So is it better to be hungry because you can’t afford food or because there is no food to buy?
They boycotted the election specifically because Chavez packed the tallying agencies with his supporters. Under those conditions, they could not get a fair election. Nor was this the first time; there was previous evidence of significant tanmpering and vote-fraud. I consider it a tactical mistake, but it was emphatically not whiny losers complaining. They had every reason to believe it would be a massive con-job.
The non-flip answer might be that the former is worse, because it means you live in a place that could fix the problem but just can’t be arsed.
Perhaps, but that’s a stupid answer. The intelligent answer is that even in such a situation, it is always better to have the potential to earn money than to have nothing to buy. A lack of income is far more easily rectified than a lack of goods.
:dubious: You really think that’s self-evident? Right now, the U.S. has an abundance of goods, and an abundance of people who can’t rectify their lack of income.
Yes, it should be exceedingly self-evident if you use your brain for thinking. Would you rather live in the United States or Angola? In Angola, even with the most favorable policies, you would quite possibly starve or die of disease, and any significant improvement might take decades, or even a couple centuries, to reach a tolerable level of comfort and personal financial security. In the United States, we can repair our economic damage with a better (or at least not Continuingly Moronic) economic policy and a few years of good governance. And in the meantime, you won’t starve.
Frankly, I am utterly disgusted you even gave thought about which you’d prefer. if you really think such circumstances are possibly preferable, feel free to go live there. I won’t hold my breathe, because I suspect you’re being ridiculous just to continue the argument.
Those folks with a lack of income aren’t exactly starving to death. Are they?
They boycotted the election specifically because they knew Chavez would have a massive victory and he’d get a massive mandate to carry on doing what he was doing. So they subverted the democratic process by not taking part and calling the election a sham. When they do stand for elections the opposition now ape Chavez’s policies and try and outlefty him, so clearly his lefty policies are massively popular overall and the only way to win an election in Venezuela. There is no real evidence of any election being stolen by Chavez, international observers have declared all elections fair. Most of the time since 1998 Chavez has had an appoval rating of well over 60% (although now firms put it around 50%), and these are firms owned by the opposition (the head of the biggest polling firm says Chavez should be killed). Why is it a surprise that he wins elections?
EDIT: and here’s a poll which still has him at 60%
I’m wondering if setting the bar for economic justice just above starvation might be a bit too severe even for our more compulsively Calvinistic thinkers?
Dick Dastardly, have you followed any news from Venezuela at all? True democracy cannot exist without freedom of speech. Chavez is doing everything he can to silence the opposition. Right now he is trying to destroy Globovision by attempting to arrest its owner and seizing a bank whose president is Globovision’s major shareholder. He previously arrested this owner for making “offensive and disrespectful” remarks. He forced RCTV (another opposition TV station) off the airwaves in 2007. He arrested a former state governor for saying that Venezuela became a haven for drug traffickers. He is launching an investigation against a critical website. He obligates TV channels to broadcast his daily shows.
Heck, that’s nothing. Saddam got 99% of the vote!
It’s possible that Chavez is popular with the proletariat. After all, he’s doing everything he can to buy their votes with other people’s money and resources.
The Bolsheviks were very popular in Russia while they were plundering the farms and turning them into collectives and giving food and goods to the poor. Then they started running out of things to give away, so they had to scapegoat the Kulaks and hang a few, deflecting blame onto others. Then they plundered the church to give the charade a little while longer to keep going while they cemented control over the people, established the secret police, and all the rest. By the time mass starvation began and everyone became equally impoverished, the population was too cowed and fearful to rebel.
Hitler was very popular in his early years, and followed a similar trajectory. By the time people discovered just how miserable he was making all of them, there was too much fear of the SS and the secret police for people to say anything.
Chavez isn’t quite finished plundering yet. He’s just begun a program of demonizing ‘looters’ and ‘hoarders’ and taking stuff away from them. He hasn’t finished nationalizing all the food warehouses and grocery stores. He hasn’t quite run the oil industry into the ground yet.
But all of it’s heading in that direction. Venezuela is currently following the same trajectory as the other socialist/communist revolutionary states. And every one of them wound up either completely closed and despotic like North Korea or Vietnam or Cuba, or collapsed into a violent conflagration with a new government emerging.
Man, is it ever a good thing that the Chavez-wannabe in Honduras didn’t pull off his constitutional rewrite.
A more interesting question than Venezuela’s future would be, will anything much ever come of the international organization Chavez founded, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas? It still has only eight members, and the Union of South American Nations (with which the Bolivarian Alliance has three members in common) might effectively pre-empt it. OTOH, the ALBA nations are already in the process of introducing a common Euro-like currency, the SUCRE, which puts them that far ahead of UNASUL, assuming that goes anywhere.
There just aren’t enough :rolleyes:.
I’ve searched the thread for the word ‘hunger’ and find it in relation to the USA but not Venezuela, can someone put me straight, please on how bad things are there?
Both of you dial it back, please. These kinds of insulting comments don’t belong in this forum.
Holy shit you’re right! And Hitler was a monster. If Hitler liked socialism I take back everything I said! All socialist policies end with gas chambers, that is the lesson of Hitler. Thank you for reminding us.
Heh. You mock, but there is a contingent of right-wingers that believe Hitler was socialist because the Nazi Party was the National Socialist Party. Yeah, and the German Democratic Republic was a democracy.
Any luck yet tracking down those starving Venezuelans?
Globovision called on air for a coup and the killing of Chavez and continues to act like an opposition party. Play with fire, expect to get burned.