-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Venezuela Is Falling Apart: Scenes from daily life in a failing state (The Atlantic)
- Thread starter Piecake
- Start date
- Status
Resident_UA
Member
I think we settled this 80 years ago. Technically there were elections in Nazi Germany too, but we all agree that Hitler was a dictator. In fact it's hard to come up with a good example of a dictator who wasn't elected...
Socialism isn't on a sliding scale where capitalism is on the other side, you're confusing it with a market vs planned economy and/or libertarian vs welfare system. Socialism is an ideology. Its key tenet is that the workers control the means of production rather than the capitalists who founded the industries. That is a very specific and very unique core of the movement. Sweden isn't even a social democracy because social democracy had the same goal as socialism: transferring the control of the means of production to the workers. It simply differed with Marxist socialism on the means; it advocated doing it after convincing the people to do it through a vote rather than through a violent revolution.
The problem is that time has made socialism and social democracy obsolete. They both basically failed in the early 20th century, the problem is that the terms lived on after being attached to entirely new movements and ideologies because they were strong trademarks, so to speak. Sweden never actually attempted to transition to socialism. The existence of private ownership was never really in doubt, we simply decided to reinterpret the mainstream political leftist vision to mean a more "social" state where wealth inequalithy and private ownership is allowed, but extensive safety nets soften their blows and give poor people a chance to a decent life. I prefer the term Nordic Model for this far more than social democracy because that's what it is, it's a model for how to run a market economy that differs from the more libertarian attitudes in most other countries.
We have moved far towards the libertarian position over time though. We privatised the telecom services, radio and TV and the postal service about three decades ago and before someone asks; yes: it wasn't that long ago at all that the Swedish government controlled all means of communication. The first private TV channels were launched in 1987 and were preceded by a debate about making satellite dishes illegal as an alternative. We didn't get our first legal private radio channel until 1993. The postal service had a monopoly on all mail and parcel services until 1994. These days we have private train companies running on public rail and we've even opened up the healthcare system by having private companies run clinics that are paid for by tax payer money and we've also privatised other key societal functions, like utilities.
So reading this you might think that this means we must at least have been pretty damn socialist before, right? Again, no. These monopolies weren't controlled by the workers, they were run as any corporation, just with a CEO assigned by the government rather than the shareholders with no intention of changing this fact. That's the difference between the Nordic Model and either socialism or social democracy.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Venezuela since Chavez has nationalized industries and used the income as a giveaway to the poor. It's a socialist country. I'm reading a book about Zimbabwe right now, which is run by a crooked Marxist, it's been the same thing for over a decade now. Mugabe "nationalized" agriculture by stealing it from (white) farmers and giving it to his incompetent (black) friends. Agriculture collapsed right after.
Traditional media, no. Media over the years have all been bought out and editorial lines changed by the government instead of outright closing them. It's pretty surreal. All TV channels and most Newspapers go by normally without mentioning most troubling stuff.
There's some good journalism done via social media and internet but the reach they have in this country is limited :/ Most people just drink that government Kool-Aid.
We're now truly reaching a point where real life simply cannot be hidden by the media... I'm honestly scared of what could happen with a full blown social unrest.
So? Here in Panama, when we were under a dictatorship, we also had elections. Yet, regardless of which president was elected, Noriega and the military were still ruling the country and the president was just a puppet.
malingenie
Member
I fled Venezuela and I believe in a socialist democracy.
Listen, things aren't black or white. Venezuela had corruption in its DNA before the Chavez revolution. I agree socialism is like honey to corruption, I believe the more you eliminate competition the more prone to corruption a system is. In Venezuela it was like adding gas to fire.
What we need to evolve to is a system that allows competition, enforces anti-corruption laws and make sure the basic needs (at least education and healthcare) are covered.
Listen, things aren't black or white. Venezuela had corruption in its DNA before the Chavez revolution. I agree socialism is like honey to corruption, I believe the more you eliminate competition the more prone to corruption a system is. In Venezuela it was like adding gas to fire.
