exosculate
a stagger with a beat
MikeMcc said:
Not surprising, be surprised if it didn't. Seems to be a standard practice of the undemocratic, unaccountable, money markets.
Chavez declares himself a Trotskyist!
- Thread starter JoePolitix
- Start date
Not surprising, be surprised if it didn't. Seems to be a standard practice of the undemocratic, unaccountable, money markets.
That they were that like that didn't stop folks (or rather the pension managers) investing in them before hand, or anywhere else in the world. Thing is that he's done the moves that he has without regard to the people that they affect (what do you expect, he's a politician?exosculate said:
)
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
The Americans can't say a fucking word.
Seeing how they were happy to install and bankroll the military dictatorships all over Latin America, as well as approve of the kidnapping, rape and murder of "subversives" from 30 years ago.
Whilst of course turning a blind eye to the theft of babies from mothers who were then murdered whilst the newborns were handed to supporters of the regime.
In fact many of these military mass murderers were trained in combatting "subversives" (i.e. anyone who opposed their facist ideologies) in Fort Benning, at the School of the Americas.
Kissinger for one knew this, knew of the atrocities committed, and actively approved them.
So basically, the United States of America can go to hell, which I'm sure is where the majority of it's high level political leaders will be going if there is, as they so often claim, a God.
Chavez could go down the same route as Castro, a foolish ego trip born of a pure idea that ultimately puts Venezuela in a strangle hold, but he'll never, ever be as fucking loathsome and as evil as the people who were, and still are, in charge of the United States of America.
Seeing how they were happy to install and bankroll the military dictatorships all over Latin America, as well as approve of the kidnapping, rape and murder of "subversives" from 30 years ago.
Whilst of course turning a blind eye to the theft of babies from mothers who were then murdered whilst the newborns were handed to supporters of the regime.
In fact many of these military mass murderers were trained in combatting "subversives" (i.e. anyone who opposed their facist ideologies) in Fort Benning, at the School of the Americas.
Kissinger for one knew this, knew of the atrocities committed, and actively approved them.
So basically, the United States of America can go to hell, which I'm sure is where the majority of it's high level political leaders will be going if there is, as they so often claim, a God.
Chavez could go down the same route as Castro, a foolish ego trip born of a pure idea that ultimately puts Venezuela in a strangle hold, but he'll never, ever be as fucking loathsome and as evil as the people who were, and still are, in charge of the United States of America.
ska invita
back on the other side
Agreed - the one factor that makes "socialism of the 21 st centruy" different from previous attempts is a very conscious attempt to avoid the pitfalls of the soviet era, which was over centralised rule - the focus by contrast is all about empowering grass-roots .JoePolitix said:
IT is easy to paint Chavez as dictator, but I think the fact that it took a military nut to bring this about at this time is just the way circumstances would have it. The only slightly undemocratic thing I can see CHavez having done is not renewing that stations liscence - other than that his record is pretty squeaky. Minor.
As for the Trotsky thing the whole gang there are welll versed in Marxist literature - but recognise that the formulas need updating, as I said above. To call him a Trot is lazy shorthand journalism - although its clearly a big influence.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
MikeMcc said:
Ah, the beloved stock market: the home of casino capitalism; a reified space where august neo-liberal ecomomists worship at the altar of mammon. The stock market: akin to the Oracle of Delphi; a sentient being with all the sympathies and concerns of a half-brick.
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
nino_savatte said:
couldn't agree more.........well-expressed, too.
JoePolitix
Gone
Negroponte: Ambassador to the Death Squads
No you couldn't particularly giving Negroponte's past activities in Latin America:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/28/1449257
As for this whole decree furore - essentially what has been proposed is that the executive branch will be given greater leeway to implement reforms on specific range of issues for a limited period of time. It is allowed under the Venezuelan constitution of 1999 and has been used in the past in Venezuela with no objections from the US’s guardians of democracy.
exosculate said:He has been trying to export his kind of radical populism and I think that his behaviour is threatening to democracies in the region," Mr Negroponte said.
Could it be any worse than the USA's threat to democracies in the region?
You can't make it up.
No you couldn't particularly giving Negroponte's past activities in Latin America:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/28/1449257
As for this whole decree furore - essentially what has been proposed is that the executive branch will be given greater leeway to implement reforms on specific range of issues for a limited period of time. It is allowed under the Venezuelan constitution of 1999 and has been used in the past in Venezuela with no objections from the US’s guardians of democracy.
JoePolitix
Gone
niksativa said:
I agree with all the above points except the assertion that Chavez's decision not to renew RCTV's liscense is undemocratic. See this excellent summary of the facts around that case:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1933
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
JoePolitix said:
Aye, this is why Bush appointed him as 'Ambassador' to Iraq. Now look what's happened. Wherever Negroponte goes, he leaves a trail of bodies in his wake.
JoePolitix
Gone
TAE said:
JoePolitix
Gone
TAE said:
I thought that dictators ruled without democratic mandidate, above the law, supressed oposition and so forth. Chavez meets none of these criteria. You cant call someone a dictator just because you disaprove of them.
I generally like what he is doing.
Also, regarding silencing critics:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6215815.stm
I think giving that kind of power to one person is always dangerous.
Also, regarding silencing critics:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6215815.stm
JoePolitix
Gone
TAE said:
No denying that. Its worth putting the enabling law in perspective though:
1. The laws represent temporary shift in power from the legislative branch to the executive on a limited number of areas.
2. Most of these involve guidelines for the president's own cabinet-level
agencies. In other words, the Venezuelan version of the Inland Revenue will map out the country's tax structure; the Transportation department will devise its own strategic plan for public transit nationwide, etc.
3. On paper they don’t seem to stray too far from the powers that the executive branch in the United States already has for example.
4. This type of power-transfer is permitted under the both the 1961 and 1999 Venezuelan constitutions.
5. In Venezuela past presidents took advantage of this authority on multiple occasions throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's. Ofcourse these were pro-US governments so predictably no hue and cry then
6. Chavez has been granted an enabling law in the past. In 2000 he used it to adjust the country’s laws to the just passed 1999 constitution. At that time 49 laws were passed as law decrees. No dictatorship ensued.
7. In fact such enabling laws have regularly been used in history during radical political reform for example by Abraham Lincoln or Vaclav Havel.
Of course in Lincoln's case it was fine because "america is special" and Havel was fine because his decrees were used dismantal social ownership and open markets to foreign corporations. Because Chavez is using decrees to promote social ownership and advance national independence he becomes a "dictator" for doing so.
8. Chavez has just received a huge democratic mandate to carry out a program of radical reform in Venezuela. He won a landslide victory that no American president other than Thomas Jefferson can match.
JoePolitix
Gone
TAE said:
From the BBCs own report:
If anything, the fact that the station has not been banned, its owners prosecuted for sedition and the only action the Venezuelan government takes is not renewing its licience after years of provocation shows remarkable constraint.
exosculate
a stagger with a beat
JoePolitix said:
Interesting post Joe, but the main goal should be decentralising power in the long run. If it ends up with more centralising that does not seem to have an end point, then its heading towards a Cuban model, and that is a bad thing in my view.
I very much dislike such enabling laws in principle.JoePolitix said:
Erm, wasn't that partly because the opposition boycotted the election?JoePolitix said:
I like Chavez and I wish him well in his reforms, but he has to remain accountable to their parliament and to all the people.
JoePolitix
Gone
TAE said:
Firstly, RCTV is not being disbanding. It will still be able to operate on the airwaves via cable and satellite - its public license is being revoked. There’s talk of the channel 2 licience being granted to a workers cooperative or a public-private company.
Secondly “years of provocation” was a rather coy description of the seditious conduct of RCTV on my behalf. The government has based its denial of the license renewal on RCTV’s lack of cooperation with tax laws, its repeated failure to pay fines and its refusal to abide by constitutional laws prohibiting incitation to political violence and the distortion of facts and information. Its perfectly right that in a democratic society those who break the law are held account for it surely?
Now I could post dozens of links to a load of decent articles on this issue but I think sometimes being able to see these things in the flesh is worth a thousand such articles. Below is a 9 minute clip from the film “The Revolution will not be Televised” which shows the role that the multi-millionaire media corporations played in Venezuela during the 2002 coup:
Now if anybody can watch through this whole clip and then come back on these boards and defend the right of such organisations to operate on the public airwaves in Venezuela, then I’m afraid we are never gonna agree on this one.
JoePolitix
Gone
TAE said:
Fine, like I said in the early post you cant just call somebody a dictator because you disaprove of what they're doing.
TAE said:
No. The Presidential elections last december were contended and the opposition candidates were trashed.
In the National Assembly elections the previous December the opposition parties did indeed boycott the elections even though they were internationally verified as free and fair elections. Probably because they knew they'd be humiliated.
JoePolitix
Gone
exosculate said:
Agree with that. Its interesting to note that one of the justifications for the "enabling law" is that Chavez wants to grant more power to the communal councils - the emerging movement of democratic grass roots community organisations in Venezuela. See:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1715
I think this demonstrates the main contradiction of the Venezuelan Revolution: a genuinely mass based popular movement that nontheless is over-reliant on the undeniably strong leadership skills of a single individual.
Bang to Rights
Well-Known Member
At this rate, there will come a day when the South American countries will no longer need to import their bananas from the United Snakes. Christ, those latin bastards are getting cheekier by the day.JoePolitix said:
I don't - and nor should you turn a blind eye to a potential power-grab just because you do like what someone is doing.JoePolitix said:
If parliament cannot overrule him, he's effectively a dictator. If he can enact laws on his own, he is effectively a dictator. Perhaps I misunderstood exactly what powers he does/not have. The media can be rather sloppy in their reporting. And he might be a good dictator, but it's a dangerous road to go down, even if it has gone well so far. It'll be interesting to see how this develops.
I'm also rather unhappy about the bill which recently went through the british parliament giving ministers the power to amend certain laws.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
I just think it's ace that someone with a name like 'Chavez' is so solidly behind the working classes. 
ska invita
back on the other side
From what I gather (due to sloppy reporting) the "enabling law" will last for a period of 18 months before reverting back to normal operations. Interesting comment from US diplomat:TAE said:
Michael A. Lebowitz, perhaps the key intellect behind the Bolivarian REvolution, says that the people are happy for it to be this way: they compain that change isnt happening fast enough (true - many critics of CHavez like to use such vox pops to "prove" that Chavez is failing) and this slightly radical step is necessary in the context:
http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/enabling_law_lebowitz.htm
The fact that it is temporary and the fact that there is much room to vote Chavez out make it somewhat more bearable, but I think this comment has some value:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/31/america/LA-GEN-Venezuela-Chavez.php
colacho
gorau arf, arf dysg
I think Joe's right on almost everything here. But I come back to a point from a previous thread and that is that we would be making a big mistake in overestimating the autonomy of grass roots politics in Venezuela. This goes to the heart of the issue of democracy. We have to decide what we mean by democracy first, though. Those who actually think that democratic elitism is anything other than the rule of the rich and powerful, with occasional blips where the majority wakes up and squeals about something, are simply deluded. And democratic elitism is precisely what passes for "real democracy" in places like the UK or the US. That usually depends on us sheep flocking off to the polls to rubber stamp some scheme or other worked out by our betters and then prettily wrapped with a ribbon on top. Once we've given them our vote they do pretty much what they want. The UK parliament, the product of a ridiculously antiquated first past the post system, is usually just a moronic talking shop filled with the hot air of braying dullards who almost all agree on everything except the trivial nit-picking that passes for "party politics". Ensconced with a comfortable majority jerks like Blair can take us into a war and there is fuck all we can about it, short of storming the place.
Compared to that Venezuela is a place where there is actually something to choose between- a return to the kleptocracy that ruled Venezuela in the past or something new that actually makes poor Venezuelans (the majority) feel as if they have a say, and a right to exist without constantly having to tug the forelock (whereas bowing and scraping to your boss is apparently back in a big way in the UK, with fuck all redress available in the post Thatcher years). And in the terms of those who think that simply being allowed to vote = democracy then Chávez is one of the most legitimate democratic leaders in region.
But democracy ought not to be just about going out and voting every four, five or six years. It ought to be about the creation of mechanisms whereby people (not "the people", whoever the fuck they are) can have a say, and actually be given control over their own affairs in a huge array of areas. Now, in some areas this seems to be happening in Venezuela. Local communities have their health committees, their urban land committees, and so on, and these work with the Parish committees (quaint religious terminology that arch-Christian Chav isn't going to ditch) that are involved in running localities. But to get stuff done all of these organisations are almost always at the mercy of some alcaldia mayor, menor or central state institution that examines the chavista credentials of local leaders. And if you don't pass muster, if you are too critical, then things don't get done. The purse strings don't open for you. The models for the organisations themselves didn't just mushroom up from below, they were vigorously propagated from above. There's a tremedous amount of posturing, plenty of corruption, and a lot of waste. And inertia too. And that has led at key moments when discontent has really been expressed from below. The Misiones started- imposed from above, again- as a response to people saying "OK, Chávez, what are you actually going to do? Lots of talk and no action". Something similar is happening now. Chavez's democratic power base wants him to make the revolution less "lite" and more revolutionary. But it wants it done in a way it understands- through state intervention. Now, it's all very well to say that the state "belongs to the people", as the slogan "Venezuela, ahora es de todos" ("Venezuela belongs to everyone now") suggests. But the state is in the hands of a new political class, the chavistas. It's paternalistic and potentially authoritarian. Deepening revolution in Venezuela would really be about strengthening grass roots movements and giving them more autonomy. Making them less populist, less chavista, more free. More unlike each other. Of course, there are real arguments against this from the perspective of chavismo which is much more populist than it is socialist, as it might weaken the bonds that have forged this new political identity amongst the previously marginalised. Chavismo wants the "pueblo" to feel common cause, to feel the same as each other, not different. But democracy should always be about disagreement. Not all the "pueblo" want the same things, especially once you get past those basics, food, housing, health care, education. And working out where we disagree and finding ways of negotiating those disagreements -and being able to really hate those fuckers who oppose us without feeling that that gives us the right to kill them- is real democracy.
Chavismo has created a simple divide within Venezuelan society. Us and them. The "pueblo" against the "oligarquía", "chavistas" against "escualidos". That' s a real difference, and makes Venezuela more democratic than somewhere like the US where there is only one ruling party, the business party, which has two right wings, the democrats and the republicans (thanks, Gore Vidal). But to deepen democracy, and real revolution, we need a proliferation of political identities expressing themselves within Venezuela. Right now, polarisation is such that to make any criticism of Chavez is to put you on the other side. To criticise the rump of the corrupt old power bloc is to make you a chavista. Too limited. And compounded by making Chavez = el pueblo. Giving him the right to rule by decree has to be recognised as a retrograde step. It's giving the power to the people's surrogate, someone who quite happily lies to them by telling them that Bolivar was a socialist.
Oh, fuck, going to bed early, quite enough of this drivel...
Compared to that Venezuela is a place where there is actually something to choose between- a return to the kleptocracy that ruled Venezuela in the past or something new that actually makes poor Venezuelans (the majority) feel as if they have a say, and a right to exist without constantly having to tug the forelock (whereas bowing and scraping to your boss is apparently back in a big way in the UK, with fuck all redress available in the post Thatcher years). And in the terms of those who think that simply being allowed to vote = democracy then Chávez is one of the most legitimate democratic leaders in region.
But democracy ought not to be just about going out and voting every four, five or six years. It ought to be about the creation of mechanisms whereby people (not "the people", whoever the fuck they are) can have a say, and actually be given control over their own affairs in a huge array of areas. Now, in some areas this seems to be happening in Venezuela. Local communities have their health committees, their urban land committees, and so on, and these work with the Parish committees (quaint religious terminology that arch-Christian Chav isn't going to ditch) that are involved in running localities. But to get stuff done all of these organisations are almost always at the mercy of some alcaldia mayor, menor or central state institution that examines the chavista credentials of local leaders. And if you don't pass muster, if you are too critical, then things don't get done. The purse strings don't open for you. The models for the organisations themselves didn't just mushroom up from below, they were vigorously propagated from above. There's a tremedous amount of posturing, plenty of corruption, and a lot of waste. And inertia too. And that has led at key moments when discontent has really been expressed from below. The Misiones started- imposed from above, again- as a response to people saying "OK, Chávez, what are you actually going to do? Lots of talk and no action". Something similar is happening now. Chavez's democratic power base wants him to make the revolution less "lite" and more revolutionary. But it wants it done in a way it understands- through state intervention. Now, it's all very well to say that the state "belongs to the people", as the slogan "Venezuela, ahora es de todos" ("Venezuela belongs to everyone now") suggests. But the state is in the hands of a new political class, the chavistas. It's paternalistic and potentially authoritarian. Deepening revolution in Venezuela would really be about strengthening grass roots movements and giving them more autonomy. Making them less populist, less chavista, more free. More unlike each other. Of course, there are real arguments against this from the perspective of chavismo which is much more populist than it is socialist, as it might weaken the bonds that have forged this new political identity amongst the previously marginalised. Chavismo wants the "pueblo" to feel common cause, to feel the same as each other, not different. But democracy should always be about disagreement. Not all the "pueblo" want the same things, especially once you get past those basics, food, housing, health care, education. And working out where we disagree and finding ways of negotiating those disagreements -and being able to really hate those fuckers who oppose us without feeling that that gives us the right to kill them- is real democracy.
Chavismo has created a simple divide within Venezuelan society. Us and them. The "pueblo" against the "oligarquía", "chavistas" against "escualidos". That' s a real difference, and makes Venezuela more democratic than somewhere like the US where there is only one ruling party, the business party, which has two right wings, the democrats and the republicans (thanks, Gore Vidal). But to deepen democracy, and real revolution, we need a proliferation of political identities expressing themselves within Venezuela. Right now, polarisation is such that to make any criticism of Chavez is to put you on the other side. To criticise the rump of the corrupt old power bloc is to make you a chavista. Too limited. And compounded by making Chavez = el pueblo. Giving him the right to rule by decree has to be recognised as a retrograde step. It's giving the power to the people's surrogate, someone who quite happily lies to them by telling them that Bolivar was a socialist.
Oh, fuck, going to bed early, quite enough of this drivel...
JoePolitix
Gone
Condi on US-Venezuela relations
At least she has a sense of humour.
At least she has a sense of humour.
Similar threads
