Post by: Ben on September 08, 2005, 06:23:57 PM
---------------------------------
http://www.eluniversal.com/2005/09/08/en_pol_art_08A609637.shtml
Chávez followers are to seize 800 industries
Marcela Máspero, coordinator of pro-government National Workers' Union (UNT), said they are to seize approximately 800 companies they found to be inoperative, with the support of President Hugo Chávez' government.
"As a response to the attacks from neo-liberalism and capitalism, we are now going to use the mechanisms of workers. Now, together with communities, we are going to take over these industrial concerns. We cannot let the closure of companies to lead to the collapse of the productive apparatus."
Máspero explained they are going to ask the National Assembly for a decision declaring these companies as public property. In this way, actual owners would be prevented from using both facilities and equipment needed for a likely reactivation of production. Chávez followers have plans to resume production under the so-called co-management schemes allegedly sponsored by the Labor Ministry.
She indicated that eight plants have already been seized. Besides corn processing plant Probamasa, in south-western Barinas state, and one tomato processing plant of Heinz, in eastern Monagas states, pro-government labor activists, together with military officers and the relevant governors, have recently taken over facilities owned by Parmalat in western Zulia state; Parmalat, in western Lara state; Sideroca Proacero, in western Zulia state; Inveval, in Miranda state; Invepal, in central Carabobo state; and Fribarsa, in south-western Barinas state.
Regarding the lawfulness of these moves, the national coordinator of UNT claimed that "we seize the plant first, and then try to solve the issue of ownership, as there is always a reason for takeover."
Post by: Guest on September 09, 2005, 12:55:03 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on September 09, 2005, 04:24:36 AM
Post by: Iain on September 10, 2005, 03:05:11 AM
Democratic countries can elect people that are hostile to the US, the UK, people that are hostile to the principle of democracy itself. Isn't that just democracy though? Or we saying that democracy isn't actually the principle that we are trying to achieve by pushing democracy? Seems to me that it isn't inevitable that democratic countries will be capitalist, Western and women friendly.
Post by: Art Eatman on September 10, 2005, 06:56:26 PM
Art
Post by: atek3 on September 10, 2005, 10:20:05 PM
atek3
Post by: Sindawe on September 11, 2005, 07:27:55 AM
Quote
We did with Allende, with the head guy in Granada, with Ortega in Nicaragua, etc. It is a fine American tradition of removing authoritarian thugs who are terrorizing their own citizens. I say go for it.
And replace them with an authoritarian thug who terrorizes his own citizens, but at least he's OUR thug. And it worked SO WELL in in Chile and Iran, did'nt it? Oh, Rabbi, the US did not remove Ortega from office. He was voted out of office in 1990, and lost election runs in 1996 and 2001.If the plants are truely idle, why should'nt the workers make a go of it.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 11, 2005, 01:22:13 PM
And Nicaragua? No, the U.S. had nothing whatsoever to do with Ortega getting voted out. Nothing at all.
Post by: Sindawe on September 11, 2005, 02:47:25 PM
Quote
Well, Chile under Pinochet actually worked OK. Not democracy exactly but the economy improved dramatically.
Who cares about abuse of human rights and folks just "disappeared" so long as there is money to be made, eh?Quote
Yes, I suppose the authoritarian theocratic regime is much better than the Shah. Ask any of the millions of Iranian exiles in this country.
Yes, lets ask those who left to avoid being murdered by SAVAK
Post by: Iain on September 12, 2005, 02:46:48 AM
I really detest the 'he may be a thug, but he's our thug' attitude. It flies in the face of all the nice platitudes we throw out about democracy and freedom. It means that we don't actually care about individual rights, so long as those individual rights aren't being trampled on by COMMUNISM. Then we get all excited, and jump in bed with the first anti-communist we can find, regardless of the results.
Post by: Justin on September 12, 2005, 04:17:16 AM
Post by: Ben on September 12, 2005, 06:00:29 AM
1) That anytime 'The Workers
2) That our media paints Chavez as God's gift to politics. Anyone that gives their blessing for confiscation and redistribution of property is anything but that in my book.
However I shouldn't be surprised he has a following with many in the mainstream media and in politics in our country. After all, based on a story posted over at THR, John Podesta said the following, which basically gives the finger to our country's founding principles, and the thumbs up to people like Chavez:
Quote
John D. Podesta, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton and head of a leading Democratic think tank, says Democrats must start by casting Bush's brand of conservatism -- emphasizing an "ownership society" elevating individualism and private enterprise -- as fundamentally flawed and hostile to society's collective responsibility to help citizens, especially the neediest.
Post by: mtnbkr on September 12, 2005, 06:16:15 AM
Quote from: Justin
If the United States were smart, we would have stopped trying to force-feed democracy to the rest of the world years ago.
It's a shame that this even needs to be said. Chris
Post by: K Frame on September 12, 2005, 06:39:03 AM
If the United States were smart, we would have stopped trying to force-feed democracy to the rest of the world years ago.
It's a shame that this even needs to be said."
But everyone around the world deserves the opportunity to suckle at the sweet teat of libery.
They just don't know it yet.
The expansion of democracy was adopted as an active measure to counteract the expansionist policies of Communism starting after WW II. Before that, any expansion of democracy programs that the United States undertook (i.e., the Banana Wars in the 1920s, supporting Panamanian "independence" from Colombia so we could get the Canal Zone) were done largely for economic, not democratic, reasons.
Post by: Silver Bullet on September 12, 2005, 07:15:49 AM
Now that eastern Europe has abandoned communism, I would hope that we can afford to be a bit pickier about our friends.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 12, 2005, 07:27:31 AM
Quote from: mtnbkr
Quote from: Justin
If the United States were smart, we would have stopped trying to force-feed democracy to the rest of the world years ago.
It's a shame that this even needs to be said. Chris
Post by: mtnbkr on September 12, 2005, 07:54:28 AM
Quote
Yeah, our little brown brothers just can't handle it. They are much better off under totalitarianism.
You're the only one saying that.Quote
were done largely for economic, not democratic, reasons
I don't believe any "democracy expansion program" was ever undertaken for purely altruistic reasons. We go only to protect our own interests. Otherwise, we would roll into North Korea or even China.Chris
Post by: K Frame on September 12, 2005, 09:00:07 AM
Everything is done with some expectation of either a reciprocal action or inaction, for either passive or active purposes.
That's as true of individuals as it is of government.
Cynical? Maybe.
Realistic? Yes.
Post by: Iain on September 12, 2005, 09:10:56 AM
We say we want democracies but we want Western friendly goverments. If Western-friendly govts (or at least anti-Commie) can be achieved by other means we'll do it, sod all democratic principles.
It's the hypocrisy that bothers me.
Post by: mtnbkr on September 12, 2005, 09:22:35 AM
Quote from: Iain
Which is fine. As long as you admit it.
We say we want democracies but we want Western friendly goverments. If Western-friendly govts (or at least anti-Commie) can be achieved by other means we'll do it, sod all democratic principles.
It's the hypocrisy that bothers me.
Exactly my point. I'm not enlightened enough to care whether the rest of the world is free and fair as long as they do not interfere with us. My problem is that our Govt likes to talk about spreading democracy as if it's a gift, when in fact they're only protecting our interests abroad. Frankly, I wish we could get our own citizens as excited about freedom in the US as they are about freedom in other nations (Free Tibet? How about we "free" DC first).We say we want democracies but we want Western friendly goverments. If Western-friendly govts (or at least anti-Commie) can be achieved by other means we'll do it, sod all democratic principles.
It's the hypocrisy that bothers me.
Chris
Post by: The Rabbi on September 12, 2005, 09:25:49 AM
Quote from: Iain
Which is fine. As long as you admit it.
We say we want democracies but we want Western friendly goverments. If Western-friendly govts (or at least anti-Commie) can be achieved by other means we'll do it, sod all democratic principles.
It's the hypocrisy that bothers me.
Who has "admitted" to anything else??We say we want democracies but we want Western friendly goverments. If Western-friendly govts (or at least anti-Commie) can be achieved by other means we'll do it, sod all democratic principles.
It's the hypocrisy that bothers me.
The second part of this post makes no sense to me.
The U.S. ultimately did not support Marcos in the Philippines, even though the government that was likely to replace him (and did) announced they wanted the US out of Subic Bay. So your theory is plain wrong.