• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chavez seizes oil service firms

Khayembii Communique said:
That's simply not true.
Click to expand...

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.



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.
Click to expand...

Chavez has been trying to run him out of the nation now for 6+ years. Chavez is now in a position to use those courts as he see's fit.


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.
Click to expand...

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.

Chavez 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.
Click to expand...
Chavez threatens to close TV channel critical of him - National News | Tri-City Herald : Mid-Columbia news

His regime is actively and currently involved in undermining any power left that even thinks of opposing Chavez.

Chavez has harnessed the power he needed to do what he wished...now he is cleaning up what opposition remained and seizing control of any asset/powerbase he doesn't already control in full.

More details as to what you are specifically referring to, please.
Click to expand...

Free Article for Non-Members | STRATFOR

Chavez's Personal Militia May Have a Dual Mission - Los Angeles Times

VHeadline.com - VenEconomy: The difficulties of demonstrating "peacefully" in Venezuela





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.
Click to expand...

He has on every level removed anyone he even suspects of being a problem. The "grassroots" in Venezuela is the Military?



See, HG? I told you someone would say the D word!:lol:
Click to expand...

Because he is.


Chavez was never exactly far right; he was more of a Blanqui'ist.
Click to expand...

:roll:



Hugo Chavez is a textbook case of Dictator who used Democracy to destroy Democracy.
 
Last edited:
Agnapostate said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hey for what its worth, the last time we had that extended debate I learned a lot from both you and Khayembii.
 
Wessexman said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that. It makes sense.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Hey for what its worth, the last time we had that extended debate I learned a lot from both you and Khayembii.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Wessexman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Please don't make me choose. I don't want any of it. :(
Click to expand...

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.

In the likes of Peter Kropotkin and Proudhon you will find examplary insightfulness when it comes to society and freedom, imho.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
First off, Triad, I just want to let you know that I am only responding to parts of your post because, as I told HG earlier in the thread, I haven't had the time to follow Venezuelan politics lately and also don't have much time to do any indepth research in constructing a response. I'm planning on returning to this thread when I have time to respond to everything I miss.

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.
Click to expand...

There are various opposition judges that are still presiding over numerous courts. Also, there are opposition members within the parliament as well, obviously. In terms of the police, I haven't seen any information to support the assertion that they are all pro-Chavez, or that the leadership is completely pro-Chavez. I'll get some sources for you later.

Who said they where inciting a revolt again?..Chavez. They are also not the only media that has been silenced or intimidated.
Click to expand...

There is video footage from RCTV in the documentary The Revolution Will Not Be Televised that shows the station's complicity in the coup against Chavez.

..and now he is going after another one.
Click to expand...

This is a very strange article. McClatchy is usually pretty reputable, but unfortunately I cannot find any information regarding this issue outside of Mr. Bridges' article. As for Globovision being the sole television channel that regularly criticizes him, that's simply not true. It might be true that it is the only network TV channel that criticizes him, but that doesn't really matter, considering the fact that there are cable/satellite stations that regularly criticize him (RCTV being the most obvious).

As for the issue of the Caracas mayor, I will have to look into that further and respond later.

This article, though, doesn't seem very reliable. It's factually inaccurate in some places (one example I pointed out above), and seems to be incredibly biased against Chavez. It doesn't seem to be a very high quality piece of journalism; looking through Mr. Bridges' other articles, it seems that this is the norm for him. Until I can find a more objective, or at least a more informative, source I am going to have to call bull****.

I'll respond to the rest later when I have time.

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.
Click to expand...

Meh, I think you have a very narrow and pessimistic view of human consciousness, and look at it in a very static and rigid way, when in reality it is incredibly dynamic and evolutionary.

You could use a good reading of Marx.:2razz:
 
I wonder if chavez can make the trains run on time? Mussolini did......:2razz:
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

"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"?

How long before Obama seizes our oil firms; he's got the banks and auto companies?
Click to expand...

The oil firms aren't in any sort of trouble, last time I checked.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
"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.
Click to expand...
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.

As for your comments regarding Trotskyism, how would they apply to Marxism and not "libertarian socialism"?
Click to expand...
Huh?
 
Khayembii Communique said:
"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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but they're Big Oil.
 
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.
Click to expand...

So basically "anti-Leninists".

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.
Click to expand...

I never understood this obsession with either anti-authoritarianism or decentralization. Any form of economic planning is going to have to take place in a centralized manner, 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.

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.

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.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "Marxist monism"?

Yeah, but they're Big Oil.
Click to expand...

What?
 
Khayembii Communique said:
So basically "anti-Leninists".
Click to expand...
Well I don't think it is fair to define these people simply as opposed to Lenin.

I never understood this obsession with either anti-authoritarianism or decentralization.
Click to expand...
That is why you are not a libertarian socialist.;)

Any form of economic planning is going to have to take place in a centralized manner,
Click to expand...
Not according to libertarian socialists.
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.
Click to expand...
It takes a level of coordination but libertarian socialists believe they can keep most power very local.

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.
Click to expand...
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.


What do you mean by "Marxist monism"?
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
I didn't say that.
 
Well I don't think it is fair to define these people simply as opposed to Lenin.
Click to expand...

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".

It takes a level of coordination but libertarian socialists believe they can keep most power very local.
Click to expand...

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.

Power was taken away from the Soviets by Lenin.
Click to expand...

I think that this thread is pretty interesting, particularly ComradeOm's posts regarding this manner (specifically [ame="http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1436465&postcount=16"]this post[/ame]).

He had a whole agenda called democratic centralism
Click to expand...

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.

and state centralisation seems to me a major part of Leninism.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
Click to expand...

I'm still not sure to what you're referring. Could you please elaborate?

I didn't say that.
Click to expand...

I know; I don't generally label quotes because they turn the whole damn thing italic, which is really annoying.
 
Is this the man that Obama wants to be buddy-buddy with?



venezuelanalysis.com | Venezuela News, Views, and Analysis

On Saturday, the Venezuelan government rejected the annual report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), which categorized Venezuela as one of four countries in the hemisphere where human rights are particularly threatened. President Hugo Chávez said Venezuela will consider withdrawing from the Organization of American States (OAS) and forming a separate regional organization with its allies
 
Last edited:
Khayembii Communique said:
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".
Click to expand...
Well it is opposed to all social democracy and "state" socialism.


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.
Click to expand...
I think you should look into Kropotkin, Bookchin and such, many of these want a more localised and regionalised economy.

Now I don't want to get into the ins and outs, positives and negatives of this but it is an alternative, at least in theory, to a centralised or even large, closely federated economy.


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.
Click to expand...
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.

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.
Click to expand...
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.

I'm still not sure to what you're referring. Could you please elaborate?
Click to expand...
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 think you should look into Kropotkin, Bookchin and such, many of these want a more localised and regionalised economy.
Click to expand...

I have. Kropotkin's Mutual Aid is really good, and The Conquest of Bread is decent, but I don't think that any form of "decentralized" economy is realistic in any way. The planning and coordination of an entire global economy basically necessitates some kind of centralization - even capitalism centralizes economic coordination in the form of market forces (although this is more implicit centralization than explicit, as a planned economy would be). I've read some of Bookchin's stuff as well a long time ago, and found a lot of it to simply be "crap". I don't really know how else to describe it besides that; I've read other anarchist and "libertarian socialist" authors out there, but Bookchin is one of the worst.

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.
Click to expand...

I think this has more to do with how "centralization" is defined than anything.

For example, let us say that a bunch of decentralized communities send delegates to a congress which decides upon the administration of the economy. Is that centralized or decentralized to you?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom