Hugo Chavez next "Che"

[La_revolucion_Vive]

Hugo Chavez is well spoken and fallows Che's idiology. calling his movement la revolucion.. Companeros if the latin America Call for you. would you turn your back or What would u do. if the fight againt emperialims spark on venezuelan soil? what would u do???

[Publius]

He's a cuadillo.

In 5-10 years, you'll be despising him as a strong arm dictator.

You heard it hear first, foks.

[Bannockburn]

Too early to tell. Che was rare, insofar a legend before his own death. Chavez I doubt has that potential. But, with that being said if he stays the course, or doesn't get killed in the process..

[Luís Henrique]

He's a cuadillo.

In 5-10 years, you'll be despising him as a strong arm dictator.

You heard it hear first, foks.

Quite probably.

Chavez is an Army officer and a populist Christian. His first attempt to come into power has been by the means of a military coup (which failed).

He is now quite certainly hostage to a movement he does no longer control. He is still being able to surf on it, but this possibly won't last too long. If the revolutionary push from the masses eases, he will very likely become something like a Torrillos or Assad with improved rhetorics.

While supporting him against imperialist aggression is a need, lionising him acritically is not the way to go.

Luís Henrique

[OleMarxco]

As far as I don't doubt the well-meaning and generally alike - in rough aspects - in thinking approach to society, how it should be molded of Both....But Get THIS; 'Spite all the other crap and rumours, renembeR; Chavez wasn't a revolutionary, but has alot of indirect power - He was a political LEADER, like Castro, he is more the commander - not the field doctor who takes up guns and charges, like Che, which was more of a warrior. And that's an IMPORTANT difference. But if you mean it, it doesn't matter, but the difference is still important to the people we struggle for...and against. Guevara wasn't interested in filling much government office, but Hugo "had nothing against it". So, I guess... they know what to fear, depending on the circumstances :D

So all in all - He's the next "Fidel" more (but not absolutely) than "Che".
Unless he goes and prescribes to a guerrila army already lead and established by someone else. But no, he's the coup-leader with the cigar and contacts, doin' the paperwork and drawin' the strategies...not a low-level man as far as I get it.

[La_revolucion_Vive]

As far as I don't doubt the well-meaning and generally alike - in rough aspects - in thinking approach to society, how it should be molded of Both....But Get THIS; 'Spite all the other crap and rumours, renembeR; Chavez wasn't a revolutionary, but has alot of indirect power - He was a political LEADER, like Castro, he is more the commander - not the field doctor who takes up guns and charges, like Che, which was more of a warrior. And that's an IMPORTANT difference. But if you mean it, it doesn't matter, but the difference is still important to the people we struggle for...and against. Guevara wasn't interested in filling much government office, but Hugo "had nothing against it". So, I guess... they know what to fear, depending on the circumstances

So all in all - He's the next "Fidel" more (but not absolutely) than "Che".
Unless he goes and prescribes to a guerrila army already lead and established by someone else. But no, he's the coup-leader with the cigar and contacts, doin' the paperwork and drawin' the strategies...not a low-level man as far as I get it.


This post has been edited by OleMarxco on Oct 25 2005, 08:24 PM






wow that was deep man that was deep..... the way i see it, he is the only one left. nobody is doing notting . we just stand back and look how latin america gets crush by emperialims .. i know chavez is not the best candidate for a latin american hero like che , but he is the only one doing something about it .. :-/

[enigma2517]

Hero's, or the great man in history theory is pretty invalid by now.

Like somebody else mentioned, this out of Chavez's control...although he'll put some resistance before power leaves his hands.

[Guerrilla22]

Hugo is great, but he's not Che. You can't compare the two.

[Luís Henrique]

Marxists should stand by this:


Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living. And just when they seem engaged in revolutionizing themselves and things, in creating something that has never yet existed, precisely in such periods of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service and borrow from them names, battle cries and costumes in order to present the new scene of world history in this time-honored disguise and this borrowed language.

(Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte)

Luís Henrique

[Andy Bowden]

Chavez is not a caudillo. He is by a country-mile the most democratically supported President across Latin America, and has won a string of elections and referendums fair and square.

If anything he is too lenient, he just let all the people who tried to overthrow him run scot free.....


