Every Hugo Chávez obituary in the Western press
by Sam Kriss
Darth Hugo Destruktor Chávez, the outspoken and inflammatory Venezuelan leader, died yesterday in Caracas when the Invisible Hand of the free market reached down his throat and shook loose his gall bladder. He is survived by his four children and his millions-strong army of terrifying cyborg drones.
To his supporters and those implanted with his mind-controlling Chavismo-chips, Chávez was Emmanuel, the reborn Christ. To his detractors, he was Double Hitler. As ever, the truth is somewhere in the middle – while he was certainly born, he was not Christ; and while there was only one of him, he was most definitely Hitler.
Hugo Chávez exploded onto the world stage in September of 2005, when he took the stand at the United Nations General Assembly to complain at length about the air conditioning. However, he first came to prominence in the hitherto-unknown land of Venezuela in 1992. In that year, he and a band of avaricious raiders attempted to steal the Seer’s Eye, an enormous sapphire kept in the vaults of the Federal Legislative Palace. Thankfully, his plot was foiled, and the stone was destroyed before it could be used as a component in Chávez’s Ionising Doom Cannon, a laser weapon that would have been capable of extinguishing the Sun.
However, that which is dead cannot die, and Chávez escaped the dungeon dimension he was cast into to come to power in 1998. While not going so far as to actually do anything remotely dictatorial, Chávez was far from a democratic leader. Instead of competing honestly in elections, he provided services and raised the standard of living for the people of Venezuela, ensuring their gratitude and thereby gaining an unfair advantage at the polls. Much of the funds for this insidious election tactic of ‘making things better’ were rerouted from the newly nationalised oilfields: through this wanton kleptocracy, billions of petrodollars were withheld from deserving rich white people. Under his rule, the murder rate soared; a tend analysts have linked to his predilection for riding round Caracas slums at night and picking off pedestrians with a hunting rifle.
Absolutely nothing happened in April of 2002.
On the international stage, too, Chávez made some severe missteps. From his innumerable lazy Sunday morning lie-ins with Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, in which he and the tie-hating weirdo spent hours curled up together on the sofa watching reruns of Friends, to his decision to travel back in time to 1939 and sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on behalf of both nations, Chávez maintained a policy of automatic support for tyrants, dictators, traffic wardens, accordion players, queue-jumpers, and other evildoers.
For all the vaguely defined suffering that I’ll assume he’s caused, Chávez’s death opens up new opportunities for Latin America. Freed from his yoke, leaders across the continent are now free to abandon his schemes for mutual assistance and non-usurious development lending. Only a broad network of grassroots citizen activists stands between the Venezuelan people and the rapprochement with financial imperialism that they definitely want, even if they don’t know it yet.
I’ve always thought that a good way to test the sincerity of anyone who claims to be on the Left is to find out their attitude to Hugo Chávez. Those who try to disavow him tend to be, in general, useless: they want a pure, ideal socialism, not socialism as a real material movement. Chávez wasn’t perfect. In some areas he went too far; in many he didn’t go nearly far enough. Nonetheless the immense good his Bolivarian Revolution has done for the people of Venezuela – and for people across Latin America and the world – is undeniable. What must be remembered, though, is that Hugo Chávez didn’t do any of this alone. His achievements were those of every doctor, teacher, worker, farmer and organiser who worked to improve the lives of those around them. The social movements he helped build and connect will long survive him. Descanse en paz. La lucha sigue.
you are scum
thank you.
no, thank you!! Your essay was hilarious (I’d been bitchin’ that NO English speaking commentator on the radio could say “Hugo Chavez” w/o putting “controversial”(codespeak for ‘BAD’)in front of it. Life & movements are not strictly polarized as our press prefers to present it. That Chavez improved the lives of millions of people can NOT be denied. Hagiography of anyone, even Gandhi lacks depth, but acknowledging actions and results in the context of a life and a movement allows us all to learn. Nice work.
You are my new hero.
thank you!
‘Real material socialism’ does not require constant violations of freedom of speech and undermining of democratic institutions. It seems to me less than obvious that the kind of socialism that does require or involve these is the kind of socialism that anyone should strive for or support. It’s certainly not the kind that I would ever support. It does great disservice to your post and to the cause that you support that in the comment at the end, you disqualify anyone who disavows Chavez as useless. Though you may not be, it makes you sound naive, dogmatic, and uninformed, and makes you seem like the kind of caricature of the leftist that so damages the left’s credibility in the eyes of people who would otherwise be sympathetic to leftist values. If do you care for a ‘real material socialism,’ you should begin by making sure you don’t alienate people who might otherwise sympathize with your views by making light of serious matters.
Oh no, violations of freedom of speech lol. What did those media owners who attempted a coup ever do to him lol.
what violations of freedom of speech
Well, for example refusing to let the opposition win the last 10 or 15 elections thus denying them the freedom to speak for Venezuela.
Jajajajajaja! You must be a gringo or yankee! Or one of those rich Venezuelans who shop in Miami.
Yes, Joaquin, you are right, and please add those same people’s right to speak death to the majority of Venezuelana in 1989 by raining live ammo on them so their clamors did not shut the killers’ off. It is that mass murder that decided the Venezuelan patriotic soldiers on issues of freedom of speech. They closed no media of the murderers but opened up the gates so the voice of the murdered could be heard
hey daniel you fucking suck you goddamned liberal
where it says ‘Speak You’re Brain’ for comments… that should be ‘speak your brain’
it’s deliberate
@Daniel: He believes he must appeal to “socialists” and “leftists”, rather than the public at large, if he wants to enact change, which I agree is an anachronistic and short-sighted view.
That aside this was a hilarious and informative left-wing interpretation of Chavez.
“‘Real material socialism’ does not require constant violations of freedom of speech and undermining of democratic institutions.”
actually yes that’s the whole point of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
I’m guessing you’re just kidding. (If not, read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on the subject)
Well done!
The general sride of Western press on Hugo Chávez is exactly the one that this article mocks so efficiently. Whoever calls him or herself a progressive or a Leftist and seeks the hair on the eggshell (“el pelo al huevo”) when confronting some giant whose stature can be measured by the hatred he or she generates in the powerful of the Earth should either reconsider their self-recognition or request the powerful in the Earth to put her or him on the payroll of their lackeys. At least, don’t do it for free. The soonest the “bestest”
Thank you a thousand times for writing this–both hilarious and comforting at a sad time.
YOu are hot
Reblogged this on The Red Commune and commented:
An excellent example of the hypocrisy of media treatment of Chavez. I’ll have my own comments of Chavez later.
yea
That was grand. I also agree about your rule of thumb. In a bit of shock at Chavez’s death I poked around for leftist reactions. The ones I found that were disavowing him were very navel-gazing, sectarian, talk-shop kind of places.
Brilliant!
“Absolutely nothing happened in April of 2002.” Ha, so true.
very hot
I love your writing style.
This is absolutely hilarious and I enjoy it. Nothwithstanding, I don´t know if I agree with your take on socialism and democracy. Just some latitude degrees below Venezuela, Brazil seems to be going on with a government program that removed millions from abject poverty, without none of problems of chavismo, specially the personality cult. Circunstances vary from place to place, of course, and maybe the brazilian political culture, being from portuguese and not spanish heritage, can be the reason for this difference, but not all of it, I guess.
Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that while Chavez’ allies in Brazil have made things better for the poor in that country, they have not done nearly as much as Chavez has to better the situation. Brazil remains the most unequal state in the region (while Venezuela is the most equal) and political violence in Brazil is still very bad (though day-to-day violent crime is higher in Venezuela).
Comparing the two demonstrates that both have progressed in the right direction, but that Venezuela’s greater state intervention (particularly in setting up services for the poor, something not properly measured in ‘reduction of poverty’) *has* led to greater improvements.
It comes down to a values jugment on where the right balance between equality and individualism lies.
Thanks and congrats for being courageous and defy the regime media propaganda.
Vive le Comandante!
An excellent article, brought some cheer to me in this depressing time. I might forward it to my aquaintances who always question me when I say I admire Chavez, (or explain why I habitually wear a red shirt to the office!).
Thank you.
[…] Web platforms like Twitter and Storify produce a fluid form of instant montage. An editorial in the Dallas Morning Herald, is quite brazen: ‘During his 14 years as president, Chávez fooled Venezuelans into believing he would improve their lives and strengthen their democratic powers. In reality, he accomplished exactly the opposite…Chávez squandered his nation’s vast oil wealth on socialist gimmickry.’ As if in direct response, a tweet points out that ‘Being vilified by the political & media establishment usually signifies you’re a threat to US-corporate world hegemony.’ A wonderful parody of this vilification turns up in a blog entitled ‘Every Hugo Chavez Obituary in the Western Press’. […]
The thing is whether these improvements can be kept up after the cheap oil runs out or will they fizzle out as well. If the former then things are looking good, if the latter – we are buggered.
brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. thank you so much.
Your style is really unique compared to other
folks I’ve read stuff from. I appreciate you for posting when you’ve got the opportunity,
Guess I will just bookmark this site.