Privately owned? Well, I guess they might as well use 'em up before he nationalizes the media, too.
You act like critiques of Capitalism don't exist. There's a reason Marxism has taken hold in the Eurocentric academy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
The opposition has privately owned media networks to make use of.
The party in power has laws to make use of, controlling the courts and electoral tribunal. Chavez has been running the government as his fiefdom. He might not be a dictator yet, but practically he's grown disturbing autocratic tendencies while tightening his grip. Venezuela has chosen, but now has 20% inflation and rising debt. His party is built around the personality cult of Chavez.
Venezuela being socialist isn't a big deal. But there are different kinds of socialism, and Chavez has been skewing towards the kind that is impoverishing his country rather than the alternatives that exist right next door to him and are superior (Brazil).
I don't dispute the outcome of this election, but I still think he's bad for the country.
You act like critiques of Capitalism don't exist. There's a reason Marxism has taken hold in the Eurocentric academy.
That's on the wane, most people are returning to classical liberal stances and anarchism is gaining a foothold among the youth (in certain thanks to Ron Paul, Mises Institute's marketing, and the recession). If you look at what academics are studying and doing their dissertations on, Marxism is on the wane. Of course it will probably come back eventually whenever "government must stand up against the evils of X" comes back.
Marxists overtime also had a tendency to become conservatives over time, including multiple intellectuals who may use Marxist material version of history and some aspects of his sociology, but do not profess his economic theory for surplus value.
Marx is useful, Friedman is great, but in all frankness I've found Schumpeter to be a lot better than either. His best work was Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy where expounded on some points with socialism overtaking capitalism over time, which has occurred. The key is that "socialism in some form." The anarchistic strains among certain capitalists seem to dissuade this as a natural course of events, whereas historically if we concede the existence of the Medicci and their ability to garner power through money and marriage as one of the first major international corporations and others such as the Rothschild family or the first true international corporation; The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and The Temple of Solomon.
Equally the Commerce Revolution that started in the 1400's, led to the creation of new business ties via trade guilds that at first held communes responsible for people breaking contracts and eventually led to the guilds holding individuals responsible for rule breaking. So this tug of war betwixt individual and community has always existed, especially with the "I quit" and freeloader problem that comes with certain types of organizations and why anarchism fails when you increase trade over long distances. If you read The Selfish Gene, the whole anecdote about the "grudger" is a big thing to think about in that context.
"I'm angry, I got screwed off, I need to punish someone" is a huge thing often hand waved over in anarchism which tends to have a romantic view of other people and espousing voluntaryism. Voluntaryistic mechanisms can be abused through subtle ways as well, such as how consumer electronics has led to decreases in violent crime waves. Consumerism while you're playing Angry Birds or looking at porn, someone is tacking that data to predict your future spending habits in order to sell you more over time.
In the Engineering of Consent by Edward Bernays you will find that when communications was being formulated into a more structured aspect of business, that there's no hard and fast rule that "people can be mind controlled." But what does occur is that people buy based on emotion and justify through logic.
Now, if we take ijosspiere from a developmental stand point where's talked about his own childhood, if you find it and read it I can more than guarantee you that "little ijosspiere" and "big ijosspiere" can be traced on a fundamental backwards and forwards. Whereas you take Tuss, whom has never elaborated on some of his personal details, you can certainly see socialist values and his nationality coming into play as a part of that. The other factors, Teia for instance is a feminist, largest influence was her mother.
Now where these political ideas come out of they are identity and emotionally centered which are developed in youth and carry over to events in life and our interpretation of those events.
Where I tend to go from here in this discussion, is seeing the destruction of an entire nation-state through raw consumption and thinking of "only today" yet the positive Protestant Work Ethic, which is more of a capitalist work ethic, gave order to a chaotic and lazy system while increasing divorce rates, destroying families, and communities. Watching violence and abuse, decay and entropy takes place as that which was created only birthed more fear and anger.
The concept of a brother's keeper is to look at when the blood cries out from the ground to take heed of one's actions, yet one also must take into consideration the role of the other person who is involved in the situation as the role of fellow or parent. To grip blood soaked earth in ones hand, stare at it, and then question "What is next?" This is where a curse comes from, because that violence will castigate upon those who identify with the life taker. And that is why we have a government, and generations of blood encrusted institutions and tomes splattered with iron written upon wood.
The martyr narrative that are used to perpetuate violence, be they Muslims or McCoys.
I say this, does a libertarian or socialist framework come out of places of violence and brutality? Rarely, they take more to the use of concerted force. Places with prosperity where individuals have good governance have been able to create elaborate psycho-social philosophies for how people ought to live, trade those ideas, and live peaceably when the only major violence they see is done by the state. The same with redistribution based socialist with an "enlightened government" has been under the thrall of a good government and saved from villainy to see it through the guise of that which is abroad.
Communist or rather feudal communism is sold to communes and communities that have order to gain greater legitimacy by giving into connectivity to the unconnected. Mao did this famously against the Kuomintang where the KMT had control over the cities and he took over the rural areas, and eventually encircled and won driving the KMT to Taiwan. It's because identity and connectivity are that important to the disconnected. As I often say "mimicry begets mastery." China copied Russia, eventually China copied Singapore and "got it a bit better." Singapore copied ancient China and Imperial Britain.
