A total of 234 companies seized so far this year in Venezuela

[Zorro]

Seems like a lot to me.

<snip>

Alarms are ringing loud in the business sector. According to the Venezuelan Confederation of Industries (Conindustria), 234 companies have been expropriated so far this year.

"The private sector is seriously deteriorated, public policies implemented in the last few years have been steadily destroying jobs," said Carlos Larrazábal, president of Conindustria.

The data do not include government's seizures in the agricultural sector. However, these figures confirm the intensification of the expropriation policy in the past two years. According to estimates released by Conindustria, the State took over 56 companies between 2002 and 2008; in 2009 it seized 131 firms, and expropriations have doubled in 2010.

In this sense, Larrazábal said that the radicalization of economic policies, as announced by Hugo Chávez, will worsen the economy. "The radicalization of the process, as some have threatened, is going to complicate the investment climate and at the end of the day Venezuelans will continue to pay the consequences."

<snip>

More at: http://english.eluniversal.com/2010/11/26/en_eco_esp_a-total-of-234-compa_26A4779011.shtml

[bemildred]

1. Well, it seems to me that the "Private Sector" got the war it wanted with Chavez.

The problem is they seem to be losing.

[subsuelo]

2. Well the media has done its job setting him up

Most Americans seem to view Chavez as the next Saddam Hussein or another evil incarnate communist dictator hell bent on ending freedom and civil rights as we know it. At least that's the narrative being spun.

But they haven't been able to do much with him since the coup. Not sure what the strategy is at the moment. Clearly all this crying about seizures of companies and the ongoing "see how violent Caracas is" noise is an indication that he isn't doing things that the U.S. elite would like. But again, what exactly can be done about him is hard to say.

I guess I'm agreeing with you on the point - they do seem to be losing.

[bemildred]

3. Well, nothing lasts forever.

Politics is a dirty business, and Chavez is clearly a master politician. There will be no going back to the status quo ante before his rule. Sort of like the Castro brothers: you have to admit no matter what that he has played his hand well, politically speaking, despite the most formidable of enemies, he is still there.

[Zorro]

4. He's the Mussolini of Venezuela

I sure am encouraged to hear that all these government takeovers have made such a positive effect on the economy.

[bemildred]

5. No offense, but he is nothing like Mussolini.

Unless you think the fact that you dislike them both make them similar to each other. If you just want to call him names, then OK, have at it ...

[social_critic]

9. Does show some fascist tendencies

I think the fascist tendencies are there. Extremism and autocracy tend to go full circle. If a socialist/communist ruler becomes an autocrat, tends to give the military lots of toys, and allows the private sector to function - but only if it does what he wants, then this can be called fascism. If he were to nationalize everything, as Castro did in his early days, then he would be a bona fide communist - a Stalinist or Castroist.

I think what we see in China today is not communism, but a form of fascism. They even have the senior "communist" party members annoint their children as "princelings" and the communist aparatchiks are gradually morphing into businessmen. Therefore China seems to be moving towards fascism with a heavy dose of savage capitalism.

Long term, we can hope, these states will move on and their populations can be free. But history moves in cycles, and the scourge of tyranny and autocracy, disguised in whichever way, of the left, and of the right, and their hybrids, will always be with us, I fear.

[EFerrari]

13. Before you continue to sling "fascist" around in public

you might want to look up the definition.

[social_critic]

27. Fascism: One possible definition

"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under an autocrat who may be elected but undermines classic democracy by control of all the branches of government as well as the economic levers of power. This centralized power is used to implement social and economic controls over the population, develop a loyalist military and security apparatus, suppress the opposition, and later carry out fraudalent elections, implement censorship, and deliver intensive propaganda with the proposal that only those who rule can rule, and the alternative is death.

Fascism usually seeks one party rule, and is tied to belligerent nationalism. Fascism is usually defined as a "right wing" political philosophy, but many fascist regimes began as populist movements tied to workers' unions and socialist theorists. Under fascism, some forms of private ownership are allowed, but they must serve the cause of the state, meaning they must behave as the ruling party wishes. The use of personality worship is common, and the ruler is referred to as "Father", "Commander", "Dear Leader", or similar tags. Sometimes rule is hereditary, passed on to the ruler's descendant or brother. It can be passed collectively to "princelings", the children of those party members who achieve oligarch status. A common aspect is the appointment of military leaders and the supreme leaders' close relatives as corporate chiefs, party leaders and also to key government jobs, and and the creation of large, powerful state corporations overseen by the military.

In parallel, union leaders are co-opted, destroyed, or new unions created to support the government (which gradually becomes the employer for the majority of the population), and university independence is eroded as the state seeks to educate the young cadres within the framework it desires."

I suppose one could say socialism which denies true democracy and disallows the possibility that opponents may have legitimate claims to power, can evolve towards autocratic fascism.

[naaman fletcher]

6. Yes

Mussolini was a socialist hero right up until ww2. There is nothing he did prior to 1940 (except Ethiopia) that the chavezistas would have any problem with.

[EFerrari]

14. LOL

[social_critic]

7. Is it a problem?

They didn't want a "war with Chavez". I suppose communists are happy to see the private sector gutted in Venezuela. But the Venezuelan economy is showing negative GDP growth as a consequence of government mismanagement, and this includes the lack of investment due to erratic government nationalizations.

So yes, it is a problem, the problem is for the whole of Venezuelan society. And Chavez' popularity keeps on going down. So imagine, what will happen if there are free and fair elections in Venezuela in 2012?

[bemildred]

8. Problem for whom?

One man's "problem" is another man's "business opportunity". I don't personally have any problem, I'm just a disinterested observer watching to see how it comes out.

As far as Chavez, it seems to me that attempting a coup amounts to picking a fight, so it is no real surprise to see him go after his enemies when he feels he can.
:-)

[social_critic]

10. So you support punishing people at random for a coup - 8 years later?

Are you supporting government behavior which "punishes" private entities because it was subject to a 2002 coup atempt? Can you prove that ANY of the INDIVIDUALS hurt by these nationalizations supported the coup? Chavez failed with his own coup in the 1990's, a coup which got quite a few people killed. He was jailed, released in an amnesty. It seems the Venezuelans are a fairly laid back people who let bygones be bygones. I don't buy your excuses or arguments supporting the current nationalization drive, which seems more aimed at getting cash flow now, and punishing those who don't bend to their ruler's will.

Who loses when the rule of law disappears, and when the economy melts down due to government behavior? The people do. Venezuela suffers from hyperinflation and negative economic growth in spite of high oil and commodity prices. Who hurts the most when stagflation hits? Retired folk, the poor, those who lack resources to get on a plane and emigrate. In other words, the majority of the people.

[naaman fletcher]

11. Not chavez

His opponents might have Been. Laid back people who let bygones be bygones but obviously that is not the case with Chavez. Or perhaps the 2002 coup attempt is just his front for stealing peoples stuff. Take your pick.

[bemildred]

12. LOL.

Your deep sympathy with the poor is duly noted.
:popcorn:

[subsuelo]

15. Not only is your understanding of Venezuela lacking

But your debate skills are really lacking as well.

I can only speculate on what imaginary debate you have going on in your head, but bemildred hasn't put forth any "excuses or arguments supporting the current nationalization drive" (unless I missed it somewhere in another thread?) The only replies that I've seen from bemildred are a couple of observatory comments and objection to the statement that Chavez is the "mussolini of venezuela". Where are the "excuses supporting the current nationalization drive"? Nowhere to be found! Yet, you claim that you "don't buy it". LOL

In fact, bemildred not only has said nothing about Chavez's nationalisation efforts one way or the other, but clearly spelled it out for you in the comment you just replied to:

bemildred: "I don't personally have any problem, I'm just a disinterested observer watching to see how it comes out."

I'd like to ask, what argument do you think you have involved yourself in, with bemildred or others? Is there some point you have to prove to everyone here?

My suggestion to you is to start paying closer attention to the actual discussions going on. Never know, you just might learn something too...

[ChangoLoa]

16. "Picking a fight..."

I don't see this having anything to do with the coup. In your argument, Chavez would be acting like a spoiled kid looking for revenge which he's not. Moreover, the nationalized companies don't belong to people involved in the coup, while many visible people who actually were involved in the coup are still free and active.

I think he's sincerely trying to create a new hybrid model of production. If interested, use google translate and try to figure out the texts from aporrea.org, where all the pro-govt intellectuals write. You'll be able to see the logic.

Do you know Alan Woods?

[bemildred]

17. That is true, there are principles at issue here.

I ignored that. You make a sound argument about the victims not necessarily being the same as the coupsters, too.

However is still seems reasonable to me based on what I know of recent history - modest though that is - to think that had the previous ruling elites been more cooperative with Chavez' project, then they could have retained more influence than they have had, and they would have had better chances of retaking power legitimately in a less divided country somewheres down the road. They took a scorched earth approach, and it has cost them, or at least so it appears to me at present. By trying to overthrow him they gave him and his cause ammunition to use against them, and motivation to be aggressive and wary.

I had run into apporea before, but being spanish deficient I don't get far with it.

There seem to be a number of Alan Woods, I can't say I'd heard of him, but I infer you mean this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Woods_%28politician%29

I do find the British Trotskyites amusing. But where are you tryingto go with that?

[ChangoLoa]

18. An African friend from Côte d'Ivoire told me a proverb once

"Quand deux éléphants se battent, c'est la savane qui souffre". Do you understand it?

In my conception, the role of a leader is to avoid destructive dynamics to take place and to have more vision than a bunch of outdated bosses. Not because they are important but because their productive structures are important to the workers and the society. If this govt had the administrative and technical personal to make these companies work, I wouldn't disagree. But they seem to employ and fire people according to their political loyalty, not their competences.

Concerning Alan Woods, he has become a very important figure in Chavez's entourage. I think you'll be able to observe the radicalization of the process in the next months.

[bemildred]

20. There is something to that, however, it is not something Mr Chavez invented,

or even something he introduced into Venezuela. "The perfect can be the enemy of the merely good." Do you understand that? Venezuela appears better run under Mr Chavez, less likely to suffer some catastrophic political event, better inclined to serve the needs of its people, whatever technical faults he might have. The former Venezuelan elites may regret letting him into power, but there were good reasons at the time, and they deserved their short journey into the political dustbin. That is not to say he could not overstay his welcome too, someday.

"When two elephants fight, it is the savannah which suffers." or something along that line. That is off the top of my head, my French is very weak.

I will take your hint about Mr Woods to heart, I would be disappointed to see Mr Chavez get involved with disputes over obsolete leftist dogmas (Boy! I'm likely to catch it for that.) I am a "radical leftist" myself, but I have little use for dogma or arguments about who gets to be the striped-ass ape at the front of the parade.

[ChangoLoa]

21. "Where Is the Venezuelan Revolution Going?"

By A. Woods

http://english.eluniversal.com/2010/11/19/en_opi_esp_alan-woods--where-i_18A4747971.shtml


"Hugo Chávez taking Obama's way"
By H. Dieterich

http://english.eluniversal.com/2010/11/29/en_pol_esp_heinz-dieterich--hu_29A4790653.shtml

[bemildred]

22. Yap yap yap yap ...

Woods does not sound like the sharpest blade in the drawer. Or the other guy either.

The one about Chavez praising Wikileaks looks like good tinder for a bonfire in GD though ...

[ChangoLoa]

23. yap yap indeed. Very "retroguardia", as we say.

What about the bonfire? Do progressive Americans condemn the publications in wikileaks?

[bemildred]

24. Well, I posted it, let's see what happens.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9657163

[ChangoLoa]

25. yap yap yap

Brilliant discussion about our sweet noble Chavez as usual!

[bemildred]

26. Not much of a bonfire, really, you never know.

;-(

[dipsydoodle]

19. Well that's better than 235

Affect you personally does it ?