ok, it’s nice to have a few more rational leftist individuals here then!

Read from Source

>Really? aporrea.com? That is your best source for "decent" articles? um, no. first of all, the website is apporea.org, not apporea.com. second, where do you see (or have ever seen) me say that that is the "best source for ‘decent’ articles"? i’ve never said that, and i’ve never believed that! the point of [the comment i wrote immediately after](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1eoji7/capriles_ser%C3%A1_un_nuevo_ch%C3%A1vez/ca28gql) submitting the link above was to make it clear to everyone that–unlike those other times (once or maybe twice)–i was not sharing this article because i was *recommending* its *content*, *or* because i thought it was "decent" and thus "worth reading and debating" by those who frequent this subreddit. **instead**, i was simplying pointing out the provocative title, and decided to leave it at that.

Read from Source

unlike [those other times when i've](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1d2ei3/venezuela_the_dangers_of_a_revolution_against_a/) [submitted links](http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/7249) to ‘pro-chavez’ websites, which los escuálidos refuse to visit, pointing to decent articles worth [reading and debating](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1d2ei3/venezuela_the_dangers_of_a_revolution_against_a/c9m8u1f)–i’m not actually recommending *this* actual article at all, so much as its provocative title.

Read from Source

care to elaborate? how would you have the government respond?

Read from Source

with all due respect, ven28 (we go way back), it’s not clear what your point is. are you really expressing frustration that the government would release from detention suspected criminals like Rivero after they’ve been charged before a Venezuelan court with a serious offenses, like inciting post-election violence? if so, your question–"where is the justice?"–suggests you may not be aware that Rivero has simply been "*[released pending trial and will have to appear in court next Monday](http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/130517/general-antonio-rivero-released-pending-trial)". [*five months ago*](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/13owc0/venezuelan_judge_says_she_was_raped_in_prison/c76db0j) you and i agreed that too many criminals in Venezuela operate with impunity from criminal prosecutions–i recall we were both angry about criminal bankers escaping justice. in the case of Rivero, however, there is nothing scandalous as far as i can tell. Rivero went on a hunger strike after being arrested and held in detention, and it appears the government has allowed him to take care of the health problems that resulted from that. this isn’t a case of a judge, like Afiuni, letting a criminal banker out the back door. why don’t you try dropping the sarcasm, if that’s what i’m detecting, and clearly explain what your point is, because it seems to me that you are making something out of nothing.

Read from Source

btw, [General Nestor Luis Reverol](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A9stor_Reverol) is *not* the Minister of Defense ([as was reported incorrectly by the Guardian last month](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/17/venezuela-opposition-protest-maduro-victory)). (That’s [Diego Molero](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Alfredo_Molero_Bellavia) [Bellavia](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Alfredo_Molero_Bellavia)’s position.) Reverol [*was*](http://www.vtv.gob.ve/articulos/2012/10/13/nestor-reverol-nuevo-ministro-de-relaciones-interiores-y-justicia-5084.html) the Minister of Interior and Justice until last month, when President Maduro [announced](http://www.noticias24.com/venezuela/noticia/164200/miguel-rodriguez-torres-es-designado-ministro-para-relaciones-interiores-y-justicia/) that [General Miguel Rodriguez Torres](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Rodr%C3%ADguez_Torres) (the former head of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service (SEBIN)) would take over his position (and that the Ministry will now be called the "Ministry of Interior, Justice, and Peace"). Reverol has been moved to his old job as the director of the National Anti-Drug Office (ONA) (which Maduro [is promising to transform](http://www.rnv.gov.ve/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11539:president-maduro-we-will-transform-ona–audio-&catid=52:english-bulletin&Itemid=50) into a major anti-drug trafficking institution).

Read from Source

i’m wondering why he was released. did he post bail? or was he not charged? update: i just noticed i got two downvotes! why? i asked a question that wasn’t answered in the fucking reuters article. i thought it was strange that wasn’t explained. jesus christ. now i know the answer, but wtf?

Read from Source

you are entitled to hold that opinion, but it is clear to me that you don’t have a clue as what my actual political positions are. it is not easy for me to support the current government–*and i do not support it uncritically*. a quick look at my comment history would reveal that i’ve done almost nothing in this sub but criticize the government whilst nonetheless refusing to identify with the opposition. those who are truly interested in protecting their idealism were the first to abandon the struggle when the revolution encountered difficulty on the level of practice. these are the true hypocrites–those who expected the path of 21st century socialism to be easy. the assumption you are making, that one cannot live in Venezuela and still call oneself a chavista, flies in the face of political reality. one can recognize all the same problems as you do without trusting in the opposition to resolve them. our disagreement is a political one.

Read from Source

¿qué te parece? escribo aquí en español en alguna ocasión, pero no me interesa engañar a nadie. no soy venezolano.

Read from Source

hablar no es suficiente, pero sí es necesario para hacer un trabajo de forma coordinada con los tres niveles de gobierno (nacional, estadal y municipal) y para integrar la planificación y participación de todos los sectores, para combatir el delito y brindar seguridad.

Read from Source

>After the uprising of the 17th of June >> >The Secretary of the Writers Union >> >Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee >> >Stating that the people >> >Had forfeited the confidence of the government >> >And could win it back only >> >By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier >> >In that case for the government >> >To dissolve the people >> >[And elect another](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_L%C3%B6sung)?

Read from Source

it seems to me that your interpretation is the most careful and honest. it is good that Maduro recognizes that his gap was shorter (in the April election than it was in October’s) because there were many chavistas who did not vote for him. but the intimidation that is implicit in claiming to know who these chavistas were is not a good way to attempt to win back their votes and support. >:(

Read from Source

>Falcón también escribió que para resolver el "problema grave" de la inseguridad que aqueja a los venezolanos se necesita "planificación y participación de todos los sectores" para "atacarlo de forma integral". ¡Así se habla!

Read from Source

i don’t want even to express any judgement about what the WSJ is calling a "surprising turnaround" in the government’s behavior–although i do think those who have opposed the way the government has dealt with the private sector probably *ought* to see this as a positive sign, at least in terms of resolving food issues. i simply want to note this is also how the WSJ is perceiving things. >After those meetings and others with the business sector, Mr. Maduro’s government raised by 20% state-controlled prices on key items of food like chicken, beef and dairy—a tacit acknowledgment that controls aimed at stemming inflation have left suppliers unable to meet costs, and dented food supplies. >> >The moves could signal a détente—at least for now—between the new government and the country’s beaten-down private sector, and seem to show Mr. Maduro’s emerging independence from his political patron’s shadow. >> >"Businesses used to meet with people in the government who didn’t have power to make decisions of any kind, but now they are meeting in the [president's] office," said Ismael Perez, executive president of the Venezuelan Confederation of Industries, or Conindustria. "It’s evident that the government at high levels must have realized that the private sector cannot be shunned in this issue of supplying the country. There are no other alternatives." >> >The government, which is the sole body allowed by law to import raw food materials, promised to deliver all the corn and rice that Polar needs to maintain output, Mr. Mendoza said. "I’m fully confident, with the meetings…of settling the issues through dialogue, mutual respect and exchanging ideas for the benefit of the people," Mr. Mendoza said in comments carried on state television.

Read from Source

remove

Read from Source

if you click the link from google news, you get full access. let me figure something out. update: before i submit another link, could you tell me [if this link works for you](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&ved=0CDQQ-AsoATAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424127887323582904578487460103629982.html&ei=GKmWUZWuIIyo8QSNiIDQCA&usg=AFQjCNEFZAWHhe7y5mhougAMS41AvLBA4Q&sig2=xOmCkhjON3YNiQ4uTcd-Fw)? update: you should definitely be able to [access the story by clicking through to this link](https://www.google.com/search?hl=es&gl=ve&tbm=nws&q=Caracas+Offers+Peace+to+Private+Sector&oq=Caracas+Offers+Peace+to+Private+Sector).

Read from Source

>What Capriles and his relatives say is irrelevant (in the legal aspect), what matters is the written request to the CNE. the article absolutely does address the "*legal aspect*" of Caprile’s "*written request to the CNE*". on this *precise* issue, it quotes from Tibisay Lucena explaining why the CNE finds it "impossible to approve the request in the stated terms," since the opposition’s additional demands, contained therein, such as that of a full audit of the voting record books, "*are not provided for IN THE LAW*". >The document we received on Wednesday 17th, signed by citizen Capriles, is in itself an attempt at contesting [the election], *to which he has a legitimate right*, as we have insisted. However, the document fails to meet two conditions, in order to be responded to by the National Electoral Council. Firstly, *it is not up to the CNE to receive contestation requests in these cases*. *The Organic Law of Electoral Processes clearly states, in its article 202, that it is up to the Supreme Tribunal of Justice to consider any resort against proceedings issued by this National Electoral Council*. [...] So, despite making several assertions about the article, you have yet to engage in any of its points (it may help if you read it). If your response is that the legal explanation above is itself "fallacious" (based on a mistaken belief), please make an argument as to why.

Read from Source

> What Capriles and his relatives say is irrelevant (in the legal aspect), what matters is the written request to the CNE. you can tell just by reading the headline–"*Media Fails to Inform Public about Shifting Opposition Demands in Post-Election Venezuela*"–that the article’s *central* focus is *THE MEDIA* (the major English language media, specifically). it is therefore *highly relevant* for the article to examine what, in fact, the media’s coverage of the post-election situation has been (what they have reported on what Capriles has said), precisely in order to point out the "crucial piece of context [that] is missing" from these reports!

Read from Source

you can tell just by reading the headline–"Media Fails to Inform Public about Shifting Opposition Demands in Post-Election Venezuela"–that the central focus of the article is *the media* (the major English language media specifically). it is therefore highly *relevant* for the article to examine what, in fact, the media coverage of the post-election situation has been, precisely in order to point out the "crucial piece of context [that] is missing" from reports from the BBC, USA Today, the Associated Press, AFP, etc.

Read from Source

"sophism" "fallacious" woah, that freshman intro to philosophy course you took is really paying off!

Read from Source

you fail to mention what a sophism is, or why it is one.

Read from Source

you have an excellent point. in the *current* circumstances, the reaction to any move towards drug legalization under President Maduro would be just as you suggest. this is why it’s important to see what happens in Colombia, since drug legalization there could potentially change the current circumstances profoudly. it’s an "*[only Nixon could go to China](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_goes_to_China)*-type situation, since Colombia has been the U.S.’s leading ally in the war on drugs. As this recent Foreign Policy article puts it: "[If, after 30 years, Colombia can't win the war on drugs, no one can](http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/30/plan_colombia_drugs_failure)." For the conservative, pro-military, pro-police, pro-security President Santos (Uribe’s protege, and former defense minister) to offer "cautious but clear support for seriously debating the option of legalization as a solution to prohibition-related violence and crime sends an important message to other presidents and prime ministers" ([DPA](http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2011/feb/14/colombias_santos_open_drug_legal)) and could open the way for them.

Read from Source

tienes razón. la ecuación en el titular se basa en la falsa suposición de que hoy en día todavía todos siguen utilizando–y que en el futuro próximo todos seguirán utilizando papel higiénico cuando van al baño–*una práctica derrochadora y obsoleta*! en preparación para la inminente llegada triunfal del socialismo del siglo 21, algunos de nosotros en la vanguardia de la revolución ya estamos empezando a utilizar un nuevo método que es mucho más civilizado y eficiente: se llama "[las tres conchas](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBI8uCKi2lI)". ¿quién no sabe [cómo utilizar](http://i.imgur.com/8GOAVBd.jpg) las tres conchas?

Read from Source

>legalizing and taxating drugs like Guatemala and Nicaragua were looking to do, which would force drug gangs to conduct their businesses elsewhere. But of course, both our major parties are completely against this i agree wholeheartedly that major policy changes like this may be required to start seeing dramatic reductions in crime. btw, last year President Santos [proposed the legalization of drugs in an effort to counter the failure of the War on Drugs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_American_drug_legalization#Colombia). another major policy change that is controversial to politicians from both sides, but which would likely have a [major effect on reducing crime: **legalized abortion**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect). >[The theory argues] that *unwanted children are more likely to become criminals* and that *an inverse correlation is observed between the availability of abortion and subsequent crime*. In particular, it is argued that the legalization of abortion in the United States, largely due to the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, has reduced crime in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. >> >[Scholars] suggest that the absence of unwanted children, following legalization in 1973, led to a reduction in crime 18 years later, starting in 1992 and dropping sharply in 1995. These would have been the peak crime-committing years of the unborn children. OR [just watch this video clip](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6gOeggViw) that explains the effect of legalized abortion on crime (that is, how legal abortion reduces crime).

Read from Source

>cops here are few, ill equipped and corrupt, and our jails overcrowded and barbaric. EVERYONE realizes that, opposition or not. it’s an issue that transcends political polarization. i just searched my comment history to see what else i’ve said about the issue of crime in Venezuela. it turns out i’ve used the word "crime" 107 times! while i don’t have time to check every instance, i’m certain that i’ve never denied anything you said above. i believe that since the government is ultimately responsible for maintaining security in the country, it therefore deserves to be criticized for its failure to stem the rise in violent crime–but not for promoting it (as some claim)! i also understand the nature of the crime problem is *complicated*, and that much of it is determined by the activities of drug gangs independent of Venezuela’s politics. (*No one* has a wand to make drug- and gang- related crime magically disappear.) so this is yet another issue on which both the opposition and the government–at national, state, and municipal levels–must learn to work together for the good of the country.

Read from Source

if you are suggesting that i am somehow guilty of having made the fallacy you describe, i frankly don’t see it. i believe it’s possible you may have (mis-) read into my comment something that just isn’t there. however, if your response to my implicit acknowledgement (read: concession to the opposition) that the Chavez government has, indeed, *failed* to make "tackling local crime a top priority" is to accuse me of merely "*tr[ying] to highlight how great they were in other sectors*", i regret to say that i cannot help but suspect that you must be reading me in bad faith. consider this, if it were my intention to "highlight how great they were in other sectors", then why would i mention these "other sectors" (such as "land reform, housing, food, healthcare, etc.") only once, *in passing*–and **within parentheses**–without making any additional comment whatsoever with regard to evaluating how (well, poorly, etc.) the governent has been doing in these "other sectors". moreover, why would i try to "highlight how great they were in other sectors" *when that’s not even something i believe!* if you read my comment history (i’ve been writing over 1000 comments, almost exclusively about Venezuelan politics on reddit for years) you would find that i *am critical* of the government when it comes to their handling of these issues.

Read from Source

that’s why i said it was a positive *sign*. of course it’s different from a positive *outcome*.

Read from Source

>Villegas [anunció](http://www.aporrea.org/medios/n228794.html) que bajo su dirección, el canal asumiría una un tipo de periodismo, "tratando de despolarizar al país. Abrirle espacio a todas las opiniones y en eso todos tenemos que hacer un esfuerzo y el Gobierno tendrá que hacer un esfuerzo para abrir las fuentes". How unfortunate. The country needs more people [like this](http://www.aporrea.org/medios/n228769.html), in prominent positions, [in my view](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1dlfbq/es_contigo_nicol%C3%A1s_por_vladimir_villegas/c9rwg7s).

Read from Source

>Villegas [anunció](http://www.aporrea.org/medios/n228794.html) que bajo su dirección, el canal asumiría una un tipo de periodismo, "tratando de despolarizar al país. Abrirle espacio a todas las opiniones y en eso todos tenemos que hacer un esfuerzo y el Gobierno tendrá que hacer un esfuerzo para abrir las fuentes". How unfortunate. The country needs more people [like this](http://www.aporrea.org/medios/n228769.html), in prominent positions, [in my view](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1dlfbq/es_contigo_nicol%C3%A1s_por_vladimir_villegas/c9rwg7s).

Read from Source

it was one of the first places to report the story after Vladimir tweeted it. now El Universal is reporting it also, so [comment here](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1ecb81/vladimir_villegas_anuncia_que_no_asumir%C3%A1_la/).

Read from Source

i forgot. news isn’t true if it’s published on that site

Read from Source

then launch your coup already, we are all just waiting for it.

Read from Source

"Capriles’s" is correct in American English (just like "Chavez’s"), at least according to the *The Chicago Manual of Style*, *The Elements of Style* and the *[New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/31/magazine/on-language-possessing-dukakis.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm)* (these are "most widely used and respected style guides in the United States")–they all say that forming the possessive of almost all singular words (including proper nouns) ending in "s" requires adding an apostrophe and another "s" (the exceptions are (a) "Jesus", (b) "Moses" and (c) "names of more than one syllable with an unaccented ending pronounced *eez*). But, to be fair, there is some disagreement about this, as the *Associated Press Stylebook* and *Libel Manual* say this about forming the possessive of a singular proper name ending in "s": "Use only an apostrophe". So "Capriles’" may be correct *as well*.

