Participatory Democracies

[Kyi Yo]

I have a couple of heroes in the world, one is Evo Morales, the other is Hugo Chavez. They are trying to implement truly participatory democracies in their countries. They both are facing fierce opposition by both the US and the former ruling rich. Here is a interview with President Morales, the first Indigenous President of Bolivia.

Bolivian President Evo Morales on Indigenous Rights, Climate Change, Iraq, Establishing Diplomatic Relations with Iran, Che Guevara's Legacy and More

Wednesday, September 26th, 2007
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/26/1442242

TRANSCRIPT

AMY GOODMAN: Today, a Democracy Now! special: We spend the hour with Evo Morales, the first indigenous president of Bolivia. He traveled to New York this week, where he's scheduled to speak before the United Nations General Assembly today. On Monday, he addressed a high-level UN meeting on climate change, during which he accused what he called “predatory capitalism� of affecting the environment.

Evo Morales first spoke before the UN General Assembly last year, where he dramatically brandished a coca leaf and vowed never to yield to US pressure to criminalize coca production. Morales’s rise to power began with his leadership of the coca growers union in Bolivia and his high-profile opposition to the US-funded eradication of the coca crop. He helped to lead the street demonstrations by Indian and union groups that toppled the country's last two presidents.

An Aymara Indian, Evo Morales became the country's first indigenous president when he was elected nearly two years ago with more popular support than any Bolivian leader in decades. Since then, he has moved to nationalize Bolivia’s oil and gas industry and is seeking a new constitution that would grant more power to Bolivia’s indigenous majority.

Today, we spend the hour with Evo Morales, talking about indigenous rights, biofuels, the Iraq war, establishing diplomatic relations with Iran, and the enduring legacy of Che Guevara on Latin America. Democracy Now!’s Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with President Morales at the Bolivian mission here in New York. I began by asking President Morales what his message is this year to the UN General Assembly.

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] Last year was our first experience, my first time at the United Nations, as well as my first time in the United States. And as the coca leaf stands for and is symbolic of the struggle of the peoples for land and for their sovereignty, so last time I was here, it was my responsibility to talk about how it is that I came to become president of Bolivia.

But today, the most important thing is to talk about the changes that we're forging in democracy through this cultural and democratic revolution in my country and at the same time share my enormous concern and to talk about things that are not just a regional or a local problem, but a global problem, and that's the environment.

JUAN GONZALEZ: One of the things that has happened, changes, obviously, is that just a few days ago, more than a week ago, the United Nations General Assembly passed an important declaration in terms of indigenous rights. Article 34, specifically, says that indigenous peoples have rights to promote, develop and maintain their institutional structures and their customs. How important is this to Bolivia in the current writing of the new constitution that you're involved in now?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] First of all, we'd like to salute, thank and recognize the countries of the world that approved and voted for this Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, just as fifty, sixty years ago, the United Nations for the first time recognized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And it's only now, over 500 years later, that indigenous people’s rights are being recognized. Happily, there were only a few countries that didn't support this declaration.

And so, I want to say to the indigenous peoples, but also to the other peoples who live in the cities, that this is a very important thing that the struggle for indigenous people's rights has not been in vain. And it was very important to get organized to mobilize. It took over twenty years, but, working together, people were able to do this, to approve this declaration and establish that we are people that have rights just like anyone else on earth.

In some cases, it will be to recognize the rights of minorities in some countries, this declaration. In my country, it's to make sure that the majority is respected, and it will be respect for their institutions, for their structures. And this is an important contribution to unity within our country, but not because we have a declaration behind us recognized by the United Nations. It’s important that, even though this declaration exists, that doesn't mean that we, as the majority, are going to be vengeful or use this as the majority.

I want you all to know, through the means of communication like yourself, I want the people of the United States and the people of the world to understand that the indigenous movement is not vengeful. We want to live together, respecting the difference and the diversity that we have. Some of the people in our country, when they saw that this declaration that came out that’s not just a declaration recognizing indigenous peoples, but also right to land, to self-determination, they think that we're going to take a vengeful attitude, and I’m here to say never.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you think the message was of the four countries that voted no: Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the United States?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] It will be important for not the countries, but the people who lead those countries, their ambassadors, their leaders, to reflect and to embrace a recognition of indigenous people's rights. I’m convinced that indigenous peoples are the moral reserve of humanity. So amongst indigenous peoples, there’s not a mentality of being individualist, personalist or egotistical, and therefore there’s not an attitude of trying to take over resources and control them for themselves. How nice it would be if those four countries, or better, for the presidents of those four countries, and along with the social forces, and especially the indigenous peoples, join together to save humanity.

JUAN GONZALEZ: But in practical terms, implementing this in your country is obviously creating many issues. You have thirty-six different nationalities among the native people. And the battle now, the constitutional battle over whether you're going to have provincial autonomy or autonomy for these indigenous nations, how will that work itself out?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] First of all, dialogue and concerting, coming together. You're right, though, when you recognize that there are some small groups in my country that still don’t recognize exclusion and racism as it exists in our country. And that's why I call on the countries that not only supported this declaration, but also the countries that didn't support this declaration, to come together and move forward to recognizing indigenous people’s rights, but without excluding anyone.

My government will guarantee departmental or state-level autonomies, but also local-level autonomies and indigenous people’s autonomies. A lot will depend on the specificities of these different regions. Sometimes there will be regional autonomies and local autonomies; sometimes there will be regional autonomies, as well as indigenous autonomies. And we’ll have to figure out how these different autonomies are going to work together. When we made our initial demands as indigenous, original peoples, there were people who reacted to and rejected our demands. But I want to tell these people now -- and some people are originally from a place that dates back to a thousand years, some are much more contemporary, but we all have to learn how to live together.

AMY GOODMAN: Bolivian President Evo Morales. We'll come back to our conversation in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We return to our conversation with the president of Bolivia, Evo Morales. He's addressing the United Nations General Assembly today. On Monday, he addressed a high-level UN meeting on climate change. Over eighty world leaders attended; President Bush did not. In it, Evo Morales spoke in his speech on Monday about referring to the need to prevent industrialized nations with their gas emissions from continuing harming the planet.

Democracy Now!, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with President Morales at the Bolivian mission. Juan asked President Morales about the issue of biofuels.

JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you about the message that you're going to be bringing to the United Nations, as well, over the issue of the use of agricultural products for biofuels, that clearly in Brazil President Lula has a different perspective. He is promoting the use of biofuels. What is your perspective on this issue?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] From the time that biofuels were first talked about, we've seen a spiraling process of speculation of land. There’s a whole speculation on grains like wheat, not only at the regional level within countries, but also internationally. So, therefore, the cost of agricultural products rises. And this is a product of that moment from which, going forward, people have been talking about biofuels.

And personally, in our movement, as well, we're convinced that agricultural products should not be dedicated, directed towards automobiles, cars, and that lands be dedicated towards old rusted vehicles. First to people, before automobiles. And that’s our difference.

And we want to debate this, but we don't want to debate it just as governments or presidents. We want to debate with our peoples, with the social forces in our countries, and I would even dare to say, at the South American regional level, submit this to a referendum of the peoples of South America and let the people say yes or no to different biofuels. This is something I’ve learned from Subcomandante Marcos, from his messages -- that is, to govern obeying the people. That means to govern, but respecting the different proposals that social forces put on the table, because sometimes when a proposal is put on the table between presidents, arguments arise, and this can even generate confusion amongst people sometimes. And that's why I consider it to be very important that people decide with their votes in a referendum about what the future biofuels is going to be. That would be the most democratic thing.

AMY GOODMAN: Mr. President, you've just established diplomatic relations with Iran. When the Iranian President Ahmadinejad leaves the United Nations General Assembly, New York, this week, he will first go to Bolivia. Why did you establish diplomatic relations?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] First of all, it’s important our peoples are from the culture of dialogue, so we have diplomatic relations with the United States, we have diplomatic relations with Cuba, just as we have diplomatic relations with France and with Iran, but, above all, diplomatic relations for life, for humanity, for peace with social justice.

In my country, we're going to be opening commercial and diplomatic relations to establish relationships of complementarity so that we can resolve the social and economic problems that we confront. We're never going to establish diplomatic relations to wage aggression or to hurt or to declare wars or to get involved in arms races. We're not of the culture of death.

Moreover, I respect the technology, the industrial development in the area of gas and oil in Iran, and that’s what we’ve seen as interesting, that we can work together on these issues. And I’d like to agree with you. We haven't ever thought about other issues in our relations. As far as I know, it’s not a country that's sending troops to end other people's lives in other countries. And I admire Cuba very much, for example, which sends people to other countries to help save lives.

AMY GOODMAN: Just to follow up on that point, has the United States weighed in? Has the United States responded to your diplomatic relations with Iran? And what do you think of the US talking about perhaps attacking Iran?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] The United States, nor any other country, can observe or comment or have anything to say about the relationships that we have with any other countries. We’re a small country, but we’re a sovereign country with dignity, with the right to establish relations with whoever we want. If the United States government reacts, if they would have reacted, it would suggest that they are still thinking that Latin American countries need to be subordinate to the United States. But happily, in Latin America, there are countries with democracies that are liberating democracies, not subordinate democracies.

AMY GOODMAN: Your vice president has denounced US funding of rightwing think tanks in Bolivia as intervening in internal affairs of your country.

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] Former ministers and vice minister of the government of Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, who, as you know, escaped to the United States, and the former President Banzer, who, may he rest in peace, as well as former President Tutu Quiroga, these former ministers are financed through foundations, NGOs, to create this counterweight to the government of Evo Morales. It’s impressive. And what we're asking for is that all international cooperation be transparent, that it come through formally the central government.

AMY GOODMAN: What are those groups pushing for?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] First of all, these neoliberals, the rightwing organizations, the ones who sold out the country, as we say in Bolivia, is to exhaust the image of Evo Morales especially. And so, if they have objected, if they want to exhaust Evo Morales, it’s to be done with the government of Evo Morales. And these things circulated on the internet, then pamphlets, [inaudible]; verbatim they say, “We have to overthrow this Indian (and leave that blank),� because I can't repeat those words on the radio.

JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you about the student protests that broke out recently there and the continuing battle over writing a new constitution. It's been more than thirteen months, and the Constituent Assembly, I understand, now is going to start meeting again. But the battle, especially over this issue of the capital for Bolivia, what is the significance of the battle over whether Sucre or La Paz should be the capital of Bolivia?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] Bolivia was founded in 1825, and the people who were participating, they were only 8% of the population; they were all mestizos or criollos. But who fought for the independence from Spain? It was that other 92%; it was the indigenous peoples. So we proposed to re-found the country, indigenous peoples, non-indigenous peoples, professional peoples, nonprofessional peoples, but to transform the country. Therefore, there are sectors that are seeking to undermine or make sure that the Constituent Assembly fails.

The enemies of this deep structural transformation that we're pursuing, some of them have entered, are members of the Constituent Assembly, and they've been working from the very beginning, when the Constituent Assembly started on 6th of August, 2006, to undermine the process through the demand for two-thirds, the demand for autonomy, and now the demand to move the capital of the country.

This issue of where the capital is going to be located is not a national issue. It’s not a problem for the government. It’s an issue for just two departments. And there are families that don't love their country and who are not working for the majorities, who are working for those people who have not been respected, the indigenous majorities, they're talking about where the capital is going to be located as a tool to shut down the Constituent Assembly.

But what are we working for? What are we betting on? First, as the government and also as the indigenous movement, to make sure that the Constituent Assembly concludes successfully. It’s the best way to find unity, equality and justice, to forge that in my country.

And I would like to remember the words of a businessman, actually, from Bolivia. What did he say before the Constituent Assembly? “I’d rather have rocks in my door than bullets.� What does that mean? That I would rather have these sorts of popular demonstrations and protests happening than a civil war, a fighting war with bullets.

And now, so that we have neither the protests nor the shooting war with bullets, we're pursuing this deep structural transformation through a democratic process, which is the Constituent Assembly. How are we doing this? Through the creation of writing a new constitution for the country.

Of course, it’s going to be difficult to have equality, but to make those differences between people smaller is possible. Early in the process, only weeks into the process, they said that Evo Morales was not going to respect private property. That was another attack, another attempt to undermine and cause the Constituent Assembly to fail. With the powerful people above, what we're trying to do is lift up the people, the humble people, from below, through using the strategic natural resources that we have to put them on a more equal footing.

And the other thing that they can't accept is, how is it that what they call the Indians, that they feel for the country and they're working for their people and that this Indian is governing well? This is something they can't tolerate. Two facts: the last time that Bolivia had a budget surplus was in the 1960s during a boom, a tin boom, and we've been over sixty years always with a fiscal deficit. Last year, for the first time, in my first year of government, we have a budget surplus, and Bolivia's international reserves never were more than $1 billion. And this year we're approaching $5 billion in international reserves. And the modification of the hydrocarbons gas and oil law, which cost us blood, thereafter the nationalization of gas and oil, has allowed Bolivia to improve our revenues, the revenues for the country. An example: in 2005, Bolivia only received $300 million -- $300 million in 2005 in revenues from state gas and oil, and this year we're going to be receiving more than $2 billion in revenues from gas and oil. And this is something they can't accept.

A political class, for them, government was business. It was enrichment. What they can't accept is that our corruption in Bolivia has been declining. In the past, Bolivia was considered in the number two position in terms of the championship for the most corrupt country. Many international institutions have recognized that corruption is on the decline in Bolivia. And what these groups don't accept is that this -- what they call an “Indian� can change Bolivia, bring dignity to Bolivia.

And in this situation, some sectors are talking about the re-election of Evo Morales, and so this is something that would have to be become constitutionally permitted. But what do the right, the neoliberal, the opposition, say to this? And they say we can negotiate anything, but not the re-election of this Indian. This is the problem. It's not a problem of where the capital of the country is located. And, of course, they never liked groups like the ones that you make reference to that will travel from Santa Cruz to Sucre to agitate, to stir up these issues.

AMY GOODMAN: Bolivian President Evo Morales. We'll return to the conclusion, where he talks about the war in Iraq and the legacy of Che Guevara. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We return to our conversation with the Bolivian President Evo Morales. The Bolivian Supreme Court recently asked the government to start extradition proceedings for the former Bolivian President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, who lives here in the United States in Miami. They also asked for an order for him not to be allowed to go to another country, but to be sent back to Bolivia. I asked President Morales what the former president is guilty of and whether he thinks the United States will extradite him.

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] First of all, the United States cannot, should not receive, protect delinquents from any part of the world. It is unconscionable that the United States, a democratic country, would be protecting international criminals like Posada Carriles. The process has to do with two issues: first of all, human rights, and second of all, for economic damages done to the state. So people who massacre peoples, that violate human rights and do economic damage to countries and their economies have to go to jail. The United States shouldn't be sitting there waiting for a process to be put into motion, but rather should kick these people out so that they can be submitted to justice.

I hope the United States respects these norms and respects the decision of our Supreme Court. But here, we have an experience. The last military dictator was sent to jail. And since that time, in Bolivia, no member of the military dares to threaten a coup d’etat. Likewise, any democratic government that violates human rights, that massacres people or that does economic damage to the state should also be subject to these sorts of processes, and their leaders should be put in jail, so that they never dare to do it again either.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you said a few moments ago that you'd rather have protesters throwing rocks than using guns. In a few weeks, it will be the fortieth anniversary of the death of Che Guevara. He died in Bolivia. Looking back at it -- you were a child then -- what is your sense of the legacy of Che Guevara to the people of Latin America?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] First of all, in the ’40s, in the ’50s, in the ’60s -- of course, when I hadn’t been born yet -- my first perception was that people rose up in arms to struggle against the empire. Now, I see quite the opposite, that it’s the empire that’s raising up arms against the peoples. What I think is that back then, that the peoples, they got organized and struggled, looking for justice, for equality. And now I think that these transformations, these structural transformations, are being forged through democracies.

And from these two points of view, Che Guevara continues to be a symbol of someone who gave his life for the peoples, when in Bolivia and in other countries around the world reigned military dictatorships. So that's why it's amazing to see that all over the world Che Guevara is still there, forty years later. But now, we're living in other times. But to value and recognize that thinking, that struggle, and if we recognize and we value it, that doesn't mean it means to mechanically follow the steps that he took in terms of military uprising.

And that’s where, for example, I respect Fidel Castro. In 2003, I was invited to a conference in Havana, Cuba. And Fidel said the following: “Don't do what I’ve done. Do what Chavez is doing: transformations through a constituent assembly.� I think it was a good teaching, because we've seen the constituent assemblies in Venezuela, in Ecuador and now in Bolivia, as well, that through democracy we can achieve structural transformations.

AMY GOODMAN: What is the effect of the war on Iraq in Latin America, in Bolivia, in particular?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] There is a feeling that leads to the rejection, the repudiation of the United States government. This intervention of the United States in Iraq helps anti-imperialist thinking and feeling to grow. The pretext of fighting against terrorism and for security, with this pretext, they intervene and create all these deaths. But there are also other issues, economic issues, underlying it. I feel that we're in a times of not looking to how to extinguish lives, but rather how to save lives.

JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you about the issue of global warming. It's become a major increasing discussion in many governments and around the world. From the perspective of the indigenous people of Bolivia, the future of the planet? And what policies must be adopted, especially by the industrialized countries?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] So if globalization does not admit difference and pluralism, if it’s a selective globalization, therefore it will be almost impossible to resolve environmental issues and save humanity. The most important contribution that indigenous peoples can make is to live in harmony with Mother Earth. We say the “Mother Earth,� because the earth gives us life, and neither the Mother Earth nor life can be a commodity. So we're talking about a profound change in the economic models and systems.

AMY GOODMAN: Several years ago, Father Roy Bourgeois and others who founded the anti-School of the Americas movement at Fort Benning, Georgia, asked that -- came and visited you in the palace and asked that Bolivia not send soldiers to train at the -- what used to be called the School of the Americas, a place where Banzer, the dictator, had trained. Other countries are considering this ban. I think Venezuela, Argentina, Uruguay, Costa Rica have said they won't send soldiers. Will Bolivia?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] So, it's not just a question of not sending people. Perhaps it would be better to shut the School of the Americas. But I understand it’s also part of the survival and continuation of [inaudible] and to create a certain interventionist mindset.

JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you perhaps a delicate question. You mentioned earlier your admiration for Fidel Castro. Fidel, before he stepped down, had been president for more than forty years, before he stepped down from day-to-day administration in the Cuban government. President Chavez now has been in office for two terms and is seeking to change the law to maintain himself in office. Do you think that the leader of a country, no matter how progressive, should have a limited amount of time in power?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] To put those kinds of limits may not be the most democratic. Here, what’s important is the conscience of a people. And so, our proposal, there has to be a way to revoke leadership roles, but also to ratify leadership, and this is for mayors, for governors, for regional leaders, as well as for presidents. If they have the support of the people, then they have every right to be ratified in power. And mayors, governors and presidents, they can also be revoked, their mandates can be revoked before they finish their terms, if that’s the will of the people. In fact, I’m seeing at this point that, through ratifying and returning people to power, it actually becomes an incentive for them to do a good -- and continue to do a good and better job in their municipalities at the departmental levels in the positions that they hold, because the people have valued their work, and that's why they're ratified. But when they are not ratified, they take advantage of that fact, and they say, “OK, I’m on my way out the door, so now is the time to steal, as my mandate is ending.�

AMY GOODMAN: What is your assessment of President Bush?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] Why would I have to evaluate President Bush? I respect your country. One concern that I have is that in Iran -- in Iraq, the massacre of the people cannot continue. I think that this is something that not only affects President Bush, but affects all the North American people. I think that in this new millennium, we fundamentally should be oriented towards saving lives and not ending lives. The differences continentally between countries, between regions, these should be discussed. And if there’s not agreements between governments and their presidents, why not submit these issues to the peoples to be decided upon? This would be the best way to do democracy now.

AMY GOODMAN: Bolivian President Evo Morales. He speaks today to the UN General Assembly.

[AlanC]

So when your hero, Hugo Chavez, wants to nationalize the media to silence his critics, control elections, assume dictatorial powers and confiscate private property along with eliminating any dissenting voices - he's promoting participatory democracy.

Gotcha.

[PatrickHenry]

So when your hero, Hugo Chavez, wants to nationalize the media to silence his critics, control elections, assume dictatorial powers and confiscate private property along with eliminating any dissenting voices - he's promoting participatory democracy.

Gotcha.
Hmm.. you present no evidence...

Got anything besides hot air, Alan?

[Kyi Yo]

So when your hero, Hugo Chavez, wants to nationalize the media to silence his critics, control elections, assume dictatorial powers and confiscate private property along with eliminating any dissenting voices - he's promoting participatory democracy.

Gotcha.


I think you have him confused with Bush.

[tony mitra]

Well, Kyi Yo,

You've opened a hornet's nest here. I have listened to Amy Goodman's radio broadcasts a few times, though cannot directly recall having heard one on Hugo Chaves. I have heard about what Evo Morales has been doing, or trying to do, for some time now. Incidentally, he might be about the first Indigenous Indian tribesman to be elected as a head of state in a South American nation.

Most Americans hate both of them. And both of them have basically tried to take on no so much USA, but more specifically, control of their state assets by US and other western Corporations. It was interesting to read in your post, about Evo Morales's comments about Canada along with USA, Australia and New Zealand voting negatively against recognizing the rights of indigenous people. I am still offended about Canada's position and trying to find a way of venting my frustration constructively.

Incidentally, I was in Venezuela often in the mid ninieties, say ten years ago. At that time, Hugo Chaves was a divisive figure and often disliked by the affluent people living along the coastline in big cities. As my profession dictated, I usually only got to meet people that were the affluent class. Except for intellectuals and academics, most of the affluent class hated Hugo Chavez. That feeling rubbed off on me too, and I had a mild dislike for so called military rulers that take up civilian posts.

But I slowly changed my mind. As I got to know more Venezuelans from the local tribes, and not just the affluent and predominantly descendants of European settler community, I understood where Hugo Chavez stood, and can understand why he is more popular among the poor and the majority. Also, I think he has mixed bloodline, indigenous and Caucasian mixed, like so many westernized South Americans today. In the interior, it is almost purely ethnic tribes, at least as far as I could guess by visual analysis of their facial traits and body structure, not to forget the hair style.

I think he should be more careful about banning pro-western and rich media outlets that are perhaps controlled by foreign capital, and which often attack him ceaselessly. In this regard, he might take a page out of the liberal news outlets from USA, most of which are not exactly flattering to Mr. Bush. Like it or not, Mr. Bush suffers them.

If Chavez was clever, he would counter the pro-west media differently. But Hugo Chavez is not exactly politically astute. He makes inflamatory comments, like calling Mr. Bush the devil incarnate in the UN. A smarter bloke would not have said that.

I think the greatest endeavor he is attempting, is to move away from the World Bank and the IMF and try to create a development bank without US and European Veto Power, funded and sustained by the Latin American nations alone, and focussed on the development of Latin America specifically. I do not know if he is capable enough to pull this off. But if he does, this might become a beacon for any other developing regions, who need a supportive development bank but do not like the overly US or European bias in the way loans are doled out.

The other thing that Mr. Chavz is attempting, is even more dangerous for his country, in my opinion. While is is still forced to sell a lot of his oil to the US, and while the US is still forced to buy a lot of his oil, he is proposing to move his oil sale away from US dollar denominated trade, to the Euro or some other currency. This is a dangerous course. Just my opinion.

Also, he has been trying to establish better relation with rising Asian nations like China and India, wanting to sell more oil to them, possibly to reduce his dependence on the US market. This too can backfire for him, especially if the US gets pissed badly through high oil prices. Besides, China is very far away, and ships would take a month to carry oil there, while the US gulf area is four of five days from the Venezuelan oil fields for the taker ships.

Anyhow, interesting post. And since you are of the Indigenous tribes, mostly disenfranchised throughout the Americas, I can very well validate your sympathy for both Hugo Chavez and Ivo Morales.

Personally, I do not necessarily oppose Chavez's proposed goal, to redistribute wealth more benefitting to the indigenous people than the rich settlers from Europe, but I have some questions on his method, and suspect he might be biting more than he can chew. Pissing off USA can be a very dangerous state of existence. There has already been a coup that he survived somehow. He might not survive the next one.

I wish he would read Gandhi, more than reading Marx or Castro. As Gandhi so ably demonstrated sixty odd years ago, there is more than one way to challenge a mighty adversary. Amazing as it might seem, he took on the greatest empire man had ever seen, and ended up winning, without having to fire a single shot, without even owning a gun, so to speak.

I am serious here. Chavez might not be able to beat the west as the west's own game, but he could invent a new game - a game that the west is ill equipped to play in.

Cheers.

[Kyi Yo]

Thank you Tony,

I understand Chavez' limitations and one of them is diplomacy. I think part of his verbally lashing out at the US is the extremely polemic coverage of him and his policies here in the states. He is vilified and threatened with death consistently. I also think the attempted coup backed by the US really bitterly affected him. When it comes to Bush, he can barely restrain his contempt.

I understand where that rage comes from and agree that he needs to be more political when speaking out.

It's such a wierd irony that Chavez has sent millions of dollars in aid to poor communities here in the US and that's never reported in the news. Last year several tribes here in Montana recieved up to $300,000 in aid for winter fuel assistance for their people. He also gave millions of dollars to inner city poor communities across the country. He's helping several Native groups set up gas stations here in the US that WON'T have state OR federal taxes. It's being set up on a Nation to Nation basis and those taxes don't apply on Indian lands.

The representative from Venezuela who visited here told me "We had the same kind of repressive government set up that you do (he was Indigenous) and it was set up by the US too. We weren't able to get out from under it until President Chavez was elected."

He has returned Indigenous lands, their original lands where possible, to Indigenous Tribes all over Venezuela. Those who can't be returned to their homelands, he has sought out similar lands in their federal reserves and carved out new homelands for them. He has also ended the oppressive government policies of the past and allowed them to develop their own health care and education systems and used the money from oil resources to fund those programs.

I believe President Morales has taken what Chavez has done and implemented it in a more humane way. He's done it in a truly Indigenous way which doesn't seek revenge, but seeks harmony.

I don't agree with everything President Chavez has done, but I understand why he felt he had to do it that way. He was the blueprint and in some pretty extreme situations and had to prove himself in a world who didn't think he deserved to live. How dare he take from the rich and give to the poor!

Making an enemy out of Bush wasn't smart, I agree. But, I understand why it happened. Bush is not a friend of the poor of any nation, not even his own.

[AlanC]

Hmm.. you present no evidence...

Got anything besides hot air, Alan?


Only what he has done, and what he has stated that he is going to do.

He granted himself dictatorial control of many aspects of his government, he has seized hostile media outlets and TV stations, converting them into state run outlets. He has declared his intent to turn his country to socialism which is itself the antithesis of participatory democracy.

Other than that, just me and the balloons.

[tony mitra]

Very good response Kyi Yo. I am again impressed by the details you provide and also impressed by the help that you said Chavez extended to the people of your tribe. I was aware of his declaration of sending cheap oil for the Katrina victims, but was unaware of the rest.

He needs to learn a very hard lesson though.

All major oil producing nations have had a very hard time trying to wean their nations away from excessive dependence on the oil. As a result, all of them are greatly unsuited to survive an oil crunch. This includes USA, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Venezuela, Indonesia and Russia. All of them are going to find life exceedingly hard in the coming decades, as it gets harder and harder to find, sell or buy more oil. These countries would be the least suited to successfully convert their economies to less dependence on oil.

In that sense, oil has been the greatest curse to the nations that have or had a lot of it in recent times.

So, if Chavez was really far thinking, he would spend every spare dollar he now has, to prepare his country's economy for a life after oil. I have visited the Venezuelan industrial sector pretty extensively, and can honestly say that Venezuela has practically no plan in place for an industrial development that is not dependent on an oil-exporting economy.

Again, I do not single out Chavez for this lack of far sight. Every one else seems to be suffering from the same virus. But, if he wants to be a visionary that breaks from the mold, he needs to think about it.

Meanwhile, my respect for your knowledge has increased more, even if I sometimes do not agree with you.

I shall be looking forward to the time you visit Vancouver next.

Cheers.

[Trish]

Kyi Yo -

I must take issue with a statement in your previous post in which you said, "It's such a wierd irony that Chavez has sent millions of dollars in aid to poor communities here in the US and that's never reported in the news." That is not a true statement. Please refer to the links below as evidence of the inaccuracy of your statement.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/21/america/NA_GEN_US_Venezuela_
Chavez.php
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2006/10/09/news/regional/
5caf81503a2b84e087257201002104ba.txt
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/26/nyregion/26oil.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

And those are just a small sampling of news stories I found online and don't even begin to accurately reflect the reports I've read elsewhere about Chavez' supposed generosity.

[preservanation]

All is well with Chavez when he is giving his people things.
What happens when he starts to take it all away?
When you give up your freedoms you cease the ability for self determination.
That is a wager which most Americans will not take.

[dgun]

They are trying to implement truly participatory democracies in their countries.

Uhmm...no.

I see Alan C has addressed this:

assume dictatorial powers and confiscate private property along with eliminating any dissenting voices - he's promoting participatory democracy.

Well said Alan.

And when your hero is Castro, how can you claim to want Democracy?

I think you have him confused with Bush.

Bush is a total ass without a doubt and has done damage to civil rights and our system of checks and balances, IMO. However, a year and a couple of months from now he will be gone. Mr. Chavez isn't going anywhere.

And without economic freedom, how can you have a democratic system? I just don't see it happening.

[tony mitra]

Ohh well,

Democracy is interpreted differently in different countries, I presume.

In the US system of a term barred President, he has to leave office after a maximum of two 4-year terms.

