NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry, couldn't resist. Normally I wouldn't care so much about Chávez. He's an ex-military leftist with authoritarian tendencies running a country kept alive by the high oil price.

What bugs me is the way he's being idolised by people who have all the means at their disposal to know better. Every week I get to my campus and the Socialist Alternative has put up new fliers about their latest lecture. I counted: on the five different fliers I've seen this semester, Chávez was on four. That beats Karl Marx, who only managed two (equal with John Howard, by the way :p).

I realise that the supply of radical leftist idols is rather limited these days, but surely we can look beyond the facade and see that Hugo Chávez is no different to any number of leaders in the who came before him. He's not even contributing to Marxist or leftist theory!

http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9621513
The rise of the “Boligarchs”

Under Hugo Chávez, the right political connections are a passport to wealth, whisky and a Hummer

“PETROLEUM socialism” is how Hugo Chávez, Venezuela's president, recently dubbed the blend of military populism and neo-Marxist statism to which he is subjecting his country. Its prime objective, he insists, is to improve the lot of the country's poor majority. Mr Chávez proclaims that “being rich is bad”. He frequently lashes out at what he calls “the oligarchy”. Strange, then, that the streets of Caracas are clogged with big new 4x4s (Hummers are especially favoured), it is hard to get a table at the best restaurants, and art dealers and whisky importers have never had it so good. A new oligarchy seems to be rising in Venezuela on the back of the “Bolivarian Revolution”, named for the country's independence hero.

“Some of Chávez's speeches are for the gallery,” says Alberto Muller Rojas, a retired army general who was until recently the president's chief of staff. “And I'll give you an example: the attack on the bourgeoisie.” As evidence, General Muller singles out the banks: “the most extreme expression of the bourgeoisie” but “the most favoured sector” of the economy since Mr Chávez came to power in 1999.

[...]

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9621447
Business partners

An alternative Dracula makes a buck

[...]

But Mr Chávez is getting his pound of flesh too. The bonds he has just bought pay interest of almost 11% (the IMF charges less than 5%). His government sells them on at a discounted price to favoured Venezuelan banks (see article above), which must acquire the dollars to pay for them at the black-market exchange rate (twice the official rate). And Argentina has paid about 20% more for PDVSA's fuel oil than the prices offered by competing firms.

[...]

So, how long then do you give his system until people start to wise up?

bold added by ##

..

So, how long then do you give his system until people start to vote the way I want?I dont know... the sooner you ask them to vote for Chavez.. the sooner it ll happen ;)

So, how long then do you give his system until people start to wise up?

People in Venezuela already have, you could hear them chant against Chavez during the Copa America.

I dont know... the sooner you ask them to vote for Chavez.. the sooner it ll happen ;)
No, what I said I said for a reason. Right now people vote for Chávez because of two reasons: either because they believe in his rhetoric, or because he gives them money.

The latter can continue until PDVSA's production collapses. Considering how much of their R&D money he spends on trinkets and how he reacts to any criticism from inside the firm, it'll happen - but maybe not immediately.

I'm more interested in the first point: his rhetoric. All the evidence points towards it being just empty words. I'm asking how long it takes for voters (and indeed overseas supporters) to realise this.

No, what I said I said for a reason. Right now people vote for Chávez because ...they vote for Chaves because they Like him and because they Trust him.

Its like that in every Democracy. Even US..

The Repubs voted for Bush.. for the same reasons.
But today... many repubs do NO Longer trust him or like him.

Never mind the Dems and the "uncommitted" .. those are totally pissed.

People in Venezuela already have, you could hear them chant against Chavez during the Copa America.So I guess Chavez is not going to win next elections.. Right ?

:D ;)

they vote for Chaves because they Like him and because they Trust him.
Okay then, we can plainly see that the trust is misplaced, since he's failing in his election promises. So when do you think voters will wise up to that fact?

You can prod and poke all you want, my question is a valid one and doesn#t change.

So I guess Chavez is not going to win next elections.. Right ?
You mean the ones he shouldn't even be able to run for, if it wasn't for him changing the constitution to be able to?

You mean the ones he shouldn't even be able to run for, if it wasn't for him changing the constitution to be able to?What? do they have term limits in your Motherland? ;)

The question stands.. are you willing to bet your credibility against a Chavez victory?

What? do they have term limits in your Motherland? ;)
Not anymore (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/15/america/15venez.php).

The question stands.. are you willing to bet your credibility against a Chavez victory?
Huh?

If he runs again, he will most likely win, moreso if the opposition again decides not to run.

I'm not talking about next time, I'm talking long-term. You know as well as I do that Chávez has no intention of leaving office in the next decade or two.

Chavez clearly is a dramatist, and he says he's a 'Marxist' and 'Socialist', he is neither, his redistributionist oil policy is clearly Norwegianist in origin, funny ain't it how brown people are now demanding Nordic privileges. The reason the US opposes him of course is because he uses his state oil company to directly trade oil to countries in Latin American and elsewhere, he doesn't make the oil flow northward to New York and come back to Latin America in the form of petrocredit loans, carrying of course interest rates up to 16%. If Chavez was President of Kazakhstan he could play Robin Hood with their oil resources and not incur the fanatic wrath of the White House, but Venezuela is a totally different story. You people here on NSG are clearly too emotional to discuss the true issues of this situation without resorting to 'tyrant!!111' type arguments, this is about Chavez challenging the capital flow of finance petrodollars and not being held hostage to the Saudi/Houston cartel.

Okay then, we can plainly see that the trust is misplaced, since he's failing in his election promises.I you want to kick-out every single elected official who is failing his election Promises.. You should start with the elected official in your City.. your state.. your Country.. Try cleaning YOUR dirty laundry first.

and if I have to take into consideration first the most blatant liars.. I would have to fire several thousands of elected officials before even thinking about Chavez.

If he runs again, he will most likely win.......

but.. but...
CallangProvinces says he could hear the People of Venezuela chant against Chavez during the Copa America.

.. and we all know CallangProvinces knows what he is talking about [/casm] :D

Chavez clearly is a dramatist, and he says he's a 'Marxist' and 'Socialist', he is neither, his redistributionist oil policy is clearly Norwegianist in origin, funny ain't it how brown people are now demanding Nordic privileges.
No, it's not. Statoil was created to serve as a base to create skills from which private Norwegian companies could form and be internationally competitive. As far as I know, its budget and that of the government were kept strictly seperate. And it was never purged of people who disagreed with the government or went on strike.

The reason the US opposes him of course is because he uses his state oil company to directly trade oil to countries in Latin American and elsewhere, he doesn't make the oil flow northward to New York and come back to Latin America in the form of petrocredit loans, carrying of course interest rates up to 16%.
I note the lack of sources. What we do know is that the IMF charges 5% and Chavez himself charges 11%.

...this is about Chavez challenging the capital flow of finance petrodollars and not being held hostage to the Saudi/Houston cartel.
No, this is about modern extreme leftists seeing him as some kind of hero when it looks like he is anything but.

they vote for Chaves because they Like him and because they Trust him.

Its like that in every Democracy. Even US..

The Repubs voted for Bush.. for the same reasons.
But today... many repubs do NO Longer trust him or like him.

Never mind the Dems and the "uncommitted" .. those are totally pissed.

The other important reason people tend to forget is that the rest of options are terrible and reminiscent of the old set of dictators that are now gone.

Sorry, couldn't resist. Normally I wouldn't care so much about Chávez. He's an ex-military leftist with authoritarian tendencies running a country kept alive by the high oil price.

What bugs me is the way he's being idolised by people who have all the means at their disposal to know better.

I had never heard of this guy until I read the OP.

I you want to kick-out every single elected official who is failing his election Promises.. You should start with the elected official in your City.. your state.. your Country.. Try cleaning YOUR dirty laundry first.
Believe me, I'm on it.

The thing is though, the damage my local politicians can do is limited, the damage Chávez will do is huge. I mean, price controls, expropriations, "redistributions" - we've heard that story a hundred times. We know (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9689181&fsrc=RSS) how it ends.

Believe me, I'm on it.

The thing is though, the damage my local politicians can do is limited, the damage Chávez will do is huge. I mean, price controls, expropriations, "redistributions" - we've heard that story a hundred times. I know (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9689181&fsrc=RSS) how it ends.hmm..
You posted "We know how it ends"

but allow me to dis-associate myself from your statement (I changed your "we" for an "I")

Because you seem to say you know the Future.. "Venezuela will end up like Zimbabwe".

...

...

My question for you is: WHEN?

When will Venezuela end up like Zimbabwe?

When will Venezuela end up like Zimbabwe?
In 14 years, two months, three weeks and four days. At 5pm.

In 14 years, two months, three weeks and four days. At 5pm.


...



...


ok Nostradamus, you win this round. ;)

and I give bonus points for that -OcceanDrive like- witty reply.

It's actually quite funny how the right on NSG get so raged at the fact that Chavez says 'socialism' without looking uncomfortable.

It's actually quite funny how the right on NSG get so raged at the fact that Chavez says 'socialism' without looking uncomfortable.
Actually, my issue is with socialists saying 'Chávez' without looking uncomfortable.

Actually, my issue is with socialists saying 'Chávez' without looking uncomfortable.
Well to an extent I agree, of course Chavez is a dramatist and will say 'socialism', but his strong welfare policies, taxation, increased public sector etc all point to 'Scandinavian' type reforms in my opinion, so yeah socialists can certainly make the argument of him being revisionist.

they vote for Chaves because they Like him and because they Trust him.

Its like that in every Democracy. Even US..

The Repubs voted for Bush.. for the same reasons.
But today... many repubs do NO Longer trust him or like him.

Never mind the Dems and the "uncommitted" .. those are totally pissed.

Which is precisely why I believe the Bush-Chavez comparison is entirely apt.

He's not some sort of harmless, Scandinavian social-democrat. He's hardly either of those things. Rather he's an authoritarian, ex-military statist who uses the rhetoric of the left to cloak his ultimate goal, increased personal power. He relies on the radical increases in demand for oil, personal control of the media, creation of an artificial external threat and extensive propaganda to maintain his regime.

I had never heard of this guy until I read the OP.

Neu Leonstein has been around awhile.

Well the people trust Chavez, which is why they gave him that mandate, I seriously doubt he will become a tyrant, he's just angry and cautious because of the US-backed coup against him and that the US funds opposition groups against him. The fact is, the opposition has refused to condemn military coups to remove Chavez from office, they refuse to take part in the parliamentary system and democratic process. Remember of course that Chavez had only failed to renew the contract of one tv channel, RCTV, for their role in promoting the military to depose democratic governments, do you think if MSNBC or CNN said on live air that military troops around the country should rebel, do you think the US government would renew the contract of that channel? Their is only 1 public channel, which Chavez uses to put out his policies, the rest are private channels which are all opposed to Chavez, you should see some of their stuff, they make Faux look unbiased, they are totally obsessed with Chavez.

Which is precisely why I believe the Bush-Chavez comparison is entirely apt.

He's not some sort of harmless, Scandinavian social-democrat. He's hardly either of those things. Rather he's an authoritarian, ex-military statist.meh ...


One man's authoritarian-ex-military-statist is another man's Scandinavian-social-democrat.

Your perception of the World is... YOUR perception of the World.

For me the bottom line is: Most of the people of Venezuela wants him to be president... He was not appointed by the SCrOTUS.
.

meh ...


For me the bottom line is: He got democratically elected.
.


So did President Bush.

So did President Bush.Bush got appointed by the SCrOTUS (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SCROTUS)

So did President Bush.

No, Al Gore got elected, Bush stole the election via combination of GOP vote caging, tampered voting machines and general illegal behavior.

Bush got appointed by the SCrOTUS (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SCROTUS)

The second time?

No, Al Gore got elected, Bush stole the election via combination of GOP vote caging, tampered voting machines and general illegal behavior.

LOL, ok..... :rolleyes:

The second time?Bush was appointed by the SCrOTUS in 2000. once was enough.

Bush got appointed by the SCrOTUS (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SCROTUS)

Hardly. SCOTUS ended the recount on the basis that the method by which it was being carried out was a violation of the fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause, and there was insufficient time to develop a new method to deal with the problem. Even at that, Gore could not have won with or without the recount, as unofficial counts after the fact have shown.

Chavez is a leftist indeed but he's almost a dictator now. The more power that give him, the more he will take.

Chavez is the best leader in the world after His Exellency Robert Mugabe and Eternal President of the Glorious Revolutionary Peoples Republic of Glorious Juche Korea, Comrade Eternal Leader Kim Jong-Il

Chavez is a leftist indeed but he's almost a dictator now. The more power that give him, the more he will take.

Indeed. There are people here on the left who are distinctly uncomfortable with what he is doing, and the way he is touted as some sort of leading left wing statesman. Myself for one.

Indeed. There are people here on the left who are distinctly uncomfortable with what he is doing... Myself for one.thats OK.
there is no absolutes in politics. Not in my-book® anyways.

.. and the way he is touted as some sort of leading left wing statesman. what is He not?

Leading? <<< check.
Left Wing? <<< check.
Statesman? <<< check.

he is not being touted as some sort of..

He IS...

Indeed. There are people here on the left who are distinctly uncomfortable with what he is doing, and the way he is touted as some sort of leading left wing statesman. Myself for one.

There are people here on the left who are distinctly uncomfortable with what he is doing. Here in Venezuela.

There are people here on the right who are distinctly comfortable with what he is doing. Here in Venezuela. Enter the Hummers. There are new "boligarcas" here.

For the record, Chávez is a democratic president elected by his people, SEVERAL times, not a dictator. Stop watching Fox News too much. Call him a demagogue if you want, (as I do), but not a dictator.

But there are things that shouldn't be done.

For example, the current constitutional reform that he proposed. Take into account that I do not mind much about the change on the indefinite election terms, it seems to work in other countries like France or Germany, just as examples. Take into account that I favor the reduction of the working hours. Take into account that I also favor the new regulations regarding foreign oil companies. But I want those changes to be approved step by step, and not in a block as Chávez wants, because I do not like some of them, as the new territorial order. The way things are, I am either forced to vote in favor of the reform and approving some changes I do not like, or vote against it and reject some changes that I see beneficial for the nation as a whole.

We, the venezuelans as a people, should stop voting just because Chávez says we should vote approving something, and start voting for what we think it is best. We also should have a constitutional assembly to reform our constitution, as we did back in 1999, and not just accept the changes because the president wants them. Why in 1999 was good to have an assembly, and not now?

Sorry, couldn't resist. Normally I wouldn't care so much about Chávez. He's an ex-military leftist with authoritarian tendencies running a country kept alive by the high oil price.

What bugs me is the way he's being idolised by people who have all the means at their disposal to know better. Every week I get to my campus and the Socialist Alternative has put up new fliers about their latest lecture. I counted: on the five different fliers I've seen this semester, Chávez was on four. That beats Karl Marx, who only managed two (equal with John Howard, by the way :p).

I realise that the supply of radical leftist idols is rather limited these days, but surely we can look beyond the facade and see that Hugo Chávez is no different to any number of leaders in the who came before him. He's not even contributing to Marxist or leftist theory!

http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9621513


http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9621447


So, how long then do you give his system until people start to wise up?

Umm...Some people have. Aelosia doesn't like him.

If Chavez is the only far left idol alive today, then the far left is fucked.

You mean the ones he shouldn't even be able to run for, if it wasn't for him changing the constitution to be able to?

This guy is almost sounding like Jake Featherston from Harry Turtledove's South wins the civil war series. He could not run for re-election either till he got an amendment to the confederate constitution allowing him to.

Chavez is a twit and he will soon fall just like alot of other authoritarian figures have.

Actually, my issue is with socialists saying 'Chávez' without looking uncomfortable.

Same here.

Bush got appointed by the SCrOTUS (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SCROTUS)

Bull fucking shit. You still parroting that line? guess what? You are dead fucking wrong.

No, Al Gore got elected, Bush stole the election via combination of GOP vote caging, tampered voting machines and general illegal behavior.

No. Al Gore won the POPULAR VOTE! He did not win the Electoral College vote. And no. Every recount ever don showed Bush winning the state of Florida so shut the fuck up.

The second time?

He wasn't appointed the first time either.

No. Al Gore won the POPULAR VOTE! He did not win the Electoral College vote. And no. Every recount ever don showed Bush winning the state of Florida so shut the fuck up.

Calm down Bushie boy

If Chavez is the only far left idol alive today, then the far left is fucked.
We have been since the 1970s.

Also, Corneliu - we have a multi-quote function. For crying out loud, use it and don't make five short posts in a row.

We have been since the 1970s.

Also, Cornlieu - we have a multi-quote function. For crying out loud, use it and don't make five short posts in a row.

Do not tell me how to post Yootopia.

Do not tell me how to post Yootopia.
Come on, five posts in a row is a bit much.

We might not have had multi-quote before the last update, which is about when you stopped posting for a while under the name of "Corneliu", I was just trying to be somewhat useful, even if I was a bit rude about it.

*snip*
You have no idea what a relief it is to finally have someone on NS talk about this issue with some actual knowledge. Casí me caí de choque.:p

He's an ex-military leftist with authoritarian tendencies running a country kept alive by the high oil price.

Authoritarian tendencies that were never proved, except by FUD, while he did strongly improve Venezuelian democracy, both on the paper (just read the Bolivirian Constitution, it's one of the most democratic of the world) and in the facts (just look at how many Venezuelian are now involved in politics, reading the Constitution, knowing their rights, voting while they never cared before, ...).

As for the oil prices, sure it helps, but the growth rate of the non-oil field is ABOVE the one in the oil-related field, in Venezuela those days. The Siembra Petrolera plan (using oil money to bootstrap other fields of economy, and to prepare the after-oil period) is starting to work really well.

What bugs me is the way he's being idolised by people who have all the means at their disposal to know better.

It's not about idolising him. We ("socialists" or "communists") do have critism towards him. But he's the one doing, very successfully (even if not without problems and faults, no process involving humans ever is), what we hope to do. And he survived to the attempts to remove him, even with violence, far longer than any other did before (Paris' Commune, Allende's Chile) him. So yes, there is a lot of respect for him, and he's a good reference. I also tend to speak of Bolivia and Ecuador a lot too, even if in those countries is the process is much more recent.

That beats Karl Marx, who only managed two (equal with John Howard, by the way :p).

Because while Karl Marx did a very impressive theorical work, there is not much new to say about him, and he never was in a position to implement stuff.

I realise that the supply of radical leftist idols

The mere fact of speaking of "idol" shows that you've not understanding of leftish ideology. "There is no supreme savior" is not in the Internationale without any reason. Chávez is neither a supreme savior nor an idol. He's the catalyst for a very deep change that comes from the base of Venezuela, a will of change that started in 1992, with the Caracazo, when Chávez was not famous. The bolivarian process is much more than just Chávez, and it's this process which interest us, much more than the individual Chávez.

Leftists tend to reason on global scales, at the level of classes, society structure, at the level of flow of history. Not much at the level of this leader or this person (even if course it is important).

Hugo Chávez is no different to any number of leaders in the who came before him.

He definitely is.

He's not even contributing to Marxist or leftist theory!

Well, what marxists or leftists are missing is not theory, we've a very strong theorical framework. What we are missing is experience of implementing this theory, because each time it was tried to, the reaction of the capitalist world was so violent and reckless, that either it was a slaughter (Chile, Paris' Commune, ...) or the revolutionary process was "forced" to give up its ideal in order to survive (USSR, Vietnam, ...).

As for your links, you should try to read alternate sources than a magazine which totally bound, to its deepest core, to the capitalist system.

People in Venezuela already have, you could hear them chant against Chavez during the Copa America.

Yeah, sure, that's why more than 5 MILLIONS joined the PSUV. 5 millions is more than the total number of votes for the opposition in dec 2006, and that's not supporters of Chávez, but strong enough supporters of Chávez to join a political party created by him.

Chávez popularity rating is still way above the 60%, and it'll not go down in any forseeable future, until he does some big mistake.

No, what I said I said for a reason. Right now people vote for Chávez because of two reasons: either because they believe in his rhetoric, or because he gives them money.

Because he eradicated analphabetism ? Because now the 60% of poor people can go to see doctors ? Because millions have been brought to high-school level ? Because infrastructure works that were stalled before (Caracas metro, train lines, bridges, improvements of the dam on the Oricono, ...) were done ? Because people really HAVE power now, through municipal councils, through recall referendums ? Because half a million were cured freely of blindness or near-blindness ?

I'm not sure if you, on your comfortable seat of middle-class guy can realize what it means, how really a miracle it is, when after being completely ignored by governments for decenias, thanks to one president and the process that comes with it, you were granted the eye surgery that would allow you to see again, the one you had no chance to afford before. That will grant Chávez more support than any word will ever do. And that's all what a government should be about: fullfilling the most important, fundemantal, needs of its people.

So I guess Chavez is not going to win next elections.. Right ?

:D ;)

Well, you know, we are used to seeing anti-Chávez people saying Chávez will lose the next elections, and then seeing Chávez with an even greater margin than before (62.8% last time).

Well, you know, we are used to seeing anti-Chávez people saying Chávez will lose the next elections, and then seeing Chávez with an even greater margin than before (62.8% last time).

And yet...how much dissent is being stifled?

And yet...how much dissent is being stifled?

Well see the ballot box results. According to the OAS, EU and the Carter Institute Venezualen elections were fair and above board. Not much stifling there eh?

who uses the rhetoric of the left to cloak his ultimate goal, increased personal power.

That's why he created the recall referendum and all other ways inside Venezuelian Constitution to protect the people from any leader who would abuse power ?

He relies on the radical increases in demand for oil,

While trying himself to lower this demand, by supporting the fight against global warming, by developing alternatives to oil inside Venezuela (Caracas metro, trains, hydroeletric power) and encouraging others to do so ?

personal control of the media

That's really ridiculous. The vast majority of Veneuzlian media are strongly against Chávez, much more than any other media would ever dare here in France.

creation of an artificial external threat

Sure, the coup attempt, the murder attempt, the threats made by USA and the millions of dollars flowing from NED, USAID and IRI towards Venezuelian opposition is "artificial"...

