I'm still waiting waiting to hear the idiotic parts (and not the brilliant ones).
RIP(or is it RIH?) Hugo Chavez
- Thread starter Araxen
- Start date
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
- 75,819
- 150,524
Oh you mean he quoted one of the most respected linguists and political scientists in the world who has been writing about US imperialism for decades? And the guy who has been trying to overthrow him for a decade, he called him a "devil"?
wacky stuff!
P.S. Ever actually read a Chomsky book?
As far as I know, that confrontational rhetorical stance taken by Chavez was a hallmark of the Soviet communist "revolution", no? It is arrogant and dismissive of other ideas, but a confrontational position certainly can be attractive to the uneducated poor and middle class.
Eomer
Trakanon Raider
- 5,472
- 272
This isn't some hardly known secret. PDVSA is a fucking disaster:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle4550316/
And even now that he's dead, we're seeing a continuation of his complete disrespect for democracy and the constitution:http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...n.html?cmp=rss
Maduro should not even be assuming the interim presidency, and an election should be held within the next 30 days. It'll be interesting to see if that happens. If not, the presidency will be completely illegitimate.
Janos Kornai wrote inForce of Thoughtabout his intellectual journey to becoming a communist party warrior. In it he described how he and his contemporaries in Hungary were seduced, in part, by the the confrontational rhetoric found in the works of Stalin and Marx in particular. It was only later when he was able to study the works of other authors like Adam Smith, among others, that he was able to critically assess the works he came to champion for a time and see the contradictions found in Communist Party ideology.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
- 75,819
- 150,524
That article reeks of bukllshit.
1. I cant find this Caracas-based "Center for Energy orientation" anywhere online. The onyl time its mentioned is when its quoted exactly the same way in some other articles.
2. The articles itself says that production fell from 3.1 to 2.7 million BPD (which is only 10%, not 50% even if this article is accurate). On top of that, it also known that Chavez himself reduced production because he was a price hawk and wanted to reap higher oil revenues per barrel.
3. And now its Chavez's fault that the constitution after his death isn't being followed?
Man, there's just so much bullshit in these Chavez accusations. Some minor graft goes on and somehow its supposed to completely overshadow the fact that he dragged tens of millions of his own people out of poverty and gave them back the control of their resources instead of letting Phillips and Exxon keep that 60 year drilling deal where they paid Venezuela ONE PERCENT TAX on the tens of billions of dollars of oil that they were pumping out of Maracaibo.
1. I cant find this Caracas-based "Center for Energy orientation" anywhere online. The onyl time its mentioned is when its quoted exactly the same way in some other articles.
2. The articles itself says that production fell from 3.1 to 2.7 million BPD (which is only 10%, not 50% even if this article is accurate). On top of that, it also known that Chavez himself reduced production because he was a price hawk and wanted to reap higher oil revenues per barrel.
3. And now its Chavez's fault that the constitution after his death isn't being followed?
Man, there's just so much bullshit in these Chavez accusations. Some minor graft goes on and somehow its supposed to completely overshadow the fact that he dragged tens of millions of his own people out of poverty and gave them back the control of their resources instead of letting Phillips and Exxon keep that 60 year drilling deal where they paid Venezuela ONE PERCENT TAX on the tens of billions of dollars of oil that they were pumping out of Maracaibo.
Eomer
Trakanon Raider
- 5,472
- 272
I didn't see much either in a quick search, but I highly doubt that the Globe and Mail (which is a left leaning paper in Canada) would make shit up out of thin air to try to make Chavez look bad.Araysar_sl said:
I said exports. Not total production. Exports have declined by half because of a decline in overall production, and an increase in consumption due to heavily subsidizing the cost of gasoline, diesel and the like. Exports are important because that brings in foreign exchange with which a country can buy/trade with. Venezuela's economy has been damaged pretty badly by the decline in exports even while the price of oil sky rocketed under his watch.Araysar_sl said:
He set the tone that if you don't like the constitution you can just ignore it or better yet, change it. And he also anointed Maduro as his chosen successor. Chavez did not leave a legacy of strong democratic institutions, and yes, he can be blamed for that.Araysar_sl said:
Here's another article (similar headline is coincidental):http://www.economist.com/blogs/ameri...s-oil-industry
I'm sure the Economist is just making shit up too. Araysar, you sound every bit as ridiculous as those who try to portray him as some sort of evil dictator by defending his every action. He did some good for his people in standing up to the oil companies perhaps, but in many other respects he was an incredibly incompetent leader and left the country and it's institutions in shambles.
lolwut
Are you saying Chavez was a bolshevik?
The socialist critque of capitalism would only be arrogant and dismissive if it weren't right. That correctness is what's attractive to the poor (who've been better educated than you by the realities of their daily lives).
Simply making the comparison between Chavez's confrontational rhetoric with the rhetoric of the old school communists.
1. The Soviets were hardly communist (they weren't even socialists).
2. The confrontational rhetoric has to do with the shared (not to mention justified) confrontation with the US.
The only contradiction his works have with my beliefs is his adoption (like yours) of totally incorrect definitions of what socialism actually means. Moreover, my argument is parroting russian (actual) communists going back to directly after the bolsheviks took over. You cannot out-insider me on this.
I don't even know what you're talking about. It certainly has nothing to do with what I posited earlier.
chaos
Buzzfeed Editor
- 17,324
- 4,839
