Venezuela the failed socialist state - Rising tensions.

Soldato
Joined
16 Aug 2009
Posts
7,728
My recollection of the nationalised utilities was that they were mostly pretty good.

Particularly on the day of my Grandads funeral in the late 60's when we woke up in the morning to find that we had no electricity because the main cable under the front garden had failed.

Despite being a Saturday, the (Inefficient/nationalised) electricity provider had an emergency over head supply up and running by lunchtime!

Tell me that would happen today! :p

As for the improvements quoted in the Guardian article.

How many of those improvements are because of prviatisation and how many of them are simply down to improvements in technology that would have happened anyway over the same period.

EG speed with which new lines are installed.

Then. A phone line was a physical connection that went from your phone all the way back to a terminal on a relay back at the exchange.

Unless there was a "Spare" wire available on the pole outside your house, this would all have to be installed all the way back to the exchange in order to provide your new line. No wonder new lines sometimes took a long time (Using "Party Lines" was a way of mitigating this, but it had its downsides)

Now-All that might be needed is a new line to the local cabinet. And indeed, the effectively unlimited capacity of the new fiber connected cabinets means that it has been easy to "Oversupply" the big cables to the poles to such an extent that an inability to find a spare connection is hardly ever likely to be a problem. Of course one will be able to install new lines quicker today. Even 15 days seems like a long time really.

But this has ****** all to do with privatisation!

Same with the water supply.

Then-Cast iron and steel pipes that were vulnerable to cracks and leakage causing loss of water pressure and large amounts of wastage.

Now- Far more robust and flexible plastic piping.

Again, nothing to do with privatisation. Just stuff that would have happened anyway (And indeed, might even have happened sooner BT was working on VoD over 30 years ago, if they hadn't been specifically prevented from deploying the technology we could have had BT-TV by the late 80's)

You're viewing everything through the rose tinted glasses of nostalgia. Most people clamouring for those things weren't even around to remember just how bad the raliways were. Nationalised industries were garbage due to underfunding and collosal ineptitude of government that only cares about votes and not how manage anything. Remember the Millenium Dome? Blairs pet vanity project? Yet another colossal waste of public money that was losing millions on an almost daily basis.

Socialism should be left to basic services like collecting bins and not to running industries because it fundamentally fails to know to deal with a market based economy. What happened in the former Eastern Bloc should be proof enough of that. As for Venuzuala and Comrade Corbyn's championing it as a model economy well that should tell you everything you need to know about him and socialism in general. (And just why is the BBC so reluctant to bring that up anyway? If it was May or the govt they'd be all over it like a rash gleefully pointing it out and hammering politicians at every opportunity.)
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Jun 2005
Posts
9,066
Location
Nottinghamshire
You're viewing everything through the rose tinted glasses of nostalgia. Most people clamouring for those things weren't even around to remember just how bad the raliways were. Nationalised industries were garbage due to underfunding and collosal ineptitude of government that only cares about votes and not how manage anything. Remember the Millenium Dome? Blairs pet vanity project? Yet another colossal waste of public money that was losing millions on an almost daily basis.

Socialism should be left to basic services like collecting bins and not to running industries because it fundamentally fails to know to deal with a market based economy. What happened in the former Eastern Bloc should be proof enough of that. As for Venuzuala and Comrade Corbyn's championing it as a model economy well that should tell you everything you need to know about him and socialism in general. (And just why is the BBC so reluctant to bring that up anyway? If it was May or the govt they'd be all over it like a rash gleefully pointing it out and hammering politicians at every opportunity.)
Hong Kong's MTR
Emirates airlines
I'm sure theres more.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Jan 2009
Posts
6,554
Hong Kong's MTR
Emirates airlines
I'm sure theres more.

The airline is owned by a sovereign wealth fund in Dubai

It was started with $10 million in start-up capital it was required to operate independently of government subsidy.


It may well ultimately be solely state owned but crucially it isn't state run, and operates in a competitive market where it pays dividends on any profits.

In summary a pretty poor rebuttal to the point that state run industries are generally operated rather poorly.




I don't know about you but I'm spotting a pattern here? Again not a state run company. But rather a majority state owned company in this case which is listed on a stock exchange.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Posts
31,991
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
Venezuela's has everything to do with over reliance on a petrochemical economy, and virtually nothing to do with socialism.

The entire nation was geared towards the production and export of oil, with no backup in the form of viable alternative industries. When the oil price tanked, the economy went with it.

Local food production dropped to unsustainable levels a long time ago, making Venezuela reliant on imports largely purchased with oil money. Then oil prices fell. You can guess the rest.

Critics of the socialist government of Nicolás Maduro say food production collapsed in the oil-reliant country due to a mix of the expropriation of farmland and agro-industrial enterprises and strict price controls that made importing food cheaper than producing it locally.

