Comrade Obama - by Hugo the comedian

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldN...5520B220090603

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez said on Tuesday that he and Cuban ally Fidel Castro risk being more conservative than U.S. President Barack Obama as Washington prepares to take control of General Motors Corp.

During one of Chavez's customary lectures on the "curse" of capitalism and the bonanzas of socialism, the Venezuelan leader made reference to GM's bankruptcy filing, which is expected to give the U.S. government a 60 percent stake in the 100-year-old former symbol of American might.

"Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right," Chavez joked on a live television broadcast.

During a decade in government, Chavez has nationalized most of Venezuela's key economic sectors, including multibillion dollar oil projects, often via joint ventures with the private sector that give the state a 60 percent controlling stake.

Obama has vowed to quickly sell off General Motors once the auto giant is back on its feet, but the government will initially control the company after a $30 billion injection of taxpayer funds.

Chavez, a vehement critic of the U.S. "empire," has toned down his rhetoric since Obama took office in January and the two men shook hands during a summit in Trinidad and Tobago in April.

This is a classic!

I actually loved what Hugo just said. He even has a point because in monetary terms the networth of the firms that the U.S government has nationalized probably dwarfs the decade old Venezuela nationalization program.


My comment:

Communists rejoice about the supposed 'victory' of the command economy over the 'greedy capitalist' practices that they claim brought forth the crisis. As usual they are wrong.

McCartyists (In need of a better term since tha blatant adherence to the obsolete 'invisible hand' theory is in no way capitalism. It is just an extinct species of dinosaur that lives only in the USA) on the other hand accuse Obama of being a hippie leftie commie but not too loudly because the alternative (closing the banks and US firms down) is too painful to bare. Therefore they allow Obama to do what is needed and they save face by criticizing him for it.

My view: We learn the merits of modern capitalism (mixed economy) the hard way. However we observe a huge amount of inertia. It will take people many years to change their economic perspectives and move away from absolute economic systems towards rational ones.

Ahh Chavez... class act... funny stuff...

Hail Chavez, hail Obama! :D

It's funny, but Obama nationalized GM because it's collapsing and intends to get rid of it once possible. Chavez nationalized assets of oil companies because they were doing well.

Chavez nationalized the assets so the money went to the people, opposed to the pockets of rich people in other countries.

He's sooo cute!

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_p...059.html#crime

SAFETY AND SECURITY: Violent crime in Venezuela is pervasive, both in the capital, Caracas, and in the interior. The country’s overall per capita murder rate is cited as one of the highest in the world. Kidnapping is another serious concern. The Venezuelan National Counter Kidnapping Commission was created in 2006, and since then, official statistics have shown an alarming 78 percent increase in the number of reported kidnappings. Surveys show that the overwhelming majority of kidnappings are not reported to the police. Armed robberies take place in broad daylight throughout the city, including areas generally presumed safe and frequented by tourists. Well-armed criminal gangs operate with impunity, often setting up fake police checkpoints. Investigation of all crime is haphazard and ineffective. Only a very small percentage of crimes result in trials and convictions.

For balance:

http://www.socialismtoday.org/117/venezuela.html

THE RECENT article by Tony Saunois on Venezuela (Socialism Today No.115, February 2008) correctly points out that the blight of crime there "is a critical question". Many media reports focus on crime in one form or another, whether it is the murder rate in Caracas, the latest kidnapping, or another prison riot. As Tony comments "violent crime is now seen as a major issue as the government is seen as having failed to deal with it".



Must be those capitalists huh?

Gotta love how Comrade Hugo believes in Socialism when he has a greedy for nationalizing foreign companies, like every Capitalist with a multinational has.

Chavez seeks to create a country where there is not opposition. Like ol' snowed Russian minds of Sovietism. He will fail, and hopefully there will be the deschavization of the Country of Venezuela and death will make Venezuela free of the damn curse of SOCIALISM.

Originally Posted by Caius

Gotta love how Comrade Hugo believes in Socialism when he has a greedy for nationalizing foreign companies, like every Capitalist with a multinational has.

Chavez seeks to create a country where there is not opposition. Like ol' snowed Russian minds of Sovietism. He will fail, and hopefully there will be the deschavization of the Country of Venezuela and death will make Venezuela free of the damn curse of SOCIALISM.

Absolute and utter garbage. You should be ashamed to utter such filth. Disgraceful.

Originally Posted by Beskar

Chavez nationalized the assets so the money went to the people, opposed to the pockets of rich people in other countries.

You are joking, right?

Originally Posted by JAG

Absolute and utter garbage. You should be ashamed to utter such filth. Disgraceful.

Wel...

- Chavez has cracked down strikes in nationalized industries, and disbanded labour unions that are critical of the government

- Chavez' party in the national assembly has given itself the ability to sack and appoint judges at will with a simple majority

- Chavez had the list of all the signatures on a referendum to recall him publicized on the internet. Several government agencies used the lists to fire political dissidents

I personally think these issues are very worrying, but you're a socialist so you might not agree.

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Wel...

- Chavez has cracked down strikes in nationalized industries, and disbanded labour unions that are critical of the government

- Chavez' party in the national assembly has given itself the ability to sack and appoint judges at will with a simple majority

- Chavez had the list of all the signatures on a referendum to recall him publicized on the internet. Several government agencies used the lists to fire political dissidents

I personally think these issues are very worrying, but you're a socialist so you might not agree.

Absolutely right there.

Chavez, as much as I would love for him to succeed, is not succeeding. He is no true socialist. He simply wants power and money to himself, using populism as a guise. Most important is his stance on labour unions, which he made all but useless. Not socialist behaviour if you ask me. He is afraid they will spoil his plans.

Originally Posted by JAG

Absolute and utter garbage. You should be ashamed to utter such filth. Disgraceful.

Utter garbage is that Hugo Chavez Frias, president of Venezuela bought a part of Techint, which is the only damn argentinian multinational. It is utter garbage that Venezuela is going to be included in Mercosur. Absolute garbage is that he took away liberties of the people, the liberties that people like Jose de San Martin y Simon Bolivar fought for two centuries ago! How can you call utter garbage authoritarism painted as populism, is what you want for your country? Populism is treating (and making) people like ignorants, having workers easily manejable like animals. I see this in my own country, and I tell you, we still have freedom because we have FREEDOM of speech and FREEDOM of press.

They do not know what FREEDOM is. You know, the thing we always fought for, but I may ask the question, Do you hate freedom? Or do you hate those who doesnt hate freedom?

Kralizec forgot to write that Chavez Party has the right to select majors, Members of the "Honourable Council of Discussions", basically an institution to promove laws in every city (cant remember how do you say that in proper english). They can impugnate every votation that it is not right to Hugo, they can make up an investigation against a TV station owner, and find him guilty. They can revoke a permission to allow certain TV station broadcast, remember Radio Caracas TV.

You should be ashamed to applaud the Comrade Hugo attitude.

Originally Posted by Caius

He will fail, and hopefully there will be the deschavization of the Country of Venezuela and death will make Venezuela free of the damn curse of SOCIALISM.

Oh come on now! You can find a million things to criticise chavez about but...

'damn curse of SOCIALISM' ?!!??

Good ole Joe McCarthy would be so proud of ya...(and at least he has an excuse because he was drunk)

I mean, he nationalised the oil away from greedy foreigners and used the profits to finance free healthcare and other community support programmes.

What a , curse him and his evil socialism with it's free healthcare. May people die of diseases extinct in other countries and not have people in post-op care in a tent due to unable to afford our good ol' American system.

Lol?

As time elapses after people have criticized socialist governments, the chance of someone bringing up McCarthy approaches one.
-Godwins Kralizecs law

Anyone who supports a socialist dictatorship is out of his mind. The reason why McCarthy was such a was because he targeted people for being leftist in general (and not only communists/socialists) and abused his position to undermine political opponents.
Let's be clear here: I don't have anything against social-democrats or leftists in general. And many leftist parties only call themselves "socialist" for nostalgic reasons. But socialism in the true sense of the word and in the way Chavez intends it, is indeed a curse like Caius said.

Any person, or any party wich seeks absolute power and justifies this by saying they'll use it for the good of the people is a wolf in sheeps clothing. In the early 20th century you would only need to be naive to trust them, but after 100 years and dozens of murderous "people's republics" anyone who still falls for this crap is an idiot.

Half the stuff about Chavez isn't always correct or heavily slighted against him in Western Media due to policies such as nationalisation of the oil with the intend of using it to provide universal free health care amongst other things. With countries willing to overthrow democratically elected leaders for oil, it is not a surprise they wouldn't like him. Then there are criticisms of some of the things Chavez has or wants which are even worse in the United Kingdom.

For example, it is funny seeing the BBC saying how evil it is, to have term limits removed, when in the United Kingdom, we have a hereditary and our Prime-minister wasn't even elected on a mandate which can re-apply for election as many times as he wants.

