Bolvilia nationalizes unit of Spanish firm Red Eléctrica de España

[DDR]

http://elpais.com/elpais/2012/05/01/inenglish/1335888747_118856.html

Bolivian President Evo Morales on Tuesday announced the nationalization of the Transportadora de Electricidad (REE) unit of Spanish electricity grid operator Red Eléctrica de España and ordered the military to guard the company’s installations.
“Today, again, in merited homage of the workers and people of Bolivia who have fought to recover natural resources and basic services, we are nationalizing Transportadora de Electricidad,” Morales said in a Labor Day ceremony and the presidential palace in la Paz.
Bolivia nationalized its energy sector in May 2006.
The expropriation follows the seizure last month of Spanish oil firm Repsol’s YPF unit in Argentina by the government of President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.

[REDSOX]

Have mentioned it myself in the Latin american section. Great news on one level in that Spain will be pissed of. More empty threats no doubt

[Mather]

Have mentioned it myself in the Latin american section. Great news on one level in that Spain will be pissed of. More empty threats no doubt


Indeed.

Given their numerous economic and social problems, I doubt the Spanish ruling class can do much to make good on any of their threats.

[Obs]

Looking forward to how this is gonna turn out. Granted, I'm more skeptic about the Chavez-Morales bloc than I was 6 months or a year ago, but nevertheless we can't escape the fact that this development and the large nationalisations of foreign means of production is something that could very well end up aiding the working class significantly.

Also inb4 derision from people who couldn't care less about Latin America.

[Crux]

Well, the question is is this a step to the left from Morales or an attempt at diversion?

[Grenzer]

Well, the question is is this a step to the left from Morales or an attempt at diversion?

Pseudo-left populism to get cheap, easy political points in my opinion. I could be wrong, but it seems as though we shouldn't read too much into this. I don't think this is defeatism, I just think it's being realistic. Usually when bourgeois leaders do this kind of things, it's precisely so that they can co-opt the support of the working class and prevent real, radical change from being made.

[wsg1991]

Pseudo-left populism to get cheap, easy political points in my opinion. I could be wrong, but it seems as though we shouldn't read too much into this. I don't think this is defeatism, I just think it's being realistic. Usually when bourgeois leaders do this kind of things, it's precisely so that they can co-opt the support of the working class and prevent real, radical change from being made.

check wikipedia the guy is a member in the cocalero trade union so he isn't bourgeois ( at least the way we define it here ) , political points ? i am sure it is if you mean the time he did that , but i don't the action itself is , evo is probably one of the far left leaders one the international map , ''to prevent real radical change '' really ???

[REDSOX]

check wikipedia the guy is a member in the cocalero trade union so he isn't bourgeois ( at least the way we define it here ) , political points ? i am sure it is if you mean the time he did that , but i don't the action itself is , evo is probably one of the far left leaders one the international map , ''to prevent real radical change '' really ???

Evo morales is as the comrade above has said is not bourgeois or a bonapartist. He is proletarian, a leader of a cocalero trade union. Hugo chavez is a proletarian too and not a bourgeois. I wish some leftists would understand that

[Art Vandelay]

Evo morales is as the comrade above has said is not bourgeois or a bonapartist. He is proletarian, a leader of a cocalero trade union. Hugo chavez is a proletarian too and not a bourgeois. I wish some leftists would understand that

And I wish people on this site were materialists....:crying:

[wsg1991]

And I wish people on this site were materialists....:crying:

i didn't see any one using religious or super natural arguments , perhaps you are talking about yourself ?

[wsg1991]

And I wish people on this site were materialists....:crying:

i didn't see anyone using a religious nor supernatural nor superstitious arguments , you seem to be seeing things don't exist , do you need any professional help ? i can arrange that

[Art Vandelay]

i didn't see anyone using a religious nor supernatural nor superstitious arguments , you seem to be seeing things don't exist , do you need any professional help ? i can arrange that

We got a funny guy right here. Morales and Chavez are the leaders of bourgeois states, materialists would realize that the capitalist mode of production has not been past and thus they act solely in the interests of the bourgeoisie.

[wsg1991]

bourgeois states ? if you mean a still influential bourgeois duo to the mode of production i find that reasonable . but acting solely in the interest of the bourgeois , this is a first time , i know people from extreme left in real life ( fanatics ) never heard this before .

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

bourgeois states ? if you mean a still influential bourgeois duo to the mode of production i find that reasonable . but acting solely in the interest of the bourgeois , this is a first time , i know people from extreme left in real life ( fanatics ) never heard this before .
They are class-collaborationists, try to mediate the intrests of the proletariat and bourgeoisie, just like many bourgeois politicians do. And the state- apparatus of those countries is bourgeois. The state is not some neutral set of institutions.

[Art Vandelay]

bourgeois states ? if you mean a still influential bourgeois duo to the mode of production i find that reasonable . but acting solely in the interest of the bourgeois , this is a first time , i know people from extreme left in real life ( fanatics ) never heard this before .

Until the capitalist mode of production is passed, the leader of any state will be forced to act in the interests of capital.

[Leftsolidarity]

Ok, yes. This is a dumb argument. No one is saying that there isn't capitalism there anymore and thus, in turn, there is still a bourgeois state. They were saying that the individuals were not actually from the class of people we define as the bourgeoisie.

[wsg1991]

They are class-collaborationists, try to mediate the intrests of the proletariat and bourgeoisie, just like many bourgeois politicians do. And the state- apparatus of those countries is bourgeois. The state is not some neutral set of institutions.

i believe that the state function is influenced by ''special interest groups'' , typically bourgeois , foreign influence , even religious , and Unions (my country has a strong trade union UGTT ) . what i believe Chavez and ''class-collaborationists'' as you call them example ( Egyptian president Gamal abdel nasser ) is balancing the interest of bourgeoisie ( specially ''petite bourgeois" middle class ) at the expense of foreign influence and the top rich bourgeois which are usually allies . missing anything here

[wsg1991]

Until the capitalist mode of production is passed, the leader of any state will be forced to act in the interests of capital.

look unlike you i see Chavez and his type will try to balance between the interest of the capital and workers at the expense of foreign higher bourgeois interest . that works for me ,

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

look unlike you i see Chavez and his type will try to balance between the interest of the capital and workers at the expense of foreign higher bourgeois interest . that works for me ,
Ok. So nationalism is the virtue they should be praised for. No wonder it´s always the most dubious types of leftists who cheerlead chaves, morales and the lot of ´em.

[wsg1991]

Ok. So nationalism is the virtue they should be praised for. No wonder it´s always the most dubious types of leftists who cheerlead chaves, morales and the lot of ´em.

sorry but i don't take nationalism for a sin either , i actually like those you call them "pseudo_populist" ''bourgeois leaders '' and ''class-collaborationists'' specially in third world countries threatened by imperialism , as long as they oppose imperialism and seek their own national interest . perhaps of my background ( ia m an Tunisian \ arab ) we never had any real communist movement , they are always elite and never able to be populist movements they were always labeled "Atheists" and disbelievers , never successful in election nor revolutionary means , although trade Union are quite influential here (UGTT ) the strongest non-government movement ) , unlike left nationalism , had more success , you gotta understand i leave in uneducated conservative poor society , and threatened by Islamist movement like the muslim brotherhood ( nahdha here ) backed by USA , those left nationalism manage to market there ideas much easier in such background and even to became a populist movements in some cases , and probably our most ''successful'' experience in 20 century was led by Egyptian Gamal abdel Nasser and his likes ( Saleh ben youcef here , who was assassinated ) Although i know they might became imperialist themselves in LONG terms . i suggest you found away to have some real populist support ( as this evil nationalism did ) if you wanna change things , because it has been a long time since i heard a socialist movement that carries your idea and managed to became popular .

[marl]

Ah, yes, the state monopoly in the interest of capital. More to socialism than nationalization, comrades.


sorry but i don't take nationalism for a sin either , i actually like those you call them "pseudo_populist" ''bourgeois leaders '' and ''class-collaborationists'' specially in third world countries threatened by imperialism , as long as they oppose imperialism and seek their own national interest . perhaps of my background ( ia m an Tunisian \ arab ) we never had any real communist movement , they are always elite and never able to be form populist movements they were always labeled "Atheists" and disbelievers , never successful in election nor revolutionary means , although trade Union are quite influential here (UGTT ) the strongest non-government movement ) , unlike left nationalism , had more success , you gotta understand i leave in uneducated poor society , Although i know they might became imperialist themselves in LONG terms .

Of course leaders in the third world are threatened by Western imperialism, because they're wanna-be imperialists (take Gadaffi in Uganda), and thus a threat to capital! I hope you realize that the nation is a social construct (along with ethnicity and race), and that no one nation is better than another (we often talk of American imperialism, but take Russia in Georgia or China in Africa).

[wsg1991]

Ah, yes, the state monopoly in the interest of capital. More to socialism than nationalization, comrades.



Of course leaders in the third world are threatened by Western imperialism, because they're wanna-be imperialists (take Gadaffi in Uganda), and thus a threat to capital! I hope you realize that the nation is a social construct (along with ethnicity and race), and that no one nation is better than another (we often talk of American imperialism, but take Russia in Georgia or China in Africa).

i don't know where i can put gaddafi , i suggest you read his " green book " pretty funny stuff . (check the map Tunisia \ Lybia ) . for instant i know both Baath and Nasserist here , nether one of them claim that Arabs are superior race , neither does Chavez nor Evo . i see those types as the maximum you can achieve in current world \ time . they are not perfect , and they are very like any other country in their international policies ( chavez allies are Iran , Gaddafi , and Syria , China , and russia , not some nice countries ) . the Communists type i know are never useful nor popular . i try to be realistic , do you know any popular and did some achievements tell me , and don't be Utopian please

[Art Vandelay]

look unlike you i see Chavez and his type will try to balance between the interest of the capital and workers at the expense of foreign higher bourgeois interest . that works for me ,

You're a capitalist then.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

sorry but i don't take nationalism for a sin either , i actually like those you call them "pseudo_populist" ''bourgeois leaders '' and ''class-collaborationists'' specially in third world countries threatened by imperialism , as long as they oppose imperialism and seek their own national interest . perhaps of my background ( ia m an Tunisian \ arab ) we never had any real communist movement , they are always elite and never able to be populist movements they were always labeled "Atheists" and disbelievers , never successful in election nor revolutionary means , although trade Union are quite influential here (UGTT ) the strongest non-government movement ) , unlike left nationalism , had more success , you gotta understand i leave in uneducated conservative poor society , and threatened by Islamist movement like the muslim brotherhood ( nahdha here ) backed by USA , those left nationalism manage to market there ideas much easier in such background and even to became a populist movements in some cases , and probably our most ''successful'' experience in 20 century was led by Egyptian Gamal abdel Nasser and his likes ( Saleh ben youcef here , who was assassinated ) Although i know they might became imperialist themselves in LONG terms . i suggest you found away to have some real populist support ( as this evil nationalism did ) if you wanna change things , because it has been a long time since i heard a socialist movement that carries your idea and managed to became popular .
Your views are somewhat understandable, when the revolutionary movement is small and ineffective, it can be tempting to support the lesser evil. I also sympathise with you seeing the threat of political Islamists gaining power and be willing to support anything relatively progressive which could counteract their influence. However, the situation in Latin America is different. I don´t consider this type of left-wing nationalism to be very progressive, although understandable in some countries. The problem with this anti- imperialist, left- nationalism is that it acts like proletarians and national- bourgeois have common interests against "foreign" multinationals, which they don´t. These policies, whether they are implemented by Nasser, Chaves or Peron, are first and foremost in the interests of the national bourgeoisie, not the proletariat.

[wsg1991]

.
well i believe it , that petite bourgeoisie and workers do have common interest against foreign multinationals , and the bourgeois were not quite happy with chavez in 2002 coup attempt , so i don't think he was putting bourgeois interest first back then , if you mean chavez role is achieved and he is no longer progressive now , that might be true since i don't much about the situation there . and as i mentioned i support the lesser evil since that look to me the maximum achievable in the current situation , and perhaps you know some real revolutionary movement right now since i don't know any , my image of the communist type i see here which could never be or achieve any populist form .

[REDSOX]

Chavez and Morales are not bourgeois. The bourgeois does not have political power in these countries. The workers, peasents and the indigenous rule these states through their representatives. However economic power has not been done away with but Hugo chavez Evo Morales backed by the masses are systimatically dismantling the economic power of the bourgeois in a gradual transition to socialism reflecting the objective and subjective conditions of thoses countries.