Chavez to nationalize a Spanish owned bank!

[OI OI OI]

CARACAS — President Hugo Chavez said Thursday he intends to nationalize the Bank of Venezuela, which is owned by the Santander banking group of Spain.
"We are going to take back the Bank of Venezuela to put it at the service of the Venezuelans," Chavez said in a televised address.
Chavez said he made the decision to nationalize after learning that Santander had begun to make contacts with a local bank to sell the institution. He said the local bank asked for authorization from the government, but that he, "as the head of state," nixed the sale.
"Now sell it to the government," Chavez said.
A Bank of Venezuela spokesperson — speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue — told The Associated Press that the bank heard of the nationalization on television and has no other information.
Santander purchased the Bank of Venezuela in 1996. The financial institution is the country's third-largest bank.
Chavez had threatened to nationalize Venezuelan subsidiaries of Spanish banks after Spain's King Juan Carlos told him to "shut up" at a summit last November. But just last week he wrapped up a European tour with a hug-and-kiss makeup visit to Spain, where he was greeted warmly by the king at his summer residence on the island of Mallorca.
Chavez later flew to Madrid for talks with Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. The two leaders said their relationship was renewed and any past tension was behind them.
Under Chavez's governance, Venezuela also has nationalized its largest telephone, electricity, steel and cement companies and has assumed majority control over four major oil projects.

[spartan]

Good to hear the nationalisations are still going ahead.

Does Chavez compensate the companies who have had their assests in Venezuela seized by the state like Morales does in Bolivia to keep them on side?

[gla22]

I am guessing Chavez is compensating otherwise he would be dead by now.

[dirtycommiebastard]

Yes, Chavez is going to be paying off the owners of the bank unfortunately, who are Spanish bourgeois.

This is still a significant step. The bank will (Hopefully) be used to help Venezuelans with cheap credit.

I don't like Chavez much, and am very critical of him, and anticipate him being a reactionary if the revolution goes to far, but its this sort of thing that makes me respect him a little bit more.

[sixdollarchampagne]

My friend dcb, if you don't like Chavez, then you are for sure in the wrong tendency, since the Grantists have spent most of their energy since April 2004 presenting the bourgeois militarist Chavez as a revolutionary. Which allows us to ask, given that Chavez was elected in 1998 -- ten phreaking years ago! -- where is the socialism? And, how come capitalists are still exploiting workers in Venezuela, after nine years of Chavez as President? Inquiring minds want to know. :thumbup1:

With socialist greetings,
sixdollarchampagne

[OI OI OI]

My friend dcb, if you don't like Chavez, then you are for sure in the wrong tendency, since the Grantists have spent most of their energy since April 2004 presenting the bourgeois militarist Chavez as a revolutionary. Which allows us to ask, given that Chavez was elected in 1998 -- ten phreaking years ago! -- where is the socialism? And, how come capitalists are still exploiting workers in Venezuela, after nine years of Chavez as President? Inquiring minds want to know. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/thumbup1.gif

I am in the IMT as well.
And from being inside the IMT I can understand that we criticaly support Chavez. We appraise what he does right and critisize what he does wrong.
That way we are not sectarians and we understand what is progressive or not.
Marx supported the North in the American civil war. Does this mean that Marx was a bourgeois? No, it meant that he saw the North as progressive and the South a Reactionary.
With the same way of thinking we support the deformed/degenerated workers states while critisize their mistakes and faults. Does this make us Stalinists?
So in the same way we see Chavez as something progressive while critisizing his mistakes. ....
If you cannot grasp that you cannot call yourself a Marxist or a Trot..

[gla22]

http://www.marxist.com/chavez-quotes-alan-woods-book-alo-presidente.htm

According to the IMT Chavez is reading Reformism and Revolution by Alan Woods. It is still too early to write him off as having no potential because (from what I hear) Woods is very skeptical of communism coming through reform. It is easy for us to criticize Chavez, but he has a country to hold together and still some reactionary people to please. Supposedly Venezuela has a very radical left movement that should put pressure on Chavez to make changes.

I highly recommend people watch http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=97 . It is a documentary about Chavez. If you have more time watch http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=171

[OI OI OI]

It is easy for us to criticize Chavez, but he has a country to hold together and still some reactionary people to please.
Of course we should critisize him for pleasing reactionaries!


Also the book Reformism or Revolution (which I just started today and it's really awesome:)) has some valid criticisms against Chavez.
I hope he takes good note of those!

[gla22]

Of course we should critisize him for pleasing reactionaries!


Also the book Reformism or Revolution (which I just started today and it's really awesome:)) has some valid criticisms against Chavez.
I hope he takes good note of those!

Yes but his situation is difficult. He does not want to create widespread capital flight and a situation that would jeopardize the practicalities of the revolution so he could stay true to theory immediately. Maybe i should go to Venezuela instead of Cuba next summer, see how it is down there.

[OI OI OI]

Yes but his situation is difficult. He does not want to create widespread capital flight and a situation that would jeopardize the practicalities of the revolution so he could stay true to theory immediately. Maybe i should go to Venezuela instead of Cuba next summer, see how it is down there.

Haha .
This is even more supportive than the IMT position which is considered by some sectarians to be bourgeois etc etc.

Look , the only way there will be no capital flight is to nationalize ALL the big industries in Venezuela , change the political system to one governed by workers councils and also export the revolution to neighboring countries in order to have support!!

This is the IMT position. Of course that can't happen from the top but from the bottom. From the workers themselves.

By trying to conciliate with the bourgeoisie and trying not to piss them off , is a sign of weakness . And the working class is not week at all. Without the workers not one telephone can ring, not one bulb can shine and not one wheel can turn.
The working class united is not week at all.

And it will prove it once again in the near future in South america as it has proved it numerous times in the past.

All power to the workers!!!


In the meantime as I said before we should appraise everything progressive and criticize all the faults. This is the correct Marxist attitude.
By being sectarian and criticize everything (progressive and non-progressive) you are reduced to an unimportant ultra-left element. By appraising everything (both progressive and non-progressive) you are reduced to an opportunist social - democrat!

We should be neither of those two. We should be Marxists!

[disobey]

In the meantime as I said before we should appraise everything progressive and criticize all the faults. This is the correct Marxist attitude.
By being sectarian and criticize everything (progressive and non-progressive) you are reduced to an unimportant ultra-left element. By appraising everything (both progressive and non-progressive) you are reduced to an opportunist social - democrat!

Absolutely correct. And I hope the SWP reads and takes notes. Splitters.

[dirtycommiebastard]

My friend dcb, if you don't like Chavez, then you are for sure in the wrong tendency, since the Grantists have spent most of their energy since April 2004 presenting the bourgeois militarist Chavez as a revolutionary. Which allows us to ask, given that Chavez was elected in 1998 -- ten phreaking years ago! -- where is the socialism? And, how come capitalists are still exploiting workers in Venezuela, after nine years of Chavez as President? Inquiring minds want to know. :thumbup1:

With socialist greetings,
sixdollarchampagne

I can now understand why you left the IMT.

The caricature you draw of our positions is far from what they actually are.

We have spent 6 years working in Venezuela, critically supporting Chavez for his reforms and improvements in the country, and the reason why is because the masses of workers are behind him.

You ask where the socialism is, but I ask you, where is the revolutionary party?(Perhaps you should refer to your own signature in your posts) It hasn't developed yet. Your question is implying you expect Chavez to carry out the revolution, when just the other day you criticized Grant in History of British Trotskyism for implying he wanted the Labour government to establish socialism. :lol: This was obviously not the case.

Our perspectives are of course, that the PSUV can become a revolutionary party, or will have one grow out of it, but there needs to be a clear Marxist leadership, with ideas that do not sway from left to right. Im sure you can agree on that.

The nationalization of the bank is yet another progressive step by Chavez, who, I repeat, I personally don't like and am highly skeptical of, but you can't help but to respect the man for taking steps to improve the lives of Venezuelans. His involvement in a reaction is always a possibility though.

And yes, Chavez apparently is reading our new book (Reformism or Revolution), and has advertised it on 'Alo Presidente'. Also, for those of you who are interested in knowing whats actually going on in Venezuela, the PDVSA ordered 10 000 copies of our new book to freely distribute to their workers after the success of our book launch last month.

Viva la Corriente Marxista Revolucionaria!

PS If anyone wants to to order a copy of 'Reformism or Revolution: Reply to Heinz Dieterich', you can do so from here ; http://www.wellred.marxist.com/index.php?main_page=product_book_info&products_id=310&zenid=079ef28bfeced8409ed46085dad82303

It's $24.95(US), and I believe the shipping is still free at the moment.

[sixdollarchampagne]

First of all, Grantist support of Chavez has been completely *uncritical* since they began supporting him in spring, 2004. You cannot point to a single article anywhere, in which Grantists criticize Chavez politically.

And now the lame Grantist excuse to go on kissing Chavez' ample posterior is that there is no revolutionary party in Venezuela, so it is perfectly all right that there is no socialism.

In Cuba, in the absence of a revolutionary party, the leaders of the victorious rebel army nationalized 80% of Cuban industry within 24 months of the revolutionary victory of January 1959. Where there's a will, there's a way. Revolutionary is as revolutionary does.

It has been **ten years** since Chavez was elected President of Venezuela, and workers are still being exploited by the bourgeoisie, and the Grantists do not have any problem with that, as we see from their excuses for Chavez. Supporting the power-hungry bourgeois politician Chavez is the road to nowhere. Eventually, Chavez' timid half-measures will so infuriate the bourgeoisie and a section of the army that there will be a bloody reaction, a military coup, like the one in Chile in 1973.

And the Grantists, who for years have told Venezuelan workers to trust and follow Chavez, will bear a major responsibility for that defeat.

The whole point of Marxism is to fight for the political **indepedence** of the working class. Binding the workers hand and foot to a bourgeois politician like Chavez is a negation of Marxism.

With socialist greetings,
sixdollarchampagne

[Pogue]

Brilliant, good old Chavez :D

[Herman]

Yes, he'll be buying off the bank. Good step by Chavez.

Let's see how long it takes for Yehuda to come here and criticize this move.

[OI OI OI]

Originally posted by: Slanderer of the IMT
First of all, Grantist support of Chavez has been completely *uncritical* since they began supporting him in spring, 2004. You cannot point to a single article anywhere, in which Grantists criticize Chavez politically.How is the support of the PSUV uncritical ?
Can you stop slandering the IMT please?
With a random search in marxist.com in the first article I found about Venezuela I found a lot of criticisms to the PSUV and Chavez. Here (http://www.marxist.com/venezuelan-revolution-at-crossroads.htm) is the article.

So to make your job easier I found some extracts.


Originaly posted by the Grantists:
Following the advice of those who want to reach a deal with the counterrevolutionaries, Chávez granted amnesty to a number of opposition leaders connected to the April 2002 military coup and the shutdown of the oil industry which caused $10 billion dollars damage to the economy and nearly succeeded in wrecking the Revolution.
Originaly posted by Grantists:
"Helped" by his reformist advisers, the President has drawn some incorrect conclusions from the referendum. During "Aló Presidente", on 6 January 2008 he said:
"I'm compelled to slow down the pace of the march. I've been imposing on it a speed that's beyond the collective capabilities or possibilities; I accept that, and one of my mistakes is there. Vanguards can't lose their contact with the masses. They must stay with the masses! I will stay with you, and therefore I have to decrease my speed. [...]
"This is not a spirit of surrender or moderation, not at all. It's realism. Realism! Calmness, patience, revolutionary solidity. Nobody must feel routed or demoralized [...]
"I prefer to decrease the speed, strengthen the legs, the arms, the mind, the body, the peoples' organization and the peoples' power. And when we're ready, later, then we'll accelerate the march."
These words will be music to the ears of all those bureaucrats and reformists who wear red shirts but who are fundamentally opposed to socialism and are striving to derail the revolution. These people are always shouting about "realism" and the need to move more slowly. They talk about Socialism of the 21st Century but in reality they would like socialism to be postponed to the 22nd or 23rd century, or better still, indefinitely. The President continued:
"Improvements are needed in our alliance strategy. We can't let ourselves be derailed by extremist tendencies. We are not extremists nor we can be. No! We have to pursue alliances with the middle classes, including the national bourgeoisie. We can't support theses that have failed in the whole world, as the elimination of private property. That's not our thesis." So basicaly that proves that you are just a slandered which cannot understand the basic tactics that Marxists use in order to connect with the people while not being opportunists. So this proves that the IMT criticaly supports the PSUV and while it aknowledges the progressive steps it criticizes the wrong doings . Now if you are too blind to see it then it's your problem.


