Venezuela nationalizes the Gold industry

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14567405


Chavez to nationalise Venezuela gold industry

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/54661000/jpg/_54661837_chavezgoldvenezuelarusoro.jpg Companies said that limits on their gold exports stopped them financing the development of mines


Hugo Chavez has announced that he will nationalise Venezuela's gold industry to boost the country's reserves.
"The area is run by the mafia," he said on state television. "We're going to nationalise gold. We can't keep allowing them to take it away."
The biggest gold miner is Rusoro, a Canadian-listed company controlled by the Russian Agapov family.
The move comes after Rusoro and others complained that Caracas prevents them from selling enough gold abroad.
Last year Venezuela raised the limit on gold exports from 30% to 50% of output, with the rest to be sold to the country's central bank.
But even so, mining companies said the limit still prevented them from being able to raise foreign financing to invest in developing the mines further.
"We are going to nationalise the gold and we are going to convert it, among other things, into international reserves because gold continues to increase in value," said President Chavez on Wednesday.
Gold had hit a new all-time high earlier in the day of $1,795 (£1,084) an ounce.
A day earlier, an opposition member of parliament disclosed a leaked government report that recommended repatriating 90% of the country's gold reserves, some 63% of which are currently held abroad.
This move makes a lot of sense if you consider where the Gold market has been heading recently. The value keeps climbing, it will stop eventually and plummet but clearly the state sees an opportunity right now to elbow the private market out. Venezuela has a lot of gold reserves in the ground. How effective the state will be in extracting those resources and distributing them fairly is another question however. We shall see.

[Fulanito de Tal]

Does anyone think that Canada may do something about this?

[Nox]

Does anyone think that Canada may do something about this?

Probably not. Canada's government isn't full of assholes :)

[Le Rouge]

Does anyone think that Canada may do something about this?

Why? Why canada?

[PhoenixAsh]

unexpected seeing as he allowed export up to 50% for private companies a few months back.

And Canada because a Canadian Gold company is putting the decision up for international arbitration including a previous cancellation of mining rights in February.

[Crux]

Probably not. Canada's government isn't full of assholes :)
It most definately is. The Harper government is quite horrible actually.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It most definately is. The Harper government is quite horrible actually.

Also, Canadian companies are committing acts of exploitation around the world, obviously with the assistance of the Harper government.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/03/2008525184336846883.html


The Native Indian communities say those ties have prevented the Alberta government from responding to fears that exploitation of the oil sands is affecting the health of their members.
"Many of our people are dying prematurely, they are getting cancers that the doctor who working in our community suggests you find in very rare circumstances," George Poitras says.


http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/images/2008/3/12/1_242951_1_17.jpg Protests against oil developments have
been growing in AlbertaThe government and oil companies deny any links between the sands development and high cancer rates. But Poitras says the government has not done the independent scientific investigations needed to determine definitively there are no links between the projects and adverse health and the Mikisew Cree are now considering a lawsuit.
Also video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eucr370Oz60


http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Huichol+Indians+seek+to+block+Canadian+mine+projec t+in+San+Luis...-a0257127733


A Canadian company planning to mine silver in San Luis Potosi (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/San+Luis+Potosi) faces opposition from environmental and indigenous-rights groups protesting the project because, they say, it will create environmental havoc and destroy a sacred mountain.

The Wixarika (Huicholes), claim First Majestic Silver's Real de Catorce project will destroy Wirikuta, the tribe's most sacred mountain, pollute (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/pollute) the environment, and contribute to water shortages in local communities.

Although development has historically trumped the interests of indigenous communities around the world, the Huicholes, who are world renowned for colorful embroidered (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/embroidered) clothing and even more fanciful psychedelic-yarn paintings, have mobilized support in Mexico and abroad. The Internet abounds with blogs and videos against First Majestic's plans for Real de Catorce. http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110812/harper-honduras-trade-trip-110812/20110812/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome


Canada has struck a free-trade deal with Honduras, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced during the final day of his Latin American tour, saying the country has taken steps to improve its shaky human rights record.
The agreement, which includes provisions on labour and environmental standards, follows nearly a decade of negotiations.
"Today's visit should be taken as evidence of our earnest desire for a stronger relationship with Honduras -- one based upon a commitment to human rights, democracy, security and prosperity," Harper said, according to prepared remarks.
But he timing of the deal is "particularly troubling," said Gauri Sreenivasan, with the Canadian Council for International Co-operation.
Honduras is in the process of shedding its pariah status following a 2009 coup, in which elected leftist president Manuel Zelaya was ousted by the military.

