FEMEN, Imams, European Central Bank, Germany, Lefties, Neo-Nazis & 1985 Handsworth Riots, Britain

ꕤ Video SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM-wxU86v8g&feature=youtu.be ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. FULL AT SOURCE http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150914/1026951990/Topless-Jihadists-Beaten-at-Muslim-Salon-in-France.html RT NEWS Europe 00:54 14.09.2015  (updated 01:54 14.09.2015) FEMEN fires off again: two of its feminist activists have been beaten and dragged off scene in an attempt to toplessly interrupt a Muslim conference held over the weekend in Paris suburbs. They ran on stage in front of two imams ... Thereafter, both partly nude women were dragged off by security personnel and, as it can clearly be seen on the video of the incident, were slapped and kicked by an unidentified man. The activists were later detained by police and released later that night. The organizers of the salon announced their plan to file a lawsuit against the activists who interrupted the event. [ ... ] A petition on Change.org created days before the event that was encouraging to ban the salon and gathered some 8000 signatures claims the imams leading the event, Nader Abou Anas and Mehdi Kebir, are misogynic fundamentalists, who justify marital rape and other forms of gender violence. Video SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAC3EGnr9hg FEMEN Crash ECB President Mario Draghi ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. comment I've never been a fan of tittie protests, or any kind of protests, really. While protests may be a useful political tool, I think there's such a thing as overplaying the protests and losing credibility, and coming across as inauthentic, in over-use. So, while not a fan, I did at least get a few laughs and soften my attitude after seeing the surprise the ladies gave the European Central Bank President, Mario Drughi -- who's soooooo adorable looking and good natured, that he comes across like loveable Sesame Street character. Contrast that with the Paris protest. Yes, I understand that these men have a set of beliefs.  But they are in what is presumably still a civilised country, in which it is unacceptable for a group of men to mob, slap, and kick women. other GERMANY Video SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_ggRD8K3Bw&feature=youtu.be ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Published on 12 Sep 2015 "Riot police knocked an innocent bystander to the ground, rendering him unconscious, during clashes with leftist demonstrators in Hamburg. The officer attacked the man, smashing him in the face with an elbow, throwing him straight to the ground, and knocking him unconscious. Police also used pepper spray, water cannon, and batons against protesters." ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- 14,000 Germans protest against xenophobia in Hamburg Thousands of Germans have taken to the streets of Hamburg in a major demonstration supporting tolerance and democracy, while a protest by a far-right movement for a "day of German patriots" was banned. A peaceful rally in the German port city of Hamburg has gathered at least 14,000 people on Saturday, according to police estimates, dpa news agency reported. In the morning at the Central railway station, police reported a 7,500-strong rally of supporters of the leftist "Hamburger Alliance against the Right." People who gathered on the square in front of the Town Hall were carrying bright pink balloons, as a sign of their participation in the rally "Hamburg shows its true colors." They were holding banners that read “Refugees welcome” and “Real patriots against German policy,” according to the Schleswig-Holstein news portal. “I think it is important to make a statement and to show the world what Germany