Compare and contrast
Oh hey, look! Democracy occurred somewhere!
Voters in this country narrowly defeated a proposed overhaul to the constitution in a contentious referendum over granting President Hugo Chávez sweeping new powers, the Election Commission announced early Monday. […]
In recent weeks, members of previously splintered opposition movements joined disillusioned Chávez supporters in an attempt to defeat the referendum on constitutional changes. The plan would abolish term limits, allow Mr. Chávez to declare states of emergency for unlimited periods and increase the state’s role in the economy, among other measures.
Nifty. It’s nice that some countries believe in limiting executive power. Now compare that with things like this:
The Senate joined the House in embracing President Bush’s view that the battle against terrorism justifies the imposition of extraordinary limits on defendants’ traditional rights in the courtroom. They include restrictions on a suspect’s ability to challenge his detention, examine all evidence against him, and bar testimony allegedly acquired through coercion of witnesses.
And this:
The Democratic-controlled House last night approved legislation President Bush’s intelligence advisers wrote to enhance their ability to intercept the electronic communications of foreigners without a court order.
The 227 to 183 House vote capped a high-pressure campaign by the White House to change the nation’s wiretap law, in which the administration capitalized on Democrats’ fears of being branded weak on terrorism and on Congress’s desire to act on the issue before its August recess.
Maybe ballot referendums are the best way to stop Bush from doing whatever the hell he wants. A lot of the folks we elected to “represent” us sure don’t seem to have much interest in doing so.
UPDATE: Atrios writes:
Anyway, watching US media coverage of Venezuela makes me realize that US coverage of foreign affairs is utterly corrupted by something. […]
After Chavez was elected in 1996 and re-elected in 2000, the New York Times cheers on a military coup which installed “a respected business leader” and hails it as a move signaling “democracy is no longer threatened.”
They backpedaled from this editorial after the fact, but likely only because the coup didn’t take and Chavez was returned to power.
Basically, yeah.
By rule, I think that journalists should at the very least be extremely suspicious of powerful people. This should be the case whether they’re covering the government, businesses or even sports teams. In no case should responsible journalists find themselves swooning over the powerful. A lot of our foreign policy journalism is dominated by swooners such as this tool who see themselves not as watchdogs but as evangelists for the righteousness of American military power. I’ll have more on this later, because I think Roger Cohen is a uniquely warped individual who perfectly captures all the various sins of American foreign policy journalism.
Nah, Little Boots would just sign an executive order saying “I had mah fangers crossed! Heh heh…”
I agree, but there really is no such thing as a national referendum, and even if there were one, it would have to be initiated by Congress. That is, unless we wanted to call another constitutional convention.
One problem is that somehow it is always presented as a false choice between safety and civil rights. In fact, we have no safety without civil rights. It is not just that we need protection from wrongful prosecution, it is that communities will not cooperate with law enforcement if the government acts like an occupying force. We can all see from Iraq how effective occupying forces are at maintaining peace and security.
And then there’s this about the election in Russia:
“In the run-up to election day, we expressed our concern regarding the use of state administrative resources in support of United Russia, the bias of the state-owned or -influenced media in favor of United Russia,” said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the U.S. National Security Council.
The fact is, the people of Venezuela have shown that they will fight for democracy and freedom, unlike the spineless DummieCraps who have capitulated to the maniacal totalitarian excesses of… uh…
Wait, hang on.
The fact is… um…
I shall return soon, my lieberal friends. I must consult the Bible, I mean Torah.
Butbutbutbutbut…Rush told me Chavez was a dictator!!!! How come they’re still voting and stuff in Venezuela?
The defeat of the referendum in Venezuela is, on balance, a bad day for freedom, not a good one. While there may have been some principled opposition to it, much of the resistance stemmed from the usual suspects: the old oligarchy and assorted hanger-on, supported by US money from outfits like the NED. Of course, the revolution can’t be made dependant on prior majority approval in any event, but I fear that those who resent even the modest progress towards a more just society made in Venezuela (and other countries in the region) will now have smelled blood. Another coup attempt is not out of the question.
Shalom-a-lam-a-ding-dong, gentleman.
I shall return soon, my lieberal friends. I must consult the Bible, I mean Torah.
This messhugge is not the real Saul. Sir, I served with Me: I know Me; I was a friend of mine. Sir, you’re no Me…Saul of Tardus.
I shall return soon to you farcockteh website, when I get this shpilkis outta my ganetkagazoink.
christian, with all respect, that is bullshit. I defend Chavez on a pretty regular basis, but nobody, and I mean nobody, is so important to democracy that they need to destroy it in order to save it.
The best services that Chavez can do for Venezuala is to build a lasting democratic movement that can keep getting elected. There is no reform that needs to be accomplished that needs to be “protected” from the voters. His critics are always fretting over what he might do, or what he wants to do (ignoring that his opposition has already overthrown an elected government with an illegal coup).
The way for him to silence the skeptics and gain the moral high ground is to abide by the will of the voters like he promised he would. This is his FDR court-packing moment, but it does not destroy all of the work that has been done.
servicesservicePedestrian, I disagree. In fact, destroying what you call “democracy” should be one of the goals of the whole operation (although I agree that its replacement shouldn’t be a bureaucratic dictatorship.) The problem is rather that Chavez is to enamoured of the forms of liberal democracy to really be considered a revolutionary. Liberal democracy is a simply a form of dictatorship, as Marx quite rightly observed – a dictatorship of the ruling class.
It is of course true that in the end Chavez can’t defend the achievements of his administration; just like during the 2002 coup, only the people of Venezuela can. Thus, all is definitely not lost. However, this is still a setback for the revolutionary process, and a boon for the forces of reaction in Venezuela, and for their allies in the US and Europe.
Sure is great that the balance of power has shifted in favour of Democrats.
Christian- say wha? I think sane people can agree that, human nature being what it is, it is unwise to vest too much power in the hands of one person.
I don’t understand how you can agree on the one hand that only the people of Venezuela can defend Chavez’ accomplishments, while on the other say that democracy must be destroyed. Why have a referendum in the first place, then? Why shouldn’t he just seize power militarily?
You seem to want a dictatorship of the proletariat that has the full support of the people, yet you don’t want to have to bother with maintaining that support after it has been given. We are rehashing tired old arguments here, but I would like to know how you think eliminating regular popular participation via elections can do anything other than create a new ruling class?
pedestrian- because he never read ANIMAL FARM.
Comrade christian is entirely correct.
Social democracy objectively represents the moderate wing of Fascism.
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am….
Actually, this is interesting. Via Hands Off Venezuela (a pro-Chavez site)
No: 4.504.354, 50,70 %
Yes: 4.379.392, 49.29 %
Votes counted: 8.883.746
Nullified: 118.693
Total votes: 9.002.439
Abstention 44,39 %
They point out that the opposition only picked up 100,000 votes from the 2006 election, while abstentions increased by 2.8 million and were 44.9% of the total.
They point out that the opposition only picked up 100,000 votes from the 2006 election, while abstentions increased by 2.8 million and were 44.9% of the total.
I heard Hugo on the radio pointing this out himself. His supporters didn’t show up, and he recognized that fear was an important part of it.
Shalom gentlemen.
The fact is, foreign terrorists have absolutely no rights under our Constitution. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to protect the rights of American citizens only. In fact it is not only legal it is perfectly justified to deny captured terrorists the right to a fair trial, habeus corpus, and the right to an attorney. Would the Islamo-facsists allow captured Americans any of those rights? Captured terrorists should be covertly tried before a military tribunal and hanged right after they are convicted.
Brad R., I grew up in West Germany. Trust me when I tell you we did read Animal Farm. I think you can do better than bring up that tired old “human nature” crap.
It baffles me how liberals have this huge capacity for compartmentalization – on the one hand, you clearly see the results of capitalism (whether in its liberal-democratic, or other forms); on the other hand, you seem to be unable to make the connection and realize that these aren’t bugs, they are features. They are not “excesses”, but the norm.
Elections in a parliamentary system are exercises in choosing between like and like, even in economically highly developed countries. In nations with huge numbers of poor and destitute people, liberal democracy is a complete sham, simply a formal exercise to justify elite rule in the eyes of Western liberals. Too bad that it seems to be working. (Shorter Pedestrian: “Purple fingers!”)
Pedestrian, cleverly claiming that I want to see no democracy simply because I argue for abolishing the fraud that is liberal democracy isn’t very convincing. The way the Venezuelan people defended Chavez in 2002 wasn’t through elections, but through popular mobilization. And that is the only way, in the end, how social progress can be achieved. It can’t be reduced to some ritual vote every some years (which is not to say that the outcome of those votes can be ignored.)
Heard on the radio this a.m. that Chavez says he’ll honor the voters’ decision and is urging his followers to honor it as well. Doesn’t sound real dictatorial to me.
The fact is, Hugo Chavez is a socialist pig and so is everyone who supports him. I applaude the people of Venezuela for standing up to his tyranny, hopefully now they will rise up and take up arms against the dictatorship in the same spirit of the Sons of Liberty in 1776.
That’s the point he’s NOT a dictator. But that still doesn’t mean it makes sense to give him or any individual the ability to declare perpetual states of emergency.
No, Lakeesha, particularly since it was so close. Here when someone comes close and loses he gets what he wants anyway. Maybe Venezuela could help Iraq with this democracy thing, since we still seem to need a little more practice.
Hey look, Saul and christian both want the same thing – a violent uprising of the people!
Whoever can buy the most votes wins —-> whoever can buy the most guns wins.
But that still doesn’t mean it makes sense to give him or any individual the ability to declare perpetual states of emergency.
See, I completely agree. I wish that had not been part of the planned changes- as I said before, one man makes no revolution, and given the experiences of the Russian revolution, it’s important to guard against tendencies towards entrenched bureaucratic dictatorship.
However, the question before the referendum then was not “is this perfect in every respect”, it was: given the imperfections of the proposed changes, what outcome would be more progressive? I maintain that a “yes” vote would have been preferable, given the concrete political situation, both in Venezuela and internationally.
christian- you make a fair case. I still woulda voted “no” on this were I in Venezuela, despite the other laudable amendments added. Vesting an executive with that much power is simply dangerous, no matter who it is. But we can disagree.
Atrios’ first date is wrong. Chávez won his first presidential election in 1998 (not 1996), under the old constitution. He was elected president under the new, current constitution in 2000 and reelected last year.
This is his FDR court-packing moment
Actually, Chávez already had his court-packing moment in 2004, when the Venezuelan supreme court was expanded from 20 to 32 members.
I don’t agree with christian h. completely, but his argument isn’t contradictory. He believes that Western-style democracy is a repressive oligarchy with better PR, and doesn’t actually represent the will of the people.
On reflection, that’s part of what Sadly, No!isemakers have basically been arguing about the Democrats since the 2006 elections–they aren’t representing the people who elected them, and are too busy trying to get a seat at the pig trough to make changes in the lobbying system, etc. Since this poster appears to be literate, and isn’t obviously trolling, I’m kind of interested in what he has to say.
The proposal to lift the temporal limit on states of emergency and to suspend the right to information and the right to due process during these periods formed part of the National Assembly’s constitutional reform package. The reconfiguration of Venezuela’s political institutions that would greatly concentrate power in the executive branch was part of Chávez’s proposal. The two were voted on separately yesterday—an up-down on Chávez’s package of changes and an up-down on the Assembly’s package. The voters rejected both.
I think it’s worth pointing out that Western liberal democracies remain the most desirable places in the world to live – at least for Western liberals and immigrants (who are ordinarily of the elite) – and that they largely became liberal democracies when there were large proportions of poor folks in each country.
christian makes two points I wholeheartedly agree with, at least with respect to politics in the US.
First, our so-called “representative democracy” is no longer either. American politicians are entirely beholden to their constituency of donors, and cannot operate effectively with any concern for their voting constituency. Dollars matter. Votes most clearly do not. If only twelve people vote, they are delighted to win the election 7-5. But they need the millions and millions.
Second, which follows directly from the above, it is no longer possible to change or reform the system or the participants in that system in America by legislation or election. We will continue to complain ineffectually while we are pandered and lied to, stolen from and ignored, until we take to the streets, tear the system down and rebuild it.
A new constitutional convention, and a reformed political system based on parliamentary democracy will be required, or a police state will be the result…
mikey
I’m sorry, I shouldn’t be so dismissive or make Saul comparisons. I don’t believe that elections are a magic elixir. I also agree that many liberal democracies, including that in the US, have become bloated and unrepresentative.
Elections are only valid insofar as they are free and fair. When you start tweaking who gets to vote and under what conditions, eventually it is possible to vest voting priveleges, but no power, in the hands of the people. In that case I absolutely support the right of the people to rise up and overthrow the system.
I think that the huge number of abstentions shows that most Venezuelans still support the reforms that Chavez wants to enact, but don’t want to put so much power in one person, even if that person is Chavez. I actually see this as a very positive outcome. If it had been close and passed, the oligarchs would have cried fraud and had an even stronger opening for another coup. Instead, we have proof that Chavez does honor the will of the people.
If anything, this humiliates the opposition because it shows that Chavez is not the greedy dictator that they portray him as. Also, opposition to a new constitution was the only thing uniting the oppostion. Having succeeded, they will fracture again.
