Opinion of conservatives using Venezuela to argue against socialism

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Seems 90% of conservative commentors online just shout "muh Venezuela" whenever the topic of socialism is brought up. Odd that almost 100% of these arguments never mention the words "oil" or "sanctions", just generic, blank statements about socialism in general.

[darklordoftech]

If Venezuela was doing well, they would say that it's "homogeneous", and communism != socialism.

[TPIG]

It's because you have people like Bernie Sanders and Michael Moore praising bread lines and Chavez. I think some conservatives use this argument too liberally against all leftists, but when you have some left-wingers explicitly endorsing Venezuelan socialism, then it makes sense to call that out.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Sanders did praise Chavez

[DavidB.]

It's an excellent argument, not that it was needed after what socialism has led to in the former USSR. But it goes wrong when conservatives start to conflate social democracy and Sanders-style ideas (which are mainstream in Europe) with Venezuela-style socialism.

[Republican Left]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To be fair though, I have read somewhere that social democracy is considered a step towards the march towards socialism. This article doesn't necessary state that directly but seems to implies favoring an approach that continues the progression (though to be fair, the concept of employee owned companies isn't necessarily bad but it could go badly though capitalists and voluntarists wouldn't mind people freely opting for that choice).

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/08/democratic-socialism-judis-new-republic-social-democracy-capitalism

[Intell]

Venezuala is bad, socialism has failed! Ignores the successful implementation of social democratic principles (before market liberalism took over) throughout the western world. Ignores the successful implementation of social democratic principles throughout South America itself.

[Mr. Smith]

Fine by me, if they can take the dirt when Somalia gets used as the end result of "small government".

[OSR stands with Israel]

Fine by me, if they can take the dirt when Somalia gets used as the end result of "small government".

except Somalia never was the richest nation in the region

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Conservatives: ugh, liebrals are so anti fossil fuel! We should encourage as much fossil fuel exploitation as possible! What if we relied on our fossil fuel revenue for our state budget so we can fund handouts to voters! Lol how stupid is the Norwegian Oil Fund, they should be spending that delicious oil money now instead of having the gubmint take control of it! Drill baby drill! Oil prices will always be high! We're printing money! Let's make a petrostate!

Conservatives: wow u herd of this country Venezuela it's pretty deep

[Alabama_Indy10]

It's because you have people like Bernie Sanders and Michael Moore praising bread lines and Chavez. I think some conservatives use this argument too liberally against all leftists, but when you have some left-wingers explicitly endorsing Venezuelan socialism, then it makes sense to call that out.

[junior chįmp]

Sanders did praise Chavez

Reagan praised bin Laden, the Contras, Saddam Hussein, and the El Salvador junta (among many other worse dictators)

In other words...Conservatives say one thing for liberals and do another thing for themselves

[junior chįmp]

It's because you have people like Bernie Sanders and Michael Moore praising bread lines and Chavez. I think some conservatives use this argument too liberally against all leftists, but when you have some left-wingers explicitly endorsing Venezuelan socialism, then it makes sense to call that out.

Romney praised murderous Indonesian dictator Suharto

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Instead of using whataboutisms, how about asking for a vote? I don't recall Sanders ever talking about how great Venezuela is.

[sparkey]

Venezuela is an extreme example of socialist policies gone awry, but it's an example nonetheless. The socialist-style nationalization of the oil industry there is a major reason for the country's current crisis, along with the price controls and inflation implemented by its socialist government. It's a cautionary tale about some of the worst socialist policies.

Those who argue that we must dismiss Venezuela and instead look at the overall picture in South America must contend with why poverty is so much lower in places like Uruguay and Chile than in places like Bolivia and Paraguay. The truth, of course, is that socialism correlates with poverty globally, and it should be easy to understand why. Most socialist policies, including extreme examples like nationalizing a country's primary industry, tend to restrict human motivation and restrict advancement of qualified managers. "Muh Scandinavia" is also a weak response to "what about Venezuela" because Scandinavian countries are still fundamentally market economies, and have never implemented policies as far-left and dumb as what Venezuela has pulled. Scandinavia's welfare state has its own problems, but obviously undermining the basis for a country's economy is going to have more drastic effects than being welfare spendthrifts while maintaining a healthy market economy with free trade.