is about, and that is not the right-wing section and it is not the Nazi movement,” one of the protesters told RT’s Peter Oliver. Another demonstration remained under a ban on Saturday, the day when German right-wing extremists, Neo-Nazis and Hooligans against Salafists groups had scheduled to mark the "Day of German patriots." The planned 3,000-strong rally was banned by the Federal Constitutional Court on Friday evening. As the ban led to an unexpected relocation of the Neo-Nazi demonstration to Bremen, police issued another order, prohibiting Hamburger participants to travel to the neighboring city. About 100 people were arrested in the urban area later to be sent back to Hamburg, and a Hamburg-Bremen train with about 250 demonstrators was stopped by the police, local Weser Kurier newspaper reported Saturday. A group of 34 Neo-Nazis were taken to custody after clashes with officers, according to the police. On Saturday, European capitals were flooded with people making a stand against the current refugee policies of their governments. Over 30,000 Danes gathered in Copenhagen to voice their support for thousands of refugees, who have chosen their country as a shelter from war, according to the police. They were shouting “Refugees are welcome,” and their banners read "Europe is the closest neighbourhood to Syria,” The Local reported. Prague, in its turn, confronted the EU policy of granting asylum to the rising tide of refugees, TASS news agency reported. Some 400 Czechs protested in the capital city, chanting “Stop the Islamization of Europe” and “This country is our home,” and over 300 people took part in a motor race in the center of the city. On Friday, the International Office for Migration (IOM) released the most recent figures that could characterize the refugee crisis as the biggest seen since WWII. It estimated the number of refugees who have traveled to Europe at 433,000 people, saying that many arrive in Italy and Greece by sea and later head for northern EU member states, such as Germany. In the next few days, another 40,000 refugees are expected to cross the southern German border, thus doubling the record number reached last weekend. source http://www.rt.com/news/315176-germany-hamburg-protest-racism ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- comment Europe is so screwed. Particularly Germany. What kind of country prevents people from protesting and blocks their freedom of movement? In trying to prevent fascism, Germany *is* fascist. And it looks like it's German against German; left against right.  The massive ribbon waving in favour of immigration is all well and good, but what of the immediate consequences of such immigration to the various countries' vulnerable and working class, and what of the irreversible social consequences of immigration? ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. The 1985 Handsworth Riots: 30 years on Today marks 30 years since the second round of serious riots in the Birmingham district of Handsworth during the 9th to 11th of September 1985. [ ... ] Two other people were unaccounted for, 35 others injured, more than 1500 police officers drafted into the area, about 45 shops looted and burnt, and a trail of damage running into hundreds of thousands of pounds. [ ... ] The area became notorious with continued rioting over the course of two decades. Rioting erupted in Handsworth in 1981 and followed again in 1985. Six years later, more widespread disturbances took place in 1991 and barely 10 years ago, areas of Birmingham including Handsworth and Lozells were hit by more race riots. [  ...] SOURCE http://www.itv.com/news/central/2015-09-09/the-1985-handsworth-riots-30-years-on/ Assange Transnational Security Elite, Carving Up the World Using Your Tax Money London  OCT8 Antiwar Mass Assembly (2011) Link  |  here ꕤ

