Hugo Chavez dead(36 Posts)
> Not the same thing at all. 'The Brits'.... as you so quaintly refer to us... are quite capable of having a few statues around without them becoming a place of pilgrimage.
It's not the same thing to you, because one is the 'norm' to you, and the other is distasteful to you. Both are monuments to the past.
If you think that having an embalmed person who died in the 21st century on display is evidence of 'being stuck in the past' (as you implied in your previous post), then the same holds true of the numerous war heroes and imperialists all over UKs cities, which refer back hundreds of years.
Of course they wouldn't ttosca but as an unbiased observer it is possible to see that, given vast oil wealth, the same objective could have been achieved in a more sustainable way. But that wouldn't necessarily have allowed him to achieve his political ambitions I guess.
It isn't the same thing at all. In the case of Lenin there are repeated moves to get him finally buried because, by turning his corpse into a shrine, it's effectively created a cult.
I'm not queasy about embalming but it just seems so undignified - twice weekly washing of the visible areas, annual immersive baths, an electric pump inside the body and regular touching up of defects according to the BBC
> Of course they wouldn't ttosca but as an unbiased observer it is possible to see that, given vast oil wealth, the same objective could have been achieved in a more sustainable way. But that wouldn't necessarily have allowed him to achieve his political ambitions I guess.
Haha - sure. By following the neo-liberal model of privitisation and deregulation? Countries which follow this model usually follow the same route: increased poverty, increased wealth inequality, and general immiseration for the majority of the population, often culminating in financial stagnation or crisis.
> The November 2007 poll had the same irritating results as in the preceding few years: Venezuela ranked second behind Uruguay in satisfaction with democracy and third in satisfaction with leaders. It ranked first in the assessment of the current and future economic situation, equality and justice, and education standards. True, it ranked only 11th in favouring a market economy but, even with this flaw, overall it ranked highest in Latin America on matters of democracy, justice and optimism, far above the US favourites Colombia, Peru, Mexico and Chile.
> It isn't the same thing at all. In the case of Lenin there are repeated moves to get him finally buried because, by turning his corpse into a shrine, it's effectively created a cult.
So your concern is that people will be inspired by Chavez? That's the whole point.
Interesting that your source referred to the 2007 poll ttosca. I wonder why they chose that one, since it is conducted every year?
The full New Statesman article also ponders the 'suppression' of the poll findings in the West, yet it is certainly published in the Economist every year.
here is the one from 2009, which finds that Chavez's popularity at home had fallen from 65% to 45%, that 81% felt that private business was indispensable to their economy (a big increase) and that support for a market economy had surged. Indeed, poor Chavez's image was much less favourable than other leaders in the region overall.
"given vast oil wealth, the same objective could have been achieved in a more sustainable way"
Oil is finite, opening the country up to foreign private investment and neo-liberal deregulation isn't a more sustainable way of creating anything other than.......huge black holes in the balance sheet of the state, increasing wealth inequality, and even complete collapse when foreign investors pull out. They then devalue assets and buy them back cheaper south Korea 1997, Argentinian collapse following intervention by IMF 1990's- 2004, Mexico was forced towards neo-liberalism which created huge inequality and wall street have made a killing through IMF interventions there. The imperialist dogs control media, we hear what they want us to hear.
Interesting, but no. I read somewhere recently that Chavez put rhetoric above substance and class war above national interest, and I think that sums him up nicely. The only way his heir will be able to sustain the Chavez economy is if more and more oil money is forthcoming, yet you said it yourself - oil is finite.
"So your concern is that people will be inspired by Chavez? "
No... it's that, like the Soviets, people will be manipulated for decades by those claiming to be the natural successors to Chavez.
Class war should ALWAYS come before national interest and certainly before the corporate/state/war agenda
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.