Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Unknown Target on January 10, 2007, 10:55:52 am
-
Read and weep.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070110/wl_csm/oclamp
A "legal coup" if you will.
Some interesting bits:
Emboldened by his resounding reelection victory on Dec. 3, Mr. Chávez announced plans this week to nationalize power and telecom companies as part of an accelerated move toward socialism.
In the past week, he has purged his cabinet of ministers deemed insufficiently radical, bringing in a new group of loyalists that includes his brother, Adan. He has begun to merge the more than 20 parties in his governing coalition into a single force under his control. And, under a controversial new law, he is set to take control of nongovernmental organizations that could oppose his government.
Chávez is also moving to take control of civic groups, some of which have been critical of his government. Under a proposed law now in Congress, NGOs will have to reregister with the government, even if they have been operating legally for years. Foreign funding will have to pass through the government, and NGOs would have to open their files to anyone that requests it.
Chávez is also gearing up to change the constitution to allow his indefinite re-election - and has vowed to remain in power until 2021.
With political passions on the rise, Chávez's opponents say they are bracing themselves for a renewed crackdown. Some of the 3.5 million Venezuelans on a political blacklist compiled by his government two years ago say they have noticed a recent upswing in harassment by government officials.
CARACAS, VENEZUELA - As Venezuela embarked on another six years under Hugo Chávez, the president announced plans to nationalize power and telecommunications companies. He also said he wanted a constitutional amendment to strip the Central Bank of its autonomy and would soon ask the National Assembly, solidly controlled by his allies, to approve "a set of revolutionary laws" by presidential decree.
"We're heading toward socialism, and nothing and no one can prevent it," he said in a televised address after swearing in his new cabinet on Monday.
(emphasis added)
-
Yikes. Not such a "lovable rogue" now eh?
-
To be fair to him he has every right to appoint who the **** he likes to his cabinet.
Some of the other things sound a bit more worrying though. Especially if Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders are having a go at him
-
Sounds like somebody's cruisin' for a house call from the CIA.
-
Honestly, about the fact that he's nationalizing things, I think he's right to do that, hell, I'd wish my government had the balls to do the same. About the rest, I dont know if thats true since the opposition there, who already tried to a coup on him in the first place, are the ones who control the media and the things he wants to nationalize and the international media hates him as well.
"We're heading toward socialism, and nothing and no one can prevent it," he said in a televised address after swearing in his new cabinet on Monday.
(emphasis added)
So? Whats wrong with that?
-
To be fair to him he has every right to appoint who the **** he likes to his cabinet.
A politician surrounding himself with people who just agree with him all the time does the country no ****ing good. Bush did it, and look how Iraq and foreign policy in general went.
"We're heading toward socialism, and nothing and no one can prevent it," he said in a televised address after swearing in his new cabinet on Monday.
(emphasis added)
So? Whats wrong with that?
There's nothing wrong with socialism or a nation's self-determination. However, doing it the Chavez method through harrassing political opponents and eliminating all sources of dissent in his advisory is the damned wrong way to do it. It's exactly what Bush and the neoconservatives have done, minus the harrassment. I'm not worried about it here in the US, because our election system and constitution allows for this **** to change quickly, but Venezuela... I'm not sure.
-
[RICTOR-BOT ACTIVATED]
--[IMPASSIONED DEFENSE OF CHAVEZ SUBSYSTEM INITIATED]
----[T-MINUS 3....2...1]
ah damn, I can't now, I'm at work. But soon.
----[RICTOR-BOT STANDBY SEQUENCE INITIATED]
--[AWAITING FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS]
-
Rictor, honestly, defending this is like defending what Bush has done over the past seven years. I mean, I'd love to hear the devil's advocate, but I really hope you don't actually support this sort of bull****.
-
That is what's disgusting about this, he claims that Bush is the devil but does the exact same things as Bush. The blacklists, filing positions with cronies, etc.
-
yay, more commies to nuke!
-
That's a horrible thing to say. The US does not nuke commies; we provide funds and munitions for right-wing coups to assassinate the commies. Do you think we're barbarians or something?
-
He's not the same as Bush, honestly, I believe half of that are simply lies. The people voted on him twice, he has the support of the majority of the people and its far too easy for the opposition to scream that they're being oppressed.
-
well the thing with Rictor is he beleives so much in self determination he will even defend it when people determine not to allow self determination for themselves anymore.
actualy Sarafan, he controles the TV and such now, well he'll put anyone who badmouth's him inn jail, that's the big reason why I didn't like him to begin with, he went right in and atacked his opponents directly, physicaly, not there positions, that is usualy a sign that you are on the wrong side.
and Sadam Husain won every election he held with like a 99.9% margen (wich was coincedentaly followed with a 0.1% drop in the population). if you think his election was even as legitimate as Bush's, then you need to reexamine your position.
-
He's not the same as Bush, honestly, I believe half of that are simply lies. The people voted on him twice, he has the support of the majority of the people and its far too easy for the opposition to scream that they're being oppressed.
Well, when 3.5 million of them are on a political blacklist and others are on the verge of being cracked down on, who can blame them? Or should they just stop *****ing about it and tolerate the lies of a man who deceived the 60% majority and plans on pissing on every political right of Western democracy?
"Will of the majority" doesn't do jack to prevent a politician from doing this sort of **** once he's elected and takes measures like these to ensure his power. Free elections and the political rights to assembly and protest do, and Hugo Chavez is taking every means necessary to ensure that neither of these are possible.
-
This is ridiculous, whats next? He's the next Hitler, Stalin? He doesnt control the media and its not downright arresting anyone who bad mouths him, the people who stand to lose the most from what he's done are the ones who control it.
well the thing with Rictor is he beleives so much in self determination he will even defend it when people determine not to allow self determination for themselves anymore.
actualy Sarafan, he controles the TV and such now, well he'll put anyone who badmouth's him inn jail, that's the big reason why I didn't like him to begin with, he went right in and atacked his opponents directly, physicaly, not there positions, that is usualy a sign that you are on the wrong side.
and Sadam Husain won every election he held with like a 99.9% margen (wich was coincedentaly followed with a 0.1% drop in the population). if you think his election was even as legitimate as Bush's, then you need to reexamine your position.
I dont need to, its was far more legitimate than Saddam's or Bush's.
-
he has placed laws on the books were anyone who "slanders" a "public official" can get 40 years in jail.
FACT.
the "fascists" in power before seemed to manage without jailing people for criticizing the government.
"its was far more legitimate than Saddam's or Bush's."
ok, you can say that and I can say "nuh uh"
-
This is ridiculous, whats next? He's the next Hitler, Stalin? He doesnt control the media and its not downright arresting anyone who bad mouths him, the people who stand to lose the most from what he's done are the ones who control it.
well the thing with Rictor is he beleives so much in self determination he will even defend it when people determine not to allow self determination for themselves anymore.
actualy Sarafan, he controles the TV and such now, well he'll put anyone who badmouth's him inn jail, that's the big reason why I didn't like him to begin with, he went right in and atacked his opponents directly, physicaly, not there positions, that is usualy a sign that you are on the wrong side.
and Sadam Husain won every election he held with like a 99.9% margen (wich was coincedentaly followed with a 0.1% drop in the population). if you think his election was even as legitimate as Bush's, then you need to reexamine your position.
I dont need to, its was far more legitimate than Saddam's or Bush's.
Both Bush elections had televised debates. When Manuel Rosales, Chavez's opponent, demanded a debate, Chavez told him to **** off and said essentially that he doesn't have time to debate with someone "of a fifth-grade intelligence."
Chavez's control of the media essentially allowed him to dominate the airwaves for most of the election, while both Bush elections allowed for comparatively fair campaigning by the Democrats.
The only thing that makes the US election even remotely illegitimate was Gore v. Bush and the tally fraud allegations in both elections. Chavez didn't even give his opponent time of day, and bullied government workers and other voters into voting for him.
I never said he was the next Stalin or Hitler, but the way he's going, he might very well be. Political blacklists and suppression of political rights doesn't exactly make you Marcus Aurelius, does it?
