Se murio Chaves! Chavez is dead!

And now what?

Was this finally confirmed?
Just when i heard some news about his daughters being in the US and stuff… .

Ninja edit: oh yeah, it has been confirmed… and it’s quite a deal

No big deal, same as usual, sympathy vote and all that jazz. Carry on…

Fred Smith, in case you’re watching, I just thought I’d drop by and show my respect for the passing of a powerful legend.

Rest in Peace, el Comandante!

And this is what I was waiting for, the China angle:

[quote]BEIJING — Domestic politics trumps international politics, in China as everywhere. So even though China on Tuesday lost a friend in Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who died in Caracas, the homepage of Xinhua News Agency online today is mostly filled with news of the National People’s Congress meeting in Beijing, where important appointments will be made such as naming a new president (certain to be Xi Jinping, barring an extraordinary and unforeseen event.)

Venezuela and China’s relationship has been very close, especially economically. Yet reporting Mr. Chavez’s death, Xinhua’s homepage had only a small box with a photograph of him and five topics next to it; two chronologies (a “simple introduction” and “major events.”) A third asked “did America poison him?” and the final items were “who next” and “analysis.” still, photographs of Chavez were displayed prominently, in rotation, with photographs from the congress.

The reaction was more low key than one might have expected, raising the question: is China perhaps distancing itself from the polarizing figure who has dominated politics in Venezuela for over a decade, as people here and there wonder, what next?

The poison question is curious, as is the prominence given to it.

[/quote]
New York Post

seen generally as a good thing by most (good that he is dead)

I loved the way he made steam come out of the ears of right-wingers. RIP, you thorn-in-the-side-of-the-right.

Pol Pot did that, too.

Pol Pot did that, too.[/quote]
Pol Pot did that to everyone, left, right and center. Oh, and Pol Pot was also a genocidal maniac.

Not counting the people of Venezuela, the majority of who voted for him four times- but then, of course, who gives a crap abut what they think.

Pol Pot did that, too.[/quote]
Pol Pot did that to everyone, left, right and center. Oh, and Pol Pot was also a genocidal maniac.[/quote]

And you know who else was a genocidal maniac? Hitler.

Pol Pot=Hitler
Chavez=Pol Pot
Therefore Chavez=Hitler

Conservative thinking, it’s so easy when you follow the guidelines.

Pol Pot did that, too.[/quote]
Pol Pot did that to everyone, left, right and center. Oh, and Pol Pot was also a genocidal maniac.[/quote]
So, were you a fan of him?

Not counting the people of Venezuela, the majority of who voted for him four times- but then, of course, who gives a crap abut what they think.[/quote]

I doubt Venezuelans were given much of a choice. I doubt any legitimate politician made it far by challenging him.

Hopefully a significantly more moderate president follows him but realistically I’m expecting more of the same.

1 Like

Well, I’m not comfortable with that statement. I’d set the bar a bit higher (or lower, if you prefer) before I’d say it is a good thing someone has died, on moral and humanistic grounds.

I never really liked Chavez because he seemed quite narcissistic and was overly repressive of legitimate or semi-legitimate rivals, as well as any organs of the press that were too critical of him. On a less emotional note, I think he was a poor long-term planner for Venezuela’s economy in terms of global positioning. You can’t develop a country that well without sound finances on a global banking level.

But on the other hand, he did have major support from a large swath of the population, based on his transfer programs which really helped the poor. These transfers also stimulated the local economy, helping merchants and landlords, as well as facilitating kids growing up in better homes, getting better health care and education, and having better job prospects. He actually was a real Bolivarian, in many ways, although a very flawed one.

Back to the question of whether the world - and more importantly, Venezuela - would be better off without him: We’ll just have to see what happens, won’t we? His successor(s) will have some sort of honeymoon based on Chavez’ legacy, but whether they can “win the crowd” is another matter, as they lack his dynamism and charisma. If Venezuela descends into chaos because of his death, then there will be no immediate benefit, especially as compared to the scenario in which he had been replaced by someone with an independent power base that could maintain order.

Here’s a better analysis than mine: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/03/06/wrd-venezuela-chavez-death-cancer-maduro-election.html

Not counting the people of Venezuela, the majority of who voted for him four times- but then, of course, who gives a crap abut what they think.[/quote]

For the umpeeth time, elections in Latin America do not mean a thing, they are conveniently arranged as required. Populism and mass distraction are not ways to advance a country.

1 Like

[quote]But on the other hand, he did have major support from a large swath of the population, based on his transfer programs which really helped the poor. These transfers also stimulated the local economy, helping merchants and landlords, as well as facilitating kids growing up in better homes, getting better health care and education, and having better job prospects. He actually was a real Bolivarian, in many ways, although a very flawed one.

[/quote]

Not really. As usual, it was populism, vote buying, and power base building at its best. Giving people lands by expropiation sounds very Robin Hood but you have to give people means for production and marketing their goods. Otherwise, you set them up for failure -as it is happening in most of these settlements- and you give intermediaries the lion’s share again and all teh power. So where’s the change? Where’s the advantage? Small enterprises are dead because of the costs, can’t get permits to import machinery even if they have the means/are allowed to save money or exchange enough foreign currency. Ther eis no safety in banks, no safety on the streets. The reason the society is less polarized now is because most rich -and investors- have fled or been murdered. People belong to the party or have nothing -a la North Korea. Same old, same old…

[quote=“Icon”][quote]But on the other hand, he did have major support from a large swath of the population, based on his transfer programs which really helped the poor. These transfers also stimulated the local economy, helping merchants and landlords, as well as facilitating kids growing up in better homes, getting better health care and education, and having better job prospects. He actually was a real Bolivarian, in many ways, although a very flawed one.

[/quote]

Not really. As usual, it was populism, vote buying, and power base building at its best. Giving people lands by expropiation sounds very Robin Hood but you have to give people means for production and marketing their goods. Otherwise, you set them up for failure -as it is happening in most of these settlements- and you give intermediaries the lion’s share again and all teh power. So where’s the change? Where’s the advantage? Small enterprises are dead because of the costs, can’t get permits to import machinery even if they have the means/are allowed to save money or exchange enough foreign currency. Ther eis no safety in banks, no safety on the streets. The reason the society is less polarized now is because most rich -and investors- have fled or been murdered. People belong to the party or have nothing -a la North Korea. Same old, same old…[/quote]

I have relatives who own a small enterprise in Venezuela, and they say they have profited from the greater disposable income among the poor and working classes.

The poor are less poor in Venezuela than before Chavez; this is just a fact.

Expropriating land is not always a bad thing in Latin American, as the rich have so much and the poor so little.

Chavez did have real support among the poor. I know this because of my relatives, who BTW were not Chavez supporters, and neither am I. But the facts are the facts.

Exactly. Sure poor people were happy about being given freebies. Who wouldn’t be? But that’s no way to build a country. Billions (trillions?) have been poured into “aid” worldwide over the past few decades, and if anything the recipient countries are worse off then they ever were. Look at Zimbabwe, where (unfairly-distributed) land was expropriated and given to mouthbreathers who didn’t have a clue what to do with it; certainly land reform is often desirable, but such things only work if there’s some logic and sense of fair play involved. Fundamentally, “The People” have to do it for themselves: a government should provide the means, and let them get on with it. Safety and security. Reliable finance. Rule of law (and laws that everyone can understand and cope with - something which nearly all of Latin America lacks). Functioning and affordable infrastructure. A slave who is thrown a few goodies if he puts the right checkmark on a ballot paper is still a slave.

I got relatives/friends/classmates there, too. I think the poor are les poor now because the bar has been lowered overall, and it is not in all zones. They have frequent lack of basics, bread, milk, etc. and a very low ceiling for improvement.

Rule of law is completely warped in Latin America, but in Venezuela it takes the cake. Certainly, teh past situation was bad, and it may seem a favela with a satellite dish is better, and access to free Cuban medicine. But it is not sustainable nor ideal as everything has to go through Party’s approval. Yes, the previous unbalane caused this new unbalance, but all we have is teh pendullum swinging from one side of the extreme to the other.

[quote=“Icon”]I got relatives/friends/classmates there, too. I think the poor are les poor now because the bar has been lowered overall, and it is not in all zones. They have frequent lack of basics, bread, milk, etc. and a very low ceiling for improvement.

Rule of law is completely warped in Latin America, but in Venezuela it takes the cake. Certainly, teh past situation was bad, and it may seem a favela with a satellite dish is better, and access to free Cuban medicine. But it is not sustainable nor ideal as everything has to go through Party’s approval. Yes, the previous unbalane caused this new unbalance, but all we have is teh pendullum swinging from one side of the extreme to the other.[/quote]

I agree with a lot of what you say. BTW, they are called “barrios” in Venezuela. “Favela” is used in Brazil.