Chavez to USA: "Shove your terror list"
Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, has told the US government to "shove" its list of countries that "sponsor terror," daring the US to place Venezuela on the list:
President Hugo Chavez dared the U.S. on Friday to put Venezuela on a list of countries accused of supporting terrorism, calling it one more attempt by Washington to undermine him for political reasons...LinkU.S. lawmakers including Reps. Connie Mack and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, both Florida Republicans, have called for the State Department to add Venezuela to its list of terror sponsors, which includes North Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan and Cuba. They have expressed concerns about what they call Chavez's close ties to Colombia's leftist rebels.
''Let them make that list and shove it in their pocket,'' Chavez said in a televised speech.
''We shouldn't forget for an instant that we're in a battle against North American imperialism,'' Chavez said. ''On this continent, they have us as enemy No. 1.''
and just how many war fronts does the cheney presidency think America can maintain?
He did, apparently, give $300 million to FARC, a group that abducts civilians and then knocks them up. I'm about as far left as you can get, but Chavez is a narcissistic dictator. His 'socialization' of the country looks to me like consolidation of his power.
US classificating enemies or obstacles as terrorists - one thing.
Chavez sponsoring FARC terrorists - another one.
Plus, the U.S. Air Force plans to dominate cyberspace to deliver sovereign options, whatever that means.
"Let them make that list and shove it in their pocket"
Awww that's so polite it's almost cute. I can think of an array of orifices that might make better candidates.
but the USA currently suffers from a shortage of maps.
Suddenly, Miss Teen South Carolina doesn't sound so dumb.
The United States government has overthrown more nations than you can count on both hands by first denouncing them as "communist". (Fool me 15 times, shame on who?)
do note though, how close America came to war with Venezuela a few days ago. The American-sponsored Colombian raid into Equador could have turned very ugly.
Coca plants should be left in peace in the mountains where the native peoples need and use them for nutrition and long held cultural practices. I know the CIA finds the misery of poor, drug addicted Americans a convenient source of funds, but he whole thing needs to be re-thought.
For any who do not understand the last statement; I direct your attention to the recently crashed , CIA rendition flight registered aircraft found with tonnes of cocaine inside.
Man, Colombia is about the most complicated country in civil war; Ive never had the time to research it. As far as I can tell there are no good guys and all foreign intervention is incredibly self interested.
Are FARC left wing? Probably in the sense the old IRA was left wing, I suppose.
Well, of course we're targeting Venezuela because it's a big oil producer. But putting them on a list of countries that support terrorism is, strictly speaking, accurate. Of course the list of countries that don't support terror in some capacity probably consists of Monaco and Bhutan.
Are FARC left wing?
I would say that, after 40 years, the FARC exists to exist. Political groups get that way, especially after decades on the fringes of society.
Fact: I have no cocaine receptors. The 1980s were rather dull for me.
what? even with those bands?
hold that thought, small,furry people need me for a while. They don't know or care of any of this....
Chavez is a hero to stand up to the tyranny of the US. Chavez won't be bullied into becoming a US puppet state like Colombia. Why can't the US get out of everybody's business and clean up its own back yard?
"Why can't the US get out of everybody's business and clean up its own back yard?"
Because there's no profit in that.
I think you hit that nail on the head. Take the fight overseas to keep 'em distracted at home.
Besides, I think that the US views Latin America as our back yard. For me, the malice of our foreign policy is almost less horrifying than the stupidity. Everything that we do backfires horribly.
Chavez is a socialist dictator. Why would anyone care what he says about us?
"I agree that Chavez is a tyrant"
Oh? Would you care to document your statement?
As for the $300 millions, isn't it interesting to know the "evidences" have been found by Uribe's flunkies on the computer of the guy that was shot down.
The same Uribe whose MPs (40 or 50) are in prison right.
The same Uribe with very interesting ties to the local para-militaries, and with serious evidences pointing to him being a personal friend of Escobar...
"...shove it in their pocket"
I don't think that word means what he thinks it means.
Chavez is not the philosopher-king. He's enacted some troubling policies and it seems as though he's headed down that familiar road to charismatic semi-socialist dictatorship. But damn, if he isn't the most huggable, entertaining leader in South America right now. I find it hard not to love someone who challenges America's power so boldly, if only verbally.u
Would you care to document your statement?
How about everything that has ever been written about him in any newspaper not controlled by him. Hugo Chavez is not modeling himself after Fidel Castro so much as after Robert Mugabe. A real socialist recognizes Chavez as a nut job making a play for power, not as a liberator. Forgive me for fulfilling Godwin's Law, but Nazi is short for National Socialist. Calling yourself socialist doesn't make it true.
It's a shame what Chevez is doing to his country and its economy. It's interesting that some of the same people who mock the American administration's "false enemy" of terrorism are hooked like guppies for Chevez's "false enemy" of America.
Just goes to show, you can fool some of the people all of the time.
#15: "small,furry people need me for a while"
Dude. Are you harboring hobbits without a license?
Antinous, might want to check the European papers [apart from the Times, which follows the US line] before you make that kind of statement. Worldwide, positions on Chavez tend to be much more subtle, IMO.
Socrates once said, "an unexamined life isn't worth living". Perhaps the same is true of a country? A bit of reflection among all of us in the United States, especially policymakers is in order? When does the oppressed become the oppressor? At what point does one country's freedom become another's imprisonment? When do our rights square up with our responsibilities? Where do we create room for dialogue and deliberation before we debate and decide?
I am reminded of a beautiful Native American teaching ... "That which enables disables. And that which disables enables." --Paula Underwood
Chavez is more popular amongst Venezuelans than Bush is among Americans. He is a democratically elected leader, after all.
Having helped people like him into power, I know all too well where this is going. I supported a far left-wing group in Iran. When the Shah fell, they sided with Khomeini and butchered thousands of Mujahedin, creating an Islamist state. I supported ZANU, and Mugabe has destroyed Zimbabwe. The list goes on. I've learned to ignore the rhetoric and look at the character. Hugo Chavez has none. He's a petty dictator, nothing more.
yup, but he's THEIR petty dictator. Up to the Venezulean people to keep him or punt him.
I mean, how would Americans feel if the rest of the world stormed the Whitehouse and strung up every last one of them?
Chavez is more popular amongst Venezuelans than Bush is among Americans. He is a democratically elected leader, after all.
So's Putin. So was Hitler. So was Reagan. Dishonest, imperial politicians are frequently the most popular. And Latin American peasants have a long-standing love affair with the likes of Juan and Evita, just as the poorest, least educated Americans usually vote for the party most likely to make their situation worse.
Well, I suppose Peron was pretty popular for a while, true, and I must say its been literally years since I did any proper reading on Venezuela, but Chavez doesn't really reach dictatorial proportions does he? I mean, that comes as a /bit/ of an overreach, mmm?
I mean lets put facts straight first: Chavez doesn't own any media outlets or any businesses at all, as far as I know. The state owns a television station and a paper, but the journalistic integrity is comparable to the BBC [read: shite, but our shite]. Most of the protests in Venezuela contra Chavez, such as the last one where the most popular tv station refused to renew its license in protest, strike me as a bit disingenuous.
And for prospective, if a paper in the US said some of the stuff about Bush that the Venezuela papers say about Chavez, I suspect people wouldn't just scream bloody murder, there would /be/ bloody murder. And Chavez is probably as left as Venezuela will get, for the time being. If you think hes bad, take a look at the opposition. They aren't very nice people either.
I mean, how would Americans feel if the rest of the world stormed the Whitehouse and strung up every last one of them?
Pretty damn good, Tak-kun, pretty damn good. But you're right. It is their business. I just hope that people don't romanticize Chavez just for teabagging Bush. If dissing the US is a valid political credential, almost everyone on the planet is presidential material.
First I was alarmed at Cheney, Chavez, the CIA, but the
"small,furry people need me for a while"
that concerns me most now.
Most of the protests in Venezuela contra Chavez, such as the last one where the most popular tv station refused to renew its license in protest, strike me as a bit disingenuous.
I had to side with Chavez on that one. They were inciting civil war. Conversely, when Chavez dissed Spain about an attempted coup against him, he neglected to mention that he spent several years in prison for leading a coup against the previous government.
Chavez doesn't really reach dictatorial proportions does he?
Even Stalin started in the chorus. Chavez is still in the consolidation of power phase. Trying to rewrite your national constitution to centralize power in the office which you currently hold rarely speaks to public interest.
Scratch a little bit of the surface of Chavez and you have Bush and vice versa. Both are equally execrable in their own ways. American "democracy" is just a little more sophisticated at appearing democratic ,but mind control is a feature of both systems. Chavez can get away with tweaking the nose of the Bush regime because he has no ties to the Bush people. Noreiga ,remember him, was propped up by the republican gangsters of the 1980s America. He was a "made man" by the Regano-Busho mob. They made him and then un-made him, kinda like Tommy DeVito ( Joe Pesci ) in Goodfellas. Chavez will be un-made by the Venezuelan people when they tire of his foolishness.
1. The $300 million is BULLSHIT
2. The US refuses to extradite KNOWN terrorist José Posada Carilles to Venezuela (of course, he's a CIA operative and did his misdeeds for them)
Greetings
Chavez and Bush, two sides of the same coin.
They need each other desperately. Such despots need an enemy to keep the sheep in thrall...
Dubya has his Axis of Evil {tm} and the TSA to remind the shoeless waterless sheep of their place in the grand scheme of things
Can you say 9/11 sheeple? I know you can...
Enjoy the journey
WarLord
I'd sympathize with Chavez if he wasn't a rock star dictator trying to become infamous through controversial statements.
Well, Antinous, I suspect Cupcake Faerie is more right than [s]he realises, in some ways. The opposition is always the key. As long as there is such a strong right wing opposition in Venezuela, Chavez will continue to justify consolidation of power, but they aren't quite as elusive as the terrorist threat to the U.S..
It was fear of the Shah that lead the Iranian left wing to throw its weight behind the theocracy, and there was the White guard and then the Nazis in Russia, not to mention the Rhodesian government in Zimbabwe. Nature abhors a vacuum, and when one starts to develop in a seat of power, watch out.
Especially a vacuum on top of oil reserves.
.
.
.
This movie should answer all arguments above.
It's a look into the US government practices in South America.
******"THE WAR ON DEMOCRACY"******
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3739500579629840148
.
.
.
true, no one makes a fuss over Morales.
that coming from "two kids,one rabbit"? Is that even LEGAL? I'm afraid to go to Youtube.
I don't agree that the'"false enemy" of America' is comparable to the '"false enemy" of terrorism'.
I think there are lots of people in the world to which America's imperialism would be seen as fairly clear-cut enemy-type behaviour, and for many, many years.
If any other country behaved like America has consistently, muslim or otherwise, they would have been banded against, invaded and razed long ago.
This whole idea of the-world-hating-America is not new, and did not start with Bush, or Chavez, by a long shot. US foreign policy has always been a massive issue the world over, whether its meddling with local politics or acting as the world police.
The recent American ambassador to Ireland sometimes appeared on a political panel show that they have (Questions and Answers, RTE). He was on several times over 9/11-Iraq stuff (like US planes stopping in Shannon etc) and every time he was on, one of the questions would eventually come around to some covert action the US had taken on some country in the past, and he would always vigourously deny US involvement. Even with very well documented stuff, like political restructuring in South America, old CIA/Cocaine links, supporting various militias one day then fighting them the next etc..
He just made himself, and (by extention) his country's administration, look like deniers of the feeblest kind.
He seemed to believe that the rest of the world had the same blinkered US foreign-policy knowledge-base as the American people did, when in fact, America's many imperialist actions have been academic outside the US for years.
Rather than being some new reaction surfacing out of Iraq or Afghanastan, that so many seem to think it is; it is part of what people know America for, like Coca-Cola or Hollywood.
He seemed to believe that the rest of the world had the same blinkered US foreign-policy knowledge-base as the American people did
More like blindfolded and ear-plugged. If it's any consolation, most Americans can't even name our own capital.
You know, we've had several threads now where the conversation is more or less on the same topic. Political and corporate power and it's attendant corruption and rank hypocrisy. The absence of any accountability to the people who are slaughtered wholesale. Nor does it seem to me there is any economic or political system that is anything more than a fig leaf for raw, amoral power that just does what ever the fuck it wants.
I can get very cynical about all this, even though I sometimes put up a good front.
And it never ends, it just goes on and on forever. Come back in a thousand years and there will be no difference. Go back in history a thousand years and it's still the same story. Endless war and bloodshed for all eternity. Monks in Tibet or Shaolin monks in China, poor indians in Chiapas or Cortez in the Yucatan, African Americans floating face down in the dirty Mississippi in New Orleans or getting lynched in the Jim Crow South. It's all the same.
I'm gonna go walk downtown and watch Horton Hears a Who and try to forget this crap. But if the aliens abduct me on the way home, whisk me into orbit and put a big red button in front of me that wipes out all humanity, I'm pushing that button. Just so y'all know.
No, the U.S. refuses to extradite accused terrorist José Posada Carilles to Venezuela to face a second trial on a charge for which the Venezuelans already acquitted him.
Now, it is true that a prohibition on double jeopardy is not part of Venezuelan law, but it is considered a fundamental violation of human rights under U.S. law. So apparently your complaint is that George W. Bush is refusing to undermine American human rights standards by turning a suspected terrorist over to another country. Tell me, how do you feel about extraordinary rendition?
Oh, right. Principles don't matter; the only thing that matters is attacking the United States, and any excuse that comes to hand is to be used for that purpose, regardless of logic or fairness. Death to America!
So apparently your complaint is that George W. Bush is refusing to undermine American human rights standards by turning a suspected terrorist over to another country. Tell me, how do you feel about extraordinary rendition?
You killed your own argument.
Arkizzle:
True. Paxman is a jerk, but sometimes he makes John Stewart look like a Republican muppet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuqNWG9sbuE
Paxman v. John Bolton
Noen,
You need to get more sleep. I know your mood intimately because I've been in it so many times.
See:
The courts in Venezuela are super corrupt, just so you know, which is why they acquitted the people who unequivocally tried to unseat Chavez. Far from controlling the courts, the courts are directly opposed to Chavez. Compare that to the US.
Ha! I like Paxman being a 'jerk', it's kind of what he's there for, no?
On the other hand, did you see Paxman on John Stewart? Paxman, got freaked and defensive, thinking, I suppose, that stewart was going to roast him. Stewart didn't roast him, he seemed to like him, but Paxman came across like a first-time-on-tv loon, half attacking everything that Stewart said.
It was weird and a little sad, Paxman pwned himself :(
Ok, I just found a clip of the interview, and it's not quite as cringy as I remember.
It's still not very comfortable to watch tho, he get's pretty defensive toward the middle, about stuff John Stewart says that he would say himself on his own show.. and then just comes across as confused and befuddled.
OT I know, but yeah, he dishes out the same treatment to gorgeous George as to Michael Howard. BTW, did you see the only time someone corrected him on University Challenge? Apparently he fell in love with her and she broke his heart.
But the difference in journalistic standard across oceans is incredible. Fancy a journalist actually doing prep for an interview? Who would've thought?
Antinous- of course the US views Latin America as our back yard. We've been interfering in Latin America since the Monroe Doctrine. Hawaii, Cuba, the Phillippines, Puerto Rico- we've always wanted (or made them) into colonies, ripe for the plucking.
Venezuela hasn't got the lovely labor and agricultural and military naval base opportunities that concerned us so direly before. It has oil. It's depressing how transparent our illustrious administration is.
Noen:
this loon in a bedsheet said this once:
Never Give Up
No matter what is going on
Never give up
Develop the heart
Too much energy in your country
Is spent developing the mind
Instead of the heart
Be compassionate
Not just to your friends
But to everyone
Be compassionate
Work for peace
In your heart and in the world
Work for peace
And I say again
Never give up
No matter what is going on around you
Never give up
Similarly another loon, in a nice suit, once said:
Never gonna give you up,
Never gonna let you down,
Never gonna run around and desert you.
Never gonna say goodbye,
Never gonna make you cry,
Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you.
Think about it. Rick Astley isn't going to let you down; don't let him down.
ah,but is it not written in the Lager Sutra;
We'll be singing
When were winning
We'll be singing
I get knocked down
But I get up again
Youre never going to
Keep me down
Pissing the night away
Pissing the night away
He drinks a whisky drink
He drinks a vodka drink
He drinks a lager drink
He drinks a cider drink
He sings the songs that
Remind him
Of the good times
He sings the songs that
Remind him
Of the better times:
Oh danny boy
Danny boy
Danny boy...
I get knocked down
But I get up again
Youre never going to
Keep me down
Pissing the night away
Pissing the night away
He drinks a whisky drink
He drinks a vodka drink
He drinks a lager drink
He drinks a cider drink
He sings the songs that
Remind him
Of the good times
He sings the songs that
Remind him
Of the better times:
Dont cry for me
Next door neighbour...
I get knocked down
But I get up again
Youre never going to
Keep me down
We'll be singing
When were winning
We'll be singing
Mine was revenge for you saying 80s bands were crap earlier, Takuan.
But seriously, I think hands off Venezuela, the pro Chavez quasi socialist organization, was way more popular at my uni than any free Tibet group, hence my sympathy. In university, in England, Chavez was hegemonic.
crap? I was serious!
Who are we kidding? Chavez tastes power and he wants more of it. Isn't that obvious? Venezuela is fucked. Squash him like the insect that he is and take the the petrol.
petrol?
Gah! Gun Club? the Cure? De la Soul? Lou Reed? Joy Division's Closer album? Pogues? Public Enemy? ABC?
80s music has that beautiful Nero fiddled while Rome burned quality. You cant fake that.
And Elsmiley, form an argument. I have a broken keyboard. Whats your excuse?
And petrol is what most of the world calls gasoline.
yur,iffn they ain't Murcan.
Dear me. Another lefty fascist makes points with progressives by thumbing his nose at the US.Castro has lasted for almost a half century. I give Chavez until 2010. The US will not allow Chavez to steal property and put a bullet through the brains of his political opponents.
It must be very frustrating for him.
It was christmas eve babe
In the drunk tank
An old man said to me, wont see another one
And then he sang a song
The rare old mountain dew
I turned my face away
And dreamed about you
Got on a lucky one
Came in eighteen to one
Ive got a feeling
This years for me and you
So happy christmas
I love you baby
I can see a better time
When all our dreams come true
Theyve got cars big as bars
Theyve got rivers of gold
But the wind goes right through you
Its no place for the old
When you first took my hand
On a cold christmas eve
You promised me
Broadway was waiting for me
You were handsome
You were pretty
Queen of new york city
When the band finished playing
They howled out for more
Sinatra was swinging,
All the drunks they were singing
We kissed on a corner
Then danced through the night
The boys of the nypd choir
Were singing galway bay
And the bells were ringing out
For christmas day
Youre a bum
Youre a punk
Youre an old slut on junk
Lying there almost dead on a drip in that bed
You scumbag, you maggot
You cheap lousy faggot
Happy christmas your arse
I pray God its our last
I could have been someone
Well so could anyone
You took my dreams from me
When I first found you
I kept them with me babe
I put them with my own
Cant make it all alone
Ive built my dreams around you
"US will not allow Chavez to steal property"
whose propitty we talkin here?
Nationalizing the oil industry without 'appropriate' compensation. Fairly traditional grounds for intervention. If we had anybody left who wasn't already in Iraq, Afghanistan or jail, we probably would invade Venezuela.
Terry, name one person Chavez killed since he assumed office. The very people who tried to kill him went free. Zizek has a good point vis left totalitarianism vs right at the link below.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n06/zize01_.html
Feh. You persist in basing your arguments on the notion that Chavez is a socialist. He is not. He is an opportunist masquerading as a socialist. This sort of intellectual hair-splitting is the welcome mat for Stalins, Hitlers and Pol Pots.
ps, Takuan:
1) Property is theft.
and
2) They bleep out fagot when they play that on the radio. I don't know why. Everyone knows how the track went.
like I said, he's a bastard. But he is THEIR bastard. If we can't even pick our own bastards, what's the point?
Antinous, he has started done the path of social equality in Venezuela, and cannot credibly be called a security threat to anyone. People are learning to read just to be able to read the Venezuelan constitution. What I wait for is a legitimate Venezuelan left and how that will be dealt with; that will be the real test.
happy news flash! Iranian elections have shifted to moderate and some reform away from conservatives that haven't delivered quality of life to Iran. Keep a leash on Cheney, perhaps there is no need to burn Iranian children after all.
I know his type. I've seen it too many times. I don't think that he's trying to turn Venezuela into a totalitarian state. I think that he's consolidating power so that he can turn Venezuela into his personal ATM card and full-length mirror. Characterologically, he reminds me of Ferdinand Marcos. And please remember that I am a socialist, so I'm not speaking against socializing the economy. I'm speaking against using social rhetoric to hornswoggle the disenfranchised and uneducated so that he can rob the country.
There's a lot of middle ground between sending a US invasion force to Venezuela and offering Hugo Chavez a blowjob. I prefer to occupy that territory.
Are there ANY good leaders?
Bit before my time, my friend, as I was one when Marcos left office, and not in a Buddhist sense. And I don't have time to read the extensive Wikia article Ive just discovered. But nothing of what Chavez has done so far has really harmed anyone. The move to reform the Venezuelan constitution, as I understood it, was an attempt to take power away from the courts who remain tremendously conservative. The only complaint Ive heard from Venezuelan leftists has been do more of the same.
But if anti US sentiment comes from anywhere, it comes from south america, and I don't think the US will invade with force anytime soon. Anyone catch Chavez giving free oil to the poor in the US last winter?
That new guy in Australia seems nice enough. Nobody else comes to mind at the moment.
Aw, poor Gordon Brown, the little leader that could[n't]. But earlier when I was looking up Paxman clips I came across a Tony Benn segment where he totally pwns John Bolton. It's difficult to believe Tony Benn gave way to Hillary Benn, New Labour's answer to shit on a stick.
what's with the "socialist" label anyway? Myself, I do what is correct for the situation. Sometimes you give,sometimes you take. Isn't that what we would expect to be a hallmark of competent leadership? To do what is necessary? To have the wisdom to know?
That's what democracy is supposed to be for;p regardless of how they label themselves, they get kicked out when DO the wrong things. Well, except where you can afford electronic voting.
Sometimes you give,sometimes you take.
To each according to need, from each according to ability. Well that would be socialism (as opposed to Socialism.) In the same way that I might consider myself a buddhist, but not a Buddhist.
The problem will correct itself, because of Chavez's unsustainable policies.
The country is already unravelling, as noted by this long, but very informative NYT article from November:
The Perils of Petrocracy
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ynrk8x
Many oil companies are unwilling to invest in Venezuela because of the high risk of expropriation (i.e. confiscation of properties and assets). So even though Venezuela has large oil reserves, it can't extract them efficiently without foreign investments and expertise.
Pdvsa, the nationalised oil company, has become very inefficient, and is basically serving as Chavez's ATM. When the oil money starts to run out, so will Chavez's popularity.
Replace 'oil' with 'farming' and you just described Zimbabwe.
yeah, but how much of that is Chavez's own honest incompetence and how much has been engineered by the USA?
That's one reason why I cut a lot of slack for even a guy like Chavez- look what he is up against.
Hey, what did you think of "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"?
Actually, the give according to need bit is systematically dismantled by Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Programme.
Socialism is you get according to your work.
Had a Zimbabwean explain it to me once...something to do with big tobacco.....
But the oil money will not run out in the foreseeable future. Venezuelans don't think about global consequences as much as they think of their own situations. And who doesn't?
chavez is my pet monkey. dance monkey dance.
him and chimpy?
Doesn't it seem like Chavez is running Venezuela by playing a game of Tropico?
That's one reason why I cut a lot of slack for even a guy like Chavez- look what he is up against.
Repeat after me. Chavez is not Castro. Chavez is not Castro.
Did you read that oil article? Here's a more functional link.
But the oil money will not run out in the foreseeable future. Venezuelans don't think about global consequences as much as they think of their own situations. And who doesn't?
Read the article. The oil money is already gone.
what if Castro had had oil?
Cuba would be part of Puerto Rico and Castro would be compost.
Ltms tst: Wld ny f y prgrssvs tht clm Chvz s "nt s bd" wnt t mv t Vnzl?
N?
Chckmt.
silly boy, what does that "test" prove? There are plenty of places, better and worse I won't move to because my home is here. Better to ask, where is the flood of people leaving Venezuela?
Read the article, all nine pages, sounds like every country on the planet that has oil but no nukes.As in weapons.
mmmmm..... I knew "someone", he worked in Zaire for 13 years for an oil company (and many other interesting places). He met and dealt with Mobuto and his ilk. Getting drunk with him on many occasions I learned how things worked in third world countries dealing their resources to first world buyers.
Venezuela can make it. It will never be as efficient or "good" as if outsiders ran things, but it is doable. If they are left in peace.
The test proves that Chavez is an tyrant and an @sshole.
He somehow seems worthy of veneration by a lot of folks here because he tells the USA to kiss his @ss.
All of my Venezuelan friends hate him with a passion.
As to "where is the flood of people leaving Venezuela?" -- where would they go? You just said you won't move because your home is here.
there's a million and a half Iraqis in Syria right now. People move when they must.
tell me,just how many "Venezuelan friends" do you "have"
give me a month to borrow 50 USD and make some contacts and Ill gladly move to Venezuela. Been to Connecticut, mate? No jobs and no culture. Prison for the soul, it is.
@111
So if someone isn't willing to move to Venezuela, it's means they're admitting that Chavez is a tyrant (and not that they're fine at home). But if a Venezuelan doesn't move out of Venezuela, it's because people don't want to leave their homes. That's a brilliant bit of arguing.
Checkmate indeed.
@87 Takuan
I highly recommend this book to one and all.@89
I only started seriously paying attention to Zimbabwe once news of their hyperinflation (and state price controls on exchange rates) was available in English, and of course price fixing leads to shortages on store shelves, which it did, and then people were really in trouble. Something to look forward to in the USA.@88 ScottFree
And how do the politicians know how much your "work" is worth? (i.e. Labor theory of value, which is bunk) Economics is entirely an epistemological problem. That's why markets work, because people don't know what something is "worth" except at the moment of exchange, where all that can be said is that each trading partner values what the other has more than what they have themselves (i.e. both-benefit) -- which is why they're willing to trade in the first place. Command economies (i.e. centralized decision making) have far less knowledge upon which to act than market economies (i.e. distributed decision making) do.For all of you idiots shouting "dictatorship" at Chavez:
It would be one thing to be stupid enough to fall for the Bush administration's (and right-wing Venezuelan) propaganda about Chavez, but to recite it publicly leaves no doubt as to your intelligence, since it is clearly lies and distortions. Chavez was trying to diminish term limits in Venezuela, but this was voted against by a majority of Venezuelans, who also voted for Chavez. Because he is not the puppet the American neocons and oil companies want in office, he is a threat, and nothing like a good "dictatorship" label to obfuscate the facts rile up the citizenry and neutralize a threat.
Politicians don't decide what work is worth either, buddy. I agree tho, economics is an epistemological problem, in that under capitalism, it functions wholly on an ontological level, as you described.
The idea of socialism is that the worker is entitled to the fruits of his/her labour; since the means of production are collectivised, and no one owns the factory, no one can claim any part of the product of labour except those who produced through labour. The product is then sold on the market with proceeds going to s/he that made it.
The epistemological problem is merely how does something achieve value, and this is the thrust of Capital volume one, chapters one, two and three. As you say, the value of a commodity is not in its use, but in its relation to other commodities, and this is its exchange value. But even the exchange value does not adequately describe the value of a commodity on the capitalist market, since who would pay anything for brown sugar water, ie coca cola? Coca cola is something qualitatively different from brown sugar water, despite brown sugar water being the sole product of labour. Marx called this phenomenon fetishisation, and his description gives rise to one of my favourite passages in world literature:
"The for of wood, for instance, is altered, by making a table out of it. Yet, for all that, the table continues to be that common, every day thing, wood. But, so soon as it steps forth as a commodity, it is changed into something transcendent. It not only stands with its feet on the ground, but in relation to all other commodities, it stands on its head, and evolves out of its wooden brain grotesque ideas, far more wonderful than table turning ever was."
So thats just some of the fun in the epistemology of econ