Left-wing Uruguay leader sworn in

Uruguay has inaugurated its first left-wing president, Tabare Vazquez, in front of several of Latin America's most prominent leftist leaders.

Thousands of Uruguayan supporters celebrated in the streets of the capital, Montevideo, as he took office.

President Vazquez restored full diplomatic relations with Cuba immediately after being sworn in.

He said that ties between the two countries - severed in 2002 - should never have been broken off.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4309253.stm

d'ya think?

one no doubt guilty of vast human rights abuses.

Yes, he was elected, but he is obviously plotting to get rid of elections and become Stalinist. Just like Chavez.

He's just another communistic America-hater who believes that Latin America is not the property of US speculators and corporations, and that the FTAA, the IMF, the WTO, and the World Bank are not the gracious gifts of a divinely empowered Empire bent on righteously spreading the virtues of neoliberalism, vast economic inequality, compliance with imperial authority, and other elements of real democracy.

Yes, he was elected, but he is obviously plotting to get rid of elections and become Stalinist. Just like Chavez.

He's just another communistic America-hater who believes that Latin America is not the property of US speculators and corporations, and that the FTAA, the IMF, the WTO, and the World Bank are not the gracious gifts of a divinely empowered Empire bent on righteously spreading the virtues of neoliberalism, vast economic inequality, compliance with imperial authority, and other elements of real democracy.

We'll see if, unlike Chavez, he will allow real trade unions to form, as opposed to state puppets. I think theres a need for a realization that not everyone who stands up and claims they fight for the people and puts a fork in the eye of America is in anyway a real catalyst for change.

Chavez speaks alot for the so-called worker, and then turns around and sacked 19K of them in the state oil enterprise for going on strike, has packed his state scion UNETE, and has opposed and otherwise tried as hard as possible to decertify the independent CTV. All of this and more, is highlighted in the most recent report of labor violations by the ICFTU.

The overarching point I'm trying to make is that the guys an idiot, and only pays lip service to worker freedom and ideals. The fact that he sticks it in the eye of America only means he wants to keep the spoils to himself in his country, as opposed to fair distribution amongst the workers.

blocked the attempt to recall him with 58% of the vote.

And that's why they elected him with 60% of the vote last time he was up for a real election.

And that's why they approved in a referendum his changes to the Constitution.

And that's why they prevented the coup against him from succeeding.

Because he is an "idiot" who "only pays lip service to worker freedom and ideals."

Well in that case Bush represents all of us, and we should hush it and stop complaining. You're not dealing with anything of what I'm saying, and simply throwing numbers of which aren't particuarly larger than Bush's numbers for a "Mandate". At what point of cutoff is a leader an absolute representation of his countrymen? 60%? 52%? If 60% is suitable enough to hush all opposition, than clearly were not too far away from a threshold of us just all going back into our cages. Don't use a double standard just because the guy claims leftist credentials.

I'm not suggesting that the guys behind the coup weren't American puppets, or friends of the elite class in Venezuela. I am not suggesting that there aren't forces at work on the right wanting to remove him. But there are people on the left who want him gone.

And you still didn't deal with anything of what I said, nor could you, without shattering your view of him as a person for workers rights. Why then did he illegally fire 19,000 state oil employees? How is that any different than Reagan ordering the flight controllers back in the 80's? How is a real country for workers suppose to function when workers can't even organize politically independent unions away from state control? The simple answer is it can't, because it isn't a real country for workers.

A sixteen-point lead is not a two-point lead, one is a close victory, the other, if it happened in the US, would be called a landslide. (According to the American press, of course, it's another indication of Venezuela's "divided public.")

I did not say that Chavez represents all of the people of Venezuela, he certainly does not represent most of the rich sections of the population.

My point is merely that those you claim he is working against seem to be enthusiastically supporting him, which is one reason I disagree with your claims.

The leadership of Venezuela's establishment trade unions is a component of the pre-Chavez system; it is intent on preserving that system, which is why it despises Chavez and why it is aligned with the United States and Venezuela's elite.

I'm making claims? No, I'm citing facts. These incidents of harassment by the state, both in protests and in the inner operations of independent unions

My point is merely that those you claim he is working against seem to be enthusiastically supporting him, which is one reason I disagree with your claims.

Tell that to the 19,000 workers who went on strike. Oh...are they somehow the "rich, elite"? Are they somehow ancient ossified union stewards who are part of the "pre-Chavez" system.

The leadership of Venezuela's establishment trade unions is a component of the pre-Chavez system; it is intent on preserving that system, which is why it despises Chavez and why it is aligned with the United States and Venezuela's elite.

Of course, the CTV, an affiliate of the ICFTU, the largest international organization of independent trade unions (including the colombian unions who have seen 98 members killed in the past year alone) HAS to be a puppet of "pre-Chavez" days. I mean theres no other explanation for the below than that they are CLEARLY capitalist agitators.

On July 17, Juan Rafael Osorio died of two gunshot wounds inflicted by a GN agent whilst he and other unemployed workers were protesting about the lack of jobs at the José Industrial Estate (in Anzoátegui). The person who fired the shot, a high-ranking GN officer, was later arrested.

Oh yes...that is most certainly free and fair labor organizing.

It was more of a lockout than strike, and it was all about anti-Chavez and anti-democracy machinations and nothing to do with Labor rights.

Sacking the workers (and most of all the managers and mid-level paper pushers) who chose to side with the corrupt Union leadership in an attempt to bankrupt the state at US request was extraordinary measure at extraordinary circumstances.

But in any case, opposition and criticism to Chavez from the LEFT is most wellcome and usefull thing, but let's try to keep to the facts and not forget about the context so very conveniently.

Chavez "wanting to keep the spoils to himself instead of distributing" is grave accusation, and you need to back it up with real evidence.

BTW one thing I've learned about unions is that they don't give a shit about the real poor, the unemployed and self-"employed". Unions are not the voice of people, voice of democracy. They are juct voice of some people, a voice in democracy.

Chavez "wanting to keep the spoils to himself instead of distributing" is grave accusation, and you need to back it up with real evidence.

This charge against my statements is ridiculous, and absurd considering the statement you produce after it. A legitimate labor union movement needs no handholding with the state, or some vague leftist populism whom speaks much, hands out a little more than what they are used to, and keeps much for itself. There is a reason why many in the old, vanguard left promote such leftist leaders like Chavez while ignoring the Zapatista movement in Mexico, because THAT movement was based not around a charismatic leder, or in fact any leaders at all, but a truely democratic, grassroots organizing.


BTW one thing I've learned about unions is that they don't give a shit about the real poor, the unemployed and self-"employed".

I have my own issues with typical hardline trade unionism, of the sort that has grown up in America and Europe. To a certain extent the model the promoted was not sustainable for a vast movement, and was mostly concerned more with raiding other unions and steward fiefdoms, than with working class solidarity.

That said, your accusation that unions "don't give a shit" is a ridiculous charge, and one not supported by over a 150 years of labor agitation of all stripes, from the Wobblies to the anarcho-syndicalists of the CNT of Spain to the UFW of Cesar Chavez in the grape fields of California. Labor trade unionists of all stripes, from anarcho-syndicalists, to communistic, to the old guard have brought about significant change in the work place and workers rights in many countries. To ascertain that "unions" as a broad category don't give a shit, is to be quite frankly, ignorant of history and the reality on the ground. People who believed in labor agitation and trade unionism have died and gone to jail for things we take for granted like the 8 hour work day, over time, workers compensation, etc. Do not insult their legacy by insinuating that "unions" as a concept "don't give a shit".

If I have a political ideology, it's anarcho-syndicalist, but I'm not utopian and live in this world (Northen Europe to be exact).

Sometimes you've got choose your side, and if in that particular context of lock-out (not real strike) you choose the corrupt union allied with imperialistic and openly fascist corporate oligarchy instead of democratically elected social democratic leader whose policies help people learn to read, get medical treatment etc, you choose wrong, period.

As for the unions, I said NOW, I didn't speak about history. When the biggest and most powerfull union tells the governement during very deep depression, as happened hear not so long ago, to cut the minimum unemployment allowance for long-term unemployed (veeery little) so that the (veeery goood!) wage related benefits could be left intact, you are righ, that not "don't give a shit". It's worse. It's the stronger trying to steal from the weakest.

When the unions in the EU15 forcefully demand (and get their demand)that the workers in the new 10 members (hit hard by the post collapse neoliberal policies) must wait for equal rights of freedom of movement and employment inside EU for several years, it's not only not giving a shit, it is narrow minded, racist stupidity.

When the unions in the EU15 forcefully demand (and get their demand)that the workers in the new 10 members (hit hard by the post collapse neoliberal policies) must wait for equal rights of freedom of movement and employment inside EU for several years, it's not only not giving a shit, it is narrow minded, racist stupidity.

I agree. Such protectionist measures are only a stopgap, and do not address the root cause of the problem, namely that there exist no worker rights in many of these countries currently being gobbled up by neo-liberal policies. We cannot merely protect one trade union in a developed country by leaving our class brethren out to dry in other countries. This where the syndicalist idea of "One Big Union" comes into play, and one the mainline trade unions have generally ignored till the sweeping leadership changes of the mid 90's, which have made the AFL-CIO and other unions under its umbrella far more democratic, though still far from perfect. We see, more so, such social justice and democratic organizing in the one place where organizing isn't even legal, agricultural workers. All workers, union or non union, must be protected, for the sake of class solidarity and the eventual "One Big Union".