Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 08 May '09 16:21
    http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13611592

    {extract from the article)

    Curbing opposition to chavismo

    HIS government espouses “21st-century socialism” and claims to stand for the working class. Yet Hugo Chávez, Venezuela’s president, has never been a fan of his country’s trade unions. He portrays them as corrupt vestiges of a capitalist past and of the previous political order. Ever since he was first elected, in 1998, he has sought ways to bring them to heel. Having first tried and failed to take over the main trade-union confederation, he encouraged a pro-government rival. Now he wants to bypass the unions altogether, by establishing in their place “workers’ councils” that amount to branches of the ruling Unified Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV).

    A bill in the government-controlled National Assembly would eliminate collective bargaining and give powers in labour matters to the new councils. “The government’s policy is the total elimination of the union movement,” says Orlando Chirino, a former chavista who is one of the architects of the Labour Solidarity Movement, a new group which embraces unions from both sides of the country’s political divide and which defends union autonomy.

    Mr Chávez insists that only the rich will pay the price of the impending recession. But workers are already feeling its effects. The government seems to welcome the looming confrontation with the unions, as an opportunity to crush dissent and take Mr Chávez’s “revolution” to the next level. Jorge Giordani, the planning minister, said recently that the inflation rate should not be the main factor in setting the minimum wage. He added that he knew of no example in the world where socialism had been established on the basis of abundance. “Socialism has emerged from scarcity,” he declared.

    On May Day the politically divided unions staged two separate marches, as they have for the past few years. The non-government march was broken up by police and national-guard troops using tear gas and water-cannon. “There is no socialism without the working class,” Mr Chávez told a rival march of his supporters. By fomenting division and repressing dissent, Mr Chávez may succeed in crushing the labour movement. With it would go one of the few remaining institutions of democracy and pluralism in Venezuela. And Mr Giordani may get the chance to implement the socialism of scarcity in what was once the richest country in Latin America.
  2. 08 May '09 16:37
    The only thing that's "socialist" about Chavez is his rhetoric.
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    08 May '09 16:39
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13611592

    {extract from the article)

    [b]Curbing opposition to chavismo


    HIS government espouses “21st-century socialism” and claims to stand for the working class. Yet Hugo Chávez, Venezuela’s president, has never been a fan of his country’s trade unions. He portrays them as c ...[text shortened]... ce to implement the socialism of scarcity in what was once the richest country in Latin America.[/b]
    More BS. There are far more workers in unions in Venezuela now than there were before Chavez came to power. And the Economist all of a sudden acting like a friend of labor unions is ridiculous.
  4. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    08 May '09 16:39 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    The only thing that's "socialist" about Chavez is his rhetoric.
    You are misinformed as usual. http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN0438985820080404
  5. 08 May '09 17:06
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    You are misinformed as usual. http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN0438985820080404
    By this logic Bush is a socialist.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    08 May '09 17:27
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    By this logic Bush is a socialist.
    I guess I missed this - could you give me a list of industries in the US nationalized by Bush?
  7. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    09 May '09 01:25 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13611592
    Generalissimo, in posting this 'extract', have you removed any words or sentences or paragraphs in a deliberate attempt to alter the balance or substance of this article? You have been caught doing this before. Have you done it on this occasion?

    Please state clearly whether or not you have doctored this 'extract' in any way in an attempt to deceive fellow posters.
  8. Standard member smw6869
    Granny
    09 May '09 01:35
    Originally posted by FMF
    Generalissimo, in posting this 'extract', have you removed any words or sentences or paragraphs in a deliberate attempt to alter the balance or substance of this article? You have been caught doing this before. Have you done it on this occasion?

    Please state clearly whether or not you have doctored this 'extract' in any way in an attempt to deceive fellow posters.
    I Have Not Doctored Anything. I Swear To God !

    The General
  9. 09 May '09 15:47
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    More BS. There are far more workers in unions in Venezuela now than there were before Chavez came to power. And the Economist all of a sudden acting like a friend of labor unions is ridiculous.
    And the Economist all of a sudden acting like a friend of labor unions is ridiculous.

    Ok, so you're saying they're not allowed to critise chavez about labor unions because they 're not real friends of labor unions?
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    10 May '09 18:21
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    [b]And the Economist all of a sudden acting like a friend of labor unions is ridiculous.

    Ok, so you're saying they're not allowed to critise chavez about labor unions because they 're not real friends of labor unions?[/b]
    I'm saying their criticism is BS.

    The number of workers in unions has doubled under Chavez and workers have gained in wages, working conditions and labor freedom. Most of this was already discussed here: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=103934&page=1

    Particularly on pages 3 and 4.
  11. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    10 May '09 19:44
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    [b]And the Economist all of a sudden acting like a friend of labor unions is ridiculous.

    Ok, so you're saying they're not allowed to critise chavez about labor unions because they 're not real friends of labor unions?[/b]
    It does have the faint stench of hypocrisy about it. Don't you think?