Hugo Chavez: "May the 'Revolution' Die With Him"


Credit: / CC BY

Writing at The Daily Beast, Reason contributing editor Michael C. Moynihan dances on the grave of Hugo Chavez:

This was Chavez's reign and his legacy; extralegal, vindictive, and interested in the short-term gesture rather than the more difficult, long-term solution. From his revolutionary comrades in Cuba, he borrowed the slogan "patria, socialismo o muerte"—fatherland, socialism, or death. The fatherland is a shambles, Bolivarian socialism has failed, and Comandante Chavez is dead. May the "revolution" die with him.

Read the whole thing here. Read Moynihan's take on Chavez and his enablers from Reason's November 2007 issue here.

NEXT: Roger Ailes Likes Joe Biden, But Doesn't Think He is Very Bright

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Was anyone close to him allowed to be as much a character to the people as Chavez? That freakshow Maduro? Hopefully there is no one to carry on the cult of personality that seemed to mask to many of the Venezuelan poor how terrible his policies were for everyone but him.

    1. what Joseph replied I am startled that some people can earn $4800 in 4 weeks on the computer. did you read this site link……..13925.html

      1. Joseph didn’t earn that money on any computer. Wake up, Andrea.

      2. What did Joseph do? Sell his body for ghey sex? Not that there is anything wrong with that….

        1. It’s a bukkake deal. Andrea’s fake link was an accident from the jizz that caked up in her eyes.

      3. Hugo Chavez earned a lot more than $4800 in 4 weeks, and all he did was bang it out to the cheap seats.

  2. Bolivarian socialism has failed

    All socialists learn from history is that the right people were not in charge.

    1. If sas the left constantly tells us theya are bright enough to not buy into the concept of religion and the promise of heaven in the afterlife, one has to wonder how smart they really are to think they can create heaven on earth. That’s basically what collectivism is in a nutshell and why its followers are just as fanatical: its another religion. What they always manage to do however is create hell on earth.

      1. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    2. Or that their enemies were too strong, clever, or deceitful.

    3. Yes, and they make vague references to historical economic data being “on their side.”

      The entire 20th century can be considered a compare and contrast period between modern capitalist systems and reactionary communist systems, in which GDP in free markets soared, while communists stagnated in conditions equivalent to feudalism.

      Other than that, though, all the economic data is on their side.

        1. That’s funny.

      1. I have to wonder too – does the fact that the richest and powerful man in the country couldn’t survive past 58 years old not give a socialist a moment for self-reflection?

        He was a billionaire. He had the finest foods and best medical care available to him. And he still died. Doesn’t that tell you something? Fuck, 15th century kings lived longer than this guy.

        1. I bet he knew the difference between a magazine, a clip, and a bandolier.

        2. There’s only so many whores and so much cocaine a body can handle before it breaks down.

          1. Do you enjoy crushing the dreams of half the commentariat?

            1. 58 years of coke and whores is really a pretty good run.

            2. Only half? I’m pretty sure we’re all coke-addicted sex fiends by now, Nicole. You can’t survive here otherwise.

              1. Oh of course, but I figure some of us are already okay with dying at some point in the future.

        3. The US killed him. With cancer rays.

          It’s so fucking Orwellian: every statist needs some demonic, fictional enemy that it can try to look relatively good when compared. Even if they just pull it out of their ass and show it to their people.

          Kinda reminds me of sequester horror stories…

          1. “Kinda reminds me of sequester horror stories…”

            Those are soooo February…

      2. communists stagnated in conditions equivalent to feudalism.

        If you think about it communism is really just feudalism updated for an industrial society instead of an agrian one.

        The King (government) owns all the land (means of production) and appoints nobles (party apparatchiks) to manage the land (means of production), which is worked by serfs (the proletariat) in exchange for meager subsistance level provisions. But hey, at least they’re all equal, and that’s all that really counts.

  3. Chavez was an ass who crushed civil liberties and was wrongheaded about economics. But he did have a point about the United States interfering in the internal affairs of Latin American countries. That said, all in all, I too think the world is a better place without him.

