General election 2017: Alliance for Green Socialism policies BBC News A party that wants to stop global warming, invest in renewable energy and sustainable infrastructure, abandon "endless economic growth", and replace the monarchy with an elected presidency is putting up three candidates on 8 June. Alliance for Green ... |
See the original post here:
General election 2017: Alliance for Green Socialism policies - BBC News
As Venezuela continues to implode, with riots and looting and increasing reports of starvation, lets take a moment to note that it was once the richest nation in Latin America, with vast oil reserves and an educated, productive workforce.
Venezuela is a country in crisis. Protesters that are opposed to the socialist government are being killed, and Venezuelan citizens are starving to death, reports Forbes magazine. A humanitarian disaster is unfolding that has been in the making for years. The current crisis can be traced to the historical management of the country's oil industry.
Its all about how the oil wealth has been managed.
Venezuelas highest-ever oil production occurred in 1998 at 3.5 million barrels per day (BPD), the magazine explains. That also happened to be the year that Hugo Chvez was elected president of Venezuela. During the Venezuelan general strike of 20022003, Chvez fired 19,000 employees of the state oil company Petrleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA) and replaced them with employees loyal to his government.
That gutted his most experienced and effective workers. This exacerbated a problem Venezuela already faced - its oil was a particularly heavy variety, which required special refining techniques.
Because this oil is particularly challenging to produce, Venezuela invited international oil companies into the country to participate in the development of these reserves, Forbes says. Companies like ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Total and ConocoPhillips invested billions of dollars in technology and infrastructure to turn the extra-heavy oil into crude oil exports.
Perhaps they should have read up a little on the history of socialism.
In 2007 oil prices were on the rise, and the Chvez government sought more revenue as the investments made by the international oil companies began to pay off, Forbes recounts. Venezuela demanded changes to the agreements made by the international oil companies that would give PDVSA majority control of the projects. Total, Chevron, Statoil and BP agreed and retained minority interests in their Venezuelan projects. ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips refused, and as a result, their assets were expropriated.
And lets not discount the cost of the social programs Chvez promised to his citizens.
When oil prices were high, Chvez saw billions of dollars that could be siphoned to fund the country's social programs, and thats exactly what he did, Forbes adds. But he failed to reinvest adequately in this capital-intensive industry.
The result has been that while oil production has soared everywhere else (particularly in the U.S., due to the fracking revolution), it has declined in Venezuela.
Since 2007 oil production there has been on a steep decline, despite oil prices that were regularly above $100 per barrel, Forbes says. In 2015 Venezuelas oil production had fallen to 2.6 million barrels per day, a decrease of more than 20 percent below 2006 levels. By comparison, the U.S. has oil reserves of less than 20 percent of Venezuelas, yet U.S. oil production rose by 86 percent from 2006 to 2015.
Its clear why Venezuela is starving. Socialism fails - everywhere it is tried, every time.
See original here:
Editorial: Socialism drained Venezeula of its vast oil wealth - Tyler Morning Telegraph
posted at 5:01 pm on May 14, 2017 by John Sexton
One factor that has helped the socialist dictatorship of Nicolas Maduro survive in Venezuela is the strong support of much of the media. Cesar Batiz, editor-in-chief of El Pitazo, monitored the countrys TV news channels over the past month and found their coverage had certain things in common. He tells Al Jazeera, The channels gave more airtime to government spokespeople criticizing the demonstrations than to voices from the opposition. But at rallies supporting the government, the government and the attendees were interviewed but the opposition was not.
This government-friendly approach isnt the result of government minders controlling what goes on air, much of it is self-censorship by journalists who are very aware their careers (and freedom) could be at stake if they go too far in their criticism of the regime.
Globovision was an openly anti-government channel until 2013, when it was sold to Juan Domingo Cordero, an insurance tycoon close to the government. Then it announced a change to its editorial line moving to what it called the centre.
People such as Vladimir Villegas, leftist voices, were hired by Globovision. But even they have grown critical of a government they had long defended. Villegas and the channel must watch their words. The Minister of Information who happens to be Villegas brother has delayed the renewal of Globovisions licence. If they push it too far, the channel could be off the air.
Globovision is trying to get a diversity of opinions. Before, the channel was a political party with a camera. But now if you compare us against the old Globovision you will find a big difference. Our dilemma, however, is this: do we keep this space or do we adopt a heroic posture and get shut down, and this window gets closed? saysGlobovision host Vladimir Villegas.
It really is that simple. You can speak up and risk a) losing your job and b) winding up in a military prison or you can moderate your criticism just a bit. Of course wed all like to think wed do the heroic thing. But most people arent heroes and if one possible result of speaking up is that youwatch your family starve because you cant get a job in your field, thats a lot to ask of anyone.
Meanwhile, I noticed that over at Jacobin, an online magazine offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture, they have a lead article today titled Why is Venezuela spiraling out of control? Theres an obvious answer to that question: socialism failed again. But needless to say, Jacobin isnt interested in that explanation. Instead, the author grudgingly admits the country might have a problem with authoritarianism:
Yet while previous claims of Venezuelas authoritarianism had little merit, this is no longer the case. A series of government actions since early 2016 has made it increasingly difficult to contest the idea that Venezuela is moving in an authoritarian direction. First, throughout 2016 the Supreme Court, which is clearly and even openly subordinate to the executive branch, blocked the opposition-controlled National Assembly, which won the legislative majority in December 2015, from passing any major legislation. In some cases, the legislature was attempting to act beyond its authority, for example, in seeking to grant amnesty to prisoners like Leopoldo Lpez. Yet the Supreme Courts systematic blockage of the National Assembly effectively rendered the oppositions newly captured legislative majority and thus the December 2015 election results null. Second, after months of foot-dragging, the government cancelled a constitutionally allowed recall referendum process in October 2016.
Third, the government indefinitely postponed municipal and regional elections that should have occurred in 2016, according to the constitution (although Maduro recently moved to set a date for the elections). Fourth, as noted, the Supreme Court issued a ruling dissolving the National Assembly in March, before partially reversing itself days later, after Maduro asked the Supreme Court to review its decision. Maduro was spurred to action when his own attorney general, Luisa Ortega, took the unprecedented step of publicly condemning the Supreme Court decision as a rupture in the constitutional order. Fifth, in April 2017 Henrique Capriles, a leading opposition figure and two-time former presidential candidate (in 2012 and 2013), was banned from participating in politics for fifteen years, on highly dubious grounds.
The author apparently didnt see any of this coming. He cites the ruling preventing Henrique Capriles from running for office as a sign of authoritarianism, but what about putting the other leading opposition figure, Leopoldo Lpez, in a military prison on trumped up charges? That happened three years ago and should have been a hint the ruling socialists were heading down an authoritarian road.
Jacobins summary of the situation doesnt mention why people are in the streets: theyre starving to death. Venezuelans have resorted to digging through trash and eating stray pets to stay alive. The socialist government is in charge of food distribution and has even taken over bakeries recently, but the system is a complete disaster. Theres nothing funny about the situation in Venezuela, but there is something funny about the socialists who cheered for the country and are just beginning to realize it might be an authoritarian hellhole.
Go here to see the original:
Venezuela's socialist dictatorship gets a hand from friendly media An error occurred. - Hot Air
Nathan Steelwater
Nathan Steelwater writes extensively on the industrial military complex and world events when he isnt preparing for the next triathlon.
In a smoke-filled college dorm room somewhere in this country, several students lament the failures of capitalism and the United States while offering simple, broad brushed, idealistic solutions to the worlds nuanced issues. Between tokes they discuss income inequality, the 1%, and how things would be better if we were just, you know, socialist, man.
One thing that these Marijuana Marxists will not discuss, however, (other than the hilarity of Che Guevaras image being used to make greedy capitalists that sweet, sweet, irony money) is Venezuela. Why? Because Venezuela serves as the perfect example of why socialism does not work.
Socialist policies have made the petrostate into an apocalyptic shadow of its former self. There are regular rolling blackouts, leading to medical emergencies in hospitals. Not to mention that Venezuela is one of the worlds most dangerous countries, with Caracas ranking as the number one city in the world for murder. Inflation hit an all-time high of 800% (thats not a typo) in 2016, and there are critical shortages of food and basic medical supplies nationwide. There are widespread protests and clashes between government and opposition forces, and the nations president continuously assumes more and more power all while blaming the countrys woes on everyone and everything but its governments policies.
If that is not utopia, I dont know what is.
So how did we get here?
Once oil was discovered in the early 20th Century, Venezuela quickly became an economic success. While a series of military dictators were repressive, they helped to consolidate Venezuelas resources and turn the country from a poverty-stricken Banana Republic (not the store) to a modern, industrial, state with a relatively free economy and strong property rights. In 1950, Venezuela had the fourth highest GDP per capita in the world.
The height of Venezuelas economic success was under the politically repressive rule of Marcos Prez Jimnez. Capitalism functioned with minimal state involvement, and market-based pricing worked regularly in most sectors, although strategic industries like steel did have state participation and the government was prone to crony capitalism and grandiose public works projects.
No matter how economically prosperous a dictators rule may be, it is still a dictatorship. In 1958 a coup overthrew Jimnez, and in the general election of 1959, Rmulo Betancourt became the president of Venezuela. Betancourt was an ex-communist who slowly began to move Venezuelas promising democracy towards socialism. Betancourt and his party, Accin Democrtica, sought to nationalize the oil industry and, through central planning of oil profits, provide a variety of social programs like free education.
Betancourts government devalued Venezuelas currency, undermined property rights, and incorporated the active role of the state in economics.
While Betancourt was unable to nationalize the oil industry, he laid the foundation for such a move. In 1975, Carlos Andrs Prez took advantage of the oil crisis of the 70s and nationalized the industry. Venezuela received unprecedented oil revenues during this period.
Venezuela became a petrostate, an oil-rich country with weak institutions and power/wealth held by the few. The government held all the economic cards and placated the people with social welfare programs that skyrocketed deficit spending.
When the bottom fell out of oil prices in the 1980s, Venezuelas economy took a major hit. The government devalued its currency to pay their debts, and the quality of life in the country plummeted. Poverty and crime rates skyrocketed. The people took notice, and after two coup attempts, President Carlos Andrs Prez was impeached in in 1993.
Enter the Bolivarian Revolution, a leftist social movement led by Hugo Chavez, which sought to interpret the ideas of Venezuelan hero, Simon Bolivar, in a more socialist light. With further state control of the economy, Venezuela suffered from Dutch Disease an economic condition where one sector progresses while others decay. Petrodollars were spent on social welfare programs to pacify opponents to Chavezs rule instead of further investment into other areas or into the oil industry itself. Corruption, once again, played a major factor in the Venezuelan government. Inflation and poverty rose well into the 2010s.
Chavez died in 2013 and his successor, President Nicols Maduro quickly devalued the currency to try and combat increasing shortages to include food and other essential resources, leading to widespread malnutrition. In 2014, the Venezuelan economy began to tailspin and in 2016 inflation peaked at 800%.
Liberty Nation has covered the various protests to Maduros government, which have been ongoing since 2014. The country is on the verge of coup or collapse, but getting there did not happen overnight. There is an adage about boiling a frog. If you put a frog in boiling water, it will jump out. If you put a frog in lukewarm water and slowly increase the temperature, it will boil to death. Whats the moral of the story here?
Venezuela serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of socialism and shows us that we must look long-term in our thinking. Venezuelas socialist policies did not throw the country into collapse immediately; it took a long time for the blunders of socialist theory to do their damage.
We should be watchful for those who would take us down similar paths, lest we find ourselves in our own boiling water.
Read the original post:
Venezuela: Poster Child for Socialism Hell - Liberty Nation (registration) (blog)
In 1944, when he wrote his book, Hayek noted that the crimes of the German National Socialists and Soviet Communists were, in great part, the result of growing state control over the economy. As he explained, growing state interference in the economy leads to massive inefficiencies and long queues outside empty shops. A state of perpetual economic crisis then leads to calls for more planning.
But economic planning is inimical to freedom. As there can be no agreement on a single plan in a free society, the centralisation of economic decision-making has to be accompanied by centralisation of political power in the hands of a small elite. When, in the end, the failure of central planning becomes undeniable, totalitarian regimes tend to silence the dissenterssometimes through mass murder.
Political dissent under socialism is difficult, because the state is the only employer. To quote Trotsky again, In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat. A free economy, in other words, is a necessary, though not a sufficient condition, for political freedom.
Obviously, not everyone feels that dictatorship and mass murder are too high a price to pay for equality. Eric Hobsbawm, the British Marxist historian, for example, was once asked whether, if Communism had achieved its aims, but at the cost of, say, 15 to 20 million people as opposed to the 100 million it actually killed in Russia and China would he have supported it? His answer was a single word: Yes. Even today, many people, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau among them, fawn over Cuban dictatorship, because of its delivery of supposedly free health and education to the masses.
I wrote supposedly, because under socialism, bribes (cash payments, for example, or favours) are ubiquitous. Medical practitioners, who dont feel that they are being paid enough by the state, demand bribes in order to look after their patients. Teachers, who feel the same, promote the children of doctors in order to get better access to health care. This process goes all the way down the food chain.
Often, bribery and theft go hand in hand. In socialist countries, the state owns all production facilities, such as factories, shops and farms. In order to have something to trade with one another, people first have to steal from the state. A butcher, for example, steals meat in order to exchange it for vegetables that the greengrocer stole and so on.
Under socialism, favours can be obtained in other ways as well. In East Germany, for example, people often spied on their neighbours and, even, spouses. The full-time employees of the secret police and their unofficial collaborators amounted to some two per cent of the entire population. Once occasional informers are accounted for, one in six East Germans were at one point or another involved in spying on their fellow citizens.
Socialism, in other words, is not only underpinned by force, but it is also morally corrupting. Lying, stealing and spying are widely used and trust between people disappears. Far from fostering brotherhood between people, socialism makes everyone suspicious and resentful.
I have long held that the greatest harm that socialism caused was not economic. It was spiritual. Many of the countries that abandoned socialism rebuilt their economies and became prosperous. The same cannot be said about their institutions, such as the rule of law, and the behaviour of their citizens, such as the prevalence of corruption. Prosperity is a consequence of removal of barriers to exchange between free people. But how does one make a society less corrupt and more law-abiding?
The true legacy of socialism, in other words, is not equality, but immorality.
Visit link:
Socialism's True Legacy Is Immorality - Swarajya