Originally posted by: Slanderer of the IMT
And now the lame Grantist excuse to go on kissing Chavez' ample posterior is that there is no revolutionary party in Venezuela, so it is perfectly all right that there is no socialism.
What?
So you go build socialism without a revolutionary party!
Is the PSUV a revolutionary party? Now no. But it can develop. And it will develop if the Marxists criticaly support it while showing a way forward and winning the rank and file. You are so focused on slandering the IMT that you make yourself sound like an opportunist by saying that we made a mistake when we said that the PSUV is not revolutionary.
So either you are an opportunist either you cannot understand the basic marxist terms.


Originally posted by: Slanderer of the IMT
In Cuba, in the absence of a revolutionary party, the leaders of the victorious rebel army nationalized 80% of Cuban industry within 24 months of the revolutionary victory of January 1959. Where there's a will, there's a way. Revolutionary is as revolutionary does.And Cuba was transformed into a healthy workers state as we all know:rolleyes:
By the way the guerillas substituted the revolutionary part and acted as the leadership of the proletariat. Of course when all your focus is on slandering then you miss out half of the facts. Well done!



Originally posted by: Slanderer of the IMT
It has been **ten years** since Chavez was elected President of Venezuela, and workers are still being exploited by the bourgeoisie, and the Grantists do not have any problem with that, as we see from their excuses for Chavez. Supporting the power-hungry bourgeois politician Chavez is the road to nowhere. Eventually, Chavez' timid half-measures will so infuriate the bourgeoisie and a section of the army that there will be a bloody reaction, a military coup, like the one in Chile in 1973.We are the ones who have the most influence on the PSUV and we are saying that the revolution should not slow down but move with a faster pace , that of nationalizing all the big businesses overnight under workers control.
Now you are unmasked you just slander us.


Originally posted by: Slanderer of the IMT
And the Grantists, who for years have told Venezuelan workers to trust and follow Chavez, will bear a major responsibility for that defeat.Another slander.
I think I dealt with a lot of them already.
I will not reduce myself to proving that we are not elephants.



Originally posted by: Slanderer of the IMT
The whole point of Marxism is to fight for the political **indepedence** of the working class. Binding the workers hand and foot to a bourgeois politician like Chavez is a negation of Marxism.Ok sure .
Because the IMT is trying to bind the working class on Chavez.
I think you missed the whole point again.




With "Grantist" greetings,
OI OI OI

[LiberaCHE]

"Shut Up" < Nationalize your banks

[el_chavista]

Actually, our good comrades from the CMR ("Revolutionary Marxist Tendency" in Spanish) are only concerned with workers seizing and occupying abandoned or sub- used-by- their-owners factories in Venezuela. Some others trotskyites have joined them, like El Topo Obrero (The Working Mole).

[CuteCommie]

If I was a capitalist leader of a nation, it would make perfect sense for me to nationalise foreign industries; to keep the exploitation of worker's labour in my country, and for my benefit. It has nothing to do with socialism, communism or revolution.

[Saorsa]

I think an important question that needs to be answered here is over how much Chavez is going to pay for this Bank. If he pays them an exorbitant amount it's hardly challenging capitalism that much, any more than the NZ government buying back NZ Rail is a socialist move when they pay far more than it's actually worth!

Although to be fair, a key difference is that this Bank doesn't appear to be failing or losing money, am I wrong?

[dirtycommiebastard]

Well it is possible that the bank is losing money, as all capital is these days. But the real question is not how he is going to pay for it, but how the bank will be used to help Venezuelans. And cheap credit is the word of the day.

[gla22]

Well it is possible that the bank is losing money, as all capital is these days. But the real question is not how he is going to pay for it, but how the bank will be used to help Venezuelans. And cheap credit is the word of the day.

No, the IMT report on it says the bank is very profitable and that the nationalization will help keep capital in Venezuela.

[dirtycommiebastard]

No, the IMT report on it says the bank is very profitable and that the nationalization will help keep capital in Venezuela.


Your right, my mistake. But in the current situation, still within limits of capitalism, a profitable bank such as Banco de Venezuela, will serve only to help those in need for the time being.

[BIG BROTHER]

Well my 2 cents on this, is that this is a progresive measure, that should serve to help the poor in venezuela, but in order to move towards socialism all of the banks should be nationalized(not saying this can happen easily) and the goverment should be under workers control, because even if chavez did nationalized every single bank the measure won't be good enough until workers actually have control over it.

[sixdollarchampagne]

What el chavista says above is true: The Heinz Company had two plants in Venezuela, one functioning and the other abandoned. Chavez' "revolutionary" government planned to nationalize the abandoned one, and the one that was profitable, they never touched.

The "nationalizations" in Venezuela do not lay the basis for a planned economy, BTW. What they create, as reported even by marxist.com, -- which should be called chavez.com -- is capitalist co-operatives, which then have to compete with the rest of the private sector. If the "nationalized" co-operative goes bankrupt, then the workers there have lost everything. It is a hell of a system, capitalism.

It is also true that the "revolutionary" gov. in Venezuela pays full market value for "nationalized" enterprises. For years the Grantists claimed that Venepal was "expropriated." Not true. It was purchased, at full market value, by the chavista regime. Chavez' "nationalizations" are just welfare for exploiters.

A few years ago, the chavistas raised the slogan "Hugo Chavez and the revolution are one." And, in a sense, that is true. They are both completely phony. I used to think that the Green Party, which in 2004 had a presidential candidate who traveled the US, urgiing people to vote for pro-war John Kerry, was the phoney-ist thing in politics, but that was before I know about Chavez and his followers. Hugo Chavez and his "revolution," that has left capitalist exploitation of the workers in place for *nine years*, for sure, without any doubt, richly deserve the Milli Vanilli prize in politics.

With socialist greetings,
sixdollarchampagne :thumbup1:

[Davie zepeda]

HE won the elections He didn't overthrow the system like in Cuba .The old system is still in place with the same enemy's still in office.
I support chavez for one thing he is a true marxist and revolutionary he put's the people need's before the movement's it is a risk but the people in latin america need help and fast . If you don't like helping people then get the hell out of here isn't this the reason of are cause to give food to the poor and and give strength to the worker .



He has helped over throw almost all of Latin America's old party's all of south america has a pro Cuba or leftist stand what the fuck have you been. we have to take advantage of this and bring a are own change within are own country if other nation's can do we can as well!

[OI OI OI]

What el chavista says above is true: The Heinz Company had two plants in Venezuela, one functioning and the other abandoned. Chavez' "revolutionary" government planned to nationalize the abandoned one, and the one that was profitable, they never touched.

Dude they have nationalized tons of other industries that were profitable.
Like the bank makes 350$ a year with a 30% increase of their profits last year.
It's not state welfare to big businesses certainly.


The "nationalizations" in Venezuela do not lay the basis for a planned economy, BTW. What they create, as reported even by marxist.com, -- which should be called chavez.com -- is capitalist co-operatives, which then have to compete with the rest of the private sector. If the "nationalized" co-operative goes bankrupt, then the workers there have lost everything. It is a hell of a system, capitalism.

They are a progressive step meaning that it will help the Venezuelans in need but we agree that Chavez and if not him then the people of Venezuela in power , should nationalize all businesses and create a planed economy...



It is also true that the "revolutionary" gov. in Venezuela pays full market value for "nationalized" enterprises. For years the Grantists claimed that Venepal was "expropriated." Not true. It was purchased, at full market value, by the chavista regime. Chavez' "nationalizations" are just welfare for exploiters.

Some were expropriated some were paid for. Chavez is not a marxist. The "Grantists" never claimed that.
IF he was he would expropriate all the big businesses giving them no money.
But Chavez is not a Marxist therefore we cant expect those things from him.
We see the nationalizations as progressive and we criticaly support them.
I explained why in numerous other posts.



