First, I want to thank you for taking advantage of the @adsactly tribune to play such a sensitive theme for Venezuelans, and so vital, literally.
I've read your text, well supported, and of course, the closing question that, it seems to me, doesn't summarize the complexity of your arguments, because, as you understand it well in your arguments, we're not facing a binary problem (although if this nightmare ended with a level of progress like the Japanese, I wouldn't complain).
The pretended socialism of the chavista state is rather an organized, historical assault of a criminal gang that seized power structures using democratic means (and that became more sophisticated over time, with the help of the deceitful manipulation of its mechanisms in a state already weakened by corruption and an extended moral crisis). Socialism in this state of things is a parapet, a jargon, an instrument that allowed it to play at the political level inwards (to cohere its movement) and outwards (to mask its criminal activity with a political veneer when the centre of the whole thing was another). The chavismo turned government adopted the political masks of a totalitarianism without the ideological and ethical background (those horrors exist, yes). In Chavismo there is no ideological background sustained by any ethics or any socialist or revolutionary morals, and that is why it was so easy to hand over the country to the Cubans, the Russians, the Chinese and the Iranians, and to as many other lesser pimps with stomachs as appeared.
Explaining myself better could be longer and I don't want to abuse, so I conclude. I can't give a simple answer to your question, because I don't think it's one thing or another but many things in a perversely intertwined complexity.
Shall we go out? That is the question which torments me.
A big hug and a big thank you for bringing this discussion here.
Really, thank you, @dedicatedguy
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Excelente tu comentario, estimada @adncabrera. Independiente de la discusión de fondo, es decir, las diferencias entre Capitalismo y Socialismo, en el caso de Venezuela al referirnos al chavismo solo podemos hablar de un pragmatismo sin escrúpulos que asumió la bandera del socialismo simplemente porque le convenía a sus fines de control social.
Es la misma diferencia entre el éxito y el fracaso, entre la riqueza y la pobreza, y entre construir y destruir.
La historia siempre se repite con las revoluciones socialistas, siempre es lo mismo.
Thank you for your comment.
I have a doubt, don't you agree that this government is a good example of socialism? If not, could you name a good example of socialism being applied according to your opinion?
I believe that the Venezuelan government, what we understand as chavismo in government (or chavismo-madurismo) is not an example of socialism or communism, or even classical totalitarianism. We have an atypical government, exercised by a criminal gang that used the mechanisms of the state and democracy to appropriate the structures that allow the exercise of power and thus be able to exercise criminal activity in an armored way, as well as serving as a base for criminal activities of some allies.
The structures of power (legislative, executive and judicial) have been dismantled and placed at the service of corruption, drug trafficking and terrorism. The ideology and certain practices that could be associated with the exercise of a socialist (Cuban-style, by the way) government, such as the formation of Communal Councils, the CLAPS or the ANC itself, are nothing but the shell that allows for a simulacrum of statehood, just as rigged elections allow for a simulacrum of democracy. They proceed like a criminal gang: they have their prans and their soldiers. That's why I don't think the Venezuelan is an example of socialism.
Now, there are many socialisms and they have been practiced in different parts of the world with different signs. I don't think that something like socialism is a good thing, but what we know as democratic socialism, which is a tendency more in the centre than on the left, seems to me to be very convenient for societies. A socialism like that of the nodic countries (Sweden, Finland, Denmark or Norway) is not bad at all, if we turn away the climate, of course!
Thank you for the opportunity of this little debate, @dedicatedguy.
Could you mention an example of socialism or communism?
I agree with what you say about the government being rotten in corruption, that is what happens when socialism is applied.
Except those countries aren't socialists. I explained that in the previous article
https://steemit.com/world/@adsactly/adsactly-world-is-venezuela-a-socialist-country-what-about-scandivanian-countries