quote:

---

The opposition released an amateur video of Rafael Ramirez, also head of the state oil company PDVSA, making the remarks to top executives.

The opposition says the government is illegally mobilising workers to secure Mr Chavez's re-election on 3 December.

Mr Chavez defended Mr Ramirez and said workers should back the "revolution".

The president, a key critic of the United States who is widely expected to win the election, said: "Of course PDVSA is revolutionary.

"[Its] workers are with this revolution, and those who aren't should go somewhere else. Go to Miami."

Mr Chavez applauded his minister's words by saying he should make the same speech to oil workers 100 times a day.

He can be heard saying that the state oil company is "red from top to bottom" - in reference to the colour red used by President Chavez's supporters.

"Here, we are backing Chavez, who is our leader, who is the leader of this revolution, and we will do everything we have to do to support our president," Mr Ramirez adds.

"Those who do not feel comfortable with that orientation, should give their jobs to a Bolivarian [a Chavez supporter]."

---

...with this in my home province:

quote:

---

Liberals were “appalled” after McGuire’s speech Saturday where he suggested “fat cat, well-heeled Tories” will be moved out of their provincial government jobs and Liberals will look after their own.

---

The civil service should be non-partisan and not feel pressured to support any particular party.

[ 04 November 2006: Message edited by: EmmaG ]

quote:

---

"[Its] workers are with this revolution, and those who aren't should go somewhere else. Go to Miami."

---

Public Power!

Obviously there is no mention of how the oil sector was an instrument of US foreign policy that was used to try to shut the entire country down until the people rose against it.

quote:

---

Chavez has turned into a complete and utter nut-job, and is doing nothing to help the plight of the worker.

---

Is there any reason for you to deny what Chavez has done for the poor in Venezuela?

[ 06 November 2006: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]

quote:

---

The civil service should be non-partisan and not feel pressured to support any particular party.

---

You don't circumvent democracy in order to win an election or because the ends supposedly justify the means. This reminds me far too much about the ideology of the leader of another nation, George Bush.

And some of you consider him your glorious leader whom we must always support just because he makes he's a leftist who makes adolecent quality jokes about George Bush? Don't you find this hypocritical? Shouldn't we demand more out of this guy? The people I look up to don't hate thier opponents like that. It just leads to them becoming as bad as the guy thier opposing.

[ 06 November 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

WCG: he's a leftist who makes adolecent quality jokes about George Bush

---

This is worth replying to because "the substantive content of Chávez’s speech was largely ignored in the global corporate media frenzy over the impropriety of his remarks coupled with the sheer shock occasioned by his “bearding the devil in his own lair.” "

The central message of Chavez' speech is of first importance:

quote:

---

Chavez: Yesterday, ladies and gentleman, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world....As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world....As Chomsky says here [in Hegemony and Survival] clearly and in depth, the American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its system of domination....They [the U.S. rulers] say that they want to impose a democratic model. But...their democratic model....[is] the false democracy of elites....What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?...The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It’s not that we are the extremists. It’s that the world is waking up....I have some inkling of what the people of the South, the oppressed people, think. They would say, “Yankee imperialist, go home,”...if they could speak with one voice to American imperialists....We want ideas...to save the planet from the imperialist threat. And hopefully in this very century, in not too long a time, we will see this, we will see this new era, and for our children and our grandchildren a world of peace based on the fundamental principles of the United Nations, but a renewed United Nations.

---

[ 06 November 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

posted the first net job-loss American economy since the 1930's under herr Bushler, and those people are worried about a pep rally in Venezuela where some of the poorest people in South America are seeing doctors for the first time in their lives.

---

The US has not posted a net job loss under Bush:

YEAR JAN
2001 132471
2006 October 135,844

I don't understand the part about "pep rally", "poorest people in South America" and "seeing docotrs for the first time", it appears to be a mix of hyperbole and inaccurate statements, especially about Venezuela. It is a bit insulting and shows some ignorance of the country. I have been for work many times (Pre-Chavez) and can assure you that it never was what you seem to make it out to be (although I can't sense much besides the tone) and it certainly isn't now what you think it is.

Cheers,

[ 07 November 2006: Message edited by: Porteno_Canuck ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porteno_Canuck:

The US has not posted a net job loss under Bush:

---

Oh sure they have. Not only are political conservatives infamous for running up the world's most humungous national debt in the world, Bush II's economy is even worse than Bush I's economy wrt full-time payroll job creation numbers. I think they are still waiting to create a single new private sector manufacturing job in the U.S.

Unemployment, Job Loss and Creation

quote:

---

A Permanent Job Loss?
No one is talking, but the White House saw it. Each year the President's Council of Economic Advisers predicts the number of payroll jobs several years out. In 2001 they predicted 151.7 million for 2010, then in each of the next three years they ratcheted back their prediction by roughly 3 million and in Nov. 2004 (for the 2005 Report), they predicted only 142.5 million. That's 9.2 million less.
They must have been shocked every year. Three million is three times the job growth since Bush took office and to have that many disappear every year relative to your last prediction is astounding. Doubly astounding when you've been predicting a flood of new tax-cut jobs! The real problem is not the bad predictions, it's the missing jobs. Sure, people have found other jobs, gone back to school, or dropped out, but payroll jobs are on average the better jobs. This is a real loss, and if you believe the White House predictions, it looks permanent.
The consequence of the job gap is falling real wages.

---

And I suspect you understand even less about the situation in Venezuela.

lol.

quote:

---

Oh sure they have. Not only are political conservatives infamous for running up the world's most humungous national debt in the world, Bush II's economy is even worse than Bush I's economy wrt full-time payroll job creation numbers.

---

No, they haven't. you need to look directly at Bureau of Labor statistics directly and not listen to articles from over 1 year ago. My numbers are from the exact tables that "zmag"is taking their's from, so, you are wrong in defending that "fact":

Bureau of Labor statistics

quote:

---

And I suspect you understand even less about the situation in Venezuela.

---

I certainly understand less about the situation in Venezuela than the Bureau of Labor statistics understands about comiling employment figures but I do know this:

There was a 39 percentage point swing from exit polls in the Chavez recall to actual (many people around the world were screaming about a 1.5 point swing in Ohio in 2004). Votes confiscated in caracas suburb by military after audit slips disagree with electronic tallies (24 hours after Jimmy Carter hopped on a plane out of the country). No independent count ever allowed to be done. Thousands of people with same name and birthday vote in small town

Poverty statistic collection methods had to be changed in July 2005 in order for Chavez to show that poverty has decreased (using differing methods is not the best way for poverty reduction)from the time he started. this in spite oil increasing from $10 per barrel to $55 and subsequently $70+ and still at $59. Poverty was 14% in 1979 during last oil crisis, 40% now (under new more lenient guidelines).

$2 billion missing and misappropriated from the "rainy day" fund in 2002, Chavez admitted it estimates are up to $8 billion now. PDVSA was 2 years late in submitting Audited Financial Statements to the US Securities Exchange Commission, they will probably not ever present again. No audited financial statements for a company bigger than Exxon? That's not good for transparency.

Crime rates soaring as Colombia's drop - venezuela is higher than Colmbia now. The Venezuela murder rate went from 30 to 44 per 100K population since Chavez took office, Colombia dropped from 64 to 42 by the end of last year.

Unemployment not improving despite new law preventing people from being fired. Bankruptcy in the private sector alone has caused unemployment to be increased.

Constitution changed for benefit of one person in the executive branch to consolidate power.

Oil production down 10% during an oil boom and increased production in other OPEC countries.

Literacy stamped out, but literacy experts claim it has been done in a time shorter than it takes to turn an illiterate adult into a literate one. Curious.

Armed intimidation gangs (Bolivarian Circles) funded by Chavez to "set order straight" in the neighborhoods.

Fatal repression in 2002 - 18 Chavez protestors randomly gunned down in cold blood by "anonymous" sharpshooters on roofs of buildings surrounding the Presidential Palace.

etc. etc. etc. etc.

You can dispute any of this, it's all documented (at least in Spanish). Have you ever watched his weekly program "Alo Presidente"?

why do you hate poor people?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porteno_Canuck:

Conclusion - If you liked Pinochet, you'll love Chavez.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porteno_Canuck:
No, they haven't. you need to look directly at Bureau of Labor statistics directly and not listen to articles from over 1 year ago.

---

Or sure they have. You throw up a link to some BLS numbers, but you give no interpretation of the numbers. It merely shows that there were jobs created in the last five years in the U.S. If there were none created, then it would be a first for any government in history. The truth is, there are so many Americans entering the workforce each month. New job creation either keeps up with this expansion or it doesn't. In Bush's case, it hasn't. The Baltimore Chronicle makes mention of that fact in an article printed this year.

quote:

---

Job growth over the last five years is the weakest on record. The US economy came up more than 7 million jobs short of keeping up with population growth. ...

Over the past five years the US economy experienced a net job-loss in goods-producing activities. The entire job growth was in service-providing activities--primarily credit intermediation, health care and social assistance, waiters, waitresses and bartenders, and state and local government.

---

Neo-conservatism based on corporate socialism and war is unsustainable as this graph shows U.S. national debt accumulation by Republican conservative parties warfiteering on the backs of of future Americans.

quote:

---

Poverty statistic collection methods had to be changed in July 2005 in order for Chavez to show that poverty has decreased (using differing methods is not the best way for poverty reduction)from the time he started. this in spite oil increasing from $10 per barrel to $55 and subsequently $70+ and still at $59. Poverty was 14% in 1979 during last oil crisis, 40% now (under new more lenient guidelines

---

As the Centre for Economic Policy and Research explains, critics of Chavez who claim poverty rates are up are using out-of-date statistics as a baseline for measuring poverty. And they make no mention of the non-cash income being funelled to Venezuela's impoverished, like health care and education not previously available to tens of millions of Venezuelans.

quote:

---

Displacing Capitalism and Building Socialism

Another reason the architects of the so-called "Bolivarian revolution" are vigorously pushing the co-op model is their belief that co-ops can meet needs better than conventional capitalist firms. Freed of the burdens of supporting costly managers and profit-hungry absentee investors, co-ops have a financial buoyancy that drives labor-saving technological innovation to save labor time. "Cooperatives are the businesses of the future," says former Planning and Development Minister Felipe Pérez-Martí. Not only are they non-exploitative, they outproduce capitalist firms, since, Pérez-Martí holds, worker-owners must seek their firm's efficiency and success. Such a claim raises eyebrows in the United States, but a growing body of research suggests that co-ops can indeed be more productive and profitable than conventional firms.

---

Viva la revolucion!

[ 08 November 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

You throw up a link to some BLS numbers, but you give no interpretation of the numbers. It merely shows that there were jobs created in the last five years in the U.S.

---

I provided a source that shows that what you said earlier was inaccurate. For some reason, you now contradict yourself pompously by saying "It merely shows that there were jobs created in the last five years in the U.S. "

quote:

---

And the rest of your commentary is conjecture and heresay without any references and simply not worth commenting on. You must try harder.

---

quote:

---

I think you're done debating this issue of net-job loss in the States, Parteno, because you're not understanding what it is you're talking about.

---

I was talking about your prior comment being inaccurate. I proved it. You basically admitted it in your last post. I will remind you waht you originally said to clarify:

quote:

---

posted the first net job-loss American economy since the 1930's under herr Bushler

---

That is completely inaccurate.

Your backpedalling, redefining and qualifying after the fact does not change anything. It is interesting to note that you use "conjecture and hearsay" to support your backpedalling, redefining and qualifying, though, after thinking so poorly of such tactics just moments ago.

[ 08 November 2006: Message edited by: Porteno_Canuck ]

[ 08 November 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

It merely shows that there were jobs created in the last five years in the U.S. If there were none created, then it would be a first for any government in history.

---

Argentina 1997-2002
Venezuela 1997-2002
Brazil 1981-1986
Chile 1973-1978
Most (if not all) of the ex-Comecon Countries 1989-1994
Argentina 1984-1989
Ecuador 1994-1999
Japan 1986-1991
Finland 1987-1992

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
It's a hollow victory. I feel badly for Porteno who doesn't seem to realize what the issues are. That's not good for Porteno.

---

quote:

---

I feel badly for Porteno who doesn't seem to realize what the issues are.

---

Richard L. Trumka is the Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO. This column is excerpted from a speech prepared for “Trade Summit 2006: Crisis and Opportunity,” a conference held July 12 in Washington by the AFL-CIO and U.S. Business and Industry Council.

quote:

---

Look at what has happened over the past five years.

Since 2000, the U.S. economy experienced a net job-loss in goods-producing activities. We lost 2.9 million manufacturing jobs, 17 percent of the manufacturing workforce.

Not a single manufacturing payroll classification created a net new job.

Studies by the Economic Policy Institute, our own Industrial Union Council and others confirm that over half this job loss is trade-related.

More than 40,000 manufacturing establishments closed.

Within manufacturing, nearly every subsector suffered from double-digit employment declines—48 percent in textiles, nearly 30 percent in computer and electronic parts and primary metals, and 23 percent in machinery.

The crisis hit everywhere and everyone. State and local tax revenues have withered, undermining important public services. It has hit minorities, the south, and rural areas the hardest, as textiles, clothing, furniture and more closed or went offshore.

Just as troubling, the past five years of job growth were the weakest on record, while real wages declined. The entire job growth was in non-tradable service-providing activities—primarily credit intermediation, health care and social assistance, waiters, waitresses and bartenders, and state and local government.

---

quote:

---

Looking at those BLS stats 2001 to 2002 doesn't look so good and the Oct 2006 numbers are based on projections.

---

so use September 2006, the trend is obvious over the last 20 months.

quote:

---

those really just full-time jobs? it doesn't say.

---

I think so, but the definition is consistent, which is the important part.

quote:

---

I point to actual sources to backup what I'm saying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porteno_Canuck:

GATT (ie WTO) and the increasing moving to international trade and interdependence. developed countries are all better off as a result. developing countries are all better off as a results. Please look up "David Ricardo".

---

Only korporations are better off from WTO they exploit and oppress workers transnational korporate fashism stealing money from latin america for the US just like kolonialism

oh I dunno about. Last time I checked Russia's GDP was no better off from where they started.

quote:

---

In the former Soviet Union, directly resulting from the IMF's deadly "economic medicine" initiated in 1992, economic decline has surpassed the plunge in production experienced at the height of the Second World War, following the German occupation of Belarus and parts of the Ukraine in 1941 and the extensive bombing of Soviet industrial infrastructure. From a situation of full employment and relative price stability in the 1970's and 1980's, inflation has skyrocketed, real earnings and employment have collapsed and health programmes have been phased out. In turn, cholera and tuberculosis have spread at an alarming speed across a vast area of the former Soviet Union.

---

The IMF "medicine" is worse than the Nazis.

The above quote is from Michel Chossudovsky's The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order. I'm currently reading it. Chossudovsky, however, failed to note the drop in life expectancy of over 10 years among Russian men.

[ 08 November 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Last time I checked Russia's GDP was no better off from where they started.

---

Russia's developed? I was referring to developed and undeveloped countries that participated in the original GATT rounds, which excluded the Communist sphere of influence. I apologize for my error/miscommunication

quote:

---

Sept '06 is a projection as well and doesn't change the 01/02 numbers.

---

August ISN'T a projection!!!! SORRY!!!! we were talking today not '01 & '02!!!!

quote:

---

The IMF "medicine" is worse than the Nazis.

---

Didn't they kill 32 million russians?

The present decline has nothing to do with 75 years of a system which was unustainable when it finally broke?

depends on who you talk to. what's the difference? allow me to remind you of what you said...

quote:

---

allow me to remind you of what you said...

---

actually...

you are...

"posted the first net job-loss American economy since the 1930's under herr Bushler"

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Not the WTO, but the IMF ...

The IMF "medicine" is worse than the Nazis.

[ 08 November 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

---

Grate post Neltov lol the IMF are all probably nazis bitter about losing to comrade stalen and trying to destroy russia for revenge

quote:

---

its not exactly right, (the right answer to "since" is the early Reagan years, heh - mind you he DID sort of walk into it thanks to Volker) but I think you prolly just read his/her meaning the wrong way.

---

So, why did he link stats from '04/'05? we heard a lot about Bush being the first President to haev a net job loss since Hoover in septmeber '04 if he lost the election. Of course, it didn't pan out, so i think he is using some stale news and a theoretical result in the past which didn't happen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porteno_Canuck:

Correct, and I apologized for not being clear that I was not including countries who had not been part of the globalizing system since the early 70's, which would exclude Russia. In 15-20 years the results will be clear and Russi will be better off than it would have been had it "stayed the course".

---

You really think what's been going on for the last half a century is "free trade"?

please

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porteno_Canuck:

...
So, no it is not exactly right, especially in the context of "no government in the history of the world" bla bla bla, which makes no sense whatsoever.

---

quote:

---

You really think what's been going on for the last half a century is "free trade"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porteno_Canuck:

It is consistently "freer" than the year before.

---

Maybe looking at it through rose coloured glasses it is. U.S. and EU grain export subsidies are a classic case in point. Coupled with the way the IMF has forced developing countries to rely on exports for revenue generation and there's no way in hell domestic agriculture stands a chance in the hands of anybody but the monied classes. and a good chunk of those being multinationals, at that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porteno_Canuck:
Increasing service jobs in a service economy is what ALL developed countries are doing and have been doing since the early 70's and Bretton Woods, GATT (ie WTO) and the increasing moving to international trade and interdependence.

---

The shift away from prosperous cold war economies in the west is not part of some capitalist grand plan for the future - we're having to do it out of necessity. If just 15 percent of the world's population is contributing over half of global pollution every year, then what would happen if the other 85 percent of humanity adopted capitalism based on oil consumption ?: we would strip global resources in nothing flat and choke on our own pollution. In that sense alone globalism is a total lie, which is why most developed nations have signed on to Kyoto GHG reductions agreement. That is, all except the most politically conservative nations clinging to power and having to resort to stealing elections in countries where support for the right is waning.

quote:

---

developed countries are all better off as a result. developing countries are all better off as a results. Please look up "David Ricardo".

---

There were 500 million chronically hungry people around the democratic capitalist third world 25 years ago. Today there are 800 million. 30 thousand children around the world die of malnutrition, diarrhoea and preventable diseases each and every miserable day of their lives while 80 percent of hungry nations export food to "the market."

Noam Chomsky has gleaned from Nobel laureate, Amartya Sen's own figures that about a quarter of a billion human beings have perished in this global experiment in democratic capitalism between the years 1947 to 1979 alone. The real number of skeletons in capitalism's closet would be truly staggering if we began counting even as far back as 1847 Ireland when six million starved to death as pork and corn were shipped from 13 Irish sea ports to "the market."

Capitalism is a colossal failure. The future is socialism, and economists like David Ricardo and David Hume are dead a long time.

quote:

---

Noam Chomsky has gleaned from Nobel laureate, Amartya Sen's own figures that about a quarter of a billion human beings have perished in this global experiment in democratic capitalism between the years 1947 to 1979 alone.

---

I'd like to see how that's calculated. Suonds like conjecture. If it is anything like your "job creation" stats, we'll need to revise them. Noam has been known to play fast and loose with facts and the truth on a regular basis.

it did nothing to stop all those people from dying

I'd like to see how that's calculated. Suonds like conjecture. If it is anything like your "job creation" stats, we'll need to revise them. Noam has been known to play fast and loose with facts and the truth on a regular basis.[/quote]

You see, they aren't my statistics - they come from economists, labour leaders and politicians who have studied those BSL statistics you nailed up for us above, and they have provided us with their educated opinions. You haven't provided us with any facts that might suggest they are wrong in their assessments, and neither has the BLS refuted the facts. So you're out-gunned by more than just little old me so far in this thread, Parteno.

Actually, the number estimated to have died of starvation in Mao's China is 35 million. Every Chinese person will agree that tens of millions died during the Great Leap - a time when hundreds of millions of illiterate people attempted to transform from agrarian to industrialized economy. The same transformation took the western world over 300 years to accomplish and unimaginable loss of life and human suffering along the way. Mao offered to resign as Chairman but continued after a vote of confidence.

Imperialist China was a fourth world basket case for decades leading up to 1939-1949. Untold millions of peasants gave birth in the rice paddies and died and average of 30 years later. China was behind even India wrt mortality rates, the first statistic used in determining failed nation states.

By 1976, China's infant mortality was better than democratic capitalist India's rate today. India has adhered to IMF economic auterity measures prescribed by Washington-based IMF whereas China has followed its own prescriptions beginning with Mao to Deng Xio Ping to today. Life expectancy in China was doubled during Mao's time. World Bank statistic prove it, and there is no need to second guess in schoolyard tit for tat child's banter, Parteno. This is all leftist propaganda that I have just planted in your brain using your mind's eye, and now it's up to you to decide whether it is true or not. The mark of an educated man is one who will freely entertain ideas he doesn't agree with and contemplate them long enough to come to his own personal conclusion. I've been so generous to have even bothered providing you with as many links to a crankpot from the lunatic right-wing fringe like yourself. You've provided us with nothing but mindless chatter without sources or references. Unsourced conjecture and heresay just wouldn't get the job done in college or university, Parteno, let alone a leftist web forum where you are obviously out of your element.

Bilan du capitalisme

Body Count(the most conservative number I've seen) : 147 387 051

[ 08 November 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Mao offered to resign as Chairman but continued after a vote of confidence.

---

What a Swell Guy!!!!!!

quote:

---

The same transformation took the western world over 300 years to accomplish and unimaginable loss of life and human suffering along the way.

---

con·jec·ture (kən-jĕk'chər)
n. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork:

quote:

---

By 1976, China's infant mortality was better than democratic capitalist India's rate today.

---

???

"For most of its democratic history, India adhered to a quasi-socialist approach, with strict government control over private sector participation, foreign trade, and foreign direct investment. Starting from 1991, India has gradually opened up its markets through economic reforms by reducing government controls on foreign trade and investment. Privatisation of public-owned industries and some sectors to private and foreign players has continued amid political debate."

Well, here you go,anyway, navigate at your leisure:

Miami Herald

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porteno_Canuck:
True, Capitalism can not right all wrongs and imporve on the decades of mistakes in 15 years.

---

quote:

---

they come from economists, labour leaders and politicians who have studied those BSL statistics you nailed up for us above

---

They should take basic Math classes. You see 135 million is greater than 130 million. Noam Chomsky might not agree, though.

quote:

---

India and Thailand have followed Washington consensus for economic reforms the most and yet have fared about the worst wrt to ongoing famine and economic disfunction.

---

I think we have a winner - Conjecture on the premise and conjecture on the conclusion.

quote:

---

Every year like clockwork, four to thirteen million human beings starve to death around the free market world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porteno_Canuck:
One thing I find interesting is that you completely ignore the one link I provided deatailing the election fraud in Venezuela.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porteno_Canuck:

Please detail your figures.

---

Please do your own homework. I've nailed up a link to the Account of Capitalism. Mind you it's in francais, the first link that came up on google. Perhaps you can find a bilingual person to txlate for you ?. Pay someone ?. Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate in economics from India puts the numbers for death by capitalism at about two hundred million between just the years 1947 and 1979 with tens of millions dying since then. If you want to dispute the Nobel prize-winner's figures, then be my guest. You should put this matter to rest for the sake of billion dollar capitalists everywhere who wouldn't void on you if you were on fire, Parteno.

quote:

---

Socialist Africa tends to blame it on the droughts, although Arizon and New Mexico seem to have coped.

---

Africa is not socialist. Africa is a tragedy. Africa suffers from oppressive levels of IMF debt, which Joseph Stiglitz himself has described as modern day colonialism. The CIA and Belgian colonialists made sure to assassinate the Patrice Lumumba in 1960. Lumumba was the first and last democratically-elected Prime Minister of the Congo. Countries like Angola export oil and other natural wealth to the U.S. while the people live in amazing poverty. Angola's most successful domestic industry is with manufacturing artificial limbs. U.S.-backed Jonas Savimbi and UNITA turned that country into a graveyard in the 1980's and 90's.

The brightest light in Africa by far is Libya with the best mortality rates throughout the continent.

[ 08 November 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

You can't expect anyone to accept that link as an authoritative source on fraudulent elections

---

I knew this would be the kneejerk response (ie reactionary) before I even posted, even though it is based on official statitics from Chavez government.

You also ignored the International Herald Tribune article.

quote:

---

Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate in economics from India puts the numbers for death by capitalism at about two hundred million between just the years 1947 and 1979 with tens of millions dying since then. If you want to dispute the Nobel prize-winner's figures, then be my guest.

---

If he is talking about India, I'd tend to agree that their socialist system that was abandoned in 1991 was responsible. You might want to recall Pakistan was in the US camp for the Cold War, India was closer to the USSR in spite of its claimed non-alignment (ie weapons and international relations).

quote:

---

I can tell you know little about much, Parteno.

---

Perhaps, but my little knowledge absolutely dwarfs your complete lack of knowing anything. You could have flipped a coin and had a much better average.

quote:

---

The brightest light in Africa by far is Libya with the best mortality rates around the Dark Continent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porteno_Canuck:
They should take basic Math classes. You see 135 million is greater than 130 million. Noam Chomsky might not agree, though.

---

quote:

---

the Dark Continent

---

While I agree with your articulate argument, I find the term "Dark Continent" has rather offensive connotations. I'm sure you didn't intend to be offensive, but I would urge you to edit that term so as not to be offensive to other posters.

As for Porteno, I find your criticism of Chavez rather flimsy. Have you ever been to Venezuela?? Or even South America??? I have a friend who has travelled there extensively!!!! He says the Venezuela and S.America have fared extremely well over the past few years. The leftist rising in Latin America is becoming a reality, and Chavez is leading a path that Castro helped forge. Sorry!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porteno_Canuck:

Do you think that light has been lit with the oil purchased and consumed by capialist countries? what would they do without them.

---

venzauela yes, but not all of the triangular continent. rightwing extremist colombia is allied with isreal and has sunk to poverty like haiti people starve and can barely eat becase of IMF slavery.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kapitalhill:

While I agree with your articulate argument, I find the term "Dark Continent" has rather offensive connotations.

---

SubZero, while I understand the right wing countries like Colombia, and recently, Peru have rightist governments... I think the tide has turned for Latin America. Chavez has many seeking to implement his Bolivaran example.

quote:

---

But the number of Americans entering the workforce each month since 2000 outpaced job creation numbers during Dubyanomics. I'm pretty sure it's you and Dubya who can't do basic arithmetic.

---

This is too easy:

Now you are completely changing your initial remark to basically say "The Unemployment rate is higher" than 2000. And I'm giving you a freebie, as I realize that you did not include those people who retired or died in the leaving the labor force stats. If you did it on purpose, it is intentionally misleading.

The unemployment rate is 4.4% Now and was 4.2% in January, 2001. So, that was your whole point? Are you willing to commit to your previous "no country in history" silliness on this statistical comparison? You really are all over the place.

quote:

---

I find your criticism of Chavez rather flimsy. Have you ever been to Venezuela?? Or even South America??? I have a friend who has travelled there extensively!!!! He says the Venezuela and S.America have fared extremely well over the past few years.

---

Travelled? Give me a break, I'm not interested in Youth Hostel observations. I lived and worked in Argentina for 6 years, lived through the worst economic crisis in the country's and perhaps the hemisphere's history. A 17% reduction in GDP (in pesos) a 70% reduction in GDP in dollars. I lived over a year in Brazil and 1 1/2 years in Mexico City. I speak Spanish and Portuguese fluently.

Venezuela and South America have fared extremely well due to the oil crisis and commodity boom. Venezuela has not fared as well as it did in the late 70's when poverty was 15%, it is more than double that now.

Flimsy. Most of it is documented in Chavez' own National Statistics database. He doesn't even deny it, he just rationalizes it or accuses someone else. I am shocked to think that you people here would defend what has been front page news for years in Venezuela.

The PDVSA (ie the National Oil Company) incredibly late submission of Financial Statements to US SEC authorities is readily available on edgar On-Line. Their lack of continuing to do so is a matter of public information on the US SEC.

As far as "the leftist tide", you seem to be fooled by Chavez as well, he is simply a Latin Strongman like Juan Domingo Peron, probably more right wing authoritarian than left, that just shows how much you know about Latin populism, he's Castro's friend, they don't share much mroe than that.

If Chavez were really ideological, why would he be so helpful and sell the US several million of barrels of oil a day to prop up the imperialist economy. Wouldn't it be worth it for Venezuela to stick a dagger in the heart of imperialism rather than enjoy the humongous cash flow, Chavez and his buddies are squirreling away in some Swiss account?

[ 08 November 2006: Message edited by: Porteno_Canuck ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porteno_Canuck:

Now you are completely changing your initial remark to basically say "The Unemployment rate is higher" than 2000. And I'm giving you a freebie, as I realize that you did not include those people who retired or died in the leaving the labor force stats. If you did it on purpose, it is intentionally misleading.

---

Hup bup up bup pah! Nope! I'm saying exactly that which you've utterly failed to address. And besides all those Americans who weren't integrated into full-time payroll jobs since 2000, what about the world's largest incarcerated population doing time in U.S. gulags?. An estimated six million plus working aged Americans are either sitting in prison(petty crimes, misdemenors and drug possessions are an 80% est.), or on probation or on parole cannot vote in elections. VOTING is considered a basic right in over 80 nations. Those same six million are not counted in unemployment statistics whether they do non-unoionized prison labour or are actually unemployed while on probation or paroled.

So right off the bat government statistics in the U.S. are fudged. BLS statistics are only relevant in the country which imprisons its black population at six times the rate of the most openly racist nation of the last century, South Afreeka.

The following is a list of Democratic Party talking points on Bush's economic record peeled carte blanche from United States Joint Economic Committee's website

Talking Points for The Bush Economy

11/03/06

1. Slowest Job Growth of Any Administration in over 70 Years
2. Slowest Private Sector Job Growth of Any Administration in over 70 Years
3. The Most Protracted Postwar Jobs Slump
4. Unemployment Rate up by 0.2 Percentage Point
5. Almost 700 Thousand More Unemployed Workers
6. Almost 60 Percent More Long-Term Unemployment
7. Typical Worker's Earnings Failed to Keep Up with Inflation
8. The Distribution of Earnings Has Become More Unequal
9. Large Projected Surpluses Turned Into Large Deficits
10. $4.3 Trillion More Debt in 2008
11. Bush Tax Cuts Were Nearly 90 Times Larger for Millionaires than for Middle Income
    Households
12. One of Only Three Administrations with a Decline in Household Income
13. Real Median Household Income Down $1,273
14. Real Household Income Has Declined for All Income Groups since 2000
15. Administration with Second Largest Average Annual Rise in the Poverty Rate
16. 5.4 Million More Americans in Poverty
17. 6.8 Million More Americans Without Health Insurance

Comparing Bush and Clinton economies

quote:

---

Job creation. President Bush has the worst job creation record of any President in over 70 years, with just 3.4 million net new jobs added to nonfarm payrolls. In contrast, payrolls expanded by 22.7 million jobs under President Clinton. Job creation averaged 237,000 jobs per month under President Clinton, compared with 49,000 jobs per month under President Bush.

---

22 million versus 3.4 million jobs, Pardomo. You should ask a child to explain the difference in magnitude of these two numbers. Have him or her write it on your sleeve or forehead in non-washable ink.

Michigan's net job-loss

quote:

---

As measured by manufacturing employment, the combined declines in the Seventh District states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin were very sharp. The chart below shows a decline of 18.7% in the Seventh District since 1999, accounting for a net job loss of 616,900 workers in the sector. The pace of these declines was roughly in line with the national experience.

---

Another post-renaissance flight of banking and finance?

Net job losses for Milwaukee

quote:

---

On Friday Feb. 3, 2006 the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the nonfarm payroll jobs report for January. New York Times reporter Vikas Bajaj wrote an upbeat news story, obviously based on a Labor Department press release rather than any study of the BLS report. ...

There were 7,000 new jobs in manufacturing in January, but the total number of manufacturing jobs in January 2006 is 48,000 less than in January 2005. Over the past five years, millions of manufacturing jobs have been lost. At the rate of 7,000 new manufacturing jobs per month, the lost manufacturing jobs over the past five years would not be regained for 34 years.

Does anyone remember when reporters were curious? In his rosy jobs report, Vikas Bajaj does let it out of the bag that “economists estimate that the nation needs to add roughly 150,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth.” That translates into 1,800,000 new jobs per year to stay even with population. Over the past 61 months 9,150,000 new jobs were necessary in order to prevent population growth from pushing up the unemployment rate.

How many new jobs have been created over the past five years and one month? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ latest revisions, a total of 1,054,000 net new private sector jobs were created over the past 61 months (January 2001 through January 2006). Add the total net government jobs created over the period for a total net job creation of 2,093,000 jobs over the past 61 months.

That figure is 7,057,000 jobs short of keeping up with population growth! ...

If the unemployment rate is now at essentially full employment, why only a few days ago did 25, 000 Americans apply for 325 jobs at a new Chicago Wal-Mart?

Americans are not being told the truth about anything, not about Iraq, not about Iran, not about terrorism, and not about the disastrous state of their economy.

---

[ 09 November 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Caracas, Nov 23 (IPS) - When one of Gladys' three children falls ill in Los Jardines del Valle, a poor neighbourhood on the southwest side of Caracas, she no longer has to hike down the steep hill from the narrow street where she lives, to find medical assistance.

Now she just steps over to the home of her neighbour, a Cuban doctor who is taking part in the Misión Barrio Adentro (which translates roughly as the ”into the heart of the neighbourhood” programme).

”I'm more at ease now. If you go out at night with a sick child, you have to brave the 'malandraje' (criminal elements), and it's a huge relief to have a doctor in the neighbourhood,” she tells IPS, standing in the doorway of her little shack.

Gladys and her children are attended by one of the 13,000 Cuban doctors who have come to live in poor neighbourhoods of Venezuela over the past two years to provide primary health care as part of the Barrio Adentro programme.

The programme is just one part of a broad web of social projects implemented by left-leaning President Hugo Chávez, whose support base is made up largely of the poor, and who won the backing of 59 percent of the voters in an August presidential recall referendum with which the opposition alliance hoped to remove him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porteno_Canuck:
If he is talking about India, I'd tend to agree that their socialist system that was abandoned in 1991 was responsible. You might want to recall Pakistan was in the US camp for the Cold War, India was closer to the USSR in spite of its claimed non-alignment (ie weapons and international relations).

---

quote:

---

Chomsky: That’s half of what he says. The other half of his[Amartya Sen's] inquiry, which somehow escapes notice, has to do with another difference. He says China in the late 1940s began to institute rural public health and educational programs, as well as other programs oriented towards the mass of the population. India played the game by our rules. It didn’t do any of this and there are consequences, for example, in mortality rates. These started to decline sharply in China from around 1950 until 1979. Then they stopped declining and started going up slightly. That was the period of the reforms. During the totalitarian period, from 1950 to about 1979, mortality rates declined. They declined in India, too, but much more slowly than in China up to 1979. Sen then says, suppose you measure the number of extra deaths in India resulting annually from not carrying out these Maoist-style programs or others for the benefit of the population, what you would call reforms if the term wasn’t so ideological. He estimates close to four million extra deaths every year in India, which means that, as he puts it, [b]every eight years in India the number of skeletons in the closet is the same as in China’s moment of shame, the famine. If you look at the whole period, it’s about 100 million extra deaths in India alone after the democratic capitalist period enters.

Suppose you were to undertake the same calculations that are used quite correctly to count up the crimes of communism? It turns out that in the leading democratic capitalist country of the South, in fact of the world, if you count population, that country alone up until about 1980 has produced about 100 million dead, the same number that’s attributed to all the communist countries of the 20th century in the world. That’s of course only the beginning. Suppose we carry out the same calculation on the same grounds elsewhere in the domains that are dominated by Western power. You’re going to get astronomical figures. But this is not an acceptable topic. There can be no Black Book detailing such facts, just as there can be no realistic comparison of the utterly hideous Soviet record with the record of comparable countries that remained under Western domination, for example, Brazil, taken over as a “testing area for scientific methods of development based solidly on capitalism,” according to celebratory and respected scholarship, with consequences for the vast majority of the population that are hardly much to celebrate.

---

There we have it - the famine in China happened due to inefficiencies in what was a developing economy struggling with a mostly illiterate population during the Great Leap years. The difference is, democratic capitalist third world nations know about the famines today given the freer flow of information today.

Not commenting from personal experience, of course, but I still think its not so much what you've got but what you do with it. Between the two I still have to choose Capitalism over Socialism since its more aligned with human nature.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Blah, blah, blah

So no one recalls steelworkers and many others being told to vote Conservative or lose their jobs during the free trade election? Anyone? It's only a problem when it is a Central American who wants free of the gringos, eh?

---

quote:

---

Ricardo assumed worker mobility

---

And another comment about Fidel's post

quote:

---

Cuban Doctors Bring Health Care to Slums

---

Not all that glitters is gold i guess.

Kinda puts the article you quoted in perspective, doesn't it?

[ 09 November 2006: Message edited by: Koven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BitWhys:
"Capitalism continues to be a colossal failure the world over."

Not commenting from personal experience, of course, but I still think its not so much what you've got but what you do with it. Between the two I still have to choose Capitalism over Socialism since its more aligned with human nature.)

---

And predatory capitalist nations spent trillions of dollars on a cold war and bombed 25 nations since Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Hundreds of millions have died of the capitalist economic short and long runs in just the last century alone.

Capitalism is said to be a variation on colonialism. The reason we can afford bananas and coffee is because trading companies since before the British East India Company have exploited workers and natural wealth in third and fourth world countries against their free will. To say that workers in America or Europe are the most productive or efficient in the world isn't accurate because the playing field is anything but level. Corporate colonial leaders must repress basic human rights in order to maintain exploitive colonial relationship with the Northern Hemisphere.

That self-interest is a component of human nature is true, but homo economicus, a fictitious prototype as a driver for capitalism is not. People are more than just one dimensional prisoners of our own greed. Human nature is more complex and therefore, greed, as we've witnessed with the largest banking and corporate frauds in history with ENRONg through Arhtur Andersen to Adelphia, Nortel to World CON, are simply the distorted end results of a economies driven by a model for human nature that does not work. Capitalism is anything but representative of ALL of human nature. Capitalism is an abomination of human nature.

quote:

---

"While laissez-faire economy was the product of deliberate state action, subsequent restrictions on laissez-faire started in a spontaneous way. Laissez-faire was planned; planning was not." -- Karl Polanyi

---

Both systems are prone to corruption.

Absolutely, Capitalism and particularly its inherent restrictions can have and have had devestating effects, but replacing the system with something else doesn't replace the people, and if that system is one of economics the last thing it deals with is humanity.

I simply said "if I had to chose". I certainly didn't say anything about supporting the laissez-faire liberalism that led to the disasters of the Manchester School in England and the Gilded Age in North America. First and foremost economics needs to be put in its place. Oddly enough I find an ally in Edmund Burke about that. There is a morality that overides all other matters in the political arena. That by definition rules out "laissez-faire".

One of the main reasons I prefer Capitalism as a basic model is that it doesn't assume the good intention of its participants. Certainly not in the way Socialism does. Just because I recognize the realities of self-interest doesn't mean I expect to settle with some sort of Objectivist vision of absolute cynicism and expect some sort of libertarian utopia to grow out of it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BitWhys:
One of the main reasons I prefer Capitalism as a basic model is that it doesn't assume the good intention of its participants. Certainly not in the way Socialism does. Just because I recognize the realities of self-interest doesn't mean I expect to settle with some sort of Objectivist vision of absolute cynicism and expect some sort of libertarian utopia to grow out of it.

---

To put this debate in proper context, socialists claim the world has never experienced pure Marxian socialism. Capitalists say the same about Smithian Capitalism. Laissez-faire capitalism was an experiment around the western world that ended after 30 years. "Soviet communism", after 70 years and a trillion dollar cold war effort to pull it apart, failed as well. But it didn't fail because it had full cooperation of trading nations or because it exploited cheap labour of much of Latin America, Africa etc.

I think that the "new capitalism" post-1929 in North America and most important economies of the western world was tolerable to the masses because it adopted the most powerful aspects of socialism ie. Social Security, spending on health care, unemployment insurance, social welfare programs, public electricity generation, road building etc etc The "new capitalism" is very different from the laissez-faire capitalism of the 1930's marked by deep economic depressions at regular intervals and vast inequality created by shovelling even larger portions of national incomes to the top one to five percent of the population. Laissez-faire capitalism of the McKinley golden age of industrialism to Herbert Hoover/R.B. Bennet eras was said to be duller and grayer than Soviet communism. Dollar a day wages were the norm, and farmers couldn't afford to upgrade farm equipment as tens of thousands rode the rails in search of work.

What we have today in North America is a mutation of capitalism and socialism with the richest few benefiting from "corporate socialism" or Keynesian-militarism. Most of what's known as our private sector economies are based on publicly-funded military research handed off to a few dozen rich families and corporations referred to as "the market" and private enterprise today. However,public sector still drives the most important economies to a larger degree, and we observe this today in the U.S. and Canada whenever downturns occur - public sector economy operates apart from free market forces. IMF and World Bank economists have been experimenting with laissez-faire capitalism by plying it in basket case third world countries in Africa and Latin America. And guess what ? - it doesn't work now just as much as it didn't work past 1929 N.A. or the next grand swan dive during a sixteen year-long closed exeriment in Chilean laissez-faire capitalism. There is no magic to capitalism, because according to history, it failed all by itself in several first world western nations. And it failed without a civil war, WWI or WWII waged on its front doorsteps. Capitalism was actually saved from itself by New Deal socialism in both 1929 America and again in 1980's Chile. Socialist ideas put into practice are what make living in Canada and the U.S. and Europe tolerable for hundreds of millions of people today.

With realities of global warming, consumption based on oil derivatives economies are less and less feasible. Capitalists are lobbying hard for global multi-trillion dollar public services in: child care - health care and education. Socialists strongly oppose capitalists profiteering by these vital public services, and this is where we are now with WTO and GATS agreed to by Ottawa and governments around the world on the quiet in recent years. The people don't fully understand this globalist capitalist agenda. It's why WTO pow wows are being held in smaller cities in ever more remote locations to avoid protests by student groups, organized labour groups and concerned citizens who are aware of what's at stake in these closed door power meetings.

So I think it's one thing to say we prefer market socialism or market-based capitalism, but it's also important to realize that this same struggle continues today. How much of each system do we want in creating this overall hybrid economic system that is still taking shape in every country ?. What groups are still pushing for laissez-faire, even though it failed miserably and without cold war pressures or from devastation of war waged on its western doorsteps, in 1929 and failing again in one closed experiment in Chilean laissez-faire between 1973 to 1985. The struggle for democracy really is a struggle. Fascism is capitalism with the mask off, and it's an ever present danger to democracy. Can't have democracy while concentrating so much of the world's wealth in so few hands. Not possible.

[ 09 November 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Fidel, patronage is wrong regardless of whether it's with American steelworkers, Venezualan oil workers, or Prince Edward Island road workers.

I don't care how blinded you are by your ideological glasses, but I can't see how you could support the statements made by those workers' boss. A boss who has an enormous amount of power over their lives.

One question: What would happen to Venezualan socialism if us capitalist pigs stopped buying their oil? You seem awfully concerned about the oil-based capitalist system destroying our environment....Hugo doesn't seem to share your concern, as he's too busy figuring out how to spend the easy money. He, like Bush, wants us to keep buying oil.

I'm more of a mixed economy-type myself, I like a strong social safety net, which is independant of the ruling party elected via democratic, fair elections. Individuals who work in the civil/social service should know that their job is based solely on merit and that there is strong legislation to protect their right to vote/speak as they please as a citizen. Obviously this ideal is not yet reached in Canada, but it shouldn't be abandoned.

quote:

---

"[Its] workers are with this revolution, and those who aren't should go somewhere else. Go to Miami." ...

"Those who do not feel comfortable with that orientation, should give their jobs to a Bolivarian [a Chavez supporter]."

---

Emma, what do you think the consequences would be for say, a Walmart worker in the U.S. or Canada who speaks openly about certifying co-workers infront of management ?. If you were a technical worker at, say, Nortel or Cisco, or other high tech companies where offshoring, downsizing and job loss is a real possibility, would you be comfortable at all with organizing a union drive with full co-operation from management ?. I don't see anything so terrifying as you seemed to be concerned with in what Ramirez had to say to oil workers in Caracas, Emma. There was no purge of oil patch workers based on political loyalties in Caracas or Cabimas or any other oil centre in Venezuela.

quote:

---

Originally posted by EmmaG:
One question: What would happen to Venezualan socialism if us capitalist pigs stopped buying their oil? You seem awfully concerned about the oil-based capitalist system destroying our environment....Hugo doesn't seem to share your concern, as he's too busy figuring out how to spend the easy money. He, like Bush, wants us to keep buying oil.

---

Hugo is using this period in time to reap what financial benefits he can from Venezuela's oil. No one here seems concerned that oil is being used to prop up imperialism in the Middle East or that it was the root cause of 1.2M to 1.4M premature deaths in Iraq between the years 1991 and continuing today. I could see your point as valid if Chavez were manipulating oil prices the way Saudi Arabia did in the mid to late 1980s in undermining Soviet oil revenues during a downturn in the Soviet economy. But Chavez isn't hording oil or manipulating oil prices as part of some evil dictatorial agenda. He's subsidizing oil for poor Americans and Central Americans. Venezuelan petro dollars are not being ferreted away into Swiss or Caribbean bank accounts. The oil isn't being shipped to apartheid S. Africa in violation of international sanctions. No it isn't.

Venezuela is not a developed country, surprise-surprise, and that's not the fault of the socialists in Venezuela. Countries like Sweden and others are developing non-oil based economies and are working toward total non-reliance on oil at some point in future. What is the most oil-dependent nation on earth doing about reducing its voracious appetite for oil besides stealing it from weak colonial administratorships in Canada ? - they wage wars of conquest and creating "pretexts" for the U.S. military and beckoning Iraqi women and children to banquets of death and destruction in the middle of the night. Socialism or barbarism. The neo-cons, in their black little hearts, have already chosen.

As far as choosing to buy what we want and earn our own money goes, it's a nice idea. Capitalism has not provided full employment in any country. Not only is it not the goal of capitalism to provide full employment, the environment couldn't sustain full employment associated with shop til we drop plastic widget consumerism. And without full participation in the economy, we have to conclude that the goal of this current arrangment is to simply shovel more and more wealth from the bottom of a giant economic pyramid scheme to the top. Ronald Wright says history is laden with felled societies which chose to concentrate great false wealth in the hands of a few while stripping natural wealth bare for the sake of keeping workers busy doing anything at all - idle hands do the devil's work, like plotting revolt. To work is to glorify the gods through an earthly incarnation - an all-powerful monarchy.Today, we have plutocracies ruling in favour of tiny but supremely wealthy minorities calling all of the shots through bought and paid for governments. And scientists are pointing to significant problems arising if we continue following global capitalists preaching Easter Island economics.

If we separate out the meaningful employment from the wasteful but "wealth-creating" employment, then capitalism based on buying useless plastic widgets stands out like a sore thumb, and the total social and environmental costs of jobism for the sake of protestant work ethics stands out as a glaring mistake for humanity.

There are environmentalists saying we should pay people to stay home - cease and desist contributing to the production of mountains of useless widgets that wear out only to be thrown on the capitalist scrap heaps of time. Capitalism is built-in obsolesence and wastefulness for the sake of propping up a failing political ideology. Capitalism based on oil consumption and throw away widgets is false economy in very many ways. Globalism is a poorly planned, inconceivable lie. Socialism is the future.

[ 09 November 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Conclusion - If you liked Pinochet, you'll love Chavez.

---

More accurate conclusion: if you liked Pinochet, you’ll love Porteno_Canuck.

It’s always great when these corporate capitalist US-is-great apologists show up here. It’s even better to see them get blown out of the water.

I have been reading the posts here, and once again, it’s a merry-go-round of lies, historical denial and revision and half truths on how goofy someone can get trying to defend the atrocities capitalistic economics of every variety (including state capitalism, which once again gets labeled as “socialism” or “communism” by liars and flakes.

But I do think Chavez goofed on this.

While I strongly support many of the initiatives of the Chavez coalition government, I think he’s acting like a jerk when he says the PDVSA Corporation is “revolutionary.”

Th3 fact is there is nothing socialistic about a worn-out top-down corporate bureaucracy that is just as capitalistic as any other—dedicated primarily to advancing its own wealth accumulating and power grabbing interests at the expense of the productive workers in the firm and the public that pays the bill.

It’s an historic fact that state capitalism is still capitalism—and Rafael Ramirez is another overpaid under-worked corporate pork-chopper who should know when to keep his mouth shut.

I realize and empathize whole-heartedly that Chavez has been slandered, maligned, and forced to call a recall vote on his presidency, which he handily won, because of the US-sponsored, or at least inspired, smear campaign by the country’s oil company bosses. And I know the Bolivarian government has to put up with all kinds of US-sponsored meddling in the country’s democratic process.

But the fact is that things have clearly improved as a result of many of the Bolivarian government’s policies, and the people who at one time could be misled by anti-Chavez slandered are clearly, if repeated polls are any indication, not so easily dissuaded as before.

There is no reason for Ramirez & Co. to pull such threatening crap, which, as many have pointed out, is not much different that corporate bosses in this country ordering workers to vote a certain way or face the likelihood of lay-offs. Chavez should not condone it.

As for the “opposition,” it can just go, to use an increasingly popular term around here, stick its head in the toilet, since it has done nothing but suck up the US corporate dictatorship and take its money to finance itself because it has so little credibility among the Venezuelan people it would go broke without the Bush Reich’s help.

As said, I support many of the Chavez initiatives—not because he’s a saint and doesn’t play the political game or that he hasn’t done anything wrong or contradictory. But because his socialistic economic democratization and community economic development initiatives are both in line with liberty, justice and sustainability, and have proven successful in regions and sectors all over the globe (especially in Europe).

quote:

---

Originally posted by BitWhys:
"Socialism is the future."

Both of them are ideological constructs, in fact two branches of the same tree, therefore neither of them is the future.

---

Because the odds against predicting a future event with accuracy increase dramatically as prediction and future event are separated by time, your conclusion must be considered fallacious.

[ 17 November 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

quote:
________________________________________
Oh sure they have. Not only are political conservatives infamous for running up the world's most humungous national debt in the world, Bush II's economy is even worse than Bush I's economy wrt full-time payroll job creation numbers.
________________________________________
No, they haven't. you need to look directly at Bureau of Labor statistics directly and not listen to articles from over 1 year ago. My numbers are from the exact tables that "zmag"is taking their's from, so, you are wrong in defending that "fact":

---

Yes, they have, bonehead.

Let’s start with the BS about the US economy. First, the Bureau of Labor Statistics documents quoted by both Fidel and Porteno_Cancuck are fine in now they report seasonal work force changes, official (as opposed to practical) employment and unemployment, etc. But these quarterly or annual figures that don’t do much in telling how people are faring in terms of overall living standards and freedoms.

For that, you need to look at longer-term working-class focused studies and reports. When you look at these, you can see that anybody who says people are doing well under the Bush tyranny, as well as at any time in the last 30 years, is either a liar or a nut case.

In that time frame, under the repressive backward-ass and bankrupt trickle-down dictatorship of the Reagan-Bush regime, wages and overall earnings for the working class majority have fallen, as have job creation relative to the size of the adult population (18-65), retirement security is almost nil, education access, and especially health care, has dropped, consumer debt is at an all-time high, consumer savings, at an all time low, equality has vanished, homelessness and starvation are everywhere, and consumer markets, which drive the economy (and which are created by working people, not capitalists) are at their best totally sluggish or recessive compared to the previous 30 years.

NBER US decline in health and personal income 1980-2002

US Department of Labor—Bureau of Labor Statistics Declining US standard of living 1980-2004

NBER US Consumer-price Index widening 1980-2002

NBER Falling Union Membership, Falling US living Standards

US Center for Economic and Policy research—Ballooning US Debt

BusinessWeek BLS Shows Real Wages Falling More than Before, debt rising faster

It’s obvious that capitalism of any variety (no matter what they call it) is going to be oppressive. But it’s clear that the Keynesian liberal version experienced in the 1940s up until the 1970s was far better than the brutal austere tyranny of the neo-cons and their and their bankrupt democracy-destroying trickle-down sickness.

quote:

---

Noam has been known to play fast and loose with facts and the truth on a regular basis.

---