NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I spent too much time battling crazy morons. So, I'll start an actual discussion here. Whoever wants to have a meaningful discussion on the guy, do come over. I make an appeal for everyone to ignore some "people's" paranoid delusions. I will too, promise.

What do you think of Chavez? What's your take on Robertson calling for his assassination? What were the forces that you think got Chavez elected and what were the ones that wanted him down? And so on. Post. Disagree with me, agree with me, whatever, just be constructive.

He's an oppresive idiot. He's paranoid about us trying to assassinate him...if we wanted to, we could do it in a heartbeat. A liberal friend, just another Castro, or Kim-Jong Mentally-Il.

He's an oppresive idiot. He's paranoid about us trying to assassinate...if we wanted to, we could do it in a heartbeat. A liberal friend, just another Castro, or Kim-Jong Mentally-Il.

The democrats are not communists, even I know that. Castro and Kim are pretty different, too, if you study about them. And Chavez is not even close to socialism. For that matter, assassinating elected leaders is the kind of thing done by dictatorships. The US isn't supposed to be one.

The democrats are not communists, even I know that. Castro and Kim are pretty different, too, if you study about them. And Chavez is not even close to socialism. For that matter, assassinating elected leaders is the kind of thing done by dictatorships. The US isn't supposed to be one.
All three are one in the same, oppresively speaking. Jesse Jackson visits them!

All three are one in the same, oppresively speaking. Jesse Jackson visits them!

You could kindly provide statistics to prove your statements? And what does Jesse Jackson have to do with anything?

As long as Mr. Crazy stays down there, he can do whatever the hell he wants. Frankly I don't see what the big deal is about Chavez, he's not the first Despot South America has seen, he won't be the last. In 10 years he'll be as pathetic as Pinochet

He's an oppresive idiot. He's paranoid about us trying to assassinate him...if we wanted to, we could do it in a heartbeat. A liberal friend, just another Castro, or Kim-Jong Mentally-Il.


So much for an actual discussion. :rolleyes:


Personally I think he is awesome for all he has done for the poor of the country. They have made marked improvements in health care, education as well as lowering unemployment.

Sometimes I think he says some far out stuff, but overall he is a good guy with a good heart, trying to do what is best for the poor.

As long as Mr. Crazy stays down there, he can do whatever the hell he wants. Frankly I don't see what the big deal is about Chavez, he's not the first Despot South America has seen, he won't be the last. In 10 years he'll be as pathetic as Pinochet

Only the same people that seem to want to depose Chavez (not you) are the ones that support Pinochet. The difference being that Chavez was elected, and Pinochet was put there. Also, Chavez is yet to do anything Pinochet did that doesn't regard personal hygiene, eating and breathing. :p

So much for an actual discussion. :rolleyes:


Personally I think he is awesome for all he has done for the poor of the country. They have made marked improvements in health care, education as well as lowering unemployment.

Sometimes I think he says some far out stuff, but overall he is a good guy with a good heart, trying to do what is best for the poor.

Nobody can say I didn't try. Regardless, at least these guys don't pray for an earthquake to hit Venezuela or for a coup. They can be talked to.

I'm bringing this over from the other thread because it's a decent starter for my views on Chavez, and I'm too lazy to type it over again. I highlighted the bits I want to be relevant here:


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar...0venezuela.htm

This article says none of the things you have claimed against Chavez. In fact, it makes him seem much less important than [some people] apparently think he is. In further fact, it agrees with my take on Chavez, which is that he is a blowhard politician out to take a leadership role in his continent and that his position is nowhere near as solid as he claims it is. It gives him points for providing real benefits to the poor of his country while implying (correctly, imo) that he does it to cement a populist base of support by exploiting, rather than resolving, the intense class and economic gaps that plague Venezuela. It points out that while his efforts have resulted in verbal support, this does not translate into high voter turnout, so his continued leadership is far from guaranteed. It also points out the dangers he faces, especially from his own military, as he continues to piss off the rich. Hence my earlier reference to him going down in the traditional hail of bullets. As for his anti-Bush rhetoric and his melodramatic gestures of "good will" towards the American people, the article points out (again correctly, imo) that this is just more of his politicking. It makes him look good to the South American poor and working classes that he courts so aggressively.

I'm bringing this over from the other thread because it's a decent starter for my views on Chavez, and I'm too lazy to type it over again. I highlighted the bits I want to be relevant here:


This article says none of the things you have claimed against Chavez. In fact, it makes him seem much less important than [some people] apparently think he is. In further fact, it agrees with my take on Chavez, which is that he is a blowhard politician out to take a leadership role in his continent and that his position is nowhere near as solid as he claims it is. It gives him points for providing real benefits to the poor of his country while implying (correctly, imo) that he does it to cement a populist base of support by exploiting, rather than resolving, the intense class and economic gaps that plague Venezuela. It points out that while his efforts have resulted in verbal support, this does not translate into high voter turnout, so his continued leadership is far from guaranteed. It also points out the dangers he faces, especially from his own military, as he continues to piss off the rich. Hence my earlier reference to him going down in the traditional hail of bullets. As for his anti-Bush rhetoric and his melodramatic gestures of "good will" towards the American people, the article points out (again correctly, imo) that this is just more of his politicking. It makes him look good to the South American poor and working classes that he courts so aggressively.

But he does bother Bush, otherwise there wouldn't be "people" calling for his couping out or assassination...

Well, I already explained my views on him several times on this forum.

Chavez is a democratically elected and reelected leader. He has nothing of a dictator, he is much more a democrat than most other presidents even of countries officially labelled "democracies". There is a strong opposition movement from the minority of medium/upper class, and this opposition isn't repressed by Chavez, even when they often ressort to tricks outlawed in most part of the world (coup attempt, economic sabbotage, public calls for murders, ...). The vast majority of the media (including 7 on 8 TV channels) are strongly against Chavez, saying things on him that would be unthinkable in most other democracies.

The Bolivarian Constitution of 1999, that was written by an elected Constitutional Assembly, and validated by a referendum, is one of most progressive in the world, in terms of human rights protection and of democracy (recall referendum, referendum of popular initiative, ...).

On the economical policies, Chavez managed to reduce poverty by between 1/3 and 1/2, to reduce illiterracy by more than one million, and to provide healthcare to the poorest of citizen. He is also doing something no other President of Venezuela ever did before: preparing the "end of oil" era, by developing other sectors of the economy, the most important one for now being agriculture (when Chavez arrived to power, Venezuela was importing 80% of its food), but the strong education policies will also enable Venezuela to grow a strong hi-tech sector in the coming years.

What makes me feel discomfortable with Chavez is his military background, and his strong catholic believes; being from the french, antimilitaristic and strongly atheist left, this displeases me. But I know the cultures are different, and I can "forgive" that to Chavez. And well, the Liberation Theology is far from being as bad as the mainstream catholic church.

That's a short resume, but I spoke already long about Chavez on this forum before, and I'm a bit tired of repeating myself ;) But if someone wants my position on some precise topics, feel free to ask.

Just because there are people who are violently opposed to Chavez within the USA does not mean that Chavez particulalry bothers Bush or the US administration. Muravyets is right in most of what he says in my opinion. Chavez is a blowhard that is trying to place Venezuela back on the agenda in South America.

Previously there were two blocks in South America - the Andean States and the Mercosur states. Venezuela had been included with the Andean states block for some reason, but it appears that Chavez would much rather be part of Mercosur. When you consider the states involved in each block his reasoning appears to be sound.
Andean - Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia (Venezuela)
Mercosur - Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay

Now clearly one of these groups has much more international power and influence than the other. (Just the size of the markets involved ensures this.)

Now Chavez does have a trump card to play which is the oil resources that Venezuela has, and with the actions of Morales in Bolivia this week, this card starts to carry more weight still. However he only has this card if the control of the oil is in his hands and not in the hands of a limited oligarchy. Being intelligent and a good strategist, (military training), he ensured that this was the case and in the process has presented himself as a saviour of the people prior to trying to shift from one block to the other. At the moment it is difficult to predict what will happen with regard to Venezuela and Mercosur. While the Mercosur nations would generally welcome Venezuela into the fold, they are more than a little hesitant when it comes to trusting Chavez. So at the moment it appears that a typical Latin game of stall and delay is going on.

The next year will be interesting in the region politically. Brazil has a presidential election, Morales is beginning to stir things up and Chavez will want an answer soon from mercosur.