-
This is ridiculous, whats next? He's the next Hitler, Stalin? He doesnt control the media and its not downright arresting anyone who bad mouths him, the people who stand to lose the most from what he's done are the ones who control it.
well the thing with Rictor is he beleives so much in self determination he will even defend it when people determine not to allow self determination for themselves anymore.
actualy Sarafan, he controles the TV and such now, well he'll put anyone who badmouth's him inn jail, that's the big reason why I didn't like him to begin with, he went right in and atacked his opponents directly, physicaly, not there positions, that is usualy a sign that you are on the wrong side.
and Sadam Husain won every election he held with like a 99.9% margen (wich was coincedentaly followed with a 0.1% drop in the population). if you think his election was even as legitimate as Bush's, then you need to reexamine your position.
I dont need to, its was far more legitimate than Saddam's or Bush's.
Typical rabid anti-Bush statement.
Nomatter what way you spin it, unless your a neofascist, radical socialist, or closet Stalin era communist, this is very bad for the people in that country.
Oh, and everything you said here...
This is ridiculous, whats next? He's the next Hitler, Stalin? He doesnt control the media and its not downright arresting anyone who bad mouths him, the people who stand to lose the most from what he's done are the ones who control it.
Is wrong. He's trying to control the media, and he's trying to get it to a point where he can arrest anyone who bad mouths him. Just because he's not doing it at this exact second doesn't mean that's not what his end-game is (and it's pretty obvious). And besides, the first statement is incorrect because he's shutting down all opposition broadcasts - thus controlling the media. And the second one is incorrect because of what Bob said.
-
so, how many years before venezuelans ask western countries to help them rebuild their economy?
-
"Will of the majority" doesn't do jack to prevent a politician from doing this sort of **** once he's elected and takes measures like these to ensure his power.
Sort of. I'd note however that the possiblity of military coup or popular rebellion always exists. You always rule at the sufferance of the people. How your system of rule works, however, determines the level of suffering they'll endure before they decide to get rid of you.
Democracy normally has the support of smart politicians in part because in a democracy you aren't hung from the nearest lamppost.
-
There are some dangerously ignorant ****s on this thread.
-
There are some dangerously ignorant ****s on this thread.
Which ones?
-
Tip of the iceberg:
"We're heading toward socialism."
"So, what's wrong with that?"
The ignorance in that statement is so profound that there are no words to describe it, other than deadly dangerous.
Somebody doesn't have a clue about history, has never heard of Pol Pot, or Stalin. Somebody has a Che Guevara poster on his bedroom wall, the one in his mommy's house.
Somebody thinks that government is good, so big government must be better.
Somebody can hardly wait to be old enough to become a foot soldier for the New World Order.
Somebody hasn't lived long enough to have any perspective.
I think my head is going to explode.
-
Tip of the iceberg:
"We're heading toward socialism."
"So, what's wrong with that?"
The ignorance in that statement is so profound that there are no words to describe it, other than deadly dangerous.
Somebody doesn't have a clue about history, has never heard of Pol Pot, or Stalin. Somebody has a Che Guevara poster on his bedroom wall, the one in his mommy's house.
Somebody thinks that government is good, so big government must be better.
Somebody can hardly wait to be old enough to become a foot soldier for the New World Order.
Somebody hasn't lived long enough to have any perspective.
I think my head is going to explode.
You don't know what socialism is, do you?
-
normal chavez, he dont change one bit.
so, how many years before venezuelans ask western countries to help them rebuild their economy?
i dont think that will happen for atleast 60 years, hes got oil and thats alot of money and along with the telecoms thats even more.
-
You don't know what socialism is, do you?
No, man, enlighten me.
-
Well, he's asking because you just basically described communism, not socialism. Not only that, but everything you else you said is just....wrong.
-
Actually I think most of what he said doesn't even have truth value.
-
Haven't I been saying all of this the whole time? He is fricken insane.
-
Tip of the iceberg:
"We're heading toward socialism."
"So, what's wrong with that?"
The ignorance in that statement is so profound that there are no words to describe it, other than deadly dangerous.
Somebody doesn't have a clue about history, has never heard of Pol Pot, or Stalin. Somebody has a Che Guevara poster on his bedroom wall, the one in his mommy's house.
Somebody thinks that government is good, so big government must be better.
Somebody can hardly wait to be old enough to become a foot soldier for the New World Order.
Somebody hasn't lived long enough to have any perspective.
I think my head is going to explode.
(Sarcasm on)
Why, thank you for my calling me a complete imbecile.
(Sarcasm off)
Dont know what socialism is? Ready to be a foot soldier of the New World Order? Never heard of Pol Pot or Stalin? Dont make me laugh. You absolutely have no idea what I know. Really, you want to talk about the subject of the thread, fine, go right ahead. But have some damn respect.
-
and Sadam Husain won every election he held with like a 99.9% margen (wich was coincedentaly followed with a 0.1% drop in the population). if you think his election was even as legitimate as Bush's, then you need to reexamine your position.
Yeah. Everyone knows Bush cheated.
There are some dangerously ignorant ****s on this thread.
Another comment like that and you'll be taking a holiday from Hard Light. If you can't argue your point without resorting to childish name calling you don't belong in a political debate.
-
"Will of the majority" doesn't do jack to prevent a politician from doing this sort of **** once he's elected and takes measures like these to ensure his power.
Sort of. I'd note however that the possiblity of military coup or popular rebellion always exists. You always rule at the sufferance of the people. How your system of rule works, however, determines the level of suffering they'll endure before they decide to get rid of you.
Democracy normally has the support of smart politicians in part because in a democracy you aren't hung from the nearest lamppost.
True. I didn't forget, per se, about the military coup or rebellion, but I was more leaning toward the JFK reasoning: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." Basically, once Chavez makes it impossible for Venezuelans to elect new leadership, a violent revolution out of that 40% or so anti-Chavez population will come about.
Democracy, especially in the American system, allows for the people to alter their government however they like through frequent elections and various other measures provided in the US Constitution. It allows for the people to peacefully assemble to protest government actions, to petition for change, and to voice opposition to the government without fear of persecution. Govenrments such as what Chavez has planned on does absolutely none of this.
So really, Chavez is just screwing himself in the long run by doing this.
There are some dangerously ignorant ****s on this thread.
Another comment like that and you'll be taking a holiday from Hard Light. If you can't argue your point without resorting to childish name calling you don't belong in a political debate.
Alright, got it, he was being immature, can we keep this to PMs, please? I'd really like to not have another thread locked because some guy threw a rock and ten savants fought over it.
-
And believe me, it's heading there.....
-
You don't know what socialism is, do you?
No, man, enlighten me.
# a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
# an economic system based on state ownership of capital
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=socialism)
# An "economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class. In practice, such a distribution of wealth is achieved by social ownership of the means of production, exchange and diffusion." (7)
(www.ilstu.edu/class/hist127/terms.html)
# According to Joseph Schumpeter, socialism is the public ownership of the means of production and distribution; but in American parlance it is often used pejoratively to describe any attempt at governmental regulation or intervention. As an economic concept, it is independent of political concepts like democracy and authoritarianism as well as of theological notions like atheism (as in "Godless Marxism") or religiosity (as in Christian or Jewish socialism).
(www.politicalscience.utoledo.edu/faculty/lindeen/glos3260.htm)
(p. 776) nineteenth-century ideology which critiqued the social and economic problems generated by capitalism and industrialization. Socialists deplored economic inequalities and the exploitation of labor. Early socialists sought to expand the Enlightenment understanding of equality involve an economic as well as a social, political and legal dimension.
(www.mhhe.com/socscience/history/world/bentley/stud_olc/chap30glossary.htm)
-
Alright, got it, he was being immature, can we keep this to PMs, please? I'd really like to not have another thread locked because some guy threw a rock and ten savants fought over it.
Public warnings are generally better as they prevent retaliation from people who don't realise that the offender has been warned.
-
Me thinks Nuke has by far the best post in this thread.
Hey Nuke, care to go and secretly steal China's weather machine with me? :D
-
I will never understand everyone's fear of socialism. Seems almost like a rebound effect after the USSR screwed it up. National socialism CAN work, if it occurs in moderation. Once the government takes control of everything... you're just about done for economically. But socialized healthcare? Happens often, and works.
We could spend days arguing the virtues of capatilism versus socialism and whether making a few extra dollars really is what motivated Joe Worker to work harder and better, but it would get us nowhere. The fact is that socialism CAN work in moderation, but extremes are never good. And, I believe, socialism has a MUCH better chance to work in a true Democracy (IE. not an "Iraq" style democracy) than in the totalitarian-state that the USSR was in (or that Cuba is in now... or that... well... nevermind.)
At least the democratic system COULD (and I believe, would) prevent the leaders of the government from padding the own pockets at the expense of the people.
*shrugs* Just my 2cp worth.
And as a disclaimer: No, I'm not a communist/socialist, I'm actually a rabid capitalist. I just like to play devils advocate every once in awhile.
Honestly, what scares me about the OP's first post was the quote about him staying in power indefinitely, with a vow to be there until 2021. Regardless of anything else that was said, that sounds like a try at being Mr Dictator, everything else falls in line with that being accomplished. After that, it doesn't matter if he's capatalist or communist.
-
Yes, socialism works well in some cases - I mean no-one wants the complete abolition of the welfare state for people who can't work because they're severely disabled, for example. There has to be at least some safety net for the incapable. But I think the point people are trying to make is that what Chavez is doing is well past those comfortable minima.
-
SadisticSid is right - it's not the fact that we don't like the fact that he's making it a socialist state (although I'm sure some people out there are) - it's the fact that he's turning it into a dictatorship-style socialist state.
-
Yes, socialism works well in some cases - I mean no-one wants the complete abolition of the welfare state for people who can't work because they're severely disabled, for example. There has to be at least some safety net for the incapable. But I think the point people are trying to make is that what Chavez is doing is well past those comfortable minima.
Exactly. The US during the Depression ran a semi-socialist economy under FDR's recovery programs, and we seemed to turn out just fine economically.
-
Can you say CUBA?
-
edit: colourized for easier viewing.
Emboldened by his resounding reelection victory on Dec. 3, Mr. Chávez announced plans this week to nationalize power and telecom companies as part of an accelerated move toward socialism.
Energy: Canada's hydro utilities are largely government owned and controlled. Only in the last few years have they opened up a hydro market, and then only to a very limited extent. Hydro is a crucial inftrastructure industry, many countries have a public as opposed to private electricity sector.
Telecom: France, Germany, Italy, Brazil and other such hotbeds of radicalism all have large state-owned telecoms. Woo-dee-doo. Again, it's nothing unusual, and if it were any other country doing it no one would even notice.
In the past week, he has purged his cabinet of ministers deemed insufficiently radical, bringing in a new group of loyalists that includes his brother, Adan. He has begun to merge the more than 20 parties in his governing coalition into a single force under his control. And, under a controversial new law, he is set to take control of nongovernmental organizations that could oppose his government.
The first sentence is politically loaded. How do they know the cabinet ministers were dismissed for being "insufficiently radical"? Maybe they were dismissed for reasons of corruption, which is rampant in Venezuela? Or maybe they were dismissed because, as the President, Chavez has the right to re-shuffle his cabinet for any damn reason he likes.
Also, consolidating the various leftists into a single party is a non-event. You can't exactly force them into it. If they are all willing, and have been working together for years anyway, why not? In case you forgot, the US has exactly two big parties. So you'll forgive me for rolling my eyes at claims that Chavez is "consolidating power". It's a voluntary process. Again, if it happened anywhere else no one would bat an eye.
Chávez is also moving to take control of civic groups, some of which have been critical of his government. Under a proposed law now in Congress, NGOs will have to reregister with the government, even if they have been operating legally for years. Foreign funding will have to pass through the government, and NGOs would have to open their files to anyone that requests it.
NGOs are hardly all angels. For example, the good people at Freedom House (such a wonderful name) were headed for many years by a former CIA director. Real impartial, right? NGOs have been used to overthrow governments in the service of certain nations and financial intersts. Russia has also passed a similar law, and I support it. Have you ever heard of the colour revolutions? Georgia, Kyrgystan, Serbia and Ukraine all had their government overthrown by NGO financed by the West. The same thing happened in Venezuela. Sumate, the most prominent opposition NGO, recieves US money and their leader was present at the Presidential Palace when Chavez was overthrown in 2002.
How would you feel if China or Russia started financing opposition groups who's intent is to overthrow the government through any means necessary? I'm not saying all NGOs are pawns or fronts, not by a long shot, but some are.
Chávez is also gearing up to change the constitution to allow his indefinite re-election - and has vowed to remain in power until 2021.
We'll see. Last time I heard, he was only saying that to scare the opposition out of boycotting the elections again. I don't thik he's that stupid, and the who issue is kind of vague. But presenting it in the most sinister way possible sure is a good tactic.
With political passions on the rise, Chávez's opponents say they are bracing themselves for a renewed crackdown. Some of the 3.5 million Venezuelans on a political blacklist compiled by his government two years ago say they have noticed a recent upswing in harassment by government officials.
Says who? The opposition who claimed the 2004 referendum was rigged even when it was certified by EU observers? And while I won't defend this measure, I will say that many of the people on that list are not innocent opposition-types who are being savagely repressed, but are people who supported either the 2002 coup or the 2003 oil strike which crippled the economy.
"We're heading toward socialism, and nothing and no one can prevent it," he said in a televised address after swearing in his new cabinet on Monday.
They're heading towards no such thing. Chavez is either playing to his base or doesn't understand the meaning of the word socialism. Private exterprise is blooming in Venezuela - it's only the large industries which are being nationalized, which is the case in much of the world. The government has helped to decentralize economic power by setting up coops and financing programs to create businesses. We can have a debate about the merits of private vs public ownership of certain industries, but the fact remains that the Chavez has made no moves to crack down on private enterprise which are more radical than your typical left-wing economy.
Also, even if they were heading towards socialism, that's apparently what the people want. For all I care they could be heaading towards a Zoroastrian theocracy. Chavez clearly has a mandate, the economy is booming - what more do you want?
SadisticSid is right - it's not the fact that we don't like the fact that he's making it a socialist state (although I'm sure some people out there are) - it's the fact that he's turning it into a dictatorship-style socialist state.
Dictators don't usually win 4 consecutive elections by a margin of 60% or more. How many people has he imprisoned? How many people has he killed? Are there prison camps that I'm unaware of?
While I will admit that Chavez has a certain authoritrian streak, you equally can't deny that the opposition, far from being the pure-hearted guardians of democracy, are run by corrupt elites and oligarchs who are pissed that their personal kingdom has been taken away.
so, how many years before venezuelans ask western countries to help them rebuild their economy?
Considering the economy is growing by more than 10% a year, an achievement that few countries can claim, I would say quite a while. It's been growing steadily and rapidly ever since Chavez took office, with the only interuption being the devastating opposition-led oil strike. Check your facts, Chavez is great for the economy.
National socialism CAN work, if it occurs in moderation.
:nervous: :nervous:
Tell me you didn't just say "national socialism".
-
You're right about the growth rate, but Venezuelas's inflation is terrible- 16% a year.
-
slight bump (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?storyid=2007-01-30T202041Z_01_N30301785_RTRUKOC_0_UK-VENEZUELA-CHAVEZ.xml&type=worldNews&WTmodLoc=World-C3-More-4)
-
Goodbye democracy in Venezuela.
But oh well, what do you expect out of someone who represses the media, lies to his constituents, and intimidates--nay, eliminates--opposition?
-
surely you are not refering to Hugo Chavez!
that Hugo Chavez is one bad mothe-
you shut yo mouth!
I'm only talk'n bout Chavez.
we can dig it.
-
No more Shaft for you.
-
No more Shaft for you.
So you're no longer working on Friday nights, then?....
-
I thought that was you...
-
We know were America is heading once its done in Iraq.
-
And where is that, Comrade?
(Please note the Democrats currently overrunning the US Congress.)
-
I thought that was you...
It's hard work being a part time vice-policemanperson, but someone has to put transvestiate prostitute scum where they belong - daytime TV.