Hugo Chavez has died

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by Candlelight, Mar 6, 2013.

  1. Candlelight

    Candlelight Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Location:
    New Zealand
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/8388566/Hugo-Chavez-dies-after-cancer-battle

    The world needed more leaders who would often break into song during public addresses.
     
  2. stoneroses

    stoneroses Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2001
    Location:
    Herford, Germany
    Thanks for telling me. I almost missed the blanket news coverage
     
  3. Candlelight

    Candlelight Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Well I imagined many many Americans would be grieving over this...
     
  4. Avon

    Avon Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 7, 2010
    Location:
    Avon
    i'm not sure what to make of chavez. he seemed a bit eccentric but was no where near the levels of crazy dictators like the north korean guy.

    looks like ken livingstone has lost a free holiday home.
     
  5. gturner

    gturner Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Location:
    Kentucky
    He died on the 60th anniversary of Stalin's death. If Castro kicks the bucket next year on March 5th, we might get a new unofficial holiday as a recurring Internet theme.
     
  6. Davros

    Davros Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Location:
    Kaled bunker, Skaro
    Trying to equate Chavez to Stalin is laughable at best.
     
  7. Naira

    Naira Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2002
    Location:
    Greece
    I would not call him a dictator. I think they had many elections in Venezuela during his ruling. If I am not mistaken, they had one in 2012 as well.

    (Unless the "dictator" part only went to the Korean guy. :p)
     
  8. Avon

    Avon Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 7, 2010
    Location:
    Avon
    yeah i didn't mean to call chavez a dictator, just the korean guy.
     
  9. Starkers

    Starkers Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2001
    Location:
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Nah he wasn’t a dictator, although I have concerns about any leader who pushed through changes to the law to ensure he could rule indefinitely, even if that rule came with democratic legitimacy, so I’d put him in a category with Putin in that respect.
     
  10. Locutus of Bored

    Locutus of Bored BRexiting the Briefing Room Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Location:
    Huntington Beach, California
  11. stj

    stj Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Location:
    the real world
    Chavez played a role in Venezuelan society far close to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's, except without pussyfooting around with Jim Crow politicians and their lynch mob supporters. Or double dealing in world politics.

    Now that he's gone, most likely the US will succeed in organizing a military coup. After Chavez' opponents succeed in regaining power, the mass of the population (which has seen poverty sharply reduced) will be put into its proper place. This will require murder, torture, and all manner of mere political corruption. But the return of these American spiritual values to foreigners who never harmed a citizen of this country will delight all right thinkers here.
     
  12. gturner

    gturner Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Location:
    Kentucky
    ^Uh, the bad stuff you mention is what Chavez was doing. The Economist just ran an article on the horrible legacy of Chavez and whether Venezuela will recover easily or stay with the Chavistas and continue its downward spiral.

    Latin America as a whole had finally moved away from its historical pattern of militaristic dictatorships and communist dabblings and switching to open democracy and free markets - except for Cuba and Venezuela. Venezuela was an odd case because it had been one of the countries that already was a non-militaristic open democracy with free markets. Chavez reversed that.

    The only reason his economy wasn't a complete disaster is that through no act of his, oil prices happened to skyrocket around the time that he took power, giving him lots and lots of money to buy people off and to cover up his abysmal economic management (such as seizing productive enterprises and ruining them, or ordering food stores to sell their food below cost or face arrest).

    Ironically he called it the Bolivarian revolution, but Bolivar was an Anglophile. Chavez said the real threat to Venezuela was the capitalists in the US and Columbia, all working for the evil Jews, and so Venezuela became a close ally of Iran. He said his followers must all be armed, so he bought AK-47's in bulk and spent 14 years causing trouble for his neighbors, persecuting his domestic enemies, destroying all but the oil sector of Venezuela's economy, and creating a flood of refugees. A more pathetic leader is hard to imagine.
     
  13. publiusr

    publiusr Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    There were worse despots. Even Saddam served as a stabilizing influence.
    Syria might wind up answering to someone even worse. Hard to say.
     
  14. stj

    stj Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Location:
    the real world
    The notion that alleviating poverty is an offense to democracy just shows how rotten the concept of democracy has become. The free market failed the people of Venezuela long before Chavez. But even if you wanted to consider Venezuela as an oil state, any honest effort to do so would contrast Venezuela to such wonderlands as Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Nigeria, Qatar, Bahrein, Brunei. Chavez was as a god among men compared to the scum (but beloved allies of the US each and every one) who rule those countries.

    Hating a man for his virtues is pretty close to turning yourself into a cartoon villain. Who but Snidely Whiplash could whip himself into a froth over food subsidies when theire is widespread hunger and malnutrition?

    However, Chavez did not fundamentally changes any of the state or social structure in Venezuela. All his good deeds are mere policies that will be reversed, for the pleasure and profit of the wealthy in Venezuela, and their foreign masters. In the end, his life was written in water.
     
  15. gturner

    gturner Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Location:
    Kentucky
    stj, the hunger and malnutrition is worse now than it was when he took power. He foreclosed on the productive farms, then closed down mom and pop food stores because *gasp* they insisted on selling slightly above their own costs so they wouldn't go broke and starve.

    Venezuela has some of the most productive farm regions on Earth. It's a growers paradise that exceeds anything in California's central valley. Under Chavez, like most socialist regimes, the people ended up standing in lines and food stores that didn't have any food.

    Here's an example from two months ago.

    And of course the government blamed the usual suspects.

    If they can't find food, and consumption has increased, what the heck were they eating before?! And of course hoarding by producers and speculators would explain why he allied with Iran, since starvation is always the Jews fault, even in countries that don't have any Jews. (Chavez often railed about the evil Jews.)

    And if you suspect that Business Insider is run by Jews, try a similar article at the Huffington Post.

    Or how about a New York Times article?


    Keep in mind that Venezuela used to be the regions bread basket and a major food exporter. Now it has to import coffee. Imagine that. It's like Kansas having to import wheat. The New York Times article goes on to have economists discuss the problems there.

    It always works out like that, whether in Soviet Russia, Eastern Europe, or Maoist China. They always blame everything from the potato harvest to capitalist speculators, and people stand in line at bakeries that don't have any
    bread. Like those countries, Venezuelans can't even find any toilet paper and probably have to use Chavez party fliers, as was commonly done in Eastern Europe. Only under socialism could a banana republic actually run out of bananas.
     
  16. Squiggy

    Squiggy FrozenToad Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Location:
    Trump Tower
    Um...didn't Chavez try to take power via a military coup?
     
  17. Locutus of Bored

    Locutus of Bored BRexiting the Briefing Room Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Location:
    Huntington Beach, California
    Unsuccessful coups don't count. They just get an asterisk next to them in the history books. It's like the Barry Bonds of coup attempts.
     
  18. stj

    stj Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Location:
    the real world
    A welfare state is not socialism. Ask Herr Bismarck. Chavez did not institute socialism. Period. Any discussion presuming that is purely ideological raving. This is also shown by the way the oil industry keeps on trucking, somehow defying all the evils wrought by "socialism" on every other form of economic activity by its unholy defiance of the God-given laws of the market. Demonic powers making a evil but miraculous exception? Standard academic economics is incoherent and irrelevant. Like the Trinity, it doesn't seem like madness because familiarity and moral cowardice keep people from examining it.

    Yes, Chavez did unsuccessfully attempt to seize power. The economic failure of Venezuelan capitalism to satisfy the material needs of the people, and the de facto monopolization of the political system by a minority, had created a system so rotten that the large majority of people were eager to see someone who really meant to make a change, i.e., Chavez. Chavez of course has taken power solely by winning elections, repeatedly. The greatest increas in his power came after the antidemocratic coup against him. Inevitably, the stink of failiure weakened the US puppets, increasing Chavez' power. Nonetheless, when Chavez lost an election, he abided by the results.

    But this is all moot. When the freemarket democrats start killing trade uinionists and community leaders and opposition political leaders as a part of business as usual, their supporters here can be satisfied that the world is once again as they enjoy it.
     
  19. Squiggy

    Squiggy FrozenToad Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Location:
    Trump Tower
    So a coup is dandy if you agree with the reasons behind it?

    Only because he failed to sieze power using less-than-democratic means.

    It's like saying an attempted rapist isn't really that bad because the girl got away.
     
  20. Kai "the spy"

    Kai "the spy" Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Location:
    Always around
    Uhm, .. kinda?! Like, isn't a coup just another word for armed rebellion against the government? Which is, basically, any civil war?

    I mean, Claus von Stauffenberg and his co-conspirators are considered heroes, nowadays, for trying to kill Hitler, but in the end, what they were trying to accomplish was a coup.

    So, yeah, the reasons behind a coup do matter.