Harry’s Place

Sean Penn has always been a twat.

The primary failure of the Left (as it is today) is not that it cozies up to dictators, cretins, thugs and murderers. There have always been political strains that cozy up to these unsavory types.

Its the fact that “the Left” does so blindly and stupidly, like a mole trying to swim. They have it in their heads to be open minded… to the point that they cannot discern reality from a carefully constructed fiction.

What caused this? How could a progressive force for good become so fantastically misguided?

Is it really because of some anti-imperialistic ideologies or the belief that whites are somehow ‘evil’? Or is it something more?

Penn’s article was nauseating in its pomposity. He continually gave the impression of a hard-bitten reporter doing his best to land an important interview, rather than the self-important twerp unwittingly shilling for two thicko South American strongmen he actually is.

I don’t even like his acting.

Somewhat perturbed over his comments on Castro, less so about Chavez.

Superb actor though.

Its consistent with Harry’s place usual racism that you’re now picking on wealthy celebrities, a very small minority that lives on tiny reservations in hollywood because of Amerikkka’s apartheid.

I wouldn’t get your knickers in twist, Ethan. Folk from the left or the right have supported less than savoury characters over the years, and will forever more. Nothing is perfect or perfectable, and that includes ideologies and people.

I wonder what (HP ÷ HITLER) would =?

Penn is a good actor but also a bit of a wanker.

Though I believe Hitchens to be as principled as he is brilliant, he can be combative to the point of bullying, as he once was in severe comments made about saintly antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan.

Har! Unlike Maureen Dowd, I think Penn may actually believe that Ms Sheehan posseses “absolute moral authority.”

Ah, he’s just another blowhard hollywood shitheel, who thinks he can hide his own wealth behind a facade of left wing piety and faux solidarity with people who can’t afford any dinner today. So long as they don’t ask him for any money, he is a true friend.

This is the “hero” who turned up at the New Orleans disaster with a camera crew, and a rowing boat, only to have them film him sinking. Then, as now, it was all about Sean Penn, and what a wonderful human being he is. Pretty good swimmer also, as it turned out.

This is just another vanity project, from a self-worshipping windbag.

Nothing is perfect or perfectable, and that includes ideologies and people.

Then why is it that Leftists tend to consider their ideology to be as sacrosanct as the Muslimeen?

One would think that relativism would extend toward comprehending that they could, in fact be wrong. Unless it’s pick and choose relativism, which is hypocrisy - the greatest sin.

How did Hitchens get involved in this project?

I can’t believe he will have taken kindly to being blanked by Castro while Penn got seven hours with the dictator.

Then why is it that Leftists tend to consider their ideology to be as sacrosanct as the Muslimeen?

Well some do, some don’t.

As far as Chavez goes, I am supportive of some of his policies, less so of others.

Pick and choose relativism, hypocrisy? Sure, but that’s not just the domain of the left, that’s for sure.

One has to focus on the extent and effect of support, of course. The Sean Penn thing is tittle tattle, irrelevant really, even to the extent that it’s even something to get upset over anyway - mainly about Castro, I suppose.

No, Hollywood silliness is something that bloggers chunter about, its not particularly important; government support and meddling can be another matter though, and then we can look Chile and Nicaragua to name just two countries in that region.

(On that note, I see that Mr. Cooper, whom Neil D links to, has written a standard issue post excoriating the Sandinistas, without a mention of the role of Contras (sorry, freedom fighters), and the US, a remarkable achievement of balanced journalism, I am sure you will agree. Nicaragua is always a bit of a touchstone for Decents I have long suspected.)

On that note, I see that Mr. Cooper, whom Neil D links to, has written a standard issue post excoriating the Sandinistas, without a mention of the role of Contras (sorry, freedom fighters), and the US, a remarkable achievement of balanced journalism, I am sure you will agree. Nicaragua is always a bit of a touchstone for Decents I have long suspected.

Benji, you do know that Marc Cooper is the bloke who was Salvador Allende’s translator? And had to flee Chile after the coup? And was against the Iraq War? And is an editor of the US’s main leftist periodical? And was a director of the US’s oldest liberal radio station network?

And that therefore, possibly, just maybe, it can be taken by as a given that he is on the left and can criticise others on the left without having to constantly indulge in what Hitchens refers to as “throat-clearing”?

I mean, did you even read it or is this just your usual mindless knee-jerking? Cooper is criticising the Sandinistas because they moved to the centre.

And what on earth is “standard” about Cooper’s article? It’s certainly news to me that Ortega was molesting his step-daughter.

Yes, you’re right, his article doesn’t devote 50% of the content to condemning the Contras. This no more indicates he is a supporter of theirs than writing an article condemning Hitler means you like Stalin.

Sorry, Benji, but Jesus H Christ on a pogo stick you really are fucking annoying sometimes.

P.

If Sean Penn is Walter Duranty does that make Hugo Chavez Stalin?

Sean Penn looks heading to become the left’s John Wayne.

Paul

Yes, I am aware of that. I have been reading Mr. Cooper’s stuff on and off for many years. That’s why its doubly odd that he writes an apparently serious post about the Sandinistas in the 1980s without mentioning the Contras and the US. Very odd.

There is something racist in those views.
People like Penn would never accept Castro, Chávez or Putin to be presidents of their country. Not even the majors of their city. However, they think those dictators are OK for the people living in some countries. For them is good enough. Somehow, they are not like us. Somehow, they deserve dictators.
I could be wrong, though: many english people were willing to have Livingstone as their mayor.

Wasn’t Sean Penn the only person to complain about his portrayal in the sublime Team America: World Police?

I’d have thought Matt Damon and Alec Baldwin would have had far stronger grounds, but they seem to have a sense of humour.

Penn was good in Fast Times at Ridgemont High (or maybe he got a free pass because that film had Phoebe Cates’ delightful tats in it), but he’s still a weapons-grade prick.

However, they think those dictators are OK for the people living in some countries.

There’s something irresistable about 5-hour speeches and military uniforms, it seems.

He’s been married to Madonna. Is that punishment enough?

Or should he be ordered to make a propaganda film for Chavez or Castro?
Directed by Ken Livingstone. Or George Galloway.

WHERE IS ZIN!!!!

ZIN!!!!!! CHAVEZ’S REPUTATION MUST BE DEFENDED!!! GET OUT OF BED!!!!!!

Christ, Phoebe Cates has got big ears.

When it comes to politics, Penn is dumber than a sack of hammers.

I liked him in “Sweet ‘n Low” though.

Isn’t the British trade unions fawning over the democratically elected dictator of Venezuela a much more worrying situation?

I was shocked and horrified to discover that 100% of delagates from 100% of unions voted to support Venezuelan Islamo-fascism at the last TUC congress. I mean, you might have expected that there would have been at least one decent delagate who would have the courage to stand up against the Venezuelan ballot box on behalf of motherhood and apple pie.

Isn’t it about time we bombed Congress House?

However, they think those dictators are OK for the people living in some countries. For them is good enough. Somehow, they are not like us. Somehow, they deserve dictators.

Is there something really blinding about the fact that Chavez was elected? He can continue to be referred to as a dictator at all times around here despite the fact he was voted in. Who voted in Gordon Brown as Prime Minister? Who voted for the Queen and her successor, Prince Charles?

To paraphrase Brecht, it’s time to dissolve the workers and elect another, Zin.

As George Orwell would say about Chavez mania on the Left

“One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.

