Archives | 2011 December
There’s an explanation for this: the corporate newsmedia, and the reddit contributers who love them, go completely apeshit every time they see a chance to portray President Chavez in a negative light. In the last 24 hours, by blowing out of proportion Chavez’s reflections ON THE FACT that several leaders in the region (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Venezuela, etc.) have been diagnosed with cancer, and ON THE STRANGE COINCIDENCE that these cancer-striken leaders all just happen to be leftists, Chavez’s opponents are painting Hugo Chavez as paranoid and deranged! But what is often overlooked or ignored by many news readers is that Chavez DOES NOT (ever) ACCUSE ANYONE (such as the U.S.) OF actually INDUCING CANCER!
Responding to the hysterical reaction in the international press, Chavez has clarified his original comments by saying he was merely reflecting on the unfortunate coincidence that Latin America’s left-leaning leaders are all so busy taking care of their health, they have been unable to work together in the ways he had hoped. Since some have had to pull out of important meetings dealing with the development of regional blocs between countries that exclude or oppose the United States as a member, the U.S. has benefited from their absence.
CLARIFICATION: The Venezuelan President “HAS NOT ACCUSED ANYONE OF INDUCING CANCER.” Responding to the hysteria incited by the American press, Hugo Chavez explains he “just made a reflection” about THE FACT that several leaders of South America have been diagnosed with cancer. (This has caused many problems, not the least of which have to do with the scheduling of meetings dealing of various regional blocs of Latin American countries (like MERCOSUR, UNASUL or the new CELAC); it is vital that all regional leaders attend because many decisions are made by consensus.). It’s a strange coincidence, is it not? In other words, one could say that Chavez was doing little more than offering a joke; however, given that he is undoubtedly all too aware of the history of the U.S.’s nefarious activities in Latin America (which have included various assassination plots), Chavez isn’t exactly in the mood to laugh about such possibilities, no matter how far-fetched they might seem.
As a grad student always scanning news reports for information on Venezuela, I was blown away by the HUNDREDS of news articles published today about these comments, taken out of context; the media clearly rushes at the chance to depict the Venezuelan President as paranoid and deranged. Whose interests do the media serve when they so uniformly distribute misleading propaganda in an obvious attempt to mock and delegitimize the democratically elected leaders of foreign countries? For shame!
CLARIFICATION: President Chavez "HAS NOT ACCUSED ANYONE OF INDUCING CANCER." Responding to the hysterical reaction by the American press, Chavez explains he "just made a reflection" about THE FACT that several leaders of South America have been diagnosed with cancer. He thought it was a strange coincidence, that’s all! In order words, it was really nothing more than a joke. Yet there have been HUNDREDS of news articles today, all jumping at the chance to depict the Venezuelan President as paranoid and deranged. For shame!
Written by imported reddit comments on
Let me start by saying that we’ve stumbled on to a complex topic, about which I am no expert. But I am fairly certain that you’re portrait of the corrupt Venezuelan judiciary as being the creation of the Chavez government is false.
Why should Chávez be left off the hook for the endemic corruption of a judiciary system that he created and that he refuses to clean up?
Are you saying that “he created” the corruption of the judiciary, or that “he created” the judiciary system? In either case, you’re wrong. Surely you’re aware that, as Human Rights Watch reports, “When President Chávez became president in 1999, he inherited a judiciary that had been plagued for years by influence-peddling, political interference, and, above all, corruption…In terms of public credibility, the system was bankrupt.”
Despite efforts starting with the Constitutional Assembly in 2001, and calls from individuals like Carlos Escarra, one of Venezuela’s most respected constitutional experts and former Supreme Court judge, who has urged Chavez to “declare a judicial emergency and put an end to the entire judiciary and start all over again,” the Chavez government’s judicial reform measures have been relatively modest… but you wouldn’t know this judging from the hysteria among the political opposition and even international observers.
My point is that the judiciary is not entirely of Chavez’s making. Much of the corruption persists because the old networks have remained in place. But I’m not trying to give Chavez a free pass. I concede not only that his reforms have failed to eliminate existing corruption, but that, as you point out, Chavez’s appointees are failing to punish their own corruption.
I have a hard time, for example, believing that Chavez is sabotaging his own efforts to bring the murders of peasant leaders to justice… or that, after these reforms, Venezuelan judges are as forgiving of the crimes committed by wealthy bankers, landowners, etc. as they were in the past.
I agree that, in Venezuela, very little violence is political in nature. I said as much [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/nu1bm/venezuela_sets_a_murder_record_for_2011_with/c3c0uw9): …"most of the violence [in Venezuela] is ‘non-political’". That said, I wanted to touch on the political violence that does exist, since I sensed that some folks here were liable to assume that Chavez and his supporters are guilty of perpetrating politically motivated violence against opponents. I could point to comments supporting this assumptions. So I thought I’d bring to folks’ attention a horrific pattern of violence carried out by Chavez’s political enemies, against his supporters. Dude, I don’t care if this doesn’t count as ‘political violence’ according to your definition. Finally, why wouldn’t increasing agricultural production–the intention behind the land reforms–have the effect of reducing the country’s dependence on imports? The fact that this hasn’t happened, as I’ve already explained, is largely due not to the Chavez government’s failures, but to the "political violence" carried out by its opponents!
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
This is precisely what I’m talking about. The last article you cite (on "contract killers") pretty much rehashes my entire argument: the "contract killers" in Venezuela are hired by "rich large landowners [as they] fight to hold onto their power and privileges in the face of government-promoted land reform to the benefit of poor farmers." Rather than blaming Chavez for this impunity, the article lays the blame on anti-Chavez elites who continue to hold much power in the country: >"Since then [2001], **the government and peasants have faced a campaign of intimidation and violence every time they tried to implement a law whose purpose is to bring justice to the countryside**." So, who’s responsible for this "impunity"? >"Despite the violence, no one has yet been found guilty of these crimes. Coti, an FNCEZ leader, explained that for decades the wealthy large landowners used their power to establish networks of influence and corruption within the judicial system, bribing judges, local police and military authorities." The articles ends by quoting leaders of rural communities: >They declared: “Only a popular offensive, hand in hand with President Hugo Chavez, can detain these criminal actions against the people and **rescue the justice system which has been taken hostage by the oligarchies**.” Even better–HEY THANKS– for this wonderful article! >MCJ leader and national assembly deputy Joel Pineda said that the peasant movement can no longer continue “asking for justice from a **system that has given impunity to large landowners so that they can continue assassinating peasants**”.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
This isn’t a case of two groups of citizens “fighting over land”; it’s one group challenging the policies of government by resorting to “political violence”. Since President Chavez passed a land reform law in 2001 (with the intention of promoting agricultural production and lessening the inequality in land holdings), hundreds of peasant leaders have been killed for attempting to implement the government’s planned reform. In many cases the peasants had actually received titles to the land by the National Land Institute, but the large landowners refuse to recognize them. In fact, much of the land these large landowners claim as their own is actually state-owned, and the government can redistribute it as it sees fit. This is ‘political’ violence because the wealthy landowners are seeking to block the implementation of government programs, not by challenging them through available democratic channels (because they have no legal claim to ownership over so much land), but by resorting to violence, bloodshed, and murder, etc. Moreover, land reform is a central goal of the Bolivarian revolution, as it seeks to alter the fundamental power structure of the landed versus the landless; it’s a political struggle par excellence. There is an entire series of articles about “peasant leader assassinations”, for more information.
You said it! "Justice for the people" is a horrible, satanic notion! Let’s hope the people never see justice! just joking, you have not shown that there is any connection between Chavez’s populism and unsolved murder cases. The top search for ‘venezuela’ and ‘impunity’ turns up this Al-Jazeera article from 2 months ago: **"[Impunity for Venezuela's big landowners](http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/201111810548458225.html)":** *Hundreds of Chavez supporters have been assassinated by wealthy landowners for implementing new land policies*. >…the justice system remains rigged in favour of the Venezuelan one per cent (to use the Occupy Wall Street terminology) who constructed it. As the filmmaker, Edward Ellis, described the situation: >"The legal system in Venezuela, despite the international media’s misinterpretations, is still, in many cases, very much in the hands of the middle and upper classes. Most of these people have their roots in the power structures of Punto Fijismo – that’s to say, the ancien regime. >"The majority of lawyers and judges share the same cultural background and class origins as the landowners and latifundistas. They went to the same schools and universities, visit the same clubs and drink the same whisky, regardless of whether or not they don a red hat at a rally. So what you have is a system run and controlled by money."
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
If the connections are so obvious, then you should be able to explain them! Excuse me, but "Chavez’s fault" is not exactly a persuasive argument!
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
The vast majority of ‘political’ violence in the country is carried out against Chavez supporters (CITATION), hundreds of which have been murdered by wealthy landowners for attempting to implement the government’s new land reform policy (which wealthy landowners oppose, but which, if implemented, would reduce Venezuela’s dependence on foodstuff imports and reverse the effects of the “Dutch Disease”, which has plagued the country for decades).
Edit: is this the proper way to respond to evidence that goes against the image of Venezuela that you wish to paint, for ideological and political reasons? by downvoting without any comment?
There is little violent crime in a fascist military state. Do you favor that?
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on December 28, 2011
It’s not that hard to make the connection. I’ll just mention that Venezuela’s friendly neighbor, with whom it shares a 1,000-mile border, is Colombia.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
OK, we’re gonna play this game? Look, there’s been a lot of circumstantial evidence suggesting the US was “involved” in the coup, and a lot of it has been discredited, so I’m not going to waste my time with that. I think it’s enough simply to show that the US had advanced knowledge of the coup, and just leave it at that.
The documents say that the opposition deliberately intended to generate a violent crisis, and then to justify a coup by blaming Chavez for that crisis. I’m sorry if you thought the protests and actions in which you were participating were spontaneous and unplanned events, a genuine uprising, but you were duped!
Now it’s your turn. You are also making an assertion which I challenge you to defend.
Chavez had ordered the army to go out against the opposition’s protest, so they refused.
I imagine there’s some right-wing conspiracy theory website you could show me?
Update: I didn’t realize you would quote me, so forgive me for revising my original comment.
