The tragedy of Chávez

Ten years in, a capitalist elite has merely been replaced by a quasi-socialist elite with little regard for Venezuelans.
By Brian A. Nelson
from the June 25, 2009 edition

Baltimore, Md. - When Hugo Chávez became president of Venezuela in 1999, I was very optimistic. After all, I had watched this oil-rich nation's tragic economic collapse first hand for more than a decade and I felt – like many Venezuelans – that Mr. Chávez's promised revolution was the only thing that could turn this country around.

Ten years later I am less optimistic.

Despite Chávez's undisputed control of the three branches of government and windfall profits from the 2003-08 oil boom, his record is remarkably poor. Inflation is running at over 30 percent, the homicide rate has more than doubled since he took office, and food shortages abound.

<snip>

This is the true tragedy of "Chavismo," because there is no reason why socialism shouldn't work in oil-rich Venezuela. It doesn't, because the government is so shortsighted and corrupt. Oil production – the country's main source of wealth and the fuel for its socialist revolution – is well below where it was when Chávez rose to power.

<snip>

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0625/p09s01-coop.html

:popcorn:

eludes me unless someone has magiced up a way of pumping it twice. Just seems that more remaiins in the ground for the future.

especially since the decline in oil production happened when oil was at an all time high.

Oil revenue is what supports the Chavez social programs.

The argument is that it was Chavez policies - nationalizing foreign oil concerns, refusing to pay debts to same, etc., that led to this decline, and therefore hurt the country, and most significantly the poor.

http://www.moneymorning.com/2009/05/13/venezuela-oil/

Now who'd have thought that - "less oil means less money".

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

if it isn't, and pressure sinks below a certain level or contaminants aren't pumped out, it can become useless, making the oil effectively unrecoverable later.

that is the "significance of oil production being down". That was the question you asked.

VZ's oil production is at 1997 levels, and this drop in oil production is directly attributable to the Chavez government's mismanagement.

Less oil means less money for social programs for the poor, since 90% of VZ's export earnings come from oil.

It is especially damaging that this drop in production happened when oil was at an all time high, costing VZ and it's people even more.

about the 2002 coup against Hugo Chávez has anything to do with the timing of this article ?

I also wonder, but doubt, if his book mentions the following :

Venezuela coup linked to Bush team :

The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established. They have long histories in the 'dirty wars' of the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that time.

Washington's involvement in the turbulent events that briefly removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power last weekend resurrects fears about US ambitions in the hemisphere.

It also also deepens doubts about policy in the region being made by appointees to the Bush administration, all of whom owe their careers to serving in the dirty wars under President Reagan.

One of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup, has a conviction for misleading Congress over the infamous Iran-Contra affair.

The Bush administration has tried to distance itself from the coup. It immediately endorsed the new government under businessman Pedro Carmona. But the coup was sent dramatically into reverse after 48 hours.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela

played no role in it, and that the installation of Carmona was somehow "logical"

Of course, when an elected Latin American President is forced from office, and top US officials promptly announce that the US is speaking with the new guy, then promptly change their story when the President regains power, all of these theses are suspect

:)

that is all

narrative about whatever, must be bullshit.

:rofl: :rofl:

methinks once again you have no idea of my preconceived anything

But to mask that she has to accuse others of doing it instead.

and the food supply needs to be more secure than it is today.

But those things don't amount to "a tragedy" that can be attributed to Chavez. The global economy is staggering like a drunk toddler, the crime rate is going up in most places including here and there have been food riots in a lot of countries.

This Chavez thing is just unhinged in its exaggeration.

I've said many times here that he's not a savior or a demon. But DU loves them some binary thinking. :)

You're rapidly becoming a gift that keeps on giving.

:rofl: :rofl: indeed.

that you enjoyed creating flame fests, is going to be one of these.

talking points about Chavez only confirms my view of the CSM. They resemble NPR--a gloss of 'kultcha' over a cauldron of steaming corpo/fascist excrement.

