[QUOTE=Ale]
. . . and sooner or later, if things keep going this way, he´ll get a whole lot of people killed in the name of his revolution.
[/QUOTE]
How? Most Venezuelans support him, and the people who oppose him are not the kind to strap on bandoliers and camp out in the jungle. I don’t foresee a civil war.
At least, not a purely homegrown civil war. 
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
How? Most Venezuelans support him, and the people who oppose him are not the kind to strap on bandoliers and camp out in the jungle. I don’t foresee a civil war.
[/QUOTE]
Most Venezuelans support him now, but when the price of oil goes down and he can no longer pay off his clients, who knows?
[QUOTE=dropzone]
He’s following a Castro-ish path when he doesn’t need to–he doesn’t need to ally with a USSR to get aid because the oil will pay for whatever he needs.
[/QUOTE]
Nevertheless, he is working hard (on “enemy of my enemy” principles, I suppose) to ally himself with practically every country that’s on bad or strained terms with the U.S., including Cuba, Iran, Russia, and Belarus (!); plus all Latin American countries where leftists have won power recently, such as Bolivia and Nicaragua. (But not North Korea yet, AFAIK.) He’s even seeking allies in Africa. See this article. and this one. Also this thread, touching on how he is trying to steer the ongoing process of South American economic unification in an anti-U.S. direction.
I have to say, I think John Mace pretty much nailed Chavez. He may or may not do good things for his country, but power hungry would-be tyrant is quite an apt description. I think available evidence indicates that without waiting and seeing anything. I’ll be interested to see how free the next election is.
I’m mildly bemused by A Monkey With a Gun’s apparent conviction that socialist government will inevitably lead to dictatorship, but shrug we all have our pet theories. I will note that most of Western Europe has been led by various flavors of socialist parties for large chunks of the past 60 years, and that most dictatorships in the western world in that period have been various flavors of fascist or military rule and have tended to be more on the conservative side.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
He paid for that, remember?
[/QUOTE]
To expand on that, if he had been successful then I would oppose him 100% and I bet we would be talking about a new leader nowadays.
The only thing is that in context with his opposition, Chavez is still a better choice. You are mistaken if you think that this is being 100% supportive of him, I only tolerate him because the current state of affairs is the fault of the opposition too.
Instead of getting close to the people by offering some progressive moves like saying that many reforms from Chavez would not end even if elected, the opposition decided it was better to boycott congressional elections, it would be like if the Democrats had decided to not run candidates in protest in the last election and then act too surprised once Republicans got super majority in congress.
[QUOTE=CBEscapee]
Are you trying to argue that Taiwan was a democracy from 1949? Guess what, moron? Taiwan was under martial law until 1987 and had it’s first free presidential election in 1996. You want to talk about dictatorships? Start with Chiang Kaishek.
[/QUOTE]
How fucking dense are you? You’re making his point, you dolt. Here we have Taiwan, an authoritarian capitalist dictatorship, compared with the PRC, a totalitarian communist dictatorship.
So, was it socialism that brought China prosperity? Taiwan, non-socialist non-democracy. Prosperous. China, socialist non-democracy. Poverty-stricken, even though perhaps or perhaps not better off than in 1948 after years of Japanese occupation and civil war.
Now do you understand?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
And yet, aren’t you one of those who keeps saying the US is sliding towards fascism or some such nonsense?
[/quote]
No, I’m not.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Double :rolleyes: :rolleyes: back at you. How many threads have you started about the evils of signing statements?
[/quote]
Two, IIRC. Three or four if you count general discussions of the “unitary executive” theory.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
And yet you still can’t find it in yourself to condemn this move by Chavez. Where is your intellectual honesty, BG? Is it only bad to act in an undemocratic way if someone pushes for policies that you don’t like?
[/QUOTE]
[shrug] I’m not defending this action by the Venezuelan legislature. It is very unwise and ill-considered, IMO. I can only hope Chavez won’t abuse the power too badly and that there will still be a democratic process in place when he finally dies or lays it down. OTOH, it is, AFAIK, perfectly legitimate under Venezuela’s constitution. (Just as the Reichstag’s grant of emergency powers to Hitler was perfectly constitutional, for which we may blame the drafters of the Weimar constitution.) Bush and his supporters, OTOH, are engaged, there, in a completely illegitimate and indefensible attempt to circumvent the constitution.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Oddly, a benevolent, or at least not-very-vindictive, dictatorship is what **John ** dreams for in Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
I guess I missed the point where people were dying by the thousands every month in Venezuela due to a burgeoning civil war. :rolleyes:
No, I don’t dream for that. And you don’t have any fucking clue as to what I dream for, dipshit. It’s what I think the best outcome that can be hoped for is. I “dream” of a peaceful, democratic Iraq.
But democracy can’t bloom in the desert. And I mean that metaphorically, not literally. “The desert” in the case of Iraq is the almost complete break down of civil order. In that case, a benevolent dictatorship would be an improvement. Much like what happened in Taiwan and South Korean-- both made the transition from martial law to democracy, but both had civil order and a functioning economy first. Venezuela already has both of those things.
So next time, get your facts straight and you won’t look like so much of an idiot.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Eh. His anti-Americanism isn’t going to hurt us, it’s going to hurt South Americans as they opt for economic isolationism.
[/QUOTE]
Why? It worked for the U.S. when our industries were in their infancy.
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
How fucking dense are you? You’re making his point, you dolt. Here we have Taiwan, an authoritarian capitalist dictatorship, compared with the PRC, a totalitarian communist dictatorship.
So, was it socialism that brought China prosperity? Taiwan, non-socialist non-democracy. Prosperous. China, socialist non-democracy. Poverty-stricken, even though perhaps or perhaps not better off than in 1948 after years of Japanese occupation and civil war.
Now do you understand?
[/QUOTE]
How fucking ignorant are you? What would Taiwan have become without the MASSIVE amount of economic aid from the US that was used to prop up one of the worst military dictatorships in the world? Taiwan was a fucking US propaganda tool in the Cold War.
And there isn’t any “perhaps” in the social welfare of today’s China compared to the past.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
But there is a longstanding tradition in South America of someone exercising strong leadership through rule by decree or the equivalent for a limited period, then returning the nation to democratic mode.
[/QUOTE]
Knock rainforest lumber.
[QUOTE=CBEscapee]
How fucking ignorant are you? What would Taiwan have become without the MASSIVE amount of economic aid from the US that was used to prop up one of the worst military dictatorships in the world? Taiwan was a fucking US propaganda tool in the Cold War.
And there isn’t any “perhaps” in the social welfare of today’s China compared to the past.
[/QUOTE]
Special pleading. Socialism fails because the evil USA works to crush socialism. Non-socialist states succeed because they are propped up by the evil USA. Ever heard of a non-falsifiable hypothesis?
Today’s China is better off than it was in 1948. Yep, that sure is true. In 1948 they had suffered decades of civil war and a brutal Japanese occupation. The country was in ruins in 1948. Yeah, good point there. China is better off now than in 1948. And this prove socialism works…how?
Were they better off in 1969, during the height of the Cultural Revolution, than they were in 1948? That’s what’s debatable. Did Mao’s communist dictatorship improve the lives of the Chinese peasantry? Or did the end of Mao’s communist dictatorship improve the lives of the Chinese peasantry. They sure are better off today in 2007 than they were in 1969, aren’t they? And what’s the difference between today and 1969?
Did or did not most of China’s economic growth come during the period of socialism, or during the period after they repudiated socialism? Never mind democracy, since China isn’t democratic now and never has been.
You’re the one asserting that socialism helped China’s ecomony, and therefore by extension that socialism would help Venezuela. Y’know I don’t agree, and I can argue with you civilly about that. But what happened today wasn’t Venezuela instituting socialism, what happened today was that Venezuela made Chavez the dictator of Venezuela. And sure, Latin American countries have survived authoritarian governments before, some popular, some unpopular. Venezuela will somehow muddle through this, and Chavez won’t live forever, only Castro can do that.
But this is still a tremendous step backward for the country, a day when tyranny defeated democracy. If you cheer this, you prove that you support tyranny over democracy. And anyone that prefers tyranny to democracy is scum. So who else prefers tyranny to democracy? We’ve got one vote for tyranny down. Anyone else?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Knock rainforest lumber.
[/QUOTE]
Did I not throw enough “probably isn’t the case here” caveats into that post to suit you?
My basic premise could have been stated in one (long) sentence. I drew it out to three paragraphs to make it as clear as possible that I was talking in generalities and that my guess was that Chavez was not going to be a Hispanoamericano Cincinnatus – but that they were a staple of South American politics.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Did I not throw enough “probably isn’t the case here” caveats into that post to suit you?
My basic premise could have been stated in one (long) sentence. I drew it out to three paragraphs to make it as clear as possible that I was talking in generalities and that my guess was that Chavez was not going to be a Hispanoamericano Cincinnatus – but that they were a staple of South American politics.
[/QUOTE]
And I was expressing the hope he will turn out to be just that. No sarcasm intended.