What we need to evolve to is a system that allows competition, enforces anti-corruption laws and make sure the basic needs (at least education and healthcare) are covered.
What's been happening in Venezuela during Chavez's and Maduro's regimes is nothing short of horrible. I'm glad we (Argentina) managed to steer away from that fate with the change of government, as we were headed in the same path of self-destruction. Truly a sad thing, and I hope Maduro gets out soon. Hopefully by non-violent means, but I doubt he'd be willing to leave without a fight. After all, what kind of dictator will willingly want to give up their power, knowing they will probably have to answer for their crimes?
Is this sarcasm? Cuba has elections too, you know?
Resident_UA
Member
Socialism isn't on a sliding scale where capitalism is on the other side, you're confusing it with a market vs planned economy and/or libertarian vs welfare system. Socialism is an ideology. Its key tenet is that the workers control the means of production rather than the capitalists who founded the industries. That is a very specific and very unique core of the movement. Sweden isn't even a social democracy because social democracy had the same goal as socialism: transferring the control of the means of production to the workers. It simply differed with Marxist socialism on the means; it advocated doing it after convincing the people to do it through a vote rather than through a violent revolution.
The problem is that time has made socialism and social democracy obsolete. They both basically failed in the early 20th century, the problem is that the terms lived on after being attached to entirely new movements and ideologies because they were strong trademarks, so to speak. Sweden never actually attempted to transition to socialism. The existence of private ownership was never really in doubt, we simply decided to reinterpret the mainstream political leftist vision to mean a more "social" state where wealth inequalithy and private ownership is allowed, but extensive safety nets soften their blows and give poor people a chance to a decent life. I prefer the term Nordic Model for this far more than social democracy because that's what it is, it's a model for how to run a market economy that differs from the more libertarian attitudes in most other countries.
We have moved far towards the libertarian position over time though. We privatised the telecom services, radio and TV and the postal service about three decades ago and before someone asks; yes: it wasn't that long ago at all that the Swedish government controlled all means of communication. The first private TV channels were launched in 1987 and were preceded by a debate about making satellite dishesas an alternative. We didn't get our first legal private radio channel until
. The postal service had a monopoly on all mail and parcel services until 1994. These days we have private train companies running on public rail and we've even opened up the healthcare system by having private companies run clinics that are paid for by tax payer money and we've also privatised other key societal functions, like utilities.
So reading this you might think that this means we must at least have been pretty damn socialist before, right? Again, no. These monopolies weren't controlled by the workers, they were run as any corporation, just with a CEO assigned by the government rather than the shareholders with no intention of changing this fact. That's the difference between the Nordic Model and either socialism or social democracy.
I agree with you, but that's not the way the term is used today. When Bernie says that he is socialist he is not arguing for "controlling the means of production". I'm objecting to the argument that Venezuela is failing because it's socialist. I feel like there are much bigger issues with Venezuela than socialism. Dictatorship and sanctions come to mind...
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Socialism isn't on a sliding scale where capitalism is on the other side, you're confusing it with a market vs planned economy and/or libertarian vs welfare system. Socialism is an ideology. Its key tenet is that the workers control the means of production rather than the capitalists who founded the industries. That is a very specific and very unique core of the movement. Sweden isn't even a social democracy because social democracy had the same goal as socialism: transferring the control of the means of production to the workers. It simply differed with Marxist socialism on the means; it advocated doing it after convincing the people to do it through a vote rather than through a violent revolution.
The problem is that time has made socialism and social democracy obsolete. They both basically failed in the early 20th century, the problem is that the terms lived on after being attached to entirely new movements and ideologies because they were strong trademarks, so to speak. Sweden never actually attempted to transition to socialism. The existence of private ownership was never really in doubt, we simply decided to reinterpret the mainstream political leftist vision to mean a more "social" state where wealth inequalithy and private ownership is allowed, but extensive safety nets soften their blows and give poor people a chance to a decent life. I prefer the term Nordic Model for this far more than social democracy because that's what it is, it's a model for how to run a market economy that differs from the more libertarian attitudes in most other countries.
