DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on May 26, 2010, 05:55:32 PM
-
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Media%20Logos/b9a8313e.gif)
Hugo Chavez's implosion continues in Venezuela
By Jackson Diehl | May 26, 2010; 2:26 PM ET
Hugo Chavez has been keeping a relatively low profile of late -- there have been no grand world tours, no fiery speeches at the United Nations. The Obama administration, which once promised to "engage" the Venezuelan caudillo, is instead quietly shunning him.
There's a simple reason for this: the implosion of Chavez's self-styled "Bolivarian socialism" is accelerating.
Figures reported Tuesday by the Chavez-controlled central bank portrayed an economy that is completely out of
sync with the rest of the region -- and perhaps unique in the world in the degree of its current distress. Gross
national product fell by 5.8 percent in the first quarter, while inflation remained at 30 percent. Private investment
plummeted by 27.9 percent as capital continued to flee the country.
Private economists suspect the economic contraction is even worse than what the official figures concede. But let?s assume they are correct. Venezuela?s crash compares with quarterly growth rates of 8 percent in Brazil, Argentina and Mexico. It comfortably exceeds the collapse of Greece, which contracted by 3 percent in the first quarter.
Inflation in Caracas is triple the next highest rate in Latin America (Argentina) and is more than double that of the next worst economy (Pakistan) among the 56 tracked by the Economist's website. Even Zimbabwe, which used to be considered the world's economic basket case, looks good compared to Venezuela: it is expecting 6 percent growth this year, while inflation is under 5 percent.
In short, economic recovery is taking hold across the world -- except in Chavez's Venezuela.
When I pointed out back in January that Chavez's revolution was collapsing, a chorus of left-wing bloggers rose up in protest.
The extremists among them claim that Venezuela is actually doing better than the rest of the world, because (loony version) Chavez is destroying evil capitalism or because (slightly less loony version) Venezuela's implosion is irrelevant to the rest of the region.
But, of course, Venezuela really is cratering -- and Chavez's desperate measures to stop the freefall are only making it worse. A couple of weeks ago, for example, he abruptly moved to abolish the private currency market, which supplies the dollars for 30 to 40 percent of Venezuela?s imports. The dollar exchange rate was soaring, so the government arrested a bunch of currency traders and announced that sales of dollars henceforth would be controlled exclusively by the central bank. The result will almost certainly be another drastic decrease in imports, the worsening of already widespread shortages in food and basic consumer goods, and the creation of a new black market in dollars.
And, of course, the implosion of Chavez's potted socialism does matter to the rest of Latin America. It's not just that the Obama administration no longer needs to bother with the strongman, since he is doing an excellent job of self-destruction. It's that Venezuela's clients and imitators -- especially in Bolivia and Nicaragua -- stand to lose both subsidies and ideological sustainment from Caracas. Chavez's decade-long attempt to create a bloc of like-minded countries around the region is in tatters.
The caudillo's popularity rating around Latin American is now below 40 percent, and his backing in Venezuela has dropped below 50 percent. With an election for the National Assembly coming up this fall, he has resorted to the Iranian tactic of disqualifying prominent opponents from the ballot. He will try to steal the election; if that doesn't work he will try to strip the legislature of power.
No matter: Chavez appears powerless to stop the unraveling of Venezuela's economy -- and with it, his "revolution". He will be left with a choice: surrender to his country's mounting discontent, or rule entirely by force.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/05/hugo_chavezs_implosion_continu.html (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/05/hugo_chavezs_implosion_continu.html)
-
How many years behind Hugo is Obama?
-
So the GNP is down 5.8% in the first quarter of this year. BFD.
The same article indicated that the GNP had been down 26.7% in 2003. If Chavez could survive a 26.7% drop in 03, how the hell is he going to be done in by a 5.8% drop in 0-10?
Inflation is only a problem for the masses if it puts the price of life's necessities out of their reach. Otherwise, it's a problem only for the parasites who live off the labour of the people. If Chavez is smart, he will move to control the cost of food, shelter, education and medical care. If the bourgeoisie and the upper classes don't like it, let them buy their one-way tickets to Miami right now.
Chavez has to demonstrate that he is made of the same stuff as Fidel - - that he can survive the economic shitstorm that the U.S. and its allies will engineer to bring him down. Sometimes drastic measures are necessary for such a purpose. Allende wasn't prepared to take them, and he and his country paid the price. If this is a test for Chavez, I wish him well and hope that he will rise to the occasion.
-
"parasites who live off the labour of the people"
The 'working people' that make your computer that you use to make yourself look like an idiot like the wages and paycheck they receive by building stuff parasites like you buy and use everyday. They in turn buy stuff like toothpaste and toilet paper made by other slaves or shall I say people that work for a living. How else would you be able to make an ass of yourself if not for all those slaves that work around the world building keyboards, software and modems? So you are an enabler Mr Mike, which makes you a hypocrite.
-
<<The 'working people' that make your computer that you use to make yourself look like an idiot like the wages and paycheck they receive by building stuff parasites like you buy and use everyday. >>
What fucking bullshit. Unbelievable. If they "like" it so much, how come the families of the rich don't just educate their own sons and daughters to work in a computer factory in Taiwan? Why blow all that money on fancy Ivy League degrees if the life of the Taiwanese factory worker is such a great pleasure?
The working class is in hock every single fucking day of their lives to the banks and the insurance companies for their homes, their cars and their health, and God help them if they miss a few payments. In order NOT to miss a few payments they spend eight hours or more of every working day, 50 weeks a year working in shit jobs that nobody born into wealth would ever consider taking. But they "like" the wages and the paycheque. Like it? They have no fucking alternative.
-
The working class is in hock every single fucking day of their lives to the banks and the insurance companies for their homes, their cars and their health, They have no fucking alternative.
Mike...yes they do. Most working people in the United States could move to a "worker's paradise" like
Cuba if they really wanted to experience "the good life". Sorry it's hard to even type that without laughing.
But seriously Mike...it's not that bad. I was quite happy back when I made 30-40K a year. I lived
paycheck to paycheck, struggled with bills, things were tight....but I could save a few bucks here
and there and attend great concerts, great sporting events, take a few trips...whatever. Life is not
always a picnic....but the alternative is something most working class Americans would not be the
least bit interested in. Most working class people in the United States don't want the nanny state
taking care of them because they know the high price and problems a nanny state brings upon a society.
-
I guess it's possible to be happy as a working stiff in America, lots of them are. It's when family obligations kick in, you have to raise kids, then you start to feel the pinch. I get the feeling, CU4, you were describing the life of a bachelor in America.
Bachelors can be happy in America. Also in Cuba, in France, Germany and Spain. IMHO, it's a lot more fun to be single and living from paycheque to paycheque in France than in America, but it's fun in both places, I won't deny that.
Married guys in shit jobs working to pay the mortgage are a lot more common in the USA than in Cuba as far as I could see. I admit I don't have the stats, but my feeling is that the incidence of ulcers and stress-related heart disease among family men in the USA is a lot higher than it would be in either France or Cuba.
-
not just kids
don`t forget a very sizable amount of people don`t have pensions, so alot of people are supporting thier parents.
in fact traditionally peoples retirement is basicly living with thier kids.
pension is actually not as common as people want to think it is
-
Actually, I think CU4 is a very positive, basically happy person, able to make the best of any situation and has done pretty well for himself in life. This is OK for CU4, but most people don't have that kind of strength and for them, America doesn't turn out as well as it did for him. There's no doubt in my mind that America does provide a better life for millionaires and those who have what it takes to become a millionaire, but the average guy is not in that class and is not going to get much more out of life in the U.S.A. than working in shit for a lifetime of servitude to pay the mortgage, keep his access to medical care, educate his kids (for the same rat-race) and MAYBE retire on pension if the money is still in the pension fund or be supported as an extra burden by the kiddies if it isn't.
CU4 paints a misleadingly rosy picture of American life, but real life is not that way at all for most of America's population, which IMHO is why they indulge in fantasies of rape, murder and torture as presented in violent TV shows, movies and most disturbingly of all by politicians (who in many ways are just a part of the entertainment landscape) who actually promote wars against helpless Third World victims to justify the bloodlust and slake the rage that most of America's wage slaves feel but are afraid to acknowledge openly.
-
I think one reason there is so much mayhem on TV and wars and such is because advertising and sales research proved that during wartime people are more uncertain and afraid, and seek security, and since there is nothing the average person can do against the Soviets' nukes or Al Qaeda or Crime in the Streets, they go out and buy crap to make themselves feel that they are doing SOMETHING. Sales experts have found that advertising vague images about what a product will do for people to fee secure once more. See the cosmetic ads, the car ads, especially the ones from the factory for luxury brands, and the soft drink ads.
When we have a hurricane threat here in Miami, people immediately stores selling food and home improvements and empty the shelves of EVERYTHING, as though a new sink or mailbox or jug of milk will save them from being blown away. The shelves of the stores empty out completely, even of stuff that it is rather insane to buy when the electricity is likely to be shut off, like ice cream and cottage cheese.
The crime rate in AZ has actually gone DOWN in recent times, but you would not believe that from all the hype about mayhem committed by illegal aliens. El Paso, TX, which is mostly Mexican and Mexican-American and has more than its share of illegals, is one of the safest cities in the US.
When people go out and buy guns and ammo, it gets in the news and more people go out and buy yet more guns and more ammo. It is not like three guns will make you safer than just one. But hearing that your neighbor has three guns is likely to make a person go out and buy more guns just to keep up, either in imitation or imaginary self-defense.
-
Actually, I think CU4 is a very positive, basically happy person, able to make the best of any situation and has done pretty well for himself in life. This is OK for CU4, but most people don't have that kind of strength and for them, America doesn't turn out as well as it did for him. There's no doubt in my mind that America does provide a better life for millionaires and those who have what it takes to become a millionaire, but the average guy is not in that class and is not going to get much more out of life in the U.S.A. than working in shit for a lifetime of servitude to pay the mortgage, keep his access to medical care, educate his kids (for the same rat-race) and MAYBE retire on pension if the money is still in the pension fund or be supported as an extra burden by the kiddies if it isn't.
CU4 paints a misleadingly rosy picture of American life, but real life is not that way at all for most of America's population, which IMHO is why they indulge in fantasies of rape, murder and torture as presented in violent TV shows, movies and most disturbingly of all by politicians (who in many ways are just a part of the entertainment landscape) who actually promote wars against helpless Third World victims to justify the bloodlust and slake the rage that most of America's wage slaves feel but are afraid to acknowledge openly.
Pelegra incidence is down since the 30s , so much that most Americans would not recognise the term.
Now our problems are obesity , buying too many toys , playing too many computer games and running into each other in our cars.
Even at our lowest level Americans have a greater power of purse than their own grandparents or any nearly equivelent part of the third world.
It is not pleasant to default on debt , but for most who do seven years of good (financhial) behavior is a complete cure.There is a great risk to the lender as well for balence.
How are we wage slaves more as we are than we would not be as members of a communist society?
-
Wage slaves work all the time in other people's enterprises, enriching them at the cost of their own labour. They don't own their homes or their cars, or in many cases even their TVs. They bust their asses working to pay off their chattel debts and their homes and God forbid if they fall behind in their payments, they're out on their ass.
Under communism there was full employment and no chance of being fired or laid off. Only parasites (who didn't want to work) wound up in the labour camps. Nobody was kicked out of state housing for non-payment, everybody's kids had a clear shot at a free education from JK to grad school and everyone had free medical care.
The workers were looked after cradle to grave.
The wage slave is only as good as his last couple of pay-cheques. Laid off? Fuck you. THAT'S why he's a wage slave. Lose the job and you lose a lot more than a job, pal. Lots of them lose their homes, cars and medical care.
-
Wage slaves work all the time in other people's enterprises, enriching them at the cost of their own labour. They don't own their homes or their cars, or in many cases even their TVs. They bust their asses working to pay off their chattel debts and their homes and God forbid if they fall behind in their payments, they're out on their ass.
Under communism there was full employment and no chance of being fired or laid off. Only parasites (who didn't want to work) wound up in the labour camps. Nobody was kicked out of state housing for non-payment, everybody's kids had a clear shot at a free education from JK to grad school and everyone had free medical care.
The workers were looked after cradle to grave.
The wage slave is only as good as his last couple of pay-cheques. Laid off? Fuck you. THAT'S why he's a wage slave. Lose the job and you lose a lot more than a job, pal. Lots of them lose their homes, cars and medical care.
Under communism there was full employment working all the time in the people's enterprises at the cost of their own labour. They don't own their homes or their cars, or in many cases even their TVs. They bust their asses working to to pay off the States never ending debt God forbid if they complain, they're out on their ass.
Disagree with the state and your house , your job and your right to exist disapear after all it all belongs to the people , rediculous that anything should belong to a person.
-
<<Under communism there was full employment working all the time in the people's enterprises at the cost of their own labour. >>
Yeah. Working for the people, not for the capitalists.
<< They don't own their homes or their cars, or in many cases even their TVs. >>
Who gives a shit about ownership? They sleep under the fucking roof, eat in the dining room, watch TV in the den and shit in the fucking toilet. Every day. Every night. For the rest of their lives. What does "ownership" give them, beside the "right" to work their ass off for the fucking bank their whole life?
<<They bust their asses working to to pay off the States never ending debt >>
No, they DON'T "bust their asses." You have no idea how easy their life is when the only people they have to support are the workers and peasants themselves, not an upper-class of coupon-clippers and idle rich.
<<God forbid if they complain, they're out on their ass.>>
Why would they complain? If the state provides the people with a decent livelihood in return for an honest day's work, who but an enemy of the people would ever complain?
<<Disagree with the state and your house , your job and your right to exist disapear after all it all belongs to the people , rediculous that anything should belong to a person.>>
As opposed to what? Disagree with the state and a predator drone will nuke your ass? Disagree with the state and you can disappear into Guantanamo forever?
-
Who gives a shit about ownership? They sleep under the fucking roof, eat in the dining room, watch TV in the den and shit in the fucking toilet. Every day. Every night. For the rest of their lives. What does "ownership" give them, beside the "right" to work their ass off for the fucking bank their whole life?
Because everything you depend on to live depends on being a good yes man.
How many people ,includeing teachers and scientists, did Stalin send into Siberian exile for saying that Darwin was right or teaching Evolution?
In comunism the fast track to crushing poverty is to speak truth to power , the slow but steady track to crushing poverty is to allow the state to run up ruinous debts on your behalf.
-
<<Under communism there was full employment working all the time in the people's enterprises at the cost of their own labour. >>
Yeah. Working for the people, not for the capitalists.
You mean the state which falsely calls itself the people.
The people are not allowd any choice so how can the state be called the people?
-
Bingo. Tee himself already conceded a tier level of elites who would largely dictate what "the people" need, want, will do, say, ignore, etc., while the actual people are largely working for the state and those elites who determine who "the people" and the state are
At least in a Capitalist economy, people are free to opt out of one enterprise, and consider another. The evils of communism largely removes even that choice
-
<<You mean the state which falsely calls itself the people.>>
"Falsely," my ass.
<<The people are not allowd any choice so how can the state be called the people?>>
You gotta be kidding. They made their choice in the Revolution. If the Revolutionary Government fails to serve the people, another Revolution can kick them out.
-
If the Revolutionary Government fails to serve the people, another Revolution can kick them out.
Unless the first Revolutionary Government acts quickly enough to have them deemed "enemies of the people" and lined up against the wall before the next Revolution kicks them out.
-
They made their choice in the Revolution.
No they didn't.....most Cubans probably were not even alive when Castro took over.
Regular free and open elections are vastly superior for people making their choices instead of a revolution.
Regular free and open elections are good things.....revolutions not so much.
-
<<You mean the state which falsely calls itself the people.>>
"Falsely," my ass.
<<The people are not allowd any choice so how can the state be called the people?>>
You gotta be kidding. They made their choice in the Revolution. If the Revolutionary Government fails to serve the people, another Revolution can kick them out.
That is rediculous.
Even so there is an American History answer for it.
John Hancock wanted the term of the Presidency to be a lifetime appointment , and it was Benjaman Franklin who explained to him the problem with that.
That if the people could not elect new leadership they could assasinate the old leadership.
Understanding the sense of this John Hnacock (who probly hoped to be a president) withdrew his objection to a relitively short presidential term.
Any leader unwilling to admit that his entire nation can produce more tha one competant leadership is insulting the people and is makeing his own assissination needfull.
Your admission that Communism is so inflexable that it requires new revolution anytime the old revolution gets tired justifies my assertion that the Communist system is primitive compared to the more developed systems of the World.
Also that it is rediculous to claim that a choice made of the people two ro three generations ago can pretend to be the peoples choice forever.
-
<<Unless the first Revolutionary Government acts quickly enough to have them deemed "enemies of the people" and lined up against the wall before the next Revolution kicks them out.>>
Yeah, the Czarist government tried it but it didn't work. The South Vietnamese puppet government tried it, but it didn't work. When all the people are united against the government, doesn't matter how many individuals the government can hunt down and kill, El Pueblo! Unido! Jamas sera vencido!
-
<<Unless the first Revolutionary Government acts quickly enough to have them deemed "enemies of the people" and lined up against the wall before the next Revolution kicks them out.>>
Yeah, the Czarist government tried it but it didn't work. The South Vietnamese puppet government tried it, but it didn't work. When all the people are united against the government, doesn't matter how many individuals the government can hunt down and kill, El Pueblo! Unido! Jamas sera vencido!
The number realy really doesn't matter, the casualtys arn't counted so much as covered . If you had to kill most of the people to preserve the revolution so be it! The revolution is of much greater import than a person , or any number of persons , or the people.
-
<<Any leader unwilling to admit that his entire nation can produce more tha one competant leadership is insulting the people and is makeing his own assissination needfull.>>
I don't think Fidel ever claimed that he was the only person in the whole nation competent to lead. He was only one of five or six comandantes originally, albeit the top one, and I think he would have admitted that the others could also lead. He just happened to be the best and the others all wanted his leadership. He certainly proved himself worthy of their confidence over the years.
<<Your admission that Communism is so inflexable that it requires new revolution anytime the old revolution gets tired justifies my assertion that the Communist system is primitive compared to the more developed systems of the World.>>
It's an admission that Communism has a huge problem with the issue of succession, one that has never been solved. Never did I claim that Communism was a perfect solution to anything, that it had no problems of its own.
<<Also that it is rediculous to claim that a choice made of the people two ro three generations ago can pretend to be the peoples choice forever.>>
In Cuba's case it happens to be the truth. The people do not want to return to the banana republic status imposed on them by American hegemony. They don't want to be another Guatemala or Honduras. If they ever want out of Communism they can revolt as their gusano cousins in Miami keep urging them to do. Too bad the gusanos won't set foot on the island to lead the revolt - - they know better than anyone else does what kind of reception the Cuban people would prepare for them. They still remember the Bay of Pigs.
-
<<Regular free and open elections are vastly superior for people making their choices instead of a revolution.>>
How would you know? Every one of America's elections for decades has been nothing but a phony charade between Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee candidates who stand for the same basic things and quarrel over nothing. I can't remember when America held an election where both candidates weren't selected in advance by the military-industrial complex and their bankers. Ever since the defeat of Henry Wallace in the 1948 elections, American voters were never given a real choice about anything, except for issues like abortion, church-state separation, or other social issues, which the military-industrial complex doesn't really give a shit about.
-
Yea, so much better for someone to be place himself in charge by military fiat (read, MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX), vs people having the freedom to choose their leader. Good lord, what were we thinking?
-
<<Any leader unwilling to admit that his entire nation can produce more tha one competant leadership is insulting the people and is makeing his own assissination needfull.>>
I don't think Fidel ever claimed that he was the only person in the whole nation competent to lead. He was only one of five or six comandantes originally, albeit the top one, and I think he would have admitted that the others could also lead. He just happened to be the best and the others all wanted his leadership. He certainly proved himself worthy of their confidence over the years.
<<Your admission that Communism is so inflexable that it requires new revolution anytime the old revolution gets tired justifies my assertion that the Communist system is primitive compared to the more developed systems of the World.>>
It's an admission that Communism has a huge problem with the issue of succession, one that has never been solved. Never did I claim that Communism was a perfect solution to anything, that it had no problems of its own.
<<Also that it is rediculous to claim that a choice made of the people two ro three generations ago can pretend to be the peoples choice forever.>>
In Cuba's case it happens to be the truth. The people do not want to return to the banana republic status imposed on them by American hegemony. They don't want to be another Guatemala or Honduras. If they ever want out of Communism they can revolt as their gusano cousins in Miami keep urging them to do. Too bad the gusanos won't set foot on the island to lead the revolt - - they know better than anyone else does what kind of reception the Cuban people would prepare for them. They still remember the Bay of Pigs.
Cuba has exiled a huge number of gusanos. If I were Cuban I would start thinking that gusano ment intelligent or ment couragious .
If the US were to exile so many it would be like emptying California into Canada , how is this a good idea?
The Cuban system deserves the description "primitive" because it has no advantages over a benevolent monarchy .
There are lots of countrys with more advanced systems , systems that do not make their minoritys endure abuse , insult and exile. These are problems that have been historicly solved, there is no need of invention.
-
<<Regular free and open elections are vastly superior for people making their choices instead of a revolution.>>
How would you know? Every one of America's elections for decades has been nothing but a phony charade between Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee candidates who stand for the same basic things and quarrel over nothing. I can't remember when America held an election where both candidates weren't selected in advance by the military-industrial complex and their bankers. Ever since the defeat of Henry Wallace in the 1948 elections, American voters were never given a real choice about anything, except for issues like abortion, church-state separation, or other social issues, which the military-industrial complex doesn't really give a shit about.
You haven't been paying much attention at all have you ?
Communists and Socialists are indeed allowed to offer themselves as canadates but those choices bear precious little appeal to the common man.
Scientific polling has allowed the major partys to understand very well what the people care about and don't. Both partys are busy trying to lead while they also follow these polls. The government is constantly copeing itself to the will of the people . If this is bad it is the fault of the people who seem to demand nothing less.
-
<<Cuba has exiled a huge number of gusanos. >>
Socialism is not for everyone. For those who think that they can do better as individuals in a war of each against all, the U.S.A. is a perfect fit. Somebody should check up on these gusanos every ten years to see how they did. Some did become wealthy and for them, with values like theirs (selfishness and greed,) moving to the U.S.A. was definitely the right move. Since everyone can't get rich (who would wash their cars if they did?) I think most of the gusanos made the wrong choice, although some may undoubtedly feel good about having made the choice and taken their best shot at it.