[QUOTE=CBEscapee]
And there isn’t any “perhaps” in the social welfare of today’s China compared to the past.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps in your careful analysis of Chinese economic history the exact point at which socialism started eradicating poverty over there. Did things spontaneously get better in 1949? Do you think it was the Great Leap Forward that turned the country around? Was it the Cultural Revolution that turned China into the economic powerhouse it is today? Was it the rise of Deng Xiaoping to power?
(BTW, I have lived in China, and I’m reasonably sure I know the answer that the overwhelming number of Chinese would give. I’m just curious if you agree with them.)
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Special pleading. Socialism fails because the evil USA works to crush socialism. Non-socialist states succeed because they are propped up by the evil USA. Ever heard of a non-falsifiable hypothesis?
Today’s China is better off than it was in 1948. Yep, that sure is true. In 1948 they had suffered decades of civil war and a brutal Japanese occupation. The country was in ruins in 1948. Yeah, good point there. China is better off now than in 1948. And this prove socialism works…how?
Were they better off in 1969, during the height of the Cultural Revolution, than they were in 1948? That’s what’s debatable. Did Mao’s communist dictatorship improve the lives of the Chinese peasantry? Or did the end of Mao’s communist dictatorship improve the lives of the Chinese peasantry. They sure are better off today in 2007 than they were in 1969, aren’t they? And what’s the difference between today and 1969?
Did or did not most of China’s economic growth come during the period of socialism, or during the period after they repudiated socialism? Never mind democracy, since China isn’t democratic now and never has been.
You’re the one asserting that socialism helped China’s ecomony, and therefore by extension that socialism would help Venezuela. Y’know I don’t agree, and I can argue with you civilly about that. But what happened today wasn’t Venezuela instituting socialism, what happened today was that Venezuela made Chavez the dictator of Venezuela. And sure, Latin American countries have survived authoritarian governments before, some popular, some unpopular. Venezuela will somehow muddle through this, and Chavez won’t live forever, only Castro can do that.
But this is still a tremendous step backward for the country, a day when tyranny defeated democracy. If you cheer this, you prove that you support tyranny over democracy. And anyone that prefers tyranny to democracy is scum. So who else prefers tyranny to democracy? We’ve got one vote for tyranny down. Anyone else?
[/QUOTE]
So how then do you reconcile the US support for tyrants throughout the world throughout its history? Somoza was a peach of a fellow. Pinochet was a fucking saint, he was. Chiang Kaishek’s hands were spotless. Ferdinand Marcos was a good ol boy. The Shieks in Saudia Arabia are like everyone’s favorite uncle. Now tell me Chavez belongs with them?
By your criteria then, should we consider the US scum?
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Perhaps in your careful analysis of Chinese economic history the exact point at which socialism started eradicating poverty over there. Did things spontaneously get better in 1949? Do you think it was the Great Leap Forward that turned the country around? Was it the Cultural Revolution that turned China into the economic powerhouse it is today? Was it the rise of Deng Xiaoping to power?
(BTW, I have lived in China, and I’m reasonably sure I know the answer that the overwhelming number of Chinese would give. I’m just curious if you agree with them.)
[/QUOTE]
I never claimed it was instantly successful nor that there were many failed policies. Can you tell me if the general Chinese population is not better off than it was at any time before the communists took power?
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Venezuela will somehow muddle through this, and Chavez won’t live forever, only Castro can do that.
[/quote]
like hell he will, I have him in the dead pool this year, I need the points. 
The US was already has cheered for tyrants before, and in the case of Chavez, The administration was willing to cheer for Carmona after the coup, and lie to the American people saying then that Chavez was overthrown by popular support and the violence caused by him.
But, coming to today, I already said I’m not cheering for this action, I only say I can understand why is happening, and the thing that still burns me the most is that the opposition is to blame too.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
To expand on that, if he had been successful then I would oppose him 100% and I bet we would be talking about a new leader nowadays.
[/QUOTE]
So you say.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I guess I missed the point where people were dying by the thousands every month in Venezuela due to a burgeoning civil war. :rolleyes:
[/quote]
I guess I missed the part where you drew such esoteric nuances in your OP. Maybe because it wasn’t there?
Ah, so in order to sustain some dudgeon, you’re now forced to draw a bright, sharp line between the meanings of “dream” and “hope”. And I’m a dipshit? Gawdamighty. :rolleyes:
Get a fucking grip on yourself. *Think * before you post, even just once, for a fucking change. Quit pissing all over the boards with your self-important pronouncements and your endless, useless nitpicking and fucking apply some thought. You have the power. You just don’t use it.