And its execs are still alive and free, AFAIK. If any American TV network came out in support of a coup-in-progress against a sitting POTUS, and the coup failed, then, afterward, the station’s FCC license would be pulled, all its operations including cable and Internet broadcasting would be shut down forever, and most of its execs and staff would be in federal supermax for treason.
Yes, but Hitler shut down news and media outlets.
Hitler!
About that. Don’t the resources of a nation belong to its people? If not they, then whom? You exaggerate the importance of property rights to exceed all others, the other human rights are merely settings and grace notes for the crown jewel, property rights. If that property was unjustly taken in the first place, what rights are conferred by possession of a deed? They have no more moral or political value than when a toddler seizes a red firetruck from a playmate and screams “MINE! MINE!”.
The primacy of property rights is a central dogma of the conservative catechism, and like all dogma, it is only as true as you accept it to be.
As far as Pinochet goes, we note that you are willing to accept that Pinochet was “a bastard”, though you are at pains to imply a perfectly ludicrous equivalence with Allende, who was no better than he should be. Here in Baja Canada, we have a stronger sense of complicity, Chile is but one of a long series of crimes committed with our cooperation and support.
As to the circumstances surrounding Allende’s demise, well, who’s to say? I daresay if you or I were to fall upon the tender mercy of Pinochet and/or his ilk, we might find our views flexible, and subject to persuasion. If my family were in his hands, I would swear out a deposition that the moon was made of green cheese and sign it in blood, if need be. I daresay you would do the same.
Certainly the original plan was for a socialist economy. Capitalism was seen as a tool of the Jews, and as undermining the power of the state. But aside from administering the war effort, the Nazis didn’t do a very good job of coordinating the various government ministries, especially those related to economic matters. It was the German industrialists that ended up with quite a bit of power in guiding the economy. That’s why the German military had such a ridiculous variety of tanks, weapons, and munitions, because that central planning was absent.
Wait, so Hitler loved socialism, but the Jews loved capitalism?
Now I’m really torn. Is there a sports celebrity I can follow on the matter?
That’s called Strasserism – Nazism with the social-revolutionary, proletarian class-war aspect emphasized. What much of the SA wanted. But the Night of Long Knives purge put an end to all that.
Democracy can’t survive when the opposition are trying to overthrow you in a coup either. It’s amazing how the opposition who tried and failed with a coup and then subverted the democractic process when they knew they’d get hammered in an election are seen as the pro-democracy faction here. Like tagos already pointed out, calling for Chavez to be overthrown means you aren’t an objective broadcaster. And RCTV were the same, plus he didn’t shut them down, they can still broadcast on cable, they’re just not allowed to use public airwaves to support the overthrow of the government. Seems fair to mme.
You can answer my post now.
So when the opposition run on an election platform of giving every Venezuelan a debit card called “My Crude” whic gives them a monthly wage they’re not “buying their votes with other people’s money and resources” ? Only Chavez is doing this? If Chavez continues in power will things get so bad we see 100+% inflation, like we did before Chavez came to power?
