VivirLatino

How in the world could Chavez ever scare the United States? The United States, in one weeks time, could be done with Chavez and his military if it so wanted to, it would be like an aunt against an elephant.

United States citizens are not scared of Chavez, we are worried about the citizens of Venezuela and Latin America in general. After all, history itself is replete with examples of what results under socialists governments, all of which, are just starting to unfold again in Latin America. In short, if history is any indication of future events, those in Latin America have a very bleak (to say the least) future ahead of them.

Ay, HP, there you are with the spelling again. "Aunt"? Tu tía!

"we are worried about the citizens of Venezuela and Latin America in general. After all, history itself is replete with examples of what results under socialists governments, all of which, are just starting to unfold again in Latin America"

Oh yeah I'm so sure of that. Just look at how great the U.S. interventions in democratically elected socialist governments like Chile helped the people. ::rolling eyes::

Oh yeah I'm so sure of that. Just look at how great the U.S. interventions in democratically elected socialist governments like Chile helped the people.

Lets! To make it even more interesting, lets compare Chile to the country that did succumb to a socialist government: Cuba.

To put it in simple terms, Che gave Latin America its poorest country; Pinochet gave Latin America its richest country. And even the citizens of Chile agree, while the citizens of Cuba are risking life and limb day after day trying to come to the United States in search of a better future, the citizens of Chile, in the last election, were voting between right-wing and extreme right wing.

During the elections, the economist wrote:

Ms Bachelet will head the fourth successive government of the four-party centre-left Concertación coalition, which has ruled since the end of the dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet. The Concertación kept the dictatorship’s free-market policies which, eventually, brought rapid economic growth, but matched them with more effective social policy. Chile enjoys policy stability and political consensus of a kind that is rare in Latin America, so radical change is not in store. But the new president has promised to govern in a more open way, with more say for citizens’ groups and less for political parties.

Sure, the New York Times calls Michelle Bachelet a ’socialist’ and her party is considered ‘centre-left ‘ but don’t let the name fool you, in Chile there is an overall broad consensus on many of Pinochets economic reforms from ALL political parties. For example, all political parties support free trade, hard money (ie. low inflation), including Bachelet with her support for the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. Even issues like social security privatization are significantly ahead of where they are in the U.S. Nobody in Chile, for example, is talking about taking away private pensions, instead they are trying to figure out how to cover people who did not have to make mandatory contributions due to the fact that they were self-employed, issues like that.

So if all of the above makes Michelle Bachelet a socialist, what does that make members of the Democratic Party here in the United States where 93% of Democrats voted against the tiny CAFTA bill, communists? In the United States Michelle Bachelet would clearly be on the right side of the political spectrum.

And while Chile is voting and enjoying economic growth unprecedented in Latin America, what are the citizens of Cuba enjoying? Who do they vote for? They are under third world economic conditions, under a dictatorship, denied political freedom of expression, and experiencing some of the worse human rights violations this side of the pacific ocean.

::rolling eyes::

Have you actually been to Chile or for that matter Cuba? I could give two craps seriously what pundits say the people of chile or any latin america are happy with unless those people have actually had a chance to visit these countries , live there and really see what these neo-liberal free trade economic policies are doing. Chile has one of the hugest disparities of wealth in Latin America and I know that because I lived there and witnessed it with my own eyes.

"Nobody in Chile, for example, is talking about taking away private pensions" - So not true by the way. So many of the strikes that happen in the regular there are around this issue.

I am no fan of la Bachelet- trust me. But since you seem to think that Pinochet and his death squads were so great for Chile and oh not so surprisingly point to Cuba as an example of the evils of socialism- let's talk about how great U.S. intervention was for Nicaragua or el salvador. Or will you just spit back more stats from neo-liberal economists who really have a limited veiw of Latin American politics?

I have close friends that have lived in Chile and Cuba, and in addition to the economist magazine quoted above, it is widely agreed that regardless of how bad things are in Chile, things are much worse in other parts of Latin America. Remember, I didn't say that Chile was an economic utopia, I said that it was better than other parts of Latin America. In other words, do you find things better in Cuba than you do in Chile? What about Venezuela? Etc...Chile, compared to other parts of Latin America, is miles ahead of the curb.

You mention human atrocities done by Pinochet - something I never denied - but you forget to mention human atrocities, done on a larger scale, by socialists governments like Cuba. What, Maegan, do those human atrocities mean nothing? Do they not count?

You are the one that asked for a comparison, I am offering you one, but instead of comparing, you are now going back to "Chile is not perfect", when nobody said the country was.

But instead of addressing the Chile vs. Cuba comparison head on, you change it up on me and now ask,

point to Cuba as an example of the evils of socialism- let's talk about how great U.S. intervention was for Nicaragua or el salvador

Again, lets! Have you noticed something unique about Nicaragua that you don't see with socialists governments? Remember the free elections in 1990, 1996, and again in 2001? Where were the free elections in Cuba? Where is the political freedom of Cuban citizens and their right to disagree? Where is the economic wellbeing of Cuba? How much longer are they going to have to risk life and limb trying to cross the ocean to come to the United States? Please Maegan, deal with the comparison I am giving you, remember, I am not saying that Chile, Nicaragua, or El Salvador are a utopia, I am only saying they are better than the alternative, than the socialists governments that could have taken over. Yes, the human atrocities committed by Pinochet are bad, yes every human life is valuable, yes these economies still have more to do - my only point here is that they are miles ahead of socialist governments (governments that could have resulted, btw, had the United States not intervened).

I also don't just have Cuba as my lone example of socialist atrocities, I can also point to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, or East Germany vs. West Germany, North Korea vs. South Korea, Russia vs. the United States, and on and on, to show what history has continuously demonstrated, over and over again, at the denial of many leftists: that collectivists governments - in what ever flavor - are by far the greatest killers and greatest danger to poor people everywhere, than their alternatives. The fact that communism killed many more people than Nazism itself, boldly testifies to this fact.

So again, I ask, are you going to deal with these comparisons or try to point to yet another country where human atrocities occurred?

I think one of the big reasons I am ignoring the Cuab comparison is not because I don't think there are atrocities happening there (honestly there are human rights abuses happening in every country in the world- lincluding right here in this "democracy") but because I don't think it's a valid comparison. Are people being tortured in Venezuela the way they were under Pinochet? I don't like to rank oppressions - which latin american country has it worse- because that's defeatist and serves no country's interest. But for you to say that any intervention in Venezuela and Cuba or any Latin American country by the U.S is moved by an interest in human rights is bullshit and not backed by anything historic.

Additionally the problem here is that you view, at least according to how you frame your arguement, "free" elections as the ultimate display of democracy and expression of freedom when for god's freaking sake , there are not even free elections here in the U.S.

You wrote: that collectivists governments - in what ever flavor - are by far the greatest killers and greatest danger to poor people everywhere, than their alternatives. The fact that communism killed many more people than Nazism itself, boldly testifies to this fact.

Ypu and I will never agree on this because you are on your side of the political spectrum and I'm on mine. The problem is that history is told and retold by the victors and that has been so far capitalism - that has the power to manipulate numbers and facts - just look at any elementary history book- but you and I dffer on what are reliable sources.

Are people being tortured in Venezuela the way they were under Pinochet?

Ahh, but socialism is relatively new in Venezuela, remember, atrocities didn't escalate right away in most socialist governments, it was only after time that both, human atrocities and a large reduction in the standard of living, took place. Also, if the current murder rate in Venezuela is any indication, me thinks that Chavez is just starting his political supression and with time, it will become more widespread, certainly history points in that direction.

But for you to say that any intervention in Venezuela and Cuba or any Latin American country by the U.S is moved by an interest in human rights is bullshit and not backed by anything historic.

Not backed by anything historical? I didn't just show the VAST numbers of human atrocities that have occured, time and time again, under collectivists regimes? Does all of that not mean anything? Look, I am not saying that the United States intervened in Nicaragua out of pure humanitarian desires, certainly there was - and should be - a personal motive as well, but to say that there was no humanitarian aspect to it at all is to ignore the clear signs of history.

I will never agree on this because you are on your side of the political spectrum and I'm on mine. The problem is that history is told and retold by the victors and that has been so far capitalism - that has the power to manipulate numbers and facts - just look at any elementary history book- but you and I dffer on what are reliable sources.

This statement reminds me of something I read a few years back. Apparently, even immediately after the fall of the iron curtain, when human atrocities under communist rule were now in the open for everyone to see, when people who have experienced the atrocities were giving testimonies, when independent sources verified the mass murder, widespread slave labor, man-made famine, executions and other human rights violations, and after the very low standard of living was evident, even after all of this, several leading leftist intellectuals still refused to accept it and continued to hold fast to their hope for a successful 'democratic socialism'.

I guess in times when even heads of state deny the existence of the holocaust, even while many of those who experienced it are still alive to talk about it, it shouldn't be too suprising that there are still those who deny the horrible history of communism.

But just for the record, let me show you exactly what is the difference between historical capitalism and historical communism. Walter Williams, Professor of Economics of George Mason University, puts it this way:

There's no complete explanation for why some countries are affluent while others are poor, but there are some leads. Rank countries along a continuum according to whether they are closer to being free-market economies or whether they're closer to socialist or planned economies. Then, rank countries by per-capita income. We will find a general, not perfect, pattern whereby those countries having a larger free-market sector produce a higher standard of living for their citizens than those at the socialist end of the continuum.

What is more important is that if we ranked countries according to how Freedom House or Amnesty International rates their human-rights guarantees, we'd see that citizens of countries with market economies are not only richer, but they tend to enjoy a greater measure of human-rights protections. While there is no complete explanation for the correlation between free markets, higher wealth and human-rights protections, you can bet the rent money that the correlation is not simply coincidental.

While capitalism is drastically reducing poverty around the world, collectivists governments like socialism continue to bring poverty and gross human rights violations to all, yet lefties continue to support the latter and not the former. I guess there are some people that will continue to deny the holocaust, no matter what evidence you present them.

As per usual, I've only read 5% of what HP wrote above, but the two lines I most enjoyed:

"aunt against an elephant"

I've seen pictures of HP's aunt - she's a fierce woman.

And,

"I have close friends that have lived in Chile and Cuba"

LOL ... (I was going to write that he doesn't even have close friends in San Diego, but that would be mean.)

Somebody needs to relearn their history on Chile!!!

First of all, yes the U.S. is an awesome super power... biggest super power the world has ever seen (yes, even bigger than the Roman super power). What most fail to mention is that the U.S. only became a super power after WWI, WWII solidifying it. Guess what... we currently have many countries around the world whose economies have been growing at a faster rate that that of the U.S... China being one of them.
Having said that, U.S. influence around the world is shrinking... at a faster pace that that most Americans want to hear. This influence also shrinking in South America. China is actually becoming South America's new friend... as many believe China plays more fair. Oh yeah... Japan & Canada have huge influences in Chile... Canada actually being the biggest investor in Chile.

The Chilean economy is a "MIXED" economy... it's biggest contributer to it's economy being the state run coper company... something that the Nixon administration was against (funny how he didn't get the biggest jewel). Sorry, but state run companies are considered Socialist. Remember... a big reason for the coupe (Chileans 9/11) was to open the mining industry 100%, this didn't happen.
As for Chile being right winged... well, Chile WAS the most conservative country under Pinochet (for reason... you had no choice but to thing Right-Winged)... well guess what... Chile is going more left wing by the year!!!
The younger generation of Chile is EXTREMELY left winged.

CHILE'S CURRENT GOVERNMENT MODEL IS SLOWLY CHANGING TO THOSE OF SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES (MIXED ECONOMIES, WHOM ARE NEITHER COMMUNIST OR CAPITALIST, BUT MIXED SOCIALIST ECONOMY)

Also, many South Americans still have vivid memories from the 60's and especially 70's... when the U.S. government purposely over help over through "socialist" governments in South America. Funny how most European countries (as well as most every 1st world countries) follow a hybrid form of socialism & capitalism... it's been proven to work!!!.

Due to the advent of the internet, communication is giving a stronger voice to the populous... coups & Imperialism will be harder.

Oh yeah... the U.S. isn't pure capitalist... we do have things called emergency response, education (K-12), the U.S. Postal Office... these are forms of SOCIALISM.

Last but surely not least.
Chile has for the most part had a stably government for most of it's history... a government that leaned left (all the way to it's first president). Conservativeness really took hold after the coup. Before the coup and a few years after the coup Chile was in a decline, with inflation (something that is NORMAL in ALL economies... economies have their ups and down). U.S. intervention was purely a selfish act, Chile posed no threat!

Somebody needs to relearn their history on Chile!!!