Post-Chávez Venezuela

I just read on the local news that Chávez had to suspend radiotherapy today due to intestinal problems. My brother, who is a medical doctor, has been saying since Chávez went to Cuba for the second time that the man is finished; the news today are apparently a final death sentence: it's virtually impossible that he'll see 2013. His biggest mistake was first trying to get treatment in Cuba; the doctors now seeing him were brought from Spain and are very competent, but the Cuban quacks already ruined his chances.

Anyway, the point of this thread is not a medical discussion, but what rather what can we expect from post-Chávez Venezuela. I honestly have no idea. The big problem for the chavistas who would like to continue the regime is its personalist nature. Chávez was always about Chávez, he never bothered with producing a political heir. His death could mean the end of chavismo, though that is a bold prediction I am not willing to make (getulismo pretty much died in Brazil after Getúlio killed himself, but peronismo is alive and well in Argentina decades after Perón's death).

What do you guys think? Will the opposition make inroads and make Venezuela a "normal" country again? Will some chavista leader manage to capitalize on the mourning over their dead leader and elect himself president? Is there a real danger of an armed uprising? Would Venezuela's Army, now mostly composed of chavista junior officers that were promoted after the senior officers were purged, accept a change of path?

I'm particularly interested on the opinions of our Venezuelan members, like TheLastOne and Inter, if they're still around.

Id imagine in the coming months since he knows the end is near he will pick a successor. Now whether that person has the charisma to keep winning elections like Chavez has will remain to be seen.

There will probably be a power vacuum after he dies, which will be filled by a successor nominated by him in the coming months or the military. There's always a chance that the opposition could gain power, but it's probably not likely (though I don't know how strong that opposition is exactly).

As an update (in fact the link I posted has been automatically updated), the Vice President of Venezuela just made an announcement saying that Chávez suspended the radiotherapy today because the sessions he already did were succesful, thus contradicting what was said by a medic treating Chávez earlier.

This may be just something to avoid chaos; the fact remains since February the 24th, Chávez has spent only 10 days in Venezuela (and refused to pass command to the Vice-President, he has been ruling from Cuba). Things don't look very good for him, to put it lightly.

luiz said:

His death could mean the end of chavismo, though that is a bold prediction I am not willing to make (getulismo pretty much died in Brazil after Getúlio killed himself, but peronismo is alive and well in Argentina decades after Perón's death).

Click to expand...

Oh, yes, Getúlio's inheritance was ended after his death... after the brazilian military took power by force with US backing and murdered his two democratically elected "political heirs"!

luiz said:

What do you guys think? Will the opposition make inroads and make Venezuela a "normal" country again? Will some chavista leader manage to capitalize on the mourning over their dead leader and elect himself president? Is there a real danger of an armed uprising? Would Venezuela's Army, now mostly composed of chavista junior officers that were promoted after the senior officers were purged, accept a change of path?

Click to expand...

Unbelievable as it may be to you, Venezuela is a democratic country with regular elections and the most likely outcome is that its fate us going to be decided that way - democratically. As it has been in the past few years. Your rightist-neoliberal pals in Venezuela are nowhere in a position to do there the coup and murders they did in Brazil.

Whatever may be said about Vargas (good and bad, there are plenty of both) the guy had balls and never ever sold out his country and people. And the same can be said of Chavez. But precious few other south american heads of state for the last century.

Venezuela was not "normal" before Chavez. Which is the reason that Chavez was able to come to power in the first place. Unless you count as "normal" a kleptocracy that exists solely to enrich the leaders of the country at the expense of the wealth of the country itself and the population of the country. That's common enough so that I suppose you could call it "normal".

I'm not going to be unhappy when Chavez is gone. But it would be a mistake to think that his end will make anything better for the people or nation of Venezuela. It will either be another left wing who keeps the people poor in the name of socialism, or it will be a right wing authoritarian who keeps the people poor in the name of capitalism. The only certainty is poverty for the masses and a weak economy for the nation. And continued political instability.

Cutlass said:

It will either be another left wing who keeps the people poor in the name of socialism

Click to expand...

Really? Where did you get that?
And if it were true, would it be as opposed to the vibrant and increasingly prosperous capitalist US and western Europe, huh? Because we're doing so well with out capitalism...

innonimatu said:

Really? Where did you get that?
And if it were true, would it be as opposed to the vibrant and increasingly prosperous capitalist US and western Europe, huh? Because we're doing so well with out capitalism...

Click to expand...

And the only people who ever really do get rich are under a capitalist system with political freedom.

I think a lot depends on the election and the timing of Chavez's death. I'm not convinced the military guys Chavez has been promoting to higher office are going to stand for losing power very easily. There may be blood.

Cutlass said:

And the only people who ever really do get rich are under a capitalist system with political freedom.

