21. Century Socialism in South America

[DC]

we now have several topic in this subforum where we hear about the evil things this movement has brought to south america, especially Venezuela.

i wonder if people around here know if they also had some possitive impact.
for example, the Venezuelan Missions that provide food, heatlhcare and education to the porest people in Venezuela.

Have you read other possitive things in your Newspaper?

And this topic should not be used to bring up the negative parts, but the good things.

[Undesired Walrus]

Have they nationalised the banks?

[DC]

Have they nationalised the banks?

:eek: you would see that as something possitive?

[Undesired Walrus]

Sure.

[DC]

Sure.

no they didnt, some have been. and propably some will be in future.

[Captain.Sassy]

this degenerated fast.

too bad, cause DC's got a legitimate question.

Whether or not Chavez is the guy to do it, I think greater unity between Latin American countries could help them out, so I see this as a positive goal (if not accomplishment) of Bolivarianism.

[funk de fino]

this degenerated fast.

too bad, cause DC's got a legitimate question.

Whether or not Chavez is the guy to do it, I think greater unity between Latin American countries could help them out, so I see this as a positive goal (if not accomplishment) of Bolivarianism.

Agreed.

[Skeptic]

Anything has "some positive aspects" as well. Nuclear war would mean we no longer have to worry about the population explosion. But it's absurd to emphasize the few "positive aspects" of something that is obviously awful, like Chavez making Venezuela into another communist totalitarian hellhole, complete with putting the opposition in jail, one-party rule, and food shortages -- those constant companions of all "socialist revolutions".

[McHrozni]

Anything has "some positive aspects" as well. Nuclear war would mean we no longer have to worry about the population explosion. But it's absurd to emphasize the few "positive aspects" of something that is obviously awful, like Chavez making Venezuela into another communist totalitarian hellhole, complete with putting the opposition in jail, one-party rule, and food shortages -- those constant companions of all "socialist revolutions".

Hear hear.

I'd like to add that these "positive aspects" have come with some rather unusual consequences, like a literal explosion of violent crime in Venezuela. Conventional wisdom states that education and subsistence will reduce crime, but the effect in Venezuela has been diametrically opposed.
I find it quite likely that the already minimal positive aspects of Chavezes' rule were also (greatly) exaggerated by his propaganda machine.

McHrozni

[DC]

Hear hear.

I'd like to add that these "positive aspects" have come with some rather unusual consequences, like a literal explosion of violent crime in Venezuela. Conventional wisdom states that education and subsistence will reduce crime, but the effect in Venezuela has been diametrically opposed.
I find it quite likely that the already minimal positive aspects of Chavezes' rule were also (greatly) exaggerated by his propaganda machine.

McHrozni

i think it is the exact opposite.

A few days ago there was a big Documentary on Arte, that showed several South American countrys that went into a more socialistic direction. they showed alot of people that were very poor a few years ago. and today they have a well working cooperativa that enablles them to produce enough food they even can sell alot of it and earn money. Also about healthcare for poor people that was payd for with Venezuelan oil money. Also the people they interviewed in Venezuela pointed out how much better Democracy is working now compare to the pre Chavez time. Now they feel as a member of the society.
Theyr main interview partner was even anti-Chavez, but pro Bolivarian revolution. They showed possitive things from all around South America, what the people have done , not what chavez has don.

But here we dont really read about such things in our newspaper.
I have the impression it is our media that leaves away alot of things and concentrate on demonizing Chavez.

And for me that is Socialism that could work, when it comes from the poeple themself and not only from the government.

Alot venezuelans pointed even out how much better it is now that the Government isnt that Centralized anymore and how much their lives improved by getting rid of the Neo_liberalism.

Sure they also pointed out problems like Crime adn such. but strangely enough they dont blame Chavez for it. But they see the problem and search for a solution.
But here Crime rates and Chavez misstreathment of Freedom of the press are headlines , but never would we see headlines, Venezuela, povertyrate lowered..... thats maybe on the last page of our newspaper.

We care more about a rich TV station owner and his troubles with the law than we really care about the poor that really profitet from the Bolivarian revolution.

[McHrozni]

i think it is the exact opposite.

A few days ago there was a big Documentary on Arte, that showed several South American countrys that went into a more socialistic direction. they showed alot of people that were very poor a few years ago. and today they have a well working cooperativa that enablles them to produce enough food they even can sell alot of it and earn money. Also about healthcare for poor people that was payd for with Venezuelan oil money. Also the people they interviewed in Venezuela pointed out how much better Democracy is working now compare to the pre Chavez time. Now they feel as a member of the society.

There are good and bad ways of helping the poor. Considering that many other South American leaders have not done most of the bad things he has, and yet have managed to benefit their people, I'd say it's fairly certain he too could do a better job if he wanted to help his people and not empower himself.

And for me that is Socialism that could work, when it comes from the poeple themself and not only from the government.

Spoken like a new, true, naive party member of a commie state in 1950s.

Socialism can't work. Some aspects of socialism can work, but it can't work as a system.

Alot venezuelans pointed even out how much better it is now that the Government isnt that Centralized anymore and how much their lives improved by getting rid of the Neo_liberalism.

Right. That must be why approximately half of the population must be dealt with harshly in order not to oppose him too severely.

Sure they also pointed out problems like Crime adn such. but strangely enough they dont blame Chavez for it. But they see the problem and search for a solution.

Yes, I do agree it is strange that they don't blame him. Perhaps the documentary wasn't as unbiased as you think it was? Or perhaps the people on the documentary didn't want to blame it on Chavez out of fear?

In 1999, Venezuela had 4,550 murders. In 2009, there were 16,047, and you're claiming Chavez isn't responsible for any of that, based on opinions of a few people in a documentary? That's a growth rate of 15% per year.

Please, be reasonable. The difference is nearly three times number of US casualties in Iraq in 7 years of war - and that's in just one year.

But here Crime rates and Chavez misstreathment of Freedom of the press are headlines , but never would we see headlines, Venezuela, povertyrate lowered..... thats maybe on the last page of our newspaper.

Maybe that's because he is supposed to reduce the poverty rate anyway? The price of his main export tripled while he was in power. Why do you think reducing the poverty rate wouldn't be expected from him?

We care more about a rich TV station owner and his troubles with the law than we really care about the poor that really profitet from the Bolivarian revolution.

That's because some of us understand that the minimal benefits reaped by Venezuelan poor will be more than offset by the problems Chavez is causing elsewhere.
For one, Venezuelan economy remains deeply mired in recession, despite the slow but steady global upturn and a rise in oil prices. Numbers for Q1 are not available yet, but all forecasts show it slowing still further. I'm sure we can agree that people who can't find jobs won't benefit from education all that much, right?

McHrozni

[Skeptic]

Using the same logic, we should all start threads like "The good things about 9/11" (those towers were a real eyesore sometimes!) or "North Korea: the nice things about dear leader".

All in the interest of "fairness", you know.

[Skeptic]

And for me that is Socialism that could work, when it comes from the poeple themself and not only from the government.

So why does Chavez have to arrest anybody he dislikes? Seems like the government is rather keen on imposing socialism without any opposition from the people. Oh wait, don't tell me -- those who criticize Chavez are "enemies of the people", or something.

Then again, food shortages, sluggish economy, and one party rule are showing socialism is "working" as well in Venezuela as it worked everywhere else. As the old joke says, if there was a communist country in the Sahara, things would be fine for a while, and then there would be a sand shortage.

[Skeptic]

The best proof that socialism (in the American sense of "communism", not the European sense of "liberal democracy") had been a total failure can be seen by the fact that by far its strongest, and in fact practically its only, proponents, live in the "evil corrupt capitalistic west" (often on college campuses), and wouldn't dream, in a million years, of moving to one of those socialist countries themselves, whether one of the "working" socialist countries or one of the "failed" ones.

(Which is unsurprising: experience shows that the difference between a "working socialist country", the pride of the world and the beacon of justice against evil capitalism, and a "failed socialist country" with famine, endless lines for toilet paper, and one-party dictatorial rule is at most a few years, usually a few months.)

I mean, what would YOU think about a worldwide (say) vegetarian movement of which not one supporter in a thousand is actually a vegetarian himself? And if those were more or less the only supporters of vegetarianism in the world (apart from a few dictators who use it as an excuse to declare anybody they dislike an "enemy of vegetarianism" -- and even they aren't actually vegetarians themselves)?

Wouldn't you agree vegetarianism is a failure?

[Beerina]

we now have several topic in this subforum where we hear about the evil things this movement has brought to south america, especially Venezuela.

i wonder if people around here know if they also had some possitive impact.
for example, the Venezuelan Missions that provide food, heatlhcare and education to the porest people in Venezuela.

Have you read other possitive things in your Newspaper?

And this topic should not be used to bring up the negative parts, but the good things.


Hong Kong. China. You do the math.

North Korea. South Korea. You do the math.


The best thing one nation there could do is kick them in the ass right out the door, so hard they're bruised. There will be whining. But life will improve more than their kindly, socialist, Noam Chomsky idiocy, oh-no-the-poor-care-for-them! neighbors.


Politics is why they are the way they are. "Road to Hell is paved with good intentions" and all that.

[DC]

There are good and bad ways of helping the poor. Considering that many other South American leaders have not done most of the bad things he has, and yet have managed to benefit their people, I'd say it's fairly certain he too could do a better job if he wanted to help his people and not empower himself.



Spoken like a new, true, naive party member of a commie state in 1950s.

Socialism can't work. Some aspects of socialism can work, but it can't work as a system.



Right. That must be why approximately half of the population must be dealt with harshly in order not to oppose him too severely.



Yes, I do agree it is strange that they don't blame him. Perhaps the documentary wasn't as unbiased as you think it was? Or perhaps the people on the documentary didn't want to blame it on Chavez out of fear?

In 1999, Venezuela had 4,550 murders. In 2009, there were 16,047, and you're claiming Chavez isn't responsible for any of that, based on opinions of a few people in a documentary? That's a growth rate of 15% per year.

Please, be reasonable. The difference is nearly three times number of US casualties in Iraq in 7 years of war - and that's in just one year.



Maybe that's because he is supposed to reduce the poverty rate anyway? The price of his main export tripled while he was in power. Why do you think reducing the poverty rate wouldn't be expected from him?



That's because some of us understand that the minimal benefits reaped by Venezuelan poor will be more than offset by the problems Chavez is causing elsewhere.
For one, Venezuelan economy remains deeply mired in recession, despite the slow but steady global upturn and a rise in oil prices. Numbers for Q1 are not available yet, but all forecasts show it slowing still further. I'm sure we can agree that people who can't find jobs won't benefit from education all that much, right?

McHrozni

he has lowered poverty, thats the point that you seem to ignore.
you claim its minimal, care to quantify it?

[DC]

There are good and bad ways of helping the poor. Considering that many other South American leaders have not done most of the bad things he has, and yet have managed to benefit their people, I'd say it's fairly certain he too could do a better job if he wanted to help his people and not empower himself.



Spoken like a new, true, naive party member of a commie state in 1950s.

Socialism can't work. Some aspects of socialism can work, but it can't work as a system.



Right. That must be why approximately half of the population must be dealt with harshly in order not to oppose him too severely.



Yes, I do agree it is strange that they don't blame him. Perhaps the documentary wasn't as unbiased as you think it was? Or perhaps the people on the documentary didn't want to blame it on Chavez out of fear?

In 1999, Venezuela had 4,550 murders. In 2009, there were 16,047, and you're claiming Chavez isn't responsible for any of that, based on opinions of a few people in a documentary? That's a growth rate of 15% per year.

Please, be reasonable. The difference is nearly three times number of US casualties in Iraq in 7 years of war - and that's in just one year.



Maybe that's because he is supposed to reduce the poverty rate anyway? The price of his main export tripled while he was in power. Why do you think reducing the poverty rate wouldn't be expected from him?



That's because some of us understand that the minimal benefits reaped by Venezuelan poor will be more than offset by the problems Chavez is causing elsewhere.
For one, Venezuelan economy remains deeply mired in recession, despite the slow but steady global upturn and a rise in oil prices. Numbers for Q1 are not available yet, but all forecasts show it slowing still further. I'm sure we can agree that people who can't find jobs won't benefit from education all that much, right?

McHrozni
btw the documentary didnt tell me new things, those things are actually known for those that are really interested in the Bolivarian revolution.

we have gone true this in several topics here on JREF.

strangely enough you are one that promotes war's for the well beeing of the iraqi people, but here you seem to be a complete diffrent person.

[DC]

The best proof that socialism (in the American sense of "communism", not the European sense of "liberal democracy") had been a total failure can be seen by the fact that by far its strongest, and in fact practically its only, proponents, live in the "evil corrupt capitalistic west" (often on college campuses), and wouldn't dream, in a million years, of moving to one of those socialist countries themselves, whether one of the "working" socialist countries or one of the "failed" ones.

(Which is unsurprising: experience shows that the difference between a "working socialist country", the pride of the world and the beacon of justice against evil capitalism, and a "failed socialist country" with famine, endless lines for toilet paper, and one-party dictatorial rule is at most a few years, usually a few months.)

I mean, what would YOU think about a worldwide (say) vegetarian movement of which not one supporter in a thousand is actually a vegetarian himself? And if those were more or less the only supporters of vegetarianism in the world (apart from a few dictators who use it as an excuse to declare anybody they dislike an "enemy of vegetarianism" -- and even they aren't actually vegetarians themselves)?

Wouldn't you agree vegetarianism is a failure?

how come the Venezuelan people have voted for Socialism over and over again? when in fact practically its only, proponents, live in the "evil corrupt capitalistic west" (often on college campuses), and wouldn't dream, in a million years, of moving to one of those socialist countries themselves, whether one of the "working" socialist countries or one of the "failed" ones.

epic fail

[DC]

Hong Kong. China. You do the math.

North Korea. South Korea. You do the math.


The best thing one nation there could do is kick them in the ass right out the door, so hard they're bruised. There will be whining. But life will improve more than their kindly, socialist, Noam Chomsky idiocy, oh-no-the-poor-care-for-them! neighbors.


Politics is why they are the way they are. "Road to Hell is paved with good intentions" and all that.

pick a globus and take a look at the countrys in South america and come back when you have minimal geographical knowledge.

[DC]

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela_2007_07.pdf

[Skeptic]

how come the Venezuelan people have voted for Socialism over and over again?

More or less for the same reason the Russian people voted for communism over and over again, or the Iraqi people voted for Saddam over and over again.

It helps to win elections when you intimidate the opposition, close down anti-government newspapers, arrest critics, change the constitution to allow yourself to remain in power indefinitely, etc.

[DC]

More or less for the same reason the Russian people voted for communism over and over again, or the Iraqi people voted for Saddam over and over again.

It helps to win elections when you intimidate the opposition, close down anti-government newspapers, arrest critics, change the constitution to allow yourself to remain in power indefinitely, etc.

when you have evidence for cheated elections, bring it on.

the US and EU observers didnt mention any of that.

and btw.

Conspiracy theories are this way ----->

[Beerina]

pick a globus and take a look at the countrys in South america and come back when you have minimal geographical knowledge.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[DC]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

the topic was ment to be about South American Bolivarianism.

you bring up alot of countrys that are not in South America.

[Skeptic]

There are some countries where the people, "freely and openly", vote for socialism again and again.

Yet, they are all countries like Venezuela, North Korea, the old USSR, etc., where a socialist dictator in power makes sure opposition papers are closed down, political opponents jailed (or killed), the state controls all the media and sings the Dear Socialist Leader's praised 24 hours a day, etc.

The moment the dictatorship is gone -- as in the USSR -- so is the people's unending love for socialism.

Isn't that just a curious coincidence?

[Cleon]

Yet, they are all countries like Venezuela, North Korea, the old USSR, etc., where a socialist dictator in power makes sure opposition papers are closed down, political opponents jailed (or killed), the state controls all the media and sings the Dear Socialist Leader's praised 24 hours a day, etc.


Look, you may not like some of the steps Chavez has taken, but in no way is the above an accurate description of Venezuela. And putting it in the same level as North Korea - that goes waaaaay beyond hyperbolic.

[Beerina]

the topic was ment to be about South American Bolivarianism.

you bring up alot of countrys that are not in South America.

I bring up examples of capitalism skyrocketting the quality of life. That means I suggest letting it run unhampered from heavy-handed, "the poor people first" crap...if you actually care about poor people.

[Darth Rotor]

If the SA nations work to form a trading bloc, like EU, ECOWAS, what have you, it's probably a good thing in the long run, with the usual rocks and shoals as bickering arises over one issue or another.

DR

[DC]

I bring up examples of capitalism skyrocketting the quality of life. That means I suggest letting it run unhampered from heavy-handed, "the poor people first" crap...if you actually care about poor people.

for the poor in the Columbian slums it doesnt work out to well......

[DC]

If the SA nations work to form a trading bloc, like EU, ECOWAS, what have you, it's probably a good thing in the long run, with the usual rocks and shoals as bickering arises over one issue or another.

DR

they are working on it, its called Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Alliance_for_the_Americas

[funk de fino]

Look, you may not like some of the steps Chavez has taken, but in no way is the above an accurate description of Venezuela. And putting it in the same level as North Korea - that goes waaaaay beyond hyperbolic.

Even I agree with that.