NationStates Jolt Archive

I personally agree with this, socialist truth must be given to children at a young age otherwise capitalistic doctrine will turn them in the wrong direction.

"Indoctrination of youth is fine...as long as the ideology being promoted is the one I agree with."


...epic fail.

EDIT: W00t! First thread steal! :D

"Society cannot allow the private sector to do whatever it wants," said Chavez, speaking on the first day of classes.

All schools, public and private, must admit state inspectors and submit to the government's new educational system, or be closed and nationalized, with the state taking responsibility for the education of their children, Chavez said.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/09/17/chavez.venezuela.ap/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7000079.stm

I personally agree with this, socialist truth must be given to children at a young age otherwise capitalistic doctrine will turn them in the wrong direction.

Do you seriously want every child to be indoctrinated in socialism, without anyone, including their parents who were the ones that chose these private schools, having anything to say about it?

Of course, otherwise capitalist thought will flourish and they will be greedy and utilitarian in their thinking when older.

Now it'll be interesting to see how this one will be justified by the local "Chávez authoritarian? Never!" crowd.

"Indoctrination of youth is fine...as long as the ideology being promoted is the one I agree with."

No, as long as the ideology is truth, which socialism is.

socialist truth must be given to children at a young age

Do you seriously want every child to be indoctrinated in socialism, without anyone, including their parents who were the ones that chose these private schools, having anything to say about it?

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/09/17/chavez.venezuela.ap/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7000079.stm

I personally agree with this, socialist truth must be given to children at a young age otherwise capitalistic doctrine will turn them in the wrong direction.

Thumbs down, Senor Chavez. Bad form...bad form indeed.

No, as long as the ideology is truth, which socialism is.

Nah dude, I've played Bioshock. Socialism is epic fail; objectivism for the win.

Nah duh, I've played Bioshock. Socialism is epic fail; objectivism for the win.

Is not a man entitled to the sweat of his brow? No, says the man in Washington, it belongs to a bunch of companies. No, says the man in Caracas, it belongs to Chavez. No, says the man in Pyongyang, it wasnt your sweat in the first place. The Dear Leader sweated that sweat and if you dont bloody well believe it youre going off to the concentration camps.

Is not a man entitled to the sweat of his brow? No, says the man in Washington, it belongs to a bunch of companies. No, says the man in Caracas, it belongs to the people. No, says the man in Pyongyang, it wasnt your sweat in the first place. The Dear Leader sweated that sweat and if you dont bloody well believe it youre going off to the concentration camps.

Fixed.

Broken.
Fix'd

No, says the man in Tehran, it belongs to ALLAH!

Andrew Ryan, greatest political philosopher of our age.

Paradox!

Is not a man entitled to the sweat of his brow? No, says the man in Washington, it belongs to a bunch of companies. No, says the man in Caracas, it belongs to Chavez. No, says the man in Pyongyang, it wasnt your sweat in the first place. The Dear Leader sweated that sweat and if you dont bloody well believe it youre going off to the concentration camps.

No, says the man in Tehran, it belongs to ALLAH!

Andrew Ryan, greatest political philosopher of our age.

Fixed.

Nah, I really can't say that Chavez is working for the people. He's less like Lenin, and more like Stalin. With less murder and rape.

Well, maybe just less rape.

Paradox!

How?

Nah, I really can't say that Chavez is working for the people. He's less like Lenin, and more like Stalin. With less murder and rape.

Well, maybe just less rape.

Murder? I see no source good sir, and no substance.

Murder? I see no source goo sir, and no substance.

Trust me, it'll come to that. Always does.

Trust me, it'll come to that. Always does.

So what you mean is, it hasn't happened so I'll look into my magic crystal ball and tell you what will happen. Sorry but your 'predictions' don't mean anything.

But what will happen to the wedgie? Is it to be socialized too? :eek:

So what you mean is, it hasn't happened so I'll look into my magic crystal ball and tell you what will happen. Sorry but your 'predictions' don't mean anything.

Yeah they do. Anybody who has power and who wants to hold onto it will do anything to keep it. Look at all your socialist heroes, they all did it.

Yeah they do. Anybody who has power and who wants to hold onto it will do anything to keep it. Look at all your socialist heroes, they all did it.
If people resist socialism and try to cling to their greed, of course conflict will ensue, socialism must be radical in it's reorganizing of society.

Now there's a smart man, that Chavez. Ideas are by far the most dangerous thing on Earth. The government must have oversight over all ideas being put into young citizen's heads or else they might get unbiased views on alternative ways of life... I mean capitalist propaganda.

Freedom of choice should take a backseat for the Greater Good, right?

Fuck socialism. Nobody want socialism.
Well apparently the people of Venezuela want it, or they wouldn't have voted for it. Latin America under the leadership of these movements must confront neoliberal imperialism from the US.

If people resist socialism and try to cling to their greed, of course conflict will ensue, socialism must be radical in it's reorganizing of society.

Fuck socialism. Nobody want socialism. Socialism didn't work last time, and it will never work.

If people resist socialism and try to cling to their greed, of course conflict will ensue, socialism must be radical in it's reorganizing of society.

Read as: murder anyone who disagrees, and eliminate the very system that put you in power in the first place.

Socialism, Fascism - two sides, same coin.

Pssh. Socailists. Next thing you know, Communists will take over. After all, while Capitalism is on one side of Socialism, Communism is on the other and Statist Communism is always abused. Our species has an instinctive desire to desire the better, the superior. Without this instinct, we'd be still in the stone age because nothing will get invented to improve life because there would be no desire for a better life.

There's no best system. Anarchy creates mobs, which destroy individuality and cause people to do things they might otherwise never do, like murder and looting. Having complete government control leads to massive corruption and oppression as the government would have nothing to fear from the people. Any middle ground will be corrupted by a combo of the two, though not as extreme. It has always happened. It will always happen. It's happening as we speak.

No, as long as the ideology is truth, which socialism is.

...no ideology has a monopoly on truth.

Heaven forbid we give kids the chance to think for themselves.

I personally agree with this, socialist truth must be given to children at a young age otherwise capitalistic doctrine will turn them in the wrong direction.
"I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask the whole family to kind of freeze and prepare for Re-Neducation."

It's not so bad. They just go in through the nose and use a little hook to pull out some of your brain. I hear they even let you keep the piece they pull out. And when it's all said and done and these kids grow up, they'll all be ready and willing and brainwashed to die for Dear Leader and the state that oppresses them.

Socialism, Fascism - two sides, same coin.

Don't be absurd.


Now it'll be interesting to see how this one will be justified by the local "Chávez authoritarian? Never!" crowd.


Quite. I'll readily admit that most on this forum would consider me socialist. Though I've never understood what the liberal love-in regarding Chavez is about.


Our species has an instinctive desire to desire the better, the superior. Without this instinct, we'd be still in the stone age because nothing will get invented to improve life because there would be no desire for a better life.


Sounds suspiciously like the "humans are naturally greedy" that some people are so fond of.


Even so, it is quite painfully obvious that bettering ourselves and our belongings is hardly instinctual or inherent to us.


There's no best system. Anarchy creates mobs

Anarchy doesn't create, people create mobs [/NRA]

This thread's pretty funny. Chaves introduces universal standards for education, allegedly because there aren't really any now, and what's there's fucked up. Immediately every NSGer and his dog shouts indoctrination...

Virtually all countries do this. All liberal democracies do it. Every last one of them. You don't know what these new standards he's introducing are. Nobody does yet.

But hey, don't let me stop this hypocritical knee-jerk party.

This thread's pretty funny. Chaves introduces universal standards for education, allegedly because there aren't really any now, and what's there's fucked up. Immediately every NSGer and his dog shouts indoctrination...
The thing is, he's pretty explicit that it is.
A new curriculum will be ready by the end of this school year, and new textbooks are being developed to help educate "the new citizen," said Chavez's brother and Education Minister Adan Chavez...

[...]

"We want to create our own ideology collectively -- creative, diverse," the president said, adding that it would help develop values of "cooperation and solidarity."

All schools will be bound to "subordinate themselves to the constitution" and comply with the "new Bolivarian educational system," he said, referring to his socialist movement named after South American independence hero Simon Bolivar.

If he introduced some sort of national curriculum saying "in Year 5, you do fractions" and so on, that would be fine. But he isn't, he's introducing a curriculum to make a new citizen and build his own ideology. It's an openly political move.

This thread's pretty funny. Chaves introduces universal standards for education, allegedly because there aren't really any now, and what's there's fucked up. Immediately every NSGer and his dog shouts indoctrination...

Virtually all countries do this. All liberal democracies do it. Every last one of them. having National standards in education?? OH MY GOD thatz teh ebil !!

LOL.. the Chavez-haters went from National Education standards.. to rape and murder. just like that. :D
Universal education=murder
Universal health care=rape
Universal suffrage=genocide

oh the horror!

Murder? I see no source good sir, and no substance.LOL.. the Chavez-haters went from National Education standards.. to rape and murder. just like that. :D

The thing is, he's pretty explicit that it is.


If he introduced some sort of national curriculum saying "in Year 5, you do fractions" and so on, that would be fine. But he isn't, he's introducing a curriculum to make a new citizen and build his own ideology. It's an openly political move.Right, so presumably the new standards will emphasise stuff like democracy, freedom of thought and the citizenry's responsibility to participate in the political process.

Sounds like the UK, don't it?

And perhaps a bit of nationalism will be added in.

Sounds a bit like the US, don't it?

No, I'm not trying to defend what he's doing. But the point is you don't know what the standards will be yet. Apart from millions of idiots screaming Fascism and a clearly biased CNN article, you don't know anything yet. So how about reserving judgement, or taking all the other countries that does this to task for it as well?

Neu Leonstein and the rest are just raging because of their hatred for socialism.

Where did I hear all that stuff before? Soviet Union, Khmer Rouge, Red China...

... the UK. ;)


You probably haven't been following the recent debate here over education in schools (no biggy, I'd hardly explect a non-Brit to)

If he introduced some sort of national curriculum saying "in Year 5, you do fractions" and so on, that would be fine. But he isn't, he's introducing a curriculum to make a new citizen and build his own ideology. It's an openly political move.

Where did I hear all that stuff before? Soviet Union, Khmer Rouge, Red China...

Should the parents be granted total control over their children ? Definitely not. Children are not possession of their parents, they are not toys nor objects, and have to be protected by the state against abuses from their own parents. Therefore it's totally normal to have a certain level of control over private schools. In France, like in most of Europe, every private school is inspected by the state, the diploma of teachers are checked, and so on.

On the political/ideological level, no school here can teach children to worship Hitler, or anything similar, and that's sane. It's also the role of the school to teach social values, to teach mutual respect, tolerance, "cooperation and solidarity" as Chávez said.

The whole question is how much control the state will have on what is done in those schools, and what is meant exactly by teaching "cooperation and solidarity". None of the articles given by the OP gave any details on that. That's where I could start to disagree with Chávez, or not.

As for nationalization, I always thought that nationalization is a very good solution for private corporations who refuse to respect the law. Not blindly from the government, but the justice should have the possibility to decide a nationalization as a penalty in many cases of law violation by corporations.

Dude, Neu Leonstein is a LEFTIST.
No he isn't.
He also happens to be from Germany, and if there's one country that knows about indoctrination, it's Germany.
So, he's more than 80 years old then?

Neu Leonstein and the rest are just raging because of their hatred for socialism.

Dude, Neu Leonstein is a LEFTIST. He also happens to be from Germany, and if there's one country that knows about indoctrination, it's Germany.

Dude, Neu Leonstein is a LEFTIST.

Welcome to 2007

Trust me, it'll come to that. Always does.

Yeah, it may come to murder. With the opposition calling to murder the president. And already, attempts to murder him.

And also murders of "bolivarian" peasants by the private militia of the land owners, who refuse to comply to the law.

Yeah they do. Anybody who has power and who wants to hold onto it will do anything to keep it. Look at all your socialist heroes, they all did it.

No. Salvador Allende preferred to die than to risk a civil war by arming the unions (as he was asked for by some of his advisers, since they all knew a coup was coming).

Dude, Neu Leonstein is a LEFTIST.

Neu Leonstein a LEFTIST ? Thanks for that big laugh you gave me (and him too, probably) !

