Hugo Chavez-R.I.P.

[SiamSam]

I still think he was a transgender...oops I dropped my crack pipe. 

[Jimslim]

Here's some of what I have read:

 

The truth is that Chavez was a brutal despot ........

 

Nice balanced and non biased writing there Paccers 

 

As Rickshaw stated well the West doesn't mind democracy as long as the people return a government friendly to them .

 

When they don't surely the guy must be corrupt , a dictator a nutcase ? 

 

Nothing new it seems there are good dictators and bad dictators , the good dictators are the ones who toe the line and the bad ones are the ones who don't .

 

It can all become mighty confusing as a good dictator can become a bad one or vice versa almost overnight depending if they support US foreign policy .

 

When Saddam was fighting Iran he was a good dictator , he later became a bad one .

 

Saudi Arabia is one of the most brutal non democratic regimes on this earth but they are OK for supporting the US , Palestine (Despite having a democratically elected government ) are terrorists apparently .

 

Chevez was never a dictator if the poor supported and loved him and the rich and their lackeys despised him he must be doing something right .

[Jimslim]

What no one has mentioned so far is the fact that Chevez was disposed briefly in a military coup that lasted all of a couple of days before collapsing with no popular support .

 

The opposition then tried to dispose him with a right wing backed general strike .

 

He still had the support of the masses and was returned again - democratically , despite the opposition using non democratic means .

[Tomas]

He stuck the two fingers up at the US and big corporations so I liked him.

[pacman]

It might do for pacman to actually give sources for what he has 'read' when foisting poisonous right-wing nonsense on the rest of us.  The above 'quote' in pacman's post seems to have been lifted from a column by Michael Burleigh in The Daily Mail (a notorious right-wing 'newspaper' in the UK).  Took me all of 5 seconds to source it, so it's hardly much of a stretch for the OP to do the same.

 

I have no idea what Michael Burleigh's reputation is & I never knew the Daily Mail was 'notoriously right wing'. Does that automatically make anything published in that paper wrong? Mr Burleigh is only repeating what many other journalists have reported. His was the first article I came across so I borrowed some of it. There's no substantive difference between what he wrote & what other journalists have reported. Are they all wrong?

 

Is anyone suggesting this stuff never happened? 

 

Of the many articles written about life under Chavez, they all talk about cronyism, the highest murder rate in the world, rigged elections, ruined environment, crumbling infrastructure, nationalisation of industry, failing electricity grid, it goes on & on.

 

So I repeat, is anyone suggesting this isn't happening?

 

It's another failed Socialist state & Chavez is another deluded leader. Yes, he helped the poor & God love him for that but at what price? He could have been so much wiser. It is possible to raise up the poor while carrying the whole country forward. Look at China. But no, he had to fuck the entire country in order to serve his megalomania.

 

I do understand what others in this thread are saying (poisonous right wing nonsense? FFS!) but no one has offered any argument that will convince me he wasn't a disaster. 

[Tomas]

What was Venezuela like when you were there Paccers? 

[azza33]

What was Venezuela like when you were there Paccers? 

Nice one Tomas... So one cant form an opinion from what they have read and people they have met?

[azza33]

 

It can all become mighty confusing as a good dictator can become a bad one or vice versa almost overnight depending if they support US foreign policy .

 

When Saddam was fighting Iran he was a good dictator , he later became a bad one.

With all due respect i think that could be the worst example possible to illustrate your underlying point.

[pacman]

What was Venezuela like when you were there Paccers? 

 

Fabulous! I picked up gold nuggets off the ground until my pants couldn't stay up under the weight. Then I was accosted by all the previous Miss Venezuelas who had all gone on to be Miss World (and there are a lot of them) who competed to offer sexual relief.

 

That's my fond memory....   or was it my greatest fantasy? Dunno, what has this got to do with the thread? 

 

Hugo did much good for those who had never been helped before. I have no issue with that. But the idea that his way would be good for all countries & all people simply does not hold up to scrutiny. Every political system contains the seeds of its demise. Hugo's brand of Socialism failed on most levels. Can anybody offer an argument that it didn't?

[williethepimp]

Chavez stood on the podium at the U.N.,on the spot George Dubya had stood the day previously......and he(Chavez) declared......#The Devil stood here here yesterday,right on this spot....I can still smell the sulphur#..........God bless him for that.......

 

As for wasting the country's wealth,Mrs Thatcher did the same thing when she sold off the state owned industries and utilities to her friends in the City,(for a pittance) and squandered the nation's oil wealth on Trident missiles .....what a #dictator # she was!

[azza33]

Certainly and interesting set of figures showing in the actual data.

 

Here is a couple i guess to compare it to the rest of the area - would seem to be a bit of an underperfomer given their oil reserves.

 

Real GDP would be an interesting number to know - with inflation at those levels i can't imagine real GDP has gone very far at all and with the collapse of their currency i can't imagine life could be that great on the ground.

 

For what its worth i have no real thoughts on the guy... just another dictator.

 

The women are hot... thats about the peak of my interest.

[johnlbx]

Here's a quite lengthy paper on the rise and types of corruption under Chavez....

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13673498/-Corruption-Mismanagement-and-Abuse-of-Power-in-Hugo-Chavezs-Venezuela-Cato-Development-Policy-Analysis-No-2-

[azza33]

Source for your data?

 

Beyond reproach

[azza33]

Umm...elected 4 times in free and fair elections makes him a dictator?  Hardly.

 

Fair call

[Tomcat]

It might do for pacman to actually give sources for what he has 'read' when foisting poisonous right-wing nonsense on the rest of us.  

 

Except that some Right Wing nonsense was foistered on his own people if you care to study . Just like Saddam who was a admirer of Hitler and National Socialism as well as Stalin and his ways.He plucked bits from Left Wing Dictators and Right wing ones like Peron. Like a la carte . In fact many think that Peron was his template. 

 

Poisionous " Right Wing nonsense"... ha ha...what a joker we have here. I think Mein Kampf might be an indulgence in this but hardly the sources that Pacman is using. Lets not start the adding game of deaths under Left and Right wing regimes as there is  only one winner on that score...

[johnlbx]

...from the right-wing Cato Institute.

there are 54 footnotes to the paper so this isn't just some crazy opinion piece. I know that in order to dismiss it you've read it and have problems with some of the references.

Could you detail the specific problems you have with the paper? we would all like to learn something.

[pdogg]

Looking at the data is very tricky given Venezuela's extremely high inflation rate and also it's extreme currency debasement.

 

I would suppose that the IMF and World Bank probably provides unbiased data even if their mission serves  political purposes.

 

http://data.worldbank.org/

 

http://www.imf.org/external/data.htm

 

But you really got to make sure that you're comparing apples to apples.

[pdogg]

Think critically, rather than blindly accept something simply because it agrees with your own point of view.

 

In political discussions, many people aren't looking for the truth.

 

My favorite source for news and analysis is The New York Times which many say has a left wing bias.  But being an American paper, I suppose it has a unique pro-American left wing bias.  I just came across an interesting website that examines the biases of the Times.  They accuse the Times of being biased against Chavez.

 

http://www.nytexaminer.com/2012/10/the-times-vs-hugo-chavez/

 

Critical thinking serves me better than knee jerk lefty-righty stuff. 

 

As far as the truth.................a great scene, You Can't Handle The Truth.

 

[seven]

Paccers, and  your fellow born-again christian right-wingers , 

Chavez was one of the good guys, simple as that, really.

Thatcher, GW,=evil

Chavez, Castro= good

I´m sure y´all deep down agree, no matter how the ignorant bastards at Fox news slice it.

[azza33]

How many of the footnotes are the article writer quoting HIMSELF?  The major charge against Chavez seems to be that he acquired a better presidential plane.  What a monster...

 

Again, I would suggest that it's best to read, then start asking questions about the writer, the purpose, the paymaster, and any agenda(s) behind something.  Think critically, rather than blindly accept something simply because it agrees with your own point of view.

I would have thought it the pot calling the kettle here..

I distinctively get the impression that if the story or information doesnt fit your agenda then you sir are highly dismissive and rude.

Im neutral on this topic and I what I can tell you is those economic numbers are terrible.

To try and put him on some sort of economic pedestal for achievements to help his country... well the numbers are the numbers... they dont look real good I can tell you that much.

[jerrysingapore]

To try and put him on some sort of ecnomic pedestal for achievements to help his country... 

 

 

That is not what people are saying. They are saying he helped the POOR people in his country. Absolutely not the same thing, at least not in the medium/long term.

[azza33]

That is not what people are saying. They are saying he helped the POOR people in his country. Absolutely not the same thing, at least not in the medium/long term.

 

Dealing in semantics here...

 

And from my reading, which is no doubt biased, i understand they way they calculate the "poor" numbers was altered... so again there is no apples to apples comparable figure out there.

 

I think the murder rates tells the real effects of the socioenomic changes under his rule.

 

Content and happy people dont go around murdering each other.

[ArchieBunker]

Paccers, and  your fellow born-again christian right-wingers , 

Chavez was one of the good guys, simple as that, really.

Thatcher, GW,=evil

Chavez, Castro= good

I´m sure y´all deep down agree, no matter how the ignorant bastards at Fox news slice it.

 

I truly cannot tell if you are being serious or sarcastic.  Anyone who thinks that Fidel Castro is a great guy and a progressive thinker who brought nothing but good to the people of Cuba, I just cannot have a rational converstaion with.  This is where Elvis, or in this case, Archie leaves the building.  I know you guys want to hate people like Bush and Thatcher but I have no idea how you can compare both societies and systems.  I just cannot comprehend it.  You think Castro is "good" and then you rail against the "ignorant bastards" at Fox.  Mr. Pot please meet Mr. Kettle.  To me its mind boggling.  You guys that dont know me, might think I am a goofball coz I hold the same world views as you do.  But those who have met me can tell you I can give as good as I get.

 

Like I said on the first page, your view on Chavez will depend on your world view.  I still hold the opinion that Venezuela was a shithole BEFORE Chavez took over and its STILL a shithole.  Maybe Chavez needed more than 14 years just to "turn things around".  Where have I heard THAT excuse before?????

[pacman]

My point is that - so far - we only have YOUR word for that.  Quoting one article (and failing to properly attribute it) from a source whose political agenda you are unaware smacks of a lack of critical thinking on your part.  Do you simply look around until you find something that agrees with your world view, or do you take the time to think about what has been written, who has written it, why they have written it, and who/what paid for it to be written?  By your own admission, it's the latter.

 

The problem isn't my lack of critical thinking, it's my lack of caring for Chavez & Venezuela. I didn't give enough of a damn to go looking for contradictory articles to the one I found. Being in a major newspaper, one could assume that it had to pass some test for veracity. If I wanted to be completely analytical I would have looked for some balance & read a few more opinion pieces. I didn't & with hindsight, that was a mistake. I am better educated now though.

 

And in case you think I am the poster child for the right who thought he was passing on gospel, here's a hint from one of my earlier posts giving a clue as to how "certain" I was with my facts:

 

It's on the Internet....     how could that be wrong?          

 

 

As for offering any argument to 'convince' you that he wasn't a disaster for Venezuela, perhaps we should ask the Venezuelan people, who first elected, then re-elected him THREE times...

 

Of course they voted for him four times. They would have voted for him forever. He gave the poor something they never had - education, subsidised food, access to nationalised land for farming, no one had ever given them a break before. I described it as a bribe before & in any sense of the word, offering freebies to those with nothing is a bribe.

 

What I reject is the notion that all the elections were free & fair. When opposition parties are effectively silenced, when the media is in the personal control of Chavez, when an armed militia does his bidding, I can't see how democracy can flourish under those circumstances. The silly thing is he would have won without all the control.

 

 

Failing that, here are two articles.  You can decide for yourself whether the sources are respectable or not:

 

Actual data

 

LA Times report

 

As you will read, the LA Times article is not uncritical of Chavez, but is at least (I think) fair in its criticism, i.e. that it was mainly a failure to carry through reforms (his reach exceeded his grasp), rather than personal corruption.  You may also notice that most of the critics are his staunchest opponents, people who had most to lose in the 'revolution' to raise the poor from poverty.  One would imagine that aim was entirely laudable given that the rich had spent decades exploiting the poor, and did not take kindly to having the trough removed from under their snouts.

 

Thanks for the articles, I read them with interest. Lots of good stuff there. For example - eighty per cent of the population were impoverished at the time of Chavez' first election win. What a disgrace!

 

I have never argued that Chavez hasn't helped the poor, what I do criticise is the damage he caused while in office. I know many forgive him for that because of the good he did. I can't. It didn't have to be that way. His time in office saw widespread cronyism, damage to the environment, a soaring crime rate, the nationalisation of industry with the loss of the educated professionals, etc. Plus his hatred of the US & the UK saw him involved with some of the less savory regimes going. He helped finance Hezbollah & the IRA, he supported Almandinajad & Ghaddafi, he aided Colombian drug cartels (allegedly).

 

One man's saint is another man's criminal. It's a jolly good debate though.         

[pacman]

Paccers, and  your fellow born-again christian right-wingers , 

Chavez was one of the good guys, simple as that, really.

Thatcher, GW,=evil

Chavez, Castro= good

I´m sure y´all deep down agree, no matter how the ignorant bastards at Fox news slice it.

 

 

I truly cannot tell if you are being serious or sarcastic.  

 

He's very serious. Seven is always serious in trying to get a reaction from outraged BMs.

 

Looks like he found one...