How Hugo Chávez built a squatter city in his backyard.

BlackWolf

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
CARACAS — There is perhaps no better symbol of the depths to which Venezuela has sunk under President Hugo Chávez than Centro Comercial Sambil La Candelaria, a shopping mall in Caracas, the country's teeming capital. In 2008, when he ordered its expropriation, Chávez called the mall a "monster of capitalism." Yelitza Campos, who heads a neighborhood association across the street from the megamall, calls it a "nightmare."

For Marta Navarro, it is simply a roof over her head.
For the past 11 months, Navarro, 23, and her three young children have been living in a small wooden cubicle carved out of one of the mall's aboveground parking levels. One of an estimated 50,000 displaced people in Caracas, Navarro considers herself lucky.

A tour of Venezuela's skyscraper squatter city.
Her living space measures 12 feet by 12 feet and has jury-rigged electrical outlets. She and her family share a large bathroom with hundreds of other refugees on each floor; there is no hot water. Residents hang their clothing along the rails, while Bolivarian National Guard units watch over the entrance, restricting access.

"The government provides us everything we need," Navarro says. "They deliver three meals a day to our cubicle, and they provided beds and furniture when we moved in. My children attend school here, and one of my neighbors even gave birth in a clinic on the parking deck." She sighs and looks around. "I can't complain but it's not home. It just doesn't seem like home."

Navarro isn't alone. Nearly 4,000 other homeless people are crammed into the parking levels of the mall, waiting resettlement in housing the government plans to build in the near future. Many more are arriving since unusually heavy December rains wreaked havoc in the city's hillside slums. Outside the parking levels, the mall is largely unoccupied. Heavy trucks pull up to the building at all hours of the day, using its basement levels to store foodstuffs for a chain of government grocery stores. For the most part, though, the building is empty, its floors littered with dust and empty boxes.

The shopping mall, which sits squarely in a mixed residential-business neighborhood of Caracas, is part of a worsening housing shortage that now confronts Chávez, who took office in 1999. It also symbolizes the battle over the future of private property in the country.

Venezuela, a country of about 28 million people, faces a housing deficit of about 2 million units, analysts say. With an average of four people per home, that means about 8 million people are homeless, living in shelters or with relatives or friends, or stuck in unsafe housing.

"The government needs to build 100,000 units a year to keep the [housing] deficit stable," says Carlos Genatios, an engineer and professor at the Central University of Venezuela who also once served as a minister in Chávez's cabinet. "Instead, the government built on average about 28,000 units each year from 1999 through 2010. The deficit has actually grown by about a million since Chávez took office."

The shopping mall is just the latest flashpoint of the country's housing crisis.

Surrounded by tall apartment buildings, the mall was weeks away from opening when Chávez abruptly ordered its expropriation, even though the project had been approved by two of his closest allies. It had been expected to create 4,000 jobs and boost tax revenue for the city.

Since its seizure, the government has promised to convert the building into a university, hospital, or government-services building. That all changed last year when heavy rains left thousands homeless in the greater Caracas area: Refugees were ordered to the building, where makeshift shelters were built in the mall's parking garage.

"That is when the problems began," says Campos, the neighborhood activist. "The mall was supposed to improve the neighborhood, create jobs, and make this a better place to live. Now, crime has soared. Traffic and noise have become unsupportable as the government decided to use part of the mall as a warehouse for food. Trucks come and unload at all hours of the night, making it difficult to sleep."

