Opinion of Hugo Chavez

[Hash]

Just as Vargas and Perón shouldn't be lumped into the same category as that scumbag Pinochet.

[Redalgo]

Just as Vargas and Perón shouldn't be lumped into the same category as that scumbag Pinochet.

An argument could be made for that, sure. We each end up drawing the line somewhere or other.

[Gustaf]

Of all the leftists I know (Internet-wise or IRL) I haven't seen many expressing approval for people than Chavez. They might make fun of the obsession some people hold against him while there are so many dictators in the world who are objectively worse than him.

The fact you seem to consider Opebo and Tweed as somehow representative of all left-wingers probably explains why you are so prejudiced against them. Well, I urge you to wake up.

Where did I claim that this was generally true of the left?

It does bother me that the left is so tolerant of dictatorships and of people who are pro-dictatorship. That's probably my biggest beef with the political left - their unwillingness to stand up for freedom and democracy globally.

This is the point. 95% of leftists are not "so tolerant of dictatorships and of people who are pro-dictatorship". I don't know where this idea comes from, but I have yet to see any evidence of the behaviour you highlight. There are Chavez fans among the left just like there are Pinochet fans among the right ; this is called fringe minorities.

Sure, you do. The ruling party in Sweden cooperated for many years with the Swedish Socialist Party, whose party leader was a member of the Swedish-Cuban Friendship Association - an organization financed by the Cuban government to spread their propaganda. An organization that often hold their events together with the Swedish-Korea Friendship Association, the corresponding front for North Korea. Several of the Socialists' leaders expressed the opinion that Cuba is a democracy and so on.

Now, of course, that is a fringe view in the sense that most of the left doesn't hold it. But they obviously had no problem cooperating with these people.

The same goes here. Will you refuse to associate yourself with those people on here who like Chavez, Galloway, would support Iran, etc? I don't think so.

And where are the Pinochet fans on the right? I never heard any right-winger express publicly strong support for Pinochet (today, that is, I know many did back in the day). A local conservative in Sweden expressed sympathy once 10 years ago to a hidden camera and had to resign. So I wouldn't say those people are very tolerated.

[Gustaf]

Of all the leftists I know (Internet-wise or IRL) I haven't seen many expressing approval for people than Chavez. They might make fun of the obsession some people hold against him while there are so many dictators in the world who are objectively worse than him.

The fact you seem to consider Opebo and Tweed as somehow representative of all left-wingers probably explains why you are so prejudiced against them. Well, I urge you to wake up.

Where did I claim that this was generally true of the left?

It does bother me that the left is so tolerant of dictatorships and of people who are pro-dictatorship. That's probably my biggest beef with the political left - their unwillingness to stand up for freedom and democracy globally.

Democracy as a yay word is a fallacy. If you had a dictator who was absolutely perfect and ensured a great standard of living for his people, would you really want/need democracy? Democracy is there purely as a safeguard against the abuse of power by the elite, it has never been an ideal system. I support it purely as the least bad option.

I guess the one consistent thing about your views is that they've all been anti-democratic. I happen to think that democracy is the most legitimate form of government and that it also in practice is vastly superior.

So, your perfect dictator does not exist and even if she did I wouldn't want a dictatorship.

[Gustaf]

. . . the fact that people can respect or admire this man or the fascists in charge of Iran just show the knee-jerk anti-Americanism on this board

There is a difference between regarding someone more positively than negatively in a specific context and actually admiring them, just as there is a difference between not being unconditionally supportive of U.S. foreign policy and being anti-American. Chávez's regime is illiberal, which I obviously find distasteful, but in a region of the world beset with patrimonialism, corruption, and with a history speckled with military coups, authoritarian regimes, and influence exerted by outside powers I think it is understandable that one would judge leaders differently than within their own country. I think Venezuela can do better than Chávez but am not convinced that he should be lumped into the same category as the likes of Pinochet, Vargas, and Perón (though I suppose he in some ways resembles the latter-most).

If I were to raise the bar here to a level at which I am not deeply discontent with some aspects of leaders' agendas, personal backgrounds, or expressed traits of character an overwhelming majority of people involved in the politics of every country would seem like HP to me. Yet, to be honest, I like to emphasize the good in people. I want to better understand and come to respect their perspectives, and strongly dislike applying the "HP" label to most folks because I generally consider them FFs as a default until wandering terribly astray. I am open to being persuaded that a person is not a FF, but am almost always convinced that such people still either have good intentions (which, in my opinion, counts for something) or at the very least have the latent potential to better fulfill their capacity for... er... FF'icity?

Most of them are trolling. Those who are serious are retards, of course, but they are a minority.

I actually am autistic in a sense, though no offense is really taken since I have long come to expect most posters on forums to be less courteous and amiable than I. Incidentally, your later remark that, "They might make fun of the obsession some people hold against him while there are so many dictators in the world who are objectively worse than him," strikes me as being much more agreeable. If I'm having a knee-jerk reaction it is likely in response to how vilified the bloke is in the States and the absurd extent to which the threat he poses to U.S. interests is exaggerated.

Aside from that, to Gustaf I want to express that I do not consider myself to be anti-democratic or pro-dictatorship so much as stuck in a world whose political leaders are mostly disagreeable. There is an awkward choice to be made: how should I strike a reasonable balance between being an ideological purist (Chávez is a political foe for several reasons) and an opportunist (Chávez is not my first choice but maybe he is useful part of a larger, leftward shift in Latin America that will eventually lead to results more to my liking). Perhaps a biasing influence is exerted from my environment - one in which I cannot be choosy about which candidate to support without facing almost inevitable defeat in every election. The mentality is one that socialists must be scrappy and flexible in who they support or be perpetually marginalized and divided into feuding sub-factions. Maybe my mistake is ethnocentrically transferring that attitude from an American to Venezuelan context; i.e. Chávez is flawed but nonetheless better than yet another centrist or right-winger?

I tend to dislike the practice of supporting other people being oppressed for one's own political goals. I remember an old poster here (American) who thought it was regrettable that the Soviet Union fell apart because they were an important counter-weight to American imperialism.

Essentially, he thus wanted to enjoy the comforts of freedom and democracy while letting some other people live under dictatorship to meet some universal goal. I never found that attitude particularly sympathetic.

Saying that there could be worse leaders than Chavez doesn't make him a good one, at least not in my opinion.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And where are the Pinochet fans on the right?

Quite a few came out of the woodwork when he was arrested in 1998. Presumably their views haven't greatly changed.

[Phony Moderate]

No worse than many of our dear European leaders (including a certain one who's up for re-election currently).

[k-onmmunist]

Of all the leftists I know (Internet-wise or IRL) I haven't seen many expressing approval for people than Chavez. They might make fun of the obsession some people hold against him while there are so many dictators in the world who are objectively worse than him.

The fact you seem to consider Opebo and Tweed as somehow representative of all left-wingers probably explains why you are so prejudiced against them. Well, I urge you to wake up.

Where did I claim that this was generally true of the left?

It does bother me that the left is so tolerant of dictatorships and of people who are pro-dictatorship. That's probably my biggest beef with the political left - their unwillingness to stand up for freedom and democracy globally.

Democracy as a yay word is a fallacy. If you had a dictator who was absolutely perfect and ensured a great standard of living for his people, would you really want/need democracy? Democracy is there purely as a safeguard against the abuse of power by the elite, it has never been an ideal system. I support it purely as the least bad option.

I guess the one consistent thing about your views is that they've all been anti-democratic. I happen to think that democracy is the most legitimate form of government and that it also in practice is vastly superior.

So, your perfect dictator does not exist and even if she did I wouldn't want a dictatorship.

1. Uhm, no they haven't. I've usually been pretty pro-democratic, to the point where my major objection to the EU was based on that.
2. I know the perfect dictator doesn't exist. I'm simply pointing out that democracy isn't the perfect system you assume it to be.

[Redalgo]

I tend to dislike the practice of supporting other people being oppressed for one's own political goals. I remember an old poster here (American) who thought it was regrettable that the Soviet Union fell apart because they were an important counter-weight to American imperialism.

Essentially, he thus wanted to enjoy the comforts of freedom and democracy while letting some other people live under dictatorship to meet some universal goal. I never found that attitude particularly sympathetic.

