Need some more info from the Venezuela experts

[Spearman87]

The other day I commented that Chavez supposedly spent little on social programs. Caused a little ruckus, but I recall one or 2 people found some actual numbers of some sort, and they seemed to refute the claim.

The next day, someone on another board called his nation a "poverty-stricken country", and repeated the complaint about him needing to spend more time helping them.

Is Venezuela a prosperous nation today? Anybody have numbers on their GDP, and specifically, what percentage of Venezuelans are living below the poverty line? (The US poverty line). I'm trying to figure the level of truth or myth to the "poor nation" claim, and whether with all this money from oil profits available to the people, is Venezuela a prosperous nation today.

Obviously that's a separate question from what percentage of the money he provides to the people, and as far as I recall I only saw percentages the other day, but nothing specifically relating to poverty.

[Jcrowley]

1. Starting point

Context of conquest and colonial conquest is necessary here.

Europe came to the Americas and leveled it in one of the most massive genocides ever. It's a necessary reminder that the development of Europe was based on the massacre of the Americas. And not only of the Americas. The development of Europe also came about on the back of our sister Africa.

So when we consider the condition of say Venezuela in this case we must consider from where they have been. And if we are measuring prosperity based on the conventional standards of the very disastrous, energy intensive and unsustainable model of America then let us recognize that that is based on geological unrealities and colossal banditry.

If those factors aren't entered in then all your calculations will be mistaken from the start.

[Flanker]

2. Venezuela is a poverty-stricken nation

It has been since the late 70's however indices are getting better here is a good link about poverty:

http://www.cepr.net/publications/venezuelan_poverty_rates_2006_05.pdf#search=%22World%20Bank%2010%25%20drop%20in%20poverty%20Venezuela%22

The figures are lower in 2006.

[OzarkDem]

3. Venezuela has the largest middle class

of any Central or SA nation.

There are many people who live in poverty, usually in rural areas. Like most Latin American countries their social structure is one of "haves" vs "have nots". But, thanks to industry and nationalizing of the oil companies in the 1970's, there is a thriving, educated (albeit in the US) middle class.

I know, I almost got married and lived there in the early 1980's, in Maracaibo. Damn, I was such an Ozark feminist.

[Flanker]

4. Again that was the 70's

Reality is very different today, but recently getting better, thanks to oil prices, but the oil strike and coup were a major step back that link has poverty data for every year over the past 9 years.

[ptolle]

6. If you trust our guvmint

If you trust our guvmint especially the CIA here's what the CIA world factbook has to say about the economy:https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ve.html#Econ
Look also at the infant mortality and literacy rates.

[Wilber_Stool]

5. This is a good discussion from earlier today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2183955#2185003

Pay particular attention to #80 and #111.

[Peace Patriot]

7. Try www.venezuelanalysis.com. I believe they have facts and figures.

As I recall, all indicators are up. One I particularly remember is that literacy has gone from some very low figure (50%?) to 100% literacy in 4-5 years, due to oil profit funding of adult literacy programs throughout poor regions, and also the provision of schools to the poor. Tells you how badly the vast poor and brown population of Venezuela was neglected, prior to TRANSPARENT elections and majority rule. I'm not good with remembering figures, but I've read many accounts of the impacts of this literacy program, which has profoundly changed the lives of the poor, with many people who felt hopeless formerly now having ambition and higher goals. Another big impact has occurred with the oil profits funding of medical clinics in poor areas, and also community centers, and loans and grants to small businesses and coops. It sounds to me like it's very constructive aid. And one of its goals is food self-sufficiency. People are encouraged to "stay on the farm" so that Venezuela (which formerly imported much of its food) can begin to feed itself. Another goal is diversification of the economy, looking to the future when the oil runs out. I've read several accounts of the new coops--a taxi coop, and a shoe factory coop. It's heartening to read how optimistic people are. They never dreamed that anybody would actually help them--give them the small loans and other small boosts they needed to get their modest enterprises going. These anecdotal accounts tell you a lot--maybe not facts and figures--but how Chavez policy is actually affecting people--and that assistance IS getting down to the people who need it.

Finally, one thing that touched me was funding for indigenous arts, and the resurgence of native music that it has inspired. They've found all these old guys with musical instruments and skills that the young have forgotten, and they are experiencing a renaissance. They are now rejecting the "canned" music imported from the U.S. and elsewhere, by corporate interests, and indigenous music is thriving--including record sales and performance (the business end). In other words, a market was created--and one that enriches the culture.

