@kotkee if he was a true socialist he'd live in a socialist country and not benefit from capitalism as he currently does. It's like when you see an american kid with a che t-shirt produced by a corporation its just hypocritical. I've seen first hand what socialism does to a country and that's why I now live in a free country
@SirHappyThe1st Yeah.. And instead of complaining about "taxation without representation" why didn't George Washington and his hippy friends move somewhere else? Your false equivalency is startling and your intelligence, lacking.
@BuddyPC Not really. All Chomsky said was that Chavez is going down the dangerous road of concentrating power in the executive office, while also intimidating the judiciary and cowing the legislature, the traditional checks on his power. But he tempered his criticism by reminding us that Chavez's actions aren't unique: concentrating power is what many regimes do. Also, he reminds us that Chavez is still working to integrate South America politically and economically, positive trends in his eyes.
Live Comander Chavez!!! Live the Bolivarian marxist revolusion!!! The Comander give us dignity!! With a Fist of Iron he crush facist oligarchs finance by Wasington CIA!!! Out yanqui imperialists go home!! The People is in Power now!!! Live the ductatorship of the Proletariat!! Fatherland socialism or DEATH!!!
@magicthunder666 Yes Comrade!! The Noble Proletariat will triunf!!! Have you realize Comrade how Naom Chonsky is now finance by Washington CIA to speak bad things about our glorios Comander? It makes a few monts ago he soeaks bad things about our Comander Is necesary to fight against traitor Chonsky.
@PureLiberalFire -- What is "the right to a fair trial" if not a positive liberty? That "the government will not interfere with your right to a fair trial" will not guarantee this liberty. Society has to allocate resources to training lawyers and paying judges, setting up the institutions of a judiciary, etc., to fulfill this right. I'm sympathetic to the distinction between positive and negative liberties, but the horrors you've attributed to positive liberties are not the full story.
Capitalism means "economic liberty" or "freedom to make and trade". I've never heard of negative liberty referred to as "crummy" before. "Negative liberty" is REAL liberty.
On the other hand, "positive liberty" is like "social justice" and "economic democracy" -- either empty nonsense or horrific coercion by the state. "Positive liberty" is collective benefits and privileges -- and socio-economic collectivism -- at the expense of true freedom.
Karl Rove is a piker compared to chomsky.Chomsky leaves out the FACT that chavez stole billions of dollars to achieve his programs.People worked hard to invest in those companies.The current presidents commie upbringing, prevents him from seeing what Bush saw.Bush took action to protect Americans.How many dictators does it take to help take down the world economy?How many Americans, Canadians, etc. must loose the pensions for Chavez programs.Build a Venn diagram,converse, inverse,contrapositive
Please... USA has helped dozens of dictatorships emerge worldwide, even in very recent years. It's not secret information. USA endorsed the 24h long coup d'etat in Venezuela to overthrow a democratically elected president. You wouldn't mind that though, huh "patriot"?
Americans loose pensions due to Chavez? WTF?! C'mon, admit it, you don't mind dictators so long they are your dictators right? Dumb fascists...
@Keinlicht Utterly ingenious, actually. Libertarianism is MILES ahead of nitwit, dirtbag right-wing conservatism and left-wing progressivism (which are identical, by the way).
I can agree with you on that point, but i don't think there's any such thing as a 'pro-liberty' capitalist who supports the status-quo Corporatist system. There are some legitimate arguments for limited free markets (limited in scope, not freedom), but i don't think they can be made presupposing our current socio-politico-economic situation.
politics sucks. Venezuela's society has it ups and downs. Beautiful place and most people are really nice but most are corrupt and greedy just like in the US. Been there done that.
@PureLiberalFire He does criticise the pro-tyranny socialists, quite heavily indeed. Check out the video "Chomsky on lenin, trotsky and the soviet union" on here. Scathing! Don't know there's such a thing as pro liberty capitalist though, unless in some crummy "negative liberty" sense (I'm alright on my own and have no need for other people being a drain on my resources and time type "liberty")
Capitalism is good for when you are FINANCIALLY EDUCATED - otherwise capitalism is a cruel mistress
Financial ignorance afflicts 90% of capitalist society - tis why rich get richer , the poor remain financially stupid, impotent and make up ridiculous conspiracy theories instead of educating themselves financially!
Noam Chomsky makes no sense to be honest. He's speaks a lot of truth about what's wrong with the western world, but socialist anarchism is not the solution LOL! He says he's against power structures, except when it's government/state power: as long as it's 'nice' to it's population LOL!
@Sivels the game is rigged always has been.... greed is good it creates difference and that can then be exploited, divide and conquer .....its a cold world learn how to provide your own heat........capitalism is cannabilism the rest is propaganda
@surfin4 capitalism is not cannibalism. Altruism is the morality of cannibals in the idea that men are to be sacrificed for others. Capitalism creates wealth not by stealing from the poor but from trading and inventing and exploiting/using the resources of the earth. It's true, however, that the ruling classes have used capitalism to enrich and empower themselves through the system of statism/state capitalism.
yea the u.s. should have freedom.. but not anyone else! not yet.. "they're not ready for it." the u.s. refuses to even recognize taiwan as an independent country. maybe if we called it human policies rather than foreign. u want to fight ALL types of injustices? u want REAL justice.. CONNECT. time and time again the best and only way to peacebly fight the corrupt u.s. is to connect. sincerely, the unsatisfied american civilian
I will take bitter-sweet pleasure in revisiting comments such as these, once Chavez has succeeded in his great Rape of Venezuela. I hope Chomsky possesses the humility to admit what a ghastly error of judgement it was to support this 'tinpot dictator', if I may call him that. Highly doubtful, of course.
@WNxShisno It certainly does, that's why I avoid it as an information source.
Who said anything about the World Bank? Where in my post did I advocate the austerity principles of the IMF? I'm taking about the nightmarish, faux-muscular petro-state that Chavez is fashioning, the murder rate that is 4 times the civilian death toll in Iraq, sky-high food inflation, the fact that Venezuela is one the only economies still contracting, despite the uptick in oil prices. The great rape indeed.
Well, there's pretty much three choices for the Americas these days:
* IMF Rape
* Stagnation
* Strong sovereign leadership (Chavez, Torrijos, Roldos)
Of course, we're totally ignoring the fact that there is a global financial crisis occurring (which most western nations are lying about).
Food and murder cannot be blamed on Chavez. Especially with all these mindless yuppies advocating we use food for fuel. There's your "food inflation". Please, try to be more aware.
@WNxShisno 'Strong sovereign leadership' can come in the form of deranged, country-wrecking autocrats like Chavez, or calm and sensible stewards like Lula da Silva who bring about genuine progress, then graciously step aside when the moment comes. Brazil is one of the world's main ethanol producers, and was afflicted by the very same GFC you mentioned. Curious that it isn't a recession-ridden, inflationary train-wreck like Venezuela. Please, try not to be retarded.
Glad to see you're taking the moral high-ground here.
Ethanol? Are you serious? Great, so da Silva managed to contribute to a global food crisis by using it for fuel instead. I do believe, that you've managed to defeat your own point. Seeya, been fun :-)
@WNxShisno *sigh* think about it for a minute longer. Brazil doesn't have food inflation issues that are remotely as bad as Venezuela, in spite of the certainly ridiculous practice of using 'food for fuel' as you call it. The spike in food prices abated, yet it continues to get worse in Venezuela to this day, much more so than any other country in the region. Ergo, it is most definitely the ruler of that country's fault. Make more sense now?
Who's Noam Chomsky? Who is he that everyone listens to him like he's the second coming of Christ? What has he done? He wrote a few books, but that's nothing special. I can't even think of the name of one of them, so they couldn't have been that good. Nothing I've ever heard him say are all that intuitive or insightful.
@HolyjesusAsshole Clear me out of where? What the hell are you rambling about? You just can't think of one reason I should listen to him, so you call me an idiot. I'm sure you response will be further evidence of your intellectual ineptitude.
@dirtyboy830 well it looks like you can't see the reality in a bigger retrospect.