Saying that there could be worse leaders than Chavez doesn't make him a good one, at least not in my opinion.

You make a pretty compelling point, and in mulling over the matter a bit more I find it odd that I lent primacy to outcomes instead of quality of process on this issue. I should re-evaluate my position on the matter and make some corrections. Embracing double-standards and showing a lack of principle is HP'esque from my perspective after all. Instead of reflexively rationalizing my previous posts I simply need to switch my stance accordingly. xD

[Gustaf]

Of all the leftists I know (Internet-wise or IRL) I haven't seen many expressing approval for people than Chavez. They might make fun of the obsession some people hold against him while there are so many dictators in the world who are objectively worse than him.

The fact you seem to consider Opebo and Tweed as somehow representative of all left-wingers probably explains why you are so prejudiced against them. Well, I urge you to wake up.

Where did I claim that this was generally true of the left?

It does bother me that the left is so tolerant of dictatorships and of people who are pro-dictatorship. That's probably my biggest beef with the political left - their unwillingness to stand up for freedom and democracy globally.

Democracy as a yay word is a fallacy. If you had a dictator who was absolutely perfect and ensured a great standard of living for his people, would you really want/need democracy? Democracy is there purely as a safeguard against the abuse of power by the elite, it has never been an ideal system. I support it purely as the least bad option.

I guess the one consistent thing about your views is that they've all been anti-democratic. I happen to think that democracy is the most legitimate form of government and that it also in practice is vastly superior.

So, your perfect dictator does not exist and even if she did I wouldn't want a dictatorship.

1. Uhm, no they haven't. I've usually been pretty pro-democratic, to the point where my major objection to the EU was based on that.
2. I know the perfect dictator doesn't exist. I'm simply pointing out that democracy isn't the perfect system you assume it to be.

Where did I assume that it was perfect? You seem to attribute this to me based on nothing. But I guess imperialism and communism does have anti-democratic sentiments in common.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why should you take offense from my comment ? You don't support Chavez seriously, do you ?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm genuinely surprised. Here in France, there's no government party which holds similar ties with chavism. Some NPA loons probably do, but the NPA is basically a far-left joke. Nothing like the Swedish Left Party as you describe it.

But anyways, you certainly know that the reality of the Swedish political system makes it necessary for political mainstream parties to ally with fringe movements. Do you seriously think social democrats sympathize with this kind of views ? And again, have a look at the fringes inside of

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course I refuse to associate with them, since, in the case you didn't notice, I called them retards a couple of posts ago. It's ridiculous to be fascinated by a populist buffoon who hasn't even done anything meaningful to improve the conditions of the poor (let's not even talk about insane theocrats who are roughly like the US Religious Right). Now, that doesn't prevent me from agreeing with them on other issues. Because I don't think that being worng (even so utterly) on something doesn't prevent you from being right on something else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There might be a higher stigma toward Pinochet lovers than toward Chavez lovers (and really, it's not that absurd considering how much worse the former was). But AFAIK, Thatcher expressed praises for him, among others. Maybe people are quieter about that nowadays, but I don't see any reasons why views should have changed significantly in the past 20 years. There are several figures (some of them might be prominent, most of them aren't) who hold fringe views which are utterly stupid. This is true for the left and for the right. The sane majority in both sides tries to cope with that as they can, with a variable degree of hypocrisy depending from a case to another, but not to the political side.


Oh, and Winston just said in another way what the other Winston (who wasn't exactly a commie lover) already said. I don't see what's the problem.

[k-onmmunist]

Of all the leftists I know (Internet-wise or IRL) I haven't seen many expressing approval for people than Chavez. They might make fun of the obsession some people hold against him while there are so many dictators in the world who are objectively worse than him.

The fact you seem to consider Opebo and Tweed as somehow representative of all left-wingers probably explains why you are so prejudiced against them. Well, I urge you to wake up.

Where did I claim that this was generally true of the left?

It does bother me that the left is so tolerant of dictatorships and of people who are pro-dictatorship. That's probably my biggest beef with the political left - their unwillingness to stand up for freedom and democracy globally.

