Venezuela was being held up by the likes of Owen Jones and Diane Abbott as an example of how socialism works so much better than capitalism. Those voices seem oddly silent now, can't think why.
Bolivia and Ecuador also socialist. Who has the highest growth in South America? Argentina, Chile and Uruguay also have leftist governments...it isn't leftism at fault, it is Chavez and his cronies.
It is true. Venezuela under Chavez had a great chance to do something different - now being done in Bolivia, Uruguay - but they blew it. They blew it because they adhered to what is basically a Russian model of socialism from the first half of the 1900s. Mixed in with an out of date `strongman` legacy. The main problem being that they pegged the Bolivar to the dollar, it was insane and now they cannot get out of it. Chavez blew it and he had such an amazing chance to do something better.
You see in Ecuador, Uruguay, Bolivia, Argentina and Chile very different leftism.
And you are going to see very different leftism in Greece, and maybe, just maybe, even in Spain.
And remember who gave you the NHS, free education, social care, unemployment benefits and much more in a country bombed flat by the far-right, after the UK right appeased fascism and Nazism in Europe.
Would you have the NHS without the threat of the Soviet Union?
And remember who gave you the NHS, free education, social care, unemployment benefits and much more in a country bombed flat by the far-right, after the UK right appeased fascism and Nazism in Europe.
We had free education and unemployment benefits before WW2 - and who was appeasing Nazis?
Would you have the NHS without the threat of the Soviet Union?
That must take the prize for the most bizarre statement I have ever seen on DS.
At the last elections over there Diane Abbott and Owen Jones both went over as 'observers' and those exact comments. Both now ignore the whole subject of Venezuela.
We had free education and unemployment benefits before WW2 - and who was appeasing Nazis?
That must take the prize for the most bizarre statement I have ever seen on DS.
It's also doubly odd, as Labour were appeasers throughout the 1930's as well, and virulantly opposed to re-armament. They regularly accused Churchill of being a war monger for talking about the Nazi's, as they wanted more money to be spent on social causes. It was only when appeasement collapsed that they suddenly became pro-war, as did the Conservative leadership.
Bolivia and Ecuador also socialist. Who has the highest growth in South America? Argentina, Chile and Uruguay also have leftist governments...it isn't leftism at fault, it is Chavez and his cronies.
It is true. Venezuela under Chavez had a great chance to do something different - now being done in Bolivia, Uruguay - but they blew it. They blew it because they adhered to what is basically a Russian model of socialism from the first half of the 1900s. Mixed in with an out of date `strongman` legacy. The main problem being that they pegged the Bolivar to the dollar, it was insane and now they cannot get out of it. Chavez blew it and he had such an amazing chance to do something better.
You see in Ecuador, Uruguay, Bolivia, Argentina and Chile very different leftism.
And you are going to see very different leftism in Greece, and maybe, just maybe, even in Spain.
And remember who gave you the NHS, free education, social care, unemployment benefits and much more in a country bombed flat by the far-right, after the UK right appeased fascism and Nazism in Europe.
Would you have the NHS without the threat of the Soviet Union?
Definitely on my quotes to store list for use when these countries collapse into economic chaos. As they inevitably will.
Definitely on my quotes to store list for use when these countries collapse into economic chaos. As they inevitably will.
There are three always phases to full-scale socialism.
1) Expansion. Socialists borrow a lot of money, loot carefully saved reserves of capital and raw materials, nationalize vital industries and splurge the proceeds on grandiose projects to expand the government, put lots of cronies on the payroll and feather their own nests, all in the name of The Poor. Eager International Leftists visit and acclaim this New Form of Socialism Which Will Not Repeat All The Failures Of The Past.
