If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Hugo Chavez closes Critical TV station
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
from the beeb
This could go wrong. Chavez has enacted some sweeping reforms of nationalising key industry, which have proved popular especially amongst the poor. However this latest development is worrying, and I hope we don't see more of a move towards Maoism.
This could be very very good for the poor of Venezuela, or it could go horribly wrong.
This could go wrong. Chavez has enacted some sweeping reforms of nationalising key industry, which have proved popular especially amongst the poor. However this latest development is worrying, and I hope we don't see more of a move towards Maoism.
This could be very very good for the poor of Venezuela, or it could go horribly wrong.
0
Comments
Chavez was elected, and there was coup to oust him. He does have popular support in Venezuala, and one of the things with getting info through technologies such as the internet, is that the poorest in Venezuala don't have access to it, so we only know so much about popular feeling.
On the other hand there is precident for this, and there are reports that he has been courting the support of Maoists in other countries.
I think that puts a different light on it.
I'm looking forward to John Pilger's new film; 'The War on Democracy'.
http://www.johnpilger.com/
Closing down critical TV stations is what rulers do when power goes to their head. We've seen it with Vladimir Putin, we've seen it under many rulers before. This decision is wrong. The channel should be allowed back on-air immediately. Thanks to Blagsta for bringing that letter from The Guardian to a wider readership than the Left-wing rag itself has. The fact that all those useless Lefties think this is a good thing merely proves how wrong the decision is. These hypocrites and mouthpieces should hang their heads in shame.
Evidence?
What's wrong with Nationalising industries in a developing country that relies heavily on industry? What's wrong with having Communist friends?
How plain does it have to be before we realise that the Project for the New American Century is just that? They've even go their own bloody website!
Chavez was elected. Hamas was elected. Now I don't have to agree with either of them, but the paradox for the US is that you can't promote democracy and actively oppose its outcome. That is of course, unless democracy is code for a particular system that fits into a larger foreign policy agenda.
If the free market American way was so good that given the choice, everyone would choose to move closer to the US, why aren't they?
if history is any judge it won't be solved by socialism either. That's not to say that South America needs to fully follow the US model, but it does seem to veer from absolute free markets (much freerer than the US) to state control, without finding that happy medium of mixed economies (regulated free markets) which promotes wealth, health and happiness...
So was Hitler, so was Mussolini... I'm not sure of your point. Of course the US actively opposses the outcome if that's against its interest. They're not going to sit and think "OK Hamas is launching missile strikes against one of our allies, but they're elected so better let them be..."
Lots of reasons, some of which are rationale (I'm doing very well out of the current system thanks), some of which are less so (I don't like Bush and therefore everything he espouses is wrong), plus short-termism (restructuring of the economy is likely to make me worse off in the short term even if I accept in the long term it works) and lack of knowledge (I don't know why the US is rich).
What idiocy.
What has been utterly and indisputably discredited is the implementation of the "Washington Consensus" policies of market liberalization and privatization in Latin America and elsewhere. Even its original advocates have been forced to concede this, its only ideologues/doctrinaires/uninformed motormouths like yourself that continue to parrot this crap. It is you who is the mouthpiece.
The reason it has taken Chavez so long to "shut down" these arseholes (actually, he simply didn't renew their license) is probably because still faced too much opposition...now his reforms have proven to be a success, and he has consolidated widespread support, he is able to do so.
I accept that this probably wasn't clear from the original post, but the idea is that there is a contradiction between the ideology that the US claims to uphold, and the material effects of its foreign policy. If ideology and action were in sync one would assume that hostility to US-friendly choices at the ballot box would be lower than they are.
The fact of the matter is that since 1979 continual attempts to intervene in Latin America have led to a de-stabilization of states and populations. People are moving against pro-American political choices in South America as a direct result of this policy.
Oh and careful with the word 'Socialism'; FARC ('The Shining Path') and other Maoist groups often see more central Socialist systems as subversive class enemies.