4 ms·

The ironic thing is that nationalizing the oil was pretty much the most defensible part of Chávez's legacy. (To be clear I'm not a fan of Chávez or of Maduro.)

by asveikau 10mo ago

tim333 10mo ago
Chavez actually did quite well in the early years. I'm not sure he nationalized oil but took greater amounts of the revenue in tax and used it for positive things for the people. It went downhill after a while with many of the problems common to communist policy though.
- seanmcdirmid 10mo ago
  Chavez was corrupt but the people he replaced were also corrupt. Even when Venezuela was "rich", most of the people were poor and felt like they weren't benefiting from it. The US is probably going push Venezuela to that prior state, where the country is rich on paper but most people are struggling, setting up a call for another Chavez. That assumes the US can just waltz into the country and take complete control, which is probably not going to happen.
  - terminalshort 10mo ago
    Better some people are poor than everybody is poor, which tends to be the result of putting leftists in charge.
    - TheOtherHobbes 10mo ago
      How large is your ideal value of "some"?
      - jacquesm 10mo ago
        Typically this translates into everybody below me on the social ladder.
    - seanmcdirmid 10mo ago
      The upper class Cubans in Florida want their plantations and slaves in Cuba back, is that a reasonable tradeoff so some people aren't poor?
    - forty 10mo ago
      > Better some people are poor than everybody is poor Well, technically it's only better for the few that are not poor, for all of the others, it's the same. It's even probably worse because rich people in a country with mostly poor people tend to be very efficient with capturing most of the value produced by the others.
- Sprotch 10mo ago
  He was awful from the start, sending political opponents to prison and transferring oil money to himself and his croneys, but he claimed to be taking from the rich to give to the poor, so the Western left lapped it all up. It took them years to realise what he was actually doing (from the start).
  - asveikau 10mo ago
    He could give a hell of a speech. I've listened to him make speeches where pretty much everything he said was correct from a policy standpoint. The problem was he was an incompetent administrator running a personality cult. I'm reminded of Noam Chomsky and what has recently come out about his social time with Epstein. He would talk about how the media only allows leftist thought in public as a sort of controlled opposition. Then he turns out to be exactly what he was complaining about. One moment he's calling Steve Bannon the enemy and the next he is smiling with him and Epstein, in a photo I've heard multiple people describe as "the happiest they have ever seen him". All this is to say: it's not enough to "say the right things". Your actions have to match.
    - Der_Einzige 10mo ago
      Can’t believe that both sides of the Chomsky Foucault debate were possibly diddling children!!! Also can’t believe that no matter who I voted for in 2016 I had to vote for someone who performed fellatio on bill clinton.
  - toofy 10mo ago
    > sending political opponents to prison sounds like a common theme… only this one involves war and prison and taking oil money for US cronies. whole thing truly makes me skeptical of anyone’s claims that “socialism always leads to corrupt leaders while capitalism doesn’t.”
- arzig 10mo ago
  You always get that last golden egg out when you kill the goose.
terminalshort 10mo ago
The policy that led to a collapse in oil production in a petro state? The policy that led to an economic collapse so severe that 20% of the population has emigrated? That's the policy you call defensible?
- thiagoharry 10mo ago
  That was the policy that allowed him to build a social welfare state for people tired of being exploited. Famine decreased, life expectancy increased, and the HDI became high. Unfortunately, this ended when the country was sanctioned and embargoed.
  - mensetmanusman 10mo ago
    As it was all collapsing because no one cared enough to make oil to support those things?
    - WaxProlix 10mo ago
      They were under embargo, they can pump as much oil as they want but pdvsa can't sell it.
  - Sabinus 10mo ago
    Why do these strong, socialist countries anyways need US trade to function? The Venezuelan economy was dying before the sanctions. Burning the economy to hand out free money isn't good for the people. Maduro and Chavez fixed the exchange rate, imposed price controls, printed money and did a wave of nationalisation (not the oil infrastructure that was in the 70s). USA isn't to blame for Venezuelan dysfunction.
    - overfeed 10mo ago
      > socialist countries anyways need US trade to function Sanctions go way beyond just direct trade with the US; they attempt to prevent all countries on earth from trading with the sanctioned entity, by force of the USD settling system, or as the past week has shown - the US Navy. So it reduces the number of potential trading partners from hundreds to a handful with (near) reserve currencies, and a navy that's not a pushover.

