Metal Reviews

Just think about it for a minute. Why would a Western media outlet run specifically by business interests/with the typical Western attitude have a bias against a very visible South American leader who rejects neoliberal economics and imperialism?

And wow, he has a TV show. FDR had a radio show; does that make him a dictator? How does his having a TV show add to your conception of him as a dictator?

Venezuela is not a closed country like the DPRK; we would know if he was running around shooting people or dipping them in lava. Chavez is definitely a spotlight hog, a bit of a blowhard, and definitely not perfect. That much is true. What is also true, and much more important, is that Venezuelan's lives have improved dramatically since he took office and instituted his socialist reforms.

Your perceptions have been colored by too much biased Western media. Try Al-Jazeera for once as a starting point, will you?

EDIT - oh, and as for socialist leaders in South America, I'm much more inclined towards Morales, who combines everything good about Chavez with more humbleness, less rockstar persona, and a slightly more cohesive approach to reform.

Hm, most socialist sources I read nowadays aren't that happy with Chavez anymore. Too centralized, too much posturing, not enough action.

Nonetheless, Venezuela has seen the emrgence of local and workplace councils inspired by other S. American "horizontal" systems, which is a step forward for democracy in my book. But where these will go is anybody's guess. Such is the problem with these Great Leader figures; they don't like to actually follow through on the "power to the people" thing.

It's always pointing out the relative strength of democracy in Venezuela, though, compared to a lot of places. Most of the attempts to paint it as a dictatorship come from the neocon "with us or evil" perspective. Hence the comparisons between Chavez and Ahmadinejad, which really aren't on.

I think we killed the thread again rio.

let's talk about the lasting effects of the 60's and 70's on leftist thought.

Russia's failings led to marxism falling out of favor, especially after the failings of the french student protests. Leftist thought became complacent in thinking that the state wasn't something to oppose. The focus went to identity politics and social issues as opposed to the economic which basically made any sort of reformist politics as failing to begin with. Then you get Hardt and Negri, the post-communists, saying that the revolution has happened due to immaterial labor and the internet and all you have to do is drop the name of capitalism and bam you have utopia. (That's in the book Empire. I'm curious if you've heard any praise for Negri, Rio.)

I think that the failure of modern 'leftist' thought in political spheres in the first world has more to do with the Washington Consensus than anything else, really.

It's just representative of the failure of US-style representative democracy.

I have never read Empire, as a matter of fact. I gather it is influential amongst anti-globalisation activists? I have only read the odd synopsis here and there. Hardt wrote the intro for the Verso collection of Thomas Jefferson writings, which was interesting. I read it in the shop quickly; can't remember what he was saying though.

IMO "leftist thought", for it to be of any worth, is dependent on an actual practical leftist base. The destruction of that is probably the biggest factor IMO. For me, the basic driver of left wing activity is the labour movement. In Britain, there was a very strong socialist movement right up until the point that the unions were forcibly dismantled by Thatcher in the 1980s. In the US the superstructure is very different I guess but the base problem (i.e. the destruction of the labour movement) is probably the same.

Identity politics etc. is probably a symptom rather than a cause.

Of course, the anti-globalization movement is very big now and I guess for the most part it is a leftist thing. But it's based around charities and student movements, etc., which is not the same as a disciplined and dedicated labour movement.

Hrm, so your argument is that leftist activism is never useful without a practical support base that's born out of, say, what Lenin would call trade-union politics, or other sorts of protests like the antiwar movement?

I can see your point there; it's not like marxism came before the idea of workers rights, or the Weather Underground came before SDS and the antiwar movement.

in other news, a Gallup poll determined that 46% of americans think the democratic party is too liberal.

8% said too conservative.

hurk.

Thank you, Fox News, and your continuing accusations of socialism and *gasp* communism.

Well, trade union politics long predates Lenin, of course.

I guess I'm saying that left theory/arguments have to be grounded in practical experience and activism. This activism should generally be representative, rather than altruistic. So, unions/other labour representation rather than student hippies. A mass movement has to come from representative activism. Any theorising above that is ultimately just conjecture.

Marx never saw himself as a leader of any political movement, iirc, merely as an analyst of what the proletariat was doing.

I don't think 46% of the country watches Fox News.

I realize that they predate Lenin, just referring to them in his framework.

I hope not.

http://news.aol.co.uk/blackmail-warning ... ModuleDLUK

One would've thought that she'd have been briefed on security risks surely?

Haha, oh well. People in power are ridiculously silly at times.

If this is a real photo...

Don't be so gulliable. The letters (like the O's, A's, and R's) are identical.

There are places where they have Bible Football coaching, then there are places like that. Although yes, photo seems doctored. And the Russkies saved our asses, actually.

The photo is a fairly obvious joke.

....although if those were taglines on a cable news channel it would be pretty plausible.

it was everyone that saved everyone's ass; couldn't have been done as quickly and cleanly without any one country on either side.

the soviets definitely did the most, though.

also the most raping and murder, but really, after what the nazis did to russia, I can see why an army made of conscripted peasants would have wanted nothing more than bloody, horrifying revenge.

My little brother's going to Israel on Wednesday. I hereby tone down the fuck zionism stuff...