chavez

as for Chavez himself - he does come across well in that film. I'd only ever read about him before, but when you actually see him in action he does have a real charisma. it was interesting in that film the way he had mobilised the common folk of Venezuela and it was their politicisation which ultimately saved him when the oligarchs staged their coup.

as to whether he is a good leader or not, that's a very subjective matter. It could well be the case that the kind of policies he pursues are actually detrimental to the interests of Venezuela in general and the people who voted for him. but you could say that about any leader in a democratic country, and it should be for the people of Venezuela to vote Chavez out in elections if they don't like him, rather than for shifty rightwingers to stage coups against him.

how long before some of ILX's token rightwingers start posting on this thread about how Chavez is an enemy of democracy by virtue of George Bush not liking him?

*tapes up mouth*

*tapes hands together*

pionawefinxl;dknvpwae

The government has never called Harry Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan or Bush I an "enemy of democracy," and each and every one of them 'cozied up' to more and worse dictators than Chavez could ever dream of.

Though I'm curious, outside of Castro, what dictators has Chavez 'cozied up' to? Even Castro, loathe as I am to say it, is objectively preferable to Batista (the US-backed dictator who Castro replaced, for those less up on THINGS THAT MAKE LEFTISTS UPSET).

So we have Castro and Qaddafi, rougly equal to our allies throughout the Middle East.

We have Saddam Hussein, who was more than "cozied up to" by members of the current Administration.

Milosevic has been out of power since 2000, Chavez was only elected in 1998. So that's a two-year period where they could have 'cozied up,' not even recently and even then I find no indication of this 'cozying up.'

And Tehran, is quite clearly preferable to our allies in the region. They have some semblance of democratic government.

You want to question Chavez's human rights record or his legitimacy, go right ahead. But any argument where criticism from the United States is justified by his "cozying up" to dictators is a joke.

It's a statement of fact, and a criticism of the argument that US criticism of and interference with Chavez is justified because he "cozied up" to dictators.

In order to make that argument and have it stick, a standard must be applied across the board. Everyone who "cozies up" to any dictator must be treated equally. No context allowed, right?

Which means that every United States President in the 20th century must be placed into the same category as Chavez. Do you see that happening? No, of course not.

And so, as a hypocritical non-standard, the 'cozying up to dictators' argument fails.

Likewise, those who fail to call the US on its sins can't make the "cozying up to dictators" argument with Chavez.

What I see you doing is defending the United States' criticism of Chavez, and (in a manner) calling him an "enemy of democracy." Have all Presidents from McKinley to Bush II been "enemies of democracy"?

i don't quite follow this ... because if you take it to its logical conclusion wr2 human/civil rights, then practically no government in the world can criticize any other for human/civil rights violations. which doesn't mean that i support active US meddling in venezuela (nor that i think that chavez is some cuddly latino scandinavian-stylee social democrat).

It all comes back to the oil (again), not only does venezuela have lots of oil, which chavez was giving th cubans and brazilians a much better deal on than the americans, but chavez reinvigorated OPEC and returned some control over the oil price to the oil producers.

As far as cozying up to dictators Cuba under Castro is a whole lot better place than Saudi Arabia under the Al Sauds, which of course, at least under the auspices of OPEC, Chavez has 'cozied up' to. (I quite like the image of Chavez and Castro in bed like Eric and Ernie).

VENEZUELA IS NOW an abyss where there is no rule of law. The government tortures innocent civilians with impunity while paying lip service to democracy and buying time at the "negotiation" table set up by the Organization of American States. Venezuela's foreign minister, Roy Chaderton, has funded an effective multi-million dollar public relations campaign to smear the opposition as coup-plotters and fascists intent on bringing about violence.

Jesus Soriano has never met Roy Chaderton or Hugo Chavez. Soriano supported President Hugo Chavez's meteoric rise, volunteered during the election campaign, and is now a second-year law student in Caracas. His law-school peers describe the 24-year-old as a cheerful and happy young man.

Soriano, a member of the Chavez party, is part of a national student group called "Ousia," a group that brings together moderates who support the government and opposition members seeking a peaceful resolution to the current crisis.