Thanks, Robert. I’m not actively trying to troll, anyway ;). Here is a piece by Slavoj Zizek in LRB, arguing for the seizure of state power. I don’t agree completely – Zizek tend to mythologize power – but I still think it makes the important point that the left (at least, the revolutionary left) must not be afraid of utilizing state power to subvert the capitalist state. To quote Zizek one more time (from “Revolution at the Gates”, I think): what made Lenin great was that “he wasn’t afraid of success”. I think Chavez is “afraid of success”, that is, of really giving power to the workers and the people in general, and this leads him to (a) restrict his goals to reform, not withstanding all his revolutionary rhetoric, and (b) try to implement it from above, by decree. I think he’s too timid, in other words; but as the alternative right now is counterrevolution, he should still be supported.
Pedestrian, I was politicized in Europe, and so I’m used to sharp exchanges – I’m not easily offended :). It’s not like I don’t dish it out myself. It’s clear we fundamentally disagree on liberal democracy: as I suggested above, I think they are fundamentally an expression of capitalist control and essentially flawed, even the best of them.
what made Lenin great was that “he wasn’t afraid of success”.
Stalin shared this quality.
Chávez’s proposal called for changes in the fundamental principles of the Venezuelan constitution, for example declaring Venezuela a socialist state and replacing decentralization with centralization as one of its core concepts. According to the current constitution, such profound changes to the constitution most basic definitions of the Venezuelan state must originate in a constituent assembly. They cannot come from the executive branch. This the voters rejected as well. Whether on procedural or conceptual/ideological grounds (or both) is an open question.
the constituion’s most basic definitions
remember when this happened?
what made Lenin great was that “he wasn’t afraid of success”.
Stalin shared this quality.
Can you get any more pointless, please?
Can you get any more pointless, please?
Explain why I am wrong to make such an equivalence. It’s been a long long time since I read anything substantive about the Russian Revolution.
[…] “It’s nice that some countries believe in limiting executive power. Now compare that with things like…” (Bush, the dictator) […]
Meh, this is where I lose my “Left_wing” element of my moniker, being somewhere between democratic socialism and liberalism.
My major problem with Marx’s thoughts is that his emphasis on class and capital failed to recognize that economic and political power are separate entities. The idea of eliminating a democracy to create economic egalitarian instantly creates a political ruling class, which then proceeds to act in the way rulers have always acted; gathering additional power to themselves.
To my mind, this is why economic power must be kept subordinate and as separate as possible from political power, which should be distributed as equally as possible. I have no trouble with capitalism in this framework, as long as it’s understood that a market economy is subservient to government.
Natrually, I agree with the expressions here that the US government is one of the least democratic systems in the developed world. I disagree that it’s beyond repair though, largely because I see possible solutions that get dismissed out of hand. Working to change the vote counting methods at the state and county levels is one possibility that gets ignored. It also makes me want to chocke on a bullet every time the “Nader” bitchfests erupt. Work to overturn the simple plurality vote methods in favor of systems like STV, Approval or Condorcet systems; something that can be done at a local level with national effects without the need for amending the US Constitution.
Better than a civil war; lots of bloodshed, disease, destroyed infrastructure and economic devastation for the off-chance you get someone other than the most heavily armed warlord in power.
While I disagree with christian h., I appreciate his candor and clarity of expression.
At any rate, mikey’s point–that our representative democracy is neither and thus needs fundamental reform–seems fundamentally different from christian h.’s–that all liberal democracy is just the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (and, by extension, that the differences among liberal democracies are ultimately of little consequence).
Finally, I, too, recommend the recent Zizek piece in LRB, at the very least as food for thought.
Better than a civil war; lots of bloodshed, disease, destroyed infrastructure and economic devastation for the off-chance you get someone other than the most heavily armed warlord in power.
I don’t see that Zizek or Christian provide for any scale with which the popular will might be measured except in units of lead launched.
I don’t see that Zizek or Christian provide for any scale with which the popular will might be measured except in units of lead launched.
Ah, that wasn’t necessarily aimed at Zizek or christian. I appologise if I got a little carried away. I’m just seeing a fatalistic trend in the comment sections of a number of blogs lately, and it’s affecting my train of thought.
I appologise if I got a little carried away.
I don’t think you did.
There’s an interesting change happening in Bhutan. Their monarch wants a transition to democracy, but the people like him and do not appear enthused.
[Democracy’s] replacement shouldn’t be a bureaucratic dictatorship
What’s with this ‘bureaucratic’ qualifier? Is it to suggest that dictators are fine as long as they stay disorganised?
I’m not convinced that the long nightmare of post-revolutionary Russia is all the fault of dudes in drab suits sitting behind desks and shuffling papers.
I don’t see that Zizek or Christian provide for any scale with which the popular will might be measured
That’s what market-research companies are for. The revolution will be focus-grouped.
Righteus Bubba, I don’t see why anyone should have to explain why Lenin wasn’t Stalin. If you claim equality, let’s hear some evidence – this “prove to me that xxx isn’t Hitler” kind of argument is very, well, wing-nutty.
However, I very much suggest Kevin Murphy’s recent study Revolution and Counterevolution: Class struggle in a Moscow metal factory, which lays out a convincing argument against the claim that Stalinism was anything but counterrevolutionary, or that the Bolshevik revolution inevitably had to lead to Stalinism (incidentally, this was not only something both sides in the Cold War could agree on, it is only a very strange argument to make for liberals, who often accuse Marxists of… historical determinism.) I’d also point out that Lenin and Trotsky were very much aware that “socialism in one country” was impossible, and that the revolution had essentially failed in 1921 (after the defeat of revolutionary struggles in Western Europe and the large scale decimation of the more advanced sections of the Russian proletariat in the civil war.) Stalin, on the other hand, retreated into nationalism and reconstructed a class society (see Tony Cliff’s The nature of Stalinist Russia for a good analysis.) Ideologically, he codified “Marxism-Leninism” into a rigid doctrine, something Marx and Lenin would have, and in fact did, scoff at.
Smut Clyde, I support dictatorship of the proletariat, of course. That is, I agree that after a revolution there would – for some time – be need for repression of the old ruling class’s likely attempts to regain power.
Similarly, all liberal democracies are bourgeois dictatorships: they employ repression, including violence, against dissidents in order to perpetuate themselves.
As for measuring popular will: the Russian revolution provided different ways to “measure popular will”, via Soviets of workers and peasants, as well as via very vigorous debate at the workplace; there was an amazing number of strikes, especially early on, but also during the NEP period after the civil war.
Left Wing Fox, you are aware that a principled opposition to political violence would have left us all living in a feudal society?
I don’t see why anyone should have to explain why Lenin wasn’t Stalin.
I did not assert that he was. I asserted that Stalin, like Lenin, “was not afraid of success” which seemed to me to be a euphemism for usage of unchecked force of arms. Perhaps I read it wrong, but the statement seemed awfully similar to current neo-con language regarding Iraq.
or that the Bolshevik revolution inevitably had to lead to Stalinism
In hoping to clarify my position I don’t believe this myself. IIRC the architecture of the Soviet state and communist party as erected allowed for the consolidation of seats of power under Stalin, so it was a design flaw exploited by a monster. Things could have been quite a bit better, and it’s hard to fault revolutionary sentiment and much activity in the Russia of the time before Lenin’s death. Corrections welcome.
I don’t have anything like a good historical understanding of Marxism, but my main point of disagreement with revolutionary socialism (really, revolutionary anything) is that in a revolution, benefits tend to accrue to the revolutionaries. Rather than a society ruled by The People, you end up with a new ruling class who claims the mandate of The People, and very soon afterward, just a new ruling class.
Additionally, when describing the US as a failed society, I think you have to take into account that–despite the frustrating and increasing disparity between the super-rich and the rest of American society–our median standard of living that is among the highest in the world. For all but the most wretched of Americans, life is pretty good. (That’s not to say that the wretched are beyond consideration, or that the concentration of such a large portion of the world’s wealth in the hands of a single nation is just; I’m claiming simply that any American revolutionary will find the inertia of Americans to be among his biggest problems.)
I see, sorry for misinterpreting your remark. I think I have been quite open about the fact that I am not opposed to the use of violence for political purposes per se. In fact, very few people are, far fewer than ordinarily think of themselves as being opposed; whether violence can be supported is a question of both the concrete historical situation, and of course on the goals of those employing it.
When Zizek says “Lenin wasn’t afraid of success”, I believe he means to say that those “calling for a referendum to ratify the revolution before it happens” (revisionists like Kautsky, in Lenin’s time), or those who always fret whether the time for revolution is right, are really afraid of the act of revolution as such. It’s not simply a “omelets vs. eggs”-type statement – this would indeed be objectionable!
I agree, by the way, that the centralization of power necessitated by the conditions of civil war (“war communism”) enabled Stalinism; however, I don’t see how the civil war could have been won without such measures, and it had to be won – the idea that a “liberal government” – whether Kerensky before October, or the more liberal of the White forces later – was at any time a possibility seems wrong to me (however, various smart people disagree on this question ;)); certainly once the civil war was underway, the alternative was bolshevik rule, or, at best, restauration of monarchy – with all that would have entailed, for example likely extermination of Ukrainian Jews etc.. To give one last link, here’s a post by Richard Seymour at the revolutionary socialist blog Lenin’s Tomb.