Wells said, Benjamin.

We have already tried dissolving the elected president and appointing another in his place, so a fresh approach is needed.

As George Orwell would say about Chavez mania on the Left: “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.

The TUC congress is the annual gathering of Britain’s intelligentsia?

Who voted in Gordon Brown as Prime Minister?

If Brown did some of things Chavez has done, people would choke on their bruschetta.

If Brown did some of things Chavez has done, people would choke on their bruschetta

You mean like nationalise a bank?

Perhaps if Brown continues to copy Venezuela’s economic policies his approval ratings may rise to Chavez’s level.

Who other than me couldn’t give a toss about Hugo Chavez, will never visit Venezuela, doesn’t care what Sean Penn thinks about him, it, or anything else, and can’t even think of a film that Sean Penn’s been in other than Shanghai Surprise? There must be billions of us, surely.

Who other than me couldn’t give a toss about Hugo Chavez… There must be billions of us, surely

Quite possibly. Unfortunetly, you’re not running the US embassy in Caracas.

Heh heh, classic HP - start off with some redbaiting article, challenge one of the punchbags to comment, then when he does - and wipes the floor with you - some Toube flunkey chimes in to say it doesn’t matter anyway.

Quite possibly. Unfortunetly, you’re not running the US embassy in Caracas.

I think it’s a good thing that I’m not doing that. I have no previous experience and would be disastrous at running an embassy.

some Toube flunkey chimes in to say it doesn’t matter anyway

If this is a reference to my total indifference to Hugo Chavez, and a suggestion that my indifference has been concocted as a tactic because, according to you, someone or or other has wiped the floor with HP, then you’re mad and laughable. If it’s not, you still are.

I have no previous experience and would be disastrous at running an embassy

Of course. You are one of the least convincing advocates of US imperialism on this forum, and there’s some stiff competition. Why do you think I nominated you?

start off with some redbaiting article

has proclaimed Belarus under Alexander Lukashenko “a model social state”; has pledged solidarity with Robert Mugabe, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Vladimir Putin.

This Chavez doesn’t sound very “red” to me. Even Hitler nationalised banks after all!

You are one of the least convincing advocates of US imperialism on this forum

It certainly is true that compared to most of the middle-class Leninists who comment here Wardy makes a very poor advocate for the benefits of an imaginary US empire.

And hey, Carlito’s way wasn’t so bad

Even Hitler nationalised banks

I’ve changed my mind. Wardytron is overqualified to run the US embassy in Caracas. Ethan, forward your CV immediately, before Sarah Palin gets hers in first.

Thanks.

You might profitably forward your own CV to the BNP.

Thanks.

You might profitably forward your own CV to the BNP.

How did Hitchens get involved in this project?

—

Cheap and plentiful rum?

can’t even think of a film that Sean Penn’s been in other than Shanghai Surprise

He was great in Carlito’s Way

Zin, my spies told me Palin will get the Embassy of United States in Africa. Yes, Africa the country.

an imaginary US empire

The imaginery Monroe Doctrine, the made up overthrow of presidents Arbenz and Allende, the ficticious School of the Americas, the pretend US sponsored death squads, Otto Reich’s non-existent ‘Office of Public Diplomacy’, the Bay of Pigs fairytale, the invented mining of Nicaragua’s ports, the 2002 Venezuelan coup that didn’t happen, the 30 million dollars that the US government hasn’t given to the anti-Chavez opposition…

If Graham didn’t already exist, someone would have to invent him!

The TUC congress is the annual gathering of Britain’s intelligentsia?

Well it is hardly the domain of the working person anymore (which is one of the reasons why Union membership is falling) It was NATFHE (hardly “horny-handed sons of the soil” for the most part (I know - I work with them!) Who sponsored resolution 79 on Venezuela although selling it as 100% “support” for Chavez is a bit cheeky - the TUC have been very adament that they won’t give a blank cheque to any government anywhere in the world and that they represent workers - not governments (even that of Chavez.)

The day the TUC does start religiously preaching about how great governments are will be the day it loses touch completely with the British working-class and all its acheivements and becomes itself as much of a mouthpiece for Leninist Vanguards as the STWC before it.

Is that the Zin that supports the overthrow of democracy in Venezuela?

The one who went to Caracas, stayed in a posh neighborhood and then reported back that all the poor people love Chavez just a few months before Chavez lost elections in four out of five municipalities in the city, including a former Bolivarian stronghold which is which is considered to hold the largest concentration of poor urban neighbourhoods in South America?

The Zin who did all this with Bolivars bought on the black market even as he damned the dairy farmers who evaded price controls and were being chased down by the Bolivarian milk police?

The Zin who doesn’t want you to know that democratic savior Chavez said, before the recent elections, If you allow the oligarchy to return to governing, maybe I will end up taking my tanks from the armored brigade to defend the revolutionary government? And who threatened to cut off funding to states that elected opposition governors?

Is this the Zin who starts a vendetta against Transparency International for claiming PDVSA accounts are not transparent, merely months before someone was caught carrying $800,000 in PDVSA cash to Argentina in order to fund an Kirchner slush fund?

Is this the Zin who, if you ask too many questions, will refer to you as anextreme right wing and inhuman mentally sub-normal deranged fanatic?

The imaginery Monroe Doctrine

Ah the doctrine which existed to stop European Imperialists interfering in South America?

Do you know any history at all Zin? Quite laughable.

And a list of small events (stretching back to 1954 for christsakes - how fucking desperate can you get to prove your imaginary narrative? Which proves an Empire? (No doubt 9/11 “proves” a Saudi empire in Zin’s world?)

Zin does exist (unfortunately) and nobody needs him at all even if the Internet does amplify loonies!

You might profitably forward your own CV to the BNP

What biting wit! And what unimpeachable logic you display! With such brilliant intellectual gymnastics, I’m amazed that Sarah Palin hasn’t offered you a job as her speechwriter.

Honestly! The idea that a state interfering in neighbouring states “proves” an empire!

Hold the presses - History needs to take into acount several thousand more “empires” then were previously thought to have existed!

Laughable.

What biting wit! And what unimpeachable logic you display!

Surely it is logical for a supporter of all the right-wingers I mentioned to be a member of the BNP? I’m amazed that Nick Griffin has not offered you a position as his bottom-wiper.

Graham, Zin is not referring to that part of the doctrine. There are clearly two parts, as every historian knows…

1) The anti-colonial feeling. The doctrine was born on 1828.

and er

2) when the US became a world power and started her “imperial” expansion: 1898 war (they got territories from Spain: Cuba, Philipines, Puerto Rico, Guam) and a few years later they were the first industrial power, surpassing Great Britain. In this NEW context, Monroe Doctrine IS synonimous of expansionism, or used to justify that ALL the “Western Hemisphere” is within the American SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ;)

That’s pretty elementary. I hope this helps.

Is this the Zin who, if you ask too many questions, will refer to you as anextreme right wing and inhuman mentally sub-normal deranged fanatic?

Well he will either do that or outline a very weak argument as to why the US has an “empire” and then suggest that are “out there” - or (as originally) try and suggest that Wardy is part of some conspiracy to install George Bush as some kind of “Caeser”.

And this is “socialism in the 21st century” apparently. Sounds more like Stalinism in the 20th to me….

Ah the [Monroe] doctrine which existed to stop European Imperialists interfering in South America?

…in order to advance the USA’s own colonial and imperial interests.

