|
On January 01 2019 08:03 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2019 04:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 01 2019 04:25 iamthedave wrote:On January 01 2019 02:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 01 2019 01:42 iamthedave wrote:On January 01 2019 00:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 31 2018 18:50 iamthedave wrote:On December 31 2018 08:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 31 2018 08:38 iamthedave wrote:On December 31 2018 07:21 GoTuNk! wrote:
[quote]
badly run is an understatement, almost as blatant as saying it had nothing to do with "socialism" It didn't, and I'm willing to bet you can't back up your own claim if pushed to do so. Socialism is not responsible for Hugo Chavez being a political neophyte and failing to set up sustainable systems in his country. That's Hugo Chavez being a well-meaning amateur making amateurish mistakes. It's entirely possible that if you'd had far more capable political leaders in Venezuala's position that the country would still be doing great. As it is, at least the people had a few good years as opposed to the none they'd had leading up to Chavez's reign. Can you help me understand specifically what he did wrong in your view (*EDIT: should have done instead?), and how that compares to say the US or the UK which presumably you believe were run better by a recent leader (though I'm not sure how you feel about the current ones comparatively)? His primary contemporary in the US would be Bush for a comparison. The same thing most states do: Invest in the future. Chavez spent his country's wealth on enriching the lives of the poor, installling and funding socialist programs and so on and so forth. These are undeniably good things. The problem is that he didn't invest in structure. The all-important oil industry was taken away from corrupt fucks - which is good - and given to people who didn't know what they were doing - this is bad - and those people weren't then properly trained on how to manage it - this is terrible - and so when the prices dipped, as they're wont to do, Venezuala crashed and burned. Their production of their main cash source and most important resource fell because of that lack of investment in structure. You can't spend, random numbers, 150 billion on social programs and then prepare your country to make 50 billion a year. It doesn't work. Chavez should have spent more time rebuilding Venezuala's economy, stamping out corruption (he did almost nothing on that front; bribery was common in the government during the golden years), training up the people who'd have to carry the nation on their shoulders once the downturn came. He probably shouldn't have gone quite as all in as he did on setting up the programs he did, either, and should have been more gradual with implementing them to make sure the economy could handle it. As it was he acted like nothing was wrong even as the oil prices were falling, and didn't adapt. See 150 billion needed while being able to make 50 billion. The shortfall wasn't at that level, but that's why it all crashed and burned. I'm not even sure if this would be practical in Venezuala's case, but Chavez definitely needed to look at divesifying the economy as well, so Venezuala wasn't totally reliant on oil. Either way, he didn't try. It's possible none of that would have helped due to the sanctions and pressure they were going to be put under due to being a Socialist state, but it might, and would at least have avoided the country falling into absolute poverty like it has now. As for comparisons to the US and UK, I don't know if it's fair to ask the question. Our systems have been largely unchanged for - in my country's case - centuries. It's robust because it's been tweaked and refined over that period of time. Venezuala essentially etch-a-sketched and Chavez tried to build an entirely new country. I don't blame him for failing, it was a mammoth task, but it was one he wasn't suited to complete. Chavez should have been the visionary at the elbow of a competent boring civil servant, someone who could put into practical reality Chavez's fever dreams of a Socialist paradise. The highs might not have been quite as high, but they'd have made a much better, much more lasting nation. Diversified economies are why the UK and US are both more robust than Venezuala. I don't know if that's something you can credit a specific leader with though. If your nation lives on only one thing, you're at the mercy of that one thing. A good leader, I think, is one who can see past a golden period to what will come after and be ready for that. Chavez wasn't, and Venezuala couldn't survive that lack of foresight. I'm sorry but that sounds silly. "Should have diversified" doesn't really make sense. How or what industries was he to build to supplement the oil industry over the time he was there? The social programs were absolutely necessary for people to build those industries. It's how you do that. "Stomp out corruption" sounds absolutely laughable when you call the US a robust system with Trump at it's helm. It's also not like the US economy diversified over 10 years like your suggesting some miracle leader (who's slightly above average) could have accomplished. All that's without consideration for the wealthiest most powerful country in the world rallying their allies to intentionally sabotage Venezauela's economy and their government. I do appreciate the explanation but I don't find it at all convincing. My conclusion is that Chavez did better than most US leaders (particularly if bombing, slaughtering, enslaving innocent people counts against the US presidents) and most leaders in general. I mean South Korea still has slave islands where they traffic disabled people to and they can't escape. The idea that Chavez was going to do more than he did to stomp out the corruption (largely sponsored and supported by the US btw) seems completely unrealistic and an effort to place a much higher expectation on Chavez than pretty much any other leaders. If by 'expectation' you mean 'do the basic things required for the system to survive' then yeah I suppose I am putting higher expectation on Chavez. The people around Chavez made off with billions from the Venezualan economy and Maduro's doing the same thing. Corruption should have been one of Chavez's number one targets, since he already knew how devastating it could be; that's literally what created the circumstances for his own election. I appreciate that it is extremely hard to stop. But Chavez didn't even try. You can't give him a pass for that. He not only should have known better - since that's how he got into power in the first place - but he had a free pass from the Venezualan people to actually do it, which most leaders don't have. In the US, attempting to sanction drug companies sees them rally legions of loyal brand supporters to harass congress, Chavez could have just said " that guy's an arsehole, get him!" and the people would have gone along with it. He had the power to at least make an attempt, and didn't, and so he left the dry rot in place to slowly destroy his country. There's no excusing that. He doesn't even get naivety as a pass, because he knew full well that this was a serious problem from the prior administration. And yeah, economically the US is a robust system. Trump's at the helm and it hasn't gone down in flames yet. That's the dictionary definition of robust right there. Your political system is so ironclad that even with Trump at the helm, the actual structure of it is almost untouched. The character is shifting unpleasantly, but the structure remains. That's impressive. What do you think would have happened if Trump got in charge in Venezuala? As for diversification... well I'm not a world leader. All I can tell you is the butcher's bill of Chavez's mistakes, the things he needed to do and didn't. Venezuala's always been a victim of the oil markets, maybe the nation literally has no way to diversify. But again, Chavez didn't invest in any attempt to find a way to do it. I followed Venezuala closesly because i really wanted it to succeed, but the warning signs were there years before he died. Chavez's eye was never on the future, and now the country doesn't have one. He fights the single most powerful corrupt group in the country and wins, invests in social programs dramatically increasing literacy and reducing abject poverty giving people the most basic tools necessary to fight corruption and diversify their economy, roots out rent seeking land owners, and refuses to bow to corrupt international pressure that targets the people of his country in an effort to replace leadership with western corporate puppets and you see no effort to fight corruption or develop the country. Meanwhile the corrupt western interests intentionally sabotaging the country are viewed as remarkably robust, despite Trump. Rather than seeing how their "robustness" is a product of corrupt white nationalist policy (though often with a liberal mask) quite succinctly represented by Trump. Chavez did more to fight corruption in his tenure than the US has in the last 50 years hands down. "Chavez eyes were never on the future" and "I followed Venezuela closely" doesn't compute at all. Same as seeing stuff like this Trump increases pressure on Venezuela with sanctions on goldand concluding that Venezuela is at fault. Like what's the justification for even doing that besides capitalist corruption sanctioned and championed by the biggest, most corrupt, and powerful capitalist nation? Chavez did nothing to curb corruption in his own government. How can you not see the ways in which this is self-defeating? Everything you just described is true... and a band aid. He shuffled out the old corrupt guys while nesting a new bunch of corrupt fuckheads, all while building the infrastructure to allow them to take total, unchallenged power. That isn't really combating corruption is it? He knew about these guys. He knew, GH, and he chose to do nothing. That is a choice Hugo Chavez made. He made a choice you condemn people for regularly, and you are giving him a pass because he happened to be a Socialist. Give him the credit he deserves, but don't act as if he's a blameless saint in all of this. He fucked up, and he had every reason to know what was coming from that particular fuck up. So no, I stand by the statement that he did nothing to combat corruption. Clearing out the people without targeting the structure isn't combating corruption. It's emptying offices so you can fill them yourself. As you yourself love to point out, governments tend towards massive corruption. Again, Chavez knew this firsthand and he did nothing to stop it. This was a known issue for years before it all came crashing down. There was no transparency, the Supreme Court was full of yes-men, and they were used to protect the guys leeching the Venezualan economy of life. I don't blame Chavez for things outside of his control, such as the US putting pressure on Venezuala. I'm not sure why you're acting like this is news to me. I'm well aware that he was enemy number one. We're not discussing those factors because it's outside his control and he can't be blamed for that. He can be blamed for tolerating rampant corruption among his allies in the government and not learning from the mistakes of the past, and sowing the seeds for Venezuala's utter and total collapse. I feel like you're actually unaware of how influential western capitalists were in the corruption within his own government. Much of the stolen money was taken to be spent and laundered in the west. How capitalist interests constantly fought for control of the government through all sorts of means, many continue today. Including but not limited to hoarding and smuggling goods to western allied countries where the corruption is welcomed and exploited. By your own admission he kicked the shit out of corruption. Including domestic corruption that represented interests in the oil industry and beyond. His rooting out of corruption is quite literally what pisses off the corrupted corporate interests that infiltrated every level of government. The other reason I keep mentioning that he was fighting off an international corrupted capitalist coalition is because you don't seem to be respecting it's influence on internal corruption and why your characterization seems terribly unreasonable. EDIT: Keep in mind this is in the context where Russians threatened the entirety of the US electoral system with some shitty memes. In turn you're ignoring that Chavez simply did nothing to curb the corruption of his allies. How exactly does that differ from the exact crony Capitalism that you despise?
Primarily that it lowered inequality instead of raising it.
If you could give me some of the names of people you're referencing that would help too.
EDIT: On a slightly separate note, it takes some serious courage as a leader to tell the US government (Chavez repeatedly expressed his love for the people of the US) to go fuck itself, more so the closer you are geographically.
https://mic.com/articles/3357/hugo-chavez-gives-heating-aid-to-u-s-poor-following-obama-budget-cuts
Many poor Americans in colder climes will doubtless be dismayed to hear that shortly after ringing in the New Year, Congress and the president have decided to cut 25% from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, (LIHEAP) showing once again their preference to default on the needy and vulnerable rather than asking the most powerful and wealthy to make even the smallest sacrifices.
Far more welcome news came from Citgo Petroleum Corporation, a subsidiary of Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, which announced that it would be continuing its six-year-old program of providing heating oil to poor Americans free of charge. The contrast between the values displayed by the American and Venezuelan governments – the “good guys” and “bad guys,” respectively, of the American political consensus – could not be more striking.
EDIT2: While even under crippling sanctions and lower oil prices Venezuela's commitment continues, meanwhile the US (wealthiest country on the planet) has the Trump administration.
Trump administration is calling for elimination of program that heats homes of low-income families
That's an example of the difference.
Treating homeless people like stray animals is another
Police continue reminding people to not feed homeless
In capitalism feeding homeless people is the crime, not stealing their houses and destroying the economy all the while making piles of money off of it.
|
Maybe it'd be best to look into the issue yourself? I mean, there's a lot of resources that discuss various layers of corruption in Venezuala during and after Chavez's reign. Here's a quick article that should give you a springing-off point to other areas of interest: https://www.cato.org/commentary/corruption-democracy-venezuela
José Vicente Rangel, for a specific person of interest, was highlighted by Chavez's own intelligence agency as appropriating public funds for himself and nothing was done about it.
I'm not ducking your question, if that's your concern. But you are very bull-headed on this topic, and I think it'd be more productive a discussion if I point you in a direction and let you do your own reading and come to your own conclusions. I don't think there's anything I could say that won't end up with another Evils of Capitalism sidebar which is nice but kind of irrelevant for the topic at hand.
Chavez lowered inequality temporarily. Venezuala now is... not a bastion of either Democratic or Socialist governance.
|
On January 01 2019 10:03 iamthedave wrote:Maybe it'd be best to look into the issue yourself? I mean, there's a lot of resources that discuss various layers of corruption in Venezuala during and after Chavez's reign. Here's a quick article that should give you a springing-off point to other areas of interest: https://www.cato.org/commentary/corruption-democracy-venezuelaJosé Vicente Rangel, for a specific person of interest, was highlighted by Chavez's own intelligence agency as appropriating public funds for himself and nothing was done about it. I'm not ducking your question, if that's your concern. But you are very bull-headed on this topic, and I think it'd be more productive a discussion if I point you in a direction and let you do your own reading and come to your own conclusions. I don't think there's anything I could say that won't end up with another Evils of Capitalism sidebar which is nice but kind of irrelevant for the topic at hand. Chavez lowered inequality temporarily. Venezuala now is... not a bastion of either Democratic or Socialist governance.
I have lol, I was just wondering who YOU were thinking of. Now I'm curious what you're referencing?
The way you're discussing this makes me skeptical of your close following of Venezuela. Admittedly I haven't followed it that close and have done a lot of studying pretty recently, but for instance, oil prices didn't spike and crash until near the end of his presidency and are still above where they were when he took office. After the US backed a coup to remove him and he then held a recall referendum that the Carter Center deemed free and fair (despite continued US interference that makes Russia's look like childs play).
To which you keep saying "but what about his friends" for which when prodded for an example so far we have a vague accusation of corruption thrown at José Vicente Rangel.
As for the inequality, pause for a moment and consider how much wealth Chavez transferred to impoverished people by nationalizing the oil industry before oil hit $100 and how little of that money would have gotten to them and instead went to western capitalists screwing over Venezuelans.
Edit: I didn't notice the link at first.
You realize many of those accusations are leveled at capitalist interests stealing from the government being framed as Chavez being corrupt right? As well as literally being Koch Brother propaganda?
EDIT2 I'm sorry, but you frame my disagreement as "an evils of capitalism sidebar" while literally presenting koch brothers propaganda as proposed jumping off point of learning more. Like, I should probably also check out their reports on climate change no?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
If it's not clear, your citation was literally a mouthpiece for the corrupt interests he was ousting.
Frankly, since this relates to my ongoing point about US media manipulation of "the left" let's focus on the meta of citing the literal corrupt capitalists he ousted for further research on Venezuela corruption that's somehow Chavez's fault.
I just have to add (sorry about doing it like this) but Venezuela's inequality is still lower than the US and last UN report I saw had it as the best in the region (and still going down despite the collapse of oil).
|
I wouldn't be citing Venezuela's inequality if I were you
|
On January 01 2019 11:17 IgnE wrote:
I wouldn't be citing Venezuela's inequality if I were you
I already did.
|
On January 01 2019 11:17 IgnE wrote:
I wouldn't be citing Venezuela's inequality if I were you
It makes the whole exchange worth reading for that concluding triumph.
|
On January 01 2019 12:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2019 11:17 IgnE wrote:
I wouldn't be citing Venezuela's inequality if I were you It makes the whole exchange worth reading for that concluding triumph.
lol okay? Is this what passes as enlightened commentary to you guys?
EDIT:I'm actually curious what you guys are trying to say though?
We can leave it at whatever that was then we can move on to how Warren's announcement not getting any traction here doesn't bode well for her.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I have to say Dauntless was right: Warren's DNC performance really did show there wasn't much substance to work with behind her surface-level appeal, which kind of makes her a weak candidate for being the progressive voice. That "progressively inclined, DNC approved" voice isn't really what people want.
On Venezuela, I do have one comment. Given its recent issues, it's sort of used as the example of a basket case example for "socialism bad." GH's argument seems to focus on that US intervention is a bigger factor. The poor management by Chavez is also cited as a factor. I do pose the following question, though: what's a good example, regardless of economic structure, of a country that is doing well despite having politics that are not very amenable to the US (large, powerful countries excepted)? It's easy to find examples of poorly managed nations with US-favorable politics that aren't in a state of collapse - East Europe and the Middle East are littered with examples of utterly incompetent leadership that survives due to having the "right" politics. But what about the reverse?
Cuba? Possibly, although that's only on the back of once powerful alliances (and as those faded so did Cuba's fortunes). Iraq two decades ago would have probably been a pretty good example, although now not so much. Iran is quite a solid example, but also mostly on the back of some quite favorable alliances.
A significant degree of mismanagement on the part of a Chavez government is a given. So is a high level of dependence on commodities. These are common realities in a developing nation, and to be frank if there weren't "mismanagement" then it's because the problems of corruption and cronyism were never so deeply rooted as to justify considering the nation as "developing" in the first place. Stability from external threats to the political system, however, seems to be an even bigger component in determining what nation looks like Venezuela and what nations actually have a chance to address their internal troubles. Not to say the structure of the economy doesn't matter, just less so than stability - and economies are always changing in one way or another.
|
On January 01 2019 15:19 LegalLord wrote:
I have to say Dauntless was right: Warren's DNC performance really did show there wasn't much substance to work with behind her surface-level appeal, which kind of makes her a weak candidate for being the progressive voice. That "progressively inclined, DNC approved" voice isn't really what people want.
On Venezuela, I do have one comment. Given its recent issues, it's sort of used as the example of a basket case example for "socialism bad." GH's argument seems to focus on that US intervention is a bigger factor. The poor management by Chavez is also cited as a factor. I do pose the following question, though: what's a good example, regardless of economic structure, of a country that is doing well despite having politics that are not very amenable to the US (large, powerful countries excepted)? It's easy to find examples of poorly managed nations with US-favorable politics that aren't in a state of collapse - East Europe and the Middle East are littered with examples of utterly incompetent leadership that survives due to having the "right" politics. But what about the reverse?
Cuba? Possibly, although that's only on the back of once powerful alliances (and as those faded so did Cuba's fortunes). Iraq two decades ago would have probably been a pretty good example, although now not so much. Iran is quite a solid example, but also mostly on the back of some quite favorable alliances.
A significant degree of mismanagement on the part of a Chavez government is a given. So is a high level of dependence on commodities. These are common realities in a developing nation, and to be frank if there weren't "mismanagement" then it's because the problems of corruption and cronyism were never so deeply rooted as to justify considering the nation as "developing" in the first place. Stability from external threats to the political system, however, seems to be an even bigger component in determining what nation looks like Venezuela and what nations actually have a chance to address their internal troubles. Not to say the structure of the economy doesn't matter, just less so than stability - and economies are always changing in one way or another.
Pretty sure I agree with most of this.
Saudi Arabia is a pretty good example of how terrible government/corruption and dependency on oil don't seem to be as determinate as a country's strategic value/defensive capabilities and amiable terms with the US.
We sell/give bombs/logistics to Saudi Arabia and they drop them intentionally on innocent children and hospitals, chop up US resident journalists, etc and then we buy their oil while we sanction threaten and sanction Venezuela for....? What exactly? Giving heating oil that the US government would deny to elderly US citizens to prevent them from freezing to death?
|
On January 01 2019 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2019 10:03 iamthedave wrote:Maybe it'd be best to look into the issue yourself? I mean, there's a lot of resources that discuss various layers of corruption in Venezuala during and after Chavez's reign. Here's a quick article that should give you a springing-off point to other areas of interest: https://www.cato.org/commentary/corruption-democracy-venezuelaJosé Vicente Rangel, for a specific person of interest, was highlighted by Chavez's own intelligence agency as appropriating public funds for himself and nothing was done about it. I'm not ducking your question, if that's your concern. But you are very bull-headed on this topic, and I think it'd be more productive a discussion if I point you in a direction and let you do your own reading and come to your own conclusions. I don't think there's anything I could say that won't end up with another Evils of Capitalism sidebar which is nice but kind of irrelevant for the topic at hand. Chavez lowered inequality temporarily. Venezuala now is... not a bastion of either Democratic or Socialist governance. I have lol, I was just wondering who YOU were thinking of. Now I'm curious what you're referencing? The way you're discussing this makes me skeptical of your close following of Venezuela. Admittedly I haven't followed it that close and have done a lot of studying pretty recently, but for instance, oil prices didn't spike and crash until near the end of his presidency and are still above where they were when he took office. After the US backed a coup to remove him and he then held a recall referendum that the Carter Center deemed free and fair (despite continued US interference that makes Russia's look like childs play). To which you keep saying "but what about his friends" for which when prodded for an example so far we have a vague accusation of corruption thrown at José Vicente Rangel. As for the inequality, pause for a moment and consider how much wealth Chavez transferred to impoverished people by nationalizing the oil industry before oil hit $100 and how little of that money would have gotten to them and instead went to western capitalists screwing over Venezuelans. Edit: I didn't notice the link at first. You realize many of those accusations are leveled at capitalist interests stealing from the government being framed as Chavez being corrupt right? As well as literally being Koch Brother propaganda? EDIT2 I'm sorry, but you frame my disagreement as "an evils of capitalism sidebar" while literally presenting koch brothers propaganda as proposed jumping off point of learning more. Like, I should probably also check out their reports on climate change no? ___________________________________________________________________________________________ If it's not clear, your citation was literally a mouthpiece for the corrupt interests he was ousting.Frankly, since this relates to my ongoing point about US media manipulation of "the left" let's focus on the meta of citing the literal corrupt capitalists he ousted for further research on Venezuela corruption that's somehow Chavez's fault. I just have to add (sorry about doing it like this) but Venezuela's inequality is still lower than the US and last UN report I saw had it as the best in the region (and still going down despite the collapse of oil).
I did say it was 'a springing off point'. It highlights areas of concern to look into more deeply. But your reply's exactly why I wanted you to do the legwork, because I kind of knew your response would be 'XXX PROPAGANDA!!!!!!'
You've demonstrated a definite stubborn streak about Venezuala in the past, no doubt because it's the greatest example of a Socialist state in our lifetimes that actually worked for a time. But you seem unwilling to see the bad that came with the good, or recognise Chavez's faults alongside his positives.
I don't disagree that the whole project was doomed because the US would have sabotaged it to death no matter what. But I don't consider external forces when talking about Chavez's performance in his own country. Just look into his inner circle and the various confirmed scandals, public fund theft, mismanagement issues in the oil industry (absolutely inexcusable given how vital it is to Venezuala's economy), and how many ended up serving time.
Unless you genuinely believe in the Illuminati you have to concede that Chavez worked with some bad actors for whatever reason you choose to go with.
And you cannot argue with the point that he created the framework that allowed those bad actors to seize absolute power in his absence and turn Venezuala into the shitshow it's become.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3192933/Hugo-Chavez-s-ambassador-daughter-Venezuela-s-richest-woman-according-new-report.html
Yes it IS the Daily Fail, but again, some other stuff to look into. There's plenty of other sources to look into about Chavez's daughter's suspiciously high personal wealth, and Alejandro Andrade is another dodgy core Chavez figure from the mid years of his administration.
|
On January 01 2019 18:01 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2019 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 01 2019 10:03 iamthedave wrote:Maybe it'd be best to look into the issue yourself? I mean, there's a lot of resources that discuss various layers of corruption in Venezuala during and after Chavez's reign. Here's a quick article that should give you a springing-off point to other areas of interest: https://www.cato.org/commentary/corruption-democracy-venezuelaJosé Vicente Rangel, for a specific person of interest, was highlighted by Chavez's own intelligence agency as appropriating public funds for himself and nothing was done about it. I'm not ducking your question, if that's your concern. But you are very bull-headed on this topic, and I think it'd be more productive a discussion if I point you in a direction and let you do your own reading and come to your own conclusions. I don't think there's anything I could say that won't end up with another Evils of Capitalism sidebar which is nice but kind of irrelevant for the topic at hand. Chavez lowered inequality temporarily. Venezuala now is... not a bastion of either Democratic or Socialist governance. I have lol, I was just wondering who YOU were thinking of. Now I'm curious what you're referencing? The way you're discussing this makes me skeptical of your close following of Venezuela. Admittedly I haven't followed it that close and have done a lot of studying pretty recently, but for instance, oil prices didn't spike and crash until near the end of his presidency and are still above where they were when he took office. After the US backed a coup to remove him and he then held a recall referendum that the Carter Center deemed free and fair (despite continued US interference that makes Russia's look like childs play). To which you keep saying "but what about his friends" for which when prodded for an example so far we have a vague accusation of corruption thrown at José Vicente Rangel. As for the inequality, pause for a moment and consider how much wealth Chavez transferred to impoverished people by nationalizing the oil industry before oil hit $100 and how little of that money would have gotten to them and instead went to western capitalists screwing over Venezuelans. Edit: I didn't notice the link at first. You realize many of those accusations are leveled at capitalist interests stealing from the government being framed as Chavez being corrupt right? As well as literally being Koch Brother propaganda? EDIT2 I'm sorry, but you frame my disagreement as "an evils of capitalism sidebar" while literally presenting koch brothers propaganda as proposed jumping off point of learning more. Like, I should probably also check out their reports on climate change no? ___________________________________________________________________________________________ If it's not clear, your citation was literally a mouthpiece for the corrupt interests he was ousting.Frankly, since this relates to my ongoing point about US media manipulation of "the left" let's focus on the meta of citing the literal corrupt capitalists he ousted for further research on Venezuela corruption that's somehow Chavez's fault. I just have to add (sorry about doing it like this) but Venezuela's inequality is still lower than the US and last UN report I saw had it as the best in the region (and still going down despite the collapse of oil). I did say it was 'a springing off point'. It highlights areas of concern to look into more deeply. But your reply's exactly why I wanted you to do the legwork, because I kind of knew your response would be 'XXX PROPAGANDA!!!!!!' You've demonstrated a definite stubborn streak about Venezuala in the past, no doubt because it's the greatest example of a Socialist state in our lifetimes that actually worked for a time. But you seem unwilling to see the bad that came with the good, or recognise Chavez's faults alongside his positives. I don't disagree that the whole project was doomed because the US would have sabotaged it to death no matter what. But I don't consider external forces when talking about Chavez's performance in his own country. Just look into his inner circle and the various confirmed scandals, public fund theft, mismanagement issues in the oil industry (absolutely inexcusable given how vital it is to Venezuala's economy), and how many ended up serving time. Unless you genuinely believe in the Illuminati you have to concede that Chavez worked with some bad actors for whatever reason you choose to go with. And you cannot argue with the point that he created the framework that allowed those bad actors to seize absolute power in his absence and turn Venezuala into the shitshow it's become. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3192933/Hugo-Chavez-s-ambassador-daughter-Venezuela-s-richest-woman-according-new-report.html Yes it IS the Daily Fail, but again, some other stuff to look into. There's plenty of other sources to look into about Chavez's daughter's suspiciously high personal wealth, and Alejandro Andrade is another dodgy core Chavez figure from the mid years of his administration.
If there are better sources you'd be served to choose them instead of quoting propaganda from the Koch brothers about the corruption of the government that kicked their corrupt asses out and then complaining about me pointing it out.
You seem fine giving me notoriously shitty sources when asked for specific claims about how Chavez did a poor job, so I don't understand the argument that you didn't provide them because I would accuse you of doing what you did.
I feel like you've gone off the rails a bit with this Illuminati stuff and so far have cited several incidences of capitalists reporting that people in the government were stealing from Chavez and the people and calling that corruption Chavez's fault. Somehow both ignoring and acknowledging they were selling the stolen goods and laundering the money through the US and allies with the intention of undermining Chavez.
If you want to make specific charges about corruption Chavez is responsible for, then do it.
But while you could have picked plenty of better sources for that Daily fail article about Chavez's daughter (really?) they all go back to Diario Las Americas which was bought by US based Venezuelan investors, so again basically the kind of corrupt people he was kicking out of power. Coincidentally their primary audience are capitalist that left socialist/communist countries.
It's not like I'm unwilling to engage with a specific charge in general, but you've been lobbing self-assured generalities like most people do when Venezuela comes up but they haven't done the kind of basic fact checking for the narratives that would at least have them frame their position as largely unsubstantiated allegations rather than matter of factly like they usually do.
As LL mentioned I've acknowledged Chavez wasn't a perfect leader, where this started was with the caviler way Chavez is called a bad leader by people who don't seem to really know why they are saying that beyond that Koch brothers report (that get's cited pretty frequently) as well as the daughter thing from pissy capitalist investors that didn't really back it up. As well as saying the money is (at least in part) in US accounts...which never manifested to my knowledge.
Your first mistake was thinking anything you've presented isn't something I already looked into even if you just finally googled it after just believing it blindly.
Just to be clear if she had money stashed (or any Venezuelan officials did in any capitalist country) it should have been returned to the Venezuelan people. But I don't think anything ever turned up about those accounts? I could be wrong on that (as unrelated as that really is in the first place).
EDIT: I'm not trying to be a dick it's just frustrating. Like there's more evidence Trump has 4 Billion dollars and I'm not sure how many people believe that. It seems odd that one unsubstantiated report was so widely spread and basically accepted as fact.
|
Let's cut to the bone here.
What sources would you consider valid?
If it seems to you that I'm not putting in the effort, it's because I know exactly how you'll respond, because you have a one-track mind where Venezuala is concerned and I was around the last time you took on the entire forum about Venezuala (despite, at that time, admitting you didn't know much about it). And likewise, if it seems I'm assuming you don't know what you're talking about, it's because last time this came up you admitted to that, and you seem to be unaware of dozens and dozens of scandals or the fact that Venezuala's oil industry was fucked up badly by Chavez's policies, setting the stage for the country's absolute collapse. I'm happy to go into in-depth on issues but I'm not spending hours trawling the internet for sources just so you can go 'LUL PROPAGANDA' again and again and again.
How can you possibly not recognise that as a sign of bad governance? I'm not asking you to dump on Chavez, just admit that for all his good intentions he made collossal mistakes. It isn't enough to say 'he wasn't perfect'. He was significantly worse than not perfect, and you can't talk about him honestly without acknowledging that he - in my opinion unintentionally - set the stage for venezuala's ruin. I 100% believe Chavez wanted to do the best for the Venezualan people and raise them up all across the board. But he was naive and he made enormous mistakes that have undone everything he tried to accomplish, and those mistakes were his alone and they tarnish Socialism because they were his own fault. He should have known better on every count.
You're very quick to find any excuse to blame Capitalists for literally everything that happened to Venezuala, even structural things Hugo Chavez had 100% control over and a complete unfettered mandate from the public to do things about. You can whinge about the problems in the US and I'll whinge about problems in the UK, but no government we can even theoretically elect enjoys an unfettered public or indeed even legal mandate to do absolutely anything they want to. Can you not see why that is a structural strength in our systems? Eschewing moral considerations, pure structural strength.
I've named three people of interest a la corruption in Venezuala. Explain to me how none of these people are evidence of Chavez's inner circle being corrupt. Exonerate them. Find me sources that prove their innocence.
And yes, Trump is a corrupt fuck and it's a humiliating embarrassment that he's US President, and it's made even worse every time a right winger in the US proclaims him TEH GRETEST PREZIDANT EVAR. But the US isn't falling into flames because they elected a fucking wingnut.
Can you even conceive of how much damage Trump could do if he'd been elected in Venezuala, after Hugo Chavez put absolute power in the hands of himself and his heirs?
And for that matter, how is taking that absolute power for himself particularly Socialist in the first place? You hate that kind of activity, GH! Openly, you hate it! Why does it not matter that Hugo Chavez did it?
Or was it evil Capitalists that made him stock his Supreme Court with pro-Chavez yes men instead of honest Venezualans who would call him and his government out if they went off the beaten track?
|
On January 01 2019 21:59 iamthedave wrote:
Let's cut to the bone here.
What sources would you consider valid?
If it seems to you that I'm not putting in the effort, it's because I know exactly how you'll respond, because you have a one-track mind where Venezuala is concerned and I was around the last time you took on the entire forum about Venezuala (despite, at that time, admitting you didn't know much about it). And likewise, if it seems I'm assuming you don't know what you're talking about, it's because last time this came up you admitted to that, and you seem to be unaware of dozens and dozens of scandals or the fact that Venezuala's oil industry was fucked up badly by Chavez's policies, setting the stage for the country's absolute collapse. I'm happy to go into in-depth on issues but I'm not spending hours trawling the internet for sources just so you can go 'LUL PROPAGANDA' again and again and again.
How can you possibly not recognise that as a sign of bad governance? I'm not asking you to dump on Chavez, just admit that for all his good intentions he made collossal mistakes. It isn't enough to say 'he wasn't perfect'. He was significantly worse than not perfect, and you can't talk about him honestly without acknowledging that he - in my opinion unintentionally - set the stage for venezuala's ruin. I 100% believe Chavez wanted to do the best for the Venezualan people and raise them up all across the board. But he was naive and he made enormous mistakes that have undone everything he tried to accomplish, and those mistakes were his alone and they tarnish Socialism because they were his own fault. He should have known better on every count.
You're very quick to find any excuse to blame Capitalists for literally everything that happened to Venezuala, even structural things Hugo Chavez had 100% control over and a complete unfettered mandate from the public to do things about. You can whinge about the problems in the US and I'll whinge about problems in the UK, but no government we can even theoretically elect enjoys an unfettered public or indeed even legal mandate to do absolutely anything they want to. Can you not see why that is a structural strength in our systems? Eschewing moral considerations, pure structural strength.
I've named three people of interest a la corruption in Venezuala. Explain to me how none of these people are evidence of Chavez's inner circle being corrupt. Exonerate them. Find me sources that prove their innocence.
And yes, Trump is a corrupt fuck and it's a humiliating embarrassment that he's US President, and it's made even worse every time a right winger in the US proclaims him TEH GRETEST PREZIDANT EVAR. But the US isn't falling into flames because they elected a fucking wingnut.
Can you even conceive of how much damage Trump could do if he'd been elected in Venezuala, after Hugo Chavez put absolute power in the hands of himself and his heirs?
And for that matter, how is taking that absolute power for himself particularly Socialist in the first place? You hate that kind of activity, GH! Openly, you hate it! Why does it not matter that Hugo Chavez did it?
Or was it evil Capitalists that made him stock his Supreme Court with pro-Chavez yes men instead of honest Venezualans who would call him and his government out if they went off the beaten track?
I can tell you're upset because I've asked you for specific allegations and you didn't have them.
You shared Koch Brothers propaganda as a jumping off point for climate change scandal and some trash about his daughter you didn't even bother to admit was unsubstantiated.
Can you imagine how much damage the Koch Brothers could do if the US hadn't eliminated their corruption from the US!? They might continue to buy politicians and convince them to support policy that's poisoning their constituents and destroying the planet while using the US gov and military to protect their profits.
You're seeming to forget that the US didn't just have a "robust system" overnight, on changing their form of government it took at least two of the US's bloodiest wars. You're also still failing to take notice that Trump isn't an aberration but the unmasking.
"comon Chavez, you couldn't do what took the US 100+ years in 10 with the US undermining you at every corner and trying to assassinate you. Such Badd" - that's you right now
EDIT: You may also remember the US almost destroyed the entire global economy until tax payers got put on the hook for the hundreds of billions of dollars banks lost gambling and lying (with none of them being held accountable, corruption much?)
Small aside, banks (after the bipartisan legislation to weaken Dodd-Frank) are nearly back to where they were just before the crash with tons of ninja loans (at the commercial level as well) spidered through subsidiary entities. Which means there are a bunch of shitty loans out there we're on the hook for again and they've just recently started selling them to foreign entities (which means they're going sour soon).
|
On January 02 2019 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2019 21:59 iamthedave wrote:
Let's cut to the bone here.
What sources would you consider valid?
If it seems to you that I'm not putting in the effort, it's because I know exactly how you'll respond, because you have a one-track mind where Venezuala is concerned and I was around the last time you took on the entire forum about Venezuala (despite, at that time, admitting you didn't know much about it). And likewise, if it seems I'm assuming you don't know what you're talking about, it's because last time this came up you admitted to that, and you seem to be unaware of dozens and dozens of scandals or the fact that Venezuala's oil industry was fucked up badly by Chavez's policies, setting the stage for the country's absolute collapse. I'm happy to go into in-depth on issues but I'm not spending hours trawling the internet for sources just so you can go 'LUL PROPAGANDA' again and again and again.
How can you possibly not recognise that as a sign of bad governance? I'm not asking you to dump on Chavez, just admit that for all his good intentions he made collossal mistakes. It isn't enough to say 'he wasn't perfect'. He was significantly worse than not perfect, and you can't talk about him honestly without acknowledging that he - in my opinion unintentionally - set the stage for venezuala's ruin. I 100% believe Chavez wanted to do the best for the Venezualan people and raise them up all across the board. But he was naive and he made enormous mistakes that have undone everything he tried to accomplish, and those mistakes were his alone and they tarnish Socialism because they were his own fault. He should have known better on every count.
You're very quick to find any excuse to blame Capitalists for literally everything that happened to Venezuala, even structural things Hugo Chavez had 100% control over and a complete unfettered mandate from the public to do things about. You can whinge about the problems in the US and I'll whinge about problems in the UK, but no government we can even theoretically elect enjoys an unfettered public or indeed even legal mandate to do absolutely anything they want to. Can you not see why that is a structural strength in our systems? Eschewing moral considerations, pure structural strength.
I've named three people of interest a la corruption in Venezuala. Explain to me how none of these people are evidence of Chavez's inner circle being corrupt. Exonerate them. Find me sources that prove their innocence.
And yes, Trump is a corrupt fuck and it's a humiliating embarrassment that he's US President, and it's made even worse every time a right winger in the US proclaims him TEH GRETEST PREZIDANT EVAR. But the US isn't falling into flames because they elected a fucking wingnut.
Can you even conceive of how much damage Trump could do if he'd been elected in Venezuala, after Hugo Chavez put absolute power in the hands of himself and his heirs?
And for that matter, how is taking that absolute power for himself particularly Socialist in the first place? You hate that kind of activity, GH! Openly, you hate it! Why does it not matter that Hugo Chavez did it?
Or was it evil Capitalists that made him stock his Supreme Court with pro-Chavez yes men instead of honest Venezualans who would call him and his government out if they went off the beaten track? I can tell you're upset because I've asked you for specific allegations and you didn't have them. You shared Koch Brothers propaganda as a jumping off point for climate change scandal and some trash about his daughter you didn't even bother to admit was unsubstantiated. Can you imagine how much damage the Koch Brothers could do if the US hadn't eliminated their corruption from the US!? They might continue to buy politicians and convince them to support policy that's poisoning their constituents and destroying the planet while using the US gov and military to protect their profits. You're seeming to forget that the US didn't just have a "robust system" overnight, on changing their form of government it took at least two of the US's bloodiest wars. You're also still failing to take notice that Trump isn't an aberration but the unmasking. "comon Chavez, you couldn't do what took the US 100+ years in 10 with the US undermining you at every corner and trying to assassinate you. Such Badd" - that's you right now EDIT: You may also remember the US almost destroyed the entire global economy until tax payers got put on the hook for the hundreds of billions of dollars banks lost gambling and lying (with none of them being held accountable, corruption much?) Small aside, banks (after the bipartisan legislation to weaken Dodd-Frank) are nearly back to where they were just before the crash with tons of ninja loans (at the commercial level as well) spidered through subsidiary entities. Which means there are a bunch of shitty loans out there we're on the hook for again and they've just recently started selling them to foreign entities (which means they're going sour soon).
No, I'm not upset. Like I said; I knew how you'd respond. Disappointed, maybe? But again, you're very predictable on certain topics, and this is one of them.
I asked you to exonerate three people. You haven't even done that for one. You're not putting in any effort but expect me to put in a ton. Why? You'll just do the same old, same old, because you have blinkers on about Venezuala.
You didn't even have the honesty to admit that there are no sources you'll accept as valid. Nothing I can possibly present to you is something you can't dismiss as somebody's propaganda. So that's what you'll do. It's a bad faith argument. You aren't asking 'show me the source that proves it' you're asking 'show me a source so I can call you a propaganda spewer'. Despite me repeatedly saying not to take the articles at face value and look into the matters mentioned when I linked them you've instead used them to attack me.
Like I said. Why should I put in the effort? You're not going to. I did my time back when it was relevant, when Chavez was alive, and primary sources were all over the place. I read magazine articles, I read online articles, I read everything I could find about Venezuala because it was fascinating and seemed to offer real hope for a better way forward. But from that reading I could see the problems. And it's turned out far worse than anyone, even skeptics, feared. Things would eventually have collapsed from pressure from the US (a point I've now made at least three times but you continue to act as if I haven't), but they are as bad as they are now because of the mistakes made by Hugo Chavez. It is intellectually dishonest or plain ignorance of what he did in office to claim otherwise.
I repeat: You have condemned the things Hugo Chavez did in other contexts.
You let him off the hook because he's a Socialist. Examine your own biases, GH. You don't do your cause any favours by coming across like an unreasonable zealot.
As to the apparently obligatory sideline about the US: I'm not sure I believe that Trump is the unmasking and not an aberration. We'll have to see how things are after Trump to be sure of that one way or the other. You're pretty much the only person I know of who feels that way, and I see no particular reason to weight your view over all the others that contradict it. Your view is interesting because it's extreme, and you have plenty of good arguments. But the other side - that Trump is an aberration caused by a specific confluence of factors - is equally good.
But I do like that you repackaged my own point about comparing the US and the UK to Venezuala isn't fair because our systems are comparatively so much older, as if I hadn't literally pointed that out to you as a counter to one of your earlier points. Cute, admittedly, but not effective.
So I'll concede a point, out of magnanimity. It is unreasonable of me to expect Hugo Chavez to take care of the industry that was needed to feed the Venezualan economy. I mean, really, how can he be expected to understand that by far the most important industry in Venezuala needed to be carefully cared for and cultivated? Nobody else in history has figured that one out, not one person before him whose example he could learn from. So yeah, you're right. It's incredibly unreasonable to expect him to have done that. How could he have known?
It's not like his own administration relied on oil money, or anything...
|
On January 02 2019 01:59 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2019 01:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 01 2019 21:59 iamthedave wrote:
Let's cut to the bone here.
What sources would you consider valid?
If it seems to you that I'm not putting in the effort, it's because I know exactly how you'll respond, because you have a one-track mind where Venezuala is concerned and I was around the last time you took on the entire forum about Venezuala (despite, at that time, admitting you didn't know much about it). And likewise, if it seems I'm assuming you don't know what you're talking about, it's because last time this came up you admitted to that, and you seem to be unaware of dozens and dozens of scandals or the fact that Venezuala's oil industry was fucked up badly by Chavez's policies, setting the stage for the country's absolute collapse. I'm happy to go into in-depth on issues but I'm not spending hours trawling the internet for sources just so you can go 'LUL PROPAGANDA' again and again and again.
How can you possibly not recognise that as a sign of bad governance? I'm not asking you to dump on Chavez, just admit that for all his good intentions he made collossal mistakes. It isn't enough to say 'he wasn't perfect'. He was significantly worse than not perfect, and you can't talk about him honestly without acknowledging that he - in my opinion unintentionally - set the stage for venezuala's ruin. I 100% believe Chavez wanted to do the best for the Venezualan people and raise them up all across the board. But he was naive and he made enormous mistakes that have undone everything he tried to accomplish, and those mistakes were his alone and they tarnish Socialism because they were his own fault. He should have known better on every count.
You're very quick to find any excuse to blame Capitalists for literally everything that happened to Venezuala, even structural things Hugo Chavez had 100% control over and a complete unfettered mandate from the public to do things about. You can whinge about the problems in the US and I'll whinge about problems in the UK, but no government we can even theoretically elect enjoys an unfettered public or indeed even legal mandate to do absolutely anything they want to. Can you not see why that is a structural strength in our systems? Eschewing moral considerations, pure structural strength.
I've named three people of interest a la corruption in Venezuala. Explain to me how none of these people are evidence of Chavez's inner circle being corrupt. Exonerate them. Find me sources that prove their innocence.
And yes, Trump is a corrupt fuck and it's a humiliating embarrassment that he's US President, and it's made even worse every time a right winger in the US proclaims him TEH GRETEST PREZIDANT EVAR. But the US isn't falling into flames because they elected a fucking wingnut.
Can you even conceive of how much damage Trump could do if he'd been elected in Venezuala, after Hugo Chavez put absolute power in the hands of himself and his heirs?
And for that matter, how is taking that absolute power for himself particularly Socialist in the first place? You hate that kind of activity, GH! Openly, you hate it! Why does it not matter that Hugo Chavez did it?
Or was it evil Capitalists that made him stock his Supreme Court with pro-Chavez yes men instead of honest Venezualans who would call him and his government out if they went off the beaten track? I can tell you're upset because I've asked you for specific allegations and you didn't have them. You shared Koch Brothers propaganda as a jumping off point for climate change scandal and some trash about his daughter you didn't even bother to admit was unsubstantiated. Can you imagine how much damage the Koch Brothers could do if the US hadn't eliminated their corruption from the US!? They might continue to buy politicians and convince them to support policy that's poisoning their constituents and destroying the planet while using the US gov and military to protect their profits. You're seeming to forget that the US didn't just have a "robust system" overnight, on changing their form of government it took at least two of the US's bloodiest wars. You're also still failing to take notice that Trump isn't an aberration but the unmasking. "comon Chavez, you couldn't do what took the US 100+ years in 10 with the US undermining you at every corner and trying to assassinate you. Such Badd" - that's you right now EDIT: You may also remember the US almost destroyed the entire global economy until tax payers got put on the hook for the hundreds of billions of dollars banks lost gambling and lying (with none of them being held accountable, corruption much?) Small aside, banks (after the bipartisan legislation to weaken Dodd-Frank) are nearly back to where they were just before the crash with tons of ninja loans (at the commercial level as well) spidered through subsidiary entities. Which means there are a bunch of shitty loans out there we're on the hook for again and they've just recently started selling them to foreign entities (which means they're going sour soon). No, I'm not upset. Like I said; I knew how you'd respond. I asked you to exonerate three people. You haven't even done that for one. You're not putting in any effort but expect me to put in a ton. Why? You'll just do the same old, same old, because you have blinkers on about Venezuala. You didn't even have the honesty to admit that there are no sources you'll accept as valid. Nothing I can possibly present to you is something you can't dismiss as somebody's propaganda. So that's what you'll do. I'm not sure I believe that Trump is the unmasking and not an aberration. We'll have to see how things are after Trump to be sure of that one way or the other. You're pretty much the only person I know of who feels that way, and I see no particular reason to weight your view over all the others that contradict it. I do like that you repackaged my own point about comparing the US and the UK to Venezuala isn't fair because our systems are comparatively so much older, as if I hadn't literally pointed that out to you as a counter to one of your earlier points. Cute, admittedly, but not effective. But I'll concede. It is unreasonable of me to expect Hugo Chavez to take care of the industry that was needed to feed the Venezualan economy. I mean, really, how can he be expected to understand that by far the most important industry in Venezuala needed to be carefully cared for and cultivated? Nobody else in history has figured that one out, not one person before him whose example he could learn from. So yeah, you're right. It's incredibly unreasonable to expect him to have done that. How could he have known? It's not like his own administration relied on oil money, or anything...
So guilty until proven innocent of specific charges you didn't make lol.
Are you trying to say that the Koch Brothers propaganda you were spreading shouldn't have been called out?
I also pointed out that many of the things listed there were capitalists that were stealing from Chavez and the people with the assistance of US entities. So without you leveling specific allegations of what they did and why it was Chavez fault I can't exactly refute it can I?
Instead you just keep repeating that he did a poor job of governing Venezuela, didn't root out corruption, and that we can't consider how devastating US/western/Venezuelan capitalists were to Venezuela (besides suggesting Chavez couldn't possibly have succeeded at what you say he failed at). But I'm also supposed to see their conspiracies against Chavez and the people of Venezuela as Chavez's fault and not the giant capitalist superpower sponsoring and encouraging them.
Now you're accusing him of destroying the oil industry when he did no such thing.
That you've chosen terrible sources (let's not skip over you citing the Koch brothers as just me railing against capitalist propaganda, seriously) isn't something you can blame on me for pointing out that they are quite obviously biased against the subject of their reporting and in the case of Chavez's daughter are literally just every western outlet repeating the same unsubstantiated report literally from the same people you claim were corrupt pro-Chavez officials.
**you realize how obvious it is that the people claiming the daughter had billions were the ones fleecing the people as they admitted to in court? (the stealing, not blaming the daughter)**
You're making a poor unsupported argument, demanding that I prove it wrong and getting upset I'm pointing it out.
At this point I'm confident that you know that you didn't know what you thought you did about Venezuela and we're just in the saving face portion of this discussion.
As for sources I've managed to provide you with several to support my arguments, I even chose ones that would be unobjectionable to you instead of something like Venezuelan state media.
EDIT: To be clear your concession about the US involvement says that Chavez couldn't have accomplished what you're saying he should have. That we can't consider how it was practically impossible to achieve when considering what actions he took toward that end. Your argument is bad, make a better one.
Though it seems we're coming to it which is basically that Venezuela should have become a vassal state for the US like Saudi Arabia to "protect" their oil industry/ economy/government from the US.
Bottom line: Chavez did a good job
|
No, I'm not upset. You aren't even reading my posts by the looks of things. I have no face to save here. You're putting up no opposition to my points that is even relevant and completely ignoring most of what I say, including essentially repeating things I've said to you as if I hadn't already said them. I'm pretty confident that if the point of discussion is to convince those who listen or read, I've thrashed you. If they're curious about the things I've said, I've pointed them in the direction of multiple areas where they can look up Venezuala's downfall. And I'm 100% confident that after looking into that country's sad state of affairs, they'll come to more or less the same conclusions I have after doing so.
If you seriously thought I believed I'd convince you... again, you aren't reading my posts. I knew how you'd respond, because you're very predictable on this subject.
Bottom line: Chavez did good for Venezuala but laid the foundations for its destruction. Your refusal to face reality doesn't stop it being real.
The fact that you tagged on a pathetic thing about 'how the US should protect the Venezualan oil industry' really does summarise your problems on this topic. When did I ever remotely imply such a thing? When did I say Venezuala should 'become a vassal state to the US'? When did I imply such a thing?
Go on, I'll wait. Quote me.
I've made multiple accusations that you've dodged and attempted to turn this into the US vs. Venezuala, when all along I've been trying to focus on Hugo Chavez and his actual policies that he actually passed and things he actually did as El Presidente. Your constant evasion on these points suggests to me you haven't looked into the specifics much at all, because if you had there's no way at all you could defend some of his decisions.
As I've said three times now: You have condemned people for doing things Chavez did in other contexts. Either he did wrong according to GH, or you're a collossal hypocrite who's willing to condemn Capitalists for things you deem to be okay so long as a Socialist does it. Never mind that those things led directly to the current unfolding horror in Venezuala.
|
On January 02 2019 03:58 iamthedave wrote:
No, I'm not upset. You aren't even reading my posts by the looks of things. I have no face to save here. You're putting up no opposition to my points that is even relevant and completely ignoring most of what I say, including essentially repeating things I've said to you as if I hadn't already said them. I'm pretty confident that if the point of discussion is to convince those who listen or read, I've thrashed you.
If you seriously thought I believed I'd convince you... again, you aren't reading my posts. I knew how you'd respond, because you're very predictable on this subject.
Bottom line: Chavez did good for Venezuala but laid the foundations for its destruction. Your refusal to face reality doesn't stop it being real.
The fact that you tagged on a pathetic thing about 'how the US should protect the Venezualan oil industry' really does summarise your problems on this topic. When did I ever remotely imply such a thing? When did I say Venezuala should 'become a vassal state to the US'? When did I imply such a thing?
Go on, I'll wait. Quote me.
You're saying he laid the foundations for it's destruction while also saying it was doomed regardless. So when I ask how and you point vaguely to corruption (still haven't made specific charges as to who did what and how that was his fault and not something he was fighting) besides the silly one about his daughter and claiming he was a dictator who could remove whomever he wanted whenever he wanted (there wouldn't be so many capitalists still there if that was an option).
As to when you implied they should have submitted to the US, it's basically you're entire argument. He didn't secure their primary industry and the only way to have accomplished that would be to bow to US demands.
Just to use an example that ties things together, Chavez could have instead played ball with the Koch Brothers and ensured that the US would have powerful corrupt domestic interests lobbying them for positive treatment for Venezuela instead of sanctions.
Instead he rooted out corrupt western corporations and transferred billions of dollars that would have went to corrupt interests like the Koch Brothers to his people in the form of providing huge improvements in education, poverty reduction, reducing inequality, increasing life expectancy, and so on. To his great displeasure and despite his best efforts he didn't purge all corruption from Venezuela.
Did he make mistakes or empower people that exploited him and the Venezuelan people to enrich themselves and western associates? Probably (though you've done a poor job of demonstrating that).
Overall that easily makes him an above average leader and is reflective of (at least regionally/socio-economically relatively) good leadership of Venezuela.
Take out US and western capitalists interference (and the assurance that they will never let you succeed even if it means unprovoked war) and Chavez could have done a lot more to root out domestic corruption. But to claim so matter of factly that he did nothing to root out corruption many of the other preposterous things you've said is just ridiculous.
|
On January 02 2019 04:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2019 03:58 iamthedave wrote:
No, I'm not upset. You aren't even reading my posts by the looks of things. I have no face to save here. You're putting up no opposition to my points that is even relevant and completely ignoring most of what I say, including essentially repeating things I've said to you as if I hadn't already said them. I'm pretty confident that if the point of discussion is to convince those who listen or read, I've thrashed you.
If you seriously thought I believed I'd convince you... again, you aren't reading my posts. I knew how you'd respond, because you're very predictable on this subject.
Bottom line: Chavez did good for Venezuala but laid the foundations for its destruction. Your refusal to face reality doesn't stop it being real.
The fact that you tagged on a pathetic thing about 'how the US should protect the Venezualan oil industry' really does summarise your problems on this topic. When did I ever remotely imply such a thing? When did I say Venezuala should 'become a vassal state to the US'? When did I imply such a thing?
Go on, I'll wait. Quote me.
You're saying he laid the foundations for it's destruction while also saying it was doomed regardless. So when I ask how and you point vaguely to corruption (still haven't made specific charges as to who did what and how that was his fault and not something he was fighting) besides the silly one about his daughter and claiming he was a dictator who could remove whomever he wanted whenever he wanted (there wouldn't be so many capitalists still there if that was an option). As to when you implied they should have submitted to the US, it's basically you're entire argument. He didn't secure their primary industry and the only way to have accomplished that would be to bow to US demands.
No, incorrect. Let me lay this out simply.
1) US pressure would, eventually, have brought Venezuala down. This isn't a matter of contest.
2) Things have gotten as bad as they have, as fast as they have, and the nation collapsed as fast as it did, because of things Hugo Chavez did not do that he needed to.
These things do not cancel each other out. They coexist on the same axis. Hugo Chavez could have been perfect and point 1) can still be true. But because of point 2) things are way worse than they would have been, way faster.
My argument is not that they should have submitted to the US. That's fantasy. Vague flailing because you despise your country of birth to a colossal degree. Maybe XDaunt would make that argument, and I could see him making it and meaning it, but that's not mine.
Chavez should have invested in proper training for the civilians in charge of the oil fields and updated equipment so that they were able to maintain oil production so that Venezuala didn't run out of money.
|
On January 01 2019 12:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2019 12:00 Danglars wrote:On January 01 2019 11:17 IgnE wrote:
I wouldn't be citing Venezuela's inequality if I were you It makes the whole exchange worth reading for that concluding triumph. lol okay? Is this what passes as enlightened commentary to you guys? EDIT:I'm actually curious what you guys are trying to say though? We can leave it at whatever that was then we can move on to how Warren's announcement not getting any traction here doesn't bode well for her.
it's not a persuasive argument. it's simply irrelevant in the face of humanitarian crisis and mass migration away from Venezuela. to people who have a bunch of assumptions about how Venezuela has been wronged, and how other countries could benefit by leveling the playing field for healthcare and increasing literacy, and whatever else, they already agree with you. to everybody else it suggests that you think equality is important in a vacuum and are an unthinking ideologue. so why bring it up at all? it's asking to be written off, especially without heavy qualification and contextualization
|
On January 02 2019 04:35 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2019 12:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 01 2019 12:00 Danglars wrote:On January 01 2019 11:17 IgnE wrote:
I wouldn't be citing Venezuela's inequality if I were you It makes the whole exchange worth reading for that concluding triumph. lol okay? Is this what passes as enlightened commentary to you guys? EDIT:I'm actually curious what you guys are trying to say though? We can leave it at whatever that was then we can move on to how Warren's announcement not getting any traction here doesn't bode well for her. it's not a persuasive argument. it's simply irrelevant in the face of humanitarian crisis and mass migration away from Venezuela. to people who have a bunch of assumptions about how Venezuela has been wronged, and how other countries could benefit by leveling the playing field for healthcare and increasing literacy, and whatever else, they already agree with you. to everybody else it suggests that you think equality is important in a vacuum and are an unthinking ideologue. so why bring it up at all? it's asking to be written off, especially without heavy qualification and contextualization
If that's what you're expecting you're going to need to find something better than what iamdave is putting up.
For instance they are fleeing to border areas where the capitalist smugglers and hoarders (there are still a lot of capitalists and privately owned businesses in Venezuela) are exploiting their desperation (in part caused by their hoarding and smuggling) to make exorbitant profits and exploit desperate labor forces in the neighboring capitalist countries.
There's also this thing in the west where they portray people as "anti-chavez" to explain his expropriation of "their" property, then "loyal to Chavez" when they get caught stealing money from the Venezuelan people.
Venezuela is no utopia, but when it comes to South America in the era of Chavez he did a damn good job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
