| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Black Elk" |
| Date: |
25 Aug 2005 06:18:45 PM |
| Object: |
Good vs evil: Chavez's socialism vs Robertson's fascism . |
Good Things Happening in Venezuela
by Michael Parenti
Z magazine
July/August 2005
Even before I arrived in Venezuela for a recent visit, I encountered the
great class divide in that country. On my connecting flight from Miami to
Caracas, I found myself seated next to an exquisitely dressed Venezuelan
woman. Judging from her prosperous aspect, I anticipated that she would take
the first opportunity to hold forth against President Hugo Chavez.
Unfortunately, I was right.
Our conversation moved along famously until we got to the political struggle
going on in Venezuela. "Chavez," she hissed, "is terrible, terrible." He is
"a liar." He "fools the people" and is "ruining the country."
She owns an upscale women's fashion company with links to prominent firms in
the United States. When I asked how Chavez has hurt her business, she said,
"Not at all." But many other businesses, she quickly added, have been
irreparably damaged as has the whole economy. She went on denouncing Chavez
in sweeping terms, warning me of the national disaster to come if this demon
continued to have his way.
Other critics I encountered in Venezuela shared this same mode of attack:
weak on specifics, but strong in venom, voiced with all the ferocity of
those who fear that their birthright (that is, their class advantage) is
under siege because others below them on the social ladder are now getting a
slightly larger slice of the pie.
In Venezuela over 80 percent of the population lives below the poverty
level. Before Chavez, most of the poor had never seen a doctor or dentist.
Their children never went to school, since they could not afford the annual
fees. The neoliberal market "adjustments" of the 1980s and 1990s only made
things worse, cutting social spending and eliminating subsidies in consumer
goods. Successive Administrations did nothing about the rampant corruption
and nothing about the growing gap between rich and poor, the growing
malnutrition and desperation.
Far from ruining the country, here are some of the good things the Chavez
government has accomplished:
* A land reform program designed to assist small farmers and the landless
poor has been instituted-this past March a large landed estate owned by a
British beef company was occupied by agrarian workers for farming purposes
* Education is now free (right through to university level), causing a
dramatic increase in grade school enrollment
* The government has set up a marine conservation program and is taking
steps to protect the land and fishing rights of indigenous peoples
* Special banks now assist small enterprises, worker cooperatives, and
farmers
* Attempts to further privatize the state-run oil industry-80 percent of
which is still publicly owned-have been halted and limits have been placed
on foreign capital penetration
* Chavez kicked out U.S. military advisors and prohibited overflights by
U.S. military aircraft engaged in counterinsurgency in Colombia
* "Bolivarian Circles" have been organized throughout the nation,
neighborhood committees designed to activate citizens at the community level
to assist in literacy, education, vaccination campaigns, and other public
services
* The government hires unemployed men, on a temporary basis, to repair
streets and neglected drainage and water systems in poor neighborhoods
Then there is the health program. I visited a dental clinic in Chavez's home
state of Barinas. The staff consisted of four dentists, two of whom were
young Venezuelan women. The other two were Cuban men who were there on a
one-year program. The Venezuelan dentists noted that in earlier times
dentists did not have enough work. There were millions of people who needed
treatment, but care was severely rationed by one's ability to pay. Dental
care was distributed like any other commodity, not to everyone who needed
it, but only to those who could afford it.
When the free clinic in Barinas first opened it was flooded with people
seeking dental care. No one was turned away. Even opponents of the Chavez
government availed themselves of the free service, temporarily putting aside
their political aversions.
Many of the doctors and dentists who work in the barrio clinics (along with
some of the clinical supplies and pharmaceuticals) come from Cuba. Chavez
has also put Venezuelan military doctors and dentists to work in the free
clinics. Meanwhile, much of the Venezuelan medical establishment is
vehemently opposed to the free clinic program, seeing it as a Cuban
communist campaign to undermine medical standards and physicians' earnings.
That low-income people are receiving medical and dental care for the first
time in their lives does not seem to be a consideration that carries much
weight among the more "professionally minded" practitioners.
I visited one of the government-supported community food stores that are
located around the country, mostly in low income areas. These modest
establishments sell canned goods, pasta, beans, rice, and some produce and
fruits at well below market price, a blessing in a society with widespread
malnutrition.
Popular food markets have eliminated the layers of middlepeople and made
staples more affordable for residents. Most of these markets are run by
women. The government also created a state-financed bank whose function is
to provide low-income women with funds to start cooperatives in their
communities.
There is a growing number of worker cooperatives. One in Caracas was started
by turning a waste dump into a shoe factory and a T-shirt factory. Financed
with money from the Petroleum Ministry, the coop has put about 1,000 people
to work. The workers seem enthusiastic and hopeful.
Surprisingly, many Venezuelans know relatively little about the worker
cooperatives. Or perhaps it's not surprising, given the near monopoly that
private capital has over the print and broadcast media. The wealthy media
moguls, all vehemently anti-Chavez, own four of the five television stations
and all the major newspapers.
The person most responsible for Venezuela's revolutionary developments, Hugo
Chavez, has been accorded the usual ad hominem treatment in the U. S. news
media. An article in the San Francisco Chronicle described him as
"Venezuela's pugnacious president." An earlier Chronicle report (November
30, 2001) quotes a political opponent who calls Chavez "a psychopath, a
terribly aggressive guy." The London Financial Times sees him as
"increasingly autocratic" and presiding over something called a "rogue
democracy."
In the Nation (May 6, 2002), Marc Cooper-one of those Cold War liberals who
nowadays regularly defends the U.S. empire-writes that the
democratically-elected Chavez speaks "often as a thug," who "flirts with
megalomania." Chavez's behavior, Cooper rattles on, "borders on the
paranoiac," is "ham-fisted demagogy" acted out with an "increasingly
autocratic style." Like so many critics, Cooper downplays Chavez's
accomplishments and uses name-calling in place of informed analysis.
Other media mouthpieces have labeled Chavez "mercurial," "besieged,"
"heavy-handed," "incompetent," and "dictatorial," a "barracks populist," a
"strongman," a "firebrand," and, above all, a "leftist." It is never
explained what "leftist" means.
A leftist is someone who advocates a more equitable distribution of social
resources and human services and who supports the kinds of programs that the
Chavez government is putting in place. (Likewise a rightist is someone who
opposes such programs and seeks to advance the insatiable privileges of
private capital and the wealthy few.) The term "leftist" is frequently
bandied about in the U. N. media, but seldom defined. The power of the label
is in its remaining undefined, allowing it to have an abstracted built-in
demonizing impact, which precludes rational examination of its political
content.
Meanwhile Chavez's opponents, who staged an illegal and unconstitutional
coup in April 2002 against the democratically elected government, are
depicted in the U.S. media as champions of "pro-democratic" and "pro-West"
governance. We are talking about the free-market plutocrats and
corporate-military leaders of the privileged social order who killed more
people in the 48 hours they held power in 2002 than were ever harmed by
Chavez in his years of rule.
When one of these perpetrators, General Carlos Alfonzo, was hit with charges
for the role he had played, the New York Times chose to call him a
"dissident" whose rights were being suppressed by the Chavez government.
Four other top military officers charged with leading the 2002 coup were
also likely to face legal action. No doubt, they too will be described not
as plotters or traitors who tried to destroy a democratic government, but as
"dissidents," decent individuals who are being denied their right to
disagree with the government.
President Hugo Chavez, whose public talks I attended on three occasions,
proved to be an educated, articulate, remarkably well-informed and well-read
individual. He manifests a sincere dedication to effecting some salutary
changes for the great mass of his people, a person who in every aspect seems
worthy of the decent and peaceful democratic revolution he is leading.
Millions of his compatriots correctly perceive him as being the only
president who has ever paid attention to the nation's poorest areas. No
wonder he is the target of calumny and coup from the upper echelons in his
own country and from ruling circles up north.
Chavez charges that the United States government is plotting to assassinate
him. I can believe it.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Parenti/GoodThings_Venezuela.html
--
Virtually all of the specific economic policies advocated by the Italian and
German fascists of the 1930s have also been adopted in the United States in
some form, and continue to be adopted to this day. Sixty years ago, those
who adopted these interventionist policies in Italy and Germany did so
because they wanted to destroy economic liberty, free enterprise, and
individualism. Only if these institutions were abolished could they hope to
achieve the kind of totalitarian state they had in mind.
http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1994archive/121_3/ts213l.html
--
The fair use of a copyrighted work:
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
.
|
|
| User: "Werner Hetzner" |
|
| Title: Re: Good vs evil: Chavez's socialism vs Robertson's fascism . |
25 Aug 2005 08:24:27 PM |
|
|
Black Elk wrote:
Good Things Happening in Venezuela
by Michael Parenti
Z magazine
July/August 2005
...
Isn't that what they used to say about Castro and Mao and Stalin and ...?
It turned out good things were indeed happening - for Castro and Mao and
Stalin and ...
But why dwell on reality when faith is at hand?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Black Elk" |
|
| Title: Re: Good vs evil: Chavez's socialism vs Robertson's fascism . |
25 Aug 2005 08:54:46 PM |
|
|
"Werner Hetzner" <whetzner@mac.com> wrote in message
news:430E6F4B.4000003@mac.com...
Black Elk wrote:
Good Things Happening in Venezuela
by Michael Parenti
Z magazine
July/August 2005
...
Isn't that what they used to say about Castro and Mao and Stalin and ...?
It turned out good things were indeed happening - for Castro and Mao and
Stalin and ...
But why dwell on reality when faith is at hand?
Castro has taken Cuba further than any country in that region. After Bush's
meddling in Haiti there has been nothing but chaos and bloodshed.
Mao's China may soon eclipse the U.S.
Stalin was a mass murderer as was the rightwing's Hitler, so what's your
point?
Chavez's Venezuela is a democracy and that's what scares the hell out of
Bush and the rest of you neo-fascists.
--
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the
country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag
the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a
parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have
to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for
lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werner Hetzner" |
|
| Title: Re: Good vs evil: Chavez's socialism vs Robertson's fascism . |
26 Aug 2005 09:54:56 AM |
|
|
Black Elk wrote:
"Werner Hetzner" <whetzner@mac.com> wrote in message
news:430E6F4B.4000003@mac.com...
...
Isn't that what they used to say about Castro and Mao and Stalin and ...?
It turned out good things were indeed happening - for Castro and Mao and
Stalin and ...
But why dwell on reality when faith is at hand?
Castro has taken Cuba further than any country in that region. After Bush's
meddling in Haiti there has been nothing but chaos and bloodshed.
Explain it to the Cubans.
Mao's China may soon eclipse the U.S.
Thanks to business friendly laws, supply side economics and capitalist
enterprises.
Stalin was a mass murderer as was the rightwing's Hitler, so what's your
point?
My point is that rulers rule you. Power corrupts. Absolute power ...
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/index.html
Chavez's Venezuela is a democracy and that's what scares the hell out of
Bush and the rest of you neo-fascists.
I tried to point out some examples of democracies - Cuba and so forth.
You like to live in a world of our own. Be happy in your delusions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dwain" |
|
| Title: Re: Good vs evil: Chavez's socialism vs Robertson's fascism . |
26 Aug 2005 10:57:31 AM |
|
|
In article <430F2D41.8020304@mac.com>, says...
Black Elk wrote:
Castro has taken Cuba further than any country in that region. After Bush's
meddling in Haiti there has been nothing but chaos and bloodshed.
Explain it to the Cubans.
Actually, I think the onus is on you to explain to the Cubans whay they
should want very much higher costs for health care and education.
Mao's China may soon eclipse the U.S.
Thanks to business friendly laws, supply side economics and capitalist
enterprises.
Plus a totalitarian regime. Totalitarian regimes just love "capitalist
enterprises."
Stalin was a mass murderer as was the rightwing's Hitler, so what's your
point?
My point is that rulers rule you. Power corrupts. Absolute power ...
"Power does not corrupt. Fear corrupts, perhaps the fear of losing
power." - John Steinbeck
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werner Hetzner" |
|
| Title: Re: Good vs evil: Chavez's socialism vs Robertson's fascism . |
26 Aug 2005 03:17:36 PM |
|
|
Dwain wrote:
In article <430F2D41.8020304@mac.com>, says...
Black Elk wrote:
Castro has taken Cuba further than any country in that region. After Bush's
meddling in Haiti there has been nothing but chaos and bloodshed.
Explain it to the Cubans.
Actually, I think the onus is on you to explain to the Cubans whay they
should want very much higher costs for health care and education.
They shouldn't. Neither should the rest of us.
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Education.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/ReportCard.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Fleeced%20Again.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Schools.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/PerformanceGap.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Health%20Care.shtml
Mao's China may soon eclipse the U.S.
Thanks to business friendly laws, supply side economics and capitalist
enterprises.
Plus a totalitarian regime. Totalitarian regimes just love "capitalist
enterprises."
THat's because socialist 5 year plans don't make anything.
Stalin was a mass murderer as was the rightwing's Hitler, so what's your
point?
My point is that rulers rule you. Power corrupts. Absolute power ...
"Power does not corrupt. Fear corrupts, perhaps the fear of losing
power." - John Steinbeck
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/ExampleTOC.shtml
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jrd100" |
|
| Title: Re: Good vs evil: Chavez's socialism vs Robertson's fascism . |
26 Aug 2005 08:42:23 PM |
|
|
Venenzula is viewed as the 21st Century Cuba. They send oil to us though.
Pro and Anti Chavez supporters sing in Falsetto.
If they didn't, no one would hear them.
****************************************************
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_27-8-2005_pg4_17
Uzbekistan demands financial compensation from Washington
* Uzbek lawmakers give final approval to evict US troops from military base
* Says the presence of US airbase is against Tashkent interests
TASHKENT: Uzbekistan Senate gave final approval on Friday to an order
evicting US military forces from the country and many lawmakers demanded
financial compensation from Washington for alleged environmental damage
caused by the US military presence in the country.
The eviction order was approved after two hours of debate and the decision
was announced by Sarrukhka Mukhuddinova, deputy Senate speaker. Senate
approval marked the final step needed to make the eviction notice law.
"The presence of the US airbase has become against our interests," said
Muriddin Zayniddinov, a senator representing the constituency where the US
airbase at Karshi Khanabad, known as K2, is located.
"A man with two faces cannot be a friend of Uzbekistan," Zayniddinov said in
a speech before the assembly.
Another senator said the government of Uzbekistan had spent 168 million
dollars in building infrastructure to support the US base but had received
no financial compensation for the expenditures from the United States.
"We have the right to demand not only the eviction of the US military from
Uzbekistan but to demand compensation for environmental, economic and health
damage" caused by the American military presence in the country, he said.
The government of the strategic Central Asian state formally notified the
United States on July 29 of its decision to terminate the agreement
permitting the deployment of US military forces at the base.
The eviction notice was served after the United States joined an
international chorus condemning the regime of President Islam Karimov for a
military crackdown in the eastern city of Andijan on May 13.
Independent human rights groups and local witnesses claimed troops opened
fire on unarmed civilians in Andijan, killing several hundred people. The
Uzbek government denied this, saying that 187 people were killed in the
unrest, including many military and law enforcement personnel.
Tashkent said the unrest in Andijan was triggered by an attempt by armed
Islamist militants to overthrow the government and required an immediate and
decisive reponse.
The US military presence in Uzbekistan was established shortly after the
September 11 2001 attacks in the United States and has been used since then
to support ongoing US military operations in Afghanistan.
In serving the eviction notice, Uzbekistan gave the United States 180 days
to clear out - the notice required under the basing agreement..
In the debate Friday, several Uzbek senators said the decision to kick US
forces out of the country was not linked to criticism from Washington over
the events in Andijan.
Zayniddinov said that the US military presence at Karshi Khanabad had been a
source of protest from local residents for several years and asserted,
without providing explanation that it had contributed to a rise in health
problems in the area. "We have received a lot of complaints from local
people that the US airbase is spoiling the environment," he said.
"Since 2001, various bronchial and allergic illnesses have increased by 2.6
percent" among the population living in the vicinity of the US base, he
added. Zayniddinov also asserted that, contrary to being a stabilising
factor in the region, the US military presence had become a major security
problem in Uzbekistan.
"We know that usually where US bases are located fundamentalist and
extremist groups appear. If you have a foreign military base in your country
you will have a new enemy who will try to eliminate this base.
"We no longer want to be in between" these two forces, he said.
US officials admitted in early August that the closure of the base in
Uzbekistan presented problems for Washington.
Since then, several senior US military and diplomatic officials, including
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, have visited other ex-Soviet republics in
Central Asia - specifically, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan - do
discuss military arrangements with them. afp
************************************************************************
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/8674
Some Russians Long for Soviet Union
(Angus Reid Global Scan) - Some adults in Russia are disappointed with their
country's current affiliation with the rest of the former Soviet Republics,
according to a poll by the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center. 32
per cent of respondents favour the restoration of the Soviet Union, up four
points since 2001.
The Soviet Union was officially established in 1922, following the Bolshevik
Revolution. A 1991 coup attempt severely hampered the authority of Soviet
leader Mikhail Gorbachev. The Russian Federation was formed in December
1991, after public support shifted to Russian nationalist Boris Yeltsin.
In the 1990s, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)-a coalition
encompassing 12 former Soviet Republics-was formed. 23 per cent of
respondents approve of the present form of the CIS, while 26 per cent would
prefer a closer alliance with several states. Only 16 per cent of
respondents advocate for the independent existence of all former Soviet
Republics.
Russian president Vladimir Putin and Belarusian counterpart Aleksandr
Lukashenko signed a bilateral treaty in late 1999, where the two nations
agreed to eventually merge their tax systems and currencies. An actual
constitution for the proposed union has not been drafted.
Polling Data
Which of these possible relations between the former Soviet Republics do you
support?
2005 2001
Restoration of the Soviet Union 32% 28%
The Commonwealth of Independent 23% 15%
States (CIS) in its present form
Association of several states 26% 42%
in a closer alliance
Independent existence for all 16% 10%
former Soviet Republics
Hard to answer 3% 5%
Source: All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center
Methodology: Interviews to 1,600 Russian adults, conducted on Jul. 9 and
Jul. 10, 2005. Margin of error is 3.4 per cent.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
