Venezuela: Reasons for a Historic Move

[IndianaGreen]

Venezuela: Reasons for a Historic Move

Victor M. Carriba

Caracas, May 27 (Prensa Latina) Several violations and sanctions, as well as constitutional and legal factors, underpin the decision of the Venezuelan government of not granting today the concession for private Radio Caracas Television (RCTV) channel to use radioelectric space.

For 53 years, RCTV enjoyed the exploitation of channel 2 of the country's air transmission spectrum, a concession expiring today, without any chance of renewal, according to authorities.

The official determination was even further as to hand over the frequency to a new public service station, Venezuela's Social Television (Televisora Venezolana Social, TEVES).

This will enhance plurality, with a message aimed at the citizen, and not the consumer, according to Communication Minister Jesse Chacon.

<snip>

But the darkest page of its record was written in April 2002, when RCTV management cut its daily programs to support the coup against President Hugo Chavez and his democratically elected government.

Everybody remembers here that the channel took part in what was considered the world's first media coup, preventing reporters from broadcasting information on the failed coup attempt.

Prensa Latina

[dsa]

1. i don't trust hugo chavez

one of my best friends is from venezuela and her family has been absolutely terrorized by chavez's regime. he reminds me of the fascists in europe who abused the tools of democracy to create a dictatorship.

a private army answering only to chavez? imprisonment of political rivals? opposition parities made illegal? seizure of private property with no compensation? chavez given the power to rule by decree? now the media being taken over by the state? does anyone care what this guy is up to?!

[IndianaGreen]

2. Those things your friend says are true... in a Faux News universe

but they are totally false in the universe in which the Earth exists.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Where's this 'anti-American' stuff come from?

You've made 6 posts, and you're saying that 'we' have 'nutso anti-americans' - and then you call a fellow DUer 'rabid'.

That isn't the way to win friends and influence people. I'd have thought anybody could work that out.

[dsa]

4. try these for starters

Rule by decree passed for Chavez
BBC - Friday, 19 January 2007

Venezuela's National Assembly has given initial approval to a bill granting the president the power to bypass congress and rule by decree for 18 months.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6277379.stm

-----

Venezuela court orders TV seizure
BBC - Saturday, 26 May 2007

Venezuela's top court has allowed the government to take control of private TV transmitters as it prepares to replace commercial with state-run TV.

Of course that is what has angered so many thousands of people here.

Protesters say President Hugo Chavez is limiting freedom of expression and taking the country down the path of dictatorship.

But the president maintains he has the right to silence a channel that he says actively tries to undermine his government.

With huge protests planned this weekend, security in the city is tight.

In a show of force, dozens of military vehicles have filed through the roads of Caracas in a slow-moving cavalcade.

Mr Chavez has warned his followers that the country is under threat from those opposed to his militant rule.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6694245.stm

-----

Venezuela steps up land seizures
BBC - Monday, 26 March 2007
Venezuela's government has seized more than 330,000 hectares (815,450 acres) of land to redistribute them under an agrarian reform programme.

In the past five years, almost 2m hectares have been seized after being declared unproductive or because the owners did not have the property documents in order.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6494843.stm

-----

More on seizures of industry:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6245995.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6610333.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6621927.stm

-----

Venezuela jails opposition leader
BBC - Tuesday, 13 December 2005

A Venezuelan court has sentenced one of the most prominent leaders of the opposition to 15 years in prison.

Carlos Ortega, who once led powerful trade unions, was found guilty of inciting civil unrest during a strike that began in late 2002.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4526642.stm

-----

Venezuela votes on Sunday
BBC - 01 December, 2006

Overview of fears in the country...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2006/12/061201_venezuela.shtml

-----

Venezuela's middle class feels the squeeze
BBC - 29 November 2006

"I don't want my children to grow up in the kind of country that Chavez is creating," is a sentiment often expressed by members of Venezuela's middle classes as the presidential poll approaches.

This guys hits it right on the head...

One middle class man who is determined to stay and fight for change is Arturo Merizalde, a doctor who says he had to close down his surgery in a lower-middle class area of the capital after government policies left most of his patients jobless.

"I have always been a left-wing person. I supported Chavez the first year, but then it became indefensible," he says. "He is not a leftist - he is a fascist."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6186990.stm

-----

These are only a handful that I found in a quick search on BBC. You can find plenty more there or look on Google News and see sources from all over the world. Unless it's a mouthpiece of Chavez's increasingly controlled media, there is plenty of evidence of his subversion of democratic institutions to create his own dictatorship.

[Peace Patriot]

6. "...her family has been absolutely terrorized by chavez's regime." ???

Please give us details on the terrorization of your friend's family. "he reminds me of the fascists in europe" is too vague. I hear the word "dictator" used by our war profiteering corporate news monopolies in sync with Bush's (murdering terrorist dictator's) State Dept., but I have yet to hear a single personal story or detail that backs it up. So, if you have such information, please share.

"a private army answering only to chavez?"

What are you talking about, please? Never heard that one. And who do you think the U.S. Military is answerable to? Chavez is the PRESIDENT of the country. The army is SUPPOSED TO BE ANSWERABLE to him.

"...imprisonment of political rivals?"

If you consider the leaders of a violent military coup attempt, or the leaders of the CIA/Exxon-Mobile oil professionals' strike that was aimed at destroying the legitimate, democratically elected government, to be "political rivals," then I guess you would object to the CRIMINALS who led these activities being prosecuted and jailed. In truth, the Chavez government has shown extraordinary restraint and LAWFULNESS in dealing with these people, who were out to KILL him and install a rightwing military dictatorship. VERY FEW of them have been prosecuted and jailed. (I've read of three or four--the leaders of the coup attempt.)

"...seizure of private property with no compensation?"

Please give details. I've been following this one closely and I have yet to read of one instance of seizure of private property without compensation. In fact, the Venezuelan government is notable for enacting land reform WITHOUT harming private landowners. The Venezuelan Constitution specifically protects private property, and the Chavez government has been scrupulous in respecting that provision. When the mayor of Caracas proposed seizing two golf courses/country clubs last year, to build low cost housing for the poor shantytown dwellers--whose meager homes regularly slide off the hills of Caracas in heavy storms--the Chavez government FORBADE him to do it. Venezuela has an acute problem of loss of farming and inability to feed itself as a nation without big imports. Further, the displacement of small farmers--family farms, traditional peasant farmers--and their migration to urban areas is a serious, serious problem throughout Latin America. Venezuela has been trying to address it, by giving peasants plots of farmland that has long been unused and either neglected by absentee landowners or of questionable title. If an owner can be located, they are compensated. If you have information of unjust land takings, please share it. I am not a kneejerk thinker. I favor Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution, but I believe that any politician is open to criticism and capable of authoritarianism. I have just yet to see any such criticism of Chavez that holds up.

"...now the media being taken over by the state?"

That is a gross and highly distorted take on the non-renewal of RCTV's license. RCTV actively participated in a VIOLENT MILITARY COUP ATTEMPT. Their use of the public airwaves is NOT a right, it is a privilege--in Venezuela, as here. TV/radio are PUBLIC airwaves, with limited bandwidth. This is WHY every government in the world regulates them, and requires that they operate in the public interest. The Chavez government has NOT shut down ANY newspaper--MANY of whom regularly revile the Chavistas--and took NO ACTION against ANY OTHER TV or radio station, many of which SUPPORTED the coup attempt, but not as actively as RCTV. Any TV station in the U.S., who did what RCTV did, would be shut down. The wonder is that Chavez didn't shut them down immediately, rather than wait for their license renewal. (That decision--to wait--was probably based on not wanting to further inflame the country after the coup attempt--a very wise decision, it seems to me. And it further emphasized the Chavez government's strict adherence to the rule of law. The rule of law was the main point at issue in the coup.)

"...does anyone care what this guy is up to?!"

Obviously I care what "this guy" is up to. Ever since the Bush Junta and its lapdog corporate press began vilifying Chavez, and--as I have since found out--actively supporting the rightwing plots to illegitimately overthrow him--I have been very interested in what is really going on in Venezuela, and have sought out sources of counter-balancing information. I have ZERO trust in Bush and our media. One of the best sources for understanding the Bolivarian movement, from the point of view of the Bolivarians--that is, the vast majority of Venezuelans--and also with good, objective and informative writing is: www.venezuelanalysis.com.

