Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Hugo Chávez Installed as Venezuela's President for Another Six Years
Chávez Says He Will Nationalize Key Businesses, Create Socialism
Hugo Chávez was re-inaugurated as Venezuela’s President for a six-year term on January 10, after soundly winning a December 3 election with 63% of the vote. His regime first came to power in 1998, and he has consistently made efforts to use oil profits to better the lot of the Venezuelan poor and working class. He forged links with other left-wing Latin American governments through the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, which now includes Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, and Nicaragua. Chávez flew directly from his inauguration to attend the inauguration of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, which was held up a few hours so that Chávez could be in attendance. While there, Chávez forgave Nicaragua’s $31 million debt to Venezuela and said he wants to build an oil refinery in Nicaragua which would meet the small country’s need for gasoline.
Chávez’ domestic popularity is in part due to the fact that poverty has been reduced in Venezuela from 50% to 34% since 1999. His remarks at the United Nations last year, where he called George Bush “The Devil,” may have hurt Venezuela’s try for a seat in the Security Council, but played well at home. After his election, Chávez announced he was forming a new party, the United Socialist Party, to represent the aspirations of Venezuelans while cutting through bureaucracy. In a televised speech on January 8, after swearing in his new cabinet, Chávez announced that he will nationalize electrical and telecommunications businesses. He cited the ideals of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, and said: “We’re heading towards socialism, and nothing and no one can prevent it.”
Chávez’ domestic popularity is in part due to the fact that poverty has been reduced in Venezuela from 50% to 34% since 1999. His remarks at the United Nations last year, where he called George Bush “The Devil,” may have hurt Venezuela’s try for a seat in the Security Council, but played well at home. After his election, Chávez announced he was forming a new party, the United Socialist Party, to represent the aspirations of Venezuelans while cutting through bureaucracy. In a televised speech on January 8, after swearing in his new cabinet, Chávez announced that he will nationalize electrical and telecommunications businesses. He cited the ideals of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, and said: “We’re heading towards socialism, and nothing and no one can prevent it.”
For more information:
http://www.streetdemos.com
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
The words we use can do much to color our prejudices. However if one accepts words at face value without taking into account the nuances they imply:
Bush was not elected by the people. He was installed by the Supreme Court.
Chavez was elected by popular vote each time he ran. He was installed by the people.
Bush heads a despotic regime. Chavez, a benevolent regime.
Bush kills people. Chavez saves people.
What do you think of when you use the words "install", or "regime"?
As to: “We’re heading towards socialism, and nothing and no one can prevent it.”
For those that are still smarting from years of McCarthyism and those who no longer understand what the word "socialism" actually means-- that sound-bite sentence is tailored for those who wish to demonize Chavez...like Pat Robertsons, Rush Limbaughs... and Nancy Pelosi.
Bush was not elected by the people. He was installed by the Supreme Court.
Chavez was elected by popular vote each time he ran. He was installed by the people.
Bush heads a despotic regime. Chavez, a benevolent regime.
Bush kills people. Chavez saves people.
What do you think of when you use the words "install", or "regime"?
As to: “We’re heading towards socialism, and nothing and no one can prevent it.”
For those that are still smarting from years of McCarthyism and those who no longer understand what the word "socialism" actually means-- that sound-bite sentence is tailored for those who wish to demonize Chavez...like Pat Robertsons, Rush Limbaughs... and Nancy Pelosi.
William Blum wrote yesterday ("johnny Got Your Gun"):
"The Cold War is still with us. Because the ideological conflict that was the basis for it has not gone away. Because it can't go away. As long as capitalism exists, as long as it puts profit before people, as it must, as long as it puts profit before the environment, as it must, those on the receiving end of its sharp pointed stick must look for a better way.
Thus it is that when Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez announced a few days ago that he plans to nationalize telephone and electric utility companies to accelerate his "socialist revolution", the spokesperson for Capitalism Central, White House press secretary Tony Snow, was quick to the attack: "Nationalization has a long and inglorious history of failure around the world," Snow declared. "We support the Venezuelan people and think this is an unhappy day for them."[18]
Snow presumably buys into the belief that capitalism defeated socialism in the Cold War. A victory for a superior idea. The boys of Capital chortle in their martinis about the death of socialism. The word has been banned from polite conversation. And they hope that no one will notice that every socialist experiment of any significance in the past century has either been corrupted, subverted, perverted, or destabilized ... or crushed, overthrown, bombed, or invaded ... or otherwise had life made impossible for it, by the United States."
"The Cold War is still with us. Because the ideological conflict that was the basis for it has not gone away. Because it can't go away. As long as capitalism exists, as long as it puts profit before people, as it must, as long as it puts profit before the environment, as it must, those on the receiving end of its sharp pointed stick must look for a better way.
Thus it is that when Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez announced a few days ago that he plans to nationalize telephone and electric utility companies to accelerate his "socialist revolution", the spokesperson for Capitalism Central, White House press secretary Tony Snow, was quick to the attack: "Nationalization has a long and inglorious history of failure around the world," Snow declared. "We support the Venezuelan people and think this is an unhappy day for them."[18]
Snow presumably buys into the belief that capitalism defeated socialism in the Cold War. A victory for a superior idea. The boys of Capital chortle in their martinis about the death of socialism. The word has been banned from polite conversation. And they hope that no one will notice that every socialist experiment of any significance in the past century has either been corrupted, subverted, perverted, or destabilized ... or crushed, overthrown, bombed, or invaded ... or otherwise had life made impossible for it, by the United States."
For more information:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/a...
And so history repeats itself. First the cheers, then the prisons...
Should egalitarians support Chávez?
Many of those who identify with the desire for redressing Latin America's deep social and economic inequalities face a real dilemma when confronted by the figure of Hugo Chávez. On the one hand, his strong-arm tactics are not exactly what progressives who believe in democratic and open societies have in mind when we think about the future.
On the other hand, as Richard Gott recently pointed out, Chávez seems to be redistributing the country's wealth to the poor, has been democratically elected and re-elected, and is immensely popular.
I know the tension. In 2000, as a young Venezuelan assistant professor in a US university, I decided to take a leave from academia and go work towards the transformation of Venezuela. I left excited at the possibility of contributing to the building of a new society.
During four years I headed the Venezuelan Economic and Financial Advisory Office to the National Assembly, a recently created team of economists roughly modeled on the US Congressional Budget Office. Our task was to help deputies craft legislation while advising them about the potential economic effects of their law projects. I was able to put together a group of committed economists who had the greatest desire of helping shape historical changes in their country.
What we found was very different from what we expected. It wasn't just that the government did not understand the difference between dissenters and opponents - perhaps understandable in a climate of heightened political polarization. Nor that they seemed genuinely disinterested in anything that was not directly connected with their staying in power - also understandable when the opposition seems to only think about how to oust you from power. It was that they really didn't seem to care much about any of the reasons we were there: improving the well-being of the poor and making Venezuela an open, democratic society.
My first assertion will surely seem puzzling to many readers. Wasn't Chávez reelected because he has reduced poverty? If he doesn't care for the poor, why do the poor seem to care so much for him?
There is a broad gap, however, between what the government says it is doing for the poor and what is actually going on. Did you know that the percentage of underweight and underheight babies has actually increased in Venezuela during Chávez's administration? That, once you take out social security - which, in Venezuela, benefits mostly the middle and upper classes who work in the formal sector - the fraction of social spending in the government budget has actually decreased? That, despite the government's claim of having eradicated illiteracy, its own Household Surveys revealed more than one million illiterates in Venezuela at the close of 2005, barely down from pre-Chávez levels?
Yes, Chávez just won reelection by a wide margin. So did Alberto Fujimori in Peru in 1995 and Carlos Menem in Argentina that same year. They won not because their policies were pro-poor, but because they produced very high rates of economic growth. In the case of Menem and Fujimori, the growth came from huge capital inflows generated by the support that the World Bank, IMF, and financial markets gave to their economic reforms. In the case of Chávez, it has come from a five-fold expansion of oil revenues, which has allowed his government to enjoy double-digit growth for the last three years.
