You couldnt go anywhere but up from the conditions Venezuela was in. Well thats not true there is rock bottom. But Venezuela isnt as good as it could be at this point. Try telling those that are still in poverty that things are better. Try telling the people rationing water and power how great things are. Chavez has had plenty of time to make huge changes in terms of poverty yet poverty is still high in Venezuela. Cutting poverty in half isnt good enough. I would say at best that his efforts have been half ass.Well I dont' know about cuba, but Venezuela cut poverty in half, increased democratic participation, increased health care coverage and so on and so forth ....
I said that politically that firearms can keep the government in check. Every vehicle has a potential to be a military vehicle. We do not need to keep tanks or fighter jets in our garages. Come on be serious.Well your gonna need military vehicles to actually be able to keep power in check ... As you said was the point of firearm rights.
Again I said that it is a element not the entire method, give upo your line of strawman argument no matter how much you try you wont convince me that I asserted something that I did not.But you claim it leads to it.
That is because Venezuela is not a great example of democratic socialism, right? But a shining example of a type of Marxism? Which would be a bit further Left than democratic socialism, right?My point was asking whether or not Venezuela is a great example of democratic socialism is a stupid question.
Yeah ... Its a representative democracy ... but its not 95% of the government ....
You havn't shown that Venezuela is anything more or less politically than a representative democracy, that happens to enact socail-democratic reforms.
thats an great appearance, but in reality the same people have been in control of the country for over a decade. IMHO a democracy demands that the people representing the people of the country do not hold on to that power for decades. Obviously this means that I am not happy with our own democracy here in the US. So forget coming back with some assertion about our own failures. I am not claiming that the US is perfect. In fact I am just making the observation that the people of Venezuela are in grave danger of being trapped in a system that will not allow them the freedoms that all humans require to live happy.
When you guys stand in solidarity with Hugo Chavez you will be just as guilty ethically with each injustice that Venezuelans must endure. Why stand with an faction that does no effect you personally? Why cant you just be skeptical of Hugo Chavez's authority? If things turn out good then there was no loss by me not trusting Chavez. But if things turn out bad your movement has signed itself to a tyrant. Think about the logic in that. Are you willing to have socialism related to a tyrant? How far are you setting back socialism by refusing to accept that Hugo Chavez is not a saint out to help his people? The 130m dollar mausoleum should be enough to show you that. 130m spent on a building to house a dead guy when over 30% of the population is at risk? Perhaps the homeless people should take it over and occupy it? Who does it belong too the people or the government?
Here is Venezuela Flickr: Search Venezuela
"I am also a Trotskyist! I follow Trotsky's line, that of permanent revolution'." Hugo Chavez
For those that do not know what the Trotsky's line is read this:
"With regard to countries with a belated bourgeois development, especially the colonial and semi-colonial countries, the theory of the permanent revolution signifies that the complete and genuine solution of their tasks of achieving democracy and national emancipation is conceivable only through the dictatorship of the proletariat as the leader of the subjugated nation, above all of its peasant masses.
"Not only the agrarian, but also the national question assigns to the peasantry - the overwhelming majority of the population in backward countries - an exceptional place in the democratic revolution. Without an alliance of the proletariat with the peasantry the tasks of the democratic revolution cannot be solved, nor even seriously posed. But the alliance of these two classes can be realized in no other way than through an irreconcilable struggle against the influence of the national-liberal bourgeoisie.
"This in turn means that the victory of the democratic revolution is conceivable only through the dictatorship of the proletariat which bases itself upon the alliance with the peasantry and solves first of all the tasks of the democratic revolution.
"The dictatorship of the proletariat which has risen to power as the leader of the democratic revolution is inevitably and, very quickly confronted with tasks, the fulfilment of which is bound up with deep inroads into the rights of bourgeois property. The democratic revolution grows over directly into the socialist revolution and thereby becomes a permanent revolution". Trotsky
But what is this about a dictatorship of the proletariat? Well any Marxist will tell you that Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky that it did not mean Authoritarianism. What they would say though is that it would "create democracy for the people, for the majority, along with the necessary suppression of the exploiters, of the minority." Or in other words a dictatorship by the majority.
Minorities have no power in a Marxist government. You either join the majority or you do nothing.
Bu then Hugo Chavez isnt a a real Trotsky either since he would have to abide by these constraints:
1) Free and democratic elections with the right of the electors to recall every and any official.
2) No official to receive a wage higher than that of a skilled worker.
3) No standing army but an armed people.
4) Gradually, all administrative tasks will be performed by everyone in turn, that way when "everyone is a bureaucrat no one is a bureaucrat".
Now hy would Chavez push for no term limits when everyone is supposed to become a bureaucrat? Remember the catch phrase power to the people! ? Well Chavez doesnt appear to believe in that ethic. Instead he wants to retain his power. Why cant the revolution survive without him in office? Why cant he show the people that they are the ones in power by stepping down especially since he has cancer? If he was sincere he would make a speech and hand his position over to the people and abolish the presidency position altogether. Why do the people need a leader?
I do not think that you are looking at this logically at all. All I want is justice and the required freedoms that Venezuelans deserve not some politician that wants to be president for the rest of his life. If Chavez wins this election it puts him in office for a total of 20 years at the end of his term. Hugo would be 63 by the time the next elections come up. The life expectancy in Venezuela is 73. so hes two terms away from being a leader for the rest of his life, well unless he dies from cancer then he was.