Optive With Contact Lenses

THE GREAT TURNING CRISIS TO SET ANTI-CHAVEZ

TURN THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE GREAT ANTI-CRISIS OF CHAVEZ

The announcements made by President Hugo Chavez on Sunday March 22, are suitable for comparative analysis of structural adjustment proposed by Carlos Andrés Pérez in 1989. Both Chávez and CAP are undoubtedly charismatic leaders, with enormous popular appeal and were faced with socio-political situation in a context of crisis.
For CAP, 1989, was drawn under the shadow of overwhelming electoral victory that was achieved in December 1988, promising to send back to the Venezuelans to the time of the Venezuela Arabia. Achieved political hegemony it provided an opportunity for the setting-later known as the Washington Consensus-economic and institutional. The Chavez government, for its part must face the huge impact of the worst economic crisis experienced by the world-system, threatening to destroy us through their consequences. On the other hand, is coming off a major electoral victory in both the consultation in November 2008 as the referendum on the amendment in February 2009. Both leaders, as seen at the time had announced measures to adjust their high popularity, high electoral support and a solid political-institutional guarantees.
However, the dynamics of implementation makes the difference between the two. CAP is inclined to the violent fit option, characterized by an aggressive policy change relations and bureaucratic patronage that characterized the Venezuelan political system since its establishment as a representative democracy in 1958. The decision to follow exactly the recommendations would be made to "reduce the size of government, such as removal of subsidies, the release of fiscal and monetary control, openness to transnational capital, privatization of strategic enterprises, increased gasoline, fixed rate liberalization and active, would be the dominant feature of the government of AD leaders. His decision made some sense: apparently had a strong base of popular support derived from their success in presidential elections. His over-reliance on containment capabilities of its leadership, was his mistake. I never take into consideration that the construction of a framer process - understood as a dynamic transmission of values, attitudes and visions of life that motivate social groups to mobilize, to return to an idealized past and the non-fulfillment of that promise could lead to a cycle of protest and civil disobedience of the magnitudes of 27.28 and February 29, 1989. The arrogance of political elites in AD and COPEI who assumed as immutable truth that social groups were subjects submissive cost them their political hegemony. The decision to apply once a set of structural adjustment programs was a mistake that remind Chávez is responsible for day to day.
Meanwhile, in a scenario more difficult than assumed by CAP in 1989, President Chavez has been a huge political smell sample, while noting that it can be dangerous not to advance in the short term some effective actions as respect to reducing public expenditure luxury. Chávez's action, say several things: 1) its ability to surprise the political opponent, 2) the power of political communication and 3) the decision to advance a progressive adjustment.
Regarding the first issue, most political actors opposition had stopped circulating the news that came a setting of great impact, as it had CAP. Actually the size of the recession resulting from the speculative nature of the world system did provide a set of decisions of great magnitude such as increased gasoline, setting financial and exchange restrictions, devaluation in order, from the perspective of those actors an extreme scenario adjustment that would open the way for a new round of protests. However, nobody expected that all decisions were so limited. Again, as it has in other times - including earlier this year when it decided to include all elected offices in the proposal amendment, Chavez left his opponents speechless.
That sense of wonder, is connected to the 2nd question: political communication. Chavez announced that he would divulge Saturday when the measures in this communication and expectations generated a set of rumors that were strongly debated with all progressive measures: no tax adjustment is characterized by a devaluation, there was no increase in gasoline (although not be ruled out) reduced the estimated selling price of oil to $ 60 $ 40 (although he had reset to $ 50). Political communication strategy worked and virtually nullified the resistance and fears that purport to be suggested. We believe that the measures will be accompanied by other incremental adjustments, intended to control the bureaucracy and excessive government spending, but "for now" will not be disclosed. Finally, the 3rd aspect, is associated to political expediency. Chavez knows he can not advance violent settings, which should create the conditions to be accepted for this action and decided to keep social spending even at the cost of enormous financial and economic risk by publicly states across reduced production oil to just over 3,100,000 barrels a day, trying to be implicated in a price recovery oil. Finally, unlike CAP, Chavez understood that adjustments without political support violent generate cycles of violence that undermine the governance and political hegemony. Based on these aspects, made a political calculation that, although risky and inadequate given enough oxygen to try to survive the storm. We still have a lot to see and we will be attentive to their decisions.

Dr. Juan Eduardo Romero
Historian
Juane1208@gmail.com
25/03/2009

How To Save Gb4iphone

ANTI-IMPERIALISM OF YESTERDAY AND TODAY

ANTI-IMPERIALISM OF YESTERDAY AND TODAY

The issue of anti-imperialism is defined conceptually, because of its refusal to imperialism . That is: the development of a notion of extra-territoriality, accompanied by an expansion of the military apparatus, a system of subordination that accompanies economic production of power relations. Imperialism is the expression of the consolidation of a model of capitalism based on the expansion of production.
In this context, the transition rates between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, generated a whole debate about the impact of this model of capitalist development and its concrete political expression: imperialism. The most conspicuous representative of thought against imperialism is certainly Vladimir Ilich Lenin. Their contributions and guidelines are followed by a series of socio-political impact in Latin America having historical conditions that made it prone to build anti-imperialist trend. As we know, the struggle for our independence were certainly anti-colonial struggles, anti-imperial, to be an armed resistance to the domination and hegemony of the Hispanic Empire. The concern of the intelligentsia, not just Venezuela, but Latin America was related to the issue of what to do with the nation?, And it did so in the nineteenth century as in the twentieth.
The political debate ranged from two trends: 1) those who indicated that we had to walk the paths indicated by the industrial, capitalist world and 2) those who thought they had get rid of these trends and build another road. In Venezuela, there was an initial anti-imperialism, between the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, to be represented at the thought of Caesar Fombona Zumeta and Rufino Blanco. Both thinkers pointed a way for our country survive the impact of the new capitalism. Zumeta, said in his book The Continent Sick (1899) that nation states emerged from the dissolution of colonial should: 1) exploit the natural wealth for national development purposes, 2) seek a peaceful or violent, when the media peaceful fail, internal problems, 3) reinterpret the Monroe Doctrine in order to adapt to our context. That led to the fact that Zumeta was one of the key stakeholders to incorporate the government of JV Gómez capitalist development and thereafter the modernization drive, as a strategy to survive imperialism. White Fombona for its part, argues the need for panlatinoamericana Union, to stop the Anglo-Saxon advance. The anti-imperialism of both is subtle, nothing like a Marxist perspective whose major interpreters will be Salvador de La Plaza, Gustavo and Eduardo Machado. Arising
all previously named the student movement organized around the Students General Association (AGE) in 1914, long-term influence by Joseph Enrique Rodo (Ariel), Manuel Ugarte, José Martí, among others, claiming the need to break the bonds of dependence on the British and U.S. capital. In 1925, Salvador de La Plaza and Machado pointed to the pressing needs of Latin American unity. In this match both Zumeta as Fombona. However, establishing an essential difference: the unit was based in the overthrow of tyrannical governments and the regime that supports the U.S. anticaudillismo and the presence and the association with economic operators established in our countries. While Zumeta and Fombona, pointed to the need to adjust the relationship with the U.S. and Britain, to protect them; Machado De La Plaza and spoke of a relationship breakdown. The discursive strategy of this anti-imperialism moved into two camps: 1) the confrontation with imperialism and its representatives in the National States and 2) the tactic of forming "fronts" for certain sectors of the bourgeoisie or the petty bourgeoisie . This explains, as the Partido Revolucionario Venezolano (PRV-1926) harbored in their midst Rómulo Betancourt and then moved away from each other.
The New Anti-imperialism of the late twentieth century, confirms its continental character. Is expressed by the use of capitalist development as a generator of wealth and economic power, but differs is in terms of capital is used to exploit more, however, capital is a vehicle to strengthen ties of complementarity. UNASUR is an example of this anti-imperialist strategy, integration mechanisms implemented by the political axis Chávez-Morales-Correa says one way to combat the spread and control of the market that aims to imperialism. Before them, use the strategy to consolidate a market, but not to settle and reproduce the capital, but to use the capital as support for reducing class contradictions prevailing. This new anti-imperialism, economic strategies used to combat the defining dialectic, in that sense is much more effective emerged in the early twentieth century. The new anti-imperialism runs employing the use of markets and speculative economic strategies, but not to increase the added value but rather to use the proceeds in the development of social policies and financial mobilization for the economic consolidation of nation states.

Dr. Juan Eduardo Romero
Historian
10/03/2009
Juane1208@gmail.com

Caesars Palace Bathrobe

Decentralization in Venezuela

ABOUT DECENTRALIZATION IN VENEZUELA

The recent amendments to the Law on Decentralization and Devolution - in effect since 1989 - by the National Assembly can a series of considerations. We start by making a socio-historical approach to the process in Venezuela. We begin by denying the informative aspect that is reversing a process of 20 years (1989-2009). The long-term decentralization has been a feature in its expression of disintegration. Demonstrate what I say: The Captaincy General of Venezuela, formed in 1777, is the result of the disjointed nature of the spatial structure panvenezolana. When The Bourbons raise the concentration of political-administrative merely trying to reverse the existing administrative dispersions in the colonial order.
Subsequently, the process begun in 1821, with Constitution of Cúcuta Venezuela introduces a decentralized structure, expressed in four (4) territorial spaces: Departments of Maracaibo, Venezuela, East and Guiana. The 1830 Constitution established that each Provincial Government have an assembly which was elected authority. In 1857, the Municipal Power Monagas introduced in an attempt to centralize policy decisions in a territorial space dispersed. The Constituent Assembly of 1858, establishes a system of agreements between the central and states, is the basis of a federal unorthodox, where regional areas get certain rights within the legal framework and the unity of the national project. This issue is timely in the discussion that we have today. It is raised and think that decentralization has generated a profit or otherwise, has occurred in confrontations with the central government.
The concern we raise is a discussion that is generated in our country from 1858 until the beginning of the process of political centralization initiated by Cipriano Castro (1899-1908) and continued by John V. Gómez (1908-1935). Constitutions from 1858 to 1901, empowering the States to elect its political authorities, this is a central aspect of decentralization. Disposal - along with other restrictions, imposed by the Constituent Assembly of 1902 is explained by the attempts to end political atomism characteristic of nineteenth-century Venezuela. During the governments of Castro and Gomez, regional authorities were losing powers assigned to it by the 1864 federal process, such as the availability and administration of an armed force, to manage income-generating sources among others. This is a consequence of the existence of individual projects of governance, which violated the territorial and political unity of the nation. The whole process from 1899 until 1989 was marked by political centralization, either in his authoritarian side (Castro and Gomez, much less López Contreras and Medina) or whether by democratic centralism (1958-1988). Decentralization, 1989, resulted from efforts of the political elite to survive the collapse of the political system of conciliation, which is expressed in situations of violence in February 1989, known as the Caracazo. The adoption of direct election of governors and mayors, as well as the transfer of the administration of health services, education, ports, airports and roads is a consequence of liberal globalization, which required the reduction of the "size of government" as condition for joining the world-system conditions. However, although the decentralization process introduced these new features, approaching the gobierno estatal y municipal a las preferencias de los ciudadanos, también generó perversiones: la erección de liderazgos personalistas territoriales, que actuando bajo las potestades descentralizadoras se desenvolvieron como verdaderos caudillos decimonónicos, haciendo y deshaciendo a través del uso de los recursos regionales y municipales.
Las relaciones de clientelismo y burocratismo creadas bajo la descentralización, son equiparables a las condiciones del centralismo y permitidas bajo el marco jurídico de la Constitución de 1961. La Constitución de 1999, introduce cambios en todo orden: en el sistema político, en la estructura del Estado y por lo tanto en la administración pública. El ajuste a La Ley de Decentralization is due to the contradictions between articles 156 and 164. The 156 provides in paragraphs 2 (defense of the integrity of the territory), 7 (security and defense of the nation), 15 (system of customs and foreign trade), 20 (public works of national interest), 26 (transport regime land, air and river) and 27 (highway system) powers of the National Government, while the art. 164 in its section 10 powers granted concurrent with the national public power (ports, customs, airports, roads). This opens a debate about the impact which means the dispersion of public policies on the part of the relationship between the national government, regional and municipal levels. Dr. John E. Historian
Romero
Juane1208@gmail.com
02/04/2009