What would you do if you were [world leader]?

[ParadigmShifter]

Thanks Ralph. Your cheque is in the post. (It's Winner tho).

 

[red_elk]

Putin:
1. Regain the presidency, Putin seems uninterested in the internal management of Russia and far more concerned with foreign policy.
2. Continue to improve relations with the EU, and encourage the image of Poland the the Baltics states as whingers. I would take a less confrontational stance with Ukraine to show good intentions, then try and expand influence on the country as soon as Yuschenko is out of power.
3. Frankly, I think I'd personally strangle Lukashenko to death with my bare hands.
4. Keep improving ties with China and try to sell them more gas and oil.

Sounds like a political program

 

[Maxxie]

The PLAN could be larger, it is modernizing. The 1985 levels are a good target, and by plans it will be 3/4 the way there by 2020.

For modernization discussion see
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/plan-mod.htm

For an index of ships see
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/navy.htm

 

[Richard Cribb]

Me

3. Frankly, I think I'd personally strangle Lukashenko to death with my bare hands.

Why would you do such a thing?

Specifically requested that you wouldnt do this in the OP.

You should know the usual suspects by now. Exclusively mature company as to be sought elsewhere, I'm afraid.
Now on topic. I am not qualified and frankly not interested in being a leader in any other country than my own. So if I was prime minister of Norway, I would try to develop the country into a socialist republic.
If somebody should be interested in me going into details, I might do that later.

 

[RedRalph]

Why would you do such a thing?

Because he is an anti-semitic noncommunist idiot who does nothing but try to platy countries off against eachother and in the process makes things worse for Belarus. Just because he's Soviet-era doesn't make him Soviet.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Because he is an anti-semitic noncommunist idiot who does nothing but try to platy countries off against eachother and in the process makes things worse for Belarus. Just because he's Soviet-era doesn't make him Soviet.

Sounds to me like it wouldn't do you harm to cut a bit down on BBC for a while.

 

[RedRalph]

Sounds to me like it wouldn't do you harm to cut a bit down on BBC for a while.

What's to like about him?

 

[Richard Cribb]

What's to like about him?

I don't know the man any better than I know any other world leaders so I don't consider myself qualified to have any strong opinion about his personal qualities.
But I did notice that Hugo Chavez had a very high opinion about both Lukaschenko and Belarus. Perhaps he should be strangled too?
Also it didn't escape my attention that Lukaschenko as well as being the proud owner of the Venezuelan Order of Liberator also has been awarded the Order of Jose Marti by Cuba. Both those are the highest order of merit which foreigners can receive, and I somehow doubt that this was because of his anti-semitism.
On the other hand, CIA, the Economist and Heritage Foundation to mention but three have found a lot of faults with Belarus on the basis of its far too socialist politics.
Now I must confess something. Contrary to about 95% of OT I am not a goddamned expert on absolutely every country in the world. And with a country like Belarus it is, given the difficulties of finding truly independent and free media outlets, particulary difficult to get reliable information. I can only base my impression on the experiences of part of my wife's family and the few times the country is mentioned in sources that are at least partly worth serious consideration. And judging from that, my conclusions is that Belarus is albeit being nowhere near perfect is not Hell on Earth, and that its policies seems to have retained much more of socialism than for instance the Russia you seem to be so enchanted with, not to speak about the Baltic countries or Poland.
And even if your tirade above was the truth, which I have reasons to assert is not the case, I still can't see why Lukaschenko should be sorted out in the area to receive this special treatment. That would make him quite typical, as far as I can see.

 

[Perfection]

If I was Obama I'd stick to my guns on the death panel thing, backing down makes you look guilty.

While opening a shopping mall, I'd slide down the banister of the largest escalator I could find.

See that Amadeus, Perfection? Now that's quality spamming. Witty, OT-referential and disgusting.

I don't get it!

 

[ParadigmShifter]

PARADIGM SHIFTER STRIKES AGAIN!!!

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8448292&postcount=1

 

[Perfection]

Providing a reference does not constitute striking.

 

[RedRalph]

I don't know the man any better than I know any other world leaders so I don't consider myself qualified to have any strong opinion about his personal qualities.

He has been quoted making anti-semitic remarks in public, I'll dig them out for you. Such remarks were common currency at one stage in the past, but they are completely unnaceptable now. That tells me a lot about his personal qualities.

But I did notice that Hugo Chavez had a very high opinion about both Lukaschenko and Belarus. Perhaps he should be strangled too?

Pure realpolitik. Chavez says good things about Iran too, because they are a valuable strategic partner, not because there is any ideological common ground.

Also it didn't escape my attention that Lukaschenko as well as being the proud owner of the Venezuelan Order of Liberator also has been awarded the Order of Jose Marti by Cuba. Both those are the highest order of merit which foreigners can receive, and I somehow doubt that this was because of his anti-semitism.

Again, pragmatism. I'm not saying thats always a bad thing, but it doesn't mean Lukashenko is anything other than the enemy of my enemy.

On the other hand, CIA, the Economist and Heritage Foundation to mention but three have found a lot of faults with Belarus on the basis of its far too socialist politics.

What? they don't like him because of his closeness to Russia, not because he is a threat to the economic status quo. He's an autocrat, not a socialist.

Now I must confess something. Contrary to about 95% of OT I am not a goddamned expert on absolutely every country in the world. And with a country like Belarus it is, given the difficulties of finding truly independent and free media outlets, particulary difficult to get reliable information. I can only base my impression on the experiences of part of my wife's family and the few times the country is mentioned in sources that are at least partly worth serious consideration. And judging from that, my conclusions is that Belarus is albeit being nowhere near perfect is not Hell on Earth, and that its policies seems to have retained much more of socialism than for instance the Russia you seem to be so enchanted with, not to speak about the Baltic countries or Poland.

I'm no expert either, but the country doesn't seem to be at all socialist to me, he just has his power base in the rural areas, so he tries to keep farmers sweet with subsidies. And if thats your definition of socialism, then I live in a true communist paradise

And even if your tirade above was the truth, which I have reasons to assert is not the case, I still can't see why Lukaschenko should be sorted out in the area to receive this special treatment. That would make him quite typical, as far as I can see.

I was speaking from the POV of Vladimir Putin... I also said if I were Obama I'd try and isolate Chavez, that doesn't mean I actually want it to happen.

How I see Lukashenko is someone who is only concerned with his own power, and nothing outside Belarus. Contrast this to Chavez, Morales, and even Castro when he was in power, and theres nothign particularly likeable about him. Even pro-business capitalist authoritarian Putin does more for progressive governments abroad than Lukashenko.

 

[aronnax]

As Gordon Brown. Well, I'll give up trying to save my reputation for the next election and try my best to improve the country.

I would withdraw the troops from Afghanistan. Though at a steady pace so USA can have time to replenish troop presence. Forget NATO, Britain is too much in debt for this to go on. My main energy is spent in reducing the deficit in the country. I'll focus primarily on the military and NHS.
1) Decommission 15% of the British Army. Britain has and always will be a naval power and following British tradition, when it is peace time, the standing army is drastically reduced. Merkel seems like a nice lady so I see no point of having such a large army of that cost. Of course, this would be done over time to ensure that unemployment doesn't flood up.
2) I would reform the NHS so that government subsidies for healthcare extends to only 80% of the total bill. This would cut down on the cost of health in Britain while allowing it to remain affordable for the people. However, people of low family incomes will pay lower rates depending on their annual income. Certain situations will also have adjusted rates such as long term illnesses.
3) I want to push a more friendly IB Diploma environment for the education system in the UK and make it on par with A Level system.
4) Other spending cuts I have yet to think of.

Oh and,
1) Adopt Sharia Law to be applied on Muslims on SPECIFIC SECTORS of Marriage, Divorce and inheritance.
2) Create an official and National Islamic Council that is in charge of things like Construction and administration of Mosques, collection and usage of alms, issuing Halal Certificates and preparation of Haj (getting Visa, plane tickets)
3) Create a similar Christian Council for Christian Churches to regulate funds and donation spending.

4) Take down those silly cameras, they are a waste of money maintaining them.
5) Public School Students and teachers are allowed to wear whatever religious things they want as long as they comply with the following things
i) They are not outrageous or cause distraction (You can't wear a large Christian cross with heavy chains or a burqa that covers your entire body.)
ii) They do not disrupt class
iii) They follow the school's (if any) uniform code. (As in blue Hajib for blue coloured uniform)
iv) They do not cause danger to other students. (So Sikhs can wear their turban and bring a comb, but not a knife)
v) Teachers are not allowed to discuss their personal opinions on religion while during on school ground/time.

 

[fugazi]

If I were Obama, I'd actively seek out ways to ensure and to promote that young people turn into individuals. I have the feeling the United States need more individuals that are out for more than just money , but also carry with them political, theoretic, social and what have you not ideals. I realise that the forming of political parties meant that it would be more about herding flocks of voters than convincing individuals to back you, but in my opinion it's gone too far.

When political color becomes more important than national interests, you're in deep deep trouble.

 

[Richard Cribb]

He has been quoted making anti-semitic remarks in public, I'll dig them out for you. Such remarks were common currency at one stage in the past, but they are completely unnaceptable now. That tells me a lot about his personal qualities.

Perhaps he has. And perhaps he is some sort of gangster. Perhaps he even said some outrageous things.But I have long lost my ideological purity and I find your analysis to be not only unmarxist, but also flawed anyway.

Pure realpolitik. Chavez says good things about Iran too, because they are a valuable strategic partner, not because there is any ideological common ground.

Really?
So Chavez ever said about Iran that it is a model of a social state and likened it to the society the Bolivarians are building in Venezuela?
And that is not ideological common ground?
Andby the way, how should Belarus be a valuable strategic partner. Surely you see the difference in impact on the international arena between mighty Iran and not so mighty Belarus.

Again, pragmatism. I'm not saying thats always a bad thing, but it doesn't mean Lukashenko is anything other than the enemy of my enemy.

Come on. If this is your best argument, I am afraid that you need to sharpen your arsenal.

What? they don't like him because of his closeness to Russia, not because he is a threat to the economic status quo. He's an autocrat, not a socialist.

Sorry, but no.
Here is from CIAs factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bo.html
Among the problems with Belarus is:
• Not enough structural reform.
• Market socialism.
• Private companies have been re-nationalized.
• A wide range of income redistributive policies has produced levels of income equality almost unmatched in the world, but these policies have made Belarus unattractive as a destination for US investment.

While Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal whines about:http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?
• Foreign banks are virtually shut out of the country.
• US investors are barred from buying land.
• Basic goods and services are subsidized by the state.
• Retail prices are regulated.
• The government continues to rely on state-owned enterprises.
• Tariff barriers and subsidies make it difficult for US companies to compete in Belarus.

Finally the Economist is concerned aboutCited in Heritage Foundation Freedom Index 2007, couldn't find a link)
• Belarus follows active policies of import suppression and export promotion.
• Lukashenko “pursues a policy of pervasive state involvement in the economy.”
• The government denies ownership rights to the commons, keeping natural resources, waters, forests and land under public control.

But sure, their only concern is the neighbourship with Russia. As we all know, everything is about Russia.

I'm no expert either, but the country doesn't seem to be at all socialist to me, he just has his power base in the rural areas, so he tries to keep farmers sweet with subsidies. And if thats your definition of socialism, then I live in a true communist paradise

Small warning. Now you starting to sound like the resident Brazilian Bertie Wooster.
Newsflash: Belarus is a country with an important agricultural sector. It is also a relatively poor country. You as a communist should perhaps appreciate more a leader who has his political basis among the less fortunate because his politics is to their advantage. Just like Chavez.
And my definition of socialism should be well-known by now, also my preference for real-life situations compared with idealism. More about that below.

I was speaking from the POV of Vladimir Putin... I also said if I were Obama I'd try and isolate Chavez, that doesn't mean I actually want it to happen.

How I see Lukashenko is someone who is only concerned with his own power, and nothing outside Belarus. Contrast this to Chavez, Morales, and even Castro when he was in power, and theres nothign particularly likeable about him. Even pro-business capitalist authoritarian Putin does more for progressive government than Lukashenko.

How on earth, given Belarus' geopolitical situation and relative power, should it proceed to make you happy? Invade Russia? Send commisars to Poland? Give tractors to the poor in the USA? I can't really see how being concerned with one's own affairs are that bad always.
And your last sentence is one I hardly can endorse, at least before you define "progressive government".
I don't want to turn this into a Lukashenko debate, and I think that you and I should have better things to do than try to break each other's sculls, but I want to ask you:
- Who do you think are better suited to lead Belarus? Individual or existing political faction.
- What would you do if you were Lukashenko? In the real world that is, and not Belarus suddenly teleported to the Caribbean islands or Latin America, or finding huge amounts of oil.

 

[RedRalph]

Perhaps he has. And perhaps he is some sort of gangster. Perhaps he even said some outrageous things.But I have long lost my ideological purity and I find your analysis to be not only unmarxist, but also flawed anyway.

On what basis? Its a very straightforward issue. In this day and age, a man whose country was desroyed by Hitlerites saying that "Jews ruin everywhere they live" needs little analysis, Marxist or otherwise, its a straightfordward case of idiotic, unforgivable racism. I wouldn't forgive that remark if it came from a Polish, German or Saudi leader and I'm not going to forgive it from a Belarussian one even if he does still use the SSR coat of arms.

Really?
So Chavez ever said about Iran that it is a model of a social state and likened it to the society the Bolivarians are building in Venezuela?

did he say that? News to me if he did, but if he did say that its very clearly BS. Iran is a theocracy, a model of state practically as far as one can get from socialism. I like the fact that they counter US influence, I like the fact that they counter Israeli influence, but thats just a happy situation due to their geographical position and historical experience of the Empire. there is nothing to be fond of ideologically in Iran.

Andby the way, how should Belarus be a valuable strategic partner. Surely you see the difference in impact on the international arena between mighty Iran and not so mighty Belarus.

There is no way they can be, but that doesn't negate the fact that Chavez is friendly towards them for pragmatic, not ideological reasons. He needs all the friends he can get. Ideally, they will all be Evo Morales, or Raffael Correa, but as we both know, that's not always possible, and sometimes you might have to hold your nose and deal with faux-Maoist Chinese, capitalist Russians and religious fruitcase Iranians. Even the USSR dealt with governments totally opposed to socialism. Its a pragmatic measure that has to be taken while the Americans are still so dominant.

Come on. If this is your best argument, I am afraid that you need to sharpen your arsenal.

Its perfectly valid and self-evidently true.

Sorry, but no.
Here is from CIAs factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bo.html
Among the problems with Belarus is:
• Not enough structural reform.
• Market socialism.
• Private companies have been re-nationalized.
• A wide range of income redistributive policies has produced levels of income equality almost unmatched in the world, but these policies have made Belarus unattractive as a destination for US investment.

Oh I'm sure they don't like some of his less market-oriented policies, for sure. But he holds those policies because they maintain his power base, not because he is a staunch supporter of socialism. If it became in his interests to privatise industries, he wouldnt hesitate.

While Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal whines about:http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?
• Foreign banks are virtually shut out of the country.
• US investors are barred from buying land.
• Basic goods and services are subsidized by the state.
• Retail prices are regulated.
• The government continues to rely on state-owned enterprises.
• Tariff barriers and subsidies make it difficult for US companies to compete in Belarus.

Again, measures which have some socialistic effects, but are not ideologically driven. Just a happy coincidence. He had the insight to see what letting US economists into his country would do to his position. It works out OK, but if he felt it was beneficial to let them in, he wouldn't hesitate.

Finally the Economist is concerned aboutCited in Heritage Foundation Freedom Index 2007, couldn't find a link)
• Belarus follows active policies of import suppression and export promotion.
• Lukashenko “pursues a policy of pervasive state involvement in the economy.”
• The government denies ownership rights to the commons, keeping natural resources, waters, forests and land under public control.

I've got no problem with any of that, and neither would the economist if he was stategically valuble to the US and was freindly towards them. Its not a question of class interests here, Belarus is not important enough for that. Its a geopolitical issue.

But sure, their only concern is the neighbourship with Russia. As we all know, everything is about Russia.

It is. Thats all its about. Thats why the EU started courting him recently, because they realised he might be willing to drift towards them. They couldnt care less about his economic policies.

Small warning. Now you starting to sound like the resident Brazilian Bertie Wooster.
Newsflash: Belarus is a country with an important agricultural sector. It is also a relatively poor country. You as a communist should perhaps appreciate more a leader who has his political basis among the less fortunate because his politics is to their advantage. Just like Chavez.
And my definition of socialism should be well-known by now, also my preference for real-life situations compared with idealism. More about that below.

There is nothing wrong with having your base among the less fortunate but it certaintly doesn't guarantee a decent political attitude or outlook. Its pretty easy to appeal to the idiocy of the countryside with all sorts of actions, they dont have to be progressive. In fact, I cant give any evidence for this off the top of my head but I bet you the vast majority of Belarussian peasants are pretty reactionary, rather than socialist. Thats who his base is. Compare to Chavez.

How on earth, given Belarus' geopolitical situation and relative power, should it proceed to make you happy? Invade Russia? Send commisars to Poland? Give tractors to the poor in the USA? I can't really see how being concerned with one's own affairs are that bad always.

No, it isnt always a bad thing, but accept it for what it is, not what it looks like.

And your last sentence is one I hardly can endorse, at least before you define "progressive government".
I don't want to turn this into a Lukashenko debate, and I think that you and I should have better things to do than try to break each other's sculls, but I want to ask you:
- Who do you think are better suited to lead Belarus? Individual or existing political faction.

I don't know much about the opposition, its seems very pro-EU, so he may indeed be the best of a bad bunch. Thats doesn't make him anything more than that, though.

- What would you do if you were Lukashenko? In the real world that is, and not Belarus suddenly teleported to the Caribbean islands or Latin America, or finding huge amounts of oil.

I'd stop trying to play Russia and the EU off against eachother and changing my mind every 5 minutes about whose side I'm on. He's a schemer, interested only in his own position, form what I can see. sometimes that may coincide with positive things, like opposing the US, decent policies vis-a-vis nationalisation, etc, but that's all it is: coincidence. Unlike real socialist governments in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia etc.

 

[Richard Cribb]

On what basis? Its a very straightforward issue. In this day and age, a man whose country was desroyed by Hitlerites saying that "Jews ruin everywhere they live" needs little analysis, Marxist or otherwise, its a straightfordward case of idiotic, unforgivable racism. I wouldn't forgive that remark if it came from a Polish, German or Saudi leader and I'm not going to forgive it from a Belarussian one even if he does still use the SSR coat of arms.

So far you haven't even come of with any quote so I can't comment upon it. Evidently.

did he say that? News to me if he did, but if he did say that its very clearly BS. Iran is a theocracy, a model of state practically as far as one can get from socialism. I like the fact that they counter US influence, I like the fact that they counter Israeli influence, but thats just a happy situation due to their geographical position and historical experience of the Empire. there is nothing to be fond of ideologically in Iran.

Now read what I wrote again. He said it about Belarus. What I did was to comment about your statement that Chavez liked Belarus and Iran for the same reason. The point is exactly that this; which is something Chavez said about Belarus, is something that he would never say about Iran.

There is no way they can be, but that doesn't negate the fact that Chavez is friendly towards them for pragmatic, not ideological reasons. He needs all the friends he can get. Ideally, they will all be Evo Morales, or Raffael Correa, but as we both know, that's not always possible, and sometimes you might have to hold your nose and deal with faux-Maoist Chinese, capitalist Russians and religious fruitcase Iranians. Even the USSR dealt with governments totally opposed to socialism. Its a pragmatic measure that has to be taken while the Americans are still so dominant.

Perhaps you know Chavez better than he does himself. Then perhaps not.

Its perfectly valid and self-evidently true.

I think not.

Oh I'm sure they don't like some of his less market-oriented policies, for sure. But he holds those policies because they maintain his power base, not because he is a staunch supporter of socialism. If it became in his interests to privatise industries, he wouldnt hesitate.

I don't think you know neither Belarus nor Lukashenko well enough to be so sure about that. I also wonder how you intend to lead any country without a power base.

Again, measures which have some socialistic effects, but are not ideologically driven. Just a happy coincidence. He had the insight to see what letting US economists into his country would do to his position. It works out OK, but if he felt it was beneficial to let them in, he wouldn't hesitate.



I've got no problem with any of that, and neither would the economist if he was stategically valuble to the US and was freindly towards them. Its not a question of class interests here, Belarus is not important enough for that. Its a geopolitical issue.

Frankly I couldn't care less if any politics are ideologically driven or not, whatever that means. That is why I have also debated Chavez with trots, who like to use much the same arguments about him. I am not Kantian enough I guess.
But I would love to see your sources concerning Belarus, so I would know a bit better where we stand in regard to this.

It is. Thats all its about. Thats why the EU started courting him recently, because they realised he might be willing to drift towards them. They couldnt care less about his economic policies.

And this.

There is nothing wrong with having your base among the less fortunate but it certaintly doesn't guarantee a decent political attitude or outlook. Its pretty easy to appeal to the idiocy of the countryside with all sorts of actions, they dont have to be progressive. In fact, I cant give any evidence for this off the top of my head but I bet you the vast majority of Belarussian peasants are pretty reactionary, rather than socialist. Thats who his base is. Compare to Chavez.

Peasants? I think there other prejudices than those of the Belarus population which are exposed now.
Sure, rural population in virtually any country can be accused of lacking a certain sophistication in things political, but they are hardly the only ones. And don't tell me that this is so different in Venezuela. It isn't.

No, it isnt always a bad thing, but accept it for what it is, not what it looks like.

What is it, and what does it look like?

I don't know much about the opposition, its seems very pro-EU, so he may indeed be the best of a bad bunch. Thats doesn't make him anything more than that, though.

In real life, it does.
If we had bacon we could make eggs and bacon if we had eggs...
You see for yourself the rather absurd in wanting to get rid of a political leader while admitting that there is nobody better to replace him.

I'd stop trying to play Russia and the EU off against eachother and changing my mind every 5 minutes about whose side I'm on. He's a schemer, interested only in his own position, form what I can see. sometimes that may coincide with positive things, like opposing the US, decent policies vis-a-vis nationalisation, etc, but that's all it is: coincidence. Unlike real socialist governments in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia etc.

I don't see him doing this but then again I don't read too many newspapers nowadays.
I also don't se my questions answered to a satisfactorily degree.

 

[RedRalph]

So far you haven't even come of with any quote so I can't comment upon it. Evidently.

http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/19-10-2007/99204-Alexander_Lukashenko-0

Hardly the best source, but it can be found on myriad sites, just google Lukashenko and Jews

Now read what I wrote again. He said it about Belarus. What I did was to comment about your statement that Chavez liked Belarus and Iran for the same reason. The point is exactly that this; which is something Chavez said about Belarus, is something that he would never say about Iran.

Oh, I misinterpreted your point. In any case, what Chavez says isnt what makes Belarus socialist or nonsoclialist, as well you know, what makes it socialist is whether the country is socialist or at least heading towards socialism. Do you think it is? Honestly?

Perhaps you know Chavez better than he does himself. Then perhaps not.

I know how to read between the lines and use my critical skills.

I think not. I don't think you know neither Belarus nor Lukashenko well enough to be so sure about that. I also wonder how you intend to lead any country without a power base.

Of course he needs a power base, and he finds it in the rural areas, but that says nothing about how decent a leader he is. Do you honestly believe he's in politics for the good of Belarus? Do you think he rules to advance the welfare of the proles and peasants? Chavez is clearly on a mission to improve the lot of the disadvantaged, the illiterate and the poor. Thats the end, not the means. With Lukashenko, its the other way around, and he isnt even doing much of a job at it, unlikr Chavez and Morales.

Frankly I couldn't care less if any politics are ideologically driven or not, whatever that means. That is why I have also debated Chavez with trots, who like to use much the same arguments about him. I am not Kantian enough I guess.
But I would love to see your sources concerning Belarus, so I would know a bit better where we stand in regard to this.

Are you serious? That really says a lot about your politics... Some capitalist economies have furthered the material circumstances of the poor, is that good enough for you? Isn't the intent important? If the politics are not driven by an ideology, they are subject to change as soon as it becomes expedient. That's not what we want, as socialists. Someone who will feather our nests as long as it's convenient.

Peasants? I think there other prejudices than those of the Belarus population which are exposed now.
Sure, rural population in virtually any country can be accused of lacking a certain sophistication in things political, but they are hardly the only ones. And don't tell me that this is so different in Venezuela. It isn't.

Yes, it is completely different, because Chavez promotes socialism, not just his own career. He encourages learning about politics, he encourages people to participate in politics, he encourages people to defend their political interests, not just his. thats why the revolution in Venezuela would continue if Chavez dropped dead tomorrow; Belarus is subject to the whims of Lukashenko's latest scheme to play Russia and the EU off against eachother. If it becomes in his interest to privatise state assests, nothing will stop him doing just that (IIRC, he has begun to, because this year he's cozying up to Brussels).

What is it, and what does it look like?

It looks like socialism (to you). It isn't, its pragmatic behaviour which has some shallow, temporary socialistic effect.

In real life, it does.
If we had bacon we could make eggs and bacon if we had eggs...
You see for yourself the rather absurd in wanting to get rid of a political leader while admitting that there is nobody better to replace him.

you are misunderstanding me completely. I don't want to get rid of him. At the moment, he probably is the best one going. If I was Putin, I would want to kill him (they are known to hate eachother personally). Thats what this thread is about.

 

[Virote_Considon]

If I were Putin/Medvedev, I'd work towards more cooperation with China. Military training exercises, joint weapons development, that sort of stuff. I'd attempt to weaken the Ukrainian economy to bring them back into the fold, and work for closer economic (maybe even political) integration with Belarus and the Central Asian states. I'd also probably try to work towards closer economic integration with the Baltic states, if only to drive some kind of wedge into EU integration. I'd bring Russia closer with the Latin American states by supplying them with more military equipment than they can shake a stick at, maybe even helping alleviate the costs of some of the Latin American's ambitious social reform programs, if only to guarantee their continued support to Russia even if their current governments get ousted from power.

 

[Richard Cribb]

http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/19-10-2007/99204-Alexander_Lukashenko-0

Hardly the best source, but it can be found on myriad sites, just google Lukashenko and Jews

While I find that remark distasteful, to say the least, I have heard worse.
But I did as you said, and a couple of pages later I found this:

In October 2007 Lukashenko was accused of making blatant anti-Semitic and anti-Israel comments. Addressing the "miserable state of the city of BabruyskBabruysk
Babruysk or Bobruisk is a city in the Mahilyow Voblast of Belarus on the Berezina river. It is a large city in Belarus with a population of approximately 227,000 people ....
" on a live broadcast on state radio he stated: "This is a Jewish city, and the Jews are not concerned for the place they live in. They have turned Babruysk into a pigsty. Look at Israel – I was there and saw it myself ... I call on Jews who have money to come back to Babruysk." Members of the United States House of RepresentativesUnited States House of Representatives
The United States House of Representatives, commonly referred to as "the House", is one of the bicameralism of the United States Congress; the other is the United States Senate....
sent a letter to the Belarusian ambassador to the United States, Mikhail Khvostov, addressing Lukashenko's comments with a strong request to retract them. The comments also caused a reaction from Israel. Consequently Pavel Yakoubovitch, editor of Belarus Today, was sent to Israel, and in a meeting with the Israel Foreign MinistryForeign Affairs Minister of Israel
The Foreign Affairs Minister of Israel is the political head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs . The position is one of the most important in the Cabinet of Israel after Prime Minister of Israel and Defense Minister of Israel....
said that Lukashenko’s comments were "a mistake that was said jokingly, and does not represent his positions regarding the Jewish people" and that he was "anything but anti-Semitic," and "insulted by the mere accusation." Belarus Ambassador to Israel Igor Leshchenya stated that the president had a "kind attitude toward the Jewish people." Sergei Rychenko, the press secretary at the Belarus Embassy in Tel Aviv, said parts of Lukashenko's comments were mistranslated. In fact, two Belarus newspapers - Nash Niva (Our Wheatfield) and Narodnaia Volia (People's Will) - were shut down in 2006, after ignoring several warnings, for publishing anti-Semitic and racist articles.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Alexander_Lukashenko
It is only fair to add that the same article takes up the Hitler controversy, which however might be based on a misunderstanding. Or that Lukashenko is a stuoid man in certain ways. Which is possible.
Be as it may, I still can't find conclusive evidence for Lukashenko being a raging anti-Semite, at least not based on that remark.

Oh, I misinterpreted your point. In any case, what Chavez says isnt what makes Belarus socialist or nonsoclialist, as well you know, what makes it socialist is whether the country is socialist or at least heading towards socialism. Do you think it is? Honestly?

Of course, but since you seem to have rather a high opinion of Chavez in general, I just supposedt hat you might take his verdict of Belarus over dominant media.
As for what I think, I think Belarus is a state with certain important socialist feautures which might develop into a full-fledged socialism. You will not get me involved in any bets concerning it though.

I know how to read between the lines and use my critical skills.

Unlike me, you mean?
Sorry, but wise remarks without substance no valid arguments make.

Of course he needs a power base, and he finds it in the rural areas, but that says nothing about how decent a leader he is. Do you honestly believe he's in politics for the good of Belarus? Do you think he rules to advance the welfare of the proles and peasants? Chavez is clearly on a mission to improve the lot of the disadvantaged, the illiterate and the poor. Thats the end, not the means. With Lukashenko, its the other way around, and he isnt even doing much of a job at it, unlikr Chavez and Morales.

Since I don't possess yout mental powers, exactly what is it that makes Chavez sincere and Lukashenko not?

Are you serious? That really says a lot about your politics... Some capitalist economies have furthered the material circumstances of the poor, is that good enough for you? Isn't the intent important? If the politics are not driven by an ideology, they are subject to change as soon as it becomes expedient. That's not what we want, as socialists. Someone who will feather our nests as long as it's convenient.

First of all, I am always serious.
Secondly, no it is not good enough for me. But we have to start somewhere, and we have to start with what we have not what we should wish we had.
My point is that if Lukashenko manages to create a basis for socialism, then I don't care whether he does it for a pure ideological reason or not. You see, he can be replaced, the structures remain. Politics and history is about more than splendid individual actors.
Also, since you bring up the capitalist argument. I don't see the progress made by popular struggle be worthless even if we still have capitalism. Evolution might be as viable as revolution.

Yes, it is completely different, because Chavez promotes socialism, not just his own career. He encourages learning about politics, he encourages people to participate in politics, he encourages people to defend their political interests, not just his. thats why the revolution in Venezuela would continue if Chavez dropped dead tomorrow; Belarus is subject to the whims of Lukashenko's latest scheme to play Russia and the EU off against eachother. If it becomes in his interest to privatise state assests, nothing will stop him doing just that (IIRC, he has begun to, because this year he's cozying up to Brussels).

All I gather from this is that you like Chavez and have a deep distrust to the Belorussian people and its educational institutions. But since you appear to more emotional than fact driven here, I think I just rest my case.



It looks like socialism (to you). It isn't, its pragmatic behaviour which has some shallow, temporary socialistic effect.

you are misunderstanding me completely. I don't want to get rid of him. At the moment, he probably is the best one going. If I was Putin, I would want to kill him (they are known to hate eachother personally). Thats what this thread is about.

Then I misundertood this thread. I thought itwas about what I would do if I were in charge of a country, not that I should read the minds of the actual leaders.
I might not be alone about this assumption.