NationStates Jolt Archive

By NIKOLAS KOZLOFF

Washington, DC

Given recent friction between Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and the White House it inevitably was only a matter of time before Rupert Murdoch's Fox News would start to ratchet up its shrill ideological pressure. Since taking office in 1998, Chávez has had a stormy relationship with his powerful northern neighbor. Chávez, who established close ties with Washington's anathema, Cuban President Fidel Castro, criticized U.S.-led efforts for a free trade zone in the Americas, which he insisted would primarily benefit the U.S., while opposing the war in Iraq, resulting in no mystery as to why he has long been so reviled by the Bush administration. Tensions have been bristling between the two nations particularly since April 2002 when Chávez, the democratically elected president, was briefly removed from power in a coup which involved U.S. funding.

A maverick politician and former paratrooper, Chávez accused (not without merit) Washington of sponsoring his attempted overthrow as well as supporting a devastating oil lockout in 2002-3. Not one to easily soften his language, Chávez bluntly referred to the United States as "an imperialist power." What is more, according to the Venezuelan leader, Bush had plans to have him assassinated. In a further rhetorical sortie, Chávez warned that if he were killed the United States would have to "forget Venezuelan oil."

In a series of recent television reports Fox News has derided the firebrand leftist leader, presenting the current Venezuelan political habitat entirely from the perspective of the country's conservative middle-class opposition as well as the Bush administration.

In siding with the opposition, Fox News joins the ranks of almost all of the Venezuelan television stations including Radio Caracas TV and Venevision (see Nikolas Kozloff's Thursday report, "Chávez Launches Hemispheric, "Anti-Hegemonic" Media Campaign in Response to Local TV Networks Anti-Government Bias) which have launched a vitriolic and highly personalized savaging of Chávez over the past few years. In his reports, Fox reporter Steve Harrigan speaks solely with members of the Venezuelan opposition and shows Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice critical of Chávez. Of course, Fox News has the right to present the news as distortedly as it sees fit. However, its exclusive adherence to anti-Chávez sources completely caricatures the station's claim to be "fair and balanced." In fact, when it comes to Venezuela, it strives to be a propaganda mill.

Fox Source #1: Leopoldo Lopez

In short bits scarcely lasting longer than a television commercial, Harrigan, a former CNN Moscow correspondent, intones that Chávez is "moving towards totalitarian rule." To support this view he turns to such redoubtable Venezuelan political figures as Leopoldo Lopez. "The danger we are facing as Venezuelans," says Lopez, "is the possibility of one day waking up and all of the sudden not having any of our liberties." What Harrigan failed to disclose however is that Lopez, as the municipal mayor of the Caracas district of Chacao, has worked closely with the Primero Justicia party. According to Venezuelan human rights lawyer Eva Golinger, Primero Justicia is the "most extreme opposition party to Chávez." What is more, Golinger has written that after the April 2002 coup against Chávez, Lopez signed the "Carmona Decree" which dissolved all democratic institutions including the National Assembly, the Supreme Court, the Attorney General and Public Defender. Additionally, the Carmona Decree did away with "an overwhelming number of laws and constitutional rights implemented during the Chávez administration." At the time, this action was denounced by almost all of Latin America's leaders.

Lopez's colleague at Primero Justicia, Leopoldo Martinez, was promoted to Minister of Finance under the Carmona coup regime. Even more revealing, Golinger reports that Primero Justicia received training and support from the International Republican Institute, a nonprofit U.S. organization which receives millions of dollars in laundered funding from the U.S. taxpayer funded National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). This piece further corroded Harrigan's fast disappearing reputation as a professional by failing to disclose vital information to Fox viewers about the political biases and special interests of his sources.

Fox Fails to Disclose Lopez' Record

What is more, Fox viewers were left woefully uninformed about Lopez's track record during the April 2002 coup. The day after Chávez was removed from power on April 12, Lopez and Baruta Mayor Henrique Capriles Radonski (see below) placed Chávez's Interior and Justice Minister Ramon Rodriguez Chacin under arrest. Chacin later claimed that as he was being escorted out of his residence into a police car, he was physically attacked by a mob. Lopez responded by saying that he was innocent and was ordered to carry out the order by the Public Ministry, now under the control of the leader of coup regime, Pedro Carmona. However, after Chávez was restored to power, Chacin asked the country's attorney general to open an investigation of the incident. In late 2004 Lopez was indicted by the Caracas metropolitan attorney for his involvement in the raid on Chacin's home and the subsequent arrest of the minister.

Fox Source #2: Capriles Radonski

Harrigan continued his assault against accuracy by once again indulging in over simplification when he interviewed the mayor of the Caracas municipality of Baruta (bordering Leopoldo Lopez's Chacao district), Henrique Capriles Radonski. Capriles remarks, "I spent 20 days without looking at the sun, without looking at the sky, without having open air." While it is true that Capriles was imprisoned in a highly controversial, politically-charged case, Harrigan omits important information that would help American viewers to better comprehend Venezuela's volatile politics and give some rare perspective to the course of events there. For example, in his report, Harrigan doesn't mention that Capriles was head of the U.S.-partly funded Primero Justicia party. This is not an insignificant point. Indeed, one can only imagine the reaction from Fox were the Democratic Party to accept money from a foreign government which was interested in getting rid of the Bush administration.

Radonski and the April 2002 Coup

What is the controversy swirling around Capriles and what did Fox neglect to tell its viewers? During the April 2002 coup against Chávez, hundreds of angry middle-class opposition demonstrators destroyed cars parked outside the Cuban embassy in Baruta. Not stopping there, the mob cut off water and electricity to the building and threatened to forcibly enter the facility and do harm to the frightened occupants inside. Later, Chávez officials charged that Capriles, as the leading authority in Baruta, did not enforce the law and allowed the demonstrators to run amok. Irate staff at the Cuban embassy later issued a statement reading, "The immediate responsibility of Mr. Capriles Radonsky and other Venezuelan state authorities was demonstrated when they failed to act diligently in order to prevent an increase in the aggression to which our embassy was subjected, causing serious damage and endangering the lives of officials and their families in clear violation of national and international law."

Meanwhile, the Baruta mayor insisted that he was merely trying to defuse a volatile situation. Later, the Cuban embassy denied assertions made by Primero Justicia deputy Julio Borges that the Cubans had asked for Capriles's mediation at the scene. In an official statement issued by the embassy, the Cubans claimed that "these actions (the mob-incited acts of vandalism) occurred with impunity in the presence of the Baruta police who had instructions not to impede these actions." Capriles claims that he notified authorities and asked for assistance. ``I talked with the people outside," he has stated. "I said, 'This is an embassy, you cannot go inside.'"

During the incident Capriles was videotaped at the scene asking Cuban officials for permission to inspect the embassy on behalf of the angry mob. Though the tape supports his claim that he tried to calm the crowd, it also shows him speaking with the Cuban ambassador. In fact, what he is shown asking is for the Cuban ambassador to supply him with proof that there are no members of the government hiding inside the embassy (in another court case, the tape was used as evidence by both prosecutors and defense). For their part, Chávez officials charged that Capriles was demanding the right to inspect the embassy, which was a violation of international norms.

Capriles Radonski Arrested

In March 2004, a warrant was issued for Capriles's arrest. On May 11 he turned himself in. Prosecutor Danilo Anderson, who had apparently developed a convincing case which linked US agencies to the coup, charged Capriles with property damage, intimidation, violating international principles and trespassing. Meanwhile, Leopoldo Lopez led a march of Chacao residents to the town hall to support Capriles. In an ironic twist, Lopez, who himself signed the Carmona Decree in 2002, remarked that the government was "kidnapping" the country's institutions in order to engage in "political persecutions." Lopez rejected the charges against Capriles and argued that Venezuelans should be outraged about "undemocratic maneuvers." Capriles was held for four months and was released conditionally in September. In October, an appeals court dismissed the case against him.

In a dramatic development however, Anderson was the victim of a car bomb assassination when his SUV blew up in Caracas. Anderson was in charge of prosecuting several Chávez opponents involved in the April 2002 coup, including Capriles. Though no arrests were made, early suspicions focused on the Chávez opposition. Capriles remarked, "The government and the judicial system must find those responsible and do justice." He added, "I had many differences with Danilo Anderson, but these were fought out in the public prosecutor's office." Since late last year, Venezuelan authorities have taken into custody a number of suspects who they accuse of playing a role in Anderson's assassination. Despite the irretrievable loss of Anderson, the state has chosen to go on appealing the Capriles case.

Capriles Radonski: Democratic defender or menace to democracy?
Once again, Fox fails to report

In his report on Venezuela, Harrigan again interviews Capriles who remarks, "If you don't have a rule or somebody who respects the rules, they can do whatever they want. They can be Fidel Castro second part." Clearly the young and somewhat flashily charismatic Capriles has become a symbol of popular resistance to the Chávez government. His supporters claim that he has been unfairly railroaded by the regime and that attacks against him have been politically motivated. But, does Capriles himself have any regard for the democratic process and "the rules?" Recent developments have cast some doubt on Capriles' legitimacy. In early 2004, the Chávez opposition, frustrated by the failed coup attempt of 2002 and by an unsuccessful lock out in 2002-3, initiated the "Guarimba Plan." As Venezuela analyst Steve Ellner has written, under this urban sabotage plan "small groups blocked traffic and burned trash on key avenues in Caracas and other cities. Street damage in Caracas alone, according to Infrastructure Ministry estimates, reached $1 million in the first week. In addition, armed bands of opposition organizations, including the ex-leftist guerrilla group Red Flag, hurled Molotov cocktails and attacked the National Guard-violence that police in areas controlled by opposition parties refused to stop." As Ellner reports, as mayor of Baruta, Capriles "said police were right not to interfere because protestors were doing 'nothing less than exercising their legal right to protest.'"

Fox's Over-Simplifications

Though recent developments have cast doubt on Lopez's and Capriles' self-serving claims to be militants in the cause of good government, Fox oversimplifies the bitter political fracturing of the country by ignoring its complex history. It would seem that it is far easier to lop Capriles and Lopez amongst the forces of good than to actually investigate, from the perspective of both sides, a far more complex picture that would better conform to reality. But this would not hold true to tabloid tendencies that Fox's Washington bureau, under Brit Hume, is universally seen as incorporating. If the network started to question Capriles's and Lopez's democratic credentials too closely, this might interfere with the underlying narrative with which Fox is very comfortable. In this scenario, Condoleezza Rice and the State Department fight for democracy and economic modernization and Hugo Chávez is a "totalitarian" who needs to be controlled, if not eliminated.

Source: http://www.counterpunch.org/kozloff04302005.html

I thought I'd quote this article to give people some background on this issue and to start a discussion on the private-media obfuscation campaign, both in Venezuela and abroad (especially the US) to try and discredit Chavez and encourage military coups etc.

Wait wait wait... are you suggesting that Fox News [sic] Channel is not entirely honest?:eek::eek::eek:

Populism is the bane of conservatism. It works, almost literally, as its antithesis. Populism is what you get when you listen to the people, and address their needs, whereas conservatism (in the U.S. anyway) is what you get when you, as an individual/voting bloc simply do as your told, and trust unconditionally, as long as the trusted one acknowledges that your godhead is the proper one...

Okay, a slight exaggeration, but only slight.

Hugo can't let FAUX's renewal die either, so he's stuck with hearing their "Fair and Balanced" shite.

Wait wait wait... are you suggesting that Fox News [sic] Channel is not entirely honest?:eek::eek::eek:

No, that's pretty much commonly accepted knowledge unless you're DK or Arab on these forums, I was just trying to start discussion on this issue and to put light on the facts of where the anti-Chavez camp is getting it's 'information' on this forum.

May the best liar win!

I hate populism regardless if it is on the left or right.

I love populism regardless if it is on the left or right.

Duhhhh. It is has been a long time American policy that oppressive, blatantly totalitarian pro-US regimes are far better than any sort of socialist regimes.

I hate populism regardless if it is on the left or right.

Ummm, wtf are you talking about, populist exists only on the right in an ideological sense, if a group is claiming to be right-wing and populist their wrong. Populism is about majority control through grassroots democratic government, that is getting rid of minority economic and political interests that have control disproportionate to their numbers. The right represents elite minority interests, the left represents popular common movements, that's politics 101 for you.

Ummm, wtf are you talking about, populist exists only on the right in an ideological sense, if a group is claiming to be right-wing and populist their wrong.

And when people on the left claim the samething, and you do believe in leftist populism, they are wrong as well. Hence why I said I hate populism regardless if it is on the right OR LEFT!!! It is not just a right wing trait. It is a left wing one as well.

Populism is about majority control through grassroots democratic government, that is getting rid of minority economic and political interests that have control disproportionate to their numbers.

And yet...no one is trying to get rid of minority economic and political interests. Nice try AP.

The right represents elite minority interests, the left represents popular common movements, that's politics 101 for you.

And when you can actually prove that, it will be a first.

It's undeniable Lancaster, the right is about minorities, that's how it's always been and when you get down to it no one will deny it, sure different governments and political parties do things that would contradict this ideology, but at the heart of it the right is minority control by definition!

And for your knowledge, Chavez has destroyed most of the old regime economic and political minority interests, including putting forward thinking people into oil administration boards and other economic interests, to make sure they are in tune with his vision of socialism and redistributive policies. Sure all governments etc are different and do not always act in their ideological defined way, but if were just talking ideology and principle, THE RIGHT IS MINORITY CONTROL, no doubt or argument to be had, and any suggestion to the contrary is both incorrect and insipid.

Now, can we kindly get back to the topic of this thread, which is about elite MINORITY forces attacking Chavez using lies and media sensationalism, I am sure Lancaster you don't want to be grouped in with the Fauxites.

Why do I suddenly hear Dueling Banjos?

It's undeniable Lancaster, the right is about minorities, that's how it's always been and when you get down to it no one will deny it, sure different governments and political parties do things that would contradict this ideology, but at the heart of it the right is minority control by definition!

The definition of populism:

pop·u·lism (ppy-lzm) KEY

NOUN:

A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.
The movement organized around this philosophy.
Populism The philosophy of the Populist Party.

And here is a handy quote from the International Affairs Journal:

Either through populist policies that are harmful for the overall economy, bellicose rhetoric that incites nationalist sentiment, or portraying himself as the reincarnation of the mythical South American liberator, Simón Bolivar, Mr. Chávez is bent on prolonging his stay. Never mind that he has already worn out his welcome.

So you lose

And for your knowledge, Chavez has destroyed most of the old regime economic and political minority interests, including putting forward thinking people into oil administration boards and other economic interests, to make sure they are in tune with his vision of socialism and redistributive policies.

And in the process, dismanteling the Venezuelan Economy as its surprlus is declining. What? You mean they are not rolling in dough? It will not be long till they are running a deficit. His economic policies are failing just as bad as other presidents in the United States. All because of his populist policies. WOW. That is two arguments debunked.

Sure all governments etc are different and do not always act in their ideological defined way, but if were just talking ideology and principle, THE RIGHT IS MINORITY CONTROL, no doubt or argument to be had, and any suggestion to the contrary is both incorrect and insipid.

And yet, Chavez is stifling freedom of Speech in his country by shutting down stations that actually disagree with him. Here in America, we have not shut down tv stations for disagreeing with President Bush. If we did that, there would be no tv stations left.

http://breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PDME380&show_article=1&catnum=0 (tv station)

Now, can we kindly get back to the topic of this thread, which is about elite MINORITY forces attacking Chavez using lies and media sensationalism, I am sure Lancaster you don't want to be grouped in with the Fauxites.

Which is very funny considering the numerous protests over tv stations being closed. I guess it is not settled on the elite minority eh considering that Hugo Chavez is a populist left wing leader.

Your so full of crap and you know it, their is greater freedom of the press under Chavez than under any of the previous right-wing elitist governments that heavily censored the private media. Your also full of crap in that ONLY ONE, that's right, only one tv channel hasn't had it's license renewed, RCTV, and that was quite justified for it's role in encouraging generals and military officers to take over Chavez democratically-elected government. Also quoting some bias crap from the International Affairs Journal does not make a point, nor does it void mine.

Your full of crap and we all know it Lancaster, only one tv channel has been closed, and that was for illegal actions in encouraging that military coup, I doubt any station in the US would get away with that, especially if the military overthrew the government as a result. In his capacity as the President of the Republic he is well within his power to do so. Sure at first some of Chavez's economic policies will hurt as management changes and the old oligarchic interests are rooted out of their holes of profit. but over the long term his efforts will see good term results for the majority of the country, unlike the Opposition who only represent a tiny elite population who are now all filled up with self-righteous anger because they have a red in office.

I see that you do not care at all for facts that prove that populism is BOTH right and left wing. You also ignored the definition of populism which comes as no surprise. This thread is made of fail.

Your so full of crap and you know it

In the grim darkness of lack of credible arguments there is only ad hominem :)

Chavez has destroyed most of the old regime economic and political minority interests, including putting forward thinking people into oil administration boards and other economic interests, to make sure they are in tune with his vision of socialism and redistributive policies.

So primary reason for putting those people in charge of administration was their commitment to ideology? This reminds me of a certain joke...

"You didn't manage well, Comrade, in marine transport, so maybe you'll fare better in culture department."

Another one: what's BMW? "Bierny, Mierny, ale Wierny" - "Inactive, Ineffective, but Loyal". It's the reason why communist countries were always backward economically - the only important thing was ideology, not efficiency or whatever.

Hence why I said I hate populism regardless if it is on the right OR LEFT!!! It is not just a right wing trait. It is a left wing one as well.

Now let's look at Andaras Prime's post:

Ummm, wtf are you talking about, populist exists only on the right in an ideological sense, if a group is claiming to be right-wing and populist their wrong. Populism is about majority control through grassroots democratic government, that is getting rid of minority economic and political interests that have control disproportionate to their numbers. The right represents elite minority interests, the left represents popular common movements, that's politics 101 for you.

Hmm… looks like Andaras said that populism was only a left-wing trait… not the other way around.

I dislike Bush and Fox News, but Chavez is by no means the working man's hero. His administration has characteristics of dictatorship (dissolving the courts, rule-by-decree etc.) and he's more or less incompetent economically. I do support his efforts against international oil companies etc., but many other Latin American leaders are also standing up to the American empire without reverting to dictatorship.

Even in the name of socialism, a military coup, I think, is not as effective in the long term as a nonviolent revolution. A nonviolent revolution requires the support of an overwhelming majority of the people, while a military coup requires only a small percentage of the people. And only with the support of the majority of the people can a truly democratic, anti-authoritarian socialist nation succeed. A socialist nation without the support of the many will ultimately fail. Thus, if the revolution is nonviolent, the socialist nation formed will no doubt have the support of many and incorporate their ideas, while with a military coup, the nation formed doesn't usually have (and often never has) the true support of the people and does not embody the people's views of what should work and how. Thus, I believe a military coup is often ineffective. This is more or less what I've come to think of violent revolution from history and Gandhi's philosophy.

Duhhhh. It is has been a long time American policy that oppressive, blatantly totalitarian pro-US regimes are far better than any sort of socialist regimes.

Yeah, Mossadegh was democratic. But since he was more to the left than the US, he was BAAAAAAAAAAD.

Yeah, Mossadegh was democratic. But since he was more to the left than the US, he was BAAAAAAAAAAD.

I wish more Americans knew about Mossadegh. It might help to shatter their convictions that America has historically supported democracy and has been independent of foreign interests.

This is more or less what I've come to think of violent revolution from history and Gandhi's philosophy.

There are other kinds of violent revolution beyond military coups.

I wish more Americans knew about Mossadegh. It might help to shatter their convictions that America has historically supported democracy and has been independent of foreign interests.

Nope, it probably won't. We had one here who was wondering why somebody referred to Fort Benning as the "school of the assassins" for fucks sake. Far too many of them believe the hype.

I wish more Americans knew about Mossadegh. It might help to shatter their convictions that America has historically supported democracy and has been independent of foreign interests.

I've invoked Mossadegh in arguments with both FAG and my dad. Apparently it doesn't work too well.

I wish more Americans knew about Mossadegh. It might help to shatter their convictions that America has historically supported democracy and has been independent of foreign interests.
But anyone that is socialist can't possibly be democratic, they are automatically totalitarian commies oppressing their people and suppressing opposing opinions.

In the grim darkness of lack of credible arguments there is only ad hominem :)



So primary reason for putting those people in charge of administration was their commitment to ideology? This reminds me of a certain joke...

"You didn't manage well, Comrade, in marine transport, so maybe you'll fare better in culture department."

Another one: what's BMW? "Bierny, Mierny, ale Wierny" - "Inactive, Ineffective, but Loyal". It's the reason why communist countries were always backward economically - the only important thing was ideology, not efficiency or whatever.
Nice how you ignored the majority of my post, most importantly that Chavez has only shut down ONE TELEVISION CHANNEL, RCTV, because of their illegal dealings in encouraging military coups etc, which the Supreme Court upheld btw. And yes Chavez is well within his power to replace key industries with his own people, you act like putting people of 'ideology' is a bad idea, but you purposely forget that socialism is also an economic theory posited by Marx, and as your post shows you are nothing but a reactionary and partisan conservative when it gets to the heart of it.

Hugo can't let FAUX's renewal die either, so he's stuck with hearing their "Fair and Balanced" shite.

As long as that shite is brand, word.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/12/bush-libby-decision-fair-and-balanced/

But anyone that is socialist can't possibly be democratic, they are automatically totalitarian commies oppressing their people and suppressing opposing opinions.

No, but they're still not necessarily desirable leaders.

No, but they're still not necessarily desirable leaders.

Not desirable for whom, he certainly was for the Venezuelan people, or they wouldn't have given him a mandate.

Nice how you ignored the majority of my post, most importantly that Chavez has only shut down ONE TELEVISION CHANNEL, RCTV, because of their illegal dealings in encouraging military coups etc, which the Supreme Court upheld btw. And yes Chavez is well within his power to replace key industries with his own people, you act like putting people of 'ideology' is a bad idea, but you purposely forget that socialism is also an economic theory posited by Marx

Huh? I can't remember posting anything about any TV station...

And putting people of 'ideology' IS bad idea. Wanna extreme example? Search wiki or whatever for Lysenkism/Lysenkoism. You'd certainly scoff at the idea of putting someone in charge of something not because of merit, but by being a member of aristocratic family. Putting someone in charge not because of merit but commitment to ideology is no different. Of course, said aristocrat or apparatchik may be quite an expert in the given field, but there is nothing good in such situation. Being an aristocrat or hardcore communist should be a nice bonus, not primary reason for appointment. I am not particularly well oriented in Venezuelan internal affairs, so I don't know whether those dudes of Chavez qualify for the job. They may be as well experts at management or whatever, but when one grabs power and starts to replace ancien regime's guys with his own buddies, there is considerable place for suspicions. This is true no matter which side of political spectrum the old ones and the new are.

As for Marxism, I am not sure whether being well-versed in Marxism is enough to successfully manage industry.


as your post shows you are nothing but a reactionary and partisan conservative when it gets to the heart of it.

Gosh, I need to answer Your threads more often, this will supply me with constant amount of lolling :D

No, that's pretty much commonly accepted knowledge unless you're DK or Arab on these forums, I was just trying to start discussion on this issue and to put light on the facts of where the anti-Chavez camp is getting it's 'information' on this forum.

I'm one of the few on this forum who NEVER watches Fox. Precisely because it's "news as entertainment".

Populism is the bane of conservatism. It works, almost literally, as its antithesis. Populism is what you get when you listen to the people, and address their needs, whereas conservatism (in the U.S. anyway) is what you get when you, as an individual/voting bloc simply do as your told, and trust unconditionally, as long as the trusted one acknowledges that your godhead is the proper one...

Okay, a slight exaggeration, but only slight.

What the hell are you going on about?
In the US, populism is conservatism.

What the hell are you going on about?
In the US, populism is conservatism.

Undelia, most people on NS General have a tenuous grasp of US history.

I work for Fox News now?

Last time I checked, I was bashing the FOX News way of manipulating information.

Then again, it is Andaras Prime...I must add that most people on NS General have a tenous grasp of Venezuelan history.

Andaras, just for your information, the goverment that was in power before Chávez wasn't right wing, was moderate left wing, amongst other details that you have really, really wrong. Last right wing goverment here was toppled in 1958. (I am not defending the forer goverment. They were a corrupted and dirty bunch, but that doesn't make them a right wing goverment. Facts are facts).

I would say stop reading Eva Gollinger, but that would be just wrong. I prefer to say "Read Eva Gollinger and also something else". Limiting yourself to only believe what Eva has to say is as bad as limiting yourself to believe only what FOX News has to say, (that actually is the worst thing you can do. The FOX News team that came to Venezuela didn't check their sources or make a proper field investigation, I am a primary source of that)

The day I stop watching thousands of my people live in hideous huts made of zinc planks and eating dog meat, (as I did this weekend), is the day I'll support the Chávez's administration. Until then, I'll continue to oppose it, even if that means that some radical leftist from outside the country can side me with something as biased and ridiculous as FOX News.

Leopoldo López is over bashed there, just to add a last thing. Although I do not agree with or support his party, he has proved to be the only successful mayor in the city of Caracas in the last years. The high approval ratings of his people are a proof of that. He has managed to maintain a piece of the city clean and relatively secure, if we compare his jurisdiction with the rest.

Capriles Radonski indeed failed where Leopoldo succeeded. I hope he is removed in the next elections. Oh, I must add that the charges over the both of them were finally dropped by the venezuelan justice this year, by the way. Seems like you forgot to add that in your review, or your information needs updating.

And Fox News has what to do with anything, how?

They may be as well experts at management or whatever, but when one grabs power and starts to replace ancien regime's guys with his own buddies, there is considerable place for suspicions. This is true no matter which side of political spectrum the old ones and the new are.

Yep, exactly correct.

Thwarting Chávez's political ambitions should be a paramount goal if we are to ensure the welfare of the Venezuelan people as well as oil-driven economic stability in the world as a whole. If we accept the need to disrupt his dangerous schemes, then it should follow that the use of certain methods of accomplishing this goal (ie, a media campaign of obfuscation and discrediting) must be condoned and whole-heartedly encouraged. Given that the first is self-evident, the second comes naturally.

Chavez: Critical foreigners to get boot
By CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER
Associated Press Writer

Esteban Felix / AP Photo
» More Photos

CARACAS, Venezuela -- President Hugo Chavez said Sunday that foreigners who publicly criticize him or his government while visiting Venezuela will be expelled from the country.

Chavez ordered officials to closely monitor statements made by international figures during their visits to Venezuela - and deport any outspoken critics.

"How long are we going to allow a person - from any country in the world - to come to our own house to say there's a dictatorship here, that the president is a tyrant, and nobody does anything about it?" Chavez asked during his weekly television and radio program.

Posted by La Habana Cuba :
One of our fellow posters on this forum has a Thread on how Chavez does allow freedoms of the Press, lol, after he forces the media to his rules, and now this, it is amazing that after this statement and orders to officials there are fellow posters who still support Chavez who would take thier computers away if he could, who would deport any outspoken critics if they did not agree with him 100 % percent of the time, while he goes anywhere in the world to other Nations and says and critizes whatever and whomever he wants, some democratic president.

From the Miami Herald & Fox News, Fair, Balanced & UnAfraid.

Chavez: Critical foreigners to get boot
By CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER
Associated Press Writer

Esteban Felix / AP Photo
Nicaragua's President Daniel Ortega, right, and Venezuela' s President Hugo Chavez, hold their hands up after placing a symbolic first stone during a ceremony to mark the beginning of the construction of an oil refinery in Puerto Sandino, 66 km. north of Managua, Friday, July 20, 2007. The refinery will be built by the Venezuelan state owned oil company Petroleos de Venezuela S.A ( PDVSA).
» More Photos
CARACAS, Venezuela -- President Hugo Chavez said Sunday that foreigners who publicly criticize him or his government while visiting Venezuela will be expelled from the country.

Chavez ordered officials to closely monitor statements made by international figures during their visits to Venezuela - and deport any outspoken critics.

"How long are we going to allow a person - from any country in the world - to come to our own house to say there's a dictatorship here, that the president is a tyrant, and nobody does anything about it?" Chavez asked during his weekly television and radio program.

The Venezuelan leader's statements came after Manuel Espino, the president of Mexico's conservative ruling party, criticized Chavez during a recent pro-democracy forum in Caracas.

Government opponents argue Chavez - a close ally of Cuban leader Fidel Castro - is becoming increasingly authoritarian and cracking down on dissent as he steers oil-rich Venezuela toward what he calls "21st-century socialism."

Chavez rejects such allegations, countering that democratic freedoms have been extended since he was first elected in 1998. The former paratroop commander says his government has empowered the poor by giving them increased decision-making authority in politics.

During Sunday's six-hour program, Chavez assured private property owners their rights will be guaranteed under a pending constitutional reform.

"Private property will respected," he said.

Many wealthy Venezuelans fear second homes, yachts or other assets could be seized as Chavez advances his Bolivarian Revolution, a movement named after South American independence hero Simon Bolivar. Chavez denies any such plans.

Chavez is expected to present his reform proposal to the National Assembly, which is completely controlled by his allies, in the coming weeks. Few details have emerged from a special executive committee that he appointed to draft a proposal for overhauling the country's charter.

Also Sunday, Chavez announced an initiative to slash the salaries of Venezuela's top public servants. He said no public servant should make more than $7,000 a month. Most Venezuelans make minimum wage - roughly $250 a month.

Reducing the pay of top officials has become a popular move in Latin America. The presidents Nicaragua, Bolivia, Peru and Costa Rica recently cut salaries, including their own, in response to widespread criticism.

In his typically wide-ranging television program, Chavez also said Castro recently warned him to take precautions against possible U.S.-backed assassination attempts.

He said Cuba's 80-year-old "Maximum Leader" gave him a copy of former CIA Director George Tenet's recently published memoir and told him: "'Read it, Chavez, because that is the most perfect killing machine ever invented and I'm a survivor ... I survived more than 600 (assassination) attempts.'"

"The CIA is everywhere," said Chavez, who has repeatedly warned that U.S. President George W. Bush could order him killed.

U.S. law has forbidden assassination attempts since the 1970s, and Washington denies the U.S. government has attempted to kill Castro since then.

That should be a quote with a link, La Habana Cuba.

Given the US-supported coup and private media campaign to rid anything deemed 'leftist' in government, using illegal tactics, Chavez has, if anything, been forced into such actions.

Given the US-supported coup and private media campaign to rid anything deemed 'leftist' in government, using illegal tactics, Chavez has, if anything, been forced into such actions.

Post to Dosuun & Andaras Prime.

Forced into such actions? Lol. That is like saying Fidel & Raul Castro are dictators
for life because they dont want to be they are just forced to be.

Here is a link related to my Post on forcing the media to his own rules,
as well as the link to my post above, Chavez: Critical foreigners to get boot
By CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER
Associated Press Writer

Esteban Felix / AP Photo
» More Photos

On my coments about Chavez supporters on this forum.


Posted on Thu, Jul. 12, 2007reprint or license print email Digg it del.icio.us Silenced Venezuelan station goes to satellite

CARACAS -- (AP) -- An opposition-aligned TV station forced off the air by President Hugo Chavez said Wednesday it will take its programming to cable and satellite television.

Radio Caracas Television, or RCTV, is still waging a legal battle to reclaim its broadcast license that Chavez refused to renew, forcing it off the air on May 27.

But until it can return to the open airwaves, starting Monday RCTV will reach viewers via cable, station chief executive Marcel Granier said Wednesday.

''Venezuelans want RCTV, and they will have it,'' Granier told a news conference. ``Until we achieve the goal of regaining our signal we must try to return to the air as soon as possible through alternative means.''

Cable and satellite television cost roughly $20 a month -- more than many Venezuelan families can afford -- and reach approximately 30 percent of households.

Granier and other Chavez critics have cast doubt on the possibility of a favorable appeal process, noting that Supreme Court magistrates were appointed by Chavez's allies in the National Assembly and are widely perceived as government-friendly.

RCTV and three other major TV channels -- Venevision, Globovision and Televen -- are what Chavez has called the ''Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.'' He has accused the channels supporting a short-lived 2002 coup by broadcasting cartoons and movies instead of the protests that aided his return to power.

Venevision and Televen have since curbed their criticism of the government, while Globovision has stayed its course. RCTV was fiercely critical of Chavez until its signal was turned over to a state-controlled public-service channel.

International press freedom groups, the European Union, the U.S. government, Human Rights Watch and others expressed concern about the move to force RCTV from the airwaves.

Given the US-supported coup and private media campaign to rid anything deemed 'leftist' in government, using illegal tactics, Chavez has, if anything, been forced into such actions.

Ah, the ultimate justification of the scoundrel, "I had no other choice!"

RCTV organized an illegal military coup, they encouraged military officers and generals to overthrow Chavez's democratically-elected popular government because of their reactionary views. Chavez is merely going after, as an President should, the criminals who incited and carried out the coup, including the private media and individuals involved in these illegal activities.

RCTV organized an illegal military coup, they encouraged military officers and generals to overthrow Chavez's democratically-elected popular government because of their reactionary views. Chavez is merely going after, as an President should, the criminals who incited and carried out the coup, including the private media and individuals involved in these illegal activities.

First off, the claim that they organized the coup d'etat is a massive hunk of baloney, they were an actor that became involved after the fact, and because they rather liked the idea of Chavez being gone.

What about the other stations that acted in a similar fashion, but after Chavez was returned to power, they got threatened with the exact same thing, and they pussied out and started spewing the party line in order to stay on the air?

What you don't get, Andaras, dearest, is that Chavez is not holding to some legal or moral strictures, rather, he is merely a common opportunist, like any other Latin American caudillo. He'll say and do whatever needs done to remain in power, he ally with those who would seem to be his natural political enemies (wealthy Venezuelans) and ignore what would seem to be his natural political allies (poor Venezuelans) so much so that the promised reforms don't take effect or have an impact.

Hugo Chavez is where he is so he can get power, just as his cronies are there so they can get money. It's not some sort of grand crusade against the big bad mean oppression of the global capitalist order, it's merely a couple of dudes trying to become rich and powerful. I mean, in the US we have the exact same situation in George Bush and his little gang of cuntbunnies. Take off your rose tinted glasses and see what's going on in the real world.

First off, the claim that they organized the coup d'etat is a massive hunk of baloney, they were an actor that became involved after the fact, and because they rather liked the idea of Chavez being gone.

What about the other stations that acted in a similar fashion, but after Chavez was returned to power, they got threatened with the exact same thing, and they pussied out and started spewing the party line in order to stay on the air?

What you don't get, Andaras, dearest, is that Chavez is not holding to some legal or moral strictures, rather, he is merely a common opportunist, like any other Latin American caudillo. He'll say and do whatever needs done to remain in power, he ally with those who would seem to be his natural political enemies (wealthy Venezuelans) and ignore what would seem to be his natural political allies (poor Venezuelans) so much so that the promised reforms don't take effect or have an impact.

Hugo Chavez is where he is so he can get power, just as his cronies are there so they can get money. It's not some sort of grand crusade against the big bad mean oppression of the global capitalist order, it's merely a couple of dudes trying to become rich and powerful. I mean, in the US we have the exact same situation in George Bush and his little gang of cuntbunnies. Take off your rose tinted glasses and see what's going on in the real world.

You think he shouldn't go after these private interests that organized the coup, with the aid of the US money?

You should watch this documentary to get some real information.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gRUrQCTtNI

Perhaps something I could read? I've always thought that film takes far too long, and that it's too easy to emotionally manipulate someone with the use of film.

Well do what you will, but one of the parts of it shows clearly the private channels distorting information and openly asking the military to overthrow Chavez, which they did and they put in Carmona - a guy who was also the richest guy in the country, and as his deputy the guy who owns RCTV.

You think he shouldn't go after these private interests that organized the coup, with the aid of the US money?

You should watch this documentary to get some real information.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gRUrQCTtNI

Perhaps something I could read? I've always thought that film takes far too long, and that it's too easy to emotionally manipulate someone with the use of film.

And no, I think he should go after the private interests equally, or not at all. Instead, it just looks like they're trading favors with Chavez.

If Andaras Prime were In Venezuela as a foreigner or a Venezuelan Citizen and say just one thing Chavez did not like, Andaras Prime would deported from Venezuela, for exsample.

But from the Nation of origin Andaras Prime is posting from Andaras Prime
has a right to coment on all of Andaras Prime's views.

In the grim darkness of lack of credible arguments there is only ad hominem :)



So primary reason for putting those people in charge of administration was their commitment to ideology? This reminds me of a certain joke...

"You didn't manage well, Comrade, in marine transport, so maybe you'll fare better in culture department."

Another one: what's BMW? "Bierny, Mierny, ale Wierny" - "Inactive, Ineffective, but Loyal". It's the reason why communist countries were always backward economically - the only important thing was ideology, not efficiency or whatever.

Yeah, what happens when their oil runs out?

What sort of businessperson will want to risk his money under such a business-repressive regime?

...and (the logical follow-up Q) where are people going to find jobs, or decent products, or investment opportunities, etc.?

Socialism sucks. It is born of a loser's mentality and ultimately only serves losers (the unemployed and otherwise "disadvantaged", boo bleeping hoo), at least until the country's staple crop -- that funds the dictatorial regime and its backward economic distribution set-up -- declines. Venezuela's being funded by oil. There sure as hell can't be any businesspeople left in that freedom-void.

:D

Populism is the bane of conservatism. It works, almost literally, as its antithesis. Populism is what you get when you listen to the people, and address their needs...

That is utter b.s. of the highest calibre.

Populism in reality is doing whatever possible to appease the media (who are most definitely anti-even-a-hint-of-right I think we can all agree) and the average dumbass on the street.

Why do you think spin-doctors were utilised by Blairs socialist Labour government?
To make their policies look populist. It only works if your citizenry are idiots however. And the media are former left-wing radical students with little or no life experience of their espoused ideals, as they sip their charity champagne and cry about Africa.
Hence the population in the UK getting sick of it after a short while.

Conservatism isn't automatically God-fearing Southern-bred New World fascism...most conservatives today would actually define themselves as libertarians.
All conservatives are religious fanatics bent on world domination is just another left-wing line to scare people into acceptance of naive leftist policies.

A few more lefty lines:

If you don't immediately and without reservation accept all immigrants, you are a racist.
The left doesn't believe in benefit fraud, all good Comrades are honest Soviet men, no?
And benefit cheats would undermine Marx's principle...
Errr, shit...this lefty mumbo-jumbo is looking dicey now...

All gunowners are unstable inbred hicks, brainwashed by the military industrial complex to own assualt weapons...so obviously only state-sponsored individuals should carry firearms (sounds a bit totalitarian to me..).
You notice all the rioting and general mayhem in the US these days because of this?

Progress is EVIL, we'd all be better off living in the rainforests, because what did smart(er than leftists) people ever do for us?
(Another convenient way of not showing gratitude to those who make your way of life possible, shifting the blame yadayada)

The GWOT is actually a Christian crusade against our Muslim brothers in Palestine etc. Very fashionable this season. The lefty chicks love this line.

9/11 was justified due to American cultural imperialism.
Because people actually HATE Coca-Cola and Levis, they just buy them so the US doesnt have an excuse to invade ;)

The Jews = Israel, so automatically any Jewish person, anywhere, becomes fair game if you don't especially like Israels existence, or you think the Holocaust was just the leftovers from a bad day at a Krupps-manufactured bakery at Auschwitz .

Michael Moore isn't fat because he is a self-centred egomaniac who obviously has no impulse control, but becasue the evil megacorporations MADE HIM EAT!!!
Mind-control foodstuffs marketed by defense-contractors so people get SCARED and buy guns, vote Republican etc.

I tend to forget that anything that doesnt conform to the European ideal of democracy (i.e. violently Green with a strong dose of Commie) is automatically totalitarian.
And we'd know a thing or two about dictatorships let me tell you...

Silly me...I must enroll in a Democratic rally somewhere and feel part of a big warm mushy group with no real ideals but the underlying desire for people to like me...

People have gotten sick of the vague "left" and swung back to the right, as we've seen in the US, Britain lately and of course France.

Oh sure, we'd all love free healthcare and free godknowswhat, but bottomline is somebody has to pay for it...why should it be the innovators and inventors without whom the glorious all-knowing proletariat and their spoiled college-Marxist brethren would be in a cave scratching their collective asses???

I dislike Bush and Fox News, but Chavez is by no means the working man's hero. His administration has characteristics of dictatorship (dissolving the courts, rule-by-decree etc.)

I think you are misinformed or underinformed on the current situation in Venezuela. Chávez government has nothing of a dictatorship, the Bolivarian Constitution contains much more safeguards against any form of dictatorship than any other Constitution I know about, recall referendums (for any elected representative, including the President, and for any law, with even a smaller threshold for decrees) being the most visible, but not the only one.

A grassroot democratic system is being built inside Venezuela, through the communal councils, too.

The "rule by decree" may be seen as a "dictatorship" measure, but you should remember it was already used both by Chávez in 2001 with no abuse and by his predecessors. Anyway, all the decrees have to be compliant with the Constitution, which guarantee all the fundemantal rights (and which gives Constitutional value to all international treaties, like Human Rights Declaration or Geneva pacts).

and he's more or less incompetent economically.

Actually, he isn't. Venezuela economy is doing very well, poverty and unemployment are lowering, the growth rate is the highest of South America, and so on. Sure, oil helps, but nothing similar happened before Chávez came to power, while they already had oil.

I do support his efforts against international oil companies etc., but many other Latin American leaders are also standing up to the American empire without reverting to dictatorship.

Who ? Morales ? Correa ? Well, they are Chávez allies, they came to power partly because of the example set by Chávez, and they benefit a lot from Chávez help.

Even in the name of socialism, a military coup, I think, is not as effective in the long term as a nonviolent revolution.

Well, that's partly why Chávez decided, once he was released from jail, to give up violent action and to try the peaceful, electoral, way of reaching power. And why, since then, he's doing his best to imply the people in the process.

The reasons behind his revolt in 1992 was the locked political system between the parties of Punto Fijo pact, and mostly because of the violent repression of the Caracazo. The young Chávez just couldn't stand not acting after the government slaughtered 3000 people who protested against neoliberal reforms, and I can understand that.

But anyone that is socialist can't possibly be democratic, they are automatically totalitarian commies oppressing their people and suppressing opposing opinions.

Is that irony ? I hope so.

Not desirable for whom, he certainly was for the Venezuelan people, or they wouldn't have given him a mandate.

Actually, they voted for him or his allies/ideas 11 times since 1998, including 4 times directly for himself, and each time with a larger amount and share of voices.

And putting people of 'ideology' IS bad idea.

Don't forget the context. Venezuela is in a state of very strong political opposition, with anti-Chávez people determined to use any mean, at any cost, to bring Chávez down. That includes a coup attempt, murder and murder attempt, and mass-scale sabotage as happened in 2002-2003. In this context, having "loyal" people in key position is fundamental.

The huge amount of corruption in the country (saddly the "norm" is south america) is also a problem that can be addressed, partially, by putting genuine socialists in key positions, because they'll want the Chávez administration to succeed, and that can counter the lust for personal wealth (of course, detecting genuine socialists is not an easy problem in itself).

Even in normal situations, the motivation and determination to succeed is often as important as skill to achieve a result.

Andaras, just for your information, the goverment that was in power before Chávez wasn't right wing, was moderate left wing, amongst other details that you have really, really wrong. Last right wing goverment here was toppled in 1958. (I am not defending the forer goverment. They were a corrupted and dirty bunch, but that doesn't make them a right wing goverment. Facts are facts).

That just shows your total ignorance of politics, or your total lack of honesty. Pretending yourself to be "moderate left wing" doesn't make you "moderate left wing", no more than the DDR pretending itself "democratic" made it democratic.

The previous government was applying the right-wing, neoliberal, reforms asked by the IMF, and that makes it right-wing, whatever it claims to be. It was also preparing the privatization of PDVSA which is definitely not left-wing.

The day I stop watching thousands of my people live in hideous huts made of zinc planks and eating dog meat, (as I did this weekend), is the day I'll support the Chávez's administration.

At least now, they can read, go to the doctor, and buy cheaper food at Mercal. You can't solve all the wrongs done by decades of neoliberalism in 8 years, especially when the opposition is using every dirty trick (from coup to sabotage to murder) it can, and when the most powerful government of the world is trying to destroy you.

The high approval ratings of his people are a proof of that.

More exactly the proof that those rich people will be happy to support anyone who oppose Chávez.

What the hell are you going on about?
In the US, populism is conservatism.

It is also Liberalism too.

"How long are we going to allow a person - from any country in the world - to come to our own house to say there's a dictatorship here, that the president is a tyrant, and nobody does anything about it?" Chavez asked during his weekly television and radio program.

Actually, do you really think you can go to the US, claim "Bush is a dictator" and be sure to have no problem with the US justice ?

People were arrested in US airports for having anti-Bush tshirts !

What did Chávez exactly claim he'll do ? Do you have any facts, or just rhetoric ? Yes, Chávez is unhappy that people can diffame him freely - diffamation is a crime in most of the world, especially when done against an elected person.

I may oppose Chávez if he starts over-reacting on the issue, but just saying that not doing anything is wrong is all ok. So, more fact, or it's just one more cloud of smoke spread to discredit Chávez ?

You think he shouldn't go after these private interests that organized the coup, with the aid of the US money?

You should watch this documentary to get some real information.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gRUrQCTtNI

And yet, the US warned Chavez about the Coup. Figure that one out.

It is also Liberalism too.

It really isn't. Throughout US history, liberal reform has been resisted by the politically active minority and ignored by the inactive majority.
That's why SCOTUS has been such an important institution, especially in the last hundred years.

Hmm… looks like Andaras said that populism was only a left-wing trait… not the other way around.

I think what he meant was that populism is by definition left wing (common good) trait - and vice versa: Left wing politics often come out as populistic (by definition) - but is often abused by the right wing (individual good) as it is a powerful tool even if it doesn't actually fit their agenda.

Let's say: 'Free' healthcare for all vs lower taxes for all - The former works more or less for the majority of people while the latter tends to favour certain individiuals, the elite, much more and is therefore only populist by allusion*, even though it would/could generally be percieved as a populist remark.


*It should be noted that if one truly believes in right wing policies then they'd see the issue completely differently: Lower taxes is percieved to increase economic freedom, like for example giving one a chance of choosing one's own personal healthcare (if you can afford it) better as one has more capital remaining, making it look like an actual populist remark for the right wing supporters. However, this ignores the amount of people who still can't either afford any healthcare or can only afford inadequate healthcare giving them no choice, no freedom at all.

Kilobugya ownz. Six posts in a row :eek:

That just shows your total ignorance of politics, or your total lack of honesty. Pretending yourself to be "moderate left wing" doesn't make you "moderate left wing", no more than the DDR pretending itself "democratic" made it democratic.

You do realize that the person you are addressing lives in Venezuela right?

The previous government was applying the right-wing, neoliberal, reforms asked by the IMF, and that makes it right-wing, whatever it claims to be. It was also preparing the privatization of PDVSA which is definitely not left-wing.

It does not necessarily make a government right wing.

Actually, do you really think you can go to the US, claim "Bush is a dictator" and be sure to have no problem with the US justice ?

Freedom of Speech. We can say what we want in this country provided it does not incite a riot.

People were arrested in US airports for having anti-Bush tshirts !

On private property. Meaning, there rules. On Public property, it is illegal to do so.

I thought I'd quote this article to give people some background on this issue and to start a discussion on the private-media obfuscation campaign, both in Venezuela and abroad (especially the US) to try and discredit Chavez and encourage military coups etc.

This'll be an interesting match. One is much-reviled creature of ill-morals and brazen statements, and the other is Hugo Chavez.

People were arrested in US airports for having anti-Bush tshirts !


Do you have a link so I can read about it?

Edit : The first few results I get from google are for a guy not allowed to board a flight in Australia due to an anti-Bush shirt but that's it

It really isn't. Throughout US history, liberal reform has been resisted by the politically active minority and ignored by the inactive majority.
That's why SCOTUS has been such an important institution, especially in the last hundred years.

Tell that to those who wanted to maintain slavery. They resisted moves to free the slaves. A populist movement to end slavery was there and what happens? A civil war.

The left is currently doing a populist movement about the Iraq War. The right is attempting a populist movement to end Abortion. It is all in how one wants to look at a situation and who is resisting it.

First off, the claim that they organized the coup d'etat is a massive hunk of baloney, they were an actor that became involved after the fact, and because they rather liked the idea of Chavez being gone.

NO. Military leaders used RCTV, before April 11th, to prepare the coup. RCTV then refused the cadena of Chávez calling to calm, and called people to illegally march towards Miraflores, knowing that Chávez supporters were there, and of course, that making the two masses of opposing, very heated people clash was the best way to ensure violence.

Then, they showed again and again the fake pictures of what happened to the bridge, claiming Chávez supporters opened fire while the opposite occurred.

And then, they claimed without any proof that Chávez resigned.

And then again, they refused to speak about the massive protests against the coup.

That's quite a lot, isn't it ?

What about the other stations that acted in a similar fashion, but after Chavez was returned to power, they got threatened with the exact same thing, and they pussied out and started spewing the party line in order to stay on the air?

They didn't "spew the party line" at all, they remained much more in the opposition than any media would dare to be in most western "democracies".

What changed is that they less openly advised the use of violence against Chávez.

The other fact is that RCTV kept breaking many other laws (advertising on alcohol/tabacco, subliminal pictures, pornography laws, tax fraud, ...) while the other ones didn't, or least not nearly as much. That's far enough to not renew the concession.

He'll say and do whatever needs done to remain in power, he ally with those who would seem to be his natural political enemies (wealthy Venezuelans) and ignore what would seem to be his natural political allies (poor Venezuelans) so much so that the promised reforms don't take effect or have an impact.

Illitteracy eradicated according to UNESCO. Half a million of persons cured from eye diseases. Hundred of fully equiped, totally free, diagnostic centers opened. Thousands of doctors curing freely the poorest people. Hundred of thousands of people who managed to complete high-school level education. Massive development of infrastructure. Agrarian reform. Bootstrapping of direct democracy.

All that, and much, much more, was already done. Sure, there are problems. Corruption is still high. Some programs don't go as fast as people would like. Some things just collapsed. But it's a very complex process, that was never done anywhere else. It just cannot be perfect.

Yeah, what happens when their oil runs out?

That's exactly what Chávez is addressing, with the Siembra Petrolera plan. Something no other presidents even bothered with before.

Chávez is trying to use oil money to prepare the after-oil era, by bootstrapping industries and agriculture (Venezuela imports 70% of its food, and has a lot of unused rural land, Chávez is trying to change that), by investing massively in education and healthcare (very fundamental things for the long term), developing infrastructure (first train lines, doubling the number of metro lines in Caracas, building a second bridge on the Orinoco, increase the capacity of the dam on the Orinoco to have non-oil energy, spreading energy-saving lights even in the barrios, and so on).

You do realize that the person you are addressing lives in Venezuela right?

I do know him for having read his lies in other threads. He was even claiming that there never was any coup, the other day.

He's just a quite representative member of the opposition to Chávez, speading lies to try to destroy the Chávez administration.

It does not necessarily make a government right wing.

Well, maybe it does not on social issues (civil rights and so on), but it definitely does on economical issues, and that's mostly what we were talking about.

I do know him for having read his lies in other threads. He was even claiming that there never was any coup, the other day.

He's just a quite representative member of the opposition to Chávez, speading lies to try to destroy the Chávez administration.

First off, you have to prove that what Aelosia is saying is lies. Now you are from France I take it? What would a frenchman actually know what is going on inside Venezuela when we have a poster who is actually inside the country? That is like me talking about French Politics and calling what you say incorrect when I do not live in France but in the United States.

Freedom of Speech. We can say what we want in this country provided it does not incite a riot.

Freedom of speech, as any freedom, has limits.

On private property. Meaning, there rules. On Public property, it is illegal to do so.

Sorry, I don't understand your sentence.

Freedom of speech, as any freedom, has limits.

You are correct in that comment but we can say that Bush is a dictator and have nothing happen to us.

Sorry, I don't understand your sentence.

Private Businesses can reject people, within reason. They own the establishment and thus can refuse service if they so choose.

First off, you have to prove that what Aelosia is saying is lies. Now you are from France I take it? What would a frenchman actually know what is going on inside Venezuela when we have a poster who is actually inside the country? That is like me talking about French Politics and calling what you say incorrect when I do not live in France but in the United States.

Being present on a country doesn't make you automatically aware on the political situation there. Someone from USA or whatever place who takes time digging and researching on french politics will know much more about them than the average french citizen, and the same goes for every country. Of course, an average french will know much more than an average citizen of USA, but that's not the point.

Then, being present in Venezuela doesn't make him any objective. I would say even the opposite, because he's more directly concerned by the issue, so he has more interest into lying to defend his own political side than I do.

For the situation in Venezuela, I'm interested in it a lot since several years, I've done a lot of research and reading on the subject, I spoke to a lot of people who live there (both French people living there since years and Venezuelian people), to several journalists who spent months there (not the crappy reporters of big newspapers who stay a few days in the tourist hostels and that's all), and so on. And I actually went to Caracas to see the situation with my own eyes and speak directly with people (most of the time with other french people acting as translators, since my spanish is not very good - reading spanish is fine enough for me, speaking it much less).

But all that, as much as your posting, is just authority argument - a fallacy among others. Let's, please, stay to facts, not to who live where.

Private Businesses can reject people, within reason. They own the establishment and thus can refuse service if they so choose.

That's a strange, but not surprising, US feature then. In France (and most of Europe AFAIK), business are not allowed to reject people just because they don't like their political opinions (or skin color or whatever).

That's a strange, but not surprising, US feature then. In France (and most of Europe AFAIK), business are not allowed to reject people just because they don't like their political opinions (or skin color or whatever).

*shrugs*

Also, look at some facts. The mall security guard (which is what you are referring to) was reprimanded for doing as such.

Edit: also notice I used the phrase within reason

*shrugs*

Also, look at some facts. The mall security guard (which is what you are referring to) was reprimanded for doing as such.

Edit: also notice I used the phrase within reason

Ok, maybe I misunderstood a bit what you said, sorry.

Funny i've seen plenty of places with a sign saying "We reserve the right to refuse entry" or something along those lines. They don't have to give a reason AFAIK

EDIT : Just found a random french site as an example



Link (http://www.pretparis.com/fr/pdf/reglement_gb.pdf)

Although I don't know how these fit in with anti-discrimination laws

Well, I don't know the details of the law and how much outside of the law they are. It's sure they can't refuse people just for political opinions (proving they refuse you for political opinions may be a trouble), they can refuse you for "reasonable" reasons (on a fashion show, they'll probably refuse you if you are wearing damaged or dirty clothes, for example). But they can't do it "as they wish" or without any reason.

But they can't do it "as they wish" or without any reason.

You're right (damn you caught my post before I deleted it). They can refuse entry without reason here but they do leave themselves open to legal action e.g. refusing a black man entry to a club but not giving a reason could be interpreted as a racial discrimination issue although it might just have been due to his being completely out of his head drunk

You're right (damn you caught my post before I deleted it). They can refuse entry without reason here but they do leave themselves open to legal action e.g. refusing a black man entry to a club but not giving a reason could be interpreted as a racial discrimination issue although it might just have been due to his being completely out of his head drunk

But then, the person who was refused admittence has to prove that it was on racial grounds.

But then, the person who was refused admittence has to prove that it was on racial grounds.

Pretty much

Well, french law (article L.122-1 of the "code de la consommation") says « Il est interdit de refuser à un consommateur la vente d'un produit ou la prestation d'un service, sauf motif légitime » which translates « It is forbidden to refuse to a customer the sale of product or the providing of a service, without a legitimate reason », and AFAIK, similar laws exist in most of Europe.

Of course, the whole problem is what is a "legitimate reason".

Exactly!!

Of course, the whole problem is what is a "legitimate reason".

Anything not protected by law e.g. race, religion, etc

But then, the person who was refused admittence has to prove that it was on racial grounds.

Well, french law (article L.122-1 of the "code de la consommation") says « Il est interdit de refuser à un consommateur la vente d'un produit ou la prestation d'un service, sauf motif légitime » which translates « It is forbidden to refuse to a customer the sale of product or the providing of a service, without a legitimate reason », and AFAIK, similar laws exist in most of Europe.

Of course, the whole problem is what is a "legitimate reason".

Anything not protected by law e.g. race, religion, etc

No, it was ruled un-legitimate to refuse, for example, to sell the last item presented in the presenting area of the shop (dunno the word in english) because it was troublesome for the saler to remove it, or to refuse to rent a two-beds room to only one person, or other similar stuff.

If it is because of a racial, religious, sexual or political reason, then, in *addition* to this "refusal of sale" law, the shop owner will violate the non-discrimation laws (which are stricter, the "refusal of sale" law only can lead to fines, while discrimation laws may end up with prison sentence).

No, it was ruled un-legitimate to refuse, for example, to sell the last item presented in the presenting area of the shop (dunno the word in english) because it was troublesome for the saler to remove it, or to refuse to rent a two-beds room to only one person, or other similar stuff.

If it is because of a racial, religious, sexual or political reason, then, in *addition* to this "refusal of sale" law, the shop owner will violate the non-discrimation laws (which are stricter, the "refusal of sale" law only can lead to fines, while discrimation laws may end up with prison sentence).

Yikes that all seems a bit strict

Yikes that all seems a bit strict

Well, that seems sane for me, it's to protect the customer from many kinds of abuse of power from shops, from hidden discrimination to force sales and lying advertising (luring people into the shop with some items, but then refusing to sell them those items, hoping they'll buy other ones), and so on.

The balance of power between buyers and sellers is usually at the advantage of the sellers, so laws are needed to prevent abuse of such powers.

...
And in the process, dismanteling the Venezuelan Economy as its surprlus is declining. What? You mean they are not rolling in dough? It will not be long till they are running a deficit. His economic policies are failing just as bad as other presidents in the United States. All because of his populist policies. WOW. That is two arguments debunked.
...

According to the CIA world factbook, 2003 edition:
Venezuela
GDP 132.8B
Growth rate: -8.9%
Debt: 28.7% of GDP

According to the CIA world factbook, 2007 edition:
Venezuela
GDP 186.3B
Growth rate: +10.3%
Debt: 28.4% of GDP

So, to recap: 40% increase in GDP, positive swing of 19% in growth rate, all without increasing debt ratio in four years.

Oh yeah - what a failure!!!!!

According to the CIA world factbook, 2003 edition:
Venezuela
GDP 132.8B
Growth rate: -8.9%
Debt: 28.7% of GDP

According to the CIA world factbook, 2007 edition:
Venezuela
GDP 186.3B
Growth rate: +10.3%
Debt: 28.4% of GDP

So, to recap: 40% increase in GDP, positive swing of 19% in growth rate, all without increasing debt ratio in four years.

Oh yeah - what a failure!!!!!

Shhh, you'll ruin LancasterCounty/MTAE/DK's world view!

That just shows your total ignorance of politics, or your total lack of honesty. Pretending yourself to be "moderate left wing" doesn't make you "moderate left wing", no more than the DDR pretending itself "democratic" made it democratic.

The previous government was applying the right-wing, neoliberal, reforms asked by the IMF, and that makes it right-wing, whatever it claims to be. It was also preparing the privatization of PDVSA which is definitely not left-wing.

That just shows your total ignorance of the venezuelan history and situation, making rumours as the privatization of PDVSA into truths, bashing the same goverment that freed Chávez from prison, or your eagerness of pushing your ideological agenda, as usual.

At least now, they can read, go to the doctor, and buy cheaper food at Mercal. You can't solve all the wrongs done by decades of neoliberalism in 8 years, especially when the opposition is using every dirty trick (from coup to sabotage to murder) it can, and when the most powerful government of the world is trying to destroy you.

I don't know, I bet Japan in 1945 was pretty different than in 1953. Same with Germany. 8 years is a lot of time by my standards.

SOME of them can read, or someone make them believe they can read, SOME of them can go to a cuban doctor who studied medicine for two years and also has no medicines or resources, needed to cure people of dysenteria, as an example, and SOME of them can buy cheaper food at Mercal, if they can find anything there at all, because sugar, milk, meat, are just but fantasies for those poor people now. Mercal doesn't have any of those, nor does any other store. Of course, you have never entered a Mercal, so you don't have an idea about what a Mercal has in store and what not.

I don't know, perhaps the opposition is using every dirty trick, but the Chávez regime controls each and every one of the public powers, including the electoral power, the judicial power and the total of the legislative power. I bet that easily overpower the problem of the opposition. Regarding USA, don't you think they are already busy a lot with the crap tent they build in Iraq?

More exactly the proof that those rich people will be happy to support anyone who oppose Chávez.

Chacao has two big barrios too, full of not exactly rich people, and those barrios hold more than half of the voting population of Chacao. Of course, you have never been in Chacao to know that fact.

Being present on a country doesn't make you automatically aware on the political situation there. Someone from USA or whatever place who takes time digging and researching on french politics will know much more about them than the average french citizen, and the same goes for every country. Of course, an average french will know much more than an average citizen of USA, but that's not the point.

Then, being present in Venezuela doesn't make him any objective. I would say even the opposite, because he's more directly concerned by the issue, so he has more interest into lying to defend his own political side than I do.

For the situation in Venezuela, I'm interested in it a lot since several years, I've done a lot of research and reading on the subject, I spoke to a lot of people who live there (both French people living there since years and Venezuelian people), to several journalists who spent months there (not the crappy reporters of big newspapers who stay a few days in the tourist hostels and that's all), and so on. And I actually went to Caracas to see the situation with my own eyes and speak directly with people (most of the time with other french people acting as translators, since my spanish is not very good - reading spanish is fine enough for me, speaking it much less).

But all that, as much as your posting, is just authority argument - a fallacy among others. Let's, please, stay to facts, not to who live where.

First, she/her. The correct pronoun to use regarding me. You have read my posts so carefully that you haven't noticed that.

You are, as usually, disregarding my views just because you went in a tour sponsored by the goverment who showed you exactly what they wanted you to see. And you have talked to some people who live here, who aren't even venezuelan, but french people living here for several years, and that happen to be steady supporters of the same goverment that you defend with your agenda.

You are a faithful socialist, you have admitted several times that you have a marked ideological path, and that doesn't make you exactly objective. You have read and researched a lot the publications of the goverment, that say exactly what you want to read, and yet hardly you have researched the other sides of the story.

But you disregard my authority as a local with all my life living here, and studying the situation here, saying that you have been here once for a few days guided by the goverment you are defending, during a media war. My authority comes from two mayors, one in social communication and one in foreign affairs, and several years working as a journalist and studying first hand the situation in my own country. Like or not, you didn't study the venezuelan situation at the university level. I did, because I live in this country, and my level of research is more extended than anything you may have read over the internet. It's not just that I am a venezuelan, but I am a highly educated venezuelan about the situation, history and facts of my country. More than a french who happens to see the situation of my country as "exotic" and "appealing", sitting from his comfortable chair in the first world.

But you disregard my authority as a local with all my life living here, and studying the situation here, saying that you have been here once for a few days guided by the goverment you are defending, during a media war. My authority comes from two mayors, one in social communication and one in foreign affairs, and several years working as a journalist and studying first hand the situation in my own country. Like or not, you didn't study the venezuelan situation at the university level. I did, because I live in this country, and my level of research is more extended than anything you may have read over the internet. It's not just that I am a venezuelan, but I am a highly educated venezuelan about the situation, history and facts of my country. More than a french who happens to see the situation of my country as "exotic" and "appealing", sitting from his comfortable chair in the first world.

This proves you are one of the top 20% of the population, probably upper class working for the corrupt US-bribe taking private media elite, how about the 80% of the Venesualan who live in all but poverty? The same media elites who support overthrowing democratic governments and putting in CEO's and corporate elites like Carmona into office, who rape the oil resources and give none of it to the common people.

And Fox News has what to do with anything, how?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122821,00.html

This proves you are one of the top 20% of the population, probably upper class working for the corrupt US-bribe taking private media elite, how about the 80% of the Venesualan who live in all but poverty? The same media elites who support overthrowing democratic governments and putting in CEO's and corporate elites like Carmona into office, who rape the oil resources and give none of it to the common people.
How sad that you have to rely on silly ad hominem attacks to discredit everything she says (with no real knowledge of what her background is except guesswork), simply because you cannot address her arguments.

How sad that you have to rely on silly ad hominem attacks to discredit everything she says (with no real knowledge of what her background is except guesswork), simply because you cannot address her arguments.

When her sole arguments are "I'm there", "I'm educated" and "you just don't know anything" (because there is absolutely nothing else in her posts), how else can you oppose them ?

She's using authority arguments, which is a fallacy. Attacking this fallacy with an ad hominem fallacy may be attacking fire by fire, but if you look more closely, it's shifting by one level in logic, and attacking the core of her arguments: the authority argument.

Like or not, you didn't study the venezuelan situation at the university level. I did, because I live in this country, and my level of research is more extended than anything you may have read over the internet. It's not just that I am a venezuelan, but I am a highly educated venezuelan about the situation, history and facts of my country. More than a french who happens to see the situation of my country as "exotic" and "appealing", sitting from his comfortable chair in the first world.

You just admitted being part of the ruling elite, who opposes Chávez from all its heart, who just can't accept to see the "lower class" slowly gaining the same rights. That explains why your are so eager to spread lies against Chávez, and sort out the issue of if you were speaking by ignorance or by will to manipulate.

Of course, you have never been in Chacao to know that fact.

I did. But you just don't care.

When her sole arguments are "I'm there", "I'm educated" and "you just don't know anything" (because there is absolutely nothing else in her posts), how else can you oppose them ?

She's using authority arguments, which is a fallacy. Attacking this fallacy with an ad hominem fallacy may be attacking fire by fire, but if you look more closely, it's shifting by one level in logic, and attacking the core of her arguments: the authority argument.

Exactly right.

This proves you are one of the top 20% of the population, probably upper class working for the corrupt US-bribe taking private media elite, how about the 80% of the Venesualan who live in all but poverty? The same media elites who support overthrowing democratic governments and putting in CEO's and corporate elites like Carmona into office, who rape the oil resources and give none of it to the common people.

Yes, I'm filthy rich for sure, that's why I work for ten or more hours a day and have troubles to bring food to my home, still shared with family. Whatever you say. That coming from a foreigner who enjoys a rather high standard of life, it isn't impressive. Same for Kilobugya. Looks like going to an university makes me a corrupt elite, it seems. First I am not educated enough to speak about my country, and if I am, I am a corrupted elite with the purpose of manipulating facts. You always have an ad hominem argument at hand no matter what, don't you?

When you went into Chacao, did you know it has two barrios? did you visit them?, for example? I critic your supposed knowledge of this country based in facts, Kilobugya, not in abstract constructs as you do.

And Andaras Prime, your sidekick attitude is almost laughable, almost because it is too sad to be taken as a joke. You indeed do not know anything about you are speaking all the time, and repeat as a parrot what you hear some place else.

I know how you feel. I'm from Poland and on more than one occasion I felt like fighting the tide when I was trying to explain how life here really looked in the bad old times and in the not entirely jolly new ones, to the better knowing internet personas who claim that being on the spot prevents me from seeing the big picture.
You know what, Andaras Prime and Kilobugya? Her perspective is infinitely more important than yours not only because she's there, but because she has to live every day with the consequences of Chavez policies.
I'll make it even simpler for you: it's her country and her voice is the one that counts in this discussion more.
oops I guess that makes me a sidekick! :cool:

oops I guess that makes me a sidekick! :cool:

No, just a reactionary conservative partisan :)

I know how you feel. I'm from Poland and on more than one occasion I felt like fighting the tide when I was trying to explain how life here really looked in the bad old times and in the not entirely jolly new ones, to the better knowing internet personas who claim that being on the spot prevents me from seeing the big picture.
You know what, Andaras Prime and Kilobugya? Her perspective is infinitely more important than yours not only because she's there, but because she has to live every day with the consequences of Chavez policies.
I'll make it even simpler for you: it's her country and her voice is the one that counts in this discussion more.
oops I guess that makes me a sidekick! :cool:

Well, not more important. My perspective is indeed more informed, just because I have access to more details that escape the big picture than is shown by both sides of the venezuelan politics abroad. I speak with my countrymen everyday, and my job is exactly about that, to investigate, research and speak about the lives of my fellow countrymen. I also live here, and that gives me a certain perspective, not just as a journalist, but as a national. He judges me for defending one mayor of a certain opposition party, but didn't even care about my critics towards the other mayor of the same party in the same post. His view seems to be that everything belonging to the goverment is ok, while everything and everyone in the opposition is wrong, without further and careful judgment. That shows his partial posture in a rather blunt way. I do agree with certain policies of the goverment, but oppose it as a whole, to show my own moderate posture.

If you check out my performance on this forums, I have a stance about the politics in other countries, but usually do not argue them until death, as I am aware of my own limitations. If you continue that check, you would realize that I am against the foreign policies of the United States goverment, but that would be biting the same hand that in Kilobugya/Andaras Prime's opinion, feeds me. Looks like they just pull out the card of "US sponsored traitor" against anyone that contests their views, exactly as the president they are defending does.

I'm not even right wing, I do not see Chávez as a ruthless dictator, but as a democratically elected president. I also see the need of implementing socialist policies in this country. However, if I do not agree with the bolivarian process as a whole because I see many flaws in it, I get bashed for it. Typical fundamentalist posture.

This thread is beginning to resemble the old phrase " The enemy of my enemy is my friend"


One poster seems to have a problem with our current captalist system, Chavez opposes the captalist system therefore chavaz is my friend. and anyone who criticises him is an enemy of the people.

Another poster shows the various debt/growth figures for Venezuela, showing high growth/low debt under Chavez, perhaps said poster should examine the principle export of Venezuela, its international price and the amount being exported.

But as I've said before , socialism is not the solution omg I'm a class traitor who needs re-education:mp5:

What you need for an ideal government and inded a populist government is the application of equal oppitunity for all. this goes for mostly education and medical care.... thats it that all the government should provide.
If someone wants to idle his way through school and end up doing a min wage job, why should someone who worked hard at school and got a decent job have to be taxed to support the latter. thats the same as averaging out school marks across the students and saying because you scored above average , we'll have those extra marks that would have got you an 'A' grade and give them to a student who did'nt study and played truant and got an 'E' grade.

So that means that some people end up rich, well thats true, but consider this, if you took all the rich people's money and distributed it across the population, within a yr you would have a bunch of poor people and a few rich people exactly the same as you had before.

But the big question mark over Chavez, is what happens if his policies go wrong and what happens when it comes his time to leave office? will a man , who himself took part in an attempted coup, leave power quietly?

This proves you are one of the top 20% of the population, probably upper class working for the corrupt US-bribe taking private media elite, how about the 80% of the Venesualan who live in all but poverty? The same media elites who support overthrowing democratic governments and putting in CEO's and corporate elites like Carmona into office, who rape the oil resources and give none of it to the common people.

*Dies of laughter*

What an ideological nitwit you are AP. You should be a comedian.

You just admitted being part of the ruling elite, who opposes Chávez from all its heart, who just can't accept to see the "lower class" slowly gaining the same rights.

HOw the hell does attending a university equal being part of the ruling elite?

Another poster shows the various debt/growth figures for Venezuela, showing high growth/low debt under Chavez, perhaps said poster should examine the principle export of Venezuela, its international price and the amount being exported.


And perhaps you should do a bit more looking too!

In 2003, petrolium accounted for 33% of GDP. In 2007 it is 30%.
In 2003, unemployment was at 17%. In 2007 it is at 8.9%
In 2003, services made up only 45% of GDP. By 2007, this has risen to 64%
In 2003, 47% of population lived below the poverty line. By 2007 this has dropped to 37%
In 2003, inflation was running at 31%. By 2007, this has dropped to 15.8%
In 2003, the industrial production growth was a negative 5.4%. By 2007, positive 7%.

Look, I'm not saying that Chavez is a miracle worker, or that I agree with all of his policies (or even most of them). I was directly responding to a post where the comment was made that he was dismantling the economy which would lead to budget deficits.

Of course, on that point, the budget deficit in 2003 was 6.5Billion. In 2007 it is expected to be pretty much a balanced outcome (revenue 52.2B, expenditures 52.9B) - so the budget position has improved from a deficit position, not fallen into one.

Or, to include the economic summary from this year's CIA world fact book:

Venezuela remains highly dependent on oil revenues, which account for roughly 90% of export earnings, more than 50% of the federal budget revenues, and around 30% of GDP. Tax collection - Venezuela's primary source of non-oil revenue - is expected to surpass $23 billion in 2006, exceeding the yearend collection goal by more than 20%. A nationwide strike between December 2002 and February 2003 had far-reaching economic consequences - real GDP declined by around 9% in 2002 and 8% in 2003 - but economic output since then has recovered strongly. Fueled by higher oil prices, record government spending helped to boost GDP growth in 2004 and 2005 to approximately 18% and 11%, respectively. Economic growth in 2006 reached about 9%. This spending, combined with recent minimum wage hikes and improved access to domestic credit, has fueled a consumption boom - car sales in 2006 increased by around 70% - but has come at the cost of higher inflation. Despite government attempts to withdraw liquidity from the economy, Venezuela's money supply set a record in June 2006, approximately 70% higher than the previous year. Imports have also jumped significantly.

Clearly not all bread and roses, and clearly some existing dangers and issues. But a consumption boom is hardly the hallmark of an economy in an advanced state of dismantlement either.

How did you make the right border disappear with that quote?

This proves you are one of the top 20% of the population, probably upper class working for the corrupt US-bribe taking private media elite, how about the 80% of the Venesualan who live in all but poverty? The same media elites who support overthrowing democratic governments and putting in CEO's and corporate elites like Carmona into office, who rape the oil resources and give none of it to the common people.

You are so cute! I just want to pinch your cheeks! I thought your type died out when the wall came down!

And Andaras Prime, your sidekick attitude is almost laughable, almost because it is too sad to be taken as a joke. You indeed do not know anything about you are speaking all the time, and repeat as a parrot what you hear some place else.
"Joke" is about the only word that comes to mind with reference to AP and his moronic friend, Kilobugya.

When her sole arguments are "I'm there", "I'm educated" and "you just don't know anything" (because there is absolutely nothing else in her posts), how else can you oppose them ?

She's using authority arguments, which is a fallacy. Attacking this fallacy with an ad hominem fallacy may be attacking fire by fire, but if you look more closely, it's shifting by one level in logic, and attacking the core of her arguments: the authority argument.
No, I noticed no such thing. Rather, I saw a bunch of non sequiturs and unwarranted assumptions by you and AP. For instance, AP's wonderful little inference that Aelosia must be part of the elite (even if this were so, it alone would not be enough to invalidate her arguments.)

HOw the hell does attending a university equal being part of the ruling elite?

Inequality in Venezuela is very sharp, and if you are educated, and even more if your at university, that means he's part of the top 15% upper class elite who are pretty much universally opposed to Chavez because he's using the oil revenues from newly expropriated assets on micro-credits, rebates and the like to the poor majority. They use their media control to push their upper class agenda, encourage military coups, accept US state department money etc etc. It's pretty much the upper-class line in Venezuela that they don't want those 'poor uneducated' people having any political power, it's easy to be political and talk about 'oppression' when you have a nice house and decent employment.

Inequality in Venezuela is very sharp, and if you are educated, and even more if your at university, that means he's part of the top 15% upper class elite who are pretty much universally opposed to Chavez because he's using the oil revenues from newly expropriated assets on micro-credits, rebates and the like to the poor majority.

Your proof if you please?

They use their media control to push their upper class agenda, encourage military coups, accept US state department money etc etc. It's pretty much the upper-class line in Venezuela that they don't want those 'poor uneducated' people having any political power, it's easy to be political and talk about 'oppression' when you have a nice house and decent employment.

Your proof if you please?

"Joke" is about the only word that comes to mind with reference to AP and his moronic friend, Kilobugya.

They do sound alike do they not?

President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is not a
Socialist Democratic President in the European tradition,
nor in the sence of the Socialist Democratic government of Chile,
nor in the Socialist Democratic sense of NS,
he is a Socialist Dictator, like Fidel & Raul Castro,
dictators for life, he is now making it possible under Venezuelan law
to be able to run for re-election with no term limits, that is for life
make no mistake about it.

President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is not a
Socialist Democratic President in the European tradition,
nor in the sence of the Socialist Democratic government of Chile,
he is a Socialist Dictator, like Fidel & Raul Castro,
dictators for life, he is now making it possible under Venezuelan law
to be able to run for re-election with no term limits, that is for life
make no mistake about it.


The Myth of Cuban Dictatorship

Charles McKelvey
Professor of Sociology
Presbyterian College
Clinton, South Carolina

as published in Global Times, July/August, 1998

I have been to Cuba four times since 1993. Last summer, I was there for ten weeks, and my activities included in-depth interviews of university professors and leaders in the Popular Councils concerning the political process in Cuba. In addition, I talked to many different people that I met informally, sometimes through families with which I was connected and other times with people I met as I traveled about Havana by myself. I do not consider myself an expert on Cuba. I would describe myself as someone who is knowledgeable about Third World national liberation movements and is in the process of learning about the Cuban case. My general impression is that the revolutionary government enjoys a high degree of legitimacy among the people. Occasionally, I came across someone who was alienated from the system. There disaffection was not rooted in the political system but in the economic hardships that have emerged during the "special period." The great majority seemed to support the system and seemed very well informed about the structures of the world economy and the challenges that Cuba faces. Many defended the system with great enthusiasm and strong conviction. I had expected none of this prior to my first trip, recalling my visit to Tanzania in 1982, by which time many had come to view "ujamaa socialism" as a faded dream, at least according to my impressions during my brief visit. But to my surprise, I found much support for the revolutionary project in Cuba. I could not help but contrast this to the United States, where there is widespread cynicism in regard to political and other institutions.

The Cuban political system is based on a foundation of local elections. Each urban neighborhood and rural village and area is organized into a "circumscription," consisting generally of 1000 to 1500 voters. The circumscription meets regularly to discuss neighborhood or village problems. Each three years, the circumscription conducts elections, in which from two to eight candidates compete. The nominees are not nominated by the Communist Party or any other organizations. The nominations are made by anyone in attendance at the meetings, which generally have a participation rate of 85% to 95%. Those nominated are candidates for office without party affiliation. They do not conduct campaigns as such. A one page biography of all the candidates is widely-distributed. The nominees are generally known by the voters, since the circumscription is generally not larger than 1500 voters. If no candidate receives 50% of the votes, a run-off election is held. Those elected serve as delegates to the Popular Councils, which are intermediary structures between the circumscription and the Municipal Assembly. Those elected also serve simultaneously as delegates to the Municipal Assembly. The delegates serve in the Popular Councils and the Municipal Assemblies on a voluntary basis without pay, above and beyond their regular employment.

The Municipal Assemblies elect the chief executives of the Municipality, who have supervision over the various ministries, such as health and education, within the Municipality. The Municipal Assemblies also elect an electoral commission, which develops a slate of candidates for the Provincial Assembly for ratification by the voters in the province. The Provincial Assemblies have responsibilities in the Province which parallel those of the Municipal Assembly in the Municipality, including electing an electoral commission which develops a slate of candidates for the National Assembly for ratification by the voters in the nation. The National Assembly is the legislative branch, and as such it makes the laws. It also elects the President of the Council of State, who appoints a cabinet and makes a government. The President of the Council of State is Fidel Castro, a position to which he has been re-elected since, I believe, 1975, when the Constitution was established.

The role of the Communist Party in the political process is very different from what I had previously thought. The Cuban Communist Party is not an electoral party. It does not nominate or support candidates for office. Nor does it make laws or select the head of state. These roles are played by the national assembly, which is elected by the people, and for which membership in the Communist Party is not required. Most members of the national, provincial, and municipal assemblies are members of the Communist Party, but many are not, and those delegates and deputies who are party members are not selected by the party but by the people in the electoral process. The party is not open to anyone to join. About fifteen percent of adults are party members. Members are selected by the party in a thorough process that includes interviews with co-workers and neighbors. Those selected are considered model citizens. They are selected because they are viewed as strong supporters of the revolution; as hard and productive workers; as people who are well-liked and respected by their co-workers and neighbors; as people who have taken leadership roles in the various mass organizations of women, students, workers, and farmers; as people who take seriously their responsibilities as spouses and parents and family members; and as people who have "moral" lives, such as avoiding excessive use of alcohol or extramarital relations that are considered scandalous. The party is viewed as the vanguard of the revolution. It makes recommendations concerning the future development of the revolution, and it criticizes tendencies it considers counterrevolutionary. It has enormous influence in Cuba, but its authority is moral, not legal. The party does not make laws or elect the president. These tasks are carried out by the National Assembly, which is elected by the people.

Prior traveling to Cuba, I had heard that the Cuban Communist Party is the only political party and that in national elections the voters are simply presented with a slate of candidates, rather than two or more candidates and/or political parties from which to choose. These two observations are correct. But taken by themselves, they given a very misleading impression. They imply that the Cuban Communist Party develops the slate, which in fact it does not do. Since the slate makers are named by those who are elected, the ratification of the slate by the voters is simply the final step in a process that begins with the voters. The reason given for using a slate rather than presenting voters with a choice at this stage was that the development of the slate ensures that all sectors (such as women, workers, farmers, students, representative of important social service agencies in the jurisdiction, etc.) are represented.

As I indicated, Cubans tend to enthusiastically defend their system. They point out that the elected members of the assemblies are not professional politicians who must rely on fund-raising to be elected, as occurs in the United States. Moreover, it avoids excessive conflict among political parties, at the expense of the common good. As my good friend Professor Guzman observed, "it is a system which avoids the absurdities and distortions of bourgeois democracy." They seem to believe in it. I think it makes sense. I also think that the political system in the United States is experiencing a legitimation crisis, so I am not inclined to recommend it to Cubans. It seems to me that they have developed a system carefully designed to ensure that wealthy individuals do not have greater voice than working class individuals, and therefore it is a system that is more advanced in protecting the political rights of citizens.

Although I have not had the experience, I suppose it would be possible to encounter a Cuban who feels alienated and who might say, "The Communist Party controls everything." This is true, because a majority of those elected are members of the Communist Party, and the higher up you go, the more likely it is to be so. Nevertheless, the selection of leadership is based on local elections. The Communist Party occupies a position of authority in the political institutions because the people support it. Our hypothetical alienated person is really expressing a frustration over the widespread support of the people for the Communist Party. The mechanism for the removal of members of the Communist Party from positions of authority in the government is in place, should that desire be the popular sentiment.

It is ironic that while many in the West assume that Cuba is less protective of political rights, in fact they are developing a system that is deliberately designed to ensure that the right of the people to vote does not become manipulated in a process controlled by the wealthy, and it therefore is more protective of political rights. Many in the West make the same kind of false assumption in regard to the issue of freedom of the press. Take the case of newspapers. Many in the West think that the state controls the newspapers. In fact, the state prohibits the private ownership of newspapers. The various newspapers are operated by the various organizations: the Communist Party, the federations of workers associations, the federation of farmers associations, the federation of student associations, etc. In the United States, the newspapers are owned by corporations. In Cuba, those with financial resources to do so are not allowed to form a newspaper. This is a restriction on the right of property ownership, a restriction imposed for the common good, in particular to ensure that the people have a voice and that the wealthy do not have a voice disproportionate to their numbers. By prohibiting private ownership of newspapers, the system ensures that the various newspapers will be under the control of the various mass organizations. So it is a system which pushes the principle of freedom of the press to a more advanced level than what occurs in capitalism, ensuring that all exercise this right equally and avoiding a situation where the wealthy exercise freedom of the press but the workers and farmers possess it only as an abstract right.

So the Cuban revolutionary project has many gains, not only in the area of social and economic rights, but also in the area of political and civil rights. Because of these achievements, the system enjoys wide popular support, in spite of the hardships caused by U.S. opposition and by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Drawing upon the institutions that they have developed over the last forty years, they are responding to the present challenges and are surviving in a post-Cold War world. The strength and vitality of these institutions is worthy of our investigation, for Cuba may represent an important case as we seek to understand how peripheral and semi-peripheral states can overcome the legacy of underdevelopment.

For those of us on the Left, Cuba's achievements represent the fullest attainment of our hopes. The Cuban revolutionary project is deserving of our active and engaged support.

Source: http://www.quaylargo.com/Productions/McCelvey.html

You should also check out this documentary, which has won several awards including Cannes and others who being an enlightening and independent analysis of the coup against Chavez etc, it should answer your questions too Lancaster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHPPpL9z9GE

You should also check out this documentary, which has won several awards including Cannes and others who being an enlightening and independent analysis of the coup against Chavez etc, it should answer your questions too Lancaster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHPPpL9z9GE

What about actually warning Chavez about the coup? Yea we did warn Chavez about the coup. OOPS! I guess that blows your argument out of the water.

What about actually warning Chavez about the coup? Yea we did warn Chavez about the coup. OOPS! I guess that blows your argument out of the water.

No, they warned him because the US knew the coup would never work, Chavez was too popular and it turned out the common soldiers of the military supported him, thus the elitist coup only last like 2 days until loyal military units restored Chavez as democratically elected President. Now the US is pumping money into the private opposition groups like nothing before because they want to do it right next time, please read the OP.

No, they warned him because the US knew the coup would never work,

Please prove that we warned them because we knew that it would not work.

Chavez was too popular and it turned out the common soldiers of the military supported him, thus the elitist coup only last like 2 days until loyal military units restored Chavez as democratically elected President. Now the US is pumping money into the private opposition groups like nothing before because they want to do it right next time, please read the OP.

I did and it was not sourced (as usual). And before you stated that you did quote where you got it from, there was no link and no back up evidence. All we have is your rantings which has been thoroughly trashed by Aelosia.

Despite the apperance of democratic elections in Venezuela for the recent future, President Chavez calls his government a socialist revolution, not a socialist government administration, in affect socialist government dictatorship, he is making Venezuela more like Cuba.

Cuba is a one political party state, here are the results of the 2003 cuban elections in A one political party state, I am still looking on the internet for the results of 2002 constitunional admendment referendum to the Cuban constitution declaring the cuban, political, economic and social system irrevocable and will post it on this thread in a new complete post, and they say they have democratic elections in Cuba, and Hugo Chavez is turning Venezuela into another Cuba step by step.

A 91.35% of the united vote, commented Ruben Perez, secretary of CEN, is a fact of extraordinary value. It means that some other 14 992 electors chose this alternative compared with the general elections of 1997-98. That percentage, he said, remarks the popular support that enjoys the Cuban democratic systemCuba 2003 Election Results :

Posted by La Habana Cuba :
What the united vote block means, is 91.35 % of the voters voted their support for all of the Winning Candiadates in all of the seperate municipal elections in Cuba, and of course the Cuban government.

Electoral results
By Maria Julia Mayora
609 deputies and 1 199 provincial delegates were elected. 91.35% of the voters chose the united vote(block) option. For the first time in Cuba, the amount of citizens that went to the polls exceeded the eight millions.

According to the information offered by Dr. Juan Vela, president of the National Electoral Commission(CEN), the updated voter's registry included 8 313 770 people, and 8 115 215 of them exercised their constitutional right, having a 97.61% of attendance.

Not only the high rate of participation is transcendent but also the quality of the elections. Vela indicated that 7 803 893 ballots were valid(96.14%), which surpasses last October's 241 378 valid ballots when the district delegates were elected.

This opportunity the balance of ballots in blank(243 431) and the spoilt ones(69 863), was smaller. In October they averaged the 2.78% and 2.54% respectively; this time they represented the 3% and 0.86%. This is a clear demonstration of the Cuban people position, even though U.S. employees persistent calls to sabotage the elections.

Our people, commented the university professor and President of CEN, knows what it wants, it is convinced of its principles and demonstrates this through the secret vote.

A 91.35% of the united vote, commented Ruben Perez, secretary of CEN, is a fact of extraordinary value. It means that some other 14 992 electors chose this alternative compared with the general elections of 1997-98. That percentage, he said, remarks the popular support that enjoys the Cuban democratic system, and expresses the level of unity and political culture that has been reached during this 44 years of Revolution.

SUCCESS IN THE TWO EVALUATIONS
What has happened this January is also evidence of the rigor that presided the nomination process of the 609 deputies candidates and the 1 199 provincial delegates candidates. Ernesto Freire, president of the National Candidacies Commission, pointed out that there were two important evaluations to be made for the representatives of the electoral commissions. One, derived from the fact that the municipal assemblies had the right to approve or reject the proposals, and the second one with the voting results because all nominees were elected, they need to win more than half of the valid votes.

In addition, Freire summarized the amplitude and meaning of the exchanges between the candidates and the people. Altogether, 11 102 meetings took place with the presence of more than 2 161 150 Cubans. (February, 2003)

More than eight million Cubans vote
Conclusive evidence of popular support for the homeland, the Revolution and socialism

BY MARÍA JULIA MAYORAL -Granma daily staff writer-WITH the participation of 8,115,215 voters in this Sunday's elections, the Cuban people once again offered conclusive evidence of their support for candidates for the National and Provincial Assemblies, but also for the homeland, the Revolution and socialism.

According to preliminary information given by Juan Vela, president of the National Electoral Commission (CEN), 97.61% of persons on the electoral rolls voted, on a day characterized by organization, the early attendance of millions of electors at the polling stations and the special patriotic spirit offered by the presence of thousands of young pioneers guarding the ballot boxes.

At the close of this bulletin the count was underway, beginning with the votes cast for deputies. Vela explained that once that was completed, they would proceed to validate the election of 609 candidates to the National Assembly and then the 1,199 provincial delegates. In the case of the former the responsibility lies with the CEN and, in the latter, with the corresponding provincial electoral commissions.

In order to be elected, each nominee must receive more than half of the valid votes cast in the municipality or district where they were proposed.

The CEN president emphasized the good functioning of communications systems in spite of heavy rain in parts of east Cuba, like Santiago de Cuba, Holguín, Granma and Las Tunas. He likewise praised the excellent labors of more then 180,000 citizens who voluntarily staffed the constituency tables, and the work of the commissions at all levels.

The most recent electoral process to elect municipal, and provincial delegates and members of the national Parliament, ended on January 19, 2003 with a voter turnout of 95.75 percent to elect the municipal and provincial delegates, and a 97.61 percent turnout when the elections for the national Parliament took place.

(Taken from: Granma)

Mission Impossible?
Venezuela's Mission to Fight Poverty
Tuesday, Nov 11, 2003 Print format
Send by email



By: Gregory Wilpert

Over the past two years or so there has been much polemic between the government and the opposition over the issue of poverty. Chavez was originally elected on a platform to pay particular attention to the needs of Venezuela’s poor. Also, without a doubt, the poor represent Chavez’ most important constituency. Opinion polls, whose accuracy one can legitimately doubt for being biased towards the opposition, consistently show that Chavez draws most of his support from Venezuela’s poor.

However, in an effort to discredit Chavez and to cast doubt among his followers, the opposition, with the help of poverty research centers, such as of the Catholic University Andrés Bello (UCAB), argue that poverty has increased dramatically during Chavez’ tenure as president. One of the opposition’s favorite anti-Chavez ads, shown quite regularly whenever the TV stations mobilized for an anti-Chavez demonstration, shows a poor woman in one of Venezuela’s slums, who says, “Chavez said he would put an end to poverty – what he is really doing is putting an end to the poor.”

Whether poverty has increased or decreased with Chavez, what all sides agree upon is that poverty has become the number one political issue in Venezuela ever since Chavez came to power. Opposition parties recognize that if they really want to beat Chavez in an election, they have to offer a credible alternative of how to combat poverty in Venezuela. While they have not yet offered such a program, it is clearly on their minds.

No matter what the government or opposition programs are, when examining the data on poverty, there appears to be an odd contradiction. On the one hand many research centers show an increase in poverty since Chavez came to power. On the other hand, some indicators suggest that poverty has become less severe in the past five years. In what follows, I will examine some of the poverty data and policies during the Chavez administration and compare these with earlier presidencies.

Poverty Data

There are two fairly incontrovertible trends in Venezuela over the past twenty years, which have had a profound effect on increasing poverty. The first trend is a steady increase in inequality. The second is a steady decrease of per capita income. These two trends combined, have produced in Venezuela the greatest poverty rate increase of any country in Latin America.

The standard measure for inequality, the so-called “Gini-Coefficient,” which measures income inequality in any country, does not show significant change over the course of almost thirty years in Venezuela. From 1971 to 1997 it fluctuated irregularly, but generally remained between .45 and .50, ending at almost the exact same level in 1997 as it was in 1971.[1] However, the Gini index only measures wage and salary income, not capital income. Other data shows, for example, that the share of capital income (income from capital investments) increased substantially more than wage and salary income increased over the past thirty years in Venezuela. Research done by Francisco Rodriguez, for example, shows that labor lost 11% of GDP to capital between the seventies and the nineties.[2]

Thus, if one takes capital income into account, according to Rodriguez, Venezuela’s inequality increased quite dramatically, so that Venezuela is now one of the world’s most unequal societies, surpassing the inequality of even South Africa and Brazil.[3] The reason for this can be traced to several factors, the most important of which are an increasing concentration of capital and a collapse in wage rates during this period.

One can trace this collapse in wages rates to some extent to a declining per capita oil income in Venezuela. Even though per capital oil exports doubled from 1973 to 1983, per capita oil income declined. The main reason for this can be traced to declining oil prices, which dropped from a high of about $15.92 per barrel in 1982 to $3.19 per barrel in 1998 (both figures in 1973 prices).[4] The value of oil exports, per capita, thus dropped from $955 in 1974 to $384 twenty years later, in 1993.[5]

Since oil is Venezuela’s principal source of income, its decline, combined with growing inequality in Venezuela, had a significant impact on the poverty rate. Depending on which statistics and measurement methods one uses, poverty increased dramatically from 33% of the population in 1975 to 70% in 1995.[6] While poverty more than doubled, the number of households in extreme poverty increased three-fold, from about 15% to 45%. Other poverty measures, particularly ones that are not just based on income, are slightly lower, but all of them paint the picture of a large increase in poverty in Venezuela over the past 25 years. Compared to other countries in Latin America, Venezuela has the largest increase in poverty in this time period and among the larger countries, it has the largest proportion of the population living in poverty.

Trends which accompanied this increase in poverty are a dramatic decline in real industrial and minimum wages, which dropped to 40% of their 1980 levels in twenty years, leaving them at a level below that of the 1950’s.[7] Overall government social spending dropped from 8% of GDP in 1987 to 4.3% in 1997. Also, the percentage of people working in the informal economy grew from 34.5% in 1980 to 53% in 1999. Finally, the level of unionization dropped from 26.4% in 1988 to 13.5% in 1995.

Oddly, however, Venezuela’s Human Development Index (HDI), as measured by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), does not reflect the poverty trend. The HDI measures not only per capita income of a country, but also factors in health and education statistics, such as mortality, schooling, literacy and other rates. Between 1970 and 1990 Venezuela’s HDI rose from 0.689 to 0.821. It then declined slightly in the second half of the 1990’s and then increased again in 1999 to 2001, during the early years of the Chavez presidency, ending at 0.7694 in 2001.[8]

There are perhaps two major possible explanations for this apparent contradiction. First, one possibility is that since inequality increased between 1975 and 2000, the wealthier portions of the population raised the HDI because their HDI improved disproportionately with regard to the HDI of the poor, thus increasing the HDI for the overall population. Second, it is possible that even though the proportion of the population that is poor increased, their HDI, just as that of the population in general, improved because government measures strengthened the country’s social safety net. While lacking concrete data make the argument conclusive, I would suggest that an examination of the poverty policies shows that the improvement in the HDI during the Chavez presidency is mostly traceable to renewed public policies that are focused on the country’s poor.

Anti-Poverty Policies before Chavez

The evolution of anti-poverty policies in Venezuela before Chavez followed the overall development of poverty and the economy, going through a build-up phase during the boom years, from the mid 70’s to the mid 80’s and a decline (as marked by the decline in social spending) during the bust, from the late 80’s to late 90’s. Prior to the oil boom, the main government program against poverty was the rural land reform program, which redistributed land to 150,000 families during the early 1960’s. However, with the oil boom, Venezuela was intent to become a modern industrialized country and neglected the land reform program in favor of programs that would move the country away from agriculture. Primarily, during the boom years, anti-poverty policies meant providing free universal education, free health care, a decent minimum wage, and massive public works projects. All of these were dependent on high oil revenues and ended up having a clear impact on reducing poverty in Venezuela. Other social assistance programs existed as well, but all of them suffered from clientelism and paternalism.

However, with the previously mentioned 20-year down-turn, which began in the mid 1980’s, the most important measures, which were originally meant to benefit the country’s poor, ended up benefiting the middle class. As the country became poorer and poorer and median wages declined dramatically, the middle class could no longer afford private health care and private education. As a result, the middle class gradually took over the country’s public education and public health system. Also, other programs originally targeted for the working class, such as the home buying assistance program, international study abroad grants, or the tax-free automobile increasingly became policies that supported the middle class.

An important factor in the gradual class shift in beneficiaries of government programs was that the services were no longer free. Public education, for example, gradually instituted registration fees and ever increasing costs for school supplies. Similarly, public health care, while nominally free or low cost, required patients to pay for all treatment supplies. The government’s sporadic shifts towards neo-liberal economic measures during the Carlos Andrés Perez administration (1989-1993) and towards the end of Rafael Caldera’s presidency aggravated the problems of poverty in Venezuela, due to privatization measures, social spending cutbacks, and increasing costs of public services.

Not only did the target population of government policies gradually shift towards the middle class, but poverty itself gradually changed. In addition to encompassing an ever larger proportion of the population, poverty began affecting people who would, based on their education, normally be considered part of the middle class. Poverty thus became much more diversified and generalized. Also, with large streams of migration coming from Colombia and other Latin American countries, the poor became ethnically more diverse. By the time of the second Caldera government (1994-1998), the state’s resources for alleviating poverty had become so scarce that hardly any programs were left that directly benefited the poor.

Anti-Poverty Policies during the Chavez Presidency

Plan Bolivar 2000

Chavez got elected in late 1998 on three basic promises: first, to break Venezuela’s old political system, known as “puntofijismo,” named after the location, Punto Fijo, at which Christian Democrats (Copei) and Social Democrats (Acción Democrática) signed an accord to limit Venezuela’s political system to a competition between these two parties. Second, Chavez promised to end corruption. And third, Chavez promised to alleviate poverty in Venezuela.

Chavez’ first year in office, 1999, however, was dedicated to breaking with the puntofijo system, via a new constitution. Because of the recession which hit Venezuela during 1999, few resources were available for anti-poverty policies. As a result, he focused on the one institution in Venezuela that was relatively expensive, but did not do much for social well-being: the military. That is, he ordered all branches of the military to devise programs that would benefit the poor. The overall name for the civilian-military program was “Plan Bolivar 2000.” Each branch of Venezuela’s military developed a different program under this larger program.

The Air Force developed a plan to transport people who could not afford to travel but urgently needed to, for free, to different parts of the country. The Navy developed Plan Pescar (fishing) 2000, which involved repairing refrigerators, organizing cooperatives, giving courses. The National Guard became involved in police activity, particularly in areas where the state’s presence was minimal. Another program was Plan Avispa, also organized by the National Guard, to build homes for the poor. Plan Reviba was similar, except instead of building new homes from scratch, involved rebuilding old homes. Other aspects of Plan Bolivar 2000 involved distributing food to remote areas of the country.

Plan Bolivar 2000 generated much controversy during its three years of existence, from 1999 to 2001. Perhaps the most important criticism leveled against it was that it was poorly managed and with little transparency. The result was that many charges of corruption were leveled against the officers in charge of the program.

However, in the year of the program’s existence, Plan Bolivar 2000 repaired thousands of schools, hospitals, clinics, homes, churches, and parks. Over two million people received medical treatment. Nearly a thousand inexpensive markets were opened, over two million children were vaccinated, and thousands of tons of trash were collected, just to name a few of the program’s results.

Certainly, much of the program was of an ad-hoc nature, where government officials and military forces identified a social problem and then tried to figure out how to solve it in the short term. While this is a valid criticism, one has to see the program in the context of a severe lack of resources, given that 1999 was a recession in Venezuela. Also, towards the end of the year, the Vargas disaster occurred, in which over ten thousand people were killed in mudslides and over a hundred thousand were made homeless, with nearly $4 billion in estimated property damage. Given the seriousness of the problems, the lack of resources, and the government’s focus on reforming the constitution, Plan Bolivar 2000 had an important positive impact on the poor of Venezuela, which probably also had a positive impact on Venezuela’s human development index (HDI).

Mission Chavez: Long-term and medium term anti-poverty policies

It was not until 2001 and 2002 that the Chavez government was able to concentrate more on an overall macroeconomic policy for alleviating poverty. The most important elements of this plan were to reduce inflation, diversify the economy, and increase non-oil revenues. All of which were goals of previous governments in one form or another. However, almost all previous governments failed to achieve these goals. It now remains to be seen if the Chavez government, if given the chance, will have more success.

With respect to program devoted specifically to fighting poverty in the short term, 2002 was another crisis year, due to a coup attempt, three employer-led general strikes, and the shut-down and sabotage of the country’s most important industry, the oil industry. As a result, the government had few resources to devote to specific anti-poverty programs, beyond the on-going programs it already had. The on-going, or perhaps medium term policies (with the macro-economic representing long-term policies), included the urban and the rural land reform programs, the micro-credit programs, increased spending on primary education, and the efforts to promote cooperatives throughout the country.

While it still is too early to judge the long-term effectiveness of these programs in fighting poverty, it is a generally established fact among poverty researchers that land redistribution, providing educational opportunities, and the promotion of small-scale private enterprise help people get out of poverty. Let’s take a brief look at each of these in turn.

Rural Land Reform

Venezuela’s rural land reform program probably represents one of the key turning points in Chavez’s presidency. When it was introduced in November 2001, it was one of the laws the opposition objected to the most of the package of 49 laws, which were passed at the same time. The law basically states that all adult Venezuelans have a right to apply for a piece of land for their family, as long as they meet some basic prerequisites.

This land is to be taken from state-owned land holdings, which are enormous and make up the largest part of Venezuela’s agriculturally viable land. Also, the law opens up the possibility for the state to redistribute privately held land, if it is part of a large land estate of more between 100 hectares of high quality agricultural land to 5,000 hectares of low quality land. The land would be expropriated at market rates, making Venezuela’s land reform a relatively non-radical program in the history of land reforms around the world.

The land reform program got off to a slow start, mainly because the necessary infrastructure needed to be put into place. While the government distributed very little land in 2002, the next year it went into high gear and turned over 1.5 million hectares to about 130,000 families. This comes to about an average of 11.5 hectares per family and a total beneficiary population of 650,000 (based on an average of five persons per household). It should be noted that so far no land has been expropriated. However, there has been much conflict over land which the government considers state land, but which large land owners claim to be theirs, even though they lack the documents to prove it.

The land reform is supposed to be a comprehensive program and thus aims to avoid the problems such programs have faced in many other places by making sure that the new farmers have the skills, credit, technology, and marketing channels to actually make a living off of their newly acquired land. So, in addition to the national land institute (INTI), there is an institution that provides credit and skills training and an organization for marketing agricultural products that are produced by beneficiaries of the land reform.

Overall, the rural land reform program is designed to pursue both long-term and short-term goals. First, in the long-term, it is supposed to contribute to the diversification of Venezuela’s economy and to assure what is known in Venezuela as “food sovereignty,” meaning Venezuela’s ability to produce its own basic food necessities. Second, in the medium term, the program is aimed at reducing rural poverty (and urban, to a very small extent, insofar as people decide to move out of urban slums and into the countryside).

Urban Land Reform

Another very important anti-poverty measure of the Chavez government is the urban land reform, which is to redistribute the land of the barrios, the urban slums, to its inhabitants. The concept is quite similar to the one Hernando de Soto has promoted in Peru and in other countries,[9] but it incorporates some interesting additional elements that could make this program an example for other countries.

The concept of urban land redistribution addresses many issues simultaneously. First, when people acquire title to their own self-built home in the barrio, they have some security for the first time that the home is theirs and will not be repossessed by the original landowner. Second, they can use the home as collateral for a small loan, to either improve their home, to buy a better home, or to invest in a small business. Third, it creates a real estate market, which, if regulated, can improve the general quality of the neighborhood. Fourth, the process of acquiring urban land titles is a collective process, which brings the neighborhood together in the interest of improving the neighborhood’s infrastructure, such as roads, access to utilities, security, comfort, etc.

This last point about the collective nature of the process is perhaps the most innovative aspect of the government’s urban land redistribution program. That is, in order to acquire titles, 100 to 200 families in a neighborhood have to get together and form a land committee, which then acts as a liaison with the government on regularizing the land ownership of the families that the committee represents. As a perhaps unintended positive consequence, what has happened in many cases is that the land committees have begun working on many more issues besides the negotiation and acquisition of land titles. They have also formed sub-committees that deal with public utility companies, such as the water company, the electric company, and so forth. The land committees for the first time provide partners for different governmental agencies and utilities to deal with directly. Previously these agencies and utilities had to deal with local government officials, who generally were too removed from the problems of the specific neighborhoods to make a difference.

Until now the urban land reform process is based on a presidential decree, which means that only governmentally owned land can be redistributed to barrio inhabitants. There is a law that has been drafted, so that all barrio inhabitants might be a part of the process, but this law has been put on the backburner in favor of more pressing laws. However, just via the decree as many as a third of the barrio inhabitants could acquire titles, since it is estimated that about a third of the barrio land is on government property (another third is on private property and one third on land where ownership is as yet undetermined). The process is extremely slow, though, because the process is quite complicated, involving many technical and legal steps. By November 2003, throughout Venezuela, about 45,000 families (befitting 225,000 individuals) had received titles to their homes, with another 65,000 families (or 330,000 individuals) in the pipeline to receive them soon.

The “Social Economy”

The social economy project of the Chavez government is not “just” an anti-poverty measure, but constitutes a fairly central element in Chavez’ Bolivarian project. That is, it is not only designed to alleviate poverty, but is also a central aspect for creating a more egalitarian, more democratic, and more solidaristic society. The government’s website on the social economy defines the social economy as encompassing the following seven elements: [10]

1. The social economy is an alternative economy.

2. Where democratic and self-governing practices dominate.

3. It is driven by forms of work based on partnership and not on wage-earning.

4. Ownership over the means of production is collective (except in the case of micro-enterprises).

5. It is based on the equal distribution of surplus.

6. It is solidaristic with the environment in which it develops.

7. It holds on to its own autonomy in the face of monopolistic centers of economic or political power.

The above definition is probably an idealization, since it was written by a team that worked under the former Planning and Development Minister Felipe Perez and Vice-Minister for local planning Roland Denis, who were dismissed from their posts in early 2003. Generally, the social economy project of the Chavez government has boiled down to the promotion of cooperatives and micro-finance.

The micro-finance program is in many ways modeled on the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh and has several different institutional bases. First of all, there are several banks dedicated to micro-finance, such as the Banco de la Mujer (Women’s Bank), Bandes (Bank for Economic and Social Development, Banfoandes (Bank for the Promotion of the Andean Region), and the Banco del Pueblo (People’s Bank). Then there are institutions such as the Fund for the Development of Micro-Finance and the Ministry of Development of the Social Economy. Also, there is a controversial banking law, which requires all conventional banks to dedicate a certain percentage of their loans to micro-finance.

Between 2001 and 2003 about $50 million worth of micro-credits have been given out by the banks named above. The Women’s Bank and the People’s Bank have given 70,000 micro-credits between them. For the next year, the government intends to expand the micro-credits program by tripling it, according to the Minister for the Social Economy, Nelson Merentes.[11] Private and public banks also gave out micro-credits for a total of $75 million just during the month of September 2003.[12]

Among the most important beneficiaries of the micro-credit program are the cooperatives, which represent the second dimension of the government’s social economy. While Venezuela had only about 800 cooperatives when the Chavez government came to power, it is now estimated that there are over 40,000 – a 50-fold increase. The active promotion of cooperatives not only boosts the small business sector, which is generally known to be the first place new jobs are created in an economy, but also provides for greater equality as the members of the cooperatives share their income much more evenly than in a conventional business.

Bolivarian Schools and Daycare Programs

As mentioned in the introduction, Venezuela’s free public education system gradually excluded larger and larger numbers of the poor, as the school system increased the barriers for poor children to participate. These barriers mostly took the form of registration fees, which were set by each school individually, often to compensate for the lack of resources it was receiving from the central government. By 1996 public spending for education had dropped to 2.1% of GDP.

When the Chavez government came to power spending on education was one of the areas the government focused on the most. By 2001 it increased public spending on education to 4.3% of GDP, twice the level of 1996 and one of the highest levels in twenty years. Much of the new investment in education went towards the building of new schools and the transformation of old ones into “Bolivarian Schools.”

Bolivarian schools are supposed to address Venezuela’s poverty in a variety of ways. First, they are day-long schools, thus freeing up both parents from daytime childcare duties, allowing them to work during the day. Also, the day-long program allows the incorporation of more cultural and sports activities. Second, Bolivarian schools provide breakfast, lunch, and a late afternoon snack, regular meals that many poor children often did not receive before. Third, the schools are supposed to be more closely integrated into the community than normal public schools.

As of 2003, approximately 2,800 Bolivarian schools have been opened, of which half are newly constructed. These schools now serve about 600,000 children, or 12% of all school-age children.[13] The government says that via the elimination of registration fees and the expansion of the public school system, over 1.5 million children have been included in Venezuela’s public schools system between 1999 and 2002, which were previously excluded. Venezuela’s percentage of children in school thus went from 83% in 1999 to 90% in 2002.

Complementing the Bolivarian schools program is the “Plan Simoncito,” which is supposed to provide free daycare and pre-school education to children from ages 0 to 6, so that parents may dedicate themselves to making a living. Since many poor households are single parent households who have a hard time finding ways to balance parenthood with a job, this program promises to help poor single parents, mostly mothers.

State-sponsored daycare is nothing new in Venezuela. Already since the late 1980’s such programs have existed and have expanded steadily. While in 1989 only 19,000 infants were in state-supported daycare programs, by 1998 just over 150,000 had been incorporated. However, when the Chavez government came to power, the day care programs were further expanded and now serve over 300,000 infants. The percentage of children in daycare thus went from 40% to 45%.

Bolivarian University

Just as primary education gradually excluded more and more poor children from the school system, so did higher education. This development accelerated particularly due to the fact that Venezuela’s population grew much faster than the university system. While technically anyone with a high school degree (“bachiller”) is supposed to have access to the university, public universities had to restrict entrance via entrance examinations. These, as is usually the case, ended up filtering out students coming from poor or working class backgrounds. An important factor in this filtering process is that middle and upper class students can afford to take special classes that prepare them for entrance examinations, while those from poor backgrounds cannot. While in 1984 70% of students from poor backgrounds who applied for entrance to the university were admitted, by 1998 only 19% were admitted.[14] For working class students the admission rate dropped from 67% to 27%. As a result, it is estimated that there are over 400,000 Venezuelans who formally fulfill the requirements and would like to attend the university, but cannot because they did not score well enough in the entrance examinations.

The Bolivarian University of Venezuela (UBV) is thus supposed to fill the gap which exists between university supply and university demand. More than that, it is supposed to prioritize its admissions towards students from poor backgrounds. So far 2,400 students are enrolled in the university, which began its first classes in October 2003, and another 20,000 are pre-registered. The university will have branches throughout the country and is eventually supposed to reach a total enrollment of 100,000.[15]

Short-Term Anti-Poverty Measures – The Missions

With the severe economic crisis that the April 2002 coup attempt and the December 2002 oil industry-shut-down provoked, few resources were available to continue the short-term anti-poverty measures of the Plan Bolivar. So during most of 2002 and 2003 little was directed towards programs of that nature. However, by late 2003 the state’s finances were recovering and the government could focus once again on implementing short-term anti-poverty measures. Of course, the presidential recall referendum process and the need to improve the president’s popularity probably added urgency to the development of such policies.

Mission Robinson – Primary Education

By October 2003 President Chavez announced seven different “Missions” for fighting poverty. The first mission was Mission Robinson, named after Simon “Robinson” Rodriguez, who was Simon Bolivar’s teacher. Mission Robinson is supposed to address illiteracy. While illiteracy is fairly low in Venezuela, only about 7% (for all of Latin America and the Caribbean it is 11%), illiteracy is certainly one of the most serious contributing factors to poverty.

Thus, via a cooperation agreement with Cuba, Venezuela invited hundreds of Cuban literacy experts to come to Venezuela and to train teachers. In the first phase of the program, which was launched July 1, 2003, students are taught to read and write, using a Cuban methodology which is based on numbers, since most people who are illiterate do know numbers. According to government statistics, over 1 million Venezuelans are currently benefiting from the program, with the help of over 100,000 literacy teachers, who work throughout the country.

The second phase, Mission Robinson II, goes beyond literacy and aims to teach participants everything they need to reach 6th grade. The program is very compressed, so that in two years students would complete the Robinson II program, in stead of the usual six years it takes for Venezuelan primary education. Mission Robinson II began October 28, 2003, and intends to incorporate over 629,000 students for this year, most of whom had participated in the first Robinson program.

Venezuela’s opposition claims that the literacy program is nothing other than a cover for a Cuban indoctrination program. However, even a cursory glance at the materials used (so-called “libraries” of a dozen books, which every household or participant receives for free) and conversations with people who have graduated from the program, shows that there is nothing to such accusations.

Mission Ribas – Secondary Education

Parallel to the literacy and primary education programs of Mission Robinson, the government has created Mission Ribas, named after independence hero José Felix Ribas, for individuals who dropped out of high school to complete their high school education. According to government statistics, there are over five million Venezuelans who dropped out of high school. Mission Ribas is supposed to incorporate these into an educational program that would allow them to graduate in a maximum of two years. The Minister of Energy and Mines, who is one of the main coordinators of the program, announced in early November that slightly over 700,000 Venezuelans indicated an interest in participating in Mission Ribas. The first 200,000 will begin classes on November 17th and the rest at a later date.

Just like all of the missions, the program is free. However, 100,000 participants will receive scholarships, based on financial need. Most of the courses will be in the form of “tele-classes,” or videos, with the help of a facilitator. Once students complete their studies, the state-owned oil company PDVSA and the electric company CADAFE will offer to place students in the mining, oil, and energy sector. The whole program is being primarily coordinated by PDVSA and CADAFE, which are also providing most of the funding for the program.

Mission Sucre – Higher Education

For the poor, one of the greatest hindrances to a university education is their lack of financial resources for such an education. They generally have to work on the side, often supporting family members at the same time, making studies nearly impossible. Mission Sucre, named after another independence hero, is essentially a scholarship program for a university education, through which, in the first phase, which begins in November 2003, 100,000 poor Venezuelans can receive the Venezuelan equivalent of $100 per month for their university education.

Already in September 2003 over 420,000 Venezuelans indicated an interest in the scholarships. Guiseppe Gianetto, the rector of Venezuela’s largest public university, the Universidad Central de Venezuela, who is also an outspoken critic of the Chavez government, has said, though, that Mission Sucre is a “demagogic” program because the government will never be able to accommodate the 400,000 students who want to enter the university system, but for whom there is no place. The existing public universities cannot possibly accommodate these students, according to Gianetto. The government, however, says that most of these will eventually find a place through the new Bolivarian Universities, which are being opened throughout the country. It is unclear, though, where these 100,000 students will find a place to study until the Bolivarian University is in place. For 2004, there is space for only 20,000 students in the Bolivarian University. While the remaining 80,000 might eventually be accommodated, this leaves another 300,000 outside the university system.

Mission “Barrio Adentro” (Inside the Neighborhood) – Community Health Care

In order to address the severe health problems in the “Barrios,” the poor communities, the Chavez government launched a community health program called, “Barrio Adentro.” This program, with the help of just over 1,000 Cuban doctors, places small community health clinics in the Barrios, in areas that previously never had doctors nearby. The program was first launched in Caracas as a pilot project, and is now being expanded to the rest of the country. After six months of existence, the program had served almost three million Venezuelans, primarily in the greater Caracas metropolitan area.

While the inhabitants of the barrios generally welcomed these doctors, who also made house calls, something that was previously unheard of, Venezuela’s doctor’s association was up in arms. Immediately the association filed a for a court injunction against the Cuban doctors, saying that they do not have the credentials required by Venezuelan law. In July of 2003 a court granted the injunction. The Health Minister, however, said that the public’s health is a higher priority than the court injunction and that the government would this not recognize the injunction. Maria Urbaneja, the health minister at the time, said that even though there were plenty of unemployed doctors in Venezuela, not enough could be found who were willing to work in the barrios. There is a plan, though, to gradually replace the Cuban doctors with Venezuelan ones, as they can be found.

Mission Miranda – Military Reservists

Venezuela’s military has long been a place where people from poor backgrounds can find an education and a place to work. However, once they leave the military, they often end up unemployed. So as to address this segment of the population, the Chavez government launched Mission Miranda, named after yet another independence hero, General Francisco de Miranda. This mission creates a military reserve out of people who once served in the military. Everyone who participates in the program would receive the minimum wage, training in forming cooperatives, and the opportunity to apply for micro-credits. When the program was announced, on October 19th, 2003, 50,000 former soldiers had already signed up, with another 50,000 to be added before the end of the year. All of the reservists who signed up are currently unemployed.

The opposition questioned the intentions behind Mission Miranda, saying that Chavez is creating a parallel army that would be directly under his personal command. The suspicion is that Chavez intends to militarize the country and to create an armed force that would be completely loyal to him and which is being created in light of the possible recall referendum. The suspicion is that Chavez would use this armed force to keep himself in power, even if he loses the recall referendum. Whether or not one should believe that this is the intention depends ultimately on how Machiavellian one believes President Chavez is. So far, however, there is no indication that Chavez intends to remain in power by force, should he be defeated through democratic elections.

Mission Mercal – Food Distribution

Finally, there is the Mission Mercal, which is a network for distributing food throughout the country at slightly below market rates at government supported supermarkets. The concept for this program emerged partly as a result of the December 2002 employer sponsored general strike, which to a large extent shut down food distribution. As a result, the Chavez government decided to establish a state sponsored food distribution network. The program got off to a slow start, so that by November 2003 there were less than 100 throughout the country. However, the government is accelerating the building of these supermarkets, so that the number will double to 200 in December and increase ten-fold, to 2,000, by February 2004.

The opposition criticizes this program too, of course, saying that the Mercal markets undermine the private sector. This is probably the case in situations where a Mercal market is set up next to a regular supermarket. However, just as with the Barrio Adentro program, Mercal markets are supposed to serve areas that are currently underserved by the private sector. Thus, the impact these will have on the private sector will probably not been all that great.

Conclusion

When reviewing the many programs that exist to fight poverty in Venezuela under the Chavez government, it is clear that the greatest emphasis is on education. Both the medium term and the short term anti-poverty programs are mostly centered on education. This makes much sense since numerous studies of poverty have shown that education is one of the most effective ways to reduce poverty. However, it is also a strategy which takes a long time to bear fruit. If, in the course of the implementation of this strategy, there is a severe set-back, as was the case in 2002-2003, then the government’s anti-poverty measures will look like they are not having any effect in the short term.

The Chavez presidency is so far marked by four distinct phases. The first phase was 1999, which was a period of severe economic recession, constitutional reform, and natural disaster,[16] in which little was done about reducing poverty, other than the initiation of Plan Bolivar 2000. The second phase, 2000-2001 was a relatively successful period, in which the Chavez government consolidated its political power and began implementing its long and medium term poverty reduction programs, of macro-economic reform, urban and rural land reform, the creation of Bolivarian schools, and support for micro-credits and cooperatives. The third phase, from about December 2001 to May 2003, was the most difficult phase, in which the government had to cope with several employer-led general strikes, a coup attempt, and the shut-down of the country’s all-important oil industry. During this phase the country and the government suffered its greatest setbacks in terms of reducing poverty. There is little doubt that as unemployment and inflation increased, poverty also increased. Also, few resources or attention were available for actively implementing poverty reduction programs.

May 2003 one could say marks the beginning of a fourth phase, which is approximately when the country’s oil industry recovered and the opposition began focusing on political rather than economic or military strategies for ousting the president. During this phase the government once again had more resources, especially given the relatively high price of oil, to implement short-term anti-poverty measures and to refocus on its medium term strategies, placing particular emphasis on land reform and on the Bolivarian University. How long this phase will last is, unfortunately, once again largely up to the opposition. If it plays straight during the upcoming recall referendum process, the government will be able to pursue its existing programs more or less as planned. However, if the opposition tries to provoke another crisis, then the programs could be derailed once again and poverty will once again increase, just as it has in Venezuela for the past 20 years or so.
.

By: Patrick McElwee

President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela has been the subject of many controversies. His critics often accuse him of laying the groundwork for dictatorship, despite the democratic credentials of his government. Chávez was democratically elected in 1998 and again in 2000 under a new constitution. He then won a recall election in 2004, which was certified by observers from the Carter Center and the Organization of American States. Chávez was re-elected last December by 63 percent of voters, a result again certified by international observers including the OAS and the European Union. Chávez has pledged to accelerate policies that have given poor Venezuelans vastly increased access to health care, education, and subsidized food, and in the last three and a half years of political stability, a remarkable 40 percent increase in the economy.

Throughout this process of increasing voter and citizen participation and electoral democracy, the Venezuelan opposition and their allies in the U.S. press have told us that authoritarianism was just around the corner. They now say it has arrived. The immediate focus of their concern is the president’s decision not to renew the broadcast license of a major television network that is openly opposed to the Chávez government. Their free speech concerns have been echoed by Human Rights Watch, Reporters without Borders, and the Committee to Protect Journalists. On the other hand, the vice-chair of the European Parliament’s Freedom Commission, ruling out a resolution on the issue, has said the non-renewal has nothing to do with human rights.

Here are the basic facts. Rádio Caracas Televisión (RCTV) is one of the biggest television networks in Venezuela. It airs news and entertainment programs. It is also openly opposed to the government, including by supporting a military coup that briefly ousted Chávez in 2002. (More information available on what Le Monde Diplomatique has called Venezuela’s “hate media” here and here.) During the oil strike of 2002-2003, the station repeatedly called upon its viewers to come out into the street and help topple the government. As part of its continuing political campaign against the government, the station has also used false allegations, sometimes with gruesome and violent imagery, to convince its viewers that the government was responsible for such crimes as murders where there was no evidence of government involvement.

According to a law enacted in 1987, the licenses given to RCTV and other stations to use the public airwaves expire on May 27. President Chávez has publicly declared that RCTV’s license will not be renewed, citing its involvement in the coup. Although it will not be able to continue to use the public broadcast frequencies, the station will still be able to send its signal out over cable, satellite, and the Internet.

The U.S. media, much of which has been unsuccessfully predicting dictatorship under Chávez for years, has used this case to make accusations of censorship and the end of press freedom in Venezuela.

To understand the issue better, I decided to talk to the human rights and press freedom groups who have criticized the action.

José Miguel Vivanco of Human Rights Watch clarified for me that “broadcasting companies in any country in the world, especially in democratic countries, are not entitled to renewal of their licenses. The lack of renewal of the contract, per se, is not a free speech issue. Just per se.” A free speech issue arises if the non-renewal is to punish a certain editorial line.

Still, Benoît Hervieu of Reporters Without Borders in Paris said that, while he could not be certain, he thought US and European governments would stop short of non-renewal despite RCTV’s “support for the coup.”

“I think that there would be pressure to make a replacement at the head of the channel. But I don’t think that they would not renew the concession. There is a risk in that story. There are 3000 employees at RCTV. So I don’t think that even in a country like [the United States or France], a government would risk putting 3000 people in the streets,” he said.

Could it be that governments like Venezuela have the theoretical right not to renew a broadcast license, but that no responsible government would ever do it? In the United States, this may seem plausible, since broadcast licenses here seem to be forever. (Who could imagine life without ABC, CBS, or NBC?) Still, the government sometimes takes actions in other parts of the economy that result in a company going out of business.

Actually, in other democratic countries, broadcast companies sometimes do not get their licenses renewed. For example, in Britain in 1992, in a process based in part on a subjective assessment of “quality of service,” Thames Television lost its license after 24 years of service. Several British commentators speculated that the Thatcher government had influenced the result.

So democracies do occasionally find reasons not to renew a license. So what about this case in particular: Would RCTV have had its license renewed in the United States or Europe?

While the two US-based human rights advocates I spoke with declined to answer that question directly, they acknowledged that non-renewal would not be out of the question here.

Vivanco said, “I don’t know. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could decide that they’re not going to renew, for instance, Fox News or MSNBC because they’re in violation of the contract, according to the conditions of the contract. Normally you settle those things in court.”

Carlos Lauría of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) spoke similarly: “I don’t think you can translate what’s going on there [in Venezuela] to the United States. That’s a very difficult question. I mean, if RCTV had violated the law, I assume they wouldn’t get the concession renewed.”

For Lauría, non-renewal itself is not the problem. His concern is the process by which the decision was reached. “I assume in the US there would be a process. The FCC would follow protocol. This is what hasn’t happened in Venezuela. We’re not arguing that the concession should be renewed, should be given to RCTV. We’re just saying that there’s no process to evaluate if it should be.”

Vivanco also complained about the process, saying that if the government argues there is a violation of the contract, “that would be settled normally in court. Second, if there’s some crimes committed, the individuals who were involved in those crimes should be prosecuted in a court of law.”

On process, they have a legitimate point. The government seems to have made the decision without any administrative or judicial hearings. Unfortunately, this is what the law, first enacted in 1987, long before Chávez entered the political scene, allows. It charges the executive branch with decisions about license renewal, but does not seem to require any administrative hearing. The law should be changed, but at the current moment when broadcast licenses are up for renewal, it is the prevailing law and thus lays out the framework in which decisions are made.

However, Vivanco’s critique goes beyond process to the government’s justification for non-renewal. “You have the president saying, forget it, the license is not going to be renewed, it’s a bunch of golpistas [coup-mongers] or fascists or whatever – which is clearly some sort of censorship. That sounds like an arbitrary decision made by the president on political grounds. And that is not acceptable.”

Lauría also told me that RCTV was “selectively chosen because of opposition views.”

But is support for the violent overthrow of an elected government really protected political speech? Vivanco acknowledges that RCTV “obviously probably sympathized with the coup.” But, he says, “it is a matter of free speech.”

Vivanco understates RCTV’s connection to the coup. RCTV encouraged viewers to attend a rally that was part of the coup strategy, invited coup leaders to address the country on their channel, and reported the false information that the president had resigned. After Pedro Carmona declared himself president and dissolved the National Assembly, Supreme Court, and other democratic institutions, the head of RCTV Marcel Granier met with him in the Presidential Palace. The following day, when mass protests and loyal army units brought back President Chávez, RCTV and other stations blacked out the news, showing movies and cartoons instead.

Such actions clearly go beyond protected free speech, at least in the United States. Imagine the consequences if NBC took such actions during a coup against Bush.

In fact, RCTV’s participation in the oil strike of 2002-2003, and even their joining in legal political campaigns would be grounds for revoking their broadcast license in the United States.

Consider this episode in the US. Two weeks before the 2004 presidential election, it was reported that the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which operates the largest number of local TV stations in the United States, planned to order its affiliates to replace prime-time programming with a documentary critical of John Kerry.

Democrats were outraged. The Democratic National Committee filed a case with the FCC arguing that such “partisan propaganda” was inappropriate. And, yes, at least one powerful Democratic politician swore that if the documentary was aired, there would be no Sinclair Broadcast Group by the 2008 election. A Kerry spokesman said, “You don't expect your local TV station to be pushing a political agenda two weeks before an election. It's un-American.” Couldn’t it be un-Venezuelan too? (The political pressures above led Sinclair to cancel the anti-Kerry broadcast).

If RCTV were the only major source of opposition to the government, the loss of its voice would be troubling. It would also be disturbing if the RCTV case forced others to tone down legitimate opposition. But Greg Wilpert, a sociologist living in Venezuela, declares, “It is the height of absurdity to say that there’s a lack of freedom of press in Venezuela.”

Of the top four private TV stations, three air mostly entertainment and one, Globovisión, is a 24-hours news channel. On Globovisión, Wilpert says, “the opposition is very present. They pretty much dominate it. And in the others, they certainly are very present in the news segments.”

Regarding the print media, Wilpert told me, “There are three main newspapers. Of those three, two are definitely very opposition. The other one is pretty neutral. I would say, [the opposition] certainly dominates the print media by far. There’s no doubt about that.”

“I think some of the TV stations have slightly moderated [their opposition to the government] not because of intimidation, but because they were losing audience share. Over half of the population is supportive of Chávez . They’ve reduced the number of anti-Chávez programs that they used to have. But those that continue to exist are just as anti-Chávez as they were before.”

The RCTV case is not about censorship of political opinion. It is about the government, through a flawed process, declining to renew a broadcast license to a company that would not get a license in other democracies, including the United States. In fact, it is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chávez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves.

Once again, it seems, the warnings of a move from democracy to dictatorship in Venezuela have been loud but lacking in evidence.
.

http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200601180629

http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200601180629

Wow, I quote legitimate articles and you quote some crazy right-wing blog, well done, you fail.

Wow, I quote legitimate articles and you quote some crazy right-wing blog, well done, you fail.

First off, an email is not legitament without a link to an article.

Second, prove that the person is right wing.

Third, point to what he said was false.

First off, an email is not legitament without a link to an article.

Second, prove that the person is right wing.

Third, point to what he said was false.

Your should probably read my article, quoting out-of-context 'statistics' which may or may not be total fabrications does not prove anything.

Your should probably read my article, quoting out-of-context 'statistics' which may or may not be total fabrications does not prove anything.

And who decides what is considered out of context? It is a known fact that poverty rates are affected by the economy and economic situations. Not only that, by the government as well. Judging by the article I posted, poverty rates will continue to go up. Notice that the poverty rate did go down but is now back on the up swing.

Now prove that 1) He is a right winger, 2) that is numbers are out of context and 3) point to what is false.

And who decides what is considered out of context? It is a known fact that poverty rates are affected by the economy and economic situations. Not only that, by the government as well. Judging by the article I posted, poverty rates will continue to go up. Notice that the poverty rate did go down but is now back on the up swing.

Now prove that 1) He is a right winger, 2) that is numbers are out of context and 3) point to what is false.

Please read my article I posted, it accurately explains economic data in regard to Chavez and puts in context with events in economics etc, I think everyone knows that statistics without context or other statistics from other sectors of the economy etc etc can be made to say almost anything.

Please read my article I posted, it accurately explains economic data in regard to Chavez and puts in context with events in economics etc, I think everyone knows that statistics without context or other statistics from other sectors of the economy etc etc can be made to say almost anything.

I will read it when you actually address my points.

It looks unreliable to me.

It looks unreliable to me.

Why?

I will read it when you actually address my points.
He cannot. AP almost never backs up a single thing he says. I am beginning to think he is more troll than serious. At least MTAE and F&G had the semblance of being semi-serious posters. I would still love to see proof forthcoming that Aelosia is part of the elite.

You should also check out this documentary, which has won several awards including Cannes and others who being an enlightening and independent analysis of the coup against Chavez etc, it should answer your questions too Lancaster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHPPpL9z9GE

From that pinnacle of right-wing fascism: Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/cuba/)

Wow, I quote legitimate articles and you quote some crazy right-wing blog, well done, you fail.

No, you quoted articles from extreme-left wingers, hardly more legitimate than what LC posted.

From that pinnacle of right-wing fascism: Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/cuba/)

Human rights imo do not exist when an individual tries to destroy the community or engage in anti-socialist activities.

Human rights imo do not exist when an individual tries to destroy the community or engage in anti-socialist activities.

Oh My God! Ladeis and Gentlemen, I present to you Andaras Prime. Stalinesque.

Inequality in Venezuela is very sharp, and if you are educated, and even more if your at university, that means he's part of the top 15% upper class elite who are pretty much universally opposed to Chavez because he's using the oil revenues from newly expropriated assets on micro-credits, rebates and the like to the poor majority. They use their media control to push their upper class agenda, encourage military coups, accept US state department money etc etc. It's pretty much the upper-class line in Venezuela that they don't want those 'poor uneducated' people having any political power, it's easy to be political and talk about 'oppression' when you have a nice house and decent employment.

Did you read what I wrote at all? Beginning with the "she" part, for example? The fact that you didn't read that part makes me believe you didn't read the rest.

I studied in a public university, alongside people of both high class and low class. In the Universidad Central of Venezuela, that is public, people from every spectrum of society go to study. You don't need to have lots of money to go there, as it is totally free. Although you need to be a hell of a good student, because the tests required to enter are pretty hard. Hundreds of thousands apply, and there are only hundreds of places available. However, the highest ranked in the tests are the ones who get the places, as it should be. That is the way I entered the university, excelling in a test about my academic abilities, not paying a dime.

40 per cent (more or less) of the people voted against Chávez in december, not 15 per cent. If 40 per cent of the venezuelans are an economic elite, then there is no poverty in our country, we are well off. Some rich people vote for Chávez and support him, you know?, while some poor people vote against him. That class struggle soviet-like argument doesn't apply to Venezuela.

I am a press manager in a radio station, and yet I can't see how I can get a media control, (and be aware, I try to avoid politics in my own space and work). I don't encourage military coups, not in favour of Chávez, nor against him. And then again I must say I am not really fond of the US administration.

I can't see poor people getting more political power, they are still poor. I have seen a leftist elite gaining more power, and I see one man gaining more power, that's all.

It's easy to be political and talk about 'oppression' when you have a nice house and decent employment in the first world like you, and you don't need to be afraid of getting robbed, kidnapped or killed, you do have a health system you can trust, the goverment is willing to give you your citizen rights even if you don't agree with their ideological views, and yet you pay lots and lots of taxes, even although you are underpaid when you compare yourself to any person of your status in Europe and the United States, and need to work twice to get less. That's you Andaras, you do live in a comfortable country, do not tell me I live a comfortable life.

Oh My God! Ladeis and Gentlemen, I present to you Andaras Prime. Stalinesque.

No actually I am not, Stalin killed people in some cases for no reason at all, it was terribly unproductive, they weren't dissidents who wanted to destroy communism etc. I support going away the Whites and those who generally are reactionaries, but the idea of the Communist Party is through mass organizations like trade union democracy etc, where political power is distributed proportionate by numbers, Stalin ruled a minority apparachek clique, so I would never support that kind of thing if that's what you mean. People on NSG act as if their are two different socialisms, democratic and not, this is a misconception, communism is by it's very nature democracy (majority) control of the means of productive forces, while capitalism is minority control, so it's never democratic. In such a struggle those that try to destroy that democracy must be stopped, this is not an unknown thing, in the US no politician can become President or have substantial power unless they respect the moneyed interest of capital (minority control), the US has a strong (if not stronger) entrenched policy that true democracy must never be acheived, it's just more subtle and cultural/political ingrained.

Did you read what I wrote at all? Beginning with the "she" part, for example? The fact that you didn't read that part makes me believe you didn't read the rest.

I studied in a public university, alongside people of both high class and low class. In the Universidad Central of Venezuela, that is public, people from every spectrum of society go to study. You don't need to have lots of money to go there, as it is totally free. Although you need to be a hell of a good student, because the tests required to enter are pretty hard. Hundreds of thousands apply, and there are only hundreds of places available. However, the highest ranked in the tests are the ones who get the places, as it should be. That is the way I entered the university, excelling in a test about my academic abilities, not paying a dime.

40 per cent (more or less) of the people voted against Chávez in december, not 15 per cent. If 40 per cent of the venezuelans are an economic elite, then there is no poverty in our country, we are well off. Some rich people vote for Chávez and support him, you know?, while some poor people vote against him. That class struggle soviet-like argument doesn't apply to Venezuela.

I am a press manager in a radio station, and yet I can't see how I can get a media control, (and be aware, I try to avoid politics in my own space and work). I don't encourage military coups, not in favour of Chávez, nor against him. And then again I must say I am not really fond of the US administration.

I can't see poor people getting more political power, they are still poor. I have seen a leftist elite gaining more power, and I see one man gaining more power, that's all.

It's easy to be political and talk about 'oppression' when you have a nice house and decent employment in the first world like you, and you don't need to be afraid of getting robbed, kidnapped or killed, you do have a health system you can trust, the goverment is willing to give you your citizen rights even if you don't agree with their ideological views, and yet you pay lots and lots of taxes, even although you are underpaid when you compare yourself to any person of your status in Europe and the United States, and need to work twice to get less. That's you Andaras, you do live in a comfortable country, do not tell me I live a comfortable life.

BOlded Key statements for Andaras Prime.. To bad he will brush this post off.

Human rights imo do not exist when an individual tries to destroy the community or engage in anti-socialist activities.

Any system that does not permit dissent from the mainstream is unacceptable.

Any system that does not permit dissent from the mainstream is unacceptable.

Exactly right, I agree. But when that 'dissent' is from an minority who is against the tenets of popular sovereignty and true democracy, a line is crossed. It's like a political party being democratically elected on the promise of abolishing democracy, it can't be allowed. In Communism power is distributed in mass organizations according to numbers such as worker trade unions where true democracy is achieved.

Exactly right, I agree. But when that 'dissent' is from an minority who is against the tenets of popular sovereignty and true democracy, a line is crossed.

The last true democracy died when Athens was defeated.

It's like a political party being democratically elected on the promise of abolishing democracy, it can't be allowed.

Why not? In a round about way, Hitler ran on that very platform.

In Communism power is distributed in mass organizations according to numbers such as worker trade unions where true democracy is achieved.

HORSECRAP!!!

The last true democracy died when Athens was defeated.
And this proves what exactly? Athens was remarkable in it's democratic reforms and free society, but again there was no material democracy and slaves, women and immigrants were excluded suffrage.

We are talking ideals here right? I am simply stating


Why not? In a round about way, Hitler ran on that very platform.
It's called a societal framework, the same way in US politics there is (as I have already said) an entrenched framework that all those in power respect the capitalist minority control of the means of productive forces. The same way in the USSR the party (populace) elected a leader within the framework of communism (majority control), same thing in Cuba if you'll read my previous article. So each candidate runs on different aspects of society and/or issues, but within the framework of the Communist Party (majority control).


HORSECRAP!!!
How insightful.


As the membership of the communist party itself was to be limited to active cadres, there was a need for networks of separate organizations to mobilize mass support for the party. Typically communist parties have built up various front organizations, whose membership is often open to non-communists. In many countries the single most important front organization of the communist parties has been its youth wing. During the time of the Communist International the youth leagues were explicit communist organizations, using the name 'Young Communist League'. Later the youth league concept was broadened in many countries, and names like 'Democratic Youth League' were adopted.

Other organizations often connected to communist parties includes trade unions, student, women's, peasant's and cultural organizations. Traditionally these mass organizations were politically subordinated to the political leadership of the party. However, in many contemporary cases mass organizations founded by communists have acquired a certain degree of independence. In some cases mass organizations have outlived the communist parties in question.

At the international level, the Communist International organized various international front organizations (linking national mass organizations with each other), such as the Young Communist International, Profintern, Krestintern, International Red Aid, Sportintern, etc.. These organizations were dissolved in the process of deconstruction of the Communist International. After the Second World War new international coordination bodies were created, such as the World Federation of Democratic Youth, International Union of Students, World Federation of Trade Unions, Womens International Democratic Federation and World Peace Council.
Source: wiki

Exactly right, I agree. But when that 'dissent' is from an minority who is against the tenets of popular sovereignty and true democracy, a line is crossed. It's like a political party being democratically elected on the promise of abolishing democracy, it can't be allowed. In Communism power is distributed in mass organizations according to numbers such as worker trade unions where true democracy is achieved.

Alright, a minority. A minority of the 40 per cent of the population? I won't deny there are certain sectors of that 40 per cent that do not believe in democracy or civil rights, and that are willing to compromise anything to achieve their goals, but then, also in the side of the goverment there are people like that.

Want to hear a story? I met a group of men, all of them supporters of the goverment last november, and they belong to a bolivarian circle (not all bolivarian circles are like this one, be aware, this is a separate case, but it is indeed a paradox). They are far right wing nostalgics, they miss the military dictatorship of Marcos Pérez Jiménez in the 50's (please check that historical background). AND YET THEY SUPPORT CHÁVEZ!, because they think he is the "strong" military figure this country needs, and they hope he installs a dictatorship as the one they remember, they dress with their red shirts and have voted for the president since 1998, and also hope for an auto coup soon, stating that "all that crap about socialism is a simple façade, Chávez will reveal his true, pure colors soon as this country needs his authority". And yet they receive full support from the goverment because they have been faithful followers of the MVR party, they are reservists and have stashes of brand new AK rifles. Venezuela is a country pretty different to what you know in your own, and is full of contrasts. Left-right discussions and class struggle ideology doesn't apply properly to study our situation, as the goverment and foreign communists as yourself tend to think.

Regarding your former post. "Human rights in my opinion do not exist when an individual tries to destroy the community or engage in anti-socialist activities", as you have gained the moral high ground there, give me a reason why your goverment shouldn't execute you out of being an individual bent on bringing down the system, or violate each and everyone of your rights.

And this proves what exactly? Athens was remarkable in it's democratic reforms and free society, but again there was no material democracy and slaves, women and immigrants were excluded suffrage.

I see you failed your cultural studies as well.

We are talking ideals here right? I am simply stating

Sorry but I do love pointing out historical inaccuracies.

It's called a societal framework, the same way in US politics there is (as I have already said) an entrenched framework that all those in power respect the capitalist minority control of the means of productive forces.

except for the simple fact that anyone in America can start their very own business without anyone telling them what to do.

The same way in the USSR the party (populace) elected a leader within the framework of communism (majority control)

Um no. It was a few members of the Communist Party that elected the leader of the USSR. The population had zero say in it.

, same thing in Cuba if you'll read my previous article. So each candidate runs on different aspects of society and/or issues, but within the framework of the Communist Party (majority control).

And vote for whoever the government tells them to vote for.

How insightful.

That is because history destroys your very argument.

I am not here to debate the USSR, nor do I wish to, I am simply stating that the ideology of Marxism is majority control over the forces of production. Even if a politician got to power as President saying he was communist, the constitution (which all over the world are conservative documents designed to limit popular control) and capital interest would force him from office, so therefore my argument that the US is a capital framework state is true. Cuba is a remarkable example of good communist reform, as my article shows.

I am not here to debate the USSR, nor do I wish to

That's because you get schooled.

I am simply stating that the ideology of Marxism is majority control over the forces of capital which are minority control.

Which can not actually happen in this world. In a perfect world maybe but the world is anything but perfect.

Even if a politician got to power as President saying he was communist, the constitution (which all over the world are conservative documents designed to limit popular control)

HOLY ......!! I seem to have more power under the US Constitution than under the Constitution of say, China.

and capital interest would force him from office, so therefore my argument that the US is a capital framework state is true.

Depends on the make up of the Assembly/Parliament/Congress etc.

Cuba is a remarkable example of good communist reform, as my article shows.

And yet, why do people flee Cuba? If it is as good as you say it is, people should not be fleeing in droves.

And yet, why do people flee Cuba? If it is as good as you say it is, people should not be fleeing in droves.

What about the effects of the US embargo on the conditions there?

What about the effects of the US embargo on the conditions there?

Now that I can not argue. But I can point out that other nations do not have an embargo on Cuba and trade regularly with them.

What about the effects of the US embargo on the conditions there?

I would like to see Lancaster answer this, so the capitalist power imposes sanctions on Cuba so it's now a failure of communism? The biggest failure of conservatives is there attempt to equate the immaterial ideologies onto the rise and fall of material states, eg Soviet Union fails, communism fails? Don't make me resort to my list of know market failures.

Nonsense versus nonsense.

And perhaps you should do a bit more looking too!

In 2003, petrolium accounted for 33% of GDP. In 2007 it is 30%.
In 2003, unemployment was at 17%. In 2007 it is at 8.9%
In 2003, services made up only 45% of GDP. By 2007, this has risen to 64%
In 2003, 47% of population lived below the poverty line. By 2007 this has dropped to 37%
In 2003, inflation was running at 31%. By 2007, this has dropped to 15.8%
In 2003, the industrial production growth was a negative 5.4%. By 2007, positive 7%.

Look, I'm not saying that Chavez is a miracle worker, or that I agree with all of his policies (or even most of them). I was directly responding to a post where the comment was made that he was dismantling the economy which would lead to budget deficits.

Of course, on that point, the budget deficit in 2003 was 6.5Billion. In 2007 it is expected to be pretty much a balanced outcome (revenue 52.2B, expenditures 52.9B) - so the budget position has improved from a deficit position, not fallen into one.

Or, to include the economic summary from this year's CIA world fact book:

Venezuela remains highly dependent on oil revenues, which account for roughly 90% of export earnings, more than 50% of the federal budget revenues, and around 30% of GDP. Tax collection - Venezuela's primary source of non-oil revenue - is expected to surpass $23 billion in 2006, exceeding the yearend collection goal by more than 20%. A nationwide strike between December 2002 and February 2003 had far-reaching economic consequences - real GDP declined by around 9% in 2002 and 8% in 2003 - but economic output since then has recovered strongly. Fueled by higher oil prices, record government spending helped to boost GDP growth in 2004 and 2005 to approximately 18% and 11%, respectively. Economic growth in 2006 reached about 9%. This spending, combined with recent minimum wage hikes and improved access to domestic credit, has fueled a consumption boom - car sales in 2006 increased by around 70% - but has come at the cost of higher inflation. Despite government attempts to withdraw liquidity from the economy, Venezuela's money supply set a record in June 2006, approximately 70% higher than the previous year. Imports have also jumped significantly.

Clearly not all bread and roses, and clearly some existing dangers and issues. But a consumption boom is hardly the hallmark of an economy in an advanced state of dismantlement either.

Alright...I'm new to this community as I've only been lurking for about a week, now. But this thread interests me since all the statistics I've seen about Venezuela point to improving conditions, yet Chavez is considered this great evil. I admit to knowing very little about the country, but maybe Aelosia, as a resident, could address this? Anecdotes are nice, especially coming from someone who is "there", but, in the scheme of things, is incredibly useless when compared to actual data.

I guess I'll go back to lurking, now. Maybe this forum works differently in that when you engage in debate you aren't expected to provide real data to back up your points, but rather to make bland assertions of things you know to be true.:rolleyes:

Alright...I'm new to this community as I've only been lurking for about a week, now. But this thread interests me since all the statistics I've seen about Venezuela point to improving conditions, yet Chavez is considered this great evil. I admit to knowing very little about the country, but maybe Aelosia, as a resident, could address this? Anecdotes are nice, especially coming from someone who is "there", but, in the scheme of things, is incredibly useless when compared to actual data.

I guess I'll go back to lurking, now. Maybe this forum works differently in that when you engage in debate you aren't expected to provide real data to back up your points, but rather to make bland assertions of things you know to be true.:rolleyes:

I don't deny that several of the policies implemented by the goverment have a positive effect over the situation of the venezuelan people. Some of the "Missions", are finally giving out some benefits, and others are, in paper, good initiatives. But first, we need to clarify some facts. The numbers shown have as a source, the goverment. That doesn't mean I say everything that said numbers reflect is false, but sometimes, giving the media and propaganda effort this goverment is spawning, they modify them a bit to favour their work. This country need socialist policies, but made in a more effective way.

http://www.bcv.org.ve/

There you can find some numbers that are contradictory in nature, as the economic growth. That is an official source, too, but not a direct consequence of a goverment's ministry.

First of all, thanks to the current oil prices, this goverment is receiving resources as no other during our history. They have the resources to do a lot more than they are doing, and yet their efforts are not ending in the results we could have. That is the main point of my criticism. Chávez has the money to do a lot more, a LOT more than he's doing. And he has had that amount of money for the last eight years. That regarding economy.

About social happenings, you indeed need to be in the street to understand the social phenomena, that isn't reflected in any amount of numbers. I like the effort this goverment has put in education, although I do not agree with the indoctrination linked to that effort. I would prefer an initiative more similar to the one implemented in India, for example. In a perfect scenario, I would invite you to come here, have a tour with the goverment officials, and then let me show you a different face of facts, and just then, let you extract your own conclusions, sometimes, you need to be there to note certain details.

guah....my Spanish isn't really all that good, though if I have some direction I can probably figure out what the article is saying. But you're gonna have to tell me which sections of the site to check out, specifically, because I don't want to spend hours upon hours trying to navigate to the right areas. =p

Thanks for the link, though. And in response to About social happenings, you indeed need to be in the street to understand the social phenomena, that isn't reflected in any amount of numbers. I like the effort this government has put in education, although I do not agree with the indoctrination linked to that effort. I would prefer an initiative more similar to the one implemented in India, for example. In a perfect scenario, I would invite you to come here, have a tour with the government officials, and then let me show you a different face of facts, and just then, let you extract your own conclusions, sometimes, you need to be there to note certain details. I agree that it's important to balance out the details with the grander scheme. However, just like it's easy to forget the individual experience when solely dealing with number, it's also very easy to get so caught up in details that the larger picture is lost. That's why I'm interested in the hard data that critics of Chavez have to back them up. Like I said, I know very little about Venezuela and the few stats I've seen paint the picture of an improving country, but the one Venezuelan I've talked to while at university is staunchly anti-Chavez but, when asked to explain, all he could really say is that Chavez is a military baffoon, which doesn't exactly help elucidate things. =p

I am not here to debate the USSR, nor do I wish to, I am simply stating that the ideology of Marxism is majority control over the forces of production. Even if a politician got to power as President saying he was communist, the constitution (which all over the world are conservative documents designed to limit popular control) and capital interest would force him from office, so therefore my argument that the US is a capital framework state is true. Cuba is a remarkable example of good communist reform, as my article shows.

Besides that whole Castro Family Monarchy thing, that seems to be developing, of course.

guah....my Spanish isn't really all that good, though if I have some direction I can probably figure out what the article is saying. But you're gonna have to tell me which sections of the site to check out, specifically, because I don't want to spend hours upon hours trying to navigate to the right areas. =p

Well, one of the main problems with linking to first hand information in this forums is that indeed, first hand information about Venezuela is in spanish, as is natural to expect. I have faced that problem in the past.

I'll make an effort to guide you to the economic information part. That site is the official portal of the Central Bank of Venezuela, a goverment office, it is not private owned. It shows the main policies and numbers of the administration. Check the part labeled as "Indicadores", and "Estados financieros BCV", and this:

http://www.bcv.org.ve/c2/indicadores.asp

Ït is pretty extense, just tell me if you need additional guidance.

Thanks for the link, though. And in response to I agree that it's important to balance out the details with the grander scheme. However, just like it's easy to forget the individual experience when solely dealing with number, it's also very easy to get so caught up in details that the larger picture is lost. That's why I'm interested in the hard data that critics of Chavez have to back them up. Like I said, I know very little about Venezuela and the few stats I've seen paint the picture of an improving country, but the one Venezuelan I've talked to while at university is staunchly anti-Chavez but, when asked to explain, all he could really say is that Chavez is a military baffoon, which doesn't exactly help elucidate things. =p

Well, check some not goverment information sources. I am not going to point you at something as globovision channel, that is heavily biased against the goverment, or "El Nacional", a newspaper with a heavy posture of criticism against the goverment, because I want to remain as moderate and neutral as possible. Everyday facts are found in sites as this ones:

www.eud.com

A rather bland newspaper that however tries to maintain balanced.

www.unionradio.net

A circuit devoted to information that isn't Radio Caracas Radio, who is also heavily against the goverment

www.cadenaglobal.com

Another site of news, not sided with the goverment or the opposition.

Sadly, everything is in spanish, but that, as I said, is just plain natural.

guah....my Spanish isn't really all that good
Babelfish is your friend. As long as you remember that it's just a silly fish and its translations are often very direct and therefore crude.
http://babelfish.altavista.com/

Sadly, everything is in spanish, but that, as I said, is just plain natural.

No it is not natural: Spanish is an unnatural language!

We must ban Spanish from areas that speak it! For the lulz!

Exactly right, I agree. But when that 'dissent' is from an minority who is against the tenets of popular sovereignty and true democracy, a line is crossed. It's like a political party being democratically elected on the promise of abolishing democracy, it can't be allowed. In Communism power is distributed in mass organizations according to numbers such as worker trade unions where true democracy is achieved.

You have the shittiest definition of "true democracy" I have ever heard.

Exactly right, I agree. But when that 'dissent' is from an minority who is against the tenets of popular sovereignty and true democracy, a line is crossed. It's like a political party being democratically elected on the promise of abolishing democracy, it can't be allowed.

So you'd rather ban dissenters from your ideal society rather than engage them in debate and show them how silly their ideas are?

In Communism power is distributed in mass organizations according to numbers such as worker trade unions where true democracy is achieved.

Or usually hijacked because most of the workers cant be bothered to vote for every single little issue
In practise communism fails badly because of human nature, suppose all the housing is allocated on a 'needed' basis, eg family gets another baby on the way, applies for a bigger home.
Who decides who gets what home? , you cant just walk in and kick someone out so there has to be an offical in charge of distribution.
What happens when 2 families want bigger homes, but theres only 1 available..... said official knows family #1 so puts them to the head of the housing list. thus the ideal of communism is undone by human nature.
And this happens throughout the system, followed by bribery, followed by placing loyal party members in positions of power.
Then the masses are told how wonderful their lives are and that in gratitude, the party is increasing the chocolate ration from 50 grams a week to 40 grams a week........

There is nothing wrong in being a socialist in the European Socialist Democratic tradition, and in the Socialist Democratic sense of Presidents Ricardo Lagos Escobar & Michelle Bachelet of Chile, nor in the NS Socialist Democratic sense.

But it is wrong to be a Socialist Dictator for life in the sense of Fidel Castro, who passes power or life to his brother Raul, in a one political party state where other Citizens diffrent economic, political and social views are not allowed.


Note : The Cuban National Assembly later changed the word untouchable
to irrevocable to make it more precise.

NEWS

Millions of workers get two days off to watch National Assembly session on television

Associated Press June 24, 2002 Monday 8:57 AM Eastern Time

By ANITA SNOW; Associated Press Writer


HAVANA-Millions of workers across this communist island were being given the day off Monday and Tuesday to allow them to watch a special televised parliamentary session to consider inscribing Cuba's socialist system in the constitution as "untouchable."

The communist leadership's decision to close all offices, factories and stores for two full days during its current cash crunch underscored the importance it is placing on the proposed constitutional amendment that states Cuba's economic, political and social systems cannot be changed.

Hospitals, transportation and other essential services will not be interrupted, but school classes will be canceled for those two days and previously scheduled semester-end examinations will be postponed. Fidel Castro called the special parliamentary session over the weekend.

The entire session both days will be broadcast live on state television and radio.

The measure had been expected to be considered during a regular session of the National Assembly, Cuba's unicameral parliament, on July 5. But National Assembly President Ricardo Alarcon on Friday asked Castro to call a special session because he believed the proposal is so historically significant.

The constitutional change was the subject of a campaign by the communist system's national support groups, which say they gathered 8.1 million signatures - more than 99 percent of the island's legal voters aged 16 and older.

Opposition leaders say the signature campaign was the government's response to their own petition, which collected more than 11,000 signatures. They have also questioned whether all of those signing the official petition did so of their own free will.

Known as the Varela Project, the opposition's petition seeks a referendum asking voters if they favor reforms such as freedom of expression, the right to own a business and an amnesty for political prisoners.

Most Cubans first heard of Varela Project last month in a speech by former President Jimmy Carter when he visited the island. But its contents have not been published in the state media.

Organizers of Varela Project campaign delivered their petitions to the National Assembly on May 10 and have received no response. It still remained unclear what impact the government's own constitutional amendment would have on the Varela Project.

The government maintains it is protesting statements last month by President George W. Bush that American travel and trade restrictions with the communist island would not be eased unless Cuba embraces democracy.

Copyright 2002 Associated Press

Why is it that La Habana Cuba
never actually finishes a line and
instead presses enter, I find it
annoying and really hard to read.
I wonder if he is just copy pasta
or just is illiterate? What do you
think?

Why is it that La Habana Cuba
never actually finishes a line and
instead presses enter, I find it
annoying and really hard to read.
I wonder if he is just copy pasta
or just is illiterate? What do you
think?

Sometimes I think it looks nice, makes the point stand out better, and looks better to the eyes, sorry, I will try from now on.

Why is it that La Habana Cuba
never actually finishes a line and
instead presses enter, I find it
annoying and really hard to read.
I wonder if he is just copy pasta
or just is illiterate? What do you
think?

Why you have to critic
his way of writing instead of
providing an argument against his own
perhaps he just like poetry?.

You usually spell "Venezuela" or "Venezuelan"
the wrong way, as you do "Chávez" all the time
and yet that card hasn't been used against you
although you claim to be heavily informed
about the situation you talk about.

Calling someone illiterate is really peyorative
specially just for pressing enter between lines
I don't like it neither, I do not approve
But I try to respect his way nevertheless
And even then he already fixed it.

Why is it that La Habana Cuba
never actually finishes a line and
instead presses enter, I find it
annoying and really hard to read.
I wonder if he is just copy pasta
or just is illiterate? What do you
think?

As opposed to a person who hates dissent? hates it when others disagrees with them and tells them to shut up when points strike home and never comes back with a decent argument to prove them wrong?

Mr. Chavez, I will let you know that, in my opinion, red was soooo last season.

If I may throw in my two proverbial cents, whilst trying to remain as neutral as possible, the problem here is that both sides are trying only to win at all costs. No open-mindedness is being shown towards the perfectly valid points being made either way.

As for my opinion? I rather think President Chavez is merely doing the best he can with the tools available to him. If I were in charge of a genuine nation, and the most effective way to remedy a problem for the good of the populace was to rule by decree, quite frankly that's what I'd do. People can bang on about the erosion of their precious democratic rights all they want, but it's because of the uneducated masses having so much choice in their leaders that idiots (no names being mentioned) are elected. Administrators are administrators because that's what they're most effective at (in general). The same applies for builders, mechanics, doctors, soldiers, whatever. The masses trying to tell a nation's leader how to lead a nation is like me (I'm essentially a lawnmower engineer and casual intellectual) trying to tell NASA's chief researcher of planetary physics how to analyse his scientific data.