Venezuela: Socialism For Thee But Not For Me

[Rage for Order]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071214/od_nm/luxury_dc;_ylt=AmxGmmP0pyZ.L4KcK_lOm_us0NUE

A video of a Gucci- and Louis Vuitton-clad politician attacking capitalism then struggling to explain how his luxurious clothes square with his socialist beliefs has become an instant YouTube hit in Venezuela.

Venezuelan Interior Minister Pedro Carreno was momentarily at a loss for words when a journalist interrupted his speech and asked if it was not contradictory to criticize capitalism while wearing Gucci shoes and a tie made by Parisian luxury goods maker Louis Vuitton.

"I don't, uh ... I ... of course," stammered Carreno on Tuesday before regaining his composure. "It's not contradictory because I would like Venezuela to produce all this so I could buy stuff produced here instead of 95 percent of what we consume being imported."

The video clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDsdXkY4UlE


edit: Damn those capitalist pigs and their luxury goods! LOL

[originalpckelly]

1. Aahahahaha! That's fucking awesome!

:rofl:

[originalpckelly]

2. No one else seems to think it's a little interesting that Mr. Commie...

is all about distribution of wealth, unless it's his. I say we cut up the ties and give a little piece to everyone.

[Rage for Order]

4. It may be due to the fact...

That the standard "he was misquoted/mistranslated, let me see the source video" excuses won't fly since it's right there in the video. It is funny though. It's like listening to Bush lecture people on ethics and honesty. LOL

[Rage for Order]

3. I can hear the official response now:

Gucci and Louis Vuitton for the masses!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. I have only 3 things to say:

1) I actually own a Coach purse and I'm not a rich woman, just an ordinary woman with an ordinary salary who splurged BIG TIME;
2) Venezuela is not a Communist country. Venezuela is a savagely capitalistic country which has switched governments and is undergoing some changes which involve giving the poor some land, helping the poor improve their lot, etc.;
3) If I'd been starving in Venezuela, and all of a sudden had food to eat and a roof over my head, hell, I wouldn't care if this guy had Louis Vuitton shoes or ones made from gold bullion.

Just my 2 cents! You might disagree. If so, tell me, and explain why.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. All good points. Is there a reason that social democracy is good for Sweden but bad

for Venezuela? Because I seem to notice that a lot here, don't you? :shrug:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

9. Yes, I notice that a lot here :-)

However, I don't see anyone contradicting what I said. The silence is deafening! ;-)

[L. Coyote]

6. Exports are a very significant aspect of the Venezuelan economy, & oil exports

In the context of the country,it is no surprise and not an outrage. But, it certainly says a lot about the culture of government.

These guys are not Fidels :rofl: They are snappy Venezuelans.

[EFerrari]

7. You don't know the difference between socialism and Communism

let alone that Venezuela has a mixed economy. You're just making yourself look silly.

And this is my second Good God for the day.

It's embarrassing already.

[readmoreoften]

10. It's so depressing. Socialism means the people own their country. Not

that small businesses and clothing stores are illegal.

It means that you can't own all the factories and buy up all the land and own the water supply and sell it at a profit. It doesn't mean you can't sell your handicrafts. Like you said, it's a mixed economy.

It also doesn't mean you're supposed to live in poverty and ugliness.

[EFerrari]

13. I'm just glad Wallace Stevens is gone and can't read this nonsense. n/t

[readmoreoften]

14. And Upton Sinclair. /nt

[UTUSN]

11. K&R for, LUERVE those Venezuelans!1 n/t

[ConsAreLiars]

12. Ahh, the "Al Gore should go naked and eat grass" drivel has made its way

to Venezuela. No wonder he was at a loss for words. The ignorance revealed by that kind of "argument" is just mind-boggling on so many levels.

(edit to change one word)

[Selatius]

15. Socialism doesn't mean you can't have luxury goods. Socialism means that...

workers have a say in the economic decisions that affect their lives. In short, workers have a say in the decision-making process at work, not to mention in government. Usually, this never happens in a traditionally organized enterprise. There, the usual is you do what you're ordered to do.

[Evoman]

16. huh?

I don't get it. Just because a country is socialist, it doesn't mean that it can't import what it can't make. All it means is that things that can be produced in the country is run by a government. And that doesn't mean that EVERY industry has to be socialist either.

Are we getting confused with communism?

on edit: I do find it tacky when politicos (here or abroad) wear stuff that is really expensive....lol...or get really expensive haircuts *ahem* :popcorn:

[Orwellian_Ghost]

17. It's about people not some "FIGURE"

Las Casitas is a community that announces its self-government on the walls that mark its boundary. Predictably, perhaps, given this militantly self-governing background, Edgar argues that the flaw in the reforms and the reason they failed to convince, lay less in how they were explained and more in how they were made: 'We should have had a constituent process, the possibility of inputs from every community.'

Certainly, if Perez's community is anything to go by, there would be plenty of positive take-up to such an idea. He described their struggles, mostly successful, in bending public resources to the needs of the people. As he talked, he distinguished Chavez from the state and its functionaries, pointing to another source of frustration: 'The president is much less accessible than he used to be. They have kidnapped him.'

Perez's comments connect with something written in the web magazine Aporrea the morning after the result by Javier Biardeau, a well respected commentator and academic close to the process (everyone refers to the Bolivarian process, the Chavista revolution, the Venezuelan changes as 'the process').

'The largest share of the responsibility for the defeat lies in those who convinced Chavez that the revolution depends exclusively on his personal figure,' Biardeau writes. 'This is an error. Probably without Chavez there would be no revolution, but neither will there be one only with Chavez. There is a need to correct the tendency to minimise the leading role of the people in important deliberations and decisions. The "Chavismo apparat" was defeated. The revolution is built from the bottom up, or it wears down from above.'

....

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=14495

[killbotfactory]

18. Back into your horsehair robe, Minister.