Venezuela: la mierda hits el ventilador

[barbos]

It's not capitalism, it's not real socialism, what is it?

It started out as a real socialist experiment, endorsed and praised by Noam Chomsky, Bernie Sanders, Michael Moore, etc. It was the ideal lauded by American socialists for the first few years.

Did they really? That would look bad on them. Any links from that era?

As conditions began getting worse for the general population under Chevez, the American socialists began to pretend that Venezuela didn't exist. Then Maduro, Chavez's hand picked successor, took over after Chavez's death, inherited an economy on the verge of collapse because the nationalized industries and farms had failed under socialist control leaving pretty much only oil as a resource. Soon oil prices dropped and the economy went into a tailspin.

For American socialists, it is only socialism if it works. If it fails like socialist run economies always have then it "wasn't true socialism." Meanwhile the "dream" continues and undoubtedly millions of others will suffer because it will be tried yet again in some other country.

Well, there is always Swedish&Co socialism to the rescue, no?

 

[untermensche]

It was a socialist experiment under Chavez that turned into severe corruption when he died.

How easy to label corruption "socialism" and pretend you are making a criticism of socialism.

Not enough Scotsmen in Venezuela?

Mindless.

And ignores the facts.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It started out as a real socialist experiment, endorsed and praised by Noam Chomsky, Bernie Sanders, Michael Moore, etc. It was the ideal lauded by American socialists for the first few years.

Did they really? That would look bad on them. Any links from that era?

As conditions began getting worse for the general population under Chevez, the American socialists began to pretend that Venezuela didn't exist. Then Maduro, Chavez's hand picked successor, took over after Chavez's death, inherited an economy on the verge of collapse because the nationalized industries and farms had failed under socialist control leaving pretty much only oil as a resource. Soon oil prices dropped and the economy went into a tailspin.

For American socialists, it is only socialism if it works. If it fails like socialist run economies always have then it "wasn't true socialism." Meanwhile the "dream" continues and undoubtedly millions of others will suffer because it will be tried yet again in some other country.

Well, there is always Swedish&Co socialism to the rescue, no?

Using Sweden as an example is tricky.

If you like the social safety net, think it is a good thing, and use the word "socialism" to praise Sweden, then you used the word correctly.
If you don't like the social safety net, think it is a bad thing, and use the word "socialism" to criticize Sweden, then you used the word incorrectly because Socialism only and ever means collective ownership of the means of production and nothing else and you are ignorant and stupid for using the word incorrectly.

See how simple and consistent it is?

Never mind how the Swedish economy has stagnated since adopting its generous safety net, that they are able to afford it by "eating their seed stock".

 

[untermensche]

It's not capitalism, it's not real socialism, what is it?

It started out as a real socialist experiment, endorsed and praised by Noam Chomsky, Bernie Sanders, Michael Moore, etc. It was the ideal lauded by American socialists for the first few years. As conditions began getting worse for the general population under Chevez, the American socialists began to pretend that Venezuela didn't exist. Then Maduro, Chavez's hand picked successor, took over after Chavez's death, inherited an economy on the verge of collapse because the nationalized industries and farms had failed under socialist control leaving pretty much only oil as a resource. Soon oil prices dropped and the economy went into a tailspin.

For American socialists, it is only socialism if it works. If it fails like socialist run economies always have then it "wasn't true socialism." Meanwhile the "dream" continues and undoubtedly millions of others will suffer because it will be tried yet again in some other country.

Things did not get worse for the general population under Chavez.

He ended decades of apartheid policies and millions were lifted by his policies.

AFTER he died corrupt leaders took over and they basically began looting.

 

[dismal]

Using Sweden as an example is tricky.

But who among us does not remember the left criticizing Venezuela for pushing well beyond the Swedish model into outright socialism?

Surely we can find examples of the left bashing Chavez and/or Maduro each time they nationalized a toilet paper factory, farm or bread shop.

"That's just not the way it's done in Sweden" rang the choruses of condemnation all those years socialism was not *really* being tried.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It started out as a real socialist experiment, endorsed and praised by Noam Chomsky, Bernie Sanders, Michael Moore, etc. It was the ideal lauded by American socialists for the first few years. As conditions began getting worse for the general population under Chevez, the American socialists began to pretend that Venezuela didn't exist. Then Maduro, Chavez's hand picked successor, took over after Chavez's death, inherited an economy on the verge of collapse because the nationalized industries and farms had failed under socialist control leaving pretty much only oil as a resource. Soon oil prices dropped and the economy went into a tailspin.

For American socialists, it is only socialism if it works. If it fails like socialist run economies always have then it "wasn't true socialism." Meanwhile the "dream" continues and undoubtedly millions of others will suffer because it will be tried yet again in some other country.

Things did not get worse for the general population under Chavez.

He ended decades of apartheid policies and millions were lifted by his policies.

AFTER he died corrupt leaders took over and they basically began looting.

