The end of Venezuela's "socialist paradise"

[Novus America]

this

True Socialism© has never been tried.

If by "True Socialism" is meant control of the means of production by workers, then yes, that is a true statement. When did workers control the means of production in Russia? China? Cuba? North Korea? or Venezuela?

Democratic socialism as practiced in, say, Scandinavia, on the other hand is a roaring success on all counts. But for some reason those who run down so-called "socalism" in despotic and/or populist nations never are able to come up with a cogent critique of Scandinavian-style democratic socialism other than that taxes are high.

Scandinavia is NOT socialist.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydor ... a9ec5774ad

"I would like to make one thing clear," Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said recently in a speech at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. "Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2016/02/17/po ... socialism/

Social Democracy is NOT Democratic Socialism!

Social Democracy combines pro business policies with extensive welfare.
But the vast majority of the economy remains owned by private companies.

Social Democracy certainly can work. But it is not socialism.

[Major-Tom]

The Venezuelan experiment was doomed from the start, with Chavez funneling money into programs that weren't affordable, all the while radically changing the economy overnight. Couple that with the economy relying solely on oil profits, and it was a perfect recipe for disaster.

While I'm no fan of neoliberalism and the detrimental ills it has had in South America, the Chavez and Maduro methods are equally ill-conceived.

[Major-Tom]

this

True Socialism© has never been tried.

If by "True Socialism" is meant control of the means of production by workers, then yes, that is a true statement. When did workers control the means of production in Russia? China? Cuba? North Korea? or Venezuela?

Democratic socialism as practiced in, say, Scandinavia, on the other hand is a roaring success on all counts. But for some reason those who run down so-called "socalism" in despotic and/or populist nations never are able to come up with a cogent critique of Scandinavian-style democratic socialism other than that taxes are high.

I'm reiterating Novus America's point here - but social democracy is a success in many developed countries because it combines support for the well-being of the working class, curving corporate excess, all the while allowing private enterprise to innovate and expand the economy. It's not rocket science.

[Costa Fierro]

The Venezuelan experiment was doomed from the start, with Chavez funneling money into programs that weren't affordable, all the while radically changing the economy overnight. Couple that with the economy relying solely on oil profits, and it was a perfect recipe for disaster.

Not quite true.

The main issue in Venezuela is and will be corruption. If you don't address that, any government be it socialist or otherwise is going to find itself engaging in acts of corruption which is detrimental to the economy and to the government, because siphoning off billions of dollars is never a good thing.

Nevertheless, one of the other main issues that Venezuela has suffered from is capital flight. Basically because Venezuelan banks cannot be trusted and because the government tends to have a penchant for making seriously questionable economic decisions, wealthy Venezuelans decided to put their money overseas. That means cashing in your bolivars for dollars and putting your money elsewhere, usually America, where the banks usually take a couple of decades before imploding themselves. Anyway, basically what it meant was that the value of the bolivar fell through the floor. Chavez attempted to rectify this by having a fixed exchange rate and implementing restrictions on who could buy dollars. This worked for two years and then people figured out how to game the system and now we have the situation where minimum wage is the rough equivalent of two cents an hour.

Now of course this looks like the fault of opportunistic, moderately wealthy Venezuelans and well, you'd be somewhat right. Again though, the existence of a massive black market for currency conversions and the willingness of the police to look the other way is what allowed this to happen. That and whoever tried proposing changing Chavez era policies being turfed out of the government faster than you can say "catastrophic hyperinflation" did not help the situation at all.

As for the oil, it remains Venezuela's primary natural resource and one of the greatest sources of government money, not the economy. Venezuela had a diversified economy with a sizable agricultural and manufacturing sector. Both have since diminished thanks to the economic issues. Only the government was reliant on the oil revenues, and even then, it essentially ran PdV into the ground.

While I'm no fan of neoliberalism and the detrimental ills it has had in South America, the Chavez and Maduro methods are equally ill-conceived.

This is what happens when you let any old idiot run a sovereign state. At least with the US you have a system whereby the President can't do anything regardless of how experienced (or not) they happened to be.