USA - Presidential Elections

AMERICA HILLARY 2016 HELL NO Robby Mook heading Hillary Clinton presidential campaign 35-yo exp. political campaigner *muzzling Bill Clinton will be a priority* Surprise, Surprise: exploiting gay rights as centerpiece campaign /point of difference, for gay vote http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-gay-vote-lgbt-activists-embrace-historic-2016-presidential-campaign-1879647 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ America’s libertarian freakshow: Inside the free-market fetish of Rand Paul & Ted Cruz Next year's GOP primary is shaping up to be a great one for small-government zealots. Here's what's at stake Conor Lynch [...] So how has our economy become this monstrous fusion of government and business? Paul and Cruz go after the usual enemy — the state. Libertarians believe that it is the government — which just can’t mind its own business — that caused crony-capitalism. If only the government got its hands out of the private industries, then a purer form of capitalist harmony would emerge. The idea of lemonade-stand capitalism suits their ideology perfectly — but it is a myth. In reality, the more “free” a market becomes, the more the competition gets rigged. In a capitalist system, the main goal is to grow and accumulate indefinitely. Competition is an effective way to drive innovation and efficiency in theory. But as businesses grow into large corporations and gain larger shares of the market, smaller producers can no longer compete, and must either work for the competition or exit the industry. We see this dynamic at work in the dominance of companies like Walmart and Amazon, who have managed to stack the deck overwhelmingly in their own favor and drive innumerable smaller competitors out of business. One thing about capitalism that free-market libertarians do not seem to understand is that it represents a constantly evolving social system. This also means that theories must also keep up with reality, and not reside in past centuries. In today’s world, corporations rule, and in America, as regulations have become laxer over the past few decades, they have grown even larger, especially in the finance industry, where the biggest corporations began merging after the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act into the too-big-to-fail behemoth’s that persist even today. The problems become even more pronounced when you consider the power available to the world’s largest companies. After the Citizens United ruling, which both Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have defended, corporations can contribute unlimited funds to political action committees. Enter the Koch brothers, who are planning to spend about $900 million on the 2016 election. The game is rigged, there is no doubt about it, and crony-capitalism exists — but it is not a perversion of “pure capitalism,” it is simply a natural evolution of it. Capitalists do not care about theory, as libertarians do; they care about getting ahead and increasing profit. Tilting the scales in one’s favor is simply an expedient way to achieve said profits. Competition on a level playing field isn’t a feature in such a system, but a bug, and one that’s increasingly been pushed to the margins. So the solution provided by libertarian leaning individuals like Paul and Cruz is based on this false notion of what capitalism actually is. They say that government is always the problem, and that it is the states fault for the crony-capitalism of today. But it is not the state who has corrupted the corporations, but the corporations who have corrupted the state. Getting rid of regulations and privatizing everything, as libertarians propose, would not create a pure form of capitalism where everyone has a fair shot — it would create a dystopia of abusive and uncaring corporations without any accountability to the public. The true answer to fighting the crony capitalism of today is to attack the nexus of corporations and their government sponsors. And Citizens United, contrary to what Cruz and Paul seem to believe, is one of the clearest examples. When politicians depend on millions upon millions of corporate campaign dollars, one cannot honestly expect them to be on the side of the common people. The game is rigged. If a politician attempts to do their job and refuses to court the wealthy and corporations, they will most likely cease to be a politician in the next election. This is especially true for presidential politics, where campaign spending has skyrocketed. During the 2008 election, eight donors gave more than $1 million to outside groups, like Super PACs. Fours short years later, and two years after the court decision, this number shot up to 126 for the 2012 election. The only way to truly fight crony capitalism is to stop the madness, and limit campaign spending, or more preferably make campaigns publicly financed. Get private money out of politics, and create a level playing field, where politicians can honestly say what they believe without having to worry about campaign donations. [...]    *EXTRACS ONLY* - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.salon.com/2015/04/14/americas_libertarian_freakshow_inside_the_free_market_fetish_of_rand_paul_ted_cruz/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ COMMENT Watching the US election campaign could be very interesting.  Not sure I have it in me.  It's a massive amount of information. Enjoyed this guy's Salon article.  Don't know that reining in campaign contributions by the wealthy is the solution to America's problems.  But it would be a help, I guess.  The real solution would be a socialist system.  No chance in the home of the greedy few, exploiting the many. Not much interesting going on in the news, or maybe I'm having a news OD and just not that interested?

UK - SOCIALITY EQUALITY PARTY - Scotland’s No vote and the crisis of the British nation state

SCOTLAND Scotland’s No vote and the crisis of the British nation state Statement of the Socialist Equality Party (UK) 19 September 2014 Independence for Scotland was defeated in Thursday’s referendum by 55.3 percent to 44.7 percent on an 84.6 percent turnout. There was an initial sense of relief in ruling circles, given that at one point, according to opinion polls, the Yes campaign looked set to secure a majority—threatening the imminent dissolution of the 307-year union between Scotland, England and Wales. Such a prospect had been likened to a new “Lehman’s moment”—a reference to the bank failure that triggered the 2008 financial crash. There were fears too that a Yes victory would have weakened Britain’s ruling elite on all fronts, prompting warnings by politicians, economists, corporate executives and military figures. The British pound and UK shares both rallied Friday morning, after having suffered major losses in recent days. Alex Salmond, leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP), announced his intention to resign in recognition of the Yes campaign’s failure. But by the end of the day, gains for shares and sterling had swung into reverse as it became clear that the acute crisis of the British nation state was far from over. Most worrying for the bourgeoisie was the fact that the majority against separation came despite, not because of, the campaign by the major parties—Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat—which formed the backbone of the “Better Together” camp. The campaign revealed the huge level of disaffection and hostility towards the Westminster elite, all of whom are associated with illegal colonial wars and austerity. That a majority rejected efforts to divert anger over this state of affairs into support for the creation of new national borders is testimony to the strong sense of shared identity among working people [Whose identity?] and a well-founded mistrust of the pro-big business SNP. However, the Yes campaign was able to successfully exploit social and political discontent among a section of workers and youth to increase support for independence by approximately 15 percent from 2012. More than two out of five voted for separation, with Glasgow, Scotland’s largest city, registering a majority Yes vote. The SNP owes everything to fake-left forces—the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP), Tommy Sheridan, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Radical Independence Campaign. Their role was to conceal the reactionary social and political interests represented by Scottish separatism and paint it in pseudo-socialist colours. To this end they acted as the foot-soldiers of the Yes campaign, recasting the SNP as part of a broad movement for a more progressive post-independence Scotland. The fake-left tendencies now claim that the increase in the Yes vote is itself proof of the working class credentials of Scottish nationalism. It is nothing of the sort. The enormous development of globalised production and financial markets has provided a section of the regional bourgeoisie with the opportunity to secure direct relations with the transnational corporations and banks, bypassing central government.  That is why the SNP’s central demand was for a cut in corporation tax. Around this bourgeois faction gravitates a middle class layer of state functionaries, academics and trade union bureaucrats that provides the social basis for the fake-left groups. SSP leader Colin Fox summed up their future course, claiming that the result was “independence deferred.” They are mooting the possibility of forming a new “left,” i.e., nationalist, party in Scotland that could include sections of the Labour Party and the SNP. The No vote has in no way lessened the dangers facing working people across Britain. There are deep divisions within the ruling elite on virtually every question. Far from a period of “reconciliation” opening up, the next months will see a bitter struggle on every front. In the aftermath of their defeat, the SNP and its allies are demanding the greatest possible concessions from Westminster in a bitter scramble to control vital resources, such as taxes on North Sea Oil, from which they hope to become personally very wealthy. For his part, Prime Minister David Cameron used the result to insist that Scotland had had its say and it was now time to listen to the “millions of voices of England.” While guaranteeing that the three parties’ pledge of more powers for the Scottish parliament would be “honoured in full,” he pledged to introduce “English votes for English laws”—ending the right of Scottish and Welsh MPs to vote on certain issues now dealt with in the Scottish parliament and Welsh Assembly. Drafted by Labour, and presented as an alternative path to “home rule” for Scotland, the measures to expand the powers of the Scottish parliament include a commitment to extend tax-varying powers and oversight of certain areas of social welfare to Holyrood. Cameron’s announcement makes clear that these measures will, in fact, be used to encourage national and regional competition everywhere, with one commentator claiming that the “slumbering beast of English nationalism” had been awakened.  [Uncertain what this means] In addition, Cameron hopes to permanently cripple the Labour Party by excluding Scottish and Welsh MPs, on whom Labour relies, from voting on English matters—prompting Labour Party leader Ed Miliband to reject Cameron’s proposals. Whatever emerges from the internecine [mutually destructive] conflict in ruling circles, the bill will be paid by the working class, who will be pitted against one another in a race to the bottom in terms of jobs, wages and social conditions. The referendum campaign must serve as a profound warning. Without a socialist reorientation of the working class, the deepening crisis of British and world capitalism can take on reactionary forms—above all in the deliberate fostering of national divisions. The Socialist Equality Party is the only tendency that advanced a political alternative. We urged a No vote in the referendum based on uniting working people against all sections of the bourgeoisie in the fight for a socialist Britain.  [Great.  So Scotland doesn't get its independence ... & working classes everywhere are shafted regardless.  Meanwhile a 'socialist Britain' is a fantasy that will *never* be realised.  Bad call.] We warned that the nationalism whipped up by the SNP and the fake-left would strengthen similar right-wing tendencies in Europe and internationally. The SEP counterposed [set against] to the Balkanization of the continent into a patchwork of mini-states and ethnic cantons the fight for the United Socialist States of Europe. In the course of our campaign, we sold over 10,000 copies of our statement “ Vote No in the Scottish referendum—Fight for a Socialist Britain ” and discussed with tens of thousands of workers and young people. Many expressed relief at meeting socialists opposed to nationalism and upholding working class unity. Our intervention centered on combating the lies and distortions of the pseudo-left groups. Explaining that the potential breakup of the UK was rooted in the deepening crisis of world capitalism and the outmoded division of the planet into antagonistic nation states, we urged the adoption by the working class of a new socialist and internationalist program and leadership. In the next period, this political offensive must and will be deepened, not just in Britain, but in a unified offensive by our comrades in Europe and internationally. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/09/19/scot-s20.html

COMMENT

The notion of international socialism is an unappealing and unrealistic concept.

Very disappointed to read that a socialist organisation supported a 'No' to the Scottish independence vote, on the basis of nothing more than some fantasy nirvana of worldwide socialism.

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls - A 'Third Way' Blair (Sell-Out) Socialist?

Is Manuel Valls really a French Tony Blair? Published: 02 Sep 2014 13:49 GMT+02:00 Updated: 02 Sep 2014 13:49 GMT+02:00 Is the French Prime Minister Manuel Valls really a Gallic Tony Blair? With the help of a political expert we taker a closer look to see if the oft-made comparison is fair or false. Ever since France’s prime minister declared his love for business and nominated a former Rothschild banker as his new economy minister last week, the number of comparisons likening him to former British Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair have been coming thick and fast. Socialist MP Laurent Baumel even accused the Prime Minister of “copying and pasting” one of Tony Blair’s speeches. To see if the comparison really does fit, The Local has asked Marc Lazar, a specialist of the left and social-democrat movements in Europe, from the Institut d'études politiques de Paris (Sciences Po), to help compare. [ ... continued @ source ... ] http://www.thelocal.fr/20140902/manuel-valls-french-tony-blair

Worth a read.

Discovered something called 'The Third Way'.

It's for sell-outs who pay lip service to social justice etc, but serve business interests.
That's what I got at first glance.

As usual, I'm in too much of a hurry to slow down & really consider carefully.
Figure I'll come across this again some time, so this is enough info for now.

Mentioned in the wiki on the Third Way:

• Tony Blair (UK)
• Bill Clinton (US Democrats)
• Bob Hawke(Aust Labor)
• Paul Keating (Aust Labor)
• Matteo Renzi (Italy)
• Manuel Valls (France)

Expect Julia Gillard might be a third-wayer.

Manuel Valls is Spanish born. State school educated.

He's appointed a Rothschild banker as new economy minister (last week).
And he and Blair exploit the following:

* war on crime;
* pragmatism;
* public persuasion;
* supposedly natural leaders, authoritarian, charismatic

IMT - Trotskyism

Alan Woods is a 'political theorist'.

Curious about him because he got a mention in an economics article relating to Venezuela.

Described as 'one of the leading members of 'International Marxist Tendencies' (IMT).

Wikipedia:

The International Marxist Tendency adheres to orthodox Trotskyism, emphasising the education of cadres of workers and youth.

The IMT manifesto makes demands such as "the end to privatisation and the abandonment of market economics", "the nationalisation of privatised companies without compensation" and "the reintroduction of the state monopoly of foreign trade".

The IMT has spread to parts of Latin America, where it now has groups in Venezuela, Peru, Argentina, Mexico, Bolivia, Brazil and El Salvador. At the end of 2002 it promoted the launching of the solidarity campaign at Hands Off Venezuela, which is now active in 30 countries and has had resolutions passed within the trade union movements in Britain, Canada, Italy and other countries.

So that is:

• education and training of labour force.
• end to privatisation.
• abandonment of 'market economics' - supply and demand market / prices determined in free price system (contrast fixed price system - govt set price).
• nationalisation of privatised companies without compensation.
• reintroduction of state monopoly of foreign trade.