They do have an outright food subsidy for the poorest of the poor--who would starve otherwise. It's food at greatly discounted prices--not just a giveaway. But one criticism I read of it came from a woman with a small independent grocery business who said that the food coop was driving her out of business (undercutting her prices). A fair criticism, certainly--and something should be done to assist a small business in that circumstance. (I was thinking if the rich oil elite--who seems so spoiled and childish, throwing temper tantrums and colluding with the Bush Junta on evil plans to overthrow Chavez, that don't work, because they have no popular support--would spend their energy on CONSTRUCTIVE criticism--for instance, how to successfully mix a capitalist/socialist economy--they would be doing something for their country. But they likely have no more concern about small businesses, or a truly healthy economy, than our corporate elite does.)

Another thing I know that is being worked on, fervently, by the Chavez government, and local governments, is low cost housing for the poor. This is a critical need in Caracas--which has bad slums on in-motion hillsides (a lot of housing just slides away in heavy rains). The reason I know about this is that the leftist mayor of Caracas went a bit too far, and had a plan to confiscate two country clubs/golf courses in the city, to convert the lands to low cost housing. It was nixed by the Chavez government because it was unconstitutional. Venezuela's constitution protects private property. But other usable lands are being found.

In summary, you are right that Venezuela, while not a poor country, has a vast population of poor people, because all the oil riches were being hoarded by the few, and being bled off to oil giants. Oil was nationalized in Venezuela long before Chavez. What Chavez has done is to institute fair taxation of the oil giants, to increase the government's revenues, and he is using this money for the above programs and other policies to help underserved and badly neglected people (for instance, to give back some lands to the indigenous). The rich oil elite (no doubt instigated by the fascist Bushites, and certainly by the oil companies) tried to destroy Chavez's government with a crippling oil professionals strike. These were the "white" Venezuelans--the traditional small and very well-off elite, who had always exploited and oppressed everybody else. They nearly destroyed Venezuela's economy. Chavez fired them all (the roughest thing he's had to do). And lesser skilled people had to take over, under highly pressured conditions, and had to learn the technology quickly and get the oil pumping again--which they successfully did. (One of the things that the oil strikers and the oil companies did was to sabotage all the computers.) So a whole new oil professional group was born. Anyway, it hasn't been easy for Chavez and his government. Those against him, some directly funded with your tax dollars, have tried one thing after another, to bring down this government--a coup attempt, an oil strike, a truly stupid and wasteful recall election, and 24/7 vituperation by the corporate news monopolies. With all of these crises--and relentless criticism--it's a miracle that the government is stable and able to accomplish ANYTHING. But it does seem quite stable, with great popular support--and economic indicators steadily rising over the last two years or so.

[HooptieWagon]

8. I don't consider myself a Venezuela expert...

... however, i've been there and have several Venezuelan friends.

Venezuela is like most, if not all, the Central and South American countries in that there is a vast divide between the haves and have-nots. There is not as large a middle class as in the US or European nations, although the size of the middle class varies from country to country. Venezuela has a small group of wealthy elites who control the business interests , hold most of the land and formerly the political power. An almost as small middle class own small businesses or work for high salaried jobs. The large majority of people are in some degree of poverty, ranging from barely struggling to make ends meet to absolute destitution. Working class wages are very low. Chavez claims to represent those poor, and IMO his actions give some credence to that claim:

He worked a deal with Cuba for oil in exchange for Cuban doctors to come to Venezuela to treat the poor, who previously had no medical care.

Chavez provided cinder blocks and morter to the poor people in Caracas who were literally living in cardboard shacks, so they could build themselves adequate housing.

Venezuelan government uses some of oil revenues to subsidize food prices, so everyone can afford to eat. Oil is nationalized (CITGO) and the oil fields (mostly in and around Lake Maricaibo) are big employers paying fairly good wages by Venezuelan standards.

Chavez seized unused farmland from wealthy landowners, and distributed it in small plots to farmers so they could support their families.

There are several other examples that I can't think of right now, but of similar type.

I wouldn't call Chavez fault-free. Many aspects of his rule are dictatorial, even if they are to benefit the poor. He tends to be heavy-handed clamping down on dissenting press. He also tends to clamp down on political opposition, probably wisely since most of his political opposition is funded by US corporate and government interests who'd like to see Chavez out of the picture.

