Read Alan Woods on the February 15th Referendum.
February 12th thousands march in support of the referendum in Caracas on Bolivar Avenue.
RENEGADE EYE
Friday, February 13, 2009
Open Thread: February 15th Venezuelan Referendum
On February 15th an important referendum will take place in Venezuela. The central question is the removal of the limit on the number of times the president can be elected.
February 12th thousands march in support of the referendum in Caracas on Bolivar Avenue.
RENEGADE EYE
February 12th thousands march in support of the referendum in Caracas on Bolivar Avenue.
RENEGADE EYE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
103 comments:
The student march was scheduled for Ave. Bolivar today... but Chavez had them deny the permits, he couldn't stand the likely photographic comparison. Talk about a coward.
Yesterday it was a weak time after a productive week. But today it is another day and everything will go better. Thank you Renegade for your visit, here in thailand I am practising my poor English ....;) take care and have a good day :)
FJ: I doubt march permits, are in Chavez's job description.
The opposition lost support the last election, from the year before.
If Venezuela wins, it'll join with places as Great Britain, that doesn't have term limits.
It looks like Uribe in Colombia is joining the no term limit bandwagon.
If Chavez loses, he has 3 years, to finish his program.
Krapumka: Thank you for visiting. Stay out of trouble in Thailand. Talk about the king at this blog, not yours.
Ren:
"If Venezuela wins, it'll join with places as Great Britain, that doesn't have term limits."
Wow, Ren, that only applies to Prime Ministers (head of government), not Presidents (as you know we have a non-elected, non-executive head of state for life, the Monarch). Venezuela has a very executive head of state, not exactly the same thing as a PM.
Still, if the people vote "Si" in fair and square elections I don't really see what there is to oppose to.
FJ: I doubt march permits, are in Chavez's job description.
You're right. Permits are the responsibility of the man who's running the "Yes" campaign FOR Chavez. It's good to be the king.
btw - Fidel Castro is saying that if the election goes against Chavez tomorrow, Cuba's headed for the dumpster too.
Woo-Hoo!
I'm really disappointed that The Pagan Temple hasn't shown up yet to provide the most provocative comment about Chavez.
Mehmet Çagatay: Even Pagans need rest.
FJ: I think Castro is being melodramatic. His real worry should be about his brother.
Gert: It's more important than on the surface. Any loss for Chavez strengthens the opposition, not only in Venezuela, but throughout Latin America.
Chavez generally doesn't interest me. I do hope he loses this referendum, for the sake of the people of Venezuela. If he wins, I'm afraid he will become more and more like his idol and butt-buddy Castro. If he loses, maybe he will moderate his excesses somewhat. He's already got himself in a bind by expropriating business properties. Since he nationalized oil production, he probably doesn't make as much money as he made-er, excuse me, as much as Venezuela made (cough, cough, hint, hint) when they were just collecting royalties. Now that the price has dropped, here he is stuck with the production expenses. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
The person in charge of Venezuela's oil production should be a gentleman by the name of General David Petraeus.
I think Chavez sees himself secretly and potentially as the Napoleon or the Caesar of South America. All I see is a man with stubby little hands who is probably over-compensating. Fifty years from now he'll be a footnote in the history books.
Provocative enough, Mehmet?
The campaign was rigged. Permits were denied to No campaigners. Advertising time was restricted to No campaigners while Yes adverts were everywhere all the time. If needed, Chavez will rig the vote.
Since he nationalized oil production, he probably doesn't make as much money as he made-er, excuse me, as much as Venezuela made (cough, cough, hint, hint) when they were just collecting royalties.
Currently 40% of PDVSA's revenues disappear off all the books. I wonder how much ends up in Hugo's secret "Geneva" accounts.
Laws are not things a dictator has to comply with... they're "guidelines" that only members of the opposition have to follow.
"The campaign was rigged. Permits were denied to No campaigners. Advertising time was restricted to No campaigners while Yes adverts were everywhere all the time. If needed, Chavez will rig the vote."
Whenever there's an election campaign in a leftist Latin American country, American propaganda starts blabbing about "rigged elections" and good ole' "patriots" like Robert fall for it hook, line and sinker.
The Meircans, they soooooo luurve democracy that they can't stop themselves from trying to ruin it for everyone else, especially when they don't like the result of a foreign election too much. Don't worry Robert, if Bambam doesn't like Chavez, the US can 'take him out', as they did numerous times before, like they did with Mossadeq in 1953. Install a nice little pro-Meircan puppet. And with parrots like you Robert, who really needs democracy, huh? See you in Caracas!
Pagan:
"I do hope he loses this referendum, for the sake of the people of Venezuela."
You? Care about the people of Venezuela???????
HAHAHHAHAHAAAHAHAHHHHAHHHAHAHAHHHAHHA.
Please don't make me piss myself, honestly...
You might start "caring" when some right-wing Caudillo type general takes over and turns the country into a US bordello...
...cuz Left wing caudillo's like Chavez REALLY luv da masses. All the oil money disappears and the masses stay poor.... but dem dumb Lefty's sure do luv da masses... REALLY!
For we all know that Left wing bordello's are so much better than right wing ones. After all, fuckin' da poor in some slovenly dirt floor mud hut is always much more righteous than fuckin' 'em in a King sized bed in a five star hotel and casino. Besides, there are so many MORE poor people to fuck in a Left wing dictatorship, because there's no middle class for the poor to escape to.
btw - We don't "take out" tin pot populist commie dictators, anymore Acid Reflux. We prefer to watch 'em dance .
Pagan: Chavez has been less dependent on oil revenues than any previous Venezuelan leader. He has raised taxes, as well as provide loans as to Argentina. Still he could have done more to diversify. The rightist idea that the drop in oil prices will kill Venezuela, is crazy. You think it's permanent?
The person in charge of Venezuela's oil production should be a gentleman by the name of General David Petraeus.
Thank you Iraq, for making this impossible.
I think Chavez sees himself secretly and potentially as the Napoleon or the Caesar of South America. All I see is a man with stubby little hands who is probably over-compensating. Fifty years from now he'll be a footnote in the history books.
Verbal diarrhea. No meaning.
Robert: The opposition brings molotov cocktails, whenever they have a legal demonstration.
The Vote Si had a demo of about 1,000,000.
The problem is that government and business are still controlled by the oligarchy. Only revolution can change things. What is needed is real socialism, not the utopian mixed economy of "21st century socialism."
Gert: The opposition had a coup for a few days in 2002, until the masses circled the capital, with the opposition inside. The first thing the opposition did was abolish democratic institutions.
You should see on Youtube "The Revolution Won't Be Televised." It turns out a film crew was in the government building, when the coup occured.
FJ: This referendum doesn't need to take place. Chavez can legally get a term extension, through parliment.
He has been subjected to more fair elections than Clinton, Bush or Obama.
Venezuela's electoral system, is more advanced than the US's.
Chavez has also sponsored more coup d'etats than either Bush or Clinton.