Thus far, as Schumpeter has predicted, capitalism has lost to socialism, but not in the way Marx had expected. We may use the term corporatism in place of socialism at times, but when you think of your private health insurance versus Medicaid and Medicare, think of how many people you're connected to and how that risk is pooled or rather socialized.
So in order for the anarchist to win, we would have to dismantle much of our social institutions, yet throughout time we have constructed those institutions. To support the anti-colonialist martyr narrative for redistribution of the wealth, we would have to continuously indulge those that were abused. Whereas ignoring the more successful areas like South Africa, where you have a "moment" to punish the wicked and move on or otherwise hold trials to the most brutal such as in the case of Nazi Germany. Followed by some wealth redistribution and programs to help those were affected by the system.
You know what I say about socialism and anarchism? They're wonderful and brave, and should be stood up for. However, that's not what many of our fights are about day to day. They're about our children, our friends, our communities. If communism led to Sovietism, Anarchism led to Icelandic blood feuds, and thus far socialism has to led to the US, Sweden, and several other nations between the violence of the Soviet and the Icelander? This isn't our fight, we don't need to reinvent the wheel, just do better with what we have. Remember what the Soviets promised, look at what the anarchist are making the same promise, and the same with the socialist. What is left out of those identities? I'm still trying to figure that one out. Conservationist? Creative Destructionist?
Democracy is overrated. When you live in a country like Venezuela, Brazil, or anywhere in latin america, where most of the folk is not only illiterate, but massively uneducated, you realize we're just peons in the hands of international media.
People vote where the media tells them to vote. It's not only about which social model your country adopts (capitalism, socialism, anarchism, etc) - it's also about how the rest of the world sees you. And they see him cutting on their profits.
Venezuela is a major oil player. Everyone wants to grab hold of it's oil and Chavez is on their way. I don't know if the country's economy being in a bad state is Chavez' or the oil companies' fault. All I know is that, by living in a similar country and not being a rich fella, I'm accustomed to having mega-corporation's interests being put ahead of the people's. I wholeheartedly agree with Chavez' position.
Independent media, as much as anti-establishment as it may be, is the way to go. Major media companies have always been hypocritical about their bias and that only makes them even more dangerous than any politician.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-
YOU ARE SURPRISED BY A MANTICORE! IT QUICKLY SHREDS YOUR FLESH AND DEVOURS YOU!
Supporting only media you like is not independent media.
Reporters Without Borders ranks Venezuela "NOT FREE" and places it down at #117 on the global ranking. It's index has been declining over the past decade.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Privately owned? Well, I guess they might as well use 'em up before he nationalizes the media, too.
You act like critiques of Capitalism don't exist. There's a reason Marxism has taken hold in the Eurocentric academy.
The party in power has laws to make use of, controlling the courts and electoral tribunal. Chavez has been running the government as his fiefdom. He might not be a dictator yet, but practically he's grown disturbing autocratic tendencies while tightening his grip. Venezuela has chosen, but now has 20% inflation and rising debt. His party is built around the personality cult of Chavez.
Venezuela being socialist isn't a big deal. But there are different kinds of socialism, and Chavez has been skewing towards the kind that is impoverishing his country rather than the alternatives that exist right next door to him and are superior (Brazil).
I don't dispute the outcome of this election, but I still think he's bad for the country.
That's on the wane, most people are returning to classical liberal stances and anarchism is gaining a foothold among the youth (in certain thanks to Ron Paul, Mises Institute's marketing, and the recession). If you look at what academics are studying and doing their dissertations on, Marxism is on the wane. Of course it will probably come back eventually whenever "government must stand up against the evils of X" comes back.
Marxists overtime also had a tendency to become conservatives over time, including multiple intellectuals who may use Marxist material version of history and some aspects of his sociology, but do not profess his economic theory for surplus value.
Marx is useful, Friedman is great, but in all frankness I've found Schumpeter to be a lot better than either. His best work was Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy where expounded on some points with socialism overtaking capitalism over time, which has occurred. The key is that "socialism in some form." The anarchistic strains among certain capitalists seem to dissuade this as a natural course of events, whereas historically if we concede the existence of the Medicci and their ability to garner power through money and marriage as one of the first major international corporations and others such as the Rothschild family or the first true international corporation; The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and The Temple of Solomon.
Equally the Commerce Revolution that started in the 1400's, led to the creation of new business ties via trade guilds that at first held communes responsible for people breaking contracts and eventually led to the guilds holding individuals responsible for rule breaking. So this tug of war betwixt individual and community has always existed, especially with the "I quit" and freeloader problem that comes with certain types of organizations and why anarchism fails when you increase trade over long distances. If you read The Selfish Gene, the whole anecdote about the "grudger" is a big thing to think about in that context.
"I'm angry, I got screwed off, I need to punish someone" is a huge thing often hand waved over in anarchism which tends to have a romantic view of other people and espousing voluntaryism. Voluntaryistic mechanisms can be abused through subtle ways as well, such as how consumer electronics has led to decreases in violent crime waves. Consumerism while you're playing Angry Birds or looking at porn, someone is tacking that data to predict your future spending habits in order to sell you more over time.
In the Engineering of Consent by Edward Bernays you will find that when communications was being formulated into a more structured aspect of business, that there's no hard and fast rule that "people can be mind controlled." But what does occur is that people buy based on emotion and justify through logic.
Now, if we take ijosspiere from a developmental stand point where's talked about his own childhood, if you find it and read it I can more than guarantee you that "little ijosspiere" and "big ijosspiere" can be traced on a fundamental backwards and forwards. Whereas you take Tuss, whom has never elaborated on some of his personal details, you can certainly see socialist values and his nationality coming into play as a part of that. The other factors, Teia for instance is a feminist, largest influence was her mother.
Now where these political ideas come out of they are identity and emotionally centered which are developed in youth and carry over to events in life and our interpretation of those events.
Where I tend to go from here in this discussion, is seeing the destruction of an entire nation-state through raw consumption and thinking of "only today" yet the positive Protestant Work Ethic, which is more of a capitalist work ethic, gave order to a chaotic and lazy system while increasing divorce rates, destroying families, and communities. Watching violence and abuse, decay and entropy takes place as that which was created only birthed more fear and anger.
The concept of a brother's keeper is to look at when the blood cries out from the ground to take heed of one's actions, yet one also must take into consideration the role of the other person who is involved in the situation as the role of fellow or parent. To grip blood soaked earth in ones hand, stare at it, and then question "What is next?" This is where a curse comes from, because that violence will castigate upon those who identify with the life taker. And that is why we have a government, and generations of blood encrusted institutions and tomes splattered with iron written upon wood.
The martyr narrative that are used to perpetuate violence, be they Muslims or McCoys.
I say this, does a libertarian or socialist framework come out of places of violence and brutality? Rarely, they take more to the use of concerted force. Places with prosperity where individuals have good governance have been able to create elaborate psycho-social philosophies for how people ought to live, trade those ideas, and live peaceably when the only major violence they see is done by the state. The same with redistribution based socialist with an "enlightened government" has been under the thrall of a good government and saved from villainy to see it through the guise of that which is abroad.
Communist or rather feudal communism is sold to communes and communities that have order to gain greater legitimacy by giving into connectivity to the unconnected. Mao did this famously against the Kuomintang where the KMT had control over the cities and he took over the rural areas, and eventually encircled and won driving the KMT to Taiwan. It's because identity and connectivity are that important to the disconnected. As I often say "mimicry begets mastery." China copied Russia, eventually China copied Singapore and "got it a bit better." Singapore copied ancient China and Imperial Britain.
Thus far, as Schumpeter has predicted, capitalism has lost to socialism, but not in the way Marx had expected. We may use the term corporatism in place of socialism at times, but when you think of your private health insurance versus Medicaid and Medicare, think of how many people you're connected to and how that risk is pooled or rather socialized.
So in order for the anarchist to win, we would have to dismantle much of our social institutions, yet throughout time we have constructed those institutions. To support the anti-colonialist martyr narrative for redistribution of the wealth, we would have to continuously indulge those that were abused. Whereas ignoring the more successful areas like South Africa, where you have a "moment" to punish the wicked and move on or otherwise hold trials to the most brutal such as in the case of Nazi Germany. Followed by some wealth redistribution and programs to help those were affected by the system.
You know what I say about socialism and anarchism? They're wonderful and brave, and should be stood up for. However, that's not what many of our fights are about day to day. They're about our children, our friends, our communities. If communism led to Sovietism, Anarchism led to Icelandic blood feuds, and thus far socialism has to led to the US, Sweden, and several other nations between the violence of the Soviet and the Icelander? This isn't our fight, we don't need to reinvent the wheel, just do better with what we have. Remember what the Soviets promised, look at what the anarchist are making the same promise, and the same with the socialist. What is left out of those identities? I'm still trying to figure that one out. Conservationist? Creative Destructionist?
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
People vote where the media tells them to vote. It's not only about which social model your country adopts (capitalism, socialism, anarchism, etc) - it's also about how the rest of the world sees you. And they see him cutting on their profits.
Venezuela is a major oil player. Everyone wants to grab hold of it's oil and Chavez is on their way. I don't know if the country's economy being in a bad state is Chavez' or the oil companies' fault. All I know is that, by living in a similar country and not being a rich fella, I'm accustomed to having mega-corporation's interests being put ahead of the people's. I wholeheartedly agree with Chavez' position.
Independent media, as much as anti-establishment as it may be, is the way to go. Major media companies have always been hypocritical about their bias and that only makes them even more dangerous than any politician.
Venezuela also ranks third globally in terms of how many Internet users sign on to Twitter, after Indonesia and Brazil. It seems to me that it's a bit high on the rank for a country with no freedom of speech.
Supporting only media you like is not independent media.
Reporters Without Borders ranks Venezuela "NOT FREE" and places it down at #117 on the global ranking. It's index has been declining over the past decade.