The story of Venezuela's leftist revolution is not about Chavez. It is about the people of Venezuela. And almost any article that focuses on Chavez, and not on the people who put him in office, and who kept him there at risk of their lives, and who have granted him an average 60% approval rating throughout his tenure, to this day, is generally full of shit, as this one appears to be. I have no interest in reading the rest of it. I've seen this "high crime rate" talking point time and again. It is virtually the only criticism of Chavez's tenure in office with some legitimacy--admitted by his government, which is actively addressing it, as well as they can. It is not really the fault of the national government. Crime is a local problem (more the purview of local governors, mayors and police forces). If Chavez addressed the high crime rate with national troops, or draconian laws, he would then be criticized for that--you can be sure. Every other indicator in Venezuela, as to prosperity, happiness, approval of the Chavez government, individual freedom and a healthy political, civic and economic culture, is way up there in the stratosphere. We should be envious! This doom and gloom about Chavez and the leftist revolution in Venezuela is a tired old thing, a cyclical corpo/fascist wish that it be so, which keeps coming back around. But the Venezuelans just keep electing Chavez and other Chavistas, by bigger and bigger majorities, in clean elections--and the entire region has gone leftist since they began doing so. Leftist governments are now in power in El Salvador, in Paraguay, in Nicaragua, in addition to Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Guatemala and the avant garde Venezuela. (Honduras also appears to be undergoing a leftist revolution, as we speak.) The corpo/fascists want this NOT to be true. The CSM has become a putrid, tired old thing itself, repeating this crapola to please whoever their corporate masters are these days. They are pathetic.

and you didn't even mention their healthcare. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Venezuela

Eat your hearts out USA.

And they're always at about this level of cacativity, too.

former victims of the World Bank/IMF and other global corporate predators, as well as victims of the local looting rich? The point is that the Chavez government has acted responsibly and with a strong social justice orientation, has greatly improved life for millions of Venezuelans, and they continually express their approval of his government in very large numbers. What is causing the food shortage? Among other things, decades of gross mismanagement of agriculture by rightwing elites, who turned Venezuela into a country that could not feed its own people. That kind of chronic problem is difficult to solve. You cannot create an agricultural sector overnight. The critical point is that the Chavez government acknowledges the problem, and has acted with great forethought and planning to correct it. (Their land reform program is the best Venezuela has ever seen, and probably the best in South America. It is now aimed at food self-sufficiency.) Inflation? I'd rather have inflation than what we have--another Great Depression! The poor always suffer horribly with deflation. Inflation is nevertheless too high, the government recognizes this, and is working to bring it down without creating deflation and depression.

These are not fair criticisms. A fair criticism would be that the government fails to acknowledge a problem, when it is pointed out--or when it is obvious--and fails to do anything about it. A fair criticism would be corruption. A fair criticism would be unfair, non-transparent elections. This author is nitpicking--and so are you. The Chavez government's achievements are, in truth, spectacular on so many fronts it is difficult to name them all--on economic growth, on education, on medical care, on saving $43 billion in international cash reserves, on dramatically reducing poverty, on public participation, on continued funding of all social programs despite the Bushwhacks' Financial 9/11, on generating exciting new cooperative ventures such as the Bank of the South and ALBA (a barter trade group with social justice goals), on holding pristine elections praised by every election monitoring group on the planet, on attention to local manufacturing, on local and regional infrastructure, on land reform, on the treatment of indigenous tribes, on curtailment of bad mining operations, on establishment of Venezuela's sovereignty visa vis entities like Exxon Mobil, on reversing a 90/10 split of the oil profits favoring the multinationals to a fairer 60/40 split favoring the people of Venezuela, on surviving many assassination and coup plots without becoming militaristic and repressive, on continually winning elections and maintaining peace and consensus despite multi-millions poured from our pockets, through Washington DC, into the rightwing opposition groups in Venezuela, and on scrupulous adherence to the rule of the law and the Constitution.

And that is not the end of the list of the Chavez government's accomplishments. This is WHY the people of Venezuela support him. They are getting what they voted for. To dwell on Venezuela's problems, in this hypocritical way, pretending to be so-o-o-o disappointed, is an extreme distortion of the facts and the truth. Chavez doesn't have the power to solve all of the Venezuela's problems instantly. If he did, then the criticism would be that he has grabbed too much power. The main litmus tests of good government are the contentment of the governed, the legitimacy of the power that is used (clean elections; rule of law), and honesty in acknowledging problems and effectiveness in addressing them, since all countries have them. Venezuelans consistently rate their happiness and their approval of the direction of their country among the highest in Latin America. They have endorsed and re-endorsed Chavez's government, by ever growing margins, in clean elections. And I depend both on what I have researched myself regarding Chavez policies, and on the people of Venezuela, in elections and polls, to evaluate the Chavez government's honesty and effectiveness, which are the best that Venezuelans have seen in any government in their entire history.

Against this, the author trots out the tired old rightwing 'criticisms,' repeated time and again, without weighing them against these amazing achievements and the persistent approval of the Venezuelan people. It is without merit as criticism, and I believe that it conceals a wish that Chavez's progressive reforms will fail. That is the wish of the global corporate predators who now control the CSM, and the author dutifully toadies to those predators.

so us quasi socialist elites have a long way to go before matching their misery over news from Venezuela.

Say hi to the status quo for me.

I think you're closer to that than me.

You might consider backing the fuck up.

:eyes:

You might want to consider growing the fuck up.

If you don't want to get into one of these, don't start them.

I thought so.

You shouldn't project your anger on others. I'm high, listening to some great music, I have some Chinese food beside me (and a cat trying to get it), I just did a major upgrade to my PC and now everything runs mint. I'm in a damn good mood, Buzzy. Better than usual. You should try it.

If you don't want to get into one of these, don't start them.

Likewise, tough guy. :hi:

Did you already forget your opening insult? Fortunately, it's been preserved for you. Read it.

And, I'll give you the opportunity to make the last (childish) comment.

Looks like you got a problem, coming with the insults and all. Duh.

Thanks for the last word. I needed it to correct you. :hi:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

At least he has a cheerleader.

You make a 300 word analysis from a post with only a title and no text? You've lost your fucking mind.

My title was 80% right out of the OP.

:fistbump:

very appropriate

By Roy Dickinson "indethinker" (Venezuela)

A mish mash of mis information, discredited reports, for example the chavistas on the bridge shooting the opposition marchers below, anyone who has seen "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" knows this, and downright lies. This "book" is nothing more than blatant propoganda trying to stir up more discourse against the Chavez government, the author should be thoroughly ashamed to put his name to this. His "journalism" is from the Ann Coulter school of writing, doesn't matter what you write, the sheep will read it just to reinforce their warped view of reality.
If you want to really understand Venezuela and Chavez, do yourself a favor don't waste your money on this, buy "Hugo" by Bart Jones, a fair and balanced journalist in the true sense of the words.
The only reason I gave it 1 star is I couldn't post this reveiw with 0 stars, like it deserves.


By Mr. Fellini "Fellini" (El Paso, Texas United States) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)

The April 2002 coup in Venezuela by right-wing, reactionary forces against the elected Hugo Chavez government remains one of the most controversial events in recent South American history. For two days Venezuela almost suffered the same fate as Chile on September 11, 1973, when US-backed military men overthrew the elected Salvador Allende government and shattered the nation's democratic structure. Brian Nelson's "The Silence And The Scorpion" is an attempt at creating a sort of chronicle of the coup, its participants and aftermath. It features some interesting interviews, many new to the scholarship of the event, but ultimately it fails at being a serious, credible work because Nelson's prejudices interrupt the narrative and taint the interpretation of events. Nelson dismisses crucial events and evidence already chronicled by far more respectable scholars and promotes a classic, anti-Chavez agenda present in Liberal American circles. Surprising that this was published by Nation Books, which has published some vital works of recent journalism by Jeremy Scahill and others.

The strength of Nelson's book are mostly the interviews, they present insights into the kind of class divisions and social struggles taking place in Venezuela as the elite sector of society finds itself threatened by a popular, socialist government. We read commentary by both pro-Chavez and anti-Chavez figures and it is interesting to see how two different sides can have completely different versions of the same event. For the revolutionary Chavistas, the events of April 2002 were part of an obvious, fascist coup, the anti-Chavistas try to hide behind the excuse that it was a "popular uprising" hijacked by business elites who installed a puppet President in the form of Pedro Carmona. Carmona abolished all the democratic institutions of the government, making himself dictator. The Venezuelan masses however, along with honorable soldiers and generals, stopped this new Pinochet from birthing himself.

The first main flaw of this book is that Nelson fails to provide a good analysis or account of what provoked the clash of 2002 to begin with. His opening gives a quick, speedy explanation that mostly consists of: Chavez was elected in 1998, he admires Fidel Castro, some peoeple didn't like his social policies and so the coup took place. His examination of modern Venezuelan society is quite pathetic and omits crucial events to understand current developments. For example, Nelson slightly mentions the 1989 "Caracazo," when the government of Carlos Andres Perez killed 3,000 civilians, mostly from poor barrios, who were protesting neoliberal, capitalist policies, without much historical background or insight in his depiction. It was this event that helped spark what would become the Bolivarian movement. Yet Nelson simply makes it seem as if Chavez and his movement just came out of nowhere and rose to power based on pure, empty populism. An examination of the economic, social conditions in Venezuela is vital to understand the Bolivarian Revolution and its mass appeal. I recommend Bart Jones' "Hugo!", Gregory Wilpert's "Changing Venezuela By Taking Power" and Tariq Ali's "Pirates Of the Caribbean," these are far more detailed, serious studies of current Venezuelan politics and society, including class and racial issues barely if ever explored by Nelson.

The other major flaw is how Nelson readily subscribes to the baseless theories and claims by the oligarchs who launched the coup. He tries to paint the April 2002 events as a mass uprising against Chavez when, as journalists like Tariq Ali, Wilpert and Eva Golinger have demonstrated in highly detailed works, the march towards Miraflores was part of a series of planned destabilzation measures which had been building up since Chavez was elected. The coup plotters wanted to provoke violence by intentionally moving the march towards the Presidential Palace. One of the coup plotters, Admiral Carlos Molina, even appeared on TV the day after the coup revealing that the overthrow of Chavez had been planned A YEAR IN ADVANCE (Tariq Ali, "Pirates Of The Caribbean"). The mass destabilization operations by the right-wing are especially well-documented in Golinger's "The Chavez Code." Nelson dedicates barely a few lines to Golinger's work, dismissing it without serious evidence and even misspelling her name as "Grolinger."

The most ludicrous claim Nelson makes is that the events of April 2002 were actually a democratic coup hijacked by Venezuelan businessmen. As Tariq Ali documents in "Pirates Of The Caribbean," Pedro Carmona had already been in Spain weeks, maybe months before the coup, being fitted for his Presidential sash. The involvement of the then conservative Aznar government in Spain had become so evident in fact, that when Luis Zapatero became Prime Minister he sent an official apology to Chavez. It is true that when Carmona made it obvious that he planned to install a full dictatorship he was dumped by many of his colleagues who preferred a simple client state instead. Nelson fails here in documenting the mass uprising which overthrew the coup, documented by the already mentioned authors and Bart Jones, who's "Hugo" should be considered vital reading and John Pilger, who's film "The War On Democracy" captures the mass demands for an elected, overthrown President to be returned.

The way Nelson dismisses important documents is also evidence of his agenda. He tosses aside the crucial documentary "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" which was filmed by a group of Irish filmmakers who documented the coup from the inside (they were in Venezuela to interview Chavez when the events unfolded). This is the best visual record available on the coup, it remains unavailable officially on DVD (thanks to threats by right-wing groups, some who even threatened violence at film festivals) but you can see it right now on YouTube. Nelson claims the documentary plays with the facts, but never fully explains how except with one criticism over footage which proved Chavez supporters were not firing into crowds. And even Nelson's explanation here is hollow, he claims the film is biased and then recommends a very biased, right-wing anti-Chavez website for proof. Nelson then goes on to dismiss Eva Golinger's discovery of documents which prove the US was connected to the coup, claiming the documents prove nothing when in fact, they prove a deep connection between the US Embassy and right-wing coup plotters in the country. Of course Nelson devotes one or two sentences to make his case. Golinger's superior scholarship can be found in her book, "The Chavez Code." Nelson also fails to document the crucial role private media played in the coup. Most of Venezuela's channels remain private, and their broadcasting could be described as Fox News times ten. As Golinger, Ali and Wilpert have documented, the media happily went along with the coup and purposely blocked vital information from the people.

The epilogue is also a mish-mash of criticisms and baseless accusations. Nelson accuses Chavez of resorting to violence these days, but doesn't explain how and never bothers to show how it has been the right-wing opposition which has killed people (a Bolivarian college student in 2007 during street protests), sparked violence in the streets and even threatened to "burn Caracas." Nelson comes across as an American Liberal who supports mild, timid policies and so he is turned off by Chavez's calls for revolution. He recycles the neocon predictions of Venezuela on the brink of financial collapse due to the world economic crisis, but recent studies show that the country is actually quite stable financially with the highest minimum wage in the region, a 30% hike in teachers' salaries and a growing economy. Is Hugo Chavez perfect? Far from it. There are many things one could criticize about the man, as one could criticize any leader or politician, but Nelson's hysterical claims have no basis in reality. Nelson also makes claims that Chavez seeks to impose a Cuba-style system, or basically copy Fidel Castro's structure of governance, but the evidence shows that although Chavez seeks socialism, he is bent on not copying Cuba in every form. In fact, Venezuela remains a capitalist state in its essential structure.

"The Silence And The Scorpion" is not pure right-wing trash, it is a Liberal-minded American trying to explore a controversial subject and siding with the elites and reactionaries in his interpretation of events. Nelson concedes that Chavez was democratically elected, but due to his lack of serious scholarship of historical presentation, Nelson fails to present a strong, detailed analysis of why Chavez's Bolivarian Revolution has gained strength in Venezuela and why it has been so hard for his opponents to bring him down. It's a nice try, but the scorpion here has no sting.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Silence-and-the-Scorpion/product-reviews/B0026LTNA4/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful/176-2859838-8465711?ie=UTF8&coliid=&showViewpoints=1&colid=&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

It is an ongoing project of certain DU "liberals" to tar Chavez. Chavez certainly has his flaws, but the Bolivarian Revolution that he and his supporters in Venezuela have set in motion deserves far better consideration than the sniping of "liberals" who are more identified with our own Ruling Class and status quo than with the aspirations of the world's underclasses.

Fuck them, and the high horse they rode in on. I despise "liberals".

sw

Today, not so much. Ten years is long enough - time to let another person take the reigns else he be branded as just another "quasi-socialist dictator".

had not been demonized by the U.S. if things would have turned out differently. Oh and let's add Allende to that list.

all ousted or killed, even though elected and supported by the people. although the exception must be made (mostly for Torrijos, who was a brutal, ruthless ruler for most of his reign even if, like Perkins writes, he truly wanted progress for the domrep.)

Count in all those Union Organizers and Progressives who died of bullets shot by minds directed by the School of the Americas. Count in every blessed soul that coca cola put on a hitlist for organizing, and for our shameless support for the "stabilizing" effect of the druglords of South America, whose money is always welcome and for whom we love to do a favour as long as they play by our rules.

They would have hell to face even if they wouldn't have to deal with some kind of intervention every year. Give them a break. A chance to take things in their own hands. If we wouldn't push so hard, they wouldn't be forced to put up with the authoritarian air of government and could protest it without paid shills turning up and pulling some kind of revolution scam every time they dissent with their government.



Nice post, Texas progressive, I like the thought.

Gotta love empire.

and their pompous shrieking that they had actual proof of Hugo Chavez's low, low nature since Venezuela named the phone the "Vergatario," you may just get a kick reading this small insight over that name I just found!

Los Maracuchos
Life in Venezuela’s Oil Boomtown

By Brian A. Nelson
Published: Summer 2008 in The Southern Humanities Review

The travel books, if they mention it at all, will tell you to stay away from Maracaibo. Venezuela’s second largest city is “dangerous,” “crime-ridden,” and “lawless.” It has also been described as “an environmental disaster area,” “disease-infested” and, of course, “infernally hot.” This is a town with a Surgeon General’s warning. One of the more optimistic reviews put it this way: “Maracaibo has absolutely no must-see attractions.” (1)

“Lawless” is certainly fair. This is the wild west; where everyone carries a pistol and where carjacking is such a formal industry that local merchants sell vacunas or “vaccinations”—for a thirty-dollar window sticker (the money somehow makes its way back to the mob) the carjackers will, like the angel of death at a blood-soaked doorway, pass you and your car over…for a month.

You can do whatever you want in Maracaibo, no one will stop you. Sell pirated DVDs from your front porch, drive as soon as your feet reach the pedals, throw McDonalds bags out your car window at high speeds, cut into queues (honestly, there really aren’t any queues, just mobs; only fools and foreigners wait their turn) and in Maracaibo, as a general rule, if it isn’t bolted down, it’s yours.

I landed here for the first time, mullet-haired and pimple-faced, in 1988 as a high school exchange student. It was all a big mistake really. I was too naïve/trusting/stupid to specify a country of preference on my application and instead wrote, “Spanish-speaking.” What a relief I must have been for the main office—“Ha! Finally, a kid we can send to Maracaibo.”

~snip~
I soon learned that Maracaibo, with its 2.1 million residents, was home to Venezuela’s infamous redneck population. I had landed in Hazard County, Venezuela. Maracuchos, as they are known, have a reputation for being so ill-mannered, so vulgar and rude, that all over Venezuela they are summarily turned away from hotels and restaurants simply because of their zip code. They all cuss (and I mean all of them—toddlers to grandmas) like sailors, and in a marvel of modern linguistics have managed to make the word “cock” (verga) fit every part of speech, far eclipsing the ubiquity of “fuck” in English. Let’s take a look. In a greeting: “How’s the verga?” As an adverb of quantity: “That rally contained a verguero of people!” (a lot or a “cock-load”). As a noun in an (un)conditional: Q: “Are you going to the ballet?” A: “Not even with the verga!” (no way). As an indefinite noun: “Could you pass me that verga?” As an interjection: “Vergación!” (Wow!). Etcetera.

http://www.brianandrewnelson.com/Venezuela/Los_Maracuchos.htm

Har!

Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez launches affordable “Penis” phone
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x15170

Venezuela´s Chinese-technology cellular phone causes consumer frenzy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3870885

One of them asked for "the Hugo Brigade to explain how this is yet another evil MSM mistranslation".

He got schooled!

:rofl:

:eyes:

...directed at the dumbass post you started with, and how I can't believe that the wonderful and intelligent opening to a mature discussion that you provided went by.

:eyes:

I love it when people don't get something and then turn around and try to mock the other person's intelligence. :rofl:

He was awarded a Fulbright grant in creative writing in Venezuela by the _{George W. Bush} administration (State Department) in 2002, the year of the April coup by the Venezuelan business community and the requisite corruptible miltary officers.

Here's his website:
http://www.brianandrewnelson.com/About_home.html

It's unlikely he would ever consider writing anything the previous administration, which harrassed Venezuela's elected President from the first day of the stolen Presidency, would NOT like to see.

It's just a rehash of every Chavez bashing article I've ever read. lol

has actually happened to improve (and about time) the literacy rate of the country, which clearly contradicts UNESCO's findings.

On, and on, and on. We've seen a million of these, haven't we?

Nothing else.

Probably find that if you just google "wanker" his name will be top of the search list.

that country has been dominating for decades, then come back and crank out hit pieces on the very popular (to the masses) elected President that writer's sponsor President has tried to destroy, over and over.