Look in the mirror. You are the one who thinks that amoral ruthlessness in leaders is a good idea.
Exactly. And it’s difficult to tell where on this spectrum Chavez lies. For all I dislike his reflexive anti-Americanism, I do not see him as a complete brutal Communist dictator just yet.
Yes, history repeats itself. Why have you chosen to focus on this part?
Perhaps ask yourself, why did the leftist leader take over in the first place? What were the previous guys doing that precipitated the events? Are you even the least bit aware of Venezuela’s history before Chavez?
The history is full of failed right-wing dominated countries. Installing a leader that you would consider ideal would mean a handful (if not just one) company would own all the oil. All the oil revenue would leave the country. There would be no environmental protections. So what’s left is a country full of sickened oil workers paid next to nothing. Are you really surprised that they’d eventually rise up?
How many times have we seen this played out? A couple of people at the top make all the money, the people at the bottom get shit on. Kudos to Chavez for breaking the pattern that exists in the countries around him you seem to be in favour of.
If you are going to talk about history, and least learn a bit.
You wouldn’t if you lived in Chile.
Here, I challenge you to defend your statement.
How does a capitalist system play out?
There’s always been class warfare over there. They use nationalism, the flag and all the things the GOP use to win votes over there, or at least they did till Chavez came along. Now they’re trying to out-lefty him with a debit card giving everybody a monthly welfare payment. What Chavez has built on the left is a movement that people will always have the option of voting for in future and one that’ll prevent the old elites frompermanently taking things back to the way they were.
A couple of years before Chavez took office there was 100+% inflation in Venezuela, so it’s hard to argue that the previous government were performing economic miracles and Chavez has screwed all that up. There were food shortages, massive corruption, chronic mismanagment of the economy and all the rest of it before Chavez took office too. It’s not like Venezuela was Switzerland before Chavez took office. The same things used to happen back then, just the western media never covered Venezuela before its president started raising oil royalties for foreign companies from 1-16% up to market rates and asking them to pay fair tax rates on the oil they were producing. Then Venezuela suddenly became a country people heard about. I mean how many Americans can name the President of Ecuador? Or Chile?
Anyway, I’m interested in all these countries you reference above. If it’s the same old story as you claim then you can give us a list of these countries and when and how the lefties screwed the economy up. But you have to also put this in context by explaining the conditions and economic situation that existed in these countries before and after the lefties took power.
To be fair, capitalists fall prey to the same blindness–I had an argument once with someone who claimed that Pinochet was a hero.
One thing that is different, though, is that capitalism inherently has less government control than socialism, which makes it a bit harder (but not impossible, as Pinochet attests) for leaders to turn into dictators.
I don’t think people in America are cognizant of the quiet revolution that has taken place in South America over the last 20 years. They’ve swung left and they’re beginning to assert themselves on the world stage.
It doesn’t inherently have “less government control than socialism”; it just uses that control for different purposes. And organization like corporations and wealthy individuals have much more power under a right wing regime, and that can be just as bad. Being worked to death or beaten or raped or murdered by corporate or church thugs is just as unpleasant as having the same done to you by government thugs.
I disagree. It isn’t capitalism if the government controls the economy. Despots in capitalist economies (like Pinochet) base their power on the military, not corporations. Despots in socialist/communist countries don’t necessarily need the backing of the military (e.g. Stalin).
That said, I don’t buy the “all socialists become despots” argument. The right-wing constantly labels Western Europe as socialist and none qualify as having despots.
It is if it is doing so at the behest of the corporations and the wealthy. And the economy is hardly all of society, anyway.
What’s to say capitalism would have left the people of Venezuela any better off?
So there was a container full of food that went to waste because of government failure, leading to starvation.
Is that any different than starvation because people can’t afford food? Or shitty health care because people can’t afford medicine?
If foreign companies owned the oil, and the farm land, would the people of Venezuela be any better off?
Right, because there are a lot of market based capitalist countries with the wealth and resources of a nation like Venezuela where people routinely starve. I’m sure you have many examples. I encourage you to trot them out and show everyone how they are really just the same.
Certainly not. Do you have examples of nations of comparable wealth to Venezuela who have their people starve because they can’t afford food? Hell, you don’t even need to stick with market based capitalist nations…ANY examples of modern nations where this happens would work?
(As a hint, the only nations who’s citizens starve for any reason at all I can think of off the top of my head are either similarly deluded communist fuckups or 3rd world hell holes with little law or order and huge political and or environmental issues such as several African nations)
Assuming they also had a viable government and some limits on corruption, of COURSE they would. Frankly, they couldn’t be much worse off, all things considered.
-XT
Ah yes, the No True Scotsman emerges.
Well played sir, well played. You have bested us all. It appears capitalism prevails!
No True Scotsman is it? 
Because I wanted to apply something resembling a universal yardstick?? Too funny. And even though I left you all kinds of wiggle room in your possible answer (going so far as to say that you don’t even need to include capitalist/market based economies and their associated countries), THIS was the best you could come back with?? IOW, you gots nuffin, and figured you’d come back with this old chestnut as a viable reply, no? Might even work out for you…who knows?
-XT
Yes, I imagine it must suck for you that I didn’t fall for your little trap. I find it shortens these debates pretty quick when people stop arguing against giant armies of strawmen, or searching for the Real Slimshady.
Unless of course, you can do better? Perhaps you can show us a developed country without socialism.
The example you are looking for is Mexico. You may now begin wiggling around and moving the goal posts. Just be careful not to trip while you’re backpedaling.
This is how you set up your No True Scotsman.
“Show me an example of blah that isn’t a shit hole, there are none! Because any example means they are a shit hole.”
I don’t fault you for it, it’s a very common trend on this board. I just hope we can all learn a little. Fighting ignorance all.
And yes, they can be a lot worse off. Think [ur=lhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster]Bhopal.
If socialism leads to corruption, capitalism necessarily leads to greed. Both kill people. In the first it means food shortages. In the second it means entire water ways destroyed by pollution. You and Sam Stone highlight the first, and gloss over the second.
Or the United States.
Or, perhaps, Venezuela itself, pre-Chavez?