The bit about term limits should be viewed in perspective. It's true that when media report about Chavez they don't mention that in France for example there are no presidential term limits at all. On the other hand, presidents in Latin America generally have much more authority than their European counterparts.
It is a legitimate reason for concern but it doesn't make a country a dictatorship. Several other presidents in Latin America have removed or stretched term limits, including Uribe of Colombia (who is centre-right)

But when it's accompanied with abuses like those I've mentioned before, it becomes a grave reason for concern.
Speaking of wich, those points wich I mentioned are all taken from Human Rights Watch.

Definitely, Human Rights is a big thing and I don't condone any of it neither would any true socialist condone it.

Originally Posted by Beskar

Definitely, Human Rights is a big thing and I don't condone any of it neither would any true socialist condone it.

Aaah, Chávez...the next darling of the international left. Just because someone opposes all the stuff you dislike (capitalism, America, oil industry, fruit industries) does not mean he deserves a free pass.

What is it with Latin America? When a rightwing dictator is in power, the right in the West defends him. When a leftwing dictator is in power, the left in the West will defend him.

I accuse both the left and the right of hating freedom, of abusing Latin America, of imperialism in the name of private ideological preference, and of making themselves an accomplice to gross infringement of human rights.

Nowhere in the world is there a bigger difference between the left and the right than in Latin America. A middle class, both ideological and economical, is virtually absent. The middle class is always the carrier of moderation and of liberal democracy. As a result, civil society is underdeveloped. Bolstering this is more instrumental than applauding the dictator of your side for keeping out the dictator of the other side.


Human Rights Watch. A Decade Under Chávez:
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2008/0...e-under-ch-vez

I don't support any hierarchy such as dictators/classes/etc. I am merely putting out majority of the things against Chavez are either hypocritical or "for the wrong reasons".

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

What is it with Latin America? When a rightwing dictator is in power, the right in the West defends him. When a leftwing dictator is in power, the left in the West will defend him.

The left love him because of what he has done in terms of economic reforms. He has given his people healthcare, education and welfare - things we take for granted in our societies. Further, his use of participatory democracy is a brilliant guidebook for how the government can help communities of citizens to provide the changes they need in their life.

Is Chavez far from ideal in terms of human rights, forieng policy, etc? Sure - and I think large swathes of the left would admit to that. However, if we seperate those off from his economic reforms we can see the good side of his policies as well.

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Lol?

As time elapses after people have criticized socialist governments, the chance of someone bringing up McCarthy approaches one.
-Godwins Kralizecs law

Anyone who supports a socialist dictatorship is out of his mind.

But socialism in the true sense of the word and in the way Chavez intends it, is indeed a curse like Caius said.

You equate Socialist Dicatorship with Socialism. That is as biased as saying that all capitalist countries are Orwellians authoritatian regimes just because you visited Singapore.

I am not sure who gave you such ideas but reading a good book about Socialism would help. Socialism, same as Capitalism can be used by dictators. There are as many capitalist oppressive regimes as there are socialist. There is not reason to reject an economic theory just because the wrong people used it.

Originally Posted by rasoforos

There is not reason to reject an economic theory just because the wrong people used it.

That's actually a fair point. Sweden would be considered Socialist by some, correct?

Actually, the way "socialism" has been turned into a buzzword in U.S. politics, I'm increasingly unclear on what people mean when they use it.

Goes without saying that Chavez is a joke best appreciated from a goodly distance. Up close I doubt he's nearly as funny.

Originally Posted by Lemur

That's actually a fair point. Sweden would be considered Socialist by some, correct?

Indeed. How many socialist governments around the world have there been that did not repress human rights to some extent? You could say England back before Thatcher got elected was socialist, but the socialists got voted out of office. On the other end would be Stalin and Mao.

But I can't think of many freely elected governments that persevered and were socialist - nationalizing companies and all that. Instead they seem to be dictatorships or other forms of non-democratic government. So consider Caius' words; the damn curse of socialism. Since socialism seems so often to go hand in hand with political repression, I think he has a point.

Chavez is still holding elections, but they're not exactly free and fair; he represses the opposition and uses the apparatus of the state to promote himself. It'd be illegal in the US.

Absolute and utter garbage. You should be ashamed to utter such filth. Disgraceful.

You'll forget your 'principals' and laud any dictator or strongman who increases his power and the power of the state by seizing other people's property as long as he throws a few bones to the poor.

You lambaste all who righteously oppose him but then disappear when people bring up many valid reasons to oppose Chavez.

Perhaps us non-socialists should ask ourselves why socialists are so quick to forgive repression from the left.

CR

Perhaps us non-socialists should ask ourselves why socialists are so quick to forgive repression from the left.

Maybe they needed to clean, you know.

I don't support any hierarchy such as dictators/classes/etc. I am merely putting out majority of the things against Chavez are either hypocritical or "for the wrong reasons".

And those reasons are...? Look Beskar, when I first heard of Chavez, I applauded him because more than one didnt like Bush, and he... exteriorizated it. But then, Hugo became a friend of Fidel, then Nestor, then Cristina Kirchner. Have you ever heard of the "suitcase scandal"? Hugo gave money to Cristina Kirchner so they could get more money for the '07 Presidential Elections.

Hugo= Venezuelan Permanent President
Cristina K= Argentinian President

I mean, Obama doesnt send one of his helpers to fund UK parties in elections. Obama doesnt arrive and says "Hello Spain, why dont you leave the EU?". I mean, its utterly silly. But when Uribe, who renegotiated some things with multinationals and did a good job, Hugo arrives and both attack media. Those countries that fare well (not farewell) are smart ones that keep Hugo out of their business.

I'd say that I dont care about Venezuela, but we are supposed to be brothers-in-continent. Yet, we must grow togheter, like our Martin Fierro says:

Los hermanos sean unidos,
esa es la ley primera,
deben estar unidos
por cualquier razon que sea,
por que si no vienen
y se los devoran los de afuera.

Brothers be united,
that must be the first law,
you must be united
by whichever reason it appears,
because if not outsiders come
and (brothers) will be devorated.

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Perhaps us non-socialists should ask ourselves why socialists are so quick to forgive repression from the left.

CR

Maybe because dictators and repressive regimes have been found on both ends of the spectrum. For every Stalin there is a Hitler, for every Castro there is a Batista, and vice versa of course.

Originally Posted by Caius

I mean, Obama doesnt send one of his helpers to fund UK parties in elections. Obama doesnt arrive and says "Hello Spain, why dont you leave the EU?". I mean, its utterly silly. But when Uribe, who renegotiated some things with multinationals and did a good job, Hugo arrives and both attack media. Those countries that fare well (not farewell) are smart ones that keep Hugo out of their business.

I'd say that I dont care about Venezuela, but we are supposed to be brothers-in-continent. Yet, we must grow togheter, like our Martin Fierro says:

You're kidding here, right? US doesn't fund parties abroad? Or did you mean specifically UK? Otherwise it is laughable. Wherever there's government they don't like, US send support to opposing parties or other political groups, depending on the situation and how important it is to their interest. That includes money, counseling, media support and what not. I was a part of the student organization that was instrumental in organizing student protests against Milosevic. Most of our funding came from US. A bit from Europe and insignificant amount from Serbia.

Originally Posted by Beskar

Definitely, Human Rights is a big thing and I don't condone any of it neither would any true socialist condone it.

That's a logical fallacy:

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
—Antony Flew, Thinking about Thinking (1975)

In putting forward the above rebuttal one is equivocating in an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. The proposer initially treats the definition of "Scotsman" (i.e., a man of Scottish ancestry and connection) as fixed, and says that there exists no predicated case that falls within that definition. When one such case is found, the proposer shifts to treat the case as fixed, and rather treats the boundary as debatable. The proposer could therefore be seen prejudicially not to desire an exact agreement on either the scope of the definition or the position of the case, but solely to keep the definition and case separate. One reason to do this would be to avoid giving the positive connotations of the definition ("Scotsman") to the negative case ("sex offender") or vice versa.

I'd call JAG a socialist, and he said this in response to criticism of Chavez;

Absolute and utter garbage. You should be ashamed to utter such filth. Disgraceful.

Maybe because dictators and repressive regimes have been found on both ends of the spectrum. For every Stalin there is a Hitler, for every Castro there is a Batista, and vice versa of course.

Two wrongs make a right? That's a non-answer.

CR

You're kidding here, right? US doesn't fund parties abroad? Or did you mean specifically UK? Otherwise it is laughable. Wherever there's government they don't like, US send support to opposing parties or other political groups, depending on the situation and how important it is to their interest. That includes money, counseling, media support and what not. I was a part of the student organization that was instrumental in organizing student protests against Milosevic. Most of our funding came from US. A bit from Europe and insignificant amount from Serbia.

Sorry, I wasn't. What I knew is that the US funded coups. I wonder if Obama does the same thing. But I see one difference, and Samartian won't think im right but, the US tried to defeat enemies, Chavez tries to make perpetual presidents.

I'd call JAG a socialist,

I thought he called himself one in the Political Compass thread.