The end of Venezuela's "socialist paradise"

[West Leas Oros 2]

Anyone ever notice how the only people who talk about how Venezuela is "socialist" are antisocialists and people who know nothing about socialism whatsoever?

And yeah, I know I just repeated myself.

But when it’s a successful social democracy like Scandinavia, it’s capitalist. According to capitalists, Venezuela is socialist but Denmark isn’t. Despite neither being socialist. It’s only socialism when they want it to be.

[Duvniask]

You act as if all socialists, collectively, agreed on this, which was never the case. The reality is that Venezuela was never really socialist, but more of a social democratic country, with the state playing a stronger role in the economy, while still retaining central capitalist features such as generalized commodity production, capital accumulation and so on.

I wouldn't even say Venezuela is social democratic, but more left-wing populism that relies on authoritarianism and criminal gangs to maintain control.

Good thing I never said it was (I said "more of a social democratic country"), only that it was nearer the typically strong welfare states that you see in social democratic countries.

You act as if all socialists, collectively, agreed on this, which was never the case.

Of course not. It's hard enough to get two socialists to agree on what socialism is, but the fact remains that the country was held up as an example, right up until the moment things went sour.

Then how the hell can you say "you don't get to it cast it away the moment things fall apart" as if the person you're talking to, and everyone else reading it, somehow necessarily believed this to be the case?

---

I don't think I ever stated anything about its "success". I'm not sure where you're getting this from.


I'm tired, so I'll just give you this quote:

"But, the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head."

— F. Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.

---

VUVUZELA, CHECKMATE COMMIES.

Well of course some socialists claim state socialism is not a thing, but the issue with discussing what is and is not socialism is there is no consensus even among socialists.
Socialists no true socialist other socialists all the time.

There are plenty of socialists advocating state socialism though.

The only meaningful use of the term "socialism" is that which makes clear its differences to capitalism, otherwise you have ended up with a distinction without difference, having no actual meaning.
I suppose you could have "state ownership" of the means of production under a socialist system, if you discard the Marxian understanding of "the state", but that is not the same thing as the state merely owning the means of production, which is state capitalism.

Venezuela is not state capitalist either.
State capitalism treats government owned businesses like businesses and still has a capitalist pricing system.

By completely destroying the means of exchange via price and currency control, capitalism (outside the black market) is no longer functional.

So it cannot be called capitalist when there is not a proper system of prices and measuring wealth. And after seizing businesses Venezuela has not run them like businesses, but primarily used them for patronage, or just left them not working at all.

You're telling me that if business are run inefficiently, then it can't be capitalism. I already explained how Venezuela still fits the bill, it retains commodity production and wage labour, etc. Loads of countries have had price controls, including the United States.

[Novus America]

I wouldn't even say Venezuela is social democratic, but more left-wing populism that relies on authoritarianism and criminal gangs to maintain control.

Good thing I never said it was (I said "more of a social democratic country"), only that it was nearer the typically strong welfare states that you see in social democratic countries.

Of course not. It's hard enough to get two socialists to agree on what socialism is, but the fact remains that the country was held up as an example, right up until the moment things went sour.

Then how the hell can you say "you don't get to it cast it away the moment things fall apart" as if the person you're talking to, and everyone else reading it, somehow necessarily believed this to be the case?

---

Well of course some socialists claim state socialism is not a thing, but the issue with discussing what is and is not socialism is there is no consensus even among socialists.
Socialists no true socialist other socialists all the time.

There are plenty of socialists advocating state socialism though.

The only meaningful use of the term "socialism" is that which makes clear its differences to capitalism, otherwise you have ended up with a distinction without difference, having no actual meaning.
I suppose you could have "state ownership" of the means of production under a socialist system, if you discard the Marxian understanding of "the state", but that is not the same thing as the state merely owning the means of production, which is state capitalism.

Venezuela is not state capitalist either.
State capitalism treats government owned businesses like businesses and still has a capitalist pricing system.

By completely destroying the means of exchange via price and currency control, capitalism (outside the black market) is no longer functional.

So it cannot be called capitalist when there is not a proper system of prices and measuring wealth. And after seizing businesses Venezuela has not run them like businesses, but primarily used them for patronage, or just left them not working at all.

You're telling me that if business are run inefficiently, then it can't be capitalism. I already explained how Venezuela still fits the bill, it retains commodity production and wage labour, etc. Loads of countries have had price controls, including the United States.

Yeah, I know, no true socialism again.
Does not get anywhere because socialists do not even agree.

And having some price controls (the US has very few) is different than collapsing the pricing system altogether such that it is unusable.

[Imperializt Russia]

Anyone ever notice how the only people who talk about how Venezuela is "socialist" are antisocialists and people who know nothing about socialism whatsoever?

And yeah, I know I just repeated myself.

But when it’s a successful social democracy like Scandinavia, it’s capitalist. According to capitalists, Venezuela is socialist but Denmark isn’t. Despite neither being socialist. It’s only socialism when they want it to be.

"Social democracy" isn't "socialism", quite fundamentally. "Democratic socialism" is merely a roadmap to achieve a system that will be amenable to a later transition to socialism, through capitalism - otherwise, it would be a revolutionary form of socialism, seeking to topple capitalism as it stands, effective immediate.

Social democracy is merely social justice in capitalism.

Oh, and plenty of Scandiwege countries qualify to 'capitalists' as 'socialist' when it suits their political ends to call them so - or, at least, that they are ignorant enough to believe they are socialist states.

[Duvniask]

Good thing I never said it was (I said "more of a social democratic country"), only that it was nearer the typically strong welfare states that you see in social democratic countries.


Then how the hell can you say "you don't get to it cast it away the moment things fall apart" as if the person you're talking to, and everyone else reading it, somehow necessarily believed this to be the case?

---

The only meaningful use of the term "socialism" is that which makes clear its differences to capitalism, otherwise you have ended up with a distinction without difference, having no actual meaning.
I suppose you could have "state ownership" of the means of production under a socialist system, if you discard the Marxian understanding of "the state", but that is not the same thing as the state merely owning the means of production, which is state capitalism.



You're telling me that if business are run inefficiently, then it can't be capitalism. I already explained how Venezuela still fits the bill, it retains commodity production and wage labour, etc. Loads of countries have had price controls, including the United States.

Yeah, I know, no true socialism again.
Does not get anywhere because socialists do not even agree.

It does, you simply refuse to acknowledge it by pretending each definition is as legitimate as the next, which is just negligent.

And having some price controls (the US has very few) is different than collapsing the pricing system altogether such that it is unusable.

Yes, but it still means that, ordinarily, Venezuela is a capitalist country. Otherwise, it becomes quite easy to say that any country that experiences economic depression and/or economic collapse is "not capitalist" which seems absurd.

[West Leas Oros 2]

But when it’s a successful social democracy like Scandinavia, it’s capitalist. According to capitalists, Venezuela is socialist but Denmark isn’t. Despite neither being socialist. It’s only socialism when they want it to be.

"Social democracy" isn't "socialism", quite fundamentally. "Democratic socialism" is merely a roadmap to achieve a system that will be amenable to a later transition to socialism, through capitalism - otherwise, it would be a revolutionary form of socialism, seeking to topple capitalism as it stands, effective immediate.

Social democracy is merely social justice in capitalism.

Oh, and plenty of Scandiwege countries qualify to 'capitalists' as 'socialist' when it suits their political ends to call them so - or, at least, that they are ignorant enough to believe they are socialist states.

Funny how capitalists say that “it’s only socialism when you want it to be!” And then they do exactly that.

[Duvniask]

"Social democracy" isn't "socialism", quite fundamentally. "Democratic socialism" is merely a roadmap to achieve a system that will be amenable to a later transition to socialism, through capitalism - otherwise, it would be a revolutionary form of socialism, seeking to topple capitalism as it stands, effective immediate.

Social democracy is merely social justice in capitalism.

Oh, and plenty of Scandiwege countries qualify to 'capitalists' as 'socialist' when it suits their political ends to call them so - or, at least, that they are ignorant enough to believe they are socialist states.

Funny how capitalists say that “it’s only socialism when you want it to be!” And then they do exactly that.

Schrödinger's China: It's simultaneously communist and not communist.


...Or, in our case, Schrödinger's Venezuela: it's both socialist and not socialist.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Funny how capitalists say that “it’s only socialism when you want it to be!” And then they do exactly that.

