This Time, Pro-Maduro Protesters Rally At City Hall

When, if ever, has Clement gone to "the barrios" of Venezuela and spoken to people? Venezuela used to be one of the richest countries in Latin America, with a large middle class. Socialism has destroyed it by distributing capital, which is an economy's seed corn, to the very poor to eat, leaving nothing to plant the next year. Now, everyone is starving.

The US role in destabilizing democratically elected governments in South America is all about grabbing resources, as it is elsewhere in the world.
And people wonder why refugees continue to try to escape and find safety in the US.
There is no need for poverty or dictatorship, but our colonial era approach to our neighbors to the south is consistent and the outcomes will be the same.

Socialism has never worked anywhere in any form. The USSR, Laos, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Cambodia, the list goes on of failed states that created misery and death for untold millions. Capitalism is not innocent but to paraphrase: it's the worst economic system, except for all the others.

What's truly ironic is a group of people protesting in favor of a style of government that, if in power, would not grant them the right to dissent. Do you think Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim, Castro, Chavez, et al, would let ANYONE publicly protest them?? Each of those dictators would have had a black Maria take them right to the gulag without a second blink.

Pat: As you should know, PDVSA has been around for many, many years. As ARAMCO powered Saudi Arabia, it powered Venezuela. Its decline, however, began under Chavez, and the complete collapse came when fracking burst the oil price bubble of a few years ago. Many competent, ex-PDVSA employees found new jobs in Columbia, which now has a booming oil industry of its own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDVSA

@Christian Bruckhart: Socialism exists in Western European countries, with a mix of capitalism. And certainly we have many of the programs in place here in the US because of Eugene Debs and the Socialists who proposed things like Social Security, not to mention numerous government programs now taken for granted.
Capitalism fails periodically, but the banksters and oligarchs sail blithely on.
We socialize bank losses but privatize individual financial failures.
It must be frustrating not to be able to link Socialism to Communism any more. There goes one of the talking points.
CT is #1 in income inequality in the US and the US is high up the list of countries with extreme income inequality.
Nothing says capitalism has to exist forever.

@1644: In your role as an historian, I do not find your summaries reliable.
Hugo Chavez was a breath of fresh air in his attempts to share the wealth and lift the people out of poverty.
He took over the oil production, much as Iran did after Mossadegh was elected, and the US flipped out, along with the Brits (who instigated our complicity in the overthrow of Mossadegh and the installation of the Shah).
The fact is the US has been forever complicit in a form of gunboat diplomacy when it comes to South & Central America.
But you'll never hear about it on 24 hour cable news.

PK: you proved my point. There isn't a viable socialist country in the world. There are programs extant in capitalist countries which were influenced by socialism, sometimes positively in my opinion, but successful countries remain capitalist. The argument that communism isn't "real" socialism is just an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. It was socialism and it failed. Either way, as Solzhenitsyn showed in the Gulag Archipelago, the ideological underpinnings of socialism are embedded with the trend to demagoguery and state oppression. Lenin, Trotsky and other pillars of socialist thought wrote enthusiastically about using state power to eliminate "class enemies" of the state without regard to individual guilt. Socialist purges of the 20th century such as the liquidation of the kulaks translate today into the myth of "white privilege" and other attempts to lump people into distinct classes.

I noticed you didn't answer my question: how many socialist countries would allow a group of protesters to publicly rail against the government? None. The freedoms that exist in capitalist, democratic countries exist in no socialist country...ever.

Finally, I view income inequality as a red herring. There is low income inequality in poor countries... because everyone is poor. So striving for income inequality in and of itself won't necessarily improve people's lives. Income inequality is a "problem" in Western countries because we have Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, etc and they skew the numbers. But as a population, Western countries have, by historical standards, inordinately high standards of living. For example, I found this illuminating: if you make about $32,400 a year, you are in the global 1%. So to all those Occupy people still railing against the 1%...congrats, you're probably part of it.

@Christian Bruckhart: You conflate socialism with dictatorships hiding behind labels like Communism and Socialism, but authoritarian government is a shape-shifter and labels are disguises. No dictatorship allows for dissent, but that has nothing to do with socialism

PK: Chavez didn't come to power until 1998, while PDVSA was founded in 1976, so, no, he didn't take over oil production. Carlos Andrés Pérez did that on 1 January 1976 when he nationalized the interests of the Rockefellers and others. Later, there was cooperation with foreign firms, but PDVSA was always in the driver's seat, and it was a well-respected, technically competent oil company, owned by the national government. Chavez/Maduro chose to spend PDVSA's income on handouts to the poor, even at the cost of spare parts for refineries, etc., with the result today that PDVSA has long been unable to refine its own production, and, increasingly, cannot extract crude. Metaphorically, Chavez and Maduro weren't satisfied with eggs, so killed the goose. There was a feast, but now starvation.

CB: There actually have been a lot of demonstrations in Venezuela, which were tolerated so long as they weren't a serious threat to the government. Increasingly, they are repressed with lethal force.

@ Christian Bruckhart. US Capitalists just love Socialism.There is really very little to be gained by trying to label the US with terms like capitalist,The reality is that a wealthy elite have full control of our government and our economy, and they use both in whatever way they deem necessary to advance their agenda.You see We, the people, the consumers, are just extras or "bit players" in the big scheme of things.Now Is the US Socialist ? Well, we certainly are when it comes to bailing out capitalists who irresponsibly wreck our economy and then come whining to President Bush and then Obama to make them rich again after losing it all. After the plunder of the Real Estate bubble had run its course, and the losers were determined, these billionaires lined up at the front door to the White House begging for money, and they got it. You see. A country can't get more socialistic than that.The Bush and Obama administration gave them billions, all of which came from the taxes of decent hard working citizens, many of whom were wiped out by that corrupt Real Estate fraud. Routinely gigantic, multibillion dollar companies petition the Government for subsidies for their profitable businesses, and those are awarded every time. What could be more socialistic than handing over billions of dollars to giant profitable agribusinesses,pharmaceutical companies, and of course the Military Industrial Complex, just because they want more money than even their lucrative business dealings will provide?On the national level, the US military is one of the largest socialist ventures the world has ever seen.The taxpayers are required to forego their own interests in order to fund these multi billion dollar expenditures for weapons that the country doesn't need, the military doesn't want, and for which there is no practical use. The Military budget is entirely a socialistic endeavor.At the local level, we have fire, and police departments, all paid for by the tax payers.

Part One.

Part two.
We have streets, highways, and the interstate highway system, which the taxpayers finance. Our public school systems are completely financed by the taxpayers.And the list just goes on and on.You see my Brother Capitalism only kicks in when some billionaires want to use these public infrastructures for their own private enrichment. Even the national forests that are owned and maintained by the US Government for example, are leased to corporations for pennies so that they can harvest the trees on them, and make enormous private fortunes in the process. Same with the drilling rights for oil.Like i said. You see my Brother.The reality is that US Capitalists just love Socialism, especially when they can use our resources for their personal individual enrichment, without having to compensate the society for that use, and when they can demand that society make them rich again if there business ventures fail.

PK: I'm not conflating anything. All you did was throw up a bunch of straw man (person?) arguments. Every socialist country has ended in a dictatorship. It's in the DNA of it as an ideology, as espoused by it's earliest progenitors. Since you don't like the list of countries I made, please name a single socialist country that you think has succeeded.

The funniest part of this event was Mr. Lugo shouting at the actual Venezuelans to "Go back to your country!"

Ironic, don't you think?

Que vergüenza.
Things changed on a geo-political level when Maduro agreed to allow Russia to establish an airbase on an island off its coast.

I am sure all the undocumented immigrants that go to ULA for help will "appreciate" this stance.

Speak with Venezuelans here in the state. They are willing to trade one dictator for another, puppet or no, for a shot at some stability.

Today's freedom fighter, tomorrow's dictator.

@Bruckhart:
Many western European countries (Scandinavia, Germany,Spain, the U.K.) have semi-command economies which control the nation's resources to allow for a more equitable distribution. While a large part of their financial and trade sectors operate in the "free market", industry and commerce is heavily controlled by both state operators and trade unions. Within these countries there are active socialist political parties. Are they "socialist countries", not exactly, but they, in large part, rely on socialistic principles and command economics. The U.S. is also a semi-command economy, but instead of the nation's wealth and resources being re-distributed from the bottom-up and creating social and economic safety nets, the nation's wealth is corralled and protected for the uber wealthy, to increase corporate profits, suppress free speech, enhance the police state and create a strong oligarchy. When you compare the working-poor in this nation to the world's population you ignore the fact that the cost of living in the U.S. continues to increase, millions of us are only one or two paychecks away from homelessness, healthcare costs create large swaths of citizens that cannot afford basic health care, etc. Yes, poor people here aren't as poor people in Mumbai, but so what, they don't live in Mumbai, they live here and here they (we) are struggling. Income inequality is not a red herring, it is an absolute fact, which if ignored any longer will lead to revolution (hopefully).
Have their been socialistic dictatorships? Of course, but there have also been theocratic dictatorships, fascist dictatorships, monarchist dictatorships. It is not the mode of economy or social organization which is the cause of totalitarianism.

If you've spent any time with social workers, you know that it's important to be able to "hold both" - meaning, here, that sometimes we need to acknowledge that two conflicting views may actually be simultaneously true. In this case:

Also, it's true that there are many, many people in Venezuela who support Maduro. The reasons are many, but I believe are primarily because a) Maduro (like Chávez before him) represents somebody who speaks as if he actually cares about the traditionally underrepresented people of Venezuela - primarily poor people and indigenous communities, and b) there was some real redistribution of wealth, in the form of housing and monthly boxes of basic supplies, that benefitted the roughly 50% of the population living in what we (in the US) would call extreme poverty. Right now, the reason Guaidó declared himself interim president (whose first job is to call for elections) is because the most recent elections were a sham.

I am sure those of us living in the US can relate to at least some of this: A government rose to power using the rhetoric of caring about people who felt forgotten, and turned out to be incredibly corrupt and self-serving and, on top of all of that, the most recent presidential election was at least somewhat fraudulent.

I'm not trying to be cheeky; I'm really just trying to help those who are 100% pro-Maduro to reconsider their position by questioning some of what their own confirmation bias has led them to believe - namely, that socialism is working just fine in Venezuela, the US is at fault for the problems people there are facing, and that only the rich are opposed to the current socialist government.

Let me also show my cards here, so that if we're going to debate this, at least we'll all be honest and debate facts rather than making assumptions about one another:

• My wife grew up very poor in Venezuela and now lives with me (and our kids) in New Haven.
  
• We send boxes of food and medicine monthly, because her family there lacks access to both.
  
• Personally, I lean socialist (i.e. I believe in shared accountability for my neighbor's well being) and believe capitalism is at the root of many of our issues.
  
• I'm undecided about US intervention.

No one can provide me with an example of a successful socialist country...because one doesn't exist. For those espousing a European economic system, the fact is that they are still based off of capitalism, not socialism. Even a cursory Google search will show that. So when someone trumpets the Nordic model, or says "wellllll, it has ELEMENTS of socialism...", you're advocating my own argument. In fact, the reason they can provide all of those luxurious social benefits is BECAUSE they're inherently capitalist. If socialism worked that well, they wouldn't need capitalism at all, right? Marx wrote about the complete abolition of capitalism, as did Lenin, Stalin, Trosky, Bukharin, Mao, insert socialist "luminary" here. And don't hide behind the "the bad countries weren't really socialist" argument. That's bs, they were. Capitalism works, socialism doesn't. Full stop.

Now, I haven't written that capitalism is blameless and I agree that the current system is not perfect. The topic of what can be done to ameliorate the worst excesses of capitalism is a whole other discussion and one worth having. Obviously 2k characters is not enough for such a nuanced topic. However, my point remains that socialism has not only never worked but is responsible for some of the worst governments in recent history, with hundreds of million victims. To pretend otherwise is willful ignorance.

I'm still left marveling at the irony of these protesters advocating for a type of government that would jail/kill them for expressing themselves.

Nuance: (1) Thanks for your informed commentary.
(2) Wow. As a free-market, (far right wing according to BevHills) guy, I am astounded that you are undecided on US intervention. My position would be that, given the US history, and the "Bolivarian" indoctrination of so many, it would be a disaster, no matter how well intended.
(3) Were Lula or even Dilma still in power, I would think aid delivered through Brazil might be okay. Columbia and Venezuela have long been at odds, and the right-wing Bolsonaro would cast a pall over any Brazilian intervention. Are there any workable options?
(4) Was there really a redistribution of wealth, or just a diversion of PDVSA income from reinvestment to social spending? PDVSA did fine until Chavez, even though state owned. However, it seems the "Bolivarians" thought immediate needs of food boxes and housing were more important than keeping skilled employees and spare parts for wells, refineries, etc.

Burkhart: If a socio-economic system has elements of socialism then that system is socialistic. Of course there is a spectrum and nations in Europe, which utilize command economic systems and socialistic principles and programs, also exist within the larger "free-market" global economy. Free-market is in quotes because it is actually not a free market. The socialistic programs in Europe were created to address the inherent inequity of capitalism. That being said one can point to the socialistic European nations as a success of a type of socialism. As you mentioned it is a complex issue and one should avoid painting in broad strokes because even the U.S. has successful socialist programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security).

The nations you pointed to as proof of the failure of socialism, are actually examples of the failure and error of undemocratic centralization of economies and government. These nations operated on a type of socialism called Marxist-Leninism (Maoism in China), they had socialistic elements but were not, in their own words, completely socialist nations (read Lenin, Mao, Trotsky), but were hoping to achieve true socialism. And one can surely look at the "failures" in Latin America (Chile, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.) as being directly cause by U.S. interference in the form of sanctions, bombings, assassination, coups, funding and arming of death squads. But, to know all, or any, of this one would have to do more than a cursory Google search.

Oh and as for crimes and genocides committed by "socialist" nations. Let us not forget the genocides committed by capitalist nations, including the U.S. and the present genocide being committed by Neo-Liberal capitalists, which is the destruction of the ecosystem and the rapid annihilation of the human race. Yeah, but I guess Capitalism is okay.

Economist and former New Haven resident, Richard Wolf - Part 1

Capitalism and socialism are alternative economic systems. Since the middle of the 19th century, socialism has been the major tradition of criticism of capitalism. Since the early 20th century, socialism has also been the main global alternative to capitalism. Socialism has been so attractive to people across the globe that it has become a major social force in countless countries, the dominant system in several including the most populous country, China. Multiple different kinds of socialism have emerged to make the socialist tradition quite diverse. To dismiss all this with a breezy conclusion that capitalism is good and socialism is bad is childish, ignorant, and deeply disrespectful to the billions around the world who disagree after having considered as well as lived through both systems.

Then there is the equally childish business of counting deaths. This argument cites periods of revolutionary transformation in places like the USSR and China when millions died. Such violence is always a serious issue. To use it inaccurately for partisan political purposes is disrespectful to the serious issue it always is.

In the history of all economic systems, including capitalism, such violence has occurred. In capitalism's growth and development since its modern beginnings in 17th century England, capitalist companies and the countries in which they prevailed conquered the rest of the world, established colonial empires, and engaged in the two worst wars (World Wars 1 and 2) in the history of the human race. The hundreds of millions of deaths across the growth of capitalism to become the world's dominant economic system easily outnumber the deaths that might comparably be attributed to the shorter history of socialism (since the USSR's beginnings).

Richard Wolff Part 2

But little is gained or proved by such calculations except perhaps some ahistorical comfort acquired by imagining, with numbers, that social violence exists around one economic system and not another.

Over the last 25 years, the Chinese economy has mostly called itself and been called by most others "socialist." Most people recognize it as one kind of a debated set of different definitions of socialism. Over those years, the Chinese economy has grown consistently at 2-3 times the rate of growth of the US. The average real wages of Chinese workers have grown 3-4 times the rate of real wage growth in the US. In the light of such data, to refer to the Chinese socialist system as a failure compared to US capitalism is ludicrous and self-delusional.

Of course, evaluating any society as a whole, China included, requires considering more than growth rates of output and wages, more than economics, and so on. But non-ideologically blinded folks see China – as the world's biggest economy – as having gone from extreme poverty to challenging the US for economic dominance in the world economy as a stunning achievement of its economic system. Pretending otherwise is neither warranted nor helpful for anyone who wants to understand what is happening in the world.

Atwater:
(1) The US didn't enact any meaningful sanctions against Venezuela until Guaidó's proclamation as President. Until then, the US continued to be the primary market for Venezuelan oil. Venezuela's economy collapsed for the same reason so many housing co-ops in New Haven collapsed: management failed to maintain critical infrastructure. In Venezuela, PDVSA earnings were spent on social programs for the poor, rather than invested in the people and tools needed to maintain production. In New Haven, co-ops failed to collect and set rents at a level to maintain the buildings, preferring low current rents and letting those who couldn't or wouldn't pay "slide".
(2) The Chilean economy was collapsing under Allende not because of the specific policies of Allende, but because his supporters were emboldened to "seize the means of production". In the cities, factories ground to a halt, and, in the countryside, landowners stopped sowing crops as they had little assurance that they would be able to reap them months hence.
(3) BTW, the present, post Thatcher, UK economy is probably more free-market than the US economy.
(4) Many European states maintain their social systems by severe restrictions on immigration and the off-shoring of low wage work. There's a two-class system, but the underclass is keep working out of sight in Asia as high value design work is done in Copenhagen and Stockholm.

Oh, you're referring to Richard Wolf, American Marxist economist? And his defense is basically to say that capitalism is also bad? Insightful. I noticed what was conveniently not addressed, and which PK also ignores, is that the main socialist theorists (starting with Marx himself) readily espoused state against it's people. Is it then a surprise that every socialist state has devolved into dictatorship? You complain about the NHPD and want to replace it a style of government that introduced all powerful state police forces like the stasi, kgb, etc?? I'm so confused.

And Wolf's shining example is China? This farce keeps getting better. Maybe the reason their economy grew so fast is because it's a charade: for example entire cities they built that no one lives in (one might say they are enormous Potemkin villages) or their constant theft of intellectual property (IP which was created in capitalist countries, btw.) And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Would you like to start a chat over the constant human rights abuses, their support of North Korea, their threats to invade Taiwan, or their military fortification projects in international waters? Thanks Mr. Wolf, great example. He reminds me of the Writer's Brigade, who visited the White Sea/Baltic canal and left so impressed with the project as an example of the success of the first Five Year Plan... willfully ignoring the human misery surrounding it.

PK, just once I'd like you to admit when you're wrong.

@Christian Bruckhart: If you want to discuss human rights abuses, let's start with the genocide of indigenous peoples here in the US, the enslavemnt, torture and murder of Africans, followed by centuries of terror and impoverishment with racially targeted laws, including the bogus war on drugs.

Atwater: Annihilation of the human race? Really? One hundred years ago there were about a billion people. Today, there are about eight billion. Our species is in no danger whatsoever of extinction. if you are worried about our ecosystem, you should hope for a mass die-off of our species. A die-off would lead to reforestation and increased habitat for other species. The current NPR theme is that the post discovery die-off of indigenous American populations led to the Little Ice Age, although it could just as easily be attributed to the Black Plague hitting Europe. The Plague also had a major role in ending the Hundred Years War, as well as enhancing the rights of peasants in England.

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent...

Also known as what Attorney Kane uses when she's lost an argument but refuses to concede. Don't worry though, I'll still buy you a coffee when you want and we can bicker in person. Paul can referee.