Is Hugo Chavez good for his country?

B

BelgoHead

Registered Member
IN latin america recently a place that i usually wouldn't bother reading about. This one guy Hugo Chavez president of Venezuela is making alot of news. MOstly by his anti Busch speeches and his nationlising of oil, also his relation with Fidel Castro has gotten lots of headlines.

Anyway You hear about him doing good for the poor and all taht typical socialist/communist stuff. The USA planned and failed a coup i hear.(though the CIA denies it, i would say they did given there imperialist history there)

Now adays he just went through onother election in april i think? anyway he got re-elected with a resounding majority.And now that he is making changes to the Venezuelan Constitution it looks like he is going to president for quite some time.

Before i declare myself a Commy im wondering is he populare with his people? with the poor?

has he done anything to get rid of corruption at all, ?

Is he different from "all the other South American dictators" that preceded him?

And what do you guys think?

Absouloute power corrupts absouloutely i dont know about this presidency though he probably will be onother, generic south american dictator. but well see.
 
FOXNews.com - Venezuela's Chavez Seeking to Change Constitution to ...
Venezuela's Chavez Seeking to Change Constitution to Allow Perpetual Re-Election, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez will present his plan on Wednesday to ...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293290,00.html

Same path that the rest of the Dictators, he isn't any different, and in the end the people will get the shaft.
 
Belgo, if the Chavez administration is any indicator, it is not time for the Revolution. I even held out hope through his battle with the media earlier this year because a professor from the Columbia University School of Journalism made the point that the station he sought to destroy was an exploitative betrayer of journalistic principles. Of course, this might have been about as deep a betrayal of public trust as ABC/Disney's 9/11 revisionism, so it's a coin toss. But the story Buffalo pointed to is the last nail. There can be no doubt that his administration is ill-intended.

Additionally, before you declare yourself a Communist, consider two things:

• Karl Marx once stated that he was no Marxist.
• The state of the current International (Fifth) is one of complete disarray.​

The Revolution will not be won with arms. At least, not on the People's side. No matter how the institutional and bourgeois faction(s) resist, the Revolution will occur as naturally as anything can in human society. The best declaration of Communism I can think of is to recognize core principles from the Manifesto, and just do what you can to keep those ideas foremost in your thoughts about politics, society, and economy; to promote those ideas when appropriate opportunities arise; and to defend those principles as needed. Americans, for instance, resist when the word "Communist" is involved, but it's kind of hard for, say, Christians to refuse "from each, to each", since it's also a Biblical concept from the mouth of Jesus Christ.
 
Last edited:
Foxnews is not a source to be trusted.

Also, has he eliminated elections?
 
Yeah, I know, but quite possibly, there is a reason for what he is proposing.

His disappearance from the helm at this point in Venezuela (when the dollar is weak and the petrodollar crumbling) may not be an advantage for the people.

Also, he still needs to be elected.

I'm not comfortable with the changes, but they're not attacking anyone or using secret prisons, so I'll suspend judgement in the meantime
 
Last edited:
True, but the United States arguably would have done better with Bill Clinton at the helm for a third term, instead of Bush or Gore. Doesn't mean we should change the Constitution, though.

Remember that Bush eeked out a victory in 2004; can you imagine if he pulled another >1% win in '08?

If Chavez wants to retain influence, he should separate and protect the position of party chair, and then run the party when he leaves office. He'll be in a position to hand-pick successors and otherwise manipulate the government "on behalf of the people" from there. It's still not the most attractive thing, but it's a far better image than that of greedy state executive. If he's for the people, his removal should not require revolution.
 
Tiassa said:
True, but the United States arguably would have done better with Bill Clinton at the helm for a third term, instead of Bush or Gore. Doesn't mean we should change the Constitution, though.

Remember that Bush eeked out a victory in 2004; can you imagine if he pulled another >1% win in '08?

If Chavez wants to retain influence, he should separate and protect the position of party chair, and then run the party when he leaves office. He'll be in a position to hand-pick successors and otherwise manipulate the government "on behalf of the people" from there. It's still not the most attractive thing, but it's a far better image than that of greedy state executive. If he's for the people, his removal should not require revolution.
Click to expand...

I'm not very familiar with the political process in Venezuela but what you say sounds reasonable.
 
A move away from democracy is a step towards tyranny.

He may be good for the poor people of his country
but he should trust them to decide whether he is kept in power.

Eventually, he will be rounding up anyone who opposes him
"for the good of the people"
 
S.A.M. said:
Yeah, I know, but quite possibly, there is a reason for what he is proposing.

His disappearance from the helm at this point in Venezuela (when the dollar is weak and the petrodollar crumbling) may not be an advantage for the people.

Also, he still needs to be elected.

I'm not comfortable with the changes, but they're not attacking anyone or using secret prisons, so I'll suspend judgement in the meantime
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Having said that it's up to Venezuelans. Chavez hasn't lied to justfy invading and occupying another country. He hasn't killed tens of thousands or set up Abu Graib-style torture prisons. Chavez is only guilty of sometimes spouting off like a rambling idiot. He was re-elected by Venzuelans as a known quantity. Americans re-elected Bush and Venezuelans re-eleced Chavez. Bush sells tens of billions in weapons to thug regimes such as the Saudis and Chavez gives money away to his 'friends' while millions of Venezuelans are dirt poor.

What Chavez has accomplished is to preclude American interference in Venezuela via the CIA. The CIA won't be able to murder him as they did the elected leader, Allende, in Chile and install a military dictator to do America's bidding. In fact, the CIA is probably paranoid that Chavez is struck down by an assasin. The USA has a history of assasinations and all fingers would point to the USA . Chavez would gain martyr status and anti-american governmnets might come to power in even those countries such as Columbia in which the USA props up corrupt leaders.
 
Tiassa said:
True, but the United States arguably would have done better with Bill Clinton at the helm for a third term, instead of Bush or Gore. Doesn't mean we should change the Constitution, though.

for the people, his removal should not require revolution.
Click to expand...

Ha Ha, it's funny that you say that. Alot of Republicans say if there was no term limits then Bill Clinton would of never been voted out of office lol. I couldn't imagine how much better this country would of been.
 
While Venezuala is democratic, the US has its hands tied.
They can't be seen to undermine another democratically elected leader.
I wouldn't be surprised if they passed intelligence to Venezuala
regarding potential assassinations.
If he gets killed, the ensuing chaos will be blamed on America.

The US could, justifiably by its own reasoning, make life for a future undemocratic, socialist state very uncomfortable.

And liberals would back off in criticism.

I think, for Chavez and Venezuala, it would be a huge mistake for him to take on a Castro role.

He wins every election by a huge margin anyway.
 
Last edited:
Chris Cremin said:
He wins every election by a huge margin anyway.
Click to expand...

So did the leaders of every Communist country from the cold war, and every Dictator in the world today, just because you have elections and call them fair doesn't necessarily mean that the will of the people is known, or that your intentions are for the good of the people, after Hitler came to power he was re-elected by a massive majority in the next 2 election.
 
Democracy is when a few good men decide who the President should be on behalf of the people. :)
 
Buffalo Roam said:
So did the leaders of every Communist country from the cold war, and every Dictator in the world today, just because you have elections and call them fair doesn't necessarily mean that the will of the people is known, or that your intentions are for the good of the people, after Hitler came to power he was re-elected by a massive majority in the next 2 election.
Click to expand...

But Jimmy Carter verified that they were fair. Are you calling him a peanut farming liar???

Just kidding. People dispute the fairness of elections in this country (including Chavez, I believe, who noted Jeb Bush's 'suspicious' participation in Florida in 2000), let alone down there.
 
You know, Baron, there is that famous quote: "Democracy is the last refuge of the scoundrel."

Besides, the United States government is not a democracy.
 
Tiassa said:
But the story Buffalo pointed to is the last nail. There can be no doubt that his administration is ill-intended.
Click to expand...

How?

Running multiple terms hardly makes you ill-intended. It only started in America out of precedent. The British Prime Minister has no term limit. Are they not democratic?
 
Exhumed said:
How?

Running multiple terms hardly makes you ill-intended. It only started in America out of precedent. The British Prime Minister has no term limit. Are they not democratic?
Click to expand...

But this is after he has shut down a free press, is starting to round up his political opponents, I love the fact that he has bought the latest Russian fighter, 24 of them, 3 questions? how does this help the poor of his country? and were is he going to get the Pilots with the required skills to use this type of advanced weaponry? and what does he need these weapons for? Following the same route as Hitler, get elected, consolidate you position, build your military, now the question is what is the military power that he is building for? Defense? or oppression of the People of Venezuela? does this sound anything like the little chimp from N. Korea? I vote for the Chimp, Kim Jong-il.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top