[Karpatsky]

It's neither freedom or horrible, it's just stupid and a way to avoid talking actual policy. Venezuela is not in the state it is in currently because of universal health care or free college.

[mvd10]

Venezuela is an extreme example of socialist policies gone awry, but it's an example nonetheless. The socialist-style nationalization of the oil industry there is a major reason for the country's current crisis, along with the price controls and inflation implemented by its socialist government. It's a cautionary tale about some of the worst socialist policies.

Those who argue that we must dismiss Venezuela and instead look at the overall picture in South America must contend with why poverty is so much lower in places like Uruguay and Chile than in places like Bolivia and Paraguay. The truth, of course, is that socialism correlates with poverty globally, and it should be easy to understand why. Most socialist policies, including extreme examples like nationalizing a country's primary industry, tend to restrict human motivation and restrict advancement of qualified managers. "Muh Scandinavia" is also a weak response to "what about Venezuela" because Scandinavian countries are still fundamentally market economies, and have never implemented policies as far-left and dumb as what Venezuela has pulled. Scandinavia's welfare state has its own problems, but obviously undermining the basis for a country's economy is going to have more drastic effects than being welfare spendthrifts while maintaining a healthy market economy with free trade.

They came pretty close in the 1970s. Until social democrats in the 1980s decided enough was enough and implemented some reforms . Scandinavia is in many ways more pro-market than countries like Germany or France.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

If we're really trying to determine how leftist policies would affect the United States, it's almost certainly more sound to analyze how such policies have impacted countries that began with similar or higher standards of living than the United States, ex. in N. Europe. Venezuela never had the same standard of living as the United States to begin with, so it's disingenuous to suggest that the United States will somehow turn into Venezuela if we adopt more liberal policies.

[Hash]

It's an excellent argument, not that it was needed after what socialism has led to in the former USSR. But it goes wrong when conservatives start to conflate social democracy and Sanders-style ideas (which are mainstream in Europe) with Venezuela-style socialism.

I absolutely do think that politicians who repeatedly praise, support and/or justify Venezuela's governments should be criticized and their feet held to the fire (hi, Mélenchon!), because, even for the left, Venezuela - a criminal narco-state - isn't a model to follow (I don't think it's ever been, but it objectively isn't one today). However, most conservatives use castrochavismo as a simplistic scare tactic, not bothering to make reasoned arguments about why one left-wing politician said to be the embodiment of castrochavismo is so terrible besides resorting to inane comparisons to Maduro or Venezuela (but it's politics, so whatever). To use an example I am most familiar with: Gustavo Petro's problem isn't that he said that that Hugo Chávez was cool, but rather that he sucks balls as an administrator (never mind that his proposed policies, while left-wing and radical, bore little resemblance to actual chavista government policies). AMLO's problem in 2006 wasn't his supposed sympathies for Chávez, but rather his nonchalant attitude towards corruption -- no surprise then that Calderón and the PAN used proto-castrochavismo rather than bring up corruption!

Granted, thinking that Chávez was good and/or not a dictator could be cause for some concern, but you'd be surprised at the number of politicians who, at one time or another since 1998, praised Chávez or had good things to say about him (otoh, those who praise or support Maduro today are pretty much all insufferable idiots and/or ridiculously misinformed and wilfully blind far-left tools).

Venezuela is an extreme example of socialist policies gone awry, but it's an example nonetheless. The socialist-style nationalization of the oil industry there is a major reason for the country's current crisis, along with the price controls and inflation implemented by its socialist government. It's a cautionary tale about some of the worst socialist policies.

Venezuela's oil industry was nationalized in 1975 by President Carlos Andrés Pérez of Acción Democrática (AD), which was a left-of-centre party with interventionist economic policies but almost certainly not a 'socialist' party in the way most Western/North American right-wingers seem to understand and use the term socialism. I also think that seeing oil nationalizations as 'socialism' is a dangerously simplistic or politically biased interpretation of history, particularly in the context of Latin America, where oil nationalization wasn't necessarily done for 'socialist reasons'.

It's obvious that Chávez et al. badly mismanaged the economy and PDVSA, but Chávez isn't the one who turned Venezuela into a petrostate. Without getting into whataboutism, as a student of Latin American history and politics, I find it very frustrating that all of the hot takes on chavista Venezuela seem to have absolutely no clue of the historical context prior to Chávez's first election (I can't claim to know much about Venezuelan history, but at least I've read stuff which doesn't begin in 1998).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does this even mean? The reasons why Uruguay and Chile are wealthier than Bolivia and Paraguay have very, very little to do with 'socialism' or lack thereof, particularly if we're including Paraguay - likely the 'most right-wing' country in South America (which has never had a 'socialist' government, with the arguable exception of the short-lived febrerista revolutionaries in 1936 and maybe Fernando Lugo, even though Lugo didn't win because he was a left-winger) in the equation. I hope it is also obvious why Bolivia has always been much poorer than Chile (hint: Evo Morales doesn't much, if anything, to do with it).

Also, please don't pass off political opinions as objective truths.

[TPIG]

It's because you have people like Bernie Sanders and Michael Moore praising bread lines and Chavez. I think some conservatives use this argument too liberally against all leftists, but when you have some left-wingers explicitly endorsing Venezuelan socialism, then it makes sense to call that out.

Romney praised murderous Indonesian dictator Suharto

While it's obviously wrong that he made that comment about helping move Indonesia move toward modernity (when it clearly wasn't), he wasn't actually praising the dictator himself or extolling the virtues of his government, as some do with communist leaders like Castro and Chavez. Not the same.

[sparkey]

What does this even mean? The reasons why Uruguay and Chile are wealthier than Bolivia and Paraguay have very, very little to do with 'socialism' or lack thereof, particularly if we're including Paraguay - likely the 'most right-wing' country in South America (which has never had a 'socialist' government, with the arguable exception of the short-lived febrerista revolutionaries in 1936 and maybe Fernando Lugo, even though Lugo didn't win because he was a left-winger) in the equation. I hope it is also obvious why Bolivia has always been much poorer than Chile (hint: Evo Morales doesn't much, if anything, to do with it).

Under what measure is Paraguay the 'most right-wing' country in South America? They are more right-leaning than most on issues like taxes and budgets, but that's not all that determines the nature of a country's economy, and there is plenty of room for improvement for Paraguay. My point is more about relative policies rather than looking for an example of true socialism anyway. Heritage does a pretty good job of providing charts that show interesting correlations.

Also, please don't pass off political opinions as objective truths.

I didn't, I said that "socialism correlates with poverty globally," which is factual. You can dispute the causal relationship (even though there is a clear one IMO) but you'd be factually wrong to dispute the correlation.

[parochial boy]

*my cherrypicked data tends to suggest that my own personal definition of what "socialism" is tends to correlate with poverty globally*

[sparkey]

*my cherrypicked data tends to suggest that my own personal definition of what "socialism" is tends to correlate with poverty globally*

Give me a counterexample then. I can only find charts that show correlations.

[Hash]

Under what measure is Paraguay the 'most right-wing' country in South America? They are more right-leaning than most on issues like taxes and budgets, but that's not all that determines the nature of a country's economy, and there is plenty of room for improvement for Paraguay. My point is more about relative policies rather than looking for an example of true socialism anyway. Heritage does a pretty good job of providing charts that show interesting correlations.

Seriously? The Heritage Foundation's charts and correlations (or that of any other think tank, institution or whatever) don't define countries as right-wing or left-wing. Undoubtedly, Paraguay's weak and pathologically corrupt economic structure isn't ideal right-wing capitalism for a libertarian, but there's more than just economic policies and nifty quantitative charts to this topic.

I'd kindly suggest you read up a bit on Paraguay's history, socioeconomic structure and political elites, which are far more telling than its tax rates, budget balances and ease of doing business scores, if you want to understand that country or its plethora of problems. Leslie Bethell's edited Cambridge History of Latin America is always a fine place to start.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Are we talking about the Paraguay that spend like six decades of straight control by the Colorado Party, of which half of that time was spent controlled by Stroessner?  What Latin American party comes closest in terms of rightist domination? Colombia has at least alternated power between Liberals and the conservatives occasionally. Even Peru has a stronger left than Paraguay!