Hugo Chavez Decries Capitalism....On Mars

Source: Wall Street Journal

By EZEQUIEL MINAYA

CARACAS—Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who routinely blames capitalism for many of this world's troubles, pointed elsewhere in the galaxy for his latest critique, saying Tuesday that the economic system may have destroyed life on Mars.

"I have always said, have heard, that it would not be strange that there had been civilization on Mars," the firebrand socialist said on Venezuela's state television. After pausing a moment, he added, "But perhaps capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived, and finished that planet."

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704461304576217060217916894.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

---

I googled "Chavez news" to see if he had any new pro-Kdaffy comments and found this gem! The Bolivarian Bozo never ceases to amuse.

The document, the first full revision of overall space policy in 10 years, emphasized security issues, encouraged private enterprise in space, and characterized the role of U.S. space diplomacy largely in terms of persuading other nations to support U.S. policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration

Chavez didn't get the planet wrong at all. :)

You think imperialism hasn't wiped out millions?

:eyes:

who knew?

:)

Really, the only way you can be bothered by this is if you take what he said at face value, if if you do, just how stupid are you?

Irony is not just an American trait. It is, however, missed every time by the ridiculous right. So, how did you miss it?

I like Chavez's informal speaking style. Much better than US teleprompter nonsense.

You have to be kidding me.

They aren't plain speaking. They have armies to PR people to polish them and load them full of BS.

People don't like fast-talking weasels.

and not in a casual and unscripted way. Which of course was preposterous.

You seem to be suggesting the same sort of thing.

You also seem to be suggesting that Chavez never makes a formal speech.

I was thinking of a lot of US politicians though, that strike me as very insincere. Even candidates I've met at meeting of my Democratic club have seemed like bad car salesmen to me (no offense to good car salesmen!). Chavez has read many prepared speeches. But I like the Chavez (and LBJ?) tendency to speak, apparently unafraid of "going off the rails" or having a "Dean scream," as the pundits would say.

or Clinton or most major political figures? Most national politicians have speaking styles that feature pauses one can drive a fucking truck through. Obama, as wonderful as an orator as he is, often speaks in halting aposiopesis. "Fast-talking" politicians is a red herring. If anything, most political oratory is far too slow-moving and vague.

in just one century!

I'll happily compare the record of socialist regimes like Democratic Kampuchea, Mao's PRC during the Great Leap Forward, Stalin's USSR during the collectivization, etc., against the record of the democratic capitalist states, that have delivered the greatest increase in knowledge, culture, wealth, health, and security to the greatest number of humans than any system of economy or governance in the history of humanity. Name one significant innovation created and nurtured exclusively in socialist economies that has gone on to improve the lives of billions around the world. You can't because there isn't any.

The main contribution of these socialist states to humanity has been injustice, the crushing of human liberty and freedom of expression, economic stagnation and massive poverty, and state-sponsored murder on the greatest scale in history (OK - Genghis Khan can join that part of the club). And what is the worst hellhole of a country in the world today? The DPRK, without question. A socialist paradise, at least for the ruling party.

Chavez is an idiot first and foremost for putting his childlike faith in a discredited religion that unlike all others promised paradise in the here, not the hereafter. And every time the Marxist creed has been put to the test, it has failed miserably.

They were Stalinist states under the name of Socialism. So quit spreading that right-wing myth that any of those states you listed were socialist. It is nothing more than lie! Even Leon Trotsky recognized this when he wrote the Revolution Betrayed. As for capitalism? Do you really want to go there? I'll start off easy. 45,000 die in this country every year as a result of a capitalist health care system. How many have dies as a result of capitalist imperialism? How about the Slave Trade? Capitalism is the most violent and destructive system ever devised.

... the point, but your argument is flawed on many levels, including internal inconsistency.

1. The standard response of the true believer is to claim that all of these socialist states were not socialist. However, all of the political movements that seized power and implemented the atrocities like the Cambodian democide had Marxist-Leninist origins, and they claimed they were socialist. At the time that they took power, socialists around the world lauded them and recognized them as socialist. Only later did disillusionment set in. And remember that Trotsky was happy with Lenin, and Lenin was a bloody bastard as well. Had he lived longer, he likely would have been just as bad as Stalin. So to claim later that all these socialist states, self-proclaimed, ruled by parties and leaders who came from the socialist movement, and recognized as socialist at the time by many other socialists around the world were not really socialist is not a credible argument.

2. So what if we do accept your argument that all these countries were not socialist. Has there ever been a socialist state? Then the conclusion is that whenever a political party claiming to be socialist seizes and holds power and attempts to implement socialism, it always devolves into tyranny and failure. And since there is not a single state claiming to be organized on Marxist lines that has been anything other than an economic failure with an authoritarian, dictatorial government, then one must conclude that attempts to create socialist states always produce disaster.

3. So if there never has been a socialist state, and capitalism reigns supreme, then the entire wealth of the modern world is the result of the triumph of capitalism over the past 250 years. You mention "45,000 die in this country every year as a result of a capitalist health care system." Compared to what? The 17th century, when average life expectancy in rich countries was 40? Presumably this unverifiable figure of 45,000/yr comes from some calculation of the number of people who get substandard health care in the US. Well, how about the tens of million who don't die each year? That is the result of capitalism. Whatever your complaints about access to health care, the fact remains that an average individual surviving to age 2 in a preindustrial, pre-capitalist society would have a life expectancy 1/2 what it would be if born in the US today. And remember that infant mortality in such societies is not far from 50% (those who survived past age 2), and those surviving only lived to 40, on average. So the capitalist health care system and in fact the entire capitalist economy is responsible for saving millions of lives each year in the US alone.

What is more, the greatest improvement in the human condition in the past 50 years has been among the poorest humans. India, with 1 billion, is a case in point. I have traveled there often and the changes in the past decade have been dramatic. Far more people are better fed, clothed, educated, and housed than ever. Yes, grinding poverty still exists (the poverty that every society had as the normal condition for most people before capitalism), but there is less and less of it. The same for China, which has abandoned most socialist economic policies while retaining the corruption and authoritarian system that all socialist regimes (in name or fact) generate. In Africa, there has been huge progress, with of course backsliding examples like Zimbabwe (which only goes to show how bad leadership can screw things up). And a huge hero in all of the progress was Norman Borlaug, whose efforts may have saved a billion people. Yet another contribution of the capitalist system that enabled someone like Borlaug to do what he did.

4. Slave trade? It is still going on, you know. Not very politically correct to mention it because the biggest component is Arabs doing the slaving, just like they did for centuries. And you must realize that slavery has been the human condition from the neolithic revolution on, without capitalism. The ancient world relied very heavily on slaves. Until 1865 most Russians were effectively slaves, serfs tied to the land who had to work for the master with no choice in the matter. So if slavery was an open and accepted practice across all civilizations for thousands of years, what changed? Capitalist states, led by Great Britain, the Ur-capitalist-industrial state, ended the open slave trade, driving it to a level where you cannot be "civilized" and advocate slavery. So a horrible practice that was as old as settled life was ended by capitalism. Yet another progressive victory.

By any measure, life for humans across the globe has improved over the past 250 years, and for people in the democratic capitalist states the change has been the most spectacular. Billions now enjoy comfort and convenience that would have been beyond the reach of the most powerful ancient kings. Humans have been largely freed from hunger and want by capitalism, the world-dominant economic system during this 250 years. Meanwhile, the record of every state claiming to implement a Marxist agenda to create socialism has been a record of horror. And given the opportunity to choose, the people in those countries have thrown off their oppressors, embraced market economies, and joined the capitalist system.

The evidence is incontrovertible. This rich modern world was made by capitalism, and the rich modern world is far preferable to everything that came before it. Capitalism is and continues to be the greatest boon to humanity in its history.

Awesome post.

The self-delusion of some people is disheartening.

A Socialism works, just look at all these socialist nations!
B What about these states where it was terrible?
A We've never had a socialist state so you can't make that statement.

Anyway I'm going to try and address a few of your points, but keep in mind I'm still studying Socialism and Marxism.

1. First of all you mention Cambodia and the Kmher Rouge. They were not a socialist movement for a few reasons. First of all the rejected the Marxist concept of the proletariat being the workers and instead claimed that farmers and peasants were the true proletariat. Also there have been rumors that Pol Pot was backed by the CIA because he was against the Viet Cong and it was in fact the Viet Cong that overthrow him and liberated Cambodia from his rule. Also he wanted to throw off French Imperialism and return Cambodia to its ancient glory, that is reactionary motive and is rooted in nationalism which is counter to Socialism, which is an international movement. As to your point on Lenin, you have to remember he was not a dictator. He was in fact voted down several times, especially on the issue of ending Russian involvement in WWI.

2. As to your other points, I would argue that the wealth generated by capitalism is mostly pocketed by the elites with a small bit thrown to the working classes to keep them from open rebellion. The capitalists would love us to go back to the days and polices of the industrial revolution where everyone was pretty much a wage-slave, but they can't because they know if they did that there would be open socialist revolutions. On a final note all the great reforms have been won by Socialist movements pressuring their governments. If the socialists/communists had not put so much pressure on the U.S. goverment and advocated for a socialist revolution then the New Deal, which took many of its ideas from the Socialist Party platform, would never have passed.

... are not tenable.

1. We are back to the same argument - the Khmer Rouge weren't socialist, so you can't hold socialism to blame for what they did. Much better to blame the CIA! Sorry. Pol Pot and his buddies studied in France and at first they were hailed for their "ideological purity." All of their inspiration was Marxist-Leninist. And every regime claiming to be inspired by Marx and Lenin has been horrible, with a far worse record than democratic capitalist states. Every one has turned up a crapper. And if you keep on insisting that all of these regimes were not really socialist, then there has never been a socialist state. But the fact remains that every state claiming to be socialist has turned into a dictatorship and economic failure at best and a democidal hellhole at worst. So if every time someone tried to create a socialist state it descends into a horrible mess, don't you think that after 90 years we can say that the experiment has been done and the verdict is in?

2. You talk about "a small bit thrown to the working classes." Is that what you call cutting infant mortality from 50% to 0.6%? Tell that to parents and ask them what life would be like if every other child died. How about life expectancy once you survive year one? How about the fact that any person can go to the store and buy bananas and strawberries in January! Because of capitalism, modern people live better, longer, healthier, more fulfilling lives with unparalleled opportunities and leisure than the great kings of the ancient world could ever hope for. Sure, an ancient king was rich and did not have to work, but in winter there was no fresh fruit, most had no plumbing for toilets, and what if he got an infection, or appendicitis? These are not "bits", they are huge. In the premodern world I would have been dead at a young age from something that was easily fixed in the hospital. I don't care how much money Bill Gates of Warren Buffet has as long as the vast bulk of the rest of us live lives that premodern people would have given anything to possess. I don't care if Steve Jobs has billions if it means that I can carry around all of my music on an iPod at an incredibly low price. And are the ideas of greater equity in society good? Of course they are. Every industrial country has a progressive tax code, for instance. And some of these ideas were pushed by socialists. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I gather you are a student, and young. Explore ideas - that is a good thing, and something that could get you in serious trouble in states claiming to be socialist. I had a fascination with Marxism when I was young too. I read Marx, Lenin, and people like Rudolf Bahro as well (google him). I also learned a great deal of history, and that was that for socialism (aside from the visits to the eastern block, which were real eye-openers). Socialism has many attractive notions - so idealistic people flock to it, but all of its fundamentals are at odds with reality, which is why when ANY group has tried to create a socialist state and society it is a disaster. What is more, for the true believer, as with any religion, it cannot be the religion that is wrong so it must be enemies thwarting socialism. Hence the need for repression to root out the kulaks or capitalist-roaders, or whatever the flavor of the day should be. This is why socialist state always turns the way out the way they do - repressive. It is the wrath of the religious who cannot stand the insult to their god when reality turns out different from prophecy.

One other point. If you are in a university I am certain that you have met many professors who denounce capitalism and laud socialism. I can easily forgive young people exploring ideas for their fascination with socialism, but I am much less charitable to those who should know better. To be anti-capitalist and consider it to be an evil system must be to be against the things capitalism has wrought. So to be anti-capitalist, fundamentally, is to prefer a world where slavery is common and most people are dirt-poor peasants (equal to the poorest people in the world today) doomed to die at an early age. A world of ignorance and injustice. So to be anti-capitalist is to be anti-progressive. And I view modern intellectuals, who from the safety of their lives of convenience, profess to be anti-capitalist as fools or worse. They pontificate, ignoring the crimes of socialist states and the massive benefits to ordinary people flowing from capitalism. If they had their way, life would be immeasurably worse for most of humanity. And so I have the same antipathy for socialists of such stripes as I do for national socialists.

not social democracy which the type of government that exists in Venezuela most of the rest of latin American, Europe and Canada. Such governments have multiparty elections, and mixed state economies.

He may be jumping to conclusions about Mars, but it makes sense on Earth considering our history. Although I would term it more totaliatarianism of thought, religion and economic systems without labeling it.

That he believe in UFO's? This sounds, to me, like RW NeoCon-NeoLib Garbage. I hope you Google for other sources to see that some folks might really differ with you who have some good credentials.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/22/us-venezuela-chavez-mars-idUSTRE72L61D20110322

Chavez says capitalism may have ended life on Mars
By Eyanir Chinea
CARACAS | Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:44pm EDT


(Reuters) - Capitalism may be to blame for the lack of life on the planet Mars, Venezuela's socialist President Hugo Chavez said on Tuesday.

"I have always said, heard, that it would not be strange that there had been civilization on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet," Chavez said in speech to mark World Water Day.

He did say it, but not seriously. Just as a means for espousing his anti-capitalist views, and his belief that it destroys nations and people.

I hope not. I thought it was obvious he was being provocative.

He's a little sawed off nut job dictator. Fuck him.

...that there was a civilization of Mars.

But he does think that capitalism is evil and that socialism is superior. That is why he is an idiot.

It's the high point of their week if they can google dive for something they think might malign a leftist, to drag over and post on a progressive message board. High adventure.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com.nyud.net:8090/_P86w3jiXpHU/TN4Xv2bDPQI/AAAAAAAAMqc/wLl96VxhZ1E/s1600/troll+2.jpg

Some people have no sense of humor. Others have an agenda.

:)

lol

Very sad for you.

Chavez has a great concern for the poor and for social justice. Those are his good points.

He also has a nasty authoritarian, megalomaniacal streak. Definitely a bad point.

But his characterization of capitalism as evil and socialism as beneficial with a Marxist perspective as the basis for good government, in the face of the obvious historical evidence to the contrary is idiotic.

people tell them, "jokes", to be amusing or when they aren't being completely serious.

I did not know he likes to joke around.

since ignoring the truth of the devastation we cause is such a hoot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duFXuRnd2CU

Do you imply by that that capitalism is somehow evil? Perhaps you should read post #36. Capitalism is has done the greatest good for the greatest number of people than any other comparable economic system in the history of humanity. To be anti-capitalist is to be anti-progressive since it suggests that a world where slavery was openly practiced and accepted, where the vast bulk of humanity were dirt poor peasants with a live expectancy of 40 years, where infant mortality was 50%, where only a tiny elite (if that) had clean water, education, or leisure, is preferable to the modern world where such conditions are the target of scorn, viewed as huge failures, and simply do not exist in most of the world.

I hear Rasputin was from Mars and so was Micheal Gorbachev (they needed perestroika to bring down the earth forces secret shields) Secret Wars 1888 - 2004.

Sometimes I can't believe how many freaking morons are on DU. Serves me right for clicking on the thread in the first place.

I'm a communist. And I now officially think the guy is out of his mind. Read some of the pro-Iran, Prop Hammas statements he's made publicly. Nearly half the Jews in Venezuela have left.
He's crazy.
When you're a leader and want to remain respected, you don't say shit like this. You have to be more like a no-drama type.

No to mention, he's trying to remove any limits on how long he can remain in power for. He's on his way to being another corrupt dictator. And I'm not impressed with that.

:rofl: