NationStates Jolt Archive

Name me one political policy that has made what you consider significant poltical progress in the past 5 years.

In the US?

The dismantling of concentrated Federally-supported public housing, and the establishment of decentralized public housing through:

1. Forcing builders to put affordable Section 8 housing in each new neighborhood.
2. Forcing landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers.

It's caused a massive drop in violent crime in the US since its inception.

I have to point out once again, and I've been doing it too, that it is unfair to compare Cuba to the US.

No, it is not. Doing so means that Cubans should somehow expect to be treated worse by their government because they live in Latin America. I reject your premise.

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?

Total non-sequitur. We're talking about political freedoms, not economic freedoms. Cuba could maintain its economic system while still allowing political freedoms. Sweden does so, for example. But it doesn't, because the communists simply do not want to take the risk of losing power.

In the US?

The dismantling of concentrated Federally-supported public housing, and the establishment of decentralized public housing through:

1. Forcing builders to put affordable Section 8 housing in each new neighborhood.
2. Forcing landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers.

It's caused a massive drop in violent crime in the US since its inception.

:p Sorry i should have been more specific I meant cuban policy. :p

Name me one political policy that has made what you consider significant poltical progress in the past 5 years.
I'll go beyond 5 years and name the Zapatistas. Just cuz I'm goofy like that.

As for an accepted party, within a Party system? I can't name a single one that has affected any significant political progress in the past 5 years. Why? Because significant political process occurs at a generally glacial pace, for many legitimate reasons. So I'll take a longer view and say that here in Canada, neither of the two parties are truly that different from one another, and yet, as a belief in human right progressed, both are responsible for ushering in Constitutionalism versus Parliamentarianism, a process which began here in 1982 with the patriation of our Constitution and the creation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. THAT was a real shift in political process, which I do not believe was the sole responsibility of either the Liberals who were in power at the time, or the Conservatives which followed.

In the US?

The dismantling of concentrated Federally-supported public housing, and the establishment of decentralized public housing through:

1. Forcing builders to put affordable Section 8 housing in each new neighborhood.
2. Forcing landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers.That a bureaucratic change, hardly a significant political change
.
It's caused a massive drop in violent crime in the US since its inception.massive?
that would make it interesting

But.. what are your sources.

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.

Source:p? and what is the regulation economic or political?

I'll go beyond 5 years and name the Zapatistas. Just cuz I'm goofy like that.

As for an accepted party, within a Party system? I can't name a single one that has affected any significant political progress in the past 5 years. Why? Because significant political process occurs at a generally glacial pace, for many legitimate reasons. So I'll take a longer view and say that here in Canada, neither of the two parties are truly that different from one another, and yet, as a belief in human right progressed, both are responsible for ushering in Constitutionalism versus Parliamentarianism, a process which began here in 1982 with the patriation of our Constitution and the creation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. THAT was a real shift in political process, which I do not believe was the sole responsibility of either the Liberals who were in power at the time, or the Conservatives which followed.

:p Sorry i should have been more specific I meant cuban policy. :p

Again terribly sorry.

That a bureaucratic change, hardly a significant political change


Hey I said what you do you consider.

No, it is not. Doing so means that Cubans should somehow expect to be treated worse by their government because they live in Latin America. I reject your premise. False. It means that Cuba is not a first world country, it does not have the wealth of the US or any other nation in the West. It is a poor nation, in a region that is notorious for political repression. It needs to be taken within that context, and not held up to a rich, first world country and taken to task for not being a rich, first world country.



Total non-sequitur. We're talking about political freedoms, not economic freedoms. Cuba could maintain its economic system while still allowing political freedoms. Sweden does so, for example. But it doesn't, because the communists simply do not want to take the risk of losing power.

No, we are talking about political AND economic freedom. The two, in this conversation, nearly always go hand in hand. People do not just condemn Cuba for it's political repression, they also condemn it for it's economic repression. Oh no, the poor Cubans don't have the choice to buy Tommy Hilfiger. REPRESSION! You absolutely need to look at Cuba within the Latin American context of boom and bust primary resource economic policies, and how the political process has been influenced by the economics of the region. To compare Cuba to the US in either politics or economics ignores reality.

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.

I'll go with a current one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preserving_United_States_Attorney_Independence_Act_of_2007

well I may not have worded it well but it seems you've failed to bring any thing you consider significant to the table on political progress in the past five years in Cuba.

Name one that is not a foreign policy.

Pretty much every year, internal policies focus on a particular 'issue' within the nation that people feel needs dealt with. These issues can be health, education or whatever related. Policies during that year (and sometimes beyond if they feel the issue hasn't been dealt with enough) are all aimed at providing the support for reaching those internal goals.

One of the things Cuba has worked on extensively over the years is becoming more self-sufficient when it comes to producing pharmaceuticals, for domestic and foreign use. That was a specific policy, where labs were created, the proper machinery was purchased, people were trained...a nation-wide effort focused not only on health, but on creating more economic possibilities.

Again terribly sorry.

Oh wait, now I am confused...did you mean a political party within Cuba in the last 5 years?

well I may not have worded it well but it seems you've failed to bring any thing you consider significant to the table on political progress in the past five years in Cuba.

Ok, you said political party, not political progress...so...um...I would figure out what you meant how? I'm in the midst of cooking lunch, so hold on to your horses while I figure out what the heck you mean, m'kay?

Actually, how about you reword your question, because I'm still not sure which one you are referring to. In the meantime, I'm going to take the kids to the park.

Pretty much every year, internal policies focus on a particular 'issue' within the nation that people feel needs dealt with. These issues can be health, education or whatever related. Policies during that year (and sometimes beyond if they feel the issue hasn't been dealt with enough) are all aimed at providing the support for reaching those internal goals.

One of the things Cuba has worked on extensively over the years is becoming more self-sufficient when it comes to producing pharmaceuticals, for domestic and foreign use. That was a specific policy, where labs were created, the proper machinery was purchased, people were trained...a nation-wide effort focused not only on health, but on creating more economic possibilities.

Ok you've got a domestic policy so where's the political progress? By that I mean something along the lines of less cracking down on freedom of speech and such.

Ok, you said political party, not political progress...so...um...I would figure out what you meant how? I'm in the midst of cooking lunch, so hold on to your horses while I figure out what the heck you mean, m'kay?

Actually, how about you reword your question, because I'm still not sure which one you are referring to. In the meantime, I'm going to take the kids to the park.

I said political progress and then I also said a policy that wasn't foreign. I don't have time to go back to the quotes as i'm working on an essay for AP Euro right now about how child rearing changed from 1750 to 1900 while doing this.

Ok you've got a domestic policy so where's the political progress? By that I mean something along the lines of less cracking down on freedom of speech and such.

You had two questions. One was about a political party that had initiated or was responsible for political change in the past 5 years. I assumed that you were not referring to Cuba, and just wanted to see if I thought ANY political party in a party state was capable of causing political change. I still do not think it is an appropriate question for Cuba, since, as we've been over many times, is not a Party system.

Your second question was asking about a policy, not political change, that has occurred in Cuba that was not foreign policy. I've answered it. Now you want to link policies with political process again, when as I pointed out to you before...the two are not necessarily linked.

That ceiling is still there, and you work below it. Whether we're discussing Cuba, the US, or Canada.

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.
I completely and utterly understand that and agree with you. However, my point was Leo stated it was propaganda. Therefore the onus is on him to back up his claim.



I won't tell you a specific date, but I'd go with "when the oil prices drop".
Well, yeah. It'll rain when there's clouds too. :p


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.
Thank you. Much appreciated. :) What did you find of the text books? Did they have any specific leanings, or we're they pretty normal? I'd imagine there was a certain emphasis on Bolivar and that era in history. [Honest enquiry]


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.
I apologise and you are, again, correct- RCTV called for his toppling, to prepare for life after Chavez, compared him to Hitler and a Nazi, said he was insane, said he had a sezual obsession with Castro - but I take it back that they called for his death. RCTV did not call for his death. :)



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.
Why include a reference to Stalinist collectivisation at all? You know the inference it gives.


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.
It's ok, I understand it's hard to get neutral sources. And I'm no ardent supporter of any regime, government or leader. Simply because I feel some policies are now better than policies under previous leaders doesn't mean I'll support Chavez carte blanche.

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.
That's not what I said, nor quoted. Here you said you need favourable connections with the regime to get ahead, regardless of your education. I responded that it is normal practice in politics everywhere that "It's not what you but who you know."
Now you're talking about welfare systems for some reason.

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.
And I'm not denying inflation is big in Venezuela. It is - 18% I think. But you said "hyperinflation". Zimbabwe has what? 7,800%? That's "hyperinflation".


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.
Simply because you don't believe it, doesn't make it false. There is enough evidence out there to make you pause for thought.


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.
Again, you said It does no one any good to pretend that his predecessors were capitalists. to which I agreed and said some were US stooges. You said Find me one.
And now that I found you three you complain that it was 'too long ago'. Stop shifting the goalposts.

Hehe, so you actually believe in the Marxist idea of class.
No, I believe there's more than Lower/Middle/Upper class. Given the size of modern Middle Classes, that in itself needs to be subdivided in Lower and Upper.

In that case there's little I can tell you because you won't be susceptible to reality.
Your version of reality.

Anyways, my impression was that Aeolsia is a middle class Venezuelan. So there you go - clearly a vile oppressor of the masses.
Yes, clearly. Because I clearly indicated that.


I did. I also watched the counter-documentary. In conclusion, I don't know what to believe
To be honest, I'd be more inclined to believe two independent documentary film-makers with no predisposition to either side. But that's just me.

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.
Well, there's insulting and then there's the potential for helping to whip people up into public disorder offences.


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.
That has got to be the most naive statement I have EVER heard from you. Come on, Leo.


You would call the British occupation of Ireland democratic?
I would call the type of state Britain was at the time, a democracy yes. Which is what you said none of these tried to overthrow a democratic government.

I know the only opposition candidate at the last Presidential election was another leftist.
So fucking what if he was a leftist? He was a legitimate opponent. Because they don't have a Rightist standing, it's not a 'fair' or legitimate contest in your eyes? Wow.

I also know that in the last elections for the national assembly major opposition parties didn't stand.
Yeh, they boycotted it in some attempt to get them either called off or have an embarrassingly low turnout forcing Chavez to step down. It failed and all they did was screw over their own supporters by not being represented in Parliament. How is that Chevez's fault or problem?


Plenty of people do it. And a few use oil to do it. Putin in Europe, Chavez in South America. Leo, nearly every state in the world tries to buy political influence with something they have. That's the Realist nature of politics.


Of course, I should ask the Venezuelan state prosecutors to see whether the Venezuelan government kills opposition journalists.
Which has what to do with FARC? (You linked to a FARC related article)


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.
Neither am I. I find his rule much more despotic and worrying. I'll answer the question - why should we hold Chavez's feet to the fire, while giving other's a free pass?

Umm, there are plenty of union and student groups, if you'll read the article they are part of the legitimizing part of elections.

And all of them tow the Communist Party line. If they advocated democratization of the political process or an end to the Communist Party's monopoly on power, they would be disbanded and the agitators fined, or more likely, jailed. The entire process is monitored by the government to ensure that these groups provide a seeding ground for pro-government attitudes and propaganda, and that they ensure the Party's continued control over Cuba.

If Cubans truly want Communism, then the party should not be afraid of free speech or multiparty elections.

All i know about Chavez is this, Since taking office he's been elected, what is it now 11 times in 8 Year's?...Severe Poverty has fallen and continues to do so, Literacy is at an all time High, Free Medical care is available to the millions living in the Barios that never had such care before, the working week is being reduced, food is now available at affordable prices for those at the bottom of the income ladder, Local councils and worker co-operatives are although in their infancy, being developed for the good of the poor working majority, indigenous peoples finally have rights inshrined in the new constitution, The oil wealth of the country is flowing back into the people of Venezeula and not North or into the hands of a small minority, please someone inform me why this man is so dangerous?..compared to the Lepor in the White House who has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people on a war(s) that, by all intensive purposes, was oppossed by the vast majority of people Worldwide?, has made a mockery of what's left of the US Constitution..etc etc. we all know the wonderful "Legacy" Bush is leaving the United States, so why all of this hostility towards Chavez?..there are reasons to be concerned about some of his decisions but i think he has earned the benefit of the doubt for now, something alot of Leftists Can see, Chavez himself has said that Venezuela will only start to see the real benefits of the "Bolivarian Revolution" by 2020, so if he keeps getting re-elected and making the lives of the people of Venezuela easier, i'd cut the guy some Slack eh?.

And all of them tow the Communist Party line. If they advocated democratization of the political process or an end to the Communist Party's monopoly on power, they would be disbanded and the agitators fined, or more likely, jailed. The entire process is monitored by the government to ensure that these groups provide a seeding ground for pro-government attitudes and propaganda, and that they ensure the Party's continued control over Cuba.

If Cubans truly want Communism, then the party should not be afraid of free speech or multiparty elections.

Cuba can't allow free speech or multiparty elections or political dissidents.

That runs counter to the dictatorship of the proletariat, which as we all know, is a central tenet of modern Communism.

Cuba can't allow free speech or multiparty elections or political dissidents.

That runs counter to the dictatorship of the proletariat, which as we all know, is a central tenet of modern Communism.

And thus makes what Andaras Prime's statement about legitament elections false.

(Here is some US significant Political Progress)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preserving_United_States_Attorney_Independence_Act_of_2007

So.. Alberto Gonzales fired 7 Attorneys because they failed to "serve at the pleasure of Bush"
...

thats it??

well I may not have worded it well but it seems you've failed to bring any thing you consider significant to the table on political progress in the past five years in Cuba.and you have brought even less (the Firing of 7 attorneys.. by president pleasure seeking Alberto Gonzales)

So.. Alberto Gonzales fired 7 Attorneys because they failed to "serve at the pleasure of Bush"
...

thats it??

And just to prove how stupid people are, the firings were legal as they are politically appointed.

Source:p? and what is the regulation economic or political?both:

# the institution of educational campaigns that have reportedly made more than one million adult literate.
# the construction of thousands of free medical clinics for the poor.
# The infant mortality rate fell by 18%.

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.
Reagan didn't crack down on anyone as such. I think that a well-presented liberal argument can be persuasive enough to convince voters and successful enough to keep them on board.

So.. Alberto Gonzales fired 7 Attorneys because they failed to "serve at the pleasure of Bush"
...

thats it??
Sorry i should have gone to the part of Gonzales resigning.

And all of them tow the Communist Party line. If they advocated democratization of the political process or an end to the Communist Party's monopoly on power, they would be disbanded and the agitators fined, or more likely, jailed. The entire process is monitored by the government to ensure that these groups provide a seeding ground for pro-government attitudes and propaganda, and that they ensure the Party's continued control over Cuba.

If Cubans truly want Communism, then the party should not be afraid of free speech or multiparty elections.
You obviously didn not read the article and do not understand as your stuck in the mindset of Western capitalist democracy.

and you have brought even less (the Firing of 7 attorneys.. by president pleasure seeking Alberto Gonzales)

Sorry for not explaining sooner but I have been quite busy with Euro Essays.

You obviously didn not read the article and do not understand as your stuck in the mindset of Western capitalist democracy.

Aw yes the completely neutral article with its insightful and unbiased claims. Didn't I already say that what you sponsor is nothing more than blatant forced conformity the likes of which sponsored the cambodian killing fields, Chairman Mao (largest mass murderer the worlds ever known) and Adolf Hitler?

both:

I'd like to see the link.

and you have brought even less (the Firing of 7 attorneys.. by president pleasure seeking Alberto Gonzales)

Alberto Gonzales resigning, that is quite a significant step.

You had two questions. One was about a political party that had initiated or was responsible for political change in the past 5 years. I assumed that you were not referring to Cuba, and just wanted to see if I thought ANY political party in a party state was capable of causing political change. I still do not think it is an appropriate question for Cuba, since, as we've been over many times, is not a Party system.

Your second question was asking about a policy, not political change, that has occurred in Cuba that was not foreign policy. I've answered it. Now you want to link policies with political process again, when as I pointed out to you before...the two are not necessarily linked.

That ceiling is still there, and you work below it. Whether we're discussing Cuba, the US, or Canada.

Actually this was my first question:
Name me one political policy that has made what you consider significant poltical progress in the past 5 years.

Aw yes the completely neutral article with its insightful and unbiased claims. Didn't I already say that what you sponsor is nothing more than blatant forced conformity the likes of which sponsored the cambodian killing fields, Chairman Mao (largest mass murderer the worlds ever known) and Adolf Hitler?
The Cuban system is completely democratic, prove me otherwise with evidence.

The Cuban system is completely democratic, prove me otherwise with evidence.

Honestly any of the past posts will due...:rolleyes:

The Cuban system is completely democratic, prove me otherwise with evidence.

People fleeing Cuba by boat to the United States proves you wrong. Dissent being stifled in Cuba also proves you wrong.

The Cuban system is completely democratic, prove me otherwise with evidence.

Absurdly high turnout rates + absurdly lopsided numbers = fraudulent system.

Maybe I could believe one or the other. But not both, especially not when their effects run contrary to one another.

But of course that isn't real evidence, all I have are some very fishy coincedences.... I mean why would the Cuban people vote for someone who restricted their travel? The freedom of speech thing could be justified in some manner or another, but the fact that there hasn't been a single candidate that has tried not to go on the Castro band wagon. Obviously advocated radical reform is one thing, but lowering the restriction on travel? thats really not a a big issue and yet why isn't it being addressed by any of the assembly?

I am sorry guys, I am not seeing evidence, only idle speculation.

The Cuban system is completely democratic, prove me otherwise with evidence.

Actually it depends what kind of democratic we are talking about. If its in terms of freedoms than that statement is completely false. They have the ability to restrict free speech written into their constitution.

I am sorry guys, I am not seeing evidence, only idle speculation.

This is why it is undemocratic:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/04/27/cuba8500.htm

I am sorry guys, I am not seeing evidence, only idle speculation.

Only an idiot of the first degree would say that Cuba is entirely democratic. Anyone with any knowledge of the Cuban situation knows differently.

Now tell me why so many people flee Cuba to come to the United States if Cuba is such a very nice place to live.

Only an idiot of the first degree would say that Cuba is entirely democratic. no country in the world is entirely democratic.

so No, Cuba is not entirely democratic..
What about US? ;)

Actually it depends what kind of democratic we are talking about. If its in terms of freedoms than that statement is completely false. They have the ability to restrict free speech written into their constitution.
I am talking about true democracy in the communist fashion, no liberalist distortions.

I am talking about true democracy in the communist fashion, no liberalist distortions.

See thats the problem, there is no democracy in the communist fashion.

no country in the world is entirely democratic.

Tell that to your friend, he's the one that stated it.

See thats the problem, there is no democracy in the communist fashion.

Step 1: Define democracy
Step 2: Define Liberalism
Step 3: Realize incompatible contradiction between the two

See thats the problem, there is no democracy in the communist fashion.

AP does not understand that. He has been Brainwashed.

AP does not understand that. He has been Brainwashed.

There's no point in debating with a Marxist-Leninist. By ideological fiat, only his Leninist ideology will result in real democracy, no matter how bad the record of Leninist state capitalism is.

Tell that to your friend, he's the one that stated it.His viewpoints on the subject are different from mine (definition of Democracy).. but

The ideals behind the Cuban revolution are Justice, freedom and social fairness .
The ideals behind the US embargo are revenge and "do as we tell you or suffer the consequences"

I cant support the US gov on this issue.

Democracy can only be achieved by destroying liberalism

And now we see how moronic he truly is.

Democracy can only be achieved by destroying liberalism which has been thrown up as a bulwark for preserving rich minority interests. Democracy is the literal egalitarian notion of one man=one value, both in economic and political terms. Liberalism limits popular majority power in favor of elites, communism is true and pure democracy power.

Step 1: Define democracy
Step 2: Define Liberalism
Step 3: Realize incompatible contradiction between the two

Step 1: The ability of the people to create a government and to replace that government if neccesary, also some checks and balances would be nice.
Step 2: I think you mean communism here cause thats what I was referring to but oh well. Liberalism: Outside thinking and new ways of thinking. Compassion for the poor as well as a certain amount of Contrarion behavior (which I admire by the way).
Step 3: Unfortunately I cannot complete this step as I see no contradiction.

AP does not understand that. He has been Brainwashed.

Actually by definition your the one who has been brainwashed, I objectively came the conclusion of being a Marxist/Leninist, while you mindless gave in to the propaganda fed to you from birth about capitalism.

Liberalism by it's very definition and nature gives liberties and privilege to special interests beyond what they have the right to in a democracy (eg one value), it limits the popular power.

His viewpoints on the subject are different from mine (definition of Democracy).. but

The ideals behind the Cuban revolution are Justice, freedom and social fairness .
The ideals behind the US embargo are revenge and "do as we tell you or suffer the consequences"

I cant support the US gov on this issue.

Obviously not, but at the same time I cannot support a suppression of the rights of human beings.

I am talking about true democracy in the communist fashion, no liberalist distortions.
‘True’ democracy eh? :p

Well, it doesn’t look good for Castro & pals:

Neither Human Rights Watch (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/cuba12207.htm) nor Reporters Without Borders (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=10611) have much good to say about Cuba.

I don’t see how restrictions on travel, assembly and free speech, the executive “retain[ing] clear control over all levers of power”, and politically motivated imprisonment can equate to ‘democracy’, liberalist distortions or not.

Yes, social welfare in Cuba is of a level higher than in many Western countries, and no, Castro isn’t the devil incarnate. But he certainly isn’t some benelovent dictator; civil liberties are quite clearly violated in Cuba.

Actually by definition your the one who has been brainwashed, I objectively came the conclusion of being a Marxist/Leninist, while you mindless gave in to the propaganda fed to you from birth about capitalism.

HAHA!! Sorry my friend but you are dead wrong about that.

Liberalism by it's very definition and nature gives liberties and privilege to special interests beyond what they have the right to in a democracy (eg one value), it limits the popular power.

Now if you can actually prove this bullshit...

Actually by definition your the one who has been brainwashed, I objectively came the conclusion of being a Marxist/Leninist, while you mindless gave in to the propaganda fed to you from birth about capitalism.
Liberalism by it's very definition and nature gives liberties and privilege to special interests beyond what they have the right to in a democracy (eg one value), it limits the popular power.

So what about the poor people that oppose the government? Are they involved in some special interest conspiracy or are they just obset with the way things turned out? And for the record I've read the communist manifesto and it describes something completely different from the Cuban government or any communist government for that matter.

And now we see how moronic he truly is.Democracy is a word.. its definition can be different for him. no sweat.

US cant even agree on whether US are a republic or a democracy.

all of that.. does not nullify the bloody unfairness of the US embargo.

Liberalism: Individualism resulting in disproportionate minority powers.
Democracy: The common good, resulting in equal political and economic power for all people.

Or individual thinking resulting in the creation of art, music and technology. This technology also includes medicine.

Liberalism: Individualism resulting in disproportionate minority powers.
Democracy: The common good, resulting in equal political and economic power for all people.

‘True’ democracy eh? :p


Whenever a person mentions "true" democracy in a supportive manner, thousands of political scientists and academics, all over the world, in every country that sports universities, cry out as part of their soul dies. This is true, it is measurable and, if you listen closely, you can hear their horrific screams. :eek:

'Civil liberties' are a bourgeois distortion created to limit the ability of the community to do what it wants.

Democracy: The common good, resulting in equal political and economic power for all people.
Which many, if not all, nations fail to have, including Cuba.

Liberalism: Individualism resulting in disproportionate minority powers.
Democracy: The common good, resulting in equal political and economic power for all people.

Sounds to me like how the US Constitution got started :D

Democracy is a word.. its definition can be different for him. no sweat.

US cant even agree on whether US are a republic or a democracy.

all of that.. does not nullify the bloody unfairness of the US embargo.

And that doesn't nullify the bloody unfairness of an oppressive government.

'Civil liberties' are a bourgeois distortion created to limit the ability of the community to do what it wants.

Oh my God.

Liberalism: Individualism resulting in disproportionate minority powers.that is a definition used in many Latin countries..

But that can be the source of confusion in this Forum..
many English speaking countries use the word "Liberal" as left leaning.

If I was you I would try to use words they understand.

'Civil liberties' are a bourgeois distortion created to limit the ability of the community to do what it wants.

And what pretell is this community made up of? Upstanding citizens no doubt, I mean just look at such great people as Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedoung and last but still my favorite POL POT!!!! Wait I take that back they weren't comprising the community they were the community.

Democracy is a word.. its definition can be different for him. no sweat.

US cant even agree on whether US are a republic or a democracy.

all of that.. does not nullify the bloody unfairness of the US embargo.

ACtually yes we have. We are called the Federal Republic of the United States if memory serves me right.

‘True’ democracy eh? :p

Well, it doesn’t look good for Castro & pals:

Neither Human Rights Watch (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/cuba12207.htm) nor Reporters Without Borders (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=10611) have much good to say about Cuba.

I don’t see how restrictions on travel, assembly and free speech, the executive “retain[ing] clear control over all levers of power”, and politically motivated imprisonment can equate to ‘democracy’, liberalist distortions or not.

Yes, social welfare in Cuba is of a level higher than in many Western countries, and no, Castro isn’t the devil incarnate. But he certainly isn’t some benelovent dictator; civil liberties are quite clearly violated in Cuba.

HRW and RWB are capitalist tools for the repression of the revolution in order to maintain the capitalist elite's hegemony on power.

Travel is a bourgeois luxury aimed at stupefying the masses with petty allowances and blinding them to the corpotocracy of the liberal elite.

Civil liberties are a mirage created by capitalist pigs to oppress the people with meaningless tokens of control with no substance.

I prefer this game, it's fun.

‘Civil liberties’ are a bourgeois distortion created to limit the ability of the community to do what it wants.
So free speech and the ability to travel, log onto any website or assemble in public limit the abilities of the community? Interesting...

“Liberal” as left leaning.

If I was you I would try use words they understand.
Ahem.

Only the US seems to doggedly use the term ‘liberal’ to mean ‘left-leaning’. Those of us on the other side of The Pond still tend to stick to the (proper) usage of the term meaning (very generally) a political philosophy that upholds the protections of property and person.

In essence what I think that Ap is trying to say is, we should all become mindless cattle and give ourselves up to the great Authoritarian Communistic government in the sky. It would make everything easier.

'Civil liberties' are a bourgeois distortion created to limit the ability of the community to do what it wants.

Let me get this straight, so free thinking is evil, We should resist everything that makes us human and anyone that doesn't agree with us is a capitalist Pig who is not a human.

In essence what I think that Ap is trying to say is, we should all become mindless cattle and give ourselves up to the great Authoritarian Communistic government. It would make everything easier.

That's pretty much what AP is saying.

That's pretty much what AP is saying.

I've just got one question: If freethinking and civil liberties are so evil then how in the hell did Marx come up with the communist manifesto?

Ahem.

Only the US seems to doggedly use the term ‘liberal’ to mean ‘left-leaning’. Those of us on the other side of The Pond still tend to stick to the (proper) usage of the term meaning (very generally) a political philosophy that upholds the protections of property and person.yeah..
One day we will all use the metric system.

one day... :cool:

I prefer this game, it’s fun.
Fun is merely a tool of the bourgeoisie to prevent the establishment of the industrial proletariat.

In essence what I think that Ap is trying to say is, we should all become mindless cattle and give ourselves up to the great Authoritarian Communistic government. It would make everything easier.
He is a Marxist-Leninist.

You’ve got to be pretty bloody-minded to keep prattling on about dialectical materialism after 80-odd years of absurdist tyranny.

In essence what I think that Ap is trying to say is, we should all become mindless cattle and give ourselves up to the great Authoritarian Communistic government in the sky. It would make everything easier.

Your ignoring the fact that the 'communistic government' is in fact the people who make up the society, in fact the attempted separation of personal and social (public) is an attempt to diminish the power of the community. There can be no separation of the public and private. To separate the very essence of the social sphere from the concept of the individual is to ignore the basic fact that it is the People who actually comprise the community itself.

Your ignoring the fact that the 'communistic government' is in fact the people who make up the society, in fact the attempted separation of personal and social (public) is an attempt to diminish the power of the community. There can be no separation of the public and private. To separate the very essence of the social sphere from the concept of the individual is to ignore the basic fact that it is the People who actually comprise the community itself.

In a SOCIALIST government you are right. In a communist government, you are 100% dead fucking wrong.

yeah..
One day we will all use the metric system.

one day... :cool:
Tell ya what:

We’ll switch over to full metric if you stop misusing ‘liberal’.

Deal? :)

'Civil liberties' are a bourgeois distortion created to limit the ability of the community to do what it wants.

To the contrary, civil liberties are essential to the community being afforded freedom.

Without them, every member of the community is vulnerable to oppression and inequality if they happen to be on the losing side of the majority's vote.

Tell ya what:

We’ll switch over to full metric if you stop misusing ‘liberal’.

Deal? :)Deal. :)

BTW its not metric -yet- at the US.
Canada and Mexico are leading the way on that field.

as for the word "liberal" is already too deep inside our KB.. just like the word Football or semite.

In a SOCIALIST government you are right. In a communist government, you are 100% dead fucking wrong.

The fact that you can write merely indicates you're a tool of repressive liberal philosophy that 'gifts' the masses education in order to create the illusion of control against a corporate hegemony that seeks to crush true individual liberty, which can only be attained through surrendering oneself to the great proletariat.

The fact that you can write merely indicates you're a tool of repressive liberal philosophy that 'gifts' the masses education in order to create the illusion of control against a corporate hegemony that seeks to crush true individual liberty, which can only be attained through surrendering oneself to the great proletariat.

You better be using sarcasm.

To the contrary, civil liberties are essential to the community being afforded freedom.

Without them, every member of the community is vulnerable to oppression and inequality if they happen to be on the losing side of the majority’s vote.
Indeed.

Liberalism’s biggest contribution: fear the majority, as well as the minority.

