The Instigator
Luigi_Umberto
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
A-ThiestSocialist
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points

Hugo Chavez is no socialist, is no revolucionary thinker, he's an authoritarian, second Fidel Castro

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,617 times Debate No: 605
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (16)

 

Luigi_Umberto

Pro

Hugo Chavez, the current "president" of Venezuela calls himself a democratic socialist
He is no such thing, he is no revolutionary thinker
First the definition of a "democratic socialism": Socialism is based on the idea that the economy and means of production should be in the hands of ordinary working people,[1] or in older terminology the "working class". Democratic socialism involves the entire population controlling the economy through some type of democratic system.
Venezuela is no democracy, there is no balance of power, the majority is tyrannical of the minority. Surely the definition of socialism doesn't state that the government officials are entitle to a hummer, a mercedes benz, a louis vuitton tie, like many upper ranking officials of Chavez's circle have. The poor and the middle class are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer and new rich people are arising from the corruption of the current government. Chavez basis his whole ideology to that against the U.S, he insults us calling us imperialists pigs, calling Bush the Devil and a Donkey (hes right, but hes no better hahaha). Im not going to go into US Imperialism because that is irrelevant to the debate, but Chavez uses, manipulates the ignorant poorer class to support him because he says that the US is the source of all their problems. What Mr. Chavez should be doing, instead of giving his hate-filled speeches, is fixing Venezuela, purge corruption in the government, really help the poor.(but not by giving them "doggy bags" before every election)
He has no Revolution, he is no democratic leader, their is only one party ruling there, and his revolution is based on Cuban Communism, a type of government that surely isn't the best. The fact that Castro is his idol tells us a lot about his goals and personality. Real WORKING socialism is found in europe, FIRST world countries, and surely they dont give their oil money away to fund other countries' s campaign or just buy people to support his "revolution" if Mr. Chavez wants to have a working socialist government he only needs to look at Norway, Sweden, Switzerland or even to some extent England, but to use Cuba as a goal as for a country is loathing, and absurd.
A-ThiestSocialist

Con

As I always say before a debate, when weighing this round please vote on who won the debate, not with which side you personally agree.

For this debate, I'm going to mainly refute my opponenets case, but interjected in the refutations will be the guidelines opposing the resolution. The PRO has to prove all of the above criterion true, that being Chavez isn't a soclialist revolutionary thinker, Chavez is an authoritarian, and Chavez is a second Fidel Castro. If he does not prove all of these true, then he loses the round. (All of these are false nonetheless)

"Hugo Chavez, the current "president" of Venezuela calls himself a democratic socialist
He is no such thing, he is no revolutionary thinker
First the definition of a "democratic socialism": Socialism is based on the idea that the economy and means of production should be in the hands of ordinary working people,[1] or in older terminology the "working class". Democratic socialism involves the entire population controlling the economy through some type of democratic system.
Venezuela is no democracy, there is no balance of power, the majority is tyrannical of the minority. Surely the definition of socialism doesn't state that the government officials are entitle to a hummer, a mercedes benz, a louis vuitton tie, like many upper ranking officials of Chavez's circle have."

My opponent is firstly wrong in his version of Democratic Socialism. The roots of Democratic Socialism are simply that the socialist reforms and methods of giving power to the workers are done in a democratic way, not one through power or force. (generaly speaking) Chavez has actually done this. He was democratically elected, and has worked towards nationalization. All of his referendums to get change in Venezuela, specifically pro-worker socialist change have been approved or rejected by the people. This thus makes it a Democratic Socialist state. My opponent then says that Venezuela is no democracy, the majority is tyrannical of the minority. If we really look back to what Madison talked about as a "Mobocracy," in which the majority are tyrannical of the minority, he was talking directly about a democracy. So if this were actually true (which it is not, there isn't major oppression as such in the country) this would still fit under the guise of a democracy. Next, the idea that Chavez's circle has wealth is somehow against socialism. Socialism deals nothing with a re-distribution of luxury products, it simply deals with the advancement of the working class, and the elimination of privately owned property. (Means of production)

"The poor and the middle class are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer and new rich people are arising from the corruption of the current government. Chavez basis his whole ideology to that against the U.S, he insults us calling us imperialists pigs, calling Bush the Devil and a Donkey (hes right, but hes no better hahaha). Im not going to go into US Imperialism because that is irrelevant to the debate, but Chavez uses, manipulates the ignorant poorer class to support him because he says that the US is the source of all their problems. What Mr. Chavez should be doing, instead of giving his hate-filled speeches, is fixing Venezuela, purge corruption in the government, really help the poor.(but not by giving them "doggy bags" before every election)He has no Revolution, he is no democratic leader, their is only one party ruling there, and his revolution is based on Cuban Communism, a type of government that surely isn't the best. The fact that Castro is his idol tells us a lot about his goals and personality. Real WORKING socialism is found in europe, FIRST world countries, and surely they dont give their oil money away to fund other countries' s campaign or just buy people to support his "revolution" if Mr. Chavez wants to have a working socialist government he only needs to look at Norway, Sweden, Switzerland or even to some extent England, but to use Cuba as a goal as for a country is loathing, and absurd."

