29 May 07
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070528/ts_nm/venezuela_television_dc_5
CARACAS (Reuters) - Hours after President Hugo Chavez shut down Venezuela's main opposition broadcaster, his government demanded an investigation of news network Globovision on Monday for allegedly inciting an assassination attempt on the leftist leader.
Chavez took Radio Caracas Television, or RCTV, off the air at midnight on Sunday and replaced it with a state-run channel to promote his socialist programs. The move sparked international condemnation and accusations from the opposition that he was undermining democracy in the OPEC nation.
Is Hugo overreaching?
29 May 07
Originally posted by MerkHe's likely overreacting. Can't blame the guy for being paranoid since the 2002 coup, and I think the west should do its best not to give him reason to have to control the media. We'll have to wait and see if he follows up after an investigation.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070528/ts_nm/venezuela_television_dc_5
CARACAS (Reuters) - Hours after President Hugo Chavez shut down Venezuela's main opposition broadcaster, his government demanded an investigation of news network Globovision on Monday for allegedly inciting an assassination attempt on the leftist leader.
Chavez took Radio Caracas Televisi ...[text shortened]... m the opposition that he was undermining democracy in the OPEC nation.
Is Hugo overreaching?
In addition to this CNN did admit to a mistake of airing footage of Mexico protests whilst talking about Venezuelan protests AND juxtaposing pictures of Chavez next to an Al Qaeda leader.
He knows the eyes of the world are one him especially since being accused of being totalitarian, so I guess its a case of *watch this space*
29 May 07
Originally posted by SeitseThe "brave communists" aren't the ones who started this thread on this site, amigo.
Ask the brave communists of this site... who fight for the proletariat in... in... in... a paid chess site... and are the paladins of the class struggle in... in... in... an internet chess forum.
hehehe
🙂
30 May 07
1 edit
Thus far Chavez has only shown himself to be principally an authoritarian statist who leaves me scant cause to be optimistic that he'll ever hand power over to the people within the framework of a libertarian socialist system of government. To date the little-known anarchist revolution in Spain (before it was crushed by both Fascist and Leninist* factions) remains the best empirical model for a true "grassroots" transformation of society along lines that allowed farmers and villagers alike to participate in the direct management of production through autonomous workers' councils unfettered by unaccountable bosses and bureaucracy.
Chavez's foremost value is that of anti-American instigator. Latin America has little hope of living up to its promise so long as it remains in the dark shadow of US hegemony, so a little "consciousness-raising" can only prove beneficial. Unfortunately I foresee a cult of personality developing within a few years.
* Popularly called "Communist", but of an authoritarian Bolshevik variety such as that found in the Soviet Union that is more properly designated "state capitalism" -- complete with a towering bureaucracy controlled by inaccessible apparatchiks and all the trimmings.
30 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by SoothfastHow many communist or any other government handed power over to the people? Communistic systems have a huge flaw: when the state owns everything, it lays itself wide open to a takeover by one person, who then owns it all. Like they say, the man who has the gold makes the rules.
Thus far Chavez has only shown himself to be principally an authoritarian statist who leaves me scant cause to be optimistic that he'll ever hand power over to the people within the framework of a libertarian socialist system of government. To date the little-known anarchist revolution in Spain (before it was crushed by both Leninist and Fascist fac beneficial. Unfortunately I foresee a cult of personality developing within a few years.
Even if I am re-iterating what I said in another post and repeating myself as well🙂
30 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseMost "revolutions" succeed only in transferring power from one illegitimate node of centralized authority to another, and often the "new" authority turns out to be comprised of the same people as the "old" authority, only they're wearing new uniforms and mouth new slogans. Education and informed evolution -- something of a spiritual "gestalt change" -- must precede or occur in tandem with the construction of a new socioeconomic and political order. Abrupt revolutions usually create an atmosphere of fear and chaos that allows a despot to sneak in and hi-jack the cause for his own selfish ends.
How many communist or any other government handed power over to the people? Communistic systems have a huge flaw: when the state owns everything, it lays itself wide open to a takeover by one person, who then owns it all. Like they say, the man who has the gold makes the rules.
Even if I am re-iterating what I said in another post and repeating myself as well🙂
Many societies in this world have been called "Communist" or "Socialist" when in fact they were nothing of the sort. Similarly a lot of egregious atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity. Tyrants will always wrap themselves up in appealing slogans, banners, religions and political philosophies for self-serving propaganda reasons. Progress is made when the people learn to see through the lies.
Note: I edited my post above a little, not realizing that someone had already responded to it.
30 May 07
Originally posted by SoothfastWhat on duece is "living in the dark shadow of American hegemony"?
Thus far Chavez has only shown himself to be principally an authoritarian statist who leaves me scant cause to be optimistic that he'll ever hand power over to the people within the framework of a libertarian socialist system of government. To date the little-known anarchist revolution in Spain (before it was crushed by both Fascist and Leninist* fa ...[text shortened]... a towering bureaucracy controlled by inaccessible apparatchiks and all the trimmings.
Is that to imply that America is holding them back?
30 May 07
Originally posted by MerkNicaragua (CIA-backed Contra death squads), Chile (think Pinochet), Panama -- hell, all of Central America -- Haiti, Cuba (sanctions for half a century and counting)....well, you've either done your homework or you haven't...
What on duece is "living in the dark shadow of American hegemony"?
Is that to imply that America is holding them back?
30 May 07
Originally posted by SoothfastYou're talking about ancient history in most of those cases. Those actions were decades ago and little arguement can be made that todays inept governance and poor economics is still Americas fault. How many decades does it take to get over it?
Nicaragua (CIA-backed Contra death squads), Chile (think Pinochet), Panama -- hell, all of Central America -- Haiti, Cuba (sanctions for half a century and counting)....well, you've either done your homework or you haven't...
Heck, we tried to help out, but they wanted Hugo. Now they get to suffer through his reign. That's their decision, not ours.
As for sanctions on Cuba, that's not holding them back, that's just not helping them forward.
Chile. Not that he didn't deserve a torch and pliers, but we did influence some solid market reforms at least. Chile deserves credit for that, not us.
Well, you're either intellectually honest, or you're not...
When you're not, blame America.
30 May 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyCNN is just a tool of the US CIA.
He's likely overreacting. Can't blame the guy for being paranoid since the 2002 coup, and I think the west should do its best not to give him reason to have to control the media. We'll have to wait and see if he follows up after an investigation.
In addition to this CNN did admit to a mistake of airing footage of Mexico protests whilst talking about Ve ...[text shortened]... cially since being accused of being totalitarian, so I guess its a case of *watch this space*
30 May 07
Originally posted by MerkIf they want Hugo, then its none of the US's business. By funding opposing parties and undermining Chavez, the US is being wholly undemocratic. If Chavez were deposed would you say the country had been liberated from a democratically elected leader? Is democracy only any good if they vote for who the US wants?
You're talking about ancient history in most of those cases. Those actions were decades ago and little arguement can be made that todays inept governance and poor economics is still Americas fault. How many decades does it take to get over it?
Heck, we tried to help out, but they wanted Hugo. Now they get to suffer through his reign. That's their decision, ...[text shortened]... ou're either intellectually honest, or you're not...
When you're not, blame America.
30 May 07
Originally posted by mrstabbymrstaffy, are you just another wet dream like catfoodmick?
If they want Hugo, then its none of the US's business. By funding opposing parties and undermining Chavez, the US is being wholly undemocratic. If Chavez were deposed would you say the country had been liberated from a democratically elected leader? Is democracy only any good if they vote for who the US wants?