Nothing but Paspalum Fasciculatum here
Any nation where the majority of the citizens is funamentally unjust and corrupt.
You don't need charts and graphs to show the truth of this truism.
But it will take courage and imagination to produce a more just, less corrupt society. Many of the most power people will fight against any change because their wealth and power is rooted in injustice.
In countries like the US, the corrupt have so much power that they brainwash and propagandize people into believing that the system is just fine. Any thinking person knows that the government is corrupt, but they are too afraid to speak out lest they loose their job, their health insurance, thier home, their family.
With out fundamental economic and social justice corruption will dog any efforts to make a nation better.
But, again, these thoughts are but truisms, so fundamental that they needn't be argued over.
ochlocracy!
David,
I refuse to believe that the majority of people of any nation is unjust and corrupt, though I am convinced that the great majority of people are ignorant in one way or another (no one can know everything), and this is specially true when it comes to politics, power, and governments.
What I do believe is that the feedback mechanisms around power (a.k.a. money) are such that a large number of corrupt people are attracted to it, and the great majority of voters, due to their ignorance, cannot distinguish between the corrupt that seek power for power sake and the ones that are forced to seek power precisely because they cannot live under such ochlocracy.
So the objective of any government system should be to minimize the proportion of corrupt people in power, but then, who has the power to do this?.
It is in this light that I see the maxim of Simón Bolívar: morals and enlightenment are the most basic of our necessities. The only way out of the current conditions is to have a wise populace.
Edgar--what I meant to say is that 'in any nation where the majority of the people are poor and where there exists a narrow minority that live in opulence.
Poverty is also a social/ideological construction--it is beaten into the thinking of the poor that they are 'less worthy' that they don't deserve the fundamentals of material wealth.
Any elite that makes basic refoms needed to improve the existance of the majority impossible makes revolutionary, fundamental change necessary.
The most stable, sucessful and healthy countries (Northern Europe) eliminate huge gaps between social classes. Mind you, social classes and unjust priviledge still exists--but not near the degree as the US or Latin American countires.
The US, my country, repeatedly ranks dead last among industrialized countries in many areas--mainly because of consumerism, a poor public education system, and the propaganda function of all major media (funded by corporations).
When balance and a sense of justice/shame is lost, poverty escalates, the system becomes unstable, and the seeds of rebellion are sown.
Slave (David?),
I never thought I would agree with you, but you have expressed precisely why Chavez's regime should end.
Any elite that makes basic refoms needed to improve the existance of the majority impossible makes revolutionary, fundamental change necessary.
That is the main reason!!. I could not have expressed it better!!.
Remember that one of the meanings of the label 'elite' is precisely 'those that deserve power.' And there is no better description of the Chavez regime than that one, he sees himself and his cronies as the only ones deserving power against everyone that opposes his thirst for power or his incompetence.
I understand that the same reason, in many of his supporters minds, is the one that brought him to power. Though from my perspective it was just sheer populism, and I can clearly see the difference between power for power sake and the need for power, remember that I left Venezuela because of Caldera, I am staying out because of Chavez.
I don't doubt that Chavez intentions were in the right place (and I can even see that in Caldera's mind his were too, I never attribute to malice what can be perfectly explained by stupidity), but his incompetence, his lack of morals, and his thirst for power has completely changed that dynamic and turned Venezuela into the dictatorship it now is.
And going back to topic, remember that the 'revolution' he headed, and the reason that a large majority of Venezuelans voted for him, was the perception that government corruption was the sole cause of all the problems in Venezuela. So this particular measure, being his main platform, reflects like no other the incompetence of his government.
Edgar, corruption is rooted in fundmental injustice. The age-old injustice in Venezuela and elsewhere is rooted in class exploitation.
This will not change through coups or invasion by empire. We have see that with Carmona and the oil sabatoge.
The people need a voice in the Venezuelan government, and this is happening like no other time in Venezuelan history.
The majority of the people are with Chavez. Call this populism, or call this 'fried chicken'--this is a much more democratic and progessive government than any other in Venezulean history.
Of course, the traditional economic elites see this as 'populism', as being 'bad', and 'anti-democratic'.
However, the Venezuelan people, enmass, have rejected their political program.
In short, Chavez attains power as a representative of the majority of Venezuelans. And this is why he will continue winning elections--because he is engaging necessary structural economic reforms that, without which, life will always be immiserated for the majority that the economic elites, through their pro-imperialist/neoliberal policies, have marginalized for decades.
Watch the coming election. Democracy is alive and well and only through democratic change can corruption be mitigated.
But it is only through 'justice' that corruption will become extinguished.
Slave,
Unsupported statements of facts:
corruption is rooted in fundmental injustice no it's rooted in moral ambiguity as most of the most corrupt elements of the regime have never been lower class.
class exploitation one of these extremely simplistic marxist concepts that does not hold water when seen with a critical eye. You should read Francisco on that.
We have see [corruption?] with Carmona and the oil sabatoge Sorry, but this is a bit of line, hook, and sinker from the Chavez propaganda that you have swallowed. Carmona was misguided, and used. The 'oil sabotage' was in part a lawful protest against PDVSA mismanagement by the Chavez regime and in part the presure point for true 'revolutionary change'.
people need a voice in the Venezuelan government, and this is happening like no other time in Venezuelan history. Wrong again, if that is so, why are Chavistas running en-masse to the 'opposition media' to denounce ALL the injustices from the regime?, and why was Walter Martinez silenced when he was bringing up corruption inside the regime?.
The majority of the people are with Chavez I would need to see the source for that, as this is mostly faith on your part.
this is a much more democratic and progessive government than any other in Venezulean history You clearly have no F*ing idea of Venezuelan history if you dare to say something like that, there are very few things that would insult me, and this is one of them, just read what I have written in that regard.
the traditional economic elites see this as 'populism', as being 'bad', and 'anti-democratic'. So I guess that you are calling me, a low middle class member, part of the 'traditional economic elites'. I am sorry to disappoint you, but I have a brain and I can think for myself.
the Venezuelan people, enmass, have rejected their political program They did in the past, and threw away the baby with the bath water. But nowadays the Venezuelan people enmass rejects Chavez's political program. Just read any poll, and read more than the simplistic analysis and contrast with what many of Chavez's supporters say.
this is why he will continue winning elections No, he keeps winning elections because he has put in place a corrupt system to guarantee that, and his "many followers" are held by very thin populist threads.
he is engaging necessary structural economic reforms Well only if by necessary you mean to bring all of Venezuelan economy to the ground the same way that Cuba's is.
Democracy is alive and well The same way Humpty Dumpty was when he fell from the wall.
and only through democratic change can corruption be mitigated On that one you are right, because after 7 years of Chavez's regime things have only become worse, let's hope that Venezuela recovers its democratic status at some point.
Did I miss any line? Why does it just read like propaganda?
So pardon me if I mostly dismiss your comments. You seem to be completely impermeable to reason and facts and I have no time to keep pointing the same things to you.
Let me quote something from the source that Mike Nelson pointed you to in another thread.
John R. Bradley:
...And you are right: it was for us a blind faith, completely black and white, right and wrong, good and evil. We knew all the answers (every single one of them!), as though they had been revealed from a higher being; and everyone else was simply stupid – not least the great mass of workers, who would one day wake up to that fact, of course, and finally recognize the SWP as their saviors.
What I find most odd, looking back, is that I didn't see myself as a victim at all – I mean, not only of the SWP, but even of society. I didn't have the sense that I was fighting on my behalf. No: I saw everyone else as a victim, and myself as savior – one of the chosen few.
Viewing everyone else as a victim gave me a sense of superiority, I suppose. Joining the SWP was a way of rebelling against my parents. I was using the great masses as my excuse to make myself feel good, to give my life a sense of direction and meaning. It took me years to cast off the shackles of that sense of superiority – of a failure to recognize the world's nuances and complexities and differing points of view, not to mention my own limitations and hypocrisies.
Ed, I believe that you are severly mistaken, just as the 'opposition' was when it cheered on Carmona's coup and the criminal oil sabatoge. No, a small group of techological and business elites that are aligned with the empire cannot be allowed to shut down the nation.
They weren't allowed this and they got their asses kicked legally and professionally.
Do you want to place bets on how many seats the Bolivarians will win in the coming elections?
Where is your evidence that the past RR was won through fraudulent means?
I mean please--you don't offer a shread of evidence.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say, and you will be eating a lot of crow come this December.
Wanna bet on it?
If you win I will kiss your feet and let you kick me in the face--if I (and my Bolivarian bros and sisters) win then you have to let me guest blog for six months.
I can see the blog now: "Slave's Quaters". I can dig it.
Sorry, that is a mispell--the blog will be dubbed (nomially) "Slave Quarters".
Starring "Slave Revolt" and his humble, pro-oligarch side-kick "Edgar Brown"
But since it is your blog, I might allow your name to be featured before mine.
I can see it now...Edgar Brown's blog "Paspalum Fasciculatum" (which, in Latin , means "We Oligarchs are Evil") featuring guest ghost-blogger Slave Revolt in his comment series "Slave Quarters"!
We will really pull in the visitors to this site!
Steve Hunt (aka Slave Revolt aka Ven-Friend), I was 'counting to 10^6' before I answered any of this, as your insensitivity is legendary. You are the most insensitive out of touch person that I have encountered in all my time around the blogs, and I know for a fact that that I am not alone in that opinion.
You did not get that my post was all about you (you should be proud of that, right), and you chose to choose a single topic (the one that you PSFs enjoy so much), and ignore the way that you insulted my intelligence with your previous post.
Well, the topic you chose has already been debated with your 'brother in arms' Poder Escualido (aka Poderescu) here.
Too bad I have already banned you because I was planning to give you a day or so to reply before I did so due to this thread. Go ahead and build your own blog if you like the limelight so much, you seem to have some traits in common with Dan Burnett of Oil Wars fame.
Goodbye and good riddance.
Edgar, if you don't support the right of those that you disagree with strongly to voice their views, then you don't support free speech and human freedom.
In short, your censoring of Slave Revolt is revolting. You have shown yourself to be a closed minded hypocrite.
But, this is not suprising inasmuch as you do seem to support the Iraq war, and given the history of the US government's actions in Latin America makes your goals for the region suspect in the eyes of those of us who have lived in Chile and Argentina during the coups of the 70's.
Lastly, Brook certainly did not 'win' any debate if one could classify that spat with Slave R. as 'debate'.
As a reader of your blog, my estimation of your character has diminished.
Another item, Edgar, that shocked me was your tepid response to Brook's blatant Stalinist line that criticizing US state policies (which Slave R. and others recognize as being imbued with acceptance of 'state-terrorism' as a modus operandi) is akin to rejecting the people of the US.
This line needs to be exposed for what it is: a type of totalitarian thinking that is a component of the dominant intellectual cultures ideology, and a guage of the corruption in US intellectual culture.
It is hard for authentic intellectuals to take your rant's against the Venezuelan 'Dictatorship' seriously Ed when you condone oppressive polcies of your very own government, the US. A nation whose international criminality is unparalled in today's world order.
If you were my student I would have to give you a 'd' because of the gaping holes in your reasoning, your willingness to play fast-and-loose with facts, and your use of terms that are loaded with propaganda value.
One last question, Edgar: how do you know who the entity "OW" is on the blog called Oil Wars?
Where is your evidence that this anonymous host is "Dan Burnett"?
Is this question too though for a keen intellect such as yours?
I suspect that you have no evidence, that in your intellectual corruption you merely spew the vapid 'heresay' that you read on the blogs of your intellectually unscrupulous allies on other psuedo-intellectual blogs.
There is a huge difference between being an honest intellectual and being a dishonest, two-bit political hack.
From the quality of most of your work here I am inclined to put you in the latter catagory.
Again, my resquest is that you show evidence that the host of Oil Wars is Dan Burnett.