On December 6, Soriano witnessed the massacre that occurred during a peaceful protest in Altamira, a neighborhood in Caracas where the opposition has a strong presence. The killer was Joao De Gouveia, an outspoken supporter of Chavez who has an unusually close relationship with mayor Freddy Bernal, a Chavez crony. Gouveia randomly began shooting at the crowd. He killed three--including a teenage girl he shot in the head--and injured 28 people. As Gouveia kept shooting, several men raced toward him to stop the killing. Soriano was one of the men who wrestled Gouveia to the ground and prevented further killing. Soriano also protected Gouveia from a potential lynch mob that swarmed around the killer.

Soriano's heroic accomplishments did not cease that day. He became a national figure in Venezuela when he brought a small soccer ball (known in Venezuela as a "futbolito") to a sizable protest march organized against the rule of Lt. Col. Chavez. Soriano and other pro-Chavez partisans made their way towards the march intending to engage the opposition members in dialogue.

That hot afternoon, Soriano kicked the futbolito across the divide at the members of the opposition. They kicked it back. The magical realism of the event is evident in the extraordinary television footage of what occurred next. By the end of the match the anti-Chavez protestors and pro-Chavez partisans were hugging and chanting "Peace! Unity! We are Venezuela! Politicians go away! We are the real Venezuela!" In one particularly moving part of the footage, Soriano and a member of the opposing team trade a baseball hat for a Chavez-party red beret.

In one hour this sharply divided group of strangers accomplished more than the high-level negotiation team that seeks to defuse a potential civil war. Chavez was reportedly furious with the televised soccer match and even angrier that the reconciliation was a product of the efforts of one of his supporters. Soriano was declared an enemy of the revolution.

Last week Soriano organized another soccer match. On Wednesday he visited the Universidad Central de Venezuela, the main university in the capital, to attend a meeting of the student government. Violent clashes erupted as members of the Circulos Bolivarianos, an armed militia sworn to protect the revolution, began throwing rocks and tear gas grenades at the students. The militia identified Soriano and captured him. They then tied his hands and feet, lifted him up, and paraded him through the street like a sacrificial lamb chanting "Judas! Judas!" The entire spectacle was recorded by a cameraman who works for the official government television entity. Soriano was beaten so severely that he was left at the hospital emergency room. At the hospital he was detained by the DISIP, Chavez's secret police, and taken to their headquarters for questioning.

During his interrogation, fingernails in his left hand were torn out. After being further tortured and injected with drugs, the secret police took him into the bowels of the building and placed him in a cell. His cellmate: Joao de Gouveia.

Gouveia has the keys to the cell and comes in and out of the secret police headquarters at will. His only restriction is that he must sleep in the precinct, lest Chavez's police are revealed as allowing a confessed killer to roam free. Soriano's mother (who is also a Chavez supporter) tearfully claimed that Gouveia sodomized Soriano and beat him with such force that Soriano cannot open his eyes.

Soriano was released last Friday afternoon after Roy Chaderton advised Chavez that the case could filter out of Venezuela and could become a "human-interest story" with the potential to derail their PR campaign.

The government denied that Soriano had been mistreated. A thorough medical examination by a civil surgeon reveals that, beyond lacerations, severe bruising, and cracked ribs, Soriano had been repeatedly raped while in custody. His right arm shows that he has been injected. Nails are missing from his left hand. Soriano's internal organs have been crushed to the point that he urinates blood, and he cannot walk without assistance.

Once the medical report was made public, the secret police immediately began saying that Soriano was a member of a "right-wing paramilitary organization." This tactic, engineered by Chaderton, is used frequently to disqualify and discount opponents of the regime. All enemies of the "revolution" are coup plotters and fascists. The government now circulates a photo of Soriano in military fatigues. Carlos Roa, Soriano's attorney, showed me that the picture is a yearbook photo from when he was a schoolboy in military academy.

Although it was obvious that Soriano had been tortured, Iris Varela, a Chavez congressional representative, offered no apologies: "I am glad they did this to him. He deserved it." That such savage treatment is what greets government supporters who seek a peaceful resolution to the current crisis speaks volumes about Chavez's ultimate intentions. Soriano, now recuperating at home, must wonder why he ever supported the Chavez regime.

http://www.geocities.com/charleshardt2002/VenezuelaEng.html

the documentary shows that this is not an unfair thing to say,since the opposition party did plot and execute a violent coup
the tone of the sentence would imply to me that the writer is writing from a standpoint that would dispute this

I think the point he's making is that ANY opposition is smeared as being a part of a fascist plot, etc.

So in this case if there is widespread human rights abuse then this story can galvanise a mood against that, give it a figurehead/martyr. If there isn't then this story can act as a righteous bulwark against the broader picture. (I'm not taking sides either way - my knowledge of Venezuela is nowhere near in depth enough.)

(See also crime as a political issue in the UK - crime rates falling but people more scared and angry about it than ever, they simply do not believe that rates are falling because the issue has been so personalised - one beaten-up pensioner with a face and name beats 100 official figures).

ie. do respond to my criticism with something besides "But Reagan did it! Reagan did it!" yet again.

Weak strawman, and more than a little intellectually dishonest. I've already dealt with the impetus behind referring to the United States' similarities to Chavez - a response to your argument.

Your argument - as well as the US govt's - is that "Chavez is bad because he's nice to dictators." Well, OK, that's a good standard. I'll agree to it.

But, that standard has to be applied equally. If "cozying up" to dictators makes one "an enemy of democracy," and illegitimate, then you have to say that the United States government is equally an "enemy of democracy" and illegitimate.

Do you?

Indeed, as I said, there are valid criticisms of Chavez from a civil/human rights perspective, and they should be made. "Cozying up" to dictators, applied hypocritically, is invalid.

Even worse as a strawman, can someone offer a defense of his cozying up to dictators better than 'but the US does it'? does the US doing something automatically make it ok?

Stating that one nation which engages in an activity cannot criticize another nation for engaging in the same activity in no way makes either "OK.

i don't quite follow this ... because if you take it to its logical conclusion wr2 human/civil rights, then practically no government in the world can criticize any other for human/civil rights violations. which doesn't mean that i support active US meddling in venezuela (nor that i think that chavez is some cuddly latino scandinavian-stylee social democrat).
You're right. No government in the world really has the moral standing to criticize others completely. That's not really a shocker to me, nor disturbing in the least. Why would I expect any government to be 'good'?

Some are better than others, but when you commit the same sins that you criticize someone else for, your criticism is invalid.

the fact that it wd be hypocritical for america to say this doesn't remove it as an argument, it just means the american govt can't make it (on its own): *blount* is perfectly entitled to use the argument (HE isn't cozying up to dictators) (unless you count trife)

you're being "intellectually dishonest" in exactly the way you're attacking him for: ie (to put it less snottily) you misread his first post

And likewise, even if Blount was making that argument independent of the United States government, it would also be invalid on its face, unless he makes the exact same criticism of Presidents McKinley through Bush II. Which he has yet to do. Nor, in fact, acknowledge the question.

Instead, he continues on with the "Reagan did it" fallacy-strawman.

Should Mr. Blount acknowledge that the criticism he levelled at Chavez can and must be equally levelled at those who have run the US of A, then this would be quite a different argument.

this is typical anarchist ANTI-politics bullshit: "we are not allowed to address any issue unless we address ALL ISSUES EVER AT EXACTLY THE SAME TIME" => it's NOT "invalid on its face", any more vthan any other comment about anything is rendered invalid by not remarking on EVERYTHING ELSE EVERYWHERE EVER

as i said, yr crit of blount is EXACTLY THE INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY YOU ACCUSE HIM OF: *you're* refusing to address the actual question by deflecting it towards bullying blount into supporting/denouncing the us govt — a pissant mccarthyite strategy he is quite properly resisting

(also since you ARE saying "well Presidents McKinley through Bush II did it", how is that a strawman?)

As for it being "typical anarchist ANTI-politics bullshit" - the fact that you don't like the argument means nothing. What's your response to it?

Why would hypocritical criticism be, in any way, a valid discourse? What makes the United States/Blount/US Presidents privileged in such a way that the standard that they apply to others cannot be applied back to them?

I doubt you'll find anywhere in this thread where I've defended the alleged actions of Chavez, and have, in fact, noted concerns with human rights and civil rights. I've also given context to the allegations and responded to the argument.

"Why would hypocritical criticism be, in any way, a valid discourse?"
erm yr "hypocrisy" here — as a fellow us citizen of blount's — is *identical* to his (ie neither of you have that much responsibility for yr govts behaviour) (you both have more responsibility than me, for example, since i'm not a us citizen): and if you define "hypocrisy" THIS sweepingly then it undercuts any argument of yrs argument as much as his

This argument is not invalidated by the fact that US govt agrees with it, it's validated or invalidated by whether or not Chavez cozies up to dictators: that's it. The position of the US govt is irrelevant to its truth.

Excuse me? That's basically the opposite.

He's calling the references to the US's actions a "defense."

Now, this will be the third time I've stated that it's not a defense, it doesn't excuse anything, I'm not defending Chavez, etc.

Is that now clear?

[quote]erm yr "hypocrisy" here — as a fellow us citizen of blount's — is *identical* to his (ie neither of you have that much responsibility for yr govts behaviour) (you both have more responsibility than me, for example, since i'm not a us citizen): and if you define "hypocrisy" THIS sweepingly then it undercuts any argument of yrs argument as much as his[/quote]
This has nothing to do with citizenship.

In fact, I've never mentioned that, nor has Blount.

So, in essence, this paragraph, on the responsibility of citizens for their government's actions is a pure non-sequitur.

[quote]This argument is not invalidated by the fact that US govt agrees with it, it's validated or invalidated by whether or not Chavez cozies up to dictators: that's it. The position of the US govt is irrelevant to its truth.[/quote]
No, it's validated/invalidated by whether or not the standard is applied equally.

And it's not. And has not been, neither by the US government nor Blount.

Not defense: "In order for criticism of a person or nation for 'cozying up' to dictators to be valid and defensible, the standard must be applied equally, to all persons and nations, and specifically to the person/nation making the critcism."

Set out runnin but I take my time
A friend of the devil is a friend of mine
If I get home before daylight, I just might get some sleep tonight.

Ran into the devil, babe, he loaned me twenty bills
I spent the night in utah in a cave up in the hills.

Set out runnin but I take my time, a friend of the devil is a friend of mine,
If I get home before daylight, I just might get some sleep tonight.

I ran down to the levee but the devil caught me there
He took my twenty dollar bill and vanished in the air.

Set out runnin but I take my time
A friend of the devil is a friend of mine
If I get home before daylight, I just might get some sleep tonight.

Got two reasons why I cry away each lonely night,
The first ones named sweet anne marie, and shes my hearts delight.
The second one is prison, babe, the sheriffs on my trail,
And if he catches up with me, Ill spend my life in jail.

Got a wife in chino, babe, and one in cherokee
The first one says shes got my child, but it dont look like me.

Set out runnin but I take my time,
A friend of the devil is a friend of mine,
If I get home before daylight, I just might get some sleep tonight.

The danger coming is that the opposition will withdraw from the Presidential elections in December to enable to US to say that the election wasn't free and fair, and assist the demonisation of Chavez as a dictator. We've seen this before in 1973.

also, you know what invalidates the idea that there's no free press in Venezuela? THE EDITORIAL QUOTED ABOVE FROM THE VENEZUELAN NEWSPAPER THAT IS CRITICAL OF HUGO CHÁVEZ.

also, LOL at 'why won't anyone listen to the poor little rich immigrants?'

HULK SMASH

goes without saying, but they should stop appealing to the nationalism of the sensitive little pussies who were so offended by Chavez's remarks.

is this not hilarious?

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/venezuela/chavez-parrot.jpg

leftist chavez-worship is so embarassing.

dunno about his politics but he is a heck of an oilman.

leftist chavez-worship is so embarassing.

-- J.D., Sunday, 26 August 2007 08:35 (11 minutes ago)

http://www.jewcy.com/feature/2007-06-18/rise_of_the_faux_cialists

leftist trotsky-reverence is even worse

The problem with Chavez is that politics is completely personalised around him. This is not just a case of the Venezuealan aristocracy vilifying him, but of the way he works, with his running of politics so that everyone in the country becomes his personal client. This is a grossly dysfunctional way of going about things, and it also creates a rubbish and elitist political system. And the fundamental problem is that if you remove Chavez then everything he has built will disappear like a house of cards.

The gangsters who oppose Chavez are however probably worse.

Chavez, movie mogul.

Other productions currently underway include a story of a young violinist torn between pursuing her talent and leaving her poor but loving family; a tongue-in-cheek comedy about a group of people trying to bring down a government; and a political thriller based on the life of anti-Castro militant Luis Posada Carriles who is accused of masterminding the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner in which 73 people died.

