RIP RIP Hugo Chavez

[Mantis]

Yeah, I was one of the ones that pointed that out. Most dictators like that tend to be very similar, and I couldn't be further from their views.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Mantis

[chrisp65]

 

Not saying everyone on here is left-wing, but a large majority are and when I say left-wing I mean really left-wing.

 

Nothing wrong with that of course I just don't understand why people are lavishly praising a dictator like Chavez.

I would contend that, where one to ask the active membership of offtopic, to complete an anonymous political compass quiz, and then collate the results of the respondants as 'left' or 'right' wing, you would end up without a large majority of left wing support. I might go so far as to suggest that you'd actually get a result leaning a little to the right. Your average person in the UK, in my experience, is slightly socially right wing, and few genuinely lean that far left on anything other than a few social matters, and economically tend to support the basic concepts of capitalism. You'd end up with a fairly centred view, with perhaps a slight lean right.

 

I think reading this forum as 'really left wing' is quite funny, really. The noticeably active members leaning noticeably one way or tother balance out, and neither particularly comes out as 'really' either way. If you think this forum is particularly profoundly leaning either way, you should have been on my degree course modules. You'd have had an aneurysm.

I know where the country stands. When I said "on here" I was referring to VT, specifically off-topic.

 

You really think this forum isn't left-wing? I'm not sure on that. Certainly from what I've seen (I don't come in here all that often) it seems to be. It's completely expected that VT would have more Labour leaning people (when you take into account the location of the club we all support) but a lot of people's views here do seem to be further to the left than people I know (I've got quite a few Labour supporting friends).

 

Has there ever been a political compass thread on here? We'd be able to put this to the test.

 

not sure there are very many 'Labour' voter type people on here at all

there are a broad spectrum of quite independent people that don't like what the current bunch are doing, but that doesn't make them Labour. In much the same way, I wouldn't presume that somebody spouting anti Bliar views was automatically a tory.

 

incidentally, I've loved the way a few commentators on Newsnight and the like have hinted / suggested that Chavez did a lot of trade with China. A sort of suggestion he was a bit odd, a bit contrary or controversial. Afterall, what sort of chap would trade with China? 

[chrisp65]

that'll be how he won 4 straight fair democratic elections I guess

 George Bush won a fair straight democratic election  , it's easier than you think

 

ACTUALLY I THINK YOU'LL FIND THAT THE FOOL NEO CON WARMONGER.....

...hang on,

this is a trap isn't it?

[Mantis]

 

 

Not saying everyone on here is left-wing, but a large majority are and when I say left-wing I mean really left-wing.

 

Nothing wrong with that of course I just don't understand why people are lavishly praising a dictator like Chavez.

I would contend that, where one to ask the active membership of offtopic, to complete an anonymous political compass quiz, and then collate the results of the respondants as 'left' or 'right' wing, you would end up without a large majority of left wing support. I might go so far as to suggest that you'd actually get a result leaning a little to the right. Your average person in the UK, in my experience, is slightly socially right wing, and few genuinely lean that far left on anything other than a few social matters, and economically tend to support the basic concepts of capitalism. You'd end up with a fairly centred view, with perhaps a slight lean right.

 

I think reading this forum as 'really left wing' is quite funny, really. The noticeably active members leaning noticeably one way or tother balance out, and neither particularly comes out as 'really' either way. If you think this forum is particularly profoundly leaning either way, you should have been on my degree course modules. You'd have had an aneurysm.

I know where the country stands. When I said "on here" I was referring to VT, specifically off-topic.

 

You really think this forum isn't left-wing? I'm not sure on that. Certainly from what I've seen (I don't come in here all that often) it seems to be. It's completely expected that VT would have more Labour leaning people (when you take into account the location of the club we all support) but a lot of people's views here do seem to be further to the left than people I know (I've got quite a few Labour supporting friends).

 

Has there ever been a political compass thread on here? We'd be able to put this to the test.

 

not sure there are very many 'Labour' voter type people on here at all

there are a broad spectrum of quite independent people that don't like what the current bunch are doing, but that doesn't make them Labour. In much the same way, I wouldn't presume that somebody spouting anti Bliar views was automatically a tory.

 

incidentally, I've loved the way a few commentators on Newsnight and the like have hinted / suggested that Chavez did a lot of trade with China. A sort of suggestion he was a bit odd, a bit contrary or controversial. Afterall, what sort of chap would trade with China? 

I don't think it's about trade with China per se, but rather Chavez's hypocrisy. He rallied against the US being involved in his country but didn't seem to mind China doing the same.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Mantis

[chrisp65]

 

 

 

Not saying everyone on here is left-wing, but a large majority are and when I say left-wing I mean really left-wing.

 

Nothing wrong with that of course I just don't understand why people are lavishly praising a dictator like Chavez.

I would contend that, where one to ask the active membership of offtopic, to complete an anonymous political compass quiz, and then collate the results of the respondants as 'left' or 'right' wing, you would end up without a large majority of left wing support. I might go so far as to suggest that you'd actually get a result leaning a little to the right. Your average person in the UK, in my experience, is slightly socially right wing, and few genuinely lean that far left on anything other than a few social matters, and economically tend to support the basic concepts of capitalism. You'd end up with a fairly centred view, with perhaps a slight lean right.

 

I think reading this forum as 'really left wing' is quite funny, really. The noticeably active members leaning noticeably one way or tother balance out, and neither particularly comes out as 'really' either way. If you think this forum is particularly profoundly leaning either way, you should have been on my degree course modules. You'd have had an aneurysm.

I know where the country stands. When I said "on here" I was referring to VT, specifically off-topic.

 

You really think this forum isn't left-wing? I'm not sure on that. Certainly from what I've seen (I don't come in here all that often) it seems to be. It's completely expected that VT would have more Labour leaning people (when you take into account the location of the club we all support) but a lot of people's views here do seem to be further to the left than people I know (I've got quite a few Labour supporting friends).

 

Has there ever been a political compass thread on here? We'd be able to put this to the test.

 

not sure there are very many 'Labour' voter type people on here at all

there are a broad spectrum of quite independent people that don't like what the current bunch are doing, but that doesn't make them Labour. In much the same way, I wouldn't presume that somebody spouting anti Bliar views was automatically a tory.

 

incidentally, I've loved the way a few commentators on Newsnight and the like have hinted / suggested that Chavez did a lot of trade with China. A sort of suggestion he was a bit odd, a bit contrary or controversial. Afterall, what sort of chap would trade with China? 

I don't think it's about trade with China per se, but rather Chavez's hypocrisy. He rallied against the US being involved in his country but didn't seem to mind China doing the same.

 

 

let's not play Politician's Hypocrisy Top Trumps, every card beats the last one

 

let's just hope that in the next democratic election Venezuela understands it's place in the world and votes for what we want them to be

[Awol]

An interesting and fair article below from The Economist about Chavez:

Hugo Chávez’s rotten legacy

BACK in the 1990s Latin America seemed to have turned the page on military rule and embraced democracy and free-market economics, with the sole, beleaguered exception of communist Cuba. And then along came Hugo Chávez, a bumptious Venezuelan former lieutenant-colonel who, having staged a failed military coup against a democratic government, got himself elected as president in 1998.

Mr Chávez proceeded to dominate his country for more than 14 years until his death this week from cancer. His secret was to invent a hybrid regime. He preserved the outward forms of democracy, but behind them he concentrated power in his own hands and manipulated the law to further his own ends. He bullied opponents, and encouraged the middle class to emigrate. He hollowed out the economy by mixing state socialism and populist redistribution with a residue of capitalism. And he glued it all together with the crude but potent rhetoric of Latin American nationalism. Mr Chávez claimed to be leading a “Bolivarian revolution” against the “empire” (ie, the United States). It did not seem to matter that Simón Bolívar, the Venezuelan hero who liberated much of South America from Spanish colonial rule, was an Anglophile conservative.

Chavismo turned out to be a remarkably successful formula: Mr Chávez won four elections by margins ranging from sweeping to comfortable and lost only one of his six referendums. In October he won a new six-year term even though campaigning was restricted by his illness, which was graver than he admitted. He spawned imitators elsewhere in Latin America, financing an anti-American alliance of like-minded leaders and client states. And he was the saviour of communism in Cuba, his aid keeping the Castros in power while slowing the transition to capitalism in a bankrupt island.

Theatre, cunning and oil

Two things lay at the heart of Mr Chávez’s success. The first was his own political talent. Born in provincial obscurity, he proved to be a natural performer and communicator, with an unmatched ability to empathise with ordinary Venezuelans, combined with plenty of cunning. If Nicolás Maduro, his appointed vice-president and anointed successor, possesses any of these skills, he has yet to reveal them.

The second and bigger factor was that Mr Chávez had the immense good fortune to come to power just as an unprecedented commodity boom was about to get under way. As the oil price soared the dollars rolled in, without the Bolivarian revolution having to work for them. Mr Chávez used this windfall to buy himself popular support, with social programmes and handouts. The oil-fuelled bounty seemed to vindicate his claim that before his advent, Venezuelans had been impoverished by “neo-liberalism”.

But the writing on the wall for Venezuela is no longer just Bolivarian slogans. Although commodity prices may not be about to fall, they are no longer rising as they did in the 2000s. After ramping up spending ahead of October’s election, the government posted a fiscal deficit of 8.5% of GDP last year, financed in part by mortgaging some of its future oil output to China. Last month it devalued the currency by 32%.

As acting president since December, Mr Maduro has continued in his boss’s vein, issuing threats against the opposition and private business and expelling a couple of American diplomats. No doubt Mr Chávez’s death will prompt a sympathy vote that will help Mr Maduro win the election that the constitution now demands. Latin Americans have a necrophiliac streak, and the opposition, though stronger than in the past, is reeling from defeat in presidential and regional elections last year. But Mr Maduro lacks Mr Chávez’s authority. Assuming he wins, he will have to stabilise the economy while imposing his will on his faction-ridden party. The place may unravel.

Behind the propaganda, Venezuela’s ugly reality is that of a corrupt, cynical and incompetent regime (see article). It is regrettable that Mr Chávez will not be around to reap the whirlwind he has sown: perversely, the worse things now get in Venezuela, the more this will flatter his memory. So despite its malign effect on Venezuela, chavismo will survive its creator’s demise, much as Peronism has outlived Colonel Juan Perón in Argentina.

The venom behind the bear hugs

Elsewhere in Latin America, Mr Chávez’s influence has waned in recent years. Ecuador’s Rafael Correa is best placed to inherit his mantle: in power since 2007, he romped to another four-year term at an election in February—and he has oil. But Ecuador, like Bolivia, where Evo Morales, a fellow socialist, remains unchallenged, lacks Venezuela’s size, wealth and clout. Argentina’s Cristina Fernández, a semi-detached ally, has mounting problems of her own. As for Cuba, which gets around $6 billion a year from Venezuela, the Castros have manoeuvred to put Mr Maduro, their closest Venezuelan ally, in power. Cuban communism and the Bolivarian revolution have swum together; if Mr Maduro falters, they may sink together.

Mr Chávez’s fans claim that, thanks to him, Latin America freed itself from subjection to the United States. The continent certainly grew in confidence while he was in power, but that happened because of better economic management and rising trade with China, not because of anything Mr Chávez did. His scarlet beret may look good on bourgeois T-shirts in Greenwich Village and Islington, but Latin America’s real working-class hero has been Brazil’s Lula. And despite all the bear hugs at Latin American summits, Mr Chávez did not further the continent’s cause. Although Latin America’s leaders—including Lula—have been reluctant to denounce Mr Chávez, they know that he prevented it from fulfilling its potential and uniting behind democracy and open markets.

With luck, chavismo will now have lost much of its sting. His death could help break the deadlock that has stalled Latin American integration. The Chávez formula—exploiting inequality and social grievances to demonise the opposition—will remain a powerful one. But now that the man has gone Latin America’s democrats have an easier task.

[chrisp65]

it's an interesting article, but, I don't know it might be me reading between the lines, but it might have its own agenda against the bumptious bullying manipulative cunning crude rhetorical ugly lucky support buying Chavez and his faction ridden corrupt cynical incompetent regime and the conned voters that, being Latin Americans, have a necrophiliac streak.

[Awol]

it's an interesting article, but, I don't know it might be me reading between the lines, but it might have its own agenda against the bumptious bullying manipulative cunning crude rhetorical ugly lucky support buying Chavez and his faction ridden corrupt cynical incompetent regime and the conned voters that, being Latin Americans, have a necrophiliac streak.

Good spot, that theme had gone right over my head.

[AVFCforever1991]

[LondonLax]

Yeah I read that economist article today as well and 'balanced' is not exactly the word I would use. 

[maqroll]

I see everyone is wearing their tracksuits at the funeral

[dont_do_it_doug.]

I am absolutely bonafide left wing in my ideals. Bordering on communist.

In the real world, not so much. Mankind isn't capable of sustained Marxist governance, unfortunate as it is. When the shit hits the fan we're all right leaning.

Not that I get involved in the politics threads on VT if I can help it, I find arguing behind political agendas crass and pointless. I'd love it if we could have a proper discussion one day. Humans, that is.

Edited March 8, 2013 by dont_do_it_doug.

[tonyh29]

You can add Obama, Blair, Mandela and Berlusconi to the list of those shaking hands with Gaddafi , not sure that's a stick to beat Chavez with

[AVFCforever1991]

You can add Obama, Blair, Mandela and Berlusconi to the list of those shaking hands with Gaddafi , not sure that's a stick to beat Chavez with

 

I support Gaddafi and Chavez over Blair,Obama and Berlusconi. I like revolutionaries

Edited March 8, 2013 by AVFCforever1991

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Whoa there, Gadaffi? Or as my ex used to call him - Colin...

[AVFCforever1991]

The western media has brainwashed its people to believe that anyone who stands against America is an evil dictator, like Gaddafi (Gaddafi was a dictator) and Chavez, of course they have done some questionable actions, but so did Bush, Blair, Berlusconi and Obama... This doesn't mean I support everything they have done, but I'm sure loads of Bush/Blair supporters didn't support the Illegal Iraq war. Don't get me wrong I absolutely do not support the killings that Gaddafi committed. 

Edited March 9, 2013 by AVFCforever1991

[Mantis]

You liked Gaddafi? **** hell.

 

It's sad that some seem to let their hatred for the US/the West get in the way of rationality. The likes of Gaddafi and Chavez were far worse than any Western leader. What next, Kim Jong-Il was a great leader?

 

And no, the media are not "brainwashing" people FFS. The likes of Gaddafi and Chavez (particularly the former) were dictators/autocrats. Just because the media correctly point this out doesn't mean they're "brainwashing" people.

Edited March 9, 2013 by Mantis

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

'Far worse than any Western leader'.

 

So a president that rules an America that tortures, bombs indiscriminately and locks people up indefinitely is 'far better'? I see.

 

Interesting morals.

[Mantis]

All of those things Gadaffi did and more.

 

Nobody here is saying that Obama or Bush are saints but scum like Gadaffi were far worse.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Gaddafi, of course, but you're piling Chavez into the same boat simply because (some sections of) the media do too, and he quite clearly wasn't, not by a long bloody shot.