And now I’ll stop, or I will become a troll…
Left Wing Fox, you are aware that a principled opposition to political violence would have left us all living in a feudal society?
Less “principled”, more “practical” actually. Non-violent political means is generally a more effective method of toppling dictatorial governments in favor of stable democracies.
We focus a lot on the exceptions to the rule: America, and the Axis powers after WW2. More commonly, violent revolution is more likely to lead to one dictator replacing another, or a low-level civil war. Most of the modern democracies came about by peaceful means: The British Commonwealth largely became independant democratic nations. Western Europe had most of the monarchies ceeding increasing power to democratic structure, Eastern Europe transitioned relatively peacefully to democracy with the economic collapse of the Soviet Union.
Non-violent revolution: mass protests, general strikes, and demonstrations is a hell of a lot harder, not nearly as catharic, and will suffer more casualties than the tyrants. But in the long run, it’s a hell of a lot more effective.
You’re not a troll and you should post more at the site in general.
In the Zizek piece, this bit I think is what I find alarming:
It is striking that the course on which Hugo Chávez has embarked since 2006 is the exact opposite of the one chosen by the postmodern Left: far from resisting state power, he grabbed it (first by an attempted coup, then democratically), ruthlessly using the Venezuelan state apparatuses to promote his goals. Furthermore, he is militarising the barrios, and organising the training of armed units there. And, the ultimate scare: now that he is feeling the economic effects of capital’s ‘resistance’ to his rule (temporary shortages of some goods in the state-subsidised supermarkets), he has announced plans to consolidate the 24 parties that support him into a single party. Even some of his allies are sceptical about this move: will it come at the expense of the popular movements that have given the Venezuelan revolution its élan? However, this choice, though risky, should be fully endorsed: the task is to make the new party function not as a typical state socialist (or Peronist) party, but as a vehicle for the mobilisation of new forms of politics (like the grass roots slum committees).
This is cheerleading for force in the anticipation of “new forms of politics” and in a jokey way at that. I can’t think of any political movement or process that I have “fully endorsed” and those who fully endorse anything of the sort seem to be suckers. Parody of this rhetoric is often indistinguishable from the rhetoric itself, as is the case with the current US neo-cons.
In the “militarising the barrios” I get a chill: a party army external to the army of Venezuela led by someone who is already the most powerful man in the country?
Devotees of revolutionary action seem to me like members of a religious movement to me rather than people who are going to initiate practical plans to help folks out. It’s true that such faith is necessary at points and I am no expert on conditions on the ground in Venezuela, but I tend to favour skepticism in the face of power grabs rather than “full endorsement”.
“Maybe ballot referendums are the best way to stop Bush from doing whatever the hell he wants.”
And maybe there’d be no problem, democracy-wise, if all those voting against the government’s wishes got their personal details from the referendum pulled and were punished for it as a result, a la Chavez style.
Dictatorship of the proletariat!! Economic democracy!! Now!!
And no counter-revolution will be possible if the cpaitalists & their running dog lackeys are dead, or working 12 hrs. a day, seven days a wk. to repay their debt to the proletariat.
Sadly, the American people are indeed inclined to inertia. We may need to light a fire under their pathetic petit bourgeois asses. But considering that the ultimate problem world-wide is over-population, I for one have no objectiion to political violence, & wholesale slaughter. Call it fatalism if you must, but none of us get out alive anyway. Really, what’s the big deal?
P. S.: I’m only about 95% serious.
I heard Hugo on the radio pointing this out himself. His supporters didn’t show up, and he recognized that fear was an important part of it.
I assume that comes from this statement (in Spanish):
My translation:
It’s a vague, speculative list of possible reasons for chavista abstention. What he doesn’t consider, at least not publicly, is widespread chavista discomfort with the proposal as another possible motive.
And Left Wing Fox:
Western Europe had most of the monarchies ceding increasing power to democratic structure.
Wouldn’t have happened w/o the French Revolution, or an equivalent elsewhere, looming over the necks of the aristocrats.
Off w/ their heads!!
What he doesn’t consider, at least not publicly, is widespread chavista discomfort with the proposal as another possible motive.
Doubts and fears seem to me to cover that, but I can see the tenor of it being “my voters didn’t get how great this was.”
Why would you compare a referendum to that?
Surely this is a much closer match…..
You’re a more generous reader of Chávez’s rhetoric than I, Righteous Bubba.
It’s true that such faith is necessary at points and I am no expert on conditions on the ground in Venezuela, but I tend to favour skepticism in the face of power grabs rather than “full endorsement”.
Nor is Zizek an expert on Venezuela, but once one convinces oneself that a certain distant case corroborates one’s theoretical paradigm and one become invested in its fulfillment, on the ground contradictions tend to be ignored or rationalized away.
And maybe there’d be no problem, democracy-wise, if all those voting against the government’s wishes got their personal details from the referendum pulled and were punished for it as a result, a la Chavez style.
And if someone comes up with support for the claim that referendum voters were being tracked down and punished for the wrong vote, I’ll go looking in the English blogs where the claim was traced to its source and comprehensively ridiculed.
Wouldn’t have happened w/o the French Revolution, or an equivalent elsewhere, looming over the necks of the aristocrats.
That’s an assumption; not a given. It’s just as possible that the Revolution actually delayed reforms, causing the elites to view liberalism not as a doctrine for enlightened rule, but a threat to their very lives and to civilization as a whole (through viewing the Revolutionary wars and Reign of Terror, before reverting back to royalty under Napoleon)
To support this, note Pugachev’s Rebellion, and the relative interest of Catherine II of Russia to liberal reforms before and after.
Will you now ?
Well I was referring to what happened in the recall referendum in 2004, when Chavez went on TV to declare that he was seeking the names of everyone who signed the petition against him (the prerequistite for the referendum), subsequently got that from the electoral office and those people on the list who worked for the state didn’t anymore.
This punishment was actually pretty heartily defended by the government, so good luck with that debunking pal.
Chop chop.
Upstream, Konos, your claim was that
.
Now you’re talking about a petition. Sorry, I can’t help you there.
LMAO really ?
Because it’s the same Chavez and the same government going after the same people in regard to how they voted in the same referendum. Support the recall and you get labelled a terrorist and sacked from your state job, in a nationalised economy.
You think there’s a difference whether the blacklist of democracy-participants was taken from the referendum itself or the petition that was necessary to initiate the referendum ?
I don’t think you do. I don’t think anyone else here does either.
Smut Clyde, I support dictatorship of the proletariat, of course. That is, I agree that after a revolution there would – for some time – be need for repression of the old ruling class’s likely attempts to regain power.
Christian, your scoffing at “human nature” leads me to believe that you are operating out of the same ivory tower as Marx. I’m not aware of any historical governmental entity that voluntarily relinquished power after a period of absolute/near absolute rule. You are advocating perpetual revolution, as each set of the “underclass” (political if not economic) will deem themselves “purer to the revolution” than whomever the top dog is. “We will stop the captialists” means you become as evil as that which you oppose. Stalin wasn’t a bug, he was a feature – in that system the thugs rise to top even more quickly than in our own, as the intellectuals and revolutionaries argue over who is the Truest Scottsman.
No, our system sucks, particularly so now that the combination of corporate media control and enlisting the God-Botherer drones has allows the thugs to take over, but what you describe is effectively a theocracy, with the God concept as “the purest revolutionary”.
Marx was a brilliant and gifted economist, but as a designer of social structures his Aspberger’s got the better of him. Mind doesn’t trump gonads in most human beings.
Aw rats, I got slanties. Only the first line should be italicized.
Sheesh, the place is getting serious.
Who knew there were death squads ?
http://caracas.usembassy.gov/wwwh2796.html
My, what an excellent choice for SN!’s compare and contrast example of respect for due process. The country competing well in the extra-judicial killings olympics.
My, what an excellent choice for SN!’s compare and contrast example of respect for due process.
If you read the post above you’ll understand that it is not an endorsement of Hugo Chavez and cheers the result of a vote against his power grab.
You think there’s a difference whether the blacklist of democracy-participants was taken from the referendum itself or the petition that was necessary to initiate the referendum ?
I don’t think you do. I don’t think anyone else here does either.
The Tascón List, later rechristened the Maisanta list, was a database that contained the personal information of people who signed the recall referendum petition. This list was used to discriminate against people in terms of government jobs and contracts. The use of the fingerprint machines during the referendum itself helped lead to rumors within the Venezuelan opposition that the vote was not secret and that people who voted to remove Chávez from office would be subject to the same discriminatory treatment. The CNE (National Elections Council) at the time and subsequent ones did very little to dispel this rumor, as it helped fuel opposition abstention in later elections, especially the 2005 National Assembly vote, which they boycotted completely.
One of the challenges the opposition faced coming into Sunday’s vote was overcoming this fear among many antichavistas that the vote would not be secret.
