RIP Hugo Chavez

[Vangelovski]

This.

You have to be living under a rock to not recognise that American imperialism is prevalent throughout the world.

Just think of me as someone living under a rock and explain it to me - taking into account the actual meaning of the word.

[EgejskaMakedonia]

Just think of me as someone living under a rock and explain it to me - taking into account the actual meaning of the word.

This seems to be the standard definition of imperialism:

'A policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.'

There are probably a dozen or more examples of American imperialism just in the last decade.

Perhaps Chavez wasn't a great leader, but why would people vote him in time and time again if he was such a hated dictator? During the 2012 election, even the opposition rejected any claims of election fraud. If he won by democratic means, why on earth would people celebrate his death...let alone one from cancer, which should never be wished upon anyone.

[Vangelovski]

This seems to be the standard definition of imperialism:

'A policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.'

There are probably a dozen or more examples of American imperialism just in the last decade.

Perhaps Chavez wasn't a great leader, but why would people vote him in time and time again if he was such a hated dictator? During the 2012 election, even the opposition rejected any claims of election fraud. If he won by democratic means, why on earth would people celebrate his death...let alone one from cancer, which should never be wished upon anyone.

EM, the definition you provided can basically include anything from imperialism to day-to-day foreign relations and would include every country in the world. The question then becomes - why single out the US!?

Why did people continue to elect Chavez (ignoring electoral fruad) probably the same reason Macedonians continue to vote for Gruevski or Crvenkovski. That does not make them 'loved', useful or a hero.

[EgejskaMakedonia]

EM, the definition you provided can basically include anything from imperialism to day-to-day foreign relations and would include every country in the world. The question then becomes - why single out the US!?

The US exert more foreign influence through these means than any other nation. They stick their nose where it doesn't belong. We saw them as a driving force against Mubarak, Gadaffi, etc because these particular leaders did not suit their agenda. The media painted the likes of Gadaffi as a tyrant, but a bit of research into the economic side of things and you'll soon find America's interests. You really believe that the US and other western nations risk their own and spend billions on military just to promote freedom in other regions? Sure, that might be one of their aims, but definitely not their number 1 priority.

Don't you think if Macedonia was left to deal with the terrorists without international intervention back in 2001 things may have been a little different now? Obviously that is no excuse for the framework agreement and what has happened since, but the example stands. What about the Greek Civil War...I guess they had to go and bomb all those so called 'communist' villages.

Why did people continue to elect Chavez (ignoring electoral fruad) probably the same reason Macedonians continue to vote for Gruevski or Crvenkovski. That does not make them 'loved', useful or a hero.

The two countries aren't comparable. Unlike Gruevski and co, Chavez didn't toy with the name of the country to appease unions, he didn't support a foreign imposed flag, he didn't sell-out to a minority group and foreign nations. I'd say Chavez was relatively pro-Venezuelan, whereas Gruevski and Crvenkovski are anti-Macedonian.

[Vangelovski]

You're still not working off a rigorous definition of imperialism.

The US exert more foreign influence through these means than any other nation. They stick their nose where it doesn't belong.

And? Every other nation still does it. This is not a reason to single out the US.

We saw them as a driving force against Mubarak, Gadaffi, etc because these particular leaders did not suit their agenda.

So?

The media painted the likes of Gadaffi as a tyrant, but a bit of research into the economic side of things and you'll soon find America's interests.

US economic interests are irrelevant to whether Gadaffi was a tyrant or not. US economic interests (whatever you actually mean by that) did not make him a tyrant, his own choices made him a tyrant. This statement is completely irrelevant.

You really believe that the US and other western nations risk their own and spend billions on military just to promote freedom in other regions? Sure, that might be one of their aims, but definitely not their number 1 priority.

No I don't. But so what? Most 'non-western' countries do the same. What's your point? This still isn't a reason to single out the US - what they have done/do is no different to the vast majority of states.

Don't you think if Macedonia was left to deal with the terrorists without international intervention back in 2001 things may have been a little different now?.

No, I don't. The Macedonian military was (and still is) incompetent - not that the Albanians were much better, but the Macedonian military was not going to change anything on the ground regardless of western intervention. The most they might have acheived was arachinovo, but in the greater scheme of things it was irrelevant.

Further, the Macedonian people, who could have made a difference, were/are far too lost to do anything with or without foreign intervention.

What about the Greek Civil War...I guess they had to go and bomb all those so called 'communist' villages.

No, they didn't and I'm not sure what your point is or who raised that issue anyway?

The two countries aren't comparable. Unlike Gruevski and co, Chavez didn't toy with the name of the country to appease unions, he didn't support a foreign imposed flag, he didn't sell-out to a minority group and foreign nations. I'd say Chavez was relatively pro-Venezuelan, whereas Gruevski and Crvenkovski are anti-Macedonian.

They don't need to match in every specific instance to be comparable - nothing ever will. This is one of the biggest problems you have with your critical analysis in general. Further, my point was not about whether Chavez was a patriot (I'm sure he was in his own perverted way), but as to why/how he maintained power - it was directly in response to your question - keep it in context.

Both Gruevski and Chavez run/ran authoritarian governments and ruled (undemocratically - democracy isn't just elections every few years) over a largely demoralised and disenfranchised people. Both also were responsible for electoral fraud, an issue you seem to want to ignore.

[momce]

Superstructures always have to be criticised in speech and action. If Chavez was considered an extremist by many its only because he worked in extreme conditions and his actions had to be extreme to get the long term goals he wanted in order to rebalance his country.

[momce]

Imperialism? Standing up to the US? Believing Chavez's BS?

I'm always amazed at how people can still buy into socialism 150 years after some moron dreamed it up and 100 years after it was actually implemented and led to disasterous results. When you read the Communist Manifesto, did you read it to the end? If it wasn't bad enough to begin with, it completely falls apart with its BS about "withering away" of the dictatorship (yes, dictatorship) and a 'bright new future under a socially reingenered (according to some fool's view of the world) new communist man'.

There are a few posters here who seem to buy into the whole socialist/communist theory that people actually belong to one of two (economic/ideological) classes and that somehow there is a zero-sum game between "capitalists" or the supposed "1%" (the new term for bourgeoisies) and the supposed "99%" (the new trendy term the proletariat). These classes didn't make sense when they were dreamed up in the 1840's, let alone now, when by definition, nearly everyone in the world could be considered a "capitalist". Some try to fence of "capitalists" as the "super rich", but can't even define what that means and completely ignore the trickle down effect of wealth creation and its taxation.

It also never ceases to amaze me how people here, in particular, who supposedly support individual rights and freedoms (from which collective/national rights stem), consistently develop a love relationship for dictators who practice the complete opposite. It appears that Tito is alive and well both in Macedonia and the diaspora.

Tito was alright in some ways.

[Vangelovski]

Superstructures always have to be criticised in speech and action. If Chavez was considered an extremist by many its only because he worked in extreme conditions and his actions had to be extreme to get the long term goals he wanted in order to rebalance his country.

Who's talking about extremism?

[Vangelovski]

Tito was alright in some ways.

In what ways?

[momce]

Who's talking about extremism?

Earlier post there was a criticism of Chavez. Tito was ok in that he was nonaligned some of his economic policies were ok considering the history of the region and world dynamics. Cant you say Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was better then nothing in some sense?

[Phoenix]

...The Macedonian military was (and still is) incompetent - not that the Albanians were much better, but the Macedonian military was not going to change anything on the ground regardless of western intervention. The most they might have acheived was arachinovo, but in the greater scheme of things it was irrelevant.

Arachinovo was a first step in the dissolution of Macedonia's sovereignty, an agenda orchestrated by Washington and part of their wider Balkan policy of destabilisation and the creation of pissant nations beholden to the US for their survival.

The American 'Empire' are c^nts Vangelovski and probably no better than the Soviets.
Sure, some nice notions of freedom were born and promoted in early America but it's a fabrication that has very deep footings of blood, the blood of their own and of many other peoples of the world.

[Vangelovski]

Earlier post there was a criticism of Chavez. Tito was ok in that he was nonaligned some of his economic policies were ok considering the history of the region and world dynamics. Cant you say Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was better then nothing in some sense?

Non-aligned? What has that got to do with anything? Tito was very 'aligned'. He was aligned with the West.

Which economic policies were ok?

In what sense was Macedonia under Yugoslavia better than nothing?

[Vangelovski]

Arachinovo was a first step in the dissolution of Macedonia's sovereignty, an agenda orchestrated by Washington and part of their wider Balkan policy of destabilisation and the creation of pissant nations beholden to the US for their survival.

Arachinovo was not as significant an event that people make it out to be. While the Americans are responsible for aiding war criminals and terrorists, it really did nothing to change the course of Macedonian history. Macedonia's sovereignty was lost much earlier than the 2001 war. I would probably pin point it at around 92 or 93, but then I think to myself it never really was sovereign in that the Macedonian people never understood or exercised their sovereignty - and that really is the point of it - to understand and exercise it.

The American 'Empire' are c^nts Vangelovski and probably no better than the Soviets.

What American Empire? Can you define it? Can you explain it? People are putting up some vague notions of American imperialism which seems to be based purely on their own ideological bias. No one has been able to actually clearly articulate what they mean.

Sure, some nice notions of freedom were born and promoted in early America but it's a fabrication that has very deep footings of blood, the blood of their own and of many other peoples of the world.

More than some nice notions of freedom were first realised in America - they paid in blood for the freedom and liberties that we enjoy today and which are the foundation of the legal/political/economic system here in Australia (Its a big myth that our above mentioned system was inherited solely from the British - it was influenced more by the American model than the British and this can be seen in our constitution, laws and the structure of our federation). Whether or not they would have been realised somewhere else in another time if the Americans had not done it is another question, the fact is that they did do it. There is no fabrication about that, its a simple historical fact that you should come to terms with whether you like it or not.

Further, liberty never comes cheap. I'm almost inclined to believe that unless it is hard won and expensive, people will not really appreciate what it requires to maintain it and will soon lose it.

[Phoenix]

...What American Empire? Can you define it? Can you explain it? People are putting up some vague notions of American imperialism which seems to be based purely on their own ideological bias. No one has been able to actually clearly articulate what they mean...

If we use this wiki definition of imperialism-

Imperialism, as defined by the People of Human Geography, is "the creation and/or maintenance of a country's power and influence through military force." [2] It is often considered in a negative light, as merely the exploitation of native people in order to enrich a small handful.[3] Lewis Samuel Feuer identifies two major subtypes of imperialism; the first is "regressive imperialism" identified with pure conquest, unequivocal exploitation, extermination or reductions of undesired peoples, and settlement of desired peoples into those territories, an example being Nazi Germany.[4] The second type identified by Feuer is "progressive imperialism" that is founded upon a cosmopolitan view of humanity, that promotes the spread of civilization to allegedly "backward" societies to elevate living standards and culture in conquered territories, and allowance of a conquered people to assimilate into the imperial society, examples being the Roman Empire and British Empire.[4]

Imperialism always involves the massive export of capital to foreign countries for the purpose of exploiting and dominating both their labor forces and their markets. Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism, represents the stage at which a country's consumers cannot buy all the products that have been produced, and additional markets must be sought after. The dominant feature of imperialism is the repatriation of invested capital. [citation needed]

The term as such primarily has been applied to Western political and economic dominance in the 19th and 20th centuries. Some writers, such as Edward Said, use the term more broadly to describe any system of domination and subordination organized with an imperial center and a periphery.[citation needed] According to the Marxist historian, Walter Rodney, imperialism meant capitalist expansion. It meant that European (and American and Japanese) capitalists were forced by the internal logic of their competitive system to seek abroad in less developed countries opportunities to control raw material, to find markets, and to find profitable fields of investment. [citation needed]

It's generally accepted that modern day colonialism is an expression of imperialism and cannot exist without the latter. The extent to which "informal" imperialism with no formal colonies is properly described as such remains a controversial topic among historians.[5]

...seriously, tell me how America doesn't fit the bill.

I think you replied to EM in a previous post in this thread that the above definition of imperialism can be applied to many countries and empires in history (and it can) but why should the USA be singled out?
A couple of reasons I believe the US should be singled out are because of the following statistics (from the same site) -
...and other notable 'examples' of imperialism in history are not of the magnitude of the US, or are entities long relegated to the dustbin of history.

In 2005, the United States had 737 military bases in foreign countries, according to official sources.[32] As of 2010 US Military spending is about 43% of the world total.[33] Only a handful of countries spent a larger portion of GDP on military in 2010 and of these only Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates spent more than US$10 billion.

[momce]

Non-aligned? What has that got to do with anything? Tito was very 'aligned'. He was aligned with the West.

Which economic policies were ok?

In what sense was Macedonia under Yugoslavia better than nothing?

Well Tito was a player. He made some products. He had a powerful army. Im not saying YR Macedonia was perfect.