The Local is not responsible for content posted by users.
2 Pages V   1 2 >   Reply to this topic

Social democracy on the rise!

*Arca*
post 9.Mar.2006, 06:47 PM
Post #1


Since others are sharing their news sources, here's an interesting article from CounterPunch.

Noam Chomsky on the Hopeful Signs Across Latin America

"The ideological issue that you rightly bring up is the impact of neoliberalism. It's pretty striking over the last twenty-five years, overwhelmingly it's true, that the countries that have adhered to the neo-liberal rules have had an economic catastrophe and the countries that didn't pay any intention to the rules grew and developed."

http://www.counterpunch.org/dwyer03072006.html

Noam Chomsky says it, George Monbiot says it, neo-liberalism is a myth!
Go to the top of the page
+
Alice Is Back
post 9.Mar.2006, 07:35 PM
Post #2
Joined: 15.Jan.2006

well I am a bit happy about the shift to the left but I think Chomsky really left out the fact that Argentina and Brazil have more social democratic governments which I support and Bolivia and Venezuela have extrme leftist governments which I disagree with. Especially Chavez fooling around with Mugabe and Castro is not such a good idea. On the other hand Argentina and Brazil have tried to keep the economic fundamentals in place and at the same time to aid the poor, which is no easy task.
Go to the top of the page
+
*Arca*
post 9.Mar.2006, 08:53 PM
Post #3


In what aspect do you think Venezuela's and Bolivia's governments are extreme left? I think Venezuela had some radical reforms, such as of land and renegotiation of oil contracts, but on the other hand I understand them. It is their land and most of the profits should go back to their people. So far my impression is that Chavez managed to keep a balance and not scare competent people and investors out of the country.
Go to the top of the page
+
Alice Is Back
post 9.Mar.2006, 09:46 PM
Post #4
Joined: 15.Jan.2006

well the violent means Chavez uses for his ends, the extreme anti-democratic constitution he had passed, and the civilian militias he is setting up now. Hardly social democratic
Go to the top of the page
+
*Arca*
post 10.Mar.2006, 12:13 AM
Post #5


I don't know what violent means or what in the constitution you are referring to, but probably something I missed. As for the militia, it's similar to Sweden's strategy of "allmän värnplikt". If you have too few resources or too large a territory to defend, there aren't many options but to give as many as possible a basic military training and go for guerilla tactics in case of invasion. Exactly what Sweden would have done if the Soviet Union had attacked us.
Go to the top of the page
+
Alice Is Back
post 10.Mar.2006, 03:39 AM
Post #6
Joined: 15.Jan.2006

QUOTE (Arca)
I don't know what violent means or what in the constitution you are referring to, but probably something I missed.


demonstrator shot: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2935780.stm

constitution: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/566096.stm

Soviet style election: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4501890.stm
QUOTE (Arca)
As for the militia, it's similar to Sweden's strategy of "allmän värnplikt". If you have too few resources or too large a territory to defend, there aren't many options but to give as many as possible a basic military training and go for guerilla tactics in case of invasion. Exactly what Sweden would have done if the Soviet Union had attacked us.


Would have done, do you really seriously believe the United States is planning an invasion of Venezuela. Do you have one shred of proof that the States is planning an invasion????
Go to the top of the page
+
*Arca*
post 10.Mar.2006, 09:17 AM
Post #7


QUOTE (Aaron_in_berlin)
Would have done, do you really seriously believe the United States is planning an invasion of Venezuela. Do you have one shred of proof that the States is planning an invasion????

It doesn't matter what can be proven or what I believe. The US just invaded Iraq to "bring democracy" or was it to oust a dictator. Given that and the rethoric between the US and Venezuela, I can understand if Venezuela feel there could be a risk sometime in the future. No country will take a chance and hope for the best because the probability is low. If there is a remote risk within the coming decades, you start preparing.

Sweden didn't have any reason to believe the Soviet Union would invade us. Still, that minute risk is what our defense was mainly built for. Only recently, after the Soviet Union collapsed and their territory shrunk, did Sweden cut down on defense substantially. That's because the risk is zero in the coming couple of decades.
Go to the top of the page
+
*Arca*
post 10.Mar.2006, 11:53 AM
Post #8


QUOTE (Aaron_in_berlin)

Thanks for the links.

That demonstrator was shot by civilians, so not a "violent means" of the state.

The changes to the constitution in 1999, we have seen what they were for the past 7 years. Land reform and taking back control over oil and gas. The latest change, to let a president run for more than two periods, I can also understand. In a big country like the US or France, you can afford such safety measures, but in a small country there aren't more than a handful of candidates that has all the qualities of a great leader. Especially at a delicate time like this. They still have proper elections and proper referendums with international monitors.

As for the december election, the reason there was no opposition is that their parties boycotted the election. The opposition's track record isn't exactly fair play. Here's another point of view on this matter:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1834
Go to the top of the page
+
Alice Is Back
post 10.Mar.2006, 06:16 PM
Post #9
Joined: 15.Jan.2006

Arca I do not understand you when we discuss the States you are anti-military, complain up and down about Bush, and generally wish the downfall of the States. When we discuss Chavez you become suddenly pro-military, pro-martial, and claim every election is fair. In fact tthere were several irregularities in the referendum in 2004 and puts the us election of 2000 to shame considering fairness of elections. If the guy was shot in the States you would have complained up and down about it. The constitution gives lip service to human rights, as all constututions do now days, and gives much more power to the president.



DON'T EVER SHOW UP ON THIS BOARD AS A DOVE AGAIN, BECASUE THIS WILL MAKE YOU A HYPOCRITE

QUOTE
n a big country like the US or France, you can afford such safety measures, but in a small country there aren't more than a handful of candidates that has all the qualities of a great leader.


Arca are you even a democrat, or an authoritarian waiting in the wings???
Go to the top of the page
+
*Arca*
post 10.Mar.2006, 08:22 PM
Post #10


[quote=Aaron_in_berlin]Arca I do not understand you when we discuss the States you are anti-military, complain up and down about Bush, and generally wish the downfall of the States. When we discuss Chavez you become suddenly pro-military, pro-martial, and claim every election is fair.[/quote]
Oh please, I'm not against a country having military for defending their territory. I'm against invading other countries. Clear cut and no hypocracy.

The major elections in Venezuela have been monitored by the OAS, the EU, the Carter Center on the invitation of the government. They declared the elections clean. That's what I'm basing my opinion on.

If you have any other independent information (i.e. not directly from the opposition), I'm interested in reading it.

[quote=Arca]In a big country like the US or France, you can afford such safety measures, but in a small country there aren't more than a handful of candidates that has all the qualities of a great leader.[/quote]
Arca are you even a democrat, or an authoritarian waiting in the wings???[/quote]
Authoritarian and undemocratic because I think it's ok for a president to be re-elected by the people more than once? Term limits can just as well be argued to be undemocratic, you know. Lookie here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limit#Arguments_opposed
Go to the top of the page
+
Alice Is Back
post 10.Mar.2006, 09:18 PM
Post #11
Joined: 15.Jan.2006

QUOTE (Arca)
Oh please, I'm not against a country having military for defending their territory. I'm against invading other countries. Clear cut and no hypocracy.


but he has increased the military in several instances. I guess you would of been excited about Reagon increasing the size of the military too, considering the threat of the Soviets. Right Arca???
QUOTE (Arca)
The major elections in Venezuela have been monitored by the OAS, the EU, the Carter Center on the invitation of the government. They declared the elections clean. That's what I'm basing my opinion on.


there were several irregularities in the previous referendum, including trying to colect signatures and exit pools clearly showing Chavez has lost

QUOTE (Arca)
People are shot every day in the US and other countries. I might blame gun control, widespread crime, or even culture, I don't call it "violent means of the government". Venezuela seems very violent btw. Apparently it's common that people are murdered by robbers. Horrible records of that on a website I won't give a link to.


brfore the coup pro-Chavez supporters shot and killed several people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_coup_attempt_of_2002


QUOTE (Arca)
Ok. Much more power in what way?

much more power to the prasident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Venezuela



QUOTE (Arca)
In a big country like the US or France, you can afford such safety measures, but in a small country there aren't more than a handful of candidates that has all the qualities of a great leader.

Authoritarian and undemocratic because I think it's ok for a president to be re-elected by the people more than once? Term limits can just as well be argued to be undemocratic, you know. Lookie here:


the issue here is not term limits, but the massive power he has and the lack of checks and balances on his power. You claim he can have much power as he wants (and without "safety measures") because he is a "great leader".
Go to the top of the page
+
*Arca*
post 11.Mar.2006, 02:54 AM
Post #12


QUOTE (Aaron_in_berlin)
but he has increased the military in several instances. I guess you would of been excited about Reagon increasing the size of the military too, considering the threat of the Soviets. Right Arca???

The US spent 3.3% of their GNP on the military in 2004, Sweden 1.7% and Venezuela 1.5%. What's the big deal? Explain why Venezuela should spend less on their defence than Sweden...

QUOTE
there were several irregularities in the previous referendum, including trying to colect signatures and exit pools clearly showing Chavez has lost

That's what the opposition claims. The referendum was monitored and the irregularities investigated by the OAS, Carter Center and by American universities. In face of all this, why should I trust an exit poll conducted by the opposition...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_re..._2004#Aftermath

QUOTE
brfore the coup pro-Chavez supporters shot and killed several people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_coup_attempt_of_2002

Four activists who shot at someone, during dramatic days of coup build-up by the opposition. They were arrested for one year under Chavez, but then released (for lack of evidence? much controversy surrounding this event). Sorry, but I fail to see a trend of government sanctioned violence.

QUOTE
much more power to the prasident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Venezuela
[...]
the issue here is not term limits, but the massive power he has and the lack of checks and balances on his power. You claim he can have much power as he wants (and without "safety measures") because he is a "great leader".

I never said he can have as much power as he wants or without safety measures. A term limit is an *extra* safety measure, far from the only one.

Did you follow the link at the end of that wikipage?
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1003

It's a long read, but it explains the reforms very well. The overwhelming spirit of the new constitution is more power to the people and more protection of democracy, human rights, womens' rights, the natives' rights, social rights, even the environment. A president that is not popular or who goes against the rights declared in the constitution could easily be recalled in a referendum. The people can not just recall the president, but any elected official. It's true the president is given more control, such as of the military. But so far Chavez has not used that to militarize Venezuela, but rather put them to work on social projects and put civilians in charge of them.

I remain unconvinced by your fears.
Go to the top of the page
+
Alice Is Back
post 11.Mar.2006, 03:21 AM
Post #13
Joined: 15.Jan.2006

QUOTE (Arca)
The US spent 3.3% of their GNP on the military in 2004, Sweden 1.7% and Venezuela 1.5%. What's the big deal?


QUOTE (Arca)
That's what the opposition claims. The referendum was monitored and the irregularities investigated by the OAS, Carter Center and by American universities. In face of all this, why should I trust an exit poll conducted by the opposition...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_re..._2004#Aftermath


QUOTE (Arca)
Four activists who shot at someone, during dramatic days of coup build-up by the opposition. They were arrested for one year under Chavez, but then released (for lack of evidence? much controversy surrounding this event). Sorry, but I fail to see a trend of government sanctioned violence.


released, mabye becasue the Chavez government ordered it, even if it was caught on tape

QUOTE (Arca)
It's a long read, but it explains the reforms very well. The overwhelming spirit of the new constitution is more power to the people and more protection of democracy, human rights, womens' rights, the natives' rights, social rights, even the environment. A president that is not popular or who goes against the rights declared in the constitution could easily be recalled in a referendum. The people can not just recall the president, but any elected official. It's true the president is given more control, such as of the military. But so far Chavez has not used that to militarize Venezuela, but rather put them to work on social projects and put civilians in charge of them.


the Wikipedia article and the BBC clearly state there is an increase in presidental powers!! There is no denying this
QUOTE (Arca)
I remain unconvinced by your fears.


right maybe Lars "jag är kommunist " Ohly wins in September, then all your dreams will be fulfilled.

I have not even begin to list the incorrect policies he has instituted or how he has tried to break up the unions or any other basis of power. He is a demagogue and you refuse to see it. Plus your democratic credentials are seriously in doubt. I find it how passionetly you argue aginst Bush and then turn around and use the same arguements to support Chavez this makes you a hypocrite. I see you are quite pro-military/anti-union I bet Bush likes you for that
Go to the top of the page
+
Alice Is Back
post 11.Mar.2006, 03:40 AM
Post #14
Joined: 15.Jan.2006

QUOTE (Arca)
It doesn't matter what can be proven or what I believe. The US just invaded Iraq to "bring democracy" or was it to oust a dictator. Given that and the rethoric between the US and Venezuela, I can understand if Venezuela feel there could be a risk sometime in the future. No country will take a chance and hope for the best because the probability is low. If there is a remote risk within the coming decades, you start preparing.

Sweden didn't have any reason to believe the Soviet Union would invade us. Still, that minute risk is what our defense was mainly built for. Only recently, after the Soviet Union collapsed and their territory shrunk, did Sweden cut down on defense substantially. That's because the risk is zero in the coming couple of decades.


It doesn't matter what can be proven or what I believe. Venezuela just (with FARC) attempted in Columbia to "bring democracy" or was it to oust a dictator. Given that and the rethoric between the US and Venezuela, I can understand if th US feeld there could be a risk sometime in the future. No country will take a chance and hope for the best because the probability is low. If there is a remote risk within the coming decades, you start preparing.

US didn't have any reason to believe the Soviet Union would invade us. Still, that minute risk is what our defense was mainly built for. Only recently, after the Soviet Union collapsed and their territory shrunk, did US cut down on defense substantially. That's because the risk is zero in the coming couple of decades.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...7yckaw.asp?pg=2
Go to the top of the page
+
*Arca*
post 11.Mar.2006, 12:13 PM
Post #15


QUOTE (Aaron_in_berlin)
It should be noticed here the difference between the "official" results of 18%. In the much discussed case of Ohio there was a difference of 2-3% between the official results and the exit polls.

Tell me again why you put so much credibility in that exit poll by the opposition...

QUOTE
released, mabye becasue the Chavez government ordered it, even if it was caught on tape

Caught on tape by Irish journalissts who themselves are arguing against the opposition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_co...ish_documentary

QUOTE
the Wikipedia article and the BBC clearly state there is an increase in presidental powers!! There is no denying this

Noone is denying that. A lot more power is given to the people as well. Did you read that long article I referred to?

QUOTE
I have not even begin to list the incorrect policies he has instituted or how he has tried to break up the unions or any other basis of power. He is a demagogue and you refuse to see it.

Your arguments have just not been convincing. You simply swallow the neo-con point of view on this matter and presume that all reform is always a bad thing. Venezuela was a very corrupt country and yes, there's a peaceful revolution taking place. Actions speak louder than words and the overwhelming impression so far is that Chavez has the best intentions for the people in mind.

QUOTE
Plus your democratic credentials are seriously in doubt. I find it how passionetly you argue aginst Bush and then turn around and use the same arguements to support Chavez this makes you a hypocrite. I see you are quite pro-military/anti-union I bet Bush likes you for that

What same arguments? I'm beginning to suspect you have swallowed the neo-con argument that the invasion of Iraq was really a defensive action.
Go to the top of the page
+

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: