Obama reaches out to Chavez at summit

Originally posted by Redmike
And when does it stop being postrevolutionary?

When it stabilizes and democratizes.

Originally posted by Redmike
And when does it stop being postrevolutionary?

By the way, the true answer for what you're asking here varies as time goes on; what I gave right above is the answer for today's world.

Originally posted by scherzo
When it stabilizes and democratizes.

You're saying that a postrevolutionary government is always undemocratic until it is democratic.

Makes no sense at all.

Originally posted by Redmike
You're saying that a postrevolutionary government is always undemocratic until it is democratic.

Makes no sense at all.

Yes, that's what I'm saying, and it makes perfect sense. A government needs to become stable, and then the people need to assume control. That may or may not happen. If and when it does the government becomes a democracy.

Originally posted by scherzo
Yes, that's what I'm saying, and it makes perfect sense. A government needs to become stable, and then the people need to assume control. That may or may not happen. If and when it does the government becomes a democracy.

But it is just circular logic.

A postrevolutionary government is undemocratic because when it becomes democratic it isn't postrevolutionary anymore.

Originally posted by Redmike
But it is just circular logic.

A postrevolutionary government is undemocratic because when it becomes democratic it isn't postrevolutionary anymore.

There's no magic formula for democracy. As I said, sometimes it happens; sometimes it doesn't. In Cuba it's happened. In Venezuela it's happened.

Originally posted by scherzo
There's no magic formula for democracy. As I said, sometimes it happens; sometimes it doesn't. In Cuba it's happened. In Venezuela it's happened.

In Cuba it's happened. In Venezuela it's happened.

No, it hasn't.

Where did you get that from?

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b] In Cuba it's happened. In Venezuela it's happened.

No, it hasn't.

Where did you get that from?[/b]

Do you deny that either or both countries hold democratic elections?

Originally posted by scherzo
Do you deny that either or both countries hold democratic elections?

Cuba has a one-party state, only commies allowed.

Venezuela is becoming a dictatorship.

Freedom is ignored in both countries.

Originally posted by Redmike
But it is just circular logic.

A postrevolutionary government is undemocratic because when it becomes democratic it isn't postrevolutionary anymore.

I think he's saying that after a revolution, someone takes charge just to restore order and because they can. This is not democratic, but in the ideal case the government becomes democratic.

Originally posted by scherzo
Indeed.

Now, back to Chavez. I feel that he and Castro were, up to last year, the only true Latin American leaders, but after Castro resigned, Chavez became The Latin American Leader. For Obama to finally get his head out of the anticommunist cloud and try to cultivate relations is a huge step forward.

Can you deny that Castro and Chavez turned their backs on their nations' Constitutions and strengthened their holds on power?

Castro's Cuba achieved its goal of crushing capitalism and its wealth creating powers on their island, and now they are all equal... equally poor, but equal. Now people swim in small dangerous boats to leave like they have a border of thousands of miles with the US that they can just walk acrosss.... except they don't, they just need to get out or face the level of poverty that keep their doctors poorer than their bell-hops in their tourism industry.

Chavez is doing the same in Venezuela - turn back on constitution, check. destroy capitalism in the country and its wealth-creating effects on the nation, check. Greater equality of poverty, in progress. Willingness to flea to distant countries due to increasing poverty, in progress.

Can any of argue that Venezuela will avoid economic crisis and increasing poverty?
I can see them teetering towards failure... you want to see a real failed state, see Venezuela in 15 years or less... possibly much less, like 5 years if they keep going socialist... it's been happening now (in progress).

Look at all the shortages, for crying out loud...








Second of all, Hehehe:

scherzo
Location : al-muat l'israeel
Joined : 14 Sep '07
Moves : 3764

19 Apr '09 11:43 :: 0 recommendations
Originally posted by DrKF
The surest sign of the incorrigible ideologue is the demand that we proceed with the same strategy again and again, whether or not it has come so much as close to achieving the desired objective...


Remind you of anyone?

ReplyReply & Quote
DrKF wingsubscriberwing
Location : lost...
Joined : 31 Jul '07
Moves : 27525

19 Apr '09 12:36 :: 0 recommendations
Originally posted by scherzo
Remind you of anyone?


um, not *entirely* sure if you got my point..?

ReplyReply & Quote
scherzo
Location : al-muat l'israeel
Joined : 14 Sep '07
Moves : 3764

19 Apr '09 12:42 :: 0 recommendations
Originally posted by DrKF
um, not *entirely* sure if you got my point..?


Sorry ... I read it "incorruptible." I just read a Robespierre biography.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
Can you deny that Castro and Chavez turned their backs on their nations' Constitutions and strengthened their holds on power?

Castro's Cuba achieved its goal of crushing capitalism and its wealth creating powers on their island, and now they are all equal... equally poor, but equal. Now people swim in small dangerous boats to leave like they have ..?


Sorry ... I read it "incorruptible." I just read a Robespierre biography.

It's useless quoting facts to a free market fanatic, but the Venezuelan economy's growth under Chavez has been most impressive esp. considering that in the 2 decades prior workers' income had declined. Sorry, reality doesn't reflect your laissez faire dreamworld (but it never does).

Nor has Chavez "turned his back on his country's Constitution"; the changes he has made have all been made in accordance with that Constitution.

Cuba isn't interested in reinstating a state where a few own the country lock, stock and barrel. The average Cuban is better off now than he was in 50's and there have been impressive advances in education, health care and many other areas. Like virtually every small country, Cuba cannot be economically independent and the various embargoes and other sanctions have clearly hurt them but it's hardly the poverty stricken disaster area you right wing nuts make it out to be.

EDIT: I posted this on February 21st in the "Democracy wins AGAIN in Venezuela" thread:

OK, here's a study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research regarding the Venezuelan economy under Chavez. The Executive Summary states:

Among the highlights:

The current economic expansion began when the government got control over the national
oil company in the first quarter of 2003. Since then, real (inflation-adjusted) GDP has nearly
doubled, growing by 94.7 percent in 5.25 years, or 13.5 percent annually.

Most of this growth has been in the non-oil sector of the economy, and the private sector
has grown faster than the public sector.

During the current economic expansion, the poverty rate has been cut by more than half,
from 54 percent of households in the first half of 2003 to 26 percent at the end of 2008.
Extreme poverty has fallen even more, by 72 percent. These poverty rates measure only cash
income, and does take into account increased access to health care or education.

Over the entire decade, the percentage of households in poverty has been reduced by 39
percent, and extreme poverty by more than half.

Inequality, as measured by the Gini index, has also fallen substantially. The index has fallen
to 41 in 2008, from 48.1 in 2003 and 47 in 1999. This represents a large reduction in
inequality.

Real (inflation-adjusted) social spending per person more than tripled from 1998-2006.

From 1998-2006, infant mortality has fallen by more than one-third. The number of primary
care physicians in the public sector increased 12-fold from 1999-2007, providing health care
to millions of Venezuelans who previously did not have access.

There have been substantial gains in education, especially higher education, where gross
enrollment rates more than doubled from 1999-2000 to 2007-2008.

The labor market also improved substantially over the last decade, with unemployment
dropping from 11.3 percent to 7.8 percent. During the current expansion it has fallen by
more than half. Other labor market indicators also show substantial gains.

Over the past decade, the number of social security beneficiaries has more than doubled.

Over the decade, the government’s total public debt has fallen from 30.7 to 14.3 percent of
GDP. The foreign public debt has fallen even more, from 25.6 to 9.8 percent of GDP.

Inflation is about where it was 10 years ago, ending the year at 31.4 percent. However it has
been falling over the last half year (as measured by three-month averages) and is likely to
continue declining this year in the face of strong deflationary pressures worldwide.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela-2009-02.pdf


Sure sounds like a lot of "evil", doesn't it?

EDIT: How was Venezuela's economy doing before Chavez? Go to page 7: From 1978-1998, Venezuela’s per
capita GDP declined by 21.5 percent.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I think he's saying that after a revolution, someone takes charge just to restore order and because they can. This is not democratic, but in the ideal case the government becomes democratic.

I understand that.

But to define a postrevolutionary governement as the period before democracy makes the statement that postrevolutionary governments are undemocratic a bit redundant.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
Can you deny that Castro and Chavez turned their backs on their nations' Constitutions and strengthened their holds on power?

Castro's Cuba achieved its goal of crushing capitalism and its wealth creating powers on their island, and now they are all equal... equally poor, but equal. Now people swim in small dangerous boats to leave like they have ...[text shortened]... ..?


Sorry ... I read it "incorruptible." I just read a Robespierre biography.

Can you deny that Castro and Chavez turned their backs on their nations' Constitutions and strengthened their holds on power?

No. Nor do i deny that the previous Constitutions were extremely corrupt.

Chavez is doing the same in Venezuela - turn back on constitution, check. destroy capitalism in the country and its wealth-creating effects on the nation, check. Greater equality of poverty, in progress. Willingness to flea to distant countries due to increasing poverty, in progress.

Your view is subjective. Interesting spelling of the word "flee", by the way.

I can see them teetering towards failure... you want to see a real failed state, see Venezuela in 15 years or less... possibly much less, like 5 years if they keep going socialist... it's been happening now (in progress).

Socialist states tend to fall down, then come up. It's what happened in the USSR, and it would've happened in China if the government was more willing to fund Mao's programs.

Look at all the shortages, for crying out loud...

Oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil Iraq oil oil oil oil oil oil oil oil .....

The second part was impressive, but I don't know what it was supposed to prove.