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

[Nadiru]

All your evidence points to how poor authoritarianism is, as a political construct, not socialism, as an economic one.

Here's one argument against non-authoritarian socialism as an economic structure: Non-authoritarian socialism might not work in non-primitive societies because money creation is bound to the state, and because money functions as an intermediary between parties with non-conjoining needs (i.e they don't have anything they can trade for that the other wants,) socialist societies might have problems dealing with the lack of double coincidence of wants in an economy with many outputs.

Edit: Money creation being bound to the state requires some argumentative backing, lest it be dismissed as a false postulate.

Money creation is bound to the state because only the state has been able to practically enforce its currency as legal tender across geographical areas. This was first done by minting, and more recently accomplished through monetary policy. But the enforcement of currency as legal tender has been consistent despite the methods used. Technically company towns ran on their own tender, but a company town is hardly evidence that non-authoritarian systems can create rules for enforcement.

[Macaquerie]

Here's one argument against non-authoritarian socialism as an economic structure: Non-authoritarian socialism might not work in non-primitive societies because money creation is bound to the state, and because money functions as an intermediary between parties with non-conjoining needs (i.e they don't have anything they can trade for that the other wants,) socialist societies might have problems dealing with the lack of double coincidence of wants in an economy with many outputs.

Edit: Money creation being bound to the state requires some argumentative backing, lest it be dismissed as a false postulate.

Money creation is bound to the state because only the state has been able to practically enforce its currency as legal tender across geographical areas. This was first done by minting, and more recently accomplished through monetary policy. But the enforcement of currency as legal tender has been consistent despite the methods used. Technically company towns ran on their own tender, but a company town is hardly evidence that non-authoritarian systems can create rules for enforcement.

The state never has anywhere near absolute control of the money supply, since ultimately the value of any currency comes from the trust that the public has in it, not from governmental decree. Authoritarian regimes tend not to have the most stable currencies, since they are much more prone to play fast and loose with their monetary policy for the sake of expediency, and don't exactly build up strong track records for sound and responsible management of the economy.

If you look at the history of socialist states, the one common thread you will find is that few of these governments actually cared all that much about economics, the ideology was pretty much straight up populism with a thin veneer of red. In the propaganda "capitalism" was less an economic theory and more a stand in for Western imperialism, colonialism, fascism, etc. Of course, since actual Westerners were too far away to make for easy targets, the regimes focused mostly on decadent landlords and city-dwelling elites, as these people tended to be more Western in outlook and served as convenient scapegoats.

[Endus]

Here's one argument against non-authoritarian socialism as an economic structure: Non-authoritarian socialism might not work in non-primitive societies because money creation is bound to the state, and because money functions as an intermediary between parties with non-conjoining needs (i.e they don't have anything they can trade for that the other wants,) socialist societies might have problems dealing with the lack of double coincidence of wants in an economy with many outputs.

The creation of a currency isn't really a reflection of authoritarian government.

Let's be clear; "authoritarianism" is a specific type of government. It isn't a scale from "anarchy" to "authoritarian", where any form of government is authoritarian to some degree.

A liberties-minded government, democratically elected, that enacts policy primarily to protects its citizens freedoms, is decidedly anti-authoritarian. That they pass laws is not somehow a push towards authoritarianism.

It's just governance. You need to be able to draw a distinction between the two.

[TrumpIsPresident]

So has the discussion of Venezuelan "refugees" been sparked yet?

[Xarkan]

Then we need to ask all socialist if they identify more with authoritarianism or libertarianism.

No you dont because asking everyone is silly, you just need to ask yourself if in fact socialists exist that identify one way and others that identify the other way.

Because some of you make it sound like we are all Stalin supporting marxists weeping over the death of Mao. Not you specifically you but some of you.

Actually no.. just ask yourself if there are right wing people who are authoritarian and others that believe in personal freedom. Because it is the same for the left wing

[Stormspellz]

I don't know who in their right mind ever thought Venezuela was any sort of "paradise". much less a socialist one.

It is when you are pushing an agenda.

[apples]

npr actually had a frontline about this very topic like 5? years ago

the answer to the title question had nothing to do with any type of governance, unlike what the thread would have you believe

[PC2]

Actually no.. just ask yourself if there are right wing people who are authoritarian and others that believe in personal freedom. Because it is the same for the left wing

Yes I know, often times political charts will have 4 quadrants for authoritarian/libertarian, left/right.

[Xarkan]

Yes I know, often times political charts will have 4 quadrants for authoritarian/libertarian, left/right.

The sad part of it is that often those willing and able to go for power will gravitate towards authoritarian but that may be besides the point .. or not

[araine]

Except Endus linked your own definition and you willfully ignored the word OR and continued to bang on with your own definition.

Exactly which means we have been right the whole time. you just cant cherry pick a meaning and think that is what it always will be.

[Tipton]

Well, as Thatcher said, Socialism fails when it runs out of other peoples money.

Venezuela is certainly a good case study of the truth of that statement.

[Xarkan]

Well, as Thatcher said, Socialism fails when it runs out of other peoples money.

Venezuela is certainly a good case study of the truth of that statement.

I thought Thatcher was too busy laughing at old brits forced to eat cat and dog food and dying in cold winters to make quotes

[Chrysia]

Well, as Thatcher said, Socialism fails when it runs out of other peoples money.

Venezuela is certainly a good case study of the truth of that statement.

A truly market-based economy can't actually "run out of other people's money," because the money should be based on the sum of goods and services available on the market. If you "run out of other people's money," it's because the market failed, which may or may not be related to the economic policy that underpinned that market.

[Deleted]

Oil prices. Thats all about Venezuela crisis. Same with Norway, Canada or Russia. You can write about how socialism is f..ed up, but its all about oil prices.

[Deleted]

Oil prices. Thats all about Venezuela crisis. Same with Norway, Canada or Russia. You can write about how socialism is f..ed up, but its all about oil prices.

do you not see the problem here though. this is the same thing the Scots were planning to do. all eggs in one basket whilst your most talented people all leave due to idiotic economic and social policies.

as corrupt as the govnt is, their policies (not just oil) are what fucked everything. the same Socialist policies that whiny leftie douchebags (and the UK labour party) want to implement because they have an undeserved sense of entitlement

[Deleted]

do you not see the problem here though. this is the same thing the Scots were planning to do. all eggs in one basket whilst your most talented people all leave due to idiotic economic and social policies.

as corrupt as the govnt is, their policies (not just oil) are what fucked everything. the same Socialist policies that whiny leftie douchebags (and the UK labour party) want to implement because they have an undeserved sense of entitlement

the.... scots?!

[Independent voter]

Hospital wards have become crucibles where the forces tearing Venezuela apart have converged. Gloves and soap have vanished from some hospitals. Often, cancer medicines are found only on the black market. There is so little electricity that the government works only two days a week to save what energy is left.

At the University of the Andes Hospital in the mountain city of Mérida, there was not enough water to wash blood from the operating table. Doctors preparing for surgery cleaned their hands with bottles of seltzer water.

“It is like something from the 19th century,” said Dr. Christian Pino, a surgeon at the hospital.

Once again it's the black market to the rescue.

[Forogil]

Oil prices. Thats all about Venezuela crisis. Same with Norway, Canada or Russia. You can write about how socialism is f..ed up, but its all about oil prices.

Except that Norway and Canada are doing ok - unless you think Norway is a disaster with merely 1% GDP growth and super-high unemployment of 4.7%, and not fully 900 billion$ in an oil fund.

[mvaliz]

Every socialist country has ended this way

Socialism is always a disaster because it causes massive brain drain, destroys work incentives and innovation, reduces individual power and freedoms and gives too much power to monolithic governments who inevitably become hugely bureaucratic, corrupt and ultimately violent

You're talking about Imperialist nations, not Socailst.

I so far don't see Canada, England, Germany, France or Australia having any of these issues you're talking about.

[Renathras]

So they/you are going to ignore a govt that is basically 125% corrupt and stole billions..if not trillions and then blame it on a socialist system?

no matter what system you have, if you have corruption it won't work.

they did not "run out of other peoples wealth"....

but hey at least they are not 20 trillion in debt with a 90 trillion dollar hole of SS, Pensions and retirement plans coming due in the next 25 years. F-ya amirite?

Almost right.

Socialist nations - with more centralized control of the economy, institutions, etc. - are more prone to corruption. Or, rather, sustained corruption.

Non-socialist nations have corruption to. One could argue they are equally prone to it. The difference is that the non-socialist nations have weaker centralization so that when the inevitable corruption happens - and it will ALWAYS happen, so there's no point arguing that "corruption is bad, if only socialist governments didn't have THAT, they would be sterling successes!" When the inevitable corruption happens, it does far more harm in a socialist, centrally controlled nation than an a republic or democratic non-socialist government where those institutions either do not exist or are controlled at the more local levels.

Local levels are more directly beholden to the people - and have smaller budgets to steal from - so while corruption happens there, too, it isn't as pervasive, isn't as far reaching, isn't as massive in scope, and tends to happen in localized areas instead of the whole nation. Corruption in California, for example, doesn't affect the people in Florida. Corruption in Moscow affected the people everywhere in the USSR.