And many also believe a president can do whatever he likes because "he is president and people elected him".
1- People did not elect him to do anything.
2- Your post does not discuss something: every, absolutely every single group, institution or Führer a la Chavez or a la Stalin or a la Pinochet claimed they were following the will of da people.
And people are more than what the CNE and failed paper trail-based electoral systems claim.
Chavez is imperfect, but to put him with Hitler, Stalin or Pinochet, trivializes fascism and Stalinism.
Honduras proved Trotsky correct about permanent revolution. A developing country can't even deliver a minimal program like Zalaya's. That's why national and socialist revolution need to be combined.
Zalaya got a lesson on the capitalist state.
Regards
Chavez is worse than imperfect. I am not saying he is the same as Hitler, Stalin or even Pinochet, but he is also a criminal.
He is not responsible for millions of murders as the first two or for thousands of premeditated ones as Pinochet, but still he is a criminal.
"Honduras proved Trotsky correct about permanent revolution."
Honduras has proved nothing. Would Trotski be living today he would be a repented one, as so many others.
This is the weirdest movement in all history.
Can you please, Renegade, tell me if you have ever reached the level of socialist country? If not: why?
Geez, talk about a naive post. I've been reading Caracas chronicles all through this, and you thoroughly and intentionally misrepresent Q's position. Anyways, I guess he'll defend himself from your superficial smear campaign.
You do seem to forget, though, that "institutions" and "democracy" weren't created by right-wing zealots, but all the contrary: *democracy* and *institutions* are a core concern for the left-wing since enlightenment and the French revolution.
That you fail to acknowledge this underlines either a serious misunderstanding of what those words mean and stand for or a flimsy excuse to try and overcome problems of democratic representation with a post full of pathos and nothing more.
I never thought I'd read someone claiming to be left-wing to do away with institutions, instead of enforcing them, or to do away with democracy because it's a rethoric right-wing tool and all that matters is "the will of the people".
What are *institutions* if not a check and balance to guarantee the *will of the people* doesn't get misrepresented? What is *democracy* if not a translation of the *will of the people*?
Many disasters have been accomplished in the last century in the name of *the will of the people* and the need, by a ruling elite, to impose their one-sided vision of this *will* on others, above institutions and democracy. You fail to see this, which seems to mean you don't really know what *institutions* are, why left-wing politics centers their efforts around them, and why every autocrat tries to do away with them.
This is a very shallow, naif and disappointing post that looks like it was written by a 15-year old trying to hide the sun with his finger.
"That's why national and socialist revolution need to be combined."
Oh...my...God.
Hehe...ich hatte es übersehen. Jawohl, sehr gut, ja, Renegade Eye,
Onkel Adolf vould be verrry prroud with you.
You arre rreally an anti-Stalinist, das ist gut.
"I never thought I'd read someone claiming to be left-wing to do away with institutions, instead of enforcing them, or to do away with democracy because it's a rethoric right-wing tool and all that matters is "the will of the people"."
The will of the people is democracy, and the only instittution that is indispensable is the people.
"What are *institutions* if not a check and balance to guarantee the *will of the people* doesn't get misrepresented?"
Because when these institutions stand squarely opposed to polling the people on what they want they forfeit their right to interpretation.
"Many disasters have been accomplished in the last century in the name of *the will of the people* and the need, by a ruling elite, to impose their one-sided vision of this *will* on others, above institutions and democracy."
In the "name" is NOT in the same universe as the actual will, these coupster institutions also claim to be doing the will of the people why aren't you busting them for their populism?
When I mean "will" there has to be scientific and transparent elections to prove it.
"Honduras proved Trotsky correct about permanent revolution. A developing country can't even deliver a minimal program like Zalaya's. That's why national and socialist revolution need to be combined."
This is incorrect there have been minute changes in other countries through democracy, Honduras has just been the exception. Nobody has proven that the people want a "revolution".
The problem is that you reduce "democracy" and "the will of people" to a strict 1:1 representation scheme based on voting.
But "voting" is not democracy, voting is a simple and organized outcome you get *AFTER* you've been able to create autonomous and just institutions. You seem to parrot the shallow chavista intelligentsia argument that opposes any abuse of the TSJ, CNE and a totally dysfunctional A.N. with the sentence, "but we've had nine elections". Sorry, in Cuba they vote too and nobody would consider the island democratic.
That's why your claim falls right into the critique Rosa Luxemburg put forward decades ago: The imminent danger of equating "the people" to "the party" and "the party" to "the hyper-leader", ergo constructing a vicious 1:1 representation scheme between "the people" and "the leader" that no institution can curb. This is known as "unlimited power" and is the logical conclusion of working *against* institutions, not *criticizing them* to make them better.
That's as far as the theory goes. As far as the practical Honduras case goes, you seem to be claiming "the will of the people" was a relatively popular leader passing unpopular referendums against "the will" of the majority (check polls) and every institution in the country. Appeal to "the will of the people" doesn't give you the right to storm the voting centers with thugs or order your military to act unconstitutionally. That said, I'm fully opposed to the military coup and its dire consequences, but spinning "the will of the people" versus "the burgeois oligarchy of honduras" or what have you doesn't seem accurate to me.
quote OW:
"The people are the only institution that matters, because either you believe in the people or you do not. They are not perfect, but that is the true nature of democracy, not 9 fat cats in robes."
when it comes to the institutional integrity of democratic systems, the "will of the people" is indeed the basic principle. there would be no democracy if its institutions were not infused with the protection and the encouragement of democracy.
i cannot speak for "francisco, daniel, miguel", but i agree: venezuelan institutions ARE broken! but in contrast to OW's view, it's not (only) because a populist is head of state (in venezuela's case this fact, however, contributes to institutional deterioration).
unlike OW et al. think that alleged neo-liberals/right-wing agents (exaggeration intended) define flawed institutions according to "how leftist-populist the head of state is" , i'd recommend a more objective indicator for institutional soundness:
do institutions in a democratic state work (1) independently from the ruling government's ideology and (2) do they potentially benefit ALL citizens ignoring individual political orientation?
as for venezuela, this indicator developed negatively in the last decade (and steeper than in the cuarta república).
(cont.)
(cont.)
part (1) points at the strong idelogization of direct govt/administration institutions and of the (nowadays so called) autonomous state institutions that experienced a massive re-orientation aligning them to the "revolution's" programme and veering them away from a rather unbiased function-based approach. is it necessary for a democracy to have individuals in almost every key position of almost every institutional unit to avow themselves to the head of state's political project and not to their constitutional or social function in the first place? or does this merely protect the head of state from resistance while transforming the republic into something extra-constitutional? what kind of democratic government has to resort to a totalitarian approach aiming at "forming a new citizen" according to the ruling party's (extra-constitutional) programme?
but also the most basic (constitutionally guaranteed) institutions such as "property", "due process", "labour agreement", "freedom of strike" and the binding exclusive (e.g. municipal) authority of elected goverments (casus ledezma) have suffered damage and are only valid if they favor the president (and his intransparent project).
subset (2) has to be denied for venezuela, too. democracies can only function as long as the minority accepts the majority vote AND the majority or ruling/deciding part does NOT treat individuals based on their previous political statement or dissent. is it part of a democratic system when the government bases its employment, services and calls for tender decisions on whether one was pro or contra the president's administration in a perfectly legal an democratic plebiscite? do true democracies have or need a lista tascón/maisanta? do intact state institutions hire and fire employees only because of their political "colours" (PDVSA)? do intact institutions act in their *own* motion or do they act after a specific rant plus demand in the last aló presidente?
OW, do you remember a couple of weeks ago, when chávez had a governor position created for caracas via asamblea nacional (also a dysfunctional institution btw, not reflecting the political reality)? remember how mayor ledezma's seat and budget were transfered to madame faría? wasn't the ELECTED municipal head of caracas (according to the constitution the only legitimate) rendered useless, thereby disregarding (overruling!) the vote and will of the people of caracas?
would this be your answer (quote OW):
"The people are the only institution that matters, because either you believe in the people or you do not. They are not perfect, but that is the true nature of democracy, not 9 fat cats in robes."
That's as far as the theory goes. As far as the practical Honduras case goes, you seem to be claiming "the will of the people" was a relatively popular leader passing unpopular referendums against "the will" of the majority (check polls) and every institution in the country.
Looks like someone has been living under a rock the last few days.
Get your facts straight Vinz. This isn't even close to what the truth is. In fact, it is the opposite. Zelaya simply wanted to carry out a non-binding poll to see if the people supported voting for a constitutional assembly, and this is allowed for under Honduran Law.
The Supreme Court decision to ban this non-binding poll was completely illegal and unconstitutional.
Appeal to "the will of the people" doesn't give you the right to storm the voting centers with thugs or order your military to act unconstitutionally.
Have you been reading Mary O'Grady or what? This is also completely false.
You should check your facts before spouting this crap.
Flanker,
Quico and others' desire for some sort of "institutional utopia" where all institutions interact with each other in some sort of fantasy-land vacuum, is utterly naive and disconnected from the real world problems of democracy under a capitalist economy.
Who doesn't want to create a system in which real conflicts and abuses don't occur, and where all the checks and balances function according to the most perfect of constitutional orders? This is a no-brainer. They are championing an issue that is totally irrelevant.
The real question which Quico and others have apparently never even pondered is how to actually construct this, and what the real-world barriers are to making it happen.
Can institutions ever be trully "independent" under a capitalist society in which wealth (and, therefore, power) is extremely (or even relatively) concentrated?
Can democracy really exist if the economy is structured around tyranical organizations that operate according to a strict top-down logic that puts profit as its first priority?
Can the type of political coflict that has plagued Latin America (the latest example in Honduras) really ever be resolved in a society built around such divergent class interests? (Quico's understanding of class is about as infantile as it gets) Can it really be fixed without some sort of reconciliation of the class differences, a democratization of the economic entities, property, etc.?
This whole championing of "independent institutions" is a story for toddlers. The real debate is about what needs to happen, how the society/economy/political system needs to be transformed in order to approximate that goal as best we can.
"Can institutions ever be trully "independent" under a capitalist society in which wealth (and, therefore, power) is extremely (or even relatively) concentrated?"
Might as well ask if the weather can be made to be perfect 100% of the time.
Regardless of the political system extant at the time, institutions are made up of individuals. In any soceity, a system to exchange goods and services, whether capitalist, socialist or communist, will provide opportunities for "corruption" in institutions. Humans, are, by nature, prone to looking for the easy way out. Unless you conform a soceity of perfect individuals. Which ain't gonna happen, ever.
Which is why this question is weak.
"Can democracy really exist if the economy is structured around tyranical organizations that operate according to a strict top-down logic that puts profit as its first priority?" Ask the boliburgueses, and tell me if you like their answer.
"Can the type of political coflict that has plagued Latin America (the latest example in Honduras) really ever be resolved in a society built around such divergent class interests? (Quico's understanding of class is about as infantile as it gets) Can it really be fixed without some sort of reconciliation of the class differences, a democratization of the economic entities, property, etc.?"
Ask the obvious and pat yourself on the back.
Question for Flanker:
Has it been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that it was the army/police that fired the gun(s) at the Tocontin Airport on Sunday? If so, can you point to a source?
http://www.elchiguirebipolar.com...sion-
sobre.html
@tosh
i agree, perfectly independent and working-as-intended institutions do not exist. but it's not about whether a society is able of realizing that "perfect" design, it's about how close a society is able and willing (!) to come to the optimal functionality.
it is also obvious that a socialist/communist project - as i presume you would suggest as best practice in order to redistribute wealth 'de manera justa' - does even more substantially come from an utterly unrealistic assumption concerning how men do and should behave.
this is why every so called socialist state failed as long as it clinged to an economic framework based on this utopian ideal (except flagship china, the totalitarian turbo-capitalism and vietnam).
we also see that every not even close-to-optimum institutionality is further downgraded when populist tendencies and the emergence of charismatic leaders (that are identified with the corresponding political project) take over (legally or not).
the roman republic (not a democratic one, though) lost its institutional integrity after marius and later caesar gave in to populism in order to perpetuate themselves in power supporting a huge clientele, sulla being the last sign of rebellion (e.g. until after sulla dictators and top magistrates always resigned when their 'constitutional' term ended);
what happened in europe during the first half of the 20th century? exclusively populist movements surrounding a strong leader (often with military background) making inflationary use of "people", "nation", "justice", "will of the people" etc. bypassed already weakened institutions altogether.
is it necessary to mention the many post colonial populism-forges-institutions-cases between el paso and cape hoorn?
why have europeans tried to maintain a system that balances powers as good as the "real world" allows for and why is every political requirement limited when it threatens to damage or do away with institutions? why would chávez never succeed in, say, norway (we all like and admire those scandinavians, right?)?
when a political project changes a democratic institutional configuration, it has to do so without the necessity of concentrating everything in (one) person(s) - i.e. chávez or los principes rojos, rojitos - but by establishing strong and durable institutions that work for and under everyone.
i agree with vinz when he says that (a legitimate or illegal) execution of "the will of the people" is corruptive when it bypasses/disrespects institutions. any change has to come THROUGH them.
this is NOT the case in venezuela. the central govt. restructured almost everything to be at chávez's command and even reached for previously locally administered elements.
the balance of power may already have been flawed before chávez, but it completely degenerated to a strict dependency of all other institutions (and powers) on not only the presidency, but the very person chávez.
Humans, are, by nature, prone to looking for the easy way out. Unless you conform a soceity of perfect individuals. Which ain't gonna happen, ever.
Revbob, your answer shows complete lack of awareness of the severe threat concentrated wealth presents to democracy in general, and does not address the question at hand.
Of course institutions are made up of individuals, and of course individuals cannot be perfect. But that is totally ignoring the issue I have presented. Regardless of individual actions, concentrated wealth and power have undue influence over institutions. You did not even attempt to address that issue.
Ask the obvious and pat yourself on the back.
In other words, you can't provide an answer to these questions, or a possible solution to the problems presented. Like Quico and gang, you've probably never even pondered a solution to these pressing issues, yet you blab on about "independent institutions" without even considering what the greatest barriers to achieve this are.
Tosh, you have your list of regurgitated answers from your lefty books and a couple of lefty authors (regional integration, blabla, superficially thought, participatory democracy, superficially thought, EXPORT substitution, etc). In reality you are the one who never pondered whether the solutions they propose solve the equations...not surprisingly
as you have never engaged in a debate, even if you have pretended to, a thousand times. You have never thought for a second: am I wrong?
You have never thought for more than 2 seconds: why did all those socialist movements fail?
i agree, perfectly independent and working-as-intended institutions do not exist. but it's not about whether a society is able of realizing that "perfect" design, it's about how close a society is able and willing (!) to come to the optimal functionality.
Which is exactly what I said above.
it is also obvious that a socialist/communist project - as i presume you would suggest as best practice in order to redistribute wealth 'de manera justa' - does even more substantially come from an utterly unrealistic assumption concerning how men do and should behave.
So your answer to the problems presented is to attack socialism/communism? That hardly presents a solution, or even shows much thought.
this is NOT the case in venezuela. the central govt. restructured almost everything to be at chávez's command and even reached for previously locally administered elements.
the balance of power may already have been flawed before chávez, but it completely degenerated to a strict dependency of all other institutions (and powers) on not only the presidency, but the very person chávez.
This is mostly your misinterpretation and overexaggeration of the situation. Just because pro-Chavez parties control the institutions does not mean that they are all dependent on Chavez.
This is like saying that the institutions in the US are all dependent on Obama because the democratic party controls them. This is a fallacious argument. One does not imply the other.
TeleSur Wrapped Itself in Glory (and Took Down the Corporate Media Today): I derived considerable joy today watching CNN, throughout the afternoon, completely dependent upon live feeds from TeleSur to cover the story. TeleSur had not only “embedded” with Honduras’ version of Air Force One – on the airplane with Zelaya and D’Escoto – but more importantly it gained the trust of the 500,000 reported Hondurans who took to the streets. At various points during the march to the airport, the citizenry, upon seeing film crews from the station, chanted, “TeleSur! TeleSur!”
http://narcosphere.narconews.com...coup-lost-
today
"So your answer to the problems presented is to attack socialism/communism? That hardly presents a solution, or even shows much thought."
We don't need to attack it. It has proven not to work. You keep bring in the "well, they haven't really tried it, really". Same thing we can say about capitalism, although capitalism has been much more successful than the crap that "tried to be socialism/communism"
Well, Ano, those are the same guys who would believe in a God called Cargo.
We don't need to attack it. It has proven not to work. You keep bring in the "well, they haven't really tried it, really". Same thing we can say about capitalism, although capitalism has been much more successful than the crap that "tried to be socialism/communism"
Kepler | Homepage | 07.06.09 - 5:59 pm | #
hahaha, that's hilarious Kepler. You say you don't need to attack it, and then you proceed to attack it.
Why is it that you cannot address the issues at hand?
I mean with attack provide arguments. Tosh, when you were peeing your pants I was reading the reports from my friends telling me how communism in their countries was turning to pieces...oh, sorry, a capitalist system that claimed to be socialism...sure.
You are so smart Kepler. I wish I could be like you.
I have been invoked, so I appear.
First, let me thank flanker from acknowledging that oppo blogs are now so well known and so widely read that there is no need to mention their names, or even put the link: everyone has in his or her bookmarks the name of the blogger alone.
Second, of course I am not going to bother taking down the argument of flanker since this blog is a "simon says" blog, but reverse. If I write white, I will be told black.
But what I will do is point out to a basic misconception (misunderstanding? faulty knowledge?) in flanker argument when he writes "that is why term limits exist in every rightwing constitution."
As it is often the case, with people like flanker or Tosh (since he will insult me I might as well give him the excuse to get started) they might be well read but that does not mean at all that they understand what they read.
Terms limit ARE NOT a right wing trick.
When they arose in constitutions from the right or the left it was with an eye on the past to military caudillos, or even to colonial times in case someone were to be tempted to reestablish a monarchy. In fact, I even have the perfect counter example: the French constitutional laws of 1871 did not put in term limits at all, and the assembly that voted them was arguably the most right wing assembly of French democratic history. Not to mention that they were coming out from the Napoleon III dictatorship.
If it is true that the GOP is the one who put presidential term limits in the US (with many Dems coming along) one cannot accuse the Mexicans who established very harsh term limits across the board to have been right wing, whatsoever. Same thing in 1958 in Venezuela when AD was still a leftist party (again, remember, you need to judge things by the standards of the era, not by today's P.C. whimsy).
And just in case, the reason why I embrace term limits, and way back at that, it is because I am against centralized presidential systems and if I must suffer them let them come with term limits, in Bogota or Caracas for that matter. The best models for me today are Canada and Germany: parliamentarian, decentralized, very federal, no term limits. You might not have noticed it but they are among the most "social" systems in the world.
Now, you may keep calling me right wing if you please, but at least get better examples for that.
Second, of course I am not going to bother taking down the argument of flanker since this blog is a "simon says" blog, but reverse. If I write white, I will be told black.
Hey, this kinda sounds like Daniel's approach to Chavismo.
Chavez says white, Daniel says black.
Chavez comes out against a military coup, Daniel immediately supports it.
Same thing in 1958 in Venezuela when AD was still a leftist party (again, remember, you need to judge things by the standards of the era, not by today's P.C. whimsy).
And Daniel displays his ignorance of Venezuelan history for all to see.
Sounds like someone needs to read about a little thing called the Pacto de Punto Fijo which by very definition was an exclusion of leftist parties.
The best models for me today are Canada and Germany: parliamentarian, decentralized, very federal, no term limits. You might not have noticed it but they are among the most "social" systems in the world.
This kind of nation-based analysis is pretty worthless in a globalized society in which economies are so inter-linked and capital has become so transnational. But I do realize who I am talking to here.
The reason why you embrace term limits but lie about it, Duquenal, is because you are obsessively opposed to Chavez. That's the top and bottom of it. We all know your sick motivation and coup supporting mentality. You support violence and killing as long as it happens to poor people. Deny it you fucking sicko.
With the first two replies I can say that I rest my case fully.
Thanks guys, as usual you did not disappoint me.
Here is something that was a long time coming but looks to be well worth the wait:
http://www.bcv.org.ve/Upload/
Pub...infoeco2008.pdf
This document should serve for some very enlightening discussion on the state of Venezuela's economy. I don't know when I'll have time to read it in depth and comment on it but I'll do what I can. If anyone else wants to read and comment on it please do.
Congrats to the Ven. govt. for putting this out.
BTW, someone up above quoted from this blog post as if I wrote it.
I did not.
I haven't had a chance to post in almost two months.
Maybe some day...
This is mostly your misinterpretation and overexaggeration of the situation. Just because pro-Chavez parties control the institutions does not mean that they are all dependent on Chavez.
This is like saying that the institutions in the US are all dependent on Obama because the democratic party controls them. This is a fallacious argument. One does not imply the other.
Tosh | 07.06.09 - 5:51 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
hahahahahahahahahaaha, you are a clown Tosh. They could really use your humor at the Chiguire Bipolar. hahahahahahahahahaahahaha
@ow
sorry for that, i used "ow" to address this platform, not an individual.
@tosh
i am curious...
can you name a real life example of a society/state not based on what you may call "right wing constitution" that - from your point of view - is successfully democratic?
would you say the bolivarian revolution is possible WITHOUT chávez leading the way?
btw. a reference to lista tascón alone is enough to show venezuelas institutional degeneration.
Zamuro, we have asked Tosh that question 87 times. He has not answered yet. He says things like "I'd rather talk to my chair than to you, moron"
Yes I believe in Participatory Democracy and consulting the people directly. If there's (almost) no Central government, as in Switzerland.
But democracy is founded on a Republic and a Constitution, and if there must be a President (or two Consuls, or whatever).
First, the Legislative, then, the Courts, then the Executive. It's necessary. Now, the Executive should not make law. Why should it when there's a Legislative that was elected just for that? beats me.
You know, the clear and enforced separation of functions in government was a great discovery. It not only eased administration. It prevented arbitrary behavior. If there's an Electoral Court, it falls to them to decide on the means and dates for ballots.
Institutions can become evil. BUT! it is simpler and much easier for a man with great power to become power hungry, erratic and fiercely partisan than for an assembly of MANY persons who have different ideas and conflicting interests.
Direct democracy without any comptrolling institutions bears a strong resemblance to fascism. The charismatic populist and Mussolini do look suspiciously alike if he can decide whatever of his whims is the real "will" of the people. How come he does pick and choose?
If it is by plebiscite or referendum, the populist is really not needed and can be safely disposed of, as a danger to the freedom of the people. The Swiss need no stinking man on a white horse to decide their own local affairs.
As for the people, I am pretty certain they (every jack and jane of them) can not only have a voice and manage their own affairs, if their INDIVIDUAL rights to life, freedom of person and PROPERTY are strictly respected.
Face up to the dead of the isms of the 1920 (fascism and communism) and at least be decent enough to be anarchists.
Tosh:
Your question "Can institutions ever be trully "independent" under a capitalist society in which wealth (and, therefore, power) is extremely (or even relatively) concentrated?"
Also would apply to any soceity, regardless of it's political system. Just subsititute "capitalism" in your question for any other system, and the answer is the same. Because regardless of the form, "wealth", whether expressed as money, raw materials, IOU's or whatever will always "concentrate" somewhere. And where it concentrates, there is the opportunity for "corruption". Which is why I state that in order for this "wealth" not to concentrate, you would by definition need a nation of perfect humans to make that work. I do wish that such a thing were possible, I just don't think we will ever get there in our lifetimes, or our great great great great grandkids lifetimes either.
"Can the type of political coflict that has plagued Latin America (the latest example in Honduras) really ever be resolved in a society built around such divergent class interests? (Quico's understanding of class is about as infantile as it gets) Can it really be fixed without some sort of reconciliation of the class differences, a democratization of the economic entities, property, etc.?"
Is a silly question Tosh, hence my answer. It is a silly question because the answer is so obvious, it's not even funny. Of course not, is the answer. But you knew that, didn't you?
This is why I cannot for the life of me understand why you defend Chavez so much (unless you are paid to do so). Talk about wealth accumulating, and talk about "democratizing" property! Are the properties of his inner circle being "democratized"? No way! Are those who are politically aligned against him being "democratized" Fuckin A right they are!
How much wealth has been accumulated by Disodado and his cronies? How about Jose Vicente Rangel Avalos? And the rest of the pirates?
You know, Tosh, occasionally you write intelligent posts and replies. And you have a way with words, you do.
And then you fuck it all up by inserting put downs and distractions that bear nothing upon the argument. These get in the way of fruitful discussion, and make you out to be a jerk. Try it differently, and see where it gets you.
Is a silly question Tosh, hence my answer. It is a silly question because the answer is so obvious, it's not even funny. Of course not, is the answer. But you knew that, didn't you?
NO, its actually not a silly question at all. It is a question that all of you who support capitalism have to answer, yet none of you can provide a solution. Shit, you obviously aren't even capable of discussing it.
If the answer is NO, then what do you propose as a solution?
Talk about wealth accumulating, and talk about "democratizing" property! Are the properties of his inner circle being "democratized"? No way! Are those who are politically aligned against him being "democratized" Fuckin A right they are!
This is just silly Revbob. A total lack of objective analysis on your part. Is there corruption? Of course there is. Are some people inside the government enriching themselves? Of course they are. Did you really expect a government to come to power and magically do away with this social ill that affects ALL poor countries? That is just a stupid expectation.
But this has very little to do with the democratization of the economy. Corrupt officials may be enriching themselves, but that has little to do with Chavista policy, and how it aims to transform the economy.
Again, you can't even discuss the issues at hand because of your irrational obsession with minor details that are simply realities in most poor countries, and will not be erradicated without social and economic transformation.
How much wealth has been accumulated by Disodado and his cronies? How about Jose Vicente Rangel Avalos? And the rest of the pirates?
I don't know, but you seem to act like you know. Care to give us any evidence?
You know, Tosh, occasionally you write intelligent posts and replies. And you have a way with words, you do.
I can't say the same for you. You won't even address the points I make.
btw. a reference to lista tascón alone is enough to show venezuelas institutional degeneration.
zamuro | Homepage | 07.07.09 - 3:23 am | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Tascon list? Necessary to keep saboteurs out of state insitutions and ministries.
I am certain that if someone belongs to the Colombian communist party, he would NEVER get a job in the Uribe administration.
Igual no es trampa!
Ano, thanks for your words. I am posting it to EU parliamentarians and a couple of journalists.
Thanks again.
Toshy,
In one word, according to you, we support capitalism. What do you suppose? "Socialism"?
Please, tell us for once which country has succeeded in implementing it and why it will be different now with Chavismo.
About the evidence of illegal enrichment: can you please tell us what kind of proof you want?
Yes, don't run away, just tell us what kind of proof. How are those proofs presented ever, in any country? How do they come? I am not talking about Chavismo, I am talking in general: how are those proofs presented in any country? Then we tell you how far we can get in presenting you those proofs in Venezuela concretely.
By the way:
1) what has happened with Bernal's and Barreto's cases?
2) what has happened with the committee set up to find out about Simon Bolivar's death?
3) How many times do we need to write here the URL so that you can check out Chavez's daughters got a social house each for free?
4) How is it possible that Jesse Chacon's brother owns hundreds of millions of dollars now when he declared 0 and was penniless in 2001?
This is just silly Revbob. A total lack of objective analysis on your part. Is there corruption? Of course there is. Are some people inside the government enriching themselves? Of course they are. Did you really expect a government to come to power and magically do away with this social ill that affects ALL poor countries? That is just a stupid expectation.
About as stupid as your expectation that Socialism is the answer. Again, until we are all perfect, Socialism will provide rewards for those who do just enough to get by, as well as those who strive to do things better, cheaper or faster. There is no incentive to strive and compete, because it is not rewarded. And humans will not feel motivated to excel and strive in such a system, because of our innate imperfections.
I'll leave it to you to strive to do just enough to get by, and to reward slackers and strivers the same way.
OT - for info on Bernal's and Barreto's cases check out with the Ministerio Público.
Kepler -. show us the bank accounts of Chacón's brother with the balance of hundreds of millions of dollars, and then we will believe this BS.
Otherwise, take a hike.
"Institutions can become evil. BUT! it is simpler and much easier for a man with great power to become power hungry, erratic and fiercely partisan than for an assembly of MANY persons who have different ideas and conflicting interests."
This is unsubstantiated, many times the institutions have been as evil as any charismatic populist, easily turned as well.
Instead of supporting the will of the people, the real will of the people not what populists claim is the will of the people, You put your loyalty to established institutions (who BTW also claim to have the support of the people).
Something better, Ano:
http://infovenezuela.org/corrupt...n-
escamillo.php
Ano, you know what? You can say all the time "take a hike", the one who needs to take a hike is you.
About as stupid as your expectation that Socialism is the answer.
Again, you simply can't address my points about capitalism. You just turn it into an attack on socialism.
In other words, your reasoning is as follows:
Socialism is bad, so therefore capitalism is good.
This is just unbelievably infantile thought. And you've proven what my point was in the beginning; that you guys haven't even pondered these questions and cannot provide any solution to them.
As long as there is no solution to the problems of capitalism, some of which I listed above, you can expect to see anti-capitalist and socialist movements keep sprouting up all over the place. You guys hate these movements with a passion, but your sight is so limited that you can't even take a look at what causes them.
Socialism will provide rewards for those who do just enough to get by, as well as those who strive to do things better, cheaper or faster.
That's quite a generalization. In other words, people are only motivated by monetary rewards? Funny, because the very mechanism I'm using to communicate with you right now (the internet) was developed by a government funded program that was in no way motivated by profit. The same goes for many major technological innovations.
But that's beside the point. Apparently you don't even understand what socialism is, because no where does socialism imply that people cannot be rewarded for working harder, faster, etc.
