undefined | Better HN

0 pointsRobertoG8y ago0 comments

Chomsky opinion about Venezuela is not so difficult to understand if we make a honest effort. Unfortunately a honest effort, as reflected by your link, is not very common.

Chomsky supported initially Chavez, (who, by the way, and not as your link insinuate, was democratically elected), because his government initially improved the conditions of the most humble people in the country. People that lived in misery in one of the most resources rich countries in the world, elected what was then, a new hope.

As frequently happen, the new elite was incompetent, and get corrupted fast. Consequently, Chomsky criticized them.

Here there is video of Chomsky criticizing the Venezuela government:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHgtLp21Iw

And, for completion sake, here there is a video of the government of Venezuela criticizing Chomsky's criticism of them (in Spanish only, sorry):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urS1nx3EccI

0 comments

epx8y ago

So Chomsky was incredibly short-sighted when he praised Chavez. I am just an average guy, but I always knew that this story would not end well.

galacticpony28y ago

> As frequently happen, the new elite was incompetent, and get corrupted fast. Consequently, Chomsky criticized them.

That doesn't just happen "frequently", it has happened in 100% of socialist countries after the "revolution". The "critics" then get silenced or killed, unless they happen to (ironically) be sitting in a comfortable chair in an imperialist capitalist country such as the USA, like Chomsky.

You'd think that with this track record, a smart guy like Chomsky would begin to see that there must be something fundamentally wrong with socialist political theory. Yet, he keeps retreating into the "No True Scotsman" fallacy whenever the next socialist experiment fails.

throw_awayfwerq8y ago

Well you can say the same for supposedly capitalist countries. I mean US elections are a farse of external (no, not the russians) buying our elections for their economic or geopolitical purposes.

Now riddle me this. Name me one failed socialist country that failed (as I believe all will) without massive Western intervention to ruin their economy. We're kinda pricks, aren't we?

RobertoGOP8y ago

I don't think it's fair to blame external influence always in those cases. It's not honest.

Venezuela's situation main blame should go, in my opinion, to the people in charge in Venezuela. My impression, is that they really don't know what they are doing. Never liked Chavez, but compared to the current one, the guy was a genius.

Other countries have showed that you can work discretely and apply politics that help the vast majority of the population instead of a few elites:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Correa#General_Balance_...

2 more replies

galacticpony28y ago

Define "massive Western intervention" first. Socialist policy at one point in history ruled half the world's economy. You'd think at that size, if those policies made any sense, it should be able to do fine even without the West.

1 more reply

RobertoGOP8y ago

It's not just in socialist countries that the critics get silenced or killed, or that they are incompetent or get corrupted, but, normally, there are a more "laissez faire" attitude to those countries from the press and the political class, as Chomsky have pointed repetitively.

If you care about the welfare of people is fair to ask why a minority live like kings when the vast majority live in misery in a resource rich country. And, I think, is fair to ask for changes and try to support those changes even if you know that probably you will get disappointed finally or you will get mixed results.

The true is that, unsurprisingly, and independently of how you call those policies, spending resources in the poor improve the life of the poor.

galacticpony28y ago

Socialism has failed 100% of the time. You can't get worse than that. Even if capitalist systems failed to improve the lives of the poor 95% of the time, it would still have a better track record. In reality, the most successful countries are all capitalist and free markets have lifted more people out of poverty than anything else.

The fact that some autocratic countries also employ capitalism doesn't change that. Capitalism doesn't magically cure corruption, it's merely a superior economic system. Poverty isn't a function of wealth inequality, it's function of economic development. In a socialist system, the poor may be less poor in relative terms, but they're more poor in absolute terms, because socialist economics eventually fail.

1 more reply

nl8y ago

Can you define what you mean by socialist?

It seems to me that critics of the government in non-democratic countries are the ones in danger, while the ones in democracies aren't, even in socialist democracies (eg, Scandinavia).

If you don't consider these countries socialist that's ok, but the danger government critics are in within non-socialist dictatorships is something worth considering.

galacticpony28y ago

> Can you define what you mean by socialist?

Apparently, anything that fails eventually is not socialist. Hence, "No True Scotsman".

> If you don't consider these countries socialist that's ok, but the danger government critics are in within non-socialist dictatorships is something worth considering.

I don't consider these countries socialist. They're not "socialist democracies" (no such thing exists as far as I can see). They're commonly called "social democracies", but that's because the word "social" is political capital. The word "socialist" on the other hand is rather toxic, so most of the mainstream left parties call themselves "social democratic". They may have a bit of "socialist" policy, but not much more so than e.g. the US. Their economic system is fundamentally capitalist.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

epx8y ago

So Chomsky was incredibly short-sighted when he praised Chavez. I am just an average guy, but I always knew that this story would not end well.

galacticpony28y ago

> As frequently happen, the new elite was incompetent, and get corrupted fast. Consequently, Chomsky criticized them.

throw_awayfwerq8y ago

Well you can say the same for supposedly capitalist countries. I mean US elections are a farse of external (no, not the russians) buying our elections for their economic or geopolitical purposes.

Now riddle me this. Name me one failed socialist country that failed (as I believe all will) without massive Western intervention to ruin their economy. We're kinda pricks, aren't we?

RobertoGOP8y ago

I don't think it's fair to blame external influence always in those cases. It's not honest.

Other countries have showed that you can work discretely and apply politics that help the vast majority of the population instead of a few elites:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Correa#General_Balance_...

2 more replies

galacticpony28y ago

1 more reply

RobertoGOP8y ago

The true is that, unsurprisingly, and independently of how you call those policies, spending resources in the poor improve the life of the poor.

galacticpony28y ago

1 more reply

nl8y ago

Can you define what you mean by socialist?

It seems to me that critics of the government in non-democratic countries are the ones in danger, while the ones in democracies aren't, even in socialist democracies (eg, Scandinavia).

If you don't consider these countries socialist that's ok, but the danger government critics are in within non-socialist dictatorships is something worth considering.

galacticpony28y ago

> Can you define what you mean by socialist?

Apparently, anything that fails eventually is not socialist. Hence, "No True Scotsman".

> If you don't consider these countries socialist that's ok, but the danger government critics are in within non-socialist dictatorships is something worth considering.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse