Why do left-liberals and social democrats often

[Cheung Mo]

I don't see the appeal.

[RedHal]

probably because Musharraf is part of Bushie's "war on terror" whereas Chavez points his fingers at the US.

[Luís Henrique]

Do they?

Luís Henrique

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 04, 2007 10:24 pm
Do they?

Luís Henrique
On the ground? Perhaps not. But their leaders do.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Because Musharraf is a servant of imperialism, and Chavez isn't. The answer is obvious, comrade. :)

[RedHal]

haha and look at what servitude to US imperialism gets you. US ruling class are talking about overthrowing Musharraf and bombing pakistan.

[Leo]

Because Musharraf is a servant of imperialism, and Chavez isn't.

Well, actually Chavez is a servant of imperialism too.

[partizan604]

US leaders don't have friends among leders of other countries. States try to use people, but not to make friends with them. They use Musharraf, they try to use Chavez(but they won't be able to do that until Fidel is alive).

[Tower of Bebel]

Left-liberals + social democrats = neoliberals

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 06, 2007 08:04 am

Because Musharraf is a servant of imperialism, and Chavez isn't.

Well, actually Chavez is a servant of imperialism too.
Perhaps the comrade is using some definition of imperialism which we aren't all familiar with.

Would he care to elucidate?

In other words, what in Fuck's name are you talking about?! :P

[metalero]

There's a big thread in learning section about Imperialism for those who keep posting the same nonsense such as describing radical social democratic and anti-imperialist govmnts. in Latin America as Imperialist.

[Leo]

Perhaps the comrade is using some definition of imperialism which we aren't all familiar with.

Your definition of imperialism equals USA. You don't see for example how Lula and the Brazilian government uses Chavez to regulate it's diplomatic relations with American imperialism. You don't see for example how Chavez loves hugging Ahmedinejad in Iran who is imprisoning and executing workers there and also who is allied to Russia which is obviously still an imperialist country. You don't see that Chavez has very profitable deals with American oil countries and thus has economically very close relations with American capital. You don't see that even Cuba is economically very close to American capital in that they pay millions of dollars to purchase goods. To you, being opposed to America is being opposed to imperialism; to you all the reactionaries, nationalists, fascists, capitalists, Islamists and so forth are anti-imperialism. You simply never try to see how the epoch of world imperialism actually works.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Cheung Mo+August 04, 2007 11:21 pm--> (Cheung Mo @ August 04, 2007 11:21 pm)
Luís [email protected] 04, 2007 10:24 pm
Do they?

Luís Henrique
On the ground? Perhaps not. But their leaders do. [/b]
Recently the European Parliament voted a motion against Chavez (on the non-renewing of a TV concession, if I correctly recall). The Socialdemocrats voted against that motion. Can you please give us instances that indicate that the SDs fight against Chavez or support Musharraf?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 06, 2007 12:42 pm
Your definition of imperialism equals USA.
The following countries are imperialist:

United States
Japan
Germany
United Kingdom
France

And so are, though with much less impact in the world:

Italy
The Netherlands
Switzerland
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
Canada
Belgium
Australia
New Zealand
Luxemburg
Austria

The following countries are debatable:

Russia
Spain
Portugal
Greece
Ireland
South Korea
Taiwan

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Leo is spot on, though. Brasil has always been trying to assert itself as the leading South American nation.

Actually, not so spot on, because Argentina, as the largest Spanish-speaking country over there, is always competing with Brasil for the leading role (hence Venezuela's more extensive deals with Argentina than with Brasil). Leo didn't elucidate upon Argentina. ;)



Luis, you also didn't list China. If you look more closely at China's export of capital, it is VERY imperialist (hence the US current account deficit, so the US is becoming more and more a victim of imperialism as it continues to perpetuate it). I would daresay that Japan's economic influence in Southeast Asia is decreasing much faster than many of us think, and that China will take over. As for the so-called "renegade province," its economic influence is on the decline, as well, because more countries want to deal with the PRC, and because Taiwanese business is cutting more and more deals with the PRC (methinks that the PRC in its current state form will annex Taiwan without a shot fired ;) ).

[Leo]

Actually, not so spot on, because Argentina, as the largest Spanish-speaking country over there, is always competing with Brasil for the leading role (hence Venezuela's more extensive deals with Argentina than with Brasil). Leo didn't elucidate upon Argentina.

They were in the past, not now, after the crisis there though.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 05:57 pm
^^^ Leo is spot on, though. Brasil has always been trying to assert itself as the leading South American nation.

Actually, not so spot on, because Argentina, as the largest Spanish-speaking country over there, is always competing with Brasil for the leading role (hence Venezuela's more extensive deals with Argentina than with Brasil). Leo didn't elucidate upon Argentina. ;)
The issue is, neither Brazil nor Argentina being net exporters of capital (and not even significant exporters even disconsidering their imports), do they do that on their own or on behalf or third parties? And if they do it on their own, what kind of interest does this display?


Luis, you also didn't list China. If you look more closely at China's export of capital, it is VERY imperialist

But is it Chinese capital that it exports, or does it act as an intermediary for Japanese/Korean/Taiwanese capital?


(hence the US current account deficit, so the US is becoming more and more a victim of imperialism as it continues to perpetuate it).

While I hope this will happen in the future, I very much doubt it is happening now. And let's not forget that the US have enough political strength to just reshuffle the cards if it comes clear they are loosing economical controls. Remember Nixon devaluating the dollar!


I would daresay that Japan's economic influence in Southeast Asia is decreasing much faster than many of us think, and that China will take over. As for the so-called "renegade province," its economic influence is on the decline, as well, because more countries want to deal with the PRC, and because Taiwanese business is cutting more and more deals with the PRC (methinks that the PRC in its current state form will annex Taiwan without a shot fired ;) ).

I am under the opposite impression: that Taiwan is economically annexing China (in association with Japan, of course).

Luís Henrique

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+August 06, 2007 04:04 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ August 06, 2007 04:04 pm)
Leo [email protected] 06, 2007 12:42 pm
Your definition of imperialism equals USA.
The following countries are imperialist: [/b]

Every country supporting imperialist countries is controlled by an imperialist bourgeoisie.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 07:44 pm
Every country supporting imperialist countries is controlled by an imperialist bourgeoisie.
In the sence that such bourgeoisie supports imperialism, yes. In the sence that such bourgeoisie takes advantage of imperialism to subject the bourgeoisie of other countries to their own aims, obviously no.

Luís Henrique

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+August 06, 2007 02:58 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ August 06, 2007 02:58 pm)
Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 04, 2007 11:21 pm

Luís [email protected] 04, 2007 10:24 pm
Do they?

Luís Henrique
On the ground? Perhaps not. But their leaders do.
Recently the European Parliament voted a motion against Chavez (on the non-renewing of a TV concession, if I correctly recall). The Socialdemocrats voted against that motion. Can you please give us instances that indicate that the SDs fight against Chavez or support Musharraf?

Luís Henrique [/b]
Actions speak louder than words, and the actions I've seen from the Socialist Internatinal -- with which both the PSE and Venezuela's anti-Chavez pro-IMF social democratic parties are affiliated -- suggest that its more than willing to lead Latin American workers into mass graves when the time comes to make a choice. The massacres order by former SI VP Carlos Perez AND Accion Democratica against protesting workers and peasants at the behest of the IMF and the World Bank greatly exceed the death toll of Tiananmen Square (and I am no friend of Beijing's).

[Tower of Bebel]

Chavez action against this TV station is doubtful. Therefor it is normal that some parties vote against and some do not.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 09:48 am
Chavez action against this TV station is doubtful. Therefor it is normal that some parties vote against and some do not.
Doubtful? The station is owned by right-wing oligarchs and not only advocated a military coup against a government supported by 2/3 of Venezuelans, but was also actively implicated in it and censored the fact that the coup would ultimately fail. How many governments would allow such a station to continue operating for 5 years without any consequence, and then discipline merely by refusing to renew its airwave license while still allowing it to broadcast in Venezuela using cable and satellite feeds?

[Tower of Bebel]

I mean that the neo-liberals have no fucking idea on how to respond. The way they represent the actions by Chavez is doubtful.