OP/ED: Hugo Chavez Dismantles Democracy in Venezuela

Originally posted by The Vagabond
FAIR AND BALANCED BY ARSE. And I actually have been a big Fox fan in the past.

IMHO you don't have to be "fair and balanced" when dealing with communism/socialism. It failed miserably in the Soviet Union and the socialism-lite practiced in Western Europe nowadays seems to be headed on the same path. What Chavez is doing seems much closer to totalitarian Soviet communism than even the most socialist regimes or parties in Western Europe.

[edit on 2/6/2005 by djohnsto77]

Originally posted by Megaquad

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by Gools
The American utopia of everyone living like Donald Trump or Bill Gates is the real sham. It only happens at the expense of everyone else.

So it's better to have everyone dirt poor like Cuba rather than have some rich, a vast middle class and some poor like the U.S.? With a per capita GDP of $30,200 (1997) the U.S. system is clearly better for its citizens than Cuba with a per capita GDP of $1,540.

Many people prefer to live an incredibly lazy life than put up with any work, this is why they like socialism that much.

Should I even dignify this with a response? You somehow believe that it's fair to compare America and Cuba despite America's vast advantages in size, resources, population, international relations, etc. We helped put Cuba where it is today because we couldn't have powerful Carribbean nations controlling access to our Southern Coast.

The people of Venezuela are not lazy ignorant wretches who chose to let the government give them what rightfully belongs to the rich. They are an oppressed population which has finally managed to sieze a stake for themselves in the nation that wealthy foreigners built to use them. Why in the bloody hell are you so opposed to the idea that Venezuela wants to trade its oil to Cuba for social needs like teachers and doctors instead of trading it to America just to make a small hand full of people rich/middle class.

This is text book post-colonial third world economics my friends. You go into a weak nation which has the resources to sustain its entire population at a modest but acceptable level, and you put a corrupt few in charge. They sell their resources to you for a few paltry dollars, creating a token "middle class" for Western politicians to laud while our companies rake in the resources. Meanwhile the unseen majority is starving to death and recieving no medical care.
We tell them to grow coffee instead food. We tell them to sell us oil for cash, or better yet for our export goods, instead of trading it to cuba for social improvements which will build their future. We sell them weapons to keep the masses in check, then we use their military buildup to justify arms sales to their neighbor as well.
Sometimes, as with Iraq and Iran, this leads to a war. That's the best part for us, because now we get to destroy both nations, occupy them, and start the client relationship all over again.

It digusts me that you people buy into this stuff. War is a racket. Take ten minutes- google for "Smedley Butler" + "War is a racket" and read what one of America's greatest military heroes said about his service in the Banana Wars.

Switzerland is a small landlocked country with few natural resources, certainly nothing like Venezuela's vast oil reserves. Yet it has a per person GDP of $32,700 (2003 est.).

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by The Vagabond
FAIR AND BALANCED BY ARSE. And I actually have been a big Fox fan in the past.

IMHO you don't have to be "fair and balanced" when dealing with communism/socialism. It failed miserably in the Soviet Union and the socialism-lite practiced in Western Europe nowadays seems to be headed on the same path. What Chavez is doing seems much closer to totalitarian Soviet communism than even the most socialist regimes or parties in Western Europe.

[edit on 2/6/2005 by djohnsto77]

Your arguement is completely hollow at best. The lack of fairness I am pointing out is a series of lies and distortions designed to lead American opinion towards hostility towards a nation we have no reason to be hostile towards. To say that fairness is not necessary in this light is to say that we have a right or responsibility to attack socialists for their domestic choices. If Venezuela decided to commit mass suicide why should we presume to stop them?
Like I said, who says America capitalism is a success? It hasn't crashed and burned but it's allowing the ruin of many good hard working people. How would you like it if somebody who thought they had a better idea decided to invade us and rape us for resources under the shallow excuse that they were protecting us from our self-destructive economic policies?

Let's not forget that America will not help Venezuela, we'd just turn them over to Halliburton so that Dick Cheney and company could corn-hole them.


EDIT: to respond to a new post which doesn't deserve a seperate response due to its brevity.
Switzerland is not an acceptable analogy either. It's history is distinctly different and it has had the good fortune to have developed strong financial institutions- partially because they were nice to the Nazis.

[edit on 6-2-2005 by The Vagabond]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Switzerland is a small landlocked country with few natural resources, certainly nothing like Venezuela's vast oil reserves. Yet it has a per person GDP of $32,700 (2003 est.).

Even better example is Chile. Market oriented economy with a living standard of ~$10,000/year and rising.

Internet users in Chile: 3.5 million of 15 million pop.
Internet users in Venezuela : 1,2 Million of 25 million pop. (source CIA factbook)

I dont think I even need to mention South Korea.
(Number of internet users is an indication of quality of life and living standards in case you don't comprehend it)

[edit on 6-2-2005 by Megaquad]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Should I even dignify this with a response? You somehow believe that it's fair to compare America and Cuba despite America's vast advantages in size, resources, population, international relations, etc. We helped put Cuba where it is today because we couldn't have powerful Carribbean nations controlling access to our Southern Coast.

You are making up random conspiracies/speculations as you go. US has always tried to topple Cuban regime, saying that that US wants their people to remain oppressed is nonsense. Go check if you can get a nice paying job in Cuban or North Korean Ministry of Information.

Left-wing nuts always try to scramble and make excuses for facts which clearly demonstrate failures of socialism. Reason why Cuba is poor is simple and it can be summed in one word: Socialism.

Poverty in Oppressed Peoples Republic of Cuba is no doubt significantly greater than in any developed country. Catastrophic most likely. Did I mention it's because of socialism?

[edit on 6-2-2005 by Megaquad]

Originally posted by Megaquad
You are making up random conspiracies/speculations as you go. US has always tried to topple Cuban regime, saying that that US wants their people to remain oppressed is nonsense. Go check if you can get a nice paying job in Cuban or North Korean Ministry of Information.

So you're saying that the strategic importance of Cuba to the gulf of Mexico is just a paranoid dillusion of mine, and you think it's just a coincidence that America has been keeping a strangle hold on the Cuban economy ever since we lost the ability to control them?
You misread my statement. I didn't say we want to oppress them and keep them from freedom the way Castro does. I am saying that we've got a small paradise just off our coast which is well suited to certain crops, and their currency is so weak that we can pretty much have our way with them. America doesn't want a wealthy Cuba creating a strong economic network in the Carribbean to threaten that.

Oh, and I can't be an information minister because my name doesn't match the capital. Baghdad Bob was awesome. Pyongyang Tom would never catch hold.

Left-wing nuts always try to scramble and make excuses for facts which clearly demonstrate failures of socialism. Reason why Cuba is poor is simple and it can be summed in one word: Socialism.

What makes me a left-wing nut again? Is it my baptist upbringing? My service in the USMC? My support for gun ownership? My vote to impeach Gray Davis? My vote to elect George Bush?
I'm a thinking conservative. I believe in freedoms ahead of government or corporate agendas. I believe in the sovreignity of nations. I believe in the rights of people to make their own choices- including the choice to vote for a socialist. I believe the hardline is necessary at times, but I believe it only works if you save it for when you need it- that means I don't support just any war that comes along.
The problem with Cuba can not be summed up in the word socialism. Unless you have a doctorate that you haven't mentioned yet, I suggest you step back and consider the fact that I might not be a complete idiot. Cuba has been under exploitative foreign rule for most of its history, it went through a tough revolution, and then it was shut out by a major economic power (the USA). If I had to oversimplify Cuba's plight by naming a single word, that word would be embargo, not socialism.

Poverty in Oppressed Peoples Republic of Cuba is no doubt significantly greater than in any developed country. Catastrophic most likely.

Very true. It almost makes you regret the way we've shut them out and left them to their own devices doesn't it? Where was it ever written that America couldn't be nice to commies? Odds are that if we'd been a good neighbor for the last 50 years and made mutually beneficial delas with Cuba, the lure of profits would have brought them to reform 10 or 20 years ago.


I really hope you read this last thought with an open mind.
We must entertain the possibility that what we have been taught was not true. We can not always take other people's word for it.
We probably aren't the superior good guys destined to win, and our rivals probably aren't fatally flawed villians destined to lose.
The truth is, we're probably on equal ground. Leftist ideologies are plauged by corruption. Rightwing ideologies are plagued by corruption. I suspect that almost any system could work if we could get rid of that common flaw.

The US is trying to pull another nicaragua on Venezuela. Censorship of the press ring a bell there?

Also sometime before chistmas 2003 i heard a report saying the marxist rebels in colombia were being aided across the Venezuelan border... now that's the old excuse for war (terror and/or WMD being the new) being dug up again... oh no the commies are coming quick lets do th e regieme chainge again then they might stop asking money for pil and sign up to NAFTA.'

They have tried anything on this chavez guy and they dont like him. This is the first non-white president to be elected there and i genuinely think he is trying more for the local population than any of his predecessors. He is trying to make oil revenue from the US multiantionals, and that is breaking "trade agreements" (note another issue is he did not sign NAFTA).

Just like any reformer in the region before him, the threat of a good example will be crushed by the US.

Originally posted by Corinthas
Just like any reformer in the region before him, the threat of a good example will be crushed by the US.

Dang skippy. It's really hard to deal with this sort of stuff for me too because I feel that I deeply understand whats right and wrong. My country is WAY wrong in this case. We're starting to act like the bad guys that I always read about America defeating when I was growing up. I guess we've come a long way from the scrappy little nation that sent Marines hunting pirates just for fun and turned the tide of the world wars.

I can't help thinking that if I were a better man I'd be willing to take up arms against my own country before I sat idly by to let it become so much like the tyrants it has battled in past days of glory.
I don't care for Michael Moore, but Dude, Where's My Country?

[edit on 6-2-2005 by The Vagabond]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
IMHO you don't have to be "fair and balanced" when dealing with communism/socialism.

so...you don't mind biased reporting when it comes to certain topics but not others? Should the US administration just buy out fox news and appoint Murdoch as minister of propaganda, or is that a little too honest for the people to handle?

It failed miserably in the Soviet Union and the socialism-lite practiced in Western Europe nowadays seems to be headed on the same path. What Chavez is doing seems much closer to totalitarian Soviet communism than even the most socialist regimes or parties in Western Europe.

I've already said this many times, but I will say it again: the soviet union was NOT a communist state. It basically amounted to Hitler's germany: a social NATIONALIST system. Educate yourself a little. Go read the doctrine of libertarian communism and then tell me if the USSR or even Cuba for that matter is a model of libertarian communism.

Fox news source and a description of the outrage of Bush administration when Chavez refused to bend to the US and oil base companies wishes.

He is Castro now, he will kill his people, he will be a dictator, and meanwhile making their oil a national treasure will ensure that greedy hands like Texaco and Mobil will not get to control their oil.

Way to go Chavez, now he needs to start some nuclear weapons program so US stay away from his oil.

Originally posted by General Zapata
so...you don't mind biased reporting when it comes to certain topics but not others? Should the US administration just buy out fox news and appoint Murdoch as minister of propaganda, or is that a little too honest for the people to handle?

I'm saying that there aren't two sides to this story. Communism is a failure, failure, failure! Anyway you look at it.

I've already said this many times, but I will say it again: the soviet union was NOT a communist state. It basically amounted to Hitler's germany: a social NATIONALIST system. Educate yourself a little. Go read the doctrine of libertarian communism and then tell me if the USSR or even Cuba for that matter is a model of libertarian communism.

This is ridiculous. Of course it was a communist system. There was no private ownership of any companies and the economy was a centrally planned one.

Originally posted by marg6043
Way to go Chavez, now he needs to start some nuclear weapons program so US stay away from his oil.

