NationStates Jolt Archive

I for one, am. Chavez is well on the road to repeating the mistakes of state socialism. His massive centralization of power in the hands of the State, specifically in his hands, is a recipe for disaster. The Russian Revolution showed just how dangerous state centralization is. Lenin's party-state quickly smashed all organs of democracy in Russia, setting itself up as dictator, and paved the way for the horrors of Stalin's regime.

The concept that socialism can be created by a massive red bureaucracy should have been put to rest by now. It is bewildering to me the number of self-described socialists who are willing to overlook Chavez's power grabbing just because he might be on the road to socialism. Unfortunately, he is more likely to be leading Venezuela on the road to serfdom.

I thought you were an anarcho communist.

Well said, and I agree. Chavez is a dictator merely using a mix of socialism and populism for his own power.

I for one, am. Chavez is well on the road to repeating the mistakes of state socialism. His massive centralization of power in the hands of the State, specifically in his hands, is a recipe for disaster. The Russian Revolution showed just how dangerous state centralization is. Lenin's party-state quickly smashed all organs of democracy in Russia, setting itself up as dictator, and paved the way for the horrors of Stalin's regime.

The concept that socialism can be created by a massive red bureaucracy should have been put to rest by now. It is bewildering to me the number of self-described socialists who are willing to overlook Chavez's power grabbing just because he might be on the road to socialism. Unfortunately, he is more likely to be leading Venezuela on the road to serfdom.

Plenty of Venezuelans would be serfs anyway, thanks in part to capitalism. Besides, at least he has the balls to defy the U.S., I give him points for that. He also upsets Fox News/Entertainment greatly, so that gives him even more points. And really, would he be that much worse then the next guy?

I thought you were an anarcho communist.

I am. But that is one of many different beliefs that all fall under the heading of "socialism."

Plenty of Venezuelans would be serfs anyway, thanks in part to capitalism. Besides, at least he has the balls to defy the U.S.

Despite him practically relying on US for trade.

And really, would he be that much worse then the next guy?

Yes.

I am. But that is one of many different beliefs that all fall under the heading of "socialism."

Ohh, you mean socialism.;)

Quick question: What's the eventual result of all of the South American leftist authoritarian regimes?

Exactly. Give it ten years, and then see what happens. Chavez will probably continue on with his reforms, but will lose popularity, and eventually the country will break down into class warfare, and it'll all happen again.

As a socialist, I'm not terribly concerned about it. It'll eventually run it's course, as many of these power-grabs in the name of 'socialism' do. The biggest repercussion I can foresee is the damage to the title of socialist, especially in America, where it seems the label already carries a great deal of negative connotations.

Yeah, but he said the president smelled like sulfur and is the devil. That was pretty damn awesome.

Perhaps, I don't know much about Venezuelan politics, but I don't think you're exactly an expert in that matter either.

I know enough to know that he is making Venezuela worse.

Despite him practically relying on US for trade.



Yes.

Yeah, but he said the president smelled like sulfur and is the devil. That was pretty damn awesome.

Perhaps, I don't know much about Venezuelan politics, but I don't think you're exactly an expert in that matter either.

Yeah, but he said the president smelled like sulfur and is the devil. That was pretty damn awesome.
Something tells me you'd be less ecstatic if Bush said that about Ahmadinejad.

Something tells me you'd be less ecstatic if Bush said that about Ahmadinejad.

Not really.

As a socialist, I'm not terribly concerned about it. It'll eventually run it's course, as many of these power-grabs in the name of 'socialism' do. The biggest repercussion I can foresee is the damage to the title of socialist, especially in America, where it seems the label already carries a great deal of negative connotations.

Yeah, great connotations like "totalitarian", "fascistic", "evil" etc. I don't think that we can afford another very public and brutal image of so-called "socialism" degenerating into autocratic "liquidations", as Stalin referred to his purges.

Plenty of Venezuelans would be serfs anyway, thanks in part to capitalism. Besides, at least he has the balls to defy the U.S., I give him points for that. He also upsets Fox News/Entertainment greatly, so that gives him even more points. And really, would he be that much worse then the next guy?

I'm trying to figure out how to balance this here. We have the alternative, which is anyone who is not Chavez, or we can stick with Chavez: an ex-military proto-Stalinist red bureaucrat whose on the verge of proving Bakunin correct once again.

I'm trying to figure out how to balance this here. We have the alternative, which is anyone who is not Chavez, or we can stick with Chavez: an ex-military proto-Stalinist red bureaucrat whose on the verge of proving Bakunin correct once again.

Ok, show us where you get proto-Stalinist from?

I'm not a particularly staunch supporter of him, I'm just kinda glad that the people as a whole decided to elect someone. A rare thing in Latin America.

Ok, show us where you get proto-Stalinist from?

I'm not a particularly staunch supporter of him, I'm just kinda glad that the people as a whole decided to elect someone. A rare thing in Latin America.

From the fact that he is making the classic Marxist-Leninist mistake of centralizing power in the hands of the state under the name of socialism. His nationalizations are very similar to the classical Lenin and Stalin nationalizations. This time, they are enjoying popular support. But surely enough, the end result will be the same. Chavez is undermining democracy steadily, and greatly increasing the power of the state.

EDIT: Perhaps I am being a little alarmist, but I have no wish to see the Venezuelan people suffer from a mistake that socialists should no better than to repeat.

Yeah, but he said the president smelled like sulfur and is the devil. That was pretty damn awesome.


That's not exactly the appropriate way to engage in dialogue in the international arena. This is hardly even appropriate dialogue for use on an elementary school playground.

From the fact that he is making the classic Marxist-Leninist mistake of centralizing power in the hands of the state under the name of socialism.
Maybe he doesn't intend to follow Marxist-Leninst doctrine.

His nationalizations are very similar to the classical Lenin and Stalin nationalizations. This time, they are enjoying popular support.
That wouldn't be hard. Prior to his changes, nearly everything was owned by the 'elite'. Any sort of redistribution would be seen like that.

But surely enough, the end result will be the same.
Fortune teller are we?

Chavez is undermining democracy steadily, and greatly increasing the power of the state.
Why don't we let the people decide that? When he declares all other parties, except his, to be outlawed then I'll agree. 'Til then...

That's not exactly the appropriate way to engage in dialogue in the international arena.

Whatever his intention, engaging in dialogue was certainly not part of it.

That wouldn't be hard. Prior to his changes, nearly everything was owned by the 'elite'. Any sort of redistribution would be seen like that.



That's the problem though, he hasn't concentrated power in the hands of the people. He's concentrated it in a group that's commonly become to be referred to as "Boligarchs". Political cronies whose loyalty is being rewarded with positions in the government and industry.

Whatever his intention, engaging in dialogue was certainly not part of it.

Talking like that is certainly not the way to get the American people to see his side of the argument though. Even Charlie Rangel, one of the most leftish members of Congress denounced Chavez for that comment.

It seems an especially strange manner of public relations to use the same sort of insults a fat, fundamentalist Christian child would use on a playground, in view of the other elements of his charm offensive in the US.

Chávez is corrupt (or at least tolerant of corruption) and far too authoritarian statist for my tastes... he also has a less-than-rigid belief in the rule of law that is seriously worrying.

I'm not honestly sure what to think, or how to balance that against his program of social reform, which is still worth supporting.

Whatever his intention, engaging in dialogue was certainly not part of it.

Just like Bush!

Talking like that is certainly not the way to get the American people to see his side of the argument though.

That wasn't his intention either. It was populist anti-imperialist rhetoric for domestic consumption.

Just like Bush!

When Chávez invades another country, then we can talk.

That's the problem though, he hasn't concentrated power in the hands of the people. He's concentrated it in a group that's commonly become to be referred to as "Boligarchs". Political cronies whose loyalty is being rewarded with positions in the government and industry.

Maybe so. But it could be said that at least this 'oligarchy' is affecting the broader population positively. Has access to healthcare not increased? Has education not been made accessible to those who were unable before? Has literacy not increased? Has the general population not become more politically active (or at least politically aware)?

Are these not good things?

That wasn't his intention either. It was populist anti-imperialist rhetoric for domestic consumption.




Then why the hell did he say it in front the UN? He's had plenty of chances to say it domestically, and instead he goes to a forum whose primary purpose is international dialogue, and he gives what amounts to a campaign speech!

Maybe so. But it could be said that at least this 'oligarchy' is affecting the broader population positively. Has access to healthcare not increased? Has education not been made accessible to those who were unable before? Has literacy not increased? Has the general population not become more politically active (or at least politically aware)?

Are these not good things?

It all depends on the costs, and many of the other things he is doing, especially concentrating the power of the state in himself, institutionalizing corruption and utilizing undemocratic mechanisms seems to be a very high cost.

That wasn't his intention either. It was populist anti-imperialist rhetoric for domestic consumption.



When Chávez invades another country, then we can talk.

Technically, Bush didn't invade any countries, he simply ordered the invasions...

When Chávez invades another country, then we can talk.

Chávez won't invade another country, as he knows that doing so would provide the US with a superb pretext to move against him, militarily or otherwise.

Then why the hell did he say it in front the UN?

Emphasis? I don't know.

Emphasis? I don't know.

And use such a lame insult as that I mean, wouldn't "I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. " have been so much better than "OMG B00SH 15 T3H D3b1L LOLLOLROFLLOL!!!!!!!!11!!!!!"?

Chavez carries on in the grand tradition of statist nonsense. This should destroy any legitimate claim that he has to the label "socialist," but unfortunately authoritarian statism has been, and continues to be, the more popular interpretation of political -isms in general.

Authoritarian statists, left and right, only seek to increase and project their own power. Thus, I am less concerned for Chavez, and more concerned for those who will be his victims.

Then why the hell did he say it in front the UN?


Because staying at home and talking to the wall isn't going to impress anyone at home. Going to the UN and talking to the General Assembly gives him the opportunity to go back home and tell everyone that he went to the UN and talked to the General Assembly.

All politics are local. "International Relations" is just domestic politics with diplomatic immunity.

Because staying at home and talking to the wall isn't going to impress anyone at home. Going to the UN and talking to the General Assembly gives him the opportunity to go back home and tell everyone that he went to the UN and talked to the General Assembly.

All politics are local. "International Relations" is just domestic politics with diplomatic immunity.

So he gave a campaign speech. Classy.

So he gave a campaign speech. Classy.


What do you think anyone else standing in front of the General Assembly is doing?

May I remind everyone that it is only Venezuela! :rolleyes:

Trotskylvania it's those kind of irrational attacks on socialism that do damage to the cause, there's no problem with suggesting reform but deliberately attacking Venezuela is damaging to the left, and is exploited as weakness by the reactionaries.

I think people are overreacting on the Venezuelan situation. Hugo chaves has not centralized the Venezuelan power/democracy. With the new constitution he has made it possible for a county to withdraw it's parliament representative if 1/5 of the population in the electoral ring demands it.

Yes, "la Ley Habilitante"(laws by decree in Venezuela) was not a very good idea. But as a matter of fact its been done several times in Venezuela before without the media, or anyone else for that matter, fighting over who is most critical. The fact is that laws by decree is normal in most presidential democracies. One example is the fast-track laws in the US.

Anyway, the elected parliament has veto over these laws. So he needs their consent in the long run. Any law, in Venezuela, can also be taken to a popular vote if more then 5% of the population demands it.

What Chavez actually has done is great. The huge oil industry has been nationalized and put under democratic and the peoples control. The income from this industry is now being used to for example fund:

Free health care for 14 million people
200.000 children get a free education
Eradicating illiteracy(good for democracy no?)
A lot less poor, than for example the US(8,3% against somewhere between 13 - 20%)


Of course we should be skeptical of any authority. But so far Chavez has been close to unproblematic.

Well, I am a Social-Liberal-Marxist/Stalinistic Communist.
I am a left-hand side in other words.



:sniper::upyours::gundge::gundge::gundge::gundge::gundge::mp5::mp5:

Well, I am a Social-Liberal-Marxist/Stalinistic Communist.


Stalin has nothing to do with anything social or liberal.

US is a socialist country as well.

Halliburton is a kind of special ‘government’ department used and partly owned, directly and indirectly, by the CEO of US and its vassals.

And it is just serving their own, already rich, wallet.

And is Bush not a dictator in a way? Elected? Not really.

Ask Gore about that one.
Ask the countless black people that were not allowed to vote.

He just took the power by force. He just stole it. I know it, you know, HE knows it.

And now he’s doing what he wants, such as protecting other former skull & bones friends.

Honestly, I don’t like socialist’ countries, I don’t like capitalist’ countries as well.

I don’t like countries at all. Maybe one day, we will discover that we are living on the same mini globe….

I don’t like countries at all. Maybe one day, we will discover that we are living on the same mini globe….

If this came from a capitalist, the charge of "Imperialism!" would be ringing out from this crowd.

The concept that socialism can be created by a massive red bureaucracy should have been put to rest by now.I'm curious. How would you go and achive socialism? I mean, yeah - Marx' principles of state-controlling everything and cutting off excess productivity do inevitably lead to totalitarism, we know this much. The thing is... What else should be done?

It is bewildering to me the number of self-described socialists who are willing to overlook Chavez's power grabbing just because he might be on the road to socialism.That's because the majority of socialists (At least, the majoity of socialists I'm aware of) are really just 'Anti-Establisment' hooligans whose puberty continued right into their twenties, and whose whole reason for supporting socialism is 'Socialism is against the evil tyrants' - whoever these tyrants might be. They need something to hate, to be against (So as to define themselves as 'We're not like them!' and 'We're against them!') because, well... That's what rebels do. Inconsistencies in their own logic, and the application thereof, don't matter when the whole intellectual work they do consists of frothing at the mouth, burning an american flag, and cheering for everyone who happens to be against America - be they theocrats, tyrants, mass murderers, or combinations thereof.

Which is of course the reason for their hate in the first place - I'd expect a socialist who actually thinks to be a bit more detached, to be aware of how the system (The economic system, that is) and its necessities cause all kinds of 'Bad' things, but no - nine out of ten self-declared socialists hate, are quite explicitly hating - not an economic system, but against people and countries. Which is inherently silly when you're following in the footsteps of Marx & Engels. Hell, it's inherently silly for as long as you're considering economic systems, rather than individual evil to be the cause of anything major.

They're basically hooligans who thrive of the hatred they preach, rather like leftist versions of Fred Phelps.

You're of course right when you use the term 'Self-described' for them - for they are either really, really stupid socialists, or they aren't socialists at all. But... Bewildering it is not. Not when you're aware of just how these 'Socialists' think. Then it's quite natural, if - for a 'Real' socialist - rather depressing.

I'm curious. How would you go and achive socialism? I mean, yeah - Marx' principles of state-controlling everything and cutting off excess productivity do inevitably lead to totalitarism, we know this much. The thing is... What else should be done?

That's because the majority of socialists (At least, the majoity of socialists I'm aware of) are really just 'Anti-Establisment' hooligans whose puberty continued right into their twenties, and whose whole reason for supporting socialism is 'Socialism is against the evil tyrants' - whoever these tyrants might be. They need something to hate, to be against (So as to define themselves as 'We're not like them!' and 'We're against them!') because, well... That's what rebels do. Inconsistencies in their own logic, and the application thereof, don't matter when the whole intellectual work they do consists of frothing at the mouth, burning an american flag, and cheering for everyone who happens to be against America - be they theocrats, tyrants, mass murderers, or combinations thereof.

Which is of course the reason for their hate in the first place - I'd expect a socialist who actually thinks to be a bit more detached, to be aware of how the system (The economic system, that is) and its necessities cause all kinds of 'Bad' things, but no - nine out of ten self-declared socialists hate, are quite explicitly hating - not an economic system, but against people and countries. Which is inherently silly when you're following in the footsteps of Marx & Engels. Hell, it's inherently silly for as long as you're considering economic systems, rather than individual evil to be the cause of anything major.

They're basically hooligans who thrive of the hatred they preach, rather like leftist versions of Fred Phelps.

You're of course right when you use the term 'Self-described' for them - for they are either really, really stupid socialists, or they aren't socialists at all. But... Bewildering it is not. Not when you're aware of just how these 'Socialists' think. Then it's quite natural, if - for a 'Real' socialist - rather depressing.

It must be really infuriating for you that someone who advocates an ideology you disdain exists in your world.

LOL@raging right-wingers

And that's an 'F' for basic text interpretation :-)

Yes.

Dabbling in foretelling the future are we?

That wouldn't be hard. Prior to his changes, nearly everything was owned by the 'elite'. Any sort of redistribution would be seen like that.




He hasn't really redistributed anything he's just kinda consolidated power.

It must be really infuriating for you that someone who advocates an ideology you disdain exists in your world.

LOL@raging right-wingers

Lol @ people who can only use name calling to refute someones claim.

Well, I am a Social-Liberal-Marxist/Stalinistic Communist.
I am a left-hand side in other words.



:sniper::upyours::gundge::gundge::gundge::gundge::gundge::mp5::mp5:

*sighs* oh newbie gun smilies, you never cease to amaze me.

Why don't we let the people decide that? When he declares all other parties, except his, to be outlawed then I'll agree. 'Til then...

Well by that time it will be too late for anyone to really do anything so it won't really matter if we continue to call him an evil dictator cause then it will be true.

I don’t like countries at all. Maybe one day, we will discover that we are living on the same mini globe….

And then there will be peace and harmony and no one to direct the means of production... and eventually an evil dictator will come along and make one big country out of the world and everybody will be happy! :p

Maybe so. But it could be said that at least this 'oligarchy' is affecting the broader population positively. Has access to healthcare not increased? Has education not been made accessible to those who were unable before? Has literacy not increased? Has the general population not become more politically active (or at least politically aware)?

Are these not good things?

Do the trains run on time?

Do the trains run on time?

I know I heard that phrase somewhere but where? Who said it to make it famous.

as for the question, the trains are still probably late when people are on time and on-time when people are late.

I think people are overreacting on the Venezuelan situation. Hugo chaves has not centralized the Venezuelan power/democracy. With the new constitution he has made it possible for a county to withdraw it's parliament representative if 1/5 of the population in the electoral ring demands it.

He has centralized the instances of power. More and more he concentrates more choices and decisions upon his own person. That is centralization. Most of the goverment officials do not take decisions until they consult with the president. they even admit that openly.

Yes, "la Ley Habilitante"(laws by decree in Venezuela) was not a very good idea. But as a matter of fact its been done several times in Venezuela before without the media, or anyone else for that matter, fighting over who is most critical. The fact is that laws by decree is normal in most presidential democracies. One example is the fast-track laws in the US.

Anyway, the elected parliament has veto over these laws. So he needs their consent in the long run. Any law, in Venezuela, can also be taken to a popular vote if more then 5% of the population demands it.

It has been done, but not with the reach of this time. He wanted to change too may laws and many of them were the most important. That is why it raised such a fuss. And no, they do not have a veto, (although it doesn't matter in any case, they all belong to the president party anyway).

What Chavez actually has done is great. The huge oil industry has been nationalized and put under democratic and the peoples control. The income from this industry is now being used to for example fund:


Free health care for 14 million people

I invite you a venezuelan hospital, so you can see how that free health care works. I have seen doctors applying metal stables to wounds because they do not have needles and thread. I don't know, but it is not working. It is not directly Chávez's fault, but it doesn't work nevertheless. Plus, his work is to provide free health care to 25 millions of venezuelans, not just 14.

200.000 children get a free education

Venezuela has free education since the 19th century...that is not Chávez work, it has been free for more than a century before he was elected.

Eradicating illiteracy(good for democracy no?)

I still see people who cannot read or write around...Mostly in rural areas. I won't critic further, because I strongly support this program in particular, although the goverment has inflated the reach and achievements of it.

A lot less poor, than for example the US(8,3% against somewhere between 13 - 20%)

Again, the amount of shanty towns and people selling their belongings in the streets doesn't convince me about this fact.


Of course we should be skeptical of any authority. But so far Chavez has been close to unproblematic.

Chávez is far from unproblematic. He is not capable of electing good underlings, and that is problematic. For me, that's his main problem. He is surrounded by rather inept or corrupt officcials that he maintains in positions of power just because they are his cronies and pay him respect.

I do not care anymore about his foreign policy. But with the amount of income this goverent is receiving, I want him to do more for my people.

I know I heard that phrase somewhere but where? Who said it to make it famous.
as for the question, the trains are still probably late when people are on time and on-time when people are late.

Mussolini

And then there will be peace and harmony and no one to direct the means of production... and eventually an evil dictator will come along and make one big country out of the world and everybody will be happy! :p

The world will be mine, once ;)

First of all, the obvious threat of his foreign policy. Such exapmles include: Meeting with Saddam Hussein, supporting Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, comparing Israel to Hitler and describing their actions as a "new Holocaust", making weapon trades with many organizations, and other such actions, all go to attest that this is a madman, very similar to Fidel Castro. Despite his 'socialist' actions which some indeed might be legitimately good for his nation (perhaps popular support is a big factor in this), he acts in undemocratic ways, such as the recent banning of the opposition radio channel and many other such examples. In our world, a man with control over oil supply must always be regarded with caution and do not underestimate his power.

Anytime you have a dictatorship it's bad news regardless of the form of government.
I personally think a mix of socialism and capitalism, a little heavy on the socialism, is good. But no matter what type of economic system you have a representative democracy works best.

Anytime you have a dictatorship it's bad news regardless of the form of government.
I personally think a mix of socialism and capitalism, a little heavy on the socialism, is good. But no matter what type of economic system you have a representative democracy works best.

It has been said before, although Chávez shows autochratic tendencies, he is not a dictator.

Talking like that is certainly not the way to get the American people to see his side of the argument though. Even Charlie Rangel, one of the most leftish members of Congress denounced Chavez for that comment.Who said he was looking for US sympathy?
.
It seems an especially strange manner of public relations to use the same sort of insults a fat, fundamentalist Christian child would use on a playground, in view of the other elements of his charm offensive in the US.maybe it did ofend some Bush fans -or not-.. -Americans or not- so what? It was a boring day and Chavez made my day. :p Go Chavez. just do it.. what no other politician has dared to do.
.
It seems an especially strange manner of public relations to use the same sort of insults a fat, fundamentalist Christian child would use on a playground...LOL
a Fat Christian President telling another fundamentalist Christian President to fuck off -at the UN- with all the Worlds cameras pointed at him.
Awesome.

I for one, am. Chavez is well on the road to repeating the mistakes of state socialism. His massive centralization of power in the hands of the State, specifically in his hands, is a recipe for disaster. The Russian Revolution showed just how dangerous state centralization is. Lenin's party-state quickly smashed all organs of democracy in Russia, setting itself up as dictator, and paved the way for the horrors of Stalin's regime.

The concept that socialism can be created by a massive red bureaucracy should have been put to rest by now. It is bewildering to me the number of self-described socialists who are willing to overlook Chavez's power grabbing just because he might be on the road to socialism. Unfortunately, he is more likely to be leading Venezuela on the road to serfdom.

No, I am not concerned. If I say, "Oh that Chavez! He's a power-mad dictator!" then am told that I'm repeating a Bush talking point.

No, I am not concerned. If I say, "Oh that Chavez! He's a power-mad dictator!" then am told that I'm repeating a Bush talking point.actually you -and many from puritan Country- are blindly repeating FOX/CNN/AP talking points.

but hey.. we are used to it. ;)

Do you have a clue? Do you know what percentage of FOX/CNN/AP listeners still think there was a Saddam-911 link ???

actually you -and many from puritan Country- are blindly repeating FOX/CNN/AP talking points.

but hey.. we are used to it. ;)

Hey, I neither watch Fox, nor link to it. Nor am I a puritan.

Hey, I neither watch Fox, nor link to it. Nor am I a puritan.if you say so :cool:

Nor am I a puritan.BTW i am not a puritan either.. but I am from puritan country too.. land of the Brave.. home of the free. beacon of Justice defender of democracy etc etc
So I am a bit subjected to that Mass Media too. I just know better than to take 100% of their word for it..

if you say so :cool:

I don't have to read or watch Fox to know that Chavez is a dictator.

http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9660086

I don't have to read or watch Fox to know that Chavez is a dictator.
since you already know he is a dictator.. probably based on a crap editorial piece written by some "journalist".. I guess you are not going to be voting for him at the next elections :D BTW.. yes,Yes I know you are not a citizen of Venezuela.
.
http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9660086wait.. did I sat crap editorial?
scrap that, I was being too generous. ;)

since you know he is a dictator.. based on a crap editorial piece written by some "journalist".. I guess you are not going to be voting for him at the next elections :D
.
wait.. did I sat crap editorial?
scrap that, I was being too generous. ;)

These are facts:

The plan to abolish presidential term limits is part of a bundle of constitutional changes unveiled by Mr Chávez on August 15th. These would remove the last remaining checks and balances to presidential power in Venezuela. They would strip the Central Bank of all autonomy, allowing the government to spend the country's foreign reserves. The government would be given power to expropriate private property by decree, and to promote co-operatives and state enterprise.

You're saying Chavez has no intention of doing this? Prove it.

You're saying...?Nope. Prove it.Nope.

common RO.. a veteran player like you should know better than that.

What I am saying is:

#1 The people of Venezuela -most of- likes him and trust him.
#2 The people of Venezuela -most of- democratically voted for Chavez.

for as long as they keep voting for him.. He is No dictator. Regardless of what you think.

These are facts:



You're saying Chavez has no intention of doing this? Prove it.

Y'know, the absence of term limits does not a dictatorship make.

Look at the UK, for example. There are no limits on how long a Prime Minister remains head of his party, and there are certainly no limits on how long our monarch reigns.

Does that make us a Dictatorship?

Y'know, the absence of term limits does not a dictatorship make.

Look at the UK, for example. There are no limits on how long a Prime Minister remains head of his party, and there are certainly no limits on how long our monarch reigns.

Does that make us a Dictatorship?

Your monarch is effectively powerless.

The PM of the UK cannot effectively govern if the Parliament opposes him.

There are many checks and balances that have already been removed by Chavez - he's just removing the last of them now.

It makes him a dictator.

Your monarch is effectively powerless.

The PM of the UK cannot effectively govern if the Parliament opposes him.

There are many checks and balances that have already been removed by Chavez - he's just removing the last of them now.

It makes him a dictator.

DK, please stop saying things I agree with. you're upsetting the balance of the universe.

DK, please stop saying things I agree with. you're upsetting the balance of the universe.

I take it you noticed that the scientists found that hole in the universe then.

Quick question: What's the eventual result of all of the South American leftist authoritarian regimes?

Exactly. Give it ten years, and then see what happens. Chavez will probably continue on with his reforms, but will lose popularity, and eventually the country will break down into class warfare, and it'll all happen again.

As a socialist, I'm not terribly concerned about it. It'll eventually run it's course, as many of these power-grabs in the name of 'socialism' do. The biggest repercussion I can foresee is the damage to the title of socialist, especially in America, where it seems the label already carries a great deal of negative connotations.

The only leftist regime in Latin American history that has had any authoritarianism in it is the Cuban one, as far as I know. While I would not like Venezuela to go that route, I don't think that's waht you meant, as it has not descended into class warfare, etc.

Trotskylvania it's those kind of irrational attacks on socialism that do damage to the cause, there's no problem with suggesting reform but deliberately attacking Venezuela is damaging to the left, and is exploited as weakness by the reactionaries.

Actually, irrational support of leftist dictators, or those who attempt to hijack socialism for their own ends, is far more damaging to the cause than intelligent criticism of the cause. Nor do I see this as an attack on Venezuela. It is a statement of criticism of Chávez (finally got the accent right) and one that I agree with.

His silencing of the media is probably the most worrisome aspect. It is unfortunate that many of the media corporations were involved in anti-government activities, but I fear that he has taken this as an excuse to minimise debate, rather than punish the individuals responsible.

His control over the government apparatus, and his erosion of checks and balances against his power, are also very worrisome. If he truly derived his mandate from the people, he would be ensuring that his office is ultimately accountable to the people.

I support those of his policies that actually benefit the poor and working classes in Venezuela. But I do not support him.

I'm curious. How would you go and achive socialism? I mean, yeah - Marx' principles of state-controlling everything and cutting off excess productivity do inevitably lead to totalitarism, we know this much. The thing is... What else should be done?

A social revolution from below that simultaneously abolishes the state and private property, replacing them with decentralized, direct democracy in administration, along with cooperative economic institutions based around worker's self-management.

For more on this idea, go read the Anarchist FAQ (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/). Its an excellent, if somewhat flawed primer.

That's because the majority of socialists (At least, the majoity of socialists I'm aware of) are really just 'Anti-Establisment' hooligans whose puberty continued right into their twenties, and whose whole reason for supporting socialism is 'Socialism is against the evil tyrants' - whoever these tyrants might be. They need something to hate, to be against (So as to define themselves as 'We're not like them!' and 'We're against them!') because, well... That's what rebels do. Inconsistencies in their own logic, and the application thereof, don't matter when the whole intellectual work they do consists of frothing at the mouth, burning an american flag, and cheering for everyone who happens to be against America - be they theocrats, tyrants, mass murderers, or combinations thereof.

Which is of course the reason for their hate in the first place - I'd expect a socialist who actually thinks to be a bit more detached, to be aware of how the system (The economic system, that is) and its necessities cause all kinds of 'Bad' things, but no - nine out of ten self-declared socialists hate, are quite explicitly hating - not an economic system, but against people and countries. Which is inherently silly when you're following in the footsteps of Marx & Engels. Hell, it's inherently silly for as long as you're considering economic systems, rather than individual evil to be the cause of anything major.

They're basically hooligans who thrive of the hatred they preach, rather like leftist versions of Fred Phelps.

You're of course right when you use the term 'Self-described' for them - for they are either really, really stupid socialists, or they aren't socialists at all. But... Bewildering it is not. Not when you're aware of just how these 'Socialists' think. Then it's quite natural, if - for a 'Real' socialist - rather depressing.

Perhaps it is my naive hope that people might be serious enough about socialism to consider its past history and why it has failed in the past. I know my group of socialist friends here in Montana of all places has done the theoretical legwork. If we can do it here in this Third World Nation masquerading as an Amercian state, perhaps people in other states can too.

I take it you noticed that the scientists found that hole in the universe then.

Yes, and you saying something that isn't bat-shit insane explains how it got there. Someone stop this man before he destroys everything! :D

I'm curious. How would you go and achive socialism? I mean, yeah - Marx' principles of state-controlling everything and cutting off excess productivity do inevitably lead to totalitarism, we know this much. The thing is... What else should be done?
This is the problem with most socialists, if not a fault in itself.

That bloody fixation with Karl Marx and his particular pseudo-religious ideology which prophecises a strict pattern of change, especially since it was written in a completely different context, in which the predicted results haven't been met.

The actual way to acheive socialism is by what some socialists term "bourgeois democracy", as in 'get in an elected government, because they're the ones with any idea of how to organise a country, and if they're a socialist party, that's all for the good'.

Any kind of revolution involving large amounts of the general populace generally just leads to elitist communes which don't really have anything to do with proper socialism, and have everything to do with the 'left-wing' members of a society setting themselves up in positions of power, whilst kicking out anyone they don't like.

See Italy 1919 to 1921-ish.

Massive amounts of violence from the left-wing against the right wing (more deaths were caused by various left-wing groups than the Squadristi of fascism) and communes which ostracised those who didn't agree with the viewpoint of the current leaders.

Or The Whole Of The USSR's Existance.
That's because the majority of socialists (At least, the majoity of socialists I'm aware of) are really just 'Anti-Establisment' hooligans whose puberty continued right into their twenties, and whose whole reason for supporting socialism is 'Socialism is against the evil tyrants' - whoever these tyrants might be. They need something to hate, to be against (So as to define themselves as 'We're not like them!' and 'We're against them!') because, well... That's what rebels do. Inconsistencies in their own logic, and the application thereof, don't matter when the whole intellectual work they do consists of frothing at the mouth, burning an american flag, and cheering for everyone who happens to be against America - be they theocrats, tyrants, mass murderers, or combinations thereof.
The thing about Socialism and its relation to the US is that, ever since the Red Terror and all that jazz, being a socialist has been the ends, rather than a means to an ends, for the disaffected and/or simply bored youth of the US, and indeed in many affluent communities around the world.

The iconic face, for example, of Che Guevara as the poster boy of armchair revolutionaries around the world is exactly that to most 'socialists' - it's a sign of resistance against capitalism and not much more.
Which is of course the reason for their hate in the first place - I'd expect a socialist who actually thinks to be a bit more detached, to be aware of how the system (The economic system, that is) and its necessities cause all kinds of 'Bad' things, but no - nine out of ten self-declared socialists hate, are quite explicitly hating - not an economic system, but against people and countries. Which is inherently silly when you're following in the footsteps of Marx & Engels. Hell, it's inherently silly for as long as you're considering economic systems, rather than individual evil to be the cause of anything major.
Quite.
They're basically hooligans who thrive of the hatred they preach, rather like leftist versions of Fred Phelps.
I'm not really sure 'hooligans' is the right term, seeing as they're mostly utterly harmless, but yes, the intolerance of it all is quite a reason for believing - it's something to get the aggression out in the otherwise oft-boring life and uneventful of a suburban middle class male.
You're of course right when you use the term 'Self-described' for them - for they are either really, really stupid socialists, or they aren't socialists at all. But... Bewildering it is not. Not when you're aware of just how these 'Socialists' think. Then it's quite natural, if - for a 'Real' socialist - rather depressing.
As a socialist, people like Andaris Prime (rubbish with names, sorry if it's spelt wrong) just disappoint me, especially since I can remember being quite that... hmm... fanatical, I guess is the right word, only a year or two ago myself.

Once you actually take a step back and read up on everything around the issue, and talk to people who aren't just other champagne socialists, you start to change your viewpoint.

No more is it "the USSR was a worker's paradise, and anyone who disagrees is an idiot", it's more "the USSR was actually not that great for anyone other than the people at the top, although arguably this was caused by factors ascertaining to the social context before the revolution and the fact that the people at the top, other than, on an occasion, Trotsky, weren't really pragmatists, or indeed career politicians".

The blindness shown just detracts from the whole movement, and I'm sure that yourself on the right wing presumably feels the same way about extremist right-wingers, although maybe I'm assuming too much.

Your monarch is effectively powerless.
Not actually true, the issue is that unless the government is EXTREMELY unpopular, they are unlikely to take action to dissolve parliament because it would give the Republicans here an excuse to kick them out.

They theoretically have vast powers, Elizabeth has just been a very good and fairly calm leader. Hopefully Charles (give a dog a bad name and all that) will be similar.
The PM of the UK cannot effectively govern if the Parliament opposes him.
You'd think that, but no. With the power that our system gives the winning party, as well as the influence of the Whips, a PM can actually do alright even with no parliamentary support.

See Tony Blair.
There are many checks and balances that have already been removed by Chavez - he's just removing the last of them now.

It makes him a dictator.
It only really makes him a dictator if he doesn't step down at the end of his term.

A social revolution from below that simultaneously abolishes the state and private property, replacing them with decentralized, direct democracy in administration, along with cooperative economic institutions based around worker's self-management.Not quite what I meant (Well, actually, it is, but it doesn't cover everything) - I meant quite specific the organisation thereof.

The points I can think of right now would be:

How can the lower income bracket of the population be convinced to engage in a revolution in the first place?
How does direct democracy work with populations in the dozens of millions?
What exactly is meant with decentralised, direct democracy in the first place (The 'Decentralised' bit to be specific)?
How would the self-management of the workers be organised, and what is it supposed to achive? Non-specialists voting on assorted investments is... Risky and - somewhat more importantly, after all, specialists make mistakes, too - time consuming.

(I hope you'll excuse me not digging through that anarchism link, especially not within 24 hours - I skimmed over it, but it's a bit much... And them failing to properly understand the concept and implications of 'Surplus Value' makes me shriek and run in the first place).

The actual way to acheive socialism is by what some socialists term "bourgeois democracy", as in 'get in an elected government, because they're the ones with any idea of how to organise a country, and if they're a socialist party, that's all for the good'.I.e. what we do - to a greater or lesser extend, depending on the country - generally have in the 'First World', I suppose? Granted, these do definitely not feature 'Real' socialism, but judging by the wealth distribution in these countries, a case can be made for its - that is, its non-marxist versions - primary goals (Socioeconomic stability and appreciable distribution of wealth) being achived through compromise. With fluctuations, because economies are inherently changing one way or another all the time, of course.

Any kind of revolution involving large amounts of the general populace generally just leads to elitist communes which don't really have anything to do with proper socialism, and have everything to do with the 'left-wing' members of a society setting themselves up in positions of power, whilst kicking out anyone they don't like.Mhm. The same can be said for getting into power via non-revolutionary means - I.e. elections -, except that it's less bloody, and they can be voted out (Thus ensuring a degree of accountability). This would, in turn, not be specific to socialism, but to every socio-economic concept turning political, with the violent takeover generally being the worse option.

Well. For everything political, really.

Not that it really matters for this discussion. Just saying >.>

The thing about Socialism and its relation to the US is that, ever since the Red Terror and all that jazz, being a socialist has been the ends, rather than a means to an ends, for the disaffected and/or simply bored youth of the US, and indeed in many affluent communities around the world.Good point - and given the, ah... 'Questionable' nature of conservative/ right-wingish arguments ('Lol I HAETS you traitor', and I wish this was an exaggeration), I suppose it's understandable.

Still sad that the reaction to it is to copy it, though.

The blindness shown just detracts from the whole movement, and I'm sure that yourself on the right wing presumably feels the same way about extremist right-wingers, although maybe I'm assuming too much.Yes you are, insofar as I really don't consider myself to be a right winger :P I may support some of the concepts, but the same goes for some socialist concepts, some green concepts, and and and...

Not quite what I meant (Well, actually, it is, but it doesn't cover everything) - I meant quite specific the organisation thereof.

The points I can think of right now would be:

How can the lower income bracket of the population be convinced to engage in a revolution in the first place?
How does direct democracy work with populations in the dozens of millions?
What exactly is meant with decentralised, direct democracy in the first place (The 'Decentralised' bit to be specific)?
How would the self-management of the workers be organised, and what is it supposed to achive? Non-specialists voting on assorted investments is... Risky and - somewhat more importantly, after all, specialists make mistakes, too - time consuming.

(I hope you'll excuse me not digging through that anarchism link, especially not within 24 hours - I skimmed over it, but it's a bit much... And them failing to properly understand the concept and implications of 'Surplus Value' makes me shriek and run in the first place).

Well, I'll try to answer all your questions.

Basically, that would involve convincing them that the benefit of revolution is greater than the potential. This is probably going to be largely influenced simply by the signs of the times. Obviously, people who are comfortable aren't going to be willing to risk everything for revolution, but, at the same time they are generally going to be alienated from their work. At this point, organization for struggle should be more orientated around improving the level of self-management at work. Establishing worker councils, and "negotiating" with the management to get them to delegate powers to the democratically assembled workers in a given enterprise, and stuff like that. This kind of gradualism will be necessary to introduce people to the idea of communist-anarchism, and to prepare them for revolutionary society. I must stress that any revolution must be a complete social revolution, involving not just the industrial proletariat, but also people of all different classes. If you look at the 1960s New Left, it's greatest triumph was the unification of idealists from all different classes. The son of the factory worker marched side by side with the son of the factory owner or the academician for the same goal of socialism and freedom.
This is where the concept of federalism comes in. Bascially, under the federal principle, decision making is kept as local as possible. The people of the entire nation decide on things that affect the whole nation, the people of a city decide on issues that affect that city, people living in a ward in that city decide on the issues that affect the ward, and finally people in each neighborhood in a ward will decide on the issues that affect that neighboorhood. Obviously, telecommunications will greatly enhance this project, but it should be noted that the Parisian sections during the 1848 Revolution in france were able to effectively govern the city through direct democracy before being stamped out.
The decentralization part basically implies the federalist principle that I enumerated above. Decision making is kept local, since most of the affairs of organization are really just local questions. At the same time, one political sub group cannot force another into making a decision.
Ideally, each workplace will define its own scheme of self-management. For the most part, it means a the same principle of federalism and direct democracy that I enumerated above, but it also means some other things. The division of labor will be altered so that there are no longer purely intellectual workers and purely manual workers. The workplace training program will in turn focus on giving everyone at least a basic level of understanding of how their business needs to be managed. Specialized positions for management will be decided on either by a rotating sortition (i.e., its your turn to calculate the income vs. outcome balance) or by deputation, in which someone is elected to fulfill a role, but can be overriden by the majority and is subject to recall at any time. The history of cooperative enterprises has shown that this schema can work and be quite efficient. The syndicates of anarchist workers during the Spanish revolution effectively planned the economy while simultaneously fighting off Franco's fascists.