I urge DUers to favor objectivity, facts, and historical knowledge in analyzing South American politics. I urge everyone in particular to understand the history of U.S./global corporate predator interference in Latin American countries, which has often been brutal and repressive. There are political and economic developments in Latin America, currently, that are hugely important to us, as well as to Latin Americans. For instance, Chavez and the Bolivarians have inspired a general rebellion in South American countries against U.S. interference, against the World Bank/IMF, against U.S.-dominated "free trade" deals, against the U.S. war on Iraq, and in favor of Latin American self-determination, independence and regional cooperation--through new institutions such as the Bank of the South (Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador and Paraguay) and Mercosur (South American trade group). We need multiple perspectives, in order to understand these extremely important developments. But the people who keep saying "dictator, dictator, dictator!" about Chavez are not being helpful. They just sound like Bushites.

Chavez himself (in an interview I read of him, at www.venezuelanalysis.com) said that there is a difference between being "strong" and being a "dictator." He seems like a very thoughtful, well-read man. And he has a point. FDR was called a "dictator"--by the fascist forces in the U.S. during the 1930s and 1940s who opposed his strong measures to help the poor and the starving during the Great Depression. Fascists have money and power on their side. The poor have nothing. So government needs to counter-balance the fascist rich and the corporate predators with STRONG policy and STRONG leftist leaders.

It seems to me, from everything that I have read, on both sides of the Chavez controversy, that Venezuela has one of the strongest democracies and one of the most vibrant political cultures in the Western Hemisphere--far better than our own. NOTHING that Chavez has done (as opposed to what some people fantasize that he has done) has changed that. In fact, his ideas--and the ideas of his government and his supporters--seem to be spreading like wildfire , to many countries--because those ideas are GOOD ONES. Peaceful, democratic change. Justice for the poor. Constitutional government. High levels of citizen participation in government and politics. Protection of the environment. Busting up the old highly corrupt political establishments.

We could use these ideas HERE. And THAT may be why Chavez is such a threat to the Bushistas. The Bush Junta doesn't want the people of the U.S. to get any ideas about participatory democracy and justice for the poor.

Anyway, if you have any information that would point to Hugo Chavez really being a "dictator," I would like to hear it. ANY politician can get a big head and can become power hungry. So far, though, what I'm getting from the criticisms of Chavez is that they are very, very similar to the rightwing criticism of FDR, which confused "strength" on behalf of the poor and on behalf of the country in general, with "authoritarianism."

[dsa]

8. I've already written a novel on this topic

My friend's brother has been imprisoned for his opposition to the direction Chavez is taking the country. My friend is going to school in the U.S. but the rest of her family remains in Venezuela trying to free him. If they can, they plan to emigrate elsewhere in Latin America.

Here's just a sample of the information on which I base my contentions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2860970&mesg_id=2861040

[Peace Patriot]

10. A novel is a work of fiction. The refs at your link contain nothing that I haven't

read before, investigated and found to be wanting in facts or context, as any kind of "proof" that the Venezuelan government is authoritarian or even tending toward authoritarian.

Facts, please. Details. These general allegations won't do.

I'm sorry that your friend is suffering separation from her brother, due to his imprisonment, and, if he is in prison unjustly, I would be the first to champion his cause. But I have to say that I hesitate over the reason you give for why he is imprisoned: "for his opposition to the direction Chavez is taking the country." What form did that opposition take? What were the charges against him? What was he convicted of? Did he have a public trial? Was he represented by counsel? And if his counsel was inadequate, why was that?

There have been two forms of opposition to the Chavez government--lawful and unlawful. Members of the opposition who have broken the law, for instance, by accepting money from the Bush regime for political campaigning (against the law in Venezuela, as it is here), or who fomented the violent military coup, deserve to be prosecuted, and hopefully have received fair trials, whether guilty or innocent. There have been no "show trials" that I know of--nor any secret trials, nor military tribunals (such as the U.S. government is conducting against prisoners of war and many innocents), and very few people have been prosecuted and jailed for violent or unlawful opposition to the Chavez government. So you are going to have to prove to me that your friend's brother was prosecuted for lawful activity and was unfairly imprisoned. Even the corporate-controlled human rights groups have not accused the Chavez government of political arrests or prosecutions. I cannot take your word for it, since you seem very biased against the democratically elected government of Venezuela. I am biased the other way--based on my sympathy for the aspirations of the poor in South America, and their past brutalization by local rich elites in cahoots with the U.S. government and corporate interests, and based on widespread reading and research and also on personal reports of friends.