We have moved far towards the libertarian position over time though. We privatised the telecom services, radio and TV and the postal service about three decades ago and before someone asks; yes: it wasn't that long ago at all that the Swedish government controlled all means of communication. The first private TV channels were launched in 1987 and were preceded by a debate about making satellite dishesas an alternative. We didn't get our first legal private radio channel until. The postal service had a monopoly on all mail and parcel services until 1994. These days we have private train companies running on public rail and we've even opened up the healthcare system by having private companies run clinics that are paid for by tax payer money and we've also privatised other key societal functions, like utilities.
So reading this you might think that this means we must at least have been pretty damn socialist before, right? Again, no. These monopolies weren't controlled by the workers, they were run as any corporation, just with a CEO assigned by the government rather than the shareholders with no intention of changing this fact. That's the difference between the Nordic Model and either socialism or social democracy.
Great post!
Though I believe your confusing social democracy (aka welfare capitalism) and democratic socialism (which is what you accurately describe under the banner of Social Democracy). Social democracy and democratic socialism both did come from "pure socialism" but social democrats did drop the whole means of production obsession and made peace with private ownership with gov't regulation
This is one of my biggest problems with Bernie sanders. He's not a democratic socialist, hes a social democrat. He's a captialist
Not sure if a evangelical Predestinationalist is the first guy I'd go to for economics theory
i'm also from venezuela, living in spain right now because of all the shit that's going on in my country. shit is depressing and a lot of people have left. right now is the worst that it has ever been, and i'm actually worried about what might happen in the next few months because I have my family still living there.
malingenie
Member
Sorry brother. I left 13 years ago. My family has all moved out since, but it was a scary 5 years at the beginning. Not even including the culture shock of moving to a new country. It gets better.
God Dayumm
Banned
I wish my country, and others, would accept Venezuelans as refugees
Resident_UA
Member
You do realize that my original comment was reply to the comment below? (Not some true definition of the term, but rather reply to the way it was used in the post) So you actually agree with me but somehow managed to bring North Korea and Cuba in the mix? Unless we disagree that post below is directed towards Bernie supporters
Wow that sounds insane. Have you thought about moving to Colombia or another place on the continent?
Could be a language thing. The original Swedish Social Democrats called themselves this to point out that they were willing to work through democracy rather than force. They were pretty much defined by remaining true to this after their revolutionary elements split off to form the Swedish Communist Party (they renamed themselves the Left Part after the collapse of the USSR).
The English Wiki page actually does agree with me about this being the original meaning, and I tend to be a bit of a sticker for sticking to those. But that's also the problem with leftist movements in general and socialist movements in particular: there's endless rebrandings and schisms to the point that simple terms never have universal meanings. The Monty Python sketch is so, so true.
I know that the colloquial understanding has shifted but I want to rebel against that. In my opinion, it confuses matters because it makes us call two very different things by the same name.
As for Venezuela, I agree that it's not as simple as "they're socialist, duh". Mostly because they aren't socialist in the classical meaning of the world
, but also because the crash mostly has to do with corruption and incompetence. They basically pegged their economy on the oil price and were shocked when it crashed along with the price of oil. That said, their tendency towards command economy has definitely done major damage to the ability of their economy to respond to the changing circumstances. Instead of letting market forces balance things they're pumping air into the system by attempting to run an economy without not having the basic raw material to do it anymore. They're heading for complete collapse if they continue to use oppression to redistribute goods they no longer have.NYCmetsfan
Banned
I'm going by english definitions and wikipedia.
