Chavez Runs for Re-Election

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It was more of approving a coup. The question is how much...
There's enough meat on the bones for him to have a point in his rethoric against the US, but most of his opposition comes from the inside of Venezuela.
The Chavez vs the opposition issue is blurry though, the easiest thing to say is that Chavez is winning that one.

The questions that really would need an answer are:
1. Would Chavez step down if the country was better off without him?
2. Would the country be better off without him today?
3. Is Chavez running the country well in the long term?
All questions is responded by doubtful IMO.

Nice Questions.

1. Like many who exercise power, Chavez probably cannot conceive that it might be. He views himself as a crusader against the exceseses of the past and remains convinced that bad times will return without him. It takes ego to step up in politics, and such egos rarely admit of personal irrelevance.

2. Probably not. He has provided hope for so many of the poor that his removal would likely engnder civil war. Juan Peron was such a hero to the people.

3. Probably not. As with far too many of the Middle Eastern OPEC nations, the oil revenues are not being plowed back into infrastructure development and used to develop a varied economy. His apologists will point out -- correctly -- that his plowing the oil money into socialist support programs serves the people better than the old system (siphoning it off to pad Cayman and Swiss private accounts), but it does not seem likely to produce long term benefits. However valuable, the oil in Venuz. is not eternal.


Thought item.

Corruption seems to be the biggest drawbck to development. Can any culture that embraces and/or condones corruption truly develop economically? Or is the only result an endless cycle of pilferage and (depending on culture) terrorist extremism or socialist revolution?

[Pannonian]

3. Probably not. As with far too many of the Middle Eastern OPEC nations, the oil revenues are not being plowed back into infrastructure development and used to develop a varied economy. His apologists will point out -- correctly -- that his plowing the oil money into socialist support programs serves the people better than the old system (siphoning it off to pad Cayman and Swiss private accounts), but it does not seem likely to produce long term benefits. However valuable, the oil in Venuz. is not eternal.

Ironically, some of the best usage the oil sees is precisely in these socialist programmes in conjunction with Cuba. Cuba gets preferential treatment, possibly x barrels of free oil, and they send their doctors and teachers to Venezuela in return. Cuba gets around the US embargo, Venezuela get better healthcare for its poor and the building blocks of what might become a middle class. Everyone's happy, except for the Americans whose enemies are strengthening each other.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How in heaven does that build a middle class?

Don't get me wrong, better health care for the poor has obvious benefits -- and not just politically. But keeping the poor alive can actually worsen the economic straits without something for them to aspire to.

Where in Chavez' programs do we see encouragement of entrepenurial endeavors? Assistance in development of roads/bridges/ports/commercial space? Assistance for professional degrees and job development?

If such programs exist, with a trend towards private ownership or assumption of control by private citizens, that would signal something different.

[Pannonian]

How in heaven does that build a middle class?

Education? If nothing else, Cuba excels in the socialist ideal of schoolsandhospitals, getting more bang for their buck than practically anyone else. The criticism of western and British in particular liberal socialism is that endless resources are poured into that double-headed deity. The Cubans get excellent results with next to no resources.

Don't get me wrong, better health care for the poor has obvious benefits -- and not just politically. But keeping the poor alive can actually worsen the economic straits without something for them to aspire to.

Where in Chavez' programs do we see encouragement of entrepenurial endeavors? Assistance in development of roads/bridges/ports/commercial space? Assistance for professional degrees and job development?

If such programs exist, with a trend towards private ownership or assumption of control by private citizens, that would signal something different.

You've ignored my mention of teachers, results of the pursuit of universal education. Before you can have all those modern capitalist developments, you first need a population who can read and write. Without that you will have a system that will inevitably veer towards extreme corruption as all power is concentrated in the hands of the educated ruling class, only to be brought down by a socialist revolution that will bring about a population that can read and write and thus pursue the happiness that is every man's right.

The revolution happened in Venezuela when they elected Chavez, who is fairly moderate as revolutionaries go (Castro was even more so). Remember things can always get worse if you intervene (eg. Iran and Mossadegh), and be thankful Chavez and no-one worse was elected.