Democracy as a yay word is a fallacy. If you had a dictator who was absolutely perfect and ensured a great standard of living for his people, would you really want/need democracy? Democracy is there purely as a safeguard against the abuse of power by the elite, it has never been an ideal system. I support it purely as the least bad option.

I guess the one consistent thing about your views is that they've all been anti-democratic. I happen to think that democracy is the most legitimate form of government and that it also in practice is vastly superior.

So, your perfect dictator does not exist and even if she did I wouldn't want a dictatorship.

1. Uhm, no they haven't. I've usually been pretty pro-democratic, to the point where my major objection to the EU was based on that.
2. I know the perfect dictator doesn't exist. I'm simply pointing out that democracy isn't the perfect system you assume it to be.

Where did I assume that it was perfect? You seem to attribute this to me based on nothing. But I guess imperialism and communism does have anti-democratic sentiments in common.

I have literally no idea what you're going on about. I've never said I'm anti-democracy. I just think its the least bad of a pretty awful lot.

[Gustaf]

I tend to dislike the practice of supporting other people being oppressed for one's own political goals. I remember an old poster here (American) who thought it was regrettable that the Soviet Union fell apart because they were an important counter-weight to American imperialism.

Essentially, he thus wanted to enjoy the comforts of freedom and democracy while letting some other people live under dictatorship to meet some universal goal. I never found that attitude particularly sympathetic.

Saying that there could be worse leaders than Chavez doesn't make him a good one, at least not in my opinion.

You make a pretty compelling point, and in mulling over the matter a bit more I find it odd that I lent primacy to outcomes instead of quality of process on this issue. I should re-evaluate my position on the matter and make some corrections. Embracing double-standards and showing a lack of principle is HP'esque from my perspective after all. Instead of reflexively rationalizing my previous posts I simply need to switch my stance accordingly. xD

Wow, you really seem to handle internet discussions unusually well. Kudos. I apologize if any of my comments were overly harsh or anything.

[Redalgo]

Why should you take offense from my comment ? You don't support Chavez seriously, do you ?

No, but that is aside from the point. It is distasteful to use "retards" in the sense some folks pejoratively call others "fagots," and it is also a broad generalization about the supporters of Chávez - who are almost certainly not all stupid or somehow mentally handicapped. You are perfectly entitled to the opinion but it strikes me as needlessly rude if not also somewhat ignorant. Wouldn't it be more constructive to discuss your differences in perspective with them than to simply offer an insult that serves no purpose at all in furthering the discussion?

Wow, you really seem to handle internet discussions unusually well. Kudos. I apologize if any of my comments were overly harsh or anything.

It's all good. In a sense you were helping me help myself, and in my opinion these discussions would be a dreadful waste of our time if the point of participating in them were to be convincing others to embrace ones pre-conceived conclusions rather than gaining wisdom from the thoughts and experiences of one another.

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why should you take offense from my comment ? You don't support Chavez seriously, do you ?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm genuinely surprised. Here in France, there's no government party which holds similar ties with chavism. Some NPA loons probably do, but the NPA is basically a far-left joke. Nothing like the Swedish Left Party as you describe it.

But anyways, you certainly know that the reality of the Swedish political system makes it necessary for political mainstream parties to ally with fringe movements. Do you seriously think social democrats sympathize with this kind of views ? And again, have a look at the fringes inside of

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course I refuse to associate with them, since, in the case you didn't notice, I called them retards a couple of posts ago. It's ridiculous to be fascinated by a populist buffoon who hasn't even done anything meaningful to improve the conditions of the poor (let's not even talk about insane theocrats who are roughly like the US Religious Right). Now, that doesn't prevent me from agreeing with them on other issues. Because I don't think that being worng (even so utterly) on something doesn't prevent you from being right on something else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There might be a higher stigma toward Pinochet lovers than toward Chavez lovers (and really, it's not that absurd considering how much worse the former was). But AFAIK, Thatcher expressed praises for him, among others. Maybe people are quieter about that nowadays, but I don't see any reasons why views should have changed significantly in the past 20 years. There are several figures (some of them might be prominent, most of them aren't) who hold fringe views which are utterly stupid. This is true for the left and for the right. The sane majority in both sides tries to cope with that as they can, with a variable degree of hypocrisy depending from a case to another, but not to the political side.


