Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
- Thread starter Makkonnen
- Start date
the IMF is a joke...it's simply a way to prevent small economies from developping...
I don't have time to into the details...but I'm only going to say this.
Trading between unequal partners can never be fair.
In other words...
i) if I keep you eternally in debt ....
that's 1-0 for me during trade talks and you'll take whatever the fuck i give you.
ii) the U.S. do not want any economies in south america to be independent (remember how they crushed Haiti in the early 1900s). So if you depend on me , I own you.
iii) Trading between smaller countries is not encouraged, cause together they'd have better bargaining powers at the trading table.
iv) If a south americ. controls its own economy,...this means it will actually take control of its assets = less room for foreign investment; where foreign invesment = sucking the country's wealth and bring it back to the US.
....and so on. And this is why , smaller countries have even more difficulties
Finally the great equalizer.
NUCLEAR: If a country is developping its economy and working for its people in a natiONalist fashion, this country CANNOT BE INVADED UNDER FALL PRETEXT, IF THEY HAVE THE NUKES.
neo
I don't have time to into the details...but I'm only going to say this.
Trading between unequal partners can never be fair.
In other words...
i) if I keep you eternally in debt ....
that's 1-0 for me during trade talks and you'll take whatever the fuck i give you.
ii) the U.S. do not want any economies in south america to be independent (remember how they crushed Haiti in the early 1900s). So if you depend on me , I own you.
iii) Trading between smaller countries is not encouraged, cause together they'd have better bargaining powers at the trading table.
iv) If a south americ. controls its own economy,...this means it will actually take control of its assets = less room for foreign investment; where foreign invesment = sucking the country's wealth and bring it back to the US.
....and so on. And this is why , smaller countries have even more difficulties
Finally the great equalizer.
NUCLEAR: If a country is developping its economy and working for its people in a natiONalist fashion, this country CANNOT BE INVADED UNDER FALL PRETEXT, IF THEY HAVE THE NUKES.
neo
http://isohunt.com/torrents.php?ihq...t+be+televised&op=and&sourceid=Mozilla-search
3 torrents for the revolution will not be televised that all work well are at that link
good post - never heard of that movie before
3 torrents for the revolution will not be televised that all work well are at that link
good post - never heard of that movie before
Chavez denies being anti-US
Wednesday 04 October 2006 1:43 PM GMT
Hugo Rafael Chavez Frías, the 53rd president of Venezuela, was born on July 28 1954. He came to power in 1998, promising to help Venezuela's poor majority, and was re-elected in 2000. He survived a coup in 2002 and faces a presidential election in December.
Since becoming president he has followed a policy of democratic socialism, Latin American integration and anti-imperialism.
His reforms have created much controversy in Venezuela and abroad. Most Venezuelans are split between those who say he has empowered the poor and stimulated economic growth, and those who say he is autocratic and has badly managed the economy.
Some foreign governments view Chavez as a threat to world oil prices and regional stability, while others welcome his bilateral trade and reciprocal aid agreements.
Chavez recently described George Bush, the US president, as "the devil" and says Bush has plans to assassinate him and invade Venezuela. He recently talked to Aljazeera about his relationship with the US, the Venezuelan army and why he gets only a few hours' sleep a night.
Aljazeera.net: You are strengthening ties with countries that are dissatisfied with Washington, countries such as Iran, Bolivia and Cuba. What is the end game of such an alliance?
Hugo Chavez: We are not against the US people, where there are children, women, intellectuals and students. We have investments in the US, we have eight refineries there, we have 14,000 gas stations. I have many friends there, I have played baseball there, I even have a nephew there.
What we are against is the imperial elite and that is very different. This is not a game. Do you think Iraq is a game, the aggression against Latin America for a century is a game, the toppling of Allende, the invasions of Grenada, Haiti, Panama, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, is that a game?
If that's a game, then my goodness that would be awful. This is an aggression and every day more and more people are against this hegemony and trying to save the world. Look at Lebanon, the aggression against the Palestinian people, why do they do that? Because the Israelis are supported by the elite of the US. We are against that.
Some would say in order for such an alliance to stop these events and counter the power of Washington that you refer to, regional powers such as China and Russia would need to back it. You hold talks with the leaders of these countries, are they ready to come on board for such an alliance?
You insist on something that is out of my main focus. I have never said we want to build an alliance against the US, so your question is not really focused.
If you take Moscow, Iran, Vietnam, China, Malaysia, what we are doing is getting closer through integration, through energy, oil, gas, trade and respect for international law.
We are today on a campaign around the world asking for support for Venezuela to become part of the Security Council as a non–permanent member. The US is in a terrible campaign to prevent us being elected. We are defending our interests but we are not proposing an alliance against anyone, much less the people of the United States. So your question is out of focus.
In May 2005, you called for an alliance between Latin America and the Arab world. How far has that initiative gone?
Not only me, Lula [Brazil's president] has been outspoken in calling for the coming together of Latin America and the Arab countries.
In Brasilia in May we had the first ever Arab-South American summit. It was a very important meeting.
In the past, only Venezuela had strong relations with the Arab world through Opec and through links with other non-Opec countries such as Egypt.
But now Lula is convening these meetings, he is coming to the Arab world. Not long ago in Venezuela we held a meeting between senior ministers in charge of education and social matters in both Latin America and the Arab world. We have made serious progress. It is not just an individual proposal of Hugo Chavez, it is a proposal of leaders like Muammar al-Qadhafi and the amir of Qatar. As well as Lula and Eva Morales [Bolivia's president]. And we want to get our two regions together.
You have started an ambitious programme to rebuild your military, you are buying new weapons, you are trying to raise, I think, the largest standing army in the Americas. If everything goes to plan, you will have two million reserve troops. What has prompted this military build up?
Let me tell you something. I hardly have time to sleep a few hours a day, but I don't care because I've decided to devote my life to taking my people out of poverty and misery.
To make a great effort for all Venezuelans to have access to education, health, housing, to life. When we were elected, poverty in Venezuela was over 55 per cent based on UN figures, it is now between 30 per cent and 40 per cent.
We are building a system of Bolivarian schools where children can have breakfast, lunch and dinner, gain internet access and take part in sports activities.
I devote a tiny part of my time to being commander-in-chief of the Venezuelan army. The imperialists have threatened to invade Venezuela, they have already conducted a coup d'etat four years ago. Recently they conducted manoeuvres in the Caribbean. We have even captured US soldiers taking pictures of military installations and we have expelled them.
We have much evidence, proof and documents that show there is a plan to invade Venezuela. What do you want us to do? That I forget my task of minimum defence of the country?
We had old rifles, they were 60-years old. We depended almost totally on US supplies. The F16 fighters we bought 20 years ago, they refused to give us spare parts, and they were stranded on the ground. So I have bought better planes and Kalashnikovs from Moscow. We have a vast border with Colombia, we have a huge coastal line along the Caribbean. We have to defend this country. We are not going to be aggressors.
Do you feel you are still being targeted and threatened by the US? We know that some people in the US have spoken in the past about assassinating you. Do you still feel personally targeted by the US?
Yes indeed. People have publicly called for my assassination and that is a crime. However, this person is not in jail, he is a close friend of the US president.
Venezuelan terrorists who left for the US after the 2002 coup, who killed people in Venezuela, are today living in the US. The US will not extradite them. Some of them are organising actions against myself and Venezuela.
The US is protecting terrorism. They are applying state terror. President Bush has left a measure taken by a former president that authorises the CIA, like 007, with a permit to kill whoever, whenever and however. They have a green light. President Carter banned that practice and the current president has just reinstated it. I am one of the targets, no doubt about it.
If the opposition parties do take part in the forthcoming Venezuelan presidential elections will you make a move towards presidency for life?
There is no way I can adopt such a provision. We have a constitution and it is only the people who might change the constitution in this direction or any other direction. They have the power to hold a referendum to remove the power given to me. The people can collect and gather signatures to ask for a referendum to recall a government official and that is totally democratic.
Aljazeera
By
You can find this article at:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5BBD71A5-88CA-4B5D-9F35-42F80B4D8A85.htm
Wednesday 04 October 2006 1:43 PM GMT
Hugo Rafael Chavez Frías, the 53rd president of Venezuela, was born on July 28 1954. He came to power in 1998, promising to help Venezuela's poor majority, and was re-elected in 2000. He survived a coup in 2002 and faces a presidential election in December.
Since becoming president he has followed a policy of democratic socialism, Latin American integration and anti-imperialism.
His reforms have created much controversy in Venezuela and abroad. Most Venezuelans are split between those who say he has empowered the poor and stimulated economic growth, and those who say he is autocratic and has badly managed the economy.
Some foreign governments view Chavez as a threat to world oil prices and regional stability, while others welcome his bilateral trade and reciprocal aid agreements.
Chavez recently described George Bush, the US president, as "the devil" and says Bush has plans to assassinate him and invade Venezuela. He recently talked to Aljazeera about his relationship with the US, the Venezuelan army and why he gets only a few hours' sleep a night.
Aljazeera.net: You are strengthening ties with countries that are dissatisfied with Washington, countries such as Iran, Bolivia and Cuba. What is the end game of such an alliance?
Hugo Chavez: We are not against the US people, where there are children, women, intellectuals and students. We have investments in the US, we have eight refineries there, we have 14,000 gas stations. I have many friends there, I have played baseball there, I even have a nephew there.
What we are against is the imperial elite and that is very different. This is not a game. Do you think Iraq is a game, the aggression against Latin America for a century is a game, the toppling of Allende, the invasions of Grenada, Haiti, Panama, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, is that a game?
If that's a game, then my goodness that would be awful. This is an aggression and every day more and more people are against this hegemony and trying to save the world. Look at Lebanon, the aggression against the Palestinian people, why do they do that? Because the Israelis are supported by the elite of the US. We are against that.
Some would say in order for such an alliance to stop these events and counter the power of Washington that you refer to, regional powers such as China and Russia would need to back it. You hold talks with the leaders of these countries, are they ready to come on board for such an alliance?
You insist on something that is out of my main focus. I have never said we want to build an alliance against the US, so your question is not really focused.
If you take Moscow, Iran, Vietnam, China, Malaysia, what we are doing is getting closer through integration, through energy, oil, gas, trade and respect for international law.
We are today on a campaign around the world asking for support for Venezuela to become part of the Security Council as a non–permanent member. The US is in a terrible campaign to prevent us being elected. We are defending our interests but we are not proposing an alliance against anyone, much less the people of the United States. So your question is out of focus.
In May 2005, you called for an alliance between Latin America and the Arab world. How far has that initiative gone?
Not only me, Lula [Brazil's president] has been outspoken in calling for the coming together of Latin America and the Arab countries.
In Brasilia in May we had the first ever Arab-South American summit. It was a very important meeting.
In the past, only Venezuela had strong relations with the Arab world through Opec and through links with other non-Opec countries such as Egypt.
But now Lula is convening these meetings, he is coming to the Arab world. Not long ago in Venezuela we held a meeting between senior ministers in charge of education and social matters in both Latin America and the Arab world. We have made serious progress. It is not just an individual proposal of Hugo Chavez, it is a proposal of leaders like Muammar al-Qadhafi and the amir of Qatar. As well as Lula and Eva Morales [Bolivia's president]. And we want to get our two regions together.
You have started an ambitious programme to rebuild your military, you are buying new weapons, you are trying to raise, I think, the largest standing army in the Americas. If everything goes to plan, you will have two million reserve troops. What has prompted this military build up?
Let me tell you something. I hardly have time to sleep a few hours a day, but I don't care because I've decided to devote my life to taking my people out of poverty and misery.
To make a great effort for all Venezuelans to have access to education, health, housing, to life. When we were elected, poverty in Venezuela was over 55 per cent based on UN figures, it is now between 30 per cent and 40 per cent.
We are building a system of Bolivarian schools where children can have breakfast, lunch and dinner, gain internet access and take part in sports activities.
I devote a tiny part of my time to being commander-in-chief of the Venezuelan army. The imperialists have threatened to invade Venezuela, they have already conducted a coup d'etat four years ago. Recently they conducted manoeuvres in the Caribbean. We have even captured US soldiers taking pictures of military installations and we have expelled them.
We have much evidence, proof and documents that show there is a plan to invade Venezuela. What do you want us to do? That I forget my task of minimum defence of the country?
We had old rifles, they were 60-years old. We depended almost totally on US supplies. The F16 fighters we bought 20 years ago, they refused to give us spare parts, and they were stranded on the ground. So I have bought better planes and Kalashnikovs from Moscow. We have a vast border with Colombia, we have a huge coastal line along the Caribbean. We have to defend this country. We are not going to be aggressors.
Do you feel you are still being targeted and threatened by the US? We know that some people in the US have spoken in the past about assassinating you. Do you still feel personally targeted by the US?
Yes indeed. People have publicly called for my assassination and that is a crime. However, this person is not in jail, he is a close friend of the US president.
Venezuelan terrorists who left for the US after the 2002 coup, who killed people in Venezuela, are today living in the US. The US will not extradite them. Some of them are organising actions against myself and Venezuela.
The US is protecting terrorism. They are applying state terror. President Bush has left a measure taken by a former president that authorises the CIA, like 007, with a permit to kill whoever, whenever and however. They have a green light. President Carter banned that practice and the current president has just reinstated it. I am one of the targets, no doubt about it.
If the opposition parties do take part in the forthcoming Venezuelan presidential elections will you make a move towards presidency for life?
There is no way I can adopt such a provision. We have a constitution and it is only the people who might change the constitution in this direction or any other direction. They have the power to hold a referendum to remove the power given to me. The people can collect and gather signatures to ask for a referendum to recall a government official and that is totally democratic.
Aljazeera
By
You can find this article at:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5BBD71A5-88CA-4B5D-9F35-42F80B4D8A85.htm
Oct. 12, 2006, 10:08AM
Chavez Won't Devalue Venezuelan Currency
© 2006 The Associated Press
CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chavez ruled out a currency devaluation Wednesday as he painted a rosy outlook for Venezuela's economy.
ADVERTISEMENT
He said there was no reason to devalue the Venezuelan currency, the bolivar, because of strong growth in the economy and other healthy indicators.
"There are those going around speculating that we are going to devalue the currency _ no, not all," Chavez said in a televised speech.
Chavez imposed strict currency controls in 2003 to try and halt capital flight amid political turmoil caused by an opposition-led strike.
The exchange rate is fixed at 2,150 bolivars per dollar, and Chavez said Wednesday that would remain "identical" throughout 2007.
He also announced a presidential decree dropping all import duties and the value-added tax on capital goods, or goods that are not manufactured domestically which are needed by companies in order to produce.
He said the measure was "already approved" and would stimulate small- and medium-sized businesses.
--------------------------------------
Chavez Won't Devalue Venezuelan Currency
© 2006 The Associated Press
CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chavez ruled out a currency devaluation Wednesday as he painted a rosy outlook for Venezuela's economy.
ADVERTISEMENT
He said there was no reason to devalue the Venezuelan currency, the bolivar, because of strong growth in the economy and other healthy indicators.
"There are those going around speculating that we are going to devalue the currency _ no, not all," Chavez said in a televised speech.
Chavez imposed strict currency controls in 2003 to try and halt capital flight amid political turmoil caused by an opposition-led strike.
The exchange rate is fixed at 2,150 bolivars per dollar, and Chavez said Wednesday that would remain "identical" throughout 2007.
He also announced a presidential decree dropping all import duties and the value-added tax on capital goods, or goods that are not manufactured domestically which are needed by companies in order to produce.
He said the measure was "already approved" and would stimulate small- and medium-sized businesses.
--------------------------------------
Time Magazine
Friday, Oct. 13, 2006
Is Another Chavez On the Rise in Ecuador?
Rafael Correa may be a U.S.-educated economist instead of a military firebrand, but if he wins this Sunday's election, he may well govern with the same anti-U.S. agenda as Venezuela's radical leader
By TIM PADGETT WITH MERCEDES ALVARO/QUITO
If the Bush Administration was starting to think that it didn't have to worry as much about Latin America's leftist tilt led by radical Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, it may have to think again. In recent months, as left-wing, anti-U.S. candidates in Peru and Mexico lost presidential races, the Bush Administration had reason to feel that perhaps the region's so-called "pink revolution" was ebbing like a low Caribbean tide. But this Sunday's presidential election in Ecuador may well raise it again: the likely winner is Rafael Correa, a fervent anti-yanqui nationalist and Chavez ally.
