NationStates Jolt Archive

By Brian Ellsworth

CARACAS (Reuters) - President Hugo Chavez pushed U.S. oil giants Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips out of Venezuela on Tuesday in a nationalization drive the United States said could hurt its oil supply.

Exxon Mobil Corp. and ConocoPhillips quit their oil operations in the OPEC nation after they failed to strike a deal to stay in multibillion-dollar projects that the anti-U.S. leader decreed should be taken over.

ConocoPhillips said it would have to knock $4.5 billion off its balance sheet after losing its assets in two Orinoco ventures and one smaller project, though it had previously said it believed the assets are worth substantially more.

Four other oil majors -- Chevron Corp., Norway's Statoil, Britain's BP Plc and France's Total -- signed pacts allowing Venezuela to increase its stake to as much as percent 83 percent in projects worth $30 billion.

"We characterize this ceremony as an act of sovereignty for our country, for our people," Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez said after the companies signed the deals.

The backdrop for the ceremony was a huge poster displaying Chavez dressed in his signature red with his fist clenched in the air in the typical salute of his self-styled socialist revolution.

Exxon and ConocoPhillips can now negotiate compensation or take Venezuela to court for the loss of assets that are part of four heavy-crude upgrading facilities capable of producing around 600,000 barrels per day from the vast Orinoco oil belt.

Chavez, who vows to diversify Venezuela's oil customers to reduce traditional reliance on U.S. oil markets, prides himself on confronting American "imperialism" even though the United States is the country's biggest oil importer.

Washington fretted over Tuesday's move by its No. 4 foreign petroleum supplier.

"I'm concerned," U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman told reporters. When asked if he was worried U.S. oil and product imports from Venezuela could be reduced with the companies leaving, he said: "Sure, of course."

HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT

Driving the U.S. giants out burnishes the anti-U.S. credentials of Chavez, who can spice his speeches up with the refrain "Gringos Go Home."

This year, he has squeezed out U.S. telecommunications and electricity companies in nationalizations. But taking the oil assets on Tuesday was by far the biggest move he has made against private property since coming to power in 1999.

Exxon said it was disappointed to leave Venezuela -- a country with the world's largest oil reserves outside of the Middle East.

ConocoPhillips, which still has a stake in a Venezuelan gas project, said it is still negotiating with Venezuela over compensation for its assets. But a source close to the company said it would leave the country entirely and likely head to arbitration.

"Although the company is hopeful that the negotiations will be successful, it has preseved all legal rights including international arbitration," Conoco said in a statement on Tuesday.

Oil majors are well-known for withstanding harsh investment climates.

Total and Statoil agreed to reduce their stakes in their Orinoco project. BP and Chevron were able to maintain their share because they were involved in the ventures vacated by Exxon and ConocoPhillips.

Industry officials said the four companies were willing to stay mainly because crude prices are robust and oil majors are finding it increasingly difficult to access such large reserves as are available in the Orinoco.

Still, the exit of Exxon and ConocoPhillips highlights how difficult it can be for foreign companies to do business in a nation led by a man who calls capitalism an evil and Cuban leader Fidel Castro his mentor.

Chavez depends increasingly on revenue from high oil prices to maintain the food hand-outs and free doctors visits that make him popular among the majority poor.

"I think this was the right thing to do," said Hilda Valencia, 50, a bookseller at a kiosk in Caracas. "The natural resources are for Venezuelans and we can use them as we see fit."
http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2007-06-27T094641Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_India-281942-1.xml

Comments?


Personally I am for the continuation of this policy of giving back to the resources of Venezuela's to it's people, and not to the bulging corporate salaries of the oil boards.

Haha, Venezuela will now go into a socialism induced recession.

You do know that Exxon and any foreign company that does business in Venezuela also pays taxes to Venezuela?

Haha, Venezuela will now go into a socialism induced recession.

You do know that Exxon and any foreign company that does business in Venezuela also pays taxes to Venezuela?

Umm, I don't what your source is, but Venezuela's economy is going really well, and has done since Chavez got elected.

Umm, I don't what your source is, but Venezuela's economy is going really well, and has done since Chavez got elected.

Only because most developing countries have no where to go but up.

Only because most developing countries have no where to go but up.

That's quite possibly the silliest thing I have heard from you.

Only because most developing countries have no where to go but up.

Truer words were never spoken. After all, look at the utopia that is Mexico.

How long until Venezuela becomes the Zimbabwe of South America?

How long until Venezuela becomes the Zimbabwe of South America?

He's more like the Fidel Castro of Venezuela. Someone who's constantly giving the United States the Finger and won't be removed from power until he calls it quits or dies in office of his own cause.

He's more like the Fidel Castro of Venezuela. Someone who's constantly giving the United States the Finger and won't be removed from power until he calls it quits or dies in office of his own cause.

Over 638 CIA assassination attempts on Fidel Castro?

venezualan oil profits for venezuala. nothing bad about that. what right did exxon et al. have to it anyway? they might pay taxes, but big business is notoriously effective at wheedling out of paying most of the taxes they owe. this way as much of the money from oil extraction as possible will be retained in the country. the infrastructure for extraction is already there thanks to the suckers at exxon so this can only be a good thing for venezuala.

Nationalisations don't work, that much is a proven fact. Governments can work together with the expertise and skill that companies use to earn money, but they can't work without it.

But the economics of it will speak for themselves. What makes me post in an otherwise pointless thread is the question: why the glee?

Nationalisations don't work, that much is a proven fact. Governments can work together with the expertise and skill that companies use to earn money, but they can't work without it.

But the economics of it will speak for themselves. What makes me post in an otherwise pointless thread is the question: why the glee?

Multiple sources?

Woot! Up the Revolution, baby!

Nationalisations don't work, that much is a proven fact. Governments can work together with the expertise and skill that companies use to earn money, but they can't work without it.


False.

I give you two examples of state-owned companies (hence, parts of the State) that perform quite well.

SNCF (France, railways)
ENI (Italy, energy)

...and there are countless other example of nationalised companies that work very well.

Multiple sources?

The Soviet Union. People's Republic of China.

False.

I give you two examples of state-owned companies (hence, parts of the State) that perform quite well.

SNCF (France, railways)
ENI (Italy, energy)

...and there are countless other example of nationalised companies that work very well.

Don't bother, NL is just playing the 'teh ebil commiez' gripe as usual.

Over 638 CIA assassination attempts on Fidel Castro?

That many? Where do you get that number? What we should be investigating here is the incompetence of the CIA if they can't kill a foreign leader in 638 attempts. What the hell are my tax dollars paying for?

Multiple sources?
You've got access both to google and to history books. Hell, if you know a thing or two about Venezuela that should answer your question.

My question still stands: why the glee?

venezualan oil profits for venezuala. nothing bad about that. what right did exxon et al. have to it anyway? they might pay taxes, but big business is notoriously effective at wheedling out of paying most of the taxes they owe. this way as much of the money from oil extraction as possible will be retained in the country. the infrastructure for extraction is already there thanks to the suckers at exxon so this can only be a good thing for venezuala.

Exxon came into Venezuela using the laws of Venezuela to set up and operate it's business. They didn't barge in there and do what they wanted. They followed Venezuelan law and then Venezuela(Chavez) changed the laws drastically and kicked them out. Sounds like a piece of shit move and I wouldn't be pointing fingers at Exxon. By all accounts they and the rest of the international oil companies were helping Venezuela. This in the long run will hurt Venezuela's economy. Other multi-national companies have taken notice and will not invest in a nation that can turn around and nationalize at there whimsy.

Don't bother, NL is just playing the 'teh ebil commiez' gripe as usual.

I think he has the right to, considering he lived next to one, and visited one, that was meant to be one of the more successful communist countries, and I believe he said it was a dump.

Exxon came into Venezuela using the laws of Venezuela to set up and operate it's business. They didn't barge in there and do what they wanted. They followed Venezuelan law and then Venezuela(Chavez) changed the laws drastically and kicked them out. Sounds like a piece of shit move and I wouldn't be pointing fingers at Exxon.

of course, most governments bend over backwards to get foreign investors into their countries. trouble is the poorer comuntries have to bend over so far backwards that they can't see that they're getting fleeced with most of their dollar leaving the country to line the pockets of foreign shareholders.

Nationalisations don't work, that much is a proven fact.

You are wrong, that much is a proven fact. Nationalisation works quite often. In fact, I am right now using nationalized electricity to tell how wrong you are.

One of the cheapest electricity in North America, too.

The Soviet Union. People's Republic of China.

Are you telling me that China is doing badly economically?

In which dreamland are you living?

...and there are countless other example of nationalised companies that work very well.
I'm not talking about public-owned companies (though "working well" is obviously meaningless if there is no competition and no alternative), I'm talking about nationalisation as a policy (meaning government-conducted theft of existing business operations). And nevermind that ENI is listed on the share market.

But I don't want yet another thread in which I have to explain basic economics to people who won't listen. I want to know why there is so much glee when it comes to this.

Don't bother, NL is just playing the 'teh ebil commiez' gripe as usual.
Lol, you haven't been here long enough to know what I'm about, dude.

of course, most governments bend over backwards to get foreign investors into their countries. trouble is the poorer comuntries have to bend over so far backwards that they can't see that they're getting fleeced with most of their dollar leaving the country to line the pockets of foreign shareholders.
Proof? Any proof whatsoever?

Exxon came into Venezuela using the laws of Venezuela to set up and operate it's business. They didn't barge in there and do what they wanted. They followed Venezuelan law and then Venezuela(Chavez) changed the laws drastically and kicked them out.

Untill the "kicked them out" that was true. Chavez changed the law and the multinationals didn't like the new one (can't say I blame them). They were kicked out when negociations broke out after they tried to make deal around the law. So far, this is what happens everyday around the world. It's just that it's two big group that negociate.

By all accounts they and the rest of the international oil companies were helping Venezuela.

I wouldn't be so sure since most of the profit was going out of the country.


This in the long run will hurt Venezuela's economy.

In the short run, yes. I'm not so sure about the long run. Only time will tell.

Other multi-national companies have taken notice and will not invest in a nation that can turn around and nationalize at there whimsy.

To be fair, most nations can nationalize at their whimsy. So far as nationalizations go, this one went far smoother than, say, those in Cuba. As far as companies being skittish, where there's a buck to be made, companies will try to make it.

Comments?

A wise decision. Should happen elsewhere, too.

of course, most governments bend over backwards to get foreign investors into their countries. trouble is the poorer comuntries have to bend over so far backwards that they can't see that they're getting fleeced with most of their dollar leaving the country to line the pockets of foreign shareholders.

Truly who's fault is that. A sovereign nation sets up it's own laws and regulations. They should be smart enough to be able to set things up where both parties benefit and one isn't taking advantage of the other. I agree with your statement however Venezuela should have simply said hey we want to renegotiate our deal with the foreign oil companies. They could have done it fairly and had the best of both worlds. Instead this idiot nationalizes and this will negatively effect his nation. I don't like to see corporations fleecing anyone but they are a benefit to have around if done right.

I'm not talking about public-owned companies (though "working well" is obviously meaningless if there is no competition and no alternative), I'm talking about nationalisation as a policy (meaning government-conducted theft of existing business operations). And nevermind that ENI is listed on the share market.

But I don't want yet another thread in which I have to explain basic economics to people who won't listen. I want to know why there is so much glee when it comes to this.


Lol, you haven't been here long enough to know what I'm about, dude.


Proof? Any proof whatsoever?

if i had my books with me i could cite plenty of examples, unfortunately i'm currently homeless and they're all in storage so if you're that interested you'll have to wait til saturday or sunday when i've moved into my new place.

Truly who's fault is that. A sovereign nation sets up it's own laws and regulations. They should be smart enough to be able to set things up where both parties benefit and one isn't taking advantage of the other. I agree with your statement however Venezuela should have simply said hey we want to renegotiate our deal with the foreign oil companies. They could have done it fairly and had the best of both worlds. Instead this idiot nationalizes and this will negatively effect his nation. I don't like to see corporations fleecing anyone but they are a benefit to have around if done right.

it doesn't work that nicely. if you set up laws and regulations that ensure that the money stays in your country the businesses will just go elsewhere to another country that has the resources and is willing to bend far enough over. of course, the oil business is somewhat tied to where the oil is, but there is oil in plenty of places so it's not all that grounded.

if i had my books with me i could cite plenty of examples, unfortunately i'm currently homeless and they're all in storage so if you're that interested you'll have to wait til saturday or sunday when i've moved into my new place.
I'll be waiting. Make sure though they're real books, academic studies and the like, not pamphlets or Noam Chomsky's selected works.

I'll be waiting. Make sure though they're real books, academic studies and the like, not pamphlets or Noam Chomsky's selected works.

of course, i've specialised in political and economic geography, i've plenty grounding in the subject ;)

Are you telling me that China is doing badly economically?

In which dreamland are you living?

China's not even remotely socialist these days...economic growth didn't occur there until Mao did and Deng opened the economy up.

Lol, you haven't been here long enough to know what I'm about, dude.



You know that that's AP's only defense to criticisms of his economic model of choice.

China's not even remotely socialist these days...economic growth didn't occur there until Mao did and Deng opened the economy up.

Even if it is, go tell it to the poster who cited China as a proof that nationalization doesn't work.

In fact, I'll go so far as to argue that the "Bolivarian Revolution" of Hugo Chavez is being fueled by blood money. Hugo Chavez is callously and recklessly utilizing the oil wealth of his nation, with absolutely no regard for the health of our environment. At the same time, he opposes the US-Brazil drive to redevelop our energy sources to ethanol, which is far less harmful than oil pumped out of the ground of Venezuela. No, Hugo Chavez is a carbon emissions profiteer, and the blood of the people of Fiji will someday be on his hands!

Over 638 CIA assassination attempts on Fidel Castro?
D&D character Fidel Castro: Fast Healing, Damage Reduction 10/-

In fact, I'll go so far as to argue that the "Bolivarian Revolution" of Hugo Chavez is being fueled by blood money.
How do you figure?

Hugo Chavez is callously and recklessly utilizing the oil wealth of his nation, with absolutely no regard for the health of our environment.
So Chavez uses oil drilled by companies? Doooooooommmmmmm!


At the same time, he opposes the US-Brazil drive to redevelop our energy sources to ethanol, which is far less harmful than oil pumped out of the ground of Venezuela.
Not like the US pumps oil out of the ground, nosirreebob. Not to mention the fact the US's drive for ethanol comes from the farmer lobbies so they can get subsidized for producing worthless ethanol from corn and soybean. Crop ethanol is the most worthless ethanol there is, it isn't self-sustaining and to replace the world's supply of oil, we would have to have a field the size of Europe that is able to regularly produce record amounts of corn/soybean.

Even if it is, go tell it to the poster who cited China as a proof that nationalization doesn't work.

'twas directed at both of you...I'm just to lazy to mark two quotes.

'twas directed at both of you...I'm just to lazy to mark two quotes.

oh, then, carry on. Cheery-o!

How do you figure?
He's destroying our environment. Our future, our children's future.


So Chavez uses oil drilled by companies? Doooooooommmmmmm!

He's a leader in the quest to kill the planet.

Not like the US pumps oil out of the ground, nosirreebob. Not to mention the fact the US's drive for ethanol comes from the farmer lobbies so they can get subsidized for producing worthless ethanol from corn and soybean. Crop ethanol is the most worthless ethanol there is, it isn't self-sustaining and to replace the world's supply of oil, we would have to have a field the size of Europe that is able to regularly produce record amounts of corn/soybean.

Which is why it is extremely important to invest in Brazilian and Cuban sugar (ooooooh! Cuba!) cane and American sugar beets and crops. It's the best bet to confront the challenges of global warming in the short to medium term. After that time period, we can bring newer technologies on line that are even cleaner!

Further, ethanol is not a miracle cure for our climate ills, but it is a major, major piece of the puzzle. Other resources, wind, solar, hydroelectric, nuclear and geothermal are all important links in the chain to eventually undoing the harm that oilmongers, like Chavez, have done.

oh, then, carry on. Cherry-o!

Quite, quite...would you like a spot of tea? Earl Grey, perhaps?

Are you telling me that China is doing badly economically?

In which dreamland are you living?

China's not even remotely socialist these days...economic growth didn't occur there until Mao did and Deng opened the economy up.

Bingo.

Which is why it is extremely important to invest in Brazilian and Cuban sugar (ooooooh! Cuba!) cane and American sugar beets and crops.
Equally as crap.

This is so much absurdity I can only assume you are doing it on purpose. Good day to you.

Equally as crap.

This is so much absurdity I can only assume you are doing it on purpose. Good day to you.

I know people who think like you...they're called Bushevik Republicans.

Totally ignoring the bulk of the argument, because the argument goes against your o' so precious ideology.

For a side note, as you seem to be enjoying yourselves in the typical left - right nonsense debate....

Chávez didn't expel those companies. They expelled themselves.

The GOVERMENT, and not HUGO CHÁVEZ, offered them a mixed model of management and they refused. The model was offered to 11 companies operating in the zone. 7 accepted, 4 refused.

Exxon, Conoco, Opic and Petro Canada refused, and decided to leave the country. They weren't expelled.

Total, Statoil, Chevron, BP, Eni, Ineparia and Sinupec accepted the mixed model, so they will stay operating.

I hope the clarification is worth something. Seems like your journalist need a lesson or two about views on facts.

Chavez is no better than a Battista or a Francisco Franco when it come to human liberty, his Socialist "EXPERIMENT" HAS BEEN TRIED a million times before and will end in disaster, he has closed down opposition newsppares and is now confiscating assests his countrymen neither worked for or deserve.The middle class creates wealth they are the back bone of any nation or economy any idiot can piush a broom or pump gas, or dig a ditch,
why should lazy bums that never did an hoenst days work take money from people who work day and night. Foreign companies might exploit the third world, their may well need to be a more equitible distribution of wealth in the world, but this can better be achieved through education, and better health care, funded by a growing economy, confiscating assests of foriegn companies will destroy foriegn investment and eventualy destroy the economy if Venenzula had no oil this "revolution" would have collapsed by now. M oderate econmic policies and respect for civil liberites would better benifit the poor than Marxist demogogery. this is the policies of an uneducated jealous thug stealling from productive wealth crreators, he is not helping his people he is a thug a thief, just another gangster masquaradiuring as a world leadder.:sniper:

I know people who think like you...they're called Bushevik Republicans.

Totally ignoring the bulk of the argument, because the argument goes against your o' so precious ideology.
Because your argument is wrong and because it sounds too absurd to be an actual argument so I'm just going to assume it's a joke and quit addressing it.

Because your argument is wrong and because it sounds too absurd to be an actual argument so I'm just going to assume it's a joke and quit addressing it.

It's not a joke, how about that? Maybe some on the right do actually care about the environment...what a shocker!

I firmly believe that human driven global warming is a severe problem, and that the development of an ethanol infrastructure is an important step towards confronting the challenges of decreasing our carbon emissions.

I also believe that Mr. Chavez is partially responsible for the results of the actions of his government. The strength of his political position is driven by the Venezuelan governments close ties to the oil industry.

It's not a joke, how about that? Maybe some on the right do actually care about the environment...what a shocker!
Then I suggest you stop supporting crop-based ethanol.

The strength of his political position is driven by the Venezuelan governments close ties to the oil industry.
Totally different than every other oil producing nation.

Bingo.

Then, pray tell: why did you even bring China as an example in the first place?
It doesn't proove your point.

Actually, socialism did a lot to help the People's Republic of China recover from World War II. Do some reading on the first five year plan. The second, however, was a disaster, due to poor climate conditions and revolutionary fanaticism. Anyway, the point is, nationwide nationalization can be extremely effective in developing the economy. Even today, 30% of China's GDP is due to state-owned enterprises.

And thank you, Aelosia, for pointing out that these companies were not forced out, they were either bought out or are deciding to leave. The same kind of manipulation of facts happened with the RCTV issue. Did anyone notice the pictures on BBC, showing the rallies/protests? The anti-Chavez protester pictures were zoomed out, to make it seem like they had more support, and the pro-Chavez pictures were zoomed in, showing about a dozen densely-packed people. ABC didn't even bother to show supporters! They just showed protesters being attacked by the police. I forgave BBC though, the next day they posted an article about the pro-Chavez rallies. You guys should really watch out for media lies!

Congratulations to the Venezuelan people for proudly advancing their Bolivarian Revolution.

Actually, socialism did a lot to help the People's Republic of China recover from World War II. Do some reading on the first five year plan. The second, however, was a disaster, due to poor climate conditions and revolutionary fanaticism. Anyway, the point is, nationwide nationalization can be extremely effective in developing the economy. Even today, 30% of China's GDP is due to state-owned enterprises.

This is true. The first five-year plan, really until the late 1950's in general, produced some remarkable results in the reconstruction and reorganization of the Chinese economy, including significant growth in the availability of food, consumer goods, and social services. The same is true of the Soviet Union, which managed to not only reconstruct an economy devastated by the war but actually increase production as high as 50% above its prewar level in the 5 years from 1945-1950.

Nationalization is very good at mustering resources for rapid development, but it begins to decelerate, stagnate, and eventually collapse as the economy moves beyond the reconstruction phase and in to increasingly intensive rather than extensive growth. That's why China's liberalization under Deng Xiaopeng was necessary to preserve their economy while at the same time the Soviet Union stagnated and eventually collapsed because of the limitations of the centrally planned model and their inability to shift the economy to intensive, consumer-oriented growth.

Nationalisations don't work, that much is a proven fact. Governments can work together with the expertise and skill that companies use to earn money, but they can't work without it.

But the economics of it will speak for themselves.
Quite, see Thatcher's denationalisation of the railway service in Britain... oh... wait...

I think the fall of the Soviet Union was due to ineffective leadership and planning. This is not necessarily the fault of a planned economy, but when Brezhnev tried to bring back Stalinism and put way too much money into the military, the economy began to stagnate. If more money was used to pay for economic development and consumer goods, within the planned economy, then the Soviet Union was still around. Think about it, a large military would easily stagnate an economy. All the Soviet military did after World War II was sit around and invade a few random countries. A military is not a productive force, and too much investment would lead to stagnation anywhere. Even in the United States, which obviously has a market system, the military is draining huge sums of tax revenues. If the economic successes in the state-owned enterprises were used to expand and create more of these enterprises, then the economy would have grown.

Then I suggest you stop supporting crop-based ethanol.
It's a piece of the puzzle, but it can only work if subsidies and government instituted production limitations are lifted.


Totally different than every other oil producing nation.

I condemn the large producers equally: Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, the 'stans, equally.

I think the fall of the Soviet Union was due to ineffective leadership and planning. This is not necessarily the fault of a planned economy, but when Brezhnev tried to bring back Stalinism and put way too much money into the military, the economy began to stagnate. If more money was used to pay for economic development and consumer goods, within the planned economy, then the Soviet Union was still around. Think about it, a large military would easily stagnate an economy. All the Soviet military did after World War II was sit around and invade a few random countries. A military is not a productive force, and too much investment would lead to stagnation anywhere. Even in the United States, which obviously has a market system, the military is draining huge sums of tax revenues. If the economic successes in the state-owned enterprises were used to expand and create more of these enterprises, then the economy would have grown.

I agree with you that what killed the USSR was massive military budget expansion...but the reason it was so crippling was because the USSR tried to run even with the US...whose economic strength allowed for massive military expenditures that consumed a much smaller percentage of the budget. Remember, we spent roughly similar amounts, yet the USSR was driven into the ground by their expenditures.

snip
Proof? Any proof whatsoever?
This answer seems somehow appropriate

You've got access both to google and to history books

Yay! The final liberation of Venezuela's oil resources is complete. All we need to do now is figure out how they can use those resources with the limited capital they have now.

It's a piece of the puzzle, but it can only work if subsidies and government instituted production limitations are lifted.




I condemn the large producers equally: Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, the 'stans, equally.

Aren't you forgetting someone?

Do you by any chance live in Euassistan?

It's a piece of the puzzle, but it can only work if subsidies and government instituted production limitations are lifted.
Crop based ethanol will never work because there is too little return. We need to stop subsidizing the corn and soybean farmers and driving up market prices for the rest of the damn market to save an inconsequential amount of oil. We should focus on plant matter to biofuel conversions that might actually work.

Crop based ethanol will never work because there is too little return. We need to stop subsidizing the corn and soybean farmers and driving up market prices for the rest of the damn market to save an inconsequential amount of oil. We should focus on plant matter to biofuel conversions that might actually work.

We should focus on orbital solar power satellites that beam power to the ground to convert water to hydrogen, and use hydrogen for mobile power (cars, trucks), and use the rest of the electric power for everything else.

Save our coal for plastics (which we will need).

Stop burning oil (we'll produce lubricants from synthetic oil produced from coal).

We should focus on orbital solar power satellites that beam power to the ground to convert water to hydrogen, and use hydrogen for mobile power (cars, trucks), and use the rest of the electric power for everything else.
That is absurd and not likely doable before we run out of oil, at the most generous, optimistic estimates.
If we were going to do something like that, we should just switch all of our vehicles to run on McBiodiesel.

meh

Over 638 CIA assassination attempts on Fidel Castro?

Suggests Chavez probably doesn't have much to fear from them.;)

Umm, I don't what your source is, but Venezuela's economy is going really well, and has done since Chavez got elected.

lmfao, everyone is unemployed.

lmfao, everyone is unemployed.

Your well argued, well expressed opinion has changed my mind in your favor. Down with Venezuela, down with Chavez! Viva la capitalism!

And thank you, Aelosia, for pointing out that these companies were not forced out, they were either bought out or are deciding to leave. The same kind of manipulation of facts happened with the RCTV issue. Did anyone notice the pictures on BBC, showing the rallies/protests? The anti-Chavez protester pictures were zoomed out, to make it seem like they had more support, and the pro-Chavez pictures were zoomed in, showing about a dozen densely-packed people. ABC didn't even bother to show supporters! They just showed protesters being attacked by the police. I forgave BBC though, the next day they posted an article about the pro-Chavez rallies. You guys should really watch out for media lies!

Congratulations to the Venezuelan people for proudly advancing their Bolivarian Revolution.

Actually, the protests supporting the goverment decision of not renewing the concession of RCTV were fairly few. Actually, it was only one, that had people from all around the country. I was in both protests, and I sadly have to tell you that the one defending RCTV was bigger.

Taking into account that RCTV was a channel with high levels of rating and aimed at the popular sectors, it wasn't a surprise.

This answer seems somehow appropriate
Sorry, I haven't been able to find anything.

Looks to me like the best way for a country to make money out of its oil reserves is to do it like the Arab countries: found state-owned oil- and construction companies and use those to work together with big oil multinationals. When countries did that, they ended up doing quite well. When they kicked foreign companies out (or stole their assets), they didn't.

By the way, nobody answered my question: why do these news make people seem to fall over themselves with Schadenfreude? Why are oil companies so unpopular?

Your well argued, well expressed opinion has changed my mind in your favor. Down with Venezuela, down with Chavez! Viva la capitalism!
Though to be fair, his price controls have been a disaster.

This sort of "nationalization" will only be "effective" as long as there is something more to "nationalize". The almost inevitable consequence of taking investments and the resulting profits to buy votes by giving away services is to deny the ability of the "nationalized" industries to stay alive much less stay competitive. We really aren't short of energy resources. The world is littered with countries that have gone down this route. Can you say Zambia? Can you say Cuba? Can you say any of a bunch more?

"Nationalizing" an industry doesn't mean it will be profitable or even return the initial investment; it simply indicates who supplied the capital. (Or in this case who seized the capital).

Aelosia,

I understand the pro-RCTV protests were bigger, but surely the pro-Chavez marches had more than a dozen people. There were at least 1,000 pro-Chavez protesters, correct?

On the nationalization issue, at least the companies are being compensated. The natural resources of a nation belong to the people of that nation. Non-domestic companies have the right to exist there unless they are influenced by the state or are regulated by the state.

Aelosia,

I understand the pro-RCTV protests were bigger, but surely the pro-Chavez marches had more than a dozen people. There were at least 1,000 pro-Chavez protesters, correct?

On the nationalization issue, at least the companies are being compensated. The natural resources of a nation belong to the people of that nation. Non-domestic companies have the right to exist there unless they are influenced by the state or are regulated by the state.

Yes, of course those marches had more than one thousand people. To state otherwise is just a show of bias.

Actually, on the nationalization issue, I'm all for the mixed model. In that I do agree with the goverment, I'm not arguing that point. I just wanted in this thread to point the fact that said companies weren't expelled by the goverment, they expelled themselves by not abiding to a deal that was mutually beneficial for them and the venezuelan state.

My problem with the Chávez administration is not about his leftist policies, I a aware that this country need some of those, (the ones that work, sadly, others don't work because they are done in a pretty much inept way). My problem with the Chávez goverment is the exclusion and the authoritarism that his model tries to impose over the internal system. I am more pluralist myself, and I do not abide by the tyranny of the majority, and the centralization of power in just one political party.

Sorry, I haven't been able to find anything.

Looks to me like the best way for a country to make money out of its oil reserves is to do it like the Arab countries: found state-owned oil- and construction companies and use those to work together with big oil multinationals. When countries did that, they ended up doing quite well. When they kicked foreign companies out (or stole their assets), they didn't.Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence and all that. There's not much evidence for or against your position in the oil sector, but there's plenty of it in other sectors. The rest of the energy sector would be an obvious place to look, I think. And if you do, it should be readily apparent that state owned and operated endeavours are usually more cost effective and productive, and have fewer negative impacts than their privately owned and operated alternatives.By the way, nobody answered my question: why do these news make people seem to fall over themselves with Schadenfreude? Why are oil companies so unpopular?I'm guessing it is because transnational oil companies have a long history of not only supporting oppressive regimes and successfully lobbying parts or all of the international community to stifle popular/democratic/socialist movements in countries around the world. but also because they have an equally long history of cheating developing countries, forcefully displacing population groups, devastating local environments, spending millions faking research and sabotaging that of others, fighting even more expensive PR wars in the media to defame critics, and many other activities most people would demand the responsible parties shot for... And, of course, lying about all of it.

That it's utterly pointless is a different matter, and I'm inclined to agree with you on that. The super-destructive scum of this world only exist because we want them to. Glee at a minor blow to a few of them, strikes me as not dissimilar from pointing and laughing at oneself.

By the way, nobody answered my question: why do these news make people seem to fall over themselves with Schadenfreude? Why are oil companies so unpopular?

I never understand that either-people tend to loathe large corporations with tons of money and influence.
Is it jealosy?

I guess the average person doesnt see the jobs these companies provide directly (and indirectly to all suppliers,support companies,etc..)
The corporations arent an individual entity sucking up resources and hoarding the profits- they are thousands upon thousands of people making a living.
Not to mention millions of stockholders.

Do I feel oil companies gouge us when they have the chance? Yes.

Does my money find its way back tro me? Yes.

Actually, on the nationalization issue, I'm all for the mixed model. In that I do agree with the goverment, I'm not arguing that point. I just wanted in this thread to point the fact that said companies weren't expelled by the goverment, they expelled themselves by not abiding to a deal that was mutually beneficial for them and the venezuelan state.

The mixed model seems to make sense to me too. If the Venezuelan state becomes the controlling stockholder in all oil ventures within the country, while allowing the companies to run themselves a nice profit, everybody wins. The Venezuelan governemtn can use its influence to ensure that the oil companies do right in terms of the environment, etc., profits generated by the enterprise will flow back into the Venezuelan economy, and the oil companies have their freedom and their own profits.

Do I feel oil companies gouge us when they have the chance? Yes.

Does my money find its way back tro me? Yes.

This is because you live and work in the same economy as the people who profit from the price gouge. This is not true for the majority of Venezuelans. When profits leave the country, the Venezuelan economy and people lose out.

Aelosia,

I understand your concern with the formation of a single-party government in Venezuela. As a Marxist-Leninist, I applaud a political party ordered on democratic centralist lines. But I think that the centralism is often overemphasized. If Chavez does succeed in creating a united socialist party, I will be happy with the move as long as it empowers the Venezuelan working class, leaves room for criticism within the party, and still allows independant opposition parties. As for internal authoritarianism, one quote comes to mind, where a Chavista is asked about the situation of democracy in Venezuela, and he says something to the effect of, "We have never been more free here. If authoritarianism means more democracy, then I want more authoritarianism."

On the nationalization issue, I think a major problem of state planning is when there is nothing left to nationalize. Ayn Rand, for example, blew this problem out of proportion in her book, Atlas Shrugged, but she nonetheless highlighted it. I think there are many leaders in the Venezuelan public sector that are loyal to the revolution and will be able to be innovative and avoid corruption. I still think state planning/public ownership of the means of production is the best route. As long as state planners can be innovative and loyal to the public, the system will work very well.

Don't bother, NL is just playing the 'teh ebil commiez' gripe as usual.

Question:

Communism = Good?

damn people are blinded by their "the united states is evil" mindset that they will praise Chavez for anything

As long as he paid to get those resources back, then why not. It's better that they be in Venezuelan hands than American ones.

Somehow I don't think he paid. That's more morally ambiguous. In all honesty, I see this as an experiment in socialist leadership in the modern world, and I eagerly await the final outcome. Maybe it works out, maybe it all comes crashing down around him. If he can do it more power to him, but I'm content to wait and see.

You complain against anti-Americanism, and your nation is called Slaughterhouse Five? That's a bit ironic, don't you think?

You complain against anti-Americanism, and your nation is called Slaughterhouse Five? That's a bit ironic, don't you think?

Actually, no, it's not. I could call my nation "Declarewaroneveryone" and it wouldn't be ironic. It's just a national name. Get over it.

I wasn't being hostile, I just thought it was strange that someone who is against anti-Americanism would name their country after the most famous book about the Dresden bombings...

And if you do, it should be readily apparent that state owned and operated endeavours are usually more cost effective and productive, and have fewer negative impacts than their privately owned and operated alternatives.
See, now that is the sort of thing we should be able to find evidence for. What sort of conditions do you think have to be met before this is the case? You'll probably have seen my thread on the situation in Iran at the moment, which is caused by an ineptly state-run oil industry - so what's different there to the "readily apparent" fact that state-operated endeavours are more cost effective and productive?

I'm sorry, but I work on a project for my local city council right now, and I've never seen so many people who have no idea what they're doing on one spot. I mean, how can you run service provision planning with a department in which not one person has training in finance or economics?

I'm not saying government is bad, I think it's got its legitimate purposes. I just think that it operates in a fundamentally different way from a money-making enterprise, and mixing the two is a bad idea either way.

The Venezuelan governemtn can use its influence to ensure that the oil companies do right in terms of the environment, etc
Don't get your issues mixed up. Chavez doesn't give a shit about the environment any more than Castro or the Soviets did. Remember he's fighting a war against biofuels.

You complain against anti-Americanism, and your nation is called Slaughterhouse Five? That's a bit ironic, don't you think?

I wasn't being hostile, I just thought it was strange that someone who is against anti-Americanism would name their country after the most famous book about the Dresden bombings...

i saw the story of some guy that kept leaping through out his experience in life more of the story in slaughterhouse five then being an anti war book. in fact as an anti war book i think it sucked. as a entertaining story to read in the winter when work was really slow it was a good book.

as to go back to the issue. i think Chavez is going to drive Venezuela to the ground. but because Chavez called bush the devil every high school socialist and those who just don't like bush will let him get away with anything. if it were the united states to kick out Venezuelan based companies or to impose an embargo on Venezuela it would be the same old "America is evil and unfair blah blah blah...."

i saw the story of some guy that kept leaping through out his experience in life more of the story in slaughterhouse five then being an anti war book. in fact as an anti war book i think it sucked. as a entertaining story to read in the winter when work was really slow it was a good book.

That book is really good.

Aelosia,
I understand your concern with the formation of a single-party government in Venezuela. As a Marxist-Leninist, I applaud a political party ordered on democratic centralist lines. But I think that the centralism is often overemphasized. If Chavez does succeed in creating a united socialist party, I will be happy with the move as long as it empowers the Venezuelan working class, leaves room for criticism within the party, and still allows independant opposition parties. As for internal authoritarianism, one quote comes to mind, where a Chavista is asked about the situation of democracy in Venezuela, and he says something to the effect of, "We have never been more free here. If authoritarianism means more democracy, then I want more authoritarianism."

As an active political moderate (that is, I actively look for neutral grounds and accords between all political tendencies, not that I am too dull to take a side), I also find interesting that a united, centralized socialist party is created. The proble is that I do not see how criticism inside the party is allowed, unless comes from above, and I do not see it hoping to allow and discuss with independant opposition parties. Regarding the quote, I do not think at all that authoritarianism means more democracy.

I know that a rather large part of our population was marginalized and opressed by previous goverments, and I am all for giving them what was taken and denied to them. However, I can't agree that we should give them that taking it from others. No freedom should be given by opressing others.

On the nationalization issue, I think a major problem of state planning is when there is nothing left to nationalize. Ayn Rand, for example, blew this problem out of proportion in her book, Atlas Shrugged, but she nonetheless highlighted it. I think there are many leaders in the Venezuelan public sector that are loyal to the revolution and will be able to be innovative and avoid corruption. I still think state planning/public ownership of the means of production is the best route. As long as state planners can be innovative and loyal to the public, the system will work very well.

One problem this administration needs to face is the corruption alongside the middle echelons of the goverment. The problem is that the lack of autocriticism and also the denial to accept criticism from other parts of the society effectively blinds the president to take action against that issue. The broad measures announced by the president seems to be nice initiatives, but the "loyal to the public" part, (not by him, but by his cronies) is in doubt at best.

Nazi germany

Nazi germany

Hitler was a terrible German, heck, he didn't drink beer or eat wursts!

Hitler was a terrible German, heck, he didn't drink beer or ear wursts!

Liquid ear wursts sounds horrible, no wonder he didn't drink it.

Liquid ear wursts sounds horrible, no wonder he didn't drink it.

I think it would be shockingly appropriate if we were to turn this thread into a discussion of Hitler's dietary habits :)

Aelosia,

I hold the Marxist-Leninist view that there is no freedom while there is the State. I would always prefer the working majority oppressing the idle-rich minority. If this doesn't happen, then it's the other way around. We will be able to talk about freedom when we get rid of social classes and the State.

As for the bureaucratic cronies, I think you make a good point. But I think with a class-conscious working class in Venezuela, they will not allow their Revolution to be taken advantage of.

As for the lack criticism within the unified socialist party, I think this is a potentially huge problem. But I also think that it can be avoided. In the United States, the two major parties have party leaders who often take different stances. I think this could be difficult in Venezuela, because Chavez is at the center of the political struggle, but I don't think it's inevitable. I don't think this will be a problem if the borderline parties join in (like the Communist Party of Venezuela), because I think these sectors of the party will take independant stances.

Don't get your issues mixed up. Chavez doesn't give a shit about the environment any more than Castro or the Soviets did. Remember he's fighting a war against biofuels.

Many (http://www.grain.org/nfg/?id=502) environmentalists (http://www.corporateeurope.org/agrofuelfolly.html) are (http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1662) also (http://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/112/viewpoint.html) opposed (http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/) to how biofuels are being managed as a resource. Does that mean they don't give a shit about the environment either?

But the environment is not the point. It is merely an example of an issue that the local community is interested in, while the oil company, whose focus is profits, is not interested in. Historically, oil companies have been somewhat detrimental to local communities throughout the third world. Having the state as a major stockholder will act as a check or balance to corporate power. Thus, the community's interests are also protected.

Good to see that somebody still has a back bone.

Historically, oil companies have been somewhat detrimental to local communities throughout the third world.
And that's been the case regardless of whether they were privately- or government owned.

The best way to see this is probably by acknowledging that
a) the third world has shitty government, meaning that you don't get far by relying on above board actions
b) the resources are immovable, so oil companies can't get around dealing with whoever is in charge
c) oil, being such an important resource for among other things warfare, has always had a connection with politics, and oil executives are often political operators as well
d) there was no one watching what oil companies were doing or criticising them

I think the best way to solving problem with oil companies is by fixing a) and d)...the other ones are unfortunately facts of life.

What the hell are my US tax dollars paying for?Kidnapping, torture, assassination, schools, highways. etc ;)

Aelosia,

I hold the Marxist-Leninist view that there is no freedom while there is the State. I would always prefer the working majority oppressing the idle-rich minority. If this doesn't happen, then it's the other way around. We will be able to talk about freedom when we get rid of social classes and the State.

As for the bureaucratic cronies, I think you make a good point. But I think with a class-conscious working class in Venezuela, they will not allow their Revolution to be taken advantage of.

One of the facts that the Marxist-Leninist parties need to realize about Venezuela is that its economic and social reality is really different than other countries. The model doesn't apply perfectly here, at least until some substancial changes take part.

Venezuela, sadly, has no organized or abundant working class. We live of oil revenues, not industry. The lack of industry indeed create a lack of workers, and a lack of workers is directly linked to a lack of a "proletariat" as defined by Marxism-Leninism.

Thus, we have a social structure different to other places. We have indeed a small amount of absolutely rich people that think they can rule the country as their backyard. Landowners, Corporate people. The second part of the society, rather large, is a rather misguided middle class, usually working as professionals and in the services or commerce at small scale. Then we have the workers, that almost go only as far as the ones running the oil industry, the only thing that keep the country running. Yet, said workers aren't a mayority, as you may think, they are a minority, even less than the "bourgueois" middle class.

Finally, we have a large amount of unemployed, uneducated mass of people that doesn't qualify as "proletariat". As a matter of fact, they are usually what Marxism-Leninism define as "Lumpen proletariat". Said lumpen proletariat, pretty useless and despised in Lenin's own views, is hardly worth something until it realizes they must become part of the working class. That means, they actually need to work and produce, not selling second handed or smuggled goods over mantles in the streets.

We all live on oil revenues, that are practically free, not worked, but by the reduced few true workers. The rich controlling the important and few industries, the middle class providing professional third sector services, and the lumpen proletariat trying to scrape something providing services for the middle class.

You cannot build a Proletariat Revolution with a Lumpen proletariat, because in the end, they are all small bourgueois. Lenin said that, not me. And the revolution of Chávez is indeed based on that Lumpen Proletariat. That is why after almost a decade, it hasn't been successful.

Thus, what we have here in a social struggle basically between the middle class and the Lumpen proletariat, because the latter wants to become the former, with the workers as spectators and the rich trying to extract as much power, profit and influence as possible. What we need is a goverment trying to convert the lumpen proletariat into a true proletariat. Then we can talk about a classical class struggle here. And a true revolution. Even marxist leninists should realize that for the working class, a country in the hands of a middle class is better than a country in the hands of the lumpen proletariat, that only wants to depose the middle class and take that place themselves.

Same with the bureocrats, to have a conscious working class to protect itself from the abuses of demagogues, we need to create a working class first.

As for the lack criticism within the unified socialist party, I think this is a potentially huge problem. But I also think that it can be avoided. In the United States, the two major parties have party leaders who often take different stances. I think this could be difficult in Venezuela, because Chavez is at the center of the political struggle, but I don't think it's inevitable. I don't think this will be a problem if the borderline parties join in (like the Communist Party of Venezuela), because I think these sectors of the party will take independant stances.

The problem is that Chávez's voice remains the only one able to take critical decisions, and he doesn't accept criticism from inside or outside. Party leaders cannot take different stances, or even disagree. Perhaps is he ever leaves power, then the united socialist party could take the right direction. For now, it has worked as a borg, asking for unconditional surrender and total assimilation. The lack of negotiation reflects a lack of will to accept similar but not equal stances. It is with us or against us, a bandwagon-like effect.

Hitler was a terrible German, heck, he didn't drink beer or eat wursts!

Yes, he sucked so much at being German that you could say he was more of an Austrian.

For a side note, as you seem to be enjoying yourselves in the typical left - right nonsense debate....

Chávez didn't expel those companies. They expelled themselves.

The GOVERMENT, and not HUGO CHÁVEZ, offered them a mixed model of management and they refused. The model was offered to 11 companies operating in the zone. 7 accepted, 4 refused.

Exxon, Conoco, Opic and Petro Canada refused, and decided to leave the country. They weren't expelled.

Total, Statoil, Chevron, BP, Eni, Ineparia and Sinupec accepted the mixed model, so they will stay operating.

I hope the clarification is worth something. Seems like your journalist need a lesson or two about views on facts.

QFT. Damn liberal media! Oh wait...

QFT. Damn liberal media! Oh wait...

I do not care if the journalist is liberal or conservative.

Chávez didn't drive Exxon and Conoco out of Venezuela.

They left after they didn't agree to a mixed management model, proposed by the venezuelan goverment.

I do not care if the journalist is liberal or conservative.

Chávez didn't drive Exxon and Conoco out of Venezuela.

They left after they didn't agree to a mixed management model, proposed by the venezuelan goverment.

Do you know what QFT means? It's "Quoted For Truth".

Yes, he sucked so much at being German that you could say he was more of an Austrian.

Yes, yes, one could say that, one could say that indeed :D

See, now that is the sort of thing we should be able to find evidence for. What sort of conditions do you think have to be met before this is the case? You'll probably have seen my thread on the situation in Iran at the moment, which is caused by an ineptly state-run oil industry - so what's different there to the "readily apparent" fact that state-operated endeavours are more cost effective and productive?I was only speaking in the broadest possible terms. But why don't you offer up some set criteria? It's your pet peeve, after all ;)

As for evidence, try taking a look at Europe and the former East block. The infrastructure is pretty much second to none, and all sectors of it has pretty consistently performed better when publicly owned and run than when privatised. I don't know about you, but to me it makes more sense to look at places where there's actually basis for making it work, when you try to determine if it can and does.I'm sorry, but I work on a project for my local city council right now, and I've never seen so many people who have no idea what they're doing on one spot. I mean, how can you run service provision planning with a department in which not one person has training in finance or economics?Wait, just wait 'til you're in the private sector. If you think it's better, you're in for a shock. I'd say your best bet is to start your own thing. And get a management firm to look over your shoulder. In my experience, that's the only thing that'll ever make any operation work as intended.I'm not saying government is bad, I think it's got its legitimate purposes. I just think that it operates in a fundamentally different way from a money-making enterprise, and mixing the two is a bad idea either way.While I disagree with the former (I would, being a syndicalist), I'll sadly have to agree with the latter. The problem, I think, is that Gov't run companies and corporations share your idea of what they're supposed to be. My opinion is somewhat reinforced by looking at public businesses that don't operate under this strange philosophy.

As for evidence, try taking a look at Europe and the former East block. The infrastructure is pretty much second to none, and all sectors of it has pretty consistently performed better when publicly owned and run than when privatised.

