Venezuela shuts down free speech

[Sea Demon]

No surprise. Never fails. Socialism/Communism always comes to this. Political oppression is always the eventual outcome when trying to implement Marxism. When will people learn....:roll:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2723008820070527?feedType=RSS&rpc=22

[Yahoshua]

History now repeats itself, with the near exact circumstances that slowly brought Stalin into power.

[Frau_Phillips]

*sighs*

If only Marxism WORKED.

[bookworm_020]

*sighs*

If only Marxism WORKED.

If only democracy worked!:doh: It's just the best of a bad bunch!

[NefariousKoel]

I won't go into political idealism as some of you have. I think we all agree that this is a horrible indicator. Hopefully you saw it coming years ago as I did.

As for the Venezuelans, whom this thread should be about, I feel pity.

Many of them have already fled to the US previously, and I suspect some of the holdouts will do so now or die.

Being an immigration reformist supporter, as all Americans are, I hope any Venezuelan wishing to become a US citizen is given it without a hassle. I won't bitch about the illegals from other countries in this thread and their motivations but I think this is legit enough to warrant a blanket acceptance from such a place.

I wish them luck.

[Frau_Phillips]

I won't bitch about the illegals from other countries in this thread and their motivations but I think this is legit enough to warrant a blanket acceptance from such a place.

Yeah, extreme poverty isn't a legit enough reason. Neither is the desire for a better life for one's children, or anything like that..

[LoBlo]

If only Marxism WORKED.

If only democracy worked!:doh: It's just the best of a bad bunch!

You have to define "works". Democracy does "work". The fact that your sitting at home able to criticize it is proof of that. It works to give people a reasonable defense against brutality/oppression in most situations (unless of course your a minority part of the population subject to majority tyranny in a state without baseline citizen rights laws).

Marxism "works" to... but only for the guy at the top... Castro, Jong-il, and Chavez... that reap the benefit while everyone else a glorified slave.

[The Avon Lady]

Don't cry for me, Venezuela......... (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/05/chavez-thugs-clash-with-democracy.html)

[Sea Demon]

Don't cry for me, Venezuela......... (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/05/chavez-thugs-clash-with-democracy.html)

Once their little socialist experiment fails, and it will, we'll have to clean up their mess. The U.S. taxpayer will that is. Mark my words.

[bradclark1]

If only democracy worked!:doh: It's just the best of a bad bunch!
It does. Thats why it will eventually kill us or it.

[Yahoshua]

Chavez' thugs open fire n protestors.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070528/ap_en_tv/venezuela_chavez_vs_tv

[SUBMAN1]

Being an immigration reformist supporter, as all Americans are, I hope any Venezuelan wishing to become a US citizen is given it without a hassle. I won't bitch about the illegals from other countries in this thread and their motivations but I think this is legit enough to warrant a blanket acceptance from such a place.

Nope. I don't agree at all. The people need to stay where they are and fight what it is they need to fight. To just move on out is to invite tyranny to stay in. Not acceptable.

-S

PS. All Americans may be a reformist supporters but I know no one that supports the ideas of opening up the borders as you suggest - The majority want exactly the opposit. They want them to tighten our borders and kick all these illegals out - lest we end up like Spain. They allowed them to stay in Spain, and it ended up being an open ticket invitation to the rest of the world - Word spread like wildfire with everyone wanting to come in and they did come in. Now to win a governmental election in Spain simply requires you to campaign on tough immigration. Nice. Now we have stupid people trying to do the same in the US and allow the illegals to stay. Good thing this bill that was proposed by Bush is getting squashed.

To put it simply - To allow illegals to stay after entering illegally is to invite disaster for the United States of America. No other way to put it.

[NefariousKoel]

Well, I've stirred something up...

I won't bitch about the illegals from other countries in this thread and their motivations but I think this is legit enough to warrant a blanket acceptance from such a place.
Yeah, extreme poverty isn't a legit enough reason. Neither is the desire for a better life for one's children, or anything like that..
Perhaps these people should strive to better their poverty level and not expect us to do it for them. I've seen far too many illegals lately and I assure you, they're buying steak with foodstamps my taxes helped pay for while I'm waiting in line behind them at the grocery store scraping money for bread. I see these people daily where I'm at. They're not fleeing oppression, they're embracing a free ride at our expense.

[The Avon Lady]

Well, I've stirred something up...

I won't bitch about the illegals from other countries in this thread and their motivations but I think this is legit enough to warrant a blanket acceptance from such a place.
Yeah, extreme poverty isn't a legit enough reason. Neither is the desire for a better life for one's children, or anything like that..
Perhaps these people should strive to better their poverty level and not expect us to do it for them. I've seen far too many illegals lately and I assure you, they're buying steak with foodstamps my taxes helped pay for while I'm waiting in line behind them at the grocery store scraping money for bread. I see these people daily where I'm at. They're not fleeing oppression, they're embracing a free ride at our expense.
Repeating a 15 minute must-see video: Immigration by the Numbers (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5871651411393887069).

[NefariousKoel]

Being an immigration reformist supporter, as all Americans are, I hope any Venezuelan wishing to become a US citizen is given it without a hassle. I won't bitch about the illegals from other countries in this thread and their motivations but I think this is legit enough to warrant a blanket acceptance from such a place.

Nope. I don't agree at all. The people need to stay where they are and fight what it is they need to fight. To just move on out is to invite tyranny to stay in. Not acceptable.

-S

PS. All Americans may be a reformist supporters but I know no one that supports the ideas of opening up the borders as you suggest - The majority want exactly the opposit. They want them to tighten our borders and kick all these illegals out - lest we end up like Spain. They allowed them to stay in Spain, and it ended up being an open ticket invitation to the rest of the world - Word spread like wildfire with everyone wanting to come in and they did come in. Now to win a governmental election in Spain simply requires you to campaign on tough immigration. Nice. Now we have stupid people trying to do the same in the US and allow the illegals to stay. Good thing this bill that was proposed by Bush is getting squashed.

To put it simply - To allow illegals to stay after entering illegally is to invite disaster for the United States of America. No other way to put it.

I think you misunderstood me Subman. I don't, in any way, support legalizing illegal immigrants. My point was that we should accept any of the holdout political enemies of Chavez' Venezuela without question. They'll be on the chopping block soon if they don't leave.

I'm not saying let them all flood in. It's a "worker's paradise" there now so the poor aren't leaving in droves.

[P_Funk]

*sighs*

If only Marxism WORKED. I wish you people would stop saying that Marxism doesn't work. There's no proof of that. Just because Lenin was inspired by Marxism, doesn't mean that the string of autocratic pseudo-communist regimes that have spawned in the wake of the Soviet Union comprise a true test of the marxist state.

Stalin for one wasn't a Marxist. He wasn't a socialist. He was a capitalist, just like every other despot. He hi-jacked the movement and turned it into another autocracy where he had the monopoly on everything. Just because a man waves a flag doesn't mean he actually salutes it. Remeber also that Nazi means 'National Socialist".

Also, you can make legitimate claims that Leninist Communism itself is fundamentally flawed or very unlikely to succeed, but to paint all of modern socialist thought as the same is just a gross generalization. The fact is that if you actually knew Marxism you'd know that Marx said that there were very specific circumstances that would have to pass for a true socialist movement to succeed. For one he said that a modern industrial movement would have to have occurred, that capitalism would have to have corrupted itself to the point that nobody would take it anymore. Now if we all remember history correctly we'll notice that Russia only became industrialized AFTER Stalin was in power, and he was not a Marxist.

And finally lets get some perspective here. The first communist revolution occurred in 1917 and since then every subsequent communist state has been affected by the Soviet Union and that is not a Marxist state. China is a direct off shoot of the USSR. North Korea isn't even an industrial giant. These aren't examples that Marx himself would accept as being anything near what his own theories discuss.

And since it is only 2007, it has been only 90 years since the Russian Revolution and history has proven that it takes a very long time for a real change in the structure of society to occur if it is to be progressive towards the majority. It took thousands of years since the idea of democracy first became real for a functional and lasting one to form in Britain and the United States. And a few failed states is hardly enough to condmn socialism, especially since you are also discounting the successes in socialist ideas.

Sweden is a legitimate Social Democratic nation and has been for some time. All through the cold war and even predating it the social tradition has grown and flourished. Sweden took a different approach to socialism than Lenin did and it worked out alot better. It isn't a utopia, it has its serious issues like any state, but has proven that a lasting movement can meet real success. It was going so well that in the 70s the elected Social Democrats even actively explored a proposed program that would effectively create that much spoken of socialist dream: "The workers shall control the means of production". That they considered making it a practical application says that the progress towards that end is real, if not still far off.

Another excellent example is Nicaragua. The Sandinistas took a nation that had been brutalized by a dictator family for decades and within a few years had made huge strides. The basis of the Sandinista party's ideology was an absurd sounding melding of Socialism and Catholicism. The growth in social welfare over the first few years was massive given the brief time they had. It was a true progressive socialist mided regime. However the US backed Contras demolished that nation once again. So that is also proof that success for socialism will only be seen after it has faced as much if not more persecution as democracy faced in its formative times.

Now call me a pinko, a radical, a moron, or whatever. But I'd like to see an honest, genuine response to what I've written, and no simple flag waving and lefty hating. :up:

A real discussion, instead of an absolutist back and forth.

[Yahoshua]

Repeating a 15 minute must-see video: Immigration by the Numbers (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5871651411393887069).

That was a good and informative vid. Thx for the post.

[Frau_Phillips]

Well, I've stirred something up...

I won't bitch about the illegals from other countries in this thread and their motivations but I think this is legit enough to warrant a blanket acceptance from such a place.
Yeah, extreme poverty isn't a legit enough reason. Neither is the desire for a better life for one's children, or anything like that..
Perhaps these people should strive to better their poverty level and not expect us to do it for them. I've seen far too many illegals lately and I assure you, they're buying steak with foodstamps my taxes helped pay for while I'm waiting in line behind them at the grocery store scraping money for bread. I see these people daily where I'm at. They're not fleeing oppression, they're embracing a free ride at our expense.

Oh no, I don't support having illegals over here at all. All I was saying is that there are a lot of legitimate reasons, but we have to know where to draw the line. Poverty is just as good a reason as political oppression, but we still can't just let all the people who claim those things waltz right in.

[Frau_Phillips]

*sighs*

If only Marxism WORKED. I wish you people would stop saying that Marxism doesn't work. There's no proof of that. Just because Lenin was inspired by Marxism, doesn't mean that the string of autocratic pseudo-communist regimes that have spawned in the wake of the Soviet Union comprise a true test of the marxist state.

Stalin for one wasn't a Marxist. He wasn't a socialist. He was a capitalist, just like every other despot. He hi-jacked the movement and turned it into another autocracy where he had the monopoly on everything. Just because a man waves a flag doesn't mean he actually salutes it. Remeber also that Nazi means 'National Socialist".

Also, you can make legitimate claims that Leninist Communism itself is fundamentally flawed or very unlikely to succeed, but to paint all of modern socialist thought as the same is just a gross generalization. The fact is that if you actually knew Marxism you'd know that Marx said that there were very specific circumstances that would have to pass for a true socialist movement to succeed. For one he said that a modern industrial movement would have to have occurred, that capitalism would have to have corrupted itself to the point that nobody would take it anymore. Now if we all remember history correctly we'll notice that Russia only became industrialized AFTER Stalin was in power, and he was not a Marxist.

And finally lets get some perspective here. The first communist revolution occurred in 1917 and since then every subsequent communist state has been affected by the Soviet Union and that is not a Marxist state. China is a direct off shoot of the USSR. North Korea isn't even an industrial giant. These aren't examples that Marx himself would accept as being anything near what his own theories discuss.

And since it is only 2007, it has been only 90 years since the Russian Revolution and history has proven that it takes a very long time for a real change in the structure of society to occur if it is to be progressive towards the majority. It took thousands of years since the idea of democracy first became real for a functional and lasting one to form in Britain and the United States. And a few failed states is hardly enough to condmn socialism, especially since you are also discounting the successes in socialist ideas.

Sweden is a legitimate Social Democratic nation and has been for some time. All through the cold war and even predating it the social tradition has grown and flourished. Sweden took a different approach to socialism than Lenin did and it worked out alot better. It isn't a utopia, it has its serious issues like any state, but has proven that a lasting movement can meet real success. It was going so well that in the 70s the elected Social Democrats even actively explored a proposed program that would effectively create that much spoken of socialist dream: "The workers shall control the means of production". That they considered making it a practical application says that the progress towards that end is real, if not still far off.

Another excellent example is Nicaragua. The Sandinistas took a nation that had been brutalized by a dictator family for decades and within a few years had made huge strides. The basis of the Sandinista party's ideology was an absurd sounding melding of Socialism and Catholicism. The growth in social welfare over the first few years was massive given the brief time they had. It was a true progressive socialist mided regime. However the US backed Contras demolished that nation once again. So that is also proof that success for socialism will only be seen after it has faced as much if not more persecution as democracy faced in its formative times.

Now call me a pinko, a radical, a moron, or whatever. But I'd like to see an honest, genuine response to what I've written, and no simple flag waving and lefty hating. :up:

A real discussion, instead of an absolutist back and forth.

This is kinda funny, I'm a "Marxist" and I've used every argument you've just said with other people :p

I just realized that human nature doesn't really allow for a successful Marxist society. It's kind of like a Utopia, it'll never happen.

People just can't deal with a society like that, they'll rebel, they have to be censored, it's all a vicious cycle.

[AntEater]

Problem is, is the only other option to that really the libertarian dream?
In my opinion, a true libertarian society based on free competition and unregulated markets is just as utopian as socialism, and seems to lead to undesired side effects as well.
It seems to me that nations were best off if they tried for a middle way, like Sweden, Finland, Germany or incidentally the US under Roosevelt or Eisenhower.
Regarding Venezuela, I've given up on forming an opinion. I know enough Chavez fans, some of whom actually visited the country, on the other hand, I know enough critics.
I don't think this TV station promoted freedom very much, as it mainly aired Telenovelas, and generally mainstream media today do not tend to promote democracy, but rather try to brainwash their audiences to the likes of whoever owns them.
But regarding Venezuela, it is not all gold that glitters, of course. As with Allende, ambitious experiments are bound to collide with reality.
But I think it is time to let latin americans do their own politics.

[The Avon Lady]

:nope: Don't try Marxism at home (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38517)! :nope:

[Happy Times]

It seems to me that nations were best off if they tried for a middle way, like Sweden, Finland, Germany or incidentally the US under Roosevelt or Eisenhower.

This has worked because of a very homogenic culture and sense of unity, relying on that everyone will do their best and work hard. Things have changed with imigration, legal and ileagal, spinning out of control. In all these countries conservatives have come in power within a year.. Also in Denmark and Netherlands, Norway is still rich with oil and gas to throw away by the Socialists..

[AntEater]

A conservative in european sense still is very much of a leftie in american terms :D
But with immigration, you have a point.

Problem is, the economic model currently en vogue in the west has some serious self-destructive tendencies.
Basically the west is currently squandering away its industrial and economical edge at bargain prices to nations that do not see economy as a self-regulating market for personal profit for the greater good, but rather as a tool for national glory and expansion.

[Sea Demon]

I wish you people would stop saying that Marxism doesn't work. There's no proof of that.
Marxism doesn't work. Despite the quibbling in your ppst, there is no successful basis from where it's been applied. And as Frau_Phillips said, human nature doesn't permit it. Marxism as a "philosophy", and I use the term philosophy lightly, is one of the largest ponzi scheme hoaxes ever put upon mankind. It's founder (Marx himself) was a useless bum that didn't produce anything for his society.....except his view of the way the world should be. It makes sense that this bum would come up with a philosophy of collectivism. I'm just amazed that people still grasp for it, like it's some sort of salvation. Those countries that have taken the plunge, usually result in economic oppression. And that usually has led them to political oppression at the end of it all. The Europeans haven't embraced it as an end all. Their versions of it are totally watered down. Bottom line, Marxism, or at least grasping for it, will never embody the best of mankind. It seeks to hold back human potential in the interests of the collective good. Marxism is at best a failure, at worst a cruel hoax on mankind.

[TteFAboB]

I don't think this TV station promoted freedom very much, as it mainly aired Telenovelas

You don't seem to be promoting their freedom to exist, so you have mined your own authority to question their own promotion of freedom.

http://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/8/5/29/t_phr0034lm_0738930.jpg (http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?srv=img02&img=/8/5/29/f_phr0034lm_0738930.jpg)

I think it is time to let latin americans do their own politics.

Do you ignore 500 years of History as lightly because you just wanted to finish your post and move on or is that an insult masked by condescendence?

[AntEater]

I neither mine anything, nor insult anything. I merely stated an opinion. If you disagree, try stating that in a more mature way.
I don't saw off any branches, because I sit in a hole in the ground.
Jeez, lighten up.

[Hitman]

In the beginning there is a Kingdom. The King is fair and leads his people, thus he became a king. But as time passes, heirs of that King start becoming cruel and despotic, so the best ones from tehir blood, the noblemen, stand up and fight that. Once they throw out the King, they institute a government of them, which again gets as time goes by corrupted and turns into an oligarchy. At that time, the population can't stand it any more and make their own revolution. The democracy is born. Yet the democracy is the government of the majority, and the majority are idiots, uneducated or simply worthless. Thus they soon fall in the hands of the demagogues, and there comes a time when one of the demagogues, more skilled than others, manages to seize the whole power and start a dictatorship. And if enough time goes by, that dictator may even legitimate himself as a monarch, choosing his heir.


Those are not my words. It's from Aristotle, 300+ years B.C.

:roll:

[geetrue]

The best thing about history leasons over sixty years old is that most of the people are all dead.

Now it's our turn to voice an opinion or to vote, but some people can't even do that much.

American supports freedom in every country we have been in conflict with. I have often wondered what
they must think in repressive countries when they finally recieve the true news that Americans are allowed
to voice their opinions in daily radio talk shows, newspapers, forums, emails, television news casters,
even man on the street interviews are the proof that freedom is better than repression any old day. :yep:

[TteFAboB]

I neither mine anything, nor insult anything.

Oh ok, I thought for a moment that you were condescending with persecution of opinion from your hole of freedom of opinion.

[PeriscopeDepth]

What Chavez said concerning opposition media. It's Reuters quote of the day:

I recommend you take a tranquilizer and get into gear, because if not, I am going to do what is necessary

:down:

PD

[Tchocky]

Now call me a pinko, a radical, a moron, or whatever. But I'd like to see an honest, genuine response to what I've written, and no simple flag waving and lefty hating. :up:

A real discussion, instead of an absolutist back and forth.

Noted, stickied.

[Yahoshua]

It's founder (Marx himself) was a useless bum that didn't produce anything for his society.....except his view of the way the world should be.

Characterizing Marx as a bum isn't quite accurate as he was a very busy man (he even had his own printing shop for a short time in Rheims, France). However, as it often happens, the worst atrocities begin with good intentions (not to be taken as an approval of Marxism).

[Sea Demon]

Characterizing Marx as a bum isn't quite accurate as he was a very busy man (he even had his own printing shop for a short time in Rheims, France). However, as it often happens, the worst atrocities begin with good intentions (not to be taken as an approval of Marxism).

Yeah, and he had education credentials to boot. Big deal. One can own a printing shop (for a short time) and still be a bum. His actual life was devoted to developing a system that was based upon social collectivism. Mostly worked in academia yet producing nothing of real value for society. Marx actually lived off of Joseph Engels money during his time in England. He also made a number of children he couldn't afford to take care of. Not hard to figure out his motives. And from where I come from, that is a bum. Joe Engels of course was practicing capitalism to sustain his life, yet denouncing it all the same. Marx was a bum. And Joe Engels was a hypocrite.

But I agree with your last statement. You know that old saying about good intentions being the path to hell. But in this case, I'm not so sure that good intentions were necessarily involved.

[P_Funk]

I wish you people would stop saying that Marxism doesn't work. There's no proof of that.
Marxism doesn't work. Despite the quibbling in your ppst, there is no successful basis from where it's been applied. And as Frau_Phillips said, human nature doesn't permit it. Marxism as a "philosophy", and I use the term philosophy lightly, is one of the largest ponzi scheme hoaxes ever put upon mankind. I love your absolutism. You can say something doesn't work, period, but offer no real proof other than the simplistic answer that "human nature" won't permit it. Like I said, a few failed states aren't proof of anything. Moreover its been 100 and some odd years since Marx first published his works. In the greater history of man thats a very short time. I'm sure that centuries ago some elitist noble was sitting at a tea party discussing how insane democracy is. How it would be chaos if the peasants got to have a say in anything.

The fact is that your judgement of Marxism is premature and also narrow. Marxism isn't a universal ideology. Its a way of judging the market tendencies and understanding the way that wealth in our modern societies is divided up and how the majority produces all the wealth and ultimately is manipulated and used by the few amd cheated of their labour. This is not a way to run a country only, it is a fundamental way of understanding the way that our world works. Now you can say that the Marxist utopia is unattainable, and that might very well be so. However just because the majoprity of people can't get together and work it out so that they can live the utopia doesn't mean that Marx's understanding of Capitalism is flawed.

And the middle road of nations such as Sweden isn't proof that Marxism can't work. I see it as progress. You have to wittle away at the bark of conventional wisdom. The first democracies weren't very democratic by our standards. Reform is a slow process.

And it seems quote obvious to me that you must be an anti-intellectual if a man like Marx should be called a bum because he didn't produce anything for society other than useless "academia". And to calls Engels a hypocrit because he didn't practise collectivism is an absurd accusation. How can one man live a life of collectivism by himself in a capitalist country? The only way to stand by his beliefs was writing and publishing a Manifesto made to build a movement for it! Are you really that obtuse?

American supports freedom in every country we have been in conflict with. I have often wondered what
they must think in repressive countries when they finally recieve the true news that Americans are allowed
to voice their opinions in daily radio talk shows, newspapers, forums, emails, television news casters,
even man on the street interviews are the proof that freedom is better than repression any old day. :yep: You must be kidding.
Nicaragua, Panama, Chile, Guatemala, Iran, Vietnam. All nations that had democratic regimes or popular movements that the US either toppled or tried to topple. In many cases the US supported the despots that were deposed. Samoza in Nicaragua, Pinochet in Chile, Noriega in Panama, all US backed dictators. The US supported the Shah and opposed the 79 Iranian revolution. And most relavent today, the US supported Saddam in the 80s and even covered up his atocities and ran interference in the UN so since he was a proxy against Iran.

The US supports democracy wherever its useful, and usually then thats a compromised democracy that sells cheaply to the US. Chavez isn't an enemy of the US because he compromises the integrity of his democracy. He is an enemy because he has dared to challenge American Hegemony in Central America. He is being opposed now for the same reason that the US overthrew the Sandinistas. Economic independance for a nation in that region threatens American interests. Self Determionation is contagious and it could radiate out from Venezuela to the entire region. Remember that they were talking about the possibility of a type of Free Trade zone in the region headed by Venezuela

The last time the US gave any real damn about democracy in a conflict was WW2. Since then its been the rise of the American Empire.

Sometimes I wonder how naiive people can be about their own history.:roll: Just ask me about Canada. We're a bunch of bastards and opportunists too. But its all a big bad secret here too.

[geetrue]

American supports freedom in every country we have been in conflict with. I have often wondered what
they must think in repressive countries when they finally recieve the true news that Americans are allowed
to voice their opinions in daily radio talk shows, newspapers, forums, emails, television news casters,
even man on the street interviews are the proof that freedom is better than repression any old day. :yep:

You must be kidding.

The US supports democracy wherever its useful, and usually then thats a compromised democracy that sells cheaply to the US.

The last time the US gave any real damn about democracy in a conflict was WW2. Since then its been the rise of the American Empire.

Sometimes I wonder how naiive people can be about their own history.:roll: Just ask me about Canada. We're a bunch of bastards and opportunists too. But its all a big bad secret here too.

Okay, I stand corrected ... It must have been the love for my country that got into the way, uh? The love for all of the good intentions of our fighting forces to return to a country that promotes liberty and freedom, allowing us to chose people that we think will represent our value of life ...

History proves that our country has struggled to be the great nation that it has become, our openness to debate the truth, the freedom of religion that alows our enemies to worship the gods of their choice, the English were repressed when they arrived, the Irish were starving, the Polish, the Italians, the Chinese, the Mexicans, the Cubans all were seeking a better life right here in good ole USA.

You can disagree with me that's okay, but what about all of the countries that said,
"Thank you America for spilling your blood on our soil so that we could be free"

I forgive you brother :yep:

[Torpedo Fodder]

As I'm something of a soft Libertarian it's a bit hard for me to say this, but the ultimate evolution of Libertarianism is essentially the same as the ultimate evolution of Marxism: a stateless, anarchist society. The only difference is how Marxists and Libertarians believe how such a society would naturally work, and unfortunately, they're both dead wrong. A stateless, anarchist society would be a nightmare of human misery where gangsters and warlords would form cliques and war with each other to amass more personal power and dominate all those weaker than themselves.

Reagan was right when he said that an anti-communst is someone who UNDERSTANDS Marx, because despite vocal denials from self-proclaimed Marxists, Marx really did advocate dictatorship (a so called "dictatorship of the proletariat", which could use any means necessary to suppress the bourgeois) in his Communist Manifesto as a transitory phase to his utopian stateless society.

[Sea Demon]

[ I love your absolutism. You can say something doesn't work, period, but offer no real proof other than the simplistic answer that "human nature" won't permit it. Like I said, a few failed states aren't proof of anything. Moreover its been 100 and some odd years since Marx first published his works. In the greater history of man thats a very short time. I'm sure that centuries ago some elitist noble was sitting at a tea party discussing how insane democracy is. How it would be chaos if the peasants got to have a say in anything.

The fact is that your judgement of Marxism is premature and also narrow. Marxism isn't a universal ideology. Its a way of judging the market tendencies and understanding the way that wealth in our modern societies is divided up and how the majority produces all the wealth and ultimately is manipulated and used by the few amd cheated of their labour. This is not a way to run a country only, it is a fundamental way of understanding the way that our world works. Now you can say that the Marxist utopia is unattainable, and that might very well be so. However just because the majoprity of people can't get together and work it out so that they can live the utopia doesn't mean that Marx's understanding of Capitalism is flawed.

And the middle road of nations such as Sweden isn't proof that Marxism can't work. I see it as progress. You have to wittle away at the bark of conventional wisdom. The first democracies weren't very democratic by our standards. Reform is a slow process.

And it seems quote obvious to me that you must be an anti-intellectual if a man like Marx should be called a bum because he didn't produce anything for society other than useless "academia". And to calls Engels a hypocrit because he didn't practise collectivism is an absurd accusation. How can one man live a life of collectivism by himself in a capitalist country? The only way to stand by his beliefs was writing and publishing a Manifesto made to build a movement for it! Are you really that obtuse?



No. I'm college educated. Not anti-intellectual at all. It is rather easy. Where Marxism is applied (not European watered down versions of quasi-socialist/yet nominally capitalist systems), people suffer. It always brings lower standards, lower incentive, and forms of various economic oppressions. Everywhere it's been applied, this has been true. And the more it's been enforced, the more political oppression has resulted from it. I guess you close your eyes to that fact. The facts are, the best of humanity is lost in such a system that seeks to repress individual achievement in the name of collective good.

And Marx was a bum because he did not produce anything of real value for society. He produced many children he couldn't afford. A couple died if I'm not mistaken. And rather than do real work to feed his children, he wrote about a form of collectivist "philosophy". Bum is not harsh enough, yet very applicable. It's not hard to see his motivations of wanting everyone to throw their personal property in some collective pool of shared resources. I've always believed socialism is desired by those who refuse to get off their butt's and work, refuse to take personal responsibility for their own lives and their own sustinence, and refuse to see the injustices of forced collectivism and how it leaves individuals devoid of creativity or spirit. Marx's own life and visions are the proof of these assertions.

[Heibges]

No surprise. Never fails. Socialism/Communism always comes to this. Political oppression is always the eventual outcome when trying to implement Marxism. When will people learn....:roll:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2723008820070527?feedType=RSS&rpc=22

I agree with you. You can't implement historical process.

[August]

Where Marxism is applied (not European watered down versions of quasi-socialist/yet nominally capitalist systems), people suffer. It always brings lower standards, lower incentive, and forms of various economic oppressions. Everywhere it's been applied, this has been true. And the more it's been enforced, the more political oppression has resulted from it. I guess you close your eyes to that fact. The facts are, the best of humanity is lost in such a system that seeks to repress individual achievement in the name of collective good.

And Marx was a bum because he did not produce anything of real value for society. He produced many children he couldn't afford. A couple died if I'm not mistaken. And rather than do real work to feed his children, he wrote about a form of collectivist "philosophy". Bum is not harsh enough, yet very applicable. It's not hard to see his motivations of wanting everyone to throw their personal property in some collective pool of shared resources. I've always believed socialism is desired by those who refuse to get off their butt's and work, refuse to take personal responsibility for their own lives and their own sustinence, and refuse to see the injustices of forced collectivism and how it leaves individuals devoid of creativity or spirit. Marx's own life and visions are the proof of these assertions.

Well said.

[Hitman]

Marx's work was not just economic but also philosophical. Negating the importance of his contribution to the current political status, where also the lower classes are helped and their labor conditions taken into consideration, is simplistic and wrong. And you also must remember when his ideas where developed, in a historical moment -the raise of the industrial revolution- when many people were really suffering terrible working conditions, even children, and nobody yet had done a serious intellectual work defending an alternative.

Yet of course his work has flaws, and the biggest one is probably to extrapolate the idea of a human dignity that is equal to all individuals to a equalization of all aspects of human life in society, which is simply contrary to our own nature and predestined to failiure because it removes some of the biggest motivations in humans to improve and succeed.

This is now easy to see, but it wasn't at the time Marx did it. :hmm:

[The Avon Lady]

Well, at least the rest of his brothers were funny. :p

[P_Funk]

[
Okay, I stand corrected ... It must have been the love for my country that got into the way, uh? The love for all of the good intentions of our fighting forces to return to a country that promotes liberty and freedom, allowing us to chose people that we think will represent our value of life ...

History proves that our country has struggled to be the great nation that it has become, our openness to debate the truth, the freedom of religion that alows our enemies to worship the gods of their choice, the English were repressed when they arrived, the Irish were starving, the Polish, the Italians, the Chinese, the Mexicans, the Cubans all were seeking a better life right here in good ole USA.

You can disagree with me that's okay, but what about all of the countries that said,
"Thank you America for spilling your blood on our soil so that we could be free"

I forgive you brother :yep: I don't mean to insult the dream of your great nation, and America is a great nation. We owe the success of modern democracy to the US and I don't want anyone to think I don't appreciate that. However as with all economic monsters in history, the US is terribly hypocritical in its foreign policy. Repeatedly the US has on foreign soil subverted the natural course of democratic development and installed regimes to further the native needs of America at the cost of those whom we all cannot see.

You can complain about Chavez all you like but the US took a shot at killing him long before his own people started to get really angry. In fact he has been elected. The same goes with the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and of course the Viet Min in Vietnam were a popular movement, even if it clashed with the US's ideological views.

I don't want to either disrespect the contributions and sacrifices of the soldiers of the US. They fight for their nation, but if that nation is abusing that sacrifice then that is a shame that is not to be felt by the soldiers but their leaders and ultimately America's citizens if they allow it continue. Canadians are fighting and dying in Afghanistan as we speak and I feel angry at the US because the US is allowing its own Drug Policy to interfere with the stability and growth of Afghanistan. The taliban is coming back because the US is burning poppy fields and after that there isn't much of an economy there. So my countrymen are dying and their sacrifice is being wasted by the US's selfish and convoluted righteous policies.

But I don't mean to be disrespectful. I much prefer getting along to the all too common ideological sniping that usually happens. A conversation of conflicting views is very satisfying. :)

No. I'm college educated. Not anti-intellectual at all. It is rather easy. Where Marxism is applied (not European watered down versions of quasi-socialist/yet nominally capitalist systems), people suffer. It always brings lower standards, lower incentive, and forms of various economic oppressions. Everywhere it's been applied, this has been true. And the more it's been enforced, the more political oppression has resulted from it. I guess you close your eyes to that fact. The facts are, the best of humanity is lost in such a system that seeks to repress individual achievement in the name of collective good. Can you give me examples of these universally lower standards? In advance of what I hope are real examples I'll tell you that I reject Stalin or Mao as legitimate examples are they were not Marxists. They were sociopathic distators that built a cult of personality around the shell of a collectivist state. And for examples like Castro I'd argue that given the circumstances of Cuba's existance of the last 50 years its impressive what kind of quality of life many Cubans enjoy. With a trade embargo against them the literacy rate opf Cubans is impressive and their health care is also fantastic by comparison to even the US given their relative GDP. I'm not saying that Cuba doesn't have serious issues. Censorship and a basic lack of democracy is the main problem but all things considered it isn't a bad palce to be.

And your so called watered down version of Marxism isn't a legitimate argument either. Marx predicted a certain type opf revolution given what he saw as the natural evolution of a capitalist state but behind his prediction is a philosophical view on modern economics that can be applied to more than just a Soviet Leninist model for socialist style reform. A "watered down" alternative does not delegitimize Marxist thinking. In fact it shows its versatility. The states which you say are still nominally capitalist are doing what they can to slowly turn the economy in the direction of a more Marxist egalitarian society. The Leninist idea is to simply wipe away the old and rebuild from the ground up. And since the Romanovs had effectively left their nation in an under developed state then Russia in 1917 was basically a blank canvas. And remember Marx said that a nation would need to be post industrial for a socialist revolutoin to last as it would need to have a serious ability to be economically self sufficient. Smaller countries which attempt such stunts become corrupt in the massive growth of wealth or become subverted by stronger adversarial nations which border it.

Your assertion that collectivism is a cop out for a lazy person is a complete distortion of the spirit of socialism. The principles of Marxist theory are that people who work their whole lives have their labour abused and are not given their fair share of their contribution to the industrial process. The idea is that within a capitalist society the worker is abused. It isn't a cop out for laziness. Quite the opposite. Its an assertion that hard work deserves fair reward and that only through an egalitarian society can every receive a fair opportunity for success and for a fair quality of life where ones options are not limited by which income bracket you are born into or where the amassment of wealth does not predetermine who has power over others.

Socialism also does not encourage the suppression of individual success. What it seeks to do is prevent individuals from stunting the collective good through the individual amassment of wealth. Its not about making everyone equally stupid. Its about keeping the powerful from suppressing the competition and unfairly slanting the table in his direction to the detriment of those without a base of wealth with which to achieve. It is not a characteristic of Marxism or socialism in general. In failed "socialist" states many things which conflict with marxism happen but that doesn't mean that Marx was bitter about being 2nd in the talen show when he was 12.

Argue the points, argue the ideas, don't just say that you're jaded and that you think lefties are lazy human paraquats.

[Sea Demon]

And for examples like Castro I'd argue that given the circumstances of Cuba's existance of the last 50 years its impressive what kind of quality of life many Cubans enjoy. With a trade embargo against them the literacy rate opf Cubans is impressive and their health care is also fantastic by comparison to even the US given their relative GDP. I'm not saying that Cuba doesn't have serious issues. Censorship and a basic lack of democracy is the main problem but all things considered it isn't a bad palce to be.


Oh my God. How absolutely deluded your thinking is. I can destroy every last statement you made regarding the Marxist crap you posted, but there is no hope for you. Your views regarding Cuba as some sort of paradise is disturbing. These assertions you make are gross considering how these people are desperately trying to escape out of that hell hole. And where's their #1 destination? The USA (A capitalist haven). They usually don't go further North. And you're statements regarding Marxism sounds like propaganda literature from a commie booth when I watched an anti-war rally down at Berkeley last Spring. Are you sure you weren't copying it word for word? My goodness. You want people who don't take any of their own risk capital to get an equal share or equal say in an organization? You sir, are a commie. But if you stay in Canada when you have a Red revolution going on (for many decades now) down in Cuba, I can't take you seriously. Go down there and get your equal share, I say.

You really think Cuba's great? Their medical care is top notch? High literacy rates? OK, but what about human freedom? If it's such a wonderful place, why are people desperate to leave? I encourage you to move there to get your freebies and just see for yourself how wonderful it is. I'd love for you to take a picture of yourself in downtown Havana with a giant poster showing Castro with a message saying "Castro=Hitler". Or "Castro out Now!" Post it in this forum when you do it. That is if you're not rotting in a prison cell. There are many places that have or are trying marxism always at the detriment to their people. Cuba is but one example. Stalin's Russia, Lenin's Russia, Currently Venezuela and look how that's turning out. It's going to get bloody down there soon. Quibbling about how these weren't true to socialism just proves the point ultimately. That it is not feasible due to human nature. And it is not competitive with Free Constitutional Republics or Democracies due to the lack of freedom, and harsh standards of living that eventually come. And it is ultimately a waste of time due to it's inability to make function.

[NefariousKoel]

Unfortunately I think P_Funk believes far too much of the Communist indoctrination he's heard.

As a quick example... if Cuba's health system is so great - why did Castro himself pay a Spanish doctor to come operate on him??

[Sea Demon]

Unfortunately I think P_Funk believes far too much of the Communist indoctrination he's heard.

As a quick example... if Cuba's health system is so great - why did Castro himself pay a Spanish doctor to come operate on him??

Well, wide-eyed and idealistic maybe. But if he doesn't actually move to where the Marxism is being practiced, or at least striving to be practiced, then his arguments are uninspiring at the very least. I'm a proud American/Capitalist/Investor and choose to stay where the system mostly reflects my ideology(USA). I wouldn't go anywhere else on Earth. If I lived in a place that had a harsh and open socialist infrastructure, I'd leave and go where I can actually invest, work hard, and be rewarded for my efforts. I'd go to where my property and life were mine, and not for government to confiscate and redistribute based on some sort of fallacious "collective good". I'd go to where my life was my responsibility and my domain, and not the government to control my life through distributed social services.

In regards to Castro's Doctor from Spain, maybe he had him come on over because Cuba's great healthcare is a fallacy??? Thanks for the reminder on that one. I forgot about that.

[P_Funk]

Oh my God. How absolutely deluded your thinking is. I can destroy every last statement you made regarding the Marxist crap you posted, but there is no hope for you. Your views regarding Cuba as some sort of paradise is disturbing. Did I say that Cuba was a paradise? No. But given its relative state compared to many budding capitalist states int he third world its not bad. Notice that I said "not bad". I'd much rather be in Cuba that Sudan. But that said I'd never trade Canada for Cuba. I'm not defending Castro. He isn't a legitimate socialist leader. He's just a mostly benevolent dictator unless you argue or stand up. Then you get shot down. I have no delusions. However you seem to want to put words in my mouth. Heres a reminder for you: not all lefties are obcessed with utopian ideas. There is some moderation in what we expect of the world. And given the fact that Cuba has been cut off from the rest of the world for the last 50 years economically I'd say that quality of life is impressive compared to other more economically affluent countries that are in good with the US. Compare that to Pakistan that has a 7% growth rate and almost no middle class to speak of. Cuba has the entire world scared to trade with them and there are at least schools and hospitals. It isn't even close to a perfect place but considering the situation Castro hasn't been as bad as any of the despots that the US has itself backed in other countries.

And you're statements regarding Marxism sounds like propaganda literature from a commie booth when I watched an anti-war rally down at Berkeley last Spring. Are you sure you weren't copying it word for word? My goodness. You want people who don't take any of their own risk capital to get an equal share or equal say in an organization? You sir, are a commie. But if you stay in Canada when you have a Red revolution going on (for many decades now) down in Cuba, I can't take you seriously. Go down there and get your equal share, I say. What is it with you Americans and your Commie fetish? Commie this, commie that. You know it sounds ignorant to blend the entire of the socialist mindset with a term that is dirtied by a state that was blatantly non-Communist in its behavior.

You want people who don't take any of their own risk capital to get an equal share or equal say in an organization? Risk capital? Now who's throwing out propoganda? The reason most people have no "risk capital" to spend is because you can't become wealthy in a capitalist society without alot of luck. Sure you can get money, but money and wealth are a totally different game and to be able to become truly wealthy and independant and able to invest in oragnizations is nigh on impossible. The fact is that the Free Market is a sham in the US. Even if the concept as laid out by Adam Smith were feasible the US long ago demolished any real control on the power of those with the real wealth. I mean apparently a Corporation is a legal person under law, but hey you can't actually charge it with crimes or send it to prison. And of course the whole way we value things in our society is set in such a way that those with wealth always win. The fact that they couldn't be wealthy without our labour contributions is ignored meanwhile we use our time to invest our labour in the process which creates wealth and those that do the least work receive the most return. Having wealth is a spring board that lets you jump the line and get ahead of everyone. And given the way wealth is divided in our societies it denies the lion's share to the majority. Its even in the basic terminology that is used to describe market capitalism: "wealth trickles down to the workers". Why should it trickle down to the people who do all the work? Why should 1% of the people make 90% of the money?

Anyone that understands freedom knows that "rights" are meaningless unless you actually have the power to exercise them. Money is the real power in the world and those with it keep it. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I have the right to go to school and build a life but without any money to speak of I don't stand much of a chance of getting anywhere, especially in North America these days because most of the low skill jobs have been exported and all we're left with are high skill jobs that require expensive degrees. And even then theres no guarentee that I'll get a job because there are alot of people with that same degree. The fact is that all men are not created equal because to have more money than someone else immediately gives you more opportunity than the poorer man. And the real movers and shakers in this world didn't earn wealth legitimately or morally. Behind every great fortune is a great crime. Hell most of the United States was stolen from the natives through rip-off land trades and basic slaughter. And in Canada we did the same thing only we interned the aboriginals in schools and literally and figuratively raped their culture.

But I don't see you debunking my ideas and my words. All I hear is the old and tired "commie" bit where you laugh me out of the room and don't bother to actually articulate why your way is better. And don't tell me to move to another country and join a revolution there. Thats just juvenile. I have every right to want a better life here where I live because those are my rights. Or maybe you forget why we call it freedom. You don't have to be a saint to be a christian, so I say you don't have to be Marx-incarnate to believe in it.

[Sea Demon]

Risk capital? Now who's throwing out propoganda? The reason most people have no "risk capital" to spend is because you can't become wealthy in a capitalist society without alot of luck. But I don't see you debunking my ideas and my words. All I hear is the old and tired "commie" bit where you laugh me out of the room and don't bother to actually articulate why your way is better. And don't tell me to move to another country and join a revolution there.

and the real movers and shakers didn't earn their welath legitimately or morally. Behind every great fortune is a great crime.



I have risk capital. And I pretty much started with nothing. ;) I used to be poor, and I didn't get poorer. I found a way to go to college. I've built my life, worked hard, own a home, have a boat, earn a great living. And I've done so without government redistribution or interference. And I've done so with hard work, not luck. By your definition I didn't do it legitimately. You said it with your above statements. My own fortunes are not legitimate or moral. Behind every great fortune is a great crime? Where do you get this nonsense? The company I work for, putting up investment capital and risk for business expansion are doing so at the expense of other people? Despite the increases in payroll and employment opportunities within our organization, our growth is illegitimate and immoral? You truly think this way? This is why your thinking is so dangerous, and incompatible with freedom.

And I can't see you living in any free society yourself thinking that people pursuing their own freedoms and prospering, are somehow trampling on other people. You want equal outcomes and starting points. All guaranteed by government. This is not freedom at all. It's more like state sponsored economic tyranny. I started out lower on the totem pole than many others, and I'm a racial minority, yet I now have more than some of these people through my own hard work and persistence. How'd that happen? In your world it's not possible to achieve unless the government stops major economic powerhouses from expanding their business outlets, and make them redistribute their property directly to me and other working class people. Nobody ever did that for me, yet I've done very well so far. You say I'm putting words in your mouth. These are your thoughts directly, through your own beliefs and explanations of exploitation and how lefty politics are the cure. At any rate, you move all over the map with your arguments for socialism. And you pretty much only defend what it's supposed to do. I only speak of what it actually has done. Repress people's freedoms, destroy people's lives, and leave national economies in ruins. Let history be your guide here. And don't quibble about socialism not actually being truly represented anywhere because it has been tried. And humanity never allowed for it. They had to build fences to keep people in.

Since you love to prophecy about doom in other threads, let me give you mine. You will never see a working example of socialism. Nor will you see an attempted pure socialist state that can compete economically with democracy, freedom, and constitutional free republics. You will never see people living in a state where each gives "according to their ability" and takes "according to their needs" in peace. I don't personally need to debunk (even though I've already done it) your propaganda which reads like a brochure from a lefty anti-American protest event. History has done that already. Students on the left seem unwilling to learn however. You embody that with your views on Cuba. People are dying to get out of there. And you say that you would prefer that to places where you're free to leave. Despite your contrarian position, you do have idealistic delusions.

And I still challenge you to move to where Marxism is actually being attempted. I think Venezuela is trying to implement what you want. Quit quibbling and move there. Chavez is currently taking state ownership of all corporate entities down there so he can give them to the "People". If you were a man of your beliefs, you would move to Venezuela immediately. Chavez is currently implementing a system that will effectively stop the "exploitation" of the workers. Sounds to me like you would be happy there. I don't know how anybody could be happy in such a place, but from what you talk about, it might be the paradise you seek. I only wonder when Chavez will start building the fences to keep the masses from escaping. They may not be free or happy, but hey, at least they won't be exploited by the corporations...right?

[P_Funk]

See, now you're actually talking to me. I like this. ;) You know you've gotten through on some level when you're being accused of being dangerous to freedom.:D

I don't doubt that you have achieved in your life. I never said that people can't achieve in the world through hard work, or that you can't achieve unless the government "handicaps" the opposition. Those are your charactierizations of socialist ideas that you use to summarize my own words. That you achieved is not the point. There are always people who achieve. Hard work pays for some. And it helps alot that we are currently living in the wealth bed of the world. But a personal example doesn't exclude the realities for the rest of the world. Market Capitalism works to an extent, but it is ultimately exploitative and the further down the line the worse it is. The low end exploits have of course been exported to other countries and now they're the ones fighting for the union rights and working for the wages that aren't even a potion of a percentage of the market value of what they're creating. In ourt countries though the middle class isn't what it used to be. The post WW2 days of the US were the high point where capitalism might seem like it really would work for everybody. Personal achievement is hard to get in a highly competitive market, even if you're qualified, and even then the fruits of your labour are always lower than they should be. Over the last 30 years the US has had a mostly strong economy but the rich-poor divide has widened. Wealth is being created but fewer people are enjoying it. And the illusion of financial security comes crashing down very often when a personal injury sucks up your money in medical bills if you live in the US. And getting ahead without money, though you can do it, is itself a suppressant to any personal competency. How many people accumulate exponential amounts of wealth when they didn't earn a penny becaues their fortunes were handed to them in family?

But this is pointless. I can't get you to see it my way in one little message board post. In the end I'm justifying every subtle detail of something that I believe in. Articulating it is hard indeed to those who believe in the status quo. Confronting conventional wisdom is something that even the most adept idealogues struggle to do. But what exists between us is a fundamental difference in how we view the values in the world. You see my views as dangerous to freedom, while I see the status quo as its own hinderance to freedom. The number of poor people that can't get out of their social limitations outnumber the successful by scores, even in the US. And the world itself is exploited by the few in the wealthier and less populous nations to the detriment to the majority elsewhere. I see the unchecked wealth of the few as a force that always seeks to exploit those that aren't as priviledged. Freedom isn't just a function of democratic institutions but of the empowerment of wealth. I believe in a kind of fairness and equality that should be above the priviledge of wealth. But go ahead and think that I just want to steal money and hand it out to bums. What I call regulation you call suppressing achievements. The fundamental role of the govenment itself is differnt in our minds.

There is always a better way and unlike you seem to think the sum total of my views and beliefs don't equal what I want to see in my lifetime. The framework of my beliefs are a guide for what I think should happen in general and then you work the realities of the world around them. You decide on whats fair and not fair and then you try and level the rises and falls in the landscape. If you're too ambitious you'll fail, no matter what you try. You can have a goal but still look to the next few steps. And the way I see it what right do any of us have for determining the way the world works for our children. All we can do is reform our world while we have the power and the opportunity (however limited it might be) and then leave that legacy to the next generation. Don't misunderstand me. I don't want another Red October. But the nations that are more even handed in their approach to social reforms like the ones which I look to for ideas you dismiss as "watered down". Democracy was watered down for centuries. But whatever. This is a futile discussion that hasn't been resolved by half the wars in the 20th century.

Thanks for making it hard for me.:up:

[Sea Demon]

And the illusion of financial security comes crashing down very often when a personal injury sucks up your money in medical bills if you live in the US. And getting ahead without money, though you can do it, is itself a suppressant to any personal competency. How many people accumulate exponential amounts of wealth when they didn't earn a penny becaues their fortunes were handed to them in family?


There is always a better way and unlike you seem to think the sum total of my views and beliefs don't equal what I want to see in my lifetime. The framework of my beliefs are a guide for what I think should happen in general and then you work the realities of the world around them. Don't misunderstand me. I don't want another Red October. But the nations that are more even handed in their approach to social reforms like the ones which I look to for ideas you dismiss as "watered down". Democracy was watered down for centuries. But whatever. This is a futile discussion that hasn't been resolved by half the wars in the 20th century.

Thanks for making it hard for me.:up:

Ahh. I see. Just a question for you. Do you have a stake of ownership in anything? Anything at all other than the simple stuff. A house, a business,....anything? If not, do you ever plan on it?

[TteFAboB]

Now that you've finished:

Chavez is currently taking state ownership of all corporate entities down there so he can give them to the "People".

The magic word here is "all". That's a grave mistake. While investments in industries expropriated by Chavez have relocated elsewhere (for the most part to Columbia, Brazil and Chile), the flux of Brazilian investments in Venezuela and the trade, considered in numbers, money or volume, has not only remained stable, with an expectable decline in his first years indeed, but as of the last year and this year has steadily increased. Never before so much Brazilian money poured into Venezuela. Chavez needs the Brazilian state and the Brazilian economy to cover some of the holes he ran out of oil to fill for himself, projects like the subway of Caracas, a dam, a refinery he split 50/50, possibly oil tankers and of course the consumer goods only a foreign economy can provide and the other commodities necessary to keep the machines operating.

You shouldn't be fooled so easily by rhetoric. Do you think the Oil companies that helped him drill in Orinoco didn't knew they were going to get robbed sooner or later? If I'm not mistaken, all of these companies, but for sure at least some of them, had already experienced expropriation in Azerbaijan and elsewhere before. They knew what they were getting into perfectly well and they went ahead because Chavez is not mad to assume full control of them. He will only steal a big chunck of their profits and take the jobs for himself as he needs every job he can get to distribute among his supporters to satisfy them, but never make the business of the corporations he needs unprofitable.

Some sectors or some companies were and will continue to be expropriated, others will not. How do you expect him to feed the people? He's already tight on Oil, he needs capitalism both to run the economy and to pay taxes. What he does is assume control from the top down. What's already there will continue to exist, imports from Brazil, as I mentioned, have risen, the difference is that no more new companies should appear or grow without his consent and control. A few days ago he just lost a massive investment from a food company that has decided to relocate to Brazil. No biggie, it will produce in Brazil and export to Venezuela from there. It's easy for a generation that was born in misery not to know the difference between what they have and an American super-market, but the current generation in Venezuela knows it full well and won't accept having to live with one flavor of everything, from toothpaste to meat to fruits. The poorest in Venezuela are blackmailed into accepting this worsening in quality of life under the false promise of a better future. Don't worry, it's only temporary (off scene) not. So the only thing he's "giving to the people" is a worse life.

I don't know how anybody could be happy in such a place

The protests, the strike of the PDVSA, speak for themselves. Alot of people sure aren't. There were reports about the "happiness" of the Venezuelan poorest in Brazilian newspapers and two magazines, I haven't done the clipping and they're sitting somewhere in a pile of boxes. The point is, Chavez can't provide benefits for everybody. Some people will get money, some will get a job, others won't get anything and will only see their little wealth dissolve in a sea of inflation. The larger the state grows, the smaller the slices of the remains of the cake become. Those who fell for the blackmail but didn't get their part of the deal regret having committed to it. Elsewhere in the continent people don't want "such a place" either, to a greater or lesser extent, he was rejected in Mexico and Peru, Bolivia is chaotic and unstable, an opinion poll from last year pointed that Chavez support in Brazil to be of 14% and support for his actions at 17% ([url]http://clipping.planejamento.gov.br/Noticias.asp?NOTCod=275689[/url (http://clipping.planejamento.gov.br/Noticias.asp?NOTCod=275689%5b/url)]) and this isn't taking into account everything he has done or that has happened since then. The problem is, now it's too late. The electoral exit has been shut and the mouth of the opposition is being shut aswell. He can only be overthrown by force and he's alot stronger than isolated poor people pressured from above by Chavez and from below by crime. Which brings us to the future.

I only wonder when Chavez will start building the fences to keep the masses from escaping.

To put things in perspective now, these "masses" aren't that massive. Venezuela is an irrelevant small country with an irrelevant small economy in a forgotten part of the world with an interesting history that is just as forgotten and which has only temporarily appeared before the rest of the world because, once again in recent history, a dictator has used the income from the monopoly of monoculture to trick the crowds, both in and outside of his country. Don't expect drama. You'll continue to see clashes with the police, you'll continue to see protests, but you won't see the Berlin wall or the Cuban rafts because if Venezuela isn't surrounded by a wall or by water it is surrounded by dense jungle. Don't laugh, the Amazon makes the Mexican border look like a walk in the park, except for the price of raising a fence which is just as high or more for a small nation. But yes, there are already people moving out. Both political refugees and regular people. For all its problems, there are other economies in the region that offer a a better life.

What Chavez would like to do is create a larger Cuba but since he hasn't eliminated the opposition and he can't afford to keep his oil bubble full without foreign money he needs to take the steps he can take, not the steps he would like to take, he must obey the speed limit, not hit the pedal to the metal. His perspectives are pretty good. He needs to stop the rioting and disorganize the opposition. He will need a police state to keep things in order and as Syria does with Mosques (have a snitch listening to any possible subversive conversation), he has been taking a double approach with Churches: on one hand attempt to infiltrate them to use them as a resounding box of obedience to the regime, on the other simply start opposing Christianity, perhaps before it becomes too much of a refuge for the consciences.

They may not be free or happy, but hey, at least they won't be exploited by the corporations...right?

Exploited by corporations? Chavez sells virtually all his Oil to the US. That's complete economical submission, full dependency. Is that how you stop this exploitation thing?

Chavez is the exploiter. When he takes the richness of Venezuela and dumps it in Bolivia, Argentina, in the TeleSur or in crappy movies, when he uses it to subsidize useless employees or bribe his supporters, at the same time that he perverts history, attacks the Church and trumps over freedom of speech he's fitting the glove.

I've said pervert history because he has abused of the name of Simón Bolívar. Bolívar inspired himself in the American revolution, defended freedom, reason, order and the free-market and fought for the unity of the Hispanic America in a Republic modelled after the USA (http://www.mre.gov.br/portugues/noticiario/nacional/selecao_detalhe.asp?ID_RESENHA=291891 (http://<font color=)).

[Heibges]

History now repeats itself, with the near exact circumstances that slowly brought Stalin into power.

I think that was actually brought about by Stalin holding the job as HR Manager for the Bolshies.:lol:

[Sea Demon]

I don't think we disagree on much TteFAboB. I do agree that the word "all" was a broad sweep, but it's not innacurate to say that he is directly attempting to control sectors of the Venezuelan economy in the name of some type of socialistic reform. You're right. Chavez is an exploiter. In a big way. I think your analysis is very thorough and spot on. It is foolish indeed not to see how the people living through this want to leave and in a hurry. It's easy to see how the threat of state interference and control can be worrisome to those who actually have a stake in their society. It's obvious that he will not implement a socialist solution as that is not possible. Socialism being unworkable tripe. His only recourse is to bribe his supporters to ease his control. It's always the same old..same old with these guys, ain't it?

Some people will get money, some will get a job, others won't get anything and will only see their little wealth dissolve in a sea of inflation. The larger the state grows, the smaller the slices of the remains of the cake become.

That applies to the management of social provisions within a state. And to total economic output. It's harder to make the cake larger in a system such as this. I wouldn't count on Brazil or anybody else to throw any money or long term investments here forever. People simply will not take the risk, unless they simply have no other alternatives. Brazil does have alternatives. I just think they don't want any crazy revolutions upsetting their apple carts. This I'm sure they fear most.

@ P_Funk - You gonna answer my questions or not? It's really simple. Do you have a stake of ownership in anything whatsoever? Do you own a house? Do you have any cars/boats/etc. Do you own a business? And if not, do you plan to in the future?

[P_Funk]

@ P_Funk - You gonna answer my questions or not? It's really simple. Do you have a stake of ownership in anything whatsoever? Do you own a house? Do you have any cars/boats/etc. Do you own a business? And if not, do you plan to in the future?
You know I don't actually troll these boards 24/7. You can at least give me a few hours before you start being pushy.:roll: Not very courteous at all.

What difference does it make what I own? Besides its pretty shallow to be asking a pinko-commie nut job if he owns anything as a means to short his point of view.:rotfl:

I am in fact a student and am in the process of a hiring competition for a Federal Government job that, hopefully should I get it sometime in the next month, will allow me to make a more than decent wage. Right now my only financial investments are in my continuing college education while I live at home withmy parents. And given the economic climate in Vancouver at the moment buying a house even if you have the means is a gross waste of money when the market declines. Add to that the fact that tuition prices are out of control around here. But thats my current "investment" in the future.

So if you're trying to corner me by suggesting that I'm a bum thats too lazy to try and make a living then theres your raw material. Or maybe you're going for the old "when you have to pay taxes you'll hate them too" thing. Hmmm...

[Happy Times]

Silenced Venezuelan TV station moves to YouTube

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/05/31/venezuela.media/index.html

[Sea Demon]

You know I don't actually troll these boards 24/7. You can at least give me a few hours before you start being pushy.:roll: Not very courteous at all.

What difference does it make what I own? Besides its pretty shallow to be asking a pinko-commie nut job if he owns anything as a means to short his point of view.:rotfl:

I am in fact a student and am in the process of a hiring competition for a Federal Government job that, hopefully should I get it sometime in the next month, will allow me to make a more than decent wage. Right now my only financial investments are in my continuing college education while I live at home withmy parents. And given the economic climate in Vancouver at the moment buying a house even if you have the means is a gross waste of money when the market declines. Add to that the fact that tuition prices are out of control around here. But thats my current "investment" in the future.

So if you're trying to corner me by suggesting that I'm a bum thats too lazy to try and make a living then theres your raw material. Or maybe you're going for the old "when you have to pay taxes you'll hate them too" thing. Hmmm...

Actually, I got the big answer I was looking for. You are a student that has the whole world figured out, yet have never had real world experience. You might be surprised how your views change as you actually get into the real world. Some people don't change. I remember my undergraduate college days (early 1990's). They don't seem like that long ago. But I understand, and I should have guessed, you have no investment or stake of ownership in anything. So it's real easy to sit back and tell everyone else what they should be doing with their own private property and lives. It's real easy to sit back with no experience or any stake in the game and call anyone who has achieved anything of value a criminal or illegitimate. It's very simple to demagogue people who have taken enourmous risk and have gotten spectacular results as crooks. Freedom allows such accomplishments. If you can't handle it, you don't belong in a free society at all. You need to live in a land of dictators that hand out your crumbs. Freedom doesn't guarantee equality. Freedom can't do that. For it to be able to do that, it must confiscate other people's property or freedoms. But Freedom does guarantee opportunity. Either you work for it, or you don't get it. Instead of worrying about everyone else's private property or situation, why don't you focus on attaining some yourself. You're responsible for your life, not mine. You said earlier that people can't attain wealth in a capitalist society without alot of luck. That statement is totally naive, and shows me your lack of real world experience or knowledge about how business, investment/risk, and freedom work. People who get older with your outlook are often bitter and depressed. These people often never have any incentive, drive, or optimism for anything. This is how socialism/marxism kills the human spirit.

The facts are, people of your age and experiences usually have nothing figured out. Especially college students with the know it all attitude. You have no experience paying taxes, meeting a mortgage, working in any professional capacity (where your decisions and actions may have big consequences), or raising and sustaining a family. I just looked at your public profile, and now I get who you are. No offense, but you have yet to know what the hell life really is. I've seen people from my days that used to be hardcore lefties, yet have changed their outlook once they actually got a taste of life. Real life. Real decisions. Real consequences. Some have actually surprised me. You want a good life and success, you have to work for it. Sorry, don't expect anybody to hand you anything. Get off your butt, choose a field of study which is in demand, and work at it. Or save up money, open a business and work hard for it. You won't have too much trouble if you're worth your salt, have marketable skills, and present yourself properly. There are no large scale injustices out there stopping anybody in your country or mine. It's total BS anymore. If you're poor, you're doing the things which make you poor. If you went to college, and now can't get employed, how were your grades? How are you presenting yourself? Did you party all summer long or did you get that internship? Did you pick a major that is actually in demand? Life choices are something lefty socialists hate. And they hate taking responsibility for them. Nevertheless, personal life choices are what determines your outcome. You've got alot of learning ahead of you grasshopper. Best get busy. ;)

[Tchocky]

Wow, I hope i don't get that narky when I leave college

oh, wait, forgot the obligatory smiley

nevermind

[Sea Demon]

Wow, I hope i don't get that narky when I leave college

oh, wait, forgot the obligatory smiley

nevermind

:lol:
i've seen you in action on this forum. Don't have to wait to leave college. You're plenty narky yorself from what I've seen. :up:

[Tchocky]

Wow, I hope i don't get that narky when I leave college

oh, wait, forgot the obligatory smiley

nevermind
:lol:
i've seen you in action on this forum. Don't have to wait to leave college. You're plenty narky yorself from what I've seen. :up:

yup, I like to take action in advance.
having tomorrow's breakfast at the moment, 1135pm. I want to get a good run at the day tomorrow

[Sea Demon]

yup, I like to take action in advance.
having tomorrow's breakfast at the moment, 1135pm. I want to get a good run at the day tomorrow

:lol: :up:

[Yahoshua]

History now repeats itself, with the near exact circumstances that slowly brought Stalin into power.

I think that was actually brought about by Stalin holding the job as HR Manager for the Bolshies.:lol:

So I guess that means I should be nice to the desk lady right?

[P_Funk]

Actually, I got the big answer I was looking for. You are a student that has the whole world figured out, yet have never had real world experience. You might be surprised how your views change as you actually get into the real world. Oh I know I'm young and stupid and lacking in experience. I know for a fact that as my life grows I will have to adapt my views to the realities I face and that I'll inevitably encounter contradictions in my values that I'll need to figure out. You aren't shocking me with the whole "been there sonny" thing. But I will say that your toned down demeanor is refreshing, though I suspect strongly that its only a result of you now feeling no need to take me seriously.

I don't believe that my age or experience invalidates my views. I'll grant you that in my exhuberant passion, largely due to hormones and the fact that I need a girlfriend at the moment ;), I went pretty hardcore pinko-commie nut job on you. One thing that I know I'll get better at as I get older is being able to articulate my views without sounding like a college pamphlet. Despite the fact that you think I'm naiive, and you're partly correct, I don't have as much of a simplistic understanding of the world around me as you infer. My only concern is that I can't get that accross effectively. In person in a real coversation I'm sure that I wouldn't have made it sound like I was accusing you of being a crook in achieving in your life or sound as absolute in criticizing market capitalism. Often in strongly oppositional discussions through typed messages you lose the real subtlty and you can't effectively clarify. You only have one opportunity to take what i say and criticize it for what it is. Its my fault if I misspeak or characterize it wrongly. And I do stand by all my statements, at least how they came out in my head.

I'm not as much of an extremist as I comes off (especially after I go back over what I've said and see how ineffective I was at saying what I meant). I think in person this would have gone better. I know that I'll change alot in my life but since there are plenty of grey haired pinkos still out there, and ones that are well respected by more than just the Extremist Anarchists, I know that that quote that I can't quite remember who coined or how it goes exactly (see I still need to read more books), isn't entirely true:

"If a young man isn't an optimist he has no heart, and if an old man isn't a pessimist he has no sense." Or something to that effect.

I think that theres a fine line between being jaded and being a realist. I hope then that I won't become another Jerry Rubin.:down:

And as for the rest of my life, I plan on making the main focus of my life doing a job that pays homage to my views directly. I'm not just riding the lefty wave until I get a real career. I'm going to do something that furthers what I believe in in whatever way I can, and no it probably won't involve moving to Venezuela.:roll:

[Sea Demon]

Actually, I got the big answer I was looking for. You are a student that has the whole world figured out, yet have never had real world experience. You might be surprised how your views change as you actually get into the real world. Oh I know I'm young and stupid and lacking in experience. I know for a fact that as my life grows I will have to adapt my views to the realities I face and that I'll inevitably encounter contradictions in my values that I'll need to figure out. You aren't shocking me with the whole "been there sonny" thing. But I will say that your toned down demeanor is refreshing, though I suspect strongly that its only a result of you now feeling no need to take me seriously.


Well, I see you as young. And there's no shame in that. :) But I never said you were stupid. I certainly don't believe that. And don't think I don't take you seriously. I do. I just think that until you actually have a stake of ownership in anything, pay mortgages, raise a family, etc. you may not have your life's total outlook formed yet. While I was never a lefty, and I likely will never be of that ideology, my outlook on certain things have developed over time after getting out of college, getting married, making kids, and working a series of jobs in the military then high-tech sector. You may find that one of the biggest obstacles to people succeeding and making their own lives possible is themselves. Through self-doubt, or class envy, or general bad choices (and seeking excuses from their failure rather than taking responsibility for it and learning from it), people really diminish their own chances. I've seen it personally from many angles. And as a result, I've actually gone a little more right leaning as a result. Not saying you will lean in any direction yourself, but what you believe today will be different 15-20 years from now. This at least has been true for me and others I've known in the past.

[Heibges]

History now repeats itself, with the near exact circumstances that slowly brought Stalin into power.

I think that was actually brought about by Stalin holding the job as HR Manager for the Bolshies.:lol:

So I guess that means I should be nice to the desk lady right?

