Not learning from history
Posted by aogTuesday, 08 January 2008 at 14:55 TrackBack Ping URL

Brothers Judd wonders about why Venezuela surrendered to Chavism. One thing I found interesting as a mark of the success of Venezuela before Chavez was that there was little emigration but a lot of immigration. I wonder how much of Chavez’s success was due to that, in a variant of “Californication” where people flee from the results of bad political systems / decisions only to implement them again when they arrive at a better place.

Clearly this wouldn’t be the only cause, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see it turn out to be a significant contributing one.

P.S. Rhyming history: Chavez’s temporary go slow on Socialism vs. Lenin’s NEP.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
Tom C Tuesday, 08 January 2008 at 19:10

Sounds awfully third wayish. The original third way: fascism. What’s the differnce between social statism and fascism? None.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 08 January 2008 at 20:18

Actually, I am working on a post on precisely that subject. I think there is a difference, although it’s more of a philosophical one than an operational one.

Ali Choudhury Wednesday, 09 January 2008 at 04:54

Venezuela went to pot for the same reason all Latin American countries do. They inherited the Spanish feudal system of governance with a thin, white elite lording it over a vast underclass. Thus they alternate between reactionaries and socialist dictators.

Tom C Wednesday, 09 January 2008 at 12:11

I think the only real difference is in the manner in which the systems are peddled to the demos. Remember, the advocates are ‘intellectuals’ or others who directly benefit through currying favor with the custodians of the state apparatus and it’s taxing and regulatory power. The only beneficiaries of either form are administrators, bureaucrats and others less directly dependent on the state. The differences in philosophical niceties are only packaging.

Post a comment