what do you think of Hugo Chavez? Was he trying to bring a fairer system to Venezuela that benefited the people of that nation, more than it benefited rich elites, foreign profit-driven companies, and political forces that want to maintain capitalism and free market economies, or do you think Chavez was just another gangster?

what do you think of Hugo Chavez? — universeness

Hugo Chavez was a perfect example of leftist populism, who could rule by dividing the Venezuelan society by similar polarization that is going on in the US. Populism always starts with the division of 'us the people' and 'they, the elites' and Chavez used the leftist approach to this. Some leftists in the West went along with his populist approach to socialism. He had loyal supporters, so that the next president has been able to ride on that support too.

Chavez used the oil wealth so badly that the Venezuelan economy finally collapsed, but he died before that happened. The national oil company PVDSA has increased hugely it's personnel while it's production has gone down. Not usual when companies have more employees.



Not that Venezuela squandered off the wealth before, but now the solution of nationalizing nearly everything didn't help.

So how would you ensure that all the people of Venezuela, get an equal share of the resources that Venezuela has?

So how would you ensure that all the people of Venezuela, get an equal share of the resources that Venezuela has? — universeness

I assume that the objective is to have prosperity among all the people.

One Cuban that was a party member (of the Communist party), said once to me: His dream was that Cuba would be someday like Sweden.

If you want Sweden, then you have to remember that Sweden is a capitalist country, even if it has been basically ruled by Social Democrats over 100 years. There's that crucial difference between socialism (and Marxism-Leninism) and European social democracy.

Hence, first the economy has to perform well so that if you want a welfare state, then those costs can be covered by a prosperous economy. Here's my 50 cents for that:

1) Over 90% of the population in Venezuela lives on the poverty line, with more than 80% of them having already lost an average of 19 kg due to malnutrition. Venezuela's abundance of oil reserves should have made it a wealthy country, but it isn't. Mismanagement and corruption have led to this. This fact cannot be sidelined. Also...

2) Understand, that Venezuela has been the primary example of the Dutch Disease. It was so easy simply to buy everything abroad with the oil revenue, when it was abundant, that the damage this would do to domestic sectors wasn't thought much.

3) Do not use the oil profits to directly fund your other government programs. You have to understand that your national oil company has to be competitive and has to make profit. It's the last place to put your supporters to job positions, when they don't know anything about engineering or the oil sector. Saudi-Aramco is a good example that even if corruption and so on, you still can have a profitable nationally owned oil company. Build up your own oil industry and don't just export oil, have your own oil refineries, but fuel, plastics, everything what comes out of oil. If your oil company can compete outside of your country means that you are competitive.

4) Adopt the model of Norway: use only the interest on those oil profits and hence create a Sovereign Wealth Fund. This fund will be important when your oil runs out or you have to create alternative industries. For Norway oil hasn't been a curse.

5) Invest in infrastructure and education and try to get other sectors of your economy to be competitive in the global market. Yes, trade barriers can protect some sector in it's infancy from global competition, but the trade barriers have to go, because your other industrial sectors objective should be to compete in the global market. Only that gives you actual prosperity.

6) Encourage entrepreneurship and innovation. Have the mentality that the World is an opportunity, not a sinister menace lurking to abuse you. Don't use the cheap trick of blaming foreigners for your problems.

When you have done parts from 1) to 6), then be happy to provide the welfare state you want, because when the economy works, even the capitalists are just happy with your socialist programs (just like in the Nordic countries).

I personally believe that Venezuela is one of the most failed nations among the pseudo-republics established after gaining independence from us. They have always been ruled by dictators, sometimes fascists, other times communists. Although the middle class and social services in Venezuela are virtually nonexistent, I think they essentially subsist because they are fortunate to have oil. On the other hand, without oil, they would be a very poor country like Haiti or Nicaragua. Everything there is a mess, and I don't understand why Spanish enterprises like Repsol and Movistar go there. My dad worked in Caracas for more than a while and decided not to return because it was impossible to work seriously there. Well, Venezuela has always accused us of bloody genocide. I can't expect more from them, but I am aware that they are always a threat to their neighbors: Colombia, Guyana, etc.

