Who the hell are you calling “socialist”?


Sometimes the bizmedia really crack me up with how far up their own butts they are. Case in point: this UPI story on Marketwatch, titled “Chavez may face Socialist condemnation”.

So, who are they calling “Socialists”?

Venezuela’s political opposition says it will submit a resolution critical of President Hugo Chavez at the upcoming International Socialists conference.

The opposition? They’re the “Socialists”? That’s news to me. Last I looked, all the parties that banded together against Chavecito were vendepatria capitalists.

But wait, it gets even funnier:

The resolution will accuse Chavez of violent and anti-democratic conduct in his efforts to change the nation’s constitution and take on more and more power.

This comes as the oppos in Zulia are marching at their governor’s behest and assaulting journos from the public and community media (who, of course, aren’t with their side). This is, I surmise, a petulant reaction to their side having lost the last referendum. All that’s missing is a few red armbands with black hooky-crosses on them. Who’s being violent and anti-democratic again?

Hang on, there’s more:

The Latin American Herald Tribune said the resolution, which is to be presented later this month at the regional conference in Guatemala, could prove embarrassing for Chavez since he is the leader of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela.

Actually, it will prove embarrassing for only one contingent–the phony “socialists” laying the charge. Which will be greeted with shrieks of unholy laughter from anyone who’s been paying attention and keeping a running tally of the real incidents of violence and antidemocracy down there, as I have.

So, what are they actually whining about?

Chavez and his party dominate the national legislature and have been accused of trying to intimidate the few opposition lawmakers who hold seats.

It’s called holding a parliamentary majority. The only thing that “intimidates” these clowns is that they’re no longer getting their way.

So, who are the clowns, again?

The resolution is backed by the Movement Toward Socialism and Accion Democratica parties, which are founding members of the International Socialists.

They are? Coulda fooled me. The Adecos, who presided over some of the most spectacular corruption in history (as well as the Caracazo–Carlos Andrés Pérez, who ordered the army to fire on the people in 1989, is an Adeco) have done fuck-all to bring actual socialism to Venezuela, and the rump Masistas are turncoats who initially supported the ‘Cito, only to get mad when they couldn’t hijack the PSUV agenda or grab a bigger share of the pro-Chávez vote. Now they, too, march with the Copeyano right-wingers. I’m surprised the International Socialists haven’t drummed them both out yet for antidemocratic and unsocialistic conduct.

But oh, to be a fly on the wall when these assclowns come waltzing in with their phony charges. It should be good for a laugh and a half; these guys have lost every battle they ever picked, including in the international human-rights courts. This one will go no better.

Meanwhile, the real socialism continues apace. Minus the “help” of the UPI’s lame idea of socialists, needless to say.

Share this story:
This entry was posted in Crapagandarati, Huguito Chavecito, Newspeak is Nospeak, Socialism is Good for Capitalism!. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Who the hell are you calling “socialist”?

  1. Utpal says:

    That thing is called the “Socialist International”. It is actually a joke. It has some very unsavory organizations, like Walid Jumblatt’s party, as well as the Israeli labor party. I wouldn’t give two hoots about that organization.

  2. Utpal says:

    The “intimidation” refers to judicial proceedings against a legislator who got drunk and broke a couple of windows of a media outlet.

  3. Utpal says:

    Oh, and btw, UPI is a Moonie oulet now.

  4. Yeah, I knew about UPI–it’s been Moonie for a long time already. Trying to buy respectability for the cult…tsk, tsk.
    I figured the so-called “Socialist International” had to be a joke, too. For including such completely unsocialistic types as the Adecos, it couldn’t possibly be taken seriously.

  5. SI does contain some unsavory types (like the British Labour Party and Canada’s New Democrats):-)
    They mostly just exchange thinking on parliamentary tactics, but as to “punishing” a non-member party — or even condemning it — I don’t think so.
    They may, however, give the opposition parties a little advice… like “grow up.”

  6. The NDP? Hey, I resemble that remark…
    Yeah, I’d say a “grow up” is in order. And maybe also a “glass houses, dudes” for the Adecos.

  7. Utpal says:

    Bina, have you seen this?
    (Hope it passes). About the Socialist International: it is supposed to be the heir to the 2nd International (the famous labor conference where the social democrats split from the Bolshies). All the European social democratic parties are in it. AD used to be in it for a long time, apparently having been kicked out in 2006 or 7 for not recognizing a democratically elected govt. PODEMOS had replaced it. I don’t what their deal is now, but I would expect that for something like this they would at least like to make an investigation before passing a formal resolution. But given the squalid quality of their membership outside Europe, one never really knows … they are often icky.

  8. Ah, that makes sense…nowadays, you don’t have to BE a social democrat to call your party that, apparently. All you have to do is be an inch to the left of Genghis Khan, or something like that.
    And yeah, I have that story open in a tab right now; will translate it tomorrow. I hope that gay-rights measure passes, too–it’ll be another big benchmark for Venezuelan progressivism. Gotta catch up to us crazy Canucks, doncha know?

Comments are closed.