I'll leave it to you to strive to do just enough to get by, and to reward slackers and strivers the same way.
revbob22 | 07.07.09 - 12:32 pm | #
Apparently you've done just that when it comes to understanding what socialism actually is. You've obviously not even made any effort.
Kepler - now if this case againsr Jesse's brother is cut and dried why has no one from the opposition (such as yourself) denounced this in the Ministerio Público?
I guess not since you people always want trial by the media which hardly corrects anything. By not denouncing this "open and shut" case the opposition is effectively collaborating in possible corruption.
Now, why would they want to do that?
I suppose because they could end up as Danilo Anderson: blown up.
People are afraid. I have heard from a lot of people of worse cases. They would need to go out of Venezuela with all their families.
Chavistas are thugs, remember that.
Los adecos se quedan casi como santos comparados con tus jefes.
As for Barreto: what has happened to his case?
As for Chavez: what has happened to all those haciendas? I know people in Barinas. In fact I know a cousin of Chavez. It is true: his brothers are getting rich out of the people.
Do you know what happened to the brother of the deputy who was denouncing the Chavez clan?
He was murdered.
Ano, we are not in front of the international public. It is you, me and half a dozen guys. Are you going to tell me you are not aware of how widespread corruption is? That it has become much worse than before even if it was so disgustingly bad before Thugo Chavez came to power? Either you are more delusional than I thought or you really are silly and think you have to defend your cause here, in this obscure blog.
@tosh
the development of the internet may have been motivated without monetary reward, but we all can enjoy it, because it became commercially exploitable. and its availability is based on *incentives* to offer and expand services, usually cash value incentives.
and without daring to state that capitalism is the best economic model, apparently socialism is/was not. it was not able to generate welfare and stability on the long run (i see no notewothy socialist economy on my world map, excluding china, but china adoptded capitalist methods). or is your "socialist alternative" a hypothetical model in some sort of reality-evacuated laboratory? is there a socialst state on this planet where citizens do not vote with their feet?
@anonymous
quoting you on tascón list: "Necessary to keep saboteurs out of state insitutions and ministries."
so the many thousand supporters of a perfectly constitutional mechanism, that the revolution itself established in its new 1999 constitution are all saboteurs? are you serious? are the psuvistas backing recall referendums for non-psuv mayors and governors saboteurs, too?
non-chavista dissent = sabotage? also valid in the other direction?
how comes we would not see a "la lista" phenomenon in civilized countries?
if you accept la lista as a valid instrument to remove and keep out "saboteurs", please, remember that similar lists containing gay, mentally disabled, 'communist', racially inferior or simply dissenting subjects circulated in the country that invented "gestapo" and "nürnberger gesetze" a few decades ago...
mccarthy purging US administration and society based on "lists" is nothing you would approve, right?
and whether colombian communists are or are not banned from working in the administration is irrelevant. i never said colombian institutions were ideal.
the development of the internet may have been motivated without monetary reward, but we all can enjoy it, because it became commercially exploitable. and its availability is based on *incentives* to offer and expand services, usually cash value incentives.
That's not true. First of all, you are confusing the web with the internet. They are not the same thing. The web is commercially exploitable, but internet access had already expanded significantly across the United States long before the web even existed, and long before it was commercially exploitable.
There is nothing inherent about the expansion of a vast network of computers that means it needs to be commercially exploitable. Just like the national highway system, governments can expand and maintain computer networks across the country.
Was the national highway system in the US only possible because it was commercially exploitable? Nope. It was constructed by the government. Why would it be any different for the government to finance the construction of a national network for the internet (which is basically what they did in the beginning anyway).
and without daring to state that capitalism is the best economic model, apparently socialism is/was not. it was not able to generate welfare and stability on the long run (i see no notewothy socialist economy on my world map, excluding china, but china adoptded capitalist methods). or is your "socialist alternative" a hypothetical model in some sort of reality-evacuated laboratory? is there a socialst state on this planet where citizens do not vote with their feet?
In most of the places you are talking about rsocialism never even existed. And where anti-capitalist movements have come to power they have always been immediately attacked/blockaded/etc. by capitalist imperialism.
Citing the failure of attempts to build an alternative to capitalism as proof that alternatives are not possible is about as smart as citing all the failed slave revolts of the 19th Century as proof that a slaveless society is not possible.
Tosh, where has socialism existed?
And you seem to forget why the US government had so many resources to develop the Internet in the first place. It was them and not China or the Soviet Union. Why?
Governments were supporting businesses, which supported governments and so on.
@tosh
i understand you don't know about a viable socialist alternative beyond theory and i suppose you hope for a feasible and true alternative to capitalist models through the bolivarian revolution. well, good night and good luck...
(quote) "Citing the failure of attempts to build an alternative to capitalism as proof that alternatives are not possible is about as smart as citing all the failed slave revolts of the 19th Century as proof that a slaveless society is not possible."
i am not denying the possibility of alternatives to capitalism. but when socialism continues to insinst on an idea of men instead of concentrating on how men really are and behave (and unfortunately capitalism comes rather close), a successful and stable socialism remains merely theoretical.
and refering to your slave revolt argument:
how about expanding your view of the 19th century? wasn't slavery (at least formally) abolished by a capitalist USA in that century and was it not that century that witnessed most european states (even most backward monarchies) decree the end of peonage? freedom and emancipation do not always have to come with "revolution". marx's dualism of classes is to schematic and inaccurate.
but i don't want to discuss history here, my point is:
when the many experiments to create socialism, communism, dictatorship of the proletariat failed and when individuals tend to flee from socialism to capitalism more often than vice versa, does this concept really represent a serious alternative? and the paranoid "capitalist imperialism attacks socialism" argument is something you can say on aló presidente, it sounds rather ridiculous here. in the end, failure is not externally induced, but stemming from an internal systematic flaw.
as we can see, the bolivarian revolution is implementing methods and basic principles copied from previous failed socialist and totalitarian experiments.
is it not justified to expect the "socialismo del siglo 21" to fail like "los socialismos de los siglos pasados" failed and to reject this approach as costing a nation to much blood, economic strength and welfare just in order to conduct a doomed experiment?
FYI - slavery was abolished since it became more profitable to pay starvation wages and not have to house and feed slaves and their families.
It was no real humanitarian concession on the part of the capitalists but rather a way of earning more from human misery.
Zamura - let's stop lauding cpaitalism after all the misery it created here in South America for centuries and now has imploded due to the "way men are" - that is limitless greed by the bankers.
Capitalism is built on eternal debt, limitless natural resources and is deemed a failure if GDP does not continue increasing. On a finite planet GDP cannot increase for ever since all natural resources will be consumed and the environment destroyed.
This is the bootom line and so people will end up mbeing poor since we will have to live within our environmental footprints.
@ano
although the causality you state is coarse, you are just confirming that the abolition of slavery was not set in motion by a revolution, but by (econ.) INCENTIVES (which is what i've been preaching). and even if this may contribute to your misinterpretation of me being lauding capitalism: capitalism develops around incentives, while all post-marx models don't.
growing environmental footprints are problems that could be transformed through - wait for it - incentives. when a growing majority gains the conscience that ecological preservation is indeed crucial, the corresponding society will implement rules and mechanisms that emanate into the econ. sphere and thus make pollution to costly (by "taxing" it) and result in polluters leaving the market or stimulating their technological innovation. men are greedy, take advantage of that fact... how comes the capitalist europeans are the "green spearhead" and not myanmar?
due to little stimulus for technological improvement in soviet style economies (excluding rockets, missles and satellites...), their per capita footprint is high compared to their economic per capita capacity.
moreover, even in communism finite resources and population growth present a conflict - this is a problem regardless of the underlying economic model (unless there is a model defining welfare as decreasing resource utilisation (or e.g."food") per capita).
Vergeudete Zeit. Vergiss es.
hast recht... entferne mich ohnehin mit jeder entgegnung weiter vom ursprünglichen thema.
i am not denying the possibility of alternatives to capitalism. but when socialism continues to insinst on an idea of men instead of concentrating on how men really are and behave (and unfortunately capitalism comes rather close), a successful and stable socialism remains merely theoretical.
I guess you don't even know what socialism stands for, because there is nothing about it that contrary to human nature. It simply means a democratization of the economy. I guess increased democracy is contrary to human nature?
You oppo guys seem to enjoy criticizing something that you apparently don't even understand.
but i don't want to discuss history here, my point is:
when the many experiments to create socialism, communism, dictatorship of the proletariat failed and when individuals tend to flee from socialism to capitalism more often than vice versa, does this concept really represent a serious alternative?
You are repeating the same argument that I have already refuted.
Just because several attempt to construct it have failed does NOT mean it is an impossible, or unworthy goal. Again, there were many many failed attempts to overthrow slavery, colonialism, racial discrimination, etc. etc.
As for the whole idea that people flee from socialism to capitalism, well that's pretty much total nonsense. People flee from third world nations toward first-world nations in search of opportunity, work, better living conditions. You seem to think people only flee from poor socialist countries. The reality is that many more people flee from poor capitalist countries. Care to make a comparison about how many people flee from capitalist Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, in comparison to so-called "socialist" Cuba, IN SPITE of the fact that Cubans get automatic citizenship upon arrival.
and the paranoid "capitalist imperialism attacks socialism" argument is something you can say on aló presidente, it sounds rather ridiculous here. i
Oh really? Care to name a single socialist revolution that has not been immediately retaliated against by the capitalist empires?
Russia, Cuba, Vietnam, China, Nicaragua, Italy and Greece (before it could even happen), etc. etc.
Yes Zamuro, its all paranoia. It has nothing to do with the huge amount of historical examples.
as we can see, the bolivarian revolution is implementing methods and basic principles copied from previous failed socialist and totalitarian experiments.
This comment is too vague to mean anything. Which principles are being copied and why, specifically, will they fail?
By the way, the alternative that the opposition proposes is simply more of the same methods and basic principles copied from previous failed capitalist experiments. I wonder why you think they would succeed?
capitalism develops around incentives, while all post-marx models don't.
Hahaha, again, you have no clue even what socialism is, yet you somehow think you are an authority on the subject.
In what way does socialism not develop around incentives Zamuro?
how comes the capitalist europeans are the "green spearhead" and not myanmar?
Oh god, I didn't even see this little gem.
Wow, Zamuro, you don't have a very good concept of history do you? Ever heard of a little thing called colonialism?
capitalism develops around incentives, while all post-marx models don't.
Yup you got that right. But lets stop beating around the bush and call a spade a spade. In a capitalist society incentives= high profit rate.
growing environmental footprints are problems that could be transformed through - wait for it - incentives. when a growing majority gains the conscience that ecological preservation is indeed crucial, the corresponding society will implement rules and mechanisms that emanate into the econ. sphere and thus make pollution to costly (by "taxing" it) and result in polluters leaving the market or stimulating their technological innovation.
Not really. If some thing is not profitable then accumulated value will not be invested in it. Simple as that. Notice that it wasn't until recently that environmental awareness has become a mainstream concern. This all very much a part of the economizing inherent in capitalist competition. The maximum exploitation of raw materials, machine tools, labor power etc. has always been inherent in the capitalist system and low profit rates along with crisis make this increasing tendency worse. Hence the increasing propaganda in the metropolitan countries on environmental sustainability, green tech. Etc. All in order to economize in the production, distribution, and consumption spheres for the sake of maintenance of Capital invested.
men are greedy, take advantage of that fact... how comes the capitalist europeans are the "green spearhead" and not myanmar?
I like this. This is an argument that is always used. “ Its in human nature to want more and more” or “ Humans are just greedy by nature.” This is bullshit. There is no such thing as “human nature.” First off, humans are social creatures that need others to survive. This means that cooperation and interaction in groupings are a necessity for development as individuals and communities. Greed is in no way a trait that dominates that inherit social character of homo sapiens. Secondly, humans are perfectable. They have the ability to learn, grow and improve themselves and their environment. So what you might refer to as “nature” is actually something learned and reinforced throughout human's ongoing development. Greed is a habit that systems of domination and exploitation have repeatedly reinforced, capitalism being the latest. But it's just that, a habit.
moreover, even in communism finite resources and population growth present a conflict - this is a problem regardless of the underlying economic model (unless there is a model defining welfare as decreasing resource utilisation (or e.g."food") per capita).
This very true. Finite resources are very much a problem no matter the mode of production/ overall society that is in existence. However, in societies where the freely associated producers are in full democratic control of the means of production the decisions on allocation of labor time, resources, populatio
moreover, even in communism finite resources and population growth present a conflict - this is a problem regardless of the underlying economic model (unless there is a model defining welfare as decreasing resource utilisation (or e.g."food") per capita).
This very true. Finite resources are very much a problem not matter the mode of production/ overall society that is in existence. However, in societies where the freely associated producers are in full democratic control of the means of production the decisions on allocation of labor time, resources, population, work place conditions etc. are made a priori by these associated producers. While in capitalist society these decisions are made behind their backs by the market and its corresponding capitalist state.
Care to make a comparison about how many people flee from capitalist Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, in comparison to so-called "socialist" Cuba, IN SPITE of the fact that Cubans get automatic citizenship upon arrival.
Tosh.
I checked on Expedia and could not find a whole lot of flights from Havana to Miami. hahahahahahahahahhahaaha, you are great Tosh, keep 'em coming...hahahahahahahahahahahaha
I checked on Expedia and could not find a whole lot of flights from Havana to Miami. hahahahahahahahahhahaaha, you are great Tosh, keep 'em coming...hahahahahahahahahahahaha
Impartial | 07.07.09 - 11:02 pm | #
Does this guy have a brain? This is so stupid I'm speechless.
Does this guy have a brain? This is so stupid I'm speechless.
What do expect from these oppo-moron fucks? I expected, you of all people, to be use to these dumb shits. They have no arguements just stupid ad-hominem attacks against people they don't even know. But lets get used to it. Oppo-morons are sprouting like weeds in reaction to changes ocuring in América.
"What do expect from these oppo-moron fucks? I expected, you of all people, to be use to these dumb shits. They have no arguements just stupid ad-hominem attacks against people they don't even know."
The more desperate you get, the more you insult.
Aliva,
Chavismo will crumble. Look at how Chavez's friends are hurt in Argentina. Look in Mexico. Look in Europe. Chavismo is trying to sell Venezuela's future so they get more cash to survive now.
Meanwhile, the Chacons (see above) and the Diosdado plunder the country in the name of socialism.
Kepler - Argentina. The government lost some seats in the Congress and Senate. This is what happens in democracy.
You also fail to realize that it is the movimientos de base which will bedecisive in this battle.
Not so much desperation as annoyance. Rest assured Keplerito that those insults weren't directly geared towards you. Although at times you to engage in this kind of behavior. But I do seem to remember your contribution to a discussion about value. So do not be offended(as much).
"lost some seats in the Congress and Senate. This is what happens in democracy."
Chavistas have no idea what democracy is. "Los barreremos, los aniquilaremos, a esos ultraderechistas (i.e. every non-Chavista) de pacotilla, Venezuela será siempre un país socialista"
Some seats? Yeah, right. "perdimos por poquito". í, claro, un poquititititico.
