Hugo chavez is dead

[Ben]

Noam Chomsky - Difference between Democratic and Totalitarian Societies

[Stavros]

The link below is to a book which offers a different perspective on the record of Chavez in power in Venezuela; by two academics who would not be welcome in the drawing rooms of Noam Chomsky or (in the UK) Tariq Ali (who wrote a greasy, tearful artice on Chavez in The Guardian a day or so ago).

The authors argue that Chavez presided over a Hybrid form of democracy which uses both democracy and autocracy to impose its will on the state -numerous elections validate the government which then fails to engage in any meaningful debate with the people, which has introduced the military into many areas of the economy that have nothing to do with national security; that has failed to implement economic reforms to encourage the growth of the non-oil economy, that uses oil revenues politically, and which thus produce the paradox of a regime that appears to be using its democratic mandate to 'help the poor' but which on investigation uses short-term measures to disguise its strengthening of the state and the military. Chavez came from the military, and they have done best out of his years in power.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=e...chavez&f=false

[Human-After-All]

The link below is to a book which offers a different perspective on the record of Chavez in power in Venezuela; by two academics who would not be welcome in the drawing rooms of Noam Chomsky or (in the UK) Tariq Ali (who wrote a greasy, tearful artice on Chavez in The Guardian a day or so ago).

I haven't read the book but all of those exact same criticisms could be levelled at US Democracy, the military-industrial complex, the lack of effective representation, the lack of any significant political divide (forget the media depiction of left and right, in terms of political science, both parties are centre-right) which means that elections are a mere formality, etc.

[Stavros]

If you can't tell the difference between the USA and Venezuela, between a federated structure which separates powers between the Presidency, the Judiciary and the Legislature, a state that doesn't own its energy industries and is not almost entirely dependent on oil; and one that plays politics with its single resource and has failed to promote the diversity of economic behaviour the state desperately needs, then what hope is there for even a balanced view of Chavez's record?

[broncofan]

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2013...elan-president

I followed the last election in October and was disappointed that Radonski was constantly referred to by the free press..ahem I'm sorry I mean the state run media in Venezuela as representing the Jewish-Zionist bourgeoisie. It's very much in the spirit of democracy to have a state run media organ slander your rival for his Jewish roots by claiming he's a fifth columnist.

I'm not saying Chavez did not do anything useful for his people, but for those who want to portray him as a saint, I'm not drinking the koolaid. The state media in Venezuela did this on numerous occasions under Chavez' regime. Chavez also had ongoing surveillance of synagogues to ward off the influence of zionism, and when acts of vandalism took place against a synagogue it was later found out the police were involved. That's more than a national security excess to have plain clothes police forces covertly intimidate a minority.

We've had many discussions in here about the supposed redundancy of our political parties in the United States and in every iteration the differences in the positions taken between our two major political parties have been discussed. The Democrats supported PPACA, while the Republicans wanted a health care system with a gutted version of Medicare and vouchers. What would qualify as choice? A third party that supports a nationalized system of witch doctors?

[yodajazz]

Seems to me, any nation that nationalizes assets, is viewed as an enemy of the US. For example the coup in Iran in the early 50's was supported by Britain and the US, partially out of fear that the new democratic government would nationalized it's oil production. Here is the link to an article which give a very favorable view of the progress under his leadership.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/03/th...will-continue/

[notdrunk]

Seems to me, any nation that nationalizes assets, is viewed as an enemy of the US. For example the coup in Iran in the early 50's was supported by Britain and the US, partially out of fear that the new democratic government would nationalized it's oil production. Here is the link to an article which give a very favorable view of the progress under his leadership.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/03/th...will-continue/

I am calling . During World War 1, the United States government temporary nationalized the railroad system in the United States. The British, an United States ally, has nationalized businesses (e.g., Rolls-Royce and British Steel). Interestingly, the British government owned majority of the shares in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.

[hippifried]

Ah here we go again. Chavez did NOT nationalize Venezuela's oil. It was already nationalized. I don't believe any of Venezuela's petroleum reserves were in private hands during Hugo Chavez's lifetime or before. Any more gripes about the horrible atrocities that must've been committed because Chavez was reading the "wrong" books & quoting the "wrong" authors?

[broncofan]

http://www.policymic.com/articles/29...s-of-venezuela

Here's an article about Chavez' anti-semitism. To echo what someone said in another thread, don't they deserve to be treated as human beings and equal citizens? The Chavez years were not very fruitful for this part of Venezuelan society.

There were no atrocities, just harassment, demonization, state sponsored vandalism and large-scale immigration.

Chavez was also a 9/11 truther. Some may say this is his viewpoint and he's entitled to it (well he is/was); however I think it's a despicable viewpoint for a head of state. There are some views, including those where an individual denies atrocities for which the evidence overwhelmingly supports, that act as a smokescreen for a most distilled hatred. Again, if Chavez was good for his country's economy, that's great but it doesn't change his civil rights record.

I also don't see Holocaust denial as trivial. Is someone a Holocaust denier because they associate with a Holocaust denier? Well no, but if they frequently invite a man to their country and have their closest diplomatic relations with a head of state who held a Holocaust revisionist conference, it makes one question their moral authority. He uttered not one word of rebuke to Ahmadinejad for the hatred he incited. Even Fidel Castro, a staunch enemy of Israel was able to demonstrate the difference between hatred of Israel and hatred of Jews. He spoke out in disagreement with the actions of the former, but in defense of the latter with his rebuke of both Chavez and Ahmadinejad.

I think some believe that Chavez' intemperate, cranky, and often patently unfair criticism of the U.S makes him a hero of the left. Some of his criticism was bound to hit the mark, but there are many U.S citizens who fairly criticize their government and aren't turned into heroes for it. To criticize one's government is a patriotic duty. It's not somehow made better through excess or by making it irrational (9/11 truth).

[broncofan]

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/am....human.rights/

"The 319-page report by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights says a lack of independence by Venezuela's judiciary and legislature in their dealings with leftist President Hugo Chavez often leads to the abuses."

I'm more interested in the centralization of power in Venezuela, the constitutional changes to eliminate term limits, the disadvantages of politicians running against the incumbent given state ownership of media, and the threat to those who challenged the power of the Chavez regime than I am in economic outcomes. The arguments that Chavez improved the economy and quality of life of Venezuelans and that he weakened democracy and achieved status as a quasi-dictator are not mutually exclusive.