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

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Things aren't going to be all nicey nice and settled and perfect according to the American way of doing things.

YOU are the one who introduced the parallel with the US.

Chavez also is following the French, or British, or Swedish, or Chilean ways of doing things. He seems more interested in the Cuban and Zimbabwean ways of doing things.

Hes expressed his admiration for Castro many times. Lets be clear what that means - not just the abolition of the bourgeois class, but a one party state, with a state monopoly on the press, and imprisonment of opponents of the state, even those who came from the revolutionary movement, let alone those of working class background who never supported the revolutionary movement. It is NOT rule BY the working class. It is rule by an elite party on BEHALF of the working class (And quoting the total party membership isnt necessarily relevant, given that rank and file party members dont run the state nor the party)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q=LOTM]They know that the a dictatorship wont mean power in the hands of the working classes, but in the NAME of the working classes. [/q]

Absolutely. The lower classes seem to delight in "their guy" getting in power, but all they do is just make themselves rich and keep talking the talk, but failing in walking the walk.

The lower classes DONT always fall for that -historically in western europe, and today in much of Latin America, major elements in the working classes want change, yet want to retain a democratic political system that will retain real power in the hands of the people. Venezualan history and social structure have left the Ven working class with a false consciousness that leaves them particularly vulnerable to the appeal of a would be tyrant - that may be historically inevitable (or not) but we dont need to applaud it.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Has he done something comparable? I don't know. The Venezuelan court system gives me pause, cause they kept trying that bastard Luis Posada Carilles when he would get acquitted for blowing up that Venezuelan plane just to kill some Cubans.

It's a revolution there. Things aren't going to be all nicey nice and settled and perfect according to the American way of doing things. There's a mass movement of millions of Venezuelans pushing things forward. Bourgeois rights aren't going to be respected, because the goal is to abolish the bourgeoisie. The workers are taking over. And they didn't go to the Kennedy School for Government.

No offense, but what you describes is what brougth certain nazi and facist regimes to power - strange how they are similiar.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by techumseh


OK, sorry I took you seriously.

That was your first mistake

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
My fave Chavez quote is : "I dream of bathing in a bolivian beach"

Lake Titicaca is beautiful.


I imagine the Chileans were not amused.

[Ned]

quote:
Originally posted by Ned

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.



Alrighty... Now you're just acting like a loon again.

Oerdin, this might not universally be true, but I do offer the case of Chavez. A lot of social democrats are really wolves in sheeps clothing. Once in power, their true colors appear.

I would also argue that the whole state takeover of the means of production and communication is designed for one purpose and that purpose has nothing to do with helping the poor.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Social democrats, in the spirit of Bernstein, Adler, Bauer, etc, dont identify liberal rights as "bourgeois rights"

The right to property. The right to exploit others. The right to bribe the government. Great liberal rights.

[Ned]

Oerdin, I am also thinking of that champion of "true" democracy in Russia. What's his name? Putin?

[Ned]

Che, without rights, people are slaves.

[chequita guevara]

The right to hold slaves was a right, Ned. Are we slaves without it?

The question isn't whether or not we should have rights, but what rights should we have.

[Ned]

LoTM, I am just distressed about how radical the politics seems to be in South America. On one side you have socialists. On the other, protectors of the elite that would do nothing for the poor (Inidans and blacks, mainly). That is why we see such violent and extreme swings from the far right to the far left and back again.

[Ned]

Focus on the slaves, Che. They have no rights (actually, not true in the West even from Roman times). How are people who have no rights in communism different from slaves who have no rights in other systems. Commie slaves are not free to work or not, live where they want, bargain for a fair price for their labor. They take orders from party bosses.

Once your whole life depends upon the will of the commie boss, aren't you in the same or worse situation than a slave?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ned
LoTM, I am just distressed about how radical the politics seems to be in South America. On one side you have socialists. On the other, protectors of the elite that would do nothing for the poor (Inidans and blacks, mainly). That is why we see such violent and extreme swings from the far right to the far left and back again.

But when they gave your moderates, you swiped them away and called them socialists. You can't have it both ways. You can't bemoan the 'radical' politics and then lump folks like Lula in with the radicals. Lula is a socialist today as Tony Blair is (who, btw, is also a social democrat). Previously Lula was more left than he is currently, but he has a pretty pro-capitalist President of the Central Bank.

[Ned]

Imran, you make a good point. There are some SD's who are solely concerned with helping the poor and not concerned about reducing if not doing away with wealth, or putting it under state control ala modern Europeans or yesteryear's fascists.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That was for 2003, Oerdin.

The Chrtian Science Monitor I linked to and which LotM quoted was from May of 2006. I'm afraid there is no getting around this for you.