If he introduced some sort of national curriculum saying "in Year 5, you do fractions" and so on, that would be fine. But he isn't, he's introducing a curriculum to make a new citizen and build his own ideology. It's an openly political move.

You misread it. He didn't say "MY" but "OUR" own ideology. Chávez wants the "bolivarian" ideology to be created from the citizen themselves, he doesn't want to impose his own premade ideology. Yes, he wants to teach some values (cooperation, solidarity, tolerance, ...), but that's what all education should do - not just teach that ln(1) = 0, but also to teach such social values. The whole question is how exactly will this done and what will be enforced - will it be "Chávez and socialism are the best" or "we need to work together and to see others as friends" ? It's the first, I'll oppose Chávez; if it's the later, I'll support him. From now, we can't say for sure - knowing the bolivarian process, I think it'll be the later, but I may be wrong, it's a guess, not a knowledge.

No he isn't.

So, he's more than 80 years old then?

You've forgotten about a little country called "East Germany".

Neu Leonstein a LEFTIST ? Thanks for that big laugh you gave me (and him too, probably) !

Well, of course you leftalists don't think he's a leftist.

Well, of course you leftalists don't think he's a leftist.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=484579&

I have also seen him defend objectivism, which is hardy socialist.

You've forgotten about a little country called "East Germany".

He lived in the DDR?

He lived in the DDR?

He had relatives in the GDR, yes. Besides, if you lived in the West, you knew enough about the East.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=484579&

I have also seen him defend objectivism, which is hardy socialist.

Who DOESN'T defend objectivism? It's true. Every person lives for themselves.

And you don't have to be socialist to be leftist.

Yeah, it may come to murder. With the opposition calling to murder the president. And already, attempts to murder him.

And also murders of "bolivarian" peasants by the private militia of the land owners, who refuse to comply to the law.
Exactly right, remember after Chavez was rescued by loyal military elements by helicopter after the attempted coup, and returned to power, the first thing he said was that there would be no witchhunt, and many of those involved in the illegal military coup are allowed to continue in opposition within Venezuela, if Chavez wanted to be a Stalin he would have thrown them into jail and would have become a tyrant long ago.

If he wanted to be a tyrant he would take control of the economy, but instead he has given workers communes and cooperatives self-management to run them as they will without state interference, the state only takes care of the big macro economic stuff like oil. Chavez should have arrested all those involved in the coup for treason, they did commit treason yet in the interests of stability he did not motion for the justice department to pursue it. Finally after the RCTV crossed the line and advocated murder, military coups etc, and accepted foreign money (another treasonable offense) he took them off the air. So by any measure he has been tolerant of the oppositions illegal dealings and ignored it for the most part, but eventually Chavez will have to bring those criminals to justice.

Well, of course you leftalists don't think he's a leftist.NL is not a left winger, according to himself. He's an anti-authoritarian market capitalist - which sort of makes him the right wing version of me, only with added eloquence and a nicer car (yes I'm jealous, damnit! :p).

Who DOESN'T defend objectivism?

I don't

It's true. Every person lives for themselves.

And you don't have to be socialist to be leftist.

This denial on your part, teetering on the edge of no true scotsmans is getting tiring. Fast.

Just admit you were wrong and move on to splitting hairs with AP.

Other then that NL has proved himself more than capable to articulate his own position.

I don't

Yes you do. You're using a computer, an expensive piece of equipment. That says enough.

This denial on your part, teetering on the edge of no true scotsmans is getting tiring. Fast.

Just admit you were wrong and move on to splitting hairs with AP.

Other then that NL has proved himself more than capable to articulate his own position.

Admit I was wrong? About what? I was wrong about nothing.

Who DOESN'T defend objectivism? It's true. Every person lives for themselves.

Well, that's just false. It's very easy to disprove your "every" because you only need a simple counter-example. And there are so many counter-examples...

It may be hard to conceive for someone like you who is completely dominated by egoism, who rejected the best part of human beings: altruism, love, compassion. But many people live for others as much, if not more, than they live "for themselves". It may be limited to a few people (lover, kids, ...), it may be to the society in general; it may be only "easy" things (giving money to charity, ...) or it may be going as far as a sacrifice of your own life, but many (I would even say most) people don't live only for themselves.

Yes you do. You're using a computer, an expensive piece of equipment. That says enough.

So, there is only black and white ? No colors, no gray ? Either you're completely altruist and therefore don't keep enough money to have a computer, or you're totally selfish ? Reality is much more complex than that - everyone as a bit of egoism and a bit of altruism. Depending of the people and of the situation, it may be more of one or more of the other.

I was wrong about nothing.

Just that, in itself, is enough to make you lose all credibility you may have had left.

Well, that's just false. It's very easy to disprove your "every" because you only need a simple counter-example. And there are so many counter-examples...

It may be hard to conceive for someone like you who is completely dominated by egoism, who rejected the best part of human beings: altruism, love, compassion. But many people live for others as much, if not more, than they live "for themselves". It may be limited to a few people (lover, kids, ...), it may be to the society in general; it may be only "easy" things (giving money to charity, ...) or it may be going as far as a sacrifice of your own life, but many (I would even say most) people don't live only for themselves.

Uh huh. What do all those people get out of it? Praise. Respect. A sense of self-accomplishment. Maybe even a sainthood, or an position in some organisation.

So, there is only black and white ? No colors, no gray ? Either you're completely altruist and therefore don't keep enough money to have a computer, or you're totally selfish ? Reality is much more complex than that - everyone as a bit of egoism and a bit of altruism. Depending of the people and of the situation, it may be more of one or more of the other.

Everything a person does benefits themselves. Every single action.

Yes you do. You're using a computer, an expensive piece of equipment. That says enough.

That's absurd.

But how does me using a computer make me defend objectivism?

I'm interested.

Admit I was wrong? About what? I was wrong about nothing.

About NL being a leftist.

Try as you might with your mental gymnastics to turn yourself into a pretzel not withstanding.

Everything a person does benefits themselves. Every single action.

Not true, there are myriad self-destructive actions an individual can do.

Ignoring unintended consequences for a moment

Uh huh. What do all those people get out of it? Praise. Respect. A sense of self-accomplishment. Maybe even a sainthood, or an position in some organisation.

You may be completely unable to conceive it, but it's definitely not the case. Praise and respect ? With so many of those acts done anonymously ? Sense of self-accomplishment... that may exist in some cases, but at least for me it's more the guilt of not doing enough. It's easier for me to discard the thought than actually go and make a gift, knowing that I could (should?) have given more.

And sure, people who whistand torture, who sacrifice their lives or take very high risks of doing so do it for themselves... that's just ridiculous.

Everything a person does benefits themselves. Every single action.

Even when it is sacrificing yourself ? Your way to speak in absolute is just ridiculous.

That's absurd.

But how does me using a computer make me defend objectivism?

I'm interested.

Well, if objectivism wasn't true, you'd have no problem with selling all of your stuff and going off to volunteer in some third world hellhole.

About NL being a leftist.

Try as you might with your mental gymnastics to turn yourself into a pretzel not withstanding.

He's a social leftist. Get over it.

Even when it is sacrificing yourself ? Your way to speak in absolute is just ridiculous.

Sacrifice yourself? Nobody's sacrificing themselves! They're going to live in luxury in heaven!

Well, if objectivism wasn't true, you'd have no problem with selling all of your stuff and going off to volunteer in some third world hellhole.

Yep absurd.

Either you have a very stilted world view, or your just being facetious.

(Incidently, this computer isn't mine, it is a work one)

He's a social leftist. Get over it.

A libertarian?

Sacrifice yourself? Nobody's sacrificing themselves! They're going to live in luxury in heaven!

Because we all there are no atheists in foxholes...

Sacrifice yourself? Nobody's sacrificing themselves! They're going to live in luxury in heaven!

What about those who don't believe in god ? Among french Resistance against nazism (to take an example I know quite well), many were atheists (remember the biggest Resistance networks were created by the communist party PCF, and the huge majority of members of the PCF are atheist). And they could have chose to live their normal lives (as normal as it could be during war time) and wait until the end of the storm... but no, they risked their lives, for some of them even sacrificed their lives in suicide missions, for others. For an ideal, for mankind, for freedom.

What about those communists, not believing in any god, who at Chateaubrian, the 22nd of October 1941, who begged the nazi to execute them instead of Guy Moquet (a young communist who was executed at the age of 17 because he opposed the nazi), because they couldn't let them murder a child ? It was not for themselves. It was for him, and for their ideal.

Open your heart to those feelings you refuse (compassion, altruism) and we'll understand that there is much more in human beings than selfishness, and that selfishness is not the only motivation, and not even the strongest one.

What about those who don't believe in god ? Among french Resistance against nazism (to take an example I know quite well), many were atheists (remember the biggest Resistance networks were created by the communist party PCF, and the huge majority of members of the PCF are atheist). And they could have chose to live their normal lives (as normal as it could be during war time) and wait until the end of the storm... but no, they risked their lives, for some of them even sacrificed their lives in suicide missions, for others. For an ideal, for mankind, for freedom.

What about those communists, not believing in any god, who at Chateaubrian, the 22nd of October 1941, who begged the nazi to execute them instead of Guy Moquet (a young communist who was executed at the age of 17 because he opposed the nazi), because they couldn't let them murder a child ? It was not for themselves. It was for him, and for their ideal.

Hehehe. Those communists had their reward. They'd be REMEMBERED.

He didn't say "MY" but "OUR" own ideology.
I'm trying hard to see the difference...;)

Also, yay, I'm a leftist! Seriously though, I assume KP meant the sort of spectrum on which the right wants to put criminals to death, restrict immigration and nuke Mecca. And on that spectrum, I guess I'm more left than right (though I stopped being against Israel on everything they do, so maybe I don't fit there anymore either).

Of course, otherwise capitalist thought will flourish and they will be greedy and utilitarian in their thinking when older.

No, as long as the ideology is truth, which socialism is.

That's terrifying.

Actually, no big deal, at least from the italian perspective.

I don't know about Venezuelan education laws, but, here in Italy, private schools are free and recognised as proper schools, only if they follow the educational programmes and guidelines from the ministry.

That is, a Catholic school, to be recognised as school, cannot say "evolution is a faux", because the ministerial programmes state that evolution is a valid theory. They can say "evolution is a valid theory, but the Catholic church says it's faux" (example, I don't remember precisely what the Catholic position about evolution is, but I bet is quite byzantine).

A school failing to comply with ministerial programmes won't be recognised by the State (i.e., going to that school won't be deemed a valid method to fulfill the obligatory education, and its certificates won't be worth a lira), or, if the teachings are deemed to be anti-Constitutional (example, they teach that fascism was good) the school will be closed.

No ideology should be imposed through any educational system. I think true freedom for all involved should be to teach all ideologies and try to remain as objetive as possible. That way you let the student to choose which one he prefers.

I do oppose the ideological stance our education system is going to take, if it is going to take it at all. However, to critic it, or defend it, before knowing the exact detail of content that the new programs will have is...Let's say it shows how most of you base your opinions.

All of you are either defending it because Chávez said it is going to be good, or attacking it because Chávez said it was going to be good, without knowing the exact details of the educational programs (because right now, noone, not even the ones making them, are sure of their definitive content). I suggest all of you to take your personalism aside and start thinking for yourselves, it could provide a better source for your respective judgments. However, I wasn't expecting better fro both Chávez haters and lovers here. You either defend to death or attack mercilessly anything he says, because you either love or hate the man. How objective.

They can say "evolution is a valid theory, but the Catholic church says it's faux" (example, I don't remember precisely what the Catholic position about evolution is, but I bet is quite byzantine).

Actually, the Catholic Church believes that their beliefs are compatible with evolution. You're thinking of Protestants.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/09/17/chavez.venezuela.ap/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7000079.stm

I personally agree with this, socialist truth must be given to children at a young age otherwise capitalistic doctrine will turn them in the wrong direction.

Chavez is a prick and this is one more step along the road to dictatorship. It does not surprise me that you support Chavez's propaganda.

Hehehe. Those communists had their reward. They'd be REMEMBERED.

A few are. Most are not. Some are even remembered but used against their own ideal, like when Sarkozy dared to use Guy Moquet's memory.

But even then... what good does it do to you to be remembered when you are dead ?

No, as long as the ideology is truth, which socialism is.

I call bullshit on his.

Actually, the Catholic Church believes that their beliefs are compatible with evolution. You're thinking of Protestants.

Yeah, whatever... anyway, there are precious few Protestant school here in Italy, so whenever "private schools" are nominated, somehow "Catholic schools" comes to my mind.

Yeah they do. Anybody who has power and who wants to hold onto it will do anything to keep it. Look at all your socialist heroes, they all did it.

So did your capitalist heroes. As a Brazilian, knowing my country's history from 1964 to 1984, I should know.

I call bullshit on his.

Sadly, I have to agree.
No ideology is "truth". Some ideologies analyse reality (not truth) better than others; some ideologies lead to more efficient problem-solving than others; each one of us may like one ideology more than another - this won't make any political ideology true.

I'm communist, I think that the communist ideology is better than other political ideologies. Is it my right to say "your ideology is faux, only communism is true"? I'm not a "follower of communism" as if it were a sort of religion - I think it would be quite a stupid stance.

"Truth" is mostly a logical and metaphysical notion. Political ideologies aren't items of metaphysics.

No ideology should be imposed through any educational system.

Depending on what you call "ideology", I agree with that or not. General values like generosity, mutual respect, tolerance, ... should be promoted at school, because they are an important part of what "education" is all about. But "ideology" in the classical sense, "marxism" or "capitalism" or "communism" or whatever should not be.

I think true freedom for all involved should be to teach all ideologies and try to remain as objetive as possible. That way you let the student to choose which one he prefers.

Objectivity doesn't exist in such fields. What will be consider "objective" by some will be considered as biased by others, and in the end, it'll always be biased.

Let's say it shows how most of you base your opinions.

All of you are either defending it because Chávez said it is going to be good, or attacking it because Chávez said it was going to be good, without knowing the exact details of the educational programs (because right now, noone, not even the ones making them, are sure of their definitive content). I suggest all of you to take your personalism aside and start thinking for yourselves, it could provide a better source for your respective judgments. However, I wasn't expecting better fro both Chávez haters and lovers here. You either defend to death or attack mercilessly anything he says, because you either love or hate the man. How objective.

Well, you can consider myself a "Chávez lover" (which is not really true, I'm more interested in the process than in the man himself), but if you read what I said, I remained very prudent on this issue. I said that I don't oppose some level of control of the sate over the content of private schools, but that I will oppose too much of it. As no one knows for sure what the government will exactly ask, I can't say more than: "there is nothing wrong with a limited control, wait to see what he really wants to do before yelling". I also said that I don't think he'll really try to impose an "ideology", but I quickly added "but I may be wrong, it's a guess, not a knowledge".

If people resist socialism and try to cling to their greed, of course conflict will ensue, socialism must be radical in it's reorganizing of society.

Oh brother. In other words, you do not care about freedom at all.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/09/17/chavez.venezuela.ap/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7000079.stm

I personally agree with this, socialist truth must be given to children at a young age otherwise capitalistic doctrine will turn them in the wrong direction.

:D

Sadly, I have to agree.
No ideology is "truth". Some ideologies analyse reality (not truth) better than others; some ideologies lead to more efficient problem-solving than others; each one of us may like one ideology more than another - this won't make any political ideology true.

I'm communist, I think that the communist ideology is better than other political ideologies. Is it my right to say "your ideology is faux, only communism is true"? I'm not a "follower of communism" as if it were a sort of religion - I think it would be quite a stupid stance.

"Truth" is mostly a logical and metaphysical notion. Political ideologies aren't items of metaphysics.

I agree with that. There can be "truth" in part of "marxism", the parts the analyze the society (both the history of societies, and the inner mechanism of capitalisms), but there cannot be "truth" in the parts of it claiming what would be "better", or about what is "fair" and "just".

Einstien's "why socialism ?" essay was also quite interesting in this regard, IMHO.

I do oppose the ideological stance our education system is going to take, if it is going to take it at all. However, to critic it, or defend it, before knowing the exact detail of content that the new programs will have is...Let's say it shows how most of you base your opinions.

All of you are either defending it because Chávez said it is going to be good, or attacking it because Chávez said it was going to be good, without knowing the exact details of the educational programs (because right now, noone, not even the ones making them, are sure of their definitive content). I suggest all of you to take your personalism aside and start thinking for yourselves, it could provide a better source for your respective judgments. However, I wasn't expecting better fro both Chávez haters and lovers here. You either defend to death or attack mercilessly anything he says, because you either love or hate the man. How objective.

Thank you for providing the voice of reason. Although to be fair, Kilobugya did say (quite rightly) he would wait to see what happens before taking a stance. I think he's been the only one in this thread to do that (along with you).

On the whole I could be described as "pro-Chavez", but that definitely doesn't mean I would never criticise him. On the other hand, I find it amusing that rightists call Chavez a "dictator" because he wants to be able to be re-elected indefinitely. Elections remain democratic. In France, there's no limit on the number of terms a president may serve; does that make France a dictatorship? Or do such accusations magically apply only to Venezuela?

No, as long as the ideology is truth, which socialism is.

Is it actually possible to really be socialist without allowing freedom of thought?

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!! (but there's no fucking way we're letting them think for themselves! Hell, then they might realise that we're not giving them everything they want. Can't have that!)

Chavez is a prick and this is one more step along the road to dictatorship. It does not surprise me that you support Chavez's propaganda.

Funny how you go apeshit on Chavez and say nothing about US "ally" Musharraf. Really.

Let's assume for one moment he is turning the country into a dictatorship.

Even if it is true, what follows is:

So far, the American actions are:

- Funding a coup against Chavez NOT for his perceived undemocratic actions, but for his perceived left-wing actions.
- Veiled threats of military action against a country for choosing a president the US government dislikes.
- Acting just like they accuse Chavez of acting, murder, for instance only in other parts of the world, Iraq for example.
- Ignoring the VERY undemocratic nature of "allies" such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
- Ignoring the will of the people in US and Iraq that wants the US army out while chastising Chavez for, yes, acknowledging the will of the Venezuelan people regarding issues the US dislikes when they don't go their way.
- Claim dictatorship at a moment in time in which your own country is on the process of attempting to abolish key parts of your Constitution (wiretapping anyone?) under the guise of "fighting an external threat". There's also the guy that was questioned by the Secret Service for doing an essay on free speech, the father that was also questioned by the Secret Service for saying he disliked Bush's policies to Cheney, and on it goes.

What follows is:

- The US government has been screaming "dictatorship" whenever it wants to wave its old, wrinkled dick and the American Right has been buying it all the while consuming some more Saudi oil.
- The US tried to depose a democratically elected leader all the while claiming it's a guardian of democracy.
- The US government is stifling much more rights than Chavez is and the American Right doesn't give a crap.
- The US government has already proved willing to destroy a country and unable to rebuild it.
- The US government has shown complete disregard for international law, and willingness to murder for oil, which Venezuela has.
- The US has interfered in South America before, making most, if not all, of its countries, dictatorships.

Conclusions:

- The US government is filled with hypocrites.
- The American Right is willing to murder and assassinate for oil, democracy or not, while pandering to definite dictatorships for oil as well.
- Chavez is, so far, following the will of the people. He didn't invade other countries for oil nor did he clamp down on fundamental civil rights yet, ergo, so far he's better than your administration.
- I don't give a fuck what Chavez does, KEEP THE FUCK OUT OF SOUTH AMERICA. I KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU PEOPLE STEP IN HERE!

Depending on what you call "ideology", I agree with that or not. General values like generosity, mutual respect, tolerance, ... should be promoted at school, because they are an important part of what "education" is all about. But "ideology" in the classical sense, "marxism" or "capitalism" or "communism" or whatever should not be.

I can agree with that. But as far as I know, former educational programs here in Venezuela already teached general values like generosity, mutual respect, tolerance, and freedom. I was formed under them, and I remember emphasis towards said values. The new ones, as far as I have see, that is just tiny bits of them, and not definitive, just associate the political doctrine of socialism to those values. Although I am pretty aware of the relationship between said values and the basic doctrine of socialism, (and support said view wholeheartedly), I do not agree with linking said values with only the socialist doctrine, and dissociating them from all other political doctrines. I have seen samples of socialism without generosity, mutual respect, freedom or tolerance, and samples of capitalism with all those included, and viceversa, too.

Objectivity doesn't exist in such fields. What will be consider "objective" by some will be considered as biased by others, and in the end, it'll always be biased.

The fact that objectivity cannot be achieved completely doesn't mean the ones in charge should still at least try to remain as objective as possible. True, perhaps they will still be biased towards a certain posture, but if they aren't even trying to begin with, they will fall farther from a neutral ground.

Well, you can consider myself a "Chávez lover" (which is not really true, I'm more interested in the process than in the man himself), but if you read what I said, I remained very prudent on this issue. I said that I don't oppose some level of control of the sate over the content of private schools, but that I will oppose too much of it. As no one knows for sure what the government will exactly ask, I can't say more than: "there is nothing wrong with a limited control, wait to see what he really wants to do before yelling". I also said that I don't think he'll really try to impose an "ideology", but I quickly added "but I may be wrong, it's a guess, not a knowledge".

I do not oppose some degree of control by the state in the educational process. In fact, said control already exists, and should exist, because if not, education could turn to private interest that perhaps aren't interested in the best for the populace. The goverment already elaborated educational programs, and have done them for the last 40 years if not more, and all educational institutions, public and private, must abide by them. The fact that the educational authorities here are talking about "more control" of the State is what worries me, because they could cross lines better not crossed.

However, as yourself, I remain in the expectative, to extract conclusions before reading the entire content of the new changes to the educational programs is indeed aiming to be extremely biased towards the issue.

Sacrifice yourself? Nobody's sacrificing themselves! They're going to live in luxury in heaven!

Not everyone who sacrifices theirself believes in heaven... if there is a heaven, many of those who make such sacrifices wouldn't get in according to many of the rules that there supposedly are... and personally speaking, I'd rather live for a few more years without being tortured or starved than go to heaven.

Thank you for providing the voice of reason. Although to be fair, Kilobugya did say (quite rightly) he would wait to see what happens before taking a stance. I think he's been the only one in this thread to do that (along with you).

On the whole I could be described as "pro-Chavez", but that definitely doesn't mean I would never criticise him. On the other hand, I find it amusing that rightists call Chavez a "dictator" because he wants to be able to be re-elected indefinitely. Elections remain democratic. In France, there's no limit on the number of terms a president may serve; does that make France a dictatorship? Or do such accusations magically apply only to Venezuela?


Indeed I accept Kilobugya's stance and share it with him. Right now, too few things are known about the new programs to voice approval or critics about them. You need to be cautious when speaking about that.

Regarding the electoral thing, well, I do not approve continual, unlimited terms, in Venezuela, France, or any other place on the world, I think it is better to trust proccesses than individuals, but it's just my opinion and I am not so narrow minded as to label Chávez as a dictator for that simple thing. If the people approve that and prefer it that way, that's their decision.

Should the parents be granted total control over their children ? Definitely not. Children are not possession of their parents, they are not toys nor objects, and have to be protected by the state against abuses from their own parents. Therefore it's totally normal to have a certain level of control over private schools. In France, like in most of Europe, every private school is inspected by the state, the diploma of teachers are checked, and so on.

Checking in on a school is different than controlling every aspect of the ciriculem.

On the political/ideological level, no school here can teach children to worship Hitler, or anything similar, and that's sane. It's also the role of the school to teach social values, to teach mutual respect, tolerance, "cooperation and solidarity" as Chávez said.

oh look. Someone who fails to notice that Chavez wants to create a new citizen. The only people who talk like that are those who want to be authoritarian.

The whole question is how much control the state will have on what is done in those schools, and what is meant exactly by teaching "cooperation and solidarity". None of the articles given by the OP gave any details on that. That's where I could start to disagree with Chávez, or not.

Would you?

Funny how you go apeshit on Chavez and say nothing about US "ally" Musharraf. Really.

This thread is about Chavez and not Musharraf. Please try to keep that in mind. I do try to stay on topic and my comments will be about Chavez in this thread.

