<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Friday, May 09, 2003 By: Dawn Gable

Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 18:31:48 +0000 From: Dawn Gable morning_ucsc@hotmail.com To: Editor@VHeadline.com Subject: return to the dark ages?

Dear Mr. Rivero: If your kind of thinking <a href=www.vheadline.com>had prevailed throughout history, we would still be living in the stone ages. Progress of humanity does not happen through stagnation and dogmatism. The founding fathers of our great nation (USA) killed and died in their revolution to put in motion an experimental new social structure which has created a lifestyle far better than any ever seen before on this planet.

But it was considered heretical, and dangerous to our European ancestral nations in those days of Kings and Queens and Priests.

What about the abolition of slavery? Should we have shied away from that controversial social restructuring? How about the giant leap into the scientific age that has allowed humans to enjoy a more comfortable and longer life? Maybe we should still be using electro-shock therapy, leeches and exorcisms to cure the ill.

Face it, globalization is forcing us to create a new paradigm. And yes, experimentation and change are dangerous and sometimes costly. But, would we really rather resign to wallow in the mess that we are in today?

For those of us in the so called First World, it is easy to be satisfied with not rocking the boat.  But for those billions that are living in squalor, with nothing to lose, taking risks is the only option.

Those of us living in comfort should be brave enough to seize our role in history and join our fellow men/women on this journey forward.

History has shown that civilizations unwilling to evolve have crumbled into dust.

Dawn Gable morning_ucsc@hotmail.com

<a href=>venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Friday, May 09, 2003 By: Kira Marquez Perez

VHeadline.com commentarist Kira Marquez Perez writes: I was reading some of the very interesting letters that have been sent to VHeadline.com and have been thinking about the advantages and disadvantages of many economic and political systems in the world and about the influence (negative and positive) they’ve had on the history of humanity.

I was a little bit worried, however, about the threatening and aggressive tone of one of these letters.

To begin I would like to say that I totally agree that both: socialism and capitalism, have failed to achieve their goals until now ... although both systems were originally based on very good ideas:

Capitalism was meant to be a system based on individual rights, sovereignty and independence.

Socialism was meant to provide full participation by each individual in all aspects of society (be it economic, political, intellectual or cultural).

Theoretically, both systems sound excellent. However, in the practice, these two terms have often been mishandled to satisfy personal interests, and that has contributed to bring pain, frustration and poverty to many countries in the world.

Extremes are always bad ... radicals in both directions have been responsible for many wars and deaths throughout history.

On both sides, the list of radicals is long: Among the right-wing dictatorships we can mention: Francisco Franco (Spain), who named himself “El caudillo” (the leader) and controlled all powers in the country, including the Falange (the only political party permitted). Franco's very good relations to Adolf Hitler's fascist and nationalist Nazi regime, as well as his support to Germany during World War II, are very well known (Hitler had also supported Franco's actions during the Spanish Civil War between 1936 and 1939).

After the war, the victorious allies would have little to do with Spain because of Franco's pro-fascist policies. However, they became more friendly to Franco during the Cold War, because he was against Communism. The right-wing dictatorship of Benito Mussolini (Italy) also had excellent relations with the Hitler and Franco regimes. Hitler's regime (although it was called Nazionalsozialismus) had obvious racist and fascist tendencies and was focused on assuring “a pure white Aryan race,” with no Jews, Blacks, handicapped or any other foreign race from which Hitler deemed imperfect or inferior to the German race.

At this point I must recall a very painful editorial from “El Nacional” (October 14, 2002) in response to a huge pro-Chavez demonstration on the day before. (El Nacional 14/10/2002: “...el mismo lumpen de siempre, convertidos en sempiternos pasajeros de autobuses, con un bollo de pan y una carterita de ron...”).

In this editorial, a supposedly “prestigious Venezuelan intellectual” from the opposition called all participants of this demonstration: Lumpen (he did it in a very contemptuous way and using a level of Spanish which I find quite questionable for an "intellectual"). He also said that they ALL belonged to the type of person that carries a piece of bread and a bottle of rum in the hand. What an editorial! These words were clearly discriminating (like in the times of Hitler) ... that says a lot about El Nacional and its owners.

At this point I would like to apologize and say that most intellectuals in Venezuela have read, learned and traveled enough not to share these racial and social prejudices.

For some, Hitler was a radical leftist. For others, he was a right-wing extremist (depending on their own political tendencies). For me he was neither ... he was a totalitarian fascist, obsessed with heroism and protagonism ... who used some aspects of both political doctrines for his own convenience ... was willing to show his power through expansion and growth of what he thought was his empire and wanted to show that he was undefeatable.

Other examples of right-wing extremists were: Anastasio Somoza (Nicaragua), famous for executing journalists or intellectuals that opposed the regime and for bombing entire neighborhoods that were on strike; Augusto Pinochet (Chile), whose regime was characterized by executions and disappearances. At the start of his dictatorship, the military Junta closed down the National Congress and Constitutional Tribunal (the same thing that right-wing dictator Pedro Carmona Estanga did in Venezuela in April 2002). Chaing Kai-Shek (China), who is well known for his efforts for maintaining China's sovereignty but who ordered in 1927 the killing of thousands of communists opposing his regime. The list is long and includes other personalities like Manuel Noriega (Panama), Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines) and many more.

However, we also want to consider the left-wing dictatorships, who have also not been any better. Undoubtedly, the regime of Joseph Stalin (Russia) is on the top of the list.  Again, he was a radical with an obsession for heroism. His real name was Djugashvili, but he later changed it to Stalin which meant "man of steel." After 1934, millions of persons disappeared in Russia under Stalin's dictatorship.  Mao Tse-Tung was also a dictator who ruled for 25 years in China after defeating Chaing Kai-Shek. Other left-wing dictatorships are currently happening in Cuba, North-Korea and China and I wouldn't say that these countries are profitable (China has been using a “less radical” system in the last years that has produced some good results in the economical area. Concerning human rights, however, a lot still has to be done in this country).

Now let's analyze both types of dictatorships:

Have any of these personalities (going from Hitler to Castro) really respected the individual rights, the sovereignty and the independence of their countries (principle of capitalism)? No they have not.

Have any of them allowed full participation in economic, political and cultural activities (principle of socialism)? No, they have not done that either.

So… What are these people then? Are they socialists or are they capitalists?. Or did they only use socialism and capitalism to achieve personal wealth and power?

All dictatorships are bad ... however, a very sad issue is that some dictatorships have been more strongly criticized than others, depending mostly on economical interests. Several dictatorships have even been very strongly supported by other countries, due to economic, commercial or even racial reasons.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a system where individual rights, sovereignty and independence are respected AND where, at the same time, all members of society are able to grow economically, politically, intellectually and culturally?

That is the system that we want in Venezuela.

I've been around quite a bit in England, USA, France, Japan, Germany, etc.  In the USA (theoretically a mainly capitalist country) I saw several cities like New York and San Francisco with many beggars on the streets ... people who, in spite of the richness of their country and of the wealth of many other fellow Americans, had no house to sleep in and nothing to eat.  There were very beautiful areas but also quite ugly areas (specially surrounding New York) with poverty and crime levels approaching those of some barrios in Caracas.

That means that the system has not really been that efficient. Moreover, when you observe the results of self-styled capitalism in Latin America, you can definitely see that something is wrong (just take a look at Argentina). I think the reason is that capitalism has been in many cases mistaken with individualism.

On the other hand, in countries like Cuba or North-Korea (theoretically mainly socialist countries) the living standards of the majority are also not good ... again, the protagonism of the leaders has played a significant role.

I must say that the social-capitalist system in Germany seems (in my eyes) to work a lot better ... living standards are very good, with an almost imperceptible difference between rich and poor. Everybody in Germany has health insurance ... the "Sozialhilfe" and the "Arbeitslosengeld" are very good means for helping those who have lost their jobs until they start working again. But ... people in Germany pay their taxes (and they're quite high), because that's the only way to keep the "social" part of the system working. There are taxes on almost everything (TV, gasoline, etc). Besides, Germany is a highly industrialized country, with a world leading automotive industry (Benz, Audi, BMW, VW, etc) and these companies also pay high taxes that are then used to cover social needs and to build a better infrastructure in the country.

A capitalist country with a reasonable social system.

If capitalism and socialism are taken literally (and not twisted by extremists) then the solution could be a combination of both...

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Friday, May 09, 2003 By: Francisco Rivero

Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 08:06:51 -0400 From: Francisco Rivero riverofjr@hotmail.com To: Editor@VHeadline.com Subject: Reply to Mrs. Gable

Dear Editor: In response to Mrs. Gable:

Quote -<a href=www.vheadline.com>The point is, that today's task is not to point fingers at the past, but to learn from it ... and move forward ... developing alternatives that may include the best of both paradigms. But, more likely, it will be found in a completely new one.-Unquote

That’s seems to be the problem Mrs. Gable...

Notwithstanding learning and creativity we are always asked to place our future in the hands of the whimsical fancies of the next “lider maximo”... to march under the “other world is possible” banner ... led astray like lemmings to the “sea of happiness”... for the joy and glory of armchair social experimenters.

Don’t you think it is utterly irresponsible to throw an entire nation down the road of untested and uncertain alternatives-yet-to-be-developed?