But a byzantine currency control system and plummeting oil prices have slashed imports of raw materials and food products.

(Source).

Of course, the crippling US sanctions and he outrageous levels of corruption haven't helped matters either.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jun 2012
Posts
11,259
So simple in some ways so complex in others.

As usual money dominates everything.

It's always weird to think people can't eat as they have no numbers in their bank account or coins in the hand.

If only we could grow money on trees.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
Venezuela's has everything to do with over reliance on a petrochemical economy, and virtually nothing to do with socialism.

The entire nation was geared towards the production and export of oil, with no backup in the form of viable alternative industries. When the oil price tanked, the economy went with it.

Local food production dropped to unsustainable levels a long time ago, making Venezuela reliant on imports largely purchased with oil money. Then oil prices fell. You can guess the rest.

That only explains the economic aspect of it. It certainly doesn't explain the actions of the government in terms of sidelining the National Assembly, holding dodgy elections, ignoring a previous attempt at a no confidence vote etc..etc.. not to mention the handling of various protests/unrest. That is down to the authoritarian nature of the regimen which is all too common when it comes to socialism.

The interim President exists in that same economic situation yet he wants fresh elections.

(and before anyone wants to engage in some whataboutery - yes far right regimes are also authoritarian, but we're talking about Venezuela here)
 
Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,129
I believe that aside from oil production, Venezuela is hugely involved in the drug trafficking business. The US is determined to go after the (foreign) suppliers of illegal drugs rather than the (local) consumers of illegal drugs.
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
I reject that. Nothing in capitalism requires one to not care about others or prevents you from giving to help those. Even Ayn Rand, Arch-Capitalist and hate-figure for the Left, spoke favourably on charity. Her objection (and that of even "extreme" capitalists) is when you give OTHER PEOPLE's money away, not your own. Nor do we say "only do stuff that makes money". Which capitalists do you have in mind that said this? I'd be fascinated to know. I mean, Ebeneezer Scrooge, yes - but do you have any non-fictional ones? Because I AM an extreme capitalist and what you've said certainly doesn't sound familiar to me.

what about that town in america that has the second biggest natural reserve of clean drinking water. the governor then decided to let his buddies (capitalists) run the water and they took it from a different source which was full of lead and charged ridiculous sums for people to kill themselves?
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Jan 2009
Posts
6,554
what about that town in america that has the second biggest natural reserve of clean drinking water. the governor then decided to let his buddies (capitalists) run the water and they took it from a different source which was full of lead and charged ridiculous sums for people to kill themselves?

Yawn.. . you largely lost your argument when you said..

'the governor then decided to let his buddies'

That's not 'capitalism' that's cronyism ...


Nothing in a society run along capitalist lines prevents strong well enforced safety standards within which businesses can operate in regulated markets.

Nice try but its an E - for me.....

And ill think you find many examples of rather poor lax safety standards when it comes to socialist run industries. Eastern Europe and the former USSR are full of heavily polluted area that are the legacy of poorly run socialised industries with dirty inefficient end products like the trabant.

 
Soldato
Joined
27 Jan 2009
Posts
6,554
Venezuela's has everything to do with over reliance on a petrochemical economy, and virtually nothing to do with socialism.

Socialism absolutely is the fault

Que the usual it's not 'real' socialism arguments

Or its all the fault of the USA and their allies with their sanctions and boycotts ... (lets ignore the Venezuelan establishment seizing foreign owned industries within its borders and terrorising masses of its own citizens) Venezuela totally would have otherwise been a Socialist paradise apparently ..

Socialism always fails because its fundamentally flawed.

Venezuela's current problems are definetly partly to do with their reliance on oil products.

But then part of the reason Venezuela became so relaiant on oil exports was because they killed of a lot of other industries with their socialist actions!

Like for example their auto industry. .



Its rather ridiculous to claim socialism has 'virtually nothing' to do with Venezuela's current plight.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Posts
31,991
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
Venezuela's current problems are definetly partly to do with their reliance on oil products.

Primarily.

But then part of the reason Venezuela became so relaiant on oil exports was because they killed of a lot of other industries with their socialist actions!

Nationalisation is not an exclusively socialist policy (it was popular in Western capitalist republics and democracies during the 40s) and since Venezuela's economy has remained capitalist, I'm not sure how it can be defined as a socialist nation.

Its rather ridiculous to claim socialism has 'virtually nothing' to do with Venezuela's current plight.

Chavez and Maduro have run authoritarian, dictatorial, semi-populist governments alongside a capitalist economy while largely ignoring the problems caused by corruption. There's not much room for socialism in this scenario.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Jan 2009
Posts
6,554
.Nationalisation is not an exclusively socialist policy (it was popular in Western capitalist republics and democracies during the 40s) and since Venezuela's economy has remained capitalist, I'm not sure how it can be defined as a socialist nation.

*facepalm* nationalisation is socialism in action i.e taken the means of production and distributuon from private hands into the 'collective' hands of the state. Perhaps you can actually name an actual socialist country so we can critique the ideology according to your standards?

You'll get bonus points for

1) claiming a Scandinavian country is a good example of a socialist one (pro tip they largely aren't socialist)

And/ or

2) claiming that we haven't had a 'real' socialist state yet...

Countries in Europe pursuing socialist policies in the past (which have often been at least partially reverted to private ownership now) doesn't mean Venezuela isn't currently being run along socialist lines.


Chavez and Maduro have run authoritarian, dictatorial, semi-populist governments alongside a capitalist economy while largely ignoring the problems caused by corruption. There's not much room for socialism in this scenario.

Rather arbitrarily seizing and nationalising private industry and price controls are the hallmarks of capitalism now are they? That there isn't a total lack of private industry doesnt invalidate an assessment of the country as being run along socialist lines
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Posts
31,991
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
*facepalm* nationalisation is socialism in action

No, nationalism is a political ideology. Nationalisation is something else entirely, and as I've already pointed out, it is not unique to socialism.

Perhaps you can actually name an actual socialist country so we can critique the ideology according to your standards?

There aren't any. Every attempt at socialism has almost immediately degenerated into authoritarianism and/or dictatorship of some kind, ably assisted by corruption and nepotism. There's never been a truly socialist nation. Socialism only works as a thought experiment; it never works in reality. It can't. It's an inherently flawed system.

Rather arbitrarily seizing and nationalising private industry and price controls are the hallmarks of capitalism now are they?

That's not what I said. Are you going to address my post at some point, or just thrash wildly at a few straw men?

That there isn't a total lack of private industry doesnt invalidate an assessment of the country as being run along socialist lines

Now you're shifting the goalposts to 'along socialist lines.' That's quite a climbdown from your original claim.

Fact: in order to be a socialist nation, a country must have (a) a purely socialist form of government, and (b) a purely socialist economy. Venezuela has neither.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Posts
31,991
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
Maduro has now backflipped on his early elections offer, and ramped up his rhetoric against the White House:

“Stop. Stop, Trump! Hold it right there! You are making mistakes that will leave your hands covered in blood and you will leave the presidency stained with blood. Why would you want a repeat of Vietnam?”

“If the north American empire attacks us, we will have to defend ourselves... We aren’t going to hand Venezuela over...”

“We don’t accept ultimatums from anyone. I refuse to call for elections now – there will be elections in 2024. We don’t care what Europe says. You can’t base international politics on ultimatums. That’s the stuff of the empire, of colonial times.”

(Source).

The Trump administration is now openly warning Maduro that he must leave office or face the consequences.

Remember when people said 'Don't vote for Hillary because she'll keep meddling in other countries'?

:D
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,898
No, nationalism is a political ideology. Nationalisation is something else entirely, and as I've already pointed out, it is not unique to socialism.

The poster you're quoting referred to nationalisation. Why does being unique to socialism matter here? That other political ideologies also do something bad (not that nationalisation is necessarily always bad) doesn't seem to be particularly relevant here.
 
Associate
Joined
3 Feb 2019
Posts
747
All petro-states run the risk of a Venezuela style meltdown. Authoritarian/dictatorial rule is a main feature as the government need direct control of its main source of income, especially if they haven't diversified.

Norway used it's oil revenue to become the world's largest wealth fund, using it's oil revenue to invest and then fund societal investment with the proceeds. Saudi has tried buying up everything and anything to exert control on other countries, something with Venezuela hasn't done.

Venezuela is actually a casualty of Saudi dumping the oil price around 2016 in order to put US producers out of business. The US didn't mind as it was making the Saudis sweat bullets whilst enjoying cheap oil and stockpiling their own domestic yield. The Arabic states are terrified the US will deliver a coup de grace when they can revert to relying solely on shale and their own stocks, bankrupting them overnight.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,805
So the other day, Venezuela intercepted a shipment of weapons that was trying to get in the country.

http://valenciainforma.obolog.es/op...ncia-proveniente-miami-fotos-5-2-2019-2505840

And now we have Secretary Pompeo saying that Hezbollah and Iran are in Venezuela. :rolleyes:

Iran<>Venezuela link isn't as crazy as it sounds and might somewhat be behind the US trying to precipitate things in Venezuela - Iran has increasingly been looking to partnerships in other countries to try and avoid US sanctions and surveillance of their activities such as military developments like vehicles and missiles.
 
Back
Top Bottom