March 31, 2005
Peace and Social Justice?
The lesson of history is that the lessons of history matter little to those enthralled with the idea of complete equality.
Chavez’s Venezuela: A Fighting Chance for an Egalitarian Society?
No it’s not Ward Churchil, but it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the writer is an ‘Associate professor of Latin American History and Women’s Studies at the University of Rhode Island’.
For the Left, socialism isn't dead. It hasn't been tried yet. By the right people. With the right tools. In the right way. Under the right circumstances. Too many forces have stood in the way and undermined the progress of 'peace and social justice'. Like the Plutocracy we call the United States; an arrogant, Imperialist, and oppressive regime that makes war all over the world in order to enforce its immoral, rich, capitalist desires, spreading commerce and technology and raising the standard of living willy-nilly across the globe just to make themselves rich and incidentally destroy the environment.
Both President George W. Bush and the Democratic challenger, John F. Kerry, have characterized him as an "anti-democratic leader" but considering Hugo's program and achievements in office, one can only wonder what common meaning "democratic" can have to two men who profess to disagree upon so many issues. If, by democratic, they mean a government run by a small plutocracy that controls all of the country's wealth, then I suppose that Chavez is anti-democratic. If they mean leaders who funnel the people's money into the pockets of their friends, then I suppose he is anti-democratic. In fact, if they mean men who identify with the poor to the point of putting programs in place that will lift the entire society in a generation, then Chavez is certainly anti-democratic. It might be nice to live in an anti-democratic country if this is what democratic means in the Alice-in-Wonderland parallel world of American presidential politics.But if democracy means to be by, for, and of the people, then Hugo Chavez might want to take a turn as U.S. president when he has cleaned up Venezuela.
Benevolent dictators always seem to run the proletariat revolutions, don't they? Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez. The result is generally the same. The fact is that more have been killed in the name of 'Social Justice' than by all the wars of the 20th century combined and Hugo Chavez is following in the footsteps of this 'revolutionary' history.
To top it all off, Chavez is now organizing a new army, one loyal to him personally. This is part of his plan to create "Bolivarian Circles of Venezuela Frontline Defense for National Democratic Revolution." These are political clubs all over the country, particularly in poor areas, where Chavez has the most support. Chavez expects to have 2.2 million members, who will be the backbone of the "democratic revolution unfolding in Venezuela." What upsets the armed forces is Chavezs decision to pass out infantry weapons to these political clubs, so that his new political clubs can use force to "defend the revolution." There are believed to be Cuban advisors involved in this effort. This sort of mass organization has been used before in Latin America, by both leftist and rightist dictators (pro-fascist Juan Peron of Argentina, and communist Fidel Castro of Cuba.) But by passing out guns to his most dedicated followers, Chavez is angering the military, making the middle class even more nervous, and setting the stage for a bloody civil war. strategypage.com- - -
Venezuela has confirmed that it is buying 100,000 AK-47 rifles from Russia next month. Pentagon officials said the number of weapons could reach 300,000 - for a nation whose national guard and army total 62,000.
US intelligence reports conclude that the Chavez Government is in the process of buying new warships and as many as 50 Russian attack helicopters, defence officials told reporters on condition of anonymity. Mr Chavez is also discussing the purchase of 30 MiG-29 fighter jets, a defence official said.
smh.com.au
Communism and socialism are dead. So why do I bring up this silly nonsense? Simply because so many still believe in this nonsense, or some variant of it, that men like Chavez can actually replay the errors of history all over again without a peep of opposition from those who loudly protest against the US. Who proclaim that war is murder, but only when the US is at war.
It's not a coincidence that International ANSWER, organizers of every major Iraq war protest in the United States, (and let's not forget before that every Afghanistan war protest), is in fact a communist organization.
What I wonder is why did the left not see this as compromising their integrity? If conservatives attended any rally organized by neo-nazis would that not compromise their integrity or throw up some red flags for anyone? Keeping in mind that communism has slaughtered at least 169 million innocent people outside of war in this century. To clarify, that's 169 million who were not involved in armed conflict, i.e. people dragged away and executed in the name of social justice.
The International Communist Movement hasn't disappeared, it's changed costumes. They are anti-capitalists now, against the ravages of 'globalization', anarchists, eco-anarchist, or merely advocates of 'sustainable development' and social justice.
We have to invent the new socialism for the 21st century. Capitalism is not a sustainable model of development. Hugo Chavez, March 4, 2005
Once again, this tragedy will play out. Leaving destruction and destitution in its wake. And the apologists will once again say that if it weren't for the terrors of capitalism none of this would have happened. That the great equality waiting just beyond our sight has still yet to be tried. All the while calling Bush a dictator and claiming that he has taken away their rights.
It reported that Chavez, whose government has now won nine elections, survived a military coup that briefly put the head of the Chamber of Commerce in power, and a two-month “strike” by big business, addressed the forum, urging the participants to go on an offensive against capitalism “in the defence of humanity”.Posted by Eric Simonson at March 31, 2005 03:02 PMAccording to Venzuelanalysis reporter Robin Nieto, writing in an article posted on December 6, Chavez spoke of the need to return to the ideas of Russian revolutionary socialist Leon Trotsky, who argued that it was not possible to construct socialism in one country, but that a worldwide revolution was required.
Nieto reported the conference ended with a mass meeting attended by 2000 people. At the meeting, Chavez announced the plan for an “anti-globalisation” network, saying: “Let's take this network everywhere we go, in the valleys, the mountains, the barrios, the workplace, the study halls, the military barracks and extend this network across the planet Earth.” socialism.com -(reprinted from Green Left Weekly)
I can’t believe that the collapse of one “evil empire” wasn’t enough for the communist parties around the world. Why do they have to re-create the biggest failure of the 20th century in the 21st century?
Posted by: Tim at March 31, 2005 03:42 PMNice of you not to mention that it was the United States who financed the attempted overthrow of Venezuela’s freely elected President.
Nice of you not to mention that all those won Elections were declared Legitimate by Observers.
Venezuela’s problem is that it is a leading producer of Oil and thus a candidate for “Spreading Freedom”. Notice how active BushCo is on this country compared to Zimbabwe, Darfur and Cuba? I am just surprised the Marines haven’t landed yet to Liberate the Oppressed People yet.
Posted by: Aldous at March 31, 2005 03:43 PMAldous,
I’m not sure I’d view Jimmy Carter as an impartial observer when it comes to marxist elections.
But I see from your comment how Bush could finally get generous support for democracy in Iraq. Just get a Marxist dictator elected and the left would be ecstatic.
Posted by: ericsimonson at March 31, 2005 04:03 PMJust get a Marxist dictator elected and the left would be ecstatic.
Ahhh… I’ve missed eric’s unique brand of baseless vitriol and generalizations. It’s so invigorating to have it back.
Posted by: LawnBoy at March 31, 2005 04:11 PMI’m not sure I’d view Jimmy Carter as an impartial observer when it comes to marxist elections.
Oh, is JC a marxist now? keen of you to see behind that Georgia Baptist navy-veteran guise of his, Eric.
Wow, eric, what a load you dumped there. More contradictions, twisted phrases with illogical realtionships, and just plain BS, than in a Bush speech.
Sorry I don’t have the time to trash it all. It would have been fun. Maybe I’ll come back and read some of them later…
I feel the need to liberate the sadly oppressed Green Party link from all the lies that Eric decided to surround it with.
Oh, and for any of you Right-wing Christian’s out there like Eric who don’t mind “the ravages of ‘globalization”, who preach putting profits before the environment, and who are against “sustainable development”, you might want to take a moment to remember:
Genesis Chapter 6.
18: But I will establish my covenant with you; and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you.
19: And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.
20: Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you, to keep them alive.
See — Biblical Proof! Environmentalism has been part of GOD’S Covenant with us since the Flood.
GOD probably isn’t at all fond of Republican ideas regarding Earthly stewardship, but HE”S got to be Loving the Green Party!
No! No! No! Adrienne!
You only need to keep one female and one male alive! So until an entire species dies out save for two, it matters not whether we take care of them or not.
Posted by: Zeek at March 31, 2005 07:13 PMEric,
Chavez & Venezuela are examples of a larger trend. I believe that six South & Central American governments have recently held elections in which leftists/socialist parties won. Right-of-center parties failed when a combination of a number of factors- debt, World Bank policies, globalization, population explosions, corruption, enormous disparities of wealth, etc.,- caused people to loose faith in democratic, capitalist systems. This has been a trend for some time, particularly the turning away from capitalism.
But Chavez & Venezuela have something other countries lack, hence the articles and headlines…
Posted by: phx8 at March 31, 2005 07:53 PMCentral and South American countries have some of the largest rich-poor gaps in the world. While socialism has obviously proven to be a practically impossible political theory, left-leaning economic reforms can only help the oppressed poor of this region.
Posted by: Ryan at March 31, 2005 07:59 PM“two of every sort shall come in to you, to keep them alive.”
“No! No! No! Adrienne!”
Yes! Yes! Yes! Zeek!
“You only need to keep one female and one male alive! So until an entire species dies out save for two, it matters not whether we take care of them or not.”
I can’t agree. I feel it is safe to extrapolate that He really likes his critters and wants us to watch over them. Otherwise, why demand that so many be brought aboard the Ark and be kept carefully alive, so that once they came ashore they could immediately start repopulating the Earth?
Posted by: Adrienne at March 31, 2005 08:46 PMWe know that Noah was truly wise,
cause hi didn’t swat those two little flies.
Well, I spied a girl and before she could leave, “Let’s go and play Adam and Eve.” I took her by the hand and my heart it was thumpin’ When she said, “Hey man, you crazy or sumpin’, You see what happened last time they started.”yeah, bob dylan “talking world war iii blues”. he’s amazing. Posted by: cevinos trianus at March 31, 2005 08:59 PM
Eric, I’ve got little sympathy for communism, not much interest in socialism but this seems to me to be conspiracy theory more than conspiracy fact. Socialism is always talking about spreading its influence. So do churches here. Truth is, it’s one thing to go out and act the missionary. It’s another to truly convert people. If we keep standards of living up, and don’t go around being the big bullies, we can win easily, because capitalism is a more active system than communism. We can offer them ordinary lives where communism can only offer conflict and opposition.
Supporting the coup against Chavez validated him, perhaps even radicalized him. If we try and make this into Cold War Act II, like you’d do, we’d only legitimize him further, and drag ourselves through the muck. Support a legitimate opposition. Don’t try to play God with another nation’s democracy.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 31, 2005 09:01 PMLatin America’s income disparities were not the result of the free market, but of a constrained system of state run socialist policies where the rich and the advocates of the poor sometimes unwittingly (sometimes consciously) conspired to maintain a corrupt system. Both sides think that the poor have to be saved or cared for by their betters and/or the government authorities.
In fact, the only people who can help the poor are the poor. To the extent that they are actually empowered, poverty drops. This means protecting their private property and not oppressing their small businesses with meaningless regulations.
Hugo Chavez is well within the caudillo tradition. He promises to be Robin Hood. He will rob the rich to bribe the poor. His stupid regulations and socialist policies will ensure that the economy goes to hell. The rich will play their role by taking their capital out of the country. When he has ruined the country, he will blame the U.S. and the bankers. Leftists around the world will hail his good intentions. Nothing changes.
The reason that the U.S. is functional is because of our anti-monopoly laws, our anti-child labor laws, and the host of other reforms (socialist reforms) we pushed through to prevent the robber barons from overtaking the U.S. Unfettered capitalism is scary. Unfettered communism is scary. The South is still recovering from wealthy landowners who monopolized a cheap labor market to their advantage.
The U.S. was built upon the back-breaking labor of the Northeasterners, who lacked slaves, and also distributed land wealth in a fairly systematic way. The U.S. kicked out the British landowners who rewarded people of status with property. They replaced them with a rule of the people, which gave the land to those who labored on it.
I see no problem with South America doing the same.
I think you could say, Jack, that Eric and Hugo are two sides of the same coin: the attempt to force complex systems to run heel to the wishes of a few. The beauty of the market system is that when its properly set up and policed, errors on smaller scales can be corrected, rather than build up unabated with a system that’s trying to make obvious changes to a system of great subtlety.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 31, 2005 10:03 PMWhat the bloody hell? Adrienne, you couldn’t tell I was joking? For god’s sake, you must meet some really retarded people if you think there’s a remote chance in hell I’d actually say something that idiotic…
I wish I heard the phrase, “Yes! Yes! Yes! [my name here]!” more often from women… oh well.
Posted by: Zeek at March 31, 2005 10:48 PMZeek:
“you must meet some really retarded people”
Sadly, that’s true.
“if you think there’s a remote chance in hell I’d actually say something that idiotic…”
Not to worry. I was just pressing home my point with the Religious Right.
“I wish I heard the phrase, “Yes! Yes! Yes! [my name here]!” more often from women… oh well.”
Aww! You seem like a great guy to me. Maybe you should blog a tad less and mingle a bit more?
Posted by: Adrienne at April 1, 2005 12:10 AMDamn Eric. I missed ya! Glad you’re back.
It’s funny, I used to work with this young Canadian guy who was brought up on a commune outside of Regina. He was always making the same argument that communism never got a fair shake. What a goof.
Anyhow, I suspect the left in America isn’t tainted by guys like that because a) most of them aren’t Americans, and b) the Soviet Union collapsed on its own and pretty much completely discredited communism as a viable system of government.
The Nazis, on the other hand, needed to have the crap kicked out of ‘em - still do occasionally.
BTW, Zeek, don’t go gettin carried away. If I remember correctly, Adrienne’s a guy. ;)
Posted by: American Pundit at April 1, 2005 09:22 AMAP:
“BTW, Zeek, don’t go gettin carried away. If I remember correctly, Adrienne’s a guy. ;)”
Hey! I’m a Woman!
But since WB is such a boys club, maybe I should be flattered? ;^)
Btw, if I was a guy, the spelling would be: Adrian.
Not if you’re French. :)
Sorry, Adrienne. Either way, I like your posts. Carry on.
…
AP it’s not like I was hitting on her O_o
That would just be weird.
BTW, Adrienne, blogging counts as mingling doesn’t it? :P
Zeek:
“BTW, Adrienne, blogging counts as mingling doesn’t it?”
Well, whatever shivers yer timbers, Sailor.
But I think of blogging as virtual, intellectual, and cool, while mingling is actual, corporeal, and kinda sweaty.