Chavez is a leftist indeed but he's almost a dictator now. The more power that give him, the more he will take.

Do you have anything to back your claim, or is it just FUD ?

The way things are, I am either forced to vote in favor of the reform and approving some changes I do not like, or vote against it and reject some changes that I see beneficial for the nation as a whole.

That's a point in which I agree with you. It would be better to vote them separately. But I understand the practical reasons for not doing it (running a referendum, with the campaigning and the voting process) is a heavy operation, and doing 10 of them is hard, and that's a general flaw of all representative democracy. Chávez is trying to partly fix that with the increase of direct democracy.

We, the venezuelans as a people, should stop voting just because Chávez says we should vote approving something, and start voting for what we think it is best.

I really don't think that what most venezuelian do. They are much more aware of politics, and of the consequences of their votes, that they ever were before - and much more that they are in France, for example.

We also should have a constitutional assembly to reform our constitution, as we did back in 1999, and not just accept the changes because the president wants them. Why in 1999 was good to have an assembly, and not now?

Because a Constitutional Assembly is to write a new Constitution from scratch, it's a very very heavy process. What Chávez is doing is changing some part of it, not writing a totally new one.

But the articles will be discussed by the Assembly, and voted by referendum. Much more than what you have in many other countries, in which either the parliament can change the Constitution by itself, or in which a referendum alone is done. You've three levels (President, Assembly, Referendum), that's among the most democratic process to change a Constitution in the whole world.

No. Al Gore won the POPULAR VOTE! He did not win the Electoral College vote. And no. Every recount ever don showed Bush winning the state of Florida so shut the fuck up.

The POPULAR vote is what matter in a DEMOcracy.

And for the recounts, the recounts on Florida did give Gore winning by more than 300 votes.

That's why he created the recall referendum and all other ways inside Venezuelian Constitution to protect the people from any leader who would abuse power ?

Structurally recalls are extremely rare in larger political systems. While often feasible on a local level, bringing such a recall election to the national level would be nearly impossible. The politician at the center of the charge would have to have done something truly uniquely bad. People are willing to put up with crap, so long as they perceive there to be an oncoming end to it.



While trying himself to lower this demand, by supporting the fight against global warming, by developing alternatives to oil inside Venezuela (Caracas metro, trains, hydroeletric power) and encouraging others to do so ?
All of which is receiving massive funding from the production and sale of petroleum products whose derogatory effects far outweigh the positives of these programs, and somewhat ironically with that money originating in the wealthiest capitalist countries.

Further, his continued opposition to the development of biofuels, especially in the form of Brazilian sugar gives further lie to his goals. Anything to improve his own political and economic situation, others be damned.



That's really ridiculous. The vast majority of Veneuzlian media are strongly against Chávez, much more than any other media would ever dare here in France.

Hardly. The media in Venezuela are slowly being forced to cave the pressures that Chavez has leveled against them (as was the case when a series of broadcasters suddenly changed their tone after being threatened with having their licenses revoked) or are slowly losing the fight to protect free media.



Sure, the coup attempt, the murder attempt, the threats made by USA and the millions of dollars flowing from NED, USAID and IRI towards Venezuelian opposition is "artificial"...

US involvement in the Coup d'etat was first and foremost passive involvement. We had acquired foreknowledge of the attempt through secondary intelligence sources, but we did not encourage or initiate it. The claim of an inbound US plane to extradite Chavez is extremely suspect, as radar reports from other countries do not seem to back it up effectively.

Furthermore, Chavez has carried out a massive military expansion and training program for civilians to serve as insurgents in the event of a US military invasion. He has often spoken of US Warships patrolling the Venezuelan coast, scouting in preparation for the landing of Marines, has charged that the US has deployed a spy network to prepare for an invasion and countless other goofy charges such as that.

He has learned well from President Bush, the best way to keep the people in line is to scare them. He has also learned the limitations of creating such a threat from GWB's own errors.

The POPULAR vote is what matter in a DEMOcracy.

And for the recounts, the recounts on Florida did give Gore winning by more than 300 votes.

Only those that utilized methods that were entirely out of line with acceptable procedures, including counting overvotes, which no one in their right mind would ever do.

Structurally recalls are extremely rare in larger political systems. While often feasible on a local level, bringing such a recall election to the national level would be nearly impossible.

Why so ? They're doing it in Venezuela, and there is absolutely no problem with that.

The politician at the center of the charge would have to have done something truly uniquely bad. People are willing to put up with crap, so long as they perceive there to be an oncoming end to it.

You mean people wouldn't vote out presidents ? Well, I'm pretty sure Chirac wouldn't have finished his second term here, and Bush wouldn't have finished his second term either, if recall referendums were allowed in those two countries.

All of which is receiving massive funding from the production and sale of petroleum products whose derogatory effects far outweigh the positives of these programs, and somewhat ironically with that money originating in the wealthiest capitalist countries.

But that's the whole point of Chávez policies ! Using oil, while he has some, to build infrastructure and to prepare the economy for afterwards. That's the most sane thing to do when you have a limited supply of expensive stuff: invest in the future ! And that's exactly what all the capitalist guys from before Chávez, and what the whole "free market" system, totally failed to do (and fails to do in other countries).

Further, his continued opposition to the development of biofuels, especially in the form of Brazilian sugar gives further lie to his goals.

Biofuels are an absolute stupidity. One billion of people is lacking decent food, and you want to burn food in your cars ? That's insane. Brasil can partly afford it because of its own climate, but even for them, it'll end up in a huge raise in food prices (like it already did in Mexico), and to starvation for the poorest. It's purely and simply criminal to use the food of poorest countries to support your unsustainable way of life.


The media in Venezuela are slowly being forced to cave the pressures that Chavez has leveled against them (as was the case when a series of broadcasters suddenly changed their tone after being threatened with having their licenses revoked) or are slowly losing the fight to protect free media.

First, the license issue only covers hertzian media, not at all newspapers or any kind of satellite/cable/internet media. But the most important point is what you mean by "changed their tone". In this regard, the change of tone asked for by Chávez, and accepted by some media, was only to stop supporting murder and violent upraising ! Chávez never asked to any media to stop opposing him, to stop inviting 10x more of his opponents than of his supporters, to stop hiding all the success of the Missions and so on. He only asked them to stop calling for violence and unconstitutional moves !

US involvement in the Coup d'etat was first and foremost passive involvement. We had acquired foreknowledge of the attempt through secondary intelligence sources, but we did not encourage or initiate it.

Giving important sums of money (several millions each year) to the organization who organized the coup, both after and before they did, is direct support.

Recognize Carmona's "presidency" while all other countries were waiting until they could learn a bit more about the events is direct support.

Furthermore, Chavez has carried out a massive military expansion and training program for civilians to serve as insurgents in the event of a US military invasion.

If you remember well, Chávez started this program after the USA did the biggest peace-time naval "exercise" of their history just outside Venezuelian national waters... He answered to a half-veiled threat and intimidation attempt by showing the USA that the Venezuelian people is ready to fight for its freedom. Nice move of Chávez, but it's mostly a move at "diplomatic" level.

has charged that the US has deployed a spy network to prepare for an invasion and countless other goofy charges such as that.

Yeah, I mean, it's not as if the US had such things like spy networks, or like it ever invaded another country, or like it ever mentioned its hostility towards the Venezuelan government.

Why so ? They're doing it in Venezuela, and there is absolutely no problem with that.

No they aren't. No one has initiated a recall campaign for any major political office. It may be the de jure situation that it is possible to recall a national political figure would be a de facto impossibility.



You mean people wouldn't vote out presidents ? Well, I'm pretty sure Chirac wouldn't have finished his second term here, and Bush wouldn't have finished his second term either, if recall referendums were allowed in those two countries.

How can you have that kind of certainty that the mechanisms would have been used? Do you have any evidence other than an opinion that is colored by your distaste for these two candidates?

Rather, the usual instances would seem to give lie to your opinion. So, for example: In the State of Ohio, my home state, our previous governor had not only an 8% approval rating, but was convicted of a crime while in office, a crime for which he spent several nights in jail. His cronies had managed to loot the state for millions of dollars, and no one liked him, not even his own party, yet no one even felt moved to initiate the mechanisms to recall him for the simple reason that it would take too much time and effort and cause too much disruption.

I would continue to insist that a massive, nationwide recall campaign is structurally impossible.


But that's the whole point of Chávez policies ! Using oil, while he has some, to build infrastructure and to prepare the economy for afterwards. That's the most sane thing to do when you have a limited supply of expensive stuff: invest in the future ! And that's exactly what all the capitalist guys from before Chávez, and what the whole "free market" system, totally failed to do (and fails to do in other countries).

Before you speak, look at the history of Venezuelan governance before Chavez came to power. Throughout the nineteen-nineties the country was not ruled by a "capitalist" government, rather it was ruled by Democratic Action, a Social-Democrat party!



Biofuels are an absolute stupidity. One billion of people is lacking decent food, and you want to burn food in your cars ? That's insane. Brasil can partly afford it because of its own climate, but even for them, it'll end up in a huge raise in food prices (like it already did in Mexico), and to starvation for the poorest. It's purely and simply criminal to use the food of poorest countries to support your unsustainable way of life.

Come on, we all know that the issues of starvation and famine around the world are primarily related to food distribution capacity, not production capacity. Furthermore, making use of biofuels will increase the demand for these food products driving up prices and enriching the farmers producing the crops key to biofuels. This is not something that's merely available to the richest megafarms, no. This is available to any farmer who is able to produce a surplus of what was once a low-value crop. Biofuels are the key to relieving our dependence on oil from nasty countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia, and putting our dependence in the hands of decent governments, like that of Lula da Silva in Brazil.





Giving important sums of money (several millions each year) to the organization who organized the coup, both after and before they did, is direct support.

The Venezuelan Chamber of Commerce received funding from the United States as part of a campaign to endear them to American policies and American businesses. That's the way

Recognize Carmona's "presidency" while all other countries were waiting until they could learn a bit more about the events is direct support.

Like we're going to be sad that Chavez is gone. The Bush Administration was damn jubilant at the prospect that he'd be off their backs, and they, unadvisably (a word that can be used to describe so many of the actions of GWB and his cronies) jumped on the bandwagon.



If you remember well, Chávez started this program after the USA did the biggest peace-time naval "exercise" of their history just outside Venezuelian national waters... He answered to a half-veiled threat and intimidation attempt by showing the USA that the Venezuelian people is ready to fight for its freedom. Nice move of Chávez, but it's mostly a move at "diplomatic" level.

Actually, the largest peacetime naval exercises in US history have been the RIMPAC exercises. But, furthermore, the US practices in the vicinity of the Panama Canal due to the strategic importance of that location, and the potential that there could someday be a challenge to keeping the canal open to US warships. That's the actual reason, not to threaten some leader who attempts to validate himself and his government through their opposition to the policies of the US.

Yeah, I mean, it's not as if the US had such things like spy networks, or like it ever invaded another country, or like it ever mentioned its hostility towards the Venezuelan government.

We operate spy networks in countries that are actually threatening, not puny little third countries that wish for validation by being perceived as a threat to the US and the global order.

The Siembra Petrolera plan (using oil money to bootstrap other fields of economy, and to prepare the after-oil period) is starting to work really well.
Not really. As usual, there are delays because PDVSA can't get its act together. I mean, how could it if people who knew what they were doing to fired or jailed because they dared disagree.
http://english.eluniversal.com/2007/07/24/en_eco_art_i-do-not-mind-state_24A904719.shtml
http://english.eluniversal.com/2007/07/24/en_eco_art_shimmering-siembra-p_24A904887.shtml

"There is no supreme savior" is not in the Internationale without any reason.
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/926/50540761.JPG

He's the catalyst for a very deep change that comes from the base of Venezuela, a will of change that started in 1992, with the Caracazo, when Chávez was not famous.
The Caracazo had nothing to do with deep change, it had to do with interest groups not wanting to lose their taxpayer-financed benefits. Oh, and looting (but then, one could argue that's what Chávez is about too).

Leftists tend to reason on global scales, at the level of classes, society structure, at the level of flow of history. Not much at the level of this leader or this person (even if course it is important).
That's your problem, you know. You don't give a toss about people, you just create artificial things to care for instead.

As for your links, you should try to read alternate sources than a magazine which totally bound, to its deepest core, to the capitalist system.
I'll just use a critical article about Chávez on Znet next time.

So, how long then do you give his system until people start to wise up?

You know Leo, for all of your points (some valid, some not) it's still worth pointing out that his "regime" is ten times better for the population of his country as a whole, than any previous "regime".

'Capitalism' has seriously fucked around the general population of South and Central America in recent decades. Maybe 'Bolivarism' is right for them.

Authoritarian tendencies that were never proved, except by FUD, while he did strongly improve Venezuelian democracy, both on the paper (just read the Bolivirian Constitution, it's one of the most democratic of the world) and in the facts (just look at how many Venezuelian are now involved in politics, reading the Constitution, knowing their rights, voting while they never cared before, ...).

As for the oil prices, sure it helps, but the growth rate of the non-oil field is ABOVE the one in the oil-related field, in Venezuela those days. The Siembra Petrolera plan (using oil money to bootstrap other fields of economy, and to prepare the after-oil period) is starting to work really well.

You're forgetting one thing. Chavez has had the Assembly delegate all of its powers to him. Taken together with the fact that the Assembly before hand was devoid of many major checks on Chavez's power. This is not "democratic", it is statism of the worst kind; the kind that masquerades as democracy.

When it comes down to it, elections can be very easily rendered meaningless. We would all do well to remember that the Constitution of the Soviet Union provided for the election of every single member of the state bureaucracy. The only problem was that only one person was on each ballot line, the officially sanctioned Communist Party member. If Chavez continues on the road he is one, he will end up replicating that very same problem.

It's not about idolising him. We ("socialists" or "communists") do have critism towards him. But he's the one doing, very successfully (even if not without problems and faults, no process involving humans ever is), what we hope to do. And he survived to the attempts to remove him, even with violence, far longer than any other did before (Paris' Commune, Allende's Chile) him. So yes, there is a lot of respect for him, and he's a good reference. I also tend to speak of Bolivia and Ecuador a lot too, even if in those countries is the process is much more recent.

I don't think he's at all achieving the socialist ideal of worker self-management. Everything he has been doing has followed the mold of Scandanavian social democracy, and in an appallingly authoritarian manner. Nationalizing property does not lead to communism, as no bureaucracy, no matter how red it is, can ever truly represent the people. As Emma Goldman declared, it would be fantasy "to consider [nationalization] to be in any sense communistic."

He may be caring for his people's welfare, but Chavez is very surely enslaving them to a bureaucracy of state coordinators.

The mere fact of speaking of "idol" shows that you've not understanding of leftish ideology. "There is no supreme savior" is not in the Internationale without any reason. Chávez is neither a supreme savior nor an idol. He's the catalyst for a very deep change that comes from the base of Venezuela, a will of change that started in 1992, with the Caracazo, when Chávez was not famous. The bolivarian process is much more than just Chávez, and it's this process which interest us, much more than the individual Chávez.

Leftists tend to reason on global scales, at the level of classes, society structure, at the level of flow of history. Not much at the level of this leader or this person (even if course it is important).

What deep change? The social structure of Venezuela is not changing. Chavez's bolivaran revolution is merely supplanting the state for the capitalist. The same power differential that occurred between the people and their overlords still exists. With the extreme level of state centralization that he has caused, it won't take much for the individual of Chavez to cause a lot of damage to both his people and the socialist ideal everywhere.

'Capitalism' has seriously fucked around the general population of South and Central America in recent decades. Maybe 'Bolivarism' is right for them.
The point is that there is no difference between "Bolivarism" and whatever people called "Capitalism" there before.

And besides, I don't think you can unequivocally say that free market policies have been bad for Latin America. I mean, hyperinflation and all that stuff wasn't caused by the free market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile_under_Pinochet#Economy__and_Free_Market_reforms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile

I don't think I have to state explicitly what I think about Pinochet, it should be fairly obvious. Nonetheless, as far as the economy is concerned, Chile is in a pretty decent position today and that is to large part due to what happened under his regime.

The point is that there is no difference between "Bolivarism" and whatever people called "Capitalism" there before.
Oh, there's a big difference. Literacy amongst the poor, accessible healthcare for nearly all, children in poverty receiving an education and at least one hot meal a day from the state, the general public aware of their constitutional rights, freedom of assembly. Most if not all of those things were unheard of in the decades under the oligarchy.

And besides, I don't think you can unequivocally say that free market policies have been bad for Latin America. I mean, hyperinflation and all that stuff wasn't caused by the free market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile_under_Pinochet#Economy__and_Free_Market_reforms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile

Who benefited? The middle and upper classes. True, it could be said Chile is booming and that's based essentially on Friedman and the "Chicago Boys" as you've pointed out. But with 45% of the population living below the poverty line in the late 1980's I hardly call it a miracle.


Nonetheless, as far as the economy is concerned, Chile is in a pretty decent position today and that is to large part due to what happened under his regime.

Depends on who you talk to, and what 'pretty decent' means. I know if if was part of the middle class I'd be thrilled - if I was part of the large population of the poor? I doubt it.

The Venez. people seem happy with their lot. If they don't, they'll get rid of him. That's the beauty of democracy - sadly, their annoying northern neighbour has a tendancy to butt its fucking nose in whenever someone isn't toeing their line.

Oh, there's a big difference. Literacy amongst the poor, accessible healthcare for nearly all, children in poverty receiving an education and at least one hot meal a day from the state, the general public aware of their constitutional rights, freedom of assembly. Most if not all of those things were unheard of in the decades under the oligarchy.
So, why would you believe any of these things? You're not normally likely to listen to propaganda, right?

Fact is that there is a war going on right now between the police and the people Chávez calls hoarders or price gaugers because people don't want to sell the food they produce below cost. Same thing as in Zimbabwe, just not at that extreme a stage yet. So much for your hot meals.

The healthcare system is built on all sorts of things, for example this (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/25/news/doctors.php). And along with the education system (which I actually agree with), they're funded with oil money. That's gonna run out because all these programs are funded using money that should be used to make sure Venezuela can actually produce oil in 20 years time.

Plus, I believe UCV was free before Chávez. It does no one any good to pretend that his predecessors were capitalists. They were normal politicians with normal views. Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, those types. The whole idea of dismissing all that as "the oligarchs" is just a ploy to make Chávez takeover seem more legitimate.

Who benefited? The middle and upper classes.
And of course, we all know they don't count.

True, it could be said Chile is booming and that's based essentially on Friedman and the "Chicago Boys" as you've pointed out. But with 45% of the population living below the poverty line in the late 1980's I hardly call it a miracle.
And how was that particular poverty line measured? I had a quick look in google, and one source claims it had doubled, others claimed it had come down from 50%. Both agreed by the way that it was 33-35%, not 45%.

Fact is that it takes quite a bit of work to make poor people poorer. Rising inequality is more often than not due to rich people getting richer and poor people getting richer at a much slower rate. If poverty rates in this case are defined as a certain percentage of median income for example, then it's a moving target and you can't properly compare the two.

The Venez. people seem happy with their lot. If they don't, they'll get rid of him.
Right now Chavéz talks big on democracy, which is because right now people support him. If things go on and the collapse of price controls and PDVSA production figures occurs, all his fancy programs will collapse as well.

That is when we will see how popular he actually is. My feeling is that people will turn away from him like they have with any given number of his predecessors. And I for one don't think Hugo Chavéz is a man who'd just step down if he were defeated in an election. He's already modifying the rules to stay in power.

That's the beauty of democracy - sadly, their annoying northern neighbour has a tendancy to butt its fucking nose in whenever someone isn't toeing their line.
That annoying neighbour has more important things to worry about right now. Fact is that as far as we can tell from past examples, protesting against Chávez gives you bruises.

So, why would you believe any of these things? You're not normally likely to listen to propaganda, right?
Propaganda? That's a sweeping statement from you. I'm surprised. Show us what is the propaganda in what I said?

Fact is that there is a war going on right now between the police and the people Chávez calls hoarders or price gaugers because people don't want to sell the food they produce below cost. Same thing as in Zimbabwe, just not at that extreme a stage yet.
I was referring less to what is going on today specifically and more on what has occured from 1998-2007.

So much for your hot meals.
Yeh, fuck them poor kids eh? Moochers.

The healthcare system is built on all sorts of things, for example this (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/25/news/doctors.php).
And who has a trade embargo on Cuba that is crippling the country again?

And along with the education system (which I actually agree with), they're funded with oil money. That's gonna run out because all these programs are funded using money that should be used to make sure Venezuela can actually produce oil in 20 years time.
Instead, they'll (hopefully) have an entire generation of educated and enthusiastic people wanting and being able to become the next businessmen, doctors, traders, lawyers, teachers etc etc. That's called investing. ;)

It does no one any good to pretend that his predecessors were capitalists. They weren't. They were US stooges lining their own pockets.

The whole idea of dismissing all that as "the oligarchs" is just a ploy to make Chávez takeover seem more legitimate.
No. Three general elections verified by international observers makes it legitimate.


And of course, we all know they don't count.
My heart bleeds for the steel/oil tycoon/shipping magnate that can't afford to take his daughter to Miami on a private Cesna for her 15 birthday party with 500 of her closest friends. *sniff*


And how was that particular poverty line measured? I had a quick look in google, and one source claims it had doubled, others claimed it had come down from 50%. Both agreed by the way that it was 33-35%, not 45%.
http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/reducingpoverty/case/24/summary/Chile%20Summary.pdf

Fact is that it takes quite a bit of work to make poor people poorer. Rising inequality is more often than not due to rich people getting richer and poor people getting richer at a much slower rate.
MUCH slower rate.

Right now Chavéz talks big on democracy, which is because right now people support him. If things go on and the collapse of price controls and PDVSA production figures occurs, all his fancy programs will collapse as well.
Maybe they will. But I guess then they can go back to the IMF and WB for some loans.... now that they cleared their debt 5 years early.