    1. I agree fully. But I mentioned the CIA meeting with the anti-Chavez coup leaders in 2002 and the Bushinistas went berserk defending him.

      1. BOOOOOOSH! Yes, telling you you’re full of shit for claiming we were part of a coup attempt is “defending”….. NO ONE.

        1. Darius404 Cavez would have created heaven on earth but for evil Boosh and America when a marxist/fascist is not in charge.

        2. The topic was non-intervention and there is no doubt the Bush gang approved of the coup during a meeting with the leaders in DC at a very minimum.

          That is not very non-interventiony.

          1. I approved of the coup too. I INTERVENED!!!

            1. I suppose you could make the argument that the true non-interventionist would have refused a meeting. But listening to them and making it clear they will have no support from the American government might be the better way, to ensure there are no misunderstandings.

              Isn’t it funny though, all the Chavistas talking about how evil coups are. I seem to remember their hero launching one.

              1. “Isn’t it funny though, all the Chavistas talking about how evil coups are. I seem to remember their hero launching one.”

                To paraphrase John Kerry, he was for the coup before he was against it.

      2. And the evidence that the CIA did anything other than meet with the coup leaders is …?

        1. All shreek needs is a bit of innuendo, and presto: BOOOOOOOOSH!

      3. You mean you mentioned this in 2002 or that it happened in 2002?

        Bush = Obama = Romney. In foreign policy and even many domestic policies there is little if any difference in actual substance. Style, perhaps, but not in substance.

        Unfortunately, those who can be lulled to sleep with bread and circuses care only about style.

        1. Oh now you’ve done it. You insulted shriek’s messiah, God Emperor Barry Sotoro I.

          1. AND Tulpa’s poor martyr, Saint Romney, at the same time. It’s a twofer!

          2. Hmmm, what else could I do. I could say – HE GOLFED WITH BIG OIL EXECS! Oooh …

            Whenever, I see Shriek I think of that character from Saved by the Bell.

        2. It took an administration of unique stupidity to launch a $2 trillion ground was in Iraq.

          All intervention is not equally bad.

          I know, the Bush Fan Club here will say “BUT LIBYA IS JUST LIKE IRAQ!”

          1. And this has what to do with our not intervening in Venezuela?

          2. Here? You expect to find Bush fans here? Do you even know where you are?

            But, actually, drones have made murder easier and less costly. This is safer for the joystick holders but not the victims of the murder.


          3. Wait, so the Bush Fan Club is against Bush’s invasion of Iraq? Fan clubs sure aren’t what they used to be.

            1. Guys, seriously, this is the definition of being trolled.

              1. But its fun to play with Palin’s Buttplug.

              2. I wasn’t aware my response to his inanity was all that serious.

          4. Talking about Libya is so last year. Boring.

            Chavez is dead. Must we change the subject out of the gate, just because you like talking about Bush and Iraq more?

      4. Amazing how being a dishonest piece of shit and pretending meeting is that same as participating. Die in a fire retard.

    2. Chavez was an economic genius, man. I hear he amassed a fortune. Close to $2 billion in his personal accounts depending on the source. Being a man of the people/tyrant is a good job to have. Where do I apply?

      1. That position has already been filled, sorry.

  4. Apparently the guy amassed a private fortune of $2 Billion:


    1. Socialism’s elite rulers always make themselves filthy rich. They make those close to themselves rich. And everyone on down the ladder impoverished.

      1. Ah, but everyone down the ladder will be equally impoverished! So it’s totally fine.

        1. At least it’s not capitalism in which a sizable number of people become very wealthy at the expense of the rest who just have it as well off as they choose to depending on how much they’re willing to do!

  5. I’m too lazy to search for it now, but one of my favorite Hugo moments was when he expropriated a Venezuelan tech company in order to build a cell phone commemorating his penis.

    1. So my initial recollection was pretty hazy……..ile-phone/

      Nevertheless, “Sent from my Vergatario” is now getting added to my phone’s email signature.

      1. So the phone was shaped like a candy bar. And candy bars are phallic objects.

  6. The comments on that Daily Beast article are unreadable. Here’s a winning example:
    “You might be white individual that love the Zionist plan of more enslavement, however I am an AFRICAN and I have to say that Whites have been leaving off well since the last 500 years.. but you did not pay for it with any hard labor.. apart form pulling the trigger.. and now you get happy when our leaders are all dying, hey??? hehehehehehe You dunno whats waiting for ya.. Black, brown, white, yellow and red man will hunt you down.. Zionist and Elites will bun, that’s not even a question, the question you should be asking is when.. I say sooner than later.. Power to Life, all Life, apart from Zionist.. 🙂

    1. JOOOOZ!!!111!!!

    2. The first rule of the Internets is “Never read the comments.”

        1. Go on…

                  1. &



  7. DO NOT read the comments.

    Good riddance to someone who had the nerve to extend education to poor people who don’t know their place, to build medical clinics in the poor sections of town where medical services were unavailable to stop the natural attrition of people who can’t afford medical services, who did the unthinkable act of insuring that poor people had access to jobs. How disgusting!

    Or, you know, read them because they’re fucking insane and kind of entertaining.

    1. Which makes me wonder if the comments are from “real” people. I’d like to think they are part of some zany CIA operation that attempts to foment resentment between the two parties so that the two parties can always remain in power. I prefer that belief to the likely reality that people really are this delusional.

      1. I think Glenn Beck has cooked up some CT on that very topic.


    2. napster
      16 minutes ago
      You would think Chavez was the biggest communist/socialist/dictator to come from central/south america. Guy wasnt even a dictator. He changed how long he could be in office but they still had elections. And if there wasnt an ounce of fairness to them, why did he buy votes by giving away money to the poor?

      Nothing wrong with disliking the man cause he enjoyed being Anti-USA, had poor human rights record etc., but people acting like he’s the worse than any of the dictators we propped up south of the border.

      One of my favorite incidents here was when joe insisted to me that Chavez couldn’t be a caudillo because he won elections. What is it about these idiots who will excuse anything if elections? Oh, right, they’re idiots.

      1. “And if there wasnt an ounce of fairness to them, why did he buy votes by giving away money to the poor?”

        I think my brain just broke.

        1. That was the sentence that convinced me it was sarcasm. If not, well, Jeez, I’ll just move along and leave this one for nature to handle.

      2. You know who else was popularly elected?

        1. Hitler. It was Hitler wasn’t it. Hitler, right?

          1. Dude, you never go Full Hitler.

            1. More of an experiment to see if it caused a wrinkle in the space-time continuum. I see that it did not.

        2. Villaraigosa?

        3. Bloomberg? Also changed term conditions.

        4. Ruben Studdard?

      3. What is it about these idiots who will excuse anything if elections? Oh, right, they’re idiots.

        The social contract is a suicide pact.

      4. Reductio Ad NeoLib: “It’s okay if the guy was a petty tyrant who despised human rights and civil liberties because the US Government has misbehaved in the past”.

    3. yomster
      14 minutes ago
      @jostasauce “undeniable dictator”? They had elections and he won.


      1. Semi OT and I’ll report back later when I’ve finished it, but I started reading this guy’s book this morning on The Problem of Political Authority and it is seriously excellent.

        1. Samizdata (another libertarian blog) has a good review of it.

        2. I didn’t get it before Amazon ran out of stock. Well, really, I was hoping it would drop in price (which it probably never will). But it looks like great stuff. I think I’ve read about everything Anthony de Jasay has written, and Huemer seems to argue for libertarianism in a similar way.

          1. I was hoping for a price drop myself, but after reading Huemer in Cato Unbound I went back to AMZN and saw the Kindle edition was expensive for Kindle but reasonable by comparison, so I went for it. Wishing my bf still worked at a bookstore and could have gotten it for super cheap (he just started new job this week, too!).