But there is a dark side to chavismo which should not be discounted. If you believe the government's claim that it has respected freedom of speech and other political liberties, I suggest you take a minute to look up the case of Angel Pedreañez, a 20 year old soldier who was burned alive in a Maracaibo fort prison. According to his family's attorney, this was in retaliation for having signed the petition to hold the recall referendum against Chávez. Francisco Usón, a former Chávez finance minister, is currently under 5 years imprisonment for insulting the Armed Forces when he said that the soldier's death could not have come about, as the government claimed, from smoking in his cell.
Indeed, what is most worrying about Chávez's repression is how systematic it has become. The government has built a detailed list - the Maisanta database - that documents the political leanings of 12.4 million Venezuelan registered voters. The list is routinely used to deny opposition supporters access to public jobs and government social programs. Last week, the government confirmed that it will not renew the concession of RCTV, the nation's oldest TV station, which is closely associated with the opposition. During his inauguration, President Chávez promised to abolish more than 200 mayoralties, thus "paving the way for one communal city where municipalities and mayors will not be needed, only communal power." Chávez's intolerance of dissent is so high that he has even ordered the nation's Communist Party to disband itself, in order to become a member of the government's "Unified Socialist Party."
Venezuela's poor do not live in a better society. They live in a society whose government is systematically squandering the nation's largest oil boom since the seventies while at the same time restricting basic political freedoms. Those of us who want to build a truly democratic and egalitarian future for Latin America should support democratic movements committed to the respect of civil and political liberties and whose leaders genuinely care about the region's poor. We should not support Hugo Chávez.
Many of those who identify with the desire for redressing Latin America's deep social and economic inequalities face a real dilemma when confronted by the figure of Hugo Chávez. On the one hand, his strong-arm tactics are not exactly what progressives who believe in democratic and open societies have in mind when we think about the future.
On the other hand, as Richard Gott recently pointed out, Chávez seems to be redistributing the country's wealth to the poor, has been democratically elected and re-elected, and is immensely popular.
I know the tension. In 2000, as a young Venezuelan assistant professor in a US university, I decided to take a leave from academia and go work towards the transformation of Venezuela. I left excited at the possibility of contributing to the building of a new society.
During four years I headed the Venezuelan Economic and Financial Advisory Office to the National Assembly, a recently created team of economists roughly modeled on the US Congressional Budget Office. Our task was to help deputies craft legislation while advising them about the potential economic effects of their law projects. I was able to put together a group of committed economists who had the greatest desire of helping shape historical changes in their country.
What we found was very different from what we expected. It wasn't just that the government did not understand the difference between dissenters and opponents - perhaps understandable in a climate of heightened political polarization. Nor that they seemed genuinely disinterested in anything that was not directly connected with their staying in power - also understandable when the opposition seems to only think about how to oust you from power. It was that they really didn't seem to care much about any of the reasons we were there: improving the well-being of the poor and making Venezuela an open, democratic society.
My first assertion will surely seem puzzling to many readers. Wasn't Chávez reelected because he has reduced poverty? If he doesn't care for the poor, why do the poor seem to care so much for him?
There is a broad gap, however, between what the government says it is doing for the poor and what is actually going on. Did you know that the percentage of underweight and underheight babies has actually increased in Venezuela during Chávez's administration? That, once you take out social security - which, in Venezuela, benefits mostly the middle and upper classes who work in the formal sector - the fraction of social spending in the government budget has actually decreased? That, despite the government's claim of having eradicated illiteracy, its own Household Surveys revealed more than one million illiterates in Venezuela at the close of 2005, barely down from pre-Chávez levels?
Yes, Chávez just won reelection by a wide margin. So did Alberto Fujimori in Peru in 1995 and Carlos Menem in Argentina that same year. They won not because their policies were pro-poor, but because they produced very high rates of economic growth. In the case of Menem and Fujimori, the growth came from huge capital inflows generated by the support that the World Bank, IMF, and financial markets gave to their economic reforms. In the case of Chávez, it has come from a five-fold expansion of oil revenues, which has allowed his government to enjoy double-digit growth for the last three years.
But there is a dark side to chavismo which should not be discounted. If you believe the government's claim that it has respected freedom of speech and other political liberties, I suggest you take a minute to look up the case of Angel Pedreañez, a 20 year old soldier who was burned alive in a Maracaibo fort prison. According to his family's attorney, this was in retaliation for having signed the petition to hold the recall referendum against Chávez. Francisco Usón, a former Chávez finance minister, is currently under 5 years imprisonment for insulting the Armed Forces when he said that the soldier's death could not have come about, as the government claimed, from smoking in his cell.
Indeed, what is most worrying about Chávez's repression is how systematic it has become. The government has built a detailed list - the Maisanta database - that documents the political leanings of 12.4 million Venezuelan registered voters. The list is routinely used to deny opposition supporters access to public jobs and government social programs. Last week, the government confirmed that it will not renew the concession of RCTV, the nation's oldest TV station, which is closely associated with the opposition. During his inauguration, President Chávez promised to abolish more than 200 mayoralties, thus "paving the way for one communal city where municipalities and mayors will not be needed, only communal power." Chávez's intolerance of dissent is so high that he has even ordered the nation's Communist Party to disband itself, in order to become a member of the government's "Unified Socialist Party."
Venezuela's poor do not live in a better society. They live in a society whose government is systematically squandering the nation's largest oil boom since the seventies while at the same time restricting basic political freedoms. Those of us who want to build a truly democratic and egalitarian future for Latin America should support democratic movements committed to the respect of civil and political liberties and whose leaders genuinely care about the region's poor. We should not support Hugo Chávez.
This is a story about the inauguration of Chávez, in which he was installed. He was elected in December, installed on Wednesday. His tenure in office involved several votes, and I used regime to describe the totality of that. Chávez being bold enough to say he will create Socialism in Venezuela is a good thing. The language belongs to us, not the spin-masters. Let's use it the way it is supposed to be used rather than walking on eggshells because it is misused in the mainstream media.
For more information:
http://www.streetdemos.com
Points well taken-- no wish to walk on egg shells here.
Readers here at Indybay are getting a wider variety of information about Chavez and Venezuela.
It remains to be seen what will become of Venezuela.
Unlike Nicaragua, Venezuela has huge oil reserves which may add another dimension to its future challenges.
Here is a reminder of what happened to Nicaragua in the 80s:
Readers here at Indybay are getting a wider variety of information about Chavez and Venezuela.
It remains to be seen what will become of Venezuela.
Unlike Nicaragua, Venezuela has huge oil reserves which may add another dimension to its future challenges.
Here is a reminder of what happened to Nicaragua in the 80s:
For more information:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/a...
Francisco, you are correct. The people here support Chavez because he insults President Bush. You are the only one to bring up the fact that he is shutting down opposition TV. Here is a link to the story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6215815.stm. Maybe shutting down the TV will be one way for him to advance his policies.
“Francisco, you are correct. The people here support Chavez because he insults President Bush. You are the only one to bring up the fact that he is shutting down opposition TV. Here is a link to the story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6215815.stm. Maybe shutting down the TV will be one way for him to advance his policies.”
We’ll you started with an honest, albeit nonsensical, statement and then ended with a twisted rationalization. Oh sure, shutting down a TV station is perfectly permissible when its done by a leftists…and making the Polish Home Army “disappear” is also permissible if it helps to spread the revolution. You can never be wrong when you claim that good can be advanced with evil.
“Bush kills people. Chavez saves people.”
It’s a very well known fact that Venezuela funds the FARC, so Chavez does kill people, he just does it quietly. Maybe you would like to enlighten me as to what he plans on doing with all that military hardware he bought?
