Please discuss political ideas, goverments (or lack thereof), religion, ideologies, and current events here! Also, if you want to give criticisms to the mod that aren't exactly constructive, put them here. I want to hear all you have to say, so don't be shy.

{Do Not Post Rascist, Sexist, Prejudice Statements Here! I will notify the moderator if you get ugly like this.}

Feel free to post some angry statements, just don't break the above three rules, and don't cuss or swear insanely.

Hello
I have a problem with religions : Just after starting the game, you have alerts saying for exemple "Syndicalist Committee has founded Christianism" !!!
It would be better that factions not found religions, but something else...
Does anybody have an idea ?
If you want I can work on this part...

this will be fixed in 2.0, and is already mostly fixed in the alpha stage.

but please, lets keep this thread for people who want to argue abstract politics and put this kinda discussion in the main discussion thread, if you would. just trying to organize this forum :)

i am a leftist syndicalist "existentialist" and do not support america's current regime, nor the regime of nearly all of the modern countries in this world.

Personaly I am a center left educationist. I.E. I belive that all the worlds ills can be "cured" throught propper education and social enginering.

Personaly I am a center left educationist. I.E. I belive that all the worlds ills can be "cured" throught propper education and social enginering.

i happen to be anti-educationalist, in the sense that i was "educated" in america, where all we were taught turned out to be lies.

but i would support someone who thought they could reform the system of teaching to bring honesty and ethics back to learning!

I personally dislike how the Puritan way has screwed this country up. I'm not sure I have a label, but clearly what we have now doesn't work.

clearly what we have now doesn't work.

[having a politic discution in english is not easy for me. I try to explain, but if it's not clear, tell me, I'll try again]

What you have in USA doesn't work. What they had in USSR doesn't work. What we have in Europe (with few differences between countries) doesn't work.
I think only auto-organisation of people could work. I am an anarchist and a syndicalist in France, and every day I explain that everything must me decided by everybody. For that, people have to understand politic, have interest for it. Not by voting 1 time every 5 years, to decide who will be the chief. But by discussing all the questions and explaining his way of thinking.
We have that when we have big strikes, but quickly, uses come back and everybody go back to his job, forgotting what happened in this time of revolt where discussion was free.
In one of the musics I purpose in the French sountrack, one is titled "Brulez le pouvoir" that means "burn the gouvernence" (or something like that). That's it : we have to distroy all congress, president, and so on, so then we all together will be the governence, we will decide together about everything...
Only one solution : revolution !! :goodjob:

i happen to be anti-educationalist, in the sense that i was "educated" in america, where all we were taught turned out to be lies.

but i would support someone who thought they could reform the system of teaching to bring honesty and ethics back to learning!

Care to describe in more detail?

By the way, when I say education, I mean the entire process of growing up, from your parents to university. I think that you can give a child attributes, such as intelligence, energy, resourcefullness, initiative and other such things through education.

[having a politic discution in english is not easy for me. I try to explain, but if it's not clear, tell me, I'll try again]

What you have in USA doesn't work. What they had in USSR doesn't work. What we have in Europe (with few differences between countries) doesn't work.
I think only auto-organisation of people could work. I am an anarchist and a syndicalist in France, and every day I explain that everything must me decided by everybody. For that, people have to understand politic, have interest for it. Not by voting 1 time every 5 years, to decide who will be the chief. But by discussing all the questions and explaining his way of thinking.
We have that when we have big strikes, but quickly, uses come back and everybody go back to his job, forgotting what happened in this time of revolt where discussion was free.
In one of the musics I purpose in the French sountrack, one is titled "Brulez le pouvoir" that means "burn the gouvernence" (or something like that). That's it : we have to distroy all congress, president, and so on, so then we all together will be the governence, we will decide together about everything...
Only one solution : revolution !! :goodjob:

I had a epiphany about modern "democracy" that we are forced to endure in america. since it is near the time for "voting" here, i was waxing philisophical about what this meant.

I think that the idea of voting in a democracy give the powers that be the oportunity to easily change the decisions they made about the laws, and blamed on the people. You see, I don't believe that democracy exists in any way in america anymore, especially after the last few "elections".

And the greatest thing about this system: the rulers can do what they want with impunity, and then BLAME the people and save "Hey, you voted for us/this!"

@ArneHD
When you mean education beginning with early childhood, then i understand you. i am "anti-established american educational system"

While my political 'ism' is rarely stable, I believe that the education system is only as bad or crass as the people controlling the state. If we are to have an honest state system of education, then we must have an at least enlightened group ruling the country..... Not likely to happen.. But at least Socialists would fund them and keep the bible off the required reading list. (I'm a senior in a Kansan highschool, so the line between church and school is a very very thin one around me.)

dude, i would be scared to live in kansas!!

i agree, the schools must be worse for you, i went to highschool and was senior in 1999! it sucked under clinton alot, but probly not nearly as bad as now! (but dont get me wrong clinton was still a prick)

My opinion of the currently horrible state of school capitalist indocination is based largely off of what little of Antonio Gramsci's work I have read.
check him out sometime
(I'm just now getting into Goldman)

-edit-
It's not that horrible in East Kansas, I live in a suburb of Kansas City so I have that great influence of Culture and radicals, also my Government AP teacher is a Socialist (or at least likes socialism).

i just checked out Gramsci! he seems in his communistic ways to be the modernistic-era's equivelent to the neo-liberals' outlook. but to say this is rather shortsighted, alas. it is more that he created the tools for which the new-liberals to exist, rather that was part of the an early movement.

does that even make a fart of sense?

ps: i live in the suburbs of phoenix. can you say "Suburban Sprawl Hell" ?

Eh, elaboration might be nice

Well, it is the conversion from a more individualistic pre-postmodern outlook on life to the Orwellian future we live today. It is perpetrated by the unknowing school teachers (are they really unknowing i wonder?)

An illusion is created then, in the classrooms across the allied world, or a better life under the regimes, rather that the truth: we are better because we are not being bombed, but rather bombing the rest of the unallied world.
But the illusion has to start somewhere; has to be initially woven for the unsuspecting, innocent minds of childeren: the classroom

Any reason why you chose the spanish republican flag to represent the communal labor civics? I am just curious.

i have changed it ;)
thanks for the insight. the link i had originally intended does look rather tenuous.

One question, how do you imagine your utopian system?

In my mind utopia will arise when we begin to apply social engineering (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_%28political_science%29)) to shape people from a young age to have certain traits: intelligence, creativity and initiative. if a large percentage of the human population could be engineered to have these traits, humanities ills could be over.

when i close my eyes, i imagine looking on a city very closer to what we live in right now. just with empowered citizens and a dissolved police state regime. maybe some street cars, too.

edit: i disagree with you, people can be nurtured with these tendancies, or they can aquire them with a critical mind, and by voracious reading habits. One of the worst problems is that there are people with power who are constantly scheming for ways to further consolidate their power and possibly handing it over to groomed heirs.
One thing i will say, in agreement with you, is that whitewashing history and slipping massive amounts of capitalist propaganda into school's lessons, pounded into childerens' heads day after day, must stop. My stomach turns at the thought of it, and at the thought of these "teachers" who willfully commit these lies.

im not sure what i just said makes any sense :(

What does "Empowerd" mean anyway?

empowered mean literaly "recieving power" or "attaining personal power"

By the way, where do you stand on the political compass? (http://politicalcompass.org/)

I'm -6.5, -6.67

roughly a year ago when I took it I was -8.13, -7.74.

I just took it I got -2.25 aand 2.05

Im right on par with nelson mandela. -6,-4(closed it before i got the decimals)

dude, i would be scared to live in kansas!!

i agree, the schools must be worse for you, i went to highschool and was senior in 1999! it sucked under clinton alot, but probly not nearly as bad as now! (but dont get me wrong clinton was still a prick)

I think the best way to describe schools now is like they were when Clinton was in,but with one main difference, they on crack now,maybe alittle bit of pcp too. I remember when they tried to bring back the pledge in my highschool,they were soo scared of a walk out becuase of it that they made it optional. I think theres some miss perception about high school though to. High school is meant to teach you how to learn. College is where you learn. But even so just being smart in one area doesnt make you smart in every area. I was just reading about how a thousand professors got together to publish a report saying 9/11 was a conspiracy. sure i belive George Buh was an ahole with a plan to dump on everyone,but that doesnt make a conspiracy. and i think believing WTC buildings were a controlled explosion is an amateur's propoganda.

well, when i was in high school, it wadnt no pcp or crack. im a white boy so we were dropping ac1d and poking smot. i hope they arent smoking crack; can you say "private school"

as to the WTC: it doesnt matter who did it; it matters it was a tragedy and so many died for money (islamic or american terrorists, it doenst matter)

ANARCHY

ECONOMIC: -6.75
SOCIAL: -9.13
crap i'm past the dalai lama in the lame chart thingie

well, when i was in high school, it wadnt no pcp or crack. im a white boy so we were dropping ac1d and poking smot. i hope they arent smoking crack; can you say "private school"

as to the WTC: it doesnt matter who did it; it matters it was a tragedy and so many died for money (islamic or american terrorists, it doenst matter)

ANARCHY

I meant the school system not the students. And on the WTC thing,i brought it up showing how some intelligence doesnt garuntee the elimination of stupidity.

However i do agree......ANARCHY

yes, i get very mad at the thought of what teachers in the current american system tell childeren to believe as fact

I disagree with the ANARCHY sentiment. There will always be people in power, be it the police, mobs, gangs, vigilantes, or whatever. In some cases, you have several of these in power, to certain degrees. If you take away the police, then you just end up with another form of authority in their place. The problem isn't the concept of police, it's the implementation. Letting gangs and mobs decide how to run things, e.g., if you don't like them they kill you, is very bad. With police and armies, you have the advantage of being able to set rules that they must follow, e.g. not killing you if you don't like them, and then you can have them keep mobs and gangs from doing that. The question isn't if they should exist, but what rules should they be given, how those rules should be enforced, and what recourse the people should have available if they manage to break them.

I disagree with the ANARCHY sentiment. There will always be people in power, be it the police, mobs, gangs, vigilantes, or whatever. In some cases, you have several of these in power, to certain degrees. If you take away the police, then you just end up with another form of authority in their place. The problem isn't the concept of police, it's the implementation. Letting gangs and mobs decide how to run things, e.g., if you don't like them they kill you, is very bad. With police and armies, you have the advantage of being able to set rules that they must follow, e.g. not killing you if you don't like them, and then you can have them keep mobs and gangs from doing that. The question isn't if they should exist, but what rules should they be given, how those rules should be enforced, and what recourse the people should have available if they manage to break them.

yes, you are probly right, gangs and mobs form immediately in a power vacuum. its been this way for thousands of years.

but plz don't separate police from brute gangs. in my town, they shoot you even if you are unarmed (and put a knife in your cold hand) or they shoot you in the back of the head as you flee. I am not making these things up, even saw this sh!t on the damn news.
and dont separate the government ie CIA from the mob: i believe that the CIA smuggles in the most cocaine than any other criminal organization could smuggle into america.

The baisis of the police is that the police can fight crime, crime can fight you, you can fight politicans and politicans can fight the police. Nobody can remove one without removing their own protection.

The baisis of the police is that the police can fight crime, crime can fight you, you can fight politicans and politicans can fight the police. Nobody can remove one without removing their own protection.

the keystone of the arch you describe in my mind, is the people vs. the politicians. we have had the power to fight them completely removed by "democracy" as we know it today. and the politicians and the police have a racket.

therefore: the people and the crooks VS. the cops and politicians

pretty standard revolution

i believe that the CIA smuggles in the most cocaine than any other criminal organization could smuggle into america.


Power Vacuums dont only rise in the absense of "order" or government

thats right. i think it has to do more with corrupt mofo's wanting to screw everyone over and control them.

I disagree with the ANARCHY sentiment. There will always be people in power, be it the police, mobs, gangs, vigilantes, or whatever. In some cases, you have several of these in power, to certain degrees. If you take away the police, then you just end up with another form of authority in their place. The problem isn't the concept of police, it's the implementation. Letting gangs and mobs decide how to run things, e.g., if you don't like them they kill you, is very bad. With police and armies, you have the advantage of being able to set rules that they must follow, e.g. not killing you if you don't like them, and then you can have them keep mobs and gangs from doing that. The question isn't if they should exist, but what rules should they be given, how those rules should be enforced, and what recourse the people should have available if they manage to break them.

You imagine brutaly suppressing state power in the situation we are today. It wouldn't drive us to Anarchy, but to chaos !! Effectively, some people would replace people in place (by other ways, ok). I think that an Anarchist Revolution is, at first, a "way of thinking" revolution. Freedom for all and for each one, does that noboby want to leave his freedom, and so, when people will have taste that, they will do everything to maintain it.
An anarchist society is an organised society (solidarity, federalism, etc). That's not, like I hear everywhere (and like you seems to think), a society where the big one would have all possibility to eat the small one (a free fox in a free henhouse...).
That's my definition of capitalism !

You imagine brutaly suppressing state power in the situation we are today. It wouldn't drive us to Anarchy, but to chaos !! Effectively, some people would replace people in place (by other ways, ok). I think that an Anarchist Revolution is, at first, a "way of thinking" revolution. Freedom for all and for each one, does that noboby want to leave his freedom, and so, when people will have taste that, they will do everything to maintain it.
An anarchist society is an organised society (solidarity, federalism, etc). That's not, like I hear everywhere (and like you seems to think), a society where the big one would have all possibility to eat the small one (a free fox in a free henhouse...).
That's my definition of capitalism !

I'd like you to read a story from Iraq. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-letter20sep20,1,226790.story?coll=la-headlines-world

You'll need to use bugmenot.com or register with them to read it. Here's a brief quote from it:


BAGHDAD — On a recent Sunday, I was buying groceries in my beloved Amariya neighborhood in western Baghdad when I heard the sound of an AK-47 for about three seconds. It was close but not very close, so I continued shopping.

As I took a right turn on Munadhama Street, I saw a man lying on the ground in a small pool of blood. He wasn't dead.
...


No one did anything. No one lifted a finger. The only reaction came from a woman in the grocery store. In a low voice, she said, "My God, bless his soul."

I went home and didn't dare tell my wife. I did not want to frighten her.

This is the mentality that results when violent organizations take over, or in this case, haven't even taken over. Everyone is too afraid to stand up to them. Everyone looks out for their own neck, their own material gain and wellbeing, and doesn't stop for a moment to think about what they're doing to the planet, to their society, or to each other. People act like sheep. When guns get involved, everyone waits for someone else to do the right thing so that they don't have to risk their own lives. This is why there will always be people in power, and people who are subordinate to that power. Getting rid of one power source doesn't change this, it just means you get a new power source in its place. A week or a month of anarchy isn't going to enlighten anyone, and that's all the time it needed for gangs and mobs to start taking over and establishing new authorities that are far more oppressive.

Anarchy can only exist in a society where all, or at least 95% of the members would put what is moral before their own lives every single time. Right now, success in life is defined as accumulating a lot of fancy crap and living a long time. This style of thinking is considered normal, and even encouraged, and you can see what it has brought humanity. Millions of people starve to death daily while we buy thousand dollar security systems to protect all of our junk.

Do you mean that Camarad George W and his US Revolutionary army leaded an anarchist revolution in Irak ? :eek:
;)

You know, when people will be strong enough to kill capitalism AND create something else where they are free, I think they will also be strong enough to resist to other exploiters (this MK47, with Bible, or anything else...). If not, we will say that revolution aborted, and a new revolution will be to do !! :goodjob:

Personaly I'm more of a socialist, and I belive in induvidual freedom, within the framework of a strong government, perhaps it is a by-product of living in Norway. Anyway, a benign government is needed to enforce values, unless everybody confirms to the same values, in which case, enforcing them is not needed. But without the guiding hand of government, we will, considdering todays political spectrum and culture, fall appart.

Also, I see the internet as the greatest tool for the revolution that the world has ever seen.

You imagine brutaly suppressing state power in the situation we are today. It wouldn't drive us to Anarchy, but to chaos !! Effectively, some people would replace people in place (by other ways, ok). I think that an Anarchist Revolution is, at first, a "way of thinking" revolution. Freedom for all and for each one, does that noboby want to leave his freedom, and so, when people will have taste that, they will do everything to maintain it.
An anarchist society is an organised society (solidarity, federalism, etc). That's not, like I hear everywhere (and like you seems to think), a society where the big one would have all possibility to eat the small one (a free fox in a free henhouse...).
That's my definition of capitalism !

FABRYSSE!!!! I LOVE IT! You have very eloquently put how the real revolution should be. The meta-revolution will be a revolution of freedom and choice, and a change of paradigm from the conventional to the anarchist mindset, focused on true freedom.

Your english is beautiful by the way.


@Norseman2
You do have a point, and it will take nearly 95% of the population for this to work. but when you look at the concentration of power consolidated to 1% of the population and the dissolution of the middle class, we might actually get there, if people take the time to educate themselves. The analogy of the dead iraqi and the ak-47's is not just iraq, it is my home town. the cops here shoot people first, then plant weapons on them later. and what is worse here, is that they are touted as insane criminals or tweakers after they are dead on the fukking evening news!!! @#$%@#$%@

@ArneHD
I have been to europe; it is a better place than america. when i was there in '99, cops didnt carry guns, just beat-down-sticks, which is alright by me (and makes me think them real men). and i had heard that if you were unemployed, you didnt starve.
but socialism and strong government can sometimes become a framework for facsism, just as capitalism is. That is why i believe the leftist slant of ideals of taking care of a populace and preserving freedoms of the socialist governments of europe should be preserved in "anarchism" with little or no actual governing.

whew

I'm left of center, but not super radical, so here il sorta lay out my positions before i start in on this debate:

On education (American): It doesnt work, im in highschool right now, and too many teachers are simply not good. There are too few requirments, and too few intelligent people willing to be teachers. People seem to take seriously the saying "those who cannot do, teach". I have a rather lengthy fantasy/vision for the future of education, but I'l type it up later if anyone is interested

On Violence: My main driving political force is pacifism. This is the area where I am most "radical" i guess, and why i can never participate in any sort of violent revolution. There are causes I will die for, but none I will kill for.

On Social Issues: Progress has been made, but there are still leaps and bounds to take before all people are equal in the eyes of the state, as they are in the eyes of God

On Government: I think the government should serve the people. I have problems with America's specific and current state of democracy, but i believe the majority should win and that democracy can and will work. If I am a minority, who am I to say I'm smart enough to decide the fate of everyone.

On Economy: I don't have entirely developed ideas on this yet, but I definitly support unions and such. Labor rights are important, and i dislike exploitive large companies

http://thesimpleway.org/shane/index.html
I read this guys book, and it is amazing. I would like to be able to live my life the way he outlines, and I am working on it, I highly recomend it.
Jesus is actually awesome, while many people are turned off by mainline christianity, Jesus is amazing


whew, didnt intend it to be that long...umm respond? :crazyeye:

On education (American): It doesnt work, im in highschool right now, and too many teachers are simply not good. There are too few requirments, and too few intelligent people willing to be teachers. People seem to take seriously the saying "those who cannot do, teach"...
yes. and these morons are put there on purpose, not because they can't get a real teacher in a classroom. they are there to teach lies and whitewashed bullsh!t history.

On Violence: My main driving political force is pacifism...There are causes I will die for, but none I will kill for.
no. Pacifism as Pathology. If you are a true pacifist, then you support the government with your useless death. You don't die for a cause, you live for it.


On Economy: I don't have entirely developed ideas on this yet, but I definitly support unions and such. Labor rights are important, and i dislike exploitive large companies
Start your search on economics with ideas like "True-cost Economics" and "Eco-Economics" (you can google or wiki those terms)


Jesus is actually awesome, while many people are turned off by mainline christianity, Jesus is amazing
I actually do like Jesus, despite my scathing critisisms of all of Christianity for all timeperiods, and my love for the works of Nietzsche. I think Jesus was murdered by his disciples, and had his good nature and message of ture evangelism raped by Paul and the spreaders of original Christianity.


Welcome to the Second Revolution subforums!! :D

I am a complete libertarian, I believe in complete freedom for people's personal choices as long as they don't harm others. The government has NO right to set moral values, and yet the government does it all the time in America! We are supposed to have something called "seperation of church and state", and yet I've never seen it. "In God we trust"?!!? "One nation under God"?!!?:confused: Let people exercise religous and moral freedom YOU FREAKIN' CHRISTIAN THEOCRATIC WARMONGERING CRUSADING FASCIST FEDS!!!:mad: /end rant (for now)

i somehow doubt the govnt has the resources/will to place bad teachers
my mom was a teacher for 10-12 years (then i came along :D ) and while i have no idea if i would have found her a good teacher, she is definitly competant and intelligent so probably

Pasifist but not passive
Im definitly not going to avoid conflict in an interest to continue being pacifistic, thats cowardly to hide behind false ideals
however i disagree with most revolutionary forces when they advocate violence
iv heard arguments for violence that the revolution doesnt have time to wait non-violently, however i think violent revolutions take as long and dont lay as firm a foundation for perpetuating whatever change was achieved

gandhi is my favorite philosopher/politcal guy/whatever
iv been meaning to read nietzche...gotta go get it off my dads shelf i guess

definately read nietzsche! it is inspiriring and affirming. disregard hitlers love of nietzsche, he only took what he wanted from his books, and nietzsche would have killed himself to avoid hitler becommin enamoured with him (i only mention this as people will critisize nietzsche on the grounds of the Uber-Mench principle being related to hitler's aryan super race, and this was brought up at nuremburg)

"beyond good and evil" is excellent. and so is "human, all too human". i haven't finished "thus spoke zarathrustra" and cannot vouch for it, but his all time best work, in my opinion, is "The Antichrist"




edit: breathe, turquoiseninja, breathe!! ;)

i somehow doubt the govnt has the resources/will to place bad teachers
my mom was a teacher for 10-12 years (then i came along :D ) and while i have no idea if i would have found her a good teacher, she is definitly competant and intelligent so probably


You're it would be insanely conterproductive to everyones aims to place bad teachers. But if you create a bad system,good teachers are far less likely to arise. The Gov controls the situation,the rest of screwing up education is left to the schools themselves. At the top their like anything else, inept politicians,not great principles or superintendents,or whomever

I believe in absolute Imperialism. (as long as I am the Emperor;) )

You're it would be insanely conterproductive to everyones aims to place bad teachers. But if you create a bad system,good teachers are far less likely to arise. The Gov controls the situation,the rest of screwing up education is left to the schools themselves. At the top their like anything else, inept politicians,not great principles or superintendents,or whomever

yes! could it be coincedence that america is the lowest among all its peers (wester world) in education funding and students test scores??? An intelligent american populace might realize the crimes being commited in their names!! They might just stop cowing down and letting all this sh!t happen! They just might rise up.

I agree with GarretSidzaka.:king:

I think idiocy and Neo-liberalism are a danger to all childeren. I'm glad there are a few teachers who have their heads on their shoulders. But to get a real education you usually have to pay (ie university). And the people who need it or could use it the most, cant afford it.

About teachers :
If I understand what you say, I think that the problem is that persons who would be the best teachers go working and searching in firms. In a firm they are better payed than in a school... That's it in France too. The solution that the syndicalist I am purpose is simple : best pay for teachers, and you'll have the better !

About violence :
I agree with you, prplhazed. I violently fight for pacifism ! :lol:
Seriously : I want a revolution as pacifist as it can be. But I'm afraid (i'm sure really), that the Boss of big firms, the presidents of states, deputies, and such people having power, won't agree to abandon their power to the people. So, as pacifist as we can be, we'll have to explain them a little more loudly, and a little more, and a little more... And at final, we'll have to put them out with violence.
And to say exactly what I think : we won't be able to explain anything because capitalists (boss and government allied as usual) will send us police and army, and it won't be the time to discuss. The only solution we'll have is to fight them. After that, it'll be time to talk about pacifism, and it'll be important to do it.

yes, i dont advocate murder and pillaging, what im trying to say is that i would rather live for a cause than to become a statistic, or a "dead terrorist" as they will name any who oppose them

I agree with you. A "martyr" (does it exists in english ?) is at first a dead activist. You're right.

I love rebellions. Sounds like fun.:ar15: :king:

I love rebellions. Sounds like fun.:ar15: :king:
Ummm....so are you an emperor or a rebel:D

I think it is pretty much impossible to win a revolution with pure pascifism. I definately want to be always persuading people with speeches and books and stuff, (Like Subcommander Marcos/Delegate Zero) but in the end the revolutionaries have to start assinating and rioting to get their way. Sitting there won't make the President just agree to you demands.

I think the only place pascificism will make a great impact would have to be a passive-aggressive general strike, where entire cities' populations stop working and stay at home. this would be the best blow pascifism could deal

Ummm....so are you an emperor or a rebel:D

I think it is pretty much impossible to win a revolution with pure pascifism. I definately want to be always persuading people with speeches and books and stuff, (Like Subcommander Marcos/Delegate Zero) but in the end the revolutionaries have to start assinating and rioting to get their way. Sitting there won't make the President just agree to you demands.


Humans quest to be lead. And those who have a leader maybe become content(especially in an age of decadence like America's current). They need not nor care about other options. I a firmly believe a Revolution needs,and should need to whip out the old. Part of that constant cycle of Birth and Death. Too many think old age garruntees wisdom,and absolves greed. Guess im kinda like Lenin as far as revolutions are concerned.

I have to be a rebel first before I become an Emperor.;)

I have to be a rebel first before I become an Emperor.;)
not bloody likely

I meant temporary absolute authority until the current system which has gone out of whack can be reformed considerably.

Do you mean that Camarad George W and his US Revolutionary army leaded an anarchist revolution in Irak ? :eek:
;)


Roughly the equivalent of that, yes. I suspect if there had been an anarchist revolution in Iraq with the same conditions that we attacked under, it would have resulted in all the same problems. Maybe 25% fewer civilian casualties (if we factor out our contribution to the civil war). It doesn't matter how you get rid of the government, the result is the same. What really makes a difference is what you do afterwards. But more important than that is the state of the country before you topple its government. Iraq was a house of cards, both kept in check and perpetuated by Saddam Hussein. Brutal rule kept a civil war from breaking out, but also prevented any of the free speech that would have helped both sides resolve their differences peacefully, or at least teach both sides to tolerate each other.


You know, when people will be strong enough to kill capitalism AND create something else where they are free, I think they will also be strong enough to resist to other exploiters (this MK47, with Bible, or anything else...). If not, we will say that revolution aborted, and a new revolution will be to do !! :goodjob:

One violent revolution after another is not a good thing. Imagine playing a game of civ where you have a revolution every five or six turns, and each one destroys your military, depletes your population, and destroys city improvements randomly. Obviously civ isn't real life, but I think you can see the problem. If everyone is killing each other all the time, pretty soon no one will be left. You will be unendingly at risk of invasion, and all your cities will soon be gone. People will have to live alone in the hills and fight for their very survival, especially if some other country freaks out and invades. If you have a revolution, you want to get it right the first time.

...One violent revolution after another is not a good thing. Imagine playing a game of civ where you have a revolution every five or six turns, and each one destroys your military, depletes your population, and destroys city improvements randomly. Obviously civ isn't real life, but I think you can see the problem. If everyone is killing each other all the time, pretty soon no one will be left. You will be unendingly at risk of invasion, and all your cities will soon be gone. People will have to live alone in the hills and fight for their very survival, especially if some other country freaks out and invades. If you have a revolution, you want to get it right the first time.

I disagree! as long as there is oppression, classism, racism, and prejudice, and it is openly promoted, like in 99% of all societies i know of, there will be need of revolution.

In fact, i feel that if there is a revolt in the capitalist world and then some kind of new system (or anarchist lack therof) replaces it, there will be at least one or two more revolutions before humanity might reach some kind of stable state. Just look at Drtad a couple posts above:
I have to be a rebel first before I become an Emperor.;) We would have to revolt against him too, right?

This, of course, can only happen if we don't complete eradicate all life on earth with WMD or enviromental mass extinction.

I disagree! as long as there is oppression, classism, racism, and prejudice, and it is openly promoted, like in 99% of all societies i know of, there will be need of revolution.


Get the revolution right the first time and there won't be.


In fact, i feel that if there is a revolt in the capitalist world and then some kind of new system (or anarchist lack therof) replaces it, there will be at least one or two more revolutions before humanity might reach some kind of stable state. Just look at Drtad a couple posts above:
We would have to revolt against him too, right?


I've got another post/rant coming up for that post. Anyway, get it right the first time and you don't need to have the extra two or three extra revolutions.


This, of course, can only happen if we don't complete eradicate all life on earth with WMD or enviromental mass extinction.

This is true.

I must say that I agree to some extent with Norseman2, although he points out the population trouble, while I am more concerned about the infrastructure. The ultimate revolution would be surgical, and presise. They need to first remove all obsticales in their way, then change whatever they want to change, without touching anything besides this.

A good example of this would be the Thailand coup d'etat, where the government was removed with a minimum of disturbance. They removed the obstacles they faced and can then procede to change whatever they want to change.

Not all absolute rulers have to be revolted against to give up their power and reform the system into a more democratic one. Just look at the Sultan of Oman, Qaboos. He has been an absolute ruler for over 30 years but his reign has been dedicated to building new schools and glorifying his country. He is also willingly stepping towards democracy and allowed parliamentary elections.

@Norseman2
While I'm sure that at least one of my proverbial, multiple revolutions will end up violent, I am also a firm believer that some revolutions don't require a single death.

A novel that has bloodless revolutions is Blue Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson. He has already depicted a "anarchist style" society in his previous two books, yet the society is still flawed enough to where it must change. The society had a bloodless coup where the people simply reorganized themselves and made the would-be dictator exile herself (because of her regrets in life and loss of power).

@ArneHD
I don't know much about Thailand other than the dictator/king wore really thick rimmed glasses :D

@Drtad
The problem with absolute rulers is this: They can't always take care of a huge population fairly, just being one man (or woman). And eventually there will be an ethical compromise where he must decide that one populace will suffer, for the gain of another (possibly larger or richer) populace. This is what (i think) revolutionaries are against.

Forcing one part of the population to suffer while letting another get richer. That's dispicable. But I see what you mean. I think I have been reading too much of Hobbes' philosophy lately...

:goodjob: you are learning well, young jedi

Come check out this new off-topic poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=188197) I started. I think it is actually rather important (the topic not the poll ;) )

Did anybody here already saw Brazilian history? :P We NEVER could go out of the sphere of power from the "same people". The only one nation in the world(as far as I know/readed, but perhaps it can be of south america only, whatever) to declare independence from they colonizators(Portugal) and keep a monarchy..And guess who was the King? The Portugal's Prince :P
We were as well one of the last(if not the last) in the world to abolish slavery officially. And when Republic was declared, it was declared by people that were already in the power in one way or other and just wanted to officialize it. We never had any kind of effective/overwhelming revolution, only some isolated moviments that were fast cutted off since then really that started from the population. In years 60 the military took the power one more time in a bad and oppresive regime. In end of years 80 population was growing tired of it, so the biggest TV channel in Brazil decided it was time to change(for what they wanted of course) and made a Big-massive propaganda that made people go in the street "asking" for demmocracy untill it happened. So the nice TV channel made again massive propraganda of the Presidente they wanted, and of course won. Since then we are controlled by this channel and each ellection thnis channel chooses our govenamment.

So revolutionless people in Brazil no? :P

And still, compare to all the others south american countries that had all kind of revolutions or so and you will see who is better off(also the population, of course no comparation with europe) now...The world can be strange and the theory is never like its pratice.

I defend revolution in mind because anarchy and armed revolution will result only in 1 more poor state.

But then again, Im surely completely wrong :)

Did anybody here already saw Brazilian history? :P We NEVER could go out of the sphere of power from the "same people". The only one nation in the world(as far as I know/readed, but perhaps it can be of south america only, whatever) to declare independence from they colonizators(Portugal) and keep a monarchy..And guess who was the King? The Portugal's Prince :P
We were as well one of the last(if not the last) in the world to abolish slavery officially. And when Republic was declared, it was declared by people that were already in the power in one way or other and just wanted to officialize it. We never had any kind of effective/overwhelming revolution, only some isolated moviments that were fast cutted off since then really that started from the population. In years 60 the military took the power one more time in a bad and oppresive regime. In end of years 80 population was growing tired of it, so the biggest TV channel in Brazil decided it was time to change(for what they wanted of course) and made a Big-massive propaganda that made people go in the street "asking" for demmocracy untill it happened. So the nice TV channel made again massive propraganda of the Presidente they wanted, and of course won. Since then we are controlled by this channel and each ellection thnis channel chooses our govenamment.

So revolutionless people in Brazil no? :P

And still, compare to all the others south american countries that had all kind of revolutions or so and you will see who is better off(also the population, of course no comparation with europe) now...The world can be strange and the theory is never like its pratice.

I defend revolution in mind because anarchy and armed revolution will result only in 1 more poor state.

But then again, Im surely completely wrong :)

I appreciate your story of brazil, for i never had learned of it here in america. it is amazing how many times the country had switched it's government, with relatively no bloodshed.
I personally believe in the bloodless revolution you speak of. I know my game is a bloody war oriented mess, but this is only a game, and only for letting out aggression. I feel that the real revolution will be a bloodless (mostly) one, and will deal with people refusing bad ideas, and accepting good ones. I also think that environmental damage will catalyze it.

So, Revolution, peaceful of violent?

In video games, violent is the most fun. But in real life, I hope for a peaceful revolt. Dont start calling me a pacifist or anything, but I hope that no one has to die unnessasarily for my childeren to have a truly free world.

Good to hear from you Leif!!

I still think that, if we are peacefull, when we'll say to our bosses or republic presidents :
"ok, guys, that's finished for you. The power is for all people, you can give your idea, but just like me and all the others"
I think that their answer will be short but clear : send police and army to stop this revolution !
So we'll have to be violent because our oponent is violent...

In video games, violent is the most fun. But in real life, I hope for a peaceful revolt. Dont start calling me a pacifist or anything, but I hope that no one has to die unnessasarily for my childeren to have a truly free world.

Good to hear from you Leif!!

I still think that, if we are peacefull, when we'll say to our bosses or republic presidents :
"ok, guys, that's finished for you. The power is for all people, you can give your idea, but just like me and all the others"
I think that their answer will be short but clear : send police and army to stop this revolution !
So we'll have to be violent because our oponent is violent...

Well, I said i hoped it would be nonviolent. That is what i dream of, when the cops and soldiers dont listen either...
But you're right, all of the revolutions in america have been like you said.

Personally, I don't know how it'll happen, but we're all living in the age of short blips of now, we're all apart of the great leap forwords.

Yeah, and I like to think of my mod as a tiny, microscopic piece that this group has helped me contribute!

I think that the way to lose the revolution is to leave america, like alot of us might feel tempted to do. Like Michael Ruppert, he left america, out of fear for his life. I think he should have stayed and been super careful.

Well, the USA isn't the only country in the world, or even a very good one for that matter. The only places where America is really good (bad would be a better term, though) are in deployable military power, and nuclear capability. For the average US citizen, these are bad because you have to support this gigantic military with unpaid labor (on average, for an 8 hour work day, you're probably doing close to an hour of work where your money is taken and given to the military), in order to protect a country which, at any time, could fire enough nukes to end humanity. Global warming, America, and Russia are the three greatest dangers humanity faces. The common US citizen has to slave themselves in order to protect one of the three greatest dangers to humanity.

Personally I'm slightly disappointed with developed countries. Though in Europe we've known strong communist parties/movements, and even the anarchists were occasionally powerful, we face the some illusions you do in the US; particularly that most people have more to lose than their chains, and their small comforts blind them so they don't see or care they're actually been exploited. Thus I'm more optimistic about the Southern American countries, where such illusions don't exist. Not that I'm giving up the fight in my country either.

its easy to despair over here, once you know whats going on. But i just have to keep my head clear of the lies and bullsh!t, and hope for a better world (or at least for the scales of history to balence once again.

I've been eyeing Norway, but I'll stay as long as possible.

yeah ive heard good things about norway myself!

It's ironic, really. My great grandfather moved to America to escape fascists in Norway, and now I will be moving to Norway at the earliest possible convenience to escape fascists in America. We've already lost the right to habeas corpus, and practically all other rights derive from that, so we are completely at the mercy of the Bush regime. I'm not sticking around for that fun. Don't worry though, if the **** hits the proverbial fan, I'm not going to sit around in Norway and suicidally let a nuclear power become openly fascist.

I very much doubt that the Armerican population would allow U.S.A. to be turned into a facist country, I'm pretty sure there would be many revolts if that were ever to happened, and if there's none you can be damn sure I will come across the sea and make one.

Anyways what I believe is that if you have a truly free society the only thing there would rule would be chaos. A free society would degrade and kill itself because of the control. Therefore I can openly support a society that is free, but got control over it's citezens too(not in the big brother way, it's fanatic).
For one I am a supporter communism, though not in the way the Sovjet went. I believe that elections of leaders are important to avoid that the power goes to the wrong person. People won't work to just help other people, they want something out if it themselves, thats why I would make a 'reward system' where you work and get 'points'(like money) and then you can speand the points on these 'rewards'(it can be things like a painting or a better computer etc. etc.).

Just my opinion though.

I very much doubt that the Armerican population would allow U.S.A. to be turned into a facist country, I'm pretty sure there would be many revolts if that were ever to happened, and if there's none you can be damn sure I will come across the sea and make one.

Fly over now, cause fascism is here to stay, in america in the form of Neo-Liberalism. Be glad that Denmark can keep america's . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . at arms-length. :lol:


For one I am a supporter communism....

you sound like a market socialist

Personally I think that all political methods are based on one thing: Localised rule vs. Centralised rule.

One one hand you have Anarchism that is on the extreme localised side. On the other a despotism is on the extreme centralised.

The trouble is that in a localised system a centralised power will lose power and eventually stop having a monopoly on violence. This is perhaps what defines a state, they have a monopoly on leagal violence. As they loose this power they also lose the ability to make long-term comittments, go to the moon, or colonize space or something, unless all people involved agree and those that are not involved agree to pay. Considering how poorly humanity has preformed in the past it comes as no suprise that few would entrust a collective of people to make a unified decision without lumbering a project too much. We can even see this in the current ISS program where nations are fighting over who has/gets to do what.

On the other hand an extremly centralised government tends to be very beurocratic, although it retains power. It would however also need to have a monopoly on violence and du to this it will tend to be authorian. It will though have the power to make long term goals in the interest of the nation (although not always in the interest of it's citizens) and force citizens to work towards that goal.

As far as I can tell, more people are killed by their own or foreign governments than by criminals. For example, in 2003, 17,732 people were murdered in the US. Let's say 600,000 Iraqis have been killed in the course of the Iraq war (a low estimate). Let's say that 1/10th of those deaths have been caused by US forces (a very low estimate, IIRC, it's closer to 1/5th, but I'll stay on the low end until I can get the exact numbers). The war has been going on for three years, so, the yearly average is 20,000 thousand people killed by US forces alone. Now, we're an unusually violent country with a population of 300 million, so this should be saying something to you already about the brutality of war and fascism. We've also been to war at least 25 times in the last 100 years, and committed no small number of atrocities in dozens of countries, including establishing numerous dictators and nuking and firebombing German and Japanese cities.

Seriously, read through this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_history_events

If you get through all of that and still care about American interests abroad, I don't know how to help you.

I think that all of the military, political, and law enforcement power should be directly in the hands of the people. Not the American people, at least not now, but in a good a country that is the way things should be. In the absence of any authoritarian law enforcement I would trust the average American to use a gun to protect against tyranny about as much as I would trust a match to protect a stick of dynamite. In the hands of an American, that gun would just as likely be used to create tyranny. There's something deeply wrong and disturbing with our instant gratification, "I'm my own morality", claw your way to the top mentality. I suspect we'll just have to keep sleepwalking into fascism until we get a sudden and brutal awakening.

dude read ward churchill's "on roosting chickens". we have had an invasion or battle going on at least once a year (more often more) since 1776. america has been at non-stop war. we are a nation of war :cry:

Hi Guys,

Funny to read all the posts. As i'm probably more pessimictic than many, i only want to say that's it is in our human nature to want to control everything and everybody everywhere and everywhen. The plague is this planet is....us. Money, weapons, political systems, diplomacy,... all of our "creations" has the same goal: earning more control !


Hian the Frog.

yeah, but as intelligent beings, we have will, and we can change our behaviours over time. the catch all excuse "it is human nature" has perpetuated ages of atrocities and holocausts, simply because people refuse to be willful, thinking beings.

Look at the society of cattle in america today. oblivious to the crimes against humanity that are being committed, simply out of a refusal to take an iota of responsibility.

No, please don't say "human nature" because i havent committed any war crimes lately, and i am human.

America Is one of the best Nations in the world.

Your all crazy Paranoid.

How has the goverments "evils" made our lives harder? Aside from one of the gimic taxes that snuck 1000$ out of my pocket?

If anything I'd say we need more controll over the actions of radicals, expecially people flaunting and commiting unGodly acts.

America Is one of the best Nations in the world.

Your all crazy Paranoid.

How has the goverments "evils" made our lives harder? Aside from one of the gimic taxes that snuck 1000$ out of my pocket?

If anything I'd say we need more controll over the actions of radicals, expecially people flaunting and commiting unGodly acts.

Yes, brotha. Praise Jesus!

yeah, but as intelligent beings, we have will, and we can change our behaviours over time. the catch all excuse "it is human nature" has perpetuated ages of atrocities and holocausts, simply because people refuse to be willful, thinking beings.

Look at the society of cattle in america today. oblivious to the crimes against humanity that are being committed, simply out of a refusal to take an iota of responsibility.

No, please don't say "human nature" because i havent committed any war crimes lately, and i am human.

Sorry to bring this up now, but I've learned quite a bit over the last few months, and this popped up in my list of subscribed threads. I wasn't suggesting that it's human nature to be like people are today. I was referring specifically to Americans, and only the more recent breed of Americans. The Americans of 250 years ago could have easily handled anarchy.

I think it is human nature to be kind, compassionate, and to care for your fellow man. That's really the only way we could have survived this long. We got through ice ages, droughts, famines, diseases, and worse. We have only two things going for us, and that's intelligence, and cooperation. One guy alone is not going to live very long out in the wildneress. A group of idiots out in the wilderness are not going to live very long either. The only reason we have survived as a species is because, at least up until recently, we were multi-skilled, highly intelligent tool-using communal animals. We cared for each other, and we weren't afraid to try to help one another. That was human nature for all of natural human history (i.e. up until farming and the rise of civilization and the creation of class structures).

What we have in modern times is now a subversion of human nature. People are reeducated, taught that it's not ok to help someone who is getting beaten to death, that you should call the police. And if it's the police who are beating someone to death, you should look away and take any cameras with you. We're taught that sharing is communism, and is therefore evil. We're taught that it's unnecessary, homeless people in the street are homeless because, obviously, they want to be homeless. We have no obligations to anyone or anything, and any suggestion otherwise is fascist.

This is a capitalist/authoritarian defense mechanism, like an economic form of mutually assured destruction. Without the capitalists and their cronies in office, the society they have left us would implode. People don't know how to live without them, they've lost that core component of humanity that kept us alive through so much hardship. If you take the cronies out of office they can just put new ones in. If you get rid of the current capitalists new ones will take their places. But that's all moot, because, apart from a revolution you can't get rid of the current cronies or capitalists. You can't have a revolution either, because they control the media. No one would support it when all the propaganda opposes it, and everyone knows that the removal of their system would result in our society imploding, and even if a revolution suceeds, the massive failure would result in us going back to capitalism almost immediately. Most people just confuse our system with all of humanity, which is why you probably thought I was referring to society as a whole, like most people do.

The problem is that you can't go straight to anarchy. You need an intermediate step to get (some) people ready (obviously it's not a cookie cutter solution, different approaches are required for different societies). You need a new authoritarian power structure. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Chavez and Castro and many others have already figured this out. Socialism is the preparation step, to destroy all the crap that capitalists have spewed around. The important part, though, is that the more authoritarian power-structure must be subjected to greater checks and controls from the people, like in Venezuela. The people must be able to vote politicians out of power. Politicians shouldn't need to whore themselves out to corporations to get into power. Politicians who do whore themselves out to corporations should be removed from power. If these aren't followed, the constitution must unequivocally guarantee the right of the people to rebel, must make it illegal for the government to use its influence to prevent legitimate revolution, and must provide everything necessary to guarantee that the people can rebel without getting massacred or scared away. If those controls are in place, then it will be safe for the government to start correcting the problems which have lead to people being irresponsible morons. A generation or two later, and it would be time for anarchy. It's a risky detour from the goal, but it's essential to make the progression from capitalism.

The americans of 250 years ago where a different species from Modern-Day Man. Those humans of old were capable of building a house where they needed it before winter came; capable of feeding themselves in any biome with wildlife. And when humans of this time fought, it was a personal, abrupt thing.

What the modern propaganda machine, humans are taken from the ages of four years old into a reeducation system that convinces children of lies. I believed heartily that "genetically modified foods" would make huge vegetables that would feed the world. I find out that the "modifications" where to make the food grow pesticides in its cells.

But if you really think about it, children in Western society are started on the path of systemization even earlier than 4 years old. The ever-present, invasive Television pumps out garbage round the clock for small children to absorb. When my wife watches shows like "CSI", for some reason I start to get mad, and uncomfortable watching shootings and seeing decomposing bodies.

The television, I think, is what brought the final downfall of Man. A self-devised way to strangle our own minds, and pollute our own reason.

As for transfer to anarchy: I have become a rather defeatist anarchist at times. I don't see how me or my friends could help the movement, except in small, meaningless ways. And I will second your opinion, I greatly support and admire Chavez, especially after learning his story as president. I also support Cuba and Castro, but not so greatly as I admire Chavez. I think that any rebuilding of post-climate change Earth (aka post-capitalist ;) ) will be brought about by countries like these, with their social governments.

I also support Cuba and Castro, but not so greatly as I admire Chavez. I think that any rebuilding of post-climate change Earth (aka post-capitalist ;) ) will be brought about by countries like these, with their social governments.What a strange kind of anarchist. I don't support statists of any brand, whether socialist or capitalist, feminist or fascist. Although I will say that Chavez seems genuine and I like his in-your-face attitude to the Bushies, ultimately he is part of the problem. All Presidents are.

yes, but for revolution to occur, there must be sympathetic nation states to support an ugly insurgency in north america.

i agree with you, i do not like any national governments, and just as chavez gives to the poor, he takes from the rich, infringing upon them, emphasizing classism in new ways. And, as always, a remote government of any kind will be evil because of the centralization of power and the arbitrary ways it is excised.

yes, but for revolution to occur, there must be sympathetic nation states to support an ugly insurgency in north america.Nah. You don't need them. They simply make things worse. As for "ugly insurgencies", violence cannot be stopped with violence. It simply perpetuates the cycle. I take the fall of communism as my inspiration. People just quit it.

i agree with you, i do not like any national governments, and just as chavez gives to the poor, he takes from the rich, infringing upon them, emphasizing classism in new ways.Actually, like all welfare statists, when he pretends to give to the poor he actually gives to the bureaucrats instead and perpetuates the control of the bureaucrats over them. If he really wanted to give to the poor, he would sell off Petroleos de Venezuela have give the proceeds to the poor. Or, even, better just give them shares which they could dispose of as they wished. But that would be relinquishing his control over them, wouldn't it?

And, as always, a remote government of any kind will be evil because of the centralization of power and the arbitrary ways it is excised.Agreed.

I agree to your points with Chavez, but this doesn't change the fact that I admire the man. He is standing up to a country that has assassinated his friends, and kidnapped and tried to assassinate him. Brave stance to take.

As for americans being able to simple "quit" capitalism, as you say the russians did with communism (which i would debate), i don't think this can happen. And i feel this is because of the such deeply ingrained class warfare here. To be honest, I don't think there will be any change for a while to come. But i would be willing and eager to wait till i was 90 years old, if the revolution would be bloodless

I agree to your points with Chavez, but this doesn't change the fact that I admire the man. He is standing up to a country that has assassinated his friends, and kidnapped and tried to assassinate him. Brave stance to take.It would appear that we basically agree, although I don't remember when the US "assassinated his friends, and kidnapped and tried to assassinate him".

As for americans being able to simple "quit" capitalism, as you say the russians did with communism (which i would debate), i don't think this can happen. And i feel this is because of the such deeply ingrained class warfare here. To be honest, I don't think there will be any change for a while to come. But i would be willing and eager to wait till i was 90 years old, if the revolution would be bloodlessAmericans are far from ready for a revolution of any kind, bloodless or bloody. I firmly believe that the state will fall for the same reason it arose - new technologies. It was a result of the innovation of agriculture. I once hoped that the Internet could be the technology which would lead to its downfall. The events of the last three or four years clearly show that I was wrong, although it is obvious that uncensored information is driving the authorities (and especially their gatekeepers) batty. However, there are many more technologies on the horizon. Freedom - and the drive to innovate - cannot be stopped no matter how hard the statists try to suppress it.

BTW, it is refreshing to see an American acknowledge the extent to which your society is class-based. There are the professionals who obtain their status because they have passed through hugely-expensive initiation rituals. And there are the cannon-fodder whose every other option has been taken away. That's it.

Thank you for being human!

Chavez was kidnapped in 2002 (?) in a coup led by a capitalist puppet. In the end, his palace guards were secretly loyal and helped overthrow the coup de etat. Chavez himself claims his life has been threatened by assassination attempts. And one need only look to panama to see the friend of his who was assassinated (Torrijos). I'm sorry, did I say assassinated, I meant "Plane Accidented".

Yes thank you for noticing i am an alive, aware person. to become what i am, though, involved experiences i wouldn't wish on my enemies.

Chavez was kidnapped in 2002 (?) in a coup led by a capitalist puppet. In the end, his palace guards were secretly loyal and helped overthrow the coup de etat. Chavez himself claims his life has been threatened by assassination attempts. And one need only look to panama to see the friend of his who was assassinated (Torrijos). I'm sorry, did I say assassinated, I meant "Plane Accidented".

Yes thank you for noticing i am an alive, aware person. to become what i am, though, involved experiences i wouldn't wish on my enemies.


watch 'the revolution will not be televised' very easy to find has irish filmmakers who were there at the time document the whole process, including the role of RCTV.
also 'venezuela bolivariana' is very informative

yes that was an excellent source of info. i am dissapointed that chavez choose to close the capitalist TV station. i dont think that is how the left should work.

yes that was an excellent source of info. i am dissapointed that chavez choose to close the capitalist TV station. i dont think that is how the left should work.

If the TV station is going to play cartoons while a dictator is removed from power, and the elected president of the country is rescued, that TV station has no business "informing" people. Freedom of speech as it is understood in capitalist countries is freedom for the rich to speak. Real freedom of speech is the freedom for anyone to speak and be heard, whether or not they have the money to buy a TV station and staff it with people to spew out their propaganda day and night. Chavez does this on his government TV station, and I hope he does it more. More than anything, keeping people from being ignorant of reality is essential to maintaining a funtional democracy. Misinforming the public is one of many ways of subverting a democracy and, as in the case of the US, turning it into a system of corporate fascism.

i understand, and perhaps they were being prudent. but it smacks of stalinism. i hope that chavez will reestablish something in its place for the people or something.

i understand, and perhaps they were being prudent. but it smacks of stalinism. i hope that chavez will reestablish something in its place for the people or something.

The truth about RCTV - a VIC briefing Print E-mail
In recent weeks a number of press articles have claimed that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is closing down the TV station RCTV and that this is a sign of increasing censorship and restrictions to the freedom of expression in Venezuela.

. .These are false allegations, circulated by opponents of the Chávez government as part of a politically motivated campaign to undermine support for the government. The truth about RCTV is very different and below the Venezuela Information Centre outlines the facts.

1) Is the Venezuelan government shutting down the RCTV Station?

Contrary to some reports, the RCTV station is not being closed down. Rather, the Venezuelan government has chosen not to renew RCTV’s licence to broadcast via Venezuela’s Channel Two when this expires on 27 May. RCTV will continue to be able to operate freely in Venezuela on the public airwaves on cable and on satellite, as will the many TV and radio stations that RCTV owner Empresas 1BC runs across Venezuela[i].

2) Why has the government decided not to renew RCTV’s licence?

As with other democracies, Venezuelan law allows the government the right to grant broadcast licences, renew them or let them expire. The government has made the decision not to renew because of RCTV’s violation of numerous laws – most notably the active support it gave to a military coup in April 2002 to overthrow the democratically-elected Chávez government.

In addition to its violation of laws that prohibit the incitement of political violence, RCTV has not co-operated with tax laws and has failed to pay fines issued by the Telecommunications Commission.

* RCTV’s involvement in the 2002 coup

In April 2002, a violent military coup temporarily overthrew the democratically-elected government of President Hugo Chávez. At least 13 people were killed and in the 48 hours that the coup plotters held power there was violent repression against those protesting for Chávez’s return and many were shot at by the police. The coup plotters overturned key components of Venezuela’s democratic constitution - closing down the elected National Assembly, the Supreme Court and other state institutions.

Sections of Venezuela’s private media – including RCTV – played an active role in supporting this coup which became known as the world’s first ‘media coup’. One of the coup leaders Vice-Admiral Victor Ramirez Perez, underlined the key role of the media in organising the coup, stating, “We had a deadly weapon – the media.” The media’s role is highlighted in the documentaries, The Revolution Will Not be Televised and the new John Pilger film The War on Democracy.[ii]

RCTV’s specific involvement included running adverts encouraging the public to take to the streets and to overthrow the democratically elected president.[iii] As www.venezuelanalysis.com highlighted, RCTV was the first to broadcast the false claim that Chávez’s supporters were shooting at opposition demonstrators, which then served as a justification for high level military generals to declare their disobedience to the government[iv] and RCTV also showed exclusive interviews with coup plotters.

RCTV’s involvement was publicly highlighted on a television chat show the day after the coup, where journalists and military plotters boasted of their collaboration in creating a violent confrontation that could be used to justify the overthrow of the government. In this exchange, one conspirator says: "I must thank Venevision and RCTV" for the role it played[v]. RCTV's participation was so extensive that its production manager, Andrés Izarra, who opposed the coup, immediately resigned so as not to become an accomplice.

In addition to direct misrepresentation of events, RCTV also censored news reporting to try to stop the public from finding out what was really happening. RCTV's owner Marcel Granier ordered on the day of the coup and the following day that there was to be "No information on Chávez, his followers, his ministers, and all others" on the station. [vi] A managing producer of one of the station's news programmes affirmed this when testifying to the Venezuelan National Assembly. Instead, in the days of the coup, when hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to demand the return of President Chavez, RCTV showed only cartoons[vii]. This is in clear violation of regulations contained in Article 58 of the Venezuelan Constitution that guarantee Venezuelan citizens a right to "true and accurate information".

In no country would it be the case that media outlets which have not only called for, but also played a key role in organising the violent overthrow of a democratic government, would have their licence to broadcast renewed.

Following their support for the April 2002 military coup, sections of the media have continued to go beyond just expressing criticism of the democratic Venezuelan government by calling for its overthrow. For example, just a few months after the April 2002 military coup, a sabotage of the oil industry – Venezuela’s main source of revenue . .– was organised by industry employers with the intention of creating severe economic hardship that would lead to the overthrow of the Chavez government. It lasted for two months and saw Venezuela’s economy shrink in the first and second quarters of 2003 by 15 percent and 25 percent respectively. Again, the four main TV stations, including RCTV, ran a propaganda war against Chavez including broadcasting 17,600 ‘advertisements’ in support of the sabotage. Many of these were paid for by the TV stations themselves.[viii]

3) Is the non-renewal of the licence legal and have other governments made similar decisions?
Most countries regard the TV and radio airwaves as a public space that has to be regulated through laws and codes of conduct. Governments or delegated bodies are empowered to take action against any broadcaster that fails in its legally prescribed responsibilities.

Across the world, decisions not to renew licences to those who have violated these requirements are not unusual. A report by J. David Carracedo published in the magazine Diagonal on 21 countries, including the US and in Europe, found that there have been at least 236 closures, revocations, and non-renewals of radio and TV licences. [ix] In addition research conducted by the Venezuelan Ministry of Telecommunications shows that over 600 TV broadcasting licences have not been renewed all around the world.

In Venezuela, the regulations are based on Article 156 of the Venezuelan Constitution, the Organic Law of Telecommunications (2000) and the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television (2004) Similarly, there are requirements on broadcasters in the US and Britain.

In the US, laws have long established standards to which all broadcasters must adhere. These are maintained by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which controls licensing and programming. The FCC has regularly denied licence renewals based on these standards and as an article in the Houston Chronicle noted, “it’s doubtful [RCTV’s] actions would last more than a few minutes with the FCC.”[x]

In Britain, TV and radio must adhere to the Broadcasting Code which embodies objectives that Parliament set down in the Communications Act of 2003. This states that “Material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder must not be included in television or radio services”[xi] and that “Broadcasters must use their best endeavors so as not to broadcast material that could endanger lives.”[xii] RCTV’s role in the coup would have clearly violated these laws.

4) Will alternative views still be able to be expressed in Venezuela?
Much of the reporting of the non-renewal of the RCTV licence has implied that this station is a lone critical voice of the Chavez government. This could not be further from the truth.

It is estimated that 95 percent of the Venezuelan media is in opposition to President Chávez, and on a daily basis produces vitriolic ‘news pieces’ as well as editorials against the government.[xiii]. The private Venezuelan media includes five major television channels –Venevisión, RCTV, Globovisión, Televen and CMT – which control at least 90 percent of the TV market, with smaller private stations controlling another five percent.[xiv] In addition all of the country’s 118 newspaper companies, both regional and national, are held in private hands, as are 99 percent of radio stations.[xv]

Venezuela’s media enjoys the freedom to report and express opinions without government interference. Despite the clear violations of laws and active support for the overthrowing of a democratic government, not a single TV or radio station has been closed by the government since President Chávez was elected in 1998.

However, two television channels have been shut down temporarily for political reasons, not by the government, but by opponents of President Chavez. One was the public station, Channel 8, which was shut down by the junta responsible for the coup as part of concerted efforts to prevent the truth from getting out. The second is the case of alternative station Catia TV, which was closed in July 2003 by the former Metropolitan Area Mayor, Alfredo Peña, an anti-Chávez member of the opposition and supporter of the April 2002 coup[xvi].

In fact, since the election of the President Chávez, the diversity of media has expanded. Venezuela’s Telecommunications Minister, Jesse Chacón, recently pointed out that during the Chávez presidency the number of TV channels have increased from 30 to 78 and the number of FM radio broadcasters from 368 to 617 since 1999.

5) What will replace RCTV on Channel Two?

In addition to RCTV’s failure to meet basic public interest standards, the Venezuelan government has also said that it has chosen to grant the licence to another broadcaster in order to democratise both access to and the content of the airwaves.

A new television station TEVES (Venezuelan Social Television) will begin airing on Channel Two once RCTV’s licence expires. Government Minister Jesse Chacon has said that TEVES will be similar in concept to that of European public service broadcasting, with the aim of creating space for diverse programming. He explained that the new channel will “break the editorial line that exists in the TV business, where the owner of the medium is the owner of the message” with independent TV producers creating the programmes for the new channel.[xvii] The Venezuelan Director of Public Policy of the Ministry of Communication and Information, Luisana Colomine, added that “Any person can participate in its production and no one will be excluded for belonging to one political party or another… That's part of the idea of public service”. [xviii]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[i] Hugo Chávez and RCTV: Censorship or a legitimate decision? 7 February 2007 at http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1954
[ii] The Revolution Will Not Be Televised can be viewed at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144 or a copy can be requested by e-mailing . For more information on The War on Democracy see www.johnpilger.com
[iii] Press Freedoms in Venezuela: The Case of RCTV. Venezuela Information Office press release at www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/RCTV.htm
[iv] The footage which claimed to show Chavez supporters firing on innocent demonstrators, was actually scenes of pro-government demonstrators defending themselves while under fire from trained snipers who were killing people as shown in the film Llaguno Bridge: Keys to a Massacre at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9wU0OIIEmY
[v] In the film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.
[vi] Press Freedoms in Venezuela: The Case of RCTV Venezuela Information Office press release at www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/RCTV.htm.
[vii] Press Freedoms in Venezuela: The Case of RCTV Venezuela Information Office press release at www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/RCTV.htm
[vii] Venezuelan Government Will Not Renew “Coup-Plotting” TV Station’s License 3 January 2007 at www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2182
[viii] Eva Gollinger quoted in www.coha.org/NEW_PRESS_RELEASES/New_Press_Releases_2005/05.47_Telesur_ the_one.htm
[ix] See the full report http://www.rebelion.org/docs/47853.pdf
[x] Jones, Bart “Chavez as Castro? It’s not that simple in Venezuela,” Houston Chronicle, February 7, 2007.
[xi] Section 3.1 of the OFCOM Broadcasting Code, available at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/ofcom-broadcasting-code.pdf
[xii] Section 3.6 of the OFCOM Broadcasting Code, available at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/ofcom-broadcasting-code.pdf
[xiii] Press release from Council on Hemispheric Affairs 19 January 2007 http://www.coha.org/2007/01/19/hugo-chavez-the-media-and-everybody-else
[xiv] Press release from Council on Hemispheric Affairs 19 January 2007 http://www.coha.org/2007/01/19/hugo-chavez-the-media-and-everybody-else
[xv] Press Freedoms in Venezuela: The Case of RCTV. Venezuela Information Office press release at www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/RCTV.htm
[xvi] http://www.aporrea.org/actualidad/n8281.html
[xvii] See Telecom Minister: New Channel Will Be First True Public TV in Venezuela, March 29 2007, www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2254
[xviii] Interview with Panorama, available at http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2296

Nah. You don't need them. They simply make things worse. As for "ugly insurgencies", violence cannot be stopped with violence. It simply perpetuates the cycle. I take the fall of communism as my inspiration. People just quit it.

Actually, like all welfare statists, when he pretends to give to the poor he actually gives to the bureaucrats instead and perpetuates the control of the bureaucrats over them. If he really wanted to give to the poor, he would sell off Petroleos de Venezuela have give the proceeds to the poor. Or, even, better just give them shares which they could dispose of as they wished. But that would be relinquishing his control over them, wouldn't it?

Agreed.

people didnt just quit communism. it was actively undermined externally from the beginning.
my problem with this kind of attitude is summed up by someone else somewhere else:




'The main difference between communists and anarchists is that communists proceed from reality as it actually exists and work to transform it accordingly, while anarchists proceed from subjective idealism...what they WISH to be the case, and try to hammer reality into place to fit it. And that's precisely why they've never succeeded anywhere...they don't have any idea how to start with what exists and transform it into something else.

It is not possible to just jump straight from a situation of profound inequality and somehow create overnight, due to some insurrection or whatever, a whole new situation for the masses of people. You have to start with what IS, and transform it through protracted struggle. You have to understand the relation between consciousness and matter, between the economic base and the society that grows from that, and know how to struggle on all fronts to transform society. That takes a while. We need to go ahead and acknowlege that fact.

There's an old anecdote about a communist professor who's asked about this, and his response was, "Look, everyone can see that I'm fat. I've tried every sort of diet and sometimes I've made progress, but I put the weight back on. But I finally came up with a solution: I've decided that I'm going to skip the diet stage and go straight to being thin!"

Anarchists want to skip the diet stage. They want to skip the struggle, skip the leadership, skip the state as an expression of the people's will and a means for unlocking their potential, and somehow magically come to a classless, communist society.'




venezuela is successful, the lives of poor people have been improved. but it is because it has recognised concrete reality, how easy do you think it would be for organised power, with all their accumulated wealth etc to subvert a system of a loose federation of individuals? hugo chavez has acted as a figurehead, and provided protection, for the hundreds of social movements which have emerged since the 'caracazo'. its not that i am against the principles of anarchism, its just that you must be realistic in these matters, and until there is an example of a successful vision which has moved beyond the idealistic stage i remain convinced of the necessity for some kind of leadership.

I have to disagree, I do not feel that communism is any different than western democracy.

As an anarchist myself, i believe that central government of any kind breeds the inequities that are experienced by most nations. This is evident in the capitalist and communist class struggles.

A central government of any kind is not communism, either. In order for a society to be communist, it must be classless, which includes having no ruling class distinct from the ruled class. Direct democracy might be a possible form of communism, but there's no ruling class to enforce it, so it would be equivalent to anarchy. The major distinction communism makes with anarchy is with market anarchists, like the American Libertarian variety. Communism recognizes not only the danger of concentrated political power, but also of concentrated economic power. It goes somewhat further to require that intellectuals see to the education of the population. Those three things ensure the freedom of a country.

Concentrated political power is pretty obviously a bad thing, e.g. a dictatorship. Concentrated economic power is also a bad thing, e.g. any multinational or defense industry corporation you can name. Get rid of those concentrations and people will be free. But, that freedom is temporary. It wouldn't take long for warlords, gangs, and mafias to gain power in a decentralized system. A perfect example would be the Native American tribes prior to the European invasion.

Marriage laws are non-existent men and women alike choose their mates and leave them as they please, without offense, jealousy or anger. They multiply in great abundance; pregnant women work to the last minute and give birth almost painlessly; up the next day, they bathe in the river and are as clean and healthy as before giving birth. If they tire of their men, they give themselves abortions with herbs that force stillbirths, covering their shameful parts with leaves or cotton cloth; although on the whole, Indian men and women look upon total nakedness with as much casualness as we look upon a man's head or at his hands.

They live in...


large communal bell-shaped buildings, housing up to 600 people at one time ... made of very strong wood and roofed with palm leaves.... They prize bird feathers of various colors, beads made of fishbones, and green and white stones with which they adorn their ears and lips, but they put no value on gold and other precious things. They lack all manner of commerce, neither buying nor selling, and rely exclusively on their natural environment for maintenance. They are extremely generous with their possessions and by the same token covet the possessions of then; friends and expect the same degree of liberality. ...


And here's what Columbus had to say about them:


They ... brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. They willingly traded everything they owned... . They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features.... They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane... . They would make fine servants.... With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.


Las Casas, again:


Endless testimonies . .. prove the mild and pacific temperament of the natives.... But our work was to exasperate, ravage, kill, mangle and destroy; small wonder, then, if they tried to kill one of us now and then.... The admiral, it is true, was blind as those who came after him, and he was so anxious to please the King that he committed irreparable crimes against the Indians....


The problem that the Native Americans had was two-fold. Firstly, they were technologically behind their aggressors. If they had had a lot of people inventing and researching, and sharing their discoveries, it would have improved their quality of life and their ability to resist aggressors. Secondly, they were not prepared to organize rapidly. Staying connected and informed would have helped them to spread new ideas and knowledge, and to organize more efficiently against attackers. To get these two things, you need education to keep people aware of their necessity and interested in them, in addition to the education itself. That's how you go from a temporarily free society, such as the Native Americans had, to a permanently free society, such as is the goal of communism.

I feel the native americans, prior to the genocide, could have quite possibly been more advanced than the europeans in a natural way. they possessed great balance in their lives, and therefore knew not war.

The europeans, on the other hand, come from a perpetual dark age of war and pestilence. the fact that the europeans had guns and swordmetal is a testament to their lack of complexity. And where ever they went, they spread their dark age, even to this day.

Whoa, discussion here has come to praise the Colonel's recent activities regarding venezuelan press.

How... boring.

Whoa, discussion here has come to praise the Colonel's recent activities regarding venezuelan press.

How... boring.

so you agree with me then, that he shouldn't have done it? (and why is neo-liberal media shoving this down my american throat?)

Garrett, make a quick internet research for the name 'Gustavo Cisneros'.

Then you'll understand why was so important to close a medium-sized channel like RCTV to clear competition for a larger company.

Latin 'socialists' keep dreaming of a red revolution every time a Coronel reaches power. How sad.

read it. latin murdock

Garrett, make a quick internet research for the name 'Gustavo Cisneros'.

Then you'll understand why was so important to close a medium-sized channel like RCTV to clear competition for a larger company.

Latin 'socialists' keep dreaming of a red revolution every time a Coronel reaches power. How sad.


its not that a coronel came to power but how he came to power and how he maintained power - through the mass democratic mobilisation of civil society. a quick internet search will reveal the widespread empowerment of the people which has resulted.

also are you suggesting that gustavo cisneros actively encouraged or was behind the closure of RCTV? this seems a bit of an overcomplicated conspiracy theory considering a more obvious reason in RCTVs active coup orchestration, as well as a bit far fetched considering venevisions role in this coup also.

so you agree with me then, that he shouldn't have done it? (and why is neo-liberal media shoving this down my american throat?)

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2048

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2049

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2050

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2052

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2053

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2054

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2058

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2059

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2070






The battle over the media is about race as well as class

The protests in Venezuela are motivated by more than a TV station. The oligarchy fears it is losing its right to run the country

Richard Gott in Caracas
Thursday June 7, 2007
The Guardian

After 10 days of rival protests in the streets of Caracas, memories have been revived of earlier attempts to overthrow the Bolivarian revolution of Hugo Chávez, now in its ninth year. Street demonstrations, culminating in an attempted coup in 2002 and a prolonged lock-out at the national oil industry, once seemed the last resort of an opposition unable to make headway at the polls. Yet the current unrest is a feeble echo of those tumultuous events, and the political struggle takes place on a smaller canvas. Today's battle is for the hearts and minds of a younger generation confused by the upheavals of an uncharted revolutionary process.

University students from privileged backgrounds have been pitched against newly enfranchised young people from the impoverished shantytowns, beneficiaries of the increased oil royalties spent on higher education projects for the poor. These separate groups never meet, but both sides occupy their familiar battleground within the city, one in the leafy squares of eastern Caracas, the other in the narrow and teeming streets in the west. This symbolic battle will become ever more familiar in Latin America in the years ahead: rich against poor, white against brown and black, immigrant settlers against indigenous peoples, privileged minorities against the great mass of the population. History may have come to an end in other parts of the world, but in this continent historical processes are in full flood.

Ostensibly the argument is about the media, and the government's decision not to renew the broadcasting licence of a prominent station, Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), and to hand its frequencies to a newly established state channel. What are the rights of commercial television channels? What are the responsibilities of those funded by the state? Where should the balance between them lie? Academic questions in Europe and the US, the debate in Latin America is loud and impassioned. Here there is little tradition of public broadcasting, and commercial stations often received their licence in the days of military rule.

The debate in Venezuela has less to do with the alleged absence of freedom of expression than with a perennially tricky issue locally referred to as "exclusion", a shorthand term for "race" and "racism". RCTV was not just a politically reactionary organisation which supported the 2002 coup attempt against a democratically elected government - it was also a white supremacist channel. Its staff and presenters, in a country largely of black and indigenous descent, were uniformly white, as were the protagonists of its soap operas and the advertisements it carried. It was "colonial" television, reflecting the desires and ambitions of an external power.

At the final, close-down party of RCTV last month, those most in view on the screen were long-haired and pulchritudinous young blondes. Such images make for excellent television watching by European and North American males, and these languorous blondes are indeed familiar figures from the Miss World and Miss Universe competitions in which the children of recent immigrants from Europe are invariably Venezuela's chief contenders. Yet their ubiquity on the screen prevented the channel from presenting a mirror to the society that it sought to serve or to entertain. To watch a Venezuelan commercial station (and several still survive) is to imagine that you have been transported to the US. Everything is based on a modern, urban and industrialised society, remote from the experience of most Venezuelans. Their programmes, argues Aristóbulo Istúriz, until recently Chávez's minister of education (and an Afro-Venezuelan), encourage racism, discrimination and exclusion.

The new state-funded channels (and there are several of them too, plus innumerable community radio stations) are doing something completely different, and unusual in the competitive world of commercial television. Their programmes look as though they are taking place in Venezuela, and they display the cross-section of the population to be seen on cross-country buses or on the Caracas metro. As in every country in the world, not everyone in Venezuela is a natural beauty. Many are old, ugly and fat. Today they are given a voice and a face on the television channels of the state. Many are deaf or hard of hearing. Now they have sign language interpretation on every programme. Many are inarticulate peasants. They too have their moment on the screen. Their immediate and dangerous struggle for land is not just being observed by a documentary film-maker from the city. They are being taught to make the films themselves.

Blanca Eekhout, the head of Vive TV, the government's cultural channel, launched two years ago, coined the slogan "Don't watch television, make it". Classes in film-making have been set up all over the country. Lil Rodríguez, an Afro-Venezuelan journalist and the boss of TVES, the channel that replaces RCTV, claims that it will become "a useful space for rescuing those values that other models of television always ignore, especially our Afro-heritage". With time, the excluded will find a voice within the mainstream.

Little of this is under discussion in the dialogue of the deaf on the streets of Caracas. For the protesting university students, the argument about the media is just one more stick with which to hit out against the ever-popular Chávez. Yet as they mourn the loss of their favourite soap operas, they are already aware that their eventual loss may be more substantial. As children of the oligarchy, they might have expected soon to run the country. Now fresh faces are emerging from the shantytowns to challenge them, a new class educating itself at speed and planning to seize their birthright.

Just a few weeks ago, Chávez outlined his plans for university reform, encouraging wider access and the development of a different curriculum. New colleges and technical institutes across the country will dilute the prestige of the older establishments, still the preserve of the wealthy, and the battle over the media will soon be submerged in a wider struggle for educational reform. Chávez takes no notice of the complaints and simply soldiers on, with the characteristics of an evangelical preacher: he urges people to lead moral lives, live simply and resist the lure of consumerism. He is embarked on a challenge to the established order that has long prevailed in Venezuela and throughout the rest of Latin America, hoping that the message of his cultural revolution will soon echo across the continent.

Cisneros was (and is) a multimillionaire with his share in Venezuelan petrodollars. He played an active role in the coup'detat against Chavez in 2002 and was always a conservative figure in the country's politics. His own television, Venevisión is one of Venezuela's most popular channel and too played an important role in the coup.

But Cisneros is 'brother' of Chavez now. Why? Because he realized the new direction the government was taking and sided with Chavez in time for being one of the major leads in the recent "boli-burgeois". El Coronel too, being an adequate politician (and nothing more than that), sided with Cisnero's and the capitalist's huge resources. Then came the closing of RCTV with the stupid excuse of playing a part in the coup - while all of the coup leaders, including Cisneros AND the RCTV leaders, are still out of jail, why?

Why closing RCTV and keeping other coup players? Why allying with greedy Cisneros while playing the 'socialist' speech? Why closing RCTV *right now* after siding with Cisneros, and not before? Why are so many students and barrio workers protesting?

True, El Coronel has done important improvements for democracy -true democracy- in Venezuela, like helping organize barrio assemblies and community participation. But he's a politician, a player, and History is full of those who free with one hand and opress with the other.

I suggest some independent media sources like Radar de los Barrios, Indymedia Venezuela (partially dominated by "bolicrats" but still worthy of debate) and El Libertario.

what do you mean by bolicrat? i think i have an idea.

Bolicrat = bolivarian + bureaucrat

Cisneros was (and is) a multimillionaire with his share in Venezuelan petrodollars. He played an active role in the coup'detat against Chavez in 2002 and was always a conservative figure in the country's politics. His own television, Venevisión is one of Venezuela's most popular channel and too played an important role in the coup.

But Cisneros is 'brother' of Chavez now. Why? Because he realized the new direction the government was taking and sided with Chavez in time for being one of the major leads in the recent "boli-burgeois". El Coronel too, being an adequate politician (and nothing more than that), sided with Cisnero's and the capitalist's huge resources. Then came the closing of RCTV with the stupid excuse of playing a part in the coup - while all of the coup leaders, including Cisneros AND the RCTV leaders, are still out of jail, why?

Why closing RCTV and keeping other coup players? Why allying with greedy Cisneros while playing the 'socialist' speech? Why closing RCTV *right now* after siding with Cisneros, and not before? Why are so many students and barrio workers protesting?

True, El Coronel has done important improvements for democracy -true democracy- in Venezuela, like helping organize barrio assemblies and community participation. But he's a politician, a player, and History is full of those who free with one hand and opress with the other.

I suggest some independent media sources like Radar de los Barrios, Indymedia Venezuela (partially dominated by "bolicrats" but still worthy of debate) and El Libertario.