Venezuelan Marxist Paper

[cormacobear]

Financial appeal to help Venezuelan Marxists
By In Defence of Marxism
Friday, 02 February 2007

After the election victory of Hugo Chávez in the December 3rd
presidential election the Bolivarian Revolution has taken another turn
to the left. The passing of an Enabling Law to allow for the
nationalisation of key industries, the setting up of the new United
Socialist Party of Venezuela, Chávez's remark about Trotsky and the
permanent revolution, the occupation of Sanitarios Maracay... all
these are signs of a growing radicalisation.

At the same time, there is an enormous thirst for ideas, a ferment for
discussion everywhere, but particularly amongst the revolutionary rank
and file. Last weekend the Inveval workers (running their factory
under workers' control) inaugurated their "Jesús Rivero" Bolivarian
Workers' University.

But it is also at this time that the reformists and the right wingers
within the revolutionary movement are trying to sow confusion, to
water down the content of socialism of the 21st century, to oppose any
form of genuine workers' control, to block the revolutionary
initiative of the masses.

The Revolutionary Marxist Current (CMR), the Venezuelan organisation
of the International Marxist Tendency, is active in the workers'
movement, amongst the Bolivarian masses, putting forward a clear
Marxist perspective for workers' democracy and socialist planning of
the economy. The CMR has limited forces but it has already played a
key role in the setting up of the Revolutionary Front of Occupied
Factories (FRETECO) and in the occupation of Sanitarios Maracay under
workers' control. Their ideas are getting an echo well beyond their
numbers.

It is the duty of internationalists and revolutionaries all over the
world to help and support the comrades of the CMR in Venezuela. For
this reason we are launching a financial appeal to help the comrades
get their own printing press. A revolutionary organisation must strive
to have its own apparatus, and this is even more the case in Venezuela
where most printers are extremely unreliable. We want to assist the
comrades in being able to produce a more regular edition of their
newspaper El Militante, and leaflets and pamphlets that can answer the
most urgent needs of the revolutionary movement.

Please help if you can and help build the forces of Marxism in the
Venezuelan Revolution.

How to make donations:

You can support this project by sending cheques, payable to "Socialist
Appeal" and marked "for CMR press", to:

Socialist Appeal,
PO Box 50525,
London, E14 6WG

In Canada you can send payments made out to Wellred / CMR Press to:

Fightback
Box # 73504, 509 St. Clair Ave. W.
Toronto, ON M6C 1C0

Or you can donate online at:
http://www.marxist.com/financial-appeal-ve...an-marxists.htm (http://www.marxist.com/financial-appeal-venezuelan-marxists.htm)

[colonelguppy]

ehh, enjoy your dictatorship.

[ZX3]

The note stated a concern of the "reformists and the rightwingers within the revolutionary movement." I gather by this the appeal is not so much made to supporters to defend the revolution against capitalists and others who wish it crushed, but rather to supporters to be opposed to those revolutionaries who would turn the revolution in a direction which the authors oppose. Would I be incorrect?

[cormacobear]

The countries main newspapers are all owned buy wealthy individuals and reflect that in there content. Furthermore like the CIA did in Chilli in order to end their Democracy and help install fascism there, the United States funds several papers in Venezuela which print slander and lies in the hopes of fomenting distrust of the government. So Labour unions providing an alternative oppinion will likely have little impact but at least it will be honest.

In the mid 1900's the United States had hundreds of Union papers reachinf nearly a hundred million people. Since then media has been continually consolidated in the hands of a very few individuals. And the debate has reflected the lack of variety.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 09:51 pm
ehh, enjoy your dictatorship.
I've never heard of a dictator who was democratically elected.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+February 27, 2007 02:08 am--> (Guerrilla22 @ February 27, 2007 02:08 am)
[email protected] 25, 2007 09:51 pm
ehh, enjoy your dictatorship.
I've never heard of a dictator who was democratically elected. [/b]
who cares, he is effectively a dictator right now.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+February 27, 2007 07:14 am--> (colonelguppy @ February 27, 2007 07:14 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 02:08 am

[email protected] 25, 2007 09:51 pm
ehh, enjoy your dictatorship.
I've never heard of a dictator who was democratically elected.
who cares, he is effectively a dictator right now. [/b]
Great argument you have there colonolguppy. I really love that substance. It is so meaty. That 61% majority he got in last years election is really hard to swallow when you try to make him look like a dictator. But man you sure as hell made a great argument against that 61%.

If he was a dictator I think the media over there would be a little easier on him. You know, because if he was a dictator they would have all been hung already. But hey great argument you have there....... "who cares [about the fact that he was elected twice and the second time he got such a high amount of votes that is unprecedented even in Americas two sided elections]". Classic.

[RNK]

Oh no! He's preventing billionaire multinationals from reaping huge profit in the Venezuelan oil industry at the expense of the overworked, underpayed Venezuelan people who do 95% of the work but see only 5% of the profit!

TOTALITARIAN! DICTATOR!

[cormacobear]

It doesn't matter whether you like Chavez or not, I didn't post this or pretty much any of my last dozen topics for capitalist pigs to critiscize I was hoping someone would move this and my last dozen or so topics t the appropriate forum. I only post here because I can't post anywhere else. Hopefully there'll be a mod change one day to someone who didn't spearhead the campaign to remove non-athiests and topics like these will be moved before they can be spammed.

I've had dozens of other topics and news to share that simply wasn't worth the effort to post in OI.

I've shared this request with the producers of The Take, the Canadian documentary on workers seizing shut down factories hopefully their simpathies will help get some traction on funding this enterprise. If any of the sites non cappie members can think of anyone else who might be willing to help please share this or PM me and i'll try to forward the request. Thanks

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Chicano Shamrock+February 27, 2007 03:23 am--> (Chicano Shamrock @ February 27, 2007 03:23 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 07:14 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 02:08 am

[email protected] 25, 2007 09:51 pm
ehh, enjoy your dictatorship.
I've never heard of a dictator who was democratically elected.
who cares, he is effectively a dictator right now.
Great argument you have there colonolguppy. I really love that substance. It is so meaty. That 61% majority he got in last years election is really hard to swallow when you try to make him look like a dictator. But man you sure as hell made a great argument against that 61%.

If he was a dictator I think the media over there would be a little easier on him. You know, because if he was a dictator they would have all been hung already. But hey great argument you have there....... "who cares [about the fact that he was elected twice and the second time he got such a high amount of votes that is unprecedented even in Americas two sided elections]". Classic. [/b]
oh god dammit, you guys know what i meant

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/02/...a.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/02/02/chavez.venezuela.ap/index.html)

if you don't find this remotely dangerous you're fucking insane.

[cormacobear]

CNN an american news source, no bias there, there's a source we respect. Hahaha LMFAO.

it's temporary if he enacts a bill they dissaprove of it can be countered after the period ends. I can assure my sanity and no i'm not worried i'm incredibly inspired, I'd only be afraid if he were on the right like Pinochet, Hitler, and Bush.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 05:10 pm
CNN an american news source, no bias there, there's a source we respect. Hahaha LMFAO.

it's temporary if he enacts a bill they dissaprove of it can be countered after the period ends. I can assure my sanity and no i'm not worried i'm incredibly inspired, I'd only be afraid if he were on the right like Pinochet, Hitler, and Bush.
what about the article is innacurate?

ruling by decree is never a good idea no matter what idealogy you are. the thing about chavez is he has almost universal support form EVERYONE in the government, there is no opposition. that, and his increasing control over the media... it's baffling to me that this doens't concern more people.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+February 27, 2007 04:26 pm--> (colonelguppy @ February 27, 2007 04:26 pm)
Originally posted by Chicano [email protected] 27, 2007 03:23 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 07:14 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 02:08 am

[email protected] 25, 2007 09:51 pm
ehh, enjoy your dictatorship.
I've never heard of a dictator who was democratically elected.
who cares, he is effectively a dictator right now.
Great argument you have there colonolguppy. I really love that substance. It is so meaty. That 61% majority he got in last years election is really hard to swallow when you try to make him look like a dictator. But man you sure as hell made a great argument against that 61%.

If he was a dictator I think the media over there would be a little easier on him. You know, because if he was a dictator they would have all been hung already. But hey great argument you have there....... "who cares [about the fact that he was elected twice and the second time he got such a high amount of votes that is unprecedented even in Americas two sided elections]". Classic.
oh god dammit, you guys know what i meant

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/02/...a.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/02/02/chavez.venezuela.ap/index.html)

if you don't find this remotely dangerous you're fucking insane. [/b]
And?

It is an established fact that the people of Venezuela support him. He is fully justified in pursuing his goals.

On a tangential point, actions are important; methods are inconsequential.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+February 27, 2007 11:14 pm--> (colonelguppy @ February 27, 2007 11:14 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2007 05:10 pm
CNN an american news source, no bias there, there's a source we respect. Hahaha LMFAO.

it's temporary if he enacts a bill they dissaprove of it can be countered after the period ends. I can assure my sanity and no i'm not worried i'm incredibly inspired, I'd only be afraid if he were on the right like Pinochet, Hitler, and Bush.
what about the article is innacurate?

ruling by decree is never a good idea no matter what idealogy you are. the thing about chavez is he has almost universal support form EVERYONE in the government, there is no opposition. that, and his increasing control over the media... it's baffling to me that this doens't concern more people. [/b]
Why do you think he has so much support in the government? Go ahead, take a guess.

[cormacobear]

what about the article is innacurate?


Paragraph 8 "the entirely pro-Chavez National Assembly"

Paragraph 10 "Opposition leader Manuel Rosales"

wow contradicted themselves in record time.

The reason the oppositin has few seats in the national assembly is because that party spent years stealing from poor people who decided that voting for another party might change things.

why would people be afraid of a rapidly rising quality of life and increased democratic control over there country?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by manic expression+February 27, 2007 08:09 pm--> (manic expression @ February 27, 2007 08:09 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:14 pm

[email protected] 27, 2007 05:10 pm
CNN an american news source, no bias there, there's a source we respect. Hahaha LMFAO.

it's temporary if he enacts a bill they dissaprove of it can be countered after the period ends. I can assure my sanity and no i'm not worried i'm incredibly inspired, I'd only be afraid if he were on the right like Pinochet, Hitler, and Bush.
what about the article is innacurate?

ruling by decree is never a good idea no matter what idealogy you are. the thing about chavez is he has almost universal support form EVERYONE in the government, there is no opposition. that, and his increasing control over the media... it's baffling to me that this doens't concern more people.
Why do you think he has so much support in the government? Go ahead, take a guess. [/b]
because he's charismatic, and blames all of his problems on america? meanwhile the only thing keeping their economy afloat and they're people from being even poorer are high oil prices.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+February 27, 2007 11:14 pm--> (colonelguppy @ February 27, 2007 11:14 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2007 05:10 pm
CNN an american news source, no bias there, there's a source we respect. Hahaha LMFAO.

it's temporary if he enacts a bill they dissaprove of it can be countered after the period ends. I can assure my sanity and no i'm not worried i'm incredibly inspired, I'd only be afraid if he were on the right like Pinochet, Hitler, and Bush.
what about the article is innacurate?

ruling by decree is never a good idea no matter what idealogy you are. the thing about chavez is he has almost universal support form EVERYONE in the government, there is no opposition. that, and his increasing control over the media... it's baffling to me that this doens't concern more people. [/b]
There are many things inaccurate about the story but most of all that the story wasn't really reported. When you read the American anti-Chavez media you will see that they will sensationalize a title like "Fascist Rules by DECREE" and then the article will talk a little about the decree and talk about something to do with democracy. The American articles most often don't even report the whole story.

What is wrong with the article is that it makes it seem like Chavez gained some power so that he can make any law he wants willy nilly. But the fact of the matter is that the congress restricted him to 11 areas that he can change. Also the article doesn't tell you that this is an executive right under the 1961 Venezuelan constitution and the 1999 constitution. They don't tell you that after Chavez proposed the 1999 constitution, and it passed that he used one of these periods to tweak laws so that the constitution fit in with everything.

And to say that he is increasingly controlling the media is hilarious. The media there hates him.

Here are the 11 areas Chavez is allowed to alter.

# Transformation of the state, where laws are to be passed that make the state more efficient, honest, participatory, rational, and transparent.
# Popular (grassroots) participation, in the economic and social policies of the state, via planning, social comptrol, and the direct exercise of popular sovereignty.
# Essential values for the exercise of public functions, so that corruption would be eradicated definitively, the strengthening of ethics, and the formation of public servants.
# In the area of economic and social policy, so as to create a new sustainable economic and social model. The goal is to achieve equality and the equitable distribution of wealth through investment in health care, education, and social security.
# Finances and taxation, to modernize the regulatory system in the monetary, banking, insurance, and tax systems.
# Citizen and judicial security, for the improvement of citizen identification, migration control, and the fight against impunity.
# Science and technology, so it is developed to satisfy the needs of education, health, environment, biodiversity, industrialization, quality of life, security, and defense.
# Territorial order, for a new distribution and occupation of subnational space, so as to improve the activities of the state and of endogenous development.
# Security and defense, for the development of the structure and organization of the Armed Forces.
# Infrastructure, transport, and services, to promote the existing human and industrial potential for the optimization of land, rail, sea, river, and air transportation, as well as of telecommunications and information technology.
# Energy sector, so that oil production in the Orinoco Oil Belt may be nationalized and turned into joint ventures, tax rates changed, and electricity companies nationalized, among other things


http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2207


They forgot to report that part because that might not make him look like a dictator. Next time don't rely on your corporate media links to tell you the truth. They have a vested interest in what you hear. Time Warner/AOL has a vested interest in keeping money moving. General Electric who owns NBC has a vested interest in being Anti-Chavez. Come on brother use your head.

[colonelguppy]

Paragraph 8 "the entirely pro-Chavez National Assembly"

Paragraph 10 "Opposition leader Manuel Rosales"

wow contradicted themselves in record time.

they don't have to be currently elected to be opposition party leaders. even if there are a few, it effectively means that the assembly is pro-chavez.


The reason the oppositin has few seats in the national assembly is because that party spent years stealing from poor people who decided that voting for another party might change things.

i was under the impression that they boycotted the last election because of chavez nationalizing the media. i could be wrong though, either way the contradiction is irrelevent to the main point of the article.



why would people be afraid of a rapidly rising quality of life and increased democratic control over there country?

"increased democratic control" is one guy has power with few checks on it?

as far as i can tell the venezuelan economy is almost entirely dependant on oil prices. and i don't see how their going to diversify now as chavez has scared away most foriegn investors.

[Louis Pio]

Good one Cormacobear, already donated since it's my comrades who run the paper.

In Venezuela today almost all of the media is run by rightwingers who supported the coup and even spend most of their time during it telling lies so that people would become confused. It's clearly shown in the movie "The revolution will not be Televised" were after the coup media people sits together with army people talking about how the media helped in overthrowing the democratically eletced president. Luckily the coup didn't last long. Btw funny how the american and other western media didn't cry about "dictatorship" when rightwing governments used decree rule in Venezuela, but then again who expects bourgious newssources to be "fair and balanced"?
Btw you can find the movie here with english subtitles (and nope it ain't illegal, it's free for all to share as it should be) The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (http://www.venezuelaenvideos.com/pt01v27.htm)

[colonelguppy]

# Transformation of the state, where laws are to be passed that make the state more efficient, honest, participatory, rational, and transparent.
# Popular (grassroots) participation, in the economic and social policies of the state, via planning, social comptrol, and the direct exercise of popular sovereignty.
# Essential values for the exercise of public functions, so that corruption would be eradicated definitively, the strengthening of ethics, and the formation of public servants.
# In the area of economic and social policy, so as to create a new sustainable economic and social model. The goal is to achieve equality and the equitable distribution of wealth through investment in health care, education, and social security.
# Finances and taxation, to modernize the regulatory system in the monetary, banking, insurance, and tax systems.
# Citizen and judicial security, for the improvement of citizen identification, migration control, and the fight against impunity.
# Science and technology, so it is developed to satisfy the needs of education, health, environment, biodiversity, industrialization, quality of life, security, and defense.
# Territorial order, for a new distribution and occupation of subnational space, so as to improve the activities of the state and of endogenous development.
# Security and defense, for the development of the structure and organization of the Armed Forces.
# Infrastructure, transport, and services, to promote the existing human and industrial potential for the optimization of land, rail, sea, river, and air transportation, as well as of telecommunications and information technology.
# Energy sector, so that oil production in the Orinoco Oil Belt may be nationalized and turned into joint ventures, tax rates changed, and electricity companies nationalized, among other things


yeah, i knew that part. that is still a frightening amount of power, and could be used to get about anyhting done for him.

[Louis Pio]

and i don't see how their going to diversify now as chavez has scared away most foriegn investors.


Venezuelan economy is doing fine, actually even better than under rightwing governments. Of course that's not the point for me since I would like to see further nationalisations and increased distribution of the waelth to the people.
The opposition has lost any relevance since they base themselves on murder, coups and the CIA. And the fact that they are mostly made up of the people who used the last 100 years pocketing the revenues from Venezuelas natural resources for themselves doesn't make it better.


Edit here's one for you colonelguppy on Venezuelas economy Venezuelan Economy Grows Over 10% for 3rd Year in A Row (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2183)
USA couldn't even dream of reaching this kinda growthrates

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:15 am

# Transformation of the state, where laws are to be passed that make the state more efficient, honest, participatory, rational, and transparent.
# Popular (grassroots) participation, in the economic and social policies of the state, via planning, social comptrol, and the direct exercise of popular sovereignty.
# Essential values for the exercise of public functions, so that corruption would be eradicated definitively, the strengthening of ethics, and the formation of public servants.
# In the area of economic and social policy, so as to create a new sustainable economic and social model. The goal is to achieve equality and the equitable distribution of wealth through investment in health care, education, and social security.
# Finances and taxation, to modernize the regulatory system in the monetary, banking, insurance, and tax systems.
# Citizen and judicial security, for the improvement of citizen identification, migration control, and the fight against impunity.
# Science and technology, so it is developed to satisfy the needs of education, health, environment, biodiversity, industrialization, quality of life, security, and defense.
# Territorial order, for a new distribution and occupation of subnational space, so as to improve the activities of the state and of endogenous development.
# Security and defense, for the development of the structure and organization of the Armed Forces.
# Infrastructure, transport, and services, to promote the existing human and industrial potential for the optimization of land, rail, sea, river, and air transportation, as well as of telecommunications and information technology.
# Energy sector, so that oil production in the Orinoco Oil Belt may be nationalized and turned into joint ventures, tax rates changed, and electricity companies nationalized, among other things


yeah, i knew that part. that is still a frightening amount of power, and could be used to get about anyhting done for him.
Yeah, it could get anything done........ like making government more transparent and making it easier for the workers to have a say. God damn those dictatorships!!!

And for Teis here is a link to the whole video of "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised".
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=58...ot+be+televised (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144&q=the+revolution+will+not+be+televised)

[manic expression]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+February 28, 2007 03:55 am--> (colonelguppy @ February 28, 2007 03:55 am)
Originally posted by manic [email protected] 27, 2007 08:09 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:14 pm

[email protected] 27, 2007 05:10 pm
CNN an american news source, no bias there, there's a source we respect. Hahaha LMFAO.

it's temporary if he enacts a bill they dissaprove of it can be countered after the period ends. I can assure my sanity and no i'm not worried i'm incredibly inspired, I'd only be afraid if he were on the right like Pinochet, Hitler, and Bush.
what about the article is innacurate?

ruling by decree is never a good idea no matter what idealogy you are. the thing about chavez is he has almost universal support form EVERYONE in the government, there is no opposition. that, and his increasing control over the media... it's baffling to me that this doens't concern more people.
Why do you think he has so much support in the government? Go ahead, take a guess.
because he's charismatic, and blames all of his problems on america? meanwhile the only thing keeping their economy afloat and they're people from being even poorer are high oil prices. [/b]
You're dodging the issue. The reason he has so much support within the government is because the people support him.

At least you tried, though.

[Marsella]

I've never heard of a dictator who was democratically elected.

Sorry, but I had to point this out: Hitler...

[Herman]

Sorry, but I had to point this out: Hitler...

Bad example, as he was not democratically elected. Peron on the other hand might be a good example.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:15 pm

# Transformation of the state, where laws are to be passed that make the state more efficient, honest, participatory, rational, and transparent.
# Popular (grassroots) participation, in the economic and social policies of the state, via planning, social comptrol, and the direct exercise of popular sovereignty.
# Essential values for the exercise of public functions, so that corruption would be eradicated definitively, the strengthening of ethics, and the formation of public servants.
# In the area of economic and social policy, so as to create a new sustainable economic and social model. The goal is to achieve equality and the equitable distribution of wealth through investment in health care, education, and social security.
# Finances and taxation, to modernize the regulatory system in the monetary, banking, insurance, and tax systems.
# Citizen and judicial security, for the improvement of citizen identification, migration control, and the fight against impunity.
# Science and technology, so it is developed to satisfy the needs of education, health, environment, biodiversity, industrialization, quality of life, security, and defense.
# Territorial order, for a new distribution and occupation of subnational space, so as to improve the activities of the state and of endogenous development.
# Security and defense, for the development of the structure and organization of the Armed Forces.
# Infrastructure, transport, and services, to promote the existing human and industrial potential for the optimization of land, rail, sea, river, and air transportation, as well as of telecommunications and information technology.
# Energy sector, so that oil production in the Orinoco Oil Belt may be nationalized and turned into joint ventures, tax rates changed, and electricity companies nationalized, among other things


yeah, i knew that part. that is still a frightening amount of power, and could be used to get about anyhting done for him.

You are not going to win the argument, colonel.

It is amazing how quickly socialists swoon to strongman. All you have to say "Majority support" and any and all acts are immediately justifiable. Its like a dog responsing to a dinnerbell. And in fifteen or twenty years, we'll get to read about how Chavez was not really a socialist, he did not disband the government, he had a 'cult of personality" ect ect. all the old tired stories explaining how yet a again, a socialist society went awry.

[Louis Pio]

ZX3 what have Chavez done that is so horrible? Was it that he didn't persecute the US backed coupplotters? I agree those bastards should have been shot! ;)

Seriously the point to remember about Venezuela is that it all boils down to the actions of the workers and poor peasants and urban poor. Who have started taking their fate into their own hand, occupy land, occupy factories capitalists left idle etc. The decree should be seen in that respect since it speeds up nationalisations, which is why it's supported by the majority of venezuelans.
Btw the socalled cult of personality mostly exists in the heads of rightwingers and secterians, if you go to venezuela you will quickly notice that although people have alot of respect for Chavez they say with or without him, meaning they will continue the process even if he would halt it.

Btw I still find it extremely funny that none of the rightwing people who are now appaled at Chavez ruling by decree, didn't complain to all the rightwing governments that used decree rule in Venezuela. Once again it shows how this is a class issue and have nothing to do with "morals" or "love for democracy" (sigh..)

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by manic expression+February 28, 2007 12:21 am--> (manic expression @ February 28, 2007 12:21 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 03:55 am

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 27, 2007 08:09 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:14 pm

[email protected] 27, 2007 05:10 pm
CNN an american news source, no bias there, there's a source we respect. Hahaha LMFAO.

it's temporary if he enacts a bill they dissaprove of it can be countered after the period ends. I can assure my sanity and no i'm not worried i'm incredibly inspired, I'd only be afraid if he were on the right like Pinochet, Hitler, and Bush.
what about the article is innacurate?

ruling by decree is never a good idea no matter what idealogy you are. the thing about chavez is he has almost universal support form EVERYONE in the government, there is no opposition. that, and his increasing control over the media... it's baffling to me that this doens't concern more people.
Why do you think he has so much support in the government? Go ahead, take a guess.
because he's charismatic, and blames all of his problems on america? meanwhile the only thing keeping their economy afloat and they're people from being even poorer are high oil prices.
You're dodging the issue. The reason he has so much support within the government is because the people support him.

At least you tried, though. [/b]
so what? and that's good enough to give him a shitload of unchecked power?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:19 pm

and i don't see how their going to diversify now as chavez has scared away most foriegn investors.


Venezuelan economy is doing fine, actually even better than under rightwing governments. Of course that's not the point for me since I would like to see further nationalisations and increased distribution of the waelth to the people.
The opposition has lost any relevance since they base themselves on murder, coups and the CIA. And the fact that they are mostly made up of the people who used the last 100 years pocketing the revenues from Venezuelas natural resources for themselves doesn't make it better.


Edit here's one for you colonelguppy on Venezuelas economy Venezuelan Economy Grows Over 10% for 3rd Year in A Row (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2183)
USA couldn't even dream of reaching this kinda growthrates
because we have a fully industrialized economy and growth slows down post industrilializaiton. i didn't sya it was doing bad, i said it was undiversified. here's a hint: a third of their economies performance basically depends on gas prices. gas prices have been high. do the math.

[A SCANNER DARKLY]

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+February 27, 2007 07:08 am--> (Guerrilla22 @ February 27, 2007 07:08 am)
[email protected] 25, 2007 09:51 pm
ehh, enjoy your dictatorship.
I've never heard of a dictator who was democratically elected.[/b]
Are you kidding me or what?

Never heard of Adolf Hitler? Islam Karimov? Alexander Lukashenko? Francisco Nguema? Slobodan Milosevic? Juan Perón? Need I name more elected dictators?

You need to brush up on your history.

[Louis Pio]

Once again Hilter wasn't democratically elected, it's a common misinterpretation among people who only study history superficially, he was appointed by the bourgiosie when they became afraid of a workers uprising.

Anyway here's an article about a meeting in London that also shows the despicable role of the private media in Venezuela
London - Successful commemoration of the 18th anniversary of the “Caracazo” (http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/london_commemoration_anniversary_caracazo.htm):

London - Successful commemoration of the 18th anniversary of the “Caracazo”
By Francesco Merli
Thursday, 01 March 2007
February 27 marked the 18th anniversary of the popular uprising known as the Caracazo, which took place in 1989 in Venezuela.

The spontaneous movement of the mass of the Venezuelan poor (80% of the population lived below the poverty line at that time) was provoked by a sharp increase of all basic food, energy, fuel and transport prices by 200% as a consequence of a neo-liberal package deal introduced by the government of President Carlos Andrés Pérez. The massive movement, although lacking of any organised leadership, immediately took an insurrectionary character, threatening the very foundations of the capitalist system: private property.

The response of the supposedly democratic government was to call on the army to put down the mass uprising, opening fire on men, women and children in the streets and storming the poorest neighbourhoods of the main Venezuelan cities with bullets, particularly in the capital where hundreds of dead bodies were left laying in the streets.

According to the government "only" 276 people died in the attempt to "restore order". Soon afterwards, mass graves were discovered. It is now recognised that at least 3,000 people were killed, though some put the figure as high as 10,000.

This event marked the complete alienation of the mass of the Venezuelan people from the so-called democratic regime of the Fourth Republic and sparked off what became known later as the Bolivarian Revolution led by Hugo Chávez, which began as a reaction of a section of young army officers repelled by the very idea that the army could have slaughtered its own people.

Knowledge of this massacre has been buried by the same international media that now hysterically call Chávez a dictator. In Venezuela, the whole of the private and state media consistently backed the government's version of events. Only the heroic work of a handful of independent journalists and media activists was finally able to reveal the real size and scope of the repression.

Hands Off Venezuela and Cine Urgente organised an important event in London on February 26 to commemorate the Caracazo and to discuss the role of capitalist media in society. The event was held in Bolivar Hall at the Venezuelan Embassy, thanks to the support of the Venezuelan Ambassador, Alfredo Toro Hardy.

The focus of the screenings and the debate was the strikingly similar role played by the media in relation to the Caracazo and during the April 11, 2002 coup against Chávez. These events demonstrate that the capitalist media consistently defend the interests of the ruling class whenever they are put at risk, no matter who is in office at that particular moment in time.

The event was opened by Pedro Laya, Venezuelan director and producer (Cine Urgente), who explained the important role played by the independent media in defending the truth and denouncing the official versions of events in both 1989 and 2002.

The opening speech was followed by the screening of a short video, cut by the HoV Media Centre, with original footage of the Caracazo.

Jorge Martin, international secretary of HoV, then provided the audience with an explanation of the real meaning of the Caracazo in the development of the Bolivarian Revolution and of the events that led to the April 2002 coup against Chávez.

The background information paved the way for the screening of the documentary "Llaguno Bridge - Keys to a Massacre". The documentary, produced by the Venezuelan National Association of Free, Community and Alternative Media, analyses and discloses the mechanism of the conspiracy that led to the April 11 coup. In particular it reveals the shameful record of the capitalist media, their key role in the coup plot and their instrumental use of the Llaguno Bridge massacre against the government.

On the first day of the coup, a mass opposition rally against Chávez had been called at the headquarters of the national oil company, PDVSA This rally was meant as demonstration against the government's decision to claim back state control of Venezuela's most important asset - PDVSA. The opposition leaders decided to march on the Presidential Palace. Soon afterwards, all the private TV channels in Venezuela were broadcasting images of Chávez supporters shooting from Llaguno Bridge into an unarmed opposition demonstration. These images were used as a pretext to launch the coup.

The imperialists, including the British government, welcomed the coup "to restore the democratic government". In fact, the new president installed briefly by the coup, Pedro Carmona Estanga, suspended the constitution and dissolved every democratic institution in the country.

It was only later that the truth came out. The killings at Puente Llaguno had been carefully planned by the coup plotters in order to justify their actions before international public opinion. They had organized these murders in advance.

More than 80 people attentively followed the whole event showing a great interest in the screenings. A lively session of debate and discussion followed the screenings with questions relating to the actual position and the perspectives of the Venezuelan Revolution after landslide victory of Chávez in the Presidential election on December 3.

Another issue highlighted in the debate was the decision taken by the Bolivarian government not to renew RCTV's broadcasting license, due to the role this TV station played in the coup. This move on the part of the government is not meant as a blow against "free press" but, on the contrary, as a means of giving the Venezuelan people broader and free access to the media.

The meeting ended in a general mood of enthusiasm and most of the participants showed keen interest in following up the activities of the Hands Off Venezuela Campaign.

[robbo203]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 09:29 pm


But it is also at this time that the reformists and the right wingers
within the revolutionary movement are trying to sow confusion, to
water down the content of socialism of the 21st century, to oppose any
form of genuine workers' control, to block the revolutionary
initiative of the masses.




[QUOTE]

Contributors who suggest that Chavez has introduced socialism in Venezuela show thereby that they dont understand the first thing about socialism. There is no socialism in venezuela ; what there is a state run capitalism. Pure and simple. Chavez may be well meaning or he may be a populist demogue cynically courting working class sympathy in order to install his authoritarian rule. I couldnt say. But what I can say for sure that in no way is he a socialist despite the socialist rhetoric

It never ceases to amaze me how utterly naive some leftists are; you would have thught they had learnt by now after the dismal failure of the state capitalist experiment in the soviet union which undermined the growth of the socialist movement for decades . But no. It seems any tinpot regime mouthing the appropriate marxist sounding sentiments serves as a green light to suspend their critical faculties and jump on the nearest bandwagon heading in the direction of yet another cul de sac

Not all leftists are so gullible . There are a few fortunately who adopt a more rational approach . Check out for example http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/nov05/page8.html and http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=4525 and
http://www.ainfos.ca:81/06/mar/ainfos00198.html



cheers

Robin
www.worldincommon.org

[Herman]

Never heard of Adolf Hitler?

Again, he was not democratically elected. YOU need to brush up your history, comrade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler (reactionary source, I know, but check the "Hitler's appointment as Chancellor")

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 07:29 am

Never heard of Adolf Hitler?

Again, he was not democratically elected. YOU need to brush up your history, comrade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler (reactionary source, I know, but check the "Hitler's appointment as Chancellor")
Of course he was. Virtually all of the Continental Europe's prie ministers or chancellor's reprsent a party which had a minority of votes. A coalition is formed, and.. there you go. The constitution of Germany was in fact more democratic in 1933, then is the current german Constitution.

Oh, i know- democracy is majority rule, so if Hitler, or Merkel or any other is in office without majority support, then it cannot be considered a democracy. A fair enough point (but given that such a state of affairs is the rule rather than the exception, it ought to at least bring to question the concept of democracy). But as is often the case, its an argument which the socialists have little ground upon which to critique. Anyone who has spent any time on this website, or is knowledgeable about socialism from other sources, must have long realised that socialists are perpetually in dispute as to what does, and does not constitute socialism, how to build it and how it should run ect ect. Those divisions are going to intensify as the golden moment approaches. Either the socialist suppresses the other socialists, and declares the society a democracy (as did the communists of the USSR), or the socialists will simply have to form coalitions with each other, thereby leaving the probabbility of minority governments. Either way, another example of the decay which lays at the foundation of socialism, and that the goals of socialism cannot be met by practicing socialism.

[Herman]

Of course he was. Virtually all of the Continental Europe's prie ministers or chancellor's reprsent a party which had a minority of votes. A coalition is formed, and.. there you go. The constitution of Germany was in fact more democratic in 1933, then is the current german Constitution.

No, he wasn't and the way you're saying it is wrong. Coalitions are not 'elected democratically' and neither was Hitler. Again , READ THE LINK.


Oh, i know- democracy is majority rule, so if Hitler, or Merkel or any other is in office without majority support, then it cannot be considered a democracy.

They call it a 'liberal democracy'. In fact, it is neither liberal nor truly democratic.


But as is often the case, its an argument which the socialists have little ground upon which to critique.

We've got a lot of good ground. That you can be sure of.


Anyone who has spent any time on this website, or is knowledgeable about socialism from other sources, must have long realised that socialists are perpetually in dispute as to what does, and does not constitute socialism, how to build it and how it should run ect ect.

So? Are you saying that liberals don't argue and try to kill each other to prove they're right?

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+February 27, 2007 07:08 am--> (Guerrilla22 @ February 27, 2007 07:08 am)
[email protected] 25, 2007 09:51 pm
ehh, enjoy your dictatorship.
I've never heard of a dictator who was democratically elected. [/b]
Adolf Hitler <_<

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 07:29 am

Never heard of Adolf Hitler?

Again, he was not democratically elected. YOU need to brush up your history, comrade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler (reactionary source, I know, but check the "Hitler&#39;s appointment as Chancellor")
lol wikipedia a reactionary source?

either way, he was able to work within the legistlative process and was also able to obtain a plurality in a popular vote.

[Herman]

either way, he was able to work within the legistlative process and was also able to obtain a plurality in a popular vote.

But he never got elected, did he? That&#39;s the main point. Sure, you can now make arguments on how he used his political cunning and all that to explain how he convinced other monarchist/conservative politicians to side with him and so on, but the real point is that he wasn&#39;t elected. He did not get a majority and he was not elected.


lol wikipedia a reactionary source?

It lacks a lot of information which could make it less biased. Take the article on Europol. It doesn&#39;t actually explain the power struggles which are happening right now and the severe problems it has within its organization.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:49 am

Of course he was. Virtually all of the Continental Europe&#39;s prie ministers or chancellor&#39;s reprsent a party which had a minority of votes. A coalition is formed, and.. there you go. The constitution of Germany was in fact more democratic in 1933, then is the current german Constitution.

No, he wasn&#39;t and the way you&#39;re saying it is wrong. Coalitions are not &#39;elected democratically&#39; and neither was Hitler. Again , READ THE LINK.


Oh, i know- democracy is majority rule, so if Hitler, or Merkel or any other is in office without majority support, then it cannot be considered a democracy.

They call it a &#39;liberal democracy&#39;. In fact, it is neither liberal nor truly democratic.


But as is often the case, its an argument which the socialists have little ground upon which to critique.

We&#39;ve got a lot of good ground. That you can be sure of.


Anyone who has spent any time on this website, or is knowledgeable about socialism from other sources, must have long realised that socialists are perpetually in dispute as to what does, and does not constitute socialism, how to build it and how it should run ect ect.

So? Are you saying that liberals don&#39;t argue and try to kill each other to prove they&#39;re right?
A "liberal democracy" is majority rule coupled with certain freedoms ( press, assembly religion ect ect). A liberal community does not need to be democratic, nor a democracy need not be liberal.

As you are a lenninist, I undertsand what you are going to say, and how you are going to argue. Certainly "liberals" bicker and debate all the time, and they form political parties which often are unable to win majority support on their own, ands so are forced into coalitions with other parties. You choose not to define this as democracy. Which is fine, and actually technically anyhow, correct.

However, my comment was that the socialists are in the same boat, what with their divisions. Is a governement formed by a coalition of socialists parties, but who members themselves cannot claim majority support (and as a result neither can a prospective government head) somehow still a democracy? Again, it is difficult for the socialist to credibly say "yes."

So what to do? the leninists propse crushing all opponents, even other socialist parties, so as to allow for one single socilaist party which can command majority support, and thus be considered leading a "democratic" society. Naturally, one saw the same development in National Socialist Germany, where there was national "elections" (the Reichtag, the president (Hitler was reelected in the late 30s with about 98% of the vote which would make any communist proud), and over the various foreign policy moves by the nazis (the move into the Rhineland, Sudetland, annexation of Austria all was "appoved" in national referendum by the German "people" with the same 90% vote)).

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 09:51 pm
ehh, enjoy your dictatorship.
LOL. Coloneldummy is here? And I thought my days of humiliating Protest-Warriors were over.

Coloneldummy is a "protest-warrior," a member of a group that tried to "infiltrate" leftists rallies with nonsensical, racist, and offensive signs, but ironically enough collapsed after me and several leftists "infiltrated" their forums and exposed their lack of knowledge on everything from geopolitics to 7th grade science. I know it&#39;s him, because he couldn&#39;t read and write at an adult level at that forum, either.

The PWs actually closed down the forums after they were tired of being "harassed" (i.e. humiliated) by leftists. (Originally, they tried to distance themselves from their more ignorant members claiming they weren&#39;t "real PWs," but when I debated several PWs that had gone to rallies they just closed down the forum.) There were a lot of leftists there, but 90% of it was me.

What PW showed is that you can still defeat Conservatives and Capitalists by confronting them with facts and logic - and by keeping your cool and sticking to intellectual debate at the same time (several PWs threated to kill me on numerous occasions). It&#39;s hard to describe the idiocy of protest-warrior or the things they believed, as there are thousands of examples, but think of those polls that show that about "80% of people who get their news from source X" still believe we found WMDs in Iraq and that Iraq had ties to Al-Qaeda, while only 10% believe in those lies when they get their news from NPR or the internet or whatever. Well, the people who got their news from source X (Fox News, etc.) were Protest-Warriors. I see Coloneldummy is still repeating their false beliefs.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 04:26 pm
oh god dammit, you guys know what i meant

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/02/...a.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/02/02/chavez.venezuela.ap/index.html)

if you don&#39;t find this remotely dangerous you&#39;re fucking insane.
The reason people don&#39;t find it "dangerous," PW, to allow Latin Americans to elect their own governments is because the ones that have -- even state communist governments that were established through "revolution" -- are far more humane in terms of human rights, especially to the poor, than the capitalist and fascist dictatorships that the US established in Chile, Argentina, Guatemala, Brazil, and on and on.

Maybe if the US wasn&#39;t overthrowing democratically elected regimes and installing capitalist/fascist governments that were nightmares for political dissidents and the poor, Latin Americans wouldn&#39;t be looking to "strong arm dictators" in the first place to protect them against US supported death squads, coups, and so on. Chavez has already been the victim of a failed US coup.

Furthermore, Chavez hasn&#39;t much done of anything that is characteristic of a massive dictatorship. He just makes a bunch of speeches, and in some of those he&#39;s even promoised to break Venezsuela up into a bunch of socialist City states (http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=18691;st art=0), hardly something a dictator would do. Furthermore, he really hasn&#39;t "nationalized" anything at all, for it merely consists of the state forcing the companies to sell their interests until the state has a 51% stake, and enforce an income tax and spend oil revenues, which were always, even before Chavez, state revenues in the first place.

So the thing is, Chavez is not even half as tyrannical as the dictators your ideology brought up, and certainly not as brutal as the fascist governments and capitalist torture chambers and dungeons that were established by the US in the name of freedom. And it has been capitalist, not socialist, ideology that is responsible for 10 to 20 million people dead in Latin America -- it&#39;s no surprise the Latin Americans want a change from the "strong hold" the US has had over the region 1945-1990.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by IcarusAngel+March 03, 2007 08:02 pm--> (IcarusAngel @ March 03, 2007 08:02 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2007 09:51 pm
ehh, enjoy your dictatorship.
LOL. Coloneldummy is here? And I thought my days of humiliating Protest-Warriors were over.

Coloneldummy is a "protest-warrior," a member of a group that tried to "infiltrate" leftists rallies with nonsensical, racist, and offensive signs, but ironically enough collapsed after me and several leftists "infiltrated" their forums and exposed their lack of knowledge on everything from geopolitics to 7th grade science. I know it&#39;s him, because he couldn&#39;t read and write at an adult level at that forum, either.

The PWs actually closed down the forums after they were tired of being "harassed" (i.e. humiliated) by leftists. (Originally, they tried to distance themselves from their more ignorant members claiming they weren&#39;t "real PWs," but when I debated several PWs that had gone to rallies they just closed down the forum.) There were a lot of leftists there, but 90% of it was me.

What PW showed is that you can still defeat Conservatives and Capitalists by confronting them with facts and logic - and by keeping your cool and sticking to intellectual debate at the same time (several PWs threated to kill me on numerous occasions). It&#39;s hard to describe the idiocy of protest-warrior or the things they believed, as there are thousands of examples, but think of those polls that show that about "80% of people who get their news from source X" still believe we found WMDs in Iraq and that Iraq had ties to Al-Qaeda, while only 10% believe in those lies when they get their news from NPR or the internet or whatever. Well, the people who got their news from source X (Fox News, etc.) were Protest-Warriors. I see Coloneldummy is still repeating their false beliefs. [/b]
i never actually participated in the protest warrior organization, i just went to the forum for discussion. i had three forums i went to, a leftist (this one), a centrist, and a rightwing one which was protest warrior. i didn&#39;t really have any idealogical ties to the organization.

this is socialist, isn&#39;t it? i can tell because you complete dodged my point.

[colonelguppy]

The reason people don&#39;t find it "dangerous," PW, to allow Latin Americans to elect their own governments is because the ones that have -- even state communist governments that were established through "revolution" -- are far more humane in terms of human rights, especially to the poor, than the capitalist and fascist dictatorships that the US established in Chile, Argentina, Guatemala, Brazil, and on and on.

i never really claimed to support any of those. nice strawman. i fail to see how any of those being bad make this developement in venezuala any better.



Maybe if the US wasn&#39;t overthrowing democratically elected regimes and installing capitalist/fascist governments that were nightmares for political dissidents and the poor, Latin Americans wouldn&#39;t be looking to "strong arm dictators" in the first place to protect them against US supported death squads, coups, and so on. Chavez has already been the victim of a failed US coup.

more strawmen...


Furthermore, Chavez hasn&#39;t much done of anything that is characteristic of a massive dictatorship. He just makes a bunch of speeches, and in some of those he&#39;s even promoised to break Venezsuela up into a bunch of socialist City states (http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=18691;st art=0), hardly something a dictator would do. Furthermore, he really hasn&#39;t "nationalized" anything at all, for it merely consists of the state forcing the companies to sell their interests until the state has a 51% stake, and enforce an income tax and spend oil revenues, which were always, even before Chavez, state revenues in the first place.

um yeah that&#39;s still a frightening amount of power for one man to posses. do you realize how much influence this gives him over the entire economy?


So the thing is, Chavez is not even half as tyrannical as the dictators your ideology brought up, and certainly not as brutal as the fascist governments and capitalist torture chambers and dungeons that were established by the US in the name of freedom. And it has been capitalist, not socialist, ideology that is responsible for 10 to 20 million people dead in Latin America -- it&#39;s no surprise the Latin Americans want a change from the "strong hold" the US has had over the region 1945-1990.

is my "ideology" equal to my nationality now? i ask because i never really supported propping up dictators and i&#39;m wondering if you just assume i did because i&#39;m american.

[Herman]

is my "ideology" equal to my nationality now? i ask because i never really supported propping up dictators and i&#39;m wondering if you just assume i did because i&#39;m american.

Yes, your nationality decides your ideology. If you&#39;re American, you&#39;re a facist/capitalist.
It&#39;s automatic. Your genes contain this information unfortunately :(

[colonelguppy]

But he never got elected, did he? That&#39;s the main point. Sure, you can now make arguments on how he used his political cunning and all that to explain how he convinced other monarchist/conservative politicians to side with him and so on, but the real point is that he wasn&#39;t elected. He did not get a majority and he was not elected.

fair enough, but there asn&#39;t exactly anyone else who would have been elected.


It lacks a lot of information which could make it less biased. Take the article on Europol. It doesn&#39;t actually explain the power struggles which are happening right now and the severe problems it has within its organization.

then edit it. thats why it doens&#39;t have a bias, because no one writes the whole thing, it&#39;s written about thousands of people each who have editing abilities.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 02:03 am
i never actually participated in the protest warrior organization, i just went to the forum for discussion. i had three forums i went to, a leftist (this one), a centrist, and a rightwing one which was protest warrior. i didn&#39;t really have any idealogical ties to the organization.

Isn&#39;t this (http://z10.invisionfree.com/IC_Database/index.php?showuser=56) you over at PWIC? So you&#39;re not here as part of a "PWIC" campaign? I thought PWIC claimed they "invaded" leftist forums and instigated debate, but the only thing I&#39;ve seen them debate is which platform is the best experience for the video game Halo.


this is socialist, isn&#39;t it? i can tell because you complete dodged my point.

Of course. And to have a "point," you have to provide evidence for your beliefs.


i never really claimed to support any of those. nice strawman. i fail to see how any of those being bad make this developement in venezuala any better.

It makes it better relative to Latin America. Any democratic government is really a step up considering that they&#39;ve had to endure CIA installed dictatorships for the last 50 years.


more strawmen...

Leaders that lean to the left are popular because they have support that is actually home grown, not manipulated by a foreign power.


um yeah that&#39;s still a frightening amount of power for one man to posses. do you realize how much influence this gives him over the entire economy?

The United States has done the same thing. The US pretty much ran the airline industry for a while, and there have even been government run corporations in the US. The US also manipulates the market in other ways that are enormous, giving certain benefits to certain industries, such as the military-industrial complex. So the US could be classified as a "dictatorship" according to you, but also as a dictatorship that operates outside its boundaries: the US is involved in pretty much ever area of the world, including in tiny countries like East Timor and Laos.


s my "ideology" equal to my nationality now? i ask because i never really supported propping up dictators and i&#39;m wondering if you just assume i did because i&#39;m american.

I assume you meant "is my ideology nationalism." Of course, nationality is merely the "environment" you grow up in, but it really says nothing about your personal beliefs. Some of the best and brightest anti-capitalists in history have been Americans.

I merely pointed out that the governments Libertarians supported ended up turning to dictatorships. Pinochet&#39;s economic advisers were the "Chicago boys" and Milton Friedman, and I remember you being a Libertarian.

Of course, Pinochet was a dictator, and when Chavez starts killing tens of thousands of his own people, maybe people will bestow him the name of "dictator" as well.

[colonelguppy]

you over at PWIC? So you&#39;re not here as part of a "PWIC" campaign? I thought PWIC claimed they "invaded" leftist forums and instigated debate, but the only thing I&#39;ve seen them debate is which platform is the best experience for the video game Halo.


but that isn&#39;t protest warrior, that was the forum made by people who post there to get away from the ridiculousness of the main forum. they&#39;re just people i enjoy talking to, and i comment some in the politics section. they might do invasion shit on their own, i know i don&#39;t.


Of course. And to have a "point," you have to provide evidence for your beliefs.


i did, earlier in the thread. i was referring to his new legistlative powers, i think it&#39;s a dangerous path.


It makes it better relative to Latin America. Any democratic government is really a step up considering that they&#39;ve had to endure CIA installed dictatorships for the last 50 years.

maybe relatively, but thats not what we were talking about, which was venezuela, and the implications of chavez&#39;s power.



Leaders that lean to the left are popular because they have support that is actually home grown, not manipulated by a foreign power.

ok, but i&#39;m not expressing concern over that, i&#39;m expressing concern over his decree ruling powers. democracy without checks and balances has few advantages over authoratarianism.


The United States has done the same thing. The US pretty much ran the airline industry for a while, and there have even been government run corporations in the US. The US also manipulates the market in other ways that are enormous, giving certain benefits to certain industries, such as the military-industrial complex. So the US could be classified as a "dictatorship" according to you, but also as a dictatorship that operates outside its boundaries: the US is involved in pretty much ever area of the world, including in tiny countries like East Timor and Laos.

do you not know what a straw man is? do i really have to explain why the US is irrelevent to this discussion?

either way, the US manipulates it&#39;s market within a system of checks and balances. this isn&#39;t currently inplace in venezuela. i wouldn&#39;t recomend doing either, but especially so for one guy holding all the power.


I assume you meant "is my ideology nationalism." Of course, nationality is merely the "environment" you grow up in, but it really says nothing about your personal beliefs. Some of the best and brightest anti-capitalists in history have been Americans.

I merely pointed out that the governments Libertarians supported ended up turning to dictatorships. Pinochet&#39;s economic advisers were the "Chicago boys" and Milton Friedman, and I remember you being a Libertarian.

Of course, Pinochet was a dictator, and when Chavez starts killing tens of thousands of his own people, maybe people will bestow him the name of "dictator" as well.

well, in the long run, chile was ok. they&#39;re democratic. i&#39;m not assuming that chavez will abuse his power, i just don&#39;t think it&#39;s wise to trust anyone with that kind of power.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 01:17 am
i did, earlier in the thread. i was referring to his new legistlative powers, i think it&#39;s a dangerous path.

But that isn&#39;t characteristic of a dictatorship, his market controls. First, an a dictator is someone who has "absolute rule" over his country, and that is more along the lines of a powerful military and a powerful police force, neither of which exists in Venezuela.

Economic controls are not characteristic of a dictatorship: for example, Hitler and Pinochet had relatively free-markets, but both of them were dictatorships because of the amount of control they had over their own citizens and the strengths of their military. Again, that doesn&#39;t exist in Chavez&#39;s country.


maybe relatively, but thats not what we were talking about, which was venezuela, and the implications of chavez&#39;s power.

Any movement forward where the Latin American people are constructing their own governments without fear of retaliation is a good thing.


ok, but i&#39;m not expressing concern over that, i&#39;m expressing concern over his decree ruling powers. democracy without checks and balances has few advantages over authoratarianism.

Democracy is always better than "Authoritarianism." You can&#39;t site a case that contradicts that.


do you not know what a straw man is? do i really have to explain why the US is irrelevent to this discussion?

either way, the US manipulates it&#39;s market within a system of checks and balances. this isn&#39;t currently inplace in venezuela. i wouldn&#39;t recomend doing either, but especially so for one guy holding all the power.


A. The United States is not "irrelevant" to any discussion over any country, because it welds such enormous power in the world. Bush has already threatened Venezuela (much like he threatened Iran, Iraq, and NK when he first came into office, which was a mistake) and some of our "moral leaders" like Pat Robertson have suggested we assassinate him.

That means that the Chavez has to construct his society around the event that the US attacks them.

B. I was making an "analogy" to show that your characterization of a dictatorship is wrong.

Political Scientists do this all the time, so you should start to learn how to make valid comparisons yourself.


C. The United States _has_ had complete control over trade and different corporations, numerous times.

D. Venezuela is not a dictatorship. It shows some characteristics of becoming one, but Chavez does not have absolute power and is mostly a lot of talk.

Because a society has an income tax, does not mean that they&#39;re a dictatorship.

And of course I have studied logic. One of the ways I was able to continually defeat the PWs in debate was sticking to facts and basic logic.


well, in the long run, chile was ok. they&#39;re democratic. i&#39;m not assuming that chavez will abuse his power, i just don&#39;t think it&#39;s wise to trust anyone with that kind of power.


LOL.

So wait a minute. It&#39;s OK that there is a monument in Chile with the names of tens of thousands of people who were murdered or went "disappearing" etc. because Pinochet eventually lost control of his country and they ended up electing a social democrat.

That&#39;s just like saying Hitler was "OK in the long run" because he was so crazy he ended up losing power because of his imperial ambitions, and Germany became democratic and "free" again. Or that Stalin, Brezhnev, etc. were "OK" because while millions died under their dictatorships, they industrialized the country and it eventually became a "democracy" under Putin. That means Chavez would be "OK" as long as they become a a "capitalist democracy," which they already kind of are.

You&#39;re not making any sense.


Poor PWs are still learning how to debate and not contradict themselves, I guess.