Death of Hugo Chavez

Gael23

What if any political changes will follow the passing of Hugo Chavez?

biko

Source?

TheChizler

Irish times has it

southsiderosie

ryanf1 wrote: »

What if any political changes will follow the passing of Hugo Chavez?

The post-Chavez transition would be a lot easier if there had not been so much confusion and subterfuge surrounding his illness and disappearance over the last several months.\

EDIT: NY TImes link - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/world/americas/hugo-chavez-of-venezuela-dies.html?hp

A Dub in Glasgo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21679053

Cork boy 55

ryanf1 wrote: »

What if any political changes will follow the passing of Hugo Chavez?

Hopefully the new regime in Venezuela will see sense and comply with UN sanctions on Syria and stop shipping fuel to the Fascist mass murdering government there As Chavez did.
Chavez illegal fuel supplies sustained the Evil war there that took 75,000+ lives
That's his main legacy, fueling Assads war machine.

Caracas, Venezuela (CNN) -- While many world leaders have condemned Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the embattled leader has found an ally in Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
The South American country's state-run oil company has sent large diesel shipments to Syria, despite international sanctions.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/10/world/americas/venezuela-syria-ties

A Dub in Glasgo

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

That's his main legacy, fueling Assads war machine.

Certainly is a legacy, no chance is that his main one though

GRMA

Hopefully his successor will keep up the good work he has done for the Venezuelan poor. The pro American imperialist supporters across the world and indeed on this forum must be delighted.

Wildlife Actor

Whatever he really is/was, you've got to look behind both the positive and negative press he gets worldwide to see what interests those press organisations are promoting. It seems difficult to find a media outlet that doesn't either love him or loath him. Know him by his deeds.

southsiderosie

I said this in AH, and I think it holds here:

southsiderosie wrote: »

It is true that poverty was reduced under Chavez. But the violent crime rate skyrocketed during his regime - and unlike wealthy people who can pay for personal security, high crime rates disproportionately impact poor and working class people.

In addition, due to price-fiddling, Chavez destroyed a lot of small businesses - he wanted to keep inflation down while spending like crazy, so he implemented price controls that only served to further distort prices...and again, disproportionately impact poor and working-class people.

Finally, Chavez was not a leader who was overly fond of democracy - for example, he used state-controlled media to bombard the population with his speeches and shut down stations that refused to carry them. That said, he benefitted from the fact that the opposition was fractured, and Venezuelan economic elites are some of the most venal, corrupt people in Latin America, and that's saying a lot.

I think there are too many people who reflexively applaud political leaders who thumb their nose at the US despite the fact that these leaders are not exactly paragons of democracy themselves (Castro is a perfect example). But if we look around Latin America over the last decade, the country that has made the most progress in terms of reducing poverty and expanding the middle class is Brazil, not Venezuela - and the Brazilians under Lula's leadership were able to do this without partially dismantling key democratic institutions.

Ultimately, I'm no fan of Chavez - I think he took his country backwards in a lot of ways at a time when other South American countries were reducing poverty without destabilizing other sectors of the economy or the political infrastructure. I'm not here to dance on his grave, but I don't think that he warrants much of the praise I've seen on this thread either.

tylercheribini

he was a threat to dominant classes domestically and globally..of course they have infinitely more resources than the pro chavez side to demonize him in the media

southsiderosie

tylercheribini wrote: »

he was a threat to dominant classes domestically and globally..of course they have infinitely more resources than the pro chavez side to demonize him in the media

LOL - how was he a threat to 'dominant classes' internationally? Wealthy Venezuelans (and a fair number of middle-class professionals) just picked up and moved to Miami, and I don't think that financial elites are doing too poorly in the rest of the world.

KyussBishop

Venezuela/Chavez isn't a topic I've read up on much, but I don't think he was a threat to 'dominant classes' internationally; his nationalization of industry related to Venezuela's oil deposits though, mightily pissed off the US, and the country has a history of US hegemonic interference, notably the past coup attempt, and the US influencing the imposition of neoliberal economic policies (the 'Washington Consensus') by the IMF, which caused significant harm which disproportionately fell upon the poor.

His main threat to international and domestic 'dominant classes', was successfully cutting out their exploitation of the country and its resources.

southsiderosie

KyussBishop wrote: »

Venezuela/Chavez isn't a topic I've read up on much, but I don't think he was a threat to 'dominant classes' internationally; his nationalization of industry related to Venezuela's oil deposits though, mightily pissed off the US, and the country has a history of US hegemonic interference, notably the past coup attempt, and the US influencing the imposition of neoliberal economic policies (the 'Washington Consensus') by the IMF, which caused significant harm which disproportionately fell upon the poor.

His main threat to international and domestic 'dominant classes', was successfully cutting out their exploitation of the country and its resources.

Venezuela was primarily exploited by its domestic elite - the oil industry was nationalized in the 1970s.

KyussBishop

True, that nationalization happened much earlier, though the elite seems to have been heavily supported the US; Chavez seems to have mainly increased the states intake of royalties on oil sales from private companies in 2001, as well as scuppering previous plans to open up their oil industry to foreign investors (which seemed to have been progressing in the 90's), before further nationalization on 2007 (affecting some big-name US oil companies there).

I really don't know the history of it well, but it does seem to tie in closely with heavy US interference with the country, and particularly with their oil industry (they used to be the biggest foreign supplier of oil to the US, before Chavez).

southsiderosie

KyussBishop wrote: »

True, that nationalization happened much earlier, though the elite seems to have been heavily supported the US; Chavez seems to have mainly increased the states intake of royalties on oil sales from private companies in 2001, as well as scuppering previous plans to open up their oil industry to foreign investors (which seemed to have been progressing in the 90's), before further nationalization on 2007 (affecting some big-name US oil companies there).

I really don't know the history of it well, but it does seem to tie in closely with heavy US interference with the country, and particularly with their oil industry (they used to be the biggest foreign supplier of oil to the US, before Chavez).

Over half of Venezuela's exports still go to the US, but their production has slipped in recent years in part because 1) they have been siphoning too much money into populist (but unsustainable) programs, and not enough into investment, and 2) in part because they drove out several U.S. oil companies that had the capacity to drill for heavy crude (the Venezuelans don't). They have now brought Petrobras in to drill, as they still don't have the internal capacity (but the Brazilians are more palatable than the Americans!).

KyussBishop

Sure, a lot of the policies do look pretty mismanaged don't deny that at all (though don't know a lot about them), more noting the US hegemonic interference with the country (and would definitely agree, Brazil are a lot more preferable; Latin America seems to be gaining a lot more independence from the US now, which is good to see).

Just found this great article from Greg Palast, relating to exactly this; he does great writing on a lot of stuff, but particularly where it comes to the US oil industry (and the Koch's):
http://www.gregpalast.com/vaya-con-dios-hugo-chavez-mi-amigo/

Weathering

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Hopefully the new regime in Venezuela will see sense and comply with UN sanctions on Syria and stop shipping fuel to the Fascist mass murdering government there As Chavez did.
Chavez illegal fuel supplies sustained the Evil war there that took 75,000+ lives
That's his main legacy, fueling Assads war machine.



http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/10/world/americas/venezuela-syria-ties

I don't know if your claims are true in regards to helping the syrian government. However a lot of factions fighting against the government in Syrian are Islamist terrorists that are as bad if not worse than Asad.

Asad may be a tyrant killing for power but these terrorists would shoot and kill every westerner if they had the chance so I'd rather take my chances with him. Of course not all the people fighting against asad have these links and this is were it descends in to a troublesome situation.

If the terrorist factions were to outpower the normal section of the troops fighting against asad then syria would be a worse off place that it is now,more than likely with Sharia law

I think this is why western countries ruled out military intervention. It looked like it was possible for a while but as word of the terrorist factions got out it slowly subsided. All the western nations that helped to oust Gaddaffi have double standards,Syrians are in a far precarious state than the Libyans were yet they receive no military assistance. I think oil is really the reason

I wasn't for a second attacking what you said I just felt like replying to it

Eggy Baby!

Its quite clear (to me anyway) that he did huge amounts right, considering the massive amounts of adolation Venezuelans poured upon him. But its also obvious that he upset some very powerful people whilst doing so.

But then again, the Americans tend to dislike people who nationalise businesses.

And, a recounting of his achievements etc.: http://tinyurl.com/c56mcug

Finally, Chavez was not a leader who was overly fond of democracy

Aside from the transparency and fairness of the Venezuelan elections? Places such as Hungary have a large concentration of state-owned media but are generally regarded as democratic.

But the violent crime rate skyrocketed during his regime

Indeed. But the homicide rate fell. Then again, it is massively high, even by South American standards.

But just a query; surely the crime rate should have decreased somewhat if Chavez increased the condition of the poor?

Jonny7

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Its quite clear (to me anyway) that he did huge amounts right, considering the massive amounts of adolation Venezuelans poured upon him. But its also obvious that he upset some very powerful people whilst doing so.

Support for him was very polarised. Here is the other side from non-adoring Venezuelan (long text incoming)

Rest in peace, Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías. As a Venezuelan, I didn't agree with most of your policies and politics, but I do not rejoice in your death and I do respect the pain of your family and supporters.

In 1998, when you campaigned for the presidency -and promised to end corruption- despite my disappointment with the traditional parties, I did not support you because you had led a coup against president Carlos Andres Pérez. I didn't like Pérez, but he was elected by our people and attempting to overthrow him was proof that you did not respect the will of Venezuelans.

I didn't oppose 100% of what you did. I was grateful, for example, that you placed the issue of poverty on the table and you put the spotlight on millions of Venezuelans that until then had been excluded. I knew that the Cuban doctors in the slums were unprepared and unequipped, but I understood that they meant the world to the mother that knocks on their door at 3am. I was also happy of the way most Venezuelans started to care about politics again (some because they supported you; others because they opposed you). The anti-politic feeling we saw in the 90's was precisely what got you elected. And I also kept in mind that a majority of Venezuelans did support you, so you certainly had a right to be in office.

These are my 10 reasons why I will not miss you:

Your authoritarian manner (which reflected a flaw probably most Venezuelans have), and your inability to engage in an honest dialogue with anyone that opposed you. Even from your death bed, you had a Supreme Court justice fired because she didn't agree with your politics.

Your disrespect for the rule of law and your contribution to a climate of impunity in Venezuela. In 1999, you re-wrote the Constitution to fit your needs, and yet you violated it almost on a daily basis. With this example, it is no surprise that crime exploded in Venezuela. In 14 years, our homicide rate more than tripled from 22/100K to 74/100K. While judges were busy trying to prove their political allegiance to you, only 11% of homicides led to a conviction.

Your empty promises and the way you manipulated many Venezuelans to think you were really working for them. In 14 years you built less public housing than any president before you did in their 5 year periods. Hospitals today have no resources, and if you go there in emergency you must everything from medicines to surgical gloves and masks. The truth is that you were better at blowing your own trumpet than at getting things done.

The astounding level of corruption of your government. There was corruption before you got elected, but normally a government's scandals weren't made public until they handed power to the opposing party. Now we've heard about millions and millions of dollars vanishing in front of everybody's eyes, and your only reaction was to attack the media that revealed the corruption. The only politicians accused of corruption have been from parties that oppose you, and mostly on trumped up charges. For example, Leopoldo Lopez was never condemned by the courts but you still prevented him for running for office. His crime? Using money from the wrong budget allocation to pay for the salaries of teachers and firemen -because your government withheld the appropriate funds.

The opportunities you missed. When you took office, the price of oil was $9.30, and in 2008 it reached $126.33. There was so much good you could have done with that money! And yet you decided to throw it away on corruption and buying elections and weapons. If you had used these resources well, 10.7% of Venezuelans would not be in extreme poverty.

Your attacks on private property and entrepreneurship. You nationalized hundreds of private companies, and pushed hundreds more towards bankruptcy. Not because you were a communist or a socialist, but simply because you wanted no one left with any power to oppose you. If everyone was a public employee, you could force them to attend your political rallies, and the opposition would not get any funding.

Your hypocrisy on freedom and human rights. You shut down more than 30 radio and television stations for being critical of your government, you denied access to foreign currency for newspapers to buy printing paper (regular citizens can't access foreign currency unless you authorize it), you imprisoned people without trial for years, you imprisoned people for crimes of opinion, you fired tens of thousands of public employees for signing a petition for a recall referendum and you denied them access to public services and even ID cards and passports.

Your hypocrisy on the issue of Venezuela's sovereignty. You kicked out the Americans but then you pulled down your pants for the Cubans, Russians, Chinese and Iranians. We have Cuban officers giving orders in the Venezuelan army. Chinese oil companies work with a higher margin of profit than any Western companies did. And you made it clear that your alliances would be with governments that massacre their own people.

Your hypocrisy on the issue of violence. You said this was a peaceful revolution but you allowed illegal armed groups like Tupamaros, La Piedrita and FBLN to operate. You gave them weapons. You had the Russians set up a Kalashnikov plant in Venezuela. You were critical of American wars but yet you gave weapons to the Colombian guerrilla, whose only agenda is murder and drug-dealing.

Your hypocrisy on democracy. Your favorite insult for the opposition parties in Venezuela was "coupists", but you forgot you organized a coup in 1992, and the military that was loyal to you suggested they would support a coup in your favor if the opposition ever won the presidential elections. There was no democracy in your political party: you chose each of the candidates for the National Assembly and for city and state governments. When the opposition won the referendum that would have allowed you to change the Constitution in 2007, you disavowed the results and you figured out a way to change the articles and allow yourself to be reelected as many times as you wanted. You manipulated the elections in 2010 to make sure the opposition didn't get more than a third of seats in Parliament even though they got 51% of the popular vote. Your democracy was made of paper, you made sure there were no meaningful checks and balances and all institutions were your puppets.

tylercheribini

southsiderosie wrote: »

LOL - how was he a threat to 'dominant classes' internationally? Wealthy Venezuelans (and a fair number of middle-class professionals) just picked up and moved to Miami, and I don't think that financial elites are doing too poorly in the rest of the world.

if he wasnt a threat then why did he leave their home country?i didnt include every financial elite in the world in my statement if you read it carefully..ill rephrase it then for the pedantic's...certain dominant classes

V_Moth

tylercheribini wrote: »

if he wasnt a threat then why did he leave their home country?i didnt include every financial elite in the world in my statement if you read it carefully..ill rephrase it then for the pedantic's...certain dominant classes

The usual petulant move when they don't get their tax breaks and influence.

tylercheribini

V_Moth wrote: »

The usual petulant move when they don't get their tax breaks and influence.

true, exactly what i was saying in an earlier post

antoobrien

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Its quite clear (to me anyway) that he did huge amounts right, considering the massive amounts of adolation Venezuelans poured upon him.

Public adulation is hardly a good measure of how well a regime is doing, just look at North Korea. The population adore their leader but the places is a mess.

Eggy Baby!

antoobrien wrote: »

Public adulation is hardly a good measure of how well a regime is doing, just look at North Korea. The population adore their leader but the places is a mess.

North Korea is a special case. Its like saying I was wrong because Russians loved Stalin when he was in power even though it was terrible. Venezuela is a democracy. The opposition sucked and provided no challenge to Chavez. Chavez is extremely popular to an extent because he was so prominent and had good PR throughout the attempted coup in 2002. People don't forget a leader like that.

Support for him was very polarised. Here is the other side from non-adoring Venezuelan (long text incoming) TEXT OMITTED FOR SAKE OF SANITY

Stating that support for him was polarised then quoting the opinion of a single individual doesn't really back up your statement.

Although he was polarising, its clear that he had the majority support in Venezuela, which is what really matters, right?

hatrickpatrick

One thing that concerns me is the loss of an outspoken world leader who, unusually, actually had balls in the face of Western imperialism - will whoever replaces him be capable of the same charisma and determination?

Fr Tod Umptious

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

One thing that concerns me is the loss of an outspoken world leader who, unusually, actually had balls in the face of Western imperialism - will whoever replaces him be capable of the same charisma and determination?

Ah don't worry

Mugabe is still alive

crockholm

Was he not once accused of arming the FARC?

southsiderosie

V_Moth wrote: »

The usual petulant move when they don't get their tax breaks and influence.

A huge percentage of Venezeulans who moved after Chavez weren't the mega-rich, they were middle class professionals. The mega-rich already had their condos in Miami before Chavez became president.


Chavez reduced poverty by crippling the state oil system and the country's transportation infrastructure. He thumbed his nose at the US publicly, but still sold them over half of his country's oil. He presided over a shocking increase in violent crime, even as crime fell through much of the rest of Latin America. Double-digit inflation is eating into the pockets of the poor and working class, and his health programs were only possible because he was able to import doctors from Cuba, a nation that keeps its medical professionals captives in their own country.

If not for the fact that Chavez regularly thumbed his nose at Bush, we would not even be having this conversation. Lula deserves far more credit for his administration's accomplishments over the last decade than Hugo Chavez, who was hopefully one of the last populist strongmen we will see in power in Latin America.

tylercheribini

southsiderosie wrote: »

A huge percentage of Venezeulans who moved after Chavez weren't the mega-rich, they were middle class professionals. The mega-rich already had their condos in Miami before Chavez became president.


Chavez reduced poverty by crippling the state oil system and the country's transportation infrastructure. He thumbed his nose at the US publicly, but still sold them over half of his country's oil. He presided over a shocking increase in violent crime, even as crime fell through much of the rest of Latin America. Double-digit inflation is eating into the pockets of the poor and working class, and his health programs were only possible because he was able to import doctors from Cuba, a nation that keeps its medical professionals captives in their own country.

If not for the fact that Chavez regularly thumbed his nose at Bush, we would not even be having this conversation. Lula deserves far more credit for his administration's accomplishments over the last decade than Hugo Chavez, who was hopefully one of the last populist strongmen we will see in power in Latin America.

wow,you seem to know alot more about chavez than anyone else on this thread. I take it you have travelled Venezuela extensively? or are you just cherry picking "facts" and "statistics" to reinforce your own pre conceived / purposely against the grain ideals?:)

Fr Tod Umptious

tylercheribini wrote: »

wow,you seem to know alot more about chavez than anyone else on this thread. I take it you have travelled Venezuela extensively? or are you just cherry picking "facts" and "statistics" to reinforce your own pre conceived / purposely against the grain ideals?:)

The poster may be cherry picking all right, but how about a bit more detail from your side instead of two line posts ?

golfball37

southsiderosie wrote: »

A huge percentage of Venezeulans who moved after Chavez weren't the mega-rich, they were middle class professionals. The mega-rich already had their condos in Miami before Chavez became president.


Chavez reduced poverty by crippling the state oil system and the country's transportation infrastructure. He thumbed his nose at the US publicly, but still sold them over half of his country's oil. He presided over a shocking increase in violent crime, even as crime fell through much of the rest of Latin America. Double-digit inflation is eating into the pockets of the poor and working class, and his health programs were only possible because he was able to import doctors from Cuba, a nation that keeps its medical professionals captives in their own country.

If not for the fact that Chavez regularly thumbed his nose at Bush, we would not even be having this conversation. Lula deserves far more credit for his administration's accomplishments over the last decade than Hugo Chavez, who was hopefully one of the last populist strongmen we will see in power in Latin America.

He sold them Oil at a much higher levy than they were previously liable for. Saying he continued to sell them Oil is misleading in that sense. He charged them a fair price and nearly lost his life for it.

For the record the recoup for the Oil companies pre Chavez was 84% of Revenues. he lowered it to 70%.

tylercheribini

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The poster may be cherry picking all right, but how about a bit more detail from your side instead of two line posts ?

true,ill admit my opinion of chavez is based on fox news absolute and unreserved hatred of the man, various american adminstrations/western media constantly demonising him as a despot and ruthless dictator, the oliver stone doc "south of the border" and members of the venezuelan community i have met and know in dublin- wealthy/privileged background members despising chavez(the majority as not many poor people can afford to travel to ireland under any circumstances). I never claim to know the indept/detailed analysis as other posters claim on this forum but i think i know enough to from a balanced opinion for myself

GRMA

When Chavez came to power he brought in full freedom of the press which was then abused in the most heinous ways by the rich elite who owned them in the attempted coup - this couldnt be allowed to happen again

Iwasfrozen

GRMA wrote: »

When Chavez came to power he brought in full freedom of the press which was then abused in the most heinous ways by the rich elite who owned them in the attempted coup - this couldn't be allowed to happen again

You're right, state censorship of the press is the only way! :cool: After all we all know the various rich elites have a single consciousness and a single goal. Not to mention people are totally susceptible to what they read i the papers an unable to think for themselves.

Chuck Stone

KyussBishop wrote: »

I don't think he was a threat to 'dominant classes' internationally

It's the idea that's a threat - the danger of a good example - it must fail or at least be made to seem to fail. I think this notion is well encapsulated by what Inter-American Affairs Bureau officer Charles R. Burrows, of the U.S. State Department said about Guatemala in the early 1950's:

Guatemala has become an increasing threat to the stability of Honduras and El Salvador. Its agrarian reform is a powerful propaganda weapon; its broad social program, of aiding the workers and peasants in a victorious struggle against the upper classes and large foreign enterprises, has a strong appeal to the populations of Central American neighbors, where similar conditions prevail.

Shattered Hope: the Guatemalan Revolution and the United States, 1944–1954 (1992) p. 365.

Happyman42

Venezuela is similar to all other countries in the world after ridding itself of colonizers or those who set up elites to rape and pilage their own country, it was always going to take time for the situation to reform itself, look at South Africa, Ireland etc. It takes years to give democracy back to the people, it rarely happens overnight.
Of course there is corruption, but then all countries have corruption to some degree. Of course mistakes have been made, but you have to ask yourself are they honest mistakes, was the original intention for the good of the people?
Chavez was and remained, a man of the people, was elected by and is being mourned by the majority of the people. I am always deeply suspicious of those who refer to that as being 'populist'.

GRMA

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're right, state censorship of the press is the only way! :cool: After all we all know the various rich elites have a single consciousness and a single goal. Not to mention people are totally susceptible to what they read i the papers an unable to think for themselves.

Should media be allowed to doctor images, misrepresent and blatantly lie about things that happen in order to overthrow a democratically elected government in a violent coup?

If Dennis O'Brien came out and started doing that do you think he should be allowed to keep control over his media empire?

Iwasfrozen

GRMA wrote: »

Should media be allowed to doctor images, misrepresent and blatantly lie about things that happen in order to overthrow a democratically elected government in a violent coup?

If Dennis O'Brien came out and started doing that do you think he should be allowed to keep control over his media empire?

Yes because that's the beauty of press freedom if one company tries that another will report the truth. In a country with total freedom of press anyone can print a newspaper the distribute it. It's up to people themselves to choose what they want to believe.

KyussBishop

southsiderosie wrote: »

If not for the fact that Chavez regularly thumbed his nose at Bush, we would not even be having this conversation. Lula deserves far more credit for his administration's accomplishments over the last decade than Hugo Chavez, who was hopefully one of the last populist strongmen we will see in power in Latin America.

The US helped plan, back, and support a coup against him though? Judging by that, I don't think it would make a difference, whether or not he thumbed his nose at Bush, and well, they can't be expected to have favourable relations with a country that tried to help overthrow their democratically elected government.

I don't disagree with many of the criticisms of Venezuela, but while you mentioned (I think) left-leaning people often being supportive of Chavez, without recognizing his faults (which I wouldn't fall under myself), there is a hint of the same type of problem here, but with the US, in not properly acknowledging US belligerence.

KyussBishop

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's the idea that's a threat - the danger of a good example - it must fail or at least be made to seem to fail. I think this notion is well encapsulated by what Inter-American Affairs Bureau officer Charles R. Burrows, of the U.S. State Department said about Guatemala in the early 1950's:

That's a good point alright, true enough; think that was touched on in as well, in Oliver Stones "Untold History of the United States" documentary, which was quite good (will check out that other documentary of his mentioned above as well).

GRMA

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes because that's the beauty of press freedom if one company tries that another will report the truth. In a country with total freedom of press anyone can print a newspaper the distribute it. It's up to people themselves to choose what they want to believe.

You actually think that's ok?

Not necessarily, if the media is controlled by a handful of oligarchs who have a common agenda. And even if say, one or two media outlets report the "truth" it still means the rest are blatantly lying and its owners abusing their power, and that is not acceptable.

Its an abuse of the media, it should not be owned by a wealthy few. As for "censorship" that happens in Ireland, the media are self censoring, clear evidence of this is the charter Dennis the menace is trying to get independent newspapers to sign up to in order to exert control over the journalists and stop them from writing about him or his business interests.

And "anyone" can't print a newspaper, or set up a radio or TV station, or even a website, the costs involved are prohibitive and only a very small and wealthy segment of society can afford to do that.

Brian Shanahan

Weathering wrote: »

I don't know if your claims are true in regards to helping the syrian government. However a lot of factions fighting against the government in Syrian are Islamist terrorists that are as bad if not worse than Asad.

Hell, one of the groups that the US are funding in Syria, both directly and through their proxies Israel and Saudi Arabia, is Al-Qaeda.

Shows you how little principle the whole "war on terror" is based upon.

southsiderosie

tylercheribini wrote: »

wow,you seem to know alot more about chavez than anyone else on this thread. I take it you have travelled Venezuela extensively? or are you just cherry picking "facts" and "statistics" to reinforce your own pre conceived / purposely against the grain ideals?:)

I've lived and worked in Latin America, and have studied the region's politics extensively. My views on the region were shaped largely by my living and working with left-wing activists in Central America who suffered terribly in the 1980s. So while I understand why there is so much resentment against the US government in the region as a whole, I have also seen how, over the last ten years, that resentment combined with unsustainable populist polices have allowed nuevo caudillos to erode democratic institutions in order to personally consolidate power.

KyussBishop wrote: »

The US helped plan, back, and support a coup against him though? Judging by that, I don't think it would make a difference, whether or not he thumbed his nose at Bush, and well, they can't be expected to have favourable relations with a country that tried to help overthrow their democratically elected government.

What does this have to do with him eroding freedoms for his own citizens?

KyussBishop wrote: »

I don't disagree with many of the criticisms of Venezuela, but while you mentioned (I think) left-leaning people often being supportive of Chavez, without recognizing his faults (which I wouldn't fall under myself), there is a hint of the same type of problem here, but with the US, in not properly acknowledging US belligerence.

Again, what does that have to do with him eroding freedoms for Venezuelans and his interference with the domestic economy? The US is not the root of all of Venezuela's problems. The Bush administration's public backing of those who plotted the coup was disgraceful, and the US government's interference in Latin America in general has been a mess for over a century. But the big story in the region for most of the last ten years has not been US interference, but rather US indifference, especially in the wake of 9/11. I am not saying that this is a bad thing, but times have changed, and I think that there are a lot of Chavez apologists who don't recognize this.

Again, Chile and Brazil both control their respective major extractive industries (copper and oil/gas), and have managed to both invest in expanding research and production and invest in the population. Both managed to do this under left-wing governments without the CIA getting involved - and given Chile's history in that regard, this is a clear signal of a more fundamental shift in the US's relation with the Latin American left. It also signals a broader shift in the region away from traditional left-wing populism towards a more social democratic approach. And, funnily enough, the countries that have managed this transition over the last two decades have much stronger economies and democratic institutions today than the ones who have not.

Brian Shanahan

crockholm wrote: »

Was he not once accused of arming the FARC?

Probably because he never did.

Oh, and to all of ye accusing Venezuela under Chavez of being undemocratic, how can you say that, when all the elections under him were carried out fairly and to the highest standards and were independantly monitored and verified, yet still believe the US is a democracy despite it's president of eight years rigging the votes in his two elections (ok Shrub's party did the rigging) so that he would enjoy an unfair advantage in both, and the massive and obvious gerrymandering that goes on in every state for congressional and senatorial elections?

Iwasfrozen

GRMA wrote: »

You actually think that's ok?

Not necessarily, if the media is controlled by a handful of oligarchs who have a common agenda. And even if say, one or two media outlets report the "truth" it still means the rest are blatantly lying and its owners abusing their power, and that is not acceptable.

Its an abuse of the media, it should not be owned by a wealthy few. As for "censorship" that happens in Ireland, the media are self censoring, clear evidence of this is the charter Dennis the menace is trying to get independent newspapers to sign up to in order to exert control over the journalists and stop them from writing about him or his business interests.

And "anyone" can't print a newspaper, or set up a radio or TV station, or even a website, the costs involved are prohibitive and only a very small and wealthy segment of society can afford to do that.

Well aren't you a paranoid Pete, these "oligarchs" as you call them do not have a single conscience. All businesses newspapers included work to maximise their own profit and they do that by giving their readers what the want to read. That's why you have left and right wing leaning papers even in Ireland. Trying to impose an ideology on people opposed to that ideology would turn them off the paper which is bad for business and against the wishes of the newspaper. And there you have it. The self regulating free market strikes again.

southsiderosie

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's the idea that's a threat - the danger of a good example - it must fail or at least be made to seem to fail. I think this notion is well encapsulated by what Inter-American Affairs Bureau officer Charles R. Burrows, of the U.S. State Department said about Guatemala in the early 1950's:

Are you serious? It's not the 1950s or even the 1980s. Jesus Christ.

BlaasForRafa

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Hell, one of the groups that the US are funding in Syria, both directly and through their proxies Israel and Saudi Arabia, is Al-Qaeda.

And your evidence for that is?

GRMA

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well aren't you a paranoid Pete, these "oligarchs" as you call them do not have a single conscience. All businesses newspapers included work to maximise their own profit and they do that by giving their readers what the want to read. That's why you have left and right wing leaning papers even in Ireland. Trying to impose an ideology on people opposed to that ideology would turn them off the paper which is bad for business and against the wishes of the newspaper. And there you have it. The self regulating free market strikes again.

How can you say it doesnt happen/can't happen when it clearly did in Venezuela?

southsiderosie

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Probably because he never did.

Oh, and to all of ye accusing Venezuela under Chavez of being undemocratic, how can you say that, when all the elections under him were carried out fairly and to the highest standards and were independantly monitored and verified, yet still believe the US is a democracy despite it's president of eight years rigging the votes in his two elections (ok Shrub's party did the rigging) so that he would enjoy an unfair advantage in both, and the massive and obvious gerrymandering that goes on in every state for congressional and senatorial elections?

Because democracies are more than what happens on election day?

Bush did not change the laws to allow himself to be re-elected indefinitely.

Bush did not fire most of the judiciary and stack it with supporters.

Bush did not squeeze out mayors whose political popularity presented a potential threat to his power.

Bush did not shut down media outlets that dared to voice opposition to his regime. Hell, if Obama behaved like Chavez, Fox News would not exist!

No American president has forced the media to cover their rambling speeches and rallies for hours on end...or has forced public employees to attend said speeches and rallies.

Gerrymandering is not illegal, and it is now biting republicans in the butt, as it has facilitated the rise of the far-right who are increasingly uncompetitive.

The whataboutery that inevitably comes out on threads involving Chavez is ridiculous.

Iwasfrozen

GRMA wrote: »

How can you say it doesnt happen/can't happen when it clearly did in Venezuela?

You're the one saying it happened.