Chavez says goodbye

[Swadius 2.0]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21679053

The comments that are most liked and the least liked are the ones accusing the BBC of being a rightest or a leftest. With the supporters earning the most thumbs up and claiming that the BBC is biased because the BBC called him "controversial", and the rightests get the lowest number of thumbs, strangely for accusing the BBC of being leftist pinkos because they give people like Chavez, Iran, and Gaddafi too much air time.

 

[Lord Burgess1]

BBC articles are so full of ****, worse than youtube comments.

 

[Mage246]

Chavez reduced poverty? Not exactly. He may have raised the income of those in poverty, but he failed to actually make raise anyone out of it. Worse, he managed to drive some people into poverty who were otherwise doing well. The Venezuelan currency has lost 90% of its value since Chavez came to power. FActories stand rusted and idle. Prisons are full to bursting and are ruled by criminal gangs.

 

[Adorno]

You're right about violent crimes, but how do you measure taking people out of poverty then?

I'm referring to these numbers:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/oct/04/venezuela-hugo-chavez-election-data

A few figures:
- Poverty has decreased - in 1999, 23.4% of the population were recorded as being in extreme poverty, this fell to 8.5% in 2011 according to official government figures.
- Unemployment has dropped from 14.5% of the total labour force in 1999 to 7.6% in 2009
- Infant mortality is now lower than in 1999 - from a rate of 20 per 1,000 live births then to a rate of 13 per 1,000 live births in 2011.

But you obviously have to compare these to the development in similar countries,
and whether it would have happened in any case.

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Well in my studies in politics it's generally been agreed upon that consolidated authoritarianism generally leads to better economic conditions and living conditions in developing countries. Eventually, of course, the economic growth leads to better prosperity among the citizens and invalidates the necessity for authoritarianism, but it would be safe to say Venezuela would probably be in worse shape without Chavez or another authoritarian figure.

 

[Splintert]

In general, as the populace becomes more wealthy they become more educated, in which they're better able to make decisions for themselves leading to a less authoritarian system being needed. There's not a single civilization on the planet that started as a full democracy, or even anywhere near it, always began with a central power to build up from nothing or little.

Besides, its human nature for some people to lead and some to follow.

 

[Mage246]

@Adorno

That's consistent with what I said. He reduced extreme poverty, which doesn't mean that he reduced the overall number living in poverty. When you've got a trillion dollars in oil money to work with in a country of 30 million ($30k per person, even ignoring that millions of those 30 million are not poor) that's not very impressive.

The Chavez "sucess" is built on handouts derived from oil profits. When the oil boom ends, many of those people will go back to having nothing. He failed to develop his own country.

 

[Splintert]

He exploited his country's resources. It's hard for a 3rd world country to enter the global market without something really unique to offer like China (a gazillion cheap workers). Perhaps he didn't make the best choices, but it certainly could have been worse for them.

 

[wrc]

It's not like they were doing well before he had come to power. His main goal was to deal with corruption, whether he succeeded to do that or not I can't really say.

 

[Adorno]

@Adorno

That's consistent with what I said. He reduced extreme poverty, which doesn't mean that he reduced the overall number living in poverty. When you've got a trillion dollars in oil money to work with in a country of 30 million ($30k per person, even ignoring that millions of those 30 million are not poor) that's not very impressive.

The Chavez "sucess" is built on handouts derived from oil profits. When the oil boom ends, many of those people will go back to having nothing. He failed to develop his own country.

I don't understand that. Bringiing people out of extreme poverty is also reducing poverty.
And let us not forget improvements in (free) health care and education, as well as cheaper food.

During the past decade under Chavez, the income poverty rate in Venezuela dropped by more than half, from 54% of households below poverty level in the first half of 2003, down to 26% at the end of 2008. "Extreme poverty" fell even more - by 72%. Further, "these poverty rates measure only cash income, and doesn't take into account increased access to health care or education."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez_government

Saying that more people should be out of poverty due to income from oil is a poor argument,
because that money is being used for a plethora of government programs to help poor,
such as the health care and education. But also social programs, micro-loans...
In fact the nationalization of the oil production has insured that the money goes to the state
rather than the pockets of the share holders of large oil companies (who by the way,
would have had no trouble getting out of paying taxes and producing as much oil as they wished).