The labour party is technically democratic socialist but they are for all intents and purposes a social democratic party. They've completely abandoned the fundamental transition to socialism
I think we settled this 80 years ago. Technically there were elections in Nazi Germany too, but we all agree that Hitler was a dictator. In fact it's hard to come up with a good example of a dictator who wasn't elected...
Chilean here, is curious to see people wanting to come here, this last 2 years our country had a huge influx of colombians, venezuelans, haitians, ecuatorians, etc, chileans hate this country yet foreigners seems to find peace here, is really like the grass is greener outside
I stealth edited my post to reflect that I'm actually also using the English definion and Wiki; I'm just a stubborn bastard and insists on using the original definitions. I know that the accepted definition has changed. I simply dislike it because it makes things more confusing, not less.
That's because most of your problems at the eyes of most of other Latin American countries are literally "1st world problems"
Other countries have now followed Chile's steps but Chile was the first Latin American country that made serious steps towards being a developed nation. Maybe Chileans growing up in that progress enviroment don't quite realize it.
gutter_trash
Banned
I believe that the biggest attraction for other Latin Americans to Chile is it has one of the lowest crime rates. The safest S-A country after Uruguay.
there are no fears of being kidnapped in Chile that an Ecuadorian or an Colombian would have
Oh, I agree with that, even today people compare chile in a negative light next to our neighbors who had it more roughly that us. I had visited almost all the countries in SA, and when I return I always had the feeling that our country is in a better situation, even though at times it really feels like we could collapse at any moment
Unknown Soldier
Member
I'm amazed that Maduro has been able to cling to power through all of this.
I don't think there was ever one single "accepted" definition. Even in 1944, Hayek's Road to Serfdom, he talks about Socialism as similar to Fascism in that both lead to planned economies.
In practice, giving workers the "means of their own production" tends to result in a planned (or partly planned) economy. Which is why I think the definitions get tangled up. It's kind of like those people who say "Oh there's never been a communist state, because X,Y,Z aren't truly communist!" The fact that there's never been a state able to achieve it without these issues is telling.
You are arguing a strawman. No one is claiming that what you are saying is false, I'm not sure who you are arguing with. You can still call a country capitalist even if there is still some degree of social infrastructure. It's a matter of degrees.
What's so special about socialist governments (in general) is that at every level, you ultimately confer decision making in the hands of SOMEONE and that political, rather than market, forces determine that person's status. This individual has the right to delegate some decision making to those beneath him, who he selects can be determined by a variety of means. But sometimes it will be based on political or personal favors, or even on monetary incentives. You might not see this at the very very top, but there is a long line of middle managers that cannot all be closely observed. Even trying to do so results in things like the KGB and privacy violations.
In other words, people complain about capitalism, but people who make poor fiscal decisions or are unproductive are often weeded out over time. Some of that happens under planned economies, but not as often.
But if you don't trust my interpretation, perhaps you are more easily convinced by data. Check out this pdf link to a published article entitled "CAPITALISM: ITS VARIETIES AND RELATIONSHIP
WITH THE CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX"
In particular note figure 5. The Corruption Perceptions Index is a bit misleading as a lower CPI corresponds to a HIGHER corruption level. So you can see, the US and several European countries are more liberal markets but also tend to have lower corruption (higher CPI) while the coordinated markets (including some like Greece, Italy, but also Paraguay and India, etc) tend to have higher corruption (lower CPI).
From the author's analysis: "Excessive rules, regulations and high taxes most likely create
more monopoly rents, make corruption more profitable, and therefore encourage it.
Nevertheless, there are some exceptions."
You are right that Sweden is not very corrupt, but Sweden is just one example. Furthermore, it's not even that coordinated -- I think the examples of coordination are just more salient. Like the trains, radio, tvs, etc. But a large chunk of its economy is still market based.
Tbh I think this socialista/non-socialist/democratic/non-democratic debate in the end is just pre-generated noise to cover up the truth: a bunch of thieves & their friends with messianic complex stealing and running a country into the ground. It's always the same story with this interpretation of Marxism...what's the point of removing from power corrupt and rich officials if in the end you're just replacing them, this time with an aureola of "revolucionarios"?. Some of those who were poor, become rich, and some of those who were rich, become poorer. But those, the vast majority living under the worst possible condiciones, stay the same.
Let's also not forget the MASSIVE problem Venezuela has with violence & insecurity on top of the económic issues. I really don't see how can this end without bloodshed.
Let's also not forget the MASSIVE problem Venezuela has with violence & insecurity on top of the económic issues. I really don't see how can this end without bloodshed.
Tallshortman
Member
Chilean here, is curious to see people wanting to come here, this last 2 years our country had a huge influx of colombians, venezuelans, haitians, ecuatorians, etc, chileans hate this country yet foreigners seems to find peace here, is really like the grass is greener outside
Chile is the most highly developed, highest GDP per capita country in Latin America.
Oveja Negra
Member
Spot on.
Every country has a fair amount of problems or unresolved issues that "bother" their citizens, and obviously, Chile is not an exception.
But as you said, Chile has been pointed out as the "best student in the class" for the rest of Latin America for I don't know, the last 25 years or something.
I can confirm over the last decade, tons of peruvians have become residents, followed by colombians, argentinians and in the last years a good amount of folks from Spain (bad state of economy over there).
Giant Panda
Member
Argentina was lucky that they took away power from the Kirchnerists before their country went too far down Venezuela's route. I wish Venezuelans luck in hopefully recalling or impeaching Maduro. And you guys should really shorten the terms for presidents as well.
YourMaster
Member
I think we settled this 80 years ago. Technically there were elections in Nazi Germany too, but we all agree that Hitler was a dictator. In fact it's hard to come up with a good example of a dictator who wasn't elected...
This is just crazy talk. Hitler is one of the very few dictators that was elected, and when he was he was not yet a dictator. He soon found an excuse though to give himself a lot more power then he got mandate for.
Recent similar examples are Putin and Erdogan, who are technically elected but have more power than mandate and where it is seeming unlikely they'll lose power when their term is up.
Most dictators however take their power by force, or inherit it. Think all the African coups, China, N-Korea. Cuba was mentioned as well, where sure they have elections but Castro got into power using military force as well.
Maduro is currently clearly a dictator, where he no longer even ask his own puppet-supreme court to give him temporary absolute powers, he just determines himself that he rules by degree. I wonder what will happen when his term is up.
Interesting side note, the roman empire had dictatorships for 300 years that functioned very well and democratic. In times of crisis the senate appointed a dictator for a fixed term to handle affairs without government lock-downs and bureaucracy, and for the entire time they all gave power back to the senate when their terms were up. This functioned very well.
250 years later they tried to do so again, and the second guy who got power pulled a Putin and eventually got named 'dictator for live'.
Julius Caesar
AcademicSaucer
Member
Fucking Chavez fucked up the country. Now obviously previous goverments are at fault too because a large number of people felt left behind enough to support a populist like him.
But making people get addicted to live on goverment aid is a shitty thing to do.
You make sure they support you every election because they feel that they cant live without your policies. They dont care you are driving the country into the ground, You are giving them free shit!, and is easy to give free shit to people when its not your money.
Venezuela is going to take a generation for that people to recover from that , and even years from now, when things are slowly getting better, if some fuck comes in with similar ideas, the poor will vote for them because they will remember how Chavez was good to them giving them things.
In my country right now there is a right wing candidate with the same social policies of making people slaves of goverment handouts, I really hope that party doesnt win, but fuck .
But making people get addicted to live on goverment aid is a shitty thing to do.
You make sure they support you every election because they feel that they cant live without your policies. They dont care you are driving the country into the ground, You are giving them free shit!, and is easy to give free shit to people when its not your money.
Venezuela is going to take a generation for that people to recover from that , and even years from now, when things are slowly getting better, if some fuck comes in with similar ideas, the poor will vote for them because they will remember how Chavez was good to them giving them things.
In my country right now there is a right wing candidate with the same social policies of making people slaves of goverment handouts, I really hope that party doesnt win, but fuck .
Seems to be widespread looting for food
https://panampost.com/sabrina-martin/2016/05/11/venezuela-looting-wounded-5000-supermarket/
Including by the army
https://panampost.com/sabrina-marti...uelan-soldiers-arrested-after-stealing-goats/
https://panampost.com/sabrina-martin/2016/05/11/venezuela-looting-wounded-5000-supermarket/
Including by the army
https://panampost.com/sabrina-marti...uelan-soldiers-arrested-after-stealing-goats/
Rabbi_Vole
Banned
Get your shit together, SA.
AcademicSaucer
Member
What?
Lol
Boaty McBoatface
Member
Did he actually get banned for this post, or something else?
Because it's true. This is a left/far left leaning forum and most political threads revolve around how we should and need more socialist policies.
What's happening now is a direct result of years of (extreme) socialist rule, where everything is distributed and now they've run out of everything.
Of course, there will be those who say "it's not socialism", or "They didn't do it right", which is what quoted poster was saying.
BloodFeastislandMan
Banned
They just recenlty raised the minimum wage by a substantial margin. This country has a long history of settling unrest with more handouts but I think they're about to reach that limit as the amount of money and resources left that the government can steal is near zero.
Tallshortman
Member
Maduro seems to have a fundamental lack of understanding of basic economics. They're experiencing hyperinflation (or soon to be) and they think artificially increasing wages will do something. The problem isn't that people don't have money, they can't spend their near worthless bolivar on anything because of the below production cost price controls. The black market is mostly open to those who can get their hands on dollars, which is also in massive shortage in the country.
Jeffolation
Banned
Warning: video features Dinesh D'Souza.
People focus to much on direct cause and effect - like most things in life the problems in Venezuela have multiple causes. I will leave the debate on socialism to others, and point out that one of the biggest factors in this collapse has been simple incompetence in handling the economy by the government.
Multiple things can be pointed at. The raiding of the sovereign wealth fund for extravagant social policies (both domestic and foreign) when oil was at a high price and they should have been increasing it. The assignment of poor managers to the state oil company so that oil production has actually fallen over the past decade. The bizarre currency exchange policies. A finance minister who does not believe that printing money causes inflation.
Bad luck has also played it's part (collapse of oil and drought), but any nation run as Venezuela has been would suffer.
Multiple things can be pointed at. The raiding of the sovereign wealth fund for extravagant social policies (both domestic and foreign) when oil was at a high price and they should have been increasing it. The assignment of poor managers to the state oil company so that oil production has actually fallen over the past decade. The bizarre currency exchange policies. A finance minister who does not believe that printing money causes inflation.
Bad luck has also played it's part (collapse of oil and drought), but any nation run as Venezuela has been would suffer.
That is a direct result of populist politics (in this case of the socialist variety) and the demonization of intellectual "elites" also known as educated people who would know what the fuck they are doing.
The Dutch Slayer
Member
We have are own gaffer who desperately wants to get out and so far is unable to do so
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1113196
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1113196
Machado's thread sure was an eye-opener the first time I looked at it, I agree I kind of just want to ignore any update on the thread out of fear sometimes for him and others.
What is the consensus on the situation? US policies the cause? Chavez's work? Or is it mostly internal? Is there any pretty recent good reading on the country and it's current situation? I find it so saddening and horrifying but I still don't feel like it registers in my mind how bad it seems.
What is the consensus on the situation? US policies the cause? Chavez's work? Or is it mostly internal? Is there any pretty recent good reading on the country and it's current situation? I find it so saddening and horrifying but I still don't feel like it registers in my mind how bad it seems.
Chavez was not a dictator, why do people keep saying this? He was elected democratically and improved the life of the poor tremendously.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked