Hugo Chavez offers to pose topless

[yllus]

Originally posted by: philipuso

Of course, not a single respectable news outlet is reporting the same. Besides, since Chavez is stepping down fairly soon, why would they even bother?

His two term limitation is gonna put him out of power based on the laws in the Venezuelan constitution. His party will most likely re-elect some body with his same political thoughts so if your expecting a big change, don't count on it.

Some sovereign countries would define democracy partially as:

This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions and private property[2], in order that direct control of the means of production and resources will be gained by the working class and society as a whole

Libertarian_socialism at wikipedia

Or simply the workers class having control of the nations production and resources rather than a very small group of people.

If a country wants to pursue that idea, it should be left alone by the United States and not threatened.

Currently Venezuela likes the idea above and is attempting to implement it but is threatened by the USA.

Chavez rules by cult of personality. It's why such a disproportionate amount of his time is dedicated to being in the public eye. When he's gone, his party will collapse.

Nobody cares what happens in Venezuela. As long as they keep the oil flowing (and despite all the rhetoric, they are doing just that), their people can starve to death for all the world actually cares. Chavez is merely using the well-worn boogeyman of an imperialist, militant America at the doorstep to keep hold of power.

It's funny that you talk about the workers having control in Venezuela. Forcible nationalization of private assets into government hands, yeah, great strategy. Because as anyone with the slightest bit of historical knowledge knows, when your immense central government owns and runs everything, the common man always get his fair share!

 

[philipuso]

Isn't Venezuela involved in some kind of oil tiff with the U.S.? Could this be why we are discrediting them so much?

Yes, Venezuela is our 3rd largest importer of oil. Venezuela has brought oil production under state control. Why did it do this?? To distribute the oil money to the 80% of venezuelans in poverty. When international oil companies had control of the oil, only their employees did well economically in Venezuela.

Why would a country allow its natural resources to be plundered by just a few people who get all the rewards??

 

[Vic]

Let's not forget that Chavez fired 19,000 CTV union workers from PDVSA because the union didn't support him, and then replaced them with workers from his newly-created UNT union.
Oh yeah... the workers are in control in Venezuela!

 

[philipuso]

Because as anyone with the slightest bit of historical knowledge knows, when your immense central government owns and runs everything, the common man always get his fair share!

There's nothing wrong with trying new methodologies to distribute and improve conditions of the majority. Who says it has to be an immense central government.

Here's something new that Venezuela is trying:

Cooperatives: New worker-owned cooperatives not only provided much needed jobs producing much needed basic goods and services, they also featured what was soon to become a hallmark of Bolivarian socialism -- popular participation at the grassroots level. When Chavez was first elected President in 1998, there were fewer than 800 legally registered cooperatives in Venezuela with roughly 20,000 members. In mid-2006 the National Superintendence of Cooperatives (SUNACOOP) reported that it had registered over 100,000 co-ops with over 1.5 million members.3 Generous amounts of oil revenues continue to provide start-up loans for thousands of new cooperatives every month, and the Ministry for the Communal Economy continues to spearhead a massive educational program for new cooperative members. However, the ministry provides more than technical assistance regarding technology, accounting, finance, business management, and marketing. It also teaches participants about cooperative principles, economic justice, and social responsibility.

Source of above quote.

 

[yllus]

You're right, nobody has ever before tried "worker-owned" cooperatives.

 

[philipuso]

You're right, nobody has ever before tried "worker-owned" cooperatives.

So what if the Venezuelan experiment succeeds or fails??? The question is "why is the US is intervening in Venezuelan affairs???" Does Venezuela need to make a Declaration of Independence to the US??

I remember a time when a country was wanting to try a new experiment but had to get the guerrilla off it's back called the British Empire. First by issuing a Declaration of Independence and then going to war. Do we really need to repeat history again???

 

[Harvey]

Remind me... How do you say, "Put it back on, lardo?" in Spanish? :laugh:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: philipuso

You're right, nobody has ever before tried "worker-owned" cooperatives.

So what if the Venezuelan experiment succeeds or fails??? The question is "why is the US is intervening in Venezuelan affairs???" Does Venezuela need to make a Declaration of Independence to the US??

I remember a time when a country was wanting to try a new experiment but had to get the guerrilla off it's back called the British Empire. First by issuing a Declaration of Independence and then going to war. Do we really need to repeat history again???

Okay, now we're not only intervening somehow, but we're also treating Venezuela like it is a colony of ours? Since when?

 

[palehorse]

philiuso>

Once again, a simple question for you:

Can every member of "the working class" in Venezuela now afford to have a four bedroom house, two fairly new cars, a few flatscreen TV's, fast broadband internet access at home, and the chance to eat at nice restaurants once a week?

No? You mean to tell us that it's still only a "small group of people" who get to enjoythat kind of life?!

So, he's successfully eliminated the middle class...

shocker.

 

[Pabster]

What's next? Will Adolf Ahmadenijad join him? :laugh:

 

[philipuso]

Can every member of "the working class" in Venezuela now afford to have a four bedroom house, two fairly new cars, a few flatscreen TV's, fast broadband internet access at home, and the chance to eat at nice restaurants once a week?

No? You mean to tell us that it's still only a "small group of people" who get to enjoy that kind of life?!

So, he's successfully eliminated the middle class...

I think the majority of Venezuelan people would collectively choose universal health care, education to become literate, an essential food diet for each citizen, and a roof over each family's head. Essential items & services that people looking out for each other value with a higher priority than the luxuries you mentioned above that are only available to a few. May i remind you 80% of the Venezuelan population is in poverty.

Here's a good read for all you pessimists who feel anything besides what we have now as an economic system is not possible.

Subsection of "Understanding Power" by Noam Chamsky

MAN: Referring back to your comments about escaping from or doing away with capitalism, I'm wondering what workable scheme you would put in its place?
Answer: Me?

MAN: Or what would you suggest to others who might be in a position to set it up and get it going?
Answer: Well, I think that what used to be called, centuries ago, "wage slavery" is intolerable. I mean, I do not think that people ought to be forced to rent themselves in order to survive. I think that the economic institutions ought to be run democratically-by their participants, and by the communities in which they live. And I think that through various forms of free association and federalism, it's possible to imagine a society working like that. I mean, I don't think you can lay it out in detail-no body's smart enough to design a society; you've got to experiment. But reasonable principles on which to build such a society are quite clear.

MAN: Most efforts at planned economies kind of go against the grain of democratic ideals, and founder on those rocks.
Answer: Well, it depends which planned economies you mean. There are lots of planned economies-the United States is a planned economy, for example. I mean, we talk about ourselves as a "free market," but that's baloney. The only parts of the U.S. economy that are internationally competitive are the planned parts, the state-subsidized parts-like capital-intensive agriculture (which has a state-guaranteed market as a cushion in case there are ex­cesses); or high-technology industry (which is dependent on the Pentagon system); or pharmaceuticals (which is massively subsidized by publicly-­funded research). Those are the parts of the U.S. economy that are func­tioning well. 16
And if you go to the East Asian countries that are supposed to be the big economic successes-you know, what everybody talks about as a triumph of free-market democracy-they don't even have the most remote relation to free-market democracy: formally speaking they're fascist, they're state-­organized economies run in cooperation with big conglomerates. That's precisely fascism, it's not the free market.
Now, that kind of planned economy "works," in a way-it produces at least. Other kinds of command economies don't work, or work differently: for example, the Eastern European planned economies in the Soviet era were highly centralized, over-bureaucratized, and they worked very ineffi­ciently, although they did provide a kind of minimal safety-net for people.
But all of these systems have been very anti-democratic-like, in the Soviet Union, there were virtually no peasants or workers involved in any deci­sion-making process.

