A different take on Hugo Chavez

[Chris Grieb]

I agree that Chavez is not as bad as some are saying. I must say he is also associated with some real bad people the Iranians and Castro. He also making deals with Joe Kennedy Jr. so Kennedy can provide cheap fuel oil to the poor. Please!

[sjw]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/01/...=rss_topstories

"In fact, Chavez has stopped referring ambiguously to some sort of socialism and openly announced that Venezuela will become a socialist country, albeit with a "Socialism of the 21st Century."

"Saying that these were strategic sectors from the point of view of national interests, Chavez announced the nationalization of CANTV, Venezuela's largest telephone company which is controlled by Verizon, as well as the production and distribution of electricity."

"While Chavez is not the only openly leftist Latin American president, he is proving to be the most radical."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Of course Chavez is wrong to nationalize electricity, but looking at it rationally, since when has AES ever acted like a private company in Latin America? All nationalization is doing is formalizing a reality.

Just because there is a piece of paper on file at some registry saying that the Venezuelan brand of AES is a private company does not mean much since AES lives in bed with the government. Right before I left Brazil, there was a scandal with AES trying to use government funds (that it ultimately would not have to repay) to finance its contractual "investments" in infrastructure, which in reality amounted to zero. It received a monopoly in return and the government debt increased. Somehow the people involved miraculously increased their standard of living in a highly substantial manner.

Heh. Great capitalism. It's so heartwarming to see such progress of capitalism taming the wilds of the third world.

Like I said, nobody on either side is the good guy down there right now.

Michael

[sjw]

Like I said, nobody on either side is the good guy down there right now.

There's a huge difference between a bad guy by default, the pragmatist who goes with the flow, and a visionary one actively pushing evil agendas. The former is contemptible and low; the latter is incredibly evil and dangerous.

I don't pretend to be the expert on Latin American politics, but this news certainly indicates that Chavez belongs in the latter category. Are you quite sure Chavez doesn't fit alongside Castro, Stalin, and Hitler? Just because he hasn't accomplished his ends yet does not mean you can't see the foreboding signs of what he is striving to do and judge him according to what his objectives are.

[Brant Gaede]

Of course Chavez is wrong to nationalize electricity, but looking at it rationally, since when has AES ever acted like a private company in Latin America? All nationalization is doing is formalizing a reality.

Just because there is a piece of paper on file at some registry saying that the Venezuelan brand of AES is a private company does not mean much since AES lives in bed with the government. Right before I left Brazil, there was a scandal with AES trying to use government funds (that it ultimately would not have to repay) to finance its contractual "investments" in infrastructure, which in reality amounted to zero. It received a monopoly in return and the government debt increased. Somehow the people involved miraculously increased their standard of living in a highly substantial manner.

Heh. Great capitalism. It's so heartwarming to see such progress of capitalism taming the wilds of the third world.

Like I said, nobody on either side is the good guy down there right now.

Michael

Michael, Chavez qualifies for "The blood of tyrants" category.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Are you quite sure Chavez doesn't fit alongside Castro, Stalin, and Hitler? Just because he hasn't accomplished his ends yet does not mean you can't see the foreboding signs of what he is striving to do and judge him according to what his objectives are.

Brant,

No, I am not sure. I am only sure that he has not done those monstrous things that Hitler and Stalin have done. I look at Chavez's rhetoric and his deeds (and even the results of some deeds—let's see how those nationalizations play out in reality) and I see a wide disparity so far. Much more bark than bite. That does not mean there is no danger. I think it is a good idea to be very cautious with Chavez and put that caution in action in foreign policy.

Still, it is a huge epistemological mistake to preemptively condemn him as a Hitler or Stalin because his rhetoric is leftist and bombastic. That makes us default on reality as much as he does. It is also a huge mistake to glorify those looter businessmen who do not provide proper service while enjoying government monopolies. I even think it is wrong to give them a pass as "going with the flow" or being "pragmatic."

How do you feel about, say, the arms suppliers to Hitler? Or those in infrastructure who sucked up to the Nazis to gain monopolies, knowing about the concentration camps?

Believe me, the American companies who support and suck up to corrupt government dictators know exactly what they are doing and exactly the price that is paid by the citizens. It is a disgrace to see American companies doing this sort of thing out in the world (often with the sanction and direct involvement of the USA government).

I stand by my statement. Neither are good guys.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For anyone who is interested, here is a BBC News timeline of Chavez:

Timeline: Hugo Chavez

Notice that the same special powers Chavez is now requesting (for 18 months) to be able to rule by decree were granted to him once before in 2001 for a year. His decrees resulted in turmoil.

