This isn’t socialism, or even mismanagement—this is kleptocracy. (Yes yes yes there’s an argument to be made that most socialism-flavored governments concentrate so much decision-making into government hands that such cronyism is a constant danger, but that’s a debate for another time.) Suffice to say, since roughly the middle of the Chavez era in the late 2000s, the only thing socialist about the Venezuelan system has been the propaganda.
But maybe propaganda is, in fact, the true essence of socialism.
Zeihan warns,
That is what decivilizational means: a cascade of reinforcing breakdowns that do not simply damage, but destroy, the bedrock of what makes the modern world work. And that’s just one example in one sector.
What is going on in Venezuela is horrible by any measure, and in a world of Order Venezuela is the very definition of outlier. But a world of Order is not the natural state of things. Pay attention: Some shade of what the Venezuelans are going through is what many of us will need to deal with. Soon, the only thing that will truly make Venezuela stand apart is that its pain is self-inflicted.
He expresses his views effectively. I’m not saying you should accept them. But he is worth following. Check out zeihan.com, or listen to this podcast from last month. At the end of the podcast, he makes the interesting point that the number of reliable news sources has shriveled in recent years. Instead of on-the-spot reporting grounded in local knowledge, we get a deluge of opinion from talking heads and twits.
I was on-board up until the “Pay attention:” ending. Maybe the author makes his case elsewhere but I fail to see the connection between the tragedy of this “outlier” case and the idea that these same destructive forces are likely to go mainstream globally.
But maybe propaganda is, in fact, the true essence of socialism.
I suspect that propaganda is the true essence of all politics. It’s almost never in the interest of any rational agent to attempt political change; their efforts would almost always generate more utility elsewhere. Reducing politics to crude emotional spectacle seems to be the only way to drive the engagement that makes political action possible.
There is little capital S “Socialism!” today, but there are a lot of mixed market economies that lean towards the socialism side of things.
Venezuela is mixed market socialism done by lower IQ people. It tends to look more like a kleptocracy because lower IQ economies tend toward kleptocracies regardless of their ideological content. The increase in the power of the state simply gives a lot of power to a certain kind of kleptocrat.
In normal times there are some limits to the kleptocracy. Everything south of the border has its mediocrities and ups and downs, but it doesn’t often go full Venezuela. Venezuela happens when you combine a few things:
1) A huge reliance on debt. Partly fueled by the rise in oil prices, but just generally Venezuela got away with issuing too much debt.
2) A cultural mandate based on resentment. Chavez’s message was clear. Those rich light skinned people stole the wealth of Venezuela. Now I, a dark skinned person, will return the wealth to my fellow poor dark skins.
#1 creates a crises so that “doing something radical” seem like a necessary solution
#2 creates the narrative to justify and focus that “something radical”
Then you get Venezuela.
An important lesson here is that agreeing to certain things (debt doesn’t matter, politics of resentment can be assented to and co-opted) has a long run price when a crisis comes along.
I’m pretty sure he’s right. Civilization has always waxed and waned, usually because of wars. The difference is that prior to the 20th century most people were subsistence farmers. Kings could rise and fall without affecting their ability to survive, as long as they were lucky enough not to have an army marching past. In the modern world we’re much more efficient, but that comes with increasing specialization that can be crippling if circumstances change quickly. Question: if China placed the U.S. under trade embargo, which isn’t even an act of war, what effects would that have on your lifestyle and your community?
Some will say that China would never do that out of its own self-interest. People said similar things to tell themselves that WWI couldn’t happen, but it did. People are often not rational economic actors, and groups of people who adopt the label “Communist Party” are usually below average in that regard.
It is Spanish Law, there are no balance of powers.
Central America suffers it, Venezuela, Columbia and so on. California has a bad case.The legal premise is a monarch, and it rarely works in modern times.
Socialism is just feudalism resurgent. It starts out with Party affiliation, migrates to familial connections. Perhaps a benevolent leader will gain power on occasion, but more likely the kleptocrat will rule.
We don’t talk of Crony Socialism because the cronyism is baked in the fundamental nature of socialism.
“First, what is the best the socialists, in their writings, can offer us? What do the most optimistic of them say? That our subsistence will be guaranteed, while we work; that some of us, the best of us, may earn a surplus above what is actually necessary for our subsistence; and that surplus, like a good child, we may “keep to spend.” We may not use it to better our condition, we may not, if a fisherman, buy another boat with it, if a farmer, another field ; we may not invest it, or use it productively ; but we can spend it like the good child, on candy — on something we consume, or waste it, or throw it away.
“Could not the African slave do as much? In fact, is not this whole position exactly that of the … slave? He, too, was guaranteed his sustenance; he, too, was allowed to keep and spend the extra money he made by working overtime; but he was not allowed to better his condition, to engage in trade, to invest it, to change his lot in life. Precisely what makes a slave is that he is allowed no use of productive capital to make wealth on his own account. The only difference is that under socialism, I may not be compelled to labor (I don’t even know as to that — socialists differ on the point), actually compelled, by the lash, or any other force than hunger. And the only other difference is that the … slave was under the orders of one man, while the subject of socialism will be under the orders of a committee of ward heelers. You will say, the slave could not choose his master, but we shall elect the ward politician. So we do now. Will that help much? Suppose the man with a grievance didn’t vote for him?”
–Socialism; a speech delivered in Faneuil hall, February 7th, 1903, by Frederic J. Stimson
In Eastern European countries, it was illegal to not have a job. So even non-imprisoned but political exiles, like the Czechoslovak Dubcek (Prague Spring, 68), became an ex-leader of the CSSR communists.. And then was working as laborer in the forests.
Actually, everybody having a job is a good idea – not good enough to accept criminal punishment for those who want to choose no-job, yet it remains true that almost everybody who works earns self-respect.
I support a voluntary National Service “Job Guarantee”, which I claim is much better than any UBI given to the non-workers.
R says it’s not socialism, but kleptocracy. All socialisms in practice are a form of kleptocracy, as much as is crony capitalism. So he’s wrong. Venezuela IS Socialism. In practice
His conclusion is interesting:
Unless you live in a country lucky enough to produce enough oil for its own needs and have the ability to process it into agricultural inputs and have the climate and land necessary to grow your own food, all it takes is one small tweak to the physical security of trade routes in the general vicinity of places like the Former Soviet Union or the Persian Gulf to shift you from living in a world of plenty to a world of want.
What would you do—what wouldn’t you do—to get a full belly? To feed your children?
That is what decivilizational means: a cascade of reinforcing breakdowns that do not simply damage, but destroy, the bedrock of what makes the modern world work. And that’s just one example in one sector.
I like his word “decivilizational”, and agree that it’s appropriate. A phrase he doesn’t use is “technological fragility”, but it’s clearly part of what he’s talking about. (A current huge fear is EMP, long underestimated as a potential problem.) As we do more Specialization and Trade (Arnold must love that part), we get more efficient, create more surplus, but often increase the fragility.
I’m thinking of test pilots with new, state-of-the art jets, testing the edges of what is feasible. Economically, entrepreneurs are often doing this, with many failing/ ending within 5 years, but many succeeding.
The financial crisis of 2008 after the housing bubble pop of 2006 is also an example of highly tuned specialization and fragility that got broken.
Socialism is a bad enough idea that it can break any system. Even the highest-IQ believers, Jewish Zionists, were unable to make socialism work. Many of them are rational enough to admit their econ mistake and move away from socialism, so today Israel’s more capitalistic, and far more economically successful. Most socialists remain “true believers”, and are unwilling to accept any reality facts to change their minds.