NationStates

Neo Balka wrote:

Triblios wrote:
Nice, in trying to be sarcastic you actually described the status pretty accurately.

Keep railing about how Socialism is a failure when your examples don't even hit the first point of Socialism: democratic control of the company by the workers.

So the definition of Socialism changes whenever something goes wrong?

Amaze.

This is the original definition. Companies essentially functioning as mini-democracies with their workforce as the citizens.

Triblios wrote:

Aclion wrote:It is endlessly amusing to me how nation's socialist statuses get retconned once they fail to live up to expectations.


For how long though?

Retcon? Unless there's soviets they never even started being Socialist..

"o-only the soviet union was s-socialist!"

T. Socialists in 2017.

Meanwhile last year: "the USSR was state capitalist!"

Triblios wrote:

Neo Balka wrote:
So the definition of Socialism changes whenever something goes wrong?

Amaze.

This is the original definition. Companies essentially functioning as mini-democracies with their workforce as the citizens.

and you think a government run by capitalists would let that happen?

Neo Balka wrote:

Triblios wrote:
Retcon? Unless there's soviets they never even started being Socialist..

"o-only the soviet union was s-socialist!"

T. Socialists in 2017.

Meanwhile last year: "the USSR was state capitalist!"

Soviet - a council of workers that govern the company, elected to a one-year term by the workers.

And yes, this does mean the USSR wasn't socialist, as Stalin eliminated the soviets to have the government directly own the companies.

Neo Balka wrote:

Triblios wrote:
This is the original definition. Companies essentially functioning as mini-democracies with their workforce as the citizens.

and you think a government run by capitalists would let that happen?

You're saying Socialism's problem is that Capitalists exist? Also admitting Capitalism is incompatible with Democracy...

Venezuela is a capitalist economy with a large welfare state funded by oil exports, and a largely-incompetent populist government prone to radical policy changes at the drop of a hat.

I'm not one to invoke the "that's not real socialism" card under most circumstances. I say the Soviet Union was socialist throughout its entire existence (including under Stalin). Eastern Europe was socialist during the Cold War. China was socialist from the 50s to the 80s. And so on.

But Venezuela? Really? Come on! We have to draw the line somewhere. If present-day China isn't socialist (and I think we can all agree on that), then neither is Venezuela.
China and Venezuela both have market economies with plenty of privately-owned companies. They both have very high inequality. They both lack central planning. Wages and prices are set primarily by the market. And so on. Of course, they also have a very large and active state sector and plenty of state intervention in the economy - but then again, so does Europe.

There is nothing especially socialist about Venezuela except the government's rhetoric. By any objective standards, Venezuela is less socialist than your average Scandinavian country (and the Scandinavian countries are capitalist welfare states, let's be clear about that).

Neo Balka wrote:

Triblios wrote:
Nice, in trying to be sarcastic you actually described the status pretty accurately.

Keep railing about how Socialism is a failure when your examples don't even hit the first point of Socialism: democratic control of the company by the workers.

So the definition of Socialism changes whenever something goes wrong?

Amaze.

No. Venezuela simply does not fit any definition of "socialism", except perhaps "socialism is any country whose leaders claim to be socialists".

And I do mean any definition. Not just my preferred definition or Triblios's definition. I honestly do not know of any definition of socialism, as advocated by some group of socialists, that would actually fit Venezuela.

Some definitions of socialism are based on workers' control over the means of production, expressed through a democratic state. Venezuela doesn't have that.
Other definitions are based on state ownership over the means of production (not necessarily democratic) and a planned economy - as in the Soviet system. Venezuela doesn't have that either.
Then there is the social democratic definition, in which socialism is considered to be something like the societies currently existing in Scandinavia. I don't consider this socialism, but for the sake of the argument I'm including it here. Venezuela does not have this either.
Then you've got the anarchist definitions, which claim that socialism is incompatible with the existence of a state. I think they are ridiculous, but again I'm including them for the sake of the argument, and again Venezuela does not fit.

By any of the known definitions of socialism - whether utopian, or Marxist-Leninist, or social democratic, or anarchist - Venezuela does not have socialism.

Philip Agee was Cia in the territory, and he says they are responsible for the unrest and (probably inevitable, be it by coup or engineered elections or direct US intervention) regime change.

"Despite the recent rash of anti-Chávez editorials in the US media, and threatening statements made by a whole slew of senior US government officials at both the Departments of State and Defense, Agee sees a more cynical US strategy in Venezuela. Building on the work of scholar William I. Robinson on US intervention in Nicaragua throughout the 1980s, and recently published documents detailing CIA and US government activity in Venezuela, Agee suggests that the CIA’s strategy of “democracy promotion” is in full-force in Venezuela.

As with Nicaragua in the 1980s, a series of foundations are providing millions of dollars of funding to opposition forces in Venezuela, meted out by a private consulting firm contracted by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs Roger Noriega recently reaffirmed the State Departments commitment to this strategy, telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 2nd, 2005, “we will support democratic elements in Venezuela so that they can continue to maintain the political space to which they are entitled.” The funding of these “democratic elements” has as its ultimate goal the unification of Venezuela’s splintered opposition (formerly loosely grouped into the Coordinadora Democratica) for the upcoming Presidential elections in 2006. But failing a victory in 2006, cautions Agee, the CIA et al. will remain, their eyes set on the 2012 elections, and the 2018 elections, ad infinitum, “because what’s at stake is the stability of the political system in the United States, and the security of the political class in the United States.”"

https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1015

Neu Leonstein wrote:

Risottia wrote:Venezuela isn't exporting much of its oil, that's exactly why their economy has gone into complete shit. And it isn't exporting its oil because 'Murica has stopped buying it from Venezuela as a way of putting "pressure" on the Venezuelan government (basically as a way to foster a regime change either via a civil war or a military coup, as usual).

I would say it's not to put pressure on Venezuela, but just because the US has started to produce a lot more oil domestically. You can see that if you look at total US oil imports, not just those from Venezuela. And on top of that Venezuelan output capacity hadn't been maintained properly for years, while the government promised away significant quantities to other countries in return for political support... so much so that at one point Venezuela actually bought US oil to keep going.

The problem of Bolivarianism was that it was basically a repeat of late Soviet socialism... inefficient crony corporatism and price controls, kept afloat by oil revenue (which was made worse by a lack of interest in keeping production facilities up-to-date and in good shape). Oil revenue eventually slumped as the cycle turned negative, as it did for everyone, not just for Venezuela. But while other countries had enough of a buffer to be able to tighten their belts slowly, Chavez had left no penny unspent and Maduro was worse if anything. So the place went to shit.

Some of the largest oil reserves in the world and they need to import oil to keep functioning. Wow.

Randsbeik wrote:...so you try again and your shitty system fails but that's ok because it wasn't real socialism so you try again and...

Dictatorships in general, either Socialist or Capitalist, tend not to work out well.

I don't think a civil war seems imminent in Venezuela. Despite the country being more or less a failed state at this point, a civil war is unlikely. For one thing, the Venezuelan government has the military, the national police, various paramilitary organizations and criminal gangs on its side. And the military is one of the largest and best equipped in all of Latin America. Maduro isn't going anywhere, at least not without help from the military. It's possible that could happen, but unlikely to given that the military is lined with so many PSUV sycophants they may as well be the armed wing of the PSUV.

This isn't the first time major protests have happened in Venezuela, nor is it the first time that mass looting and other incidents have taken place. The Caracazo in 1989 was one of the worst acts of violence anywhere in the Western hemisphere during the 20th century as up to two thousand people died in one week of violence as the government tried to restore law and order as well as deal with mass protests against the same kinds of things Venezuelans are protesting against now: costs of living, horrendous inflation and a government that seemed to be out of touch with the people. Ironically the Caracazo was one of the events that led Hugo Chavez to launch two attempted coups and eventually run for president in 1999.

I didn't know Islamic State was active in Venezuela.

Ardoki wrote:I didn't know Islamic State was active in Venezuela.

It's not. What they're doing by likening it to Syria is that a civil war could potentially destabilize the region and create a humanitarian crisis.

Costa Fierro wrote:

Ardoki wrote:I didn't know Islamic State was active in Venezuela.

It's not. What they're doing by likening it to Syria is that a civil war could potentially destabilize the region and create a humanitarian crisis.

Well, hopefully Comrade Maduro will defend the people against the US-backed unrest. This wouldn't be the first time the US have tried to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Venezuela. They poisoned Comrade Chavez and gave him cancer so they could do what they are doing now.

Pope Joan wrote:Agee suggests that the CIA’s strategy of “democracy promotion” is in full-force in Venezuela

Truly heinous.

Anyway, the main political problem in Venezuela is that the Bolivarian constitution was never written with an actually competitive political landscape in mind. The moment that a party other than the Chavistas held power over any branch of the government, the system ground to a halt and Maduro had to co-opt the supreme courts to marginalise the legislative and opposition. With the government being in control of the media and security services of all sorts cracking down on the opposition, a democratic change in regime away from the Bolivarians seems difficult to imagine.

So what I suspect will happen is that there is some sort of coup as the deprivations of the masses get too bad to ignore by even some of the more hard-headed generals, with Maduro being blamed for everything and Chavez' memory being kept untouched. Some of the hardcore Maduro supporters will probably head into the jungle to form some sort of militia for a while, but as long as the generals keep the Chavista cult of personality alive, it might not be that many that realise that Bolivarian policies are being abandoned. The new government will stop the crackdown on markets, implement a new currency and slowly begin the process of rebuilding Venezuela's economy.

Ardoki wrote:Well, hopefully Comrade Maduro will defend the people against the US-backed unrest.

Maduro isn't defending the people, he's defending his own power and wealth.

This wouldn't be the first time the US have tried to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Venezuela. They poisoned Comrade Chavez and gave him cancer so they could do what they are doing now.

I've always missed these kinds of posts. No facts whatsoever, just comedy gold.

Oil exports are a drug.

San Marlindo wrote:It's doubtful a protracted civil war will break out, but it's possible there will be a popular revolution resulting in a regime change.

Presidential elections in Ven. are to be held December 2018. The current Pres., who will be running for re-election, confirmed this December 2018 date. What the opposition is wary of is that a constitution more favorable to the Pres. will be enacted before the elections. Remember, in Ven. the power seems to center around the Pres.

Edit - I should point out that the elections for the Governors of the States of Ven. were not held on Dec. 2016. They were to be held in the first quarter of 2017. But now they have been moved to June 2017. So the Governors whose terms were up in Dec. 2016 are still at there posts which is illegal. The courts have declared the National Election Commission for being in non-compliance. They say the National Election Commission which should be impartial postponed the election because of political reasons. Seems the political party in power knew they that they would lose many of the State Governors. Remember, unlike the US and Mexico where the so called States have independent powers, in Ven. the central government really is the one with the power including to decide when State elections take place.

In other news, local Ven. municipality elections are to be held in December 2017 but some want to move it up to sometime in 2018 since Governor elections and local municipality elections are not held at the same time. Some say they can be held at the same time.

Costa Fierro wrote:

Ardoki wrote:Well, hopefully Comrade Maduro will defend the people against the US-backed unrest.

Maduro isn't defending the people, he's defending his own power and wealth.

This wouldn't be the first time the US have tried to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Venezuela. They poisoned Comrade Chavez and gave him cancer so they could do what they are doing now.

I've always missed these kinds of posts. No facts whatsoever, just comedy gold.

You disrespecting my boy Hugo?

Colbert Super PAC wrote:Oil exports are a drug.

They have certainly affected Canadian politics

It's not like we've not already had one of Nueva Granada's successor states spew people fleeing civil strife to the colossus of the north.
I doubt they will get up to much radical terrorist hijinking though.

Ardoki wrote:

Costa Fierro wrote:
Maduro isn't defending the people, he's defending his own power and wealth.



I've always missed these kinds of posts. No facts whatsoever, just comedy gold.

You disrespecting my boy Hugo?

He and many other people think Venezuela is a dictatorship because it doesn't serve US interests. Seriously though if there is a civil war I hope the true, legitimate and democratically elected government of Nicolas Maduro smashes the American puppets.

Ardoki wrote:

Costa Fierro wrote:
Maduro isn't defending the people, he's defending his own power and wealth.



I've always missed these kinds of posts. No facts whatsoever, just comedy gold.

You disrespecting my boy Hugo?

Yes. A chocolate muffin could run Venezuela better than the PSUV can.

Lonograd wrote:He and many other people think Venezuela is a dictatorship because it doesn't serve US interests.

I don't think Venezuela is a dictatorship...yet. Maduro isn't a particularly good leader and although he inherited a shitty situation from Hugo Chavez, he has made things worse. He hasn't got the gumption to make the changes that Venezuela needs because doing so would dismantle most of what Chavez installed in the first place.

Seriously though if there is a civil war I hope the true, legitimate and democratically elected government of Nicolas Maduro smashes the American puppets.

I don't think the people of Venezuela are backed by American business interests. I don't even think the United States gives two shits about Venezuela at the moment seeing as they have a President who might have committed perjury by trying to deflect an FBI investigation into his electoral team's alleged collusion with Russian officials.

Colbert Super PAC wrote:Oil exports are a drug.

As are oil imports.

Oil reserves are a curse on political stability.

Costa Fierro wrote:

Ardoki wrote:You disrespecting my boy Hugo?

Yes. A chocolate muffin could run Venezuela better than the PSUV can.

So you think nazis should run Venezuela over the PSUV? Wow ... Just wow ...