I suspect something similar will happen again. The only real good guys in Venezuela are the people. (Grockkk!!! I'm starting to sound odd even to myself... )

To tell the truth, I just don't take Chavez all that seriously. He has popular support today. Tomorrow there will be more strikes, etc. He may fall or he may not. Laws will change, then change some more. One thing is certain. He will mouth off plenty more. Etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Are you quite sure Chavez doesn't fit alongside Castro, Stalin, and Hitler? Just because he hasn't accomplished his ends yet does not mean you can't see the foreboding signs of what he is striving to do and judge him according to what his objectives are.

Brant,

No, I am not sure. I am only sure that he has not done those monstrous things that Hitler and Stalin have done. I look at Chavez's rhetoric and his deeds (and even the results of some deeds—let's see how those nationalizations play out in reality) and I see a wide disparity so far. Much more bark than bite. That does not mean there is no danger. I think it is a good idea to be very cautious with Chavez and put that caution in action in foreign policy.

Still, it is a huge epistemological mistake to preemptively condemn him as a Hitler or Stalin because his rhetoric is leftist and bombastic. That makes us default on reality as much as he does. It is also a huge mistake to glorify those looter businessmen who do not provide proper service while enjoying government monopolies. I even think it is wrong to give them a pass as "going with the flow" or being "pragmatic."

How do you feel about, say, the arms suppliers to Hitler? Or those in infrastructure who sucked up to the Nazis to gain monopolies, knowing about the concentration camps?

Believe me, the American companies who support and suck up to corrupt government dictators know exactly what they are doing and exactly the price that is paid by the citizens. It is a disgrace to see American companies doing this sort of thing out in the world (often with the sanction and direct involvement of the USA government).

I stand by my statement. Neither are good guys.

Michael

They are bad guys in different ways. One guy you shoot, the other you don't.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

They are bad guys in different ways. One guy you shoot, the other you don't.

Brant,

LOLOLOLOL...

I can't argue with that.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Former mentor slams Venezuela's Hugo Chavez

by Jorge Rueda

Associated Press

January 25, 2007

I may be reading it wrong, but when this kind of thing happens in South America, normally I have seen it signify the beginning of the end for the person in power. Even if he gets the "enabling law" to pass, this indicates that Chavez has lost morale with the silent behind-the-scenes powers that be, and that includes the military.

If I am reading this correctly, the only thing that will save Chavez will be a quick mass assassination Godfather style (or Saddam style) of those silent powers. This situation promises to get very ugly either way.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I want to keep news stories about Venezuela more or less in the same place, so I have copied a thread from March below (there was only one post, anyway), but I am putting up the most recent story first:

Venezuela Pulling Out of IMF, World Bank

By JORGE RUEDA

Associated Press Writer

Breitbart

April 30, 2007

This is actually a good thing and a bad thing together. I am glad to see a country down south pull out from under the IMF, WB & Co. The more I learn about these organizations, the more I see behind the smoke and mirrors and it ain't pleasant. However, Chavez wants to take the country the socialist route.

In Brazil, they have a saying, "morrer na praia," which means (in context) to be in an emergency at sea, then swim a long distance only to die once you get to the shore. I think this is what Chavez's future will be.

Even though the article below is from March, I definitely see some other glimmers in the smoke and mirrors.

Michael

Giuliani Law Firm Lobbies in Texas for Chavez-Controlled Citgo

By Henry Goldman and Jonathan D. Salant

March 14

Bloomberg

Hmmmmmmmmmm...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is even another one. Chavez has been busy.

Venezuela takes operations from big oil companies

By Brian Ellsworth

May 1, 2007

Reuters

From the article:

In the oil projects, the companies have agreed to hand over operations but are still discussing continued shareholding and compensation in sometimes contentious negotiations before a deadline next month.

Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez has said there may not be compensation in some cases and that Venezuela will only consider agreements on the booked value of the projects rather than their much larger current net worth.

What this basically means to someone not familiar with a high-inflation economy is that one economic index will be used instead of another. High-inflation countries use different indexes for making payment adjustments (price, wages, settlements, etc.). The government's standard trick is to use a low index for paying and a high index for receiving. This gives the transaction the appearance of legitimacy. In reality, it is theft. In Brazil, I often saw a person receive about US$ 50 for a debt equivalent to US$ 1,000, and have full legal validity.

I have no doubt that, after the initial splash, Chavez will do a lot of backpedaling and extra settlements will be made because of the following from the article:

Industry analysts fear Venezuela's state oil company PDVSA could ultimately run into production and safety problems when it loses the management and technology of the experienced majors.

As he shrinks the private companies' role, Chavez has formed joint ventures with allies such as China, Belarus and Iran involving many state entities that are unfamiliar with developing such crude.

Not many top scientists and engineers are comfortable working for Che Guevara and if this is the line that will be adopted, there should be a major exodus of talent.

However, I think Chavez will get away with a lot. Big oil is notorious for toadying up to political leaders and after the splash wears off, it is easy to see them cutting each other's throats to gain Chavez's favor. Oh well. We oil-financed the spread of Salafi Islam with Saudi Arabia. It looks like we are now going to oil-finance the spread of South American socialism.

Incidentally, for those interested in the negative aspects of Chavez, here is the Wikipedia article: Criticism of Hugo Chávez.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

There's an old book about Latin America by Stanislav Andreski called Parasitism and Subversion. Still largely on target after all these years.

Judging from coverage in The Economist, I'd say that Hugo Chavez fully intends to become a one-party dictator. The complete nationalization of the oil industry, with "compensation" at rigged exchange rates, was pre-announced last year. His government has denied a license renewal to one opposition TV network and is looking for opportunities to shut down those newspapers that still oppose his regime. In 2006, the Venezeluan state oil company was rated by The Economist as the worst-managed such operation in the world (the Sa'udi state oil company got the best marks). For technical reasons having to do with the density and stickiness of Venezuelan crude oil, oil fields that aren't properly maintained will rapidly decline in production capacity. Chavez's flunkies are happy to replace technically competent people who won't kiss up to the regime with incompetents who will. It doesn't require a degree in rocket science to predict the results...

I certainly wouldn't classify Chavez with the totalitarian mass killers of the last century. He hasn't compiled the body count--not even Pinochet's body count--and to those not directly subject to his rule he is merely a loud nuisance. But an admirer of Fidel Castro who proclaims that he will usher in socialism in the 21st century isn't going to do Venezuela any good. Lots of Argentinians liked Juan Peron--at first, anyway. Has Argentina fully recovered to this day?

Robert Campbell

[BaalChatzaf]

I certainly wouldn't classify Chavez with the totalitarian mass killers of the last century. He hasn't compiled the body count--not even Pinochet's body count--and to those not directly subject to his rule he is merely a loud nuisance. But an admirer of Fidel Castro who proclaims that he will usher in socialism in the 21st century isn't going to do Venezuela any good. Lots of Argentinians liked Juan Peron--at first, anyway. Has Argentina fully recovered to this day?

Robert Campbell

No. Argentina has never recovered from Peron. When Peron took over, Argentina was the richest country in South America in terms of GDP and Income per capita. Now it is a basket case. This is sad, since Argentina is richly endowed with arable land well fit for raising crops extensively and cattle raising. Argentinians have never gone without meat, no matter how bad things were otherwise. Argentina also has vast mineral wealth, which is why the country is named after silver. Argentina has a unique cultural endowment as South American countries go. It is the most "European" of the South American countries. It should be an economic powerhouse, but it is not. Political corruption has drained its strength for over 60 years.

As to Chavez: Hugo Chavez is a commie/socialist thug. No, he is no Stalin. But he will drive the economy of Venezuela into the ground. What worries me is that the Chinese are going to be their to "help" pick up the pieces. In short, China is going to get a direct pipeline(sic!) into Venezuela's oil reserves. This will help to drive up the per bbl price of oil. When one considers that we import over sixty percent of the petroleum we use, this bodes ill for our economy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

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".

Chavez' right wing successors (who will be in power after his regime collapses) are more likely to read Milton Friedman.

Chavez is another Alliende, mark my words.

If I were a sentimentalist I would weep for Venezuela.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have finally joined the roll of other highly intelligent people on RoR and am now in the Dissent forum there (see Rowlands's post here). This was about a disagreement over Chavez. (I will mention my position below.) Here is the post in case it gets altered later:

Just wanted to let people know that some of MSK's posts have been removed. He's been on "moderated" status for some time because of his belligerence whenever anyone questions his idiocy. I've deleted the posts that I saw in the queue that were just insults or his usual attempts at one-upping people. So if you're wondering why it went silent, it's because he had nothing but insults left to say.

I've also decided to go ahead and throw him in the Dissenter category, for reasons that should be obvious to most people.

