The Left Wing - World Wide

[brian ross]

Socialism does not equate to Totalitarianism except in your mind (and I fear most Americans'). Two of the most Socialist states were free, democratic and liberal nations - Israel and Australia in the 1970s. You need to look at the exceptions, 4E.

Now now, don't try to change the subject.

Who is trying to change the subject? I am attempting to bring in back to an even keel, 4E. You should try it sometime, instead of harping on about Chavez and Venezuela,

[The4thEstate]

Socialism does not equate to Totalitarianism except in your mind (and I fear most Americans'). Two of the most Socialist states were free, democratic and liberal nations - Israel and Australia in the 1970s. You need to look at the exceptions, 4E.

Now now, don't try to change the subject.

Who is trying to change the subject? I am attempting to bring in back to an even keel, 4E. You should try it sometime, instead of harping on about Chavez and Venezuela,

The keel was even enough before your attempted diversion.

Besides, we can take off in that new direction after we settle one simple question: Do you consider Chavez's socialist regime totalitarian or not?

It's a simple yes or no.

[brian ross]

Socialism does not equate to Totalitarianism except in your mind (and I fear most Americans'). Two of the most Socialist states were free, democratic and liberal nations - Israel and Australia in the 1970s. You need to look at the exceptions, 4E.

Now now, don't try to change the subject.

Who is trying to change the subject? I am attempting to bring in back to an even keel, 4E. You should try it sometime, instead of harping on about Chavez and Venezuela,

The keel was even enough before your attempted diversion.

Besides, we can take off in that new direction after we settle one simple question: Do you consider Chavez's socialist regime totalitarian or not?

It's a simple yes or no.

No, I don't. It has become totalitarian since his demise though.

[The4thEstate]

Socialism does not equate to Totalitarianism except in your mind (and I fear most Americans'). Two of the most Socialist states were free, democratic and liberal nations - Israel and Australia in the 1970s. You need to look at the exceptions, 4E.

Now now, don't try to change the subject.

Who is trying to change the subject? I am attempting to bring in back to an even keel, 4E. You should try it sometime, instead of harping on about Chavez and Venezuela,

The keel was even enough before your attempted diversion.

Besides, we can take off in that new direction after we settle one simple question: Do you consider Chavez's socialist regime totalitarian or not?

It's a simple yes or no.

No, I don't. It has become totalitarian since his demise though.

So you doubt Human Rights Watch's findings about the abuses of the Chavez regime?
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2009/c ... -venezuela

It doesn't exactly describe a government that displays a great interest in protecting human rights and freedoms:

"The Chávez government has aggressively sought to discredit local and international human rights organizations. Officials, including the president, have repeatedly made unsubstantiated allegations that human rights advocates were engaged in efforts to destabilize the country. The government has sought to block local rights advocates from participating in international human rights forums, typically on grounds that their work is political or that they receive US or other foreign funding. Rights advocates have also faced prosecutorial harassment and unsubstantiated allegations aimed at discrediting their work."

As for press freedom:

"In its efforts to influence the control and content of the media, the government has engaged in discriminatory actions against media that air opposition viewpoints, strengthened the state's capacity to limit free speech, and created powerful incentives for government critics to engage in self-censorship."

Then there's the matter of labor rights:
"The Chávez government has engaged in systematic violations of workers' rights aimed at undercutting established labor unions while favoring new, parallel unions that support its political agenda."

And the judiciary:
"The Chávez government has effectively neutralized the judiciary as an independent branch of government."

But apparently that's not your idea of totalitarianism. So is Chavez's socialist Venezuela that the kind of government you'd like for Australia, and the kind of country you'd like to live in?

[Black Orchid]

But apparently that's not your idea of totalitarianism. So is Chavez's socialist Venezuela that the kind of government you'd like for Australia, and the kind of country you'd like to live in?

I think we all know the answer to that

[The4thEstate]

But apparently that's not your idea of totalitarianism. So is Chavez's socialist Venezuela that the kind of government you'd like for Australia, and the kind of country you'd like to live in?

I think we all know the answer to that

Sometimes silence speaks volumes.

[brian ross]

But apparently that's not your idea of totalitarianism. So is Chavez's socialist Venezuela that the kind of government you'd like for Australia, and the kind of country you'd like to live in?

I think we must divide Chavez's time in office into an early, middle and late period. When he started out he was a mild socialist and as he went along, faced with antipathy from the US and the opposition within Venezuela he became more authoritarian. No doubt about it. Was that a good idea? Nope. You are acting as if this all occurred overnight.

[sprintcyclist]

So, that was another socialist failure?

[Texan]

But apparently that's not your idea of totalitarianism. So is Chavez's socialist Venezuela that the kind of government you'd like for Australia, and the kind of country you'd like to live in?

I think we must divide Chavez's time in office into an early, middle and late period. When he started out he was a mild socialist and as he went along, faced with antipathy from the US and the opposition within Venezuela he became more authoritarian. No doubt about it. Was that a good idea? Nope. You are acting as if this all occurred overnight.

I think Chavez divided his time into periods. If he had came out as a full blown totalitarian socialist out of the gate, the people would have ran him out of town. He put the frog in the pot before turning on the heat. It did't work out very well for Venezuela. I hope his government likes frog legs.

[The4thEstate]

But apparently that's not your idea of totalitarianism. So is Chavez's socialist Venezuela that the kind of government you'd like for Australia, and the kind of country you'd like to live in?

I think we must divide Chavez's time in office into an early, middle and late period. When he started out he was a mild socialist and as he went along, faced with antipathy from the US and the opposition within Venezuela he became more authoritarian. No doubt about it. Was that a good idea? Nope. You are acting as if this all occurred overnight.

I think Chavez divided his time into periods. If he had came out as a full blown totalitarian socialist out of the gate, the people would have ran him out of town. He put the frog in the pot before turning on the heat. It did't work out very well for Venezuela. I hope his government likes frog legs.

My thoughts exactly.

It's like saying that John Wayne Gacy wasn't always a serial killer of teenage boys -- he was once known as Pogo the Clown. This ignores the fact that Gacy used the clown costume and makeup to disarm the public and get closer to children ... because, in his words, "Clowns can get away with murder."

Chavez used a similar ploy, claiming to be a "humanist" while secretly taking Venezuela in incremental steps toward totalitarianism. This article documents his gradual elimination of freedoms (and political enemies) that obstructed his complete control over the nation.
https://panampost.com/luis-henrique-bal ... reloaded=1

For instance:

During the first four years, he concentrated his efforts in changing the Constitution, packing the Supreme Court, installing Soviet-style political commissars in army units, and changing the national identity card and the electoral system to ensure his reelection through manipulation of voter-rolls.

Just as Hitler’s final destruction of the Jewish middle class during Kristallnacht did not occur until five years after his ascension to power in Germany, in Venezuela, Chávez reassured the business community that he was not really interested in their demise.

In September 2001, Chávez began his offensive for the “Second Stage of the Process for the Revolution,” as he called his march towards a totalitarian state ... He then proceeded to pass 49 laws directed against the private sector. These laws eliminated private participation in the oil business, allowed for confiscation without payment of private lands, suspended constitutional guarantees for business owners, and established “military security zones” in major metropolitan areas — a de facto confiscation of prime real estate in Venezuela’s major cities.

But hey, that was OK because Chavez was sticking it to the greedy capitalists in the name of the common man, right? Well ... not exaclty:

At the same time, he launched an all out attack against the country’s independent labor unions, persecuting and even imprisoning several prominent leaders.

And remember when Brian gave us this entertaining claim:

Meee, how many dead under Fascism again? 10 million in the Holocaust. How many dead under Communism, greater than that. How many dead under socialism? Zero.

And this entertaining admission:

Chavez may have been a socialist but his successors are not.

Well, here's the not-so-entertaining reality about whether or not socialism kills:

He [Chavez] miscalculated while he panicked during the mass protest and march of April 11, 2002. His order to members of his civilian armed militias to fire on unarmed demonstrators disgusted the officer corps that he had handpicked to run the Army. His own generals deposed him.

As CNN reported in 2002:

Chavez was forced from office by military leaders after he ordered the army to quell anti-government protests, killing 12 demonstrators.

I suspect that the families of the 12 unarmed protesters are less convinced that there has never been a single death under socialism.