- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 8,468
- Reaction score
- 1,575
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
It never was.Hey, it's none of our damn business anymore.
It never was.Hey, it's none of our damn business anymore.
That's simply not true.
I don't think it's that far out that this man was actually guilty of the charges of corruption leveled against him. To put it into context, there have been supporters of Chavez that have been charged with corruption as well. Corruption is a bipartisan affair in Venezuela, as is prosecution for it.
The television station that was inciting a revolt against a democratically elected government was simply denied a network license. They are actually still operating on I believe cable, which many Venezuelans have.
Chavez threatens to close TV channel critical of him - National News | Tri-City Herald : Mid-Columbia newsChavez threatens to close TV channel critical of him
Monday, May 11, 2009
By TYLER BRIDGES
CARACAS, Venezuela President Hugo Chavez is threatening again to shut down Globovision, the sole television channel in Venezuela that regularly criticizes him - saying it had stirred panic for reporting an earthquake before the government announced it.
"We're not going to tolerate a crazy man with a cannon shooting it at the whole world," Chavez said on his weekly television and radio show Sunday, referring to Alberto Ravell, the Globovision general manager. "Enough! . . . This has to end or I'll stop calling myself Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias."
"You are playing with fire, manipulating, inciting hate and much more. All of you: television networks, radio stations, papers," he said. "Don't make a mistake with me."
Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro followed up Monday by charging that Ravell had terrorized Venezuelan women and children with his 5:21 a.m. report.
"Globovision and Alberto Federico Ravell incited panic and anxiety within the population," Maduro said. "We will not permit that."
The Globovision all-news station on May 4 scooped the government on the mild pre-dawn earthquake, registering 5.5 on the Richter scale, citing the United States Geological Survey Web page as its source.
Chavez and other government officials also seem upset that Ravell, reporting the details on the earthquake via telephone, chided the government for not providing any news.
"Unfortunately, we haven't been able to find any authority who can give us precise and exact information," said Ravell, while reporting the country was calm and the earthquake had caused no major damage.
The attacks against Globovision come at a time when Chavez and senior aides are sidelining opposition leaders with corruption charges. Meanwhile, the Chavez-controlled Congress has taken away the budget of Caracas' newly elected mayor and is moving to impose a Chavez-appointed "vice president" over the country's governors.
More details as to what you are specifically referring to, please.
I don't exactly think that you can claim that "he" has taken control of it, as a lot of the nationalizations are dependent upon work on the grassroots level by workers, who have a very significant influence in Venezuelan politics nowadays. It is not simply "Chavez vs. freedom" as you would like to portray it; the situation is much more complex and broad based than that.
See, HG? I told you someone would say the D word!:lol:
Chavez was never exactly far right; he was more of a Blanqui'ist.
PDVSA engaged in significantly more authoritarian and damaging actions before they were placed into public control.
EDIT: I'll have more to say to this thread later.
It depends on what kind of private property this is. Murray Rothbard suggested declaring a lot of property unowned because it "owners" were so dependent on the state. When these corporations abide by the common law idea of private property and get no state support then I'd care a lot more. It seems like switching one kind of centralised, socialism for another.
Hey for what its worth, the last time we had that extended debate I learned a lot from both you and Khayembii.
Me too actually. I realise I was wrong about some of my views on Chavez specifically the idea he was almost a dictator. I've always been only luke-warmly hostile to Chvez because I realised it was just state-capitalism Vs. state-socialism but I have learnt that he, though he does still look somewhat dubious to me, is not even very close to a centralised, state socialist dictator.
I don't like what appears, to me at least, to be a power grab.
That always bothers me whether it is Chavez, Gordon Brown or whoever.
No state needs that much power in my mind.
Yes but I'm not sure but apparently a lot of it is grass-roots which is rather different. Personally I'd take libertarian socialism over state-capitalism.
Please don't make me choose. I don't want any of it.
To be honest I find a lot of libertarian socialism and libertarian socialists very interesting and although I don't think I;d support such a system their ideas are well within the sort of larger zone of ideologies close to mine along with things like paleoconservatis, American style libertarianism and such.
Which part of Venezuelan political reality does Chavez's party not hold control of?
Parliament?
Police?
Courts?
Military?
Executive?
Which one?
...the answer is none. He controls all of them.
Who said they where inciting a revolt again?..Chavez. They are also not the only media that has been silenced or intimidated.
..and now he is going after another one.
I'm not so sure Agna likes me to much, but I get a long with Khayembii pretty well.
I understand why they want their style of government and I think its very noble of them, I just don't think it will deliver like it says on paper.
You partially missed my point.It never was.
Generally I think they are very intelligent and well read people.
I'm not so sure Agna likes me to much, but I get a long with Khayembii pretty well.
I understand why they want their style of government and I think its very noble of them, I just don't think it will deliver like it says on paper.
Well I'm pretty sure Khayembii is a Trotskyist, which is not really libertarian socialism. But I agree with the first bit and I think you are right in the last bit about Trotyskism. I'm not sure about libertarian socialism.
How long before Obama seizes our oil firms; he's got the banks and auto companies?
The oil firms aren't in any sort of trouble, last time I checked.
It isn't too subjective but that doesn't mean it is simple."Libertarian socialism" is a pretty subjective definition; I've only really heard it used by anarchists and anarcho-communists to describe themselves. I've actually never heard a real definition of it, aside from it being the antithesis to "authoritarian Leninism" which I don't really think exists.
Huh?As for your comments regarding Trotskyism, how would they apply to Marxism and not "libertarian socialism"?
Yeah, but they're Big Oil."Libertarian socialism" is a pretty subjective definition; I've only really heard it used by anarchists and anarcho-communists to describe themselves. I've actually never heard a real definition of it, aside from it being the antithesis to "authoritarian Leninism" which I don't really think exists.
As for your comments regarding Trotskyism, how would they apply to Marxism and not "libertarian socialism"?
The oil firms aren't in any sort of trouble, last time I checked.
It isn't too subjective but that doesn't mean it is simple.
It is more than anarchists, it is involves guild socialists, platformists, even libertarian Marxists like council communists and such.
It is pretty much a kind of socialism based around decentralised, often pluralist ideas about how to organise society and the economy and how to bring about revolution. It is suspicious of centralisation, the state and in many forms, except perhaps the more Marxist, monism even of a decentralised form.
These too me are missing from Trotskyism although I'm no expert. It is a not quite like Leninism but it has a bigger role for the centralised state combined with the usual Marxist monism.
Yeah, but they're Big Oil.
Well I don't think it is fair to define these people simply as opposed to Lenin.So basically "anti-Leninists".
That is why you are not a libertarian socialist.I never understood this obsession with either anti-authoritarianism or decentralization.
Not according to libertarian socialists.Any form of economic planning is going to have to take place in a centralized manner,
It takes a level of coordination but libertarian socialists believe they can keep most power very local.whether that is through a single economic authority or through the cooperation and coordination of individual communities into a centralized body. It has to be planned in some centralized way.
Power was taken away from the Soviets by Lenin. He had a whole agenda called democratic centralism and state centralisation seems to me a major part of Leninism.As for political centralization, this is pretty much irrelevant to the distinction between "Leninists" and "libertarian socialists". The charge is commonly leveled against "Leninists" that they want to create a centralized state apparatus that rules over society for the purpose of managing the transition; it is essentially a charge of Blanqui'ism, and that is simply ridiculous. There is a reason that power was given to the Soviets following the Bolshevik seizure of power.
Having no time, or at least appreciation, for any groups between the individual and the central state particularly those with any kind of autonomy or intermediate identity.What do you mean by "Marxist monism"?
I didn't say that.What?
Well I don't think it is fair to define these people simply as opposed to Lenin.
It takes a level of coordination but libertarian socialists believe they can keep most power very local.
Power was taken away from the Soviets by Lenin.
He had a whole agenda called democratic centralism
and state centralisation seems to me a major part of Leninism.
Having no time, or at least appreciation, for any groups between the individual and the central state particularly those with any kind of autonomy or intermediate identity.
I didn't say that.
Well it is opposed to all social democracy and "state" socialism.I'm not defining them "simply" as opposed to Lenin. I'm defining the term "libertarian socialist" to encompass anyone opposed to Lenin, as I have never seen any other definition, and it is commonly used in opposition to "Leninism".
I think you should look into Kropotkin, Bookchin and such, many of these want a more localised and regionalised economy.The problem that I have found with most "libertarian socialists'" "decentralized" models is that they are not really that decentralized at all; sure, they are federated, but they are still managed in a centralized manner. And that is because it is impossible not to manage an entire economy in a centralized manner. It would lead to complete chaos.
I know, Marx seems to have little appreciation of decentralism either but I don't think that one can get away from the fact that that Lenin and most Orthodox Marxism seems to be about giving quite a bit of scope, politically and economically, to the central state and cannot be said to have a deep appreciation of decentralism or a large role for such decentralist organisations unlike libertarian socialists.I think that this thread is pretty interesting, particularly ComradeOm's posts regarding this manner (specifically this post).
Democratic centralism was an organizational method used earlier by Marx in the Communist League and the First International. It has to do on the shifting of the balance of democracy and centralism in order to be able to react quickly to events and be the most effective. Granted, there are other forms of organization that "libertarian socialists" would take, but democratic centralism started (as far as I know) with Marx, not Lenin.
I'll give you that, it has been a long time since I have read any orthodox Marxist stuff. I'm just more talking broadly about a state socialism where a lot of decisions, politically and economically, are made at the centre and where sovereignty is completely residing at the centre whether that be parliament or a party or a dictator.What do you mean by "state centralization" specifically and what do you mean by "Leninism" as well? The biggest problem I find with critiques of "Leninism" is that they take the actions of the Bolshevik party and extrapolate them as general principles which Lenin and/or the Bolsheviks could be applied elsewhere. That, to me, is an incredibly dishonest way of opportunistically attacking a political opponent. Most of the claims, as well, have been demolished by Hal Draper in this book.
Little appreciation for the importance of small-scale associations like family, church, local community, region, guilds or other such communal occupational agencies, voluntary associations and such.I'm still not sure to what you're referring. Could you please elaborate?
I think you should look into Kropotkin, Bookchin and such, many of these want a more localised and regionalised economy.
I know, Marx seems to have little appreciation of decentralism either but I don't think that one can get away from the fact that that Lenin and most Orthodox Marxism seems to be about giving quite a bit of scope, politically and economically, to the central state and cannot be said to have a deep appreciation of decentralism or a large role for such decentralist organisations unlike libertarian socialists.