Correa, 43, is not a military firebrand like Chavez, an indigenous standard-bearer like Bolivia's Evo Morales or a former factory worker like Brazil's Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. In fact, five years ago he received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Illinois, and he was briefly Ecuador's finance minister until he was removed last year for publicly excoriating the World Bank. Soon after, Correa launched his leftist Alianza Pais (Country Alliance) Party and positioned himself as the political outsider for the 2006 presidential race. It was a smart move in an impoverished nation whose Congress is best known for its bribery and embezzlement scandals — a country that has seen seven different presidents in just 10 years, three of them forced out of office by popular uprisings. Polls show Correa with 37% of the vote in a crowded field, 11 more points than he had last month and 16 ahead of his closest competitor, former Vice President Leon Roldos. To avoid a Nov. 26 runoff, Correa will need to win more than 50% on Sunday, or 40% with a 10-point victory margin.
At campaign rallies, supporters shout, "Dale Correa," a play on Correa's last name that means "Give them the belt!" On the stump in the rural highlands town of Latacunga last week, the dark-skinned but blue-eyed Correa spoke in the indigenous Quichua language: "The political and economic elites have robbed everything from us, but they cannot steal our hope. We will take back our oil, our country, our future!" And like Chavez, Correa wields his tongue like a belt at the U.S. Asked about Chavez's recent "devil" diatribe at the United Nations, Correa told an Ecuadoran TV network, "Calling Bush the devil offends the devil. Bush is a tremendously dimwitted President who has done great damage to the world."
Bush-bashing is just one part of an election very much defined by U.S.-related issues. One is whether Ecuador will keep letting the U.S. use the Manta air base on the Pacific coast for drug surveillance flights — or if Ecuador will even continue to assist Washington's drug war, particularly the multi-billion-dollar Plan Colombia. (Correa says he would not renew the Manta treaty when it expires in 2009.)
Another is the growing ill will among Ecuadorans toward foreign and U.S. firms like Occidental Petroleum, which recently had its operating contract in Ecuador revoked and $1 billion of its assets there seized for what the government called "unethical and illegal actions." (Occidental denies the charges.) What's more, Correa has pledged to kill free-trade talks with the U.S.; he has threatened to freeze Ecuador's foreign debt payments and says the country's economy should not "indefinitely" remain dollarized. (Ecuador switched its currency to the dollar in 2000.) Says Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank in Washington, D.C., "The U.S., especially the very strong anti-U.S. sentiment among many Ecuadorans today, is perhaps the most important issue in this election."
Correa denies suggestions that the oil-rich Chavez is helping to fund his campaign, and Chavez, since watching his outspoken support of the leftist candidates in Peru and Mexico backfire, has been uncharacteristically quiet about Ecuador. But analysts like Shifter notes that Correa, who recently visited Chavez, feels confident he can follow the Venezuelan's lead.
After his own anti-establishment election victory in 1998, Chavez was able to rewrite Venezuela's Constitution, dissolve its Congress and create a new, unicameral National Assembly dominated today by his allies. Correa's fledgling party has submitted no congressional candidates for Sunday's election, an almost sure sign that if he wins, he intends to dissolve and recreate Ecuador's legislature in his own populist image. Like Chavez, "Correa is converting his (organizational) weaknesses into virtues and, under the guise of democracy, he'll fashion a Congress favorable to his political project," says Ramiro Crespo, president of the Quito investment bank Analytica Securities.
But the problem for Correa, Shifter points out, is that by playing "the quintessential anti-establishment candidate," one who will take on not only Ecuador's corrupt ruling class but also the military and other entrenched institutions, "you wonder how he'll be able to govern if he's elected and creates that kind of atmosphere of confrontation."
After Ecuador's election, Washington stands to finish the year swallowing more leftist victories: polls show Daniel Ortega, the controversial former Sandinista President of Nicaragua, may well win that country's Nov. 5 election; and Chavez himself is expected to punctuate 2006 for the Latin left by winning re-election Dec. 3.
So what can the Bush Administration do in 2007 to regain the hemispheric influence that has hemorrhaged in recent years? As a start, says Shifter: "It could show that it is much more engaged with the social agenda in Latin America and not just interested in trade deals" that Latin Americans so often view as favorable to U.S. interests. Otherwise, Washington can expect to have a whole new generation of fiery Latin leaders calling it names.
Friday, Oct. 13, 2006
Is Another Chavez On the Rise in Ecuador?
Rafael Correa may be a U.S.-educated economist instead of a military firebrand, but if he wins this Sunday's election, he may well govern with the same anti-U.S. agenda as Venezuela's radical leader
By TIM PADGETT WITH MERCEDES ALVARO/QUITO
If the Bush Administration was starting to think that it didn't have to worry as much about Latin America's leftist tilt led by radical Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, it may have to think again. In recent months, as left-wing, anti-U.S. candidates in Peru and Mexico lost presidential races, the Bush Administration had reason to feel that perhaps the region's so-called "pink revolution" was ebbing like a low Caribbean tide. But this Sunday's presidential election in Ecuador may well raise it again: the likely winner is Rafael Correa, a fervent anti-yanqui nationalist and Chavez ally.
Correa, 43, is not a military firebrand like Chavez, an indigenous standard-bearer like Bolivia's Evo Morales or a former factory worker like Brazil's Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. In fact, five years ago he received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Illinois, and he was briefly Ecuador's finance minister until he was removed last year for publicly excoriating the World Bank. Soon after, Correa launched his leftist Alianza Pais (Country Alliance) Party and positioned himself as the political outsider for the 2006 presidential race. It was a smart move in an impoverished nation whose Congress is best known for its bribery and embezzlement scandals — a country that has seen seven different presidents in just 10 years, three of them forced out of office by popular uprisings. Polls show Correa with 37% of the vote in a crowded field, 11 more points than he had last month and 16 ahead of his closest competitor, former Vice President Leon Roldos. To avoid a Nov. 26 runoff, Correa will need to win more than 50% on Sunday, or 40% with a 10-point victory margin.
At campaign rallies, supporters shout, "Dale Correa," a play on Correa's last name that means "Give them the belt!" On the stump in the rural highlands town of Latacunga last week, the dark-skinned but blue-eyed Correa spoke in the indigenous Quichua language: "The political and economic elites have robbed everything from us, but they cannot steal our hope. We will take back our oil, our country, our future!" And like Chavez, Correa wields his tongue like a belt at the U.S. Asked about Chavez's recent "devil" diatribe at the United Nations, Correa told an Ecuadoran TV network, "Calling Bush the devil offends the devil. Bush is a tremendously dimwitted President who has done great damage to the world."
Bush-bashing is just one part of an election very much defined by U.S.-related issues. One is whether Ecuador will keep letting the U.S. use the Manta air base on the Pacific coast for drug surveillance flights — or if Ecuador will even continue to assist Washington's drug war, particularly the multi-billion-dollar Plan Colombia. (Correa says he would not renew the Manta treaty when it expires in 2009.)
Another is the growing ill will among Ecuadorans toward foreign and U.S. firms like Occidental Petroleum, which recently had its operating contract in Ecuador revoked and $1 billion of its assets there seized for what the government called "unethical and illegal actions." (Occidental denies the charges.) What's more, Correa has pledged to kill free-trade talks with the U.S.; he has threatened to freeze Ecuador's foreign debt payments and says the country's economy should not "indefinitely" remain dollarized. (Ecuador switched its currency to the dollar in 2000.) Says Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank in Washington, D.C., "The U.S., especially the very strong anti-U.S. sentiment among many Ecuadorans today, is perhaps the most important issue in this election."
Correa denies suggestions that the oil-rich Chavez is helping to fund his campaign, and Chavez, since watching his outspoken support of the leftist candidates in Peru and Mexico backfire, has been uncharacteristically quiet about Ecuador. But analysts like Shifter notes that Correa, who recently visited Chavez, feels confident he can follow the Venezuelan's lead.
After his own anti-establishment election victory in 1998, Chavez was able to rewrite Venezuela's Constitution, dissolve its Congress and create a new, unicameral National Assembly dominated today by his allies. Correa's fledgling party has submitted no congressional candidates for Sunday's election, an almost sure sign that if he wins, he intends to dissolve and recreate Ecuador's legislature in his own populist image. Like Chavez, "Correa is converting his (organizational) weaknesses into virtues and, under the guise of democracy, he'll fashion a Congress favorable to his political project," says Ramiro Crespo, president of the Quito investment bank Analytica Securities.
But the problem for Correa, Shifter points out, is that by playing "the quintessential anti-establishment candidate," one who will take on not only Ecuador's corrupt ruling class but also the military and other entrenched institutions, "you wonder how he'll be able to govern if he's elected and creates that kind of atmosphere of confrontation."
After Ecuador's election, Washington stands to finish the year swallowing more leftist victories: polls show Daniel Ortega, the controversial former Sandinista President of Nicaragua, may well win that country's Nov. 5 election; and Chavez himself is expected to punctuate 2006 for the Latin left by winning re-election Dec. 3.
So what can the Bush Administration do in 2007 to regain the hemispheric influence that has hemorrhaged in recent years? As a start, says Shifter: "It could show that it is much more engaged with the social agenda in Latin America and not just interested in trade deals" that Latin Americans so often view as favorable to U.S. interests. Otherwise, Washington can expect to have a whole new generation of fiery Latin leaders calling it names.
November 21, 2006
Coup d'Etat in Venezuela: Made in the USA
The U.S.-designed Plan to Overthrow Hugo Chavez in the Days Following the Election
In 1999, when the U.S.-led bombing campaign in Serbia didn't get rid of Slobodan Milosevic, Washington changed its strategy. U.S. intelligence organized a $77 million effort to oust Milosovic through the ballot box. They sent in CIA front organizations funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Instead of guns and bombs, these U.S. forces were armed with fax machines, computers, and perhaps most importantly, sophisticated surveys done by the Washington-based polling firm Penn, Schoen & Berland.(1) Their mission: to take down Milosevic by strengthening opposition groups.
Milosevic is now long gone, as the U.S. effort to mobilize the opposition and produce mass protests was successful in unseating him in the 2000 elections. This victory was a landmark for U.S. intelligence agencies. They had developed a new way to overthrow unfriendly regimes, and it was much easier than a violent overthrow, or a messy invasion. Penn, Schoen & Berland played an important role; so important that the U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright commended them, saying "This may be one of the first instances where polling has played such an important role in setting and securing foreign policy objectives."(2) They did, indeed, secure their foreign policy objectives. Milosovic was out, and the U.S.-backed opposition took power.
Since 2000, this smooth new strategy to influence elections and topple regimes has been implemented in many other countries. Dubbed as the "post-modern coup" by Jonathan Mowat, the same brilliant techniques were used in Belarus in 2001, in Georgia in 2003, and in the Ukraine in 2004, to name a few. Although it ultimately failed in Belarus, in Georgia the U.S. effort produced the "Rose Revolution" which overthrew President Eduard Shevardnadze. In the Ukraine it was the "Orange Revolution" that installed Victor Yushchenko in 2004.(3) Each time, groups financed by the NED, and USAID worked inside the country to build popular support for the opposition candidate. Each time they constructed an appealing campaign image using the modern marketing tactics that they have perfected along the way. And each time, they used Penn, Schoen & Berland election "polls" to shape the public's perception.
In his article, "Coup D'Etat in Disguise," Jonathan Mowat described how these "polls" work:
"Penn, Schoen and Berland (PSB) has played a pioneering role in the use of polling operations, especially "exit polls," in facilitating coups. Its primary mission is to shape the perception that the group installed into power in a targeted country has broad popular support. ""...the deployment of polling agencies' "exit polls" broadcast on international television...give the false impression of massive vote-fraud by the ruling party, to put targeted states on the defensive."(4)
That is, the goal is to either get enough support to sway the election in their favor, or, if that isn't possible, to give the impression that the elections were fraudulent and encourage the population to overturn them. The strategy has been so successful in overthrowing regimes, or installing the regimes that the U.S. prefers, that the operation has evolved into a blueprint to be used in countries around the world. Ian Traynor described it in the Guardian in November 2004 as follows:
"[T]he campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavory regimes...The operation - engineering democracy through the ballot box and civil disobedience - is now so slick that the methods have matured into a template for winning other people's elections"(5)
Manufacturing a "Ukrainian" in Venezuela
These days the U.S. has a new arch nemesis; Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Surely Washington would be delighted to get rid of him in the same fashion as all the rest. But there is one small problem; Hugo Chavez is no Slobodan Milosevic. He is immensely popular among the masses in Venezuela and throughout Latin America. Pro-Chavez parties have continued to win democratic elections over the last 8 years, and will most certainly win again in the December 3rd presidential contest. This time U.S. forces have their work cut out for them. They know that it is basically impossible to beat Chavez at the ballot box; he's too popular. It looks like they will have to go to plan B: a coup d'etat.
The U.S. has already set up camp in Venezuela, and all the original cast members are here. We've got NED, USAID, and yes, once again, Penn, Schoen & Berland. Just like in Serbia, or Ukraine, the objective of the U.S. forces is to remove Chavez from power. Therefore they have teamed up with major opposition groups to map out and implement their strategy. The strategy in Venezuela takes from many of the important lessons that they first learned in Serbia, and have since been carried to many other nations. The goal is to create a situation like in Ukraine in 2004: huge protests against the elections and against the government in order to cause chaos and instability. Basically, the strategy comes in three stages.
First, they need to build up popular support for the opposition candidate, Manuel Rosales, by designing an attractive campaign. This has already been accomplished, in part, but according to most polls Rosales only has about 20 to 30 percent voter intention, compared to Chavez who hovers between 50 and 60 percent.(6) However, it appears support for Rosales has grown a few percentage points in the latest polls as the candidate has crossed the country giving speeches and making promises over the last few months. All of the major media, of course, give his campaign nightly coverage, and repeat all of his campaign messages.
The campaign is U.S.-designed and uses modern marketing techniques, and catchy slogans. As shown in the 2005 documentary movie "Our Brand Is Crisis", a U.S. team designed the campaign of their favored candidate in Bolivia. These brilliant campaigns use sophisticated methods to create exactly the image they need for their candidate. They tend to target youth and often include youth movements as they have with Primero Justica (Justice First) in Venezuela. The branding of the campaign with a color and a one-word slogan is an important part of the U.S.-designed campaigns. In Serbia the slogan was "Otpor" meaning resistance. In Georgia it was "Kmara" (Enough!). In Ukraine, it was "Pora", meaning "It's Time!", and now, in Venezuela, the brand is "Atrevete," roughly translated as "Be bold!"
The second step has been to use the mass media to create the perception that the elections are fraudulent. The NED has funded an organization, Sumate (a one-word slogan that means "join up"), with the expressed goal of "achieving a high level of citizen participation in Venezuelan elections. "(7) Founded in 2002, Sumate organized the campaign for the recall referendum to revoke Chavez's presidential term. They lost the recall vote in August 2004 by a large margin, but went on to claim, with the help of Penn, Schoen, and Berland's "exit polls," that the election was fraudulent. Five other polls showed exactly the opposite and concurred with the official voting results in which Chavez won by a wide margin. PSB and Sumate, however, maintained that the opposition had won and that Chavez had committed "massive fraud" in spite of the fact that 5 of the 6 polls concurred with the official results, and both the Carter Center and the Organization of American States certified the voting process. (8) Consequently, Chavez's image as a democratically elected leader was damaged both nationally and internationally. The fraud claim resonated through the major media, and planted doubts about Chavez's legitimacy.
Since the recall referendum, the campaign has been non-stop. Sumate and other opposition groups continue to attack the electoral process in Venezuela, claiming it is not transparent and unfairly controlled by the Chavez government. The major media in Venezuela have wholeheartedly supported this campaign by giving coverage to Sumate, and their constant press releases denouncing problems with the electoral process. The idea is to decieve enough people into believing that the Chavez regime is not popularly supported, but is holding on to power through fraudulent elections. They have already been fairly successful in convincing a significant percentage of the population.
Finally, they must get enough people out into the streets in order to create a situation in which a transition of power could take place. Here is where Penn, Schoen & Berland comes in. In the recent months in the lead up to the December 2006 elections, Penn, Schoen & Berland has been instrumental in shaping public perception. In a series of election polls widely covered in the private media, the polling firm has consistently shown that Chavez's lead is shrinking and the opposition is gaining momentum, while all of the other surveys done over the last few months show that Chavez maintains a wide lead of between 20 and 30 percent.(9)
Last week, Mr. Schoen, of Penn, Schoen & Berland, released the findings of his latest survey on the Venezuelan evening news. As expected, Penn's survey showed that Chavez's opposition, Manuel Rosales, was nearly tied in the polls with Chavez. Chavez, it showed, had only 48% support, and his opponent Manuel Rosales had gained significantly up to 42%. This poll is now being reported across all the major Venezuelan media to a huge audience, showing that Rosales was gaining more and more everyday, and could possibly win. Mr. Schoen added his personal opinion, "The momentum is clearly with Rosales."(10)
With the help of the mainstream media, almost all of which is vehemently opposed to the popular president, these fake polls have reached a wide audience. All the newspapers, the major television channels, and internet news sites report the poll results as if they were true and valid findings. They don't mention the fact that these findings are not supported by any other polling agency. Again, although the reality is that Rosales has almost no chance of winning in the December elections, much of the population now believes he will. The reality doesn't seem to matter. All that really matters is what the populace believes. When their candidate loses by a large margin, it will be a difficult reality to deal with. If the opposition strategy works, it might be possible to produce large protests and even riots.
Two weeks ago on Globovision, one of the major private channels in Venezuela, opposition leader Rafael Poleo called on Venezuelans to do the "Ukrainian" on the day after the elections.(11) Claiming the elections will be fraudulent, Poleo, who was involved in the 2002 coup attempt, described in detail a "plan" to remove Chavez from power after the elections. Comparing it to the "Orange Revolution", the plan calls for Venezuelans to come out en masse to protest against the Chavez government and what they call "fraudulent elections." Poleo then made a call to the high military command to back this "movement", in what basically amounts to a call to overthrow the government.
Less than two weeks from now, we will see how it all plays out. Will the popular Chavez continue to rule as the president of the masses? Or, will the U.S.-trained opposition be able to pull off a "Ukrainian" in Venezuela? The opposition's claims of fraud are totally baseless, and even from the most superficial observation, it is clear that Chavez maintains overwhelming support. But, the U.S.-organized strategy seeks to produce mass protests and perhaps military rebellion to unseat their popular enemy. With the help of Penn, Schoen & Berland, they just might get enough people in the streets to cause some trouble. For the coup planners, that's exactly what they need.
http://boog.dnsalias.org/chris/
Coup d'Etat in Venezuela: Made in the USA
The U.S.-designed Plan to Overthrow Hugo Chavez in the Days Following the Election
In 1999, when the U.S.-led bombing campaign in Serbia didn't get rid of Slobodan Milosevic, Washington changed its strategy. U.S. intelligence organized a $77 million effort to oust Milosovic through the ballot box. They sent in CIA front organizations funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Instead of guns and bombs, these U.S. forces were armed with fax machines, computers, and perhaps most importantly, sophisticated surveys done by the Washington-based polling firm Penn, Schoen & Berland.(1) Their mission: to take down Milosevic by strengthening opposition groups.
Milosevic is now long gone, as the U.S. effort to mobilize the opposition and produce mass protests was successful in unseating him in the 2000 elections. This victory was a landmark for U.S. intelligence agencies. They had developed a new way to overthrow unfriendly regimes, and it was much easier than a violent overthrow, or a messy invasion. Penn, Schoen & Berland played an important role; so important that the U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright commended them, saying "This may be one of the first instances where polling has played such an important role in setting and securing foreign policy objectives."(2) They did, indeed, secure their foreign policy objectives. Milosovic was out, and the U.S.-backed opposition took power.
Since 2000, this smooth new strategy to influence elections and topple regimes has been implemented in many other countries. Dubbed as the "post-modern coup" by Jonathan Mowat, the same brilliant techniques were used in Belarus in 2001, in Georgia in 2003, and in the Ukraine in 2004, to name a few. Although it ultimately failed in Belarus, in Georgia the U.S. effort produced the "Rose Revolution" which overthrew President Eduard Shevardnadze. In the Ukraine it was the "Orange Revolution" that installed Victor Yushchenko in 2004.(3) Each time, groups financed by the NED, and USAID worked inside the country to build popular support for the opposition candidate. Each time they constructed an appealing campaign image using the modern marketing tactics that they have perfected along the way. And each time, they used Penn, Schoen & Berland election "polls" to shape the public's perception.
In his article, "Coup D'Etat in Disguise," Jonathan Mowat described how these "polls" work:
"Penn, Schoen and Berland (PSB) has played a pioneering role in the use of polling operations, especially "exit polls," in facilitating coups. Its primary mission is to shape the perception that the group installed into power in a targeted country has broad popular support. ""...the deployment of polling agencies' "exit polls" broadcast on international television...give the false impression of massive vote-fraud by the ruling party, to put targeted states on the defensive."(4)
That is, the goal is to either get enough support to sway the election in their favor, or, if that isn't possible, to give the impression that the elections were fraudulent and encourage the population to overturn them. The strategy has been so successful in overthrowing regimes, or installing the regimes that the U.S. prefers, that the operation has evolved into a blueprint to be used in countries around the world. Ian Traynor described it in the Guardian in November 2004 as follows:
"[T]he campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavory regimes...The operation - engineering democracy through the ballot box and civil disobedience - is now so slick that the methods have matured into a template for winning other people's elections"(5)
Manufacturing a "Ukrainian" in Venezuela
These days the U.S. has a new arch nemesis; Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Surely Washington would be delighted to get rid of him in the same fashion as all the rest. But there is one small problem; Hugo Chavez is no Slobodan Milosevic. He is immensely popular among the masses in Venezuela and throughout Latin America. Pro-Chavez parties have continued to win democratic elections over the last 8 years, and will most certainly win again in the December 3rd presidential contest. This time U.S. forces have their work cut out for them. They know that it is basically impossible to beat Chavez at the ballot box; he's too popular. It looks like they will have to go to plan B: a coup d'etat.
The U.S. has already set up camp in Venezuela, and all the original cast members are here. We've got NED, USAID, and yes, once again, Penn, Schoen & Berland. Just like in Serbia, or Ukraine, the objective of the U.S. forces is to remove Chavez from power. Therefore they have teamed up with major opposition groups to map out and implement their strategy. The strategy in Venezuela takes from many of the important lessons that they first learned in Serbia, and have since been carried to many other nations. The goal is to create a situation like in Ukraine in 2004: huge protests against the elections and against the government in order to cause chaos and instability. Basically, the strategy comes in three stages.
First, they need to build up popular support for the opposition candidate, Manuel Rosales, by designing an attractive campaign. This has already been accomplished, in part, but according to most polls Rosales only has about 20 to 30 percent voter intention, compared to Chavez who hovers between 50 and 60 percent.(6) However, it appears support for Rosales has grown a few percentage points in the latest polls as the candidate has crossed the country giving speeches and making promises over the last few months. All of the major media, of course, give his campaign nightly coverage, and repeat all of his campaign messages.
The campaign is U.S.-designed and uses modern marketing techniques, and catchy slogans. As shown in the 2005 documentary movie "Our Brand Is Crisis", a U.S. team designed the campaign of their favored candidate in Bolivia. These brilliant campaigns use sophisticated methods to create exactly the image they need for their candidate. They tend to target youth and often include youth movements as they have with Primero Justica (Justice First) in Venezuela. The branding of the campaign with a color and a one-word slogan is an important part of the U.S.-designed campaigns. In Serbia the slogan was "Otpor" meaning resistance. In Georgia it was "Kmara" (Enough!). In Ukraine, it was "Pora", meaning "It's Time!", and now, in Venezuela, the brand is "Atrevete," roughly translated as "Be bold!"
The second step has been to use the mass media to create the perception that the elections are fraudulent. The NED has funded an organization, Sumate (a one-word slogan that means "join up"), with the expressed goal of "achieving a high level of citizen participation in Venezuelan elections. "(7) Founded in 2002, Sumate organized the campaign for the recall referendum to revoke Chavez's presidential term. They lost the recall vote in August 2004 by a large margin, but went on to claim, with the help of Penn, Schoen, and Berland's "exit polls," that the election was fraudulent. Five other polls showed exactly the opposite and concurred with the official voting results in which Chavez won by a wide margin. PSB and Sumate, however, maintained that the opposition had won and that Chavez had committed "massive fraud" in spite of the fact that 5 of the 6 polls concurred with the official results, and both the Carter Center and the Organization of American States certified the voting process. (8) Consequently, Chavez's image as a democratically elected leader was damaged both nationally and internationally. The fraud claim resonated through the major media, and planted doubts about Chavez's legitimacy.
Since the recall referendum, the campaign has been non-stop. Sumate and other opposition groups continue to attack the electoral process in Venezuela, claiming it is not transparent and unfairly controlled by the Chavez government. The major media in Venezuela have wholeheartedly supported this campaign by giving coverage to Sumate, and their constant press releases denouncing problems with the electoral process. The idea is to decieve enough people into believing that the Chavez regime is not popularly supported, but is holding on to power through fraudulent elections. They have already been fairly successful in convincing a significant percentage of the population.
Finally, they must get enough people out into the streets in order to create a situation in which a transition of power could take place. Here is where Penn, Schoen & Berland comes in. In the recent months in the lead up to the December 2006 elections, Penn, Schoen & Berland has been instrumental in shaping public perception. In a series of election polls widely covered in the private media, the polling firm has consistently shown that Chavez's lead is shrinking and the opposition is gaining momentum, while all of the other surveys done over the last few months show that Chavez maintains a wide lead of between 20 and 30 percent.(9)
Last week, Mr. Schoen, of Penn, Schoen & Berland, released the findings of his latest survey on the Venezuelan evening news. As expected, Penn's survey showed that Chavez's opposition, Manuel Rosales, was nearly tied in the polls with Chavez. Chavez, it showed, had only 48% support, and his opponent Manuel Rosales had gained significantly up to 42%. This poll is now being reported across all the major Venezuelan media to a huge audience, showing that Rosales was gaining more and more everyday, and could possibly win. Mr. Schoen added his personal opinion, "The momentum is clearly with Rosales."(10)
With the help of the mainstream media, almost all of which is vehemently opposed to the popular president, these fake polls have reached a wide audience. All the newspapers, the major television channels, and internet news sites report the poll results as if they were true and valid findings. They don't mention the fact that these findings are not supported by any other polling agency. Again, although the reality is that Rosales has almost no chance of winning in the December elections, much of the population now believes he will. The reality doesn't seem to matter. All that really matters is what the populace believes. When their candidate loses by a large margin, it will be a difficult reality to deal with. If the opposition strategy works, it might be possible to produce large protests and even riots.
Two weeks ago on Globovision, one of the major private channels in Venezuela, opposition leader Rafael Poleo called on Venezuelans to do the "Ukrainian" on the day after the elections.(11) Claiming the elections will be fraudulent, Poleo, who was involved in the 2002 coup attempt, described in detail a "plan" to remove Chavez from power after the elections. Comparing it to the "Orange Revolution", the plan calls for Venezuelans to come out en masse to protest against the Chavez government and what they call "fraudulent elections." Poleo then made a call to the high military command to back this "movement", in what basically amounts to a call to overthrow the government.
Less than two weeks from now, we will see how it all plays out. Will the popular Chavez continue to rule as the president of the masses? Or, will the U.S.-trained opposition be able to pull off a "Ukrainian" in Venezuela? The opposition's claims of fraud are totally baseless, and even from the most superficial observation, it is clear that Chavez maintains overwhelming support. But, the U.S.-organized strategy seeks to produce mass protests and perhaps military rebellion to unseat their popular enemy. With the help of Penn, Schoen & Berland, they just might get enough people in the streets to cause some trouble. For the coup planners, that's exactly what they need.
http://boog.dnsalias.org/chris/
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/10/opinion/edchavez.php
Bad move by Chávez
President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela — the very portrait of a modern Latin American strongman — is not content to exercise near-total political and military control of his country. Now he is tightening his grip on the Venezuelan economy. That's bad news for foreign investors, but even more so for the Venezuelan people who will have to pay the price for an economy plagued by increasing inefficiency and corruption.
Chávez announced this week that he would nationalize electricity and telecommunications companies. Venezuela's biggest telecommunications company is partly owned by Verizon Communications. Its largest publicly traded electricity company is controlled by another American company, AES Corp. Chávez also declared his intention to take control of four multibillion-dollar oil projects with significant investments from foreign companies.
State control is rarely an efficient way to run companies. And nationalizations are not a good way to encourage further foreign investment. Chávez is already using the state- controlled oil company to reward his cronies at the expense of getting the best return on Venezuela's most lucrative resource.
Exactly what form these nationalizations will take remains unclear. Whatever Chávez is planning, he needs to fairly compensate shareholders. And while the Bush administration needs to condemn any seizure of American assets, it should choose its words carefully so as not to play into Chávez's Yanqui-baiting game.
The smartest way to counter Chávez's demagoguery would be a more active engagement by the United States with the region's many democracies. It needs to press ahead with trade agreements and other forms of economic assistance and cooperation.
Today in Opinion
Bad move by Chávez
Moving ahead on stem cells
Ethics reform
Chávez latest moves also serve another reminder of why America needs to curb its insatiable appetite for oil. The United States is the biggest buyer of Venezuelan petroleum products. If a powerful Chávez is against U.S. interests, we should stop paying for his Russian fighter jets — and his nationalizations — with our gas-guzzling cars and trucks.
Bad move by Chávez
President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela — the very portrait of a modern Latin American strongman — is not content to exercise near-total political and military control of his country. Now he is tightening his grip on the Venezuelan economy. That's bad news for foreign investors, but even more so for the Venezuelan people who will have to pay the price for an economy plagued by increasing inefficiency and corruption.
Chávez announced this week that he would nationalize electricity and telecommunications companies. Venezuela's biggest telecommunications company is partly owned by Verizon Communications. Its largest publicly traded electricity company is controlled by another American company, AES Corp. Chávez also declared his intention to take control of four multibillion-dollar oil projects with significant investments from foreign companies.
State control is rarely an efficient way to run companies. And nationalizations are not a good way to encourage further foreign investment. Chávez is already using the state- controlled oil company to reward his cronies at the expense of getting the best return on Venezuela's most lucrative resource.
Exactly what form these nationalizations will take remains unclear. Whatever Chávez is planning, he needs to fairly compensate shareholders. And while the Bush administration needs to condemn any seizure of American assets, it should choose its words carefully so as not to play into Chávez's Yanqui-baiting game.
The smartest way to counter Chávez's demagoguery would be a more active engagement by the United States with the region's many democracies. It needs to press ahead with trade agreements and other forms of economic assistance and cooperation.
Today in Opinion
Bad move by Chávez
Moving ahead on stem cells
Ethics reform
Chávez latest moves also serve another reminder of why America needs to curb its insatiable appetite for oil. The United States is the biggest buyer of Venezuelan petroleum products. If a powerful Chávez is against U.S. interests, we should stop paying for his Russian fighter jets — and his nationalizations — with our gas-guzzling cars and trucks.
BTW.. The U.S. is not the only country affected by this. As some of yall know, I am living in Brasil.. and Chavez nationalized some Brasilians assets as well a few months ago. They hate that mofo here.
Economically, for an endless amount of reasons, nationalization never works. This is only the beginning of a huge downward spiral for Venezuela. Come back in several years and I am willing to bet ALL key economic metrics and factors show declines in the economy.
Economically, for an endless amount of reasons, nationalization never works. This is only the beginning of a huge downward spiral for Venezuela. Come back in several years and I am willing to bet ALL key economic metrics and factors show declines in the economy.