A few years ago, the chavistas raised the slogan "Hugo Chavez and the revolution are one." And, in a sense, that is true. They are both completely phony. I used to think that the Green Party, which in 2004 had a presidential candidate who traveled the US, urgiing people to vote for pro-war John Kerry, was the phoney-ist thing in politics, but that was before I know about Chavez and his followers. Hugo Chavez and his "revolution," that has left capitalist exploitation of the workers in place for *nine years*, for sure, without any doubt, richly deserve the Milli Vanilli prize in politics.

blah blah blah, without making a point.


Of course you cannot make a serious point as I refuted your posts before and you have no guts to reply to me simply because you are a spineless slanderer.
How can you make new posts saying the same shit when I have refuted your "arguments" in earlier posts and you have not bothered to reply?

No one will take you seriously if you behave like that.



HE won the elections He didn't overthrow the system like in Cuba .The old system is still in place with the same enemy's still in office.

yes! And exactly these bureaucrats we need to purge and destroy the old political system . Of course Chavez cannot do that because he is not a marxist.
The people of Venezuela should do it. But of course a leasership is needed. Hopefuly that role will be played by the CMR which is growing exraordinarilly fast .



I support chavez for one thing he is a true marxist and revolutionary he put's the people need's before the movement's it is a risk but the people in latin america need help and fast .


chavez is not a marxist!
If he was he would abolish this political system he would nationalize the economy and the factories would be managed by the workers so would the country , through Soviets!


If you don't like helping people then get the hell out of here isn't this the reason of are cause to give food to the poor and and give strength to the worker .




He has helped over throw almost all of Latin America's old party's all of south america has a pro Cuba or leftist stand what the fuck have you been. we have to take advantage of this and bring a are own change within are own country if other nation's can do we can as well!

I can understand you being indignant with the posts of sixdollarchampagne and Yehulda. They have the wrong approach and that;s why their ideas have no echo.
So don't worry they might be loud here on revleft but in real life they are more silent then the silence in space....



Actually, our good comrades from the CMR ("Revolutionary Marxist Tendency" in Spanish) are only concerned with workers seizing and occupying abandoned or sub- used-by- their-owners factories in Venezuela. Some others trotskyites have joined them, like El Topo Obrero (The Working Mole).

Well with that they wanted to show the way forward. Workers controlling the means of production. It was a good tactic for when they were a handfull of people. They were able to get attntion and that's how they grew so rapidly.
Now the tactics are different. They are able to do mass agitation and that's how they are growing exponentially now..





PS: I will not reply again to any other slander which is repeated again.
If there is anything new I will be replying.
I am still waiting for sixdollarchampagne to answer to my previous post.
Until then .. ... bye bye

[Davie zepeda]

Comrade still if he were to completely make the Venezuela state into marxist economy the united state's would surely put a blockade on them and at this point Venezuela is not ready to walk on her own .

Remember arbenz in guatmale who moved early on to nationalize the country lead to his over throw.Learn from history We will not make the same mistake this time .

But remember as well the soviet revolution was attack early on if Venezuela would choose to go down the marxist path it would have tremendous allies in south and central america but do not rush the process comrade Venezuela was extremely backwards 9 year's ago only now dose she grow with strength and infrastructure .

[comrade stalin guevara]

Chavez's intelligence,
is unknown in fanticie world of revleft,
where we would have our nations turn into mugabe lands
just to show were true to marxisim,
its not marxisim we should be true to its the people,
and im sure marx would agree.

[Davie zepeda]

My point Revolution must always befit the people no matter what !

[comrade stalin guevara]

People here forget we live under capitolisim,
with there way of thinking if i took over nz
id have to nationalize everything the first day
and isolate my people id never do that not even for the good of the party,
becayse as a communist i work for the good of the people not party,

Personly id pretend i was a right wing dictator,
get my nation going well then come out with communisim,
at least when the usn oh i meant un isolated me my people wouldent hurt
only myself.

My point?,
Comrade Chavez is doing the right thing.