Would you support a Chavez or Castro-like candidate for US Presidency?

I know there are a lot of Castro and Chavez fans on DU. After all, they've both done good to help the poor people in their country, even if it came at certain expenses and the relinquishment of certain liberties.

So I wonder if most DUers would support that style of candidate for the United States presidency. Someone who will nationalize industries and redistribute private property.

I'm a Democrat, not a socialist.

I take it you'd settle for Clinton.

Typically the phrase refers to a European-style Left that supports a tightly-regulated market economy with a comprehensive safety net and ambitious labor laws (e.g. very comfortable living wage, 35 hour work week, mandatory 4 weeks a year of paid vacation--that sort of thing). Key public goods like education, health-care, and utilities are already state-run, but nationalizing privately-owned industries by seizing their assets would be considered an excessive intrusion in the market.

Sadly, this ideology is underrepresented in the U.S., where the "Left" largely divided into two camps: (1)tepid "moderates" who pat themselves on the back for implementing 3 months of unpaid maternity leave; and (2) people who wear Che Guevara t-shirts, scream about revolution, and whine that the nanny-state FDA is violating their civil liberties when it humbly suggests that eating a dozen Krispy Kremes at one sitting is bad for their health.

I know that there are quite a few social democrats in the U.S., but their voices all too often get drowned out because group 1 controls the Democratic Party and the voice of the "Left" in the mainstream media, and group 2 dominates the blogosphere

goes)

What I meant was that a lot of people who identified as "social democrats" ended up settling for him because "at least he wasn't as bad".

I include myself in that category in '92, after the convention.

Seems to me you'd appreciate his policies.

He's complicated. Not as complicated as Saddam, but way too complicated to be an American President.

Besides, we already have someone in the White House who has signed off on torture. We're trying to rid Washington of his kind, remember?

on Chavez's torture of his political enemies.

Can't wait to see it. Thank you.

Mr Salas accused elements within the Venezuelan police and intelligence services of "persecuting" dissident officers.

Weren't you aware that the Mayor of Caracas was, at the time of this crime, completely in charge of the police force, and that he is a sworn enemy of Hugo Chavez's?

He's the same man who had the tiny independent tv station operated by Caracas citizens closed and the equipment confiscated when they attempted to do articles on the coup.

It IS an interesting article, however. I'm glad to have read it.

Some dipstick got an answer from a DU'er, who had this information for him:

BrotherBuzz (1000+ posts) Sun Jun-04-06 05:45 AM
Response to Reply #138
171. Venezuelan Opposition Case Thrown Out of International Criminal Court
Apparently there was no evidence of torture or human rights violations beyond allegations by opposition groups.


Venezuelan Opposition Case Thrown Out of International Criminal Court


Friday, Feb 17, 2006

By: Alex Holland – Venezuelanalysis.com

Caracas, Venezuela, February 17, 2006—The International Criminal Court (ICC) rejected an appeal by Venezuelan opposition groups to prosecute the Venezuelan government for human rights violations. Chief Prosecutor for the ICC, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, said the charges had a, “lack of precision as well as internal and externali nconsistencies in the information.”

<snip>

On February 9, the ICC issued a statement saying the court was unable to move forward with a formal investigation. This was because the information provided did not match the allegations.

First, the ICC said no evidence had been given to the court, “to believe that war crimes have been committed.” For the information provided relating to crimes against humanity, the ICC said the, “numerous” factual problems meant it was not, “reliable.”


Problems included naming the same person repeatedly on lists of alleged murder victims. Many claims were made without names or dates. There were also, “frequent inconsistencies in victims’ names, ages, and location of alleged incidents."


<more>

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1900

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read it carefully. I remember when these right-wing, racist, opposition clowns got the bright idea they'd try to sue Chavez in the I.C.C. Look what happened. They were laughed out of town.

Since the US is denying his extradition to Ven (as required by US/Ven treaty) based on fake allegations that he faces torture by Ven. (as if the US has any moral superiority regarding this issue).

We've "relinquished certain liberties" enough with the assholes we have.

And nationalizing industries? Look at how well FEMA works...yeah, I'll trust the government to run the steel mills. Right.

Redstone

DO work just fine.

you REALLY think that if the government was running, say, the hospitals]/i] we'd be better off? Making the cars? Building the houses?

Feh. Look at how well that worked out in the Soviet Union and East Germany.

Redstone

Redstone

workers and the poor against the rich?

And you wouldn't vote for anyone who would do anything at all beneficial to the workers and the poor?

That's the implication of your position.

No private property freaks support social justice and a decent society.

nt.

He said government agencies like FEMA performed poorly, so why would other nationalized companies work -- that hardly seems anti-worker.

Which consigns us to world run forever for short-term gain for the few. There's no hope for justice or humane values
in a world run mainly for profit. Justice always loses in such a world.

Corporations and the rich aren't on our side and never will be. Is that so hard to figure out?

I mean, mom and pop stores is one thing, but big business is always against justice and decency. It's just that they have cooler looking advertising campaigns to take our minds off it.

And FEMA is a totally bogus example of "nationalization of industry".

Which would make him pro-worker, pro-people, in fact.

You're taking the view of unchecked capitalism. Regulated capitalism is a good thing, but that doesn't mean we have to go to either extreme.

And saying another DUer (especially the one in question) is anti-worker is probably against the rules. I suggest you ease off of that accusation.

Perhaps he just doesn't realize the implications of his basically conservative(other than the health care thing)position.

And I guess the contempt with which he addressed any notion of social change in this thread provoked me.

By saying he wouldn't vote for anyone who would help the workers, you are implying that he is anti-worker.

I'm not going to comment any further on his positions, since he is more than able to answer you himself.

Just curious, though, when you vote for Democrats, aren't you reinforcing the allegedly conservative positions you rail against? After all, I don't see Dems as a whole trying to nationalize everything.

I've been, I suppose, doing a combination of lesser-evilism(especially in the Kerry-Bush contest)and working to move the party left.
I believe that a Democratic Party that is more explicitly on the working class side of economic issues will be a stronger and more electable party.

btw, if you actually ARE an anarchist, why do you care about what people inside an electoral-based political party support?

You don't think he'd handle the SC, abortion, stem cell research, Iraq and tax policy differently? What exactly are your standards of purity?

And, no, I'm not an anarchist. It's an ironic screenname, the "Starbucks" portion of it being a giveaway.

Yes, there were some differences. But Kerry wasn't opposed to staying in Iraq, and, in my view, a Kerry administration that DID stay in the war would have found it impossible to bring in any meaningful progressive measures domestically. The money just wouldn't have been there.

I would have been in the streets trying to push a Kerry/Edwards administration further, though(and I hated the Naderites who rejected the "elect Kerry, then protest" strategy from the outset...I'll never forgive those wackos for accepting the reelection of Bush/Cheney without a fight).

I guess I at least want a Democratic administration in which progressives aren't kept totally out in the cold. It will never again be acceptable for the left wing of the party to be treated like Clinton treated it. I'm not a purist, but I don't think it is too much to ask that an administration I and others like me help to elect not treat my values with contempt and derision. That's one of my great fears and forebodings about a Hillary Administration...that she will be as obsessively anti-liberal as her husband. Progressives have done nothing to deserve that.

with some (rather minimal) government infrastructure provided. This is the best system for justice and humane values.

80% of ALL businesses fail within 2 years. 80%! They don't work just fine. They come and they go. And if you want to see a litany of failure, look at places where rightwing governments have "privatized" government functions. In Texas, the welfare system was privatized and last year virtually every application for CHIPS (Childrens health insurance) was lost. The defense department privatized part of it support to Halliburton--that's worked out really well. In Nevada a private firm "lost" voter registrations from Democrats. Etc, etc.

There is probably no better run pension plan in the world than Social Security. Even given the heavy hand on the Repugs on the system, it still works with an unbelievably low overhead--much lower than private plans. We need a national health service where the government DOES RUN the hospitals.

You foolishly assume industries nationalized in the US would be run like those in a totalitarian state. Utter bullshit bordering on disingenuousness. Do you even think before you post?

it's a corporation, after all.

and let's go back to the days when the government ran the internet. how fast was your connection in 1991? 1985? For every example of ineptitude in the private sector you offer, I can offer three success stories. For every government success story, I can offer failures. It works both ways. Fact remains, those nations that have nationalized industries have basically failed at being competitive. Been to the DMV lately?

And Social Security has low overhead for a couple of reasons, mainly that there is only one investment it undertakes, the buying of T-bills. You don't need professional money managers to do that. Many pension plans have high overheads from investment expenses, Social Security (of which I am a great supporter) doesn't have that problem. Worth knowing the facts.

you foolishly think that industries nationalized in the US wouldn't be run like those in totalitarian states. Utter bullshit bordering on disingenuousness. Do you even think before you post? Or are we supposed to swallow American Exceptionalism when it suits your purposes.

By the way, can you explain why Venezuela's oil production has declined each of the four years since the industry was nationalized? a poor country, facing a windfall of oil profits and with huge reserves, is pumping, and therefore selling less oil today than last year, or the year before, or the year before. do explain how nationalism in this vein has helped the people of Venezuela? sounds a lot like it cost then $16 billion last year in declining oil sales.

and how's that economy in Cuba coming along? Sure, one country won't trade with them, and that hurts, but there are 209 other countries in the world, 90% of the global economy is open to them, with their smoothly running industries and economy, they should be booming right? richest people in the hemisphere?

on edit: since I forgot. For the record, there are certain neccesities that the Government has a responsiblity to provide to it's citizens: clean air, clean water, bottom rung housing, education, health care, common defense, fire and police services. almost everything else should be on the open market to deliver the services with the most efficiency.

As for Enron. well, Enron was a collossal fraud. But I don't actually feel all that sorry for the people who lost their life's savings in Enron. First off, the 'secretary who lost a million dollars' or whatever. That million dollars was obtained by fradulent means in the first place. No one ever talks about that, that everyone was making money off the fraud. Second off, anyone who invests in a company that they don't understand is a sucker. It's a painful lesson to learn, and I'm empathetic, but at the end of the day, thousands of people put their money in the hands of swift-talking conmen, the people who worked there didn't understand how Enron made as much money as it did, noone understood it. (turns out it was fraud) But really, there is no difference between investing money in a company you don't understand and subscribing to a nigerian 419 scam. Sucker bets, both. Do you know how your employer makes money? I know how mine does, if I didn't, I certainly wouldn't put my entire nest egg into it (it's a partnership, so it doesn't matter anyway) But before I invest money in a company, I read the annual reports, I read newspaper articles, magazines, commentary. If I can't figure out how they make money, what they do, then I want no part of them.

yes, the pensioners are a different story, since they cannot control where the money is invested, but most people who got burned had the stock in their 401ks or IRAs. for the pensioners, I feel sympathy.

Do you know how the whole Enron fraud was unravelled? someone wrote an article in Forbes, basically asking "how the hell do these guys make money?" it was the first time someone asked it publically on such a big stage. Everyone looked around, realized they didn't know, and sold ASAP. no big surprise.

Your claim that 90% of the global economy is open to Cuba is not accurate.

The US Helms-Burton law penalizes/sanctions corporations that trade with Cuba. It is a r-wing canard to say that Cuba can trade with other countries, when it is companies that fabricate and ship products, not countries. The US is the prime market for most companies in international trade. If they do business in Cuba (no matter where they are based) they cannot sell their product to the largest consumer market (the US). If you were running a company for profit which market would you choose, Cuba or the US since US law forbids trade with both?

On edit.. Oh, the sanctions include shipping companies also. Ships that deliver to Cuba cannot port in the US.

and became law in 1999. So up to 1999, Cubans must have been doing great, right?

on edit: and you didn't answer the question: should DU be nationalised? Sure, Skinner et al don't make huge salaries, but they own a company that must be worth a couple of hundred thousand dollars (heck, the mailing list alone is probably worth 100 grand to the right people) would you include DU in the nationalization plans, in the interest of redistributing the wealth? at the end of the day, this is an incredibly exploitative business model, we contribute the intellectual property (and many of the dollars) hell, they use FREE labour to moderate the board, and yet, it's not a coop, we don't get a check back at the end of the year, any profits that result, THEY got, not us. they're making money off of us, just as much as any other corporation, so nationalize it, right?

I was just clarifying the "Cuba can trade with any/all other countries" canard.

I haven't given nationalizing DU much thought. :shrug:

Many of the big corporations aren't doing fine at all. Big Pharma, Big Oil, Credit Card companies, certain financial institutions, the war industry, e-voting companies, big telecom.

www.thecorporation.com

You do seem to completely bough into the RW propaganda about how horrible the government is at everything. It simply isn't true.

As it's part of government and takes tax money, they hate it and want to torpedo it. It takes their precious nickels and must be destroyed.

I'll bet there's a better example of your point, but this system is trashed by the very people who have benefitted most from it.

a socialist styled candidate in the u.s. would resemble nothing like a castro or chavez.

peddle this sterotyping crap else where.

When they have never set foot in Latin America and have no clue about its culture?

The fact that I wouldn't want either of 'em in charge here doesn't mean that people in another country might not have a different opinion.

They have a right to disagree with my preference.

Redstone

Because if they don't like Castro they can simply get on a raft towards the U.S., which will accept them with open arms if they touch land.

But I agree with you. It's up to the people to decide what form of government they want.

Castro kills dissenters doesn't he?

So far, * hasn't openly killed dissenters, just anyone he could get away with killing.

Chavez was elected. And I like some of his policies. But I'm not ready for Chavez type prez.

And is rumored to have killed them.

Shrub is poor excuse for a president, especially a U.S. president. If it weren't for our constitution and our history of "democracy", he would have already appointed himself dictator for life.

Some say Chavez won on fraud, but I'm not about to criticize any other government for winning on fraud until we sort our own corruption out.

Who, exactly, is saying that Chavez won because of voting fraud?

And some media.

But as I said, we need to address voter fraud in the U.S. before we accuse any other country of fraud.

Maybe you should read the letter to the editor I wrote to the Miami Herald last March. It's the third one from the top. My name is Carlos Miller. What's your name?

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/14127813.htm

"A lot of Venezuelans" and "some media" are also saying that Chavez is a terrorist and a threat to America.

When did we start giving credence to retarded ideas just because certain segments of agenda-driven propagandists are pushing and buying into them?

Still?

Give me some names. Address my question. You made the statement, so back it up.

I already know the response I will get from you.

If I tell you that every single Venezuelan living in Miami opposes Chavez, you will come back and tell me they are the right-wing elite.

But you, of course, would have never met any of these people. You, of course, would have no idea that they are mostly working class people. You, of course, would not realize that the labor unions in Venezuela played a huge part in the general strike back in 2003 in protest against Chavez.

But you live in Canada, so you have all the answers in regards to Latin America.

Its interesting that you would foist the idea that "every single Venezuelan living in Miami opposes Chavez". That is equal to the broad brushing of all Miamicubanos as right wing virulent Castrophobes.


The broad brush style that you use is counter productive to a real discussion of Cuba or Venezuela that requires nuance. I suspect that your broad brushing of Chavez/Castro is why some posters on this thread have accused you of not wanting a real discussion on this topic.

were well aware at the time that the owners were shutting out workers altogether. There has been a flood of information available on the subject since then.

Nixon used American taxpayers' money also in creating an economic nightmare in Chile to destabilize the Allende Presidency, as well. Just as it happened, all "deja-vu-like" in Venezuela, using NED's special talents in paying off people like labor boss, Carlos Ortega, who was working hand in hand with Pedro Carmona.

AFL-CIO in Venezuela: Déjà Vu All Over Again

by Kim Scipes
April 2004


Massive mobilizations, strikes, street conflict, hysterical mass media, social and economic disruption: Chile in 1972-73 Venezuela in 2002-04.

The AFL-CIO is once again on the scene, this time in Venezuela, just as it was in Chile in 1973. Once again, its operations in that country are being funded by the U.S. government. This time, the money is being laundered through the quasi-governmental National Endowment for Democracy, hidden from AFL-CIO members and the American public.

Once again, it is being used to support the efforts of reactionary labor and business leaders, helping to destabilize a democratically-elected government that has made major efforts to alleviate poverty, carried out significant land reform in both urban and rural areas, and striven to change political institutions that have long worked to marginalize those at the lowest rungs in society. And also like Allende's Chile, Venezuela's government under president Hugo Chavez has opposed a number of actions by the U.S. Government, this time by the Bush Administration.
(snip)

But social conflict has continued ever since. Most notable was the 63-day strike led by senior management in Venezuela's oil industry between late 2002 and early 2003. This strike, with accompanying sabotage, caused a shattering 27 percent drop in the Gross Domestic Product in the first trimester of 2003, resulting in great social and economic turmoil, and depriving the government of massive amounts of money that it had been using to fund social programs.

The war against the government has continued ever since, with the AFL-CIO's American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS) deeply involved.
(snip)

NED is funded by the U.S. Government, through the State Department, but operates "independently" from any on-going governmental control. This enables the U.S. Government to deny any responsibility for NED's activities, and NED can claim it is an independent non-governmental organization (NGO), not a governmental one, and thus not subject to governmental scrutiny or oversight.

NED has been long active across Latin America. It has been active in Venezuela, the fifth largest oil producer in the world, since 1992. According to accounts gathered from NED itself, NED provided $4,039,331 to Venezuelan and American organizations working in Venezuela between 1992 and 2001: 60.4 percent of that, or $2,439,489 was granted between 1997-2001. Of that $2.4-plus million since 1997, $587,926 (or almost one-quarter) went to ACILS for its work with the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV in Spanish). In 2002, the last year for which details are available, NED pumped in another $1,099,352, of which ACILS got $116,001 for its work with CTV. Altogether, ACILS received $703,927 between 1997-2002 for its work in Venezuela alone. {During 2000-2001, ACILS received $8,889,009 from NED for its worldwide operations.}
(snip)

http://www.labornotes.org/archives/2004/04/articles/e.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE ADAPTABLE U.S. INTERVENTION MACHINE IN VENEZUELA
by Eva Golinger
publicidad@mci.gov.ve November 2004

THE BACKGROUND
There was a bloody coup d'etat on April 11, 2002 in Venezuela. Similar to the overthrow of the Allende government in Chile nearly thirty years prior, an unlikely bond between labor unions, business associations and the elite military command had been formed with a common goal: to remove President Hugo Chávez Frías from his elected office. In a stark contrast to Chilean history, the coup in Venezuela failed and two days later, President Chávez was reinstated. Yet the details surrounding the events of those brief moments remained murky and confusing and tall tales of human rights abuses, authoritarian- type actions and peaceful protests by a falsified majority overshadowed the true facts.

What really happened during those three days that changed Venezuelan history forever? A coup d'etat led by a joint force of corrupt labor leaders, corporate interests, media moguls and high military command really did try to overthrow President Chávez.
(snip)

A BRIEF NOTE ON THE CHILE PARALLEL
The past few years have shared common histories with Chile during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Distant cousins of the coup and strikes that plagued Chile have also beleaguered Venezuela, yet the latter was able to resist and overcome the attempts of the rightwing opposition movement financed and politically backed by the U.S. government. The former, unfortunately, was forced to succumb to a violent takeover that resulted in the assassination of a democratically elected and popularly support president, Salvador Allende and instituted one of the most brutal dictatorships in Latin American history. The bloodied hands of the U.S. government were stamped all over the 1973 coup d'etat in Chile, and later, declassified documents attained by the National Security Archives revealed the intricate plots Henry Kissinger and his cohorts had enacted to crush the growth of socialism in the region.

In Chile, the U.S. employed tactics that have subsequently proven successful time and time again. Before the coup, the U.S. had succeeded in funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to labor unions, business associations and social organizations willing to band together to oppose Allende.

The U.S. attempted to prevent Allende's election in 1970 by strengthening and supporting opposition parties and candidates, but the overwhelming popularity of the socialist leader left the U.S. government with little choice but to go the violent route. Still, after Allende's election, the U.S. instigated acts of economic sabotage through massive strikes led by its financed counterparts and it attempted to isolate the Allende government from the international community.
(snip)

Thus far, the three stages of intervention: the Coup, the Strike and the Referendum, have been unsuccessful, but the tactical and methodological undermining of the Chávez Administration has evolved and adapted each time to its new setting. It is without doubt that a fourth intervention will occur before President Chávez completes his term in 2006. Within each separate stage, a similar methodology has been utilized that involves several time tested key strategies intended to justify the final result; removing Chávez from power. These tactics, which have been utilized previously in Chile and Nicaragua, for example, include:

• Isolating Chávez from the International Community
  
  
• Exploiting the tensions between government, political parties and civil society
  
  
• Exploiting the problems faced by the nation to place blame on the Chávez government
  
  
• Nurturing the opposition to Chávez to build a solid anti-Chávez movement
  
  
• Financing and politically encouraging and enabling the opposition to Chávez
  
  
• Conducting a media campaign to discredit Chávez's image and empower the opposition(13)
  
  
• Imposing a war psychosis on the greater population through mass media overplaying conflict scenarios(14)
  
  
• Charging the Chávez government with human rights abuses and denouncing such alleged abuses in the international community without providing real evidence to support claims(15)
  
  
• Attempting to associate the Chávez government with supporting terrorist groups and networks(16)
  
  
• Discrediting and destroying the image of President Chávez
  
  
• Threatening the Chávez Administration with potential "hostile" treatment from the U.S. Government.

http://www.labornet.org/news/0305/venez.htm



Strike organizer, NED funding recipient, guest of honor in Miami anti-Chavez parade, Carlos Ortega

The director of the organization Process of Legislative Development, which received a $50,000 grant in 2000 to promote government decentralization, was secretary to the exiled former president, Carlos Andres Perez.

In January, the Venezuelan media broadcast a recorded telephone conversation between Perez and Carlos Ortega, president of the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers, in which the pair plotted against Chavez.
(snip)

Published on Sunday, August 18, 2002 in the Boston Globe
US Tax Dollars Helped Finance Some Chavez Foes, Review Finds
by Mike Ceaser
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0818-04.htm

There's no such thing as a working class antichavista or an antichavista of color.

Explain. You sure haven't yet.

It's sad to discover that fully one-third of DU are apparently old-style, authoritarian leftists. Their time has passed -- 50-100 years ago when they sold out and destryoed the populist, anti-authoritarian left to further their dreams of national regimentation and absolute dictatorship of the "working class". I assume you guys in the 30% would have sided with the CPUSA back when Nikita Kruschchev and the New Left started picking open the lock on the crimes of Stalin.

The real irony is it helps explain the weak-kneed mentality of the Democratic Party if so high a percentage of the party base is composed of red-diaper babies with a cadre mentality. ("I'm actually an authoritarian leftist but I don't feel comfortable advocating my beliefs except on the Internet. I'll pretend I'm a social democrat and join the Democratic Party for the sake of making allies.") Resulting in a party that can't seem to stand for anything because its most committed activist on the left flankdon't have the courage to shout out their convictions. Alexander Cockburn (I think) wrote an article for Counterpunch about the destruction of the Left from wthin, and this was his thesis.

does NOT make me an authoritarian leftist.

I can't believe you'd even insinuate that.

I hated Stalin. I thought it was a horrible mistake for Trotsky to crush the revolt at Krondstadt. There is no way you can equate support for Chavez and Morales with overlooking the nightmare of the Gulag and the evil deeds of the KGB.

I offer critical support to Chavez because it is clear that the only alternative to him in Venezuela is the complete restoration of the old order. There has never been an ultra pure "anti-authoritarian" left in that country.

There is no "left" case for opposing Chavez. There isn't a "left" alternative to him that can ever come to power in that country.

Are you honestly saying we should line up shoulder to shoulder with the State Department in the name of some mythical "anti-authoritarian" model that, well, frankly, doesn't exist at the moment?

I just don't see anything as justifying the risk of another Pinochet or another Guatemalan-style bloodsoaked military junta. Is that so hard to understand?

If the US overthrows Chavez, all hope dies in this hemishere. Forever. Get it?

BTW...What were your views about Nicaragua in the 1980's or about Chile under Allende?

And "we" (meaning not we but certain right-wingers) should not have assassinated Huey Long either, to prevent him from being elected prezident in a Chavez-type situation here in the 1930's.

If Chavez can promise a chicken in every pot without turning into just another Big Man and undermining the success of his admninistrative efforts, it will be better than the situation in Africa, where democratic left does not seem to go together, period. (Mugabe, Nyerere, Museveni, etc. etc.)

I still feel the Dem party is rife with "reformed leftists", some of them neocons. (it is Orwellian to hear neocon Kagan, director of the Carnegie Endowment for INTERNATIONAL PEACE, endorse Dems in 08... pure cadre tactics). They have a top down streak that suggests they really are waiting for one man to rescue us from our problems. "Closet lefties" don't seem to know up from down anymore because they've spent so many years articulating a private policy position and a public policy position in order to "lead" the party (read: themselves) to victory without making waves.

Just Watched: "The Human Behavior Experiments", a documentary about our innate tendency to look for leaders in every situation and follow orders, to the detriment of helping people outside our peer group.
Includes info on: The Stanford Prison Experiment; Abu Ghraib; Kitty Genovese; etc.

I just don't trust our leaders to let that happen.

And I hope you now accept that I am not some sort of Stalinist.

The other thing is, everyone who sees themselves as leftists COULD leave the Democratic party and try to form something new. But until electoral reform is put in place, that would basically be a fool's errand, which would leave the country doomed to at least 12 to 20 years of uninterrupted right wing rule. After that, the social welfare system would be destroyed, unions would no longer exist, the environment would have been irrevocably damaged...and what chance would there actually be of achieving anything even liberal, let alone radical, after all those years of reactionary power without any outside challenge?

..are you yammering on about, and what does it have to do with Hugo Chavez, a democratically elected populist leader whose only crime is -- wait, he hasn't committed one, unless you work for the Bush administration or an oil company.

Again, what the f$@& are you yammering on about?

who, apparently, would rather elect a former president who absolutely failed at everything than one linked to Chavez. Or Nicarauga, where Chavez's candidates are getting spanked. Really, the best way to ensure that someone loses an election in Latin America (outside of Venezuela) is to have Chavez endorse him. I wonder who would win, in say, Brazil, between a candidate endorsed by Chavez, and one endorsed by Bush? I guess the one with more family members, since it looks like everyone else would stay home on election day.

decide who they want as president without any external influence or intimidation?

that was kinda the point. It's just that we are constantly told that Chavez is the second coming of the love child between Moses and Simon Bolivar, and that everything bad about him is distasteful, biased, US media. It's worth pointing out that criticisms of Chavez come from all over the place, some are fair, some are not.

Seriously, the love affair with Chavez on this board reminds me eerily of the crush the Freepers have on Chimpy.

NT!

Legitimate domestic internal political dissent is alive and well in Cuba.

Those on the US payroll (working with the avowed enemy of the Cuban state (the US gov), that has commited terrorism, harbors anti Cuba terrorists, and has attacked Cuba both overtly and covertly, whos goal is to overthrow the system of government in Cuba) who are investigated and some have been arrested. This would be the case in the US if "dissidents" were on the Al Queda payroll.

I met a few people who had relatives imprisoned because they spoke out against Castro.

Considering you live in Miami, I'm sure you have also met Cubans who were imprisoned for their political views.

Cuba is not free, Mika. It is a police state.

It is not the miserable society that Cuban Americans like to portray it to be, but it is a far cry from paradise.

And no, it is not only the fault of the U.S. embargo. It is Castro's fault as well for repressing the people.

I've spent a lot of time in Cuba. Most of the Cubans who have told me that their relatives were arrested for 'speaking out against Castro', were, upon further questioning, "speaking out against castro" by commiting some kind of crime - like black market ops, thefts, price gouging, etc.

The arrested for 'speaking out against Castro' is a classic line given to Americans (especially Miamians) for sympathy/justification of a crime.

I learned this only after spending some time there. It takes time in any place to figure out the M.O. of the different factions.

-

Nowhere have I ever said that Cuba is a paradise, but it is certainly not a police state either.


But the "Castro this, and Castro that" mewling is really very old and overused to the point of ridiculousness.

ninety miles away, despite the best efforts of the spooks and foreign policy wonks to remove him. A shitty ruler would not be able to pull that off. He may not be perfect, but he must be doing some things right.

The complaints about Chavez are just horseshit. He has done nothing to deserve the name of tyrant, we should be so lucky here as to have a President that gave half as much of a shit about ordinary citizens as Chavez does.

You might get it.

If it weren't, then the Cubans would be allowed to leave the country at a moment's notice, as we are here. They would be allowed to enter the hotel lobbies.

The Cuban students would be allowed to use the Internet. As it is right now, only the foreign exchange students are allowed to use the Internet.

You can say what you want about my week in Havana, but I seen it with my own eyes.

In case you have not noticed, there are a lot of places you cannot go here, and you can be thrown in jail for protesting here, you can be thrown in jail for going to Cuba here, and you can be thrown in jail for a lot of other things here. We have the highest per-capita incarceration rate in the world here, better even than China.

I don't think Cuba is a workers paradise, but I don't think removing Castro and replacing him with a globalist US stooge is a good idea either. Normalize relations and let the Cubans figure out what to do about Castro.

But we have more freedom than the Cubans have.

And I don't think it's up to the U.S. to decide who should run Cuba. However, Fidelismo is not something I would want to live under.

I cherish my freedom, as dwindling as it may seem. And I will fight for those freedoms that are spelled out in our constitution, even though it may be a bloody fight.

I'm still looking for the almost-perfect society and Cuba is far from it. And yes, so are we.

We are here on the internet saying whatever we like. I feel perfectly safe. But freedom is not an absolute, and one has to ask "Freedom to do what?". My point is that Castro came to power because the guy that ran the place before him was a REAL asshole; compared to him, Castro looks great. And Castro, in the realm of economic and social services, does a far better job than we do here in the USA, considering the means he has available, and that is why he has been able to hold onto power all these years. Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the USA, the same as Canada. There is freedom in having access to medical care and the expectation that ones children will survive, and food and shelter, free education, and so on. It is not all about seeing how deep you can shove your snout into the slop-trough of consumption. There is freedom in the guarantee of a fair share of the economic pie, and the right to develop yourself.

It seems to me that one may or may not like all that Castro has done in Cuba, but one must admit that he must be getting something right, else he would not have endured so long. Even police states are overthrown, all the time, if they do a shitty enough job of feeding and clothing the citizenry. And even here in the USA, we seem ready to give up our constitutional rights for "security", with hardly a peep so far.

My opinion is that just like the majority of the U.S. seems poisted to give up their constitutional rights for security, the Cubans give up basic human rights to have basic healthcare, housing and education.

I would argue that food, shelter, healthcare, etc. come before unlimited political speech. It is telling that political speech has been restricted rather arbitrarily here in the USA - along the lines of what Cuba seems to do - any number of times, usually with the excuse of war, sometimes for economic reasons, sometimes with violence, always with the intent to restrict debate. One can make a good argument that Cuba has been under seige since Castro came to power, and that a fair judgement of what Castro's policies in that area might have been, were his government secure from outside intervention, cannot be made. No government allows it's own subversion by outside interests willingly.

Mr. Castro isn't the doer of all things in Cuba.

The Cuban people are the ones who have lifted Cuba up.
They have the freedom to do so now.
They didn't have that prior to the 1959 revolution.

Cuba has a representational democratic government. The people have Ministries of education, health, etc. etc. EVERY profession and vocation has union representation. All Cubans in Cuba have had this since 1976 when they created their elected parliamentary system. They wanted these things and they worked hard to achieve them. Castro didn't do this. The Cuban people did it (and continue to do it).

I don't excoriate Mr. Castro, NOR do I laud him as the doer of all things Cuban (both good and bad).

It is a BIG mistake to do so, for it ignores the VAST support that the Cuban people have for their system of government.



get this book if you want to learn something about what I have said in this post..
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0968508405/qid=1053879619/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-8821757-1670550?v=glance&s=books

Not having been to Cuba, like yourself, I preferred to stick with an argument I felt able to defend, and that the similarly ignorant might find convincing, given the level of discourse that prevails on this subject. That book is on my list, thanks to you, but it's a very long list. However, I agree that all the focus on Castro is political cant. Still, I think the most interesting thing about Castro as a leader is that he has survived and prospered this long, it is really quite amazing, I can think of few examples to compare him with, and I don't see how that could occur in a state of misrule, with Uncle Sugar constantly looking for a chance to foment regime change.

The Communist Party

was represented by a Union as well. But when the Union is controlled by the Party, and there is no other option (you join the Party and the Union, or you starve) it's not really much of a choice, is it?

When's the last time there was a non-Party member on the ballot in Cuba? When's the last time one of them won? In the last 45 years, how many non-Party members have been elected to anything? Wow, those Cubans must really, really, love Castro, to never elect even a Dogcatcher from a different party.

.. three levels of the Cuban parliamentary assembly system are communist party members.

The Miami Herald link with that stat has been deep sixed. I'll try to find another link.

And I'm not talking about the street festivals.

because in the last elections, held 19th of January, 2003, all 609 members of the National Assembly of People's Power were either members of the CCP, or endorsed by the CCP formally. Not one single member of the CCP has lost an election in Cuba in 45 years.

Every single member of the Council of State is a member of the Party (they're elected by the Assembly, so if there is a non-party majority, it sure seems to like Party members). And since the Council of State is pure, so then is the Council of Ministers.

http://www.poptel.org.uk/cuba-solidarity/democracy.htm

There are direct elections to municipal, provincial and national assemblies, the latter represent Cuba's parliament.

Electoral candidates are not chosen by small committees of political parties. No political party, including the Communist Party, is permitted to nominate or campaign for any given candidates.

Most members of all levels of parliament are non party affiliated. They are elected based on their platform, not their party affiliation.

I've been there and have seen the process with my own eyes.

how ever single member of the executive councils inside Parliament are members of the same party. Just good politicians, I guess?

you can have all the municipal and local elections you want, but if you have no power, then it's meaningless.

For instance, I live in DC. I have a congresswoman, technically, I mean she's on our ballot, draws a salary and makes speeches on the floor, but she can't actually vote, unless the margin is more than one vote. So she's really meaningless, isn't she? Technically, I have a representative in Congress, in reality, I don't.

The founding fathers and anti-authoritarians everywhere strongly disagree with you.

A little temporary security, as Benjamin Franklin said. Or Tom Paine - freedom of speech should be absolute. Are you really to the right of the libertarian, property-obsessed Anglo Saxons who settled this countrey?

I don't believe in absolutes of any sort, FWIW, and I don't accept any of your meaningless political labels.

Last I checked, Americans and US residents need a special permit to travel to Cuba, and several other countries.

--

As to your claim about students and computer/internet use.. also not true. BUT, there is very limited bandwidth to the internet in Cuba (mostly due to the US ownership of the technology and i-net backbone which access is limited by Cuba by the US Helms-Burton law), so unlimited use is restricted mostly to academic use.


Three young people at the Havana Palacio Central de Computación,
with the server/network administrator for the facility and for Tinored (the youth network that is part of Cuba's internet), in blue jacket. The young men were working on web design and teaching themselves software.

http://www.communitytechnology.org/cuba/ACTinitialreport.html

Few people outside of Cuba are aware of the fabulous Joven Club de Computación y Electrónica (JCCE). The Joven Club is Cuba's committment to providing equitable community-level access to computer training, regardless of how remote the community is from the urban centres. As of the end of December, 1999, Cuba had 174 Joven Clubs across 169 municipalities, an incredible penetration rate unmatched by other community networking initiatives anywhere in the world.

http://www.nscuba.org/Joven.html








These pics were taken by some friends of mine from nscuba.org (Nova Scotia - Cuba Assoc.) several years ago. They were helping some Cubans install computers in some schools and get them hooked up to the internet using Cuba's substandard phone system (that is s l ow l y being upgraded).

to use the Internet.

Show me one of those pictures with something Internet-related on the screen and maybe I will believe you. Looks to me that they're still learning DOS.

And just because they are not allowed to use the Internet doesn't mean they have no access.

Cubans, as you probably know, are very savvy. They find a way to their Internet access, but it is secretive, infrequent or only accessible by a select few.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/tech/main592416.shtml

E-net is the largest of a handful of Internet providers in Cuba..

-

E-net customers who do not have the dollar phone service can keep accessing the Internet with the ordinary phone service with special cards sold at Etecsa offices

Like many other poor nations, income is the main restriction to access to the internet in Cuba.


I can't believe that you didn't find this out while you were there for a whole week!

You can believe CBS or you can believe me. I don't really give a shit one way or the other.

But I walked through la Universidad de Habana and spoke to the students and professors.

They told me specifically that foreign exchange students are allowed to use the university's computers, but the Cubans are not allowed. They even showed me the computer lab which was being used by students from Europe. Then the college professor asked me for spare change.

You will always get your panhandlers no matter what country you travel to, but in what country does a college professor ask for spare change?

And if you're going to post a link, you might as well post the actual headline: Cuba Cracks Down On Web Access.

Now, my experiences were in several places all around Cuba (I'm a surgeon) on exchange and seminar programs.

I don't rely on CBS. The CBS story headline Cuba Cracks Down On Web Access is fully misleading. Why don't you actually read the article? As it points out, it turns out that Cuba was 'cracking down" on black market internet accounts sold at exorbitant prices to Cubans by Miamicubano exiles. Cubans have legal access to the internet via a handfull of internet providers IF they can afford it.

From the CBS article..

The move could affect hundreds, perhaps thousands of Cubans who access the Internet without authorization from their homes, using computers and Internet accounts that have been borrowed or purchased on the black market for as much as $50 for 80 hours a month.

I just can't believe that you didn't do just a little more digging around, while you were there, to find out the truth. What a waste.

I just can't believe that you didn't do just a little more digging around, while you were there, to find out the truth.

Just cause I'm not saying what you want to hear does not mean I did not dig for the truth. To me, the truth is not viewed through a government's rose-colored glasses.

EDIT: It's about talking to the actual people.

Sorry if you took it that way. I'm just stunned that you post sweeping pronouncements about life in Cuba after spending only one week in one city in Cuba.



By your saying..
"Just cause I'm not saying what you want to hear does not mean I did not dig for the truth. To me, the truth is not viewed through a government's rose-colored glasses.

EDIT: It's about talking to the actual people."

.. are you suggesting that I am viewing Cuba "through a government's rose-colored glasses"? Are you suggesting that I haven't spoken to "the actual people"?

Just so that you know.. Neither is the case. I have many friends in Cuba that I talk to regularly. I have spent many hundreds of hours doing charity work in Cuba helping to upgrade the state of dentistry there. Prior to that I've spent many a semester in Cuba doing marine biology research for a MS degree. I've met hundreds of every day Cubans af all ilk. I've also cycled across Cuba in the '80s. I love Cuba and the Cuban people and cultures I know. I've have a significant amount of experiences in Cuba - much more that a quick week in Havana.

I guarantee you, Mika, you would see a side of Cuba that you've never seen before.

.. and I've seen most all sides of it. Bad, good, doctors, patients, abjectly poor, middle class, guajiro, and business people. I've cut cane with the cane cutters, repaired run down boats with scrap planks, shared my last bites of food, and had last bites shared with me. By and large, Cubans are wonderful people. The gusanos.. I'm not so fond of them, but I know plenty of them too.

I guarantee that you need a more fully rounded experience in Cuba, not just the one side of Havana that you saw in one short week.

I will be going back because I am fascinated with the country. I am a journalist and I want to document the transition when Castro dies. That, in my opinion, is going to be the top story of the century. Unless something better pops us in the next 194 years.

None of us really know what's going to happen.

But please don't get fooled into thinking that I did not learn anything during my week there.

message board around the time everyone was watching what the idiots of the Miami Mafia were doing to try to steal Elián Gonzalez.
It was also attended by a buttload of Miami right-wingnuts.

One of the Cubans who lives in Cuba got thrown off by the CNN moderators because he put up a beautiful computer design he can created, and it wasn't allowed. He never got to return, which was a real low-note, as many of us were very, very interested in hearing what he had to say, as well as the other one.

Score one for hands-across-the-water diplomacy. CNN had a chance to let Americans learn something from him and they blew it.

I think he drew an airplane using HTML....

HTML is a markup language. This may have referred to ASCII art, something usually put together by people with too much spare time on their hands.

http://www.chris.com/ASCII/art/html/airplane.html

And flew to Miami to get the hell out of Cuba.

terms. I recognized it looked IMPOSSIBLE to me, as everything I would type on a keyboard ends up in a pile on the left side of the screen.

The Cuban's plane was more detailed, and very interesting. For whatever reason, it got him kicked off the CNN US/Cuba Policy message board, and people were damned sorry to see him go.

Thanks for supplying the correct term. Not at all HTML, for sure!

was that this is usually considered spamming. I can't say for sure since I wasn't there but it is considered poor netiquette to post these things, which is probably why he was banned.

via phone, e-mails, letters, etc.

Maybe one of them will see this thread and comment.

In the meantime, I remember seeing a CBS "60 Minutes" show on the embargo on Cuba, and they were interviewing "exiles" at the airport in Miami, a few years ago, and they showed them getting off the plane IN CUBA carrying computers in boxes to give to their relatives.

Makes you wonder what their relatives were planning to do with the computers, since, as R.I.Miami claims they can't get on the Internet! Maybe they'll empty them out and use them as terrariums!

Just too funny, Judi. :rofl:


:hi:


I PMed Billy B. Maybe he'll post here.

Most of the people I talked to in Cuba who had e-mail addresses had not checked their e-month in about a month.

Let's see how long it takes for these DUers who are in the know to comment on this tread.

(I won't hold my breath).

I think I'd stick with the old paper letters and those new-fangled self-sticking stamps.

it bestows them with a variety of inducements never offered to any other immigrant group anywhere, at any time, through the "Cuban Adjustment Act."

When they arrive on dry land, Cubans are NOT tracked down, unlike all other groups, and thrown out. Instead, they are awarded instant legal status, instant social security status, green card, become instantly eligible for U.S. taxpayer-funded Section 8 subsidized housing, food stamps, welfare, financial assistance for education, etc., etc., etc.

If these same gifts were held out for other immigrants, this country would be CROWDED from coast to coast.

In the meantime, knowing that if they survive the deserts, rivers, mountains in the west, and don't get shot at the border, they stand the likelihood of being sent home, Mexicans and other Latin Americans STILL die in the hundreds ANNUALLY trying to get into the States. From whom are THEY fleeing?

Even as _Bush funded the coup against Aristide by arming former murderers/mercenaries working for the Duvaliers, in hiding in the Dominican Republic, Haitians tried desperately to leave Haiti in flimsy boats to make the 700 to 900 mile trip through the Caribbean to Florida, were intercepted by a blockade _Bush sent to surround their island and to feed them back into the roving bands of murderers sent there to overthrow Arisitide: sent back into the tree-shredder killing machine, thanks to _Bush.

No one is welcome here from the south part of this hemisphere accept Cubans, and wealthy European descended citizens of Venezuela, etc. Everyone's well aware of that.

Right-wing terrorist riff-raff has been vomited into South Florida which hides and protects these dictators, their henchmen, death squad leaders, etc. Hell of a deal. Really something to be proud of.

If the USA didn't have a long history of supporting right wings despots, coups and death squads along with overthrowing governments in Latin America we might be more popular there.

But that has nothing to do with poll question. I don't agree with the U.S. constantly meddling in Latin America's affairs.

you have no idea what peoples experiences are.

speak for yourself.

Mostly Colombia because I have a lot of family there. I have been traveling to Colombia since the day I was born and I am 37 years old.

And I recently spent a week in Cuba, spending most of my time with actual Cubans as opposed to hanging out in the tourist district. I will be posting a photo and commentary thread soon, hopefully by Monday.

I believe personal experience is much more valuable than stats pulled off the Internet, which is what I've seen most DUers do when it comes to Latin American issues.

:yourock:

:applause: :applause: :applause:

:toast:

Best. Response. Yet.

staistics are broad -- but however much you personally dislike them -- accurate pictures.

statistics in themselves are not commentaries.

you have some editorializing you want to get out your system -- your personal point of view -- but that's all it is.

Is that they are very one-sided. And if you don't think statistics can be manipulated, then you obviously have never taken a statistics class.

or agree with your particular way to solve a problem?

like i say -- speak for your self.

Is to get a general idea of what most DUers think. Is there a problem with that?

I tried to keep the poll as simplistic as possible. A simple "yes" or "no" would do. And obviously, I was hoping for discussion.

And I posted thread to give other people the opportunity to speak for themselves. What is your issue?

I've spent a lot of time in Cuba, including during an entire election season in 1997-98. I saw the selections of candidates for the three levels of parliament in Cuba - local, municipal, national -, I've seen candidate platform creation, debates, ballots being cast (paper) on election days, and then counted in public. I've also seen bi-annual accountability meetings where elected MPs can be voted out in a no-confidence vote.



But still, I'll be looking for your thread and pic posts.

:hi:



on edit: I didn't vote in this poll.

And I will be going back.

But I made sure to stay in a Casa Particular instead of a hotel. I made sure to hang out with the real Cubans as opposed to the tourists. And I am fluent in Spanish so I spent the week talking to Cubans, getting to hear their side of the story.

Most of them thought I was Cuban-American because I tend to speak Spanish with that Cuban accent even though I am Colombian-American. It's what happens when you grow up down here.

Spending a week in Cuba is more than most DUers can say.

A week ain't shit when it comes to discovering the MANY flavors of Cubañia.

How did you go? Pastors for Peace? Or some other licensed organization?

:toast:

Don't be too suprised if you get that letter from OFAC in 6-12 months.

But I'm not going to pay a dime.

and you still talk as if you're personally wrapped up in the project of Cuban government. Are you? Many lefties are. It comes from worshipping authority. Castro is a skilled nation builder but he is no democrat (this is democratic underground) and he is, and always has been (just like his Bolshevik mentors) an impediment to the iideals Cubans fought for, social justice, direct democracy and a stable social democracy in Latin America capable of outlasting his paternalistic rule, along with all the other authoritarian leftists in the classic Latin American tradition such as Chavez or ffor that matter, Huey Long.

The real question for "chavistas" is would you have supported Long. Would Long have made a great president, better than FDR? possibly. Would his authoritarian brand of populism have set back the course of social justice instead of advancing it? Quite likely.

Frankly, I am sick and tired of newly-minted old-style leftists pouring into every activist organization (including the Democratic Party) trying to equate either social justice or public ownership of the means of production, with a centralized, authoritarian government headed by a meritocracy of some sort. It is old thinking and disused rhetoric. And I'm quite sure that us dissident populists, conservative democrats, and other non-authoritarian types would be the first ones up against the wall when your revolution comes.

WTF is in your Kool Aid?

and we DO have a clue about its culture:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=46mAY_GhPS8

Which means I am not anti-Chavez nor pro-Chavez. If the Venezuelans want him, which they obviously do, then more power to them.

But I think he is slowly working his way to permanent dictatorship. I think his ego is making him see himself as leader of South America as opposed to just Venezuela. If he is not too careful, that ego will lead to his downfall.

But don't get me wrong. I also respect his candidness towards the U.S. His "fuck you" approach to Bush.

However, he needs to be careful when dealing with his Latin American neighbors, who might not fall under his spell.

He started with so much promise, but he is continuing a downward spiral.

don't have time to view in its entirety, I will come back to this thread tomorrow.

experience' - following that logic, all of science and education should go out the window.

Chavez took power. President Chavez challenge the way in which the wealth from these industries was distributed.

I do not believe he has nationalized ANY industries.

Altruism or political meandering?

It's extremes that got us into this mess, going to another isn't going to get us out. I think it was a huge mistake to legally equate corporations to people and give them "rights" but there's a good use for private property and enterprise and we'd make a mistake to give that up or cripple it and nationalize rather than to fix a flawed system. I support what Chavez is trying to do and think we should leave him alone, but I don't want him for mine.

Corps aren't people and they worked fine before we decided they were. They were more a way to get a job done than a way to take over the world.

I'm actually quite skeptical of extreme property rights advocated by many people in our culture, but I see it as a commonwealth-vs-individual issue. I sure as hell don't want the government running everything!!

Chavez and Castro remind me of Huey Long, or for that matter FDR. They helped a lot of people, they forged huge alliances across society but their motives weren't so pure. (Many of FDR's staunchest liberal supporters -- and a bunch of wealthy businessmen and nationalists -- felt his job should be to save capitalism by creating the exact same sort of "social democratic" syatem Hitler was promising to construct. Magazines like Time talked about how the nation-state as a well-oiled machine was the wave of the future. Leaders like Stalin and Mussolini enjoyed good press in the 30s thanks to this mentality. Fortunately, FDR had a common-sense in him that militated against that nonsense. I think had Long not been assassinated, he would have thought differently. He could have become an American Chavez - an authoritarian populist.)

Prison Conditions
Conditions in Venezuela's prisons are notoriously abusive. Overcrowding is chronic and armed gangs maintain effective control within the prison walls. Prison riots and inmate violence claim hundreds of lives every year. In October 2005, Venezuelan Prison Watch (Observatorio Venezolano de Prisiones), a Caracas-based group, claimed that 314 prisoners were killed and 517 were wounded in violent incidents over the course of the year.

Sounds a lot like Chino, Folsom, or Quenton.

:eyes:

:spank: :spank: :spank:

Just 'cause your poll is bullshit. 1) Castro has never run for office in a valid election, so what is up with that? 2) Chavez is the democratically elected head of the non-communist Venezuelan government, is not a communist, and has not established a dictatorship. Lumping the two together is kind of like asking: "Would you vote for a Hitler or Bush-like candidate for US Presidency"? No thanks.

Would I vote for a candidate who supports modern democratic socialist programs like progressive taxation, universal healthcare, workplace safety regulations, wage and benefit regulations, universal college level public education, environmental safety laws and the dismantlement of our offensive military expeditionary forces, replaced by a defensive military force working on an equal basis with other nations through democratic international organizations to ensure the safety and security of all of the people of the planet? Yes.

Sheesh. Is this overboard or what?

post is anything to go by.

nonsensical burbling that might be expected of someone whose brain was starved of oxygen.

Ain't making much sense lately, are ye? Lighten up a bit.

mente. Ahora, por favor. Socialism for the whole country, its people and its material infrastructure; not just socialism for the rich elite - plundering the public purse for their personal enrichment.

I support social welfare in general, and measures to ensure greater equality of wealth and income within a framework of a capitalist economy

Corporate power needs to be trimmed by organized citizenry, in the form of strong labor unions and other democratic advocacy organizations - not by nationalization.

I'd look more toward Scandinavia, where social democrats have stayed away from outright nationalization in favor of a tax and social welfare system that supports equality and a decent standard of living for the average citizen

I have no real problem with Chavez, and believe Castro is a damn sight better than most of the right-wing dictatorships the US has supported in Latin America.

"I'd look more toward Scandinavia, where social democrats have stayed away from outright nationalization in favor of a tax and social welfare system that supports equality and a decent standard of living for the average citizen"

governmental control of big business is harmful to the national interest.

In fact, when the utilities and major services, such as Health, are nationalised, and Big Business are properly taxed, together with their principal financial beneficiaries, the CEOs, directors and major shareholders, and the money invested in the country's infrastructure, social and material, all the business community thrives, with any number of smaller business beginning to appear, burgeon and proliferate.

The bank chiefs need to be educated by the German banks as to how best to cooperate and help businesses, wherever they are, at national and local levels, instead of battening on them like parasites. AND FORCED TO DO SO.

Will Hutton (http://www.londonspeakerbureau.co.uk/speakers/viewSpeaker.aspx?speakerid=1), who believes a nation's banks need to be strong, deals with that very subject in his fascinating book, "The State We're In".

:evilgrin:

I am a social democrat ...not a moron. I will not give up my right to veote

so this is just not to run away.

because these guys understand what imperialism is and what it takes to maintain it--the assassinations, torture prisons, foreign invasions, farmworkers getting paid three bucks a day to work 18 hours in a pesticide-laced field without bathroom breaks (no bathrooms either) all over the world, etc. I'll take socialism any day.

Yo soy un hombre sincero
De donde crece la palma
Y antes de morirme quiero
Echar mis versos de alma.

--José Martí

Is your family in Columbia poor -- dirt poor?

No, they are middle-class, but they struggle down there. They have a roof over their heads are able to afford to eat, but some of their apartments make a Manhattan apartment look like a mansion.

It is a large family and everybody has gone through their personal economic struggles depending on the situation in Colombia at the time. But because it is a large family, we help each other out when it is needed. If it weren't for family unity, some of my family members would be on the streets. Without a doubt.

So fortunately, they are not dirt-poor because if they were, they would be living on the streets. They would be going door-to-door asking for bread and spare change. My family has always helped the poor people when they can -- as most Colombians do -- but it's never enough. The poverty is still overwhelming.

I've always believed that Colombia has enough resources to take care of its poor. But it shouldn't come in the form of a left-wing dictatorship. I also believe if a country doesn't take care of its poor, then they end up with left-wing dictatorships.

I am a Democratic Socialist and Chavez is on the right track. He needs to refine his policies a bit but, he is doing an excellent job so far.

question...I didn't bother to vote as any with background would know there are world's of differences between Chavez and Castro.

I am uncomfortable with the type of society Fidel is running, whereas Chevaz is democratically elected and his reforms are well-within the limits of democratic socialist/social reforms. One thing Chevaz hasn't collectivized anything for instance.

Seems like flame-bait...

So your vote doesn't count anyway.

I am sick and tired of being sick and tired. :-)

So long as the government's not doing it.

I got big problems with one guy "running" a country as the "decider", regardless of politics.

way, ABSOLUTLEY NOT!

What the fuck is wrong with you people? He stayed in power for 50 fucking years?

How would you feel about 50 years of Bush?

Do you really believe that Stalin was an alternative to Hitler?

You're out of your fucking collectivist minds.

.. would fit on the head of a small pin, and there'd still be room for a cow.

who want to return to country to the tender care of the Mafia and its spiritual kin.

And yes, many Russians who remember Stalin wish he was back in charge, psychopathic desperado though HE was. Under Hitler nobody was a winner. He was a hapless mut, pure and simple. Stalin had the wily worldly intelligence to finesse our best leaders.

Grow up and think for yourself.

First of all, because what followed Stalin hasn't been very good either and secondly because as the Stalinist era fades into the past, people tend to remember things in a more positive light and forget about all the suffering. In the immediate aftermath of the Stalinist era, in the lifetimes of those who lived through the 30s and 40s, the only people who wanted Stalin back were those who were in his good graces. That is to say, his well-wishers were few and far between.

And a president that was not elected. The biggest and most deadliest war machine in human history. Corporations that have fleeced our resources and treasury, as well as the resources and treasury’s of third world countries. I think the US is going to go one way or the other. If I had a choice to vote for Chavez over the Bush Neo-cons, I would vote for Socialism over fascism any day.

But I don't like to be limited to the two extremes, "fascism" and "socialism".

EDIT: What I want is "liberalism".

if it could be that way but the far right could never except that condition, because the poor would still be getting free handouts, handouts, like healthcare, education and a living wage…

That is what I want, a middle-ground. As it is right now in this country, the corporations get the free handouts.


I would much rather see the poor get the "handouts." It only betters society.

the masses stop buying Bushes lying rosy representation of the truth, as another eight years of neo-conism might take the world to a point of no return.

And thanks I am really glad I found DU.

But the election was stolen.

Unfortunately, there was too many of the masses who still worshiped Bush.

And if we do win, what will the left do with all of the right wing criminals. Let them walk free to continue with there task of murder and mayhem, or put them out of business for good? After all that is what there trying to do to the left and defenseless people around the world!

I voted yes, because I would vote yes if it were between someone like Lula vs. a corporate pusher.
I think considering a summary of what he has done for Brazil I am impressed, I would like to hear from others
(like Commie Pinko Dirtbag) on what they feel the left has done in that country. I have been out of Brazil for quite sometime
and not familiar with the day by day struggles, but overall it seems like a far superior government bureaucracy vs. the corruption
we are currently experiencing here. Calling Commie Pinko Dirtbag.....
on edit:
And I know this is not an easy subject but I am throwing it in the pot under a general headline that the majority of Central and South American countries are leaning left.
on 2nd edit (*ahem) did you ever post your pics of Cuba? Sorry if I missed, been busy and erratic schedule lately

(pic is Lula w/ Brazil soccer team shirt from todays online Globo)

But I hope to do so by Monday. It's been a burdensome task processing seven days worth of photos and deciding which ones I should post and which ones I should not post.

I want to post them all, but it's never that easy.

I am also putting together a written synopsis of my experience in Cuba. And I want to be sure to capture the good, the bad, the ugly objectively. And I want to make sure it is well-written.

But I've been busy these last two weeks so I've been chipping away at it when I can. And I'm still trying to put it all into perspective.

But it is a beautiful country with beautiful people.

already set up two field hospitals in Indonesia near the volcano.

It's possible to be leftist without being a liberal, and that's what Castro is. Tyranny from the left is just as bad as tyranny from the right. Am I against socialism? No. I think that democratic socialism is a wonderful idea, and looking at Canada and many European nations, one can see how socialist elements have successfully been incorporated into a hybrid system there.

And I hate the bunch of fascists running this country as much as the next person, but I hate to see the opposition being reduced to just 'rage against the machine'. We're against something, but we're also FOR something. We're also for democracy, civil liberties, and human rights. If all we are is against these goddamn fascists, well, brutal communist dictators hated fascists too, no? We have to be careful in our alliances. Beware of false liberalism.

I love it.

I coined a phrase... ^_^

from http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3646.html

<snip>
Leftism is "false liberalism." K-L asks, "How, in the United States, did the word that means freedom-loving, generous, tolerant, open-minded, that is anti-statist and anti-totalitarian come to stand for the very contrary of these virtues and concepts?"

Leddihn answers:

It is, in fact, easily explained. The 'old-fashioned liberal' was often the man who went along with what might be called the Wave of the Future. The conservative (and even more the 'reactionary'), on the other hand, as often took a stand against change. And change was largely a leftward movement. The leftist ideologies had...assumed...a 'futuristic' character. They all claimed the future, utopia, they all claimed the millennium in a chialistic spirit. They believed in the concept of near-automatic progress (which needed just a little 'push'). In their eyes, this fictional road had the character of an 'advance.' The conservatives, meanwhile, adhered to the 'status quo,' while the reactionaries looked ever backward.
Finally our author gladdens the heart with:

Today, what is called 'liberalism' in the United States, that boring mixture of modernity, mediocrity, mimicry, and naiveté, still dominates the mass media --though they grow anxious about an uncertain future...
</snip>

on a Chavez/Castro thread??!!????!!


Color me :wow:

A disruptor?

There is plenty of time left.
But seriously, I agree, this has been way better than most of them.
Kudos all around.

no dictators (Castro)
and no personality manipulators (Chavez)

No redistribution of private property, that is just un-American.

Nationalization of industries? Only possibly... is the US postal service a nationalized industry? What about the education system or the public transportation systems?

Got to be careful...

Just look at the rich getting ever more of it, while the rest gets ever less.

pillaging.

is "redistributed" upward. Witness the current "eminent domain" scams being visited on titleholders too poor to fight City Hall.

because that's how it has always worked.

Better tell the folks of OK and other states, they don't own that land no more!

29% seems to be the magic number these days