When Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s iconic and charismatic president, died from cancer earlier this year, one question was uppermost in the minds of his supporters, his opponents and the wider world.Would his Bolivarian revolution die with him or had his 15 years in power so fundamentally changed the country that his legacy would be secure - regardless of who was chosen as his successor?
As a careful examination of the language and coverage of nearly four years of New York Times articles reveals, concern for freedom and democracy in Latin America has not been an honest concern for the liberal media institution.
While one can applaud Jon Lee Anderson for finally acknowledging the value of social indicators and statistical data, he and his magazine cannot be allowed to define “social inequality” any way they see fit.
The death of Hugo Chavez has produced a heavily polarised debate over his legacy. In a new essay for Ceasefire, Samuel Grove takes issue with the eagerness of the Western left to cloak Chávez in a liberal garb, and argues this is symptomatic of a deeper conservative ambivalence towards what Chávez represented: a unapologetic fighter and leader for the Venezuelan working-class.
By Jorge Martín - In Defence of Marxism, Mar 15th 2013
It is a week now since the death of Hugo Chávez and there are still kilometer long queues of people coming from all over the country to pay their last respects. Presidential elections have been called for April 14 and the mood is turning angry at the provocations of the oligarchy.