Uh... what?
I live there and I noticed an enormous improvement in all the sectors that have been privatized. Except the parts that went bankrupt as soon as they were exposed to the chill of market reality, when the government stopped subsidizing them either directly or by buying their products, for example the tank factories Bumar-Labedy. I say good riddance to them.

Aelosia,

It depends on your outlook on the lumpenproletariat. The Black Panther Party, in the United States, was a militant socialist black liberation party, that put great emphasis on the lumpenproletariat. Personally, I think we can use the lumpenproletariat and turn them into productive citizens. I think that the informal economy is very strong in Venezuela. If Chavez can manage to organize the economy, then many of the lumpenproletariat and petit-bourgeois people can become proletarians. Taking the oil industry under public ownership is a major step in consolidating the economy.

And as for the criticism of Chavez issue, he seems very intelligent, and maybe he can destroy neoliberalism in Venezuela. This would make room for the expansion of democracy and socialism at the same time.

Is it possible that acceptance of Chavez's policies is necessary for the independance and well-being of the Venezuelan people? Oh, and I know this is completely off the topic, but were you the Venezuelan journalist who visited Cuba? Maybe Hugo Chavez is similar to Fidel Castro. Maybe Cuba needed Fidel and his authoritarian measures to allow future Cubans to build communism and democracy.

Aelosia,

It depends on your outlook on the lumpenproletariat. The Black Panther Party, in the United States, was a militant socialist black liberation party, that put great emphasis on the lumpenproletariat. Personally, I think we can use the lumpenproletariat and turn them into productive citizens. I think that the informal economy is very strong in Venezuela. If Chavez can manage to organize the economy, then many of the lumpenproletariat and petit-bourgeois people can become proletarians. Taking the oil industry under public ownership is a major step in consolidating the economy.

And as for the criticism of Chavez issue, he seems very intelligent, and maybe he can destroy neoliberalism in Venezuela. This would make room for the expansion of democracy and socialism at the same time.

Is it possible that acceptance of Chavez's policies is necessary for the independance and well-being of the Venezuelan people? Oh, and I know this is completely off the topic, but were you the Venezuelan journalist who visited Cuba? Maybe Hugo Chavez is similar to Fidel Castro. Maybe Cuba needed Fidel and his authoritarian measures to allow future Cubans to build communism and democracy.

As I said, the Chávez administration first needs to succeed in turning the lumpenproletariat into proletarians. If they achieve that task, then perhaps the country, and the revolution, can start working once more. Until now, they seem to be happy just preserving said lumpenproletariat and using them to chastise those they think oppose the regime. I must remark that several rather dangerous and megalomaniac empresaries, as Gustavo Cisneros, have been protected by the goverment. Certain things must change.

I hope the lumpenproletariat can turn into truly productive citizens. It would indeed help this country. The first thing you need to achieve is to convince them to drop the informal, petit bourgueois, commerce economy and join an established industry.

Regarding how smart is Chávez, well, sometimes I a astonished to see how smart he is indeed, and others I am ashamed to see ridiculous acts of stupidity from his part. I guess that he, as any other leader and human being, have moments of brilliance and moments of ineptitude. Personally, I think that his most flawed aspect is the choice of his collaborators. I would agree with Chávez as president if he purges his administration from so many unadecuate personnel.

It could be that your point regarding the need of this country to pass through this to develop is true. But I cannot predict the future in any case.

Regarding Cuba, yes, I am one of the venezuelan journalists that visited Cuba. I went there when I was an university student. Sadly, I didn't like what I see, and I do not want my country to sink to that level, (I blame the United States embargo for the cuban situation as much as I blame the cubans themselves). Perhaps indeed Cuba needed Castro's regime to flourish, but we will see that only after Fidel dissappears.

As I said, the Chávez administration first needs to succeed in turning the lumpenproletariat into proletarians.
...
I hope the lumpenproletariat can turn into truly productive citizens. It would indeed help this country. The first thing you need to achieve is to convince them to drop the informal, petit bourgueois, commerce economy and join an established industry.


I doubt that the lumpen can be made into proletarians before radical changes are made in the economic system.
There has always been a great social pressure from the upper classes (bourgoises, party officers, church... name one) to make the proletarians into lumpens, not the reverse. Also, it reqiures less intellectual effort to be a lumpen.
Capitalists place the proletarians in front of soap operas, let they dream about becoming fabulously rich, and shut down their brains.
Party officers place the proletarians in huge parades, shouting slogans, and shut down their brains.
Churches place the proletarians in places of worship, muttering poorly-understood prayers, and shut down their brains.

The upper class has always feared the proletariat, because it is organised, socially conscious and politically active: that is, it can change the society against them. Lumpen, on the other side, are politically passive - they don't even have the means to understand how the society works.

The lumpens have evolved into proletarians during the Industrial Revolution - they were forced by the socioeconomical boundary conditions to do so.
I don't see an "industrial revolution" taking place in Venezuela right now: the Venezuelan government needs to do that. It is impossible to jump directly from a pre-industrial society to socialism.
It could be a good idea to introduce and fuel a semi-capitalistic system, with large state industries and small-scale co-operation enterprises - on the lines of Lenin's NEP. This way, the lumpen could begin migrating into the working class.

I doubt that the lumpen can be made into proletarians before radical changes are made in the economic system.
There has always been a great social pressure from the upper classes (bourgoises, party officers, church... name one) to make the proletarians into lumpens, not the reverse. Also, it reqiures less intellectual effort to be a lumpen.
Capitalists place the proletarians in front of soap operas, let they dream about becoming fabulously rich, and shut down their brains.
Party officers place the proletarians in huge parades, shouting slogans, and shut down their brains.
Churches place the proletarians in places of worship, muttering poorly-understood prayers, and shut down their brains.

The upper class has always feared the proletariat, because it is organised, socially conscious and politically active: that is, it can change the society against them. Lumpen, on the other side, are politically passive - they don't even have the means to understand how the society works.

The lumpens have evolved into proletarians during the Industrial Revolution - they were forced by the socioeconomical boundary conditions to do so.
I don't see an "industrial revolution" taking place in Venezuela right now: the Venezuelan government needs to do that. It is impossible to jump directly from a pre-industrial society to socialism.
It could be a good idea to introduce and fuel a semi-capitalistic system, with large state industries and small-scale co-operation enterprises - on the lines of Lenin's NEP. This way, the lumpen could begin migrating into the working class.

I doubt it as well, as I tried to explain to Michaelic France. At best, it would in any case begin a proccess of reflexion. I don't think the measures taken by this administration will indeed cause the much needed transformation.

Indeed the capitalists try to turn the proletariat into lumpen. This goverment just tries to force the lumpen to remain as lumpen.

As usual, Luigi, you're right...

(The Luigi part is not aimed to be offensive, just a little show of affection).