A useless dictator like Maduro can only make us laugh because of the contradictions. He is against imperialism, but they want to occupy Guyana. They are against capitalism, but the elite of PSV studies in Switzerland or France. It is a joke, and I feel bad for the Venezuelan people because it seems difficult to get rid of this rotten system. We debated this for many days with some Latino friends, and we think that they do not have a future because they never had a good past. While Chile and Uruguay have realized that the only way to keep growing and improving is to establish capitalism and stop accusing Europe of everything, there are others like Venezuela that are happy in the victimhood of always. Again, they are so lucky to have oil... Their context would be so different otherwise. If I were the representative of Guyana, I would have said to Maduro: Por qué no te callas, as our king shouted to bloody Chavez, the communist, back in the day.

Maduro, the puppet of Venezuelan oil companies, is acting as a clown again...

You offered more statements than suggestions about ways to equitably share any wealth generated by Venezuela's resources amongst its population.

I like the idea of 'national funds' but I far prefer a UBI as a human right of being a citizen of a nation.
If your main models are Sweden and Norway then I agree that these models are better than the current situation in Venezuela but I am far more interested in systems which provide a far fairer wealth share than either of those countries.

Are you okay with individuals in these 'oil companies' you describe, becoming personally very rich?
I am no less offended by those at the head of 'private companies,' becoming personally rich and powerful, by extorting the wealth of a nation and diverting it from its people, than I am by autocratic politicians doing the same.
Do you think it is impossible to have an economic system that benefits all stakeholders or members of a national population in a equitable way?
Do you think the best that humans can ever possibly achieve for a national population is a 'some have' and 'most have not' society such as Norway, Sweden or Saudi Arabia?

I feel bad for the Venezuelan people because it seems difficult to get rid of this rotten system. — javi2541997

Well, Venezuela under Maduro is getting rid of Venezuelans:

The Venezuelan refugee crisis, the largest recorded refugee crisis in the Americas,[6] refers to the emigration of millions of Venezuelans from their native country during the presidencies of Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro because of the Bolivarian Revolution.

There are 7,1 refugees now out from Venezuela. So naturally the best option is to start a war.

I like the idea of 'national funds' but I far prefer a UBI as a human right of being a citizen of a nation. — universeness

They are a bit different issues. Because if you have sovereign wealth fund, to have UBI is actually far more easier. What you don't want to have is the country borrowing more debt in order to pay for UBI. That isn't sustainable in the long run.

Are you okay with individuals in these 'oil companies' you describe, becoming personally very rich? — universeness

As @javi2541997 stated, now the rich elite is the people closest to Maduro.

I'm not against especially some entrepreneur getting rich. A national oil company CEO should have an equivalent salary, but that makes him still an employee. Just as state officials should have high enough salaries that people do want to go into the field, yet not so low that basically their actual income comes from corruption.

If you have educated professionals in your national oil company, they will have good salaries as then other oil companies will gladly take them as employees. But that assumes that your PDVSA isn't a basketcase of a company.

Theft in the billions:


A short history why PDVSA failed (from 3 years ago):

Well, at least we have common ground in our wish that a war between Venezuela and Guyana does not happen.

Venezuela), seems to be looking at wanting more of those resources. And a distraction for the economic woes. — ssu

Invasion as distraction I can understand, but Venezuela already has huge oil reserves of which it doesn't seem to be able to make effective economic use. Adding Guyana's oil, plus making Guyana's citizens bitter and resentful, won't help Maduro. To paraphrase Martin Luther, stupid presidents sink ever deeper into stupidity.

Adding Guyana's oil, plus making Guyana's citizens bitter and resentful, won't help Maduro. — BC

Exactly, but it is outrageous how Maduro and his corrupt friends and family of PSVD are 'against' the colonialism and imperialism of the USA and Europe. Yet they are acting as good imperialists. I don't know if they are hypocrites or just stupid. But don't worry, folks, there is a more stupid politician than Maduro: Zapatero. This socialist went to Venezuela more than 30 times trying to act as a moderator in their political elections, and this foolish person recognized Maduro as a legitimately elected president. It is amazing how the so-called Marxists cover for each other.

These socialist asses say they root for the people, but at the same time, they establish their own elite group. :vomit:

It is funny to remember when Chavez accused Aznar of fascism for backing up the war in Iraq. I wonder what he would think about his beloved Marxist Republic Venezuela acting as a thief against Guyana.