:blink:

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 09:26 PM

As far as I don't doubt the well-meaning and generally alike - in rough aspects - in thinking approach to society, how it should be molded of Both....But Get THIS; 'Spite all the other crap and rumours, renembeR; Chavez wasn't a revolutionary, but has alot of indirect power - He was a political LEADER, like Castro, he is more the commander - not the field doctor who takes up guns and charges, like Che, which was more of a warrior. And that's an IMPORTANT difference. But if you mean it, it doesn't matter, but the difference is still important to the people we struggle for...and against. Guevara wasn't interested in filling much government office, but Hugo "had nothing against it". So, I guess... they know what to fear, depending on the circumstances...

So all in all - He's the next "Fidel" more (but not absolutely) than "Che". Unless he goes and prescribes to a guerrila army already lead and established by someone else. But no, he's the coup-leader with the cigar and contacts, doin' the paperwork and drawin' the strategies...not a low-level man as far as I get it.

wow that was deep man that was deep..... the way i see it, he is the only one left. nobody is doing notting . we just stand back and look how latin america gets crush by emperialims .. i know chavez is not the best candidate for a latin american hero like che , but he is the only one doing something about it .. :-/

Well, perhaps you thought of my opinion as rough, and I can understand that, but I weren't here to "tear" Chavez "limb from limb", and pose him off as an mad-man mugabe banana-dictator, but as a more strategic man in the back as Fidel: Let me clear what I forgot to say, that it's a commendable thing too, to take care of administration, aslong as you don't try to do it just to "escape" from the battlefield and "direct" power from a safe location, which is perhaps good for the cause that the leader or the trusted is safe, but it can distort judgement when you are too far from the consequences. Therefore: A totalarian is never the -best- choiche, and power -can- corrumpt, but it's not impossible to overthrow them either; People must choose to disembowel their own leader's if they make bad decisions. And then I mean that, BAD decisions, which risks lives, not just the wrong color of the H.Q. But even if he is or is not a good leader...he's one of many needed resistances to the U.S., and the Capitalists, whilst a more less individual-centered alternative could be preferred, he's doin' good. But he's not "a Che" by his standard, going personally into the war (Which got his "cult"-status because he didn't care about it and spent more time doing) - The "next Che" would be from the Middle-East or Africa, I suppose, but someone unknown as of yet :castro:

But he's not the last one...but one of the few who gives a shit. I don't think I was -that- deep....

[Clarksist]

Here is the difference between Chavez and Che:

Che is a martyr.

There wasn't much of a Che cult till he died. He has become a martyr, and no politician can ever touch the cult status of a man who fought for freedom, and then gave up a comfy desk job to fight in a revolution for freedom which he died in.


Chavez I doubt has that potential. But, with that being said if he stays the course, or doesn't get killed in the process..


If he gets killed in the process, and revisionists get in control, he'll be wildly popular decades from now.

People will say, "You know Venezuela was a communist paradise, till Chavez died. But when he was in power, everything was absolutely perfect."

I.E. Lenin and Mao.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 26 2005, 08:19 PM




Chavez is not a caudillo. He is by a country-mile the most democratically supported President across Latin America, and has won a string of elections and referendums fair and square.

He's consolidating power as we speak.

Know of his judicial system 'reforms'? His taking power away from the legislation?

He's a dictator in the making. He's not there yet, obviously, but he's working towards it.

He was part of an attempted coup.

A number of political oppenents have been found dead; Human Rights Watch has denounced his regime.

Wikipedia:

Human rights organization Amnesty International has, as of December 2004, documented at least 14 deaths and at least 200 wounded during confrontations between anti-Chavez demonstraters and National Guard, police, and other security personnel in February and March 2004. Several reports of ill-treatment and torture at the hands of the Chavez government's security forces have also surfaced. There are reports of slow and inadequate investigations into these abuses, which AI had attributed to the lack of police and judiciary impartiality. The organization also has documented numerous reports of both police brutality and unlawful extrajudicial killings of criminal suspects, as well as intimidation of witnesses to the abuses. Calls by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the Chavez government to quell such threats and intimidation have also reportedly not been addressed, and Chávez himself has suggested that some international human rights defenders had intentions of fomenting turmoil and destabilizing the country. These allegations have been reported to result in the endangerment of human rights defenders, including death threats.[46]

The Chavez government has been denounced by Human Rights Watch for its passage of legislation that threatens to stifle anti-Chavez criticism and dissent from Venezuelan media. The statements are leveled specifically at restrictive amendments to the Venezuelan Criminal Code that criminalize insults, disrespect, and libelous remarks from the news media aimed at either the president or other government authorities. Severe punishments, including sentences of up to 40 months, are part of the so-called "Law on the Social Responsibility of Radio and Television" personally endorsed by Chavez.[47]

As of 2005, family members of the victims in the April 11, 2002 events have filed a lawsuit at the International Criminal Court in The Hague against Chavez and several government officials for crimes against humanity. Although it is still unclear if the ICC would have jurisdiction over the April events that occurred before the Court was constituted on July 1st, 2002, thus far the case has not been rejected. The lawsuit was first placed in Spain on January 28, 2003, but it was decided by Judge Fernando Andreu of the National Audience that the Spanish courts would not be able to try Chavez because of his position as an acting President. However, the Spanish State's Attorney and the magistrates of the Penal Court of Appeals stated that the lawsuit was well founded and the case was consequently forwarded to the ICC (The International Criminal Court June 2003, Victims Compensantion; Vol. 19, No. 6, 1578 words).[48]


His econonomic 'success' is predicated solely on the insanely high oil prices; he essentially has free money to piss away.

As soon as oil prices drop or stop going up, he's screwed and so is the economy.

This collapse should, if anything can, prove to you how 'democratic socialism' is impossible.

Again, mark my words.

[Andy Bowden]

Have anti-Chavez demonstrators been killed? Yes - but so have pro Chavez demonstrators, as well as Chavez's attorney general. Anti - Chavez snipers firing on Chavistas was part of the plan of the opposition to overthrow him and install a military regime.

As for the media, they have still remained overwhelmingly in private hands, and considering their support for the military overthrow I think they have a cheek to complain. I would remind people that the media in Venezuela actually attacked Chavez during Sports, saying "Here comes Chavez - the baseball player, not the crazy dictator".

But if Chavez is such a despot, why has he ensured that every Venezuelan has a copy of the new (democratically supported) constitution on them?

Why has he instituted the availability of a recall referendum to take him, or any other President out of office?

It seems a rather strange move for any wannabe despot.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 27 2005, 05:09 PM



Have anti-Chavez demonstrators been killed? Yes - but so have pro Chavez demonstrators, as well as Chavez's attorney general. Anti - Chavez snipers firing on Chavistas was part of the plan of the opposition to overthrow him and install a military regime.

But there's a difference between rebels and guerillas killing government officals than government officials killing political opponents.



As for the media, they have still remained overwhelmingly in private hands, and considering their support for the military overthrow I think they have a cheek to complain. I would remind people that the media in Venezuela actually attacked Chavez during Sports, saying "Here comes Chavez - the baseball player, not the crazy dictator".

Who cares?

What do you want to do, slap them on the wrists? "Bad press, bad!".

Freedom of speech and all that bullshit.



But if Chavez is such a despot, why has he ensured that every Venezuelan has a copy of the new (democratically supported) constitution on them?

He had some paper lying around.

Did they understand what that competition did to the checks and balances, how it destroyed them with it's court and legislature 'reforms'?



Why has he instituted the availability of a recall referendum to take him, or any other President out of office?

Because we know votes can't be rigged!



It seems a rather strange move for any wannabe despot.

No, it seems a brilliant move; he has the support of you and your ilk, does he not?

He's Castro JUST before he turned dictator.

You'd be on Castro's jock, if we were back in that era, extolling him. This is similar.

[Amusing Scrotum]

He's Castro JUST before he turned dictator.

Publius I suggest you read the following two pieces regarding Cuba and Cuban democracy.

The Truth About Cuba (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/rys5a.html) and Let's Talk About Cuban Democracy (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/rys5b.html).

You will find them very enlightening.

[Paradox]

it was a bit absurd to see the publication of articles with damning claims of "censorship" in the same media that were supposedly being censored.


Democracy and Freedom of Expression Are Alive and Well in Venezuela (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1563)

[Andy Bowden]

Publius, there is not a shred of evidence any of the votes have been rigged. Even Liberals like Jimmy Carter admitted he won the referendum fair and square.

Secondly, anti-chavistas are not just killing govt officials. They are also killing his grassroots supporters - the most obvious case of which was during the attempted coup when Chavistas were fired on, so their firing back could be promoted to the media as Chavistas firing on an innocent crowd.

Does the media taking the piss out of Chavez matter that much? Not really. But as you and I both know, it is far more sinister than that. The media provided a cloak of respectability to the military that overthrew Chavez.
In fact, the so-called democratic opposition actually tried to make moves to shut down the state-media which they saw as pro-chavez. Where is the freedom of speech here?

The article Paradox posted just shows the irony that supposedly censored media are free to moan about censorship.

Chavez has won a string of elections and a referendum, he is probably far more popular than many western leaders who see fit to criticise him.

[Publius]

it was a bit absurd to see the publication of articles with damning claims of "censorship" in the same media that were supposedly being censored.


Democracy and Freedom of Expression Are Alive and Well in Venezuela (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1563)

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/24/venezu10368.htm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/11/30/venezu9754.htm

http://hrw.org/press/2003/06/venezuela062303-ltr.htm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/10/28/venezu6488.htm

[Andy Bowden]

Human Rights Watch has not covered the situation indepedently in Venezuela, in my opinion. For example, after the Coup it called for the new authorities to "restore law and order" - it did not mention the new authority was totally illegitimate and led by the military, overthrowing the Democratic Govt.

As for the media legislation, again these people were openly supporting and aiding a coup d'etat - they had people from the military on TV, feting them as the new authorities.

So I believe these new laws are a measured response to what has been supported by these people, and despite HRW's fears the right-wing press have not eased up at all on attacking Chavez. They have continued, completely unharrassed to attack Chavez.

[dakewlguy]

Fuck Chavez http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/myImages/2005/02/01/chavez_mugabe-(2).jpg

[KC]

Mugabe? So what?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Jack Straw shook Mugabe's hand too. Churchill shook the hand of Hitler and Rumsfeld shook the hand of Saddam Hussein. As Lazar said, so what?

[dakewlguy]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 30 2005, 05:32 PM
Jack Straw shook Mugabe's hand too. Churchill shook the hand of Hitler and Rumsfeld shook the hand of Saddam Hussein. As Lazar said, so what?
And jack straw rightly got called a fucking idiot because of it. Rumsfeld gets shit for dealing with Saddam, Churchill's I haven't heard of before but if he did then it was stupid of him.

Why? Hmm, maybe because dictators who completely fuck up countries don't deserve any respect? When you've got Straw and Chavez being all curteous to Mugabe, what message does this give him? Certainly not that his policies are ruining the lives of millions and that hes a brutal dictator, thats for sure.

[Amusing Scrotum]

And jack straw rightly got called a fucking idiot because of it. Rumsfeld gets shit for dealing with Saddam, Churchill's I haven't heard of before but if he did then it was stupid of him.

Why? Hmm, maybe because dictators who completely fuck up countries don't deserve any respect? When you've got Straw and Chavez being all curteous to Mugabe, what message does this give him? Certainly not that his policies are ruining the lives of millions and that hes a brutal dictator, thats for sure.

Okay but why bring up this photo as if it is conclusive proof that Chavez is terrible, when other politicians have shook hands with far worse people. Also by the way shaking someones hand means shit, its just being polite. Chavez as far as I know has not sold Mugabe poisonous gas or actively supported his repressive policies against Jews and others.

Show evidence that Chavez has done anything terrible with regards support for Mugabe or don't bother showing the photo at all.

[dakewlguy]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 30 2005, 06:07 PM
Okay but why bring up this photo as if it is conclusive proof that Chavez is terrible, when other politicians have shook hands with far worse people. Also by the way shaking someones hand means shit, its just being polite. Chavez as far as I know has not sold Mugabe poisonous gas or actively supported his repressive policies against Jews and others.

Show evidence that Chavez has done anything terrible with regards support for Mugabe or don't bother showing the photo at all.
Why be polite to dictators? Chavez in being so friendly towards Mugabe is being completely irresponsible, the last thing we need is Mugabe thinking that at least some people agree with him, and that he's just the victim of the mean old west. People like Straw and Chavez need to grow some balls, and make sure Mugabe doesn't get any false impressions.

I don't think I've said chavez supports mugabe, maybe you should re-read my post.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Why be polite to dictators? Chavez in being so friendly towards Mugabe is being completely irresponsible, the last thing we need is Mugabe thinking that at least some people agree with him, and that he's just the victim of the mean old west. People like Straw and Chavez need to grow some balls, and make sure Mugabe doesn't get any false impressions.

How do you know Mugabe is a dictator? He has won elections and therefore what evidence do you base your claims on?

Also we do not know what exactly was happening in that picture. We do not know what Mugabe and Chavez were meeting about. For all we know Chavez could have been visiting Mugabe to talk to him about human rights. To just post a picture, without any story or explanation, as an argument against someone is ridiculous.


I don't think I've said chavez supports mugabe, maybe you should re-read my post.

No you just posted a picture and wrote "Fuck Chavez." You made a completely childish argument void of any intellectual reasoning.

[La_revolucion_Vive]

Monday October 10, 12:17 PM
'Viva la revolucion!' says



Che Guevara's daughter


HAVANA, (AFP) - The daughter of Cuba's revolutionary hero Che Guevara told AFP that socialism is still possible in Latin America, and that leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez inspires hope.

Aleida Guevara March, daughter of Argentine-born Ernesto "Che" Guevara, said in an interview that 38 years after the death of her father, it is still possible to remove the right-wing from the region, specifically in Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Mexico, Nicaragua and Peru.

"All that is needed is a good scalpel," said Guevara March, 44. Like her father, she studied medicine.

Her father joined the Cuban revolution, led by Cuba's current president, Fidel Castro, helping to topple the Havana government in 1959. Guevara died trying to export socialist revolution to Bolivia.

His daughter said the United States "has unleashed so much propaganda against Cuba and against socialism that many people are afraid of it."

Chavez, then, means "hope, because Latin America is very afraid of socialism," she said.



"Hugo Chavez today could be an alternative, a possibility, but if one looks at the evolution of his Bolivarian Revolution, one sees that circumstances have forced him to be more and more radical because of US pressure," she said.

Chavez' political program is based on the writings of South America's "Liberator" from Spain, Simon Bolivar, who urged Latin American unity.

[MoscowFarewell]

Chavez is good, but a new Che, no.

[dakewlguy]

How do you know Mugabe is a dictator? He has won elections and therefore what evidence do you base your claims on?

Definately democratic. Too democratic if anything.


No you just posted a picture and wrote "Fuck Chavez." You made a completely childish argument void of any intellectual reasoning.
So yeah, like I said, I don't think I've said chavez supports mugabe.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Definately democratic. Too democratic if anything.


What are you wittering on about?


So yeah, like I said, I don't think I've said chavez supports mugabe.

Right so in a debate about the importance of Hugo Chavez and whether he is doing anything good. You post a picture of Chavez shaking hands with Mugabe and write "Fuck Chavez." It is logical to conclude that you dislike Chavez because you think he supports Mugabe, who you don't like. See this is what happens when people make shitty arguments, it lowers the standard of the debate.

[Publius]

How do you know Mugabe is a dictator? He has won elections and therefore what evidence do you base your claims on?

Define dictator.

Hitler was elected multiple times as well. Was he not a dictator?

:rolleyes:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Define dictator.

Hitler was elected multiple times as well. Was he not a dictator?


I am not saying that Mugabe doesn't have dictatorial powers and is most likely a dictator. I was asking dakewlguy why he thinks Mugabe is a dictator and on what evidence he bases this judgement.

[Paradox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 07:39 PM

it was a bit absurd to see the publication of articles with damning claims of "censorship" in the same media that were supposedly being censored.


Democracy and Freedom of Expression Are Alive and Well in Venezuela (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1563)

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/24/venezu10368.htm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/11/30/venezu9754.htm

http://hrw.org/press/2003/06/venezuela062303-ltr.htm

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/10/28/venezu6488.htm

Anyone convicted of offending these authorities could go to prison for up to 20 months. Anyone who gravely offends the president, on the other hand, can incur a penalty of up to 40 months in prison.

Other amendments increase the penalties for defamation and libel. Penalties for defamation have been increased from a maximum of 30 months of imprisonment to a new maximum of four years if the statement is made in a document distributed to the public. Those convicted would also have to pay a fine of up to 2,000 tax units (currently equivalent to more than US$ 27,000). The penalty for libel rises from a maximum jail term of three months to a new maximum of two years.

I'd be sympathetic if it weren't for the fact that the media are a bunch of right-wing bastards with a hand in the coup attempt and who are still spreading bullshit to sway opinion.


Until now, the Chávez government has largely respected press freedom even in the face of a strident and well-resourced opposition press. Indeed, as part of the often heated and acrimonious debate between supporters of the government and its opponents, the press has been able to express strong views without restriction. Private television companies have often adopted a blatantly partisan position, and their news and debate programs have been extremely hostile to the Chávez government.

At the same time, however, many journalists working for the primarily private media that support the opposition have been victims of aggression and intimidation by government supporters. And, to a lesser degree, journalists working for the primarily state media sympathetic to the government have also been subject to acts of intimidation.

Human Rights Watch supports legislation designed to encourage radio and television stations to promote a diverse and vibrant public debate. Any restrictions introduced by law, however, must be reasonable, necessary and proportionate to the public interest served. Broad or vaguely-defined restrictions, which if applied rigorously could lead to severe sanctions against broadcasters, only encourage self-censorship.

“Imposing a straitjacket on the media is not the way to promote democracy,” said Vivanco.

Umm... The part in bold is still very much true.

The government-sympathetic journalists being intimidated, I don't know anything about that. Sounds like a group that would be intimidated by the opposition rather than the government they're sympathetic to.

Promote diverse and vibrant public debate? With right-wing, corporate, coup-assisting, lying media sources? "Broad or vaguely-defined restrictions" does sound a bit odd, but is this HRW group retarded? Where's their criticism of the media for actually undermining democracy in Venezuela and aiding in an attempt to overthrow the government which has the overwhelming support of the people?


Examples include the application of article 53(j) of the Broadcasting Regulations, which prohibits the transmission of “false, deceitful, or tendentious news.” Dr. Eduardo Bertoni, Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression of the Organization of American States has found this prohibition to be contrary to article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights because “the right to information includes all information, including that which, rather than truthful, may be ‘erroneous,’ ‘ill-advised,’ or ‘incomplete,’ precisely because the wide-ranging discussion and exchange of ideas is the appropriate way to search for the truth.”

What's wrong with prohibiting lies? Prohibiting the transmission of "ill-advised," or "erronesous" information is one thing. Mistakes happen. Prohibiting lies, such as those constantly spit out by the opposition media is an entirely different issue.


Similarly, article 53© of the regulations prohibits the transmission of “messages, speeches, sermons or lectures that incite rebellion or lack of respect for the legitimate institutions and authorities.” Preventing incitement to rebellion, violent insurrection, or the overthrow of a government by force may be legitimate grounds to restrict freedom of expression. But to be so the threat must be real and imminent, and the expression found objectionable must directly contribute to it. The term “incitement” should never be used to penalize strongly-worded expressions of criticism or opposition to a government, as appears to be the case with the television programs currently under investigation. And the second prohibition contained in article 53©, covering “incitement of lack of respect,” is an anachronistic concept that has no place in a modern democracy.

This does sound a bit strange. There was a coup, so in that sense it might be understandable, and with the media and its well known position. But even with this provision, if Chavez actually did become a dictator, or someone after him did, I doubt people would stop "inciting rebellion or lack of respect for the legitimate institutions and authorities."


Human Rights Watch believes that, with a recall referendum currently under discussion in Venezuela, the democratic benefits of an open public debate are more than ever crucial. It therefore urges the government to firmly avoid infringing on the freedom that Venezuelans currently have to express their views.

Yes. Recall referendum which was instituted by the Chavez administration and which many other observing groups described as fair, and in which Chavez won with 59% of the vote.

Until something truly questionable happens I will support the Bolivarian Movement.

[Fighter]

Two comments:

Chavez's continued warnings that the U.S. will try and kill him is making him appear to be desparate, like he's not in charge as much as part of something he no longer controls.

He should just keep on working hard to come up with more socialist programs for his people.

Also,
Clarksist wrote:
no politician can ever touch the cult status of a man who fought for freedom, and then gave up a comfy desk job to fight in a revolution for freedom which he died in

I think it's fair to say that Lincoln, in American history, has achieved a cult status amoung many Americans, probably due to his being a martyr himself. Even his memorial is called a temple.

[Paradox]

Chavez's continued warnings that the U.S. will try and kill him is making him appear to be desparate, like he's not in charge as much as part of something he no longer controls.

I wouldn't say it makes him appear desparate, but perhaps he should let off it a bit. Nonetheless, I don't doubt there are assassination plans or somekind of plans to undermine perhaps even overthrow (as the coup did very briefly) the Bolivarian government. With all the propaganda the media and the US government is putting out on Venezuela, the Pat Robertson (or whatever his name is) comments on taking out Chavez, it's understandable that Chavez would bring it up. But, having said that...


He should just keep on working hard to come up with more socialist programs for his people.

I pretty much agree with this.

[La_revolucion_Vive]

he is acting like is about to get kill by the usa more for propaganda. i think. whatever thing he doing is working. che spirit is being felt all over latin american ... so something is gonna happen in latin america .. the time for the revolution is near us and the time to archive che's goal . to protec the latin america indians and to unite as one . as one country once race. i think chavez is about to do that and im willing to sac my revolutionray soul just to make a difference. i tired of seen latin american countries being crush by USA capitalims .. and for all does so called revolucionaris that buy che's shirts and then go eat at mcdonard or burgerking u not helping u should be wearing a bush shirt ......

COMPANEROS... LATIN AMERICA... THE TIME IS NEAR US THE TIME FOR THE CHE REVOLUTION THE TIME WE CRUSH AMERICAN EMPERIALIS . ...... SUPPORT CHAVEZ AND U SUPPORT A VICTORY OVER IMPERILISTAS OVER LATIN AMERICA .. THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW!!! GET IT DONE.... HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE //... PATRIA O MUERTE... CHE sorry for the misspell still learnig ingles

[poetofrageX]

Chavez has won several elections, which have been declared fair, even by Jimmy Carter. His government hasn't instigated any mass slaughters, but only defended itself against violent coups. Bushs government is responsible for much more deaths than Chavez's. Admit it, Publius, you just hate the fact that theres a government leader helping the poor workers of his country, instead of acting as the puppet of the rich. Either that, or you've been brainwashed by the U.S. anti-socialist propaganda.

[La_revolucion_Vive]

poetofrageX ))))) good words companero.... well said :-) nice to hear some ppl have brain,,
chavez a caudillo... plz a dictator ? he won fair and that why he push his bolivan revolution cuz his contry still a democracy so he has to win the ppl support in case he dont get re elected peace yo
?

[cormacobear]

Human rights watch has complaints against every country, the list against the previous Venezualan regime was lengthy, and the list of Complaints against the US is pages long. So don't throw bricks when you live in a glass house.

Since he was elected to dismantle a right wing government fixing the judiciary seems a logical place to begin. I say wait till he's dead to judge his life predicting the future can easily lead one to regret passing early judgement. So not on par with Che yet but not yet dead so he's got some time to catch up.

[Publius]

Chavez has won several elections, which have been declared fair, even by Jimmy Carter.

Well if Jimmy Carter says it!


His government hasn't instigated any mass slaughters, but only defended itself against violent coups.

And the occasional opposition member.

Of course, if the US did anything similar in attempt to stem a 'coup' you would doubtlessly lambaste it.


Bushs government is responsible for much more deaths than Chavez's.

Agreed.


Admit it, Publius, you just hate the fact that theres a government leader helping the poor workers of his country, instead of acting as the puppet of the rich.

Yawn.

This was the same agitprop you morons spouted about Stalin back in the 20's and 30's.

When he turns dictator and the poor sink into deeper immiseration, will you change your tune?

I don't care about the rich, and I think it's to early to declare anything yet, but I sincerely doubt Venezuala will succeed.

I could be wrong.

But I doubt it.


Either that, or you've been brainwashed by the U.S. anti-socialist propaganda.

Forgive me for quoting my 'anti-socialist propoganda' like HUman Rights Watch!

[guerrillero]

There is a big difference between Che and Chavez! Lets compare.. Che possesed qualities that very few leaders in our lifetime have. Che was extremely intelligent and also an outstanding gorrilla. Take those two qualities and compare them to any world leader or military leader and you will see that almost all of todays leaders only possess one of those two qualities. Anyone ever meet an officer from any military in the world? They are either extremely smart or just have good leadership skills.. Very rarely do they posses both intelligence and great leadership skills. Che had them both! Chavez isnt nearly as smart as Che Guevara was. What did Chavez accomplish as a general in the Venezuelan military? Chavez`s revolution has thrived more from his anti bush comments than anything else. Che became legendary for his accomplishments in the Cuban Revolution, and from his personel thesis`s that changed how we view politics today. Che walked the talk.. up until now Chavez is talking the walk.

[kingbee]

chavez isn't as good looking. i rest my case.

[I'm the red under your bed]

We will be able to tell in time. At the moment he is a hero of the people and has my full support.However it could change.It COULD change.