Chavez redistributing the sun to the poor

[Che Guava]

Still seems a far cry from hating america, IMHO, but then again I'm just a lowly canuck...

 

[bhsup]

 

[Princeps]

It's funny, if President Bush abolished term limits, restricted opposition media outlets for any reason, etc, etc the entire world would scream "dictator!" and "tyrant!" But in Latin America they scream "liberator!"

Actually, its sort of like this... If a pro-business president would abolish term limits, burned down opposition media outlets, mutilated opposition members etc etc the entire "world" (meaning right wing media, neoliberal financial institutions, big business etc) would go into a euphoria about this new "benign and enlightened moderate" in a world of "extremism" or whatever.´

As for "anti-americanism" on these forums. I despise anti-americans just as I despise anti-semites. I don't hate America or Americans... I might often vehemently disagree with the policies of United States (meaning state power of US), but I have nothing against Americans or their culture or community. Some people might start pointing fingers at Americans, that's sort of a "spillover" effect. Criticsm might spillover into hatred of the nation and culture, similar to how some people start accusing Jews of Israel's wrongs.

 

[Atticus]

Yeah, they aren't examples of hate, just exaggerated criticality. You see people always note those extreme opinions and all the loudmouths shouting them, and in response it's hard to formulate own thoughts without being to extreme yourself. If somebody really hates America, (s)he would probably hate the Civilization game also as a form of American culture, and would not hang around here.

I personally don't hate Americans, but I do hate their freedom.

Innonimatu: I must say that I really respect your troughoutness and coherence in these debates. And this is no joke.

 

[luiz]

It seems any thread about Venezuela ends with this discussion... I'll abstain from repeating myself in future threads, but I'll answer here one last time.

Yeah, ten years ago you guys would be defending Castro, and twenty years ago the Soviet Union in general, and 60 years ago Stalin. In ten years you will recognise that Chávez is/was a tyrant, but you will support a new guy.

A look back to the news published in the days before and after the April 11 coup will present a different scenario. Lets just use the short news from the BBC archives about the situation:
March 21st, 2002: the CTV has already set in motion the creation of a crisis situation, that would later be used as a justification to overthrow the government.
April 9th, 2002: a "general strike" where business leaders order their employees not to go to work. Original, no doubt.
April 12th, 2002: Chavez ousted, written off by the Venezuela's media...
April 12th, 2002: the media takes care of justifying the coup...
April 15th, 2002: the coup failed, suddenly a series of journalists seem to have forgotten what they wrote just 3 days earlier.

The news about the shootings were manipulated, as the release of videos after the days of the coup showed. But they were the main propaganda piece used to justify the coup.

Eh, I still don't see any endorsement of violence, just reporting the facts. Didn't a general strike happen? Was Venezuela not at the brink of an institutional collapse?

You are just of the opinion that Chávez is good therefore whoever opposes him is wrong, and lying. But it isn't so.

Well, I guess Carmona and his co-conspirators found out that an army is more than just generals, then.

Yes, and it is also more than junior officers. But if you gather enough support among them, you can win regardless of how the rest of the army feels. This is a lesson that any Latin American should know, but I guess Carmona didn't.

He didn't last long enough to carry it out, but he did order it. Here's the decree he had time to announce. Notice these points:

OK, so he did. It is very grave, of course, but ultimately what else could he do? The Congress is 100% controlled by Chávez (I repeat, 100%), and so is the Supreme Court. Without shutting them both down, he would not be able to rule, and thus there would be no point in a coup. A coup is anti-democratic by nature, but it can restore democracy.

As for comparing the National Assembly of Venezuela with a "congress of North Korea", are there free elections in North Korea? No, I don't think so...
But we now know just how much you respect democracy: its good so long as the people vote for the candidates you like. Kind of like... the "Democratic" People's Republic of Korea?

How many working democracies in the entire world have a Congress 100% controlled by the government? None.

Let me be emphatic: there is no oppositioner in Congress. This is not a democracy, this is a thinly veiled dictatorship!

Right, that was why his movement immediately collapsed when he was sequestered in 2002. Oh, wait...

It wouldn't have if Chávez was killed...
Tell me, who is Chávez' heir?
What has Chávez ever done to prepare his movement after he is gone? Nothing. As far as he is concerned, the world is finished as soon as he leaves office.

Those media outlets were not shut down even after the coup. The license of one television network was not renewed when it came up for revision. Not quite the same thing.

Except that the license is always renewed, and the text is ambigous. Many argue that the license would only expire in many years.

As for rule for life and rewriting the constitution, it doesn't look good, I'll grant you that, But it has been both legal and democratic, so far.
You, on the other hand, would "defend democracy" by overthrowing the legitimately elected president and government, and replacing it with a murderous dictator (Carmona doesn't qualify for the job because he wasn't murderous enough, I see).
Frankly, I'd take Chavez democracy over yours any day.

It's simple, you don't depose a tyrant working within the democratic framset. If you wanted to oust Hitler, would you organize a rally in Berlin or a plant a bomb in his desk? Chávez - just like his mentor Fidel Castro - will never leave power peacefully. Understand that. Against those people, violence is necessary. They already have, after all, used violnece against their opponents (a point that you still have not addressed, the shootings by Chávez militiamen).

A ruler that arms militias to scare and kill the opposition loses the right to life in my book.

 

[The Yankee]

It's like Simon Bolivar is the now revered in the same way as Karl Marx, Ronald Reagan, and Jesus.

Anyway, don't the poor have enough sunlight when they're out doing manual labor? Or would that also be another point from the Bolivarian Dictator of the Bolivarian Republic of Bolivarenzuela to make?

Got to admire his persistence that even decisions like this could be laced with rhetoric.

 

[innonimatu]

It's simple, you don't depose a tyrant working within the democratic framset. If you wanted to oust Hitler, would you organize a rally in Berlin or a plant a bomb in his desk?

Please tell me, how can one be a tyrant while working within the democratic frameset? Can't you notice the absurd of your claims?

He is not a tyrant - and note that he, unlike Hitler (you had to bring up the Hitler, we may as well close the thread), has run for and won several election with absolute majorities. Hitler was the one raised to power in the manner you suggest (the Carmona way).

There has been an attempt to oust him within the democratic frameset. It failed, within the democratic frameset. He is still president, within the democratic frameset. Now you propose to overthrow him by force, and dare accuse him of being a tyrant? Forgetting that to keep him or his movement barred from power you'd have to... put an end to democracy and install a tyranny!

There are none as blind as those who refuse to see. It’s pointless to continue arguing.

(a point that you still have not addressed, the shootings by Chávez militiamen).

A ruler that arms militias to scare and kill the opposition loses the right to life in my book.

This is worth commenting, because it’s a recurrent tactic when overthrowing governments. Whoever plans to overthrow a ruler always needs an excuse, and producing propaganda accusing the government of arming militias and shooting opponents is an ever-popular tactic.

The claims made against Chavez during the coup were lies, and have been shown to be lies. In fact I don’t even have to address them, because I’m not the one making claims about armed militias killing the opposition. You made those claims, yours is the burden of proving them.
Any reasonably intelligent person would anyway know that a true tyrant in power doesn’t have to set up militias, he has the national army, police and secret services to do whatever dirty works he wants, in a far more competent way.

 

[luiz]

Please tell me, how can one be a tyrant while working within the democratic frameset? Can't you notice the absurd of your claims?

Uh, because there is no more democratic frameset in Venezuela?
Because Congress is 100% controlled by the government and approves whatever Chávez wants, including changes in the fundamental articles of the constitution?
Because that same Congress pretty much made itself pointless by allowing Chávez to rule by decree?

There is no more democracy in Venezuela, get it? The institutions are gone, Congress is gone, the Supreme Court is packed, the media is beign silenced... you call that democracy?

He is not a tyrant - and note that he, unlike Hitler (you had to bring up the Hitler, we may as well close the thread), has run for and won several election with absolute majorities. Hitler was the one raised to power in the manner you suggest (the Carmona way).

I could have brought up Castro, but than maybe someone would say "Castro is a hero!". At least we can all agree that Hitler was bad. And of course Hitler has the particularity, that you did not notice, of having risen to power within the democratic frameset. Of course he eventually created a brand new constitution (much like Chávez...), but anyway...

There has been an attempt to oust him within the democratic frameset. It failed, within the democratic frameset. He is still president, within the democratic frameset. Now you propose to overthrow him by force, and dare accuse him of being a tyrant? Forgetting that to keep him or his movement barred from power you'd have to... put an end to democracy and install a tyranny!

I don't believe in fair election when Chávez militia go around harassing people... And I don't believe in democracy without opposition in Congress, with a packed SC, with rule-by-decree...

There are none as blind as those who refuse to see. It’s pointless to continue arguing.

Indeed. It's very easy to support a latin-american tyrannete while comfortably enjoying an european liberal democracy... Chávez looks good on distance, huh?

This is worth commenting, because it’s a recurrent tactic when overthrowing governments. Whoever plans to overthrow a ruler always needs an excuse, and producing propaganda accusing the government of arming militias and shooting opponents is an ever-popular tactic.

The claims made against Chavez during the coup were lies, and have been shown to be lies. In fact I don’t even have to address them, because I’m not the one making claims about armed militias killing the opposition. You made those claims, yours is the burden of proving them.
Any reasonably intelligent person would anyway know that a true tyrant in power doesn’t have to set up militias, he has the national army, police and secret services to do whatever dirty works he wants, in a far more competent way.

How short some people's memories are... let's refresh it! Two interesting links that show how well democracy works with Chávez:
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/elections/venezuela/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/country_profiles/1229348.stm

The following quote, from the first link, refers to something that happened during Chávez' last election:

Later in the day, pro-Chavez gunmen shot randomly at a crowd of opposition supporters, killing one and injuring several others

And this is how Chávez responds to democratic opposition (BBC link)

Some 150,000 people rally in support of strike and oil protest. National Guard and pro-Chavez gunmen clash with protesters - more than 10 are killed and 110 injured.

What a dear! How lovely! There is a man who knows what democracy means!

I hope you will be kind enough to admitt you were wrong, that Chávez is a tyrant and that he killed democracy in Venezuela.

 

[Adebisi]

So, uh, you'd rather keep spouting these indoctornated neoliberal mantras?

Well, if you are anti-democracy, then surely support for democracy must seem like a mantra, as a vast majority of all media in the developed world support democracy. A very large portion of it must be neo-liberal too, as opposition to Chavez anti-democratic plans have been very general!

Any healthy democracy need a media with a free debate on national matters, and checks and balances on the presidential powers. Chavez is removing both.

First of all, Chavez's economic policies are not far from Nordic ones...

You cannot just claim nonsense like this and then run away without backing up your claims. First of all, the Nordic countries must be "neoliberal", as most media has condemned Chavez plans for a "socialist state"!

But on a serious note, the Nordic social democratic experiment has not included any form of cult of personality. No checks and balances on the power of the government has been removed either, except in the case of Finland, where president Kekkonen was allowed to rule for a very long time during the cold war. This was not because of any ideology or cult of personality however, rather because he was trusted by the Soviet Union, and the constitution was not changed, so a comparsion to Venezuela would be very far fetched. There is no rule by decree in any Nordic country.

All Nordic countries have a free media. The swedish media is dominated by a leftist tabloid (Aftonbladet) and two broadsheets, one conservative and one liberal (Svenska Dagbladet and Dagens Nyheter).

Furthermore, all Nordic countries have a free market. A few big corporations are owned by the state but otherwise there are no elements of pure socialism, only very high taxation (up to 50% of GDP) and regulation. The economy is diverse and not based on any natural resource that happens to have a very high price.

 

[amadeus]

Adebisi, let's have a little fun with this post, with information courteously provided by the Heritage Foundation.

Chavez's economic policies are not far from Nordic ones...

Residents and non-residents may hold foreign exchange accounts. There are no controls on payments and transfers or repatriation of profits...

The government controls key sectors of the economy, including oil, petrochemicals, and much of the mining and aluminum industries. Expropriation is likely. The government controls foreign exchange and fixes the exchange rate. Special regulations exist for a range of transactions including foreign investment, remittances, foreign private debt, imports, exports, insurance and reinsurance, and the airline industry...

Not enough?

Starting a business takes an average of five days, compared to the world average of 48 days. Obtaining a business license is very simple, and closing a business is easy. Transparent regulations are applied evenly and efficiently in most cases. The overall freedom to start, operate, and close a business is strongly protected by the national regulatory environment, giving the nation a powerful competitive advantage...

Starting a business takes an average of 141 days... Obtaining a business license can be difficult, and closing a business is very difficult. Complicated regulations are sometimes inconsistent, causing unreliability of interpretation. The overall freedom to start, operate, and close a business is seriously restricted by the national regulatory environment.

More, more, more...

Private property is safe from expropriation. Contracts are secure, and the judiciary is of high quality.

Property rights are weakly protected. The judiciary is influenced by the executive, and the government routinely backs off from "inconvenient" contracts, particularly in the oil sector.

The list goes on...

Corruption is perceived as almost nonexistent. Finland ranks 2nd out of 158 countries in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index for 2005.

Corruption is perceived as widespread. Venezuela ranks 130th out of 158 countries in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index for 2005.

I don't know about you, Adebisi, but I think the Scandinavian countries and Venezuela sound exactly alike!

 

[luiz]

So let's see here...

Chávez rules over a country where 100% of the Congress is controlled by the government. He wants to abolish term limits for president, but not for governor and mayor (because the last vestige of opposition in Venezuela is a couple of mayors and a governor). He has armed a militia that on different occasions has shot and killed oppositioners. He is shutting down all dissent on the media (RCTV is only a case, he routinely harasses Globovisión and the newspapers). His regime is one of the most corrupt in the world.

There is nothing good about the guy. Our resident Chávez lovers would never tolerate to live under his reign of terror, they only admire him by distance while enjoying the comforts and liberty of a bourgeouis democracy.

I'm still waiting for innonimatu to comment on my links about Chávez' gunmen shooting oppositioners, or Princeps backing his comments about how Chávez is a scandinavian-style democrat... I guess I'll have to wait forever.

 

[Godwynn]

So let's see here...

Chávez rules over a country where 100% of the Congress is controlled by the government. He wants to abolish term limits for president, but not for governor and mayor (because the last vestige of opposition in Venezuela is a couple of mayors and a governor). He has armed a militia that on different occasions has shot and killed oppositioners. He is shutting down all dissent on the media (RCTV is only a case, he routinely harasses Globovisión and the newspapers). His regime is one of the most corrupt in the world.

There is nothing good about the guy. Our resident Chávez lovers would never tolerate to live under his reign of terror, they only admire him by distance while enjoying the comforts and liberty of a bourgeouis democracy.

I'm still waiting for innonimatu to comment on my links about Chávez' gunmen shooting oppositioners, or Princeps backing his comments about how Chávez is a scandinavian-style democrat... I guess I'll have to wait forever.

The Congress is controlled by the government. Could you elaborate on that?

 

[nivi]

Adebisi, let's have a little fun with this post, with information courteously provided by the Heritage Foundation.

The amazing Nivi is going to predict to future, spacificly, Princeps response:


The Heritage Foundation is a neoliberal orginzations which is controlled and owned by neoliberals and is part of the neoliberal media's plan for a neoliberal new world order.

neoliberal.

 

[innonimatu]

Ok, Luiz, I know it won't possibly change your mind (nothing can, you've already fully embraced one version about Chavez and the coup), but I'll comment.

Indeed. It's very easy to support a latin-american tyrannete while comfortably enjoying an european liberal democracy... Chávez looks good on distance, huh?

I've been arguing that he looks better than your proposal of a real tyrant murdering him, taking over power ans suppressing democracy until the venezuelans were persuaded that Chavez and his proposals were bad and shouldn't be voted for. Something with which even most of the venezuelan opposition agrees.

