I don't think we should be surprised when a succdem does succdem things. Maduro has been increasingly liberalizing the economy and making moves to allow in U.S. capital. I sympathize with his position, as expecting a hardline communist stance ala Cuba in the face of U.S. opposition is incredibly unlikely, given the lack of direct invasion history with the U.S.
However, if the PSUV continues down this line without attempting to ally itself with either Brazil or China, it will actually set itself up for a capitalist coup d'etat. You give the capitalists an inch and they will always take a mile, and Venezuela is no exception, party for socialism or not.
I will admit not knowing enough info to be sure but I'd really like to know more. I've seen some of the things Maduro has said, and it wasn't long ago that he was explicitly stating that they were building socialism, and he seemed very explicit that he meant marxist socialism not social democracy.
With that in my mind I have to wonder whether this is really socdem bullshit or whether this is his attempt at a "reform and opening up" approach to development of socialism? And the conflict that caused in China at the time was not dissimilar no? Hardliners and reformers.
Maduro says a lot of things, but he is no Chavez. He is ultimately pragmatic, and while he will do what he has to do to protect his political power, the legitimacy of his elections, and keeping the U.S. from directly interfering with government operations, sticking towards a particular ideological plan for economic development is probably not high on his list of agenda items.
We will see what actually happens. Ultimately, much like with China, it is not my country nor my party and therefore not within my capacity to truely judge the true nature of the socialist project taking place there. I hope whatever reforms they do take achieve the general prosperity they are looking for.
I'm actually perfectly ok with pragmatism, Deng was pragmatic, and while he made mistakes he also set China up for where it is today.
My point here is ultimately whether Maduro is securing socialist control of the state so that these reforms can't result in a liberal takeover. I am ok with allowing some investment in if proletarian control of the state is maintained. China has shown that as long as you maintain the DOTP you can do this, the structure and approach is what matters. The 4 cardinal principles combined with the hierarchical structure of China's electoral system protected China long enough for Xi to clear out the corruption that built up over time.
"Leaders who have advocated for this form of socialism include Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, Rafael Correa of Ecuador, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil and Michelle Bachelet of Chile.[3] Because of the local unique historical conditions, socialism of the 21st century is often contrasted with previous applications of socialism in other countries, with a major difference being the effort towards a more effective economic planning process."
the project that got closest to aiming for a socialist transition was bolivia (i'm saying "was" because afaik they've been dealing some internal dissent within MAS since the coup, which has actually been hurting linera, their most important marxist and the most vocal one about the idea of transition)
chávez by the end of his life was actually becoming a revolutionary given the changes in discourse in the early 2010s, but he never managed to do anything more than a modest social democratic plan
lula is a soclib centrist, so was rafael correa; bachelet was to the right of them, she's basically chile's warren if i'm being very generous
corbyn shouldn't really be trusted in this, he has called even lula a socialist before, which is a joke at best as he's an austerity lib who likes food stamps and public universities (which is good, even great for me personally as because of him i'm finally getting a cool undergrad scholarship, but it's still just lib shit)
so yea the label doesn't really work when it's associated with these vastly different leaders
I don't think so. Contrary to popular opinion, Venezuela has never actually pursued major land reform or actually socialized most of their industries. Even at the height of socialism in Venezuela, 70% of capital was still in private hands. E.g. one of the major problems in Venezuela was that there is food, it's just being hoarded or thrown our for profit/spite for the federal government by the three major food conglomerates.
The problem is that Venezuela has actually legitimate and well-facilitated popular elections, probably one of the only countries in the region where that is true (something which is incredibly irritating to watch libs make fun of) and a very popular socialist front, but that socialist front is not fully committed to expropriation, but rather marshalling the resources that the government does have towards poverty alleviation and internal security.
However, notice that this is not capital development and it's not a Marxist, ML, Maoist, MLM, Stalinist, or even Trotskyist plan. This plan stems from the roots of Bolivarian nationalism, and maintaining that independence and nationalism is the key component of the movement. The major key is simply to not become running dogs of the U.S. regardless of economic ideology. Poverty alleviation is key because that is the key to the votes to stay in control of thst project, but ultimately socialism is more of a means to an end for the project, and they are more than willing to experiment with different forms of capital accumulation.
My personal belief is that they are distancing themselves from communism as a brand and ideology because they have rooted out the U.S. backed dissent, so they are more comfortable in their power position, particularly within the military. That means they can start to experiment more broadly with opening up the economy without worrying about a coup coming from the U.S. backed business class, as they already wasted their juice on Guaido.
That being said, it's disappointing, to say the least, but ultimately I hope it leads to some sort of economic success and shared prosperity for the country. It has gone through several hardships in the last decade and could use a serious win.
Np, There are also corruption issues as well, but much like with Brazil, it is difficult to tell how much is just 'politics as usual' and how much is actually 'really bad political harm causing' corruption.
However, keep in mind that much of what is considered 'corruption' in Venezuela is called 'lobbying' in the U.S. so again, difficult to tell, and the fact that it is even prosecuted at all, let alone on the books as a crime should generally be seen as a good thing.
It's a big ol' complex nation, and I highly recommend reading telesur, even if they do sometimes overemphasize the socialist nature of the project imo.
there is food, it’s just being hoarded or thrown our for profit/spite for the federal government by the three major food conglomerates.
they have imported most of their food since the 50s, buying it with oil money
it's actually the better choice from an economic pov given venezuela's soil issues, but it obviously fucks up your sovereignty (which is why capitalist food production is trash and they should've done that land reform)
I don't think we should be surprised when a succdem does succdem things. Maduro has been increasingly liberalizing the economy and making moves to allow in U.S. capital. I sympathize with his position, as expecting a hardline communist stance ala Cuba in the face of U.S. opposition is incredibly unlikely, given the lack of direct invasion history with the U.S.
However, if the PSUV continues down this line without attempting to ally itself with either Brazil or China, it will actually set itself up for a capitalist coup d'etat. You give the capitalists an inch and they will always take a mile, and Venezuela is no exception, party for socialism or not.
I will admit not knowing enough info to be sure but I'd really like to know more. I've seen some of the things Maduro has said, and it wasn't long ago that he was explicitly stating that they were building socialism, and he seemed very explicit that he meant marxist socialism not social democracy.
With that in my mind I have to wonder whether this is really socdem bullshit or whether this is his attempt at a "reform and opening up" approach to development of socialism? And the conflict that caused in China at the time was not dissimilar no? Hardliners and reformers.
Maduro says a lot of things, but he is no Chavez. He is ultimately pragmatic, and while he will do what he has to do to protect his political power, the legitimacy of his elections, and keeping the U.S. from directly interfering with government operations, sticking towards a particular ideological plan for economic development is probably not high on his list of agenda items.
We will see what actually happens. Ultimately, much like with China, it is not my country nor my party and therefore not within my capacity to truely judge the true nature of the socialist project taking place there. I hope whatever reforms they do take achieve the general prosperity they are looking for.
I'm actually perfectly ok with pragmatism, Deng was pragmatic, and while he made mistakes he also set China up for where it is today.
My point here is ultimately whether Maduro is securing socialist control of the state so that these reforms can't result in a liberal takeover. I am ok with allowing some investment in if proletarian control of the state is maintained. China has shown that as long as you maintain the DOTP you can do this, the structure and approach is what matters. The 4 cardinal principles combined with the hierarchical structure of China's electoral system protected China long enough for Xi to clear out the corruption that built up over time.
Venezuela implemented Socialism of the 21st century.
"Leaders who have advocated for this form of socialism include Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, Rafael Correa of Ecuador, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil and Michelle Bachelet of Chile.[3] Because of the local unique historical conditions, socialism of the 21st century is often contrasted with previous applications of socialism in other countries, with a major difference being the effort towards a more effective economic planning process."
that label is pretty useless, all those leaders differ greatly in ideology
Tourists flock not to the beaches, but the slums to see '21st-century socialism' From a trickle a few years ago there are now thousands, travelling individually and on package tours, exploring a leftwing mecca which promises to build social justice in the form of "21st century socialism".
Jeremy Corbyn said: "Chavez ... showed us that there is a different, and a better way of doing things. It's called socialism".
Bill Ayers (Obama's mentor, former member of Weathermen organization) addresses Venezuela, praises socialist system.
it's still pretty meaningless in practical terms
the project that got closest to aiming for a socialist transition was bolivia (i'm saying "was" because afaik they've been dealing some internal dissent within MAS since the coup, which has actually been hurting linera, their most important marxist and the most vocal one about the idea of transition)
chávez by the end of his life was actually becoming a revolutionary given the changes in discourse in the early 2010s, but he never managed to do anything more than a modest social democratic plan
lula is a soclib centrist, so was rafael correa; bachelet was to the right of them, she's basically chile's warren if i'm being very generous
corbyn shouldn't really be trusted in this, he has called even lula a socialist before, which is a joke at best as he's an austerity lib who likes food stamps and public universities (which is good, even great for me personally as because of him i'm finally getting a cool undergrad scholarship, but it's still just lib shit)
so yea the label doesn't really work when it's associated with these vastly different leaders
It’s more like the NEP Lenin pushed through
I don't think so. Contrary to popular opinion, Venezuela has never actually pursued major land reform or actually socialized most of their industries. Even at the height of socialism in Venezuela, 70% of capital was still in private hands. E.g. one of the major problems in Venezuela was that there is food, it's just being hoarded or thrown our for profit/spite for the federal government by the three major food conglomerates.
The problem is that Venezuela has actually legitimate and well-facilitated popular elections, probably one of the only countries in the region where that is true (something which is incredibly irritating to watch libs make fun of) and a very popular socialist front, but that socialist front is not fully committed to expropriation, but rather marshalling the resources that the government does have towards poverty alleviation and internal security.
However, notice that this is not capital development and it's not a Marxist, ML, Maoist, MLM, Stalinist, or even Trotskyist plan. This plan stems from the roots of Bolivarian nationalism, and maintaining that independence and nationalism is the key component of the movement. The major key is simply to not become running dogs of the U.S. regardless of economic ideology. Poverty alleviation is key because that is the key to the votes to stay in control of thst project, but ultimately socialism is more of a means to an end for the project, and they are more than willing to experiment with different forms of capital accumulation.
My personal belief is that they are distancing themselves from communism as a brand and ideology because they have rooted out the U.S. backed dissent, so they are more comfortable in their power position, particularly within the military. That means they can start to experiment more broadly with opening up the economy without worrying about a coup coming from the U.S. backed business class, as they already wasted their juice on Guaido.
That being said, it's disappointing, to say the least, but ultimately I hope it leads to some sort of economic success and shared prosperity for the country. It has gone through several hardships in the last decade and could use a serious win.
Thanks for the great explanation of the situation!
Np, There are also corruption issues as well, but much like with Brazil, it is difficult to tell how much is just 'politics as usual' and how much is actually 'really bad political harm causing' corruption.
However, keep in mind that much of what is considered 'corruption' in Venezuela is called 'lobbying' in the U.S. so again, difficult to tell, and the fact that it is even prosecuted at all, let alone on the books as a crime should generally be seen as a good thing.
It's a big ol' complex nation, and I highly recommend reading telesur, even if they do sometimes overemphasize the socialist nature of the project imo.
they have imported most of their food since the 50s, buying it with oil money
it's actually the better choice from an economic pov given venezuela's soil issues, but it obviously fucks up your sovereignty (which is why capitalist food production is trash and they should've done that land reform)
NEP was still much more commie than this
It can sort of be argued that Venezuela was basically blanquist in orientation, they just had oil and therefore are eeeeeevul commies due to that.