In light of the current situation in Venezuela, I figured it would be a fun idea to share with everyone an interesting documentary. It is about the attempted Coup against Hugo Chavez in 2002, which has played a significant role in the recent turn of events on the private television station in Venezuela. The media within the United States and Venezuela was strikingly familiar then to what is being portrayed these days. What I find most interesting is that the media in the US and throughout Europe label Chavez as a growing dictator, however, they fail to mention that Venezuela currently practices a much more democratic system than even the United States. One example being the Venezuelan people can remove Hugo at any given point through a vote. This is the kind of democracy Washington finds appalling. Imagine what Americans would do to the current administration if given the same opportunity. So if interested give it a look.
THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Wow. Where to start? Venezuela is more Democratic than the U.S.? Shutting down RCTV, the most popular television network by far in Venezuela (40% share) because it was critical of Chavez's regime is hardly democratic. Do you think the tens of thousands in the streets protesting right now think it was democratic? Taking over private businesses by force is not democratic (hospitals, apartment buildings, farms, oil companies, golf courses). Socialism is not democratic. Keep your eye on the news, let's see how democratic Chavez looks when his goons are crushing the skulls of the protesters. He is a socialist DICTATOR. He will stay in power until he dies or he is forced out. Visit the American Thinker for more info:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/05/
venezuelan_revolt.html
I'm glad you posted, we need more discussions like this.
First off, I feel I need to mention some more of the apparent miss conceptions: Fact, Chavez is not shutting down the RCTV, he is simply not renewing the license for broadcasting. Fact, RCTV will still be able to function, only now it will be limited to cable access. I'm guessing the fact that I'm trying to do it wont do it for you? As for the privatization of businesses, many of these reforms have proven to be effective for poorer countries, especially given the past extremity of capital flight within Venezuela. Remember, all of the major industrialized countries have taken advantage of nationalizing business in the past, including the US. Plus, when considering health care, it would be very difficult for one to argue that privatized health care--such as that of the US--is more effective than that of socialized health care, given that the US ranks behind almost every industrialized country with a socialized system-including Cuba. As for Chavez "crushing the skulls of the protesters," you appear to be easily swayed by North American media. Much of this is in fact pointed out in the video, and it illustrates how during the last coup, the RCTV was working in connection with the American Govt, and was in position to film what seemed like the Chavez supporters were firing at unarmed protesters. Future footage would disprove this, however, showing it was a clear setup to connect Chavez to the killings. As it stands around 70% of the population does disprove of this move, however, this has much more to do with the people outraged about losing popular soap operas and game shows, rather than politically motivated programing. As for the Majority of the population, a clear majority is still behind Chavez--over 65%--as well as they still support his social reforms, which have allowed more children into schools; land reforms that have provided more people with jobs and money; as well as better access to health care. One thing is for sure, the idea of a good example is unfathomable for the North American and European media, which is one reason why they are so one sided on these issues. An example of obvious one sidedness can even be seen in the link you supplied, as they refer to him as "Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez." I have a hard time agreeing with this view of the Venezuelan president as he is elected by the Venezuelan people, as well as his power is clearly checked by the 167 members of the National assembly, along with the supreme tribunal justice, which is appointed through the National assembly--not the president, unlike the US. Further evidence of the Venezuelan democracy can be seen throughout their ability to hold a recall, or a referendum on these issues. If the Venezuelan people truly desire the RCTV's license to be extended, they will have the opportunity to make the change through a referendum. I will end with this for now, and patiently await a rebuttal.
P.S.
How did you like the film?
Finally, a good DEBATE! It's about time. Thanks, Jackson, for posting. [Side note: can you introduce yourself? I can't recall who you are....]
Anyway I personally am very ignorant about this whole topic so I have nothing to contribute. But the film sounds fascinating, and I will be sure to check it out.
Let's get some other people involved. To those of you who have posted NOTHING so far: I challenge you to try it sometime... unless you're scaaaared.
p.s. Jon, you seem to have lost steam on our last debate about religion, etc. I'm still waiting for a response.... or are you not playing anymore?
About me: I currently live in Vancouver British Columbia, with my wife, whom I met in Minneapolis. My connection to the blog is through Micah, whom I have been friends with since the 7th grade. I had visited Calvin college a few times during Micah's glory years there, so I know I have met some of the alumni involved in the blog, but many are still strangers. There ya have it!
Ok I'm back. Sorry, I leave for Europe tomorrow (enjoying the fruits of capitalism) and I've been busy. I was hoping to view the video before commenting again, but I haven't yet. I still can't believe Jackson supports the censorship of RCTV. I'm sure you wouldn't mind if Bush forced ABC, NBC,and CBS to cable. The bottom line is whether or not you believe freedom is good, or if is it better for a group of elites to decide what is produced and consumed by the population. Does the government that governs least govern best, or is it best when it governs everything? Is the average citizen wise enough to decide for himself how to live, where to work, whether or not to start a business? Even more central to the argument, which is more important - intentions or results? Capitalism is simply an economy that is run by the people, not the government. Socialism, the other way around. In capitalism, people choose a profession that suits their talents and what they earn is determined by the supply and demand for their talents. This supply and demand is set by the other people that make up the economy. Ideally, the government regulates just enough to protect the people from fraud, anticompetitive behavior, etc. The government also controls the supply of money and influences interest rates through its regulation of the banks. This system is highly efficient because it rewards those who, through innovation and hard work, are very productive in supplying goods and services that people want. The US, because of this system, has the most productive economy in the world and the second highest income per capita (to Luxembourg). Ask the poor in Russia or Cuba if they'd like to trade places with our poor. One of the great things about capitalism is that by pursuing your own self interest, you end up helping others by creating goods/services they need. Socialists see no value in this because it wasn't the business man's intention to help his customer. However, the forced equality (though some will be more equal than others) of socialism hurts all members of society because the lack of incentives slows the economy to a crawl. I'll close with a quote from Winston Churchil: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." As far as healthcare and religion, I'll get to that later.
It appears that this debate has quickly taken a turn into Capitalism vs. Socialism, which is understandable considering the Chavez-RCTV conflict is a direct outcome of such a confrontation. For the time being I will concentrate on the current subject, I will attempt to shed a little light on your apparent confusion over my support of the censorship of RCTV by Chavez; I am not entirely supportive of it, however, the situation is much more complex than North American media lets on. The media is failing to mention many things: one thing is the fact that once the coup was accomplished in 2002, the new government shut down the state run television station entirely. This was the only station that was not anti-Chavez—and when I say anti-Chavez, I am not talking about the occasional Saturday Night Live skit making him look like an idiot, we are talking about constant calls for street revolts and even assassination. Certainly if this kind of behavior were attempted in the US, the government would clearly find it to be troublesome. Not only did the new government censor the only pro-Chavez media outlet, RCTV implemented a strict ban against any pro-Chavez reporting. In addition, within the very first hours of the new government taking power they proceeded to dissolve the national assembly, the Supreme Court, and many other important positions elected by the people of Venezuela. This is the idea of a true democracy according the United States as they backed the entire plan. Although I am against the complete restriction of media censorship—in this case it was not a complete restriction--in a way it is understandable that Chavez would refuse to allow such a combative media outlet to continue to jeopardize the stability of the government. If anyone is interested in looking into this situation further, here is a link to what I believe to be a well supplied Venezuelan info centre: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com. As for the whole Capitalism vs Socialism thing, rest assured I will have more to say about this in the near future. I believe it is an extremely important discussion to be had, as many people truly have no real understanding of what socialists today desire. For the most part people are led to believe—mainly by the media--socialists desire a Soviet Russian communist approach, when in reality this couldn’t be further from the truth. Socialists today believe that democracy is the most fundamental objective, which includes full participation of the people, rather than the alienating representative democracies seen throughout the world. I too will close with a quote: “Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society.” –Albert Einstein
It's so refreshing to hear an intelligent, refreshing debate on this subject. I am really enjoying it, although I don't feel exactly knowledgable enough to comment on this topic yet (capitalism/socialism).
On a somewhat related note, I was at a Dinosaur Jr. show last night, and saw a young kid (around 16, 17 maybe) wearing a hammer and sickle t-shirt. It seemed to me to be a pointless shallow (possibly ignorant?) "rebellious" statement. It really kind of rubs me the wrong way. I, personally, have no feeling one way or the other on that symbol, since I don't know enough about it. Branding yourself with it just seems...stupid? It's like all the college kids having Che Gueverra posters just to have them. Jumping on the band wagon.
Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with welcoming new ideas, or rebelling...but ONLY if it makes you think. Otherwise, you're just latching on to some ideal you know nothing about for the sake of looking cool, or outsider-ish. Blech.
Sorry to slack off on commenting, still on vacation. I see your point about RCTV, and I admit, the full story probably is not getting out there. I also admit I have pretty much have a knee jerk reaction when it comes to Chavez, a socialist who comes into our country and calls our President the devil.
As far as the quote from the renowned economist Albert Einstein, the hatred of corporations by the far left is somewhat puzzling to me. Large corporations are so successful in bringing people products and services they need at prices they're willing to pay because of efficiencies of scale. When you make or sell more of something you can do it more efficiently (cheaper) than someone who makes or sells less. A good example: Walmart. Walmart sells a large percentage of all the Oreos consumed in this country. Because Nabisco needs this business, Walmart can negotiate very low prices, which allows you and I to enjoy delicious Oreos for less money. Because of Walmart's size and aggressiveness with their suppliers, they save their customers thousands every year on their basic necessities. Another example, big pharmaceutical companies. Because of their size, they are more efficient at bringing life saving medicines to patients. Also, smaller companies can't afford the enormous risks involved in spending a billion dollars to research a drug which may never be approved for use. Small companies are more agile and can react to market opportunities quickly. However, in many markets, large corporations can provide more value to its customers.
I will attempt to clear up your apparent puzzlement of the left’s hatred of big corporations by sticking with the Walmart example that you have provided. As Albert Einstein pointed out, because of the nature of capitalism, private capital tends to end up in the hands of a few people. This is exactly the case with Walmart. Five of the worlds wealthiest people are within the Walton family, and the last I checked they had accumulated somewhere around 100 billion dollars between the five of them. Given that currently half the world today is struggling to survive on incomes of only 2 dollars a day, as well as 1.2 billion people attempt to live on less than 1 dollar a day, perhaps one might see the apparent inequality within this system. As for the actual efficiency of the capitalist system, Socialists would not argue against it being efficient. Socialists do argue, however, that because the ultimate goal within business is the drive for profit, businesses fail to provide the benefits or wages needed by workers, nor do businesses look out for the best interests of the communities or environments that they are in. In order for a business to survive within the capitalist system it needs to compete by cutting costs and lowering wages until the business out competes potential competitors. Eventually competing businesses will drive each other’s costs downs as much as possible, and eventually forces businesses to cut wages. As environmental and community interests are against the nature of making profit, businesses tend to look past these issues in aims of making more money. Unfortunately this is a never ending cycle that continues to spiral downward, unless new markets are found and products can be delivered to new areas, the business will eventually be unable to pay high enough wages to workers to be able to purchase the products that they are creating. As globalization is ever increasing, new markets are becoming limited, causing the downward spiral to accelerate. Einstein also pointed out that because of this concentrated wealth into a few hands, big business is able to manipulate democratic systems. This manipulation can be seen through the fact that taxpayers now help pay the wages of walmart employees through states subsidies because many walmart employees fail to make a livable wage. So in other words, walmart is in fact looking to a form of socialism in order to help increase its profit. I wasn’t intending to run on like this but I guess I got carried away. One more final point to help drive this capitalism/socialism discussion: The fact is that Capitalism depends on an infinite amount of resources in order for products to be created and consumption to grow, unfortunately we live in a world with a finite amount of resources. At some point we will need a more efficient system, which will effectively produce products that people really need, rather than allowing artificial scarcities to cause over consumption and underdevelopment.
