to work. Nothing exists in a bubble, therefore capitalistic nations always have had a role in their demise. You are aware that the US has backed coups and disrupted nationas that were socialistic?

Now if only America woould allow other nations to decide their own fate.

By the way, it's Democratic Socialism, and not Socialism alone.

[Ordr]

23. I'll admit I don't know much about this topic.

*head slap*

[fascisthunter]

24. No Biggy Brother... I also thought the same

I started to realize alot after delving into this topic.... it started in 2001 when I got into an argument with somebody and wanted to research to defend my stance on the issue. From there on I realized a lot of things. There are some really decent folks here that hopefully will offer you more info without being nasty.

It is a Blue Moon afterall, here's a coffee :donut:

[Ordr]

26. Thank you, sir.

There's quite a bit about socialism that I have to read about, specifically the adaptation of it into the ideology of starkly different political parties.

[fascisthunter]

27. I Would Like to See Certain Services Socialized

I think a balance is good for any economy. I don't believe any economy should be completely one way or another.

Take for instance our need for a military. Or fire department.... these are necessities that are socialized to keep cost of those services to a minimum. I also think there are services that are fine without being socialized. I just do not like seeing monopolies controling any part of our economy for when they fail it hits our economy harder than if there was more competition.

[Ordr]

29. This is where I'm really, really torn.

My ideal government, in concept, is very Randian or Objectivist or what have you. That said, however, I completely realize how that is fundamentally impossible at this stage of our country's existence. Socialized protective services, (fire, police, military, etc) at this period in time, are fine by me. Something I will disagree with you on, though, is the view of monopolies. From what I understand, the majority of monopolistic corporatism has arisen from government intervention in the affairs of these companies, either through subsidies, tax manipulation, etc. On a level playing field, there should be more than enough competition in all sectors to allow for a healthy market for consumers. And, should a dangerous monopoly arise, the right to sue this corporate entity will be available because it is harming the economic balance more than it is helping.

[fascisthunter]

34. It Almost Appears We Meet Somewhere at the same Point

just travel towards that point in slightly different trajectories...:toast:

[Ordr]

35. I'm scared.

:beer: :toast:

[Solon]

67. We had a version of a "Randian" government...

During the gilded age, and that brought about many of its own problems. Hell, our government was actually smaller than most companies, both in revenue and power, such as Standard Oil. Your faith in a "free market" is rather misplaced, for when there is competition, there are always losers within those markets. Monopolization is the end result, and no amount of lawsuits would do much to a Monopoly that has billions of dollars more to fight you in the courts than you would ever see in your lifetime.

In addition, we had private police, fire departments. They failed spectacularly, hence the reason they were socialized in the first place. Do you really want to see us regress back to the Gilded Age, and even before that?

[Peace Patriot]

96. Many of our socialized services HAVE become privatized--never more so than under

the Bush Junta--and they have consequently been riddled with corruption, corporate secrecy, lies and cover ups, incompetence, inefficiency, criminal negligence and just plain all-out looting of the taxpayers.

The military is an excellent example. Congressional hearing just yesterday on the shoddy armor that was KNOWINGLY provided--at great profit to private corporations--to U.S. soldiers in Iraq. But this criminality and gross malfeasance of private corporations has hit us everywhere--even in our voting system!

We need to reclaim the "Commons"--our 'common good' endeavors--whether it's energy and water systems, or emergency services, or national parks, or the military, or the postal service, or our public airwaves, or how we count our votes.

You can't HAVE a civilization without "the Commons." And when you lose "the Commons," you end up with a "dog eat dog" Bushite brawl. Fascist anarchy. Pirates. Brigands. War lords. Robber barons. And in today's world, global corporate predator robber barons, so powerful that no government can control them. They are eating us alive--actively, deliberately looting and destroying our "Commons."

The laissez faire capitalists--of which Ayn Rand is the 'philosopher'--sit atop an infrastructure that was built by better people than they are--people who believed in "the Commons": the ordinary people who pay for public schools, roads, parks, hospitals, police and fire protection, the military, and services of every kind, and who STAFF these "common good" enterprises, as well as the small bussinesspeople who provide MOST of the jobs in the country, and the visionaries and revolutionaries who create legal and governmental systems that promote individual freedom and human rights. The Ayn Rands DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE the socialized infrastructure that underpins their success--their ability to become millionaires. And now, they have gone and destroyed it all--or tried to. Looted it all. Fucked it all over. Now they are global predators who have no loyalty, even to the country that permitted them to become wealthy beyond belief.

Human welfare has always been dependent on a BALANCE between individualism (the daring, the adventurist, the creative, the explorer, the entrepreneur and the artist) and social welfare--the bottom-line conditions necessary for communities and nations to produce great works, whether it be buildings and aqueducts, or a beneficial legal system, or putting a refrigerator in every home, or putting men on the moon.

Balance! We are very, very, very unbalanced right now--way, way over in favor of those who exploit everything and want to contribute nothing to "the Commons." And don't acknowledge "the Commons." And see "the Commons" as just something else to loot.

[Acadia Blue]

55. I would like to see certain necessities socialized because unless

the congress has the spine to regulate, the poor and unfortunate are abused and ignored.

[LanternWaste]

37. There has been neither absolute socialism, nor absolute capitalism-- ever.

There has been neither absolute socialism, nor absolute capitalism-- ever. All current systems are currently on the very same plane, the difference being in degrees in the shift to either the left or the right.

That being said, there are many, many counties which have nationalized industries that we in America feel to be free-market sacred cows. But it works. Less financially powerful nations have much better health care than in America. Less financially powerful countries are steadily and consistently increasing literacy.

For one top assume that one and only system is the "best" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) illustrates either blind allegiance to an economic system (bad during Soviet rule, bad during Neo-Con rule), or a simple and obtuse refusal to perceive both the pros and the cons of all viable systems.

So, in answer to your simplistic and seemingly disingenuous question-- "Yes". It has worked in the past, continues to work in the present, and will work in the future.

[Acadia Blue]

56. Right. niether is absolute. Look at Sweaden and France.

[High Plains]

42. Chavez is Hitler? That's just feeble.

[Acadia Blue]

57. Chavez is Hitler. LOL. I think I smell frightened republican.

[Canuckistanian]

90. "National Socialism" was the biggest misnomer EVER

Hitler's regime had ZILCH to do with socialism on ANY level.

It was a top-down dictatorship. ALL power flowed from the top.

The name was an attempt to fool people - and some are STILL being fooled, apparently.

[Joanne98]

17. He wants to build houses using an oil waste made into plastic forms..

then fill the forms with concrete. A good idea really. It's cheap and good for the enviroment. The concrete company probably wanted to much profit. Good for him. Screw the greedy bastards!

[DCKit]

31. That method requires a lot less concrete too.

Maybe he's tired of being told "NO". I hear that a lot too - "It's too expensive", "It won't work HERE" (my favorite), "It's too difficult".

I take issue when any government starts grabbing private assets, but the corruption and greed of some industries has clearly become an impediment to the advance of Venezuelan society. As bothered as we are becoming over the entrenched ties between politics and business in our own society, imagine one where this is endemic and the history of the corporate ruling class is measured, not in decades, but in centuries.

[Acadia Blue]

58. Roof tiles from plastic waste were made in the early 2000s in the

USA.

[Vidar]

36. You're not the only one. I'd start with oil, defense contractors & pharmaceuticals.

[Redstone]

53. Uh-huh. Then buying gasoline or getting a prescription filled will be about as efficient and easy

as, say, dealing with the IRS or your state's Motor Vehicle Department.

And wouldn't THAT be fun?

Redstone

[Acadia Blue]

59. Ditto.

[David__77]

38. Swampy marsh of free marketeers here...

What's with all this blind faith in "the market?"

[Solon]

69. To many people think the "free" in "free market" equals political freedom...

they are idiots, to be frank about it.

[New Dawn]

119. Its the Attack of the DLC Hacks.

Its DU's bad parody of Night of the Living Dead.

[Codeine]

130. To be fair,

this is Democratic Underground and not Socialist Underground. While my sympathies certainly lean more socialist that's hardly a Democratic Party plank.

[Codedonkey]

43. Indifferent about this...

I see no reason why I should be upset about this... It's their country after all.. Jeez.

Hope it works out well for them. If it doesn't then I'm sure they will do whatever needs to be done to fix it... Now, if Chavez starts invading his neighbors or killing his own people then I'll change my opinion on it...

[Judi Lynn]

44. If he starts invading his neighbors and killing his own people it will seem as if there are TWO

Uribes in Latin America!

Maybe that would put him on _Bush's BUDDY list. It surely has worked for Álvaro Uribe.

[Acadia Blue]

60. And do you trust the Bush adm. to ttell you the truth? Recall that

Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraq and that did not get out until years after Bush I invaded Iraq.

It did not justify what Saddam did, but they did not tell the truth.

What makes you think they won't lie and set Chavez up?

I no longer believe a single word out of the Bush adm.

[Judi Lynn]

84. Who could believe a single word from these sociopaths?They do NOT identify with the human experience

Their warp is so intense, their descendants themselves will never evolve toward human beings. Eternally bent.

Who can really forget how much destruction _Bush had wrought long before 9-11, even? He leaped into action, removing EVERY progressive and necessary gain which had been made during Bill Clinton's terms, leaving no stone unturned, throwing back control to the mine operators, energy companies, derugulating critical environmental measures, ripping and shredding our social programs, and setting up countries for his impending war on the Islamic world, coercing them into agreeing to immunity for American soldiers in their countries long before he ever started his obvious firing up the war machine.

Have these people done ONE DECENT THING since they cheated their way into office? Can't think of one humane act, one gesture which benefited anyone outside their circle of parasites.

[Boojatta]

45. Some questions that Chavez cannot answer

In a TV address, he said his government could not allow private companies to export cement that was needed to tackle a severe housing shortage.

How do we know that money earned by exporting cement would not have been used to pay wages of construction workers? Also, is nationalization the only way to prevent export of cement?

Mr Chavez promised they would be paid fair compensation for the forthcoming state takeover of what he described as a strategic industry.

Would it be okay for a country that shares a border with Venezuela to take some land from Venezuela, provided that it promises to pay fair compensation?

[Warren Stupidity]

64. He's sort of busy right now but when he has some time

for it, he will conduct another 'answer really stupid questions from yankees' night.

[Solon]

66. Its called imminent domain, and companies are NOT nations...

where the hell did you come up with that false comparison?

ON EDIT: In relation to your first question, wouldn't building houses INSIDE THE COUNTRY employ more people than exporting cement? Its not like they aren't going to get paid for doing their jobs.

[Boojatta]

68. "companies are NOT nations"

True, just as individuals are not nations. Hence nationalists claim that nations have the right to do what no individual could claim to have the right to do: violate the rights of individuals.

In relation to your first question, wouldn't building houses INSIDE THE COUNTRY employ more people than exporting cement?

Why are the options either build some houses inside the country or export some cement and not both?

It's not like they aren't going to get paid for doing their jobs.

People who build castles and bake cakes are paid for doing their jobs, but I wouldn't propose that the solution to economic problems in Venezuela is for everyone in Venezuela to build a castle and eat cake.

If there are idle home builders because people in Venezuela cannot compete when it comes to bidding for cement, then doesn't that mean that exporting cement is a good source of income for Venezuela? If Chavez cuts off good sources of income for Venezuela, then how are people in Venezuela going to be able to afford to pay people to build houses in Venezuela?

[Solon]

70. What good is having money to build a house, and not have the cement to build it?

It takes time to make cement, and its a resource that's limited like any other, the exportation of it, depending on amount, would actually raise prices domestically. In addition, you are assuming the PEOPLE of Venezuela get the money from the exports now, they do NOT, the companies that run the plants and quarries that make the cement are making the money, and not every Venezuelan works for them.

Also, why should Venezuela compete in bidding for a domestic resource in the first place? That makes no sense, its like having to bid on food you grow on your own property. Also, most of the people who can afford for others to build houses now are the rich, not the poor.

This is a cost saving measure for the people of Venezuela, no more, no less, as a publicly owned and operated company, the Cement manufacturing can be done at cost, without profit, which lowers the price of the cement. I would hazard a guess that the Venezuelan government was getting stiffed on cement for public housing projects, and so they took the next logical step, find a way to reduce the cost of low income housing. They could have done this in any numerous ways, but leaving the company private would have run the risk of them simply going out of business, having the company made publicly owned would ensure it would stay running and maintain employment, even in times of economic hardship that may occur down the road.