Besides the point that the legal name of the person (OW, who writes such compelling commentary on Venezuela) is totally irrelevent as per the quality of the arguments made on the Oil Wars blog, the fact that on this pro-Bolivarian blog there exists no forms of censorship makes your efforts to smoother dissenting views look rather pathetic and comical.
I am usually not one to comment in blogs, I am way, way too busy with school work for that. But your censorship of this 'Slave Revolt' character is totally against all that I have stood for as a public intellectual in my sphere of expertise .
Steve Hunt (aka Anon in the Orlando Florida greater area), you have been banned due to multiple violations of my rules (which you keep violating BTW). I put those rules in place for a reason, and it is precisely because I am interested in the Venezuelan situation, NOT in YOUR personal agenda against Bush and the U.S.
Did you take the time to read them?, because your lack of ability to read is also notorious (as it is now shown by not even bothering to follow the Dan Burnett link I posted before criticizing me about linking him to OW). Well to make it easier for you, here are your violations:
Rule 1: Being civil. Pissing contests are out (your intent to 'win' a debate keeps showing it), ad-hominem attacks (against Brook, Mike, and now myself and my blog) are out, Personality shedding are now out (which you have done again).
Rule 2: Staying on topic. You drifted this topic into oblivion. Your _multiple_ comments are much longer than anything I posted. You keep talking about Bush and the war in Iraq when it's clearly off-topic (which is _explicitily_ mentioned in my rules).
Rule 3: Being brief. Need I comment on this?, or should I just add post counts?, because you are also explaining concepts that I am tired of knowing and sadly see that you yourself don't seem to understand.
Wear the badge of being THE ONLY ONE banned from my blog with honor, and go ahead and put up your own blog.
If you keep posting in my blog, under any personality, keep in mind that you live in the U.S. and I live in the U.S. and I will consider any further posting spamming, stalking, or in some cases libel on your part. And will start labeling your messages as such (which will delete them as a side-effect).
You have been warned
So, though I would normally consider it a waste of my time, serving you with a 'stay away from my blog' warrant and even a 'pay me lots of money for your abuse' warrant would at the very least make for a good couple of posts in my blog. And this will teach you that in any democracy there are rules on what is allowed and what is not under the 'freedom of speech' label. One thing is to strongly voice your views, another one is to abuse anyone's rights when doing so.
Slave needs a job, doesn't he. Radical politics is definitely a leisure time pursuit.
Some of us have more important things to do. I just returned from the Gulf Coast where I can report a massive relief effort going on. I couldn't believe the generosity of the American people, and neither could some of the victims. There are people from all over the country volunteering to help out. Slave can pontificate all he wants, this is the greatest country in the world, and no one will convince me otherwise.
Edgar, what's the term limit for Venezuela Prez spelled out in their Constitution. Or is there a term limit?
Brook,
I don't believe in 'greatest' I just see 'different' and it will always depend on what set of measures you prefer to use. Now if it is about generosity, yeah, America is at the top of the list, no one can deny that.
On the previous constitution it was 5 years (that was almost 2 years ago) with reelection possible after 10 years out of the presidency. On the new constitution (the one that Chávez got through) it is 7 years with immediate reelection, and now they are talking about amending that to be 'forever.'
Now, why is the next election in his 8th year of presidency instead of his 7th?, did I mention that the supreme court (they don't deserve capitalization) is all his?.
Hey Brook
Slave already has a job, isn't it obvious?
For the record another comment from Steve Hunt was placed here (under his new alias ramirez1). But as I have reported it as spam it has been deleted.
Hunt, since you know the answer to your own question, and you think that it's a clever way to disrupt this comment section, go and read this article, and the discussion that ensued. I hope that's not too much work for you.
amieres,
I normally avoid attributing to malice what can be perfectly explained by stupidity, but in Steve Hunt's case (and based on the opinion that ALL Venezuelan bloggers have regarding him) I can think of only three alternatives at this point:
1) He does have a job, and he is doing it in this blog (as you suggest).
2) He has a mental problem that compels him to bother the rest of the world.
3) Both 1 and 2
I didn't think of #3.
I guess that's what is called: making the best out of a the worst.
Commenting by HaloScan