You think there’s a difference whether the blacklist of democracy-participants was taken from the recent referendum or the petition that was necessary to initiate an earlier referendum ?
— I’ve taken the liberty of correcting your question, Kono, to avoid the confusion between the 2007 referendum that featured in your initial claim, and the 2004 recall petition that you’re talking about now.
Clearly i do think there’s a difference, since I’m happy to argue with your initial claim, whereas the 2004 recall business is outside my ken [due to the combination of (a) lack of interest in Venezualan politics, (b) lack of Spanish and (c) laziness about using the right accents].
The claims of malfeasance in the referendum per se came up a couple of weeks ago in UK politics, when Ken Livingstone [Mayor of London] was negotiating with Venezualan delegates. IIRC, some Conservative party hack fronted up and accused Chavez of tracing the details of anyone who voted wrongly. When the ‘evidence’ turned out to be forgeries provided by anti-Chavez lobbyists, there was more back-pedalling than you would get from an entire circus of unicycling clowns.
But since you have clarified that you are not talking about those claims, we have nothing to argue about. I’m not here to defend Chavez, and if you check my earlier comments in this thread, you will see that I’m an equal-opportunity mocker.
I didn’t say he was endorsing Chavez.
I said he was a fkn retard for choosing to compare them to the US in the terms he did.
I said he was a fkn retard for choosing to compare them to the US in the terms he did.
Why?
The country competing well in the extra-judicial killings olympics.
There’s an extra-judicial war on right now. Venezuela’s problems are small potatos.
Well no, the prior referendum where those voting against Chevez were deemed terrorists appears to be exactly what you are talking about…
If this referendum happened this week and a couple of weeks ago someone was referring to Chavez of tracing the details of those who voted against him, which of the two could this have been a reference to ?
The one that already happened where he did do this and his officials are happy to confirm that? Or the one that hadn’t happened yet?
Either way, why would anyone need a new accusation to suggest the same guy would be doing the same thing he did last time. I would have thought that would be the assumption until there was an accusation anything different was going to happen.
I guess when Karl Rove gets assigned to the GOP nominee’s campaign we’ll have to wait until any new accusations of Rove-being-Rove turn out to be true. It’s not like you could assume he’d be doing the same thing he did in 2004, just because he’s the same guy and 3 years is 3 years.
Likewise it’s probably best to wait until after the election to see if issues with caging lists, voting machine failures, vote tampering, etc all turn out the same they did last time. I mean it’ll have been FOUR years since that last happened. Let’s not jump to conclusions…. based on the conclusions we’ve already seen before.
No, sorry. The concept I’ve floated there is far too complicated to be explained on just one webpage. First we’d have to find the top of the page, then the post you already replied to, which you seemed to have no trouble understanding the first time around. It’ll take ages to pretend we need to go through, and then we’ll have to keep trying to make it look convincing.
Except if you’re Venezuela. In, say, a comparison with the US where these issues were the comparison. I dunno where we would find that happening though, of course that’s just a hypothetical.
Boy, these open threads are great aren’t they.
Except if you’re Venezuela.
Duh. You don’t like the comparison of a people’s vote against authoritarianism in Venezuela vs. elected representatives’s’s’s’s’ votes for it here. Okay, so what? Apart from Christian I don’t think anyone here finds Chavez inspirational in his approach to authoritarianism, and neither does anyone here – including you I think – find Bush inspirational.
Is Venezuela a place where bad stuff happens? Sure. Is the US a place where lots of people want bad stuff to happen? Sure. I just don’t get why you’ve got your undies in a bunch about comparing the one to the other. Should activities in America only be compared to activities in Canada?
Uh oh. Looks like a little update is in order, boys:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/74230
Most of Latin America’s leaders breathed a sigh of relief earlier this week, after Venezuelan voters rejected President Hugo Chávez’s constitutional amendment referendum. In private they were undoubtedly relieved that Chávez lost, and in public they expressed delight that he accepted defeat and did not steal the election. But by midweek enough information had emerged to conclude that Chávez did, in fact, try to overturn the results. As reported in El Nacional, and confirmed to me by an intelligence source, the Venezuelan military high command virtually threatened him with a coup d’état if he insisted on doing so. Finally, after a late-night phone call from Raúl Isaías Baduel, a budding opposition leader and former Chávez comrade in arms, the president conceded—but with one condition: he demanded his margin of defeat be reduced to a bare minimum in official tallies, so he could save face and appear as a magnanimous democrat in the eyes of the world.
Uh oh. Looks like a little update is in order, boys:
So, um, even more people voted to limit executive power than Chavez would like to admit. Why would this require an update to the post?