Venezuela: how the socialist paradise turned into debt and hyperinflation hell

[Pantupino]

I never said they weren't socialist. I was pointing out that socialism is an incredibly broad category of economic theory, much like capitalist theory, and includes both authoritarian and libertarian interpretations.

Focusing exclusively on the authoritarian iterations and condemning them for their authoritarianism isn't making a statement about socialism, but about authoritarianism. If you can't separate the two, then your opinions on these issues will forever be misled by that inherent bias.

By way of example, China has pretty much shifted out of its communist roots and has become a form of state capitalism. Authoritarian? Yes. Socialist? Not really. Capitalist.

At least we can agree that authoritarianism is worse.

- - - Updated - - -

So you're saying the socialist party doesn't have socialist policies?


Guess they reelected her and her party for shits and giggles, then?

Go look, they haven't touched the system, the only thing they are going for is free college (which I don't agree with).

[Endus]

At least we can agree that authoritarianism is worse.

And?

I'm a market socialist, ideologically speaking. I'm unapologetically socialist, but about as far from authoritarian as you can get. If you want to talk about how authoritarianism is "bad", sure, but that's got nothing to do with socialism.

Look at those credit unions, so scary.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

This is blatantly incorrect. Hell, the Marxist utopia is a stateless society. The idea that socialism somehow requires government is wildly incorrect. If anything, socialist economics is more at odds with authoritarian policies than capitalist economics.

That's the root of this issue. People argue against authoritarianism, but incorrectly use the word socialism to describe it. It demonstrates that they don't understand what socialism fundamentally is, as a concept. It doesn't have anything to do with authoritarian views. That's why things like libertarian socialism exist, conceptually; because socialism has nothing fundamentally to do with authoritarianism.

And capitalist economics is just as, if not more vulnerable to those same drives that push for authoritarianism under socialist economic systems.

Socialism is not about anyone "dictating what you do". The whole point of Marx's communist revolution was to end precisely that.


Other issues; market action is not capitalist. Markets predate capitalist theory. They're unrelated. You can have capitalist systems without effective markets, and socialist systems that heavily rely on free market activity (market socialism). If you're talking about the wonders of market activity as a strength of capitalist theory, then you don't understand what capitalism fundamentally is.

Hey Endus, how is your weekend going? Anyways,

socialism
Related to socialism: fascism, communism
so·cial·ism (sō′shə-lĭz′əm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Words mean what they mean, no matter how much you may wish they should mean something different. Socialism requires authoritarianism to even attempt to function. This is because planned economies require planners and enforcers.

The reason more capitalist societies are so much more productive is they work off the idea that people can be counted on to work for their own benefit, and therefore require less prodding from central authority. The reason why more socialist societies consistently fail is because socialism works off the assumption that people can be counted on to work for the collective good, which requires constant interference and prodding from central authority. One accepts human nature, the other tries to transcend it. You can live in the non-authoritarian socialist fantasy in your head all you want, just don't expect the rest of us to live there with you.

[Theinquisition]

I have to confess, I'm actually a millennial. I just made the cut being born in 1983 but I'm a conservative, gun-toting, church-going, tax-paying, five-kids-raising, war-fighting, hipster-loathing.............. millennial! I do like video games though. I suppose that's why I still get to hang out.

I too loathe hipsters

[Cthulhu 2020]

Every socialist country has ended this way

Yeah, it works great for many years. Sometimes 5 years, sometimes 50 years. People prosper, and their needs are taken care of. When they get seriously sick or injured, they're taken care of by the state. When they fall on hard economic times, they don't need to worry about going homeless or hungry. And this is all funded by the tax payers.

Then the unregulated banks invest in risky ventures, which cause an economic crisis. A huge portion of the population loses their job or significant amounts of income and all need to go on government assistance at once. This burden is too much for the state, and the state must default on the debt.

Of course the government wouldn't have had to default if it had just let those people go hungry and die instead. This is what happens in many countries where no socialism exists, those capitalist utopias where those inconveniently poor people starve to death and cull the problem on its own, so the wealthy don't suddenly have big piles of worthless paper money. Damn socialism causing things to end like this!

[Dendrek]

People wanting free health care and cheap or free education TOTALLY want the government to take over all businesses and set prices. This just in, all capitalists want to return to a time of feudalism and serfdom. Amiright?

Strawmans, guys. Learn how to make an argument that isn't riddled with them.

[Endus]

Hey Endus, how is your weekend going? Anyways,

socialism
Related to socialism: fascism, communism
so·cial·ism (sō′shə-lĭz′əm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Words mean what they mean, no matter how much you may wish they should mean something different. Socialism requires authoritarianism to even attempt to function. This is because planned economies require planners and enforcers.

I increased the size and underline the pretty critically important word whose meaning you are ignoring, in your own definition.

State ownership is just one form of socialism. It isn't all socialist theory. Attacking authoritarian state ownership and planned economies is not an argument against socialism itself. That's the point.

The difference between socialism and capitalism is the difference between credit unions and banks. That's pretty much it.

The reason more capitalist societies are so much more productive is they work off the idea that people can be counted on to work for their own benefit, and therefore require less prodding from central authority. The reason why more socialist societies consistently fail is because socialism works off the assumption that people can be counted on to work for the collective good, which requires constant interference and prodding from central authority. One accepts human nature, the other tries to transcend it. You can live in the non-authoritarian socialist fantasy in your head all you want, just don't expect the rest of us to live there with you.

And all of this is complete garbage, since it has nothing to do with either capitalism or socialism.

The American slave economy of the early 19th Century was "capitalist", but those slaves weren't working because it was "for their own benefit", and it's pretty laughable to claim otherwise. The principles you're talking about have nothing to do with the base economic systems.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

It's lovely watching the socialists try to do mental backflips to explain away what is plain to see. It's almost as if they'd prefer that socialism mean, "everyone is happy, fed, and we all get along" instead of meaning what it actually does. I get it though, It's hard to watch cherished fantasies die. I cried when I found out Santa Claus wasn't real.

[Zeek Daniels]

Frankly, I have no idea how Venezuela ended up like this.

Isn't uncommon for such countries though,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse

But I think socialism is inevitable due to automation. Soon or later, we will all be out of a job. "Basic Income" will be the only thing keeping us alive.

We will all only be out of a job if we keep letting one government after another run businesses out of town. These governments want you to rely on them for everything. Its time to say NO. Let businesses run themselves. If they go out of businesses and people lose jobs then guess what. New one will pop up to fill the void and people will get back on their feet.

But when there are no new businesses to fill the void people then start relying on the government thats been driving good companies out. Then the government cant support the millions that have no jobs and it all falls apart like it always does.

[Dsonsion]

I know it's easy to blame this one on socialism, but Venezuela turned into the epitome of a banana republic under Chavez. They started promoting strong nationalism, removing the press they didn't like and moved almost all the power to one party with one strong leader. They turned to "socialism" to ensure Chavez could perpetuate himself in power as long as possible, being supported by the brainwashed masses.
I think he knew he was mishandling the country and that it couldn't be sustainable, but I'm pretty sure the only thing that interested him was to remain in charge. The failure has got much more to do with the well known Latin American populism than with socialism itself.

But Chavez isn't so different to today's Americans' conservative superstar Donald Trump, who, like Chavez, is a loud mouthed strong man who has no fear to say what crosses his mind and point fingers in any direction to make the people angry at something. Chavez, like Trump, contradicted himself plenty of times and changed his mind as long as it suited him.

I don't think it makes sense to blame this on the ghost of socialism, but on the democratic failure of a poorly educated country like Venezuela and on the dangers of trusting a strong, vocal leader beyond reason and sanity just because he says what the people want to hear.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

I increased the size and underline the pretty critically important word whose meaning you are ignoring, in your own definition.

State ownership is just one form of socialism. It isn't all socialist theory. Attacking authoritarian state ownership and planned economies is not an argument against socialism itself. That's the point.

I'm actually curious now. Did your socialist theory class ever cover a single historical example of a communal society larger than....... oh let's be generous here........ 5 million people, that collectively owned the means of production without the supervision of an authoritarian state?

[Cyberowl]

It's lovely watching the socialists try to do mental backflips to explain away what is plain to see. It's almost as if they'd prefer that socialism mean, "everyone is happy, fed, and we all get along" instead of meaning what it actually does. I get it though, It's hard to watch cherished fantasies die. I cried when I found out Santa Claus wasn't real.

I think it's mainly because these discussions always end up failing because one party is talking about pure socialism, see Venezuela, and the other one talks about social capitalism, see central, Northern Europe and North America.

Terms are well defined in literature, we don't need to accept personal opinions on what those terms define.

[Nadiru]

The case of Venezuela makes a potent argument that there is such a thing as too much redistribution. Fortunately, most governments would never even dream of enacting policies like those in Venezuela.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It's lovely watching the socialists try to do mental backflips to explain away what is plain to see. It's almost as if they'd prefer that socialism mean, "everyone is happy, fed, and we all get along" instead of meaning what it actually does. I get it though, It's hard to watch cherished fantasies die. I cried when I found out Santa Claus wasn't real.

Backflips that are graceful, look good, and have great landings. Meanwhile you're just fumbling around and falling face first into the dirt trying to push socialism off as some kind of evil system that will never work.

Most recent socialist failures had to do with the ripples of economic failure from the US housing burst. While the US was able to bail out a lot of businesses and support its poor, many smaller countries did not have that kind of volume. Their "socialist" systems were not designed to handle a sudden burden from irresponsible unchecked cronyism putting millions out of jobs and onto welfare. In countries without safety nets, those people just starved.

Denying it is denying the 2007 economic crisis and the subsequent ripples across the world's economies.

[araine]

Go reread you history my friend. None of FDR's policies worked. They all failed miserable. What bailed us out was World War II.

Read and learn before you spout nonsense.

you believe that nonsense? and ask yourself what caused the crash of 1929? you didnt have a single policy of your dreaded socialists in place infact you had RECORD low taxes and a boom like never seen before on Wall Street it was pure capitalism. at its best many would say. yet that collapsed like nothing we have seen before or since.

That tells you all you need to know about how wonderful unregulated capitalism is for a country. if you endorse that insanity i hope you go bankrupt someday just due to the gambling on wall street failed and they need a sucker to pay it, and when that sucker is YOU i hope you enjoy going bankrupt due to others gambling with YOUR money.

[Captain N]

I think it's mainly because these discussions always end up failing because one party is talking about pure socialism, see Venezuela, and the other one talks about social capitalism, see central, Northern Europe and North America.

Terms are well defined in literature, we don't need to accept personal opinions on what those terms define.

Because that's what websites like WND, Breitbart, and The Blaze focus on when discussing Socialism. They target areas like you said that cover Pure Socialism instead of the mixed economies one finds in the Scandanavian Countries, and even right here in the US. Dictatorships like what happened with Chavez in Venezuela or Hitler in Germany had little to do with Socialism anyways despite the names...As previously mentioned it was authoritarianism that was the problem.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

I think it's mainly because these discussions always end up failing because one party is talking about pure socialism, see Venezuela, and the other one talks about social capitalism, see central, Northern Europe and North America.

Terms are well defined in literature, we don't need to accept personal opinions on what those terms define.

I generally loathe all forms of intellectual purism. That being said, this forum is so reliably left-leaning that it is almost impossible to speak in terms of the degree to which we embrace socialist vs capitalist policies. Rather we are forced into the ludicrous position of defending Capitalism in it's entirety, which is an incredibly tiresome place from which to start the discussion.

[araine]

It's lovely watching the socialists try to do mental backflips to explain away what is plain to see. It's almost as if they'd prefer that socialism mean, "everyone is happy, fed, and we all get along" instead of meaning what it actually does. I get it though, It's hard to watch cherished fantasies die. I cried when I found out Santa Claus wasn't real.

WE get it that you have no idea on what socialism really is, no problem most on the far right have no idea what it is and you seem to be no different.

[Cthulhu 2020]

We will all only be out of a job if we keep letting one government after another run businesses out of town. These governments want you to rely on them for everything. Its time to say NO. Let businesses run themselves. If they go out of businesses and people lose jobs then guess what. New one will pop up to fill the void and people will get back on their feet.

But when there are no new businesses to fill the void people then start relying on the government thats been driving good companies out. Then the government cant support the millions that have no jobs and it all falls apart like it always does.

If only laissez-faire actually worked like this. Sadly these silly free market ramblings are about as rooted in reality as pure communist fantasies.

[Nadiru]

Because that's what websites like WND, Breitbart, and The Blaze focus on when discussing Socialism. They target areas like you said that cover Pure Socialism instead of the mixed economies one finds in the Scandanavian Countries, and even right here in the US. Dictatorships like what happened with Chavez in Venezuela or Hitler in Germany had little to do with Socialism anyways despite the names...As previously mentioned it was authoritarianism that was the problem.

If authoritarian causes all the problems with socialism, why was Yugoslavia relatively un-screwed by its authoritarian leader? Tito was by any measure an autocrat, but Yugoslavia was prosperous relative to the hellholes of the Cold War's 2nd world.