There is so much potential for trade with Cuba, but apparently, the Cubans here are still remarkably hateful of Fidel.  They need to drop their grudges and welcome the money that comes with making amends.


The republicans can never afford to support such a thing.  Florida is very important.  Cubans are the only minority that the majority of which vote republican, almost soley because they see the democrats as pro-Castro.  There is a huge Cuban population in Florida.  See the problem?

Fidel Castro will die sometime soon and then it can happen.

The republicans can never afford to support such a thing.  Florida is very important.  Cubans are the only minority that the majority of which vote republican, almost soley because they see the democrats as pro-Castro.  There is a huge Cuban population in Florida.  See the problem?

Fidel Castro will die sometime soon and then it can happen.


How much do we really know about Raul Castro? Is he similar or does he actually employ logic and reason?

The republicans can never afford to support such a thing.  Florida is very important.  Cubans are the only minority that the majority of which vote republican, almost soley because they see the democrats as pro-Castro.  There is a huge Cuban population in Florida.  See the problem?

Fidel Castro will die sometime soon and then it can happen.


That shows you how much our parties (Republican and Democrat) put politics and whiny (and rich) minorities ahead of the overall interests of this country.

Screw Castro and the whiny anti-Castro Cubans.  Too many of the Cubans that come here have ties to organized crime.  While Florida is important, it would be a lot less important if presidential elections were determined by the popular vote rather than the ridiculous Electoral College.

Anyway, I do have to say that Chavez isn't worthy of death.  He's just someone that needs to be watched.  He's only taking advantage of a situation that his foolish predecessors allowed to happen.  Like him or not, Chavez is one of the few Venezuelan leaders that has actually addressed the poverty issues of his country, which makes him one of the better leaders there in recent years IMHO.

Sadly, that also shows you how pathetic Venezuela really is.  Mexico, Central America, and South America mostly have systems that are so corrupt and plutocratic that it makes America look like paradise by comparison -- which is why we have so many illegals here from those areas....

How much do we really know about Raul Castro?
Sounds like a title to a cable news segment.


Is he similar or does he actually employ logic and reason?

I've never heard anybody say Fidel didn't employ logic and reason.  Certainly, millions despise the logic and reason he employs, but that does not disqualify it from being logic and reason.

I wish Americans demanded logic and reason from our candidates.  If we did, campaign season would last 72 hours!
:P

<BIG SIGH>  I get so frustrated by the fact that so many "right-thinking" Americans have such ignorance when it comes to the persona who leads Venezuela and has literally become a hero to so many Latinos south of the border...throughout Latin America.

Hugo Chavez rode from Havana to Santa Clara with Raul Castro for a celebration of the life of Che Guevara in an OPEN CAR with thousands of Cubans lining the roads through every town they drove through.  When he was asked, Fidel Castro, who wasn't there, made a comment about the drive...He said, 'The people of Cuba gave Comandante Chavez all the security he needed on that drive."

Can anyone picture George W Bush riding in an open car through the cities and towns of America? ???

Again, if you don't have any Venezuelan organizations or Venezuelans to relate to, then you might read the information on venezuelanalysis.com.

Dictator indeed!  To those who think that, I say pooh on your head.  You could not be more wrong.  Oh...if we had a leader in America like Hugo Chavez...America would be the type of land that foreigners used to visualize, and mistakenly still do!

peace...Lee

Oh...if we had a leader in America like Hugo Chavez...


Just what America needs: a president for life.

Just what America needs: a president for life.


"Dictator for life"...indeed!  And I say to you, sir...POOH ON YOUR HEAD! >:(  Learn something about the Venezuelan constitution and the election laws there.

peace...Lee

<BIG SIGH>  I get so frustrated by the fact that so many "right-thinking" Americans have such ignorance when it comes to the persona who leads Venezuela and has literally become a hero to so many Latinos south of the border...throughout Latin America.

Hugo Chavez rode from Havana to Santa Clara with Raul Castro for a celebration of the life of Che Guevara in an OPEN CAR with thousands of Cubans lining the roads through every town they drove through.  When he was asked, Fidel Castro, who wasn't there, made a comment about the drive...He said, 'The people of Cuba gave Comandante Chavez all the security he needed on that drive."

Can anyone picture George W Bush riding in an open car through the cities and towns of America? ???

Again, if you don't have any Venezuelan organizations or Venezuelans to relate to, then you might read the information on venezuelanalysis.com.

Dictator indeed!  To those who think that, I say pooh on your head.  You could not be more wrong.  Oh...if we had a leader in America like Hugo Chavez...America would be the type of land that foreigners used to visualize, and mistakenly still do!

peace...Lee


  If the Chavez administration is any indicator, it is not time for the Revolution.  I even held out hope through his battle with the media earlier this year because a professor from the Columbia University School of Journalism made the point that the station he sought to destroy was an exploitative betrayer of journalistic principles.  Of course, this might have been about as deep a betrayal of public trust as ABC/Disney's 9/11 revisionism, so it's a coin toss.  But the perpetual re-election is the last nail.  There can be no doubt that his administration is ill-intended...

  Before anyone declares themselves a Communist, consider two things:
  -Karl Marx once stated that he was no Marxist...
  -The state of the current International (Fifth) is one of complete disarray...

  groove ;) on...

Learn something about the Venezuelan constitution and the election laws there.


Well, if I'm reading this right, Hugo Chavez is changing the Venezuelan constitution to allow himself to stay in power for however long he feels like.

I wonder what some here would say if George W. Bush tried to do that very same thing tomorrow.....

Or this:

May 29, 2007
Associated Press

Venezuelan police fired tear gas and plastic bullets Monday into a crowd of thousands protesting a decision by President Hugo Chavez that forced a television station critical of his leftist government off the air.

It was the largest of several protests that broke out across Caracas hours after Radio Caracas Television ceased broadcasting at midnight Sunday and was replaced with a new state-funded channel. Chavez had refused to renew RCTV's broadcast license, accusing it of "subversive" activities and of backing a 2002 coup against him.

Office workers poured out of buildings to join student protesters, while organizers called for the demonstration to remain peaceful. RCTV talk show host Miguel Angel Rodriguez led the crowd in chants of, "They will not silence us!"

Source

I'm sure the people who like Chavez in this country would have no problem whatsoever if Bush tried to close down the New York Times for being critical of his administration.  Right?

Here is a fine analysis of Hugo Chavez place in Venezuelan and world history:


Published on venezuelanalysis.com (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com)

HUGO CHAVEZ: SOCIAL DEMOCRAT OR REVOLUTIONARY?

Author:
Stuart Munckton - Green Left Weekly
Source (Text):
Green Left Weekly
Source (URL):
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/727/37703
Venezuela’s Bolivarian revolution, led by socialist President Hugo Chavez, has captured the imagination of people around the world and sparked widespread commentary on the nature of the process of social change under way in the oil-rich South American nation.

Named after Simon Bolivar, who liberated much of the continent from Spanish colonialism, the process of change has been aimed at overcoming the country’s underdevelopment and widespread poverty. When Chavez was elected in 1998, the country had been devastated by neoliberal policies that bled the country dry largely on behalf of US corporations, with the complicity of a corrupt Venezuelan elite.

Any discussion on this process of change inevitably centres on the role of Chavez, the revolution’s central leader. A common analysis of the politics of Chavez, the government he leads, and, in some cases, the broader revolutionary movement based on the impoverished, working people, is that they can be understood as “social democratic�. Social-democratic politics tend to be understood as seeking to implement reforms that alleviate some of the worst aspects of the profit-driven capitalist system, to the benefit of ordinary people, without breaking with capitalism itself.

Certainly, the Chavez government has implemented a wide number of reforms that in and of themselves don’t do away with capitalism — a system based on private ownership and control over the economy, run for profit and based on the exploitation of working people — but have still benefited the poor majority.

However, describing the process as social democratic misses the profoundly revolutionary nature of the struggle being led by Chavez (who in almost every speech he gives calls for the need to construct socialism and describes himself as the “subversive within Miraflores�, the presidential palace).

The line of march for the Bolivarian revolution pushed by Chavez, who elaborates on revolutionary strategy in many speeches, especially on his weekly television program Alo Presidente (when not singing folk songs), is not for the process of change to stop with reforms to Venezuela’s existing power structures. He has used reforms to weaken the political and economic power of Venezuela’s capitalist class, while at the same time strengthening the confidence and organisation of the oppressed (the workers, urban poor, campesinos, women and indigenous people) in order to replace the structures of the old society with new ones based on the oppressed themselves.

This is a very difficult struggle, with many weaknesses and internal contradictions. It involves the ongoing creation and organisation of a revolutionary movement involving millions of people, who through their mass, coordinated action are capable of creating a completely new social system. Socialism — a society based on a democratically planned economy run according to people’s needs — cannot be decreed from above by a president, nor by simply elaborating a well-written program, as it involves the transformation of social relations for millions of people.

Much analysis, especially in the corporate media but unfortunately among much of the international left as well, focuses almost exclusively on the role of Chavez as an individual. However the correct way to analyse his role is in relation to the masses that have been drawn into political motion, and ask whether Chavez and his government’s policies work to advance the organisation of the oppressed in order to break the political and economic power of the capitalist class, or whether the policies hold this back.

In some cases, claims that Chavez is a social democrat are used to attack him by sections of the revolutionary socialist movement internationally. These arguments go further than suggesting simply that the revolution hasn’t gone far enough, something Chavez himself repeatedly emphasises — for instance, while announcing a series of radical measures aimed at creating a “new revolutionary state� and that nationalisation of “strategic industries� following his re-election on an explicitly socialist platform in December, Chavez insisted the revolution had “barely begun�. Left critics suggest that Chavez and his government either have no desire for significantly more radical measures, or falsely believe that the government's approach is to implement more radical measures over the heads of the masses, which they rightly point out would be bound to fail.

However an analysis of Chavez as social democratic has also come from some outspoken in their support for the Chavez government and the process of change under way, such as the left-wing writers Tariq Ali, John Pilger and Stephen Lendman, all of whom play invaluable roles in promoting and defending the Bolivarian revolution.

While for those revolutionary socialists who wish to label Chavez a “social democrat� it is intended to highlight the perceived limitations of his politics (and by implication the mass movement that supports him), for many people the concept of genuinely social-democratic politics, based on state provision of welfare, health care and education and at least a degree of respect for people’s rights, seems a very good thing in this age of savage neoliberalism

However understanding why the Bolivarian revolution is not simply a case of Chavez taking up a banner dropped by social-democratic parties, like the ALP and the British Labour Party, rushing to implement brutal anti-worker policies, is crucial to understanding why such parties have moved so dramatically to the right during the past few decades.

In his book Build it Now: Socialism for the 21st Century (which Chavez strongly praised on Alo Presidente and urged Venezuelans to read), Canadian Marxist Michael Lebowitz uses his experience as a policy advisor to a social-democratic New Democratic Party state government in Canada in the ’70s to show that for social democrats, the interests of the capitalist system have always come first — and if advancing the interests of working people conflicts with the needs of the system, then it is the former that gets dropped.

In the First World the post-war economic boom allowed for the creation of a welfare state and other measures that improved the lot of working people, but since the boom ended in the mid-’70s, the capitalists have attempted to wrest all of these gains back. Social-democratic parties across the board have proven willing to implement neoliberal austerity measures to this end.

In Venezuela, the advent of Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution have amounted to a break with the class-collaborationist politics of social democracy that seek to subordinate struggles by workers to the interests of capital by promoting the idea of common interests between two fundamentally irreconcilable social forces — working people and capitalists.

Within Venezuela, these politics were expressed by Accion Democratica, a political party that alternated in power with the conservative COPEI party and controlled the unions, and today is part of Venezuela’s counter-revolutionary opposition.

Although the program Chavez initially sought to implement after his election did not break with capitalism, the mild reforms aroused strident opposition from the capitalists, outraged at even minor encroachments on their privileges. The capitalist class was defeated in its attempts to overthrow Chavez when working people took the streets in April 2002 during a US-backed coup and during a lockout by bosses in December that year. This led Chavez to conclude that the changes Venezuela desperately needed were impossible within the framework of capitalism.

However, many commentators point out that, even with the pro-people, anti-capitalist measures implemented so far, capitalism is far from abolished in Venezuela. These reforms have included the government wresting control of the oil industry; forcing foreign oil companies into joint ventures that give the Venezuelan government majority control; increasing nationalisation of “strategic industries�; a program of land reform to break up large agribusiness for the benefit of campesino cooperatives; the promotion of a “social economy� based on a massive expansion in cooperatives; and a series of measures that restrict the ability of capitalists in Venezuela to put their profits above the needs of the people — price controls, heavy restrictions on their ability to sack workers and increasing workers’ rights. In fact, despite these reforms, corporate profits have grown with the economic boom.

The key question in Venezuela is not merely the subjective intentions of Chavez, who has sparked a mass discussion on socialism in Venezuela, but the willingness and capacity of the millions of oppressed to take political and economic control out of the hands of the capitalists. Through the political battles over the last few years, this has continually increased, opening the way for increasingly radical measure. The key to the revolutionary process can be found in a book that Chavez urged Venezuelans to read during his Alo Presidente program on April 22 — The Transitional Program by Leon Trotsky, a leader of the Russian Revolution and an opponent of its Stalinist degeneration.

Written in 1938, the book is an argument for how a program of struggle for increasingly deep-going reforms that, without abolishing capitalism, make deep inroads into the capitalist system, can raise the level of consciousness and organisation of the working people and open the road to socialism.

Transitional measures aim to proceed from the mass of people’s existing level of consciousness and, by pushing measures that solve the needs of the working people while undermining capitalism, lay the groundwork for much deeper measures towards a socialist economy. Such transitional measures — such as nationalising key areas of the economy, introducing elements of workers’ control and shortening the working week with no loss of pay — can act as a bridge between the existing capitalist system and an increasingly socialist economy under the control of the working people and run according to their needs.

The transitional approach seeks to find ways to draw masses of people into political activity and increasingly radicalise the broadest layers so they are willing and able to fight for even more radical measures. This explains why, at the same time as Chavez promotes policies increasingly attacking capitalist interests, he continues in his speeches to urge the capitalist class to join the revolutionary project. Some revolutionary socialists, who already understand that the capitalists will never accept the measures implemented by Chavez, see this as evidence of social-democratic politics. However, Chavez is not speaking to those already convinced of socialist revolution, but to the millions of people in Venezuela, including the more than 4 million who voted for the opposition — the overwhelming majority of whom are not capitalists but middle and working class people misled into backing the pro-capitalist opposition.

An example of this came on June 2, when Chavez addressed hundreds of thousands of supporters in a demonstration to defend his government from attacks by the US-backed, right-wing opposition. Claiming his government had no plans to “eliminate� the Venezuelan capitalist class, Chavez added: “If the Venezuelan bourgeoisie continues to desperately attack us, utilising the refuges it has left, then the Venezuelan bourgeoisie will continue to lose these refuges one by one!

“This message is for the Venezuelan bourgeois class. We respect you as Venezuelans, you should respect Venezuela, you should respect the homeland, you should respect our constitution, you should respect our laws. If you don’t do this … we will make you obey the Venezuelan laws!�

Presenting the struggle in such a way aims to ensure it is the actions of Venezuela’s capitalists themselves that expose them and provide the justification in the eyes of millions of people for more radical measures that aim to overturn capitalism completely.

This mass action-based approach is the essence of a genuinely revolutionary strategy, one that applies in all countries, although according to national conditions. It is necessary to understand that while the revolution is a work in progress, its aim and trajectory are not simply tinkering with the system along social-democratic lines, but its abolition and replacement with socialism.

for more information.]

From: International News, Green Left Weekly issue #727 10 October 2007.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source URL: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2720
Links:
http://www.dsp.org.au
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2007/727

===============================================

...And that my friends, is a clear definition of what Hugo Chavez is telling the people of Venezuela, Latin America, and the rest of the world, about the superiority of social democracy over capitalist plutocracy...

peace...Lee