|
Paul MaudDib posted:Because it was conducted an adjunct to political violence, an attempt which failed. After you fail at forcing a democratically elected leader out at gunpoint you don't get a free pass to try and throttle the country in another fashion instead. I would hope that in both cases that you punish the people responsible (directly and, perhaps, indirectly) for the violent act, rather than everyone who happens to support the collective action. Just because anyone participating in the strike would be completely fired in practice in our corporatist state does not mean that doing such firings are ethically correct.
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:05 |
|
|
R. Mute posted:Forgive us for being a bit wary about the testimony of expats. They - by default - paint a very one-sided and coloured picture. Just look at the Cuban expats. Oh, ok then, keep discussing things you don't know about firsthand and read on wikipedia, I'm sure you all know more about living in Venezuela that a guy that lived there for 25 years and still has most of his friends and his only family over there! Ardennes posted:I heard the elections were free and legitimate, so no you don't get to cherry pick democracy. This is true, it's a loving shame that the majority of my country falls for his antics, but well, that's how it goes. Besides a few hiccups from Chavist here and there these elections where legit and generally peaceful and that's something that we sadly have to respect. I'm not going to keep discussing this since obviously whatever I say will be "refuted" with wikipedia articles (even if I actually lived trough everything I speak of), so I'll stick clear of d&d, but I leave you with this: Is it reasonable and democratic to have one guy governing and leading a country for 12 years? He isn't "the president of Venezuela" anymore, Venezuela is His country. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:I would hope that in both cases that you punish the people responsible (directly and, perhaps, indirectly) for the violent act, rather than everyone who happens to support the collective action. Just because anyone participating in the strike would be completely fired in practice in our corporatist state does not mean that doing such firings are ethically correct. So Chavez needs to show mercy to the supporters of people who literally tried to murder and/or exile him from his position? And yet it's me who gets accused of being a pie-in-the-sky dreamer  The reality is that less developed countries play loving hardball. Chavez risked catching a bullet between his eyes, and he would have been the farthest thing from the first leftist President to have that happen to him. Why don't you ask the Chileans how letting the elite of a country organize a pro-business coup against you worked out? Or Nicaragua? Brazil? You're the very stereotype of a leftist pussy, it's not nice to fire striking workers but it's not nice to attempt to topple a democratically elected government either, and one has a lot worse possible outcomes. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Oct 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
What if we actually discuss this instead of being all butthurt because of not being respected as the absolute authority on the subject? I'm really interested on discussion about both sides of this subject not on a pissing contest over who is more qualified to have an opinion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 18:05
|
|
|
Hugoon Chavez posted:Is it reasonable and democratic to have one guy governing and leading a country for 12 years? He isn't "the president of Venezuela" anymore, Venezuela is His country. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's four terms were both democratic and as reasonable as American presidencies get, and by the end America was not "His country".
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
Hugoon Chavez posted:I'm not going to keep discussing this since obviously whatever I say will be "refuted" with wikipedia articles (even if I actually lived trough everything I speak of), so I'll stick clear of d&d, but I leave you with this: Is it reasonable and democratic to have one guy governing and leading a country for 12 years? He isn't "the president of Venezuela" anymore, Venezuela is His country. Well FDR ruled for 12 years, and had been elected for 16, and many say he was one of America's best presidents. Ultimately, a lack of term limits is democratic, maybe more democratic than term limits even in this case. People should have a right to vote for their leaders even if the guy has been around a long time, and they don't like the alternative. I am not going to say Chavez hasn't been heavy handed to the point of being abusive, but his opponents aren't angels either and I think the reason so many people support Chavez is because there isn't an option. Ultimately, the reason Chavez won wasn't because of his state tv shows but because even after everything happen the alternative is pretty terrifying especially if you're poor. Hopefully, there is a silver lining in all of this and that Chavez follows through in his promise to address crime and that the closeness of the election keeps him honest. The fact that the opposition still controls a ton of mayor ships/governorship undermines the notion it is "his country" or that it is a dictatorship. In Russia, that type of power sharing wouldn't be the case at all. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Oct 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:So Chavez needs to show mercy to the supporters of people who literally tried to murder and/or exile him from his position? And yet it's me who gets accused of being a pie-in-the-sky dreamer Agreement with the ends does not imply agreement with the means. You're painting a broad brush, suggesting that every one of those 14,000 fired employees approved of the coup (or even the assassination of Chavez) as a means to the end of removing Chavez from power and, as a result of such approval, each of those employees deserved to be fired. Keep in mind that, at least in part, a goal of the protests was to see a binding recall referendum (hence why they ignored the non-binding referendum proposed by the CNE). But yes, you're right in so far as realpolitik is concerned. On the ground, Chavez is going to have to fire them. That doesn't excuse him ethically from doing so, and I still think that the firings were quite possibly excessive when simply mass-firing the upper management would probably have sufficed for the purpose of sending a clear message. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Oct 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