The more things change the more they stay the same. :lol:

[P_Funk]

Well, I see you as young. And there's no shame in that. :) But I never said you were stupid. I certainly don't believe that. And don't think I don't take you seriously. I do. I just think that until you actually have a stake of ownership in anything, pay mortgages, raise a family, etc. you may not have your life's total outlook formed yet. While I was never a lefty, and I likely will never be of that ideology, my outlook on certain things have developed over time after getting out of college, getting married, making kids, and working a series of jobs in the military then high-tech sector. You may find that one of the biggest obstacles to people succeeding and making their own lives possible is themselves. Through self-doubt, or class envy, or general bad choices (and seeking excuses from their failure rather than taking responsibility for it and learning from it), people really diminish their own chances. I've seen it personally from many angles. And as a result, I've actually gone a little more right leaning as a result. Not saying you will lean in any direction yourself, but what you believe today will be different 15-20 years from now. This at least has been true for me and others I've known in the past.
This I enjoy. Agreeable disagreement.:) Did you notice how personal the argument got before? Ha. I already know from some experience how people can limit their own opportunities. Within my family, within my friends, within people I've known generally. But I also see the way oppotunities are unfairly denied in many cases too. So I don't take any extreme view on the subject. You know in my evolving understanding of my politics and economics I realise how similar everything is. The reason behind things are usually the same, its just how that reason is applied thats different. In our countries the free market as we call it is supposed to be a self balancing entity that gives men a fair chance at producing their own achievements. As the American Constitution says every man has the right to "the pursuit of happiness". I just don't see it as being all that perfect. I certainly recognize its success but I also think that its corrupt. That doesn't mean that I don't think I'll have to live in it, be a member of the sell out crowd and pay taxes and have a job.;) But I also think that there are way to allow men such asyourself the chance to take what potential they have and run with it while allowing those that may not be so self motivating and let them have at least a basic quality of life. Alot of the time with the people Iknow who hinder their own success their neurotic underachievement comes from something in their lives. A bad childhood, a crazy parent, a mental illness. I've known lots of really smart pot heads, and really articulate sluts. Its like I see the brilliance in their personalities and its wasted because nobody helped them when they were vulnerable. That doesn't mean that there are those that don't deserve help. But I think that we always need ot give people a chance to take a step forward and to give them a step up. But the world I live in isn't very sympathetic to people without killer ambition. Tax cuts that favour the wealthy come in above anything else and then the first thing that gets cut is a program that helps children that have been sexually abused deal with their ordeal through counseling (thats actually news from a few days ago in my province. the MLAs took a 30% pay increase, cut wealthy taxes 3 times in 7 years and keep cutting social programs).

I don't want to tear down society. I see those "watered down" social democracies as a sign that you can be a radical at heart but still a moderate practically speaking. I don't think you should ever give up on people. I guess you could call me a bleeding heart.:roll: I feel that immense pressure to succeed at my age and I see some people around me and wonder how I'll distinguish myself. But I know I'll have to compromise on my views anyway. One example though of how you can be a complete pinko and still be realistic is in the early years of the Swedish Social Democratic party. Apparently when they were creating their ideas as a party they created a huge panoramic vision of what they hoped a utopia would be in their eyes. And then they took that idea and laid it aside and said "so what can we do practically in our lifetime?". So the first thing they did was call for universal suffrage and democratic reform. I like that idea. Invent your utopia, then take it away and work with what you have. It makes me think of the Tibetans and how they'll make those fantastically complex sand mandalas. They are painstakingly detailed and so beautiful. Then they destroy them by sweeping the sand into a pile and pour it into a river. I really like that idea. They destroy the art because its a fetish to worship the material. The real beauty isn't in the thing. Its a symbol of the impermanence of everything. I don't know exactly what that has to do with all of this but, it does give me a different way to think about everything.

Cheers.:up:

EDIT. :D Have a look.
http://people.hws.edu/yignyen/images/mandala.jpg

[Tchocky]

What is it....


Every man is a socialist when he is young, a conservative when he is old..


....and green when he's dead.

[waste gate]

What is it....


Every man is a socialist when he is young, a conservative when he is old..


....and green when he's dead.

That about sums it up but I would use a couple of modifiers.

Every man is a socialist when he is young and has nothing to loose, a conservative when he is older and has more than nothing to loose.

[P_Funk]

That about sums it up but I would use a couple of modifiers.

Every man is a socialist when he is young and has nothing to loose, a conservative when he is older and has more than nothing to loose.
But then the question arises, is late life conservatism a result of experience and responsibility or a passive inertia where youthful radicalism is laid aside in favour of the gratification of what you already have comfortably established?

I would suggest that it isn't so cut and dried since there are a fair number of older radicals that don't grow out of their ideas but simply grow with them. Noam Chomsky would be a good example, despite him or like him.

[August]

That about sums it up but I would use a couple of modifiers.

Every man is a socialist when he is young and has nothing to loose, a conservative when he is older and has more than nothing to loose. But then the question arises, is late life conservatism a result of experience and responsibility or a passive inertia where youthful radicalism is laid aside in favour of the gratification of what you already have comfortably established?

I would suggest that it isn't so cut and dried since there are a fair number of older radicals that don't grow out of their ideas but simply grow with them. Noam Chomsky would be a good example, despite him or like him.

I would say that conservatism in later life is most often due to experience teaching a person that the radicalism of their youth was all too often blind to reality.

[Tchocky]

I seem to have found that young people are growing more conservative and resistant to change

hurm...

That said, age is rarely a solid guide

[The Avon Lady]

It makes me think of the Tibetans and how they'll make those fantastically complex sand mandalas. They are painstakingly detailed and so beautiful. Then they destroy them by sweeping the sand into a pile and pour it into a river. I really like that idea. They destroy the art because its a fetish to worship the material. The real beauty isn't in the thing. Its a symbol of the impermanence of everything. I don't know exactly what that has to do with all of this but, it does give me a different way to think about everything.

Cheers.:up:

EDIT. :D Have a look.
http://people.hws.edu/yignyen/images/mandala.jpg
Gone with the wind (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/25/video-magnificent-tibetan-monk-sand-painting-meets-young-unsupervised-boy/). :cry:

[P_Funk]

Gone with the wind (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/25/video-magnificent-tibetan-monk-sand-painting-meets-young-unsupervised-boy/). :cry:
Thats story itself is a perfect example of buddhism.

The monks apparently weren’t too upset.
Thats the whole point. Ha, I really do like Buddhism.:cool:

[Hitman]

Every man is a socialist when he is young, a conservative when he is old..


I seem to have found that young people are growing more conservative and resistant to change

hurm...

That said, age is rarely a solid guide

Most men are conservative when they have something they want to conserve or keep. Most men are a socialist when they have nothing and want a part of what others have. Young people in the developed world have nowadays much more things to conserve than the older people had when they were that young, so they are more conservative.:yep:

[P_Funk]

Young people in the developed world have nowadays much more things to conserve than the older people had when they were that young, so they are more conservative.:yep: But how then do you explain the 60s? Lots of pinko stuff happening there and that was on the tail of the big American boom of the 50s. As they say back then you could walk out of high school and have a job for life. These days you can have a college degree and a bright mind and still get stuck in a nowhere job.

[Hitman]

But how then do you explain the 60s? Lots of pinko stuff happening there and that was on the tail of the big American boom of the 50s. As they say back then you could walk out of high school and have a job for life. These days you can have a college degree and a bright mind and still get stuck in a nowhere job.

How many of those guys are still doing the pinko stuff? I would say that after a while of wild youthness induced rebelion, most of them are now executives in big industries :roll: and quite conservative.

[VonBlade]

If you aren't a socialist when you're young you have no soul.
If you aren't a capitalist when you're old you have no brains.

[Heibges]

That about sums it up but I would use a couple of modifiers.

Every man is a socialist when he is young and has nothing to loose, a conservative when he is older and has more than nothing to loose.
But then the question arises, is late life conservatism a result of experience and responsibility or a passive inertia where youthful radicalism is laid aside in favour of the gratification of what you already have comfortably established?

I would suggest that it isn't so cut and dried since there are a fair number of older radicals that don't grow out of their ideas but simply grow with them. Noam Chomsky would be a good example, despite him or like him.

Gore Vidal would be another good example
And Hunter S. Thompson
And Norman Mailer
And Bono
And Bill Gates

Whereas Bob Dylan is a sellout.

[August]

That about sums it up but I would use a couple of modifiers.

Every man is a socialist when he is young and has nothing to loose, a conservative when he is older and has more than nothing to loose. But then the question arises, is late life conservatism a result of experience and responsibility or a passive inertia where youthful radicalism is laid aside in favour of the gratification of what you already have comfortably established?

I would suggest that it isn't so cut and dried since there are a fair number of older radicals that don't grow out of their ideas but simply grow with them. Noam Chomsky would be a good example, despite him or like him.
Gore Vidal would be another good example
And Hunter S. Thompson
And Norman Mailer
And Bono
And Bill Gates

Whereas Bob Dylan is a sellout.

Famous people, especially writers, filmakers and other entertainment types, are poor examples because the desire to achieve and maintain the fame vital for their continued success will dictate what they say and do.

Life is a never ending series of options (the range of which tends to narrow as we get older) and it's easy not to fully understand the ramifications of the choices we make, especially in the long term. Life experience teaches us that very often things are not as clear cut as we once imagined them to be and to avoid or minimize the downside we should be conservative in our application of change.

[Tchocky]

Famous people, especially writers, filmakers and other entertainment types, are poor examples because the desire to achieve and maintain the fame vital for their continued success will dictate what they say and do.
So what about Hunter? He was a journalist, and journalists tend to write about real-world events. Strange, I know, and obviously only to increase his public profile.
Bill gates? Fame? He's a recluse!
That $15 billion for the Foundation? God I hate it when folks try to get their name in the papers, makes me sick.
It's a celebratory event for anyone to get an interview with Norman Mailer
Honestly this reads like BS, August.

Fame, and the pursuit of fame, doesn't solely dictate what anyone says or does.



re age/conservatism - If the current system has worked out well for you, naturally you will be resistant to change as you grow older. That doesn't mean the system is worth keeping.

[August]

So what about Hunter? He was a journalist, and journalists tend to write about real-world events. Strange, I know, and obviously only to increase his public profile.
Bill gates? Fame? He's a recluse!
That $15 billion for the Foundation? God I hate it when folks try to get their name in the papers, makes me sick.
It's a celebratory event for anyone to get an interview with Norman Mailer
Honestly this reads like BS, August.

Fame, and the pursuit of fame, doesn't solely dictate what anyone says or does.

Don't mistake camera shyness as a reluctance for fame Tchocky. Fame sells books and controversy has made good business for both Thompson AND Gates. Without it neither (but especially Thompson) would be as successful as they were/are.

re age/conservatism - If the current system has worked out well for you, naturally you will be resistant to change as you grow older. That doesn't mean the system is worth keeping.

Nor does it mean the system is worth destroying either. Define "worked out well". Am I as rich as Bill Gates or as famous as Hunter Thompson? No. Then again I am not starving or having to live in a society where rampant violence and public stonings are an every day occurance either. That is the potential any time you talk about destroying social systems so you'll forgive us older folks if we are reluctant to adopt the changes demanded by youth.

[Tchocky]

Don't mistake camera shyness as a reluctance for fame Tchocky. Fame sells books and controversy has made good business for both Thompson AND Gates. Without it neither (but especially Thompson) would be as successful as they were/are. Bill Gates is not successful for being famous, he makes and sells computers. Hunter was famous because he was an excellent writer. You say controversy has made "good business", I don't follow. (I understand what you mean, but I hope you don't really mean it. And Bill Gates? What controversy?) Couldn't this be artistic honesty instead of desire for fame?
Often, controversy is confused for controversy-for-the-sake-of-controversy. It's preferable to believe that a writer is trying to attract attention, instead of saying what he/she honestly thinks, especially if it is a radical/new viewpoint. If the work sells, fame is a natural corollary, and probably a nice one.
You're saying that fame sells books, that's wrong. Good writing sells books. If fame comes after that, then OK. The author has a reputation for good writing, and that is what helps sell further copies.
You're saying that fame dictates what is created, I strongly disagree.
Frankly, I'd love to be paid to crank out novels, but I wouldn't change any of what I write in order to get into the papers. That's a level of self-deception and betrayal I hope I can't sink to.


Nor does it mean the system is worth destroying either. Define "worked out well". Am I as rich as Bill Gates or as famous as Hunter Thompson? No. If you're not struggling to meet payments, to feed yourself/family, to find work. It's very possible to make a killing on the back of a broken social system, it's actually the goal of some. Get waste_gate to talk about bread and circuses on this one.

Then again I am not starving or having to live in a society where rampant violence and public stonings are an every day occurance either. That is the potential any time you talk about destroying social systems so you'll forgive us older folks if we are reluctant to adopt the changes demanded by youth. Have I talked about destroying social systems? Let's keep the tone going - My youthful hotheadedness doesn't extend that far. Ugh.

Starving at the stoning, yep that's the goal. :damn:

If a system isn't working, change it. Don't destroy it.
Asking for change doesn't automatically equate to "rampant violence and public stonings", sorry. Asking for change isn't the Apocalypse. Things might actually get better with some changes, who knows?

[August]

You're saying that fame sells books, that's wrong......
You're saying that fame dictates what is created, I strongly disagree.
Of course fame sells books (and movies). Ever hear of the axiom "all news is good news"? A sure way of propelling an otherwise lackluster book to the best sellers list is to introduce some controversy that will get people talking about the author. The tactic is used all the time.

Frankly, I'd love to be paid to crank out novels, but I wouldn't change any of what I write in order to get into the papers. That's a level of self-deception and betrayal I hope I can't sink to.
Just because you may have lofty morals doesn't mean others do. See above, it's a common tactic.

If you're not struggling to meet payments, to feed yourself/family, to find work. It's very possible to make a killing on the back of a broken social system, it's actually the goal of some. Get waste_gate to talk about bread and circuses on this one.
A common failing of socialist systems. Why work hard to improves ones lot in life if it's possible to make a "killing" by sitting on your butt?

Asking for change doesn't automatically equate to "rampant violence and public stonings", sorry.
I didn't say it did,...sorry. I said you risk it, that is not the same thing.

Things might actually get better with some changes, who knows?
Maybe they will and maybe they won't but don't you think we should know first?

And BTW Hunter Thompsons books sucked.

[sergbuto]

No surprise. Never fails. Socialism/Communism always comes to this. Political oppression is always the eventual outcome when trying to implement Marxism. When will people learn....:roll:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2723008820070527?feedType=RSS&rpc=22
It is called totalitarism. And there are plenty of examples of totalitaristic regimes in countries with capitalistic arrangement where they never heard of marxsim. The worst thing is that some of those regimes are/were supported by countries with democratic principles, such as US or from EU.

[The Avon Lady]

No surprise. Never fails. Socialism/Communism always comes to this. Political oppression is always the eventual outcome when trying to implement Marxism. When will people learn....:roll:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2723008820070527?feedType=RSS&rpc=22
It is called totalitarism. And there are plenty of examples of totalitaristic regimes in countries with capitalistic arrangement where they never heard of marxsim. The worst thing is that some of those regimes are/were supported by countries with democratic principles, such as US or from EU.
I don't see Sea Demon arguing with this necessarily. The main difference are the words "eventual outcome".

[P_Funk]

A common failing of socialist systems. Why work hard to improves ones lot in life if it's possible to make a "killing" by sitting on your butt?
A common generalization. That many of the most well paid men in America and Canada are also sitting on their asses all day long getting millions is apparently not a contradiction. That getting fired for many of these men is also a windfall of course isn't even worth mention.

[August]

A common failing of socialist systems. Why work hard to improves ones lot in life if it's possible to make a "killing" by sitting on your butt? A common generalization. That many of the most well paid men in America and Canada are also sitting on their asses all day long getting millions is apparently not a contradiction. That getting fired for many of these men is also a windfall of course isn't even worth mention.

No it isn't a contradiction. What a company pays their employees to do (or not do) is between the company and it's stock holders, not between the government and the taxpayers as in the case of benefit fraud.

[The Avon Lady]

I'm stuck on Churchill today.

"If I were asked the difference between Socialism and Communism, I could only reply that the Socialist tries to lead us to disaster by foolish words and the Communist could try to drive us there by violent deeds."

...

"Government of the duds, by the duds and for the duds." :rotfl:

...

""All men are created equal" says the American Declaration of Independence. "All men shall be kept equal" say the Socialists."

[The Avon Lady]

But how then do you explain the 60s? Lots of pinko stuff happening there and that was on the tail of the big American boom of the 50s. As they say back then you could walk out of high school and have a job for life. These days you can have a college degree and a bright mind and still get stuck in a nowhere job.
How many of those guys are still doing the pinko stuff? I would say that after a while of wild youthness induced rebelion, most of them are now executives in big industries :roll: and quite conservative.
What goes around, comes around (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2007/05/29/exhippie_area_attracts_gutter_punks/8431/). :|\\ :p

[August]

What goes around, comes around (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2007/05/29/exhippie_area_attracts_gutter_punks/8431/). :|\\ :p


"I used to be a hippie. I wore beads and grew my hair long," said resident Arthur Evans, 64. "But my generation had something these kids do not: a standard of civilized behavior."

Goes to my unintended consequences to radical change argument.

[Tchocky]

What goes around, comes around (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2007/05/29/exhippie_area_attracts_gutter_punks/8431/). :|\\ :p

"I used to be a hippie. I wore beads and grew my hair long," said resident Arthur Evans, 64. "But my generation had something these kids do not: a standard of civilized behavior." There were plenty of 64-year olds sayng that about this guy, forty years ago.

Goes to my unintended consequences to radical change argument.Really? How?

[P_Funk]

"I used to be a hippie. I wore beads and grew my hair long," said resident Arthur Evans, 64. "But my generation had something these kids do not: a standard of civilized behavior."

Goes to my unintended consequences to radical change argument. One thing about the Hippies is that they were all mostly sell outs in the end. Free Love in the 60s, Anti-War in the 70s, Cocaine and Money in the 80s. Jerry Rubin.

That doesn't invalidate progressive left wing ideas, it just says that people don't have the will to follow it through. The success of one way doesn't validate its continued existance. And that people cling to what feels comfortable and safe is also a characteristic of people's behavior that doesn't necessarily invalidate a different way of living.

And the shortcomings of my generation is, if anyone's, the fault of my parents, the so called hippies. They raised us and their endless coddling or ignorant self obcession just caused a generation of idiots, nacissists, and thickheads to be born.

[waste gate]

"I used to be a hippie. I wore beads and grew my hair long," said resident Arthur Evans, 64. "But my generation had something these kids do not: a standard of civilized behavior."

Goes to my unintended consequences to radical change argument. One thing about the Hippies is that they were all mostly sell outs in the end. Free Love in the 60s, Anti-War in the 70s, Cocaine and Money in the 80s. Jerry Rubin.

That doesn't invalidate progressive left wing ideas, it just says that people don't have the will to follow it through. The success of one way doesn't validate its continued existance. And that people cling to what feels comfortable and safe is also a characteristic of people's behavior that doesn't necessarily invalidate a different way of living.

And the shortcomings of my generation is, if anyone's, the fault of my parents, the so called hippies. They raised us and their endless coddling or ignorant self obcession just caused a generation of idiots, nacissists, and thickheads to be born.


Your generation's (what ever generation that is) shortcommings are no ones fault but your own Stop blaming others for your lot in the world. Every generation has done that, eventually realizing the stupidity of doing so. Your generation is nothing special and will not be given any special treatment. You earn your way in this world. Be happy you have the opportunity to do so. Time to grow up my friend.

[Heibges]

The saying is "no news is good news".

You were thinking of "there is no such thing as bad publicity".

[August]

The saying is "no news is good news".

You were thinking of "there is no such thing as bad publicity".

Yeah that's it. I was busy at work and didn't take the time to look it up. :oops:

[The Avon Lady]

One thing about the Hippies is that they were all mostly sell outs in the end. Free Love in the 60s, Anti-War in the 70s, Cocaine and Money in the 80s. Jerry Rubin.
No. They grew up and became realists.

Reality sucks.

[P_Funk]

One thing about the Hippies is that they were all mostly sell outs in the end. Free Love in the 60s, Anti-War in the 70s, Cocaine and Money in the 80s. Jerry Rubin. No. They grew up and became realists.

Reality sucks. Yea they sold out... to reality. But reality is arbitrary and anything is permissible.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

- George Bernard Shaw

[The Avon Lady]

"Few people practice what they preach and none less so than George Bernard Shaw...... Saint, sage and clown; venerable, profound and irresistable."

Can you guess who I'm quoting? :D

[P_Funk]

"I shall never be ashamed of citing a bad author if the line is good."

-Seneca

[P_Funk]

Just to bring back this topic before it goes to page 2.

I got this article in an email I get from my blatantly pinko-commie poli-sci professor. Tell me how it sits with you fellas.:p

Venezuela and the Media: Fact and Fiction
by Robert W. McChesney & Mark Weisbrot

To read and view the U.S. news media over the past week, there is an
episode of grand tyranny unfolding, one repugnant to all who cherish
democratic freedoms. The Venezuelan government under “strongman” Hugo
Chavez refused to renew the 20-year broadcast license for RCTV, because
that medium had the temerity to be critical of his regime. It is a
familiar story.

And in this case it is wrong.

Regrettably, the US media coverage of Venezuela’s RCTV controversy says
more about the deficiencies of our own news media that it does about
Venezuela. It demonstrates again, as with the invasion of Iraq, how our
news media are far too willing to carry water for Washington than to
ascertain and report the truth of the matter.

Here are some of the facts and some of the context that the media have
omitted or buried:

1. All nations license radio and TV stations because the airwaves can
only accommodate a small number of broadcasters, far fewer than the
number who would like to have the privilege to broadcast. In democratic
nations the license is given for a specific term, subject to renewal. In
the United States it is eight years; in Venezuela it is 20 years.

2. Venezuela is a constitutional republic. Chavez has won landslide
victories that would be the envy of almost any elected leader in the
world, in internationally monitored elections.

3. The vast majority of Venezuela’s media are not only in private hands,
they are constitutionally protected, uncensored, and dominated by the
opposition. RCTV’s owners can expand their cable and satellite
programming, or take their capital and launch a print empire forthwith.
Aggressive unqualified political dissent is alive and well in the
Venezuelan mainstream media, in a manner few other democratic nations
have ever known, including our own.

Now consider the specific facts of RCTV as it applied to have its
broadcast license renewed.

The media here report that President Chavez “accuses RCTV of having
supported a coup” against him. This is a common means of distorting the
news: a fact is reported as accusation, and then attributed to a source
that the press has done everything to discredit. In fact, RCTV - along
with other broadcast news outlets - played such a leading role in the
April 2002 military coup against Venezuela’s democratically elected
government, that it is often described as “the world’s first media coup.”

In the prelude to the coup, RCTV helped mobilize people to the streets
against the government, and used false reporting to justify the coup.
One of their most infamous and effective falsifications was to mix
footage of pro-Chavez people firing pistols from an overpass in Caracas
with gory scenes of demonstrators being shot and killed. This created
the impression that the pro-Chavez gunmen actually shot these people,
when in fact the victims were nowhere near them. These falsified but
horrifying images were repeated incessantly, and served as a major
justification for the coup.

RCTV then banned any pro-government reporting during the coup. When
Chavez returned to office, this too was blacked out of the news. Later
the same year, RCTV once again made all-day-long appeals to Venezuelans
to help topple the government during a crippling national oil strike.

If RCTV were broadcasting in the United States, its license would have
been revoked years ago. In fact its owners would likely have been tried
for criminal offenses, including treason.

RCTV’s broadcast frequency has been turned over to a new national public
access channel that promises to provide programming from thousands of
independent producers. It is an effort to let millions of Venezuelans
who have never had a viable chance to participate in the media do so,
without government censorship.

The Bush Administration opposes the Chavez government for reasons that
have nothing to do with democracy, or else there would be a long list of
governments for us to subvert or overthrow before it would get close to
targeting Venezuela. Regrettably, our press coverage has done little to
shed light on that subject.

Our news media should learn the lesson of Iraq and regard our own
government’s claims with the same skepticism they properly apply to
foreign leaders. Then Americans might begin to get a more accurate
picture of the world, and be able to effectively participate in our
foreign policy.

Robert W. McChesney is a professor of communication at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy
Research, in Washington, D.C. (www.cepr.net (http://www.cepr.net/)).

[The Avon Lady]

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy
Research, in Washington, D.C. (www.cepr.net (http://www.cepr.net/)).
Just so everyone should have another view as to what the CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND POLICY RESEARCH (CEPR) (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7226) is all about.

[P_Funk]

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy
Research, in Washington, D.C. (www.cepr.net (http://www.cepr.net/)). Just so everyone should have another view as to what the CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND POLICY RESEARCH (CEPR) (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7226) is all about. That doesn't dismiss the content directly of the article. At least not until they update their content or you directly disprove it. :P

And another source on that. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-jones30may30,1,5553603.story

Nifty link though AL. ;)

EDIT. And after a little digging I noticed this written at the bottom of the 'donation (https://www.donationreport.com/init/controller/ProcessEntryCmd?key=O7F0W1R8B8)' page for AL's link:
"© Paid for by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture"

And that leads to this. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=16220

It seems like a right wing versus left wing stalemate. So I guess we're gonna have to hash the details of the Chavez article rather than jsut dismiss its sources eh? Nice try AL.

[The Avon Lady]

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy
Research, in Washington, D.C. (www.cepr.net (http://www.cepr.net/)). Just so everyone should have another view as to what the CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND POLICY RESEARCH (CEPR) (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7226) is all about. That doesn't dismiss the content directly of the article. At least not until they update their content. :P
I didn't dismiss the content - yet.

Yes, I'm sure Venezuela is a socilaist bliss. Hey, socialists of the world! Move there! Utopia is just a one-way flight away!

This is the animal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yegesq84hn0) people like you promote. Have you no shame or humility to stop?! :down:

Do you use your first editions of "The Gathering Storm" and "Their Finest Hour" for toilet paper?

Wake up and smell the s**t!

EDIT: Gotta love that video's closing quote!
And another source on that. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-jones30may30,1,5553603.story
Can't get there. Not registered and I've long ago stopped registering to news sites.

[P_Funk]

Yes, I'm sure Venezuela is a socilaist bliss. Hey, socialists of the world! Move there! Utopia is just a one-way flight away!

This is the animal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yegesq84hn0) people like you promote. Have you no shame or humility to stop?! :down:

Do you use your first editions of "The Gathering Storm" and "Their Finest Hour" for toilet paper?

Wake up and smell the s**t! You should stop being so conceited and full of vicious hate for dissent. The classic reaction from people like you when someone contradicts the accepted story is to attack them as vile. You also think that somehow when I don't spit on Chavez's picture in turn with the rest of you that I am somehow applauding the utopia that Venezuela is, as you put it. Thats just an incorrect conclusion, a baseless one, and one that you use to discredit me without making any real argument.

And another source on that. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-jones30may30,1,5553603.story Can't get there. Not registered and I've long ago stopped registering to news sites. I don't know what your issue is there. Im not registered either and it comes through fine.

Heres the transcript then.
Los Angeles Times
Hugo Chavez versus RCTV
Venezuela's oldest private TV network played a major role in a
failed 2002 coup.
By Bart Jones
BART JONES spent eight years in Venezuela, mainly as a foreign
correspondent for the Associated Press, and is the author of the
forthcoming book "Hugo! The Hugo Chavez Story".
May 30, 2007
VENEZUELAN President Hugo Chavez's refusal to renew the license of
Radio Caracas Television might seem to justify fears that Chavez is
crushing free speech and eliminating any voices critical of him.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Committee to Protect
Journalists and members of the European Parliament, the U.S. Senate and
even Chile's Congress have denounced the closure of RCTV, Venezuela's
oldest private television network. Chavez's detractors got more
ammunition Tuesday when the president included another opposition
network, Globovision, among the "enemies of the homeland."
But the case of RCTV - like most things involving Chavez - has been
caught up in a web of misinformation. While one side of the story is
getting headlines around the world, the other is barely heard.
The demise of RCTV is indeed a sad event in some ways for
Venezuelans. Founded in 1953, it was an institution in the country,
having produced the long-running political satire program "Radio
Rochela" and the blisteringly realistic nighttime soap opera "Por Estas
Calles." It was RCTV that broadcast the first live-from-satellite images
in Venezuela when it showed Neil Armstrong walking on the moon in 1969.
But after Chavez was elected president in 1998, RCTV shifted to
another endeavor: ousting a democratically elected leader from office.
Controlled by members of the country's fabulously wealthy oligarchy
including RCTV chief Marcel Granier, it saw Chavez and his "Bolivarian
Revolution" on behalf of Venezuela's majority poor as a threat.
RCTV's most infamous effort to topple Chavez came during the April
11, 2002, coup attempt against him. For two days before the putsch, RCTV
preempted regular programming and ran wall-to-wall coverage of a general
strike aimed at ousting Chavez. A stream of commentators spewed nonstop
vitriolic attacks against him - while permitting no response from the
government.
Then RCTV ran nonstop ads encouraging people to attend a march on
April 11 aimed at toppling Chavez and broadcast blanket coverage of the
event. When the march ended in violence, RCTV and Globovision ran
manipulated video blaming Chavez supporters for scores of deaths and
injuries.
After military rebels overthrew Chavez and he disappeared from
public view for two days, RCTV's biased coverage edged fully into
sedition. Thousands of Chavez supporters took to the streets to demand
his return, but none of that appeared on RCTV or other television
stations. RCTV News Director Andres Izarra later testified at National
Assembly hearings on the coup attempt that he received an order from
superiors at the station: "Zero pro-Chavez, nothing related to Chavez or
his supporters.... The idea was to create a climate of transition and to
start to promote the dawn of a new country." While the streets of
Caracas burned with rage, RCTV ran cartoons, soap operas and old movies
such as "Pretty Woman." On April 13, 2002, Granier and other media
moguls met in the Miraflores palace to pledge support to the country's
coup-installed dictator, Pedro Carmona, who had eliminated the Supreme
Court, the National Assembly and the Constitution.

Would a network that aided and abetted a coup against the government
be allowed to operate in the United States? The U.S. government probably
would have shut down RCTV within five minutes after a failed coup
attempt - and thrown its owners in jail. Chavez's government allowed it
to continue operating for five years, and then declined to renew its
20-year license to use the public airwaves. It can still broadcast on
cable or via satellite dish.
Granier and others should not be seen as free-speech martyrs. Radio,
TV and newspapers remain uncensored, unfettered and unthreatened by the
government. Most Venezuelan media are still controlled by the old
oligarchy and are staunchly anti-Chavez.
If Granier had not decided to try to oust the country's president,
Venezuelans might still be able to look forward to more broadcasts of
"Radio Rochela."
================================
WALTER LIPPMANN
Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews
writer - photographer - activist
http://www.walterlippmann.com (http://www.walterlippmann.com/)
================================

[sergbuto]

Yes, that is what I said above about the "democratic" support of dictatorships.

When a legally-elected SOCIALISTIC goverment gets overthrown and replaced by a dictatorship, it is perfectly fine, however when the socialistic authorities try to defend their interests (and I am not talking about the nature of such interests) even by legal means, they are bad, bad, bad.

When ruling by socialists turns into totalitarism, that's got to be a "rule" and people should learn from it but when the legally-elected socialistic goverment gets replaced by the dictatorship due to the putsch (often orchestrated by a democratic country), that is an exception which is needed to confirm the "rule". :lol:

[TteFAboB]

I got this article in an email I get from my blatantly pinko-commie poli-sci professor. Tell me how it sits with you fellas.

What do you mean? You want somebody else to put it through a critical filter?

Venezuela and the Media: Fact and Fiction
by Robert W. McChesney & Mark Weisbrot

To read and view the U.S. news media over the past week, there is an
episode of grand tyranny unfolding, one repugnant to all who cherish
democratic freedoms. The Venezuelan government under “strongman” Hugo
Chavez refused to renew the 20-year broadcast license for RCTV, because
that medium had the temerity to be critical of his regime. It is a
familiar story.

Regrettably, the US media coverage of Venezuela’s RCTV controversy says
more about the deficiencies of our own news media that it does about
Venezuela. It demonstrates again, as with the invasion of Iraq, how our
news media are far too willing to carry water for Washington than to
ascertain and report the truth of the matter.


Fiction. That's an impossible conclusion to draw given a period of observation of one week. Alot has happened "over the past week" (whatever week we're talking about), some stories were picked up, others were not, and their accuracy varies greatly. This erratic behavior will make good weeks, bad weeks and then most weeks without anything at all. If there's anything familiar about the news media is that if you depend on it to inform yourself not only of events and facts but also for their analysis you might aswell stop carrying water for your ignorance and give up. The international reporting is even more defficient than the regional reporting indeed.

Here are some of the facts and some of the context that the media have
omitted or buried:

1. All nations license radio and TV stations because the airwaves can
only accommodate a small number of broadcasters, far fewer than the
number who would like to have the privilege to broadcast. In democratic
nations the license is given for a specific term, subject to renewal. In
the United States it is eight years; in Venezuela it is 20 years.

Fiction. You know full well that "licenses" are different throughout nations and cannot be treated equally. The document "legalizing" a single state channel in one nation is not the same as a "concession" in another country. Venezuela has less than half the amount of TV channels Brazil has, for instance, pollution of the airwaves being their least concern, evidenced not only by the omitted fact that RCTV will continue to broadcast but also by the omitted fact that Chavez created a new channel: TeleSur. "Concessions" as these licenses are called, appeared at the same time the TV was invented not only to regulate frequencies but also as a form of submitting the stations to the laws of the state. They are so institutionally retrograde that in Brazil the jurists are discussing the elimination of this regime, not only because it favours un-democratic behaviors (favoritism, exchange of favors, blackmailing) but because digital TV broadcasting is gradually eliminating the need for its existence.

2. Venezuela is a constitutional republic. Chavez has won landslide
victories that would be the envy of almost any elected leader in the
world, in internationally monitored elections.

Fiction. Chavez has written a new constitution, abrogating the legitimacy of his election under the previous constitution. If the previous constitution was democratic, the new one is un-democratic, if it wasn't democratic before, then he wasn't democratically elected at all. But what republic is this where federation does not exist? Perhaps a constitutional empire. Lastly, only his first election can be relatively trusted for a latin american country. Ever since then he has muddled with the electoral institutions so deeply only the most naive would accept the results of these elections. Electoral fraud literally surrounds Venezuela, from Haiti to Brazil, a continent with such a little and fragile democratic "tradition" that it's hardly reason for envy.

3. The vast majority of Venezuela’s media are not only in private hands,
they are constitutionally protected, uncensored, and dominated by the
opposition.

Fiction. A constitution that can change at any minute? How many constitutions did Venezuela had in its history again? The stations have been pressured and all public advertisement has been withdrawn from the stations that didn't comply. If you had a period of obersvation longer than a mere week you could observe clearly that the stations that criticized Chavez in the previous years have slowly changed if not to praise, to indifference, proving that they succumbed to the blackmail. If they don't agree, they'll get their concession (or "license") pulled, as Chavez has already threatened to do with another channel, but also loose advertisement from pressured companies.

RCTV’s owners can expand their cable and satellite
programming, or take their capital and launch a print empire forthwith.

Delusional. What the hell are you talking about? An indefinite amount of actions can be done, what does that has to do with the fact that their cable was pulled?

Aggressive unqualified political dissent is alive and well in the
Venezuelan mainstream media, in a manner few other democratic nations
have ever known, including our own.

Fiction. The comparisson is a fraud: peaceful democratic nations that are not swiping constitutions aside and installing dictatorships will always have less "aggressive" dissent by comparisson. This is observed in all military dictatorships of latin america, Chavez's being no exception. If the American media has not opposed the war in Iraq as much as the author would've liked his personal prejudice is no objective criteria with which to analyse the reality in Venezuela. But if you pick a period of observation longer than a mere week the trend observed is clearly not pointing towards democracy: Chavez threatens, labels "opposition" as enemies and puts his officialist troops to march against protestors.

Now consider the specific facts of RCTV as it applied to have its
broadcast license renewed.

The media here report that President Chavez “accuses RCTV of having
supported a coup” against him. This is a common means of distorting the
news: a fact is reported as accusation, and then attributed to a source
that the press has done everything to discredit. In fact, RCTV - along
with other broadcast news outlets - played such a leading role in the
April 2002 military coup against Venezuela’s democratically elected
government, that it is often described as “the world’s first media coup.”

Chavez attempted the coup before, remember? Why omit this fact? The Coup'er accusing RCTV of supporting a Coup against him? With what authority? The result of that, to unbury it since it is being omited, was the return to the legal order: Chavez leaves jail. But what is the result of Chavez election? The destruction of constitutional order. The world's latest elected dictator.

In the prelude to the coup, RCTV helped mobilize people to the streets
against the government, and used false reporting to justify the coup.
One of their most infamous and effective falsifications was to mix
footage of pro-Chavez people firing pistols from an overpass in Caracas
with gory scenes of demonstrators being shot and killed. This created
the impression that the pro-Chavez gunmen actually shot these people,
when in fact the victims were nowhere near them. These falsified but
horrifying images were repeated incessantly, and served as a major
justification for the coup.

The clashes are fact. In the latest protests, students have been arrested and injuried both by the police and by chavistas. If you pick a period of obersavation longer than a week you will notice the increasing trend in violence. Come back decades in the future when I'll have the evidence to prove that the dozen journalists that died so far in armed robberies were in fact political assassinations.

RCTV then banned any pro-government reporting during the coup. When
Chavez returned to office, this too was blacked out of the news. Later
the same year, RCTV once again made all-day-long appeals to Venezuelans
to help topple the government during a crippling national oil strike.

What happened to the context? What about Chavez lies and falsifications? Shamelessly ignored? Do you think your students are that gullible, stupid? The word isn't "banned", RCTV can do anything they want as long as it's not a crime or are you advocating the closure of "opposition" TV stations because you'd like to do the same with the channels that didn't report the Iraq war as you would have liked? About the crippling national oil strike, apparently their interest is irrelevant, ignored, you are not on strike yet still cripples the truth, do you defend being fired and replaced by a pro-Iraq war professor?

If RCTV were broadcasting in the United States, its license would have
been revoked years ago. In fact its owners would likely have been tried
for criminal offenses, including treason.

Fiction. That's a false alternative that is not taking into account all the institutional and legal madness of the scenario, or context as you've said it yourself. Since you oppose the Iraq-war, should you be arrested for treason had you been in charge of a TV station? There has been no Coup craze in the USA on the last years, this scenario is completely fictional.

RCTV’s broadcast frequency has been turned over to a new national public
access channel that promises to provide programming from thousands of
independent producers. It is an effort to let millions of Venezuelans
who have never had a viable chance to participate in the media do so,
without government censorship.

Fiction. Independent from independence: the "producers" are all surviving on state money and "millions of Venezuelans" is a vast overstatement beyond physical space-time possibilities. The censorship is as censoring as it gets: have you ever watched the TeleSur or have you been watching the new programming at all? You speak as if you didn't knew what you were talking about and treat the censorship of the RCTV as an "effort", as if it were a project, to let people "participate in the media", participate in a media nobody watches (not even you)? Participate only if you don't report any bad news?

The Bush Administration opposes the Chavez government for reasons that
have nothing to do with democracy, or else there would be a long list of
governments for us to subvert or overthrow before it would get close to
targeting Venezuela. Regrettably, our press coverage has done little to
shed light on that subject.

How the hell did the Bush Administration got here?! Does that mean you only support Chavez to oppose Bush? What's the criteria to define this long list of countries? One would think the ones on the same continent would get preference. Do you care more about Palestinians than Venezuelans? Have you been talking, thinking and defending Palestinians for longer than Chavez? Have you completely forgotten about South America and only now that a dictator happens to speak against Bush while flooding America with Oil do you remember of the country, not to defend the people, but the Chavez Administration?

Our news media should learn the lesson of Iraq and regard our own
government’s claims with the same skepticism they properly apply to
foreign leaders. Then Americans might begin to get a more accurate
picture of the world, and be able to effectively participate in our
foreign policy.

I hope you're not the example. With the level of accuracy of your picture of Venezuela everybody is alot safer the least you effectively participate in foreign policy. Please, look elsewhere! Leave the poor Venezuelans alone from your participation! Focus on Iraq, Bush and the American media.

Robert W. McChesney is a professor of communication at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

I see that you work in plenty of medias, radio, magazines, press and is interested in reforming media, thus, there's a clear conflict of interest between you and reality: you do not seek to observe or comprehend it but to change it.

[TteFAboB]

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Committee to Protect
Journalists and members of the European Parliament, the U.S. Senate and
even Chile's Congress have denounced the closure of RCTV, Venezuela's
oldest private television network.

Add to the list the Brazilian Congress and Senate.

But the case of RCTV - like most things involving Chavez - has been
caught up in a web of misinformation. While one side of the story is
getting headlines around the world, the other is barely heard.

Contradiction: if the fact of an "other" not being heard is bad, then this is exactly what happened to RCTV itself: they can no longer be heard.

But after Chavez was elected president in 1998, RCTV shifted to
another endeavor: ousting a democratically elected leader from office.

What about Chavez coup attempt?

Controlled by members of the country's fabulously wealthy oligarchy
including RCTV chief Marcel Granier, it saw Chavez and his "Bolivarian
Revolution" on behalf of Venezuela's majority poor as a threat.

Ridiculous. The poor are a but a pretext.

RCTV's most infamous effort to topple Chavez came during the April
11, 2002, coup attempt against him. For two days before the putsch, RCTV
preempted regular programming and ran wall-to-wall coverage of a general
strike aimed at ousting Chavez. A stream of commentators spewed nonstop
vitriolic attacks against him - while permitting no response from the
government.

Let's continue to ignore Chavez coup against a democratically elected government. I haven't seen everything, maybe I missed the parts about the non-stop vitriolic attacks, but if that's how you call it, how would you call Chavez speeches?

Would a network that aided and abetted a coup against the government
be allowed to operate in the United States? The U.S. government probably
would have shut down RCTV within five minutes after a failed coup
attempt - and thrown its owners in jail. Chavez's government allowed it
to continue operating for five years, and then declined to renew its
20-year license to use the public airwaves. It can still broadcast on
cable or via satellite dish.

My my, what a surprise, this section is a precise carbon copy of the other text! Chavez didn't "allowed" the RCTV to continue to operate: the law guaranteed it. Again, that's a false alternative. There has been no coups in the US and as far as I can reasonably imagine an invasion of the Congress or the White House would be met with uptmost hostility by at least plenty of the American media. Also, you can't "throw" people in jail in the US, they have to go through the due process of law. This isn't a banana republic you know.

Granier and others should not be seen as free-speech martyrs. Radio,
TV and newspapers remain uncensored, unfettered and unthreatened by the
government. Most Venezuelan media are still controlled by the old
oligarchy and are staunchly anti-Chavez.
If Granier had not decided to try to oust the country's president,
Venezuelans might still be able to look forward to more broadcasts of
"Radio Rochela."

Again, more carbon copy. I see all of this comes from the same source. You compensate in organization what you lack in independent thought. Again, I've already mentioned the pressure over companies to withdraw their advertisement and the pulling of state advertisement from inconvenient networks. But you are not in a position to judge martyrs of free-speech as you are in favour of censorship.

The conclusion is absolutely insane. Everything begins with Chavez quest to climb to power, not with RCTV. Closing RCTV is part of his project to consolidate power. A democracy does not shut down TV stations, period. In Italy you have one TV station for each party trading insults among each other and nothing gets shut, thank you very much.

You want to talk about the Venezuelan poor? Then why no other comparison is made: institutional, democratic, economical, etc. Screw them, to oppose Bush or any other egoistical interest, let them have a talking Gorilla for a President, let him remain in power forever and let's not discuss how or what has raised the poor of latin america to better living conditions in the region, let's pretend his project is sustainable in the long term and let's ignore our preeching about Global Warming for a second since all of this is being built on top of Oil.

[NefariousKoel]

I find it hard to believe anyone would defend Chavez. Especially after Avon Lady's video and numerous others featuring him publicly speaking that I've seen.

The only conclusion I have is that P_Funk is yet another young, pampered kid who wants to save the trees or help the poor rise up against their "oppressors" but gets angry if someone accidentally makes him spill his latte. :roll:

[Tchocky]

Um, anthing to say about what P_Funk has posted, or is that too much to ask?

(this oh-you're-just-a-young-'un is getting wearing)

[P_Funk]

I find it hard to believe anyone would defend Chavez. Especially after Avon Lady's video and numerous others featuring him publicly speaking that I've seen.

The only conclusion I have is that P_Funk is yet another young, pampered kid who wants to save the trees or help the poor rise up against their "oppressors" but gets angry if someone accidentally makes him spill his latte. :roll: You know you guys really piss me off. Not because you disagree with me, but because you insist that since I don't bow down to your superior logic I must somehow be jiving for the downfall of society.

For starters you assume to judge me based on my age. Thats ageist. Secondly you attack me and not the article I post, thats ad hominem. Thirdly you assume that since I put forward a different theory of goings on that I am in full support of it. Argumentatively speaking you break all the conventions of logic. And what do you know of me? But it shows your ignorance that my views must certainly be justified by some irrational background. Everywhere I need to justify an alternate view of the world by having first succeeded in the capitalist world. I need money, property, a family, a house. I need a job and a career. Then I can say that I have lived the life of accepted society and I can justify my views. But then I've sold out and my beliefs are only hypocrisy. If I don't succeed int he world my views become a lazy man's attempt to get a hand out. Al you know how to do is slander someone's free thoughts with accusations of iligitmacy. And even then you must be threatened by them because you show a rush to judgement and don't bother with actual argument. Best of all it isn't the article you are railing aginst, its me for putting it out there. If someone with a more conservative persona had posted it as "heres the alternate take", nobody would have jumped on his back.

So tell me please more about my life. About how posting an article and saying "so what do you think?" is an indicator of my naiive mind. Tell me how I need to justify my right to an opinion, or even my right to hold you up and say "but these people say differently". For 5 pages it wasn't a discussion, but a free range snipe fest directed at Chavez. Everyone so pleased to get together and not bother with answering questions. I give you a point of discussion and suddenly I must be stupid, naiive, and young. Your reaction to a counter-point is ad hominem attack and contempt. You approach questions like an inquisitor needing to root out heresy.

You really are a piece of work.

[August]

You really are a piece of work.

Maybe he is but you don't seem to want debate on the subject either given how you ignore Fatbobs very reasoned posts just above it.

[Tchocky]

Maybe he is but you don't seem to want debate on the subject either given how you ignore Fatbobs very reasoned posts just above it.
He posted an article for users to read. TteFAbob went through it and answered many of the points therein. P_Funks words - "Tell me how it sits with you fellas."
It's not like Funk wrote the damn thing, although TteFAbob seems to think so, looking at the use of "you" throughout his posts.

August, how can you possibly say that Funk doesn't want to debate on the subject? Look over the thread, there's lots of evidence there that you are wrong.
The level of doublethink here is ridiculous, August. Koel posts an ageist personal attack, Funk takes time to write a full response. But you grab one line out of it and claim that Funk doesn't want to debate TteFAbob's conclusions.

Conclusions drawn from an article that was posted for the board's consumption. Let's say the first post on a thread is a news item, do you complain if no-one immediately "debates" it?

It must look like I don't want to debate the article/subject, and I don't. Could't give a rat's ass about Chavez beyond the cheap oil for the US. But blatant rubbish on the boards tends to attract attention.

[August]

Maybe he is but you don't seem to want debate on the subject either given how you ignore Fatbobs very reasoned posts just above it.
He posted an article for users to read. TteFAbob went through it and answered many of the points therein. P_Funks words - "Tell me how it sits with you fellas."
It's not like Funk wrote the damn thing, although TteFAbob seems to think so, looking at the use of "you" throughout his posts.

August, how can you possibly say that Funk doesn't want to debate on the subject? Look over the thread, there's lots of evidence there that you are wrong.
The level of doublethink here is ridiculous, August. Koel posts an ageist personal attack, Funk takes time to write a full response. But you grab one line out of it and claim that Funk doesn't want to debate TteFAbob's conclusions.

Conclusions drawn from an article that was posted for the board's consumption. Let's say the first post on a thread is a news item, do you complain if no-one immediately "debates" it?

It must look like I don't want to debate the article/subject, and I don't. Could't give a rat's ass about Chavez beyond the cheap oil for the US. But blatant rubbish on the boards tends to attract attention.

Well first off Tchocky I don't disagree that Koel made a personal attack I just don't give, as you put it, "a rat's ass" since i neither made it nor was it directed at me.

Second I am interested in hearing Funks response to Fatbob very good post which he indeed has (so far) ignored.

Satisfy you?

[Tchocky]

Wouldn't say that. It's interesting that you pick Funk as the one who doesn't want to debate the issue, quoting his response to Koel's ageist rubbish. Do you see where I'm coming from?

(oh, nevermind)

[August]

Wouldn't say that. It's interesting that you pick Funk as the one who doesn't want to debate the issue, quoting his response to Koel's ageist rubbish. Do you see where I'm coming from?

(oh, nevermind)

It's interesting that you are attacking me instead of Koel.

[Gizzmoe]

This thread needs a cool-down period. I´ll reopen it in about 10 hours from now.

[P_Funk]

Second I am interested in hearing Funks response to Fatbob very good post which he indeed has (so far) ignored. I'll answer it. I'm just taking my time with it. Honestly, thats alot of replying to do. When he breaks it into a sentense by sentense list of critique broken up by quotes and then throws in weird pronouns then you gotta take a step back and be careful what you say. That and I've been busy the last 2 days with you know... living. Playing hockey, seeing friends, seeing one friend off who I wont see for a year. So life can interrupt these quaint little talks we have.;)

But the other thing I want to say is why does everyone assume that I'm 100% behind these articles? Is it just the harsh partisan nature of so many of this board's members that causes everyone to assume that anything you post must and will be motivated by your deepest ideological favouratism? What I saw was a thread that was going nowhere and where there was alot of lazy discussion with no real accountability to unbiased reason and more of a "lets all take the piss out of Chavez" feel. I'm just injecting a counter point here. If you're all so secure in your beliefs and points of view then you should be able to face a contradictory point without making it personal.

I see what Tte FaBob wrote as a serious criticism but I also see alot of anger there too. Can't we not get along and still be civilized? Anyway I'll be back with something to respond to that treatise by fabob.:roll: And remember this. RESPOND. Not necessarily outright contradicting and deriding as a loyal servant of the blind pinko commie left wing psychohaters of freedom and democracy. Dig? Okay. In the mean time read my last reply about how I'm sick of being attacked because I'm young and a lefty. I think that deserves some weight too.

[TteFAboB]

He posted an article for users to read. TteFAbob went through it and answered many of the points therein. P_Funks words - "Tell me how it sits with you fellas."

It's not like Funk wrote the damn thing, although TteFAbob seems to think so, looking at the use of "you" throughout his posts.

I was definitely answering the professor and the jounalist, not P_Funk, except for the start, and purposedly used the ambiguous "you" for the sake of brevity as every other word would have more than three words but also for a much more relevant reason that is indeed related to the author, but first things first. You can't be serious in your impression because at least in the first case I did acknowledge the author at the end: unless I couldn't connect the dots, the signature with the rest of the text, I definitely knew who wrote it and that it wasn't P_Funk.

But here's why I didn't bother calling them properly:

Argue the points, argue the ideas, ...

I don't see you debunking my ideas and my words...[you] don't bother to
actually articulate...

That doesn't dismiss the content directly of the article.

Given P_Funk's triple call (and there's the 4th after my post) to focus not on the author but on the points, I was doing it whenever possible and filling the blanks with what could be replaced for "Paris Hilton", "whoever says this" or even consider their words mine and argue against myself. At the same time it's a defense against this, a paradoxal extreme appeal to the author:


this is pointless. I can't get you to see it my way in one little message
board post. In the end I'm justifying every subtle detail of something that I
believe in. Articulating it is hard indeed to those who believe in the status
quo. Confronting conventional wisdom is something that even the most adept
idealogues struggle to do. But what exists between us is a fundamental difference
in how we view the values in the world. You see my views as dangerous to freedom,
while I see the status quo as its own hinderance to freedom.

Would August's claim fit here? Did you include this in your "lots of evidence"?


...an article that was posted for the board's consumption.

And to be hashed:

I guess we're gonna have to hash the details of the Chavez article rather than jsut dismiss its sources.

I have to go sharpen my knife now.

I see what Tte FaBob wrote as a serious criticism but I also see alot of anger there too...

I've removed the yous (if that also made you think I was refering to you) and tried to organize it in a more accessible manner, separated not in hashed parts but by arguments. Maybe this makes it easier, maybe it doesn't make any difference at all. I'd just be grateful if you could point out where the lot of anger is.

Main argument: RCTV was closed because it supported a coup against Chavez.

Propositions in linear order:

1. The US media's (of the date this was written) coverage of the event in the past week is wrong. RCTV was not closed because of criticism.

I have not followed or seen enough of the American coverage to tell. I do feel rather safe to presume that the coverage was lacking, incomplete or even misinformed but I suppose for different reasons.

2. The media is more willing to carry water for Washington than reporting the truth.

That's exactly what Chavez's programs do, exclusively. Why Caracas can not only get away with it but be supported while Washington cannot needs explaining. It can't be because of water carrying per se since whatever is being qualified as "water carrying" in the American media would most definitely fit Chavez's media. It's more reasonable to assume that the priviledge has something to do with the specific governments themselves.

3. All nations license radio and TV stations because the airwaves can only accommodate a small number of broadcasters, fewer than could fit. In democratic nations the license is given for a specific term, subject to renewal.

The first part has nothing to do with the closure of RCTV as Chavez had already created the TeleSur, even if we ignore everything else this fact alone proves that space was not an issue, yet the programming of the TVes (RCTV's replacement) is similar to that of TeleSur (there simply isn't enough programs to fill either grid), this would be a massive waste of precious space if space was indeed lacking, but it isn't. If democratic nations license TVs and renew these same licenses, not rewening a license is an undemocratic action, removing a voice of the airwaves.

4. Venezuela is a constitutional republic. Chavez has won landslide victories enviable by almost any elected leader in the world, in internationally monitored elections.

These terms are too loose. Is a constitutional republic a republic which merely has a constitution or is it necessary for the constitution to limit the powers of the powers? And what about the republic itself? Considered rigorously and by comparison, Venezuela ranks on the bottom in republicanism and constitutionalism. Chavez has made his own constitution, he has his own absurd TV show, currently rules by decree and the separation of the Legislative and the Judiciary has been eroded: the first will shortly become insignificant as soon as the single-party regime is established, the latter is pervaded both from inside and outside. Hardly a model for a constitutional republic. Only the most naive fool would take the Venezuelan electoral system to be credible after the series of events that took place since Chavez assumed power (stacking the electoral council with his men, making the last president of the council his vice-president, the voter list, all the evidence of fraud that cannot be more emphatically proved because nobody can have access to the official documents, the failure to abide to the Carter Institute's methodology, etc). For an overview on the leaked list of voters of the 2004 referendum: http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/categories/tasconSFascistList/, for a summary of the 2004 referendum:http://www.proveo.org/hausmann.pdf. These are not examples of elections in constitutional republics, they're examples of elections in "banana republics".

5. The vast majority of Venezuela’s media is in private hands and constitutionally protected, uncensored and dominated by the opposition. RCTV has options like cable and satellite or launch a print empire.

Saying "vast majority" gives the impression that the Venezuelan media is vast and one channel wouldn't make a difference. It isn't, but there's a derailment here: so far the subject has been the RCTV, a TV channel, not the "media" in general. But now the "vast" media is one channel short, with another on the crosshairs. Chavez has not only changed the constitution but also amended it whenever necessary leaving little trust to be put in it. During his weekly shows or in speeches Chavez attacks the media as outright criminals, enemies. Pressure on the stations themselves and on advertisers has silenced former critics who now adhere to the "officialist" line. We can note a massive contradiction here: criticism to Chavez is treated with disdain while more criticism towards the Bush Administration is desired in the US. Lastly, the options of the RCTV are irrelevant to the fact of its closure. University professors can clean toilets if they get fired from their university for attempting to coup the intelligence and dignity of their studends.

6. Aggressive, unqualified, political dissent is alive and well in Venezuela in a manner few other nations have known including the US.

Journalists have been persecuted, protesters have been arrested and in the government and state companies, like the PDVSA, peer pressure and mutual spying ensures dissidents don't get far in their jobs or break their minds and get them to submit. The comparison with the US is absolutely false: this professor is living proof of how well and alive aggressive, unqualified, criticism is in the US, unlike Venezuela, where the coffin of RCTV's owner was paraded on the streets in a clear death threat.

7. RCTV is not accused by Chavez of having supported a coup as the press distortedly reports, that’s a fact. The press has done everything to discredit Chavez.

As the professor has done everything to discredit the American press. The ambiguous sentence does not allow me to conclude if Chavez is or isn't in fact considered a credible source. Now if that is a fact, why haven't Chavez formely accused RCTV? But this is true, Chavez did not close down RCTV on the basis that it supported a coup against him, but based on his new Social Responsibility law that allows him to dictate what is ethical and what isn't.

8. RCTV, along with others, played such a leading role that it is often described as the “world’s first media coup”.

The will of the Venezuelans don't count outside uncredible elections? It's as if nobody wanted to bring down Chavez, except for the manipulating "media". But Chavez was the first to attempt a coup, thus, unless he intends to serve the rest of his sentence, he's not in a position to accuse others, or better, he is now that he has all the power in his hands. During the 70's dictatorship in Brazil the TV stations ended up having to fill their grid with soap operas and what they wouldn't say in the news programs was subtletly infiltrated in the soap operas. I take it the same condemnation applies to all TV stations that ever served, more or less, as opposition to a military dictatorship on the planet.

9. One of RCTV’s most infamous and effective falsified reportings was to mix footage of Chavistas firing pistols with gory scenes of demonstrators being shot and killed creating the impression that the Chavistas actually shot these people when in fact the victims were nowhere near them.

The worst RCTV can come up with does not reach the level of distortion, manipulation and falsification that is the entire programming grid of the TeleSur or even Chavez speeches themselves. But why is the fact that Chavistas fired at the crowd ignored? That was one episode, every other anti-Chavez protest was faced by a Chavista mob that since is not officially affiliated with the state are free to engage in brawl while the police turns a blind eye and only arrests the anti-Chavez crowd.

10. RCTV banned pro-government reporting during the coup and later that year supported the strike of the PDVSA.

Perhaps they should've aired propaganda, like the TeleSur? If they were supporting riot it is obvious that they would not praise the government at the same time. Venezuelans aren't complete idiots. Granier himself has said that "we're not politicians, but in a situation like this you can't avoid being considered as part of the political battle by those without effective representaton and democratic safeguards and those responsible for eliminating them.". The cause of the strike at the PDVSA is not mentioned: Chavez's attempt to take control of the company from above.

11. If RCTV were broadcasting in the US its license would’ve been revoked years ago and its owners likely tried for criminal offenses including treason.

False alternative. The US is not a banana republic with a fond for coups or successive replacements of the constitution. But a major point is raised here: if the RCTV committed criminal offenses, including treason, why wasn't it sued? Why didn't Chavez sue RCTV? Why didn't he use the Justice? To support this is to support guilt without a due process of law. Given the proper chronological order, if an Army Colonel invaded the Congress with a bunch of thugs he'd be thrown to rot in jail (also for treason) with probably the support of most of the media. There would never be a coup against his government because he'd never be elected in the US. If elected, he'd be impeached and face charges of unconstitutionality for every action similar to Chavez's.

12. RCTV's replacement [TVes] is now broadcasting programming from thousands of independent producers in an effort to let millions of Venezuelans who have never had a viable chance to participate in the media to do so, without government censorship.

This is a massive exaggeration and the producers are not "independent" by any means. For those fond of logic: if Venezuela is a poor country exploited by the rich oligarchy where did all these independent producers came from? The money comes from the state, one way or another. The real number is at best by the hundred, not thousands, and definitely no single million of Venezuelans will ever participate, much less if they don't abide by the official directions. There couldn't be more censorship when everything must be pre-approved. The RCTV and the other stations have alot of audience, the state channels have none or little, depending which channel is tuned at the time in government or state buildings. The Venezuelans don't want to participate in the media, they want to watch their favorite programs, they're too busy with the rest of their lives to go participate in the media anyway, unlike university professors who participate in radio shows, magazines, newspapers, websites, etc.

13. The Bush admin does not oppose Chavez for democracy, otherwise a long list of governments to subvert or overthrow would come first of Venezuela. The press shed little light on this subject.

This started with the media carrying water to Washington, is it implied then that the media does not oppose Chavez for democracy aswell? But how long can this list be since it's very reasonable to focus on Venezuela in detriment of Zimbabwe, for instance: Venezuela is located close to the US, it's a major Oil supplier and Chavez is involved with other nations in the region. He supported the coup-threatener Humalla, the fascist Morales, has been trying to bribe Argentina and feeds Cuba with some money. To be concerned with Venezuela is to be concerned with a short list of governments, or nations. But is the professor suggesting that Bush forgets about the rest of the American continent, again? He doesn't shed much light on this subject.

14. The US news media should learn the lesson of Iraq and regard the government’s claim with the same skepticism they properly apply to foreing leaders. If so the Americans might get a better picture of the world and be able to effectively participate in their foreign policy.

Does this include Chavez? Since the professed skepticism most definitely didn't allow the professor to get a better picture of the world I take it is a form of extreme skepticism: whatever Chavez says, don't believe in it. If he says he'll close another channel, don't believe in it. If the channel is closed, don't believe in it. This mindset will effectively participate in the creation of a null foreign policy that can't tell heads from tails.

So, we have a trend of diminishing freedom of expression, concentration of power and a forced class struggle: supporters vs dissidents. If the RCTV committed a crime it should've been prosecuted. Excuses such as airwave pollution or absurd ex post facto justifications such as the lunacy about the closure being an effort to let millions (there's only 20 of them) of Venezuelans participate in the media (just look at the millions running to the channel...) doesn't touch the legal point. If it is suggested that the USA has a better legal system, one that would've diligently and quickly judged the RCTV, then why isn't the same legal system defended for Venezuela? On the contrary, the distancing from it is supported. If anomy followed by the police state is the goal then appealing to the justice system of the USA is a hypocrisy, a bluff. If the belief in the American Rule of Law is real then Venezuela must be condemned. The question is: no matter how deceitful, defamatory or insulting, Chavez's channels aren't in check. There is one law for him and one law for everybody else, some pigs are simply more equal than others. He used the legacy of what little democratic laws Venezuela had to destroy the last remains of democracy.

[P_Funk]

I've removed the yous (if that also made you think I was refering to you) and tried to organize it in a more accessible manner, separated not in hashed parts but by arguments. Maybe this makes it easier, maybe it doesn't make any difference at all. I'd just be grateful if you could point out where the lot of anger is. I don't see any anger now. I'm not sure if I imagined it or if it was the "yous". Either way now I don't have much of a beef with anything you've said. Really I very much can't disagree. I never supported Chavez in all this. It seems that I was given that characterization by others but my main part in this thread until I posted these articles was some ill-conceived attempt to counter the notion of the "failure of marxism". That was seperate from the real point of the thread though attached by a realvence to the preferred conclusion based on Chavez running away with himself.

My only beef since AL stopped saying anything is with koel's ad hominems at me which were totally illogical. Thats something I don't let people get away with. Being outspoken and against the grain attracts alot of flak so I need a thick carapace and a quick tongue to not let it stand as a legitimate reply.

Really fabob I agree. I just wanted to inject some discussion of it into the thread. You are the first person in a while that I've seen really back up his position around here in depth. Usually the concensus gets a free ride. Me I don't really have the background knowledge to assess the Venezuela situation on my own in much depth. This is where my young naivete comes in. But I don't have the illusions about Venezuela that I'm accused of. In fact I don't think I ever directly defended Chavez outside of effectively saying "can you back that up?" I'm not sure what will come of Venezuela really but I did read one article by Gwynne Deyer where he supposed that Venezuela might become another Zimbabwe. That isn't a very nice thought but Chavez wouldn't be the first man of his people to turn against them.

Btw that is a very fine piece of academic analysis fabob. I don't see much to argue with. Maybe a few assertions you made in the previous "hashed" replies but only over a few details. The "cleaned up" version is very neat and to the point. Thats something that the rest of this board would do good to catch onto. You know its funny but once we wipe away the ideological face of each other's personas there is alot more that we can agree on. I sense that my politics and yours otherwise clash a fair bit but I respect a sharp mind and especially one that is articulate.

Cheers

[Onkel Neal]

You know its funny but once we wipe away the ideological face of each other's personas there is alot more that we can agree on.



Yes, I agree, that's what we all need to try and keep in mind. :yep: We should recognize that people with opinions different from ours are generally good folks. And it is not a very effective debate technique to tell someone that because they are young, they are wrong. That will usually not help them see your side of the arguement. We were all young once. I can remember reading Marx's Manifesto with an open mind at one time... a long, long time ago. I think it was still in first edition... :)

[The Avon Lady]

This is going to require a new attitude from producers (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aa4wCdiNQ_tI&refer=l).

The more things change, the more they remain the same. :yep:

[The Avon Lady]

Beware the imperlialist bogeymen (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_us;_ylt=Aqx4BmtW_xo_0lTDR7lg2PTMWM0F)!

[P_Funk]

Beware the imperlialist bogeymen (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_us;_ylt=Aqx4BmtW_xo_0lTDR7lg2PTMWM0F)!
Oh thats right. The USA has never supported directly or indirectly anti-establishment forces in Central America.

Chavez might be cooky and possibly on the road to another Zimbabwe but that doesn't change the fact that the US has already tried a coup in Venezuela and has for decades done the same in other parts of that region. There are too many democratically elected governments that have been replaced with military dictatorships by the US for us to just let that point slide.

There are always the grey shades to any reality.

[The Avon Lady]

If it's good enough for Fidel,
Then it's good enough for me (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070902/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_chavez)!