Venezuela off the rails

[Humodour]

Chavez tries to silence the sole remaining truly independent news service.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas...la.globovision/

 

Damn socialist morons.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=news

 

And Chavez decided to randomly take over some private mining companies, causing the Venezuelan stock market to plummet. Again, socialist morons.

Edited May 24, 2009 by Krezack

[Monte Carlo]

Can someone please tell me of a socialist government where this didn't happen?

 

Chavez is obviously in his dictatorship of the proletariat phase and loving it.

 

Unlike Eye-Wrack, this is a problem that could be solved with a couple of Marine expeditionary forces. Shame the new US Prez has Chavez on his Christmas card list.

 

Cheers

MC

[Rosbjerg]

Can someone please tell me of a socialist government where this didn't happen?

 

Chavez is obviously in his dictatorship of the proletariat phase and loving it.

 

Unlike Eye-Wrack, this is a problem that could be solved with a couple of Marine expeditionary forces. Shame the new US Prez has Chavez on his Christmas card list.

 

Cheers

MC

 

In the history of external coups, very few have been that easy.. Then there's the moral issues - who gives the West the right to coup a nation, simply because they find his ideas repulsing? He seems to be on a slippery slope towards actual dictatorship, but that doesn't justify taking out a leader that seems to have the support of the majority of the people in his country.

[Walsingham]

I thought most of Scandinavia had socialist governments.

 

I'm not a socialist, but I do agree with the logical foundations of socialism. That our problems are best faced together as one than separately. That the randomness of bad fortune should not be accepted meekly by humans, but smoothed with compassion. I simply disagree with the operational mechanisms Socialism usually puts in place. BUt I would generally ascribe that primarily as the failure of revolutionary government of any kind. Macchiavelli said that any new prince should change as little as possible because any who gains by the change will be a lukewarm friend and anyone hurt by it will be your enemy forever. But revolutions are about change. So they inevitably make a lot of enemies, and their popular mandate evaporates. Having no popular mandate any revolutionary government must resort to force. It's about as remarkable as water leaving the seas and falling as rain.

[Rosbjerg]

I thought most of Scandinavia had socialist governments.

 

Social Democracy would be a more fitting term.. In essence our way of doing things are quite similar to the rest of Europe.

[samm]

In essence our way of doing things are quite similar to the rest of Europe.

Yep, that it is. It's just from an american perspective it can be called socialist, see the awesome Daily Show series on Norway :D

[Humodour]

I thought most of Scandinavia had socialist governments.

 

Social democracy. Venezuela is a socialist democracy. Wikipedia has definitions for each. The fact that Venezuela is still marginally a democracy is the reason it would be inappropriate to do as Monte Carlo suggests.

 

I'm not a socialist, but I do agree with the logical foundations of socialism. That our problems are best faced together as one than separately. That the randomness of bad fortune should not be accepted meekly by humans, but smoothed with compassion. I simply disagree with the operational mechanisms Socialism usually puts in place.

 

Agreed. But I don't think you even need to be anywhere near socialism to benefit from social democracy (see Australia, Britain, New Zealand, Canada, Western Europe).

[Gorgon]

If there are democratic elections the system of government is fundamentally democratic, not socialist. Chavez seems to be about to cross over to Socialism as a system of government, having eliminated the term limit on the presidency and moving to nationalize several industries.

 

If his aim is to make the country independent of international banks and the crippling debt they can impose on developing nations, I'm fairly certain he is going to fail. I don't see what country could benifit from being completely isolated and completely self sufficient in today's world.

[samm]

I don't see what country could benifit from being completely isolated and completely self sufficient in today's world.

Well, it's not about his country, it's all about Chavez' benefit. So yes, he'll hopefully fail on his way to complete dictatorship.

[Gorgon]

I'm Certain Chavez thinks he is doing whats right for the country. He's also likely to be more than a little paranoid after his coup experience.

[Rosbjerg]

Actually he had some interesting ideas.. that developing nations should form an alliance, much like the EU, in order to help each other out, and in so doing avoid indebting themselves to the West.

 

Now he's effectively burning his bridges, as nobody wants to be on the dictators' side. Shame really..

[Humodour]

It's funny because a) he craves Obama's recognition and praise and b) he won't get anywhere without regional allies, and Brazil and co are quite fond of America these days.

 

Queue another Belarus?

[Oerwinde]

Until recently I actually thought he was doing some good over there. Using their vast oil wealth to supply the poor with food and build schools and universities and such. Now he's into the power corrupts phase.

[lord of flies]

Hugo Chavez was democratically elected and all the increases in his power were voted on, which is more than you can say for most presidents of the United States (most presidents of the United States just grabbed power arbitrarily without any sort of vote, and four were elected against the popular vote). Stop being such a baby just because a poor country decided to rise up against the imperialist west and take their ****. "Oh no, not Venezuela nationalizing multinational corporations' local industries! This is such a crime! How dare the oppressed rise against their oppressors by theft!"

 

Special Reminder: Venezuela has a higher HDI than Mississippi, Louisiana, West Virginia, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky and Alabama.

 

Look up Operation Ajax. You are an idiot if you think a coup of any kind could be considered a "good idea," because who is actually going to lead an armed insurrection to overthrow a democratically elected leader? That's right: bad people.

[HoonDing]

It's funny because a) he craves Obama's recognition and praise and b) he won't get anywhere without regional allies, and Brazil and co are quite fond of America these days.

 

Queue another Belarus?

IIRC Venezuela is allied with other left governments like Bolivia, Paraguay, Ecuador, Nicaragua & Honduras.

[Walsingham]

What if everyone gets more corrupt over time. Its just that without power you don't notice it?

[Guest PoziomyPion]

Didn't Krezack mix up socialism and communism? Socialism today doesn't mean it has to turn into freaky dictatorship.

 

Unlike Eye-Wrack, this is a problem that could be solved with a couple of Marine expeditionary forces. Shame the new US Prez has Chavez on his Christmas card list.

 

Wow, what a nice "western" way of thinking, shoving "democracy" up someone's ass by force, yay let's kill the guy and liberate Venezuela!!For freedom!

It sounds like something people from middle-east could think about Tony Blair or George Bush. Oh wai-, !They were called terrorists (they were ones) but a couple of marines assassinating democraticaly elected president of a foreign country in your eyes is ok. LoLipops!

 

EDIT: Bush wasn't corrupted by power? IMPOSSIBLE he was a president of democratic country!

Edited May 26, 2009 by PoziomyPion

[Humodour]

It's funny because a) he craves Obama's recognition and praise and b) he won't get anywhere without regional allies, and Brazil and co are quite fond of America these days.

 

Queue another Belarus?

IIRC Venezuela is allied with other left governments like Bolivia, Paraguay, Ecuador, Nicaragua & Honduras.

 

They're not powerful, but I suppose they're numerous.

 

Didn't Krezack mix up socialism and communism? Socialism today doesn't mean it has to turn into freaky dictatorship.

 

Where? I'd be happy for you to point it out, especially since communism is a subset of socialism, but I doubt I even made the 'mistake' of refering to the superset where I meant the subset.

 

I think it's more probable that your understanding of socialism is confused. Most forms of socialism are vile and dangerous (whether communism or some random form of perpetual revolution). The only mildly acceptable form to my mind is socialist democracy (Venezuela, but its swiftly drifting off the tracks to pure socialism).

[lord of flies]

Didn't Krezack mix up socialism and communism? Socialism today doesn't mean it has to turn into freaky dictatorship.

 

Where? I'd be happy for you to point it out, especially since communism is a subset of socialism, but I doubt I even made the 'mistake' of refering to the superset where I meant the subset.

 

I think it's more probable that your understanding of socialism is confused. Most forms of socialism are vile and dangerous (whether communism or some random form of perpetual revolution). The only mildly acceptable form to my mind is socialist democracy (Venezuela, but its swiftly drifting off the tracks to pure socialism).

A second-world democracy nationalizing local industries does not mean it is on a step towards authoritarianism, unless (of course) the US decides to fund fascist militants to overthrow the government. Hugo Chavez was democratically elected, their Parliament was democratically elected, all the increases of power that Chavez has gotten were democratically gained, and if Chavez should be elected God-King of Venezuela, it will have been through democratic means.

 

PS: Bush wasn't elected democratically, and he enacted authoritarian reforms which centralized power into the hands of a single, growingly autocratic, position. OH NO, AMERICA: TURNED TO FASCISM???

 

PPS: Most forms of capitalism are exploitative drek which crush the lower class, whether colonialist, neo-colonialist, imperialistic, or simply laissez-faire ****-the-poor stuff.

[Walsingham]

I love the way people who accuse the USA of being fascists haven't the first experience of fascism or totalitarianism. I've lived in a military dictatorship, and under apartheid, and I hate to break up your party, but the USA isn't even close.

 

Having made that clear I am certainly concerned about the political trend in the US towards polarisation and abrogation of democratic controls. But the difference is the same as saying I am worried about my flu-like symptoms, and screaming "ebola!"

[lord of flies]

I love the way people who accuse the USA of being fascists haven't the first experience of fascism or totalitarianism. I've lived in a military dictatorship, and under apartheid, and I hate to break up your party, but the USA isn't even close.

 

Having made that clear I am certainly concerned about the political trend in the US towards polarisation and abrogation of democratic controls. But the difference is the same as saying I am worried about my flu-like symptoms, and screaming "ebola!"

I was being sarcastic when I said "OH NO, AMERICA: TURNED TO FASCISM???" as implied by the ALL CAPS and multiple punctuation marks. The point is that a temporary growth of an autocratic position in a democratic society is very common; if you cared to go through American history, you'd find that they pop up again and again, with Wilson signing the Sedition Act, Lincoln throwing away Habeas Corpus, FDR putting all the Japanese-Americans in camps, Reagan's decision to illicitly fund the Contras, et cetera. The downfall of human rights and people's power can be seen even outside of war in the United States, most particularly in the often violent, and incredibly corrupt southern backlash to desegregation, equal rights, abolitionism, and so forth. These things (and more) are obviously far worse than taking from multinational neocolonialist corporations and giving to Venezuelans.

[Meshugger]

Why can't we just let Venezuela fail as a socialist nation and then welcome her with open arms when she has reached maturity again? Look what a mess Cuba is, you should've continued to trade with her like you trade with China and the problem would've solved itself.

 

PPS: Most forms of capitalism are exploitative drek which crush the lower class, whether colonialist, neo-colonialist, imperialistic, or simply laissez-faire ****-the-poor stuff.

 

That's a heavy statement. If people are still divided into classes, then the society in question is not free enough for the individual excel according to his own sense of happiness. To paraphrase Friedman: "Every country that has opened its economy has enjoyed greater wealth than a generation ago, there is simply no better system than the free market".

 

Mind you, i of course support the idea of a social safety net, which is not in the reign of a free economy.

[Guest PoziomyPion]

Where? I'd be happy for you to point it out, especially since communism is a subset of socialism, but I doubt I even made the 'mistake' of refering to the superset where I meant the subset.

 

 

I think it's more probable that your understanding of socialism is confused. Most forms of socialism are vile and dangerous (whether communism or some random form of perpetual revolution). The only mildly acceptable form to my mind is socialist democracy (Venezuela, but its swiftly drifting off the tracks to pure socialism).

 

Every communist is a socialist, but not every socialist is a communist. To put it shortly socialism is an economic system and communism is a political system. S

Edited May 26, 2009 by PoziomyPion

[lord of flies]

Why can't we just let Venezuela fail as a socialist nation and then welcome her with open arms when she has reached maturity again? Look what a mess Cuba is, you should've continued to trade with her like you trade with China and the problem would've solved itself.

Because this won't happen, because Venezuela is not an authoritarian regime that the US government can twist around on its debt. What are they going to do? Make the government have free elections? It already does. Also, this didn't work in China, because the US has become reliant on the Chinese, rather than the other way around (which is how effective trade control is achieved).

That's a heavy statement. If people are still divided into classes, then the society in question is not free enough for the individual excel according to his own sense of happiness. To paraphrase Friedman: "Every country that has opened its economy has enjoyed greater wealth than a generation ago, there is simply no better system than the free market".

Yeah, because things went so great for the Soviets after they opened up their markets, right? Or for the Guatemalans following the 53 coup? Or for the United States after it deregulated in the 20s? Or for the Japanese after they were opened up their trading ports to the Spanish? Or for the Iraqis after their government became economically tied to the United States?

 

Hint: These all went terribly.

[Meshugger]

Why can't we just let Venezuela fail as a socialist nation and then welcome her with open arms when she has reached maturity again? Look what a mess Cuba is, you should've continued to trade with her like you trade with China and the problem would've solved itself.

Because this won't happen, because Venezuela is not an authoritarian regime that the US government can twist around on its debt. What are they going to do? Make the government have free elections? It already does. Also, this didn't work in China, because the US has become reliant on the Chinese, rather than the other way around (which is how effective trade control is achieved).

 

They can let it be and have normal trade relations. Not that difficult really. If it chooses to isolate itself, then do not bother. Quite simple, actually.

 

That's a heavy statement. If people are still divided into classes, then the society in question is not free enough for the individual excel according to his own sense of happiness. To paraphrase Friedman: "Every country that has opened its economy has enjoyed greater wealth than a generation ago, there is simply no better system than the free market".

Yeah, because things went so great for the Soviets after they opened up their markets, right? Or for the Guatemalans following the 53 coup? Or for the United States after it deregulated in the 20s? Or for the Japanese after they were opened up their trading ports to the Spanish? Or for the Iraqis after their government became economically tied to the United States?

 

Hint: These all went terribly.

 

None of those examples have anything to with the free market. Hint: look at Britain under Thatcher.