good-spirited debate. take a side, join in. purpose is exercise in debate skills and entertainment. I made a background Hub based on current news if anyone is interested for a jump off point.
My thesis: FARC (colombian revolutionary armed forces) is not a terrorist organization; it is half of a civil war in Colombia fighting a legitimate people's uprising against a U.S.-backed fascist paramilitary government.
Here's the Hub if you need to read up and want to join in: http://hubpages.com/hub/Columbias-Civil … ter-Chavez
I know that dumb people can occasionally get it right and perhaps Chavez is right here. But in general, whichever side Chavez is on I want to be on the other. He is clearly just another self-aggrandizing latin american dictator who wants to be glorified for life. Colombia and Venezuela have had border disputes forever and it looks to me like he is just trying to destabilize Colombia. Latin America doesn't need anymore loose cannons. All that said, I am in favor of a leftward leaning latin america that recaptures some of the progress that Allende was making in Chile before Pinochet and the CIA took over and installed radical Friedman capitalist economics....otherwise known ironically as "neo-liberalism" in latin america or "neo-conservatism" in the US. I think such economic adjustments can be made through the electoral process...and the tide seems to moving all across latin america. Maybe it is time for FARC to lay down its weapons and start lobbying and voting. They are more likely to win that way.
Well, FARC actually arose because the people DID form a political party, run for office and the death squads killed 4000 of them - all the top leadership. JFK said, "those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."
I was kind of interested in this third area rising, this "new left-center" which is political. Hopefully that will have a chance. I agree with you on Allende and I have to admit I didn't know they called our neo-conservatism here "neo-liberalism" there. funny.
I agree too a left wave is spreading across S. America electorally (and seemingly Europe as well since our unilateral invasion of Iraq) - they call it the 'pink tide'. Of course there are some weird things, like when the left won the elections in Costa Rica and Mexico and the U.S. "helped out with vote counting for close calls" until it put the right in power. We really need to stay out of their affairs, my opinion.
I'm glad you do see at least some value in Chavez pushing political process over violence. I don't think violence is going to solve anything for any of them.
I have high hopes for Bachelet in Chile. She was tortured under Pinochet and was an Allende type socialist but now that she has been elected, she is moving in a measured and rational way towards liberalizing Chile without indulging in retribution.
I haven't been watching that, other than since the election. I'll have to poke around in it. Thanks for the heads up - I shall start keeping up with the news there.
I do have to say for Venezuela, I have become somewhat disenchanted. I thought Chavez had the best of intentions and still think he did, but I suspect that power has corrupted. I haven't given up total hope yet for him.
As to interfering in other countries, in my opinion, he's done a lot of good. He does a lot of charity for the poor in other nations and if his motives are less than pure, I could care less. Aid is aid, especially help for energy needs for the poor.
And did you see the bit about Italy regarding war criminals from the 'dirty war'? They are seeking more to prosecute. I think I stuck it under my Operation Condor hub the other day as an update.
LOL guys, you got me to spoil the thread again. I just can't pass the mentioning of Allende, and my take on him and Pinochet is opposite to yours.
In general, whichever side Soviet Union was, I want to be on another
I have to admit I'm not too knowledgeable in Chile situation back then and now, but I'm pretty familiar with what happened in Eastern Europe under Soviet Union supported regimes, and I don't think Allende was any different. Secret services, genocide against own nation, etc... I'm not telling Pinochet was an angel, but I'm pretty much sure Allende was not any better...
And Chile economy (again, from the top of my had, whatever I read over the course of many years, and I can't recall the sources) was dieing under Allende, and got a rebirth under Pinochet....
that. too funny!
Do you know the thing about Ayn Rand's sister? She hated the U.S., hated capitalism and returned to Russia. It's not really all that unusual. Many who came here from there over the years have.
Another offtopic but interesting Ayn Rand fact. She was part of/aligned with HUAC (McCarthy's House of Unamerican Activities Committee). She was all for censorship in the arts, particularly film and part of the pack that hounded film makers into silence. So much for individual thought and freedom, eh? She was such a hypocrite.
I just re-phrased Barranca
No, I don't know anything about Ayn Rand. Guess I have to read something, since you are mentioning this name second time in our conversation
Btw, most of those who returned to soviet union were either executed or spent countless years in gulag...
Misha, the historical record is pretty clear: Chile under Pinochet was a human rights disaster including torture and mass murder and much closer to the soviet gulag than anything remotely similar under Allende. Allende was actually a tolerant and progressive intellectual who wasn't much more left-leaning than Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Well, I guess I have to read more on the topic then, before jumping to a conclusion here
With barranca on this one, but I have to say... Misha, you continue to delight me. I laughed out loud with joy reading your post.
Take any side you like, that's the fun and if you guyz prefer to discuss primarily Allende, I'm in too, but I have to have time to refresh a bit. I'm more knowlegeable about Venezuela and Argentina than either Colombia (and I had trashed my research ... ) or than I am about Chile.
As to the economy, let's say of Cuba or Venezuela, who knows what might have happened without U.S. interference. I have to say I've always rather liked Castro and until recently very much liked Chavez who has done a lot of good and which I can document. Also, on the economy in general, who is to say what is a "good" or "better" economy. The U.S. looks like it's in a boom, but that is true only for the top 10% and has been for years. Everyone else is losing ground. I think the reverse may be true for Chile or Venezuela. :p
There may be some time gaps then in posts, whichever way we go, because I'll have to research as we go along. I enjoy research so it's no problem, however, be aware there might be delays.
Just a few quotes from Wiki ( I know it is not authoritative source, but what is?) :
However, these results were not sustained, and in 1972, the Chilean escudo had runaway inflation of 140%. The average Real GDP contracted between 1971 and 1973 at an annual rate of 5.6% ("negative growth"); and the government's fiscal deficit soared while foreign reserves declined.
The combination of inflation and government-mandated price-fixing, together with the "disappearance" of basic commodities from supermarket shelves, led to the rise of black markets in rice, beans, sugar, and flour.
The Allende government announced it would default on debts owed to international creditors and foreign governments. Allende also froze all prices while raising salaries. His implementation of these policies led to strong opposition by landowners, employers, businessmen and transporters associations, some middle-class sectors like some civil servants and professional unions...
Allende also undertook Project Cybersyn, a system of networked telex machines and computers. Cybersyn was developed by British cybernetics expert Stafford Beer. The network transmitted data from factories to the government in Santiago, allowing for economic planning in real-time.
End of quote
Typical Soviet disaster. Economy is breaking apart, but we undertake the millennium project LOL. You don't need CIA for this, this happens naturally, as soon as you start to implement those utopia ideas...
Well, if Pinochet would not have been revolted, Allende would have to implement all the same methods to keep the country under control. And KGB would have helped him happily. They started already...
According to Allende’s KGB file, he “was made to understand the necessity of reorganising Chile's army and intelligence services, and of setting up a relationship between Chile’s and the USSR’s intelligence services”. Allende was said to react positively.
End of quote....
"considering what we did to allende in chile, I rather doubt chavez will live/remain in power long enough for us to find out what he might do to the economy or even if the u.s. fails to establish a successful coup and replace chavez with some brutal right wing dictator the damage we the u.s. can do through economic manipulation means we will never know what chavez's policies would create without our interference.
"Make the economy scream [in Chile to] prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him" - Richard Nixon
"It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end, utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG and American hand be well hidden..." - A communique to the CIA base in Chile, issued on October 16, 1970
"Not a nut or bolt shall reach Chile under Allende. Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty." - Edward M. Korry, U.S. Ambassador to Chile, upon hearing of Allende's election."
link is on my "RuhRoh: Its the world Socialist Revolution, yo" hub, here:
http://hubpages.com/hub/RuhRoh_Its_the_ … ution__yo_
allende reference is halfway down the page.
Idunn, if you do mass nationalization and undertake gigantic projects of - umm - questionable utility, you don't need CIA help to break down the economy. It happens naturally. Every Eastern Europe country went through this, without any CIA help... Of course it happens faster when USA helps the process, no doubt
you would know far more about that than I (eastern europe). so I take it you don't like Chavez nationalization of various industries in Venezuela.
You are right I think nationalization is the biggest harm to any economy (note I said harm, not evil ). Government should set rules and enforce them, but not take part in the game. This is a conflict of interests.
I have a dream, friend. I have a dream that people can equitably gain profit from the labour of their own hands. I have a dream that 100% of the people own 100% of a country's resources, rather than 10% of the elite exploiting 90% of the others as 'cost of labor'.
Why doesn't it work for real, Misha?
I'm not stupid, I know it doesn't. But why not?
Cause those 90% of people don't want the hassle. As easy as that. It's all about personal responsibility for own life I think. "Work force" does not know what it cost to organize the process, and does not want to know. And without organized process labour does not gain any profit... That's how I see it.
Continuation of my previous post:
And that is probably why Pinochet had to do all the torturing and mass murder. If CIA did not push that hard, Allende would had more time to establish good working relations with KGB... And would do the job himself...
hard to say what he would or wouldn't have done though.
also, I think you are making an assumption that the socialist push in s. america is all russia-related. I think that's a bad call. Whomever they might or might not have received help from, my guess would be that the starving masses were pretty much all about socioeconomic equality on their own anyway. :p
I assure you that *all* communist parties all over the world were financed by soviet money. This is documented.
depending on how you view that, it might be considered to be compassion and genuine empathy for the plight of the underbirdz, even assuming it's a fact.
You can see it that way
In reality between WWI and WWII this was an attempt of conquering the World (yes, no lesser than), and inertia after that...
have to disagree both on having the power and that we actually did and still do this.
I do have to pause though - shall return in a bit if you are up and about. I have finally come into the mood to work on a piece I've been playing with and I want to get to it while I'm still in the mood.
I'm so happy tonight. It's, like, spilling over everywhere~
You are such a fun pol companion, Misha. I enjoy posting with you a great deal.
[schwarzeneggermode]I'll be back[unschwarzeneggermode] <--- movie reference. do you know which?
http://www.amazon.com/Icebreaker-Who-St … mp;sr=11-1
You don't want to buy the book at $200, but you might find it interesting to read the reviews. I personally think that this book should be studied in every school all over the world, as a vaccine against communism...
in all fairness, I'm more of a social democrat who believes in a guided market for the areas that are too easy to exploit.
however, I have a great love for arguing the socialist cause in part because I believe that among Jesus many other teachings and roles, He was also a socialist revolutionary.
one of the only things and it's insurmountable for me with socialism is mob mentality. I hate tyranny, even of tyranny of the weak, packs of people bullying others, etc, so I could never be a good socialist. I love the way the principles/philosophy are laid out though. it annoyz hell out of me that it seems to be unworkable.
anyway, back in a bit. with any luck, inspiration will strike while I'm hot and I'll come out with something that pleases me rather easily. it's touch up stage now anyway, my poem.
I bookmarked the amazon to read the review in a bit... now that's an expensive book! and to think I didn't by a first printing of 'East of Eden' which would have been a deal at $60. I still regret not spending the money on it. bah
I did not buy it at exactly that price In Russian it costs just a few bucks. I don't know why it is that expensive in English, it costs 150 pounds on amazon.co.uk, too...
Then you can buy it here:
http://www.kniga.com/books/product.asp? … %5Fid=1011
My views on the matter are heavily influenced by this book and other books by this author. To finish with it for now I just have to give you a short outline of my views, or I can't move on
The main thesis is that communism cannot survive among capitalist countries. It either has to die, or to convert its neighbors. And then the next neighbors, and so on. If just one non-communist country is allowed to survive, communism will die eventually. From Marx to Stalin, every communist scholar agrees on this. And everyone who actually lived under communism knows that they are right.
All the history of USSR from the communist revolution to the start of the war with Germany is a concerted effort of building enough power to conquer the World. Remember, this was a survival issue. And they actually built enough power. If everything would went as planned, we all would have lived in one happy concentration camp by now.
But it did not pan out as planned. I don't have any doubt this could have been stopped in a number of different ways, but our Lord sometimes has really twisted sense of humor. The person, who is universally accepted as the most evil person of the 20th century, actually saved the World. Yeah, pretty much like a SuperMan. Talk about good and evil being just two sides of a coin - this was Hitler.
Stalin was almost ready to hit. He was in the process of concentrating enormous amounts of arms and all other necessary military things on the border. Economic was prepared for offensive war, lots of heavy industry plants were concentrated in the European part of USSR and were ready to switch to military production. Every citizen was trained and prepared for mobilization both mentally and physically. Both USA and Britain signed up as allies. USSR should have invaded Germany no later than the first week of July 1941.
Hitler struck two weeks earlier. Imagine a street fight. While strong but slow guy is preparing to hit and moving his arm back before the strike, his weaker but faster opponent manages an uppercut. This is exactly what happened. Hitler did not manage to knock Stalin out, but serious knock down was there. Arms and ammunition at the borders were lost, plants had to be relocated back behind the Ural Mountains, etc. Even after that disaster Stalin was able to invade half of Europe, but that was it. World was saved....
you know so much more than I about this area in particular, that I do not feel competent to discuss it with you... yet.
let me see if I can find a book or so of similar insights (in English, hehe). Yes, my brother has the language skills, however he lives nowhere near me and even so is so busy he wouldn't have the time to read it and tell me what it sayz. :p
Probably yeah, I actually spent several years researching the USSR history. Kind of hard task, cause communists were really good at re-writing the history
I will say this, though. Your remark about God using Hitler's evil to turn around into a good, that is a good example of how you explained your philosophy on the earlier thread.
whether I think that is so remainz up for debate.
can you summarize generally why it can't be self-contained... why would it "have to spread" to stay alive?