2) Cracks start to appear. The hastily new roads, hospitals, schools, infrastructure etc start to look shoddy, Roofs leak, poorly graded roads wash away in floods, infrastructure vital for raw materials extraction starts to break down, nobody knows how to repair anything. It starts to become clear that the much-vaunted new doctors, nurses, teachers etc are a bunch of lazy incompetent time servers. The Governing Party, supported by Eager International Leftists blame the Yankees, Israelis and capitalist saboteurs for these minor growing pains, but are confident that new triumphs are shortly around the corner. They nationalise even more sectors of the economy, especially food production. The Poor start to wonder if they are really better off.
3) Collapse. There's no money to pay debts. There's no money to make trivial repairs to vital equipment. There's no money to pay for imported food, drugs or medical equipment. Hospitals are little more than large empty, crumpling buildings painted white. Domestic food production collapses. Huge stockpiles of food build up in the countryside, but can't be distributed to town because none of the trucks or railways work. Diseases which had long been though extinct start to reappear, because basic infrastructure has collapsed. The Poor have to queue for hours for basic necessities, easily available to the corrupt Socialist Apparatchiks. Eager International Leftists blame the Governing Party for repeating all the mistakes of Previously Failed Socialist Countries, and make vaguely racist insinuations about deficiencies of national character.
There are three always phases to full-scale socialism.
1) Expansion. Socialists borrow a lot of money, loot carefully saved reserves of capital and raw materials, nationalize vital industries and splurge the proceeds on grandiose projects to expand the government, put lots of cronies on the payroll and feather their own nests, all in the name of The Poor. Eager International Leftists visit and acclaim this New Form of Socialism Which Will Not Repeat All The Failures Of The Past.
2) Cracks start to appear. The hastily new roads, hospitals, schools, infrastructure etc start to look shoddy, Roofs leak, poorly graded roads wash away in floods, infrastructure vital for raw materials extraction starts to break down, nobody knows how to repair anything. It starts to become clear that the much-vaunted new doctors, nurses, teachers etc are a bunch of lazy incompetent time servers. The Governing Party, supported by Eager International Leftists blame the Yankees, Israelis and capitalist saboteurs for these minor growing pains, but are confident that new triumphs are shortly around the corner. They nationalise even more sectors of the economy, especially food production. The Poor start to wonder if they are really better off.
3) Collapse. There's no money to pay debts. There's no money to make trivial repairs to vital equipment. There's no money to pay for imported food, drugs or medical equipment. Hospitals are little more than large empty, crumpling buildings painted white. Domestic food production collapses. Huge stockpiles of food build up in the countryside, but can't be distributed to town because none of the trucks or railways work. Diseases which had long been though extinct start to reappear, because basic infrastructure has collapsed. The Poor have to queue for hours for basic necessities, easily available to the corrupt Socialist Apparatchiks. Eager International Leftists blame the Governing Party for repeating all the mistakes of Previously Failed Socialist Countries, and make vaguely racist insinuations about deficiencies of national character.
:D:D
You forgot point 4. Denial. In which highly paid elderly intellectuals, with a lifetime in academia at Western universities, digs out a quote from page 3175 of Das Kapital which proves conclusively that the whole thing was never socialist in the first place, and that next time it really really really WILL be different.....
At the last elections over there Diane Abbott and Owen Jones both went over as 'observers' and those exact comments. Both now ignore the whole subject of Venezuela.
From the beginning of the nineties up to 2008 right wingers told us Ireland was the example of how to run an economy. Their not saying it now! Dogmatism, from left or right, is always ridiculous.
1) Expansion. Socialists borrow a lot of money, loot carefully saved reserves of capital and raw materials, nationalize vital industries and splurge the proceeds on grandiose projects to expand the government, put lots of cronies on the payroll and feather their own nests, all in the name of The Poor. Eager International Leftists visit and acclaim this New Form of Socialism Which Will Not Repeat All The Failures Of The Past.
.
Bankers borrow a lot of money, loot carefully saved reserves, bust the bank and demand tax payers money, billions at a time, be given to them, not only to save banks, but so bankers can use public cash to further enrich themselves. As has frequently been pointed out, not only by lefties, but right wingers like Daniel Hannan and Alex Brummer. Robbery is robbery, whoever the robbers and victims are.
