Ship of Fools: Hugo Chavez is dead

Thread: Hugo Chavez is dead Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025193

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

What will become of the "Bolivarian Revolution"?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Hopefully it will die, but I suspect it will linger on in some form.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

It could return to the liberal democratic principles of the man after whom the country is named, or it could continue down the Cuban road toward poverty; one party dictatorship; denial of the rights of expression, assembly and religion; and persecution of gays and Christians.

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :

RIP

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It could return to the liberal democratic principles of the man after whom the country is named,

Fred Venezuel?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

As long as the country does not turn into another Guatemala, Nicaragua or El Salvador. The history of the region is written in blood and pain of the poor. Chavez actually gave people hope. Hope they had not had before. Standing up to bullies, international profiteers and loan sharks. It appealed because it was different than international companies coming in and taking raw materials with little for the people. Can developed countries be trusted/ Not based on their records.

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

Note to self: scratch Cuba off the list of 'go to' countries when seeking medical aid.

[Votive]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It could return to the liberal democratic principles of the man after whom the country is named,
Fred Venezuel?

Simon.

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

Venezuela is named after Venice: Venecia=Venice, Venezuela=Little Venice. The Spanish explorers were inspired by the Indian villages built on stilts over water that they found.

Bolivia is the country named after Simón Bolívar. Chavez's Revolución Bolivariana, or Bolivarian Revolution, is also named after him.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

I'm no Chavez fan (and I'm counting my 42 points in the Death Pool), but Latin America has certainly seen worse, many times.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I see no reason to believe that the Bolivarian Revolution would ultimately be anti-Christian, given that Chavez himself was a fairly devout Roman Catholic. Socialism =/= atheism.

I hope the Venezuelan people don't have to suffer another round of neo-liberal capitalism now Chavez is gone.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Chavez was a mixed bag, to be sure.
If we laid them out, point for point, who do you think would rack the most atrocities? Western-backed governments or the "Commies?"

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I'm no Chavez fan (and I'm counting my 42 points in the Death Pool), but Latin America has certainly seen worse, many times.

True, but that is not saying a great deal.

And yes, I made a mistake in attaching Simon Bolivar's name to another country instead of the revolution.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

I hope the Venezuelan people don't have to suffer another round of neo-liberal capitalism now Chavez is gone.

They could do worse, given that even more Cubans have died under the Latin American military dictatorship of the Castro dynasty than Chileans died under the obscene Latin American military dictatorship of Pinochet.

I hope that the Venezuelans finish up with a moderate, liberal, welfare-state democracy.

[ 06. March 2013, 06:00: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

That'd be a step backwards.

Chavez bought a whole load of benefits to Venezuela, more than social democrat governments (with the exception of the 1945 Labour government) tend to achieve.

At the same time, human rights abuses happened.

Anyone who sincerely wishes the people of Venezuela well should hope that socialism continues to reap its benefits there, while at the same time hope that a greater respect for democracy happens.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Kaplan Corday: And yes, I made a mistake in attaching Simon Bolivar's name to another country instead of the revolution.

Not entirely. The official name of the country is Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela.

FWIW I have talked with quite a number of Venezuelans, and my opinion of pres. Chávez is very much a mixed bag. RIP.

Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Chavez was a mixed bag, to be sure.
If we laid them out, point for point, who do you think would rack the most atrocities? Western-backed governments or the "Commies?"

Definitely the Communists

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
They could do worse, given that even more Cubans have died under the Latin American military dictatorship of the Castro dynasty than Chileans died under the obscene Latin American military dictatorship of Pinochet.

I hope that the Venezuelans finish up with a moderate, liberal, welfare-state democracy.

There could be a Cuba tangent. I'd have to see some hard data before this could be accepted, and it would have to factor in the American blockade and sanctions of 50+ years. And if we're going to compare, it is essential that Chile not be the only comparison as the policies of exploitation for economic gain and the support of dictators to enable this is a core issue for Latin America.

The Venezuelans will not get a welfare state democracy. They will get something that continues the flow of oil. The real issue is whether the Venezeulan people will benefit, as they tangibly did under Chavez, notwithstanding his deficits. The people there have been better off with him, and this is what 'sells' a government. The aspirations of kind hearted liberal people in the developed world for the country like this are pie in the sky. A dictatorship more aligned with the USA is probably the most preferable to the multinational corporate interests.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

Hugo Chavez has provided Venezuelan heating oil to the poor people of New England for many years. Robert Kennedy has pretty much killed any possibility of a political career by taking that oil and distributing it through his oil charity, acknowledging Hugo Chavez for his generosity on TV ads. I'm sure that a significant motivator of Chavez was propoganda. Nonetheless, people who would have faced cold New England winters were able to heat their homes. Props to Chavez and Kennedy for this important aid to those we tend to overlook in this country. RIP

--Tom Clune

[ 06. March 2013, 14:23: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

I thought the Daily Mash's article - Guardian readers pay tribute to man who would have banned The Guardian - was pretty spot on:

quote:
Ken Livingstone, George Galloway and Gerry Adams all said he was a great man, which is pretty much all you need to know about Hugo Chavez.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Chavez was a mixed bag, to be sure.
If we laid them out, point for point, who do you think would rack the most atrocities? Western-backed governments or the "Commies?"
Definitely the Communists

If you included the big players (China, Russia and the Eastern bloc), I would agree, but if, as I assumed, lilBuddha was talking about the third world (and post WWII), then I think it's less clear cut. The Khmer Rouge probably tip the scales towards Communism, but they're pretty much in a league of their own. There would also be a difficulty sorting out blame for atrocities in various civil wars. Surely the point is that atrocities have committed on both sides down through the years?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The aspirations of kind hearted liberal people in the developed world for the country like this are pie in the sky. A dictatorship more aligned with the USA is probably the most preferable to the multinational corporate interests.

As more than one Republican said to me about Egypt, who cares what the Egyptian people want? We have to place our national interests above anything else.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
Note to self: scratch Cuba off the list of 'go to' countries when seeking medical aid.

By that logic (sic.), you would have to scratch of all countries from your list since i'm sure there is no country where cancer treatments have had a 0% mortality rate.

[ 06. March 2013, 17:51: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
That'd be a step backwards.

Chavez bought a whole load of benefits to Venezuela, more than social democrat governments (with the exception of the 1945 Labour government) tend to achieve.

At the same time, human rights abuses happened.

Anyone who sincerely wishes the people of Venezuela well should hope that socialism continues to reap its benefits there, while at the same time hope that a greater respect for democracy happens.

That pretty much sums up my view. The following illustrating some of my reasoning . . .

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Hugo Chavez has provided Venezuelan heating oil to the poor people of New England for many years. Robert Kennedy has pretty much killed any possibility of a political career by taking that oil and distributing it through his oil charity, acknowledging Hugo Chavez for his generosity on TV ads. I'm sure that a significant motivator of Chavez was propoganda. Nonetheless, people who would have faced cold New England winters were able to heat their homes. Props to Chavez and Kennedy for this important aid to those we tend to overlook in this country. RIP

--Tom Clune

It would be sad if neo-liberal capitalism wins its ugly victory there.

[ 06. March 2013, 17:59: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

I remember being around people in several poor countries during Chavez's hay day. When ever he stood up against the Americans, people cheered.

Many people in developing countries feel still colonized by the First World, and the US hasn't been considered the "friend of the poor" for many, many years. Communist countries DID (some, still do) provide aid. The US is not known for its lavish aid.

Hugo Chavez did help the poor in many countries, yet many people seemed to hate him.

C

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
RIP

Very charitable of you, New Yorker. I felt no personal happiness or satisfaction at his death, but even with me bring a leftie and all, I thought he was a horrible politician who should never have been allowed to stand for office after leading a failed coup against the democratically elected Venezuelan government years ago, and who left his country with a legacy of decay, incompetence and corruption. May he now have refreshment and light, and may the Venezuelan people be able to realise a competent and well-functioning social democracy.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

From what I've read, I think Chavez was a corrupt politician who got drunk on power and fortunately died before he could rewrite the constitution further towards the inevitable unadorned dictatorship he was heading towards.

Perhaps he wasn't as bad as other dictators but that was due to events and the courage of the Venezuelan's in opposing him. He never managed to consolidate his power enough to properly repress the opposition movements and for that the country can be grateful, but if he had had tighter reins on power and hadn't been ousted for a few days in 2002 and had to rebuild his power base again halfway through his reign then things would have been a lot worse.

He kept power by a tight grip on the oil revenues and by using some of the proceeds from this industry power bloc to finance social mission programs. The poor loved him for it of course. The middle class and businesses were squeezed out, any business that wasn't oil was seized or run down, until the only show in town is now the oil. But the social programs kept the people distracted by 'bread and circuses', so he was loved.

Are his social programs justification for his corruption, oppression of opposition, destruction of the constitution, and crippling of Venezuela's agriculture so that the oil industry could keep his corrupt government afloat? I think not.

Chavez started, like most dictators, on a program of reform from the despot that went before him. Despite his auspicious start he followed the quote from The Dark Knight. "You either die a hero, or live long enough to become the villain." I think Chavez definitely died after he stopped being the hero, but some years perhaps before he became a total villain.

[ 06. March 2013, 20:38: Message edited by: Hawk ]

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Ken Livingstone, George Galloway and Gerry Adams all said he was a great man, which is pretty much all you need to know about Hugo Chavez.

On the other hand Christopher Hitchens and Toby Young said he was a a complete Ess-Aitch-One-Tee, which suggests that he wasn't all bad.

I confess to being a bit Rev'd J.C. Flannel about Chavez. On the one hand, in a very real sense, he was a South American Leftist and democrat in a part of the world where the coup d'etat is part of the political process. "Like Allende we are democrats and pacifists" he once remarked "unlike Allende we are armed". Many of Chavez's critics were supporters of the Iraq War so I freely offer them this mutation of an Iraq War meme. If the choice between President of Venezuela were between Roy Jenkins and Hugo Chavez I would vote for Roy. But it wasn't it was between Chavez and various unspeakable neo-liberals and Pinochet wanabees. Fuck that for a game of soldiers. And, with all due respect to our mates over the pond, when dear Tony was cheerfully deciding that "we" (i.e. a bunch of British soldiers whom he had decided were dispensable) needed to pay the "blood price" for our alliance with George W. Bush seeing someone, anyone, who was democratically elected raising two fingers to the most morally horrible bunch of Yanks since Jefferson Davis and his little chums was balm to the soul.

On the other hand his anti-Americanism led him into some very strange places including support for the governments of Syria and Iran. And, clearly, he was a bit of a nutter and not all that and a bag of crisps on issues like the rule of law and freedom of the press. So, yeah, definitely El Woy if the option had been on the table. But it wasn't.

May he rest in peace and rise in glory. And may Venezuela end up as a proper Social Democracy. [Votive]

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Amen.
Gildas, your PM box is full.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

PM box open for business!

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

One article that I read today did give him credit for doing what other dictators cannot- surviving not so rigged election after election. The fact that the petro bucks didn't run out certainly helped him maintain power.

A few of my friends (both fairly left of center and neither terribly sheltered) went down to Venezuela a few years ago to stay with a friend's family. They came back with some pretty nasty reports about what was going on on the ground- food shortages, lots of civic projects that were going nowhere, crumbling infrastructure, blackouts, and a generally unsafe feeling on the streets. They weren't completely turned off of Latin American Socialism, but they both sensed that things will be better without Mr. Chavez at the helm.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
One article that I read today did give him credit for doing what other dictators cannot- surviving not so rigged election after election. The fact that the petro bucks didn't run out certainly helped him maintain power.

A few of my friends (both fairly left of center and neither terribly sheltered) went down to Venezuela a few years ago to stay with a friend's family. They came back with some pretty nasty reports about what was going on on the ground- food shortages, lots of civic projects that were going nowhere, crumbling infrastructure, blackouts, and a generally unsafe feeling on the streets. They weren't completely turned off of Latin American Socialism, but they both sensed that things will be better without Mr. Chavez at the helm.

I hear this about lots of places. I fear for worse. I had family living in the neighbourhood in the 1970s and 80s. Countries that can stand up to the external influences and pressures, and play off those countries who say they want to bring "democracy" to them do better, but none have been successful on a continuous basis. Except if they can supply the pressuring country what they want. Chavez survived because he continued to supply oil to the USA, much as Saudi Arabia does. And we only have to look to countries like Saudi, and Iran and Iraq for many years until they resisted their masters, to understand the risks and benefits, and exactly who benefits.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Hugo Chavez has provided Venezuelan heating oil to the poor people of New England for many years. Robert Kennedy has pretty much killed any possibility of a political career by taking that oil and distributing it through his oil charity, acknowledging Hugo Chavez for his generosity on TV ads. I'm sure that a significant motivator of Chavez was propoganda. Nonetheless, people who would have faced cold New England winters were able to heat their homes. Props to Chavez and Kennedy for this important aid to those we tend to overlook in this country. RIP

--Tom Clune

Alaska, too. specifically rural Alaska, when oil costs were so high people were facing winters without heat. it was DIRE. Hugo saved lives.

it must have cost Venezuela a bloody fortune to not only donate the oil but ship it to our farthest reaches. And I don't think he got a done of PR out of that part - but if he did? so what? he helped us when our own government wouldn't.

yes, mixed bag. no question. But I won't condemn the guy, he's got some serious plusses on Saint Peter's tally.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by comet:
And I don't think he got a done of PR out of that part

oh geez, TON not DONE. my fingers have a hilarious sense of humor.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

[TANGENT] I'm frequently amused by the fact that my fingers seem to be somewhat hard of hearing because my brain sends them a word to type and my fingers mangle it into the wrong word, but one that sounds similar, yet is nonetheless spelled correctly. [/TANGENT]

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Chavez was a mixed bag, to be sure.
If we laid them out, point for point, who do you think would rack the most atrocities? Western-backed governments or the "Commies?"
Definitely the Communists

In Latin America, the rightists/fascists (Pinochet, Stroessner, Somoza, Rios Montt, etc.) have been far worse than the leftists, Castro (and Chavez) included. A dictator who tries to care for the poor and support liberty, equality, and fraternity, however ineffectually, is better than one who pimps for the elite.

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

Appearently the US gave Chavez cancer, if we were to believe Vice President Nicolas Maduro:

quote:
Earlier in the day [of Chavez's death], Maduro used a more belligerent tone as he announced the government had expelled two U.S. diplomats from the country and said "we have no doubt" that Chavez's cancer, which was first diagnosed in June 2011, was induced by "the historical enemies of our homeland."

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Appearently the US gave Chavez cancer, if we were to believe Vice President Nicolas Maduro

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if the CIA had came up with such a mad idea to try. I think it's outside the realms of possibility that they could have competently achieved it though. They'd have spent billions giving a hundred US soldiers cancer first. Then got lost on the way to Venezuela.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I'd have to see some hard data before this could be accepted

The generally accepted figure for murders by the Pinochet regime is something over 3,000, which is the figure carried by Wikipedia.

The Black Book Of Communism, published in 1999, gave a figure of between 15,000 and 17,000 shot in Cuba between 1959 and the late 1990s, on top of which roughly a third of the 100,000 attempting to escape Cuba by sea during the same period drowned.

It is conventional to distrust figures of deaths from communism produced by overt anti-communists (though not, oddly enough, figures of Nazi deaths produced by overt anti-fascists), but even if those figures are halved, and even halved again, they are still suggestive.

Wikipedia quotes estimates ranging from 4,000 to 33,000.

It might well be true that overall, reactionary regimes have murdered more victims in Latin America than have leftwing regimes, but the fact remains that the Havana regime which Chavez adulated is thoroughly unpleasant and unacceptable.

None of us would want to live under it, so we have no right to glorify it with undergraduate revolutionary romanticism (Che Guevara Syndrome) from safely outside it, and insist that it is a Good Thing for those simple Cubans who don't need as much freedom as sophisticated people like ourselves do.

[ 07. March 2013, 09:42: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Appearently the US gave Chavez cancer, if we were to believe Vice President Nicolas Maduro
To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if the CIA had came up with such a mad idea to try. I think it's outside the realms of possibility that they could have competently achieved it though. They'd have spent billions giving a hundred US soldiers cancer first. Then got lost on the way to Venezuela.

The fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has also made that claim rules it out for me, even his stealth fighter successfully bombing a target is more likely.

With the last couple of years seeing the celebrated demise of Muammar Gaddafi, Kim Jong-Il and now Chavez, I'm kind of hoping Ahmadinejad will be next on the list.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
None of us would want to live under it, so we have no right to glorify it with undergraduate revolutionary romanticism (Che Guevara Syndrome) from safely outside it, and insist that it is a Good Thing for those simple Cubans who don't need as much freedom as sophisticated people like ourselves do.

Canadians go to Cuba in droves in the winter months. Direct flights from everywhere in Canada. We've had Cubans stay with us as well when going to university. They have a good educational system as compared to other Latin countries, more equality. The main issues for Cuba are lack of ability to trade. Seeing as the largest trade in the world is with the USA, and it is right next door for Cuba, the barrier from the USA is tremendously significant and can be blamed on keeping the Cubans from progressing. Any ship coming from anywhere in the world which stops in Cuba before the USA cannot actually land cargo there (if it is allowed in port at all), and if the ship goes to the USA and then to Cuba, will not be allowed again in the USA -- well you see the problem, and it is not just about the nature of the gov't.

We're always puzzled in Canada with the "constructive engagement" approach to racist apartheid era South Africa in contrast to the pariah approach to Cuba. There's something about votes in Florida and other political [i]cum[/] economic issues involved. No doubt the Cubans harbour evil within them that nice countries like Uzbekistan don't.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Given the choice of being on the bottom rung of society in the US or the UK, or Cuba, I'd choose Cuba every time. The UK is a more pleasant place to be comfortably off, certainly. It's a lot worse place to be poor.

On the subject of Chavez, how the hell can he be called a dictator if he won (more or less) free and fair elections? He was no more a dictator than Thatcher was (and I say that as someone who loathes what Thatcher did to this country).

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I'm also not sure about the corruption accusations. Of course, he didn't enough to stop corruption in his country, and it became widespread. But I'm not so sure if he was in it himself for personal gain.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
(and I say that as someone who loathes what Thatcher did to this country).

I could hardly tell...

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Given the choice of being on the bottom rung of society in the US or the UK, or Cuba, I'd choose Cuba every time.

Really?!

quote:
The UK is a more pleasant place to be comfortably off, certainly. It's a lot worse place to be poor.

Is freedom of speech a luxury only the comfortably off should enjoy? Is the right to vote really a middle class thing?

There was a programme on the BBC recently about Cuba. Unfortunately, I only saw 20 minutes or so of it, but it showed how Cuba's poor were living in terrible conditions, their houses literally crumbling around them, and makeshift beams to ensure that the first floor didn't become the ground floor. Thanks to the ridiculously inefficient and corrupt Cuban government, there is a decades long back-log on repairs. It makes the so-called bedroom tax look like a walk in the park in comparison.

quote:
On the subject of Chavez, how the hell can he be called a dictator if he won (more or less) free and fair elections? He was no more a dictator than Thatcher was (and I say that as someone who loathes what Thatcher did to this country).

I think most posters on here have said that Chavez's methods were approaching dictatorship, rather than dictatorship itself. I agree that he wasn't, but he was an autocratic strongman.

The suggestion that Thatcher can be compared to Chavez is risible. How many television stations and newspapers did Mrs Thatcher shut down?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Anglican't: Thanks to the ridiculously inefficient and corrupt Cuban government, there is a decades long back-log on repairs.

I'm just guessing that the fact that they haven't been allowed to trade with the outside world for over 50 years also doesn't help.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

No, no, LeRoc! Nuance and reality are not allowed into political discussions. Shame. [Disappointed]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The suggestion that Thatcher can be compared to Chavez is risible. How many television stations and newspapers did Mrs Thatcher shut down?

I'm now having problems getting the idea out of my head "what if they had mated".

Seriously, they were both bad and good in different ways. Thatcher privatising everything she could via her ideology, the legacy of which has not run out yet. Chavez building health clinics, food markets, and education programs out of his ideology. No they don't compare at all. Though Thatcher would approved of the 2.5% average increase in Venezuela's GDP each year after he came to power wouldn't she?

Here's a helpful link: A Hall of Shame for Venezuelan Elections Coverage

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
The UK is a more pleasant place to be comfortably off, certainly. It's a lot worse place to be poor.
Is freedom of speech a luxury only the comfortably off should enjoy? Is the right to vote really a middle class thing?

Actually that's not what I said. Free speech is a right. So is adequate food, shelter, education, healthcare. The poorest have better access to the latter in Cuba than in the UK, though they have worse access to the former. In any case, while in the UK one may have the freedom to pontificate on the subject of one's choice, it's pretty tough to get any actual influence over the direction of the country. Social mobility is much better in Cuba.

quote:

The suggestion that Thatcher can be compared to Chavez is risible. How many television stations and newspapers did Mrs Thatcher shut down?

How many industries did Chavez destroy? How many political opponents did he try to starve into submission? How many state assets did he flog to his mates for pocket change? How many laws did he implement to allow the already wealthy to make more money off the backs of the working class?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
... Thatcher privatising everything she could via her ideology, the legacy of which has not run out yet. ...

No, she didn't actually. She might have wanted to, but a lot of the privatisation was after she fell, and it carried on after 1997 much as before.

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
... In any case, while in the UK one may have the freedom to pontificate on the subject of one's choice, it's pretty tough to get any actual influence over the direction of the country. Social mobility is much better in Cuba. ...

Is it? In what sense? Where is there in Cuban society to be mobile to?

And how much greater influence does the the average Juan Péon on the direction of Cuba than Joe Public has on the direction of the UK.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Anglican't: Thanks to the ridiculously inefficient and corrupt Cuban government, there is a decades long back-log on repairs.
I'm just guessing that the fact that they haven't been allowed to trade with the outside world for over 50 years also doesn't help.

It probably doesn't. I don't defend the embargo on Cuba, which I think is perverse and counter-productive. But I refuse to believe that the wretched state of the Cuban nation is entirely down to the embargo, which acts as a useful scapegoat for communist sympathisers. I don't see how an embargo makes a government corrupt.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Canadians go to Cuba in droves in the winter months.

Trendy middle-class Australians holiday in Vietnam, and come home gushing about how picturesque and "authentic" it is.

The fact that it is a one party dictatorship lacking basic human rights such as assembly, expression, religion and an open, transparent legal system apparently isn't important.

[ 08. March 2013, 03:00: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Given the choice of being on the bottom rung of society in the US or the UK, or Cuba, I'd choose Cuba every time. The UK is a more pleasant place to be comfortably off, certainly. It's a lot worse place to be poor.

This would explain why thousands of poor Americans have risked their lives to cross the sea to Cuba on just about anything that floats, including tyre tubes.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Chavez was a mixed bag, to be sure.
If we laid them out, point for point, who do you think would rack the most atrocities? Western-backed governments or the "Commies?"
Definitely the Communists.

Hands down it's a grand slam home run for the commies. Both Stalin and Mao hit that fucking thing right out of the ballpark.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I was speaking of Latin America. Right-wing politics have an abysmal record there.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Why on earth would you do that?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Chavez was a mixed bag, to be sure.
If we laid them out, point for point, who do you think would rack the most atrocities? Western-backed governments or the "Commies?"
Definitely the Communists.
Hands down it's a grand slam home run for the commies. Both Stalin and Mao hit that fucking thing right out of the ballpark.

Mao remains in a class of his own, but it is probable that Stalin was outdone by Hitler.

The most recent serious historical analysis of the issue of which I am aware is Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler And Stalin (2010) by Timothy Snyder, who concludes:

"Nazi Germany murdered about ten million people in the bloodlands (and perhaps eleven million people total), the Soviet Union under Stalin over four million in the bloodlands (and about six million total). If foreseeable deaths resulting from famine, ethnic cleansing and long stays in camps are added, the Stalinist total rises to perhaps nine million and the Nazi to perhaps twelve".

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

As ever, the Daily Mash has it spot on...

quote:
Guardian readers mourn death of man who would have banned the Guardian if it were produced in Venezuela

That about sums it up really.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
As ever, the Daily Mash has it spot on...

quote:
Guardian readers mourn death of man who would have banned the Guardian if it were produced in Venezuela
That about sums it up really.

It's an amusing cheap shot, but things are much more complex than that, explaining why would take longer than I have right now.

The day the Gruaniad supports and uncritically covers a coup attempt by Tommy Sheridan is the day that comparison will bear real weight.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Well, Commandate Presidente is gonna be put on permanent display under glass -- just like Mao, Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung...

Fucking pathetic. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Mao remains in a class of his own, but it is probable that Stalin was outdone by Hitler.

The most recent serious historical analysis of the issue of which I am aware is Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler And Stalin (2010) by Timothy Snyder, who concludes:

"Nazi Germany murdered about ten million people in the bloodlands (and perhaps eleven million people total), the Soviet Union under Stalin over four million in the bloodlands (and about six million total). If foreseeable deaths resulting from famine, ethnic cleansing and long stays in camps are added, the Stalinist total rises to perhaps nine million and the Nazi to perhaps twelve".

So that makes kindly old Uncle Joe a bit misunderstood perhaps, but really quite a nice chap after all.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Well, Commandate Presidente is gonna be put on permanent display under glass -- just like Mao, Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung...

Fucking pathetic.

As noted above, i think Chavez's plusses outweigh his minusses but this embalming thing is tacky and otherwise unfortunate

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Well, Commandate Presidente is gonna be put on permanent display under glass -- just like Mao, Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung...

Fucking pathetic.

Guilty by association. It's not just a fallacy for breakfast anymore.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
As ever, the Daily Mash has it spot on...

in relation to that piece of journalistic crap "as never" is more like it. I can see no defense for that shamefully shameless, hateful and worse than worthless publication (not that i would ban it of course)

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
It's an amusing cheap shot, but things are much more complex than that, explaining why would take longer than I have right now.

You mean to tell us that the satirical newspaper went for the joke rather than in-depth consideration of the topic? Holy shit, what is this world coming to?

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
As ever, the Daily Mash has it spot on...
in relation to that piece of journalistic crap "as never" is more like it. I can see no defense for that shamefully shameless, hateful and worse than worthless publication (not that i would ban it of course)

Are you sure you know what paper you are talking about?

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
in relation to that piece of journalistic crap "as never" is more like it. I can see no defense for that shamefully shameless, hateful and worse than worthless publication (not that i would ban it of course)

Er, The Daily Mash is satire.

You know.

Like The Onion. Or Private Eye.

[Razz]

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

My foot is in my mouth!!!

I thought Daily Mash was a nickname for the Daily Mail!!!

Note to self: Put brain in gear before opening mouth.

[Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

[Big Grin]

The Daily Mail can certainly be self-righteous and smug, but the broadsheets don't publish the gospel truth either.

Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Well, Commandate Presidente is gonna be put on permanent display under glass -- just like Mao, Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung...

Fucking pathetic.
As noted above, i think Chavez's plusses outweigh his minusses but this embalming thing is tacky and otherwise unfortunate

Let's just hope that his mausoleum is as short-lived as Stalin's sharing with Lenin or of Stalin's acolyte, Klem Gottwald

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Dunno, how many bishops have I seen under glass in Latin America? Countless. Seen a few in Italy too. One with golden slippers I think. Pickling your dead heroes is tourist draw. See the dead guy, buy a bobble head, eat something and spend.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
Let's just hope that his mausoleum is as short-lived as Stalin's sharing with Lenin or of Stalin's acolyte, Klem Gottwald

Let's just hope that the majority of the people of Venezuela who are poor won't now get thrown under the bus by the big business elite. [Votive]

[ 13. March 2013, 02:53: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0