Generals Take Over Venezuela, As Oil Crisis Puts Paid To Chavez
	found on: Reuters written by holgate, edited by Humberto (Plastic) posted Fri 12 Apr 7:18am
		"After a week of increasing turmoil in Venezuela, capped by a demonstration in which several protesters died, the country's generals have announced that President Hugo Chavez is no longer in charge," writes holgate. "Chavez ran into trouble when he tried to replace several board members ('the political elite') from the PDVSA, the state-owned oil monopoly. This triggered a strike among oil management, then a general strike, and now the military takeover. And probably (surprise, surprise) lowers the risk of a hike in the price of crude. Now, Chavez handled things atrociously, acting from a position of weakness rather than strength, but he's also suffered the fate of many left-leaning rulers, facing in recent years the wrath of the IMF and World Bank (and the usual neocon suspects) for exerting greater state control over an oil industry that was widely regarded as corrupt and self-serving. The people at NarcoNews smelt a rat months ago, after soundings in Washington over a possible coup: is it simply cynicism to think that this might be a repeat of Chile in 1973?" Additionally, a Venezuelan source provides more information and a different angle.

[ < return to the discussion ]

show almost all: 53 commentsmost: 21 commentsbest: 16 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

8.  Re: Milton Friedman's Sex Machine   by chatsubo       at Fri 12 Apr 6:55am score of 3 astute   in reply to comment 5     I think the thousand of people who were disappeared, the union officals dropped into volcanos, the students who were drowned in vats of excrement and the women who were raped by specially trained dogs, might think Pincohet's rise to power was a bad thing. Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Re: Milton Friedman's Sex Machine   by osama bin rockin       at Fri 12 Apr 7:20am score of 1   in reply to comment 8     Yeah that was my point, but in my early morning non-coffee'd haze I fucked my dates up. I was referring to post Pinochet Chile. Replace 1973 with 1990. Christ I really needed a coffee i guess!!! I was shocked to discover that "The Amazing Race" is actually just a show on BET...Isn't that a bit arrogant?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  Re: Milton Friedman's Sex Machine   by holgate       at Fri 12 Apr 7:30am score of 1 astute   in reply to comment 5     It came at a price, but the Chilean people are better off now than they were work in 1972. Not including the several thousand who got disappeared under that CIA-Pinochet dinky two-step, of course. Though I'm sure their families will appreciate your sentiments.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  Re: Milton Friedman's Sex Machine   by GodSpiral       at Fri 12 Apr 7:50am score of 4 astute   in reply to comment 5     Government can manage uninnovative industries with competence. The outcome is usually preferable to unregulated monopolies. You may be confused. Economies under which no private ownership is allowed, or taxed outrageously, is quite different from ownership of strategically vital industries. I mean, how would Exxon's ownership of Venezuelan oil be preferable to Venezuela? All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  Re: Milton Friedman's Sex Machine   by osama bin rockin       at Fri 12 Apr 8:09am score of 1   in reply to comment 14     I'll Reply to comment 11 First: see my above comment on the date mix up. And if your read it, I said that the people of Chile are better off now than in 1973, so obviously i am saying Pinochet fucked up with his "Left-Leaning" fascist policies (Nationalised, industry and price controls being a few of them) and that disappearing people was a BAD THING! On comment 14: I never said Exxon should own Venezuelan oil. I simply said it should be privatized to local interests. No matter who owns it, it will be a monoply (OPEC), that's the way oil works...Well some would say it's an oligopoly, but that's highly debatable. The economic basis of the Oil Industry is a Cartel system, so this probably isn't a good example of privatizing the commanding heights. Regardless, the new government should seek to slowly move this industry into the VENEZUELAN PRIVATE SECTOR (If or when one exists). This will probably be difficult in the current economic condition however. I was shocked to discover that "The Amazing Race" is actually just a show on BET...Isn't that a bit arrogant?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  maybe more coffee?   by jjgiddes       at Fri 12 Apr 8:25am score of 1   in reply to comment 17     so obviously i am saying Pinochet fucked up with his "Left-Leaning" fascist policies (Nationalised, industry and price controls being a few of them) "left-leaning" fascist policies is a contradiction in terms. (Forgive me being extremely pedantic for a second.) Fascism and communism are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, but have the same effects on industries and culture in general. Furthermore, Pinochet was installed by the CIA and the Nixon administration after deposing another democratically-elected socialist leader, Allende. Or -- even worse -- the case of Guatemala. United Fruit's plantations are getting disrupted; it exerts financial pressure on Congress and the administration; the US installs a fascist disctatorship (fascism is a little more than "right-leaning", for those playing at home), that goes about murdering and torturing people, much as Pinochet did. Entire villages in the hinterlands wiped off the map as the government forces go hunting for rebels. So, sorry about the lecture, but Pinochet was anything but left-leaning. Playing buddy-buddy with Nixon and Kissinger kinda disqualifies him. "You've got the brain of a four-year-old boy, and I bet he was glad to get rid of it." -- Groucho Marx   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: Milton Friedman's Sex Machine   by delhomme       at Fri 12 Apr 8:31am score of 1   in reply to comment 17     Firstly, I don't think Pinochet had a leftist bone in his body. The Pinochet regime was marked by open markets and economic expansion with violent repression of free speech and labor organization. In other words, he was REALLY far right, somewhere in the realm of Mussolini. Also, I think any "local" private ownership of oil production would likely be a proxy for european or US ownership, much like "local" mining interests in much of Africa. BTW thanks for retraction on the original Pinochet post. all the evidence indicates that God is an inveterate gambler.. S.Hawking   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   23.  Re: maybe more coffee?   by osama bin rockin       at Fri 12 Apr 8:36am score of 1   in reply to comment 21     His economic policies were "left-leaning" that's what i meant. A centrally planned economy...And facism and central economic control usually come hand in hand! Stalin wasn't a fascist? I was shocked to discover that "The Amazing Race" is actually just a show on BET...Isn't that a bit arrogant?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: Milton Friedman's Sex Machine   by osama bin rockin       at Fri 12 Apr 8:45am score of 1   in reply to comment 22     The Pinochet regime was marked by open markets and economic expansion... You're right about this, but this was near the end of his regime. He started listening to "The Chicago Boys" because his economy was fucked up. They told him to open up and let the free market rule. He listened to them, and eventually the free market necessitated a free democracy, and his days were numbered. I was shocked to discover that "The Amazing Race" is actually just a show on BET...Isn't that a bit arrogant?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: Milton Friedman's Sex Machine   by delhomme       at Fri 12 Apr 9:01am score of 1   in reply to comment 26     I see what you're saying, OBR. It's still hard for me to think of Augusto as left because it was a decidedly leftist government he assisted in the overthrow of and leftists he busied himself killing during his tenure. If we agree to define leftist as a centrally controlled economy, you are correct. If I am correct, though, he basically gave the copper and nitrate mines back to foreign interests (took them out of state control) the second he came into power. Also, I've never seen the causual connection between free markets and free democracy. This line has always struck me as IMF/neoliberal propaganda. I could be wrong. all the evidence indicates that God is an inveterate gambler.. S.Hawking   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: maybe more coffee?   by jjgiddes       at Fri 12 Apr 9:22am score of 1   in reply to comment 23     My original point is that despotism, whether coming from the right or the left, is still despotism. Arguing whether Stalin was a fascist is largely semantics taken to an extreme. If you want to get really technical, no, I don't think he was. Communist despot, but not a fascist. That distinction is pretty much left to Hitler in my book. His government shared many traits of Hitler's -- during WW2 (after their initial agreement fell apart), the Soviet Union and Germany described each other with opposing inflammatory rhetoric in their propaganda, i.e. "stop the fascists" as opposed to "fear bolshevism". So, to hang all despotic behavior (or at least, all the despotic centrally-planned economies) at the feet of "left-leaning" policymaking is an oversimplification and distortion. In fact, it leads to one of my big pet peeves: that National Socialism was at its root a leftist philosophy. (Mainly because it has "socialism" in its title. This would be hilarious if it weren't for the fact that so many people believed it.) If it were, why put all the communists in Auschwitz? "You've got the brain of a four-year-old boy, and I bet he was glad to get rid of it." -- Groucho Marx   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: Milton Friedman's Sex Machine   by osama bin rockin       at Fri 12 Apr 9:42am score of 1   in reply to comment 30     I don't really think that Pinochet was a leftist in any sense aside from the centrally planned economy in the early stages of his rule, and I think we agree on that point. I should have been more specific on this point in the first place, so that's my fault. From what most of the Chicago School of Economics guys say, he was very reluctant to open up the market. They give the impression that they were chiding him into doing it against his will. The mining example you mention might prove me wrong on this point though. Also, I've never seen the casual connection between free markets and free democracy. Fair enough. But I would argue that most democracies are free market economies, and at the very least they qualify as mixed economies. This still makes the fact that the two are connect an assumption and not a fact though. I was shocked to discover that "The Amazing Race" is actually just a show on BET...Isn't that a bit arrogant?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

24.  Pinochet - tough to evaluate   by kbrownecon       at Fri 12 Apr 8:39am score of 4 astute   in reply to comment 5     Of all the bad guys of the 20th Century, Pinochet, at least in my opinion, is the most ambiguous. He sure was evil, killed thousands, etc., but he voluntarily stepped down from power, allowed elections, and left his country a free-market democracy. Like it or not, the 1970s Chicago-style free-market reforms worked in Chile over the long run, and Chile today, even in recession, is a stable capitalist democracy with a pretty good standard of living, especially compared to its more statist neighbors. And Pinochet's Chile managed to implement a defined-contribution pensions system that doesn't have to worry about the sort of demographic disasters facing the US and Western Europe. Now, this doesn't mean the guy deserves to go away free for his crimes. He was brutal, and even if I agree with his economic policies and his later decision to step down, there still had to be a better way to accomplish what he accomplished. Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Singapore all accomplished a transition to one form of capitalism or another, and some of these countries did and/or do have leadership that didn't/don't respect civil liberties or democracy, but none of them engaged in Pinochet-style brutality. So I have no moral problem with Pinochet facing justice. (I do worry about incentives, though. Why would any leader ever step down if they risk a trial the moment they do so?) But I never will understand the people who get passionate against Pinochet and then go all soft on Castro. Castro's pulled all of Pinochet's bad crap and still brutally represses his people, and Castro's country gets poorer and poorer, and there's no sign that Castro's going to step down and allow elections. So, if you're going to be pissed at Pinochet, I figure you should get about 5 times as pissed about Castro. So what gives with the Canadians and Europeans and some Americans who hate Pinochet but get all gaga over Castro?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

27.  Why does Fidel get all the chicks?   by Little Dog       at Fri 12 Apr 8:51am score of 2 funny   in reply to comment 24     So what gives with the Canadians and Europeans and some Americans who hate Pinochet but get all gaga over Castro? One word: Che! Pinochet didn't have Che. Prediction: A couple decades from now, Cuba's most popular tourist destination will be Disney's CheWorld. "Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - The Dude   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  Re: Pinochet - tough to evaluate   by tao       at Fri 12 Apr 9:02am score of 4 informative   in reply to comment 24     "Castro's pulled all of Pinochet's bad crap and still brutally represses his people, and Castro's country gets poorer and poorer" First of all did Castro lead a revolution against a dictator and not a military coup against democraticaly elected pres. Secondly, I agree that in his 40+ years he has killed many but very probably not nearly as many as Pinochet managed to kill within a coupla weeks. Thirdly, there is still a, in the eyes of many, unfair embargo against Cuba. And that coming from a country which actively supports the Saudi monarchy(!), a hypocritical and utterly brutal regime. And last but not least has Chile one of the highest Gini-Indexes(Inequality in the distribution of wealth) in the world. My barn having burned to the ground, I can now see the moon   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: Pinochet - tough to evaluate   by delhomme       at Fri 12 Apr 9:14am score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 24     I think the reason is that some in the US and Canada respect someone who stands up to power. Castro is 90 miles from the worlds last superpower and still gives the US the finger, with no fear and apparent glee. Pinochet was, like Batiste before Castro, the US's bitch. And I do mean Bitch. Some people just can't respect that. all the evidence indicates that God is an inveterate gambler.. S.Hawking   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Re: Pinochet - tough to evaluate   by kingraoul3       at Fri 12 Apr 10:14am score of 2   in reply to comment 24     Prehaps because Cuba has the highest literacy and life expectancy rates of any third world country? In the face of an embargo, no less. Prehaps because the vast majority of the people in Cuba support him? BTW, Cuban elections are free.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  Pretty lame   by kbrownecon       at Fri 12 Apr 1:28pm score of 1   in reply to comment 33     "People respect someone who stands up to power?" What a radical chic piece of crap sentiment that is. Like Castro's standing for anything other than his right to repress anybody and everybody who opposes or disagrees with him? The man has his coast guard drown refugees who try to escape. And what about Cuban political prisoners? Isn't their standing up to Castro's power truly heroic and praiseworthy? And wasn't Castro the USSR's bitch, anyway? But you are right in a way. This whole Castro coddling is largely motivated by a sick sort of anti-Americanism. If only Pinochet had murdered thousands while being supported by the KGB instead of the CIA; then he'd be cool.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  Good points, but not completely right   by kbrownecon       at Fri 12 Apr 1:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 31     "First of all did Castro lead a revolution against a dictator and not a military coup against democraticaly elected pres." You are right that Allende was "elected," but that was because he was the only Socialist against many different anti-Socialist candidates, which allowed him to "win" the election with 37% of the vote. He then brought in Cuban military advisors and began repressing his opposition. He may have not been a Batista, but Allende was no angel, and he wasn't popular. "Secondly, I agree that in his 40+ years he has killed many but very probably not nearly as many as Pinochet managed to kill within a coupla weeks." I don't know the numbers of dead for each. Pinochet may have killed more than Castro. But Pinochet also allowed people to leave the country, while Castro does everything in his power to prevent people from getting out, including having his military tip over people's rafts, leaving them to drown. And Castro's economic ideology has clearly not served Cuba as well as Pinochet's served Chile's. And Castro shows no sign of stepping down and allowing free and fair elections. So it still seems like Castro's not so hot. "Thirdly, there is still a, in the eyes of many, unfair embargo against Cuba. And that coming from a country which actively supports the Saudi monarchy(!), a hypocritical and utterly brutal regime." I think the embargo is a legitimate area of debate. But the existence of the US embargo doesn't make Castro any less evil, particularly when he could remove the embargo simply by holding truly free elections. And yes, the Saudis suck. "And last but not least has Chile one of the highest Gini-Indexes(Inequality in the distribution of wealth) in the world." But their Gini isn't necessarily high for the region. And you can't trust Cuba's Gini coefficient, because if a party member gets top quality medical care at a special facility and a peasant gets very poor care in a shack, they're recorded as the same medical care. When you don't have market exchange, then the government can just assign values to anything it wants for statistical purposes. Hey look! We're so equal! See, the numbers show it!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Re: Good points, but not completely right   by Peter Murphy       at Fri 12 Apr 8:35pm score of 1   in reply to comment 47     Pinochet may have killed more than Castro. But Pinochet also allowed people to leave the country. Pinochet didn't just allow people to leave the country, he even helped. For example, flying dissidents via helicopter over shark-ridden international waters. Most of them left the country safely enough - manacled but safe. What they did immediately afterward (such as freefalling a kilometre) was their own business, and no-one else's. P.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

35.  Milton Friedman wants sex? He can go fuck himself.   by Peter Murphy       at Fri 12 Apr 9:29am score of 4 informative   in reply to comment 5     Yes, Chile is better off in 2002 than they were in 1972. But then Chile in 1972 was better off than they were in 1975, or 1980, or 1983, or anytime that Pinochet was in charge. Not only did he fuck the nation, he fucked the economy. It seems to be one of the biggest myths around. It goes something like this: "Well, he did kill a lot of people, but he did turn around the economy." Sorry, Osama, but I'm calling bullshit on that scenario. To quote the summary of the above link: So what was the record for the entire Pinochet regime? Between 1972 and 1987, the GNP per capita fell 6.4 percent. (13) In constant 1993 dollars, Chile's per capita GDP was over $3,600 in 1973. Even as late as 1993, however, this had recovered to only $3,170. (14) Only five Latin American countries did worse in per capita GDP during the Pinochet era (1974-1989). (15) And defenders of the Chicago plan call this an "economic miracle." And how did Pinochet mess the economy up? He called in the lads from the Chicago School of Economics to push the free market line as free as they can. To wit: The Chicago School of Economics got that chance [to model the economy] for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy. The author does have a few axes to grind, doesn't she? But it rings true... The results were exactly what liberals predicted. Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America, alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses. Conservatives have developed an apologist literature defending Chile as a huge success story. In 1982, Milton Friedman enthusiastically praised General Pinochet (the Chilean dictator) because he "has supported a fully free-market economy as a matter of principle. Chile is an economic miracle." (1) However, the statistics below show this to be untrue. Chile is a tragic failure of right-wing economics, and its people are still paying the price for it today. Which makes Milton Friedman either a fanatic free marketer - someone that will evade or deny the evidence in front of their eyes - or a bald faced liar. Probably both. The real problem is that too many people take that lie as faith... especially at the Wall Street Journal. But then neo-liberal economics is to the early 21st century what leeching was to the 13th: 5 percent empiricism and 95 percent superstition. Regards, Peter P.S., You may find the language in the link above too loaded in its wording; I did. (I personally don't care if Friedman is "conservative" or not; what interests me is that he seems to be a "fraud".) You could read: Some Say Pinochet Wasn't Good for Economy Or Chile, capitalism and liberty for the rich P.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

40.  Re: Milton Friedman's Sex Machine   by kingraoul3       at Fri 12 Apr 10:19am score of 1   in reply to comment 5     State controlled industry has been proven to be the worst system, it has failed countless times, in countless incarnations. I could say the same about capitalism. How many countries have state controlled economies in the world? Are all the other paradises? In fact every communist country, even the real fucked up ones (with the exception of Cambodia) have higher living standards, lower infant mortality rates, and higher literacy levels than the majority of their neighbors. BUT NEVER MIND! Capitalism uber alles...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

44.  Re: Milton Friedman's Sex Machine   by malvoisin       at Fri 12 Apr 12:46pm score of 2 informative   in reply to comment 40     they also have concentration camps, but hey, its all for the common good, right? but let's do some quick research, and for the sake of argument consider iraq, syria, (who i'm sure you're talking about) cuba, the prc, and the dprk. cuba: infant mortality 7.39 /1000 literacy: 95.7% gdp per capita: $1,700 (now, if this truly were a workers' paradise, why are so many cubans literally -dying- to escape?) iraq: infant mortality: 60.05 literacy: 58% gdp per capita: $2,500 syria: im: 33.8 literacy: 70.8% gdp/p : $3,100 prc: im: 28.08 literacy: 81.5% gdp/p: $3,600 (also note that china's current growth is unsustainable, if not an outright lie by the government) dprk: im: 23.55 literacy: 99% gdp/p: $1,000 for comparison, lets play with the u.s.: im: 6.76 literacy: 97% gdp/p: $36k. (all data from the cia world factbook 2001) note that the u.s., cuba's neighbor has a lower infant mortality rate, a higher literacy rate, AND the average american gets to eat 15 times more food. yum! and all without the the benefit of reeducation camps, widespread famine (in the case of the dprk,) and massive ecological disasters (prc)! and speaking of illiteracy, the 'Deutschland ueber alles' and fascist crowds were militantly anticapitalist. documentation, if you can read it, will be provided upon request.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]