I was looking for this a serious discussion about Chavez, sadly,

He's an oppresive idiot. He's paranoid about us trying to assassinate him...if we wanted to, we could do it in a heartbeat. A liberal friend, just another Castro, or Kim-Jong Mentally-Il.
The second post on this thread is a troll.

I have no problem with him really, he's done allot of good things for his nation, he's a little crazy but he does the job there. And it's nice to see someone stand up to Imperialism.

Chavez is a populist who has little interest in destroying capitalism, only doing just enough to keep the peasants and workers voting for him, yet still trying to keep the business leaders happy, lest they try to overthrow him.

His election, on the other hand, shows an increase in class consciousness in Venezuela which means that a revolution is attainable if the working class continues the progressive work of the government, but takes it further, setting up its own instruments of power.

Just because there are people who are violently opposed to Chavez within the USA does not mean that Chavez particulalry bothers Bush or the US administration. Muravyets is right in most of what he says in my opinion. Chavez is a blowhard that is trying to place Venezuela back on the agenda in South America.

Previously there were two blocks in South America - the Andean States and the Mercosur states. Venezuela had been included with the Andean states block for some reason, but it appears that Chavez would much rather be part of Mercosur. When you consider the states involved in each block his reasoning appears to be sound.
Andean - Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia (Venezuela)
Mercosur - Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay

Now clearly one of these groups has much more international power and influence than the other. (Just the size of the markets involved ensures this.)

Now Chavez does have a trump card to play which is the oil resources that Venezuela has, and with the actions of Morales in Bolivia this week, this card starts to carry more weight still. However he only has this card if the control of the oil is in his hands and not in the hands of a limited oligarchy. Being intelligent and a good strategist, (military training), he ensured that this was the case and in the process has presented himself as a saviour of the people prior to trying to shift from one block to the other. At the moment it is difficult to predict what will happen with regard to Venezuela and Mercosur. While the Mercosur nations would generally welcome Venezuela into the fold, they are more than a little hesitant when it comes to trusting Chavez. So at the moment it appears that a typical Latin game of stall and delay is going on.

The next year will be interesting in the region politically. Brazil has a presidential election, Morales is beginning to stir things up and Chavez will want an answer soon from mercosur.

E aí, Ab, Beleza? (E a greve de fome do Garotinho? :p )

Well, if he didn't bother them, why does Bush too act as if Chavez was a threat?

Just because there are people who are violently opposed to Chavez within the USA does not mean that Chavez particulalry bothers Bush or the US administration.

He is, for two reasons. First, he has a lot of oil, and he doesn't accept to let US oil corporations to profit from it, and that's very, very bad for the Bush family point of view. But more important, he's creating a new hope in South America, the hope in a "XXIest century socialism", a democratic socialism that can respect democracy, human rights and at the same time fight capitalism. That's something the USA can't allow to happen - that's why they supported Pinochet against Allende, why they armed the Contras against the Sandinastas, and why they supported the coup attempt agaisnt Chavez in 2002.

Previously there were two blocks in South America - the Andean States and the Mercosur states. Venezuela had been included with the Andean states block for some reason, but it appears that Chavez would much rather be part of Mercosur.

Chavez wants to unite South America, and to make it independant from US imperialism, as Bolivar tried to.

Chavez is proposing an alternative, called ALBA, to the US ALCA and the classical Mercosur-like agrements. ALBA aims to unite all South America under a completly different logic: one of coopearion and mutual help, instead of one of competition and trying to plunder the neighbours.

E aí, Ab, Beleza? (E a greve de fome do Garotinho? :p )


Garotinho needs to lose some excess lard. And if I had to vote between Garotinho and Bush I would vote for Bush.

Well, if he didn't bother them, why does Bush too act as if Chavez was a threat?
Bush needs external threats. Look at the USA economy closely and you start to see why. So long as he can point the finger at some foreign place, preferably one that the average US citizen has no connections with or knowledge about, then he can keep demanding sacrifices from the people to pay for their freedoms.
Chavez makes a wonderfully convenient partner in this. Chavez wants to be seen to be standing up to the imperialism of the first world, and Bush (or at least the US administraton if not the shrub himself) wants to be able to to distract attention. Mutually convenient play acting.

Personally I quite like him as a character (amusingly over the top). I can agree with much of what he is trying to do.

On the other hand I dont like his friend Castro, who is a dictator, and I feel that maybe chavez is going slightly the wrong way about things, and he is a bit... well, as I said, over the top. And I am worried about his slight authoritarian tendancies (he did try a coup himself years before he was elected(, but they dont seem to have been too much of a problem so far.

Oh anyone seen "The Revolution will not be televised"? Film done during the attempted coup to remove him.

The economist had an article on Hugo Chavez on April 20th 2006.
Since it requires a subscription to access that part of the website where the article is located I don't know if I am allowed to cut and paste the entire article; so I will provide a few paragraphs.

Crimes and misdemeanours

Apr 20th 2006 | CARACAS
From The Economist print edition
Discontent hits the streets

THREE teenage brothers were kidnapped with the family chauffeur on their way to school in Caracas on February 23rd. Forty days later, the bodies of all four were found outside the city. The discovery produced a wave of outrage, much of it directed against the government of Hugo Chávez, Venezuela's socialist president. Since he took office in 1999, the country's murder rate has almost tripled.

For once, the protests seemed spontaneous, despite the efforts of officials to pin them on their opponents. The opposition denounces—and has tried to topple—Mr Chávez for curbing democracy. But oddly it has failed to take up issues on which the president is most vulnerable, such as corruption, jobs and crime.

Caracas has become South America's most violent capital. Worse, the police are themselves suspects in many of the killings. The public prosecutor's office says it is investigating over 6,000 alleged “extra-judicial executions” by police. The brothers were kidnapped by men in police uniform, as was a businessman kidnapped and murdered last month. Two dozen policemen are currently awaiting trial for killing three students, and wounding three others, who failed to stop at a roadblock.

The vast majority of murders take place in the anonymity of the slums, and never come to public attention. According to some accounts, gang-members have been recruited into the police to enforce political control rather than fight crime.

Another article from the economist. (some paragraphs omitted)


Venezuela's economic policy
What revolution?

Oct 7th 2004 | CARACAS
From The Economist print edition
The erratic economic course of Venezuela's populist president

As a young army officer, Mr Chávez staged an unsuccessful coup in 1992 against the then-president, Carlos Andrés Pérez. Elected in 1988, Mr Pérez had promised a return to the free-spending prosperity of his first (1974-79) term of office. But the parlous state of the economy forced him into a U-turn. His IMF-inspired adjustment package immediately sparked violent riots, the repression of which cost hundreds of lives. It was the moment, Mr Chávez claims, when “the people awoke” and the revolution began.

This is largely a flight of fancy. Ten years later the people came close to electing Irene Sáez, a right-wing former beauty queen, to the presidency, before opting for the left-wing and more rugged-looking Mr Chávez himself. But no less absurd is the claim that Venezuela's quarter-century-long economic and social decline is the result of “a fetishist free-market discourse”, as the preamble to his economic agenda puts it. The record of the “fourth republic” was as statist as anything in the hemisphere outside Cuba.

It is hard, however, to pin down what the Chávez model consists of, or how it might differ from its predecessors. The president says it is intended to pave the way for a “concrete utopia”, whatever that might be. Even he has admitted that it “still has no name or defined form”. Visible elements include opposition to the United States' proposed hemispheric free-trade area, an emphasis on integration with Latin American and Caribbean neighbours and, domestically, so-called “endogenous development” protected by government subsidies.

Cuban-style socialism, however, it is not. While Mr Castro makes it spitefully difficult to set up even the smallest of micro-enterprises as a private business, his Venezuelan counterpart is cheerfully ploughing funds into the creation of as many small entrepreneurs as possible. There is also to be a network of co-operatives, along with state enterprises in “strategic” sectors of the economy. The domestic private sector, meanwhile, is assigned the role of producing and importing “non-essential” goods and services. Foreign transnationals are welcome in areas such as oil and gas, although the law gives the state the upper hand.

Garotinho needs to lose some excess lard. And if I had to vote between Garotinho and Bush I would vote for Bush.

If I had to vote between Garotinho and Bush I'd flee the country. :p

Bush needs external threats. Look at the USA economy closely and you start to see why. So long as he can point the finger at some foreign place, preferably one that the average US citizen has no connections with or knowledge about, then he can keep demanding sacrifices from the people to pay for their freedoms.
Chavez makes a wonderfully convenient partner in this. Chavez wants to be seen to be standing up to the imperialism of the first world, and Bush (or at least the US administraton if not the shrub himself) wants to be able to to distract attention. Mutually convenient play acting.

Mmm... Point.

Severe crime is a common occurance in South America from what People have told me.

Severe crime is a common occurance in South America from what People have told me.

It's nothing really new. Ans we have yet to see how truthful these statistics are, considering 7 out of 8 media outlets are heavily against Chavez (contrary to what those that say Venezuela has no freedom of the press would say).

We should all take a moment of silence to honor the great Augusto Pinochet - a superb advocate of the free-market economy. Viva Pinochet!

He is, for two reasons. First, he has a lot of oil, and he doesn't accept to let US oil corporations to profit from it, and that's very, very bad for the Bush family point of view. But more important, he's creating a new hope in South America, the hope in a "XXIest century socialism", a democratic socialism that can respect democracy, human rights and at the same time fight capitalism. That's something the USA can't allow to happen - that's why they supported Pinochet against Allende, why they armed the Contras against the Sandinastas, and why they supported the coup attempt agaisnt Chavez in 2002.

I disagree here. Chavez is seen much more as a popularist than as a socialist in South America. This is nothing new and not something theat the USA is too worried about. Look at the Peronistas in Argentina fo the classical model of this type of latin american politics. However if you think that he is a genuine socialist, then the USA would rightly be worried about him from that perspective as they were with Salvadore Allende.
The financing and tactical support for the coup attempt in 2002 was, in my belief, much more an economic move than a political one. The US corporations have lost a lot in the transitions that Chavez has made in the oil infrastructure in Venezuela.


Chavez wants to unite South America, and to make it independant from US imperialism, as Bolivar tried to.

Chavez is proposing an alternative, called ALBA, to the US ALCA and the classical Mercosur-like agrements. ALBA aims to unite all South America under a completly different logic: one of coopearion and mutual help, instead of one of competition and trying to plunder the neighbours.
That is what he says, but it is not reflected in what he is doing. Mercosur is already a co-operative trade block, with mutual assistance agreements etc. included. The supposed ALBA block is not an economic block but a social welfare and support block that is concerned with illiteracy and malnutrition
(details here (http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=17942))
This is not in competition with Mercosur but in addition to it.

As an aside. There is a spanish teacher who has to hope that it does not happen:
Alba Chavez, Seventh and Eighth Grade Native Spanish
B.A. in Spanish, University of Houston Central; M.A. in Spanish Literature, University of Texas, Austin
Alba Chavez joined KIPP Academy in June 2002 after teaching in HISD for eight years. Before working in HISD, she taught in high school for one year and at the University of Texas, Austin, for two years. In addition, she taught preschool for several years.
source (http://www.kippacademy.com/aboutus_teachers.htm)

We should aid the Contras again and tell them to go in after Chavez. Where we will get the money to fund the Contras, I have no idea.

Severe crime is a common occurance in South America from what People have told me.

Who is this People?

Crime exists here, yes. It also exists in Central America, North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania.

If you want to avoid it move to Antarctica or Mars OK.

Are you against crime? I am pro-crime.

We should all take a moment of silence to honor the great Augusto Pinochet - a superb advocate of the free-market economy. Viva Pinochet!

In the film "Commanding Heights" there was a section about 1973 Chile. In it, the documentary/film said Augusto Pinochet and the other Chilean generals originally were as skeptical about the free market as Allende. It wasn't until the "Chicago Boys" flew in Milton Friedman to meet with the military generals that Pinochet was finally pursuaded to pursue free-market economic policies. Those economic policies have been continued by "Socialist party" which has ruled Chile since its transition back to democracy in 1990.

We should invade Venezuela, kill their leaders, and take their oil.

But he does bother Bush, otherwise there wouldn't be "people" calling for his couping out or assassination...
I'm not saying Bush isn't bothered by him. Bush constantly wastes his and our time being bothered by things that shouldn't be worrying him (like Iraq), and ignoring things that should worry him (like how his abandonment of the hunt for bin Laden and al Qaeda has allowed al Qaeda to regroup itself). Bush makes mountains out of molehills -- that doesn't mean they aren't molehills.

Also, if Bush and the US government weren't such idiots, we could easily have turned Chavez into political ally, even though he is a radical leftist who dines out on denouncing US moneyed interests. He's also a smart politician who is fully aware of the risks of the game he is playing. We could easily have exploited his need for security and money by being seen to abandon our anti-left paranoia and extending the Hand of Friendship Between Peoples (tm) in response to his spurious Citgo offers. Chavez would have been all over making deals with us. I think he still would be if approached by the next administration. We'd have to make concessions about Cuba, and he'd have to make concessions about FARC and Hamas. I see no downside there. At home, we'd continue complaining about his brash insults, and he'd continue claiming that he scored a victory for the workers over the stupid American capitalists. Together, we'd negotiate a satisfactory price for Venezuelan oil and mutual trade and tourism. And the US would have a friendly foot in the door for any future South American Union type thing. (This is just one of my "If I Were King of the Forest" notions.)

All this assuming, of course, that Chavez doesn't get gunned down by his own guards and replaced with another military junta.

What do you think of Chavez? What's your take on Robertson calling for his assassination? What were the forces that you think got Chavez elected and what were the ones that wanted him down? And so on. Post. Disagree with me, agree with me, whatever, just be constructive.

Chavez is a demogauge, but a harmless one. Robertson should think twice before shooting off his mouth. Chavez got elected because the people he ousted were scumbags. Chavez might be a demogauge, but at least he's principled.

BTW, The Commanding Heights documentary is available streaming online for free here. It is six hours long, though.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/lo/story/index.html

he did try a coup himself years before he was elected

Well, yes, he tried to. But it was after the president, CAF, ordered the army to open fire on the demonstrators during the 1989 "caracazzo", killing thousands. Chavez and several of his comrades decided this day that the army should stop supporting CAF, and should remove him, because the army should never, never be used to fire on civilians. So I understand him.

Oh anyone seen "The Revolution will not be televised"? Film done during the attempted coup to remove him.

Yes, was a great documentary.

We should invade Venezuela, kill their leaders, and take their oil.

I hope you're being sarcastic, rather than being a stupid twat.

He's also a smart politician who is fully aware of the risks of the game he is playing.

That's because he's a smart politician that would never have accepted an alliance with USA ;)

For the risks of the game... he's perfectly aware of them. But he's one of those who hold their ideals and their people above their own lives. Chavez will not be intiminated. He's ready to sacrifice his own life for his ideals.

All this assuming, of course, that Chavez doesn't get gunned down by his own guards and replaced with another military junta.

Seeing how the Palace Guard reacted to the coup attempt in 2002, and knowing that his bodyguards are trained by Cuban, I doubt this will ever happen.

That's because he's a smart politician that would never have accepted an alliance with USA ;)

For the risks of the game... he's perfectly aware of them. But he's one of those who hold their ideals and their people above their own lives. Chavez will not be intiminated. He's ready to sacrifice his own life for his ideals.



Seeing how the Palace Guard reacted to the coup attempt in 2002, and knowing that his bodyguards are trained by Cuban, I doubt this will ever happen.
I'm more cynical about politicians than you are, I guess. I wouldn't hold it against Chavez. Allying with a market and military like the US would be in Venezuela's interest, even if he did deny it in public statements -- especially if we let him carry on poking sticks at us to help build his continental revolution vision. And if that "revolution" actually happens, it would certainly be in the US's interest to have good relations with it and to quit this stupid left vs right bullshit in favor of a hemispheric alliance -- especially if the real dangers are going to be coming out of the Mid-east for the foreseeable future. I guess I just don't see Chavez as the US's enemy, despite his rhetoric.

I'm also more cynical about bodyguards.

I disagree here. Chavez is seen much more as a popularist than as a socialist in South America.

On that, we'll have to agree we disagree ;)

Both in his speaks and in his acts, Chavez is a socialist. He's trying to build a post-capitalist society that takes a lot from socialism, something he calls himself "XXIest century socialism", you can see that in most of his acts.

However if you think that he is a genuine socialist, then the USA would rightly be worried about him from that perspective as they were with Salvadore Allende.

I think he is, and that he is more and more socialist. When he was elected in 1999, he wasn't really socialist. But once in power he realised that it's the only way to change things for real, and to suppress misery. As he said in the 2005: World Social Forum


It is impossible, within the framework of the capitalist system to solve the grave problems of poverty of the majority of the world's population. We must transcend capitalism. But we cannot resort to state capitalism, which would be the same perversion of the Soviet Union. We must reclaim socialism as a thesis, a project and a path, but a new type of socialism, a humanist one, which puts humans and not machines or the state ahead of everything. That's the debate we must promote around the world, and the WSF is a good place to do it.

The financing and tactical support for the coup attempt in 2002 was, in my belief, much more an economic move than a political one. The US corporations have lost a lot in the transitions that Chavez has made in the oil infrastructure in Venezuela.

Well, the organisers of the 2002 coup were received in the White House several times in the few weeks before the coup; and huge amounts of money given to opposition parties comes directly from the Bush administration and the Republican party.

The supposed ALBA block is not an economic block but a social welfare and support block that is concerned with illiteracy and malnutrition

ALBA is not "supposed", it already exists between Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia and Sandinistas cities of Nicaragua. It emphasizes mostly on welfare, but is not limited to that at all. It is official proposed as the alternative to ALCA, and aims to go as far as having a common currency among its member countries, in the future.

Well, yes, he tried to. But it was after the president, CAF, ordered the army to open fire on the demonstrators during the 1989 "caracazzo", killing thousands. Chavez and several of his comrades decided this day that the army should stop supporting CAF, and should remove him, because the army should never, never be used to fire on civilians. So I understand him.

Ah... didnt know that. That I can understand. And is quite commendable if you ask me.

I wasnt saying he was bad, just that I was still slightly suspicious of him, and that I will remain, but what he has done so far that I know of I have felt able to support largely, even if I think he is a bit crazy and rash.


Yes, was a great documentary.

I thought so as well. Scariest, and most amusing in their disturbing way, parts was the newly appointed (by the plotters) attorney general essentially saying "To defend the Constitution... I will tear it up completely", and Colin Powell saying something along the lines (not word for word, but the jist of it) of "We do not accept Chavez's type of 'democracy' (you could tell he was putting the apostrephes in by the tone of his voice) and support the attempt to restore democracy". Erm... by overthrowing a democratically elected President. Yes... that makes sense.

From what I've seen, Chávez seems like both a socialist AND a populist. I personally disagree with socialism because over the long term it will lead to inefficiency and inhibit growth. At the same time, I can see why people who may disagree with me and live in Venezuela would vote for him. He seems like a genuine person, and there is a lot more economic inequality in Latin America than the U.S. that would drive people to vote for a socialist leader.

Firstly, I'll just say that as far as the democracy in Venezuela is concerned, it seems that Chavez has used legitimate tactics (ie making policies which are more to get votes than to actually help the country) as many leaders do (John Howard, anyone?). The opposition shot itself in the foot in boycotting recent elections in the erroneous assumption that this would somehow make the rest of the world think that their relatively more unpopular platforms are somehow being oppressed.

Economically, I think Chavez is doing everything wrong. I wouldn't disagree with his goal to make Venezuela into a country where more value-adding is done, as opposed to right now. But income redistribution is not going to help anyone. There is a reason that some people are richer than others, and you wouldn't ask a good Olympic Runner to cut off his leg and hand it to his competitor so the two reach the line "at the same time".

New Trade Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Trade_Theory) tells a leader like Chavez exactly what he would have to do to make Venezuela a better place and release it from the whims of a few MNCs, if he doesn't like totally free trade. The same goes for the endogenous growth models (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_growth_theory). Does he care? No.

He prefers to reenact class warfare, like so many wannabe civil war veterans.

We should invade Venezuela, kill their leaders, and take their oil.
Sarcasm? Better be...

At any rate..

I think Chavez isn't a threat to American people, but to American interests in Latin America. Chavez is having increasing influence in countries, such as Bolivia and Peru. I think it should be a cause for concern, but the War on Terror should be our top priority right now.

I thought so as well. Scariest, and most amusing in their disturbing way, parts was the newly appointed (by the plotters) attorney general essentially saying "To defend the Constitution... I will tear it up completely", and Colin Powell saying something along the lines (not word for word, but the jist of it) of "We do not accept Chavez's type of 'democracy' (you could tell he was putting the apostrephes in by the tone of his voice) and support the attempt to restore democracy". Erm... by overthrowing a democratically elected President. Yes... that makes sense.

HAIKU TIME! (Not against you, Peveski, you make good points!)

Tasty doublethink
Drives the US policy
towards elections.

Chavez is a populist who has little interest in destroying capitalism, only doing just enough to keep the peasants and workers voting for him, yet still trying to keep the business leaders happy, lest they try to overthrow him.
Which is why he may be one of the most enlightened rulers on the planet.

That’s how you do things. You keep the proles fed and relatively healthy and provide them work when there is none lest they rebel, and you keep the rich in power because, frankly, they know how to run things and they pay for all the social policies.

Sarcasm? Better be...

At any rate..

I think Chavez isn't a threat to American people, but to American interests in Latin America. Chavez is having increasing influence in countries, such as Bolivia and Peru. I think it should be a cause for concern, but the War on Terror should be our top priority right now.

Yes, but surely not by trying to oust him or screw people over?

I'm more cynical about politicians than you are, I guess.

(snip)

I'm also more cynical about bodyguards.

:D

Could someone here point out where the current American president or anyone in his administration have actually said anything against Chavez? Because so far, the only thing I see mentioned, outside of NS, about the man is when he goes off on one of those stupid-assed rants about the U.S. getting ready to invade Venezuela.......

Could someone here point out where the current American president or anyone in his administration have actually said anything against Chavez? Because so far, the only thing I see mentioned, outside of NS, about the man is when he goes off on one of those stupid-assed rants about the U.S. getting ready to invade Venezuela.......

http://www.counterpunch.org/burbach11082005.html

This is just one example, but I'd think trying to coup out an elected leader is insulting him enough.

Could someone here point out where the current American president or anyone in his administration have actually said anything against Chavez? Because so far, the only thing I see mentioned, outside of NS, about the man is when he goes off on one of those stupid-assed rants about the U.S. getting ready to invade Venezuela.......
Demigogues don't let fiddly little details, like the TRUTH, get in the way of badmouthing the greatest nation on Earth.

Demigogues don't let fiddly little details, like the TRUTH, get in the way of badmouthing the greatest nation on Earth.

But who said anything bad about Japan here? (Or about anywhere for that matter? Quibs, did you forget to fill your perscription again?)

You know what? No, I will not allow trolls to turn this into a "freedom of expression is bad, let's burn the American Constitution" argument again.

Welcome to my Ignore List, Quibs. You will have plenty of company there: Whittier and the voices in your head.

Also, everyone. Kindly ignore Quibs here. He's on a break from his experiment in which he tries to re-write "the Tempest" along with his 999,999 friends.

Chavez is a demogauge, but a harmless one. Robertson should think twice before shooting off his mouth. Chavez got elected because the people he ousted were scumbags. Chavez might be a demogauge, but at least he's principled.

BTW, The Commanding Heights documentary is available streaming online for free here. It is six hours long, though.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/lo/story/index.html

Nice, thanks for the link! :)

Economically, I think Chavez is doing everything wrong. I wouldn't disagree with his goal to make Venezuela into a country where more value-adding is done, as opposed to right now. But income redistribution is not going to help anyone. There is a reason that some people are richer than others, and you wouldn't ask a good Olympic Runner to cut off his leg and hand it to his competitor so the two reach the line "at the same time".

That argument might work in the First World, though personally I reject it there too, but it simply has no serious application in most of Latin America. The Latin American elite is an oligarchy, in power for reasons that have next to nothing to do with merit. If anything, the radical economic inequality in Latin America severely impedes growth - it locks out talented members of underprivileged classes while permitting wasteful opulence among the super-rich.

New Trade Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Trade_Theory) tells a leader like Chavez exactly what he would have to do to make Venezuela a better place and release it from the whims of a few MNCs, if he doesn't like totally free trade. The same goes for the endogenous growth models (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_growth_theory). Does he care? No.

Chávez has focused very much on attempting to build a domestic economy free from dependence on the current model of economic globalization. To a considerable degree, he has made accomplishments in that regard. The news media does not tend to focus much on these matters, but that is its fault, not his.

There is a reason that some people are richer than others

because some people are the descendents of people the king of spain once granted ownership over huge tracts of land and the people who lived there?

Which is why he may be one of the most enlightened rulers on the planet.

That’s how you do things. You keep the proles fed and relatively healthy and provide them work when there is none lest they rebel, and you keep the rich in power because, frankly, they know how to run things and they pay for all the social policies.

The rich can go fuck themselves with large metal poles. There. I said it.