This thread is about Chavez and not Musharraf. Please try to keep that in mind. I do try to stay on topic and my comments will be about Chavez in this thread.

Oh, but all my other points you conveniently ignored will not go away. Also, I'm pointing out how the US administration ignores any and all dictatorships that toe the line, while calling people that are, as of right now, following the will of the people, dictators.

Bottom line is: People who live at glass houses shouldn't cast stones at people they CLAIM will move to another glass house.

Oh, but all my other points you conveniently ignored will not go away. Also, I'm pointing out how the US administration ignores any and all dictatorships that toe the line, while calling people that are, as of right now, following the will of the people, dictators.

Bottom line is: People who live at glass houses shouldn't cast stones at people they CLAIM will move to another glass house.

And the day a politician is not a hypocrit will be a first.

Checking in on a school is different than controlling every aspect of the ciriculem.

But you don't know yet (and neither do I) what Chávez will want to check and control.

oh look. Someone who fails to notice that Chavez wants to create a new citizen. The only people who talk like that are those who want to be authoritarian.

Creating a "new citizen" is part of the core of humanism, it's what is behind Enlightenment and all attempts to democratize access to culture and education. It's definitely not, in itself, something authoritarian. All depends what the "new citizen" would be, and how you want to "create" it. Suppressing illiteracy is creating a "new citizen" that can read, and that is considered "better", both for himself and for the society, than the illiterate one, but it is definitely a liberating, emancipating act.

That authoritarian people may want to do it doesn't mean that in itself it's authoritarian - it would be like saying that reducing unemployment is bad because many dictators wanted to do it.

Would you?

I already said several times that I disagree with Chávez on a few issues, the most important one being his links with Iran and others totalitarian states. (Even if I also say that Chávez is the only one to do that, and that to be fair you've to recognize that it is, sadly, a behavior shared by nearly all head of states/governments). I would have no problem admitting I disagree with him on another issue. Of course I would prefer to not have to ;)

And the day a politician is not a hypocrit will be a first.

YOU defend what Bush does.

YOU attack what Chavez does.

Are you claiming the day YOU are not a hypocrite will be a first?

YOU defend what Bush does.

Not all of it. I do not defend the policies that I disagree with.

YOU attack what Chavez does.

because I disagree with what he is doing.

Are you claiming the day YOU are not a hypocrite will be a first?

So I defend a policy I agree with while attacking a policy I do not agree with makes me a hypocrit how?

Instead of attacking posters Heikoku, go after the issue at hand. In this case, Chavez.

And the day a politician is not a hypocrit will be a first.

Well, that's definitely the case of Chávez, and partly why there is so much people hating him: he says what he thinks, directly, and without respecting the usual "political correctness" and "diplomatic" language that is the rule among heads of state. And he's doing what he says, most of the time.

(Of course, he's a human being, and as such he's not 100% "pure", and he may be hypocrite some times, but at this rate, everyone is hypocrite.)

I admit it guys, I made this thread specifically to provoke angry responses from the Hayek crowd, I am sorry, it is immature and lame, but seeing right-wingers BAWWWING and their moral outrage over someone who uses 'socialist' without looking uncomfortable (sorry guys you all know the USA is right-shifted) makes my lol.

Not all of it. I do not defend the policies that I disagree with.



because I disagree with what he is doing.



So I defend a policy I agree with while attacking a policy I do not agree with makes me a hypocrit how?

Instead of attacking posters Heikoku, go after the issue at hand. In this case, Chavez.

No. That you defend Bush when he cuddles up to ACTUAL totalitarian states while chastising Chavez for creating what you've been spoon-fed to believe is a totalitarian state makes you a hypocrite. Furthermore, excusing Bush for BEING one on the basis of him "being a politician" doesn't cut it. And I've discussed the issue at hand, with the conclusion being: The US would do well to keep its dickwaving out of South America, especially because of several things it has done in the past and continues doing in the present. I even, for the sake of the argument, pretended you are right about Chavez. The conclusion being the same.

I admit it guys, I made this thread specifically to provoke angry responses from the Hayek crowd, I am sorry, it is immature and lame, but seeing right-wingers BAWWWING and their moral outrage over someone who uses 'socialist' without looking uncomfortable (sorry guys you all know the USA is right-shifted) makes my lol.

We call that flaming/flamebating.

Well, that's definitely the case of Chávez, and partly why there is so much people hating him: he says what he thinks, directly, and without respecting the usual "political correctness" and "diplomatic" language that is the rule among heads of state. And he's doing what he says, most of the time.

(Of course, he's a human being, and as such he's not 100% "pure", and he may be hypocrite some times, but at this rate, everyone is hypocrite.)

Well, I think that given his own definitions of freedom and democracy, defending to the death regimes like Iran (not exactly free), or Cuba (not exactly democratic), makes him as hypocrite as any other national leader out there. Also, battling the imperialism so hard with words and not with actions, while he still sells our oil to the US also makes him a hypocrite.

I do not like his way to speech because he continues to be as hypocrite and false as others, without at least trying to be corteous and delicate. A true honest person schews both diplomatic content and diplomatic language, not just the latter, by being rude but containing the same messages. Even better, a righteous frank and open person could use the direct content using delicate and corteous diplomatic language.

Actually I made a earlier post in this thread which covered the misguided attempts of the right to paint a democratically-elected socialist government as illegitimate just because they are socialist, nothing more. Conservatives don't care about oppression or 'liberating' people, they themselves are dictatorial in nature, that is a ruse, all they care about is discrediting those that disagree with their worldview ideology.

People here are being terribly superficial and very naive in this, they actually buy the neocon lies about a better and more moral world (Strauss himself said it was a necessary lie to sustain the people - neoconservatism). What this is really about is simple, Chavez is challenging the international flow of finance capital and petrodollars, and showing the world that you don't have to be held hostage to the Saudi-Houston cartel. That's why they oppose him, it's business for them, they just brainwash people like those on NSG into believing in their 'righteous' cause, but they are pawns.

We call that flaming/flamebating.

Well depends on your definition I guess, my OP is not flame yet I knew it would provoke the 'right' crowd, which in itself isn't very hard and most of the time unintentional.

Anyways this is kinda ironic coming from you.

Well depends on your definition I guess, my OP is not flame yet I knew it would provoke the 'right' crowd, which in itself isn't very hard and most of the time unintentional.

Anyways this is kinda ironic coming from you.

I admit it guys, I made this thread specifically to provoke angry responses from the Hayek crowd,

Intentionally provoking a response from someone is flamebaiting and ergo against forum rules.

Also please when reviewing what a right-winger says, remember this, when he says 'democracy' or 'freedom' he doesn't mean either in real form, what he means is capitalist-based political system where the political elite are bankrolled by the economic class (those who control the means of production) into power in order to protect the power of their beneficiaries. Just remember when a rightist says democracy he means capitalism.

Well, I think that given his own definitions of freedom and democracy, defending to the death regimes like Iran (not exactly free), or Cuba (not exactly democratic), makes him as hypocrite as any other national leader out there.

For Iran, as I said, it's my main disagreement with Chávez, so yeah, you're right on this point.

For Cuba, first the situation in Cuba is much more complex, and way beyond the discussion of this thread; but then, you need to remember how much Cuba did for Venezuela, with the thousands of doctors and the teachers. Chávez would be very ungrateful to be aggressive towards them now.

Another point is that Chávez always said (and in that he's not hypocrite) that he doesn't want to dictate what others should do in their home. When he opposes the USA, it's much more on their external policies than on their internal policies - even if he does speak a bit about them. Chávez has a lot of respect for the sovereignty of other states.

Also, battling the imperialism so hard with words and not with actions, while he still sells our oil to the US also makes him a hypocrite.

No. Opposing the US government doesn't mean opposing the US citizen. Chávez don't want to harm them (and actually, he helps some of the poorest of them), and stopping to sell oil to USA would harm USA poorest citizen more than Bush and his supporters. For the same reason many people who don't support Cuba's political system still oppose the embargo/blockade on trades with Cuba.

Intentionally provoking a response from someone is flamebaiting and ergo against forum rules.
Lol, look dude I ain't going to argue with an alt of a banned player, but nothing in my OP or subsequent posts is flame, your choice to interpret them as you will.

Isn't this what the US does?

Lol, look dude I ain't going to argue with an alt of a banned player, but nothing in my OP or subsequent posts is flame, your choice to interpret them as you will.

I see you still do not know the difference between a banned player and one that got deated. Not my problem though so I am not going to worry about it.

A self-styled socialist nation killed 50 million people over a period of 69 years, 20 million under just one ruler. That same ruler actually created a famine in his own country from 1932-33 in a sick experiment and political move. Even ignoring the ideological flaws, Socialism still sucks donkey balls.

ahhhhh! This is gold, please keep BAWWWING, I am writing this down!

A self-styled socialist nation killed 50 million people over a period of 69 years, 20 million under just one ruler. That same ruler actually created a famine in his own country from 1932-33 in a sick experiment and political move. Even ignoring the ideological flaws, Socialism still sucks donkey balls.

A self-styled socialist nation killed 50 million people over a period of 69 years, 20 million under just one ruler. That same ruler actually created a famine in his own country from 1932-33 in a sick experiment and political move. Even ignoring the ideological flaws, Socialism still sucks donkey balls.

A self-styled capitalist nation made an entire continent into a group of military dictatorships that would torture dissenters, arrest people on political charges, kill, maim, etc, etc, etc, throughout about 30 years. Even ignoring the ideological flaws, Capitalism still sucks donkey balls.

A self-styled socialist nation killed 50 million people over a period of 69 years

That's what capitalism kills every 10 years with just the direct consequences of starvation. And you must add to that lack of water, easily curable/preventable diseases, all the wars waged, started, supported and fueled by capitalist powers and transnational corporations.

And of course, it would too much to ask for you to understand for most people who defend "socialism" or "communism" today, Stalin was nothing more than dictator using "socialism" as a cover.

I can't believe some of you people, socialists though you may be, support the awful authoritarian regime that Chavez runs. It's sick. You may be scared to rely on yourself and earn a living without leaching from other more productive individuals, but the vast majority of us are rugged individualists who want the opportunity to work, accumulate wealth, and prosper on our lonesome. Your love for Chavez makes you as much a pawn as his secret police. Move to Venezuela.

ahhhhh! This is gold, please keep BAWWWING, I am writing this down!
I'm not BAAAWWWing, I'm just crapping all over something you seem to hold very near and dear, something you seem to believe in.

Randroids take capitalism too far. Communists take charity too far. I'm not saying that altruism is bad, just that forcing people to be charitable usually leads to authoritarianism and premature death.

Communists take charity too far. I'm not saying that altruism is bad, just that forcing people to be charitable usually leads to authoritarianism and premature death.

Communism is not about charity, but about solidarity. Charity is unfair, it's the generous people giving while the selfish people just get more wealth and power. Solidarity is fair, it's everyone working together to help anyone in need.

But communism, as defined by Marx and others, is completely incompatible with authoritarianism. Communism is about human emancipation, about people working together and controlling their destiny - while under capitalism, those who have money control the destiny of others, both directly (firing a worker can often mean breaking his life) and indirectly (in deciding where/how to invest money, what to produce, ...), and those who have no money don't even control their own destiny.

As for premature death, the less capitalist of all Latin American country (Cuba) is the one with the highest life expectancy.

I can't believe some of you people, socialists though you may be, support the awful authoritarian regime that Chavez runs. It's sick. You may be scared to rely on yourself and earn a living without leaching from other more productive individuals, but the vast majority of us are rugged individualists who want the opportunity to work, accumulate wealth, and prosper on our lonesome. Your love for Chavez makes you as much a pawn as his secret police. Move to Venezuela.

I can't believe some of you people, capitalists though you may be, support the awful authoritarian regime that Bush runs. It's sick. You may be scared to rely on yourself and be secure without turning your country into a dystopia, but the vast majority of us are freedom-loving people who want the opportunity to exist, talk and go about our business without excessive surveillance. Your love for Bush makes you as much a pawn as his secret police. Move to North Korea.

Well apparently the people of Venezuela want it, or they wouldn't have voted for it.

Do you also think everyone in the US is a strong supporter of Bush because he was voted into office too?

I can't believe some of you people, socialists though you may be, support the awful authoritarian regime that Chavez runs.

You would have to back this claim. Chávez "regime" is much less authoritarian than most western "democracies" are.

You may be scared to rely on yourself and earn a living without leaching from other more productive individuals

Are you referring to stock owners ?

but the vast majority of us are rugged individualists who want the opportunity to work

That's fine, Chávez lowered the unemployment rate.

accumulate wealth

What a definitely nice and worthy goal ! You may be proud of being greedy, but hopefully most people don't have "accumulating wealth" as a goal, but they only see that as a way (among others) to reach other, more important goals - like the well-being of your family, something a socialized system of education, healthcare and retirement can provide much more efficiently that a capitalist law of the jungle.

Your love for Chavez makes you as much a pawn as his secret police.

I could say the same for your love for capitalism making you a pawn of the CIA (which is much more criminal than Chávez "secret police" (which doesn't really exist)), or of Pinochet's political police.
Move to Venezuela.[/QUOTE]

Well apparently the people of Venezuela want it, or they wouldn't have voted for it. Latin America under the leadership of these movements must confront neoliberal imperialism from the US.

Tell you what, when you have lived under a right wing dictatorship in Latin America for a couple of years, then you can speak on behalf of Latin American socialists. As of right now, you are arrogantly assuming that all Latin American socialists agree with you. Guess again.

As for the OP: While I would normally applaud and measure of increased funding in education, and the promulgation of solidarity as a good societal value, I am skeptical here. Chávez has shown himself to beconcerned with centralising authority in himself. Ignoring the typical left/right debate that surfaces every time Chávez is mentioned, I would look at it from an authoritarian/libertarian point of view.

Kilobugya and Aelosia are correct in that we do not have enough ionformation at this moment to decide how useful or oppressive these measures will be to the Venezuelan educational system. But considering Chávez's recent authoritarian actions, I think that this proposal deserves a lot of scrutiny in the near future.

I can't believe some of you people, capitalists though you may be, support the awful authoritarian regime that Bush runs. It's sick. You may be scared to rely on yourself and be secure without turning your country into a dystopia, but the vast majority of us are freedom-loving people who want the opportunity to exist, talk and go about our business without excessive surveillance. Your love for Bush makes you as much a pawn as his secret police. Move to North Korea.
What?! That doesn't make sense! Bush is far from libertarian and nowhere near a good example of pure capitalism. And how is North Korea, a communist dictatorship, anything like the mildly capitalist United States?

What?! That doesn't make sense! Bush is far from libertarian and nowhere near a good example of pure capitalism. And how is North Korea, a communist dictatorship, anything like the mildly capitalist United States?

1- Calling the United States mildly capitalist is like saying the Unabomber "has a few problems he should work out".

2- In which case I can keep on pointing to the atrocities that were done, yes, in the name of capitalism.

3- "Move to X" is the lowest phrase one can use in the political spectrum. It's an idiotic attempt to silence one's opponents.

4- I was making a copy of Sadel's discourse with a few differences to show that anyone, really, ANYONE can use that discourse.

What?! That doesn't make sense! Bush is far from libertarian and nowhere near a good example of pure capitalism.

Bush is a good example of the authoritarian leaders that capitalism needs in order to survive.

And how is North Korea, a communist dictatorship, anything like the mildly capitalist United States?

North Korea as about as much to do with communism as Pinochet had to do with democracy.

Chávez has shown himself to beconcerned with centralising authority in himself. Ignoring the typical left/right debate that surfaces every time Chávez is mentioned, I would look at it from an authoritarian/libertarian point of view.

Chávez is not centralizing authority. First, he added some very important safeguards, like the recall referendum, against any abuse of authority.

But if you look at the way he insists on building direct democracy, through the "communal councils", at the way he's building the PSUV (from the grassroot, not from the top), he's definitely not concentrating or centralizing authority - if only because he knows that he's very likely to be the target of murder attempts.

But considering Chávez's recent authoritarian actions, I think that this proposal deserves a lot of scrutiny in the near future.

What do you call "Chávez's recent authoritarian actions" ? Chávez recent actions were in giving more power to those grassroot democracy structure, not at all authoritarian or centralizing measures.

Dude, Neu Leonstein is a LEFTIST. he may be at the Left of you.. then again almost everyone is ;)

Its all about perspective my friend.
some time ago Leo did OPed with a DerSpielgel article denouncing the Anti Bush movement in Europe/Germany.

he does not look "leftist" to me (not even close).. but he may still look Leftist to you.. because your point-of-view is very "fair and balanced" ;)
.
Neu Leonstein a LEFTIST ? Thanks for that big laugh you gave me exactly.

You misread it. He didn't say "MY" but "OUR" own ideology. Chávez wants the "bolivarian" ideology to be created from the citizen themselves, he doesn't want to impose his own premade ideology. Yes, he wants to teach some values (cooperation, solidarity, tolerance, ...), but that's what all education should do - not just teach that ln(1) = 0, but also to teach such social values. QTF.

The whole question is how exactly will this done and what will be enforced - will it be "Chávez and socialism are the best" or "we need to work together and to see others as friends" ? It's the first, I'll oppose Chávez; if it's the later, I'll support him. From now, we can't say for sure - knowing the bolivarian process, I think it'll be the later, but I may be wrong, it's a guess, not a knowledge.Fair enough.

As a matter of fact your rationalization of this subject is so perfect.. i am now ready no name you my ambassador to Venezuela.. with a 500k/year salary. + unlimited use of the diplomatic Jet.

Chávez is not centralizing authority. First, he added some very important safeguards, like the recall referendum, against any abuse of authority.

But if you look at the way he insists on building direct democracy, through the "communal councils", at the way he's building the PSUV (from the grassroot, not from the top), he's definitely not concentrating or centralizing authority - if only because he knows that he's very likely to be the target of murder attempts.



What do you call "Chávez's recent authoritarian actions" ? Chávez recent actions were in giving more power to those grassroot democracy structure, not at all authoritarian or centralizing measures.

My concerns stem from the fact that he did not renew the license of the last non state owned television outlet. This was merely the latest in a long series of measures designed to curtail the freedom of the press. While I understand how US multinationals use Latin American media companies to promote hegemony, I think Chávez would have been better off targetting the individuals rather than the institution, as the institution acts as a balance or check against state power.

Also, his ongoing attempts to change the electoral system of Venezulea to allow him to run more terms, or longer ones, as well as his rule by decree, are also suspect. I realise that all these changes were made in a democratic manner, but it still consolidates power in the presidency.

As a socialist, I have a vested interest in seeing socialism succeed. To do so, we have to be critical of all movements that are socialist. or claim to be so.

As a matter of fact your rationalization of this subject is so perfect.. i am now ready no name you my ambassador to Venezuela.. with a 500k/year salary. + unlimited use of the diplomatic Jet.

Aww thanks ! :)

But I'll give most of this salary to political organisations and charity ;)

For the diplomatic jet... hum, I think I'll visit a bit more of South America :p

My concerns stem from the fact that he did not renew the license of the last non state owned television outlet.

On this issue, you were sadly victim of a black propaganda campaign. RCTV was definitely not the last non state owned TV channel (Globovision and Venevision are two others, and there is a third one IIRC), all being strongly opposed to Chávez.

Before this, there were only one nation-wide public channel (VTV) and 4 nation-wide private ones, now it's 2-3, which is a much more sane equilibrium.

You should also know that RCTV actively supported and participated in the coup attempt of 2002, of the sabotage of PDVSA in 2002-2003, called for the murder of the president, and was sentenced for violations of many laws (ad on tabacco/alcohol, subliminal pictures, tax fraud, ...) continuously during the 20 years of its existence, even from before Chávez.

Also, his ongoing attempts to change the electoral system of Venezulea to allow him to run more terms, or longer ones, as well as his rule by decree, are also suspect. I realise that all these changes were made in a democratic manner, but it still consolidates power in the presidency.

Well, the "no term limit issue" is not a problem for me. In EU, 17 or the 27 countries have no term limit for head-of-state or head-of-government, and it never was a problem. The "Chávez was put there by the will of the people, and will only be removed by the will of the people" idea is much saner, for me, than the "well, no, he staid too long, he has to go away even if the people still want him to be there".

The middle-of-term recall referendum is much, much more a safeguard and democratic measure than any term limit.

Nah dude, I've played Bioshock. Socialism is epic fail; objectivism for the win.

Your logic is 'epic fail'.

BECUZ TEH BIOSHOCK SEZ SO IT MUZT BE TROO:mad:

:rolleyes:

That's hardly an objective view, either, really, you know. You're just agreeing with it because the game says so, ultimately.

You would have to back this claim. Chávez "regime" is much less authoritarian than most western "democracies" are.

Still authoritarian, even then, most venezuelans in favor of an authoritarian goverment support Chávez precisely for that reason. See the show "La Hojilla" for details.

That's fine, Chávez lowered the unemployment rate.

The subemployed rate raised because the steady influx of currency. Chávez, or the goverment, in any case, didn't lowered the uemployment rate. Again, in this case we would speak about the goverment, personalist remarks like "Chávez achieved", or "Chávez lowered" give your posture a bad sign.

I could say the same for your love for capitalism making you a pawn of the CIA (which is much more criminal than Chávez "secret police" (which doesn't really exist)), or of Pinochet's political police.

Without defending the CIA or Pinochet police...Chávez has a political police, sorry. Implemented before him but continued under his regime. It is called the DISIP, and most of its operations are indeed secret. Actually, most reports about human rights violations against Chávez's opposers aim to that specific police office. I even researched some cases.

All Chavez wants to do is make sure the Youth of the Nation possesses Correct Thought. We wouldn't want them to have Incorrect Thought now, would we?

Still authoritarian, even then, most venezuelans in favor of an authoritarian goverment support Chávez precisely for that reason.

Very few people favor "authoritarian goverment" for the sake of it (unless they are the gov, of course), but for other reasons, like to reduce insecurity. And for those for which insecurity is the most important (or one the most important) issues, they voted for Primero Justicia, not Chávez.

See the show "La Hojilla" for details.

Do you have any pointer on how to access it from Internet ?

Again, in this case we would speak about the goverment, personalist remarks like "Chávez achieved", or "Chávez lowered" give your posture a bad sign.

Well, technically you are right, but saying "Chávez lowered" or "Bush lowered" or "Chirac lowered" or "Lula lowered" or whatever is a very common abuse of language.

It is called the DISIP, and most of its operations are indeed secret. Actually, most reports about human rights violations against Chávez's opposers aim to that specific police office. I even researched some cases.

I wouldn't call the DISIP a "secret police" in the usual meaning of the term, but more a "secret service" as there is in all countries, but that's becoming playing on words. By "which doesn't really exist" I meant that there is nothing like the Stasi, or like Pinochet's political police, in Venezuela today.

On this issue, you were sadly victim of a black propaganda campaign. RCTV was definitely not the last non state owned TV channel (Globovision and Venevision are two others, and there is a third one IIRC), all being strongly opposed to Chávez.

I think both of you are victims of propaganda. RCTV wasn't the last one private owned TV channel. There are others like Globovisión, indeed strongly against the goverment but that has limited access just in Caracas and Maracaibo, Venevisión, who was strongly against the goverment years ago but whose owner, Gustavo Cisneros, perhaps the most typical power mad and hungry capitalist in Venezuela, signed a deal with the goverment to stop opposing it and actually right now defend goverment's policies. Others are Televen, half private owned and half part of the goverment, or Meridiano, a sports channel not at all associated with politics as to be consequential for the discussion.

Before this, there were only one nation-wide public channel (VTV) and 4 nation-wide private ones, now it's 2-3, which is a much more sane equilibrium.

No, sorry. There were Vive TV, Telesur, and VTV in the side of the goverment. The only private channels with nation wide coverage were RCTV, Venevisión, and Televen. RCTV was closed, Venevisión is right now allied with the goverment and Televen is half owned buy the State. RCTV, although I do not defend its mad opposition of the goverment, was in a way maintaining a balance right now lost.

You should also know that RCTV actively supported and participated in the coup attempt of 2002, of the sabotage of PDVSA in 2002-2003, called for the murder of the president, and was sentenced for violations of many laws (ad on tabacco/alcohol, subliminal pictures, tax fraud, ...) continuously during the 20 years of its existence, even from before Chávez.

Supported the void of power that ousted Chávez from office, and more important the authoritarian temporary regime of Carmona, yes, and that was reprehensible, but not a reason for a closure like the one implemented by the authorities. It didn't, from an institutional point of view, called for the murder of the president. It allowed someone in an opinion show to do so. It was going to be sentenced for the violations but the institutional, and I remark the word institutional here, process was interrumpted by the measure decreed by the president of not renewing its license.

We have laws here that inherently establish sanctions against channels for the violations, that are not related to the measures taken. I do not really miss RCTV, their programs were crappy in my opinion, but the way the not renewal was handled was hardly institutional, more like a forcing of the will of the head of state.

Very few people favor "authoritarian goverment" for the sake of it (unless they are the gov, of course), but for other reasons, like to reduce insecurity. And for those for which insecurity is the most important (or one the most important) issues, they voted for Primero Justicia, not Chávez.

Oh, insecurity is indeed the most important issue here in Venezuela, and well, I know I am just an individual, but I didn't vote for Primero Justicia, I think they are a bunch of unexperienced youths all coming from the principal money families here just in a political adventure. However, I must remark that one of their mayors have managed well.

And oh, people do favor authoritarian regies, because they think a "strong hand" is needed to handle the country's issues. It has happened before.

La Hojilla, in VTV, goverment's channel. After trying to find a way, no. But try www.aporrea.org for excerpts and commentaries.

I wouldn't call the DISIP a "secret police" in the usual meaning of the term, but more a "secret service" as there is in all countries, but that's becoming playing on words. By "which doesn't really exist" I meant that there is nothing like the Stasi, or like Pinochet's political police, in Venezuela today.

The DISIP does phone wiring and "supervision" without the express orders of a court, in a similar way to the STASI, and caries detentions for 24 hours in a similar manner. Again, the DISIP is a political police, although it has a drug enforcement and bomb defusing squad, its main target are political actions and subjects.

Pinochet's police actions were too blatant, and I think the venezuelan goverment in entitled to more subtle measures in the world of today.

But what will happen to the wedgie? Is it to be socialized too? :eek:

LG, I love you! :fluffle:

Of course, otherwise capitalist thought will flourish and they will be greedy and utilitarian in their thinking when older.

What you're admitting is that capitalism is the natural order.

Venevisión, who was strongly against the goverment years ago but whose owner, Gustavo Cisneros, perhaps the most typical power mad and hungry capitalist in Venezuela, signed a deal with the goverment to stop opposing it

More exactly, to stop being so violent in its opposition and to respect the Constitution. Not at all stop opposing the government.

Others are Televen, half private owned and half part of the goverment

That's the first time I hear the Televen is partly public, and I didn't found anything to support that - and it doesn't change the fact it's mostly against the government, even if less into politics than the other channels.

No, sorry. There were Vive TV, Telesur, and VTV in the side of the goverment.

Neither Vive TV nor Telesur have national coverage, Telesur being nearly only available on cable/satellite/Internet (and RCTV is still available on those media).

Supported the void of power that ousted Chávez from office,

Taking the President prisoner by force and threat to raze the presidential palace is not a "void power" but a coup, a "golpe de Estado".

And RCTV did participate in its preparation, by an intensive campaign just before, by its refusal to obey to the "cadena" when Chávez wanted to prevent the two masses of people to clash, by its utter lies over the Llaguno Bridge, and by its utter lies over Chávez having resigned.

and more important the authoritarian temporary regime of Carmona, yes, and that was reprehensible,

Supporting a dictator taking the power by force is not just "reprehensible"... it's one of the worse crimes an entity (individual or corporation) can commit !

but not a reason for a closure like the one implemented by the authorities.

Of course... supporting a coup and dictator taking power is not a reason. What would be a reason, then ? And don't speak about "closure", RCTV is still free to transmit on cable, Internet, satellite, or wherever it wants. Not being closed after committing such crime shows how tolerant Chávez is. Replace the names of Chávez and RCTV, and you'll see that most of those who oppose Chávez right now would speak of "laxism" not of "authoritarism".

by the measure decreed by the president of not renewing its license.

The whole point of having licenses, with fixed terms, when public services are delegated to the private, is exactly that one: so that if the private contractor didn't fullfil well its service, the license will not be renewed. There is no need of a trial, no need of plain violation for that. Just a quality of service not high enough is a valid reason for not renewing the concession on very sparse resource, like nation-wide hertzian channel. Having "crappy programs" (as you say) is a valid reason for that.

But when this TV channel is not just "crappy", but in addition violating laws, Constitution, supporting a coup and a dictator, ... it would be plainly irresponsible, for any government, to renew the license.

It's much more chocking and outrageous when the broadcasting license of TF1 is renewed in France, with no discussion, even after the TV channel did the exact opposite of what it promised to do in order to get the license in 1986, than when Chávez refuses to renew the license of a criminal TV channel.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/09/17/chavez.venezuela.ap/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7000079.stm

I personally agree with this, socialist truth must be given to children at a young age otherwise capitalistic doctrine will turn them in the wrong direction.

The private schools are one of the few sources of independent thought for young people, one of the last remaining places you don't get brainwashed.

Oh, insecurity is indeed the most important issue here in Venezuela

That may be your opinion, but it's definitely not mine nor the one of many venezuelian. Not that it's not a problem, it's a real one. But even with the high crime rate in Venezuela, the social problems (the misery that still exists, the very bad living conditions of many barrios, the access to healthcare which is not yet total, the unemployment rate and informal economy rates which are still high even if they went down by a lot, ...) are much more important than insecurity is.

The private schools are one of the few sources of independent thought for young people, one of the last remaining places you don't get brainwashed.

There is usually much more brainwashing in private schools, especially in religious ones, than in public schools, at least in "western" countries.

There is usually much more brainwashing in private schools, especially in religious ones, than in public schools, at least in "western" countries.

Too bad most private schools are not religious, and too bad we are not talking about a western country.

I personally agree with this, socialist truth must be given to children at a young age otherwise capitalistic doctrine will turn them in the wrong direction.
http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/7/72/N00b5.jpg

And I'm a socialist, ffs. Just... stop undermining the whole thing.

If people resist socialism and try to cling to their greed, of course conflict will ensue, socialism must be radical in it's reorganizing of society.

People like you make me very, very glad that the American Founding Fathers were wise enough to put the 2nd Amendment into our Constitution.

some time ago Leo did OPed with a DerSpielgel article denouncing the Anti Bush movement in Europe/Germany.
It wasn't pro-Bush though. It just pointed out that by the standards people use to say the US government is evil, Iran is even more evil. That doesn't mean I condone some of the things the US does (and you know I don't), but there is something slightly hypocritical about criticising the US because of Gitmo, executions and Abu Ghraib and not being interested in what goes on in Iranian jails or at Iranian executions.

So I stand by that article, with the reservation that I haven't seen the question of this poll.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,474636,00.html

Without wanting to get involved in another one of these threads, and withour having read any of the previous 136 posts - I just saw these: The DISIP does phone wiring and "supervision" without the express orders of a court, in a similar way to the STASI, and caries detentions for 24 hours in a similar manner.

Phone wiring, spying without judical consent, legally dubious detentions....
Sounds vaguely familar.

Too bad most private schools are not religious, and too bad we are not talking about a western country.

You're not? "Western" as in First World I imagine. It certainly isn't a Third World country, and it's not a Second World country either. What would you define it as?

Post rule-by-decree, not much that the man says really causes me any measure of surprise. It bothers me though, that there are people here who just seem not to notice the pattern, or its inevitable end.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/09/17/chavez.venezuela.ap/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7000079.stm

I personally agree with this, socialist truth must be given to children at a young age otherwise capitalistic doctrine will turn them in the wrong direction.

That's right, teach them to use double think before they come of age.

Phone wiring, spying without judical consent, legally dubious detentions....
Sounds vaguely familar.





If you read the entire post he states that most of these are political prisoners, in other words they are citizens of that country and are supposed to be guarenteed certain things under the law but are not because of their political opinions.

"Indoctrination of youth is fine...as long as the ideology being promoted is the one I agree with."


...epic fail.

EDIT: W00t! First thread steal! :D

'Cause, y'know, US or UK governments have no say in what their schools teach...

The private schools are one of the few sources of independent thought for young people, one of the last remaining places you don't get brainwashed.

There are schools where you don't get brainwashed? :eek:

Wow, we could learn a few things from this country.

Capitalism is like a produce vendor who initially quotes you a price of $3 for an apple; if you can afford the $3, he lets you have it for $1; if you cannot afford it, he refuses to sell you the apple and says come back when you can afford his price; if you try to haggle with him, you MIGHT get a better price than the $3, but don't bet on it one way or another.

In Socialism, if you can afford the $3 for the apple, the vendor takes your money but gives your apple to someone else. If you cannot afford the $3, the vendor gives you someone else's apple, which may be partially eaten, or even have worms in it, you never can predict what condition it will be in.

In Communism, if you can afford the $3 for the apple, the vendor, instead of being content with the $3, robs you of all your money at gunpoint before letting you have your apple; if you cannot afford the $3, the vendor kills you, takes all your worldly possessions, and then eats what otherwise would have been your apple.

People like you make me very, very glad that the American Founding Fathers were wise enough to put the 2nd Amendment into our Constitution.

Ditto here.

'Cause, y'know, US or UK governments have no say in what their schools teach...

Yes theres a curriculum but in this country private schools are being completely shut down, there are still private schools in the U.S. and the U.K.

Do you also think everyone in the US is a strong supporter of Bush because he was voted into office too?

Yes well that is a look at the average intelligence of America more than anything.

Also, I am seriously loling at the naivety of the 'libertarian' hippies on NSG crying about 'authoritarianism', they act like the economic elite class will just peacefully agree to cooperate in redistributing their property to the masses, news flash guys: the economic class will never willingly let go of their control over the means of production because that's what keeps them as a minority in control over the majority of the people. They will resist, and only forced expropriation through a party front can stop them.

'Those who have taken, now they must give!' - The Internationale

I just read about the case in a newspaper. It gives an example that now students of medical schools have to learn not only chemistry and biology, but also speeches of Chavez and biographies of Castro and leader of FARC (Colombian drug cartel/communist partisan army). If this is true, then it is another reason for me not to like that Chavez dude.

[edit: for anyone that would question the newspaper, wiki says "Gazeta Wyborcza [...] generally supports the values of the New Left", and it is uniformly hated by the right-wing here in Poland]

I just read about the case in a newspaper. It gives an example that now students of medical schools have to learn not only chemistry and biology, but also speeches of Chavez and biographies of Castro and leader of FARC (Colombian drug cartel/communist partisan army). If this is true, then it is another reason for me not to like that Chavez dude.

[edit: for anyone that would question the newspaper, wiki says "Gazeta Wyborcza [...] generally supports the values of the New Left", and it is uniformly hated by the right-wing here in Poland]

Looks like we have more information.

I just read about the case in a newspaper. It gives an example that now students of medical schools have to learn not only chemistry and biology, but also speeches of Chavez and biographies of Castro and leader of FARC (Colombian drug cartel/communist partisan army). If this is true, then it is another reason for me not to like that Chavez dude.

[edit: for anyone that would question the newspaper, wiki says "Gazeta Wyborcza [...] generally supports the values of the New Left", and it is uniformly hated by the right-wing here in Poland]

I am sure you'd prefer them to learn about the great capitalist Latin 'heroes' like Menem, Pinochet, Batista etc, and good 'virtuous' ideals like profit, exploitation, greed etc...

I am sure you'd prefer them to learn about the great capitalist Latin 'heroes' like Menem, Pinochet, Batista etc, and good 'virtuous' ideals like profit, exploitation, greed etc...

I much prefer that actual history be taught like the history of past communist regimes in places like Russia, China, North Korea etc.

I much prefer that actual history be taught like the history of past communist regimes in places like Russia, China, North Korea etc.

Agreed, but only if the history of capitalist places such as the entire South America in the 1960s, maiming, torturing and killing in the name of oh-so-American capitalism followed soon after. Or you'll deny that the dictatorships in South America were in the name of communism much like Stalin's period was in the name of capitalism? Two can play this game, and you have much more chance to go bust.