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/06/skyscraper_slum_caracas
 
anti-chavez propaganda. venezuela was full of poor people b4 chavez was democratically elected. when they had a U.S. backed coup to get rid of chavez. those same poor people came to his rescue. see "the revolution will not be televised" documentary.
I was in downtown LA around 1pm in the morning recently, the homeless situation is way out of control. neighboring counties dump their sick, impoverished and mentally damaged people there. nobody gives a fuck. there used to be homeless activist on the news and protest marches, etc. now it is just accepted commonplace all over this country. b4 you start throwing rocks at another glass building check your own shit first. Chavez is the first indigenous/Black man president of Venezuela. He was obama before obama. He is demeaned b/c he wants to used his countries resources for it people. He is hated by the elites in his country, the international elites abroad, and the sheep who follow their masters thinking.
 
anti-chavez propaganda. venezuela was full of poor people b4 chavez was democratically elected. when they had a U.S. backed coup to get rid of chavez. those same poor people came to his rescue. see "the revolution will not be televised" documentary.
I was in downtown LA around 1pm in the morning recently, the homeless situation is way out of control. neighboring counties dump their sick, impoverished and mentally damaged people there. nobody gives a fuck. there used to be homeless activist on the news and protest marches, etc. now it is just accepted commonplace all over this country. b4 you start throwing rocks at another glass building check your own shit first. Chavez is the first indigenous/Black man president of Venezuela. He was obama before obama. He is demeaned b/c he wants to used his countries resources for it people. He is hated by the elites in his country, the international elites abroad, and the sheep who follow their masters thinking.

Since Chávez was elected in 1998, over 100,000 worker-owned cooperatives—representing approximately 1.5 million people—have been formed with the assistance of government start-up credit and technical training;[248] and the creation and maintenance, as of September 2010, of over 30,000 communal councils, examples of localised participatory democracy; which he intended to be integration into regional umbrella organizations known as "Communes in Construction".[249] In 2010, Chávez supported the construction of 184 communes, housing thousands of families, with $23 million in government funding. The communes produce some of their own food, and are able to make decisions by popular assembly of what to do with government funds.[250] In September 2010, Chávez announced the location of 876 million bolivars ($203 million) for community projects around the country, specifically communal councils and the newly formed communes. Chávez also criticised the bureaucracy still common in Venezuela saying, when in discussion with his Communes Minister Isis Ochoa, that "All of the projects must be carried out by the commune, not the bureaucracy." The Ministry for Communes, which oversees and funds all communal projects, was initiated in 2009.[249]

I agree there are a lot of propaganda being floated around on him in the U.S. to discourage what is going on in Venezuela from occurring here. He also nationalize the oil industry, the reason they tried to remove him from power. Many right wing propaganda outfits utilize the same tactic, they show up in these countries with cameras and head toward the poorest area and where the prostitutes are located; try to focus on what is going wrong.

I am liking Hugo Chavez support of cooperatives by helping out with financing, tax breaks, government contracts preference; giving workers a strong voice on the job. You don't have to worry about a cooperative moving operations to another country.
They could also be listed on the stock exchanges, and tap into the equity markets.

Workers have more stake on a job than an investor that can log onto E-trade and dump shares when management is doing a poor job.

Why aren't these alternative legal business entities being discussed in business schools? Why don't states have a LLC, Limited Liability Cooperative or some other designation specifically designed for workers cooperatives with a low tax rate? Is it intentionally hidden to discourage it?

It is all about a feudalistic corporate structure, that causes wages to rise to the top, that become transnational and move jobs overseas at the whim of management
 
Last edited:
Since Chávez was elected in 1998, over 100,000 worker-owned cooperatives—representing approximately 1.5 million people—have been formed with the assistance of government start-up credit and technical training;[248] and the creation and maintenance, as of September 2010, of over 30,000 communal councils, examples of localised participatory democracy; which he intended to be integration into regional umbrella organizations known as "Communes in Construction".[249] In 2010, Chávez supported the construction of 184 communes, housing thousands of families, with $23 million in government funding. The communes produce some of their own food, and are able to make decisions by popular assembly of what to do with government funds.[250] In September 2010, Chávez announced the location of 876 million bolivars ($203 million) for community projects around the country, specifically communal councils and the newly formed communes. Chávez also criticised the bureaucracy still common in Venezuela saying, when in discussion with his Communes Minister Isis Ochoa, that "All of the projects must be carried out by the commune, not the bureaucracy." The Ministry for Communes, which oversees and funds all communal projects, was initiated in 2009.[249]

I agree there are a lot of propaganda being floated around on him in the U.S. to discourage what is going on in Venezuela from occurring here. He also nationalize the oil industry, the reason they tried to remove him from power. Many right wing propaganda outfits utilize the same tactic, they show up in these countries with cameras and head toward the poorest area and where the prostitutes are located; try to focus on what is going wrong.

I am liking Hugo Chavez support of cooperatives by helping out with financing, tax breaks, government contracts preference; giving workers a strong voice on the job. You don't have to worry about a cooperative moving operations to another country.
They could also be listed on the stock exchanges, and tap into the equity markets.

Workers have more stake on a job than an investor that can log onto E-trade and dump shares when management is doing a poor job.

Why aren't these alternative legal business entities being discussed in business schools? Why don't states have a LLC, Limited Liability Cooperative or some other designation specifically designed for workers cooperatives with a low tax rate? Is it intentionally hidden to discourage it?

It is all about a feudalistic corporate structure, that causes wages to rise to the top, that become transnational and move jobs overseas at the whim of management


Coops are cool if they are formed without MY TAX DOLLARS. I am sure some working stiff in Venezuala feels the same .Some people in Venezuala oppose him you know... even poor people... just like people in the U.S (myself included). Imagine that? Somebody opposes state controlled industry Weird huh?

BTW business schools in the U.S not teaching alternative corporate structures? Have you been to any business school on the Eastern Sea-Board? The University of Pittsburgh School of Business has some confirmed on the Record REDS teaching business. So Co-ops are probably business 101 in there curriculums. "State owned enterprises" is probably Business 102, "how to get money from your neighbor" is Business 103, "How to get bailouts from the Gov for your failed insurance company" Would be Business 104, you have graduated once you have mastered, "getting as many people on welfare- and therefore reliant on politicians whom they then re-elect (weird how that works)" or Business 105.
 
source: Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

His independence, help for Venezuela's poor will not be forgiven

chavez-300x204.jpg


Venezuela's left-wing populist president Hugo Chávez died on Tuesday, March 5, after a two-year battle with cancer. If world leaders were judged by the sheer volume of corporate media vitriol and misinformation about their policies, Chávez would be in a class of his own.

Shortly after Chávez won his first election in 1998, the U.S. government deemed him a threat to U.S. interests--an image U.S. media eagerly played up. When a coup engineered by Venezuelan business and media elites removed Chávez from power, many leading U.S outlets praised the move (Extra!, 6/02). The New York Times (4/13/02), calling it a "resignation," declared that "Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator." The Chicago Tribune (4/14/02) cheered the removal of a leader who had been "praising Osama bin Laden"--an absurdly false charge.

But that kind of reckless rhetoric was evidently permissible in media discussions about Chávez. Seven years later, CNN (1/15/09) hosted a discussion of Chávez with Democratic strategist Doug Schoen, where he and host John Roberts discussed whether or not Chávez was worse than Osama bin Laden. As Schoen put it, "He's given Al-Qaeda and Hamas an open invitation to come to Caracas."

There were almost no limits to overheated media rhetoric about Chávez. In a single news article, Newsweek (11/2/09) managed to compare him to Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin. (Chávez had built a movie studio, which is the sort of thing dictators apparently do.) ABC (World News, 10/7/12) called him a "fierce enemy of the United States," the Washington Post (10/16/06) an “autocratic demagogue." Fox News (12/5/05) said that his government was "really Communism"--despite the fact he was repeatedly returned to office in internationally certified elections (Extra!, 11-12/06) that Jimmy Carter deemed "the best in the world" (Guardian, 10/3/12).

Apart from the overheated claims about terrorism and his growing military threat to the region (FAIR Blog, 4/1/07), media often tried to make a simpler case: Chávez wasn't good for Venezuelans. The supposed economic ruin in Venezuela was a staple of the coverage. The Washington Post editorial page (1/5/13) complained of "the economic pain caused by Mr. Chávez," the man who has "wrecked their once-prosperous country." And a recent New York Times piece (12/13/12) tallied some of the hassles of daily life, declaring that such

frustrations are typical in Venezuela, for rich and poor alike, and yet President Hugo Chávez has managed to stay in office for nearly 14 years, winning over a significant majority of the public with his outsize personality, his free-spending of state resources and his ability to convince Venezuelans that the Socialist revolution he envisions will make their lives better.

Of course, Venezuelans might feel that Chávez already had improved their lives (FAIR Blog, 12/13/12), with poverty cut in half, increased availability of food and healthcare, expanded educational opportunities and a real effort to build grassroots democratic institutions. (For more of this, read Greg Grandin's piece in the Nation--3/5/13.)

Those facts of Venezuelan life were not entirely unacknowledged by U.S. media. But these policies, reflecting new national priorities about who should benefit from the country's oil wealth, were treated as an unscrupulous ploy of Chávez's to curry favor with the poor. As the Washington Post (2/24/13) sneered, Chávez won "unconditional support from the poverty-stricken masses" by "doling out jobs to supporters and showering the poor with gifts." NPR's All Things Considered (3/5/13) told listeners that "millions of Venezuelans loved him because he showered the poor with social programs."

Buying the support of your own citizens is one thing; harboring negative feelings about the United States is something else entirely. As CBS Evening News (1/8/13) recently put it, "Chávez has made a career out of bashing the United States." But one wonders how friendly any U.S. political leaders would be toward a government that had supported their overthrow.

Though this is often treated as another Chávez conspiracy theory--"A central ideological pillar of Chávez's rule over 14 years has been to oppose Republican and Democratic administrations in Washington, which he accuses of trying to destabilize his government," the Washington Post (1/10/13) reported--the record of U.S. support for the coup leaders is clear.

As a State Department report (FAIR Blog, 1/11/13) acknowledged, various U.S. agencies had "provided training, institution building and other support to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved in the brief ouster of the Chávez government." The Bush administration declared its support for the short-lived coup regime, saying Chávez was "responsible for his fate" (Guardian, 4/21/09).

Of course, as with any country, there are aspects of Chávez's government that could be criticized. U.S. media attention to Venezuela's flaws, however, was obviously in service to an official agenda--as documented by FAIR's study (Extra!, 2/09) of editorials on human rights, which showed Venezuela getting much harsher criticism than the violent repression of the opposition in U.S.-allied Colombia.

Time-chavez.jpg


In reporting Chávez's death, little had changed. "Venezuela Bully Chávez Is Dead," read the New York Post's front page (3/6/13); "Death of a Demogogue" was on Time's home page (3/6/13). CNN host Anderson Cooper (3/5/13) declared it was "the death of a world leader who made America see red, as in Fidel Castro red, Venezuela's socialist president, Hugo Chávez."

"The words 'Venezuelan strongman' so often preceded his name, and for good reason," declared NBC Nightly News host Brian Williams (3/5/13); on ABC World News (3/5/13), viewers were told that "many Americans viewed him as a dictator." That would be especially true if those Americans consumed corporate media.

The fact that U.S. elite interests are an overarching concern is not exactly hidden. Many reports on Chávez's passing were quick to note the country's oil wealth. NBC's Williams asserted, "All this matters a lot to the U.S., since Venezuela sits on top of a lot of oil and that's how this now gets interesting for the United States." MSNBC's Rachel Maddow (3/5/13) concurred: "I mean, Venezuela is a serious country in the world stage. It is sitting on the world's largest proven oil reserves."

And CNN's Barbara Starr (3/5/13) reported: "You're going to see a lot of U.S. businesses keep a very close eye on this transition in Venezuela. They're going to want to know that their investments are secure and that this is a stable country to invest in." Those U.S. businesses would seem to include its media corporations.
 
Back
Top