Nice points, Jackson. You said that side of the story very well. Jon, I think you will find that many democrats have no problems with big businesses, providing that they are using their money/power in ways that are not illegal, immoral, or downright dirty. I have no problem with Steve Jobs making a lot of money, because let's admit it: he makes a damn fine product and we should be willing to pay him for it. Companies such as REI make a lot of money but also give a lot back to their communities. They take fairly good care of their employees (though they still are not being paid a living wage) through incentives, providing health care, and working incentive programs.
The problem is that many companies focus on making their shareholders happy, not their customers or employees. "With great power comes great responsibility", right? I'm not against capitalism or competition, I just want there to be more regulation on large companies so that employees and consumers don't end up getting the raw end of the deal. Walmart is a very poor example of a good large company. They screw their employees and provide crappy products made by poor people in sweatshop conditions. Can this type of business practice really be seen as "renewing God's world"? My guess is no.
The Walton family is not to blame for any inequality. The US economy provides the most equal opportunity for prosperity anywhere on the planet. You can't have equal opportunity and equal results. You must restrict one or the other. I prefer equal opportunity. Also, you make the assumption that the world economy is a zero sum game. If I make a dollar, I must have taken it from someone else. There is not a limited pie, the pie is constantly growing. If someone creates a big slice, like Sam Walton or Bill Gates, they are usually adding much more to the pie than they are taking out. Every dollar saved by shopping at Walmart can then be spent in someone else's shop. Microsoft's software has had a huge impact around the globe. It's sad when a hard working entrepeneur is put out of business by a larger corporation, but a small business can't demand that customers patronize them despite higher prices or less convenience. As far as wages go, most businesses I'm familiar with are trying to become more profitable by developing new products or improving their marketing of existing profits and are not focused on lowering wages. A big medical group is concerned with attracting more patients, not with paying the secretaries less. Herman Miller wants to design better office furniture. How come wages are constantly increasing not only here but abroad? Corporations will cut costs as much as possible, but with a thriving economy, workers are in demand and can command higher pay. Corporations win when they have a superior product. Good employees are the best way to get one. Cost cutting will only get you so far - ask Faygo how it's going in the cola wars. I get fired up talking about this because individual freedom is on the line in this debate.
For more information on Walmart's effect on our economy/society, check out Robert Samuelson's column that was in Newsweek and the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/29/
AR2006082901043.html
Samuelson argues that despite Walmart's goal of profit, it has tremendous benefits for all of us. Walmart has cut prices on things like toothpaste and shampoo by 7-13%. It has lowered prices on groceries for consumers by 20%. In 2004 alone, this saved American consumers $263 billion - that's $2300 per household. That's an important increase in standard of living, especially for the poor. Walmart also forces other stores to lower their prices, saving us even more. Lower prices means less inflation, which takes pressure off interest rates. This allows more of us to own homes. As far as wages, Walmart pays on par with other retailers. Samuelson also notes that Ford and GM are discovering what happens when you pay too much for labor - you shrink your company and destroy jobs.
I agree that the world economy is always growing, and when one person makes a dollar they aren’t necessarily taking a dollar from someone else. However, to say that capitalism is lifting everyone involved out of poverty and creating a better life for everyone is just absurd. Capitalists argue that there is an invisible hand that regulates the market, ultimately maintaining a balance between business owners, workers, and consumers. Unfortunately, this invisible hand is disbursing most of the money into the pockets of a select few while tossing to the majority of people in the world a modest amount of money to live on. When we look at the Walmart situation we must look at it from a world perspective. You have clearly made the case of the wonderful things that walmart is doing for America, but what about the rest of the world? Oh, and in that wonderful summary of walmart benefits for Americans, you forgot to emphasize the millions of jobs lost to manufacturing industries moving oversees to find cheaper labor. Plus, given that walmart is the largest employer in the US with around 1.5 million employees, with over 40 percent of those employees not covered by healthcare, and the US government spending around 5700 dollars per person annually on healthcare, I would think that might dip into that seemingly nice amount of savings that walmart provides to Americans. But lets get back to the world perspective of walmart and her father Capitalism. Americans love to look at the capitalist system and point out the opportunity and benefits it has created in the US, but they tend to fail at looking into how the rest of the world is benefiting. One of the reasons that walmart is able to bring such low prices to the table is by taking advantage of extremely cheap labour in the third world. According to the Institute for Policy Studies(http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/Wal-mart-pay-gap.pdf), the average wage for those working for walmart and the thousands of suppliers for walmart is strikingly low: Bangladesh 0.17 cents per hour, china 0.17, Indonesia 0.46, Nicaragua 0.23, Swaziland 0.53 cents. This also amounts to a pay gap of 50,000 times more to the CEO’s to the average Chinese labourer. Yes the pie is getting bigger throughout the world and surplus is being created, but the majority of that surplus is being shipped to wealthier nations while draining third world nations from their hard earned labour.
