G7 Welcoming Committee Records. Uncooperative since 1997.

You appear to be using a shitty web browser. Brent suggests getting a better one.

15 fragments of dialogue thus far ...

(Subscribe to discussion about this post via RSS)

• Comment by mikea on February 2nd, 2007 at 2:22 pm:

  Intéressant, en effet, mais surtout très effrayant ;

• Comment by blackmetal666 on February 2nd, 2007 at 3:43 pm:

  Very interesting article, I was thinking at work today about trying to find some intelligent insight into this issue, and here it is. I love the NewStandard, gotta give them a hefty donation-and maybe throw some G7’s way :) Peace.

• Comment by Yaniv on February 2nd, 2007 at 6:27 pm:

  True. Venezuelan citizens, unlike Americans, are not subject to any “military-commissions” type of act that virtually abolishes habeas corpus nor has a president that can arbitrarily declare any citizen an “enemy combatant” and imprison said citizen for an indeterminate period of time. Nor does its president violate international law and is responsible for the indiscriminate killings of thousands of innocent people.

  At the same time, however, I find the apologetic stance that most of the “Left” has taken on conferring Chavez the right to rule by decree to be nauseating, but hardly new.

  The Venezuelan national assembly is repleted with members of Chavez’s own party – or Chavistas, as they’re often called – so I find this whole argument that he can now avoid the “gridlock” over proposed policies in congress to be unwarranted and weak.

  What separation of powers exists in the government of that country? The judiciary is hardly independent or impervious to any influence from the president, and congress will not exist for the next 18 months – that’s until mid 2008. Interestingly, the act was passed in front of “the people” outside the halls of congress. Perhaps this is the epitome of outright demagoguery, if you tell me.

  By no means do I support or defend the policies that the United States has undertaken during the past eight years that Chavez has been in power, including a CIA-backed and financed illegitimate coup in 2002. But I still question some of the policies enacted by Chavez that sacrifice political freedoms and rights of expression for social programs that have benefited the low-income and working-class citizens. I’m not as cynical as to believe that Venezuela is the next Cuba – although I’m sometimes wary of how sympathetic Chavez is to uncompromisingly embrace Castro at any cost – but I do find it troubling that his “21st century socialism” is transcending into an all-powerful state domestically. And on an international level, that he calls himself a socialist – a socialist of the authoritarian kind in my eyes – while providing diplomatic support for regimes like Belarus and Zimbabwe is beyond me.

• Comment by D-Rock on February 3rd, 2007 at 3:36 pm:

  Yaniv – point taken. Pretending that the likes of either Chavez, or Morales, or Castro is some sort of leftist panacea is clearly misguided. And there are authoritarian tendencies to various degrees in all of them. But so too are there in all governments – be they transparent or covert.

  I think a good measure of how much support should be given to any government is how the most impoverished and traditionally marginalized elements of that society feel they have benefited under that government’s tenure.

  I’m interested to read Tariq Ali’s Pirates of the Caribbean which specifically focues on these three figures – anyone read it?

• Comment by mikea on February 4th, 2007 at 2:05 pm:

  http://www.radio4all...tinAmChlng102606.mp3

  Here’s a link for a dowloadable radio programm in which Ali speaks about the issue and the book. If i wasn’t this broke, i’d definitely check it out!…

  Totally agree with both of you, Yaniv and Derek: I’ve never been in love with state socialist/authoritarian socialist regimes, but i believe _i mean, i don’t really know but i’ve often heard_ that all the people in those countries have all there basic needs fullfiled, which i guess is far from being the case in most capitalist ‘democracies’…

  Moreover, it’s good to see some political leaders openly challenging Washington and ‘the west’ in general. i gotta admit that even Kim Jong-il’s threats please me in some way: maybe because i don’t live in north america! ahah

• Comment by Nathan on February 5th, 2007 at 3:40 pm:

  I need more G7 radio. Stop the games, and churn out an hour of grade a talk.

  !!!!!!

• Comment by social equality>personal liberties on February 6th, 2007 at 5:30 pm:

  i couldn’t agree more with Mike. Many (predominantly US citizens and others brainwashed under similar captalististic models) people are drunken with the notion that personal liberties are somehow more valuable or preferrable than social equality, despite, intuitively (or subconsciously), many side with the latter one. This applies, explicitly, to the scoundels that continously rant their nationalistic ideals and patronage for a system that simply gives that renders a facade of liberties and freedoms.

  Let’s face it ladies and gentleboys, Chavez could truly shift global political, economic, territorial power that is concentrated so heavily in the U.S. All minor discrepancies aside, he is currently building a stronger forum for social projects in Latin America, offering an alternative to the IMF, whom infamously (relative term for the U.S., I suppose) represses its borrowing countries into a downward spiral of debt.

  In any case, it is clear that Chavez has his faults, but let’s not disregard the progress made in Venezuela, let alone in neighboring countries alike. I just hope this decree of power won’t be the downfall of Chavez.

  P.S. Tell if I am being naive or misguided…

• Comment by falcore on February 7th, 2007 at 1:21 am:

  In all fairness fuck the mainstream media they are worthless especially the TV media but from what i have read theses “powers” are temporary I thought it was like an 18 month window I would be very surprised if Chavez used this time to
  piss off the 66% of the population that voted for him and after watching the documentary film “The Revolution Will not be Televised” about the 2002 coup the people of Venezuela will not tolerate repression. I also think that this may also be apart of unraveling the neo-liberal reforms that were instituted under the former governments that would cater to US business interest. I don’t know what will happen but Chavez seems to be following a similar path as many Latin American leaders including Castro in Cuba, Allende in Chile, Arbenz in Guatemala, Sandinista in Nicaragua, Morales in Bolivia that were popularly elected except Venezuela is much more independent economically and it seems that they also have allies in South and Central America. I want to watch read and keep learning from these real life examples to make changes here ( in the US ) no matter how small. This has been a great site to keep up with whats happening in Venezuela
  http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/
  here is a link to a torrent that I used to download “The Revolution Will not be Televised” http://thepiratebay....ill+not+be+televised

• Comment by caítlin on February 7th, 2007 at 11:27 am:

  I have a day off and this subject tickles my fancy. You’ve been warned.

  Latin America (to steal a phrase) fascinates the shit out of me right now. There’s a lot of exciting stuff happening, despite the usual top-down nonsense. Lula and his type reflect the shift to left, but I don’t have a lot of faith in them as leaders or in their movements becoming necessarily revolutionary… Especially him and Ortega, mr “I’m a Communist… no, no, I’m a christian centrist!”

  The two countries I’m really interested in are Venezuela and Bolivia though. Chavez most certainly has his flaws and contradictions, but what his re-election reflects (i think) is very positive. I mean, he had a better majority than most could dream of. Having said that, to declare yourself a trotskyist who is focused on implementing permanent revolution, and then five seconds later ask for the power to rule by decree, doesn’t cut it for me. He’s made a lot of mistakes – like refusing to arm the workers when they wanted to, to defend him – but he has made himself the Messiah of socialism to a lot of Venezuelans (I guess because Venezuela has little history of class consciousness or movement). Exactly how many times are top-down autocrats going to declare themselves socialists? And how many times are people going to accept it?

  Bolivia is interesting because despite Morales having a pretty reactionary influence, the people are moving under him and taking the struggle into their own hands, and are really holding him accountable too. At some point he was warned by a farmer that they’d deposed four presidents in four years, and they weren’t afraid to do the same to him if he didn’t move with the people. As far as I can tell he’s accomodating capitalism and the ruling class, and in my mind he’ll come into conflict with the people pretty soon. Unless planting the national question in there saves him.
  There’s actually a very interesting sitution emerging right now in two places in Bolivia where people have taken the initiative to run their districts autonomously, with blocades in one place and the setting up of a independent council in another (having gotten rid of the right wing prefect). I can’t remember the names at the moment, but if i have time i’ll post it later.

  RTE (an irish tv channel) made a documentary about the coup against chavez which is worth watching. I can’t find it on goggle or youtube, but its called “Chavez: Inside The Coup”. Check it, if you get the chance.

  Sincere apologies for this poorly written rant. Would you believe me if I told you I’m busy? You shouldn’t, I’m just lazy.

• Comment by falcore on February 7th, 2007 at 5:15 pm:

  caitlin
  i havent been keeping up with Bolivia much but
  how you described the politcal situation, do you think that Morales and even Chavez is afraid of doing too much too soon because of the Western Powers?
  Like when Arbenz expropriated land owned by the united fruit company (which had strong ties to Washington including the Dulles brothers) which resulted in a coup against him. Castro expropriated land and Nationalized the oil refineries as well as banks that led to the US blockade or in Spain during the civil war I read that the main union, the CNT,
  leaders didn’t want the outside world knowing that there was a workers revolution going on but called it a fight for democracy which caused the Republic Gov to stay intact. I wonder if the current leaders (and i do agree with you that top down Gov are no good. I would like to see them disappear) in Latin America are moving slowly because of this fear.

• Comment by caítlin on February 8th, 2007 at 4:06 am:

  There could certainly be an element of that, but I think the main obstacle both of them face is from opposition within their countries (or their continent). Actually, Brazil has pretty big influence on Bolivia at the moment because of oil and the ruling class within Bolivia are trying to split the country basically along rich and poor lines for an independent Santa Cruz [wealthy part].
  Interestingly, Chavez (along with Ahmadinejad and probably Castro) has actually benefited from the aggression coming from the US. Being politically immature, he hasn’t done all that he could with it, but the bile directed at him and the others overshadows the stupid shit they’ve done and creates a “lesser of two evils” kind of tolerance or even fondness.

  You can even see this within the Western left, if my country has anything to do with it. People don’t mention Ahmadinejad as a union busting, striker-arresting, gay-killing nutjob, at least not without mentioning that he represents “an alternative”.
  Actually, I went to a meeting once about the likelihood of a US or Israeli attack on Iran, and the willingess to forgive his “jagged edges” was mind-boggling.

  I also think Chavez, Morales etc are aware that the people would come out in support of them if and when “advisers” enter their country, and also that the idea of a proper military excursion in Latin America is just not on the cards right now when the US is bogged down in two hostile countries and fighting the odd proxy war for good measure too.

• Comment by falcore on February 8th, 2007 at 6:28 pm:

  Ok I didn’t know the relationship between Bolivia and Brazil. But I remember reading an article about a demonstration against the mayor of Cochabamba who was a proponent for those who want to separate state and federal power so that the federal government could not override state law. Is this a part of the movement of the wealthy to insulate them selves from Morales?
  It is also interesting that you said that Brazil has a lot of influence on Bolivia, mainly because from what i know about Brazil doesn’t the IMF have their screws in them pretty deep due to economic treaties and debt (i have not looked into which treaties these are)which the rich I imagine benefit greatly from or do you think that Brazil’s action’s are more nationalistic to gain economic power and wealth to be a dominating force in Latin America and would do this even if Lulu’s policy’s were not hampered of guided by the IMF?

  I also agree that the current popularly elected leaders in South and Central America as well as Ahmadinejad are not perfect role models but I remember when Kim Jong said that if the US tries to force inspectors in to N. Korea then they will Nuke Japan ( i think that was the story and doubt that was all of it since i read in the San Deigo Union) i though damn that’s cool. Not that Japan should be nuked but it had been a long time since I had heard a Nation State make such a threat in direct opposition of US policy and one that it could carry out. I think that any one who resist the dominate power of the West is looked at from the left as the lesser of too evils because they are not becoming another front or client state of the dominate power

  Also i think that people could make more progress within their country and stop unfair and inhumane treatment if there are not any out side forces constantly pushing on them. Even here in the US we are told that there are out side enemies like Socialist and Communist then Terrorist and Fundamentalist and immagrants and drug traffickers comming after US it makes us stop what we are doing and try to combat this to “save our way of life” , so we have limited time and resources to improve our own society. Other countries who have very real threats and severe consequences from out side forces they must have even less time to improve their domestic way of life. Maybe thats where popularity of leaders like Ahmadinejad come from.

• Comment by caítlin on February 9th, 2007 at 6:00 am:

  Ok, I have extremely limited time so I apologise in advance for the mess I am going to make of this. Also, I can’t see the screen, haha.

  Cochabamba! Thats one of the places I was talking about. It all sounds pretty impressive – cutting off the mayor, electing their own representative, setting up an interim council thing… but they don’t seem to have moved very far in getting powers to match the title. Like, they set up this council and then went home.
  Better than we’ve managed though.

  Anyway, the issue of the national question and autonomy for Santa Cruz in my mind is pretty simple: The wealthy (who are largely clumped together in SC) don’t want their wealth expropriated, don’t want to be under the influence of a movement to the left, and simply don’t want to live in a country approaching socialism. If you isolate a wealthy part, it has some pretty big ramifications. Also, it will be interesting to see how Chavez changes when the price of oil goes down.

  As for Brazil’s influence, I’m not sure they have out-right aspirations for dominance, but they serve as a check on the move to the left (Lula being quite a centrist), they want to protect their oil subsidies, and its another way to appease the hostile middle and upper classes in Brazil AND Bolivia.

  I’ve gotta say, I don’t agree that people like Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong are the lesser of two evils. The less powerful, certainly, but cut from the same cloth. This “enemy of the enemy” business seems to prevail under capitalism, in elections and war and nationalism, in place of actual, y’know, choice. Maybe I’m being incoherent (its lunch time, growl), but I reserve the right to stick my finger up at all those fellas. I do see your point, that any check on the unbridled dominance of the west is healthy, but I’m just not sure I agree.

  And yeah, I think you’re right, we’re fed enemies constantly. Its a game of distraction and it works pretty well. Actually, that book War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning goes in to that, worth a read. Way back during the cold war it was more explicit, but its the same business of Self and Other now, most explicitly here with terrorists (the new reds under the bed).

  I do apologise, again, for this ramble, I just know I’m not going to have a chance to reply later.

• Comment by falcore on February 10th, 2007 at 11:02 am:

  I imagine that the people of Iran do not like Ahmadinejad but I also think that they would like even less the return of the US backed Shaw. That is kind of the crappy lesser of two evils scenario they are having to deal with at
  this time.Like the Shaw will kill and repress anybody and Ahmadinejad will repress and kill a bit less than everybody. Don’t get me wrong I am not a fan of any leader that participates in an organization that is top down.
  Just like here in the US we have had to deal with Gore or Bush and then Kerry or Bush and all three of them are worthless.

  As far as South America it sounds like the popular movements that are resulting in the election of more leftist government representatives is almost kinda overshadowed by the elected leaders and what they are doing. I say this because from what you have decribed as well as other people having reservations, in articles I have read, on how far reforms will go to help those in immediate need as well as the dismantling of bureaucratic systems that seem very ceseptable to corruption. This seems to be the main topic of discussion. For instance in my case I think that Chavez is good for the poor majority in Venezuela and the thought of him being ousted or killed by the opposition forces both domestic and international would be disastrous for the 66% that voted for him. But I always seem to forget that there are many organizations that are supporting him and millions of people that fought and suffered and died to make this happen. I think that it would be very interesting to hear more about the popular organizations, their creation their structure and the experiences of the individuals within them.

• Comment by dumdiddee on February 11th, 2007 at 3:02 pm:

  social equality>personal liberties:

  I think its important to remember that social equality is impossible to realize w/o “first-amendment-type rights and liberties, which is why shit like Marxism has been such a dismal failure. The shot-callers are always “more equal” than the hoi polloi.

Dialogue has ended on this post.

Archives | RSS