Click to expand...

You really do like to repeat that. Too bad it isn't true. Not only can people get rich(er, but that's what we're talking about, the world never stands still) under a capitalist system without political freedom (and I believe we've started arguing examples of that in another thread), people have also gotten rich(er) under "state socialist" systems. Both individually and collectively. And even, amazingly, under monarchical systems (some of those oil states).
There are many ways to get rich (resources, industry, trade, etc), many measures of wealth (GDP is among the most ridiculous economic statistics). You blind yourself with the capitalist western standards, and look down on everything else.

Also, what's this freedom I keep hearing about? The freedom to chose between voting for one party or for its mirror image every four years? The freedom to be arrested if you publicly protest against the government, thanks to an increasing array of laws made to be arbitrarily interpreted? I am indeed seeing that "freedom" all over the western capitalist democracies. And you know what? It's not even new!

innonimatu said:

You really do like to repeat that. Too bad it isn't true. Not only can people get rich(er, but that's what we're talking about, the world never stands still) under a capitalist system without political freedom (and I believe we've started arguing examples of that in another thread), people have also gotten rich(er) under "state socialist" systems. Both individually and collectively. And even, amazingly, under monarchical systems (some of those oil states).
There are many ways to get rich (resources, industry, trade, etc), many measures of wealth (GDP is among the most ridiculous economic statistics). You blind yourself with the capitalist western standards, and look down on everything else.

Click to expand...

But there are very definite limits in how far that has ever gone. What nation is a developed nation with a broad based prosperity that has gotten there by any means other than market economics under free institutions? What are your examples? Show me some evidence that I'm wrong.

innonimatu said:

Oh, yes, Getúlio's inheritance was ended after his death... after the brazilian military took power by force with US backing and murdered his two democratically elected "political heirs"!

Click to expand...

Nope. None of the three democratically elected presidents between Vargas' suicide in 55 and the coup in 64 were murdered. Juscelino Kubitschek died in a car crash in 1976 (12 years after the coup), João Goulart died of a heart attack also in 1976 (though there are indeed conspiracy theories saying he was murdered, those are ridiculous. Why wait 12 years and murder someone living peacefully in his ranch in Uruguay?) and Jânio Quadros only died in 1992, of old age.

Of the 3, only Goulart can be legitmately called a "getulista". JK was at best a half-getulista; after all, why would the army allow him to become president just after forcing Vargas to kill himself if he were indeed a getulista? Jânio Quadros was if anything anti-getulista, though he alienated the army and the conservatives with his insanity.

So no.

innonimatu said:

Unbelievable as it may be to you, Venezuela is a democratic country with regular elections and the most likely outcome is that its fate us going to be decided that way - democratically. As it has been in the past few years. Your rightist-neoliberal pals in Venezuela are nowhere in a position to do there the coup and murders they did in Brazil.

Click to expand...

Democratic normalcy is not really what is going on in Venezuela. In a normal, democratic country, the President does not rule the country from abroad, where he stays for months in a row. The President's health is not a state secret; the Vice President does not spread contradictory lies about his prognosis.

In a normal democratic country, it's not acceptable for a general to say the army would not accept a change of course, as a Venezuelan general said.

As for a right-wing coup, indeed that should not worry anyone. The army was purged and is now entirely chavista. The opposition is just trying to stay out of jail. No, what worries me is a chavista coup in the event of an opposition win following Chávez's death. Hell, even a chavista deemed "not bolivarian enough" might provoke the wrath of the army if elected.

innonimatu said:

Whatever may be said about Vargas (good and bad, there are plenty of both) the guy had balls and never ever sold out his country and people. And the same can be said of Chavez. But precious few other south american heads of state for the last century.

Click to expand...

Vargas was the biggest scumbag this country ever saw. Came to power as a fascist dictator that cozied up to Hitler (including sending german jews back to their deaths), then pretended to be a great american-style democrat when the tide turned, and then pretended to be the father of the workers when the tide turned once more. Vargas, much like Chávez, was all about himself. The Estado Novo (Vargas' fascist period) was orders of magnitude more brutal and repressive than the worst period of the military regime of 64-85. From communists to liberals, anyone who publically voiced disagreement ended up tortured and imprisoned in tuberculosis-infested holes. The Estado Novo was Brazil's darkest period, darker even than most colonial history. Only comparable to that psycopath Floriano Peixoto, but worse because he lasted so much longer.

luiz said:

Nope. None of the three democratically elected presidents between Vargas' suicide in 55 and the coup in 64 were murdered. Juscelino Kubitschek died in a car crash in 1976 (12 years after the coup), João Goulart died of a heart attack also in 1976 (though there are indeed conspiracy theories saying he was murdered, those are ridiculous. Why wait 12 years and murder someone living peacefully in his ranch in Uruguay?) and Jânio Quadros only died in 1992, of old age.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty much convinced that both Goulart and Kubitschek were murdered. But that would ne material for an entire separate discussion.

luiz said:

Democratic normalcy is not really what is going on in Venezuela. In a normal, democratic country, the President does not rule the country from abroad, where he stays for months in a row. The President's health is not a state secret; the Vice President does not spread contradictory lies about his prognosis.

In a normal democratic country, it's not acceptable for a general to say the army would not accept a change of course, as a Venezuelan general said.

Click to expand...

I'll grant you that point. Venezuela became too polarized...

luiz said:

Vargas was the biggest scumbag this country ever saw. Came to power as a fascist dictator that cozied up to Hitler (including sending german jews back to their deaths), then pretended to be a great american-style democrat when the tide turned, and then pretended to be the father of the workers when the tide turned once more. Vargas, much like Chávez, was all about himself. The Estado Novo (Vargas' fascist period) was orders of magnitude more brutal and repressive than the worst period of the military regime of 64-85. From communists to liberals, anyone who publically voiced disagreement ended up tortured and imprisoned in tuberculosis-infested holes. The Estado Novo was Brazil's darkest period, darker even than most colonial history. Only comparable to that psycopath Floriano Peixoto, but worse because he lasted so much longer.

Click to expand...

Again, good material for a different discussion. I'm not saying he wasn't a scumbag, I know that he did plenty of awful things to stay in power. But with regional leaders in Brazil up until then occasionally flirting with separatism I can excuse some of those things. What I was praising him for was for keeping the whole thing together and preventing destabilization by foreign powers.

innonimatu said:

Really? Where did you get that?

Click to expand...

oh, I dunno, because Cuba and Venezuela are economical superpowers and life quality beacons, because they just rock from how the system they're in is and because there's no Cubans trying to emigrate in mass to Florida or Venezuelans trying to emigrate in mass to Portugal and Spain.

Even he laughed at your dogmatic belief in a flawed socioeconomic system:

Keep in mind, innonimatu is a professional cynic. He has no dogmas by definition.

Cutlass said:

But there are very definite limits in how far that has ever gone. What nation is a developed nation with a broad based prosperity that has gotten there by any means other than market economics under free institutions? What are your examples? Show me some evidence that I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

Easy: Russia, or what was a century ago the Russian Empire. The nation was huge and had a lot to build up by the beginning of the century. It managed to do it and rise to become of the world's two leading powers, after a devastating civil war and another devastating world war. Whatever you may want to call it, and the collapse following the break-up of the USSR the economic collapse resulting from that mess made it look bad, it wasn't underdeveloped any longer.

Much of the attacks against the supposed economic backwardness of the USSR were propaganda. They produced cars? It wasn't as if those mass produced in the 1960s or even 70s in the west were much better! They had bad roads and lacked some infrastructure? The damn country is huge, with low density population, and has a mostly terrible climate. Compare it to Canada instead of Western Europe! At least all their major cities had good mass transit... Their agriculture was deficient, they had to import food? Well, it's not as if most of their huge land area is made up of deserts and frozen wastes, is it? And so on...

The only other single nation comparable (beat it, actually) in terms of scale of the development during the 20th century was the USA. Coincidentally, both had huge territories and large populations to leverage on. The USA had an edge in easily available resources and climate.

Easy to pick on Cuba, shunned in trade by its nearest and largest markets and bereft of all resources but good agricultural land (which they do put to good use, which is more than we can say of many other countries). Compare it with some other capitals countries in a similar situation, and we can talk. Easy also to pick on Venezuela, where economic problems had been brewing for a long time before this Chavez became president.
As for Venezuelans now trying to emigrate to Spain or Portugal: if there are any, I pity them, they've been fooled with their choice of destination. What was the latest high mark of unemployment we reached in Portugal, 15%? Has Spain reached 30% already? How much have wages benn cut in the past couple of years? Aren't you grateful to be part of the greater european co-prosperity sphere, aka EU?

innonimatu said:

Easy: Russia, or what was a century ago the Russian Empire. The nation was huge and had a lot to build up by the beginning of the century. It managed to do it and rise to become of the world's two leading powers, after a devastating civil war and another devastating world war. Whatever you may want to call it, and the collapse following the break-up of the USSR the economic collapse resulting from that mess made it look bad, it wasn't underdeveloped any longer.

Much of the attacks against the supposed economic backwardness of the USSR were propaganda. They produced cars? It wasn't as if those mass produced in the 1960s or even 70s in the west were much better! They had bad roads and lacked some infrastructure? The damn country is huge, with low density population, and has a mostly terrible climate. Compare it to Canada instead of Western Europe! At least all their major cities had good mass transit... Their agriculture was deficient, they had to import food? Well, it's not as if most of their huge land area is made up of deserts and frozen wastes, is it? And so on...

The only other single nation comparable (beat it, actually) in terms of scale of the development during the 20th century was the USA. Coincidentally, both had huge territories and large populations to leverage on. The USA had an edge in easily available resources and climate.

Easy to pick on Cuba, shunned in trade by its nearest and largest markets and bereft of all resources but good agricultural land (which they do put to good use, which is more than we can say of many other countries). Compare it with some other capitals countries in a similar situation, and we can talk. Easy also to pick on Venezuela, where economic problems had been brewing for a long time before this Chavez became president.

Click to expand...

By around 1970 the Soviet economy had produced an average standard of living for the people of the developed nations decades earlier. And then they stopped growing altogether. It's a failed example. You can get some growth, you cannot demonstrate sustainable growth.

Lone Wolf said:

Keep in mind, innonimatu is a professional cynic. He has no dogmas by definition.

Click to expand...

I don't know whether you are serious or joking, but I think (think!) you're right. I'm starting to believe that politics is, deep down, just another variation of religion: many, many people will believe whatever myths they need in order to say that their preferred political system is the best, just as they'll do it to say that they god(s) is/are the best.

Cynical indeed. But I also believe that it doesn't have to be this way. That there are plenty of other people that admit to the diversity of the world, and the need for arguing over choices, for making choices between different but equally valid paths, without invoking myths. It's just... hard to resist doing it.

Cutlass said:

By around 1970 the Soviet economy had produced an average standard of living for the people of the developed nations decades earlier. And then they stopped growing altogether. It's a failed example. You can get some growth, you cannot demonstrate sustainable growth.

Click to expand...

Nor can anyone. "Sustainable growth" is just another political myth to fool the masses with false expectations in exchange for their consent to the rulers. The only absolutely certain thing one can say is that there is nothing sustainable about eternal "growth". Either the "growth" is a statistical lie or humanity would have to be able to transcend physical laws.
I'm not denying the existence of positive developments over time, change is certainly a constant p) of history and we mostly agreed it has been for the better (then again, we might call that bias, but whatever). I hope and expect those to continue. But there's nothing sustainable about them in the sense (constant) you meant.

The reality is that growth is variable, and there are, and will always be, moments of stagnations and even regression. It depends on resources (unevenly distributed, and having their relative importance changing with technology), on technology (unpredictable, really, just look at all those "how life in 2000 will be" from the past), and on political options. Political options about what to do with the fruits of past growth: not everyone favors reinvestment, not should anyone be forced to. Political options about what is counted as "growth" ("lies, damn lies, and statistics"). Political options that sometimes lead to conflict and dead ens. Oh so many variables. And it's that diversity of options which allows freedom. Once you enshrine one path as the single valid one (like "growth" under your preferred metric) you have killed freedom. So don't tell me that "sustained growth" requires "political freedom": those two concepts are at odds with each other! Where one exists the other can never be guaranteed.

Getting back to the USSR thing: yes, it fell into economic stagnation. And the "west" had its own too and (it is my view, but I'm sure it'll be argued over for centuries to come) just happened to come out of it slightly better by inventing debt instruments to keep the money circulating, capital employed and the economy going, something which the USSR shunned. Then we had the roaring 90s fueled on abundant and cheap raw materials (guess where plenty of those came from... it was the "war dividend" from the end of the Cold War) and an economic structure based on growing debts, now we have... another economic stagnation, which coincided with the end of debt accumulation and the end of cheap available raw materials. It's anyone's guess how and when it'll end. Physical limitations, and political choices with finite lifespans. That's what I'm seeing as keys to understanding economic history. Abstract concepts of "freedom" do not seem to play an important role there.

But I'm moving away from the topic. I apologize. If anyone wants to continue discussing the engines of economic change we should open a new thread. And we might as well discuss it in the history forum, because we'd have to do it with past examples, so it's economic and political history.

Another update:

Apparently, Chávez is about to anounce he is leaving for Brazil to treat his cancer, at Sírio e Libanês hospital (the best in the country). Lula and Dilma had actually offered Chávez to get treated there when his disease was detected, as it is far better than any Cuban dump, but Chávez declined because the hospital refused to accept his demands (he demanded two hospital floors completly locked down for himself, and total secrecy from all hospital staff). If he's accepting now, indeed the end seems to be getting near.

His behavior is increasingly damaging for Venezuela, though. How can a President rule from a foreign country? How many months can he stay abroad without transmitting power to the Vice President? How can he keep talking about the October elections when it's damn obvious he's not fit to rule anymore (it's doubtful he'll live to see October!). The man's love for power is a sad spectacle to watch as life abandons him.