This shit is kind of fucked up:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080208/bs_nm/exxon_venezula_dc

This really so bad?

Chavez joy as voters let him run again for presidency

Not like he's declared himself supreme ruler for life or put an end to elections, just providing the voters with the opportunity to elect him again should they so choose.

What am I not getting?

well he fucks about with the media, hasn't actually done anything for the poor beyond what would be expected by any government despite the fact that that's his whole thing, and has tinkered with the constitution to concentrate power in the president's (his) hands.

this is the only Chavez I fuck with:

http://nmallory.exit-23.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/lou_diamond_philips_.jpg

'92 coup attempt kinda backs the idea that he might not be totally mad for his democracy.

yeah, I understand (to some extent) that Chavez does not exactly walk the talk when it comes to human rights but I'm struggling to fathom why "term limits" alone are the difference between dictatorship and dictatorship. Doesn't seem like they've helped Russia much.

I'm gonna give this a read for a better understanding of the situation.

state control of the media is another aspect of dictatorship.

yes, term limits on their own not a big deal to me, add it to the fact that the dude first came to prominence trying to win power in a coup, to the fact that he censors the media, to the fact that he's changed the constitution to concentrate power in his hands then it starts to get a bit worrying. I'll leave human rights out of this because I'm pretty sure there's no Latin American nation with completely clean hands on that one.

not sure many North American countries have clean hands on the human rights front either, but that's neither here nor there.

btw, one of those "dictatorship"s should say "democracy", but you probably figured that out.

if he is, as that report suggests, using state funds for political campaigns, then eliding the difference between the party and the state is a step on the route to dictatorship too.

Removing term limits is only one step among many. Not an enormous deal in itself - we don't have them here, after all. But put it together with media censorship, continual centralisation of power, and all the other things mentioned above and it looks fairly clear what direction things are heading in. You can only make a call on what way the wind is blowing - if you only oppose actual dictatorships, Chavez gets a free ride until he's finished constructing one.

As for term limits themselves, you have to ask yourself why it's so important that a constitutional check be removed for the benefit of this one man - let's face it, it's not for anyone else's benefit. Can't a country with a democratic system produce another individual capable of running the place?

i dunno, I think object to term limits on the grounds that they deprive the electorate of the opportunity to decide whether or not they want to maintain the status quo. Don't elections constitute term limits in their own right?

(Obv I understand the enormous advantage of encumbency but they don't have term limits in the US congress, or in the UK's parliament, so who are we to judge?)

if bush had extended the term limits on the presidency then there'd be a lot of judging, imo.

Ismael my impression is that if Chavez wanted to be a real, true-blue dictator he could do it right now. It wouldn't be difficult.

My memory's gone a bit hazy, but my impression has certainly been that there is a significant opposition in Venezuela which has had to revert more and more to unofficial actions/protests precisely because of all these reforms - among other things, Chavez removed all of their representatives from parliament a few years back iirc. If it would be easy to declare himself el Presidente now, that's largely his own doing

With friends like these etc.

chavez has totally not cracked down on freedom of speech, and aynone who says otherwise should be locked up

jailed? JAILED?

haha xp

http://thecia.com.au/reviews/i/images/i-am-sam-10.jpg

i liked the way he appeared on tv taking calls from the public and that sort of thing
so is he a genuinely good leader?

The innocence of that first.

post.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66E7E420100715

"People don't seem enthusiastic, they don't want to participate, I don't know why, since it's for them," said the head of the carpentry shop, Alexis Valdiviezo.

RIP DEAR LEADER OF OUR NATION

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n13/greg-grandin/down-from-the-mountain

not bad wee piece this.

kind of disgusted that coverage in the northern hemisphere of what is happening in venezuela is either a total pollyannaish whitewashing of the chavez/maduro governments and condemnation of protesters from the left, or completely positive coverage of the protesters which ignores the fact that many of them are extremely right-wing and have killed as many innocent people as the security forces from mainstream media

Yes, that's very good.

I've got students with relatives with four days' worth of food stashed under mattresses and on their persons for fear of looters

I do see criticisms from the left around the haphazard practices of redistrubtion; things I only come across now and then in English.

Its a good piece, loved the stuff around Macondo/One Hundred Years of Solitude.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/04/venezuela-to-launch-cryptocurrency-to-combat-us-blockade-maduro-says?CMP=twt_gu