That's not completely fair. Chavez was strongly opposed by a rightist opposition that had a lot of money invested in media and the military and were doing everything they could to disrupt his political/social agenda. He tried to go the egalitarian route and seek compromise with them, and when they told him what to go do with himself, he sort of sank to their level and started fighting dirty (started forcing opposition stations off the air, nationalized companies controlled by his critics, seized assets of people lobbying against him, etc). To be equally fair, this is the kind of bullshit Obama went through for 8 years WITHOUT being a socialist; imagine of the Obama Administration pulled FOX News' broadcast license and froze Trump's assets over the whole "birther" thing, eventually forcing both of them to the brink of bankruptcy.

Chavez was no stranger to opposition and he was perfectly willing to accept it (his constitutional reforms were defeated in referendum two or three times) but he dropped the hammer on his enemies with a certain gleeful vindictiveness that his rivals and even a few of his successors interpreted as merely self-interest. So after Chavez, self-interest became state policy, and that's where Venezuela is today. It's just as corrupt as any other south american country, except its government is slightly more powerful.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Having a country full of oil is like playing Sim City with all the cheat codes on. But if you're a big enough moron you can still lose.

 

[LordKiran]

Having a country full of oil is like playing Sim City with all the cheat codes on. But if you're a big enough moron you can still lose.

Resources like oil and gold are more often than not, burdensome to the people upon who's land it sits. There's actually a very strong correlation between oil(the production and exportation thereof) featuring prominently in a society's economy and that society being governed by some form of autocrat.

 

[skepticalbip]

It started out as a real socialist experiment, endorsed and praised by Noam Chomsky, Bernie Sanders, Michael Moore, etc. It was the ideal lauded by American socialists for the first few years. As conditions began getting worse for the general population under Chevez, the American socialists began to pretend that Venezuela didn't exist. Then Maduro, Chavez's hand picked successor, took over after Chavez's death, inherited an economy on the verge of collapse because the nationalized industries and farms had failed under socialist control leaving pretty much only oil as a resource. Soon oil prices dropped and the economy went into a tailspin.

For American socialists, it is only socialism if it works. If it fails like socialist run economies always have then it "wasn't true socialism." Meanwhile the "dream" continues and undoubtedly millions of others will suffer because it will be tried yet again in some other country.

Things did not get worse for the general population under Chavez.

He ended decades of apartheid policies and millions were lifted by his policies.

AFTER he died corrupt leaders took over and they basically began looting.

thus confirming my closing line....

"Meanwhile the "dream" continues and undoubtedly millions of others will suffer because it will be tried yet again in some other country."

 

[LordKiran]

Things did not get worse for the general population under Chavez.

He ended decades of apartheid policies and millions were lifted by his policies.

AFTER he died corrupt leaders took over and they basically began looting.

"Meanwhile the "dream" continues and undoubtedly millions of others will suffer because it will be tried yet again in some other country."

Can't really be called a worsening of the situation then, considering that millions around the world are already suffering and have been for a long time. People in the USA suffer all the time, bereft of homes, good work, and a life of dignity, where they're forced to take jobs cleaning plates at a counter in what is supposedly the richest country in the world.

 

[dismal]

Things did not get worse for the general population under Chavez.

He ended decades of apartheid policies and millions were lifted by his policies.

AFTER he died corrupt leaders took over and they basically began looting.

That's not completely fair. Chavez was strongly opposed by a rightist opposition that had a lot of money invested in media and the military and were doing everything they could to disrupt his political/social agenda. He tried to go the egalitarian route and seek compromise with them, and when they told him what to go do with himself, he sort of sank to their level and started fighting dirty (started forcing opposition stations off the air, nationalized companies controlled by his critics, seized assets of people lobbying against him, etc). To be equally fair, this is the kind of bullshit Obama went through for 8 years WITHOUT being a socialist; imagine of the Obama Administration pulled FOX News' broadcast license and froze Trump's assets over the whole "birther" thing, eventually forcing both of them to the brink of bankruptcy.

Chavez was no stranger to opposition and he was perfectly willing to accept it (his constitutional reforms were defeated in referendum two or three times) but he dropped the hammer on his enemies with a certain gleeful vindictiveness that his rivals and even a few of his successors interpreted as merely self-interest. So after Chavez, self-interest became state policy, and that's where Venezuela is today. It's just as corrupt as any other south american country, except its government is slightly more powerful.

You mean it's the same as other latin countries other than its economy is violently contracting, its inflation is out of control, and its people are eating rats?

And it seems like it would it get harder to blame the rich imperial capitalists for everything after they've mostly left the country. Not that Maduro has much choice -- as having ignored the will of the electorate he's mostly trying to avoid finishing his political career dangling at the end of a lamp post now --- but among the sane people.

 

[skepticalbip]

It started out as a real socialist experiment, endorsed and praised by Noam Chomsky, Bernie Sanders, Michael Moore, etc. It was the ideal lauded by American socialists for the first few years.