[qupte]That is when we will see how popular he actually is.[/quote]Exactly my point. Isn't it up to them to decide what they want?

And I for one don't think Hugo Chavéz is a man who'd just step down if he were defeated in an election.
Possibly, who knows. You and I don't.

He's already modifying the rules to stay in power.
A lot of people are at the moment. Some happen to be friends of the US.


That annoying neighbour has more important things to worry about right now.
"America's backyard". They're still pissed at Cuba 50 years later and punishing them for it.

Fact is that as far as we can tell from past examples, protesting against Chávez gives you bruises.
Protesting in Latin America used to get you tortured and shot. I think bruises is a step in the right direction.

If Chavez is the only far left idol alive today, then the far left is fucked.

To the contrary... the sooner we get over idolatry for the most recent left-statist, the better.

Propaganda? That's a sweeping statement from you. I'm surprised. Show us what is the propaganda in what I said?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/propaganda

Government publications showing government successes.

I was referring less to what is going on today specifically and more on what has occured from 1998-2007.
But that's irrelevant.

Yeh, fuck them poor kids eh? Moochers.
No, hey let the poor kids have free food. Just don't complain if no one else gets any.

The trend is pretty clearly to Mercal monopolising food supply in the country. They're the only ones who can put up with the price controls because they don't have to worry about making money. And we all know there's nothing quite as reassuring as a regime-run food monopolist. Helps democracy too.

And with a bit of luck, the struggling farmers might even find themselves collectivised to deal with so many of them having to shut down because Mercal pays them peanuts.

And who has a trade embargo on Cuba that is crippling the country again?
Irrelevant.

Instead, they'll (hopefully) have an entire generation of educated and enthusiastic people wanting and being able to become the next businessmen, doctors, traders, lawyers, teachers etc etc. That's called investing. ;)
Hardly. What we'll have is those who shine by supporting Chávez most go into lucrative positions and anyone else being regulated to death.

You can't invest in human capital and at the same time build a system in which individual skill is topped by political loyalty. And besides, what's the point of being a lawyer or a trader if anything you earn gets eaten up by inflation? It's not like there's a central bank anymore either, it's just a government money-printing machine which is pretty explicitly stated to be used as backup if oil revenues fail (link (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/02/dont_cry_for_me_venezuela.cfm)).

But hey, it's not like that's ever been tried before in Latin America, is it.

They weren't. They were US stooges lining their own pockets.
Find me one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidents_of_Venezuela

No. Three general elections verified by international observers makes it legitimate.
I'm not talking about his presidency, I'm talking about his takeover.

My heart bleeds for the steel/oil tycoon/shipping magnate that can't afford to take his daughter to Miami on a private Cesna for her 15 birthday party with 500 of her closest friends. *sniff*
That's a strawman, wouldn't you say.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6186990.stm

http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/reducingpoverty/case/24/summary/Chile%20Summary.pdf
While a good summary, it doesn't answer the question of how these poverty figures were measured. Plus it makes it pretty obvious that without economic growth, poverty remains high while with economic growth, it can be reduced more easily. Also, see here: http://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/2587.html

Maybe they will. But I guess then they can go back to the IMF and WB for some loans.... now that they cleared their debt 5 years early.
Yeah, the irony will be delicious. Not that he'd be the first Venezuelan president to first say one thing and then end up doing another.

Possibly, who knows. You and I don't.
Yeah, let's assume the guy who purged PDVSA, removes TV Stations that don't represent him like he wants it and tried to get to power by military coup is a convicted democrat. To hell with his divine mission, if the elections go against him he'll just step down.

In fact, he and Putin aren't all that different from each other. I reckon those two would make a great pair.

A lot of people are at the moment. Some happen to be friends of the US.
That's not relevant either.

Protesting in Latin America used to get you tortured and shot. I think bruises is a step in the right direction.
Clearly that makes it allright then. :rolleyes:

Clearly that makes it allright then. :rolleyes:

Clearly it makes it a step in the right direction.

You protest here, in Canada, you get tear gassed, and pepper sprayed.

Bruises vs. tear gas and pepper spray. Wow. That BASTARD!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/propaganda

Government publications showing government successes.
Fantastic. Instead of disproving anything, you provide us with a dictionary.


But that's irrelevant.
Not to my point it wasn't.


No, hey let the poor kids have free food. Just don't complain if no one else gets any.
Yes, because that's exactly what's happening right now isn't it. Widespread starvation. Maybe you should use that dictionary link to check "hyperbole".

And with a bit of luck, the struggling farmers might even find themselves collectivised to deal with so many of them having to shut down because Mercal pays them peanuts.
If that's what the farmers want.


Irrelevant.
Hardly. You find me a link decrying the drain Venezuala has on Cuba's resources. I point out the reason Cuba's resources are drained are because of a pointless and petty 50 year old embargo by the United States government. I'd say that's quite relevant as you introduced it into the argument.


Hardly. What we'll have is those who shine by supporting Chávez most go into lucrative positions and anyone else being regulated to death.
Naturally. Because all the schools are indoctrination camps aren't they?

And besides, what's the point of being a lawyer or a trader if anything you earn gets eaten up by inflation?
Gee. Being a lawyer earning a modest wage versus being unemployed throughout your life and living in a favela. Hmmm. Good point Leo.

But hey, it's not like that's ever been tried before in Latin America, is it.
Point being what exactly? It failed once, god forbid it's tried again?

Find me one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidents_of_Venezuela
Sure.
Carmona.

One could also argue Jimenez. Nevermind the repression/"extra judicial killings" during Perez' second term.


I'm not talking about his presidency, I'm talking about his takeover.
I'm talking politics, you seem to be talking economics. He's done nothing illegal (so far).

That's a strawman, wouldn't you say.
No. That's my opinion. For centuries the upper (and to a lesser extent, later the middle) class has ruled Latin America. I don't sympathise or empathise with people who care for nothing other than their own wallets.


While a good summary, it doesn't answer the question of how these poverty figures were measured. Plus it makes it pretty obvious that without economic growth, poverty remains high while with economic growth, it can be reduced more easily. Also, see here: http://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/2587.html
I don't need to click the link. I'll take your word for it. Your area is specifically economics. Mine is politics. I agree with what you point is there.


Yeah, the irony will be delicious. Not that he'd be the first Venezuelan president to first say one thing and then end up doing another.
Probably not, no.


Yeah, let's assume the guy who...removes TV Stations that don't represent him like he wants it
Have you actually seen the stuff those "independent" stations put out? In no other country in the Western world would a station get away with calling for the death of it's President. Yet the guy let it continue on air for over 4 years of that.

and tried to get to power by military coup is a convicted democrat.
Oh I'm sorry. I'll go tell Mandela, Washington, Michael Collins, Emiliano Zapata and others that only politicians are allowed lead because only politicians can be "convicted democrats".

To hell with his divine mission, if the elections go against him he'll just step down.
He might. Someone from his party who shares the same ideals might run in his place. Isn't that how most elctions are fought? Oh sorry. I didn't know you were a fortune teller.

In fact, he and Putin aren't all that different from each other. I reckon those two would make a great pair.
Yes exactly. Venezuela is using it's natural resources as a weapon and threatening neighbouring states. Venezuela is involved in the killing of critical journalists. Venezuela is carrying out a protracted and bloody war in a breakaway province and committing god knows what crimes there. Venezuela is flying it's air force over old adversaries boundaries. Venezuela is firing missiles into other countries. Venezuela is committing extra judicial killings abroad.

Yes Leo. Putin and Chavez are identical.


That's not relevant either.
It is to my point.


Clearly that makes it allright then. :rolleyes:
Yes Leo. Because that's what I said. I didn't at all say "step in the right direction". I gave my utmost backing to any illegal and immoral activity in repressing free speech.

I certainly didn't indicate that it's better than what it used to be and hopefully, it will get better.

What always amuses me about these 'debates' is the fact that the anti-Chavez folks claim that we, his supporters, idolise him, and are blind to his faults. In fact, we are very aware of his faults, of the misses, not just the hits. The anti-Chavez crowd, however, generally sees ONLY the faults. No possibility of admitting to successes, no middle ground whatsoever. Rabid, hateful, frothing-at-the-mouth. Basically what we are accused of constantly...some of your spittle actually flies across the room as you point those fingers that should be pointed at yourselves.

What always amuses me about these 'debates' is the fact that the anti-Chavez folks claim that we, his supporters, idolise him, and are blind to his faults. In fact, we are very aware of his faults, of the misses, not just the hits. The anti-Chavez crowd, however, generally sees ONLY the faults. No possibility of admitting to successes, no middle ground whatsoever. Rabid, hateful, frothing-at-the-mouth. Basically what we are accused of constantly...some of your spittle actually flies across the room as you point those fingers that should be pointed at yourselves.

That's not always true. I'm hardly a fan of Chavez or many of his policies, but a lot of the things he's done with his country's oil revenues are a world better than what the jackasses in the Middle East spend it on. I'd rather them spend their revenue providing and improving electricity, sanitation, clean water and healthcare than blow it on building gigantic palaces and owning fleets of cars and mountains of luxury goods bought on the backs of the poor.

I'd rather have oil producers follow the path of Chavez in Venezuela than Al Saud in Saudi Arabia or Ahmadinejad in Iran.

I'd rather have oil producers follow the path of Chavez in Venezuela than Al Saud in Saudi Arabia or Ahmadinejad in Iran.

If more people would prove me wrong, I'd be deliriously happy:)

Fantastic. Instead of disproving anything, you provide us with a dictionary.
How am I going to disprove anything? The government figures say their programs are a success. As far as I know, there are no alternative sources of data. So I can't disprove what Chávez says about his programs, but I remain unconvinced.

Not to my point it wasn't.
Isn't the question whether or not this stuff is sustainable? I mean, apart from a general inability to organise things as well as they should be organised, the biggest issue government action has faced throughout the ages is its unsustainability.

Even if I were to unequivocally accept Chávez' figures and agree that the Missions are great, it would still not be worth it if this short-term gain leaves the country in ruins for decades to come.

Yes, because that's exactly what's happening right now isn't it. Widespread starvation. Maybe you should use that dictionary link to check "hyperbole".
I think I told OceanDrive already: it's not happening today, but it will in 14 years and a bit.

It's quite simple: Price controls drive private supermarkets and the like out of business. Mercal takes their place. Mercal ends up as the only buyer of locally produced food and pays a low price to the "oligarchic landowners", using money by the state.

The farmers find themselves squeezed out of business by the low prices and end up taking up the state's offers to buy their land at discount prices. The farms now don't make a profit either and are subsidised by the state.

Then oil revenues break down, the economy goes into a slump, the central bank prints money on orders from the government, that doesn't help either and just leads to skyrocketing inflation and the state-run farms as well as Mercal collapse.

And then you have people starving.

If that's what the farmers want.
I believe if you check you'll find that farmers generally get little say in collectivisations. Back before mass media it was done at gunpoint, these days it'll simply be state-run farms buying up the land from the farmers who've been drive into bankruptcy by the monopsonist Mercal.

Hardly. You find me a link decrying the drain Venezuala has on Cuba's resources.
But that wasn't my point. My point was that the success of this particular mission is based not on good policy but on borrowing resources from other places. The effect on Cuba is not particularly important.

Naturally. Because all the schools are indoctrination camps aren't they?
Let's just say I would expect a certain slant when it comes to teaching economics, foreign relations and politics.

But that's not important. The point is (and the article in the OP supports that) in Chávez' Venezuela you need favourable connections with the regime to get ahead, regardless of your education.

Gee. Being a lawyer earning a modest wage versus being unemployed throughout your life and living in a favella. Hmmm. Good point Leo.
Hyperinflation makes that difference look embarassingly small, if you think about it.

Point being what exactly? It failed once, god forbid it's tried again?
Well, we know quite well that printing money to finance government spending is not the best of ideas. Particularly in Latin America. We also know why, so really the point of trying it again is lost on me.

Plus, there's a wealth of evidence that central bank independence reduces the inflation rate and stabilises the economy. So again, I don't understand why Chávez would actually reduce that independence. Unless of course he a) couldn't give a damn about sustainability; b) was a complete moron or c) actually believes the stuff he says about "neoliberalism", which would imply that all this evidence is just made up to benefit the bourgeoisie.

Sure.
Carmona.
Not much of a president, is he. Two days in office in the middle of a coup, and as far as I know no evidence that he stuffed his pockets while in office or was a stooge of the Americans.

One could also argue Jimenez. Nevermind the repression/"extra judicial killings" during Perez' second term.
Jimenez is ancient history, really. Plus, he was a military dictator. So how he fits into the "oligarchy" I don't know.

Pérez would have been the obvious candidate. He did work with the IMF and he did agree to the Washington Consensus. On the other hand, he was a member in the Socialist International.

So I think the jury is out on him. Even if we were to conclude that he was more right than left, that doesn't make him a US stooge though.

I'm talking politics, you seem to be talking economics. He's done nothing illegal (so far).
I think I might have said this before, but to me the difference should be non-existant. Any policy not based on good economics is bound to fail and shouldn't be considered.

No. That's my opinion. For centuries the upper (and to a lesser extent, later the middle) class has ruled Latin America. I don't sympathise or empathise with people who care for nothing other than their own wallets.
And though it is your opinion and I respect that, it's still factually incorrect. Not everyone who isn't poor and lives in the Favela owns a Cessna to fly to Miami.

Though people apparently don't often realise, there are perfectly normal people in Venezuela. People with a house and one or two cars and a TV, who work at normal jobs in offices.

The Upper Class in Venezuela hasn't changed or been hurt. Those who opposed Chávez have been removed, those quick enough to jump on the bandwagon are having a good time. The poor are also seeing some improvements, though as I said there are doubts over their sustainability.

It's the middle classes that are the big losers here. People like you and me. And I know that if the same things were happening in Australia, I certainly wouldn't be happy to be "demoted" in order to make everyone not associated with the regime only 80% poor.

Have you actually seen the stuff those "independent" stations put out? In no other country in the Western world would a station get away with calling for the death of it's President. Yet the guy let it continue on air for over 4 years of that.
Yeah, I've heard that one before. Never actually seen the evidence though.

I do see the result though: privately-owned independent station replaced by state-run station. And now a grand total of zero independent stations with nation-wide coverage.

Oh I'm sorry. I'll go tell Mandela, Washington, Michael Collins, Emiliano Zapata and others that only politicians are allowed lead because only politicians can be "convicted democrats".
Big difference though: none of these tried to overthrow a democratic government. Chávez did.

He might. Someone from his party who shares the same ideals might run in his place. Isn't that how most elctions are fought?
No, proper elections usually involve alternative views as well.

Yes exactly. Venezuala is using it's natural resources as a weapon and threatening neighbouring states.
Weapon? More like buying political influence. Which, incidentally, they both do.

Venezuala is involved in the killing of critical journalists.
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=June&x=200606191240271xeneerg0.8852503

Venezuala is carrying out a protracted and bloody war in a breakaway province and committing god knows what crimes there.
Granted, almost (http://www.mail-archive.com/kominform@lists.eunet.fi/msg11917.html).

Venezuala is flying it's air force over old adversaries boundaries. Venezuala is firing missiles into other countries. Venezuala is committing extra judicial killings abroad.
I'll give you those.

It is to my point.
Which would be that it's okay to modify the constitution to keep running, because friends of the US are doing it?

I certainly didn't indicate that it's better than what it used to be and hopefully, it will get better.
Clearly it makes it a step in the right direction.
I don't see a reason. It (and worse (http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=220)) worked and anyone who dares say something against it is dismissed as a US or "neoliberal" pawn.

No they aren't. No one has initiated a recall campaign for any major political office. It may be the de jure situation that it is possible to recall a national political figure would be a de facto impossibility.

I'm speaking about the recall referendum procedure of the Bolivarian Constitution, which was used by the opposition in 2004. Chávez won the referendum with 59% of votes, but still, the whole process was done.

Before you speak, look at the history of Venezuelan governance before Chavez came to power. Throughout the nineteen-nineties the country was not ruled by a "capitalist" government, rather it was ruled by Democratic Action, a Social-Democrat party!

Labeling yourself "social-democrat" doesn't make you one, no more than the DDR labeling itself "democratic deutsch republik" made it democratic. DA, especially in the 90s, was applying neoliberals policies coming directly from the IMF, not social-democrat policies.

The Venezuelan Chamber of Commerce received funding from the United States as part of a campaign to endear them to American policies and American businesses. That's the way

I'm not only speaking of Fedecamaras. But also of political parties like Primero Justicia, or the corrupt labor union CTV, and to organizations like Sumate who while claiming to be neutral are among the strongest opponents of Chávez (and one of their leaders actually signed the Carmona decree suspending Constituional rights and granting all powers to Carmona during the coup attempt).

We operate spy networks in countries that are actually threatening, not puny little third countries that wish for validation by being perceived as a threat to the US and the global order.

But Chávez is threatening. He's threatening because he's spreading: Morales, Correa, Ortega. All Chávez allies. South America is stopping to be USA's backyards, and is becoming more and more independant, and following policies opposed to the ones promoted by the USA. That's what Chávez is the catalyst of, and that's why the USA are doing so much to try to remove him - as they did with Allende or Ortega in the 70s and 80s, and to many other all over South America and beyond.

You're forgetting one thing. Chavez has had the Assembly delegate all of its powers to him.

That's not true. The "ley habilitente" allows Chávez to make laws by decree, for a limited time period, on a limited amount on subjects. But the Assembly is still allowed to make laws too, and even to pass counter-laws after Chávez's decrees if they really want to.

You also forget the safety belts in the Bolivarian Constitution: each law in Venezuela can be subject of a "recall referendum" if enough people asks for it. And the amount of people requires is strongly lowered (5% of the electoral body, IIRC), when it's a decree-law, and not a real law. So yes, there are safeguards, and Chávez is far from having "all the power" of the Assembly.

The only problem was that only one person was on each ballot line, the officially sanctioned Communist Party member. If Chavez continues on the road he is one, he will end up replicating that very same problem.

Chávez never did any single move to prevent opposition parties from existing and proposing candidates. And he's doing moves, inside the PSUV, for the candidates of the PSUV to come from the base of it, not from the top of it (as candidates do in opposition parties, and used to do in MVR).

I don't think he's at all achieving the socialist ideal of worker self-management.

That takes much more time and his much more complex. But he's doing a lot to encourage cooperatives (which are definitely a big step towards self-management), both in agriculture and industry. And the whole Communal Council stuff is also about self-management.

Nationalizing property does not lead to communism, as no bureaucracy, no matter how red it is, can ever truly represent the people.

Nationalization is about ownership, not about control. There _are_ factories in Venezuela which are nationalized (officially owned by the state), but given to the management of the workers. But you can't let oil workers manage the oil industry - in a country like Venezuela, the oil industry is the key for everyone in the country.

What deep change? The social structure of
Venezuela is not changing.

It is. More slowly than the "from upper level" changes. But the whole process is creating a political consciousness in the people. You can see it with the involvement in Communal Councils. But also with the way the Bolivarian Missions are implemented. With the development of cooperatives, from the agrarian reform to the (still embrionic) NUDEs and the Vuelven Caras Mision. To the "Ministry of Popular Economy" which will help realize projects coming from the people itself.

The point is that there is no difference between "Bolivarism" and whatever people called "Capitalism" there before.

And besides, I don't think you can unequivocally say that free market policies have been bad for Latin America. I mean, hyperinflation and all that stuff wasn't caused by the free market.

The whole difference between you and I is that you care about numbers (global GDP and whatever), while I care about people. Chile's economy may have increased under Pinochet (thanks to very large help from USA and the IMF, help that was refused to Allende, among others), but the life conditions of a huge part of the population strongly decreased. And THAT is what matters in politics.

Yes, free market policies can lead, for a while, to an increase of GDP and total wealth. With an increase of suffering for an important part of the population. And in an unsustainable way, until the next crash... like in Argentina. Or like in 1929. Or like it just happened in the world-wide stock market. Poof, the market feeling sick, 1 million of families kicked from their house. Thanks, free market.

The POPULAR vote is what matter in a DEMOcracy.

And for the recounts, the recounts on Florida did give Gore winning by more than 300 votes.

Your also forgetting the over 100,000 votes that were voided by GOP vote caging and tampered voting machines.

DA, especially in the 90s, was applying neoliberals policies coming directly from the IMF, not social-democrat policies.
Oh, you have no idea how much this word annoys me - "neoliberal". It's such an invention.

Anyways, Venezuela's banking system collapsed and the guy had no choice but to go to the IMF. And the IMF only lends out cash if it knows that money will do some good. One doesn't have to be Einstein to know that this requires certain adjustments to economic policy. Like giving up on the impossible trinity.

But to simplify it: don't get into trouble and you don't have to go to the IMF.

That's what Chávez is the catalyst of, and that's why the USA are doing so much to try to remove him - as they did with Allende or Ortega in the 70s and 80s, and to many other all over South America and beyond.
Exactly what has the US done though to remove Chávez?

Oh, you have no idea how much this word annoys me - "neoliberal". It's such an invention.

Anyways, Venezuela's banking system collapsed and the guy had no choice but to go to the IMF. And the IMF only lends out cash if it knows that money will do some good. One doesn't have to be Einstein to know that this requires certain adjustments to economic policy. Like giving up on the impossible trinity.

But to simplify it: don't get into trouble and you don't have to go to the IMF.


Exactly what has the US done though to remove Chávez?

Funding RCTV and other private media outlets which actively promoted military coups against Chavez, including the failed one a few years ago, they are continuing to do this today. Plus their is the matter of the US plane which was coming to the island in which Chavez was imprisoned during the coup attempt. You seriously should read some Palast articles.

Also, the IMF screwed Latin America, look at Argentina under Menem for evidence of this. It is generally accepted that the neoliberal experiment has failed to deliver better living conditions to the common people, instead it has created poverty, unemployment and the like. Chavez is different because he is bypassing the IMF and the Washington elite, and giving cheap oil to S.American nations, rather than it heading northward to New York and coming back as loans, carrying interest rates up to 16%.
This is about Chavez challenging the Housten/Saudi cartel and the flow of capital which American elites benefit from.