One bit of research that particularly swayed me--because of the terrible state of U.S. elections--is the care that Venezuelans have taken to create transparent vote counting, and fair election conditions--an election process that has been closely monitored and has received the unanimous stamp of approval from the OAS, the Carter Center and EU election monitoring groups.

I think I have a pretty good basis for presuming that the demonization of Chavez has ulterior motives on the part of the Bush regime and their corporate puppetmasters, and that it is entirely false to call him a "dictator." He has been quite open about his policies, and those policies have been repeatedly endorsed by the vast majority of Venezuelans, and have, further, not violated anyone's human or civil rights, and have, to the contrary, enhanced the human and civil rights of people who have traditionally been cast aside (or worse).

Another item of interest to me was the utter irresponsibility and neglect that Venezuela's rich elite has exhibited toward the poor and toward their country's general welfare. Millions of people with no medical care and no educational opportunities. Millions of people without hope, living in grinding poverty--and nobody caring. I would at least credit our own rich elites for forethought in the 1950s and '60s, in their philanthropy and support for education, and other common good polices, and, for a while there, in our history, their general agreement as to labor rights, Medicare, Social Security, public parks and libraries, and so forth (--although it appears now to have been grudging agreement; they were only laying wait to loot these programs).

The Venezuelan elite appears to be very selfish and egotistical--much like our elite in the present-day USA. Their incredible neglect of the poor, on medical care and education, is symptomatic of something deeper. In five years, the Chavez government has nearly wiped out illiteracy, which stood at about 40% prior to this government. Why didn't Venezuela's rich elite see to this? Why did they want an ignorant, illiterate, poor population?

I have read of only one act by the rightwing in Venezuela that inspired my admiration and sympathy--and that was when the rightwing presidential candidate who ran against Chavez in the last election disavowed yet another rightwing military coup plot. I thought that was courageous, and indicated that perhaps a more ethical and patriotic opposition may be forming in Venezuela. I have hoped and prayed that there could be civil discourse, an end to plots, and a consensus on the basics of lawful government. This was the first sign that that might be happening.

So you see where I am coming from. But I have no doubt that injustice can happen, even in the best of countries. And I am open-minded about it. If your friend's brother is unjustly imprisoned--and if you can convince me of it--I will even write a letter to Hugo Chavez and others in Venezuela about it. I don't tolerate injustice anywhere that it rears its ugly head. And if that is what has happened, in the case of your friend's brother, perhaps a letter from someone who approves of the Boliviarian Revolution would get more attention than a letter from someone who is biased against it.

[bemildred]

7. It would be really nice if the government would reassert public ownership

of broadcast bandwidth here too, instead of "enclosing" them in perpetuity for the purpose of private profit. Perhaps we would not be subjected to the endless stream of perfect crap that we get now, and our public discourse would not be so degraded.

[Peace Patriot]

9. Some basic principles and facts to think about, in evaluating the Chavez government,

particularly its recent denial to RCTV of a license to the use the public airwaves.

If Faux News, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and associated corporate conglomerate radio stations were shut down tomorrow--their licenses pulled, their assets seized, and the airwaves licensed to small competitive businesses, worker coops or publicly funded broadcasting--would it be a plus or a minus, for free speech in the United States?

Arguably, these war profiteering corporate news monopolies did enormous harm to the public interest in the leadup to the Iraq War--promulgating an endless stream of lies from the government, and acting as cheerleaders for an unjust, illegal, heinous war. They further harmed the public by colluding in the 2004 stolen election (by DOCTORING their exit polls to cover up a Kerry win, among other things). They are irresponsible, unamerican global corporate predators, who have no inherent right to our public airwaves, and who routinely promote rightwing and fascist policy to the great harm of the American people.

I wouldn't cry a tear to see any of them shut down and replaced by REAL news and REAL opinion. And I am something of a fanatic about the First Amendment. I think freedom of speech would be greatly enhanced by busting up these news monopolies.

Bushistas might protest against it. So what? Protest is okay, as long as it's civil. But the interests and will of the MAJORITY are the deciding factor in a democracy. Protection of minority (fascist, rightwing, 'christianist' or corporate) opinion is also an important principle in a democracy, but it extends to our PUBLIC airwaves ONLY in so far as ALL opinions are respected and given a BALANCED amount of time to be expressed. There is virtually no balance in corporate control of our PUBLIC airwaves.

