[Saeko]

They aren't "entangled" in the web of international capitalism.

They are corrupt and weak, and it's as simple as that.

[Hong Wu]

I agree with the cosplayer, the Chavismos did this to themselves. Venezuela has a lot of resources to sell, why did getting into the same international markets as other countries ruin them?

[layman]

That's pretty weak logic there

Actually, its not as dumb as it sounds

Maduro and the PSUV are absolutely socialists, but that doesn't mean that Venezuela has become a socialist country unfortunately.

What's a socialist country? So far they seem to be socialist parties combined with an existing state or inheriting one, something only national in scope, often poor and backwards, and pretty much state capitalist.

Sure, and the soviets were market socialists or whatever so they dont count.

Might as well be kman saying the US isnt capitalist because it has social security

The country has the highest murder rates in the Americas after like Honduras and Haiti. This is not the result of some American plot to destroy them- this is because the Chavistas are utterly incompetent. Nothing the United States could do could do that.

This.

It was a disaster and you guys supported it. Take ownership you pinko cowards!

[Dagoth Ur]

Only if you, as a capitalist reactionary, take ownership of the economic war waged against "Socialism intge 21st century".

For the record many communists have been luke-warm on Venezuela for quite awhile. I was reserving judgement, since I cannot predict the future, but these latest events aren't very inspiring. Socialism by the ballot box seems to have been once again proven futile.

[layman]

Only if you, as a capitalist reactionary, take ownership of the economic war waged against "Socialism intge 21st century".

For the record many communists have been luke-warm on Venezuela for quite awhile. I was reserving judgement, since I cannot predict the future, but these latest events aren't very inspiring. Socialism by the ballot box seems to have been once again proven futile.

Yes, socialists have an amusing habit of sloppy shouldering every single self proclaimed socialist government in history.

This is simply more of the same.

Of course every single good stat - such as increasing quality of life for the very poorest - is jumped on as socialist success.

PS yes I take ownership of capitalist failures and right wing assholes all the time. I at least admit they are "right wing" or capitalist

Socialism by the ballot box seems to have been once again proven futile.

Yes , because it only works when the workers are in a state of terror ...

This has been fun

[Potemkin]

Exactly, when you don't implement necessary judicial institutions to control society, you're going to have crime, regardless of the socioeconomic system of the day.

Precisely. In the early years of the Bolivaran revolution in Venezuela, the Chavistas regarded the entire legal system as being, in and of itself, a form of oppression. Put simply, they seemed to regard any form of social control, including the control of criminal activity, to be illegitimate oppression of the people by the ruling elite. They therefore basically stopped punishing criminals, with predictable results. The Bolsheviks, by contrast, would simply shoot criminals, especially leaders of organised gangs. Organised crime was gone from the Soviet Union by the early 1930s. The Chavistas seem never to have read Engels' essay On Authority.

[KurtFF8]

The country has the highest murder rates in the Americas after like Honduras and Haiti. This is not the result of some American plot to destroy them- this is because the Chavistas are utterly incompetent. Nothing the United States could do could do that.

Their inability to tackle violent crime was indeed a significant weakness of the PSUV's rule. It's a testament to the fact that Venezuela remained a bourgeois society in many ways considering that high crime is often associated with things like high unemployment, which is something that is rare in a socialist society.

We can't blame crime on "socialism" or "socialist policies" of course because there is the obvious counter example of Cuba if we're going to examine Latin America.

For the record many communists have been luke-warm on Venezuela for quite awhile. I was reserving judgement, since I cannot predict the future, but these latest events aren't very inspiring. Socialism by the ballot box seems to have been once again proven futile.

One electoral defeat does not mean that the Chavista project is over. It's a significant setback for sure but there is still a large backing behind the PSUV and they still hold the presidency and sway within the armed forces.

Sure, and the soviets were market socialists or whatever so they dont count.


Might as well be kman saying the US isnt capitalist because it has social security

The USSR wasn't market socialist, that was Yugoslavia. The USSR had a planned economy based on a workers state. I indeed find it frustrating when (mostly Trotskyists) engage in the no true Scotsman silliness when talking about every attempt to actually build socialism. Just because there are internal contradictions and problems doesn't make a system not socialist.

It was a disaster and you guys supported it. Take ownership you pinko cowards!

I can't speak for anyone else but I still certainly stand by the PSUV. There were many errors but the way forward for Venezuela isn't the MUD, they just want to try the same failed policies of the past. The PSUV needs to enter a period of self criticism (something they are actively doing apparently) and reorient themselves to bounce back stronger.

[layman]

The USSR wasn't market socialist, that was Yugoslavia. The USSR had a planned economy based on a workers state. I indeed find it frustrating when (mostly Trotskyists) engage in the no true Scotsman silliness when talking about every attempt to actually build socialism. Just because there are internal contradictions and problems doesn't make a system not socialist.

I picked the wrong term. I should have said 'Socialist competition' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_emulation

What you say is actually fair enough.

[Hong Wu]

So once Venezuela is gone, what communist countries will be left? I'm only aware of China, Vietnam and Bolivia? But China can hardly be called communist at this point. Vietnam has a tourism sector. So in a way it would just be Vietnam and Bolivia?

[wat0n]

Cuba, best Korea and maybe Belarus. The rest aren't really communist.

[KurtFF8]

what communist countries will be left? I'm only aware of China, Vietnam and Bolivia? But China can hardly be called communist at this point. Vietnam has a tourism sector. So in a way it would just be Vietnam and Bolivia?

You obviously have no idea what that term means.

It's amazing how much Venezuela exposes how misinformed about terms like "socialism" and "communism" a lot of otherwise relatively intelligent people are.

[Heinie]

You obviously have no idea what that term means.

It's amazing how much Venezuela exposes how misinformed about terms like "socialism" and "communism" a lot of otherwise relatively intelligent people are.

It is not their fault; their ignorance is the product of indoctrination.

[Angelamerkel]

Cuba, best Korea and maybe Belarus. The rest aren't really communist.

Cuba is ruled by an hereditary military dictatorship, led by the Castro family. It seems to be a hybrid, trying to introduce capitalism. I understand President Obama is trying to rescue this regime from floundering as its Venezuelan partner melts down.

[Zamuel]

Cuba, best Korea and maybe Belarus. The rest aren't really communist.

Cuba is ruled by an hereditary military dictatorship, led by the Castro family. It seems to be a hybrid, trying to introduce capitalism. I understand President Obama is trying to rescue this regime from floundering as its Venezuelan partner melts down.

Cuban Exiles and their friends at the CIA have invested a lot of time and $$$ in convincing the American public that Cuba is a "repressive dictatorship" AND in denying that it could be anything else. Cuba has consistently insisted that it is a cooperative "People's Democracy" and differentiated itself from the competitive "Commercial Democracy" of the United States ...

There are actually 6 or 7 different political parties in Cuba. The difference being that NONE of them (including the Communist Party) are allowed to advertise or campaign. They exist to allow the PEOPLE to express themselves and not to allow or encourage political manipulation. In an election, candidates submit their resumes, they do not present any political agenda. They are examined and selected by the existing legislators. Cuba is operated by a tiered system of representation in which the upper tiers (609 representatives) are selected from the lower tiers which descend to the level of municipal councils. There are NO PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS and (last I knew) non of them are paid. Bureaucratic committees oversee the operation of specific departments and answer to higher authorities elected or appointed by the legislature.

Fidel and Raul Castro have indeed served the country as executives for the extent of it's existence. They have been the unifying force without which Cuba would likely have succumbed to outside intervention. They have accumulated no wealth and demanded no honors. They have intentionally maintained a frugal and disciplined life style, and in doing so inspired many young Cubans to lives of service and sacrifice. Opposition to them has been almost exclusively the realm of displaced upper class Cubans driven into exile by a revolution that seized their wealth and denied their privileges.

Cuba's attempt to align with Venezuela and Bolivia economically has failed. Neither of these prospective partners being able to resist external manipulations of internal politics. They lacked the natural advantages Cuba has in being an Island.

Zam

[KurtFF8]

Cuba is ruled by an hereditary military dictatorship, led by the Castro family.

No official office in Cuba is hereditary, that's nonsense.

I understand President Obama is trying to rescue this regime from floundering as its Venezuelan partner melts down.

Ah, another comment not based in reality.

[Smertios]

I'm no leftist, but to be fair with the socialists posting in this thread, the Venezuelan regime is far from being 'socialist' in the sense they defend.

And I wonder why people are surprised. There hasn't been a single regime in history that lasted forever. And especially when there are democratic (or semi-democratic, in the case of Venezuela) elections, it's quite unlikely that any party will ever be able to stay in power forever.

No official office in Cuba is hereditary, that's nonsense.

Well, officially, the Supreme Leader of North Korea isn't hereditary either, except that, in practice, it is. The same with the President of the UAE.

Claiming that there isn't a de facto hereditary executive office in either of those countries is pretty naïve. And considering the same thing happened in Cuba, I fail to see why we should consider them differently.

[KurtFF8]

And I wonder why people are surprised. There hasn't been a single regime in history that lasted forever. And especially when there are democratic (or semi-democratic, in the case of Venezuela) elections, it's quite unlikely that any party will ever be able to stay in power forever.

I don't think that anyone following Venezuela for the past few years was very surprised by this election.

Well, officially, the Supreme Leader of North Korea isn't hereditary either, except that, in practice, it is. The same with the President of the UAE.

Claiming that there isn't a de facto hereditary executive office in either of those countries is pretty naïve. And considering the same thing happened in Cuba, I fail to see why we should consider them differently.

But the case of North Korea is quite clearly different than Cuba. As you point out, it is clear that there is an unofficial or de facto case of hereditary rule: each son seems to have landed the job as a result of being the son of the previous leader.

The same can't be said of Cuba. Raul Castro was actually one of the original revolutionaries who helped to create the system that exists today in Cuba. He has been an important figure in Cuban politics since, at the very latest, 1959. It is quite clear to anyone familiar with the Cuban revolution that the choice for him as President was not because of his family ties but because of his position.

[Smertios]

I don't think that anyone following Venezuela for the past few years was very surprised by this election.

I know a lot of people that were, for some reason. Many are even said that the opposition committed electoral fraud to win.

But the case of North Korea is quite clearly different than Cuba. As you point out, it is clear that there is an unofficial or de facto case of hereditary rule: each son seems to have landed the job as a result of being the son of the previous leader.

The same can't be said of Cuba. Raul Castro was actually one of the original revolutionaries who helped to create the system that exists today in Cuba. He has been an important figure in Cuban politics since, at the very latest, 1959. It is quite clear to anyone familiar with the Cuban revolution that the choice for him as President was not because of his family ties but because of his position.

Well, I usually agree with your argument there, but it's hard to say for sure that his family ties had nothing to do with it. Especially in a region that is so well known for its culture of nepotism. :/

I would say that Raúl Castro's position as Vice President had a lot to do with his brother being who he was.

But I suppose you are right. I think it is more a case of nepotism in this specific instance than of an actual hereditary position.

And I don't think it matters much, anyway. In the next few years, the President of Cuba will most likely be elected by the people as a whole.

For better or for worse, direct elections have been quite popular in Latin America for decades. And every Latin America dictatorship was forced to adopt them after opening their political systems.

[Angelamerkel]

The Castro dictatorship is very repressive. I read publications such as "Translating Cuba", "14 1/2", and the blog "Generation Y". It's also useful to follow Payá as she seeks a referendum to end the regime.

[Zamuel]

The Castro dictatorship is very repressive. - It's also useful to follow Payá as she seeks a referendum to end the regime.

Are you suggesting there is someone in Cuba openly attempting to dethrone the government ? How utterly repressive is THAT ?

Zam