Well, as Argentina's population is vastly better educated than Venezuela's (not that Argentina has a particularly high level of education compared to developed nations), Kirchner did not say "una victoria de mierda, de mierda, de mierda"
i didn't want to go any further off (original thread) topic... my last comment off topic:
(quote tosh) "I guess you don't even know what socialism stands for, because there is nothing about it that contrary to human nature. It simply means a democratization of the economy. I guess increased democracy is contrary to human nature?"
1. i never pretended to "know" human nature, but we can at least infer indirectly from what we have seen happening with societies trying to put socialism or other similar "stages of development" into practice, that they seem to contradict whatever the true (but existing) human nature is.
2. the "democratization of the economy" through a monopolistic state capitalism (remember lenin?) as to be seen in today's venezuela grants more democratic participation? you don't need to be hayek or friedman to see that this ain't gonna work...
(quote tosh) "As for the whole idea that people flee from socialism to capitalism, well that's pretty much total nonsense. People flee from third world nations toward first-world nations in search of opportunity, work, better living conditions."
true, what you describe is primarily econ. migration. but i were silly to mean that by asking why people tend to flee from (so called) socialism to capitalism more often than vice versa. answer the question yourself comparing migrational direction between societies with similar cultures and similar starting conditions, but different systems, e.g. both germanies, both coreas and (to a lesser extent) thailand vs. laos, cambodia, myanmar; (pre-denxiaoping) china vs. hongkong/taiwan.
back on topic:
perhaps you'd all agree that in a political system that calls itself democracy regardless of whether it's realizable under a "tyrannical institutionalism" or under a less institutional populist regime every participant would have to enjoy some kind of equality reagarding chances, liberties, rights & duties etc.
i hate to come back on this, but how is a lista tascón (and its employment) an indicator for a deepened democratization in venezuela?
You know, Kepler, when you write about "better levels of education" and make comparisions, there is always the imlicit assumption that the better educated a population is, the more likely it is NOT to vote for the left.
In fact, it is the other way around. Humanitarian and humanistic values are generally held by the better educated (you are an exception) and voting for the right wing is just for exploiting bastards who want to keep the masses down and take all the cake for themselves.
Sure, there was a setback in Argentina but I am sure that the population there will remember 2001/2002 when they go to vote for President next time. It certainly was not the left which has destroyed Argentina's economy on at least 4 occasions in the last thirty years.
Tosh--
I don't know why you're here. 50 percent of the people arguing with you naturalize the last 150 years of human history and its dominant institutions as somehow encapsulating human nature, the limits to the types of society humans can create, means to distribute power/wealth/goods in society, etc. This is pure ideology: extracting the ideas and post hoc explanations for why society is structed the way it's structured and extrapolating a coherent political philosophy explaining that such systems are inevitable:
eg some moron's comment that wealth will always concentrate; right, except in Madagascar right up until very recently when social status was garnered by giving away wealth; or many primitive economies in general based upon gift economies.
Seriously, people: I had a roommate in college so dumb as to think capitalism was in any way "natural" or "inevitable" (and if you think you can mock Tosh for his "idiotic" comment that "really-existing socialism" is just a variant on state-capitalism, go read some Wallerstein and get back to me).
It isn't: it's a momentary aberration, leading to ecological crisis that beggars belief. How do you apply the right discount rate to the well-being of your unborn grandchild, fuckhead?
@anonymous
(quote) "You know, Kepler, when you write about "better levels of education" and make comparisions, there is always the imlicit assumption that the better educated a population is, the more likely it is NOT to vote for the left."
put it this way and i might second it:
there is always a implicit assumption that the better educated a population is (among other things), the more likely it is NOT to lapse into ungraceful populist agitation. 
@max
right, the majority of us would be happy living in a society with basic tribal economics lacking evil "surplus value".
it IS difficult to apply an adequate discount rate for the well-being of a fuckhead's grandchild, but even without that discount rate mechanism the exact and objective prediction of future generation's well-being is an unaccomplishable task.
Precisely. Hence, a conversion to an approximation of sustainability should be the over-riding consideration in any discussion of political economy among reasonable people. This in effect a priori rules out capitalist political economy--based on unlimited accumulation in a limited world.
Capitalist political economy and the ecology movement which maneuvers within its confines are playing dice with the devil. Go read Hansen or McKibben's response to Nicolas Stern if you disagree, or Bill McKibben, or John Bellamy Foster, or Peter Custer, or James Gustave Speth.
The apologists for capitalism aren't simply greedy, or wrong-headed. Those, we'd have time to deal with. They're suicidal and homicidal.
Barbarism, if we're lucky.
Max, I recommend you to read "Ideas, From Fire to Freud"
Max, the "capitalists" as opposed to whom? Can you please be more specific and less fluffy and fuzzy? And what can you tell me about those Utopians' environmental record?
Don't come when need to Khmer-rouge the world...or go back to guayuco tactics.
Of course, we won't talk about Soviet environmental record (see Aral Sea, Chernobyl and all Eastern European cities heavily polluted) . We know Soviet socialism, as you teach us, is in reality a form of state capitalism, right? Everything that does not work is per definition according to you "capitalism"
By the beard of the rabbi, have mercy on us!
Kepler, if you're the same Kepler that comes to visit my blog, why are you reasonable enough to say "Thank you" when I post something about an interesting movie about Palestinian culture and resistance, and then here you are simply dismissive and I suspect disingenuous and deliberately obtuse? What's the point?
Lots of things "don't work." The question is, what can we learn from them? The idiocy being promulgated here about relatively efficacy of different political economies is amazing: Soviet growth rates in the early 1950s, for example, were high enough to worry top-level American planners; their inability to transition to more sophisticated forms of industrial production in part due to the arms race--intended to bankrupt them--in part due to bad signals due to lack of a market-system did them in, doubtless accompanied by environmental degradation.
But: in part the growth rates in both Eastern Europe and the USSR merit attention, as do the human indicators while those societies were doing well (central planning given computerized systems will unfortunately be reconsidered and could even work, tragically. I hope for something better, but the people who run this place aren't waiting around to hear my hopes)
I hardly need lessons about the Aral Sea and Chernobyl, nor desertification in the Middle East due to quite different political economies' failures. It seems others need lessons about the carbon output of modern state-capitalism.
I don't aspire to "teach" you anything, Kepler: I hope that you might aspire to learn something, not from me but from experts on these matters who've written books on them.
I ask: delineate the differences between Soviet political economy, Chinese political economy, and Am. political economy during WWII, up to say 1990 (things have looked a bit different since then). I think it's fair rather than polemical to say that in 100 or 200 years economic historians will look on these as different sub-species of the same general species.
Again: lots of things don't work. Don't evade the subject at hand with (amazingly!) condescending repartee like "And what can you tell me about those Utopians' environmental record?"
Sustainable systems' environmental records are why the earth still supports human life. Large centralized systems of whatever type have fucked it up. More power = a great lever with which to destroy. American Indian civilizations or Australian aboriginals were no angels. They simply didn't build societies big and complex enough to drain the Aral Sea or turn Prince Edward sound into a black sludge. That is the worthwhile lesson: "Small is Beautiful," as EF Schumacher put it.
Max,
I am indeed the same Kepler. Try to answer yourself why I can say thank you about that film and write here what I write.
As for the growth rates: they are rubbish numbers.
Geez...I mentioned some time ago I was rereading an old Soviet book about the Baltic Socialist republics. They talk about growth in those regions pre-Soviet time and then up to the eighties. I was laughing about their stupid number manipulation and statistical cheating. When comparing growth rates you have to take a look at all variables, through space and time...and then you realize Socialist systems were highly inefficient. They did manage to provide for higher education standards in the Soviet Union (if Chavismo would only do that and not worse the already bad level!), but that was about it. The rest they managed by forced labor.
Max, I could actually talk about those differences but 1) I am not payed to do that in a little blog to no avail, and 2) I don't think it would help. You see...if you were to read that Soviet book I am talking about (one of those I got from the Soviet Union embassy in Caracas) you would look at the numbers for agricultural and industrial production in Latvia in 1920-1940 and then 1980 and say "wao, wao, wao, they were not that bad". But the thing is you have no clue about what they have been (in spite of the latest crisis in the Baltic) after 1991 or the difference between the twenties and the Czarist times or before Russia took over from the Swedes.
You are like that turkey Nassim Taleb was writing about, happy about all the food it was getting. In your case, it is not about you but about where your attention is. You are looking at the little period of times without any reference to anything but what your doctrine tells you to take into account. And that is a pity. I have the impression you are not really stupid.
Carbon emissions have nothing to do with capitalism. They have to do with uninformed government and populace as well as some interest groups, whether they are uncreative boards of directors of energy/car companies or Soviet/Chinese aparatchiks.
I am the first one to ask for higher taxes for petrol, I am the first one to avoid planes even if I love traveling, I am the first one to check out where my fish is coming from and my fruits and to avoid meat.
I am against those parties that make more forests disappear or ethanol be produced when it does not make ecological sense or promote new cars and motorways to "estimulate the economy".
And I am a capitalist. Green does not have anything to do with socialism or capitalism.
e.g. both germanies, both coreas and (to a lesser extent) thailand vs. laos, cambodia, myanmar; (pre-denxiaoping) china vs. hongkong/taiwan.
Zamuro, in most of the examples you list above the so-called "socialist" country had a complete economic blockade imposed upon it by the West, while the capitalist side received extreme amounts of economic aid from the West. Is there any wonder why the "capitalist" economies were more attractive?
The are hardly "fair" comparisons, as they dealt with drastically different conditions.
The two Germanies? You're kidding right? One was ruled over by a war-torn developing country that had just lost 20 million people in WWII and had half of its territory run over by the German army, and was then completely blockaded from trade with the developed world.
The other half was embraced by the western world and given a little thing called The Marshall Plan. (maybe you've heard of it?) Fair comparison? Yeah right.
The two Koreas? Is this some kind of sick joke? Are you unaware of the history there? North Korea (which is hardly socialist) continues to be under economic blockade, while South Korea was held up for decades by US aid (providing more than half of the government budget during the 1950's and 60's), and had preferential access to US markets up until the 1990's. Taiwan/China is the same story. Maoist China was completely cut off from the west. Taiwan was the US's strategic ally.
Only the most ahistorical, superficial view of these countries would lead one to believe that it was "socialism" that people were fleeing from, or that these are even remotely fair comparisons
Historical details matter Zamuro, even if you don't think they are important, or are unaware of them.
"I am the first one to check out where my fish is coming from and my fruits and to avoid meat." - ach so Kepler, so you are a vegitarian/non red meat eater.
Nothing for us to worry about with you on the barricades since no doubt you would be hiding in a vegetable garden somewhere.
"Avoid meat" - Har, har, har. Man, you sound like a friggin's CISSY, who buys his clothes from hippie bay boomer stores and wears hemp sandals.
How is the flower arranging by the way. Har, har, har!!!!!!
Kepler--
Your argument, where it is an argument, being as it is full of obscure references that I can't even respond to "well, growth rates were different in period X than in period Y, and different post-1991" etc etc--seems to rest largely on this one statement: "The rest they managed by forced labor." I could cite Barrington Moore on the nugatory differences between veiled vs direct coercion on the capitalist vs state-socialist models, or quote Vico about how there is hardly freedom when man is drowning in a sea of usury, or how Languet called capitalism worse than slavery, or how David Graeber has re-conceptualized capitalism as a new form of chattel slavery--but as you said, you are a capitalist. Hence, you do not want to be and thus can not be convinced any more than church officials could be convinced by Galileo. When a man's paycheck depends on believing something he will keep on believing it, rather than accepting an idea that might change his mind and then his life (WA Williams).
But you actually not only don't apologize for your (now astounding and surreal) condescension but reinforce it: "And that is a pity. I have the impression you are not really stupid."
Thank you Kepler can I have a lollipop with that?
Max,
Let's say there are more chances that Sarah Palin be convinced about evolution or about the rights of Palestinians to have their own state than I could convince you with facts.
The thing is that I avoid learning things by heart, I'd rather analyze and see the patterns. I know the Soviet numbers of production in 1985 represented a huge increased compared to the twenties in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, but growth was higher elsewhere (which they do not mention). I don't remember the growth numbers for Soviet ti mes, they are in that book.
If I have time, I get out that book (U yantarnogo morja is the title), find the precise numbers and compare them to the real numbers they did not compare (and I checked)
I know the Baltic countries were always more prosperous than the rest of the Soviet Union and before the Russian empire as their people were better educated and they were already at a more developed stage of capitalism.
No wonder that communism has never been able to gain power in a developed country unless it is thanks to a foreign army, as happened in what became Eastern Germany, Hungary, the Baltic states and even Czechoslovakia (yes, they won in 1948, but nothing of that would have happened without the Nazi invasion 1938-1945)
Let's say there are more chances that Sarah Palin be convinced about evolution or about the rights of Palestinians to have their own state than I could convince you with facts.
Kepler, you don't use facts in your comments..... EVER.
They are just garbled opinionated nonsense that most people just immediately skip over when they read your name at the bottom.
John Pilger interview on Democracy Now!
Really worth watching unless you are an oppo moron.
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/
pu...cle_56243.shtml
But it is worth reading if you are a Chavez fan?
tosh, i'd really discuss history with you, but let's do it somewhere else.
still, you have not answered my question *on topic* (quote from previous post):
perhaps you'd all agree that in a political system that calls itself democracy regardless of whether it's realizable under a "tyrannical institutionalism" or under a less institutional populist regime every participant would have to enjoy some kind of equality reagarding chances, liberties, rights & duties etc.
i hate to come back on this, but how is a lista tascón (and its employment) an indicator for a deepened democratization in venezuela?
Max, you rock! I've been making the point about sustaiability being the primary concern for years here, and the powers that be sling numbers and see South Korea as the end all, the final destination for Venezuela.
Those dreaded 'externalities' are a mutha.
Kepler--
Consider what you have written.
Let's say there are more chances that Sarah Palin be convinced about evolution or about the rights of Palestinians to have their own state than I could convince you with facts.
The thing is that I avoid learning things by heart, I'd rather analyze and see the patterns.
So you are to convince unconvinceable me with facts that you can't cite and on principle refuse to remember??
I cite:
The rate of growth in heavy industry remained double digit throughout the Khrushchev years, although it dropped a bit in the late 1950s and early 1960s
In 10 seconds online I found near-unanimity across the ideological spectrum, within serious scholarship, the Soviet economic growth outpaced that of the West from 1945 until the invasion of Afghanistan. Do you dispute those numbers, or do you say Soviet growth depended on "forced labor," itself an ideological construction that presumes the matching part of the dyad: "free labor." I'll be sure to ask the guys who run the tire shop down-stairs and send remittance to Central America so their families don't starve since peasant agriculture has been destroyed there by turning the region into a commodity-export platform if they feel "free."
As for the bit about carbon-production and capitalism: you're right, there's nothing "inherent" about capitalism that requires carbon emission, so long as deal with an ideological abstraction called "capitalism," (and define that abstraction, please, Kepler) and not really-existing capitalism. When we contend with the latter, we find things like the Stern Report: acknowledging that carbon must be stabilized lower than 500 ppm to avoid the deluge, but no-can-do: that'd infringe on capitalist growth imperatives. Thus, 500 ppm. Do some research on the 2007 IPCC findings--now regarded by all serious climate researchers as total shit, totally underestimating the chances of Armageddon--and see what they recommended. Then, get back to me.
And with that, I'm actually gonna comment on the content of the post tomorrow. But a caveat: Quico is amazingly stupid. He is low-brow trash and attracts a readership comprising the same.
tosh, i'd really discuss history with you, but let's do it somewhere else.
Hahahahahaha, exactly. The historical details apparently don't matter right?
Why would we debate it anywhere else? You made a completely retarded assertion about "socialist" countries vs. "capitalist" countries and people fleeing from one to the other. You didn't take into account the historical details that caused the phenomenon you were describing. And now you just don't want to discuss the historical details? Brilliant.
perhaps you'd all agree that in a political system that calls itself democracy regardless of whether it's realizable under a "tyrannical institutionalism" or under a less institutional populist regime every participant would have to enjoy some kind of equality reagarding chances, liberties, rights & duties etc.
i hate to come back on this, but how is a lista tascón (and its employment) an indicator for a deepened democratization in venezuela?
zamuro | Homepage | 07.08.09 - 7:30 pm | #
Actually, this didn't have anything to do with our discussion at all. That's why I didn't bother to respond.
I find it funny that you oppo guys keep sticking to this Lista Tascon as some kind of proof that the Venezuelan government is evil and discriminatory.
First of all, there is little to indicate that the use of the list has been a decision made at the top. Its employment has been largely by lower-level bureaucrats who simply want to hire people who are of their political tendency and so they use the list to discriminate. (it has also been used by the private sector to discriminate against Chavistas. I have friends who were fired from their private sector jobs because they didn't sign.)
The publication of the list was a huge mistake, and it has been widely abused, and that must be denounced. But the context of the list must be taken into account. Only one year before the list was formed political opponents inside the government literally brought the national economy to its knees and sabotaged the state-owned oil company to the point of total collapse, causing the largest economic contraction in Venezuelan history. It is only understandable that the government would want to protect itself from letting political opponents into a position where they could repeat this kind of attack. And using the list was an effective way of doing that.
But this has very little to do with the democratization of the economy. The fact that you would relate the two shows that you have not the slightest awareness of what the Chavista policies are for democratization of the economy.
@tosh
i said i'd love to continue discussing history with you somewhere else (sorry, i missed to insert "love" in my original post), just not here where we are confined by max. entry lenght and topic. i don't see how you could understand from that i didn't want to discuss at all...
i did not ask you to answer my tascon-question in order to trick you into something. and i wasn't asking about lista tascón in an econ. context, but rather in an institutional one...
(btw off topic: maybe i am really too dumb to understand how chavismo's "econ, democratization" can be realized by transfering private ownership to state (appointed) ownership and a strong inclination to central planning)
(quote) " Only one year before the list was formed political opponents inside the government literally brought the national economy to its knees and sabotaged the state-owned oil company to the point of total collapse, causing the largest economic contraction in Venezuelan history. It is only understandable that the government would want to protect itself from letting political opponents into a position where they could repeat this kind of attack. And using the list was an effective way of doing that."
that incident you call sabotage (others may say strike or protest) by opponents inside the govt. and state companies then justifies banning *everyone* who signed under a general suspicion of being a saboteur and enemy of the state?
it is a disgrace that people suffer accros-the-board discrimination not only through govt. authorities, but also, as you say, by the private sector. however, i'm highly skeptical that - even if there were condemnable saboteurs - everyone on the list is a potential enemy of the republic. most of them only wanted to exercise their constitutional right for a referendum call (since they expected not agreeing with chavismo wasn't illegal).
does this widespread discrimination not demand a strengthened and more independent institutionality? in democratic systems blamable individuals have to face a due process, while authorities have to protect every individual (as good as they can) from being penalized without conviction.
is it not a terrible and highly unreasonable thing to get away with, not to bring every single bureaucrat and manager to court for damaging existences based on a generalized suspicion (when proven) and to prosecute the ongoing employment of la lista?
is it not a damage to the democratization of venezuelan society when individuals are not limited by the equal application of the rule of law, but rather at some other guy's discretion just because of someone's "political gender"? is the appointment of ideologically kosher bureaucrats helpful or harmful in this context?
It's funny how your double standards on institutionalism box you into a corner where all you can do is blabber fuzzy concepts about "the will of the people" to escape criticism and never even bother to define what/how is this "will" expressed or represented.
Your double standards lead you to brush off appalling cases like the "lista de Tascón" as some kind of unimportant footnote, because in the end, everything is a footnote to you:
1) Luis Herrera's retirement plan was cut by Chávez and he died in poverty? Oh, well, y'know, oops: footnote.
2) Maletagate? Oh, well, geez, oops.
3) Packing the TSJ? we're just *bending* the rules, right?
4) The A.N. doesn't criticize anything? How can you criticize *perfection*?
5) Cilia Flores has half her family working in the AN? Ah, geez, is that important?
6) Chávez passes the rejected referendum as laws by decree? Well... Oops, don't get hung up on the details.
7) Ledezma? That law was going to pass *before* he assumed office! Ergo: Footnote.
Selective corruption charges? They're *guilty*! Of course the Prez can insult them on TV! If you criticize this, ergo, you're supporting Rosales and Baduel.
9) Puente Llaguno? Danilo? Crime? Are you listening? FOOTNOTE to the glorious advance of the revolution.
---
Truth is, if this happened in USA you'd scream bloody murder. Hell, you we're OUTRAGED by Alberto Gonzales and HAPPY as a pig in shit when the INSTITUTIONS axed him for committing 10% of the illegal acts Cilia Flores has. In the US, you managed to FORCE Bush to pull back his nomination for Supreme Court and CHANGE it. Thanks to THE INSTITUTIONS, remember? You made the Senator selling Obama's seat resign and face charges; we can't even hold Jorge Rodríguez or Diosdado accountable for their booming riches...
---
I'm not saying the US is perfect, far from that: I'm saying sometimes their institutions work, and you applaud it and use them, whereas you hang us out to dry and criticize us for wanting accountability, checks and balances, independent tribunals and National Assemblies and not have the Prez insult people on TV just 'cause he feels like it.
You think these are footnotes.
I think there are no "tolerated" unjust actions, they must all be fought, because you start down that line and look where we wound up, sans institutions, in 10 years time.
So what do you propose, Flanker, a regime where the only "institution" is the caudillo? That's the democratic and progressive way?
Democracy needs *INDEPENDENT* institutions, because democracy is based on BALANCE.
Oh, Geez...this woman's next job in a couple of years will be as a toilet cleaner:
http://el-nacional.com/www/site/...-de-El-
Nacional
She is currently the highest at the Supreme Uh, Ah, Chavez No Se Va Court.
Oh, Max, now you are going to tell us Afghanistan was really what "did it" for the Soviet Union. Pozhaluista! I will tell my Russian friends, they will feel very happy.
So you used Google for 10 seconds? I see...I never cease to be amazed at what these non-IT people can say about Truth as Established by Saint Internet.
Well, if Quico is slow, go figure...
Max: so, now you want us to define capitalism and you claim capitalism does not entail that in i ts abstract way and you keep telling us all evils caused so far by Socialist/commie regimes do not have anything to do with socialism but they happened because people did not really go into the path of socialism but
state capitalism. I wonder if you also say it is capitalism when you have stomach ache.
Vinc, I was reading an article on Spiegel now. There is a nice pictures of 1977. A demonstration of West German commies was shown. They had a lot of posters with the pictures of, among others, Lenin and Stalin.
Nowadays the same fashion Eurokinder would say "no, no, Lenin and Stalin betrayed the system, we are really Autonomen (or any other shit)". And in 10 years time it will be the Blumenomen or whatever.
Bruni - a state where imprisonment for lying journalists would be my priority and closing down media looking to undermine a democratically elected government.
You know, like the current de facto regime in Honduras not condemned by the Venezuelan opposition.
Ano,
Why is the Minister of Exterior, Bus Driver Maduro, not in prison?
He said over half of Venezuelans registered abroad SIGNED a petition in support of Chavez in 2009. In reality 90% of Venezuelans abroad voted against Chavez. Those votes have not been published yet by the CNE even if Venezuelans have submitted demands for those numbers to be published.
That last anonymous was me asking a question to the real Ano.
Anonymous, the fact that other people does not condemn the Honduras regime, does not make Chávez regime democratic.
I invite you to read my latest post.
http://
cuentosintrascendentes.bl...democracia.html
Bruni - you can rant on all you want and publish whatever you want on your blog. It makes no difference what YOU call the system in Venezuela.
If Venezuela were NOT a democracy in the eyes of this hemisphere, for example, it would not be a member of the OAS.
I and millions of others KNOW that we have a perfectly functioning democracy in Venezuela. The only reason you try to promote the opposite point of view is because you simply do not support Chávez, socialism or social justice.
I rest my case.
Kepler - signing a petition and voting in elections are two different things.
Maduro should be in jail??? Don't make me laugh you ridiculous adolescent. Tosh is so right about you and your non sequitur arguemnts.
Bruni - I guess you take the uS as having "independent institutions"?
If so, explain to us all how the Supreme Court can be independent when the judges are hand picked by the President?
Does not sound very independent to me. At least the AN decides in Venezuela based on curriculum, experience etc.
Ok, OK, I know . the AN is also controlled by Chavez according to you but that's because the opposition withdrew in 2005.
For me it gave me far more confidecne in the TSJ when they chanted "Uh, ah Chávez no se va" since it was clear evidence that the Amos del Valle had lost control of the judiciary after 176 year6.
Kepler--
You refuse to post substantively because no one pays you to write here. I suspect no one pays you to write anywhere. Discourse seriously or don't do it at all.
You seem to not understand that social events are poly-causal, e.g. the breakdown of the Soviet economy in 1979 might have been catalyzed by the invasion of Afghanistan but previous events such as the inability to progress beyond heavy-industry-based economic development due to the problems of a sclerotic bureaucracy. Now, no bullshit, simple question, simple answer:
Are you now telling me that the numbers I see for the Soviet growth rates are wrong? Because if so you're wasting my time. I, unlike you, do get paid to write, so...
As for this, bestill my fucking heart:
Max: so, now you want us to define capitalism and you claim capitalism does not entail that in i ts abstract way and you keep telling us all evils caused so far by Socialist/commie regimes do not have anything to do with socialism but they happened because people did not really go into the path of socialism but
state capitalism. I wonder if you also say it is capitalism when you have stomach ache.
The difference is this: real-life capitalists defend the current capitalist political economy and call it a manifestation of capitalist ideology. They may be wrong, but that is commonly accepted. Libertarian socialists do not accept the Soviet statist deviation as a physicalization of socialist ideals; just the opposite. Now, you're correct (which should be cause for pause in and of itself): classical capitalist philosophy does not match up with current state-capitalist models, in the same way that classical socialist philosophy did and does not match up with current or past state-socialist models.
The differences are two: one, capitalism's apologists defend both the original philosophy as well as the current models. Is that contradictory? Of course, but no matter, such is hegemony.
Socialists do not usually defend the state-socialist models, only the original philosophy.
That's difference one.
Difference two is that while both actual models are enormously flawed, the underlying philosophies are not both flawed. A Friedmanian or Ricardian free-market system would destroy the world. It's a Utopia, an impossibility. Whereas classical socialism wouldn't--and it's not a utopia, because the models it draws are anthropological, ie, from really-functioning societies in the past.
I haven't dealt with a third difference: growth rates in centrally-planned economies are higher than in non-centrally planned economies. Look up American growth during WWII if you disagree.
Finally: if you have no wish to engage the substance of these comments, do me the favor of not responding at all.
Anonymous, I am all for social justice. But social justice has nothing to do with having powers concentrated on military putchist that wants to stay in power forever like Chávez.
You get social justice with a real democracy, which means independence of powers, equality in front of the law, porsperity and equal opportunities for all. You don't get social justice by repressing the population that does not think like you do, nor by twisting the law in order to remain in power forever.
No, Venezuela is not a democracy because all the powers are concentrated in a single man and he can do whatever he wants with the law and the economic means of the country.
A democracy respects its minorities, a democracy applauds dissent and criticism. This is not the case in Venezuela where the minimum criticism is condemned even using the State radiophonic resources.
Venezuela has become a country in which not even the dissent of the vote is respected, as Chávez finds manipulated legal ways to impose what was rejected by popular vote.
Anonymous, Venezuela is now an autocracy. A new form of caudillismo invented by Chávez.
Bruni - of course you think that you are correct but that's just your point of view.
As far as I am concerned the five state powers are independent and not dependent on anyone. The only "evidence" to the contrary is opposition propaganda.
I disagree totally that the ex owners of Venezuela should be treated fairly. They never treated the poor fairly and multiplied the poor by millions from 1961 onwards.
No, Bruni, these people should have their properties CONFISCATED (no compensation) and the state take over their businesses.
Call it revenge if you like but that is the only language such capitalists understand. If they protest, they should be summarily jailed in common prisons.
The Venezuelan bourgeiosie has a huge debt to pay to society and gradually they are paying it.
For me dissent if the same as High Treason since it is all based on lies and media manipulations. An armed revolution would have stopped all these problems in their tracks and it's a pity one did not happen after April 11th 2002.
Chávez was far too soft and weak at that time.
"The difference is this: real-life capitalists defend the current capitalist political economy and call it a manifestation of capitalist ideology. "
Who calls it a manifestation of capitalist ideology? The vast majority of capitalists are more pragmatic and less ideological oriented.
They don't see capitalist utopias or think we shall one day reach the level Adam Smith has said would be the ideal state of society.
"Libertarian socialists do not accept the Soviet statist deviation as a physicalization of socialist ideals; just the opposite. "
The opposite? Which? Are Chavistas Libertarian socialists? Are Castristas Libertarian socialists? What the hell is Libertarian socialist? Where can I read about one or two examples? Frankly I haven't had the time to read ideological stuff written in the past 10 years, I barely can cope up with technological data, plus the most important real events of economic and political and cultural life, I don't earn a living as politics writer or as a propaganda master as Tosh. If you give me a good book title, I will read it when I have time.
"The differences are two: one, capitalism's apologists defend both the original philosophy as well as the current models. Is that contradictory? Of course, but no matter, such is hegemony."
What apologists are you talking about? Neither me nor many other people who support capitalism see the current state as an ideal,
"Socialists do not usually defend the state-socialist models, only the original philosophy.
That's difference one."
Which socialists? Because the ones that take power do defend state socialism over and over again.
Are we saying now that only Western "autonomen" (I don't know the English word, but I guess it must be something like that, autonomous or the like) are the socialists?
"A Friedmanian or Ricardian free-market system would destroy the world. It's a Utopia, an impossibility. "
I agree.
"Whereas classical socialism wouldn't--and it's not a utopia, because the models it draws are anthropological, ie, from really-functioning societies in the past."
What is classical socialism for you? Hegel? Marx? Because if so, then you should consider becoming a dancer or a baseball player.
"I haven't dealt with a third difference: growth rates in centrally-planned economies are higher than in non-centrally planned economies. Look up American growth during WWII if you disagree."
WWII: do you know what that stands for?
Also: growth is completely insufficient parameter to determine the effectiveness of a given form of government if you don't consider other parameters. Even if we believed those numbers were not inflated: Russia was coming from an almost feudal society. Russia in 1917 was not Germany of that year. It was not even Germany of 1817. So: do you think the growth would have been much lower if the Czarist regime would have been supplanted by a social democracy and from there to pluralism? (as it would have p
"As far as I am concerned the five state powers are independent and not dependent on anyone".
Is this troll-baiting or are you being cynical?
"Call it revenge if you like but that is the only language such capitalists understand. If they protest, they should be summarily jailed in common prisons".
Well, this pretty much summarizes Ano's take on democracy and institutions. Actually, institutions exist so loony fascists like you don't ever get to power.
You do realize you can't argue about justice and democracy on one hand and write apologetic sentences about jailing protesters à la iranian/cambodian style at the same time.
Anyways, this post is about institutions. Having made my case a couple of comments before, I won't address trolls or insults here on. I take it your silence on the 8 points I mentioned means you don't find it important, "a footnote", so have a blast discussing whatever other topic you feel like, which, as all your topics, tend to converge towards an unoriginal name-calling or a relativistic "that's your point of view" ridiculous, troll-like, argument.
Cheers
Vinz - the state powers are separate. If they were not then explain to me why the CNE allowed certain states in the 23/11 elections to be lost?
Surely, the important states which the opposition won would have been chvista if Chavez controlled all the powers?
Just because Chávez is an overwhelming character is no proof or evidence that he controls the state powers. You could argue this for many presidents. There is no objective evidence to prove otherwise.
Yes, the post is about institutions and they are separate so there is no point in covering this subject any more.
The other thing you fail to understand is that for more than 40 years people were deliberately oppressed in Venezuela and I mean disappeared.
If you think that the revolution is going to let these people back into power, you are very, very wrong.
The points you make are tantamount to trolling since you value base is totally bourgeois and representative democracy based, which is a bourgeios concept in itself.
This is not trolling. Your facts are bascially opinions dressed up as such.
i said i'd love to continue discussing history with you somewhere else (sorry, i missed to insert "love" in my original post), just not here where we are confined by max. entry lenght and topic. i don't see how you could understand from that i didn't want to discuss at all...
These are lame excuses to avoid discussing the details which clearly prove wrong your little "theory" about migration away from "socialism".
btw off topic: maybe i am really too dumb to understand how chavismo's "econ, democratization" can be realized by transfering private ownership to state (appointed) ownership and a strong inclination to central planning
You're certainly not too dumb to understand. You're just ignorant of what the policies really are, and why they make the economy more democratic.
First of all, this whole idea of a "strong inclination to central planning" is pretty much unfounded. This isn't at all what the inclination of the Chavez government is. IN fact, it has been the opposite, with the implementation of mechanisms such as the local planning councils, communal councils, which give communities direct power over local projects, including the "socialist" factories which are managed and operated by the communal councils.
But even if we ignore all of this evidence of decentralization of planning, and assume that private control is simply being turned into state control, as you imply, which is more democratic?
Is it more democratic to have the private sector, (which is basically a tyranical top-down system, accountable to nobody and never elected by anyone) be in control of the economy.... or is it more deomcratic to have the state (which is accountable to the population, and must be periodically reelected by the people) to control the economy?
You tell me.
that incident you call sabotage (others may say strike or protest)
A strike is where workers agree to stop working because they are demanding a change in working conditions, pay, benefits, etc.
It is not called a "strike" when the workers demand the overthrow of the federal government as one of their conditions. That is illegal.
Can you imagine if the workers of General Motors went on strike and demanded the overthrow of Obama as one of their conditions? Would that be seen as a legitimate strike?
Hardly.
by opponents inside the govt. and state companies then justifies banning *everyone* who signed under a general suspicion of being a saboteur and enemy of the state?
No, it is not fair for many of those who signed (like many friends of mine) but have no intention on harming the government. This was a very unfortunate consequence.
However, this was an effective way for the government to make sure that the opposition would not be able to be in a position to commit sabotage again.
Why is it that you can only see one side of this? Shouldn't any blame be placed on the opposition who sabotaged the national economy, and therefore forced the government to take measures to protect against this in the future?
is it not a damage to the democratization of venezuelan society when individuals are not limited by the equal application of the rule of law, but rather at some other guy's discretion just because of someone's "political gender"? is the appointment of ideologically kosher bureaucrats helpful or harmful in this context?
zamuro | Homepage | 07.09.09 - 3:45 am | #
Of course this is bad for Venezuelan democracy. The question is, who is to blame?
Isn't the opposition to blame for creating a climate in which the government must be concerned about letting potential saboteurs into important positions?
1) Luis Herrera's retirement plan was cut by Chávez and he died in poverty? Oh, well, y'know, oops: footnote.
What is this about? The Chavez government has expanded state pensions to more old people than ever before. Is there a particular case you'd like to discuss?
2) Maletagate? Oh, well, geez, oops.
No, actually there wasn't any credible evidence to link the Chavez government to this. And, yes, one suitcase full of cash is hardly one of the major political issues of the last few years.
3) Packing the TSJ? we're just *bending* the rules, right?
No, we're making the Supreme Court more representative of the people, and less representative of the interests of the oligarchy.
Shit, the old Supreme Court would not even recognize that April 11th was a coup!!! The whole world recognizes it as such, yet the Venezuelan Supreme Court would not.
4) The A.N. doesn't criticize anything? How can you criticize *perfection*?
This is the common line of the oppo morons isn't it. They expect the AN, the pro-Chavez media, etc. to all be critical of the Chavez government. But is it really possible to be very critical of your own side in such a polarized political situation? Is Globovision critical of Ledezma, Leopoldo, Manuel Rosales, etc.?
5) Cilia Flores has half her family working in the AN? Ah, geez, is that important?
I heard this allegation, but haven't seen solid evidence of it.
If it is true, it is indeed something that should be criticized.
6) Chávez passes the rejected referendum as laws by decree? Well... Oops, don't get hung up on the details.
False. He passed SOME of the laws which could be done constitutionally without calling for another referendum.
And, besides, just because the reform package was rejected as a whole, does NOT mean that the majority is against all of its individual parts, as was clearly proven by the February referendum on term limits.
7) Ledezma? That law was going to pass *before* he assumed office! Ergo: Footnote.
The whole idea of creating federal districts with leaders appointed by the president has been an idea they've been throwing around for a long time.
You might not agree with it, or think it is undemocratic, but it is a decision that can be made at the federal level and that has to do with streamlining national programs that opposition governments will most likely not cooperate with, or outright sabotage.
I mean, let's be honest here, did you REALLY think Ledezma was going to be cooperative in implementing programs like Barrio Adentro that he is vehemently opposed to?
Selective corruption charges? They're *guilty*!
There have been plenty of Chavista (or former Chavista) officials tried for corruption.
Of course the Prez can insult them on TV! If you criticize this, ergo, you're supporting Rosales and Baduel.
I don't see how this is significant. The opposition insults Chavez on TV all the freaking time.
9) Puente Llaguno?
What about it? Puente Llaguno was the site of a massacre of pro-Chavez activists who were fired upon by the Metropolitan Police, which the opposition media then manipulated footage to try to blame the Chavistas. What exactly is your complaint here?
This was a poorly written post of flanker's mumbling...
The comments were pretty good until Flanker stopped responding.. then the usual trolls took over and derailed the conversation with their nonsense.
The comments were pretty good until Flanker stopped responding.. then the usual trolls took over and derailed the conversation with their nonsense.
ElTank | 07.09.09 - 5:28 pm | #
Hahaha, oh the irony. What is this comment if not a useless troll remark that has nothing to do with anything being discussed here?
Ano: If Venezuela were NOT a democracy in the eyes of this hemisphere, for example, it would not be a member of the OAS.
They want to let Cuba in as it is, and Cuba is far from being democratic
Ano: I and millions of others KNOW that we have a perfectly functioning democracy in Venezuela. The only reason you try to promote the opposite point of view is because you simply do not support Chávez, socialism or social justice.
End democracy Ledezma wouldn´t be stripped of his functions and all elected governeurs and mayors would be respected by the national goverment.
Ano: I rest my case.
You rested your brain... years ago
2) Maletagate? Oh, well, geez, oops.
No, actually there wasn't any credible evidence to link the Chavez government to this. And, yes, one suitcase full of cash is hardly one of the major political issues of the last few years.
It is the double moral on one side, accusing Sumate of receiving foreign money during election and sending money to a foreign country to support a party in an election, wich maybe wouldn´t have won w/o this support.
On the other side it's money of the venzolan people and not his to spend as he wishes. CAP was impeached for that.
3) Packing the TSJ? we're just *bending* the rules, right?
No, we're making the Supreme Court more representative of the people, and less representative of the interests of the oligarchy.
Shit, the old Supreme Court would not even recognize that April 11th was a coup!!! The whole world recognizes it as such, yet the Venezuelan Supreme Court would not.
doesn't the court in Honduras not have a similar problem ? They claim, that it wasn't a coup and the whole world thinks otherwise.
And even you cannot show me cases where the court in the last years had sentenced against Chavez or his minions. Feel free, to prove me wrong
5) Cilia Flores has half her family working in the AN? Ah, geez, is that important?
I heard this allegation, but haven't seen solid evidence of it.
If it is true, it is indeed something that should be criticized.
Maybe you should watch more opposition TV to get informed. Watching VTV won't give you the evidence you need.
6) Chávez passes the rejected referendum as laws by decree? Well... Oops, don't get hung up on the details.
False. He passed SOME of the laws which could be done constitutionally without calling for another referendum.
And, besides, just because the reform package was rejected as a whole, does NOT mean that the majority is against all of its individual parts, as was clearly proven by the February referendum on term limits.
chavez had the chance to pass them in smaller packages, he didn't. If he would be a democrat, he would respect the will of the people who rejected the reform.
7) Ledezma? That law was going to pass *before* he assumed office! Ergo: Footnote.
The whole idea of creating federal districts with leaders appointed by the president has been an idea they've been throwing around for a long time.
You might not agree with it, or think it is undemocratic, but it is a decision that can be made at the federal level and that has to do with streamlining national programs that opposition governments will most likely not cooperate with, or outright sabotage.
I mean, let's be honest here, did you REALLY think Ledezma was going to be cooperative in implementing programs like Barrio Adentro that he is vehemently opposed to?
1. read the constitution, the stuff they passed on to Farias (as the local leader) belongs to the administr
continue...
1. read the constitution, the stuff they passed on to Farias (as the local leader) belongs to the administration of the elected representative. The constitution says, that the administration etc is the work of a governeur, wich is elected (read Article 159-167 of the constitution, if you don't believe me)
Furthermore it is undemocratic, if you let people deicide, who governs in the next 4 years locally and then the national gov assigns somebody elso to do that job and the elected person has only representive work.
And your argument doesn't count, as 1.) we had never the chance to see, if Ledezma supports Barrio Adentro or not. But as I see here in Miranda.. Capriles does support misiones and consejo comunales, although the national gov said before, that they will not do it.
It is the double moral on one side, accusing Sumate of receiving foreign money during election and sending money to a foreign country to support a party in an election, wich maybe wouldn´t have won w/o this support.
On the other side it's money of the venzolan people and not his to spend as he wishes. CAP was impeached for that.
Uh, what? Did you actually want to respond to my comment? What I said is that there isn't any credible evidence to even prove the allegations.
doesn't the court in Honduras not have a similar problem ? They claim, that it wasn't a coup and the whole world thinks otherwise.
Exactly, the supreme court in Honduras is also controlled by the Honduran oligarchy.
And even you cannot show me cases where the court in the last years had sentenced against Chavez or his minions. Feel free, to prove me wrong
Uh, read Human Rights Watch's recent report on Venezuela. They cite several examples in recent years where the Supreme Court ruled against Chavez.
Maybe you should watch more opposition TV to get informed. Watching VTV won't give you the evidence you need.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!! Ah yes, because opposition TV certainly never manipulates the truth, and would NEVER report negative things about the government that aren't true!!!
Look, if you can't provide any solid evidence to prove it, just admit it. Don't tell me to go watch TV to get solid evidence.
If he would be a democrat, he would respect the will of the people who rejected the reform.
Apparently you didn't even understand my argument. The point is that just because the package of 69 reforms was not approved, that does not mean that the people don't support certain individual reforms that were included in the original 69. The term limits reform is a perfect example.
Uh, what? Did you actually want to respond to my comment? What I said is that there isn't any credible evidence to even prove the allegations.
Don't worry, I read it, but there are several points in the story, that makes the venezolan gov. suspect No 1 :
1.) It was not a commercial flight, but only invited "guests", mostly PDVSA and partner
2.) The silence of the goverment here about here
3.) The missing papertrail, where this money actually came from in a country with exchange controls. Did he already bring it into the country ? Where is the entry tax paper ? I can't bring 800.000 into venezuela without paying taxes, just 10.000 is free.
4.) the phone calls, they recorded, incriminating up to Jorge Rodruigez
5.) The dude himself admitted it, for gods sake...
You have to be really ignorant to believe, that the money came from somewhere/someone else...
Uh, read Human Rights Watch's recent report on Venezuela. They cite several examples in recent years where the Supreme Court ruled against Chavez.
Show me cases in the last 2 years then (link would be nice )
Maybe you should watch more opposition TV to get informed. Watching VTV won't give you the evidence you need.
I don't say, the opposition wouldn't manipulate the truth. But they have a good paper trail, something that is always missing, when Chavez makes his accusations.
And I know, that TV isn't the best source for information, but neither you nor I have the time to look all up ourselfs (and I mean the real work of a journalist, not just google)
Apparently you didn't even understand my argument. The point is that just because the package of 69 reforms was not approved, that does not mean that the people don't support certain individual reforms that were included in the original 69. The term limits reform is a perfect example.
I did understand your argument. But how you knwo, that people support some of the reforms ? Who decides it ? Well, he could make a referendum again... But he didn¡'t, he assumed, people would like this or that.. or what? I think, he just like this and that and wanted it one way or another.
Look at the shorter work time of 6 hours... The law was done but rejected by the AN last year. Many people would have liked it.. just not that much, that they accept all other laws in the package of the reform.
And the term limit reform isn't a perfect example as it wasn't a perfect referendum. The question was fraudulent, honest would have been to ask : Do you support the indefinite re-election of presidents, governeurs, mayors bla bla ?
The campaign was financed by the money of all the people, although only one small part supported it (6 million votes out of 16/17 million possible votes is under 40%). The whole process of the referendum violated the constitution so many times, it should be voided.
No, it is not fair for many of those who signed (like many friends of mine) but have no intention on harming the government. This was a very unfortunate consequence.
Tosh
or, this very well could have been Bush using Tosh's name, you know, collateral damages that they call it. One more proof that extremes always meet.
Tosh, just like any doctor would advise to take a look at the shit before you flush, I would suggest that you read what you write. You are sounding too pathetic.
Apparently you didn't even understand my argument. The point is that just because the package of 69 reforms was not approved, that does not mean that the people don't support certain individual reforms that were included in the original 69. The term limits reform is a perfect example.
Shoot Tosh, this argument is so easy to refute that I will let my dog do it...come here Ramirez...
Ramirez: so if you cannot determine what they said no to, you can assume that they could have liked each individual proposition. So, at the end of the day, what did they say no to? So, as stupid as a dog that I am, I could use this strategy: I propose 852 changes to the Constitution, for example, that a dog can be president, that dogs should be allowed in restaurants, that we can shit inside the house and proposition 852 is that people should be allowed to eat every day.
So people turn down the whole package, you know, because they hate dogs. So I come out with proposition 852 (the one that people should be allowed to eat every day) and now people agree and I win. So, having gotten the yes on that and unable to determine to what the electorate said no, I assume that piece by piece they liked all the other 851 propositions, and act on that assumption.
Tosh, you are a basket case.
Tosh, Ano,
How can you spin this???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=W...player_embedded
Boy, this is going to be hard...
1.) It was not a commercial flight, but only invited "guests", mostly PDVSA and partner
2.) The silence of the goverment here about here
3.) The missing papertrail, where this money actually came from in a country with exchange controls. Did he already bring it into the country ? Where is the entry tax paper ? I can't bring 800.000 into venezuela without paying taxes, just 10.000 is free.
4.) the phone calls, they recorded, incriminating up to Jorge Rodruigez
5.) The dude himself admitted it, for gods sake...
In other words, there's no solid evidence, but a bunch of things that you assume to be true.
There are also many things that shed some doubt on the official story. The guy carrying the money was a last minute invite by a government official, so it was unplanned. Christina Fernandez did not need any additional financing, as everyone knew she was going to win the election. If Chavez wanted to send her money he could have simply taken it on his own plane the next day which does not have to pass through customs. Why risk getting caught by sending that much money through customs? (this alone sheds a lot of doubt on the official story)
Then there is the fact that the key witness was working with the FBI and trying to incriminate his business partners. Then there was the revelation that the FBI tried to bribe the key customs official witness into saying what they wanted her to say. And the US law used to try these people had NEVER been used before, which makes it seem like it was a politically motivated prosecution with the intention of smearing the Chavez government.
And the major people involved were businessmen who had invested money in Venezuela. It is very likely that they were trying to get that money out of Venezuela without anyone knowing. But what does that have to do with the Chavez government?
I don't say, the opposition wouldn't manipulate the truth. But they have a good paper trail, something that is always missing, when Chavez makes his accusations.
Dude, we're talking about opposition TV. By its very nature its IMPOSSIBLE for TV news to have a paper trail.
I did understand your argument. But how you knwo, that people support some of the reforms ? Who decides it ? Well, he could make a referendum again... But he didn¡'t, he assumed, people would like this or that.. or what? I think, he just like this and that and wanted it one way or another.
He did the things that he has the constitutional authority to do, just like any president has the right to. If he wants to change things that he does not have the constitutional authority to do then he has to call for a referendum, just like he did with the term limits in February.
You don't have to have a freaking national referendum for every single decision that a government makes. Not only would that not be viable, but it would be extremely expensive and obtrusive.
Face it, you don't have an argument. Just because the reform was rejected that does not mean that nothing that was in the reform can be done by the current government if they have the constitutional authority to do it.
Tosh, you are a basket case.
Impartial | 07.09.09 - 9:56 pm | #
Impartial, your comments are so utterly stupid that they do a great job of discrediting themselves. I don't even need to waste my time refuting them.
Thanks for making it so easy for me.
In other words, there's no solid evidence, but a bunch of things that you assume to be true.
actually your facts are assumptions... but let's see...
The guy carrying the money was a last minute invite by a government official, so it was unplanned.
To carry the bag, that if get caught, it wont be a PDVSA official. And who says, that the Kirchners didn't need money last minute ?
Christina Fernandez did not need any additional financing, as everyone knew she was going to win the election.
That's a simple assumption. You cannot know that, I cannot know that. Reading aporrea forum, everyone knew, that the referendum
2007 was a sure victory for Chavez... We know, how that went... :D
If Chavez wanted to send her money he could have simply taken it on his own plane the next day which does not have to pass through customs.
sure, Chavez does have that time, as he spends no time to govern in Venezuela. And also, it is suspected, that this Bag of money was just the tip of the iceberg, so every time somebody of his buddies needs money, Chavez goes himself... jajaja
Remember, there was also some venezolan official caught in Bolivia with a bag of money...
Why risk getting caught by sending that much money through customs? (this alone sheds a lot of doubt on the official story)
Because Chavismo thinks like they have the right to do as they please, but my guess is as good as yours. I don't know, what's going on in their minds..
Then there was the revelation that the FBI tried to bribe the key customs official witness into saying what they wanted her to say.
She denied those allegations and AFAIK that came only in Chavista press, so most likely a try to discredit the key witness...
And if it was just a business man trying to get money out despite of exchange controls, the goverment should have been very interested as they lost money in taxes...
Dude, we're talking about opposition TV. By its very nature its IMPOSSIBLE for TV news to have a paper trail.
Well, they show a lot of documents normally, like in the cases of corruption in Miranda by Diosdado or in the case of Maracaibo.
Also as I know from my country, some TV stations do good investigations.
You don't have to have a freaking national referendum for every single decision that a government makes. Not only would that not be viable, but it would be extremely expensive and obtrusive.
nope, but he is obviously violating the constitutions with some of the new laws rejected in the reform and introduced as law later on. Take airports, ports etc, he put them under national control, although the constitution states, that the administration belongs to the state government. That also shows, that the TSJ here isn't worth a dog shit.
Face it, you don't have an argument. Just because the reform was rejected that does not mean that nothing that was in the reform can be done by the current government if they have the constitutional authority to do it.
If the laws passed are WITHIN the current constitution, yes. But some aren't.
And anyway, the reform was a package for the transformation in direction of a socialist state. He asked the people finally, if they want socialsm, they said NO. Means : We don't want a socialist state, the current democracy is ok.
You agree, that it is quite an assumption to think, some socialism previously rejected would be ok anyway.
Remember also, that around 4 million voted in favor of the reform, that's around 25%. You think, with 25% support the people could mean : yes, maybe some stuff we want....
"5) Cilia Flores has half her family working in the AN? Ah, geez, is that important?
I heard this allegation, but haven't seen solid evidence of it.
If it is true, it is indeed something that should be criticized.
"
What an asshole! The whole thing has been more than published. What does he want? That he be presented with the whole relatives confessing in front of him? Or that Hugo Chavez says so in Alo Presidente?
Guys, this guy has not the slightest sense of decency. You are wasting your time discussing with him. He won't change anything. Go discuss with a Venezuelan Chavista who is not being payed to do propaganda.
Really: Tosh is a complete waste of time!
For Toshy:
http://realidadalternativa.wordp...en-la-asamblea/
Anonymous says: "As far as I am concerned the five state powers are independent and not dependent on anyone. The only "evidence" to the contrary is opposition propaganda.
I disagree totally that the ex owners of Venezuela should be treated fairly. They never treated the poor fairly and multiplied the poor by millions from 1961 onwards."
Unfortunately it is not opposition propaganda. The five powers are there to apply the law, but in a discriminatory fashion and with very different gears: as soon as Chávez wants something, all the powers act inmediately,when someone from the opposition asks the law to be abided, the system does not answer or is terribly slow.
About your second statement. Who are the "ex-owners of Venezuela"? There is no such thing as a group that owned Venezuela. If you are referring to the extremely wealthy (Cisneros, etc.) they are STILL extremely wealthy and many are in EXCELLENT terms with the goverment.
Remember, those were the groups that put Chávez in power in 1998.
The other point is that you've got a very strange notion of democracy when you think that the law can be applied differently to some groups because of revenge. That Anon, is precisely why Venezuela is no longer a democracy. In a democracy following a state of law, all citizens are equal, regardless of their color, sexual orientation, race and yes WEALTH.
In a democracy, you simply CANNOT discriminate. Based on ANY criteria. The law should be applied equally to any citizen.
If you apply the law in a discriminated manner you are killling the state of law. That is PRECISELY what the Chavistas have been doing for more than 10 years.
Bruni, Ano is so blind!
Those groups like Cisneros et alia are, as you say, fine. And then there are the new boliburgueses like the brother of Jesse Chacon, Arne Chacon Escamillo, a guy who had not a penny in 2001 and now owns several hundred million dollars.
Bruni & Kepler - the law has never been applied farily in Venezuela. Explain the fact that the prisons are full of poor people somce of whom have been convicted for stealing, say, copper cable.
Neither of you can grasp the point that for thewir historicval crimes the bourgeioisie has to be punished.
I'm not interested in being "fair" with these historical thiefs.
Bruni - forget all this crap about the law being applied equally. It does not even happen in the US. If you have money, good lawyers, position and influence, you get off lightly.If you are poor, no prospects and generally mezquito, you get screwed.
Ano, do you have comprehension problems? It seems so.
"the prisons are full of poor people somce of whom have been convicted for stealing, say, copper cable"
We are in the year 10 of Chavismo and prisons are full of those people. How come?
And when are they going to convict Chavez for using testaferros for buying lots of land in Barinas? and when put Chavez in prison for allowing his two daughters to get social houses for free?
And people like Arne enrich himself in such a way?
Are you going to ignore this: are the Chavistas not "historical burgeoisie" as well?
The funny thing is that most people that dislike Chavez are not part of that historical burgeoisie. The historical burgeoisie is playing along with Chavez for most part (Cisneros et alia) and cooperating with the boliburguesia.
Carajo, no te importa la boliburguesia? Vas a seguir pretendiendo que esta no existe y que es un fenómeno mínimo?
"And when are they going to convict Chavez for using testaferros for buying lots of land in Barinas? and when put Chavez in prison for allowing his two daughters to get social houses for free?" Kepler
Let's assume for one moment that all the propaganda about the Chavez family buying all the land in Barinas is true. What is illegal in this? Oh, they stole the money, is that what you are saying? Are you suggesting people be jailed without a trial? That's how it sounds to me.
Well, Kepler, that has to be proven and so far no action has prospered by Wilmer Azuaje againsthe Chavez family.
Chavez's daughters; free housing; give me a link to this "accusation".
10 years can hardly be considered historical, Kepler when compared to the Amos del Valle.
I believe that Cisneros decided to obey the laws of the country after a cache of arms was found in an annex in Venevision. Remember?
The "nuevos ricos" or bolibuergeia exists as it does in many countries. So what?
However, if it can be proven that the money was stolen and not just Kepler and press reports saying so, that is a different matter.
One day you will notice that the government has actually done some things right but until that day, Kepler, keep on having nightmares.
I've proven that the institutions are independent in Venezuela, so waht are you complaining about, as usual?
Ano,
So: the Chavista boliburguesia has the right to
be like the Amos del Valle for how many centuries while they plunder the poor?
The Supreme Court chanted "Uh ah, Chavez no se va". Solo un carajito resentido como tú sin puta idea de lo que realmente pasa en el mundo se come ese cuento de que esa corte es independiente, sobre todo cuando uno ve las declaraciones de esa gente, como no hacen nada para investigar a los Barreto, como no hacen nada para investigar que el CNE se haya negado a publicar TODOS los resultados de las votaciones, incluidos los de los votantes fuera de Venezuela, que no son contados desde 2006.
Solo un carajito resentido cuyo papito o algo así "al final puede robar como los viejos adecos", puede apoyar un régimen de ladrones como este.
The CNE is an absolute joke. All of them are aspiring for a new post with Chavez, as Rodriguez did.
Fact is the only thing Chavistas really have done is have the good luck of going through the biggest oil boom ever.
So we got it:
What pisses these Chavez apologists is not that the others were stealing, but that they had not been able to steal. Never mind the really poor, never mind they are letting the country sink further, with worse education levels than the already catastrophic ones, with more corruption, with a much higher murder rate, with more dependency on oil...pero al fin pueden tomar whisky de 24 y sentirse unos Amos del Valle también!
Coño, Kepler, El TSJ es más representaivo que nunca en la historia de Venezuela.
Vamos a sacar a todos porque supuestamente cantaron Uh, ah? Este video fue manipulado por Globovisón y lo sabes también.
Además eres un mentirosos descarado ya que sabes muy bien que el Ministerio Público está investigando a Barreto y un montón de chavistas por supuesta corrupción. Hay más chavistas inhabilitados por Russián que oposicionistas.
Veo que sabes cuales son los deseos y propósitos de los rectores del CNE. Caramaba, eres un genio.
Debes basar tus argumentos más en hechos y no en medijerismos y chismes.
Lo que pasa es que idiotas como tu quieren justicia automática pero ello no ocurre en una democracia con leyes e instituciones independientes.
Debemos felicitar al ministro Diosdao por sus propuestas para quitar el poder mediático a la burgesía.
Ahora bien, ¿cuándo vas a parar de quejarte, Kepler?
What pisses these Chavez apologists is not that the others were stealing, but that they had not been able to steal. Never mind the really poor, never mind they are letting the country sink further, with worse education levels than the already catastrophic ones, with more corruption, with a much higher murder rate, with more dependency on oil...pero al fin pueden tomar whisky de 24 y sentirse unos Amos del Valle también!
Kepler | Homepage | 07.10.09 - 12:45 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.........Man, you are going to go over the edge today, Kepler. You are either insane or on the point of being such state.
"Diosdao" is the one who owns Eveba, right?
Ano, when are you going to close down Globovision? You don't dare, really.
We had this before
http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot...un-for-
cne.html
We have this now:
http://
www.atravesdevenezuela.co...20rodriguez.jpg
What will Lucena's post be?
Kepler - none of things you mention matter at all.
If Jorge R. belonged to PJ you would not say a thing.
Para mi es importante tener personas en puestos claves del poder para evitar el regreso de los adecos y copeyanos.
NO VOLVERÁN.
Tibisay could be an ambassador or a minister. Let's wait and see.
As I said before you are going over the edge with so much paranoia in you mind.
Toma calmantes por tu propio bien.
jajajajaj............Globovisón - we will alsos have to wait and see. With 5 procedures open against them, Diosdado can push the button any time and close them down. IMO Diosdado will wait until he has the Ven. cable channels under control and then hit Globo with closure so as to prevent this heap of garbage from appearing on cable or satellite.
All the pieces are in place and hopefully when he does close them Zuloaga will be jailed for usury and speculation.
Ano,
No volverán? Pendejo, si es que nunca se han ido.
La mitad de los chavistas son ex adecos y la familia entera de Chávez era una cuerda de copeyanos muy conocida en Barinas.
Ese refrán cursi realmente que da ganas de reir de la boca de Ustedes.
Lo que me pregunto es qué va a pasar contigo cuando caiga el chavismo.
A dónde vas a poner ir?
Cuba caerá de inmediato. Quizás Zimbabwe...dicen que tienen buen clima.
No te veo en Korea del Norte ni en Irán.
"Corea"
Brunis, dear one, under the ecosidal system of capitalism the concept of 'democracy' is rendered a farce because economic power trumps the will of the majority of citizens.
Kepler, ma brutha, you be hitt'en da crack pipe.
Let me hazard a guess: The coke that you manufacture you crack from is 100 percent Colombian or Peruvian--not from Bolivia or Ecuador.
Kepler - no pierdes mi tiempo con estos comentarios personales. Como escribe Tosh - no tienes argumentos y por eso acudes a otras "tácticas" para esconder tu puta ignorancia.
En tu propia idioma te traiconas utilizando palabras como "caiga" en lugar de hablar de "perder elecciones", por ejemplo.
Otro golpista de mierda disfrazado de alguien civilizado.
Take a hike.
statements like these (anonymous)...:
--start quote--
"I disagree totally that the ex owners of Venezuela should be treated fairly. They never treated the poor fairly and multiplied the poor by millions from 1961 onwards.
No, Bruni, these people should have their properties CONFISCATED (no compensation) and the state take over their businesses.
Call it revenge if you like but that is the only language such capitalists understand. If they protest, they should be summarily jailed in common prisons.
The Venezuelan bourgeiosie has a huge debt to pay to society and gradually they are paying it.
[comment: so, those who weren't or aren't "poor" are by generalization cruel oppresors and have to be punished collectively for individual misdeeds]
For me dissent if the same as High Treason since it is all based on lies and media manipulations. An armed revolution would have stopped all these problems in their tracks and it's a pity one did not happen after April 11th 2002.
[comment: then every citizen not agreeing with chavismo (dissenting) or maybe even not member of PSUV ("die partei") is a traitor and many hundred thousand venezuelans were lucky not to be shot dead in an armed revolution after 11A. right, you're either with us or a traitor]
Chávez was far too soft and weak at that time."
and
"Lo que pasa es que idiotas como tu quieren justicia automática pero ello no ocurre en una democracia con leyes e instituciones independientes."
and
"Para mi es importante tener personas en puestos claves del poder para evitar el regreso de los adecos y copeyanos."
[comment: this is a funny thing to read from you after you repeatedly asserted that venezuelan institutions ARE independent. logic compels us to conclude (selection), that you are 1. not reject independent institutions, thus your opinion on today's "independent institutions" must be negative or 2. you find institutions are not independent (and you like ist that way), but state the oppsite for whatever strange reason or 3. you only recognize institutions as independent when they are packed with rojos rojitos (requiring institutions to avow themselves to a specific corriente politica), which is mutually exclusive]
---end quote---
...demonstrate el caracter vengativo of some chavismo supporter's approach to "democracy" or rule of law.
every negative aspect they refuse to talk out of existence is justified, because "the previous regime did the same or in a similar way". yeah, you're going to be the blazing role model of social improvement going down that road...
so, this movement that per definitionem does not want to embrace the whole society, only who supports them (you're either with us or a disguised golpista), not only fuels a vicious circle of retaliation and counter-retaliation, but also contradicts any claim to be a pluralist movement.
no democracy can be built on this foundations. it would be much easier not to ca
(continued)
... it would be much easier not to call it democracy in order to avoid failures in meeting its high standards. you'd hardly fail to meet ochlocracy's standards with that attitude though...
zamuro - flaws in your logic:
1) having people allied to the government in key positons, as is the case in almost all cases in developed countries, does not stop the institutions form being independçent or acting objectively based on the law.
2) all society has been embraced by the current Venezuelan government but privileges of yesteryear are being abolished and private industry, media etc. is being brought into line by making them obey the law - especially is fiscal matters and issues of public health.
Whether or not I want the adecos or copeyanos back or not does not prevent them from participating. The eletoral system embraces veryone and adecos like Ledezma and Morel Rodríguez, copeyanos like Pérez vivas hav eindeed made a comeback. This is living proff that despite the 4 - 1 make-up of the CNE , this institution is independent and acts objectively.
Historically the Venezuelan bourgeiosie has oppressed the majorities and they will paytheir dues through taxes or expropiations/confiscations. So much is owed to the nantion.
I was just reading your "economic anlysis on your blog and have some issues with that. Why, for example do you emphasize that unemployment is increasing when it is not, for example?
So, smart ass, any more comments?
5) Cilia Flores has half her family working in the AN? Ah, geez, is that important?
I heard this allegation, but haven't seen solid evidence of it.
If it is true, it is indeed something that should be criticized.
Tosh
Kepler provided some proof. Are you ready to critizice now??? I guess that by using the same rigor you use on most of your criticism, this should be more than plenty of evidence to chastise Cilia, right?
Ano, if I wrote all the crap you do, I would also choose to remain anonymous.
Imprtial - your usual discourse of verborrea wanting to create scandal out of nothing.
Typical opposition mentality which will lead you nowhere.
I don't care if Cilia has some of her parientes working in the AN. Amiguismo and favoring family is rife in venezuela and in Latin America as well.
You are reduced to snyde comments since you have no arguments or basis to criticize the great job this government is doing in adverse economic circumstances.
OT and something for you to chew on:
The Venezuelan Government has not deprived Caracas Metropolitan Mayor Antonio Ledezma of his functions and attributes. The governance of the Capital District in Caracas, under Article 156 (10) of the Venezuelan Constitution, is a function and attribute of the National Government ... not a function and attribute of the Caracas Metropolitan Mayor.
Article 156 (10) says it: "The organization and governance of the Capital District ... is of the competence of the National Public Power."
The "National Public Power" is the national government of Venezuela. Ledezma, a Mayor, is not the national government. So, Ledezma is not the national public power, although he pretends he is...
"I don't care if Cilia has some of her parientes working in the AN".
Of course you don't care -it's a footnote, right?
But you cared about Alberto Gonzales and were -just as I was- happy and relieved that that crook was pushed out of office?
FYI: In any semi-functional democracy, a video of the President ordering to put Rosales in jail or a video of the President threatening judges to act as he wishes or resign, would be considered an intolerable invasion of one power over another and proof of institutional collapse.
The fact that we have to actually explain this to you is proof of how far away down the autocratic path we've strayed.
Berlusconi does it, the left cries bloody murder, Chávez does it, it's OK. The fact that all of Azuaje's we'll documented corruption charges on the Chávez familiy was brushed away in a morning by the AN is another proof of non-independance.
But let's not talk about this, since you've already stated, on numerous occasions on this thread, how you don't care about institutions or balance, all you want is your biased (and sick) views on discrimination based on questionable historical manipulations to be imposed over anyone else, because it's the truth and we should therefore shoot "the oligarchy" and "make them suffer".
Again, you can be a fascist if you want. There are many internet sites dedicated to your line of thinking. Just quit this thread, because this is about democracy and institutions and you don't care about any of them, all you want is revenge over the rich or the jews or the whites or another group different from you.
Ano,
The right word is "caiga", not "perder elecciones". With the CNE thugs he won't lose elections, he will rig them...until his own people deal with him. As
Cortazar wrote, "no se baja vivo de una cruz."
I am not a "golpista de mierda". I have never supported a coup. You do support the big Venezuela coupster, Chavez.
As for the adecos and copeyanos: as I said, they are still very well, they just call themselves Chavistas. They own half Barinas now, for instance.
Vinz - you must have a screw loose. Your logic and argument sare fatally flawed once agin.
Azuaje's "evidence" was so tenouous that the AN had no choice but to sweep it aside in short order. You imply that the Chavez family has committed crimes in Barinas, but what are they? Explain please.
I as a common citizen have very right to demand that the AN, the Ministerio Público, CONATEL, INDEPABIS act to make sure the laws/rules are oberyed. Chavez as President can demand action in terms of holding up the law - or is it, in your twisted infected way of thinking, that he cvannot say anything when he is still a citizen with all constitutional rights.
Luis Orgega Díaz said the same some three weeks ago. She's the Attorney General, and does not lie whatever you and your escuálido bed mates may think.
I note that yesterday a judge refued to rule on the illegality of the CEDICE cuñas. This is proof that chavismo does not control the judiciary. So stop making up so many lies and ahve some respect for your self anhd above all others.
What you don't care about is the truth or constitutionasl order. you have zero respect for Chavez's presidency and as such are not democratic by any stretch of the imagination.
I want the high bourgeoisie to pay for their 500 year crusade and extermination against the rest of the population. As far as whites and jews go, that's a different matter.
Yes, Kepler, you are a golpista de mierda and deserve any popular justice that might be inflicted on you in the future.
GOLPISTA!
Now just FOAD.
Ano, que acomplejado eres. Ahora resulta que eres negro?
(quote anonymous)
"Whether or not I want the adecos or copeyanos back or not does not prevent them from participating. The eletoral system embraces veryone and adecos like Ledezma and Morel Rodríguez, copeyanos like Pérez vivas hav eindeed made a comeback. This is living proff that despite the 4 - 1 make-up of the CNE , this institution is independent and acts objectively."
they made their comeback, but since then have been attacked by chávez ("desgraciados, banditos, fascistas, terroristas, lo voy a meter preso" etc.") in a less than uncivilized way. and as these guys were elected by the majority of their respective state, insulting and disapproving them means insulting and disapproving the majority that voted for them (why else would they vote for a fascist if not because they are fascists themselves?). not to mention every investigación de opposition politicians that start just after chávez announced it in aló presidente.
and you know who was hurt most by the subsequent ley de "des"centralizacion and reorganization of capital district. the people who voted for their head of state/municiplaity (majority!).
(quote ano)"Article 156 (10) says it: "The organization and governance of the Capital District ... is of the competence of the National Public Power."
ok, now mind article 4: "The government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and of the political organs comprising the same, is and shall always be democratic, participatory, elective, decentralized, alternative, responsible and pluralist, with revocable mandates."
article 4 is part of the "principios fundamentales" of the constitution. when discussing a law to reorganize a territorial and political organ it would have been less irresponsible to deliberate about whether a fundamental or a specific principle outweighs the other, first. moreover, the application of the district reorganization rendering de facto useless an elected mayor is a measure that has to be considered very carefully as its result contradicts the fundamental democratic priciple. if chavismo were smarter and less desperate it would have prepared the reorganization to take effect after the end of the elected mayor's term...
on unemployment:
simply check INE stats yourself...
or read this (they checked INE, too):
http://www.eluniversal.com/2009/
...2A2407773.shtml
http://www.eluniversal.com/2009/
...l_1445764.shtml
and thanks for reading!
"Historically the Venezuelan bourgeiosie has oppressed the majorities and they will paytheir dues through taxes or expropiations/confiscations. So much is owed to the nantion."
generalization is a convenient thing. so every single member of what you call bourgeoisie today is culpable of everything bourgeoisie has ever done? and of course, members of the bourgeoisie are 100% evil and anti-social, vampires - all the same.
but wait! there's a new
Ano, yes, sure, I am a golpista. And Chavez is one as well.
(cont.)
but wait! there's a new boliburguesia! following your generalization, they, too, must be oppressors and have to be expropriated.
Zamuro, no porque estos son "negros e indios puros".
So he says, at least.
ah ok, bueno entonces eso si es otra vaina...
"I want the high bourgeoisie to pay for their 500 year crusade and extermination against the rest of the population. As far as whites and jews go, that's a different matter."
Hihi...this guy really has no idea about history, genetics or economics.
Well, that is the price Venezuela has to pay after decades of defective education and 10 years of brain washing with "Aporrea" as source of knowledge about the world
I just picked up that jewel:
"This kind of nation-based analysis is pretty worthless in a globalized society in which economies are so inter-linked and capital has become so transnational. But I do realize who I am talking to here."
The same guy who defends the kind of nation-state the Bolivarians are trying to build. So, when is the analysis worthwhile and when is it worthless? You are entitled to your ideas but we are also entitled to a bit of coherence on your part.
It's no wonder that someone promoting the "Final solution" for ethnic/social groups finds the logic of "governing", "creating consensus" and "reaching commitments" by a President, twisted.
No, the President is not a citizen.
He's there to create spaces where the different sectors of society can reach accords.
He's not there to mow over his critics and opposition.
Enough trolling.
You still haven't explained why the American people had the right to use an institution to oust Alberto Gonzáles while I have to stand Cilia Flores just because.
You still haven't explained why you think it's a great democratic triumph of the people over state power that the public opinion managed to avoid Bush's supreme court nominee from being elected, while we have to put up with what we have without criticism.
Explain why it's so great to criticize Bush, Berlusconi and others but why we have to be hypocritical when it comes to criticism or abuse on this side of the globe.
P.s.: I'm not in the opposition so stop bundling me up with what López or Ledezma say. So no need extending on creative insults, just stick to the point, if you can.
Thanks for the admission of being a golpista Kepler. Now we know what and who we are dealing with.
Regarding Chavez - he paid his debt to society and was pardoned by Caldera.
You can criticize Cilia Flores as much as you wish. However, the AN lects her and it's up to them to destitute her as well.
Yes, accords can be reached but not with an opposition that has spent almost a decade trying to overthrow the government. With internal (and media) terrorism, you just do not negotiate, zamuro.
Hmm... the comparison with Bush, Berlusconi, Blair and the rest is not exacly proportional. I have not seen Chavez sending troops to invade other nations amd displacing millions of citizens. Have you?
I guess it's more Urobe's death squad style you should be concerned about.
The most Chavez doe s si to provide solidarity and external aid to brother nations.
YOu expect Chavez to sit back and take all the abuse from the private media and the opposition for years upon year. Then you start yelling when he uses your own weapons against you.
Well, zamuro that's tough.
tosh, come over here and help your kid brother anonymous out.
@ano
is your last post really directed at me?
zamuro - can't you read or what?
cause i can't remember writing about negotiation, berlusconi, cilia flores and private media, lately oO
Ano,
Now tell me: Caldera pardoned Chavez, we did not.
Anyway: what coup did I support?
Chavez supports the dictatorship of Pérez Jiménez. Do you as well? That of Mugabe? Of Lukashenka?
Of the mullahs in Iran? Of Castro?
I did not support Carmona, but I agree: Chavez will be thrown out by force. But it won't be me, it will be his own people. Read the story Queremos tanto a Glenda. His own people will get rid of the Fat Man in the Palace.
Como les quedo el ojo?
"¿Quería seguir como Presidente por medio de esas reformas?
Eso es falso. En Honduras no hay reelección y no hay posibilidad de reelegirme.
Planteé la necesidad de una cuarta urna para que el pueblo opine sobre desarrollo, impuestos, reformas tributarias, presupuestos y tratados internacionales."
http://laprensa.hn/Ediciones/200...sobre-
impuestos
Commenting by HaloScan
