Media war on Chavez's legacy

I grew up being inspired by Hugo Chavez's revolutionary vision and the power of the Bolivarian Revolution, so I was definitely moved when I got the news that he died. Especially when I had a poor grasp on what a revolution might look like, I was inspired by the Venezuelan people and their sense of dignity and fighting spirit. A few years ago, I heard the expression "using the master's tools to dismantle the master's house." The most practical application I have seen of that is Chavez using cheap oil to enable his people to get out of poverty.

The kind of transformation that Chavez has directly led in Venezuela is undeniable which is why the Venezuelan people have exercised their democratic rights to support him. Chavez lifted Venezuelan people out of poverty (literally halving the massive poverty in his country) through the only way that makes sense in the long term - by investing in social infrastructure and making sure people had access to programs.

I'm not saying that Chavez is beyond critique. There are a lot of things I don't know a lot about in Venezuela, and I'm sure a lot of Venezuelan progressives take issue with some of the tactics he used to stay in power - but look at what he has achieved. It's incredible the way he was able to stand up to capital, especially US domination. What other country has actually achieved that?

So the question is why the corporate Western media dismisses him or ignores him, at best calling him "controversial," and at worst questioning his legitimacy.

For me, this is the answer: the rich and powerful hate him because of his successful opposition to the oil elites and corporate greed. And through their media, they want to deny that neoliberal policies can be challenged. In doing this, they undermine the democratic will of Venezuelans. It's insulting to the dignity of the Venezuelan people to suggest that Chavez "bought" their votes. It downplays the kind of democratic support that is needed not just to elect a government but to participate and actually give life to its policies and directions. Moreover, I think that the other reason why corporate media wants to downplay it is because they want the vast majority in the global north (especially poor and marginalized people) to remain subdued citizens who are not inspired to demand their rights.

Originally posted by: TheTruth

An age old philosophical question that has been answered multiple times. Socialism fails. You just cannot empower the poor people of the society by taking money from the rich and giving to poor.

What you need to do is make sure that country has enough number of jobs for everyone. Government's role in the corporate world (and people's personal lives) should be between zero and none barring some obvious regulations.

In socialism, you are taking away the incentive of working hard from the people who are working hard and making sure that those who are able to work but just too lazy keep getting their food stamps (with which they can buy beer).

I am sure that Chavez did some nice things for his people. I just think there could have been better ways.

Maybe that question is the wrong question. We can argue about the ways in which socialist or social-democratic policies have been implemented, but the fact is that these implementation processes did not happen in a vacuum. It happened in the context of post-mercantilist capitalism, particularly with the presence of miltaristic polarization or concentration of power.

A question we can ask is whether capitalism is the best way to organize our societies. I would say the answer is no, and in fact, the unchecked greed that capitalism is based on creates a downward spiral that we are witnessing with every recession we experience globally. This has the worst impact on those who are the most vulnerable - the poorest and most marginalized people.

Some people argue that capitalism leads to innovation - maybe that's true to an extent, but it's innovation primarily motivated by how much capital can be accumulated with the least cost. So these innovations are not always socially useful. Consider supercrops which have totally diminished the already weak power of global south farmers in the market. Consider other technological innovations like weapons and whether that has been socially productive.

Capitalism is definitely not sustainable, we know that. Especially if you don't regulate corporations. How does that joke go.. that most environmental regulations exist to regulate environmentalists, not corporations.

Does capitalism lead to any kind of equality or prosperity for most people? Again, no. It's supposed to give us "choice" as consumers. It doesn't do that, because governments and tax money are used to bail out banks all the time, in different ways. How do we have choice, then?

It really only benefits a tiny, tiny percent of the people living on this planet because a) they get to control everything, including governments, and b) they can either get way richer or ride out "bad times" in which they still are way more protected than the rest of us.

So using those standards, I would say capitalism fails again and again. But we are really wedded to the idea that "socialism fails" or "communism fails" - those who control our knowledge-production and media must really be getting a lot out of capitalism.

Originally posted by: TheTruth

Regarding monopoly, nothing wrong with the monopoly. Wal-Mart for example is the biggest retailer. That does not mean it is the only retailer. Of course, it has power to bargain and whenever a new Wal-Mart opens, mom and pop shops close. That is free market at its best.

We don't have a free market. Wal-mart is enabled to operate through countless tax incentives because companies like Wal-mart control the government and change the direction of economic policies to suit them.

If Wal-Mart employees try to unionize, Wal-mart just shuts down and moves on. They can do that because most of their set-up cost is funded through tax payer money - our money!

You cannot compete with a company that controls the government's policy directions, has free reign to violate labour law, and has guaranteed profit even if it closes.

Originally posted by: --arti--

So the question is why the corporate Western media dismisses him or ignores him, at best calling him "controversial," and at worst questioning his legitimacy.

The western media is a breeding ground for spreading false propaganda against any individual, country, ideology they perceive to be "wrong"

Speaking only based on what I have seen, people have formed a negative opinion of him based purely on what they are told through the news and based on what they associate with communism/fascism. Say the word communist, and what's the first reaction we see? When you talk to people about him, they only bring up "he hates America" or that "he's a dictator"...points that are spread by te media and not the conclusions one would reach if they actually looked at all he has done.

As to why they try to discredit him, it's because he is one of the few people who actively voiced their thoughts against west, namely America. No he wasn't perfect but please name a leader who is without faults. I think to be a leader, you need to do what you think is best an have it in you to stand up to outside bullies which we don't see enough of...and it's why hate against the likes of Chavez and Ahmadinejad is promoted.

Originally posted by: TheTruth

Comparing Vijay Maliya and a farmer is not fair. In fact, in your example, you have to detach Vijay Maliya, the person from Kingfisher the company. He is what he is due to his hard work, dedication and intelligence.

Nobody is forcing a farmer to be a farmer. It is farmer's own will to use farming as his source of income. He should be well aware of the risks and benefits his jobs come with. Depending on the government to subsidize his fertilizer is insane. Why? At the same time, government's role in his farm should be limited when it comes to his freedom. See the point? Government just needs to get out of people's ways and everyone will be happy. But everyone knows that if there are farmers whose votes can be manipulated by certain subsidies and "loans" at taxpayer's money, the politicians would exploit.

How can you say that nobody forces someone to be a farmer? Do you really believe that we all have total control over our means of subsistence? And do you really believe that Vijay Mallya had the same opportunities as a rural farmer? Not to mention that we depend on farming as a society much more than we depend on beer or airplanes. What farmers produce is way more valuable than whatever I assume Mallya produces.
[Edited to add] - not to mention that Mallya depends on the labour of a lot of people to run his companies. I wonder if they are all paid well, but that's a different story. So you can't just credit his own hard work and intelligence for his success.

A lot of people work very hard and are very intelligent, but they are not millionaires. Accumulating money for the sake of accumulating money has not always been a goal in society. Many civilizations have existed that did not value the hoarding of wealth. Consider native american societies that had traditions like potlach - a ceremony that was all about giving away everything you had, and the more important you were, the more you gave away. There richness and status were measured by the opposite of hoarding.

I'm just saying that there are ideological underpinnings to capitalism, and we all buy into those underpinnings, which is the only reason why it works. If you scrutinize some of those underpinnings, capitalism really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Originally posted by: TheTruth

An age old philosophical question that has been answered multiple times. Socialism fails. You just cannot empower the poor people of the society by taking money from the rich and giving to poor.

What you need to do is make sure that country has enough number of jobs for everyone. Government's role in the corporate world (and people's personal lives) should be between zero and none barring some obvious regulations.

In socialism, you are taking away the incentive of working hard from the people who are working hard and making sure that those who are able to work but just too lazy keep getting their food stamps (with which they can buy beer).

I am sure that Chavez did some nice things for his people. I just think there could have been better ways.

Originally posted by: McNinja

The western media is a breeding ground for spreading false propaganda against any individual, country, ideology they perceive to be "wrong"

Speaking only based on what I have seen, people have formed a negative opinion of him based purely on what they are told through the news and based on what they associate with communism/fascism. Say the word communist, and what's the first reaction we see? When you talk to people about him, they only bring up "he hates America" or that "he's a dictator"...points that are spread by te media and not the conclusions one would reach if they actually looked at all he has done.

As to why they try to discredit him, it's because he is one of the few people who actively voiced their thoughts against west, namely America. No he wasn't perfect but please name a leader who is without faults. I think to be a leader, you need to do what you think is best an have it in you to stand up to outside bullies which we don't see enough of...and it's why hate against the likes of Chavez and Ahmadinejad is promoted.

Agreed. There is a huge "communism phobia" in the US in particular, and this has to do with active programs in decades where anyone with communist tendencies was monitored and censored. It's fascinating how much energy goes into controlling how society thinks. But the flip side of that is that our thoughts do have a lot of power, because collectively we are potential agents of change.

I think holding someone up to hero standing implies hes being put on a pedestal of sorts. I don't see that happening in this thread. No one is saying Chavez was without faults or perfect.

Originally posted by: TheTruth

Guys,

What you are doing is taking an extreme case of capitalism and extrapolating it. Then you take one of the good points (I don't know of any though) of socialism and compare the two. No one is saying crony capitalism is good. No one is saying that oil industry is allowed to spill in the sea. We need regulations. We just don't need the ones that would break the industry causing people to lose their jobs.

Chavez nationalized oil industry. I know and I am still in shock and disbelief. What an arrogant person who thought he knew more about oil than Exxon?

Stop making him a hero. He removed poverty? He improved education system? He? No. No and No. Just think. If government could create so many jobs with oil that they were sitting on, what would have happened if the oil industry was free? People would be getting higher and different salaries. Every company would compete for your talent. Gosh.. what do you guys not see? Chavez did not do anything. It was the jobs that were created due to oil that made the nation richer.

Regarding Wal-Mart, yes, there are some unfair practices and violations but that is part of the deal. Wal-Mart was used more of an example to prove that monopoly does not come easy and also that if you are a viable competition (Target, anyone?), you would survive just fine.

I guess it comes down to this - capitalism may fail but socialism always fails. USSR, anyone? Forget that. Just look at Canada and UK. They boast of free healthcare. Seriously? Free? Compare that with pre-OCare US healthcare.

I don't think bailouts and wal-mart are extreme examples. Those examples illustrate that capital can do whatever it wants and is totally unchecked. Sure, there was a time when government's role was to regulate capital and to ensure social harmony, but now the government's primary function is to facilitate and protect capital. That's really not what the goal of governments should be. Since the neoliberal turn, governments have totally turned their backs on what people actually need.

That's not just "some unfair practices and violations" - it represents a fundamental shift in how and for what resources are allocated. Consider the wide implementation of austerity measures since the G20. You see a lot of privatization of public services - again, guaranteed income for private companies because they get tax payer money for doing the same thing that the government could do. The latter would result in decent jobs and benefits - which even right-wing economists will admit we need for true economic prosperity.

Chavez nationalized the oil industry so that Venezuelan people could benefit from the oil rather than corporate executives. Who do you think would've gotten higher salaries if the industry was "further developed" by Exxon? We need to ask that question.

I get that the jobs were created from the oil money. In fact, I stated in my first post that I'm sure he is not beyond critique. I'm well aware of the "dutch disease" argument. Canada suffers from the same thing given the Tar Sands oil situation. But the approach of Chavez was different because of what he did with that money.

I'm Canadian and yes, we have health care which makes a huge difference even if it's not perfect. I don't know how you can defend private healthcare when millions of people don't have access to any medical resources. I don't know a lot about Obamacare and when that kicks in, but there are Americans who have no healthcare and who cannot go to a hospital if they need to. That's really not right.

A lot of the public services that Canada has (which is being slowly privatized or gutted one by one by Stephen Harper) directly resulted in strong rates of unionization and more middle income families. The problem is that Canada has never invested in its own industries, and it has always exported raw resources so it is a classic case of dutch disease. And now that the oil has upped the Canadian dollar, the economy is suffering because our export costs are too high, and manufacturing jobs have been gutted (again, decent middle income jobs).

The point is that to understand political economy, we need to be asking questions about social organization, about labour, and about who benefits at whose cost. There's always a cost.

Originally posted by: TheTruth

You are also emotional about this issue. Yes, no one forces anyone to become anything. Farmer, doctor, engineer etc. Every profession is important to the society. Not *just* farming. It is a different debate question all together.

People work for Vijay Maliya. Does he force them to work there? No. Is anyone forced to travel in his airlines or drink his brand of beer? No. I am not sure what is the problem with Vijay Maliya other than the fact that he is that big bad stinking rich capitalist guy! A farmer is an innocent hard-working person who would never do anything wrong. On the other hand, Vijay Maliya never works hard, he exploits his employees and gets away with all kinds of violations? Then, I would think it is a pure socialist mind that thinks that Vijay Maliya is just too rich and he does not need so much money. Let's give some of his money to that farmer. Wow.

Yes, not every hard-working, intelligent person becomes Vijay Maliya but that is again not the point. We can debate whys as a separate issue.

First - can you not start responses with "you are being emotional." Just leave that out and carry on with what you're saying. It's kind of insulting. Whether or not I am being actually emotional is besides the point. We care about certain things in the world - applies to us all - so emotions are part of our response. Our brains aren't cold and solely rational things.

I agree lots of different kinds of production are important. I didn't say only farming matter. What I said was that what farmers do is also valuable, in fact, in a very fundamental sort of level. My point was that we are quick to devalue some of the work that isn't as profitable or high profile.

I didn't say Vijay Mallya doesn't work hard. I said that not everyone who works hard is a millionaire. Of course nobody forces anyone to work anywhere. But usually the workers who help make companies successful with their hard work are not acknowledged. They are also not always fairly compensated. Look at wal-mart. Their "associates" get no health benefits and I think make close to minimum wage. Why can't the richest company in the world give their employees some health benefits and a better wage? They'd still make money. Why isn't that good enough? They want to make money at the cost of their employees not having health benefits. That's what I take issue with. Not to mention their lobbying and use of tax dollars to push out other retailers.