
Venezuela Anti-U.S Revolt Ending in Whimper as Exodus Mounts - ayanai
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-14/venezuela-anti-u-s-revolt-collapses-in-poverty-mass-migration
======
duxup
The scary thing is Venezuela was doing relatively well not that long ago. I
like to think democracy and a relatively good economy can keep a nation afloat
and healthy to some extent ... but rather Venezuela's government has largely
chosen this path in one way or another. It's kinda terrifying.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
"Voter turnout [at Venezuela's 1998 election] was 63%, and Chávez won the
election with 56% of the vote. Academic analysis of the election showed that
Chávez's support had come primarily from the country's poor and 'disenchanted
middle class', whose standard of living had decreased rapidly over the
previous decade, while much of the middle and upper class vote went to Römer.

Chávez's presidential inauguration took place 2 February 1999. He deviated
from the usual words of the presidential oath when he took it, proclaiming: 'I
swear before God and my people that upon this moribund constitution I will
drive forth the necessary democratic transformations so that the new republic
will have a Magna Carta befitting these new times.' Freedom in Venezuela
suffered following 'the decision of President Hugo Chávez, ratified in a
national referendum, to abolish congress and the judiciary, and by his
creation of a parallel government of military cronies'. Soon after being
established into office, Chávez spent much of his time attempting to abolish
existing checks and balances in Venezuela. He appointed new figures to
government posts, adding leftist allies to key positions and 'army colleagues
were given a far bigger say in the day-to-day running of the country'."

TL; DR Institutions which should have fought back didn't and populism usurped
the democracy.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chávez#First_presidential...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chávez#First_presidential_term:_2_February_1999_–_10_January_2001)

~~~
giancarlostoro
Thank you for that, I was just about to say. It hasn't been a democracy for
quite a while.

Source: I have relatives who were born and raised in Venezuela.

------
gok
Who is flagging these articles?

------
seibelj
The greatest argument against socialism is the condition of countries
(Venezuela, Cuba, USSR, China before capitalism, North Korea, etc.) that try
to adopt it in some form. Socialists will forever argue that some
implementation was flawed. But I see many varied implementations of capitalism
and each is functional.

~~~
mercer
Would you consider a 'typical' Western-European style 'social democracy' to be
essentially capitalist? Honest question.

I can definitely agree that going 'full socialism' hasn't had a good track
record, but somehow it doesn't feel right to call what we have over here
'capitalism'.

~~~
gremlinsinc
I'd call it a hybrid system... True socialism is where the government decides
how much toilet paper to produce, say 100k units per month..while the public
uses 200k or 50k... -- so there's either a surplus or not enough.

Supply and demand are null/void, the government might then decide lets up tp
production as it's needed. Capitalism is the market decides based on
indicators from 'votes' \--everytime you spend money you're voting on what
that item is worth, how much supply/demand is given to it, etc...

Giving people who live in a country benefits and providing social well-being
is NOT true-socialism, it's just love/respect for fell human beings. Ensuring
everyone in a country lives above poverty shouldn't be debated about it should
be something people take a sense in pride about and something they focus on
eradicating.

It's not true-socialism in you still have a market, market conditions still
predicate what's bought/sold/manufactured. The only difference is tax dollars
are spent a little more on helping people. I think America is a horrible
manager of money we could easily implement universal healthcare or guaranteed
basic income and change some of the tax code to afford it all.

There's plenty of things we waste money on. The defense department has
gatherings where they pay around $5 per ounce for coffee, $15 for donuts or
pastries, etc.. private contractors can somehow get away with gouging the
government and basically stealing tax-dollars.

We spend a trillion a year on a huge military, we don't need to be the police
of the entire world. We need to close all bases, we have enough nukes/etc to
dispel threats to our own borders, let's stay neutral again until we're called
into another world war, but let's stop all the wars we're currently in.

I hope the predictions are true for 2030 that 40% of jobs will disappear
forever, as it'll force us to really consider guaranteed basic income or end
up just as Venezuela is now.

~~~
norswap
In Europe, that's we call communism, not socialism.

------
tim333
I wonder if techies can do anything to help? Better flow of information?
Crypto?

------
bshepard
Some needed contextualization here:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_U...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States)

~~~
JumpCrisscross
U.S. and European foreign policy has hurt Latin America. But that has nothing
to do with Venezuela's present condition. Hugo Chavez was popularly elected in
internationally-recognised elections. Through his and his successor's
mismanagement, a formerly-wealthy oil nation--better off than others in the
region--has fallen. This is a story of failed institutions and the
destructiveness of populism, not of foreign interference.

~~~
bshepard
That's one perspective. Another (perhaps broader) perspective is that there's
been a generations long civil war throughout South and Central America between
elites and oppressed populations, and throughout this conflict, the US state
has sided with and supported elite rule, oftentimes including gross violations
of human dignity. This goes back to the Monroe Doctrine.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
If the U.S. is responsible for Venezuela's present condition, then Venezuela
never had a hope. "During the 1970s, Venezuela was the richest country in
Latin America. With the region’s highest growth rates and the lowest levels of
inequality, it was also one of the most stable democracies in the Americas"
[1]. (Unfortunately, the economy failed to diversify away from oil before "the
collapse of the 1980s and 1990s when global oil prices dropped.")

Not only was Venezueala wealthy before Chavez, it ran proper elections. Its
balanced, stable democracy reflected its population's will.

The unfortunate truth is aloof upper/middle classes ignored Venezuela's poor.
The latter got pissed off and, on their own volition, voted in a demagogue who
then tore apart the country. Many problems in Latin America find origin in
American meddling. Venezuela, today, is not one of them.

[1] [http://americasquarterly.org/content/venezuela-chávez-
anatom...](http://americasquarterly.org/content/venezuela-chávez-anatomy-
economic-collapse-ricardo-hausmann-and-francisco-r-rodr%C3%ADguez)

