The worst political conflict in the history of this happy country.... the most confusing political problem of America of this year. Now there´s no christmas for the Venezuelan people, there´s a hell where the devil is called Hugo Chavez, the tyrant.
We possibly backed a coup against him earlier this year (we were the only country not to denounce it, and there's some rumors the CIA had something to do with it). We caught hell for it from the left, apparently it wasn't such a bad idea after all now was it? Alex
Power to the Privileged "Venezuela's problems are part of a much larger global phenomenon — pervasive outside the West yet almost never acknowledged — of market-dominant minorities: ethnic minorities who, for widely varying reasons, tend under market conditions to dominate economically the indigenous majorities around them. (Chinese in Indonesia, whites in Zimbabwe and Indians in Kenya are other examples.)" A compelling thesis I had yet to learn. Seems to be an expansion on the classic problem endemic to the latifundia political economy of Latin America.
I don't think this has as much relevance in Latin America as it did, say, a hundred years ago. There is little broken down between "indigenous" and "European" anymore.
[strawman]Gee, speaking in absolutes is fun![/strawman] Are you saying there is no ethnic class difference today or that power relations have equated?
I'm saying that ethnic class differences aren't so clear-cut. There are very few self-recognized indigenous peoples in Latin America anymore. And the "Euros" dwindle with each generation as they breed with those of "Indio" blood. Certainly, power relations have not equated, but the haves and have-nots don't break down along ethnic lines anymore.
As is violating that Internet "law" about mentioning nazis! Anyway, my point is that the position the author is making is a dangerous one. She seems to be equating democracy and economic reforms with attacks on minorities -- and also claiming that those very same democratic and economic reforms allow minorities to gain "too much" (my words) economic power. Now I know I am probably misstating and oversimplifying her position, but that is the tone form that sentence. As I see it, there are three ways a minority gets "disproportionate" economic power: 1. The minority controls the political power, and uses that power to control the economy. This is the case in much of Latin America (with apologies to Gringo Tex) 2. The minority is shut out of political power (including the dominant religious power) and turns its energies economic matters. This is the case in Indonesia today (where the Christian and Buddhist Chinese are locked out of the country's political power halls). This quite common. In Egypt and Turkey (before 1923), the Christian elements were generally richer than the Moslem, mostly because they were unable to turn their energies to politics. In other cases, former colonial masters (Zimbabwe) or their adjuncts (the Indians in East Africa) still have economic power while turning over the political reins. 3. The minority is concentrated in a few key cities and for cultural reasons are well represented in a few key industries. Jews in the US and Europe fit this mold.
This misses the point. Perhaps the phrase I selected from the opinion piece is too provocative. She is not claiming democracy and market reform equals persecution of minorities. She is arguing that democratic and market reforms tend to consolidate capital into few hands...at least initially. It is really a development policy argument. The fact that capital accumulation occurs this way is dangerous especially in countries with a heterogenous population. Is Chavez persecuting the rich? Perhaps. Is he setting up concentration camps? No (not now anyhow). It is pretty clear that he is not working in the interests of bourgeois land-holders and other neoliberal reformers that have pressed to privatize PDvSA. IMO, these sort of pressures will continue to plague underdeveloped nations in the era of globalization. The underlying causes of discrimination, pervasive poverty and authoritarianism have yet to be addressed in any substantial way.
You are right. But the article has an inconsistency. In a place like Venezuela, before liberalization, capital and economic power was concentrated in the hands of a few elites, who also controlled the government. The purpose of liberalization is to break the oligarchy/monopoly, and create and spread wealth. So I would say that in Venezuela, the concentration of economic power existed BEFORE liberalization, liberalization has only give the disposed an actual way to combat that power. Liberalization was not the cause of the concentration.
Liberalizing the economy. Doing away with barriers that prevent new businesses from getting started, doing away with "protections" that only protect the business elite and the politically well connected. Opening up the economy to investment. Selling off state industries. Liberalization also means opening up the political process. Joe, Dan, etc., can use their boiler plate. Actually, I'll save you the trouble. That just about sums it up. I know -- my parents were cousins.
YES!!!! It was a stupid idea. You don't overthrow democratically elected leaders, no matter how incompetant they may be. These leaders can be removed by internal political pressure (politically forced resignations, i.e. Nixon), elections, or other democratic means. The OAS is trying to broker an agreement to hold a referendum on Chavez (it's not a given that he would lose). You don't, as a outside power, force the removal of a democratically elected leader through military force because he's incompetent. Especially when you've been pushing for strenghtened democracy in a region for around 20 years.
There´s no beer There´s gasoline...only by COUNTED drops... There´s no Pepsi-cola and Coca-cola because they just DESAPPEARED There´s no movie theatres There´s no shopping malls Supermarkets will close Banks will close... For two months more
U.S. plan seeks to end Venezuela conflict http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35622-2003Jan9.html
"The U.S. initiative is centered on the formation of a group of "Friends of Venezuela," trusted by one or both sides to the conflict, that would develop and guarantee a compromise proposal, based on early Venezuelan elections presented through an existing mediation effort by the Organization of American States." Trusted by "one or both sides"? What kind of proposal codifies legitimacy when only one side of a conflict is trusted?
I think that's the idea, although I would rather see the US act as a facilitator--just get a few parties together, let them borrow the back rooom at Camp David, order pizza and beer for everyone and then run out to catch a movie while the guys talk and hash things out.