Native Title in Venezuela

[Torsten]

Chavez Gives Land Titles to the Indigenous

By THAIS LEON, Associated Press WriterTue Aug 9,10:02 PM ET

Six of Venezuela's indigenous communities received title to their ancestral lands on Tuesday in a ceremony that Venezuela's president said reversed centuries of injustice.

President Hugo Chavez said he hoped the government would be able to turn over titles to 15 other indigenous communities by the end of the year.

"What we're recognizing is the original ownership of these lands," Chavez said during the ceremony. "Now no one will be able to come and trample over you in the future."

He was joined by Kari'na Indians wearing traditional dress, face paint and strings of colored beads.

But Chavez warned that the process of granting legal ownership must respect Venezuela's "territorial unity," and he urged other indigenous groups not to ask for "infinite expanses of territory."

"Don't ask me to give you the state's rights to exploit mines, to exploit oil," Chavez said. "Before all else comes national unity."

The documents recognize land ownership by six indigenous communities with some 4,000 people and territory covering 314,000 acres in the eastern states of Anzoategui and Monagas.

One woman from the Kari'na community thanked Chavez, saying: "He has been the first president who has kept his word to a people who have been stripped of their lands."

An estimated 300,000 Venezuelans belong to 28 indigenous groups, many living in the country's sparsely populated southeast.

South American countries have made various efforts to grant indigenous groups legal ownership and control over their traditional territories.

In neighboring Colombia, indigenous groups in officially recognized communities can administer justice, receive state funds and have their own government.

Brazil has set aside more than 12 percent of its territory for indigenous communities, and in Peru various laws declare the rights of indigenous groups to ancestral territory in the Amazon.

But problems have arisen in some countries as miners and loggers have moved onto Indian lands. And in various countries, a key debate has revolved around the state's rights to what lies underground, such as oil and mineral wealth.

[woof woof woof]

ha ha ha - I have to log into a forum community based halfway around the world, to hear news from a place 150 kilometers away from me.

This is absolutely good news! A good step forward for the indiginous people of Venezuela.

My views on Chavez have changed allot overtime. I am not seeing the whole picture yet. From what I gather he is not a bad dictator.

My only real concern with Chaves is what he has done with Billions of dollars, that went to a few of the already wealthiest in Venezuela.

Another thing he did not to long ago is, he bought the largest ever order of Klashnikovs. I think that I understand now that all he did that to make the country undesirable for a US invasion. Hey the US did Irak so why not Venezuela.

[Gwydion]

Hi all. Long time no see.

Just got back from Venezuela, so I'll post a quick response (more details later)

Brian, what Chavez has done with the billions of dollars from the oil industry is:

free healthcare (including now extending this to latin America and the US)

free education and literacy (including textbooks, food, accomodation, transport, etc)

subsidised and free food (to overcome malnutrition and prevent disease)

initiated a campaign to create a sustainable economy

subsidised oil to poor nations in Latin America and the caribbean (and now is offering the US)

building housing to house the homeless, those effected by disaster and those living in overcrowded slums

putting factories under worker management- increasing productivity

providing no interest credits to women

providing support to a people now overcoming what was 80% poverty

providing the world with an example of what is possible if wealth is used for human needs, rather than corporate greed

enabling the people to defend the gains of their revolution

check out

www.venezuelanalysis.com

www.venezuelasolidarity.org

www.vheadline.com

www.greenleft.org.au

[Torsten]

Been doing a lot of reading on chavez lately because his model of socialism really appeals to my sense of fairness and community (often called "the third way", although he is a bit further left than that). I really wish there weren't doubts about the legitimacy of his election, but then again, which country doesn't have those issues (eg USA , AUS).

The worker management system is an interesting social experiment. It makes little sense to me why workers do all the work and shareholders take all the profit. At the very least it should be 50/50. So I hope his system will not only allow control, but also ownership. Social studies have shown that ownership is what increases productivity in the long run, while simply being part of the decision making process only increases productivity in the short term.

The guy has only been in power for a little while, so we really need to give him a chance to get a few things started. We can't on one hand complain about shortsighted governments but on the other hand expect immediate results.

I just love the way he taunts the US all the time

So tell us more about your trip. A great destination if you are studying to become a shaman and a revolutionary at the same time

[Gwydion]

Chavez USED to believe in the "Third Way" (ie neither capitalism nor socialism, but some ephemeral 'middle road'). He has since become convinced that this road does not exist. We need to transcend the system of the exploitation of human being by human being (capitalism), and the only alternative is socialism.

He then went on to qualify that he did not mean a bureaucratic state-run 'socialism' like the USSR, but a humane, co-operative socialism of the 21st Century. Rather than then 'declaring' venezuela socialist, he went on to ask the venezuelan people to debate what socialism is, and how it might be built in relation to venezuela.

What questions are there around Chavez' election? I've never come across any that have an ounce of validity. The electoral process is probably the most open, and scrutinised, not to mention fair, in the world. The hullaballoo of the opposition around Chavez' election, reelection, and recall referendum win meant that the focus of the world media (and the Carter Centre) were firmly on Venezuela.

Even Jimmy Carter (through gritted teeth) admitted that the electoral process in Venezuela is the most open and fair that he's seen.

More will follow, don't you worry about that. Also, there are about 60 other people around the country who just got back as well (from the first ever Australia Venezuela Solidarity Brigade) so keep your eyes and ears open for eyewitness report backs on the process in venezuela (most should be in the calendar at greenleft.org.au, but I'll post some here as they come up).

ps. the worker management system ("cogestion") was the initiative of former guerrilla Carlos Lanz, and is still developing and deepening- another couple of hundred factories are being considered for it as we speak)

pps. 2 us naval ships briefly entered venezuelan waters on friday

see also

http://smh.com.au/news/world/venezuela-pre...5302790303.html

[Torsten]

Originally posted by Gwydion:

We need to transcend the system of the exploitation of human being by human being (capitalism), and the only alternative is socialism.

The main difference I see between socialism and the third way is that socialism does not provide incentives for wealth building and hence causes a decline in productivity. Now, I am not talking about the terms wealth and productivity in terms of capitalism, but rather in terms of their real literal meaning. eg, making mudbricks and building a house is wealth creation and is productive, but has nothing to do with capitalism or greed.

Communism eliminates the incentive entirely, while socialism can severely limit it and hence neither are systems of the future. The third way is the closest to what I believe is sustainable, although i am sure that various definitions of the third way leave room for exploitation and greed (but so does socialism and communism).

The most fundamental aspect of the third way I like is 'total cost' and 'community ownership'. Total cost eliminates problems such as pollution and social injustice which are a fundamental part of a sustainable future. Community ownership is where I feel the real issue is. People need to own their places of work, their banks, their utilities and anything else in their local economy. Investing into a company on the other side of e globe (or even the country) instils no personal responsibility and loyalty and this is where we have gone fundamentally wrong. The situation in New Orleans is a direct result of these shhortcomings. People don't own their neighbourhood, so they take no responsibility for it. People these days don't even know their neighbours, let alone invest into them.

Community ownerships means everyone has something to lose, so everyone protects what they own.

He then went on to qualify that he did not mean a bureaucratic state-run 'socialism' like the USSR, but a humane, co-operative socialism of the 21st Century.

As I said, I like what I see so far. Pity is that many good intentions end up somewhere where it was not intended. I really hope this doesn't happen in Venezuela, because this country can server as a good example to the rest of the world if it all works out. Venezuela is ideal because it isn't dependent on anyone and can keep itself financial via the most popular commodity in the world - oil.

What questions are there around Chavez' election? ... Even Jimmy Carter (through gritted teeth) admitted that the electoral process in Venezuela is the most open and fair that he's seen.

I was not aware the Carter Centre had done an assessment. Will read up on that later.

The current accusation is that Chavez rigged elections by having excessive influence over election officials.

ps. the worker management system ("cogestion") was the initiative of former guerrilla Carlos Lanz, and is still developing and deepening- another couple of hundred factories are being considered for it as we speak)

I think the voluntary process is a good idea. It would be a pity if the system was imposed on private companies. Not because I disagree with the system, but rather because I believe that to be successful and an example to the rest of the world, the system has to be adopted because it is good, rather than just because it was imposed.

pps. 2 us naval ships briefly entered venezuelan waters on friday

shortcut to Louisiana maybe?

I doubt the US is going to do anything about Chavez in the short term. And I hope his paranoia isn't going to mean he wastest billions of tax dollars on defense.

[Gwydion]

Originally posted by Torsten:

The main difference I see between socialism and the third way is that socialism does not provide incentives for wealth building and hence causes a decline in productivity.

Actually, Socialism DOES provide incentives for productivity (terms like "wealth building" are too vague. Does this include a 'wealth of knowledge', or of experience?).

The key difference lies in what you envision socialism to be. To the originators of the concept, and Marx and Engels especially it was more than a mere system of distribution. (This was one of Che Guevara's main criticisms of the soviet approach. He argued that you needed to create a "new human being", one driven by 'moral as well as material incentives". That is, someone who works because they see it is to everyone's social benefit, rather than individual or collective material profit.

The cogestion system in Venezuela has at it's heart workers who are driven by just that sense of collective responsibility.

The factories were private (and many, yet to be nationalised, ones are still), but the bosses and owners had shut them (in some cases boobytrapped them) in order to damage the economy and force Chavez from office. The workers retook them and demanded that they be able to work. The factories under cogestion, as well as those being considered for it, have all been ones where the owners have refused to restart them, and the workers have demanded the government nationalise them so that they could work TO PRODUCE TO MEET SOCIAL NEED. This consciousness was there from the beginning of this process (although perhaps not universal).

Just as in Cuba, newer forms of production are competing alongside the old kind, and are outproducing them (the first cogestion factory, the aluminium plant Alcasa, which Carlos Lanz now manages, has undergone an 11% increase in productivity. More, the menagement are elected by the workers, are recallable, and have the same wage).

Communism eliminates the incentive to capital accumulation as an aim of production, replacing the aim with meeting collective need. There is, therefore, still an incentive.

The problem with the "Third Way" is that it simply cannot succeed without comprehensively breaking from Capitalism, and coming into competition with it. The only way it can do this is to create socialism (and I do mean socialism, not a bureaucratic nightmare). The reason that the third way leaves itself open to exploitation, etc, is because it has no clear perspective. It exists simply as an attempt to "civilise" the current system, to give it a human face. The problem is that the moment you start to threaten the immense profits that underly the capitalist mode of production, the mask falls, and you're left with the monster again, whether he's in Iraq, New Orleans or Venezuela.

The most fundamental aspect of the third way I like is 'total cost' and 'community ownership'. Total cost eliminates problems such as pollution and social injustice which are a fundamental part of a sustainable future. Community ownership is where I feel the real issue is. People need to own their places of work, their banks, their utilities and anything else in their local economy. Investing into a company on the other side of e globe (or even the country) instils no personal responsibility and loyalty and this is where we have gone fundamentally wrong. The situation in New Orleans is a direct result of these shhortcomings. People don't own their neighbourhood, so they take no responsibility for it. People these days don't even know their neighbours, let alone invest into them.

Exactly, but these things are not incompatibe with socialism. In Cuba, people own their own homes. They have private property. Ditto in Venezuela. But through broadening the collective sense of responsibility and ownership- the Solidarity- people can, like the Cubans, feel a sense of kinship and affinity (one sense of "ownership") with people suffering anywhere in the world, and volunteer in their tens of thousands to help them.

What is incompatible, however, are these things you mention and capitalist society.

Socialism begins at home, but it doesn't end there.

Venezuela is ideal because it isn't dependent on anyone and can keep itself financial via the most popular commodity in the world - oil.

Yes, for now. But Venezuela used to import 80% of it's own food. That is now down by 30%-ish. There are other examples.

Venezuela cannot (nor should it) remain reliant upon oil. It's politically dangerous. It's environmentally deadly. It's economically bad policy. And so they are diversifying their economy- and this is tied to the other reforms (land, education, health, indigenous, etc).

The current accusation is that Chavez rigged elections by having excessive influence over election officials.

Actually, the current accusation is that Chavez has excessive influence over the people. The opposition can go and spin. I've been all over the country, and if the US-fed opposition can't handle the fact that noone likes them, they can bloody well move to Miami (which many are, btw).

shortcut to Louisiana maybe?

I doubt the US is going to do anything about Chavez in the short term. And I hope his paranoia isn't going to mean he wastest billions of tax dollars on defense.

Actually, it was a deliberate detour.

The US HAS BEEN TRYING TO GET RID OF CHAVEZ FOR YEARS!!!!!!!

There are recorded assasination attempts, there was a military coup in 2002, an attempt at economic terrorism, and the much-lauded recall referendum of last august.

They're running out of options, and the revolution's deepening, and causing a lot of the rest of latin america to say "why can't WE do that?".

No, it's not paranoia.

[devance]

http://www.rense.com/general67/down.htm

An article that has some interest on the increasing appeal of socialism in the U.S..

Unfortunately religion plays second fiddle to wealth destribution.

So economic theorist play the part of prophets for

the doom or prosperity of nations.

They are rarely correct.

[woof woof woof]

local newspaper here states that Chavez said on a broadcast in the US (Nightline - ABC) that he has written proof that the US are planning an attack / invasion of Venezuela - He says the operation is named - BALBOA. (Also saying that the attack will be partly launched from the island Curacao. There is a small base on the island, which was mainly constructed for operations in Colombia, to combat drug trafficking.)

The American authorities claim that the Aircraft carriers and the frigates that have visted the island of Curacao, were only here for a little R&R. Chavez claims they were simply here to do preparations for an invasion.

I myself can never help to think that there is a little more going on.