Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, Dies at Age 58.

Post Reply New Topic

You misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that some things are ALWAYS wrong, no matter how "noble" the goals, or in this case alleged goals, may be. You're using an 'ends justify the means' style argument, and those are dangerous because they can be used to "justify" nearly any bad behavior so long as people think the actions are being made in good faith. Think of the people who murder abortion doctors; in their minds, they're stopping serial killers before they can kill again, where as you and I would see their actions in a much less heroic light.

Chavez claimed to be doing things for the good of the poor Venezuelans, and whether he did any good or not is debatable, but what is indisputable is that he trampled upon and disassembled the civil rights and freedoms of his subjects in order to consolidate his power and punish his opposition. That he was popular speaks both to his personal charisma, and the fact that socialism is an easy sell in poor agrarian countries, as people like to be told that their poverty is not their fault and be given someone to blame for it. It's called class warfare and it's easy to exploit, especially if you have some industrious minority group to scapegoat, you know, Gypsys, Jews, illegals, etc, whoever you've got handy to make other poor people resent. Make a big show of taking their stuff and handing some of it off to the poor, give some bombastic speeches, and you're golden.

But to come full circle, I still think it's reprehensible that you would wish death upon people who's "sin" is to broadcast opinions with which you disagree, all they do is talk, where as guys like Chavez actually ruin lives if not actually kill people. Maybe you should examine what it says about you that you choose to hate the harmless gasbag on the radio but venerate the ruthless dictator, according to which one says things you agree or disagree with. I personally think small government and personal liberty are the keys to prosperity and a better life for everyone, but I wouldn't cheer on a guy who imposed that at gunpoint, certainly not while wishing for the death of someone who merely advocates a more controlling state.

If you have to live under a despot, you could do much worse than Hugo Chavez.

I guess you could make the argument that he didn't focus enough on changing the political structure of the country, but if "power corrupts", then either he was an extremely good man or he got his kicks by getting poor people to love him.

Chavez as the champion of the poor is a caricature. Take the sky-high inflation in Venezuela, for example - again, Latin America's highest. Who does it hurt most? Not the rich, although some business costs do rise significantly; the rich have the bulk of their wealth in assets and hard cash. Those hurt the most are retirees, as inflation tends to wipe out both savings and pensions (in Weimar Germany, many elderly committed suicide as hyperinflation left them without a livelihood), especially poorer retirees who are probably paying rent (whereas better-off retirees are likely to own their home and may even be landlords). The other group badly hurt are people whose income is mainly or solely wages, which is the bulk of the middle class anywhere. Business owners (whether it's a hot dog stand or a vast corporation) can simply raise prices in response to inflation, and likewise anyone living off commissions is relatively insulated from it; wage earners can't simply raise their wages. So in fact Venezuela's economic policies, via inflation, are hurting the middle classes more than the rich, and retirees more than the owners of vast corporations. Even more so when taking into account that it's easy for the rich to leave but not for the middle classes; it's hardly a surprise inequality decreases (as measured by the Gini coefficient or otherwise) if the rich leave and the middle classes become poorer, as has happened in Venezuela.
The real conflict (as distinct from rhetoric) has been, not between the social classes, but between the generations. Future generations will inherit an oil industry crippled by debts and years of underinvestment and mismanagement, an economy with no other major exporting industries to speak of (largely a consequence of Chavez' currency controls), rampant violent crime (the rich can hire bodyguards or leave, the rest?), and a higher education system in ruins (with the research base destroyed and the educational system cut off from the outside world save for Cuba).

The "Chavez is an evil despot" crowd says that he ruined an excellent system that permitted Carlos Andres Perez to kill in the name of the IMF and get away with it. They want other Carlos Andres Perezes to kill in the name of the IMF and of Hard Choices that they say Chavez refused to do and they claim was ruining Venezuela by coddling the poor who need the lash of the whip to move the country forward.

You can lean more about day to day living in Venesuala on this blog
http://devilsexcrement.com/

One of the interesting things is how Chavez implemented his version of socialism.
One of the interesting things was most socialist leaders usually have used have their version of the secret police who murders, disappear or torture people to keep them in fear and pushed down and weak. Chavez did something different, he encouraged and materially (guns) supported the little vatos or malandos, what we might referred to as the gansta culture and lifestyle.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fubD__L_ves[/youtube]
This has produced the highest murder rate in the world, far beating out the death rates in Afghanistan and Iraq, active shooting wars. An interesting way to keep people down.

I the words of a friend who grew up and lived in the Eastern Block, "communism pushes everyone down to the lowest level so everyone is equal". In that version of communism everyone had to work to be a good communist, if you did not want to work it was off to the gulag. After a stay in the gulag work was far preferable. And everyone (the general population) was keep on verge of starvation because of food rationing.

When you have a government that's more responsive to the demands of international bankers than the demands of it's own people and responds by mowing down civilians with machine guns when they show their displeasure, then what choice is there left but violence? I mean, what do you think would happen if our government decided to mow down 1000 occupy protesters? What would have happened if our government decided to mow down civil rights protesters in the 1960s? When you make peaceful political process impossible you invite force and violence.

Does any of that contradict my point that following a brutal dictator does not automatically preclude one from also being a brutal dictator?

As to:



A lot of left wingers who've spent years mocking gun people for saying that they may one day need to fight the state would suddenly be really embarrassed?



Gandhi and MLK, among others, would disagree with you about peaceful protest even in the face of violence. I would further argue that in the specific scenario you're describing, non-violence is the path most likely to achieve the desired result; violent resistance is more likely to get your whole movement branded as "terrorists" than anything good.

I don't think someone automatically gets the label "brutal dictator" and equated with Hitler just because they're an "evil commie". He is something in between as was his predecessor.


I'm not one of those "left wingers", but I think gun laws would become pretty irrelevant during a true insurrection. Military defectors would be supplying the weapons to the rebel cause.


I'd say it's a case by case determination.

In my city they're firing flashbang grenades into crowds at head level. One person lost a lot of blood in such an attack on 5 March and just last year someone lost an eye because of a misused flashbang. They are also using cavalry charges. Meanwhile the fascists in the media are baying for more police brutality. The situation is intolerable. The police arranged a provocative news conference promising repressive actions for the anti police brutality march tomorrow. This is what deepening neoliberal reforms give us... it's the building of fascism complete with the insane cult of the petty bourgeoisie.

Let's save the name for the real thing: if you were living under actual Fascism, you wouldn't be posting here.



Historical experience shows this to be rare on a large scale. In Romania Communism was largely overthrown by soldiers turning against the regime, but that's been pretty rare. Usually, either there's a split at the top or the bulk of the army remains loyal. Of course, the notion that ordinary citizens would be able to face a well-trained, well-equipped, disciplined military is laughable, unless they had plenty of outside help.



This is one those facts that Chavez apologists simply pretend doesn't exist (well, they also avoid talking about rationing, particularly in light of the pudreval scandal). Caracas is one of the most dangerous places in South America. You know things are bad if the capital of a country ostensibly at peace is more dangerous than some actual war zones.

The main problem is the police force in Caracas was corrupt and almost as dangerous as the criminals. They were out of control before Chavez came to power (hence the mowing down of protesters). Chavez decided to do the popular thing and punish the hated police by de-funding them and cutting their salaries. This made things much worse as now the police don't even bother with pursuing justice and the streets are filled with vigilante gangs.

Crime went through the roof under Chavez' watch, not before, however you try to spin it. When your capital manages to be more dangerous, in peacetime, than war zones it is an abject failure of governance, however you try to spin it. Clearly, mob rule isn't working, except in keeping the regime in power.

We're pretty much in agreement that Chavez did the wrong thing with regard to the police and management of industry, but I probably can't please you until I take your hard-line anti-socialist position. The crime situation is out of control and his government has clearly mismanaged things economically, but to equate street crime with secret police is idiotic. Deny all you want but the country had massive corruption and human rights abuse issues before Chavez came to power.

You get that number of dead in just 4 or 5 days under Chavez.

This is just my speculation. Jorge Giordani, Venezuelan Ministry of Finance, strikes me as someone who might be on the spectrum. I know he is hated. He is implementing economic policies that have zero hope of success. Its no secret Venezuela is an unusually bad economic basket case all as a direct result of government policies and interventions .


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31g-tdjVx-A[/youtube]

Any opinions?

Actually the Venezuelan economy has been a great success according to the accepted metrics.