RIP Hugo Chavez

[Lostlover]

He was an extremist with good ideas. He just didn't know when to stop from going overboard, but his heart was in the right place. He stood up for the poor and stood up against the Satanic Bush Jr.

He shattered the perception from a certain group of people in our country that believe that the US President doesn't answer to anyone internationally. He stood up against the tyranny of the Iraq war and the bloodshed Bush brought to the world.

RIP Hugo Chavez. If there's a God, Hugo Chavez is with him. And there would then have to be a deep, dark, hot corner in Hell waiting for Bush on Judgment Day.

[JockBoy87]

I understand it's ill form to criticize someone who has just died, and from cancer of all things, but CEP is not mourning shrine.

Hugo Chavez probably cared genuinely about the poor, but he was also a megalomaniac and a kleptocrat. Half of the Jewish community has left Venezuela since 1999 due to antisemitism. Economic freedom is moribund.

About the only positive thing I can say about Chavez is that in his first year of office he decriminalized sodomy, got an anti-discrimination law passed, and allowed gays in the military.

[GiancarloC]

The difference between Hugo Chavez and Bush is that Hugo Chavez was democratically elected, and was helping his people get to better living conditions. I prefer the Brazilian Workers Party model more but I fully understand why Hugo Chavez did what he did. Bush was not democratically elected in 2000 and was rather appointed by the Supreme Court. He didn't even have a majority of votes.

Hugo Chavez was a vital player in standing up against tyranny and western imperialism. He'll be missed. The people will continue to move forward and the changes will continue. Venezuela is in a better condition than they were before under the corrupt right wing stooges who were previously in control.

He'll get the ire of the right wingers (and on here too), but he was truly a man that stood with his people and he was elected fairly every time. The phrase "economic freedom" is something he understood as a deception. "Economic freedom" for who? "Economic freedom" for the rich to continue their oppression of the poor and keeping the workers down? "Economic freedom" for the rich to continue to advocate their piss down economics where they throw a few scraps to the poor? That's not freedom.

Rest in Peace Hugo Chavez! The vilification by Fox News and other right wing extremists in America won't ever change the reality.

[JockBoy87]

^^^ I agree the phrase "economic freedom" is often meant as a euphemism to defend abusive business practices, but in this case it refers to the right to protection from abusive government practices. Chavez redistributed lands and manipulated the food market in Venezuela, and food imports now feed the country. If it weren't for the fact that Venezuela is saturated with oil, the country would be starving.

[GiancarloC]

Chavez stood up with his people and the land redistribution was correct. When a few families control almost 90% of private land this is a major problem. The people were already starving even more before. He improved the country's situation.

[eastofeden]

I respected and liked him for who he was and what he stood for. RIP Mr Chavez.

[JockBoy87]

Chavez stood up with his people and the land redistribution was correct. When a few families control almost 90% of private land this is a major problem. The people were already starving even more before. He improved the country's situation.

I agree with everything you said here except that redistribution of land usually leads to declines in production, and it has in Venezuela overall. Playing with food is dangerous. Fortunately for the people, Venezuela's mineral wealth is keeping it afloat, but only for so long...

[T-Rexx]

Apparently, we killed him by infecting him with cancer.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/05/world/...a-chavez-main/

[GiancarloC]

I agree with everything you said here except that redistribution of land usually leads to declines in production, and it has in Venezuela overall. Playing with food is dangerous. Fortunately for the people, Venezuela's mineral wealth is keeping it afloat, but only for so long...

So hoarding food by the rich and having rich super agribusinesses will somehow help? PEople are starving in America.

[JockBoy87]

So hoarding food by the rich and having rich super agribusinesses will somehow help? PEople are starving in America.

Whatever it takes to get the best yields from land, policy can later be set to make sure it is distributed. The mistake is to distribute sources of food. Land redistribution disrupts organization and places responsibility for food production in less experienced hands. Zimbabwe is a prominent example, but then, Zimbabwe doesn't have Venezuela's mineral wealth to pay for food imports.

Starvation is always an issue of food distribution, never production on a global scale. The world is making more than enough food to feed everyone. The problem in America is less about starvation and more about malnutrition. The average American has access to almost 4000 calories a day, but not from healthy sources. Where there is actual starvation, particularly in Appalachia, it is an issue of food distribution.

[GiancarloC]

Whatever it takes to get the best yields from land, policy can later be set to make sure it is distributed. The mistake is to distribute sources of food.

I think that's an incorrect assessment. When big businesses control production, people will starve. Big busineses don't improve yields and they just abuse and destroy land. I think land redistribution is a good thing when it's implemented properly. Obviously what Robert Mugabe did was not right for example.

Starvation is always an issue of food distribution, never production. The world is making more than enough food to feed everyone. The problem in America is less about starvation and more about malnutrition. The average American has access to almost 4000 calories a day, but not from healthy sources. Where there is actual starvation, particularly in Appalachia, it is an issue of food distribution.

Actually there are people who are starving in this country and don't have enough food... and don't eat enough calories. There are poor people who can't pay for the sharply increasing costs of food. Even junk food.

And the problem with malnutrition is made worse by big businesses, ergo my assessment is spot on.

[JockBoy87]

Big busineses don't improve yields and they just abuse and destroy land.

I don't see why not.

I think land redistribution is a good thing when it's implemented properly. Obviously what Robert Mugabe did was not right for example.

They really are different situations. Zimbabwe doesn't have Venezuela's mineral exploitation.

Actually there are people who are starving in this country and don't have enough food... and don't eat enough calories. There are poor people who can't pay for the sharply increasing costs of food. Even junk food.

There is no excuse for this. The US has the highest calorie per person production of food in the world.

Is this an issue of access to SNAP?

And the problem with malnutrition is made worse by big businesses, ergo my assessment is spot on.

Right, I think the debates about starvation and malnutrition are different animals.

Local farmers here help alleviate high prices for fresh vegetables during the growing season.

[GiancarloC]

They really are different situations. Zimbabwe doesn't have Venezuela's mineral exploitation.

Zimbabwe was mismanaged as a whole and does have mineral wealth.

There is no excuse for this. The US has the highest calorie per person production of food in the world.

Is this an issue of access to SNAP?

This is an issue of greedy capitalism and pure greed... prices go up because of collusion in the market... and caloric consumption in this country is lopsided. There are still people are going hungry.

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/...nger_facts.htm

In 2010, 17.2 million households, 14.5 percent of households (approximately one in seven), were food insecure, the highest number ever recorded in the United States 1 (Coleman-Jensen 2011, p. v.)

Capitalism is failing and it's time for a mixed system at the very least.

Right, I think the debates about starvation and malnutrition are different animals.

Local farmers here help with some of the high prices for fresh vegetables during the season.

It's not just malnutrition. It's starvation. It's a lack of calories for many working class families... food insecurity as the source above called is about a lack of access to food. And this country likes to claim it's the most developed and secure... it's not. It's a myth.

[JockBoy87]

Zimbabwe was mismanaged as a whole and does have mineral wealth.



This is an issue of greedy capitalism and pure greed... prices go up because of collusion in the market... and caloric consumption in this country is lopsided. There are still people are going hungry.

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/...nger_facts.htm



Capitalism is failing and it's time for a mixed system at the very least.



It's not just malnutrition. It's starvation. It's a lack of calories for many working class families... food insecurity as the source above called is about a lack of access to food. And this country likes to claim it's the most developed and secure... it's not. It's a myth.

I honestly don't see what the problem is if capitalism produces more food than state owned or "redistributed" food production, and the evidence says capitalist production does.

Now, the federal government has may agencies responsible for the fair distribution, marketing, and availability of food.

The problem looks to me like an issue of access to government assistance and sufficient regulations, or the scope thereof, not private production of food.

[GiancarloC]

The evidence? Capitalism is the problem and it doesn't produce more food. I am not calling for a complete redistribution, but making the system more equitable must occur.

The federal government in this country has failed in its responsibilities... this isn't Obama's fault. This is a breakdown that started a decade ago.

The problem is sharply increasing food prices and static wages.

I will not sugarcoat or defend capitalism.

Hugo Chavez was a good man, and he stood up against capitalism and its lies. But in all honesty, I still prefer the Brazilian model of social democracy. Brazil produces TONS of food, and is poised to become a major power. And it's a mixed system leaning more towards socialism.

[JockBoy87]

The evidence? Capitalism is the problem and it doesn't produce more food.

Yes it does, because socialist and redistributed food production is conducted by people with less organization, less capital, less expertise, and less ability to invest in infrastructure, and the government cannot adequately respond to hundreds of thousands of new small farmers in need of technical assistance.

...production of some of the mainstays of Venezuelan agriculture -- beef, rice, sugar cane, milk -- has fallen off, economists and food producers say. They attribute the contraction to the chilling effects of the land-confiscation program and government-set price controls.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...1903400_3.html

[GiancarloC]

Yes it does, because socialist and redistributed food production is conducted by people with less organization, less capital, less expertise, and less ability to invest in infrastructure, and the government cannot adequately respond to hundreds of thousands of new small farmers in need of technical assistance.

I don't agree, and capitalism is a faulty system that lies about production numbers all the time. Time to stop defending it. It's all about greed and it's not about actually investing in the system. It's all based on lies.

[JockBoy87]

I don't agree, and capitalism is a faulty system that lies about production numbers all the time. Time to stop defending it. It's all about greed and it's not about actually investing in the system. It's all based on lies.

As far as the research I have conducted, that's what the evidence says. There is nothing to suggest that socialist food production is better, and indeed, the historical example is that socialist takeovers of food production lead to failure. The truth is not just what you can deduce; it must be gleaned from the reality on the ground.

[GiancarloC]

As far as the research I have conducted, that's what the evidence says. There is nothing to suggest that socialist food production is better, and indeed, the historical example is that socialist takeovers of food production lead to failure. The truth is not just what you can deduce; it must be gleaned from the reality on the ground.

I'm not buying it. It's all a lie. It's based on capitalist numbers and sources that are owned by big businesses themselves. Government takeover of crops that lead to failures means the nationalization was not done correctly. That's not called truth. That's called buying into the capitalist lies. And the reality on the ground isn't capitalism. Capitalism is bogus and inflates their own numbers all the time. That's not evidence. It's a myth and distortion.

I won't ever admit that capitalism is a good system. It's not. It's awful. And the mixed system I suggest is FAR BETTER. Like in Brazil, which produces plenty of food.

[JockBoy87]

I'm not buying it. It's all a lie. It's based on capitalist numbers and sources that are owned by big businesses themselves. Government takeover of crops that lead to failures means the nationalization was not done correctly. That's not called truth. That's called buying into the capitalist lies. And the reality on the ground isn't capitalism. Capitalism is bogus and inflates their own numbers all the time. That's not evidence. It's a myth and distortion.

Maybe you can help me understand by showing some example of a socialist system or redistribution scheme that improved production and availability of food. Possibly the only one I can think of are the socialist communes in Israel. As far as suggesting a global capitalist and media conspiracy to distort facts, I do not why that has any merit at all.

[GiancarloC]

Maybe you can help me understand by showing some example of a socialist system or redistribution scheme that improved production and availability of food. Possibly the only one I can think of are the socialist communes in Israel.

I've already named a country that has seen sharp increases in its food production. And socialism has not been properly implemented in certain historical examples. I usually point to Brazil... it's a wonderful example of a mixed system which I often call for. A sort of Social Democracy that raises up the workers.

As far as suggesting a global capitalist and media conspiracy to distort facts, I do not why that has any merit at all.

There is plenty of merit. US Media is owned by a few mega corporations. It's all about distortion.

[JockBoy87]

I've already named a country that has seen sharp increases in its food production. And socialism has not been properly implemented in certain historical examples. I usually point to Brazil... it's a wonderful example of a mixed system which I often call for. A sort of Social Democracy that raises up the workers.

Are there any articles about a social democratic revolution in food production in Brazil that led to the present state? I would like to see one because I'm open to being convinced.

[GiancarloC]

I'm open to being convinced.

Obviously not. There is an agenda. Have a nice day.

Oh and here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...brazil-farming

I will NEVER be convinced that capitalism is the right system or even close to being correct. Stop trying to convince me.

[JockBoy87]

Obviously not. There is an agenda. Have a nice day.

I think you would be pleasantly surprised by my intellectual curiosity and openness. I will find one myself and post it.

[GiancarloC]

I think you would be pleasantly surprised by my intellectual curiosity and openness. I will find one myself and post it.

Pleasantly surprised? As opposed to the defensiveness I've seen in this thread against Hugo Chavez and social democracy? Oh and keep in mind the system I want is a mixed system... I've said that countless times. There is a tendency to equate social democracy to socialism. I'm more of a moderate socialist, and less of a radical one.

Edit: By the way in another thread, I named the Social-Democratic Party in Germany as one I sympathize with, and they are members of Socialist International. The Green Party is also great.

[JockBoy87]

Pleasantly surprised?

You'll see

As opposed to the defensiveness I've seen in this thread against Hugo Chavez and social democracy?

