When Venezuela wasn't a shit hole

Sep 2018
6,621
1,090
cleveland ohio
#1
Once upon a time
Democratic Action (Spanish: Acción Democrática, AD) is a Venezuelan social democratic political party established in 1941.
The party and its antecedents played an important role in the early years of Venezuelan democracy and led the government during Venezuela's first democratic period (1945–1948). After an intervening decade of dictatorship (1948–1958) saw AD excluded from power, four presidents came from Acción Democrática from the 1960s to the 1990s during the two-party system with Copei. By the end of the 1990s, the party's credibility was almost nonexistent, mostly because of the corruption and poverty that Venezuelans experienced during the last two full-term administrations of the party's time in power, namely those of Jaime Lusinchi (1984–1989) and Carlos Andrés Pérez (1989–1993). The latter president was impeached for corruption in 1993 and spent several years in prison as a result.

Democracy isnt perfect but show me a better system and i will back it
Democratic Action (Venezuela) - Wikipedia
 
Nov 2012
40,148
11,612
Lebanon, TN
#2
Once upon a time
Democratic Action (Spanish: Acción Democrática, AD) is a Venezuelan social democratic political party established in 1941.
The party and its antecedents played an important role in the early years of Venezuelan democracy and led the government during Venezuela's first democratic period (1945–1948). After an intervening decade of dictatorship (1948–1958) saw AD excluded from power, four presidents came from Acción Democrática from the 1960s to the 1990s during the two-party system with Copei. By the end of the 1990s, the party's credibility was almost nonexistent, mostly because of the corruption and poverty that Venezuelans experienced during the last two full-term administrations of the party's time in power, namely those of Jaime Lusinchi (1984–1989) and Carlos Andrés Pérez (1989–1993). The latter president was impeached for corruption in 1993 and spent several years in prison as a result.

Democracy isnt perfect but show me a better system and i will back it
Democratic Action (Venezuela) - Wikipedia
When it wasn't a socialist nation, Socialism took a nation of great wealth and made it a 3rd world bankrupt nation.
 
Sep 2018
6,621
1,090
cleveland ohio
#3
When it wasn't a socialist nation, Socialism took a nation of great wealth and made it a 3rd world bankrupt nation.
actually when i t was prosiperous it had a social democratic government similar to norway, the difference between socialism and democratic socialism/socia democracy is huge
 
Jul 2014
13,843
8,381
massachusetts
#4
When it wasn't a socialist nation, Socialism took a nation of great wealth and made it a 3rd world bankrupt nation.
It wasn't a nation of great wealth that voted overwhelmingly for Chavez.
It was a nation where wealth was concentrated in the hands of the few who had corrupted the government, to further concentrate wealth.
Socialism filled the vacuum left by the failure of capitalism.
 
Sep 2018
6,621
1,090
cleveland ohio
#5
It wasn't a nation of great wealth that voted overwhelmingly for Chavez.
It was a nation where wealth was concentrated in the hands of the few who had corrupted the government, to further concentrate wealth.
Socialism filled the vacuum left by the failure of capitalism.
actually for years decades in fact it had a social democratic government and did well for years, the problem was, instead of investing the oil money in long term security for the economy as Norway did. it squandered profits from the nationalized oil industry on free shit and graft.. there is a right way to do something and a wrong way, what is so socialist about taking from a rich class and turning the bulk over to corrupt bureaucrats, its supposed to be about helping the poor and creating an economy where everyone can thrive and succeed you dont do that bey squandering your profits and putting most of it in your pocket , there is a right way and a wrong way to do a thing, and actually it wasn;t capitalism that went bad venzuela boomed under free market policy, but when its oil industry was nationalized the people that ran it had no clue, in norway when they took over the oil industry 95% of the profits went straght to a sovereign welath fund dedicated to housing health care and clean energy socially responsisible investment and it is possible for those to be very very profitable.. little of it ended up in graft and very little was spent on "free stuff" when the oil does run out in norway, the norwegians will have collectively as a people a huge stock protfolio.. see the right way is finding a way for capitalism to work for you not against you.. thats works
 
Jul 2014
13,843
8,381
massachusetts
#6
They skewed to game, just like Reagan skewed it to favor moving wealth from the middle class to the ultra wealthy.
They had a small middle class, too small to overcome the huge number of poor, who could be organized to elect a populist , Chavez.
 
Sep 2018
6,621
1,090
cleveland ohio
#7
They skewed to game, just like Reagan skewed it to favor moving wealth from the middle class to the ultra wealthy.
They had a small middle class, too small to overcome the huge number of poor, who could be organized to elect a populist , Chavez.
thy were headed in the right direction they had redistributive policies in place, and the middle class grew and poverty was radically reduced radically the gnp per capita of Venezuela in 1960s and 70s was double the rest of south america they had the exact seem standard of living as Norway did which was pre oil for them and the were a middle income nation for western Europe .. their expectatins were to great, you dont go too far too fast if you do? you end up like venezuela or china during the cultural revolution, change should be slow and nethodical, what should take centuries people wanted over night, it doesnt work that way
 
Sep 2018
6,621
1,090
cleveland ohio
#8
They skewed to game, just like Reagan skewed it to favor moving wealth from the middle class to the ultra wealthy.
They had a small middle class, too small to overcome the huge number of poor, who could be organized to elect a populist , Chavez.
Krugman has FDR right his policies were pragmatic incremental and they worked like a charm.. the democrats basically dominated our economy for 50 years 1930 to 1980 mst of those being boom years once the economy was righted, the usa now resembles a thrid world nation and i dont think thats an accident they were sure they could convince us thats just the way it is and always should be, i'd rather see it all go up in a mushroom cloud or burn
we will get there but its better to create a viable model that learn by trial and error because we already did that like 100 times we know what works now and what fails but it would be better to let it all burn that accept slavery
 
Dec 2016
4,801
2,469
Canada
#9
Once upon a time
Democratic Action (Spanish: Acción Democrática, AD) is a Venezuelan social democratic political party established in 1941.
The party and its antecedents played an important role in the early years of Venezuelan democracy and led the government during Venezuela's first democratic period (1945–1948). After an intervening decade of dictatorship (1948–1958) saw AD excluded from power, four presidents came from Acción Democrática from the 1960s to the 1990s during the two-party system with Copei. By the end of the 1990s, the party's credibility was almost nonexistent, mostly because of the corruption and poverty that Venezuelans experienced during the last two full-term administrations of the party's time in power, namely those of Jaime Lusinchi (1984–1989) and Carlos Andrés Pérez (1989–1993). The latter president was impeached for corruption in 1993 and spent several years in prison as a result.

Democracy isnt perfect but show me a better system and i will back it
Democratic Action (Venezuela) - Wikipedia
What complete and total bullshit from start to finish! Hugo Chavez may not have been a great administrator or political theorist, BUT what he did, and why American leaders of both parties and the global corporate and banking establishment hated Chavez was because he was taking the billions of dollars that came in every year in oil profits and redistributing it to the poor and largely indigenous tribes of Venezuela...who represent more than half of the population of Venezuela/but never had a voice in previous governments...same as the indigenous of Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador until the "Pink Tide" revolutions occurred!

The problem is....and this is where a lot of clueless boobs in America and the rest of the west have been bamboozled by corporate propaganda, was that Chavez never was a Marxist or a real socialist in the first place, and likely didn't even understand that his 'Bolivarian Revolution' was just the typical social democrat capitalist strategy that existed all across western europe...until recent times as they are also being ravaged and looted by neoliberals!

Maduro took over after Chavez mysteriously died from an incredibly fast-acting form of cancer that took out a few other left of center leaders in South America like Ernesto Kirschner of Argentina. Maduro has tried to maintain the status quo under a landscape of collapsing oil prices with an economy that has remained privately owned and run by hostile forces, and so has become endangered by international capital markets.

The facts remain that if Venezuela was a real socialist nation like Nicaragua or Cuba, it would have been much, much better insulated from US attempts at regime change! Instead, Venezuela is in the same positiion that Chile was in the early 70's after electing....yes, electing a Communist government, Henry Kissinger and Nixon's other henchmen declared they were going to make the Chilean economy scream! Because Chile was also a resource export-dependent nation just like Venezuela today.

So, we'll see what happens, BUT it is as unlikely today that most Venezuelans...despite the deprivations they've suffered over the last 10 years will accept a man (Guiado) who 82% of the Country never heard of when it was announced that he was their new leader a week ago! Fact is guido was just an unknown puppet for Leopoldo Lopez the Party ruler...who would have been executed if he had did what he had done in the US: took part in the 2002 military coup against Hugo Chavez and imprisoned the Interior Minister and other government officials while the coup leaders attempted to consolidate control. Later in 2014, he was implicated in the rioting and murders committed by many of his supporters in their attempt to overthrow the government. And he's been playing the burning martyr ever since because he wasn't allowed to run for president. He should have been executed!

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/01/29/the-making-of-juan-guaido-us-regime-change-laboratory-created-venezuelas-coup-leader/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/27/the-making-of-leopoldo-lopez-democratic-venezuela-opposition/

https://truthout.org/video/the-making-of-leopoldo-lopez-an-investigation-into-venezuela-s-most-prominent-opposition-figure/

https://www.greanvillepost.com/2019/02/01/venezuela-coup-attempt-proves-that-capitalism-is-a-cancer-that-survives-through-violence-and-propaganda/
 
Sep 2018
6,621
1,090
cleveland ohio
#10
It wasn't a nation of great wealth that voted overwhelmingly for Chavez.
It was a nation where wealth was concentrated in the hands of the few who had corrupted the government, to further concentrate wealth.
Socialism filled the vacuum left by the failure of capitalism.
that was after the oil industry was nationalized and the profits mismanaged i tired to explain that the profits should have gone to as sovereign investment fund