Re: Economics and law
David Shemano writes: The issue is not whether East Germany, or any other socialist economy, was less able [...] Yes it was -- the part you are responding to. It was about regions. I wanted to show that you probably didn't even know where Europe is... let alone why Germany is not a unit. There is a stereotype about Americans-in-control: They can't read maps. (Canada knows this.) I assume the moderator gave you a thumbs up for a reason. (Maybe you are not a Novak-Limbaugh sort.) Anyway, so you tried to switch topics... and now it is not about the devaluation of life I mentioned in the original thread, now it is about Volvos and good cars from that socialist country. Good legal strategy, btw... when losing, swing any shit at hand in forms of motions... Ken. -- The Bible is probably the most genocidal book in our entire canon. -- Noam Chomsky
Re: Economics and law
Ken, this comes close to baiting. On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 01:38:03AM -0400, Kenneth Campbell wrote: David Shemano writes: The issue is not whether East Germany, or any other socialist economy, was less able [...] Yes it was -- the part you are responding to. It was about regions. I wanted to show that you probably didn't even know where Europe is... let alone why Germany is not a unit. There is a stereotype about Americans-in-control: They can't read maps. (Canada knows this.) I assume the moderator gave you a thumbs up for a reason. (Maybe you are not a Novak-Limbaugh sort.) Anyway, so you tried to switch topics... and now it is not about the devaluation of life I mentioned in the original thread, now it is about Volvos and good cars from that socialist country. Good legal strategy, btw... when losing, swing any shit at hand in forms of motions... Ken. -- The Bible is probably the most genocidal book in our entire canon. -- Noam Chomsky -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Re: Economics and law
Michael writes: Ken, this comes close to baiting. Sorry. True... it could... but there is a difference, don't you think? I was baiting on a personal level (You freaking lawyers!) or just the unexpected kind on this list (As a group, US lawyers are not well trained in other cultures)? Ken. -- I divined then, Sonia, that power is only vouchsafed to the man who dares to stoop and pick it up. -- Raskolnikov
Article on Venezuela poll
August 15, 2004 U.S. can redeem itself after Venezuelans vote By Elliott Young History News Service http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/08/15/f1.ed.col.venezuela.0815.html Venezuela will face the most important election in its history today. For the first time, Venezuelans will vote on whether to recall their president. The United States had better respond more responsibly than it did two years ago. In April 2002, the United States stunned the world by immediately recognizing an illegal government installed after a military coup ousted the constitutionally elected president, Hugo Chavez. This time, the United States has the opportunity to support democracy and allow the Venezuelan people to decide the fate of their country at the ballot box. With heavy scrutiny from the Organization of American States, the Carter Center, the European Union and thousands of international electoral observers, there should be no question of the legitimacy of this referendum. Therefore, there will be no grounds for the United States to reject its outcome. Both U.S. presidential candidates have made threatening remarks about Chavez's supposedly authoritarian and undemocratic rule. John Kerry went so far as to say that Chavez's close relationship with Cuba's Fidel Castro ``raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic country.'' The opposition-controlled media in Venezuela feed this sort of anachronistic anti-communism with one-sided coverage. Yet the more relevant historical analogy for Chavez's Venezuela would be Juan Peron's Argentina, a legacy that Chavez himself frequently invokes. In the middle of the 20th century, Latin American populists cultivated highly personable styles of leadership while they nationalized key industries, stressed independence from the United States and ultimately strengthened capitalism in their countries that benefited labor unions and workers. Chavez's charismatic hold on the vast majority of poor Venezuelans and his anti-Yankee rhetoric fit the populist profile. Inheriting a state-owned oil industry at a time of record high oil prices has enabled Chavez to pursue his ambitious social program of distributing resources to the poor without having to expropriate private industry. As long as oil prices remain high, Chavez may be able to have his cake and eat it, too. So why are members of the Venezuelan elite and significant sectors of the middle classes apoplectic at the thought of Chavez finishing out his term in office? Anti-Chavistas point to corruption, crime and economic crisis to justify their opposition, but crime and corruption are hardly new to Venezuela. And a good part of Venezuela's economic decline, which has been turned around in the last year, can be attributed to the three-month-long strike led by oppositionists. These are the same people who supported the April 2002 coup and who publicly declared their desire to topple the government by crippling the economy. The vehement opposition to Chavez by the Venezuelan elites is cultural as well as economic. Put simply, they are embarrassed by their president. He's a ``clown,'' he acts like a ``monkey,'' they complain, pointing to his impromptu singing and folksy digressions on his six-hour weekly call-in television program, ``Al Presidente.'' Labeling Chavez a monkey plays the race card, hinting that Chavez (who is part Indian and part black) is distinct from the lily-white Venezuelan elites. Historian Samuel Moncada, chair of the history department at the Universidad Central de Venezuela, calls this the ``aesthetic opposition.'' As Moncada put it, ``The Venezuelan elites will simply not forgive Chavez for breaking the cultural codes that distinguish them from the rest of Venezuela,'' the darker-skinned 80 percent of the people who live in poverty. Like Peron's descamisados (shirtless ones), Chavez's supporters are mostly poor and landless, the wretched of the earth. The passionate identification of the poor with Chavez cannot be chalked up solely to rhetoric or populism; he has produced results. Sixty thousand peasant families have received more than 5.5 million acres of land, thousands of schools, health clinics and low-income housing have been built, an ambitious literacy program has graduated more than 1 million adults and higher education is being democratized. Venezuela is polarized today, as it has always been. On one side are the rich who drive in caravans of SUVs with designer sunglasses, honking their horns to get rid of Chavez. On the other side is a heterogeneous crowd of loud and rambunctious Venezuelans, most too poor to afford cars, who seem willing to lay down their very lives for their comandante. Most Chavez supporters carry in their pockets a miniature edition of the new constitution, a symbol they frequently brandish as if it were a weapon. The most reliable polls predict that Chavez will win in the referendum, yet the opposition has already begun to say that
Re: Economics and law
I would not like to see an extended Stalin debate. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Chavez question
Thank God he won! Still, I have a question. If 70% of the people are poor, how did the opposition get so many votes? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Rosenstrasse (Dir. Margarethe von Trotta)
Rosenstrasse (Margarethe von Trotta's new film Rosenstrasse tells a little known story of the 1943 protest of thousands of non-Jewish German women who had resisted the Nazi pressures on them to divorce their Jewish husbands, demonstrated when their husbands were finally rounded up, and, most importantly, succeeded in securing their release): http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/08/rosenstrae.html. -- Yoshie * Critical Montages: http://montages.blogspot.com/ * Greens for Nader: http://greensfornader.net/ * Bring Them Home Now! http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/ * Calendars of Events in Columbus: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html, http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php, http://www.cpanews.org/ * Student International Forum: http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/ * Committee for Justice in Palestine: http://www.osudivest.org/ * Al-Awda-Ohio: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio * Solidarity: http://www.solidarity-us.org/
Re: Chavez question
Half the British working classes regularly voted for Thatcher. Vast numbers of American workers are rock-solid Republicans. Why do people vote against their own interests? This question is an old topic. Frank's Kansas book is the current best left survey of the question from a US perspective; Mike Davis's old Prisoners of the American Dream the best general (US) take I know. Why it might happen in Venezuala I don't know. Btw, an old college friend of mine I haven't spoken to in decades, but we were really close in college, Andres Mata, is editor of El Universal downin VZ, he's not a Chavez supporter, but maybe I might try to get in touch with him and ask what he thinks. It would be an excuse to try to re-establish a connection, anyway: From the BBC: Friday, 12 April, 2002, 16:13 GMT 17:13 UK Venezuela press condemns 'autocrat' Chavez Mr Chavez resigned under military pressure Venezuela's major newspapers have welcomed the ousting of Hugo Chavez, heaping condemnation and insult on the deposed president. Nowhere were the attacks more virulent than in the pages of El Nacional, which called him a coward who had brought the country to the verge of chaos. With this miserable and cruel act, you committed the worst of your political errors and betrayed your country El Nacional "We all knew about his mental problems, that he would shrink when the real battle started, but we ignored his lack of scruples, which became manifest when he ordered his sharpshooters to open fire on innocent people." "With this miserable and cruel act, you committed the worst of your political errors and betrayed your country." El Nacional accused Mr Chavez, a former paratrooper, of "soiling the military uniform and the institution which gave you an opportunity in life". "They say history elevates or buries men; for you it has reserved a pit beside the Venezuelan leaders infamous for their atrocities." Your obsessions have cost Venezuela countless moral and material losses, never has so much madness been seen in this land El Nacional His threats to shut down the main television stations were akin to "turning Venezuela into a jungle", the daily said. "Your obsessions have cost Venezuela countless moral and material losses, never has so much madness been seen in this land." Shared responsibility For the editor of El Universal, Andres A Mata, Mr Chavez is an autocrat who has lost his way. After being freely elected as a democratic leader, Chavez stopped being one Andres A. Mata "After being freely elected as a democratic leader, Chavez stopped being one." In his piece headlined, "Hugo Chavez: An autocrat in both style and substance", Mr Mata says the former president also violated several international laws "He violated the Inter-American Democratic Charter by denying Venezuelan workers the right to meet freely and hold open elections... He violated the Rio Agreement in publicly declaring on more than one occasion that Afghanistan is only an example of the terrorism sponsored by the United States worldwide." Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank God he won! Still, I have a question. If 70% of the people are poor, how didthe opposition get so many votes?--Michael PerelmanEconomics DepartmentCalifornia State UniversityChico, CA 95929Tel. 530-898-5321E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
Re: Economics and law
In a message dated 8/16/2004 5:39:53 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Stalin was not hated (by most people). He was worshipped (by most people). Being a brutal dictator does not necessarily mean that you are hated or seen as illegitimate by the people over whom you are dictating, especially if their historical experience tells them that power is absolute and arbitrary. Comment Joesph the Steel . . . Molotov . . . the Hammer. It is not like these guys did not know the names they adopted as they understood themselves in the historical currents and the revolution unfolding in Russia. Life is not a dream or ideological category. There were always workers in the shop more capable than myself in every sphere . . . better machine operators . . . assemblers . . . inspectors and smarter. Most of these really good guys and women steered clear of union politics and the politics of management because they did not want to be bothered with the intrigue and maneuvering inherent to bureaucracy. Politics is a dirty business and covering politics with ideology and Marxist concepts does not change the fact that privilege is involved because the bureaucracy is an agent of administration of something. People tend to support the "strong man" . . . and not because they are backwards . . . but because "strong" means the ability to get things done. Getting things done operates in a context and the content is a complex of industrial processes where the individual is atomized in the social process . . . intensely alienated as expressed in the personal vision of being a cog in an enormous machine. Those charged with administering various facets of this enormous machine that is society are expected to get things done in a way that does not chew up everyone . . . only ones neighbor. The Russian working class as a whole did not and today does not blame Stalin but rather . . . everyone under Stalin for not being selfless . . . and I understand this dynamic. Stalin was a man without personal wealth and the working class understood this simple truth. "If only Comrade Stalin knew what the bureaucracy was really doing . . . if only Comrade Stalin really knew what our local tyrants were doing . . . if only Comrade Stalin knew . . ." Real people are never . . . ever . . . as democratic as the intellectual stratum of society. The Soviet proletariat supported Stalin in muffling the intellectual stratum and it is not very different in America. This creates a certain danger . . . or rather is the environment of the social struggle. Nothing concerning the historical environment of the Stalin era frightens me on any level. I would trade Moscow 1936 for Mississippi or Georgia or Alabama 1936 in a heart beat. If only life was as simple as shouting democratic assertions. The intellectual stratum in the imperial centers tend to miss the ball and not understand the actual rules of the game . . . or rather see things from a position of privilege. Melvin P.
Re: Chavez question
possible explanations: higher turnout among the escualidos steady anti-government propaganda in private media belief that relations with the U.S. would improve if the opposition won some personal dislike of HCF But 58.26% isn't bad in a recall election. Not bad at all. At 07:31 AM 8/16/2004 -0700, you wrote: Thank God he won! Still, I have a question. If 70% of the people are poor, how did the opposition get so many votes? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu -- Robert Naiman Senior Policy Analyst Venezuela Information Office 733 15th Street, NW Suite 932 Washington, DC 20005 t. 202-347-8081 x. 605 f. 202-347-8091 www.veninfo.org ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: The Venezuela Information Office is dedicated to informing the American public about contemporary Venezuela. More information is available from the FARA office of the Department of Justice in Washington, DC.
Re: Economics and law
--- andie nachgeborenen: I agree with about the good Czar with under Stalinism, but that is not an example of socialist democracy -- I don't think you think it is either. --- Certainly not. __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
Re: Economics and law
--- andie nachgeborenen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with your reservations about the term Stalinism, I just don't have a better one. I agree with about the good Czar with under Stalinism, but that is not an example of socialist democracy -- I don't think you think it is either. jks Incidentally, in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq with all its Saddam is a brutal, hated dictator, so of course nobodt likes him and we will be greeted as liberators rhetoric, I kept thinking of Stalin. Stalin was not hated (by most people). He was worshipped (by most people). Being a brutal dictator does not necessarily mean that you are hated or seen as illegitimate by the people over whom you are dictating, especially if their historical experience tells them that power is absolute and arbitrary. For all I know, Saddam's ruthlessness may have bought him street cred as a tough guy you don't mess with. __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: Economics and law/bureaucratic order made real
In a message dated 8/15/2004 1:00:35 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The American system of vehicle production was very bureaucratic . . . but less than that of the Soviets and much more than that of the Japanese producers . . . in terms of democratic input of the workers . . . measured by their ability to halt production and correct a problem. Comment The domestic and historic American auto producers will never . . . ever . . . produce superior quality vehicles than their Japanese counter parts . . . for the very same reasons the Soviets could not produce vehicles superior to the American producers. On the one hand the industrial class in America was consolidated and evolved on a curve in front of its Japanese and Soviet counterpart the former produces better vehicles and the latter worse vehicles. Why does the Japanese produce better vehicles and the old Soviet vehicles ... as massed produced . . . not specialized .. . were of an inferior quality? One thread of thought says the Soviet system was inferior to the American system and the Soviet workers were lazy, stupid, culturally backwards and lacked freedom of _expression_ due to their bureaucracy. This is the exact argument advanced by a section of the intellectual stratum of Japan against their American counterparts. If memory serves me correct the book advancing this argument in Japan was "The Right To Say No" published in the 1980s. The reaction of the autoworkers union was to prohibit Japanese cars from being parked in the parking lot of the International Union and a wave of smashing Japanese vehicles in Detroit. Everything is involved in the equation and real human beings - the subjective aspects . . . are always the decisive factor within a given qualitative and quantitative boundary of the industrial system. However, this does not isolate the set of factors that are fundamental to the production process. The Soviets production of military planes means the technological capability existed . . . so the human potential was present. The history of Soviet industrial socialism contains an important key to understanding the components of industrial society because its system of production was constructed at a specific quantitative boundary. The Japanese producers . . . after the Second Imperial World War . . . constructed their industrial system at yet another . . . different . . . boundary of the industrial system. Nor can the issue be looked at as "Forced industrialization" because industrialization by definition is forced on society in every country on earth as the material results of the triumph of a new mode of production. Even in its mode of accumulation . . . the injection of the money economy into a natural economy requires incredibly destructive force at every stage of the industrial advance. Look at the Western hemisphere and see the truth of the quest for gold. Look at American history . . . clearing of the Western frontier and the advance of the manufacturing process. The difference in tempo of industrialization is another question all together. My understanding of industrialization - heavy industry, is that it grew out of the manufacturing process . . . and specifically heavy manufacturing as opposed to chair making. From the 14th century on industrialization rivets in history and grows out slavery and the slave trade . . . ship building . . . heavy manufacturing . . . which laid an important basis for what would become the steel industry . . . science . . . navigation . . . the armament industry, trade routes and the early impulse of the state to shattered local constrained markets. We forget this was the actual process of divorcing millions of producers from the land and their means of production and with rose color glasses speak of capital magically rolling out of the countryside and the conversion of the serf into modern proletarians. All industrialization is forced by definition. Soviet industrialization did not evolve from the slavery trade but occurred at another juncture of history and was infinitely more peaceful and humane than the earlier period of industrialization. The anti-Sovietism under the banner of anti-Stalinism has very little to do with Stalin and more to do with imperial privilege and falsification of world history in y opinion. The hundreds of millions of descendants of 14th through 19th century slaves are very clear that the edifice of industrial society was carved from their backs. To hell with Stalin . . . because he is not the issue. He becomes the focal point because American Marxists have been in denial of their history for 400 years and point an accusing finger at everyone else. Our inability to accurately describe Soviet industrial socialism and Soviet industrial democracy . . . seems to me to be based in difference about the meaning of the mode of production . . . on the level of theory. I use the concept "industrial mode of production" with the property
The Crisis at KPFA and Pacifica
Thanks, Doyle, for your suggestion for dialogue on the left about what is happening at KPFA (and around the network). Given how vital Pacifica potentially should be for a revitalized left, I think such a conversation is valuable. Please note that when I make broad statements about the actions of the LSB and some of their supporters I do not by any means intend that this is taken to mean all those who are supporting the LSB majority. The five stations of the Pacifica Network, along with its 60 affiliate stations, are an immeasurably precious resource for the left. The licenses for KPFA in Berkeley, KPFK in Los Angeles, WBAI in New York, KPFT in Houston, and WPFW in Washington DC are worth tens of millions of dollars each. KPFA's license was granted in the late 1940s when FM radio was marginal and because of this, KPFA, like WBAI, is located in the commercial part of the radio dial. The potential reach of KPFA and the other Pacifica stations is vast. KPFA signal is one of the strongest signals of any station, commercial or noncommercial, in the San Francisco Bay Area and it reaches a third of California. The potential listenership of KPFA alone numbers 12 million people. While the latent capacity of KPFA is mind bending, the station is being torn apart by conflicts between KPFA's Local Station Board and much of the staff (certainly the majority of paid staff and a good number of unpaid staffers). The LSB is a 25 person body, three quarters of which was elected by listener-sponsor (listeners who subscribe to KPFA every year). Like most non-profit boards, the mandate of the LSB is to fundraise, find a pool of applicants for the hiring of the General Manager and Program Director, and make sure the station adheres to its mission, that is, the peace and social justice mission of Pacifica. Yet within a half of year in power, some of the listener members of the LSB have clashed with the staff and station management over issues outside of the boards purview. LSB members have publicly attacked KPFA workers, libelously maligned both station staff and the interim General Manager, have created an unsafe working environment for certain KPFA staff members, and have put the Pacifica Foundation in danger of a number of lawsuits. LSB members have also promoted the illusory idea of divide at the station between paid and unpaid staff. The board majority has made a farce of democracy, using pseudo-parliamentary tactics to out-maneuver those who oppose them on the board. LSB members have engaged in appallingly unethical behavior. As a result, some KPFA staff and management are quitting the station because of intolerable working conditions. From what I understand, this same conflict between LSB and staff is happening at all the stations around the network. When challenged, some of those on the LSB and their supporters claim that the staff does not want to see change at the station, while the LSB represents the listeners as a whole and has the best interests of the station at heart. The LSB, however, does not represent anything but a small fraction of listeners. The turnout for the KPFA elections makes the US presidential elections look downright participatory. Only several thousand listeners voted in it and, consequently, some LSB members were elected with as few as 300-400 votes (see http://www.pacifica.org/elections/2003/index-2003.html for the election breakdown for all five stations). Most listeners I know said they had no idea who to vote for and, if they did vote, chose people randomly. I doubt most listeners would be pleased that those who are speaking in their name have opened the station up to legal liability, which they the listeners, along with the staff, will have to pay for. One of the main issues in the earlier conflict with Pacifica was that the national office was draining resources from the five member stations. KPFA General Manager Nicole Sawaya was fired after she demanded that Pacifica account for that money, leading to the lockout in 1999. Yet the costs of this new governing arrangement, set up in response to the misdeeds of the national board, gives one pause. For this year alone, the costs of the LSBs, the Pacifica National Board, and the elections for teleconferences, plane flights and the like are projected to be almost $600,000 and it is expected that this year's elections will cost much more than last years making the next fiscal year's expenses for governance even higher. Instead of helping raise money for the stations, the governing structure has become a big drain on them and this comes at a time when our technical equipment is woefully inadequate and staff are terribly underpaid. The June report from Pacificas Chief Financial Officer states: The variance which is most worrisome is that of the [Local Station Board] elections. It shows a negative variance YTD in April of 138k. On projection, I have received word that the new elections this summer and fall will cost the
Re: Economics and law
Agreed. That's playing with fire. --- Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would not like to see an extended Stalin debate. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Venezuela news cull
Venezuelans have voted to keep Hugo Chávez as their president, electoral authorities said early this morning after 18 hours of voting, reported Juan Forero for the New York Times at 9 AM Monday. The national electoral council president, Francisco Carrasquero, announced at 4 AM that Mr. Chávez had won the backing of 58 percent of voters, with 42 percent supporting the opposition's drive to recall him. But the opposition said that the government had cheated and that it had won by a wide margin. The Organization of American States and the Atlanta-based Carter Center, which monitored the election and conducted their own highly accurate voting samples, had not commented on the dispute as of 8:30 a.m. The Venezuelan people have spoken, Mr. Chávez said. He was conciliatory towards his opponents, calling for a round of applause for them. This is a victory for the opposition, the president said. They defeated violence, coup-mongering and fascism. I hope they accept this as a victory and not as a defeat. Reuters reported at 4:32 AM that two pro-opposition electoral officials also questioned the result. Shortly before Carrasquero made the announcement, two members of the five-member National Electoral Council leadership said they could not back the result. Ezequiel Zamora and Solbella Mejias, both known opposition sympathizers, said procedural checks had not been carried out on the results as required. ``These partial results that part of the National Electoral Council wants to present to the public cannot be considered official,'' Mejias said. Bloomberg News reported that crude oil futures fell from record highs after the vote was announced. There had been concerns in the oil markets that a defeat would have disrupted supplies from this country, the world's fifth-largest exporter of oil and a key supplier to the United States. Brent crude oil for September delivery fell as much as 58 cents, or 1.3 percent, on London's International Petroleum Exchange and was down 43 cents to $43.45 at 12:04 p.m. local time, Bloomberg said. Earlier this morning, both sided had predicted victory. Reuters reprorted at 2:33 a.m. that three Venezuelan government ministers said that President Chavez had easily survived a referendum on whether to recall him. ``We've won this by a long way,'' one of three cabinet members, who did not want to be identified, said as they hugged and celebrated at the Miraflores presidential palace in scenes witnessed by Reuters. The other two ministers made similar claims. Shortly earlier, senior opposition leaders had dropped heavy hints of victory. Venezuelan law prohibits anyone from announcing electoral results until the country's election authorities do so. ``From the expression on my face, people can tell what's happening,'' said a smug-looking Enrique Mendoza, a leader of the opposition coalition which forced Sunday's referendum on the populist president. Another opposition leader, former state oil company executive Juan Fernandez, said: ``We're going to have fireworks and music we're going to say Venezuela woke up on the day of the referendum.'' With crude futures above $46 a barrel in overnight trading, oil will remain the focus for most investors even as they derive some solace from early reports of victory for President Chavez in the referendum, Reuters reported this morning. Prices fell modestly after results released by Venezuelan electoral authorities with 94 percent of the vote counted showed Chavez survived a referendum to recall him. Energy markets have been worried about disruptions to the country's oil production if a disputed result sparked social unrest. Shipping sources had said shipments from Venezuela, the world's fifth-largest crude exporter, were running smoothly. Robert Naiman Senior Policy Analyst Venezuela Information Office 733 15th Street, NW Suite 932 Washington, DC 20005 t. 202-347-8081 x. 605 f. 202-347-8091 www.veninfo.org ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: The Venezuela Information Office is dedicated to informing the American public about contemporary Venezuela. More information is available from the FARA office of the Department of Justice in Washington, DC.
Re: Economics and law/bureaucratic order made real
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why does the Japanese produce better vehicles and the old Soviet vehicles ... as massed produced . . . not specialized .. . were of an inferior quality? One thread of thought says the Soviet system was inferior to the American system and the Soviet workers were lazy, stupid, culturally backwards and lacked freedom of _expression due to their bureaucracy. This is the exact argument advanced by a section of the intellectual stratum of Japan against their American counterparts. --- It's not because they were lazy or stupid, it's because they couldn't be fired for doing a bad job. Or most anything else -- many workplaces had one or two incorrigible alcoholics who would come in to work and be told to sleep it off in the back room. (They were given the worst jobs though.) All Soviet goods were sold with the date of manufacture, and the purchaser invariable made sure not to buy something made after a holiday or on a Monday (to avoid hangover-related shoddiness) or at teh end of the month (which meant everybody was working ful speed to fulfill the plan). Note that in areas where the Soviets _did_ discipline labor -- the military and aeronautics, for instance -- their goods were surberb. ___ Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com
Support for Chavez Unwavering in Slums of Venezuelan Capital
Support for Chavez Unwavering in Slums of Venezuelan Capital Ken Silverstein The LA Times August 16, 2004 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-chavez16aug16,1,1415624.story CARACAS, Venezuela The rich hate him, saying he has stirred up class warfare. The privately owned media, closely aligned with his political opponents, pillory him daily as an enemy of democracy. And the Bush administration, which supported those who briefly overthrew him in 2002, describes him as a dangerous leftist. But in the shantytowns here in the capital, President Hugo Chavez is revered as a national savior. Our hope is with Chavez, said Carlos Contreras, who urged residents to support the president in Sunday's recall vote. All of our other presidents promised to help the poor, but he's the first one who has kept his word. Chavez's support is concentrated among the poor, who make up a majority of this country's 25 million people. The soaring price of oil, a major export, has flooded the national treasury, allowing the government to spend heavily on social programs and fund what Chavez calls a Revolution for the Poor. Like many in the winding, hillside shantytown of brick-and-tin shacks in Catia district, Contreras has no steady work. He owns a truck and occasionally is hired as a mover or for other odd jobs. Even so, he said life had improved dramatically since Chavez was elected in 1998. From a spot that offers a sweeping view of the neighborhood, Contreras pointed to a new health clinic staffed by Cuban doctors. The government has also opened several nearby markets that sell subsidized food to the poor. There are new literacy programs, and Contreras, who is 47 and hadn't studied beyond third grade, now attends a school built by the government. He hopes to earn a high school degree. If the opposition has support here, it does not readily show its face other than a handful of Yes signs scattered about the neighborhood. The walls of the shantytown and windows in homes are covered with red signs urging a No vote in the recall referendum. This whole street is Chavista, Contreras said as he led a tour through the neighborhood. Maybe one in a hundred is for the opposition. Nationwide, voters are divided over the recall, but in poor neighborhoods like this one, the president appears to have overwhelming support. The opposition and the Bush administration have attacked Chavez for his close friendship with Cuban leader Fidel Castro, but that relationship doesn't bother poor Venezuelans who receive free treatment at government health clinics from Cuban doctors. Before, the poor had, at best, little access to healthcare. Chavez has love for the people, Contreras said. He was poor and he understands the needs of the poor. Chavez also benefits from poor Venezuelans' skepticism of his opponents, whom they see as remnants of the country's discarded political past. Before Chavez won power, two elite parties exchanged power for four decades. Those governments were widely considered corrupt and squandered much of the country's oil wealth. Nelson Ortiz, a stocky man standing in front of a store where he sells live chickens, said he planned to vote for Chavez. There are good things and bad things about the government, but with another president things would be worse, he said. I have to thank this man because he is the first one who has used our oil for the poor. Similar sentiments were voiced in a number of other Caracas shantytowns, which have benefited from the same social programs seen in Catia. People were especially enthusiastic in the January 23 neighborhood, which is dominated by huge, dilapidated apartment buildings built in the late 1950s. From the windows, laundry hangs alongside large banners painted with a popular Chavez campaign slogan, No al Pasado (No to the Past). Here, you don't have to ask, a young woman said when asked how she would vote. Everyone in this neighborhood is with the president. Nearby, a crowd gathered on a square in front of a neighborhood school where Chavez was expected to vote. Around noon, the presidential motorcade arrived, leading to a burst of fireworks and cheers from the crowd. As Chavez emerged from a blue sport utility vehicle, people began singing a campaign song, Uh, Ah, Chavez No Se Va (Ooh, Ah, Chavez Isn't Leaving). Pastora Sivira, a primary school teacher, was among those singing the loudest. We know he will win, she said. We have waited for this president for too long to lose him now. -- Robert Naiman Senior Policy Analyst Venezuela Information Office 733 15th Street, NW Suite 932 Washington, DC 20005 t. 202-347-8081 x. 605 f. 202-347-8091 www.veninfo.org ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: The Venezuela Information Office is dedicated to informing the American public about contemporary Venezuela. More information is available from the FARA office of the Department of Justice in Washington, DC.
Your removal from the PEN-L list
Mon, 16 Aug 2004 10:05:41 You have been removed from the PEN-L list (PEN-L list) by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Economics and law/bureaucratic order made real
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why does the Japanese produce better vehicles and the old Soviet vehicles ... as massed produced . . . not specialized .. . were of an inferior quality? One thread of thought says the Soviet system was inferior to the American system and the Soviet workers were lazy, stupid, culturally backwards and lacked freedom of _expression due to their bureaucracy. This is the exact argument advanced by a section of the intellectual stratum of Japan against their American counterparts. --- It's not because they were lazy or stupid, it's because they couldn't be fired for doing a bad job. Or most anything else -- many workplaces had one or two incorrigible alcoholics who would come in to work and be told to sleep it off in the back room. (They were given the worst jobs though.) All Soviet goods were sold with the date of manufacture, and the purchaser invariable made sure not to buy something made after a holiday or on a Monday (to avoid hangover-related shoddiness) or at teh end of the month (which meant everybody was working ful speed to fulfill the plan). Note that in areas where the Soviets _did_ discipline labor -- the military and aeronautics, for instance -- their goods were surburb. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
