Interesting Development in Venezuela

[lawrocket 3]

A referendum was put up for election in Venezeula a couple of days ago. Forwarded by Hugo Chavez, the referendum would do several specific things, all of which would basically lead to a socialist state under the direct control of the sitting president.

For Chavez himself, it would have ended term limits an increased the term of office. It also would have done things like allowed the government to take private property for its use and even to make private companies subject to popular control.

Chavez, in a very real sense, forwarded these proposals to spread wealth from the rich to the poor. This, however, was predicated on other things that would give him absolute and total control.

How is it that one can seize complete power and have the people approve it? By tying in these two things, "Sure, I'll be in control, but you'll get goodies from me."

It seems that, however, the Venezuelan people, especially the poor, found a greater danger in the centralization of power than the benefit of receipt of goodies. Even Chavez's own allies were nervous about this.

A very powerful statement was written by Raúl Isaías Baduel, one of the founders of Chavez's Bolivar party. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/opinion/01baduel.html?_r=1&n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Contributors&oref=slogin

A very important quote:

Quote

The proposal, which would abolish presidential term limits and expand presidential powers, is nothing less than an attempt to establish a socialist state in Venezuela. As our Catholic bishops have already made clear, a socialist state is contrary to the beliefs of Simón Bolívar, the South American liberation hero, and it is also contrary to human nature and the Christian view of society, because it grants the state absolute control over the people it governs

The most stubborn opposition was from the student population. Even the poor were largely no-shows at the election.

It remains to be seen what, exactly, Hugo Chavez will do. Admirably, he has conceded defeat. He still, however, has the right under a temporary law, to rule by decree.

We can see some similarities to the US. What happens when one party controls the legislature and the presidency?

What happens when a leader promises to provide goodies to the public - especially the poor? By necessity, the leader consolidates power into himself or herself and strips power from the people. Indeed, the people will often perceive that they do not have the power that they still have.

In this sense, we see candidates who are promising to do things like socialize health care - something that consolidates a large sector of the economy under the control of the POTUS in exchange for taking care of the poor. Well, for "promises" of taking care of them.

The people of Venezuela have spoken. The people of France spoke. Throughout the world, it seems, people who are in socialist systems are starting to question how good they are and whether they are better than private enterprise.

We in the United States have long been viewed as behind the curve. History may demonstrate that we, in fact, stayed ahead of it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>Throughout the world, it seems, people who are in socialist systems
>are starting to question how good they are and whether they are better
>than private enterprise.

I think people have _always_ been questioning whether socialism is better than capitalism; look at the history of France, Russia and the US. Most nations eventually evolve something that's a mix of the two, as we have. I think it works out pretty well that way.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The people of Venezuela have spoken. The people of France spoke. Throughout the world, it seems, people who are in socialist systems are starting to question how good they are and whether they are better than private enterprise.

Interesting argument.

I struggled to disentangle centralization, which can be autocratic and non-capitalistic/non-socialist, from the comments about socialized health care.

Might there be a little bit of selection bias in your cases and your interpretation of the cases to the US?

Contrast the result in Venezuela to that in recent election in Russia (autocratic, non-US-style capitalist and non-socialist)?

Or the trend among recent elections in other South American (e.g. Morales, de Silva) and Central American countries to more socialists leaning candidates?

Mexico's Calderon (who's more right) tried to do something like Chavez did, via attempts to disband the Federal Electoral Institute (the independent electoral watchdog), e.g, "Hobbling Mexico's Democracy." I don't know what was the outcome there.

In contrast to France, the Poles defeated the sitting Law and Justice Party Prime Minister in Poland and replaced him with a more left-leaning candidate, who less inclined to having missile defense-associated sites located in Poland.

How about Norway's unprecedented coalition of Labour Party, Socialist Left Party, and Centre Party?

Quote

We in the United States have long been viewed as behind the curve. History may demonstrate that we, in fact, stayed ahead of it.

Concur here ... and would assert that we are struggling to stay ahead with our entrepreneurial form of capitalism ... vs the autocratic/oliogarchic capitalism of Russia & many African states, the state-oriented capitalism of most of western Europe, and 4th form, which I can't remember ... sorry.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I struggled to disentangle centralization, which can be autocratic and non-capitalistic/non-socialist, from the comments about socialized health care.

It will be a struggle because they share so many characteristics. The issue I put forth is, "Give the goodies in exchange for receiving power." Socialists typically are out there to spread wealth and benefits to the poor.

Whomever redistributes the wealth has power and it need not be autocratic. Both Dems and Republicans are interested in it, and just wish to spread he wealth to different places.

Quote

Might there be a little bit of selection bias in your cases and your interpretation of the cases to the US?

Probably.

Quote

Contrast the result in Venezuela to that in recent election in Russia (autocratic, non-US-style capitalist and non-socialist)?

Check out the USSR 20 years ago and you see a large rightward shift. You can also look at Venezuela 10 years ago and see a large leftward shift. IN countries with new political systems one would expect the balance to swing wildly both ways, gradually easing toward a middle ground.

Quote

In contrast to France, the Poles defeated the sitting Law and Justice Party Prime Minister in Poland and replaced him with a more left-leaning candidate, who less inclined to having missile defense-associated sites located in Poland.

How about Norway's unprecedented coalition of Labour Party, Socialist Left Party, and Centre Party?

Yes. We are finding swings the other way, too.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[shropshire 0]

Is that because, in the main, we humans are "I want, I want" types not "What can I do to help you" types?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 3,132]

> Is that because, in the main, we humans are "I want, I want" types not
>"What can I do to help you" types?

I think it's more the "grass is always greener" thing.

If you're working for minimum wage in a lousy job at a car wash, socialism starts to sound pretty good. If you're working for the state and you can't advance from your lousy mailroom job, you might be inclined to give capitalism a try.

Of course, neither system eliminates lousy jobs, or gives people better lives in and of itself. Both have their benefits and drawbacks, which is why I think we sorta have the best of both worlds (a mix of both.)

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

>Throughout the world, it seems, people who are in socialist systems
>are starting to question how good they are and whether they are better
>than private enterprise.

I think people have _always_ been questioning whether socialism is better than capitalism; look at the history of France, Russia and the US. Most nations eventually evolve something that's a mix of the two, as we have. I think it works out pretty well that way.

Yeah just ask all of Africa, South America, Asia and the Middle East...

Western societies are welfare states aka state capitalism not a mix of the two and it works 'pretty well' for the 2 billionish people who win the birth lottery.

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

Is that because, in the main, we humans are "I want, I want" types not "What can I do to help you" types?

No, we are not.

[Trent 0]

Quote

Western societies are welfare states aka state capitalism not a mix of the two and it works 'pretty well' for the 2 billionish people who win the birth lottery.

Regardless of whether or not your assessment of western states is correct, the governments of those states SHOULD primarily be concerned with those who "won the birth lottery" and are citizens. It is not the governments job to ensure the welfare of non-citizens and those outside the country. Why should it be? Should countries with decent government and a decent lifestyle feel guilty because they're doing well?

Oh, hello again!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Should countries with decent government and a decent lifestyle feel guilty because they're doing well?

obviously a lot of people think so

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,132]

>It is not the governments job to ensure the welfare of non-citizens
>and those outside the country.

While I agree, you surely seem to be advocating that we, as a nation, help ensure the welfare of the Venezuelans by containing/eliminating Chavez. As I recall, your attitude was something along the lines of "frying a small fish before it gets too big" since Chavez is "NOT for the little guy."

So which is it? Do nations have a role helping other people with their (perceived) problems? Or is it not their job to ensure the welfare of non-citizens and those outside the country?

[Trent 0]

Regional stability, availability of resources, and NOT having an Iran or North Korea 3 hours away IS in the interests of Americans. I was asking people to pay attention, not to eliminate anything. It is, IMO, a nice real-life, current example of a new fascist regime.

That Chavez is destroying his own country DOES affect us... and will probably affect us more as he's allowed to gain more powers.

Having a government concerned MORE for the well being of its people DOES NOT preclude it from trade, alliance, or assisting other countries when it can. Unless of course, you think that the only way to have a government that works well for it's people is to be completely isolationist...

Nice try though...

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,132]

> Regional stability, availability of resources, and NOT having an
>Iran or North Korea 3 hours away IS in the interests of Americans.

We had a Russia half an hour away (Cuba) for decades. We seemed to do just fine.

>I was asking people to pay attention, not to eliminate anything.

Who did you want to fry, then?

>Unless of course, you think that the only way to have a government
>that works well for it's people is to be completely isolationist...

I think we need to be a lot more isolationist than we are now. But again, you seem to say "completely isolationist" as if it was a bad thing, suggesting that less isolationism would be OK. And less isolationism means caring more about the welfare of people outside the country, at its most basic form. I don't think you can have it both ways.

[Trent 0]

Quote

We had a Russia half an hour away (Cuba) for decades. We seemed to do just fine.

And we "paid attention" to it, didn't we? We "fried that fish" before it got even bigger didn't we?

Quote

Who did you want to fry, then?

You're smart, Bill. You can figure out a figure of speech, can't you?

Quote

I think we need to be a lot more isolationist than we are now.

I agree.

Quote

But again, you seem to say "completely isolationist" as if it was a bad thing, suggesting that less isolationism would be OK.

I think being completely isolationist WOULD be a bad thing. I think trade is good. I think helping when we can is good. I think stopping nutjobs that could actually hurt us is good. We wouldn't bother with that if we were 100% isolationist.

Quote

And less isolationism means caring more about the welfare of people outside the country, at its most basic form. I don't think you can have it both ways.

Maybe you'd like to use a better word for "semi-isolationist" if it'll help. A country SHOULD act in the best interest of its people. That should be inspected. Sometimes that will involved doing things in/with other countries.

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,132]

>We "fried that fish" before it got even bigger didn't we?

Actually, no, we didn't - that was sort of the point. Castro is still there, is still running his country the way he wants, and we're basically just waiting for him to die. And overall that strategy worked out OK.

>I think helping when we can is good.

That's fine; no problem. It sounds like you believe that it is the governments job to help with the welfare of non-citizens and those outside the country, at least to a small extent, when we can.

[Trent 0]

Quote

Actually, no, we didn't - that was sort of the point. Castro is still there, is still running his country the way he wants, and we're basically just waiting for him to die. And overall that strategy worked out OK.

Yeah, and instead of letting it get bigger with Russia setting up huge bases there... we handled it. Chavez can run the country how he wants, however, once it starts affecting us and those around him... it becomes our problem, at least in part.

You seem to not understand that figure of speech. I'll stop using it.

Quote

That's fine; no problem. It sounds like you believe that it is the governments job to help with the welfare of non-citizens and those outside the country, at least to a small extent, when we can.

NO... it is NOT the government's JOB. It is something they CAN do when it affects their country and IF they can help. If/when it is deemed to be becoming a big problem that will affect them eventually.

You've spun this into something that you seem to have hoped would be a "gotcha". No matter how you try to twist it, a government's PRIMARY concern should be for its own people. If their actions, in the benefit of their people, help out other countries... great. But it is not their JOB to make sure other countries are doing well. If country B is making country A's people's lives worse, then it is in the best interest of A to handle it. If those actions actually benefit others, great! What's so hard about that?

Oh, hello again!

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

Quote

Western societies are welfare states aka state capitalism not a mix of the two and it works 'pretty well' for the 2 billionish people who win the birth lottery.

Regardless of whether or not your assessment of western states is correct

It is.

Quote

It is not the governments job to ensure the welfare of non-citizens and those outside the country. Why should it be?

It is, for some, their job to do the exact opposite which is the point I was making.

Quote

Should countries with decent government and a decent lifestyle feel guilty because they're doing well?

If it comes at the cost of millions of lives then the answer is obviously yes.

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

If country B is making country A's people's lives worse, then it is in the best interest of A to handle it. If those actions actually benefit others, great! What's so hard about that?

So pretty much all of Africa, Asia and South America are allowed to 'handle' the US?