Makk,
I told you scraping term limits will be next on his agenda. He wants to be a dictator. During his lifetime, he is going to dig a hole so deep for venezuela it is going to take 100 years to get it out of it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16559935/
Chavez now wants to scrap term limits and lead the OPEC nation for decades.
CARACAS, Venezuela - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was sworn in Wednesday for a new six-year term that he vows to use to press a radical socialist revolution including nationalizations that have roiled financial markets.
Emboldened by his landslide re-election win, the typically combative anti-U.S. leader has gone on the attack, deciding to strip a private opposition TV channel of its license and take over some major companies owned by foreign investors.
“Fatherland, socialism or death — I take the oath,” Chavez said.
Investors took fright this week at the leftist drive that further consolidates power in the hands of a former coup leader who already controls Congress, the courts and says he has total support in the army and the giant state oil company.
As the United States criticized Chavez’s moves against private property, the stock market lost almost a fifth of its value on Tuesday, debt prices tumbled to a six-week low and the currency changed hands at nearly twice the official rate
Still, buoyed by strong oil revenues and high popularity, the leader, who calls Cuban President Fidel Castro his mentor, is expected to ride out any economic and political storm.
In his political career, the former army officer has survived jail, a coup and a recall referendum.
Chavez wants to lead for years to come
A leading anti-U.S. voice in the world and in the vanguard of a shift to the left in Latin America, Chavez now wants to scrap term limits and lead the OPEC nation for decades.
New Vice President Jorge Rodriguez sought to calm Venezuelans’ nerves over the economic turmoil.
“The stock exchange is more solid than ever. ... It’s nothing,” he told reporters.
Chavez, who rode to Congress for the swearing-in ceremony in an open-top car waving at crowds of supporters, highlighted on Monday his new term’s plans, such as stripping the central bank of its autonomy and taking on special legislative powers.
The opposition has accused Chavez, in power since 1999, of seeking to transform the fourth-biggest oil exporter to the United States into a Cuban-style centralized economy.
“Chavez interprets the election result as giving him a blank check to develop a program that runs against the interests of Venezuela and only serves to benefit himself,” Omar Barboza, a leading opposition official, told Reuters.
I told you scraping term limits will be next on his agenda. He wants to be a dictator. During his lifetime, he is going to dig a hole so deep for venezuela it is going to take 100 years to get it out of it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16559935/
Chavez now wants to scrap term limits and lead the OPEC nation for decades.
CARACAS, Venezuela - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was sworn in Wednesday for a new six-year term that he vows to use to press a radical socialist revolution including nationalizations that have roiled financial markets.
Emboldened by his landslide re-election win, the typically combative anti-U.S. leader has gone on the attack, deciding to strip a private opposition TV channel of its license and take over some major companies owned by foreign investors.
“Fatherland, socialism or death — I take the oath,” Chavez said.
Investors took fright this week at the leftist drive that further consolidates power in the hands of a former coup leader who already controls Congress, the courts and says he has total support in the army and the giant state oil company.
As the United States criticized Chavez’s moves against private property, the stock market lost almost a fifth of its value on Tuesday, debt prices tumbled to a six-week low and the currency changed hands at nearly twice the official rate
Still, buoyed by strong oil revenues and high popularity, the leader, who calls Cuban President Fidel Castro his mentor, is expected to ride out any economic and political storm.
In his political career, the former army officer has survived jail, a coup and a recall referendum.
Chavez wants to lead for years to come
A leading anti-U.S. voice in the world and in the vanguard of a shift to the left in Latin America, Chavez now wants to scrap term limits and lead the OPEC nation for decades.
New Vice President Jorge Rodriguez sought to calm Venezuelans’ nerves over the economic turmoil.
“The stock exchange is more solid than ever. ... It’s nothing,” he told reporters.
Chavez, who rode to Congress for the swearing-in ceremony in an open-top car waving at crowds of supporters, highlighted on Monday his new term’s plans, such as stripping the central bank of its autonomy and taking on special legislative powers.
The opposition has accused Chavez, in power since 1999, of seeking to transform the fourth-biggest oil exporter to the United States into a Cuban-style centralized economy.
“Chavez interprets the election result as giving him a blank check to develop a program that runs against the interests of Venezuela and only serves to benefit himself,” Omar Barboza, a leading opposition official, told Reuters.
I see some of you are taken part in the character assassination attempt of Chavez. Mostly negative views from people who clearly don't like the man. Is there anyway to be objective here?
Venezuelan Government Announces $5 Billion for Communal Councils in 2007
Wednesday, Jan 10, 2007
By: Steven Mather - Venezuelanalysis.com
Caracas , January 10, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com)— The Venezuelan government announced Monday that $5 billion dollars will be available for the new participatory democratic institutions the Communal Councils in 2007. The Intergovernmental Fund for Decentralisation (Fides) will be responsible for distributing the money.
The additional money means the funds available to the Communal Councils will more than triple the $1.5 billion of 2006. Part of the increase can be accounted for due to the expected increase in the number of Communal Councils in Venezuela.
At the end of last year there were a reported 13,000 across the country. This is expected to increase to 21,000 by the end of this year.
The Communal Councils came into being in April 2006 with the passing of the Communal Council Law by the National Assembly. They are intended to provide a participatory democratic body for communities to manage and develop themselves. Prior to the law being introduced there were separate projects such as the Social Missions and the Urban Land Committees.
The new institution is designed to pull these distinct programmes together so a strategic view can be taken of what the community needs as a whole. The funds will be for education, construction, transport, health, agriculture and housing related projects.
According to the president of Fides Richard Canán how much money is made available to specific Communal Councils will depend in large part on how it performs in managing and planning the resources it obtains, “If the projects are cross community managed they will be given more and if the community uses the funds well there will also be more money for new projects”, he said.
The idea is that there is a community of around 200 – 400 families for each Communal Council and all members of each community over the age of 15 can participate in the process and put forward ideas for development.
In a speech on Monday Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez suggested that as the Communal Councils spread they will also deepen and will become the new Venezuelan state taking over what he described as the old “bourgeois state”.
Increased International Reserve Funds Available for Development Projects
As the international reserves continue growing at the Venezuelan Central Bank (BCV) an additional $7 billion will be designated to the Venezuelan National Development Fund (Fonden), President Hugo Chávez said last week.
The government requires that the BCV achieves and ‘optimum’ level of reserves each year which it must accomplish along side setting interests and reaching inflation targets. Any surplus is transferred to Fonden, which uses it for industrial development. The monies can only be spent on foreign purchases or the paying off of Venezuela’s external debt.
According to President Chavez in an announcement earlier this week the BCV is to be brought under the direct control of the government.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2188
Venezuelan Government Announces $5 Billion for Communal Councils in 2007
Wednesday, Jan 10, 2007
By: Steven Mather - Venezuelanalysis.com
Caracas , January 10, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com)— The Venezuelan government announced Monday that $5 billion dollars will be available for the new participatory democratic institutions the Communal Councils in 2007. The Intergovernmental Fund for Decentralisation (Fides) will be responsible for distributing the money.
The additional money means the funds available to the Communal Councils will more than triple the $1.5 billion of 2006. Part of the increase can be accounted for due to the expected increase in the number of Communal Councils in Venezuela.
At the end of last year there were a reported 13,000 across the country. This is expected to increase to 21,000 by the end of this year.
The Communal Councils came into being in April 2006 with the passing of the Communal Council Law by the National Assembly. They are intended to provide a participatory democratic body for communities to manage and develop themselves. Prior to the law being introduced there were separate projects such as the Social Missions and the Urban Land Committees.
The new institution is designed to pull these distinct programmes together so a strategic view can be taken of what the community needs as a whole. The funds will be for education, construction, transport, health, agriculture and housing related projects.
According to the president of Fides Richard Canán how much money is made available to specific Communal Councils will depend in large part on how it performs in managing and planning the resources it obtains, “If the projects are cross community managed they will be given more and if the community uses the funds well there will also be more money for new projects”, he said.
The idea is that there is a community of around 200 – 400 families for each Communal Council and all members of each community over the age of 15 can participate in the process and put forward ideas for development.
In a speech on Monday Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez suggested that as the Communal Councils spread they will also deepen and will become the new Venezuelan state taking over what he described as the old “bourgeois state”.
Increased International Reserve Funds Available for Development Projects
As the international reserves continue growing at the Venezuelan Central Bank (BCV) an additional $7 billion will be designated to the Venezuelan National Development Fund (Fonden), President Hugo Chávez said last week.
The government requires that the BCV achieves and ‘optimum’ level of reserves each year which it must accomplish along side setting interests and reaching inflation targets. Any surplus is transferred to Fonden, which uses it for industrial development. The monies can only be spent on foreign purchases or the paying off of Venezuela’s external debt.
According to President Chavez in an announcement earlier this week the BCV is to be brought under the direct control of the government.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2188
Last edited:
The Case of Venezuela's RCTV
Saturday, Jan 13, 2007
By: George Ciccariello-Maher - CounterPunch
No single news item emerging from Venezuela has made foreigners, and especially North Americans, more queasy than the recent decision by the Chávez government not to renew the broadcasting concession previously granted to Radio Caracas Television (RCTV). Perhaps with some justification, many have a severe allergy to anything that smells of an attack on "free speech." Such hyper-sensitivity, however, obscures a crucial detail of the matter: the non-renewal of RCTV's concession is simply not about free speech.
The claims of the opposition and the foreign press, which assert a veritable "trampling" of human rights and press freedom, rest on a series of faulty claims:
1.) The Venezuelan government is behaving abnormally.
Central to the opposition's framing of the issue is the broad background of a slide toward authoritarianism and fascism. According to many, Venezuela has stepped decidedly outside the democratic norms governing behavior in the post-Cold War world, and the non-renewal of RCTV's concession is proof of this ab-normality.
This, however, could not be further from the case. The Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 does boast the most stringent requirements imposed by any constitution on the private media, enforcing above all a broad notion of "responsibility" on the latter. Media magnates have expressed a clear concern over this provision, and with good reason, since they had been operating irresponsibly for quite some time.
Were this constitutional provision fully enforced and legislated, the private media might be able to claim that their existence is somehow more difficult than other media outlets the world over. But as it stands, legal requirements and enforcement are hardly out of the ordinary. The Ley Resorte, or media responsibility law, has as its objective the "social responsibility of radio and television service providers," and has been credited with both protecting the rights of children and increasing the amount of domestically-produced programming.
However, the idea that media concessions entail responsibility is not at all unique. Even the U.S. FCC maintains a similar position, notwithstanding the swift de-regulation during the early years of the Reagan administration. As we all know, the FCC maintains certain content restrictions on broadcasting (more strict, it should be mentioned, than in many European nations), and is not unwilling to silence those who infringe upon these restrictions. Moreover, ever since the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction," the enforcement of such restrictions has been ratcheted up (as in, e.g., FCC efforts to shut down infamous radio host Howard Stern, not to mention the continuous closure of smaller outfits).
And we are only speaking here of so-called "obscenity," which doesn't even compare to the charges against RCTV, which as is well-known, actively participated in a conspiracy which brought about several deaths and used those deaths to provoke a coup in April of 2002. This was followed by an equally active participation in the oil sabotage of December of the same year, which crippled the Venezuelan economy toward the same end.
While this provides little justification, it is worth mentioning how many FBI visits have been occasioned by "threats" against George W. Bush, despite the fact that these have been isolated and individual incidents, not the sort of organized rebellion and premeditated murder endorsed by the Venezuelan media.
2.) "Human rights" are being violated.
In his first significant intervention since being named vice president, Jorge Rodriguez spoke on the subject of RCTV at the swearing-in of Chávez's new ministerial train. He began from the dictionary definition of "concession": "the juridical means by which the administration cedes to a person the privative use of something in the public domain, or the management of a public service, for a determinate period of time and under certain conditions." Rodríguez added that "this is not Hugo Chávez saying this, this is in the dictionary."
And yet opposition media outlets attempt to paint the issue of the non-renewal of a concession as the violation of a human right. This "right" presumably means the right of a large private media conglomerate to have unrestricted access to a public good, to use and abuse this public good for profit without acquiring any responsibility. When RCTV head Marcel Granier wants to tug on liberal heartstrings, he adds in the claim that the human rights of the workers are being violated.
Yes, you heard right, RCTV (a division of business group 1BC) is concerned above all with their workers' rights. The government has been quick to point out in response that the concession is not being denied to the workers, and has actively encouraged RCTV workers to organize into a collective and request that the concession be granted to themselves.
3.) The government is "closing" a media outlet.
Many, moreover, have claimed that the government is unilaterally "closing" a media outlet, and that to do so represents a sort of quantitative attack on free speech. The fewer media outlets there are, so the argument goes, the less free the press.
As dubious as such arguments are in and of themselves, it should be clear that they don't even apply to the situation in question. Channel 2 is not being closed; broadcasts will continue. The concession to one private corporation is not being renewed, and will instead be granted to either another private corporation, a mixed public-private corporation, a collective of workers, or some other combination.
In his speech, Rodriguez was clear on this point: "Is the Bolivarian government closing down a television station? Is it violating the freedom of expression? No, it's not even revoking a concession The only television station that was closed during the eight years of this government was Venezolana de Televisión on that tragic night of April 11th."
Despite the current rhetoric, the media magnates running RCTV as well as other opposition outlets like Venevisión and Globovisión demonstrated little concern for "free speech" when they supported this short-lived coup d'etat which immediately closed down the only media outlet representing the poorest majority of the population (as well as various community media outlets like Catia-TV).
Indeed, the very fact that RCTV will be free to continue cable and satellite broadcasts demonstrates that what is at issue is the privative use of a public good (see #2 above) rather than the "silencing" of a media outlet.
4.) The gesture is "anti-democratic."
The claim that the non-renewal of RCTV's concession violates democratic norms is very much tied into those claims mentioned above, as it similarly invokes an indisputable "right" that private corporations have to a public good.
Speaking on Vive TV, influential Venezuelan intellectual Luis Britto García recently made clear that this is indeed a question of democracy, but one which runs contrary to the claims of the opposition media. The non-renewal of RCTV's concession is a step toward the democratization of the airwaves. What socialism could we be constructing, asked Britto, and especially what sort of democratic socialism, if access to the airwaves remained in the hands of a small oligopoly of magnates with international backers?
What could be more democratic than handing Channel 2 over to the 63 percent of Venezuelans who voted for Chávez? What could be more democratic than allowing RCTV workers to organize their own station? And what could be more democratic than allowing access to the airwaves for those traditionally excluded by the media oligarchy?
And, it should be mentioned, if we are speaking of "democracy," RCTV head Marcel Granier has little to say. After all, he and other media leaders actively participated in an anti-democratic and oligarchic coup against a repeatedly-confirmed democratic leader in April of 2002 (for an overview of the role of the media in the coup, see the film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised).
5.) In short, this is an issue of "free speech."
In a recent statement, the head of the Organization of American States, José Miguel Insulza, criticized the Venezuelan government for undermining "the pluralism of the media." Despite recognizing that this is an issue of domestic juridical competencies, Insulza nevertheless felt comfortable arguing that the move "seems to be a form of censorship against the freedom of expression."
Hugo Chávez replied in trademark style: "Insulza is an idiot, from the 'i' to the 't'." The Venezuelan government has interpreted the OAS chief's words as an intervention into what is a sovereign issue, and has called for his resignation (we should bear in mind that Venezuela was among those nations who fought the hard battle to get Insulza confirmed for the position in the first place).
If there remained any doubt about the issue, about whether the non-renewal of RCTV's concession constitutes an attack on free speech, one need only follow the logic of such an argument. In a session of the National Assembly devoted to discussing Insulza's comments, an MVR deputy did just that, pointing out that the OAS head would have Venezuela restore other similar "concessions," specifically those traditionally granted to the multinational oil companies who had looted Venezuela for decades.
