The first time that happens, there won’t be a second time, because the second time the Maduro of the day will just run all the equipment through a wood chipper. Because fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Cleverness isn’t always clever, and I suspect this kind of situation is one of those times.
It’s the classic petrostate problem, where you can neglect everything else as long as oil profits flow, and in the short term it’s always more profitable to invest in more oil production than in long-term projects like diversifying your industrial base, reforming your agricultural sector, building high-tech and service economy, etc. Of course, even by petrostate standards, Maduro and co. are spectacularly incompetent.
And the role of U.S. sanctions, and other forms of U.S. undercutting…?
Backing a couple of coups and leveling heavy sanctions is a very funny definition of not meddling with the country.
I think some distrust socialism because of Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, and Pol Pot.
No. That’s one definition. Plenty of socialist parties work within a democratic system with mixed economies.
That entirely ignores France, Norway, Sweden, Finland, GB, Germany, all of whom had socialist parties and mixed economies… By that metric, you’d think that nationalism would be entire distrusted, but plenty of people still seem to be onboard with that political notion…
In Venezuela’s case? I really can’t say, not being an expert on this. It would not surprise me at all that US sanctions have worsened things in Venezuela, and if you’re referring to the US slate oil production (which cuts down US oil imports and lowered world market prices) and the Saudi reaction (trying to drive the slate oil producers out of business by keeping oil prices down by not cutting their own production), those have obviously hurt Venezuela’s economy seriously.
But I maintain that ultimately, the problem is and has been shitty management of the Venezuelan economy (which of course was going on long before Chavez appeared on the scene, let alone Maduro). Chavez could keep things on tracks despite his bad economic decisions because the oil exports paid enough to keep the country afloat, and I think he would probably handled the low oil prices better than Maduro, on account of being both far more charismatic and far more competent. Things would still be very bad, but I doubt they’d be as bad as they are now.
(Also, not directly related to your post or anything, but just in case someone reading this misunderstands – While I think the Venezuelan “socialism” has been self-destructive idiocy, and that Maduro and the rest of Chavistas should be gone yesterday, I’m very much against an US military intervention right now, because I’m firmly convinced that Trump & co. would fuck it up even worse than Bush did in Iraq.)
Socialism as defined by someone who has no idea what socialism is, maybe. Here’s a hint: the definition is right there in the word “social.” Socialism prioritizes the allocation of resources to what benefits society as a whole.
Let’s review:
Stalin: not a socialist
Mussolini: not a socialist
Pol Pot: not a socialist
Lenin and Mao are more complex, but if they could be labeled socialists, they it’s safe to say they would be very extreme examples, much the way Pinochet could be considered a Capitalist. Lenin famously used his socialist allies to gain power, then violently purged them from the government.
Similarly, Mao was born into relative privilege and had a Nationalist streak long before he picked up Marxism. His first actions as a revolutionary were towards nationalism, and his rise to power was through alliances with nationalists until, as often happens, the two factions violently split ways. It’s arguable whether Mao’s Communists were betrayed or betrayers, but even if you look to his writings, it was more about power and control than the good of society. He was very self-aware that revolution is not for the betterment of society but rather a necessary shift in power from one group to another.
Maybe, instead of a sound-bite list of boogeymen, take a look at what words really mean and the nuanced history behind them.
I’m impressed by how much American conversation about the situation in Venezuela seems to be concerned more with what the most clever and stylish position is rather than what might most help Venezuelans.
10% of the country refugees? People dying of starvation? Death squads in the barrios? Let me know what the American right wing says, and then I’ll have an opinion.
I have worked for Bezos and he paid me for my work and had no say on what I did or did not get to do with that money. When I no longer wanted to work for him and did criticize his business practices I was able to leave and no thought police showed up at my door. I’m guessing you comments here will also not net you a visit by the stazi.
Sanctions may not be helping, but “undercutting” was always a possibility and probably an inevitability. The Venezuelan oil reserves are vast, but very heavy compared to most other oil reserves. Thus no matter the price, the COSTS of taking it out and refining it is higher than US or Saudi oil. Which means even when the price of oil fell, their profit margins grew slim, and their actual production has been in a decline, even with various deals with China.
For imports, the US still does import some of their oil from Venezuela, about 7%, compared to 9% from the Saudis.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6
Really, we can acknowledge that the US has meddled way to much in the past, and certain policies may not be helping, but at least 90% of the modern problems stems directly from the policies from Chavez, Maduro, and the cronies who helped fleece the nation before fleeing with suitcases full of cash.
VisualPolitik has had several videos focused Venezuela’s troubles. They are a Spanish based channel, but make English versions by an Englishman in Prague of many of their videos. I am sure they have some bias, but it isn’t a US centric look.
Play list below.
Right as opposed to totally trustworthy, planet-killing capitalism. Sure.
That map is based on a couple of William Blum books. Here’s Blum on the 2002 coup:
I chose my words carefully; “the USA engineered the global price crash” does not imply “Venezuela was the prime target”.
Yes, it looks like the oil price manipulation was primarily aimed at fucking over the Iranians. The fact that it also trashed Venezuela was a bonus (from the POV of the US State Department).
I know people just combine socialism, marxism and communism into one, but putting mussolini, the ‘inventor’ of fascism, in there is a new one 
As said on other comments, those are not really socialists, and most didn’t even label themselves as socialists. And even if they did, it was not the (theoretical) socialism that was the problem. More the nasty power hungry paranoid dictator part.
“b” is right, but the country was crippled because the country’s currency was backed by oil and they double dipped in spending by taking liens against it too. And that’s also why “socialism” didn’t fail, somewhat common financial practices involve a lot of risk and it went belly up. It took a huge amount of corruption on Venezuela’s part and the US’s (and allies) bad habit of sanctioning the hell out of everyone who doesn’t play ball at the same time.
I escaped a socialist country as a teenager. My definition is based on reality not fantasy
He claimed to be a Marxist before he was a fascist, but even then he rejected egalitarianism which is an essential part of socialism. All of the others were Marxist-Leninists.
Libertarian-socialists pointed this out decades before the October revolution. It was the cause of the breakup of the First International.
We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.
Mikhail Bakunin
When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called “the People’s Stick.”
Mikhail Bakunin
what are the “real” socialists with a ruling track record?
