Venezuela Under Socialism: An Interview with Manny Lopez
Lance on Apr 18 2007 at 9:46 pm | Filed under: Developmental economics, Foreign affairs, Hugo Chavez, Interviews, Lance's Page, Lee's Page
Manny Lopez, editorial columnist for The Detroit News, recently returned to Venezuela after a nine year absence. He filed a striking piece from Caracas which caught my and a lot of people’s attention. It illustrated better than most reporting I’ve read on the subject, just how substantially the country had changed under president Hugo Chavez’s rule. He graciously granted our friend Lee Garnett at Postpolitical and I an opportunity to interview him about his thoughts and experiences:
Lee: Thanks for sitting down with us. I noticed in your March 25th piece on the situation on Venezuela, that you’ve a personal interest in the place through an aunt and uncle. What’s the extent of your relationship and interest in the country?
Manny: First, thanks for the chance to share more about Venezuela with you and the readers of postpolitical. I have a ton of family in Caracas and Barcelona. Although I hadn’t visited in nine years, we used to go every other year and Venezuela has always been something of a second home for me.
I recently returned from a 10-day vacation there and when I got back realized that there was too much going on to not write about it for The Detroit News and others via the Internet.
Lee: Even under the caudillos, Caracas has always been a lively and colorful capital. But one of the things you wrote about in your March 14 column that I found particularly striking, was this impression that under Chávez the city seems to be somehow losing its vitality. Perhaps in the same way that Havana did after Castro? What are some of the most notable atmospheric differences you observed between now and 1997?
Manny: I think one of the most noticeable differences is the tension that exists. You drive through neighborhoods and there’s a distinct us-versus-them atmosphere. Chávistas are boldly marking their territory and taking over the weak fringes, too. Most non-Chávista neighborhoods don’t spray paint their entrances with signs that proclaim their allegiances.
Chávez has spent millions plastering the country with propaganda. “Socialism, patriotism or death” banners hang throughout Caracas as well as a litany of “death to American imperialism” murals.
There also is an unquestionable concern about crime among locals and visitors (though there aren’t nearly as many tourists as there once was). Chávez has created such an atmosphere of entitlement among the truly poor that some now think they have a mandate to take what they want and redistribute it to themselves and their families. And why not? Though there is a decent police presence, I’m told they apparently don’t act on theft or assault charges that often.
Ironically, the socialists are so caught up in the so-called revolution and the attack on middle and upper class Venezuelans, that they don’t stop and think about why Chávez hasn’t significantly redistributed the tremendous amount of oil money he’s raking in. Since he took office the number of truly poor is the same, but he’s confiscated more oil money than the three previous governments combined.
Lance: From past experience I would assume this is purposeful. The Chávistas are being told not only that their desire is understandable, and thus not of much concern to Chavez and the state, but that it is necessary for them to do so. Squatting and other acts of seizure being examples as well. Or, is your impression this is merely a byproduct of the sense of entitlement?
Manny: It’s a combination of both. Chávez is a master propagandist. He’s told his followers, directly and otherwise, that their circumstances are the fault of the previous governments and the upper classes. Taken a step further, it’s the fault of the United States, which has orchestrated a campaign against Venezuela for decades, he and his minions say. It’s nonsense of course, but the Chávistas are so desperate to try and rise to the levels of society that they supposedly hate, they eat up the rhetoric.
Combined with a lack of action against uprisings, the entitlement attitude spreads and empowers people to act out in ways they otherwise wouldn’t. Petty theft or vandalism is just the start.
Lee: You wrote that Chávez has created a culture of theft that has infected virtually every level of society. We know from the experiences in other former socialist societies that once established this ruination of morality and the work ethic can have debilitating consequences long after the death of the dictators. Assuming Chávez disappears tomorrow, is it too late for this culture of theft to depart with him?
Manny: I wouldn’t say Chávez has infected every level of society. On the contrary, he’s polarized everyone but the truly poor. The middle-classes and the wealthy, even some who voted for him, see his dictatorship moving the country in the wrong direction.
To be sure, crime before Chávez was bad, but his rhetoric against independent wealth and individual success has many believing that they’re entitled to anything and everything.
I’m confident that it’s not too late for things to change and I think that even if Chávez continues his ruinous rein, there are enough opponents to help turn things around.
Venezuelans have long supported democracy and have lived with the unquestionable benefits of a free society even during periods of serious political corruption. Chávez has empowered the truly poor (and there are a lot), but even those who voted for him are questioning his actions.
Lee: But with approximately 53% of the country living below the poverty line, that’s an enormous political culture to reintegrate into a pluralistic system that respects private property rights, even if it is just the poor who are supporting Chavezism. I guess I’m skeptical that once you’ve had a drink at the fountain of mafia-style politics, you can’t so easily turn off the tap without a lot of resentment. If it were impossible to go back, is there perhaps a long-term future for the secessionist movement in Zulia? What’s the popularity of the idea among the opposition?
Manny: Good question. An optimist can look at the situation in Venezuela and the mobilization of the poor as a good thing because it gets them engaged. It gives people who otherwise had little hope for even the basic necessities in life motivation to seek more.
Chávez says he’s giving it to them now and some are getting a taste, but not nearly the number he says are. And Chávez will never bring them up to a level of middle income or class. Doing so might motivate them to want more and turn against him. Accordingly, he’ll keep his thumb on them for control. That’s a long-winded way of saying I think that there is hope that once the “redistribution†slows or stops there very well could be a push back even against Chávez. Maybe that’s a bit Pollyanna-ish and hopeful, but possible.
As for the secessionist movement in Zulia, I don’t know how the opposition truly looks at it, but I think it’s highly unlikely to happen. You’ve got to also seriously consider how much promotion the idea/cause is driven by Chávez and his fellow conspiracy theorists. If they can drum up enough fervor about how the opposition is plotting to secede, he garners more support, especially since he’ll undoubtedly link it to the United States.
Lee: You’ve been in touch with Leopoldo Lopez and have been following the Rosales persecution. First hand, what’s the state of the Venezuelan democratic opposition and can it have a future in the changing constitutional order?
Manny: Yes, Leopoldo Lopez (no relation) read my March 18 column and sent me an e-mail the next day. He thanked me for acknowledging what he says the international media don’t want to write about.
I’ve also been told by friends in Venezuela that at least one of the newspapers in Caracas is translating and reprinting my columns.
The intense international interest (I’m also getting e-mails from London and elsewhere), tells me that the opposition is stronger than Chávez would have anyone believe and stronger than he wants.
Internally, Un Nuevo Tiempo is now the unified opposition party. They five former separate parties will have a stronger voice and direction.
But it’s important to remember that Chávez will never allow true democracy to return to Venezuela so they have their work cut out for them.
Lance: You write of the various opposition groups uniting. Can you tell us who are the various opposition groups, what are their differences and potential internal conflicts?
Manny: I don’t have a lot of info on the differences among the groups, but know that there were struggles for dominance, which is what kept them from unifying before the last election. Once they realized that Chávez would spare no expense (by paying the poor to vote for him) or bother to follow traditional election rules (ie: changing or shutting down polling places at the last minute or registering an inordinate number, say a couple million, foreigners to vote in Venezuela), they decided that one opposition party was better than five.
There are some strong personalities among the opposition leaders as well as some significant political differences (libertarians, right-wing conservatives, elites, etc.) and they’ll have some growing pains sharing the stage, but because they have a unified goal, they hopefully will stay united and strong.
Chávez doesn’t like them because many are internationally educated and particularly because much of that schooling was in the United States, where they saw the benefits of a free-market economy and true democracy at work. There also are a lot of remnants of past governments, which rubs a lot of people in the country the wrong way.
Lance: Given the crackdown on opposition and independent media outlets, what are the practical steps the opposition can take, and are there steps the U.S. should consider to help the opposition? What mistakes do you think they and we have made so far, and what can be learned from them?
Manny: It is going to get increasingly difficult for the opposition to have a voice because Chávez is shutting down anyone (Radio Caracas Television, for example) who questions or opposes him. And he pulls the puppet strings of his media without fail. Watch some of his “interviews†with them and he rarely allows them to speak. No one challenges his answers or his asinine statements.
What’s worse, he’s got plenty of American media personalities and pseudo-celebrities hoodwinked. Witness the inane Barbara Walters did of him recently. She’s a joke and her interview proved it. It was painfully embarrassing to watch and she never asked why the overall poverty is the same despite his “socialism†or why he wants to shut the free press, etc. But she did get serenaded by Chávez and got lots of appropriate pictures of poor people.
Sorry to rant about this, but I’ve got to make one more observation about her “report” from Venezuela. In it she chastised the Venezuelan wealthy for living on large estates with tall fences and occasionally barbed wire to keep people out. Whatever. My guess is that Walters lives in a building or compound that has security guards and fences. As I said in a blog at The Detroit News: “When you live in glass mansions…”
As for what role the U.S. should take, I’ll leave that to the diplomats. Much has been said of the U.S. influence in Latin America and plenty of people, including many Venezuelans, think the U.S. interferes. There’s some truth to that, particularly in Latin America, but it’s not unique to the U.S.
Chávez has his puppets here, too, and he’s buying off governments (Bolivia, Iran) and others (Joe Kennedy, for one) around the world to further his cause. So we’re not alone in protecting our interests or, heaven forbid, promoting democracy around the world.
Lance: You speak of figures here in the U.S., including Joe Kennedy, who have cooperated with and praised Chavez. Given the poverty in Venezuela, how has subsidizing fuel for politically useful consumers in the US played in Venezuela? Wouldn’t that money (in the eyes of the Venezuelan poor) be better spent there?
Manny: Can you say “lapdogs� That’s what Joe Kennedy, U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, a Democrat from Massachusetts, and U.S. Rep. Jose Serrano, a New York Democrat, are when it comes to home heating oil and Chávez. I’m being kind with that description. All three ignore the outright threats and insults that Chávez has issued to the United States and its president and government. The shallowness of their character is astounding, especially since it’s motivated by contempt for President George W. Bush and our own democratically elected government. That’s their prerogative, I guess, but I find it repulsive.
The Venezuelan socialists, like the American socialists, don’t see it as a loss on their end. They still get paid for the oil and Chávez has them convinced that he’s helping their “brothers†and “sisters†in the United States who are being left behind by Bush.
Lee: Chávez is reported to be arming peasant militias, is devolving greater political autonomy to their committees and is habitually ranting about Tamanaco. Consequently, a lot of people fear that any military coup or bourgeois led uprising that toppled Chávez, would provoke a bloody revolt by his supporters. How likely is that? Particularly given that compared to her neighbors, Venezuela has a relatively pacific history in this respect.
Manny: The one thing about Chávez that I give him credit for is his ability to captivate people and audiences. He’s an amazing marketer because he can distort any message or fact to suit his needs and when fired up, most people don’t stop to think: “hey wait a minute, that doesn’t make sense.”
He masterfully incites his followers by reminding them of revolutionary leaders of the past. He’s absolutely corrupted the name, image and principles of SÃmon Bolivar.
Venezuelans aren’t stupid or ignorant of what Bolivar did. He’s everyone’s hero there and those who think for themselves (the opposition) are beside themselves at the use of Bolivar to pursue communism.
Chávez uses Bolivar or Tamanaco because he can’t use Che or Fidel (anymore than he already does). He’s smart enough to know that he needs to keep some distance between his “socialism†and Cuba’s communism, though he’s moving in that direction anyway. Venezuelan’s deny that he’s committed to communism, but they’re kidding themselves.
Lee: That’s a very interesting point. Chavez has repeatedly denied he wants to reconstruct the Cuban model, but polls also show majorities disbelieve him. What accounts for a people who believe in democracy, yet knowingly support a political program that is inimical to it?
Manny: Keep an eye on the Catholic Church in Venezuela. Rumor was when I was there that he was trying to figure out a way to pressure it, too. The Catholic Church has been opposed to him from the beginning and while I found it hard to believe he’d be able to make any headway in this regard, it’s rumored to be on his agenda.
Venezuelans have wanted political change for so long that they’ve been willing to give Chávez a chance, even during his recent authoritarian rule. They don’t want to believe that he (though he counts as his mentor and closest friend Fidel Castro) really could introduce that kind of oppression on them. And as I’ve said, Chávez is smart about marketing. He’ll never be without the riches of his own plunder, but he’ll never truly share it with his countrymen and when people start to protest, he’ll shut them down and challenge the world community angrily for suggesting he’s violating human rights or whatever.
Lee: How politically preconditioned is Venezuelan Bolivarianism on the personal figure of the dictator. I think there’s a feeling in the United States that if Chávez would just go away, the authoritarian edifice that he’s created in government would collapse back into normalcy. Is this realistic, or is the movement more durable than one personality?
Manny: The respect and admiration for Simón Bolivar is beyond anything that exists in the United States for any one of our Founding Fathers. That’s why Chávez has latched onto it. And his anger and ego propel such force that most won’t question the association openly. So I think there’s a difference between true Bolivarianism and that which Chávez is selling.
Chávez has masterfully figured out how to use it to his advantage. For example, Chávez has decided that everyone must change over their passports to represent the country’s new name (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, changed from the Republic of Venezuela in 1999) before being able to travel internationally. That’s just one way he keeps his thumb on people and their movement.
If Chávez went away, his die-hard followers would mourn and riot and to a large extent, I think Chávez would love to be viewed as a martyr, but I’m not sure history in the short-term or long-term would view him that way.
The oppressive authoritarianism would wilt away, I think, and a truer form of democracy would arise.
Normalcy however is another thing. I’m not sure Venezuela’s government has ever been normal, as we define it. Corruption has always been an issue in Venezuela and that’s partly why Chávez won. People wanted a change and he provided it. But like most dictators he turned his promises upside down and moved in his own direction.
Lee: That brings up another question. One of the things I’ve never seen polled, is whether Venezuelans believe that Chavez can actually survive his now indefinite term as president. Is it possible that we’re looking at a kind of cynical “take the money and run†situation? That is, where people don’t think he’ll survive anyway, so one might as well get what they can anti-democratically, while they can.
Manny: No, I don’t think that Venezuelans are trying to get all they can because they think he’ll disappear. They wanted change and they got it. Now they’re trying to figure out if they can stomach the experiment and for how long.
I think there’s a consensus among oppositionists that they can hold onto most of what they have but they’re wary. Some are already shifting their money to Miami banks or getting credit cards issued through the United States.
Lance: How has talk of dissolving the legislature been received generally? Has it given any of his followers pause or changed the way the opposition views the proper course of action?
Manny: Chávez doesn’t need to disband the legislature because he tells them what to do anyway. He’s got 18 months to rule by decree and intends to take advantage of it.
Lance: How much control over the military does Chávez have, and what steps is he taking to protect himself from the possibility of a military led coup?
Manny: I’m not sure about this. The military presence is strong, but it has always been visible. The National Guard is stationed along highway routes and in the major cities and I think it’s as much to give the impression of control as it is real control.
The U.S. has stopped selling Chávez parts to repair his fleet of airplanes and other goods so he’s turned to Russia for help. He is spending a ton of money on the military, but not an inordinate amount when compared to other nations in the region and elsewhere.
What is more dangerous is his training of Chávistas and the supply of weapons to those groups to use in the event of an “attack” on him or the “revolution.”
Lance: What do you expect the next steps Chávez will take, and how does the empowerment of the local committees and councils fit into those plans?
Manny: Chávez will continue to talk about his “democratic” socialism but move faster toward communism. He’ll continue telling the poor that he’s helping them and plaster up the appropriate propaganda to make them think this is so.
He’ll also move faster to nationalize and rid the country of private industry and progress. He’s already said he’ll take control of the Central Bank and he recently said hospitals and grocery stores will be nationalized if they don’t come in line with government demands on prices and supplies.
He banned alcohol sales during the recently passed Holy Week, which is something the opposition can play to it’s advantage because it affects all class levels. Few will go kindly with a push to prohibition in Venezuela.
The worst thing about all this is that history (past and present) has proven that the path he’s taking is doomed for failure and not even the country’s immense oil wealth can sustain his programs.
Capitalism has become a model for failed communist, socialist and fascist governments for a reason and neither Chávez nor Castro can ultimately convince enough people to move away from that success.
Thanks for the opportunity to talk about Venezuela some more. I’ll chime in occasionally on The Detroit News politics blog about what’s happening in Venezuela so make sure to check it out.
Lee: Thanks for your time and insights Manny. It’s been an education.
–
Update: For more on Venezuela from A Second Hand Conjecture, go here. I especially recommend The fight against inflation to understand the manipulation of government statistics. It is also funny. Also, for a different, but complimentary, view of Venezuela read from Alexandra Storr’s commentary on the oil boom. Go here for part one.
Recent columns and Detroit News politics blogs by Manny Lopez on Venezuela and Chavez:
Blog (April 3): No booze, no beef? Hardly sounds like paradise
Blog (March 17): When you live in glass mansions…
Blog (July 5, 2006): Vaya, Cindy, vaya
Column (April 1): Is Venezuela a paradise and the U.S. a ‘failed democracy? You decide
Column (March 25): Venezuela insider: Eat, drink and don’t talk politics
Column (March 18): Venezuelan opposition unites, but goes silent with shutdown of free press
Column (March14): Venezuela’s socialism doesn’t work
Column (March 4): Venezuelan politics: propaganda or promise? Stay tuned
Technorati Tags: Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, Manny Lopez, socialism, Cuba, communism, oil
58 Responses to “Venezuela Under Socialism: An Interview with Manny Lopez”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
[…] had changed under president Hugo Chavez’s rule. Manny graciously granted our friend Lance at A Secondhand Conjecture and I an opportunity to interview him about his thoughts and […]
Lopez lies through his teeth when he repeatedly claims that poverty has not been reduced under Chavez. Since 2003 (after the opposition’s strike devastated the country), household poverty has gone down from 25% to 9.1%. The income of the poorest 60% of the country has gone up 123%. Malnutrition and infant mortality have been decreased by 20 and 33% respectively, while primary school education has been increased from 43 to more than 91% since 1991. Nevermind that food is cheaper because of Mercal, higher education is now attainable for millions and that millions have learned to read. None of that is important to someone so obviously concerned with the middle and upper class minorities. But it explains why Chavez is elected with greater and greater percentages each time. This was really a shameful piece.
Here is a study that debunks the opposition myth that poverty reduction is not real:
http://www.cepr.net/publications/venezuelan_poverty_rates_2006_05.pdf
Just a quick note on the CEPR study Leftside is citing, which has gotten a lot of traction on the Marxist left. As you will note, their findings are based exclusively on Venezuelan government’s INE statistics. This is similar to when socialists cited the USSR’s own stats to "prove" that the Soviet Union had a larger and more productive economy than the United States throughout the Cold War. The trouble the Soviets had, is they had to keep showing permanent improvement and progress to maintain their propaganda. What will happen in Venezuela is that statistical poverty rates will continue to fall so long as Chavez is in power. Eventually however, when they’re down to the 15% level and the country is impoverished beyond description, it will be impossible to maintain the gov stats have any credibility. In the interim, the poverty increase remains so marginal, it’s hard to know definitively disprove the state. That’s why experience on the ground like Manny’s, where he’s actually seen shelves without bread, infrastructure crumbling and electricity failures in one of the most energy rich countries in the world, is so invaluable.
Lee, Of course. I have seen it over and over again. I remember when Marxism Today in the late ’80’s was peddling nonsense about the improvement of living standards in Ethiopia!
Of course, of course. Every statisitic is a lie in that country because you don’t like his ideas. And when the INE was reporting (slight) poverty increases the first few years and terrible stats in 02-03 it was all part of the master plan… get real.
Did your correspondent even visit the ‘popular’ neighborhoods, where signs of improvement are literally everywhere? That is perhaps what’s most amazing about the income figures I cited - so much of the changes are in services, not income.
Oh and by the way, the most impressive stat I cited was not from the Government at all. It was a private study done by (known opposition affiliated) Datos Co., commissioned by the Venezuelan-American Chamber of Commerce (the incomes of the bottom 60% going up 130% since 2003 (my numbers were slightly off in both directions above). They also show huge industrial growth and investment, which the oppo loves to deny exists.
http://aviewtothesouth.blogspot.com/2006/11/venezuela-unemployment-drops-22-in.html
I didn’t say every statistic was a lie. I said the government’s figures were unreliable. If you want to know why, it’s because the regime by its own
admission has become a one-party state, led by dictate, that is not subject to any genuinely independent overview. As for the increases in poverty observed early in Chavez’s tenure, surely you must be joking. Those were in years when Chavez was still subject to congressional oversight, before he was given dictatorial powers and before every independent media organization which could investigate the veracity of the government’s claims, had been abolished and/or nationalized.
Your level of credulity may be somewhat different from mine, but you’d be hard pressed to convince many people that these are events which inspire confidence in the credibility of a government’s statistics. It’s interesting that you brought that up though, because there is a curious relationship which you inadvertantly uncovered. That is, the more autocratic the regime has become, the rosier the government’s statistics have grown. Amusingly, we might agree that this is not entirely coincidental (albeit for entirely different reasons).As to whether Manny visited the "popular" neighborhoods, read his columns linked above. He’s written extensively on his experiences and it’s moving stuff. Read about the fear that even taxi drivers have whilst driving through these neighborhoods. How they have to display the party’s colors, lest they be accosted, beaten and robbed for suspicion of having incorrect political views in an allegedly democratic society.
As to opposing Chavez’s ideas, they’re not even his…and that ought to be instructive. Over the past one hundred years, identical socialist systems have been constructed in a wide range of countries all over the world, by some of the most brilliant economic theorists and planners who have ever lived. In every instance, they created an economic system that failed miserably to appreciably lift living standards over time, or maintain levels of economic growth comparable to the capitalist democracies. Yet you believe that where all of the geniuses catastrophically failed, some tin-pot former paratrooper, who understands nothing about economics, will somehow magically succeed in making socialism triumph after all? I thought Marxists were supposed to be atheists. This is a level of blind faith in supernatural, that even an animist witch doctor might scoff at it.
I also think it should be noted, and is covered in more detail elsewhere on this site, that the oil boom allows Chavez to increase services. Therefore, as long as what one is looking for are easily identified services, it is easy to point to progress. That has long been the way of socialist states, point out such things while all around the economy is moribund or collapsing. It is at its most ridiculous in the case of Cuba. Everything may be falling apart, but they have "free health care!" the one stop response for everything.
Guys, Venezuela is not a 1 party state, very far from it. There are dozens of opposition parties, and a few parties that support Chavez are not going to fold into MVR either. Venezuela also has a very vibrant opposition "independent" media and a Constitutional system of checks and balances. To state otherwise is simply showing your ignorance. The fact that Chavez’s movement has gradually assumed more control over the institutions is not surprising given his continued dominance at the polls (and the opposition stupidly boycotted the last NA election, claiming fraud that has never been supported by independent analysts).
As for Mr Lopez’s experience in the back of a taxicab tells us nothing, neither does his crime obsession. Crime has gone down overall, with only murders and a few other crimes up, but I’m sure that is another government lie… people get robbed because of the massive inequality that still exists (the rich have gotten even richer), not for political reasons. Does Lopez mention the health care, education or job ceners anywhere? Does he mention the sewers and water neighborhoods are getting after previously illegal homes and tracts get legalized? Does he mention that meat consumption has in fact soared under Chavez, with his Mercal stores?
Chavez is not copying anyone. He’s creating a 21st Century socialism, that has to take greater account of the power of Wall Street bankers and foriegn investors. Cuba’s revolutionary first 8 years look a lot different than Chavez’s. As for socialism’s supposed failures, perhaps you should ask why a majority Russians say that the fall of socialism was the biggest catastrophe in their history, or why Cuba ranks #2 in the world (behind Tajikistan) in terms of their human development index, compared to GDP. Cuba’s people are more developed than any in Latin America or the Carribean - says the UNDP. Their country is not falling apart. To the contrary, they have excellent infrastructure, the place is immaculate and they have enjoyed mroe stability than anywhere else in the region in 50 years. Today socialist countries are the fastest growing in their regions - Cuba, Venezuela and Argentina in L.A., Vietnam, China and Malaysia in Asia - says the World Bank. The experience of the poor in Venezuela speaks for itself, and explains why Chavez has the support of nearly all the popular classes. Sure oil proceeds help, but Chavez is saving most of the extra profit for a rainy day.
Since you provide no links, and I am too busy to figure out where you are getting your data, I’ll just say BS.
"Supposed" failures of socialism? You can almost draw a stragght line in livingstandards based on how socialist or not a country is, or has been. Vietnam China and malaysia are all growing because they are abandoning socialism.
As for the human development index, what a joke. Tajikistan is #1! That should tell you what a joke the index is right there. Let us not mention the millions who have died in the cases you cite anyway. 70 million murdered in China, anywhere from 50 to 100 million in the Soviet Union, Ethiopia accounted for millions more, Yugoslavia under Tito more than a million, the North Vietnamese communists another 1.6 million. I could go on. Castro’s imprisonments and murders in single years have exceeded all of Pinochet’s tenure, which was gruesome enough.
And yes, Chavez government lies and the opposition parties are being repressed. Your assertions are flatly false. Inflation is through the roof. This is silly, and yes your denials of the evils of state socialism, its mass death tolls and economic degradation put you in the same league with the holocaust deniers and fans of fascism(which for all its evils was far less deadly than left wing revolutionary socialism.)
We run an exceedingly civil site here, and whatever your feelings about Chavez, time will tell. To come on here and extol the virtues of the greatest mass murderers in human history however is pretty much beyond the pale, and says a lot about whether anyone should listen to anything you have to say.
Firstly, let me just say you’ve yet to demonstrate any practical knowledge of the situation, which would allow you to affect condescension by claiming your opponents are "ignorant." All that you’ve really done thusfar, is offer highly ideological apologies for a dictatorship, called genuine first hand experience in Venezuela lies and dubiously insisted on the novelty and veracity of INE statistics that we’ve all read before. Under the circumstances the best you can accomplish with such an accusation of "ignorance" is to appear needlessly rude and silly. Indeed, you should apologize for that remark.
All branches of the Venezuelan government are dominated by Chavez’s party and his allies. By your own admission, the opposition is out of power, due to their boycott. To then claim this reality does not constitute a one-party state is manifestly incompatible with your own statements. You ask about the relevancy of government supplied social services. This is the traditional point of departure between Marxists and capitalists. The Marxist says "There is no freedom without bread" and the capitalist says "I’d rather starve than live fat under tyranny." This is an old debate. From the perspective of people who are more concerned about individual rights, freedom of expression and the endurance of a constitution that is not merely rewritten to serve the latest whim of the state, your observation that Chavez has a healthcare plan is as macabre as observing that the dead are well dressed at funerals. Marxists and capitalists will never agree on this point, because to see merit in a dictatorship’s social services, you have to prefer equality to liberty. To dismiss them, you have to prefer liberty to equality. This conflict is as old as the modern age and we’re certainly not going to resolve it here.
As to the novelty of Chavez’s ideology…name one substantive difference between 21st century socialism and 20th century socialism. I’ll give you a hint "It takes greater account of the power of Wall Street bankers and foreign investors" isn’t one of them. I think it’s safe to say that Leonid Brezhnev or Nicolai Ceausescu, wouldn’t have been bereft of opposition, had you asked him if corporate finance was a bad thing in their estimation. Indeed, one might observe they had a tendency to declaim markets rather consistently.
On the last point, your paean to the virtues of a totalitarian system that puts homosexuals and poets in labor camps…there’s not much to say is there? It almost completely absolves you of any remaining seriousness. There’s little need to even address this, it’s so ridiculous. The comparative destitution and oppression in Cuba, is as plain as any two photographs of Havana and Charlotte Amalie. As plain as the fact that the Bahamas, does not produce refugees fleeing their island on cardboard rafts. Or that the citizens of Saint Kitts don’t live in fear of being arrested in the middle of the night.
As to purely economic measures, one might humorously observe, that if Cuba is so much more advanced than the other Caribbean powers, why do they object so ferociously to the US capital investment embargo? Why should they need it, if their infrastructure is so much superior to the heavy American investment the Caymans enjoy for example. Of course this is absurd. The Castro regime objects to the embargo because it is society starved for investment, not because it is autonomously superior to her neighbors.
[The one thing about Chávez that I give him credit for is his ability to captivate people and audiences.]
The cult of personality has brought us Joe Stalin, Benito Mousilini, Adolph Hitler, Attila the Hun and a hoard of despots over the century. Chavez is following a long list of Megalomaniacs who bring misery to their own people and their neighbors.
[…] Courtesy of A Second Hand Conjecture: […]
Lee said, "every independent media organization which could investigate the veracity of the government’s claims, had been abolished and/or nationalized." This is blatantly false and if he does not know that himself, then he is indeed simply ignorant of the real situation in Venezuela. I tried to put it mildly… some might call it a dishonest lie.
A "one party state" implies there is only one permitted party. That is also untrue. To say that because the opposition parties chose (wrongly, as they now admit) to boycott an election does not turn thrice elected Chavez into a dictator.
I’ll take your point about liberty v equality… we obviously differ on that scale. My point about the difference b/w Venezuela’s social project and those that preceeded him was to say that the different context has resulted in many differences in implementation. Venezuela has not sought to nationalize all the means of production for one critical thing.
As for Cuba, the island has plenty of faults. But it has managed to show it’s possible to solve many of the things America finds impossible (homelessness, hunger, segregation, racism, AIDS, drugs, crime, education…). Yes, a small number of homosexuals and pacifists (poets?)who were barred (or objected) from serving in the military (sound familiar) were indeed placed in an equivalent national service work program for a 2 year span in the 60s. The entire leadership repeatedly apologized for that act and today Cuba has one of the most progressive views on homosexuality in the Americas…
To compare Cuba with a few tiny, sparsely populated tourist islands shows the shallow depth of your argument (I’ll still argue Havana is more beautiful, safer and more esteemed in every way… I hear you can’t walk off the main strip in Charlotte Amalie). But why not compare Havana with Santo Domingo, Kingston, San Juan, Bogota or San Salvador? It is a sad state of our modern world where only Cuba does not have to issue warnings to tourists about what areas to avoid.
There are thousands of rafters from Carribean and South American countries that we don’t hear about. There are actually more Dominican and Hatian rafters than Cuban most years (Coast Guard stats), despite the much longer distance and free citizenship and assistance ONLY Cubans receive as part of the devious US plan to induce more dangerous trips for political reasons. Cuba has impressively gone from being totally dependent on the US to near total autonomy, but of course being shut out from the world’s #1 market, just 90 miles from your shore costs billions each year. They have to pay shipping costs from Asia rather than Alabama or Louisiana, and the ship can not stop in a US port for 6 months after that… there are millions of absurd hoops they must jump through.
Lance, of course Tajikistan and Cuba are not #1 and 2 in pure human development - it is development per GDP/capita. But Cuba is indeed #1 or 2 in the region period in the HDI. This is a widely respected index that I recommend you check out if you’re unaware. Their education scores are so much higher than the rest of the region, the UN had to re-test…
Finally, the Cuban Revolution has killed no one unlawfully, tortured no one and disappeared no one (unlike Washington’s friends in the region today and over the last 40 years). Of course there were deaths during the counter-insurgency (funded and organized by the US) and many of Batista’s murderers received justice. But please tell us, who exactly has Castro unjustly and unlawfully killed to be called "one of the greatest mass murderers in history?" Even his fiercest critics can name just 2-3,000 (fighters and Batista officials) who met their fate under the pre-Castro death penalty laws. Then they include rafters to reach a total of 10,000 or so. Meanwhile 10-20,000 Americans die every year as a result of lack of health insurance.
[the Cuban Revolution has killed no one unlawfully, tortured no one and disappeared no one]
You have got to be either kidding or ignorant of the history of Castro’s takeover. In the years after Castro achieved power his enemies were "put up against the wall" and executed. Torture was and still is rampant and people disappear all the time if they question the revolution. You use the weasel word "unlawfully" that covers a lot of ground. Under the laws of Nazi Germany the Jews were lawfully sent to Concentration Camps and murdered. Stalin "Lawfully" sent millions to the Gulag and murdered millions more.
I don’t know where you are getting your information about Latin America, but I would like to score some of what they are smoking. I haven’t seen such love for Castro and Cuba since the radicals of the 1960’s. If Cuba is such a ‘Workers Paradise’ why are they fleeing in anything that floats?
I see, leftside. First we’re ignorant and now we’re liars. Allow me to remind you that the step state on your Marxist robot’s template is to label us "evil class enemies." At which point were you in power (and not merely a representative of a despised and discredited minority of opinion), you could have us summarily shot, or bundled off to one of Cuba’s lovely "mental hosptials" for the sickness of advocacy fo freedom.And what is the accusation of lying in the service of? The ludicrous contention that there is an independent press in Venezuela. My friend, a society in which, criticizing the president in a newspaper is punishable by 30 months in prison, has no independent press. How you have the temerity to suggest otherwise, is frankly offensive. Yet these grotesque desacato laws are only the beginning. The record of closed and confiscated press organizations in Venezuela is virtually endless. Whether it’s Catia TV or now RCTV, just one of these examples illustrates the absurdity of any claim that one can report freely in the Venezuelan media.And now Haiti too has refugees, you say. Now here is something we could agree on. An impoverished, completely broken society, which has been beset by perennial civil war for most of its recent history, is comparable enough to the unpleasantness of life under Cuban dictatorship, to induce refugee flight. I’d say there’s a fair degree of truth there. But I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that that this is not exactly the most compelling defense of your position. Bah, these are some of the most ill-considered and completely ideological arguments I’ve read in months. Look, you’re not making political arguments here. You’re engaging in grim comedy at your own expense.
Mr Fish, the executions of the henchmen of Batista and US funded rebels is a widely researched topic. To say they were just “enemies of Castro” is like calling pro-Saddam war ciminals and insurgents just “enemies of Maliki,” (not terrorists and murderers) who deserve to be spared justice. Maybe you are sincere and beleive the US and Iraqi forces should put away their guns. Maybe you don’t believe in the death penalty. But until you read the accounts of those years, when whole neighborhoods had been terrorized by Batista and can understand the pent up rage of the Cubans, I look suspect on your arguments. Plus to talk about something that happened according to pre-Castro Law, nearly 50 years ago, during a Civil War as evidence of Castro being a “mass murderer” is more than a bit of a stretch. There is ZERO evidence of murder, torture of disappearance. Find me one example. Trust me, we would all know about it if it was happening. Go ahead, check the US “human rights” reports.
I still see no retraction of the offending comment about Venezuela’s press. You were either unaware of the reality (ignorant) or were lying about it to try to slip something by. I don’t know which one, but there are thousands of independent anti-Chavez media outlets. I hope I don’t need to begin naming them off. As for your proof, you cite the only 2 outlets that indeed have been shuttered. Problem is, Catia TV was shuttered by your friends, the pro-coup, opposition Mayor of Caracas. RCTV was shuttered for many reasons, though most serious was its tax liability and abdication of its public airwave reponsibility to keep the country informed when it mattered most - when democracy was at stake during the coup. RCTV conspired with the coupsters and spilt propoganda, ignoring reality until it was too late. It is like ABC openly backing a coup, parroting the coupsters lies, then playing cartoons when millions were massing to restore Bush. ABC executives would likely be tried for high treason.
Criticizing the President of Venezuela gets 30 months? Come on - have you ever read a Venezuelan newspaper? They are online, look one up. You are talking about a law that was passed when the opposition was in the Assembly, that conforms to many others in the region and was mostly about violence in the media and protecting politicians families from personal attacks. Political attacks are 100% protected. No one has been charged under the law… and trust me, it is not for lack of trying by the oppo provacetuers.
You focus on Haiti, but I mentioned 2 other countries many hundreds of miles further from Florida than Cuba. I could have also mentioned that more illegals come from Phillipines, Poland, China and many more places - or the million emancipated Mexicans, who’s numbers have doubled since NAFTA. You also ignore the free citizenship Cubans get (and taxpayer aid). Imagine if we offered that to Central Americans. There would be a stampede. That some 20,000 highly skilled people would leave Cuba to make more money is not surprising when we make it so easy for them. That so many remain is what is truly amazing.
[Mr Fish, the executions of the henchmen of Batista and US funded rebels is a widely researched topic.]
Yes it is and that research shows enemies of Castro were executed after drumhead show trials. There was no pretense of a ‘fair trial’ or ‘justice’, ‘Enemies of the people’ were rounded up, tried and executed and anybody could be an enemy of the people. The cry was "Up against the wall" The American Left appropriated it and changed it to "Up Against the Wall, Moterforkers, or something like that.
Had those who committed crimes been given a real trial with the presumption of innocence, you might claim they were ‘legally’ tried and executed. They were not.
As for U.S. funded rebels, I don’t believe there were any when Castro drove into Havana. The U.S. was supporting Batista.
If you believe in murdering the opposition when you take power, when the Republicans won the Presidency and the Congress they should have the right to execute all the Democrats.
Leftside, if I took the time to confront all of the vast number of incorrect assumptions and or conclusions I disagree with in each of your posts, this thread would be my principal preoccupation. The problems in your arguments are so thick in my view, that I’ve little recourse but to be selective in hacking away at them. You’ll notice I’ve also left some of your boldest allegations pass by without mention (such as that the Cuban revolution was bloodless). That is because they stand on their own merits as patently false.
I focused on Haiti because it is he most dramatic and representative of your examples. And because it is plain, that if one concedes there is connectivity between flight from Haiti and flight from Cuba (both are oppressive and undesirable habitations), exploring in detail the conditions of your other examples become logically unnecessary. Your plea that I devote more time to your supporting examples is like a child arguing that in order to prove that 2+2 does not equal 5, I must also disprove that 6 and 3 are incorrect answers as well, when I’ve already established the answer is 4.
Beyond that what is even your point? Other countries have refugees, therefore Cuba’s are immaterial? It might take a psychologist to explain how you think that’s a cunning dialectic.
You are quick to accuse your adversaries of lies, I suspect its a mirror for your disingenuousness. Your response to James is emblematic. First we have "it never happened" then we have "even if it did happen, it was excusable."
A good example in our own chat would be over your call for a retraction of the obvious truth on the matter of press freedom. You ask for additional examples, but your reaction to the two I’ve already supplied illustrates the lack of necessity of this exploration, as you’re mixing events in a highly duplicitous way, whilst outrageously accusing me of lying! It’s true that RCTV has had tax problems in the past, but it’s not being shut because of unpaid taxes, Chavez has explicitly accused them of plotting to overthrow the government (Chavezspeak for speaking your criticizing his policies) and explained that he wanted to revoke their broadcast license on these grounds.
You disagree with your own hero if you disagree with me on that matter. In the case of Catia, you’re mixing events here again. As it’s similarly true Pena shut down the channel years ago, I’m clearly talking about the takeover of its community channel by the Chavez state under the teleSUR agreement, where they are now piping state-approved propaganda out on a daily basis. What these two examples illustrate, is that you are more interested in parroting whatever the government’s propaganda line is, than exploring the state of real conditions of the press in Venezuela. That you denied, dismissed and then ultimately apologized for systematic state murder and repression in Cuba, is sufficient grounds for any reasonable person to conclude that you would likely deny and excuse the same thing in Venezuela, which you clearly believe has been similarly "oppressed" prior to the Bolivarian advent. Thus the pertinent question is not whether you believe any of these things are happening in Venezuela right now, but what exactly you would find objectionable about them if they were. You’d deny, then when exposed, excuse. The Marxist template for press releases the world over.
It does if he then makes it impossible for the opposition to come back. For example, by dissolving the legislature.
Now that entire paragraph is a lie. I won’t say it is your lie, you may be parroting someone else’s. Nor are the claims about Cuba a "right wing" lie. Progressives were producing movies at least in the early ’80’s about the oppression of homosexuals, and no it is not familiar at all. There is no equivalent in the US.
Those same progressives were also talking about the pervasive and vicious racism in Cuba as well. It was not just in the sixties and the prison terms were far longer than 2 years, many for decades and the oppression of homosexuals and darker skinned Cubans has only in the last ten years improved to any great extent.
Journalists are routinely jailed, beaten and tortured. Drugs, alcoholism and crime are a problem in Cuba as well.
One need not accept we capitalists, how about Amnesty International. They have distorted there opinions on Cuba versus other states, but their own data, and grudging admissions have given the game away. I say that as a former member who was quite upset when I read their reports in the eighties and nineties which spent far more time on the abuses of regimes (but at least they didn’t pretend the abuses in Cuba didn’t exist) they found less progressive, even though the individual country reports clearly showed Cuba was the S. American country with the most political prisoners and the worst human rights record outside of Guatamala and El Salvador.
What a joke. Cuba doesn’t allow its tourists to move freely, so no they don’t have to tell them where to avoid. The Cuban people are segregated as much as possible from tourists.
I am very aware of the index, and it is not widely respected.
100% a lie. Thousands of people have suffered those fates. Many for merely being homosexual or black.
Lies again. Check out Amnesty International.
I just checked, no one said he was. He is worse than Pinochet, which is pretty bad by me. We objected to you defending the greatest mass murderers in history. I never said Castro is one. It wouold be pretty tough, Cuba doesn’t have that many people. That isn’t helped that such a small nation saw 1.2 million of its citixens flee the Island between 1959 and 1993 alone. Over 10% of its population. Mexico hasn’t come close to losing such a high percentage of its population in recent decades (not that I was fond of the PRI anyway.)
The point isn’t that we make it easy for them, it is that Cuba makes it so hard for them. They have to use rafts and risk death because they cannot do it of their own free will. Actually the exodus from Cuba given that is amazing in comparison to Mexico which has far more people and allows them to leave.
What do I expect from someone who has defended the greatest mass murderers in history, of course a piker like Castro would seem so benign.
Oh, Brother You Are Big…
The Venezuelan Government inaugurates its latest “crime fighting” endeavor: Venezuela launches Zeppelin to tackle rampant crime By Christian Oliver Thu Apr 19, 6:44 PM ET CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela launched a Zeppelin on Thursday to patrol Caracas…
Mr. Fish, I am against the death penalty so I see no great reason to continue defending the post-Revolution executions, but perhaps a few more facts need to be put on the record. First off, the matter was completely open and transparent. 400 journalists were invited to observe the evidence against the accused and trials themselves. Only those convicted (by independent courts) of murder could be executed. Castro had not changed a thing in the justice system - the same lawyers, judges and laws were in place. These were war criminals - Batista’s soldiers and secret security forces - who had bombed cities, kidnapped and tortured civillians, etc. - not politicians. A public opinion poll showed that 93 percent of all Cubans favored the executions. To deny the citizens justice against those who terrorized them with impunity would have been a massive betrayal by the Revolution.
Lee, you do a good job at trying to confuse your readers, but little in way of substance for me to respond to. The Cuban rafters were brought up repeatedly as ipso-facto proof of the evils of Cuban socialism. My point was that this is nonsense if you know the facts surrounding migration numbers in the region and the privledges only Cubans are entilted to. We send back Hatians to their miserable country to starve, but Cubans are given the red carpet for political reasons - and have to make only a 90 mile trip.
RCTV was part of the plot to overthrow the government in 2002. You offer nothing to rebuke that, or defend their actions during that critical moment. Their actions were a unconsionable offense to the Venezuelan people who own their airwaves. Read any account of how they acted and then defend it, please. Tell me what would happen in this country if ABC acted that way. Catia TV was not taken over by the Chavez government, it was put back on the air. The station was always a generally pro-Chavez, as it is a true grass roots station. The content and editors are the same as before.
Lance, I’ll go point by point. First off, Chavez did not "dissolve the legislature." The legislature themselves voted to give the executive 13 explicit sectors to fast track reforms, such as many previous legislatures have done. They can take back the powers in those sectors whenever they want -and overrule any executive orders.
In Cuba, gays (or dark skinned folks… wha??) were never arrested. They performed requried national service in lieu of military service. Just like Israel does with its pacifists. Open gays should never have been isolated, but I doubt you all feel the same way about our own military, which segregates and excludes in 2007?? Or am I wrong?
Journalists are not beated and tortured. Agents of the US Government, who receive US taxpayer funded payment to write one-sided missives on US Government funded websites and propoganda stations are indeed arrested under the law (a law only put in place after the US approved such funding). But there have been no serious allegations of beatings or torture. Amnesty calls these folks "prisoners of conscience" but in the US we call it working with our enemies (ask Susan Lindauer or Carlos Alvarez who are in jail for writing letters and reports for Iraq and Cuba). Remember the US has a regime change policy and 40 years of terrorism against Cuba.
Tourists in Cuba are 100% free to move where they want. Your ignorance of that is very telling of where you get your information. Tourists in Havana or any other city mingle with citizens much more than in any other country’s capital (of course there are tourist traps like Veradero).
Who has a problem with the Human Development Index? Just because the US is not number one (socialist countries like Sweeden and Norway are) does not diminish it’s comprehensive measure of human wellbeing, amongst dozens of critical indices.
Sir, it is YOU that has to prove torture, disappearances or state murder or ANYONE, let alone gays or blacks (give us a break). Amnesty reports don’t mention a thing about state violence in Cuba. Not a word… unlike Mexico, Colombia, El Salvador, Brazil, etc.
And then to take the cake, Lance, you deny that you called Castro one of the greatest mass murderers in history. Do I really need to point everyone to your comment in #9? I never defended Stalin or anyone else you are trying to associate me with (though your figures of 50-100 million murdered by the State in the USSR is beyond the pale).
Finally, Cubans are indeed allowed to immigrate legally - Clinton allowed it. 20,000 visas are issued each year. Only doctors who have not completed enough national service to repay their education are compelled to stay. This is another big lie that surrounds Cuba.
Manny Lopez Reports on Venezuela…
Detroit News editorial columnist Manny Lopez knows Venezuela well, and recently returned to see what leftist goon Hugo Chavez has been doing to the country. An interview with him at A Second Hand Conjecture is highly educational. Below are a……
The same excuse I have heard every time revolutionary socialists take power. The legislature chose to turn over power to the emerging dictator.
Yes they were, and it wasn’t just over military service. Of course, every time dictators do these things their defenders always say there was a reason. There are always reasons. Yes, racism has been a serious problem, not just gays, journalists and other groups.
Uh, there is a big difference between our military refusing to allow open gays to serve and jailing them. But you are wrong as well about how I feel. I am opposed to our military’s policy. Unlike you I care about Human Rights.
That takes the cake. The dictator says they are agents, so they are agents. As I said, there are always reasons. However, who cares about funding from the US? The money has to come from somewhere since Castro only funds journalists who spew his propaganda. What the hell difference does it matter where the funding comes from? Yeah, we just can’t trust right wing rags like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. They have been white washing Cuba for years and even they have to admit what I am claiming is true. I guess all those people Pinochet killed were okay too. I mean they were working with foreign groups and received funding from groups outside of Chile. They were agents under your definition. Supporters of the former regime, so it was alright. Heck, if they had used Castro’s definitions of enemies (that is even taking all the allegations at face value, when many were made up) Pinochet could have killed and imprisoned many many more. Of course, all the people claiming they were tortured I am sure they were liars too, just like people such as you want to call Armando Valladares a liar. It is so easy. Pinochet was a peach who was just making the hard choices necessary to to get rid of agents and enemies of the people. All the charges they used to justify the executions and imprisonments, they were all true. I can just parrot them mindlessly and it makes them true. Unfortunately I saw film of the stuff I am talking about when it comes to gays and those with too much African ancestry. The films were not smuggled out by rightwingers, but progressives who were shocked to find their wonderful Cuba had become a vast oppressive prison.
Yes you do, because you obviously have a problem with reading comprehension. I never say Cuba, I say you defended some of the greatest mass murderers in history. Notice the plural? I never said Cuba was among them.
See, holocaust denier. You are just as bad as them. You also show how we can’t trust anything you say. I didn’t say you defended Stalin, I said you defended some of the greatest mass murderers in history. That was the Soviet Union, Vietnam, China and socialism in general. Of course, since you did defend the Soviet Union and just did it again, that would include Stalin, but maybe you meant only the other guys. Guess what? Lenin and the rest killed millions as well. Deny it, if you want, but if you want to be the left wing version of David Duke, I at this point would prefer you did it somewhere else. I felt the same with the Stormfront guys. At some point people who lie about and justify something as ghastly as Soviet Communism, Chinese Communism or Nazi Germany, Franco and Mussolini are not worth dealing with. I hope you are happy with the company you keep.
You sound just like the people I debated about Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Lenin fans, Mao fans, etc. in decades past. Now of course I get to hear from a new generation who say we would never defend these guys now that history has proven it was those right wingers who were right about the murdering (though you even manage to sink that low) and then use the same arguments, swallow the same lies about the next guy. “This guy is different, the stories are all lies. It is just the rich who resent the poor getting their due” and other such nonsense. That you somehow haven’t accepted what grudgingly most of the left has finally come to accept about Castro is pathetic. That you can soft pedal the Soviet Union is disgusting.
Blah blah blah, you continue to ignore my facts and offer nothing in the way of argument on any of the dozen or more substantive points I’ve raised. You haven’t negated a thing I’ve said. You just keep trying to pile on more things to distract from the matters at hand. I could have started dissecting the history of US imperialism and the millions of murders we are responsible for, but I tried to stay focussed and refute your misstatements one by one. The comments stand for themselves.
but now I am a "holocaust denier" because I questioned your statement of 50-100 million murdered by the Soviet Union?? Maybe instead of name calling, you could have tried to explain the number? But you don’t even try because you know its crap. Perhaps you know that even the esteemed (yeah right) Black Book of Communism produces a number only half that (and half of that figure is "excess deaths" and famine that affected capitalist countries as well). Using that math the USA is responsible for more than 700,000 Iraqis thus far - today and now - OUR GOVERNMENT - our responsibility!!! Do you condemn those deaths, or is there a "reason" for them? What are we to make of the millions who die every year because their governments don’t provide access to decent water, sewage, food and health care? What about the millions who died in the 19th Century wars of conquest and colonialism, or the 20th Century wars of liberation? What about WWI and II? What about the million dead under Suharto, or Turkey, or Franco, or in the "dirty wars" or Central America… it is an absurd game. But for pointing out you were WAY off in one of the few "facts" you’ve offered I am a "holocaust denier." Nice
Leftside, in all candor, after you plainly and completely distorted my examples on press restrictions to serve your own arguments purposes, substituted intent and assigned invented motives to me, now accusing me of trying to intentionally "confuse" my readers is really quite ridiculous.
And you’re still doing it….As you’re doubtlessly well aware, Cubans only receive political asylum when they reach the beach of Florida. If they are intercepted at sea –as many are– they are sent back to Cuba. This is an extraordinarily cruel practice given the nature of the regime. As to whether Haitians are given comparable asylum rights, many are, the rules are merely different. Indeed, if they don’t make it to land, just as with the Cubans, they are repatriated to Haiti.
It’s called the Wet feet, dry feet policy and describing at as a "red carpet" treatment for refugees is about as "confusing" (shall we say), as one can be. Particularly given that Cubans have been repelled from the shore with water cannons, repatriated because they landed on a bridge and not soil and other obscene reasons in the past. "Red carpet" my foot.
You asked for figures. Consider that In 2004 there were 420,000 Haitian born people living int he United States. They didn’t teleport here. In the same year, there were 913,000 native born Cubans here. These are comparable figures given the timing and conditions of the exoduses in their respective countries (It’s easier to sail away from Haiti, but Cubans have a more uninterupted tradition of exodus).
But before this goes any further there is something that must be said. Stop assigning self-serving, conspiratorial motives to everyone in this thread. Why is it so difficult for you to say "You know, I just have a different view on this matter and here’s why…" This is just impossible for you. From the start, your opponents have been depicted by you as liars, manipulators, deceivers…virtually nothing said to you has been anything but a devious plot. It’s tiresome to read.
Holy cow, I got my post to paragraph.
Leftside, If you really believe in what you write, I have some land in Florida, a Bridge to Brooklyn and a gold brick for sale. P.T. Barnum said "A sucker is born every minute" Well you came along just in time. Contact W.C. Hatch at the Glass Bottom Boat and Reality Company. See W.T. Hatch and be sure to ask for the Al Gore special.
If I had justified or minimized any of that as you did the so-called failures of socialism you might have a point, but I didn’t. To act as if the famines in the Soviet Union or China (to pick only two examples) were not crimes is to be a denier, just like the holocaust deniers. No difference, and they argue in the same manner and with the same type of justifications. If I cited sources for my figures, as your excuses just showed, you would just use the excuses you just gave for crimes extensively documented by historians. So no. Go ahead and stalk away feeling vindicated. I have had the same kind of duplicitous explanations from the neo-nazis, stormfront and Duke acolytes. If you really want to learn about instead of justify read Korba the Dread, Lev Kopelev’s the Education of a true believer, Robert Conquests Harvest of Sorrow and so on. If you want to minimize and justify so that you can somehow equate the free world with the Socialist one, don’t bother. The Stormfront guys won’t either.
By the way, for those who don’t know what leftside was referring to by bringing up Carlos Alvarez, he is a confessed spy for the Cuban government. In a typical tendentious use of language it could be said he is in jail for writing letters. Just as the Rosenbergs were just discussing physics.
Susan Lindauer is a bit of a different fish, but it is in no way comparable to the situation of journalists in Cuba.
Look her up, there are things about the case to be concerned about. However, at this site, we have criticized the government for improper prosecution on a regular basis. I don’t know what the truth is in her case, and haven’t followed it closely enough to say, but if her case is one of government misconduct it can in no way be compared with almost a half century of vicious repression against journalists and dissidents. If one is a dissident in this country there are many ways of supporting oneself and getting your message out. In Cuba, since the economy is completely controlled by the state, anything one does that is not approved of by the government involves breaking the law. To receive outside help in order to do what the government will not fund (and since everything is ultimately the states property and anything done with the states resources they control, then any dissidence is illegal) is absolutely essential. Thus, Castro and his defenders can claim any dissident is an outside agent. Quite a catch 22. That is what hides behind leftsides equating of Alvarez and Lindauer with the thousands jailed under Castro.
Of course we can see the proof that this is in fact the way Cuba operates by something as simple as looking at the Cuban Constitution:
Article 53:
Read that closely. To use any means to exercise the right of speech in ways the regime disapproves of is illegal. A form of theft from the people.
Article 62:
Read that closely. What it says is it is illegal to speak out against the regime. Most of the world calls such doublespeak, a freedom which is available as long as you use it only for purposes the state deems constructive, Orwellian. Also, the way it is written the decision is completely arbitrary. What is deemed worthy of legal repression can change as needed. There are no limits in the "Constitutional" provisions above.
And of course, this is exactly what Chavez wants in Venezuela.
[…] our little debate in the comments section of our interview with Manny Lopez about the direction Hugo Chavez is heading with his little dictatorship, here is one more tidbit to […]
[…] enormously heartening to see that leftblogger Michael J.W. Stickings, has picked up our ASHC/PP interview with Manny Lopez on Hugo Chavez. Just as opposition to the dictator has united the […]
[…] and the Bush administration is actually just as bad: [W]hat struck me in reading Manny’s interview is that you could easily exchange the word Bush for Chavez in the criticisms of of Hugo and it […]
[…] theft of natural resources thing, and the dismantling rule of law thing down, too. From a radio interview with a Detroit Times journalist who recently visited Venezuela: I think one of the most noticeable […]
Sorry it’s taken me so long to jump into this debate, but I see it’s covered from all angles. First, thanks to A Second Hand Conjecture and Postpolitical for getting this discussion going. It’s taken on a life of its own here and on blogs from around the world.
One thing I’ve noticed from those who disagree with my interpretation of the situation on the ground in Venezuela is that few have ever been there or will go there, but they love Hugo Chavez and they defend him as if they were on the payroll and benefitting from his communism, um, I mean, socialism.
That’s mostly because they hate George W. Bush. Their passion for Chavez is as much because he calls Bush bad names as it is because they actually think socialism will solve all the world’s ills.
I’ve asked many of those who have challenged me when they plan to move to Venezuela (or even visit, for that matter) since they think it’s such a paradise. I get meely-mouthed answers and excuses as to why they can’t, or won’t.
To be sure, one doesn’t have to live or visit Venezuela to chime in on what’s happening, but I know if I was as passionate in defense of someone like Chavez or his “socialism” I’d certainly make it my priority to become part of the “revolution.”
Yeah, but you and your family are part of the ruling class. Libby told readers that over at The Reaction. So why should we believe someone who is just upset that those below them on the socio-economic ladder got their due?
Manny, I and many like me concerned with the fate of Latin America over the last 20 years, knew of Chavez well before he started going at Bush. If you recall, Chavez said very little about Bush until the US Administration decided to support a coup aimed at toppling Venezuelan democracy. That might cause anyone to get more than a little peeved.
As for your reply that I should visit Venezuela, maybe you will be pleased to know that I plan to do so - in December. But I would expect a better response from a journalist, than the equivalent of, “if it’s so great, why don’t you live there.” Not everyone has the funds or work time off to go travel whenever they please, but I guess that is getting “mealy-mouthed.” On the same token, maybe you can tell us about your experiences in the poor neighborhoods if you indeed stepped out of your cab at all.
Shoot Manny. I thought I would have to take the “leftside” point of view just to get you to elaborate. Impatient me, its self titled personification just showed up.
Of course while I am interested, leftside is not. He’ll find a way to discredit whatever you say. This is someone who can look at the provisions in the constitution of Cuba I listed above and still claim with a straight face that there is freedom of speech, that journalists are not prosecuted merely for opposing the Castro dictatorship, even though their constitution says that is exactly what should happen to them.
Someone who can argue things couldn’t be true because they would have been a betrayal of the revolution. A revolution that has somehow or another left the same man in power as a dictator for life. Once you have betrayed the revolution by installing yourself as a dictator for life one would think such wide eyed defenses would appear naive. Not for the “leftside.”
Luckily much of the left has learned this lesson. I think they are ashamed the guy uses the term to describe himself.
As I mentioned at The Reaction, neither I nor my family are part of the “ruling class” or ever “lost power” as a result of political upheaval in Venezuela. The opposition of despots comes from all classes.
I love this item too: “…if you indeed stepped out of your cab at all.” Leftside, when you visit Venezuela, you’ll quickly realize that it would be difficult to spend 10 days in a cab in the country and quite a waste of time and money, too.
Don’t forget your red hat and red t-shirts to show your commitment to the revolution. They come in handy when you’re drinking beers on the sidewalk and your allegiances are questioned by passers-by.
And finally (at least for now), know that I’ve had many discussions with people who blindly support Chavez and asking them when they last visited or why they don’t visit or live there is obviously one of many I ask. Didn’t think I needed to explain that, but my bad.
Funny, I just figured Leftside was one of the Chavista net-patrollers who tend to pepper critical blog posts with their pro-Chavez propaganda. I hadn’t even considered the possibility that he was an ideologically blinded useful idiot who had never even been to Venezuela. I guess I shouldn’t chalk up to malicious intent what can best be explained by stupidity …
Jeez. Somebody needs to go to high school debate class.
You explicitly impugned the veracity of Manny’s first-hand experiences on the ground in Venezuela. In turn, he responded in such a way as to reveal that you’ve never even been there. I hate to break it to you kid, but that was a deft response. A fairly devastating one too, given your previous self-selected claims to authority over him.
Claims which he rather effortless exposed to be totally divorced from practical experience.
And yet despite this, the unearned pretensions to authority persist. Sad. Sell your mother on that. In the real world you need to earn a reputation for authority on a subject, before you can trade on it.
Leftside
Communism is the ultimate result of Marx’s Dialectal Materialism. Communist dogma states there are three categories of supporters. Communists, Fellow Travelers and Useful Idiots. You posts show you support Communist Cuba. The only real Communists are teaching in American Universities, are you a Political Science Professor? Your rap sounds like one. For some reason PoliSci departments like to ignore inconvenient facts. I’d bet you were a Political Science major. That would put in the ‘Useful Idiot’ category.
Oh ok Lee and MW, by your grade school level debate class logic any tourist to Venezuela has more authority to speak about the country than myself, who tries to read everything I can about the place. That is a convenient way to spirit away all the troublesome facts and numbers I threw out earlier (that Lopez ignored). He went there and felt and saw that poverty has gone up, when statistics from opposition sources show an absolutely astounding decrease in extreme poverty. That is the original point I challenged Lopez on. But I see your point. Since I did not go to Venezuela I have no right to challenge an esteemed journalist on a highly damaging factual error. Lopez can say what he wants, true or not, because he has credibility (cough cough) while dissenters must stay on the sidelines.
Fish, I’ll take your pegging me as a pol sci professor as a compliment. But you are way off.
Lopez, I love your “blindly support” quip about the growing majority of people who back Chavez. So anyone who supports Chavez is an idiot who can not think for themselves? And you wonder why people hold the opposition in contempt. I’ll take your repeated dodge on the question of whether you visited any poor neighborhoods as a no. But you are still able to call them blind supporters and dismiss their thinking. Doesn’t that go against your principles? Would you like to offer an explanation to your readers about your very serious poverty mis-statement??
Not necessarily. I’ll remind you that it’s not “any tourist” who attacked the credibility of Manny’s experiences and called him a liar. This was done by you and you alone.
If you suspected he was mistaken, you could have said any number of things which would not have resulted in your not getting slapped around like that. And also, having a much more productive conversation in this thread. For instance, instead of launching into an ad hominem attack and calling everyone who disagreed with you a liar, you could have merely pointed out that Manny’s experiences conflict with some that you’ve read about and then explored from there. You didn’t do that though. Instead you mocked his remarks, ridiculed his experiences and questioned his character.
The problem for you, is that the degree of antagonism and the confidence you exhibited in expressing these slanders, is quite impossible to square with your own experiences, which are by your own admission totally nonexistent.
Which opposition sources are you talking about here. As I recall, the last occasion this matter was explored in any detail you were resting your case on the disputed INE statistics. Are you referencing a different source here? If so, which one?
There you go again. You can’t stop claiming authority over people for which you’ve yet to prove a case for. Let me reiterate: If you’re in a debate with people who do not share your elevated opinion of quality and wisdom of your analysis, it’s incumbent upon you, not them, to provide a case for your superior perspective. What you want to do, is shortcut to the end of that line and proclaim yourself a better informed observer. Yet while your arguments in this thread are infused with this conceit, you’ve that.
Apologies. Hit the submit button a little too swiftly.
The last line of the above should read: “Yet while your arguments in this thread are infused with this conceit, you’ve left the grounds for it unestablished.”
No, the point is you don’t get to make snide comments about not getting out of a car. See, you made grade school sneer and it was thrown back at you deftly. You also don’t get to talk breathlessly about how astonishing the improvement is because of all the services. Two problems, you haven’t been there, and when you go you have nothing to compare it to, Manny does. You are too slow to realize what he is throwing back at you so you assume it is your “facts” he is taking issue with by pointing that out. Except the facts are BS as well.
Oh, and what about the Cuban Constitution and all that. I notice you still can’t bring yourself to admit here that the Constitution requires dissent to be funded by outside sources and thus any actual dissent makes one an agent. Nor do you admit that any dissent under that constitution is punishable under the law regardless of funding. They all seem to be accused of agents however, and you swallow it. It is also a lie that journalists and writers who merely receive funding from abroad are arrested as agents here (which you repeat on your own blog.) I mean we jailed journalists for Pravda merely for their reporting all the time. Writers for Cuba’s papers are all rotting in jail. Agent in your world seems to mean saying inconvenient things. I think it means spying.
As for your extensive reading, I doubt you can exceed Manny’s, but I’ll put my years of reading on Cuba and other socialist states any day. That includes a huge selection of books and magazines written by fans of the bastards. That you can see what is happening and not see how what you are saying is exactly the type of thing said by the defenders of these guys in the past, even as the path to mass murder was being trod is pathetic. That you are not frightened by his desire to collectivize agriculture, despite the failure and death that has resulted every time is sad and shows you have not read “the other side” unlike myself. I suggest you do so. I gave you some starting points on the famines in Russia. When you finish those I’ll give you some suggestions for China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Poland, the French socialists before WWII, and finally Cuba. Many written by socialists who have decided that socialism need not mean the types of things Chavez is lurching towards.
Should we discuss Das Kapital? Have you already read all three? What about the Grundrisse? Theories of Surplus Value? Lenin’s Imperialism and What is to be Done? Castro is a big fan of that particular mass murderer, and a big fan of the books. try coming at me armed already with my criticisms and address them, that might get me to give you a little respect. I might actually debate in detail the facts and analysis, but you haven’t read them, you wouldn’t be able to predict my responses to the books and so really you are out of your depth. From what you have written so far I am quite confident I have read more socialist literature than you. As for the other side, you seem clueless.
I don’t spend a lot of time debating your “facts” because you will just make the same intellectual errors in deciding upon and analyzing those facts that I have dealt with for decades. It never makes any difference what I say, because you’ll just say things like they were agents, they were the wealthy, the oppressors, the kulaks, or famine happens everywhere (which is such a laugher I just ignored. It doesn’t, it only happens in this century in socialist or state run economies) You will deny that what you are saying has any roots in those old debates, because you refuse to learn the lessons that history has taught. So you spout, with all the assurance that past defenders have, your facts. Years later, when the dead are stacked high, the prisons full, you will have new excuses or you will abandon your beliefs and rail against those you see doing it again.
It is really, really sad.
Lee, I have btried to be civil through and through. For the most part, so have you all. But I have also been personally attacked and insulted. If I let my emotions show through, it is because it is very frustrating to see a journalist peddle something so untrue that is important to the debate on Venezuela (poverty). It was also maddening to see you all continue to try to say that all independent media has been squashed, when the facts are so easily checked.
The “opposition” supplied statistic on poverty in question came from #5 above:
Oh and by the way, the most impressive stat I cited was not from the Government at all. It was a private study done by (known opposition affiliated) Datos Co., commissioned by the Venezuelan-American Chamber of Commerce (that showed the incomes of the bottom 60% going up 130% since 2003 (my numbers were slightly off in both directions). They also show huge industrial growth and investment, which the oppo loves to deny exists.
http://aviewtothesouth.blogspot.com/2006/11/venezuela-unemployment-drops-22-in.html
Lance, I’ll get to your post when I get home. But I challenge you to explain to me the difference between the “excess deaths” caused by Stalin’s misguided policies and those 2 million premature deaths caused by Yeltsin’s capitalist “shock therapy?” Demographers say that by 2020 (or something similar) there may be a total of 50 million lost persons (combo of early deaths, migration and lack of babies) as a result of the changes of the 1990s.
Please. May I remind you of your introductory sentence: “Lopez lies through his teeth.”
To claim now, that you entered this discussion in a spirit of comity, when you began it with such an outrageous slander, is simply preposterous. Embarrassingly so, really.
Ah, yes the Datos study. I’m sorry, I’d forgotten you had indeed brought that up. My apologies.
It only needs to be pointed out that the inflation figure they were using was the government’s official stat. Which has been in the 4% range or thereabouts for the last couple of years. Since the actual inflation rate is over 20%, those gains are nonexistent in reality. This is a perfect illustration of why you cannot predicate economic arguments on INE data.
That is why I am having trouble treating you with respect, that is just the kind of reasoning that the holocaust deniers use. You compare a deliberate campaign of starvation and massacre with a poor economy, an economy devastated by 70 years of communist rule.
You throw in “excess death’s” from alcohol abuse. I guess we can add Yeltsin to that figure himself. I am sure his “excess death” was because of his poverty. Shock therapy, as poorly designed and imprudent as it was, did not cause all those deaths. It was a confluence of factors based on the disaster that communism was. Notice the countries of Eastern Europe run in a straight line as to who is doing best based on the extent that they embraced Free markets. The freest have done the best. The most reactionary have done the worst. That includes Russia which had a shock therapy which was run by communists who refused to allow the private ownership of land. Communism was collapsing, when a house falls down it falls hard. It takes a while to build up.
Even if your scenario were true however, counting alcoholism, missing babies and migration is pretty darn tendentious. Oh, and I am no fan of Yeltsin as a political figure.
What is clear is you are either dishonest or know nothing of the famines or Soviet History. They were purposeful attempts at terror. Most of the left knows that now, the historians have the archives and all the eyewitness accounts can be checked and the lies about the people who were telling those stories are no longer credible. To call Stalin’s policies misguided (or Lenin’s for that matter) is to deny the purposeful use of terror, terror that Stalin’s predecessor explicitly advocated for in What is to be Done as well as in numerous other places. It also ignores the people who never got the chance to die of starvation, those gunned down, sent by the hundreds of thousands on journeys to destinations many would never reach in the gulags. Those that did died in droves, not to mention the horror of the camps themselves.
Finally, if I used the kind of accounting you are using to condemn the sad Boris Yeltsin, the figures would grow by a huge amount for Soviet Communism.
As I said, read an honest man of the left such as Martin Amis’ Koba the Dread. It has the gist. If you want to get serious start with the list above. I have dozens of books on the subject, including by apologists. They were ridiculous when they were published, they are seen as cruel jokes now.
Of course, many were written after visiting. Like you, they went to the Soviet Union and looked for what they wanted to see. Most darkly humorous were the leftist intellectuals who were actually taken to gulags and told they were cooperatives. The inmates played along, only to immortalize the rubes for their grim ridiculousness in the memoirs of the imprisoned.
Jan Myrdal, Gunnar Myrdal’s son, wrote Report From a Village in China on his time in Yenan. He was writing during a time of massive suffering. His glowing description is openly mocked now. Of course he hasn’t learned, he yearns for Mao to this day. Mao of course had nothing but contempt for peasants, especially Yenan (oh, and reading The Yenan Way is painful knowing what we know now, and those not blinded by communist ideology should have known then) as illustrated by this pathetic scene:
You are showing yourself to be an heir to an honorable tradition.
Lee, I did forget about that opening salvo. But it is only because I could not believe any major US newspaper writer could be so simply misinformed on such a crucial and basic issue. So much evidence is out there now… it is very maddening for someone who just wants Chavez to get a fair shake.
The Ven. official government inflation rate IS 20.4 percent (Feb), so what proof do you have the INE is lying (I ask again)? Last year and the year before that inflation was much lower. It is coming down now - the bond sale was very successful (the world’s first two-country, “democratic” bond).
Lance, unfortunately you don’t shed any light on your source for 50-100 million Soviet deaths. No bodies were tallied during the early Soviet days, so all sources must use census numbers and other demographic formulas. The Black Book of Communism (which gave half your figure/ Amis less than that) was indeed based largely on very similar excess death calcs from famine, disease and overall population decline - mostly related to a badly executed collectivization plan (aided by the worldwide 1930s depression). I have read no serious account of a purposeful genocide of Russian farmers. I wil give you “a purposeful use of terror” - I know some areas that resisted collectivizing were denied ration books, and Stalin was guilty of many other crimes against humanity against dissidents, but to claim purposeful mass murder of innocent farmers as the more accurate description stretches it I think. From what I remember, Amis’ book did not claim make that claim…. How did you turn this into a Stalin debate?. You make exagerrated claims, I try to clarify and correct them, so i then get called a Stalin apologist… nice. I must enjoy debate too much.
I’d also like to see this Eastern Europe “straight line” graph. My bet is that is more closely follows the economic position countries were in at the beginning of 1989. These countries also have the benefit of a free EU labor market, which helps them balance the power of capital (maybe here we’ll sorta agree on something)? My point was that the missing 50 million Russians (not to mention the satellite states) died of roughly the same things - poverty, famine and disease. Whether alcohol, TB or some other symptom of diminished living conditions actually finished them off is actually a rather small dispute, no. That does not diminish the gulag issue, which is of a different magnitude because of its clearly evil intent.
As for visiting places and “seeing what you want to see” am I out of bounds in meekly suggesting that this may have some bearing on the trajectory of Mr Lopez’s “reporting?”
Not sure what your point about Mao was. I am no expert, but can tell you Castro and Chavez are true friends of the peasant - and indeed encourage visitors to go to the poorest areas. In fact the Malecon and Centro Havana in Havana (prime property in any capitalist notion) is one of the most dilapidated areas in the country because it was purposefully ignored by the State in favor of other more disadvantaged areas. The health and vibrancy of small town Cuba is a little remarked truism…
Leftside,
What’s a few tens of millions of deaths between friends, lets say Stalin murdered 30 to 60 million people. We know at least 30-million starved during collectivization. (Don’t give me that bad planning stuff. Stalin’s own hand written dairies show the famine was state sponsored.) If 30 to 60-million are insufficient to be a mass murderer. How many do you think is a tipping point?
So were the Lords who looked over their peasants, in days of old, when Knights were bold. Chavez and Castro look upon the peasants like Charlemagne looked upon his peasants.
Fish, Of course Stalin was a mass murderer. He singled out opponents for often deadly forced labor or execution.
But please elaborate on your notion that “the famine was state sponsored.” I don’t believe the facts show that it was purposefully engineered in any sense of the phrase.
Lance’s cited USSR source (Amis) claims 20 million TOTAL Soviet deaths from 1917 to Stalin’s death, about 10 of which were peasants, right? So to say “30 million starved during collectivization” is off by a fair bit, no?
Sigh. Here we go again. Deny, when exposed, excuse. Surely you can’t be oblivious to the repetition of this tiresome pattern.
Let me take you under the wing for a moment. The correct response is: “You’re right, I was out of order and I was wrong to later deny it.” It’s not “You’re right…but actually, I’m justified in being wrong, because of this, that and the other thing…furthermore I’m actually right anyway, because you’re wrong.” This is just vanity, plain and simple. You’ve got to realize how asinine that looks from the reader’s perspective.
It’s not just manners either. See, if you said option one above when I confronted you, I guarantee everyone’s respect of you would have gone up about 300%. Consequently you’d be arguing into a more hospitable environment. By giving a non-apology apology and then circuitously defending your remarks all over again, you imbue only one impression: this guy is a jerk. People don’t like jerks generally. They tend not to take their arguments seriously, much less be persuaded by them.
Well first of all, the way Venezuela measures inflation is through the CPI model. That is, it monitors certain goods to see their change in price. Since retail prices on many if not most of the items in the index are proportionately fixed by government price controls, what you’re not going to see a accurate reflection of currency devaluation in its measures. What you see showing up in the CPI is instead supplier pricing, which will naturally over-represent monetary purchasing power.
Worse, some of the indexed consumables aren’t even available anymore, because they are officially retail priced below profitability, or even below minimum recovery. Thus you have a CPI that’s measuring the price of goods which are not for sale. This is perhaps the ultimate Marxist economic model, identical to the Soviets inflation models. To deny that the CPI is inaccurate, you have to argue that there are no price controls that affect market pricing. But ask Hugo and he’ll tell you why he has price controls “to keep the prices low!” Exactly.
However, real inflation is not unknowable in a price-controlled market, because that market must trade with the outside world. The very interesting piece you linked to reveals an independent indicator. That is that hard currency convertability with the parallel exchange rate has gotten pretty severe. It ranges, but is 50-100% below the official rate. By order of Chavez, only the government can officially convert the bolivar (for reasons which should now be obvious), but the market prices show their figures are unrealistic, as they are not accounting for cumulative devaluation and are thus selling the Bolivar at an expected, rather than actual rate.
Then you didn’t read Amis, or you need to re-read him. Nor have you read seriously on the issue. Nor are you familiar with Stalin’s own speeches which advocated the liquidation of the kulaks as a class. Their property and grain was to be expropriated and they would not be allowed to join the cooperatives. Uh, how do you feed yourself? Now, Kulaks meant whatever Stalin wanted it to, so everybody was a kulak if it was convenient. The literature is extensive and deep. If you have not read it, then I rest my case, you have no idea what you are talking about.
You called them “supposed failures.” That is being an apologist. Like the deniers you say, “of course Stalin was bad, but these claims are exaggerrated, you ignore this and ignore that, etc.
No it wouldn’t, and if you had come in here arguing that you might have had a better start than calling him a liar. However, it is a problem when what you want to see is something so problematic. No point in arguing that. You will not agree. I’ll just say that if I went to Zimbabwe several years ago I have the intellectual tools to know what I see as familiar. The apologists went there and talked about clinics and efforts to mobilize the people. I predict mass murder, famine and social chaos. They see someone redistributing land. I may have seen what I wanted to see, but it was based on understanding how these things work. They don’t, period. Same with Manny. We have seen this story, we have heard the same explanations for why this time it is all right. It won’t be this time either, though oil will let it float a while longer.
Of course the author himself has revised this table up ward, radically in the case of China as he wanted to research China’s famines and other events before including them.
No it is not, and communism was the reason for both anyway. The Soviet Union was collapsing. Those excess deaths were baked into the cake either way. And no, the accounting of Conquest and others does not use the same method as you are describing. Similar tools, but very different implementation. It was purposeful. More importantly, the state knew of the situation and continued to implement policies which took grain from the peasants despite the famine. Oh, and I also don’t buy your numbers anyway. The 50 million figure is ridiculous, and the way those numbers were calculated assumed the collapse and the long run problems were not going to occur to some extent anyway. That you would compare them is absurd.
To murder someone means to unlawfully and purposely kill him, or to be responsible for his death through reckless and depraved indifference to his life. That is what happened then, it is not what was responsible for most of these supposed “excess” deaths you wish to make equivalent. Just like so many who have excused the totalitarians of the past, whether left or right. All societies by some baseline have excess deaths. That baseline choice is the key in using statistical analysis, but then one must look at how those deaths occurred to make the decisions necessary to apply the demographic tools appropriately. You are engaging in sophistry.
Actually I didn’t source him for death totals, nor does he claim only 10 (or even 10% in case it was a typo) were peasants, and yes Amis says it was state sponsored terror. As I said, you don’t know what you are talking about. I gave you several sources. Try Lev Kopelev and Conquest to start.
As for my numbers, as opposed to the character of the terror, I have seen many different stabs at it. The most comprehensive survey of the literature comes out at about 61, 000,000. Though these numbers keep getting incrementally larger over time.
Amis uses Conquests numbers, but that is misleading. Conquest is just showing what he could find at the time. He never claimed it was in anyway a ceiling. It was a floor. It was also only for Stalin’s 23 years in power. That leaves many more uncounted in that number. Amis knows this, it just wasn’t the point of his book. Conquest openly acknowledged the shortcoming of his data and gave future researchers a pretty good blueprint of what he was not counting for one reason or another
To quote him:
Unfortunately that 20 million figure for Stalin keeps getting repeated, it is the most widely cited, despite Conquests own misgivings about it.
If you look at Conquest’s estimates and fill in the holes with data he admits he didn’t have, the figure comes to about 43,000,000 citizens and foreigners, over twice Conquest’s total. That is just by Stalin.
Stalin died in 1953, so what did Conquest leave out? From The same source I linked above (though I do not need the source, I figure you want one though. I have the books from which your estimates are based myself):
Considering that Stalin died in 1953, note what Conquest did not include — camp deaths after 1950, and before 1936; executions 1939-53; the vast deportation of the people of captive nations into the camps, and their deaths 1939-1953; the massive deportation within the Soviet Union of minorities 1941-1944; and their deaths; and those the Soviet Red Army and secret police executed throughout Eastern Europe after their conquest during 1944-1945 is omitted. Moreover, omitted is the deadly Ukrainian famine Stalin purposely imposed on the region and that killed 5 million in 1932-1934. So, Conquest’s estimates are spotty and incomplete.
The 61 million number is conservative and there are holes not mentioned in the quote above. There are researchers (which he takes account of, but he uses midrange numbers) who believe it was far more. I may be wrong, as may be those who claim 6 million Jews were murdered, but exaggeration isn’t the issue, and if it is 30 million I still don’t want to hear of socialism’s “supposed failures” given its horrific victims list and the even larger “excess death’s” it is responsible for due to having been an abysmal economic failure everywhere it has been implemented. If I used that metric for socialism’s failures that you so breezily wish to apply to post 1989 Russia, then I’ll up my numbers to the several hundred million range. Pardon me if I don’t feel like giving you the exact number. I don’t consider the argument that the Soviet Union pursued stupid policies and should be blamed for that worth taking the time for. I’ll stick to murder and depraved indifference. That figure is bad enough.
I also don’t know why, given the suffering in store for Venezuela should Chavez do everything he claims, why it matters anyway to you? They will, as you say, be dead anyway. Famine due to poor policy seems enough of a problem to me. Considering this is a problem that only socialism or state run economies in this century seem to be able to create, that should be bad enough.
For grins though I am going to post this, and then edit it and put up some numbers for Communism’s victims, whether you think they were purposeful or not.
Of course the author himself has revised this table up ward, radically in the case of China as he wanted to research China’s famines and other events before including them. Here are more updated figures which include all the largest mass murderers of the last century.
Where are all the liberal democracies? They are almost all variations of socialism, whether of the left or right. Mostly supposedly left, though I think that term is misleading. We do see colonialism, which is where the old colonial powers, some of them liberal democracies did their work, but of course, they were not practicing market economics or democracy there. There they practiced state run economics. The exceptions (such as Hong Kong) not only didn’t suffer such violence but are amongst the wealthiest places on the planet.
Lee shows why official inflation figures are bunk in Venezuela, but as evidence I give you Hugo Chavez himself, who is complaining that exactly what lee is describing is occurring. His response? Use the power of the state to force merchants to sell goods at state mandated prices even if they lose money. If not, not only can they be prosecuted, have Chavista’s sent after them as well as shadowy thugs. but the state will seize their stores.
That goes back to what I was describing earlier about seeing what one wants to see. I don’t have to go to Venezuela to know that price controls lead to shortages and bogus inflation statistics. I know that is true. I need no evidence because it has to be that way. Either the price controls are irrelevant (Hugo tells us they are not) or shortages are present (Hugo supports me there as well.) I also know there are only two possible outcomes. For Venezuela’s sake I hope the first is chosen, which is abandon the controls. If not, then only more and more power applied to the merchants followed by more shortages, flight of capital, increasingly severe crackdowns, further expropriations and and since people just won’t cooperate (because they can’t) eventually imprisonments, repression and mass murder. It happens every time. Not most of the time, every time. Zimbabwe isn’t about Mugabe being a bad guy, pursuing his policies required it to happen. The only other choice is abandoning the policies.
The best outcome possible from a avoiding death perspective is Cuba. Everything is controlled by the state and the only way to live is to cooperate. Pretty poor choice, but at least millions do not die. That unfortunately requires some way to keep people there besides massive violence. Cuba has the ocean, though that hasn’t kept tens of thousands from dying trying to escape, or a state which can wall off its citizens, such as The Soviet block in the 1970’s and 1980’s (See the Lives of Others for the extent of the deadening hand of the state in East Germany to accomplish that.) Still, well over a million were murdered even then. Venezuela has neither of those barriers or the power to erect them. So either Chavez has to abandon his program or ratchet up the violence and oppression.
Outside of that we have the possibility of a coup. That might be better, but we could see civil war or a new Pinochet. That Chavez is popular doesn’t change that dynamic at all. Popular leaders can still cause immense suffering. I say it is Zimbabwe on a slower timeline, mostly because of oil.
It’s good to know that voracious readers can be so informed about what’s happening in the neighborhoods and streets of Venezuela. Apparently, however, the reading is quite selective.
Leftside, the statistics I cited in my columns were from Sumate. I know, you’re already typing away with all the disclaimers about them being an opposition group.
Anyone who supports true democracy is part of the opposition so I’ll accept that you discount their numbers outright. No need to argue this point, just as I’ll take your statistics with a grain of salt.
But dispense with the platitudes about “factual errors” and the discounting of anything that I’ve witnessed and written because you’ve read somewhere that journalists are out to get Chavez. Let’s also do away with the (mis)interpretation of my columns. Blind support doesn’t necessarily mean idiot. That’s your interpretation, not mine. And I love the credibility comment coming from someone who hides behind a pen name.
Listen, the poor are still poor in Venezuela, despite the massive accumulation of oil wealth that the government is confiscating. The most poor are still the most poor. None are being lifted into the middle class and barely, if all, out of poverty. Perhaps the poor in Bolivia are doing better. They’re certainly getting a ton of Venezuelan oil money.
I also love the diversion technique Leftside uses that absolutely parrots the criticism by others who disagree with me. They’re obsessed with my itinerary in Venezuela (among other piddling details), specifically if I visited any poor neighborhoods. “Well, since you won’t answer, clearly you’re lying. Clearly you didn’t go, blah, blah, blah.”
That’s such an absurd conclusion it shouldn’t warrant this much attention, but for the record, I’ve been in some of the poorest neighborhoods, working-class ones and occasionally a rather nice one. The Polar tastes the same in all of them. Hopefully, my “credibility” is now restored.
[…] we’ve examined in the ASHC discussion, that the poor are better off in strictly economic terms, is a questionable proposition. […]
[…] Wilson, as a budding Mussolini is the root of this. In the reaction to my and Lee Garnett’s interview with Manny Lopez a fellow columnist at the Detroit Daily news actually claimed there was no difference between what […]