socialist paradise

[SobaViolence]

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has been granted new special powers after an extraordinary assembly vote in the main square of the capital, Caracas.
Mr Chavez will now be able to rule by decree for the next 18 months.

His planned reforms will affect the energy sector, telecommunications, the economy and defence, among others.

Mr Chavez has said the legislation will transform the country into a socialist society. Opponents describe the new law as an abuse of power.

In the open-air public ceremony in the capital, lawmakers voted unanimously to grant the Venezuelan leader the new powers, shouting: "Long live Socialism."



(y) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6315819.stm)

[sam i am]

Yes, he now has enabling powers....

Hmmm...

Where have I seen that before?

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/61/197.html

Oh, yes.

I remember now.

BTW, Hitler called himself a "National SOCIALIST."

Socialism sure is dandy when imposed from above rather than agreed upon by the body politic (i.e., see France, England, most of Europe, etc.).

There's a right and wrong way to have your outcomes realized, and Chavez is choosing a dangerous path both for himself and his country.

[DroppinScience]

It's paradise, sure. Just so long as you don't get any lingering feelings of doubt over whether Chavez can do no wrong. That'd be inconvenient for democracy.

[Schmeltz]

BTW, Hitler called himself a "National SOCIALIST."


Well I guess that means that all socialists are actually Nazis. Nice logic.

Chavez, to my knowledge, doesn't have a paramilitary like the SA and isn't scapegoating entire ethnic groups and earmarking them for genocide, nor is he shifting his country's economy onto a war footing. Comparing him with Hitler is frivolous.


Socialism sure is dandy when imposed from above rather than agreed upon by the body politic


Chavez didn't come to power in a coup or a revolution (though he did try in 92, I guess), he was democratically elected (several times, actually) and most of the body politic, whether elected or appointed, is firmly on his side. How can you call this "socialism imposed from above" when Chavez is a populist leader, democratically elected, and came from the lower strata of Venezuelan society himself?

I agree that Chavez has come to a crucial and potentially dangerous point in his career, but so far all signs point to a strong, confident, and independent leader, not a dictatorial strongman. But then that's probably why you, as a conservative American, have a problem with him. Americans don't like popular left-wing leaders in South America, as history has proven time and time and time again; they prefer hardline right-wingers firmly in the USA's pocket. Isn't that right?

[freetibet]

That means 2 socialist paradises in the region. Cuba, You are not alone!

I agree with sam i am. The logic is kinda the other way round. Nazis were actually socialists. That's why they were called national socialists... I mean just look at their political programme. It's just that they saw enemies in other races/nations and not in other classes.

[freetibet]

Chavez didn't come to power in a coup or a revolution (though he did try in 92, I guess), he was democratically elected (several times, actually) and most of the body politic, whether elected or appointed, is firmly on his side. How can you call this "socialism imposed from above" when Chavez is a populist leader, democratically elected, and came from the lower strata of Venezuelan society himself?

I agree that Chavez has come to a crucial and potentially dangerous point in his career, but so far all signs point to a strong, confident, and independent leader, not a dictatorial strongman. But then that's probably why you, as a conservative American, have a problem with him. Americans don't like popular left-wing leaders in South America, as history has proven time and time and time again; they prefer hardline right-wingers firmly in the USA's pocket. Isn't that right?

That's were democracy sometimes fails. Like in Germany, 1933. When the leader is radical - decree power only makes things worse. But sure, Chavez was elected by them Latinos [why don't You try and respect capitalism for a while? Hello, Che is dead!]. Let's have a cup of tea, sit comfortably and watch the inevitable fall of Venezuela.

[Schmeltz]

Your perspective is so skewed, ignorant, and fucked up I don't even know where to start. So I think I'll start by putting you on ignore so I don't have to wonder what the hell you might be trying to say anymore.

"Them Latinos"?! Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you.

[freetibet]

Your perspective is so skewed, ignorant, and fucked up I don't even know where to start. So I think I'll start by putting you on ignore so I don't have to wonder what the hell you might be trying to say anymore.

"Them Latinos"?! Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you.

I just get annoyed that they have these leftist tendencies all the time.

I'm ignorant? What did I say so ignorant? Things Hitler did in Germany WERE social. He also got the decree power. Radical leader uses such power radically.

I can see what 'socialist paradise' did with my country. You don't want it in Your cosy neighbourhood.

[Schmeltz]

Has it occurred to you that lots of "them Latinos" suffered and died under capitalist exploitation, just as many Poles suffered and died under the excesses of radical ideologies? What's ignorant about your perspective, asides from the racism that shines forth from your every post, is that you think you have a right to be annoyed with people across the planet for choosing how to run their own countries.

[freetibet]

Hah, voices in my head tell me I'm not racist... *confused*

Okay, so they got exploited. But socialism is not the answer! And a nation reversing to 'socialist paradise' is annoying to me no matter where it lives. Like I'm annoying to You, also across the planet. :p

EDIT: But You're right, I shouldn't be that bothered by what they do with themselves, I mean, they're adult and stuff.

[sam i am]

Well I guess that means that all socialists are actually Nazis. Nice logic.

That wasn't my implication, but I can see where it might have come off that way. I apologize for any racial connotation to the remark I made. I was simply noting the imposition of socialism by someone very like Chavez in history, minus the virulent anti-semitism (so far...)

Chavez, to my knowledge, doesn't have a paramilitary like the SA and isn't scapegoating entire ethnic groups and earmarking them for genocide, nor is he shifting his country's economy onto a war footing. Comparing him with Hitler is frivolous.

Well, actually, he is organizing local groups to enforce his decrees and decide how to spend the extracted wealth he will garner from the "wealthy." He's bent on nationalizing the telecommunications in the country, thus controlling the media and how he's shown, he does scapegoat the "wealthy" and the "gringos" (kinda like the Jews in the 1930's, but I digress), and he has purchased massive amounts of military hardware from the Russians and other sources. He has also spoken eloquently about the need to "export" his Revolution, ala Castro, who did the same in Nicaragua, Angola, etc.

Seems like comparing him to Hitler isn't ENTIRELY frivolous. Chavez certainly hasn't written "Mein Kampf" yet....

Chavez didn't come to power in a coup or a revolution (though he did try in 92, I guess), he was democratically elected (several times, actually) and most of the body politic, whether elected or appointed, is firmly on his side. How can you call this "socialism imposed from above" when Chavez is a populist leader, democratically elected, and came from the lower strata of Venezuelan society himself?

This is similiar to Hitler's story, as well. Hitler was a WWI corporal - Chavez was paramilitary, if I remember correctly. Hitler had an abortive coup before eventually being "elected" to power (Beer Hall Putsch in 1923, elected Chancellor in 1933) - Chavez had the '92 attempt noted above, then "elected" later. Most of the body politic was firmly on Hitler's side as well - the Nazi leadership by themselves didn't burn books and ostracize the Jews - Chavez is ostracizing the "wealthy" and "Gringos." Hitler imposed Socialism from above like Chavez is attempting to do. Just look at Western European socialism for a much clearer and "cleaner" version of how Socialism can grow gradually from below without decrees and authoritarian visions.

I agree that Chavez has come to a crucial and potentially dangerous point in his career, but so far all signs point to a strong, confident, and independent leader, not a dictatorial strongman.

Decree power is dangerous in anyone's hands. There was a quote from a Holocaust survivor's son, who found refuge in Venezuela after WWII. He was buying a passport for his son. "Why should any one man decide for me how my life should be lived?"

But then that's probably why you, as a conservative American, have a problem with him. Americans don't like popular left-wing leaders in South America, as history has proven time and time and time again; they prefer hardline right-wingers firmly in the USA's pocket. Isn't that right?

This is just masturbating yourself with your preconceived notions of who I am rather than dealing with me on a case-by-case basis.

I have attempted to engage you and we have had some degree of respect for each other, but if you continue to insist that I'm incapable of raising valid points, albeit in direct contradiction of your slanted worldview, then we'll truly get nowhere. I'll say again, as I did before, if all you're going to do is pathetically attempt to insult me, then why not just place me on ignore so I can have fruitful, sometimes ludicrously fun, conversation with those who do not self-designate as an overweening, uberintellectual, young, prick?

[Schmeltz]

Well, actually, he is organizing local groups to enforce his decrees


Chavez is doing nothing even remotely comparable to the organization of the SA. The groups who decide how to spend the funds are community-level civilian organizations, so far as I've read. Every government depends on local groups in order to function and Chavez' methods seem quite populist and open - dissenters have just as much say as anyone else. Also, lots of countries buy military hardware from Russia; even more countries buy billions of arms from America. Who cares? That's what makes the G8 the G8. And as for exporting the revolution - well, time will tell, I suppose, but I doubt Chavez is keen on any military offensives in support of that idea; it seems to me like he would mostly be referring to expanding his support for leftist parties in other countries, like he did for Morales.


Chavez was paramilitary, if I remember correctly.


You remember incorrectly; he was counterinsurgency and taught at the Venezuelan Military Academy.


Chavez had the '92 attempt noted above, then "elected" later.


Why the quotation marks? I don't remember there being any questions as to the legitimacy of any Chavez election. Is it so hard for you to believe that a country could actually elect somebody without consulting you?


Decree power is dangerous in anyone's hands.


This I will agree with, it is a dangerous level of power, as I acknowledged. But bombast and rhetoric aside, there doesn't seem to be much sinister about Hugo Chavez, at least not right now. He may enjoy a discomfiting level of power, but it was awarded freely and fairly and by popular accord, and for the time being he seems to be employing it largely in the interests of the poor and disadvantaged people who elected him.

LOL to the rest of it. (y)

[sam i am]

So you agree he has built up military hardware? You also agree he has organized local groups to enforce his decrees and spend appropriated wealth?

Thanks for the correction on Chavez' military background.

I put the quotation marks on "elected" because intimidation and organization of voting through fear tactics is a poor way to get elected - especially after one has attempted a coup earlier in one's career.

This I will agree with, it is a dangerous level of power, as I acknowledged. But bombast and rhetoric aside, there doesn't seem to be much sinister about Hugo Chavez, at least not right now. He may enjoy a discomfiting level of power, but it was awarded freely and fairly and by popular accord, and for the time being he seems to be employing it largely in the interests of the poor and disadvantaged people who elected him.

I'm pretty sure I wasn't bombastic nor rhetorical in my original statements, but we would both probably agree that he warrants watching. AS I've said in previous threads, I like the guy for his economic aid to the US with oil shipments and heating oil to the poor. He's at least consistent in his message and execution - I DO fear for those he is marginalizing in society and would prefer to see him act in accordance with the laws and Constitution of his country, ala the socialist countries of Western Europe and Canada, to cite a few examples.

[Schmeltz]

I'm pretty sure I wasn't bombastic nor rhetorical


Oh sorry, I didn't mean you. I meant Chavez. He has a very flamboyant, over-the-top sort of style, ie "Go to hell gringos" and "I still smell the sulfur." But his bark is worse than his bite.


So you agree he has built up military hardware? You also agree he has organized local groups to enforce his decrees and spend appropriated wealth?


Yes. You know what? So has Canada. I'll keep an eye out for goose-stepping Mounties coming to strongarm me into voting for Stephen Harper. But I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon.


I put the quotation marks on "elected" because intimidation and organization of voting through fear tactics is a poor way to get elected


Evidence? I don't recall hearing anything of the kind from international observers or even from the defeated opposition (beyond the typical bluster that seems to accompany any Latin American election). Chavez has won fair and square, and seeing you complain about it only seems to give me further grounds for my remarks earlier.


but we would both probably agree that he warrants watching.


I say yes - just to see what happens. I don't think Chavez is much of a threat to anybody. If anyone warrants watching, it's your government - Chavez is worlds away from launching an Iraq.

[sam i am]

Evidence of election fraud?

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_040820.htm

http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200409080559

http://users2.wsj.com/lmda/do/checkLogin?mg=wsj-users2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB1094 52281788010900.html%3Fmod%3Dtodays_us_page_one

Those can simply spark some thinking on your part that maybe not everything was on the "up and up." I'm NOT saying I agree with it, but it warrants further research.

As for launching another Iraq, I agree with you that it's unlikely. However, Venezuela has historical claims to other parts of South America and could easily be whipped into a frenzy of anti-yanqui, pro-nationalist fervor with warlike aspirations against their neigbors when the bondage of acting with restraint (i.e., without decree power and enabling power) are freed....

[Funkaloyd]

BTW, Hitler called himself a "National SOCIALIST."Nazis were actually socialists. That's why they were called national socialists.Yes, clearly any degree of nationalism is evil.
Anyone who has some amount of reverance for their country's flag or history? Nazi.

[freetibet]

Yes, clearly any degree of nationalism is evil.
Anyone who has some amount of reverance for their country's flag or history? Nazi.

Oh man, I'm confused... It's 99% of this MB who think so, but not me. It seems like I'm ultra-nazi. As well as all Americans attending NFL games and saluting the flag and anthem and so on. Nazier than Hitler!

[DroppinScience]

Oh man, I'm confused... It's 99% of this MB who think so, but not me. It seems like I'm ultra-nazi. As well as all Americans attending NFL games and saluting the flag and anthem and so on. Nazier than Hitler!

If English was your first language, I doubt you'd make much sense either way.

[Pres Zount]

However, Venezuela has historical claims to other parts of South America and could easily be whipped into a frenzy of anti-yanqui, pro-nationalist fervor with warlike aspirations against their neigbors when the bondage of acting with restraint (i.e., without decree power and enabling power) are freed....
Why? The 'bolivarian revolution' expresses views of internationalism and class solidarity.

[Adolf Hitler]

I really have no idea where to start......

[Schmeltz]

Then don't.

[sam i am]

Yes, please don't....



(idiot)(n) - not you, Schmeltz...the idiot above you.

[sam i am]

Why? The 'bolivarian revolution' expresses views of internationalism and class solidarity.

I was simply pointing out that Venezuelan (and specifically Chavez-ian) aspirations may not be as benign as we'd all like to think...

See :

http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/country/detail/2950/?PHPSESSID=5cfliegen3C (this is a bit dated, but points out sundry problems in Venezuela and, specifically, with Chavez' rise to power)

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Venezuela.pdf (see page 4 especially, with disputed borders with Colombia, Guyana, Dominica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, and the Grenadines) - see also page 8 under welfare for some indicting material against social security being universal and mandated

I'm not overtly as concerned about his outside proclivities as much as his anti-wealthy rhetoric, however - people are still the wealthy ones and the further they are demonized, the less human they become....

Beware.

[DroppinScience]

I'm not overtly as concerned about his outside proclivities as much as his anti-wealthy rhetoric, however - people are still the wealthy ones and the further they are demonized, the less human they become....

Beware.

Like "limousine liberals"?

[Pres Zount]

http://www.refugeesinternational.org...ID=5cfliegen3C

"Since 2002, the current president Hugo Chavez has been losing support as a result of a temporary alteration of a constitutional order."

Wait, what? Losing support? How could anyone believe that chavez is losing support? Especially considering when this article was dated.

"On April 14 that year, military officers took President Chavez into custody but later returned him to power. "

hahahahaha, is that what you call a failed coup? They only "returned him to power" after loyal military and civillians forced them to. The coup itself was brought on to intimidate workers just after a mass general strike crippled bosses.

"In February 2003, opposition supporters coordinated a nationwide effort to collect 3.2 million signatures for a possible recall referendum. " The constitutional right to reacall elected officials via refurendum was only made possible thanks to the new constitutution. The opposition rejected the right when it was first proposed to the Constituent Assembly. Oh, and if anyone was curious as to the outcome of the recall, Chavez won 60/40. But you wouldn't know that because 'refugees international' is more interested in portraying the "nationwide effort to collect 3.2 million signatures" as anything but a failure.

That site is also lol because the refugees are Colombians escaping to Venezuela. Venezuela is not the place in trouble. But thankyou for your "concerns", Refugees International.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Venezuela.pdf

OH NOES re: disputed maritime territory being resolved through bilateral negotiations, that's a real shitstorm waiting to happen.

LOL re: Welfare, when corruption comes from (but not limited to, of course) "major banks or private companies", that's a sock in the guts to chavez right there. Venezuela is looking to change the problems, and I'm pretty sure chavez may have mentioned something about a major social and economic revolution in the mix.


Sam, you are trying to make chavez out to be some kind of pol pot who will incite the peasants to kill and maim the intelligista. It's not washing. All the coup's, violence and assassination attempts are coming from his opposition.

[SobaViolence]

i like venezuela. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0205-05.htm)

His ambitious social programs are built on Venezuela's petroleum wealth, but President Hugo Chavez is increasingly talking up environmental causes and urging the world to cut back on oil use to fight global warming.

He wants to use some oil revenues in a venture to manufacture solar panels and has begun doling out millions of energy-saving fluorescent light bulbs to homes nationwide.

Some critics say Chavez's campaign is mostly rhetoric, noting this is a country where government subsidies have gasoline prices at 12 cents (U.S.) a gallon, car sales are booming and vehicle exhaust chokes litter-strewn streets.

But Chavez says Venezuela can be an example, and he has begun exhorting his followers to drive less and take public transport. His government plans a windmill farm to generate electricity on the Caribbean coast and is exploring more uses for cleaner-burning natural gas.

[Ali]

His ambitious social programs are built on Venezuela's petroleum wealth, but President Hugo Chavez is increasingly talking up environmental causes and urging the world to cut back on oil use to fight global warming.

He wants to use some oil revenues in a venture to manufacture solar panels and has begun doling out millions of energy-saving fluorescent light bulbs to homes nationwide.

Some critics say Chavez's campaign is mostly rhetoric, noting this is a country where government subsidies have gasoline prices at 12 cents (U.S.) a gallon, car sales are booming and vehicle exhaust chokes litter-strewn streets.

But Chavez says Venezuela can be an example, and he has begun exhorting his followers to drive less and take public transport. His government plans a windmill farm to generate electricity on the Caribbean coast and is exploring more uses for cleaner-burning natural gas.God damn that filthy Nazi.

He must be stopped, before he kills the American Dream!!!