Chavez had the correct idea, based on such as:
Using record-high oil revenues of the 2000s, his government nationalized key industries, created participatory democratic Communal Councils and implemented social programs known as the Bolivarian missions to expand access to food, housing, healthcare and education. The high oil profits coinciding with the start of Chavez's presidency resulted in temporary improvements in areas such as poverty, literacy, income equality and quality of life between primarily 2003 and 2007

Like all revolutions of the past, we often start with the intention to enforce the foundation that 'all people are equal, and must be treated as such,' and we end up with 'all people are equal but some people deserve more resources and power than any other person.' When the people get rid of a nasty system, they often fail to prevent their good work from getting corrupted by the nefarious that still exist amongst them. Outside influence from regimes which are as nasty as the one just removed is also a major problem. We saw this exemplified in the French, Chinese and Russian Revolutions, The English and Spanish Civil Wars, the rise of horrors such as Pol Pot, Idi Amin and many others. These are very familiar recipes now.
All started off with good intentions, to create a better life for the populations involved. The Spanish had to endure years of horror under a fascist pig like Franco, because the German Nazis prevented the Spanish people from winning their struggle, even with the help of the international brigades.
I think what has happened in Venezuela is yet another example of this pattern.
Only when people learn how to prevent the rot from seeping in, once they have removed a long suffered, vile system of governance, will this pattern be stopped from repeating.

Sadly, there are still many pathological, narcissistic, sociopaths amongst us who also have wealth and/or power and/or nefarious followers (or easily duped fools,) behind them. Trump and his supporters being a current perfect example.
I think the Venezuelan people will have to rise again and establish secular humanist, democratic socialist governance with free and fair elections and a robust set of checks and balances to keep the nefarious from ruining and running their country.

The Spanish had to endure years of horror under a fascist pig like Franco, because the German Nazis prevented the Spanish people from winning their struggle, even with the help of the international brigades. — universeness

I can't believe I would agree with you. Perfectly explained and written. I agree with the quote and the rest of your post.

Like all revolutions of the past, we often start with the intention to enforce the foundation that 'all people are equal, and must be treated as such,' and we end up with 'all people are equal but some people deserve more resources and power than any other person.' When the people get rid of a nasty system, they often fail to prevent their good work from getting corrupted by the nefarious that still exist amongst them. — universeness

Oh dear. This is not a good analysis. If all people are morally equal, then it is an error to divide them into the nefarious and the righteous. That is what must result in the inequality, when the nefarious are brought down and the righteous exalted. Because it follows, after the revolution that the righteous are in charge and deserve all the benefits. So the revolution just turns round and round getting nowhere, because the righteous become the nefarious - there is no difference.

So make a law that the people in charge of every institution must live in the accommodation for the homeless, and receive the minimum wage, and have no private wealth at all, and as long as this law is enforced you will never have a greedy politician, banker, or company director, and the wealth will be very well distributed.

You can be a bit of an enigma at times (at least to me). Perhaps that's the way you like it.

Oh dear. This is not a good analysis. If all people are morally equal, then it is an error to divide them into the nefarious and the righteous. — unenlightened

I think you misuse the term 'morally equal,' in the context you use it above.
The morality displayed by any individual is based on the subjective judgment of others who will measure it, based on their own established notion of morality, and the moral code established in the society/culture they were raised amongst, yes?
'All people are equal and must be treated as such,' is a foundational goal, a prime directive.
Such a directive does not mean that all who revolt against a vile system are free from having nefarious participants!

That is what must result in the inequality, when the nefarious are brought down and the righteous exalted. Because it follows, after the revolution that the righteous are in charge and deserve all the benefits. — unenlightened

Are we talking past each other here? The fact that the nefarious who helped bring down a nefarious regime is often used via 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend realpolitik,' in any given struggle. Also good folks can turn bad when they gain access to riches and power. Where did I suggest that when a vile regime is overthrown, all who take part in the destruction of the vile regime are righteous?
ABSAFRAGGINLOOTLY NOT! Such misplaced trust has been a major part of the problem that allows the rot to seep back in and you end up with as bad or worse a regime as the one that was demolished.
We all know this! There are many books about it, such as Orwell's 1984 etc.

So the revolution just turns round and round getting nowhere, because the righteous become the nefarious - there is no difference. — unenlightened

This is the pattern we are trying to stop from repeating, yes?

So make a law that the people in charge of every institution must live in the accommodation for the homeless, and receive the minimum wage, and have no private wealth at all, and as long as this law is enforced you will never have a greedy politician, banker, or company director, and the wealth will be very well distributed. — unenlightened

Oh come on! Can you do no better than offer such a facetious paragraph?

Well, at least we have common ground in our wish that a war between Venezuela and Guyana does not happen. — universeness

Invasion as distraction I can understand, but Venezuela already has huge oil reserves of which it doesn't seem to be able to make effective economic use. Adding Guyana's oil, plus making Guyana's citizens bitter and resentful, won't help Maduro. To paraphrase Martin Luther, stupid presidents sink ever deeper into stupidity. — BC

Hopefully this is just posturing. Everything in order just to play that jingoistic card, but not then go further. Maduro can, quite correctly, then say that the US won't give what Venezuela has the right to, and Venezuela cannot take on the US. Hence in this time when passive-aggressiveness is the new normal, Maduro can again take the role of the 'victim' here on how Venezuela's "rights" are trampled.

Or then just act as if the mainly rainforest would be Venezuelan territory, but not to place Venezuelan soldiers on the territory. Then demand Venezuelan permits in order for mining the territory etc.

However how well this would in the end work for him is doubtful. The scary part is if Maduro thinks that he can use military force, that the US and UK somehow will not intervene or that Venezuela could fight a war like Russia does. Well, Venezuela isn't Russia.

At least there are talks scheduled this week.

However how well this would in the end work for him is doubtful. The scary part is if Maduro thinks that he can use military force, that the US and UK somehow will not intervene or that Venezuela could fight a war like Russia does. Well, Venezuela isn't Russia.

At least there are talks scheduled this week. — ssu

Yeah, it all fits into a pattern of brinksmanship that is sooooooo boring but sooooooo potentially deadly.
Gangland politics. Gang boss MADuro, try's to take a bite of anothers territory by disputing ownership, and the current boss of that territory objects. One of the big godfathers (USA) with its smaller supporting underbosses, (such as the UK) warns MADuro of the possible gang war that might happen if they 'try this shit!!' But the big brinksmanship-style problems, that threaten all of us, happen IF other big gang godfathers like Russia or China etc, make noises in support of MADuro, under the old directive, that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction!) :rage:

I remember in the 80s when the possibility of a full nuclear exchange was a hot topic of debate, and a regular list of possible 'flash' events was offered to people via the main news outlets.
It was a long list! From trouble in the Middle East to a USSR or Chinese invasion of here or there.
I think that such a list even prompted this from Billy Joel:

The Presidents of Venezuela and Guyana met and even shook hands. That both talk about peace is a promising sign.

KINGSTOWN, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Dec 14 (Reuters) - Guyana and Venezuela are committed to ensuring their region remains peaceful, Guyanese President Irfaan Ali said on Thursday during meetings with his Venezuelan counterpart President Nicolas Maduro, amid high tensions over a dispute involving a potentially oil-rich border area.

The two leaders met at the airport in Kingstown, in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, alongside representatives from CARICOM, the Caribbean political and economic union, Brazil, the United Nations and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC).

So let's hope that the media attention now gotten is enough for Maduro. And this thread (or similar threads) won't continue about a war in South America.

Hmm... Maduro, the diplomatic friend. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12909253/Britain-warned-dont-mess-Venezuela-President-Maduro-slams-decadent-rotten-ex-empire-UK-sending-Navy-warship-protect-Guyana.html

Britain is warned 'don't mess with Venezuela' as President Maduro slams 'decadent, rotten, ex-empire of the UK' for sending a Navy warship to protect Guyana.

We believe in diplomacy, in dialogue, in peace,' said Maduro.

'BUT no one should threaten Venezuela, no one should mess with Venezuela. We are a people of peace, but we are warriors and this threat is unacceptable for any sovereign country,'

I think one of the main aspects of considering a country a dictatorship is when its President accuses an European country for being imperialist while they are the ones being imperialists here.