Truemors
Digg
del.icio.us
AddToAny
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Venezuela's Chavez on moral crusade
by urbano411 | October 9, 2007 at 07:51 pm | 314 views | 4 comments | 7 recommendations
Are Venezuelans as dedicated to the Revolution as Chavez would like? Are they ready to be told how dedicated they must be? What to eat, what to drink, how to live. Many will argue that anything anti-yankee is good, but how many of the free spirits are willing to run to Caracas and join this Revolution. I often wonder when we finally have no choices left to make, what are we left with?
President Hugo Chavez is on a moral crusade in Venezuela, preaching against vices from alcohol to cholesterol, vowing to curb whisky imports and ordering beer trucks off the street.His government announced increased taxes on alcohol and tobacco on Monday, and Chavez also plans steep new taxes on luxury items such as fancy cars and artwork.
It's all part of Chavez's efforts to encourage Venezuelans to adopt the psyche of the "New Man," a socialist revolutionary with a monk-like purity of purpose. Chavez often cites the life of Cuba's iconic hero Ernesto "Che" Guevara as an ideal example - and complains that many Venezuelans' values are not up to par.
"We're one of the countries that consumes the most whisky per capita in the world. We should be ashamed," Chavez said recently on national television. "I'm not willing to continue offering dollars to import whisky in these quantities. What kind of revolution is this? The Whisky Revolution? The Hummer Revolution? No, this is a real revolution!"
October 9, 2007 at 07:51 pm by urbano411, 314 views, 4 comments
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (4)
at 05:59 on October 10th, 2007
urbano411, good stuff. Oxymoron: benevolent dictator.
at 11:05 on October 10th, 2007
urbano411, good find. He's encouraging to de-colonialise. What could possibly be wrong with that? Do folks really need to spend the better part of their income on things that in many cases like liquor especially in the case of Aboriginal peoples do them harm? He's attempting to rebuild an entire society after more than 500 years of direct colonialism. Their, and our, ultimate freedom potential should not be bound to the availibility of McDonald's and Starbucks.
at 19:56 on October 10th, 2007
Could the de-colonization of people 500 years later, somehow have the same negative impact on self freedom and expression that was imposed on them 500 years ago? To believe that people somehow are all misguided children that need to be redirected in thought, sounds very much like a colonialist philosophy.
at 21:31 on October 10th, 2007
I fail to see your point. How does having access to baubles equate to actual human, political and cultural freedom? Colonialist philosophy dictates that the common people, those so colonialised, be adjusted to the dominating system. In this case, United States-style no-holds-barred capitalism. I read the article you sourced and see nothing wrong with suggesting to his people that they think about their individual and social condition. Here all the president can say is "own something." And due to that, we now have a major credit issue. As far as morals, we are told what is acceptable behaviour all the time unless it is a vice that generates lots of cash flow like the sex industry. Rich people don't mind owning interests in the less savoury aspects of society.
The liquor firms of course will despise him, they make money on keeping people stupified. Drinking is a huge problem in that country especially amongst the Indigenous and the poor, his intentions to reduce drinking should be hailed. no one is being forced to go dry. He was quoted in the article telling his people to drink at home, not on the street. This is a bad thing? Do poor people really need to be dreaming about SUV's when they can't even feed their families? I see nothing dictatorial about his either getting rid of vices that harm society as a whole or imposing taxes on luxury items that only the very weathy in that country can afford anyway. He is doing it the right way through education and involvement in the individual personal welfare of the country.
I do not see any valid reason to call this man a dictator and I refuse to board that group-think wagon while we live under a government that spies on its own people and then consistently lies about it. Saudi Arabia, Burma/Myanmar and Egypt have dictators and they are all pals with the Bush administration and the first family in a personal way. The Bush administration has violated the U.S. constitution and international law over and over again and has yet to be called on it and still refuses to make public many major decisions by the White House. Add to this list the failed U.S. supported coup in that country and you have all the markings of a "rouge" government that also employs the use of torture and kidnapping. Under American law and tradition, this, is dictatorial.