There is no qualitative difference between the two sort of concession: both have been traditionally and undemocratically granted to large corporations which have been given free rein to reap unlimited profits from what is undeniably a public good. No, this is not a question of "free speech," but rather in the words of Venezuelan foreign minister Nicolás Maduro, it's about "revoking the disgusting privileges of a communications oligarchy allied with international financiers."
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1932
Saturday, Jan 13, 2007
By: George Ciccariello-Maher - CounterPunch
No single news item emerging from Venezuela has made foreigners, and especially North Americans, more queasy than the recent decision by the Chávez government not to renew the broadcasting concession previously granted to Radio Caracas Television (RCTV). Perhaps with some justification, many have a severe allergy to anything that smells of an attack on "free speech." Such hyper-sensitivity, however, obscures a crucial detail of the matter: the non-renewal of RCTV's concession is simply not about free speech.
The claims of the opposition and the foreign press, which assert a veritable "trampling" of human rights and press freedom, rest on a series of faulty claims:
1.) The Venezuelan government is behaving abnormally.
Central to the opposition's framing of the issue is the broad background of a slide toward authoritarianism and fascism. According to many, Venezuela has stepped decidedly outside the democratic norms governing behavior in the post-Cold War world, and the non-renewal of RCTV's concession is proof of this ab-normality.
This, however, could not be further from the case. The Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 does boast the most stringent requirements imposed by any constitution on the private media, enforcing above all a broad notion of "responsibility" on the latter. Media magnates have expressed a clear concern over this provision, and with good reason, since they had been operating irresponsibly for quite some time.
Were this constitutional provision fully enforced and legislated, the private media might be able to claim that their existence is somehow more difficult than other media outlets the world over. But as it stands, legal requirements and enforcement are hardly out of the ordinary. The Ley Resorte, or media responsibility law, has as its objective the "social responsibility of radio and television service providers," and has been credited with both protecting the rights of children and increasing the amount of domestically-produced programming.
However, the idea that media concessions entail responsibility is not at all unique. Even the U.S. FCC maintains a similar position, notwithstanding the swift de-regulation during the early years of the Reagan administration. As we all know, the FCC maintains certain content restrictions on broadcasting (more strict, it should be mentioned, than in many European nations), and is not unwilling to silence those who infringe upon these restrictions. Moreover, ever since the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction," the enforcement of such restrictions has been ratcheted up (as in, e.g., FCC efforts to shut down infamous radio host Howard Stern, not to mention the continuous closure of smaller outfits).
And we are only speaking here of so-called "obscenity," which doesn't even compare to the charges against RCTV, which as is well-known, actively participated in a conspiracy which brought about several deaths and used those deaths to provoke a coup in April of 2002. This was followed by an equally active participation in the oil sabotage of December of the same year, which crippled the Venezuelan economy toward the same end.
While this provides little justification, it is worth mentioning how many FBI visits have been occasioned by "threats" against George W. Bush, despite the fact that these have been isolated and individual incidents, not the sort of organized rebellion and premeditated murder endorsed by the Venezuelan media.
2.) "Human rights" are being violated.
In his first significant intervention since being named vice president, Jorge Rodriguez spoke on the subject of RCTV at the swearing-in of Chávez's new ministerial train. He began from the dictionary definition of "concession": "the juridical means by which the administration cedes to a person the privative use of something in the public domain, or the management of a public service, for a determinate period of time and under certain conditions." Rodríguez added that "this is not Hugo Chávez saying this, this is in the dictionary."
And yet opposition media outlets attempt to paint the issue of the non-renewal of a concession as the violation of a human right. This "right" presumably means the right of a large private media conglomerate to have unrestricted access to a public good, to use and abuse this public good for profit without acquiring any responsibility. When RCTV head Marcel Granier wants to tug on liberal heartstrings, he adds in the claim that the human rights of the workers are being violated.
Yes, you heard right, RCTV (a division of business group 1BC) is concerned above all with their workers' rights. The government has been quick to point out in response that the concession is not being denied to the workers, and has actively encouraged RCTV workers to organize into a collective and request that the concession be granted to themselves.
3.) The government is "closing" a media outlet.
Many, moreover, have claimed that the government is unilaterally "closing" a media outlet, and that to do so represents a sort of quantitative attack on free speech. The fewer media outlets there are, so the argument goes, the less free the press.
As dubious as such arguments are in and of themselves, it should be clear that they don't even apply to the situation in question. Channel 2 is not being closed; broadcasts will continue. The concession to one private corporation is not being renewed, and will instead be granted to either another private corporation, a mixed public-private corporation, a collective of workers, or some other combination.
In his speech, Rodriguez was clear on this point: "Is the Bolivarian government closing down a television station? Is it violating the freedom of expression? No, it's not even revoking a concession The only television station that was closed during the eight years of this government was Venezolana de Televisión on that tragic night of April 11th."
Despite the current rhetoric, the media magnates running RCTV as well as other opposition outlets like Venevisión and Globovisión demonstrated little concern for "free speech" when they supported this short-lived coup d'etat which immediately closed down the only media outlet representing the poorest majority of the population (as well as various community media outlets like Catia-TV).
Indeed, the very fact that RCTV will be free to continue cable and satellite broadcasts demonstrates that what is at issue is the privative use of a public good (see #2 above) rather than the "silencing" of a media outlet.
4.) The gesture is "anti-democratic."
The claim that the non-renewal of RCTV's concession violates democratic norms is very much tied into those claims mentioned above, as it similarly invokes an indisputable "right" that private corporations have to a public good.
Speaking on Vive TV, influential Venezuelan intellectual Luis Britto García recently made clear that this is indeed a question of democracy, but one which runs contrary to the claims of the opposition media. The non-renewal of RCTV's concession is a step toward the democratization of the airwaves. What socialism could we be constructing, asked Britto, and especially what sort of democratic socialism, if access to the airwaves remained in the hands of a small oligopoly of magnates with international backers?
What could be more democratic than handing Channel 2 over to the 63 percent of Venezuelans who voted for Chávez? What could be more democratic than allowing RCTV workers to organize their own station? And what could be more democratic than allowing access to the airwaves for those traditionally excluded by the media oligarchy?
And, it should be mentioned, if we are speaking of "democracy," RCTV head Marcel Granier has little to say. After all, he and other media leaders actively participated in an anti-democratic and oligarchic coup against a repeatedly-confirmed democratic leader in April of 2002 (for an overview of the role of the media in the coup, see the film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised).
5.) In short, this is an issue of "free speech."
In a recent statement, the head of the Organization of American States, José Miguel Insulza, criticized the Venezuelan government for undermining "the pluralism of the media." Despite recognizing that this is an issue of domestic juridical competencies, Insulza nevertheless felt comfortable arguing that the move "seems to be a form of censorship against the freedom of expression."
Hugo Chávez replied in trademark style: "Insulza is an idiot, from the 'i' to the 't'." The Venezuelan government has interpreted the OAS chief's words as an intervention into what is a sovereign issue, and has called for his resignation (we should bear in mind that Venezuela was among those nations who fought the hard battle to get Insulza confirmed for the position in the first place).
If there remained any doubt about the issue, about whether the non-renewal of RCTV's concession constitutes an attack on free speech, one need only follow the logic of such an argument. In a session of the National Assembly devoted to discussing Insulza's comments, an MVR deputy did just that, pointing out that the OAS head would have Venezuela restore other similar "concessions," specifically those traditionally granted to the multinational oil companies who had looted Venezuela for decades.
There is no qualitative difference between the two sort of concession: both have been traditionally and undemocratically granted to large corporations which have been given free rein to reap unlimited profits from what is undeniably a public good. No, this is not a question of "free speech," but rather in the words of Venezuelan foreign minister Nicolás Maduro, it's about "revoking the disgusting privileges of a communications oligarchy allied with international financiers."
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1932
Hardballa said:
I wont even comment on the socialist side of this situation and this post you just made in terms of him giving assistance to the poor.
However, where do you live...in terms of the objective statement that you made.
I currently live in South America so the info that I have been reading or the coverage I see on TV is not from the biased U.S. point of view. If other people spoke portuguese here I would post it. Chavez has even nationalized companies that were Brasilian owned and he is on shaky terms with government of Brasil as well. He is a hardcore leftist who is going to take the country backwards with his revolution.
Man i think that all of those South American countries are gonna 1 day unite and attack us. All this time were looking at the middle east as a problem now we got another 1 rising bleow us.
Eewwl, you are simply repeating the rhetoric of the info you have been reading and the TV coverage of the subject without any personal research and in depth look into the perspective of this new economic model which is just as valid as capitalism but generates fear and contempt for those unfamiliar with an economic system that is supposedly doomed to failure.
I’m leafing through <A href = " http://www.progressiveliving.org/economics_frameset.htm" >Gar Alperowitz’s</A> latest book. According to Alperowitz, Chavez is pretty much doing what the founder of monetarism, <A href =" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Simons">Henry Simons</A> would have done in his position.
I quote:
Simons analyzed the underlying logic of power and came to the conclusion that “regulatory strategies” involved the worst of all solutions. Even public ownership was better, he felt – even from the perspective of free-market theory. At least it provided for public disclosure of information and open oversight. The state, Simons proposed “should face the necessity of actually taking over, owning and managing directly..industries in which it is impossible to maintain effectively competitive conditions.” Likely candidates included railroads, “utilities, oil extraction, life insurance, etc…”
Faced with monopoly control and corporate concentration, Chavez is creating the conditions for the market to work in those areas where competition can be ensured.
I’m leafing through <A href = " http://www.progressiveliving.org/economics_frameset.htm" >Gar Alperowitz’s</A> latest book. According to Alperowitz, Chavez is pretty much doing what the founder of monetarism, <A href =" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Simons">Henry Simons</A> would have done in his position.
I quote:
Simons analyzed the underlying logic of power and came to the conclusion that “regulatory strategies” involved the worst of all solutions. Even public ownership was better, he felt – even from the perspective of free-market theory. At least it provided for public disclosure of information and open oversight. The state, Simons proposed “should face the necessity of actually taking over, owning and managing directly..industries in which it is impossible to maintain effectively competitive conditions.” Likely candidates included railroads, “utilities, oil extraction, life insurance, etc…”
Faced with monopoly control and corporate concentration, Chavez is creating the conditions for the market to work in those areas where competition can be ensured.
Hardballa said:
First of all champ, you need to do a search on my ID. This was a post to Makk as we have discussed this Vez. thing.. now ask Makk what happened to the last dude who just came at me all disrespectful as opposed to trying to have a nice discussion without making idiotic assumptions. I am going to point you here to help you out. Now take a look at this post.. page 2-4 and determine if you think I comment on something if I dont think I am qualified to comment on it.
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=144320
Your assumption that this is a new economic model is about as correct as your silly ass assumption that I have not done any personal research on this subject matter.
I dont regurgitate rhetoric. If you want to have a debate in regards to socialism vs. capitalism... be my guest. This will be an easy debate as all historical and economical evidence, etc will be on my side. Once can even look at North and South Korea or East and West Berlin as glaringly obvious examples of the blatant product of the two opposing implementations with equal starting points. There are countless case studies about those two example. But I am going to save you some work because you wont find a successful implementations of socialism anywhere. I am quite versed on social-economic systems brah.
The Bolivarian revolution is nothing but a form of socialism..nothing new about it... a spin of the same coin. It will land the same way EVERY socialist system has ended in history.
Do you really want to put forth an argument for any form of socialism or statism for that matter producing a sound economic environment that protects individual rights, property rights, produces a steady increase in GDP, etc.
Put forth your argument. I am going to warn you though. I am going to chew that shit up so badly you will never again believe in the concept.
I want to see if you can even come up with a good premise. Because a good argument is only as good as its premise. You cant even build a real argument on a faulty premise.
The fact that you sent a link from a progressive economics site makes me question if you have not already been thoroughly brainwashed into believing that this Bolivarian Revolution is anything different than brethren of socialism and communism...nothing but another form of statism..and it will have the fate of all forms of statism. The irony is that not only is fundamentally flawed from a socio-economical perspective, the most important flaws are moral..right down to the fiber...
I dont find it ironic that site tries to spin the real definition of socialism... much less they fail to identify that rights... property rights, etc.. are not subjective and a society must be ruled by objective values that protect rights such as property rights, etc. The audacity for a person to promote a system of communal rights in a society that has no individual rights is about the most ironic thing in the world. As if a system that protects none can protect all... it is a complete and utter contradiction in terms right down to its very core.
If you want to learn about real economic principles, put that trash down and pick up some Menger, Mises, Friedrick Hayek, etc... some Austrian economics. I would even recommend some Keynesian... not because it is the best but because it has been the most influential on U.S. policy and gives insight into policy that directly affects your life. Then pick up some Friedman and learn about neoclassical economics...and observe how Friedman identified the real flaws of Keynesian economics.
Then come back with some economics knowledge.
All of your major proponents of all the forms of statism: Karl Marx, Frantz Fanon, Lenin, Mao Zedong, Trotsky, etc have been proven wrong over and over again. All your movements of Luddites, Shakers, Utopian Socialists,etc have been proven wrong. Any problems claimed to be associated with capitalism include such unfair and inefficient distribution of wealth and power... a tendency toward market monopoly or oligopoly... imperialism, various forms of economic exploitation.. social alienation, inequality, unemployment, and economic instability..etc are all amplified and exponentially more problematic in ALL forms of statism and most..such as unemployment brought to inconsequential levels in comparison to their opposing state controlled economies.
What Chavez is implementing will have the same results of every other implementation of statism in history... more corruption and ineptness than it claims to be erasing.
And do some research on a persons user ID before you assume what they know and dont know. I have enough of them for you to figure out something.
especially the biased point of view part.. I dont even live in the U.S. right now.. I live in South America... I get the point of view of South Americans in spanish and portuguese languages.. very far from non-objective FOX news type sources.
at assuming ass mofosHardballa said:
How so... because of its results, its economic principles, empirical data,.. or because you feel it must be just as good...
Provide ANYTHING.. a case study, results, empirical data, etc beyond progressive-economics blabber that would lead anyone with a sound rational mind that this not only anything different that any other form of statism and much less even worth mentioning in the same sentence of any form of capitalism.
Remember.. I dont give a shit about your opinion. Post EVIDENCE.
Last edited:
Well ...
This thread has gone on for 4 pages and 159 replies before if finally starts to boil down to something more than "news reports on Chavez" ... thats what most of the posts represent. Gentlemen, I think I am going to enjoy reading whats about to ensue, if it ensues. It begins with a backdrop of the imperfection in all systems yet known to man, punctuated by the relative successes and failures of those very systems.
Hardballa, I'll be honest; I think eewwll has the easier of the case though you've got some mixed systems, i.e., Great Britian and Canada with relative success.
Note: I used the term "Systems" above purposedly to avoid the political/economic which came first the chicken or the egg dichotomies. The way I see it, as Herbert Lasswell defines politics (as who gets what when and how), they're too intertwined to make a difference to me.
Anixously waiting what I am sure will be good arguments for us all to, take note.
QueEx
<font size="4">
P.S.</font size>
Please leave out the personals. That makes it easier to read and appreciate the good arguments without cringing at the defamations (LOL) and everybody can leave with respect for their fellow BGOLers.
`
This thread has gone on for 4 pages and 159 replies before if finally starts to boil down to something more than "news reports on Chavez" ... thats what most of the posts represent. Gentlemen, I think I am going to enjoy reading whats about to ensue, if it ensues. It begins with a backdrop of the imperfection in all systems yet known to man, punctuated by the relative successes and failures of those very systems.
Hardballa, I'll be honest; I think eewwll has the easier of the case though you've got some mixed systems, i.e., Great Britian and Canada with relative success.
Note: I used the term "Systems" above purposedly to avoid the political/economic which came first the chicken or the egg dichotomies. The way I see it, as Herbert Lasswell defines politics (as who gets what when and how), they're too intertwined to make a difference to me.
Anixously waiting what I am sure will be good arguments for us all to, take note.
QueEx
<font size="4">
P.S.</font size>
Please leave out the personals. That makes it easier to read and appreciate the good arguments without cringing at the defamations (LOL) and everybody can leave with respect for their fellow BGOLers.
`
QueEx said:
True... even the U.S. cant be called a pure capitalistic society and it has become much more of a mixed society over the decades. Forms of socialism has never been eradicated especially after THE NEW DEAL...which introduced large socialistic based systems like welfare, etc. We are definitely a mixed-economy as well.
I will leave the personals out as well. But homeboy comes in and just based on a couple of articles started talking out of his ass as if he is the only person in the world with the ability to put his hands on a book.
Also.. ALL socialist manifestos have been nothing but fantasy land concoctions. The reality has always been different from the fantasy world documentation that professes what it can do.. mainly because they forget to include the most important premise.
Last edited:
Very hard indeed to find a successful socialist society in history. The real issue at point here is how to find a way to share wealth more equaly through a combination of the various systems if it may be the case to pull a country from its mass poverty.
I guess the problem is democracy, not nationalization per se. Some nationalized industries work fine, usually in democratic societies where the government is jolted into competence every now and then by civil society, the electorate and the media. Though the important thing is that to have working publicly owned utilities/services you need an engaged citizenry, a flexible political system and the courage to admit when your model isn’t working out.
Then there’s the difference between state run operations and employee run (or even owned) operations. Chavez is removing the top layer of investors/management. Will he recreate the hierarchical structure of the businesses, but with a “nationalised” brand?
He talks quite a bit about employee owned factories, workplace democracy etc… Things are being done in that direction, but it’s a massive challenge and a long-term process. I guess what hasn’t been mentioned too much is the educational side of things. Are workers getting managerial training, accountancy etc….? Is a political consciousness rising based on self-management, public interest and the cultural changes Venezuela will need to recreate its economy?
I guess the problem is democracy, not nationalization per se. Some nationalized industries work fine, usually in democratic societies where the government is jolted into competence every now and then by civil society, the electorate and the media. Though the important thing is that to have working publicly owned utilities/services you need an engaged citizenry, a flexible political system and the courage to admit when your model isn’t working out.
Then there’s the difference between state run operations and employee run (or even owned) operations. Chavez is removing the top layer of investors/management. Will he recreate the hierarchical structure of the businesses, but with a “nationalised” brand?
He talks quite a bit about employee owned factories, workplace democracy etc… Things are being done in that direction, but it’s a massive challenge and a long-term process. I guess what hasn’t been mentioned too much is the educational side of things. Are workers getting managerial training, accountancy etc….? Is a political consciousness rising based on self-management, public interest and the cultural changes Venezuela will need to recreate its economy?
Great. Let us have a nice clean discussion.
I think this will be perpetual. If this question is asked a thousand years from now, it will still be a separation between the dream and then the reality of socialism.
I just find it hard to understand..especially from a person who just admits he cant find a success story.. as to why you would rally behind a concept that has a proven 100 percent failure rate. What has tricked you into it. You just admitted you could not produce 1 success story. This system has been around in some form of another for quite some time and been through countless implementations and continues to fail and fail miserable on all capacities.
So if it has a 100 percent failure rate, how do you expect it to miraculously turn Venezuela around.
Would you ever consider that leaders who push socialist manifestos may have alterior motives. Would you ever consider that the power that comes from centralized industry, press, etc is awfully tempting to a the person who controls the central system. Maybe this is a consolidation of power under the guise of helping the people. Chavez certainly will have not have been the first leftist leader to go after running the rackets.
Just think about that. You would not take anything Bush and co. says as face value. Why wont you question Chavez. They are all power mongers.. but this socialist lingo only goes down own road and it always has the same destination... a poorer population redistributing an ever dwindling communal resource pool which was never a national resource in the first place...like the media.
We wont even get into epistimology and philosophical flaws of Socialism... we can just look at the results.. but i must warn you..the philosophical flaws are even more damning than the real world results.
How does socialization and nationalization help pull a country of out poverty. If anything, a more open and free market what support entrepreneuralism and enterprise will produce an economy that increases the living standard. Historical and contemporary evidence illustrates this clearly.
I am sorry. You have not made it clear why democracy is the problem here. What do you mean be a flexible political system. Do you also mean flexible linguistically as that statement can mean a million different things. Be explicit.
Have you ever seen a company run without its brain. Factory workers dont run the company... you need the brains of the organization. To remove the top layer of management and investors it to claim that a body can function solely on its heart and not its brain. But this is not even the issue.
What does political consciousness have to do with nationalizing private corporations. Who has ever made the claim that state run economies produce employees that have been managerial training,etc. have you ever really done the research on state run economies and nationalization....they produce a vomit of inefficiency and ineptness so much so that is a overwhelming characteristic of state run economies...they NEVER commit with their free-market counterparts on ANY metrics.
You have yet to say why this bolivarian revolution will create any different results that any other socialistic manifesto. What makes this different.
Hardballa said:
I think this will be perpetual. If this question is asked a thousand years from now, it will still be a separation between the dream and then the reality of socialism.
I just find it hard to understand..especially from a person who just admits he cant find a success story.. as to why you would rally behind a concept that has a proven 100 percent failure rate. What has tricked you into it. You just admitted you could not produce 1 success story. This system has been around in some form of another for quite some time and been through countless implementations and continues to fail and fail miserable on all capacities.
So if it has a 100 percent failure rate, how do you expect it to miraculously turn Venezuela around.
Would you ever consider that leaders who push socialist manifestos may have alterior motives. Would you ever consider that the power that comes from centralized industry, press, etc is awfully tempting to a the person who controls the central system. Maybe this is a consolidation of power under the guise of helping the people. Chavez certainly will have not have been the first leftist leader to go after running the rackets.
Just think about that. You would not take anything Bush and co. says as face value. Why wont you question Chavez. They are all power mongers.. but this socialist lingo only goes down own road and it always has the same destination... a poorer population redistributing an ever dwindling communal resource pool which was never a national resource in the first place...like the media.
We wont even get into epistimology and philosophical flaws of Socialism... we can just look at the results.. but i must warn you..the philosophical flaws are even more damning than the real world results.
Hardballa said:
How does socialization and nationalization help pull a country of out poverty. If anything, a more open and free market what support entrepreneuralism and enterprise will produce an economy that increases the living standard. Historical and contemporary evidence illustrates this clearly.
Hardballa said:
I am sorry. You have not made it clear why democracy is the problem here. What do you mean be a flexible political system. Do you also mean flexible linguistically as that statement can mean a million different things. Be explicit.
Hardballa said:
Have you ever seen a company run without its brain. Factory workers dont run the company... you need the brains of the organization. To remove the top layer of management and investors it to claim that a body can function solely on its heart and not its brain. But this is not even the issue.
Hardballa said:
Hardballa said:
What does political consciousness have to do with nationalizing private corporations. Who has ever made the claim that state run economies produce employees that have been managerial training,etc. have you ever really done the research on state run economies and nationalization....they produce a vomit of inefficiency and ineptness so much so that is a overwhelming characteristic of state run economies...they NEVER commit with their free-market counterparts on ANY metrics.
You have yet to say why this bolivarian revolution will create any different results that any other socialistic manifesto. What makes this different.
Last edited:
The type of system currently implemented in Venezuela is totally valid ideologically. Especially when you take into consideration how neo-liberal policies have caused devastating financial crises that increased poverty and inequality in many latin American countries. No one can tell if the new measures taken to change Venezuela's system will be successful but it's definitely worth a try, assuming Chavez is the right man. Here is a passage of an article that helps describe this so called alternative to capitalism:
Firstly, what constitutes a real alternative to capitalism? I suggest that it is a society in which the explicit goal is not the growth of capital or of the material means of production but, rather, human development itself--- the growth of human capacities. We can see this perspective embodied in the Bolivarian Constitution of Venezuela--- in Article 299's emphasis upon 'ensuring overall human development', in the declaration of Article 20 that 'everyone has the right to the free development of his or her own personality' and in the focus of Article 102 upon 'developing the creative potential of every human being and the full exercise of his or her personality in a democratic society.'
In these passages (which are by no means the whole of that constitution), there is the conception of a real alternative--- a social economy whose logic is not the logic of capital. 'The social economy,' President Hugo Chavez said in September 2003, 'bases its logic on the human being, on work, that is to say, on the worker and the worker's family, that is to say, in the human being.' That social economy, he continued, does not focus on economic gain, on exchange values; rather, 'the social economy generates mainly use-value.' Its purpose is 'the construction of the new man, of the new woman, of the new society.'
Beautiful ideas. Beautiful words. But, of course, only ideas and words. The first set comes from a constitution and the second, from the regular national educational seminar known as 'Alo Presidente'. How can such ideas and words be made real? I want to propose four preconditions for the realisation of this alternative to capitalism and then want to talk about what has occurred in Venezuela.
(1) Any discussion of structural change must begin from an understanding of the existing structure--- in short, from an understanding of capitalism. We need to grasp that the logic of capital, the logic in which profit rather than satisfaction of the needs of human beings is the goal, dominates both where it fosters the comparative advantage of repression and also where it accepts an increase in slave rations.
(2) It is essential to attack the logic of capital ideologically. In the absence of the development of a mass understanding of the nature of capital--- that capital is the result of the social labour of the collective worker, the need to survive the ravages of neoliberal and repressive policies produces only the desire for a fairer society, the search for a better share for the exploited and excluded--- in short, barbarism with a human face.
(3) A critical aspect in this battle of ideas is the recognition that human capacity develops only through human activity, only through what Marx understood as 'revolutionary practice,' the simultaneous changing of circumstances and self-change. Real human development does not drop from the sky in the form of money to support survival or the expenditures of popular governments upon education and health; nor is it fostered by the petty tutelage and hierarchical decision-making of statist societies. The conception which challenges the logic of capital is one which explicitly recognises the centrality of self-management in the workplace and self-government in the community as the means of unleashing human potential--- i.e., the conception of a social economy, a solidary economy, indeed, of socialism for the 21st century.
(4) But, the idea of this solidary economy cannot displace real capitalism. Nor can dwarfish islands of cooperation change the world by competing successfully against capitalist corporations. You need the power to foster the new productive relations while truncating the reproduction of capitalist productive relations. You need to take the power of the state away from capital, and, you need to use that power when capital responds to encroachments--- when capital goes on strike, you must be prepared to move in rather than give in. Winning 'the battle of democracy' and using 'political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie' remains as critical now as when Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto.
Are these conditions present in the new Latin American governments on the Left? On the contrary. For the most part, the pattern displays the familiar characteristics of social democracy--- which does not understand the nature of capital, does not attack the logic of capital ideologically, does not believe that there is a real alternative to capitalism and, accordingly, gives in when capital threatens to go on strike. While it is too soon at this point to judge the course of developments in Bolivia, let me suggest that something different has been happening in Venezuela. I want to turn to that now--- both what has happened and the current struggles.
The Venezuelan Path
The Bolivarian Constitution does not only stress the goal of human development. It also is unequivocal in indicating that human beings develop their capacity only through their own activity. Not only does Article 62 declare that participation by people is 'the necessary way of achieving the involvement to ensure their complete development, both individual and collective,' but that Constitution specifically focuses upon democratic planning and participatory budgeting at all levels of society and (as in Article 70) upon 'self-management, co-management, cooperatives in all forms' as examples of 'forms of association guided by the values of mutual cooperation and solidarity.'
With its emphasis upon a 'democratic, participatory and protagonistic' society, the Bolivarian Constitution definitely contains the seeds of the solidary economy, the seeds of socialism for the 21st Century; and, those particular elements continue to inspire the Venezuelan masses. Yet, that constitution also guarantees the right of property (Article 115), identifies a role for private initiative in generating growth and employment (299) and calls upon the State to promote private initiative (112). That constitution, in short, supports continued capitalist development, and this was precisely the direction of the initial plan developed for 2001-7. While rejecting neoliberalism and stressing the importance of the State presence in strategic industries, the focus of that plan was to encourage investment by private capital--- both domestic and foreign--- by creating an 'atmosphere of trust'.
To this was to be added the development of a 'social economy'--- conceived as an 'alternative and complementary road' to the private sector and the public sector. But, it is significant how little a role was conceived for the self-managing and cooperative activities by which the 'complete development, both individual and collective' of people was to be achieved. Essentially, this was a programme to incorporate the informal sector into the social economy; it is necessary, the Plan argued, 'to transform the informal workers into small managers.' Accordingly, family, cooperative and self-managed micro-enterprises were to be encouraged through training and micro-financing (from institutions such as the Women's Development Bank) and by reducing regulations and tax burdens. The goal of the State was explicitly described as one of 'creating an emergent managerial class.'
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=LEB20060811&articleId=2945
Firstly, what constitutes a real alternative to capitalism? I suggest that it is a society in which the explicit goal is not the growth of capital or of the material means of production but, rather, human development itself--- the growth of human capacities. We can see this perspective embodied in the Bolivarian Constitution of Venezuela--- in Article 299's emphasis upon 'ensuring overall human development', in the declaration of Article 20 that 'everyone has the right to the free development of his or her own personality' and in the focus of Article 102 upon 'developing the creative potential of every human being and the full exercise of his or her personality in a democratic society.'
In these passages (which are by no means the whole of that constitution), there is the conception of a real alternative--- a social economy whose logic is not the logic of capital. 'The social economy,' President Hugo Chavez said in September 2003, 'bases its logic on the human being, on work, that is to say, on the worker and the worker's family, that is to say, in the human being.' That social economy, he continued, does not focus on economic gain, on exchange values; rather, 'the social economy generates mainly use-value.' Its purpose is 'the construction of the new man, of the new woman, of the new society.'
Beautiful ideas. Beautiful words. But, of course, only ideas and words. The first set comes from a constitution and the second, from the regular national educational seminar known as 'Alo Presidente'. How can such ideas and words be made real? I want to propose four preconditions for the realisation of this alternative to capitalism and then want to talk about what has occurred in Venezuela.
(1) Any discussion of structural change must begin from an understanding of the existing structure--- in short, from an understanding of capitalism. We need to grasp that the logic of capital, the logic in which profit rather than satisfaction of the needs of human beings is the goal, dominates both where it fosters the comparative advantage of repression and also where it accepts an increase in slave rations.
(2) It is essential to attack the logic of capital ideologically. In the absence of the development of a mass understanding of the nature of capital--- that capital is the result of the social labour of the collective worker, the need to survive the ravages of neoliberal and repressive policies produces only the desire for a fairer society, the search for a better share for the exploited and excluded--- in short, barbarism with a human face.
(3) A critical aspect in this battle of ideas is the recognition that human capacity develops only through human activity, only through what Marx understood as 'revolutionary practice,' the simultaneous changing of circumstances and self-change. Real human development does not drop from the sky in the form of money to support survival or the expenditures of popular governments upon education and health; nor is it fostered by the petty tutelage and hierarchical decision-making of statist societies. The conception which challenges the logic of capital is one which explicitly recognises the centrality of self-management in the workplace and self-government in the community as the means of unleashing human potential--- i.e., the conception of a social economy, a solidary economy, indeed, of socialism for the 21st century.
(4) But, the idea of this solidary economy cannot displace real capitalism. Nor can dwarfish islands of cooperation change the world by competing successfully against capitalist corporations. You need the power to foster the new productive relations while truncating the reproduction of capitalist productive relations. You need to take the power of the state away from capital, and, you need to use that power when capital responds to encroachments--- when capital goes on strike, you must be prepared to move in rather than give in. Winning 'the battle of democracy' and using 'political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie' remains as critical now as when Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto.
Are these conditions present in the new Latin American governments on the Left? On the contrary. For the most part, the pattern displays the familiar characteristics of social democracy--- which does not understand the nature of capital, does not attack the logic of capital ideologically, does not believe that there is a real alternative to capitalism and, accordingly, gives in when capital threatens to go on strike. While it is too soon at this point to judge the course of developments in Bolivia, let me suggest that something different has been happening in Venezuela. I want to turn to that now--- both what has happened and the current struggles.
The Venezuelan Path
The Bolivarian Constitution does not only stress the goal of human development. It also is unequivocal in indicating that human beings develop their capacity only through their own activity. Not only does Article 62 declare that participation by people is 'the necessary way of achieving the involvement to ensure their complete development, both individual and collective,' but that Constitution specifically focuses upon democratic planning and participatory budgeting at all levels of society and (as in Article 70) upon 'self-management, co-management, cooperatives in all forms' as examples of 'forms of association guided by the values of mutual cooperation and solidarity.'
With its emphasis upon a 'democratic, participatory and protagonistic' society, the Bolivarian Constitution definitely contains the seeds of the solidary economy, the seeds of socialism for the 21st Century; and, those particular elements continue to inspire the Venezuelan masses. Yet, that constitution also guarantees the right of property (Article 115), identifies a role for private initiative in generating growth and employment (299) and calls upon the State to promote private initiative (112). That constitution, in short, supports continued capitalist development, and this was precisely the direction of the initial plan developed for 2001-7. While rejecting neoliberalism and stressing the importance of the State presence in strategic industries, the focus of that plan was to encourage investment by private capital--- both domestic and foreign--- by creating an 'atmosphere of trust'.
To this was to be added the development of a 'social economy'--- conceived as an 'alternative and complementary road' to the private sector and the public sector. But, it is significant how little a role was conceived for the self-managing and cooperative activities by which the 'complete development, both individual and collective' of people was to be achieved. Essentially, this was a programme to incorporate the informal sector into the social economy; it is necessary, the Plan argued, 'to transform the informal workers into small managers.' Accordingly, family, cooperative and self-managed micro-enterprises were to be encouraged through training and micro-financing (from institutions such as the Women's Development Bank) and by reducing regulations and tax burdens. The goal of the State was explicitly described as one of 'creating an emergent managerial class.'
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=LEB20060811&articleId=2945
Hardballa said:
Hardballa,
How about your write something answering my questions in your own words or analyze this and illustrate how it is truly is a new ideology. I could have posted.. or copy and pasted an endless supply or articles. I hope you realize this article nothing but a regurgitation of the socialist manifesto..nothing more.
In your own words, how is this a totally valid ideology.
In your own words, how is this a valid alternative to capitalism
In your own words, how is this system different from any other form of socialism and how does it expect to product different results.
I am just going to quote a couple of things from that article you posted.
The responsibility of an economic system is not human development. The responsibility of an economic system or in a wider view, a political system is to protect the individual rights of its citizen so that they can conduct trade in terms of economics. Human development is the responsibility of that said individual or the responsibility of the beings that bring that said individual into existence. A GOVERNMENT is responsible for protecting a citizens individual rights (judicial system) , protecting its citizens welfare internally (police system) and protecting its citizens from foreign attacks( armed forces) and any administration or systems put in place should be to support those missions.
Social development is not a governmental responsibility. This is one of many problems with socialist manifestos.
By what right can a government set the human developmental processes of a a nation. By what right can it go about setting the personal values of a nation. The responsibility of a government in the human development process it protecting your rights to setting your own values and practicing them just as long as you do not illegally negate the individual rights of other citizens.
@ the arrogance or any individual or organization that not only thinks it has the right of jurisdiction over human development but the right to essentially define itself as the PARENT of a nation and its citizens as its CHILDREN.
And I am not going to spend the time to give you a philosophical education on this . However, I tell you to read up on OBJECTIVE VALUES.
The hysterical nature of that statement would make me laugh it people did not have the power to implement it. Are you telling me, an Institution..a government, made up of individuals who most likely for the most part are unhappy, in abusive relationships, disfunctional families, and just because they are THE GOVERNMENT, should be given control or input over HUMAN DEVELOPMENT. Human development by its very nature is a relative endevour and could never be fully encapsulated enough objectively to go beyond basic precepts of protecting individual rights(if you are not able to fully grasp individual rights..do a google search because I will refer to them often) By what moral right could anyone come to that conclusion. You have the realize the ridiculous nature of any type of statement like that. Do you realize what you really are conceding when you give an entity or organization say-so much less jurisdiction over human development. What happens when they begin to set values that completely negate your own humanity. I hope you realize that GOVERNMENTS are not omniscient and should never have that type of power in the first place. The sad reality that people first were ruled by THE GODS, or some type of monotheistic DEITY..either way a form of mysticism,..or the DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS, and not they have submitted their will to GOVERNMENTS who dont claim the same mystical powers.. but claim the power of: the AMBASSADORS OF SOCIAL GOOD... for whatever that undefinable, fruits of my whim statement can be taken for..which is anchored to nothing but air. To put it in the words of one of the patriarchs of the ideology: From each according to his ability to each according to his needs. This is the moral premise of all these systems. When you really understand the philosophy of ethics and specifically epistemology.. especially when dealing with individual rights and objective values, you realize that statement has about the same morality as a whoring crackhead who just committed murder.
However, I will give you to insight as to what this means from a philosophical perspective later in this post so you understand why I would even go there.
This biggest mistake that proponents of socialism make is that they believe capitalism has the foundation of capital production as its shining principle. This can be nothing but further from the case. Often, even the proponents of capitalism, really do not understand is philosophical principles.
What they fail to realize is that capital production is the result, not the cause. The cause is alignment with the right to life.. and there is no right to life with the right to private property, and their are no property rights without individual rights... Capitalism in conjunction with democracy is a celebration of in unalienable individual rights.
Socialism speaks of COMMUNAL RIGHTS at the expense of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. I find it ridiculous that people cant easily spot the glaring contradiction. That there can not be COMMUNAL RIGHTS in a society that does not have individual rights. You can not protect 100 when 1 individual has not protection. It is absurd to think so. EVEN the phrase COMMUNAL RIGHTS is a contradiction in terms.. almost as disgusting as the phase: the social good.
[/QUOTE]
I can go line by line and dissect the rest of this rubbish about the Bolivarian Revolution. It is nothing different that any other form of socialism. It is socialism with a different..with a different Con Man... I mean front man at the helm.
I think the major problem you will have in this debate is not even debating the merits of capitalism vs any form of statism.
Let me make a very complex concept simple. When you speak of socialism and capitalism, you are speaking of an entity. Even more clearly... an END product. Having a debate about capitalism vs socialism is the equivalent of having a debate about mammals vs reptiles. But being able to identity a mammal or reptile to even begin the debate is the easy part.
But the difficulty is identify what spawned the different species in these two sectors of the animal kingdom. To have a real understand on these effects.. you need to understand the causes. That is to say.. you must be educated in animal biology,evolution,etc.
Now to get back to this capitalism vs socialism debate. In order to truly be able to have the debate, you must be able to go beyond identification. You must get into understanding. You have to understand the causes of the effect: the end result entity. Similar to the mammals vs reptile example, you must understand that when speaking about a social-economic system, you are speaking about an entity that has a presupposition. When speaking about this entity, you must understand what system of beliefs have spawned it. That is to say: you can never speak about political economies WITHOUT speaking on or understanding the philosophical systems that spawned them
And if you think that capitalism and socialism are just statements on..i hate to use this socialism vomit: redistribution of wealth, you are missing the entire picture.
To make any statements about capitalism or socialism, one must first understand the philosophy that spawned them. I mean this very literally: Social-Economical system get their political foundation from the philosophy of ONE man or the works of several like-minded philosophers. ALL of these systems have philosophy fathers. And their parents have very definite principles. You have to understand what they say about about logic, ethics, politics, metaphysics, epistemology, etc.
That is where the true arguments lives and that is where the real ugliness of socialism shows.
I would suggest you start there.. at the very principles of socialism and then reevaluate the argument. The social system is just the end result of the philosophy that a country adheres to... it is a statement about what that philosophy truly thinks about the individual. When you understand that statement from a base level, you will understand why capitalism always succeeds where socialism fails...and I will give you a hint.. the least important part is the production of wealth. That is just a very obvious effect that gets overvalued.
SO AGAIN FROM A PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE, behind putting some stripes on a pony and calling it a zebra, HOW IS THIS BOLIVARIAN REVOLUTION ANY DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER FORM OF SOCIALISM.5
What key underlying philosophical precepts have been modified...and even if you can find ONE..which you wont...how it is going to rectify that the rest of the manifesto is so riddled with contradiction and absent of individual rights that even expected this to rival capitalism is beyond a mockery.
I am going to ask you an even more important question
When proponents of any form of socialism in there schemes speak of the redistribution of wealth, as if wealth is a natural resource like a river or mountain, what are they really speaking of. Wealth is not a natural resource that can be communally owned. The questions are this.
What ultimately is the producer or wealth..as an axiom.. where does it originate.
I will give you a hint, a gross domestic product is NOT a natural resource and it can not be communally owned.
When you answer that question, ask yourself this.
When an individual or entity wants control over the redistribution of wealth, what then must he control in the process.
Redistribution literally means that money should be distributed so it benefits all members of society, and that the one of means should be obligated by law to assist those of less means. It is a system of perpetual sacrifice to the people with lesser.. means.. regardless if they have lesser means by the lack of effort, etc.
In order to control the redistribution of wealth you must control the people first. You can do that by changing the laws. And that is why the first thing that always happens is the deletion of individual rights... nationalization of private industries.. and the leader always pushes for limitless terms and if he has pulled off the greatest stint of his goals.. he becomes an authoritative dictator.. ironically not even giving the community, which of course he has done all of this for, the ability to vote him in or out of office.
However, even by controlling the laws to control the people.. in order for the process to sustain itself economically... he has the control the OMEGA of the entire predicament. When you figure out what the OMEGA is..you will realize why the socialists plots always fail. They fail to recognize what this entire decks of cards needs to sustain itself and when the best of this OMEGA realize what the system really stands for.. their morality always forces them to not participate or exponentially decrease their participation so as to not be the sacrificial lambs of the entire farse.. and thus.... comes the downward economic spiral and even more extreme poverty that always follows these forms of statism.
The entire process if a vomit of irony.
The first error is assuming that wealth is a natural resource that just appears out of thin error.
But another question is this, what happens with those individuals that produce the wealth decide they no longer want to be sacrificed at the alter for the common good.
What happens when they realize in order for this system to work, they must continue to produce under a system of automatic anemia... where the community gets to indefinitely suckle from their efforts...regardless of each individual input into that system.
What happens when the entrepreneurs, innovators, investors, who have none of their rights protected, realize they are in mental servitudes to individual who not only lack the intelligence but the will to produce what they can but expect to live as if they do.
You do realize that the moral systems that provides an opportunity but can not within itself provide equal standing. It is a distinction that our constitution makes with it says right to the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS.. but not the RIGHT TO HAPPINESS. It is a very strong philosophical distinction.
I could go on and on with these questions and they will give you clues as to why socialist system always crumble..because they negate the individual as if he is just a servant to the commune.
When you come to the correct answer on the of ultimately what produces wealth... the definitive OMEGA of this entire argument, go back and read all the socialistic manifestos from that point of view, and see if the words sounds so beautifully.
Hardballa said:
The responsibility of an economic system is not human development. The responsibility of an economic system or in a wider view, a political system is to protect the individual rights of its citizen so that they can conduct trade in terms of economics. Human development is the responsibility of that said individual or the responsibility of the beings that bring that said individual into existence. A GOVERNMENT is responsible for protecting a citizens individual rights (judicial system) , protecting its citizens welfare internally (police system) and protecting its citizens from foreign attacks( armed forces) and any administration or systems put in place should be to support those missions.
Social development is not a governmental responsibility. This is one of many problems with socialist manifestos.
By what right can a government set the human developmental processes of a a nation. By what right can it go about setting the personal values of a nation. The responsibility of a government in the human development process it protecting your rights to setting your own values and practicing them just as long as you do not illegally negate the individual rights of other citizens.
@ the arrogance or any individual or organization that not only thinks it has the right of jurisdiction over human development but the right to essentially define itself as the PARENT of a nation and its citizens as its CHILDREN. And I am not going to spend the time to give you a philosophical education on this . However, I tell you to read up on OBJECTIVE VALUES.
The hysterical nature of that statement would make me laugh it people did not have the power to implement it. Are you telling me, an Institution..a government, made up of individuals who most likely for the most part are unhappy, in abusive relationships, disfunctional families, and just because they are THE GOVERNMENT, should be given control or input over HUMAN DEVELOPMENT. Human development by its very nature is a relative endevour and could never be fully encapsulated enough objectively to go beyond basic precepts of protecting individual rights(if you are not able to fully grasp individual rights..do a google search because I will refer to them often) By what moral right could anyone come to that conclusion. You have the realize the ridiculous nature of any type of statement like that. Do you realize what you really are conceding when you give an entity or organization say-so much less jurisdiction over human development. What happens when they begin to set values that completely negate your own humanity. I hope you realize that GOVERNMENTS are not omniscient and should never have that type of power in the first place. The sad reality that people first were ruled by THE GODS, or some type of monotheistic DEITY..either way a form of mysticism,..or the DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS, and not they have submitted their will to GOVERNMENTS who dont claim the same mystical powers.. but claim the power of: the AMBASSADORS OF SOCIAL GOOD... for whatever that undefinable, fruits of my whim statement can be taken for..which is anchored to nothing but air. To put it in the words of one of the patriarchs of the ideology: From each according to his ability to each according to his needs. This is the moral premise of all these systems. When you really understand the philosophy of ethics and specifically epistemology.. especially when dealing with individual rights and objective values, you realize that statement has about the same morality as a whoring crackhead who just committed murder.
However, I will give you to insight as to what this means from a philosophical perspective later in this post so you understand why I would even go there.
Hardballa said:
This biggest mistake that proponents of socialism make is that they believe capitalism has the foundation of capital production as its shining principle. This can be nothing but further from the case. Often, even the proponents of capitalism, really do not understand is philosophical principles.
What they fail to realize is that capital production is the result, not the cause. The cause is alignment with the right to life.. and there is no right to life with the right to private property, and their are no property rights without individual rights... Capitalism in conjunction with democracy is a celebration of in unalienable individual rights.
Socialism speaks of COMMUNAL RIGHTS at the expense of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. I find it ridiculous that people cant easily spot the glaring contradiction. That there can not be COMMUNAL RIGHTS in a society that does not have individual rights. You can not protect 100 when 1 individual has not protection. It is absurd to think so. EVEN the phrase COMMUNAL RIGHTS is a contradiction in terms.. almost as disgusting as the phase: the social good.
[/QUOTE]
I can go line by line and dissect the rest of this rubbish about the Bolivarian Revolution. It is nothing different that any other form of socialism. It is socialism with a different..with a different Con Man... I mean front man at the helm.
I think the major problem you will have in this debate is not even debating the merits of capitalism vs any form of statism.
Let me make a very complex concept simple. When you speak of socialism and capitalism, you are speaking of an entity. Even more clearly... an END product. Having a debate about capitalism vs socialism is the equivalent of having a debate about mammals vs reptiles. But being able to identity a mammal or reptile to even begin the debate is the easy part.
But the difficulty is identify what spawned the different species in these two sectors of the animal kingdom. To have a real understand on these effects.. you need to understand the causes. That is to say.. you must be educated in animal biology,evolution,etc.
Now to get back to this capitalism vs socialism debate. In order to truly be able to have the debate, you must be able to go beyond identification. You must get into understanding. You have to understand the causes of the effect: the end result entity. Similar to the mammals vs reptile example, you must understand that when speaking about a social-economic system, you are speaking about an entity that has a presupposition. When speaking about this entity, you must understand what system of beliefs have spawned it. That is to say: you can never speak about political economies WITHOUT speaking on or understanding the philosophical systems that spawned them
And if you think that capitalism and socialism are just statements on..i hate to use this socialism vomit: redistribution of wealth, you are missing the entire picture.
To make any statements about capitalism or socialism, one must first understand the philosophy that spawned them. I mean this very literally: Social-Economical system get their political foundation from the philosophy of ONE man or the works of several like-minded philosophers. ALL of these systems have philosophy fathers. And their parents have very definite principles. You have to understand what they say about about logic, ethics, politics, metaphysics, epistemology, etc.
That is where the true arguments lives and that is where the real ugliness of socialism shows.
I would suggest you start there.. at the very principles of socialism and then reevaluate the argument. The social system is just the end result of the philosophy that a country adheres to... it is a statement about what that philosophy truly thinks about the individual. When you understand that statement from a base level, you will understand why capitalism always succeeds where socialism fails...and I will give you a hint.. the least important part is the production of wealth. That is just a very obvious effect that gets overvalued.
SO AGAIN FROM A PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE, behind putting some stripes on a pony and calling it a zebra, HOW IS THIS BOLIVARIAN REVOLUTION ANY DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER FORM OF SOCIALISM.5
What key underlying philosophical precepts have been modified...and even if you can find ONE..which you wont...how it is going to rectify that the rest of the manifesto is so riddled with contradiction and absent of individual rights that even expected this to rival capitalism is beyond a mockery.
I am going to ask you an even more important question
When proponents of any form of socialism in there schemes speak of the redistribution of wealth, as if wealth is a natural resource like a river or mountain, what are they really speaking of. Wealth is not a natural resource that can be communally owned. The questions are this.
What ultimately is the producer or wealth..as an axiom.. where does it originate.
I will give you a hint, a gross domestic product is NOT a natural resource and it can not be communally owned.
When you answer that question, ask yourself this.
When an individual or entity wants control over the redistribution of wealth, what then must he control in the process.
Redistribution literally means that money should be distributed so it benefits all members of society, and that the one of means should be obligated by law to assist those of less means. It is a system of perpetual sacrifice to the people with lesser.. means.. regardless if they have lesser means by the lack of effort, etc.
In order to control the redistribution of wealth you must control the people first. You can do that by changing the laws. And that is why the first thing that always happens is the deletion of individual rights... nationalization of private industries.. and the leader always pushes for limitless terms and if he has pulled off the greatest stint of his goals.. he becomes an authoritative dictator.. ironically not even giving the community, which of course he has done all of this for, the ability to vote him in or out of office.
However, even by controlling the laws to control the people.. in order for the process to sustain itself economically... he has the control the OMEGA of the entire predicament. When you figure out what the OMEGA is..you will realize why the socialists plots always fail. They fail to recognize what this entire decks of cards needs to sustain itself and when the best of this OMEGA realize what the system really stands for.. their morality always forces them to not participate or exponentially decrease their participation so as to not be the sacrificial lambs of the entire farse.. and thus.... comes the downward economic spiral and even more extreme poverty that always follows these forms of statism.
The entire process if a vomit of irony.
The first error is assuming that wealth is a natural resource that just appears out of thin error.
But another question is this, what happens with those individuals that produce the wealth decide they no longer want to be sacrificed at the alter for the common good.
What happens when they realize in order for this system to work, they must continue to produce under a system of automatic anemia... where the community gets to indefinitely suckle from their efforts...regardless of each individual input into that system.
What happens when the entrepreneurs, innovators, investors, who have none of their rights protected, realize they are in mental servitudes to individual who not only lack the intelligence but the will to produce what they can but expect to live as if they do.
You do realize that the moral systems that provides an opportunity but can not within itself provide equal standing. It is a distinction that our constitution makes with it says right to the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS.. but not the RIGHT TO HAPPINESS. It is a very strong philosophical distinction.
I could go on and on with these questions and they will give you clues as to why socialist system always crumble..because they negate the individual as if he is just a servant to the commune.
When you come to the correct answer on the of ultimately what produces wealth... the definitive OMEGA of this entire argument, go back and read all the socialistic manifestos from that point of view, and see if the words sounds so beautifully.
Last edited:
Dont kill the messenger...
<font size="5"><center>
Chavez to U.S. Officials: 'Go to Hell'</font size>
<font size="4">and called Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "missy"</font size></center>
Associated Press
By CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER
Jan 22, 8:11 AM (ET)
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez told U.S. officials to "Go to hell, gringos!" and called Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "missy" on his weekly radio and TV show Sunday, lashing out at Washington for what he called unacceptable meddling in Venezuelan affairs.
The tirade came after Washington raised concerns about a measure to grant the fiery leftist leader broad lawmaking powers. The National Assembly, which is controlled by the president's political allies, is expected to give final approval this week to what it calls the "enabling law," which would give Chavez the authority to pass a series of laws by decree during an 18-month period.
On Friday, U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey said Chavez's plans under the law "have caused us some concern."
Chavez rejected Casey's statement in his broadcast, saying: "Go to hell, gringos! Go home!"
He also attacked U.S. actions in the Middle East.
"What does the empire want? Condoleezza said it. How are you? You've forgotten me, missy ... Condoleezza said it clearly, it's about creating a new geopolitical" map in the Middle East, Chavez said.
In typical style, Chavez spoke for hours Sunday during his first appearance on the weekly program in five months. He sent his best wishes to the ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro, his close ally and friend who has been sidelined since intestinal surgery last summer.
Other comments ranged from watching dancing Brazilian girls wearing string bikinis at a recent presidential summit to Washington's alleged role in the hanging of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
"They took out Saddam Hussein and they hung him, for good or worse. It's not up to me to judge any government, but that gentleman was the president of that country."
Holding up a newspaper with a photograph of him gazing at a string bikini-clad Brazilian dancing samba during a summit last week in Rio de Janeiro, Chavez laughed and said: "I didn't know where to look ... It was truly a thing of beauty."
Chavez, who was re-elected by a wide margin last month, has said he will enact sweeping reforms to remake Venezuela into a socialist state. Among his plans are nationalizing the main telecommunications company, CANTV, and the electricity and natural gas sectors.
He said Sunday his government will not pay the market value for CANTV, but rather will take into account debts to workers, pensions and other obligations including a "technological debt" to the state. CANTV, partially owned by U.S.-based Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ), was privatized in 1991.
The president's opponents accuse him of using his political strength to expand his powers.
Relations between Caracas and Washington have been tense since Chavez was briefly ousted in a 2002 coup that he claimed the U.S. played a role in. The Bush administration has repeatedly denied being involved, although it recognized an interim government established by coup leaders.
Since then, Chavez has consistently accused the U.S. of conspiring to oust him and often asserts the CIA is working to destabilize his government. U.S. officials have denied trying to overthrow Chavez, but they have labeled him a threat to democracy.
Criticizing excessive consumption and self-indulgence, Chavez also announced plans in his broadcast to raise domestic gasoline prices and approve a new tax on luxury goods such as private yachts, second homes and extravagant automobiles.
He did not give details on the gas price hike, which he said would not affect bus drivers who provide public transportation, or the luxury tax. He said revenue from the new measures would be put toward government social programs.
Venezuela is one of the world's leading petroleum exporters and gasoline now costs as little as 12 cents a gallon due to government subsidies.
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20070122/D8MQBG9O0.html
Chavez to U.S. Officials: 'Go to Hell'</font size>
<font size="4">and called Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "missy"</font size></center>
Associated Press
By CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER
Jan 22, 8:11 AM (ET)
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez told U.S. officials to "Go to hell, gringos!" and called Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "missy" on his weekly radio and TV show Sunday, lashing out at Washington for what he called unacceptable meddling in Venezuelan affairs.
The tirade came after Washington raised concerns about a measure to grant the fiery leftist leader broad lawmaking powers. The National Assembly, which is controlled by the president's political allies, is expected to give final approval this week to what it calls the "enabling law," which would give Chavez the authority to pass a series of laws by decree during an 18-month period.
On Friday, U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey said Chavez's plans under the law "have caused us some concern."
Chavez rejected Casey's statement in his broadcast, saying: "Go to hell, gringos! Go home!"
He also attacked U.S. actions in the Middle East.
"What does the empire want? Condoleezza said it. How are you? You've forgotten me, missy ... Condoleezza said it clearly, it's about creating a new geopolitical" map in the Middle East, Chavez said.
In typical style, Chavez spoke for hours Sunday during his first appearance on the weekly program in five months. He sent his best wishes to the ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro, his close ally and friend who has been sidelined since intestinal surgery last summer.
Other comments ranged from watching dancing Brazilian girls wearing string bikinis at a recent presidential summit to Washington's alleged role in the hanging of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
"They took out Saddam Hussein and they hung him, for good or worse. It's not up to me to judge any government, but that gentleman was the president of that country."
Holding up a newspaper with a photograph of him gazing at a string bikini-clad Brazilian dancing samba during a summit last week in Rio de Janeiro, Chavez laughed and said: "I didn't know where to look ... It was truly a thing of beauty."
Chavez, who was re-elected by a wide margin last month, has said he will enact sweeping reforms to remake Venezuela into a socialist state. Among his plans are nationalizing the main telecommunications company, CANTV, and the electricity and natural gas sectors.
He said Sunday his government will not pay the market value for CANTV, but rather will take into account debts to workers, pensions and other obligations including a "technological debt" to the state. CANTV, partially owned by U.S.-based Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ), was privatized in 1991.
The president's opponents accuse him of using his political strength to expand his powers.
Relations between Caracas and Washington have been tense since Chavez was briefly ousted in a 2002 coup that he claimed the U.S. played a role in. The Bush administration has repeatedly denied being involved, although it recognized an interim government established by coup leaders.
Since then, Chavez has consistently accused the U.S. of conspiring to oust him and often asserts the CIA is working to destabilize his government. U.S. officials have denied trying to overthrow Chavez, but they have labeled him a threat to democracy.
Criticizing excessive consumption and self-indulgence, Chavez also announced plans in his broadcast to raise domestic gasoline prices and approve a new tax on luxury goods such as private yachts, second homes and extravagant automobiles.
He did not give details on the gas price hike, which he said would not affect bus drivers who provide public transportation, or the luxury tax. He said revenue from the new measures would be put toward government social programs.
Venezuela is one of the world's leading petroleum exporters and gasoline now costs as little as 12 cents a gallon due to government subsidies.
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20070122/D8MQBG9O0.html
eewwll said:
He's been talking about ditching term limits since he got in office because he knows the MAJORITY of his DEMOCRATIC nation back him. That wasn't unseen by anyone AFAIK. A democratically elected dictator? Never seen that before. A dictator would be more like the guy who the US recognized illegally as the new unelected head of Venezuela hours after the coup took place.The same guy who had long convos with the US State Dept and CIA hours before a US military plane arrived on the island Chavez was being held on so they could take him to the Dominican Republic.
Oh you mean like the hole dug by white spainiard racists and other assorted europeans for the MAJORITY of Venezuelans? Please man. I understand the multiple failures which possibly await him considering the formidable opposition he faces, not within his own country or continent, but within the US.
Do you know why he wins by landslides????? Cuz he's black, he cares about his own people and he'll end the white ruling elite aristocracy fuckery placed on the back of his people by white spainiard opportunist murderers and other exploiters.
Do you know what the tv station that he's shutting down did along with CNN and the ruling class before the coup? If so its no wonder hes shutting it down.
How long would a national television station last in Brazil or the US that openly advocated the overthrow of the government? Or openly lied about riots and their cause? Or openly worked with rogue generals to lie in fake press conferences regarding loyalty of troops?
I know you live out of country now but you know how many Americans are taught to read with the nation's constiution and it aint many.
Chavez and his party teach reading to all the poor. What do they do it with?
Their constitution aint commie either.
I know how you feel about where politics hits economics and we are on different ends of the spectrum but believe similar stuff. If GW and friends hate him so much he must be a great person
As for Brazil getting shit on. Don't act like he's robbing the disenfranchised people of color who make up Brazil. He undid sweetheart deal bullshit put in place by who? White spainard aristocrats who have been living off the nation's resources for hundreds of years while the majority suffered.
I aint a commie but you know what Chavez does that others havent- he tries. He also has accomplished some things that would never ever happen with the currently jeopardized system of world bank/imf puppets the US has installed in South America.
Brazil could use a little more leftist shit themselves. Fuckin cops crushing homeless children's skulls in the streets? That aint Eden bruh.
on another note-
Im curious- do any black people run anything governmental in Brazil at all? All I see are white portugese running shit but Im not over there or that knowledgeable about it. Just seems like a super segregated on the hush type nation.
Makkonnen said:
A dictator would be more like the guy who the US recognized illegally as the new unelected head of Venezuela hours after the coup took place.The same guy who had long convos with the US State Dept and CIA hours before a US military plane arrived on the island Chavez was being held on so they could take him to the Dominican Republic.
Makk..dont confuse my statement. I said he WANTS to be a dictator. I did not say that he currently IS a dictator. Some of the worlds most cruel dictators (hitler as an example) were all VOTED in by the people at one point all under th guise of bringing THEIR people out of plight. Look at the history of the clock towards dictatorship. The pattern is usually the same as he is following. Nationalize industries, concentration power over business, media,etc in the centralized government completely, modify term limitations. This is an obvious one Makk. You are falling for the socialistic jargin and his media postering. Look at how he is changing the law to concentrate power centrally under his direct control. It does not take a rocket scientist to see what is going on here especially considering his stated aspirations. Also consider Castro is his mentor, ally and model. Venezuela is clearly heading toward the tightly regulated, one party communist system of Cuba's Castro.
Makkonnen said:
He will concentrate power within the hands of him and his cronies as he is doing now.. I guarantee you when we fast forward 10 years, the PEOPLE are not only not in a better predicament, but the overall financial situation of the country has worsened.
Makkonnen said:
at the pot calling the kettle black..the coup plotter is Chavez, who as everyone knows tried to overthrow the government in 1992, years before he was elected. Not renewing their license is like President Bush one day announcing that NBC is going off the air because it was involved in a conspiracy against the United States. It is power that he should not even have in the first place. Also the station(venezuelas most popular by the way) contends it never promoted the coup and merely covered it as a news event. The CEO said in an interview that the network executives had not been presented with a formal notice or complaint that they could contest in court or at a public hearing. Chavez restricting freedom of expression at the same time serves as a warning against other news organizations to limit their actions at the risk of facing the same fate. Now, their will be no oppositional talk against Chavez...the road continues. Makk..come on man. I KNOW you are better than that. He is erasing OPPOSITION...period. Why not take it to the courts and handle it democratically and have the very serious claims proven in the courts.Makkonnen said:
But the Bovarian Revolution is its brother: Socialist...at the end of the day..there is not much difference between the two. Difference between between a lemon and a lime.. may not be the same fruit... but same family, consistency, similar taste, etc.
Makkonnen said:
Sweetheart deals where companies come in and completely development an industry in a nation investing Billions of dollars in investment, resources, etc. See this is where you and I differ... You seem to support thievery, as long as you dislike the supposedly group that has the assets that are being stolen. The Brasilian entities that owned those conduits of business in Venezuela did not steal those assets. See, you agree with suspending the law if supposedly it helps the PEOPLE. What happens when the government decides to suspend your rights to HELP the people. This is not about money or assets... this is about limited what a government has to the power to do and not do. The Irony of you attempting to argue this from a moral perspective baffles me.
Makkonnen said:
The people are not going to rise out over poverty on the back of SOCIALISM. It never has and never will happen. I will never congratulate a person for HELPING (smh) with a system that has a 100 percent failure rate.
The world banj and IMF shit I agree with though. Those are the same mechanisms that were used to put the U.S. under control of the bankers: The Federal Reserve System.
Makkonnen said:
How do you think Brasil got into its situation in the first place. However, the contrary... well more contrary in a relevant type of view considering this is south america, has been what has made Brasil the beacon of stability in South America for the most part.How is SOCIALISM going to save the kids in the street
Just answer that one question. I am trying to understand how can anyone... from a historical, economical, metrical, etc point of view come to the conclusion that socialism is the answer to the problems.
Who the hell said BRASIL was EDEN. The ONLY reason why I even mentioned Brasil in this thread was because that dipshit said I was brainwashed by the American Media. My point was...I didnt know how that was possible considering I am not even in the U.S. to be brainwashed by the U.S. media.
I get a rather consistent wide ranging view of the politics of other south american countries because they all border brasil. And the effects of their politics has a much direct affect on this nation than the U.S.
Makkonnen said:
There are a few ministers that head large sectors of the government. However, Brasil is not different than most places around the world...looking at the pictures of the heads of state and their administration around the world..we know what the photo looks like.
However, your thought that SOCIALISM is the answer is incorrect. That shit never has and never will solve the problem.
Brasil is not a segregated nation. It has a form of classism. Man.. I need to take a photo of some favellas for you next time I go. The poor are white, black, etc. No group has a monopoly over poverty in this country.
Last edited: