Hugo Chavez

[VonClausewitz]

Is he one of your collective friends ? Just curious, and regardless of the answer to that, what do you think of the purportedly progressive leader being pals and supportive towards a certain Mr Mugabe of Zimbabwe ?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a0/ChavezMugabe.jpg

Just in case I got a flood of "you're making it up".

[t_wolves_fan]

I'm suddenly reminded of news coverage of a protest against our involvement in Somalia, where they interviewed one protester who didn't even know where Somalia was.

[Connolly]

I think he is progressive in many ways, and for that, I will give him my support.

I think his "revolution" is bollox. Revolution is made by the workers - not him - it will lead to nothing in the end and is merely a political stunt of some sort IMO.

[Connolly]

I think Chavez is far more of a Populist than true Commie.

Couldnt have said it better myself :)

If his cause is progressive, even though he might not be a communist - I will give my support to him.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 2 2006, 07:54 PM
If his cause is progressive, even though he might not be a communist - I will give my support to him.
What if he denies opposition parties the right to organize?

Ends or means?

[Connolly]

What if he denies opposition parties the right to organize?

If I felt his actions were progressive to the working class, then yes.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 2 2006, 08:12 PM

What if he denies opposition parties the right to organize?

If I felt his actions were progressive to the working class, then yes.
All I need to know to reject your belief system.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 2 2006, 02:54 PM

I think Chavez is far more of a Populist than true Commie.

Couldnt have said it better myself :)

If his cause is progressive, even though he might not be a communist - I will give my support to him.
I'd agree that Chavez is a populist, I'm just not sure why some use that term as an insult (mainly righties, but some leftists as well). Especially within the context of "keeping the ship afloat" in a pre-revolutionary era. You can talk theory and enlightening the masses all you like, but keeping them fed and alive is a wee bit important too.

He does have socialist (not communist) ideals, but as a reformist (though he uses the word revolutionary, by definition his actions are reform). His ideals may be revolutionary, and maybe he is a revolutionary at heart, but his methods are reform. That's cool, I have no problem with that, at least he is making progress.

I think he'll be a great influence on the country and the region, and should be supported wholeheartedly, because the situation in Venezuela will not succeed.

Sure, progress will be made, maybe even massive progress, but eventually through economic and military terrorism by the western world and right-wing cappies within the country, the neo-cons will take control back and crush the progressives.

And that will be their (the neo-con's) downfall. Think of Chavez's movement as a precursor to the real revolution (and occurring with perfect timing in a pre-revolutionary era). It gives the people their first taste of "hey, things really don't have to be the US way, things can be different." It encourages local control, local organization, and local changes (Bolivarian Circles). It shows them just how huge an effect wealth redistribution can have (all the social programs Chavez has instituted).

Give them their taste of truth, justice, and freedom, then the neo-cons come in and crush the movement.

That is what makes for real revolutions. Once the people are awake, you can crush them, but you can't put them back to sleep. (Unless you use Reality Television to lobotomize them :D )

I'd expect the reactionary thrust to come 2010-2020ish, and then we'll see a real revolution there, a lasting one, 2020-2030ish.

So mark your calendars, make travel arrangements, learn spanish and practice with an AK-103. We can have a big RevLeft reunion if it comes to pass :)

[Whitten]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 2 2006, 07:59 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 2 2006, 07:59 PM)
The [email protected] 2 2006, 07:54 PM
If his cause is progressive, even though he might not be a communist - I will give my support to him.
What if he denies opposition parties the right to organize?

Ends or means? [/b]
He hasnt done this.

[Connolly]

I'd agree that Chavez is a populist, I'm just not sure why some use that term as an insult (mainly righties, but some leftists as well). Especially within the context of "keeping the ship afloat" in a pre-revolutionary era. You can talk theory and enlightening the masses all you like, but keeping them fed and alive is a wee bit important too.

He does have socialist (not communist) ideals, but as a reformist (though he uses the word revolutionary, by definition his actions are reform). His ideals may be revolutionary, and maybe he is a revolutionary at heart, but his methods are reform. That's cool, I have no problem with that, at least he is making progress.

I think he'll be a great influence on the country and the region, and should be supported wholeheartedly, because the situation in Venezuela will not succeed.

Sure, progress will be made, maybe even massive progress, but eventually though economic and military terrorism by the western world and right-wing cappies within the country, the neo-cons will take control back and crush the progressives.

And that will be their (the neo-con's) downfall. Think of Chavez's movement as a precursor to the real revolution (and occurring with perfect timing in a pre-revolutionary era). It gives the people their first taste of "hey, things really don't have to be the US way, things can be different." It encourages local control, local organization, and local changes (Bolivarian Circles). It shows them just how huge an effect wealth redistribution can have (all the social programs Chavez has instituted).

Give them their taste of truth, justice, and freedom, then the neo-cons come in a crush the movement.

That is what makes revolutions. Once the people are awake, you can crush them, but you can't put them back to sleep. (Unless you use Reality Television to lobotomize them )

I'd expect the reactionary thrust to come 2010-2020ish, and then we'll see a real revolution there, a lasting one, 2020-2030ish.

So mark your calendars, make travel arrangements, learn spanish and practice with an AK-103. We can have a big RevLeft reunion if it comes to pass

Very well said :)

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

He does have socialist (not communist) ideals, but as a reformist (though he uses the word revolutionary, by definition his actions are reform). His ideals may be revolutionary, and maybe he is a revolutionary at heart, but his methods are reform. That's cool, I have no problem with that, at least he is making progress.


Yes, and on his banners he writes very clear slogans shouting "SOCIALISM!" and all that, and the opposition clearly calls him a "stupid communist".


QUOTE (The RedBanner @ Oct 2 2006, 08:12 PM)
QUOTE
What if he denies opposition parties the right to organize?



If I felt his actions were progressive to the working class, then yes.


All I need to know to reject your belief system.

Too bad he hasnt repressed any opposition parties so far, unless they tried to kidnap/kill/overthrow him and return the state to a Minority of rich white men , which they attemped in 2002

Too bad the people loved him so much they rebelled and Retook the Capital.

And after the Coup was repressed bloodlessly, He gave a fair trial to all coup-ers and NONE of them were executed.


In my opinion that system is a lot more kind than our own one here in America, but with those generals though I think he was being a bit too pointlessly kind - they would have killed him and probally were going to, and he just lets them go or fires them.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 05:29 PM

That is not how meant it i have no problem with populist.
I didn't mean you, I just meant in mainstream media for instance, the word "populist" is used like "satanist."

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 2 2006, 08:16 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 2 2006, 08:16 PM)
The [email protected] 2 2006, 08:12 PM

What if he denies opposition parties the right to organize?

If I felt his actions were progressive to the working class, then yes.
All I need to know to reject your belief system. [/b]
Oh Noes! Our belief system doesn't cater to misanthropic reactionary parties, best reject it and look for a system where it is safer to be a crypto-fascist anti-humanist.

[KC]

I don't understand why you think them taking a picture together means anything. They're politicians. That's what they do.

[Iroquois Xavier]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 3 2006, 11:49 AM
I don't understand why you think them taking a picture together means anything. They're politicians. That's what they do.
Finally some common sense.

[VonClausewitz]

I don't understand why you think them taking a picture together means anything. They're politicians. That's what they do.

Link 1 (http://www.venezuelatoday.net/Gustavo-Coronel/Robert-Mugabe+Hugo-Chavez.html)

Link 2 (http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/2005/10/17.html#a2522)

Praising the 'demonised' African leader ?

I'm not trying to lessen what this chap Chavez has done, but I think he has some pretty suspect friends.

[KC]

http://www.cubaminrex.cu/images/imagenes%20home/Gir%C3%B3n/Fidel-Nixon.jpg

OH MY GOD FIDEL AND NIXON ARE SHAKING HANDS!!!


I'm not trying to lessen what this chap Chavez has done, but I think he has some pretty suspect friends.

Friends?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:22 AM
Oh Noes! Our belief system doesn't cater to misanthropic reactionary parties, best reject it and look for a system where it is safer to be a crypto-fascist anti-humanist.
So you admit you'd not allow opposition parties to function, which means you admit your philosophy cannot stand up to popular scrutiny. It must be forced on them for their own good.

Thank you.

[KC]

No ruling class allows opposition parties to function when they become a significant threat.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 3 2006, 07:43 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 3 2006, 07:43 PM)
[email protected] 3 2006, 10:22 AM
Oh Noes! Our belief system doesn't cater to misanthropic reactionary parties, best reject it and look for a system where it is safer to be a crypto-fascist anti-humanist.
So you admit you'd not allow opposition parties to function, which means you admit your philosophy cannot stand up to popular scrutiny. It must be forced on them for their own good.

Thank you. [/b]
Who said popularity was a decent measure of the value of a political system? Pure fucking sophistry.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 07:50 PM
Who said popularity was a decent measure of the value of a political system? Pure fucking sophistry.
:lol:

Popularity is certainly not the singular criteria for justness, but it certainly helps.

Your position would seem to be that a political system is right if you think it is, regardless of the opinion of the people who live under it.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 3 2006, 09:02 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 3 2006, 09:02 PM)
[email protected] 3 2006, 07:50 PM
Who said popularity was a decent measure of the value of a political system? Pure fucking sophistry.
:lol:

Popularity is certainly not the singular criteria for justness, but it certainly helps.

Your position would seem to be that a political system is right if you think it is, regardless of the opinion of the people who live under it. [/b]
It is right if:
The proletariat are no longer exploited.
The bourgeoise are gone, same with the pettys.
Resources are distributed with macimum egalaty with the maximum efficiency this allows.
The state has withered.

On the way there, we will need to defeat the forces of reaction and those with a false conciousness, thus to an extent combating their ideas is required.

[mauvaise foi]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 07:19 PM
Is he one of your collective friends ? Just curious, and regardless of the answer to that, what do you think of the purportedly progressive leader being pals and supportive towards a certain Mr Mugabe of Zimbabwe ?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a0/ChavezMugabe.jpg

Just in case I got a flood of "you're making it up".
Mugabe, sucks. I'll give you that. He took something that would have been otherwise perfectly legitimate (land reform for poor blacks with absolutely no compensation for the rich white land owners, who illegitimately inherited their land from their theiving, colonialist ancestors) and ended up doing NOTHING to help his people with it. He just gave the land to his friends, not to any one who actually needs it.

But I don't see how Hugo Chavez can be blaimed for hugging Mugabe. Political leaders meet and hug and smile and shake hands with each other all the time:




http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafika:Nixon..._1972-02-29.png (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafika:Nixon_Mao_1972-02-29.png)

Does that mean Nixon and Mao were best buds?

[VonClausewitz]

Have a read of my links mauvaise_foi , they prove that Chavez also supports Mugabe politically, rather than just being a friendly politician-liar-hugging-type person, which they all are really.

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 03:33 PM

I don't understand why you think them taking a picture together means anything. They're politicians. That's what they do.

Link 1 (http://www.venezuelatoday.net/Gustavo-Coronel/Robert-Mugabe+Hugo-Chavez.html)

Link 2 (http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/2005/10/17.html#a2522)

Praising the 'demonised' African leader ?

I'm not trying to lessen what this chap Chavez has done, but I think he has some pretty suspect friends.
I know for a fact that the first link is just a bunch of neo-liberal bourgeoise lies. And im not gonna read the second one.

EDIT: Oh wait, i just realized you are restricted, it makes sense that you beleive this trash.

[Q]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 01:05 AM
EDIT: Oh wait, i just realized you are restricted, it makes sense that you beleive this trash.
Why are you restricted again? ;)

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by Q-collective+Oct 4 2006, 01:31 AM--> (Q-collective @ Oct 4 2006, 01:31 AM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 01:05 AM
EDIT: Oh wait, i just realized you are restricted, it makes sense that you beleive this trash.
Why are you restricted again? ;) [/b]
For being a communist and not some confused liberal clone.

[VonClausewitz]

I know for a fact that the first link is just a bunch of neo-liberal bourgeoise lies. And im not gonna read the second one.

EDIT: Oh wait, i just realized you are restricted, it makes sense that you beleive this trash.

or it could make sense that I'm not god's own expert on the man, like so many on this site no doubt will pretend to be. Plus, it makes sense to me more than the smaller countries would stick together, regardless of ideaology.

[TheDifferenceEngine]

Originally posted by rev-[email protected] 2 2006, 09:42 PM
So mark your calendars, make travel arrangements, learn spanish and practice with an AK-103. We can have a big RevLeft reunion if it comes to pass :)
Q

F

T

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 01:05 AM

I know for a fact that the first link is just a bunch of neo-liberal bourgeoise lies. And im not gonna read the second one.


:lol: at your ignorance. You're just another hack who thinks you're right because you think you're right. You're not capable of thinking, so you prefer to simply dismiss anything that goes against your preconceived notions.

You're a twist of fate away from being some religious fundamentalist conservative. You all suffer from the same problems, indeed you're simply two sides of the same coin with little difference between you.

:lol:

[Pirate Utopian]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 4 2006, 07:25 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 4 2006, 07:25 PM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 01:05 AM

I know for a fact that the first link is just a bunch of neo-liberal bourgeoise lies. And im not gonna read the second one.


:lol: at your ignorance. You're just another hack who thinks you're right because you think you're right. You're not capable of thinking, so you prefer to simply dismiss anything that goes against your preconceived notions.

You're a twist of fate away from being some religious fundamentalist conservative. You all suffer from the same problems, indeed you're simply two sides of the same coin with little difference between you.

:lol: [/b]
:lol: at your not so constructive factless critism :lol:

[chimx]

Originally posted by Avtomatov+Oct 4 2006, 01:55 AM--> (Avtomatov @ Oct 4 2006, 01:55 AM)
Originally posted by Q-[email protected] 4 2006, 01:31 AM

[email protected] 4 2006, 01:05 AM
EDIT: Oh wait, i just realized you are restricted, it makes sense that you beleive this trash.
Why are you restricted again? ;)
For being a communist and not some confused liberal clone. [/b]
are you really a part of myg0t. those guys suck.

[Avtomatov]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Oct 4 2006, 06:25 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Oct 4 2006, 06:25 PM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 01:05 AM

I know for a fact that the first link is just a bunch of neo-liberal bourgeoise lies. And im not gonna read the second one.


:lol: at your ignorance. You're just another hack who thinks you're right because you think you're right. You're not capable of thinking, so you prefer to simply dismiss anything that goes against your preconceived notions.

You're a twist of fate away from being some religious fundamentalist conservative. You all suffer from the same problems, indeed you're simply two sides of the same coin with little difference between you.

:lol: [/b]
Actually most of those claims in that link have been proven false. If you beleive them, you are the ignorant one.

[Mesijs]

I did not actually know this and it shocks me. I did value Chavez quite high despite western propaganda, but Mugabe is a bloody tyrant. It's disgusting.

However, we'll see at Venezuelan elections. I would support Chavez more than his right-wing opposition.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 11:57 PM
Have a read of my links mauvaise_foi , they prove that Chavez also supports Mugabe politically, rather than just being a friendly politician-liar-hugging-type person, which they all are really.
So? Countries of the Non-Aligned Movement have diplomatic relations with each other? Omg shock horror.

[Lenin's Law]

I don't see the links proving anything.

The first one gives absolutely no hard evidence of Chavez praising Mugabe, just the author's (who happens to be a hard right-wing reationary who hates Chavez) own "speculations" and "comparisons" of Chavez' and Mugabe's policies. I of course, reject this argument and as he offers no hard evidence don't see how it "really proves that Chavez supports Mugabe's policies."

The second link is just more of the same pictures you showed us. Several members here have pointed out that this is what politicians do: shake hands, hug, make "nice nice" with other political leaders. Being that both are third world countries it would make sense to be friends than enemies if at all possible.

The second link also says that Chavez claimed that Mugabe has been "demonized" and has been fighting against "colonialism" like he has been. But saying that someone has been "demonized" does not equal an endorsement of a leader's policies. I'll say that the President of Iran has been demonized by the West as well, although I loathe his policies completely. And anyone can be a fighter against colonialism; not only saints.


or it could make sense that I'm not god's own expert on the man

All right then, fair enough. However don't make sweeping accusations with little hard evidence and not expect to be called on it.

[D_Bokk]

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/2091/1931942chavezsaddamap150mv3.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1931942.stm

ZOMG! He's giving the love to Saddam too!

Honestly, who cares? Chavez isn't out to bring a workers' world revolution - he's out to destroy American Imperialism. Naturally bourgeois "communists" like Mesijs will cry about stuff like this. But I hope the rest of you have a little self-respect.