Actually this is a relief because I have been guilty of sanctioning a double standard practiced by Rowlands by my presence and I should not have done that. (I had reasons, but the sanction result was still the same.) I have allowed Rowlands and others to insult me to my face and not reply in kind for a long time now. In the present post, the absurdity reached the level of me being called a sympathizer of Chavez (earlier in the thread), and Rowlands making a childish remark about my "idiocy," then claiming that I am the one who has "nothing but insults left to say." (This kind of discourse about me has been standard, actually much worse, from him for far too long and I simply should not have put up with it. I have been guilty of literally practicing sanction of the victim.)

As usual, Rowlands exaggerated his numbers. (An old habit he used to do more regularly, but stopped because of ridicule.) I have only had one post on that thread not accepted and he claimed that there were "some" "posts" (plural) in the queue that were deleted as if there were several. I don't understand what value a self-proclaimed Objectivist derives from faking reality, but facts will not be altered by wishing or reporting them incorrectly on purpose. Simply stated, there is no excuse for that. It is a contemptible practice.

My position regarding Chavez, as with any situation, is to look at reality and not think with blind prejudices. Chavez is transforming himself into a dictator for real (he is an elected official with temporary powers that far exceed his office through an "enabling act" passed by Congress), but putting him the same league as Castro or Hitler or Saddam Hussein is not accurate. When people mess with guns, I believe that accuracy is not only a virtue, it is essential. There are some real things that need to be done about this (if anyone has the gumption), but they are real things with real people in a real country where the problem exists.

What was being proposed was to send some books down to some people in think-tank kinds of organizations as if this were activism for real. I see it as dabbling. There is nothing wrong with this if reality is being dealt with (the more books the merrier), however, the idea was being promoted that the large masses of people in Venezuela (ones even shown in a photo on the thread) did not support Chavez, but were attempting to demonstrate against him. That's just plain crazy. The guy was elected time and time again. His main constituency is a massive amount of poor people.

One issue that was causing some discomfort was my statement that the widespread demonstrations against not renewing the license of RCTV was more due to dissatisfaction about the closing of soap operas than freedom. I have lived in a South American country (Brazil) for over 30 years and when I saw this reported in the news (it was widely reported), I knew for a fact it was true. Should anybody be interested, here is one that popped up first on a simple Google search I just did:

Venezuela replaces opposition TV with state network

By Brian Ellsworth and Christian Oliver

Reuters

(Reported here on Scotsman News)

May 28, 2007

From the article:

Pollster Datanalisis found almost 70 percent of Venezuelans opposed the shut-down, but most cited the loss of their favourite soap operas rather than concerns about limits on freedom of expression.

There's plenty more if anyone wishes to Google it. This is not a comfortable fact for a Chavez hater, but it does not stop being a fact for that reason. This needs to be taken into account in order to properly evaluate what is going on down there. Apparently, those interested in discussing Chavez on RoR like to read the news in a very selective manner with blinders on.

I think it is an enormous waste of time to look at a problem, misstate it on purpose with highfalutin rhetoric, make some largely ineffective measures with loud fanfare and then pretend to everybody that this is activism. This is simply posturing. (btw - I do hope the book project does happen, but becomes more centered in reality than that kind of crap.)

I feel for the Venezuelan people, but not nearly as much as I feel for Cubans, Iraqis under Hussein, Jews in Nazi Germany, etc. That's because reality is very important to me.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Freedom means the freedom to watch soap operas--and other stuff. I don't know why you want to denigrate people who have the courage to take to the streets to protest a dictator SOB who deserves to be shot.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Who said I am denigrating the people? I am merely identifying them.

I am denigrating those who pretend that something else is going on and live in fantasy-land instead of reality.

Here is what I wrote to somebody else about this (who had claimed basically that Chavistas were only college students):

There is no reason on earth to mischaracterize the massive Chavez supporters that way. This does not help those who wish to get rid of Chavez.

I have been listening to that kind of mischaracterization from abroad for over 30 years (usually from left-wing liberals), while seeing up close what the real bad guys do (and there are bad guys on both sides—USA and SA). I, and others, considered those who make bold pronouncements and get it all wrong "Revolutionaries for a Day." Nowadays I just call it make-believe. The dictator-types love that kind of rhetoric from the USA. It gives them something nice and dumb to show the population and strengthen their discourse that Americans know nothing about South America.

The people in Venezuela are not aware of the danger Chavez represents for their future. Their present is not all that bad. Actually, the soap-opera thing is a good wake-up call for them.

Sitting here in the USA on websites and pretending that the Venezuelan population is in a heroic struggle for freedom is just plain wrong. Approaching the problem from this perspective is wrong. The only benefit I can see is for the people here to be able to do doodley-squat, flash around some rhetoric and then feel good about it. This does no good for Venezuelans and does not even accurately reflect who or what they are.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael,

You downplay Chavez' faults and downplay his protestors' virtues. I don't know what the numbers are in Venezuela, but I often despise the human herd. I've met exactly one Venezuelan on a plane to Cincinnati. I asked her opinion of Chavez and her answer was: before we've had dictators not of our own choosing and now the fools in our country have provided us with our own democratically elected dictator. My sentiments exactly.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

James,

I do not downplay Chavez's faults. I find the logic that equates Chavez with Hitler to be flawed because it is not borne out in reality and is simply demonizing. He's plenty bad without that.

Chavez could become a Hitler, but I doubt it. He doesn't have a powerful ideology like Nazism behind him. His brand of socialism is only a real appeal to the dirt poor (who were that way before he took power) and a handful of intellectuals. And, as the soap-opera issue proves, there are limits to what even his own supporters will tolerate without causing trouble.

Yet I do see him as a terrible danger to the future. He is not only wreaking havoc on Venezuela's institutions that will take years to restore at great cost, he might uncover an ideology that really does click down there. Like the saying goes, "power corrupts" and I have no doubt he will be trying out different things to see what works. Still, I don't see gas chambers, concentration camps and world conquest in the future. I do see an awful lot of abuse of power and a handful of strategic "disappearances."

I do not downplay the virtues of his protesters, either. I identify their actual motives. The real freedom lovers in Venezuela are an extremely small number (those are the real heroes), but even they are infiltrated with lots of people who wish to regain their lost government privileges.

I do downplay one thing, however. I downplay the seriousness of those who want to distort facts because they hate this person or that. How can I say this in a form so it is understood correctly?

Distorting facts is a bad thing.

Rewriting reality is a bad thing.

You cannot fix a problem you do not identify correctly.

I don't know how to say these things any clearer. Is there any rational reason for us to lie to ourselves? How is that going to help get rid of Chavez?

Chavez is not in power because he is evil. Chavez is in power because people want him to be and voted for him—several times. Why is it a bad thing to look and try to see why they want him to be in power? This kind of blindness by his opponents is precisely what allowed him to gain power in the first place.

Once that is seen properly, things can be done about it. Only then will he be removed. So long as the majority of the Venezuelan population wants him, he will stay in power. The problem is that "want." That is what needs to be fixed.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I see Juan Peron on the upside and Slobodan Milosevic on the downside. Slobodan Milosevic was popularly elected by 60% margins because he appealed to national and ethnic pride. Hugo Chavez has been elected because he's appealed to the plight of the poor and national pride. Some dictators are corrupt, fat, dumb and happy. Chavez is the ambitious type.

Jim

Edited June 6, 2007 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Brant Gaede]

The last election--a recall--was apparently rigged.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jim,

I have no problem with the comparison to Juan Peron. That is probably the most accurate (although I find Chavez's potential to be a bit more destructive in the long run).

The comparison with Milosevic I find strained because I see nothing anywhere near an "ethnic cleansing" policy among his plans.

Brant: It would be nice to find some evidence of rigging. It was not a particularly clean election (on both sides), but nothing like outright rigging was ever detected. Believe me, Bush would be yelling to the four winds if he had found something.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I used to work with a guy from Croatia and I asked him about the Balkans conflicts because I really wanted to know how the unthinkable could happen again. He said that it was really a war over several land disputes and that if you elect someone to absolute power who is mean and nasty enough, all he needs is a convenient excuse to kill a bunch of people. Chavez is mean and nasty enough.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jim,

Land disputes are always involved somewhere in the root of armed conflicts.

Are you saying Milosevic's ethnic cleansing of Muslims did not exist? That is absurd. Do you find value in that?

And are you also insinuating that Chavez is mean and nasty enough to undertake a formal genocide of a race within Venezuela? I see no evidence of that whatsoever.

I do admit that he is often mean and nasty. Like I said, I believe strongly in the possibility of middle-of-the-night "disappearances" of some of his foes. I also easily see things like what I have seen in Brazil (for example, there was a case of a person who died of 6 gunshot wounds to the head while in police custody, and this was recorded and reported by the police as a suicide).

I do not see mass graves, etc.

Let me ask you something. If you really want to fight against Chavez's genocidal policies and you go to Venezuela to do so, who are you going to enlist? Even his worst enemies down there do not consider him a genocide-type murderer.

What is the value in distorting reality like this?

Here is the principle I have seen working up close and it works like clockwork:

When you play make-believe with victims, you sanction the oppressors.

You actually turn yourself into a tool of support for Chavez. I know you hate him, but only objective truth will work.

Michael