The ironic thing is that nationalizing the oil was pretty much the most defensible part of Chávez's legacy. (To be clear I'm not a fan of Chávez or of Maduro.)

tim333 10mo ago

Chavez actually did quite well in the early years. I'm not sure he nationalized oil but took greater amounts of the revenue in tax and used it for positive things for the people. It went downhill after a while with many of the problems common to communist policy though.

seanmcdirmid 10mo ago
Chavez was corrupt but the people he replaced were also corrupt. Even when Venezuela was "rich", most of the people were poor and felt like they weren't benefiting from it. The US is probably going push Venezuela to that prior state, where the country is rich on paper but most people are struggling, setting up a call for another Chavez. That assumes the US can just waltz into the country and take complete control, which is probably not going to happen.
- terminalshort 10mo ago
  Better some people are poor than everybody is poor, which tends to be the result of putting leftists in charge.
  - TheOtherHobbes 10mo ago
    How large is your ideal value of "some"?
    - jacquesm 10mo ago
      Typically this translates into everybody below me on the social ladder.
  - seanmcdirmid 10mo ago
    The upper class Cubans in Florida want their plantations and slaves in Cuba back, is that a reasonable tradeoff so some people aren't poor?
  - forty 10mo ago
    > Better some people are poor than everybody is poor Well, technically it's only better for the few that are not poor, for all of the others, it's the same. It's even probably worse because rich people in a country with mostly poor people tend to be very efficient with capturing most of the value produced by the others.
Sprotch 10mo ago
He was awful from the start, sending political opponents to prison and transferring oil money to himself and his croneys, but he claimed to be taking from the rich to give to the poor, so the Western left lapped it all up. It took them years to realise what he was actually doing (from the start).
- asveikau 10mo ago
  He could give a hell of a speech. I've listened to him make speeches where pretty much everything he said was correct from a policy standpoint. The problem was he was an incompetent administrator running a personality cult. I'm reminded of Noam Chomsky and what has recently come out about his social time with Epstein. He would talk about how the media only allows leftist thought in public as a sort of controlled opposition. Then he turns out to be exactly what he was complaining about. One moment he's calling Steve Bannon the enemy and the next he is smiling with him and Epstein, in a photo I've heard multiple people describe as "the happiest they have ever seen him". All this is to say: it's not enough to "say the right things". Your actions have to match.
  - Der_Einzige 10mo ago
    Can’t believe that both sides of the Chomsky Foucault debate were possibly diddling children!!! Also can’t believe that no matter who I voted for in 2016 I had to vote for someone who performed fellatio on bill clinton.
- toofy 10mo ago
  > sending political opponents to prison sounds like a common theme… only this one involves war and prison and taking oil money for US cronies. whole thing truly makes me skeptical of anyone’s claims that “socialism always leads to corrupt leaders while capitalism doesn’t.”
arzig 10mo ago
You always get that last golden egg out when you kill the goose.

terminalshort 10mo ago

The policy that led to a collapse in oil production in a petro state? The policy that led to an economic collapse so severe that 20% of the population has emigrated? That's the policy you call defensible?

thiagoharry 10mo ago
That was the policy that allowed him to build a social welfare state for people tired of being exploited. Famine decreased, life expectancy increased, and the HDI became high. Unfortunately, this ended when the country was sanctioned and embargoed.
- mensetmanusman 10mo ago
  As it was all collapsing because no one cared enough to make oil to support those things?
  - WaxProlix 10mo ago
    They were under embargo, they can pump as much oil as they want but pdvsa can't sell it.
- Sabinus 10mo ago
  Why do these strong, socialist countries anyways need US trade to function? The Venezuelan economy was dying before the sanctions. Burning the economy to hand out free money isn't good for the people. Maduro and Chavez fixed the exchange rate, imposed price controls, printed money and did a wave of nationalisation (not the oil infrastructure that was in the 70s). USA isn't to blame for Venezuelan dysfunction.
  - overfeed 10mo ago
    > socialist countries anyways need US trade to function Sanctions go way beyond just direct trade with the US; they attempt to prevent all countries on earth from trading with the sanctioned entity, by force of the USD settling system, or as the past week has shown - the US Navy. So it reduces the number of potential trading partners from hundreds to a handful with (near) reserve currencies, and a navy that's not a pushover.