Your ignoring the fact that the 'communistic government' is in fact the people who make up the society, in fact the attempted separation of personal and social (public) is an attempt to diminish the power of the community. There can be no separation of the public and private. To separate the very essence of the social sphere from the concept of the individual is to ignore the basic fact that it is the People who actually comprise the community itself.
Perhaps that is true for a very select few of the community, such as Castro, but what about the other people under him that are directly affected by his decisions? what about the people that truly have no voice in their government, that can be hauled off for rallying for a simple and undettered cause such as freedom of travel? What about those that wish to see something other than what their government has to tell them? what about those that wish to produce technologies the world has never dreamed of? What about those that have a symphony of music singing within them but cannot express themselves in an oppressive and totalitarian government? What about those who wish to make a real change in their communities and in their country and not just be suckered into the mindless prattle of communist rhetoric? What about the entreprenuers and those that wish to go somewhere or be someone? for those people it is not nearely enough to survive on the bread scraps that this oppressive tyrant is throwing them, they must have room for their expression and free thinking they must have room for their emotions to flourish, not in some mindnumbing police state but in a place where there ideas can thrive.

Deal. :)

BTW its not metric -yet- on the US.
Canada and Mexico are leading the way on that field.
Well, here in Blighty we’ve decimalised our money, but only gone half-way with distances and weights.

I measure small distances in centimetres, but large distances in miles.

Weird, eh?

To the contrary, civil liberties are essential to the community being afforded freedom.

Without them, every member of the community is vulnerable to oppression and inequality if they happen to be on the losing side of the majority's vote.

But wait, my communist manifesto leads me to believe that the majority is always right? I mean I've been reading right from it so theres no possible way I can be wrong...

But wait, my communist manifesto leads me to believe that the majority is always right?

This is Andaras Prime's delusion. It has nothing to do with communist ideology.

which can only be attained through surrendering oneself to the great proletariat.

Who happens to be whatever power crazed dicator claims to be representing the people and communism.

This is Andaras Prime's delusion. It has nothing to do with communist ideology.

Little humor there, i actually am reading a communist manifesto right now though. For the fifth time actually.

Little humor there, i actually am reading a communist manifesto right now though. For the fifth time actually.

Care to quote from the part that says the majority is always right?

Care to quote from the part that says the majority is always right?

I said it leads me to believe actually.

Well I'm done with this topic after finding out that anyone around me could be the next Pol Pot. *eyes everyone but Ap suspiciously*:eek:

I said it leads me to believe actually.
Well, quote the section(s) that lead you to believe this.

Interesting discussion ahoy!

But wait, my communist manifesto leads me to believe that the majority is always right? I mean I've been reading right from it so theres no possible way I can be wrong...

right therrr

right therrr
Sorry?

Highlighted text describing how you believe the Communist Manifesto implies that the majority is always right shows that the Communist Manifesto implies that the majority is always right?

I am teh confuze0r...

What Soheran and myself were asking was for you to highlight the passage(s) in the Communist Manifesto that you think imply that the majority is always right. It's in the public domain.

Well, here in Blighty we’ve decimalised our money, but only gone half-way with distances and weights.

I measure small distances in centimetres, but large distances in miles.

Weird, eh?we are lagging behind on this..
I want to measure my penis in centimetres :D

we are lagging behind on this..
I want to measure my penis in centimetres :D

Actually, there was a lawsuit filed by the state of New York regarding a stripper that advertised her measurements in centimeters but failed to inform the customers that said measurement was in centimeters and not inches.

The majority is right by default

Or maybe just "better."

Sorry?

Highlighted text describing how you believe the Communist Manifesto implies that the majority is always right shows that the Communist Manifesto implies that the majority is always right?

I am teh confuze0r...

What Soheran and myself were asking was for you to highlight the passage(s) in the Communist Manifesto that you think imply that the majority is always right. It's in the public domain.

I'm not sure you're being slightly pedantic, the Communist Manifesto asserts that it is better for the majority to be ruled by the majority as opposed to the minority:

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority.

The majority is right by default because they serve the interests of the majority.

Or maybe just "better."

What I was looking to stave off was the trite example that if 4 out of 5 people believe that 2 + 2 = 5 that doesn't make the majority right.

Where the majority is right according to the communist manifesto is that it serves the interests of the majority.

To some extent that may preclude civil liberties because to dissent from the majority is to push the minority, or self-serving, agenda and therefore should not be tolerated.

EDIT: You may have freedom of opinion but not freedom of action.

Where the majority is right according to the communist manifesto is that it serves the interests of the majority.
Is it not more of the view (and I’m going from memory here, so be warned) that the proletariat is always right, and that they happen to be the majority?

Is it not more of the view (and I’m going from memory here, so be warned) that the proletariat is always right, and that they happen to be the majority?

I don't think so - I think it's merely that the proletariat, who are the majority, have been tools for the minority interests of feudalism and capitalism throughout the ages and that they should be freed from this state.

The means of this freedom is common ownership and that entails a certain majority rule, given the hypothesis that the majority will always act in its interest as opposed to the minority, which historically has worked against the interests of the majority.

Of course, it's a load of old bollocks because the majority doesn't actually works to its own interests because everybody's interests are different. Asking an individual to work against his own interests leads to dissent and therefore repression.

It's happened time and time again.

I completely and utterly understand that and agree with you. However, my point was Leo stated it was propaganda. Therefore the onus is on him to back up his claim.
And I did, by illustrating that the dictionary definition of the word is consistent with what we're talking about.

I apologise and you are, again, correct- RCTV called for his toppling, to prepare for life after Chavez, compared him to Hitler and a Nazi, said he was insane, said he had a sezual obsession with Castro - but I take it back that they called for his death. RCTV did not call for his death. :)
So, would you support anti-insult laws that would allow Bush to "not renew the license" of a channel that ran a program in which insulting things like that were said about the president?

I find it hard to believe that on American television there wouldn't be a talking heads or comedy program which said any of those things.

Why include a reference to Stalinist collectivisation at all? You know the inference it gives.
My inference was that it led to mass starvation, just like any state-run collectivised farming system. I said twice now that in the age of mass media, he won't be murdering lots of people in the open, so there was no danger of you thinking I would insinuate Chávez will kill tens of millions of people in Gulags.

That's not what I said, nor quoted. Here you said I responded that it is normal practice in politics everywhere that "It's not what you but who you know."
Now you're talking about welfare systems for some reason.
That's because there were posters here who likened Chávez' Venezuela to Scandinavian countries, as though the cronyism was just the price to pay for Chávez' social programs. But if you want we can pick any other country.

Anyways, you didn't say "it's about who you know", you said cronyism is just normal politics. I disagree.

And I'm not denying inflation is big in Venezuela. It is - 18% I think. But you said "hyperinflation". Zimbabwe has what? 7,800%? That's "hyperinflation".
Given current policies, we can expect the inflation rate to continue to increase. Given that Chávez is tampering with the Central Bank, there is nothing to stop this process. Furthermore he's drawing from the reserves meant to be stabilising the exchange rate - when the peg collapses things will move very quickly indeed. And if my suspicion is correct and Chávez is the type who will continue his popular social programs at any cost (even the stability of the currency), then it is quite possible or even likely that hyperinflation will follow.

Now, if someone is going to study law, don't you think he or she is smart enough to reach the same conclusion? If economic security is not a given in the future, will that not put off people from spending time, money and effort on studying for normally well-paying positions?

As far as I can see, the most economically secure position to have in Venezuela over the next 20 years is to be a Chavista at the top of some government department.

And by the way, there is no percentage rate generally accepted to mean hyperinflation. Wiki notes these criteria:
International Accounting Standard 29 describes four signs that an economy may be in hyperinflation:

- The general population prefers to keep its wealth in non-monetary assets or in a relatively stable foreign currency. Amounts of local currency held are immediately invested to maintain purchasing power.
- The general population regards monetary amounts not in terms of the local currency but in terms of a relatively stable foreign currency. Prices may be quoted in that currency.
- Sales and purchases on credit take place at prices that compensate for the expected loss of purchasing power during the credit period, even if the period is short.
- Interest rates, wages and prices are linked to a price index and the cumulative inflation rate over three years approaches, or exceeds, 100%.

I'm not sure whether many Venezuelans have taken to buying gold to store their wealth yet, but that's usually one of the first signs.

Simply because you don't believe it, doesn't make it false. There is enough evidence out there to make you pause for thought.
Not really. The evidence is that the US didn't condemn the coup, the rest is speculation and unverified claims (like that supposed plane).

Again, you said It does no one any good to pretend that his predecessors were capitalists. to which I agreed and said some were US stooges.
But you must be aware what my definition of "capitalist" is, right? Just someone more right than left doesn't count. My point was that it is a myth that before Chávez education was only for the richest. The Central University provided free degrees long before Chávez came to power.

And now that I found you three you complain that it was 'too long ago'. Stop shifting the goalposts.
I'm not moving any goal posts. You have to consider the framework within which this debate is going on. The whole point of bringing up bad leaders previous to Chávez is to make it look like the choice is between Chávez and some right-wing stooge of the US. It obviously isn't.

But there may have been a misunderstanding.

No, I believe there's more than Lower/Middle/Upper class. Given the size of modern Middle Classes, that in itself needs to be subdivided in Lower and Upper.
But the idea that the very notion of "class" being a guide to people's interests and opinions may be misguided hasn't come up? That what is happening is a lot of normal people are losing their livelihoods?

Yes, clearly. Because I clearly indicated that.
You painted the picture of the filthy rich oligarch with the Cessna. I said it's a strawman, that the people I'm talking about and who do matter are normal middle class people. And you basically doubted their existence, meaning you're sticking to the picture of the guy with the top hat and monocle.

Ergo, Aelosia must wear a top hat and a monocle and fly a Cessna to Miami.

To be honest, I'd be more inclined to believe two independent documentary film-makers with no predisposition to either side. But that's just me.
And I'm not inclined to believe the story about the two not having a predisposition. And so it goes on.

Well, there's insulting and then there's the potential for helping to whip people up into public disorder offences.
Yes, because we've got to punish people for doing things that have the potential to "whip up" people.

Does that mean any program showing negatives to globalisation prior to the Seattle conference should have been taken off air?

That has got to be the most naive statement I have EVER heard from you. Come on, Leo.
So you doubt that the CIA is occupied with fighting "terror"? You think that Bush and his team, who are up to their necks in that pile of shit they poured on Iraq, are plotting to bring down little Chávez?

I would call the type of state Britain was at the time, a democracy yes.
The British regime in Ireland was not democratic.

So fucking what if he was a leftist? He was a legitimate opponent. Because they don't have a Rightist standing, it's not a 'fair' or legitimate contest in your eyes? Wow.
Well, if he's not offering an alternative to Chávez policies, then where's the contest? I honestly don't care what the monkey in charge is called, I care whether or not he's going to ruin people's lives.

Yeh, they boycotted it in some attempt to get them either called off or have an embarrassingly low turnout forcing Chavez to step down. It failed and all they did was screw over their own supporters by not being represented in Parliament. How is that Chevez's fault or problem?
I don't think I said it was. I think I pointed out that this is the state of the electorcal contest in modern Venezuela.

Leo, nearly every state in the world tries to buy political influence with something they have. That's the Realist nature of politics.
And yet you denied that Chávez does it, just like Putin does it. Afterall, it's not like Putin is "using oil as a weapon", he just changes the price he charges for it according to political support.

Which is precisely what Chávez is doing, albeit in the opposite direction at this point.

Which has what to do with FARC? (You linked to a FARC related article)
Sorry, thought you were talking about the other one.

So you don't think Chávez is working with FARC? The leftist would-be leader of Latin America with the leftist "people's army" of a Latin American country?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/177yckaw.asp?pg=1
http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/648.cfm

Neither am I. I find his rule much more despotic and worrying. I'll answer the question - why should we hold Chavez's feet to the fire, while giving other's a free pass?
You're going to have to ask the US Government. I'm opposed to Musharraf and the military-industrial complex he represents. I'd rather have Bhutto come back and have another go and governing the mess that is Pakistan.

Chavez does not stifle the opposition, they do it to themselves.

Chavez does not stifle the opposition, they do it to themselves.

Article 147 of Chavez's glorious new penal code:

"Anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the President of the Republic or whomever is fulfilling his duties will be punished with prison of 6 to 30 months if the offense is serious and half of that if it is light. The term will be increased by a third if the offense is made publicly."

Not only does he stifle but the last sentence implies that the punishment is applicable to those who dissent even in private since if it's made publicly the sentence is extended.

Article 147 of Chavez's glorious new penal code:



Not only does he stifle but the last sentence implies that the punishment is applicable to those who dissent even in private since if it's made publicly the sentence is extended.

Notice how it says 'President' and not 'Hugo Chavez', disrespect of public institutions is criminal in many many countries across the world.

Notice how it says 'President' and not 'Hugo Chavez', disrespect of public institutions is criminal in many many countries across the world.

Yet since Hugo's other bright idea is to change the constitution to allow him unlimited terms as president because, as he so eloquently says, he is the great painter of the new revolution and other's cannot be trusted with the enormous brush of change, the president essentially does mean Hugo Chavez.

Yet since Hugo's other bright idea is to change the constitution to allow him unlimited terms as president because, as he so eloquently says, he is the great painter of the new revolution and other's cannot be trusted with the enormous brush of change, the president essentially does mean Hugo Chavez.
Yet if Chavez was a conservative or someone on the far-right, you and others wouldn't be applauding him and me condemning, it's a matter of political preference in the end, anyway who says they are unbiased is lying.

Yet if Chavez was a conservative or someone on the far-right, you and others wouldn't be applauding him and me condemning, it's a matter of political preference in the end, anyway who says they are unbiased is lying.
You don't think it is possible to think independently? To like someone or agree with someone's politics and still be critical of things they do?

Maybe that's the key then - if your kind of socialist doesn't do that, then maybe that's why virtually no lefties ever criticise Chávez and the Socialist Alliance falls over itself in admiration.

You don't think it is possible to think independently? To like someone or agree with someone's politics and still be critical of things they do?

Maybe that's the key then - if your kind of socialist doesn't do that, then maybe that's why virtually no lefties ever criticise Chávez and the Socialist Alliance falls over itself in admiration.

...which is not untrue of the right either to be fair, nor of moderates I suppose.

Article 147 of Chavez's glorious new penal code:



Not only does he stifle but the last sentence implies that the punishment is applicable to those who dissent even in private since if it's made publicly the sentence is extended.

So owned.

*hands Barringtonia a cookie*

Notice how it says 'President' and not 'Hugo Chavez', disrespect of public institutions is criminal in many many countries across the world.

Um...who is president of Venezuela? Oh yea...HUGO CHAVEZ

If we took your logic, then legally we should jail anyone who opposed President Bush if many many countries makes opposite a criminal act.

I completely and utterly understand that and agree with you. However, my point was Leo stated it was propaganda. Therefore the onus is on him to back up his claim.

When it is doing in purpose, as Kilobugya stated, trying to deliberately hide some information or mask certain situations to avoid losing support, it is propaganda. Not in all cases, but really, one of my main problems with this goverment is the propaganda.

Thank you. Much appreciated. :) What did you find of the text books? Did they have any specific leanings, or we're they pretty normal? I'd imagine there was a certain emphasis on Bolivar and that era in history. [Honest enquiry]

To be quite sincere. I was a music teacher, and we don't have text books about that here, mainly because the goverment in part doesn't care, (Not something new, former regimes didn't care neither, that is not a specific critic against Chávez), and more important, kids do not have the money to buy textbooks here. I used old french and spanish theory books that I had in class, donated them to the library and distributed them to the students so they could copy the important parts. In any case, looks like now in that specific subject they are focusing on rescuing the venezuelan traditional rhytms and folklore music, that in my opinion is very good.

Regarding history, yes, they focus on the independence war stage of our history, which is also good. Our history has been forgotten for too long, and is as rich and beautiful as any other. I even did my thesis, or grade work, or whatever you call it out there, based on facts of venezuelan history. (It was a movie script about the Battle of Carabobo, one of the most sound victories of Bolívar during our independence war). It is good that the goverment tries to focus on that, although sometimes they try to subtle influence teaching with ideology, something that in my opinion is not that good.

I apologise and you are, again, correct- RCTV called for his toppling, to prepare for life after Chavez, compared him to Hitler and a Nazi, said he was insane, said he had a sezual obsession with Castro - but I take it back that they called for his death. RCTV did not call for his death. :)

Yes, but another channel that called for his death cut a deal with the goverment and it is still on the air. Pro goverment channels have issued calls for social unrest too and remain unpunished. I didn't like RCTV, their shows were biased crap, but I do criticize the double standard there. Plus, nevertheless, RCTV enjoyed high ranking numbers, that should mean something.

It's ok, I understand it's hard to get neutral sources. And I'm no ardent supporter of any regime, government or leader. Simply because I feel some policies are now better than policies under previous leaders doesn't mean I'll support Chavez carte blanche.

Try "El Universal", it has a section in english, and remains more or less neutral. Avoid both goverment information and news services like Globovision, or organizations like Súmate, both are biased towards one side.



And I'm not denying inflation is big in Venezuela. It is - 18% I think. But you said "hyperinflation". Zimbabwe has what? 7,800%? That's "hyperinflation".

Yeah, true, but with the goverment even accepting they are not able to act againt the rise of inflation, the worst could happen.

Yeh, they boycotted it in some attempt to get them either called off or have an embarrassingly low turnout forcing Chavez to step down. It failed and all they did was screw over their own supporters by not being represented in Parliament. How is that Chavez's fault or problem?

True.

When it is doing in purpose, as Kilobugya stated, trying to deliberately hide some information or mask certain situations to avoid losing support.
that would mean.. most newscasts about Iraq, Venezuela, Iran, China, etc are propaganda.
speaking about my country of course

Actually, there was a lawsuit filed by the state of New York regarding a stripper that advertised her measurements in centimeters but failed to inform the customers that said measurement was in centimeters and not inches.LOL

lawsuits'r'US

that would mean.. most newscasts about Iraq, Venezuela, Iran, China, etc are propaganda.
speaking about my country of course

Indeed as only one side is being presented in the media. Especially when it comes to Iraq.

RCTV called for his toppling, if a TV station calls for the Toppling of an democratically elected President.. their FCC/CRTC-like broadcasting permit will NOT be renewed.. in any country, not just Venezuela.

if a TV station calls for the Toppling of an democratically elected President.. their FCC/CRTC-like broadcasting permit will NOT be renewed.. in any country, not just Venezuela.

Then let us do away with Air America.

Then let us do away with Air America.ok
*lets Corneliu do his thing*

Yet if Chavez was a conservative or someone on the far-right, you and others wouldn't be applauding him and me condemning, it's a matter of political preference in the end, anyway who says they are unbiased is lying.

Not really, I've been condemning other ultra right dictatorships such as thoughs in Central asia and regular asia from the start. Capatilism in other countries, while beneficial in connecting to democracy, is no excuse for the mistreatment of its citizens.

Not really, I've been condemning other ultra right dictatorships such as thoughs in Central asia and regular asia from the start.now it would be a good time to show us the quote or the link of you condemning those.

now it would be a good time to show us the quote or the link of you condemning those.

If he has done it away from the net, it would be rather difficult to prove.

that would mean.. most newscasts about Iraq, Venezuela, Iran, China, etc are propaganda.
speaking about my country of course

Yep, I see Bush's speeches and Fox News reports as propaganda, too.

now it would be a good time to show us the quote or the link of you condemning those.

well not on this website, perhaps, but I did condemn authoritarian governments in general...

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.

Right here.

I've just got one question for AP now, do you support Putain and would you support the Old Soviet Union?

I am talking about true democracy in the communist fashion, no liberalist distortions.

Sorry, you don't get to make up your own definition of democracy.

A democracy is understood to be a political system characterized by free, open, elections among at least two political parties. Auxiliary to this is the requirement of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to critisize the government etc.

Cuba is not a democracy under any commonly-accepted understanding of the term. There is only one political party (yes, yes, I know you buy the BS claim by the Cuban government that there are other political parties other than the Communists, but you have to be either very stupid or very gullible to buy that notion), elections are not free or open and citizens have very few, if any, of the rights typically seen in a democracy.

You can make up your own definition of democracy, if you want, but we don't have to accept your fantasy-world as reality.

'Civil liberties' are a bourgeois distortion created to limit the ability of the community to do what it wants.

Once you get rid of civil liberties, you end up with Ukrainians being starved to death by the millions, Jews getting gassed and Pol Pot's killing fields.

That's pretty much the contribution of "Communist Democracy" to human history.

It's sad and infuriating to see people still falling for this claptrap after the experiences of the 20th century.

You don't think it is possible to think independently? To like someone or agree with someone's politics and still be critical of things they do?

Maybe that's the key then - if your kind of socialist doesn't do that, then maybe that's why virtually no lefties ever criticise Chávez and the Socialist Alliance falls over itself in admiration.

I think you're ignoring most the lefties of NSG. We have quite a body of criticism for Chavez.

Sorry, you don't get to make up your own definition of democracy.

A democracy is understood to be a political system characterized by free, open, elections among at least two political parties. Auxiliary to this is the requirement of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to critisize the government etc.

Cuba is not a democracy under any commonly-accepted understanding of the term. There is only one political party (yes, yes, I know you buy the BS claim by the Cuban government that there are other political parties other than the Communists, but you have to be either very stupid or very gullible to buy that notion), elections are not free or open and citizens have very few, if any, of the rights typically seen in a democracy.

You can make up your own definition of democracy, if you want, but we don't have to accept your fantasy-world as reality.
Sorry, democracy literally means 'Peoples power' in the Greek, majority rule, no liberal distortions please.

I think you're ignoring most the lefties of NSG. We have quite a body of criticism for Chavez.
It's people like you who attack your own side more than you do the real reactionary enemy, sorry but I have no time for self-styled intellectuals posing as real Marxists.

Sorry, democracy literally means 'Peoples power' in the Greek, majority rule, no liberal distortions please.

ETYMOLOGY:
French démocratie, from Late Latin dmocratia, from Greek dmokrati : dmos, people; see d- in Indo-European roots + -krati, -cracy

and according to dictionary.yahoo, there are 5 definitions of democracy:

de·moc·ra·cy (d-mkr-s) KEY

NOUN:
pl. de·moc·ra·cies
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Actually Demarchy would be the better word, kratos was a rather brutish term for power used by oligarchical opponents, archy means power is the more political way.

It's people like you who attack your own side more than you do the real reactionary enemy, sorry but I have no time for self-styled intellectuals posing as real Marxists.

A real marxist would not be making the assinine comments :

The political and economic philosophy of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which the concept of class struggle plays a central role in understanding society's allegedly inevitable development from bourgeois oppression under capitalism to a socialist and ultimately classless society.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/Marxism;_ylt=ApA_f_BUhZqgP_PtR2CNY.2sgMMF

and just to show you the marxist-leninist:

An expanded form of Marxism that emphasizes Lenin's concept of imperialism as the final stage of capitalism and shifts the focus of struggle from developed to underdeveloped countries.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/Marxism-Leninism;_ylt=ApLR5pP5mCFjU223ZgHe8bCsgMMF

Your comments are made of fail

It's people like you who attack your own side more than you do the real reactionary enemy, sorry but I have no time for self-styled intellectuals posing as real Marxists.

So basically who ever doesn't agree with you is evil and we should never use group thinking or allow others to express ideas contrary to our own. thats basically what your saying.

Sorry, democracy literally means 'Peoples power' in the Greek, majority rule, no liberal distortions please.

Whatever the original literal Greek meaning, that is not the common usage today.

Dictionary.com's definition seems to get it right:

Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Tell me, then, in what conceivable way could you shoehorn Cuba's one-party communist state into this definition?

Whatever the original literal Greek meaning, that is not the common usage today.

Dictionary.com's definition seems to get it right:

Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Tell me, then, in what conceivable way could you shoehorn Cuba's one-party communist state into this definition?

you can't but AP, our little stalinist, does not understand that.

It’s people like you who attack your own side more than you do the real reactionary enemy, sorry but I have no time for self-styled intellectuals posing as real Marxists.
See, this is what I don’t understand AP:

You’re a self-confessed Marxist. As such, following Marx’s writings, you would be wary of autocratic centres of power in society; those who would keep a tight grasp on political power, preventing the masses from exercising their political power through free and fair means.

I think it’s fair to say that both Chavez and Castro are doing exactly that: preventing free and fair expression of mass political power through a strong executive, restrictions on free speech and, in Castro’s case, other restrictions.

How can these men be paragons of Marxist virtue, or, indeed, how can those of us opposed to left-authoritarianism, be ‘attacking our own side’?

It's people like you who attack your own side more than you do the real reactionary enemy, sorry but I have no time for self-styled intellectuals posing as real Marxists.

I"ve never claimed to be an intellectual. This is something I do in my spare time because I enjoy it. I also have never claimed to be a Marxist. While Marx has contributed some important concepts to leftist critiques of capitalism, he is far from the last word. I think that it is foolish for people to cling to the Marxist method without realizing that a patently different approach is necessary in these times to confront capitalism. I will now refer to Post Scarcity Anarchism, by Murray Bookchin, in the naive hope that you will listen to what a former Marxist-Leninist has to say about Marxism and revolutionary theory.

I"ve never claimed to be an intellectual. This is something I do in my spare time because I enjoy it. I also have never claimed to be a Marxist. While Marx has contributed some important concepts to leftist critiques of capitalism, he is far from the last word. I think that it is foolish for people to cling to the Marxist method without realizing that a patently different approach is necessary in these times to confront capitalism. I will now refer to Post Scarcity Anarchism, by Murray Bookchin, in the naive hope that you will listen to what a former Marxist-Leninist has to say about Marxism and revolutionary theory.

See what this kid espouses is not the original marx theory, its lennist bullshit.

Actually Demarchy would be the better word, kratos was a rather brutish term for power used by oligarchical opponents, archy means power is the more political way.

Well basically what your espousing is an oligarchy so it fits.

See what this kid espouses is not the original marx theory, its lennist bullshit.

A lot of the problems of Leninism have their roots in Orthodox Marxism as well. I think the whole theory needs to be critically evaluated by any self-described Marxist if they truly are serious about what they are doing.

A lot of the problems of Leninism have their roots in Orthodox Marxism as well. I think the whole theory needs to be critically evaluated by any self-described Marxist if they truly are serious about what they are doing.

Your right, the problem with Marx is that he wasn't very descriptive as to what was to occur after the revolution other than there would be one big group of happy people in a giant community. He basically leaves people to make up a government structure.

Your right, the problem with Marx is that he wasn't very descriptive as to what was to occur after the revolution other than there would be one big group of happy people in a giant community. He basically leaves people to make up a government structure.

True. Even when I heard about Marxism, I thought that was a bit of a hole.

See, this is what I don’t understand AP:

You’re a self-confessed Marxist. As such, following Marx’s writings, you would be wary of autocratic centres of power in society; those who would keep a tight grasp on political power, preventing the masses from exercising their political power through free and fair means.

I think it’s fair to say that both Chavez and Castro are doing exactly that: preventing free and fair expression of mass political power through a strong executive, restrictions on free speech and, in Castro’s case, other restrictions.

How can these men be paragons of Marxist virtue, or, indeed, how can those of us opposed to left-authoritarianism, be ‘attacking our own side’?
You misunderstand, I am a follower of the Leninist interpretation and extrapolation of Marx, this includes the theory of democratic centralism. Lenin himself knew that a vanguard party and a strong state as a buffer for counterrevolution was necessary, he knew a party where every man and his dog could have a share (at least in the socialist transition) was untenable.

You misunderstand, I am a follower of the Leninist interpretation and extrapolation of Marx, this includes the theory of democratic centralism. Lenin himself knew that a vanguard party and a strong state as a buffer for counterrevolution was necessary, he knew a party where every man and his dog could have a share (at least in the socialist transition) was untenable.

And that's where Lenin went wrong. He let the Jacobin/Blanquist conspirator side of his personality get the better of him post-Red October. Up until right after Red October, what Lenin was arguing for was for the most part pure anarchism. Completely gone were his 1902 conspiratorial ideas of democratic centralism and party vanguard, which might have been necessitated by Tsarist oppression in 1902, but where no longer tenable or necessary in 1917.

In The State and Revolution, and in much of his April Theses, Lenin basically became some kind of Marxist-Anarchist hybrid. Rather than conquer political power, he argued that the proletariat should smash the state, and devolve all of its powers to the federated Soviets of Workers, Soldiers and Peasant's Deputies. Worker's control of the means of production would put an end once and for all the capitalist order in industry, while communal agriculture would help produce the surplus necessary to complete the industrialization of the country.

At the same time, the army and the police were to be abolished, replaced by an armed mass. This was all well and good, and would have worked if but for one thing: the centralized Bolshevik party remained, and this is when Lenin's inner Jacobin started to come out. The Bolshevik party, through party members in the Soviets, could slowly centralize power in the hands of the party apparatus. Slowly but surely, after Red October Lenin began recentralizaing power in the hands of the party. The armed mass was bureaucratized, and transformed into a hierarchichal military. The Cheka secret police was introduced. Slowly but surely, all of the real power of the Soviets wound up in the hands of the Party elite. Lenin, of course, justified this by arguing that centralism was necessitated by the external factors of the Revolution. He may have had the best of intentions, but this does not absolve him nor his Leninist doctrine.

If we truly are to learn from Lenin and Leninism, it is that centralized parties are completely counter-intuitive to an authentic proletarian revolution, and will only result in disaster. If you are to consider yourself a Leninist, then heed this lesson, and be the Lenin of 1917, not the Lenin of 1902 or 1921.

You misunderstand, I am a follower of the Leninist interpretation and extrapolation of Marx, this includes the theory of democratic centralism. Lenin himself knew that a vanguard party and a strong state as a buffer for counterrevolution was necessary, he knew a party where every man and his dog could have a share (at least in the socialist transition) was untenable.

Of course and just like Lenin when the elections don't turn out the way you want, call them null and void. The revolution was never meant to happen in Russia, it was meant to happen in an industrialized nation. One of my favorite quotes by Marx essentially amounts to: "I don't trust Russians."

The biggest problem I see with modern communism, is that essentially Marx was never able to anticipate the development of a middle class something which insured that revolution was not inevitable. If things had continued as Marx had predicted in the Industrialized world, the proletariat being in worse shape then before, then perhaps his version of the revolution would come to fruition. As a matter of fact, Marx would probably hate most modern communist nations for the very reason that they are based off of the Lenin model. Lenin essentially set up Tyrants like Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedoung to come to the for front of communism.