• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

End Stage Socialism

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Venezuela has run out of food, medicines, and now it's running out of gasoline.

Chavez started by expanding government services to poor people, setting up neighborhood clinics. Then he moved to nationalize industries thinking that his apparatachics could run them. But they couldn't and so ran all of them into the ground, including the oil industry. The oil prices fell. The government printed too much money and inflation became severe. Imports became too expensive. At some point in the path to full socialism the people will stop the process if a country remains democratic. They will only go so far. That's why socialists dispense with democracy and become authoritarian, then become more and more oppressive trying to reach the socialist utopia that never materializes. Everyone but the elite just suffers and has to try to escape the country if they can.

The Maduro government also canceled the last democratic election. Not that they were democratic in the first place. The vote was not secret. Officials consult the voter rolls to see who will get jobs or assistance.
 
Venezuela put all of its eggs in one basket by relying almost entirely on fossil fuels.
Bad move.

The lesson there has more to do with the importance of having a diversified economy than it has to do with socialism.
But I know you are inclined toward the simple, black-and-white answers, so you just keep doing you.;)
 
Wait til you see what end stage capitalism looks like here.
 
Venezuela put all of its eggs in one basket by relying almost entirely on fossil fuels.
Bad move.

The lesson there has more to do with the importance of having a diversified economy than it has to do with socialism.
But I know you are inclined toward the simple, black-and-white answers, so you just keep doing you.;)


Lol ! So you criticize his explanation as " simple and black and white ", and then offer one up of your own ?
 
Venezuela has run out of food, medicines, and now it's running out of gasoline.

Chavez started by expanding government services to poor people, setting up neighborhood clinics. Then he moved to nationalize industries thinking that his apparatachics could run them. But they couldn't and so ran all of them into the ground, including the oil industry. The oil prices fell. The government printed too much money and inflation became severe. Imports became too expensive. At some point in the path to full socialism the people will stop the process if a country remains democratic. They will only go so far. That's why socialists dispense with democracy and become authoritarian, then become more and more oppressive trying to reach the socialist utopia that never materializes. Everyone but the elite just suffers and has to try to escape the country if they can.

The Maduro government also canceled the last democratic election. Not that they were democratic in the first place. The vote was not secret. Officials consult the voter rolls to see who will get jobs or assistance.

The problem with extraction industries is they make you stupid. It not like STEM industries that take bright minds. So the stupid government kicked out the only brains on the drilling rigs and took them over.

The never let their people develop their skills. Why should they? The pay was the same, so you work in the underground economy.

Socialism takes buckets full of money. And without foreign expertise to keep increasing or maintaining supplies, output goes down.
 
Oh dear. Is it already time for our weekly "Venezuala bad, thus, liberals bad" thread?
 
The problem with Chavez wasn't that he wanted to redistribute income to help the poor. It's that he was an autocrat who ran a cult of personality, who blamed everyone but himself for the subsequent problems, tried to control the press, and was fiscally irresponsible (remind you of anyone?). His successor is even less competent, and more autocratic.

We should note that the vast majority of nations that depend heavily on oil exports are autocracies (Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Kuwait) or compromised democracies (Azerbaijan, Russia, Kazakhstan) or states on the verge of failure (Libya, Sudan). Less developed nations with exploitable resources often run into trouble, or can't work their way out of it.

Meanwhile, governments can't wave a magic wand and diversify an economy. Strategies like import-substitution don't always work well, and can result in building a local industry that can't stand up to foreign competitors without government assistance. Protectionist measures can also backfire, either via WTO cases or by retaliation (especially cutting back oil purchases).

We also don't hear much about Bolivia, although it shares many of the same characteristics and problems as Venezuela. Democratic government with socialists in power; Morales has some autocratic tendencies; the government has issues with corruption; oil is a major export. And yet, its economy is doing significantly better than Venezuela's. During Morales' term, poverty has fallen significantly; inflation is normal; income inequality has fallen. The middle class is expanding. It's not because of ideology, but because Bolivia was fiscally responsible, and Venezuela was not.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ollapses-socialist-bolivia-thrives-heres-why/
 
The problem with Chavez wasn't that he wanted to redistribute income to help the poor. It's that he was an autocrat who ran a cult of personality, who blamed everyone but himself for the subsequent problems, tried to control the press, and was fiscally irresponsible (remind you of anyone?). His successor is even less competent, and more autocratic.

We should note that the vast majority of nations that depend heavily on oil exports are autocracies (Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Kuwait) or compromised democracies (Azerbaijan, Russia, Kazakhstan) or states on the verge of failure (Libya, Sudan). Less developed nations with exploitable resources often run into trouble, or can't work their way out of it.

Meanwhile, governments can't wave a magic wand and diversify an economy. Strategies like import-substitution don't always work well, and can result in building a local industry that can't stand up to foreign competitors without government assistance. Protectionist measures can also backfire, either via WTO cases or by retaliation (especially cutting back oil purchases).

We also don't hear much about Bolivia, although it shares many of the same characteristics and problems as Venezuela. Democratic government with socialists in power; Morales has some autocratic tendencies; the government has issues with corruption; oil is a major export. And yet, its economy is doing significantly better than Venezuela's. During Morales' term, poverty has fallen significantly; inflation is normal; income inequality has fallen. The middle class is expanding. It's not because of ideology, but because Bolivia was fiscally responsible, and Venezuela was not.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ollapses-socialist-bolivia-thrives-heres-why/

Gosh, an autocrat who ran a cult of personality. I can't imagine that happening here, can you???


Oh, Never mind.
 
We would need to actually have capitalism before that could happen.
This always reminds me of the Marxists who think Communism just wasn't given the proper chance.

What exactly do you think has been missing all of this time to have true capitalism? What sort of economic system did we have in the 18th and 19th century?
 
Gosh, an autocrat who ran a cult of personality. I can't imagine that happening here, can you???
Oh, he's not an autocrat. He certainly has the personality disorder for it though.
 
Gosh, an autocrat who ran a cult of personality. I can't imagine that happening here, can you???

Oh, Never mind.
Heh

I was also thinking of Putin, by the way. He's also been cramped by falling energy prices.
 
The problem with Chavez wasn't that he wanted to redistribute income to help the poor. It's that he was an autocrat who ran a cult of personality, who blamed everyone but himself for the subsequent problems, tried to control the press, and was fiscally irresponsible (remind you of anyone?). His successor is even less competent, and more autocratic.

We should note that the vast majority of nations that depend heavily on oil exports are autocracies (Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Kuwait) or compromised democracies (Azerbaijan, Russia, Kazakhstan) or states on the verge of failure (Libya, Sudan). Less developed nations with exploitable resources often run into trouble, or can't work their way out of it.

Meanwhile, governments can't wave a magic wand and diversify an economy. Strategies like import-substitution don't always work well, and can result in building a local industry that can't stand up to foreign competitors without government assistance. Protectionist measures can also backfire, either via WTO cases or by retaliation (especially cutting back oil purchases).

We also don't hear much about Bolivia, although it shares many of the same characteristics and problems as Venezuela. Democratic government with socialists in power; Morales has some autocratic tendencies; the government has issues with corruption; oil is a major export. And yet, its economy is doing significantly better than Venezuela's. During Morales' term, poverty has fallen significantly; inflation is normal; income inequality has fallen. The middle class is expanding. It's not because of ideology, but because Bolivia was fiscally responsible, and Venezuela was not.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ollapses-socialist-bolivia-thrives-heres-why/

Bolivia's doing well for now, just like Venezuela looked good for a while. Give it time.
 
Wait til you see what end stage capitalism looks like here.

132669-004-AF290F2D.jpg
 
That's why socialists dispense with democracy and become authoritarian, then become more and more oppressive trying to reach the socialist utopia that never materializes.
There are many paths to authoritarianism. When a very few rich people own most of the wealth and control the government, it's not that much different from the government controlling everything. The Russian oligarchy comes to mind.
 
There are many paths to authoritarianism. When a very few rich people own most of the wealth and control the government, it's not that much different from the government controlling everything. The Russian oligarchy comes to mind.

Of course that's true, and trivial. History has given us ample reasons to avoid socialism in that regard.

Those guys are all the same. They all think that it will work if they do it.
 
Bolivia's doing well for now, just like Venezuela looked good for a while. Give it time.
Ah yes, the classic Hedgehog "Just Off On Timing" defense. Yawn

Let us know when you have an actual argument.
 
Oh dear. Is it already time for our weekly "Venezuala bad, thus, liberals bad" thread?

No, we don't need Venezuela to show 'liberals bad.' Its just icing on the cake
 
Venezuela has run out of food, medicines, and now it's running out of gasoline.

Chavez started by expanding government services to poor people, setting up neighborhood clinics. Then he moved to nationalize industries thinking that his apparatachics could run them. But they couldn't and so ran all of them into the ground, including the oil industry. The oil prices fell. The government printed too much money and inflation became severe. Imports became too expensive. At some point in the path to full socialism the people will stop the process if a country remains democratic. They will only go so far. That's why socialists dispense with democracy and become authoritarian, then become more and more oppressive trying to reach the socialist utopia that never materializes. Everyone but the elite just suffers and has to try to escape the country if they can.

The Maduro government also canceled the last democratic election. Not that they were democratic in the first place. The vote was not secret. Officials consult the voter rolls to see who will get jobs or assistance.

Venezuela was bound to fail even if it had been less socialistic, they would have failed for the same reason saudi arabia is royally hurting. Both economies put all their eggs in the oil basket to support themselves, and oil prices dropping hurt both of them.

They never figured the us and russia would both increase production of oil and natural gas, and saudi arabia tried to play chicken in that game crashing prices, which they found out they are losing the oil price chicken game, as did venezuala.

Russia and the us both have diverse economies, and both cut badly into opec and other countries relying on oil to fund their nations. When prices dropped russia and america suffered a little but both had other economic sectors, saudi arabia's economy is entirely oil driven, and venezuela relied more and more on oil after nationalization failed to produce, and venezuala's betting all on black ended up bad when the roulette wheel landed on red.
 
Ah yes, the classic Hedgehog "Just Off On Timing" defense. Yawn

Let us know when you have an actual argument.

The history of these types of governments is pretty clear. Socialists always think the next try will be a winner.
 
It's non-trivial in the context of this thread which seems focused on socialism as the only path.

Again, that there are other ways to get to authoritarianism is beside the point.
 
Back
Top Bottom