Hugoon Chavez posted:Oh, ok then, keep discussing things you don't know about firsthand and read on wikipedia, I'm sure you all know more about living in Venezuela that a guy that lived there for 25 years and still has most of his friends and his only family over there! Now, talk of medicine shortages, that kind of stuff, those are worth discussing, as (probable) outcomes of capital controls. quote:Is it reasonable and democratic to have one guy governing and leading a country for 12 years? He isn't "the president of Venezuela" anymore, Venezuela is His country. Is it in your constitution? If not you should change that if you don't like it. There are many aspects of our democracy I find distasteful, such as a President having been elected by the fiat of the Supreme Court once and in a popular-vote-loss a second time. We decided a long time ago that 8 years was enough for a President, but up to that point our Constitution allowed up to 16 years. Them's the rules, if you don't like it then change it, but it doesn't make him a dictator. As for "his country" again I could find plenty of Republicans here who think Obama's fundamentally changed this country too, turned it into a welfare state, etc, but that doesn't make it true.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 18:13
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Is it in your constitution? If not you should change that if you don't like it. There are many aspects of our democracy I find distasteful, such as a President having been elected by the fiat of the Supreme Court once and in a popular-vote-loss a second time. We decided a long time ago that 8 years was enough for a President, but up to that point our Constitution allowed up to 16 years. Them's the rules, if you don't like it then change it, but it doesn't make him a dictator. Chavez tried to change the constitution in 2007 to remove term limits (otherwise he would have been out this election) and increase the length of the presidential term of office from six years to seven. To be fair though, the amendments were at least subject to a referendum which narrowly failed. (The changes also contained good things, however, such as banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and prohibiting foreign funding for political associations) He then pushed through the removal of term limits again as a separate standalone referendum in 2009, which passed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:If you were a Republican expat over in Switzerland or something, you would be singing the exact same tale about how Obama's held in office by his army of welfare-dependent lower-class brownshirts. There's the same problem with Cuban expats. Expats are very biased by definition, you have a reason that motivated your family sufficiently to leave the country. I don't get this. If someone leaves a country that has been bad to them their opinion is tainted and not to be trusted? A lot of people seem to put faith in stories of those escaping the Syrian violence for instance. Just seems like a cheap way to discredit someone without actually looking at the argument they are making.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
Chavez is the lesser of two evils and therefore deserves to be elected president.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 18:19
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Agreement with the ends does not imply agreement with the means. You're painting a broad brush, suggesting that every one of those 14,000 fired employees approved of the coup (or even the assassination of Chavez) as a means to the end of removing Chavez from power and, as a result of such approval, each of those employees deserved to be fired. Keep in mind that, at least in part, a goal of the protests was to see a binding recall referendum (hence why they ignored the non-binding referendum proposed by the CNE). At that point if you're a leftist wanting better wages/working conditions you are going to have to keep your head down for a bit or it is 100% inevitable that you will be seen as supporting the coup. If you dislike that, then split and form your own non-patsy union (which is exactly what happened with the UNT in 2003). As Hugoon Chavez has noted, I wasn't there. But it sounds like it was specifically targeted at executives and management who supported the lockout and sabotage, reaching as far as mid-level people like ship captains who grounded their ships across shipping channels and such to drag all commerce to a halt. It sounds like sections with high concentrations of strikers were purged regardless, which isn't really fair but is a rational decision when you have people messing with safety sensors and rigging process-control systems to cause refineries to explode and ongoing remote infiltration for cyber-attacks. In that situation you would probably see the necessity of purging everyone in certain areas.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:I don't get this. If someone leaves a country that has been bad to them their opinion is tainted and not to be trusted? A lot of people seem to put faith in stories of those escaping the Syrian violence for instance. Just seems like a cheap way to discredit someone without actually looking at the argument they are making. It certainly means you need to take their story with a grain of salt. If there's videos of Chavez's thugs mowing down a square full of peaceful protesters and shelling residential areas, sure, feel free to put some faith in expat accounts. But this bullshit "oh he made it HIS VENEZUELA" and "army of welfare-dependent Chavez voters" smells like classic Fox News bullshit and it's not, so far as I know, backed up by evidence. e: But you are by definition taking a biased sample, people who are satisfied with a country almost never expatriate, therefore, expatriates are almost certain to have some major beef that inspired them to leave. Thus, taking them as a microcosm of Venezuelan life is stupid, it's assuming your conclusion. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Oct 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
a bad enough dude posted:Franklin Delano Roosevelt's four terms were both democratic and as reasonable as American presidencies get, and by the end America was not "His country". At the same time though people realized that was setting a precedent bad enough that the constitution was changed pretty soon after to not allow that to happen again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
Agro ver Haus doom posted:Chavez is the lesser of two evils and therefore deserves to be elected president. That said, I don't see a problem with voting third party he he.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:At the same time though people realized that was setting a precedent bad enough that the constitution was changed pretty soon after to not allow that to happen again. Which doesn't make Chavez a dictator, if the referendum was fairly passed. There is so much ridiculous bullshit still enshrined in our Constitution, starting with the electoral college and the Senate. A minority of senators being able to have as much effective veto power as the President is loving bullshit but that's how the game is played and there's a high likelihood that it will at some point be changed. I don't particularly like Chavez, but it sounds like all of you are really crying about a leftist president playing the game effectively for once. The right wing wouldn't hesitate to write a sanctity-of-marriage amendment or destroy the filibuster if it helped them politically. If the US nationalized banks and CEOs tried to assassinate the President and then shut the financial system down and set up boobytraps for a Fight Club-style data erasure, or cut off the power grid and rigged all the power plants to blow up or melt down you all would probably be clamoring to send in the National Guard instead of just firing the strikers.  Those poor workers cooperating with the lock-out out of solidarity with a failed pro-business coup
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 18:44
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:If the US nationalized banks and CEOs tried to assassinate the President and then shut the financial system down and set up boobytraps for a Fight Club-style data erasure, or cut off the power grid and rigged all the power plants to blow up or melt down you all would probably be clamoring to send in the National Guard instead of just firing the strikers. I suppose there is a power imbalance which could be used to justify retaliation against (upper) management strikes (as opposed to worker strikes; middle and lower management strikes are in a bit of a grey area), but I am kind of confused where you brought this crazy "aha! these strikers are going to set booby-traps to kill innocents" idea from other than out of your own imagination. Also, I'm still a bit skeptical that the 14,000 fired were exclusively management types, but even you've admitted that that's not necessarily likely (even if you still think their firing was justified simply because they are participating in a management-led strike, which I disagree with). ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Oct 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:I suppose there is a power imbalance which could be used to justify retaliation against management strikes (as opposed to worker strikes), but I am kind of confused where you brought this crazy "aha! these strikers are going to set booby-traps to kill innocents" idea from other than out of your own imagination. Also, I'm still a bit skeptical that the 14,000 fired were exclusively management types, but even you've admitted that that's not necessarily likely (even if you still think their firing was justified simply because they are participating in a management-led strike, which I disagree with). quote:Attempts to use the navy to take over the key Pilín León tanker were initially thwarted by a lack of a qualified crew. On 19 December a team of retired seamen took command, and worked for two days to restart the ship, eventually successfully returning it to port. The departing crew "had sabotaged the ship, leaving behind hard-to-notice traps in the computer system and elsewhere that could set off an explosion."[18] Gradually, the government restarted oil production by promoting lower-level employees, typically loyal to Chávez or at least opposed to using the company as a political weapon. The company was also split into eastern and western parts, with the eastern Caracas headquarters, where striking executives and managers were concentrated, being heavily reduced.[19] Efforts to restart production were hampered by sabotage, which included changing electronic safety limits and the use of remote computers to interfere with reactivation attempts There you have it, explicit attempts to set off explosions, disable safety monitors that might preempt an explosion, and cyberattacks to try and set more traps and reassert control. An explosion at an oil refinery or rig virtually assures hundreds of millions or billions in damages and you risk something like the Deepwater Horizon accident. It is a serious, serious thing and damned straight we or anyone else would take serious action if there was a massive conspiracy to do it. So as for the PDVSA firings: quote:PDVSA, had a payroll of 39,354 employees on November 30, 2002. Of this total, 1,230 (3%) belonged to the executive payroll, 18,245 (47%) to higher payroll, 12,670 (32%) to lower payroll and 7209 (18%) to your daily list. Following the general strike of December 2002 were laid off 18,756 employees, 67% of the executive payroll (including 100 automatic retirement), 67% higher payroll, payroll 29% smaller and 27% of the daily payroll. OK so the working-class segments both lost approximately 30% of their payroll, that's your massive purge of the working class there. Sounds to me like they were mostly targeting strikers, but hey, draw your own conclusion. And yes, if you are cooperating with a lockout it is a reasonable assumption you are doing so in solidarity. If you don't show up to work during a strike it is a fair assumption you're in solidarity with that too. Why don't you not show up to work during a strike and see whether or not management believes you weren't involved with it? Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Oct 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:There you have it, explicit attempts to set off explosions, disable safety monitors that might preempt an explosion, and cyberattacks to try and set more traps and reassert control. An explosion at an oil refinery or rig virtually assures hundreds of millions or billions in damages and you risk something like the Deepwater Horizon accident. It is a serious, serious thing and damned straight we or anyone else would take serious action if there was a massive conspiracy to do it. Thanks for highlighting that. Paul MaudDib posted:So as for the PDVSA firings: Layoffs of 30% of working-class employees sounds like pretty severe retaliation to me, even if that was exclusively those that took part in the action (plausible). I simply don't believe that punishing people for agreeing with the protests (protesting in solidarity) even if it is not helping their class is a positive thing. It would be like firing janitors of a company who voted for Republicans and supported the actions of executives to "go Galt". ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Oct 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
It should also be noted that funding patsy unions is standard practice for US coup attempts in Latin America. I don't know enough to say it's definitely the case here, but it's certainly a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 19:05
|
|
|
As a venezuelan living in Caracas, yesterday was one of the longest days of my life and I cried when I heard the results. So I'm sorry if this post isn't well written, I'm still emotional about everything. I've been low middle class all my life and I cannot deny that Chavez has done a great deal of good for the least privileged through his "Misiones", but these are just pittances compared to the wealth he has squandered through his bloated political machinery. His violent and erratic discourse has only helped to fragment the country into those who support him and those who don't. Not only is he absolutely unprepared to lead a country, but he has appointed only his most loyal cronies to the highest offices, a veritable circlejerk of thugs whose only achievement is to lash against capitalism and any opposition to their party. Just as examples of his discourse, Chavez continuously said that there would a civil war if he lost and the leaders of the paramilitary army he has amassed threatened the opposition with violence if the results weren't favorable to them and nobody batted an eye, because it's just how we're used to live. He also directly insulted Capriles time after time as well as every member of the opposition party, he sank to the point of calling the guy a nazi when his family are holocaust survivors. Must Love Dogs posted:The opposition also had the entirety of the private media lined up behind them with a torrent of cash from the EU and the US government backstopping them, so... The government media branch of the government dwarves the remaining private channels. It is highly likely that Chavez will also seek to take Globovision off the air to complete his propaganda machine and there's nothing anybody can do about it because the entire judiciary system is rigged. ComradeCosmobot posted:VVV That's basically my thoughts on the subject. I don't think Chavez is a good president by any means, but at least some of his populist socialism is done with good intentions (and good outcomes). But just because he is socialist and has done good for the Venezuelan poor does not excuse his construction of a para-military political machine (any more than corporations are to be excused from tipping the scales in our own democracy just because they happen to make sure that Americans get most products at the cheapest possible price). This is it basically, I personally hate Chavez. But he isn't the devil, he's just a man who is more concerned with his socialist project than actually keeping his country afloat. However I do blame the rise of violent crime with the continuous growth of his paramilitary troops, these are basically free to do whatever they want except when they're summoned and are probably responsible for the huge increase in "express" kidnappings all around the country. Finally, to anyone who is talking about the sharp decrease in poverty, you need to take a walk around any city here. The only people who aren't still living in the same slums they were when he came to power are the incredibly few he's given free homes to (with his "Mision Vivienda", which of course was sped up considerably during these last months but the people don't actually get the deeds). Minimum wage keeps rising, but inflation does as well and still the only people who don't constantly live in a state of fear are the ones who can afford bodyguards or the murderers themselves. Labradoodle fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Oct 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 19:05