The No vote supporters didn't have a million people at their demonstration on Friday... because they weren't allowed to hold their demonstration.
The problem in Venezuela is that Chavez siphons off 40% of the oil wealth for himself, and uses it to try and overthrow all his neighbors, like FARC and ELN guerillas in Columbia.
And Chavez can't get a legitimate repeal of term limits through parliament. After all, he needs to maintain the pretext that he cares about following Venezuela's Constitution. Otherwise, the military would throw him out on his ass, like they almost did in 2002.
btw- The student opposition (Manos Blancos) haven't brought a single Molotov cocktail to a demonstration... although the police have been exposed on YouTube faking evidence to the contrary.
Ren-
Of course oil prices aren't going to stay as low as they are now, but I seriously doubt they will raise back up to the one hundred forty seven dollar per barrel range, or even one hundred twenty dollars per barrel, at least for very long. Mainly, though, the fact that there is such fluctuation in a commodity that is allegedly limited is a long-term problem, if not for Chavez personally, then for whoever runs Venezuela is the country is not adequately developed.
And, by the way, raising taxes is the absolute worse way to run a country in the process of development, as it almost insures brakes on development. You can make a viable case for higher taxes, or progressive taxes, in a developed nation, but not for a country like Venezuela.
As for my "verbal diarrhea", what you don't realize it I took the time to listen to Chavez speak at an event during the time Bush was touring the region. It's just my opinion, but I think I'm spot on.
You are correct about Petraeus, unfortunately, but it is mainly the election of the peanut brain Obama that has made this impossible, not Iraq. Had McCain been elected, despite his obvious flaws, that scenario would not only be plausible, but fairly likely. It would also not be a reasonable scenario.
You forget, I think, I was not anti-Chavez until lately. I at one time honestly thought he was good for the region, in that he seemingly provided balance to the Neocon vision of a world capitalist economic system that in my opinion still amounts to a modern type of feudalism.
I have since come to view Chavez as a clown, and he has done little to dissuade me of that opinion.
I meant of course to say the involvement of Petraeus in Venezuela would not be UNREASONABLE. The reason for this is it is a matter of national security for America, due to the oil and overall energy situation, and the fact that Chavez is obviously unstable.
An American presence, with oversight, in the best of circumstances would aid development of Venezuela and secure the rights of the Venezuelan poor and workers, and under the best case scenario add stability to the region.
I would not be desirous of anything like that taking place over the long-term, but as a temporary measure it might at some point be unavoidable.
With 95% of the vote counted, the Yes has won by a million votes.
Venezuela has a permanent dictator.
Yes, dictatorships like just like Canada, Australia, the UK etc which also don't have term limits!
Ah, but it is so good to see those right-wing oligarchic assholes defeated. Now with this referendum stuff out of the way maybe Venezuela will be able to move forward and deepen the revolution. Point number 1. Expropriate the oligarchy. Point 2 arm the people.
Larry, Venezuelans are pretty well armed.The best thing we can do to support the revolution is overthrow OUR oligarchs here in the US.
FJ and Pagan Temple, Can I borrow one of your copies of Birth of a Nation?
Tonight "Hands Off Venezuela" had an election night party. We saw live the election results on the government channel.
Chavez's speech wasn't planned and long. He sang and recited poetry.
The crowd was dead silent, when he was concillatory towards the opposition. They popped for socialist references.
FJ: That video was terrible. It went from shots of police, to shots of the molotovs without the police on camera. You couldn't tell any relationship. It was less sophisticated than the movie "Mission To Moscow."
Chavez has no use for FARC. He called on them to disarm. My position is they hand over their weapons to the unions.
FARC doesn't even have a program that is capable of staging a coup, let alone threaten Colombia.
I hope the opposition puts up a tough candidate against Chavez. He is better when he is focused.
Pagan: Before Chavez there was zero other revenue sources but oil. Introducing some taxation was necessary.
It is common knowledge, atleast in Latin America, that the Iraq War saved Chavez, from the US trying more aggresive tactics against him.
Your points makes clear why Chavez needs to start a socialist restructuring. Only a socialist structured society, can save Venezuela, from the invasion you are advocating.
Troutsky: Chavez went through 15 elections in 10 years.
Larry G: Absolutely.
Now Uribe wants a third term.
Ren:
Could it not be argued that posts here and the comments that follow descend into pretty much the same pattern? I only flag this because I think it puts off commenting.
Also, I think that term limits are a good idea, as long as they aren't too short to make it a constant re-election feel, Blair stayed too long, as did Thatcher.
FJ and Pagan Temple, Can I borrow one of your copies of Birth of a Nation?
As the author, Id have thought you would have kept a copy for yourself, troutski.
Don't pretend you read FJ.
"Permits were denied to No campaigners. Advertising time was restricted to No campaigners while Yes adverts were everywhere all the time."
Anyone want to dispute this statement?
Ren-
Of course he was right to institute some degree of taxation. I wasn't aware that there was previously none at all. Some level of taxation is required, but in a developing nation you have to exercise some degree of restraint.
I used to comment on Sonia's blog to the effect that the oppressiveness of third world far right regimes towards the poor was what made people such as Chavez possible. I only gradually came to adjust my opinion of him after seeing a few examples of him in action-such as his appearance at the UN, and his nationalization of not only oil companies, but even a Spanish concrete company.
Of course, he made a show of paying fair market value for the property, but the point is, he forced the issue with companies who had invested in his country in good faith.
Finally, his rhetoric and his seeming desire to form alliances with every country with an anti-American agenda is notable.
Now this latest move. I have no doubt whatsoever as to Robert's claims, nor to those who claim Chavez's policies are wrecking the Venezuelan economy. People do not stay in business and produce consumer goods to merely break even at best.
As someone who would like to dismantle NATO, it does not come easy for me to suggest it might at one time be necessary for foreign intervention in the affairs of a sovereign nation, but when someone like Chavez undermines national security and destabilizes the economy and the energy sector, there might come a time when it's unavoidable.
Of course these days I also tend to side with General LaMay regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Troutsky-
I hardly see what all of these things have to do with American Jim Crow racial policies. I hate to have to tell you this, but just because somebody distrusts somebody like Chavez doesn't make them a racist or bigot. I would prefer to avoid trouble in the international sphere, actually, but sometimes certain people make that unavoidable. I am very much afraid Chavez will turn out to be such a person. I hope I am wrong. I sincerely hope he will be as relatively harmless, and maybe even as positive a force, as I originally thought he might be, at lest over the long term.
I also hope one of these days I get to have a threesome with Summer Glau and Shirley Manson, but I'm not holding my breath.
Incidentally, the most famous fan of Birth Of A Nation was Democratic Party liberal President Woodrow Wilson, America's first true internationalist of note.
Ren:
"Gert: The opposition had a coup for a few days in 2002, until the masses circled the capital, with the opposition inside. The first thing the opposition did was abolish democratic institutions.
You should see on Youtube "The Revolution Won't Be Televised." It turns out a film crew was in the government building, when the coup occured."