Canadian companies are also involved with gold mining in Colombia.

First European conquistadors, now Canadian ones, always coming for gold. Poor Latin America has been the victim of its own fertile land and abundant resources since Colombus, nothing has changed.

[KC]

I don't really see how this is a positive development, the government is simply trying to diversify its means of income and where gold is going this would make the most sense from a nationalizations point of view. This doesn't do anything for workers and other exploited people in Venezuela.

[Delenda Carthago]

At the same time, he said he will send the national gold of Venezuela to Russia, instead of Switzerland that it is right now. So he controls he's countries gold, and he supports the federal bank of the fascist regime of Putin. Thats not really progressive, is it?

[Dulce et Decorum est]

At the same time, he said he will send the national gold of Venezuela to Russia, instead of Switzerland that it is right now. So he controls he's countries gold, and he supports the federal bank of the fascist regime of Putin. Thats not really progressive, is it?

I was reading an article about this before. They are not only sending it to Russia, but to China, Brazil & South Korea.

I also quote Hugo Chavez:

"The time has come. The economies of Europe and the United States are sinking. Now we must see that the economies of China, Russia and Brazil are more solid"

[Thirsty Crow]

I was reading an article about this before. They are not only sending it to Russia, but to China, Brazil & South Korea.

I also quote Hugo Chavez:

"The time has come. The economies of Europe and the United States are sinking. Now we must see that the economies of China, Russia and Brazil are more solid"
So, he's basically arguing for a restructuring of the "imperialist chain"? China, Russia and Brazil - the new beacons of the global working class (as well as South Korea I guess?).

[Delenda Carthago]

I was reading an article about this before. They are not only sending it to Russia, but to China, Brazil & South Korea.

I also quote Hugo Chavez:

"The time has come. The economies of Europe and the United States are sinking. Now we must see that the economies of China, Russia and Brazil are more solid"

Translation: "The western imperialists are not good for investment anymore. So we leave that boat before it sinks and we get on the eastern ones. "

This is what one-eyed anti imperialism leads into. And in our case, we might think that USA is harsh, but I really think the China-Russia Axis is not going to be any better.

[Tommy4ever]

I wonder if in 20 or 30 years the BRIC countries will be able to compete as great powers on roughly equal footing with the US around the world.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I was reading an article about this before. They are not only sending it to Russia, but to China, Brazil & South Korea.

I also quote Hugo Chavez:

"The time has come. The economies of Europe and the United States are sinking. Now we must see that the economies of China, Russia and Brazil are more solid"


So, he's basically arguing for a restructuring of the "imperialist chain"? China, Russia and Brazil - the new beacons of the global working class (as well as South Korea I guess?).


Translation: "The western imperialists are not good for investment anymore. So we leave that boat before it sinks and we get on the eastern ones. "

This is what one-eyed anti imperialism leads into. And in our case, we might think that USA is harsh, but I really think the China-Russia Axis is not going to be any better.

That may all be true, but it cannot be denied that workers the world over have achieved the most political and social gains under multi-polar situations.

[Misanthrope]

and he supports the federal bank of the fascist regime of Putin. Thats not really progressive, is it?

what?

[Delenda Carthago]

what?

What word is unknown to you?

[Delenda Carthago]

That may all be true, but it cannot be denied that workers the world over have achieved the most political and social gains under multi-polar situations.

Yeah, and it was America that helped about it!!


Seriously, its not "multi polar", it was USSR and capitalists and now its half democratic West versus totalitarian regimes like Russia and China. You dont have to have a phD to dialectics to understand the difference.

[Jose Gracchus]

Another sign of being a subsidiary state of the BRICS bloc.

[Tim Finnegan]

What word is unknown to you?
I'm guessing it's that your idiosyncratic use of "fascist" that is throwing him off.

[Delenda Carthago]

I'm guessing it's that your idiosyncratic use of "fascist" that is throwing him off.
Too bad, because unfortunatly Russia is truly one.

[Astarte]

I don't really see how this is a positive development, the government is simply trying to diversify its means of income and where gold is going this would make the most sense from a nationalizations point of view. This doesn't do anything for workers and other exploited people in Venezuela.

It does do something for workers and the exploited in that gold is becoming a government asset, not an asset of capital in private hands. The capital the state generates from the nationalization of gold can be further used to fight an economic offensive against powerful private property/capital interests, and probably will be as the global "free market" continues to get worse and the value of things like precious metals continues to climb for the foreseeable future.

[Tim Finnegan]

Too bad, because unfortunatly Russia is truly one.
In what sense? Fascism is not a factor of Putin's regime in either its material sense (reactionary mass-movement of the petty bourgeoisie) or in its ideological sense (palingenetic ultranationalism), so unless there is some third definition with which I am unfamiliar...?

[KC]

It does do something for workers and the exploited in that gold is becoming a government asset, not an asset of capital in private hands. The capital the state generates from the nationalization of gold can be further used to fight an economic offensive against powerful private property/capital interests, and probably will be as the global "free market" continues to get worse and the value of things like precious metals continues to climb for the foreseeable future.

Except for the fact that the state coffers aren't "be[ing] further used to fight an economic offensive against powerful private property/capital interests" so your entire post is worthless.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It does do something for workers and the exploited in that gold is becoming a government asset, not an asset of capital in private hands. The capital the state generates from the nationalization of gold can be further used to fight an economic offensive against powerful private property/capital interests, and probably will be as the global "free market" continues to get worse and the value of things like precious metals continues to climb for the foreseeable future.

There's one big problem with your reasoning: the Venezuelan state is capitalist.

[Astarte]

I would still say the nationalization of any sector is a motion in favor of the working class as it represents the interests of collective property against private.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I would still say the nationalization of any sector is a motion in favor of the working class as it represents the interests of collective property against private.

Sometimes a nationalisation will serve the interests of the national bourgeois or some other capitalist faction. Sometimes nationalisation will leave the managers and organisation unharmed, meaning the only real change is on paper, with no real implication as regards "collective property" or any political influence over enterprise operations. There's nothing inherent in a nationalisation that is inherently in favour of the working class. Pinochet for one kept the copper industry nationalised-

[Azula]

Sometimes a nationalisation will serve the interests of the national bourgeois or some other capitalist faction. Sometimes nationalisation will leave the managers and organisation unharmed, meaning the only real change is on paper, with no real implication as regards "collective property" or any political influence over enterprise operations. There's nothing inherent in a nationalisation that is inherently in favour of the working class. Pinochet for one kept the copper industry nationalised-

Yes, a nationalisation in itself is dependent on who is doing it for what ends.

Venezuela to my knowledge is not a socialist state, but a third world leftist nationalist state.

[el_chavista]

Venezuela is recalling overseas gold (99 metric tons only in England, without earning interests from it) to keep it in the Central Bank in Caracas.

It's the international reserves in dollars and Euros that are being changed to Yuans and Roubles.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"...only when the means of production and distribution have actually outgrown the form of management by joint-stock companies, and when, therefore, the taking them over by the state has become economically inevitable, only then — even if it is the state of today that effects this — is there an economic advance, the attainment of another step preliminary to the taking over of all productive forces by society itself. But of late, since Bismarck went in for state-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkeyism, that without more ado declares all state ownership, even of the Bismarckian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the state of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of socialism. If the Belgian state, for quite ordinary political and financial reasons, itself constructed its chief railway lines; if Bismarck, not under any economic compulsion, took over for the state the chief Prussian lines, simply to be the better able to have them in hand in case of war, to bring up the railway employees as voting cattle for the government, and especially to create for himself a new source of income independent of parliamentary votes — this was, in no sense, a socialistic measure, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously. Otherwise, the Royal Maritime Company, the Royal porcelain manufacture, and even the regimental tailor of the army would also be socialistic institutions." - Engels

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yeah, and it was America that helped about it!!

Seriously, its not "multi polar", it was USSR and capitalists and now its half democratic West versus totalitarian regimes like Russia and China. You dont have to have a phD to dialectics to understand the difference.

I'm also referring to any social gains made during the Depression. The USSR was but one power alongside the declining British Empire. Speaking of the US, yes its presence amongst the great powers helped about it... during the Depression.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I would still say the nationalization of any sector is a motion in favor of the working class as it represents the interests of collective property against private.


Sometimes a nationalisation will serve the interests of the national bourgeois or some other capitalist faction. Sometimes nationalisation will leave the managers and organisation unharmed, meaning the only real change is on paper, with no real implication as regards "collective property" or any political influence over enterprise operations. There's nothing inherent in a nationalisation that is inherently in favour of the working class. Pinochet for one kept the copper industry nationalised-


Yes, a nationalisation in itself is dependent on who is doing it for what ends.

Venezuela to my knowledge is not a socialist state, but a third world leftist nationalist state.


