Breaking News: Hugo Chavez is Dead

Gallo

Banned
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
1,982
Reputation
115
Daps
2,106
Reppin
NULL
His major accomplishment was surviving a coup. Venezuela and the US are still in the same station. I only see Brazil and Chile eating down there. Lula is what he should have been. But he lacked the intellect and temperament. Lula left his country in a much better place but no one in Hollywood talks about him. Where is his thread? 'cause Chavez stuck it to Amurrrica? lol. If he were smart and truly wanted to help the poor he would have been trying to break bread with the gods(The US) while at the same time making sure the poor got to eat too on the low. Everybody happy.

One fact about Latin America is that they need to understand that if we not eating, you don't eat. Be smart, not tough. You have to stroke us at least, not make any sudden movements and perhaps then we'll leave you alone.
 

Bondye Vodou

Proud practitioner of the "High Science"
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
12,883
Reputation
2,505
Daps
48,706
A lot Countries in the Caribbean mourning Chavez's death.
Caribbean leaders ‘devastated’ over Chávez’s death - Venezuela - MiamiHerald.com


_63350395_63350394.jpg

R.I.P Comrade
 

mson

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
53,963
Reputation
6,856
Daps
102,579
Reppin
NULL
an incredibly subpar and superficial leader who doesn't deserve vitriol or high praise. this is like gerald ford dying tbh. but eulogizing him makes brehs feel like revolutionaries




in brazil, the economy has improved and hopefully will continue because the legislature is realizing it needs foreign investment. they know their pittances to the lower classes aren't something the country can actually stand on. it's political theater.

just like lula in brazil, chavez gave things to people and declared it justice, instead of instilling long-term solutions. it's all veneer. people are happy enough in a short period of time to re-elect him, and he was smart enough to take advantage of the US starting a needless and arrogant war and botching the one in afghanistan.

all these guys, from castro to chavez to lula, all the pink tide guys are fukking con men who undercut socialism far more than any right-wing movement ever could. fukk them, dead or alive, they live(d) in palaces while most of their subjects live well below modesty. when you take over from mafia types and big oil, it's not hard to make yourself look good. of course it also helps that many cant resist hero worshiping

hilarious how the same people saying democrats keep black people chained to their party with cheap concessions praise the guys who operated their respective countries pretty much solely on that basis.

and yeah yeah the US (and ALL of their allies by default. all of them.) is friends with bad leaders, fukk them too, i have no dog in this fight but the truth.

So in your opinion what should Chavez have done to be the kind of leader to warrant such praise? (I know you already touched on it in your response above)


His major accomplishment was surviving a coup. Venezuela and the US are still in the same station. I only see Brazil and Chile eating down there. Lula is what he should have been. But he lacked the intellect and temperament. Lula left his country in a much better place but no one in Hollywood talks about him. Where is his thread? 'cause Chavez stuck it to Amurrrica? lol. If he were smart and truly wanted to help the poor he would have been trying to break bread with the gods(The US) while at the same time making sure the poor got to eat too on the low. Everybody happy.

One fact about Latin America is that they need to understand that if we not eating, you don't eat. Be smart, not tough. You have to stroke us at least, not make any sudden movements and perhaps then we'll leave you alone.

What exactly do you mean by breaking bread? When does this breaking bread end?
 

A.R.$

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Messages
8,131
Reputation
630
Daps
20,875
Here are some informative commits on Chavez leadership




So far Cenk did the best job of talking about where he succeeded, and where he failed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Techniec

Drugs and Kalashnikovs
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
9,855
Reputation
1,938
Daps
23,291
Reppin
W/S 416
What Fidel Castro taught Hugo Chavez

by: Francisco Toro

HUGO Chavez died this week in Venezuela at the age of 58, but his battle with a never-specified form of cancer was waged largely in a Cuban hospital - a telling detail, as Cuba loomed just as large in his political imagination as his native country.

It's a point that my gringo friends up north always struggle with. The Cuban Revolution's immense influence on the region has been constantly underestimated and misunderstood from day one. It's only a slight exaggeration to suggest that everything of note that's happened south of the Rio Grande since 1959 has been an attempt either to emulate, prevent, or transcend the Cuban experience. Chavez will be remembered as the most successful of Fidel Castro's emulators, the man who breathed new life into the old revolutionary dream.

Starting in the 1960s, guerrilla movements throughout the hemisphere tried to replicate the Sierra Maestra rebels' road to power, to no avail. In the 70s, Chile's Salvador Allende tried the electoral route, but he didn't have a clear majority. In the 80s, Nicaragua's Sandinistas had the majority and rode it to power, but took over a state too bankrupt to implement the social reforms they'd always championed.

Chavez had all three things - power, votes, and money - plus charisma to boot. His was the last, best shot at reinventing Caribbean Communism for the 21st century.

At the root of the extraordinarily close alliance Chavez built with Cuba was a deep, paternal bond between two men. A fiercely independent figure, the messianic Chavez was never seen to kowtow to anyone. But there were special rules for Fidel.

Chavez's extraordinary devotion sprung from Castro's status as the mythical Hero-Founder of Latin America's post-war hard left. Chavez loved to brag of his frequent, spur-of-the-moment trips to Havana to seek Castro counsel. When he was diagnosed with the cancer that ultimately killed him, Chavez got invites from high-tech medical centres in Brazil and in Spain, but it was never in doubt where he would seek treatment. Chavez trusted Fidel, literally, with his life.

There's no comparable relationship between two leaders in contemporary world politics, and it had its political consequences - especially for Chavez.

In a Cold War throwback, his government welcomed tens of thousands of Cuban doctors, trainers, and "advisers" - including an unknowable number of spies - to Venezuela. And tens of billions of petrodollars flowed in the opposite direction, a resource stream that propped up the last bastion of totalitarianism in the Western Hemisphere long past its sell-by date. For Fidel, who had had his eyes on Venezuela's oil riches since the 1960s, Chavez's election was an unbelievable stroke of luck.

Much has been written about the way Venezuela stepped in to fill the fiscal and strategic void the collapse of the Soviet Union left in Cuba, but the reality is much stranger than that. As the unquestionably senior member of their Cold War alliance, the Soviets treated Cuba as just another satellite state; Fidel's subjugation to a Cold War superpower was always something of an embarrassment to him.

In the Caracas-Havana axis, by contrast, the paymaster doubled up as the vassal. Venezuela effectively wrote a fat petrocheck month after month for the privilege of being tutelaged by a poorer, weaker foreign power.

The extent of this reverse colonisation was startling. Cuban flags eventually came to flutter above Venezuelan military bases and Venezuelans witnessed the surreal spectacle of a democratically elected president telling them that Venezuela and Cuba share "a single government" and that Venezuela "has two presidents". Cuban military advisers kept watch over Venezuela's entire security apparatus, and had exclusive control over Chavez's personal security detail. Through most of his 20-month battle with cancer, the Castros had better information about the president's condition than even his inner circle back home, and they manoeuvred successfully to ensure a pro-Havana diehard, Nicol aacs Maduro, won the tough battle for succession.

Chavez imported more than just personnel and advice; he imported the Cuban Revolution's eschatology virtually whole. Fidel's vision of revolution as a kind of cosmic morality play pitting unalloyed socialist "good" in an unending death struggle against the ravages of "evil" American imperialism became the guiding principle of Venezuela's revolution.

The use and abuse of anti-imperialist rhetoric as a mechanism for consolidating authoritarian control over society was the most valuable lesson Chavez learned from Fidel. A superheated brand of unthinking anti-Americanism became the all-purpose excuse for any and every authoritarian excess, stigmatising any form of protest and casting a dark pall over any expression of discontent or dissent. The technique's infinite versatility proved its central attraction: You could blame shadowy gringo infiltrator for neighbourhood protests over chronic power shortages just as easily as you could silence whistleblowers of government corruption by casting them as CIA fifth columns.

In Cuba, considering the island's history as a target for American imperialist meddling, anti-imperialism - however wantonly abused - rested on a bed of historic verisimilitude. But in Venezuela, a country with no history of direct American imperial aggression, this borrowed bit of rhetorical posturing served only to underline chavismo's derivative status, its ideology a kind of fidelista hand-me-down lacking even the self-awareness to realise it was decades out of date by the time it was born.

Where Chavez was able to transcend the Cuban model, it was largely due to the advantages of life at the receiving end of an unprecedented petrodollar flood. By some estimates, Venezuela sold over $1 trillion worth of oil during his tenure, and so his was government by hyperconsumption, not rationing. The petroboom allowed Chavez to substitute the chequebook for the gulag; marginalising his opponents via popular spending programs rather than rounding them up and throwing them in jail. Rather than declaring all-out war on business, he co-opted them. Rather than abolish civil society, he created a parallel civil society, complete with pro-government unions, universities, radio stations and community councils. Such enhancements were tried before by left-wing populists in Latin America, but always failed because they ran out of money.

Chavez avoided this pitfall thanks to the greatest of his innovations: He consciously avoided a complete break with the US of the kind that Castro provoked in 1960. Instead, he railed against gringo imperialism all morning, then spent all afternoon selling those same gringos oil. The irony is that this, his most important innovation, will be the one least memorialised by his admirers. It was a gloriously incoherent posture, but one that fit the square peg of revolutionary zeal into the round hole of an import-led petropopulism.

Ironically, though, in its dependence on oil rents, the Chavez model quietly undermined its own claim to represent a new alternative to dreaded Washington-sponsored neoliberalism. After all, if Venezuela could afford to botch the nationalisation of its own steel industry, it was because there were always petrodollars around to import the steel that local industry was no longer producing. And if nationalisations up and down the agro-food chain resulted in food shortages, money could always be found to import the balance. As the Venezuelan State-Owned Enterprise sector grew, it looked more and more like the USSR's - with a single profit-generating industry cross-subsidising a bewildering array of loss-making concerns. Chavenomics, as a development model, boiled down to little beyond extracting oil, selling it at high prices, and using the proceeds to paper over the rest of the system's cracks. How such a model is supposed to be relevant to countries that don't happen to float on top of hundreds of billions of barrels in oil reserves is anybody's guess.

Still and all, petropopulism's attractions were all too clear for Chavez. Those deep, oil-lined pockets allowed Chavez a luxury Fidel could only dream of: being able to hold a long string of not-overtly-rigged elections without ever seriously endangering his grip on power. It used to be that you could have either unchecked personal power or electoral legitimacy, but the petrodollar flood allowed Chavez to have both.

Elected autocracy may sound like an oxymoron, but this is exactly what the Venezuelan synthesis of the Cuban experience yielded: a system that washed away the sins of its own aggressive contempt for dissidence and dissent through continual recourse to the ballot box. What Hugo Chavez built was, in other words, a flawless autocracy.

Francisco Toro is a Venezuelan journalist and co-author of Blogging the Revolution: Caracas Chronicles and the Hugo Chavez Era.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
 

CASHAPP

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
26,333
Reputation
-2,504
Daps
47,965
I have Reputable Souces that tell me Castro will be dead from grief within the next 3 weeks.

:wow:
 

Gallo

Banned
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
1,982
Reputation
115
Daps
2,106
Reppin
NULL
What exactly do you mean by breaking bread? When does this breaking bread end?

Breaking bread means exactly what Lula did.

"As Lula gained strength in the run-up to the 2002 elections, the fear of drastic measures, and comparisons with Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, increased internal market speculation.This led to some market hysteria, contributing to a drop in the value of the real, and a downgrade of Brazil's credit rating.[23]

In the beginning of his first term, Lula's chosen Minister of Finance was Antonio Palocci, a physician and former Trotskyist activist who had recanted his far left views while serving as the mayor of the sugarcane processing industry center of Ribeirão Preto, in the state of São Paulo. Lula also chose Henrique Meirelles of the Brazilian Social Democracy Party, a prominent market-oriented economist, as head of the Brazilian Central Bank. As a former CEO of the BankBoston he was well-known to the market.[24] Meirelles was elected to the Chamber of Deputies in 2002 as a member of the opposing PSDB, but resigned as deputy to become Governor of the Central Bank.[24]

Silva and his cabinet followed in part the lead of the previous government,[25] by renewing all agreements with the International Monetary Fund, which were signed by the time Argentina defaulted on its own deals in 2001."


He let us eat through the IMF and the like, pollied with dudes that worked in the US(BankofBoston), he stroked us, made no sudden movements, allayed all our fears, gave us our cut, we left him alone and he then went on to implement all of his leftist, socialist prescriptions to the countries poor. He played it masterfully. Now Brazil is the 8th largest economy in the world and exerts more influence in the region than the US. Meanwhile, Venezuela still ain't shyt. Lula:wow:
 

dennis roadman

nuclear war in my bag
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
20,451
Reputation
3,495
Daps
40,274
Reppin
solsbury hill
Breaking bread means exactly what Lula did.

"As Lula gained strength in the run-up to the 2002 elections, the fear of drastic measures, and comparisons with Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, increased internal market speculation.This led to some market hysteria, contributing to a drop in the value of the real, and a downgrade of Brazil's credit rating.[23]

In the beginning of his first term, Lula's chosen Minister of Finance was Antonio Palocci, a physician and former Trotskyist activist who had recanted his far left views while serving as the mayor of the sugarcane processing industry center of Ribeirão Preto, in the state of São Paulo. Lula also chose Henrique Meirelles of the Brazilian Social Democracy Party, a prominent market-oriented economist, as head of the Brazilian Central Bank. As a former CEO of the BankBoston he was well-known to the market.[24] Meirelles was elected to the Chamber of Deputies in 2002 as a member of the opposing PSDB, but resigned as deputy to become Governor of the Central Bank.[24]

Silva and his cabinet followed in part the lead of the previous government,[25] by renewing all agreements with the International Monetary Fund, which were signed by the time Argentina defaulted on its own deals in 2001."


He let us eat through the IMF and the like, pollied with dudes that worked in the US(BankofBoston), he stroked us, made no sudden movements, allayed all our fears, gave us our cut, we left him alone and he then went on to implement all of his leftist, socialist prescriptions to the countries poor. He played it masterfully. Now Brazil is the 8th largest economy in the world and exerts more influence in the region than the US. Meanwhile, Venezuela still ain't shyt. Lula:wow:

he's corrupt or at least looks the way other way and he's too much of a smiling showman, but yeah he's a better politician than chavez by a million miles. he did photo ops with ahmedinijad and hand-picked a former ak-carrying marxist to succeed him with much less heat from the US than chavez
 

88m3

Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
88,285
Reputation
3,626
Daps
157,393
Reppin
Brooklyn
Sean Penn Praises Chavez, Calls George Washington a ‘Loser’
Mar. 11, 2013


American actor Sean Penn claimed last night that recently deceased Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was one of history's greatest leaders, and called George Washington a 'loser' by comparison.

In an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan, the controversial star of Milk and Summerspell layered adulation upon the Latin American socialist, but declined to do the same for one of America's founding fathers.

The special interview followed Penn's trip to Caracas, where he attended the funeral of Chavez, the country's longtime socialist leader who died last week of cancer.

Chavez was widely popular with a large swath of Venezuelan society and some Western left-wing activists like Penn. However, many criticized the former military commander - whose first attempt at power came in the form of a coup - for his tenuous commitment to democracy.

Piers Morgan took Penn to task for his support of Chavez's revolution, but the Hollywood icon refused to back down.

"Piers, all great democracies start with a coup," Penn explained, "Just look at Castro in Cuba, Lenin in the Soviet Union, or the Ayatollahs in Iran. All started with coups, but eventually all became thriving democratic societies. The same is true in Venezuela"

Give Me Socialism
Penn then revealed that on his trip to Venezuela he had seen the marvels of Chavez's system of government and claimed that the country will soon be better off than the United States.

"I think he might be one of the best leaders of all time," Penn argued, "He showed the world that poor, marginalized peoples will not stand for historical injustices any longer."

"But surely," Morgan interrupted, "Surely you don't think Chavez is on par with someone like say...George Washington do you? He's not a universality admired figure. A lot of people in his own country quite despised him."

"Well Piers I don't think Geroge Washington is the best example of someone who's universally admired," Penn replied, "I've read a lot about early American history. And honestly George Washington... he comes off as a bit of a loser."

"George Washington? A loser?" Morgan replied," I am literally astonished. You're an intelligent person. How can you possibly say George Washington was a loser?"

"First of all, he couldn't speak French," Penn explained, "And this was in an era when French was the language of high society. He tried hard, but just couldn't do it. Kinda pathetic really.

"Secondly, the woman he married wasn't exactly the cream of the crop. She had already been married, had two kids, and a face that launched 1000 ships in the opposite direction. That's the best George could do? I can tell you Chavez did a lot better.

"And third, you have to really question his judgement. I mean this is someone who wanted to make Benedict Arnold his second in command. His name is synonymous with treason. How could you not see that one coming?

American History F

Penn then extended his critique to all of America's founding fathers, whom he blasted for their support of slavery.

"I consider myself to be an expert on colonial American history. And all these guys - George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin - they all had slaves. Franklin was the largest slave-owner in Pennsylvania and controlled its tobacco farms.

"Why does the United States still celebrate slave owners? It's shocking. Americans need to wake up and realize that the Founding Fathers were just a bunch of over-privileged, bourgeoisie white guys who didn't want to pay their taxes.

"Chavez was something much different. He was a hero to the working class, and his revolution - unlike America's - was staunchly anti-colonial."

Stunned by his disrespect for America's early leaders, Morgan then moved the conversation on to Penn's charity work in Haiti.

Penn's long-suffering publicist issued a statement shortly afterwards apologizing for his remarks.

"I deeply apologize for any offense my comments may have caused. I am a proud American and I recognize and celebrate the greatness of my country's historical leaders."
 
Top