MAN: It would be hard to find a working model of an ideal .
Answer: Yes, but in the eighteenth century it would have been hard to find a working model of a political democracy-that didn't prove it couldn't exist. By the nineteenth century, it did exist. Unless you think that human history is over, it's not an argument to say "it's not around." You go back two hundred years, it was hard to imagine slavery being abolished.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: philipuso

Can every member of "the working class" in Venezuela now afford to have a four bedroom house, two fairly new cars, a few flatscreen TV's, fast broadband internet access at home, and the chance to eat at nice restaurants once a week?

No? You mean to tell us that it's still only a "small group of people" who get to enjoy that kind of life?!

So, he's successfully eliminated the middle class...

I think the majority of Venezuelan people would collectively choose universal health care, education to become literate, an essential food diet for each citizen, and a roof over each family's head. Essential items & services that people looking out for each other value with a higher priority than the luxuries you mentioned above that are only available to a few. May i remind you 80% of the Venezuelan population is in poverty.

Here's a good read for all you pessimists who feel anything besides what we have now as an economic system is not possible.

Subsection of "Understanding Power" by Noam Chamsky

MAN: Referring back to your comments about escaping from or doing away with capitalism, I'm wondering what workable scheme you would put in its place?
Answer: Me?

MAN: Or what would you suggest to others who might be in a position to set it up and get it going?
Answer: Well, I think that what used to be called, centuries ago, "wage slavery" is intolerable. I mean, I do not think that people ought to be forced to rent themselves in order to survive. I think that the economic institutions ought to be run democratically-by their participants, and by the communities in which they live. And I think that through various forms of free association and federalism, it's possible to imagine a society working like that. I mean, I don't think you can lay it out in detail-no body's smart enough to design a society; you've got to experiment. But reasonable principles on which to build such a society are quite clear.

MAN: Most efforts at planned economies kind of go against the grain of democratic ideals, and founder on those rocks.
Answer: Well, it depends which planned economies you mean. There are lots of planned economies-the United States is a planned economy, for example. I mean, we talk about ourselves as a "free market," but that's baloney. The only parts of the U.S. economy that are internationally competitive are the planned parts, the state-subsidized parts-like capital-intensive agriculture (which has a state-guaranteed market as a cushion in case there are ex­cesses); or high-technology industry (which is dependent on the Pentagon system); or pharmaceuticals (which is massively subsidized by publicly-­funded research). Those are the parts of the U.S. economy that are func­tioning well. 16
And if you go to the East Asian countries that are supposed to be the big economic successes-you know, what everybody talks about as a triumph of free-market democracy-they don't even have the most remote relation to free-market democracy: formally speaking they're fascist, they're state-­organized economies run in cooperation with big conglomerates. That's precisely fascism, it's not the free market.
Now, that kind of planned economy "works," in a way-it produces at least. Other kinds of command economies don't work, or work differently: for example, the Eastern European planned economies in the Soviet era were highly centralized, over-bureaucratized, and they worked very ineffi­ciently, although they did provide a kind of minimal safety-net for people.
But all of these systems have been very anti-democratic-like, in the Soviet Union, there were virtually no peasants or workers involved in any deci­sion-making process.

MAN: It would be hard to find a working model of an ideal .
Answer: Yes, but in the eighteenth century it would have been hard to find a working model of a political democracy-that didn't prove it couldn't exist. By the nineteenth century, it did exist. Unless you think that human history is over, it's not an argument to say "it's not around." You go back two hundred years, it was hard to imagine slavery being abolished.

Were you dropped on your head as child?

 

[philipuso]

Were you dropped on your head as child?

Thanks for the constructive criticism. How does the anandtech message boards expect any quality discussions with posts like these???

 

[Pabster]

Listen, philipuso. The words "Hugo Chavez" and "Topless" aren't exactly the best choices to get a good, constructive debate and/or discussion going. (And I know you aren't the OP, just pointing it out.)

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: philipuso
May i remind you 80% of the Venezuelan population is in poverty.

Thank you. That was exactly my point.

How many of those 80% are becoming a part of the 20% every day? any?

Chavez's changes havent done a damn thing other than make all poor people equally poor. The 20% who are the "haves" will remain the 20% who are the "haves" forever. By assuming government control of every industry, Chavez has essentially guaranteed those 20% a permanent place at the top; while the other 80% will remain poor forever.

see how that works? THAT is socialism/communism. Those at the top, or those who somehow rise to the top through fraternal connection in the government, will gain access to any riches and priveleges, but everyone else will remain equally oppressed and poor. You end up with a two-class system with dramatic lines differentiating each group. (versus a three-class system in the US that, for the most part, allows for migration between the extremes... aka "the middle class").

If you ask me, I'd rather remain hungry, and driven, by the mere hope that someday, through hard work, I can become one of the haves.

Once you remove the drive and desire to better one's self, how does a country innovate? If differentiating yourself from the pack, or challenging the status quo, is frowned upon, then how can a country evolve and keep pace with the rest of the free world?

Answers: the country wont do either, and, eventually, the people will notice and rebel.

Btw, please stop quoting that moron Chamsky. Who's next? Karl Marx?!

bah...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: philipuso

Were you dropped on your head as child?

Thanks for the constructive criticism. How does the anandtech message boards expect any quality discussions with posts like these???

You haven't addressed any of my actual quality posts before this, now have you?

My point, however, is that no matter how much Chomsky you choose to copy&paste into your posts, it's ridiculously obvious that you keep supporting cult-of-personality leaders that have not, are not, and have no intention of implementing these glorious ideals you speak of.
That's kind of silly, don't you think? You keep accusing us of being brainwashed and believing in propaganda, but then what are you doing, eh?

 

[philipuso]

palehorse74:

If you ask me, I'd rather remain hungry, and driven, by the mere hope that someday, through hard work, I can become one of the haves.

I hope your brain isn't still developing. Development that occurs up to the mid-twenties. Besides malnutrition, binge drinking also retards brain growth. All those partying college kids maybe hurting themselves more than helping.

Quote of "Understanding Power" by Noam Chomsky

And there is just over­whelming evidence, in case it's not obvious from common sense, what the effects of this kind of deprivation are on children-physically, emotion­ally, and mentally. For one thing, it's well known that neural development simply is reduced by low levels of nutrition, and lack of nurturance in gen­eral. So when kids suffer malnutrition, it has permanent effects on them, it has a permanent effect on their health and lives and minds-they never get over it.

palehorse74:

Once you remove the drive and desire to better one's self, how does a country innovate? If differentiating yourself from the pack, or challenging the status quo, is frowned upon, then how can a country evolve and keep pace with the rest of the free world?

Giving people their essential needs to live allows people to do the work they want to do, not the work their forced to do. If they choose not to work, so be it, some people are happy with more free time and a simpler life. Lets take force out of the equation please. The "work or starve" mentality does nothing but put peoples' back up against the wall and consequently do things like start shooting bosses.

Most bosses in America are dictators. Look here: Why Your Boss is Programmed to be a Dictator
Well guess how you combat this, you allow people to choose their work & boss without fear of being thrown out on the street and starving. Why is American society giving our bosses and business class so much clout in our lives??

palehorse74:

then how can a country evolve and keep pace with the rest of the free world?

Let's not do it by force, coercion, propaganda, and fear please. If I were at the top of the economic ladder in this country, those would be the tactics i would use to stay in power. The "cold war" is a prime example.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: philipuso
Let's not do it by force, coercion, propaganda, and fear please. If I were at the top of the economic ladder in this country, those would be the tactics i would use to stay in power. The "cold war" is a prime example.

So if I lived in Cuba or Venezuela, could I have the right to opt-out of participation in Castro's or Chavez's systems?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: philipuso
palehorse74:

If you ask me, I'd rather remain hungry, and driven, by the mere hope that someday, through hard work, I can become one of the haves.

I hope your brain isn't still developing. Development that occurs up to the mid-twenties. Besides malnutrition, binge drinking also retards brain growth. All those partying college kids maybe hurting themselves more than helping.

What in the HELL does that have to do with anything?!

...and please stop quoting Chomsky!!!! Just this once, try forming an original thought! Don't worry, you're in America... it's allowed here! :Q

Once you remove the drive and desire to better one's self, how does a country innovate? If differentiating yourself from the pack, or challenging the status quo, is frowned upon, then how can a country evolve and keep pace with the rest of the free world?

Giving people their essential needs to live allows people to do the work they want to do, not the work their forced to do. If they choose not to work, so be it, some people are happy with more free time and a simpler life. Lets take force out of the equation please. The "work or starve" mentality does nothing but put peoples' back up against the wall and consequently do things like start shooting bosses.

Most bosses in America are dictators. Look here: Why Your Boss is Programmed to be a Dictator
Well guess how you combat this, you allow people to choose their work & boss without fear of being thrown out on the street and starving. Why is American society giving our bosses and business class so much clout in our lives??

wow.. you're certifiably insane.

Answer the fvcking question: how many of the poor 80% have become part of the wealthy 20% since Chavez took control?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Answer the fvcking question: how many of the poor 80% have become part of the wealthy 20% since Chavez took control?

Why does that matter? The real question is if their standard of living has improved or not.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Answer the fvcking question: how many of the poor 80% have become part of the wealthy 20% since Chavez took control?

Why does that matter? The real question is if their standard of living has improved or not.

no, that's not the real question. After all, the basis for philip's entire argument is that he is tired of seeing the wealth and happiness shared by a small, exclusive group.

My point is that Chavez's changes merely make the other 80% equally poor -- he has eliminated the existence of a middle class -- that class that is normally filled with people who are striving to better themselves and become more wealthy and successful. He simply makes the poor 80% semi-content with their equal lowliness, while the top 20% go on living the good life, just as they did before he came to power. The difference being that now, those other 80% dont stand a chance of ever becoming a part of the top 20%...

So what looks all groovy on the surface is nothing more than a move to consolidate power amongst a "chosen few."

Welcome to Socialism 101. I'm glad I could come help you see through all the wool...

 

[colonel]

Where did you get this story from?

There is no credibility in this post, and I will be kind remain you the rules of the forum.
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=1833582&enterthread=y

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Question: Can every member of "the working class" in Venezuela now afford to have a four bedroom house, two fairly new cars, a few flatscreen TV's, fast broadband internet access at home, and the chance to eat at nice restaurants once a week?

No? You mean to tell us that it's still only a "small group of people" who get to enjoy life that way??!

So, he's successfully eliminated the middle class... shocker.

Lie #1: The definition of 'middle classs' is the description above. THe middle class includes a lot who can not afford all that.

Lie #2: Ignoring the improvements Chavez has made for the poor, moving more of them into the middle class, and saying Chavez eliminated a middle class that didn't exist.

More people have more opportunities today thanks to his policies, as I understand it. The few hundred wealthy families who own most of the wealth have lost some monopoly.

If a country wants to pursue that idea, it should be left alone by the United States and not threatened.

Currently Venezuela likes the idea above and is attempting to implement it but is threatened by the USA.

Actually, only Chavez and a small minority in Venezuela like "that idea," but the actual majority who oppose it have been effectively silenced by Chavez's government fist.

Lie #3: Claiming that only a "small minority" of Venezuelans - who have elected and re-elected Chavez - agree with his policies. Polls say otherwise.

Lie #4: Claiming that those who disagree with Chavez's policies are 'silenced'. The wealthy who are his enemies still own most of the media, and attack him constantly.

I did hear one claim of a measure against criticizing him, that I need to research, which could affect the statement above, if confirmed.

The hyperbole about a 'government fist' is indicative of the misconceptions and strong ideology of the poster.

So good luck with the whole authoritarian-socialist-dictator-for-life thing! :roll: