To be honest I don't know the whole story in Venezuela and I would be very cautious about hero worship.
I don't know what the figures are in Britain but in Ireland the O'Reilly Independent Group has something like 80% control of the print media in the country. This company has a consistent rightest view of events. Another major player would be Murdochs media through Sky and newspapers. This sort of monopoly over the media cannot be healthy for a country and the results are impressive as far as they are concerned as there has never been a leftest government in the entire history of the 26 county state.

Chavez is certainly working hard to maintain his relationship with Russia under the new leadership...

Venezuela recognises breakaway Georgian regions. | cartwright.eu.com

I had respect for Chavez until he started trying to ensure his personal control and attempted to have the constitution changed to allow him to reign indefinitely, he has also continually expanded military spending. He is currently just sinking into the old stereotype of a wannabee leftist dictator, by using the Police and changing laws to control the media and stop any criticism.

Chavez is not a typical leftist dictator. His good work would only be undone in months if the opposition capitalist regime was to regain power. His legacy will be historic in terms of changing the lives of millions of South Americans, halting the capitalist juggernaut, and of course with the type of reforms required to empower general society, will need time to ensure that socialism is buried deep within the infrastructure of Venezuela. I view Chavez as I viewed Castro - a true martyr of our times. His unswerving devotion to the cause of the people is not fed by hubris. He is motivated by a higher order - humanity. He has given his soul for the benefit of the people and for justice in the world. Confronted with Goliath, Chavez needs all tools at his disposal to combat a capitalist enemy. Therefore I would state that it is imperative that Chavez retains power and is allowed to implement his socialist mandate in full.

Powerful financial forces are determined to oust Chavez. The rewards are bountiful with oil and sand tar deposits, the largest in the world. UK mainstream media is guilty of placement of propaganda pieces from the right. Miami is actively brewing conditions for a military coup. US is gearing for confrontation via Columbia. The stage is being set around Chavez. So in this context, it is logical that Chavez severs the enemy's media outlets.

Take time to discover what chavez has done for the Venezuelan people and for inspiring other neighbouring countries to take that leap of courage and release themselves from crippling debts and enforced social policies that the
World bank and the IMF impose. Viva Chavez.

I doubt America will seriously get involved via Columbia, i don't think they have the stomach for it, the American public is far more cynical about their leadership and another "oil war", which is what it would be, wouldn't be tolerated i don't think.

Back to Chavez, personally i wouldn't put him up with Castro, Castro is a differant animal, he is far more shrewd and charismatic than Chavez, who is still a little awkward and gaff prone. The trouble is that he is not only restricting the "enemy" as you put it, but he has also been attacking other left wing and socialist organisations who don't dance to his tune. He is being foolish here, he has the support of the masses, which he gained when there was a free media in Venezuela, it was more biased against him then than it is now, by introducing draconian laws he will only alienate the very people who support him.

Originally Posted by Scooby

I had respect for Chavez until he started trying to ensure his personal control and attempted to have the constitution changed to allow him to reign indefinitely, he has also continually expanded military spending. He is currently just sinking into the old stereotype of a wannabee leftist dictator, by using the Police and changing laws to control the media and stop any criticism.

Hello Scooby................a few points come to mind.

Gordon Brown could " reign indefinitely " , Thatcher could have , Blair , we have the same system here.

The US spends more than the rest of the world put together almost. No alarm bells ringing in the mainstream media of the west about it.

He didn't change the law to stop rctv ( the TV channel behind the 2002 coup attempt ) he just refused to renew its licence under existing laws.

I think they got off lightly for their treason against the democratically elected government and the murder of Venezuelans that ensued in the chaotic aftermath.

In short the reaction by the western powers to left wing governments around the globe is always the same and could be accused of being wholly predictable , at least every bit as predictable as the stereotypical left wing dictator you seem eager to buy into with Chavez.

Remember he enjoys his success thanks to the ballot not the bullet and so long as that is the case the people of Venezuela should be allowed to enjoy their vibrant democratic/political culture,imho and a temporary escape from the rigors of the washington consensus so cruelly enforced on Latin/Central America and with such tragic consequences.

Actually red star - Chavez did change media law quite a lot, and recieved a very hard time in the Western press for it, who painted him as a die hard communist dictator.


Funny thing is, his changes were actually based on the British laws, and he said as much at the time. None of the Western papers picked up on this, however, nor the fact that any Western channel attempting to start a riot and embroiled in corruption would recieve similar punishment from a capitalist govt.

Originally Posted by StefanK

Actually red star - Chavez did change media law quite a lot, and recieved a very hard time in the Western press for it, who painted him as a die hard communist dictator.

Chavez and his government have changed laws with regard to the media but they didn't have to change them to refuse RCTV a licence , that was done under existing law. I know it sounds a bit nitpicky but the way you have phrased it makes it sound like they changed media laws to silence an pro opposition media outlet.The licence refusal was achieved under existing laws IIRC
The western media, well , they dance to the tune of their masters and have their interests at heart when they are setting the agenda and giving us their analyses.

Funny thing is, his changes were actually based on the British laws, and he said as much at the time. None of the Western papers picked up on this, however, nor the fact that any Western channel attempting to start a riot and embroiled in corruption would recieve similar punishment from a capitalist govt.

I think they did pick up on it , but it doesn't fit in with their agenda of demonization of the current Venezuelan government so they leave it out. The way propagandists are supposed to do.


Our western media is owned by corporate capitalists and serves their interests so the bashing of the Venezuelan government is to be totally expected.imho

I take your point Red Star but you have conveniently ignored my final paragraph in which i recognise the legitimacy of his current rule, my statement points out that rather than head down the route he is of trying to force ever greater state control, he could have kept to his social policies and this would have negated much of the criticism, also i think demonise is optimistic, most of the western press a) isn't that interested in Chavez or venezuela and b) many western countries enjoy watching some one poking a stick into the American admistrations.
He has altered the legislation governing the media, and refusing a licence is the same as simply using his power to close them down, a TV station does not cause a military coup, only the military can cause a military coup. Silencing the opposition makes it look like he will not accept that some of his countrymen don't like him or what he stands for and that is their right, or is the fact that many see him as a good socialist, justification enough to take away their rights of opposition.
The point about Thatcher and Blair et al ruling is irrelevant, they did not attempt to change their countries laws to allow this, Chavez did, he either believes in the constitution or he doesn't.

Originally Posted by Scooby

I take your point Red Star but you have conveniently ignored my final paragraph in which i recognise the legitimacy of his current rule, my statement points out that rather than head down the route he is of trying to force ever greater state control, he could have kept to his social policies and this would have negated much of the criticism, also i think demonise is optimistic, most of the western press a) isn't that interested in Chavez or venezuela and b) many western countries enjoy watching some one poking a stick into the American admistrations.

Hello Scooby......... if you recognise his legitimacy I sense it might be grudingly........... and it would be a nonsense to not recognise it anyway , the results over the years leave no doubt. Even the harshest critic would have to concede this basic point.
If you are familiar with events in Venezuela since the advent of the Chavez led government you will know that many constitutional reforms have been achieved only after national referendums. Hardly the trademark tool of dictatorships I think you will agree ? Ask yourself the last time you participated in one.............. we could maybe learn from such a refreshing use of democratic principles in our own model and enlightened democracies

Constitutional change is what is needed in Venezuela to help support the social missions and protect the democratic processes initiated under Chavez and co.

He has altered the legislation governing the media, and refusing a licence is the same as simply using his power to close them down, a TV station does not cause a military coup, only the military can cause a military coup. Silencing the opposition makes it look like he will not accept that some of his countrymen don't like him or what he stands for and that is their right, or is the fact that many see him as a good socialist, justification enough to take away their rights of opposition.

I don't agree with your reasoning for the first part . I think to wait the 2 years until the licence expired showed not only great restraint but a respect for legal processes within the country. No resort to a tyrannical response.
The TV channel refered to was an integral part of widespread rioting and murders before the coup and during the illegal governments repression whilst in power for the couple of days it lasted.
What do you suppose we would do in similar circumstances ? Renew the licence ?
Incidentally the channel was only banned from state owned terrestrial TV/radio airwaves it still operate via satellite As far as I know.

BTW a question; Do you think the opposition have the right to initiate military coups if they stand no chance at the polling booths ? Legitimate opposition yes , illegal and murderous opposition no, surely ?.

The point about Thatcher and Blair et al ruling is irrelevant, they did not attempt to change their countries laws to allow this, Chavez did, he either believes in the constitution or he doesn't.

The point about unlimited terms in office doesn't automatically assure Chavez of the presidency anyway. They can always vote him out can't they?
Maybe we should initiate a thread about how our own constitution has the potential to lead to a dictatorship someday in the future

Despite being right of centre, Red, i thought when he came to power that Chavez was a breath of fresh air, i'm old enough to remember some of the thoroughly disgusting right wing regimes of the seventies and eighties that held sway in many south and central american countries. It's just that some of his rhetoric and actions of late, i find unsettling. His recent attempts to get the Russians to open bases was stupid, at a time when we have virtually shed the cold war, he chose a deliberately provocative act which was reckless and could have started us back down a road many of us had thought we had left behind. If he had achieved this what chance would we have had to see less US foreign bases overseas, none think is the answer
I don't believe that insurrection of any sort is a valid political play, with the exception of autocratic, dictatorial and one party states where there is no real alternative.

Originally Posted by Scooby

Despite being right of centre, Red, i thought when he came to power that Chavez was a breath of fresh air, i'm old enough to remember some of the thoroughly disgusting right wing regimes of the seventies and eighties that held sway in many south and central american countries. It's just that some of his rhetoric and actions of late, i find unsettling. His recent attempts to get the Russians to open bases was stupid, at a time when we have virtually shed the cold war, he chose a deliberately provocative act which was reckless and could have started us back down a road many of us had thought we had left behind. If he had achieved this what chance would we have had to see less US foreign bases overseas, none think is the answer
I don't believe that insurrection of any sort is a valid political play, with the exception of autocratic, dictatorial and one party states where there is no real alternative.

Fair enough Scooby I am glad you remember what the alternatives , forced upon the region by Washington, have ( and still do in ) governed like.

It is a truism that we hear much much less about the murderous regimes of Pinochet , Duvalier , Samoza , etc etc than we hear about the leftist inclined leaders/governments of any particular region.
I still much prefer the rhetoric and the real changes for the poorest of society than the silence and death squads that are needed protect and maintain the traditional oligarchic rule of the region. Uribes Colombia being a stark example of what I am refering to.


The fear of a good example is as valid today as it has been in former eras and the reaction to them , nearly always a violent reaction , is a road we have never left imho , as the continuing embargo against Cuba will testify to. It was even tightened after the collapse of the Soviets .

Just a word on totalitarian states ....... in a totalitarian state the people have no rights or means to challenge the government/dictatorship so the role of state propaganda is less important . You can believe what you like but you can't do anything about it.
In a "free" society where there are channels to challenge the power of the state and its ruling elite, in theory at least , the role of state propaganda is essential.
The fact that people can do something means you have to control what they think to a greater extent , so they too are as inert as their totalitarian counterparts . One system relies on a big stick , the other relies on the manipulation of information so as to garner consent.

That's why we see Chavez and co in such a negative light ,imo , once the media filters have finished with them. Anything worthy of praise , or even admiration , just isn't reported . The same is true of Cuba or the Sandinistas in 1980's Nicaragua........... in fact all official enemies of the state.

All i want from president chavez on the inter alia is to give unemployment benefit to all the destitute that does not have a job accross the america archipelagos to europe if need be without the need to audi-alterem patem.

I had a certain level of respect for Chavez initially. However, you can only conclude that like many South American leaders (of both left and right), the entire Venezuelan political system is now about him, rather than what he has, or intends to, accomplish.

Also, recognising South Ossetia and Abkhazia, i.e. cuddling up to Russian bullies, was not clever.

Originally Posted by JAMC

I had a certain level of respect for Chavez initially. However, you can only conclude that like many South American leaders (of both left and right), the entire Venezuelan political system is now about him, rather than what he has, or intends to, accomplish.

Also, recognising South Ossetia and Abkhazia, i.e. cuddling up to Russian bullies, was not clever.

The first sentence seems to reflect a common opinion cycle with regards to Chavez JAMC. I just wonder how much emphasis people place on the almighty reaction in relation to the governments intentions ( Chavez led government ), both domestic and internationally.

If it is not acceptable to the western rogue states for places like Nicaragua or Haiti to have a populist left of centre governments , what chance an oil producing/supplying state in the " backyard " of the US ?

What he and his government accomplish/have accomplished or their intended aims , if they are positive/effective , we won't hear about in our own mainstream madia . But you can be sure we will hear any that can be put in a negative light. Even if they are in response to more sordid actions of the opposition, both domestic and international. The 2002 coup and Plan Colombia are examples. The mothballed US fleet now recommisioned to put pressure on the Pink Tide running through parts of the area.

If Chavez and co are deemed by some , many even ( in the west ), as a disappointment ,I think they may fail to see how wholly predictable the scenario is.

The Sandinista government of Nicaragua in the eighties was highly regarded by a great many international humanitarian organizations/aid agencies ( winning awards ) but was forced to divert much needed resources in an vain attempt to defend itself from US state terrorism .

It's the same story over and over again. Embargo , economic bullying , sanctions ,assassinations, coups ........ and it all else fails , outright military attack .

I find the actions of our own leaders to be much more..... disappointing . That's an understatement , psychotic more like

Originally Posted by red star

The first sentence seems to reflect a common opinion cycle with regards to Chavez JAMC. I just wonder how much emphasis people place on the almighty reaction in relation to the governments intentions ( Chavez led government ), both domestic and internationally.

If it is not acceptable to the western rogue states for places like Nicaragua or Haiti to have a populist left of centre governments , what chance an oil producing/supplying state in the " backyard " of the US ?

What he and his government accomplish/have accomplished or their intended aims , if they are positive/effective , we won't hear about in our own mainstream madia . But you can be sure we will hear any that can be put in a negative light. Even if they are in response to more sordid actions of the opposition, both domestic and international. The 2002 coup and Plan Colombia are examples. The mothballed US fleet now recommisioned to put pressure on the Pink Tide running through parts of the area.

If Chavez and co are deemed by some , many even ( in the west ), as a disappointment ,I think they may fail to see how wholly predictable the scenario is.

The Sandinista government of Nicaragua in the eighties was highly regarded by a great many international humanitarian organizations/aid agencies ( winning awards ) but was forced to divert much needed resources in an vain attempt to defend itself from US state terrorism .

It's the same story over and over again. Embargo , economic bullying , sanctions ,assassinations, coups ........ and it all else fails , outright military attack .

I find the actions of our own leaders to be much more..... disappointing . That's an understatement , psychotic more like

I grant you that not everything accomplished within Venezuela since Chavez became president is cast in a positive light. He, or rather I should say 'the government', has made some improvements to the country that should be recognised - mainly around the oil industry. You are also correct in highlighting US interference in the affairs of latin-american states, primarily to spread their own influence and ideological beliefs. Just like Russia interfering in the affairs of other states, this is wrong. Nevertheless I can't help but think that Venezuela could be improved further if it's president spent less time making firebrand speeches railing against other countries and concentrated on fixing his own.

With Hugo Chavez as president Venezuela is certain of its great economic and political future.

Originally Posted by Eastern Spirit

With Hugo Chavez as president Venezuela is certain of its great economic and political future.

Ha! Are you aware that over 1 million people have left Venezuela during the time Chavez has been in power? That's 1 million of the country's most productive, most intelligent and wealthiest people, people who've had the common sense to see where this left wing dictator is taking the country and how he's ruining it. What does that say to you, or perhaps I should rephrase that to ask what it says to you about how the people who can think see Chavez, as opposed to the mindless masses who remain, believing his 'social policies' will end their misery, when all they're doing is slowly running the country downhill, as all socialist dictators do.

Originally Posted by Midas

Ha! Are you aware that over 1 million people have left Venezuela during the time Chavez has been in power? That's 1 million of the country's most productive, most intelligent and wealthiest people, people who've had the common sense to see where this left wing dictator is taking the country and how he's ruining it.

Have you dropped a tablet Midas ?

1. Chavez is not a dictator.......... he is the democratically elected leader.

As for the people leaving ......you missed out the most selfish/greedy......well...... that's just what happens when social democrats get into power in latin America and elsewhere.
They leave , because they have the wealth to be able to do so.........they expect the US to oust/destablize the government and then the hope to return to the oligarchic society the enjoyed previously...........when huge masses of their population ( fellow countrymen and women ) live in abject poverty and suppression. Good F*****' riddance to them IMO

What does that say to you, or perhaps I should rephrase that to ask what it says to you about how the people who can think see Chavez, as opposed to the mindless masses who remain, believing his 'social policies' will end their misery, when all they're doing is slowly running the country downhill, as all socialist dictators do.

It says that history is repeating itself.........the same happened to Cuba........ they retrained the " dumb masses " to be the replacement for those selfish b******s and created a much more humane society than our own.

I didn't realize you were so elitist midas...........you should do a bit of youtubing and see just how clued up the Venezuelan " dumb masses " are........With regards to the realities of the US sponsored NWO they would leave the British public in the shade by some distance.

All this talk of " dictatorship " is junk..............they have regular national referendums to change their constitution.............we didn't even get the one Newlab promised in their manifesto..........not one referendum have we had .............and yet we are brainwashed into believing that Venezuelan democracy is a " dictatorship ".................that's some propaganda system we have don't ya think?

It is not Socialism that subverts democracy , but Democracy that subverts Capitalism..................and we are blissfully ignorant of it.......welcome to conditioning.

Hugo Chavez is a complete P.O.S. With any luck he'll walk in front of a stray bullet.

The only thing keeping Venezuela from becoming Zimbabwe is oil deposits. Let the price of crude oil drop too low and those people will starve.

Actually, while we're on the subject, why can't our communist libtards in the U.S. just move to Venezuela? It's a socialist state already. It's ready-made for them....and the one-way plane ticket would cost U.S. taxpayers less than all the dole money we're shelling out already.

Originally Posted by Tantal

Hugo Chavez is a complete P.O.S. With any luck he'll walk in front of a stray bullet.

He must be doing something right judging by the enormous support he gets in the elections.............if George Bush was that popular he wouldn't have had to steal two elections to even get into the whitehouse

The only thing keeping Venezuela from becoming Zimbabwe is oil deposits. Let the price of crude oil drop too low and those people will starve.

Well for most of the people in venezuela life was like living in Zimbabwe before Chavez and co were voted in,,,,,,,,,, and when he is ousted they will return to their **** tip lives.

Actually, while we're on the subject, why can't our communist libtards in the U.S. just move to Venezuela? It's a socialist state already.

Why should they? and no it's not it's a social democracy...........

It's ready-made for them....and the one-way plane ticket would cost U.S. taxpayers less than all the dole money we're shelling out already.

What a phoney you are tantal..................... like being of a left wing persuasion is a bonified garantee that you are on state benefits.

Originally Posted by red star

What a phoney you are tantal..................... like being of a left wing persuasion is a bonified garantee that you are on state benefits.

Tell ya what then.......how about nobody on the public dole gets to vote? Let's see how many leftists win elections once their 'base' is taken out of the electorate.

Originally Posted by red star

1. Chavez is not a dictator.......... he is the democratically elected leader.

If you say so.

As for the people leaving ......you missed out the most selfish/greedy......well...... that's just what happens when social democrats get into power in latin America and elsewhere.
They leave , because they have the wealth to be able to do so.........they expect the US to oust/destablize the government and then the hope to return to the oligarchic society the enjoyed previously...........when huge masses of their population ( fellow countrymen and women ) live in abject poverty and suppression. Good F*****' riddance to them IMO

You mean the people who're the most productive and innovative in society and who are prepared to take the biggest risks in investment and in bringing industry and commerce and wealth into a country? The very same people whose taxes fund the profligate waste of the left wing? It's their right to choose not to do so if they wish, which I'm very glad to see they have done.

All this talk of " dictatorship " is junk..............they have regular national referendums to change their constitution.............we didn't even get the one Newlab promised in their manifesto..........not one referendum have we had .............and yet we are brainwashed into believing that Venezuelan democracy is a " dictatorship ".................that's some propaganda system we have don't ya think?

Truth will out.

It is not Socialism that subverts democracy , but Democracy that subverts Capitalism..................and we are blissfully ignorant of it.......welcome to conditioning.

Sounds like you've been swallowing the propaganda then!

Originally Posted by Midas

If you say so.

Maybe you could look up the definition in a dictionary ?

You mean the people who're the most productive and innovative in society and who are prepared to take the biggest risks in investment and in bringing industry and commerce and wealth into a country? The very same people whose taxes fund the profligate waste of the left wing? It's their right to choose not to do so if they wish, which I'm very glad to see they have done.

No I mean the most priviledged who are bemoaning having to share a tiny part of the pie with their fellow nationals.............the ones they would mobilize if ever their financial interest and priviledge were in danger from foreigners.
But I do agree with you it is there right to leave if they wish..........many will go to America as it is closer to their own oligarchic culture

Truth will out.

???????????????????? I know it must be tiring to back up your outlandish and unsubtantiated criticisms but I think you should at least try and make the effort.

Sounds like you've been swallowing the propaganda then!

Not at all , the statement I made is obvious.

To conclude your irrational/unsubstantiated rantings about Venezuelan democracy are like most of the diatribes against it............all rhetoric and false/sweeping generalizations...................and no substance.

Originally Posted by Tantal

Tell ya what then.......how about nobody on the public dole gets to vote? Let's see how many leftists win elections once their 'base' is taken out of the electorate.

If you are talking about western countries then............
They would have less of a chance of calling themselves democracies than they do now ............... see Plutocracy

Like the last poster on this thread I doubt you know anything about Venezuela or what's going on there and as such your opinion , like theirs , is built on a total lack of knowledge and therefore of no real value.

Originally Posted by red star

Like the last poster on this thread I doubt you know anything about Venezuela or what's going on there and as such your opinion , like theirs , is built on a total lack of knowledge and therefore of no real value.

I know that it's based upon Marxist principles, which is all I need to know.