"...only when the means of production and distribution have actually outgrown the form of management by joint-stock companies, and when, therefore, the taking them over by the state has become economically inevitable, only then — even if it is the state of today that effects this — is there an economic advance, the attainment of another step preliminary to the taking over of all productive forces by society itself. But of late, since Bismarck went in for state-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkeyism, that without more ado declares all state ownership, even of the Bismarckian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the state of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of socialism. If the Belgian state, for quite ordinary political and financial reasons, itself constructed its chief railway lines; if Bismarck, not under any economic compulsion, took over for the state the chief Prussian lines, simply to be the better able to have them in hand in case of war, to bring up the railway employees as voting cattle for the government, and especially to create for himself a new source of income independent of parliamentary votes — this was, in no sense, a socialistic measure, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously. Otherwise, the Royal Maritime Company, the Royal porcelain manufacture, and even the regimental tailor of the army would also be socialistic institutions." - Engels

Talk about extreme positions here on nationalization!

Seriously, Engels was of the position that, although nationalization may not necessarily be positive, it also cannot be negative from the perspective of the working class. The nationalizations of Napoleon, Metternich, Bismarck, the Belgian state, etc. were not negative from the perspective of the working class.

Why? Because "State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution."

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Talk about extreme positions here on nationalization!

Seriously, Engels was of the position that, although nationalization may not necessarily be positive, it also cannot be negative from the perspective of the working class. The nationalizations of Napoleon, Metternich, Bismarck, the Belgian state, etc. were not negative from the perspective of the working class.

Why? Because "State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution."

I wasn't saying it was necessarily negative. At worst it makes little or no difference, and in a fair number of cases there can be some improvement for the workers, but that ultimately it will be an insufficient tactic and one that whenever reformist forces concedes it, will soon be taken away.

There have been cases where the nationalisation has been thoroughly negative for the working classes. Not very common, it is true; but think of what happened in the UK during the late 60's and 70's when the labour government(s) nationalised in an attempt to openly increase the efficiency of the industrial sectors as some sort of attempt to bail them out, and in the result acted like merchant bankers toying with numbers (shedding operations deemed unprofitable even when they were essential to other operations with no regard for contexts or social effects) and ultimately were responsible for firing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of workers. All this under "old labour" "socialist" Tony Benn.

[Delenda Carthago]

In what sense? Fascism is not a factor of Putin's regime in either its material sense (reactionary mass-movement of the petty bourgeoisie) or in its ideological sense (palingenetic ultranationalism), so unless there is some third definition with which I am unfamiliar...?

The Putin regime movement

A. is massive. It is the party with the biggest youth and party membership

B. controls the paramilitaries, in which case are the neonazi and nationalist gangs that run the streets

C. controls the politics produced monopoly style through the State. Even the other parties that exist, the ones that are not controled tby him to begin with, can only find an expression through the State which is the puppet of Putin's party. Also, it is well known that many enemies of the regime have been "mysteriously" murdered. From politics, to activists, to reporters, to ex agents...

D. controls the economy through the State central design

E. it is imperialist. It controls the smaller states near it, with biggest example the political moves to swallow Belarus

F. there are no real elections. Putin's party usualy reaches... 80% and Gorbachev's accusations in the press conferance 2 days ago are quite characteristic.

G. It sure is nationalistic as hell!

[Die Neue Zeit]

There have been cases where the nationalisation has been thoroughly negative for the working classes. Not very common, it is true; but think of what happened in the UK during the late 60's and 70's when the labour government(s) nationalised in an attempt to openly increase the efficiency of the industrial sectors as some sort of attempt to bail them out

The only "nationalization" that I view as negative is the kind that is privatized just a couple of years down the road. It isn't "nationalization," but indeed a bailout.


ultimately were responsible for firing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of workers. All this under "old labour" "socialist" Tony Benn.

The Bolsheviks had similar issues with Russia's public sector during the NEP period. Nationalizations by the capitalist state always have some sort of drive towards greater labour efficiency/productivity. Nonetheless, if Engels didn't see any negatives from the perspective of the working class, neither do I.

[Tim Finnegan]

The Putin regime movement

A. is massive. It is the party with the biggest youth and party membership

B. controls the paramilitaries, in which case are the neonazi and nationalist gangs that run the streets

C. controls the politics produced monopoly style through the State. Even the other parties that exist, the ones that are not controled tby him to begin with, can only find an expression through the State which is the puppet of Putin's party. Also, it is well known that many enemies of the regime have been "mysteriously" murdered. From politics, to activists, to reporters, to ex agents...

