[brian0918]

I'm creating this thread to monitor the impending collapse of Venezuelan society and Hugo Chavez's power.

Beginning Friday, January 8th, Chavez simultaneously devalued his currency by half, and created a three-tiered currency system. When this exact same country tried that stunt in the 80s, it led to widespread corruption, food shortages, and inflation. So we see they've learned from their mistakes...

In addition to the currency devaluation, Chavez ordered stores to keep their prices at the same nominal value as before - effectively forcing every store and company to incur 100% of the damage of his devaluation. He sent military in the streets to crack down on any stores that attempted to raise prices, and set up phone lines where consumers could report any stores that raised prices. Stores and companies are now being seized and nationalized for attempting to stay in business.

A few days later, he enacted rolling blackouts throughout the country, for four hours per day, every other day. Likely due to personal inconvenience, he quickly repealed the blackouts in the nation's capital, Caracas.

Now, in the latest stunt aimed at combating inflation - Chavez has chosen to raise the minimum price for a person's services by 25% over the next few months. Yes, that's right, he's going to combat increasing prices by raising the price of the most important natural resource:

Quote

Mr Chavez said the minimum wage will increase by 10% in March and 15% in September to offset inflation, which is widely expected to surge following the devaluation.

Now obviously, stores and companies are expected to completely incur the blow of such a huge increase in the minimum wage. The inevitability will be more inflation, more nationalization of companies, increased unemployment, and decreased production.

It will be interesting to watch all of this unfold.

This post has been edited by brian0918: 16 January 2010 - 06:36 AM

[Zip]

I love it. It's time for that nasty beast called reality to raise it's rational head...

[gags]

Chavez is a pig and Venezuelans should give him the Mussolini treatment.

[Lucio]

Ma Chalmers should start sending food and clothes...

[JASKN]

Zip, on Jan 16 2010, 08:55 AM, said:

I love it. It's time for that nasty beast called reality to raise it's rational head...

I don't know what's to love about this. Or, I don't know what about this warrants a sarcastic response, even lightly sarcastic. It is both terribly sad and disgusting.

[Black Wolf]

This country is a prime example of socialism's failure. Our country is not so bad, because conservatives are protecting it from getting worse

[Mister A]

JASKN, on Jan 16 2010, 04:19 PM, said:

I don't know what's to love about this. Or, I don't know what about this warrants a sarcastic response, even lightly sarcastic. It is both terribly sad and disgusting.

As long as the Venezuelans enable and aplogize for this medieval throwback, there's nothing to be sad about.

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

Black Wolf, on Jan 16 2010, 03:28 PM, said:

This country is a prime example of socialism's failure.

Uh…what? Venezuela remains a bourgeois state, at the service of one bourgeois, not the working class. Hugo Chavez merely wears his red shirt to gain support from the working classes by exploiting some of the moral appeal of socialist ideas among the community, but his policies have been a complete support of the bourgeoisie, foreign investment, large state landowners, and so on, including his constitutional reform, made by him and friends, which was voted against by the Venezuelan left because it was only a maneuver to reaffirm the bourgeoisie as a tactic to gain more power. But Venezuela is not a socialist state, and Chavez is far from being a socialist, just as Stalin wasn’t, Mao, etc, at least in traditional socialism or, say, Marxist tradition, or left libertarian tradition, which are highly democratic. Venezuela is heading towards a very totalitarian social-reformist bureaucratic pro-bourgeoisie Government. I don’t see any control by the workers over production, communities, the institutions in which they work, etc. etc., I mean, what are you talking about?? If Lenin or Marx were to see what Hugo Chavez is doing, they would slap him in the face, even Stalin, who was a complete scum for socialism, would! I’m not defending Venezuela, Chavez or socialism, but people who love calling whatever sort of mixed or autocratic Government “socialism” without even analyzing if it follows the basic core minimum requirements of socialism need to think better before making this sort of claims, and abandon this little scapegoat once for all. Call it what you like, but I don’t see any prime example of socialism’s failure here.

This post has been edited by 0096 2251 2110 8105: 16 January 2010 - 05:49 PM

[brian0918]

This country is a prime example of statism's failure.

[softwareNerd]

0096 2251 2110 8105, on Jan 16 2010, 06:41 PM, said:

If Lenin or Marx were to see what Hugo Chavez is doing, they would slap him in the face, even Stalin, who was a complete scum for socialism, would!

Well, Marx didn't get a chance to put his theories into practice. However, are you implying that either Lenin or Stalin actually went around consulting "workers" and implementing the true will of the working classes? They were both thugs who used their extremely strong will to power to rule. They were both expert at political machinations: at raising some to power, and killing them when they rose too far, keeping all on tenter hooks. Nevertheless, at any point in time, there was clearly a small minority running the country. Socialism is an ideology that sanctions statism; what you then see is statism, with a small minority taking control of the state. Go around the world to every country that speaks the language of socialism -- all sorts of countries in Africa and Asia and elsewhere -- everywhere, socialism is the ideology that allows the state to take control of various aspects of life. Once the state has such powers, it is too tempting to people with a dictatorial bent.

This post has been edited by softwareNerd: 16 January 2010 - 07:12 PM

[Zip]

JASKN, on Jan 16 2010, 04:19 PM, said:

I don't know what's to love about this. Or, I don't know what about this warrants a sarcastic response, even lightly sarcastic. It is both terribly sad and disgusting.

What is sad about the triumph of reality over ignorance?

The people of Venezuela elected this thug, they elected him on his promises to steal from the productive and give to the unproductive. They praised him for tuning their need into a compulsion and mortgage on the productive effort of others. Their majority spoke loud and clear and they got exactly the democracy they deserved. The rest should have left or should be expecting the worse yet to come.

[Black Wolf]

0096 2251 2110 8105, on Jan 16 2010, 06:41 PM, said:

I don’t see any control by the workers over production

That sounds like Marxism. Socialism has many definitions. Ie:

Dictionary.reference.com says

An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

Quote

but his policies have been a complete support of the bourgeoisie, foreign investment, large state landowners, and so on, including his constitutional reform

This doesn't seem contradictory to socialism at all, really. In fact, everything you mentioned in this quote is an example of mixed capitalism, which is what you mentioned before. Mixed capitalism is defined as a combination of capitalism and socialism.

And Stalin? Slapping Hugo Chavez? For what? Why would Stalin be mad at Hugo Chavez, for any reason other than perhaps rivalry of dictatorship?

This post has been edited by Black Wolf: 16 January 2010 - 08:00 PM

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

softwareNerd, on Jan 16 2010, 07:11 PM, said:

Well, Marx didn't get a chance to put his theories into practice. However, are you implying that either Lenin or Stalin actually went around consulting "workers" and implementing the true will of the working classes? They were both thugs who used their extremely strong will to power to rule. They were both expert at political machinations: at raising some to power, and killing them when they rose too far, keeping all on tenter hooks. Nevertheless, at any point in time, there was clearly a small minority running the country. Socialism is an ideology that sanctions statism; what you then see is statism, with a small minority taking control of the state. Go around the world to every country that speaks the language of socialism -- all sorts of countries in Africa and Asia and elsewhere -- everywhere, socialism is the ideology that allows the state to take control of various aspects of life. Once the state has such powers, it is too tempting to people with a dictatorial bent.

Black Wolf, on Jan 16 2010, 07:52 PM, said:

That sounds like Marxism. Socialism has many definitions. Ie:

Dictionary.reference.com says

An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

Black Wolf, on Jan 16 2010, 07:52 PM, said:

This doesn't seem contradictory to socialism at all, really. In fact, everything you mentioned in this quote is an example of mixed capitalism, which is what you mentioned before. Mixed capitalism is defined as a combination of capitalism and socialism.

And Stalin? Slapping Hugo Chavez? For what? Why would Stalin be mad at Hugo Chavez, for any reason other than perhaps rivalry of dictatorship?

Ok, I’m not wasting much time on this, it’s all very well documented in modern historical literature and the sources are available to anyone who is truly interested in this topic. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. When I say Lenin, I’m talking about prior to 1917 Lenin, before taking power, destroying organs of workers control, the soviets, factory councils, etc. etc. this clearly has nothing to do with socialism, it’s the exact opposite, he was merely being opportunistic, in fact, he didn’t even believe that it was possible to have socialism in the Soviet Union. Now, when I say Stalin, well, he was obviously not a socialist, we don’t ever bother to talk about it, at least I’m not gonna, but what I was trying to point out is that he was, in my view, superior to Chavez in his methods and closer to socialism in his ideology. You know, everyone can have their say. I didn’t think it would be necessary to go deep into this. Yes, well, what I said is approximately what you (softwareNerd) said, I don’t think it’s much related to my answer, but sure I would agree with the last part of your post. Now, Black Wolf, *sigh* I’m not going there, seriously... You’ll have to do your own homework. I think I was clear enough when I said “traditional socialism or, say, Marxist tradition, or left libertarian tradition”, but if you think that “feudal socialism”, “German socialism”, “petty-bourgeois socialism”, “conservative socialism”, "stalinism", "social democracy", "nazism", "libertarian socialism", etc. etc. are all “socialism”, and "socialism" means absolutely all of them because you found this internet dictionary two-line definition, then “anarcho-capitalism”, “corporate capitalism”, “crony capitalism”, “state capitalism”, “finance capitalism”, “technocapitalism”, “state monopoly capitalism”, etc. etc. are all capitalism, including the Soviet Union! There. “Some socialist tolerate capitalism”? And you even stressed this?? What would you call a “capitalist that tolerates socialism”? A capitalist? And, excuse me?? Bourgeois class in a socialist system? And you think that “this doesn't seem contradictory to socialism at all”?? Ok, that’s enough, I should stop here. And I know what “mixed capitalism” is, which BTW is a very very loose generality, I just don’t see why you would even raise this completely unnecessary point.

This post has been edited by 0096 2251 2110 8105: 16 January 2010 - 09:54 PM

[Jake_Ellison]

0096 2251 2110 8105, on Jan 17 2010, 04:41 AM, said:

Ok, I’m not wasting much time on this

Well, you bothered to comment, so you should briefly explain exactly how a proper socialist country would be governed, since that's the aspect you deem non-socialist in what we consider socialist countries.

[JASKN]

Zip, on Jan 16 2010, 08:21 PM, said:

What is sad about the triumph of reality over ignorance?

The people of Venezuela elected this thug, they elected him on his promises to steal from the productive and give to the unproductive. They praised him for tuning their need into a compulsion and mortgage on the productive effort of others. Their majority spoke loud and clear and they got exactly the democracy they deserved. The rest should have left or should be expecting the worse yet to come.

It's not just the "triumph" of reality over ignorance, it's an entire developed nation systematically destroying itself. Imagine yourself as a citizen of that country right now. What are you to make of everything? How are you to get out if you did understand what is going on? What would your life be like after you left? If you stayed until the collapse, what would your life be like then?

Sure, Venezuela will be another notch in the history books against socialism and dictatorship, but I can't call it a triumph. Nobody wins.

[DinkumThinkum]

Chavez thinks he can defy the laws of economics. Apparently people don't seem to follow his scheme after the devaluation of the bolivar. If you "speculate" and raise prices, your business will be confiscated by and re-distributed to the "people".

http://news.bbc.co.u...ess/8464960.stm

Every Venezuelan who's stood in opposition to Chavez and his insane reforms have my sympathies; the rest however deserve to face the reality they have now inflicted on themselves.

[brian0918]

Reuters has posted a summary list of Chavez's nationalizations:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN192280...ype=usDollarRpt

[mrocktor]

How long until he forbids emigration? Can't be too far off...

[gags]

DinkumThinkum, on Jan 20 2010, 08:36 AM, said:

Every Venezuelan who's stood in opposition to Chavez and his insane reforms have my sympathies; the rest however deserve to face the reality they have now inflicted on themselves.

Clearly he continues to enjoy a large base of support in Venezuela. Unfortunately conditions usually have to get pretty bad before the moochers and the parasites decide that they can't take any more.

[D'kian]

I still think the worst mistake George W. Bush ever made was not backing the coup that, all too briefly, ousted Chavez earlier this decade.