In Venezuelan version, as indeed in many countries such as Canada, UK, Australia and other nations, a person can be a head of state, as either a Prime Minister, or President or whatever, as long as he or she keeps winning elections. Margaret Thatcher of UK stayed at the helm for 11 years, and Tony Blair stepped down after 10 years, both because of dwindling support for them from within their own parties, although their terms (5 year after each election) had still not expired.

Hugo Chavez might be an ex military man, and tried and unsuccessful coup in the early 1990s, he did win the election in 1998, and again in 2000 and 2006.

His political plaform has been social democratic, not too unlike some west European and Scandinavian models, but he stresses his platform to be on social expenditure to combat decease, malnutrition, illiteracy and other social ills of a developing nation.

His agenda has been controversial, but not the way communism is depicted in the west. Private enterprise is neither banned nor illegal, but the state controls large industries, health care, education, and most all natural resources of the nation. Again, this is not necessarily a communist only platform, as many others do the same in the west to varying degree. The west, however, does not start from the backward platform that Venezuela starts from.

To balance this out, it is fair to say that Venezuela before Chavez had been democratic and free market with heavy participation of big corporations for a pretty long time, with a pro-USA leader to boot. And yet, living conditions for the majority of the people did not go up while many of the affluent, mostly ethnic Europeans and their kiln, got richer, along with foreign corporations.

All this is well documented and statistics are available on line including Government sources from Venezuela as well as US universities and CIA fact books, and European and UN sources.

USA finds Venezuela an irritant, because Chavez's foreign policy often depics and anti-US stance. Domestically, Chavez is either strongly resisted, primarily by the rich, who happen to be a very small but powerful block, or wildly supported, this time by the large but impoverished people of the interior. It is the interior that has Venezuela's Amazon basin as well as all its Gold, oil, and other mineral resouces and the biomass diversity, along with traditional lands of the indigenous people.

In many ways, what is happening in Venezuela is a classic case of what often happens many places in the world, i.e. powerful people from other places want to take natural resources without significantly enriching the local inhabitants, whose land the wealth comes out from.

Some call it exploitation, others call it economic imperialism. Take your pick.

Lastly, if this is to be a forum for the platform of "International Politics", as against typical American Democrat versus Republican politics, then one might consider looking at the world only after taking off the US domestic debate glasses and think out of the box.

There is a wide world out there, which falls outside of the typical Liberal-Conservative and socialism-capitalism or indeed "with us or against us" divide. No disrespect to either the conservatives or the liberals and the rest of Americans.

Cheers.

[dgun]

or President or whatever, as long as he or she keeps winning elections.

My guess, however, is that he will be staying one way or another.

USA finds Venezuela an irritant, because Chavez's foreign policy often depics and anti-US stance.

USA finds Venezuela an irritant because Bush is too stupid to prioritize with whom we should pick a fight. Venezuela really is worth the effort.

social democratic

We can dust off a turd and call it a gem, but it's still a turd.

Furthermore, if by "participatory" democracy the OP means direct democracy, they would be better off under a dictatorial communist system.

[BoogyMan]

I would have to take issue with your assertion that Huge Chavez is implementing what you call a participatory democracy Kyi Yo.

Mr. Chavez has begun the process of nationalizing industry such as oil development as well as commodity industries such as electricity and telecommunications, and he has been working on keeping the office he now holds for an indefinite period of time.

Mr. Chavez is certainly not building a democracy, he is building a socialist state.

[Kyi Yo]

The media of the US has been pretty effective in misleading US citizens for a very long time. So, I'm not surprised at the amount of inaccuracy concerning Chavez and his policies.

Tony, I agree. His reliance on oil is a very dangerous policy on which to base such important sweeping reforms. I have heard and read some of his thinking on this and he does have plans for economic development that don't rely heavily on oil. His priorities have been on the people, education and setting up the vast network of community councils i.e. implementation of his participatory democracy from the ground up. He has also made clean water for everyone a priority and is ahead of his millenium goals in achieving this portion. There is currently 88% clean, potable water for the country, well ahead of the 2010 deadline. Another of his reforms, education has also been a priority and it looks like he will make his target goals for literacy before the 2010 deadline. Healthcare was another priority, and another promise to the voters. He has put a lot of time and effort into ensuring that the poorest of the poor have access to healthcare and to that end, has imported 20,000 Cuban healthcare workers to staff the thousands of clinics that have been set up. The second part of that plan, is to implement a process where they can grow their own healthcare staff internally. Until that happens, he's stuck using outside professionals. The agreement between Castro and Chavez was reduced prices for oil in return for the access to those professionals. It's not intended to be a permanent thing, but educating people to the level of professionals needed will take some time.

He's not beginning to take a look at other issues now that the infrastructure for some of his priorities is in place. This was just announced on the 19th.

Link (http://uk.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.london.gov.uk%2Fview_press_r elease.jsp%3Freleaseid%3D13392)

Chavez has made a deal with the City of London to prove a 20% decrease in gas to their public bus fleet, the benefits which will go to the poor of London, in return for:
The agreement which makes this possible will also benefit the people of Venezuela, by providing expertise in areas of city management in which London is a world leader, such as public transport, planning, tourism and protection for the environment.

He is using the oil wealth he has now, to provide for the future of his country. The former ruling elite have staged a 6 year strike in hopes of crippling the economy and driving him out. It hasn't worked, it might have if oil prices hadn't increased.

His anti-globalisation policies have made him an enemy of the US. Wresting control of Venezuela's oil and other natural resource wealth from the hands of the elite and foreign corporations (mainly US) have made him an enemy of the US. His plan to bring the indigenous and poor of his country out of the dark ages so they are more likely in the future to resist US hegemony has made him an enemy of the US. Democrats and Republicans alike see him as a threat to US global economic dominance.

As for the participatory democracy implementation. He will have implemented 25,000 communal councils by the end of this year. These councils govern small groups (on average 200 families) and have control of resources and funding that affects their representatives. The Bolivarian government of Venezuela has a multi-party system with a democratically elected President. The functions of the party's is fragmented and in disarray and the communal councils are taking over some of the functions of those parties. BTW, those parties traditionally left out the poor and Indigenous of Venezuela.

He has not taken away any freedoms, but has increased the number of voices allowed to speak in his government.

As to taking away or controlling the media....... The media was controlled by the rich elite of Venezuela and was politically biased. A law has been passed on the social responsibility of the media in a true democracy to try to address these flaws. It has met with opposition internally and without by many varied groups, including some media watchdogs. Private TV channels were implicated in the 2002 coup attempt against the President and the most popular, RCTV will be closing this year. It's license has not been renewed.

I agree, in many instances Chavez has been a bit heavy-handed. I understand why he has. He is doing something that has not been done in hundreds of years. Implementing a truly participatory democracy, where even the Socialist Party will be allowed a voice. Our government has used the "boogy man" of socialism on the American people, and other misinformation for so long that we accept the policies and rhetoric without any thought. What we have in the US is FAR from a democracy and that is the real danger Chavez poses, Americans might wake up and realize what a true democracy looks like.[hr]
Kyi Yo -

I must take issue with a statement in your previous post in which you said, "It's such a wierd irony that Chavez has sent millions of dollars in aid to poor communities here in the US and that's never reported in the news." That is not a true statement. Please refer to the links below as evidence of the inaccuracy of your statement.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/21/america/NA_GEN_US_Venezuela_
Chavez.php
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2006/10/09/news/regional/
5caf81503a2b84e087257201002104ba.txt
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/26/nyregion/26oil.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

And those are just a small sampling of news stories I found online and don't even begin to accurately reflect the reports I've read elsewhere about Chavez' supposed generosity.


You're right, I should have said "rarely reported in MAJOR news outlets".

His "supposed generosity" resulted in the seven reservations in Montana receiving over 1.5 million dollars in monies to help the poor with heating costs last year. I'm not certain of the dollar amounts that went to other Tribes in the north and Alaska, but it was sizeable.

I was a recipient of his "supposed generosity" to the tune of $500 to assist me in paying for the increased heating costs. I'm disabled.

[Trish]

How dare he take from the rich and give to the poor!




Ahhhhhhhh yes, "taking" from the rich to give to the poor. The noble modern-day Robin Hood syndrome. Chavez is just the latest convert in a long list of prolitariate "visionaries." Let's see...there's Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il, Than Shwe, Idi Amin, and now Chavez. Such splendid examples of Marxist success stories! Such splendid examples of the economic and societal gains to be had from such redistributions of wealth.

"In total, Marxist regimes murdered nearly 110 million people from 1917 to 1987. For perspective on this incredible toll, note that all domestic and foreign wars during the 20th century killed around 35 million. That is, when Marxists control states, Marxism is more deadly then all the wars of the 20th century, including World Wars I and II, and the Korean and Vietnam Wars.

And what did Marxism, this greatest of human social experiments, achieve for its poor citizens, at this most bloody cost in lives? Nothing positive. It left in its wake an economic, environmental, social and cultural disaster....

...a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism and inequality – and, as in a real war, noncombatants would unfortunately get caught in the battle. There would be necessary enemy casualties: the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, "wreckers," intellectuals, counterrevolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, the rich and landlords. As in a war, millions might die, but these deaths would be justified by the end, as in the defeat of Hitler in World War II. To the ruling Marxists, the goal of a communist utopia was enough to justify all the deaths.

The irony is that in practice, even after decades of total control, Marxism did not improve the lot of the average person, but usually made living conditions worse than before the revolution. It is not by chance that the world's greatest famines have happened within the Soviet Union (about 5 million dead from 1921-23 and 7 million from 1932-3, including 2 million outside Ukraine) and communist China (about 30 million dead from 1959-61). Overall, in the last century almost 55 million people died in various Marxist famines and associated epidemics – a little over 10 million of them were intentionally starved to death, and the rest died as an unintended result of Marxist collectivization and agricultural policies" (Rummel, R.J., 2004, The killing machine that is marxism, http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41944) R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the Universityof Hawaii and Nobel Peace Prize finalist.

So yeah, I can see Chavez as a champion of the poor - just like the others on the list above. Yep. I just find it so odd how with all that wealth distribution to the poor so many millions end up starving to death under the benevolant care of their heroes!

[Kyi Yo]

If you'd like to start a thread about Marxist rulers, please do. I'd like to stick to the topic of this discussion if you don't mind.;)

[dgun]

He is using the oil wealth he has now, to provide for the future of his country

He is using the oil wealth to buy the loyalty of his people. Let's just see what happens in the next couple of years as he further consolidates his power.

The US media is indeed crap, Kyi Yo. You will get not argument from me on that point. And that's why I frequently listen to BBC world service. However, the objective facts are exactly as BoogyMan states. It appears you are the one who has been fooled by propaganda.

[Kyi Yo]

The US media is indeed crap, Kyi Yo. You will get not argument from me on that point. And that's why I frequently listen to BBC world service. However, the objective facts are exactly as BoogyMan states. It appears you are the one who has been fooled by propaganda.


Can you please cite a source for your argument and explain what you mean by propoganda please? Thanks!

[Trish]

I don’t at all mind staying on topic and hence my previous post. You assert that Hugo Chavez is building a participatory democracy and suggest that he is some high-minded philanthropist dedicated to improving the lot of the poor the world over.

I was pointing out that other world leaders – other great liberators of the proletariat spouted the same grandiose rhetoric of redistributing the wealth from the rich to the poor. And they certainly redistributed the wealth – but precious little if any of that redistribution ended up in the pockets of the poor. And so it will be with Hugo Chavez. He’s already started down that particular road.

Oh yes, I know….Venezuela is not a Marxist country. And Hugo Chavez steadfastly denies being Marxist. And yet, he is identified by Marxists as being a Marxist.

“After reading and reviewing Richard Gott and Michael Lebowitz on Venezuela, it is time for me to make my own modest contribution to understanding the unfolding revolution. I do not claim to be an expert on Venezuela, but after 40 years of writing about and trying to make a socialist revolution, I do feel qualified to speak about connections between the two.

To start with, I would argue that Venezuela marks the first significant step forward for the revolutionary movement in a period that has been marked by retreat since 1990…

… From Harman’s cautionary note about Chavez and the “national bourgeoisie,� one would think that the caudillo was working overtime to maintain private property. But as early as 2005, a good two years before the current deep turn of the revolution, Chavez was giving the green light to expropriations….

For obvious reasons, the Venezuelan revolutionary movement has to proceed cautiously. Unlike Cuba in 1959, Venezuela cannot rely on a powerful socialist government for trade and subsidies. It has to play with the cards that it has been dealt by history. Considering the success of Hugo Chavez and his comrades to this point, we might say that he is one of the sharpest card players in the history of our movement whose shoulder we should look over…� (Louis Proyect, 2007, Hugo Chavez and the Venezuelan revolution, conclusion, http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/04/20/hugo-chavez-and-the-venezuelan-revolution-conclusion/)

So, as can be seen – I’m very much on topic. The Marxist revolution in Venezuela has begun…..the “redistribution� of wealth, the “taking� from the rich to give to the poor. Marxists like Proyect don’t mind calling a spade a spade, despite the persistence of some in trying to dress up a pig.

[tony mitra]

Kyi Yo

There are lots of speculation on if Chavez is Marxist or not. For sure he has socialist inclinations, but I for one do not find that to be any failing mistake. Many leaders of the west and the democratic world have socialist inclinations. Many othes are not socialist and yet wary of excessive clout in the hands of a limited number of Mega Corporations. Karl Marx might have seen only the glimpse of it, since what he observed was the beginning of the European industrial revolution.

Here is a link : http://www.marxist.com/Latinam/encounters_with_hugo_chavez.html

The link covers a write up by Alan Woods of UK, on his meeting with Hugo Chavez. Alan Woods is a reasonably well known communist writer and politician. I think he calls himself Bolshevik or some variant of a Marxist. Woods claims in that lengthy article of 2004, that Chavez told him he was not a Marxist because he had not read Marx. But he was reading it.

Well, Marxism is not an issue - participatory democracy was one. I for one have seen the living conditions of the indigenous tribes in the Amazon basin and can say that I hope Hugo Chavez can give them what no other party or leader has done in the past 400 or 500 years, ever since the Spaniards landed on those shore and brought images and the Virgin Mary and spread the gospel and the empire, literally enslaving the locals. Things have changed, but not much, really.

Another suggestion. If you see you are facing direct and somewhat crass attack for your views, I'd advise that you just ignore it rather than spend too much time countering it. Coming from your background, perhaps you already have experienced in it in real life.

Either way, I look forward to the time when you might come this way.
Cheers

[Kyi Yo]

Cheers Tony,

You're right of course. Thank you.

I really want his country and people to prosper and fare well. He means a great deal to a lot of Indigenous Peoples with world over, as does President Morales.

I do tend to get defensive when people criticize him pulling out the "socialist/communist/marxist" boogey man. Those labels tend to produce an immediate knee jerk reaction against Chavez.

I admit that a lot of his policies seem to be socialist when viewed from the outside. But, the only people in country who make such claims are the former ruling elite. The academics and scholars in Venezuela who write about him also admit that some of his policies have socialist leanings that have become tools to discredit everything he's done.

[PatrickHenry]

The economic hitmen are opposed, but their nefarious deeds are leaking out...


http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/cf/1b/9803828fd7a0589af1723110._AA240_.L.jpg

[tony mitra]

I read that book, Patrick Henry. A worthwhile read.

The follow up book should be:

A game as old as Empire
(The Secret World of Economic Hit Men and the Web of Global Corruption)
By Steven Hiatt

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/515Qq%2BXiHTL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

[dgun]

Can you please cite a source for your argument and explain what you mean by propoganda please?

Why should I? You made the exact same argument without citing a source.

The media of the US has been pretty effective in misleading US citizens for a very long time.

And you state it as if it is a goal of the US media to do so. The US media’s propagation of misinformation and falsehoods is much more the result of incompetence and cowardice than malice.

[AlanC]

As for the participatory democracy implementation. He will have implemented 25,000 communal councils by the end of this year. These councils govern small groups (on average 200 families) and have control of resources and funding that affects their representatives. The Bolivarian government of Venezuela has a multi-party system with a democratically elected President. The functions of the party's is fragmented and in disarray and the communal councils are taking over some of the functions of those parties. BTW, those parties traditionally left out the poor and Indigenous of Venezuela.

Chavez has stated himself that he intends to change Venezuela into a Socialist State modeled after the one in Cuba. There is no guess work in this, as they are the declarations of your hero himself. The Cuban model is, of course, also closely related to the Russian communist model. The establishment of "community councils" is to establish control at the grass roots level. Not invite input. Socialism by its definition dictates because it already assumes that the central government knows better what is good for the people than they know themselves. As you said, the councils are taking over the functions of the parties. They will disappear in short order and not by accident.

He has not taken away any freedoms, but has increased the number of voices allowed to speak in his government.

Chavez, like all socialists, rules from the top down. He silences voices of opposition coming up. Any who agree with him will always be allowed to speak. It is after all, the Cuban model.

As to taking away or controlling the media....... The media was controlled by the rich elite of Venezuela and was politically biased. A law has been passed on the social responsibility of the media in a true democracy to try to address these flaws. It has met with opposition internally and without by many varied groups, including some media watchdogs. Private TV channels were implicated in the 2002 coup attempt against the President and the most popular, RCTV will be closing this year. It's license has not been renewed.

I can't believe you actually wrote this with a straight face. In a free society, the press is allowed to dissent and that includes ALL citizens. If he had evidence of a coup by any PERSON, they would be in prison. He does not want any opposing views. Communist Russia built this model first. Elimination of a free media and having only state controlled sources for news is not a new idea. But it is hardly used to build a democracy. This would tantamount to the Federal Government seizing the New York Times for its treasonous activity

I agree, in many instances Chavez has been a bit heavy-handed. I understand why he has. He is doing something that has not been done in hundreds of years. Implementing a truly participatory democracy, where even the Socialist Party will be allowed a voice. Our government has used the "boogy man" of socialism on the American people, and other misinformation for so long that we accept the policies and rhetoric without any thought. What we have in the US is FAR from a democracy and that is the real danger Chavez poses, Americans might wake up and realize what a true democracy looks like.

Yes, I imagine that if he intends to establish a socialist state, he would allow the Socialist Party a greater voice. Its the other parties that he will soon do away with, following his mentor's model again. He will use the Socialist Party to firm up his control. This all makes him a copy cat, not a visonary. All the good wishes in the world won't make this pig any prettier.

Finally, you are correct. The United States is not and never was a "true democracy". It is what it was intended to be. A democratically operated representative republic. But noone will confuse Chavez with democracy any time soon. Enjoy your delusion.

[PatrickHenry]

Chavez has stated himself that he intends to change Venezuela into a Socialist State modeled after the one in Cuba. There is no guess work in this, as they are the declarations of your hero himself.Evidence? Or do we just take your word for it?

He has not taken away any freedoms, but has increased the number of voices allowed to speak in his government.

Chavez, like all socialists, rules from the top down. He silences voices of opposition coming up.Proof?


I can't believe you actually wrote this with a straight face. In a free society, the press is allowed to dissent and that includes ALL citizens. If he had evidence of a coup by any PERSON, they would be in prison. He does not want any opposing views. Communist Russia built this model first.Maybe you forgot that Republican President Lincoln jailed newsmen who disagreed with him...

Yes, I imagine that if he intends to establish a socialist state, he would allow the Socialist Party a greater voice. Its the other parties that he will soon do away with, following his mentor's model again. He will use the Socialist Party to firm up his control.The "If" is the word that undemines your prophecy. You have established nothing but a hyperbolic projection of your own antipathy. The source of your hatred for this foreign leader? I conjecture it's Right Wing Talk Radio...

Finally, you are correct. The United States is not and never was a "true democracy". It is what it was intended to be. A democratically operated representative republic. But noone will confuse Chavez with democracy any time soon. Enjoy your delusion.


I suggest you are deluded too, pal. The US Republic is lost and it is devolving to an Empire, but you are too "deluded" by your media heroes to see it...

[AlanC]

Evidence? Or do we just take your word for it?

Its available public record for any that have the ability to look it up. I don't personally care what slant you take.


Proof?

Again, it is available public record. Unless you are aware of a Socialist State in which the government does not act in that fashion. If you want to disprove the statement, feel free.


Maybe you forgot that Republican President Lincoln jailed newsmen who disagreed with him...

And your point as to this topic would be?

The "If" is the word that undemines your prophecy. You have established nothing but a hyperbolic projection of your own antipathy. The source of your hatred for this foreign leader? I conjecture it's Right Wing Talk Radio...


The operative word here is "conjecture". You conjecture wrongly. The if word here is a proper grammatical application that does nothing to alter the man's stated intentions.


I suggest you are deluded too, pal. The US Republic is lost and it is devolving to an Empire, but you are too "deluded" by your media heroes to see it...

I personally have no media "heros". Im not sure how your imagination led you to the belief that I did. But the only hero worship stated here is by Kyi Yo in the original post. Lost or not, this country, by political design and structure is still a representative republic.

[Buck Laser]

I think when one puts up claims as AlanC has, the onus is on him to provide links to his claims. Chavez is a controversial character, and he's done a lot of nose-tweaking toward the US, but I suspect his bark is considerably worse than his bite. He knows how easy it is to get certain segments of the public riled up, and I think he revels in that.

How about some of the "public evidence" you claim, or are we just supposed to accept whatever you say at face value?

[AlanC]

Buck, he has made the statements in speeches several times over the last 6 months. If you weren't paying attention, that is not my problem and you are certainly free to dismiss my comments if you choose.

I don't expect you to take anything of mine or anyone else's at face value if you choose not to.

I posted information that is relevant to this discussion

[PatrickHenry]

I don't expect you to take anything of mine or anyone else's at face value if you if you choose not to.

I posted information that is relevant to this discussion
OK. I got your number, pal. You're no debater, just a bloviator.

See, in debate, we substantiate our statements. Otherwise it's all hot air.

Have fun ballooning...:lmao:

[Buck Laser]

Buck, he has made the statements in speeches several times over the last 6 months. If you weren't paying attention, that is not my problem and you are certainly free to dismiss my comments if you choose.

I don't expect you to take anything of mine or anyone else's at face value if you if you choose not to.

I posted information that is relevant to this discussion

But you haven't sourced it.

I know Chavez has been pretty vocal, but I'm ALWAYS suspicious when someone becomes too handy a target. Are we gonna launch stupid CIA assassination attempt against him like we've been doing against Castro for nearly 50 years?

Chavez's opponents in Venezuela aren't all exactly saints. A great many of them represent the traditional landed gentry who got a lot of their wealth from the sweat of the poor.

It's not a matter of my choosing whether or not to accept your information without attribution. It's a matter of your responsibility to provide credible sources for your statements.

[AlanC]

Okay... check these then. Took all of 5 minutes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6243299.stm
http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/028452.html
http://muevete.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/in-venezuela-chavez-designs-socialist-st
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-01-10-chavez-venezuela_x.htm
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_america/jan-june07/venezuela_01-15.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/08/news/venez.php
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RSLRGG4&show_article=1
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/10/ap/world/mainD8MIG3SG0.shtml
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=avCMbMfGuCyI&refer=latin_ame
http://www.wkrn.com/node/120033


from BBC news in January...
President Hugo Chavez has pledged to nationalise key Venezuelan companies, as part of plans to transform the country into a full socialist state.

[Jaaaman]

Chavez is the classic example of a political-military leader at the head of authoritarian power -- in full political control, repressing the media and opposition, and in full, authoritarian control of the the armed forces. He has curbed the free market by implementing price controls, committed widespread election fraud, stacked Venezuela's supreme court with his own people, and virtually controls all three branches of government. Now in total control of Venezuela, he has even suggested that the constitution be changed to allow for his continual, unending rule. Fidel has definately been a Socialist mentor for this man. :shame:

[AlanC]

OK. I got your number, pal. You're no debater, just a bloviator.

See, in debate, we substantiate our statements. Otherwise it's all hot air.

Have fun ballooning...

Pat, ol' buddy, you have nothing. In debate, if you disagree with someone's point of view, you offer facts that are at odds with that point of view and force the person to substantiate. There are no default wins for those who choose to be blind.

And while its true that I don't really know you, I would have to suspect that its unlikely we are "pals" ol' buddy.

Now you have a nice day.

[tony mitra]

I have often felt during my stay in the US, that there is a difference in perception of socialism, capitalism, democracy and authoritarianism, between some Americans, and other people of the world.

Anyhow, it is my view that some, though not all, Americans equate socialism with communism, and communism with authoritarianism. On the flip side, some of them also equate democracy with capitalism, and capitalism with private participation in many kinds of public duties of a society.

It is also my perception that the rest of the world outside of USA do not make these specific links.

Therefore, it is not uncommon to find people from democratic free market nations to consider their society to be a social democratic one, where some key services are always provided by the Government while the rest of the economy is left to private enterprise. Issue of surface mass transit, healthcare, social security, postal services etc comes to mind.

So, socialism, at least outside of the US, can have various shades. Communism too. There is no direct link between democracy, and either socialism or communism. Those two isms, along with capitalism, are essentially economic models. Democracy, or authoritarianism, describes the way a nation is ruled, and power is handled at the top. Very simply put, in a democracy, the public votes to elect a Government, and based on the preference of the public, the Government imposes whatever kind of economic model the public prefers at that point.

There is also perhaps some confusion regarding how long a head of state can stay in the chair. In the American system, the maximum tenure for a president (but not a congressman) is 8 years. But in many other democratic nations, the tenure of the head of state has no limit on time, same as the tenure of a senator or elected member of parliament. All he needs to do is continue to win elections and enjoy the support of the parliament of the elected body of the congress, to successfully guide the nation.

Now, a word about Communists. There are registered communist parties in many democratic, western, market economy nations, Canada included. These people do not ask for a revolution or seek power through the barrel of a gun. They canvass, much like the rest of them, sometimes win elections, and sometimes even rise to the ranks of presidents in western free market societies. Frances ex President Francois Mitterand comes to mind.

Then there is India, a boisterous democracy with fast rising private enterprise and multinationals, where the current Government could form itself after the last election only with the support of a chunk of elected members belonging to a party called CPM, which stands for Communist Party Marxist. They not only have Communist in their party name, but augmented it with Marxist as well. And yet, there is a healthy coexistence between capitalism, socialism, communism and democracy, with not a trace of authoritarianism in sight.

Now, there are authoritatian dictators around, past and present. Castro and Stalin were one kind, where they both believed in that kind of communism where everything is state control, and the public did not have a real choice in election, i.e. only communist party members were allowed to stand for election. So these two gentlemen would provide one end of the spectrum on the authoritarian side. I already gave examples of communists outside of the authoritarian system existing quite well through real all party democracy, and not even wanting the state to take over all industries.

Now let us look at the flip side of authoritarianism. For every Castro, there have also been a Marcos or a Pinochet. Both of them were cruel dictators, very pro-US and totally free market capitalists and a darling of the US corporations, one from Phillippines and the other from Chile. Both were deposed by their own people after quite a bit of struggle and mayhem. Pinochet ended up being wanted for genocide in his own country, while Marcos, while wanted by the later democratic Governments, managed to stay out for the rest of his life.

So, I trust I have managed to put forward sufficient evidence that communism need not mean state control of everything, neither does it necessarily mean an authoritarian regime. Neither does free market capitalism mean participatory democracy. It all depends on who runs what flavor of what system.

The topic of this thread, I suspect, was not Marxism or Socialism, but participatory democracy in Venezuela, and the actions of Hugo Chavez.

I have noted comments on his effort to change the constitution. Well, constitution has often been amended by all kinds of nations for all kinds of reason repeatedly. Constitution is a document that is constantly being evolved in most nations. It was never designed to be gospel written in stone like a religious scripture. So, if Chavez is attempting to change or amend the constitution, that in itself need not be draconian.

Was there evidence that he subverted the independence of the judiciary in amending the constitution? Or is there a suspicion that he intends to ban all political parties other than his own? Is there some suspicion that Chavez intends to shut down his elected Government, cancel all future multi party elections, and assume lifelong post of a dictator ?

If there are evidence of that, then those should be valid informations to be posted here, rather than if he has or has not socialist or communist sympathies.

Also, as long as Venezuela maintains a participatory democracy, should it be our place to pass judgment on what kind of economic system the public supports and the leader pushes for? We that are not Venezuelans, have neither the ground knowledge nor divine authority to pass judgment on what kind of economic model the Venezuelans should choose. It is for them and them alone to decide.

Anyhow, this has been an interesting debate.

Have a nice weekend, all.

Cheers.

[Kyi Yo]

Aaah, Thanks Tony. I was busy all weekend and had this huge post planned on the different philosophies and what I've learned from Indigenous groups around the world and the different forms governments take. You did it much nicer then I would've.....

The US went through a very long period of hating communism, socialism, marxism..... and others because of the cold war rhetoric. McCarthy's hearings sent a chill through America that hasn't abated much. The modern day witch hunts are continuing now with the anti-Islam bias. American's don't have much exposure to other forms of government/religions/cultures/economics and not much is taught in our schools either. I was so angry when I realized how much I wasn't taught, and when I realized the perpetuations of American mythology/history was pretty entrenched and biased.

Have a good day!

[ttriber]

The thing you fail to understand Kyi is that these people want communism you know the type of Govt. where their is NO Rights, No freedom of speech only what the Dictator wants you to hear and what your heroes want you to love nothing but live like a slave for the government. Hugo Chavez,Daniel Noreiga,Evo Morales all a bunch of communists. I will bring in my friend from Venezuela to discuss this Participatory Democracy that you say Chavez is implementing. But at the same time Cuba has been for 50 years communist where their is nothing but good things said about the government over 99% vote for Castro in Cuba because they are obligated to. If your gonna say Chavez is implementing a Participatory Democracy then what do you call Cuba a freedom loving Democracy.

[Kyi Yo]

Evo Morales has that "quiet force" I see in so many traditional leaders. What an incredible story and so different then Chavez's "fire". I saw him on Democracy Now and the Jon Stewart show. I also watched him speak at the UN.

Published on Monday, October 1, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
Bolivia’s Evo Morales Wins Hearts and Minds in US
by Deborah James and Medea Benjamin

While Iranian President Ahmedinejad stole the headlines during the United Nations meeting last week in New York, Bolivia’s President Evo Morales - a humble coca farmer, former llama herder and union organizer - stole the hearts of the American people. At public events and media appearances, Bolivia’s first-ever indigenous president reached out to the American people to dialogue directly on issues of democracy, environmental sustainability, and social and economic justice.

Morales appeared at a public event packed with representatives of New York’s Latino, labor, and other communities, speaking for 90 minutes - without notes - about how he came to power, and about his government’s efforts to de-colonize the nation, the poorest in South America. At first, he said, community organizations did not want to enter the cesspool of politics. But they realized that if they wanted the government to act in the interest of the poor Indigenous majority, they were going to have to make alliances with other social movements, win political representation democratically, and then transform the government.

Now having been elected to office, they have a clear mandate based on the urgent needs of the majority: to organize a Constitutional Assembly to rewrite the Constitution (controversial with the traditional elites, but well on its way), engage in a comprehensive program of land reform and decriminalize the production of coca for domestic use (in progress), and reclaim control over the oil and gas industries (mission accomplished.)

While other heads of state were meeting with bankers and billionaires, Morales asked his staff to set up a meeting with U.S. grassroots leaders so he could learn about our struggles and how we could work together. The meeting included high-ranking labor leaders, immigrant organizers, Indigenous leaders, peace activists and environmentalists. “I’ve lived in New York during a lot of UN meetings, and I’ve never seen a president reach out to the labor community like Evo did today,� remarked Ed Ott, Executive Director of the New York City Central Labor Council.

The President listened patiently while U.S. organizers talked about efforts to stop the war in Iraq, injustices in the prison system, organizing efforts of low-wage immigrant workers, struggles for Indigenous rights and the difficulties of getting the Bush administration to seriously address the crisis of climate change. “For a farmer to become President, that is a dream come true!� commented Niel Ritchie, president of the League of Rural Voters. “Listening to President Morales, it’s so easy to see how our current trade model has wreaked havoc on farmers in the U.S. as well as in Bolivia.�

His most widespread outreach, however, was on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, who also seemed captivated by this Indigenous farmer-turned-president. Speaking through an interpreter, Morales told millions of Americans how his government’s policies have brought hundreds of millions of dollars for the nation’s poor - that would have gone to foreign corporate coffers - through the nationalization of oil and gas. Revenues from hydrocarbons, mostly natural gas, have increased from $440 million in 2004 to over $1.5 billion in 2006 - a significant amount in Bolivia’s economy, as it is an increase from 5 percent of GDP to over 13 percent of GDP. This year revenues will likely top $2 billion, he said. With a twinkle in his eye as he made a measured critique of the Bush administration’s policies, he said that in this new century, armies should save lives through humanitarian aid, not take lives.

Throughout Morales’ media appearances (including a lengthy segment on Democracy Now!), official speeches at the United Nations, and public meetings, he focused on three main points. The most salient was on the urgency of the need for comprehensive solutions to climate change while simultaneously improving the lives of the poor. “We have to be honest about the causes of this global warming. Overconsumption in the developed countries. Overpollution in the developed countries.� At the same time, he argued that the poor still need more access to energy: “Just like we fought to make water a human right, we need an international campaign to make access to energy a human right.�

These sentiments resonated with Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth US, who participated in the meeting with Morales. “We need to find solutions that will reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the countries of the global north, while fighting for clean energy and poverty reduction in the global south.� Van Jones, Founder of Green for All agreed. “We’re fighting for social justice and climate solutions within the U.S., and we can join forces with and learn from our allies, like President Morales, with the same vision globally.�

Morales also emphasized the importance of the struggle for the right to life, which in Bolivia refers to the fight against corporate globalization and for access to water, food, education, and health care. Specifically, before Morales was elected, Bolivia suffered tremendously under two decades of programs of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, including the privatizations of water services and the hydrocarbon industry. Bolivia has now had much of its debt cancelled and is no longer bound by an IMF agreement, thanks to the anti-debt movement and a lot of help from Venezuela.

Although Bolivia is rich in natural resources, the Indigenous majority has rarely benefited from their exploitation, and the country remains vastly unequal and majority poor. The Bolivian government’s efforts to ensure a more fair distribution of the natural resource wealth has resulted in their being sued by foreign multinational corporations for “future expected profits� from their investments.

Under international trade and investment agreements, these cases are adjudicated - not in Bolivian national courts, as would be the case for national companies - but through the World Bank’s International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, ICSID. (This is similar to the “rights� given to foreign investors to sue sovereign governments in bilateral and regional trade agreements, called “Chapter 11″ investor-to-state provisions in the North American Free Trade Agreement.) ICSID does not have the transparency, checks and balances, or openness of a real judicial system, yet its findings are binding.

This past May, the Bolivian government announced it would withdraw from ICSID. Although most Americans are unaware of ICSID, it is regularly used by U.S. and European corporations to counter efforts by developing countries to re-nationalize natural resources and the provision of public services like water, according to a major report by the Institute for Policy Studies and Food and Water Watch. During his talks, Morales called on the international community to support their efforts for “an ongoing global campaign against this type of investor rule.�

The third point highlighted by Morales relates to bilateral relations with the United States. The U.S. government, through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) currently operates an Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) in Bolivia. (OTI offices are usually designed to help enable Washington-favored regime change; the only other one in Latin America is in Venezuela.) The Bolivian government has accused the United States of using USAID money to build opposition to the new government and its political party, the MAS, something the U.S. had done in the past. According to the Associated Press, “A declassified 2002 cable from the U.S. Embassy in La Paz described a USAID-sponsored ‘political party reform project’ to ‘help build moderate, pro-democracy political parties that can serve as a counterweight to the radical MAS or its successors.’�

But Evo’s main argument was regarding the former president, Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, commonly known as Goni. During the “gas wars� of 2003, troops fired on protesters, killing 67 and wounding over 300 people. Days later, Goni abdicated the presidency and flew to Washington, DC, where he now resides. The Bolivian Supreme Court is seeking extradition of Goni, and two of his former ministers, not for revenge, according to Evo, but “so that they can be held accountable for their crimes by standing trial in Bolivia.�

While it seems unlikely that the United States would consent to the extradition, considering their lack of cooperation with the Venezuelan government’s request for the extradition of terrorist Luis Posada Carriles, the recent agreement of the Chilean government to extradite former Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori to face trial in Peru does set a precedent that will be hard for the United States to ignore. The Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns has worked to educate the public about this issue, and the Center for Constitutional Rights just announced a new major lawsuit against Goni and former Minister of Defense Jose Carlos Sánchez BerzaÃ*n for compensatory and punitive damages under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) on behalf of families of the victims.

After decades of politicians who robbed the country’s coffers and left the people in poverty and despair, Bolivia now has a leader who is known to be honest, sincere and trustworthy. Bolivia also has a leader who inspires hope in the Indigenous population. This hope is now embodied, worldwide, in the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a brand-new declaration approved in the United Nations this September, after a 25-year struggle. At the grassroots meeting with Morales, Tonya Gonella Frichner, President and Founder of the American Indian Law Alliance, highlighted Bolivia’s helpful role in the passage of the declaration, and both she and Morales agreed that “the next step is ensuring that the declaration is implemented.�

Morales, anxious to apply Indigenous wisdom to solve the global climate crisis, is calling for the United Nations to convene a world indigenous forum to “foster a new approach to economic relations based on an appreciation of natural resources and not their exploitation.�

The world has much to learn from the sustainable lifestyles of Indigenous people and from the grassroots movement that has come to power in Bolivia. At a time when our planet is crying out for leadership with vision and integrity, Evo Morales and the Bolivian example should give hope to us all.

Deborah James is the Director of International Programs at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Medea Benjamin is a Co-Founder of Global Exchange and CodePink: Women for Peace.

Evo's UN Address (http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ga/62/2007/ga070926pm2.rm?start=01:13:15&end=01:36:44)

1st Democracy Now Interview, September 2006 (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/22/1323211&mode=thread&tid=25)

Latest Democracy Now Interview, September 2007 (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/26/1442242)

Jon Stewart Interview (http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=103275&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=/shows/the_daily_show/videos/celebrity_interviews/index.jhtml%3Fsiclientid%3D1838%26sitrackingid%3D1 2142396%26yahoomatchtype%3Dstd%26ovadid%3D17656793 511&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true)

[tony mitra]

Hi Kyi Yo,

I had posted earlier that Chavez, and Venezuela, was perhaps depending too much on high oil prices and correspondingly high Government expenditure on social programs, rather than market reform that still protects nationals and the poor against internationals and the rich. This is a delicate balance, but it has been my enduring conviction that nations having a lot of oil face a curse rather than a boon.

Here is an article from the Aug 16 edition of The Economist, which covers the angle from a different point - comparing with what is happening elsewhere in Latin America. Mind it, I do not know if the wealth is being spread evenly in Mexico or Brasil, both of whom have a very large ethnic population that have traditionally been on the bottom rung of the economic ladder.

Perhaps you'd like to read this and check out if the truth here is balanced or not quite.
----------------------


Latin America's economies
Up from the bottom of the pile
Aug 16th 2007
From The Economist print edition

Something rather exciting is happening in Latin America

http://www.economist.com/images/20070818/CLD988.gif

MUCH of the news coming out of Latin America in recent years has been of radical populists proclaiming “revolution� or, as Venezuela's Hugo Chávez would have it, “21st century socialism�. In their widely propagated caricature, a tiny white elite in Latin America oppresses an indigenous majority whose poverty has been exacerbated by the free-market reforms imposed by the IMF and the United States.

So it might be hard to believe that in many countries in the region, and especially in Brazil and Mexico, Latin America's two giants, things are in fact going better today than they have done since the mid-1970s. The region is in its fourth successive year of economic growth averaging a steady 5%. In most places inflation is in low single digits. And for the first time in memory, growth has gone hand-in-hand with a current-account surplus, holding out hope that it will not be scotched by a habitual Latin American balance-of-payments crunch.

What is more, financial stability and faster growth are starting to transform social conditions with astonishing speed. The number of people living in poverty is falling, not only because of growth but also thanks to the social policies of reforming democratic governments. The incomes of the poor are rising faster than those of the rich in Brazil (where income inequality is at its least extreme for a generation) and in Mexico.

In both these countries a new lower-middle class is emerging from poverty (see article). Low inflation, achieved through more disciplined public finances and trade liberalisation, has brought falling interest rates. Credit has at last returned. So these new consumers are buying cars and DVD players or taking out mortgages. No wonder Latin Americans are in an optimistic mood: earlier this year a poll by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found a greater increase in personal satisfaction in Brazil and Mexico over the past five years than in any of the other 45 countries it surveyed.

Keep inflation low and fix the schools
So if things are going so well, why have radical populists and leftists done well in recent elections? Look closer: they have in fact failed to carry all before them. Out of a dozen presidential elections in the region in the 13 months to last December, the radicals won only four. Moderate governments, of centre-left or centre-right, are in charge in most countries.

That said, politics sometimes lags economics. Even as things started to improve, many Latin Americans were in surly mood because they had suffered through five years of stagnation or worse between 1998 and 2003. Besides, the progress is not uniform. In some of the smaller and poorer countries, the populists' caricature has a grain of truth to it. That is why Mr Chávez has friends in places like Bolivia and Ecuador.

But the important point is that the course upon which most Latin American countries are set—of democracy and open-market economies—is finally bearing fruit. The new middle class in countries like Brazil and Mexico derives its income from the private sector, not from public employment. There lies the big difference with Mr Chávez's Venezuela, where falling poverty depends almost entirely on a vast increase in public spending, and is thus hostage to the oil price.

Of course plenty of caveats are in order. The first is that it is not just in Venezuela that growth has been underpinned by higher prices for commodity exports. Nevertheless, in many other countries export-growth is broad-based. With China and India industrialising, it is unlikely that commodities will be as cheap as in the 1990s any time soon. A second obvious worry is that the current financial-market flap will end up making a serious dent in the growth of the world economy. But—mirabile dictu—thanks to its current-account surplus Latin America is not in the front line of this particular market panic.

Another caveat is that for all its recent progress, Latin America remains a long way from enjoying widespread affluence. In the region as a whole, some 38.5% of people remain poor according to national definitions. The gains are still fragile. But the lessons for governments are clear. To bolster the new middle class, it is crucial to keep inflation low. So is improving the shoddy education imparted in the region's schools and universities. And businesses in the region are still held back by lack of transport infrastructure and an excess of red tape.

The commodity bonanza won't last forever, so now is the time to fix these things. Do so and Latin America's democracies could turn an important corner, in which inequality, poverty and populism give way to prosperous middle-class democracies where the majority has an interest in stability.
------------

So, there you are. Now what do you think ?
I know you cannot comment like a professional economist on Venezuela's economic policy, and that you support Morales and Chavez for what they stand for, which is to try and empower the original inhabitants and the tribals of the land. In that, their goal is ground breaking. But if neighbors get richer, and they remain poor, or worse, if the oil runs out and the state cannot spend the money any more, it could well backfire on both of them.

Anyhow, it is my perception that even if Chavez is himself not an astute economist, he should take professional help in appointing his finance minister, and steer the country in a way that achieves both goals, i.e. protect and support the poor majority and same time enrich them as well as indigenous enterpreneurs, and let the market evolve that way rather then depend on state expenditure based on oil revenue.

Cheers. :)

[PatrickHenry]

...Daniel Noreiga...all a bunch of communists. ...
heh. Please explain who you are referring to.

Is it Daniel Ortega whose Sandinista movement overthrew the longstanding rightwing dictatorship of the Somoza family in Nicaragua?

Or Manuel Noriega who cooperated with the US CIA in running cocaine through his nation of Panama until he got a bit too uppity and was siezed and arrested in a US military invasion and tried in a US court, even though he was a head of state in another nation?

Which one of these men are you referring to, or is it really an obscure individual called Daniel Noriega who absconded with some money that your family foolishly entrusted to him, so now you are out to get him? Heh...

And please defend the opponents of either Daniel Ortega or Manuel Noriega, if you think they deserve it. This should be interesting.

[JohnnyAwake]

So when your hero, Hugo Chavez, wants to nationalize the media to silence his critics, control elections, assume dictatorial powers and confiscate private property along with eliminating any dissenting voices - he's promoting participatory democracy.

Gotcha.


Sounds remarkably similar to the anti-Castro rhetoric we've been hearing now for OH so many years. AlanC tell me what you know about Latin American politics? I don't believe (based on my dealings with people affiliated with the Movimiento V Republica (MVR)) it would be in his best interest to "silence" critics. I suppose Hugo doesn't have the right to "nationalize" if that is what is welcomed by the people. I don't see the problem. Should we call old Kissinger up and ask him what to do...
After all, that would have to be due to the "irresponsibility of it's (Venezuela's) own people". We saw Allende in the 70's fall on his own sword to protect democracy. Because of Capitalist interests (ie:/ Anaconda Mining) he was painted the villain. AlanC my suggestion to you is to step outside of that little cave known as the mainstream American (USA of coarse..who thought it could mean anything else!!??) Media. It would do you a tremendous deed to dissimilate.

[Pogo]

All is well with Chavez when he is giving his people things.
What happens when he starts to take it all away?
When you give up your freedoms you cease the ability for self determination.
That is a wager which most Americans will not take.

What makes you think that Americans place very much value on freedom?

[preservanation]

Maybe you would enjoy having the gov run your life, a bottle of vodka an issue of Pravda and some seashells for your ears.
I wouldn't.
People were born free and men were meant to stay that way.
Many have died for it in the past and many will die still,
preserving freedom.

[Pogo]

Maybe you would enjoy having the gov run your life, a bottle of vodka an issue of Pravda and some seashells for your ears.
I wouldn't.
People were born free and men were meant to stay that way.
Many have died for it in the past and many will die still,
preserving freedom.

I'll try again: what makes you think that Americans place much value on freedom?

[preservanation]

Do I have to...OK.
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasions from without and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;

For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;

For imposing taxes on us without our consent;

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;

For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses;

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies;

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrection among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in our attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.Well that's the short answer to why we place so much value in freedom but I'd be willing to expand on it if you'd like, pogo.

[Pogo]

Do I have to...OK...

Well that's the short answer to why we place so much value in freedom but I'd be willing to expand on it if you'd like, pogo.

Seems to me that if we really valued freedom, we'd have put up a fight to prevent our constitution from being gutted and ignored.

[PatrickHenry]

Brainwashing by government schools and patriotic hype from the airwaves has obscured the problem, Pogo.

[preservanation]

Do I have to...OK...

Well that's the short answer to why we place so much value in freedom but I'd be willing to expand on it if you'd like, pogo.

Seems to me that if we really valued freedom, we'd have put up a fight to prevent our constitution from being gutted and ignored.
What are you talking about?
Campaign Finance Reform?
In which case, I agree, it should be repealed.

[Pogo]

Brainwashing by government schools and patriotic hype from the airwaves has obscured the problem, Pogo.

Wasn't it Rousseau who asked what do slaves know of freedom?

almost nothing, I would say.[hr]


Do I have to...OK...

Well that's the short answer to why we place so much value in freedom but I'd be willing to expand on it if you'd like, pogo.

Seems to me that if we really valued freedom, we'd have put up a fight to prevent our constitution from being gutted and ignored.
What are you talking about?
Campaign Finance Reform?
In which case, I agree, it should be repealed.


I was thinking along the lines of Habeus Corpus, Miranda, Posse Comitatus, etc. Nothing you're very familiar with, it would seem.

[ttriber]

...Daniel Noreiga...all a bunch of communists. ...
heh. Please explain who you are referring to.

Is it Daniel Ortega whose Sandinista movement overthrew the longstanding rightwing dictatorship of the Somoza family in Nicaragua?

Or Manuel Noriega who cooperated with the US CIA in running cocaine through his nation of Panama until he got a bit too uppity and was siezed and arrested in a US military invasion and tried in a US court, even though he was a head of state in another nation?

Which one of these men are you referring to, or is it really an obscure individual called Daniel Noriega who absconded with some money that your family foolishly entrusted to him, so now you are out to get him? Heh...

And please defend the opponents of either Daniel Ortega or Manuel Noriega, if you think they deserve it. This should be interesting.


I had the wrong names but I thought the guys named sounded like those two combined but I was wrong and after looking it up I meant Rafael Correa from Ecuador thats the guy who I was referring to as another growing communist.

[preservanation]

pogo:I was thinking along the lines of Habeus Corpus, Miranda, Posse Comitatus, etc. Nothing you're very familiar with, it would seem. Again, give me examples. How has the constitution has been violated by the Bush administration? (I believe that is what you're referring to.)
You seem to be OK with campaign Finance reform and the Kelo decision by the Supremes.
Is this true?

[JohnnyAwake]

pogo:I was thinking along the lines of Habeus Corpus, Miranda, Posse Comitatus, etc. Nothing you're very familiar with, it would seem. Again, give me examples. How has the constitution has been violated by the Bush administration? (I believe that is what you're referring to.)
You seem to be OK with campaign Finance reform and the Kelo decision by the Supremes.
Is this true?


Constitutional violations? Well shall we embark. Bush had issued a signed statement, last year, to an anti-torture bill passed by Congress, claiming he had the right to ignore a law if he deemed it necessary
An obvious violation of Article I, Section 8, which states in part that Congress has the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers." Our President does not have that power.


Then of coarse is the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT ACT); which enabled "Big Brother" (you know the same government you Republicans attribute to being "part of the problem") to spy on domestic phone calls without obtaining a court's permission to do so. Not only does this violate the Foreign Intelligence Su