Venezuela. / Chavez / Moduro

I would think that during that 50 years, sufficient expertise will have been built up to ensure sufficient equipment was available, or do you think they are scratching around looking for screws and bits of metal to cobble together.

We obviously have differing views about Cuba. You appear to see it as a socialist paradise where everyone lives a wonderful life with the best healthcare. My view is based on the accounts of people who have actually visited the country and seen the difference between the privileged and the workers.

As I said previously, there are some wonderful hospitals and great education available for some, but not for all. Do you think there is not a privileged class in Cuba?

I think we will have to accept that neither one of us is going to change the mind of the other.

Oldwoman70 lets ignore the stupid analogy.
As regards 'building from scratch" do you imagine dialysis machines go on for 50years? I know people who have worked in health with people from Cuba and have visited the country as part of this. The single thing that really impressed them was the ingenuity and dedication of those involved. They build everything. Do you not realise that the US has for the past 50 years blocked imports to Cuba, even medical supplies?
If my children had grown up as well fed, educated and with the best healthcare currently available I would hope that I, and they, would wish to improve the lives of those not so fortunate. Much as I hope they do, and will, act politically to improve the lives of the less privileged in this country.

trisher so, using your analogy, you would allow your own family to bleed in order to bandage others or allow them to go hungry in order to feed the family across the road?

Cuba has been a socialist state for over 50 years, so the idea they are having to "build everything from scratch" is a little outdated.

that's why I never understand why they have have been feted by so many on the left.

Unanswerable as far as I'm concerned, POGS because I haven't 'feted' them and I no more approve of their methods than I do of the methods of our tory government. I just try to understand what underlies their governance problems.

As to whether I'm 'on the left' or not, it's a matter of where the ideology of the person who is making the judgement lies.

Oldwoman70 well I suppose it's if you care more about survival and providing basic healthcare to most people or sophisticated treatments to just a few. The hospitals in Cuba may not be fantastic but as I posted before, when you are building everything including dyalisis machines from scratch it is harder. But across the water you have Haiti where there is little health care, the Cuban mission to Haiti took local people and trained them to provide care. Unlike other countries where the helpers swoop in for a disaster and then leave.

Is it really a good thing to offer free education to those from other countries whilst people in your own country are unable to access decent hospitals and schools? Someone cynical could suggest it was more about indoctrination than education.

Maizie d

" Governing 'elites' tend to be much the same whatever system they are using for government. They have the same desires to hold on to power and to reward those who agree with their 'system'. They also have a tendency, indulged to a greater or lesser degree, to enrich themselves, their families and friends through their exercise of power.

They also use the same instruments of control. Under any system the ultimate method of control is the use of force; those who control the instrument of force controls the unit being governed. If the government has no other means of controlling a population it will use force and they only lose power if they are overcome by a greater force or the instruments of force (such as an army) no longer share their ideology and refuse to act against dissidents.

Lesser instruments of control are things like propaganda and control of media. "
----

Well Chavez and more so Moduro certainly did / are doing all of the above and that's why I never understand why they have have been feted by so many on the left.

grannyP

I am sorry but I still do not understand why you say it is a
' right wing coup'?

Juan Guaidó is a member of the ' RIGHT WILL ' party which a ' Centrist Social - Democratic Party ' ' RIGHT WILL ' joined The Socialist International which seeks to establish democratic socialism. It consists mostly of democratic socialist, social-democratic and labour political parties and other organisations.

How the hell is that a ' right wing coup '.

I am likening your view to those from the hard left in the UK who call Tony Blair and those Labour MP's ' right wing ' because it does not suit to allow a centre ground when it comes to Socialism.

I further do not understand the recently adopted mantra that Chavez and Moduro were ' Not Socialist Enough ' . Chavez and Moduro were feted by the hard left and there is a lot of hypocrisy coming from those who once lionised Chavez/Moduro and said ' The UK could Learn From Venezuela'

Are those who feted Chavez/Moduro and now join the bandwagon of saying they were ' Not Socialist Enough/ Venezuela was ' Not a true Socialist Country ' , gutless or Hypocrites because they can't have it both ways.

No Oldwoman70 but there have certainly been people arrested for attempting to peacefully picket or demonstrate because the government decided it wasn't acceptable. But I have never heard of anyone from one of the least developed countries being offered free medical training in the UK so that they can work and improve conditions in their homeland. They are in Cuba.

I have asked committed socialists this question on GN before,...No answer at all, zilch,

Probably, MOnica because 'socialist' is such an ill defined and nebulous term that none of them recognise themselves as promulgating the system which you are wanting them to 'defend'.

Of course, absolutely no system of government is perfect. There is always a number of 'the governed' who lose out and/or are dissatisfied with elements of the way they are governed. Whether you agree with them or not depends entirely on how closely you ally yourself with the ideas which inform the 'government' and how well the implementation of those ideas work for you in your own life.

Governing 'elites' tend to be much the same whatever system they are using for government. They have the same desires to hold on to power and to reward those who agree with their 'system'. They also have a tendency, indulged to a greater or lesser degree, to enrich themselves, their families and friends through their exercise of power.

They also use the same instruments of control. Under any system the ultimate method of control is the use of force; those who control the instrument of force controls the unit being governed. If the government has no other means of controlling a population it will use force and they only lose power if they are overcome by a greater force or the instruments of force (such as an army) no longer share their ideology and refuse to act against dissidents.

Lesser instruments of control are things like propaganda and control of media.

This is not just my cynical view of government, this is how it has been thought about and analysed for at least the last 100 years or so. This is what you learn about if you study politics to any reasonable level. Then you have to start looking at how various systems of government fit the model or diverge from it and analyse why that happens.

But if you look at the basic model and apply it to governments now and in the past, of whatever ideology, you will find that they pretty much conform to it.

In the long run, absolutely no system will satisfy the needs and aspirations of all its members.

A couple of years ago I might have contended that mature and confident democratic systems provide probably the best fit to what the greater part of its members want, and are able to accommodate dissent by using it to modify the 'system'.(i.e the British system ) Having watched the disintegration of the UK and its democratic system of parliamentary sovereignty since then I really think that we have to be able to acknowledge that our system might not be the greatest, either...

Bu trisher I have yet to hear of someone being arrested in UK simply for acting as a guide to foreign tourists.

Well lets look at why Cuba has such restrictive practices- which are actually approved of by the majority of its citizens. If you have a society that provides free education, healthcare and pays everyone, regardless of status, similar wages, and there is just across the water a society where the people you have given the best education to can earn huge amounts more. Of course it is difficult for some to accept and some will attempt to leave. How you prevent that is difficult.
As for the schools and hospitals you don't see, there are schools all over this country where books and supplies are being purchased by collecting from parents. And you shouldn't really compare somewhere like Cuba with a society that has education for 100+ years and still can't get it right. Compare it instead with Haiti or somewhere similar and the true extent of the acheivemnets can be realised.

grannypauline, what a well indoctrinated socialist you are!

My question was almost rhetorical, because I could have written the answer for you, I have heard it so many times.
No, none of those countries you cited are truly socialist though they might have said they were!

So my next question, which may be more difficult to answer. 'Why have all these ostensibly socialist countries fail to apply proper socialism (by your definition)'

I have asked committed socialists this question on GN before, or something very similar. The response has been exactly the same every time. No answer at all, zilch, nothing. As if I had not asked the question.

People point to Cuba as a successful socialist country, however, I have spoken to people who have visited Cuba. They saw the wonderful hospitals and well equipped schools, but they also managed to travel to the places the Cuban government don't want people to see, and they found ill equipped hospitals, schools without even books, people living in dire conditions. On one occasion the person showing them these true conditions was later arrested and they have no idea what happened to her.

grannypauline is there any country that has truly adopted socialism and made it work?

No, none of those countries you cited are truly socialist though they might have said they were!

After the revolution Russia made great gains, but it was a very backward country, impoverished by war, to start with, and this made building socialism and equality nigh impossible. Even so, under a series of diabolical regimes, Russia emerged from backwardness to world leadership. Recently, inviting Capitalist investment has not benefited the masses at all.

China has also benefited from a planned economy. Around 1952 both China and India had average GDP (in 2017 dollars) per head of $31 and $619 respectively . Around 2017, the figures are $12,000 and $1963. Nevertheless China has huge Human Rights issues and couldn't be described as a true and democratic socialist society.

Likewise Cuba has benefited enormously from its revolution with free medicine and education, electrification and an increase in life expectancy in 1955 of 63 years to 80 years now. The current figure for the USA is 79 years, UK 81 years, and Jamaica 76 years. But there are political rights issues here too.

These were relatively backward and isolated countries when their revolutions took place. Today we have nations with easily enough wealth to provide the basics (and more) if only that wealth were not so concentrated in so few hands. We have good (sometimes instant) communications which will help to defend revolutionary gains and prevent a minority dominating outcomes.

trisher I think you and I read in different places. Yes, Cuba, is partially successful, but it too like China, is having to move away from strict socialism in order to thrive economically.

Nothing about Cuba invalidates Oldwoman70s remarks.

M0nica Cuba has actually a working system of socialism which has enabled it to survive and indeed to help out some of the poorest and most damaged counries in the area. It is difficult (and sometimes impossible) to maintain a socialist society when your efforts are undermined and attacked by your near neighbours. But in about 50 years the people have transformed from an illiterate peasant culture to a well educated citizenship. Indeed they provide free medical training to people from other countries in the area. Is it ideal? Of course it isn't but then neither is a system that allows some to starve on the streets while others accumulate vast wealth.

Sadly as a socialist I agree Oldwoman

grannypauline is there any country that has truly adopted socialism and made it work?

The Soviet block certainly did not work, nor did China, North Korea, most of Indo-China, Cuba, to name but a few.

I totally agree with Oldwoman70

I thought I pointed out that Venezuela has NOT had socialism yet. So far only 30% of its GDP comes from nationalised industries - not at all the majority.

Control is the issue here, not taxation. Chavez used the oil revenues to subsidise food, education, medecine. BUT he didn't go further to nationalise the rest of the economy. Under capitalism it's not going to pan out well for the majority, whoever's in charge.

Exactly right Oldwoman70

grannypauline are you very left wing by any chance?
Venezuela has been systematically wrecked by Moduro and his socialist practices, praised by Corbyn at every turn!

I am not a "political" person but feel that whilst socialism is fine in theory it just doesn't work in practice. Every socialist government has started out with good intentions but human nature takes over and those at the top start believing they are entitled to more than anyone else.

The people working in factories and fields resent being taxed, resent not being able to keep more of their money for themselves - result unrest which those at the top put down by using force against the people they are supposed to be representing.

Granny Pauline

' A right wing coup is not going to solve Venezuela’s problems.'

Why are calling it a ' right wing coup'?

Though Venezuela was rich in oil reserves none of this wealth found its way into the general population who, at the end of the last century, overwhelmingly elected Chavez. Nothing to do with personality!! His programs of free health and education were embraced by the poor, and he challenged the multinationals by nationalising the oil industry. Chavez also opposed the Iraq war.

Chavez failed to deliver a full nationalisation program. In spite of calling Venezuela a socialist country, when he died 70% of GDP formation was still in private hands. He formed a new party, the PSUV, but it was undemocratic and corrupt with a top down bureaucracy.

A truly socialist country with the means of production under common, and democratic, control would have been a beacon for Latin America and the rest of the world.

Maduro hitched his platform to the memory of Chavez but actually undid the social reforms of the latter.

A right wing coup is not going to solve Venezuela’s problems.