Venezuela and Chavez: Another Perspective

[The Sexorcist]

Okay, so this is a little lengthy. But it's an interesting take on the Chavez revolution, the politics, the reelection and his legacy so far.

This was in the latest ISR ( International Socialist Review )

[The Sexorcist]

Uh, scroll down to the heading "After the landslide;
Chávez and the future of Venezuela"

Please.

[deedee]

Quote by: The Sexorcist Okay, so this is a little lengthy. But it's an interesting take on the Chavez revolution, the politics, the reelection and his legacy so far. This was in the latest ISR ( International Socialist Review )

Revolution?

I think not.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Mass Venezuela opposition rally

He is not a true revolutionist...he constantly violates freedom of speech of his own people.

Here are a number of articles with regard to "non-revolutionist" Chavez at the below link:

Human Rights Watch: Americas : Venezuela

[The Sexorcist]

Did you read the article?

[grandpa]

Quote by: deedee he constantly violates freedom of speech of his own people.

An example would be nice. I'm aware that Venezuela has child obscenity laws, but I haven't yet heard a single case of journalists being threatened or arrested.

I am personally for free speech, but I haven't seen evidencethat Chavez is any worse than Bush in this regard.

The US itself has had plenty of laws against defaming or threatening Presidents.

Grandpa h.

[The_Genius]

There are only two leaders who has my admiration...

Hugo Chavez... and ofcourse Mahmood Ahamdinejad.

[G. Adams]

I did sympathise with Chavez for a long time. No longer. When I here rhetoric like "Socialism - Or Death?" I hear a bloodbath coming. When BBC News 24 tells announces only days later that the Venezualen Parliament has given Chavez the right to rule by decree I see a dictator. When I hear how he wants to end term limits I see a man who wants to become Caeser.

However, the Venezualan people have chosen this themselves. If this turns into true tyranny, I hope they remember it is they who did this. By demanding that the government pick the pockets of others on their behalf, they have created the biggest criminal their land can hold.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: grandpa An example would be nice. I'm aware that Venezuela has child obscenity laws, but I haven't yet heard a single case of journalists being threatened or arrested. I am personally for free speech, but I haven't seen evidencethat Chavez is any worse than Bush in this regard. The US itself has had plenty of laws against defaming or threatening Presidents. Grandpa h.

Just because he is as bad as Bush doesn't make him good, or even tolerable. Bush is an enemy of free speech.

[the last man]

Is there someone who knows what does mean exactly "to rule by decree"

Does it mean Shavez will sign and ratify laws by himself or what?

[G. Adams]

Quote by: the last man Is there someone who knows what does mean exactly "to rule by decree" Does it mean Shavez will sign and ratify laws by himself or what?

It means he can write, sign and ratify the laws. Chavez will decree, or state if you will, that something is illegal. Once it's in writing, that's law.

I hope everyone with a shred of intelligence flees venezuala. And if they have property that is under threat of nationalisation, destroy it. Burn it to the ground. Don't let the bastards steal all your efforts.

[the last man]

I understand now,thanks.

How could the people allow that?
it is a dangerous step toward totalitarianism

[grandpa]

Quote by: the last man I understand now,thanks. How could the people allow that? it is a dangerous step toward totalitarianism

If this is all true, keep in mind that Bush has been "out-Chavez-ing" Chavez.

On January 19, 2007, MSNBC indicated "The Pentagon has drafted a manual for upcoming detainee trials that would allow suspected terrorists to be convicted on hearsay evidence and coerced testimony and imprisoned or put to death."
Manual to allow executions based on hearsay - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com

I feel bad for anyone who strongly supports Chavez.

Grandpa h.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: G. Adams It means he can write, sign and ratify the laws. Chavez will decree, or state if you will, that something is illegal. Once it's in writing, that's law.

Sorta like signing statements, you mean??

"By the end of 2004, George W. Bush had issued over 108 signing statements containing more than 505 constitutional challenges. As of October 4, 2006, he had signed 134 signing statements challenging 810 federal laws. " Signing statement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only difference between bush and chavez is that chavez isn't trying to hide what he's doing.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Zeebadee Sorta like signing statements, you mean?? "By the end of 2004, George W. Bush had issued over 108 signing statements containing more than 505 constitutional challenges. As of October 4, 2006, he had signed 134 signing statements challenging 810 federal laws. " Signing statement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The only difference between bush and chavez is that chavez isn't trying to hide what he's doing.

Does the fact that Bush is doing it mean that it's okay for Chavez to do it? I don't think I have ever defended Bush, except perhaps to say he's an idiot puppet, so why are we bringing Bush into this?

This is not a defence of Bush either, but I don't think Bush intends to nationalise industries, not yet anyway. By nationalising industries he is letting other people make the investments, and then robbing them of their effort and money. This is why I say anyone with property should burn it all to the ground on their way out the door.

Edit: Oh, and Chavez is also closing down stations that disagree with him.

[Osborn F Enready]

G. Adams has fully covered my opinion in this thread so far, and leaves me with little to add as of now.

Well said sir.

[The Dunedan]

I must agree. Any Venezuelan expats who make it to Prague should look me up for a drink. That place is getting ready to turn UGLY. A favorite columnist of mine recently made an interesting arguement; that Chavez's recent purchases of flashy modern aircraft and large quantities of small arms (with little in between) were intended not to fight the US, but to fight a civil war and repressive campeign of "reconstruction" afterwards. It makes a very scary kind of sense.

[the last man]

Quote by: grandpa If this is all true, keep in mind that Bush has been "out-Chavez-ing" Chavez. On January 19, 2007, MSNBC indicated "The Pentagon has drafted a manual for upcoming detainee trials that would allow suspected terrorists to be convicted on hearsay evidence and coerced testimony and imprisoned or put to death." Manual to allow executions based on hearsay - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com I feel bad for anyone who strongly supports Chavez. Grandpa h.

I m really astonished

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: the last man Is there someone who knows what does mean exactly "to rule by decree" Does it mean Shavez will sign and ratify laws by himself or what?

Actually, what it means is that it makes the process of nationalising buisness easier. Chavez did the exact same thing back in 2000 and Venezuela did not transform into the dictatorship of the like that G.Adams fears will arise. In fact it would appear that Chavez's time in office after the first three years (including the period of the first enabling act) did nothing but vastly improve the lives of the general populous. From Wikipedia: -

"By the end of the first three years of his presidency, Chávez had successfully initiated a land transfer program and had introduced several reforms aimed at improving the social welfare of the population. These reforms entailed the lowering of infant mortality rates; the implementation of a free, government-funded healthcare system; and free education up to the university level. By December of 2001, inflation fell to 12.3% the lowest since 1986,[39] while economic growth was steady at four percent.[40]Chávez's administration also reported an increase in primary school enrollment by one million students.[40]"

While I am under no illusions that Chavez is not going down a dangerous road, especially when it comes to closing down the voice of disagreement in the form of the radio station, I still think that he is being somewhat unfairly demonised.

I think a more important issue is that the US helped and funded the coup of a democratically elected president.

[the last man]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Actually, what it means is that it makes the process of nationalising buisness easier. Chavez did the exact same thing back in 2000 and Venezuela did not transform into the dictatorship of the like that G.Adams fears will arise. In fact it would appear that Chavez's time in office after the first three years (including the period of the first enabling act) did nothing but vastly improve the lives of the general populous. From Wikipedia: - "By the end of the first three years of his presidency, Chávez had successfully initiated a land transfer program and had introduced several reforms aimed at improving the social welfare of the population. These reforms entailed the lowering of infant mortality rates; the implementation of a free, government-funded healthcare system; and free education up to the university level. By December of 2001, inflation fell to 12.3% the lowest since 1986,[39] while economic growth was steady at four percent.[40]Chávez's administration also reported an increase in primary school enrollment by one million students.[40]" While I am under no illusions that Chavez is not going down a dangerous road, especially when it comes to closing down the voice of disagreement in the form of the radio station, I still think that he is being somewhat unfairly demonised. I think a more important issue is that the US helped and funded the coup of a democratically elected president.

until no,no one can really prove that Shavez did any concrete harm ,he only intervened in the favor of the poor .His social reforms are a real revolution.However his political reforms seems dangerous.

[Nono]

As the Israelis would say, consider the neighbourhood. You can't judge Chavez by Scandinavian standards. He's a Macho/Latino military officer with a big mouth. He's also (clearly) dedicated to using his country's oil wealth to lift Venezuela's huge underclass out of poverty. (Do you see that happening to the west or east of Venezuela? No you don't.).

As for free speech, this is Latin America we're talking about. But if he is bent on totalitarianism, he'll need a lot of luck since the country's media is largely in the hands of his political opponents LOL. That is the reality.

As for deedee, I think she's one of those well-heeled Latinos who are repelled by the idea of a dark little man like Chavez (or Evo Morales) rising above their station in life. Because, you see, much of what fuels the Venezuelan and Bolivian leaders' causes is the disinherited majority of the population that are sick of being ruled by a corrupt elite of Europeans (who, by the way, have never been known for promoting free speech -- quite the opposite, see Pinochet, Stroessner, etc. etc.).