News and opinion on our PUBLIC airwaves in the U.S. is extremely distorted in favor of the rightwing. Our PUBLIC airwaves are basically controlled by five rightwing billionaire CEOs, and are further misused due to corporate media conglomerates that control newspapers, news magazines, books and entertainment, and that have subsidiary companies in many industries, including the war industry. News/opinion is excessively slanted toward enhancing the ungodly profits of the few, and against the interests of the majority.

U.S. newspapers are similarly controlled and slanted to support fascist policy. Neither would I cry a tear to see the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Time magazine, Newsweek and the Associated Press disappear, and be replaced by REAL news organizations. Of these, I might prefer to see the NYT reformed, than vanish altogether. The others can all go to hell, as far as I'm concerned. No loss to free speech. Real newspapers--independent, competitive--would spring up in their place and actually provide a watchdog over our government, and old-fashioned, investigative, muckraking journalism, in place of the crap that these newspapers have been purveying.

Government should have no part in dismembering corporate crap newspapers, however--except for busting up monopolies (corporations that control vast empires including newspapers and TV/radio). The print media is not a limited bandwidth, as TV/radio is. Although corporations have gained inordinate power over print media--in theory, anyone could get themselves a printing press, and set themselves up as a rival to the big papers. This is not true in TV/radio, where the "space" in inherently limited and licenses are required. In TV/radio, corporate conglomerates crowd out everybody else, and furthermore use their power and money to PREVENT diversity, by their lobbying influence on politicians and regulatory agencies. When you have the FBI going around and harassing tiny 'pirate' radio stations, and trying to stamp them out, you know something is wrong. Our PUBLIC airwaves are not open enough to diverse programming and news/opinion. In fact, they are barely open at all.

The media situation in Venezuela is very similar to the U.S., except that the people of Venezuela have managed to repeatedly elect a leftist (majorityist) government IN SPITE OF the rightwing corporate control of virtually all TV/radio bandwidth. As a consequence, THEY have a government that cares about responsible use of the PUBLIC airwaves--as ours does not. Similarly, in Venezuela, it wouldn't bother me if they denied licenses to several of the corporate news monopolies, and opened those airwaves up to competition and real (broad spectrum) news/opinion. It would ENHANCE free speech, not dampen it. But the democratically elected government of Venezuela has chosen not to do that. They have merely denied a license to the worst of a number of bad actors who supported the violent military coup attempt--RCTV, who hosted meetings of the rightwing bastards who tried to overthrow the legitimate government, who shut down the National Assembly (Congress) and the courts, and who kidnapped the president of the country and would likely have killed him, if the people of Venezuela had not arisen, en masse, and defeated this coup, by surrounding Miraflores palace and demanding his return. (See the documentary "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," available in DVD at AxisOfLogic.com.)

This is the perspective from which I view the Venezuelan government's recent action. Licenses to use the PUBLIC airwaves should be competitive, and the licensing process should encourage diversity and a broad political and artistic spectrum. That process should not favor big, rightwing corporations. In fact, it should give the edge to small, upstart news and entertainment businesses, worker coops and non-profit or government-funded enterprises. And it most certainly should require that the public airwaves be operated in the PUBLIC INTEREST, however the government and the people of the country construe that interest. In this country, we once had the "Fairness Doctrine" (equal time for opposing opinions), which encouraged objective journalism across the board in all media. That important doctrine was lost during the Reagan Era of Greed (along with much else, including the progressive tax and many labor rights--harbingers of the Bush Era of Naked Looting.)

We are in a much more dire situation in the U.S. than Venezuela is. We have outright government/news media collusion--the worst of tyrannical conditions. Those of us who believe in democracy, in lawful government, in majority rule, in freedom of speech, in justice for the poor, and in rightful use of our country's resources and our military, ought to be applauding the de-licensing of RCTV in Venezuela, and studying it for ways that we can de-license our own bad actor media giants. If the truth were known, our media giants colluded in a fascist coup here, in 2004. But we have so little free communication, that many Americans don't know what they did, and continue to buy into the corporate delusion that progressive, peace-loving Americans are in the minority.

I say that Venezuela is better off. They are, as to the state of their democracy and the legitimacy of their government (and the transparency of their elections). However, the Venezuelan people--not just Chavez himself, but the people who elected him (63% of the voters)--are the target of the Bush Junta and its collaborators among the Democratic leadership, because of their oil, and because Venezuelans are the leaders of a larger, and very successful, leftist (majorityist) movement in South America. The Venezuelans are giving OTHER South Americans ideas of independence and self-determination, and are actively creating institutions to supplant entities like the U.S.-controlled World Bank.

There is compelling evidence that a plot to assassinate Hugo Chavez and to destabilize the leftist governments of Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, was hatched among the rightwing paramilitary forces in Colombia, where a huge scandal has broken out, tying these forces to the top echelons of the Uribe government (the head of the military, the former head of intelligence, and many politicians). The Bush Junta has been larding this government with billions of our taxpayer dollars in military assistance. The paramilitaries have been SLAUGHTERING union organizers, leftists and peasants, and dumping them in mass graves, and have furthermore been involved in drug trafficking. These crimes are now being exposed, and many of the criminals are going to jail. Their cabal is being broken up--by courageous prosecutors and judges. But the existence of such well-funded (by the Bushites) plotters indicates how vulnerable democracy still is, in South America, and how determined the Bushites and the global corporate predators are to destroy it.

This, too, is part of the context in which I see the de-licensing of RCTV, and other actions of the Venezuelan government that are cited as "authoritarian." The vast poor populations of South America, including many indigenous leaders, are struggling to ESTABLISH democracy and to achieve some RIGHTFUL justice. This struggle is most notable in the Andes region, where the Bushites and collaborators have their greedy eyes on some the last big oil reserves on earth and other resources (gas, minerals, forests). Evo Morales (the first indigenous president of Bolivia--friend of Hugo Chavez), Rafael Correa (U.S. educated leftist, just elected president--friend of Hugo Chavez), and Nestor Kirchner (leftist who freed Argentina from World Bank debt--friend of Hugo Chavez) are all in this together. They are forming partnerships among themselves, and with other leftist governments (Brazil, Uruguay, Chile) and some centrist ones (Paraguay) to strengthen their programs of reform.

Some people pick on Chavez's "edict" powers, but fail to note that Venezuela's National Assembly--also elected by the people--voted to GIVE HIM those powers, and that previous Venezuelan presidents were ALSO granted such economic powers, in times of necessity. One example: There has been hoarding and price-fixing among Venezuela's big grocery businesses. The "edict" powers are aimed at bad business practices like these, and are very similar to powers of FDR's "New Deal" government, granted by Congress to solve critical problems of joblessness, starvation and poverty, created by the greed of the rich elite which crashed the U.S. economy in 1929. South America's economies are in much the same shape as the U.S. economy was during the Great Depression. That is, until the Bolivarian Revolution, led by Venezuela, came along, and said: Let's solve these problems; let's restructure our economies; let's analyze what is causing these critical problems, and fix them in new, innovative and fundamental ways.

You can see why the Bush Junta would object, and would try to demonize one of the main leaders of these reforms, and how--as with the Iraq War, and multiple tax cuts for the super-rich, and a $10 trillion deficit, and outsourcing of millions of jobs, and all the rest--our war profiteering corporate news monopolies would echo that Bushite demonization, and look for every opportunity--and every trumped up charge they can think of--to dismiss these developments as "authoritarian."

We have, in history, the Stalinist model--of severe repression and centralization by force--that the initially good revolution in Russia turned into. And a lot of leftists in this country foolishly remained loyal to the Russian revolution far past the point that they should have. So that is the cautionary model. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" can become as bad as the Hitler regime, if a deluded, power-mad "strong man" seizes power in the midst of tumult and vast change. I see no evidence that Hugo Chavez is even remotely like Stalin. The model I see is FDR, who ALSO took strong measures to institute SOCIALIST policies in the U.S., to alleviate the impacts of the Great Depression. But who knows? Anyone--and I mean anyone--can be tempted by power, especially someone as popular as Hugo Chavez.

I think "authoritarianism" and "dictatorship" are much greater perils in the U.S. right now, than anywhere else. And it's interesting to see such vicious attacks (as I have seen here at DU) on somebody who is trying to do something for the poor--Hugo Chavez--without reference to his chief critic, Bush, or to Bush's big pal in South America--Colombia--and his big pal in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia. Talk about dictatorships! Then there's China--which gets the mildest of limp-wristed reprimands for its authoritarianism, and favored nation status as to importing cheap goods and stealing millions of American jobs. I would suggest saving the vilification for REAL dictatorships, including our own.