Shifting now to the overall problems with the world capitalist system, I will try to point out some more major problems with what is going on. The US is attempting to spread its Washington Consensus ideology (liberal economy, free market ideology, neoliberalism, call it what you will) to the rest of the world through international organizations such as the WTO and the IMF. Now although these organizations are international, the bulk of them are controlled by the United States as they have a larger stake in them. Rich states promote neoliberalism because it works—for them. The policies that these institutions promote are the exact opposite approach that all of the major industrialized countries used to develop (mercantile, protectionist policies, and only accepted free trade when they were developed enough to benefit from it). In the two decades before neoliberalism was put into practice on a global scale, per capita income grew 73 percent in Latin America and 34 percent in Africa between 1960 and 1980, whereas after neoliberalism was implemented, Latin American growth was only 6 percent and African’s incomes have declined by 23 percent. If a government does try to improve the lives of its people rather than the profit of the transnational corporations, the market will fight against it using their massive wealth to push governments around. The US is making a killing off of national debt by third world countries through the IMF and WTO, for example Nigeria, which has borrowed 5 billion, has paid back 16 billion, and still owes 32 billion. According to a study by the World Bank, the poorest fifth of the world’s population has seen its share of global income fall from 2.3 % to 1.4 % over the past 30 years. In conclusion I will say again that competition continually drives wages down. Capitalism can only continue if it is able to find new markets, but soon the markets will all be tapped. Unless someone can prove to me that capitalism can carry on in a place without obtaining new markets, I am forced to maintain my belief that there will eventually need to be an alternative. Also, Abockheim, I really agree with you on the idea of “God’s world,” as there is clearly a gap in equality throughout the world. Although I don’t agree entirely with you on your acceptance of competition, in that I feel competition goes against almost every Major religion’s main idea; instead of promoting love and kindness in society, even the most fervent followers of religious faith in a competitive society are forced to not work with people, but against them. In particular with Christianity, I do not believe Jesus would have been one who would compete against another to obtain a little more food/money than that person. In a book called "The Hidden Heart of the Cosmos," it points out that consumersim now has essentially replaced the need for people to seek out what their position is in the universe, what life means, that sort of thing. Instead, people wake up in the morning and ask themselves what should they buy to fulfill whatever void they have, rather than seeking out fulfillment through helping others or even relying on faith. I really think that capitalism/consumerism has had a devastating effect on churches and religion in general, as people are waking up to the obvious contradictions with what the church preaches about, then see the effects of churches forced to compete against other churches. I believe there is another way, an alternative to capitalism that would fit into the picture of Gods world. This way I hope to point out in a future post, unfortunately for the next little while I am going to be extremely busy with classes.
Well put, Jackson. You've inspired to me look into reading more about international economics. Any books you might suggest for a beginner?
sorry it has taken a while for me to respond, I have been a little busy. as for some interesting reads, I enjoy pretty much everything by Ralph Milliband. He was a British socialist and really sort of redefined a lot of socialist ideas that exist today. Much of his stuff can even be found online as well. As for more current writers, I find Noam Chomsky to be well informed and up to date on the international economic situation. Although I do not agree with everything he says, after all he is an anarchist, I do think he knows what he is talking about.
Post a Comment