Schrödinger's China: It's simultaneously communist and not communist.


...Or, in our case, Schrödinger's Venezuela: it's both socialist and not socialist.

Wait? Fox News calling Venezuela not socialist? What sorcery is this?

[Imperializt Russia]

Schrödinger's China: It's simultaneously communist and not communist.


...Or, in our case, Schrödinger's Venezuela: it's both socialist and not socialist.

Wait? Fox News calling Venezuela not socialist? What sorcery is this?

Either the first horseman of the apocalypse, or just a stopped clock.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

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

But Iran is still standing, at least

Because It's always America's fault, even when it's not.

[Luziyca]

To be honest, the "socialist paradise" in Venezuela died with Hugo Chavez, and to a greater extent, oil prices.

But really, I don't think that the situation is itself the fault of socialism: if it were a capitalist society and it were mismanaged the way Venezuela has been, it probably would have the same effect.

[Novus America]

Yeah, I know, no true socialism again.
Does not get anywhere because socialists do not even agree.

It does, you simply refuse to acknowledge it by pretending each definition is as legitimate as the next, which is just negligent.

And having some price controls (the US has very few) is different than collapsing the pricing system altogether such that it is unusable.

Yes, but it still means that, ordinarily, Venezuela is a capitalist country. Otherwise, it becomes quite easy to say that any country that experiences economic depression and/or economic collapse is "not capitalist" which seems absurd.

I am not the one to decide which definition of Socialism is more legitimate.
It is not something that can be objectively demonstrated.

And Venezuela is not merely in economic collapse.
Capitalism outside the black market there has ceased to function.

Your argument seems to be “everything not my version of socialism is capitalism” seems absurd.
Then capitalism is not a valid term, because every economy, everywhere is always capitalism.

[Novus America]

Wait? Fox News calling Venezuela not socialist? What sorcery is this?

Either the first horseman of the apocalypse, or just a stopped clock.

That article is from 9 years ago though. A lot has changed in Venezuela since, and the government has seized countless more businesses, and the private sector outside the black market has largely ceased to function.

Still I am not sure exactly what Venezuela is. It certainly claims to be socialist, and does some socialist things. But it certainly is not representative of Socialism, in that while socialist economies do not do well economically in the long term, but still do better than Venezuela.

Even Cuba is doing much better. Though hardly well.

[Duvniask]

It does, you simply refuse to acknowledge it by pretending each definition is as legitimate as the next, which is just negligent.


Yes, but it still means that, ordinarily, Venezuela is a capitalist country. Otherwise, it becomes quite easy to say that any country that experiences economic depression and/or economic collapse is "not capitalist" which seems absurd.

I am not the one to decide which definition of Socialism is more legitimate.
It is not something that can be objectively demonstrated.

You're right, it's not up to you to decide, yet you use the word regardless, so best start using it responsibly. Please use it in a way that makes sense, preferably the one that actually has a long scholarly tradition behind it, instead of "government does things, therefore socialist".

And Venezuela is not merely in economic collapse.
Capitalism outside the black market there has ceased to function.

Do you not understand the meaning of the word "economic collapse"?

Your sole basis for Venezuela not being capitalist is that the pricing system has ceased to function correctly, in which case, why does this not apply to any country, anywhere, that has ever experienced a similar state of economic disaster? But in either case, the thing is that capitalism isn't bounded by how well prices function. The extensive black market (emphasis mine) and the use of foreign currency shows Venezuela is still very much a part of global capitalism, just outside of legal channels. And in the end, the economy of Venezuela still follows the laws of motion of capitalism - indeed, the reason the economy is the way it is, is because those in charge have tried to mess with it.

Your argument seems to be “everything not my version of socialism is capitalism” seems absurd.

I implore you to read my posts in this thread, then, since I already explained some of the defining characteristics of socialism and capitalism, respectively, and what distinguishes them.

Then capitalism is not a valid term, because every economy, everywhere is always capitalism.

I have no idea where you're getting this from.

Also, dude, learn to split up posts, because it's irritating to have to figure out which parts you're replying to.

[Novus America]

I am not the one to decide which definition of Socialism is more legitimate.
It is not something that can be objectively demonstrated.

You're right, it's not up to you to decide, yet you use the word regardless, so best start using it responsibly. Please use it in a way that makes sense, preferably the one that actually has a long scholarly tradition behind it, instead of "government does things, therefore socialist".

And Venezuela is not merely in economic collapse.
Capitalism outside the black market there has ceased to function.

Do you not understand the meaning of the word "economic collapse"?

Your sole basis for Venezuela not being capitalist is that the pricing system has ceased to function correctly, in which case, why does this not apply to any country, anywhere, that has ever experienced a similar state of economic disaster? But in either case, the thing is that capitalism isn't bounded by how well prices function. The extensive black market (emphasis mine) and the use of foreign currency shows Venezuela is still very much a part of global capitalism, just outside of legal channels. And in the end, the economy of Venezuela still follows the laws of motion of capitalism - indeed, the reason the economy is the way it is, is because those in charge have tried to mess with it.

Your argument seems to be “everything not my version of socialism is capitalism” seems absurd.

I implore you to read my posts in this thread, then, since I already explained some of the defining characteristics of socialism and capitalism, respectively, and what distinguishes them.

Then capitalism is not a valid term, because every economy, everywhere is always capitalism.

I have no idea where you're getting this from.

Also, dude, learn to split up posts, because it's irritating to have to figure out which parts you're replying to.

Stop splitting posts, it makes for a Gish Gallop that multiplies like kittens into a text walk of doom nobody is going to fully read.
Or you can if you want. But I will not.
I do not like to split posts. If the post is too long for you do multiple posts.

But anyways this is not going anywhere as it is just semantics. Certainly Venezuela’s government does what it can to undermine capitalism. Its government is not capitalist, even though some capitalist structures do still exist despite the government’s efforts.

And if the existence of a black market makes a society capitalist than you admit socialism cannot exist, as there will always be a black market.

And your personal definition of Socialism is your personal definition still.

The Venezuelan government does practice a form of socialism regonized as socialist by many, even if not by you.

But I agree using Venezuela as an example against all socialism is not fair.

[The Rich Port]

Ahem... A socialist mistake funded by American oil dollars, but anyway.

The problem with Venezuela's economy wasn't a socialist one, it was simply a dependence on the oil industry. Chavez thought that the well would never run dry and instead of instituting better industries and reforming the government, he instead spent it on ridiculous nonsense and on himself.

It was indeed sort of a socialist paradise, but one built on the back of a flimsy economy, political and human rights abuse, and bad policy.

The majority of the people enjoyed it, but once it collapsed, well... Yeah.

No socio-economic system is perfect.

[Phoenicaea]

^ suspition, here, is Chavez seized so large part of industries and goods that there was no more for basic needs..this because devastating all things, his party taken resource(oil)grew.

this post is to say, parliament officially made a statement, is this the days for upsiring.. it could be. it seems just army could, still when is no legitimacy, the change is after the corner.

[Senyosu]

[something about socialism wasn't at fault it was oil economics/dutch disease being the culprit and chavez/maduro being either willfully ignorant of resource economics or just in it for power at the end of the day]

But no really, did anyone REALLY believe it was socialist and didn't get the red flags when they decided to just, not make any reserve funds from the oil so that they could at least cushion any market hiccups with oil. Don't base your economy on one resource, it just drives it to shit.

[Phoenicaea]

well.. after Syria, is the 'mafia business' faction (the four of ave maria shoguns Putin, Erdogan, Chavez, Berlusconi) eager about.. an other genocide.

it is quite so difficult, so improbable to do it..outside middle east..even if, after what we ve seen in Syria.. what s the threshold.. there is any, to caprice.

at least other business factions are hostile to them, thanks god their economies different, so that they can t always arrange a deal.

if you wish the worst to profit from it, it is sufficient you have to make it so the war inevitable. most of all, post-democracy the army no more a balance, quite always sides with.

[Asherahan]

They should go for a China Model in Venezuela.

Also brutally suppress the opposition.

[The Archregimancy]

I'm locking this thread to avoid a proliferation of Venezuela crisis threads.

While this thread predates the presidential crisis thread, the latter is, I think, better equipped to turn itself into the de facto Venezuela crisis megathread; especially since this locked thread was inactive for 15 days.

Please follow this link to find what's now the main Venezuela crisis thread: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=458537