Venezuela's Chavez threatens to shut down another station

[cynatnite]

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Tuesday called opposition news channel Globovision an enemy of the state and said he would do what was needed to stop it from inciting violence, only days after he shut another opposition broadcaster.

Tens of thousands of Venezuelans marched in Caracas in a fourth consecutive day of protests over Chavez's closure of the RCTV network - a move which has sparked international criticism that the leftist leader's reforms are undermining democracy.

State television showed hundreds of government supporters marching in downtown Caracas celebrating Chavez's decision.

"Enemies of the homeland, particularly those behind the scenes, I will give you a name: Globovision. Greetings gentlemen of Globovision, you should watch where you are going," Chavez said in a broadcast that all channels had to show.

"I recommend you take a tranquilizer and get into gear, because if not, I am going to do what is necessary," he added.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070529/wl_nm/venezuela_television_dc_8

[rinsd]

1. More from the article

"Chavez criticized opposition media for saying police had attacked crowds, arguing they had only used legitimate force."

The New Chavez...less benevolence, more dictator.

[Balbus]

2. News stations in Venezuela are like Lay's potato chips.

[ret5hd]

3. hmmm...i thought they were mor like pretzels...

they keep trying to kill presidents.

[cynatnite]

5. Oh, yeah? How many are there? n/t

[Balbus]

8. 1 less than yesterday.

so far...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. ZOMG! HE'S JUST LIKE HITLER!

We all remember how many TV stations HE shut down!

[LittleClarkie]

24. They had tv then?

How about radio, maybe, instead.

[Bronyraurus]

6. Yikes.

I guess it's better to do two at once than to spread them out.

[Big Pappa]

7. Thats what I was

thinking. He might as well go ahead and get rid of all opposition now.

[Bronyraurus]

9. Can we decide that this guy is a turd yet?

Or is there still a question?

[Big Pappa]

10. Apparently

some are having a tough time with that decision.

[info being]

38. Maybe we're waiting to see more

Maybe we don't feel the knee-jerk reaction to leap to a conclusion.

[yurbud]

64. what would we do with stations that actively helped coup against elected president?

[info being]

76. Exactly

I can't believe nobody here seems to see that complexity.

[yurbud]

96. It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understand

--Upton Sinclair

[Marie26]

11. more threats

Chavez is headed towards a dictatorship. Dictators are bad, even if they insult Bush.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. He Really Is Such A Piece Of Garbage. Some DU'ers Love Affair With Him Is One Of The Most Perplexing

things I've seen here. I just can't figure it out. It is so obvious to an objective eye that he is a fraud and not one to be worshiped. How are some so taken by him? He's as bad as any of the others. As always, fuck chavez.

[Balbus]

13. He said bush was a poo-poo head.

That's enough for most here.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. I Know For Certain That's Not True.

I call that pathetic excuse for a president far worse than poo-poo head and so many here still hate my fuckin guts! :rofl:

[Louis Cipher]

17. When Chavez says it, we know he's sincere.

That's why we love him.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

20. You Know You're Not Fooling Anybody, Right?

I mean, you do know that I hope?

And I'm flattered with your stalking. Really, I am. But you truly bore me. :boring:

[Rage for Order]

21. You either hit the nail on the head, or...

That poster is a true believer of the Jonestown variety. I'm guessing the former. Queensryche rocks :)

[Mutineer]

32. It's depressing

that this many people at DU seem to be willing to give him a free pass just because he trashes Bush. I've never understood the DU love for Chavez or Castro. Both are very evil dictators, just because they trash Bush it doesn't make them good men. Chavez is systematically clamping down on the press, taking control of the oil industry and the nation's banks and just so long as he trash-talks Bush, it's all DU love for him here. What will it take for people here to see him as he really is?

[Codeine]

105. Are you kidding?

Half these people are apologists for Ahmedinajad and Kim Jong Il -- you think they'll disavow Chavez?

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. Remember, "Fake CIA protests don't count!... it is his patriotic duty... being WAY TO NICE!"

"The "reporters" cough cough, should be THROWN IN PRISON FOR TREASON!"

I'm not even going to link to the thread. I'm sure most here read it. Frankly, I'm STILL puzzled at the notion that opposition TV stations should be yanked from the airwaves.

I don't need a pro or con argument for that. It just seems wrong on its very face.

[info being]

82. Is there *any* circumstance in which broadcast licenses should be revoked?

Showing titties on TV? Would that push you over the edge?

[NaturalHigh]

22. Well put.

Just because Hugo hates Bush and hugged Cindy is no reason to ignore the fact that he's a dictator who is steadily consolidating his power.

[Peace Patriot]

16. The Venezuelans are kicking corporate butt! We should applaud them!

There is no such thing as corporate free speech. That is a myth of the Corporate Rulers. Free speech is for PEOPLE. And there is furthermore no right to use the PUBLIC airwaves, in Venezuela or here. TV/radio bandwidth is limited, and it is therefore licensed and regulated, and most governments require that those who seek a license to use the public airwaves prove that they will use those airwaves responsibly and in the public interest. Prior to Reagan, we had the "Fairness Doctrine" here, which, among other things required TV/radio stations to provide equal time to opposing views. This created fairer treatment of public issues (than the 24/7 fascist propaganda we have now), and promoted a wider spectrum political discussion across the board (even in unaffected media like print newspapers).

Just imagine denying licenses to CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS and Faux News, for their irresponsible, lying coverage of the Iraq War, their cheerleading of the war, their unfairness, their conglomerate fingers in war industries (in some cases), and their suppression of vital public information, such as protests, non-transparent election conditions and stolen elections.

We have that right. So do the people of Venezuela (63% of whom voted for Chavez in the last election, and also voted in a pro-Chavez National Assembly--in highly monitored and transparent elections). And they have overt evidence that their corporate news monopolies actively participated in the violent military coup attempt to overthrow the elected government in 2002. More recently, a plot to assassinate Chavez and other leftist leaders and to destablize the Andean region (which now has leftist governments in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina) was disclosed in the big rightwing paramilitary scandals in Colombia, by the former chief of Colombian intelligence. These paramilitaries, with close ties to the top echelons of the Uribe government (Bush's pals), have been killing thousands of labor organizers, leftists and peasants and dumping them in mass graves, and have also been drug trafficking. Also, recently, they have been trying to create incidents on the Colombia/Venezuelan border. They are up to no good. They are tied to the Bush Junta. And they no doubt also have ties to Big Oil and to RCTV (whch backed the oil professional's strike that tried to bring down the Chavez government, after the '02 military coup failed) and Globovision (which has similar views).

One evidence that this NEW assassination plot--and wider plot to destabilize the whole region--is quite recent is that the rightwing candidate for president in Venezuela, last fall, felt obliged to disavow a planned military coup there for the days after Chavez's reelection (Dec. '06). The plot once again was to use corporate TV to foment the falsehood that the election was "fixed," to encourage riots and to then bring the military in, again, to take over the government. To his credit, the rightwing candidate distanced himself from this plot. But his need to do so indicates what an on-going threat there is.

The Venezuelan government has every right to deny licenses to corporations that have engaged in plots to bring down the legitimate government. They have a right--and a duty!--to fight back, legally and in the forum of world opinion. And we leftists in the U.S. should be supporting them, and learning from them. They are doing what WE should be doing--investigating corporate news monopolies (why DID they all propagandize the war?), reviewing them for fairness, truthfulness and the public good, and planning challenges to their licenses, if we see cause.

Licenses to use the public airwaves can be denied--with no harm to free speech--for far LESS cause than the Venezuelans have against RCTV--for mere failure to operate in the public interest, for failure to provide equal time to other political views, for failure to provide public issue programming, for broadcasting lies and false news, for unfair business practices, for cheating the public in game shows, for seeking to monopolize news, opinion and entertainment markets, and for a host of other causes that governments evaluate in granting these licenses.

"Fairness" laws regarding use of the public airwaves PROMOTE free speech; they don't harm it. The licensing is (or can be) designed and administered to promote DIVERSITY, to prevent MONOPOLY, and to encourage widespread public participation in the discussion of public issues. It is only when global corporate predators gain control of the regulatory agencies--as is the case now in the U.S.--that we see such LACK of diversity, such distorted news, such relentlessly rightwing opinion, and such a deadening corporate monoculture foisted upon the public. It is positively frightening what has happened to our public airwaves in the U.S., at the hands of rightwing corporate news monopolies. They need to be--and deserve to be--busted, and the licenses given to smaller and more responsible, more competitive businesses (and to worker coops, non-profits or government-funded broadcasting).

The Venezuelans are investigating Globovision on the matter of the '02 coup attempt, and possibly on continued plotting, and have every right to do so. RCTV and Globovision have NO RIGHT to a broadcast license in Venezuela, and, with both of them gone, free speech will be ENHANCED, not harmed.

What the rightwing crowds that are protesting the non-renewal of RCTV's license want is the same thing that the Christian right has wanted in the U.S.: corporate backing to promote their MINORITY views to the exclusion of all others. The corporate rulers give them a BIG TRUMPET, way out of proportion to their numbers, in order to demoralize and disempower the progressive majority. This is not right. This is not fair. They want things to be UNFAIR--just like the freepers, 'christianists,' fascists and brownshirts here want UNFAIRNESS. They cannot compete in a truly free "marketplace of ideas." So they form this unholy alliance with corporations, who ALSO do not want fairness--they want UNFAIR control of public discourse.

I suspect that the protesters are somewhat supplemented by people who love the soap operas that the corporate media monopolies supply. I'm not there so I can't be sure. But I've heard that these soap operas have created "brand" loyalty, and that a lot of people enjoy them. As I understand it, RCTV can continue doing entertainment programming, via cable and satellite, but that not many Venezuelans have cable or satellite yet. So this may be a deprivation. I am not against people enjoying entertainment--even retro entertainment. I would like to know, though, how much of this protest is rightwing political, and how much of it is non-political. The rightwing has frequent, well-attended protests in Venezuela--no doubt funded by USAID and other Bush lard (our taxpayer dollars). Their protests are tolerated, unless their thugs get out of control (as some did in these recent protests). But U.S./Bush money, and rightwing money and rightwing coup plotting also need to be evaluated. What is really doing on with these protests? It's hard to say, from a distance. Remember those phony protesters in Florida in '00, all Rove operatives, trying to make it look like an uprising--and shutting down the vote count? That's the sort of thing I smell here. It's certainly been done before in Venezuela (largely phony rightwing protests--it was an element in the '02 coup). But we need first-hand accounts.

Note: A good source on this controversy, and on the Bolivarian left in South America: www.venezuelanalysis.com.

[Pavulon]

19. And as a result foreign capitol investment in petro infastructure

dropped 50 percent in one year. Any thing that is threatened with state theft will now require a complete self fund. Power, telecom, the whole thing.
Money talks. 3rd world nations do not have the technical resources to support infrastructure, so they pay others. By cutting them out, they will just charge more when their production falls and they have no ability to fix the problem.

He can play animal farm with your pound of flesh from the pump but a dismal collapse is the only possible result from this model applied in a 3rd world nation.

[Kelly Rupert]

28. And right now he's eliminating the opposition,

to ensure he stays in power should (or, rather, when) his isolationism comes back to bite Venezuela in the ass.

[yurbud]

67. corporations overcharge, blackmail, and like hiring the mafia to provide protection for your store..

they end up owning it.

Do some reading on neoliberalism, what it has done to Latin America, and Chavez actions start to make a lot more sense.

[info being]

80. I'm with you...and dismayed at the mainstream thinking on this thread

It is as if nobody here has read anything about the WTO...or works such as "When Corporations Rule The World." Wow.

[yurbud]

91. the anti-Chavez threads are the same astroturfers as anti-Cindy posts

they are pretty transparent.

[info being]

93. Let's hope the mods can get some control of this place

It is becoming borishly mainstream and unthinking around here.

[Codeine]

106. Perhaps the mods

could throw some of us in prison for treason?

Seriously, this is "Democratic Underground," not "Bolivaran Revolution Underground." The Democrats are actually pretty fucking mainstream; why wouldn't you expect our posters to be mainstream?

[KaptBunnyPants]

103. Really, what are the people of Venezuala being threatened with?

Quit demanding national sovereignty or we'll be forced to stop bribing your politicians? I just wish we could get these companies out of our government, too.

[LittleClarkie]

25. I can't help but think we'd be having a hairy cat fit if this was happening in America

and the name George Bush was substituted for Chavez.

[info being]

35. Don't make the George Bush leap....

...if Dennis Kucinich was shutting down Fox, I'd applaud.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

31. A well-reasoned post. I enjoyed reading it.

Quick judgments are too often reached about Chavez. The background on corporate-backed coups (and assasinations) must be acknowledged when analyzing a situation such as this one.

Thanks for the post!

[mirrera]

110. Thank you. I was just going to leave but finally some insight. n/t

[Rage for Order]

18. Regardless of how you feel about Chavez...

Giving the gov't this type of power is dangerous. Hugo may turn out to be mostly benevolent, but what if the person who succeeds him is a nazi-esque dictator? Do you think the people will be able to magically take these powers back from the gov't?

[spoony]

23. Good point!

Governments don't make habits of two things: giving back power and long avoiding corruption.

[LittleClarkie]

26. It might be an "absolute power corrupts absolutely" situation

as much as some might like the mission against poverty, or the rhetoric against Bush, too much power in anyone's hands can get a bit scary.

[info being]

37. But giving corporations unlimited power is ok?

Just curious. Who's supposed to watch over the corporations?

[fishwax]

100. the government having the power to license broadcasters is pretty common

(Perhaps universal--I know of no country whose government waives that power, though there might be some.) We have a similar system in the united states, and broadcasters can be shut down for violating the public good, just as they can be fined for airing words or body parts that offend people on the Christian right.

[KaptBunnyPants]

102. American TV stations are unlicensced?

Seriously, there is no power grab here. Chavez waited until their license was up and denied renewal, which works to same in both of our countries. Our president appoints the head of the FCC, they dole out licenses. Any government in the wrong hands will turn to crap. Look at us, with our vaunted "separation of powers" and "constitutional rights", none of which meant jack when push came to shove. You may as well quit trying to make a government which can't be abused and focus on getting rid of the abusers.

[Rage for Order]

109. I should've been more clear

I'm talking about the sum total of Chavez's actions, including but not limited to seizing land that he deems "idle", threatening to nationalize the banks, telecoms, and oil fields, threatening price controls on local food stores, threatening to shut down the last opposition broadcast station (Globalvision), ruling by decree for the next 18 months, etc. Governments are not prone to relinquish powers once they are granted to them.

[Kelly Rupert]

27. And imagine the riot situation we would be in here at DU if it were Bush.

Apparently totalitarian stifling of political freedom is totally cool as long as you insult Bush every once in a while.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

69. DU? What DU? If Bush had Chavez' powers

DU would be shut down. Skinner would be "disappeared", without even a tombstone to mark his passing.

Chavez will do everything he can to get 100% of the vote in every election. He'll be dictator-for-life. He's sort of a Saddam-clone.

[info being]

75. You have proof of Chavez dissapearing people?

I'd like to hear it.

[smiley_glad_hands]

29. Liberal Bush. eom

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. Funny how some rail against media consolidation in our country but cheer for it in Venezuela

[The2ndWheel]

33. This is why it's bad

when non-living entities(governments and corporations) have more power than actual people.

"Greetings gentlemen of Globovision"

Did he have an underground lair with a big telescreen above a circular table when he said that?

[info being]

34. I'll be the one person here...

...who doesn't think corporations have a right to free speach. As long as he respects the rights of individuals, I don't see the problem.

[info being]

36. Would anyone here be in favor of shutting down Fox News?

I would.

[NYCGirl]

39. I wouldn't. I don't like Fox News (although I never watch it), but it has just as

much right to exist as Air America does. Shutting down networks is the beginning of a very slippery slope.

[info being]

40. So you support unlimited propaganda. Sad.

Or maybe you support asking them nicely not to spew lies and hatred?

[NYCGirl]

42. If we don't defend speech we hate, no one will defend speech we love. NT

[info being]

43. And you make no distinction between corporate speech and individual speech?

[NYCGirl]

44. Well, then let's shut down ALL corporate speech, right? Or just the corporate

speech you don't like?

[info being]

45. Anti-democratic lies and 1-sided pro-business propaganda...

...should be regulated. For all the people around here who support revoking corporate personhood...well I wonder where they are in this argument. What do we think this concept means?

[NYCGirl]

46. So who's going to be the judge of what gets shut down? NT

[info being]

47. The people...through a democratic system

Who decides anything? That's how democracy is supposed to work.

[NYCGirl]

49. And what if they make the decision to shut down any left-leaning media?

That would be a problem.

[info being]

51. I'm talking about Corporate Media

Do you know of any left-leaning, for-the-people Corporate Media anywhere in the world? I don't. Corporate Media is always pro-business.

Anyway, in a democratic system, any politician would have to ultimately answer for such a decision. The loss of corporate propaganda is no tragedy...no matter how you spin it.

[NYCGirl]

52. Goodbye Nova M and Air America Radio! And you know, even PBS has

corporate sponsors.

[info being]

53. Good ridance to anything with corporate sponsors

We don't need any more fucking advertisements. Nobody would miss it. Sometimes its ok just to turn the fucking TV off...even if that means government doing it. So what?

Let's stop pretending "free speech" is a level playing field with individual rights on the same level as CNN or Fox News. I'll say it again, there is no tragedy at all about taking away a corporation's broadcast license for misusing the airwaves.

[NYCGirl]

57. No, the government should not turn off the TV. Personally, I'd not miss the FCC.

So how do you get your information? Two dixie cups and a thread?

[info being]

61. I don't expose myself to commercial media at all

I also don't eat corporate junk food...same thing. I do just fine, thank you...far better cuz I get my info from non-commercial sources like this, like Democracy Now, etc., etc.

No TV for two years and I don't miss it a bit.

[NYCGirl]

68. Good for you. Other people live differently. NT

[info being]

74. Apparently

[info being]

54. Now let me ask:

Is there any limit you see to a corporation's right to free speech? Does inciting a coup or advocating assassination count?

[NYCGirl]

55. I'd have to know EXACTLY what was done to incite. If that was true, the people

responsible can be prosecuted.

[info being]

56. Yeah, and that's kind of the point too. We don't really know.

Cuz we rely on the corporate media in this country to inform us.

[NYCGirl]

58. And Chavez' mouthpieces. NT

[info being]

59. That's another issue...who's responsible?

Isn't the owner of the company ultimately responsible? What if it isa corporation with thousands of shareholders? Who's responsible and who should be made an example of?

Do you really think that individuals in a corporate structure are ultimately responsible? Are you acting as an individual or as an employee?

[NYCGirl]

60. Management is responsible. NT

[info being]

62. What if they plead the 5th or don't remember? :-D

I'm simply trying to point out that the issue is a bit more complex than the easy answers offered by so many on this thread.

[NYCGirl]

66. That's for the court who is prosecuting them to decide. But first, they are fired.

Government control of a majority of the media is NEVER a good idea, IMO.

[info being]

72. Business control over government is even worse

[Codeine]

107. The people already decided

by watching Fox News in the first place. They're idiots, but that's their right.

Free speech is just that. Your ideas aren't Democratic, they're some kind of fascist bullshit with a liberal smileyface on them.

[KaptBunnyPants]

104. I'd be fine with all corporate speech.

A corporate friend is just one whose parasitism hasn't been exposed yet.

[LoZoccolo]

65. And you make no distinctino between individual speech and official state propaganda? n/t

[info being]

70. Of course I do

Individual speech is the only kind of free speech that matters. When an individual publishes or broadcasts information as part of a corporation, however, that is something entirely different.

In most cases government propaganda is the same as business propaganda...cuz after all the government is owned by business. This is one exception, where the government has some degree of power. If it is true that Chavez does not have legitimate, democratic power...then I take back my argument altogether.

However, assuming that a government is legitimately democratically elected to represent the will of the people...that government acting on behalf of the people to control corporate speech in cases where it makes sense is perfectly legit.

[LoZoccolo]

63. Via government decree? No.

Through lack of viewers? Yeah.

[info being]

71. Let the market decide, huh?

That's working sooooo well.

[LoZoccolo]

77. Let the people decide.

That's democracy. No one has to watch TV at all.

[info being]

78. And when they see nothing but lies?

Like the run-up to the Iraq war...is it true that people really have the ability to decide?

I like the notion that the market will make it all ok...evidence just hasn't shown that to be the way it works. You have to understand that people are very much influenced by effective propaganda. You have too much faith in the individual.

For example, if advertising didn't influence behavior...if people really had the power to filter it out and make rational decisions...why is so much money spent on advertising. Because it gets people to do things they otherwise wouldn't do...through the effective use of lies and half-truths...fear and desire: manipulation.

Don't tell me people are able to withstand such forces. Unless they are extremely well-educated and able to think critically, it just isn't true.

So some focus ought to go on the quality of the information coming at them.

[LoZoccolo]

81. Then they turn off the TV. Or turn to the other already government-owned channel.

The one that broadcasts Alo Presidente every week, where Chavez is free to spread official state propaganda.

And when has government censorship ever worked? Or left-wing authoritarianism? If what you say is true, now the government controls people's minds there, and the people don't have the ability to disagree with it.

You have too much faith in the individual.

And you're trying to argue that Chavez is democratic?

[info being]

84. Is there ever a case in which a broadcast license ought to be revoked?

Showing porn during prime-time? Is that worse than spreading documented lies about a democratically-elected government? Is it worse than calling for an assassination or coup?

I don't think anything is worse than that.

[LoZoccolo]

85. They did not call for an assassination or coup any more than...

...ABC/CBS/NBC called for a jihad against the US by airing a statement from bin Laden after September 11th. They aired a statement made during a press conference staged by a figure in the region's politics.

And Chavez already has a media outlet which he can use to broadcast anything.

[info being]

88. Good ridance...take em out

[info being]

90. So what is the case when it would be ok to revoke the license?

[LoZoccolo]

92. When their transmitter is causing interference to other channels...

...and disrupting electronic devices.

[info being]

95. Woohoo..can't wait for all fascism all the time...

Its really no wonder that Progressives have no influence and no power. We are blinded and confused so easily. We fully support Fox News and all that it does. So what are we complaining about at all? Let Corporate Rule Reign! I guess everything is ok in the USA. Unfuckingbelievable.

[LoZoccolo]

99. "We fully support Fox News and all that it does."

No we don't.

And for the third time, Chavez already had his own station where he can broadcast anything he wants!

[LoZoccolo]

83. LOOK PEOPLE! -> "You have too much faith in the individual. "

I just wanted a separate post to show people what exactly is behind support for Chavez. It is not democracy. It's authoritarianism.

[info being]

86. Oh god...so you're a pure Libertarian?

Get government out of people's lives and let them fend for themselves in a corporate wasteland, huh?

I'm for getting both government AND corporate power out of people's lives whenever appropriate.

[LoZoccolo]

87. Nope.

But you are an authoritarian.

[info being]

89. Couldn't be further from the truth

I'm for a fair democracy in which the people had some degree of power over corporations through their democratically elected officials.

I'm not saying Venezuela meets these criteria...but the truth is I don't really know cuz I don't live there and don't follow it.

That said, I'm not going to go along with the knee-jerk reaction about this without knowing more.

[LoZoccolo]

94. Well authoritarians never /admit/ it.

Look at all the communist countries with "people" or "democratic" in the name!

[info being]

97. And look at all the Fascist ones (USA)

What's your point?

[LoZoccolo]

98. We can talk about that in another thread.

This one is about Chavez.

[Codeine]

108. But of course

YOU are completely capable of resisting all those horrible forces the rest of us are subject to, so you can decide what's good and bad.

"You have too much faith in the individual."

And you, sir, have too much faith in those who hold the reins of government power. Fascist bullshit.

[info being]

79. And that's *not* democracy

That's capitalism.

[fishwax]

101. Fox News is on Cable. More analogous would be broadcast stations like ABC

and if ABC news started calling for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, they would--at the very (absurdly very) least--likely lose their broadcast license the next time it came up for renewal.

[tabasco]

41. So fucking what.

We got enough problems in our own country to fix before we fix the rest of the world.

[Lilith Velkor]

73. For real.

Good to hear a sane voice in the wilderness. :toast:

[pork medley]

48. democracy = monopoly of information among the monied classes

isnt that the gist of what the anti-"chavistas" are arguing here

[info being]

50. They're just repeating what they learned in the textbooks...conventional wisdom

These same people might think they support revoking corporate personhood...which by definition gives the people the power to regulate corporations as they see fit. But when an actual example of this happening is brought forth, they hide under the comfortable blanket of conventional thought.

Imagine a society where people were really put first...above government and above business. Imagine if such a society were able to elect a government to enforce this reality. That may be what's happening in Venezuela...yet even the most progressive American Progressives don't get it.

[originalpckelly]

111. democracy = monopoly of information among the dictator class

isn't that the gist of what the "pro-chavistas" are arguing here