The whole difference between you and I is that you care about numbers (global GDP and whatever), while I care about people.
I like that. You could use it as a campaign speech. And once you win, you can ignore the numbers and just care about people.

Fact is that the numbers measure what happens in people's lives. By caring about the numbers, I am in fact caring about people's lives.

Chile's economy may have increased under Pinochet (thanks to very large help from USA and the IMF, help that was refused to Allende, among others), but the life conditions of a huge part of the population strongly decreased.
Yeah, that point was mentioned before. Depends on how the poverty line is calculated, and Psychotic Mongooses didn't have a chance yet to come back to me with that.

Allende was going nowhere but downhill. You can think of Pinochet's economics what you want, but without his reforms following Chilean governments wouldn't have had the resources and strong foundations to tackle poverty.

Ultimately I don't judge economic policies based on their goals. If the voting populace wants someone who tries to reduce inequality, that's fine. I criticise policies if they're short-sighted and stupid. Even reducing poverty requires a foundation of good long-term economic growth. Chávez doesn't even begin to think about such a foundation - he just assumes oil money will buy him what he wants, and his Plan B is to have the Central Bank print money. It's a worthless plan.

And THAT is what matters in politics.
As I said before, politics that doesn't comply with economics is a pointless exercise in the callous use of coercive power.

Yes, free market policies can lead, for a while, to an increase of GDP and total wealth. With an increase of suffering for an important part of the population.
Hong Kong?

And in an unsustainable way, until the next crash... like in Argentina. Or like in 1929. Or like it just happened in the world-wide stock market. Poof, the market feeling sick, 1 million of families kicked from their house. Thanks, free market.
It was families not being able to pay back the money they borrowed which hurt the share markets, not the other way around. People taking on loans they couldn't afford. If they get kicked out of "their" house, it's their own fault, I'm afraid.

As for Argentina, we know quite well what happened. It's called the impossible trinity, and trying to adhere to it brought down Latin America. And if a currency collapses or a government defaults, it takes skill to repair. None of that has to do with the free market though - unlike plenty of socialist countries, the US never defaulted, nor did its currency collapse.

And 1929 was just a share market thing. It's impact on the real economy was, guess what, due to government ineptitude. For example laws that required banks to be local and small, so when pressure came they didn't have the size to survive.

Funding RCTV and other private media outlets which actively promoted military coups against Chavez, including the failed one a few years ago, they are continuing to do this today.
I'll need you to prove both of those. And besides, that is equivalent now to what happened to Ortega? You must be getting desperate.

Plus their is the matter of the US plane which was coming to the island in which Chavez was imprisoned during the coup attempt. You seriously should read some Palast articles.
As far as I know, evidence of that plane was never found.

Also, the IMF screwed Latin America, look at Argentina under Menem for evidence of this.
He took over when the place was in ruins and normalised the situation. He did a good job.

His problem was the fact that he didn't float the currency. So the peg collapsed, and the whole thing started all over again.

It is generally accepted that the neoliberal experiment has failed to deliver better living conditions to the common people, instead it has created poverty, unemployment and the like.
You may notice that hyperinflation is not exactly good living conditions. Unemployment I grant you, but only in the short term as the economy is restructured. Poverty has yet to be proven to me.

Chavez is different because he is bypassing the IMF and the Washington elite, and giving cheap oil to S.American nations, rather than it heading northward to New York and coming back as loans, carrying interest rates up to 16%.
I asked you to back up that 16% figure before.

All I know is that Argentina pays more for Venezuelan oil than they would if they bought it on the free market and that Chávez charges higher interest on loans than the IMF. So he can't be that generous.

Oh, you have no idea how much this word annoys me - "neoliberal". It's such an invention.

The word may not be the best, but it's definitely the word used to qualify the set of policies imposed by IMF nowadays, which are the opposite of what the IMF was created for (the IMF was a Keynesian institution, aimed to help States to recover from hardship with Keynesian policies, not at all with free market shock therapy and all its horrible consequences).

Exactly what has the US done though to remove Chávez?

Support to the coup attempt ? Heavy funding of opposition ?

You know, in USA, funding of political parties by foreign government or organization is strictly prohibited. But that don't prevent them to do it abroad...

In the end all these Chavez threads come down to are big-noted rightists raging over the fact that someone who opposes their ideology lives in the same world as them. It's actually quite funny, and you know what, rightists can attack 'Chavez' but ultimately they are attacking the people, because Chave'z self-management and autonomous worker cooperatives are totally against statism, his government only takes care of the macro issues such as oil, and his redistributionist policies are helping the people of Venezuela, not making into a 'Batista-like' whorehouse and bank for corrupt US oligarchs. The sooner Chavez nationalizes all industry over to self-managed communes, the better, kick the oligarchs out on their asses!

In the end all these Chavez threads come down to are big-noted rightists raging over the fact that someone who opposes their ideology lives in the same world as them. It's actually quite funny, and you know what, rightists can attack 'Chavez' but ultimately they are attacking the people, because Chave'z self-management and autonomous worker cooperatives are totally against statism, his government only takes care of the macro issues such as oil, and his redistributionist policies are helping the people of Venezuela, not making into a 'Batista-like' whorehouse and bank for corrupt US oligarchs. The sooner Chavez nationalizes all industry over to self-managed communes, the better, kick the oligarchs out on their asses!

Name me one successful state composed of state-owned enterprises.

I like that. You could use it as a campaign speech. And once you win, you can ignore the numbers and just care about people.

Well, to be more precise, numbers are a _mean_, people a _goal_. But the mean/goal inversion is a concept capitalists refuse to acknowledge.

Fact is that the numbers measure what happens in people's lives. By caring about the numbers, I am in fact caring about people's lives.

No. By caring about GDP, you don't care at all about people living in utter misery. GDP growth never was correlated with improvement of the average people life. It can be, it can be the opposite. GDP can be growing with the median purchasing power going down. And even that is on numbers level, because there is much more in well being than "purchasing power".

Allende was going nowhere but downhill.

No. Allende was reducing poverty, analphabetism, starvation. Even with the strong US-financed opposition (especially the "strike" during which drivers were paid 2 or 3 times their wages by the CIA for not working), he managed to _improve_ the living conditions of the poorest.

Even reducing poverty requires a foundation of good long-term economic growth. Chávez doesn't even begin to think about such a foundation - he just assumes oil money will buy him what he wants, and his Plan B is to have the Central Bank print money. It's a worthless plan.

That shows your complete, total, lack of understanding (or will to understand) Chávez policies. Chávez is the only president of Venezuela in the modern times who cared about long term. Educating people is a long term foundation. Building infrastructure is a long term foundation. Curing people from blindness or near blindness is a long term foundation. Training doctors, building universities is a long term foundation. Ensuring the land is used to grow crops, and stopping to import 70% of your food is a long term foundation. Most of what Chávez do is about _long term_. It's about using the oil money to bootstrap the rest of the economy. An educated, healthy population in a country with strong infrastructures is what matter the most, for the long term. Not a high-ranking stock market.

As I said before, politics that doesn't comply with economics is a pointless exercise in the callous use of coercive power.

Politics shape economics. Not the other way around.

Hong Kong?

Yeah, and Luxembourd and Andore too. Of course, on tiny scales, "paradises" with very specific conditions, such things can happen. But only because the rest doesn't work the same.

It was families not being able to pay back the money they borrowed which hurt the share markets, not the other way around.

People taking loans and able to pay back... because of the downfalling median purchasing power, thanks to free market policies ! Because of the capital-work share shift that we already spoke about, and that you laughed about ! It's the consequences of _those_ policies. It's because, thanks to neoliberal policies, the average worker in USA earns so few money than he's forced to live on loans !

unlike plenty of socialist countries, the US never defaulted, nor did its currency collapse.

That's so ridiculous. Do you know why the US dollar isn't collapsing (even if it's going low quite fast, those recent years) ? Only because China and Japan (mostly, but not only) are massively buying dollars to maintain the dollar rate ! And why so ? Only because the dollar is the currency for international trade, thanks to USA superpower status. That can only happen to one country, and only as long as OTHERS pay for it. And of course, there is also the huge flow of capital from poor countries towards rich countries (the pay back of the debt and interests is around 7 times as much as all international "help" towards poor countries). So yes, by abusing from your superpower position, and by plundering others, you can prevent (well, delay) a collapse. Beautiful system.

And 1929 was just a share market thing. It's impact on the real economy was, guess what, due to government ineptitude. For example laws that required banks to be local and small, so when pressure came they didn't have the size to survive.

You are putting things upside-down. The market was very lously regulated in 1929. It's AFTER the collapse and its consequencies that countries, from the USA New Deal to Europe, started to regulate the market more tightly - to recover from the crash and prevent a new one. Regulations which are now being disbanded, allowing a new 1929 to occur...

All I know is that Argentina pays more for Venezuelan oil than they would if they bought it on the free market and that Chávez charges higher interest on loans than the IMF. So he can't be that generous.

That's definitely, utterly, false.

Name me one successful state composed of state-owned enterprises.

Andaras Prime spoke of "self-managed communes", something which was never done on high-scales, because the few times it was tried in history, they were drown in blood by the capitalists.

Andaras Prime spoke of "self-managed communes", something which was never done on high-scales, because the few times it was tried in history, they were drown in blood by the capitalists.

I need a little more detail on these before I can really comment but my point is that nationalizing industries never did any good for an economy or for people in general - it simply leads to inefficiency and corruption, which, in the long term, is no good for the people.

EDIT: The only industries that I can see requiring government control are large new industries, such as space travel, which requires the resources and allowances for inefficiency to get going before private industry can take up the rein, although I feel the Internet disproves this to some extent, and utilities such as roads and electricity, though again, only at the beginning and mainly to ensure uniform standards, though on this as well, I feel exacting uniform standards hampers progress by creating legacies that are hard to overcome.

Education and health I can see to some extent but, to be honest, I'm wavering on those as well.

Small, independent communes working together for the common good of it's citizens? This sounds like SMEs to some extent. What's wrong with them?

Yet to progress, you need large competitive companies for incentive and leverage.

This is what I don't like about Hugo Chavez:

Later, his voice softer, Mr Chávez said he needed to be able to run again because Venezuela's socialist revolution was like an unfinished painting and he was the artist. Giving the brush to someone else was risky, "because they could have another vision, start to alter the contours of the painting". Other officials were not responsible for the big picture and so did not need to run again and again, he said, looking at a row of governors and mayors. "Nothing personal." They smiled wanly and applauded.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,2157362,00.html)

This is in response to a question about why he's looking to change the constitution so that he can stay on as president.

Sounds like an egomaniac to me, a dangerous one at that.

Name me one successful state composed of state-owned enterprises.
Your thinking the wrong way, although the state owns aforementioned co-operatives, the workers effectively run the companies themselves, and state interference is only in macro areas of it's competence, most local issues are left up the the workers communes who decide things based on democratic principles, voting, recallable delegate bosses, arbitration etc. The only reason the state owns these co-operatives is because the private sector refuses to implement democratic workplaces where wages etc are decided democratically, and are not run as quasi tyrannies by the rich bosses who undercut awards for a race to the bottom. Anyways the companies taken over are doing better now, and were taken over because the corruption and inefficiencies of the private sector.

You'll find that when you give people leverage and control over their own labor in the workplace, where they can work in partnership with the other workers to solve problems, rather than be dictated to by some rich owner or union official. Chavez's message is simple, let people run themselves.

Your thinking the wrong way, although the state owns aforementioned co-operatives, the workers effectively run the companies themselves, and state interference is only in macro areas of it's competence, most local issues are left up the the workers communes who decide things based on democratic principles, voting, recallable delegate bosses, arbitration etc. The only reason the state owns these co-operatives is because the private sector refuses to implement democratic workplaces where wages etc are decided democratically, and are not run as quasi tyrannies by the rich bosses who undercut awards for a race to the bottom. Anyways the companies taken over are doing better now, and were taken over because the corruption and inefficiencies of the private sector.

You'll find that when you give people leverage and control over their own labor in the workplace, where they can work in partnership with the other workers to solve problems, rather than be dictated to by some rich owner or union official. Chavez's message is simple, let people run themselves.

Thanks - I think this is happening to some extent with the Internet where it's possible - see www.myfootballclub.co.uk - it may be trite but I think it has great potential in all areas of life.

The problem with this previously is that the time and acrimony involved in getting large amounts of people to vote over each decision is a problem, one that leads to those problems found with unions.

Yet the Internet solves many of these and I hope my example turns out to be a great success.

I don't see why the government needs overall control - I do see a strong role for government to maintain equality and stop abuses, but not own.

my point is that nationalizing industries never did any good for an economy or for people in general

The depends of the industry. I agree that putting everything under government control is not sane, but it is for some key industries, like electricity, transport or communication. The nationalized EDF or SNCF (french electricity and railroad public services) are much more efficient, and much useful for the people than any private company ever was or is in other places.

As for progress, SNCF has the world record on train speed, and EDF is one of the world leader in civil nuclear technologies. The same is true for the SNECMA, the world largest civilian aircraft engine company, which is (well, was until very recently) owned at 99% by the French government, and didn't prevent it from being world leader and doing a lot of research and progress.

Small, independent communes working together for the common good of it's citizens? This sounds like SMEs to some extent. What's wrong with them?

SMEs are not working for the common good of citizens, but in order to make profits. And they are not self-managed, they are managed by the ones who own them.

I don't see why the government needs overall control - I do see a strong role for government to maintain equality and stop abuses, but not own.

Well, for we socialists, "owning" and "controlling" are two different issues. The state can "own" a company while not taking active decisions in its running, but letting the workers, or the users, or whoever else, take the decisions. That's the case of many nationalized companies in Venezuela, the ownership belongs to the state, but the control belongs to the workers.

It was also the situation of french social security system when the communist party (PCF) ministers created it in 1944-1946: the social security system was controlled by directly elected representatives of the workers. The right-wing governments later on removed this control from the workers and took it for itself, but it was not how it was planned initially.

You have no idea what a relief it is to finally have someone on NS talk about this issue with some actual knowledge. Casí me caí de choque.:p

Thanks, I try to remain moderate in the issue, as it seems the main affected regarding the situation are me and my country mates. I also try to not reduce it to the stereotypical left-right arguments. For me, it goes far beyond that.

That's a point in which I agree with you. It would be better to vote them separately. But I understand the practical reasons for not doing it (running a referendum, with the campaigning and the voting process) is a heavy operation, and doing 10 of them is hard, and that's a general flaw of all representative democracy. Chávez is trying to partly fix that with the increase of direct democracy.

It has been done before. We would only need to add several questions instead of only one. I know it would be harder, but it can be done. Some of the reforms, including the most important in my view, the reduction of working hours, could be done without changing the constitution, but just the "Work Law" here, and that could reduce the weight over the referendum.

I really don't think that what most venezuelan do. They are much more aware of politics, and of the consequences of their votes, that they ever were before - and much more that they are in France, for example.

People is more involved in political discussions, but indeed the polarization of politics here has created an apathy that is not beneficial in the long term. We still had high abstention numbers in the last elections. Of course, comparatively, perhaps we have a better view than several countries, but we could fare better.

Because a Constitutional Assembly is to write a new Constitution from scratch, it's a very very heavy process. What Chávez is doing is changing some part of it, not writing a totally new one.

Yet I would feel better with a Constitutional assembly in charge. The changes are deep, and perhaps even a new constitution is in order.

But the articles will be discussed by the Assembly, and voted by referendum. Much more than what you have in many other countries, in which either the parliament can change the Constitution by itself, or in which a referendum alone is done. You've three levels (President, Assembly, Referendum), that's among the most democratic process to change a Constitution in the whole world.

I am aware the situation in other countries is worst, but that is not relevant in my book. I try to not fall into comparisons. For me, our democratic system is substancially better than the one in the US, for example. Yet again, I would feel bettter with a Constitutional Assembly.

Regarding the National Assembly, well, it is entirely controlled by Chávez party. I blame the opposition and the other sectors for that, but nevertheless that fact doesn't help with the representative procedures. Without taking into account abstention, that Assembly is not representative of at least 40 per cent of the population. And that is high.

I do not trust in a "debate" about the reform that starts with "Well, let's approve what the president sent us". They should discuss, change, suggest, not plainly support. Even if they approve the proccess as a whole, those parlamentaries should have something to add or remove to the reform, don't you think? That "Yes sir" attitude of the Assembly worries me more than a bit. I can be with the president Chávez and not instantly approve everything he says or wants.

The lack of criticism inside the same supporters of the president is one of the main flaws in this situation. I guess they, as I do, as most people do, could perhaps agree with 31 of the 33 changes proposed, and yet oppose two of them. But even if they do, they do not critic the reform openly. That only reinforces the notion that the Assembly is a puppet and this political revolution rests in only one head, Chávez.

All I know is that Argentina pays more for Venezuelan oil than they would if they bought it on the free market and that Chávez charges higher interest on loans than the IMF. So he can't be that generous.If that is all you know.. If that is all you know..

Then -that means- you dont know jackshit.
I overestimated you..

Andaras Prime spoke of "self-managed communes", something which was never done on high-scales, because the few times it was tried in history, they were drown in blood by the capitalists.

Or just merely assimilated by authoritative socialists.

Well, for we socialists, "owning" and "controlling" are two different issues. The state can "own" a company while not taking active decisions in its running, but letting the workers, or the users, or whoever else, take the decisions. That's the case of many nationalized companies in Venezuela, the ownership belongs to the state, but the control belongs to the workers.

It was also the situation of french social security system when the communist party (PCF) ministers created it in 1944-1946: the social security system was controlled by directly elected representatives of the workers. The right-wing governments later on removed this control from the workers and took it for itself, but it was not how it was planned initially.

The biggest problems I see with that situation is that the power could easily just be transferred over to whatever party has domininance in the government. It would simply be a matter of changing the laws, so in the end if someone wants to "control" something "owned"by the state it is extremely easy to do. Better to have a few companies behaving badly than the entire government.

The depends of the industry. I agree that putting everything under government control is not sane, but it is for some key industries, like electricity, transport or communication. The nationalized EDF or SNCF (french electricity and railroad public services) are much more efficient, and much useful for the people than any private company ever was or is in other places.

As for progress, SNCF has the world record on train speed, and EDF is one of the world leader in civil nuclear technologies. The same is true for the SNECMA, the world largest civilian aircraft engine company, which is (well, was until very recently) owned at 99% by the French government, and didn't prevent it from being world leader and doing a lot of research and progress.



SMEs are not working for the common good of citizens, but in order to make profits. And they are not self-managed, they are managed by the ones who own them.

nationalizing oil companies obviosily helped lower gas prices in Europe didn't it?

This is what I don't like about Hugo Chavez:



Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,2157362,00.html)

This is in response to a question about why he's looking to change the constitution so that he can stay on as president.

Sounds like an egomaniac to me, a dangerous one at that.

The guy reminds me of Idi Amin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_Amin

So, how long then do you give his system until people start to wise up?

I see no real difference between him and Mugabe. However, Venezuela has something to prop it up that Zimbabwe does not have - oil wealth.

He'll be in power, and things will be ok until the oil runs out. Then they'll hang his naked body in the main square without any external help.

Some of the reforms, including the most important in my view, the reduction of working hours, could be done without changing the constitution, but just the "Work Law" here, and that could reduce the weight over the referendum.

Well, I think the main point of doing this change into the Constitution (in addition to the symbolic weight) is to make it harder to undo in the future. If it's "just" a law, it can be changed easily by a future government, with no direct feedback from the people. Within the Constitution, it'll require a referendum to be undone. I wish some of the critical parts of french working code were in the Constitution, so the right-wing gov couldn't destroy it as they please, without considering if people agree or not with it.

We still had high abstention numbers in the last elections.

Much, much less than 1998 when Chávez was elected. Things are improving, they can't be perfect at once.

I am aware the situation in other countries is worst, but that is not relevant in my book. I try to not fall into comparisons.

Well, that it's worse elsewhere is no excuse to do bad, of course. But nothing can be perfect in any system made and run by humans, so comparisons are still very important. Both in space (how is it compared to what is done elsewhere) and in time (how is it compared to what it was before).

I do not trust in a "debate" about the reform that starts with "Well, let's approve what the president sent us". They should discuss, change, suggest, not plainly support. Even if they approve the proccess as a whole, those parlamentaries should have something to add or remove to the reform, don't you think? That "Yes sir" attitude of the Assembly worries me more than a bit. I can be with the president Chávez and not instantly approve everything he says or wants.

I agree with that. The fault is partly the one of Chávez and his supporters, but also in a great part of the opposition, which contributed a lot to this extreme polarization with the coup attempt and "strike", and later with the boycott of elections.

While I was in Caracas, I spoke to several pro-Chávez people, and they explained it to me like that: « When we are in private, among Chávez supporters, we do voice some criticism and suggest improvements. But the media and the opposition, both inside and outside Venezuela, is so radical in its attacks, so absolutely against us, that we can't allow ourselves to voice publically our disagreements. See, they say only bad things about us. If we say some bad and some good things, overall, much more bad things will be said. » I don't agree with this reasoning, but I understand it.

But it seems to me that there is still public criticism and changes, there were some changes about the parts on the army recently, for example.

And well, this applies most of the time during electoral campaigns, not only in Venezuela, and not only for Chávez supporters. When you do campaign for a candidate or a political party, you'll never agree with all proposals. But still, while you do campaign, you won't voice your opposition publically, or at least not until specifically asked about the issue.

That only reinforces the notion that the Assembly is a puppet and this political revolution rests in only one head, Chávez.

That tends to be true in most countries, sadly. Be it in France, in UK, in USA, or nearly everywhere else that I know about, the Assembly very rarely opposes the government. For example, in UK, when a significant amount of members of the Labour Party voted against Blair on the war in Irak issue, it was a political earthquake there, because voting against their prime minister was seen as a betrayal.

They may do minor changes and corrections, but the problem seems to me much more linked to flaws of "western" representative democracy than to anything specific to Chávez or Venezuela. Of course, a "monochrome" assembly increases the problem, but that's not Chávez fault.

And this is partly why Chávez' will to build a "direct" form of democracy with the Communal Councils is so important to me (even if it's going more slowly than I would like, it's still going forward, and no one ever did it before), because from those councils could come a way to bypass those flaws of representative democracy.

That tends to be true in most countries, sadly. Be it in France, in UK, in USA, or nearly everywhere else that I know about, the Assembly very rarely opposes the government. For example, in UK, when a significant amount of members of the Labour Party voted against Blair on the war in Irak issue, it was a political earthquake there, because voting against their prime minister was seen as a betrayal.



Perhaps in france that is the case but in the U.S. the majority of Congress has been opposing the policies of the President and have outright denounced them.

Well, that it's worse elsewhere is no excuse to do bad, of course. But nothing can be perfect in any system made and run by humans, so comparisons are still very important. Both in space (how is it compared to what is done elsewhere) and in time (how is it compared to what it was before).





The Fact that it is better elsewhere is also a point to consider.

Perhaps in france that is the case but in the U.S. the majority of Congress has been opposing the policies of the President and have outright denounced them.

Well, I was speaking when both are of the same party. Right now, the President and the Congress are controlled by opposite parties, and if the case would happen in Venezuela, the Assembly would very likely not accept most from Chávez. And in France too, when the President and the Parliament are not of the same party, they do oppose each other.

But when the two are controlled by the same party, they tend to accept about whatever the President asks, except in very extreme situations.

Well, I was speaking when both are of the same party. Right now, the President and the Congress are controlled by opposite parties, and if the case would happen in Venezuela, the Assembly would very likely not accept most from Chávez. And in France too, when the President and the Parliament are not of the same party, they do oppose each other.

But when the two are controlled by the same party, they tend to accept about whatever the President asks, except in very extreme situations.

Ok that makes sense.

That tends to be true in most countries, sadly. Be it in France, in UK, in USA, or nearly everywhere else that I know about, the Assembly very rarely opposes the government.

WHat planet have you been living on? I see you do not pay any attention to US politics otherwise you would know that your statement is patently FALSE!!!!

Ok that makes sense.

Actually it doesn't because Congress has always condemned the President. Granted, the minority are supposed to but even members of the PResident's own party have condemned actions done by him. (And that goes for presidents from both parties)

How am I going to disprove anything? The government figures say their programs are a success. As far as I know, there are no alternative sources of data. So I can't disprove what Chávez says about his programs, but I remain unconvinced.
You said it was propaganda. The onus is on you to provide the evidence.


*snip economist predictions*
Ah yes. The usual economist foresight.
"A crash will happen. A crash will happen. A crash will happen. A crash will happen. A crash will happen."
"When?"
"Soon."
"No, really. When?"
"Soon."
*15 years down the line- something happens*
"See! I told you it would happen."

Just like predicting the weather - we all know it'll rain someday, but you'll take credit for predicting it when it does somewhere down the line.


I believe if you check you'll find that farmers generally get little say in collectivisations. Back before mass media it was done at gunpoint, these days it'll simply be state-run farms buying up the land from the farmers who've been drive into bankruptcy by the monopsonist Mercal.
Comparing Stalinist policies with Chavez's? There's a leap and a half.


But that wasn't my point. My point was that the success of this particular mission is based not on good policy but on borrowing resources from other places. The effect on Cuba is not particularly important.
Borrowing? I'd call it, you know, trade. Countries can do what they please with whom they please.


Let's just say I would expect a certain slant when it comes to teaching economics, foreign relations and politics.
What experience have you of the education system of Venezuela since Chavez took over? You seem to know, so show us.

But that's not important. The point is (and the article in the OP supports that) in Chávez' Venezuela you need favourable connections with the regime to get ahead, regardless of your education.
That's general politics for you - regardless of ideology.


Hyperinflation makes that difference look embarassingly small, if you think about it.
Zimbabwe has hyperinflation. Venezuela? No.


Well, we know quite well that printing money to finance government spending is not the best of ideas. Particularly in Latin America. We also know why, so really the point of trying it again is lost on me.
Because the capacity for learning from historical mistakes is beyond them?


Not much of a president, is he.
You asked for one. I gave him to you. Not my problem if you don't consider him one - a lot of countries recognised his government with him as it's head.

and as far as I know no evidence that he was a stooge of the Americans.
Then may I suggest you read a little deeper into it, for your own interest.

Jimenez is ancient history, really.
Again, you asked for one and now you move the goalposts on what you wanted?


I think I might have said this before, but to me the difference should be non-existant. Any policy not based on good economics is bound to fail and shouldn't be considered.
I think Kilobugya answered it best - and it does seem to be a concrete boundary between the two thought processes.


It's the middle classes that are the big losers here. People like you and me.
I don't really know if they are to be honest.

And I know that if the same things were happening in Australia, I certainly wouldn't be happy to be "demoted" in order to make everyone not associated with the regime only 80% poor.
Well comparing the previous governance of Australia or any state in Western Europe to that of Venezuela will make you run out of common threads very quickly.


Yeah, I've heard that one before. Never actually seen the evidence though.
I have. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144
Watch it. It is extremely revealing.

Or John Pilger's documentary on the history of US involvment throughout Latin America. I urge people to watch this - I know it can be said that Pilger has a slant, but still the ex-CIA people he interviews, the victims of torture and oppression et al speak for themselves.
Here's the link (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3739500579629840148&q=pilger&total=223&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8)

I do see the result though: privately-owned independent station replaced by state-run station. And now a grand total of zero independent stations with nation-wide coverage.
If the BBC calls for the death of the Prime Minister, you expect it to continue on the air?


Big difference though: none of these tried to overthrow a democratic government. Chávez did.
Er, Michael Collins? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Collins_%28Irish_leader%29)

No, proper elections usually involve alternative views as well.
And you presume the opposition won't stand.

Weapon? More like buying political influence. Which, incidentally, they both do.
OH MY GOD! BUYING POLITICAL INFLUENCE! :eek: Because no one else ever does that.


Granted, almost (http://www.mail-archive.com/kominform@lists.eunet.fi/msg11917.html).
An allegation.... with no proof or follow up. That it?

Which would be that it's okay to modify the constitution to keep running, because friends of the US are doing it?
Well, you know. Those in glass houses and all.

*snip*

I agree with your post in nearly every way. :)

That tends to be true in most countries, sadly. Be it in France, in UK, in USA, or nearly everywhere else that I know about, the Assembly very rarely opposes the government. For example, in UK, when a significant amount of members of the Labour Party voted against Blair on the war in Irak issue, it was a political earthquake there, because voting against their prime minister was seen as a betrayal.

That can barely be said in the case of the United States Congress. Save for the doctrinally adherent Republican Congress of 2002-2006, there has been a substantial amount of tension between the executive and the legislature. Even when control of the legislature and the executive was shared by the Democrats between 1992 and 1994, there was substantial tension. As recently as 1998 there was an attempt by the legislature of the United States to remove President Clinton from office. There is currently a movement amongst the left half of the Democrat party to do much the same to Bush.

Even before that, the Executive and the Legislature were more often at odds than in agreement in the United States, a trend that has been in place since the early nineteen-seventies and the Watergate scandal, with something of an interruption from 2002-2006.

Executive-Legislative tension is commonplace in the US

Bush got appointed by the SCrOTUS (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SCROTUS)

The second time?

http://homepage.mac.com/rcareaga/diebold/little_die/Diebold_26a.jpg

Well to an extent I agree, of course Chavez is a dramatist and will say 'socialism', but his strong welfare policies, taxation, increased public sector etc all point to 'Scandinavian' type reforms in my opinion, so yeah socialists can certainly make the argument of him being revisionist.

Except for the whole shutting down opposition media, arresting and intimidating opponents, turning the state oil company into a piggy bank for him and his cronies, getting in bed with other dictators like Fidel Castro and Iran, supporting radical political parties in an attempt to destabilize his neighbors and generally acting like the two-bit tin-pot dictator he is.

Other than those things, he's just like your average Scandinavian politician. :rolleyes:

The POPULAR vote is what matter in a DEMOcracy.

And for the recounts, the recounts on Florida did give Gore winning by more than 300 votes.

Not really. The American system is set up in a different manner. Individual states are free to determine how Electoral College votes are allocated. They are free to allocate them based on the percentage of the vote, for example. They have chosen not to do so- that's democracy at work. Just because you don't like it is, well, too bad. You don't live here and you don't get to tell us how to elect our leaders.

As for your contention regarding the recounts? The only way Gore would have won is if the spoiled votes had been interpreted in the most Gore-friendly manner- i.e.- "voter intent," rather than their clear actions in overvoting, were considered.

Your also forgetting the over 100,000 votes that were voided by GOP vote caging and tampered voting machines.

Oh, good lord :rolleyes:

Where do you get your facts, the op-ed page of the Worker's World Weekly?

*snip*

My support for Chavez's policies is still provisional at best. I still have to emphasize the fact that his social democratic policies contain a high degree of authoritarianism. While I sincerely hope that things turn out for the best in Venezuela, I won't be surprised if all we get out of it is party dictatorship.

Well, I think the main point of doing this change into the Constitution (in addition to the symbolic weight) is to make it harder to undo in the future. If it's "just" a law, it can be changed easily by a future government, with no direct feedback from the people. Within the Constitution, it'll require a referendum to be undone. I wish some of the critical parts of french working code were in the Constitution, so the right-wing gov couldn't destroy it as they please, without considering if people agree or not with it.

Well, it would depend. To undone such a law a National Assembly would need two thirds of the votes. What kind of voters would elect so many parlamentaries opposed to the working class?


Much, much less than 1998 when Chávez was elected. Things are improving, they can't be perfect at once.

Yes, but now the interest of the public is less than in 2004. Chávez supporters are not convinced of voting anymore because they know the Chávez's proposals are going to be successful anyway, and his opposers are not interested in voting anymore because the opposition does not present coherent options aginst him, and because they are also convinced that no matter what, Chávez is going to win. The problem is that, although the political interests of the population are higher than in 1998, they are decreasing everyday.

Well, that it's worse elsewhere is no excuse to do bad, of course. But nothing can be perfect in any system made and run by humans, so comparisons are still very important. Both in space (how is it compared to what is done elsewhere) and in time (how is it compared to what it was before).

Well, giving the standard of living that the citizens of other countries enjoy, I would say that we lose with the comparisons, even if we right now enjoy a larger set of political liberties. We earn a lot of money, and yet the people in the streets doesn´t seem to be living better.

I agree with that. The fault is partly the one of Chávez and his supporters, but also in a great part of the opposition, which contributed a lot to this extreme polarization with the coup attempt and "strike", and later with the boycott of elections.

I agree with you in that the opposition is as guilty of the situation as the Chávez's supporters, with both the strike and the boycott. Yet the sudden turn of Chávez to the extreme left hasn't helped neither.

While I was in Caracas, I spoke to several pro-Chávez people, and they explained it to me like that: « When we are in private, among Chávez supporters, we do voice some criticism and suggest improvements. But the media and the opposition, both inside and outside Venezuela, is so radical in its attacks, so absolutely against us, that we can't allow ourselves to voice publically our disagreements. See, they say only bad things about us. If we say some bad and some good things, overall, much more bad things will be said. » I don't agree with this reasoning, but I understand it.

I do not agree with it, and I do not condone it. Looks like a typical old fashion liberal politics manouver. I expected better. They are practically accepting that they lie publicy.

But it seems to me that there is still public criticism and changes, there were some changes about the parts on the army recently, for example.

The former ministry of defense issued some criticism, during his retirement speech. Quite a moment to do it, right after he has no fear of being deposed. Same with other military officers, they critic after they leave office, and sometimes, even the country.

And well, this applies most of the time during electoral campaigns, not only in Venezuela, and not only for Chávez supporters. When you do campaign for a candidate or a political party, you'll never agree with all proposals. But still, while you do campaign, you won't voice your opposition publically, or at least not until specifically asked about the issue.

Liberal old fashion politics again. Perhaps it is common for the gringos, but then again, I expected better here.

Allende was going nowhere but downhill. You can think of Pinochet's economics what you want, but without his reforms following Chilean governments wouldn't have had the resources and strong foundations to tackle poverty. Pure speculation on your part. Allow me to cut and paste from a previous post:

Many people credit Agusto Pinochet Urgarte with the ‘Salvation of Chile’, from the horrors of socialism. That he had a confirmed 3000 plus civilians disappeared, tortured, and murdered, and tens of thousands more confirmed tortured, is brushed away with the claim that Salvador Allende’s Chile would have been worse.

Pinochet’s crimes against humanity are, so these supporters argue, tempered by the economic success of Chile during his dictatorship, creating a South American powerhouse.

Let me debunk these notions. I’ll break this down, piece by piece.

Pinochet took power in a bloody coup on September 11, 1973. Between 1973 and 1989, Chile was the absolute model of a decentralised economy. Industries nationalized by Salvador Allende were privatised, and this privitisation continued on into the social sector. The Chicago School of Economics (http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/chicago.htm) (free market libertarianism) was given free reign for 16 years in Chile in order to prove its economic model.

During those 16 years, economic growth was actually slower in Chile than in any other Latin American country. This lack of growth was by no means uniform. The GDP in Chile was average in the 60s, plummeted in the 70s (remember, Salvador Allende was only in power from 1971 – 1973, so this can not be blamed solely on him), and jumped substantially in the 80s and 90s.(1) The economy experienced major highs and major lows, and it is important to understand what was happening during those swings.

Overall, from 1960 – 2002, Chile experienced a 2.5% annual per capital GDP growth. This has outperformed all other Latin American countries. However, in the period from 1960 – 1980, 9 years of which were led by Pinochet, 3 by Allende, there was growth of only 1.6%, matched only be Venezuela, while most other nations were seeing record increases, Ecuador among the highest with 5.4%. From 1981 – 2002, Chile by far surpassed its peers with a rate of 3.2% compared to negative numbers in the neighbouring nations of Argentina, Bolivia and Peru. (2)


Chile’s main export to the world is copper. US companies owned almost all of Chile’s copper mines by the 60s. Eduardo Frei, president of Chile prior to Allende, attempted to nationalize these mines, but was blocked by the business community and failed. Allende succeeded where Frei had failed, nationalizing not only the copper industry, but also the banking industry, and other foreign-owned assets, sparking the resentment among Chile’s elites and US businessmen that eventually led to the coup.

Pinochet took the reins, but without an economic plan of his own. In 1975, inflation rose as high as 341%. He turned to a group of ‘Chicago Boys’ to extricate himself from his economic woes. From thereon in, they controlled the economy completely. The economic ‘shock treatment’ began.

Between 1974 and 1975, they managed to get inflation under control. However, at the same time, unemployment rose from 9.1% to 18.7%. Chile suffered the worst recession they’d had since the 30s. This was also a period of extreme political repression, matched only later when similar economic troubles hit the country in the ‘82.. The economic changes being wrought were not optional.

The ‘economic miracle’ often referred to when discussing Chile supposedly happened between 1978 and 1981. Chile’s economy grew at an average of 6.6% a year, a truly staggering amount. Foreign investment was a huge part of this as nearly all restrictions were lifted during this period. All but 25 of 507 state-owned enterprises were privitised during these years.

However, what is often not taken into account is the impact of the depression. Astounding economic growth did not mean that Chile was actually in a fantastic economic state…it was in essence regaining lost ground. A parallel the Great Depression suffered by the US in the 30s can be drawn. From growth rates (US) in the negatives from 1930 – 1934, to a positive growth rate of 14.1% in 1936, and yet it took many more years to get the economy back to pre-Depression levels.(3) The same was true in Chile.

So what powered this growth in Chile during the period between 1978 and 1981? Very simply, unemployed workers cut during the deep depression returned to work. ‘Growth’ in this sense was simply returning the economy to the state it had been in previous to the crash experienced directly following the coup.

“And even then, much of Chile's growth was artificial or fictitious. Between 1977 and 1981, 80 percent of Chile's growth was in the unproductive sectors of the economy, like marketing and financial services. Much of this was speculation attracted to Chile's phenomenally high interest rates, which, at 51 percent in 1977, were the highest in the world.

Chile's integration into the world market would leave it vulnerable to world market forces. The international recession that struck in 1982 hit Chile especially hard, harder than any other Latin American country. Not only did foreign capital and markets dry up, but Chile had to pay out stratospheric interest rates on its orgy of loans. Most analysts attribute the disaster both to external shocks and Chile's own deeply flawed economic policies. By 1983, Chile's economy was devastated, with unemployment soaring at one point to 34.6 percent — far worse than the U.S. Great Depression. Manufacturing production plunged 28 percent. (8) The country's biggest financial groups were in free fall, and would have collapsed completely without a massive bail-out by the state. (9) The Chicago boys resisted this measure until the situation became so critical they could not possibly avoid it.

The IMF offered loans to help Chile out of its desperate situation, but on strict conditions. Chile had to guarantee her entire foreign debt — an astounding sum of US$7.7 billion. The total bailout would cost 3 percent of Chile's GNP for each of three years. These costs were passed on to the taxpayers. It is interesting to note that when the economy was booming, profitable firms were privatized; when those firms failed, the costs of bailing them were socialized. In both cases, the rich were served. (10)

After the IMF loans came through, the Chilean economy began recovering in 1984. Again, it saw exceptionally high growth, averaging about 7.7 percent a year between 1986 and 1989. (11) But like the previous cycle, this was mostly due to actual growth, not potential growth. By 1989, the GDP per capita was still 6.1 percent below its 1981 level. (12)

So what was the record for the entire Pinochet regime? Between 1972 and 1987, the GNP per capita fell 6.4 percent. (13) In constant 1993 dollars, Chile's per capita GDP was over $3,600 in 1973. Even as late as 1993, however, this had recovered to only $3,170. (14) Only five Latin American countries did worse in per capita GDP during the Pinochet era (1974-1989)." (4)

Read that again. Despite years of record growth, the recessions, the loans, the debt…Chile did not experience significant growth during the ‘miracle years’.

Chile’s poverty rate in 1989 was a staggering 41.2%. The rich however, profited mightily during Pinochet’s rule. No other Latin American country had such income inequality during these years. Widespread unemployment kept wages down, and with no real state-funded social systems to provide for the unemployed or the poor, there was no ‘loss’ to the economy, except in production. The unemployment rate, overall, was worse in Chile than in any other Latin American nation. This loss in productivity is a major reason for the inability of the economy to truly outperform it’s neighbours in total overall growth.

The free reign given to the Chicago boys was backed up by a concerted war against the civilian population. Disappearances, tortures and murders were the worst during the recession of 1975 and 1982. There was no political freedom whatsoever. (Allende allowed even his worst detractors to vilify him on the radio). Labour unions were outlawed and only reinstituted once strict controls were in place.

The free-market policies of Pinochet’s Chile had other effects, such as on the environment.(5) A lack of environmental controls is a key aspect of free-market liberalisation. Santiago, the capital of Chile, is the 5th most polluted city in the world. Chile has extremely high mortality and sickness rates, beating out many of it’s neighbours.

Chile’s economy is still growing, but nonetheless, it lags behind most other Latin American nations. Profits from Chile’s industries flow outward into foreign pockets. Chile has one of the highest foreign debts in the world. The “Economic Miracle of Chile’ is a myth.(6)

Some will say that Salvador Allende’s Chile could have been worse. We have no way to tell, no way to know. What we do know is that the economic miracle was anything but, and in return for this false miracle, Chile suffers from a legacy of brutality, repression, and horror.


(1) http://www.gdnet.org/pdf/draft_country_studies/LACSummary.pdf
(2) http://www.eclac.org/publicaciones/DesarrolloEconomico/5/LCG2255PI/lcg2255_i_V.pdf
(3) http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm
(4) http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm
(5) http://www.foei.org/trade/activistguide/chile.htm
(6) http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/473159-1.html

anti-allende: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/chile/allende.htm
http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/for/chile-73.html#2D
hating them on both sides: http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken89.html

You said it was propaganda. The onus is on you to provide the evidence.

The goverment numbers aren't always fool proof. As a matter of fact, our goverment tend to release numbers too much on his favor, and the opposition tend to release numbers too much against the goverment. Truth is hard to find right now in Venezuela, much less exact truth. That is why I tell people to come and see everything, because nothing that you can hear on the main sources of information is completely trustworthy. That is not Chávez's fault, but let me explain this with an example.

Some minister receives from the president large resources for an specific program. He steals a third of the money and wastes another third. With the third left, he hardly achieves any result at all. However, he is even afraid that if the president finds out what happened, he will be ousted from his office and perhaps even prosecuted. More likely he will release some fake information numbers, than to accept his guilt. It happens a lot around here. Happened before and after Chávez.

Ah yes. The usual economist foresight.
"A crash will happen. A crash will happen. A crash will happen. A crash will happen. A crash will happen."
"When?"
"Soon."
"No, really. When?"
"Soon."
*15 years down the line- something happens*
"See! I told you it would happen."

I won't tell you a specific date, but I'd go with "when the oil prices drop".

Comparing Stalinist policies with Chavez's? There's a leap and a half.

New territorial order, concentrating more power in the central goverment. A bit of stalinism there. Granted, he's not Ol' Joseph, but there is something of that there.

What experience have you of the education system of Venezuela since Chavez took over? You seem to know, so show us.

I worked for two years and a half teaching in a public high school. Just to highlight you three facts...Students weren't allowed to carry backpacks, to avoid them bringing guns to school, I worked for six months without receiving any pay because the govement's checks were delayed, and finally, I wasn't even a graduate, but there aren't enough teachers here, even more when we are speaking about a school placed in a "barrio".

My two cents of experience.

Zimbabwe has hyperinflation. Venezuela? No.

Venezuela has a high rate of inflation, that is rising every month, perhaps it doesn't reach the "hyper" level yet, but it is close to do it during this year. And the goverment has accepted that they are not prepared to deal with the issue, and that their own measures against the inflation have failed miserably.


If the BBC calls for the death of the Prime Minister, you expect it to continue on the air

Venevision called for the death of the president and it is still on the air. You people have your facts wrong. RCTV called to topple the goverment.

Plus, BBC is state controlled, right? It would be weird if they call for the death of their boss, after all.

Just like predicting the weather - we all know it'll rain someday, but you'll take credit for predicting it when it does somewhere down the line.
You're aware that this is precisely the same argument people use against predictions of global climate change, right?

Comparing Stalinist policies with Chavez's? There's a leap and a half.
Note what I said. I said in Stalin's time collectivisation was done with a gun to the head. Today, in the age of mass media, that won't happen. Instead the price controls will drive farmers into selling to or joining state-run collective farms. No one is denying that, Kilobugya seems quite happy to predict that collectivised farmining is the future in Venezuela.

So I think my prediction is valid. And just like in the Soviet Union, a hit to the state's ability to organise the farming industry will end badly.

Borrowing? I'd call it, you know, trade. Countries can do what they please with whom they please.
Call it what you will, given what it does to Cuba's resources I wouldn't call it sustainable. Sooner or later Fidel will need his guys back.

What experience have you of the education system of Venezuela since Chavez took over? You seem to know, so show us.
That one was pure speculation on my part. Though I can offer you this:
http://www.jacobgeltdekker.com/foundation/Venezuela_Chavez_victims.html
Nevermind the rather...obvious bias, I find the comments from the Minister of Education interesting.

That's general politics for you - regardless of ideology.
No, it isn't. In Scandinavia people manage to have working welfare systems without having to exclude people based on ideology and creating an upper class whose sole distinguishing feature is loyalty to the regime.

Zimbabwe has hyperinflation. Venezuela? No.
Inflation is huge in Venezuela already...even according to official figures. If Plan B comes into action, that is if government spending is financed by the central bank printing money, they won't know what hit them.

Because the capacity for learning from historical mistakes is beyond them?
If you hit yourself with a hammer, it hurts. There is no way to learn for it not to hurt.

The fact that Chávez has abandoned central bank independence tells me that he does in fact lack the capacity to learn.

Then may I suggest you read a little deeper into it, for your own interest.
I did. The only people who consistently claim he had anything significant to do with the US are Chavistas, who I can't believe on the matter.

Again, you asked for one and now you move the goalposts on what you wanted?
Claiming that "the oligarchy" exists and is out to get Chávez implies that it is the alternative to his regime. Taking some guy from 50 years ago as an example is silly. He's not the alternative to Chávez, just like Hitler is not an alternative to Merkel.

I think Kilobugya answered it best - and it does seem to be a concrete boundary between the two thought processes.
I'll start a seperate thread in which I explain what I mean.

I don't really know if they are to be honest.
Hehe, so you actually believe in the Marxist idea of class. In that case there's little I can tell you because you won't be susceptible to reality. Anyways, my impression was that Aeolsia is a middle class Venezuelan. So there you go - clearly a vile oppressor of the masses.

I have. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144
Watch it. It is extremely revealing.
I did. I also watched the counter-documentary. In conclusion, I don't know what to believe and still don't see the point for closing the place down or for anti-insult laws. Or indeed for replacing RCTV with a state-run station rather than another private one.

Or John Pilger's documentary on the history of US involvment throughout Latin America.
Again irrelevant.

What happened in the eighties is of no concern to the problem at hand. The world has changed since then, as has American politics and the CIA's capabilities and focus.

Er, Michael Collins? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Collins_%28Irish_leader%29)
You would call the British occupation of Ireland democratic?

And you presume the opposition won't stand.
I know the only opposition candidate at the last Presidential election was another leftist. I also know that in the last elections for the national assembly major opposition parties didn't stand.

OH MY GOD! BUYING POLITICAL INFLUENCE! :eek: Because no one else ever does that.
Plenty of people do it. And a few use oil to do it. Putin in Europe, Chavez in South America.

An allegation.... with no proof or follow up. That it?
Of course, I should ask the Venezuelan state prosecutors to see whether the Venezuelan government kills opposition journalists.

Well, you know. Those in glass houses and all.
I'm in no glass house, so I get to question it all you want. And you're gonna have to answer the question, regardless of what the US does. You know as well as I do that I'm not exactly a fan of the Administration or of Musharraf.

If Plan B comes into action, that is if government spending is financed by the central bank printing money, they won't know what hit them.

Is that actually the plan? Or just your speculation?

Well, to be more precise, numbers are a _mean_, people a _goal_. But the mean/goal inversion is a concept capitalists refuse to acknowledge.
How strange...numbers aren't a means, they're measurements. Numbers measure things, like the goals you set out to achieve.

So if you have a goal (for example "make everyone wealthier"), then policies are the means (for example tax breaks), and numbers are the way to measure whether you're getting closer to your goal (for example GDP per capita and wealth inequality).

So of course there's a distinction between the goal and the measurement in as much as they're not the same thing. But from a policy perspective, we have no choice but to declare them equivalent.

GDP growth never was correlated with improvement of the average people life.
It's inversely related to the number of people in poverty, especially in poor countries. I consider that important.

It can be, it can be the opposite. GDP can be growing with the median purchasing power going down. And even that is on numbers level, because there is much more in well being than "purchasing power".
Yes, but anything but numbers cannot be measured and you can't actually tackle in terms of policies. You can't legislate people happy.

No. Allende was reducing poverty, analphabetism, starvation. Even with the strong US-financed opposition (especially the "strike" during which drivers were paid 2 or 3 times their wages by the CIA for not working), he managed to _improve_ the living conditions of the poorest.
And how is that different from going downhill? The two aren't mutually exclusive - if you're on an island and give your only loaf of bread to someone, that person has improved living conditions and the community will still starve to death.

I mean, under Allende Chile had inflation rates of 500%+. That's not the way to improve anyone's living conditions.

That shows your complete, total, lack of understanding (or will to understand) Chávez policies. Chávez is the only president of Venezuela in the modern times who cared about long term. Educating people is a long term foundation. Building infrastructure is a long term foundation. Curing people from blindness or near blindness is a long term foundation. Training doctors, building universities is a long term foundation. Ensuring the land is used to grow crops, and stopping to import 70% of your food is a long term foundation. Most of what Chávez do is about _long term_.
What is education good for? Earning money and improving one's standard of living.
Unfortunately, under Chávez the middle class is being eliminated and the only people with money are those who support the regime, while the others are pushed aside.

There is nothing sustainable about Chávez food policy. He's monopolising the food supply in the hands of the government and making it completely dependent on state management and state funds. Either of them break down, and you're lucky if you can import 70% of food supplies.

We can agree about healthcare. I disagree with the way it's financed, and I doubt it's as big a success as government figures would have us believe, but I don't think the goals it sets out to achieve, or the short-term implications are bad.

It's about using the oil money to bootstrap the rest of the economy. An educated, healthy population in a country with strong infrastructures is what matter the most, for the long term. Not a high-ranking stock market.
The problem is the overreliance on that short-term oil money. A fall in the oil price or more likely a collapse of PDVSA's production will put an end to all of that. And rather than go back to pre-mission conditions Chávez will just keep going and spend money he doesn't have. And that is what leads to serious problems.

Politics shape economics. Not the other way around.
Yeah, Mugabe hoped that too.

Yeah, and Luxembourd and Andore too. Of course, on tiny scales, "paradises" with very specific conditions, such things can happen. But only because the rest doesn't work the same.
What if I told you that maybe Hong Kong's success is because it was more capitalistic than any other place on earth? That it has nothing to do with size and everything with entrepreneurship and reward for effort?

People taking loans and able to pay back... because of the downfalling median purchasing power, thanks to free market policies ! Because of the capital-work share shift that we already spoke about, and that you laughed about ! It's the consequences of _those_ policies.
So...any examples of socialist policies preventing median income from falling as the economy restructures? Fact is that median income in the US has fallen in those places that lost industry to more competitive places and has gone up in other states. Short of setting some sort of wage rate for everyone, I don't see how a socialist policy is going to prevent this.

Unless of course you resort to protectionism, in which median income will fall so fast you'll get dizzy.

But nevermind all that - the link you describe is spurious at best. During Reagan's Presidency median incomes increased. Overall they've increased since then, with peaks and troughs in between.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h08.html

None of that suggests that median incomes are the reason for the subprime collapse. Instead it's a slowdown in demand for housing and a bunch of people having made poor decisions by getting a loan in the first place, the effects of which they're now starting to feel.

It's because, thanks to neoliberal policies, the average worker in USA earns so few money than he's forced to live on loans !
They didn't live on loans, they bought houses with them, believing that there is no way that they could find themselves unable to meet payments or that the price of their house could actually fall.

That's so ridiculous. Do you know why the US dollar isn't collapsing (even if it's going low quite fast, those recent years) ?
I do. And I know that even if China floated the Renminbi there wouldn't be a collapse in the sense I'm talking about.

By collapse I mean the collapse of a currency peg. That is, the Mexican government guarantees a peso is worth a dollar, and buys and sells dollars in return for pesos to keep that price stable. Then, if things go bad and the government runs out of dollars, it can no longer keep the price and it breaks down.

That can't happen to the US because it doesn't maintain a currency peg (though it could theoretically happen to China if it ran out of dollars and the other currencies in its basket).

And why so ? Only because the dollar is the currency for international trade, thanks to USA superpower status.
No. China does it because the dollar is a stable currency against which it can maintain a peg. Japan does it because its central bank wants to spread its liabilities.

Neither of which has to do with politics or superpower status. You'll note that no one ever had the idea of pegging their currency to the Soviet ruble, as far as I know. Though I suppose it's possible for a few satellite states.

You are putting things upside-down. The market was very lously regulated in 1929. It's AFTER the collapse and its consequencies that countries, from the USA New Deal to Europe, started to regulate the market more tightly - to recover from the crash and prevent a new one. Regulations which are now being disbanded, allowing a new 1929 to occur...
What do you mean by "the market"? You're going to have to be more specific than that.

What we do know is that a big piece of regulation, the Smoot-Hawley Act, was the biggest catastrophe to the global economy in the 20th century. Without it, there is no way the damage done would have been anything like as strong.

That's definitely, utterly, false.
Not according to the article in the OP it isn't.
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9621447
But Mr Chávez is getting his pound of flesh too. The bonds he has just bought pay interest of almost 11% (the IMF charges less than 5%). His government sells them on at a discounted price to favoured Venezuelan banks, which must acquire the dollars to pay for them at the black-market exchange rate (twice the official rate). And Argentina has paid about 20% more for PDVSA's fuel oil than the prices offered by competing firms.

Pure speculation on your part....
Let's put it this way - when Pinochet took over, was the economy in good health? No.

When Aylwin took over, was the economy in good health? Yes.

At least there was an underlying structural stability, which is part of the foundation I was talking about.

Chile hadn't had a good run in the 20th century. Nor were the 70s and 80s a particularly smooth ride for the developing world. Even if it was outperformed by other countries in Latin America, that doesn't mean that Pinochet's policies were bad.

Is that actually the plan? Or just your speculation?
http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8633167
The 2007 budget is conservatively based on an average price for the Venezuelan basket of $29. But it is also based on average oil production of around 3.4m barrels a day (b/d). Neither of these figures bears much relation to reality and nor does the budget itself. Independent analysts, including OPEC and the International Energy Agency, believe the true production figure to be around 2.5m b/d. To complicate matters further, some of the oil is sold at a discount as part of Mr Chávez's strategy to win influence abroad, and 100,000 b/d is more or less donated to Cuba.

In contrast, total government spending last year was a third higher than originally budgeted. That pattern is likely to be repeated this year. “Quasi-fiscal” or off-budget spending, involving the diversion of oil revenues and the central bank's reserves into funds directly controlled by the president, is large and increasing.

Mr Chávez has a large piggy-bank he can draw on. The forthcoming constitutional reform is likely to strip the central bank of its last vestiges of autonomy. Between them, the bank's reserves and the resources of the National Development Fund total around $50 billion—a similar amount to this year's official budget.

http://www.bcv.org.ve/c3/lawbcvreform.pdf
Article 71. Ten per cent (10%) of all the semi-annual net profits of the Central Bank of Venezuela, whatever their origin or nature, shall be funneled to the General Reserve Fund, whose quantitative limit shall be set by the Board, upon reasoned grounds.
The Board of the Bank shall instruct, provided a reasoned decision, that the remaining semi-annual net profits, upon deduction of the reserves set forth in the preceding paragraph as well as those voluntary ones, which shall by no means exceed a five per cent (5%) of the said profits, be turned over to the National Treasury in the occasion thus determined by the Board within six (6) months of the respective closing of the fiscal term.
Calculation of the profits to be turned over to the National Treasury shall be based on the semi-annual net profits realized and collected pursuant to the Regulations of the Banking Superintendence and Other Banking Institutions. The remaining profits of the Central Bank of Venezuela shall be turned over to the National Executive on a scheduled basis and pursuant to the goals and deadlines set forth in the Macroeconomic Coordination Agreement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6948872.stm
Some of the main changes include [...] increasing presidential control over the central bank

I would say he hasn't officially said he'll use money printed by the central bank to pay for his stuff. He has said that he'll use the bank's reserve fund and essentially eliminated central bank independence by making its actions dependant on policy guidelines provided by his parliament.

Put 2 and 2 together, and something tells me he won't suddenly stop giving poor kids education and healthcare or stop building houses in Ecuador just because oil revenue goes down.

So yeah, some of it is speculation...but you'd have to be pretty naive not to ask questions given the evidence.

Neither of which has to do with politics or superpower status. You'll note that no one ever had the idea of pegging their currency to the Soviet ruble, as far as I know. Though I suppose it's possible for a few satellite states.

(This is where I step in...)

The main reason why nobody used the Soviet ruble is, of course, for the same reason why nobody uses Chinese renminbi as a hard currency or peg. The exchange rate is fixed at an artificial level, artificially low in the case of China, and there are restrictions on taking it out of the country and exchanging it for foreign currencies.

However, unlike China today, there wasn't really any opportunity for foreign investors to invest in the USSR, and compounding that, the ruble was overvalued, making it more expensive for foreign companies to invest there as opposed to the undervalued renminbi. Now, had the Soviets allowed their currency to be freely convertible and had they forced their industries to compete on the world market, the Soviet ruble would have likely been a hard currency and countries would have used it in the same way as the dollar, West German mark, or Swiss Franc.

If China were to float the renminbi and allow free conversion of it to dollars, the currency would rapidly gain hard-currency status. Not immediately, of course, but fairly quickly considering that China's economy is rapidly growing larger than that of every other country besides the US

Except for the whole shutting down opposition media,

If you are speaking of RCTV, that was only ONE case, of a TV station cumulating multiple violation of laws (support to coup and call for murder, banned advertising for tobacco and alcohol, subliminal pictures, tax fraud, ...). And he only refused to renew the concession that expired, he didn't "shut down" RCTV. That's the least he could do, it would have been irresponsible from him to grant a new license to a TV violating the law so massively.

arresting and intimidating opponents,

That's just FUD.

turning the state oil company into a piggy bank for him and his cronies,

You got the facts wrong, once again. The oil company WAS a piggy bank for the oil oligarchy from before Chávez. Now, it's used to build infrastructure, to pay for doctors, to educate people, to lower food price. That's a radical change, and a very fundamental improvement.

getting in bed with other dictators like Fidel Castro and Iran,

The "dictator" statute of Fidel Castro is a complex issue that is not the subject of this thread. But anyway, being friends with dictators is, saddly, something done by almost all other "democratic" presidents, definitely not something specific to Chávez. I don't support his friendship with Iran, but that's no worse than France's friendship with dictators in Africa, USA friendship with dictators in the Gulf, or the world-wide sympathy towards China.

supporting radical political parties in an attempt to destabilize his neighbors

If you look at Chávez actions in the area, he's a stabilizing force. When Ecuador was ravaged by strikes, Chávez fulfilled its oil contracts, even if the president of Ecuador at that time was definitely not a friend of Chávez. In Columbia, he's doing his best to obtain an agreement between the FARC and the government - but he only did that AFTER a MP of Columbia asked him for, because unlike USA, he refuses to mess up with the affairs of others without being asked for. He never did anything comparable to the USA massive founding of right-wing political parties or open threats.

The distinction here is simple, a leftist is someone who advocates a more equitable society, usually in the form of common ownership and redistribution of social resources. A rightist then is someone who advocates said resources to be held by an elite minority of financial elites. When it comes down to these debates, and especially considering the 'evidence' for Chavez being despotic are null and easily dis proven, so then it comes down to definitions.

The fact is, more people were killed, imprisoned and generally oppressed in the 48 hours the coup plotters had power than all the years Chavez has been in power.

This argument comes down to this, elites on the right don't like socialism so they will use any argument, regardless of it's validity, to further their cause.

Except for the whole shutting down opposition media,
1 tv channel, RCTV, he didn't renew their contract on the grounds they promoted the military takeover which ousted his elected government, and for receiving funds from a foreign government (treason), and the Supreme Court upheld this.

arresting and intimidating opponents,
Again, these people are traitors for working for organizations which promote military coups, accept US govt funds for illegal activities etc, the elected Venezuelan has every right to suppress attempts to destroy the democracy. Or do you support the 'right' of these people to destroy the government?

turning the state oil company into a piggy bank for him and his cronies,
Please prove this with conclusive evidence.

getting in bed with other dictators like Fidel Castro and Iran,
Well Fidel is a good leader and as you probably know hasn't done any real governing since the revolution, most of the real governing is done by elected officials in the assembly. Plus you can hardly attack him for being pragmatic, oil relations between Venezuela and Iran could significantly damage the US interests.

supporting radical political parties in an attempt to destabilize his neighbors and generally acting like the two-bit tin-pot dictator he is.
Radical? Radical meaning they aren't on the far-right like you and other far-right radicals right? lol


Other than those things, he's just like your average Scandinavian politician. :rolleyes:
Again, you didn't read what I wrote, I said his oil policy is similar to Norway's.

Anyways, unlike other over-emotional right-wingers here, I can see through the superficialities of arguments like 'he's oppressing!', the real issue is that he is challenging the wealth of the US finance oligarchy in NY through making his own IMF if you will for bypassing the Saudi-Housten cartel and challenging US economic hegemony. I applaud him.

This argument comes down to this, elites on the right don't like socialism so they will use any argument, regardless of it's validity, to further their cause.
I think I might have mentioned this before, but...I'm really not all that elite. Yet.

As I said, I don't mind if governments are elected to implement various social programs to open opportunities to people who didn't have them before.

I do mind if the programs focus on equality of outcome, because that's downright evil in my opinion. I'm quite the objectivist on that issue.

And I mind even more if programs ignore the economic constraints present. Whenever governments have done that, the results have been disastrous. But the temptation to do it again and again is too strong. You won't believe this, but I actually care about the poor Venezuelans. Because in a decade's time it's them who are really going to get it, not the Boligarchs.

If you are speaking of RCTV, that was only ONE case, of a TV station cumulating multiple violation of laws (support to coup and call for murder, banned advertising for tobacco and alcohol, subliminal pictures, tax fraud, ...). And he only refused to renew the concession that expired, he didn't "shut down" RCTV. That's the least he could do, it would have been irresponsible from him to grant a new license to a TV violating the law so massively.

Yes, RCTV did this according to whom? Well, the Chavez government and fellow-travellers around the world. And I don't see the difference between the government "refus[ing] to renew the concession that expired" and shutting the station down. It gets you to the same place- no more independent media in Venezuela. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that RCTV was guilty of the parade of horribles that you accuse it of and it deserved to be shut down. Now, has the Chavez government allowed another independent station to take its place, or has it been replaced by another lapdog news channel?


You got the facts wrong, once again. The oil company WAS a piggy bank for the oil oligarchy from before Chávez. Now, it's used to build infrastructure, to pay for doctors, to educate people, to lower food price. That's a radical change, and a very fundamental improvement.

Not really. You're listening to too much Chavez propaganda. The Venezuelan national oil company was a non-political company that used to hire by merit. Its funds were used as a long-term investment fund for the country. Now, it's just a patronage machine- Chavez puts his political cronied into plum jobs, regardless of merit, and uses the money to buy goodies to make himself look good. It's a standard third-world dictator trick. And it ususally works, for a while.

The "dictator" statute of Fidel Castro is a complex issue that is not the subject of this thread.

Not really. He throws anyone who opposes him into jail and does not allow free elections. If he was a right-wing leader, leftists like you would constantly be screaming for his blood. But since he says bad things to Uncle Sam, you support him.

If you look at Chávez actions in the area, he's a stabilizing force.

From your posts, it is clear that you are a well-educated, articulate person. But your support of Chavez is sorely dissappointing. At the end of the day, I think it simply comes down to the fact that he pretends to stand up to the US. For many leftists, that seems to absolve dictators of pretty much any sin.

Again, you didn't read what I wrote, I said his oil policy is similar to Norway's.



Well that sucks, Norweigians have to pay like a billion dollars at the pump. (total exaggeration obviously but nonetheless they have to pay a lot of money for gas)

the equivelent of $7.76 per gallon at the pump to be more specific.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_usage_and_pricing

From your posts, it is clear that you are a well-educated, articulate person. But your support of Chavez is sorely dissappointing. At the end of the day, I think it simply comes down to the fact that he pretends to stand up to the US. For many leftists, that seems to absolve dictators of pretty much any sin.

Like Idi Amin against the UK.

The distinction here is simple, a leftist is someone who advocates a more equitable society, usually in the form of common ownership and redistribution of social resources. A rightist then is someone who advocates said resources to be held by an elite minority of financial elites. When it comes down to these debates, and especially considering the 'evidence' for Chavez being despotic are null and easily dis proven, so then it comes down to definitions.

Nonsense. You are making up your own definitions of left and right. I can play that game, too:

A rightist is someone who supports people being able to keep the fruits of their labor and receiving benefits from hard work, innovation, and entrepeneurship.

A leftist then is someone who wants to steal wealth and property from those who have accumulated them through hard work, innovation, and entrepeneurship, and give them to others.

This argument comes down to this, elites on the right don't like socialism so they will use any argument, regardless of it's validity, to further their cause.

No, the argument comes down to this: there's nothing that works better to give latte sipping intellectuals a rosy glow than a dictator who sticks it to the rich (and the middle class) and pokes a finger in the eye of Uncle Sam. Anyone who does this gets a pass on stuff that would make said latte sipping intellectuals howl like a stuck pig if done by a leader anywhere to the right of your average professor at the Sorbonne.

Nonsense. You are making up your own definitions of left and right. I can play that game, too:

A rightist is someone who supports people being able to keep the fruits of their labor and receiving benefits from hard work, innovation, and entrepeneurship.
To what end, in your own logic the person would have to use the labor value of others in order to gain his rewards, as a great man said a few rich requires an abundance of poor.

A leftist then is someone who wants to steal wealth and property from those who have accumulated them through hard work, innovation, and entrepeneurship, and give them to others.
That's what a community is my friend, the common authority takes wealth from the individuals for the common good, for example the law code of my own country defines theft, but the Constitution defines a right for the state (the COMMON WEALTH of Australia) to compulsorily acquisition property (expropriation).


No, the argument comes down to this: there's nothing that works better to give latte sipping intellectuals a rosy glow than a dictator who sticks it to the rich (and the middle class) and pokes a finger in the eye of Uncle Sam. Anyone who does this gets a pass on stuff that would make said latte sipping intellectuals howl like a stuck pig if done by a leader anywhere to the right of your average professor at the Sorbonne.
Means to an end again, and it's not hypocritical at all in fact, it just depends to what end your methods are taking you.

Well Fidel is a good leader and as you probably know hasn't done any real governing since the revolution, most of the real governing is done by elected officials in the assembly. Plus you can hardly attack him for being pragmatic, oil relations between Venezuela and Iran could significantly damage the US interests.



This is the thing I don't understand, if Cuba is such a great place then why do tons of people try to escape from there every year? It's like the same arguement that people used to back up the Soviet Union, "their policies are good in theory so therefore they must be good in practice" again berlin wall escapees.

Anyways, unlike other over-emotional right-wingers here, I can see through the superficialities of arguments like 'he's oppressing!', the real issue is that he is challenging the wealth of the US finance oligarchy in NY through making his own IMF if you will for bypassing the Saudi-Housten cartel and challenging US economic hegemony. I applaud him.

When you run out of arguements you can always use baseless insults. The problem here is that we are leaving large oil reserves in the power of a madman who is opposed to just about everything.

1 tv channel, RCTV, he didn't renew their contract on the grounds they promoted the military takeover which ousted his elected government, and for receiving funds from a foreign government (treason), and the Supreme Court upheld this.

Oh, yes. The independent Venezuelan Supreme Court. :rolleyes:


Again, these people are traitors for working for organizations which promote military coups, accept US govt funds for illegal activities etc, the elected Venezuelan has every right to suppress attempts to destroy the democracy. Or do you support the 'right' of these people to destroy the government?

You really have drunk the chavez kool-aid, haven't you? Would you support George Bush throwing opposition figures into jail and sending goons to intimidate them? I doubt it. But Chavez gets a pass.

Well Fidel is a good leader and as you probably know hasn't done any real governing since the revolution, most of the real governing is done by elected officials in the assembly

Let's see- Castro runs a one-party state where all opposition parties are banned. There is no independent media, no non-government trade unions, people with AIDS are exiled to an island, no right to assembly or protest and anyone who speaks against the government is, at the very least, harassed and fired from their job or, at worst, jailed and tortured.

Sounds like a great leader to me. That must be why people are leaving Florida on inner-tubes to escape to a better life in Cuba. :rolleyes:

And elected officials? I guess they are elected, tehnically. Of course, there are no opposition parties, so it's kind of hard for the government candidate to lose.

Anyways, unlike other over-emotional right-wingers here, I can see through the superficialities of arguments like 'he's oppressing!', the real issue is that he is challenging the wealth of the US finance oligarchy in NY through making his own IMF if you will for bypassing the Saudi-Housten cartel and challenging US economic hegemony. I applaud him.

Please. Chavez thinks highly of himself if he thinks he is that important in the international scheme. He's a buffoon who can do what he wants these days because he has oil. But don't kid yourself thinking that a marxist, under-educated populist is making New York financiers sweat.

Politics shape economics. Not the other way around.




:D Hahahahahahahahh!!!!!!!! funniest thing I've seen all day. Come on Even Karl Marx knew better.

I am a Latin American, so I can speak about Chavez with some knowledge. As an Argentinian, I'm aware of the relation between our presidents (Chavez and Kirchner). Kirchner borrows money from Chavez, but with an interest of 11%, when the so hated and demonized IMF used to lend it with an interest of 5% or 6%. Furthermore, Kirchner even paid 9 billion U$D to the IMF in order to 'become independent from Washington'. So, Argentina's debt grows and grows. To sum up in two or three words, we're fu***d, and our president is a bastard who, like most of politicians, only cares about keeping and increasing power.

Now, speaking about Chavez, who is the real subject of this thread... A friend of mine went to Venezuela last April with a scolarship of the Rotary Club, and she saw a society divided in two: rich and poor. There's no middle class... The poor support Chavez because he gives them money and the rich hate him because he steals them their properties, or worse, he puts them people into their own houses. In Venezuela, private property doesn't exist in the facts..... After my friend went to Venezuela, some venezuelian people came to my town, and I had the opportunity to speak with them about the situation in their country. It's not good, and they really hate Chavez becasue he gives away the oil and money of the venezuelian people to his allies in order to keep his power and influence.

As you know, Chavez is a very good commercial partner for the US. So, all his blah-blah-blah about imperialism and 'Mr Danger' (Bush xD), is pure bull****....

You really have drunk the chavez kool-aid, haven't you? Would you support George Bush throwing opposition figures into jail and sending goons to intimidate them? I doubt it. But Chavez gets a pass.





This is nothing, I once saw someone trying to defend the policies of Iran.

To what end, in your own logic the person would have to use the labor value of others in order to gain his rewards, as a great man said a few rich requires an abundance of poor.

I'm sorry, I don't really understand the question. Could you re-phrase it?

That's what a community is my friend, the common authority takes wealth from the individuals for the common good, for example the law code of my own country defines theft, but the Constitution defines a right for the state (the COMMON WEALTH of Australia) to compulsorily acquisition property (expropriation).

The US constitution allows for the power of Eminent Domain by the government, to take property (with compensation) for the common good. It's not a novel concept.

But what you support is different- you simply want to level all incomes. Why? No real reason exists, other than the plaintive cry of the adolescent "It's not fair!" Yes, it's not fair that some people are more ambitious, work harder, or happen to be born into a rich family. But it's not the government's job to ensure equality of outcome in life, only equality of opportunity.

That's what a community is my friend, the common authority takes wealth from the individuals for the common good, for example the law code of my own country defines theft, but the Constitution defines a right for the state (the COMMON WEALTH of Australia) to compulsorily acquisition property (expropriation).





And what happens when that community is no longer run by the people? What happens when someone decides that people deciding things isn't all that great of an idea? What happens if the people just go along with it because they are silenced by fear? You have a powerful dictator with all means of production in his hands.

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

And what happens when that community is no longer run by the people? What happens when someone decides that people deciding things isn't all that great of an idea? What happens if the people just go along with it because they are silenced by fear? You have a powerful dictator with all means of production in his hands.
Well that's why the state needs to be dissolved, a Marxist idea btw.

Means to an end again, and it's not hypocritical at all in fact, it just depends to what end your methods are taking you.

So the security and safety of a nation's people is in fact an unworthy goal? But I mean I guess you could say that Chavez's goals are for safety and security at an economic level, to which I reply with perhaps my favorite most used by the far left quote, "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"- Benjamin Franklin

Well that's why the state needs to be dissolved, a Marxist idea btw.

Marxism says to the dissolve the state but to reinstate something to maintain order. And we weren't talking about the state were talking about a community.

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

Again why are people fleeing Cuba in mass droves?

Again why are people fleeing Cuba in mass droves?
Source? (reliable one)

Means to an end again, and it's not hypocritical at all in fact, it just depends to what end your methods are taking you.

To what ends are we being taken? all the way to the Cambodian killing fields?

Source? (reliable one)

Good god man, haven't you ever heard of those large communities started by cuban refugees? but nevertheless:
http://www3.baylor.edu/~Charles_Kemp/cuban_refugees.htm

Again why are people fleeing Cuba in mass droves?

Well, to be accurate, they're not really fleeing in droves. The Cuban government doesn't let its people travel freely- trying to leave the country without government permission is a crime. The only ones who get out are the people truly trying to find a better life.

I've never heard any Castro-supporter successfully explain why people are willing to travel through 90 miles of shark-infested waters on an inner-tube to escape what they consider to be a socialist paradise.

Chile hadn't had a good run in the 20th century. Nor were the 70s and 80s a particularly smooth ride for the developing world. Even if it was outperformed by other countries in Latin America, that doesn't mean that Pinochet's policies were bad. Even if you believe that, you still need to confront the fact that the only way those kinds of extreme policies could ever be enforced is through a complete crackdown on all political freedom, with a big dose of torture and terror.

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

Oh, yes. An obscure leftist Sociology professor who states that:

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.

Certainly an objective source, let me tell you.

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

Thanks for posting this...I've been looking for something to back up what I saw in Cuba as well...and the process that was described to me by every person I spoke to there.

Well, to be accurate, they're not really fleeing in droves. The Cuban government doesn't let its people travel freely- trying to leave the country without government permission is a crime. The only ones who get out are the people truly trying to find a better life.



It's like they don't need a berlin wall cause they have an Ocean!

So the security and safety of a nation's people is in fact an unworthy goal? But I mean I guess you could say that Chavez's goals are for safety and security at an economic level, to which I reply with perhaps my favorite most used by the far left quote, "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"- Benjamin Franklin

It would be extremely ironic if you were from the US.

To what ends are we being taken? all the way to the Cambodian killing fields?
Did I say that, no.

I simply say that Chavez's moves against individuals and companies involved in the coup against his government, and treason via accepting foreign money (illegal under law code) are indeed legal and his obligation to do so. I can't help but remember a Times article about one of the coup Generals on trial in Venezuela, they insisted on calling him a 'dissident' and Chavez was suppressing his rights, his 'right' I presume tp destroy the government. This is indicative of liberalism out of control, it reminds me of people on NSG saying big companies facing expropriation have a right to train mercenary armies. People have forgotten what the concept of the community is all about.

It would be extremely ironic if you were from the US.

happen to be and I'm quite ready to say that I do not support the bush administration policies on torture or suppression of liberties if thats what you were stabbing for.

Well, to be accurate, they're not really fleeing in droves. The Cuban government doesn't let its people travel freely- trying to leave the country without government permission is a crime. The only ones who get out are the people truly trying to find a better life.

I've never heard any Castro-supporter successfully explain why people are willing to travel through 90 miles of shark-infested waters on an inner-tube to escape what they consider to be a socialist paradise.
I have.

"They want blue jeans".

I met a few, mostly young people, who did say they wished they could afford more of the fashions they see on US television (of which many get at odd hours as the signals comes and goes). It's the same reason any person risks dangerous travel (oh you know, like in CN containers, or in boats, or on foot, or hidden in trucks) to get to a place they believe is a paradise where riches grow on trees and everyone becomes a millionaire.

Now, you said...the people getting out are those who want a better life. Then...the ones who stay believe they have a better life already? Because that is honestly my experience with the Cuban people. Those that have travelled abroad, as social workers for the Cuban state, have been able to compare what Cubans have to what people in other lands have, and those stories, first, second or third hand are extremely compelling. There are criticisms in Cuba of the system, mostly centered around economic issues (bluejeans costing more than a months wages, etc), but tempered with knowledge that the social system is the offset. Free school, free healthcare, free rations, subsidised food after that, etc etc...compared to other Latin American nations (which is the comparison that must be done, though many like to compare it to the US or Europe for some bizarre reason), Cubans en masse come out ahead.

That doesn't mean that there aren't those who crave bluejeans over education.

Even if you believe that, you still need to confront the fact that the only way those kinds of extreme policies could ever be enforced is through a complete crackdown on all political freedom, with a big dose of torture and terror.

hmmmm, kind of like Chavez's and Castro's policies...

hmmmm, kind of like Chavez's and Castro's policies...

Please direct me to sources that show that either Castro or Chavez had 3000 people murdered, and close to 100,000 people tortured.

Did I say that, no.

I simply say that Chavez's moves against individuals and companies involved in the coup against his government, and treason via accepting foreign money (illegal under law code) are indeed legal and his obligation to do so. I can't help but remember a Times article about one of the coup Generals on trial in Venezuela, they insisted on calling him a 'dissident' and Chavez was suppressing his rights, his 'right' assume to destroy the government also I suppose. This is indicative of liberalism out of control, it reminds me of people on NSG saying bug companies facing expropriation have a right to train mercenary armies. People have forgotten what the concept of the community is all about.

Ah yes, well your community seems bent on suppression of liberties and a conformity to which I am most definitly not willing to go along with. I actually believe that your ideas are socialism out of control. And I was implying that the Cambodian killing fields are the natural direction with which your policy beliefs take us.

Now, you said...the people getting out are those who want a better life. Then...the ones who stay believe they have a better life already?


Or they just aren't ready to risk their lives over shark infested waters and having to avoid government officials ready to kill them.

I have about 5 pairs of jeans, and I can honestly say I could easily live with only 2.

Please direct me to sources that show that either Castro or Chavez had 3000 people murdered, and close to 100,000 people tortured.

Well let me go ask them real quick...

I have.



That doesn't mean that there aren't those who crave bluejeans over education.

This whole blue jean thing, did you happen to talk to people who had actually made it to the U.S. or just to people back in Cuba? cause they may just be afraid to be hauled off by the police state that is communist cuba.

Well quite a few people were killed at the time of the revolution, but this is hardly strange considering revolutions are by rule bloody, those executed were just Batista loyalists anyways.


Neesika, do you speak spanish?

Or they just aren't ready to risk their lives over shark infested waters and having to avoid government officials ready to kill them.

Funny. They tell me that they would like to be able to travel, yes...but that they would never leave their country forever.

And you really think Cuba would bother to mention all of people that it had killed for being political dissidents?

You never go by what the country fesses up to. You go by independent reports. Produce yours.

Well quite a few people were killed at the time of the revolution, but this is hardly strange considering revolutions are by rule bloody, those executed were just Batista loyalists anyways.



And you really think Cuba would bother to mention all of people that it had killed for being political dissidents?

Neesika, do you speak spanish?
Fluently.
I have also, since I was in high school (working at a greasy spoon to pay for it, don't think I'm some rich kid) travelled throughout Latin America, and am married to a Chilean.

And you really think Cuba would bother to mention all of people that it had killed for being political dissidents?
That could be applied to any country.

Funny. They tell me that they would like to be able to travel, yes...but that they would never leave their country forever.

Somehow I severly doubt that all of those people were being entirely honest with you.

You never go by what the country fesses up to. You go by independent reports. Produce yours.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/04/27/cuba8500.htm

Somehow I severly doubt that all of those people were being entirely honest with you.

Hahahaha, right. Because Cubans walk around in fear and speak in hushed whispers when decrying their government.

The people I spoke to, I spoke to in Spanish. Generally, sitting outside on the steps of their house, or in the street. No hushed voices there...rather boisterous actually. The young like to tap their left shoulder with two fingers when they refer to Castro...'El Jefe' they say. The older ones are more ardent supporters of the Revolution, a great many of them are veterens of the Angola war. They all have their criticisms, which actually shocked me, as much as I'd been told about how fearful Cubans supposedly are. Again, most of the criticisms are aimed at the lack of goods, or the scarcity of them. And they are extremely vocal. However, even most of the young people admit...it's an issue of values. Do you value the free market so much that you would be fine with your neighbours starving to death? It seems like a silly question to them.

That could be applied to any country.

And yet in most countries it would be far easier to find these records.

When you run out of arguements you can always use baseless insults. The problem here is that we are leaving large oil reserves in the power of a madman who is opposed to just about everything.
Who doesn't love loaded speech that combines a threat to the oil reserves with general fear inducing terms. What is your next move? Advocate we bomb the country, instill a puppet leader of a "democracy" and pretend they will give the US unilateral control of the oil reserves? We all know how nice, fair and impartial the US is and their benevolent attitudes. I'm sure the US government sanctioned private oil companies would do what is best for Venezuela.

Bunch of horse shit.

The denial of basic civil and political rights is written into Cuban law. A number of criminal law provisions grant the state extraordinary power to prosecute people who attempt to exercise basic rights to free expression, opinion, association, and assembly. The country’s courts also deny defendants internationally-recognized due process guarantees, including the right to a public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

Somehow I severly doubt that all of those people were being entirely honest with you.
Sounds like a classic case of communist brainwashing wave emitters to me.

The denial of basic civil and political rights is written into Cuban law. A number of criminal law provisions grant the state extraordinary power to prosecute people who attempt to exercise basic rights to free expression, opinion, association, and assembly. The country’s courts also deny defendants internationally-recognized due process guarantees, including the right to a public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.
The US government doesn't recognize "internationally-recognized" guarantees or rights.

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/1606/whereisyourgodnowqb9.jpg

This whole blue jean thing, did you happen to talk to people who had actually made it to the U.S. or just to people back in Cuba? cause they may just be afraid to be hauled off by the police state that is communist cuba.

Riiiiight.

You know, the only thing that is going to convince you, is to actually go there. Learn Spanish first, m'kay? Because I'll trust my experience, being able to compare Cuba to pretty much every other Spanish speaking Latin American country over the 'anecdotes' of people who have never been there.

Hahahaha, right. Because Cubans walk around in fear and speak in hushed whispers when decrying their government.



I would if I were them:
The denial of basic civil and political rights is written into Cuban law. A number of criminal law provisions grant the state extraordinary power to prosecute people who attempt to exercise basic rights to free expression, opinion, association, and assembly. The country’s courts also deny defendants internationally-recognized due process guarantees, including the right to a public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

I have.

"They want blue jeans".

Yes, that's it. People are willing to risk their lives in the ocean and the risk of ending up jailed by the Cuban government if caught fleeing so they can buy Levi's.

Or could it be, maybe,
Now, you said...the people getting out are those who want a better life. Then...the ones who stay believe they have a better life already?

No matter how repressive the system (and Cuba is among the worst in the world), there are always people who are (a) too brainwashed by state media to know how bad off they are, (b) unable to leave, because they are too old, have too many family obligations etc., or (c) aren't really willing to risk their life or getting jailed by the government.

As another poster said, Cuba has it's own Berlin Wall- an ocean separating it from freedom. Getting off the island is dangerous and hard. And yet, people still do it. Why do you think that is, I wonder?

Because that is honestly my experience with the Cuban people. Those that have travelled abroad, as social workers for the Cuban state, have been able to compare what Cubans have to what people in other lands have, and those stories, first, second or third hand are extremely compelling.

Those that have travelled aborad, as social workers for the Cuban state, are the ones who are benefitting from the system. They toe the party line because they don't want to lose their privileges. Do you really think they're telling you the truth?

There are criticisms in Cuba of the system, mostly centered around economic issues (bluejeans costing more than a months wages, etc), but tempered with knowledge that the social system is the offset.

And little things like getting thrown in jail for trying to organize a memorial service.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3789873.stm


Free school, free healthcare, free rations, subsidised food after that, etc etc...compared to other Latin American nations (which is the comparison that must be done, though many like to compare it to the US or Europe for some bizarre reason), Cubans en masse come out ahead.

Let's look at relative GDP per capita. Cuba comes in at about $4,000. Columbia is $8,600, Brazil is $8,800. Even the Dominican Republic, no economic powerhouse, comes in at about $8,400 a head.

So, it seems like it's possible to have a free, democratic society (with flaws, granted) and to also have some economic success.

What's Cuba's excuse- what's preventing the Castro government from keeping all of those wonderful things you listed while, at the same time, allowing such radical concepts as free political parties, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly etc.?

That doesn't mean that there aren't those who crave bluejeans over education.

What a typically condescending liberal statement.

The US government doesn't recognize "internationally-recognized" guarantees or rights.

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/1606/whereisyourgodnowqb9.jpg

And the cubans don't recognize any guarentees..

I would if I were them: No, you wouldn't, because then you would actually have context, and know what you were talking about. Right now, all you have are some guesses about how Cubans are, which fly far from the mark. Again. Try a visit.

Sounds like a classic case of communist brainwashing wave emitters to me.

Or just a hidden secret police....:rolleyes:

I have about 5 pairs of jeans, and I can honestly say I could easily live with only 2.

Feel free to give your surplus jeans away to charity, then. But don't tell me I can't own 5, or 10 or 50 pairs of jeans if I desire.

Basic economic lesson- my ownership of extra pairs of jeans does not harm you, or anyone else, in any way.

No, you wouldn't, because then you would actually have context, and know what you were talking about. Right now, all you have are some guesses about how Cubans are, which fly far from the mark. Again. Try a visit.

Perhaps in their own homes but what about political rallies? what about providing some sort of change to the system? t

The US government doesn't recognize "internationally-recognized" guarantees or rights.

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/1606/whereisyourgodnowqb9.jpg


Such as?

Perhaps in their own homes but what about political rallies?

There are plenty of political rallies in Cuba- they're just all pro-government, for some reason.

I wonder why that is? Can any of the Castro-supporters clue us ignorant Yankees in on that?

Perhaps in their own homes but what about political rallies? what about providing some sort of change to the system? t

What the hell are you talking about?! Didn't you read my article, if they aren't involved in the system it's because they choose not too, they could run for election, get involved in mass organizations etc.

There are plenty of political rallies in Cuba- they're just all pro-government, for some reason.

I wonder why that is? Can any of the Castro-supporters clue us ignorant Yankees in on that?

Well most of the time Castro makes the arguement that their dangerous and supported by the U.S. government to undermine Cuban soverignty.

What the hell are you talking about?! Didn't you read my article, if they aren't involved in the system it's because they choose not too, they could run for election, get involved in mass organizations etc.

And sponsor everything that Castro believes and not speak out against him.

There are plenty of political rallies in Cuba- they're just all pro-government, for some reason.

I wonder why that is? Can any of the Castro-supporters clue us ignorant Yankees in on that?
Your confusing yourself with that western liberal mindset. The Cuban system is about democratic control, which means power being controlled not by minority elites but by the mass of the people. 'the government' as you so patronizingly put it, is elected by all the people, the communist party has no legal power, it only makes suggestions etc, which are influential because of the support it holds by the majority. You really should read up more.

Well most of the time Castro makes the arguement that their dangerous and supported by the U.S. government to undermine Cuban soverignty.
Well I can guarantee that you can't find an right-wing opposition to Latin America that isn't funded and supported by the USA, this distorts the politics in domestic matters and borders the groups on breaking the law, as in Chavez's case.

Your confusing yourself with that western liberal mindset. The Cuban system is about democratic control, which means power being controlled not by minority elites but by the mass of the people. 'the government' as you so patronizingly put it, is elected by all the people, the communist party has no legal power, it only makes suggestions etc, which are influential because of the support it holds by the majority. You really should read up more.

Then why is it that the communist party is the only one that seems to get elected in Cuba? it must be that the people love it so much. And obviously all of the governments descisions represent the people so why change it?

Your confusing yourself with that western liberal mindset. The Cuban system is about democratic control, which means power being controlled not by minority elites but by the mass of the people. 'the government' as you so patronizingly put it, is elected by all the people, the communist party has no legal power, it only makes suggestions etc, which are influential because of the support it holds by the majority. You really should read up more.

How many rival parties to the Communists are there that have any say in how the country is governed? How many dissident organizations officially operate there? Why can't the Cuban people use the internet or access news media without government monitors and filters to prevent them from viewing censored content?

If this country is so democratic, they wouldn't need to restrict freedom of speech and would have competitive parties against the Communists.

Then why is it that the communist party is the only one that seems to get elected in Cuba? it must be that the people love it so much. And obviously all of the governments descisions represent the people so why change it?

Why, how much did you pay for that cynicism?

Why, how much did you pay for that cynicism?

Answer the question: Where are all the other parties, dissident groups, political factions and competitive elections that are a component of every other real democratic government on Earth?

Then why is it that the communist party is the only one that seems to get elected in Cuba? it must be that the people love it so much. And obviously all of the governments descisions represent the people so why change it?

You are confusing yourself. The 'Party' doesn't get elected at all. This isn't like Republicans versus Democrats versus-no-one-else-who-will-ever-get- elected. The system is entirely different.

Well I can guarantee that you can't find an right-wing opposition to Latin America that isn't funded and supported by the USA, this distorts the politics in domestic matters and borders the groups on breaking the law, as in Chavez's case.

Of course and thats why anyone advocating free speech is locked up to right?

Why, how much did you pay for that cynicism?

Well I can say that it hasn't cost me my freedom and liberty unlike your socialist 'paradise'.

Your confusing yourself with that western liberal mindset. The Cuban system is about democratic control, which means power being controlled not by minority elites but by the mass of the people. 'the government' as you so patronizingly put it, is elected by all the people, the communist party has no legal power, it only makes suggestions etc, which are influential because of the support it holds by the majority. You really should read up more.

Of course the government is "elected" by all of the people- seeing as there are no opposition candidates, it's pretty easy for the people to make the "right" (i.e., Communist Party) choice.

The Cuban system is not controlled by minority elites? You mean Castro, his brother, and their flunkies have remained in power for decades because the mass of the people have been given a real choice? Come on.

So, let me ask you again- if the Cuban system is so free and democratic, why aren't Cubans allowed to (a) form opposition political parties, (b) hold protests in opposition to the government, (c) publish newspapers, pamphlets, magazines etc. that oppose the government or (d) freely leave the country.

You are confusing yourself. The 'Party' doesn't get elected at all. This isn't like Republicans versus Democrats versus-no-one-else-who-will-ever-get- elected. The system is entirely different.

Right you have to be apart of the party in order to take part in the system, that why they can influence your desicions or force you out of the government entirely if you advocate real reform.

The fact is, somewhere between what you have been raised your whole life to believe about Cuba, and what Fidel believes Cuba to be, lies the truth. I mean, you can go on believing everything you've been taught, and just treat it as gospel, especially if you don't really care all that much. Then again, you could actually do your own research, a crucial element of which would be to actually visit the country, and see for yourself.

I'm not all that interested in trying to convince those of you who don't actually have any intention of looking into your 'concerns'. I'll never claim that Cuba is a paradise, but it is also much more than you believe it to be. But hey, what do I know. I've only spent a significant portion of my life travelling Latin America, getting to know real people there, and trying to find out what is truth and what is propaganda.

Answer the question: Where are all the other parties, dissident groups, political factions and competitive elections that are a component of every other real democratic government on Earth?
Umm, there are plenty of union and student groups, if you'll read the article they are part of the legitimizing part of elections.

A number of criminal law provisions grant the state extraordinary power to prosecute people ..Patriot act II ?

If this country is so democratic, they wouldn't need to restrict freedom of speech and would have competitive parties against the Communists.

They can never answer that. Some of them have been duped so badly, that they will simply ignore the questions. Others simply don't care about the Cuban people or anyone else living under a "socialist" system. So long as Castro, Chavez and co. stick their fingers in Uncle Sam's eye, they're happy.

Of course, if any political party in these posters' home countries tried one tenth of what Castro does, they would be in the streets screaming for blood. To them, the Cuban people are just a means to an end. It's not like they're French, or Australian or some other people who count, after all.

Right you have to be apart of the party in order to take part in the system, that why they can influence your desicions or force you out of the government entirely if you advocate real reform.

Um, no. You don't have to be a part of the party at all, which is my point. The Party isn't elected, so you aren't representing the party. You are representing the people who elected you. It's a completely different system...once again, NOT a Party system. For example, if you are elected to represent your block, you represent your block. Period. You do not get elected by them in order to represent the Party. And if you stop representing that block, they recall you and vote someone else in. It confused me enough, coming from a two-party (supposedly three, but nationally, that's debateable) system where you only get to choose a particular party line to support.

Such as?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

Of course the government is "elected" by all of the people- seeing as there are no opposition candidates, it's pretty easy for the people to make the "right" (i.e., Communist Party) choice.

The Cuban system is not controlled by minority elites? You mean Castro, his brother, and their flunkies have remained in power for decades because the mass of the people have been given a real choice? Come on.

So, let me ask you again- if the Cuban system is so free and democratic, why aren't Cubans allowed to (a) form opposition political parties, (b) hold protests in opposition to the government, (c) publish newspapers, pamphlets, magazines etc. that oppose the government or (d) freely leave the country.

Once again, your mindset is stuck in the adversarial 'liberal' systems, instead the Cuban system is based on a unity factor, the socialist (society) state is the framework, but instead of partisan party politics which distort society into 2 opposing camps, it allows individuals to be elected based on whatever they say about themselves, this is designed to not allow parties and cliques to emerge and dominate the system.

Umm, there are plenty of union and student groups, if you'll read the article they are part of the legitimizing part of elections.

That are all related to the government organization in one way or another.

Well let me go ask them real quick...911 was an outrageous act of aggression on a people that did absolutely nothing to deserve such an evil attack on them.

More like Big Brother II.that what I said.. Patriot act.

I am teh agree :D

Patriot act II ?

More like Big Brother II.

Once again, your mindset is stuck in the adversarial 'liberal' systems, instead the Cuban system is based on a unity factor, the socialist (society) state is the framework, but instead of partisan party politics which distort society into 2 opposing camps, it allows individuals to be elected based on whatever they say about themselves, this is designed to not allow parties and cliques to emerge and dominate the system.

so its based on Conformity rather than really thinking.

That are all related to the government organization in one way or another.

Again that mindset, your thinking 'government' as in a political group who holds the majority in the house of reps or something to that effect, it's not like that in Cuba. Your problem is that you think of Communism as an ideology (and the Communist Party) as something compatible with a liberal democracy, competing with our parties, that is not it's role, and you have clearly misunderstood the point.

They can never answer that. Some of them have been duped so badly, that they will simply ignore the questions. Others simply don't care about the Cuban people or anyone else living under a "socialist" system. So long as Castro, Chavez and co. stick their fingers in Uncle Sam's eye, they're happy.

Actually, I care that unlike the democractic nations of Chile, Peru, Argentina, et al, there are no slums in Cuba. There are no beggars. Children do not die from preventable childhood diseases. No one is denied healthcare. No one is denied education. No one starves.

Cuba gets a lot of flack, because it's the only system like it, and it's not a system that is even remotely familiar. It focuses on more social-wellbeing for everyone, which of course, means stretching resources out more thinly. No one is rich, no one is even really well-off, and to us that alone is enough to condemn it. However, no one is left behind either.

I'm sorry, but you can not simply look at our system and compare it to Cuba's side by side, because the entire worldview is different. In Canada, in the the US, the focus is on the market. In Cuba, the focus is on the people. You may not agree with how Cuba has constructed it's system. I do not agree with every aspect either, but I do agree with the focus. Less for more. I believe it is actually this that rubs most of you the wrong way, believing so ardently in the 'more for less' philosophy of the west.

*shrugs* But hey, maybe I'm wrong, and maybe you really do care about freedom and democracy etc, despite the fact that your country, and to a much lesser extent mine, only believes in those things when they are economically convenient.

Umm, there are plenty of union and student groups, if you'll read the article they are part of the legitimizing part of elections.

Government-approved student and union groups. They had those in the USSR, too. They're simply not independent organizations.

Let me ask you- if a Cuban wanted to start an opposition party, or an independent student group, or a paper that critisized the government, what would happen to him/her?

so its based on Conformity rather than really thinking.

It's based on the principle of shared determinism, yes.

911 was an outrageous act of aggression on a people that did absolutely nothing to deserve such an evil attack on them.

What the hell? we haven't even been talking about the 911 attacks. If your talking about those bullshit loose change conspiracy theories than please go back to watching JFk.

so its based on Conformity rather than really thinking.

How many independents make it to high political positions in your country?

Party politics is all about conformity.

Again that mindset, your thinking 'government' as in a political group who holds the majority in the house of reps or something to that effect, it's not like that in Cuba. Your problem is that you think of Communism as an ideology (and the Communist Party) as something compatible with a liberal democracy, competing with our parties, that is not it's role, and you have clearly misunderstood the point.

Again conform to the system rather than think for yourself.

Again conform to the system rather than think for yourself.

Just like in the US. You can think for yourself all you want, but you aren't going to change the system. You conform to it, the norms, the procedures.

It's based on the principle of shared determinism, yes.

1984 anyone?

What the hell? we haven't even been talking about the 911 attacks. If your talking about those bullshit loose change conspiracy theories than please go back to watching JFk.

That was a pretty bizarre interjection.

Government-approved student and union groups. They had those in the USSR, too. They're simply not independent organizations.

Let me ask you- if a Cuban wanted to start an opposition party, or an independent student group, or a paper that critisized the government, what would happen to him/her?
Well firstly such an organization would have a better chance of getting a newspaper than say in the US, as in Cuba media is commonly owned and resources distributed based on proportionate numbers, so depending on the amount of people who held membership to this group, they would get that say. Again of course having a group that's objective was the overthrow of socialism wouldn't be allowed, that's kinda ludicrous a question.

Once again, your mindset is stuck in the adversarial 'liberal' systems, instead the Cuban system is based on a unity factor, the socialist (society) state is the framework, but instead of partisan party politics which distort society into 2 opposing camps, it allows individuals to be elected based on whatever they say about themselves, this is designed to not allow parties and cliques to emerge and dominate the system.

Um, the essence of Democracy is adversarial. Let me parse what you just said about the Cuban system: you can have whatever position you want, so long as it is the one everyone else has.

It's basically like Ford's old position that you could buy a Ford in any color, so long as it was black.

What the hell? we went -in record time- from talking about Chavez to talking about Cuba.. might as well talk now about Danish weather :D

...
What the hell? we haven't even been talking about the 911 attacks. If you look closely.. we have. Read the thread.
.

If your talking about those bullshit loose change conspiracy theories than please go back to watching JFk.
What the hell? we where talking about Venezuela .. and now we are talking about JFK?

BTW its raining somewhere in Danishland... ;) Yes I know its called Denmark

How many independents make it to high political positions in your country?

Party politics is all about conformity.

to a certain extent i guess, but not every candidate has the same attitude about things, where as in the cuban government every candidate supports the government and doesn't support any real changes such as modifying cuban laws to allow freedom of speech.

Just like in the US. You can think for yourself all you want, but you aren't going to change the system. You conform to it, the norms, the procedures.

The difference is, that the worst thing that happens to "dissidents" in the US is that they end up with a teaching position at Harvard.

The worst thing that happens to Cuban dissidents is that they die under mysterious conditions while serving a jail sentence for trumped-up charges.

Just like in the US. You can think for yourself all you want, but you aren't going to change the system. You conform to it, the norms, the procedures.

Not neccessarily, what do you call the sudden support of free health care amongst democrats? that changes the system quite a bit. Anti-corruption laws? Prohibition? The repeal of prohibition? Reconstruction? Banning of slavery? those are all significant changes that have come about to both the U.S. constitution, laws and policy. The Cuban Policy has remained the same for the past fifty years since the revolution. The only major thing that happened would be a change in foreign policy and that inevitably has to change.

Um, the essence of Democracy is adversarial. Let me parse what you just said about the Cuban system: you can have whatever position you want, so long as it is the one everyone else has.

It's basically like Ford's old position that you could buy a Ford in any color, so long as it was black.
No, democracy in the true meaning is 'peoples power'.

As the ancient Greeks knew, politics was about harmony within the state, and they knew that any system built on conflicting interests would inevitably destroy social cohesion and break down into partisan groupings of the polity. For the ancient Greeks, the word political meant ‘of the city’, ‘of the polis’, the institution (social) in which people lived their lives. Aristotle’s truth was that humans are born to live in complex organization with his or her fellow citizens, in community and harmony, through compromise not struggle, and united through a common purpose, which is to live a shared life. For Aristotle, the community exists for a good purpose. It is the environment in which people can live ‘the good life’ –a life of high moral and ethical purpose through which alone they can achieve true happiness. All associations are formed to achieve some purpose, but the political community – ‘the state’ – is the supreme association embracing all others and having as it’s aim the supreme good.

So, in Aristotle’s view, the state is not merely good, but exists for the highest good, the best life possible for mankind. Socialists recognize that those aforementioned anti-social forces can make states disintegrate, when they fail to achieve the good purpose which nature has allotted them. When natural beings are working according to their proper functions, they are direct towards achieving a good purpose, that is value within the state. This is what Aristotle meant when he said that ‘man is a political animal’:

The state belongs to a class of objects which exist in nature, and … man is by nature a political animal; it is his nature to live in a state. He who by his name and not simply by ill-luck has no city, no state, is either too bas or too good, either sub-human or super-human …

Therefore a person whose individual nature is always to quarrel rather than to co-operate with others is, according to socialists, out of tune with nature itself. Such a person is not really a human being. For socialists, the true state of being is to live together in a political community. The activity of ensuring the smooth and harmonious functioning of that community is called ‘politics’, and is the highest and most worthy activity. So for socialists, politics does not imply intrigue, conspiracy, corruption or injustice. It means cooperation in unity and fellowship.

Well firstly such an organization would have a better chance of getting a newspaper than say in the US, as in Cuba media is commonly owned and resources distributed based on proportionate numbers, so depending on the amount of people who held membership to this group, they would get that say. Again of course having a group that's objective was the overthrow of socialism wouldn't be allowed, that's kinda ludicrous a question.

What about a group that advocated freedom of speech laws? that critisized the government for say its lack of product development, lack of free travel? Not advocating the overthrow of the government mind you but suggesting changes in cuban policy.

to a certain extent i guess, but not every candidate has the same attitude about things, I'd like to separate the part where you have authority to speak, from the part where you do not.

where as in the cuban government every candidate supports the government and doesn't support any real changes such as modifying cuban laws to allow freedom of speech.
See, because you believe that if the government of Cuba has not been radically altered by now (perhaps to fall more in line with the West) then that means there is no real, legitimate political process.

So, I can say, because the system in the US has not been radically altered by now, in whatever way I think it should be, that there is actually no legitimate political process there?

Once again, you are confusing systems, and perhaps, believing a little more in the democratic process in your own country than you should. In Cuba, the overall process, the overall worldview that guides the government is not likely to change right now. The same is true of the US. Oh, in the US, you might get a government that is a little less trigger-happy than currently is the case, but that is not going to be a fundamental shift in the political process. So in Cuba, you have a sort of 'ceiling' which will prevent change. That ceiling exists in my own country as well...though here, I'd say it's the rabid adherence to Party lines that prevents real political participation. You have to work below the ceiling.

In Cuba, elected representatives must represent their constituents first. They do not have to adhere to a Party line. They must, however, work within the existing political system, just as politicians here must. Here, however, elected representatives must first represent their Party. Meeting their constituents needs is done within that Party line, because it is believed that a party was chosen, not a person. The opposite is true in Cuba. A person was chosen, not a party, and if the person stops doing what they were elected to do, then they will be removed.

Now, you can not like the overall system. You can say that it is repressive, and that it unfairly stifles the market, and so on and so forth. I can level many criticisms of my own system, and dislike it on many levels. It is still, however, democratic. Both systems are democratic, limited by their own procedures, limited by their own values.

Well firstly such an organization would have a better chance of getting a newspaper than say in the US, as in Cuba media is commonly owned and resources distributed based on proportionate numbers, so depending on the amount of people who held membership to this group, they would get that say.

Um, there are plenty of newspapers published in the US by small groups calling for a radical change of our system of government.

The other problem with your statement is that the only official groups in Cuba are ones recognized by the government. And the government will not recognize any opposition group, so no group that opposes the government will ever be allowed to get a piece of the "commonly-owned" media.

Again of course having a group that's objective was the overthrow of socialism wouldn't be allowed, that's kinda ludicrous a question.

You have made my argument for me. You've just admitted that you can have any opinion you want in Cuba, so long as you do not oppose the government or the system.

And you support this type of government?

No, democracy in the true meaning is 'peoples power'.


And in order to maintain the peoples power a system must be set up that changes because the opinions of people constantly change. This is against your conformist society with its strict regulation on free thinking and free speech.

Therefore a person whose individual nature is always to quarrel rather than to co-operate with others is, according to socialists, out of tune with nature itself. Such a person is not really a human being. For socialists, the true state of being is to live together in a political community. The activity of ensuring the smooth and harmonious functioning of that community is called ‘politics’, and is the highest and most worthy activity. So for socialists, politics does not imply intrigue, conspiracy, corruption or injustice. It means cooperation in unity and fellowship.

And there we have it, ladies and gentlemen. People who disagree with socialism are not human. The 20th Century has shown us what socialists do to people who they do not consider human:

http://rexcurry.net/socialists.jpg

In essence you have defeated yourself. Conformity to the extent you take it is dangerous and unethical. It lines up perfectly with the corrupt and to put it bluntly evil state seen in 1984. Next you'll be slaughtering all intelluctials, scholars and artists just like in Cambodia for the sake of the revolution. Authoritarianism is a sick twisted and all together evil form of government.

The difference is, that the worst thing that happens to "dissidents" in the US is that they end up with a teaching position at Harvard. I started to, but I'm not going to go on about political prisoners, past and present in the US...read below.

The worst thing that happens to Cuban dissidents is that they die under mysterious conditions while serving a jail sentence for trumped-up charges.

I have to point out once again, and I've been doing it too, that it is unfair to compare Cuba to the US. You need to compare Cuba to other Latin American countries, where, I'm afraid, even in recognised democratic nations, political prisoners are extremely common. It doesn't make it right, and I'm not supporting it, but it does come once again down to values. Is the market more important than people? That's going to depend on who you talk to...those who benefit, and those who do not. If the political repression is going to be there, I would prefer, at the least, that people not also face starvation, ignorance, and poor health. Now, if Cuba can continue to provide the social system they do AND begin to allow more political freedom, then good, I hope to see it. At least they would be starting from a good base, where people are the focus. I think it would be much harder to start from a position where the market is the 'thing' that needs protecting above all, and then shift into putting the priority on people.

Not neccessarily, what do you call the sudden support of free health care amongst democrats? that changes the system quite a bit. Anti-corruption laws? Prohibition? The repeal of prohibition? Reconstruction? Banning of slavery? those are all significant changes that have come about to both the U.S. constitution, laws and policy. The Cuban Policy has remained the same for the past fifty years since the revolution. The only major thing that happened would be a change in foreign policy and that inevitably has to change.
You have described policies, not reconstruction of a system. There have been many shifts in Cuban policies over the years. The system has remained largely intact, just as the system in the US has remained basically the same since its inception.

I'd like to separate the part where you have authority to speak, from the part where you do not.

See, because you believe that if the government of Cuba has not been radically altered by now (perhaps to fall more in line with the West) then that means there is no real, legitimate political process.


Name me one political policy that has made what you consider significant poltical progress in the past 5 years.

You have described policies, not reconstruction of a system. There have been many shifts in Cuban policies over the years. The system has remained largely intact, just as the system in the US has remained basically the same since its inception.

Name me one political policy that has made what you consider significant poltical progress in the past 5 years.
I'll lengthen to 10 years.

Name me one political policy that has made what you consider significant poltical progress in the past 5 years.they now have less silly retarded regulation.

Your turn:

Name me one US political policy that has made what you consider significant political progress in the past 5 years.

You have described policies, not reconstruction of a system. There have been many shifts in Cuban policies over the years. The system has remained largely intact, just as the system in the US has remained basically the same since its inception.

Name one that is not a foreign policy.