![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
I have some concerns about the article. Check the history section now and the history section a few months ago: [1]]. The current version is much longer. Much of the content seems ok (I have not read it entirely), but most is done by an anonymous user and sometimes it has raised copyrights concerns (see deleted editions of 27 November 2019). Can somebody check it out? Also we have a recently created article called Economic history of Venezuela, maybe some of the content here should be moved there.-- MaoGo ( talk) 14:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
https://books.google.com/books?id=Gb0XAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1&hl=es&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:586:4280:480:F191:2D7A:2E5D:3DE9 ( talk) 07:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
The article begins: "The economy of Venezuela is a market-based mixed economy based largely on the petroleum and manufacturing sectors."
Although the assertion cites a State Department backgrounder which is rather vague about the country's economics, even it refers to more evidence that it is a socialist economy than a "mixed market" one. I will address this first. The first evidence for this is given in the section U.S.-VENEZUELA RELATIONS, which includes the following:
″Venezuela’s recent presidents, the late Hugo Chavez (1999-2013) and Nicolas Maduro (2013-present), have defined themselves in part through their opposition to the United States, regularly criticizing the U.S. government, its policies, and its relations with Latin America. President Maduro has also continued his predecessor’s policies, notably what the Venezuelan government refers to as "21st Century Socialism," which is characterized by an outsized role for the executive, extensive state intervention in the economy, and efforts to expand Venezuelan economic and political influence among nations in Latin America and the Caribbean.″
These are traditional Soviet-style policies based upon Marxist-Leninist theory interpreted through the Cold War division between "capitalist" and "communist" countries (opposition to the US, powerful executive, extensive intervention in the economy, expansion of its system to other countries); and, as indicated, the government calls its own system (21st Century) Socialism. The State Department article goes on later to spell out some of the socialist interventions into the economy, which again are consistent with a socialist, not a "mixed market" economy. The "state intervention in the economy" includes:
″expropriations, macroeconomic distortions, physical insecurity, corruption, and a volatile regulatory framework make Venezuela a challenging climate for U.S. and multinational companies. A complex foreign exchange regime and restricted access to dollars have prevented firms from repatriating their earnings out of Venezuela and importing industrial inputs and finished goods into Venezuela. Extremely limited access to dollars, price controls, and rigid labor regulations have compelled many U.S. and multinational firms to reduce or shut down their Venezuelan operations.″
These may not amount to completely planned economy, but they do add up to something much closer to Soviet-style socialism than to a mixed market economy. Although "corruption, and a volatile regulatory framework" may be interpreted in different ways, depending upon the system's constitution, who holds the power over the regulations (Party, State, or private interests such as lobbyists or businesses), who interprets their actions as corrupt (and why) rather than exercise of power over those regulations (again, the constitution and laws in question are relevant to this issue).
But this State Department article does not focus on the economic system of governance, but rather the bilateral relationship between Venezuela and the United States - it is not a good source for answring this question.
Although there is a strong case to be made that, one way or another, Venezuela might fall to the Resource Curse, the change in the economic system certainly contributed to the Crisis in Venezuela and came from one wing of the left "represented by Chavez and his party PSUV, self-defined as Marxist-Leninist, openly associated with Fidel Castro." [1]
All around the world, this move to socialism was celebrated by left-leaning and Marxist thought leaders. Many of these same thought leaders deflect from the idea that it is a socialist country today, but at its inception, they celebrated the new experiment with this economic system. For example, ″On Venezuela, what you’re likelier to read is that the crisis is the product of corruption, cronyism, populism, authoritarianism, resource-dependency, U.S. sanctions and trickery, even the residues of capitalism itself. ... Curiously, that’s not how the Venezuelan regime’s admirers used to speak of “21st century socialism,” as it was dubbed by Hugo Chávez. The late Venezuelan president, said Britain’s Jeremy Corbyn, “showed us there is a different and a better way of doing things. It’s called socialism, it’s called social justice, and it’s something that Venezuela has made a big step toward.” Noam Chomsky was similarly enthusiastic when he praised Chávez in 2009. “What’s so exciting about at last visiting Venezuela,” the linguist said, is that “I can see how a better world is being created and can speak to the person who’s inspired it.”″ [2]
It can be argued that the Crisis was caused by socialist policies: everything from shortages to the rampant corruption emerged as a result of the policies of the new system introduced by Chávez.
″Many in the media have blamed Venezuela’s worsening humanitarian crisis on corruption, mismanagement, falling oil prices, or U.S sanctions—anything but the rise of socialism in what was once the wealthiest country in South America. Yet corruption and mismanagement were the direct result of increased government control of the economy—socialism—and in reality, lower oil prices and U.S. sanctions have little to do with the crisis. Instead, the mass starvation and exodus faced by Venezuelans are the natural consequence of the socialist policies implemented by dictators Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro.″ [3]
There are indeed similarities and past precedents to look to for support for this position. As throughout the Cold War, this has been a disputed topic, with others blaming currency mismanagement, the price of oil, sanctions, and other factors - although even in that story, price controls and subsidies (which were extreme and apparently rooted in Marxist-Leninist ideology) play a key role:
″Many businesses and individuals were also willing to pay a premium to circumvent controls, either to avoid bureaucratic trade barriers or to safeguard the value of their capital, and a currency black market sprang up to cater for this demand. Where black-market dollars became part of the cost structure of basic goods, the profit margin between the cost of production and state-controlled prices narrowed or disappeared entirely, causing further damage to local production. Beyond undermining local businesses, these policies also created opportunities and incentives for corruption, which grew in attractiveness in step with economic distortions, creating a vicious cycle.″ [4]
Although the cause of the crisis may be in some dispute, the idea that Venezuela has a "mixed market" economy should not be disputed but recognized as outright false. It should be labeled as socialism of some sort, particularly as the government itself celebrates it as "21st Century Socialism" and the significant policy sea-change was based around the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. Economi3 ( talk) 14:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
References
blending [...] free markets with state interventionismbut may certainly be in the sense of
blending elements of market economies with elements of planned economiesand
private enterprise with public enterprise, for as far as I'm aware neither the market nor private ownership have been abolished; so Venezuela can be considered socialist only in the Austrian sense; in the Austrian sense, the Western world is somewhat socialist too, but they call it mixed economies because they're actually growing and wealthy, so that can't be associated with socialism (which must be associated with failure, genocide and famines), even if they all have many policies that Austrians would consider socialist and which have considered outright socialist when it was about socialist regimes that failed. God forbid calling Venezuela capitalist, capitalist mixed economy or state capitalist, even if it maintains most of capitalist characteristic (private ownership, markets, wage labour, etc.) and simply has a populist or hyper-populist government which claims to be socialist.-- Davide King ( talk) 09:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
completely accurate either? Venezuela is neither a free-market capitalist economy nor a centrally planned socialist economy (which is usually what is mean when saying socialist, basically the Soviet Union et all), so it is indeed a mixed economy in this sense (again, you did not disprove that there is still private property, wage labour, markets, etc.). To add what The Four Deuces wrote, even for so-called Communist states there is a debate and the state-capitalist view. Another relevant comment from The Four Deuces:
“ | The same applies to the Soviet Union. While their system is frequently referred to as socialism, only Marxist-Leninists consider it to be so in reality. The issue is whether or not the economy was in the control of the Soviet working class and whether the Communist Party of the Soviet Union represented them in a democratic way. And the same applies to Bismark's state socialism or to reference any other capitalist society as socialist. | ” |
i suggested that the government of Venezuela should pay attention on the business man in the country so that the citizens will be okay and they won't be any problems from the citizens 102.90.47.126 ( talk) 14:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I see the GDP and GDP PPP listed as 96,000 BILLION (96 Trillion) and 216,000 BILLION (216 Trillion). Should that not be "million" or 96.000 / 216.000? 71.178.27.6 ( talk) 15:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
I have some concerns about the article. Check the history section now and the history section a few months ago: [1]]. The current version is much longer. Much of the content seems ok (I have not read it entirely), but most is done by an anonymous user and sometimes it has raised copyrights concerns (see deleted editions of 27 November 2019). Can somebody check it out? Also we have a recently created article called Economic history of Venezuela, maybe some of the content here should be moved there.-- MaoGo ( talk) 14:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
https://books.google.com/books?id=Gb0XAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1&hl=es&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:586:4280:480:F191:2D7A:2E5D:3DE9 ( talk) 07:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
The article begins: "The economy of Venezuela is a market-based mixed economy based largely on the petroleum and manufacturing sectors."
Although the assertion cites a State Department backgrounder which is rather vague about the country's economics, even it refers to more evidence that it is a socialist economy than a "mixed market" one. I will address this first. The first evidence for this is given in the section U.S.-VENEZUELA RELATIONS, which includes the following:
″Venezuela’s recent presidents, the late Hugo Chavez (1999-2013) and Nicolas Maduro (2013-present), have defined themselves in part through their opposition to the United States, regularly criticizing the U.S. government, its policies, and its relations with Latin America. President Maduro has also continued his predecessor’s policies, notably what the Venezuelan government refers to as "21st Century Socialism," which is characterized by an outsized role for the executive, extensive state intervention in the economy, and efforts to expand Venezuelan economic and political influence among nations in Latin America and the Caribbean.″
These are traditional Soviet-style policies based upon Marxist-Leninist theory interpreted through the Cold War division between "capitalist" and "communist" countries (opposition to the US, powerful executive, extensive intervention in the economy, expansion of its system to other countries); and, as indicated, the government calls its own system (21st Century) Socialism. The State Department article goes on later to spell out some of the socialist interventions into the economy, which again are consistent with a socialist, not a "mixed market" economy. The "state intervention in the economy" includes:
″expropriations, macroeconomic distortions, physical insecurity, corruption, and a volatile regulatory framework make Venezuela a challenging climate for U.S. and multinational companies. A complex foreign exchange regime and restricted access to dollars have prevented firms from repatriating their earnings out of Venezuela and importing industrial inputs and finished goods into Venezuela. Extremely limited access to dollars, price controls, and rigid labor regulations have compelled many U.S. and multinational firms to reduce or shut down their Venezuelan operations.″
These may not amount to completely planned economy, but they do add up to something much closer to Soviet-style socialism than to a mixed market economy. Although "corruption, and a volatile regulatory framework" may be interpreted in different ways, depending upon the system's constitution, who holds the power over the regulations (Party, State, or private interests such as lobbyists or businesses), who interprets their actions as corrupt (and why) rather than exercise of power over those regulations (again, the constitution and laws in question are relevant to this issue).
But this State Department article does not focus on the economic system of governance, but rather the bilateral relationship between Venezuela and the United States - it is not a good source for answring this question.
Although there is a strong case to be made that, one way or another, Venezuela might fall to the Resource Curse, the change in the economic system certainly contributed to the Crisis in Venezuela and came from one wing of the left "represented by Chavez and his party PSUV, self-defined as Marxist-Leninist, openly associated with Fidel Castro." [1]
All around the world, this move to socialism was celebrated by left-leaning and Marxist thought leaders. Many of these same thought leaders deflect from the idea that it is a socialist country today, but at its inception, they celebrated the new experiment with this economic system. For example, ″On Venezuela, what you’re likelier to read is that the crisis is the product of corruption, cronyism, populism, authoritarianism, resource-dependency, U.S. sanctions and trickery, even the residues of capitalism itself. ... Curiously, that’s not how the Venezuelan regime’s admirers used to speak of “21st century socialism,” as it was dubbed by Hugo Chávez. The late Venezuelan president, said Britain’s Jeremy Corbyn, “showed us there is a different and a better way of doing things. It’s called socialism, it’s called social justice, and it’s something that Venezuela has made a big step toward.” Noam Chomsky was similarly enthusiastic when he praised Chávez in 2009. “What’s so exciting about at last visiting Venezuela,” the linguist said, is that “I can see how a better world is being created and can speak to the person who’s inspired it.”″ [2]
It can be argued that the Crisis was caused by socialist policies: everything from shortages to the rampant corruption emerged as a result of the policies of the new system introduced by Chávez.
″Many in the media have blamed Venezuela’s worsening humanitarian crisis on corruption, mismanagement, falling oil prices, or U.S sanctions—anything but the rise of socialism in what was once the wealthiest country in South America. Yet corruption and mismanagement were the direct result of increased government control of the economy—socialism—and in reality, lower oil prices and U.S. sanctions have little to do with the crisis. Instead, the mass starvation and exodus faced by Venezuelans are the natural consequence of the socialist policies implemented by dictators Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro.″ [3]
There are indeed similarities and past precedents to look to for support for this position. As throughout the Cold War, this has been a disputed topic, with others blaming currency mismanagement, the price of oil, sanctions, and other factors - although even in that story, price controls and subsidies (which were extreme and apparently rooted in Marxist-Leninist ideology) play a key role:
″Many businesses and individuals were also willing to pay a premium to circumvent controls, either to avoid bureaucratic trade barriers or to safeguard the value of their capital, and a currency black market sprang up to cater for this demand. Where black-market dollars became part of the cost structure of basic goods, the profit margin between the cost of production and state-controlled prices narrowed or disappeared entirely, causing further damage to local production. Beyond undermining local businesses, these policies also created opportunities and incentives for corruption, which grew in attractiveness in step with economic distortions, creating a vicious cycle.″ [4]
Although the cause of the crisis may be in some dispute, the idea that Venezuela has a "mixed market" economy should not be disputed but recognized as outright false. It should be labeled as socialism of some sort, particularly as the government itself celebrates it as "21st Century Socialism" and the significant policy sea-change was based around the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. Economi3 ( talk) 14:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
References
blending [...] free markets with state interventionismbut may certainly be in the sense of
blending elements of market economies with elements of planned economiesand
private enterprise with public enterprise, for as far as I'm aware neither the market nor private ownership have been abolished; so Venezuela can be considered socialist only in the Austrian sense; in the Austrian sense, the Western world is somewhat socialist too, but they call it mixed economies because they're actually growing and wealthy, so that can't be associated with socialism (which must be associated with failure, genocide and famines), even if they all have many policies that Austrians would consider socialist and which have considered outright socialist when it was about socialist regimes that failed. God forbid calling Venezuela capitalist, capitalist mixed economy or state capitalist, even if it maintains most of capitalist characteristic (private ownership, markets, wage labour, etc.) and simply has a populist or hyper-populist government which claims to be socialist.-- Davide King ( talk) 09:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
completely accurate either? Venezuela is neither a free-market capitalist economy nor a centrally planned socialist economy (which is usually what is mean when saying socialist, basically the Soviet Union et all), so it is indeed a mixed economy in this sense (again, you did not disprove that there is still private property, wage labour, markets, etc.). To add what The Four Deuces wrote, even for so-called Communist states there is a debate and the state-capitalist view. Another relevant comment from The Four Deuces:
“ | The same applies to the Soviet Union. While their system is frequently referred to as socialism, only Marxist-Leninists consider it to be so in reality. The issue is whether or not the economy was in the control of the Soviet working class and whether the Communist Party of the Soviet Union represented them in a democratic way. And the same applies to Bismark's state socialism or to reference any other capitalist society as socialist. | ” |
i suggested that the government of Venezuela should pay attention on the business man in the country so that the citizens will be okay and they won't be any problems from the citizens 102.90.47.126 ( talk) 14:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I see the GDP and GDP PPP listed as 96,000 BILLION (96 Trillion) and 216,000 BILLION (216 Trillion). Should that not be "million" or 96.000 / 216.000? 71.178.27.6 ( talk) 15:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)