Venezuela's Capriles slams Chavez for blocking broadcas

[naaman fletcher]

The actual voting might be fair, but the campaign is certainly not

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/18/us-venezuela-election-idUSBRE88G1FV20120918

Reuters) - Venezuela's opposition candidate Henrique Capriles slammed President Hugo Chavez on Monday for blocking a live broadcast of an opposition rally, highlighting criticism the leftist leader abuses state resources to guarantee his re-election.

Shortly after Capriles began speaking to thousands of supporters in a Caracas park, Chavez launched a "chain broadcast" across all public access television in which he celebrated his government's achievements and extolled the virtues of socialism.

[tama]

1. Do you need to be "fair"

towards capitalist propaganda? Occupy movements does mic checks to disrupt capitalistic propaganda, should we condemn also those as "unfair"?

[naaman fletcher]

2. Yes

Who decides what is propaganda and what isn't? You obviously don't believe in the basic tenants of liberal, free, societies.

[tama]

3. I don't believe

that capitalist society can ever be a free society. Or that freedom of expression is about protecting fraud and deception.

[naaman fletcher]

4. So what does that mean practically?

Practically speaking, what does that mean? that a group of self appointed people can censor anyone they want?

[tama]

5. Money out of politics

My approach is that money is a broken promise and a fraud and does not deserve a right to speak in democratic process.

If we talk in terms of principles and principled practices, we need to start from ground level of "group of self appointed people", not from people appointed by money. If we want to uphold principle of horizontal democracy and freedom of expression, every human has a voice and say and is free to suggest e.g. that a monetary system in some form would service common good. If this suggestion is consensually approved by the group of self-appointed money, next stage is to suggest what kind of monetary system would best service common good. A person suggesting fraudulent FIAT money system would have equal voice with those who want to reject it and block it from consensus approval. The person or group of self-appointed people wanting FIAT system would have freedom to walk away and create their money system as they wish, but no right to force it upon people who reject it and either don't want any money system or different system based on equality and honesty. More generally, a group of self appointed people engaged in democratic practice do have the right to protect the democratic process from disruption and sabotage by consensually approved procedures, in other words "censor anyone they want" from participating and speaking in that process. In practice such decisions are never easy nor simple, but a group of people engaged in horizontal democracy cannot stay indefinitely captive to abuse by single individual or group of people.

How does this relate to Venezuela? Group of self-appointed people has right to start process of socialist revolution to remove money out of politics by working through representative system and taking hold of state structures. It is more complicated (and precarious) approach compared to direct anarchic democracy, which I'm preferential to, but of course I stand in solidarity with comrades who have chosen that route.

[naaman fletcher]

6. so in the meantime, who gets to ban speech? you?

[tama]

7. Obviously no me.

Look around, who is banning speech where you live? And then follow the money...

[naaman fletcher]

8. You haven't answered the question

You were ok with banning speech. I am trying to ask how do you decide who's speech gets banned, and who decides, that, and you refuse to answer.

[tama]

14. As I explained above

my answer is (horizontal) democratic process and I'm sorry that you refuse to accept that answer.

If you want to discuss democratic process and potential dangers of hierarchic representative system in greater detail on theoretical level, I'm game. If you want to insist that money and capitalist interests should be given equal or greater voice than people, I strongly disagree.

[naaman fletcher]

17. that's not an answer at all

Let's say that right now today, we are going to talk about having a "horizontal democratic process". That is not what we have, so we have to get there. There needs to be debate.

Who is allowed to speak on that matter and who isn't? Who decides?

[tama]

18. Oh but there are

lots of horizontal democratic processes discussing and deciding on actions to get money out of politics.

PS edit: if you asking how a socialist centralist movement - and/or socialist government and state could and should move to horizontal democracy and anarchy/communism, I honestly don't know.

[joshcryer]

9. Chavez uses the "cadenas" like Big Brother in 1984.

It is not something to aspire for. AT ALL.

[Judi Lynn]

10. Right-wingers pretending to be progressive use DU like Portnoy used the piece of liver. n/t

[joshcryer]

11. Are you referring to me?

Because as a left winger I denounce Chavez' Orwellian propaganda.

PS you won't admit that you're insulting me like highly insulting person you are, but that's par for the course.

[tama]

12. For me it's simple

anti-capitalists in Venezuela, though not uncritical, are for time being sticking with Chavez. It's their socialist revolution and as long as they see Chavez as useful tool, it's their business.

[joshcryer]

13. Fair enough.

The issue is that ultimately you are supporting the minority candidate. It is ultimately laughable to be sure!

[tama]

15. Please

Why do you oppose socialist revolution in Venezuela and what makes you think it's your business in any way? Are your personal interests threatened by it in some way?

[joshcryer]

16. Yep. Nope.

I care no way or another.

edit: we will see what the Venezuelan people accept soon enough.