|
|
|
I thought most of Chavez' poverty projects were aimed at the countryside, though?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
^^^ I thought so too. A lot of Chavez's support is in the countryside for this very reason (I thought?)Labradoodle posted:Minimum wage keeps rising, but inflation does as well and still the only people who don't constantly live in a state of fear are the ones who can afford bodyguards or the murderers themselves. This is a good point that hasn't been brought up yet (about Chavez's Venezuela having inflation). Now, that said, this falls, like crime, under a "Well, the 90s had it pretty bad, too" category, but inflation is going to hurt everyone (and not just lenders) if it's at 30% (or more) like it has been. On the other hand, it's pretty clearly a side-effect of Chavez's policies, so it's sort of hard to disavow the inflation or claim that Chavez could do much about it while also supporting capital controls the way he has. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Oct 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:I'm not trying to defend Chavez, I'm just trying to figure out why people keep saying these things. Yes, violent crime has increased in Venezuela over the past decades. What policies did Chavez pursue that led to this? Where does the opposition differ on the issues? I think arming and/or supporting a bunch of pro-Chavez groups while giving them impunity can lead to higher crime. The country makes no effort to stop violent crime when it comes to government supporters. They've even turned over large swaths of the country to them to do as they please. If people want to credit him for lowering the poverty rate and other social changes, I completely understand. Those can be lauded as positive changes. But I think whitewashing all the bad things that have taken place to accomplish that is wrong. Defending his stance on speech, press, and other civil liberties is abhorrent. Paul MaudDib posted:e: But you are by definition taking a biased sample, people who are satisfied with a country almost never expatriate, therefore, expatriates are almost certain to have some major beef that inspired them to leave. Thus, taking them as a microcosm of Venezuelan life is stupid, it's assuming your conclusion. Of course people who left a country have beefs with it. I don't know why that would make them any less relevant. And for those in it with issues, they don't exactly have as safe a platform to state their grievances as those who have left.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 19:15
|
|
|
I've got some questions for you, but first thanks a lot for posting this- it's so hard for us to get a clear picture of what Venezuela is like just from reading news reports, and your political culture is clearly much different from that of North America/Europe. So many people in this thread are trying to project the American political scene onto Venezuela's, by comparing Chavez to Obama or his media to Fox News, which is such an unproductive exercise- your insight, and Hugoon's, are really helpful. I'm getting the impression that Chavez has a really dominant position in the Venezuelan media environment. How did Capriles deal with this? Did he have his own media outlets? Did he rely mostly on word-of-mouth? Does Chavez's dominance of official media outlets give him control over the political discourse, too? A lively social debate is an incredibly crucial part of democracy, so I guess I'm wondering just how lively Venezuala's is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
Correct, they're the ones who are most in need, but the "Misiones" benefit people living here in Caracas as well, he needs to keep up appearances in the capital after all. I've traveled over a good stretch of the country and apart from the few major cities, these people were basically completely ignored before he came to power. We believed we had a hope to win the elections because although Capriles has a privileged background, he understood the need to reach out to these people and he ran a superhuman campaign, visiting over 300 towns and having direct contact with the electorate. But although he had an upwards tendency, he simply didn't have enough time to cement himself and he completely avoided all confrontation with the government by presenting himself as the candidate of unity, adressing directly the problems of the people instead of fighting a war against capitalism and the government dodged every request for debates to prevent people from seeing them side by side. At one point during the campaign Chavez even said that it shouldn't matter to people if they don't have access to electricity or running water (still a huge problem in the countryside, just consider that and remember Venezuela is a stupidly oil rich country), that the roads are crumbling, that they couldn't find a job, that they don't have a place to live and although those things could be true and he took responsibility for them, the only thing that truly matters is his "revolution". That was the first time in 14 years he took the blame for something, at this point he still continues to ignore the issue of violence and people believe him. That's the guy people admire because he "stands up to America" (though we still sell most of our oil to them and PDVSA, our oil company is state owned) and to the evils of capitalism (while he and his inner circle live as kings). If my opinion seems biased, forgive me. But I've known too many people who have had no option but to leave, or have suffered because they've stayed behind and I have my doubts that this guy has the capability of turning around and being a more effective president when during these past 14 years he has amassed more power (democratically) than any other president, during a while he even had the ability to pass legislation personally as well as access to near infinite funds but he still has proved incapable either of reining in his inept cabinet or attacking any other problems besides inequality head on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
Time for the WSJ's balanced take:Democracy, Chavez Style posted:Thanks to Hugo Chávez, the legacy of Chile's Augusto Pinochet as the only Latin American military dictator in modern times to voluntarily give up power through the ballot box is preserved this morning. Pinochet looks like more of a hero than ever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
Thanks Labraddodle, your posts have been great and actually go into actual detail as opposed to the cries of "EVIL COMMUNIST DICTATOR ELECTION FRAUD" coming from elsewhere. I really appreciate it as I'm trying to understand the issues better.David Copperfield posted:Time for the WSJ's balanced take: Wow
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
David Copperfield posted:Time for the WSJ's balanced take: I agree with Newt Gingrich and Hermann Cain, nothing like the Chilean model for dealing with a leftist president
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
Labradoodle posted:At one point during the campaign Chavez even said that it shouldn't matter to people if they don't have access to electricity or running water (still a huge problem in the countryside, just consider that and remember Venezuela is a stupidly oil rich country), If only there were some way to capture a larger fraction of that oil revenue back from foreign oil companies...
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:I've got some questions for you, but first thanks a lot for posting this- it's so hard for us to get a clear picture of what Venezuela is like just from reading news reports, and your political culture is clearly much different from that of North America/Europe. So many people in this thread are trying to project the American political scene onto Venezuela's, by comparing Chavez to Obama or his media to Fox News, which is such an unproductive exercise- your insight, and Hugoon's, are really helpful. Sorry, I just finished posting before I saw your message so I'll try to answer now. The government basically owns the majority of the news outlets, there are still a good deal of privately owned newspapers, as well as the major "opposition" channel, Globovision. This situation essentially creates two different versions of every political event. For example, last sunday Capriles held his final rally in Caracas a few blocks from my house and the turnout was unbelievable, so Chavez decided to replicate this by summoning supporters from all over the country -some even forced and many paid- and ferrying them here in an interminable parade of paid buses to bloat his rally. Privately owned media of course highlighted this and made the mistake of underestimating his base of supporters, while government outlets did exactly the same, during Capriles rally, filming the fringes of the congregation and reporting that he "barely managed to congregate a small crowd". Well, I saw both and they were both gigantic, though Chavez's was greater, but Capriles only had people from the capital coming and a very small numbers of people from the countryside made the trip, while Chavez basically paralized the capital for a day due to the buses and during his rally there were a couple of murders, some stores were sacked, banks robbed and bikes and patrol cars were stolen OFF A POLICE STATION. Government outlets of course failed to report any of this as well as the "rumours" of people getting paid to attend. Chavez does have the upper hand in the dircourse that people have access to, he couldn't stop newspapers or Globovision from covering Capriles' campaing, but he did his best at every turn to belittle them. A huge component for us was also social media, of which Capriles' team made excellent use, as well as word of mouth for the countryside rallies. As for debate, it's inexistent in Venezuela's landscape. Capriles requested a direct debate several times but Chavez absolutely ignored him, which was to be expected, because he is incapable of answering questions directly, just watch any of his speeches or press conferences if you doubt me. Once Chavez realized that Capriles had a concise government plan, his outlets started floating around the idea that the guy had a hidden "neoliberal" agenda which would crush the "Misiones" and sell of the country to big corporations, which people ate up since it fit with his narrative of being a man of the people and standing up to the man. Esentially, Capriles tried to run a first world campaign in a third world country, where elections are basically a reality TV show. These are the third elections I've been able to vote in since I came of age and the opposition has won all of them, in 2007 I wasn't 18 yet, but we won the referendum by a minimal margin and Chavez inmediately dismissed that as a "victoria de mierda" in national TV (lovely victory and he still got what he wanted by appealing to the Asamblea Nacional two years later, almost all of them "chavistas"). The first time I voted was in 2008 in the regional elections, where we managed to win some regions and cities (Capriles served then as governor in the state of Miranda and his budget cut was of half) and Chavez responded by slashing their budgets, the second were the parlamentary elections in 2009 where we obtained the majority of votes but he modified the legislation to still retain a majority of the seats. So yes, there is a democracy in Venezuela, but the fight is blatantly uneven.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
Labradoodle posted:If my opinion seems biased, forgive me. But I've known too many people who have had no option but to leave, or have suffered because they've stayed behind and I have my doubts that this guy has the capability of turning around and being a more effective president when during these past 14 years he has amassed more power (democratically) than any other president, during a while he even had the ability to pass legislation personally as well as access to near infinite funds but he still has proved incapable either of reining in his inept cabinet or attacking any other problems besides inequality head on. No, I appreciate the opinions of you guys from Venezuela, believe it or not. It helps if you make evidence-based/falsifiable claims. I can investigate "Chavez calls opponent neonazi", or "Chavez commands fanatic legions to take ears of Caprilas supporters as trophies" or investigate the specific circumstances surrounding a general strike. Claims like "he's turning it into HIS COUNTRY" or that he has "an army of supporters who he pays welfare" are very suspicious to me by default because I see how much bullshit our own elite-controlled media throws at anyone our business community hasn't handpicked. I've spent the past 3 years hearing how a center-right president has fundamentally "rewritten the government-citizen relationship" and how he has "47% of the country who will vote for him because they're dependent on welfare", and how he's done everything from apologized for America to chatted with terrorists. So, please take my opinions in their proper context as well 
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Oct 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 20:05
|
|
|
Granted, I don't know if he was wrong in warning of a potential neo-liberal counter-revolution if he was voted out. Capriles seem to be a "one nation" center-right guy, but many of his allies/allied parties are even more conservative. If I was a betting man, I would have to say that there probably would have been mass privitization and a cut in social spending if the right won just based on much of their rhetoric. I mean we can go back and worth about methods, and I don't disagree with that criticism of Chavez but there is a much more important economic rational here. I think many people voted for Chavez because they are more afraid of the economic policies of the right than the corruption and bullying of Chavez. If thats the case, I don't see that they have much of a choice beyond electing Chavez until someone better comes along.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:I think arming and/or supporting a bunch of pro-Chavez groups while giving them impunity can lead to higher crime. The country makes no effort to stop violent crime when it comes to government supporters. They've even turned over large swaths of the country to them to do as they please. You have to be chugging the kool aid pretty loving hard if you think pro-chavez groups account for a doubling of the murder rate over the course of a decade. You know as opposed to a higher standard of living fueled by oil money leading to larger markets for recreational drugs in Caracas and other major cities and increased militarization in neighbouring Colombia pushing the cocaine trade into Andean and Amazonian Venezuela. All of which leads to competing home grown and international organized crime cartels fighting over territory with the historically corrupt police either looking the other way or pulling the triggers themselves. But no it's probably all those university students and campesinos all murdering upstanding opposition members by the thousands that no one hears about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 20:17
|
|
|
Hugoon Chavez posted:Oh, ok then, keep discussing things you don't know about firsthand and read on wikipedia, I'm sure you all know more about living in Venezuela that a guy that lived there for 25 years and still has most of his friends and his only family over there! However, do not take this to mean i don't respect you or your opinion. From what i've been reading Venezuela isn't paradise and Hugo Chavez is more populist than revolutionary. However i don't honestly see how a right wing government would improve things. The middle class would prosper a bit more but it would be at the massive expense of the lower class, who would also increase in size. I'd prefer if a proper, left wing socialist alternative to Chavez would occur (and that alternative not being Chavez v.2) and i have no ilusions about the reality of Venezuela or Chavez. I just see Brazil in the 80's and 90's and how Lula and Dilma, as moderate and still brutal to the poors as they are, have done some actual decent progress to improve the country and how any right wing alternative would simply poo poo on the poors. The problem is that with Chavez in place a left alternative would never happen and if a right winger won it you can be sure as hell the privatizations and foreign support would make sure the left would never have another shot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, I don't know if he was wrong in warning of a potential neo-liberal counter-revolution if he was voted out. It seems like the Venezuelan election was an actual choice of "lesser of two evils" where the evils were actually substantively different! Instead of the choice of two stodgy center-rightist corporate lackeys where one hates gays and women, you actually have a couple of unique poisons to choose from.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 20:33
|
|
|