Did they really? That would look bad on them. Any links from that era?

Chomsky, Sanders, Moore, all visited Venezuela at different times to personally give Chavez their encouragement and thanks along with several Hollywood celebrates like Sean Penn. It was covered in the news and in videos at the time but that was something like ten years ago so finding the articles would probably be difficult.

 

[dismal]

[YOUTUBE]HHTe2Pn7ACg[/YOUTUBE]

Chomsky replies here. Entirely useless capitalists apparently undermined the Venezuelan economy by...leaving. Maybe be a little kink to sort out in the ol' ideology there Noam.

 

[skepticalbip]

Chomsky replies here. Entirely useless capitalists apparently undermined the Venezuelan economy by...leaving. Maybe be a little kink to sort out in the ol' ideology there Noam.

Chomsky is such an ass. Here he has gone from "a better world is being created" to blaming the problems on "capitalists". In the early 1970s he praised Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge claiming the reports of atrocities were CIA lies to cover their own atrocities. When the reality of what had happened in Cambodia could no longer be denied, he tried to minimize it by claiming that the reports were way overly exaggerated.

 

[LordKiran]

Did they really? That would look bad on them. Any links from that era?

Chomsky, Sanders, Moore, all visited Venezuela at different times to personally give Chavez their encouragement and thanks along with several Hollywood celebrates like Sean Penn. It was covered in the news and in videos at the time but that was something like ten years ago so finding the articles would probably be difficult.

Examples of famous people being 'wrong' on the internet? Doesn't sound very difficult to find at all. Sounds more like laziness...

 

[skepticalbip]

Chomsky, Sanders, Moore, all visited Venezuela at different times to personally give Chavez their encouragement and thanks along with several Hollywood celebrates like Sean Penn. It was covered in the news and in videos at the time but that was something like ten years ago so finding the articles would probably be difficult.

Examples of famous people being 'wrong' on the internet? Doesn't sound very difficult to find at all. Sounds more like laziness...

If it was just Hollywood celebrities you may have a point. But it was America's socialist "heavy thinkers" like Chomsky, Sanders, and Moore that were holding Chavez's ideals up as what the U.S. should be. If Hillary hadn't stolen the nomination from Sanders, he may have been our president today and would have had some power to institute his ideas. It's bad enough that he is a senator with those ideas.

 

[LordKiran]

Examples of famous people being 'wrong' on the internet? Doesn't sound very difficult to find at all. Sounds more like laziness...

If it was just Hollywood celebrities you may have a point. But it was America's socialist "heavy thinkers" like Chomsky, Sanders, and Moore that were holding Chavez's ideals up as what the U.S. should be. If Hillary hadn't stolen the nomination from Sanders, he may have been our president today and would have had some power to institute his ideas. It's bad enough that he is a senator with those ideas.

Yeah what a tragedy that is, having a president that adheres to ethics laws and doesn't routinely lie, cheat, and steal.

 

[skepticalbip]

If it was just Hollywood celebrities you may have a point. But it was America's socialist "heavy thinkers" like Chomsky, Sanders, and Moore that were holding Chavez's ideals up as what the U.S. should be. If Hillary hadn't stolen the nomination from Sanders, he may have been our president today and would have had some power to institute his ideas. It's bad enough that he is a senator with those ideas.

Yeah what a tragedy that is, having a president that adheres to ethics laws and doesn't routinely lie, cheat, and steal.

Cute, but, even though I didn't vote for Trump, I don't see him as being as destructive to America as someone like Bernie who would attempt to have the country emulate Venezuela's experiment. Trump is bucking both parties in Congress so is unlikely to get any major legislation passed. No change is better than a change along the lines followed by Chavez.

 

[LordKiran]

Yeah what a tragedy that is, having a president that adheres to ethics laws and doesn't routinely lie, cheat, and steal.

Cute, but, even though I didn't vote for Trump, I don't see him as being as destructive to America as someone like Bernie who would attempt to have the country emulate Venezuela's experiment. Trump is bucking both parties in Congress so is unlikely to get any major legislation passed. No change is better than a change along the lines followed by Chavez.

No he'll just shit on our legislative and judicial institutions which makes them that much weaker and ineffective. If one person can get away with murder, what's that say for person 2 and 3?

Also you can say what you want about Bernie, but I feel confident in saying that he wouldn't sell out our national interests for personal gain. Trump does not share in this confidence. I eagerly await yet another war in the middle east that doesn't benefit us one lick but gets plenty of people killed and plenty of resources wasted. Where do you think it will be? Iran perhaps?

 

[untermensche]

[YOUTUBE]HHTe2Pn7ACg[/YOUTUBE]

Chomsky replies here. Entirely useless capitalists apparently undermined the Venezuelan economy by...leaving. Maybe be a little kink to sort out in the ol' ideology there Noam.

Chomsky praised the work of Chavez.

He never praised the work of the people that replaced him.