R.I.P. Chavez

[sabotabby]

Were I a more eloquent, or at least awake, blogger, I would write a very long post analyzing Hugo Chavez's triumphs and failures, and speculating on what his death means to both Latin America and the rest of the world in terms of socialism and resistance to the unsustainable and inhumane neoliberal economic order.

But I'm pretty burnt out at the moment so I'll say that while he made a lot of mistakes, particularly towards the end of his life, I had a lot of respect for the man and what he was trying to do in Venezuela, and I'm sad to see him go.

Also, fuck cancer.

Comments

[rinue.livejournal.com]

It's funny; I was wondering just a month ago whether it was possible for Western socialist revolutions to survive the initial cult of personality that sweeps them in without drastic changes (and paranoia, witch hunts, distribution of favors, etc.) and thinking Hugo Chavez would be an interesting test. But I did not expect to get an answer anything like this soon.

[sabotabby]

I suppose we'll see. I mean, it's generally hypothetical, as we tend to depose or murder socialists in this hemisphere before things get too far.

[marlowe1.livejournal.com]

More Communists and Socialists. In this hemisphere we just make socialism into a dirty word and pretend that the programs that benefit us aren't socialist (even when they have names like social security)

[rinue.livejournal.com]

Mainly I find it interesting that communism is theoretically about every person acting to take care of every other person, but as it has existed in the wild, it's almost always a cult of "our dear leader," whether Fidel or Lenin or Mao. Arguably Jesus. I don't know whether it's just the way human brains are built, the way they need to read a higher power into altruism (or fear of punishment from an all-seeing eye), or whether it's a side effect of what's necessary in a revolution (which then holds over into the government afterward). Chavez is interesting because he was freely elected; when he tried a revolution/coup it didn't work. So it seems like an interesting test.

[sabotabby]

There's too many to even name.

[marlowe1.livejournal.com]

Seems like the test started a few years back when Chavez stopped being the socialist revolutionary and became the demagogue and useful idiot for rightwingers. The last few years seemed like he was just trolling for the sake of trolling.

Of course, rightwingers can go focus on that stupid president of Argentina because she's seems to be taking on the "anti-imperialist" (never met a dictator she didn't like) mantle.

[sabotabby]

To be honest, I wonder how much of that was Chavez vs. right-wing, particularly U.S., pressure turning him paranoid vs. cancer running amok. Because he started out quite rational and then all of a sudden it was September 11 conspiracy theories and shit.

[dagibbs.livejournal.com]

A "socialist" who managed to put away something over 1 billion dollars in money personally and for his immediate family.

[marlowe1.livejournal.com]

THat would be one of the failures. Also he seemed to be pretty ok with killing Muslims as evidenced by his friendships with Qaddafi and Achmadinejad. But at first he helped poor people and changed the status quo.

[dagibbs.livejournal.com]

Yeah, at first he did.

I guess it goes back to power corrupts?

[sabotabby]

Not to defend that but I gotta wonder how that compares to corruption and graft amongst capitalist leaders.

[dagibbs.livejournal.com]

I don't know. I don't think any Canadian or UK prime minister has retired as a billionaire in the last few decades. For the US presidency -- I think any that retired billionaires were already that rich, or close to that rich, before they started. There is clear evidence that Berlusconi used/abused his position of prime minister of Italy to both avoid prosecution for previous corruption issues and to promote his business interests.

But, in a capitalist society, the pursuit of money is what everything is supposed to be about, you're supposed to be trying to enrich yourself. I find it more... palatable... for someone who professes that making money and being rich is a good thing, someone a member of a society that says this is a good thing, to enrich themselves. It is the claiming to be all about the good of the people and the advantage of the poor, claiming to be and to be running a socialist nation, while actually accumulating personal wealth like a capitalist.

[dagibbs.livejournal.com]

In comparison, I do not think Fidel Castro came out personally greatly wealthy from running Cuba. Sure, he didn't live in the level of poverty that many Cubans did -- but it doesn't seem that he extracted wealth to the level that Chavez did, either. Or, perhaps, Cuba didn't have as much wealth to extract.

[frandroid.livejournal.com]

Previous capitalist leaders of Venezuela might not have enriched themselves as much but ensured that the wealth would remain in the hands of the few, so looking at the overall wealth redistribution is what matters most. But the personal accumulation crap is still disgusting.

[sabotabby]

Yes. This.