D. controls the economy through the State central design

E. it is imperialist. It controls the smaller states near it, with biggest example the political moves to swallow Belarus

F. there are no real elections. Putin's party usualy reaches... 80% and Gorbachev's accusations in the press conferance 2 days ago are quite characteristic.

G. It sure is nationalistic as hell!
Yeah, but none of those constitute fascism in the proper sense, that's just right-wing authoritarianism. It doesn't meet the conditions of either fascism as a class movement, in the Marxist sense, or as an ideological form, what Griffin calls the "fascist minimum". I'm not defending it, you understand, not in any sense, I'm just trying to avoid misusing terminology. "Fascist" is a word that should be used more carefully than I think it often is.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The only "nationalization" that I view as negative is the kind that is privatized just a couple of years down the road. It isn't "nationalization," but indeed a bailout.

The Bolsheviks had similar issues with Russia's public sector during the NEP period. Nationalizations by the capitalist state always have some sort of drive towards greater labour efficiency/productivity. Nonetheless, if Engels didn't see any negatives from the perspective of the working class, neither do I.

The problem wasn't just that they were laid off, but that there was no concise efforts to re-employ their labour in anything productive, instead they were left on the dole - the funny result of this is that certain right-wing lunatics use this result, the increasing people on the dole - as evidence that the "generous welfare policies" of the labour makes people "not want to work". They were also not laid off for the sake of labour efficiency and productivity, but to make the economic result look good by simply isolating non-profitable enterprise segments, which would make the company appear to the stock market to be improving for a little while before in many cases utterly collapsing (the original intent was in most of the cases eventual re-privatisation once profitability had been restored, though, it is true). This process destroyed several entire industrial sectors in the United Kingdom at the time, but it was viewed as economically sensible and unavoidable.

The unavoidable result of many social democratic endeavours to nationalise economic sectors is an eventual re-privatisation. There are times when a nationalisation can even be used as a division within the working class; there will be attempts by propaganda to foment antagonisms between those employed in nationalised enterprises and those in private, something which then is used to gather popular momentum demanding or at least a tacit indifference to the privatisation-plot.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The problem wasn't just that they were laid off, but that there was no concise efforts to re-employ their labour in anything productive, instead they were left on the dole

The same happened in NEP Russia, considering that Gosplan was still in the works. It took some time before the likes of Kalecki and Minsky developed the analytical and policy basis for Employer of Last Resort programs. Of course, that doesn't excuse even the most left of soc-dem reformists from preferring Bastard Keynesianism over such radical programs.

To add another wrinkle to the market socialism problems, I wonder if Yugoslavia did the same thing re. layoffs.


The unavoidable result of many social democratic endeavours to nationalise economic sectors is an eventual re-privatisation. There are times when a nationalisation can even be used as a division within the working class; there will be attempts by propaganda to foment antagonisms between those employed in nationalised enterprises and those in private, something which then is used to gather popular momentum demanding or at least a tacit indifference to the privatisation-plot.

Usually re-privatization by more liberal-leaning politicians, keep that in mind.

[Jack Hannon]

It's good that the Chavez government are nationalising industries but at the same time their still social democrat , which is opposing to the proletariat.

[KurtFF8]

So, he's basically arguing for a restructuring of the "imperialist chain"? China, Russia and Brazil - the new beacons of the global working class (as well as South Korea I guess?).

Well partially yes. But I have yet to see solid alternative geo-political strategy suggestions from folks who mock anti-imperialist moves like this.


It's good that the Chavez government are nationalising industries but at the same time their still social democrat , which is opposing to the proletariat.

This is indeed constantly repeated by folks here without much analysis, like this post.

[KC]

It's good that the Chavez government are nationalising industries

And why is that?

[el_chavista]

My mistake: "It's the international reserves in dollars and Euros that are being changed to Yuans and Roubles."

This is an "escuálido" misinformation too (like the one saying the gold was to be sent to China and other creditors).

Actually, there are only 4 monetary bills used as international monetary reserves: dollars, sterling pounds, Euros and Yens.

[KurtFF8]

And why is that?

Why wouldn't it be good?

Nationalization obviously doesn't automatically imply socialism. But the current state of the non-nationalized industries is clearly further away from it than if controlled by a government that is attempting to build socialism has control over it. (Yes I'm familiar with all of the arguments about the PSUV just being "social democratic" and all that)