First of all, he's worldwide known for being a strong critic of US policies, and its actions in the world, specially in the Latin American case. I have some of his books. He's great but you know, the only way to learn something about your professors is to doubt about their teachings. In order to prove then is to see outside your boundaries. And as far I have gone, most of his books say the cruel truth about the US
@dirtyboy830 Wow, you must really be pretty obtuse then. His list of academic achievements and awards could almost be made into a book. Few scholars living today are more revered amongst their colleagues. Chomskyan models have been used in Nobel Prize winning works and are taught in graduate courses spanning multiple scientific disciplines.
I have to say something about him, it is true, media sometimes can be shit specially when is one like Fox news. But let me tell you something fellas if you want to see the real Venezuela go to QUELACREO . com Most of these videos have been record by normal people with mobile phones. That's what really happens in the Venezuela of Hugo Chavez.
LES DIGO QUE MEXICO ES UN PAIS SIN CRIMEN COMPARADO CON VENEZUELA (MEXICO IS SAFE IN COMPARATIO). THATS NOT SOCIALISM THAT'S VENEZUELAN KILLIN EACH OTHER.
@fabrizioorbezo % of people actively involved in their democracy is really amazing to see. Indigenous people who by the way are extremely poor and have been marginalized for centuries are getting a voice now. They had a recent climate summit in Bolivia where people got a chance to participate and bring forward their grievances. I don't mean that Venezuela is not democratic but I find the changes taking place in Bolivia very encouraging.
@Davemanz My point was that stating a dictator's popularity polls as evidence of his popularity makes just as much sense as pointing to Saddam's election results as evidence of the same. In other words, the polls are rigged. Chevez controls the media. Duhhhh.. Simple enough?
@zaqwert777 Chavez only shut down media outlets which supported the attempted coup against him. If there were an attempted military uprising against the civilian US Government tomorrow, and CBS told people to get their guns and join it, would you expect the US government to just let it go? Absolutely not. The media has social responsibility, which includes not endorsing violent oppression of legitimate democratic processes. You can't hold him to a different standard than you hold the US.
@Davemanz Chavez didn't shut them down, he denied them the right to broadcast on public airwaves. It'd be like if NPR told the Tea Partiers to kill Barack Obama and then the government said, "Hey, you can't have our money anymore because you want to kill us." Pretty simple. Otherwise, your comment was true.
@nocturnezero Thanks, you're right. I guess I just take it for granted that the airwaves are public and only given to companies or people on a rent or lease basis.
He shut down media outlets that were infltrated by the CIA t orun lies and propaganda agaisnt him.. It's a common tactis that the US/Brits use where they take over private stations and run lies and propaganda against a candidate they dont like.. That's why the US HATES state media because state media is the BEST source news..
@zaqwert777 You can't democratically elect a dictator. Venezuela holds free democratic elections, therefore Chavez is not a dictator. Any claim to the contrary just falls apart. Just because Chavez institutes policies that are unfavorable in your eyes does not somehow prove that he is a dictator and that the elections can't be free. Obviously the majority of Venezuelans (poor people) support Chavez because his Socialist programs would help the poor.
@nocturnezero He rules like a dictator. He's removed term limits and will corruptly keep himself in office for good. He's the model Obama will follow, you can bet on it. Give Obama the illegal alien vote (via immigration "reform" of course) and he will be our first dictator. You gonna like that? I have no doubt the left will be all in favor of it just because people like Chomsky will declare it good.
@zaqwert777 He removed term limits by democratic processes, some 60% of the vote.
Barack Obama is a Conservative and like myself and most true leftist thinkers Chomsky does not come out in ardent support of him and almost condemns him because all he's done is pander to the Conservatives - see drilling, bailout of Capitalism, stimulus of Capitalism, war in Afghanistan, private health care.
@nocturnezero If the position of Obama on that site's chart is based how he'd answer those weighted questions on the quiz then it's bogus because Obama ran a dishonest campaign, saying whatever he thought the audience wanted to hear. His position on that chart says more about American voters than it does about him.
@zaqwert777 The actual reason he's so far right is not his obvious dishonesty, but that America is shifted to the right on the world scale. Most other countries accept Social Democracy, while we still advocate for private health care, laissez faire Capitalism, and low taxes. Say what you will about those policies, but they do make America a more Conservative country than most, and most of our politicians more Conservative than they seem to our biased eyes.
the united states' actualization of democracy has nothing to do with the will of the people ... this is the problem ... and this is what should be rectified. unfortunately our whole system of education is geared to raise throngs of complacent herding sheep ... a truly educated populace is a dangerous populace in the eyes of governmental bodies - enlighten yourselves and never stop asking questions.
Chomsky obsession with the US..because he's a US CITIZEN who believes in cleaning up his own backyard..instead of messing around in someone else's!Nobody wants to deal with the truth anymore..people are losing their homes because of excesses bein taken the the moneyed aristocracy....Chomsky amogst others is informing of the who and how...you people are clinging to the edifice of a bygone era...LET IT GO!
What other leaders are you refering to? Chomsky's insight is no different than Michael Moore or Glenn Beck. His tendency to lie and his obsession with the United States has been repeatedly documented. You are a fool.
Theleaders i'm refering to are the one's who have blood on their hands up to elbows.(all the american admininstrations, tony blair , gordon brown , Sarkozy , tzipi livni, ...etc.
Another proof of your mediocrity.
Chomsky is an intelectual who has nothing to do with hollywood unlike Michael Moore.
You read Chomsky and howard zinn(RIP).
Instead of scratching the surface.
Oh man , you're comparing chomsky to Michael Moore ........haha, it's just priceless.
What a fallacious statement. Glenn Beck is an "intellectual" with no ties to hollywood, does that change the fact he's a blithering moron? I've read Chomsky's books and it was perhaps the biggest waste of time, even more so than the time i'm wasting here talking to you. Within the first few pages he lied.
@UserUK201@UserUK201 He's not in any way an intellectual, just a political pundit. Chomsky is an intellectual because he works at a major educational institution and indulges in useful linguistic and political research. Glenn Beck has extensive ties to Hollywood and the entertainment industry; he works at Fox.
@nocturnezero Most of the Nazi party's chief supports were Germany's university professors and students. Being an intellectual who works at major educational insitution does not confer an unbias nature on the individual in question. Chomsky lies a lot, just like Glenn Beck.
@UserUK201 I never said the fact that he is considered part of the intellectual culture - a prominent part, at that - conferred unto him any sort of automatic respect or admiration. It just so happens that he is what one calls an intellectual, and Glenn Beck is not.
Every single intellectual and thinker in the world is biased. That's how opinions and philosophies and ideologies work. Bias only implies a negative connotation when it stems from a misconstruction of facts.
@nocturnezero You certainly implied that it did (at least it appeared that way to me). I completely agree with the second part of your comment which lends itself to my point that Chomsky is awared a completely unwarrented level of authority because he holds the title of "intellectual", which implies that his analysis of a situation is more insightful then Glenn Beck when it really isn't. Plus he lies all the time.
Yeah, a coup supported by the US. And his people, normal regular dudes on the street stormed the building he was being held captive in and freed his ass. That's how you know a leader is legit, when normal ordinary people risk their lives to keep him in power, and alive, because they know who has their welfare in mind, and it's definitely not puppets put in place by the US.
I like chomsky, but I have my suspicions about some of the things he says. I hope the rest of you do as well, not to be against him, but not to swallow everything he says either.
i agree with most of the things he says about america's foreign policy but sometimes i disagree with him on the future's social structure because he is an anarchist and i'm a commie :D
Communism so far has lead to forms of hierarchy even worse than the ones in the US. I've lost faith in it recently and I think anti state socialism may actually work.
@oli90 you are right man. I have also lost faith in this ridiculous, self-destructive, corrupt system calling itself international communism. In fact I was so appalled when I figured out its little schemes that I became a conservative and an anti-socialist
@DestroyerAlexandros: I think you've misinterpreted what I've said. State socialism is what I don't believe will work, but anti-state, meaning socialism without an authoritarian government, is what I believe in. So I am still very much a socialist, and I hope you can see the true rottenness in conservative politics. It's a very closed minded, self-oriented, and primitive way of thinking. I don't know what you mean by little schemes.
@oli90 Conservatism to this day is the most successful ideology because it preserves the most important things for Western civilization - tradition, leadership, authority and family values. Conrad Adenauer, the founder of the right wing conservative Christian Democratic Union, used the following slogan while rebuilding Germany back to it's pre-1945 power: "No experiments"
@DestroyerAlexandros: The leadership of Western civilization is nothing to look up to if you are a common person. Any ideology which is not progressive or willing to change can in no way be beneficial to human progress. Not to mention that religion and government should never be mixed, and there is a harsh difference between post war Germany and present day US. Germany was in a bad economic position so they played it safe. Completely different circumstances from the US.
@DestroyerAlexandros Conservatism is successful for the philosophy of free markets as opposed to fair markets or horizontal planning, the philosophy of repressing civil liberties and limited free speech rather than maximizing individual freedoms, and the philosophy of unilateralism as opposed to multilateral solidarity are all in the best interests of the wealthy, the people empowered by their property ownership or political influence.
@DestroyerAlexandros The people in power (especially in the case of economics, where free markets give large corporations and CEOs an obscene leg up on any market transactions between them and a poorer agent), that is to say, the legislators and lobbyists and advertisers all long for a more Conservative society where their religions are preserved against liberty, their wealth is protected and centralized against the threat of redistribution, and their power is maintained through the daddy state.
@nocturnezero That's right to some extent. But I prefer a strong military, an aggressive foreign policy, control of markets, family values and growth of private enterprise to "equality", "liberty", "tolerance" and the rest of the commie bullshit
@DestroyerAlexandros Thats called propaganda, the way the US runs its shit is no better than communism. In fact by now capitalism has been responsible for far more deaths than communism ever has.
@xdeliriumx1 no successful system is really good for all because a successful system is the one that puts the strong at the top of the foodchain. If the weak are unable to compete they will perish. Communism does the opposite by putting the weak at the top of the foodchain and destroying the one capable ones
@DestroyerAlexandros You actually believe in Communist countries that's what happened? lol It was the same, a rich elite and the poor population.
You talk about theory I talk about reality, fact capitalism has been responsible for far more deaths than communism. I dont say its good because I dont care for it, but unrestrained capitalism isn't the answer either and it certainly doesn't fit what you're saying.
Some people never even have the chance to compete.
@DestroyerAlexandros I never said it wasn't but it doesn't mean your 'weak'. Some people are never even given the chance to be successful and often it is purposely taken away by the rich. You cant just talk about societies problem by saying 'they are weak so that's too bad for them' type bullshit, its far more complex.
@xdeliriumx1 No it's not. What's complex is the way people are pushed into the belief that everybody's equal, that non-conformity is good and so on. Society over the last 30 years has been pushing people away from their primitive needs and has been promoting compassion, tolerance and peaceful-mindedness - qualities that hold us back.
One of the reasons the fascists were successful was that they said screw you to the phony ideals and went full speed ahead with competition and aggression
Now you're telling me we would have been better off still living under Hitler, Stalin or Mao? Perhaps some had some economic success but overall they had no success, people like Hitler completely destroyed his country for his stupid ideals.
Its not that simple, not everyone even if they wanted to has a chance at becoming someone important, lets forget all our ideal and become savages right? ya sure.
@xdeliriumx1 Bullshit. Don't compare Hitler to the commies. Lenin, Stalin and Mao are just the same as most liberals and democrats. As much as we'd like to think otherwise, Marx and Engels completely took over Western economy and politics. The communists call it solidarity with the working class, Berlusconi calls it tolerance. The communists call it collectivization, Sarkozy calls it... welfare, public healthcare blablabla.
Just look at the US WW2 posters. This was pre-commie USA but STILL the
@xdeliriumx1 posters said for example "If you ride alone, you ride with Hitler - join a car sharing club today". This is exactly the same bullshit the soviets sold people.
The National Socialists are a whole different thing. No other ideology combines tradition, progress and human nature. Democracy and socialism are the same fuckin' ballpark. Two systems in which numbers will prevail over quality and entertainment will prevail over productivity.
Yes, And I'll say it again, They are terribly propagandized. The corporations in the US use the government to suit their interests, The system is set up so that when there is someone to blame you blame the government, when, in fact the people who are actually pulling the strings are faceless. They need to be rescued from their own hell or we'll all feel it.
The "US" is very divided, If by the "US" you mean Corporations who control the United States, you may have a point, On the other hand if by the "US" you mean the people of the United States, you are wrong, The American people are so terribly propagandized and worried about feeding their children, that they truly don't know any better.
Yes, i was talking about the US government and its history of undermining elected democratic governments in South America and elswhere. Asassinations, funding coups etc. The history in that region is horrendous.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No more than the USSR involvement in the region.
In any case, I prefer the american ideals of self-government and individual liberty to the violence and coercion of the socialists movements supported by the KGB.
I agree with you. In the US, ordinary people are imprisoned by everyday life and struggle to feed their children. In my country everyone hates US and I am no exception to this, but I always speak for the American ordinary people, how it is not their guilt. But there is always a counter argument of the following shape: "It is their responsibility to keep their government in line". To American people: For Gods sake, wake up and burn those paranoid bunch alive! You are 250000000 strong!!!
it is the peoples' responsibility, and many people in the US dont respect their leaders. but should we also look at iranians and blame for their stupid leaders? what about north koreans, should we blame their people for being brainwashed just like many people in the west have been?
By the way the 63% that elected him, Im not sure about that data but lets assume is correct, means that 37% of the people didnt elected him and now must see their property and their rights violated by the ever stronger socialist state.
Go to Venezuela and see what it's actually like. Then maybe you and I can have an educated debate on our opinions. But I am sure your opinion will change if you go there and here the stories these people have.
I have debates with chavist socialists all the time in the internet, I dont need to go to Venezuela to see the oppression and totalitarianism of the socialist government and its followers.
Lol problem is Im not a "Chavist socialist" at all. Im actually an agorist.
You wont go to Venezuela because youre afraid to be proven wrong.
Sorry to break it to you, but Chavez' government is not even remotely totalitarian, though it is pretty authoritarian. The only people that his government has historically repressed are those that attempted to throw him out in a very violent coup, wrought with hyperbolic language from the private right-wing channels.
I never accused you of anything, I only stated that I have a lot of debates with socialists.
I would be glad to go to Venezuela if you pay my flight over there ;)
Chavez government seems pretty authoritarian and totalitarian to me, closing media channels, statizing private property, cutting individual liberty, bullying the opposition.
And if you believe socialism is not based on central state planning you really need to re-read the communist manifesto.
Authoritarianism is NOT the same as totalitarianism. Chavez is an authoritarian dictator, not a totalitarian one.
Socialism (in the pure sense) does not require state planning, and communism is not the same as socialism whatsoever. Socialism is compatible with markets (social market economy), communism is not.
Socialism is a pretty meaningless term now that you sorts of people have watered it down into nothing more than a buzzword for "communism".
What really scares me is how much power Chavez is assuming. Hes essentially going to be able to enact law by decree, to assume expropriation powers over essentially whatever he desires. I fear for the Venezuelan public if he ever decides to become drunk with power, which he has so far not done.
His appeals to nationalism should also be a sign of the possibility of oppression, with very strong anti-US rhetoric, which concerns me that he doesnt differentiate between the US public and the gov't.
Wow... okay. Got you. You make a lot of sense. I am glad to see you think a bunch of people on the internet can properly educate you on life outside of your bubble of a world.
It absolutely is social progress in a continent dominated by white colonialism since the 16th century, and ravaged by US gov't atrocities during the Cold War.
He was elected specifically because the people thought he was the best man for the job, not because hes indigenous. He ran on a socialist platform which is extremely popular among 80% of the population which is very poor.
Lol yes there is. White colonialism, or more PC, the IMF continues to exploit Latin America. Of course not every Latin American is of indigenous descent, thats because white colonialists raped indigenous women and forced them to assimilate.
USSR had their fair share of atrocities everywhere, many far worse than anything in history (Gulag, Holodomor). Does not give America carte blanche to do the same.
I never said he was elected due to his race to begin with, though it was a significant aspect
Yes, I would withdraw most IMF economic assistance (in particular the IMF, not other economic assistance). The "economic assistance" is largely conditionalities called Structural Adjustment Policies, which do not help the the South American public whatsoever, and have a lot of very negative impacts such as privatization (Bolivian water privatization, as an example), erodes national sovereignty by destroying trade barriers, as well as skyrocketing debts and lower social spending.
Chavez won the 2006 election with 63%. +3% from 2000.
you're referring to the constitutional referendum, in which Chavez eliminated the term limits. Very scary Statism, indeed, and a major obstacle to a social market.
Venezuela is significantly more egalitarian right now than it used to be, Chavez cut poverty drastically, by as much as 10%, and the GDP per capita has also risen significantly.
I fear that he is assuming too much control by refusing media licenses because of dissenting views.
@psykotrol Why should he allow these media licenses? Why would he want to help people who wanted to overthrow him? They can still broadcast, they just can't use government services to do it. The referendum was democratically instituted as well.
Well, thats the whole point of freedom of speech. People shouldnt be required to get a license to speak. Ill quote Chomsky: "You either believe in free speech for everybody, or you dont believe in free speech"
It doesnt matter whether they wanted to overthrow him, they shouldnt need a license to broadcast information.
Let the people decide who is on their side. Censoring opposition only bolsters it.
Let them speak, they do a good enough job destroying their own credibility
@psykotrol I agree that free speech is universal or nonexistent, however the station was receiving government concessions through that license. They could no longer benefit from the service of using government-funded channels to broadcast their information because the channels were government-funded and the station supported a coup to overthrow the government.
allegedly supported a coup to overthrow the government, never been proven in court, cuz there has never been a case against RCTV. Other stations, like Venevision and Televen were also accused of supporting the coup, but their licenses renewed. The RCTV infrastructure was expropriated by the government, and replaced by TVes, which was ordered by the courts to be guarded by the military. TVes may be a public channel, but public institutions guarded by the state is state-socialism
Comment removed
wolfyamadeus2 6 months ago
Comment removed
SirHappyThe1st 6 months ago
@SirHappyThe1st obviously, you've never really listened to chomsky or know how a democracy should actually work.
BryanB02 6 months ago
@SirHappyThe1st What does him living in the states have to do with anything?
kotkee 6 months ago
@kotkee if he was a true socialist he'd live in a socialist country and not benefit from capitalism as he currently does. It's like when you see an american kid with a che t-shirt produced by a corporation its just hypocritical. I've seen first hand what socialism does to a country and that's why I now live in a free country
psychostalker95 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@psychostalker95
Hey, if you don't love america, you can just get out....
Blablablabla457 6 months ago
@SirHappyThe1st Yeah.. And instead of complaining about "taxation without representation" why didn't George Washington and his hippy friends move somewhere else? Your false equivalency is startling and your intelligence, lacking.
jacksawild 6 months ago
Comment removed
SirHappyThe1st 6 months ago
@SirHappyThe1st I see. So it's only ok to voice an opinion if it agrees with yours. thanks for the clarification.
jacksawild 6 months ago
@jacksawild
ok....u win.
SirHappyThe1st 6 months ago
Uh oh. What happened? guardian dot co dot uk / world / 2011 / jul / 03 / noam-chomsky-hugo-chavez-democracy
Professor finally realizes what the rubes knew six years ago.
BTW, who wants a green card? Stand in line.
BuddyPC 6 months ago
@BuddyPC Not really. All Chomsky said was that Chavez is going down the dangerous road of concentrating power in the executive office, while also intimidating the judiciary and cowing the legislature, the traditional checks on his power. But he tempered his criticism by reminding us that Chavez's actions aren't unique: concentrating power is what many regimes do. Also, he reminds us that Chavez is still working to integrate South America politically and economically, positive trends in his eyes.
newsradiohead 5 months ago
Live Comander Chavez!!! Live the Bolivarian marxist revolusion!!! The Comander give us dignity!! With a Fist of Iron he crush facist oligarchs finance by Wasington CIA!!! Out yanqui imperialists go home!! The People is in Power now!!! Live the ductatorship of the Proletariat!! Fatherland socialism or DEATH!!!
hugocaracas2021 6 months ago
@hugocaracas2021 we will win!
magicthunder666 4 months ago
@magicthunder666 Yes Comrade!! The Noble Proletariat will triunf!!! Have you realize Comrade how Naom Chonsky is now finance by Washington CIA to speak bad things about our glorios Comander? It makes a few monts ago he soeaks bad things about our Comander Is necesary to fight against traitor Chonsky.
hugocaracas2021 4 months ago
hasta la victoria siempre!
s0673451 6 months ago
@PureLiberalFire -- What is "the right to a fair trial" if not a positive liberty? That "the government will not interfere with your right to a fair trial" will not guarantee this liberty. Society has to allocate resources to training lawyers and paying judges, setting up the institutions of a judiciary, etc., to fulfill this right. I'm sympathetic to the distinction between positive and negative liberties, but the horrors you've attributed to positive liberties are not the full story.
sapper46123 7 months ago
Chomsky is so full of shit. Just another Jew that is trying to cause shit - Frankfurt School.
VeryHugeAss 7 months ago
Capitalism means "economic liberty" or "freedom to make and trade". I've never heard of negative liberty referred to as "crummy" before. "Negative liberty" is REAL liberty.
On the other hand, "positive liberty" is like "social justice" and "economic democracy" -- either empty nonsense or horrific coercion by the state. "Positive liberty" is collective benefits and privileges -- and socio-economic collectivism -- at the expense of true freedom.
PureLiberalFire 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why is there annoying music in the background?
wozzek22 8 months ago
Chomsky gets it, as much as anyone on the planet and certainly more than corporate supporting whores. Cody wants a pony.
omegapointil 8 months ago
Why is there annoying music in the background?
MaximusFood 8 months ago
Karl Rove is a piker compared to chomsky.Chomsky leaves out the FACT that chavez stole billions of dollars to achieve his programs.People worked hard to invest in those companies.The current presidents commie upbringing, prevents him from seeing what Bush saw.Bush took action to protect Americans.How many dictators does it take to help take down the world economy?How many Americans, Canadians, etc. must loose the pensions for Chavez programs.Build a Venn diagram,converse, inverse,contrapositive
idesofmarchUNIAEA 9 months ago
@idesofmarchUNIAEA And so I get dumber, thank you for that.
mikkelchap 8 months ago
@idesofmarchUNIAEA
Please... USA has helped dozens of dictatorships emerge worldwide, even in very recent years. It's not secret information. USA endorsed the 24h long coup d'etat in Venezuela to overthrow a democratically elected president. You wouldn't mind that though, huh "patriot"?
Americans loose pensions due to Chavez? WTF?! C'mon, admit it, you don't mind dictators so long they are your dictators right? Dumb fascists...
drizztf88 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
better without background music:)
JeroenUyttendaele 9 months ago
Comment removed
JeroenUyttendaele 9 months ago
Nah, redundant.
PureLiberalFire 9 months ago
@PureLiberalFire Neither, they're both patently ignorant statements.
Keinlicht 9 months ago
@Keinlicht Utterly ingenious, actually. Libertarianism is MILES ahead of nitwit, dirtbag right-wing conservatism and left-wing progressivism (which are identical, by the way).
PureLiberalFire 9 months ago
@PureLiberalFire
I can agree with you on that point, but i don't think there's any such thing as a 'pro-liberty' capitalist who supports the status-quo Corporatist system. There are some legitimate arguments for limited free markets (limited in scope, not freedom), but i don't think they can be made presupposing our current socio-politico-economic situation.
Keinlicht 9 months ago
politics sucks. Venezuela's society has it ups and downs. Beautiful place and most people are really nice but most are corrupt and greedy just like in the US. Been there done that.
mischeviousmojo13 9 months ago
Can Chomsky EVER criticize the pro-tyranny socialists -- or praise the pro-liberty capitalists??
PureLiberalFire 10 months ago
@PureLiberalFire
pro-tyranny socialists ???
pro-liberty capitalists ???
Aren't those both oxymorons?
pauluminous 9 months ago
@pauluminous No, redundant ones.
PureLiberalFire 9 months ago
@PureLiberalFire He does criticise the pro-tyranny socialists, quite heavily indeed. Check out the video "Chomsky on lenin, trotsky and the soviet union" on here. Scathing! Don't know there's such a thing as pro liberty capitalist though, unless in some crummy "negative liberty" sense (I'm alright on my own and have no need for other people being a drain on my resources and time type "liberty")
skitsystem77 9 months ago
Capitalism is good for when you are FINANCIALLY EDUCATED - otherwise capitalism is a cruel mistress
Financial ignorance afflicts 90% of capitalist society - tis why rich get richer , the poor remain financially stupid, impotent and make up ridiculous conspiracy theories instead of educating themselves financially!
melasmatreatment 1 year ago
Noam Chomsky makes no sense to be honest. He's speaks a lot of truth about what's wrong with the western world, but socialist anarchism is not the solution LOL! He says he's against power structures, except when it's government/state power: as long as it's 'nice' to it's population LOL!
Sivels 1 year ago
@Sivels social anarchism is not the soloution but it would be a start
surfin4 1 year ago
@surfin4 a start for what?
Sivels 1 year ago
@Sivels a real democracy for the people by the people.......you know?
surfin4 1 year ago
@surfin4 What if democracy isn't that great after all?
Sivels 1 year ago
@surfin4 Most democracies in the world today have ended up as plutocracies. Maybe that's the natural way for democracies to go.
Sivels 1 year ago
@Sivels as long as everyone is in the clutches of corporate greed the wheels will continue to spin and thats no better then slavery
surfin4 1 year ago
@surfin4 Everyone are greedy, it's human nature. That's why we can't have a state.
Sivels 1 year ago
@Sivels the game is rigged always has been.... greed is good it creates difference and that can then be exploited, divide and conquer .....its a cold world learn how to provide your own heat........capitalism is cannabilism the rest is propaganda
surfin4 1 year ago
@surfin4 capitalism is not cannibalism. Altruism is the morality of cannibals in the idea that men are to be sacrificed for others. Capitalism creates wealth not by stealing from the poor but from trading and inventing and exploiting/using the resources of the earth. It's true, however, that the ruling classes have used capitalism to enrich and empower themselves through the system of statism/state capitalism.
Sivels 1 year ago
@Sivels
Can I have a reference to where Chomsky says he's against power structures except when it's state power: as long as it's nice to it's population?
Seems very out of character for him.
Regards.
QwidgyboMan 1 year ago
LIBERALS DRINKING FRENCH WINE AND EATING QUICHE!
i wanne be liberal!
FlamingLion116 1 year ago
yea the u.s. should have freedom.. but not anyone else! not yet.. "they're not ready for it." the u.s. refuses to even recognize taiwan as an independent country. maybe if we called it human policies rather than foreign. u want to fight ALL types of injustices? u want REAL justice.. CONNECT. time and time again the best and only way to peacebly fight the corrupt u.s. is to connect. sincerely, the unsatisfied american civilian
mrhoan 1 year ago
I will take bitter-sweet pleasure in revisiting comments such as these, once Chavez has succeeded in his great Rape of Venezuela. I hope Chomsky possesses the humility to admit what a ghastly error of judgement it was to support this 'tinpot dictator', if I may call him that. Highly doubtful, of course.
disdanic 1 year ago
@disdanic
Great rape? One of the few nations that didn't sign up for IMF/World Bank "aid".
If anything, this is one of the FEW latin american leaders who managed to keep his nation from being raped by the world bank.
I hope you possess the humanity to admit that the TV does lie occasionally (err... i meant often).
WNxShisno 1 year ago
@WNxShisno It certainly does, that's why I avoid it as an information source.
Who said anything about the World Bank? Where in my post did I advocate the austerity principles of the IMF? I'm taking about the nightmarish, faux-muscular petro-state that Chavez is fashioning, the murder rate that is 4 times the civilian death toll in Iraq, sky-high food inflation, the fact that Venezuela is one the only economies still contracting, despite the uptick in oil prices. The great rape indeed.
disdanic 1 year ago
@disdanic
Well, there's pretty much three choices for the Americas these days:
* IMF Rape
* Stagnation
* Strong sovereign leadership (Chavez, Torrijos, Roldos)
Of course, we're totally ignoring the fact that there is a global financial crisis occurring (which most western nations are lying about).
Food and murder cannot be blamed on Chavez. Especially with all these mindless yuppies advocating we use food for fuel. There's your "food inflation". Please, try to be more aware.
WNxShisno 1 year ago
@WNxShisno 'Strong sovereign leadership' can come in the form of deranged, country-wrecking autocrats like Chavez, or calm and sensible stewards like Lula da Silva who bring about genuine progress, then graciously step aside when the moment comes. Brazil is one of the world's main ethanol producers, and was afflicted by the very same GFC you mentioned. Curious that it isn't a recession-ridden, inflationary train-wreck like Venezuela. Please, try not to be retarded.
disdanic 1 year ago
@disdanic
Glad to see you're taking the moral high-ground here.
Ethanol? Are you serious? Great, so da Silva managed to contribute to a global food crisis by using it for fuel instead. I do believe, that you've managed to defeat your own point. Seeya, been fun :-)
WNxShisno 1 year ago
@WNxShisno *sigh* think about it for a minute longer. Brazil doesn't have food inflation issues that are remotely as bad as Venezuela, in spite of the certainly ridiculous practice of using 'food for fuel' as you call it. The spike in food prices abated, yet it continues to get worse in Venezuela to this day, much more so than any other country in the region. Ergo, it is most definitely the ruler of that country's fault. Make more sense now?
Jesus it's like speaking to a 5 year old.
disdanic 1 year ago
Who's Noam Chomsky? Who is he that everyone listens to him like he's the second coming of Christ? What has he done? He wrote a few books, but that's nothing special. I can't even think of the name of one of them, so they couldn't have been that good. Nothing I've ever heard him say are all that intuitive or insightful.
dirtyboy830 1 year ago
@dirtyboy830 Wow He clears out idiots like you from ruining this world
HolyjesusAsshole 1 year ago
@HolyjesusAsshole Clear me out of where? What the hell are you rambling about? You just can't think of one reason I should listen to him, so you call me an idiot. I'm sure you response will be further evidence of your intellectual ineptitude.
dirtyboy830 1 year ago
@dirtyboy830 well it looks like you can't see the reality in a bigger retrospect.
First of all, he's worldwide known for being a strong critic of US policies, and its actions in the world, specially in the Latin American case. I have some of his books. He's great but you know, the only way to learn something about your professors is to doubt about their teachings. In order to prove then is to see outside your boundaries. And as far I have gone, most of his books say the cruel truth about the US
ELEMENTRY27 1 year ago
@dirtyboy830 thats becasue yuuurrrrr dumb!
7readbetweenthelines 1 year ago
@dirtyboy830 Wow, you must really be pretty obtuse then. His list of academic achievements and awards could almost be made into a book. Few scholars living today are more revered amongst their colleagues. Chomskyan models have been used in Nobel Prize winning works and are taught in graduate courses spanning multiple scientific disciplines.
BloatedSensations 1 year ago
check out interesting article @
anarchadia . over - blog . com
disgracious23 1 year ago
I have to say something about him, it is true, media sometimes can be shit specially when is one like Fox news. But let me tell you something fellas if you want to see the real Venezuela go to QUELACREO . com Most of these videos have been record by normal people with mobile phones. That's what really happens in the Venezuela of Hugo Chavez.
LES DIGO QUE MEXICO ES UN PAIS SIN CRIMEN COMPARADO CON VENEZUELA (MEXICO IS SAFE IN COMPARATIO). THATS NOT SOCIALISM THAT'S VENEZUELAN KILLIN EACH OTHER.
samuelmata1241 1 year ago
@fabrizioorbezo % of people actively involved in their democracy is really amazing to see. Indigenous people who by the way are extremely poor and have been marginalized for centuries are getting a voice now. They had a recent climate summit in Bolivia where people got a chance to participate and bring forward their grievances. I don't mean that Venezuela is not democratic but I find the changes taking place in Bolivia very encouraging.
arijitrule 1 year ago
Chomsky is the sh*t!
libertyatanyrate 1 year ago
speak up. i can't hear you
kosovarasta 1 year ago
What a staggering genius! Dictators are supported by and popular among their people! What a revelation!
Saddam got 99.5% of the vote. I suppose that's evidence of how popular he was? LOL
zaqwert777 1 year ago
@zaqwert777 You don't know the difference between a free election and a rigged one. Don't be an idiot.
Davemanz 1 year ago
@Davemanz My point was that stating a dictator's popularity polls as evidence of his popularity makes just as much sense as pointing to Saddam's election results as evidence of the same. In other words, the polls are rigged. Chevez controls the media. Duhhhh.. Simple enough?
zaqwert777 1 year ago
@zaqwert777 Chavez only shut down media outlets which supported the attempted coup against him. If there were an attempted military uprising against the civilian US Government tomorrow, and CBS told people to get their guns and join it, would you expect the US government to just let it go? Absolutely not. The media has social responsibility, which includes not endorsing violent oppression of legitimate democratic processes. You can't hold him to a different standard than you hold the US.
Davemanz 1 year ago 33
@Davemanz Chavez didn't shut them down, he denied them the right to broadcast on public airwaves. It'd be like if NPR told the Tea Partiers to kill Barack Obama and then the government said, "Hey, you can't have our money anymore because you want to kill us." Pretty simple. Otherwise, your comment was true.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero Thanks, you're right. I guess I just take it for granted that the airwaves are public and only given to companies or people on a rent or lease basis.
Davemanz 1 year ago
@Davemanz What these brainwashed idiots also don't realise is that arguebly the biggest media network in Venezuela is blatantly anti-Chavez.
z0mgrugbyreturns 1 year ago
@Davemanz
He shut down media outlets that were infltrated by the CIA t orun lies and propaganda agaisnt him.. It's a common tactis that the US/Brits use where they take over private stations and run lies and propaganda against a candidate they dont like.. That's why the US HATES state media because state media is the BEST source news..
xMaXiMuSx 1 year ago 2
@Davemanz no opposition in media or academia should be shut out...
13stevejohnson 11 months ago
@zaqwert777 You can't democratically elect a dictator. Venezuela holds free democratic elections, therefore Chavez is not a dictator. Any claim to the contrary just falls apart. Just because Chavez institutes policies that are unfavorable in your eyes does not somehow prove that he is a dictator and that the elections can't be free. Obviously the majority of Venezuelans (poor people) support Chavez because his Socialist programs would help the poor.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero He rules like a dictator. He's removed term limits and will corruptly keep himself in office for good. He's the model Obama will follow, you can bet on it. Give Obama the illegal alien vote (via immigration "reform" of course) and he will be our first dictator. You gonna like that? I have no doubt the left will be all in favor of it just because people like Chomsky will declare it good.
zaqwert777 1 year ago
@zaqwert777 He removed term limits by democratic processes, some 60% of the vote.
Barack Obama is a Conservative and like myself and most true leftist thinkers Chomsky does not come out in ardent support of him and almost condemns him because all he's done is pander to the Conservatives - see drilling, bailout of Capitalism, stimulus of Capitalism, war in Afghanistan, private health care.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero You're nuts if you think Obama is a conservative. Move to Cuba for godsakes. See what you loser political system does to people.
zaqwert777 1 year ago
@zaqwert777 Go to political compass dawt org and then to Presidential Election 2008 to see where each candidate lies.
I'm not a Communist, thank you very much.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero If the position of Obama on that site's chart is based how he'd answer those weighted questions on the quiz then it's bogus because Obama ran a dishonest campaign, saying whatever he thought the audience wanted to hear. His position on that chart says more about American voters than it does about him.
zaqwert777 1 year ago
@zaqwert777 It's based on how he answered the questions and policy decisions. Yes, he did.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@zaqwert777 The actual reason he's so far right is not his obvious dishonesty, but that America is shifted to the right on the world scale. Most other countries accept Social Democracy, while we still advocate for private health care, laissez faire Capitalism, and low taxes. Say what you will about those policies, but they do make America a more Conservative country than most, and most of our politicians more Conservative than they seem to our biased eyes.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
the united states' actualization of democracy has nothing to do with the will of the people ... this is the problem ... and this is what should be rectified. unfortunately our whole system of education is geared to raise throngs of complacent herding sheep ... a truly educated populace is a dangerous populace in the eyes of governmental bodies - enlighten yourselves and never stop asking questions.
FlamingJune5dwj 1 year ago
lol whats with the background music?
Sensarmy300 1 year ago
Chomsky obsession with the US..because he's a US CITIZEN who believes in cleaning up his own backyard..instead of messing around in someone else's!Nobody wants to deal with the truth anymore..people are losing their homes because of excesses bein taken the the moneyed aristocracy....Chomsky amogst others is informing of the who and how...you people are clinging to the edifice of a bygone era...LET IT GO!
dogdoom 1 year ago 6
ron paul is the "useful idiot"
noam chomsky is the true peoples champion
chocobosage420 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
chomsky worships communist dictators. Ron paul actual values freedom. Shut the fuck up
chorizo1337 1 year ago
@chorizo1337 The freedom to sell yourself by the hour with no minimum wage. Some freedom that is...
ashconnor 1 year ago 8
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Chavez.....LOL. Just another nut in a world with pleny of loons.
theguvnorjimmy 1 year ago
everyone should read Noam Chomsky not the NY Times.
The Nytimes defends US democracy to the detriment of other countries.
Noam Chomsky defends democracy regardless of the culture, the religion,the country and wealth.
No one can attack Noam chomsky , he's Voltaire.
And Chavez is De Gaulle.
I love them.
kip872002 1 year ago
Chavez is a thug who is ruining Venezula. Chomsky is what Lenin used to call a "useful idiot".
UserUK201 1 year ago
Chavez is thug ,so what are the other leaders ?????
Chomsky a useful idiot ??? you have to perform ablutions before speaking of Chomsky.
This is the most foolish comment i've ever read which reflects your hopeless ignorance.
kip872002 1 year ago
What other leaders are you refering to? Chomsky's insight is no different than Michael Moore or Glenn Beck. His tendency to lie and his obsession with the United States has been repeatedly documented. You are a fool.
UserUK201 1 year ago
Theleaders i'm refering to are the one's who have blood on their hands up to elbows.(all the american admininstrations, tony blair , gordon brown , Sarkozy , tzipi livni, ...etc.
Another proof of your mediocrity.
Chomsky is an intelectual who has nothing to do with hollywood unlike Michael Moore.
You read Chomsky and howard zinn(RIP).
Instead of scratching the surface.
Oh man , you're comparing chomsky to Michael Moore ........haha, it's just priceless.
kip872002 1 year ago
What a fallacious statement. Glenn Beck is an "intellectual" with no ties to hollywood, does that change the fact he's a blithering moron? I've read Chomsky's books and it was perhaps the biggest waste of time, even more so than the time i'm wasting here talking to you. Within the first few pages he lied.
UserUK201 1 year ago
@UserUK201 @UserUK201 He's not in any way an intellectual, just a political pundit. Chomsky is an intellectual because he works at a major educational institution and indulges in useful linguistic and political research. Glenn Beck has extensive ties to Hollywood and the entertainment industry; he works at Fox.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero Most of the Nazi party's chief supports were Germany's university professors and students. Being an intellectual who works at major educational insitution does not confer an unbias nature on the individual in question. Chomsky lies a lot, just like Glenn Beck.
UserUK201 1 year ago
@UserUK201 I never said the fact that he is considered part of the intellectual culture - a prominent part, at that - conferred unto him any sort of automatic respect or admiration. It just so happens that he is what one calls an intellectual, and Glenn Beck is not.
Every single intellectual and thinker in the world is biased. That's how opinions and philosophies and ideologies work. Bias only implies a negative connotation when it stems from a misconstruction of facts.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero You certainly implied that it did (at least it appeared that way to me). I completely agree with the second part of your comment which lends itself to my point that Chomsky is awared a completely unwarrented level of authority because he holds the title of "intellectual", which implies that his analysis of a situation is more insightful then Glenn Beck when it really isn't. Plus he lies all the time.
UserUK201 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AngryAnarchist . Com
JohnnyJamesGang 1 year ago
tu eres un gran revolucionario noam
ChiefyJr 1 year ago
We do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.
Umbriaga 2 years ago 19
@Umbriaga No son como las vemos, vemos las cosas como somos.
klinji 1 year ago
i say we put an end to the American Imperialism that exploits all of us!!!!!!
I heard a far-right organisation (Paladin Squad) tried to kill Chavez but his guys protected him.
DestroyerAlexandros 2 years ago
Yeah, a coup supported by the US. And his people, normal regular dudes on the street stormed the building he was being held captive in and freed his ass. That's how you know a leader is legit, when normal ordinary people risk their lives to keep him in power, and alive, because they know who has their welfare in mind, and it's definitely not puppets put in place by the US.
dekotable 1 year ago
I like chomsky, but I have my suspicions about some of the things he says. I hope the rest of you do as well, not to be against him, but not to swallow everything he says either.
loturos 2 years ago
i agree with most of the things he says about america's foreign policy but sometimes i disagree with him on the future's social structure because he is an anarchist and i'm a commie :D
DestroyerAlexandros 2 years ago
he's an anarchist in the sense that he's against forms of hierarchy, which jives with your commie beliefs.
dekotable 1 year ago
Communism so far has lead to forms of hierarchy even worse than the ones in the US. I've lost faith in it recently and I think anti state socialism may actually work.
oli90 1 year ago
@oli90 you are right man. I have also lost faith in this ridiculous, self-destructive, corrupt system calling itself international communism. In fact I was so appalled when I figured out its little schemes that I became a conservative and an anti-socialist
DestroyerAlexandros 1 year ago
@DestroyerAlexandros: I think you've misinterpreted what I've said. State socialism is what I don't believe will work, but anti-state, meaning socialism without an authoritarian government, is what I believe in. So I am still very much a socialist, and I hope you can see the true rottenness in conservative politics. It's a very closed minded, self-oriented, and primitive way of thinking. I don't know what you mean by little schemes.
oli90 1 year ago
@oli90 Conservatism to this day is the most successful ideology because it preserves the most important things for Western civilization - tradition, leadership, authority and family values. Conrad Adenauer, the founder of the right wing conservative Christian Democratic Union, used the following slogan while rebuilding Germany back to it's pre-1945 power: "No experiments"
DestroyerAlexandros 1 year ago
@DestroyerAlexandros: The leadership of Western civilization is nothing to look up to if you are a common person. Any ideology which is not progressive or willing to change can in no way be beneficial to human progress. Not to mention that religion and government should never be mixed, and there is a harsh difference between post war Germany and present day US. Germany was in a bad economic position so they played it safe. Completely different circumstances from the US.
oli90 1 year ago
@oli90 communism is progressive, does that make it successful?
DestroyerAlexandros 1 year ago
@DestroyerAlexandros: It depends on what you mean by successful. It has been successful in the past given the right conditions.
oli90 1 year ago
@DestroyerAlexandros We wouldn't know.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@DestroyerAlexandros Conservatism is successful for the philosophy of free markets as opposed to fair markets or horizontal planning, the philosophy of repressing civil liberties and limited free speech rather than maximizing individual freedoms, and the philosophy of unilateralism as opposed to multilateral solidarity are all in the best interests of the wealthy, the people empowered by their property ownership or political influence.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@DestroyerAlexandros The people in power (especially in the case of economics, where free markets give large corporations and CEOs an obscene leg up on any market transactions between them and a poorer agent), that is to say, the legislators and lobbyists and advertisers all long for a more Conservative society where their religions are preserved against liberty, their wealth is protected and centralized against the threat of redistribution, and their power is maintained through the daddy state.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero That's right to some extent. But I prefer a strong military, an aggressive foreign policy, control of markets, family values and growth of private enterprise to "equality", "liberty", "tolerance" and the rest of the commie bullshit
DestroyerAlexandros 1 year ago
@DestroyerAlexandros
yep, equality, liberty, tolerance are all just Commie lies.
Having a strong military and pissing off foreign countries is much better.
muimrm 1 year ago
@muimrm exactly!
DestroyerAlexandros 1 year ago
@DestroyerAlexandros Thats called propaganda, the way the US runs its shit is no better than communism. In fact by now capitalism has been responsible for far more deaths than communism ever has.
xdeliriumx1 1 year ago
@xdeliriumx1 no successful system is really good for all because a successful system is the one that puts the strong at the top of the foodchain. If the weak are unable to compete they will perish. Communism does the opposite by putting the weak at the top of the foodchain and destroying the one capable ones
DestroyerAlexandros 1 year ago
@DestroyerAlexandros You actually believe in Communist countries that's what happened? lol It was the same, a rich elite and the poor population.
You talk about theory I talk about reality, fact capitalism has been responsible for far more deaths than communism. I dont say its good because I dont care for it, but unrestrained capitalism isn't the answer either and it certainly doesn't fit what you're saying.
Some people never even have the chance to compete.
xdeliriumx1 1 year ago
@DestroyerAlexandros So if you dont have money you're 'weak'? lmao
xdeliriumx1 1 year ago
@xdeliriumx1 If you don't have money you are unable to compete, hence weak. Prove me wrong
DestroyerAlexandros 1 year ago
@DestroyerAlexandros I never said it wasn't but it doesn't mean your 'weak'. Some people are never even given the chance to be successful and often it is purposely taken away by the rich. You cant just talk about societies problem by saying 'they are weak so that's too bad for them' type bullshit, its far more complex.
xdeliriumx1 1 year ago
@xdeliriumx1 No it's not. What's complex is the way people are pushed into the belief that everybody's equal, that non-conformity is good and so on. Society over the last 30 years has been pushing people away from their primitive needs and has been promoting compassion, tolerance and peaceful-mindedness - qualities that hold us back.
One of the reasons the fascists were successful was that they said screw you to the phony ideals and went full speed ahead with competition and aggression
DestroyerAlexandros 1 year ago
@DestroyerAlexandros lol dude you must be high or something.
Now you're telling me we would have been better off still living under Hitler, Stalin or Mao? Perhaps some had some economic success but overall they had no success, people like Hitler completely destroyed his country for his stupid ideals.
Its not that simple, not everyone even if they wanted to has a chance at becoming someone important, lets forget all our ideal and become savages right? ya sure.
xdeliriumx1 1 year ago
@xdeliriumx1 Bullshit. Don't compare Hitler to the commies. Lenin, Stalin and Mao are just the same as most liberals and democrats. As much as we'd like to think otherwise, Marx and Engels completely took over Western economy and politics. The communists call it solidarity with the working class, Berlusconi calls it tolerance. The communists call it collectivization, Sarkozy calls it... welfare, public healthcare blablabla.
Just look at the US WW2 posters. This was pre-commie USA but STILL the
DestroyerAlexandros 1 year ago
@xdeliriumx1 posters said for example "If you ride alone, you ride with Hitler - join a car sharing club today". This is exactly the same bullshit the soviets sold people.
The National Socialists are a whole different thing. No other ideology combines tradition, progress and human nature. Democracy and socialism are the same fuckin' ballpark. Two systems in which numbers will prevail over quality and entertainment will prevail over productivity.
DestroyerAlexandros 1 year ago
Huh.. finally, something smart and balanced -thumbs up-.
Omadus 2 years ago 5
He might have exaggerated in public endorsement of Chavez, the guy is definitely not a dictator by any world standard, but he has his dark sides.
DonVoghano 2 years ago
You are right about the Us population.
This subject is never reported properly, and the US citizen rarely gets to hear about US backed deathsquads.
They hear about how terrible the "communist" fighters are though.
Electrorules 2 years ago
Yes, And I'll say it again, They are terribly propagandized. The corporations in the US use the government to suit their interests, The system is set up so that when there is someone to blame you blame the government, when, in fact the people who are actually pulling the strings are faceless. They need to be rescued from their own hell or we'll all feel it.
EVILTRIPS666 2 years ago
Chavez is the threat of a good example, which the US fears.
Electrorules 2 years ago 40
The "US" is very divided, If by the "US" you mean Corporations who control the United States, you may have a point, On the other hand if by the "US" you mean the people of the United States, you are wrong, The American people are so terribly propagandized and worried about feeding their children, that they truly don't know any better.
EVILTRIPS666 2 years ago
Yes, i was talking about the US government and its history of undermining elected democratic governments in South America and elswhere. Asassinations, funding coups etc. The history in that region is horrendous.
Electrorules 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No more than the USSR involvement in the region.
In any case, I prefer the american ideals of self-government and individual liberty to the violence and coercion of the socialists movements supported by the KGB.
Wraith23 2 years ago
I agree with you. In the US, ordinary people are imprisoned by everyday life and struggle to feed their children. In my country everyone hates US and I am no exception to this, but I always speak for the American ordinary people, how it is not their guilt. But there is always a counter argument of the following shape: "It is their responsibility to keep their government in line". To American people: For Gods sake, wake up and burn those paranoid bunch alive! You are 250000000 strong!!!
ikislav 2 years ago
it is the peoples' responsibility, and many people in the US dont respect their leaders. but should we also look at iranians and blame for their stupid leaders? what about north koreans, should we blame their people for being brainwashed just like many people in the west have been?
loturos 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Socialism and coercion are a good example?........ please
Wraith23 2 years ago
Just like Allende was.
Fortunately the CIA didn't succeed in overthrwing Chavez.
VelhoMc 2 years ago 6
@Electrorules It is defined as domino theory. But I think Bolivia is a better example of democracy, even though I like Chavez's policies.
arijitrule 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Electrorules
check out interesting article @
anarchadia . over - blog . com
disgracious23 1 year ago
@Electrorules yes he is the same example Castro was a while back, the threat of someone taking matters into their own hands.
xdeliriumx1 1 year ago
By the way the 63% that elected him, Im not sure about that data but lets assume is correct, means that 37% of the people didnt elected him and now must see their property and their rights violated by the ever stronger socialist state.
Wraith23 2 years ago
You need education... and not by the media.
Go to Venezuela and see what it's actually like. Then maybe you and I can have an educated debate on our opinions. But I am sure your opinion will change if you go there and here the stories these people have.
gnarlysky 2 years ago
I have debates with chavist socialists all the time in the internet, I dont need to go to Venezuela to see the oppression and totalitarianism of the socialist government and its followers.
Wraith23 2 years ago
Lol problem is Im not a "Chavist socialist" at all. Im actually an agorist.
You wont go to Venezuela because youre afraid to be proven wrong.
Sorry to break it to you, but Chavez' government is not even remotely totalitarian, though it is pretty authoritarian. The only people that his government has historically repressed are those that attempted to throw him out in a very violent coup, wrought with hyperbolic language from the private right-wing channels.
Socialism != Statism.
psykotrol 2 years ago
I never accused you of anything, I only stated that I have a lot of debates with socialists.
I would be glad to go to Venezuela if you pay my flight over there ;)
Chavez government seems pretty authoritarian and totalitarian to me, closing media channels, statizing private property, cutting individual liberty, bullying the opposition.
And if you believe socialism is not based on central state planning you really need to re-read the communist manifesto.
Wraith23 2 years ago
I never accused you of accusing me.
Authoritarianism is NOT the same as totalitarianism. Chavez is an authoritarian dictator, not a totalitarian one.
Socialism (in the pure sense) does not require state planning, and communism is not the same as socialism whatsoever. Socialism is compatible with markets (social market economy), communism is not.
Socialism is a pretty meaningless term now that you sorts of people have watered it down into nothing more than a buzzword for "communism".
psykotrol 2 years ago
What really scares me is how much power Chavez is assuming. Hes essentially going to be able to enact law by decree, to assume expropriation powers over essentially whatever he desires. I fear for the Venezuelan public if he ever decides to become drunk with power, which he has so far not done.
His appeals to nationalism should also be a sign of the possibility of oppression, with very strong anti-US rhetoric, which concerns me that he doesnt differentiate between the US public and the gov't.
psykotrol 2 years ago
Wow... okay. Got you. You make a lot of sense. I am glad to see you think a bunch of people on the internet can properly educate you on life outside of your bubble of a world.
gnarlysky 2 years ago 3
@Wraith23 It's that darn democracy at work again!
nocturnezero 1 year ago
I dont view the fact that he is "non white" as social progress, you elect the best man for the job based on his policies not his race or skin color.
Wraith23 2 years ago
It absolutely is social progress in a continent dominated by white colonialism since the 16th century, and ravaged by US gov't atrocities during the Cold War.
He was elected specifically because the people thought he was the best man for the job, not because hes indigenous. He ran on a socialist platform which is extremely popular among 80% of the population which is very poor.
psykotrol 2 years ago
There is no "white colonialism" in modern Latin America anymore and not every latin american is of indigenous descent.
By the way the USSR had their fair share of interventions and atrocities in Latin American too.
Now you say Chavez was elected because of his ideas not his race, thats better.
And Im all too familiar with the backward socialist rethoric and his effectiveness of people desperate to have something to believe in.
Wraith23 2 years ago
Lol yes there is. White colonialism, or more PC, the IMF continues to exploit Latin America. Of course not every Latin American is of indigenous descent, thats because white colonialists raped indigenous women and forced them to assimilate.
USSR had their fair share of atrocities everywhere, many far worse than anything in history (Gulag, Holodomor). Does not give America carte blanche to do the same.
I never said he was elected due to his race to begin with, though it was a significant aspect
psykotrol 2 years ago
Would you prefer the IMF to withdraw all economic assistance to Latin American?
Seriously I dont know what "white colonialism" you are talking about.
Wraith23 2 years ago
Yes, I would withdraw most IMF economic assistance (in particular the IMF, not other economic assistance). The "economic assistance" is largely conditionalities called Structural Adjustment Policies, which do not help the the South American public whatsoever, and have a lot of very negative impacts such as privatization (Bolivian water privatization, as an example), erodes national sovereignty by destroying trade barriers, as well as skyrocketing debts and lower social spending.
psykotrol 2 years ago
Then you don't know what you are talking about, because he is dead on point.
gnarlysky 2 years ago
By the way Chavez won the last referendum by 54% of the votes not 80%.
And if socialism is such a good system why there are still so many poor people in Venezuela, sounds like a contradiction to me.
Wraith23 2 years ago
Chavez won the 2006 election with 63%. +3% from 2000.
you're referring to the constitutional referendum, in which Chavez eliminated the term limits. Very scary Statism, indeed, and a major obstacle to a social market.
Venezuela is significantly more egalitarian right now than it used to be, Chavez cut poverty drastically, by as much as 10%, and the GDP per capita has also risen significantly.
I fear that he is assuming too much control by refusing media licenses because of dissenting views.
psykotrol 2 years ago
@psykotrol Why should he allow these media licenses? Why would he want to help people who wanted to overthrow him? They can still broadcast, they just can't use government services to do it. The referendum was democratically instituted as well.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero
Well, thats the whole point of freedom of speech. People shouldnt be required to get a license to speak. Ill quote Chomsky: "You either believe in free speech for everybody, or you dont believe in free speech"
It doesnt matter whether they wanted to overthrow him, they shouldnt need a license to broadcast information.
Let the people decide who is on their side. Censoring opposition only bolsters it.
Let them speak, they do a good enough job destroying their own credibility
psykotrol 1 year ago
@psykotrol I agree that free speech is universal or nonexistent, however the station was receiving government concessions through that license. They could no longer benefit from the service of using government-funded channels to broadcast their information because the channels were government-funded and the station supported a coup to overthrow the government.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
@nocturnezero
allegedly supported a coup to overthrow the government, never been proven in court, cuz there has never been a case against RCTV. Other stations, like Venevision and Televen were also accused of supporting the coup, but their licenses renewed. The RCTV infrastructure was expropriated by the government, and replaced by TVes, which was ordered by the courts to be guarded by the military. TVes may be a public channel, but public institutions guarded by the state is state-socialism
psykotrol 1 year ago