Hugo Chavez dead

[KateShrub]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21679053

[MiniTheMinx]

Class war should ALWAYS come before national interest and certainly before the corporate/state/war agenda

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

"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.

[adeucalione]

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.

[MiniTheMinx]

"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.

[adeucalione]

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.

[ttosca]

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.

[ttosca]

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.

www.newstatesman.com/south-america/2010/06/chomsky-democracy-latin

[adeucalione]

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

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

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.

[adeucalione]

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.

[ttosca]

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.

[ttosca]

I don't want to labour the point, but the money that was squandered on superficial social programmes has been at the expense of long term prosperity in Venezuela - as Economides says in 'America's Blind Spot', oil reserves were the national treasury that Chavez looted for his political agenda.

I think the millions whom he's helped out of poverty and given an education and healthcare wouldn't call it 'squandering'.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

"And what of the dozens of statues all over the capital and major cities, celebrating dead war heroes from previous centuries?"

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.

[BigSpork]

Not sure it is romantic, I do remember at the last election there were many Venezuelans able to speak out on the many many problems with Chavez which the people of Venezuela may get more movement towards changing, but still feel he deserves some credit for what good he has done.

He changed Latin American rhetoric from connecting to their colonizers in history and trade (he raised African and Latin@ communities which make up a large bulk of the population, particularly in poorer areas) to connecting among themselves and with African/small Asian countries. He helped Latin America become a force in its own right. Also, anyone who can stand against Western desire for oil deserves a little bit of recognition - I mean, Britain and the US staged a coup in Iran, deposed a democracy and put in a dictatorship just because they were discussing nationalizing the oil and stopping exports so standing up to them is no small feat.

He did a lot wrong and could have done a lot better even within his own ideology, but I think the Western venom towards him in political and media spheres is far more to do with his stopping the West, particularly the Americans, from taking as they please and less to do with the actual problems on the ground. I don't think our politicos and media care that much about that unless it suits them.

[adeucalione]

I don't want to labour the point, but the money that was squandered on superficial social programmes has been at the expense of long term prosperity in Venezuela - as Economides says in 'America's Blind Spot', oil reserves were the national treasury that Chavez looted for his political agenda.

It's ridiculous that, despite having the world's second largest oil reserves, the country is importing 30% of its oil and has a plastics shortage. Maybe this has something to do with woeful underinvestment, a brain drain and the fact that he sacked engineers and managers who stood up to him.

Other countries, with less money but more brains, have surged ahead of Venezuela - Brazil, Columbia, Peru and Chile - and are lifting millions out of poverty through good economic governance in the long term.

But some will, I know, continue to see him as a romantic, revolutionary, Robin Hood figure.

[ttosca]

I don't think anyone is disputing that he spent vast oil revenues on popular social programmes ttosca, or that it made him popular with certain sectors of society, but I think it's disingenuous to look at these is isolation.

You could call them 'certain sectors of society'. Quite large sectors, you might say.

I don't think we should look at them in isolation. I'm trying to provide a 'balance' with some of the positive things he has done since he is demonised by much of the mainstream media.

And displaying his embalmed body in a glass casket - like Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il etc - isn't quite the same as a commemorative statue is it?

Not really bothered. The Brits became hysterical when they found out they could be eating horsemeat. Meanwhile, horse has been eaten for centuries in countries all over the world. You may be aesthetically repulsed by the idea of an embalmed body in a glass casket (if that's really what's going to happen), but it's from your cultural pov.

I notice his successor is now saying that his death was at the hands of his enemies (naturally this will be revealed in 50years once the documents have been declassified).

I don't know, I haven't read anything about that. However, it's not so outrageous an idea, considering already declassified documents which shows that the US has a history of assassinating its enemies and attempting to subvert democratic movements.

[adeucalione]

Oh I can't keep up with your arguments ttosca, why don't we stick to the one topic?

[adeucalione]

I don't think anyone is disputing that he spent vast oil revenues on popular social programmes ttosca, or that it made him popular with certain sectors of society, but I think it's disingenuous to look at these is isolation.

And displaying his embalmed body in a glass casket - like Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il etc - isn't quite the same as a commemorative statue is it?

I notice his successor is now saying that his death was at the hands of his enemies (naturally this will be revealed in 50years once the documents have been declassified).

[ttosca]

You might want to contrast this with our 'leaders' who kill disabled people, shit on the poor, make the poor work for free, attempt to privitize the NHS, reduce social security spending, increase wealth inequality, increase tuition fees, and attack human rights laws, to name but a few of the things this govt. has done for 'the people'.

Millionaires and large corporations will certainly enjoy their tax cuts, though.

[adeucalione]

earwig, I will watch the documentary when I have a free 70mins and in return would recommend The Silence and the Scorpion by Brian Nelson. The author painstakingly works through a clocked account of the failed coup, and from an initial position of being a Chavez supporter.

It is a shame the Venezuelan people never had access to an independent inquiry, and that there was no vehicle for opposition families to tell their stories or seek justice.

[ttosca]

Whatever some people in the West think of Chavez, he had a great deal of support from Venezuelans, as the hundreds of thousands of people who took to the streets have shown.

He raised the living standards and improved the health and education enormously of a large section of the population:

-------

Social Investment

The most effective social programs in Venezuela have been in the areas of education, healthcare, job training and food subsidies that have aided the reduction in poverty. Medical attention is free and universal throughout Venezuela, with hundreds of new and advanced clinics built by the state during the past decade. Quality education is guaranteed at all levels, free even during university and post-graduate studies.

Thousands of new schools have been built by the Chavez administration along with hundreds of new accessible universities. Job and skills training programs have enabled thousands of Venezuelans not just to enter the work force but also to build their own cooperatives and small businesses, many receiving low-interest loans from the government. Subsidized supermarkets, known as Mercal, PDVAL and the Bicentennial Markets, have ensured access to affordable foods for all.

venezuelanalysis.com/news/6451

[ttosca]

No-one else ever so slightly appalled that they're apparently planning to embalm the late Mr Chavez and have him on permanent display rather like they did with Lenin? confused Aside from the yuk factor of using a dead man for a Tussaud-like tourist attraction, Venezuela will not benefit from being stuck in the past.

This is hilarious coming from a conservative - in England, a country which seems to be perpetually stuck in the past.

And what of the dozens of statues all over the capital and major cities, celebrating dead war heroes from previous centuries?

Hilarious.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

No-one else ever so slightly appalled that they're apparently planning to embalm the late Mr Chavez and have him on permanent display rather like they did with Lenin? Aside from the yuk factor of using a dead man for a Tussaud-like tourist attraction, Venezuela will not benefit from being stuck in the past.

[earwig1]

adeucalione, you claim he was responsible for the death of 19 people in 2002. If you watch the footage in the documentary The Revolution Will Not Be Televised you will see this is not true. These deaths were the result of snipers on the side of the opposition...

[earwig1]

I agree with you ttosca. The man had faults, made mistakes... but some facts are irrefutable: he gave a voice to millions of people for the first time, people who are usually refered to as "zambos" by the minority elite. This racist term was also used towards Chavez routinely in the private media, while being portrayed as a monkey. If he was such a dictator, why didn't he ban these tv channels? I suggest you watch this eye-opening documentary,