Read from Source

i [wrote this 9 months ago](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/xzlfk/venezuela_arrests_american_mercenary_says_hugo/c5rb8ey): >I wonder if the Chavez government did make tackling local crime a top priority (rather than land reform, housing, food, healthcare, etc.) whether the opposition wouldn’t, in fact, be more inclined to denounce him as a ‘dictator’… After all, to tackle local crime, he would have to develop a highly trained, disciplined, militarized police force. He would likely have to increase the police force’s presence and surveillance in various (rich and poor) neighborhoods; he would need to order the construction of supermax security prisons like in Colombia, Brazil, and the U.S. Like in the countries just mentioned, there would undoubtedly be instances of police brutality that are difficult to control…. Something tells me as much as the opposition is demanding a crackdown on crime, they wouldn’t like it at all.

Read from Source

>you ACTUALLY believe what Maduro says, over and over again. for me to say that it is a "positive sign"–for Maduro to acknowledge his government may need "revising"–is a *concession* to the opposition–*that there are problems for which the government is responsible and for which change in policy may be required*–not to take a dogmatic, obsequious position by any stretch of the imagination. it does NOT mean i "just gobble down all that man says". show me where i have done that! i’m just willing to give the guy a chance. which you are obviously not willing to do. it’s pretty hard to assess his presidency when, according to the opposition, it isn’t even legitimate, and to everyone else, it’s too early to tell.

Read from Source

>Some [9,000 new police officers](http://news.yahoo.com/venezuelas-maduro-sends-military-fight-crime-caracas-streets-003724623.html) currently in training and some 1,600 National Guard officers will later join the program. certain things are bad in themselves, but other things may be good or bad depending on the context, and obviously the outcome. if the military starts shooting innocent people obvously that’s a bad thing, but the issue of crime is so urgent–or so i thought, after hearing the opposition complain about it!–that given the time it takes to train new police officers, i don’t think this is *necessarily* a bad idea.

Read from Source

crime is a problem, but the government can’t solve it.

Read from Source

>Speaking on Monday, Mr Maduro said his government was "revising every aspect to build a peaceful country." positive sign

Read from Source

wow, this is an almost perfect answer. well done! if only "your average person" were as sensible and honest as you are here! let me just say, as someone who studies "politics", that i am familiar with the tendency of political leaders to put "objectiveness aside" in the interest of rallying one’s supporters. usually it is a reflection of confidence and optimism, qualities wanted in a political leader. i say "political leader" rather than "politician" mostly to avoid the latter’s negative connotation–since, even as you say you are "not here to judge where this falls on a morality scale", i still discern the condescension in your calling Chavez a "*master politician*". by the way, in the interest of openness and fairness, after combing through my reddit comment history, i notice i’ve [used](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/rofh3/insight_the_man_who_would_beat_hugo_chavez/c47e97d) [the](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/zkewo/venezuelan_rival_challenges_hugo_chavez_to_debate/c65j2qj) [word](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1d1sol/estaba_pensando_en_un_titulo_interesante_y_no/c9mg17j) "politician" to [refer](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1c6rco/venezuelas_opposition_denies_it_would_scrap/c9dmnb7) to [Capriles](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/rofh3/insight_the_man_who_would_beat_hugo_chavez/c47e97d) on [several](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1d1sol/estaba_pensando_en_un_titulo_interesante_y_no/c9mg17j) [occasions](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/qhh0u/venezuela_hugo_chavez_says_new_tumor_was/c3xwd4v) (when speculating on the possible reasons, e.g. pressures internal to the opposition, why–I suspected–Capriles, if he were elected President, might be unable to govern as the ‘center-left politician’ he has promised to be). it may be that, since those comments were written, Capriles has proven himself worthy of being recognized as a "political leader". returning to the topic at hand, you are right to be careful when it comes to locating this tendency on the "morality scale". for example, to proclaim "*Venceremos!*" has more to do with expressing an intense desire or hope for a certain outcome than with professing one’s objective knowledge about the future. i would like to think that Capriles’s "*yo gané*" was meant to be interpreted along similar lines.

Read from Source

i bet it is exciting for you to find a sub dominated by people unlikely to challenge you when you assert, as if it were accepted truth, something very much in dispute. if this is truly what you are looking for, then perhaps /r/vencirclejerk/ is a better suited for you.

Read from Source

i’ll grant for the sake of argument there were enough irregularities to raise doubts about whether Maduro legitimately won the election. it does not follow, logically, that because doubts have been raised about Maduro’s victory, one can declare Capriles as the true winner.

Read from Source

If Capriles is refusing to accept the official results on the grounds that a full vote-by-vote recount is needed before one can ascertain who the true winner is, then it seems inconsistent for him to declare *himself* the winner (when such a recount has yet to take place). update: my argument is pretty sound. would those downvoting care to explain yourselves?

Read from Source

it is one thing for Capriles to *refuse to recognize Maduro as the legitimate winner of the presidential election* until an even wider audit–one that includes an examination of the notebooks containing the signatures and fingerprints of each vote–is conducted to ensure there were no irregularities. it is quite another thing altogether for Capriles to assert that *it is actually he who won the election*!

Read from Source

WorkerPowerFTW, I am a fan of your reddit comments! In this case, however, while it’s always important to be skeptical about the potential bias of certain sources of information, I don’t see any reason why research organizations cannot sometimes produce findings that may be at odds with the economic interests of those funding them–and maybe even be wielded as a tool against them! The suggestion that one cannot "trust" something that is a product of capitalism seems to miss Marx’s point about the bourgeoisie producing its own grave-diggers.

Read from Source

>"Y yo gané", responde [Capriles] con una sonrisa. *ಠ_ಠ*

Read from Source

those surveys–showing that "in Eastern Europe, many people say they were better of under socialism"–were conducted in 2010–a FULL TWENTY YEARS after the fall of the communist regimes in those countries. if the surveys had been conducted DURING THE 1990s, while Eastern European countries were still undergoing political and economic transitions, then you might have been able to blame peoples’ discontent on the fact that "*when a regime falls, shit happens afterwards*". but TWENTY YEARS after communism’s demise, capitalism has had more than enough time to take root in these countries, so you can no longer keep using this ‘transitions’ excuse.

Read from Source

>What utter propaganda. it’s funny that you choose to call "utter propaganda" a sentence for which strong evidence is provided in support of its claim. the words "*[Especially in Eastern Europe](http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/04/07/hungary-dissatisfied-with-democracy-but-not-its-ideals/)*"–in the original comment–link to a Pew Research report summarizing a set of surveys it conducted in 2010 in former Eastern bloc countries. [this chart, specifically, backs up the claim that "Especially in Eastern Europe, many people say they were better off under socialism"](http://i.imgur.com/TyveOPD.jpg). since you say you were "raised by a refugee of a socialist state", i assume that, unlike the participants in these surveys, you are not in a position to compare life in these Eastern European countries before and after socialism.

Read from Source

someone with four bucks should gift you reddit gold!

Read from Source

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2ohxkoqD31qk88o4.gif

Read from Source

where is the book review?

Read from Source

i want a full recount of the votes.

Read from Source

i asked you to show me an example of a pro-maduro article that meets your criteria for receiving an upvote–one that you do not find to be "*completamente biased sin realismo*"–because, with all due respect, i suspect that perhaps you do not fully appreciate the extent to which one’s perception of "what the real situation is in Venezuela" is often highly subjective, and usually heavily influenced by one’s particular political perspective. of course, it is possible to gain a more objective perception of reality by seeking out multiple sources of news and information, continually making an effort to see the world from other’s points of view, engaging in discussions and debates with people with opposing political perspectives, keeping oneself informed of facts and figures derived from the best available data, etc. i bring this up because your dismissal of the "before-after statistics" contained in articles that "try and back up the revolution"–simply because they do not jibe with you perception of reality–strikes me as exactly backwards; provided they are correct, such statistics should actually help enlarge one’s perception of "what the real situation is in Venezuela". of course, there is such a thing as lying… as being factually incorrect. but i honestly don’t see how ‘reconciliation’ will ever occur between people who refuse to enlarge their perspective so as to recognize the validity of alternative perceptions of the real situation that they have in common.

Read from Source

Yeah, I figured that you might have misunderstood that I was talking about the author, Ciccariello-Maher, not Chavez–that’s why I didn’t know how to respond to your comment. I was trying to explain what makes Ciccariello-Maher’s account different from the ones provided by other authors. The phrase "[people's history](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People’s_history)" in the book’s subtitle is in reference to "a type of historical narrative which attempts to account for historical events **from the perspective of common people rather than political and other leaders**."

Read from Source

so no example?

Read from Source

OK, well, thanks for sharing your opinion.

Read from Source

could you share an example of the type of pro-Maduro article that is of sufficient intelligence for you to deem it worthy of an upvote?

Read from Source

>"Propusimos que se suscribiera un acuerdo con ambos bloques parlamentarios, donde se respetara y se condenara, de forma enérgica, **cualquier forma de agresión física o verbal** que vulnere el decoro y la unidad de nuestro Parlamento", agregó. It seems to me that this is the most important thing that both partliamentary blocs should immediately agree to.

Read from Source

a very thought-provoking comment. as you know, our perspectives on the political situaton are nearly identical, even if our sensibilities and orientations differ. i’d need more time to formulate an equally thought-provoking response. i’ll say just a few words before i forget… given his obscurity as foreign minister and then vp–compared to the historic popularity of his predecessor, the party’s proven success at using the latter’s name (image, endorsements, etc) in past elections, the fact the country had barely finished mourning before the vote was held–just six months after the last one, which the ‘chavista’ candidate had comfortably won, the entire set of circumstances in which he suddenly found himself running for president, against a well-known governor–with a record of defeating high-ranking chavista officials at the polls (and promoting himself as basically "chavez light", rather than as a very right-wing alternative), and the simple fact there just wasn’t enough time (less than 30 days) to forge an identity independent of chavez, to introduce himself as a different type of political leader, whose "style of speech and governing" might differ markedly from that of "el comandante supreme y eterno", from what was beloved by Venezuelans and to which they had grown accustomed–Maduro would have been a fool (even more foolish than the fool he ended up appearing as) to have chosen an altogether different electoral campaign strategy. so i’m not surprised there haven’t been "any real signs of change within chavismo" since, for the reasons cited above, this might have cost Maduro the election. re: "Maduro’s actions since taking the presidency", they are still too few in number, in my view, it’s too early to judge.

Read from Source

a thought-provoking comment. as you know, our perspectives on the political situaton are nearly identical, even if our sensibilities and orientations differ. i’d need more time to formulate an equally thought-provoking response. i’ll say just a few words… two things given his obscurity as foreign minister and then vp–compared to the historic popularity of his predecessor, the party’s proven success at using the latter’s name (image, endorsements, etc) in past elections, the fact the country had barely finished mourning before the vote was held–just six months after the last one, which the ‘chavista’ candidate had comfortably won, the entire set of circumstances in which he suddenly found himself running for president, against a well-known governor–with a record of defeating high-ranking chavista officials at the polls (and promoting himself as basically "chavez light", rather than as a very right-wing alternative), and the simple fact there just wasn’t enough time (less than 30 days) to forge an identity independent of chavez, to introduce himself as a different type of political leader, whose "style of speech and governing" might differ markedly from that of "el comandante supreme y eterno", from what was beloved by Venezuelans and to which they had grown accustomed–Maduro would have been a fool (even more foolish than the fool he ended up appearing as) to have chosen an altogether different electoral campaign strategy. so i’m not at all surprised not to be able to observe "any real signs of change within chavismo", as i’ve just explained some of the reasons why "any real signs of change" might have thrown *chavismo* out of power. and regarding "Maduro’s actions since taking the presidency", they are still too few in number to be able to judge.

Read from Source

Has anyone seen "Argo"?

Read from Source

I just came across [this description from the publisher](http://www.dukeupress.edu/Catalog/ViewProduct.php?productid=19397) (Duke University Press). >Since being elected president in 1998, Hugo Chávez has become the face of contemporary Venezuela and, more broadly, anticapitalist revolution. George Ciccariello-Maher contends that **this focus on Chavez has obscured the inner dynamics and historical development of the country’s Bolivarian Revolution**. In *We Created Chávez*, by **examining social movements and revolutionary groups active before and during the Chávez era**, Ciccariello-Maher provides a broader, more *nuanced* account of Chávez’s rise to power and *the years of activism that preceded* it. >> > Based on interviews with grassroots organizers, former guerrillas, members of neighborhood militias, and government officials, Ciccariello-Maher presents **a new history of Venezuelan political activism, one told from below**. Led by leftist guerrillas, women, Afro-Venezuelans, indigenous people, and students, the social movements he discusses have been struggling against corruption and repression since 1958. Ciccariello-Maher pays particular attention to the *dynamic interplay* between the Chávez government, revolutionary social movements, and the Venezuelan people, recasting the Bolivarian Revolution as a *long-term and multifaceted process of political transformation*. I emphasized some of the exciting bits that I thought may make this book interesting to read.

Read from Source

This book just came out (it was published 17 April 2013), and I just ordered myself a copy. I’ve been looking forward to it for some time, since I’ve become familiar with [Ciccariello-Maher's work](http://www.drexel.edu/histpol/contact/facultyDirectory/GeorgeCiccariello-Maher/) in both [academic journals](http://monthlyreview.org/2007/09/01/dual-power-in-the-venezuelan-revolution) and [political magazines](http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2008/cm090908.html). His perspective on the Bolivarian Revolution is sympathetic, but his account differs dramatically from those that are caught up in the cult of personality around Chavez, by really privileging the grassroots social movements upon which Chavismo ultimately depends. *Recommended*.

Read from Source

> like even the idea of a revolution is inconclusive right? at what point does the revolution become the status quo? the "status quo" is an existing state of affairs, and a "revoluton" is a radical and wide-reaching change in the existing state of affairs. so the question you are asking–and perhaps also answering–is whether the revolution has ‘stalled’ or is no longer making progress. clearly, the revolution has yet to achieve the realization of its goals (necessary to establish ’21st century socialism’), including popular democracy, economic self-sufficiency and independence, equitable distribution of revenues, and an end to political corruption. these are the goals to which chavistas still aspire, so it is not inconsistent to be outraged by the faults and shortcoming–and yes, failures–of the current political leadership, to demand reforms and even restructuring, etc. whilst remaining loyal to the bolivarian movement. people on both sides of the political divide agree that something needs to be done to reduce crime rates, mitigate social polarization, improve government efficiency, and crack down on corruption–i’m just on the side that wants chavistas to be the ones to do it. this is why i was pleased to [hear news of the announcement](http://www.avn.info.ve/contenido/maduro-iniciamos-nuevo-ciclo-revoluci%C3%B3n-bolivariana), on 22 April, during the governent’s swearing-in, that Maduro and his team would be initiating a *"[new cycle of the revolution](http://www.vtv.gob.ve/articulos/2013/04/22/maduro-en-juramentacion-de-ministros-estamos-iniciando-un-nuevo-ciclo-de-la-revolucion-bolivariana-6336.html/)*", and looking to tackle the problems which have cost the government support. >"Necesitamos **una revolución en la Revolución**. (Chávez) nos decía necesitamos **un nuevo ciclo de renovación** para que *se dinamicen todas las fuerzas y dimensiones que la Revolución* ha echado a andar en lo filosófico, en lo político, en lo ideológico, en lo organizativo, en lo económico, en lo estructural",

Read from Source

This would be scandalous, if true. However, the headline says "lawyer" but the article says "lawyers" and no names are mentioned. :/

Read from Source

>…with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the vast majority of activists and progressives had simply abandoned the dream for socialism and revolution which had up till then inspired their international solidarity efforts. Whatever one’s view of the Soviet Union — and there are of course quite varying and passionate opinions on this subject — it was and is hard not to feel a sense of great loss at its demise. As Vladimir Putin himself once said, “[w]hoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart.” >> >My own view on this is that, whatever its faults and shortcomings, the Soviet Union represented the aspiration for a better and more equitable world; an alternative to a world ruled by greed and the whims of the very rich. And, when the Soviet Union died, and the red flag with the hammer and sickle was taken down from the Kremlin on December 25, 1991, the dream of that better world seemed to die with it. >> >More than anyone else, Hugo Chavez helped to reawaken that dream, especially in Latin America and other parts of the Global South, and it is that contribution for which the international ruling class, led by rulers of the United States, cannot forgive him. I’m sharing this because it may help to explain why those sympathetic to chavismo (including foreigners like myself) distrust the opposition so viscerally–because we feel we’re being asked once again to abandon the dream for socialism and revolution, for a better and more equitable world. Despite the ‘faults and shortcomings’ of the Bolivarian revolution, we think this dream is still attainable.

Read from Source

>EDIT: I also liked your commentary on Henri Falcon’s departure. thanks! those comments are probably my favorite of all the ones i’ve written in this sub, because i think that they do a good job at capturing some of the difficulty involved in deciding to maintain and/or abandon one’s allegiances, as well as the ambivalence and uncertainty that may precede and/or follow those decisions, when you have a political situation so sharply divided and polarized.

Read from Source

thanks for sharing that article about Vladimir Villegas. his long history in the struggles of the Venezuelan left demands respect. it definitely seems he is someone, like Henri Falcon, whose decision to switch to the opposition was a tragic loss for the revolution, one i deeply regret and *for which [i've reluctantly acknowledged](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1aporp/henri_falc%C3%B3n_defendi%C3%A9ndose_ante_una_comisi%C3%B3n_de/c904kz9) that [the PSUV and even Chavez himself are to blame](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1aporp/henri_falc%C3%B3n_defendi%C3%A9ndose_ante_una_comisi%C3%B3n_de/c908i83)*. the day before yesterday, i [mentioned again](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1dig8v/communist_party_of_venezuela_mourns_the_death_of/c9qm4sd) how much respect i’ve had and continue to have for left-wing parties like the PCV, Causa R (now defunct), and the PPT. *Vladimir Villegas was a member of all three!* His decision to join "[Avanzada Progresista](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avanzada_Progresista)" (Advanced Progressive), a party aligned with the opposition coalition (and, in fact, founded by Falcon and Ismael Garcia, [along with anti-Chavez factions from the PPT and PODEMOS](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1dig8v/communist_party_of_venezuela_mourns_the_death_of/c9qorgy), respectively), is one I prefer not to comment on. I am hopeful that the PSUV will enter a period of self-reflection and criticism, and will in the future *win back* (if not to the party than to the GPP) the support of those who left. finally, i want to share some links i found while searching Vladimir Villegas on google. His "[PPT, PCV y el sectarismo del PSUV](http://www.aporrea.org/ideologia/a65631.html)", an article *critical of the authoritarian and sectarian tendencies of the PSUV and even Chavez himself* is POSTED ON APORREA! and last, but not least, here is [Vladmir Villegas's twitter page](https://twitter.com/vladiVillegas) (which I am now following). What do you think of Vladimir joining Globovision–I expect he will make a valuable contribution, and bring improvements, no?

Read from Source

I support enthusiastically every sentence of this letter (assuming I read them correctly). Thank you very much for posting this.

Read from Source

i’m in agreement with you on everything here. unfortunately i’ve used up my time on reddit for today. i hope you forgive me if i point you to [this comment i wrote 42 minutes ago](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1djuww/ministra_varela_la_oposici%C3%B3n_en_el_parlamento_se/c9rgm82), where i address the question of what options were available to the opposition. in fact, i agree that the tactic they chose was the most obvious, which is why i think it is unlikely that the whole situation was planned in advance (as many of my comrades believe). but i really can’t pretend that there’s an easy solution to all of this. the best hope is that all these issues with the election can be resolved as quickly and as thoroughly as possible, and that no fighting break out in the meantime

Read from Source

>Marquina’s helmet means that they were aware that a violent response was a possibility. right. as you can see, i did not cite this as definitive proof of anything. it does fuel speculation that the violent response might have been anticipated if not pre-planned (although i’ve not speculated this), but it doesn’t rule out alternative explanations. as you suggest, even if it occurred to Mariquina that a violent response was a possibility, the fact that he brought something with which to protect himself, does not mean that other opposition lawmakers had any idea about what was to occur. >As I said on another post, I honestly can’t think of any other way in which they could’ve protested. i would say that the tactic–of making a lot of noise–is *the most obvious way* to protest not being allowed to speak. i wouldn’t go as far as to say there aren’t any *other* ways to protest–like boycotting AN sessions (if the oppositions’ attendence is required to establish a quorum), holding marches, applying pressure through private media, perhaps on the international level, seeking redress through the courts, calling for a referendum, maybe recognizing maduro as president (joke), etc.–but again, the tactic that the opposition chose was the most obvious and probably the easiest (although perhaps not the wisest, in retrospect). i’ve updated my comment above to explain it’s the obviousness of this tactic that is why i am not convinced the whole situation was pre-planned.

Read from Source

>the provocateurs should have prepared better for what they got. It may seem obvious to you, but, with all due respect, you really cannot know for sure that opposition sought deliberately to provoke violence in the AN. Unless you can prove your speculation correct, how can you expect opposition supporters to believe it? As a gesture of good faith, why not concede the possibility that opposition lawmakers chose to protest not being allowed to speak by making so much noise, and just forgot to think about the consequences that were likely to result from employing such a tactic?

Read from Source

I think you are being slightly unfair to "ruizscar" (when arguing with someone about politics, esp when emotions are running high, it’s always good practice to try to interpret others’ comments in a positive light, forgive thoughtlessly offensive remarks that are tangential to the main point, and resist drawing gross generalizations based on the experience). He is clearly frustrated because everyone seems to be going out of their way, trying very hard to ignore the simple, reasonable point he is trying to make, which is that it should be considered more-or-less common sense that the tactic the opposition chose to employ to protest not being allowed to speak–by making as much noise as possible using whistles, and horns, etc–was far more likely, in an already tense situation, to result in an escalation, and possibly even an outburst, than in an actual acquiscence to its demands. It is easier to attack him for apparently justifying the violence than to acknowledge this obvious point. I am not justifying the outburst–in fact, I strongly condemn it! But this doesn’t mean I can’t criticize the actions and behavior that–irrespective of intention–may be responsible *in part* for provoking it. > even though only a few people behave violently there isn’t a SINGLE!!!! official representative going public and saying that what was done was wrong. It is a terrible shame if the president does not come forward and condemn the beating that took place–in fact, I call on government supporters everywhere to condemn it. Even if Maduro is of the opinion that the outburst was provoked, he should still denounce the violence! After all, [even Chavez denounced violent actions when they were perpetrated by militant government supporters](http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/4187).

Read from Source

ruizscar, i’m sorry to see you downvoted so, since you’re making a fairly reasonable point, [one](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1dhbhs/venezuela_brawl_22_hurt_in_parliament_fight/c9qfziu) [that](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1dgjd8/por_que_te_escondes/c9qgluv) [i](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1dhbhs/venezuela_brawl_22_hurt_in_parliament_fight/c9qh0ac) [was](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1dhbhs/venezuela_brawl_22_hurt_in_parliament_fight/c9qjg78) [trying](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1dhbhs/venezuela_brawl_22_hurt_in_parliament_fight/c9qjpie) [to make](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1dhbhs/venezuela_brawl_22_hurt_in_parliament_fight/c9qk49y) [several](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1dhbhs/venezuela_brawl_22_hurt_in_parliament_fight/c9qljz3) [times](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1dhbhs/venezuela_brawl_22_hurt_in_parliament_fight/c9qlqwn) [yesterday](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1dgjd8/por_que_te_escondes/c9qi6l0). however if you notice i was careful to explain that i was *NOT DEFENDING* the violence in reaction to opposition lawmakers’ protest, just arguing that, as a reaction, it is one that they *should have expected* (given that the form of protest they chose to employ–making as much noise as possible using whistles and horns–was far more likely to result in an escalation of tension, or even an outburst, than in actual acquiscence to their demands). and it seems that perhaps some did expect this reaction: the deputy of MUD, Alfonso Marquina, apparently showed up to the AN session wearing a motorcycle helmet! "Who shows up to an assembly session with a helmet? Did he know something?" You can speculate but you don’t know for a fact that the opposition was deliberately trying to provoke the kind of violent reaction that took place. (*I can understand how the idea might naturally come to opposition lawmakers… to protest not being able to speak …by making a lot of noise–it could just be that they did not think enough about the consequences that were likely to result from employing such a tactic in an already tense situation.*) I urge you to be more tactful in your comments here, if you are interested in having the opposition supporters in this sub engage you in an honest and productive discussion (rather than having them downvote you into oblivion, which is regrettable in my opinion)–it *is* possible. For example, ["venezolano16"](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1djuww/ministra_varela_la_oposici%C3%B3n_en_el_parlamento_se/c9r64vs) is offering you an opportunity for such a discusson. If you could concede that perhaps it is wrong to deny opposition lawmakers the right to speak before the National Assembly (as I have), then maybe you will find that some people may be willing to ‘meet you halfway’.

Read from Source

nope, and nope. i’ve explained this plenty elsewhere.

Read from Source

apoyo el derecho de ella [a bailar](http://www.animated-gifs.eu/leisure-dance-sexy/0028.gif)!

Read from Source

Read from Source

excellent idea, Deedee. that subreddit has not yet seen much activity.

Read from Source

you’re right i should have mentioned the role of the TSJ, but got lost in the details, since there were separate decisions for PODEMOS and PPT. Henri Falcon’s history also seems quite complicated. ~~if you give me a sec to update the post, i’ll find a way to summarize.~~ ok i updated the comment above. here is what it says on [henri falcon's wikipedia article](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Falc%C3%B3n#Gobernador_del_Estado_Lara_.282008-2012.29). >El 27 de mayo de 2012, luego de los fallos del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia que dictaminaron que Patria Para Todos y Podemos debían retornar sus directivos anteriores, Falcón fundó el partido Avanzada Progresista junto a Ismael García. please let me know if you accept my revision.

Read from Source

yes, i’m aware that there have been some changes, but none that have really changed my opinion. actually, if you’re interested, [PODEMOS](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Por_la_Democracia_Social) broke with Chavez in 2007 (after Chavez told the ["señores diputados de PODEMOS, si quieren irse, váyanse"](http://www.eluniversal.com/2007/03/19/pol_art_los-que-se-quieran_216609.shtml)) to become a "third way" between Chavez and the opposition, but it supported several opposition candidates in the regional elections of 2008, and ending up joining the opposition coalition in 2009, and participating in the 2010 parliamentary elections. However in 2012, like the PPT, PODEMOS was split over whom to support in the presidential election; *to the best of my knowledge*, the party initially supported Capriles, then internal dissidents appealed to the Supreme Court (TSJ) to overturn the nomination; following the TSJ’s decision, [Didalco Bolivar](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didalco_Bol%C3%ADvar) took over leadership in PODEMOS, and the party then left the opposition coalition and returned to [the GPP](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Polo_Patri%C3%B3tico). The anti-Chavez faction led by [Ismael Garcia](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismael_Garc%C3%ADa) united with the anti-Chavez faction from the PPT, and together they created ["Avanzada Progresista"](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avanzada_Progresista), a center-left party supporting the opposition. i don’t know who PODEMOS supported in April, i’m guessing it was Maduro.

Read from Source

yea i hope it’s clear from the awkwardness of talking about "one side" and "the other side" in my ‘update’ that the reason i’m being vague is that what i’m saying, i’m saying to the opposition as well as the government

Read from Source

i am someone sympathetic to the chavismo and the revolution talking to opposition supporters on reddit, so it is natural for me to push this way. but that is not to say i do not share your frustrations with maduro and the current leadership of the psuv. if there were chavistas here defending cabello’s actions, you can bet i’d be pushing on them, too. in fact, i [just did a little, to a fellow comrade, here](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1dhbhs/venezuela_brawl_22_hurt_in_parliament_fight/c9qjigb). i would like nothing more than to be someone of influence in the PSUV, so i could stop them from ruining the opportunity to build on the past accomplishments, fix the mistakes, etc. if that requires some degree of cooperation with the opposition, i would favor it. what i can offer to the opposition supporters here is some sense of what it may be like to see the situation from the other political perspective and to practice engaging in actual dialogue with them. i hope it goes without saying that if i had leverage on actual psuv leaders, i would also be making the same demands (for dialogue, etc.) and giving them more-or-less the same kind of advice.

Read from Source

i think i’ve said it before but i’ll say it again, i retain considerable respect for left-wing groups like ~~PODEMOS* (*Por la Democracia Social*–see comments below)~~, PPT (*Patria Para Todos*) and especially the PCV (*Partido Comunista de Venezuela*–esp. given its long history) who chose not to join the PSUV but to maintain their political independence from chavismo, whilst nonetheless remaining affiliated with the Gran Polo Patriótico.

Read from Source

i stand by my comments. i don’t see how it makes any difference whether the opposition is blowing vuvuzela or a pressurized foghorn, or whether it was done directly into their eardrums or from 10 meters. i am not excusing the reaction, but neither do i exonerate the opposition. no one can be expected to react rationally to this form of protest, which is why i believe it was an unwise and unfortunate choice. i don’t think there is much disagreement between our perspectives on this. what do you think of cabello’s statement which i just read: >“If they don’t recognize the president, then how are they going to demand to be recognized? They were elected to be representatives with the same electoral system as Nicolas Maduro, some with even smaller margins of victory,” said Cabello on Wednesday. btw, im disconnecting my internet so i can work for the rest of the afternoon and evening. take care.

Read from Source

i’m not defending physical violence in reaction, i’m just saying that, as a reaction, it was one that should have been expected. in fact, it appears that this reaction *WAS expected* by some opposition lawmakers, as there are now reports that the deputy of MUD, Alfonso Marquina , showed up to the session of the National Assembly **wearing a motorcycle helmet, presumably to protect himself from the violence that he expected would occur**. really, i am as upset as anyone about this, which is why it concerns me to know how it happened, what unwise tactics may have led to it, etc.

Read from Source

i agree with you that cabello is wrong not to allow opposition lawmakers to speak. but i’m just thinking about the best way out of this situation, that doesn’t involve making things worse.

Read from Source

i support the opposition’s right to protest not being allowed to speak. but the form of protest opposition lawmakers chose–making as much noise as possible using whistles, compressed air cans/foghorns and vuvuzelas–was unfortunately more likely to result in an escalation of tension and an outburst like this than in acquiescence to their demands. it also works to the benefit of the government by giving it an easy response, which is to say that "the opposition is trying to provoke violence in order to create a pretense for another coup attempt". i’m not saying this is what the opposition is doing, just that this is why it was unwise to engage in this particular form of protest.

Read from Source

no problem. i understand that emotions are running high at the moment. (i agree with the opposition’s right to protest not being allowed to speak, i just think that the form of protest the opposition chose to employ–making as much noise as possible using whistles, compressed air cans/foghorns and vuvuzelas–was unfortunate and more likely to result in an escalation of tension and an outburst like this than in actual acquiescence to its demands.)

Read from Source

please. i don’t think i need to explain to you how this works. julio borges did not deserve to get hit, nor did anyone blowing vuvuzelas. i am not defending violence against anyone! but those who were making noise escalated tensions to such a point that an uncontrolled outburst along these lines *should have been foreseeable*. you cannot really expect people to think or respond rationally when you are blowing vuvuzelas into their ears. i hope it goes without saying that i deplore the violence in this case. i find it so deplorable, in fact, that i don’t want to see it happen again, which is why i have been looking at the causes of this, and expressed hope that whatever their political goals may be, both sides will refrain from tactics or strategies likely to provoke similar incidents.

Read from Source

admittedly, i don’t know. but of course i’m not in a position to know what options are available to opposition lawmakers in the AN–aside from recognizing the official election results. there may be options. it may be there are no options that allow them to overturn maduro’s electoral victory and not put the republic at risk. all i’m saying is that, in my opinion, it would be bad for the country if both sides continue to pursue these strategies of apparently trying to provoke a violent response from the other to be able to justify calling them fascists, or illegitimate, or justifying repression, or a coup. let me be clear that i am not simply making demands on the opposition–if there were chavistas here, i would be at least as critical (if not far more) about cabello’s and maduro’s handling of the current situaton.

Read from Source

where have you seen me "defend the actions of the officialist"? i said elsewhere that i don’t agree with the AN President’s decision not to allow members of the opposition to speak, and that i am alarmed by this eruption of violence. i definitely do not approve this behavior!

Read from Source

beating someone up for using vuvuzelas may not be an *appropriate* response, but you cannot deny that it is an **expected** response. i have two nephews who i sometimes babysit. if one of them blew a vuvuzela into the other’s ear, and he hit the other in response, my response would be to punish both of them for their bad behavior.

Read from Source

>They had whistles and pressurized air cans to make as much noise as they could so that they would be taken into consideration i agree the opposition has a right to protest not being allowed to speak. because, of course, *both sides need to speak to have a dialogue*. but, in all honesty, if the goal is to have a dialogue (as i and i hope others believe it should be), then a protest that uses "whistles and pressured air cans" (or fog horns), not to mention vuvuzelas, "to make as much noise as they could", is not likely to be an effective tactic, as it is far more likely to annoy and provoke angry outbursts like this (and the opposition should know this!).

Read from Source

fyi, playing vuvuzelas is [just asking to get yourself beat up](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl5iQFKygxw)…

Read from Source

the thing i don’t like about this comic is that it proposes no way out of the current fix (also that it ignores the partial responsibility the opposition has played in provoking or escalating tensions). if you think of the government as some monolithic, cartoon entity then you can portray it as a hypocrite for asking for dialogue whilst holding a bat. but the goal of the opposition movement, i imagine, should be, in addition to not getting beat up, to help create the conditions where a real dialogue with the government is possible, even if one has to find a way of tricking or forcing them into it. update: the trouble with one side assuming that other side is not being sincere in calling for a dialogue is that there’s too great a risk of possibly overlooking what might be genuine opportunities to have a dialogue (because you really don’t know, and you can’t afford to miss any chance to resolve the conflict). if one side believes that the other side would not accept its call for dialogue, knowing the other side would suspect that its call was insincere, then that side is unlikely to make any genuine calls for a dialogue. this is confusing, but my point is that it’s not enough for one side to make a good faith gesture, if it won’t be recognized as such by the other side. what needs to happen is for people who are not completely cynical on one side to be open to opportunities for dialogue created by the other side. and, after waiting, if no opportunities for dialogue are created by the other side, then it’s time to create them.

Read from Source

Very alarmed by this news. I will be following the details closely.

Read from Source

Criollo, the other mods and I have discussed your comment (as well as your history in the sub) and we’ve decided to issue you a warning. We are working to grow and maintain a community based on civil discourse, and so comments like this are much unwelcome. Please re-read the sidebar and in the future try harder to follow general reddiquette. Feel free to msg the mods with your questions.

Read from Source

now that i think about it–you are right that the two submissions are not strictly speaking equivalent. i would agree that the animation of "isla presidencial" is of a more professional quality, artistically speaking. however, "in terms of political commentary", as i previously said, the comic above is much more of an incisive statement about the political reality. nevertheless i would be surprised if either one actually contributed anything positive to this community.

Read from Source

lol. this is -4, but shit [like this (isla presidencial)](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1daw2s/isla_presidencial_el_mes%C3%ADas_pt_1_5to_episodio_de/), submitted on the same day, is +9. both have about the same (low) value in terms of political commentary, in my opinion. i think what we have is an unhealthy imbalance.

Read from Source

Do you think your comment is more or less likely to encourage bad behavior in this thread?

Read from Source

yes… there is. almost an enormous difference in fact

Read from Source

i don’t have time for this. chavez did not murder anyone in the same way that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. did. we could debate all of your points, but even if they were all true, it still does not justify comparisons to Hitler, Mao, Stalin. sorry. end of story.

Read from Source

the mods have decided on a policy and protocol when it comes to banning users. we have decided that generally speaking it would be better NOT to remove an offensive (that is, offending) comment (unless it is particularly egregious)… in the interest of transparency, but to leave it as an example of behavior that won’t be tolerated here.

Read from Source

thanks for speaking up. it’s good to know there are people out there who agree about not wanting to see this subreddit turn into an snti-chavez circlejerk. the homogeneity in the sub, the fact it is dominated by opposition supporters, is a concern to me, not only because i disagree with their political views, but also because i see reddit as a place to enage in honest debate and discussion. please do not be intimidated about expressing an unpopular opinion or point of view!

Read from Source

i deleted my comment fearing that you would disgree and then i’d be pulled into a debate i don’t have the time or energy for right now. OK. But if Chavez is "indirectly" responsible for the deaths caused by crime, he is not responsible in the same "indirect way" that Hitler was "indirectly responsible" for the deaths of the Holocaust (in the sense that, although Hitler killed no one, he did order others to do so). So one difference is that, under Hitler (Stalin, Mao, etc.), the police and security forces are ordered to perpetrate violence (and thus, are themselves the agents of violence), whereas, under Chavez, they are ordered to stem the rise of violence but are ineffective at doing so. Another difference is … this comparison is not even worth making.

Read from Source

lol, please, if youre going to downvote, fine, but im dying to hear you defend this comparison between hitler and chavez

Read from Source

hitler *ordered* the extermination of the jews. these orders were carried out by government officials and military officers under his command. chavez did not *order* a rise in crime, to be carried out by government and military officiers acting under his command. in fact, the rise in crime under chavez occurred notwithstanding the government’s ineffective attempts at stemming it. the analogy between Nazi Germany and the Bolivarian Venezuela is ludicrous. go ahead and downvote me. show everyone how unhinged you are from reality.

Read from Source

ok well thanks for reading my comment. i hope that you are at least open to the idea that some of the negative things one hears about hugo chavez may be untrue, or without basis in fact. regarding the accusations of anti-semitism, you are welcome to interpret his remarks however you like, but from my perspective–as someone who strongly abhors anti-semitism–the evidence showing chavez to be an anti-semite is honestly quite weak. i’m not saying that there are not reasons to dislike chavez, but it’s silly to dislike him for things he isn’t guilty of.

Read from Source

i am not going to debate this.

Read from Source

ok. as a military officer–who led a failed coup–and then president, of course Hugo Chavez bears certain responsibility for deaths that occurred under his command. but let’s not kid ourselves about the comparison. scholars count [the number of people killed](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%C3%B3sif_Stalin#N.C3.BAmero_de_v.C3.ADctimas) under Stalin’s regime between **10-30 million**. Mao [oversaw the deaths](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Salto_Adelante), through starvation, forced labor and execution, of **40-70 million**.

Read from Source

was this murder?

Read from Source

What are you saying? What is my "actual job"? Commenting on reddit?

Read from Source

does this mean that the information it provides is not correct?

Read from Source

thanks for posting this video. i know javier corrales. not personally but as one of a few political scientists writing about venezuelan politics in the us. i am familiar with his name and his work (although i haven’t seen him talk). he is a harvard ph.d. and while i’m not saying he isn’t smart, i feel that his arguments are sometimes surprisingly unconvincing, and that he has benefitted from the fact there are not more academics studying venezuela and capable of challenging him. that said, while i suspect he identifies politically with the opposition, and that there may be some political motivation to the arguments he is making (and especially to the types of indicators he happens to think are important), his perspective does fall within the bounds of what is fair and reasonable. with regard to what he says about the future of radical populism in venezuela, i’ll wait to finish the video before commenting (when it’s not a friday night).

Read from Source

[Same dude](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/10/venezuela-american-mercenary-hugo-chavez)? Update: j/k

Read from Source

>Thing got out of hand for the radical opposition of that time and we are paying now. Maybe if that hadn’t happened Chávez would have been a lot less radical but the paranoia induced by the coup plus any cuban influence he went through that time were enough to shape him to what he was today. Thanks for the long response man. I enjoy gaining insight into the perspectives that inform people’s particular outlook and politics. In this case, despite whatever political differences we have, it seems we do share more-or-less the same understanding of how past events in Venezuela have conspired to bring about the present so-called "rubberband situation". Although I am not certain this type of sharing understanding–across the political divide–is enough to *overcome* the polarization of country, I do think it could at least help to prevent the *"snapping"* of this "rubberband situation" if more people simply allowed themselves to communicate "in good faith".

Read from Source

Thanks for the response (and upvote). I agree I was too dismissive about the possible types of fraud that could make a difference but I’m not going to go back and change (since I do feel some responsibility to represent a ‘hard-line’ chavista position). I believe my friend (a fellow mod here) was telling me about these "cuadernos". I support extending this audit, definitely in the cases you mentioned. If the difference is enough to flip the election results, then so be it. But if it is not, I don’t want to hear that Maduro ‘stole the election’.

Read from Source

grr. I’m been trying for *four hours* to get off reddit, but you are another person I respect and don’t want to leave hanging. I have no problem with reading opposition material, I have thick skin (I have a sense of humor and can laugh at jokes at the government’s expense). So although I can’t look at these now, I will, and then get back to you. The [comment above](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1d1sol/estaba_pensando_en_un_titulo_interesante_y_no/c9mawsc) is probably the harshest thing I’ve ever said about (or against) Capriles. I’ve always thought he is a relatively decent, genuinely center-left, politician–it’s always been the others in the opposition whose intentions I **distrust**. (But I never thought it would be the end of the world if he were to become President–he’s no Pedro Carmona!) However, since his 2012 electoral campaign, Capriles has been a little more… easier to dislike. That’s not to say I think he’s a fascist (again, I am embarrassed by much of the government propaganda)! Sometimes it does seem like he’s got "a plan", sometimes… not so much. I’ll get back to you, OK?

Read from Source

Again, I am trying to get off Reddit so I can spend the day on actual work… (1) Are you sure that dead people are actually voting? Or is it the case that their names are still listed as people registered to vote? This is not at all unusual. You have the same thing in the U.S. When the GOP wanted to claim that Obama stole the election, this was always brought up. All I remember is that it was ‘much ado about nothing’. These people did not actually vote, and even if someone voted in their name, the number of incidents in which this occurs was so low as to have almost no effect on the election overall. (2) As I said somewhere else I’ve haven’t been following the CNE auditing process for the last couple of days. I’m not sure what the current status is. But I can imagine plenty of reasons other than "fear" that might explain why the government seemed to have kept changing its mind about conducting an full audit. …like the fact that the government is under no legal obligation to do it. (3) I am a graduate student in the U.S. who has been researching and studying Venezuelan politics full-time for the last five years. I probably read the same newspapers and websites as you (as well as academic books and journal articles)! I honestly read more opposition-biased sources, than government-biased ones. Read my comment history, I rarely buy into government propaganda.

Read from Source

catalyc, I always look forward to your comments. Unfortunately they seem always to come at a time when I’m trying to pry myself off Reddit so I can do other work I have planned for the day. And because your comments are often so well sourced and full of facts, I have a tendency to simply bookmark them for later reading. I really apologize for not giving you the full responses you deserve.

Read from Source

>do they consider him dangerous? what is it so dangerous about him? the cacerolas? the marchas? This is not at all what I am saying. Let me be more clear: the danger is not that Capriles himself would inflict great harm on the country (by setting off bombs, etc.). No, of course that is ridiculous. He is not dangerous in the sense that he is personally threatening to commit violence (regardless of what the government says, I haven’t seen him do this). The danger we are concerned about here consists in the possibility that, by refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the democratically elected government, and by escalating the war of rhetoric by irresponsibly claiming that the "election was stolen", Capriles may be increasingly the likelihood–along with Maduro too, I should have made more clear that I am not exempting him from blame either–that violent conflict could break out. Yes, marches in themselves are not dangerous. But if you recall from 2002, re-routing an anti-government march so as to ensure a clash with government activists is a recipe for disaster. Last week, Capriles called off a protest march, wisely in my view, given the heated emotions at the time. And now things are heating up again. Both sides need to calm down before something bad happens.

Read from Source

>Remember that it’s in his interests to do so, and then win the next election by a bigger margin. Of course! Regardless of confidence he may display in public, I guarantee you that Maduro is intimately aware of the fact that he nearly lost this past election. It is not his intention to see Venezuela’s problems worsen, nor is it in his interest! My only concern is that he might be reluctant–out of loyalty to his predecessor–to make changes to the programs founded under Chavez, whereas I’d like to think that if Chavez were still alive, he would be less hesitant to restructure these programs as needed (even fundamentally).

Read from Source

Since election night I have supported (and, in fact, I continue to support) carrying out a full audit as well as investigations into the irregularities reported–not because I have any doubt about the legitimacy of Maduro’s victory, but because I would have liked to see the government make a "good faith gesture" to the opposition (so as to allay whatever doubts its supporters may have about the official election results, as well as whatever anger and resentment they may feel as a result of losing such a close election). I actually do not know–after taking a break from the news for the past few days–the current status of the auditing process. The last article I read on this was the NYTIMES: [Venezuela to Expand Audit of Votes](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/world/americas/venezuela-to-expand-audit-of-votes.html?_r=0). Again, I support this full audit not because I believe it is necessary to prove the legitimacy of Maduro’s victory; I would like the government to do it as sign of respect to the opposition. Let me express my disappointment that this has not happened, and with Maduro’s response to the election. With Chavez gone, and especially after such a close election, I do feel this is an ideal time to move toward ‘reconciliation’, not an intensification of conflict. > I’m sure Chávez would have get this done in a cadena, humiliating us, the opossition, for weeks. Also, if Maduro won this election, his government sucks big time. He’s damaging the country everyday. Making everyone poorer with the devaluations, dividing Venezuela, and of course, not resolving all the common problems that we have, like insecurity, impunity, etc. First, I do not support the government’s misuse of cadenas in this way. I swear if I had influence in the PSUV I would work to stop (okay maybe not this, if it is up to the President) a lot of bullshit like this. Second, I am as aware of the failures of the government as you; the difference between us, I imagine, is that I would like to see these failures addressed from *within the chavismo movement itself*. Yes, I still hold out hope that the current leaders will not remain content with the same old policies that are shown not to be working. I also hold out hope that these leaders will respond to pressure from both the party base as well as other citizens groups, and, if worst comes to worst, that major reforms and restructuring could take place within both the PSUV and the government, that new, better leaders could arise, bringing fresh ideas, and that new approaches may be considered to tackling the country’s programs.

Read from Source

Since election night I have supported (and I continue to support) a full audit as well as investigations into the irregularities reported–not because I have any doubt about the legitimacy of Maduro’s victory, but because I would have liked the government to make a "good faith gesture" to the opposition (so as to allay whatever doubts its supporters may have about the official election results, as well as whatever anger and resentment they may feel as a result of losing such a close election). I actually do not know–after taking a break from the news for the past few days–the current status of the auditing process. The last article I read on this was the NYTIMES: [Venezuela to Expand Audit of Votes]((http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/world/americas/venezuela-to-expand-audit-of-votes.html?_r=0). Again, I support this full audit not because I believe it is necessary to prove the legitimacy of Maduro’s victory; I would like the government to do it as sign of respect to the opposition. Let me express my disappointment that this has not happened. With Chavez gone, and especially after such a close election, this is an ideal time to move toward ‘reconciliation’, not an intensification of conflict. > I’m sure Chávez would have get this done in a cadena, humiliating us, the opossition, for weeks. Also, if Maduro won this election, his government sucks big time. He’s damaging the country everyday. Making everyone poorer with the devaluations, dividing Venezuela, and of course, not resolving all the common problems that we have, like insecurity, impunity, etc. First, I do not support the government’s misuse of cadenas in this way. I swear if I had influence in the PSUV I would work to stop (okay maybe not this, if it is up to the President) a lot of bullshit like this. Second, I am as concerned about failures of the government as you; the difference, I imagine, is that I would like to see these failures addressed from *within the chavismo movement itself*. Yes, I still hold out hope that the current leaders will not remain content with the same old policies that are shown not to be working. I also hold out hope that these leaders will respond to pressure from both party base as well as other citizens groups, and that, if worst comes to worst, major reforms and restructuring could take place within both the PSUV and the government, new, better leaders could arise, bringing fresh ideas, and new approaches may be considered to tackling the country’s programs.

Read from Source

This is one of those posts where I do take a stand as a Chavista, so feel free to downvote me. The fact is that Maduro won this election albeit with a narrow margin of victory. Chavez and his supporters have won the last 14 out of 15 elections, so why is so hard to accept that it’s happened again? Public opinion has shifted, but not enough to put the opposition in power. Truth be told, Venezuela’s voting process is one of the most secure and advanced in the world, in that it makes vote-rigging next to impossible insofar as it ensures there are no significant discrepancies between the paper receipts and the electronic votes. To steal an election would require hacking all the computers and then stuffing the ballot boxes to match the rigged vote. An astounding 54% of the boxes are chosen at random to open and check the computer tally; there were no reports of mismatches, not even from the opposition. Even though it was under no legal obligation to do so, Venezuela’s CNE agreed to a complete audit of the remaining votes. I’m not aware of the current status of the audit, or the difficulties involved in doing so, but from what I’ve read, it is extremely unlikely to alter the election results. However, it is becoming clear that the government should not even have bothered to try to placate the opposition, since the latter seems unwilling to recognize the results regardless. Capriles claim that Maduro **"stole the election"** is extreme and without any basis in fact. He is not simply discrediting himself, but lending support to the government’s claims (which I previously thought were far-fetched) that he may indeed attempting to incite a coup. I am absolutely willing to admit to the government’s misuse of cadenas to interrupt Capriles’s broadcasts, on multiple occasions, for example, like during the 2012 election campaign. However, considering the dangerous unrest that Capriles is, knowingly or unknowingly likely to incite with his refusal to accept his defeat in a free and fair democratic election, I cannot say in this case it is the government and not the opposition that deserves rebuke.

Read from Source

There is little reason to doubt that Maduro won this election albeit with a narrow margin of victory. Truth be told, Venezuela’s voting process is one of the most secure and advanced in the world, in that it makes vote-rigging next to impossible in that it ensures there are no significant discrepancies between the paper receipts and the electronic votes. To steal an election would require hacking all the computers and then stuffing the ballot boxes to match the rigged vote. An astounding 54% of the boxes are chosen at random to open and check the computer tally; there were no reports of mismatches, not even from the opposition. Even though it was under no legal obligation to do so, Venezuela’s CNE agreed to conduct a complete audit of the remaining votes. I’m not aware of the current status of the audit, or the difficulties involved in doing so. But now it is becoming clear that perhaps the government should have known better than to try to placate the opposition, since the latter seems unwilling to recognize the fact that it lost. Capriles claim that Maduro **"stole the election"** is extreme and without any basis in fact. He is not simply discrediting himself, but lending support to the government’s claims that he is indeed attempting to incite a coup. I am absolutely willing to admit to the government’s obvious misuse of cadenas to interrupt Capriles’s broadcasts, on multiple occasions, for example, during the 2012 election campaign. However, considering the dangerous unrest that Capriles is knowingly or not likely to incite with his refusal to accept his narrow defeat in a free and fair democratic election, I cannot say in this case it is the government and not the opposition that is deserving of rebuke.

Read from Source

If there happens to be anyone who isn’t opposed to reading more articles from venezuelanalysis.com, here are some other articles about feminism and women’s rights in Venezuela. I have selectively chosen articles I hope are sufficiently critical of the government in an attempt to avoid arousing typical reactions on the part of the opposition-minded people who tend to dominate this subreddit. I read venezuelanalysis.com because English is my first language and as a socialist and a chavista I am already familiar with the site and consider it an excellent resource for news and analysis of interest especially to people who share this general political perspective, but if there are other articles addressing these issues on other sites, please share them. * [Women and Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution](http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/877), including a nice, extensive "History of Venezuela’s Women’s Movement", from the fall of the dictatorship of Pérez Jimenez in 1958 to the present, January 2005 * [Chávez on Gender - Advances and Challenges](http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/4287), discusses "many of the contradictory dynamics in which the struggle for female liberation in Venezuela is located", quite critical, March 2009 >Yet Chavez’s narrative betrays his failure to question certain broader cultural forms of domination, this may largely result from his identification of feminism as internal to socialism and hence its location as a necessary and just, but secondary struggle. [**riothero: I think this criticism is spot-on**] * [Women and Revolutionary Transformation in Venezuela](http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5884), an interview with a female chavista about shortcomings of revolution, December 2010 >The people have to learn to speak up, but it’s tough because there is so much confrontation. We have to understand it is not confrontation, but transformation. We Venezuelans are really good at criticism, from children upwards. The problem is to make constructive criticism, although we have to accept both constructive and destructive criticism to know where the failure is and how can we improve it. * [Venezuela Celebrates Women’s Advances, but More Efforts Needed](http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/6058), March 2011 >Amnesty International has reported that a woman dies of gender violence every ten days in Caracas and that in 2008, over 100 thousand complaints of domestic violence were reported to authorities. Local organizations inform that only 1 out of 9 women who are victimized by violence actually report it. * **[Chavez’s Inconsistent Feminism](http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6743)**, obviously a critique, January 2012 >Venezuela needs live and kicking women’s (and LGBT) movements that specifically exist to deepen the revolution’s militants and the general population’s understanding of sexism, and to promote issues specific to women’s struggle, not just as “Women Guardians of the Revolution”. * [Women's Rights Groups Present Proposals to Chavez for Government Plan](http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/7255), September 2012 >The groups are hoping that the proposals, which are related to specific issues affecting Venezuela’s female population, will be incorporated into the Chavez administration’s governmental plan for 2013-2019. [...] The list of proposals handed over to the president include; the free distribution of contraceptives for men and women, education in state schools to increase awareness surrounding gender equality, the creation of communal council based refuges for women who are victims of domestic violence, an increase in communal projects to care for children and the ‘socialization’ of domestic labour to allow women to participate fully in political activities. The women also demanded more state regulation over the usage of women’s bodies as “merchandise” in the media. The last article says that Chavez would be reviewing the proposals with a view to including them in the government strategy for the next 6 years if re-elected (the article predates 7-O). I would be interested to know if Maduro has made any comments about the government seeking to implement these proposals. The "women’s groups" referred to in the article include >*"Runaway Collective"* and *"Skirts in Revolution,"* as well as female representatives from political groups such as the Ezequiel Zamora Peasant Front all attended the event and addressed Chavez directly. The majority of the groups belong to the umbrella collective, the **"Feminist Spider,"** The *"Skirts in Revolution"* group has "provided an abortion advice line since May 2011, where volunteers supply information about abortion options, and how to use, and where to find Misoprostal" ([source](http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/7249)). What do people know about this group, "Feminist Spider?" I did a search and found this: * **[Campaign to Legalise Abortion in Venezuela Gains Publicity](http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/7452)**, November 2012 >**The Venezuelan coalition of left-wing feminist groups, the Feminist Spider, has submitted a reform for discussion in the Venezuelan National Assembly which would modify the country’s penal law to legalise abortion up to the 12th week of pregnancy.** So what’s the current status of these reforms? IT WOULD SEEM **THEY’RE CURRENTLY UP FOR DEBATE**! **SO NOW IS THE TIME TO MAKE NOISE ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND PETITION AN MEMBERS TO SUPPORT THESE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES!!** This video **"[¿Por qué despenalizar el aborto?](http://www.aporrea.org/actualidad/n225512.html)"** was posted on AVN on **22 March 2013** (quite recently!). >Caracas, **22 Mar. AVN.- Colectivos que luchan por los derechos de las mujeres, instituciones de planificación familiar y miembros de la comunidad médica han propuesto a la Asamblea Nacional debatir sobre la despenalización del aborto, tema que por estadísticas es considerado un problema de salud pública en Venezuela** Notice that [this protest sign in favor of decriminalizing abortion](http://i.imgur.com/q90lWQd.jpg) isn’t red or obviously associated with the PSUV as opposed to the opposition and doesn’t reference Chavez anywhere. That’s a relief, since these reforms deserve support across the political divide.

Read from Source

I had to look this up because I didn’t know, [Wikipedia: Aborto en Venezuela](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aborto_en_Venezuela), and, just out of curiosity, [Wikipedia: Abortion in Cuba](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Cuba).

Read from Source

I know that this article is several months old, and that it comes from a website that most of you don’t like and many of you refuse to read. But you may be surprised to find that it is *critical* of the government, which has failed to give the issue of women’s rights the attention and importance it deserves. I see no reason why opposition and government supporters alike, irrespective of the political parties, cannot come together to demand full reproductive rights for women. >The first step towards women being seen as more than just mothers and bodies, is **awareness raising and extensive public debate**. This means that we have a responsibility to organise ourselves more, but also that the state and the PSUV [**and I would add, other political parties as well, including those aligned with the opposition**] should provide greater support to such movements, *should not relegate women to merely organising their gender in order to support elections*, nor categorise feminist movements as "fringe" and "radical" (as though radical were something bad), should provide the resources for feminist workshops across the country, and *should remove the unconstitutional articles from the penal code that make abortion illegal*. Eventually **it should also, of course, provide accessible and free abortion**. Maybe there are already organizations on the ground working to achieve these enlightened and progressive goals. If anyone knows of any such groups or any ongoing campaigns to raise awareness and bring attention to these issues, I and I’m hoping many others would be very interested in hearing about the progress or lack of progress being made on this front.

Read from Source

1. it’s old news 2. it’s not about venezuela 3. still makes me laugh

Read from Source

>the anti-defamation league and the simon wesienthal center have accused him of anti-semetic remarks. I remember. I responded to [these and other](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/tw9s8/why_hugo_ch%C3%A1vez_hates_jews_new_book_explores/c4qar3u) [unfounded accusations](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/13s4ci/wiesenthal_center_likens_Chavezs_Venezuela_to/c76obo5) [as they happened](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/tw9s8/why_hugo_ch%C3%A1vez_hates_jews_new_book_explores/c4qar3u): >There is zero truth to claims that Chavez ‘hates Jews’. Yet, earlier this year, the LA-based Simon Wiesenthal Center and the New York-based Anti-Defamation League inexplicably injected themselves into Venezuelan politics and [accused President Chavez of making anti-semitic remarks](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10099715). The only evidence is a column written by a Chavez supporter and published on the website of a state-run radio station which opposed ‘Zionism’. President Chavez has repeatedly condemned and vowed to punish acts of anti-semitism (this is only mentioned in the last line of the Associated Press article). It is so bizarre that groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the Wiesenthal Center and apparently people like you would try so hard to prove that someone who is not anti-semitic is anti-semitic, as if there weren’t enough actual anti-semites in this world, that they have to invent ones where they don’t exist. Venezuelanalysis.com, an excellent english language resource for news and information about developments in Venezuelan politics, has tagged several articles under the topic of anti-semitism. * [Venezuela's Jews Defend Leftist President in Flap Over Remarks](http://Venezuelanalysis.com/news/1563) (January 2006) * [From Chavez’s Alleged Anti-Semitism to the Threat against Privileges](http://Venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1692) (April 2006) * [Anti-Semitism or Anti-Imperialism in Venezuela?](http://Venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3148) (February 2008) * [Chávez Condemns Attack on Venezuelan Synagogue](http://Venezuelanalysis.com/news/4160) (February 2009) * [Venezuelan Jewish Community “Profoundly Grateful and Moved” by Government’s Efforts](http://Venezuelanalysis.com/news/4205) (February 2009) * [Venezuela’s Chávez Reaffirms his Respect for Judaism](http://Venezuelanalysis.com/news/4179) (June 2009) * [Playing the ‘Anti-Semitism’ Card Against Venezuela](http://Venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/4769) (September 2009) * [Capriles, Homophobia, Anti-Semitism and Systemic Violence: Understanding the Venezuelan Elections](http://Venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6910) (April 2012) >he called Capriles a lof lif pig, yet another common anti-semtic refrain (jews=pigs) lol, this is one of my favorite lies about Chavez that i particularly love to debunk. It serves as an excellent example of the work and effort put into distorting the facts so as to falsely portray someone as an anti-semite. There was absolutely nothing anti-semitic about Chavez’s remark. I remember when Chavez made it, i remember how the facts were misrepresented in the media to portray this as some anti-semitic remark when it was nothing of the sort. I’ve [even commented several](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/zxnrj/no_Chavez_running_mate_in_Venezuela_despite_cancer/c68v5l5) [times on reddit about this](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/pyinw/Chavez_accuses_Venezuelas_opposition_leader_of/c3tob4h). Let me explain the context–around the time of [carnival in Venezuela](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/carnival#Venezuela), a [public festival where people dress up or masquerade](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/carnival#Venezuela). Chavez suggested that Capriles "take advantage of carnival and dress yourself up as a chavista for a couple of days", poking fun at the way that Capriles was allegedly falsely portraying himself as a leftist. He then said that regardless of his costume dress, Capriles couldn’t hide that "you’re a pig, don’t try to hide it". The reference is in no way not an alleged "common anti-semitic refrain (jews=pigs)" (as if that even made any sense anyway, given [the prohibition of pork consumption in jewish law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/religious_restrictions_on_the_consumption_of_pork#prohibition_of_pork_consumption_in_jewish_law)) but the common rhetorical expression **"[lipstick on a pig](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/lipstick_on_a_pig)".** >to put **"lipstick on a pig"** is a rhetorical expression, used to convey the message that making superficial or cosmetic changes is a futile attempt to disguise the true nature of a product. This is exactly the same meaning behind Chavez’s use of the term "pig" in his remarks. [TIME magazine provides a "a brief history of: 'putting lipstick on a pig'",](http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1840392,00.html#ixzz1pht1gn4u) reporting that in 2008 presidential candidate barack Obama mocked his political opponent Senator Mccain and his running mate governor sarah palin for **their effort to co-opt his campaign’s "change" mantra** (just as Chavez was mocking Capriles’s effort to co-opt Chavez’s image as a leftist). >"You can put lipstick on a pig," Obama said as the crowd cheered. **"it’s still a pig."** *"you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It’s still gonna stink."* So Obama used nearly the very same expression, in a very similar circumstance (when faced with a rival seeking to make themselves attractive to one’s own supporters) in 2008. But conservatives were certainly eager to interpret Obama’s words–"it’s still gonna stink"–in the most negative light possibly, just like Venezuela’s conservatives are interpreting Chavez. The difference is that i don’t think anyone ever accused Barack Obama of making an "anti-semitic" attack on his political opponents, nor should such accusations have been made! So i cannot believe how ridiculous it is that the western media has perpetuated this nonsense! More from [TIME](http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1840392,00.html#ixzz1pht1gn4u) >In 2004, again, vice-presidential candidate John Edwards derided the republicans’ attempt to make lackluster job-creation numbers into a shining moment for the Bush administration: "they’re going to try every way they know to put lipstick on this pig," he said. **"but you know when you put lipstick on a pig, at the end of the day, it’s still a pig."** >Also in 2004, Dick Cheney claimed john kerry was **"trying every which way to cover up his record of weakness on national defense. But he can’t do it. It won’t work,"** Cheney said. "as we like to say in wyoming, **you can put all the lipstick you want on a pig, but at the end of the day it’s still a pig."** >In 2007, Senator Mccain himself used the expression: "i think they put some lipstick on the pig, but it’s still a pig," he said. Mccain brought up the phrase again in may of this year to describe clinton’s health care plan at a town hall in denver: "i don’t like to use this term, but the latest proposal i see is putting lipstick on a pig," he said. Isn’t it strange that so many politicians can use this expression and not be accused of anti-semitism, but given the opportunity to slander president hugo Chavez, people start bending over backwards to misinterpret these words!

Read from Source

a photo taken of me and chomsky from a few years ago. i never have the occasion to show it to anyone!

Read from Source

putting aside your suggestion that the election might have been stolen, i respectfully but strongly disagree with your assertion that "lo que si es indiscutible es que la ideología chavista está llevando el pais cada vez mas a la ruina"; my point is that half of venezuelans would probably disgree with it as well. unfortunately these people are not represented in this subreddit, and i think one of the regrettable effects of the homogenity of opposition views is the perception these political views are "indiscutible". please. i wish there were other chavistas who could answer you because unfortunately i am trying to stay away from reddit for the rest of today because i’ve got work to do, but if i had more time to review the indicators you mentioned, as well as other indicators you didn’t, i know i could at least prove that these views are "discutible". i think it’d be an improvement if we could have actual debates in this subreddit.

Read from Source

>"el mismo mal" was clearly in relation to out of touch celebrities so disconnected from venezuelan reality that it’s almost funny for them to be supportive of the regime. there was no mention of half of venezuelans who support the revolution, you are right to say that in his comment and specifically with respect to "el mismo mal", tabularassa is speaking about "celebrities" like noam chomsky, sean penn, and oliver stone, who support the revolution allegedly without having any idea of what the actual situation is. he would like to see if they, after living a few years in Venezuela, would still defend the government with as much fervor. correct me if i am wrong but the implication seems to me to be that the experience of living in venezuela would likely have the effect of weakening if not reversing their current support for the government. this is an assumption that is also made often on reddit by anti-chavez venezuelans in conversation with foreign supporters of chavez–as if the effect of the experience of living in the country could only be to lead one toward adopting an anti-government position and aligning with the political opposition. i could have responded more *directly* to tabularassa’s comment by discussing only the specific individuals to whom he refers. it was because i wished to argue against the aforementioned assumption that i referenced the "half of venezuelans who support the revolution". these people *have* lived in venezuela for years and still hold the same attitudes towards chavismo as chomsky et al.

Read from Source

yes. i humbly admit this (but could you please stop talking about fucking pricks)?

Read from Source

/u/salroc, i thought it would be fun to share those personal photos. but if you’re gonna to react like that then i’ll simply remove them–which i’ve done (in retrospect, i’d prefer to maintain my privacy). also, we do not tolerate personal insults on this sub (like calling me a "FUCKING PRICK"). **this is your official warning**. if you cannot control yourself, *you will be banned*.

Read from Source

half of venezuelans living in the country support the government with fervor. this is a valid widely-shared perspective, even if it is not one shared by most people in this sub. if you think all these people suffer from "el mismo mal", you are never going to understand them, be able to communicate with them in a polite and respectful manner, or bridge the political divide in the country..

Read from Source

holy crap. i was kidding when i asked to see more photos! i assumed there was just that one. i agree it wasn’t wise for him to soak in the rain considering his poor health, but if i can be honest: you know that i am a chavista. to me, [these photos](http://axisoflogic.com/artman/uploads/2/CHAVEZ_ON_STAGE-504.jpg) capture [his spirit](http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/171625/image_update_658cf568493e135b_1362520741_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg) and [what was attractive](http://rt.com/files/news/venezuela-elections-chavez-capriles-701/president-candidate-chavez-greets.jpg) and [likeable about his personality](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63304000/jpg/_63304697_63304696.jpg).

Read from Source

omg, where can i get more photos of chavez in the rain? too funny

Read from Source

>because he was repeatedly anti-semitic and homophobic. not true. i’m sorry you base your opinion of the man on false information.

Read from Source

you forgot to add "…unless you wanna get yo ass beat!"

Read from Source

one really should not be topless while operating a chainsaw but okay… those [bitches be crazy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEMEN)!

Read from Source

i’m sorry but how did chavez’s name get thrown in there? what terrible acts did he do that he should be listed in the same sentence as pinochet?

Read from Source

say what you want about the pope, but you never hear anyone claim that he was unfairly elected.

Read from Source

comrades, north korea is gaining on us! faster!

Read from Source

porque el derecho a la salud del pueblo tiene prioridad. j/k

Read from Source

i understand that! but even still, even if the article above says more-or-less the same thing as the government media, i would think you’d still want to explain what’s wrong with what’s being said, why you think it’s all "bullshit and lies", and, in this case, to explain what’s wrong with these attempts to rebut the opposition’s claims of fraud i read the article and although it does counter some of the evidence cited by the opposition i know that there is other evidence that the article did not address, some of which has already been talked about in the sub

Read from Source

lol no problem. i have a backlog of articles i still need to read too. (i’ve added to my reading list the notitarde article you just shared, as well as [the thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1cjh7f/about_the_veracity_of_government_allegations_of/) you [asked me](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1cp2v8/l%C3%B3gica_bolivariana/c9it50i) for my opinion on yesterday–i haven’t gotten around to it yet) thanks

Read from Source

yeah well i’m not surprised by that. that’s why i wrote [not one](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1crr26/claims_of_fraud_in_venezuela_a_response/c9jcjti) but [two comments](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1crr26/claims_of_fraud_in_venezuela_a_response/c9jd0ni) asking people to please not judge this article based on the fact that it comes from someone with a political perspective different from the one shared by most of the people here. i get the sense that no one in this sub may be interested in actually discussing and debating political arguments from the other side this is regrettable, in my opinion

Read from Source

look, some people are going to read this article (well maybe no one in this sub if this post gets buried) and–maybe because they haven’t been following capriles’s campaign or what he’s been saying since 14-A, or maybe because they haven’t been reading this subreddit–will think that the claims of fraud have been successfully refuted. so it really does little good for someone who disagrees with the article to downvote this submission and pretend as if it doesn’t exist, or no one is going to read it. it’s not going to harm anyone to allow an article that happens to express an unpopular view (from the point of view of those here) to become the subject of a conversation. i just think it would be nice to see some people interact with arguments from those with an opposing perspective.

Read from Source

com’n guys, i’d like you to respond to this based on the merits of its argument (to what extent it succeeds or fails in refutting claims of fraud) rather than on the fact that it comes from a website you don’t like or because you don’t share the political views of its author. what, if anything, is wrong with the author’s argument? what evidence does the author fail convincingly to refute? what evidence of fraud does the writer fail to address? how do you respond to points such as the following? >Finally, it should also be noted that opposition representatives were provided with a copy of the vote tally at every single voting center in which their witnesses were present. As [even opposition blogger Francisco Toro has noted](http://caracaschronicles.com/2013/04/16/the-recount-as-red-herring/), if there really were any fraud in the official electoral results, the discrepancy would show up in the vote tallies that were audited on the night of the elections in the presence of opposition witnesses. If there really were fraud in the electoral outcome, the Capriles campaign would simply have to show where the vote tallies do not coincide with the official vote count. The fact that they have not done this clearly reveals that they do not have any credible evidence of fraud.

Read from Source

Read from Source

>having an opinion, which remains valid until the audit is through, i quote this just to point out the difficulty of finding the proper language with which to speak about this topic (i know what you mean to say, even if talking about an expiration date for having a valid opinion sounds… let’s just say, not quite right). i wonder, doesn’t it matter that a full audit is not legally necessary, in which case, having the opinion–that maduro is not legitimate–is already ‘not valid’ as soon as the official election results were announced (following the 54% audit legally required).

Read from Source

:/ i don’t like it either. thank you for explaining (btw, are you sure william davila’s eye is not being investigated? i [read it was](http://www.noticias24.com/venezuela/noticia/163778/en-video-william-davila-habla-tras-la-agresion-que-sufrio-en-la-an/))

Read from Source

it is all kinds of ridiculous! to your list i’ll add that it is ridiculously big (at least 300% life size) and it’s ridiculous that it’s even there (a picture of an ex-president in the center of the AN) in the first place. it’s also funny how it’s too big and too straight to hang on the wall (which is curved) so it’s just sitting there on the ground. how crazy (i don’t want to comment on diosdado)

Read from Source

i don’t really disagree with you here (although i’m not sure i follow all your points). i’ve been consistent in my support for a full audit, even when the government temporarily (and shamefully i’ll add) backtracked. however, unless the full audit shows otherwise, i do think maduro should be deemed the winner of the election, and thus the legitimate president. and, you know what, regarding whether or not the opposition should accept maduro as the ‘legitimate president’–even tentatively–before the results of the audit, i’m not sure. it’s going to take a month for the audit, right? when’s the inauguration? if the inauguration comes before the audit is finished, that seems like a problem, huh? in the sense that one would expect that after the inauguration, there should be consensus that maduro is the legitimate president. but can one ask the opposition to accept maduro as the legitimate president before a full audit is conducted? interesting question

Read from Source

is it inconsistent to say the government is democratic and to insist that other government officials recognize the results of a democratic election? because it seems to me if government officials do not recognize the results of a democratic election, one can hardly call that government democratic. (i feel compelled to offer a defense–even though i know very well it is too early and not yet justified for diosdado to act like this, seeing as how the democratic election was close and the results are still being contested.)

Read from Source

OK. Have at it. Discuss. I have no intention on stopping you or anyone.

Read from Source

i don’t see your point then. are you saying one must be either for or against all forms of interference (even when it is not interference at all, but cooperation)? obviously it is not a black or white thing. so why can one not decide one’s opinions based on the specific circumstances of each case? you personally do not welcome cuba’s cooperation, and regard it as a form of interference. that is fine. but it does not make me a hypocrite because i do not share your opinion (actually i really dont have one), because there is nothing analogous about us-venezuelan and cuban-venezuelans relations.

Read from Source

interference is only "interference" when it is not welcomed by the party being interfered with. i was under the impression that the venezuelan government had sought cooperation with the cuban government. i’m sure you’ll correct me if i am wrong about this.

Read from Source

Goebbels was not North Korean, but a Nazi. I found this comparison in need of justification, [thus my comment](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1cmvx6/los_11_principios_de_la_propaganda_de_goebbels/c9icxdm). >What is the problem in discussing something that for someone hits so close to home? Answer me that. Nothing. This is why I asked Derek to *open* the discussion by explaining his reasons for posting the submission! I don’t object to honest discussion. I do wonder whether citing Nazi principles is the way to begin such discussion.

Read from Source

>else you risk looking like a hypocrite. Please, Alejandra, spare me.

Read from Source

Read from Source

that giant picture of chavez in the middle of the AN is ridiculous! (i want one for my living room)

Read from Source

>funded by the goverment of chavez. do you have evidence for this?

Read from Source

why are you submitting this? would you care to explain how you think this is relevant to the situation today in venezuela?

Read from Source

Congratulations everyone for keeping up the pressure

Read from Source

Congratulations everyone for keeping up the pressure

Read from Source

it is an interesting topic, this alleged "stigmata that was created of those with money", perhaps there will be another occasion on which to discuss, and possibly dissect, it. my impression is that Kerry’s image as an aristocrat (in u.s. political culture there are no ‘oligarchs’, unfortunately) will only ‘add fuel to the fire’ since it is enough that, in his capacity as the current U.S. Secretary of State, he should make such comments. regarding whether or not Kerry could have avoided making such a statement, that is something we could talk about. what do you mean when you say that "it was very relevant for him to make that comment since it was asked of him"? i am not aware of the context you are referring to. i think you may be referring to a different context, in which a reporter asked **State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell (not Secretary of State John Kerry)** if he was ["prepared to congratulate Mr. Maduro on his victory"](http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/8673). Ventrell responded ["we're not there"](http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/8673). these are the comments that sparked reaction from the Bolivarian and Argentine Presidents. putting this conversation aside, the u.s. is generally careful about how it reacts to elections in other countries (whether it chooses to recognize them). [please see my comment about the U.S. response to the 2009 iranian presidential election](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1cmlaz/us_holds_back_recognition_for_venezuelas_nicolas/c9i202t), to take just one example.

Read from Source

precisely–i don’t think one has to be a chavista necessarily to take a negative view of this u.s. posturing. edit: recall the *sham* that was [the iranian presidential election of 2009](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2009), as well as the [~~weeks~~ months](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2009_Iranian_election_protests) of [protest](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9310_Iranian_election_protests) that followed. if my memory serves–the u.s. recognized the [official results](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Iranian_presidential_election,_2009) without comment. the reason was, apparently, that the u.s. did not want to appear to support the opposition (the so-called [green movement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Green_Movement)), knowing that this would hinder rather than advance its cause. …it does make one wonder why the u.s. may not recognize the results of a venezuelan election when it *will* recognize the results of elections in countries that are far less democratic (when these elections are not at all free or anywhere near as transparent). (btw, it’s almost amusing… how marina has gotten under everyone’s skin, with relatively few comments)

Read from Source

well to be fair, i was doing both (although i feel i do have a good defense, actually). the *main point* of my comment was to chastise John Kerry for his actions (in asserting himself into the domestic affairs of a sovereign country without being cognizant of how this would look in the international arena and open up charges of u.s. interference), and along the way, i couldn’t resist explaining why this looked especially bad coming from John Kerry due to his image as an aristocrat. of course, it *was* quite infantile for me to express my opinion by referencing his "big dumb mouth". this i admit, lol

Read from Source

btw i posted this as as an example of what is being said in the u.s. press, though i wouldn’t necessarily say it is representative (i haven’t done a study or anything). just wondering if it’s gotten anything wrong, etc.

Read from Source

i am surprised i need to tell you that *image matters* in politics. politicians and political analysts alike have recognized this since the dawn of the mass media. please do not fault me for expressing a negative reaction to the image created by this diplomatic kerfuffle.

Read from Source

yes, really. the u.s. has no business sticking its nose in venezuelan affairs. besides, it gives maduro a platform from which to confront ‘the empire’ (fyi, [john kerry is worth from around $165 million to $3.2 billion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry)), and issue statements like the one i quoted. tell me, how should a mod act?

Read from Source

Ommphf. John Kerry–who fits the image of an oligarch to a tee, i mean, seriously–should have kept his big dumb mouth shut. >"Take your eyes off of Venezuela, John Kerry. Get out of here. Enough interventionism."

Read from Source

i do not know how you can maintain this perspective if you are a regular reader as i am. francisco toro and juan nagel long ago dropped all pretense of impartiality update: fyi, in 2003, toro resigned his position as a reporter for the nytimes, [citing "conflict of interest concerns" due to the fact that "too much of my lifestyle is bound up with opposition activism"](http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/letter-to-the-new-york-times-ombudsman-on-hugo-chavez/)… i’ll ask you to take my word for it that i’ve had brush-ups with him in the past (in the comments sections on his blog) that went like this: >me: "com’on, toro, you know that’s not true" , toro: "suck it, communist".

Read from Source

not quite. even the oppostion (or at least my friends within the opposition) concedes that a full audit is not required by the law. i happen to think a full audit *should* be carried out as a matter of courtesy (for lack of a better word)–and i am confused and not at all happy with Maduro’s backtracking on this matter–but this just makes him kind of a dick, not an illegitimate dictator i’m afraid. edit: now if you can show there is reason to question something like 275,000 votes, you would have a better argument.

Read from Source

Catalog the instances of voting irregularities. If you can show that it is enough to suspect *about 275,000 votes*, *then* and only then will you have an reasonable argument to call Maduro illegitimate. And still this would not be sufficient evidence to declare Capriles the legitimate winner, only enough to question Maduro’s legitimacy.

Read from Source

>If anything happens today, it is on him. This is just as wrong when Maduro said it about Capriles. If violence happens, we should look at the specific circumstances. Of course I hope violence does not take place, and sincerely regret the extent to which Maduro may be contributing to the potential for violence. However, I do not see him calling for violence to occur.

Read from Source

>It has been clearly proved over the course of this days that there was no way Maduro won the elections It has been "clearly proved". OK great! You should be able to clearly justify your claim. >Both by the goverment denying a recount when the law allows it (to cover the cheating done) and by a general overview of the surroundings. * Ok, so "there’s no way Maduro won the elections" because although he won the official electoral count, there has not been a recount. O..K… * What’s this about "a general overview of the surroundings"? "A general overview of the surroundings? What does that even mean?

Read from Source

>By "radicalizing the revolution" he meant that he’s going to allow the violence on the streets to leave more people dead, Holy shit this is over the top. He forbade the opposition demonstration to avoid precisely such a scenario. >should-be legitimate president Capriles Please explain why you consider Capriles the legitimate President. Even if you think that Maduro is an ‘illegitimate’ President simply because his victory has not been subject to a recount, that is hardly grounds on which to consider his opposite the ‘legitimate’ winner. 12 points, really?

Read from Source

> if they just would recount the votes, which is a LEGAL right. Where is it stated that an electoral recount is a "legal right"? Please answer this question. Edit: Am I being downvoted for asking someone to clarify something written in CAPITAL LETTERS?

Read from Source

I don’t like it, man, I don’t like it. Am I gonna switch sides over this? Probably not, but sure, I’ll support your continued calls for a recount. The government should assure the opposition that Maduro’s victory was legitimate. Edit: I don’t get it. Am I being downvoted for supporting the opposition’s calls for a recount?

Read from Source

I’m not sure if I *want* to be a chavista with whom you are able to speak, if that means I cannot continue to hold views or express opinions as a chavista! When you speak to someone, they do not always agree with what you say; in fact, they may disagree, contest your claims, propose an alternate perspective. I hope what Daniel meant is I try to be friendlier and more respectful to the opposition than most (although I sometimes fail in this way).

Read from Source

i am all too aware of the fact that i am not living in the country. i know it is weird that i should be so invested in venezuelan politics, but it is my area of study, and i do care deeply about the venezuean people. i know my opinion as a foreign observer may not be worth much. i called you a "threat to the republic" when it seemed you were refusing to recognize the results of the election (which as i’ve said deserves a full audit). i decided to retract that particular remark, but i’m not sure i had to.

Read from Source

This is a debate I could have had with him. I should be in bed anyway, so thanks for saving me the trouble.

Read from Source

haha! i allow you guys to trip me up when i should be more hard-line. other chavistas will disown me.

Read from Source

i share some of your worries about the new leadership in the PSUV.

Read from Source

i too lack connections among government supporters. one can still sense that many within the psuv believe maduro squandered his advantage and may vie for future leadership (i’m not even taking about diosdado). keep in mind many of these people will be marxists, communists, etc. whose politics differ from the opposition’s even more than maduro’s. so even if we end up making similar demands to Maduro, remember some of you remain ‘enemies’, politically speaking. anyway, i will keep an eye out for them (government supporters who demand a recount)! (editted)

Read from Source

>the current situation, until proven otherwise, is that there will be no audit and sunday’s results will stand uncontested. That is NOT AT ALL the impression one gets from reading the latest English-language news! kinda outrageous

Read from Source

i’m not gonna lie either, this doesn’t sound good. it is wrong to equate the entire opposition with the oligarchic bourgeoisie. after all, 700,000+ have apparently joined since 7-O. but i need to see what he is saying most recently before i comment again…

Read from Source

thanks for the update. it occurs to me that i need to follow the latest news more closely and catch up speed… before i weigh in again on the current situation. this is what i get for waking up after noon….

Read from Source

fair point. but i haven’t read anything about his being against the audit. could you please direct me to some news about this?

Read from Source

then i support those who believe in the democratic process to protest peacefully (at the same time, i caution them to be mindful of the government’s fear of subversive agitation, the goal of which they ought clearly to distinguish themselves)

Read from Source

oh my. has he changed his mind about that? no wonder people want to protest.

Read from Source

>i’m inclined to believe there are higher chances… this may indeed be case (i am not under the illusion that all danger has been resolved–it doesn’t seem to have been, does it)… it’s certainly possible that you are right, so i would advise all sides "tener cuidado" (in terms of both rhetoric and action). from my point of view, maduro may have missed an opportunity to call for reconciliation in his speech, but at least he was accepting of an audit, no? update: it seems i may not be up-to-date on the latest news, so forgive me, as i do some more reading

Read from Source

i did change my comment because i regretted saying such a thing (insofar as it was unlikely to contribute to a discussion). i’d apologize, however i still maintain that calling someone an ‘illegal dictator’ after he just won an election (by all official accounts, and pending an investigation) is a fairly ‘incendiary’ (yes, dangerous) remark.

Read from Source

sometimes governments make decisions like this in the name of ‘national security’. (sometimes it is complete bullshit, as when it was done in the u.s. by president bush during the so-called ‘war on terror’, and i was forced to protest in [free speech zones](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone) or not at all–so i assure you that i am sensitive to this being a possibility). but people have been shot (apparently for political reasons, regardless of who is to blame) and, it seems that there is genuine fear among ordinary venezuelans that violence may escalate to levels dangerous to the republic itself. so, with all due respect, there is reason to believe this isn’t simply an instance of political suppression (but rather an attempt to avoid a coup attempt, or further bloodshed). if it becomes routine to deny protest marches, i’ll agree with you. my advice: those in the opposition should, for the moment, find alternative, legal means of expressing their *legitimate* discontent. i sympathize with your anger and disappointment in losing such a close election, and **i support the demands for a full hand audit and investigation into voting irregularities**. these may be unfortunate circumstances, but you do not need to be quiet about them.

Read from Source

>No son 50% contra 50%. Recuerden que el resultado de las elecciones es una mentira. Ustedes son mayoria !! on what do you base this? there were some irregularities, but enough to change the outcome? that question is still under investigation! stop stirring up trouble.

Read from Source

yes, yes, but i would like to hear maduro’s explanation. unfortunately the link is down.

Read from Source

yes. very often you will get an international ip, but there is no way to choose from which country.

Read from Source

the economic policies of chavez are not easily defined (there has been a lot of improvising, for good and for bad). so, in my opinion, one cannot say for certain that they will be followed as chavez himself would have approved. had he lived, chavez could have done something analogous to lenin with the NEP. to blame chavez or not to blame chavez, is an argument that is, above all, political.

Read from Source

I appreciate this submission very much. Unfortunately I can only share my perspective as a foreign observer. * I support the investigation of irregularities (esp. in such a close election), and am relieved that so has Maduro. It must be established that the margin of irregularities was not greater than the margin of victory. * I would have encouraged chavistas to accept the results, even if the opposition had won (as it may in the future). Although I’m not confident that all would have accepted such a loss, I have to believe that this is what Chavez himself would have wanted. Elections are only a means to an end, but if there were no possibility of winning by electoral means, than the opposition would be justified in resorting to others. Recall that the militias are sworn to protect the republic and its constitution, so an opposition victory itself would not be enough to justify insurrection. However if a President Capriles moved to enact something like [el Decreto Carmona](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decreto_Carmona) then perhaps it would be…

Read from Source

>sinceramente quiero saber su opinión. Por favor, abstenerse de insultos y downvotes sólo por no estar de acuerdo. Por favor, todos, respetan los deseos de the OP.

Read from Source

>¿Qué opinan del discurso de Maduro? Lo noté inapropiado y algo agresivo para alguien que ganó por un margen tan estrecho. Desperdició una oportunidad para llamar a la reconciliación. Is there a transcript somewhere? Could you provide a link?

Read from Source

I appreciate hearing your perspective, but I still maintain that you speak for a minority (still sizeable) of Venezuelans when you say these things. You are deceiving people when you claim to speak for "most".

Read from Source

I do not offer any defense of this or other campaign violations. I hope that complaints are made, and that the mayor is held accountable in some way. (If he isn’t, I don’t know what to say, it’s not a major crime, but it’s still inexcusable.)

Read from Source

>I seem to have struck a nerve I didn’t intend to strike. You can avoid striking a nerve by citing evidence to support claims like the following >most Venezuelans agree that many of his policies did more harm than good. I can concede to you many criticisms of the Chavez government… I can even concede that things in Venezuela are not as good as some Chavez supporters on reddit would have others believe. But your assertion that "most Venezuelans agree that many of his policies did more harm than good" (OK, I suppose you would have to explain which particular policies you are referring to when you say "many") is completely unfounded (excuse my language) bullshit. Could you please provide some support for this claim? It seems especially ridiculous in light of the fact that the Venezuelan people have supported Chavez and his supporters in 14 out of 15 elections! Com’n! >bottom 1% There is no basis whatsoever for classifying the bottom 1% (as opposed to the top 1%). For all intents and purposes, the bottom 1% is indistinguishable from the bottom 20% or perhaps more (in terms of income, etc.).

Read from Source

>Venezuela as a whole is not better than it was before he came and instituted his bolivarian revolution, as the testimony of many Venezuelans clearly demonstrates. I really don’t think this is true. There are plenty of Venezuelans who are unhappy with the way the PSUV is currently governing the country, and who think the opposition could do a better job *moving forward* but I don’t think you could find many Venezuelans would say their country is "not better than it was before [Chavez] came and instituted his bolivarian revolution". What are these "testimonies" are you referring to? Provide support for your claims! BTW, one should distinguish the "Bolivarian revolution" from the political change that took place with Chavez’s rise to power in 1999 (the end of the Punto Fijo regime and the adoption of a new constitution). The "Bolivarian revolution" refers to an *unfinished* movement and political process to establish 21st century socialism. One can oppose the *ongoing* "Bolivarian revolution" while still believing that the political change instituted in 1999 was worthwhile.

Read from Source

I just want to say I don’t support this behavior (if this is what it is). If these are members of the PSUV, I sure hope that they are not leaders in it. I wish there were more chavistas (preferably living in Venezuela, lol) on reddit, to hear their reaction to this shit.

Read from Source

Only 1000? Please try to promote /r/vzla if discussing Venezuela on other subreddits today. It’s a good day to attract new readers.

Read from Source

I am interested in this distinction between Chavez’s behavior in the presence of the international media and how he behaved before a national/domestic audience. I’d want to consider some evidence–but I am intrigued by the hypothesis. I only caution that *we may be referring to different aspects of Chavez’s behavior here*: there may be a national-international distinction in his perceived ‘moderation’ (I’m almost tempted to say, ‘of course, you’re right’!)–but ‘moderation’ isn’t the quality that seems to be on display in the above quote (made before an international audience); that is to say, I wasn’t referring to Chavez’s perceived ‘moderation’ when I wrote that "I liked Chavez best when [he] spoke like this". Of course, I didn’t clarify what quality it was… that I was referring to… but I am more skeptical that, with regard to this quality, there exists an international-national distinction.. But I would like to hear your perspective. Let me find another example…

Read from Source

>if it had been different he would have been even more popular. I think you may be right. As someone from a middle-class upbringing, I was raised to see the value in being ‘respectful’, and certainly at times I personally regretted Chavez’s ‘disrespectful’ behavior. But at the same time–alas, I am not a *revolutionary*–and so I wonder whether it doesn’t *require* a certain ‘disrespect’ to succeed in the ways that Chavez managed. For instance, if not for some people’s concern for gaining respectability in the eyes of traditional elites, would there not be more support for controversial-yet-much-needed changes? To what extent can the *intensity* of Chavez’s support from the lower classes, for example, be attributed to the apparent ‘disrespect’ he displayed to the traditional order? It may be this aspect of Chavez’s personality was an *asset* as well as a *liability*.

Read from Source

Thanks for the feedback (sincerely, I gave you an upvote). This subreddit is still very new, and we have not worked out very defined roles for the moderators. At the moment, we are all still entitled to have and express independent political views, but you are welcome to suggest a change in policy. For the record, this is the first time that I’ve ever submitted a link on this subreddit to a government (or state-owned) website. Even if I were to make a habit out of ‘haciendo propaganda’ (though I do not intend to do this), no one would be prevented from expressing his or her objection to the content! I assure you I posted the submission not with the expectation that it be accepted and embraced by the current community, but with the hope that it be debated, discussed, etc.

Read from Source

…whenever Chavez made a show out of his *deference* to the people. I think he absolutely did trust the people, even if it was just the *pueblo bolivariano* (as opposed to political ‘elites’, whether from the old regime or the current one). Of course it’s easier to say such things in a country where the people already support left-wing ideas, and where the majority already supported *him*. One can imagine circumstances in which it would have been harder for him or his followers to maintain such optimism. You don’t hear the same thing very often from the opposition, many of whom have disparaged the people for being ignorant (precisely for voting for Chavez). It is common amongst even the left in other countries, like the U.S., to hear criticism of the people, as being too stupid to make correct political decisions… when the people vote right-wing parties into power, for instance. Anyway, I agree there’s some arrogance (though I’m not sure that’s the right word) in praising the people for being wise–when you expect they’ll be voting for you.

Read from Source

I liked Chavez best when spoke like this.

Read from Source

I have fixed the image links–I really should have caught my mistake. Thanks for directing me to that site (funny name), where one can immediately identify the hat I am looking for! (I’ll take a look and let you know–by private, if I may–if I need help with shipping, etc.). >you deserve them just for being you, and also for not hating Chavez/Maduro or the color RED I *deserve* these downvotes, do I? That is a nice way to look at it! If I’m going to receive them, I better *deserve* them! I am embarassed about my being concerned with karma–but I’m afraid, if I weren’t so concerned, there’d be a lot more cursing in my comments.

Read from Source

>The country is ready to move on. I am not so sure that this is correct. …at least not entirely correct. I get the sense that even if the **people** are ready to "move on" **from certain policies** the PSUV-led government has implemented, they do not wish to "move on" from the Bolivarian revolution Chavez represented. In other words, they do not want to "move on" with an opposition candidate! (I believe the upvoting vote will reflect this.) This is why I am in favor of promoting diversity *within* the PSUV and *within* the pro-government coalition (GPP).

Read from Source

I’m not sure, exactly. At least not yet. Right now I’m just asking around to see what’s available. Would you know if [this red PSUV hat](http://i.imgur.com/j8pXRj6.png) are what Chavistas wear, as in the pictures above? Or is it something else? I’ve [seen these for sale](http://i.imgur.com/Wii9bt5.png) on ebay. They look good. Edit: Fixed links to images.

Read from Source

impressive display. is there a store where chavistas buy their red shirts and hats? could someone buy me one as a souvenir, please?

Read from Source

>it’s mostly just people that are against the government for x or y reason. They have different purposes. Exactly! Not all of them actually support Capriles’s center-left agenda! Many in the opposition are supporting him because he is the anti-government candidate. So it’s not clear whether they would actually support Capriles’s agenda if he were elected. :,( >I’m not so sure about that one, they wouldn’t welcome him with open arms, or anything. It’s too late now. But [I actually hoped, six months ago, that **Chavez would name Capriles as his successer**](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/10rntu/chavistas_logic/c6ghtca)!! >Chavez could do worse than throwing his support to Capriles himself–this would guarantee Capriles a far greater amount of support from amongst the Venezuelan poor, which he could use to advance his proposed center-left agenda and make good on his campaign promises–to maintain and even build of Chavez’s popular social welfare programs, while gradually dismantling only the most controversial government policies (i.e. namely, the price and currency controls and some nationalizations). >> >If he is elected without that Chavista support, my concern is that Capriles (who I believe is well intentioned) would be far more likely to respond to pressure from right-wing elements in the current political ‘opposition’ (who may not be exerting much pressure now, for strategic reasons, described below); if he feels his support base is comprised of disproportionately right-wing elements–who may be willing to support a ‘center-left’ candidate only now because the opposition parties have agreed that the best chance to remove Chavez from office was to rally support around a single candidate–and that he cannot afford to risk weakening his anti-Chavez coalition, Capriles would be less capable of governing truly as a center-left politician and making good on his promises.

Read from Source

Clearly there are worrisome elements supporting either side (I think we can all think of many examples). I imagine that there will be people who vote for the opposition because they are indeed turned off by certain unsavory elements with whom Maduro–and, before him, Chavez–have aligned themselves. The reality is these fears do influence people’s votes. But I think we can agree it is more difficult to imagine what a Capriles administration would look like (as opposed to a Maduro one), because we don’t actually know *how strong the elements in his opposition coalition are*. We don’t know, for example, whether Capriles, if elected, could actually implement the center-left agenda he promises, or if right-wing elements of the opposition–who are only supporting him as a chance to regain power and do not actually support this agenda–would exert enough pressure to stop him. Obviously not everyone will share these same concerns. But I just wanted to share them with you.

Read from Source

>I don’t think the PSUV will allow for any other candidate that isn’t part of their inner circle of power. That, and the fact that it’s corrupt to its core. It wouldn’t be easy (but neither is winning a presidential election as a member of the opposition)! Its true that many [competent people](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Falc%C3%B3n) have been driven from the party ([que lastima](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1aporp/henri_falc%C3%B3n_defendi%C3%A9ndose_ante_una_comisi%C3%B3n_de/c904kz9?context=3)!). But, since the PSUV is likely to be the ruling party for some time, it’d be nice (imho) if some of them found their way back. Now’s a good time. But I’m mostly talking about the long-term. There are already factions within the PSUV, and [calls for democratizing reforms](http://www.luchadeclases.org.ve/component/content/article/7254-cmi-merida), as well as significant differences between [the parties within the pro-government coalition](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patria_Para_Todos).

Read from Source

>Why do you say he’s allied with the US and the "wealthy elite"? Right now the wealthy elite are the ones in power. I am obviously referring to the [old elites](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/world/americas/28venez.html?pagewanted=all) who ruled the country for decades (you know, "No volverán"). I’m not saying, as Maduro has, that Capriles is simply a ‘puppet’ for these groups. But it does make me suspicious that they are supporting Capriles. >And, if Capriles wants to have a different party what’s wrong with that? PSUV os just a corrupt-filled rat nest and he’a right not wanting to relate to them. He can be similar opinions and still believe in a different approach. There’s nothing wrong with it. It’s just a different approach. I’m just saying I could imagine an alternative approach (preferable, in my opinion), where Capriles ran as a PSUV reformer, rather than as an opposition candidate. I bet he would have a lot of support.

Read from Source

If Capriles and other ‘progressive’ leaders with the opposition are sincere about wanting to govern in this way (and I believe many of them are), then why not run as PSUV or PSUV-allied candidates (within the Great Patriotic Pole)? Instead, they choose to align themselves with Venezuela’s wealthy elite and U.S. interests (and some right-wing forces, etc.). How can they be trusted? Edit: I’m not actually asking if Capriles cannot be ‘trusted’–I do believe he is sincere about his politics. What I mean is, how can one trust that if Capriles were elected, he would be able to govern the way he promises (that his coalition would actually support him).

Read from Source

>I care about qualifications and education those are still just status symbols though. what matters is what one does, what one is planning to do with those qualifications and education, toward what ends will the president seek to apply them, etc

Read from Source

Michael Moynihan is a fascist. Look it up.

Read from Source

mebtaj8yxt52qdcm

Read from Source

vl4hguwul2qhjpfe

Read from Source

i hope you’re not just being sarcastic because imho you’ve touched on an aspect of chavez, the bolivarian movement, and its appeal, that is what excited my passion years ago and continues to sustain my interest.

Read from Source

It was not as if President Chavez decided to change the term limits so he could serve another term, and did so simply by issuing a decree! (I agree that this would have come across as the action of a potential dictator!) But this is NOT WHAT HAPPENED IN VENEZUELA! Since the two-term limit on the presidency was established by the 1999 Venezuelan constitution, Chavez did not have (and never claimed to have) the authority to make this change himself! He proposed an amendment to the constitution and called for a popular referendum! The amendment was endorsed by 54% of the electorate (with 39% disapproving). See: [Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2009](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum,_2009)

Read from Source

what ‘gap’ could you possibly be referring to that is now ‘closed’? the latest poll from GIS XXI shows **55.3%** for Maduro, and **44.7%** for Capriles. this ‘gap’ is **nearly identical** to the ‘gap’ between Chavez and Capriles in the last election. recall that the official results were **55.1%** for Chavez and **44.3%** for Capriles.

Read from Source

what ‘gap’ could you possibly be referring to that is now ‘closed’? the latest poll from GIS XXI shows **55.3%** for Maduro, and **44.7%** for Capriles. this ‘gap’ is **nearly identical** to the ‘gap’ between Chavez and Capriles in the last presidential election. recall the official results were **55.1%** for Chavez and **44.3%** for Capriles.

Read from Source

>he still used a lot of the same tactics to stamp out the opposition. name one

Read from Source

>PPT was not unified in the decision, but the leadership and around half of its supporters were. The best solution in my opinion was to split the party, and it was wrong what the government did and showed how undemocratic the government is. I am inclined to agree with you, for once. I am in no mood to defend the government on these matters which (although I think a bit more complicated than you let on) are hopefully behind us. Now that Chavez is gone, reform-minded leaders within the PSUV (if there are any left) must seize the opportunity for change, and strive to earn back the respect and allegience of former comrades.

Read from Source

It seemed like you were saying you like these presidents because, in addition to building infrastructure, they also shot communists (and the communists today are not blowing up churches–they still deserve to be shot?). I really don’t know enough about MPJ to respond to your description–it is hard to judge leaders who acted in distant historical contexts. It just struck me as ‘unique’ that you would welcome another dictatorship (like MPJ’s).

Read from Source

Actually, the history is a bit complicated. I was referring not to Falcon’s departure from the PPT (which I’ll discuss below), but to his decision–for reasons [he made clear in a public letter written to Chavez on 21 February 2010](http://www.noticias24.com/actualidad/noticia/144693/carta-de-henri-falcon-refleja-lo-que-muchos-quisieran-expresarle-a-chavez/)–to resign from the PSUV and join the PPT. As I tried to suggest, **I was sympathetic to Falcon and not at all happy with the way he was treated by the PSUV and Chavez** (who [called Falcon a 'traitor'](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN7nTNWFjV0)). (BTW, it is true that Falcon was *temporarily expelled from the PSUV*–only to be *reinstated soon thereafter* *prior to the 2008 regional election*.) **I do not blame Falcon for his decision to leave the PSUV and join the PPT (I myself, were I in his position, might have done the same)**. However, my sympathy for Falcon reached a limit [in October 2010 when I heard his announcement that the PPT would join MUD](http://www.eluniversal.com/2010/10/05/pol_ava_henry-falcon-dice-qu_05A4564255.shtml) ahead of the 2012 elections (although [the PPT was not unified](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patria_Para_Todos) in this decision). I could understand Falcon’s criticism of the PSUV and Chavez, but I saw nothing to justify turning one’s back on the Bolivarian revolution (which is larger than the PSUV, larger than Chavez himself even) and aligning with the opposition (which, for the most part, does not share his politics). As for the sheninigans with the Supreme Court, I believe that falls under what I regrettfully acknowledge are the "ugly" consequences of this fallout. (It may be that I am mistaken in my understanding of events.) Please be kind. I am not expecting upvotes, but downvotes leave me terribly depressed. I know this subreddit is dominated by opposition supporters, and do not expect–literally–anyone here to share my views. However, in the interest of promoting understanding across the political divide, I thought it might interest some of you to hear what someone like me thinks of all this.

Read from Source

>Necesitamos presidentes como Marcos Perez Jimenez, Betancourt, y Leoni, no solo cronstruyeron mucha de la infraestructura que tenemos ahora, pero tambien fusilaron a los comunistas. porque yo no soy un hablante nativo de español (como usted ya sabe) a veces no puedo notar ciertos matices y tonos, por ejemplo, el sarcasmo y la ironía. por favor me dice, realmente cree lo que acaba de decir, que necesitamos presidentes como los que usted menciona, como el dictador Marcos Pérez Jiménez? ¿Desea un gobierno que mataría a comunistas como yo mismo?

Read from Source

Whenever I see the name "Henri Falcon" in the news, I try to look away. It’s always so ugly–I know I am not going to like what I see. I regret the way things were left between Falcon and Chavez, and still mourn the day *Chavismo* lost Falcon to the opposition. **Falcon’s [criticism of the PSUV (and of Chavez) was](http://www.noticias24.com/actualidad/noticia/144693/carta-de-henri-falcon-refleja-lo-que-muchos-quisieran-expresarle-a-chavez/), in my view, entirely legitimate**. (I know it’s easy for me to say this, especially as I do not live in Venezuela) But I would have liked Falcon either to have stayed in the party *while [fighting for internal reforms (like these folks, whom I support)](http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/7366)*, or to have joined the PPT without necessarily aligning with MUD (while *remaining supportive of the Bolivarian revolution*, but *not uncritical of the Chavista government*). The PSUV needs good political leaders like Falcon now that Chavez is gone, even leaders willing to implement some much-need reforms. I am really saddened by the way things have turned out…

Read from Source

>short term relief but no real change like Chavez did There is no evidence to suggest that Chavez has provided only "short term relief but no real change". The statement is without foundation.

Read from Source

¿Por qué no indica el título quién dijo esta frase? El título original de la noticia es "José Guerra: ‘Venezuela va a llorar lágrimas de sangre’ si gana Nicolás Maduro". Es interesante que LocoCriollo no hizo este error en [dos otros hilos](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1akg3n/maduro_llegar%C3%A1_el_momento_en_que_el_pueblo_tendr%C3%A1/) [publicados al mismo tiempo](http://www.reddit.com/r/vzla/comments/1ak832/mar%C3%ADa_bol%C3%ADvar_no_me_invitan_al_debate_porque_les/).

Read from Source

Peru did far better, Brazil did close to the same, Venezuela is still lagging the Latin American average, although by a bit less.

In reality, the data for the three countries’ respective poverty reductions show exactly the opposite. World Bank figures confirm this using any number of criteria:

Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty line (% of the population)

Poverty headcount ratio at $1.25 a day (PPP) (% of the population)

Poverty headcount ratio at $2 a day (PPP) (% of the population)

P.S. I happened to come across the Economist article from which it seems you pulled your graphs, and… it’s a terribly biased article. Mind you, I’m not saying that the facts are wrong, but I think they are selectively chosen and presented in such a way as to support a very one-sided interpretation.. Again, I’m not suggesting that there are not many problems with the existing government, but I do think its achievements are impressive and worth building upon (and even the opposition agrees).

Read from Source

>Helping the poor is a noble goal but there are right and wrong ways to go about it. Chavez chose the wrong way. This is what people who are not *actually* interested in "helping the poor" say.

Read from Source

He used them to buy votes

A right wing talking points. It’s not true. Consider for example: > >One anecdote alone should be enough to give the lie to the idea that poor Venezuelans voted for Chávez because they were fascinated by the baubles they dangled in front of them. During the 2006 presidential campaign, the signature pledge of Chávez’s opponent was to give 3,000,000 poor Venezuelans a black credit card (black as in the color of oil) from which they could withdraw up to $450 in cash a month, which would have drained over $16 billion dollars a year from the national treasury (call it neoliberal populism: give to the poor just enough to bankrupt the government and force the defunding of services). Over the years, there’s been a lot of heavy theoretically breathing by US academics about the miasma oil wealth creates in countries like Venezuela, lulling citizens into a dreamlike state that renders them into passive spectators. But in this election at least, Venezuelans managed to see through the mist. Chávez won with over 62 percent of the vote. And then there’s this:

Poverty rate dropped by less than the average,

What? That is completely wrong. It’s been reduced by more than half. Much more than in any other country (including Brazil) during the same period. Here’s a post containing well-sourced facts about Venezuela. >inflation is completely out of control [Here's a handy graph of the history of Venezuela's inflation rate, from 1987 to 2012](h

Read from Source

I love this common complaint from the opposition because it shows how out of touch it really is. The Chavez government has brought electricity and running water to untold numbers who’ve gone without either of these ‘luxuries’ all their lives, and the opposition is bitching about occasionally being kept from enjoying them 24/7.

Read from Source

In his 2012 presidential campaign Capriles also promised to keep the missions going.

Read from Source

The democratically elected government of Chavez let expire the public broadcasting license of a television station that, five years earlier, participated in the attempted overthrow of said government. What’s astonishing is not that Chavez "shut down RCTV" (that’s not even true), but that RCTV wasn’t owners were never charged for their crimes.

Read from Source

…whereas you’ll probably never recognize your ignorance, unfortunately

Read from Source

nice try! i’ve seen this before, and (while interesting in itself) it is hardly relevant. the post exposes the error of making predictions by projecting current economic trends into the future, forever. but the OP is not making forecasts about Venezuela’s economic future! he is not claiming that Venezuela is on course to overtake the US at some date in the future. he is simply citing the best available data from the past and present, data which is in no way refuted by your comment.

Read from Source

Yeah. I have no idea what you’re referring to. Provide some links.

Read from Source

The attempt to equate statistical data culled from such credible sources as the IMF, World Bank, the United Nations, CIA Factbook, etc. with Soviet agitprop is the most irresponsible thing I’ve seen on reddit all day.

Read from Source

This is a bogus rumor that started when Forbes magazine claimed Fidel Castro was among the world’s richest people because he owned everything in the entire country of Cuba. Castro himself challenged the claim, and called for evidence of his alleged wealth… >Even the Miami Herald, a rightwing newspaper with ties to the Cuban-American mafia that is historically hostile to the Cuban Revolution admits that Fidel Castro lives in about the same conditions as everyone else in Cuba. The newspaper has previously printed articles in which it acknowledges that “The houses of Fidel and Raúl are large but simply appointed…. The living room of [Fidel’s] house is described by visitors as furnished with simple wood and leather sofas and chairs and Cuban handicrafts…. The only luxury visible to visitors is a big-screen television….” (some blog, but good enough.)

Read from Source

Oh well if Jerry Brewer thinks so, it must be true.

Read from Source

How do you figure? Who is saying that Chavez did not lead a coup? No one is obscuring this fact. Just saying that the context is often ignored. And that knowing the context could change how one interprets this fact.

Read from Source

No one said you can’t be curious. It is indeed usual to see such consistent support for one party or leader **in a democracy**. However, this is hardly sufficient evidence to suggest that therefore this is no democracy. >Most countries that follow that pattern do so by force, no? The pattern of being democratically elected, over and over again? In free and fair elections? I’m sorry, but I am not aware of any other countries that fit this pattern.

Read from Source

> his support of Sandinistas, his irrational skepticism of Khmer Rogue slaughters, and his support of the GLF? How do your friends deal with your support for fascism, for your abuse of children? Do you see how deceptive it is to ask a question like this, to ask what one’s response to X is, when the fact of X is the very thing under debate?

Read from Source

I’d say the context is important when discussing a coup in which the coup leader is more popular than the person he was attempting to overthrow. You cannot pretend that this context does not change the meaning of the event.

Read from Source

Right because only "multi billionaires" shop at the GAP, take vacations, or visit the beach! Please.

Read from Source

The suggestion that the fact that the Venezuelan people have supported Chavez and his supporters in 13 out of 14 democratic elections is somehow indicative of tampering is preposterous. It reeks of desperation, since you cannot cite any actual evidence of fraud in Venezuela’s elections, you must posit such an absurd argument. Elections do not operate on the principle of chance. I believe you are confusing elections with flipping a coin.

Read from Source

>the fact that Chavez died a multi billionaire off state profits This is a fact? Please cite some evidence for this.

Read from Source

If they’ve been threatened, those threats weren’t effective, since it hasn’t stopped them from publicly criticizing Chavez on a daily basis.

Read from Source

The charge that critical opposition media under Chavez is ludicrous if you’re ever read a Venezuelan newspaper or watched Venezuelan TV.

Read from Source

>The popularity of someone who banned critical opposition media Chavez did not ban critical opposition media as you suggest.

Read from Source

I cannot imagine the people who’ve upvoted that comment actually recall being told that "the streets of Moscow were paved with gold". Who said these things, and why? I doubt we’re going to get a response.

Read from Source

>we were being told the streets of Moscow were paved with gold. Told by whom? Ph.D. students with charts, figures, facts, etc.? Please.

Read from Source

>the statistics cited by Chavez’s critics. Please. Chavez’s critics do not cite statistics to argue their case.

Read from Source

>suggesting that his massive social spending was a vote getting ploy I’m going to [post this rebuttal](http://www.thenation.com/article/173212/legacy-hugo-chavez) every time this suggestion is made: >One anecdote alone should be enough to give the lie to the idea that poor Venezuelans voted for Chávez because they were fascinated by the baubles they dangled in front of them. During the 2006 presidential campaign, **the signature pledge of Chávez’s opponent was to give 3,000,000 poor Venezuelans a black credit card (black as in the color of oil) from which they could withdraw up to $450 in cash a month**, *which would have drained over $16 billion dollars a year from the national treasury* (call it neoliberal populism: give to the poor just enough to bankrupt the government and force the defunding of services). Over the years, there’s been a lot of heavy theoretically breathing by US academics about the miasma oil wealth creates in countries like Venezuela, lulling citizens into a dreamlike state that renders them into passive spectators. But in this election at least, Venezuelans managed to see through the mist. Chávez won with over 62 percent of the vote.

Read from Source

I am not …picking on…anyone …

Read from Source

Um, how do you figure that? Checking the date as written [on the article](http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/7768), I do see that they did make a *big* mistake by writing the year 2012, not 2013. >Mérida, 15th February 2012 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – Ha! The date is wrong as written in the article. However, at the bottom of the page, you can clearly read: >PUBLISHED ON FEB 15TH 2013 AT 11.58AM

Read from Source

I appreciate your coment.

Read from Source

This is on the same level as ‘birtherism’ as far as I’m concerned.

Read from Source

Of course. But it is hard for me to imagine what is to be gained from the government saying that Chavez is gravely ill if that is not the truth. I mean, how much is really at stake in this claim? I have always agreed with those asking for ‘proof’ Chavez was still alive. I am satisfied the recently released photos have confirmed this. But it does not prove Chavez well enough to assume office. In the end, judging from how things seem to be going, it does not look like Chavez will be able to resume his duties as President. The government is very close to admitting this at the present time. I don’t understand any of you guys.

Read from Source

"not let the population know what is the president’s condition and deprive us of information" The government has been providing regular updates about Chavez’s condition! Just because it hasn’t reported what you want to hear–that Chavez is dead–doesn’t mean that the government is hiding anything! We are told Chavez is still suffering from breathing problems that came about following his latest cancer surgery. "His respiratory distress persists; it has shown no favorable progress and continues to be treated." >I think we deserve to know who is really calling the shots in our government. As Chavez made clear prior to his surgery, VP Maduro has assumed presidential duties.

Read from Source

>The Venezuelan press was never allowed anywhere near Chavez’s bed. I demand to see Chavez’s bed sores! Show us what is in his bedpan–or this is no democracy!

Read from Source

>allowing representants of the congress and the press to visit Chavez, including members of the opposition. Give me a break. No one denies that Chavez has been in a very critical state–the VP is saying that he is "fighting for his life"! The government is being as transparent as could be expected (I mean, short of bringing in a television crew in order to film his chemotherapy sessions)! The [official reports are that Chavez's "respiratory distress, which emerged during the post-operative phase, persists; it has shown no favoable progress and continues to be treated"](http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/130221/president-hugo-chavezs-respiratory-distress-persists). He has been unable to talk as a result of a breathing tube placed in his throat! Chavez is in no condition to be welcoming a parade of visitors from his hospital bed! It’s not as if he can entertain crowds as he used to. Esp. from his political opponents–to be subjected to that kind of stress, when he can barely breathe! Can you not understand why hospital impose strict visiting restrictions for patients in such a delicate state? Did you [read the news earlier this week, Bolivian President Evo Morales, a close friend of Chavez, came to Caracas to see him, but was refused acess](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/9884928/Evo-Morales-refused-access-to-Hugo-Chavez.html)! Access is limited to his doctors, family members and only the highest-level officials.

Read from Source

this is sick humor that i do not find particularly funny. but it *is* [reminiscent of something Fidel Castro once said](http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/12/16/fidel-castro-s-last-stand.html): >However challenging his prognosis, Chávez has no doubt found inspiration in Castro’s uncanny talents at cheating death: when it comes to the subject of Castro’s demise, the credo among weary Cuban exiles in Miami’s Little Havana has long been "immortal until proven otherwise." >> >And **even death may not be enough to silence Fidel Castro**. "Our enemies should not delude themselves," he told his last biographer. *"I die tomorrow and my influence may actually increase,"* he suggested. **And then he spun the rosiest of posthumous scenarios. "I may be carried around like [El Cid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Cid)—even after he was dead, his men carried him around on his horse, winning battles."**

Read from Source

how do you explain the recent photos of chavez with his daughters? *[like the ones shown here](http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/7768)*… he obviously does not look well in these photos–after all, the VP says chavez is ‘fighting for his life’! but i’m pretty sure one cannot open one’s eyes, hold a newspaper, or smile for the camera if braindead.

Read from Source

Yeah, it’s a conspiracy. Chavez is probably fine and healthy.

Read from Source

This is what I don’t get about the opposition. VP Nicolas Maduro is lying when he says that [President Chavez is fighting for his life](http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/02/28/venezuelan-vice-president-says-chavez-battling-for-health-and-life-president/)?

Read from Source

I appreciate your respect for the truth. But was *not the same group*. The November 1992 coup attempt was led by officials in the air force and navy. Those involved in the February coup were from the army.

Read from Source

Well, I admit that the word "involved" is ambiguous enough so that you probably could say that Chavez was "involved" in the April coup attempt. But identifying him as the subject, and agent, of the second coup, as in the sentence "Chavez threw two coups of his own" is just inaccurate. I don’t even have anything at stake in setting the record straight here, I cannot imagine it makes any difference–one coup or two; I am simply concerned with being truthful with regard to historical facts. I have never seen anyone suggest that Chavez was "helping with the coup’s planning straight from prison". The Wikipedia documents the extent of Chavez’s involvement by writing that the leaders of the April coup attempt "had contacts with Chavez" in prison, and had tried to free him. It doesn’t justify saying Chavez "threw two coups", it just doesn’t…

Read from Source

Venezuela has imported its food for half a century since oil was discovered and the agricultural sector dried up.

Read from Source

You’ve been repeating this inaccuracy in a few different comments now. Lt. Col. Chavez lead one coup attempt on February 4th, 1992. A second coup attempt took place later that year, but Chavez was not involved.

Read from Source

the feeling is mutual, buddy

Read from Source

>Not many Venezuelans like him. yeah …[only a clear majority of the populace](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_presidential_election,_2012).

Read from Source

When has Chavez ever gotten 98% of the popular vote?

Read from Source

100% agree! It should be frustrating to supporters and opponents alike that the level of discussion about Hugo Chavez on reddit rarely goes beyond debating whether Chavez was or wasn’t democratically elected. It is not the case, in Venezuela, that the difference between supporter and opponent depends on whether one thinks he was democratically elected.

Read from Source

1. He said he chewed cocoa leaves. That’s not the same as cocaine. 2. Re: Venezuela vs. Colombia: >spontaneously decides to invade Colombia when did this happen? I don’t think you could take an objective look at the facts and not conclude that Colombian President Uribe was the major cause of the animosity between the countries. Uribe showed a willingness to invade the sovereignty of two of Colombia’s neighbors, Ecuador and Venezuela, by *authorizing military incursions into their territories*! Why would anyone think Chavez was [the belligerent one](http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/02/us-venezuela-colombia-idUSN0227633020080302), merely because [he warned Uribe not to violate his country's sovereignty](http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/02/us-colombia-rebel-chavez-idUSN0126952620080302) by sending Colombian military forces into Venezuelan territory without permission! Especially in light of [WikiLeaks's reports that Uribe had authorized "clandestine operations" in Venezuela](http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2011/02/23/wikileaks-uribe-authorized-clandestine-operations-venezuela/). >"A 2006 confidential US. diplomatic cable… shows that the conservative Uribe, who governed from 2002-2010, **gave the authorization at a time of friendly relations** between his government and that of leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez." Uribe also authorized a military incursion into Ecuadorian territory in what became known as the [2008 Andean diplomatic crisis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Andean_diplomatic_crisis). Uribe nearly brought all these countries to war–he was a fucking menace to the region! Wikileaks has plenty of other dirt on Uribe: former Colombian Army Inspector General Maj. Gen. Carlos Suarez reported that [President Álvaro Uribe "continues to view military success in terms of kills"](http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/wikileaks-on-colombia-uribe-%E2%80%9Cviews-military-success-in-terms-of-kills%E2%80%9D-army-commander-ospina-tried-to-initimidate-witnesses-to-extrajudicial-executions/)… Edit: I almost forgot to mention President Uribe’s [alleged ties to **right-wing death squads**](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/18/colombia.rorycarroll). These allegations [haven't gone away](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/08/alvaro-uribe-accused-paramilitary-ties)! [New Book reveals Colombian ex-leader Uribe's alleged paramilitary ties](http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/23310-colombian-congressmans-book-implicates-uribe-in-parapolitics-scandal-.html). Etc.

Read from Source