A different take on Hugo Chavez

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The lies being told about Hugo Chavez

by Johann Hari

The Independent

11 December 2006

This popped up on RoR and I started discussing it. I don't want to defend the abuses Chaves has made, but I also find distortions about him to be extremely counterproductive. People simply turn off when rhetoric gets thick and facts get blurred.

The above article is too pro-Chavez for my taste, but it gives a much needed balance for people to look at this issue correctly. Chavez has popular support, but far from the dictatorial powers of a Hitler. He is an elected official (by majority) and, believe it or not, Venezuela is a country of law.

The usual Chavez bashing was going on and I started posting. Here is where it starts. Pinochet got thrown in for good measure (his recent death was mentioned in the discussion).

I am at odds with the traditional Objectivist stance on Chavez. I don't find him on the same level as Castro or Stalin. I admit he engages in some thug tactics. But I also admit the existence of a whole slew of thug tactics of his opponents, including a very incompetent intervention by the USA government.

People who are quick to denounce Chavez should look at the environment he lives in and see what the USA has done down there. It is shameful and, yes, the USA has sanctioned and funded violence way before and during Chavez's government. The USA has acted like nothing but a thug and Chavez is merely one thug among thugs.

If people want to condemn thugs, then condemn them all, not just one. Saying that our thugs are morally superior to the local thugs is hypocrisy. It certainly ain't morality.

In terms of economic facts, Chavez's government is doing a hell of a lot better than his predecessors. Venezuela currently has nothing outstanding with the IMF and has helped several Latin American countries rid themselves of IMF interference in their economies by buying their sovereign bonds. Argentina especially has benefited from such an agreement with Chavez's government. (Look at the World Bank website for some interesting facts and figures.)

Chavez cozies up with some pretty nasty people in the world, but his own government is not nearly as similar to those bloody dictatorships as one assumes it would be. I sincerely believe that he is more into pissing off Bush and establishing economic independence (and growth) than making some kind of unholy alliance of dictators.

Poor Venezuelans consistently vote for Chavez because they are finally getting a piece of the pie (especially education-wise, which has vastly improved under Chavez). This is simple proof that what went on before Chavez was far, far worse for them.

All the bombast between Chavez and Bush is nothing but a food-fight. Citgo still sells an awful lot of gasoline in the USA and an awful lot of Americans buy it.

A real fight between the USA and Venezuela doesn't exist--it is nothing but backstage maneuverings of oil interests (and don't forget that oil is Bush's thing) with on-stage hollering. But the ideological rhetoric is window dressing and nothing more. To me, they are both wrong.

So I don't mind Chavez bashing. But I think it should be correct bashing based on facts, not simple right-wing kneejerks. (I do admit, however, that he is one ugly mother and that caveman puss of his alone invites the urge to bash.)

On Pinochet, this man was a disgrace. He did what ARI is preaching about Islamism--kill all opponents based on their ideology alone, then fill the gap with people who hold "proper" ideas.

Pinochet started out with a bang by throwing literally thousands of people into a soccer stadium (now called the Victor Jara Stadium) and tortured and murdered them in front of the whole world.

(Victor Jara was a protest singer. After his captors broke the bones in his hands and his ribs, they taunted him to play his guitar. Laying on the ground in front of everyone, he sang out one of his songs in defiance and they machine-gunned him to death. This is now a Chilean legend.)

Then there was a caravan of death where an assassination team went from one end of Chile to the other by helicopter and tortured and murdered political prisoners, many of whom had given themselves up voluntarily. Operation Condor was a sweetheart project, too. Interested Objectivists should look it up when they think about South America.

The fact that Pinochet relied on Milton Friedman and sent his economists to Chicago to study under him does not excuse all this brutality. Pinochet literally adopted the "dictatorship of the proletariat" idea and ideological genocide from communism.

But hey, these are facts. Who cares about facts when you can think in "principles" and condemn? Well a principle and an oversimplification are two very different things and it is a good idea to keep this in mind.

By ignoring facts and making gross oversimplifications, the USA is simply losing Latin America. Instead of strengthening ties, Latin American countries are starting to look elsewhere for business, including real enemies of the USA. And from what I read, Objectivists are cheer-leading the USA government's worst mistakes. Enough oversimplifications. It is a wise and good thing to look at facts before sounding off.

Saying "USA good/South America bad" is not a principle. It is an oversimplification. There is a good principle to remember, though. I am one Objectivist who holds that government intervention in the economy is wrong--including intervention in the economies of foreign countries by the USA government.

A Coca-Cola plant in a foreign country is not the same thing as an IMF-funded infrastructure project with a large cast of economic "advisers" telling the local central bank what to do. Treating them as if they were the same is part of the rampant oversimplification I am complaining about. In one (the Coca-Cola plant), there is no government involvement, so it is a good thing. In the other, government involvement is the whole purpose. Boo.

The story in South America--Latin America actually--has been pretty ugly over the decades, but it has been ugly on all sides. That's the objective truth.

(And offshore banks are happy to send their cordial gratitude to each and every one, with a very Merry Christmas greeting and wishes of eternal prosperity for all.)

Some discussion ensued. I will summarize it and post my comments just as soon as my last post is released from the moderator queue.

Let me stress that I am not a defender of Chavez. I am a defender of looking at the facts, both good and bad.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; Hugo Chavez is in a long line of Latin American dictators as was Pinochet. Cato last Thursday did a program in which Chavez was one of the prime topics. I would recomment it highly. I'll agree that Chavez is not as bad as some are saying and Phinochet is not as good and the opposite for both men. If I could make one change in American foreign policy in Latin America it would be end the war on drugs in Latin America and here at home. That would also be my second and third change. While we are at it let's end the embargo of Cuba.

[Chris Grieb]

I would like to offer more information on the Cato program. It was done on Nov 30. It is called Latin America: Between Populism and Modernity. These programs are recorded on the Cato web site www.cato.org. As I said it is worth looking at.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris,

Here is the link. I will probably listen to the lectures.

Latin America: Between Populism and Modernity

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; Thanks! I haven't quite gotten with this computer stuff.

[jordanz]

For those who don't know...

Chavez is planning on stealing a number of business, re-writing the constitution and lots of other great ideas: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070110/wl_nm/venezuela_dc_7

This prompted Rick Santelli on CNBC this morning to say, and I quote, "Someone needs to send a copy of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged".

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jordan, good find. The Chavez dictatorship is a trainwreck and it is only getting worse.

Jim

[Matus1976]

For those who don't know...

Chavez is planning on stealing a number of business, re-writing the constitution and lots of other great ideas: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070110/wl_nm/venezuela_dc_7

This prompted Rick Santelli on CNBC this morning to say, and I quote, "Someone needs to send a copy of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged".

They tried, but gave in too early

Venezuelan strike falters

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2701873.stm

MSK, no further defenses offered for Chavez actions?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Since when is any of this anything new? People are only now reading about Chavez—that he is interested in power and good at getting it?

Heh.

Let's be clear on something. I do not support Chavez (but I believe said that already). I understand why he is where he is today and the story is not a pretty one. Also, I cannot call him equal to Stalin or Hilter or Saddam Hussein or even Castro—like with the numbers of people tortured and murdered, etc.

He isn't even close.

I only defend the facts, wherever they may fall.

And one plain fact is that there are no 100% good guys on either side in Venezuela. The sins are nasty on both sides.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; You're repeating yourself. I think it is possible to demonize Chavez worst than he is. I think he will be a train wreck for Venzuala and will probably end up very wealthy in some other country. I would suggest the US start a brain drain.

[sjw]

Let's be clear on something. I do not support Chavez (but I believe said that already). I understand why he is where he is today and the story is not a pretty one. Also, I cannot call him equal to Stalin or Hilter or Saddam Hussein or even Castro—like with the numbers of people tortured and murdered, etc.

Yes you said it. Frankly I don't understand what the point is in measuring the degrees of evil of the dictators of the world, but you certainly said you don't support Chavez. But here's what James had to say about you at a different site:

"Jeff is not anything like Michael Stuart Kelly. MSK was trying to defend Hugo Chavez of all people."

Actually it's the only reason I read this post of yours. I read this and thought "WTF!?" Suffice it to say, I think that's a gross distortion that he should retract and apologize for.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

Thank you for the sentiment. I don't require an apology, though. I am used to having my views distorted, especially in certain quarters.

I merely mentioned my non-support of Chavez because I don't want the Big Blank-Out that occurs on with haters to penetrate OL.

Also, we all get our approval jollies stroked in different ways, so I am pretty broad-minded. Some prefer cognitive precision and others prefer the suck-up. Let each man's words stand on their precision... er... intention... er... you know what I mean...

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael,

This is an unfortunate case where I violated one of my rules of personal conduct and probably a sign I need to swear off internet Objectivist forums for about 3 months and come back when I don't shoot from the hip. My personal rule is if I have a problem with someone I've met personally to take it directly to them.

The truth is I am disappointed in your take on Chavez as well a number of other things including your reaction to Michael Prescott dredging up the Hickham story on Rand among others. However, it should not have spilled out on another forum like it did before talking to you about it.

So in the wake of Chavez' San Sebastian Mines type nationalization of industries, I'll ask a Francisco-like question: would you prefer that I leave the house?

Jim

[sjw]

So in the wake of Chavez' San Sebastian Mines type nationalization of industries, I'll ask a Francisco-like question: would you prefer that I leave the house?

The idea that he supports a dictator is a strong and if true, important accusation. So if he did, then why don't you demonstrate it? Or do you retract the notion? Seems to me you're not retracting it, because you're adding even more issues to the pile.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jim,

I have no opinion on your self-image as Francisco D'Anconia other than the fact that I, personally, have not been able to see it.

I do have a negative opinion on sucking up to that third-rate guru-wannabe you suck up to, but that's your business. Like I said, we all get our approval jollies in different manners. That guy has the excuse that he is a fool who almost believes his own bullshit—that he is some kind of misunderstood Randian hero courageously leading a new order of man against an evil old world on the brink of destruction, and that is why he is so maligned by all the evil bastards out there. All I see is a crybaby and a fool who is dishonest with himself and others to get attention. So I find it a really odd choice to suck up to that.

Still, you are an intelligent person—intelligent enough to know that the view you attributed to me is false. This leads me to suspect that you did so on purpose, knowing you were lying.

You chose to lie about me to suck up to a contemptible human being and then came here to ask if I wanted you to leave when I noticed it. I think I have been in Brazil too long. This behavior is really weird.

I would never do what you did. I find your behavior on this unethical and psychologically unhealthy. But you are a big boy. Those are your values.

You make your own decisions. I will not make them for you.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Let's be clear on something. I do not support Chavez (but I believe said that already). I understand why he is where he is today and the story is not a pretty one. Also, I cannot call him equal to Stalin or Hilter or Saddam Hussein or even Castro—like with the numbers of people tortured and murdered, etc.

Yes you said it. Frankly I don't understand what the point is in measuring the degrees of evil of the dictators of the world, but you certainly said you don't support Chavez. But here's what James had to say about you at a different site:

"Jeff is not anything like Michael Stuart Kelly. MSK was trying to defend Hugo Chavez of all people."

Actually it's the only reason I read this post of yours. I read this and thought "WTF!?" Suffice it to say, I think that's a gross distortion that he should retract and apologize for.

It's not good protocol to quote another site without identifying it.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's not good protocol to quote another site without identifying it.

Brant,

For the record and those interested, here is the link.

Shayne was referring to the Solo Passion website and I was referring to Perigo, the site's owner.

Michael

[sjw]

People who are quick to denounce Chavez should look at the environment he lives in and see what the USA has done down there.

Chavez is a dictator and a thug. Are you saying we should not denounce him as such? I don't get the point that we're responsible to denounce all the sundry thugs if we choose to denounce one of them.

Edited January 15, 2007 by sjw

[Brant Gaede]

Chavez is trying to do an Allende or Castro but isn't vicious enough to make it work long term. I don't think Allende, actually, was either. Chavez apparently stole the election before last--the one Jimmy Carter sanctioned--but what else is new in South America, a South America made messy by American interventions going way back into the 19th Century? Look at what the US has been doing to and in Columbia for many, many years with this insane war on drugs. The US needed a canal so it ripped Columbia apart and created Panama. The US and Great Britain basically created the entire mess in the Middle East including Iran. Now the US is fighting a war on terror the other side has financed with oil money mostly from the West.

Chavez will end up blown up or shot to pieces, which is what the thug deserves. The US doesn't even have to have anything to do with that.

--Brant

Edited January 15, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chavez is a dictator and a thug. Are you saying we should not denounce him as such? I don't get the point that we're responsible to denounce all the sundry thugs if we choose to denounce one of them.

Nah.

Just keeping the facts straight in answer to some completely wrong allegations from the denouncers. I see no point in faking reality. Ever. For instance, like equating Chavez with the real monsters of mankind or pretending the USA only brought benefits to that area and did not support/finance the bloody murder of innocents. Neither are reality. That is like saying that Chavez does not use thug tactics.

Also, for the time being at least, there is another fact that is constantly evaded. That particular "dictator" faces elections from powerful opponents. To be a full-fledged dictator, one has to suspend this condition for maintaining power, or institute a one-party rule and stage sham elections.

He ain't there yet, presuming that he is going there. The sad truth is that he really does have popular support.

What is to be gained by evading all this and pretending the contrary? I personally don't like to use distorted facts for my thinking and evaluating. Apparently, there are many people who do. I am in strong disagreement with that manner of thinking.

Michael

[sjw]

Just keeping the facts straight in answer to some completely wrong allegations from the denouncers. I see no point in faking reality. Ever. For instance, like equating Chavez with the real monsters of mankind or pretending the USA only brought benefits to that area and did not support/finance the bloody murder of innocents. Neither are reality. That is like saying that Chavez does not use thug tactics.

OK--I agree. It's akin to glorifying a country that has abandoned its founding principles, throws thousands of innocent non-violent people in jail a year, confiscates nearly half of all the wealth its citizens create, etc., right?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

OK--I agree. It's akin to glorifying a country that has abandoned its founding principles, throws thousands of innocent non-violent people in jail a year, confiscates nearly half of all the wealth its citizens create, etc., right?

Shayne,

Glorifying?

Heh.

(I'm biting my tongue. I still presume you adhere to rational thought and have not lost the capacity to read.)

If you are really interested in this issue, read something like Venezuela: Human Rights under Threat from Amnesty International. I admit that it is from 2004, but it is very accurate in scope and actual threat.

Then you tell me how that situation equals the Holocaust or the genocide of the Kulaks (Hitler and Stalin respectively). Because that is what some Wise Ones are preaching in the name of Objectivism. They sure know how to identify reality when they get on a roll, don't they? The integration is breathtaking.

Like I said, Chavez is not even close to those monsters. (But that doesn't make him good, either.)

Incidentally, your "facts," if those are supposed to be about Venezuela, are a wee bit inaccurate.

Michael

[Mikee]

"It's akin to glorifying a country that has abandoned its founding principles, throws thousands of innocent non-violent people in jail a year, confiscates nearly half of all the wealth its citizens create, etc., right?"

I'm certain this is a reference to the United States.

[sjw]

Glorifying?

Heh.

(I'm biting my tongue. I still presume you adhere to rational thought and have not lost the capacity to read.)

Incidentally, your "facts," if those are supposed to be about Venezuela, are a wee bit inaccurate.

I think you misunderstood me, but I'm not sure what you understood so it's hard to correct you... I wasn't being sarcastic if that's how you took me.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think you misunderstood me, but I'm not sure what you understood so it's hard to correct you... I wasn't being sarcastic if that's how you took me.

Shayne,

Dayaamm!

You're right. I just reread your post in a different tone of voice in my mind and it came out differently.

I'm getting too used to being attacked on this issue. Sorry.

"It's akin to glorifying a country that has abandoned its founding principles, throws thousands of innocent non-violent people in jail a year, confiscates nearly half of all the wealth its citizens create, etc., right?"

I'm certain this is a reference to the United States.

I think you are right and this completely escaped me. I just keep getting worser and worser...

Time for a break...

Michael