You are thinking short term here, and, to be honest, I don't know why anyone really objects to this, its a necessary industry, and one that actually isn't that competitive, why shouldn't it be nationalized?

[Boojatta]

71. If you claim that it should be nationalized, then the onus is on you to support your claim.

Also, why should Venezuela compete in bidding for a domestic resource in the first place? That makes no sense, its like having to bid on food you grow on your own property.

Does it not make any sense for people who live and work in a country other than Venezuela to export anything to Venezuela? It's interesting that you mention the idea of having to bid on food you grow on your own property. You don't have to bid on it because you already own it. You get to decide whether or not to sell it. The owners of cement manufacturing companies in Venezuela don't get to decide whether or not to sell. That's the problem.

This is a cost saving measure for the people of Venezuela, no more, no less, as a publicly owned and operated company, the Cement manufacturing can be done at cost, without profit, which lowers the price of the cement.

Isn't that short-term thinking? Why should people risk their savings to create a new enterprise that will produce cement or anything else if the cement or other output of the production process will be purchased "at cost"? Doesn't "at cost" mean that a decision is being made to neglect the question of how the manufacturing enterprise came into existence?

If I evict you from your own home, then I have a place to live. If I pay for heating, electricity, property taxes, etc while I live on the property, but I don't pay anything to you, then I get home rental "at cost", which saves me money. You already built it yourself or paid others to build it or bought it from the previous owner. Given that the home now exists and you are merely the owner, you are no longer needed.

[Solon]

72. Your argument is making even less sense now, first off, they are being compensated...

at fair market value. In addition, you comparison of an industry or company to a home or individual is misdirection at best.

All that's happening is that this industry or company is changing hands, something that happens a lot on the so called "free" market. Why is it so bad that its the government that is becoming the new owners, instead of some other company that just completed a "hostile takeover"?

[Boojatta]

73. "Your argument is..."

I'm asking questions, not supporting any claim.

[Solon]

74. Actually, you are asking leading questions based on false premises and inaccurate analogies...

that's making an argument. The problem is that you are assuming that the Cement industry/company is sovereign and has civil rights, this simply isn't the case. The owners of the company have rights, but they don't extend to the right to operate their business any way they see fit. The fact is that the Venezuelan government isn't doing anything radical here, every government on the planet has done the same damn thing, and continues to do so when necessary. All of them have laws regulating this behavior, and Venezuela is no different, imminent domain laws have a place in society, as long as the owners of the company in question are properly compensated, they have no right to complain.

[Warren Stupidity]

75. eminent

[Solon]

77. dammit, I hate when I do that shit!

Thanks for the correction! :)

[Boojatta]

76. How do you decide whether or not a question is leading?

The problem is that you are assuming that the Cement industry/company is sovereign and has civil rights, this simply isn't the case.

Where did I assume that? I thought that I had asked about owners, not about industries or companies.

The owners of the company have rights, but they don't extend to the right to operate their business any way they see fit.

Are the owners being punished for a violation of law? Have they been found guilty in a court of law?

the Venezuelan government isn't doing anything radical here, every government on the planet has done the same damn thing

If every government on the planet has done the same damn thing, then why are some participants in this thread praising Chavez?

as long as the owners of the company in question are properly compensated, they have no right to complain.

Who decides what compensation is proper and who has a right to speak out or complain?

eminent domain laws have a place in society

Why not create a new thread in the Justice forum to express your opinion about eminent domain laws?

[Solon]

78. hmm...

Where did I assume that? I thought that I had asked about owners, not about industries or companies.

Well, you first compared this action to taking land from another country, that involves quite a few assumptions on your part, and whether you meant the company or the owners in particular is actually irrelevant to the argument, for they aren't sovereign either.

Are the owners being punished for a violation of law? Have they been found guilty in a court of law?

Who said this is punishment? That is again a false premise, this action isn't being taken to punish the owners for wrongdoing, but to make sure the resource, in this case cement, is being used for the public good.

If every government on the planet has done the same damn thing, then why are some participants in this thread praising Chavez?

Because today it seems rare for governments of the third world to do it for the public good. Especially in South America, usually the laws in place are used to move property and resources from public hands to private hands, such as giving away water utilities to Corporations, etc.

Who decides what compensation is proper and who has a right to speak out or complain?

By and large its going to be accountants and auditors, they will add up the assets and debts of whatever companies are handed over, and come up with a number to pay the owners of these companies. Actually, this could be a boon for some of them, especially if their companies are heavily in debt because, even if they don't get much money out of it, the Government is going to take over responsibility for that debt.

Why not create a new thread in the Justice forum to express your opinion about eminent domain laws?

Uhm, I don't see why I have to do that.

[Boojatta]

80. Perhaps I should ask for more explanations instead of assuming that I understand your statements.

Boojatta:
Are the owners being punished for a violation of law? Have they been found guilty in a court of law?

Solon:
Who said this is punishment?

You wrote this:
"The owners of the company have rights, but they don't extend to the right to operate their business any way they see fit."

Perhaps you could explain why you wrote that.

Boojatta:
If every government on the planet has done the same damn thing, then why are some participants in this thread praising Chavez?

Solon:
Because today it seems rare for governments of the third world to do it for the public good.

Why do you assume that it will be beneficial to the public for every individual employed in cement manufacturing to be appointed or approved by the government of Venezuela?

If Chavez is good at managing cement production, then why doesn't he buy a single company? By producing high quality cement and selling it at low prices, he would attract customers away from competitors. Then the competitor companies would have lower profits and would pay lower dividends and their shares would go down in price and it would be possible to buy those shares for less than today's fair market value.

[Solon]

81. OK, let's see if I can explain things better...

Private companies generally do things that are perfectly legal, but also run counter to the public good. Examples would include outsourcing, layoffs, externalities, etc. Private businesses are in those businesses to make money, period, public/state companies are in the business of serving the public. There's a distinct difference between the two.

As far as your question asking about the benefits, its again leading. Who said that EVERY individual would have to be approved by the government, does the government directly control who is hired or fired from PDVSA? No, they relegate that to managers and bureaucrats within the company, as if it were a private business. The people appointed are limited to those at the top, they are the ones who run the company in question, and they are the ones answerable to the Legislature.

As far as your last statement and questions, the problem is that you are assuming that they are interesting in "selling" the product, rather than providing a service. Oh, I'm sure the public cement company is going to sell some of it to individuals to use as they see fit, along with contractors etc. However, the lions share of the business is going to be the government itself, providing subsidized and community owned low income housing for the poor. If they decided to compete on a free market, by buying one business, and basically forcing the rest out of business, as you mentioned, that would lead to a bigger disruption in supply of cement to customers, including themselves, than it would if they simply nationalized it.

You seem to misconstrue how nationalization takes place, do you honestly think the Venezuelan government is interested in making money just for the sake of making money? This is a revenue source, that much is true, but not necessarily in the same way as it would have been if it was kept in private hands. Building stable communities, with low cost yet clean and modern housing, leads to side benefits such as attracting businesses to impoverished areas, improving health and sanitation, etc. They can even do this at below cost, something no private business can do, this means that no community would be priced out of range of the housing built with this cement.

Let's say you are the private business in question, and a poor person in Venezuela wants you to help them find a contractor to build a home for their family in an impoverished neighborhood. You add up the costs of construction and materials, and find that they cannot pay enough money to cover costs. Would you still say yes you'll help them build the house? No, of course not, it wouldn't be feasible for you to do that, you would bankrupt your own business, you aren't a charity, after all.

A publicly run and funded business, on the other hand, can do exactly that, even if the cement business itself runs into the red, for years, decades even, it has other sources of revenue, from PDVSA to simply taxes, so it can provide a service that is simply unavailable to large sectors of the Venezuelan population relying on private businesses to build their shelters.

Anyways, I'm going to bed, think about why this is happening before you dismiss it out of hand, large sectors of the Venezuelan population lives in what could be called shacks, they need more permanent and durable housing, that's a big reason why Chavez is doing what he is doing.

[Judi Lynn]

85. You are relentlessly decent. I'm sure you have a lot of friends you've never met who appreciate your

calm, thoughtful, informed responses.

By answering this clown so well, you've added sound ideas to the common conversation which has often been hijacked. You've upgraded the tone on this thread considerably.

That's something only the pure in HEART can accomplish. That's my belief. You're very intelligent, with an active conscience.

[Solon]

97. Awww...Judi, your making me blush!

:blush:

:D

[U4ikLefty]

100. Judi is correct....your responses are very well thought out.

Thanks for the great read.

[Boojatta]

102. I thought governments were in the business of winning elections, not necessarily serving the public.

If they decided to compete on a free market, by buying one business, and basically forcing the rest out of business, as you mentioned, that would lead to a bigger disruption in supply of cement to customers, including themselves, than it would if they simply nationalized it.

I didn't speak of "forcing the rest out of business." Here's what I wrote:

If Chavez is good at managing cement production, then why doesn't he buy a single company? By producing high quality cement and selling it at low prices, he would attract customers away from competitors. Then the competitor companies would have lower profits and would pay lower dividends and their shares would go down in price and it would be possible to buy those shares for less than today's fair market value.

Why do newspapers publish long lists of numbers every week in business sections of newspapers? If all businesses go up or down in lock-step, with no changes in their positions relative to each other, then why not just publish one number that shows how all the businesses shifted up or shifted down? Changes in the relative positions of businesses seem to be ongoing, rather than unusual and dangerously disruptive.

Competition serves customers by at least giving customers a choice, but what choice will there be for people who want to buy cement when the government of Venezuela controls all cement businesses?

You add up the costs of construction and materials, and find that they cannot pay enough money to cover costs. Would you still say yes you'll help them build the house? No, of course not, it wouldn't be feasible for you to do that, you would bankrupt your own business, you aren't a charity, after all.

A publicly run and funded business, on the other hand, can do exactly that, even if the cement business itself runs into the red, for years, decades even, it has other sources of revenue, from PDVSA to simply taxes, so it can provide a service that is simply unavailable to large sectors of the Venezuelan population relying on private businesses to build their shelters.

Is it really true that the government of Venezuela doesn't have enough money to compete against foreign bids for cement, but it has enough money to buy all the cement businesses in Venezuela at fair market value and also operate those businesses at a loss for decades?

[Solon]

105. If the people elected in a democratic government don't serve the public's best interest...

they aren't going to stay in power that long. Sure they want to win elections, but its HOW they do it that matters. Venezuela, being an open democracy is no different than any other Democratic government, if the people at top don't serve the public good, and this includes Chavez, then they can be removed from office. According to the Venezuelan Constitution, the people don't even have to wait till the next election cycle to remove Chavez from office, if they wanted to do it.

As far as my assertion about forcing them out of business, if the Venezuelan government competed, openly with private companies in the same industry, those cannot compete against the government, the government has far too many advantages, including, as I mentioned before, operating at below cost, which would undercut any prices any private company could offer.

As far as competition giving customers a choice, you do have to realize that the Government of Venezuela isn't buying up all the contractors, at least their prices are negotiable, instead they are buying the provider of a raw resource, a resource that actually doesn't vary that much in quality or quantity from company to company. Indeed, it would be construction contractors, rather than, for example, home buyers, who would directly order the cement for their various projects.

As far as your last question, again, it has little to do with whether Venezuela can afford the cement, or compete on bids from foreign buyers. They want to do the fiscally responsible thing, which is to make sure the cement is used domestically first, before any foreign buyers can bid on it. This isn't an unusual practice, many nations require domestic national resources to be used first in their nations, and only allow surpluses to be exported. The fact is that the Venezuelan government could spend twice as much money by competing in bids for the cement than producing it themselves. It seems to me that they are trying to save the taxpayers some money.

[Boojatta]

121. Did Chavez give a speech describing the alternatives from a financial point of view?

They want to do the fiscally responsible thing (...). It seems to me that they are trying to save the taxpayers some money.

If the government of Venezuela is borrowing money to buy Venezuela's entire cement production industry, then doesn't that mean that taxpayers are going to pay interest on that borrowed money every year? How do those anticipated interest payments compare to the cost of buying cement? Do you have numbers? Also, what happens if interest rates go up?

[tama]

128. Food, clothes and shelter

"Is it really true that the government of Venezuela doesn't have enough money to compete against foreign bids for cement, but it has enough money to buy all the cement businesses in Venezuela at fair market value and also operate those businesses at a loss for decades"

First, why give the financial class vampires a chance to extort a buck and more between in the first place?

Second, you may have noticed that recently also many Asian countries have be official decree stopped exporting rice, instead of trying to compete against foreign bids. That is of course extremely bad news for importing countries and their starving masses, but that is the way independent nation states operate - or are at least expected to operate by their citizens, to guarantee availability of material goods that are indispensable for "food clothes and shelter" types of basic needs.

[tama]

127. If I may

"Why do you assume that it will be beneficial to the public for every individual employed in cement manufacturing to be appointed or approved by the government of Venezuela?"

Why do you make such an assumption, as the case history of nationalizations in Venezuela shows that worker participitation in decision making is the preferred way there? IE direct and participatory democracy on factory level, instead of dictatorship of greed (aka capitalist shareholders). To add, I'm not denying there have been also conflicts between aspirations for even better direct and participatory worker democracy and control mania of the central representative power, as is custom in any revolutionary political process.

[tama]

126. We the people

"Who decides what compensation is proper and who has a right to speak out or complain?"

We the people?

In this case, people of Venezuela, through representative democratic system (which IMHO is certainly far from satisfying system to be added). Your questions in this context appear (/get easily interpreted) as if you believed that the exclusive right belongs only to proponents (and more importantly those that benefit) of certain neoliberal economic "greed is good" theories.

But really, greed is not good. It is a mortal sin. It kills and feasts upon the future of our children.

[tama]

125. Au contraire

After the nationalization, the rightfull owners of cement manufacturing companies in Venezuela (people of Venezuela through their democratically elected representatives) DO get to decide whether or not to sell.

And if the nationalization is done correctly and not giving all the power to central governement but also to the workers themselves (as its normally done in Venezuela) the rightfull owners of the labor (ie human workers) get to decide over the fruits of their labour (ie products) instead of the robot like capitalist owner, whose blind greed decides for him very mechanically.

[Peace Patriot]

99. Chavez didn't say he wasn't going to PAY the workers in cement plants.

"If Chavez cuts off good sources of income for Venezuela, then how are people in Venezuela going to be able to afford to pay people to build houses in Venezuela?" --Boojatta

Using certain limited edict powers on financial issues--that the National Assembly voted to give him for a limited time period--powers nearly identical to powers given to previous presidents by previous legislatures--Chavez is going to take over the cement business, with compensation to its owners, and run it as a state business, which--just like the oil industry--hires people and pays people to do the work. What he is doing is reserving to the government the DECISION about where the cement is sold. He is removing the profiteers--the people who are raking money off the top, by selling the cement to foreign markets (the highest bidder). He is saying: there are other considerations here than the highest bidder. There are social and national considerations, and vital interests. Highest bidder selling benefits the few. Keeping the cement in the country benefits the many. The cement workers still work. The building workers, and oil products workers (for the new plastic housing materials) GAIN work. Others GAIN work--those putting in roads and other infrastructure for the new housing. And those who need homes gain, with the increase in housing stock.

I don't know the recent history of this issue in Venezuela, but I presume that the Chavez government tried to talk the cement industry owners and bosses into cooperating before they decided to nationalize. I also presume that it was a situation in which a high tax on exported cement would work too slowly to improve the amount of available cement for Venezuelan projects. In other words, they have many projects pending, involving many workers, and critical social and economic needs, that are being help up. Action was needed.

Do you know that steel is almost unavailable for U.S. building projects? It's all going to China, for their massive growth spurt. Who benefits? The CEOs, the owners, the rich. Who suffers? American building industry workers, and all American workers in industries that use steel, and their communities, and any private, community or state building projects, and all the future money--investment, new businesses--they may attract. The steelworkers themselves may temporarily benefit, but, long term, they, too, will be fucked over, because sending all the steel to China adds to the economic depression here, and supports a government--China--that is dragging down labor standards worldwide, that is undemocratic, and that now holds a big chunk of U.S. debt paper.

It's BAD policy to have all the steel going out of the country--BAD policy is a hundred different ways. And would that we had a government that fights for OUR interests against the short-sighted and excessively greedy rich minority, like Chavez is fighting for the interests of the majority of Venezuelans!

[Peace Patriot]

101. "....violate the rights of individuals." What individuals are you talking about here?

The rights of the CEOs, the owners, the investors, the bosses? There is NO INHERENT RIGHT to do business. Businesses are licensed BY THE PUBLIC, and regulated BY THE PUBLIC, and corporations are CHARTERED, LICENSED and REGULATED by the public--by the SOVEREIGN people of the country, in democracies. Business has no rights. Business has PERMISION, from US, to create products and to provide services that we feel are in our interest. And when they violate the rules of their licenses, and violate charters, and violate regulations, We the People have the right to STOP them from doing business. And we can make those licenses, charters and regulations subject to ANY conditions that we, collectively, decide are for the common good.

Corporate P.R. flaks have succeeded in brainwashing a lot of Americans into believing not only that corporate "rights" exist, and are comparable to the rights of individuals, but also that corporate "rights" supercede the rights of the People. A court in Florida just found last year that ES&S's "right" to run our elections, and to profit from our elections, using 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY progrramming code in the all the voting machines, SUPERCEDES the right of the voters to know how their votes were counted! That's how far this fascist meme has gone. Corporations have "rights" over our VOTING SYSTEM--and we have NO RIGHTS over it.

We need to understand that the OPPOSITE is true--and furthermore essential to democracy. Corporations have NO rights. Businesses have NO rights. Only PEOPLE have rights. And, collectively, we have the ultimate rights, the sovereign rights, the Constitutionally mandated rights to control all land, all business, all profit, all resources and all economic activity within our borders.

Nationalizing an industry--such as oil, cement or steel--in the interests of the nation, is NOT a violation of the "rights of individuals." It is a perfectly proper, democratic action to take perfectly proper, democratic control of some aspect of the economy that needs to be directed toward the common good. The Venezuelan people can recall President Chavez by a vote of the people. They have that CONSTITUTIONAL power. The rightwing opposition--funded by the Bush/USAID-NED--tried a recall election, and lost, big. (Chavez won the recall election with 60% of the vote.) So, it's not as if the Venezuelan people don't have options, if they don't like Chavez policy. 63% of them voted for Chavez in 2006. He and his government lost on the proposed Constitutional amendments, in a very close vote (in Dec '07), but that wasn't a vote on his administration. He and his government have been repeatedly been elected to run the country, and to implement KNOWN policy--well-known policy. How does this "violate" the "rights of individuals"? The Chavez government has acted, time and again, to ENHANCE the rights of individuals--their right to vote, their right to an education, their right to public participation, their right through community councils to direct local use of government funds, their right to decent wages and benefits, their right to have a voice on the public airwaves. Not the "rights" of corporations. The rights of individuals! The only rights that exist in a democracy.

[tama]

129. Greed is not right. It's a sin. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

117. Venezuela to nationalize cement sector

Venezuela to nationalize cement sector

President Hugo Chavez, who has long accused foreign companies of keeping prices high and supplies tight, will take over the industry.

By Marla Dickerson, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 5, 2008

MEXICO CITY -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is planning a government takeover of his country's cement industry, his latest effort to impose state control over key sectors of an economy battered by shortages and inflation.

Chavez made the declaration during a televised cabinet meeting late Thursday. He has long accused foreign cement companies of keeping prices high and supplies tight by exporting their products to other countries while Venezuela is suffering a housing shortage.

"We're going to nationalize the cement industry. Enough already!" Chavez said.

The action is a blow to Monterrey, Mexico-based Cemex, the largest producer in Venezuela. Industry companies LaFarge of France and Switzerland's Holcim Ltd. would also be affected.

More:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-venez5apr05,1,3879299.story

[Judi Lynn]

142. American Indian Nation Opposes Venezuela ‘Terrorist’ Resolution

American Indian Nation Opposes Venezuela ‘Terrorist’ Resolution

Indian Country Today, Posted: Apr 09, 2008

INDIAN ISLAND, Maine – Penobscot Indians are leading the opposition to a congressional resolution to label Venezuela as a terrorist country.

Penobscot leaders say that House Resolution 1049 threatens to stop free heating oil that Venezuela has supplied to hundreds of American Indians and low-income people for the last three years. James Sappier, former Penobscot chief, said it was not true that the Venezuela government supports the Colombian guerrilla group, FARC, designated by the U.S. as a terrorist group. Sappier and others are urging tribes to contact their representatives to urge them to vote against the resolution.

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=54e1b90e513cccb4f9bb2f42622a3497

You may recall this move to designate Venezuela as a "terrorist" nation was spearheaded by the Cuban right-wing Congresswoman in Florida, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.