Oh, and Winston just said in another way what the other Winston (who wasn't exactly a commie lover) already said. I don't see what's the problem.

I explicitly said that I know most Social Democrats don't agree with that position, so I don't know why you ask me that. The point is that these people are accepted. Within the left it tends to be an accepted position to support dictatorships. Most on the left wouldn't but there is generally a tolerance level for it which scares me.

Of course those people exist on the right as well, but I'd say it's much less accepted and thus out of the mainstream (at least since after the Cold War). Well, at least such is the case in the Swedish context.

The view on democracy that Winston is putting forward is when which allows him to make democracy a very relative value. "Sure, this country might be murdering gays, but they also have free healthcare, so, hm....pros, cons..."

I believe that certain fundamentals should be adhered too pretty much unconditionally. Otherwise one starts going down a pretty dangerous path. That's not at all the same thing as recognizing that democracy has plenty of flaws or whatever.

[k-onmmunist]

Any system that becomes a tyranny should be overthrown, even if its by the majority. So no, it's not about weighing up homophobia vs UHC.

[© tweed]

There are Chavez fans among the left just like there are Pinochet fans among the right ; this is called fringe minorities.

dude, if you seriously draw analogy between the two you need to be stripped of your left-wing card immediately.  the first thing Pinochet ever did in '73 was a mass massacre.

[redcommander]

HP for setting Venezuela back 50 years in developing a democracy and for ruining the country's chance of being one of the first developed nations in Latin America. I don't know why some left wingers are defending him. If you want to defend a leftist Latin American leader, at least choose one that has been a positive influence on his or her country.

[k-onmmunist]

HP for setting Venezuela back 50 years in developing a democracy and for ruining the country's chance of being one of the first developed nations in Latin America.

Explain.

[© tweed]

HP for setting Venezuela back 50 years in developing a democracy and for ruining the country's chance of being one of the first developed nations in Latin America.

Explain.

right-wing military dictatorship = 'democracy' in Newspeak.

[redcommander]

HP for setting Venezuela back 50 years in developing a democracy and for ruining the country's chance of being one of the first developed nations in Latin America.

Explain.

Using government influence to put out arrest warrants on opposition leaders and committing voter fraud and intimidating voters is not a democracy. What exactly is booming in the Venezuelan economy anymore?

[redcommander]

HP for setting Venezuela back 50 years in developing a democracy and for ruining the country's chance of being one of the first developed nations in Latin America.

Explain.

right-wing military dictatorship = 'democracy' in Newspeak.

I'm not defending tyrants like Pinochet and Videla. If Chavez apologists want to defend left-wingers in Latin America, at least choose people who have improved the living conditions of his or her citizens like Lula, the Kirchners, and Lugo.

[Zuza]

And where are the Pinochet fans on the right?

In Russia many rightists/liberals consider Pinochet's coup at least as a lesser evil.

[Frodo]

HP -I am generally not a big fan of authoritarian dictators, whether on the 'left' or the 'right'.

In any case, we should be thinking about what a post-Chavez Venezuela is going to be like.  Hugo will be dead soon due to cancer, anyway. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They don't want to accept the idea, but they accept the people ; meaning that, politics meaning what it is, you constantly have to ally with bastards or fools. As long as these bastards/fools are harmless, it's unfortunate but it's not terrible. It's a good thing to point this out, but not to use it as a pretext for guilt by association. I personally would never accept this, but well, there's some reason I would never do politics in first place.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is probably more stigmatized, yes, because the kind of people right-wingers tend to like are often even more disgusting than people like Chavez. So their feelings are probably more closeted, but I doubt they are significantly more rare than among the left. And I also think there are plenty of right-wingers who know their colleagues think that way, and get along with them even though they don't share their views.

Of course it has gotten better since the Cold War, but so has the left, after all. Remember people who thought Stalin and Mao were prophets ?
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think Winston is saying that at all. He has merely said democracy in itself isn't inherently good, but is only good because every other system is utterly awful.