<<If I were Cuban I would start thinking that gusano ment intelligent or ment couragious .>>
What if it did? There are plenty of intelligent and courageous men and women who supported the Revolution, and NONE of them were motivated by greed or selfishness.
<<If the US were to exile so many it would be like emptying California into Canada , how is this a good idea?>>
What's the difference? If you are building a society based on the ethic of cooperation, collective effort and sharing, and you lose a bunch of greed-driven, selfish narcissists, who gives a shit? The Revolution is better off without them, and it's cheaper than shooting them.
<<The Cuban system deserves the description "primitive" because it has no advantages over a benevolent monarchy .>>
Funny, that's a question I've often asked myself - - what's the difference between Fidel and a more-or-less benevolent monarch? Elections would probably be better IF. If you had an intelligent, well-informed electorate and no special interests were allowed to interfere in the elections with dirty tricks, lies, false promises, etc. Given the example of the U.S. federal elections, I'd say that they are no match for a benevolent monarchy, despite the succession problems of the monarch.
<<There are lots of countrys with more advanced systems , systems that do not make their minoritys endure abuse , insult and exile. These are problems that have been historicly solved, there is no need of invention.>>
Nothing's been "historically solved" - - the U.S.-style phony elections between Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee candidates only serve to mask the problem of rule by special interests. Elections in general were better in 4th-Century Athens than in the U.S.A. and might still work in small communities where everyone knows everyone else. They sure as hell have huge problems in a country of 300 million where dozens of millions of dollars are required even for a Senatorial campaign, let alone a Presidential. Don't pretend that you have solved your problems while the Communists haven't solved theirs. That's bullshit.
-
I do not have to claim that we have solved our problems completely .
I am only claiming that we have solved them better.
For example OUR gusanos can join the opposition party and need neither to be shot nor exiled .
If the major leage party out of power is not diffrent enough, there are dozens of custom made minor partys . None of these need execution of exile either.
In Cuba the class in power must preserve its advantage by constant destruction of veriety and diversity , this is a certain sign of primitiveness.
-
No they didn't.....most Cubans probably were not even alive when Castro took over.
======================
NO Americans now alive were alive when the Constitution was written, so that is a bit of a bogus argument, isn't it? Every generatuon is obliged to follow the rules that were in existence when they were born, or to change them if they can.
The US Constitution has not been put to a vote, ever, by the way. A few old White guys wrote it and voted on it, that's all.
A higher percentage of Cubans probably followed Fidel in 1958-59.
-
No they didn't.....most Cubans probably were not even alive when Castro took over.
======================
NO Americans now alive were alive when the Constitution was written, so that is a bit of a bogus argument, isn't it? Every generatuon is obliged to follow the rules that were in existence when they were born, or to change them if they can.
Except you're ommitting the one grand canyon of a difference, that of freedom, that of the opportunty, we as Americans, can vote for our representatives, can amend laws, can "change the rules" that were previsously in existance, if they choose to. No gunshot need be applied, nor some violent revolution, if that were even possible.
A DISTINCT difference, thus not bogus in the least
-
<<You haven't been paying much attention at all have you ?>>
Huh? Whutzat? I haven't been paying who for what?
<<Communists and Socialists are indeed allowed to offer themselves as canadates but those choices bear precious little appeal to the common man.>>
Is THAT your answer to the allegation that American "elections" are phony charades between Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee candidates who are both servants of the same special interests?
<<Scientific polling has allowed the major partys to understand very well what the people care about and don't. Both partys are busy trying to lead while they also follow these polls. >>
Isn't your explanation above (which I accept, BTW) perfectly consistent with my theory that the "elections" consist of two phony "candidates," each one roughly equal to the other in his acceptability to the special interests that are the real government, vying with one another for the privilege of nominally leading the nation for a limited term of four years? Obviously neither "candidate" has any real program at odds with the goals of the special interests and is concerned primarily with crafting a pitch to the approximately 50% of the electorate who are dumb enough to get involved in the charade in the first place that will enable him to beat out the other "candidate" and be permitted to "represent" the nation for the next four years. Otherwise, why bother with finding out in advance what the dumb schmucks want anyway? Why not just stand for election based on a published party platform and let the idiots decide howsoever they choose to decide?
<<The government is constantly copeing itself to the will of the people . >.
That is 100% bullshit. They are promising the people what they believe the people want, they are presenting to the people the image that they think the people want to see, but once the election is over, the winner continues the policies of the last government in all important matters, since all the participants in the charade, including the outgoing administration, are the tools of the special interests that really govern the country.
<<If this is bad it is the fault of the people who seem to demand nothing less.>>
The "people" don't demand jack-shit. Half of them, knowing all too well the futility of the exercise, don't even bother to vote. The rest of the schmucks can vote any way they want, but in the end, they'll get what the special interests have already decided they can get. Nothing more and nothing less.
-
American elections are more about marketing than actual democracy.
The Netherlands has 22 million people and there are eleven parties represented in Parliament, and a number that did not make the cut.
The Dutch government is generally regarded as efficient and orderly. And it is certainly more democratic than the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_Netherlands)
-
American elections are more about marketing than actual democracy.
Regardless of the rationalization, it's STILL democracy, it's STILL we voting for who we want. No gun is required, no blood need be shed, no revolution is required to change anything....at least not yet
-
No they didn't.....most Cubans probably were not even alive when Castro took over.
======================
NO Americans now alive were alive when the Constitution was written, so that is a bit of a bogus argument, isn't it? Every generatuon is obliged to follow the rules that were in existence when they were born, or to change them if they can.
The US Constitution has not been put to a vote, ever, by the way. A few old White guys wrote it and voted on it, that's all.
A higher percentage of Cubans probably followed Fidel in 1958-59.
All of the writers of the constitution were dead by the time the 14th admendmendment was written.
All of the writers of the 14th admendment wre dead by the time the ERA was offered as an admendmendment.
The US constitution had no force of law untill most of the states had ratified it , which was a process of public inspection and elected state reps voteing on it.
the Constitution has a built in process of change which the people can avail themselves of by referendum, or by representative voteing at the state level.
The ERA came within two states of being ratified , it seemed like a bad idea to me and I beleive it has lost the popularity it once had , but it failed in due process.
-
The point is that the Cuban Revolution may nor now be the will of the Cuban people because those alive have not voted for it, but again, the US Constitution is no more the will of the American people by the same standard.
So saying that the Cuban Revolution is invalid on those grounds is a feeble argument.
I would be for everyone voting on a Constitution every 30 years or so. But being as it is all controlled by marketing now, perhaps that problem would need to be addressed if this were done.
-
The point is that the Cuban Revolution may nor now be the will of the Cuban people because those alive have not voted for it, but again, the US Constitution is no more the will of the American people by the same standard.
So saying that the Cuban Revolution is invalid on those grounds is a feeble argument.
No , it is a very strong arguement because the Cubans haven't got anuy way at all to tolerate a loyal opposition , they don't seem to get the idea. It need not be the same process we use , but they have nothing at all which there is no excuse for.
I would be for everyone voting on a Constitution every 30 years or so. But being as it is all controlled by marketing now, perhaps that problem would need to be addressed if this were done.
Admendments show up at about that pace and an admendment has the strength to reverse any clause of the constitution. ON the theroy that anyone chooseing not to decide still has made a choice , not admending the constitution is a vote in favor of it. People who want an admendment lobby and agitate for one almost all of the time. Eventually one of these is going to gain the populartiy it needs to become a real change. Do you suppose that the next one will take longer than thirty years?
Is marketing a problem or a sophistication?
-
<< . . . because the Cubans haven't got anuy way at all to tolerate a loyal opposition >>
ROTFLMFAO. In Cuba, there IS no "loyal oppposition." Either you're for the Revolution or you're against the people.
<<Is marketing a problem or a sophistication?>>
Obviously it's a problem. Particularly when you've got an ignorant electorate and a huge disparity in marketing funds available between the ruling classes and the workers.
-
The point is that the Cuban Revolution may nor now be the will of the Cuban people because those alive have not voted for it, but again, the US Constitution is no more the will of the American people by the same standard.
Not even close. The will of the Cuban currently does not exist. It exists at the whim of the dictator in charge. There is no means of "changing" that, without an armed revolution. Grasping the difference, yet, between the will of the Cubam people and the will of the American people? Hint, it has to do with Freedom, AND a Constitution
I would be for everyone voting on a Constitution every 30 years or so.
We already have a means of amending it, when the will of the people so desires to. Again, no gun or revolution is necessary
-
<< . . . because the Cubans haven't got anuy way at all to tolerate a loyal opposition >>
ROTFLMFAO. In Cuba, there IS no "loyal oppposition." Either you're for the Revolution or you're against the people.
if England or the US exiled their loal opposition would we be better off?
Cuba cut itself off from a rich resorce this way. It is as if they loved their right arm so much that they amputated the left.
<<Is marketing a problem or a sophistication?>>
Obviously it's a problem. Particularly when you've got an ignorant electorate and a huge disparity in marketing funds available between the ruling classes and the workers.
It is a sophistication, the alternative is a government controll of enforced ignorance.
-
<<if England or the US exiled their loal opposition would we be better off?>>
Tough question, I really gotta think this one through . . . hmmm, if the Party of Tweedle Dum exiled the Party of Tweedle Dee, would England or America be better off? Geeze <sound of wheels turning, gears meshing>>
<<Cuba cut itself off from a rich resorce this way. >>
Never heard of the enemies of the people being described as a "rich resource" before but, uh, my gut feeling is that the Cubans will somehow manage to survive without them.
<<It is as if they loved their right arm so much that they amputated the left.>>
LOL. plane, if the gusanos are their left arm, I think they're gonna be just fine as amputees.
<<It [political marketing]is a sophistication, the alternative is a government controll of enforced ignorance.>>
What political marketing is, is a mechanism for the oligarchy to make sure that no ideas hostile to the oligarchy ever reach the broader public, which in turn ensures that the entire political process can be safely left in the hands of play-actors who all serve the same basic oligarchical principles.
-
<<if England or the US exiled their loal opposition would we be better off?>>
Tough question, I really gotta think this one through . . . hmmm, if the Party of Tweedle Dum exiled the Party of Tweedle Dee, would England or America be better off? Geeze <sound of wheels turning, gears meshing>>
<<Cuba cut itself off from a rich resorce this way. >>
Never heard of the enemies of the people being described as a "rich resource" before but, uh, my gut feeling is that the Cubans will somehow manage to survive without them.
<<It is as if they loved their right arm so much that they amputated the left.>>
LOL. plane, if the gusanos are their left arm, I think they're gonna be just fine as amputees.
They are not tho are they ?<<It [political marketing]is a sophistication, the alternative is a government controll of enforced ignorance.>>
What political marketing is, is a mechanism for the oligarchy to make sure that no ideas hostile to the oligarchy ever reach the broader public, which in turn ensures that the entire political process can be safely left in the hands of play-actors who all serve the same basic oligarchical principles.
Ogiarchy again?
Is Cuba so much better off with a single ogilrchy than we are with dozens?
The Cuban government rations information to its people because it fears the power of the people who know the truth.
Marketing is persuasion , the alternative to government by thuggary.
-
<<Is Cuba so much better off with a single ogilrchy than we are with dozens?>>
I think so. How many Americans have free medical care and free education from pre-school to grad school? How many Americans are guaranteed jobs and housing by their government?
<<The Cuban government rations information to its people because it fears the power of the people who know the truth.>>
"The truth" being the lies of the scum-of-the-earth Cuban exile community in Florida? They ration information and so does the U.S.A. ration information. They do it through the corporate-controlled MSM, Cuba does it through the Communist Party of Cuba.
<<Marketing is persuasion . . . >>
That's a very naive view of it. If I'm allowed to saturate your information landscape and my opponent gets in one appearance for every 100 of mine, that's not "persuasion," it's brainwashing. The alternative to marketing is equal access to the media for all candidates with none of the candidates being permitted to have anyone else coach him, script his utterances or write his material.
-
<<Is Cuba so much better off with a single ogilrchy than we are with dozens?>>
I think so. How many Americans have free medical care and free education from pre-school to grad school?
most How many Americans are guaranteed jobs and housing by their government?
all
<<The Cuban government rations information to its people because it fears the power of the people who know the truth.>>
"The truth" being the lies of the scum-of-the-earth Cuban exile community in Florida? They ration information and so does the U.S.A. ration information. They do it through the corporate-controlled MSM, Cuba does it through the Communist Party of Cuba.
enforced ignorance as I said. But do you really think that there can be enforced ignorance in the USA? You are very lop sidedly wrong on that, in Cuba there is a ogliarchy monopoly in the US you can buy any magazine published on the earth , tune in any website your computer can handle . In Cuba the Government is suspicious of the people and controlls them , in the US the Peopel are suspicious of the government and controlls it.
<<Marketing is persuasion . . . >>
That's a very naive view of it. If I'm allowed to saturate your information landscape and my opponent gets in one appearance for every 100 of mine, that's not "persuasion," it's brainwashing. The alternative to marketing is equal access to the media for all candidates with none of the candidates being permitted to have anyone else coach him, script his utterances or write his material.
And what prevents equal access to the public?
Marketing does ! Ha!
Marketing produces access to the public.
-
<<Marketing is persuasion . . . >>
That's a very naive view of it. If I'm allowed to saturate your information landscape and my opponent gets in one appearance for every 100 of mine, that's not "persuasion," it's brainwashing.
Wow, Tee just described Cuban control, by Castro & Company.....to a tee. Well done