I saw it shortly after it happened. Shocking. But quite typical how the Latin American Right operate: without scruples or regard for democracy. Oligarchy is still very much alive there. Often aided by the US (although maybe not in that case).
Pagan:
"I meant of course to say the involvement of Petraeus in Venezuela would not be UNREASONABLE. The reason for this is it is a matter of national security for America, due to the oil and overall energy situation, and the fact that Chavez is obviously unstable."
For a "free thinker" you don't half parrot classic Neocon lines. Funny how in the case of Latin America, US "national security" usually meant propping up far right corrupt and oppressive regimes in the name of "Liberty!" and "the free market", in G-d knows how many cases. In any of those two matters the US has carelessly squandered any credit it might have had left in Iraq. Now you're spouting more "pre-emptive" nonsense, guess old habits die hard, eh?
There's a wind of change, or hasn't it reached under your rock yet? The US's era of trampling on other peoples' rights for its own self-interest is probably coming to an end soon. Try and get with the program.
You represent the worst of Middle Meirca: cowardly hiding behind the US's firepower you advocate interventions on the basis that it will improve your own "security" (HOW? Pray, tell?), like a miniature tinpot dictator. Hasn't it occurred to you that irresponsible unilateral interventionism eventually comes back to bite the US in the butt? The US's moral credit has reached bankruptcy levels a while ago, it's time for some internal rehabilitation. Meanwhile we'll still have to contend with some dinosaurs from the sewers of the Tinkerwebs like you and FJ.
Try also to accept that the US's economic model, or what's left of it after greed ate it from the inside out, may not be the model every other people in the world aspire to. For Latin America, a more socialistic course is the right course, in many cases.
Wow, I do have one thing in common with Chavez. Like him, I seem to smell a foul, sulfurous stench blowing in from some ungodly, hellish place. Oh well, probably nothing or nobody important. I thought I'd just drop back in long enough to state that, if Chavez's program results in the long term what I think it will, the Venezuelan people might well welcome US intervention with open arms.
At the rate he is going, I am very much afraid he will make Castro's Cuba look like a model of human rights and socialist economic success. I am thinking he is well on his way to becoming the South American Robert Mugabe.
The Democrats in the US of course would be fine with that. Anything to drive the price of oil and gas up in order to excuse their precious green energy agenda. To say nothing of the numerous Democratic politicians who own stock in oil companies whose stock value strangely seems to rise with the price of oil and gas.
Of course that is sooooo racist of me to point all this out.
You're confusing racist with being thick.
Pagan:
"At the rate he is going, I am very much afraid he will make Castro's Cuba look like a model of human rights and socialist economic success. I am thinking he is well on his way to becoming the South American Robert Mugabe."
What on Earth do you base this nonsense on, other than deep-rooted prejudice?
Provide us at least with some links to sources that influence your thinking. Or did these 'ideas' simply pop into your head, by Divine Intervention?
Go on, put your money where your mouth is and give us something to refute or agree with, other than your tiresome anti-left rhetoric. Your reference to Mugabe for instance shows nothing more than the deepest prejudice: Chavez isn't doing anything, not even remotely, that could be described as Mugabe-esque. Zilch, nada, nothing. To try and drag Mugabe into this shows that no amount of evidence would possibly change your mind: socialism is bad is bad is bad is bad is bad is bad, is where you're coming from. A stale mind stuck in Cold War mode, unable to see the deficiencies of laissez-faire capitalism or the many crimes committed by the US in the name of 'anti-communism', 'freedom', 'liberty' and the 'free market'. Pal, I've been to the US a couple of times: I've seen abject poverty juxtaposed by abject wealth, like I've seen it nowhere else apart from a few oligarchic banana republics in Lat. Am. Newsflash: it's not to everyone's taste.
The main crime in which the US remains complicit for at least 40 years continues to this day: the slow but complete colonisation of Palestine for the creation of an Arab-free Judonia. With your beloved tax dollars...
Disagree with the Bolivarian Revolution if you wish, Pagan, just don't write such raving nonsense. It's not becoming. (And you wonder why Daniel attacks you? Sheesh!) These are the last words I will write about this until you treat the topic at hand in a rational manner.
Pagan's views on anything (that I've seen him comment on here) never seem to be based on any understanding or reading even of the subject matter at hand. Rather he derives everything from one or two 'guiding principles' (on I/P it was J'sem, here it's based 'socialism must be bad: my uncle told me so'). He basically fills in the blanks as he sees fit, no evidence required, no argumentation needed. See also his 'Petraeus in Caracas' idea, not dissimilar from Robertson's 'let's take him [Chavez] out before he messes with us' nonsense.
Like I said, Pagan, come back with something and we'll be able to talk. Right now you're only making trollish noises. Otherwise take up philately.
Some thoughts on the Venezuelan Referendum.
In a revolutionary situation in Latin America especially, the revolution must move ahead. If the revolution is defeated, the oligarchy will massacre thousands of people. The rulers hold the common people in absolute contempt, as sub -human and the normal response to revolt has been mass murder. People who wish for a defeat of the Bolivarian Movement are objectively calling for a massacre.
The victory is also important because the Bolivarian Revolution is the most advanced struggle in Latin America and its radicalization serves to radicalize the other progressive movements there. A defeat, would in turn, would undermine those other struggles. Within the next couple of years, Mexico will explode in its third revolution. Peru will most likely join in the pink tide washing over the continent. Only by working in concert will Latin America free itself from the Gringo Empire. Only some level of socialism will free the vast majority from misery. People in Europe are also inspired by the Latin American events. As the European economy goes into decline, we see an up-turn in class struggle and the example of the Latin American movements is an impetus toward socialism. Venezuela is one of the keys of the world revolution. (Which as I have mentioned before does not entail every country but just a bloc including some economically advanced nations – think EU plus Latin America.)
I thought you weren't going to talk any more about this matter, Larry Gambone. You'd better stick to your original idea there. It will make for good practice for four to six years down the line, when I can almost promise you that you definitely won't want to talk about it and will probably wish you'd never heard of Hugo Chavez.
That has to do with you, personally, not any comments unrelated to you on the topic of the Bolivarian Revolution.
Discuss rationally and I will discuss with you. Just don't make these kind of statements (Mugabe and all that)without concrete proof.
More thoughts:
Canadians tend to be quite aware of, and sympathetic to, Latin America. Everyone knows about the CIA and terrorist regimes like Pinochet's and the Argentine Colonels. Last night when the referendum victory was announced on the CBC news site, favorable comments outnumbered pro-oligarchy two to one. Many Canadians have been to Cuba, some have Cuban friends and everyone admires Cuba for giving the finger to Uncle Sam even though few have any sympathy for “communism.” There was also a great wave of support back in the 1980's for the Sandinistas and lots of people joined brigades to help out and the unions sent machinery and tools. I think there is a fine basis here for support for Venezuela and the other countries undergoing positive changes. I would also like to mention “Hands Off Venezuela” and the good work they have done.
I rather wholeheartedly agree with Larry Gambone: the socialist movement in America Latina must be in unison between various countries there for it to succeed. Venezuela is playing the leading role there. A failed revolution (if that's the right word) will lead to gross oppression of the ordinary folk by the oligarchs and their old ties with the armies. A counter-coup would be likely to be very bloody: the oligarchy have too much to lose (or so they think).
And also true: increasing numbers of Europeans are looking at the old financial, now crumbling structures as yet another feudal system in which the Lords could cream off any amount of money (or 'lose' it) with impunity (quite the contrary - bonuses galore). The apologies we're hearing from the bankers here in the UK sound hollow to say the least. It's time for serious reforms and if they're in the general direction of more socialistic systems then I think you'll find a great number of people nodding approvingly. The pendulum has swung past its bankrupt zenith...
"Canadians tend to be quite aware of, and sympathetic to, Latin America."
Likewise here in Europe, Larry. We're very aware of the US's dirty wars in Lat. Am. and the uphill social struggle of the downtrodden in so many parts of that continent. In particular leftist movements in Europe have a good eye for parallels between these struggles and past European struggles: there's a good fit.
The US doesn't, for several reasons, have quite the same tradition of social struggle and finds it much harder to identify with it. Add forty years of cold war polarisation to the mix and you've, very broadly speaking, got the US's attitude to any liberation struggle pegged.
Your reference to Mugabe for instance shows nothing more than the deepest prejudice: Chavez isn't doing anything, not even remotely, that could be described as Mugabe-esque
Nothing in common w/Mugabe except collectivization and the expropriation of the "oligarch's property", which lies at the heart of any communist or socialist movement.
So please, don't try and distance yourselves from your most ardent students, boys. Embrace them! You MUST take back from the white man all that stolen land and return it to the people who sprang from the earth and have been carefully improving that earth and making it more productive for millenia!
Genocide against the colonial expropriators is your heritage, reflux boy. Yours too, boner. Don't RUN from it. Embrace it!
If the revolution is defeated, the oligarchy will massacre thousands of people.
Yes, the White Hands movement is very violent and racist, you can see the evidence for this position in their marches and message. They're just waiting for the opportunity to lash out and massacre/ slaughter the masses...
Try and get a grip on something other than your dick for a change, boner!
Farm Boy, you are more stupid than your cows. Chavez has not expropriated the oligarchs. This is our main complaint about the Bolivarian Revolution, that it is too namby-pamby. We hope they will expropriate them, but there is no guarantee that they will. Only pressure from below, from the people, will make this a reality.
Expropriations have been carried out by political tendencies other than Stalinist, so don't bother with that ploy.
Even the slightest knowledge of Latin American history shows that the oligarchy deals with failed revolts and revolutions with the utmost barbarity. Google "Santa Maria de Iquique Massacre" for one example.
Right, boner, and since Mugabe still has a few "oligarchs" to expropriate from, he's just too, too wimpy to belong to your little commie club, too. I mean, stealing the phone company, the electric utilities, the oil companies, the cement companies, nationalizing the food distribution networks and now the eco-tourism industry isn't enough, just so long as one bolivar or one pottery barn remains in private hands, Hugo hasn't gone far enough.
That's what I like about you, boner, unlike the other wimps like reflux and poofter-boy you REALLY embrace your inner Mugabe.
...and WOW, in 1907 2,000 people got massacred in Chile by the "oligarchs" (read "Chavez's top twenty caudillos"). That's a REAL crime compared to the little Black Book of Communism and it's hundreds of millions of victims.
Farm Boy, I read that book in French (Le Livre Noir du Commmunisme) when it first came out in 1997 and it has nothing to do with what I am writing about. Socialism and Stalinism are not the same. Neither are populism and Stalinism. Anyone who has taken a freshman poly sci course knows that, but not you. Go get an education. Read! Learn something!
The opposition despite claims of not being able to campaign, grew by 700,000 since November. In November the numbers were 58/41% compared with 54/45%.
Daniel H-G: If you are for against term limits, by itself doesn't make you a good or bad person. It is an issue that by itself is debatable. In the context of Venezuelan politics, that are primarily polarized, you should oppose term limits, or its a victory for dangerous, dark forces.
If you are Venezuelan, and don't want Chavez to have another term, vote for the opposition.
FJ: Chavez has survived 15 democratic elections in 10 years. Mugabe hates elections.
Mugabe even agreed to not erase the debt, of the colonial regime. All he did was take over the colonial regime apparatus. Being socialist means destroying the old institutions.
His land reform wasn't for socialism. It was crony capitalism. Certainly it wasn't to do with central planning.
I'm not opposed to state to state relations between Venezuela and anyone. State to state relations have nothing to do with agreement. A socialist state should have relations with as many countries as possible, taking the best of every culture.
Larry G: In Miranda in Venezuela, after a rightist won, these events occured:
A Barrio Adentro I health clinic was torched down in Los Taladors, Valencia, Carabobo.
In the Independencia and Cordoba councils in Tachira, students from the misiones have been told to abandon their classrooms.
In Miranda there were attacks and threats against the UNEFA university site in the governorship of the state (now under opposition control).
In Los Teques, Miranda, there were threats against Radio La Voz de Guaicaipuro.
In Miranda, an Integral Diagnostic Centre clinic was also threatened and had to be protected by the police.
In Puerto Cabello, Carabobo, supporters of the newly elected governor, Salas Feo, threatened Cuban doctors and Barrio Adentro clinics.
In Guaicaipuro council, Miranda, a group of 10 Barrio Adentro Cuban doctors were forced out of the houses they were living in.
Gert: I hope this thread is a vacation from Middle East commenting.
In the US there is a demographic change. The Latino population, many immigrants are a major block. Invading Latin America via Monroe Doctrine ideas, would cause a major disruption.
Pagan: The Mugabe comparison is a hack argument.
Mugabe has no brand new railroad, children's cardiac hospital, literacy program, college for poor kids etc.
In the Venezuelan, are bureaucrats, allied with Chavez only for their own career. They deny oil prices or the world economy affects Venezuela. They are always for accomodation with the opposition.
In the long run, unless socialism is established, Chavez could become an Allende.
Oladapo Ogundipe: True.
I was ambivalent about Chavez for a while, my main objection to him more than anything the amount of time Sonia and others wasted blogging about him. Even as objectionable as I found his nationalizing the oil companies, at least you can somewhat make a case for that. The Spanish cement company pushed me over the edge. Not that I give a shit about either the Spanish or cement, it's just the idea that if I were an investor I would not put so much as one rusty dime into anything to do with Venezuela.
Fine, he's spent a portion of the countries oil revenue on social programs, great. Eventually, he might build Venezuela up to where it is half the country Rhodesia was before Robert Mugabe ruined it. Mugabe turned the bread basket of Africa into a waste land. Chavez can only do so much with oil revenues under the best of circumstances, then what?
You've made the case yourself Ren that socialism would work best in a developed country. Well, Venezuela is not a developed country, and socialism Chavez style will not develop it much further than it already is, if at all. Taking money from the "oligarchs" and distributing it among "the people" sounds good, but I have serious reservations about the long-term results.
Having a country that is twice as well off as Zimbabwe or roughly equal to Castro's Cuba doesn't sound like much of a goal to me. I just don't see him realistically aiming for anything higher, unfortunately.
What makes you so sure that Chavez will not engage in the same kind of "crony capitalism" as Mugabe? Why should you have so much faith in this guy? What has he done besides demagogue and dole out some bribes in the form of social spending, which he has done in large part these days by expropriating the property of not only the oligarchs, but of foreign investors who have made good faith investments in the country?
I just don't get it. But I'll tell you straight up, don't be surprised if he doesn't figure out a way to suspend elections four years from now on some pretext or another. Of course, if he does that, it will be due to conditions that he will find a way to blame on anybody besides himself.
Pagan: You're correct that Venezuela couldn't survive, by itself as socialist.
I'm not a Bolivarian or Chavista. I'm a revolutionary socialist. Chavez's defeating the 2002 coup, talking about permanent revolution, the support for occupying factories that are abandoned provided an opening for revolutionary socialists. Our time is spent with workers, forcing him to live up to his talk.
I just don't get it. But I'll tell you straight up, don't be surprised if he doesn't figure out a way to suspend elections four years from now on some pretext or another. Of course, if he does that, it will be due to conditions that he will find a way to blame on anybody besides himself.
Think about what you said. It makes zero sense. What planet are you on.
Chavez has been through 15 elections in 10 years. The voting machines are advanced. The elections have been monitored. Both sides accept the fairness of elections. Chavez has built a base, that is secure. He can't wait for the elections in four years. He announced yesterday he will run again.
People know that the opposition will dismantle the social services.
What makes you so sure that Chavez will not engage in the same kind of "crony capitalism" as Mugabe? Why should you have so much faith in this guy? What has he done besides demagogue and dole out some bribes in the form of social spending, which he has done in large part these days by expropriating the property of not only the oligarchs, but of foreign investors who have made good faith investments in the country?
Venezuela has the right to recall. It was used against Chavez himself.
There is a movement from below, unlike in Zimbabwe. Venezuelans are the most politically active people in the world. The PSUV has millions of members. It is the biggest socialist party in the world.
Mugabe is so strong, because his opposition is imperialist (MDC). They fear the working class as much as Mugabe. Both sides believe in capitalism.
On all counts it's ignorant comparing Chavez to Mugabe.
You keep talking about corporations like they are human beings. They don't have rights like people.
What gets me, is Chavez has >60% approval, and you believe elections will be cancelled? Where is the logic?
It's not the idea that corporations are people, it's the idea that it is people who invest in corporations. When Chavez expropriated the cement company holdings, the company stock took a dive. What do you think would happen if some corporation were to make a large-scale investment in Venezuela now? The investors would balk and either demand the board of directors hire another CEO and reverse course, or that companies stock would plummet.
Thus, you won't see any major companies, or even any fair-to-middlin' ones, make any investments in Venezuela. Why should they? Chavez has already made it clear he can and will expropriate their holdings whenever it suits him to do so.
You claim to know all this much about capitalism and how it really works, so why is this concept so hard for you to understand? Look at it this way, suppose Chavez or somebody like him had been in charge when oil was discovered there, and the oil companies knew from experience this would happen. How advanced when Venezuela's oil infrastructure be now? How well-developed would it be? How much longer would it have taken to develop in any event?
Bottom line, corporations invest money and resources with the aim of making a profit. That's just the way they roll. Take away any hope of such an incentive and they will simply put their money elsewhere. They aren't in business for charitable purposes. If they want to do "the right thing" or perform "good deeds" they will fund a PBS program. Otherwise, they aren't interested in throwing their investors money away.
That was really a boneheaded move on his part, totally uncalled for. Why you can't grasp that is just absolutely beyond me.
Farmer wrote:
"...and WOW, in 1907 2,000 people got massacred in Chile by the "oligarchs" (read "Chavez's top twenty caudillos"). That's a REAL crime compared to the little Black Book of Communism and it's hundreds of millions of victims."
Ultimately the boyz from the Hyper Ultra Far Right run out of arguments and start crapping on about the little Black Book of Communism and everything then gets compared to that. Remnants of the cold war, the lot of you. Being so far to the Right you practically come out the other end of the spectrum, you then feel justified in considering everybody else (except for your inner circle of practically illiterate friends of course) Stalinists.
I'll never forget (because it nearly made me crap myself laughing) how over at Always on Quatch a Far Right Neonazi called on his brethren (you) to join his anti-Semitic campaign. You proclaimed most comically that he was a Leftist masquerading as a Rightist. Truth be told, considering just how far to the right you actually are, that guy may just have been a nanoinch to the left of you.
Go play with Beaky, Nancimpoop, Mad Zionist and that other luminary, FN. There you can dream of whatever Hyperconservative Utopia (one completely purged from anything that's even 0.001% socialistic) you fancy...
As regards Mugabe, that has nothing to do with "left" or "right" and everything with unfortunately fairly typical post-colonial African gangsterism. Mugabe essentially liberated Rhodesia from British colonial rule, only to steal it as a means of personal enrichment for him and his cronies (similar to Saddam but minus the liberation struggle).
Land reforms were desperately needed but Mugabe's own goal was only personal wealth and a cronyism that supported him in power. As a result his land reforms benefited only him and those closest to him and no one else. It's Classic Dictatorship(TM) and it's neither left nor right. It's a pyramid with the Dictator (and largest earner) at the top, a small layer of second highest earners and Most Faithful, a slightly wider layer of good earners and Very Faithful, all the way down to police and lower army ranks, all well paid and Loyal. At the very bottom: a powerless and penniless people, kept in check with much firepower.
'Ideologically', Mugabe is a one trick pony: blame everything on the Brits (yes, including Cholera).
Comparing Mugabe and Chavez is ludicrous, only an extremist would do that.
LOL! I'm not the Leftist nutjob who started listing the "crimes" of the opposition and then began name calling instead of making reasoned arguments... reflux. That would be you.
As for the comparison between Mugabe and Chavez, try applying your "classic dictator" definition to Chavez and you find that it fits him to a "t". His family have turned the state of Barinas into their own private little fiefdom for exploiting for entirely their own profit. From his ex-governor father to his now governor brother. Chavez is a classic caudillo in EVERY sense of the word. And national politics is merely the family "business".
Ren,
Nice list of 'crimes' from Tachira. My entire blog is a list of Chavez's crimes against his opposition, the Venezuelan people.
FJ:
After descrambling your link, I found this motto on your blog:
"Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
I can see along which lines your Utopia would be built. Ordered any gulags yet? Cos' there's gonna be plenty undesirables in Farmerjohnland, that's for sure.
Love it when Ultranationalists come and lecture... Farmer John, Meirca's answer to Avigdor Lieberman...
Ren: no, this isn't my vacation from ME commenting, far from it.
Gert: I too unscrambled his shit link and found his right-wing shaven haven and that header to his blog just about sums up the kind of unteneble thinking he postulates.
Thankfully, he is and always will remain on the fringe and isolated. Exactly where his backward views belong.
One flag, one nation, one leader, the Farm Boy!
Daniel:
Yeah, just don't translate it into German, ok?
Makes one wonder why the Farmer bothers with the "Venezuelan people" at all. Must be an "anti-KoHoHommunist" angle there. Reds under our beds, pure-bread Meircans being infiltrated by an Evil Empire, something like that...
Gert: I find both FJ's and PT's presence here to be denegrating to the blog overall, voices from different angles yes but not just people who pose with bigoted views that they may or may not hold just to get a rise.
Farm Boy is a classic xenophobe. But I can understand the little chap's fears. If you take the Latinos, Asians, Blacks then add to them the non-xenophobic Euro-Americans you get a majority of the population. Farm Boy and his fellow bed sheet brigadeers are in a minority and will be increasingly so since the young Euro-Americans are increasingly less prejudiced than the older ones and the Latino population continues to grow.
Petraeus in Venezuela ?
What bobo came up with that? We needed another jungle war?
I fear the right has lost all commitment to rational thought.
Go easy on Farmer. He's a decent guy. He just needs to shake all that Nietzsche stuff he carries around.
Like that would ever happen, ducky.
btw - Glad to see that all you fair-weather patriots appreciate the words of a great president and liberal, Teddy Roosevelt.
A fondness of Nietzsche is not confined to the far right. Emma Goldman and Voltarine de la Clare liked him and the Socialist Party of Canada's newspaper "The Western Clarion" used to run lengthy excerpts from his writings on the front page. (circa 1907) He is profoundly anti-bourgeois. I found reading him a healthy purge of vulgar Marxism and liberal sentimentality. We also discussed him in our study group back in '81-'83 and I have his complete works in my library to this day.
Complete works? Not unless you read German, Gambone. I've got all that's been translated into English though...
English only. I don't read German.
FJ: The Teddy Roosevelt quote is in context when he said it. On your blog it reads as someone opposed to universal values.
I'm glad your blog focuses on Chavez. The revolution is in the factories and barrios.
Larry G: There was a blogger named The Partisan, who is a lefty Nietzsche follower, arguing with FJ if Nietzsche was a lefty or a righty. Even if his sister corrupted some of his writing, I think he is on the right.
Ducky: Petraeus in Venezuela ? He lost in Iraq, Afghanistan and he can go for a triple.
Pagan: The same argument you give, the right says about Minnesota's taxes. Venezuela isn't the only country in the world with a nationalized oil company.
Daniel H-G: I saw a play based on the blog Baghdad Burning. I predict you'll write a play about blogging.
Gert: Bolivia is hotter than Venezuela. The movement is from below more than Venezuela. The opposition openly wear swatztikas. The right over stepped, and lost their last constitutional election.
I think Nietzsche is largely on the right as well. This is especially true of his elitism and opposition to socialism, but of course, what he thought was socialism was the German Social Democratic Party, which as you know was already questionable with its Lasallean past and Kautskyian barrenness. What socialists and anarchists of the day found so pleasing was his opposition to religion and bourgeois morality and his exaltation of freedom.
I think that the Chavez win is also good for Cuba. Here we have Venezuela seemingly taking a step toward authentic socialism. I think this might make the China Syndrome faction of the Cuban Communist Party think twice, particularly since that model seems to be going down the toilet anyway. And even if the China faction don't reconsider, the opposition to them will certainly be reinforced.
Larry G: See this, the first part of a long article by Jorge Martin.
In Miami there was miniscule protest against the Che movie.
Larry:
Goodpoint regarding FJ being outnumbered, fear makes people do desperate things.
Ducky:
You and I have very different ideas of what a person decent.
And as a lay-scholar of Nietzsche, I don't see any of his greatness in Fuck Boy.
Speaking of Fuck Boy:
Quotes are all about context, also it may surprise you to learn that being intelligent means not agreeing with someone blindly, something you no doubt struggle with. It's all areas of grey rather than dogma.
All of Nietzsche's work is avaliable in English, well it is in the UK anyway and I can read German.
Ren:
Nietzsche is down the middle, more than left and more than right, soemthing else, something exceptional.
And as for writing a play on blogging, perhaps, I could cut and paste verbatim dialogue from the idiots that frequent the Internet. No one would believe me...
Sounds like an autobiographical play then, poofter. Good luck with getting anyone to care enough to read it. I'm sure you'll have to produce it yourself.
As for the quote on my blog, there is a limit on the number of words you can place in a sub-header in Blogger. The "entire" quote wouldn't fit. I tried that first.
As for Nietzsche, he wasn't into the SDP, the Nazi's, or any party that valued preserving the sick, and/or degenerate masses or their herd values. That's something for hypocritical priests to attend to. You last men blink too much. Vice exists for a reason (Malthus).
Fuck Boy, even for you that last comment very little sense...Hang on, why should sense ever be part of anything you spew you sad, lonely, little old man.
No wonder you vomit here so often, your life is so empty the attention you get from decent humans is more than you can ever have hoped for.
Bye!
Nietzsche the first "self help" philosopher.
He was the freakin' Dr. Phil of his day.
Well, poofter-boy. If that last comment didn't make any sense to you, then perhaps you shouldn't pretend to have ever read anything by FN.
"What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?"- so asketh the last man and blinketh.
The earth hath then become small, and on it there hoppeth the last man who maketh everything small. His species is ineradicable like that of the ground-flea; the last man liveth longest.
"We have discovered happiness"- say the last men, and blink thereby.
They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they need warmth. One still loveth one's neighbour and rubbeth against him; for one needeth warmth.
Turning ill and being distrustful, they consider sinful: they walk warily. He is a fool who still stumbleth over stones or men!
A little poison now and then: that maketh pleasant dreams. And much poison at last for a pleasant death.
One still worketh, for work is a pastime. But one is careful lest the pastime should hurt one.
One no longer becometh poor or rich; both are too burdensome. Who still wanteth to rule? Who still wanteth to obey? Both are too burdensome.
No shepherd, and one herd! Everyone wanteth the same; everyone is equal: he who hath other sentiments goeth voluntarily into the madhouse.
"Formerly all the world was insane,"- say the subtlest of them, and blink thereby.
They are clever and know all that hath happened: so there is no end to their raillery. People still fall out, but are soon reconciled- otherwise it spoileth their stomachs.
They have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health.
"We have discovered happiness,"- say the last men, and blink thereby.-
And here ended the first discourse of Zarathustra, which is also called "The Prologue", for at this point the shouting and mirth of the multitude interrupted him. "Give us this last man, O Zarathustra,"- they called out- "make us into these last men! Then will we make thee a present of the Superman!" And all the people exulted and smacked their lips. Zarathustra, however, turned sad, and said to his heart:
"They understand me not: I am not the mouth for these ears.
FUCK BOY:
You babble endlessly and back to block quoting again.
You've gone backwards.
Poor old man.
I only do it to broaden your cultural and intellectual horizons, poofter-boy. You'd never be exposed to works outside of Marxist dogma, otherwise. Us farm boys may not be the most edumacated folk, but it would appear we put you London city slickers to shame when it comes to reading out-of-school.
Frankly, I think Woods's analysis is somewhat dumb and doctrinaire. Roland Denis gives part of a better answer (which Renegade Eye seems to affirm): “Chávez means NO to the return of our political enemies to power and nothing more.”
Wood's comment that "However, after ten years of ceaseless struggle, the revolution has still not been completed. The bulk of industry, land and the banks remain in private hands" sums up his analytical problems. Yea, the state should be moving in those directions. And yes, economic development strategy has been pretty bad. Especially land reform. But there has not been a "qualitative leap" in organization, as Denis has written elsewhere. There are groups struggling and organizing--the FNCSB, the FNCEZ, groups in the 23 de Enero barrio--but not enough.
The revolution isn't complete, but not because industry hasn't been nationalized. It's because the people haven't finished making it yet. As William Izarra, one-time Chavista minister, adds, “direct democracy does not emerge by decree.”
I take up these claims, and offer an (immodestly) far superior analysis of the vote at my blog, Jewbonics
Farm Boy is losing his memory, Daniel. He has forgotten that you are a lay-scholar of Nietzsche. (And that I have spent a fair amount of time studying him as well - so we don't need you dumb ass bloc quotes. I have read a hell of a lot more thinkers than Marx, I can tell you.)
He's a lay scholar of Nietzsche all right. At best he laid his head on a text for ten minutes trying to absorb the contents via osmosis...
Pointless little man. You & this are very boring indeed.
The far-right are the people least likely to have any self awareness, indeed, they fear that sort of introspection. Thus, they engage in psychologically projection upon their "leftist" enemies. They live in a state of denial and self-deceit, so they figure that we too must be liars. They only read what applies to their narrow little ideology, so they think that we are that way as well, never daring to look beyond our Marx or Kropotkin. Filled with envy and hate, they claim that we are too. And etc.
For God's sake Gambone, that is nothing but pure psycho-babble. Were did you learn that crap, Psychology Today or Doctor Phil? Sure there's some merit to it, but number one, it's hardly profound, and even more importantly, that shit cuts both ways.
My analysis comes from years of studying (and putting up with) the authoritarian personality. Here is an excellent study. http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
And it does not cut both ways. I have 44 years experience in political involvement, and while a minority of people on the left - those in crazy sects - might be the equal of the far right in this regard, the majority are not. Quite frankly, I despise authoritarians and would not spend five minutes of my time with them. If the socialists and anarchists who are my friends - any many of them are life-long friends - were this way, they would not be my friends.
My experience is this. Most, but not all, right-wingers are bigoted, irrational, hypocritical and authoritarian. Most, but not all, socialists and anarchists are open-minded, rational, honest and anti-authoritarian.
I suspect there is little merit in arguing this with you, however, since you will typically dismiss everything I say out of hand.
jewbonics: Thank you for commenting. I usually on this blog have right opposition.
Woods knows the revolution is more than nationalizations. Nationalizations are only part of the demands presented to Chavez, He called for abolishing the standing army, workers control etc.
The relationship between the base and the government is dialectical. Obviously ending term limits is only a reformist demand. With Venezuela so polarized, any loss is unacceptable.
I don't disagree with individual points in the link you presented. I'm clear that you need to work inside the PPP, and be based in the working class.
The electoral loss 2 years ago, was a good thing in a way. It opened up Venezuelan eyes to not depend on Chavez, as much as they had. Unfortunately he is very influenced by Heinz Dieterich.
Chavez can end up being Allende, if he doesn't move forward with nationalizations, fighting corruption etc,
Larry G: Unfortunately both the left and right are protest movements. The real left knows what they are for.
Gambone-
"My experience is this. Most, but not all, right-wingers are bigoted, irrational, hypocritical and authoritarian. Most, but not all, socialists and anarchists are open-minded, rational, honest and anti-authoritarian."
Translation-You agree with the Left, thus they are the "good guys" and the Right is the "bad guys".
Nobody sees their side as the "bad guys". I could go to any leftist blog or website and in a lot of cases see the same argument posited against the Left and in favor the the Right.
It would not be one iota more or less accurate.
Of course I meant to say I could go to any Right-leaning blog or website and see the same argument posited against the Left and for the Right, and it would be no more or less accurate.
Open minded...
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!
The Right believes in a Master morality... and the Left believe in a snivelling Slave morality. Hence we have believers in "good and bad" and believers in "good and evil". And to the slaves on the Left, the Right is pure Evil...
“You are one too!” is a child's game. What I am writing about is pre-ideological and in the case of reason and logic, non-ideological. If it were purely ideologically a case of left and right, you would not get that minority of conservatives who lack prejudice and argue honestly. Nor would you get that minority of leftists who are hateful and illogical.
Let's examine the pre-ideological. How do people relate to ethnic, religious and dissident minorities? Do they accept them, even if they don't agree with them, or are they hostile toward them? How do they relate to the less fortunate, such as the poor, welfare recipients, the mentally ill, the addicted? Do they condemn them or show compassion? How do they relate to reform movements, abolitionists, feminists, ecologists etc? With hostility or an acceptance as part of the democratic process? How do they relate to sexuality, alcohol and other drugs? With repression or moderate controls? How do they relate to cruelty, such as beating of children and harsh treatment of prisoners? For or against? All these question pre-date ideology and indeed some of them go back thousands of years.
Now, for honest argumentation. There are about a dozen logical fallacies and these are easily found in books on logic and memorized. In short, there is no excuse for using logical fallacies in arguments, yet this is habitual practice among right-wing pundits and blog commentators. There is also the question of evidence. Evidence to the contrary of one's opinion should raise doubts about that opinion in an honest mind. Overwhelming evidence should, for an honest person, change their mind about the matter in question. Yet, for so many right-wingers, evidence does not seem to matter, their prejudices take precedence.
Gambone, I've been watching this game played out for years. You seem to be lumping all conservatives into one big amorphous group. You see a group that includes a great deal of social conservatives, and you decide, well conservatives are all fanatical right-wing religious fundamentalist Christians, and they are all intolerant racist bigots. Then you moderate that by saying, well a minority of them aren't that bad.
Then you look through a very narrow prism in interpreting what makes "most of them" objectionable.
If they are against gay marriage,or other aspects of gay rights, for just one example, then their reasoning has no merit whatsoever. They are all relegated and dismissed with the old classic "homophobic" label.
Against some policy that is supported by the feminist movement? Why, there is only one possible explanation. They must be "sexist".
Or, perhaps there is some aspect of racial identity politics they are opposed to. Maybe they dislike the notion of affirmative action, for example. Maybe they don't like the idea of school busing, and yes that is still an issue in certain areas of the US, such as for example in Louisville Kentucky.
Well, what is the reason for their objections?
Oh, never mind, it doesn't really matter what they say their reasons are. They are "racists", that's all we need to know. After all, that's the reason Kentucky voted against Obama in the primaries and in the general election. Those Kentucky voters are just racial bigots, all this talk about objection to liberal politics is just a convenient excuse.
What rational reason could anybody have to be against higher progressive taxes and increased regulations, or against mandates to combat global warming. People like that don't have rational reasons, they are all merely "backwards" and "reactionaries".
What about this nonsense about insisting that American leaders should look after America first and not buy into the various internationalist treaties that are signed without the approval or vote of the American people?
Don't pay any attention to them, they don't have any valid concerns or reasons. After all, they are all merely "isolationist xenophobes".
After all, why should we feel any different about a group of people that elected George Chimpy MacFlightsuit Bu$Hitler The Shrub Booooosh?
Really, Gambone, how do you expect anybody to take this stuff seriously? If you think the American people go along with this crap, you are sadly mistaken. Don't mistake the outcome of two elections as an indication that the American people as a whole are suddenly falling into line with this kind of rhetorical nonsense, because they are not.
Nor am I defending Republicans and/or conservatives, who have their own myriads of faults. That's just the point. Anytime the American people get tired of one set of clowns, the new set seem to always jump to the conclusion that they have a license to do or say any damn thing they want. It's not too awful long before the pendulum swings right back to where it was before. And on and on and on it goes.
It's called learning from history. It's called proof that mankind by and large is indeed no more than a miserable fucking beast.
It is pointless trying to debate with you. You are ignoring and twisting the intent of what I have written. I am tired of your game-playing and not going to waste any more of my time with this. I assure you I have better things to do with my time.
Ignore reality all you want, Gambone. I just told you flat out why Americans don't like liberal activists, and why they will always dislike liberal activists. Why they dislike conservative activists-which they most certainly do as well-is a whole different kettle of fish.
News flash-most of us don't just dislike them both, we have a seething, virulent hatred of them. I'm just one of the few that will come out and tell it to you in that exact terminology, otherwise known as-
THE TRUTH!!!!
And when I say hatred, no I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about movements, on the left and on the right, that turn people into fucking brainwashed sheep, the kind of shit that makes me want to grab all of them by the neck, shake them until every bone in their bodies rattles, and scream "Wake your stupid asses up"!!
Pagan: It's Rovian to talk about hating liberal activists. Most of your examples, aren't really activists, but Democratic and Republican operatives.
In practice what your saying, is that political involvement is annoying. I agree you will come across naive and overzealous people. That doesn't make them sheep.
There is times like this week in Guatalope, the whole country went on strike. It's sheeplike to not be involved.
This is a conservative blog, that really tries to understand other views. TruthPain is the model for a conservative blogger.
Ren-
Of course there are situations where it becomes imperative to become involved, but you should go into such situations with eyes and ears wide open.
As for political operatives, where do you think they derive their power and influence? How much power can a Pro-Life or a Pro-Choice candidate exercise without the influence, funding, and other support from Pro-Life and Pro-Choice activist groups?
They are the ones that have poisoned the political process, and to label one as "bigoted" and the other as "open-minded and tolerant" is the height of idiocy.
Larry is spot on when it comes to most on the Right: bigotry, hypocrisy, being very selective about what one reads or views and prejudice are more prevalent there than on the left.
Religion too, plays a part. Not only does it require credulity, it also breeds it. See also the vehement defence of Intelligent Design ("G-d the Gap Fuller"), which many of them completely misunderstand anyway and the level of religiously inspired homophobia (personally I think many of them are just plain old gay bashers who think they've found a justification).
Pagan, you don't get Larry's arguments, then twist them and create straw men: it's not enough to say 'they do it too'. "They" do but far less and there are reasons for that. Left and Right are not mirror images of each other. The basis of their arguments is often different: Left more empirical, Right more doctrinal. These aren't absolute differences, more matters of degree but the differences are discernable.
G-d only knows how often Rightists have told me (on any given topic): "I don't want a long debate about it".
As regards FJ's assertion that the Left hates the Right: compare the levels of negative campaigning in the last US elections: again there was far more of that Right-on-Left, much of it on totally spurious grounds.
I am not defending the right, who are just as bad as the left. They just aren't any worse, certainly not when it comes to tactics and demagoguery-which was my real point.
compare the levels of negative campaigning in the last US elections: again there was far more of that Right-on-Left
Culture of corruption, Bush lied, WMDs, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo! The longest NEGATIVE campaign in American history.
As for logical fallacies, LOGIC is itself a fallacy.
Nietzsche, Wtp 507
"Logic is bound to the condition: assume there are identical cases. In fact, to make possible logical thinking and inferences, this condition must be treated fictitiously as fulfilled. That is: the will to logical truth can be carried through only after a fundamental falsification of all events is assumed. From which it follows that a drive rules here that is capable of employing both means. firstly falsification, then the implementation of its own point of view: logic does not spring from will to truth.."
Nietzsche, "Gay Science"
Origin of the logical.— How did logic come into existence in man's head? Certainly out of illogic, whose realm originally must have been immense. Innumerable beings who made inferences in a way different from ours perished: for all that, their ways might have been truer! Those, for example, who did not know how to find often enough what is "equal" as regards both nourishment and hostile animals, who subsumed things too slowly and cautiously, were favored with a lesser probability of survival than those who guessed immediately upon encountering similar instances that they must be equal. The dominant tendency, however, to treat as equal what is merely similar, an illogical tendency—for nothing is really equal—is what first created any basis for logic. In order that the concept of substance could originate—which is indispensable for logic although in the strictest sense nothing real corresponds to it—it was likewise necessary that for a long time one did not see nor perceive the changes in things; the beings that did not see so precisely had an advantage over those that saw everything "in flux." At bottom, every high degree of caution in making inferences and every skeptical tendency constitute a great danger for life. No living beings would have survived if the opposite tendency, to affirm rather than suspend judgment, to err and make up things rather than wait, to assent rather than negate, to pass judgment rather than be just—had not been bred to the point where it became extraordinarily strong.— The course of logical ideas and inferences in our brain today corresponds to a process and a struggle among impulses that are, taken singly, very illogical and unjust; we generally experience only the result of this struggle: this primeval mechanism now runs its course so quickly and is so well concealed.
Woods may know that, but I don't think he extensively took it up in his analysis. It's true, nationalizations are important, but far more important are takeovers, etc.
I think we basically agree; I understand that Woods in concerned about Chavez becoming an Allende. I think control of the state is important. But I would like to see more emphasis on authentic libertarian development. Woods downplays this part of the struggle, I think (you clearly don't--I'm not being accusatory). A
I know what 'side' I'd rather be on.
And it's not the one that block quotes and proposes negative world views that amount to nothing.
As I've said before, this fringe thinking is thankfully just that.
Post a Comment