2009 dispute IMT leadership and leaderships of it's groups in:

• Spain
• Venezuela
• Mexico

In 2010 these (or portions) broke with IMT and established new international body, 'Corriente Marxista Revolucionaria':

• Spain
• Venezuela
• Mexico (part)
• Columbia

Thereafter break aways form 'Towards a New International Tendency' in:

• Sweden
• Poland
• Britain

Iranian section splinters off to form Marxist Revival ('with co-thinkers in Britain'), over IMT position on Venezuela's 'friendly relations with Iranian regime'.

Sounds like keeping everyone happy and united ain't easy.

Not really sure what this is all about.  Suppose it is some kind of interest/lobby group of supporters of 'orthodox Trotskyism'.

What is 'Trotskyism'?

Marxist theory:

Trotskyism is the theory of Marxism as advocated by Leon Trotsky. Trotsky identified as an orthodox Marxist and Bolshevik-Leninist, and supported founding a vanguard party of the working-class, proletarian internationalism, and a dictatorship of the proletariat based on working-class self-emancipation and mass democracy. Trotskyists are critical of Stalinism, as they oppose the idea of Socialism in One Country. ... [wikipedia]

So they don't just want socialism in one nation; it's a worldwide effort?

International revolution

According to classical Marxism, revolution in peasant-based countries, such as Russia, prepares the ground ultimately only for a development of capitalism since the liberated peasants become small owners, producers and traders which leads to the growth of commodity markets, from which a new capitalist class emerges. Only fully developed capitalist conditions prepare the basis for socialism.

Trotsky agreed that a new socialist state and economy in a country like Russia would not be able to hold out against the pressures of a hostile capitalist world, as well as the internal pressures of its backward economy. The revolution, Trotsky argued, must quickly spread to capitalist countries, bringing about a socialist revolution which must spread worldwide. In this way the revolution is "permanent", moving out of necessity first, from the bourgeois revolution to the workers’ revolution, and from there uninterruptedly to European and worldwide revolutions.

I'm getting lost now.  Don't know enough to grasp this stuff.

Worldwide anything doesn't seem a realistic goal.  

Also, nothing is 'permanent'.  All empires crumble.

Really surprised to see Iran get a mention.  

I don't associate the Middle East with socialism, although Latin America and socialism compute because of all those cool pics of  Che Guevara.  LOL

Wondering what happens to revolutionaries when they attain their goals and no longer have the fun of the chase.  

Are they content?  Or is there always some other chase to be had?  

Is everyone chasing their own idea of nirvana?


 

Venezuela - Economic Hassles Puzzle

Venezuela

• Top end South America
• (officially called the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Do *not confuse with Bolivia)
• Colonised by Spain 1500s
• First to declare independence (1811 ... secured 1821)
• One of the most urbanised countries of Latin America
• ... world's largest oil reserves and [has] been one of the world's leading exporters of oil.
• Previously an underdeveloped exporter of agricultural commodities such as coffee and cocoa, oil quickly came to dominate exports and government revenues.
• 1980s oil glut = external debt crisis + long-running economic crisis
• (inflation peak @ 100% 1996)

[Source - Wikipedia - here]

------------------------------------------

Forbes Article - here.

Noticed high inflation in Venezuela, and having discovered 'hyperinflation' in the little tutorial, thought I'd check out Venezuela.

So their economy ... is what?  Either a depressed economy or a war economy, judging by tutorial? 

Background:

President Hugo Chavez (Socialist) died 2013. 

Venezuela is described as a 'South American oil giant' and the article indicates this isn't the worst economic period it's experienced. 

IMF makes an appearance. Inflation 'running rampant', according to IMF. Low economy growth. Economy shrinkage.

... devaluation of the currency in the case of Venezuela represents a reallocation of resources from the private to the public sector, which is practically the only exporter thanks to oil giant PDVSA.

If IMF has something to say, then there's most likely an IMF debt involved.

Moving onto the 2010 Article -  

Economist - 'Towards State Socialism' - here:

Article's dated, but it seemed to have good information.

GDP 'contracting' (less production); 'currency supply problem' mentioned. 

 Possible 'deepening' of recession mentioned. 

So, Venezuela's is a depressed economy.

Article indicates:  Decline in oil shipments associated with decline in oil export. There's also a decline in oil prices.  

[Don't understand how you can sit on oil but have a decline.]

The Economist

Chavez the socialist president (1999-2013) had progressively been nationalising everything:

... seizing everything from steel companies and bottle makers to housing schemes. When workers have protested, he has deployed the national guard against them. The government has justified the confiscations by saying that it was breaking up monopolies or stopping breaches of labour or environmental rules. But the aim appears to be to move decisively against what Mr Chávez calls “the oligarchy”...

2007/2008 Chavez government took over the private oil sector (and more) -- or what there was of it.

Economist reports that:

any bank which declined to “co-operate with national development” by assigning credit according to government priorities would also be taken over.

[Don't suppose they attract much investment, then?  Wouldn't most businesses shut shop?]

Country appears partly 'nationalised' (ie national/state property vs private property) -  some industry in govt hands and rest private hands. 

Govt portion GDP did nothing since the late 1990s .

Oil boom 2004-2008.

Nationalised companies are producing less than when they were in private hands.

To gain 'food sovereignty', most of the food industry has been nationalised, but (the Economist reports) there's been a steep increase in imports.

Couple of exceptions: milk company and telecommunications company ... have done well.

What tends to happen:

... once companies are in state hands their staffing levels rise, prices fall and they become dependent on government subsidies.

Construction industry damaged by slump in materials production since nationalisation.

'Housing schemes' slowed or stopped.  

Govt won't allow developers to ask for prices in line with inflation rises (as at 2010 article @ 30% -- now over 60%).

Govt took over what was already largely govt controlled oil industry:  production of crude and refined products dropped.

Article closes:

Polls suggest that most Venezuelans disapprove of the nationalisations and firmly support private property. But Mr Chávez seems to be following the advice of Alan Woods, a Welsh Trotskyist who has become an informal adviser. Mr Woods, who is better known in Caracas than Cardiff, publicly urged the president to respond to his electoral setback by “accelerating the revolutionary process”, expropriating land, banks and the main industries. Venezuelans had better brace themselves for more nationalisation, scarcity and economic decline.

So what is driving the the inflation rate?

I'd like to apply the inflation lesson, but I'm not sure I've got it.

Cost of production has risen - more employees; less efficiency; government subsidy of industry; so it's like bleeding out money and it costs more to produce the goods because bleeding out the money eats into the profits? Also, less goods are being produced. *NB also money going out on *imports*.

Checking out what the go is with the oil not moving, came across this article - Bloomberg Feb 2014 - here.

Bloomberg says:

Venezuela’s plummeting oil sales to the U.S., its biggest export market, are exacerbating a collapse in the nation’s debt securities. 

Bonds released by Venezuela 'sank'.  Sank doesn't sound too good. Don't know enough about bonds to judge why they 'sank'.  No idea what this is about.

Article goes on:

The tumble in oil exports, Venezuela’s biggest source of dollars, comes as President Nicolas Maduro faces a shortage of U.S. currency that’s caused consumer prices to soar 56 percent and foreign reserves to plunge to a decade-low of $21 billion. Petroleos de Venezuela SA, the state-run oil producer known as PDVSA, is sending hundreds of thousands of barrels a day to China to repay loans totaling more than $40 billion since 2008, at a time when its production is shrinking. 

When they're not producing as much oil, they're sending it to China to repay a debt and they're losing out on US trade they otherwise would have had (?) -- and on US currency (or is that just income, as opposed to a specific currency?) because of lost sales of oil to the US, which is driving the inflation.

Think I might need to do a bit more reading on Venezuela and on bonds, foreign reserves etc. because  have no idea.  LOL.

So far, it's been fun trying to figure it out.