Chávez wins again - Whither Venezuela?

[marksl]

So then we are left with this childish view of every several years to have a popularity contest the winners may or maynot be good for the country but whoever gets the most votes will win.

Wouldent it be better to find a mature goverment say like a chavez administration or castro and keep them in for life. It be better than having blair or bush for the sole reason or living up to the heady heights of "democracy" as we refuse to see beyond it.

 

[marksl]

Teejay i live under the dicatatorship of the blair goverment this is where i learned my disrespect for so called democracy. I also grew up under the thatcher goverment had to live thru the major years and in the future looks like the brown years.

So yes i am negative towards the current system as it keeps producing corrupt cold leaders worse than idi admin.

 

[TeeJay]

Who's to say you wouldn't end up with a Blair or Bush "for life" ... and after them their brothers/sons/cousins/suckups?

 

[Plato1983]

No as i said you are lost in these political labels.

Nope, you seem to be lost in the rosy view of Cuba, which is in fact an island concentration camp.

How do you know that the Cuban people support the system they have, have you asked each and every one of them, I think not. And being a dictatorship, I am not going to believe the inflated figures of Cuba being a wonderful place to live. I know friends (not anti-Castro types, but apolitical) who have holidayed there and they say its nice for tourists and Party members, but the Cuban on the streets is dirt poor and gets fuck all.

How about you stop swallowing the BS propaganda from Havana.

Look at cuba with a goverment like castro why the need to change it,

That is something the Cuban people alone have the right to answer, not you. So do you support the execution or arrest of people who even midly criticise or oppose non-violently the Castro dictatorship? If so shame on you!

he has turned the country around.

Not according to the thousands who flee his prison camp island.

Only according to you has Castro turned the nation around.

Look, Castro may have been better than the old US puppet system, but if thats the case, why not let the people have a say as if Castro is as good as you say he is, he could easily win an election by a landslide as people would genuinly support him.

Sweden has done it, a socialist system with full democracy.

Castro has no excuse for his reppression whatsoever and I'll celebrate the day of his downfall.

Plato you seem lost in this belief to have "democracy" at all costs. You can't see beyond it and this is the whole problem with the current belief system.

Democracy for me is much more than the current state of affairs with 'Western' democracy. I favour city state direct democracy on the libertarian ultra free market model of Murray Rothbard and Von Mises.

And all the other essentials like good health services and education, which Cuba is supposed to be good at, are best served under total freedom as the people use these services and thus know what is best for them, not some remote leader.

How on Earth can Castro know what is good for his people or what they want, he does not even know them, he is in his Palace all the time.

It would be like me saying I know what every single 60 million Briton wants in his/her life, but I don't!

 

[TeeJay]

Teejay i live under the dicatatorship of the blair goverment this is where i learned my disrespect for so called democracy. I also grew up under the thatcher goverment had to live thru the major years and in the future looks like the brown years.

So in other words you have only ever lived in a democracy and have never lived under a dictatorship?

Which of your freedoms are you happy to give up? What would you expect in return and how would you make sure the dictatorship gave you this? What would you do if you didn't get it?

 

[marksl]

anyway if we find a leader like a castro or chavez who wnat to devote their life to the benefit of their people, keep them in for life. They are rare to find. Its better than having accountants or as teejay said suckups.

 

[marksl]

Teejay, having "democracy" doesnt automatically produce the change we seek it just gives us a opporutnity to vote in a goverment that may or maynot benefit us and as said with our past goverments and elections the people seem sadistic to hurt themselves.

 

[TeeJay]

If they are that good then why not stand for election every four years? The people will re-elect them won't they?

Are you someone who doesn't value choice? Would you like to go to a shop and be offered only one product on the shelf, or offered only one option on the menu at a restaurant? Do you secretly want someone how to live your life doen to the last detail as choice is something that ultimately simply makes you feel nervous and confused?

If you don't want to choose the government then why not let those who want to go and vote do it for you? You will then have a "dictatorship" (for you) while other people will get to do the 'choosing' that they like?

 

[marksl]

So teejay given the choice of elections every 4 years biased towards parties with the most money pushing in leaders like blair who follow the same agendas of corrupt foriegn policies and wars or someone like a chavez who at least sees beyond that.

i don't see the currernt systems as better, just the illusion of change. But maybe the illusion is what people seek.

 

[TeeJay]

Teejay, having "democracy" doesnt automatically produce the change we seek it just gives us a opporutnity to vote in a goverment that may or maynot benefit us and as said with our past goverments and elections the people seem sadistic to hurt themselves.

No society anywhere on earth or at any point in history is made up of people who all agree on everything.

Therefore no possible form of government allows a single person to dictate what they want and leave everyone else happy as well.

Various forms of democracy are the best compromise you can get, a way of resolving the different priorities and desires that different people have.

 

[marksl]

So why isnt it working when you look towards the United Kingdom and america with goverments useing democracy as part of their propraganda purposes something is wrong.

Why are our systems deviod and corrupt of the very ideals we seek. If this works i could agree with it but as it stands there is something rotten to the core.

 

[In Bloom]

The therm "revolution" is certainly useful in getting Chavez elected, because that is exactly what the Venezuelan people want.

This is actually a pretty interesting point, IMO, Chavez is a socialist in name only. Ultimately, he is a populist, and like all populists he spends most of his time trying to keep up with the demands of his support base, after all, if things got out of hand and he wasn't around to mediate, he might end up out of a job

 

[marksl]

Until i see a working view of democracy in my own country i stand by my earlier view points. But the coming election we have 2 choices of labour or the conservatives if there is a british version of chavez he never be allowed to even take part.

 

[muser]

If they are that good then why not stand for election every four years? The people will re-elect them won't they?

Are you someone who doesn't value choice? Would you like to go to a shop and be offered only one product on the shelf, or offered only one option on the menu at a restaurant? Do you secretly want someone how to live your life doen to the last detail as choice is something that ultimately simply makes you feel nervous and confused?

If you don't want to choose the government then why not let those who want to go and vote do it for you? You will then have a "dictatorship" (for you) while other people will get to do the 'choosing' that they like?

I don't believe in dictatorships, though I'm prone to agree with markls position. He is, in essence, right about our own democracy. All future governments (in our lifetimes) will have to embrace capitalist market values, which will favour\oppose the people wishes as a whole.
Isn't western democracy about an illusion of choice. If a parliamentary
party slants, media bias towards his\her parties policies, then in effect the media acts as a canvesser.
Some of the electorate become drones while others become disenfranchised.

 

[JoePolitix]

This is actually a pretty interesting point, IMO, Chavez is a socialist in name only. Ultimately, he is a populist, and like all populists he spends most of his time trying to keep up with the demands of his support base, after all, if things got out of hand and he wasn't around to mediate, he might end up out of a job

The Marxist writer Hal Draper has written a great deal about elitist origins of anarchist libertarianism and In Bloom’s post confirms that that particular umbilical cord still has yet to be fully cut.

People at the grassroots in Venezuela support Chavez not only because his government is using oil wealth to improve health, education etc. They also support him for the spaces that have been opened up in society that allow them to make their own realities rather than everything being a gift from above. Chavez in his speeches encourages grassroots movements to organise and they take his words seriously. They aren't in awe of him like the `populist' portrait often painted by those opposed to the process. Those who call Chavez a populist say more about their attitude towards his supporters than about him. His supporters are more than capable of formulating their own ideas about the kind of Venezuela they want.

 

[phildwyer]

Those who call Chavez a populist say more about their attitude towards his supporters than about him. His supporters are more than capable of formulating their own ideas about the kind of Venezuela they want.

Quite so. A lifetime of reading the Western press has given some people the impression that the only way a Socialist can be popular is by some kind of sinister manipulation of public opinion. In reality there is no mystery about the reasons for Chavez's popularity, any more than there is regarding Castro's. They are both the only ever leader of their country to make improving the lives of the poor their *first* priority.

 

[Irenick]

That’s when the British press can even be arsed to report on Venezuela; or, more importantly, Chavez’ Bolivarian Revolution. With the US tangled-up in Iraq and Afghanistan; hopefully, Chavez will be left alone to carry forward more of his groundbreaking reforms.

If, a US so worn down by foreign adventures is too overstretched to concern itself with the Caribbean, Central and South America; then, maybe some good can came from America’s misguided invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[JHE]

The Marxist writer Hal Draper has written a great deal about elitist origins of anarchist libertarianism and In Bloom’s post confirms that that particular umbilical cord still has yet to be fully cut.

People at the grassroots in Venezuela support Chavez not only because his government is using oil wealth to improve health, education etc. They also support him for the spaces that have been opened up in society that allow them to make their own realities rather than everything being a gift from above. Chavez in his speeches encourages grassroots movements to organise and they take his words seriously. They aren't in awe of him like the `populist' portrait often painted by those opposed to the process. Those who call Chavez a populist say more about their attitude towards his supporters than about him. His supporters are more than capable of formulating their own ideas about the kind of Venezuela they want.

OK, where do you think it's going, Joe? Are the 'Bolivarians' going to expropriate much of their country's economic system and establish a planning system as the dominant mode of co-ordination? Is the 'Bolivarian Revolution' going to be a bit like the Cuban Revolution?

Or are you, like me, still very unclear where it's going (despite the talk of socialism)?

 

[In Bloom]

His supporters are more than capable of formulating their own ideas about the kind of Venezuela they want.

Which is somewhat the point. Would it be to much trouble to ask you to read my posts instead of reading whatever you'd like me to have said into them?

What I was actually saying was that populists do not, as they often claim, lead the masses on into a bright new future, they desparately scramble to keep up with the demands of their support base, exactly because they are not in charge as they like to make it look. Clearly Chavez's supporters know what they want, whether Chavez will be able or willing to deliver all of it is what I am questioning.

Call me a cynic, but I'm somewhat suspicious of the idea that any politican is going to willingly render themself redundant.

Edit: and as for 'elitist', I'm not the one who thinks that grassroots movements need to be 'encouraged' into being by Hugo Chavez.

 

[JHE]

Edit: and as for 'elitist', I'm not the one who thinks that grassroots movements need to be 'encouraged' into being by Hugo Chavez.

For good or ill (I'm very inclined to think for good), they have been.

Bottom-up, top-down, bottom-up, top-down, bottom-up... do the hocky-kokey... and whatever it is...

What leaders and governments do and say can make a difference!

 

[In Bloom]

For good or ill (I'm very inclined to think for good), they have been.

There's a long history of grassroots political movements in Latin America, stretching far back beyond Chavez. That he seeks to take credit for those that have emerged while he is in charge is very revealing and says a lot about those who seek to mediate struggles.

 

[Idris2002]

Does he seek to take credit for that though? (genuine question).

I've had the impression that he was pushed to more radical positions by the mass movement, but I'm open to correction on that.

Oh, and to all the bitter rightists on this thread - you're not singing anymore, anymore!

 

[JoePolitix]

OK, where do you think it's going, Joe? Are the 'Bolivarians' going to expropriate much of their country's economic system and establish a planning system as the dominant mode of co-ordination? Is the 'Bolivarian Revolution' going to be a bit like the Cuban Revolution?

Or are you, like me, still very unclear where it's going (despite the talk of socialism)?

These are important questions and I promise to answer them. I'm bogged down with work at the moment but I will deal with these points as best I can in the next few days.

(but please, do try to contain your excitement)

 

[In Bloom]

Does he seek to take credit for that though? (genuine question).

I've had the impression that he was pushed to more radical positions by the mass movement, but I'm open to correction on that.

Is there any reason he can't do both?

By taking this line that he is the supporter, even the creator, of grassroots movements, he is positioning himself so that he can take credit for their successes and appear to be merely carrying out his own agenda when he is forced to concede to them. At the same time, this isn't necessarily something he wants to do.

I'm not saying that the Venezuelan working class would be better off with whoever the US would replace Chavez with, that's not really up for debate unless you're a complete halfwit (is that a paradox? I think we should be told) what I'm arguing is that Chavez is a populist and history shows that populists tend betray the movements which brought them to power, given enough time.

 

[Idris2002]

Maybe Chavez will follow the precedents set by earlier populists.

OTOH, maybe we're in a new historical situation, one where precedents and analogies from the past are less than helpful as a guide for understanding the present situation in Venezuela (or indeed anywhere else) and its potential outcomes.

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

A sad day for Venezuela, a shame the opposition candidate Manuel Rosales, failed to capture the voters and sort out the mess Venezeuala is in under Chavez.

One can only wonder how many votes were tampered with by the regime, given Chavez is pushing Venezuela towards the horrors of Cuba. Hopefully future events, electoral or otherwise will save Venezuela.

Fucking bullshit, as others have said he appears more in line with the old left of the UK - Old Labour et al. He is not Castro Mk II.

 

[JoePolitix]

Okay so Chavez has achieved the trifling feat of winning the Venezuelan elections with a landslide. But the real contest is now on. It's Time Magazine Person of the Year Award 2006!

http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2006/walkup/

He's already a couple of points ahead of Bush, but currently lagging someway behind Ahmadinehad.

Vote now - democratic socialism over clericism!

 

[In Bloom]

Maybe Chavez will follow the precedents set by earlier populists.

OTOH, maybe we're in a new historical situation, one where precedents and analogies from the past are less than helpful as a guide for understanding the present situation in Venezuela (or indeed anywhere else) and its potential outcomes.

Or maybe God himself will rain down candy treats from the sky, the desert will bloom and all the world's leaders will give peace a chance.

What is Chavez doing different from all the other Latin American populists?

 

[JHE]

These are important questions and I promise to answer them. I'm bogged down with work at the moment but I will deal with these points as best I can in the next few days.

(but please, do try to contain your excitement)

Yes, I promise not to get too excited!

But I am genuinely interested in anyone's considered opinion - and you seem to be someone who takes an interest in what's happening in Venezuela.

 

[Nigel]

vote rigging

That TIME MAGAZINE thing must be rigged.
I've voted for Chavez 30 times and he is still on 22%