I much prefer that actual history be taught like the history of past communist regimes in places like Russia, China, North Korea etc.

No, what you support is deliberate lying and obfuscation education to continue political apathy and indifference to public affairs in order that capitalism can continue unabated and the economic class keep their control. Their can be no debate over this, having economic control in the hands of the few cannot be allowed.

Their can be no 'middle way' capitalism must be absolutely crushed because it is an enemy of the people, I advocate total direct democracy and self-management with a minimalist state, which Chavez has done (despite the lies of the media), I actually genuinely research these things and he has given local cooperatives total control.

Agreed, but only if the history of capitalist places such as the entire South America in the 1960s, maiming, torturing and killing in the name of oh-so-American capitalism followed soon after. Or you'll deny that the dictatorships in South America were in the name of communism much like Stalin's period was in the name of capitalism? Two can play this game, and you have much more chance to go bust.

I also agree with you.

No

Then you sir, are a fool. If you do not want both sides of a coin to be taught, it just makes you a totally ignorant person.

I also agree with you.

Ah, so you admit that, just as there are dystopias that happen to be capitalist, there can be dystopias that happen to be "socialist", as opposed to one given economic system being, necessarily, a dystopia? For instance, social-democratic nations in Scandinavia...

I am sure you'd prefer them to learn about the great capitalist Latin 'heroes' like Menem, Pinochet, Batista etc, and good 'virtuous' ideals like profit, exploitation, greed etc...

I am sure I'd prefer them to learn about the great capitalist Latin 'heroes' like circulation, internal organs, erythrocytes etc., and good 'virtuous' ideals like how to use a scalpel properly, resuscitation, stopping the blood loss etc... Knowledge about what Leader X or Y said about "teh eb1l capatilism" (or "teh godless commies") is definitely not necessary here.

I am sure I'd prefer them to learn about the great capitalist Latin 'heroes' like circulation, internal organs, erythrocytes etc., and good 'virtuous' ideals like how to use a scalpel properly, resuscitation, stopping the blood loss etc... Knowlegde about what Leader X or Y said about "teh eb1l capatilism" (or "teh godless commies") is definitely not necessary here.

You just performed an autopsy on both of the guys.

Then you sir, are a fool. If you do not want both sides of a coin to be taught, it just makes you a totally ignorant person.

No, it's not 'both sides of the coin', because one side of the coin(capitalism) is only 10% of what the other side is(the majority), teaching capitalism seems about as relevant as teaching how to kill a man in 60 seconds.

More exactly, to stop being so violent in its opposition and to respect the Constitution. Not at all stop opposing the government.

Uhm, well. Yes, stopping to oppose the goverment. I haven't heard any critic to the goverment from Venevisión since 2004. For example, their press department were issued an order to not report at all anything related o the RCTV case to not, quoting, "displease the goverment authorities". Several journalists of the channel protested againt it, to no avail. So, no, Venevisión, right now, is not against the goverment at all.

That's the first time I hear the Televen is partly public, and I didn't found anything to support that - and it doesn't change the fact it's mostly against the government, even if less into politics than the other channels.

Second most important opinion and investigation report show in the country sided by the goverment is transmitted by Televen, run by the ex vicepresident, ex ministry of defense and ex "state secretary" José Vicente Rangel, who is one of the most closest advisors to Chávez. He also happens to be in the directive of Televen appointed by the goverment, who holds half of the ownership of Televen. I might add that said show is the only one that focuses in politics in said channel, because as you added, it is less into politics than others. So, Televen is not at all against the goverment, but rather in favour of it.

Neither Vive TV nor Telesur have national coverage, Telesur being nearly only available on cable/satellite/Internet (and RCTV is still available on those media).

Vive didn't have national coverage until this year, and by coincidence, it was given shortly before the announcement of the not renewal of RCTV . Telesur was also granted an open signal this year.

Taking the President prisoner by force and threat to raze the presidential palace is not a "void power" but a coup, a "golpe de Estado".

And RCTV did participate in its preparation, by an intensive campaign just before, by its refusal to obey to the "cadena" when Chávez wanted to prevent the two masses of people to clash, by its utter lies over the Llaguno Bridge, and by its utter lies over Chávez having resigned.

Taking the president as prisoner, although he surrendered himself and no "force" was applied, after the announcement of his resign by his closest advisor, chief of the military staff, who (and please address this point) continued in the regime administration after the incident. That would be the first golpe de estado without any military clashes. Even Chávez accepted that he was decently treated through the entire proccess. Although noone will ever know the truth, I think Chávez resigned and then decided to change his mind when realized that he still had enough military support to be back in power. That is why I still believe in the "void of power" idea. When Carmona seized power, well, that was an institutional coup, because the power belonged to the vice president and not to him.

Regarding the cadena, well, it was pretty irresponsible by the goverment to try to cover up what was happening, because the cadena was issued exactly for that reason. The media decided to show both the cadena and what was happening. Risky idea, but entirely justifiable.

I was two blocks away from Llaguno bridge that day. I want to know what is your version of what happened there, if everything told by the media and by any witness not linked to the goverment is a lie. The military chief of staff announce Chávez's resign, that wasn't a "lie", it was, and still is, the truth, and he remained in the administration as part of the high command after everything ended. Why?

Supporting a dictator taking the power by force is not just "reprehensible"... it's one of the worse crimes an entity (individual or corporation) can commit !

I won't argue that to support Carmona was perhaps the worst possible mistake any entity in Venezuela could have done. However, Venevisión back then also supported Carmona, and got a renewal. Care to explain why?, because their capitalist owners signed a deal with the goverment to not oppose its measures anymore.

Of course... supporting a coup and dictator taking power is not a reason. What would be a reason, then ? And don't speak about "closure", RCTV is still free to transmit on cable, Internet, satellite, or wherever it wants. Not being closed after committing such crime shows how tolerant Chávez is. Replace the names of Chávez and RCTV, and you'll see that most of those who oppose Chávez right now would speak of "laxism" not of "authoritarism".

Most of the venezuelan populace doesn't have access to internet or cable tv. I know it wasn't strictly a closure, but a not renewal. Watch the drop of RCTV ratings after the not renewal to get an idea of the motivations of the goverment. The State doesn't care if a handful of middle class watch RCTV, it just wanted to close the access of the network to the masses.

But when this TV channel is not just "crappy", but in addition violating laws, Constitution, supporting a coup and a dictator, ... it would be plainly irresponsible, for any government, to renew the license.

What then about Venevisión who did the exact same thing and got a renewal?

It's much more shocking and outrageous when the broadcasting license of TF1 is renewed in France, with no discussion, even after the TV channel did the exact opposite of what it promised to do in order to get the license in 1986, than when Chávez refuses to renew the license of a criminal TV channel.

I am not defending the actions of the french goverment here.

Their can be no 'middle way' capitalism must be absolutely crushed because it is an enemy of the people, I advocate total direct democracy and self-management with a minimalist state, which Chavez has done (despite the lies of the media), I actually genuinely research these things and he has given local cooperatives total control.

Oh brother :rolleyes:

Ah, so you admit that, just as there are dystopias that happen to be capitalist, there can be dystopias that happen to be "socialist", as opposed to one given economic system being, necessarily, a dystopia? For instance, social-democratic nations in Scandinavia...

Yes I do know.

No, it's not 'both sides of the coin', because one side of the coin(capitalism) is only 10% of what the other side is(the majority), teaching capitalism seems about as relevant as teaching how to kill a man in 60 seconds.

As I said. You are a fool. And you are also a nut. Alwell. Not everyone knows history.

As it stands, I know nothing of what this proposed national curriculum would be like, so I shall postpone judgment until I am able to acquire further information.

That may be your opinion, but it's definitely not mine nor the one of many venezuelian. Not that it's not a problem, it's a real one. But even with the high crime rate in Venezuela, the social problems (the misery that still exists, the very bad living conditions of many barrios, the access to healthcare which is not yet total, the unemployment rate and informal economy rates which are still high even if they went down by a lot, ...) are much more important than insecurity is.

Most venezuelans tend to put insecurity as one, if not the one, main problem of the country. In poor areas and barrios, is ten times worst of anything I might have experienced. How many have you been mugged in your life, for example?

I have been mugged six times in 27 years, actually, more in the late 12 years, 8 of those under Chávez's regime, one of those attempts included a intent of rape, and that is pretty similar to most people. In Caracas, it is hard to find someone who hasn't been mugged at least once during his/her lifetime. Two times my father lost his car due to robbery and assault, and we didn't have three cars, two of them SUVS, like a marvelous suburban family like the ones you imagine in the US, it was first an old Sierra and then an old Maverick who was used to take us to school, and that costed my father years of hard work and savings. In barrios, due to my personal experience teaching in a public school in one of those zones, is ten times worst. We had reported at least an assault case each week, and that just against minors, that barely have some coins to breakfast. Two rapes just in the classrooms I was teaching, one of them with the abortion of an unwanted child included.

Children told me they sometimes had to spend the entire night lying in the floor meanwhile in the alley outside gangs and bands of "malandros" (gangsters, bands of criminals and dealers), gunfought the entire night, with the occassional loose bullets piercing the wooden walls of the hub. So, insecurity is a heavy problem there. Medics don't want to go up the barrios because it is too dangerous, people cannot work until late because they cannot arrive in night hours to their homes due to a criminal curfew, if not an abuse by the police officers, who extract you money to just reach your house.

Insecurity is one of the main problems that maintain the circle of misery in our marginal areas, and until solved in one or another, the people living there, that comprises most of our population, won't have a chance to improve their situation. In said conditions, is hard to work, it is hard to look for education when you see that the local ganglord earns a hundred times more like you and is not going to be punished anytime soon, it is hard to find proper healthcare, and it is hard to get the main public services. And after all, why would you want to improve yourself, if soon someone is going to take over everything you have achieved?.

No, it's not 'both sides of the coin', because one side of the coin(capitalism) is only 10% of what the other side is(the majority), teaching capitalism seems about as relevant as teaching how to kill a man in 60 seconds.

Disregarding the fact that it's vitally important to know your enemy, how can you justify denying someone full access to available information? After all, even President Eisenhower read Marx, because he felt it was vitally important to know that sort of information. He felt that he could not be expected to adequately confront his opponent if he did not understand their own ideology.

Wow. The shi... ah.. evidence seems to keep building and building, while the heads just sinking lower and lower into the sand.

Same old same old on NS I guess though.

Disregarding the fact that it's vitally important to know your enemy, how can you justify denying someone full access to available information? After all, even President Eisenhower read Marx, because he felt it was vitally important to know that sort of information. He felt that he could not be expected to adequately confront his opponent if he did not understand their own ideology.

Did I advocate that? No. I just think it's important to imbue children with an underlying consensus of fraternal cooperation and consensus towards our common man, and emphasizing the need to be selfless over selfish, if you don't do that at early age and it will never sink in. I see education not as a way solely to get a job for money, I see it as an opportunity to shape future generations to a common cause of fraternalism, solidarity and communalism, no one can argue that. Education (public) is overall a tool to create a nation into the future of people with characteristics we would like them to have.

Did I advocate that? No. I just think it's important to imbue children with an underlying consensus of fraternal cooperation and consensus towards our common man, and emphasizing the need to be selfless over selfish, if you don't do that at early age and it will never sink in. I see education not as a way solely to get a job for money, I see it as an opportunity to shape future generations to a common cause of fraternalism, solidarity and communalism, no one can argue that. Education (public) is overall a tool to create a nation into the future of people with characteristics we would like them to have.
Fucking sick!

Fucking sick!

Why, because you were always taught that social engineering is bad right?

Think about it this way, would you prefer a nation of spoiled private school twats or people who actually care about each other?

Also, bringing children up in a world that praises greed and utility rather than selflessness is exactly the same as capitalist indoctrination in school, albeit it's more subtleness makes it more effective.

Disregarding the fact that it's vitally important to know your enemy, how can you justify denying someone full access to available information? After all, even President Eisenhower read Marx, because he felt it was vitally important to know that sort of information. He felt that he could not be expected to adequately confront his opponent if he did not understand their own ideology.

Exactly.

Why, because you were always taught that social engineering is bad right?

Think about it this way, would you prefer a nation of spoiled private school twats or people who actually care about each other?

I prefer people who can think for themselves without having others tell them what to think.

I prefer people who can think for themselves without having others tell them what to think.

Another myth, people are told what to believe and they believe it, it's a simple choice between engineering the future generation to be selfless or selfish, the former is of course the highest virtue, so there is no debate. The big capitalist myth is that we are all individuals who make individual decisions, this is false and if it were true everyone would have different opinions, yet why do so many people think identically or near to? Life environmental and education decide what a person will be like, they have choice in the matter. We can all say people come to their own conclusions about things, but in reality the choice is already made by their environment and ideas.

I prefer people who can think for themselves without having others tell them what to think.

Sounds great, what planet can we go to find that education system?!?

Sounds great, what planet can we go to find that education system?!?
Exactly right, education isn't like this of course, their are correct and incorrect answers to questions, we come to conclusions and those who are correct progress and those who are incorrect do not. Therefore education is not about giving people all available information and them deciding what is right, it is about them discovering what is right and remembering it.

Their can be no 'middle way' capitalism must be absolutely crushed because it is an enemy of the people, I advocate total direct democracy and self-management with a minimalist state, which Chavez has done (despite the lies of the media), I actually genuinely research these things and he has given local cooperatives total control.

The above illustrates precisely why communism keeps failing in the world....

All of them want to create Marx's end result; without going through the necessary prerequisites that it relies upon to work in the first place.

That's why I do laud Marx's philosophy, but adamantly oppose modern so-called "Communists" and "Socialists"; because none of them are what they claim to be; they're merely Anti-capitalists, whose primary goal is not the betterment of society, merely the crushing of capitalism.

No, as long as the ideology is truth, which socialism is.

socialism /= truth
capitalism /= truth

no ideology /= truth

Sounds great, what planet can we go to find that education system?!?

You can't because the government is hip deep in the educational school system. Hence why I prefer that the government gets its hands out of the educational school system.

Also, I was not talking about education but people themselves. we are free to believe what we want to believe. We have information at our fingertips that we can use to form our own opinions.

socialism /= truth
capitalism /= truth

no ideology /= truth

This I can agree with.

The above illustrates precisely why communism keeps failing in the world....

All of them want to create Marx's end result; without going through the necessary prerequisites that it relies upon to work in the first place.

That's why I do laud Marx's philosophy, but adamantly oppose modern so-called "Communists" and "Socialists"; because none of them are what they claim to be; they're merely Anti-capitalists, whose primary goal is not the betterment of society, merely the crushing of capitalism.
No, the reason that Marxists utterly fail is because what they stand for is bullshit philosophy, and also because they oversimplify economics and class politics.

The main thing that pisses me off is the talk of the "proletariat" vs. the "bourgeoisie".

For starters, such terms are ill-defined, and to be honest, classifying whole countries into 'rich' and 'poor' is particularly stupid.

The 'proletariat' aren't one, single, unified group of people at all. There are working class people who work in factories. There are some that work in offices. Others work in trades, and some in the military.

There are socialists who are working class, however there are just as many conservatives, a fair few fascists, those who are in favour of a more libertarian way of life, those who are fans of the repression of minorities etc. etc.

There are single working class people, married couples, widows and widowers, those with no children, those with a few, those with a lot, and so much more.

Classifying a whole group of people, with diverse backgrounds, needs and desires in a single entity is a fatal flaw, and it's what makes most Marxists (who are generally middle-class regardless) seem extremely ill-informed and uncaring.

The same absolutely goes for the "bourgeoisie". I am bourgeois, and I'll be honest about it. I like fine art, I like fine food, and I'm quite rich.

That doesn't, however, mean that I hate people who are poorer than myself, nor does it mean that I want to work as a manager, who really enjoys repressing the poor or something. Not at all.

For example, a lot of the people I know are big fans of democracy. I am not. Democracy is, in my personal opinion, completely over-rated, and whether you can vote from time to time to have slightly different people in charge makes no odds.

Some people I know are fans of very low taxes and a correspondingly low rate of public services - essentially a "bugger the poor, I've got a holiday house to buy in Portugal" kind of attitude. I am not. I don't mind paying somewhat high taxes, so long as my healthcare and the healthcare of others around me, as well as my and their education etc. is protected.

Some people I know are big fans of capitalism, and others are huge fans of communism. I'm not really either, to be honest, and am more a fan of the Third Way.

But that's how things are.

I am, essentially, a champagne socialist, who aspires to work in either education, politics, or perhaps the military (quite diverse fields, I know). That's one kind of 'bourgeois' person. There are some I know who have worked all of their lives so that they may become accountants, or doctors, or Masters of Wine, or whatever else. Some I know have worked as generally as possible and could do anything with their lives and still be 'bourgeois' by the end of it.

I don't think that restricting basically the whole of humanity down into two sides, the bourgoisie and the proletariat, helps anyone other than crappy public speakers searching for an easy "HURRAH!" when they talk of the Internation Revolution and the downfall of the bourgeoisie at the hands of the proletariat.

The above illustrates precisely why communism keeps failing in the world....

All of them want to create Marx's end result; without going through the necessary prerequisites that it relies upon to work in the first place.

That's why I do laud Marx's philosophy, but adamantly oppose modern so-called "Communists" and "Socialists"; because none of them are what they claim to be; they're merely Anti-capitalists, whose primary goal is not the betterment of society, merely the crushing of capitalism.

You put into words what I've been thinking the whole time. Bravo.

No, the reason that Marxists utterly fail is because what they stand for is bullshit philosophy, and also because they oversimplify economics and class politics. (snip)

Well, the philosophy isn't all that much bullshit; but not applied in the form laid out in Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto... Modern "Marxists" simply aren't "Marxists" as in following the system laid our in Marx's work. They are aggressive anti-capitalists... They're not interested in capitalism working its course to provide the groundwork for functional communism... Rather they want to overthrow capitalism, and mandate a statist system of enforced communalism. Enforced communalism won't work; and statism does not but degenerate into another form of exploitation over time (which is the key point MARXISM is supposed to be about; ending exploitation).

Well, the philosophy isn't all that much bullshit;
It really is, though. Many cultures have swapped between feudalism and capitalism and then back again, for example in Italy, there was Feudalism before the Romans, capitalism in Roman times, and then Feudalism once more.

Pretending that there's some kind of never-failing way to look at history and predict what's coming next is somewhat foolhardy.Modern "Marxists" simply aren't "Marxists" as in following the system laid our in Marx's work. They are aggressive anti-capitalists... They're not interested in capitalism working its course to provide the groundwork for functional communism... Rather they want to overthrow capitalism, and mandate a statist system of enforced communalism. Enforced communalism won't work; and statism does not but degenerate into another form of exploitation over time (which is the key point MARXISM is supposed to be about; ending exploitation).
Yeah, I think the issue is that to most 'Marxists' of today, overthrowing capitalism IS the ends, rather than the means to an ends. Which is part of the problem, and doesn't endear them to anyone other than other Marxists.

Modern "Marxists" simply aren't "Marxists" as in following the system laid our in Marx's work. They are aggressive anti-capitalists... They're not interested in capitalism working its course to provide the groundwork for functional communism... Rather they want to overthrow capitalism, and mandate a statist system of enforced communalism.

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

Proletarians of all countries, unite!"

:rolleyes:

Not to mention Marx's admiration for the Paris Commune.... He did indeed say that capitalism's fall was inevitable, but this was not intended to deny the necessity of actively campaigning for the overthrow of capitalism.

It really is, though. Many cultures have swapped between feudalism and capitalism and then back again, for example in Italy, there was Feudalism before the Romans, capitalism in Roman times, and then Feudalism once more.

Pretending that there's some kind of never-failing way to look at history and predict what's coming next is somewhat foolhardy.
Yeah, I think the issue is that to most 'Marxists' of today, overthrowing capitalism IS the ends, rather than the means to an ends. Which is part of the problem, and doesn't endear them to anyone other than other Marxists.

It's not foolhardy to predict in the sense of Marx's own philosophy; in the sense that the prediction is based totally on what is a natural evolutionary course of societal development; in the sense that you can predict when and where; and attempt to jumpstart it through state action or armed revolution IS foolhardy; and where modern so-called adherents fail.

I do think Marx's concept of Communism/Socialism is inevitable... But that at present there is no way it can work till we as mankind progress further. This is not to say that it would happen next year, next century or next millenia... But that merely it WILL happen eventually.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/09/17/chavez.venezuela.ap/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7000079.stm

I personally agree with this, socialist truth must be given to children at a young age otherwise capitalistic doctrine will turn them in the wrong direction.
Well quite. Very few rational adults would voluntarily take up this crazy philosophy, so it can only really survive if children are indoctrinated in it.

Well quite. Very few rational adults would voluntarily take up this crazy philosophy, so it can only really survive if children are indoctrinated in it.

Just so I'm clear here. Is the "crazy" part you were referring to the idea that society should be about "we" instead of "me"?

No, as long as the ideology is truth, which socialism is.

Teach them philosophy and teach them how incorrect this statement is:

"It's true because I say that it is true."

Also, I am seriously loling at the naivety of the 'libertarian' hippies on NSG crying about 'authoritarianism', they act like the economic elite class will just peacefully agree to cooperate in redistributing their property to the masses, news flash guys: the economic class will never willingly let go of their control over the means of production because that's what keeps them as a minority in control over the majority of the people. They will resist, and only forced expropriation through a party front can stop them.

'Those who have taken, now they must give!' - The Internationale

And of course anyone that disagrees with you must be an enemy of the people and must be crushed right? Well thats perfect for allowing free forms of thought isn't it?

Just so I'm clear here. Is the "crazy" part you were referring to the idea that society should be about "we" instead of "me"?

I think he's referring to the crazy authoritarian extremes to which AP takes this.

The big capitalist myth is that we are all individuals who make individual decisions, this is false and if it were true everyone would have different opinions, yet why do so many people think identically or near to?

Actually I find that even people that agree on some views of things will not always agree. If this were really true then the communist revolution would have been succesful in a modern industrial nation which it wasn't.

Actually I find that even people that agree on some views of things will not always agree. If this were really true then the communist revolution would have been succesful in a modern industrial nation which it wasn't.

I loved the comment about having individual opinions. That was classic. We all have our own individual opinions but in Soviet Russia, opinions gets you shot.

Read as: murder anyone who disagrees, and eliminate the very system that put you in power in the first place.

Socialism, Fascism - two sides, same coin.

Uch uch uch uch OWWWWWWWW SNAP! Socialism's better mild and with democracy.

Exactly right, education isn't like this of course, their are correct and incorrect answers to questions, we come to conclusions and those who are correct progress and those who are incorrect do not. Therefore education is not about giving people all available information and them deciding what is right, it is about them discovering what is right and remembering it.

Actual education isn't about forcing an idea upon someone. Ideally its to teach you to reason out things, to be skeptical and not just to absorb mindless propaganda of the kind your espousing which ultimately leads to the dehumanization of people, making them stupid cattle who don't question or think on their own. After you've learned to reason things, thats when you are introduced to information. Often modern school systems skip on the first step and just go to the next one. This leads to people such as your self who cling hoplessly to an idea, person or group. Despite overwhelming facts and evidence against your so called "communist paradise" you continue to cling to a vague and self-delusionary ideal. Honestly, if you were a marxist I could actually semi-respect you but leninists just make me sick.

I loved the comment about having individual opinions. That was classic. We all have our own individual opinions but in Soviet Russia, opinions gets you shot.
I know right, it so funny how he makes that comment when there are so many types of communism in which they believe differently and often went to war for.

I know right, it so funny how he makes that comment when there are so many types of communism in which they believe differently and often went to war for.

Indeed.

There is no I in Team I am afraid, and that's the kind mentality we need to imbue in the future generation.

Obviously but there is an I in thinking and an I in production. IN terms of intelluctual ideas, the arts, production and technology your "socialist paradise" would lag behind other "evil and despotic" capatilist societies.

There is no I in Team I am afraid, and that's the kind mentality we need to imbue in the future generation.

In all honesty you shouldn't be imbueing anything into anyones mind as my post above just stated. Teach them how to think yes, but morality is not left to a secular society to impose.