Yeah, it's pretty much obvious to anybody who lived under communism. As soon as you start comparing your life to your non-communist neighbor life you are all set for revolution. The only way communism can survive is when there is nothing to compare with...
what do you think about the social democracies like the scandanavian countries, or the european ones? they seem to be faring much better than the U.S. in surveys on standard of living. U.S. has fallen out of the top ten. I believe last survey I saw showed Ireland as the best country to live.
Oddly, I think Nigeria came out as "happiest" place to live on a different survey.
Frankly I don't know. They keep surprising me, cause I did not really expect them to last that long. I thought they should have shifted priorities about the time of soviet union collapse. Britain did this partially, but that's pretty much it.
As for Nigeria - I really have no idea. Could it be like 99.99% voted in soviet union?
hold on, I can source the surveys. be right back.
child well-being survey U.S. 20th place here:
http://hubpages.com/hub/UK_is_accused_o … _children_ (link on hub)
happiness survey U.S. 16th (for use in a later hub examining the concept of happiness) here:
top ten countries quality of life (U.S. 13th) here:
http://hubpages.com/hub/the_christian_paradox (link on hub)
OK, it 3:10 am here, so I'm heading to bed. It was a pleasure to talk to you, as usual
I look at surveys tomorrow...
Idunn, I did not forget about this, but I still not well enough. I tried to read the sources you mentioned, and they are too hard for me to comprehend at the moment. I will get back to you on this a bit later, OK?
oh just whenever and if you don't like this topic, we can do a different one. I just have this thing about Chavez and possibly it's because I think he's kind of hot. :p
anyway, I know a lot of you younger ones like to discuss philosophy per se, but see, I'm already past all that. I've absorbed as much as I want to from a lot of sources over a lot of years, and it bores me now to some extent. to me, it culminated in the dogma of Catholic Church, specificially the principles of the Catholic Workers movement.
How are you on Idi Amin/Uganda or the Spanish Civl War? I have had a running interest in both lately and almost no one to discuss it with.
Not sure that I'm much younger than you with my older son turning 25 this year
But right now I'm definitely much more interested in my internal events (and everybody else's, too) then in what is going on in Latin America. I might get there some time later, or I might not
And children well-being in US do not depend on Clinton or Bush I think. It solely depends on whether their parents can love them unconditionally or not. And Western culture in general and America in particular does not seem to value unconditional love. Competitive environment and unconditional love do not go together well. By the way it boils down to my favorite non-judging concept If you judge your child, you cannot love him/her unconditionally... You inevitably introduce more love and less love depending on behavior...
I agree completely. We don't value children, mothers, or parenting and it shows up in the U.S. as increased violence, school shootings, decreased work productivity due to stress, alcoholism and drug problems, increased expenses in the justice system and prisons, etc.
there is something horribly wrong with the U.S.
I don't believe in unconditional love for anyone besides your (my) own children and perhaps a mate (after the children). Everyone else has to treat you well to gain friendship and respect. But your comment on unconditional love being a requirement for raising a healthy child is on target, my opinion.
I just turned 48 about a week ago And this pic is two years old. Thanks for the compliment, though
Glad that we finally agree on something
You know, I tend to think of America as of a healthy teenager. It is going through its puberty, with all the difficulties associated with this - but the core seems to be just fine. Go out, talk to people on the street - they do have quite a few misconceptions, granted, but what is important that the vast majority are kind and helpful. I'm positive this country will outgrow its current problems - but it will take time and will take toll, too...
Well, I strongly believe that loving everybody unconditionally is the thing to do if one wants better relations with our creator. This does not mean that I'm capable of this just yet, but I'm trying hard to get there...
My children are 26, 22, and 18. I'm 47 years old. You look very young, Misha and you seem to be something of an idealist, which gets mistaken for young, I think. :p
you are such a delight, misha and happy belated birthday to you~
by Cory Zacharia8 years ago
Hello Everyone:Today received very disturbing images of children exploited - and murdered - by the FARC. I'm curious about how the Hubpages community feels about the FARC. For some, they may seem poetically...
by fishskinfreak20086 years ago
The latest move by A DICTATOR
by Leslie McCowen5 years ago
"Modern Republicans have a simple approach to politics when they are not in the White House: Make America as ungovernable as possible by using almost any means available, from challenging the legitimacy of...
by Deforest4 years ago
Who is the culprit? Who has interests in Chavez's defeat? Its enemy, the US. At the brink of a new election announcing Hugo Chavez a 20% lead over the opposition, the Venezuelian president has a rosy future. Given the...
by Barefootfae3 years ago
I know there are many here who think he was the best thing since apple sauce.Please feel free to comment on his passing.
by Comrade Joe4 years ago
Why did Khrushchev come to power after Stalin's death?It makes no sense that on the one hand Josef Stalin was an overarching dictator who controlled every aspect of life in the Soviet Union, he supposedly...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.