Chavez once again porves he's a tin pot dictator in the making.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
He has also been voted multiple times, if I recall correctly twice for president, and once the referendum for his constitution reform, and the three times he won.

Wasn't there also a referendum to oust him (recall), which miserably failed?

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



First, Venezuala hadnt had a dictator since 1958, when political and social conditions throughout the world were different. Second, most Venezualans alive today werent even alive then. Third, its ultimately not relevant. Plenty of folks who hated, say Lenin had no trouble with the Tsar. Plenty who hated Hitler had no problems with Stalin. Human pursuit of self interest is normal. It does not change the question of whether A. Chavez IS a dictator or attempting to become one or B. Whether his path, is, objectively, the best one for the poor and middle class people of Venezuala.

If B resembles what happened to Cuba, clearly it is not a path any Venesualan would want to take.

It is amazing to me that South America seems to be divided between socialists, who would take their countries into the economic dark ages, and elitist oligarachs who despise the poor and would do nothing for them. There seems to be no middle ground.

Are there no "true" classic liberals to be found south of the United States?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Are there no "true" classic liberals to be found south of the United States?

Lula (Brazil) and Bachelet (Chile) claim they are social democrats. Brachy can complete the lsit, I think there are some more. Also, IIRC, Chavez' opponent in 2006 was a social-democrat as well, even though he was backed by the plutocrats.

[Dinner]

Urugauy is also run by sane social democrats.

[Barnabas]

Chile is a country with bi partidism, in which the differences betwen the 2 main parties (in economics) are very very small, Bachellet is still pro free trade, getting free tarde deals with all the countries possible etc.. there is total agreement in chile one what economic policies the country should follow, because of how much chile has progressed the last 30 years, it is called the chilean model here, and some countries try to imitate it.
Tavare Vazquez from Uruguay follows the chilean model, and also Alan Garcia from Peru (Alan Garcia is a former populist whose government in the 80´s (in Peru) was a complete disaster, who won the election now because the other guy was 100 times worse , some kind of amerindian nazi, but he seems to have "learned")

More to the left you find

Lula who is more of a modern social democrat, orthodox economics the imf agrees with , with social plans for the poor

More to the left you find

Kirchner from Argentina, who is is old european left (like before the 70´s), a more real left with dirigisme and state intervention for example to control inflation, but still a normal democracy, and he doesnt want socialism , he insults the imf, payed all the debt Argentina had with them, does not listen to foreign economists, he combines unorthodox economic policies with very orthodox ones, like having superavit in the budget, not getting indebted etc, Argentina grew over 8% in 2003 2004 2005 and 2006, and will probably repeat that performance this year

Far more to the left you find
Chavez, who is Chavez, Evo is a fanboy of Chavez and Castro.
How the new president of ecuador will behave it is a mystery, he seems very chavez friendly

The only government in latin america that identifies as right wing is Uribe´s Colombia

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
First, Venezuala hadnt had a dictator since 1958, when political and social conditions throughout the world were different.

Sorry. When a president (Perez) orders the army to open fire on crowds and 3,000 people are killed, and civil liberties are suspended, you kinda automatically think, dictator.

Third, its ultimately not relevant. Plenty of folks who hated, say Lenin had no trouble with the Tsar. Plenty who hated Hitler had no problems with Stalin. Human pursuit of self interest is normal. It does not change the question of whether A. Chavez IS a dictator or attempting to become one or B. Whether his path, is, objectively, the best one for the poor and middle class people of Venezuala.

But if those are the main voices claiming that Chavez is a dictator, and they are, then it tends to discredit the argument. The same media that calls Chavez an enemy of democracy had no qualms with the temporary government installed by violence that overthrew the elected government of Chavez. They are partisans. Their opinion of Chavvez is about as valid as the right wing GOPs views of the Democratic Party are.

[chequita guevara]

Oerdin, the following graphs is for the government's oil output. BTW, the numbers I gave you before were also for the government's oil output, so tick that in your pipe and smoke it. CSM is flat out wrong.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1580

[chequita guevara]

BTW, Chavez is calling himself a Trotskyist now.

[chequita guevara]

Some info on the "strike." The leadership of the main union confederation in Venezuela is in bed with big business, like many of the official unions in Latin America.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1363

[Barnabas]

Ugh, I hate trotskysts

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Lula (Brazil) and Bachelet (Chile) claim they are social democrats. Brachy can complete the lsit, I think there are some more. Also, IIRC, Chavez' opponent in 2006 was a social-democrat as well, even though he was backed by the plutocrats.

Social democrats are socialists, not classic liberals. Do we have to go through this again? Classic liberals are concerned for the poor, but are also concerned about economic freedom, i.e., they are today's Republican Party.

Socialists instead are concerned about the rich. They believe disparities in wealth are per se evil and will implement policies to punish the rich, control or own essential facilites, etc.

The differentiation amongs socialists is more about degree, not kind. This is well illustrated by Chavez himself who is, as you said, a social democrat.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
BTW, Chavez is calling himself a Trotskyist now.

Can you source that? If it's true, it's too bad, because it means he won't last.

[Gatekeeper]

The only real thing that catches my attention regarding Chavez is this: If President Bush and the Republicans were trying to do to the U.S. Constitution what Chavez and his party/allies want to do to Venezuela's constitution, the left-wingers in the U.S. would be having a sh*t fit. Hell, I know I would, and I'm a self-proclaimed moderate.

Gatekeeper

[joncha]

Originally posted by techumseh


Can you source that? If it's true, it's too bad, because it means he won't last.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6246219.stm

[Ned]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
The only real thing that catches my attention regarding Chavez is this: If President Bush and the Republicans were trying to do to the U.S. Constitution what Chavez and his party/allies want to do to Venezuela's constitution, the left-wingers in the U.S. would be having a sh*t fit. Hell, I know I would, and I'm a self-proclaimed moderate.

Gatekeeper

Social democrats favor democracy only to the extent they are in power. When in power, like Chavez, they will rig the system to stay in power.

American social democrats see nothing to criticize in Chavez, except maybe his rhetoric. The like the way he is taking over the economy in the name of the poor.