[Goldberk]

So, Oprah is indoctrinating millions of housewives? o_0

To answer simply yes. Though I don't know what kind of literature she promotes.

[grassroots1]

Interesting, thank you Tainari, I agree.

[Tainari88]

Grassroots it is always a pleasure.

Remember someone else's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. And someone's propagandist is another's patriotic and freedom loving citizen. Asi es la cosa Grassroots.

Who's perspectives are the ones that seem the most truth filled to you? Also there is a level of science in social science. But human beings are not 100% rational beings. As such predicting their social behavior with 100% accuracy is not very likely. But, there are some things that are self evident.

How are you Grassroots? What do you think about modern socialism? I would love to hear your ideas...and opinions too you know.

[Gommi]

Great post Tainari. I think you are absolutely correct. Most Venezuelans do not have an ideological motivation for supporting Chavez. Rather, they view him as the only leader capable of providing for their material needs. By delivering basic services to the poorest members of society, Chavez appears more pragmatic and perhaps empathetic than previous Presidents. Does he wish to indoctrinate the population? To some degree, yes. However this should be understood in the larger social context of poverty, inequality, and neglect.

[Goldberk]

hey view him as the only leader capable of providing for their material needs.

This to is an ideological motivation.

[grassroots1]

Grassroots it is always a pleasure.

Remember someone else's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. And someone's propagandist is another's patriotic and freedom loving citizen. Asi es la cosa Grassroots.

Who's perspectives are the ones that seem the most truth filled to you? Also there is a level of science in social science. But human beings are not 100% rational beings. As such predicting their social behavior with 100% accuracy is not very likely. But, there are some things that are self evident.

How are you Grassroots? What do you think about modern socialism? I would love to hear your ideas...and opinions too you know.

Well, hopefully over time we can discuss these things over a broader range of topics, but for now I'll just say that I agree with your analysis that politics is dependent on the real material circumstances of people, and I think a major problem with the way we think about issues in America, or the way the media portrays them to us, is that they give us the idealized picture. For example, instead of discussing the reasons and background behind the examples of military torture, we discuss whether torture should be acceptable under any circumstances. And the back-and-forth continues. Or instead of asking the questions why are people forced to get abortions and what would happen if abortions were illegalized, our media consistently focuses on back-and-forth arguments about whether a fetus is really a child or not. This, I believe, is largely a pointless and meaningless argument over a label. And I think this stems from the deep connection between business and government in this country.

Modern socialism? I'm not sure, but I know for a fact that the world as a whole will inevitably need to disregard petty nationalism and cooperate if we hope to become a sustainable society and avert harmful environmental change. I don't believe that any sort of 'green economy' has the ability of overseeing that transition, so I think that cooperation inevitably requires direct democratic control by average people over industry. I can only hope that that would lead to a foundation for every person: access to food, shelter, health care, and education, and I can only hope that after every person's needs are satisfied, that it would lead to a sustainable society in which we could focus on and advance the needs of the human race as a whole. I have a great sense of nationalism, surely, for my city, for my country, and for the human race as a whole. We will not be beaten by our own stupidity. We are rational creatures and we just need to start acting like it.

[Dr House]

How was it before Chavez? The poor were sick and tired of their kids not getting ANY education. No school. NO hospitals, no roads, no electricity and no attention from the authorities. And so if a Chavez guy comes along and says, "I will represent the poor and the common people because these bastards in the upper echelons of Venezuelan society haven't done anything for you lately." They will listen.

So tell me Taina... Why did Venezuela have a lower starvation rate before Chavez than it does now?

[Tainari88]

House, do you think I will listen to you? The guy that thinks Puerto Rico is the best off of all of the Latin American nations? There are islands in the Caribbean like Barbados and others who have a higher per capita income than the Puerto Ricans do. Yet, you continue to believe a bunch of shit that isn't true. So, why so many Chavez supporters from Venezuela if the people are starving?

This is from a PIP website http://www.independencia.net/ingles/ai_economy.html..... ALL THESE NATIONS have a higher per capita income than Puerto Rico does. Venezuela included. From 1995 figures. So I doubt your bullshit claim that Puerto Rico is the nation with the highest per capita income. The economy is artificially bolstered by tax dollars from the mainland USA federal funds transfers....but it is not growing the economy. All that bullshit beaurocracy involved in getting federal approval before doing much and not being able to negotiate without prior approval from D.C. where PR does not have voting rights is SUCKING in a big way.

This is a table with PER CAPITA income from 1970, 1980 1995 ONLY...and this is what they said about what happened to Puerto Rico in that time frame....
Argentina 2,766,889 33,533 3,533 3,996 8,498
Barbados 430 259 4,252 5,453 11,306
Chile 756,945 14,065 1,397 1,580 9,930
Cyprus 9,252 726 *** 4,164 13,316
South Korea 98,484 44,500 967 1,953 11,594
Ireland 70,284 3,710 5,656 7,791 17,590
Malta 320 368 760 3,713 13,316
St. Kitts/Nevis 261 40 *** 1,767 10,150
Singapur 618 3,300 950 5,907 22,604
Trinidad/Tobago 300 1,300 3,185 5,218 9,437
Venezuela 912,050 22,000 3,298 3,067 8,090
PUERTO RICO 9,000 3,719 3,900 5,362 7,685

House, it aint looking good for Puerto Rico.

This is the quote before the table shows up from that above website:

Various countries of similar size or smaller than Puerto Rico population wise, which some decades ago were poorer than Puerto Rico, currently have a greater income per capita than our country. Countries such as Bahamas, Cyprus, Malta and Singapur, which have a smaller territorial area than Puerto Rico, after achieving independence were able surpass Puerto Rico’s per capita income.

The colonialism scene is STIFLING us as a nation. Get with the right wing independence party scene House...because it sucks keeping the dead cadaver of ELA alive!

If people are worse off than before Chavez they would not be supporting Chavez. But they do? Why? Because he is spending some of the oil revenue on the people. Is there enough? No. Lifting people out of poverty is complex. And it takes a lot. But if you have a rich upper crust and a middle class fighting all the way because they don't want to lose their socioeconomic positions. You got problems. That is the way it works. There is a lot of crap....and it seems like you believe all the crap about how wonderful it is to have and live in a society in which a small group of plutocrats run the show and everyone else has nothing as usual. There is a problem with that House. Social unrest is one of them.

People who don't like Chavez either associate him with a totalitarian dictator...and they usually are not POOR people from the nation they criticize. And second, or they are from the middle class, business owners and the minority of people who are well off in Venezuela. Who don't want a leader who might jeopardize their socioeconomic positions. Then you have the foreign media who wants leaders in Latin America to be some type of maniputable liberal or conservative. But, Latin America is going LEFT in a big way. With Lula in Brazil. Evo Morales, Michelle Bachelet in Chile, Chavez in Venezuela, and others....there is a big damn wave of LEFTIES going on in South America and the Gringos are on the defensive. Why? Because they put so much time and energy and effort and MONEY into the Middle Eastern crisis that they lost some control in South America. The only place they are trying to keep under tight control is Colombia and other drug zones and even those they can't control completely. Thank goodness. The USA needs to stop trying to see Latin America as their personal backyard and playground and stop pouring money into right wing horrifically bad governments and deal with sane, logical issues that are beneficial to ALL parties involved. But, the USA gov't has to learn the HARD WAY.

[Wraith]

But, Latin America is going LEFT in a big way. With Lula in Brazil. Evo Morales, Michelle Bachelet in Chile, Chavez in Venezuela, and others....there is a big damn wave of LEFTIES going on in South America and the Gringos are on the defensive.

Oh come on!, besides Ecuador, Venezuela and Cuba are there any more socialist governments in Latin America?.... NO

It is funny that you mentioned Bachellet in Chile where individual liberty and the free markets are the main policies of the Bachellet's "socialist" government, and now the popular candidate for the chilean presidential elections is a liberal free market advocate.

There is no "left wave" in Latin American in fact socialism is becoming more discredited every time Chavez open his mouth, and the sad part for the socialists here is that the US wasn't even trying

If people are worse off than before Chavez they would not be supporting Chavez. But they do? Why?

Manipulation, propaganda and class struggle rhetoric, it isn't that hard to get people to believe in something by appealing to their hopes and fears.

[grassroots1]

It is funny that you mentioned Bachellet in Chile where individual liberty and the free markets are the main policies of the Bachellet's "socialist" government, and now the popular candidate for the chilean presidential elections is a liberal free market advocate.

Liberalized markets and socialistic policies like universal health care and education and universal access to food, shelter, and water are NOT mutually exclusive. This is a memo that many Americans seem not to have gotten.

There is no "left wave" in Latin American

Whatever you call a movement that demands accountability where there has been none and access to even the most basic privileges, or necessities, that we in the developed world take for granted, that's the movement that is taking hold not just in Latin America, but in nations across the world in light of this world depression.

[Gletkin]

It is funny that you mentioned Bachellet in Chile where individual liberty and the free markets are the main policies of the Bachellet's "socialist" government

Unless the economy tanks, then (even with the same policies) off come the quotation marks, eh?