I have a feeling what is going on in Brazil isn't quite what happened in Venezuela, but that remains to be seen.

[GiancarloC]

You'll see



I have a feeling what is going on in Brazil isn't quite what happened in Venezuela.

I see a pretense to defend capitalism despite all of its failures. I'll leave it off with this quote:

“This crisis [2008] was caused by the irrational behaviour of white people with blue eyes, who before the crisis appeared to know everything and now demonstrate that they know nothing.” - Lula Da Silva

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ae4957e8-1...#axzz2MjmJGREs

[JockBoy87]

I see a pretense to defend capitalism despite all of its failures. I'll leave it off with this quote:

“This crisis [2008] was caused by the irrational behaviour of white people with blue eyes, who before the crisis appeared to know everything and now demonstrate that they know nothing.” - Lula Da Silva

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ae4957e8-1...#axzz2MjmJGREs

I don't think race is going to help. There are socialists and capitalists from every walk of life.

[GiancarloC]

I don't think race is going to help. There are socialists and capitalists from every walk of life.

He's right though. And he was referring to Wall Street and the whole system itself.

As far as the US, socialists? Where? The SP-USA is incredibly weak. I don't think it even got half of a percent in the national election.

[JockBoy87]

Unfortunately, my cursory search has been unable to find a link between increased food production in Brazil, forced redistribution of land in Brazil, and collective ownership of Brazilian food production.

The economist details very clear reasons for Brazil's phenomenal agricultural revolution. The foremost reasons are 1) the government has funded a research organization called EMBRAPA to find out how to expand useful land area, 2) recovery of unproductive areas by industry experts, and 3) transforming poor soil into arable land in the Cerrado region. Furthermore, it states that 76% of food production in Brazil is conducted by large companies, and 70% of food production is conducted in the newly arable Cerrado region.

Granted, the article did not go into more detail on how those large companies are conducted, whether the employees have control of the operations of the company, or if there is collective control at all.

[GiancarloC]

That's not capitalism and the Economist itself is dubious in its intentions because it's owned by corporations. Articles like that can distort all sorts of figures. Why are we defending a failing system?

[JockBoy87]

I'm not seeing that Brazil's agricultural revolution involves significant growth in forced land redistribution or social democratic farming.

On the contrary, the Economists' figure for production by large companies such as BrazilAgro, Vanguarda, Agricola, et al., is correct.

The Economists figures are corroborated by a report titled "Latin America: The State of Smallholders in Agriculture." While most farms are small and family-owned, they control only a fraction of the country's farmland. Actually, just 9% of farms own 78% of land in Brazil, and "family farms" only control a quarter of it. That means most of that land is controlled by large companies.

http://www.ifad.org/events/agricultu...s/berdegue.pdf

Of those large companies, including the three mentioned above, I have not been able to find one that does not have a capitalist corporate structure.

[GiancarloC]

And I'm not seeing the falsehoods int he Economist. I am not buying it. The Economist is owned by corporations itself so it would therefore make distorted statements abuot Brazil. Brazil is still suffering from decades of disparity. Brazil had a military dictatorship for decades, but land redistribution has indeed happened under both Lula and Dilma's administrations.

Not buying the defense.

It's obvious people will defend capitalism... without looking at the real massive problems related to it.

[JockBoy87]

And I'm not seeing the falsehoods int he Economist. I am not buying it. The Economist is owned by corporations itself so it would therefore make distorted statements abuot Brazil.

Except that the figures quoted by the Economist showed up in an independent report, which was the basis for my previous post.

Brazil had a military dictatorship for decades, but land redistribution has indeed happened under both Lula and Dilma's administrations.

Land reforms serve justice for underserved populations, but at such a small percentage of food production, social democratic farming does not have a link to the country's massive agricultural revolution or output.

Actually, despite attempts at land reforms, the country's arable land is still dominated by a tiny percentage of land owners who have been involved with developing the Cerrado. [link]

It's obvious people will defend capitalism... without looking at the real massive problems related to it.

This debate is about defending the best agriculture practices. I've done my best to source everything I put forward, and corroborate information with independent sources when challenged.

The evidence just does not show that social democracy has caused Brazil's agricultural revolution.

[GiancarloC]

I don't believe the so called "independent reports" which themselves aren't so independent if we were to look at the sources.

Brazil has had to deal with decades of military dictatorship.

I'm simply not buying the argument. And social democracy has caused Brazil's agricultural revolution? Who is making that claim and show me where I made that claim?

Now words are being put into my mouth. And social democracy is still based on a mixed system, not socialism. That's the problem in America... "social democracy" is misconstrued as socialism and communism. Absolutely false.

Seriously, I'm getting very irritated.

[GiancarloC]

And one other thing, the Social Democratic Party in Germany was in rule for decades. Germany has a mixed system itself. Social Democracy does not entail state take over or redistribution, necessarily. Please stop misusing the term. Social Democratic Parties are very moderate.

[Just_Believe18]

The Benevolent Dictator is dead. It is shocking news, but I feel no sadness for a man who viewed himself as the supreme leader of his country as to dismantle its constitution to prolong his own reign. His people will suffer now for the economic mess he's made in Venezuela.

[JockBoy87]

I'm simply not buying the argument. And social democracy has caused Brazil's agricultural revolution? Who is making that claim and show me where I made that claim?

Now words are being put into my mouth. And social democracy is still based on a mixed system, not socialism. That's the problem in America... "social democracy" is misconstrued as socialism and communism. Absolutely false.

When pressed for an example of a "socialist system" or "redistribution scheme" that led to increases of food production, you pointed to Brazil on the pretext that it is mostly a mixed economic system. Of course, the idea of social democracy is to increase participation in decisions that affect the economy, but not to make the economy itself commonly owned. So what I have shown is that Brazil is actually predominately owned by large landowners, and that not even a mixed economy has caused Brazil's agricultural revolution.

And by the way, IFAD is independent UN agency, and it is non-ideological.

[GiancarloC]

Pressed for what? I wasn't asked anything of the sort. Present a coherent argument please. Capitalism is beyond fucked up and Chavez saw that. Social Democracy isn't socialism. Get pass those ideas. I am done discussing this matter, and this thread can get back on topic. I have no patience to argue right now. What agricultural revolution? Doesn't make any sense at all.

UN is controlled by western interests for the most part, so there is no independence.

I think at this point I should employ the ignore list. Some just love to be argumentative and using talking points. And all they can present are the same old tired arguments.

Edit: Oh and brazil is definitely a mixed economy. LOOK AT THE BIGGER PICTURE. That's all I will say.

[JockBoy87]

The record will speak for itself. I'm the least of your worries anyway. Just wait for the right wingers to show up.

[GiancarloC]

The record? What record? Capitalism is FUCKED UP. Period.

This is just the same old. And the right wingers to show up? Great let them. I'm fine with people tripping over their own words.

Edit: Also, I don't take THREATS lightly.

[JockBoy87]

Edit: Also, I don't take THREATS lightly.

Me? Summon the JUB GOP brigade? You have to be joking

If it were up to me you wouldn't see half of them anymore.

[GiancarloC]

Why should I worry about them then?

[JockBoy87]

Why should I worry about them then?

I surmise they will see the thread and want to comment, then we shall find ourselves on the same side

[GiancarloC]

I surmise they will see the thread and want to comment, then we shall find ourselves on the same side

Absolutely not. I don't side with those who side with a super corrupt system.

[JockBoy87]

Absolutely not. I don't side with those who side with a super corrupt system.

When the extremists show up, I think you will find our differences are smaller than with them. Our differences have to do with leanings. I generally agree that capitalism needs to be tempered, though not as extensive as you would advocate.

[GiancarloC]

When the extremists show up, I think you will find our differences are smaller than with them. Our differences have to do with leanings. I generally agree that capitalism needs to be tempered, though not as extensive as you would advocate.

No. I pretty much view those who support the broken system as the same.

Differences have to do with leanings? It's far more than just leanings. I don't side with a busted, broken corrupt system that exaggerates and manipulates numbers.

[JockBoy87]

No. I pretty much view those who support the broken system as the same.

Differences have to do with leanings? It's far more than just leanings.

A mixed economy is controlled by the private market to at least some extent.

I don't side with a busted, broken corrupt system that exaggerates and manipulates numbers.

Neither do I.

That's why I side with a busted, broken corrupt system that doesn't exaggerate and manipulate numbers

[Ninja108]

Whatever good things he brought to the table,it doesn't erase the fact he was also a tyrant who murdered people who didn't agree with him or what he was doing to the country.

[GiancarloC]

Nice try being au contrarian. The system i see being adovcated does manipulate numbers. This is fact. And a mixed system is controlled by regulation and government.