Socialism on Rampage - Venezuelan “Economic War” Against the “Bourgeoi

[jbg]

The article which I excerpted below (link in headlines) illustrates the folly of socialism. While Chavez declares “economic war” against the “bourgeoisie” the country's skilled people leave. Must we, in the name of "self-determination" allow one man to wreck a viable counry and create yet another basket case?

In Venezuela, a New Wave of Foreigners

In Venezuela, a New Wave of ForeignersBy SIMON ROMERO

CARACAS, Venezuela — On this booming continent, oil-rich Venezuela is the exception: South America’s only shrinking economy this year. Officials are rationing hard currency. Government takeovers of private businesses are increasing. One prominent financial analyst recently had just two words of advice for investors here: “Run away.”

Many middle-class and wealthy Venezuelans have done exactly that, creating a slow-burning exodus of scientists, doctors, entrepreneurs and engineers.

*******************

The opposing tides reflect the increasingly polarized nature of the country. The government of President Hugo Chávez, who recently declared an “economic war” against the “bourgeoisie,” has expropriated 207 private businesses this year — including banks, cattle ranches and housing developments, according to Conindustria, a Venezuelan industrial association — prompting many to seek safer havens elsewhere.

“I feel like I can finally breathe again,” said Ivor Heyer, 48, the owner of a boat manufacturing company, who recently moved his entire operation to Colombia, creating more than 100 jobs there. “I’ve gone from a country where fear is constant over crime and state takeovers to a place that actually welcomes companies involved in something other than oil.”

(snip)

Great idea, Hugo. </sarcasm>

[dre]

The article which I excerpted below (link in headlines) illustrates the folly of socialism. While Chavez declares “economic war” against the “bourgeoisie” the country's skilled people leave. Must we, in the name of "self-determination" allow one man to wreck a viable counry and create yet another basket case?

In Venezuela, a New Wave of Foreigners

In Venezuela, a New Wave of ForeignersBy SIMON ROMERO

CARACAS, Venezuela — On this booming continent, oil-rich Venezuela is the exception: South America’s only shrinking economy this year. Officials are rationing hard currency. Government takeovers of private businesses are increasing. One prominent financial analyst recently had just two words of advice for investors here: “Run away.”

Many middle-class and wealthy Venezuelans have done exactly that, creating a slow-burning exodus of scientists, doctors, entrepreneurs and engineers.

*******************

The opposing tides reflect the increasingly polarized nature of the country. The government of President Hugo Chávez, who recently declared an “economic war” against the “bourgeoisie,” has expropriated 207 private businesses this year — including banks, cattle ranches and housing developments, according to Conindustria, a Venezuelan industrial association — prompting many to seek safer havens elsewhere.

“I feel like I can finally breathe again,” said Ivor Heyer, 48, the owner of a boat manufacturing company, who recently moved his entire operation to Colombia, creating more than 100 jobs there. “I’ve gone from a country where fear is constant over crime and state takeovers to a place that actually welcomes companies involved in something other than oil.”

(snip)

Great idea, Hugo. </sarcasm>

Hugo Chavez isnt responsible for the problems you mentioned. The problem is that Venezuelan elites thought they could get away with not having a social safety net like all other modern democracies have. They set about privatizing the countries natural resources to benefit a small percentage of wealthy elites and allowed the poor to grow increasing impoverished and desperate. THEY STARTED VOTING!!! And they voted for the first guy that campaigned on wealth redistribution and class warfare.

Venezuela isnt an example of why socialism is bad. Its an example of how SOCIALISM IS BORN, and it should serve as a warning for elites in the west that want to dismantle the social safety net. The same thing can and will happen here if we allow them to do that.

[jbg]

And they voted for the first guy that campaigned on wealth redistribution and class warfare.

So you think making economic war on your productive people is a great idea?

[dre]

So you think making economic war on your productive people is a great idea?

I think reading my post before you reply to it is a good idea.

That isnt what I said at all. What I said is that if you allow a large underclass of extremely impoverished and desperate people to emerge than socialism is inevitable. Thats why every successfull country in the world has a social safety net (AKA Welfare State). In Venezuela the elites basically told the poor to go eat cake. Before long you had a huge impoverished underclass living in gigantic tent cities. Its that environment that resulted in the election of Hugo Chavez.

[jbg]

If that were the problem Chavez could have used oil revenues for the peoples' benefit rather than for ideological or personal purposes.

[dre]

If that were the problem Chavez could have used oil revenues for the peoples' benefit rather than for ideological or personal purposes.

Using oil revenue for the peoples benefit is SOCIALISM. But youre still totally missing the point. Im not defending a single thing Chavez does, Im explain how a guy like him came to power. He was a direct result of policies under Perez which were supported by the countries upper class.

[Sir Bandelot]

if you allow a large underclass of extremely impoverished and desperate people to emerge than socialism is inevitable. Thats why every successfull country in the world has a social safety net (AKA Welfare State). In Venezuela the elites basically told the poor to go eat cake. Before long you had a huge impoverished underclass living in gigantic tent cities.

Coming soon to an America near you.

[bjre]

In Venezuela the elites basically told the poor to go eat cake. Before long you had a huge impoverished underclass living in gigantic tent cities. Its that environment that resulted in the election of Hugo Chavez.

That is why education is important, and CAS is evil because CAS help kids in escape learning, and the education system don't care when kids choose don't learn.

When kids find they have not enough knowledge to legally support their living when they grow up, they have to rely on benefit. When that happen, will Canada's Chavez be elected?

[dre]

That is why education is important, and CAS is evil because CAS help kids in escape learning, and the education system don't care when kids choose don't learn.

When kids find they have not enough knowledge to legally support their living when they grow up, they have to rely on benefit. When that happen, will Canada's Chavez be elected?

and the education system don't care when kids choose don't learn.

Its very hard, but Im not going to go after you for that little quote

But yeah... education is part of the social safety net, and one of our most important social programs.

These programs in their aggregate are known as "limited socialism" which act as a firewall against real socialism. This is why modern democracies have flourished and why Marxs prediction that socialism would be born out of the excesses of capitalism has not come to pass except in places like Venezuela.

The rich learned from the aristocracies and bloody revolutions in Russia and and France that the best way to control the poor is by throwing them enough table scraps. That is the "social contract" that modern society is based on. The deal is basically this: The wealthy will pay for the majority of the cost of maintaining a society that imposes a minimum standard of life... as long as the poor get out of the way, shut the hell up, and stay away from the voting booths.

Its worked very well. The social safety net keep the poor dossile and content enough to not cause problems, and disinterested enough in the machinations of society so that historically they vote in very high numbers. This leaves the ownership class in control of a government whos ONLY real priority is protecting the private property rights of that ownership class.

Its an odd arrangement but its stood the test of time so far. The problem is that todays wealthy have forgotten many of the lessons we have learned over the last few centuries... just like the ownership in Venezuela did.

Dismantle the social safety net like many of todays rich want, and youll most CERTAINLY end up with socialism.

[bloodyminded]

The article which I excerpted below (link in headlines) illustrates the folly of socialism. While Chavez declares “economic war” against the “bourgeoisie” the country's skilled people leave. Must we, in the name of "self-determination" allow one man to wreck a viable counry and create yet another basket case?

Are you proposing we overthrow (another) popularly-elected leader?

No wonder many third-worlders laugh when we proclaim our "love" of "democracy." That does sound like a bad joke.

[jbg]

... as long as the poor get out of the way, shut the hell up, and stay away from the voting booths.

To my knowledge in the U.S. and Canada plenty of poor people vote.

Are you proposing we overthrow (another) popularly-elected leader?

No wonder many third-worlders laugh when we proclaim our "love" of "democracy." That does sound like a bad joke.

Is he going to submit himself to a free and fair election? What about his alteration of the Constitution?

[dre]

To my knowledge in the U.S. and Canada plenty of poor people vote.

Is he going to submit himself to a free and fair election? What about his alteration of the Constitution?

To my knowledge in the U.S. and Canada plenty of poor people vote.

They do but they vote in lower numbers than the wealthy on a per capita basis. Wealthy and middle class people are more likely than poor people to vote, and educated people are more likey than uneducated people. Theres a whole host of factors behind this, but the key factors I believe are that poor people feel more disenfranchised by the system, and tend to be less educated.

This is true of the developed world in general, but for some reason is not true in less developed countries like India. I dont know why.

[jbg]

Theres a whole host of factors behind this, but the key factors I believe are that poor people feel more disenfranchised by the system, and tend to be less educated.

I don't know. I'm uneducated, live in a more developed country and vote in every election.

[dre]

I don't know. I'm uneducated, live in a more developed country and vote in every election.

I thought you were a lawyer?

[bloodyminded]

To my knowledge in the U.S. and Canada plenty of poor people vote.

Not like in the Latin American countries. Not even close. They tend to be more democratically-minded than we are, and lately their leaders seem to be catching up to the popular sentiment on this matter.

Is he going to submit himself to a free and fair election? What about his alteration of the Constitution?

If he doesn't submit to a free and fair election, then he is not fairly elected, obviously.

But we can't decide that this is a fact before it happens; even North Americans, as brilliant as we are, do not yet get to determine the future, nor decide what is and what isn't objective reality based on whether we like somebody or not.

(Or, rather, whether our leaders and policymakers like somebody or not, after which most of the intellectual culture falls immediately into consensus mode, in the manner of Commissars).

Edited November 8, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Oleg Bach]

The only way that socialist in third world nations manage to take over private business is to either run off the wealth creator or kill them. I remember my sister went to the police in the capitial of an un-named central America nation - She complained that she was being threatened and there were unsavory people who wanted to highjack here hard earned enterprise..The chief of police told her to leave the country or she would be floating in the ocean by morning...she stayed and a few years later was repeadly stabbed - so she finally left..

She was a money lover and kind of a leftist - strange again how all socialist who deliver the mail to Rosedale homes WANT to be capitialists if the opportunity comes about..."There are violent men who try to take heaven by force" - There is no such thing as a person who wants to remain a socialist forever - socialism is the lowly entry level position for wanna be capitalists.

[KeyStone]

The article which I excerpted below (link in headlines) illustrates the folly of socialism. While Chavez declares “economic war” against the “bourgeoisie” the country's skilled people leave. Must we, in the name of "self-determination" allow one man to wreck a viable counry and create yet another basket case?

In Venezuela, a New Wave of Foreigners

In Venezuela, a New Wave of ForeignersBy SIMON ROMERO

CARACAS, Venezuela — On this booming continent, oil-rich Venezuela is the exception: South America’s only shrinking economy this year. Officials are rationing hard currency. Government takeovers of private businesses are increasing. One prominent financial analyst recently had just two words of advice for investors here: “Run away.”

Many middle-class and wealthy Venezuelans have done exactly that, creating a slow-burning exodus of scientists, doctors, entrepreneurs and engineers.

*******************

The opposing tides reflect the increasingly polarized nature of the country. The government of President Hugo Chávez, who recently declared an “economic war” against the “bourgeoisie,” has expropriated 207 private businesses this year — including banks, cattle ranches and housing developments, according to Conindustria, a Venezuelan industrial association — prompting many to seek safer havens elsewhere.

“I feel like I can finally breathe again,” said Ivor Heyer, 48, the owner of a boat manufacturing company, who recently moved his entire operation to Colombia, creating more than 100 jobs there. “I’ve gone from a country where fear is constant over crime and state takeovers to a place that actually welcomes companies involved in something other than oil.”

(snip)

Great idea, Hugo. </sarcasm>

Your poorly informed rants against socialism, and thinly veiled suggestions that the US should overthrow Chavez are curious for someone who is 'radically left'.

First of all, no nation has any business interfering in the governing of a democratically elected leader, unless they are engaging in genocide, or they are harming people outside of their borders. There are about a hundred countries in Africa and the Middle East with egregious human rights abuses, but you single out Venezuela as needing regime change?

As for the article itself, it's absurd. The author cherry picks GDP, to suggest that the sky is falling in Venezuela.

Here are the last five years:

2005: +16.8%

2006: +9.3%

2007: +10.3%

2008: +8.4%

2009: 4.8%

2010: (projected): -1.5%

In fact, since 2005, Venezuela has one of the highest GDP growth rates in the world.

And this excuse of a journalist (probably funded by NED)suggests that Venezuela is collapsing? Absolutely laughable.

Canada's GDP is projected to contract by 2.4%, but no one is calling for regime change here.

Incidentally, Chavez is spending the bulk of the money on the people of Venezuela. Instead of the money going to foreign companies, such as Total SA, Exxon Mobil and Conoco Philips, that money is now used by the state to provide education, healthcare, unemployment and social security benefits - and infrastructure that will help Venezuela for generations.

The Western media does everything that it can to discredit Chavez because they are horrified that he has the audacity to suggest that the proceeds of Venezuelan oil and minerals should go to the people of Venezuela instead of foreign companies.

[wyly]

Is he going to submit himself to a free and fair election? What about his alteration of the Constitution?

since when are democracies not allowed to amend their constitutions?... it took two votes before Venezuela's constitutional amendment was approved in a fair referendum isn't that democratic?... seems to me but the USA has amended it's constitution many times...

[bloodyminded]

since when are democracies not allowed to amend their constitutions?... it took two votes before Venezuela's constitutional amendment was approved in a fair referendum isn't that democratic?... seems to me but the USA has amended it's constitution many times...

Didn't they even first vote on whether there would be a referendum on the issue in the first place?

(This was the case in pre-coup Honduras, at any rate: during the election, whether or not there was to be a referendum was to be voted on....this was the so-called "constitutional crisis" which led to the illegal ouster of the president and the founding of a dictatorship...which, evidently, is not a "constitutional crisis." )

How is such a thing not democratic?

I think, when a bunch of impoverished poor people "vote the wrong way," many Western commentators like to expose their own hatred of democracy by declaring such things "undemocratic." I'm gaining more appreciation for Orwell as I get older. Animal Farm and 1984 are as much descriptors of the West as they are of communist totalitarianism.

Incidentally, why, when Colombia's Uribe proposed the same constitutional amendments, was this not considered an issue by the Chavez-equals-Hitler crowd?

[jbg]

since when are democracies not allowed to amend their constitutions?... it took two votes before Venezuela's constitutional amendment was approved in a fair referendum isn't that democratic?... seems to me but the USA has amended it's constitution many times...

I think that re-posting a defeated issue a second time is extremely undemocratic.

[Moonlight Graham]

well that would certainly be one big flaw of strong socialism (and citizens were allowed to move freely), that all the skilled people would leave to get more money elsewhere

[jbg]

well that would certainly be one big flaw of strong socialism (and citizens were allowed to move freely), that all the skilled people would leave to get more money elsewhere

Eventually he'll slam the exit door, arguing, as the Soviets did, that the education was free and other countries shouldn't get the benefit of it. Of course one wonders at the quality of a Venezuelan education.

[Bob]

I have a few Jewish friends who recently made Aliyah to Israel from Venezuela, all of them cite the current political situation in their country of origin (i.e. ultra-communist dictator-wannabe Chavez) as at least part of the reason for their returning to their true home.

It should be noted that a democratic process doesn't inherently ensure moral decisions. Simply because Chavez may have legitimately won elections (which I have heard arguments against, given his increasing degree of control over the media and sharing of information and ideas), and passed laws through Venezuela's political process doesn't ensure that the decisions are moral or acceptable.

An extreme hypothetical example can illustrate this point. If 51% of a population wants to murder the remaining 49% of the population, is this acceptable simply because it was democratic? We have historical examples of democracy still not protecting us from tyranny. To support changes and leadership in Venezuela because of "democracy" isn't in and of itself a very strong argument.

[dizzy]

I think that re-posting a defeated issue a second time is extremely undemocratic.

Do you feel this way solely about constitutional or all legal matters?

[bloodyminded]

I have a few Jewish friends who recently made Aliyah to Israel from Venezuela, all of them cite the current political situation in their country of origin (i.e. ultra-communist dictator-wannabe Chavez) as at least part of the reason for their returning to their true home.

It should be noted that a democratic process doesn't inherently ensure moral decisions. Simply because Chavez may have legitimately won elections (which I have heard arguments against, given his increasing degree of control over the media and sharing of information and ideas), and passed laws through Venezuela's political process doesn't ensure that the decisions are moral or acceptable.

An extreme hypothetical example can illustrate this point. If 51% of a population wants to murder the remaining 49% of the population, is this acceptable simply because it was democratic? We have historical examples of democracy still not protecting us from tyranny. To support changes and leadership in Venezuela because of "democracy" isn't in and of itself a very strong argument.

Certainly the democratic will doesn't ensure moral and wise decisions. Just as capitalism doesn't ensure "fair value" for labour (despite the "theory trumps reality" declarations by the Faithful), and dictatorships don't naturally mean that leaders will always make the wrong decisions. You recognize this implicitly by citing your friends leaving the "wannabe" dictatorship, directly before casting potential aspersions (correctly, by the way...don't get me wrong) on democratic will.

Democracy cannot be perfect, of course. I'm not being patronizing; I understand you are perfectly aware of this.

But by a similar token, a leader's authoritarian tendencies (much less the democratic will of the poeple) can't be used automatically as grounds for overthrowing the leader...which was strongly implied in this thread. That's neither moral nor acceptable either. And if we add to that the history of certain Western nations overthrowing democracies, for something far less clear than some supposed "responsibility to protect" (as is often the specious argument), it doesn't sound particularly superior in a moral sense, nor practical for the citizens of the meddled country.