Anyway, sorry to disturb your Sunday afternoon red-baiting session with “small events” like US sponsored death squads, disappearences, coups and assasinations. Empire? What emipre?

Pierrot

The only context of the Monroe doctrine is that of the British (Canning in fact) wanting to industrialise South America in the 1830s/40s. It was an anti-imperialist document and was (mainly) ignored. That there were “Two parts” is just bullshit which you have made up.

You really need to look up “Clark memorandum” in order to avoid looking really stupid in future. You cannot be as thick as you are revealing yourself to be and still have aspirations towards the vanguard.

[Zin will] try and suggest that Wardy is part of some conspiracy to install George Bush as some kind of “Caeser”.

You haven’t been paying attention. I am involved in a conspiracy with Wardytron to install him as US ambassador to Venezuela.

sorry to disturb your Sunday afternoon red-baiting session with “small events

I’m not baiting “reds” I’m baiting you!

I am involved in a conspiracy with Wardytron to install him as US ambassador to Venezuela.

Yes as part of your imaginary US empire which Wardy is an imaginary advocate of. (Please carry on I spent many years working with the Mentally ill and listening to them talk absolute shite on Sunday afternoons….)

He was great in Carlito’s Way

Actually, yes; I really was trying to think of a movie I liked him in

He’s been trying to make a movie about Brendan Behan for years, without any luck. With a bit of weight on him, he could actually pass for the man (see here: http://www.sheilaomalley.com/Behan.jpg).

Dead Man Walking actually made me reconsider my opinion of the death penalty for about 10 minutes. That is, I was against it before going into the movie.

P.

Of course I forgot - It is Chomsky who thinks that the Monroe Doctrine has functioned as an article of “American hegemony” (seemingly based mostly on that film “Walker” that Joe Strummer wrote the music for.)

Sorry, I only read historians who actually back things up with facts - not frustrated novelists existing entirely in a fantasy world of their own creation.

The Monroe Doctrine was used by successive US presidents to justify interventions in Latin America. Interventions which according to Graham, didn’t happen, or if they did, were “small events” which provide further proof that the US is an anti-imperial power.

Graham, I don’t think you need “insults” to prove your point is right (which is NOT). All you need is ideas. But by all means go ahead. If you like them insults, do use them. It is beyond my scope of giving a fuck.

You still don’t get it… When the Monroe Doctrine was elaborated on 1828, the USA were still on the receiving end. Just remember the French intervention in Mexico… Or are you ignoring as well that the intervention of the European Powers during the civil war was a feared possibility?

In this context, the REAL context that is, the Americans feared the agressive European powers. The nature of the Doctrine was then “defensive”. It could not be OFFENSIVE! It ONLY became “offensive” when the US had a Big Stick aka a powerful US Navy to back up the rhetoric of braggers! And that only happened, oh what a coincidence, when the US became an industrial power… which NEEDS its fucking sphere of influence. Her well deserved place under the sun, toe-to-toe with the Big Boys!

They wanted to avoid colonial rulers in their neighbourhood. Because they knew that was a threat.

And yes, when this small, weak state became a GIANT then they could play in the MAJOR LEAGUE. In this context the Monroe Doctrine IS radically different.

You are the thick tosser here.

Please carry on I spent many years working with the Mentally ill and listening to them talk absolute shite on Sunday afternoons….

Indeed. I do hope you enjoy listening to your Harry’s Place pals who think that the elected president of Venezuela is a dictator, that the USA doesn’t intervene in Latin America, that I am paid to post by a secret Chavez slush fund, that a 14 point mid term election win for Chavez is a stunning victory for his opposition, that the people who organised the 2002 coup are democracy activists, and that Chevez = Hitler.

As you’re paid to humour your friends, I’ll leave to to get on with your work. Bye, bye.

What Graham was saying, you moron, is that interfering in neigbouring states, whether for good or ill, does not amount to having an empire. An empire means an imperial country sending its nationals to rule other countries. The US was briefly an imperial power in relation to Japan from 1945-1952. Britain was an imperial power in relation to Hong Kong until 1997. The US has never been an imperial power in relation to South America.

See you can’t even be honest about what has been said on this thread can you?

Nowhere did I say interventions did not happen - my argument was that they did not constitute a US empire (your argument quite clearly was that CIA actions are equivalent to Legions marching into a country - clearly absurd.)

The Monroe doctrine was quite clearly a document originating from a former colony which had (within the last fifty years) won independence and which gave great hope to Latin America countries at the time.

Nowhere either did I say that the US remains an “anti-Imperial power” (though it quite clearly was in the 1820s.) What I did say was that it was not an “Empire” in any rational use of that term.

You cannot write three sentences without a lie coming out - and you want to convince the working-classes that you are the future of socialism? Ha!

We really need to cut the cancer of Leninists like yourself out - you are poisoning the chance for a better life for workers everywhere.

And yes, when this small, weak state became a GIANT then they could play in the MAJOR LEAGUE. In this context the Monroe Doctrine IS radically different.

You mean after it had been superseded?

Jesus man you need an history GCSE! You are embarrasing yourself!

Zin is this a good time to talk about Chavez and his relationships with Castro and FARC, since you claim to be against state support for repression in Latin America?

Or maybe we should talk about the exploding crime rate in Venezuela which is apparently all the opposition’s fault even though Chavez has been in power a decade and had more money to spend than any government in Venezuelan history?

Can you tell us what you think about all that or should we just go to http://www.venezuelanalysis.com for the official Bolivarian line which you will be regurgitating anyway?

But before I do, just a parting shot. I credited you the historical knowledge to understand that the Monroe Doctrine came about in the specific historical circumstances of a weak USA, and their morphed into an imperial doctrine in tandem with the USA’s increasing power. I’ll try to remember to spell it out for you next time.

Indeed. I do hope you enjoy listening to your Harry’s Place pals who think that the elected president of Venezuela is a dictator

I am thinking of inventing a macro which says to Zin (for roughly the 300th time) that what Gene wants to say is up to him, that I care very little either way about Venezuela (although, as Zin well knows I have been prepared to listen to him on the subject in the past and my position quite clearly is that if Chavez is doing some good for the poor then that is fine by me) and that this lazy attempt to suggest HP are all of one mind (or even worse “paid” - I mean really how fucking pathetic can you get?) is actually quite damaging to his own cause.

“Jesus man you need an history GCSE! You are embarrasing yourself!”

Keep dreaming, Graham ;)

And I credited you with not trying to sell us Chomskyite bullshit as history - I’ll remember that you are living in a fantasy world in future.

No need to dream Pierrot - but tell me how does it feel to have had the floor wiped with yourself?

Next - how the Magna Carta can be seen in a different context after the formation of the East India Company.

You couldn’t make it up!

US sponsored death squads, disappearences, coups and assasinations

The usual Chomsky-Agee smears. In El Salvador death squad killings fell dramatically when Duarte, the pro-US candidate, was elected president. Paul Bogdanor did a good job of debunking some of these calumnies.

I spent many years working with the Mentally ill and listening to them talk absolute shite on Sunday afternoons…. ~ Graham

I thought you meant professionally, here on Harry’s Place.

and their (sic) morphed into an imperial doctrine in tandem with the USA’s increasing power.

A “Morph” is a phenotypically distinct form of an organism or species. So basically what you are saying is that the Monroe Doctrine changed into something else entirely (which begs the question as to why you brought it up in the first place - perhaps you were trying to appear intelligent and will realise in future that others have read wider than just Chomsky.)

I thought you meant professionally, here on Harry’s Place.

Zin - are you making an allegation that you are paying me for your services?

It is the United States itself which cites the Monroe Doctrine as justification for its numerous interventions. As Wikipedia puts it:

“CIA director Robert Gates vigorously defended the Contra operation, arguing that avoiding U.S. intervention in Nicaragua would be “totally to abandon the Monroe doctrine”. In a case brought before the International Court of Justice by Nicaragua, however, the court ruled that the United States had exercised “unlawful use of force.” The U.S. ignored the verdict. The Carter and Reagan administrations embroiled themselves in the civil war in El Salvador, again citing the Monroe Doctrine as justification. The conflict was marked by large scale human rights abuses and the 1980 assassination of Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero by right-wing death squads. The Monroe Doctrine was also cited during the U.S. intervention in Guatemala and the invasion of Grenada.”

“No need to dream Pierrot - but tell me how does it feel to have had the floor wiped with yourself?” - Graham

Graham, now seriously, I think you should quit sniffing glue before you post your comments…

Zin, I am not sure if you are mistaken, but it’s ME who has mentioned grosso modo the “two epochs of the Monroe Doctrine” (NOT Graham). The poor soul ignored this obvious fact :P

Er no that is Robert gates citing it (not “The United States”)

Our own MP’s love to cite the Magna Carta for all sorts of reasons I think you will find.

(Now honestly, go away and read about the Clark memorandum - this is becoming embarrasing.)

I think you should quit sniffing glue before you post your comments

Oh dear (chuckle!)

This has been good fun.

Perhaps you need to realise that when you find yourselves slipping into a Leninist vanguard fantasy world where HP are all part of some plot to install American hegemony that you are actually just talking to someone who quite likes exposing idiots when he has the spare time on a Sunday afternoon - that would be something to take onboard for the future and you would have learnt a valuable life-lesson!

although I have an interest in Latin America I’ve given up reading these threads, only to watch them turn into a Zin-foaming-at-the-mouth-fest, not a pretty sight and it really doesn’t do his “cause” any favours

And lastly if we are going to talk “contexts” Zin then you really need to take into account that in the paragraph you have cribbed from Wikipedia above is talking about the Monroe doctrine in the context of European powers interfering in latin America (i.e Russia during the cold war) and that quite rightly the International Courts of Justice ruled against the USA in those instances.

An “Empire” of course would have no need to have invoked any doctrine as it would have had occupying armies in Nicuragua, El Savador and various other parts of South and Central America

Zin - are you making an allegation that you are paying me for your services?

If I am, I want my money back.

Zin: So what about the US sponsored death squads?

Graham: No, no. You imagined them, dear.

Zin: But I’m sure the USA helped to overthrow Allende…

Graham: You must have been day-dreaming again. There was a small event, nothing serious. A couple of people suffered bruises, and then that nice Mr Pinochet offered to sort it all out.

Zin: Well I know for a fact that the US supported the 2002 coup against Chavez in Venezuela.

Graham: Zin, there is no such country as Venezuela. It’s all in your mind. Like US imperialism. More tea?

If I am, I want my money back.

You haven’t been cured then?

Sorry but any claim to the respectability of the left should have died in the 1938 show trials and the Gulag, if not then, it should have died when Stalin aided Hitler in the invasion of Poland, or in 1945 when the USSR conquered Eastern Europe, add in the 50 million minimum killed by Mao or the Berlin wall or using psychiatric hospitals on dissidents to the vile FARC and Shining Path terrorists of the modern age and you have a bloody history fully as disreputable as Hitlers but the darlings of the modern left will forever deny their ideological bankruptcy in the name of helping people.

although I have an interest in Latin America I’ve given up reading these threads, only to watch them turn into a Zin-foaming-at-the-mouth-fest ~ modernity

I think most normal rational people will conclude that the people foaming-at-the-mouth are those who describe the elected administration of Hugo Chavez as a Hitlerite dictatorship.

Incidentally, you are a terribly bad liar. You can’t “give up reading these threads”, only to “watch them turn” into something you don’t like and then comment about it.

As for your self-professed interest in Latin America, there has been no sign of it to date. Your only contribution to the debate has been to troll these pages, and accuse me of being paid to post by a secret Chavez slush fund. Which is an absolutely brilliant rebuttal of everything I’ve said. I’m devastated.

You haven’t been cured then?

No, not yet. I want to believe O’Brian, but then I pick up a history book and it contradicts everything he tells me. I’ll try harder.

I think most normal rational people will conclude that the people foaming-at-the-mouth are those who describe the elected administration of Hugo Chavez as a Hitlerite dictatorship.

I haven’t seen anyone compare Chavez with Hitler here. The only comparison not made by you was about nationalizing the banks, which was a comparison with Brown.
Incidentally, you are a terribly bad liar. You can’t “give up reading these threads”, only to “watch them turn” into something you don’t like and then comment about it.

Curious thing for someone who posted “a parting shot” at 6.30pm and has posted five times since.

“but then I pick up a history book and it contradicts everything he tells me. I’ll try harder” - Zin

Exactly the same opinion here, Zin. And he keeps waving the Clark Memorandum: “I know my stuff, I know my stuff!” when he completely ignores the history itself of the XIX and XX centuries: the US as a weak state which elaborates a doctrine on 1828 and then 70 years laters the giant with new AMBITIOUS plans, goals… But that’s irrelevant to him. Funny glue sniffer!

You haven’t been cured then?

Well obviously he hasn’t, he’s creating imaginary conversations with Graham.

Just recently he spent hours debating a documentary on Chavez that he hadn’t even watched.

Perhaps its time to try some new meds.

Fucking hell Zin has written a whole play act of imaginary dialogue between himself and me. This is putting even Chomsky to shame!

He’s madder than I ever thought! And still trying to flog the lies I destroyed upthread!

As for Pierrot he still really does need that GCSE!

Zin,

although you have had a privileged colonial education and make a fair packet from your business endeavours, that does not mean that you know everything or are a reliable witness to events, as Graham ably remarked:

“You cannot write three sentences without a lie coming out -”

I was in Venezuela some years before you’d even heard of it, and remember the god awful government that they had, and I have NO problem with any of the Chavez social programs that help the poor or assist workers (again cos you will misread it, I have NO problem when Chavez helps the poor), but I think it is too little and probably motivated by his desire to stay in power and much as help people.

but really, Zin, westerners like you that uncritically cheer-lead for Chavez, excuse every dodgy connection (Iranian Pres, etc) don’t do much but reinforce the idea that had you, hypothetically, been living in the 1930s you would have been singing Stalin’s praises, thru the purges, Hitler-Stalin pact, the attack on Finland, the dismemberment of Poland, etc that’s the impression you give out, that you are an unflinching sycophant for Strong-men Dictators

as for comparing Chavez to Hitler, I think it was a throw away comment by a non-regular poster:

“tt 26 November 2008, 11:37 am

For the same reason Hitler did so well in elections. A strong leader, lots of promises, blame the Jews/Capitalists, control the media.”

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/11/26/hugo-chavez-documentary-online/

it was one comment that you latched on to and tried to milk, rather than dealing with the genuine criticisms of Chavez

it was and still is a deflection, it fools no one and why you, Zin, after 20+ years of political activism should be reduced to such feeble tactics I can’t say

“As for Pierrot he still really does need that GCSE!”

