With Venezuela's oil revenues, nobody should have been poor. ..Chavez CAUSED the poor to be poor.  But thanks to news media manipulation he didn't get blamed for it. That's how all dictators operate.

Why do we give credit to this comical fool? He overthrew his government, spread the wealth of his oil reserves to the poor, and created class warfare where the populist was the poor and ignorant that kept him in power. Never once did he threaten his neighbors with nukes or try to show real power by trying to take over his region like we see in the Middle East. He passed around money he had and danced around like a kid-show character to entertain the masses. Talked crap about the US. Many leaders who have a poor populist have gone on to create massive armies and show force and muscle (North Korea, Iran, 1930's Germany)... He knew once he played that card, the US and the whole Latin American region would have wiped him out. Blaming the US for his cancer...please. Not worth the effort because he was never a threat.

I guess God needed another socialist dictator.

It is interesting to read comments regarding this article about Chavez when it is actually about the poor of South America.  The important quote within the article is by the priest, "The poor are a by-product of a system in which we live and for which we are responsible . . .".  It is not a condemnation of capitalism or democracy but a condemnation of us.  It asks the question is this the best we can do with "free enterprise".  People like Chavez come into existence not because "free enterprise" somehow incidentily creates "the poor" but because those who control it allow it to happen.  We see the Gates of the world, the Buffetts attempting to ameliorate some of the inequities because they believe it is the right thing to do.  Still far to many people believe the poor are poor because they choose it.  I'm not saying I know a solution to it, but I am saying more and more people are becoming aware that this "free enterprise" that we like, that has done so much, needs to find away to bring the rest of the world, those boats stuck in the mud up into a better life.  We need to do it not only because it is morally right but because if we don't there will be more Chavez's and they will be less kind in terms of what they see as greed and outright disdain for the poor.

I find it distressing to read the comments on many Globe articles.  So many people miss the point.  Or they do not care about the message and theme of the article.  There are many with an axe to grind.  Their point, your wrong, your worldview is wrong, your point of view is wrong.  When did compassion become a weakness?

Chavez had his faults, but I believe he was a good man. The US has pulled a lot of cr-p in its day and the world does not forget. I agree with him about W. Political systems cannot be one size fits all. Local conditions and culture determine what works. Just a there is no "one true religion" there cannot be one true political system. Speaking of religions, not matter which you are, the founders philosophies would be considered "socialist" by posters here.  

Why is it that conditions to the north in Canada are so much better for the poor than to the south that Carroll writes about? I hope Carroll will answer this question.

A good, balanced article.  Still, it is too soon to know the influence of Chavez on the rising of the poor of Latin America.  In his own country, this will depend on the sustainability of the political and economic paths that he has followed.  Outside of Venezuela, it will depend on the influence of his example.  This, in turn, depends not only on his domestic war on poverty, but also on the fate of his equally flamboyant crusade to curtail the political and economic influence of the United States in Latin America.  He has arguably been one of the most open and aggressive proponents of this, but far from its only one.  

We see Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico and other countries progressing economically on their own, different paths.  Each of these countries is to a greater or lesser extent taking measures to combat inequity in their own societies.  The main competing narrative to Chavismo is that of a more balanced, avowedly mixed economy with elements of the same mission to empower the poor, and a more subdued determination to move forward more independently of the giant to the north.  We shall see which of these paths meets with the greatest success, and from that learn something about the legacy of Chavez.

Argentina was one of the ten wealthiest nations in the 1920s and for many decades now it has been poor.  The poverty of Argentina is not due to democracy, capitalism or U.S. meddling, Mr. Carroll's screed notwithstanding.  The Venezuelan oil monopoly, PDVSA, is state owned.  That's not capitalism.  And while Hugo Chavez was elected to the presidency, the elections were hardly free and fair.  That's not legitimate democracy.

This is Mr. Carroll's biweekly U.S.-bashing column.  Next week he'll do his biweekly Catholic Church-bashing column.

We still haven't answered Camara's question.   When he asks why "they call me a saint when I feed the poor and a communist when I ask why they are poor."  Is poverty just an ordinary and expected biproduct of doing business?  Are businessmen and women so bereft of conscience that they ignore the poor?  Why do we ignore the long history of dictatorships supported by the US in Central and South America?   Has anyone read Major General Smedley Darlington Butler (USMC)?  Why do we blame the poor for their state of poverty instead of examining the causes of poverty?  Chavez may have been a demagogue but he gave free oil to millions of poor Americans when American oil companies looked the other way.

Chavez reduced unemployment by 50%.  He cut poverty by 50 %.  He reduced extreme distitution by a third.  There were one thousand worker cooperatives in Venezuela whn he was first elected.  Today there are over one hundred thousand.

As you drive into Caracas, you see solid homes with tile roofs, running water and electricity for miles.  You used to see carboard shacks covered with tin roofs.

The GDP in Venezuela as increased every year over 10%.  Chavez's critics say that's because of the oil wealth but the big oil producers such as Saudi Arabia only had their GDP increase by 5%.

Yes, crime has increased and so has inflation.  But millions of the poor and middle class are much better off. When was the last time the US had a president that did so much for our poor?

It's unlikely many of these folks ever hear of Butler or the McCormack-Dickstein committee.  I'm thinking it's about time the US marines get in there and liberate those oppressed oil fields.  That or install a cooperative government there anyway. 

Sickening how the left has come out praising this guy. Who next - Saddam?

Carrol does make an effort at a balanced article here and should be commended for that.  I also recommend reading the WJS's O'Grady; she's been writing about Latin America for years, and this week she makes a credible case for the belief that the masses of Venezuelan poor have done worse under Chavez, not better.

That said, Carroll's article has one major flaw when he asserts "For more than a century, that vast region has represented a venue for the free market."   Only in places can markets in Latin America be credibly called "free."  Carroll seems to be equating participation in a market by privately owned enterprises with a open and free market, and they are by no means the same thing.

The necessary ingredients for a free market that are often not met in Latin America -- and especially so in places like Chavez's Venezuela -- are the rule of law, recognition of human rights, recognition of property rights, and freedom of the press.   Absent those factors, you don't have a free market.  You have business and  government actively pursing their interests within the context of a corrupt bargain.

"The huge percentage that live in hopelessness and deprivation which no politics or social programs 

can correct" is directly related to the unsustainable population growth which will never be abetted

without the re-evaluation of its policies on birth control by the Catholic Church.  

"History"

That is quite a rant over noting the statement, "The poor are a by-product of a system in which we live and for which we are responsible . . .".   In response to this comment you allude to the fact that it isn't capitalisms fault and then say, "Exactly what are all those poor people going to do with themselves, or should the "free enterprise" system support them wherever they choose to live?  "  Implying by your very statement there is nothing that "free enterprise" can do for them.  You even go so far as to state, "even if there is nothing productive for them to do."  You nicely encapsulate the problem.  "Free enterprise" does indeed leave that question unanswered.  It is not a criticism of free enterprise to ask the question.  What should we do?  I assume you feel the answer is, nothing.

No one is suggesting to suck the wealth of the north and place it into the south except perhaps America's southern politicians, but outside of them I can't think of anyone.  Especially not me.  What I was doing was merely asking the question that a lot of people ask.  Can we allocate our resources in a better fashion?  Are our priorties the right priorities?  Can "free enterprise" be constructed in such a way as to alleviate the issue of the poor.  You seem to believe to question anything, to seek a better solution is somehow an attack upon the system.  It is not.  Society, economists have been seeking better outcomes and better solutions than we currently have.  You know not everyone is as lucky as I or as you in terms of the intelligence they are born with or the abilities and talents that we might be blessed with.  To somehow throw the church, which I am no friend of, into the breech in order to take our eye off the problem is rather weak.  To seek better outcomes is not to seek the end of something, it is merely to seek its improvement. 

President Chavez dramaticaaly reduced the poverty rate in Venuzuela. He provided free oil to needy US citizens  when the big three said no. Whatever you feel about his politics he was a fam who cared about those in need. 

Sad article, sadder reader comments. Does anyone in Boston donate their money to the poor, or do they just complain about it? Chavez was a punk who stole the people's natural resources and propped-up Cuba, Iran and Syria, where millions of innocent people suffer every day. He trusted Cuban medicine to save him. He caused much pain for his people. He didn't save the poor! Handouts NEVER work longterm...NEVER. When idiots like Sean Penn and James Carroll love you, you know that your on the path to suffering and loss.

A pretty good conversation today some of it actually related to what wa written.  But tell me we don't have another deleter amongst us.  That is just so lame and so cowardly.

What a column.  What a joke.  Chavez was elected 4 times and won a referendeum that the american government forced on Venezuala with 70% of the vote.  Every international agency that observed the elections declared them to be honest and fair.  Meanwhile, state governments in this country eliminate people from the voting rolls, cause there to be 4-8 hour lines to vote, create odious ID laws and harass Afro-Americans who show up to vote.  Then the courts refuse to allow a state to accurately count its votes.

You call chavez a "buffoon and a demagogue" because he replies in kind to the lying insults laid on him by american politicans.  Only he does it with a sense of humor.  Whats the problem?  Is bush above having a joke made about him?  You know, bush, the guy who created phoney evidence and lied in order to invade another country.  You usually refer to Johnson as a tragic hero when he actually created a universe of lies in order to justify the attempted destruction of viet nam.  But when any politician from another country describes US policy as being inherently evil, you attempt to diminish them by calling them clowns. The only reason for not calling every american president a clown is that there is nothing funny about mass murder and economic imperialism.

And then you attempt to smear Ortega, who was also an ELECTED president (lets not forget that Bush got LESS votes than his defeated opponent).  Not to mention that the sandinistas stuck to the law and held elections while the US waged a brutal war against Nicagreguan people.  And they willingly gave up power when they lost an election.  And ortega is once again the ELECTED president. 

It appears that it is impossible for you to mention any enemy of american imperialism without ultimately describing him or her as a joke, clown or evil.    

Most of the oil imported into the US from Venezuela goes back to them as refined products exports; mostly gasoline.  This due to the fact the Venezuela does not have refining capacity to process its type of crude.    

Jail and torture of critics, no freedom of the press. Can the Boston Globe writers imagine having to serve the dominant party, withold criticism and ... oh, wait a minute ...