Dark day for Venezuela

[duncvis]

I'd rather see the people of Venezuela owning the oilfields than some fucking corporation.

Unfortunately, It's Chavez who owns the oilfields. Just look at how dirt poor the rest of the country is.

Having said which, he has pumped resources into improving the lot of the poorest Venezuelans, which is why they support him. time will tell whether the poor stay poor while Chavez and buddies grow rich; I understand the bleak view of human nature but I'm an optimist. Occasionally. I'd be interested to see exactly where the oil money is going - in the case of strategic resources I don't see why the rich should get the lions share.

- his stated aims are noble but nobody needs another Castro.

The stated aims of Napoleon the pig were noble too, as well as Castros.

It's a sad fact of reality, that the relative corruption of a socio/political system tends to be inversely porportional to it's stated aims.
Just look at Christianity and Communisim. They both promised a better world for the common man, but delivered the opposite.

I find this a bit simplistic to be honest; its a cynical soundbite. The social democracies of Northern and Western Europe worked well through the postwar years for instance, as an example of centrist, consensus politics with an emphasis on balance and fairness. They didn't promise all that much but they delivered it, in terms of reducing poverty and improving the lot of the people in general rather than just the elites.

Have you read any anarchist theory scrap? I think you'd find syndicalism interesting, as well as other economic models such as schumacher's 'small is beautiful' writing. if you go over to fractalus, morthaur has set up an anarchist reading room, I think as a libertarian you'd enjoy it.

Then there is Evo Morales of Bolivia who has a similar stance to Chavez. I like Morales better because there is no cult of personality around him as there is with Chavez.

Morales rocks. How long he can hold out against the fuckpigs of the global corporations I don't know but good luck to him.

[odeon]

I kind of like Chavez, but mostly because he goes out of his way to annoy Bush. Otherwise, I fear Scrap is probably right, in the long run. I hope the people get to see some of the collected wealth but I'm not holding my breath.

[drewtheyellow]

Chavez is just a idiot supported by oil and if it weren't for that oil his entire system would be shot to hell, and in some cases it already has some problems such as inflation and other problems. Also, he actually needs to negotiate with the corporations for the expertise needed to take advantage of the oil wealth he has because Venezuela does not have the experts required to access all of that wealth. By nationalizing and socializing everything he will only end up making everything worse because A) socialism sucks and B) foreign investment will help build economic infrastructure. Really though, even if you just look at this from a purely political point of view it must be recognized that by centralizing all of the power in him, he is just creating a structure ideal for a dictator and not for a ruler of a free society. Even if we argue that Chavez is a saint, the precedents and legal structures he has created will allow for his successors to destroy Venezuela.

[Calandale]

Chavez is just a idiot supported by oil and if it weren't for that oil his entire system would be shot to hell....

No shit. But, given that there is the oil wealth,
at least he's trying to do something for the
common man. You probably have no idea what
kind of poverty there really is in a country like that.

The immigrant shacks that show up in the US are
significantly better than the living conditions were
in the barrios of Caracas.

The disparity in wealth which was present was a
horrendous sight, and one has to admit that Chavez
is better than the kind of bloody insurrection which
might have occurred otherwise. Just as Cuba's revolution
was far superior to what happened in places such as
Nicaragua.

[drewtheyellow]

No shit. But, given that there is the oil wealth,
at least he's trying to do something for the
common man. You probably have no idea what
kind of poverty there really is in a country like that.

Personal experience? Well, I don't think that anyone on this forum really could. However, if he fucks them all in the long run then I cannot honestly laud his actions now. I think that Hugo Chavez will seriously fuck over his people in the long run, which is a position I have explained.

The immigrant shacks that show up in the US are
significantly better than the living conditions were
in the barrios of Caracas.

I am not surprised at all.

The disparity in wealth which was present was a
horrendous sight, and one has to admit that Chavez
is better than the kind of bloody insurrection which
might have occurred otherwise. Just as Cuba's revolution
was far superior to what happened in places such as
Nicaragua.

Well, I can see the validity of such an argument, however, that does not mean that Chavez is doing good things. It only means that he is not as bad as another possible option.

[Calandale]

Personal experience? Well, I don't think that anyone on this forum really could. However, if he fucks them all in the long run then I cannot honestly laud his actions now. I think that Hugo Chavez will seriously fuck over his people in the long run, which is a position I have explained.

I was there in the early 70's. I was pretty damned young, but
the memories are still there. A lot of Central America is like this
too. I'm not sure about the rest of South America.

Well, I can see the validity of such an argument, however, that does not mean that Chavez is doing good things. It only means that he is not as bad as another possible option.

I don't disagree - but one is limited to the possible options, no?
Frankly, the worst thing that he's probably doing is pissing the
US off. It's come to a time where we would mostly have ignored
what he was doing. Still, the US attempts to instigate a coup against
him seem like a valid justification for such hatred.

[drewtheyellow]

I was there in the early 70's. I was pretty damned young, but
the memories are still there. A lot of Central America is like this
too. I'm not sure about the rest of South America.

I would  not consider this exactly what I was thinking of. I meant living there. I have seen photographs. A lot of the third world is like this: in abominably miserable conditions. The Hugo Chavez's do not help horribly in the long run. Poverty was the natural state for all nations.

I don't disagree - but one is limited to the possible options, no?
Frankly, the worst thing that he's probably doing is pissing the
US off. It's come to a time where we would mostly have ignored
what he was doing. Still, the US attempts to instigate a coup against
him seem like a valid justification for such hatred.

The worst thing he is doing is managing his economy the way he is(and organizing his political system the way he has). Socialism hasn't worked, frightening away business will drive away more resources from his nation, and the people who get hurt the most when one of these plans fail ends up being the poor. The centralization of power will also allow for some true tyrant do horrible things in the name of "the people".  Really, what he is doing with the US pisses me off, but I don't think that is his major failure. I am mostly thinking of failure outside of US intervention. Chavez is an annoyance to the US(probably not insufferable) but I think his regime would end up failing in the long run over history whether we act or not.

[Calandale]

I was there in the early 70's. .

I would  not consider this exactly what I was thinking of. I meant living there. I have seen photographs. A lot of the third world is like this: in abominably miserable conditions. The Hugo Chavez's do not help horribly in the long run. Poverty was the natural state for all nations.

I did live there. And it was truly horrible. Not really relevant to any of the other issues, but
without really seeing the poverty first hand, one doesn't realize just how horrible it is.
It's a lot easier to disassociate from the people, when all you've got is a TV or picture.
SOMETHING should be done for the people, and at least he's trying, which is a lot more
than the other options would.

The worst thing he is doing is managing his economy the way he is(and organizing his political system the way he has). Socialism hasn't worked, frightening away business will drive away more resources from his nation, and the people who get hurt the most when one of these plans fail ends up being the poor. The centralization of power will also allow for some true tyrant do horrible things in the name of "the people".  Really, what he is doing with the US pisses me off, but I don't think that is his major failure. I am mostly thinking of failure outside of US intervention. Chavez is an annoyance to the US(probably not insufferable) but I think his regime would end up failing in the long run over history whether we act or not.

As long as there is oil, things will be ok. He might even be able to raise the standard of
living enough to create a real middle class. The way things were when I was there,
one was either pretty well off (better perhaps than the Western middle class) or
absolutely impoverished. I'm sure that things improved with the later administrations,
but probably not too much, if a populist of Chavez's nature could rise to the top.

Hey, everything fails eventually. He might just be making the right move by
challenging the US now - it certainly seems on it's way down the crapper.
Still, I think that he'd be better off playing it a little cooler than he does,
pissing the US off, but perhaps not seeming like the egotistical bastard that
he is.

[drewtheyellow]

I did live there. And it was truly horrible. Not really relevant to any of the other issues, but
without really seeing the poverty first hand, one doesn't realize just how horrible it is.
It's a lot easier to disassociate from the people, when all you've got is a TV or picture.
SOMETHING should be done for the people, and at least he's trying, which is a lot more
than the other options would.

Right, I suppose that I do not know poverty first hand, I just know that what is being done will not be the solution in the long-run. It is no virtue to try cure pain with poison and I fear that Chavez will end up doing just that. I see Zimbabwe today and I get this vision that Venezuela will end up like that and that Chavez will be a part of that perhaps not the one who is in charge but one of the people urging on to that path. If he had maintained the basic structures and checks on power that democracy thrives on then I would have less fear, however, I fear that he will create tyranny, death, and destruction. He called for socialism or death, and like many in the past who have tried this, I fear he will just get the latter. It is sort of sobering to think about.

As long as there is oil, things will be ok. He might even be able to raise the standard of
living enough to create a real middle class. The way things were when I was there,
one was either pretty well off (better perhaps than the Western middle class) or
absolutely impoverished. I'm sure that things improved with the later administrations,
but probably not too much, if a populist of Chavez's nature could rise to the top.

Hey, everything fails eventually. He might just be making the right move by
challenging the US now - it certainly seems on it's way down the crapper.
Still, I think that he'd be better off playing it a little cooler than he does,
pissing the US off, but perhaps not seeming like the egotistical bastard that
he is.

Oil will support things but it will not make everything perfectly well. It is more likely that his economy will be reduced to a one trick horse with basic problems with the welfare of the people as more nationalizations occur and more problems are created by them.

The US will not really change because of Chavez though, we are much more powerful than they are and likely more than they could be. The US is not falling down any crapper, the closest thing anyone can claim is a slow descent from its strength. The economy is still powerful and I have not heard much about economic collapse from anyone respectable.

[Calandale]

Right, I suppose that I do not know poverty first hand, I just know that what is being done will not be the solution in the long-run. It is no virtue to try cure pain with poison and I fear that Chavez will end up doing just that. I see Zimbabwe today and I get this vision that Venezuela will end up like that and that Chavez will be a part of that perhaps not the one who is in charge but one of the people urging on to that path. If he had maintained the basic structures and checks on power that democracy thrives on then I would have less fear, however, I fear that he will create tyranny, death, and destruction. He called for socialism or death, and like many in the past who have tried this, I fear he will just get the latter. It is sort of sobering to think about.

I have that fear as well. But I can't blame someone for trying.
He's not the kind of leader one should support, but I don't think
that there were any better options, with any serious chance. The
kind of repression that the poverty there (much of which could
at least indirectly be blamed on the US) caused are just the type
which lead to worse solutions than what Chavez seems to be implementing.
I'm not familiar with the situation in Zimbabwe, so I can't really assess
how similar things are.

Oil will support things but it will not make everything perfectly well. It is more likely that his economy will be reduced to a one trick horse with basic problems with the welfare of the people as more nationalizations occur and more problems are created by them.

Yeah, I know. But leaving people in such poverty is almost
an assurance that things are going to fall apart too.

The US will not really change because of Chavez though, we are much more powerful than they are and likely more than they could be. The US is not falling down any crapper, the closest thing anyone can claim is a slow descent from its strength. The economy is still powerful and I have not heard much about economic collapse from anyone respectable.

I don't think Chavez will effect the US much. BUT, I'm not convinced that the
US is not falling hard, on it's own. Maybe I'm just an apocalyptic, but it strikes me
that things are rotten deep within this system, and it's splitting open. Probably not
within the near future, but I'd guess that the US's days as the dominant world power
are coming to an end. And it's always difficult for a power to relinquish such apparent
strength. It took the UK two world wars before they admitted it - and I wouldn't be
surprised if equally violent death-throws were in store for the US.

[drewtheyellow]

I have that fear as well. But I can't blame someone for trying.
He's not the kind of leader one should support, but I don't think
that there were any better options, with any serious chance. The
kind of repression that the poverty there (much of which could
at least indirectly be blamed on the US) caused are just the type
which lead to worse solutions than what Chavez seems to be implementing.
I'm not familiar with the situation in Zimbabwe, so I can't really assess
how similar things are.

It doesn't matter whether or not a person tries or does not try, what matters is if they succeed. I would gladly blame a person for trying if through that trying they unleash a great evil. Zimbabwe is an African nation with a Marxist economist dictator and it has tyranny, a collapsing economy and many other woes plaguing it. I bring it up because its dictator is a socialist, who is more knowledgeable on economics than Chavez, and which is currently undergoing hyperinflation after failed socialist economic policies.

Yeah, I know. But leaving people in such poverty is almost
an assurance that things are going to fall apart too.

But once the stack of cards all falls down we still have the poverty. I don't base reward on short term gains but rather the promise of long term gains. If I thought that Chavez was just trying to alleviate the pains and promoting pro-growth policies in his nation, I would be more accepting of his efforts. I think that his efforts will lead to destruction, therefore I must judge him unfavorably.

I don't think Chavez will effect the US much. BUT, I'm not convinced that the
US is not falling hard, on it's own. Maybe I'm just an apocalyptic, but it strikes me
that things are rotten deep within this system, and it's splitting open. Probably not
within the near future, but I'd guess that the US's days as the dominant world power
are coming to an end. And it's always difficult for a power to relinquish such apparent
strength. It took the UK two world wars before they admitted it - and I wouldn't be
surprised if equally violent death-throws were in store for the US.

The US is the US, the rottenness is politics and we have always had politics. Perhaps we won't have dominance but I doubt that a world war will occur if only because of MAD. Especially given that the UK wasn't even the cause of those 2 world wars anyway, it was a dispute over an assassination and anti-German policies from WWI that were mostly supported by France. Unless you aren't thinking of the world wars that came to mind.

[Calandale]

In general, we're not disagreeing. It might be nice if things
happened in some other way. I'm not suggesting that Chavez
is the best of all possible worlds, just that the errors of the past
make for NO good solution.

The US is the US, the rottenness is politics and we have always had politics. Perhaps we won't have dominance but I doubt that a world war will occur if only because of MAD. Especially given that the UK wasn't even the cause of those 2 world wars anyway, it was a dispute over an assassination and anti-German policies from WWI that were mostly supported by France.

I doubt that something like a nuclear war would
be possible, until the US has declined mightily. Unlike
the Soviet Union, I'm not sure that the US would
stand by and watch it's empire be dismantled.

As to your historical background, come on - the archduke's assassination
was irrelevant. The war had almost started 10 years earlier. It was the
imperial tensions which were largely to blame. France and Germany both
wanted the war - but Germany was also challenging the British dominance,
the primary reason that the English gave a shit. As to the second war, it was
merely unfinished business.

[drewtheyellow]

In general, we're not disagreeing. It might be nice if things
happened in some other way. I'm not suggesting that Chavez
is the best of all possible worlds, just that the errors of the past
make for NO good solution.

The major disagreement is that you consider Hugo Chavez good and I refuse to do so. We are not having any disagreements on factuality, however, Hugo Chavez is not a good thing. He is less than certain other evils, however, if someone a bit more moderate had power it would be better for Venezuela.

I doubt that something like a nuclear war would
be possible, until the US has declined mightily. Unlike
the Soviet Union, I'm not sure that the US would
stand by and watch it's empire be dismantled.

Except that there isn't much to dismantle. All of the states are firmly bound to us and are truly a part of us. That which is not our states is not ours.

As to your historical background, come on - the archduke's assassination
was irrelevant. The war had almost started 10 years earlier. It was the
imperial tensions which were largely to blame. France and Germany both
wanted the war - but Germany was also challenging the British dominance,
the primary reason that the English gave a shit. As to the second war, it was
merely unfinished business.

The Archduke's assassination was the spark that started up that war. I am not denying it was simply a power struggle playing out, however, it really goes back more to the pre-war alliances than it does to individual nations. When that Archduke died, most of the players fell where they had planned to fall and allied to fall. It really has more to do with the instability of European politics and perhaps the changes in power dynamics. I would not ascribe this to Britain though, not at all given that Britain was just following in with its prior alliances. Germany and Austria are more to blame, perhaps Russia as well as they are the key nations in starting that debacle. The 2nd war was Germany's unfinished business. Not Britains, if Britain were so proud as you claim that were then they would not have Chamberlained at the beginning but just taken Hitler down from the start. Germany had something to prove and the reason they did had more to do with the historic tensions between France and Germany.

[Litigious]

At least World War I was wanted from all powers, maybe except for the UK. France and Russia were as eager to get a war as Germany and Austria, but Germany and Austria lost and had to take the whole blame. From what historicians have found out, both France, Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary made everything by delaying or forging telegrams, notes, etc to really provoke their opponents to fire the first shot or openly begin war.

[Calandale]

Except that there isn't much to dismantle. All of the states are firmly bound to us and are truly a part of us. That which is not our states is not ours

Ok. Tell that to our multi-nationals. I'm sure they'd be thrilled
to see an isolationist US.

The Archduke's assassination was the spark that started up that war. I am not denying it was simply a power struggle playing out, however, it really goes back more to the pre-war alliances than it does to individual nations. When that Archduke died, most of the players fell where they had planned to fall and allied to fall. It really has more to do with the instability of European politics and perhaps the changes in power dynamics. I would not ascribe this to Britain though, not at all given that Britain was just following in with its prior alliances. Germany and Austria are more to blame, perhaps Russia as well as they are the key nations in starting that debacle. The 2nd war was Germany's unfinished business. Not Britains, if Britain were so proud as you claim that were then they would not have Chamberlained at the beginning but just taken Hitler down from the start. Germany had something to prove and the reason they did had more to do with the historic tensions between France and Germany.

Oh, I'm not saying Britain was particularly to blame. Though had they stayed out of
the wars, they would have prolonged their Empire a bit longer. The Bismark alliances
would have left France without any allies. Alternatively, there was even a possibility of
an anti-English alliance. But, SOME war probably would have occurred to finish off such
a power.

As to the second war, it strikes me that it was simply the necessary conclusion. Germany
was too humbled by the first, yet left in a tremendously powerful position. But, all of the
countries were too weakened to really be able to go on fighting. Similar 'truces' have
happened again and again through history. 

Lit - Austria didn't want the war, and Italy backed out of it. But, Austria couldn't
accept the affront.