That’s not a dream, it’s a NIGHTMARE!

Curious thing for someone who posted “a parting shot” at 6.30pm and has posted five times since then

Let’s make it six then.

You claim that nobody has compared Chavez with Hitler. Well, Ethan and Ortega suggested that Chavez was a dictator, and Mephisto appeared to agree. Then Ethan made a comparison with Hitler: they [Chavez and Hitler] both nationalised banks. On the previous Chavez thread, we also had tt comparing Chavez to Hitler: Hitler was particularly good at helping the poor, and won elections.

And this really is the problem with the anti-Chavez crowd. Devoid of rational arguement, they simply invent things and hope not to be challenged. Some, like the muppets above, are clearly fanatical morons. Others, such as modernity, are just anti-Chavez trolls with nothing to say except to post smears against his opponents. And others, such as Gene, are left describing the people who overthrew democracy in the 2002 coup, as democracy activists.

The unassailable fact is that the people who are experiencing the changes in Venezuela keep voting for Chavez, again and again and again. Harry’s Place says that Venezuela is becoming less democratic, yet the people who live there tell pollsters the precise opposite. Harry’s Place damns Chavez, and yet 100% of the delegates at the TUC passed a motion in support of Venezuela. Amazing this website’s lack of influence within the trade union and working class movement, isn’t it?

Cut the crap, modernity. The entire premise of the anti-Chavez disinformation campaign is that he is an authoritarian dictator or semi-dictator who rigs elections, who does nothing for the working class and poor, and who wants to make himself president-for-life.

Lies, lies and more lies.

We even had the spectacle of HP editor, Gene Zitver, running a campaign on behalf of the people who signed the 2002 coup decree that abolished parliament and all other elected institutions! “Democracy activists” he described them as.

Every story posted here is a rabid red-baiting idiotic anti-Chavez rant. And your sole contribution is to post pathetic smears - “you’re paid by Chavez”. You can’t defend the anti-Chavez lies and disinformation, so you resort personal abuse and end up embarrassing only yourself.

Ethan and Ortega suggested that Chavez was a dictator

I did not say that at all. What I I said was that Chavez did not sound very red to me and that even Hitler nationalised banks. You would have to be quite paranoid to interpret that as saying Chavez was a dictator.

The unassailable fact is that the people who are experiencing the changes in Venezuela keep voting for Chavez, again and again and again.

Wrong. The people rose up to defeat Chavez’s attempts to make himself a dictator for life and give the president totally unnecessary powers. If it weren’t for that defeat then Chavez certainly would be a despot today.

Of course, you opposed the people of Venezuela in that vote and desperately wanted Chavez to win. The people of that country taught you a bloody good lesson.

Every story posted here is a rabid red-baiting idiotic anti-Chavez rant.

Even the one about Southall Black Sisters?

Zin,

your demented tactics might work in person, but not in a textual environment, such as a blog

because readers can compare your ludicrous statements with the original comments and make up their own minds, so:

1. goto http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/11/26/hugo-chavez-documentary-online/
2. press CTRL F in your browser and bring up a Find window
3. type in Hitler
4. you will see that tt makes a throw-away comment on 26 November 2008, 11:37
5. click on next until you reach Zin’s response at 26 November 2008, 12:08 pm with “tt So Chavez = Hitler. With your incisive knowledge of foreign affairs, I’m surprised you didn’t put yourself forward as a Republican vice presidential candidate. “
6. continue pressing next and verify the occurrences of “hitler” in that thread.

as Benji might say, storm in a teacup, old chap

Hehe Mod almost as funny as watching Zin bring up (totally without context) the Monroe doctrine as AN EXAMPLE (nay! The FIRST example) of US imperialism and then Pierrot’s hilarious attempts to rescue him by inventing a totally fictitious second part of said document:

There are clearly two parts, as every historian knows…

Certainly they do certainly lol

Things go about downhill for Zin after that till he tries his hand at being Harold Pinter (hint-not enough pauses.)

And then, right on cue, up pops Mike to talk about “Chavez’s attempts to make himself a dictator for life”

Mike can’t think of a real reason to attack Chavez, so he simply lies. A perfect example of the ongoing disinformation campaign against Venezuelan democracy.

Ethan denies describing Chavez as a dictator. Yet the opening line of his first post in response to the story on Chavez and Sean Penn was:

“The primary failure of the Left (as it is today) is not that it cozies up to dictators … Its the fact that “the Left” does so blindly and stupidly”

Graham,

I really pity Zin, years back the CP used to train their leading members better, but that was for the organizational politics of old

it has all changed with the advent of the web, along with cut’n'paste and on-line access to facts and figures, so Zin’s old bag of tricks don’t really work nowadays, sadly he doesn’t realize it

had we been in the 1930, then Zin would probably be quoting Pig-Iron production figures at us, to demonstrate what a wonderful socialist economy the Soviet Union under Comrade Stalin was.

time old shite, just the Times change

Mike can’t think of a real reason to attack Chavez, so he simply lies. A perfect example of the ongoing disinformation campaign against Venezuelan democracy

It’s not me, the people of Venezuela are the ones who voted down Chavez because they thought his proposals would give him too much power. They stood up to your lies and propaganda.

It’s you that was going around claiming he was going to win the vote by at least 20%!

Zin.

That was a different Ethan.

Well true Mod but nobody objects to Zin commenting here and when Gene writes about Chavez nobody stops Zin responding. True you have to put up with a bit of knockabout in these comments boxes but everybody does - I sometimes think those who consider themselves part of the vanguard are way too precious - a bit like Colonel Blimps in the gents clubs of old. What is really objectionable (and childish, pointless and silly) is to suggest everyone at HP has the same line on everything (which is quite clearly untrue no matter how much it is repeated) and suggesting that Wardy (of all people ) was an advocate of US Imperialism (albeit the “least convincing” one) was such an absurd fantasy that one can do little but treat it with the contempt deserved.

Graham/Ethan,

true enough, Zin hasn’t quite got used to the idea of Pluralism

If you want to know about dictatorships, please ask comrade Zin about the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 and if, in his view, it was justified ?

or ask if Zin feels that the Soviet crushing of the Prague Spring of 68 was reasonable?

I have tried on a number of occasions, but Zin, for an ex-CPer, seems incredibly reluctant to acknowledge those terrible events or to give his honest opinion on them

Graham, it’s not about 2 different documents (haven’t you followed my advice? Yes, the one about not sniffing glue). It’s about two radically different contexts.

It’s not the same

a) “if you [England or France] occupy Mexico or any other state in the Western Hemisphere, I will… I will… I will… well, to be honest I can’t do anything!!! I will have to swallow my words and leave the tail between my legs and let you do!! Life is indeed cruel!”

and

b) “Watch your arse now, the US Navy, capitals, industrial power are coming! If you want it, you will get it!”

What part of these two different contexts are you not understanding???

The a) context is defensive per definition. It has to be. The US CANNOT defy the big powers.

The b) context allows a BLOODY AGRESSIVE reaction if needed, if necessary (which was NOT possible before).

Therefore the STRATEGIC meaning of Monroe Doctrine MUST change. From now on you are basically allowed to switch from a defensive to an offensive posture (which was done, historical facts, mate).

I know my skills at English language are lousy (and maybe I was not very clear) but I am forced to ask you this: are you thick on purpose or what??

Graham, it’s not about 2 different documents

Really? Well how do you explain your clear statement that:

There are clearly two parts, as every historian knows…

perhaps you need an English GCSE as well as a history one!

What part of these two different contexts are you not understanding???

I’m not understanding how Zin takes The Monroe Doctrine (quite clearly and without any of your later “context”) as his first example of American Imperialism when “every historian knows” it was actually an anti-imperialist document. Nobody is really interested in your childish attempts to rescue him by using the “context” of Chomsky narratives which make about as much sense as discovering a copy of Mein Kampf on an Al Qaeda operative and deducing from that that its context is not now 1920s Germany. Even if its “strategic meaning” (and God knows what you are on about here) has changed.

And yes I am thick on purpose (but not quite thick enough to fall for the utter bollocks you are spouting mate!)

Well I think Zin is uncomfortable with the Duranty comparison Mod but as you say he is probably also uncomfortable with criticising the actions of Stalinists.

It is a terrible web weaved by those with little principle.

Graham, then you love yourself more than you love the truth ;)

And I am not here to rescue anybody. Zin is old enough. And if s/he isn’t, then that’s his/her problem. Not mine.

The truth dear boy is that Zin cited the Monroe doctrine as an example of American imperialism (which it is not and never was however many times it is cited by individuals as a reason for interfering in the affairs of neighbouring countries.) That you have read a little Chomsky and swallowed whole his own context-free narrative is neither here nor there as far as “truth” goes. Now we could go into the claims of Russia on the American continent and why and how this was part of the original doctrine and why it resurfaced during the cold war but as you are having trouble already with the A level stuff about Spanish claims in S America and British trade in same I really think it would be advisible for you to read a few proper books first!

Graham, well, since you seem to be lost here, I will give you a clue:

Strategic
1: of, relating to, or marked by strategy

Strategy
1 a (1): the science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war (2): the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions b: a variety of or instance of the use of strategy

The new context aka b) in my example allows many new options which were NOT possible before.

Yes we know - you think it changed its “strategic meaning” and want to vent some Chomskyite nonsense at us.

But we are still waiting to hear why this makes any difference to Zin claiming the Monroe doctrine was an example of American Imperialism when every single historian you consult would certainly say that its primary meaning was anti-imperialist just as surely as Mein Kampf’s primary meaning was 1920/30s German nationalism

I will admit that even though I loathe Chomsky I have somehow fallen for this Chomsky interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, probably from hearing the Chomsky version repeated unchallenged so many times.

Graham thanks for pointing out what it really says, I will have to do some further reading on it.

In truth Pierrot you spouted off about “two parts” before you went back and read up about this didn’t you?

Quite funny!

“In truth Pierrot you spouted off about ‘two parts’ before you went back and read up about this didn’t you?” - Graham

That’s right, Graham (unlike you, I like the truth more than myself). That’s because of my poor skills at English language though, so pay attention… I obviously wanted to say what I am saying ad nauseam… “we must differentiate 2 different contexts, please do not mix them“. In a sense, I guess we agree on one thing at least: the original Monroe Doctrine was quite idealistic, full of good intentions. But remember, it was written on a defensive posture.

Pierrot,

your english is better than mine, but a word to the wise, HP has a number of history buffs* on it, so it is best to bear that in mind when discussing such topics

*in Europe I suspect it would “aficionados”, not buffs.

Modernity Blog, no offense taken. This is the internet. A fight over a pretty girl, that would be a different story though… :)

I don’t think both Graham and I will be hiring and sending assassins…

“we must differentiate 2 different contexts, please do not mix them“.

Precisely. So why did you not find it odd that Zin did just that by suggesting the Monroe doctrine was an imperialist document?

Graham, because I was assuming that he was thinking about the USA after circa 1900: the industrial, military (well, after 1945), political (after 1945 as well) super power etc. NOT about the weak, irrelevant state of the first half of XIX century (when this document, doctrine was elaborated).

Oh come on - everyone puts such a document in the historical context when it was written - not eighty years to a hundred later!

Remember. Zin’s suggestion was that “The Monroe doctrine” proved America had an empire. This was what he used first - his strongest argument! It is nonsense to assume this and you know it!

It’s clear that Zin was talking about the latter use of the doctrine to justify support for malfeasance to bolster US power in the region. Facts that are undeniable - even if one can debate whether that is imperialism or not. It’s seems folk want to talk at cross-purposes?

Benji don’t be silly. Go back to the post - Zin quite clearly talked about “The imaginery Monroe Doctrine” (without any context.) It is in now way clear that he knew what he wanted to talk about at all!

You will get nowhere by spewing out this nonsense in support of members of the Communist party.

Although it is always funny when Benji feels he must defend one of his own - it really does show that a major hit has been scored on the integrity of a Leninist.

Graham,

I am unaware of Zin’s political connections; unlike leftists and trainspotters here, I am not so obsessed with these things.

However, irrespective of Zin’s broader political views, I will support him to the extent of noting the undeniable fact that the Monroe doctrine has been used to support malfeasance in pursuit of US power in the region.

I will let the trainspotters debate the semantics of ‘imperialism’ etc.

I am unaware of Zin’s political connections

Pull the other one - you have an addiction for the details of everyone on thus website. If you did not know that Zin was the editor of “Socialism in the 21st century” then I am Princess Michael of Kent - please try harder - you may get away with this with wishy-washy public schoolboys but I can smell your crap a mile away.

I will support him to the extent of noting the undeniable fact that the Monroe doctrine has been used to support malfeasance in pursuit of US power in the region.

Nobody denied that some individuals had used the doctrine to justify various things - the problem we have is with an originally anti-imperialist document being Zin’s number one exhibit for the existence of an “American Empire” and it is not at all clear that Zin was talking about its later use by individuals. despite your rather desperate attempt to shore up this nonsense.

I think Zin’s central point was that the Monroe doctrine was or is used to justify malfeasance in pursuit of US power in the region. Now, you can call this imperialism, or you can dispute that. But we can spell it out by simply saying “justifying malfeasance in pursuit of US power in the region.” Let’s all be reasonable fellows and agree on that.

I think Zin’s central point was that the Monroe doctrine was or is used to justify malfeasance in pursuit of US power in the region.

Strange then that his argument was all about the existence of an American empire - have you even read the thread I wonder? Is there any point carrying on this conversation or are you in one of your weird moods where you just disagree with anyone associated with HP for the sake of it? I do not agree that you have found any soild evidence for your own central point - so perhaps you would like to get back to us when you can provide some and we can decide whether we want to rehash the argument with you.

Here’s another hint (as nobody seems to be able to find any kind of historical argument for themselves - shocking, I blame Chomsky) try typing “Roosevelt Corollary” into Google.

Yeah, that’s so true isn’t it? The Monroe Doctrine was an anti-imperialist document and wasn’t about exclusive domination of the lands with no one living on it. Just as the Nazi-Soviet Pact was a treaty of non-aggression and shouldn’t be maligned as anything dangerous. Oh God I’ve just compared the US motives in the 1820s to Hitler….and Stalin!

I’m not sure why one should give any more credence or weight to the political views of actors or celebrities generally than one would the ramblings of a gobby London cabbie - whether one happens to agree with those ramblings, or not!

I thought it was a pretty good—or at least interesting—article. Not at all of the order of unreflecting apologetics for Chavez/Castro that one associates with Zin’s propaganda site, for instance.

