Venezuela Watch

I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about everybody, Human nature. Failure? I wasn't aware I had entered a contest.

I agree with that. Unfortunately the word "Liberal" in the United States, at least in a political context, is used to describe people and groups who generally oppose what are rightly called Liberal Economic policies. Milton Friedman and the other economics luminaries of the Hoover Institute are all advocates of Liberal Economics, but are damned as among the worst of the Conservatives in their politics.

[quote="Walter Hindler']

I protest this calumny. My disagreements with Thomas are few and generally of detail and specific, not general import. One exception to this is that he has described himself as an atheist, a position that I happen to find incomprehensible. However, in that I suspect I am different from the majority od A2K posters (except perhaps walter).

I generally agree with you about denial. It is a defect to which we are all subject. It isn't easy to alter one's opinions and assessments of things, even when the evidence for doing so is strong and persuasive. Even famous scientists and serious thinkers have exhibited a good deal of denial in such situations. Certainly none of us here is immune from it.

I also don't believe that all of the criticism of the IMF is groundless. However I do believe that many of its critics forget that it is doing what its charter calls for and, as onerous as some may see the conditions it applies to its loans, the fact is they are far less restrictive and involve far lower interest rates than the borrowing countries could find elsewhere.

While some may view the requirement that a loan must be repaid as unreasonable, I do not. Indeed the track record since WWII pf government-to-government grants of funds is quite bad. More often than not it has merely generated fraud and corruption in the receiving government. Hard to blame the donors for this - except those who persist in believing this will do much good for the poor. The fact is that the IMF is a useful scapegoat for governments owing it money and unwilling to face their own people with the truth.

That was thought to be humour - obviously failed.

But since I'm so humble, reserved and descrate, I couldn't name myself, could'n't I? :wink:

No, the humor was not at fault, Walter. In a moment of density I just didn't get it. Sorry.

Nothing to be sorry about, George.

I agree that's a point where we differ. But strangely enough, in the Religion and Spirituality threads, I find myself defending religious posters more often than attacking them. I'm not a fan of religious bigotry, but the jacobinic bigotry of some of the more agnostic posters annoys me even more. Just as strangely, I have a weakness for intellectuals inspired by Catholicism, from Thomas Aquinas to G.K. Chesterton to Heinrich Böll to Joseph Karl Ratzinger -- even though I disagree with the latter two's politics.


The stubbornness of you two is definitely Catholic. I wonder if Walter has Irish ancestors?

I doubt that. Both.
(Could perhaps be that some of us went to Ireland about 1000 BC. But that's only a guess, since our archived sources only start in 13th century AD :wink: )

I'm 1/2 Irish

It figures. You are 100% stubborn!

I am 100% both.

(Well, there were some cousins back in county Waterford named 'Mansfield', however, to hide the shame of it, we pretended they spelled it 'Mansfeld'.)

That doesn't surprise me - one can see the effects in the clarity of thought and expression. Wait - it will eventually lead you home.


Here is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Thomas masks his even worse stubbornness with friendly politeness.

Also - Walter is much more stubborn than I am.

I'm said to be an archetypal stubborn Westphalian.

And George the archetypal open-minded Californian? Hummm....

Well... I prefer to say, 'Not entirely close-minded.'

A cool, foggy morning here. But soon enough the sun will burn through. Best wishes to the archtypical, stubborn Westphalian, the Bavarian Catholic Atheist, and the Frenchman-of-few-words.

Isolde was Irish, you know - however she died on the voyage.

Back in Venezuela...

I have recently read several articles (in Spanish) about Chavez and about populism in Latin America.

A bit of history:
After Chavez failed in his 1992 Coup d'Etat, he became friends with left wing Peronista sociologist Norberto Ceresole.
Ceresole's theory was that the union of the people and the army in a civic-military movement would be able to dismantle the ruling political class, and for that to happen it was necessary to concentrate power in one, and only one leader.
The formula was "beyond the enciclopedic concepts of democracy". A sort of a "post-democracy", closer to the original sort, to the classic Greek democracy: no political parties, no "doctrinaire paraphernalia", but direct decisions via referendum.
A democracy, then, not guided by the stale institutions of the rich, but by the people, civilians and military, under the command of the Leader.

Today, more than 100 key posts in the Venezuelan government and public industries are held by militars.

---

For the 1998 election, Venezuelans were fed up of the corrupt politicians and the polls had former Miss Universe, Irene Sáez, a successfull mayor of a city in the outskirts of Caracas, leading by a huge margin. Sáez made a crucial mistake when she accepted the support of one of the big parties, the Social Christian. Her popularity plummetted and Chávez's, who had only 7% support, skyrocketted.
On December 4th 1998, there was a meeting on the American Embassy in Caracas. Chavez had already declared he was now against any violent means to get into power. On that meeting, the US gave the "Ok" to the Chavez candidacy. A few days later, leaving the country, Jimmy Carter declared: "I leave happy, a democratic revolution has begun in Venezuela".

----

Not everything Chavez has done has been anti-business or anti-US. Rethoric is one thing, pragmatism is another.
Chavez has opened to private investment the industries of telecommunications, gas and electricity.
We have talked about the IMF. Argentina hasn't followed the IMF's policies. Venezuela has. It has been possible due to high oil prices (and State revenues from oil).
Social public expenditure is high, but little or no structural change has occurred. It is a trade-off: the government subsidises the very poor; the very poor are ready to defend and attack what the Leader tells them to.
A fake social revolution, but a true political turn-around.

---

The opposition to Chavez has failed miserably, even if discontent is ample.
The attempted Coup failed, the oil strike ended up in giving Chavez control of PDVSA (the State's oil company), the revocatory referendum, not only used the "classical" sort of democracy Chavez advocates, but gave him international democratic credentials, as we have seen in this thread.

----

The high level of social expenditure is unsustainable in the long run, since oil prices will not stay this high forever.
There has been no policy for true development, in industry, services or agriculture, let alone a policy for a different relationship between workers and owners (Chavez controls the unions now, and blackmails businesses, with a policy of stick and carrot).
60% of the population is either unemployed or in the informal markets. The poor live on massive subsidies.
The economy will explode in some time... but by then Chavez will have someone to blame (the Venezuelan rich, GWB a.k.a. Mister Danger, neoliberalism, the IMF etcetera).
It's a sad long road for the Venezuelans, indeed.

I guess it's fair to keep this thread alive.
A couple of bites of food for thought:

1. Cronica, a newspaper I helped to found, ran a series about "Bolivarian Circles" in Mexico, paid by the Venezuelan government, who -among other activities- support both the FARC guerrilla in Colombia and the Mexican Populist-left presidentical candidate, Andrés Manuel López Obrador.
Days later, a group of "bolivarianos" surrounded the paper's offices, harassed reporters and workers and symbollically "shut down" the newspaper.
The Foreign Minister of Venezuela declared later that "the hands of the CIA are behind the attacks of the Mexican paper".
I guess everything that opposes Chavismo is part of a CIA plot, and deserves to be shut. That would, even if indirectly, exclude myself.

2. This is a very nice picture.The training of the Territorial Guard in Venezuela, under the direct orders of President Chavez. For food and the equivalent of $7.45 per day of training, housewives, pensioners, street peddlers and students can find a place in the GT, which will be used "in case of a foreign invasion". Poeple learn how to cut the electricity, blockade a city, make a Molotov bomb. "For Venezuela! For Chavez!", is the common yell after surpassing the barbed wired fences. It is said that 200 thousand recently bought Kalishnikov rifles are to end up in the hands of th Territorial Guard.
It may be a different way of having a week-end. Better for health than watching TV. But it is clear that this Territorial Guard stuff is mainly a political element, meant for ideological tension building, both external and internal for Venezuela.