Hugo Chávez: people's hero

That doesn't make any sense. I hear people on the right making this argument all the time. "People in poverty hate being in poverty so much that they elect people who make sure they remain poor forever". Notice how that's completely irrational?


They vote that way because they are promised that the government will provide a better life for them. And, invariably, when that so often doesn't happen, those for whom they vote blame someone else. It's a win-win for those who are making the promises.

.

You do realize these types of arguments pretty heavily undermine other elements of your belief system, right?
 
That doesn't make any sense. I hear people on the right making this argument all the time. "People in poverty hate being in poverty so much that they elect people who make sure they remain poor forever". Notice how that's completely irrational?


They vote that way because they are promised that the government will provide a better life for them. And, invariably, when that so often doesn't happen, those for whom they vote blame someone else. It's a win-win for those who are making the promises.

.

You do realize these types of arguments pretty heavily undermine other elements of your belief system, right?


Such as?

.
 
Control the media control the masses... This IS equal to no real freedom at all~

It's hard to say Chavez "control[led] the media". While there were actions taken to reduce the power of his critics on radio and television (although, in fairness, the actions were not inconsistent with the ideological priorities of the regime independent of any sort of intent to censorship/chill debate), Venezuelan newspapers were militantly anti-Chavez for most of his tenure in office. To the extent the major newspapers warmed to Chavez, it was due to losing market share to other newspapers which the public saw as more balanced.

ANOTHER COUP ATTEMPT 'MADE IN THE USA'

The coup model was time tested and had all the markings of a plot hatched by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. The alliance of the business elite with the reactionary trade union leadership; the attempt to use connections with the high command in the interests of big capital; the pretext of mass disturbances to justify military intervention to "restore law and order"--all these elements have been used in U.S.-backed coups, most notably in 1973 Chile.

Despite the refusal of most of the world to recognize the coup--the 19-nation Rio Group of Latin American nations condemned the "interruption of constitutional order" on April 13--the United States government openly embraced the coup plotters.

A growing mountain of evidence shows the extent to which the U.S. was involved in the coup:

On April 16, the Bush administration acknowledged that Otto Reich, assistant secretary for Western Hemisphere affairs, was in phone contact with the coup leaders on the morning of the attempted takeover. The April 17 New York Times reported that the admission gives the appearance that Reich was "stage-managing the takeover." Reich has a long history of working with CIA counter-revolutionary operations in Latin America, particularly against Cuba and Nicaragua.

The April 14 edition of the STRATFOR newsletter, a U.S.- based think tank, details reports that both the CIA and the State Department had a hand in the events leading up to the coup.

An April 15 Reuters report details Chávez's account of a U.S.-registered civilian plane parked nearby to where he was imprisoned during the coup.

The April 16 New York Times carried the closest thing a U.S. government official comes to admitting involvement. "We were not discouraging people" from making the coup, according to "a Defense Department official who is involved in the development of policy toward Venezuela."

The April 22 issue of Newsweek magazine reported that elements of the Venezuelan military had been in contact with the U.S. embassy in February to discuss plans for a coup. The U.S. government acknowledges the meeting but denies encouraging the coup.

In February, the AFL-CIO joined forces with the notoriously anti-communist National Endowment for Democracy to host leaders of the right-wing CTV labor federation in Washington. The NED played a leading role in coordinating the political campaign against the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua.

Two of the main military coup plotters, Army Commander in Chief Efrain Vasquez and Gen. Ramirez Poveda, were graduates of the infamous U.S. School of the Americas, a school with a long list of coup-plotters and death-squad organizers among its alumni.
 
They vote that way because they are promised that the government will provide a better life for them. And, invariably, when that so often doesn't happen, those for whom they vote blame someone else. It's a win-win for those who are making the promises.

.

You do realize these types of arguments pretty heavily undermine other elements of your belief system, right?


Such as?

.

The whole gospel of the free market relies on the idea of rational consumers. Yet your entire argument here is built on the idea that consumers are, in fact, highly irrational.
 
You do realize these types of arguments pretty heavily undermine other elements of your belief system, right?


Such as?

.

The whole gospel of the free market relies on the idea of rational consumers. Yet your entire argument here is built on the idea that consumers are, in fact, highly irrational.


I don't understand your connection between free market consumerism and dependence on government.

.
 
No. They elect people who promise to bring them out of poverty by punishing the wealthy. They do fine at the second task but always seem to come up short on the first. This happens over and over. Like Detroit.

Actually with regards to Chavez you'd be wrong. He seized control of the nations oil and used it as capital to maintain his popularity amongst the country's poor. He re-wrote the nations constitution to ensure his ability to be re-elected. His new constitution gave him control of the press to make certain he was promoted as a hero. He basically owned control of the government ensuring that all stats collected were flattering.

All of this made him a popular dictator by hook (free stuff for the poor) and by crook (no one could know the truth of anything).

Think Obama folks~

1. Chavez did not nationalize the Venezuelan oil industry. I had already been nationalized since the 1970s. The disputes between the Chavez regime and foreign oil companies revolved around contracts concerning joint ventures between the parties where the Chavez regime wanted changes to the contract to make them more favorable to the Venezuelan state.
2. There is nothing wrong with using a public resource for the public's benefit (or are we really going to argue that oil on public lands doesn't belong to the people of the state collectively, through their representatives?).
3. Chavez did not unilaterally change the constitution to remove term limits. The term limits were approved by a popular referendum that had 70%+ turnout and was considered free and fair by all outside observers.
4. If the constitution gave Chavez "control of the press" he certainly did a poor job of using that power, since Venezuelan newspapers were very critical of this administration, as were some of the largest television stations.
5. While the government did meddle in statistic collection, this really isn't that unusual in Latin America. Argentina engages in this same behavior.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/world/americas/09venez.html?_r=0

Venezuela's private media wither under Chávez assault - Reports - Committee to Protect Journalists

Chavez routs opposition in move to rewrite Venezuelan constitution | World news | The Guardian

Quit re-writing the facts with a ridiculous polish...
 
Actually with regards to Chavez you'd be wrong. He seized control of the nations oil and used it as capital to maintain his popularity amongst the country's poor. He re-wrote the nations constitution to ensure his ability to be re-elected. His new constitution gave him control of the press to make certain he was promoted as a hero. He basically owned control of the government ensuring that all stats collected were flattering.

All of this made him a popular dictator by hook (free stuff for the poor) and by crook (no one could know the truth of anything).

Think Obama folks~

1. Chavez did not nationalize the Venezuelan oil industry. I had already been nationalized since the 1970s. The disputes between the Chavez regime and foreign oil companies revolved around contracts concerning joint ventures between the parties where the Chavez regime wanted changes to the contract to make them more favorable to the Venezuelan state.
2. There is nothing wrong with using a public resource for the public's benefit (or are we really going to argue that oil on public lands doesn't belong to the people of the state collectively, through their representatives?).
3. Chavez did not unilaterally change the constitution to remove term limits. The term limits were approved by a popular referendum that had 70%+ turnout and was considered free and fair by all outside observers.
4. If the constitution gave Chavez "control of the press" he certainly did a poor job of using that power, since Venezuelan newspapers were very critical of this administration, as were some of the largest television stations.
5. While the government did meddle in statistic collection, this really isn't that unusual in Latin America. Argentina engages in this same behavior.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/world/americas/09venez.html?_r=0

Venezuela's private media wither under Chávez assault - Reports - Committee to Protect Journalists

Chavez routs opposition in move to rewrite Venezuelan constitution | World news | The Guardian

Quit re-writing the facts with a ridiculous polish...

1. The article says nothing to support your claim that Chavez nationalized the oil industry. In fact, it spells out exactly the situation I discussed in my post.
2. You're attempting to blend the 2009 term limit amendment with the 1999 constitutional referendum.
3. The criticisms of Chavez's relationship with opposition media are valid, but they don't even come close to the level of him having "control of the press".
 
The whole gospel of the free market relies on the idea of rational consumers. Yet your entire argument here is built on the idea that consumers are, in fact, highly irrational.


I don't understand your connection between free market consumerism and dependence on government.

.

Elections are a type of market.


Ok, I get it, and I think that connection supports my point. Free markets don't require rational consumers, they require some equilibrium between supply and demand. Often times, the product or service being demanded is not necessarily good for the consumer, such as double cheese fatburgers and buckets-o-soda. But what the market wants, the market gets. And if the advertising is flawed or misleading, the consumer can make mistakes.

Precisely the same thing happens in the political process. The consumers/voters will vote for what they want, but that does not mean that it's good for them. They believed the advertising and chose accordingly. Whether its fatburgers or politicians, our culture's choices are reflecting a need for repair.

.
 
Last edited:
The poor socialist scumbags here in the u.s. really need to embrace the idea of venezuelan citizenship....utopia awaits
 
I personally thank God for the rich people. I'm being literally FLOODED by all that trickle down!!!!!!!!!!!
shutterstock_70581703.jpg
 
Chavez was not a stupid man. He was a master at class warfare. He was a champion of the poor so it was to his benefit to keep the poor very poor and dependent on him for whatever they had. Chavez' Venezuela was the human version of Pavlov's dogs. The Pavlovian response works best when the dogs are caged and all they get is what the master gives them when the bell rings.

You're ignorance is a symptom of your cognitive bias. When the media reports something that accords with your beliefs, that is what you wish to believe. That fact of the matter is, he was better for the people than the corporatists that came before him.

Venezuela-key-indicators--009.jpg
 
1. Chavez did not nationalize the Venezuelan oil industry. I had already been nationalized since the 1970s. The disputes between the Chavez regime and foreign oil companies revolved around contracts concerning joint ventures between the parties where the Chavez regime wanted changes to the contract to make them more favorable to the Venezuelan state.
2. There is nothing wrong with using a public resource for the public's benefit (or are we really going to argue that oil on public lands doesn't belong to the people of the state collectively, through their representatives?).
3. Chavez did not unilaterally change the constitution to remove term limits. The term limits were approved by a popular referendum that had 70%+ turnout and was considered free and fair by all outside observers.
4. If the constitution gave Chavez "control of the press" he certainly did a poor job of using that power, since Venezuelan newspapers were very critical of this administration, as were some of the largest television stations.
5. While the government did meddle in statistic collection, this really isn't that unusual in Latin America. Argentina engages in this same behavior.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/world/americas/09venez.html?_r=0

Venezuela's private media wither under Chávez assault - Reports - Committee to Protect Journalists

Chavez routs opposition in move to rewrite Venezuelan constitution | World news | The Guardian

Quit re-writing the facts with a ridiculous polish...

1. The article says nothing to support your claim that Chavez nationalized the oil industry. In fact, it spells out exactly the situation I discussed in my post.
2. You're attempting to blend the 2009 term limit amendment with the 1999 constitutional referendum.
3. The criticisms of Chavez's relationship with opposition media are valid, but they don't even come close to the level of him having "control of the press".

Polk= apologists-r-us
 
People I know in my actual life are much more supportive of Chavez, and I've been highly critical of his conduct in discussions with them. The reality is that he's not the saint his supporters make him out to be, and he's not Hitler Reincarnated like you guys want to make him out to be. Almost every criticism made of Chavez in this thread was also true of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia. And yet, there was no tap-dancing on his grave by those on the right.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top