Marg, what will his oil be worth to him if he doesn't sell it? If he sells it someone else we'll just buy the oil that was being be sold to that country...no net difference.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
So you're saying that the strategic importance of Cuba to the gulf of Mexico is just a paranoid dillusion of mine, and you think it's just a coincidence that America has been keeping a strangle hold on the Cuban economy ever since we lost the ability to control them?
You misread my statement. I didn't say we want to oppress them and keep them from freedom the way Castro does. I am saying that we've got a small paradise just off our coast which is well suited to certain crops, and their currency is so weak that we can pretty much have our way with them. America doesn't want a wealthy Cuba creating a strong economic network in the Carribbean to threaten that.

US has isolated Cuba because it is a communist regime hostile to US, because it was umm...ally of Soviet Union and received its military aid?
No no... I totally got that wrong. It's because of [insert evil corporations, US trying to enslave population, CONTROL!!!].

The problem with Cuba can not be summed up in the word socialism. Unless you have a doctorate that you haven't mentioned yet, I suggest you step back and consider the fact that I might not be a complete idiot. Cuba has been under exploitative foreign rule for most of its history, it went through a tough revolution, and then it was shut out by a major economic power (the USA). If I had to oversimplify Cuba's plight by naming a single word, that word would be embargo, not socialism.

As I said, nation which is ruled by a man who was allied to Soviet Union and militarily hostile to US does not deserve any charity or trade opportunities. It would hardly help them. Countries economy can never grow to keep up with population under ultra-socialist and unfree regime. It's unheard of and impossible regardless whether it has embargo or not.
This nation does not allow it's citizens to create wealth by conducting business. This kind of economically ignorant blocking of human potential is truly a crime worthy of a death sentence.

I really hope you read this last thought with an open mind.
We must entertain the possibility that what we have been taught was not true. We can not always take other people's word for it.
We probably aren't the superior good guys destined to win, and our rivals probably aren't fatally flawed villians destined to lose.
The truth is, we're probably on equal ground. Leftist ideologies are plauged by corruption. Rightwing ideologies are plagued by corruption. I suspect that almost any system could work if we could get rid of that common flaw.

Yes but your defense of oppressive regimes is not a virtue, toleration of evil seeds only more evil.
You think I would enjoy living in communism right now if USA didn't fiercely oppose it?
Those oppressed countries are in vast majority of cases run by individuals whose policy is aggressive towards US, they want to see it destroyed (you think not? check their quotes on US), but they don't posses the power to do so.
I don't see how anyone sane can tolerate and have good relations with hostile countries. Luckily, people on power realize that.

So, despite my personal convictions l really don't care much whether regime is left-wing or right-wing as long as it is not statist and allows great amount of personal freedoms, such as those in Chile, Singapore, Ireland...
But thing is, left-wing ones have always been deadly socialist-oriented and destroying countries where they came to power.
Take Germany for example, unemployment has now exceeded 10% and stands at 5 mil. and unofficially 6.5 mil.

For Cuba, try reading this article for start: www.liceocubano.com...

Opponents of U.S. policy toward Cuba claim that if the embargo and the travel ban are lifted, the Cuban people would benefit economically; American companies will penetrate and influence the Cuban market; the Communist system would begin to crumble and a transition to a democratic society would be accelerated.

These expectations are based on several incorrect assumptions. First, that Castro and the Cuban leadership are naïve and inexperienced and, therefore, would allow tourists and investments from the U.S. to subvert the revolution and influence internal developments in the island. Second, that Cuba would open up and allow U.S. investments in all sectors of the economy, instead of selecting which companies could trade and invest. Third, that Castro is so interested in close relations with the U.S. that he is willing to risk what has been upper-most in his mind for 40 years - total control of power and a legacy of opposition to "Yankee imperialism," - in exchange for economic improvements for his people. During the Fifth Communist Party Congress in 1997, Castro emphasized "We will do what is necessary without renouncing our principles. We do not like capitalism and we will not abandon our Socialist system."

Cuba will not have freedom from its woes until free government is installed.


[edit on 6-2-2005 by Megaquad]

djohnsto, you make claims as if they are gospel truth and you have no evidence, no conviction, and no knowledge of the subject matter. You try to validate your point by saying that because of those two characteristics, the soviet union was communist. Absolutely incorrect. Once again, I suggest that you educate yourself a little on the communist doctrine.

Originally posted by General Zapata
djohnsto, you make claims as if they are gospel truth and you have no evidence, no conviction, and no knowledge of the subject matter. You try to validate your point by saying that because of those two characteristics, the soviet union was communist. Absolutely incorrect. Once again, I suggest that you educate yourself a little on the communist doctrine.

I'm sure he has much more productive ways to spend his time.

Yeah technically the Soviet Union wasn't truly communist in the theoretical sense of the word, but no such state has ever existed outside of books and the Soviet Union was the closest thing to it that ever existed in real life. It's a matter of semantics, it doesn't change my point.

I have had to re-read the thread starting post at least three times to try and fathom why this thread has become a diatribe of discourse regarding political systems, I still don't get it.

Be that as it may. Some have pointed out a truth that others either don't buy or ignore:

America will not allow ANY government to succeed in the Americas that is NOT pro-American.

This folks, is an historical fact.

Venezuela kicked much of their oligarchy out instead of slaughtering them- might be a mistake. Every other place in North and South America and all points in between where the masses (whatever that means) have exerted power to equalize opportunity has either been invaded or quarantined by the U.S.

Venezuela happens to have that rare commodity needed by most of the world, in this instance oil. Chinese influence will grow in Venezuela as the people of Venezuela try to choose their own path to their future. Whether it be socialist or democratic shouldn't really matter.

Cuba and the Cuban people have suffered for decades because their dictator has refused to bend to Washington's whim. Cuba does not have oil. If Cuba had large oil or nickel deposits it would have a different leader or already be an American territory.

Venezuela was either lucky or smart, maybe a little of both. By waiting until America became embroiled militarily it was able to seize an opportunity to chart its own destiny. Whatever this type of government or society is called doesn't matter much, what matters is that a window of opportunity is open. If the CIA or other like minions do not succeed in killing him then Venezuela may be able to establish itself as a free Venezuela. Only time will tell.

.

.

Part 2
I want this separate from the preceding post, so - - -

Most Americans either do not know or coose to forget their own nations history. From the excuses for the Mexican War (1846) until the present (2005) the rest of both hemisphere's have been treated as a preserve for American business interests. Usually these interests are masked with egalitarian verbage but the end result is the same- rule from Washington.

America dictated peace terms on Mexico that emasculated Mexico and fleshed out the continental United States (but for Alaska). Business interests compelled that war just as suredly as every other American adventure within the hemisphere's:

U.S. Marine Corp General Smedley Butler:
I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

From United Fruit Company's mercenaries of the 1920/30's to Panama under Reagan the Americans have used force, coercion and intimidation to get their way. While many claim 'Americans aren't bad, it's their government' I have wondered about this for years.

For more than 100 years, through enumerable administrations the American 'way of life' has tried to keep North and South America as nothing more than colonies. Scandal after scandal roll in only to roll out again, soon forgotten. There must be a sickness within the very core of American society.

I refuse to believe Americans are 'good people' anymore.
.

.

Megaquad: start at the root of the problem. The root of the problem was not a hostile Castro. That is patently absurd. Did he just wake up one morning and say to himself, "I'll start a hopeless conflict with my bigger stronger neighbor even if it kills my nation."? NO! He took a hardline on Cuban defense and allied with the Soviets so that we wouldn't topple his government and install puppets. Let's just cast aside the ridiculous notion that Castro ever intended to initiate hostilities with the USA. That leaves us with only one thing to consider: Were we justified in refraining from mutually beneficial trade and consequently bringing harm to innocent Cuban civilians as well as perpetuating an unnecessary conflict with our neighbor, just because that neighbor was different from us?

You state that it is a death-worthy trespass to deny people's ability to profit. Where exactly is this written? Should one man be allowed to dam up the flow of water to another man's property if it will turn a profit for him?
I do not believe that an enlightened society can allow necessities to become profitable industries. They should be public works performed at cost for the benefit of all. Pure capitalism dictates that a man can't eat, can't keep his children warm, can't have a roof over his head or clothes on his back unless he can scrounge up sufficient tribute for his landlord. The common man in a capitalist nation is not a citizen in the ideal sense of the word. He is a serf to corporate feudal lords.
We have weaknesses just as socialist economies do. Nobody has got a perfect system. Here in America you have to be afraid that your land lord will put you out in the streets, or that your sick child will not be treated. In a socialist nation centralized management makes mistakes disasterous and you give up hopes of ever becoming wealthy. A lot of people would gladly make this trade. I'd work harder for fewer luxuries if it meant the necessities would always be there.

Yes but your defense of oppressive regimes is not a virtue, toleration of evil seeds only more evil.
Those oppressed countries are in vast majority of cases run by individuals whose policy is aggressive towards US, they want to see it destroyed but they don't posses the power to do so.
I don't see how anyone sane can tolerate and have good relations with hostile countries. Luckily, people on power realize that.
[edit on 6-2-2005 by Megaquad]

I've quoted this part because it I feel your are mislead in the facts which bring you to your conclusions.
1. I'm not defending oppressive regimes. I've provided fair evidence that Venezuela isn't nearly as oppressive as FNC fraudulently claims. It only took me 5 minutes to find out that the poor mayor who was imprisoned by Chavez had his police force take part in the coup attempt in 2002. You've been lied to. I don't catagorically support socialist leaders. I do not have enough solid fact on Castro to have an opinion. I know enough about Kim Jong Il to despise him. I'm defending Chavez (in part- i oppose his support for FARC) because he hasn't done half of what FNC accuses him of.

2. As you have stated, these nations lack the capacity to be aggressive towards the US. They engage in the war of words because in their cultural understanding the only way to deter a threat is to threaten them back. We supported an Iraqi attack on Iran starting in 1980, we called them part of an "axis of evil", we invaded two neighboring countries, and we are violating their airspace regularly. We've tried to kill Castro god knows how many times. It is absurd to claim that these nations are aggressive towards us. They are hostile because we have been aggressive. Long story short, they are taking the hard line on defense.

If Cuba wanted to destroy us they could have used the mobile tactical nukes that the USSR deployed in their nation during the missile crisis. Iran, I'll grant, probably wants to destroy us. When that is true we have an interesting choice before us. We can say it's kill or be killed, which appeals to the cold and ignorant macho mindset that our media-educated culture loves so much. Or we could attempt to avert their wrath with a gentle response and rob the extremists of their ammunition for painting us as the Great Satan. Our founding fathers were Christians and they wanted neutrality. I'm guessing they would be mending fences (and not the Ariel Sharon kind of fences) rather than perpetuating conflicts.

3. Peace with hostile nations is really easy to understand actually. Suppose that you had a gun, and you were walking around in a place where everybody else had a gun too. You and somebody else get into an arguement over something stupid that is not worth a gunfight. Do you A. shoot him. B. Threaten him and hope he backs down instead of shooting you. C. Find common ground and compromise, even if it means not getting your way 100%.

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by Illmatic67
...South America wants trade relations with China, not the USA. And this revolution is not a one's countries revolution. ...Colombia is next.

Chavez pulled Venezuela out of a scummy pit of poverty. Now Venezuelans have a democratic voice in their government, and a real future. Of course other South American countries want the same thing...

...and you're saying this is bad? ...You're saying governments should support international corporations and let their people starve? ...You're saying democracy is about international corporate power, not ordinary people or their well-being?

Yes, this is bad....why?....because Chavez is following the footsteps of Castro.... He just announced, heard it on tv, that he will set up neighborhood committees like the ones in Cuba...These committees, like the ones in Cuba, are set up to keep the regular people in check... and it is a way to find out who opposes the government of Chavez....

Perhaps nobody in this thread realizes that the people in Cuba are starving, because of castro...and Chavez, as he has stated many times, wants to follow castro's footsteps...

castro did the same thing when he started, he promised the same things Chavez is promising, etc.... in the end what Chavez's goal is, is to make Venezuela a communist country, and yes this is bad for the people and for the western countries, not only the US.

If the people of Venezuela actually knew the history of Cuba and what castro did and what he is doing I am pretty sure they would quickly change their minds, but alas, those not informed are easily duped.

[edit on 7-2-2005 by Muaddib]