In Venezuela, *[the states with the highest number of murders are governed by the opposition](http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/violence-venezuela)*.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
It should be noted that most of the violence is ‘non-political’. However, when it comes to ‘political violence’, [international studies](http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/latin-america-caribbean/andes/venezuela/038-violence-and-politics-in-venezuela.aspx) show that **the vast majority of people killed has been Chavez supporters**; [for example](http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/201111810548458225.html), hundreds of peasants have been assassinated by hired gunmen or right-wing paramilitaries for attempting to implement the Chavez government’s new land policies, which wealthy landowners oppose.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
I find it very striking that so far there isn’t anyone willing to explain this supposed connection. It is a fact that Venezuela’s high crime rates preceded Chavez by a number of years, and have been increasing steadily since the 1990s. This would seem to indicate that there is NO correlation with Chavez’s policies. Check out [this article](http://www.zcommunications.org/chavez-security-a-priority-by-eva-golinger): >That crime exists in Caracas is undeniable. But to somehow imply, as opposition media in Venezuela do daily, that crime and violence are the “fault” of the Chavez administration is not only absurd, but also dangerously sinister. The Venezuelan Government is taking concrete steps to combat a rise of criminal activity and insecurity in the country by also addressing the root cause of violence: Poverty. Update: To everyone downvoting me, why are you unable or unwilling to explain yourself?
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
Oliver Stone doesn’t spend enough time discussing the Venezuela case. He can’t even pronounce Chavez correctly!
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
You *can* make this shit up, since many of the ‘news’ stories about Bolivar’s exhumation (and Chavez’s involvement) *were* made up, most notably [by the late Christopher Hitchens](http://www.sabinabecker.com/2010/08/what_i_learned_about_christoph.html).
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
since you’re putting in the effort, let me explain: I’m not denying that Bolivar’s body was exhumed. my point is simply that the purpose of the exhumation had nothing to do with Chavez’s alleged “politicized necrophilia” (Hitchens), but rather with the legitimate “right of Venezuelans to know the true history of the country and what happened around Bolívar’s death”. For similar reasons (due to the mysterious circumstances surrounding a historical figure’s death), the Chilean Communist Party is currently requesting the exhumation of Pablo Neruda.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
I think Zizek has his reasons for dismissing the possibility that the Soviet Union could have been reformed into some kind of democratic socialism, reasons that he does not choose to articulate here for whatever reason. First, Zizek is characteristically non-reformist, he’s a fan of revolution. So I think that, even if it *were* actually possible to reform the Soviet Union (and he knew this), Zizek would have been likely to oppose such reforms in favor of revolution anyway. However, revolution need not be understood as a sudden transition to capitalism. I’m sure Zizek’s view is something like, socialism was pretty much dead by the late Soviet period, not taken seriously as a lived ideology, after decades of corruption and misrule. So it would have been necessary to carry out a revolution to revive the socialist principles underlying the USSR by giving it a new foundation.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on December 25, 2011
MMM, what a fiasco! I wonder how many Americans get this reference!
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
I agree with all your comments here. As a student of Post-Soviet studies, I’d say the image of the last Soviet period that you’ve painted is much closer to the truth than the image held by a majority of even liberal Americans. I’m fairly certain that had someone like Lenin been leading the USSR in Gorbachev’s place, he could have set in motion the political and economic reforms that you describe… with great success. I would’ve loved to see it.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
I often wonder how a decent guy like Gorbachev ever became leader of the "Evil Empire", because it seems a totally corrupt system would be more likely to promote ruthless individuals seeking leadership roles. To be honest, I like Gorbachev but my impression is that he probably shares a lot of the blame for causing the collapse of the Soviet Union, because he wasn’t a cruel person and lacked an appropriate harshness. Last August, Gorbachev admitted that he was ["too soft"](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/17/mikhail-gorbachev-on-boris-yeltsin) as a leader. "I was probably too liberal and democratic as regards Yeltsin. I should have sent him as ambassador to Great Britain or maybe a former British colony." Although Lenin was a great visionary, he was a great leader too, and if he were alive probably could have negotiated reforms including a transition to (Soviet) democracy without Union disintegration.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
Hehe, fair enough. But you do get my point? …that some actions may be judged "good" or "bad" regardless of–or despite–the intentions of the people who carry them out. This is often the nature of political action.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on December 24, 2011
Afiuni has already been given privileged treatment as the result of [playing the card of being a political prisoner, which of course she is not](http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/widely-ignored-facts-on-chomskys-criminal-victims-of-authoritarianism/). Does Chomsky not believe that the law should not be applied equally to all classes of people? It’s madness that Afiuni was granted house arrest–in spite of the fact that she’s an obvious flight risk, having aided Mr. Cedeno efforts to flee both prison and the country–and yet that’s not enough for some people!
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
Afiuni has already been given privileged treatment as the result of [playing the card of being a political prisoner, which of course she is not](http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/widely-ignored-facts-on-chomskys-criminal-victims-of-authoritarianism/). Does Chomsky not believe that the law should not be applied equally to all classes of people? It’s madness that Afiuni was granted house arrest–in spite of the fact that she’s an obvious flight risk, having aided Mr. Cedeno efforts to flee both prison and the country–and yet that’s not enough for some people!
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
I’m sorry, but Chomsky is on the wrong side here. Judge Afiuni literally aided the prison escape of a criminal banker, Mr. Cedeno, by allowing him to walk out the unlocked backdoor of her courthouse and board a motorcycle that had been left there by Afiuni’s instruction. Then Mr. Cedeno promptly fled the country, never having to answer for his crimes, and now Chomsky wants Chavez to allow Judge Afiuni to do the same? No Thank You!
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
I’m sorry, but Chomsky is on the wrong side here. Judge Afiuni literally aided the prison escape of a criminal banker, Mr. Cedeno, by allowing him to walk out the unlocked backdoor of her courthouse and board a motorcycle that had been left there by Afiuni’s instruction. Then Mr. Cedeno promptly fled the country, never having to answer for his crimes, and now Chomsky wants Chavez to allow Judge Afiuni to do the same? No Thank You!
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
To be fair Bush probably did invade Iraq out of the kindness of his heart (rather than for nefarious reasons–that’s Cheney!). I believed him when he said he wanted to protect Americans from what his advisors told him were the threat of WMDs, and later when he expressed a desire to bring democracy to Iraq and to the rest of the world. So, my point is that… maybe the world would prefer that the U.S. stop trying to do them any favors.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
To be fair Bush probably did invade Iraq out of the kindness of his heart (rather than for nefarious reasons–that’s Cheney!). I believed him when he said he wanted to protect Americans from what his advisors told him were the threat of WMDs, and later when he expressed a desire to bring democracy to Iraq and to the rest of the world. So, my point is that… maybe the world would prefer that the U.S. stop trying to do them any favors.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
To be fair, last February, when President Obama sided with Republicans and *[proposed cutting $3 billion--more than half of its present authorized total of $5.1 billion](http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/02/09/obama-administration-proposes-3-billion-cut-to-liheap/)*–in [heating assistance for the poor (through LIHEAP)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Income_Home_Energy_Assistance_Program), he did so… not for any specific reason… but merely out of the cruelty of his heart… because he truly hates poor people.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
To be fair, last February, when President Obama sided with Republicans and proposed cutting $3 billion–more than half of its present authorized total of $5.1 billion–in heating assistance for the poor (through LIHEAP), he did so… not for any specific reason… but merely out of the cruelty of his heart… because he truly hates poor people.
Last February, President Obama [proposed **cutting $3 billion from an authorized total of $5.1 billion in heating assistance for the poor**](http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/02/09/obama-administration-proposes-3-billion-cut-to-liheap/). I assume he just figured that the Venezuelan government would pick up the slack…
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
Last February, President Obama [proposed **cutting $3 billion from an authorized total of $5.1 billion in heating assistance for the poor**](http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/02/09/obama-administration-proposes-3-billion-cut-to-liheap/). I assume he just figured that the Venezuelan government would pick up the slack…
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
I am upvoting your comment, but would like to open discussion (possibly?) on your assessment of the long-time political impact of the OWS movement: that it is more likely to "create this generation’s political platforms" than "overthrow corporate America" (*Did you mean to draw a contrast between these two things?*). Also, I’d like to hear more about what you think are the lessons the movement has learned. So far, having visited Zuccotti Park, I agree that OWS has learned that "a) a lot of us agree change needs to come" but am less sure that "b) a lot of us agree what changes need to happen". This gets us to that annoying yet persistent question–"what are the protester’s demands"–but I do think that (B) is something **we still have to learn**–are in the process of learning–before we can settle on a victorious "political platform". It also seems to me that OWS has yet to figure out "c) where the weakest points of the system are". I wonder what the answer to this question might look like, whether we’ll ever find out, and how useful that answer will be, if we assume that OWS won’t be able to challenge that system anyway (i.e. "OWS is not going to overthrow corporate America"). In other words, supposing we learn what the "weakest points of the system are", is our making use of this knowledge compatible with the strategy of a "political program"? Can we make it so? This isn’t to suggest that I don’t like the idea of creating a "political platform", but that **I would propose avoiding the contrast between "overthrowing Corporate America" and "creating a political platform"**, precisely because **the goal of our "political platform" should be to "overthrow Corporate America"**. We can still press for specific changes without giving up our suspicion that we’ll eventually find it impossible to realize **our demands for greater social and economic justice** without carrying out such an overthrow. Or maybe this ‘overthrow’ will carried out through specific changes? I dunno, just my excuse to talk.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on December 23, 2011
You lived in Colombia and think "**Manuel** Santos" is an "Amazing President"… so I expected that you would mention that "**Manuel** Santos" is *not the correct name of the current President*! It is "**Juan** Santos", or "Juan Manuel Santos"–Manuel is his middle name. (Similarly, the US President is "**Barack**", not "**Hussein**" Obama.) Also, I am interested to hear why you believe Santos and Uribe are both Amazing Presidents when they have governed very differently. With regard to Venezuela, [Uribe nearly went to war against Chavez](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/world/americas/24venez.html), while Juan Santos called Chavez as "[my new best friend](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/world/americas/06colombia.html)" (I added citations so you don’t think I’m exaggerating the contrast.) Personally, I’m glad to see that relations between Venezuela and Colombian have improved! Update: I should have responded to "criveros" and not "SeanStock", is that why you’re downvoting me?
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on December 22, 2011
> "If I could be a candidate in the United States, I would beat you. I would win 80-20, I would beat you with [the votes] of all the good people you have there," Chavez said. I’d vote for Hugo Chavez in a heartbeat! As President of Venezuela, he has already done more for "the good people" of the United States than the current President of the United States!
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
I’m sorry, but Chomsky is on the wrong side here. Judge Afiuni *literally* aided the prison escape of a criminal banker, Mr. Cedeno, by allowing him to walk out the unlocked backdoor of her courthouse and board a motorcycle that had been left there by Afiuni’s instruction. Then Mr. Cedeno promptly fled the country, never having to answer for his crimes, and now Chomsky wants Chavez to allow Judge Afiuni to do the same? No Thank You!
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
**sorry but foreign companies are no longer the only ones capable of developing oil!** that might have been the case when oil was first discovered in venezuela in the early 1910s, when a massive wave of foreign companies ‘invaded’ the country to get in on the action. these foreign companies dominated venezuela’s oil industry for most of the 20th century, until the government began taking steps toward the nationalization of oil in the 1970s. while many foreign oil companies were replaced by venezuelan ones, a wide variety of foreign oil companies continued to extract oil under contract with the state-owned pdvsa. chavez has furthered nationalization by taking measures to ensure that oil production is put under government control and that the business will be in the hands of venezuelans. so **you’re attacking a straw man** because no one is saying "it is all theirs". venezuelans aren’t expecting the extraction of natural resources to be free, nor have they denied foreign companies the right to take their generous cut. but it is no longer the case that "in fact on your own you have nothing", as the government has demonstrated a growing ability to extract oil itself. today foreign companies are still welcome in venezuela, but they must now agree to share more of their profits from oil extracts with the people of the country.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on December 20, 2011
**sorry but foreign companies are no longer the only ones capable of developing oil!** that might have been the case when oil was first discovered in venezuela in the early 1910s, when a massive wave of foreign companies ‘invaded’ the country to get in on the action. these foreign companies dominated venezuela’s oil industry for most of the 20th century, until the government began taking steps toward the nationalization of oil in the 1970s. while many foreign oil companies were replaced by venezuelan ones, a wide variety of foreign oil companies continued to extract oil under contract with the state-owned pdvsa. chavez has furthered nationalization by taking measures to ensure that oil production is put under government control and that the business will be in the hands of venezuelans. so **you’re attacking a straw man** because no one is saying "it is all theirs". venezuelans aren’t expecting the extraction of natural resources to be free, nor have they denied foreign companies the right to take their generous cut. but it is no longer the case that "in fact on your own you have nothing", as the government has demonstrated a growing ability to extract oil itself. today foreign companies are still welcome in venezuela, but they must now agree to share more of their profits from oil extracts with the people of the country.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
Chavez’s major opponents happen to be the same people who formerly ran Venezuela under elite party control. Not used to having a government that expects elites to obey the law and be held accountable for their crimes, they panic and flee the country on their private jets to avoid fair prosecution and thwart the justice process.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on December 19, 2011
This is [one of the worst articles Hitchens has ever written](http://www.sabinabecker.com/2010/08/what_i_learned_about_christoph.html).
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
I can confirm empty_spaces’s account of what state-run funerals and holidays were like based on my reading of Soviet ethnographies, etc. Now I’m going to turn the table on you, aaronob, and lament how the younger generation has no idea how much fun Communist celebrations can be… Because sadly we never had the chance to participate in them, because we weren’t there, we weren’t alive and didn’t live it. Where did all the Communists go after the collapse of the USSR, how did they disappear so fast? I often regret that there aren’t more Stalinists around today to reassure us that they were actually as bad as the old generation claims!
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
You may be the only person to find depth in Hitchen’s writings re: Iraq. But I’m afraid you’ve probably mistaken ‘confusion of the mind’ for ‘complexity of thought’, as Hitch scrambled all over in search of a way to avoid acknowledging he was wrong. You would be hard pressed to find a more simpleminded worldview than the one associated with the "clash of civilizations" against "Islamofascism", which Hitch ended up peddling.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on December 18, 2011
You may be the only person to find depth in Hitchen’s writings re: Iraq. But I’m afraid you’ve probably mistaken ‘confusion of the mind’ for ‘complexity of thought’, as Hitch scrambled all over in search of a way to avoid acknowledging he was wrong. You would be hard pressed to find a more simpleminded worldview than the one associated with the "clash of civilizations" against "Islamofascism", which Hitch ended up peddling.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
I’m sorry. I initially set out to respond to each point in your comment, but then I decided I’ve already spent way too much time discussing Hitchens this weekend. So let’s do this quickly: Greenwald does not unfairly caricaturize Hitchen’s political positions during the last years of his life–as a wartime propagandist, Hitchens was himself already a caricature. You may still be in denial but the arguments he made at this time lacked the "sublety" and "grey area" you claim to appreciate in his work. And BTW, *of course* Greenwald was engaged in ‘selectively quoting’ from Hitchen’s ‘bad acts’! But unless you misunderstood his point, you would know that Greenwald is not attempting to produce his own, balanced account of Hitchen’s life, but merely to show evidence of consequential ‘bad acts’ on Hitchens’s part, that is, of the negative side of Hitch that the media should have covered but didn’t.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
I’m sorry. I initially set out to respond to each point in your comment, but then I decided I’ve already spent way too much time discussing Hitchens this weekend. So let’s do this quickly: Greenwald does not unfairly caricaturize Hitchen’s political positions during the last years of his life–as a wartime propagandist, Hitchens was himself already a caricature. You may still be in denial but the arguments he made at this time lacked the "sublety" and "grey area" you claim to appreciate in his work. And BTW, *of course* Greenwald was engaged in ‘selectively quoting’ from Hitchen’s ‘bad acts’! But unless you misunderstood his point, you would know that Greenwald is not attempting to produce his own, balanced account of Hitchen’s life, but merely to show evidence of consequential ‘bad acts’ on Hitchens’s part, that is, of the negative side of Hitch that the media should have covered but didn’t.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
Wow. You don’t have any idea, do you? That the target of Greenwald’s piece isn’t Hitchens himself, but people (like *cough* you) who want to keep silent about their hero’s repellent views–and about the blood on his hands!–lest someone tarnish their image of the noble man and his awe-inspiring greatness.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
Wow. You don’t have any idea, do you? That the target of Greenwald’s piece isn’t Hitchens himself, but people (like *cough* you) who want to keep silent about their hero’s repellent views–and about the blood on his hands!–lest someone tarnish their image of the noble man and his awe-inspiring greatness.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
I had no idea they were write-in votes, that’s even more impressive! I always assumed he had his name on the ballot (since he was the Socialist Party’s candidate). In my opinion [Eugene Debs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs), and before him, John Brown were without question among the greatest Americans who ever lived. Debs esp. should be an inspiration for all in the OWS movement… Some of my favorite quotations: * Now my friends, I am opposed to the system of society in which we live today, not because I lack the natural equipment to do for myself, but because *I am not satisfied to make myself comfortable knowing that there are thousands of my fellow men who suffer for the barest necessities of life*. **We were taught under the old ethic that man’s business on this earth was to look out for himself. That was the ethic of the jungle; the ethic of the wild beast**. Take care of yourself, no matter what may become of your fellow man. …. [But] I am my brother’s keeper. I am under a moral obligation to him that is inspired, not by any maudlin sentimentality, but by the higher duty I owe to myself. *What would you think of me if I were capable of seating myself at a table and gorging myself with food and saw about me the children of my fellow beings starving to death?* * "I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for *one man who does absolutely nothing* that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while *millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives* secure barely enough for a wretched existence." * You need at this time especially to know that you are fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder. You need to know that **you were not created to work and produce and impoverish yourself to enrich an idle exploiter.** You need to know that you have a mind to improve, a soul to develop, and a manhood to sustain. * When we are in partnership and have stopped clutching each other’s throats, when we have stopped enslaving each other, we will stand together, hands clasped, and be friends. We will be comrades, we will be brothers, and we will begin the march to the grandest civilization the human race has ever known. * Yes, in good time we are going to sweep into power in this nation and throughout the world. We are going to **destroy all enslaving and degrading capitalist institutions and re-create them as free and humanizing institutions**. *The world is daily changing before our eyes. The sun of capitalism is setting; the sun of socialism is rising. It is our duty to build the new nation and the free republic*. * *I never had much faith in leaders. I am willing to be charged with almost anything, rather than to be charged with being a leader*. I am suspicious of leaders, and especially of the intellectual variety. Give me the rank and file every day in the week. If you go to the city of Washington, and you examine the pages of the Congressional Directory, you will find that almost all of those corporation lawyers and cowardly politicians, members of Congress, and misrepresentatives of the masses — you will find that almost all of them claim, in glowing terms, that they have risen from the ranks to places of eminence and distinction. I am very glad I cannot make that claim for myself. **I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks, and not from the ranks**. * If it had not been for the discontent of a few fellows who had not been satisfied with their conditions, you would still be living in caves. Intelligent discontent is the mainspring of civilization. Progress is born of agitation. It is agitation or stagnation. * **The Republican and Democratic parties are alike capitalist parties** — differing only in being committed to different sets of capitalist interests — they have the same principles under varying colors, are equally corrupt and are one in their subservience to capital and their hostility to labor. * Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind then that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; and while there is a criminal element, I am of it; and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free. Sorry, I couldn’t stop, [they're all so moving](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs)! This man was a prophet.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on December 17, 2011
You’re absolutely right that there’s nothing in the article that conclusively identifies Hook as a major influence. I just assumed Hitchens [would have been self-conscious](http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/on-the-possibility-of-christopher-hitchens-finding-jesus/249950/) while quoting someone from his deathbed (some idiots were apparently very [hopeful that he'd find Jesus](http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/08/is-christopher-hitchens-about-to-convert/) in his final living moments) and that it was no coincidence that, of all the anecdotes about death (about people wishing for death), he chose to cite Sidney Hook. Regardless Hitchens *has* acknowledged the influence of George Orwell, another anti-communist with a similar reputation. Oh, and it’s not like I expect Louis C.K. to start waving a red flag or becoming a leader… But I can see him commenting favorably on the OWS movement (if he hasn’t already). For example, he’s just released his new stand up special through his website because he "want[ed] it to be easy for people to watch and enjoy this video in any way they want *without ‘corporate’ restrictions’*". Not exactly anti-capitalist, but it’s better than one might expect.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on December 16, 2011
I like those comedians as well, so I’d say our tastes are only a bit off. But it does seem to me that no one you named ever took himself or wanted others to take him as seriously as Hitchens. Since we’re just chatting now, I did read his last (?) article in Vanity Fair, "[Trial of the Will](http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/01/hitchens-201201)", and complained to a friend what a pity it was to see Hitchens cite [Sidney Hook](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Hook) as a major intellectual and influence on his deathbed. Hook’s hysteria anti-communism belongs to the Cold War discourse than undoubtedly warped Hitchen’s thinking. In my view, our inheritance of this discourse (to the extent we adhere to these (anti-collective, individualist) tendencies) is like a curse that will continue to hinder efforts to build a real socialist movement in the US. For example, Hitchens cannot be said to have aided this effort. (BTW, I have reserved some hope for Louis CK though.)
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
Of course, all this has much more to do with personal taste than I may have previously suggested. I can appreciate how you might respect certain individuals despite–or even because of–what you acknowledge to be their contradictions and flaws (*"humanness"*). So, while he might inspire you personally (and I don’t hold that against you), my only real objection would be to the idea that he represented an inspiring figure for the left. As for his prose, I don’t know what to say other than that I’ve never been impressed. The last Hitchens article that I remember pissing me off was [this *ad hominem*](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2010/08/hugo_boss.html), in which brags about hanging out with Sean Penn on a trip to Venezuela and, in a patronizing tone, claims to have insight into President Hugo Chavez’s mental health (and alleged "necrophilia").
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
I actually think his political positions were *less objectionable* than his prose and personality. (Despite disavowing socialism, Hitchens continued, as recently as 2009, [to regard himself as a Marxist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens#Socialism), and Lenin and Trotsky as great men.) But while he may have held onto some decent views, he hardly publicized them, at least not in the company of the elites whose parties he always attended. No matter how they spin his biography, I find nothing likable about someone who abandons ‘the struggle’ in favor of schmoozing with the upper classes. The chief reason he’ll be missed by his intellectual opponents (presumably you’re thinking "conservatives") is because he nearly became one of them! He shared their smugness, reverance for money and power, etc. Sure, he’ll charge Kissinger for war crimes committed 30 years ago, but defend ongoing war crimes under Bush!
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
I actually think his political positions were *less objectionable* than his prose and personality. (Despite disavowing socialism, Hitchens continued, as recently as 2009, [to regard himself as a Marxist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens#Socialism), and Lenin and Trotsky as great men.) But while he may have held onto some decent views, he hardly publicized them, at least not in the company of the elites whose parties he always attended. No matter how they spin his biography, I find nothing likable about someone who abandons ‘the struggle’ in favor of schmoozing with the upper classes. The chief reason he’ll be missed by his intellectual opponents (presumably you’re thinking "conservatives") is because he nearly became one of them! He shared their smugness, reverance for money and power, etc. Sure, he’ll charge Kissinger for war crimes committed 30 years ago, but defend ongoing war crimes under Bush!
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
OK. But those of us who took the reverse course, from Marxism to philosophy to religion (or the critique of it), have found nothing but snobbery, elitism, sexism, warmongering, etc. in Hitch’s writings, words. I can see bourgeois intellectuals mourning his loss, but he contributed nothing to the socialist movement or its causes.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
OK. But those of us who took the reverse course, from Marxism to philosophy to religion (or the critique of it), have found nothing but snobbery, elitism, sexism, warmongering, etc. in Hitch’s writings, words. I can see bourgeois intellectuals mourning his loss, but he contributed nothing to the socialist movement or its causes.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
Thank you for saving me the trouble of finding that link myself. I remember that quote dearly. Feel it still holds as an apt description of the evolution of his political views.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
Thank you for saving me the trouble of finding that link myself. I remember that quote dearly. Feel it still holds as an apt description of the evolution of his political views.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
Do you really think that Colombian President and former Minister of National Defense Juan Santos, whose administration has dealt serious blows against the FARC, would befriend Chavez if he were pro-terrorist?
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on December 14, 2011
The comparison with North Korea is unjustified. Venezuela’s elections are competitive and internationally-certified, while those in North Korea are not. Is it so difficult to believe that a leader who represents the poor majority and does not kow-tow to the country’s wealthy elite would continue to be popularly elected?
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
How common is it for folks to be writing about Lacan and Brecht (or in my case, Benjamin)? I thought I was the only one to make this mistake… glad to know I’m not the only one to get lost in this work. I’m actually in a PhD program now but these difficulties haunt me.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on December 10, 2011
Ask someone who is starving if he/she understands market logic. Look I’m obviously not an economist but neither do I like the idea of the price of food being dictated by the market. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that, according to market principles, because people need food to live, there is competition, so prices will go up, and there will be scarcity. So some people cannot afford food and must starve?
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
Ask someone who is starving if he/she understands market logic. Look I’m obviously not an economist but neither do I like the idea of the price of food being dictated by the market. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that, according to market principles, because people need food to live, there is competition, so prices will go up, and there will be scarcity. So some people cannot afford food and must starve?
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
Since we’re quoting Marxists, let me add a good line from Brecht. (Setting up the joke, though it only kind of works)… Recall that it’s the (American) people who keep electing politicians from these capitalist parties. >Would it not be be simpler, if the government simply dissolved the people and elected another?’
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
I’m an academic but even I recognize that as pure mumbo-jumbo. You’re talking about market forces as if they were laws of nature. Is there no way to ensure access to basic goods and services for the Venezuelan people?
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on December 9, 2011
>I’ll agree to the statement that the US knew something like that would happen in Venezuela: The US didn’t know "something like that would happen"; it knew what DID happen BEFORE it happened! >Chavez’ government started playing with this idea a good couple of days before April 11th, so any decent foreign intelligence agency would had caught that. The CIA had advanced knowledge of the coup WEEKS before it went down as planned by the coup plotters. What does this have anything to do with "playing" by the Chavez government? What idea are you talking about? BTW, Greg Wilpert reports that "[General Medina Gomez](http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2336?page=2&quicktabs_2=1), who some say was the mastermind behind the plot, requested to be Venezuela’s military attaché to the U.S. and returned from *Washington DC one day prior to the coup*." > any decent foreign intelligence agency would had caught that. Especially one whose country has a long history of interfering with the domestic politics of Latin American countries, working to undermine democratically-elected left-wing governments and backing right-wing dictatorships, like the United States! > I’ll point you to Chavez himself… [1] Plan Avila. This is the first time I’ve heard of this, so give me time to look into it. >In fact, the only military out in the streets that day (like the tanks you see in the revolution will not be televised) were the military men loyal to Chavez. So what, a technicality? I don’t even know you’re arguing about this. It proves nothing! The CIA documents suggest that there was a carefully laid out plan for the coup, to generate a violent crisis and provoke a response. So what if Chavez responded as expected by calling on the military to maintain public order? Following your expectations regarding foreign intelligence agencies, wouldn’t you expect any decent government to want to maintain public order? To pretend to be surprised–no, *shocked*!–by this reaction to a **crisis provoked by the opposition** is disingenuous.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
OK, we’re gonna play this game? Look, there’s been a lot of circumstantial evidence suggesting the US was "involved" in the coup, and a lot of it has been discredited, so I’m not going to waste my time with that. I think it’s enough simply to show that the US had advanced knowledge of the coup, and just leave it at that. * [New York Times: "Documents Show C.I.A. Knew of a Coup Plot in Venezuela"](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/03/international/americas/03venezuela.html?ex=12) The documents say that **the opposition deliberately intended to generate a violent crisis, and then to justify a coup by blaming Chavez for that crisis**. I’m sorry if you thought the protests and actions in which you were participating were spontaneous and unplanned events, a genuine uprising, but you were duped! Now it’s your turn. You are also making an assertion which I challenge you to defend. > Chavez had ordered the army to go out against the opposition’s protest, so they refused. I imagine there’s some right-wing conspiracy theory website you could show me? *Update*: I didn’t realize you would quote me, so forgive me for revising my original comment.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
I suppose that it’s simply easier to say it "doesn’t work" than to explain why private businesses are refusing to make basic food items cheap and accessible to the poor, even if that means cutting back their enormous profits. Update: fuck all of you guys.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
So what do you make of Chavez government’s efforts to promote the growth of communal councils, neighborhood-based organizations and community self-government, which aim to solve local programs and develop and implement local projects. Compare all this to the government’s neglect of the poor under previous administrations. No "banana dictator" would think of organizing the people like this!
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
Yeah, that sounds about right, knowing what I know about those countries’ politics. I live in the US, but even I would like to see greater cooperation and even integration of American countries take place without being directed by the United States playing (if any) the leadership role. By the way, what do you know of [UNASUR](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_South_American_Nations)? [This article](http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/Latin-America-Monitor/2011/1202/A-sharp-contrast-between-CELAC-s-style-and-UNASUR-s-substance) promotes UNASUR as an ideal/practical model: >UNASUR has turned themselves into a viable alternative regional organization not by rhetorically bashing the perceived flaws of the OAS and US, but by putting their head down and providing budget and personnel to move forward with regional integration initiatives. UNASUR has turned into a "non-US" organization, as opposed to an "anti-US" organization which is what Chávez wants it and CELAC to be. It turns out that the best way to set up an organization outside of US influence is to simply do it, not talk about it.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on December 2, 2011
Thanks for clarifying my question about France and the Netherlands… BTW, according to this article, "[the goal of the new regional block is still under discussion](http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/111202/celac-countries-divided-by-differences-on-key-issues)". >For Ecuador and Bolivia, Celac will be the final blow to the Organization of American States. On the contrary, Colombia believes that it is a way to boost regional economy in the world. And [that's confirmed by this AP report](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=143063090). >Ecuador’s president, Rafael Correa, hailed the CELAC as an alternative to the OAS. >"It’s time to have a forum that’s more our own, closer to our reality, without the bias in favor of North America," Correa said. >Leaders of Mexico, Chile and other countries said the new bloc will complement, not replace the OAS.
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
I like your point, but, in case it’s not clear, the exclusion of the United States is worthy of notice in this case since CELAC is being deliberately created as an alternative to the Washington-based "[Organization of American States](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_American_States)"–which comprises all of the independent states on *The American Continent* **[except for Cuba](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_relations_with_the_Organization_of_American_States)**. CELAC will include Cuba, and comprise all sovereign countries in the Americas except for Canada and the United States. (Does anyone know why Wikipedia seems to list [France and the Netherlands as sovereign American countries](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_Latin_American_and_Caribbean_States)?)
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
How many [American international cooperation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_American_integration), trading blocs, etc. are there now? [ALBA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Alliance_for_the_Americas), [UNASUR](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_South_American_Nations), MERCOSUR, OAS, now [CELAC](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_Latin_American_and_Caribbean_States).
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
How many [American international cooperation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_American_integration), trading blocs, etc. are there now? [ALBA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Alliance_for_the_Americas), [UNASUR](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_South_American_Nations), MERCOSUR, OAS, now [CELAC](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_Latin_American_and_Caribbean_States).
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
OK, but it’s not as if the Chavez government hasn’t been making any effort. Did you know that "[Hundreds of Chavez supporters have been assassinated by wealthy landowners for implementing new land policies](http://aljazeera.co.uk/indepth/opinion/2011/11/201111810548458225.html)"?
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on
I cannot believe how easily you’re dismissing Chavez’s support for land reform, the most ambitious and revolutionary of all the goals of the Bolivarian revolution, because you weren’t impressed by his defense! In my view, defending such reforms–which seek "to alter the fundamental power structure of the landed versus the landless, reduce Venezuela’s dependence on foodstuff imports, and redress the country’s disastrous experience with the ‘Dutch Disease’"–[by referencing the US Homestead Act as a precedent](http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/963) was a pretty brilliant move!
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on December 1, 2011
You don’t hate Chavez enough to wish somebody puts a bullet in his head, but you do hate him enough to wish that he dies of cancer or ***"ruins the country so badly"*** that he loses the next election? What love for your country you must have to wish that it be *ruined* rather than succeed under a leader that you dislike!
Written by reddit: the front page of the internet on