To plow forward on new experiments and new social structures?

Weren't they exactly the recipes of Chairman Mao and Comrade Brother Pol?

I think you are displaying a certain naivete about the subject ... do you agree?

Francisco Rivero riverofjr@hotmail.com Caracas, Venezuela.

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Thursday, May 08, 2003 By: Oscar Heck

VHeadline.com commentarist Oscar Heck writes: What will the results of a referendum (asking for Chavez to leave office) be?

Apparently, such a referendum can be held sometime in August 2003 or later. But first, a petition requesting a referendum must legally collect a certain number of signatures under the vigilance of the CNE (National Electoral College).

In February 2003, according to reports, the number of petition signatures needed to activate such a referendum was 2,393,248 … 20% of the eligible voting population of almost 12 million.

As per some reports, the “Firmazo”, a campaign to collect signatures (without the supervision of the CNE) in February 2003, collected 3,236,320 signatures. This figure was revised and in May 2003 the number of signatures was reported to be 2,789,385 … 446,935 signatures less! (14% error)

The reasons: duplication, illegibility and signatures from people who were not on the eligible voters list.

Now, if in the next weeks, the people opposing Chavez collect (legally and under CNE supervision) the same amount of signatures, that is, 2,789,385, then the CNE can proceed to organize the referendum asking for Chavez to resign from his mandate as President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

2,789,385 signatures represent 23.24% of total eligible voters. It also represents approximately 46% of the number of people that voted at the last election (somewhere near 6 million).

(In February 2003, the opposition was declaring that 80% of Venezuelans wanted Chavez out! They even propagated this information world-wide to the extent that most people outside Venezuela believed them. Where they got the figure of 80% is still a mystery).

According to what I witnessed in Venezuela during the “Firmazo”, I estimate voter show-up for the “Firmazo” event to have been about 80%. The same people who signed that petition would be the same people signing a new petition … and would also be the same people voting against Chavez if an election were to take place.

If the 2,789,385 signatures represent 80% of the anti-Chavez voters, this means that there would be 3,486,731 anti-Chavez votes at the most.

This number represents 58% of 6 million (approximate number of people who voted in last election) and only 29% of the total eligible voters population.

The 58% quoted in the last sentence is probably not accurate because it is very probable that more than 6 million people would vote.

Supposing that 9.6 million people vote (80% voter turn-out), then the figure of 3,486,731 represents only 36% of the total votes.

It appears that the referendum will take place, at least based on the number of signatures collected during “El Firmazo.” If the referendum does take place, I do not see how the opposition can win the referendum (50%+1 of the total votes). As much as anti-Chavez people would go to the polls, so would pro-Chavez people, that is, if the opposition doesn’t sabotage the process somehow (I would not exclude the possibility, based on what the opposition has been capable of doing over the last year!)

My estimate is that at the most, the anti-Chavez camp would accumulate between 42-47% of the total votes, thus losing the referendum … and Chavez would remain in power. (I get 47% by taking the average between 58% and 36%)

Another way to look at it is the following:

1. Approximately 65% (a conservative figure) of the Venezuelan population live in “barrios” (slums) or similar conditions. Of these people, my estimate is that about 65% are pro-Chavez, resulting in 42.25% of the population.
2. Approximately 30% are from lower-middle to upper-middle classes and my estimate is that about 15% of these are pro-Chavez, resulting in 4.5% of the total population.
3. Approximately 5% are from the “elite” classes and in my estimate, a negligible amount of these are pro-Chavez.

By adding the results from 1, 2 and 3 above, one gets a total of 46.75% of the population being pro-Chavez. This means that 53.25 % of the population is either anti-Chavez or neutral. If 80% of the 53.25% are anti-Chavez, then we get a total of 42.6 % anti-Chavez people … which is not enough to win a referendum.

Likewise, if there were elections, it would be extremely difficult for the anti-Chavez campaign to win an election.

Oscar Heck Oscar@vheadline.com

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Thursday, April 24, 2003 By: Rufus Polson

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:29:44 -0700 From: Rufus Polson dpolson@sfu.ca To: Editor@VHeadline.com Subject: I've been following your site for a while

Dear Editor: I've been following your site for a while; it's about the only place I can get some reasonably straight information about what's going on in Venezuela.

Venezuela concerns me -- it seems as if the consequences of events in Venezuela are likely to have wider impact in the world, and I strongly hope that the people of Venezuela are able to get control of the country's future away from the oligarchs, both local and foreign.

Whichever way things go, it seems to me that Venezuela will serve as an example to the rest of Latin America and beyond -- either of what is possible, or of what will happen to you if you try to expand possibilities.

Rufus Polson dpolson@sfu.ca SFU Library British Columbia, Canada