So, Chavez can't be judged in black or white criteria, but as a shade of grey. Some bad to go along with the good. A bit of communism, a bit of socialism, a bit of populism, a bit of military dictatorship... probably pretty similar to his buddy Castro. Under current conditions, Chavez is probably as good as it can get for Venezuelan leadership in his programs for the poor and resisting US corp/World Bank takeover of Venezuela's resources. In another time, maybe he wouldn't be so good.

[Flanker]

9. This is not accurate

"He tends to be heavy-handed clamping down on dissenting press. He also tends to clamp down on political opposition, probably wisely since most of his political opposition is funded by US corporate and government interests who'd like to see Chavez out of the picture."

The press is quite free and the opposition as well, there is an exception for "Sumate" charged with taking NED money but that is it as far as I know.

[Peace Patriot]

10. I have not seen ANY evidence of dictatorial rule AT ALL, in widespread

reading on Venezuela and consulting friends/activists who have traveled there. I think "dictatorial" is entirely a MYTH of our war profiteering corporate news monopolies. Since you've been there, I would appreciate any evidence that you have--what you've seen or heard. I am open-minded and not a Chavez worshiper. Anyone can be tempted by power--ANYONE! But I have not found any such evidence (--trying to judge things from a distance). One friend was telling me of the 24/7 assault on Chavez and his government in the corporate media (a media much like ours--not a free press, but wholly controlled by corporations and the rich). No retaliation by Chavez AT ALL. The corporate news monopolies even backed the violent military coup attempt against him--called for his violent overthrow on TV--and he has done nothing against them. Frankly, if I were him I think I would have shut them down (rescinded their corporate charters, or something) for that--for openly supporting a violent overthrow and pumping for it on TV. (Luckily, the vast majority of Venezuelans seem immune to corporate propaganda--as our population is getting to be, also--and went out into the streets by the tens of thousands to demand return of their elected president and restoration of constitutional government). Chavez's response to vicious attacks seems to always be to come up with some positive initiative. For instance, his government has organized and funded a public radio/TV station (like NPR used to be, or the BBC) so people can get some objective information, and create their own news/entertainment. When his political opposition accused his party of election fraud, he invited THREE international organizations to heavily monitor Venezuelan elections (the Carter Center, the OAS and EU election monitors--all of whom declared Venezuela's elections to be honest and aboveboard).

In the oil professionals' strike, he had to take strong action (firing all the oil professionals), because the strike was literally destroying the country, but retaliation isn't his style. He fired them, and that's all. Think what Stalin, or even Castro might have done, or Bush, for that matter! --call out the storm troopers; tear-gassing the people who were sabotaging the computers that control the crude mix; setting "Homeland Security" on the organizers; arresting and prosecuting people for endangering "national security." None of that. He's had good reason to take measures like that, on a number of occasions, and HASN'T DONE SO. His government has proceeded in an orderly and constitutional manner, in every crisis.

No evidence of communism--at least nothing like we have seen before. Soviet, Chinese or Cuban-style communism--state imposition of communes, land confiscation, draconian measures--"dictatorship of the proletariat." The Chavez government has encouraged cooperatives--has provided loans, grants and/or facilities for small business enterprises. This is not communism. It is POPULISM. We had similar developments here in the U.S. under FDR to remedy the Great Depression--farmers' coops and government subsidized enterprises of all kinds (all the WPA works). The Chavez government has confiscated UNUSED land and put it to good use--to permit small farmers to feed their families AND to supply Venezuela with fresh, indigenous produce. Robert F. Kennedy, and other liberal U.S. politicians supported land reform in South America. It's not a communist idea. It's a matter of simple justice and common sense. If you have land barons hoarding the land, and people starving and moving to the cities because they can't grow food--you have to DO something about it. It is ruinous NOT to. Look at Mexico! Millions of jobless peasants migrating to the cities--and immigrating to the U.S. to find work--due to corporate takeover of farm lands. In the past, it was the rich European Spanish South/Central Americans who hoarded lands, and pushed all the indigenous people out and impoverished them. Vast tracts of farmland were thus put to grazing or to no use at all--mere accumulation of land wealth, or speculative ownership--while the vast impoverished poor, with farming skills, have absolutely nothing, no land, and can't even feed their own families, and, in time, those farming skills are LOST. The Chavez government caught up with this JUST IN TIME. (It's not yet Mexico!) There are still skilled farmers who are willing to farm but have no land. ANY sensible government--one not in thrall to the super-rich--would do what he is doing.

