Chavez wins elections, we are screwed!

[PhilinBSAS]

Of course not, it is rather the other way around. After all Democracy predates Republic, in the same way that Rule of the Majority, or rule of any amount of people, predates Rule of Law.

It takes a leap to abstract thinking.

It is ironic (or what I call a natural paradox) that that leap from Democracy to Republic occurred in Rome, a militaristic, expansionist for everyone's /most's good state, model for coming empires, in contrast to relatively isolationist Greece.

Yes and leaping you certainly are.

So as to be clear you believe that democracy existed in Rome before the republic and the republic was the model for empire?

where exactly did you get that priceless pearl of wisdom from?

the "republic" was created as a reaction and with the overthrow of the monarchy. To avoid the emergence of another King there were supposed safeguards introduced but in practice Roman society was very hierarchical and indeed at times of emergency then dictators were readily appointed and power shuffled around a small elite. So power was concentrated into the hands of a small number of rich nobles with large land ownership of estates to control food production and natural resources and increasingly reliant on the import of slave labour. When the majority of plebs started to get unhappy various devices were used to mitigate matters but not so as to disturb matters in any measure. Note large numbers of people in Roman society weren't even given pleb rights nor did they have them before so not exactly democracy.

and definitely this is not a "leap" from democracy to republic

and now to the emergence of empire which was in fact the usurping of the inadequate powers of a sham republic by Octavian and subsequently through the device of the principate. Expansionism became not just a question of the political survival of the state but also the economic survival and problems occurred in the Roman economy and the destabilising of the ruling faction with any setbacks to military expansion. Augustus as he became was able to do this by the subjugation of the wider ruling patrician class who had already been divided and weakened by factionalism and impoverishment during the civil wars before and after his predecessor. The plebs etc kept quite or else. The principate in time became an absolute monarchy but no magic force of nature this was the overt grabbing of power within the elite and then one and another hanging onto it by force of naked power and boosted by the helpful introduction of a self reinforcing new religion.

How then was the Republic the model for Empire?

We could now go into Greece but take it from me there is no more empirical evidence there for your "natural paradox" than anywhere else.

I dont want to be too rude but its difficult to conclude that this is anything but a conflated construct dreamed up either by you or someone else who should know better and current at the moment to give a pretext for the political right wing in the USA from opting out of democracy and by extension to other places with Governments you dont approve of and which include Venezuela and Argentina

 

[Crema Americana]

This is clearly why Cristina and others like Dianne Abbot talk about a victory for all of south america. Let's spell it out - a victory against the long term entrenched policies of successive USA governments is what they mean. Time for people who see the USA at the pinnacle to be further worried hence the angst on here which is clear.

As far as I know the only ones who voted are Venezuelans. Wishful thinking on the part of the US for Chavez to be defeated was just that... wishful thinking.

And a victory for South America? For some South Americans, perhaps. I don't see why there has to be a competition between North and South America... why can't there be free trade and normal relations? I realize the history the US and Europe have with influencing the region (and the part multinationals and international banks have played), but this was often in collaboration with those in power... or those who wanted to take it. Every nation has the responsibility to look after their own interests. If the Argentine people elect a corrupt government that sells their people to the devil (i.e. the IMF), that's not entirely the fault of foreigners.

I would love it if Argentina (and the rest of South America) could get their house in order and run the country for the benefit of its people... not out to spite or win one over on the rest of the world. You need to trade, you need to have allies and good relations, and you need to do things in a manner that is honest and sustainable... that doesn't mean being anyone's doormat. I find this us vs them mentality troubling - whether it's vs Spain, or the UK, or "North America." Chavez and Kirchner both fan that fire and I honestly don't see much of a future in it - unless Cuba is the type of nation you'd like.

I don't think we're screwed... at least not any more than we already were. I fully expected Chavez to win, Cristina will probably finish her term, and we'll see where things go then. I have faith that Argentines have gotten used to their standard of living, so I suspect (and hope) they'll stand up for themselves and realize that you can't have your cake and eat it too.. though I'm sure there will still be some foreign (or domestic) boogey monster to blame and not much will change at all.

 

[Crema Americana]

For those who care about what is a republic vs democracy, this video explains it pretty well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

 

[sesamosinsal]

why can't there be free trade and normal relations? I realize the history the US and Europe have with influencing the region (and the part multinationals and international banks have played), but this was often in collaboration with those in power... or those who wanted to take it. Every nation has the responsibility to look after their own interests. If the Argentine people elect a corrupt government that sells their people to the devil (i.e. the IMF), that's not entirely the fault of foreigners.

Why can't there be free trade? Just like you can't have a credit card with an unlimited spending limit. Every nation certainly has a responsibility to look after their own interests, which is precisely why free, unfettered trade is not possible in the long term. This applies to every country except the United States, which can (and must) print the dollar for as many imports as the market can handle.

When the dollar is replaced by something else as the main currency in international trade, the love for free trade from the north will come to a grinding halt.