Venezuela is capitalist

[theisthanger556]

I just don't get it when capitalists point to Venezuela as an example of "socialism not working".

Venezuela's economy is over 2/3rds private, the workers don't own the means of production, the oil prices are plumetting (thus Venezuela makes less money), etc.

Venezuela is far from socialism, it is much closer to capitalism, than to any form of socialism.

 

[Mycroft]

I just don't get it when capitalists point to Venezuela as an example of "socialism not working".

Venezuela's economy is over 2/3rds private, the workers don't own the means of production, the oil prices are plumetting (thus Venezuela makes less money), etc.

Venezuela is far from socialism, it is much closer to capitalism, than to any form of socialism.

I don't think you have a clear understanding of what "socialism" is. Here is a dictionary definition:

Definition of socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Now...to be sure, there are varying degrees of this that are all called "socialism". But Venezualia meets this basic definition in that government controls the means of oil production.

Here is a pretty good article that discusses their problems:

The government reacted to skyrocketing inflation by following the typical socialist script: it imposed draconian price controls and has been raiding businesses it accuses of hoarding. As a result, there are widespread shortages of food and medicines, and people have to endure hour-long lines in supermarkets. The scarcity index produced by Venezuela’s central bank reached 28 per cent in January, meaning that one out of four basic products is out of stock at any given time. Somehow, toilet paper is now more valuable than paper money.

The productive sector has been decimated after hundreds of nationalisations and expropriations. Oil now accounts for 96 per cent of export earnings, up from 80 per cent a decade ago. Moreover, due to gross mismanagement at PDVSA, the state oil monopoly, production has dropped by 28 per cent since 2000, the only major energy producer in the world to experience a decline in the last quarter of a century.

read more at: How socialism has destroyed Venezuela | City A.M.

So...even though there is a "private sector" in their economy, heavy-handed, socialist government control over that sector pretty much negates any notion that they are a capitalist nation.

 

[Carjosse]

The Venezuelan regime controls the supply and prices of most goods like food, medicine, oil, and even toilet paper. The country is in the mess it is now because of government meddling in every facet of the economy and a blatant disregard for the people and their rights.

 

[X Factor]

Venezuela: How socialism ruined country - Business Insider

 

[brothern]

Well the issue is Venezuela's intervention into price controls, import/export and currency controls.

Venezuela is heavily dependent upon importing goods into the country. It used to get huge inflows from oil production (Citgo), which have vanished due to the falling price of oil. Formerly the proceeds were used to import basic goods and raw materials rather than produce them domestically. However such a decline in oil revenue affects a currency's value, because in order to trade internationally one has to covert your currency into other currencies (US dollar, e.g.). Therefore the Venezuelan government attempted to maintain the value of its currency via a fixed exchange rate and additionally limiting access to foreign currencies, as well as placing price ceilings on basic goods and services.

The effect of this is severe. The import and exchange controls causes the cost of importing to drastically increase, while price controls incentives less domestic production. Why produce or import basic goods at nonexistent margins or a total loss to yourself? This in turn causes shortages of basic goods, which in turn causes inflation, an increase in the value of the goods and the denigration of the currency's value. Suddenly no one is able to afford anything and there's no incentives for producers to produce goods.

Furthermore instead of recognizing the problem the Venezuelan government has "buckled down" and established rationing policies and local supply/production committees, which only exacerbates the problem.

It's a failure of "socialist" policies in the government attempting to regulate the means of production and exchange and having it blow up and crater the economy.

 

[Harshaw]

 

[theisthanger556]

I don't think you have a clear understanding of what "socialism" is. Here is a dictionary definition:



Now...to be sure, there are varying degrees of this that are all called "socialism". But Venezualia meets this basic definition in that government controls the means of oil production.

Here is a pretty good article that discusses their problems:



So...even though there is a "private sector" in their economy, heavy-handed, socialist government control over that sector pretty much negates any notion that they are a capitalist nation.

I know what socialism is. The "governmental control over the means of production" part is a bit deceiving in that it doesn't mean what you normally would expect it to. It refers to the people controlling the government, and the government controling the MOP, so the people undirectly control the MOP. I am not 100% sure, but from my understanding, Venezuela does not have this, and the people have little to say over the MOP.

It is also to be noted, that not all capitalism is liberal capitalism (or right-libertarianism), Venezuela seems like state capitalism to me, where the government acts as a corporation, and ones the MOP.

 

[theisthanger556]

View attachment 67226708

This picture has no relevance.

Socialism has never been implimented. It may have been tried, but never implimented (in modern history, on a larger scale).

That picture's capitalist variant would be a lot more accurate.

Capitalism happens -> People suffer -> "But that was crony capitalism/corporatism" -> Repeat.

 

[Harshaw]

This picture has no relevance.

Socialism has never been implimented. It may have been tried, but never implimented (in modern history, on a larger scale).

That picture's capitalist variant would be a lot more accurate.

Capitalism happens -> People suffer -> "But that was crony capitalism/corporatism" -> Repeat.

I think you proved that it indeed is entirely relevant.

 

[What if...?]

View attachment 67226708

Frankly, I'm not convinced any large scale communist "experiment" was a genuine effort to bring about a "workers paradise".

It really looks like they all were clever ploys to replace those at the top with themselves. All the joyous sharing stuff never made it past commitee, and the "vanguard" never had any intention of ceding power.

Having participated in a communistic experiment I can testify that it does not work outside of small groups of like minded and like abled individuals.

But my point still stands that I don't believe anybody ever sat down and developed an actual plan to try to implement a more fair and efficient economic system and then bring it to life.

Just amoral ****bags using a nice idea to trick masses into putting them in power.

 

[Fletch]

This picture has no relevance.

Socialism has never been implimented. It may have been tried, but never implimented (in modern history, on a larger scale).

That picture's capitalist variant would be a lot more accurate.

Capitalism happens -> People suffer -> "But that was crony capitalism/corporatism" -> Repeat.

The picture is quite relevant. It wasn't long ago, and you can even find threads here at DP, where socialist defenders of Venezuelan socialism praised Chavez and declared Venezuelan socialism as evidence of how well socialism worked. Now that the socialist experiment has collapsed, people like you crawl out of the woodwork and claim socialism had nothing to do with it.

 

[Harshaw]

Frankly, I'm not convinced any large scale communist "experiment" was a genuine effort to bring about a "workers paradise".

It really looks like they all were clever ploys to replace those at the top with themselves. All the joyous sharing stuff never made it past commitee, and the "vanguard" never had any intention of ceding power.

Well, that's one of the Big Lies of Socialism/Communism. But there were those within those systems who did genuinely try.

It's just a much, much, much easier system to corrupt.

Having participated in a communistic experiment I can testify that it does not work outside of small groups of like minded and like abled individuals.

Correct.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The Venezuelan regime controls the supply and prices of most goods like food, medicine, oil, and even toilet paper. The country is in the mess it is now because of government meddling in every facet of the economy and a blatant disregard for the people and their rights.

Do conservative people here think that socialism is viewed by liberals as some perfect system?
How on Earth does that make any sense to a rational human being?
It is absolutely possible to have crooked despots running a socialist economy, every bit as much as crooked despots can take control of a capitalist economy.
Socialism, fascism and capitalism can all be affected by gross incompetence, poor moral values and rotten ethics.

And in the case of Venezuela, not only do we see all three factors, we also see the general appearance of a totalitarian approach more than anything else to boot. Venezuela's economy was lopsided and poorly planned long before socialism, almost completely dependent upon oil and heavily leveraged.
Russia's system went from a collapsed communist system to heaving attempts, in fits and starts, at a rudimentary form of capitalism, which also quickly collapsed, at which point we saw a lurch into totalitarianism, and they are moving toward fascism now.

America has always had a capitalist economy, it is something that people value, and yet in the postwar era we learned that regulated capitalism was able to serve as a tool to serve the middle class. That didn't exclude the wealthy elites, it just made the playing field more fair for working families.
Now that the controls have been lifted, we've seen a forty year plunge in earning potential, a loss of upward mobility, income inequality and a loss of stability and security.
It's not that capitalism has failed, it's that the people who own the levers of capitalism have failed. They have failed to protect working families.

The disease which affects all these economic disciplines is the obsession with purity. The more purist you get, the more fundamentalist you get and the more fundamentalist you get, the more irrational you get.

Few Americans want to see us transition to a socialist economy. We don't have experience with it, so we would not be any good at running it.
What they WOULD like to see is ways to FIX our capitalist system.
Adding a minor socialist tweak to capitalism doesn't turn it into socialism, it just adds to the gene pool and creates a stronger hybrid.
Since we are historically capitalist, we should not go far with socialist tweaks at all, let capitalism be what it is.

We can't fix everything, and we're never going to have a perfect system, no matter what we try.
But that doesn't mean we can't make what we have work better for a larger number of people.

I am a liberal, and I am not itching to ditch our capitalist system for an experiment with socialism.
But I know that we used to be smart enough to know how to do the economic "chemistry" work needed to keep our capitalist system fair, and strong, for all of us.
History is there, if we want to study what worked.

 

[What if...?]

Well, that's one of the Big Lies of Socialism/Communism. But there were those within those systems who did genuinely try.

It's just a much, much, much easier system to corrupt.



Correct.

As a species we were communistic long before we adopted the sedentary lifestyle which required a bunch of stuff that has proved problematic.

And "capitalism" becomes more corrupt as wealth concentrates, as history demonstrates.

Which is apparently driven by basic biology and represents a cycle of those in power feeding their biological drives for wealth and power at the expense of everyone else until they are forced to stop and the cycle begins again.

The rises and falls of history fit this model perfectly.

And the economic system is only an element of it.

 

[Mycroft]

I know what socialism is. The "governmental control over the means of production" part is a bit deceiving in that it doesn't mean what you normally would expect it to. It refers to the people controlling the government, and the government controling the MOP, so the people undirectly control the MOP. I am not 100% sure, but from my understanding, Venezuela does not have this, and the people have little to say over the MOP.

It is also to be noted, that not all capitalism is liberal capitalism (or right-libertarianism), Venezuela seems like state capitalism to me, where the government acts as a corporation, and ones the MOP.

The definition I provided said nothing about the "people controlling the government".

Now...maybe YOUR preferred definition of socialism includes people controlling their government, but socialism doesn't demand that.

In this case, the people have zero control over government...and their socialist government controls everything. That is not capitalism.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

As a species we were communistic long before we adopted the sedentary lifestyle which required a bunch of stuff that has proved problematic.

And "capitalism" becomes more corrupt as wealth concentrates, as history demonstrates.

Which is apparently driven by basic biology and represents a cycle of those in power feeding their biological drives for wealth and power at the expense of everyone else until they are forced to stop and the cycle begins again.

The rises and falls of history fit this model perfectly.

And the economic system is only an element of it.

--And rather than a collapse or a revolution forcing a stop and a correction, which is bloody and messy, and usually results in more corruption, it is highly preferable to apply a few tweaks to the existing system in order to introduce corrective forces gradually.

All the major economic systems are subject to similar corrupting forces, but the correction does not have to be catastrophic, if people are willing to accept compromise and fairness.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I mean the truth is socialism doesn't work and Venezuela is proof of this, also Democracy doesn't always work either and again Venezuela is proof of this.

let's do something controversial. Maduro was democratically elected as a socialist, as was Hugo Chávez before him, they were both socialists and drove the economy into the ground, now the economy of Venezuela depends on oil and always has, but Chile depends on copper, the market reforms implemented by the Chilean military government in the 1970s, while causing initial hardship left an economy more diversified and resilient. so yes oil went down, but copper has declined by 40% in recent years, and yet the Chilean economy entered only a slight recession, whereas the Venezuelan economy collapsed. but to poor voters, they don't care because they think that somehow the right political leader and the government can save them, so they'll simply keep electing socialists.

 

[theisthanger556]

The definition I provided said nothing about the "people controlling the government".

Now...maybe YOUR preferred definition of socialism includes people controlling their government, but socialism doesn't demand that.

In this case, the people have zero control over government...and their socialist government controls everything. That is not capitalism.

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production - Wikipedia

Note: Democratic control.

Not only that, socialism being "government control without democratic means" would make no sense, as socialism is a step away from communism, which is completely stateless. If the people wouldn't control the MOP, then it would make no sense that the very next step has no government.

 

[theisthanger556]

The picture is quite relevant. It wasn't long ago, and you can even find threads here at DP, where socialist defenders of Venezuelan socialism praised Chavez and declared Venezuelan socialism as evidence of how well socialism worked. Now that the socialist experiment has collapsed, people like you crawl out of the woodwork and claim socialism had nothing to do with it.

I have never before defended Chavez, and please point to the quote when I said that "Venezuela has nothing to do with socialism". I stated that Venezuela is not socialist, but rather capitalist.

Venezuela's economy is owned largely by the capitalist, to the point where 2/3rds of Western Europe has more state employment than Venezuela.

Venezuela accepted neo-liberal policies in the 80s and 90s, and it was terrible (I am aware that there were other problems, however the free-market capitalism they accepted was still the most devestating one), for an example, in 1996, Venezuela's inflation peaked, at 99.88. The number of people living in poverty also went from 35% in 1984 to 66% in 1995.

For some reason many capitalists don't really like to discuss South American capitalism, or the whole continent of Africa.

 

[Mycroft]

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production - Wikipedia

Note: Democratic control.

Not only that, socialism being "government control without democratic means" would make no sense, as socialism is a step away from communism, which is completely stateless. If the people wouldn't control the MOP, then it would make no sense that the very next step has no government.

Ummm...if you don't mind, I'll take the word of merriam-webster over whatever you say Wiki has to say about it.

As I said, there are varying degrees of this that are called socialism. Venezualia's government is socialist.

 

[theisthanger556]

I mean the truth is socialism doesn't work and Venezuela is proof of this, also Democracy doesn't always work either and again Venezuela is proof of this.

let's do something controversial. Maduro was democratically elected as a socialist, as was Hugo Chávez before him, they were both socialists and drove the economy into the ground, now the economy of Venezuela depends on oil and always has, but Chile depends on copper, the market reforms implemented by the Chilean military government in the 1970s, while causing initial hardship left an economy more diversified and resilient. so yes oil went down, but copper has declined by 40% in recent years, and yet the Chilean economy entered only a slight recession, whereas the Venezuelan economy collapsed. but to poor voters, they don't care because they think that somehow the right political leader and the government can save them, so they'll simply keep electing socialists.

Chile? Are you talking about the country who in 1973 overthrew a democratically elected leader and replaced it with a dictatorship. Under Pincohet, productivity declined, people living under poverty increased, sent over 200,000 people into exile, killed over 10,000 political dissidents, etc.

And about that copper, oil was virtually Venezuela's only natural resource, while Chile had others than just copper.

And yes, they may elect socialist, and Chavez and Maduro both are socialists, but that doesn't really change much as the country is clearly capitalist, and has been for long.

 

[theisthanger556]

Ummm...if you don't mind, I'll take the word of merriam-webster over whatever you say Wiki has to say about it.

As I said, there are varying degrees of this that are called socialism. Venezualia's government is socialist.

You take Merriam-Webster over Wikipedia? Why? And please do not say something like "Anyone can edit Wikipedia".

Do you even know anything about Socialism? The whole purpose of socialism is that "capitalist is exploitative as the workers do not get the fruits of their labour, and instead their productions go to the capitalists, the bourgeois, who extract surplus value from the workers". If socialism really would be "government control over the MOP", that wouldn't be any better, as the workers still wouldn't own the MOP.

 

[Fletch]

I have never before defended Chavez, and please point to the quote when I said that "Venezuela has nothing to do with socialism". I stated that Venezuela is not socialist, but rather capitalist.

Venezuela's economy is owned largely by the capitalist, to the point where 2/3rds of Western Europe has more state employment than Venezuela.

Venezuela accepted neo-liberal policies in the 80s and 90s, and it was terrible (I am aware that there were other problems, however the free-market capitalism they accepted was still the most devestating one), for an example, in 1996, Venezuela's inflation peaked, at 99.88. The number of people living in poverty also went from 35% in 1984 to 66% in 1995.

For some reason many capitalists don't really like to discuss South American capitalism, or the whole continent of Africa.

Every county is a mixture to one degree or another of capitalism and socialist or statism. What caused the current collapse in Venezuela is NOT capitalism, but Chavez's foray into socialism. There is really no one who disputes that. Except maybe you.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Chile? Are you talking about the country who in 1973 overthrew a democratically elected leader and replaced it with a dictatorship. Under Pincohet, productivity declined, people living under poverty increased, sent over 200,000 people into exile, killed over 10,000 political dissidents, etc.

Well let's say for starters, the "democratically elected" leader had garnered only 36% of the vote and was the most radical candidate running. seriously, when Pinochet put himself for Referendum he got more votes then Allende. Allende violated the Chilean constitution on hundreds of occasions and in fact the Supreme Court and Congress were both agitating for his ouster. There was also left wing guerillas seizing land from farmers that Allende's government wasn't arresting and prosecuting and on top of that Cuba's government was urging Allende to purge the military ranks of all non-communists which can be seen as the prelude to permitting a full on communist coup of the Chilean government.
And no, Pinochet did not kill "10,000 people" the Chilean governments subsequent to Pinochet, starting with presidency of Patricio Aylwin who was one of Pinochet's biggest critics commissioned multiple reports, and the number of killed is put roughly at 3,000. There is no communist or socialist regime out there with a death toll that low. Pinochet inhererited an economy that was a mess and subsidized by copper prices which fell during the 1980s, starting in 1985 the economy took off and continued to increase.

And about that copper, oil was virtually Venezuela's only natural resource, while Chile had others than just copper.

Venezuela has many economic oppurtunities other then oil, they grow coffee, they can grow all manners of tropical fruit, they are in a decent position as far as fisheries go, they could get lots of tourism dollars, they could probably grow wine grapes, if they had friendlier business policies heavy manufacturing could be bigger like in Mexico, Chile, and Argentina. a diversified economy is not impossible. government policy is preventing it.

And yes, they may elect socialist, and Chavez and Maduro both are socialists, but that doesn't really change much as the country is clearly capitalist, and has been for long.

only a fool would call the Venezuelan government capitalist.

 

[theisthanger556]

Well let's say for starters, the "democratically elected" leader had garnered only 36% of the vote and was the most radical candidate running. seriously, when Pinochet put himself for Referendum he got more votes then Allende. Allende violated the Chilean constitution on hundreds of occasions and in fact the Supreme Court and Congress were both agitating for his ouster. There was also left wing guerillas seizing land from farmers that Allende's government wasn't arresting and prosecuting and on top of that Cuba's government was urging Allende to purge the military ranks of all non-communists which can be seen as the prelude to permitting a full on communist coup of the Chilean government.
And no, Pinochet did not kill "10,000 people" the Chilean governments subsequent to Pinochet, starting with presidency of Patricio Aylwin who was one of Pinochet's biggest critics commissioned multiple reports, and the number of killed is put roughly at 3,000. There is no communist or socialist regime out there with a death toll that low. Pinochet inhererited an economy that was a mess and subsidized by copper prices which fell during the 1980s, starting in 1985 the economy took off and continued to increase.



Venezuela has many economic oppurtunities other then oil, they grow coffee, they can grow all manners of tropical fruit, they are in a decent position as far as fisheries go, they could get lots of tourism dollars, they could probably grow wine grapes, if they had friendlier business policies heavy manufacturing could be bigger like in Mexico, Chile, and Argentina. a diversified economy is not impossible. government policy is preventing it.


only a fool would call the Venezuelan government capitalist.

Pinochet was also disliked a lot.

Even if Pinochet would have only killed 3,000 people, we are not to forget that he also severly tortured 27,255 people, in gruesome ways.

Sure, Venezuela may have had other natural resources, but oil was their biggest.

Why are you using such a disgraceful strawman, perverting my words and twisting them? I never claimed that Venezuelan government is capitalist. I was talking about Venezuela as a country, I said it very clearly. Venezuelan government may be socialist, but the ultimate truth is, Venezuela is still being dominated by the private sector. Venezuela is controlled by the private sector.