I'm not saying Chavez has done a good job in controlling the economy,
but it's certainly not much worse than in most other Lating American countries,
and many other poor countries around the world.

 

[kurczak]

In general, as the populace becomes more wealthy they become more educated, in which they're better able to make decisions for themselves leading to a less authoritarian system being needed. There's not a single civilization on the planet that started as a full democracy, or even anywhere near it, always began with a central power to build up from nothing or little.

Besides, its human nature for some people to lead and some to follow.

That's totally contrary to the whole history of civilization. At least the vaguely Western one. Never in history have governments interfered in the day to day life and decisions as much as they do today.

 

[Maynd]

Sitting on one of the largest oil reserves in the world,  made the oil prices climb to improve the quality of life of the poorest, while hazarding the country's future. He left an economy whose exports of oil and gas account for over 90% of total exports, with annual inflation rates between 20 and 30%, one of the countries with higher default risk and less economic freedom (with the sixth lowest economic freedom according to the Heritage Foundation).

He silenced his opponents, closed the media, gave himself more power, amended the constitution even losing the referendum, he was totalitarian, authoritarian and sectarian. In the end and like I said previously, he did good things and bad things, no one is perfect specially political leaders.

Like thick1988 stated:

Yeah, he would have been a great leader in the 20s.

This is his legacy.

 

[Splintert]

In general, as the populace becomes more wealthy they become more educated, in which they're better able to make decisions for themselves leading to a less authoritarian system being needed. There's not a single civilization on the planet that started as a full democracy, or even anywhere near it, always began with a central power to build up from nothing or little.

Besides, its human nature for some people to lead and some to follow.

That's totally contrary to the whole history of civilization. At least the vaguely Western one. Never in history have governments interfered in the day to day life and decisions as much as they do today.

It's not how much government expresses their power, its how much they have. In a basic monarchy, a king has all the power. In modern democracy, the head figure does not have all the power.

 

[Oyipggy]

Yup.

 

[Phonemelter]

So I asked an aunt of mine who is a professor of Latin American politics about the death, and this is what she had to say for those interested:

In the short term, Chavez's death doesn't mean that much -- in the sense that everyone has known for months that he was on his death bed, so the Chavista establisment has been preparing for that all along...I expect that Chavista organizations (labor, social movements, the public sector bureaucracy) are likely to rally around VP Maduro, as he was handpicked by Chavez as the successor. It's in their interest to rally 'round and win the upcoming election handily -- losing power would be very risky, as that would open up the Pandora's box of investigations and revelations about the corruption within Chavismo.

In the long run, the death is more problematic. Chavismo is an unwieldy phenomenon -- it includes leftists who believe in it as a vehicle for change and a lot of hangers on who are there for the power trip. Many people have made a fortune in the process (referred to as the "Boliburguesia -- as in Boliviarian bourgeoisie)....So it's won't be a "team of rivals" for long -- it is going to be more like "fight club" for rivals...thus, a good chance of party fragmentation over the long run -- everyone claiming to the "true" representative of Chavismo. "Chavismo" will be a permanent part of the landscape (as Peronism has been in Argentina), but like Peronism, it will be open to be defined by whoever is in charge...I could go on, but i'll stop there..think of what's in store for my poor students in class tomorrow...i am handing back their papers at the end of class, so nobody will be listening anyway...

 

[Mandalorian]

Another world against me, crazy, dictator goes. I hope ahmedinejad will follow his true love in this road too.

 

[Lascivo]

Another world against me, crazy, dictator goes. I hope ahmedinejad will follow his true love in this road too.

Yet Ahmadinejad isn't a crazy dictator..

 

[Wellenbrecher]

Don't be too harsh about that. The media does its damned best to show him as such.

 

[AWdeV]

He's not technically a dictator no, but he may be crazy.

 

[Wellenbrecher]

I think the "dictator" part was the important bit in that piece though