there are many many people who have been raising eyebrows for a long time and have given up hope on this guy. i think a lot of progressive people want to believe in the idealistic, populist, opposition to american hegemony. but so far, its looking like these guys gotta be strong arm dudes who keep a strangle hold on power. its not an excuse, but u.s. policies must contribute to this entrenched mentality. and these guys play the u.s. "bogeyman" propaganda to their advantage too. almost chicken before the egg.
still...weighing pluses and minuses, i find them no better or worse than our presidents.
still...weighing pluses and minuses, i find them no better or worse than our presidents.
our system is greater than any individual president - but that's also probably the greatest danger from Bush - his pushing of the concept of the imperial presidency - increasing the powers of the executive branch without checks through signing statements etc...
yeh, chavez needs bush though - stalked him around south america on a counter tour for gawds sake.
I give Chavez strong critical support. His moves for introducing a democratically planned economy under a strong (yes, oil supported) economic backbone will be interesting. The nationalisation of many factories under democratic control of the workers is a positive move by my (lefty) standards and I hope it continues.
There are some things he is doing that I wouldn't support (like some of his ties with Iran).
That dude who said "OMG THEY ARE DESTROYING THE MIDDLE CLASS WEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH" is a fucking joke. People who blindly pander to middle class values really disgust me. And yes, that probably means you.
I give Chavez strong critical support. His moves for introducing a democratically planned economy under a strong (yes, oil supported) economic backbone will be interesting. The nationalisation of many factories under democratic control of the workers is a positive move by my (lefty) standards and I hope it continues.
There are some things he is doing that I wouldn't support (like some of his ties with Iran).
That dude who said "OMG THEY ARE DESTROYING THE MIDDLE CLASS WEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH" is a fucking joke. People who blindly pander to middle class values really disgust me. And yes, that probably means you.
you sound like the teenage child of middle-class parents. Make sure mom washes your che t-shirt for the party on friday.
The nationalisation of many factories[/b] under democratic control of the workers is a positive move by my (lefty) standards and I hope it continues.
When has this ever resulted in anything positive? And how democratic can the operation of these factories be if their control is ultimately in the hands of the nation-state?
The only positive move that I can see that he has done was kicking out foreign companies from raping his country's resources and workforce. I think that nationalization of resources and industry initially can help the country as a whole at this stage IF the money doesn't all end up in his pocket. Honestly thats the only way most countries can break out of third world status to become first world.
The nationalisation of many factories[/b] under democratic control of the workers is a positive move by my (lefty) standards and I hope it continues.
When has this ever resulted in anything positive? And how democratic can the operation of these factories be if their control is ultimately in the hands of the nation-state?
reading this and then looking at your avatar is hilarious
I think that nationalization of resources and industry initially can help the country as a whole at this stage IF the money doesn't all end up in his pocket. Honestly thats the only way most countries can break out of third world status to become first world.
Examples? The 'Asian tigers' of the 1960s were politically authoritarian but economically quite free. And China and India's recent growth is strongly correlated with privatization and decentralization.
i'm not crying for the elites that have lost the privileges that they enjoyed for decades at the expense of an extremely poor population (much like cuba). but repression and limited freedoms arent pretty anywhere. ashame that the accomplishments of the cuban and venezuelan "socialist" movements are going to be rightfully discredited by human rights abuses,one party rule and political posturing.
Seconded. For me, real development for the poor means better governance, increased access to the financial system and its resources, and more opportunities for small-scale economic growth.
Has anyone else read Hernando de Soto? I can't say that he has the silver bullet, but his model of development seems a lot more convincing than nationalization, which is an open invitation for rent seeking and corruption.
Both Cuban and Venezuelan socialism have also been dependent on external support - Soviet aid in the Cuban case, and oil money for Chavez. Cuba went through economic collapse after the Soviet Union broke apart. What's Chavez going to do when the oil runs out?
hugo is limping on thin petrol fortified ice right now
i'll be really curious to see what happens if dude doesn't step up the oil production in his country. nationalizing the oil companies at the expense of thousands of jobs and many years of expertise is likely to turn out to be his downfall.
and his begging of OPEC to ration oil so his country doesn't look like it can't meet its numbers can only last so long.
trying to distribute wealth at the expense of a free market very rarely pans out. i doubt his attempts will be any different.
I think that nationalization of resources and industry initially can help the country as a whole at this stage IF the money doesn't all end up in his pocket. Honestly thats the only way most countries can break out of third world status to become first world.
Examples? The 'Asian tigers' of the 1960s were politically authoritarian but economically quite free. And China and India's recent growth is strongly correlated with privatization and decentralization.
i am not saying it will work but it may curb the first world nations/corporations from simply using up/abusing venezualan resources and labor. If by nationalizing industries it further develops Venezuelan businesses, society, and physical infrastucture then more power to him and his government. I think in conjunction initially his focus would have to be itnernally, almost strictly domestic to make it work with limited international trade.
I would look at the history of Japan which was very isolationist for a long time, reached some of its greatest prosperity that in turn allowed it to compete with the rest of the world when it did open its doors to international trade/culture. They also had a totalitarian monarchy at this time who had consolidated power throughout that period.
I think that nationalization of resources and industry initially can help the country as a whole at this stage IF the money doesn't all end up in his pocket. Honestly thats the only way most countries can break out of third world status to become first world.
Examples? The 'Asian tigers' of the 1960s were politically authoritarian but economically quite free. And China and India's recent growth is strongly correlated with privatization and decentralization.
... I would look at the history of Japan which was very isolationist for a long time, reached some of its greatest prosperity that in turn allowed it to compete with the rest of the world when it did open its doors to international trade/culture. They also had a totalitarian monarchy at this time who had consolidated power throughout that period.
I think you're confusing national industrial policy with nationalized industry.
The nationalisation of many factories[/b] under democratic control of the workers is a positive move by my (lefty) standards and I hope it continues.
When has this ever resulted in anything positive? And how democratic can the operation of these factories be if their control is ultimately in the hands of the nation-state?
Well, in the case of venezuela, the ownership of said factories is 49% nation state and 51% workers/community. I agree it's not ideal, but as a start it's good.
What distinguishes the situation in Venezuela from some other experiments with worker control is that Venezeula's economy is currently growing, and strong (thanks to oil). Usually populist/leftist governments appear during times of economic crisis. Basically, they have room to experiment. And whether you support it or not, it will be interesting to see what happens. Furthermore, his leadership whether you like it or not has benefited the majority of the people of venezuela, else they wouldn't have continued to vote him into office indirectly like 8 times.
For those who support what is going on in Venezuela, I recommend this (leftist run and written, so it admittedly has that bias) website www.handsoffvenezuela.org which has been endorsed by Chavez himself.
I think that nationalization of resources and industry initially can help the country as a whole at this stage IF the money doesn't all end up in his pocket. Honestly thats the only way most countries can break out of third world status to become first world.
Examples? The 'Asian tigers' of the 1960s were politically authoritarian but economically quite free. And China and India's recent growth is strongly correlated with privatization and decentralization.
... I would look at the history of Japan which was very isolationist for a long time, reached some of its greatest prosperity that in turn allowed it to compete with the rest of the world when it did open its doors to international trade/culture. They also had a totalitarian monarchy at this time who had consolidated power throughout that period.
I think you're confusing national industrial policy with nationalized industry.
No I am aware of the difference I am just pointing out that the nationalization in conjunction with an isolationist (japan as a prime example of isolationism helping to develo the country) policy for awhile could be beneficial to a country like venezuela. I think that in certain situations that the nationalization of resources and industry can have a positive outcome and may be the only way to change course especially in alot of third world nations where they are looked at as only valuable for cheap labor and resources. of course it runs the risk of totalitarian regimes taking over and lining their own pockets, but when does government NOT run taht risk?
hugo is limping on thin petrol fortified ice right now
i'll be really curious to see what happens if dude doesn't step up the oil production in his country. nationalizing the oil companies at the expense of thousands of jobs and many years of expertise is likely to turn out to be his downfall.
and his begging of OPEC to ration oil so his country doesn't look like it can't meet its numbers can only last so long.
trying to distribute wealth at the expense of a free market very rarely pans out. i doubt his attempts will be any different.
Haha, dude, they have been saying this for the last six years[/b], since the lockout in 2001. When will you give up?
can someone please explain to me what is so important about the middle class? Do you really think it so great for the middle class to be supported by the starving poor in Venezuela, and now your panties are in a knot because it's gone?
It's one thing to disagree with what is going on in Venezuela because you are politically on the right and believe in free market values. I can understand this and I would like to debate/discuss those perspectives. It's another to have some moral disposition to the middle class. It doesn't even make sense.
Comments
This statement pretty much sums up my problems with dude.
You ask too many questions. Get back to work!
How about Che's estate suing for the copyright to his image.
and the beat goes on
you basically can't say that about Chavez, who seems to be following his idol Fidel on the 'president for life' path.
the free pass lefties give this guy is
there are many many people who have been raising eyebrows for a long time and have given up hope on this guy. i think a lot of progressive people want to believe in the idealistic, populist, opposition to american hegemony. but so far, its looking like these guys gotta be strong arm dudes who keep a strangle hold on power. its not an excuse, but u.s. policies must contribute to this entrenched mentality. and these guys play the u.s. "bogeyman" propaganda to their advantage too. almost chicken before the egg.
still...weighing pluses and minuses, i find them no better or worse than our presidents.
dude has a loud mouth and he is not afraid to use it
also knee jerking and embracing[literally] Iran is evidence of the Lobotomy
our system is greater than any individual president - but that's also probably the greatest danger from Bush - his pushing of the concept of the imperial presidency - increasing the powers of the executive branch without checks through signing statements etc...
yeh, chavez needs bush though - stalked him around south america on a counter tour for gawds sake.
---
yeah this was the most pathetic move yet.
like, "hey guys look at me, the anti-Bush!"
dude get your own house in order first.
Sorry I don't have any extras.
There are some things he is doing that I wouldn't support (like some of his ties with Iran).
That dude who said "OMG THEY ARE DESTROYING THE MIDDLE CLASS WEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH" is a fucking joke. People who blindly pander to middle class values really disgust me. And yes, that probably means you.
you sound like the teenage child of middle-class parents. Make sure mom washes your che t-shirt for the party on friday.
When has this ever resulted in anything positive? And how democratic can the operation of these factories be if their control is ultimately in the hands of the nation-state?
reading this and then looking at your avatar is hilarious
it never gets old
Examples? The 'Asian tigers' of the 1960s were politically authoritarian but economically quite free. And China and India's recent growth is strongly correlated with privatization and decentralization.
Seconded. For me, real development for the poor means better governance, increased access to the financial system and its resources, and more opportunities for small-scale economic growth.
Has anyone else read Hernando de Soto? I can't say that he has the silver bullet, but his model of development seems a lot more convincing than nationalization, which is an open invitation for rent seeking and corruption.
Both Cuban and Venezuelan socialism have also been dependent on external support - Soviet aid in the Cuban case, and oil money for Chavez. Cuba went through economic collapse after the Soviet Union broke apart. What's Chavez going to do when the oil runs out?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/12/iran.detained/index.html
I wonder where they ever got the idea that taking hostages would get results?
i'll be really curious to see what happens if dude doesn't step up the oil production in his country. nationalizing the oil companies at the expense of thousands of jobs and many years of expertise is likely to turn out to be his downfall.
and his begging of OPEC to ration oil so his country doesn't look like it can't meet its numbers can only last so long.
trying to distribute wealth at the expense of a free market very rarely pans out. i doubt his attempts will be any different.
i am not saying it will work but it may curb the first world nations/corporations from simply using up/abusing venezualan resources and labor. If by nationalizing industries it further develops Venezuelan businesses, society, and physical infrastucture then more power to him and his government. I think in conjunction initially his focus would have to be itnernally, almost strictly domestic to make it work with limited international trade.
I would look at the history of Japan which was very isolationist for a long time, reached some of its greatest prosperity that in turn allowed it to compete with the rest of the world when it did open its doors to international trade/culture. They also had a totalitarian monarchy at this time who had consolidated power throughout that period.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6186990.stm
this is a real solid piece on the extinction of Venezuela's middle class.
A quote from the article regarding Chavez:
"He is not a leftist - he is a fascist."
I would have to agree. Or maybe he's both. Either way, I can't see how anyone supports him anymore than they would Bush.
I think you're confusing national industrial policy with nationalized industry.
What distinguishes the situation in Venezuela from some other experiments with worker control is that Venezeula's economy is currently growing, and strong (thanks to oil). Usually populist/leftist governments appear during times of economic crisis. Basically, they have room to experiment. And whether you support it or not, it will be interesting to see what happens. Furthermore, his leadership whether you like it or not has benefited the majority of the people of venezuela, else they wouldn't have continued to vote him into office indirectly like 8 times.
For those who support what is going on in Venezuela, I recommend this (leftist run and written, so it admittedly has that bias) website www.handsoffvenezuela.org which has been endorsed by Chavez himself.
No I am aware of the difference I am just pointing out that the nationalization in conjunction with an isolationist (japan as a prime example of isolationism helping to develo the country) policy for awhile could be beneficial to a country like venezuela. I think that in certain situations that the nationalization of resources and industry can have a positive outcome and may be the only way to change course especially in alot of third world nations where they are looked at as only valuable for cheap labor and resources. of course it runs the risk of totalitarian regimes taking over and lining their own pockets, but when does government NOT run taht risk?
can someone please explain to me what is so important about the middle class? Do you really think it so great for the middle class to be supported by the starving poor in Venezuela, and now your panties are in a knot because it's gone?
It's one thing to disagree with what is going on in Venezuela because you are politically on the right and believe in free market values. I can understand this and I would like to debate/discuss those perspectives. It's another to have some moral disposition to the middle class. It doesn't even make sense.