[-Ocelot-]

Socialists try create Socialist state; Socialist state fails; Socialists claim it wasn't Socialist; repeat.

Like a broken record, it repeats again and again. Just turn the damn thing off already and be done with it.

When you are forced to speak Mandarin to get your ideal job, go tell them how socialism is a failure. I'm sure they'll be delighted to hear you repeat this tired copypasta.

[Darussalam]

Socialists try create Socialist state; Socialist state fails; Socialists claim it wasn't Socialist; repeat.

Like a broken record, it repeats again and again. Just turn the damn thing off already and be done with it.

When you are forced to speak Mandarin to get your ideal job, go tell them how socialism is a failure. I'm sure they'll be delighted to hear you repeat this tired copypasta.

Funny that the only form of socialism that (seemingly) succeeds seems to be socialism that heavily emphasizes on ethno-nationalism, is hostile to workers and keen of suppressing their political capital in favor of unelected technocrats with engineering education background. Socialism in the sense of the state being held hostage by labor unions and poor people rallying behind them seems to be mostly failures.

[Phoenicaea]

..I m not socialist, still, adressing politics, which true, it is philosophy, we have also to be 'substantial', so not to swamp into sillogism, and into, worst of, metaphiscs-teology.

so, we have to say, socialist or not, Venezuelan absolutist regime is, mainly, absurdly corrupt.

then again, North Korea, is, most of all, an ereditary monarchy with no human rights. it is 'violence' the emerging principle of ruling, in these two cases.

even if we shouldn t renounce at core philosophical discussion, we should put these cases, universally judjed as self-evident, in a different basket. just to be simple.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Always thought Chavez was eh, had some good things, had some bad. Maduro is just a fuckwit twat. Shame how bad things have gotten in that country.

[Special Aromas]

The Venezuelan experiment was doomed from the start, with Chavez funneling money into programs that weren't affordable, all the while radically changing the economy overnight. Couple that with the economy relying solely on oil profits, and it was a perfect recipe for disaster.

Not quite true.

The main issue in Venezuela is and will be corruption. If you don't address that, any government be it socialist or otherwise is going to find itself engaging in acts of corruption which is detrimental to the economy and to the government, because siphoning off billions of dollars is never a good thing.

Nevertheless, one of the other main issues that Venezuela has suffered from is capital flight. Basically because Venezuelan banks cannot be trusted and because the government tends to have a penchant for making seriously questionable economic decisions, wealthy Venezuelans decided to put their money overseas. That means cashing in your bolivars for dollars and putting your money elsewhere, usually America, where the banks usually take a couple of decades before imploding themselves. Anyway, basically what it meant was that the value of the bolivar fell through the floor. Chavez attempted to rectify this by having a fixed exchange rate and implementing restrictions on who could buy dollars. This worked for two years and then people figured out how to game the system and now we have the situation where minimum wage is the rough equivalent of two cents an hour.

Now of course this looks like the fault of opportunistic, moderately wealthy Venezuelans and well, you'd be somewhat right. Again though, the existence of a massive black market for currency conversions and the willingness of the police to look the other way is what allowed this to happen. That and whoever tried proposing changing Chavez era policies being turfed out of the government faster than you can say "catastrophic hyperinflation" did not help the situation at all.

As for the oil, it remains Venezuela's primary natural resource and one of the greatest sources of government money, not the economy. Venezuela had a diversified economy with a sizable agricultural and manufacturing sector. Both have since diminished thanks to the economic issues. Only the government was reliant on the oil revenues, and even then, it essentially ran PdV into the ground.

While I'm no fan of neoliberalism and the detrimental ills it has had in South America, the Chavez and Maduro methods are equally ill-conceived.

This is what happens when you let any old idiot run a sovereign state. At least with the US you have a system whereby the President can't do anything regardless of how experienced (or not) they happened to be.

The collapse of the Venezuelan economy occurred simply because the outperforming oil industry masked the lacklustre performance of the remainder of the Venezuelan economy and simultaneously drove the currency to a value that wasn't sustainable for other industries to thrive in. When Chavez took power in 1998, the price of oil, taking into account inflation, was trading at all time lows and in 2010, the value had increased by a factor of 7 before declining. Overall Venezuela was only marginally affected by the GFC on the strength of the oil economy, however the rest of the economy was tanking quite badly which created a scenario where Venezuela became heavily dependent on oil revenue. It's called dutch disease; when one export industry does particularly well it usually causes problems for others because they're trading at a less-favourable exchange rate than previously. By the time the oil price fell again, the remainder of Venezuela's economy was already shot and huge budget deficits ensured. The corruption happened afterwards, it has very little to do with the situation Venezuela is currently in.

[Phoenicaea]

.. Couple that with the economy relying solely on oil profits, and it was a perfect recipe for disaster.

Not quite true.

The main issue in Venezuela is and will be corruption. If you don't address that, any government be it socialist or otherwise is going to find itself..

Nevertheless, one of the other main issues that Venezuela has suffered from is capital flight. Basically because Venezuelan banks cannot be trusted.. ..

Now of course this looks like the fault of opportunistic, moderately wealthy Venezuelans and well, you'd be somewhat right.. ..

Venezuela had a diversified economy with a sizable agricultural and manufacturing sector.. ..

While I'm no fan of neoliberalism and the detrimental ills it has had in South America, the Chavez and Maduro methods are equally ill-conceived.

This is what happens when you let any old idiot run a sovereign state.. ..

@Aromas instead, your discourse is.. I would say it politely..sth. somtething as talk-show, please, let it be.

@Costa Fierro, instead it seems to me a good short and reasonable history of, part of, what has happened.

pardon, how about nowadays.. who rules behind the party: army, or some (this case, from where?) foreign investor? if you can t say, who does, in your opinion?

I mean, who is that let government keeps ruling, that would oust it easely and instead he doesn t. if not, is it that there is not something that can rule, an 'administrative anarchy'

[The Archregimancy]

Socialists try create Socialist state; Socialist state fails; Socialists claim it wasn't Socialist.

Chavez's death and Maduro's obvious incompetence have given further cover to Chavistas on that point

But, for the record, Venezuela's economy and infrastructure were already failing when I was working in the country in 2010, when Chavez was still alive.

Maduro's incompetence has accelerated the process, and it's likely that Chavez might not have made quite as bad a hash of the problem as his successor, but Venezuela would still have been in serious trouble regardless. The timing of Chavez's death meant that he managed to avoid taking the brunt of the responsibility for the failure of policies he'd initiated. In that sense, there's a bit of a Lenin/Stalin dynamic at work there (though Maduro isn't capable enough to ever be a Stalin).

It's a shame. I like Venezuela.

[Counterfeit trouser shortage]

so if you live in any of the developed nations, then congrats, you live in a Socialist society!

* galaxy brain *

You really believe this?

[Darussalam]

so if you live in any of the developed nations, then congrats, you live in a Socialist society!

* galaxy brain *

You really believe this?

unironically believing in neoreaction meme to own the cappies

(not completely wrong though)

[Tokora]

It's not Venezuela but socialism worked fine in Yugoslavia under Tito.

[Novus America]

Socialists try create Socialist state; Socialist state fails; Socialists claim it wasn't Socialist; repeat.

Like a broken record, it repeats again and again. Just turn the damn thing off already and be done with it.

When you are forced to speak Mandarin to get your ideal job, go tell them how socialism is a failure. I'm sure they'll be delighted to hear you repeat this tired copypasta.

Except that China has been successful by moving AWAY from socialism.
While the government does intervene in the economy it is a combination of state capitalism, mercantilism, and free enterprise. (Many of the state owned companies are failing anyways and only kept afloat via massive amounts of debt).

It is really closest to the Western Empires of the 1800s.

[Novus America]

It's not Venezuela but socialism worked fine in Yugoslavia under Tito.

