Chavez Until 2031 ?

ISAW

Viscosity wrote:

Unfortunately for Venezuela, the loss of its middle class can only be confirmed by anecdotal evidence. The real proof will arise when their economy is in the gutter.

Here are some actual stats rather than ancedote

[quote = http://www.cepr.net/columns/weisbrot/2005_11_01.htm]
A few economic statistics go a long way in explaining why the Venezuelan government is doing so well and the opposition, which still controls most of the media and has most of the country's income, is flagging.

After growing nearly 18 percent last year, the Venezuelan economy has expanded 9.3 percent for the first half of this year - the fastest economic growth in the hemisphere. Although the government's detractors like to say this is just a result of high oil prices, it is not so simple.

Oil prices were even higher and rose much faster in the 1970s. But Venezuela's income per person actually fell during the 1970s. In fact, for the 28 years that preceded the current government (1970-1998), Venezuela suffered one of the worst economic declines in Latin America and the world: per capita income fell by 35 percent. This is a worse decline than even sub-Saharan Africa suffered during this period, and shows how completely dysfunctional the economic policies of the old system had become.
[/quote]

Now seeing as Chavez is considering suspending elections for 25 years....

really? You seem to be fond of supplying references. where does Chaves say that he is going to suspend elections for 25 years?

...The picture of Mugabe and Chavez is a little different, don't you think ?

yes he is not condeming Mogabe

Mind you rumsfeld wasnt condeming Saddam in his picture. He was shaking Saddams hand! You may also see pictures of Regan and Mother Theresa with Marcos. do you also condemn them? Bob geldof and Bono also met african dictators. How about condeming them? Oh wait. They support business dont thay? Have you another reason?

Parsley

Well how interesting. The initial premise of the thread, ie that Chavez seeks an election for a 25 year term, has been shown to be without any basis in truth.

The bias against Chavez among the media and people like Blair- who made an astonishingly ignorant and silly attack on our Hugo in parliament recently- is frankly depressing.

Street Byte

Hugo Chavez is installing himself for life. He tried it before via direct coup and failed, this time he will suceed via popular democratic vote made possible by huge promises.

His policy is about denying all those who did not vote for him the right of any future representation, and those that did? the right to change their mind.

Hugo Chavez is on course to ruin his country as every African prototype before him has done. And reading this therad - apparently with the blessing of many here.

You may edit your posts now if you wish, because when the blood starts flowing (as it will) I will be quoting people.

Dirk Gently

Street Byte wrote:

Hugo Chavez is installing himself for life. He tried it before via direct coup and failed, this time he will suceed via popular democratic vote made possible by huge promises.

His policy is about denying all those who did not vote for him the right of any future representation, and those that did? the right to change their mind.

He is not installing himself for life. see the real story HERE

At no stage did he say that there would be no more elections.The democratic process will continue with regular elections held as usual. Don't fall for the spin put on this by the opposition in venezeula who wont take part in the democratic process.
Its amazing how mis-quotes become fact in this modern world.

ISAW

Street Byte wrote:

Hugo Chavez is installing himself for life. He tried it before via direct coup and failed,

REally? When was this? I think you may be mixing up your facts. Actually Chavez was overthrown by a US backed coup by the military.

this time he will suceed via popular democratic vote made possible by huge promises.

and if you are wrong in this or in the above you will say so will you?

His policy is about denying all those who did not vote for him the right of any future representation, and those that did? the right to change their mind.

and your evidence for this is?

Hugo Chavez is on course to ruin his country as every African prototype before him has done.

would that include the UK supported Amin in angola or the Us backed Mobutu?

And reading this therad - apparently with the blessing of many here.

If the people elect him then I accept that. Bush was actually appointed by a court. He did not get the majority of votes. But I accept he is the Us president. However he is supported by a small number of people.

You may edit your posts now if you wish, because when the blood starts flowing (as it will) I will be quoting people.

Come on! The Us has been involved in over 50 military incurtions (closer to 100 actually) outside of WWI and WWII. dont lecture peopl;e on blood.

Akrasia

Street Byte wrote:

Hugo Chavez is installing himself for life.

according to whatever right wing blog or news source you subscribe to? In the real world, that is dishonest propaganda. (and contrary to all the concrete evidence) Chavez has legitimately won every election that he has challenged and those elections have been monitored internationally. He looks set to legitimately win the next election, and so comprehensively that the opposition are already looking for ways to discredit him instead of fighting to be elected themselves

His policy is about denying all those who did not vote for him the right of any future representation, and those that did? the right to change their mind.

complete speculation based on zero evidence or fact

Hugo Chavez is on course to ruin his country as every African prototype before him has done. And reading this therad - apparently with the blessing of many here.

Venezuela is actually in south america, not Africa. you might want to know the most elementary facts before you go spouting off about things you clearly have no knowledge of.

You may edit your posts now if you wish, because when the blood starts flowing (as it will) I will be quoting people.

do whatever you want, but nobody will be quoting you, because your uninformed right wing opinion is too mundane and uninteresting for anyone to ever bother remembering in order to quote in the future.

johnthesavage

The absurd portrayal by the corporate media of Chavez as some sort of comic-book bad guy is hardly surprising. Some of the biggest and most powerful corporations in the world are now forced to pay taxes on the profits they make in Venezula, costing hundreds of millions per year.
Before Chavez came to power, foreign oil companies paid royalties of just 1% to the Venezuelan state. Chavez raised this to 16%, further increases are planned. This is the real reason for the attempt to convince people that Chavez is a dangerous despot (the Wall Street Journal describes Chavez as a "tyrant" who presided over "the collapse of democracy"), and also the reason for the failed US-backed coup of 2002.

bobbyjoe

Hugo Chavez - The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
Great docementary about Chavez and the coup.
Really demonstrates the power of the media.

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqnDUN5AWBw&search=venezuela%20coup
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3CRDEi2NYQ&search=venezuela%20coup
Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0kUay8hUtg&search=venezuela%20coup
Part 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppPtMEBQV8M&search=venezuela%20coup
Part 5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcNZoWeq3Jc&search=venezuela%20coup
Part 6:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MXeJGQOkaI
Part 7:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lf6vKJH3X8
Part 8:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNohsr6N5N4

ISAW

Hogmeister B wrote:

Ie America and Ireland aren't democracies at all. You get to choose your dictator from a list of two and can't decide what he then does for the next several years. Democracy is rule by the people; this farcical system is just rule by people.

An ignorant comment. According tio the Irish constitution there is a division of powers. the government is only 16 ministers. The Oireachtas legislates. The courts cant involve themselves in policy making and vice versa. There are also other bodies Unions, Social partners, The GAA etc. So the idea that anyone could dictate the law is ignorant of the facts. Furthermore the Irish (and the US) constitution makes NO reference to political parties. So there is no constitution insistance on a taoiseach from one of two parties. But even if there was it sill wouldnt be a dictatorship if you had a choice.

Just because we're not police states doesn't mean we're democracies!

Just because you deny the antecedent of affirm the consequent and use double negatives I assume you also lack knowledge of grammar and logic.

Good old Hugo and Evo, it's about time oil and gas money was used to help dirt poor people rather than boost the already obscene profits of Shell, BP et al.
Let's hope Nigeria, Iraq, South Africa, the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia etc realise that and start to deal with their poverty, which is severe.

Iraq really wasnt as poor as it neighbours under the dictator Saddam. Indeed in the 1970 he produced proportionately more PhD's than the US. Dictators can make a people wealthy. Hitler did it Napoleon Bonaparte, Julius Caesar. But this in itself does not justify dictatorship.

Sand

REally? When was this? I think you may be mixing up your facts. Actually Chavez was overthrown by a US backed coup by the military.

Oh, I got this link from a "reputable", "unbiased" (i.e. so far left they think Chavez is a right wing reactionary) source called the World Socialist Web site.

Chavez, a former paratrooper who rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel, staged an abortive coup attempt in 1992 against the government of Carlos Andres Perez and was jailed for his efforts. Six years later, he was elected president as head of the Patriotic Pole, an electoral front comprised of his own Fifth Republic Movement and various parties of the petty-bourgeois nationalist left.

Your post displays complete ignorance of Chavez.

and if you are wrong in this or in the above you will say so will you?

Will you? Or will you go "Oh okay, so he led a military coup once. Whatever. Facts?!?! I never needed them to make up my mind before" and then return to dogma about the great man, el Presidente Chavez ?

Ive kinda given up on debating with people about Chavez. There are people who are truly, truly blind as to what he is doing. The same sort of people have applauded the installation of dictatorships down through history, all the way back to Republican Rome. Hobbes said it best,

"Well the best way to set up a dictatorship is to do it in inches instead of straight at once."

But those communist hippies from the World Socialist Website above said it longest (and with a lot of rhetoric)

Many left-wing nationalists in Venezuela, and in Latin America generally, have hailed the ascendancy of Chavez as a revolutionary development. Eager leftist journalists from Buenos Aires, Mexico City and elsewhere have breathlessly reported their pilgrimages to Miraflores, the presidential palace in Caracas, for personal interviews with the paratrooper president.

These people represent a sociopolitical layer which is incapable of either forgetting or learning anything. The same tendencies hailed the "anti-imperialist" credentials of the likes of Gen. J.J. Torres in Bolivia, the "humanist revolution" of Velasco Alvarado in Peru, Panamanian General Omar Torrijos's "revolution for the dispossessed" and the "revolutionary nationalist" orientation of General Rodriguez Lara in Ecuador. Like Chavez, many of these military rulers adopted radical reformist rhetoric and evinced a friendly attitude toward Cuba.

In each case, however, these figures merely paved the way for more reactionary regimes, often military dictatorships, which quickly took away whatever meager reforms had been implemented and waged a merciless assault on the political rights and social conditions of the working masses of these countries. The support of petty-bourgeois leftists for the "revolutionary" officers served only to disorient the working class and leave it politically disarmed as the general staffs in these countries dispensed with nationalist-reformist pretenses and turned sharply to the right.

When I read some hippy tirade and go "true that", its not exactly a reflexive agreement.

bobbyjoe

How is he a dictator if he keeps wining elections?

Sand

How is he a dictator if he keeps wining elections?

What dictator doesnt win elections? Hitler won elections ffs. Winning an election doesnt make you inherently democratic...

bobbyjoe

Sand wrote:

What dictator doesnt win elections? Hitler won elections ffs. Winning an election doesnt make you inherently democratic...

Perhaps but continueing to run them does.

Dirk Gently

Sand wrote:

Oh, I got this link from a "reputable", "unbiased" (i.e. so far left they think Chavez is a right wing reactionary) source called the World Socialist Web site.


Ive kinda given up on debating with people about Chavez. There are people who are truly, truly blind as to what he is doing. The same sort of people have applauded the installation of dictatorships down through history, all the way back to Republican Rome.

Congrats on finding a 7 year old article which was more a prediction on what that particular organization thought Chavez might get up. The article has been proved wrong in the 7 years since it was written with the most elections in any state in the past few years.

Seriously sand, if you oppose the installation of dictatorships down through the years then you must oppose U.S. foreign policy. I too grow tired with these Chavez debates as some people are so blind they cannot see the reality of the situation from all the negative propaganda spurted out by the dictator installers down through the years in the U.S. government.
What will convince you that Chavez is not a dictator? How many elections do you want him to hold? Why would he set up councils all over Venezuela giving local people elected from their own communities’ power to make decisions at a local level day to day if he was hell bent on centralising power within his own party and creating a dictatorship?

What would convince you that he is a democratic leader, infact more so than democracy here in Ireland were we rely on a few cabinet ministers to make decisions for us everyday and get to change them once in 5 years? The recent example of the media reporting that he was canceling elections and installing himself for life are typical of the propaganda and disinformation which is churned out against him. He is always referred to as a strong man, a quasi dictator, a threat to democracy and even Hitler. If these baseless accusations are thrown around enough people tend to accept them as fact. Who is throwing around these accusations and what is their agenda?

You can only judge Venezuelan democracy on the facts we have today and not what you imagine might happen in the future. Yes you can argue that events today signal a likely future direction, but the signals look good to me from the Chavez side as he constantly promotes the democratic process and it is the opposition who signals that they will not take part in democracy in an attempt to dis credit Chavez by saying he never ran against a rival for election. How can you run against a rival if they won’t take part despite Chavez been desperate for elections to take place? Also all previous elections were observed by international organizations and verified landslide victories to Chavez. Attempts to discredit these elections by the U.S. media have met with condemnation by Fairness and accuracy in reporting (F.A.I.R) who have slated reports of unfair elections in Venezuela as poor, inaccurate and biased reporting. (In other words lies and propaganda)

I've a pain in me arse with these chavez threads. Hopefully I will learn to resist replying to posters who just argue against chavez for the sake of it dispite no evidence that he is the next hitler. There is just no convicing these neo cons

ISAW

Sand wrote:

Oh, I got this link from a "reputable", "unbiased" (i.e. so far left they think Chavez is a right wing reactionary) source called the World Socialist Web site.

Your post displays complete ignorance of Chavez.

No. It displays possible partial ignorance. I accept that cahves was involved in a coup over 16 years ago. he was later pardoned and released from prison. I thought you referred to the recent coup which was supported by the Us authorities. I was wrong about that and I accept I was wrong given they you accept the US backed a more recent coup against Chaves who was by then democratically elected.

Will you? Or will you go "Oh okay, so he led a military coup once. Whatever.

Would that be like Saddam leading a coup and the Us backing him and shaking his hand?
Or Marcos?
Or Pinochet?
Or who was the gut in Panama? (until the US decided they had to orgainse another takeover)

Facts?!?! I never needed them to make up my mind before" and then return to dogma about the great man, el Presidente Chavez ?

for the record I am not a socialist. Nor am I a supporter of anyone who dictates to people what they believe is good for them. Let the people decide what they want I say. I am also prepared to accept when I am unclear or when I jump the gun and I suspect that others are ignorant of the situation. I accept the historical record in that Chaves was involved in an abortive coup over 16 years ago. I thought you referred to the coup in 2004 or thereabouts which was backed by the US. I was wrong in thinking that. I now accept you referred to 1993 or therabouts.

Ive kinda given up on debating with people about Chavez.

No you havent. You continue it in the next sentence. You have provided a reference from a socialist website and little other facts. I accept the historical record but you provide little in fact but a lot in opinion.

There are people who are truly, truly blind as to what he is doing. The same sort of people have applauded the installation of dictatorships down through history, all the way back to Republican Rome. Hobbes said it best,

You have no admiration for Julius Caesar then? Or Augustus? that by the way was called "imperial" Rome. republican Rome didnt have dictators did they?

"Well the best way to set up a dictatorship is to do it in inches instead of straight at once."

How many inches did the Patriot Act achieve?

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

What dictator doesnt win elections? Hitler won elections ffs. Winning an election doesnt make you inherently democratic...

Riighhtt.. Thats why the independant monitors (some of them from the US) said that the elections/referendums were completly fair. Compare that with the Bush/Kerry election where they reported it as "Mostly fair".

All I can see from your argument is that if people don't vote in the people you want then its not democratic.

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

Hobbes said it best,

"Well the best way to set up a dictatorship is to do it in inches instead of straight at once."

I'm touched people keep quouting me from different threads to try and show that I am talking about a completly different topic.

We don't have the same deal in Venezuela. For starters it is not the same Democratic system as the US. Secondly Chavezs posturing is to try and force the opposition to actually run. At the moment the opposition are trying to get the elections look like they are illegal by not entering them yet at the same time are going on as if they are the majority.

Akrasia

Sand wrote:

What dictator doesnt win elections? Hitler won elections ffs. Winning an election doesnt make you inherently democratic...

When a dictator wins elections it is usually because they are rigged, or at the very beginning of their term (wherafter they usually announce that no more elections will be held)
Chavez has won many internationally monitored elections and he looks set to win the next one with a huge margin (so big that the opposition are afraid to even run and instead are trying to discredit him in other ways)

ISAW

Or who was the guy in Panama? (until the US decided they had to orgainse another takeover)

Noriega wasn't it?

for the record I am not a socialist. Nor am I a supporter of anyone who dictates to people what they believe is good for them. Let the people decide what they want I say.

Actually I dont believfe 100 per cent in this either. I believe if people are left to determine what is correct for themselves then one can end up with dictators. We need to inform our concience. that means someone form outside of ourselves hasto inform it. thus there are people like the Pope The Dali Lama etc. who do tell people what is good for them.


No you havent. You continue it in the next sentence. You have provided a reference from a socialist website and little other facts. I accept the historical record but you provide little in fact but a lot in opinion.

You have no admiration for Julius Caesar then? Or Augustus? that by the way was called "imperial" Rome. republican Rome didnt have dictators did they?

To be fair and historically and gramatically correct (if orthographically wanting) the later republic just before the Imperium did have dictators Sulla, Crassus Pompey etc. Isnt the Pope a dictator? What is your definition of a dictator or a doctatorship Sand? You seem fond of stating what your opinion is. so what is your definition? then we will see if you don't accept dictatorships. Or is it only because the current US regime oppose chaves? You make the general point about police states and dictatorships being wrong but Ill bet when shown the historical issues and links with militarism you will go all fuzzy on both your definition of and commitment to so called "principles". I will bet any appeal to and any idea of an overarching natural and universal law (something Bush frequently does and oddly something I also subscribe to but I dont apply it selectively with double standards) will be shown up as only applying when it suits you in particualr cases and ignored in other cases.

So care to supply a definition? If not then dont preach about how you believe Chaves is doing something wrong. You fail to supply references to where the ultimate source of definition for this wrong resides. you also fail to support your allegation a transcript of the interview between glick and O reilly being incorrect. you claim it is wrong but you fail to show one word from the interview which is not in the transcript. the transcript in addition shows what O reilly stated about the interview months later where he claimed Bush was accused of being involved in 9/11. You have not produced anything to show this is wrong or that O reilly did not say what is attributed to him in the transcript.

you are. Long on opinion. short on evidence. you have much to learn.

Sand

No. It displays possible partial ignorance.

No, its complete and utter ignorance of Chavez. You didnt even know some of the basic facts of his "political" career and the history of Venezeula itself - a history of leading military revolutions isnt a minor detail when discussing the same mans subversion of the same state.

I was wrong in thinking that. I now accept you referred to 1993 or therabouts.

I didnt refer to the coup, I just noticed your attack on another poster for noting Chavez led a coup previously and highlighted your poor/non-existent grasp of the facts. I also successfully predicted that being made aware of the facts wouldnt alter your opinion of Chavez an iota. Why would it? That would imply your opinion was factually based in the first place.

No you havent. You continue it in the next sentence.

Well, couldnt resist highlighting the ignorance that underpins the support for Chavez abroad. His fanclub literally wilfully refuse to recognise reality. Posters here will demonise the functioning democratic societies as dictatorships, but will laud Chavez gutting of liberal democracy. I quoted Orwell in my sig because Im constantly struck with how the same themes still echo today...

You have no admiration for Julius Caesar then? Or Augustus? that by the way was called "imperial" Rome. republican Rome didnt have dictators did they?

Actually it was called republican rome - Caesar was murdered by Senators defending the republic, not hoping to establish it. Sulla had ruled as a dictator before but he was not a reformer, and seemed content to murder/terrorise his opponents, but did a lot to build the institutions that would prevent the rise of another Sulla (Caesar?) like figure - after Sullas death these "locks" were removed in the name of "people power"...You should buy a history book and read up on it, amazing how those very same dictators posed as champions of the common man, the restorers of an idealised Rome, were hailed as heroes - then they gutted the Senate, the institutions of state that resisted their will, and centralised authority under them until declaring themselves Imperator was but a formality.

As for admiration - I respect Caesar was a good general and a good political operator. It doesnt make him admirable though, nor the rise of dictators as a good thing.

All I can see from your argument is that if people don't vote in the people you want then its not democratic.

What you need to recognise Hobbes is that there is more to democracy than votes. Seeing as were on a history tour, the Athenians used to vote to exile people they didnt like. If you were voted out then you were forced onto the road or youd be killed - Is that democracy, even though a majority would vote for it?

Of course not - real, liberal democracy depends on fair, neutral institutions and systems being developed that ensure the state continues to serve and represent *all* the voters, not just the voters in the majority. Without these checks on pure democracy, it devolves into mob rule and voting as civil war - the losers are unwilling to accept the result of elections because they know the winners will not represent them or respect their views in the slightest. This is exactly what were seeing in Venezeula as Chavez guts the institutions of state and undermines the fabric of that countries democracy. You simply would not accept this in Ireland, and yet you cheer for it in Venezeula.

We don't have the same deal in Venezuela. For starters it is not the same Democratic system as the US.

Correct, the US is a functioning liberal democracy. Venezeula....isnt. Now do you feel Chavez's "reforms" are moving Venezeula closer to becoming a functioning liberal democracy, or further away?

When a dictator wins elections it is usually because they are rigged, or at the very beginning of their term (wherafter they usually announce that no more elections will be held)

Sorry, do you think dictatorships come with flat-pack assembly instructions and are thrown up in a few weeks? As Hobbes said dictatorships are built step by step - dictators these days dont even stop elections, even in places like Zimbabwe they run them. Dictatorships are built step by step. Chavez is doing so in destroying state institutions, attacking and marginalising opposition political figures, arming a party militia, whipping up nationalism with rants about foreign threats and now removing limits on his term. Where do you think thats leading to?

Or who was the guy in Panama? (until the US decided they had to orgainse another takeover)


Noriega wasn't it?

ISAW, why are you (at 14:15) quoting and responding to your own post that you made at 01:34? There are two explanations I can think of. One might be considered personal abuse, and the other would draw the wrath of the mods if I were to make accusations of it on the thread...Youll forgive me if I hestitate in responding to the post in detail until I know who Im actually talking to.

you are. Long on opinion. short on evidence. you have much to learn.

Ironically put ISAW.

ISAW

Sand wrote:

No, its complete and utter ignorance of Chavez. You didnt even know some of the basic facts of his "political" career and the history of Venezeula itself -

I didnt state I didnt know it. I stated I didnt mention it! the point being that I assumed that you (or whoever posted the remark about chaves being involved in a coup to put him into power when he was more recently involved in a coup by the military to oust him from power) refered to the recent coup which was supported by the US. I was not aware that you knew of any earlier abortive coup attempt but I admit that you apparently did know about it now. I did think you knew of the recent US backed military coup to takeover the democratically elected government.

Was I in error about that? You are aware that the Us supported a military takeover of the democratically elected government werent you?

I didnt refer to the coup, I just noticed your attack on another poster for noting Chavez led a coup previously and highlighted your poor/non-existent grasp of the facts.

I didnt attack any poster. I asked if he knew abou the US backed overthrowing of a democratically elected government. Yo do know about that don't you?

I also successfully predicted that being made aware of the facts wouldnt alter your opinion of Chavez an iota. Why would it? That would imply your opinion was factually based in the first place.

Where did I say I was not aware of any earlier coup? Whee did you make the prediction that you claim to have made? Evidence please.

Well, couldnt resist highlighting the ignorance that underpins the support for Chavez abroad. His fanclub literally wilfully refuse to recognise reality. Posters here will demonise the functioning democratic societies as dictatorships, but will laud Chavez gutting of liberal democracy. I quoted Orwell in my sig because Im constantly struck with how the same themes still echo today...

Where did I state I support chaves policies. I dont support some of Bushes foreign policies but does that mean I therefore must not accept him as a democratically elected leader?

Actually it was called republican rome -...You should buy a history book and read up on it, amazing how those very same dictators posed as champions of the common man, the restorers of an idealised Rome, were hailed as heroes ...

The dictatorships in Republican Rome came at the end (i.e. in the last half century of centuries) of the Republican period. that was something i factually corrected.

As for admiration - I respect Caesar was a good general and a good political operator. It doesnt make him admirable though, nor the rise of dictators as a good thing.

so you admit you do not admire Julius Octavian Napoleon ? How about Suharto in Indonesia? The Us were big pals of him? how about Marcos? Pinochet? Mogabe? There is a long list of people supported by the Us. Bin Laden for example. then there are groups like the MuJIHADeen. do you agree with the Us support of that group?

What you need to recognise Hobbes is that there is more to democracy than votes.

Indeed ther is. such as the right not to be treated badly if you are homosexual. You agree with that right dont you? How about the right not to be removed by a coup if you are an elected governemnt? How about the right to an abortion? Do you think that is a right?

rights courts state systems and voting are all parts of constitutions. the point is that under democracy power comes from the people.

Is that democracy, even though a majority would vote for it?

Alexis de Tocqueville dealt with this concept when he wrote Democracy in America. He referred to it as "tyrrany of the majority". It is a moot point. It is true to say democracy is not all and only about majority voting. so what? does it justify the military overthrowing a democratically elected government?
Thereau I think dealt with a way of how one should tackle such issues in "Civil disobedience". I submit it should not include a military dictatorship or junta.

Of course not - real, liberal democracy depends on ... Without these checks on pure democracy, it devolves into mob rule and voting as civil war - the losers are unwilling to accept the result of elections because they know the winners will not represent them or respect their views in the slightest. This is exactly what were seeing in Venezeula as Chavez guts the institutions of state and undermines the fabric of that countries democracy. You simply would not accept this in Ireland, and yet you cheer for it in Venezeula.

You whole "tyrrany of the majority" proposition has feet of clay. Please supply some EVIDENCE to support your claim. In counter I ask you this
You are aware that chaves popllarity arose from publicising a written constitution and policy to the people? You claim it is not all about voiting. chaves avanced the idea of the broad sopectrum of rights, division of powers, social cohesion etc. all these measures are constitutional barriers to tyrrany of the majority.

Now please show the persecuted minority whose civil rights were being abused?

Correct, the US is a functioning liberal democracy. Venezeula....isnt. Now do you feel Chavez's "reforms" are moving Venezeula closer to becoming a functioning liberal democracy, or further away?

I would say the Us is a conservative democracy. In any case it isnt for others to prove anything about where Venezuala is going. You are the one who claimed Chaves is trying to set up a dictatorship. You prove it! Dont ask others to disprove your claims. You clainm it you prove it! I might as well claim that there are Unicorns on my lawn and ask you to prove that there aren't!

Sorry, do you think dictatorships come with flat-pack assembly instructions and are thrown up in a few weeks?

I think you were asked to define a dictatorship. Be as sorry as ytou want but please be so after you supply a definition.

As Hobbes said dictatorships are built step by step - dictators these days dont even stop elections, even in places like Zimbabwe they run them. Dictatorships are built step by step.

I didnt ask how they were built. I asked you to define what is a "dictatorship" in your own words.

Chavez is doing so in destroying state institutions,

What state institutions has chaves destroyed? evidence please?

attacking and marginalising opposition political figures, [democrats] arming a party militia, [NRA supporters annd down south republican voting militia miovements] whipping up nationalism with rants about foreign threats [Iraq being linked to WMD 9/11 and muslim fundamentalism when it wasnt linked at all] and now removing limits on his term. [there are no limits in the UK] Where do you think thats leading to?

are you talking about the US here or Venezuala?

ISAW, why are you (at 14:15) quoting and responding to your own post that you made at 01:34? There are two explanations I can think of. One might be considered personal abuse, and the other would draw the wrath of the mods if I were to make accusations of it on the thread...Youll forgive me if I hestitate in responding to the post in detail until I know who Im actually talking to.

Again you are short on the evidence. This folks is called ad hominem i.e. If you cant attack the argument attack the person.

what do you mean by "personal abuse"? and what do you mean by something which would "call the wrath of the mods"?

I am now calling your bluff. If you have any accusations about me then please make them. Otherwise shut up about it. Put up or shut up.

You are also free to run away from the issues by saying you are hesitant in responding. then others can judge if you answered the questions you were asked.

there is no need for you to know my identity. If you continue in this line then it will be me who will complain about you. Deal with what I say and keep any nosing into my identity or my private life to yourself.

Now are you going to answer the questions you were asked? with supporting evidence?

democrates

It's gratifying to see such robust rebuttals of castigations against the leadership style of Chavez. Note how the debate turns into "is Chavez a dictator, like Hitler" etc. even going back to the Romans! Then the discussion revolves around that and the defendants inadvertantly sling mud by keeping the conversation going and mentioning Chavez and dictators in the same sentances, like that. Yet how could one not respond? Catch-22 framing tactic.

Look at how little effort goes into attacking what he is doing for the people of Venezuela. Not one mention of the documentary "the take" by Naomi Klien et al, let alone all the other reports on the bbc etc about emancipation and escape from poverty. No wonder. Talk about a war being over before it is fought. The trends are there for all to see. Bring on your stats.

When it comes to the difference to everyday reality for venezuelans, all the Mary Ellon-Synon, PD, Ayn Rand, CATO Institute rhetoric will fail. Because it is based on so-called libertarian dogma: freedom, justice, lots of good things, but only for the wealthy few, the corporates and their investor elite, while the rest of us are mere STOCK. Work as hard as you can in your company, because you have an obligation to the shareholders! Ooh, me first! Let me serve! Who needs religion? F**k your family, f**k society, worship investors! And blessed are they who bring crumbs of employment to your investor-friendly nation. Class supremacist brown-nosed slack-jawed gad-about dim-witted self-obsessed lick-spittles and may they suffer for eternity in the seventh circle of hades. lol.

History. Don't repeat it's mistakes, fine, learn, great, but don't stop there! Don't surrender all capacity to conceive improvement like some glove-puppet on the dead hand of the past. Even Cro Magnon weren't that stupid. The most promising thing since the fall of the Berlin Wall is Venezuela under Hugo Chavez. This is the only realistic alternative to untrammelled capitalism that is being implemented in the world today, and boy are the parasites angry! The rest of the west, and not least the east, have sold out. For now.

God forbid we in the western market economies should discover the truth about who makes and who pays in this new world order. Read "the richest man in babylon", "rich dad, poor dad" and other books about 'financial independance'. The common theme is the investors mantra, to summarise, parasite off your fellow man. Accumulate capital, then let others work to make you ever richer. This is happening within and between nations. Driven of course by the nest of vipers infesting the whitehouse, with the IMF and World Bank both headquartered in Washington DC and both having exclusive US vetos. Not to mention the green room abomination at the wto and the UN security council permanent membership. It's rip-off earth and you can watch it on cnbc right now folks! (one of their classic straplines - "cashing in on Katrina")

Look at this ever intensifying concentration of wealth and power. Press any topic with a minister and eventually it comes to resources, now wait for it, yes, we have to be competitive as a nation. We can't have high spending on these petty societal issues because we have to be investor friendly. Low Corporate tax rates. High stealth taxes for the working stock. Low spending on the needy. Dell and Microsoft senior management have PUBLICLY told our government what they want. Do you think your vote counts for sh1t? No. Absentee landlords of yore in a new guise now decide our nations policy. One vote per person is being replaced by one vote per dollar.

But Chavez is not doing the same. Verily! How dare he! HE must be a demonic person. Lets get him. The whole world runs on capitalism and anyone who puts their people first is a menace, a DANGER! What if others get the same idea?

He's only dangerous to the elite, and only insofar as the lack of further opportunities to parasite off their fellow man. God forbid any investor should ever have to do a days work. But worse, God forbid the working stock should ever consider co-operating in common interest, instead of competing as manipulated. And there, there is the answer to our deliverance. Who'da thunk! Co-operating instead of competing? That can't be right, surely the only path to sustainable peace and prosperity is ever increasing competition betwen working stock in consumption and pollution?

Too complex. Get Chavez.

Dirk Gently

good rant, sounds like one of mine with a few drinks on me

Anyone who attemps to use the wealth of the nation to improve the lives of working people will automaticly be labled a dictator by the sands of this world as they restrict the "freedom" of the corporations to dictate national policies and profit at the expence of workers. Democracy to these people means corporation freedom to exploit. I'm sure every future election chavez has will be see as one step closer to a dictatorship by capitalist elites.

Interesting how only a few years ago he was the darling of new labour in England, held up as a socially responsible leader working hard to combat poverty and praised for the way he is empowering ordinary people in Venezeula. Now a few years later it seems the poodle has had its leash tightened by you know who and its just back benchers in new labour who support him now with Blair shifting his allegance to the American Right.

ISAW

democrates wrote:

It's gratifying to see such robust rebuttals of castigations against the leadership style of Chavez. Note how the debate turns into "is Chavez a dictator, like Hitler" etc.

I didn't ask such a question. I asked those going on about haw bad dictatorships are to define what they mean by "dictatorship". they claim Chaves aims to set up a dictatorship in venezuala. They produce no evidence for this. They also produce no definition. when they do you will note that in the recent past (i.e. post WWII not in ancient times which is something other people who are opposing chaves rule are lecturing people on and suggesting they "read a book" on the subject when I had already corrected a minor factual error then there were dictors in the last 50 of several hundred years of the Roman Republic)...
Anyway in the recent half century the Us supported many a dictator. Indeed many in America admired Hitler. But there is a long list of dictators they supported. One cant just single out someone who is NOT a dictator on the possibility that he MIGHT become one just because one does not like his politics and at the same time ignore the other ACTUAL dictators which the US supported.

even going back to the Romans! Then the discussion revolves around that and the defendants inadvertantly sling mud by keeping the conversation going and mentioning Chavez and dictators in the same sentances, like that. Yet how could one not respond? Catch-22 framing tactic.

It was claimed chaves is creating a dictatorship in Venezuala. No definition for such was given and no evidence for one was produced. at the same time the Us have supported many a dictator and the principle of laothing dictators is not applied. Do you detect double standards here?

Look at how little effort goes into attacking what he is doing for the people of Venezuela. Not one mention of the documentary "the take" by Naomi Klien et al, let alone all the other reports on the bbc etc about emancipation and escape from poverty.

Fine! Please outline how Venesuala is being destroyed by Chaves. Please indicate how people are worse off. Please supply evidence.

Please also note that this discussion began whan a CLAIM was made that Chaves aim is to create a dictatorship. It is not for those who disagree with this to provide evidence of massive social change for the better of the people based on chaves policies (though they might well do this). It is for the persons making the claims to support their own claims with evidence and not for the detractors to disprove their claims.

No wonder. Talk about a war being over before it is fought. The trends are there for all to see. Bring on your stats.

It is for those making the claim to support it. It is not for those saying "he isnt trying to create a dictatorship" or " people are not having things "done to them"" to prove you wrong. You have to prove your own claims.

When it comes to the difference to everyday reality for venezuelans, ...

What differences? Please list them.

History. Don't repeat it's mistakes, fine, learn, great, but don't stop there! Don't surrender all capacity to conceive improvement like some glove-puppet on the dead hand of the past. Even Cro Magnon weren't that stupid. The most promising thing since the fall of the Berlin Wall is Venezuela under Hugo Chavez. This is the only realistic alternative to untrammelled capitalism that is being implemented in the world today, and boy are the parasites angry! The rest of the west, and not least the east, have sold out. For now.

God forbid we in the western market economies ...big snip

Yes the politics of distribution of wealth is central to the issue but the point is that the people who are attacking Chavez attempt to label him as a civil rights abuser and anything else they can link to being evil. they did the same with Iraq. they dropped the dictator thing to third place (no surpries since the Us had SUPPORTED Saddam as dictator). WMD and supporting Al Khyda became the main reasons for invading. Both these reasons were unsupported just as Chaves building a dictatorship is unsupported.

But Chavez is not doing the same. Verily! How dare he! HE must be a demonic person. Lets get him. The whole world runs on capitalism and anyone who puts their people first is a menace, a DANGER! What if others get the same idea?

Yep. You have the kernel of this current issue there. the point being that whatever system they chose for themselves it isnt right for the US to impose their will on the people of any country.

lostexpectation

any interesting quotes recently on bertie opinion of his fellow socialist?

Dirk Gently

lostexpectation wrote:

any interesting quotes recently on bertie opinion of his fellow socialist?

Not about chavez but tonight on the turbity show he said he would like Joe Higgins of the socialist party to join FF cos hes a great man.
Still remember the day he stood up in the dail and declared himself the last socialist. Joe keeps calling him comrade now.

Dirk Gently

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1773908,00.html

Are these the acts of an evil dictator hell bent of suppressing freedom?

democrates

Classic John Pilger. That was a most enjoyable read.

ISAW

Sand wrote:

No, its complete and utter ignorance of Chavez. You didnt even know some of the basic facts of his "political" career and the history of Venezeula itself - a history of leading military revolutions isnt a minor detail when discussing the same mans subversion of the same state.

You claim I am completly and utterlly ignorant of chavez and that chaves is attempting to build a dictatorship for himself, in spite of me pointing to constitutionally seperated powers.
Here are some facts for you!

Yes chavez was involved in a coup attempt. But he did not believe at that time that a military coup of a military junta would change things. He believed they needed a new constitution to escape from the past where dictatorships or juntas could be created:

chaves interviewed by Marta Harnecker, in Hugo Ch&#225 wrote:

We discussed how to break with the past, how to overcome this type of democracy that only responds to the interests of the oligarchical sectors; how to get rid of the corruption. We had always rejected the idea of a traditional military coup, of a military dictatorship, or of a military governing junta. We were very aware of what happened in Colombia, in the years of 1990-1991, when there was a constitutional assembly – of course! – it was very limited because in the end it was subordinated to the existing powers. It was the existing powers that designed Colombia’s constitutional assembly and got it going and, therefore, it could not transform the situation because it was a prisoner of the existing powers and thoughts.

The idea of a constitution with seperation of powers runs counter to and flies in the face of your claims that he was enabling a dictatorship.

in the 1998 presidential elections, one of Chávez's electoral promises was to organise a referendum asking the people if they wanted to convene a National Constituent Assembly. His very first decree as president was thus to order such a referendum, which took place on 19 April. The electorate were asked two questions – whether a constituent assembly should be convened, and whether it should follow the mechanisms proposed by the president. The "yes" vote in response to these two question totalled 92% and 86%, respectively

they went on to depose corrupt judges and re draft the constitution.

Instead of the usual three branches of government, the new Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has five:

1. The executive branch (the Presidency).
2. The legislative branch (the National Assembly).
3. The judicial branch (the judiciary).
4. The electoral branch (poder electoral, or "electoral power").
5. The citizens' branch (poder ciudadano, or "citizens' power").

Hardly a set up to encourage a dictatorship is it?

Provision was also made for a new position, the Public Defender, which was to be an office with the authority to check the activities of the presidency, the National Assembly, and the constitution — Chávez styled such a defender as the guardian of the so-called “moral branch” of the new Venezuelan government, thus putatively tasked with defending public and moral interests.

here is a (non official) English translation:
http://www.embavenez-us.org/constitution/intro.htm

Care to show me where Chavez put in clauses so that he could set up a dictatorship? I think not!

ISAW

Sand wrote:

No, its complete and utter ignorance of Chavez. You didnt even know some of the basic facts of his "political" career and the history of Venezeula itself - a history of leading military revolutions isnt a minor detail when discussing the same mans subversion of the same state.

You claim I am completly and utterlly ignorant of chavez and that chaves is attempting to build a dictatorship for himself, in spite of me pointing to constitutionally seperated powers.
Here are some facts for you!

Yes chavez was involved in a coup attempt. But he did not believe at that time that a military coup of a military junta would change things. He believed they needed a new constitution to escape from the past where dictatorships or juntas could be created:

chaves interviewed by Marta Harnecker, in Hugo Ch&#225 wrote:

We discussed how to break with the past, how to overcome this type of democracy that only responds to the interests of the oligarchical sectors; how to get rid of the corruption. We had always rejected the idea of a traditional military coup, of a military dictatorship, or of a military governing junta. We were very aware of what happened in Colombia, in the years of 1990-1991, when there was a constitutional assembly – of course! – it was very limited because in the end it was subordinated to the existing powers. It was the existing powers that designed Colombia’s constitutional assembly and got it going and, therefore, it could not transform the situation because it was a prisoner of the existing powers and thoughts.

The idea of a constitution with seperation of powers runs counter to and flies in the face of your claims that he was enabling a dictatorship.

in the 1998 presidential elections, one of Chávez's electoral promises was to organise a referendum asking the people if they wanted to convene a National Constituent Assembly. His very first decree as president was thus to order such a referendum, which took place on 19 April. The electorate were asked two questions – whether a constituent assembly should be convened, and whether it should follow the mechanisms proposed by the president. The "yes" vote in response to these two question totalled 92% and 86%, respectively

they went on to depose corrupt judges and re draft the constitution.

Instead of the usual three branches of government, the new Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has five:

1. The executive branch (the Presidency).
2. The legislative branch (the National Assembly).
3. The judicial branch (the judiciary).
4. The electoral branch (poder electoral, or "electoral power").
5. The citizens' branch (poder ciudadano, or "citizens' power").

Hardly a set up to encourage a dictatorship is it?

Provision was also made for a new position, the Public Defender, which was to be an office with the authority to check the activities of the presidency, the National Assembly, and the constitution — Chávez styled such a defender as the guardian of the so-called “moral branch” of the new Venezuelan government, thus putatively tasked with defending public and moral interests.

here is a (non official) English translation:
http://www.embavenez-us.org/constitution/intro.htm

Care to show me where Chavez put in clauses so that he could set up a dictatorship? I think not!