Military dictatorship? No evidence of it. It was a fascist element in the military that tried to overthrow him. The people of the country wouldn't permit it. They demanded return of Chavez to office, re-opening of congress and restoration of constitutional government--tens of thousands of Venezuelans in the streets, peacefully protesting the coup. What does that say about the power of the military in Venezuela? We have a stereotype of the military in South America, but in reality the Venezuelan military is full of poor people, who use it as a leg up. It gives them jobs, education and status. And Venezuela has no enemies (aside from the Bush Junta), so the military engages in a lot of civic work (building infrastructure, helping out civil projects, and acting as a "national guard" in emergencies). It is NOT a particularly militaristic military. Chavez himself was an "up from the bottom" military man, and, early in his career, participated in an attempted coup against an truly onerous, fascist government. As a poor man, he'd seen the impacts of fascist rule first hand. It wasn't a fascist coup attempt. It was an ANTI-fascist coup attempt. He regretted it, though. He spent time in jail for participating in it. And THAT is where his popularity BEGAN--when he was in jail. He became a HERO to most people for TRYING to oust the fascists! He emerged from that experience with a firm commitment of constitutional government and peaceful change, ran for office and won. So the military is a mixed bag--most of it poor people, with sympathies for the downtrodden (they are OF the downtrodden); some of them rising to leadership positions, along with the more elite, upper class, traditional military leaders, some of whom identify with the upper class, and, in the case of the coup attempt against the Chavez government, were corrupted by the oil companies and the Bushite CIA. Chavez's reaction to the coup (he was kidnapped and his life was threatened) was remarkably mild. Almost no one went to jail for it. According to his telling, he called in those involved--some of them his former friends in the military--determined that they had been misinformed that he had resigned (--a disinformation campaign led by the corporate news monopolies), and FORGAVE almost all of them.

Really and truly, the Chavez government is not even close to being a "military dictatorship." It is, indeed--from everything I can determine--just the opposite. It is government of the people, by the people and for the people, supported by 60% to 70% of the Venezuelan people who have a passionate commitment to constitutional government. They pass out miniature books--tiny blue volumes--"Constitucion de la Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela" (24 de Marzo de 2000) to all and sundry. I have one sitting on my desk--a sweet ikon of democracy.

Re Castro and Venezuela's outreach to Cuba (and mutual projects, such as the oil for doctors exchange), to say that Chavez is "probably pretty similar to his buddy Castro" is VERY inaccurate, and also it includes a misunderstanding of the common Latin culture that they share, and of Bolivarianism. Chavez is in fact nothing at all like Castro--except perhaps in his "stick it to the man" attitude toward the U.S. Chavez was ELECTED. He is the RIGHTFUL representative of the Venezuelan people, and the eloquent spokesman of--and one of the leaders of--a vast, peaceful, democratic revolution throughout Latin America. Castro is the "old guard" of the left--a remnant of the days of brutal fascist dictatorships, wherein the left was forced into armed rebellion. I think it's fair to compare Castro to Thomas Jefferson or George Washington as to their having taken VIOLENT action against intolerable oppression, in the name of the people. Castro is viewed that way by many Latin Americans--as a hero. Castro is no democrat--but then, he has had to deal with the constant violent intentions of the U.S. He is no democrat, but neither is he a fiend. His rule HAS improved the lives of the poor, significantly. Chavez's government--and Argentina's, Brazil's, Chile's, Uruguay's, Paraguay's, Bolivia's, and soon, Ecuador's and probably Peru's--is dealing with fascism and rule by the elite in a much different way, through TRANSPARENT elections (the long hard work of local civic groups, the OAS, the Carter Center, and EU election monitoring groups), and rightful, proper and legal empowerment of the vast poor majority.

All the new leftist governments in South America are DEMOCRATIC governments, including Venezuela. But they don't despise Castro the way our fascist government and its corporate lapdog news media would like us to (with many of us succumbing to their relentless propaganda and demonization of Castro). South Americans are developing an INDEPENDENT view of foreign relations--apart from the interests of the multinational corporations and rich elites who have previously dominated the policy of South American governments. National and regional self-determination is the common theme of all of these leftist governments (this is very nearly the definition of Bolivarianism--independence from the U.S. and its political interests and financial exploitation). They don't have to hate Castro any more! They can make their own judgments. And trade and diplomatic relations with Cuba is no more strange or threatening--in a world in which So. Americans are establishing their independence--than U.S. relations with England (with whom we have a violent revolutionary history), or Canada, France or Germany, all of whom have strong socialist elements to their economy. Cuba is an indigenous member of Latin culture! Same language, same (or similar) music, similar values, similar problems (a long history of impoverishment of the majority by European and U.S. predators).

Also, something very profound has occurred in the overall tenor of the South American leftist movement--a truly deep sea change away from armed conflict toward a peaceful renaissance. Chavez is a good example of it. Here is a man who reads Noam Chomsky--and recommends it to the UN! He has carefully analyzed South America's problems, and has personally undergone a deep change--from the anger of his youth and temptation to violent resistance, into becoming president of his country and a world spokesman for the poor. We could almost SEE this profound change occurring in Peru, recently. Ollanta Humala "came out of the hills," so to speak--emerged from a background in the military and armed leftist rebellion--and ran for president of Peru this year. He won 30% of the vote in the first round, and knocked the rightwing candidate out of the race. This, with NO corporate or other traditional political support. Very popular with the poorest of the poor. In the second round, he increased his support to 45% and came close to being elected president. The Bushite-endorsed candidate (Garcia--very corrupt) won, but not by much. Humala increased his support by 15% between the primaries and the final election in part because of the open support he received from Chavez and from the new, indigenous president of Bolivia (Evo Morales). These national borders (in the Andes) don't mean that much to Andean mountain dwellers, peasants and indigenous. (They are colonial-imposed borders). It is one Bolivarian (independence) movement, that crosses borders. Humala has now been dragged into a murder case, involving his brother (and an attack, some time ago, on a police station). I sense that he is not guilty, but may have had some association with the group that did it. I also feel that Humala has been touched in some way by Andean shamanism--has changed (somewhat like Chavez) from an angry man into one who sees the bigger picture--that peaceful change is possible, and is the right way to go. If my guesses about him are true, his having to take responsibility for what his brother did might be a good thing. Maybe he'll have to spend time in jail, and (like Chavez) will not at all be disgraced by it, but emerge a hero. We'll see. I suspect that Garcia will send Peru's economy the way of Argentina's (corporatization--and ruination--until the Argentinians rebelled), and that the left will be back to pick up the pieces. Humala may be the leader who has to do that (extract Peru from World Bank/IMF/corporate control).

Castro is the past. Chavez, Morales, Batchelet (in Chile), da Silva (in Brazil), and all the others--and maybe Humala in Peru--are the future. Think of Humala at a crossroads with Castroism down one path, and Boliviarianism down the other. He stands at the crossroads, torn. He sees the necessity for bloodshed down the one path--seemingly just, in order to free the poor from oppression. But the souls of the dead down that path haunt him, and he sees that innocents will die, too. Violence breeds violence. Down the other path, no one dies. Anger is put aside. It is a MORE DIFFICULT path--the peaceful one--requiring patience, and overcoming many unjust obstacles (Bushites, corporate predators, pouring money and propaganda into the coffers of dishonest Peruvian politicians). Which way will he go? The rest of South America is choosing the Bolivarian path. They are PROVING that people power works. Peaceful uprisings in Argentina and Bolivia have brought real change--very positive outcomes. Transparent elections in Venezuela and all these countries are having a profound impact for the good on public policy (includng regional trade and political cooperation, such as the Mercosur group, and items such as Venezuela bailing Argentina out of World Bank/IMF debt). In the past, leftists were tortured and killed in many of these countries--and some felt compelled to fight back, in kind. That's what Castro and Che Guevara did. The fascists (with U.S. backing) had overthrown one democracy after another. Michele Batchelet herself was tortured by the U.S.-backed dictator Pinochet. Now she is president of the country. It's a new day in South America. As Evo Morales has said, "The time of the people has come." And they are not a "dictatorship of the proletariat." They are just people, citizens, the majority, who desire only fairness.

"The time of the people has come."

Viva la revolución!

[eridani]

13. Thanks for the in-depth analysis

Post it as a separate thread?

IMO, the difference between Castro and Chavez is that Castro is a Cold War socialist, and Chavez is a post-Cold War socialist. It used to be that socialists thought they knew exactly how a well-run socialist society ought to look, and when in power took over ownership of all land and private business entities. Post Cold War socialists know better than that, and are more inclined to just try a bunch of programs and see which ones work the best.

[HooptieWagon]

11. here ya go

Chavez land seize:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5297246.stm

snip
Three years ago Mr Chavez's left-wing government started redistributing agricultural land that it said was underused to help landless peasants.
snip

Chavez shutting down media:

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=6036

snip
Venezuela has undergone two major crises in the past 12 months: the attempted coup of 11 April 2002 and the opposition general strike in December 2002 and January 2003. The two crises have shown how polarised Venezuelan society has become and the serious repercussions this has had on press freedom: increase in physical attacks on journalists, shutting down of news media and restrictions on access to public information. At the same time, the views being voiced by both government and opposition (which is backed by most news media) have never been so intolerant, to the point of using or endorsing censorship.
snip

More Chavez/media:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/country_profiles/1229345.stm

snip
Media watchdogs have been highly critical of the behaviour of the Venezuelan media, and of President Chavez's attitudes towards broadcasters and the press.

The president has been accused of creating a hostile, intimidatory climate for journalists, while some private media outlets have been criticised for being involved in the opposition movement against him.



A controversial media law came into effect in 2005. The government said it would improve standards by banning the inappropriate airing of scenes of sex and violence. But critics of the bill, which also prohibits material deemed to harm national security, said it was an attempt to silence media criticism.

Venezuela's many private broadcasters operate alongside state-run radio and TV channels. President Chavez has his own weekly TV and radio programme on the government-run networks.

The country is the main shareholder in Telesur, a Caracas-based pan-American TV channel which, according to its chairman, aims to present Latin America's vision of itself to the world. The governments with a stake in the venture are all left wing or left of centre.
snip


Chavez clamping down on political opposition:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2005/09/richard_gott.html

snip
Certain of his reform laws—in particular one regulating the media and another reshuffling the judiciary—have drawn protests from international rights groups. And yes, there's the matter of la lista, the list of signatures submitted in 2004 to demand a referendum on Chavez's recall, which, so signatories claim, now functions as a black list, deployed by the Chavez government to deny them jobs and services.
snip



PBS special on Venezuela:

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/venezuela/thestory.html

snip
Then, surprisingly, a woman steps forward and asks if she can offer a dissenting opinion, saying she is disenchanted with Chavez and will not vote for him again. The crowd does not take well to her request and grows progressively angrier, chanting Chavez's name, until Forero pulls the frightened woman into a nearby government building. Officials whisk her away and tell Forero that he shouldn't be covering politics, suggesting instead that he report on how good the tourism is in Venezuela.

Such a story though, notes Forero, would be hard to do. Tourism is collapsing. The economy in Venezuela is in a freefall, predicted to decline 20 percent this year alone. And many in this deeply split country blame its impulsive, charismatic president. Forero meets with Julio Borges, a critic of Chavez. He says there has been an astonishing social shift in the last 20 years, pointing out that in 1983, the country was 75 percent middle class and 25 percent in poverty. Now these numbers are reversed.

This change, Borges says, made Chavez's rise to power predictable, if not inevitable. "Chavez is a symptom of the sickness that Venezuela has ... not the illness itself," Borges explains. The illness he's referring to is Venezuela's over-reliance on cheap and abundant oil. Indeed, it's costing Forero all of $2.50 to fill the tank of his rental car.

With oil reserves that rival some of the largest producers in the Middle East, Venezuela is sitting on a virtual gold mine. It's the fourth-largest supplier of oil to the United States, but oil money has not been an economic cure-all. The population has outgrown the rise in oil revenues, and successive governments have squandered oil riches and stolen public funds. The few who consistently profit are the very rich, who are staunchly opposed to Chavez. These people are a driving force in an opposition movement made up largely of middle-class Venezuelans, who are increasingly anxious about the country's economic nosedive.
snip


I visited there before Chavez was first elected (by all accounts a fair and free election). The situation in Venezuela at that time was dire. I was stopped and held at gunpoint at several army checkpoints in the mountains while driving from Puerto La Cruz to Caracas. I saw first hand in Caracas the cardpaper shacks that tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of people lived in on the mountainsides. During the rainy seasons, mudslides would tumble down upon the shanties, killing and injuring many.
Yes, Chavez has addressed many issues facing the poor, but there appears to be many problems that haven't yet been addressed. And, as Chavez's popularity and power grows, it remains to be seen if he can resist the corrupting influence of that power. I hope he can, but I wouldn't be shocked if he doesn't.

[Spearman87]

12. I leave for the weekend and now

.....I have a pile of stuff to sift through!

Thanks for the responses. Just from skimming, I can tell it’s a little too complex to fit into the world of quick, soundbite, “fastfood” answers. As always, that means there is enough ammo for either side of the argument to pick and choose something that suits the end result they are looking to prove.

NPR’s “Talk of the Nation” is doing a segment on Latin American issues now, so maybe I can pick up some additional info from their experts. I’m still not in the Chavez fan club, but, it’s relative I guess……it certainly could be worse.