As was Ireland by right wingers. Knee jerk reactions, from left or right, are pathetic. And usually wrong.
If I look at the current conditions in Ireland and Venezuela, such as human rights, freedom of speech, availability of goods (both basic and luxury) and violent crime rates, i can only conclude that if I had to make a choice i'd much prefer to live in Ireland, the failed right-wing flagship, then Venezuela the failed socialist one.
Of course I currently live in the UK, a stable state where almost all of it's citizens rank in the top 5-10% of the wealthiest in the world. With democratic choice and wide ranging personal freedoms. I would like to compare my current lifestyle to a smililar successful socialist country, but looking through past history and current world events the truth is there has never been such a state with which to make such a comparison, despite numerous attempts to create one.
If I look at the current conditions in Ireland and Venezuela, such as human rights, freedom of speech, availability of goods (both basic and luxury) and violent crime rates, i can only conclude that if I had to make a choice i'd much prefer to live in Ireland, the failed right-wing flagship, then Venezuela the failed socialist one.
Of course I currently live in the UK, a stable state where almost all of it's citizens rank in the top 5-10% of the wealthiest in the world. With democratic choice and wide ranging personal freedoms. I would like to compare my current lifestyle to a smililar successful socialist country, but looking through past history and current world events the truth is there has never been such a state with which to make such a comparison, despite numerous attempts to create one.
Tell me what you make of human rights and living standards in Venezuela before Chavez.
Dead right. They were appalling beforehand - but Chavez made them even worse.
According to the ECLAC, from 1999 to 2012, Venezuela achieved the second highest rate of poverty reduction in the region; with World Bank data showing that the poverty rate dropped from 49.4% to 25.6%.[7][8] The Bolivarian Missions have entailed the construction of thousands of free medical clinics for the poor,[9] the institution of educational campaigns,[10][11][12] and the enactment of housing subsidies.
Terrible. And Chavez didn't improve them in the slightest.
Tell me what you make of human rights and living standards in Ireland today compared to Venezuela.
Actually Chavez greatly reduced extreme poverty. As for human rights, decades of American oppression had suppressed them, once removing an elected government in the forties and trying to in 2002. It would be a surprise if the country was perfect now, but Chavez did establish firmly the right of Venezuelans to determine their own future. Just like Ireland in fact.
According to the ECLAC, from 1999 to 2012, Venezuela achieved the second highest rate of poverty reduction in the region; with World Bank data showing that the poverty rate dropped from 49.4% to 25.6%.[7][8] The Bolivarian Missions have entailed the construction of thousands of free medical clinics for the poor,[9] the institution of educational campaigns,[10][11][12] and the enactment of housing subsidies.
Apologies GGP - I was focusing on human rights / freedom - not poverty levels. After all, if poverty levels can't fall when a Socialist government takes over, redistributing wealth and stripping assets in the second most oil rich country in the world so that it can appease its supporters, when can it? By the way, thanks for the link to the ECLAC report - I followed it through and found this splendid piece from just over a year ago put together by the man who also reported on those figures. Seriously, read it, it's a hoot.
It would have been possible to use the oil wealth to help the poor in a more sustainable way, but they coupled some good policies with some very, very bad ones. Venezuela was already just barely hanging on under Maduro, even with record high oil prices. When the commodity inevitably dropped a bit, a totally predictable and avoidable catastrophe. Chavez undoubtedly made some progress for the poorest citizens, but he did it using unsound and unsustainable economics that were always leading up to this point. And Maduro always doubles down on the worst economic policies rather than trying to correct it.
The question now is whether Venezuela is going to go full Zimbabwe and start printing hundred trillion bolivar bills.
Hunger marches attended by riot police. Fixed rate prices designed to help the poor actually hurting them. Inflation reaching over 60%. Suppression of official scarcity figures which might prove "inconvenient". Heading towards default. And these problems were apparent even when oil prices were high! As they continue to drop? Well.....
Who does Maduro blame because clearly it can't be the fault of Socialism? It's the supermarkets (!) , and (of course) America. It would all be so laughably predictable if it all wasn't so tragic for the Venezuelan people.
Actually Chavez greatly reduced extreme poverty. As for human rights, decades of American oppression had suppressed them, once removing an elected government in the forties and trying to in 2002. It would be a surprise if the country was perfect now, but Chavez did establish firmly the right of Venezuelans to determine their own future. Just like Ireland in fact.
So are you saying that at this moment in time Venezuela compares favourably to Ireland ?
I can't speak for you, but given the choice of living in Dublin or Caracas for me it's a case of "pour me a Guiness on the bank of the Liffey". I hope you enjoy Caracas and are able to buy a black market gun to defend yourself.
Apologies GGP - I was focusing on human rights / freedom - not poverty levels. After all, if poverty levels can't fall when a Socialist government takes over, redistributing wealth and stripping assets in the second most oil rich country in the world so that it can appease its supporters, when can it? By the way, thanks for the link to the ECLAC report - I followed it through and found this splendid piece from just over a year ago put together by the man who also reported on those figures. Seriously, read it, it's a hoot.
So yes, he did, GGP. Of course he did. Just as the next deluded socialist emperor will do as well. The entire farrago is a busted flush.
But Venezuela is not a Socialist state! It may have been Chavez's goal to try and turn it into one (I am not so sure about Maduro's) but it is still a market based mixed economy, affected very much by the Capitalist worldwide recession in 2008 and the recent plummeting oil prices. (And please remember it wasn't Chavez that nationalised the Venezuelan oil industry. It happened in 1976, 23 years before Chavez was elected into power).
V. is far too dependent on oil prices - the joys of being part of the mad merry-go-round that is Capitalism.
But Venezuela is not a Socialist state! It may have been Chavez's goal to try and turn it into one (I am not so sure about Maduro's) but it is still a market based mixed economy, affected very much by the Capitalist worldwide recession in 2008 and the recent plummeting oil prices. (And please remember it wasn't Chavez that nationalised the Venezuelan oil industry. It happened in 1976, 23 years before Chavez was elected into power).
V. is far too dependent on oil prices - the joys of being part of the mad merry-go-round that is Capitalism.
:D:D Phase Four :D:D
Can I assume that your solution to Venezuela's problems would be something along the lines of jettisoning the market aspects of the "market based mixed economy" and nationalising everything. Then the economy would be centrally planned by the party faithful who really understand all the nuances of Sociailism.
Would be almost worth watching that just for the comedy value of watching the planners social engineering projects collapse. Unfortunately the people of Venezuela will find it less than amusing.
So are you saying that at this moment in time Venezuela compares favourably to Ireland ?
I can't speak for you, but given the choice of living in Dublin or Caracas for me it's a case of "pour me a Guiness on the bank of the Liffey". I hope you enjoy Caracas and are able to buy a black market gun to defend yourself.
You're right that freedom and living standards are higher in Ireland than Venezuela. But the former hasn't spent the decades from the twenties to the end of the nineties ruled by tyrants who are puppets of the USA. Those with tunnel vision about any government that isn't right wing obviously can't, and refuse, to see that.
Comments
When was that?
It is true. Venezuela under Chavez had a great chance to do something different - now being done in Bolivia, Uruguay - but they blew it. They blew it because they adhered to what is basically a Russian model of socialism from the first half of the 1900s. Mixed in with an out of date `strongman` legacy. The main problem being that they pegged the Bolivar to the dollar, it was insane and now they cannot get out of it. Chavez blew it and he had such an amazing chance to do something better.
You see in Ecuador, Uruguay, Bolivia, Argentina and Chile very different leftism.
And you are going to see very different leftism in Greece, and maybe, just maybe, even in Spain.
And remember who gave you the NHS, free education, social care, unemployment benefits and much more in a country bombed flat by the far-right, after the UK right appeased fascism and Nazism in Europe.
Would you have the NHS without the threat of the Soviet Union?
We had free education and unemployment benefits before WW2 - and who was appeasing Nazis?
That must take the prize for the most bizarre statement I have ever seen on DS.
At the last elections over there Diane Abbott and Owen Jones both went over as 'observers' and those exact comments. Both now ignore the whole subject of Venezuela.
It's also doubly odd, as Labour were appeasers throughout the 1930's as well, and virulantly opposed to re-armament. They regularly accused Churchill of being a war monger for talking about the Nazi's, as they wanted more money to be spent on social causes. It was only when appeasement collapsed that they suddenly became pro-war, as did the Conservative leadership.
Definitely on my quotes to store list for use when these countries collapse into economic chaos. As they inevitably will.
There are three always phases to full-scale socialism.
1) Expansion. Socialists borrow a lot of money, loot carefully saved reserves of capital and raw materials, nationalize vital industries and splurge the proceeds on grandiose projects to expand the government, put lots of cronies on the payroll and feather their own nests, all in the name of The Poor. Eager International Leftists visit and acclaim this New Form of Socialism Which Will Not Repeat All The Failures Of The Past.
2) Cracks start to appear. The hastily new roads, hospitals, schools, infrastructure etc start to look shoddy, Roofs leak, poorly graded roads wash away in floods, infrastructure vital for raw materials extraction starts to break down, nobody knows how to repair anything. It starts to become clear that the much-vaunted new doctors, nurses, teachers etc are a bunch of lazy incompetent time servers. The Governing Party, supported by Eager International Leftists blame the Yankees, Israelis and capitalist saboteurs for these minor growing pains, but are confident that new triumphs are shortly around the corner. They nationalise even more sectors of the economy, especially food production. The Poor start to wonder if they are really better off.
3) Collapse. There's no money to pay debts. There's no money to make trivial repairs to vital equipment. There's no money to pay for imported food, drugs or medical equipment. Hospitals are little more than large empty, crumpling buildings painted white. Domestic food production collapses. Huge stockpiles of food build up in the countryside, but can't be distributed to town because none of the trucks or railways work. Diseases which had long been though extinct start to reappear, because basic infrastructure has collapsed. The Poor have to queue for hours for basic necessities, easily available to the corrupt Socialist Apparatchiks. Eager International Leftists blame the Governing Party for repeating all the mistakes of Previously Failed Socialist Countries, and make vaguely racist insinuations about deficiencies of national character.
You forgot point 4. Denial. In which highly paid elderly intellectuals, with a lifetime in academia at Western universities, digs out a quote from page 3175 of Das Kapital which proves conclusively that the whole thing was never socialist in the first place, and that next time it really really really WILL be different.....
From the beginning of the nineties up to 2008 right wingers told us Ireland was the example of how to run an economy. Their not saying it now! Dogmatism, from left or right, is always ridiculous.
Bankers borrow a lot of money, loot carefully saved reserves, bust the bank and demand tax payers money, billions at a time, be given to them, not only to save banks, but so bankers can use public cash to further enrich themselves. As has frequently been pointed out, not only by lefties, but right wingers like Daniel Hannan and Alex Brummer. Robbery is robbery, whoever the robbers and victims are.
As was Ireland by right wingers. Knee jerk reactions, from left or right, are pathetic. And usually wrong.
If I look at the current conditions in Ireland and Venezuela, such as human rights, freedom of speech, availability of goods (both basic and luxury) and violent crime rates, i can only conclude that if I had to make a choice i'd much prefer to live in Ireland, the failed right-wing flagship, then Venezuela the failed socialist one.
Of course I currently live in the UK, a stable state where almost all of it's citizens rank in the top 5-10% of the wealthiest in the world. With democratic choice and wide ranging personal freedoms. I would like to compare my current lifestyle to a smililar successful socialist country, but looking through past history and current world events the truth is there has never been such a state with which to make such a comparison, despite numerous attempts to create one.
Tell me what you make of human rights and living standards in Venezuela before Chavez.
Terrible. And Chavez didn't improve them in the slightest.
Tell me what you make of human rights and living standards in Ireland today compared to Venezuela.
Dead right. They were appalling beforehand - but Chavez made them even worse.
According to the ECLAC, from 1999 to 2012, Venezuela achieved the second highest rate of poverty reduction in the region; with World Bank data showing that the poverty rate dropped from 49.4% to 25.6%.[7][8] The Bolivarian Missions have entailed the construction of thousands of free medical clinics for the poor,[9] the institution of educational campaigns,[10][11][12] and the enactment of housing subsidies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez
Of course he did David, of course he did.
Actually Chavez greatly reduced extreme poverty. As for human rights, decades of American oppression had suppressed them, once removing an elected government in the forties and trying to in 2002. It would be a surprise if the country was perfect now, but Chavez did establish firmly the right of Venezuelans to determine their own future. Just like Ireland in fact.
Apologies GGP - I was focusing on human rights / freedom - not poverty levels. After all, if poverty levels can't fall when a Socialist government takes over, redistributing wealth and stripping assets in the second most oil rich country in the world so that it can appease its supporters, when can it? By the way, thanks for the link to the ECLAC report - I followed it through and found this splendid piece from just over a year ago put together by the man who also reported on those figures. Seriously, read it, it's a hoot.
Long-Awaited Apocalypse Not Likely in Venezuela (Nov 2013)
But anyway, anything you can wiki, I can wiki better. As I said, I was talking about human rights / freedoms. Here's the graph of freedom ratings, civil liberties and political rights in Venezuela since 1998. And they're all going in the wrong direction.
So yes, he did, GGP. Of course he did. Just as the next deluded socialist emperor will do as well. The entire farrago is a busted flush.
The question now is whether Venezuela is going to go full Zimbabwe and start printing hundred trillion bolivar bills.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-30971615
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-30532543
Hunger marches attended by riot police. Fixed rate prices designed to help the poor actually hurting them. Inflation reaching over 60%. Suppression of official scarcity figures which might prove "inconvenient". Heading towards default. And these problems were apparent even when oil prices were high! As they continue to drop? Well.....
Who does Maduro blame because clearly it can't be the fault of Socialism? It's the supermarkets (!) , and (of course) America. It would all be so laughably predictable if it all wasn't so tragic for the Venezuelan people.
So are you saying that at this moment in time Venezuela compares favourably to Ireland
I can't speak for you, but given the choice of living in Dublin or Caracas for me it's a case of "pour me a Guiness on the bank of the Liffey". I hope you enjoy Caracas and are able to buy a black market gun to defend yourself.
But Venezuela is not a Socialist state! It may have been Chavez's goal to try and turn it into one (I am not so sure about Maduro's) but it is still a market based mixed economy, affected very much by the Capitalist worldwide recession in 2008 and the recent plummeting oil prices. (And please remember it wasn't Chavez that nationalised the Venezuelan oil industry. It happened in 1976, 23 years before Chavez was elected into power).
V. is far too dependent on oil prices - the joys of being part of the mad merry-go-round that is Capitalism.
Can I assume that your solution to Venezuela's problems would be something along the lines of jettisoning the market aspects of the "market based mixed economy" and nationalising everything. Then the economy would be centrally planned by the party faithful who really understand all the nuances of Sociailism.
Would be almost worth watching that just for the comedy value of watching the planners social engineering projects collapse. Unfortunately the people of Venezuela will find it less than amusing.
You're right that freedom and living standards are higher in Ireland than Venezuela. But the former hasn't spent the decades from the twenties to the end of the nineties ruled by tyrants who are puppets of the USA. Those with tunnel vision about any government that isn't right wing obviously can't, and refuse, to see that.