NEW STATESMAN: HUGO CHAVEZ

POSTED BY: Howard
UPDATED: Saturday, November 5, 2005 03:55
VIEWED: 5692
PAGE 3 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3

EYETOOTH

Monday, October 17, 2005 2:48 PM

Those are some damning links. Even people who are quite left-wing should realise that Chavez isn't much better than a reactionary dictator, and is much worse than the pre-1998 status quo. (One thing that bugs me - the pro-Chavez camp harps on about the weakness of the establishment-dominated Venezualian democracy before Chavez, the very democracy that allowed an anti-establishment insurrectionary to be elected.)

Of course no number of links to impartial sources convince the true believers, who are privy to mysterious "mountains of evidence" exculpating him.

REMO

Saturday, November 5, 2005 2:23 AM

>>Venezuela's president is rarely seen by foreigners for what he is: one of the world's most popular and democratic politicians.>>

I couldn't read any further because that made me laugh so hard.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, November 5, 2005 3:28 AM

I don't really have the information that Loggerhead has on Chavez, but I'll give my gut feeling.

As I have posted a whole bunch of times, so everyone already knows how I feel about Chazvez. I have some reservations and somewhat of an open mind about him.

1. I don't think Socialist utopia is realistically possible. I think that there are a few instances like in Venezuela where it could work to some degree, simply because they are sitting on a tone of cash. It's like monarchy works in Kuwait, but not so much in Bhutan. Etc.

2. I think Chavez is basically a good guy, that's not the problem. I disagree with Condi and co. I think the tricky situation is that Chavez will set up a centrally controlled society that may run beautifully for decades, until he is deposed and replaced with as a**hole. Then everything will start to suck, like in Iraq.

3. I think that to ensure that this won't happen, which is in US interests to ensure that this won't happen (And I really don't agree with the article's position that the US is hell bent on dominating Latin America, I think that mostly the US doesn't care, but fears rogue states; and Chevron wants the oil) but to ensure that this scenario in 2. won't happen, we need to open a dialogue with Chavez about market reform.

4. I know this will be an anathema to him, but in order to have this, we need to set aside certain fears.

5. The US has to assure Venezuela that we, as a nation, nor our corporate interests, are interested in controlling Venezuelan commerce. I don't think at the moment that that statement is true, but we need to make it true, and then convince Chavez of that.

6. That an independent Venezuelan based free-market system is the best way to enact the solutions that he feels are needed.

7. While I disagree with Mr. Chavez on the simple 'goods and services should be apportioned equally' which I translate as 'people should be rewarded for having babies, but not for creating progress'; it is clear that in certain areas he may have a point.

8. If all of this can be worked out to this point, we can address which areas he may have a point in, and how those can be addressed in a free market system, and offer to help in those areas, in exchange for market reforms in his home country.

9. If we don't do this, we have a more immediate problem on our hands. Venezuela will make a roughly successful socialist state which will be very rich, because they will have lots of money, that they have so recently come into. This will convince everyone in poorer parts of latin america that socialism works. They won't make the connection, oh these guys just got control of the world's largest oil supply; they'll see the socialism. The will echo, and create disasters.

10. If we can show that a capitalist Venezuela is very successful and wealthy, more so than socialist venezuela, people will follow that model.

But most importantly, we must take Mr. Chavez seriously. I think he has some funny ideas, and I don't mean humorous, and a lot I don't agree with. He also has some I do agree with. But the main issue is the US has taken Saudi Arabia very seriously, maybe too seriously, but we haven't taken Venezuela seriously enough.

As a footnote, there are a number of stories that come in about environmental destruction and human rights violations towards the native populations in Venezuela, which also will need to be addressed.

DREAMTROVE

Saturday, November 5, 2005 3:55 AM

Loggerhead,

Before I say anything else, you should know, you're talking to socialism worst enemy here, and I think everyone who frequents this forum can attest to that.

But I need to know what your angle is, if I'm to accept this at face value. I have no reason to think Chavez is evil. I have lots of problems with him sure, but his most bitter opponents seem to have an agenda.

In case you missed my whole "socialism is evil" rant, for which I got roundly bashed, just letting you know, I'm probably one of the most likely to be sympathetic to your argument. I believe the thread were the ones beginning "Post Serenity" and "Are collective efforts necessary?". But I need to know.

First off, you're username, Loggerhead, is unfortunate. Normally I wouldn't think so, but since Amazon logging in South America is having a profound effect on our whether here in the states, which has claimed 10,000 of thousands of lives, objectively, Amazon loggers are worse than Al Qaeda. I have no problem with carrying this to its logical conclusion with not even the slightest inclination to open a dialogue on the subject.

If this is your angle, the debate is already over before it's begun. Assuming that is not your angle, please let me know what it is.

I glanced through those links. Not a lot of sites I recognize, except Amnesty International, and Human Rights Warch.

News tends to appear in guardian.co.uk. Failing that. Well failing that nothing. I figure that's my #1 trusted source. Here are some other ones:

If it's in wikipedia it's so, more or less

So I'm first going to my primary secondary sources.

Wikipedia talks about some of this stuff. It's just castro level stuff. I mean I've pretty much taken him as a dictator, not a popular democratic leader. If he were that, I'd say just support a candidate against him. He's killed a few dozen opponents. Who hasn't these days? In the socialist world, anyways. I need a better argument than this.

There a difference of options here:

1. Chavez is suboptimal. I think most everyone would agree with this, I certainly would. A Socialist dictator is never my first choice.

2. Chavez must go. This is a much much stronger claim that would require serious evidence. This puts him on a line with Saddam Hussein. Remember the case Bush had to build against Hussein? Remember that at this point, Saddam Hussein had already killed a million people. And yet still it was necessary to build a case against him.

So what I'm saying is, you have campaign material here. Chavez doesn't get my vote. But Bush and Clinton have both rigged elections and murdered opponents. together they've killed over a million people.

You need to build your case here. Chavez never had my vote to begin with, and I don't vote in Venezuelan elections, and if I did, it wouldn't matter because it's rigged.

But you're not even close to a "Chavez must go."

But you have my attention. I'm all ears. So let's here the case.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3