Venezuala Socialism

Source? How much is worker owned vs state owned vs privately owned?

pic very much related. Marx goes on to explain how capitalism functions in Capital Vol 1. For him money and wage labour were essential to capitalism.

meant to say "other than that it's quite difficult […]"
lol

your definition is way too rigid, a capitalist could use this rigidity to disprove all critiques of capital by saying "real capitalism" doesn't exist until the "whole world" is a free-market with no state intervention causing frictions. 'Le real capital' hasn't been tried yet, so all the "inefficiencies" and "inequalities" socialists bring up are illusions and false by definition.

Except the "NOT REAL SOCIALISM" really isn't socialism while the "NOT REAL CAPITALISM" really is capitalism, going solely by each term's strict definition. It sounds like a No True Scotsman but simply is not.

No, because Capital Vol 1 already implies perfect conditions for capital.
How the bourgeois ideologues go out do defend capitalism is not our problem. Our task is to tear it up.

repeating the argument doesn't make it true. You have a double-standard going because your definition of Socialism is so rigid and "ideal" while you play fast and loose with capitalism…

Essentially you're only allowing socialism to exist in its ideal state, while denying this to capitalism. No real capitalist would say it exists ideally in any country since state intervention creates inefficiencies at almost every level, from tariffs to subsidies to government owned programs to red-tape regulation preventing private ownership in many markets, etc…

You're using a really silly debate tactic…essentially a double standard.

No source gg

you don't know what it is, you're tearing up a phantasm of your imagination.

It has nothing to do with Chavez's efforts in reorganizing their economy and everything to do with the price of oil, which is out of their control.

Anti-socialist user is clearly -18 and thus is aware of when the USA had their own "shortages" in the 70's. And when the peanut farmer gave everyone a crisis in confidence speech.

Completely on point, yet it is a bad idea to just distance ourselves from failed policies and actions of socialists looking to begin quantitative change in society. Why did Venezuela fail to be socialist?

It's a question that can help us, and we can use to educate people.

Wilpert, Gregory– 2007 ; Changing Venezuela By Taking Power: The History and Policies of the Chavez Government. Verso. p. 69

Talks about it in detail. You can google this stuff you know? it's not a secret…and there's no "gg" for being lazy

One example is communal owned operations for public goods:

Chavez authorities' experimentation with the communal councils dates back to 2006, when the government empowered communities to oversee their own local neighbourhood affairs and economic development. Councils handle everything from gas and water distribution to road paving projects to the construction of local drainage systems and sports fields. Over the years, communal councils have steadily grown in number and today there are more than 40,000 stretching all across Venezuela. Moreover, in the next four years, Chavez authorities plan to organise an additional 8 million people within some 20,000 new communes. money.cnn.com/2016/07/29/news/economy/venezuela-decree-farm-labor/

continued:

Since Chavez originally came to power, the number of co-operatives in Venezuela has skyrocketed. In 1998, only about 20,000 workers laboured in the co-operative sector yet several years later that number had increased to a whopping 1.5 million. Spurred on by free business and self-management training provided by the government, co-operatives have continued to flourish and today the authorities plan to establish tens of thousands of new communal enterprises. In some cases, officials have even laboured to secure worker ownership of shuttered factories.

Chavez was a fat clown that knew how to get people on his side. He actually made Venezuela more dependent on its existing capital by buying shit for citizens on a whim, which the fat clowns in America think is soshlizum.

No ideology is immune to someone simply bullshitting to get public appeal.

While saying Venezuela was never socialist is absolutely accurate, it should still serve as a hard lesson to the left: never trust a demagogue. Direct action and civil participation are how socialism should be built. Potentially class conscious movements like OWS failed specifically because they reduced and eventually eliminated this participation for a liberal capitalist agenda by people with a ridiculous identity obsession.

venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/11034

SUNACOOP has done no followup census and has no figures since 2008 for how many cooperatives are running in Venezuela. Delgado, comparing all the estimates from different sources, believes the number today to be approximately 90,000, with over a million members.

A million members in a country with over THIRTY ONE MILLION PEOPLE WOW SO SOCIALIST IT'S FUCKING NOTHING.

I mean, it'd be fair to say that the inability of Venezuela to mobilize in diversifying its industries is a huge mistake

good post comrade.
Perhaps someday soon a civil war or a colonization attempt will result in a large group of isolated socialists, and they can learn from Venezuela failure and decide against having any sort of rulers

...

tankie detected

maybe socialism can't exist because all efforts to enact it collapse on the way there? i mean history keeps repeating itself…

as long as we elect so-called "socialist" politicians who try to "socialize" a country the outcome is clear.

...

anti-worker liberal larpers detected

...

I'm not against anarchism, I don't know why that retard brought it up to begin with.

Do you have a pdf? It's hard to do research when no local libraries have this book in stock.

any attempt to socialize parts of the economy just lead to crony and inefficient capitalism. For example making healthcare universal or socialized will lead to inefficiency. Making worker-owned co-ops or unions or fighting for minimum wage will just create a crappy version of capitalism.

We have to let capitalism run its course, state interference will just make it worse. That's why voting for guys like B████ ██████ or Chavez would be a mistake, they don't understand capitalism or socialism. What we need is real capitalists who understand the free-market.

When the free-market has ran it's course and technology makes private property obsolete, maybe in 500 years from now, then socialism will arise organically. The real socialists are actually very pro-capitalist today. Anyone who advocate so-called socialist welfare policies doesn't understand economics.

Don't eat this bait guys. Don't do it.

...

It has been their cash cow. Now their cows are running out of milk. Now imagine this is a problem for the rest of the world because the milk makes the world go round. Plus China and India want gabzillions of this milk like the US. But there's just not enough milk and it's ever decreasing without replenishing for millions of years!

Really makes you think.

It's easy to have an efficient system if it doesn't matter how many people die. If economics were medicine, free markets would be euthanasia.

can't you say the same about stateless anarchist communes?

Maybe, but the Soviet Union and PRC are why most of these endeavors failed to begin with.

Anarchists are naive, tankies are subhuman.

woke

Are we talking about New Deal?

sage this fucking thread.

Chávez was a megalomaniac, backwards monkey who prompted the creation of a deep-state made of afrocuban mystic circles and squandered the nation's Oil bonanza in creating a super-bourgeois comprised of State oficials and army cronies.

no, bootlickers are naive.
Every single fucking time you get brutally fucked by heirarchies and you are still naive enough to think things will be different and that the autocracy will be pro-worker.
Just kill yourself.

You're both naive

top kek current year

Once Socialism becomes dominant economic mode of production, yes. Quantity into quality. Which never happened in Venezuela. They chickened out and left capitalism in place (they are socdem).

The question, however, was about Socialist policies. And there were some, which is hard to deny. What people really need to understand is that every modern state at this point introduced Socialist policies. Singling out Venezuela is dumb. US or UK also have a lot of Socialist policies.

this is unreal, beyond parody

whoops sorry forgot to take off my shitposting flag

Sorry I meant to use this one

Nope. For example, Venezuela has enough food. The problem is the government (mid-level) is too corrupt to get anything done.

Because SocDem were in charge and they chickened out. Evolution, instead of revolution.

The problem is, you can't stop in the middle. You either go forward, or you go back. Venezuela went back. Now they are going Fascist.

Yeah. Except answer won't help you. It's ML through and through. People are scared of it.

This. But the counterweight is that Chavez directed a lot of the economy. It wasn't USSR command economy, but Chavez still would intervene in the economy, and nationalize key industries like oil.

well, some would
I think more would say their social spending worked well and should be done, but fixing the price of bread and other things was stupid to do without nationalizing or subsidizing that production.
also, they are fucked because of global oil prices falling dramatically (and not having high-quality oil) because of speculation (like fracking)

if Venezuela had done everything the liberal economists said, the country would be like the congo: resource rich and fully integrated into the neoliberal global market, and still a shithole with far more people than capital actually needs employed

I found this article, from 2007 by Ziz on Chavez and this interview on 2013 where he talks about South America where he literally say that Chavez did stupid things.

lrb.co.uk/v29/n22/slavoj-zizek/resistance-is-surrender
youtube.com/watch?v=nbP8cc7NVX8

Fix'd.

Anarcho-capitalists are guilty of this too you know. Except socialists have different examples and varieties of socialism to give examples too. I feel that comrades who constantly claim that one leftist ideology is not "true" socialism is wrong, because although things like proles owning the MoP are universal in the very definition of socialism itself, how one goes about implementing/maintaining it is not. So instead, one should claim that the U.S.S.R, or Catalonia, or whatever is not the right TYPE of socialism instead.

Government corruption and over dependence on oil is what killed them. Would have hPpened whether the government was socialist or not

There's no "ideal state" or "non-ideal state". Capitalism is a class society (which implies a State) based on markets. Socialism is a classless, stateless, tradeless society. Venezuela fits the first category. State intervention changes nothing to that; if anything, the very existence of a State proves it's not socialism.

youtu.be/mE84o4Yxh70?t=3m4s

Daily reminder

chavez died

...

...

youtube.com/watch?v=ka8sJzEBqZg

a trotskyte? really?
well, that certainly explains things
oh well, time to drop venezuela from my solidarity list, fascism is imminent there

I'm not going to watch the video, because I'm bad at spoken english and he probably just regurgitates what I mentioned above anyway.

The "never socialist" meme is getting stale and dumb.

True Venezuela was not socialist in the way let's say Cuba or Lenin era Soviet Union was, but it did have socialist policies.

The problem has always been twofold, on one hand, the Socialist economic policies in one country don't amount to anything more other than a strong Keynesianism with some welfare sprinkled on top. The Soviet model is a perfect example of this, where after the death of Lenin the Soviet Union could have very well become a market socialist country (under Bukharin most probably) like Yugoslavia where the state owned most of the wealth but still allowed private enterprise. But history proved that this model was not effective or fast enough at large scale automation and industrialization so Stalinist central planning was adopted, socialist or not , a brutal autocratic and all controlling state apparatus had to step in to save the situation in the face of imminent total war ,famine and collapse.

The second point to be derived from this, is that "socialism" is an entirely undefined and unproductive concept in terms of real policies. You might as well label it as "left-economics". Socialism means different things to different people, for the Marxist Leninist it's revolution, for the SocDems it's policies focused of welfare,spending and the slow elimination of corporate profit.But no one has specific policies in mind when one thinks of Socialism. Which is why Chavez most probably thought that his social circle owning all the oil fields was a "socialist" policy, and that the money gained from there would be given to the lower classes.

So "socialism" doesn't really mean anything anymore, but only some very abstract ideal state of transition to the real end point which would be communism. I don't think it's even useful anymore to discuss what socialism really is anymore, but instead invent new solutions to how one arrives at communism. Everything else is just a long list of tragic failures.

MUH CORREA WAS DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED YOU WITCH

So was Maduro lol. And Ortega.

This.

I would go as far as to say that even the original Socialists who weren't retarded enough to get their heads smashed in by the Freikorps, like the Luxemburg whore, understood that the only way to success is Capitalism.

what he is sayyin?

That is some 11/10 memery there.

Special Report: Hunger in Venezuela? A Look Beyond the Spin
coha.org/special-report-hunger-in-venezuela-a-look-beyond-the-spin/

That sounds too simplistic for a zizek argument

Sauce plox

Polite sage

Hi, I'm from Latin America and I just want to say that some of you claim to be leftist but are absolutely brainwashed by imperialist propaganda.
Venezuela improved a lot since Chavez, he took millions of people out of poverty.
Then, the CIA poisoned him, killed him and now they are trying to make a coup against democracy.
They are sabotaging the economy.

And you are saying STUPID SHIT like "IT WASN'T SOCIALISM".

YES IT WAS MOTHERFUCKERS, IT FUCKING WAS. TROSKIST AND ANARQUISTS, YOU SHOULD ALL DIE.
SLAVA STALIN
VIVA CHAVEZ!

There is a difference.

Reforms were socialist (whoever claims otherwise is dumb or troll), but the problem is that reforms were/are far from complete. This is why you can't call current Venezuela a proper socialist state. You didn't switch to socialist mode of production (central planning and industrialization).

It's hard to implement, but everything will fall apart otherwise. Which is why you are getting counter-revolution right now.

that totally worked so well in the past, didnt it?