First, in Venezuela Chavez has attempted or passed many social reforms that are giving more power to the working people. He has expanding social programs tenfold, and protected the rights of the worker. The middle class and lower class in Venezuela is strengthened and helped under his reform policies. (http://www.sptimes.com...)
Next, Chavez's reforms are actually helping the people, and he's working toward their growth. By saying Chavez shouldn't criticize the US and concentrate on his own policies, that means that Bush shouldn't criticize any foreign leaders, but instead don't do anything until universal healthcare is passed. This is simply illogical. If someone poses an imperical problem through interventionist policies dating back over 30 years, and threatens your economic growth, you have every right to speak out. But speaking out doesn't make him an authoritarian, or any less revolutionary. Next, Chavez has had a revolution, it is simply a democratic one, emphasizing the fact that it is a Democratic Socialist state. Marx doesn't define a revolution as necessarily violent, although violence is permissable if necessary. Chavez is a democratic leader. He was democratically elected, and after the failure of his reforms, he accepted defeat. The vote was 51-49. He could have easily manipulated this or challenged this if he were actually such an authoritarian, but the fact is, he isn't. The one party rule in Venezuela doesn't really make a difference in this debate. The US has been under one party rule government wise, but this hasn't really changed our standing. It's simply that the US had the majority of the same party in power of the branches of government. I'm going to talk about the Cuban revolution later, but you're blatently wrong in your analysis of it. Finally, you cite "socialist countries" that Chavez could look to. Simply googling these countries would show you the contrary. Switzerland has a hugely corporate economy, and relies upon it. If they were socialist, this would not be true. They stand as a largely capatlist based country who's foundations have been in the interest of maintaining the corporate power. Norway is party socialist, in there large welfare reforms. These reforms were achieved democratically, and through the revenue sharing of their major trade. Venezuela has tried to pass social reforms democratically. They are paralleled on revenue gross income off oil. (These seem quite similar) Sweden is a little different. There major funding isn't from a nationalized or worker strengthened industry, but from mostly high taxes. This lead to a major economic rift in Sweden in the 1990's. You can't blame Chavez for not "following" in their footsteps.

Chavez is not another Castro, and their reforms are totally different, and totally seperate. Castro's revolution was based soley of violence and dictatorship, whereas Chavez has done things very democratically. Castro has maintained power for almost 50 years without real backing of the people. Chavez was democratically elected twice. Castros policies have all been implemented by force, whereas Chavez has done things through referendums. Finally, Castro hasn't lifted up his people, and has mainly centralized his economy off sugar, and tourism. His reforms haven't been based at the people, or the workers. He hasn't given overarching control to the workers in Cuba. Chavez is not similar to Castro in any of these ways, and thus no Castro comparison stands.

My opponent failed to prove anything showing Chavez as a second Castro, hasn't actually proven Chavez as an authoritarian, hasn't shown Chavez as not a revolutionary. With some basic analysis of the terms were talking about here, basic marx definitions, and the overarching situation in Venezuela we see that Chavez is in charge of a Democratic Socialist state, and was elected Democratically.
Debate Round No. 1
Luigi_Umberto

Pro

Luigi_Umberto forfeited this round.
A-ThiestSocialist

Con

Thank you for forfeiting the round. Why does this always happen on this site? You try and debate someone, then they fail to post their new arguments.
Shame, shame, shame.
Debate Round No. 2
Luigi_Umberto

Pro

Luigi_Umberto forfeited this round.
A-ThiestSocialist

Con

A-ThiestSocialist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by jcmiami78 9 years ago
jcmiami78
I have to agree with you, and not just that i'm still thinking that we as american we need to learn and watch a little be more what he is doing, also his relationship he has with others dictators countries like Iran is to have our goverment eyes open, because we really don't know what those dictator people can do again us.
Posted by ilde34 9 years ago
ilde34
OK this is really bad because I can't debate. But I have to say that if you are venezuelan(like me) and have lived in venezuela you need to know tthe REAL facts. Not just some garbage from a meaningless source like sptimes.com. They don't know anything. Chavez has done terrible things, he has taken many haciendas ( ranches and farms and such) that do not belong to the goct. Our Constitution is against that.But it doesn't matter because he has the military congress and the judicial branch of venezuela under his control. He is not a democratic socialist. He doesn't care about the poor, he only cares about having his own coutry and money and such. If you should have read the new constitution, it is not a revolucionary document, it does not portray great thinking. It only shows vague laws that can be interpreted anyway he wants. Sooner or later, if he sould have the elections for the reform, the porr and the working class would have suffered too. That is why Chavez is not a socialist nor a revolucionary
thinker.
Posted by A-ThiestSocialist 9 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
I think I got it under control.
Posted by Luigi_Umberto 9 years ago
Luigi_Umberto
Hahaha join the club.. I am a moderate, democratic socialist.. liberal hahah good luck.. defending chavez is hard to do
Posted by A-ThiestSocialist 9 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
I think as a socialist I ought to take this one.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Vikuta 8 years ago
Vikuta
Luigi_UmbertoA-ThiestSocialistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by jcmiami78 9 years ago
jcmiami78
Luigi_UmbertoA-ThiestSocialistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by DrewM 9 years ago
DrewM
Luigi_UmbertoA-ThiestSocialistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by VoterBot 9 years ago
VoterBot
Luigi_UmbertoA-ThiestSocialistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by killa_connor 9 years ago
killa_connor
Luigi_UmbertoA-ThiestSocialistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by cjet79 9 years ago
cjet79
Luigi_UmbertoA-ThiestSocialistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by chrispy4 9 years ago
chrispy4
Luigi_UmbertoA-ThiestSocialistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
Luigi_UmbertoA-ThiestSocialistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by ilde34 9 years ago
ilde34
Luigi_UmbertoA-ThiestSocialistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by invertman 9 years ago
invertman
Luigi_UmbertoA-ThiestSocialistTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03