It’s undeniable, for instance, that Chavez has diverted a much bigger share of Venezuela’s resources to worthy social projects, such as health and education, and to projects of local empowerment; also, that he has won many elections in a more genuinely democratic manner than is usual for that part of the world.

Equally undeniably, he has an ugly authoritarian streak that fears a difference of opinion and that would, for instance, have many of his supporters in the West up in arms were it to happen here—look at all that fuss over the arrest of a Tory MP, for instance. Also, Chavez is a clownish exhibitionist and has put his social reforms in a bad light by aligning his country with genuinely oppressive dictatorships such as Iran, and dangerous nationalist neo-imperialists such as the unstable Chekist-oligarch regime in Russia.

From the economic point of view, Chavez has also failed to diversify the economy sufficiently quickly to put any social gains made on a sustainable footing, just as the oil price plummets.

Having said that, I’d have been much more impressed if, when Raul asserted that even certain Western authorities believed that the communists would win 80% of the vote in a free election, Mr Penn had said: Why don’t you hold one, then?

Also, He’s terrific in that Woody Allen film as the world’s second-best jazz guitarist.

The Monroe Doctrine, as it is understood and propagated by successive presidents of the USA, is imperialist in its aims and intent. Or, if you dispute the word ‘imperialism’, we can replace it with the ‘interventionist’. It is cited by the US government as the basis for intervening in Latin America.

That is its modern day meaning and application, and no amount of semantic nonsense alters that fact.

“Chavez’s attempts to make himself a dictator for life” ~ claims Mike.

No Mike. You are lying.

Let’s split your lie into its component parts. Please explain the constitutional and electoral process whereby Chavez is attempting to

make himself

a

dictator

for

life

Go on. Don’t be shy. Describe the process, what question was on the ballot paper, who was able to vote, and where abolishing elections was proposed.

Of course you can do no such thing. Because you are a shameless liar.

The Monroe Doctrine, as it is understood and propagated by successive presidents of the USA, is imperialist in its aims and intent.

No it is not and never was. Anybody who knows anything about the Monroe doctrine knows that it was an anti-imperialist document and would never claim the opposite when it would be very easy (and totally correct) to cite the Roosevely Corrollory as the total inversion of the Monroe doctrine which made “interventions” possible.

The reason you did not cite this is because you did not know about it and made an idiot of yourself by blindly folowing Chomsky and no amount of bleating bullshit alters that fact.

The Monroe Doctrine was an anti-imperialist document and wasn’t about exclusive domination of the lands with no one living on it.

Good God you are stupid! The Monroe doctrine was certainly not about “Lands with no one living on it” (sic) but about the protection of the people of lands threatened by European powers (many of whom wanted colonies back - or to expand their colonies after the fall of Napoleon.)

Honestly, get a fucking clue before you comment!

I think the process by which Chavez becomes dictator for life is when he says “If you allow the oligarchy to return to governing, maybe I will end up taking my tanks from the armored brigade to defend the revolutionary government”.

He was already behind one coup against a democratically elected government (although, while his comrades were still fighting, he decided he’d rather be on TV surrendering). Another coup was launched in his name. He has previously planned a Cuban style revolution. He is currently threatening another coup if he doesn’t like who the electorate chooses.

And this is Zin’s hero of democracy. But then again Zin proudly supports the overthrow of democracy in Venezuela.

No, Mr Danger. The allegation that Chavez “wants to make himself president-for-life” is based on a referendum about removing presidential term limits. Had it been passed, Chavez (and all future presidents) would have been able to stand for re-election as many times as they wished. This would have brought Venezuela into line with Australia and France, and also the UK (although within the context of its parliamentary system).

So please stop lying.

OK, on to your feeble attempt to find new justifications for your nonsense. If you stop selectively quoting out of context, you will discover the following:

Hugo Chavez was campaigning in the state of Carabobo. The opposition candidate for governor of Carabobo was an active participant in the 2002 coup against democracy. Chavez said that if the opposition use any state victories to stage another coup, then any such attempts would be crushed by force. “I won’t let them overthrow me,” Chávez said, “and I might have to bring out the tanks to defend this revolutionary government.”

Following the opposition’s win in Carabobo, Chavez immediately accepted the result and congratulated the winner. Just as he did following his defeat in last December’s constitutional referendum.

The campaign against Chavez is a tissue of lies, innuendos, half-truths, and distortions. The aim is to delegitimise Venezuelan democracy in order to isolate and undermine the elected and hugely popular Chavez government.

Chavez was re-elected with 63% of the popular vote. His current approval rates are in the 70s. Pro-Chavez parties have just won 57% of the vote in regional mid-term elections.

These are figures that not even the 1945 Labour government came close to.

The percentage of Venezuelan’s who tell pollsters that they are “happy with the way their democracy works” is the second highest in Latin America, and the figure has been rising steadilly under the Chavez administration.

This is the glaring inconsistency in the arguments of the anti-democracy gang on Harry’s Place. They say that Venezuela is a dictatorship or that Chavez is a proto-dictator, but the people who actually live there and are experiencing the changes say the precise opposite.

Who is right and who is wrong?

George Bush? Gene and his little gang of muppets on Harry’s Place?

Or the people who live there?

They say that Venezuela is a dictatorship or that Chavez is a proto-dictator, but the people who actually live there and are experiencing the changes say the precise opposite.

They sound just like the Russians under Stalin, Mr Zin-Duranty.

Graham

Your point doesn’t make sense. Successive US governments cite the Monroe Doctrine as the basis for their interventions in Latin America. That’s how the doctrine is interpreted today, by the people who act on the basis of this interpretation.

So the proof that Chavez = Stalin is that Venezuelans are satisfied with the way their democracy works.

Is ‘back to the thirties’ a reference to your IQ?

Lying? I never called him a dictator or said the referendum was about “president for life”. This makes you the liar, the proof will be that in your next response you won’t mention this again.

As for your apology for Chavez, you are reading directly off the script from http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3998 (a story which is just a translation of another one at rebelion.org, a radical left site which has dozens of fawning articles on Cuba, and not a single one which is critical).

You are not going back to original sources to prove that he didn’t
say that, you are using after the fact claims by Chavez that it was “out of context”. The article sounds like a typical episode of Hello President, with Chavez berating the journalist, and accusing her of being manipulated by CNN executives. Quite reminiscent of his treatment of an Irish journalist from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/17/venezuela.hugo.chavez) who also made the mistake of questioning Dear Leader. And of course every response the journalist makes is “inaudible” and thus is not translated by rebelion.org.

All you are doing is going back after the fact and creating rationalisations for Hugo’s latest ouburst of stupidity. You are the lowliest of PR hacks, reading off government press releases which you consider the word of god compared to the evil CIA agents masquerading as journalists. You are, truly, shameless.

Zin your point makes no sense at all. You cited the Monroe doctrine as evidence of a US Empire. It was pointed out to you that the Monroe doctrine was concieved as an anti-imperialist document and that there was a complete inversion of its meaning called the Roosevelt corollary which you could have used to support your claims of increasing US aggression had you known about it.

But you didn’t know about it and therefore continue to bluster on about Monroe….

Is ‘back to the thirties’ a reference to your IQ?

If it was it would make my IQ twice as big as your own.

Graham

The central point that your nitpicking semantic smokescreen cannot obscure is that the Monroe Doctrine is cited by successive US presidents to justify their imperial interventions in Latin America.

I am reminded of Bill Clinton’s famous line: “That depends on what your definintion of ‘is’, is.”

The issue of substance is how the Doctrine is understood, interpreted and used today.

So let’s get Zin straight. He raises the Monroe doctrine as evidence of a US Empire (this is quite clear) when challenged on the meaning of the Monroe doctrine he blusters about context (without really knowing why the context changed) and is now saying that what matters is how some people in the US government USE the Monroe doctrine nowadays.

This is ahistorical nonsense. You might as well suggest that the Magna Carta is responsible for the H Blocks.

It isn’t about what anyone cites you idiot except your own ignorant citing of the Monroe doctrine as evidence of a US empire when it was clearly quite the opposite.

If you think historical accuracy is a “nitpicking semantic smokescreen” then no wonder everyone thinks you already halfwaty to totalitarianism.

The issue of substance is how the Doctrine is understood, interpreted and used today.

By Chomsky?

You are so hilariously pathetic Zin, this is becoming a competition between Graham and I to see who can make you look more stupid. If you continue to trip over this same Monroe point over and over again I’m not sure my exposure of your amateurish PR script reading is going to be able to compete.

Graham

Do you understand the difference between a historical set of words on a piece of paper, and the way those words are understood, interpreted, and used?

When modern US governments talk about the Monroe Doctrine, they mean the later interpretation of the doctrine that ‘allows’ them to intervene in Latin America. They are not talking about the original anti-European, anti-imperialist doctrine.

It was the modern interpretation of the doctrine that I was reffering to, and I made that clear to you when challenged.

Mr Danger

No, not by Chomsky. By the US government.

no wonder everyone thinks you already halfway to totalitarianism

Dear Mr Three Quarters

I am always suspicious of the motives of people who claim to speak on behalf of everyone.

No Zin, you are thinking of the Roosevelt corollary. Oh wait that’s been pointed out to you about eight times already.

You truly are thick, aren’t you?

Do you understand the difference between a historical set of words on a piece of paper, and the way those words are understood, interpreted, and used?

Yes. Do you understand the difference between claiming that the Monroe doctrine proves the existence of an American empire and claiming that later interpretations of said doctrine prove the existence of an American empire?

It was the modern interpretation of the doctrine that I was reffering to, and I made that clear to you when challenged.

Then you are an idiot. As you should know that the Monroe doctrine exists as a document in its own right and it is impossible to “interpret” it as something it isn’t and that it does not say. You should have made use of the later inversions and amendments that I pointed you towards.

I am always suspicious of the motives of people who claim to speak on behalf of everyone.

OK 98% of people (about the same percentage as those US politicians you think use the Monroe doctrine to justify their “empire”)

Laughable.

Graham

But what you are arguing is patently ridiculous. The Roosevelt Corollary was an addition (or ammendment if you prefer) to the Monroe Doctrine. From that moment on (actually, it was more a process than a ‘moment’, but I hope you get the point), the Monroe Doctrine became formally imperialist in its aims.

Those who argued (then and later) for the original interpretation and use of the doctrine, were superceded by those who ammended and reinterpreted the doctrine.

Or as Wikipedia puts it:

“As the United States emerged as a world superpower, the Monroe Doctrine came to define a recognized sphere of control that few dared to challenge (Britannica 269). In 1904, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, added the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which asserted the right of the United States to intervene in Latin America in cases of “flagrant and chronic wrongdoing by a Latin American Nation” (Britannica 269). This was the most significant amendment to the original doctrine and was widely opposed by critics, who argued that the Monroe Doctrine was originally meant to stop European influence in the Western Hemisphere (Britannica 269).”

From then on, the Monroe Doctrine was understood by both successive US governments and the people of Latin America to be interventionist / imperialist in its designs.

I prefer to use the modern definition of the Monroe Doctrine, because everyone who matters in the politics of the Americas understands it in that way. Pedants are entitled to their own ecentricities, if they so wish.

Anyway, can we call it a day, Graham? I don’t think either of us are particularly stupid, and our positions on this issue are not really that far apart. Also, I can’t take it anymore… I’m walking around the office repeating ‘Monroe Doctrine’ to myself through gritted teeth. If I continue much longer, I’ll end up as one of your Sunday afternoon patients. ;-)

“Monroe Doctrine”? What’s that?

I prefer to use the modern definition of the Monroe Doctrine, because everyone who matters in the politics of the Americas understands it in that way.

You mean Noam Chomsky?

What you argued was that a spread of historical events (which started with a context-free Monroe doctrine) amounted to evidence of an American empire. All I have done is pointed out to you that you were wrong to do so and that there are actual documents you could have quoted which would have made more sense (some of which may have been “amended ” to the Monroe doctrine - although how you would like your own doctrine to be inverted in around eighty years and then used as evidence of the opposite to your intentions is something you may like to ask yourself.)

The Monroe doctrine is a particular historical document from a particular historical context. Anybody arguing that it “justifies” anything outside that context is being ahistorical and wilfully ignorant when there exist far more precise terms to describe what they mean.

Anyway I still think your evidence for the existence of a US Empire is a bit threadbare.

No, I don’t mean Noam Chomsky. I had no idea he had even written on the topic until I read this thread. I mean that the US government and people in Latin America use the Monroe Doctrine (in its ammended form) to mean intervention / imperialism.

It could be that they are being ahistorical and that Monroe might be turning in his grave, but I didn’t coin the term or reinvent its meaning, and nor do I have any influence over those who have.

Ah well you could look up the meaning of the term “corollary” I suppose.

There is a danger in accepting a totally different meaning to a very clear and straightforward document (no matter how many people use such a meaning.) Marxist tracts in the hands of a Stalinist no doubt “mean” something very different to what the author intended as well but unless one is trying to score cheap political points I think most people would accept the difference.

but I didn’t coin the term or reinvent its meaning, and nor do I have any influence over those who have.

But you can choose not to go along with their wilful ignorance of the document - it is up to you.

I see your point Graham, but I don’t have the time, the inclination or the power to change the popularly understood meaning of the doctrine. The important thing, as far as I’m concerned, is that there is a doctrine, call it what you will, that the US cites as justification for intervening in Latin America.

Anyway, despite our disagreement and the sometimes abrasive nature of our postings (I apologise for my contribution to that), I thought it was a genuinely intersting debate.

Cheers

but I don’t have the time, the inclination or the power to change the popularly understood meaning of the doctrine.

The popularly understood meaning of the document as far as I (and the world’s political historians) are concerned is the meaning enshrined in its own text. I don’t know who these people are who “popularly” understand the Monroe doctrine to mean something other than it says and so would repeat the necessity of using the proper terms. We are on a slippery animal-farm style slope when we cannot be bothered arguing against an interpretation as obviously wrong as this one.

The only decent movie that fool Penn was in was “Fast Times at Ridgemont High.”

Mick seems to agree:

“Penn was good in Fast Times at Ridgemont High (or maybe he got a free pass because that film had Phoebe Cates’ delightful tats in it), but he’s still a weapons-grade prick.”

Mick, if you ever make it to NYC, Ms. Cates owns a small boutique called Blue Tree. She is supposed to be very nice to shoppers. I don’t think she’ll show you her tats but who knows…

Monty writes:

“This is the “hero” who turned up at the New Orleans disaster with a camera crew, and a rowing boat, only to have them film him sinking. Then, as now, it was all about Sean Penn, and what a wonderful human being he is.”

I remember that as well. What an idiot.