Not really. It was never a wealthy country, and economic expansion was driven by massive, unsustainable foreign debt, later resulting in economic failure. It was not remotely sustainable.
It was also reliant on borrowing money and receiving remittances from capitalist countries.

It always poor, with high unemployment and inflation and the period of economic growth did not last.

[Gig em Aggies]

It's not Venezuela but socialism worked fine in Yugoslavia under Tito.

Not really. It was never a wealthy country, and economic expansion was driven by massive, unsustainable foreign debt, later resulting in economic failure. It was not remotely sustainable.
It was also reliant on borrowing money and receiving remittances from capitalist countries.

It always poor, with high unemployment and inflation and the period of economic growth did not last.

Plus Tito was never really liked that much so his heavy handed socialist policies were more unnerving just like in Venezuela

[LiberNovusAmericae]

A "paradise" that was infested with crime, corruption, and political oppression. It was only a matter of time before it hit disaster.

[Novus America]

Not really. It was never a wealthy country, and economic expansion was driven by massive, unsustainable foreign debt, later resulting in economic failure. It was not remotely sustainable.
It was also reliant on borrowing money and receiving remittances from capitalist countries.

It always poor, with high unemployment and inflation and the period of economic growth did not last.

Plus Tito was never really liked that much so his heavy handed socialist policies were more unnerving just like in Venezuela

Many people did truly like him. But those that dared criticize him were exiled, jailed or killed.

Tito was brilliant at public relations.
He was great at make himself look good, both at home and abroad but the reality never lived up to his image. Many uncritically swallowed his propaganda and many still do.

But in reality while he was less horrible than the leaders of most other Eastern Bloc countries, he still was not good.

Human rights and the economy were still worse in Yugoslavia than in the Western bloc European countries.

[Doing it Rightland]

If I may offer my understanding of Venezuela, the main issue was that the system was unsustainable in any serious turbulence. Rising oil prices gave the government revenue to provide a wide amount of services to the citizens and economy in the country, leading to early success. However, when those oil prices fell, the government was unable to provide those same services. Things like healthcare, housing assistance, food support, and other programs fell apart. The economy, which was heavily propped up by these programs crashed. The people, who also were dependent on a lot of these programs, were also heavily hit. Say what you will about the merits of these programs, but the stresses that failing oil industries put on the country were too much to handle.

[United Republic of Aipat]

I particularly don't think that any economical system is good in a majority, neither capitalism, nor communism, nor marxism or whatever other economical system out there, I think what we should ask is what would be the ideal economical system. And I do support socialism to an extent just like capitalism or communism.

TL;DR I support every economical system to an extent.

Everything in excess is bad. But in moderate amounts it can be good.

[The Two Jerseys]

“I keep building this one rocket that should achieve FTL speeds, but everytime it blows up 10 seconds after launch!... I’ll try it again, those weren’t the real models anyway.”


This is Marxism and it’s derivatives as a whole.

I like this analogy, it amuses me.

[Pope Joan]

Years of US embargo, enforced by political, judicial and commercial means, can have quite an impact.

But Iran is still standing, at least

[Novus America]

Years of US embargo, enforced by political, judicial and commercial means, can have quite an impact.

But Iran is still standing, at least

Um the US does not have an embargo on Venezuela.
We still import Venezuelan oil. We still allow Venezuela to own Citgo.

We export oil to Venezuela as well.

Some American companies still operate there. Most have left but not because of the US.

While I think we SHOULD ban Venezuelan oil and seize Citgo, we unfortunately have not.

Iran is not socialist.

Contrary to your belief everything is not the fault of the US.

[Novus Wrepland]

The problem with the “socialists say they’re building socialism, fail, and claim it wasn’t “REAL SOCIALISM”” narrative is that the Chavistas didn’t even claim to have been doing that. Their economic program was described as postneoliberal.

They totally suck and are terrible economic managers, but it really doesn’t have all to do with socialism.

Years of US embargo, enforced by political, judicial and commercial means, can have quite an impact.

But Iran is still standing, at least

What is so great about Iran?