Really, you're basically claiming that a tyrant would be better that some guy who was repeatedly elected, in elections that all foreign observers declared free and fair. And you still pretend to be taken seriously as a supporter of democracy?

As for the comfort of the european liberal democracy on my country, it's because I know how it was built and how it could have been derailed that I bother denouncing those ideas about simply overthrowing Chavez.

How short some people's memories are... let's refresh it! Two interesting links that show how well democracy works with Chávez:
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/elections/venezuela/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/country_profiles/1229348.stm

Why, thank you for those two links. They actually support what I had written in my previous post. Why is it that all is quiet during the many anti-Chavez marches and strikes, then at key moments such as just before a prepared coup or after a contested ballot, "pro-Chavez gunmen" show up randomly shooting the opposition - precisely when such a thing would cause the most damage to Chavez?

The April 11 2002 shootings were used to justify the coup (which, no doubt, had been planned before, no one carries out a coup, even an incompetent one, in a few hours notice). They happened after anti-Chavez march was deliberately led to confront a pro-Chavez march. The media, at the time, showed deliberately edited pictures and video footage of four people shooting in the general direction of the pro-Chavez march. The full video, later released, actually showed them returning fire, after being shot from the pro-Chavez march, perhaps (no one agrees here) from police present. The police was aligned with the opposition and just a few hours later took part in the coup to oust Chavez. Coincidence?

There is one freelance journalist (who has no personal sympathy for Chavez) who in his blog gives an interesting account of what he witnessed and what he put together about the days of the coup:

Then came the coup de grace. A Venevision camera crew managed, through an outstanding bit of bravado, to get actual images of some government supporters shooting down into Avenida Baralt from Llaguno Bridge (this "bridge" is really an overpass that crosses over Avenida Baralt.) The images were the only direct evidence of people shooting available that night. In the atmosphere of sheer confusion, it was not immediately evident that anyone was shooting in the other direction. The private TV stations repeated the footage again, and again and again, giving the impression that the opposition march had been ambushed by government supporters.

One of the gunmen was identified as Richard Peñalver, a pro-Chávez municipal council member in the district where I lived - in fact, an elected official. The footage showed him emptying his gun with glee towards the south of the bridge, the area where the opposition march had spent much of the afternoon. At the time, the footage seemed incredibly damning, and whatever support Chávez still enjoyed within the armed forces quickly crumbled.

Now, viewers of The Revolution will not be Televised know that as far as chavistas are concerned, the footage of Puente Llaguno was a blatant manipulation. Amateur video taken from a different angle and made public later showed no protesters on the southern part of Avenida Baralt while the chavistas fired.

The argument, presented as definitive on the film, is hardly enlightening. The film suggests, but does not quite say, that the opposition march had not yet reached Avenida Baralt at that point. It entirely glosses over the question of who shot the civilian marchers who were killed or wounded on the southern part of the avenue. Though witness statements suggest the Llaguno Gunmen only got their guns after the shooting had started, and were filmed shooting well into the gun battle, while the opposition marchers who died appear to have fallen in the first few minutes of the shootout, one must regard their official excuse - that it's okay because they were shooting at the opposition-led Metropolitan Police - as borderline nonsensical.

Most sources about those days are biased, but the images of the specific incident you mentioned certainly show that the BBCs simple comment "National Guard and pro-Chavez gunmen clash with protesters - more than 10 are killed and 110 injured." is misguiding. This particular journalist’s account of those days is interesting because, if we believe it, it shows just how volatile and unpredictable the situation was.

And, as we already have the anti-Chavez account (presented by you) and an attempt at a neutral account, it's only fair to add a link to a pro-Chavez account of those days also. Let those interested read them all, research further if they want, and decide. Or cling to their present ideas, if that's too much work (ant it certainly can be, I won't spend any more time on this subject).

Just to sum up our discussion, you claimed that Chavez was a tyrant, and when challenged about that presented three justifications:
1) he had armed militias terrorizing the opposition;
Proven false, there were a few (very few) shootings in the past 8 years, with several dead people on both sides.

2) he shut down the media that opposed him;
Again, false. He recently shut down one TV channel, buy all other private media still opposes him, and has been free to so so for the past 8 years. He would have hardly been an effective tyrant this way. Just imagine the likes of Pinochet (or Castro) doing it...

3) his supporters won almost all seats in the 2005 elections for the National Assembly.
Since when winning a free, democratic election is tyranny?

 

[Ecofarm]

Do you also believe that N. Korea is a Republic? Do you think Saddam was really elected with 99% of the vote? Do you think elected officials choose the Supreme Leader of Iran?

There's a bridge in San Francisco I'll sell cheap...
I also have some beachfront property in Arizona you might be interested in...

 

[The Yankee]

Do you also believe that N. Korea is a Republic? Do you think Saddam was really elected with 99% of the vote? Do you think elected officials choose the Supreme Leader of Iran?

There's a bridge in San Francisco I'll sell cheap...
I also have some beachfront property in Arizona you might be interested in...

Not only is North Korea a republic, but it's a democratic people's republic! And I have a bridge in Brooklyn to offer also.

 

[Atticus]

I know this isn't going to lead to any fruitful conversation, but I doubt if US media gives very balanced account on things going on in Venezuela. More than once I have read that US press writes very one sidedly about things, not directly lying perhaps, but omitting things and exaggerating others. And I suppose many "soviet republics of bananistan" in the South America do the same thing.

Now this would be a cowardly as an argument against Chavez opposers, but I'm not offering it as one, just asking if you'd like to consider the possibility.

Here's something to watch:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11167.htm
(Roll down a little bit, and for the record: I'm not saying that Chavez is not or will not ever be a tyrant, it's just a thing I don't know enough about).

 

[Ecofarm]

What about the BBC?

AP?

UPI?

Reuters?

AFP?

UN?

They all say pretty much the same thing...

In the US, we have a free press (unlike Chavez). This results in news organizations of all political persuasion, including commumists. You can get news from any perspective. I assume you were refering to the mainstream news outlets, but note: those are not the only ones available. Additionally, we have uncensored access to the internet, which includes plenty of pro-Chavez sites for those unconvinced by mainstream media, for instance: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/. With a free press, all sides of the story are available.

 

[Atticus]

Maybe, I don't remember reading anything about persecution of opposition or such things from BBC news. And I must admit that I read very little American papers, but writings of American people here makes me suppose that they report about Venezuela very differently. I mean, many Americans seem to be very sure that Chavez is a dictator. Finnish press doesn't give reason for such certainty.

Yes, I understand that you have free press there, and I'm not comparing it to Venezuelan press, but to European press. I remember that Helsingin Sanomat (biggest Finnish news paper, and the one which I have very much trust on) said quite the same thing that you: Press is free, it isn't sencored, but the main stream media chooses itself to publish skewed information (and is owned by people and organisations which have something to gain with it). There are many smaller papers that print different views, but they have a small circulation and are read mostly by people who are already sceptical about mainstream press. Other people rarely get in touch with them.

BTW: did you know that the Fox news has a bad reputation even here?

 

[Princeps]

amadeus. interesting. Weren't you the one who chided me for quoting a leftist blog (which quoted a mainstream media source, but not that people make the distiction), while you quote the John Boltons of this world and see what they say about socialist policies. Hah, that's like someone quoting raving maoist fanatics and what they have to say about western capitalism. These organizations may have lofty names like "the heritage foundation" and the "project for new American century", but they are raving fanatic groups, basically.

I did not claim that Venezeula had no problem of corruption, but than again, that's not because of the policies Chavez has pursued -- that's undoubtely because of the culture of oppression and elitism, which have been supported by US very actively. I did not claim that all Chavezian policies are similar to Scandinavian ones, but the essential ones are -- like controlling natural resources... which has been done in Norway. Previously, the oil companies could virtually plunder the country with little or no tax to their business, until Chavez took over.

Also, these presistent problems and the policies used to solve them are not really relevant to the neoliberal internationalists, what angers them is Chavez's essential policies, namely preventing the money from flowing into Washington and then returning as loans with high interest rates, and what especially infuriated them was his nationalization and tightened control of the oil industry.