Chavez and Fidel

[Positivist]

What is the criticism that is levied against the cuban and venezualan governments? There are no death tolls to point to as far as I know and the quality of life under bother Chavez and Fidel in each country has improved hasn't it? I really don't know too much on the subject and was hoping that some here on revleft might help clear things up for me.
And I'd appreciate citations and outside links from reliable sources in addition to everyone here's opinion on the issue. Thanks!

[The Jay]

What is the criticism that is levied against the cuban and venezualan governments? There are no death tolls to point to as far as I know and the quality of life under bother Chavez and Fidel in each country has improved hasn't it? I really don't know too much on the subject and was hoping that some here on revleft might help clear things up for me.
And I'd appreciate citations and outside links from reliable sources in addition to everyone here's opinion on the issue. Thanks!

They have gotten better for the working class, in my opinion, but they have not done much more than nationalize businesses. There's still class in both places and, especially in Venezuela, the attempts to end this have been mild at best, at least for a 'revolutionary'. Chavez may be popular but he doesn't follow through with aiding the proletariat in taking the means of production. He has done this on a small scale, but not like what he could do if he really wanted to. He has a lot of power but isn't using it 'correctly'. It's not that I like central planning but he's not even doing that. He's just putting his own national interest against neo-liberalism. He's better than other politicians but that's just what he is, not a revolutionary, reformer at best.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

They're both anti-imperialists, but not revolutionary.

[Ocean Seal]

What is the criticism that is levied against the cuban and venezualan governments? There are no death tolls to point to as far as I know and the quality of life under bother Chavez and Fidel in each country has improved hasn't it?

It has which is a good thing. The criticism against Cuba is that it isn't socialist because one can't achieve socialism on a little island without the proper infrastructure 90 miles away from the world's foremost superpower.

The criticism against Venezuela is that it isn't socialist, nor does it try to eliminate classes. Furthermore, Chavez's implementation of a semi-gift economy isn't working. He just gives shit away in the typical populist fashion and doesn't work to create a self-reliant economy. What he should do is grow industry, especially with the vast array of oil resources that he has. He also has had severe domestic policy errors, like moving too many away from agriculture to the point where they had to import trademark Venezuela products from Russia. And sabre-rattling against Colombia is never good.

[Positivist]

Alright guys thanks. Both are improvements over what capitalism would be like in their country but niether has realized socialism (with Cuba more a victim of circumstances and Venezeula lacking proper leadership) or atleast these are the criticisms of the regimes by people on the left. But how about the right? What are criticisms from the capitalist perspective other than associating with the evil Soviet union or not letting them build their factories? I think that people are popularly held to be oppressed in both countries. Is their any accuracy to such claims?

[Tabarnack]

While the pace of change in Venezuela could be faster, there should be no doubt that it is moving toward socialism, as an example 50% of the food sold in Venezuela is distributed through coops and democratically administered state food markets, slowly the private sector is being replaced by the social economy, while it's not always evident, there is more that is going on in Venezuela than we imagine.

[RedSonRising]

You can't lump the two together. Cuba had an actual revolution supported by the peasants and urban workers of the country and expropriated their capitalist class. To what extent the workers are empowered in the decision-making processes of the state is the subject of debate. Some defend it at any cost and characterize them as victims of imperialism (which they are) with a fully functional grassroots democracy, and others dismiss their gains and model as nothing more than a bureaucratic stalinist dictatorship with a new capitalist class. While the model has it's problems, I do believe that it is the closest we've come to having a nation-state with organs that engage and depend on the input of workers, farmers, professionals, etc. Besides that, it's hard to imagine a country with Cuba's production capacity being able to afford an entire class of exploitative state proprietors and have near-universal literacy and education, quality health care accessible to all, and municipal agriculture that meets the basic needs of everyone.

Venezuela on the other hand has an anti-imperialist president who seems to make feasible gains, both materially and politically, for the working classes, and yet seems to stop half way. He's expropriated and nationalized many industries, but many see this as a step below true worker's control. He has had conflicting relations with different unions and worker's groups, and up to now, has tolerated the existence of a ruling class, despite the fact that it has diminished in power. While some may say he's waiting to gradually restructure the class system, all the time he waits, the holders of wealth refuse to circulate and invest it because of the risk involved in terms of expropriation and profit loss. Chavez has made great gains in terms of worker's rights, legislation for autonomy, and access to healthcare (specifically yellow fever immunizations), but it's debatable whether he's opening up a space for proletarian interests to flourish, or co-opting legitimate leftist programs to suit his own party's agenda for power.

[Art Vandelay]

Both are bourgeois leaders of bourgeois states and neither are going to be bringing about socialism.

[Firebrand]

What are criticisms from the capitalist perspective other than associating with the evil Soviet union or not letting them build their factories? I think that people are popularly held to be oppressed in both countries. Is their any accuracy to such claims?

In my experience it generally comes down to bad jokes about car repairs

[Prometeo liberado]

Both are bourgeois leaders of bourgeois states and neither are going to be bringing about socialism.

That is classic Roosterism right there my friends! Take it from the one who coined the phrase. It adds nothing to the topic while attempting to take away everything from the thread.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Neither is a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Well, my views have been expressed by others here, so I would just like to add that while I criticize these countries, the Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas that Cuba and Venezuela participate in the region provides a good bulwark against neoliberalism and pressures from the World Bank and IMF.

[urstaat]

That is classic Roosterism right there my friends! Take it from the one who coined the phrase. It adds nothing to the topic while attempting to take away everything from the thread.

Not sure what any of that has to do with roosters. Handwaving sounds like a term you could have used instead of coining a new one.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Not sure what any of that has to do with roosters.

:laugh:

EDIT: Basically Roosterism is one big inside joke around here. See my primary tendency.

[urstaat]

:blushing: D'oh!

[Brosa Luxemburg]

It's okay, your new here

[KurtFF8]

They're both anti-imperialists, but not revolutionary.

I'm curious as to how the Cuban government is "not revolutionary." I understand that folks have criticism of Cuba but it's quite clearly a "revolutionary government" (I believe the Cuban revolution gives a bit of credibility to this claim at least)