John Pilger- War on Democracy (Latin America) Documentary

[zasterguava]

I saw this documentary the other day at the cinema and can definitely recommend it. Its far from the sensationalism and factual innacuracies of Moore films: but I did have some criticisms of it. For example, in one scene they interview 2 parents or a baby who have been made homeless asking "do you think the Wests perception of your country as being economically prosperous is correct?" (LOL) Another scene the song "Something Inside so Strong" is played over archive footage of a mass protest/revolution in Venezuela which is just stupid. And lastly, Pilger's (naive?) admiration of Hugo Chavez is suspect -hailing him as the ultimate hero without any criticism. It also makes the point that criticisms of Chavez as censoring the media are incorrect; which is ironic seeing as he recently banned a load of media companies.

All in all- its informative and reasonably captivating. Despite its bias it doesnt pretend to be otherwise and if 90% of the films claims are 100% true, it wouldn't suprise me.


IMDB [ QUOTE ]
Award winning journalist John Pilger examines the role of Washington in America's manipulation of Latin American politics during the last 50 years leading up to the struggle by ordinary people to free themselves from poverty and racism. Since the mid 19th Century Latin America has been the 'backyard' of the US, a collection of mostly vassal states whose compliant and often brutal regimes have reinforced the 'invisibility' of their majority peoples. The film reveals similar CIA policies to be continuing in Iraq, Iran and Lebanon. The rise of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez despite ongoing Washington backed efforts to unseat him in spite of his overwhelming mass popularity, is democratic in a way that we have forgotten or abandoned in the west. True Democracy being a solid 80% voter turnout in support of Chavez in over 6 elections.

[/ QUOTE ]

[NeBlis]

Other than his love of coffee and eloquent speachmaking. Chavez has zero redeeming qualities. He is destroying his country piece by piece though fear mongering and bully tactics. The real deal that is going on there is so far beyond 1984 screwed up its hard to even describe. I look forward to the revolt when he pulls the "president for life" card that hes about to.

In short he makes Bush or even Castro look like sensible rational people

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
Other than his love of coffee and eloquent speachmaking. Chavez has zero redeeming qualities. He is destroying his country piece by piece though fear mongering and bully tactics. The real deal that is going on there is so far beyond 1984 screwed up its hard to even describe. I look forward to the revolt when he pulls the "president for life" card that hes about to.

In short he makes Bush or even Castro look like sensible rational people

[/ QUOTE ]

The film presented your view by interviewing business men and showing absurd news reporters. Chavez, like him or not, is attempting to bring socialism to a country that has prior ignored the poor and concentrated itself upon the interest of the rich and Washington.

[lehighguy]

Socialism is bad for the poor.

In any event, Chavez is a one trick pony. God help the guy if there is ever a technology breakthrough and the price of oil goes down.

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
Socialism is bad for the poor.

In any event, Chavez is a one trick pony. God help the guy if there is ever a technology breakthrough and the price of oil goes down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Socialism is not bad for the poor. In Venezuala the poor are in a better position than they were under US backed control- though the l/t effects may prove otherwise. Im no socialist but as an ideology it favours the poor.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Socialism is not bad for the poor. In Venezuala the poor are in a better position than they were under US backed control- though the l/t effects may prove otherwise. Im no socialist but as an ideology it favours the poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is true only in the short run. For sure, immediately following the introduction of socialism the poor who have money taken from the rich and given to them are better off. In the long run, a fully blown centrally planned socialist economy is worse for everybody.

[lehighguy]

To add on that, socialism is a capital destroyer. Under socialism you see a lot of current consumption at the expense of capital building and investment.

Blowing all your credit cards on a huge party seems great in the short term, eventually the bills come due.

And, as I noted, the whole system of Chavez's is basically being held up by high oil prices. All of his social programs would collapse without the constant infusion of money from oil sales.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Socialism is bad for the poor.

In any event, Chavez is a one trick pony. God help the guy if there is ever a technology breakthrough and the price of oil goes down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Socialism is not bad for the poor. In Venezuala the poor are in a better position than they were under US backed control- though the l/t effects may prove otherwise. Im no socialist but as an ideology it favours the poor.

[/ QUOTE ]


tell that to the poor in

CUBA
CHINA
OLD USSR
etc etc

And everywhere else this BS idea has been tried. Socialism creates the ultimate breading ground for graft and corruption. The IDEA may be to help the poor but they get buttsecksed by the ruling elite at every turn. Show me one socialist country present or past where the poor don't get a more raw deal than any comparable "free market" country

Any time you create a system with hyper rigid transaction rules the only people who win are those that break the rules.

for a micro lesson on this see Enron and the California "deregulation" fiasco.

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Socialism is bad for the poor.

In any event, Chavez is a one trick pony. God help the guy if there is ever a technology breakthrough and the price of oil goes down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Socialism is not bad for the poor. In Venezuala the poor are in a better position than they were under US backed control- though the l/t effects may prove otherwise. Im no socialist but as an ideology it favours the poor.

[/ QUOTE ]


tell that to the poor in

CUBA
CHINA
OLD USSR
etc etc

And everywhere else this BS idea has been tried. Socialism creates the ultimate breading ground for graft and corruption. The IDEA may be to help the poor but they get buttsecksed by the ruling elite at every turn. Show me one socialist country present or past where the poor don't get a more raw deal than any comparable "free market" country

Any time you create a system with hyper rigid transaction rules the only people who win are those that break the rules.

for a micro lesson on this see Enron and the California "deregulation" fiasco.

[/ QUOTE ]

Name one country with a free market that cares about the poor.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Socialism is bad for the poor.

In any event, Chavez is a one trick pony. God help the guy if there is ever a technology breakthrough and the price of oil goes down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Socialism is not bad for the poor. In Venezuala the poor are in a better position than they were under US backed control- though the l/t effects may prove otherwise. Im no socialist but as an ideology it favours the poor.

[/ QUOTE ]


tell that to the poor in

CUBA
CHINA
OLD USSR
etc etc

And everywhere else this BS idea has been tried. Socialism creates the ultimate breading ground for graft and corruption. The IDEA may be to help the poor but they get buttsecksed by the ruling elite at every turn. Show me one socialist country present or past where the poor don't get a more raw deal than any comparable "free market" country

Any time you create a system with hyper rigid transaction rules the only people who win are those that break the rules.

for a micro lesson on this see Enron and the California "deregulation" fiasco.

[/ QUOTE ]

Name one country with a free market that cares about the poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poverty rates in the US decreased pretty consistently during periods up until the 1950s and the beginning of the great society programs. The exceptions to this trend were during high government interference (Great depression, Wars), the same can be said of England in the pre industrial revolution years through the 1890s (if memory serves correctly).