You have a president who views Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Belarus as model nations and an opposition candidate who views Chile, Cosa Rica, and Brazil as models.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, I don't know if he was wrong in warning of a potential neo-liberal counter-revolution if he was voted out. First off I'd like to say I'm not by any stretch of the imagination an expert in economics. The major fear was exactly a cut in social spending, but that is unfounded, the primary source of social aid for venezuelans, the "Misiones" have come to Venezuela to stay. During his stay in the Chamber of Deputies as President and as Vicepresident of the Parlament, Capriles sought to legitimize the "Misiones" through law to secure and dissasociate them from any passing government, they shelved these proposals with the excuse that the "Misiones" are already backed by the constitution. I'd venture to say that if Capriles understood their importance then, he would turn around and try to dismantle them when he came to power, which would only have served to deplete his political capital, cause massive civil unrest and lose the voters he won from the PSUV (Chavez's party). As for privatization, I can't say for certain. But his election would've served to reduce fear of international investment in Venezuela, which has fallen to an all time low due to fear of expropiation with no legal recourse and lack of access to dollars from within the country for the purchase of necessities, which has sunk a lot of businesses or made them turn to the black market. Fear is a major motivator for many of the votes here, the government employs at least 10% of the population and a much higher percentage receive some form of government aid. For the people employed by the government, there is some measure of fear of losing their jobs, after the 2007 referendum the CNE (which presides over the elections) turned over the list of people who signed for it to take place over to the government, this is known as the "Tascón" list and some branches did fire people who signed or checked potential employees against them, however I don't believe this was as widespread as people say. However I don't believe votes for Chavez were mostly fear-based or bought, a very common sentiment here is disdain for blatant government corruption and ineptitude, but that doesn't extend as far as him. People vote for Chavez and what they believe he does for them, not for his government. Authorman posted:You have to be chugging the kool aid pretty loving hard if you think pro-chavez groups account for a doubling of the murder rate over the course of a decade. I'll concede that the militias aren't the deciding factor in the explosion of violent crime here. However they number over 100.000 and who governs them in truth a point of discussion, the fact is that they're government funded and armed and know that impunity reigns in Venezuela and as such they can contribute their share to terrorizing normal people. Drug traficking is indeed the heart of the problem and a lot of people seem to be pointing to members of the government in high positions being involved in colusion with the military. Sucks to be us geographically. However I don't equate these people with the majority of Chavez supporters, that is a mistake most of the opposition makes. But both sides are at fault here, most of Chavez supporters drink the kool aid as well and equate us with Pro-American, CIA infiltrates, rich bankers, when the truth is we simply want an alternative. Violence has been the major point of disputes during years and only one of the candidates had a concise plan to fight it, Chavez has launched at this point in time 20 different erratic projects to try to combat the problem. But his policies are erratic and yes, the cops themselves aren't any help at all. Most people I know are equally as afraid of them as of robbers or kidnappers, me included. I'm hoping after the backlass of these elections he finally decides to appoint someone capable of tackling the problem instead of continuing his track record of rotating monkeys from ministery to ministery. Also this, a thousand times: PrezCamachoo posted:You have a president who views Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Belarus as model nations and an opposition candidate who views Chile, Cosa Rica, and Brazil as models. Labradoodle fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Oct 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 20:43
|
|
|
I think you mean a president who has been actively opposed at every level by the United States and so has turned to other nations who aren't complete puppets of American hegemony to cooperate with. I assure you Chavez does not view the Islamist theocracy of Iran as a "model nation," regardless of what he says on the tarmac of Tehran international, just like the US does not view Saudi Arabia as a model nation despite Bush and Saud holding hands. It is simply geopolitics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:05 |
|
|
I think it's a shame that many good ideas and intentions regarding social spending are going to be associated with bad execution from Chavez (or his unrelated antics), only contributing to the SOCIALISM=EVIL rhetoric. PrezCamachoo posted:You have a president who views Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Belarus as model nations and an opposition candidate who views Chile, Costa Rica, and Brazil as models. I don't know why Costa Rica is even compared to the progress made in Brazil and Chile. Laura Chinchilla is pretty much the worst president we've ever had and the government is a mess. Our democracy is also laughable because there is no real opposition after the demise of PUSC, Rodrigo Arias has ruled behind the scenes for 6 years now using his brother Oscar and now Laura Chinchilla as figureheads and he will most likely win in 2014 and keep selling our natural resources to the highest bidder. Again, sorry for the slight derail. Simone Poodoin fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Oct 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 20:54
|
|