Hugo Chavez, RIP

Makes sense that crime is under control where the Bolivarian National Police operate. It also makes sense that it isn't where the right wing Mayor of Caracas or the gang controlled Mayor of San Cristobal have policing control and means for initmidation in the latter case. Chavez/Maduro's failed opposition candidate Capriles is the Governor of Miranda where Caracas is situated is obviously not interested in making the President look good and has done little to discourage a violent opposition.

Lots of good background with translations at this blog site:

http://www.sabinabecker.com/

As for what the socialists are doing with all that oil wealth... a f&ck of a lot more than anyone else has been doing with exploiting their natural resources. Translation from an open letter:

Quote:

Have you investigated the levels of nutrition and health in the people of Venezuela, how they have improved in the last 15 years? Have you observed the growth in primary healthcare services?

Have you investigated the indices of education, how illiteracy has been eradicated, how there are fewer school drop-outs, how millions of adults have completed their high school diplomas and are now at university? Have you seen how the people are now more awake, more alert?

Have you investigated how they are resolving the housing deficit in our country, with the construction of new homes and the remodeling of entire neighborhoods?

 

The issue of economic hardship is also addressed in the same open letter:

In Spanish:

Socialism always leads to a collapsing economy and therefore misery.  Why?  Socialism is incompatible with human nature.

I'll use a fictional, extreme anecdotal analogy to prove my point.

Imagine me and you work in a factory creating widgets.  We do this in a capitalistic economy and in a socialistic economy.  In the capitalistic economy we are paid per widget constructed and in the socialistic economy we are all paid the same.  Lets say you can make two widgets for every one widget I make.  Whose behaviour changes, mine or yours, in each economic regime?  In the capitalistic economy I figure out quite quickly that you are making double what I make in both widgets and pay.  My behaviour will change.  I will watch you, learn from you, ask you questions, etc so that I can increase the amount of widgets I make and therefore the pay I receive.  I will become more productive.

In the socialistic economy, eventually you will say"what benefit do I get for being twice as productive as him (me)".  Eventually you will conclude that the system is unfair towards you; the very productive worker.  Your behaviour will change.  You will daydream a little more.  Think about dinner instead of producing widgets.  The amount of widgets you create with decline.  My behavior will not change.  Why would it?  There is no direct benefit to putting in more effort.

This is human nature.  No getting around it.  "To each according to their needs; from each according to their abilities" is a rip-off for those with ability.

RDP wrote:

I'll use a fictional, extreme anecdotal analogy to prove my point.

Ill use this broken toaster oven to disprove your point.

Army to Combat “Grave” Opposition Disorder near Colombian Border   

Thank you for that unbiased article.  I enjoyed reading it.  I also enjoyed reading "Who put the S in socialism" and "We are open minded - as long as you agree with us" but I particularily liked "Capitalistic states have mass graves too" eventhough the article did not state where.

Do you really think the mainstream press would not report this?  In a capitalistic state reporters want to "scoop" the story.  In a socialistic state they get a bullet in the head when they scoop an anti-governmental story.

Good point.  You changed my mind.

RDP wrote:

I'll use a fictional, extreme anecdotal analogy to prove my point.

Imagine me and you work in a factory creating widgets.  We do this in a capitalistic economy and in a socialistic economy.  In the capitalistic economy we are paid per widget constructed and in the socialistic economy we are all paid the same.  Lets say you can make two widgets for every one widget I make.  Whose behaviour changes, mine or yours, in each economic regime?  In the capitalistic economy I figure out quite quickly that you are making double what I make in both widgets and pay.  My behaviour will change.  I will watch you, learn from you, ask you questions, etc so that I can increase the amount of widgets I make and therefore the pay I receive.  I will become more productive.

In the socialistic economy, eventually you will say"what benefit do I get for being twice as productive as him (me)".  Eventually you will conclude that the system is unfair towards you; the very productive worker.  Your behaviour will change.  You will daydream a little more.  Think about dinner instead of producing widgets.  The amount of widgets you create with decline.  My behavior will not change.  Why would it?  There is no direct benefit to putting in more effort.

You're right, it is fictional in the extreme. While there are some sales people who are paid comission based on how much they sell (which is generally pretty annoying because you can tell they're after your money ASAP and couldn't care less about making sure your needs are met) people in any company are generally paid "the same." The rules for change in pay are generally not dependent on production, but other factors, for example, if there is a collective agreement, or you get a raise as soon as you're off probation, or a raise at certain time periods, promotions, or the manager arbitrarily decides who to pay more. And before you give me this crap about the private sector creating jobs, I suspect you've never actually been in a position to make decisions about staffing levels. I have, and I can assure you that even in good times, companies are always trying to figure out how to do this work with less people.

By the way, thank you for the compliment of posting to these boards. It shows that our ideas are gaining currency among the public.

laine lowe wrote:

Makes sense that crime is under control where the Bolivarian National Police operate. It also makes sense that it isn't where the right wing Mayor of Caracas or the gang controlled Mayor of San Cristobal have policing control and means for initmidation in the latter case. Chavez/Maduro's failed opposition candidate Capriles is the Governor of Miranda where Caracas is situated is obviously not interested in making the President look good and has done little to discourage a violent opposition.

I find that to be petty in the extreme. In Canada and the US, co-operation across party lines is common between the different levels of government, and it is generally expected. The most famous example of this is the collaboration between New Jersey Governer Christy and President Obama in the aftermath of hurricane Sandy, and when asked about the politics, Christie's answer boiled down to "f%&@ that, my state is underwater, my citizens need help, and helping them is more important."

This is just more right-wing nonsense, that those in power keep spewing out to ensure those without power never ever get power. 

If we reduced the billions being sucked out of our economies for defence and security contracts, there would be tons on money around to pay a minimum wage of $20 an hour across the planet.

Exclusive Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State

 February 21, 2014by Mike Lofgren

Rome lived upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face. Industry is the only true source of wealth, and there was no industry in Rome. By day the Ostia road was crowded with carts and muleteers, carrying to the great city the silks and spices of the East, the marble of Asia Minor, the timber of the Atlas, the grain of Africa and Egypt; and the carts brought out nothing but loads of dung. That was their return cargo.

– The Martyrdom of Man by Winwood Reade (1871)

There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power. [1]

During the last five years, the news media has been flooded with pundits decrying the broken politics of Washington. The conventional wisdom has it that partisan gridlock and dysfunction have become the new normal. That is certainly the case, and I have been among the harshest critics of this development. But it is also imperative to acknowledge the limits of this critique as it applies to the American governmental system. On one level, the critique is self-evident: In the domain that the public can see, Congress is hopelessly deadlocked in the worst manner since the 1850s, the violently rancorous decade preceding the Civil War.

Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country…As I wrote in The Party is Over, the present objective of congressional Republicans is to render the executive branch powerless, at least until a Republican president is elected (a goal that voter suppression laws in GOP-controlled states are clearly intended to accomplish). President Obama cannot enact his domestic policies and budgets: Because of incessant GOP filibustering, not only could he not fill the large number of vacancies in the federal judiciary, he could not even get his most innocuous presidential appointees into office. Democrats controlling the Senate have responded by weakening the filibuster of nominations, but Republicans are sure to react with other parliamentary delaying tactics. This strategy amounts to congressional nullification of executive branch powers by a party that controls a majority in only one house of Congress. 

Despite this apparent impotence, President Obama can liquidate American citizens without due processes, detain prisoners indefinitely without charge, conduct dragnet surveillance on the American people without judicial warrant and engage in unprecedented — at least since the McCarthy era — witch hunts against federal employees (the so-called “Insider Threat Program”). Within the United States, this power is characterized by massive displays of intimidating force by militarized federal, state and local law enforcement. Abroad, President Obama can start wars at will and engage in virtually any other activity whatsoever without so much as a by-your-leave from Congress, such as arranging the forced landing of a plane carrying a sovereign head of state over foreign territory. Despite the habitual cant of congressional Republicans about executive overreach by Obama, the would-be dictator, we have until recently heard very little from them about these actions — with the minor exception of comments from gadfly Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. Democrats, save a few mavericks such as Ron Wyden of Oregon, are not unduly troubled, either — even to the extent ofpermitting seemingly perjured congressional testimony under oath by executive branch officials on the subject of illegal surveillance.

These are not isolated instances of a contradiction; they have been so pervasive that they tend to be disregarded as background noise. During the time in 2011 when political warfare over the debt ceiling was beginning to paralyze the business of governance in Washington, the United States government somehow summoned the resources to overthrow Muammar Ghaddafi’s regime in Libya, and, when the instability created by that coup spilled over into Mali, provide overt and covert assistance to French intervention there. At a time when there was heated debate about continuing meat inspections and civilian air traffic control because of the budget crisis, our government was somehow able to commit $115 million to keeping a civil war going in Syria and to pay at least£100m to the United Kingdom’s Government Communications Headquarters to buy influence over and access to that country’s intelligence. Since 2007, two bridges carrying interstate highways have collapsed due to inadequate maintenance of infrastructure, one killing 13 people. During that same period of time, the government spent $1.7 billion constructing a building in Utah that is the size of 17 football fields. This mammoth structure is intended to allow the National Security Agency to store a yottabyte of information, the largest numerical designator computer scientists have coined. A yottabyte is equal to 500 quintillion pages of text. They need that much storage to archive every single trace of your electronic life.

Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed an “establishment.” All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched. Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only the Deep State’s protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude. [2]

http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/

RDP]</p> <p>Generally speaking people are paid what they are worth.  If they are overpaid they will eventually be fired.  If they are underpaid the onus is on them to negotiate a higher salary or find a new employer that will pay them what they are worth.</p> <p>Companies want to pay as little as possible while at the same time attract and retain workers.  These competing interests generate a fair salary.  </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>[quote=RDP wrote:

Generally speaking people are paid what they are worth.  If they are overpaid they will eventually be fired.  If they are underpaid the onus is on them to negotiate a higher salary or find a new employer that will pay them what they are worth.

Companies want to pay as little as possible while at the same time attract and retain workers.  These competing interests generate a fair salary.  

Often employees feel underpaid when they are not.  Increase your productivity and you will become more valuable to the company and they won't want to lose you to the competition so they give you a raise.

RDP wrote:

Often employees feel underpaid when they are not.  Increase your productivity and you will become more valuable to the company and they won't want to lose you to the competition so they give you a raise.

Or you get a pink slip when the company boss has decided that the work your unit does will either be done by robots or in a third world country with no labour standards where people work like slaves for 14 hours a day and next to no pay.

Stop The Right-Wing Coup! Defend the Venezuelan Revolution! - Toronto: Thurs, Feb 27, 2014, Thurs March 6

https://www.facebook.com/events/223598071179191/

"In the streets of Caracas and across Venezuela we are seeing a battle between two camps, revolution and counter revolution..."

..the #219 post made a connection with ukraine. here's another.

U.S. Policy Toward Venezuela: Seeing The Larger Picture

Since the 1990s, many critics of the U.S. have accused Washington of promoting the dismemberment of nations such as Yugoslavia, in accordance with neoliberalism’s drive to weaken central governments and nation states. Today, Washington’s official policy in nations like Syria and now the Ukraine has been support for rebels that are trying to overthrow the government, even though their chances of success are minimal. In the case of Syria, the U.S. has provided material support for rebels, while in the case of the Ukraine the Obama administration has threatened the government with sanctions even though the dissidents are armed and have attacked security forces. Regardless of one’s evaluation of the two governments (and I’m not defending either one), it could be said that regime change in highly unlikely. The best-case political scenario for those opposed to both governments would be a prolonged armed conflict, perhaps even civil war. The worst-case political scenario for them would be government consolidation and the complete defeat of the rebels. Washington obviously knows this.  Could it be that in cases of governments considered adverse to U.S. interests, Washington prefers a civil war over a normal situation free of discord and violence?...

quote:

Washington along with the opposition leaders are banking on a wearing out process, what is known as “low intensity war.” It may work. It did in Nicaragua in the 1980s. Nicaraguan voters in 1990 felt that the only way to end the ongoing violence was by electing a “moderate,” namely Violeta Chamorro (whose candidacy and party received millions of dollars from the U.S.). A similar scenario may play out in Venezuela. Capriles very skillfully is positioning himself to play the role of “moderate” (he even calls himself a “progressive”) and has distanced himself from López, particularly on the social front (even though both come from the upper class). He states the only way for the opposition to triumph is by getting support from the popular classes, a position which represents an indirect criticism of López for overestimating subjective conditions. In short, Capriles is following the “Chamorro strategy.”...

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/10397

..from what i wrote in the #223 post, i removed "the" from in front of ukraine. txs unionist!

RDP wrote:

What would you do if Stephen Harper jailed Justin Trudeau, shut down the CBC and CTV and suspended internet service in some cities and blocked what it deemed inflamatory twitter messages?  That is what the government in Venezuela is doing now.

I think you've been misinformed. I just checked, and the CBC and CTV are still on the air and online. My twitter feed is filled with inflammatory tweets, and I'm able to post this via the Internet. Although, I'll conceed that I haven't seen Justin this morning. What jail is he in?

This:

[url=http://newpol.org/content/february-traumas-third-insurrectionary-moment-... Third Insurrectionary Moment of the Venezuelan Right[/url]

Quote:

For seasoned observers of Venezuelan politics, the events of the past week are a disheartening repetition of opposition-led resistance efforts that have yet again sought to undermine political stability in the country. This is not the first time in recent history that the opposition has resorted to “extra-parliamentary” tactics, including violence, to push their political agenda. Nor is it the first time that the mainstream media has provided generous airtime to opposition demonstrations in Caracas, repeating the sob stories of upper class Venezuelans “repressed” by the government because they cannot find toilet paper on the store shelves, or in a more laughable episode, ingredients to bake a cake.

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/owen-jones-socialisms-critic... Jones: Socialism’s critics look at Venezuela and say, ‘We told you so’. But they are wrong[/url]

Venezuela's Maduro Charges US With Fostering Ukraine-Style Coup

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/04/10/vene-a10.html

"Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro has charged that Washington is fomenting a Ukrainian-style 'slow-motion' coup against his government in a bid to 'get their hands on Venezuelan oil'..."

http://www.cityam.com/article/1393351308/how-socialism-has-destroyed-ven...

79 murders per 100,000, rampant inflation and a massive clampdown on individual freedom.  After 14 years of socialist rule, one is warrented to ask where is the paradise.

Unionist wrote:

Don't they have any decent recreations in Alberta for right-wingers bored with unearned prosperity?

 

 

Nice drive-by.

Unionist wrote:

Don't they have any decent recreations in Alberta for right-wingers bored with unearned prosperity?

Does waiting for the day when our Central Canadian Overlords freeze in the dark count? (You would think their self-righteousness would keep them warm... you would be wrong).

Falling Crude: Oil Prices Crush Venezuela's Ailing Economy

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102227316

"barbarity and people looting"

(It's CNBC, what do you expect, still...)

"Venezuela's oil revenue could face another threat aside from declining prices: approval of Keystone XL pipeline bill, which Congressional Republicans have vowed to bring back for another vote after they return to Capitol Hill in January.

If passed, the pipeline could mean that heavy crude from Canada would replace the crude Venezuela exports to United States..."

More great moments in socialismL

http://tbo.com/news/politics/venezuela-reels-under-unrest-failing-econom...

thorin_bane wrote:

I would type you're an idiot but that is a personal attack. 

Why would you even suspect for a moment that someone who gets their opinions from the Tampa Tribune is an idiot? Hmmm? Personally, it's right near the top of my list for thoughtful analysis of world trends in progressive movements. Right next to the Wall Street Journal.

Don't forget, we're talking about Florida, which is internationally famed for its [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount]fair and democratic election practices[/url]. Who better to critique dictatorship and tyranny abroad?

Chavez came to power in 1999.  How long does it take to get the great paradise rolling?  Shouldn't income inequality be eliminated by now.  I am sure Canada has greater income inequality then Venezuela.  How come they have the greater problems?

RDP wrote:

From Alberta live in Ontario.  Alberta is great by too cold.  Ontario is warm but too socialistic.  I take heat over politics.

Bad news. Perhaps you can't go home again:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/medicine-hats-ted-clugston-t...