“Bush was not elected by the people. He was installed by the Supreme Court.
Chavez was elected by popular vote each time he ran. He was installed by the people.”
I guess you forgot that Bush was elected the second time. Painful to find yourself in the minority isn’t it?
We’ll you started with an honest, albeit nonsensical, statement and then ended with a twisted rationalization. Oh sure, shutting down a TV station is perfectly permissible when its done by a leftists…and making the Polish Home Army “disappear” is also permissible if it helps to spread the revolution. You can never be wrong when you claim that good can be advanced with evil.
“Bush kills people. Chavez saves people.”
It’s a very well known fact that Venezuela funds the FARC, so Chavez does kill people, he just does it quietly. Maybe you would like to enlighten me as to what he plans on doing with all that military hardware he bought?
“Bush was not elected by the people. He was installed by the Supreme Court.
Chavez was elected by popular vote each time he ran. He was installed by the people.”
I guess you forgot that Bush was elected the second time. Painful to find yourself in the minority isn’t it?
Support for Chavez isnt a "Right" or "Left" thing but one of class. Upper class Anarchists (some from rich backgrounds slumming it before going back to being part of the oligarchy) make up excuses as to why Chavez is horrible and some may actually believe their own political rhetoric (especially since Chavez isnt a by the book ideologue). Poorer people in Venezuela support Chavez because they know what the alternative is and that all the high minded talk of opposing him for theoretical reasons is only possible when one isnt theatened by the return of the traditional elites to power.
While he isnt an Anarchist a view into the mind of the "Left" opponents of Chavez can be seen by looking at Theodoro Petkoff ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teodoro_Petkoff ).
His current rhetoric sounds 100% like the Anarchists posting here (I wouldnt be surprised if a lot of what they are saying comes from his newspaper Tal Cual) but when you dig into his background you find that "Petkoff managed the Venezuela Agenda", a neo-liberal government program for "reducing the size of the public administration, controlling inflation and stopping the currency devaluation" (he also claims to have helped with social programs but his neoliberal economic policies helped to create the economic conditions that lead to Chavez's rise). Of course you can respond that the Anarchist critque doesnt support Petkoff neoliberal policies that hurt the poor but then again neither does Petkoff in his current incarnation (at Tal Cual) where he pretends to oppose neoliberlism and the traditional elites (and the attempted coup he had supported at the time) so that his current antiChavez rhetoric will be listened to on the radical left.
Chavez is far from perfect but you have to also dig a bit into the real motivations of those criticizing him. Are they followers of Petkoff, who are trying to undermine Chavez for personal reasons (but also because of a disagreement with his socialist ideas). Are they right wingers trying to undermine Chavez's support and misrepresenting their own real views and goals? Or are they rich kids in Venezuela who hate Chavez because their parents do (since he is impowering the pooor and undermining the oligarchy) but just use the antiauthoritarian aspects of their parents views in their own rhetoric since they are toying with Anarchism (and its all theoretical anyways since social programs dont apply to rich kids) before getting jobs through their parent's connections and eventually sliding back into the conservatism and fascism of the traditional elites in the country.
While he isnt an Anarchist a view into the mind of the "Left" opponents of Chavez can be seen by looking at Theodoro Petkoff ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teodoro_Petkoff ).
His current rhetoric sounds 100% like the Anarchists posting here (I wouldnt be surprised if a lot of what they are saying comes from his newspaper Tal Cual) but when you dig into his background you find that "Petkoff managed the Venezuela Agenda", a neo-liberal government program for "reducing the size of the public administration, controlling inflation and stopping the currency devaluation" (he also claims to have helped with social programs but his neoliberal economic policies helped to create the economic conditions that lead to Chavez's rise). Of course you can respond that the Anarchist critque doesnt support Petkoff neoliberal policies that hurt the poor but then again neither does Petkoff in his current incarnation (at Tal Cual) where he pretends to oppose neoliberlism and the traditional elites (and the attempted coup he had supported at the time) so that his current antiChavez rhetoric will be listened to on the radical left.