Some context to the food shortages. I’m sure everybopdy is already aware of all this because the Venezuelan economy and political system was extensively reported on by American media prior to 1998 :
An abandoned agricultural sector meant abandoned rural communities, leading to a mass exodus of people from the countryside into urban areas, particularly in and around the capital of Caracas. By 1960, the percentage of the population living in rural areas had dropped by nearly half to just 35 percent, and then to a mere 12 percent by the 1990s, making Venezuela home to one of the most urbanized populations in Latin America.5 Additionally, with domestic food production greatly reduced, Venezuela became the only Latin American country to be a net importer of agricultural products.6
By the time Chávez was elected at the end of 1998, Venezuela’s remaining rural communities were in crisis, and the majority of those who had migrated into cities and urban margins faced substandard housing and sanitation, lack of adequate social services, and lack of decent job opportunities.7 Over half of the population lived in poverty, and 42.5 percent lived in extreme poverty.8 Venezuela depended on food imports for more than 70 percent of its food supply, putting many staples out of reach for the poor. Such dependency on food imports also put the population as a whole in a highly vulnerable situation…
Disparities in land access and ownership in Venezuela have historically been so extreme that, according to a 1997 agricultural census, 5 percent of landowners controlled 75 percent of the land, and 75 percent of landowners controlled only 6 percent of the land.13 Much of the land concentrated in the hands of the large landholders sits idle or underused. Such landholdings are known as latifundios. The Venezuelan constitution deems latifundios to be contrary to the interests of society and charges the state with guaranteeing the food-producing potential of both privately and collectively held land. Accordingly, the Law of the Land requires that agricultural land be used for food production and gives communities a legal framework for organizing themselves to settle and farm idle lands. According to government figures released in January 2009, nearly 2.7 million hectares (6.6 million acres) of latifundio land have been returned to productivity since the passage of the Law of the Land.14 Most of the recovered land is now directly under the stewardship of farmers, many of whom have organized themselves into cooperatives. A portion of the land is also dedicated to strategic projects in support of food sovereignty…
Recently, Chávez has called upon local and state authorities to do more to facilitate the agrarian reform process, as it has faced many obstacles. It is important to note that the law allows for the expropriation of private land only under a specific set of circumstances and through an extensive legal process that includes compensation to the landowner at current market value. Nevertheless, the law has raised the ire of many of the larger landholders—some have even resorted to paying death squads to assassinate campesinos settled on recovered land. To date, over two hundred campesinos have been killed in acts of retaliation against the land reform process.15 Despite such adversities, approximately a third of the latifundio land existing in 1998 has been recovered, benefitting 180,000 families.16 Large parcels of latifundio once held by a single owner have been transformed into entire rural communities. For these communities, and for the landless peasants still striving for the right to land, the struggle goes on…
According to Eduardo Escobar, former president of the Agricultural Bank of Venezuela, “Formerly, agricultural planning was top-down and imposed upon communities. Now it is a much more participatory process. Community councils determine credit needs based on social needs. All the offices here are spaces for community processes, discussions, and consensus-building.”17
Thanks to these efforts, agricultural credit has increased significantly, from approximately $164 million in 1999 to approximately $7.6 billion in 2008.18 Additionally, several new laws were passed in 2008 to further support and protect farmers, particularly those most vulnerable. These measures include debt eradication (through a Plan Zero Debt) and relief for farmers facing crop failures and other adverse circumstances, similar to an insurance program. In recognition of the critical service that farmers provide to society, these supports aim to serve as a safety net that enables them to stay on their land and keep farming…
In its commitment to food sovereignty, the Venezuelan government has taken unprecedented steps to bolster its agricultural sector, as evidenced by an increase of 5,783 percent in agricultural financing from 1998 to 2007.20 This investment in agriculture is driving Venezuela’s ability to feed itself through its own food production. With continued progress over recent years, Venezuela’s food production capacity is currently at 21 million tons, which represents a 24 percent overall increase from 1998.21 When these figures are analyzed in terms of specific food products, it is clear that the foods of greatest importance to the Venezuelan diet have achieved significantly higher increases in production.
By 2008, Venezuela reached levels of self sufficiency in its two most important grains, corn and rice, with production increases of 132 percent and 71 percent respectively since 1998.22 The country also achieved self-sufficiency in pork, representing an increase in production of nearly 77 percent since 1998. Furthermore, Venezuela is on its way to reaching self-sufficiency in a number of other important staple foods, including beef, chicken, and eggs, for which domestic production currently meets 70 percent, 85 percent, and 80 percent of national demand, respectively. Milk production has increased by 900 percent to 1.96 million tons, fulfilling 55 percent of national demand. Spurred by a “scarcity” of milk created by private distributors in early 2008, the government recently pledged its commitment to attain self-sufficiency in milk production in the near future. Many other crops have seen significant increases over the past decade, including black beans (143 percent), root vegetables (115 percent), and sunflowers for cooking oil production (125 percent). This suggests a prioritization of culturally important crops and a focus on matching domestic agricultural production with national consumer demands.
In a remarkable reversal of the trends of recent decades, Venezuela is actually becoming poised to export certain crops (in addition to coffee and cacao, which are already exported in limited amounts), after surpassing levels sufficient to meet national demand. The country is already in a position to export pork—currently at 113 percent of national demand—and is projected to have a sufficient surplus of corn for export within a year. Both Chávez and Agricultural Minister Elías Jaua have emphasized that the goal is for Venezuela to produce enough food to feed its own population while supporting other countries that lack sufficient food to meet domestic needs. Venezuela hopes to play this role out of recognition that support from its neighbors in the form of food imports has been critical during its own transition from food dependence to food sovereignty.
In 2002, Venezuelans received a stark reminder of the vulnerability of their food system when groups opposing the government attempted to bring the national economy to a standstill by halting oil production and shutting down other key industries over a two-month period. As part of these efforts, major food distributors withheld food supplies and many supermarkets closed. This drove home the implications of Venezuela’s heavy reliance on imported food, primarily from large corporations, as well as its reliance on private intermediaries for distribution. Since then, efforts to bolster food production in Venezuela have been met with efforts to increase the ability of communities to feed themselves.
Mercal is Venezuela’s national network of subsidized food markets, selling high-quality food at discounts averaging 40 percent off standard prices. These markets are open to people of all income levels, with particular emphasis on communities with limited food access. With 16,532 Mercal outlets throughout the country distributing more than 1.5 million tons of food to over 13 million people, Mercal has become Latin America’s largest food distribution network, according to the Venezuelan government.26 In 2008, the government launched PDVAL, a sister effort to Mercal, in an aggressive attempt to protect its population against the effects of the world food crisis as well as internal food hoarding and price speculation. PDVAL sells staple foods at regulated prices set by the government (i.e., prices that are neither subsidized as in the case of Mercal nor inflated as in the case of some private distributors)…
Just a question to an “intelligent” person from someone who comes up with “stupid” answers: Have you ever known anyone, or known of anyone, who would actually rather go hungry than get a job?
And of what value is the “potential” you speak of when the possibility to realize it does not exist?
Looking forward to an “intelligent answer” …
No, Alaska does it too. Except the payout is annual, not monthly.
In effect, so does Alberta.
Doesn’t Texas also enjoy low state taxes because of oil revenue?
Half right.
Hitler loved *national *socialism. What the Russians called “socialism” (communism) or what we call “Socialism” (Social programs in a free country) weren’t what Hitler wanted. Nazism called for the subordination of everything to the needs of the state, which was indistiguishable from the Nazi Party itself. And the ultimate purpose of the state was war.
Whatever furthered the dominance of the German people over other people was to be used, be they massive collective efforts or private industry.
Much closer to the truth, the emotional core of facism/Nazism is the unification of classes in conflict, to negate class struggle by unifying the working classes and the ruling/business classes into a single, harmonious organism.
Makes sense, in a ghastly sort of way. Before WWI The Prequel, socialists were convinced that working class solidarity would transcend national feeling, that French workers would not make war on German workers, and vice versa. Alas.
So what Mussolini was attempting was a hyper-nationalist unity that effectively left everybody in place but offered nationalist solidarity as a replacement for effective power. Needless to say, the comfortable and well-heeled quickly saw the wisdom of this approach to resolving the problems of class struggle.
So, Nazism might be considered conservative in that it left money and power in precisely the same hands. Once the Stasserite socialist elements were, ah, voted down with extreme prejudice, the industrialists and business interests that supported Hitler had no further issues to concern them. Except, of course, for the reasonable qualms about supporting a lunatic.
I knew that this forum would be the place to find blind ideologues willing to overlook obvious free speech abuses if they are by somebody they agree with politically and I certainly wasn’t disappointed.
Oh no, “it continues to act like an opposition party!” They “aren’t an objective broadcaster!” That can’t be allowed in a democratic society, right tagos and Dick Dastardly? The Organization of American States, the United Nations, the Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Reporters without Borders, and the Committee to Protect Journalists all need to listen to tagos, BrainGlutton, and Dick Dastardly, since they obviously had no idea what they were talking about when they said Venezuela is using the judicial system to limit free speech and it targets government critics. How dare these conservatives Hillary Clinton, NY Times, and Washington Post bring up Chavez’s abuses?
You are absolutely wrong about Globovision. Chavez’s pretext for attempting to shut them down is their coverage of an earthquake. If Globovision or RCTV did anything illegal in their coverage of the 2002 coup attempt, where are the convictions by the courts? BrainGlutton, you need to inform yourself about why the owner of Globovision is still free before you embarrass yourself further. It’s because he fled the country and is in hiding.
You are in complete denial about Chavez. He is simply a dictator. I noticed that you conveniently skipped over all other free speech violations I mentioned. Why don’t you respond? There are many, many more.
For example, “After releasing a highly critical report about Chávez two years ago, José Miguel Vivanco, the Americas director for Human Rights Watch, and a fellow investigator for the group were detained at their Caracas hotel and escorted by armed agents onto a Brazil-bound flight” (OAS) or “religious groups, like others that criticized the Government, were subject to harassment and intimidation during the reporting period” (U.S Dept of State) or “First up in court was the election-monitoring group Sumate, which has meticulously documented Chavez’s manipulation of the electoral system. The caudillo ordered up the trial of its top leaders on treason charges during his weekly television show two years ago” (Washington Post) or "…a popular young opposition mayor in Caracas and the leader of the only political party to nominate a candidate against Chavez. Like Sumate’s leaders, Capriles was first charged in 2004; like them he has seen the case against him discredited and thrown out by appeals courts, only to reappear as Chavez tightened his control over the judiciary. His trial is now due to begin by early May. " (Washington Post) “He has since turned into a standard-issue autocrat — hoarding power, stifling dissent, spending the nation’s oil wealth on political support.” (NY Times)
Venezuelans rejected Chavez’s bid to eliminate term limits. How did he react? "He and his supporters are increasingly resorting to intimidation. Mobs have occupied the municipal government headquarters in Caracas, which is run by the opposition, and lobbed tear gas canisters at the home of a TV executive who has been critical of the government and others. The leader of one hard-core group is threatening “war” if Mr. Chávez loses, according to news reports. " (NY Times) Guess what, it passed the next time, he is still the president!
You are supporting a dictator. You are his pawns. Wake up.
It’s been positively years now hasn’t it since the CIA last tried to overthrow this particular democracy?
It’s got to be a while else the trustworthy New York Times wouldn’t be carrying these insightful reports again, and we all know how reliable the New York Times is when it comes to ‘regime change’ promoted by the US government:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html
I’m happy to announce that the answer to this is simple:
All we have is an anecdote, we don’t actually know anything about this warehouse; where it is, how big it is, who works there. We know nothing about the conditions that caused the food to rot; was it lack of trucks, lack of a/c, too much moisture, improper packaging. Perhaps the CIA was involved, perhaps the food was rotten to begin with and someone tried to screw over the government. Without all of the facts we can’t possibly make a conclusion as dramatic as to suggest a country is falling apart. This article is almost a month old, and the country appears to still be there.
So in the end, all we have to do is reject the premise.
Done and done.
If it means that I can still eat tommorow? Heck yeah! You always run out of any finite stock of goods. But where you can get a job for the price of going hungry today, you can then feast tomorow and every day thereafter. Only a complete idiot wouldn’t make that choice - or an animal.