            1. I hope that means that you can finally enjoy sipping on a decent ale or two every night like I do.

      2. I believe Saddam Hussein held elections as well.

        1. So does North Korea.

          1. And, boy, do the Kim’s get elected!

        2. And won with 100% of the vote!

      3. Imagine if Nazi Germany had had fair elections every 4 years after Hitler took power. In 1936, he had re-militarized the Rhineland, and the Germans loved that. He would have been re-elected. In 1940, they were at war, and winning. Re-elected. In 1944, he could have claimed that he was the only one who could see the country through. He might have lost that election, but by then, it wouldn’t matter.

        1. joe was always posting TRUST DEMOCRACY on Chavez articles to defend all his excesses and to deny ‘ugo was a dictator. It’s not Venezuelan democracy any of them care about, it’s maintaining the argument that democratic elections means all rights are up for grabs on the majority whim. It’s the long con.

    4. TDB is a cauldron of left-wing circle jerking. Sometimes, it’s fun to tweak the masses but usually, it is peak derp all the time.

    5. I never read any internet comments. Especially those made by nicole. All she ever talks about is the pretty pretty dresses she’ll wear when she gets married.

      1. It’s called a gown, Hugh. God, no wonder everyone hates you.

        1. The commentariot DOES seem to have this huge axe to grind.

      2. Ouch. That was kind of mean, dude.

        1. It’s cool. He only hits me because he loves me.

          1. That’s why he only hits you on the bottom….because it’s so naughty!

            [Please read in British accent]

            1. NEEDZ MOAR BUMPADDLE.

              1. Please, sir, can I have another?

    6. Thank you for providing me with the excuse I needed to spike my morning coffee.

  8. Guy wasnt even a dictator. He changed how long he could be in office but they still had elections.

    Wait- we’re talking about Mayor Bloomberg now?

    It’s so hard to keep up.

    1. He wasn’t a dictator. He was just President for Life!

    2. One of Chavez’s last acts was to ban earbuds.

    3. the Soviets had elections, too. Michael Savage may have been right in equating liberalism to mental disorder.

      1. Might?

  9. When you’ve got The Best President Ever, it’s just dumb to put him out to pasture over some silly little legal technicality like term limits.



    1. Or death. Chavez is dead, long unlive Chavez!

  10. Related: Tools…..anpage-Now

    1. I forgot about the King Juan Carlos thing. That was hilarious.

    2. The article links to a Youtube video of Spain’s king telling Chavez to shut up. The top comment there is this:

      BifMcAwesome 16 hours ago

      Great news everybody: Hugo Chavez’ mdical conditions? have stabilized!

      1. That is awesome:)

    3. I find it puzzling that Chavez hated Bush so much, yet approved of Obama and Hillary Clinton, both of whom had the exact same policies toward Latin America. But I guess the whole world does get swept up in stupid American party politics.

      1. Pretty much like all the libs I know…hated Bush but enamored with the choosen one.

        1. Sure, but Chavez wanted to position himself as opposed to American imperialism and dominance in the Americas. Why pick a side in American partisan stupidity?

      2. Not suprising. The Canadian Left and the British Left love the Democrats so its not surprising that the Venezuelan Left would too.

    4. Huffington Post Is Just a Hugo Ch?vez Fanpage Now

      This is why you can’t have my nice things, like my guns, lefties. Not only do I not trust you to be civil after a gun ban, I expect you to be at your worst. That’s not going to happen under any circumstances no matter what laws you pass.

  11. From the Moynihan article:

    Maduro, who possesses both the charm and politics of Erich Honecker…

    Heh heh. Nice.

  12. Ugh. Whatever you do don’t read the comments. There’s a few people over there who aren’t entirely retarded, but then you have gems like this:

    Gerry1211 5pts
    27 minutes ago
    The ONLY difference between Hugo Chavez and the U.S. Government IS, that Hugo Chavez engaged in Socialism to better the lives of the poor and downtrodden who, for years had been oppressed by the elite, whereas WE in the U.S. engage in corporate socialism on behalf of the elite at the cost of the masses. Seems to me when a leader provides hospitals and medical care, schools, not to mention a voice to the masses, he should be exhaulted not reviled. While no one is perfect, I salute Hugo Chavez for understanding what his role was, something the U.S. Government has yet to learn.

    Ugh. “It’s only the intentions that matter, not the actual results.” Fuck fuckity fuck…

    1. New Iron law?

      Results matter, intentions don’t.

      Or is this a restatement of the law

      Foreseeable consequences are not unintended

      Judges can I get a ruling?

  13. You know what’s particularly sad and comical about the left’s hagiograophy of Chavez?

    That it’s based on an absurd and outdated view of conditions in South America. These guys haven’t learned one fucking thing about South America in the last 20 years.

    That’s the only way their narrative about noble Chavez and the poor makes any sense.

    Venezuela had the highest per capita welfare spending on the continent before Chavez took office. The poor in Venezuela weren’t being starved by Dickensian evil capitalist elites.

    And the poor in Venezuela have done quite poorly in the last 15 years relative to other nations in South America. Look at the reduction in poverty in Chile and Brazil. Venezuela had a fucking oil boom that quadrupled the earnings of their main export, and Chile still kicked their fucking ass in poverty reduction.

    So both halves of the Chavez legend are simply false. The poor in Venezuela had not been abandoned by the state, and Chavez didn’t help them after he took power.

    1. Results don’t matter, only words and intentions. Really all the majority of american leftists care about is that he once called BOOOOOSHITLER the devil. That makes him a saint in their eyes. The fact that he ruined his country is of no importance whatsoever.

    2. The left likes their nostalgic image of Latin Americans as simple, unsophisticated beaners who not only reject the modern world of high finance capitalism but couldn’t hack it if they tried.

      1. Leftists continually refer to South American countries as being full of “brown people”, saying things like, “Republicans love to exploit South American countries because they are filled with brown people” or crap like that. Yet when you visit big South American cities…white people, white people everywhere.

        1. Having fair skin, blue eyes, hair that goes blond with sun exposure, and a Spanish surname, I have had many strange reactions from people over the years, from, ‘were you adopted?’ to ‘oh, now I see it.’

          See what? Could you let me know what ‘it’ is if it is something I’ve got?

          1. Could you let me know what ‘it’ is if it is something I’ve got?

            Your passionate Latin blood, of course.

            1. That must be it! I can play bass well enough to cover Sepultura, but can’t dance for shit.

    3. That doesn’t matter as long as you can cherry pick the facts to suit your preferred narrative.

      But it’s worse than that. The problem is most lefties/progressives only get their news from sources that recycle the facts that have been cherry picked from other lefty/progressive news sources. They live in a bubble of confirmation bias.

      So as far as they know or are aware, poverty did go down in Venezuela, and it’s all thanks to Chavez. Ergo, people against Chavez hate the poor, and people contradicting this story are part of the evil corporate capitalist scheme to oppress them. All biases are thus confirmed, and all conflicting evidence is discredited.

      1. Just because Chavez made everyone equaly miserable and poor, thus creatign the illusion that things got better, doesn’t mean they actually did. Collectivists can only guarantee one outcome, and that outcome is misery for all but the oligarchy.

  14. I wonder if they’ll soak him in formaldehyde and prop him up in a glass case for the ages. Might be good for tourism…

    Hugo Ch?vez may have been oppressive, but at least he wasn’t a lapdog for Washington like so many other heads of state. The world would be a much more free and decentralized place with more anti-imperialist “rogue” nations.

  16. Chavez is so popular he has just been sworn in as the President. Plus it has just been announced that he has already won (by whatever margin necessary), the 2017 re-election. Take that, haters! He controls space, time, AND the elections. On another note, Alo Presidente is switching formats, it will now be a web show, like iCarly, featuring a Chavez sock puppet and English subtitles.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.