Chavez is far from perfect but you have to also dig a bit into the real motivations of those criticizing him. Are they followers of Petkoff, who are trying to undermine Chavez for personal reasons (but also because of a disagreement with his socialist ideas). Are they right wingers trying to undermine Chavez's support and misrepresenting their own real views and goals? Or are they rich kids in Venezuela who hate Chavez because their parents do (since he is impowering the pooor and undermining the oligarchy) but just use the antiauthoritarian aspects of their parents views in their own rhetoric since they are toying with Anarchism (and its all theoretical anyways since social programs dont apply to rich kids) before getting jobs through their parent's connections and eventually sliding back into the conservatism and fascism of the traditional elites in the country.
A man died in a Venezuelan jail.... some one arrested... a TV stations shut down...Venezeula must be going the way of Castro or worse
Does it matter if any of the facts can be backed up... does it matter that "The Human Rights Foundation" is the only real site that carries stories about Francisco Usón and Angel Pedreañez but "Human Rights Watch" doesnt (and The Human Rights Foundation is owned by the Venezuelan American Foundation and is a new organization that seems devoted to smearing any left leaning leader in Latin America without mentioning any human rights violations in places like Colombia or Mexico)
Does it matter if Francisco Rodríguez's motives are ones of pushing against Chavez for reasons he never mentions but can create doubts in the minds of the very people (the leftwing intelligencia) needed to hold back a US invasion?
It really doesnt. If you lie enough people assume there may be some truth to the lies and when you hear about Chavez there is always that doubt in the back of your mind that maybe he isnt all he claims he is and the people of Venezuela deserve better (despite their voting for him in far larger numbers than ever voted for any US President in recent years... rejecting his recall... ratifying his constitution.... risking their lives to stop a coup by the US and a Latin American elite that likes to claim to be "liberal" as long as it doesnt mean a threat to the inequality in the region etc...)
Does it matter that the overthrow of a Democratic leader is constantly being supported through many channels in the US (be in academic elites critiquing Chavez and sounding good but being ultimately flawed or the government and rightwing that tries to paint him as a brutal dictator) even when these same pople defended the masscres of the Venezuelan poor in 1989 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracazo )
The choice isnt Chavez or something better, its Chavez or the masscare of the peasants at the hands of an elite that is chomping at the bit for US support in an effort to take back power and punish the poor who they see as less than human.
Does it matter if any of the facts can be backed up... does it matter that "The Human Rights Foundation" is the only real site that carries stories about Francisco Usón and Angel Pedreañez but "Human Rights Watch" doesnt (and The Human Rights Foundation is owned by the Venezuelan American Foundation and is a new organization that seems devoted to smearing any left leaning leader in Latin America without mentioning any human rights violations in places like Colombia or Mexico)
Does it matter if Francisco Rodríguez's motives are ones of pushing against Chavez for reasons he never mentions but can create doubts in the minds of the very people (the leftwing intelligencia) needed to hold back a US invasion?
It really doesnt. If you lie enough people assume there may be some truth to the lies and when you hear about Chavez there is always that doubt in the back of your mind that maybe he isnt all he claims he is and the people of Venezuela deserve better (despite their voting for him in far larger numbers than ever voted for any US President in recent years... rejecting his recall... ratifying his constitution.... risking their lives to stop a coup by the US and a Latin American elite that likes to claim to be "liberal" as long as it doesnt mean a threat to the inequality in the region etc...)
Does it matter that the overthrow of a Democratic leader is constantly being supported through many channels in the US (be in academic elites critiquing Chavez and sounding good but being ultimately flawed or the government and rightwing that tries to paint him as a brutal dictator) even when these same pople defended the masscres of the Venezuelan poor in 1989 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracazo )
The choice isnt Chavez or something better, its Chavez or the masscare of the peasants at the hands of an elite that is chomping at the bit for US support in an effort to take back power and punish the poor who they see as less than human.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$120.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network