Socialism – Page 2 – The Pull Of The Land

Oil Spill Disaster

September 7, 2020September 7, 2020 Richard Barnes

Nicolás Maduro: “Only Socialism can be in balance with nature, it is the only way to the preservation of the environment and the salvation of the human species. Let us save the World!”

There has been a massive oil spill in Venezuela. It happened in early August, 2020.

It has impacted the Morrocoy national park in western Venezuela.

Per the Caracas Chronicles: “There was a new spill in El Palito: the residue pond is full and the experts say that every time it rains, the pond overflows, bringing oil to the sea and accumulating one spill after the other. Up to 40,000 barrels of oil have been spilled into the coasts of Falcón and Carabobo states, causing an ecocide that could be irreversible with how often the spills are happening. There has been no damage control.”

The Environmentalists have said little or nothing.

No word from Leonardo yet. Or Harrison. Or Al. Etc.

One tweet from Greta.

Mass media? Crickets.

Since Venezuela is a Socialist regime, oil spills cannot be reported or made too big a deal about. Goes against the narrative.

Above photos taken August/September, 2020

PDVSA Turns a Blind Eye to Oil Spills in Venezuela

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/09/venezuelas_valdez_oil_spill_covers_a_national_park_beach_black_and_where_are_the_global_environmentalists.html

Venezuela Coast Could Take 50 Years To Recover

How Socialism Ruined Venezuela

April 4, 2020April 4, 2020 Richard Barnes

Researching for the series on ranchitos, I came across a well-written piece published in 2017 by the Mises Institute, and set it aside for future publication in this blog.

While not “all in” on Austrian economics, I certainly will refer to any publication whose narrative accurately reflects the course of the Venezuela miracle and catastrophe of the 20th and early 21st centuries.

I vividly recall sometime-heated conversations in the early 1960’s regarding the course that Rómulo Betancourt was taking, although I did not understand the substance of the matters being discussed. I smile when remembering an aged aunt’s utter hatred of Pérez Jimenez and adoration of Betancourt and his party. She was an energetic firecracker and I miss her. My godmother ( Madrina ) was equally fervent for the other major party and just as energetic.

However, looking back and considering those and subsequent years, one must become aware of the ever-increasing size and power of the state over the lives of Venezuelans, far beyond anything its dictators were ever able to accomplish.

The article below was written by Venezuelans with an expertise in economics. The writing is lively and informative and, aside from a few very small quibbles, trustworthy. The link to the article is below.

Enjoy.

How Socialism Ruined Venezuela, by Rafael Acevedo and Luis B. Cirocco

In order to understand the disaster that is unfolding in Venezuela, we need to journey through the most recent century of our history and look at how our institutions have changed over time. What we will find is that Venezuela once enjoyed relatively high levels of economic freedom, although this occurred under dictatorial regimes.

But, when Venezuela finally embraced democracy, we began to kill economic freedom. This was not all at once, of course. It was a gradual process. But it happened at the expense of the welfare of millions of people.

And, ultimately, the lesson we learned is that socialism never, ever works, no matter what Paul Krugman, or Joseph Stiglitz, or guys in Spain like Pablo Iglesias say.

It was very common during the years we suffered under Hugo Chávez to hear these pundits and economists on TV saying that this time, socialism is being done right. This time, the Venezuelans figured it out.

They were, and are wrong.

On the other hand, there was a time when this country was quite prosperous and wealthy, and for a time Venezuela was even referred to as an “economic miracle” in many books and articles.

However, during those years, out of the five presidents we had, four were dictators and generals of the army. Our civil and political rights were restricted. We didn’t have freedom of the press, for example; we didn’t have universal suffrage. But, while we lived under a dictatorship, we could at least enjoy high levels of economic freedom.

A Brief Economic History of Venezuela

The economic miracle began a century ago, when from 1914 to 1922, Venezuela entered the international oil race. In 1914, Venezuela opened its first oil well. Fortunately, the government did not make the mistake of attempting to manage the oil business, or own the wells. The oil wells were privately owned, and in many cases were owned by private international companies that operated in Venezuela. It wasn’t totally laissez-faire, of course. There were tax incentives and other so-called concessions employed to promote exploration and exploitation of oil. But most industries — including the oil industry — remained privatized.

Moreover, during this period, tax rates in the country were relatively low.

In 1957, the marginal tax rate for individuals was 12 percent. There was certainly a state presence, and the public sector absorbed 20 percent of GDP. But, government spending was used mainly to build the country’s basic infrastructure.

The area of international trade was relatively free as well — and very free compared to today. There were tariffs that were relatively high, but there were no other major barriers to trade such as quotas, anti-dumping laws, or safeguards.

Other economic controls were few as well. There were just a few state-owned companies and virtually no price controls, no rent controls, no interest-rate controls, and no exchange-rate controls.

Of course, we weren’t free from the problems of a central bank, either. In 1939, Venezuela created its own central bank. But, the bank was largely inactive and functioned primarily defending a fixed exchange rate with the US dollar.

Moving Toward More Interventionism

Despite the high levels of economic freedom that existed during those years, government legislation started to chip away at that freedom. Changes included the nationalization of the telephone company, the creation of numerous state-owned companies, and state-owned banks. That happened in 1950 [telephone company was nationalized in 1953]. The Venezuelan government thus began sowing the seeds of destruction, and you can see the continued deterioration in the level of economic freedom in the decade of the 1950s.

In 1958, Venezuela became a democracy when the dictatorship was overthrown. With that came all the usual benefits of democracy such as freedom of the press, universal suffrage, and other civil rights. Unfortunately, these reforms came along with continued destruction of our economic freedom.

The first democratically elected president was Rómulo Betancourt. He was a communist-turned-social democrat. In fact, while he was in exile, he founded the Communist Party in Costa Rica and helped found the Communist Party in Colombia as well. Not surprisingly, as president, he started destroying the economic institutions we had by implementing price controls, rent controls, and other regulations we hadn’t had before. On top of that, he and his allies created a new constitution that was hostile to private property.

In spite of this — or perhaps because of it — Betancourt is almost universally revered in Venezuela as “the father of our democracy.” This remains true even today as Venezuela collapses.

Of course, compared to today, we had far greater economic freedom under Betancourt than we do in today’s Venezuela. But, all of the presidents — with one exception — who came after Betancourt took similar positions and continued to chip away at economic freedom. The only exception was Carlos Andrés Pérez who in his second term attempted some free market reforms. But, he executed these later reforms so badly and haphazardly that markets ended up being blamed for the resulting crises. [Pérez nationalized the oil and iron industries early in his first term (1974-1979). That eventually drove my family from El Pao. Pérez redivivus (1989-1993) attempted to rein in the whirlwind he had unleashed, but to no avail.]

The Rise of Hugo Chávez

Over time, the destruction of economic freedom led to more and more impoverishment and crisis. This in turn set the stage for the rise of a political outsider with a populist message. This, of course, was Hugo Chávez. He was elected in 1998 and promised to replace our light socialism with more radical socialism. This only accelerated the problems we had been facing for decades. Nevertheless, he was able to pass through an even more anti-private-property constitution. Since Chávez’s death in 2013, the attacks on private property have continued, and Chávez’s successor, Nicolás Maduro, promises only more of the same. Except now, the government is turning toward outright authoritarian socialism, and Maduro is seeking a new constitution in which private property is almost totally abolished, and Maduro will be allowed to remain in power for life.

A Legacy of Poverty

So, what are the results of socialism in Venezuela? Well, we have experienced hyperinflation. We have people eating garbage, schools that do not teach, hospitals that do not heal, long and humiliating lines to buy flour, bread, and basic medicines. We endure the militarization of practically every aspect of life.

The cost of living has skyrocketed in recent years.

Let’s look at the cost of goods in services in terms of a salary earned by a full college professor. In the 1980s, our “full professor” needed to pay almost 15 minutes of his salary to buy one kilogram of beef. Today, in July 2017, our full professor needs to pay the equivalent of 18 hours to buy the same amount of beef. During the 1980s, our full professor needed to pay almost one year’s salary for a new sedan. Today, he must pay the equivalent of 25 years of his salary. In the 1980s, a full professor with his monthly salary could buy 17 basic baskets of essential goods. Today, he can buy just one-quarter of a basic basket.

And what about the value of our money? Well, in March 2007, the largest denomination of paper money in Venezuela was the 100 bolivar bill. With it, you could buy 28 US dollars, 288 eggs, or 56 kilograms of rice. Today, you can buy .01 dollars, 0.2 eggs, and 0.08 kilograms of rice. In July 2017, you need five 100-bolivar bills to buy just one egg.

So, socialism is the cause of the Venezuelan misery. Venezuelans are starving, eating garbage, losing weight. Children are malnourished. Anyone in Venezuela would be happy to eat out of America’s trashcans. It would be considered gourmet.

So, what’s the response of our society? Well, it’s the young people who are leading the fight for freedom in Venezuela in spite of what the current political leaders tell them to do. They don’t want to be called “the opposition.” They are the resistance, in Spanish, “la resistencia.” They are the real heroes of freedom in our country, but the world needs to know that they have often been killed by a tyrannical government, and all members of the resistance are persecuted daily.

This is not surprising. As Venezuelans, our poor understanding of the importance of freedom and free markets has created our current disaster. We Venezuelans never really understood freedom in its broader dimension because when we enjoyed high levels of economic freedom, we allowed the destruction of political and civil rights, and when we finally established a democracy, we allowed the destruction of economic freedom.

But there is reason for hope. Along with the Mises Institute we do believe that a revolution in ideas can really bring a new era to Venezuela. On behalf of the resistance and millions of people in our country, we thank the Mises Institute for this opportunity to briefly tell the full history of Venezuela.

Thank you very much.

https://mises.org/library/how-socialism-ruined-venezuela

Thankfulness, Data, and Commentary

November 15, 2019November 15, 2019 Richard Barnes

Thankfulness

From a column by Scott Johnson on his friend, the late Peter Collier:

“Peter reflected long and deeply on his days as a radical. My favorite of these reflections is his essay ‘Coming Home,’ in Second Thoughts: Former Radicals Look Back at the Sixties.

“In this essay Peter recalled the trip he took with this laconic father to South Dakota, where his father had been born, while his father was dying. During one long stretch of Nevada highway, his father announced: ‘You know, I’m glad I was born a South Dakotan and an American. I’m glad I saw the beginning of the twentieth century. I’m glad I lived through the Depression and the War. I think these things made me a stronger person. I’m glad I came to California, because I met your mother there. I’m glad we had you for a son.’

“Peter commented: ‘It was the longest speech I’d ever heard him make…It was a moment of acceptance and affirmation by someone whose life had often been disfigured by hard work and responsibility and for whom words had never come easily. What he said and how he said it was so different from the chic bitterness and facile nihilism of my radical friends that I was shaken. It was like hearing speech, real and authentic speech, for the first time in years.'”

I was drawn to Mr. Johnson’s column because I had recently thanked God for having been born in Venezuela, for my Venezuelan-citizen mother and American-citizen father, for having worked in Puerto Rico, where I met my wife, and for the children He had blessed us with. A spirit of thankfulness had stirred within me and I can only wish for that to occur more frequently.

Recently a dear aunt passed away in Venezuela. She was utterly selfless, having sacrificed to enable her grandson to emigrate to the United States, knowing she would never see him again on this earth. I am glad I knew her and that I knew her mother. And that such a people still pull me to imitate that which is good.

Data

The data speaks for itself: #Socialism destroys wealth pic.twitter.com/uiVjgUK0sL
— Prof. Steve Hanke (@steve_hanke) November 10, 2019

Commentary

As a reminder, for the most part, this blog leaves current events and commentary to other mediums, which are plentiful. However, every once in a while, we will publish or report or link to a commentary or report on the current situation in Venezuela. The link below is one of a series penned by Christian K. Caruzo, born in Venezuela, and witness to its deterioration.

https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2019/10/13/my-socialist-hell-20-years-of-decay-in-venezuela/

Venezuela then and now

Franco and Forrest: Exhumation or Reconciliation?

October 2, 2019October 2, 2019 Richard Barnes

You may have seen the news recently that, after legal battles culminating with a unanimous ruling from Spain’s Supreme Court, Spain’s Socialist government will proceed with the exhumation of the body of General Francisco Franco. Having lost their efforts to prohibit this action, General Franco’s family had requested the body be buried next to his daughter in Madrid. The Socialists have also rejected this and will bury him in a state cemetery outside the city.

According to the New York Post (link below), the Socialists want to convert this site into a memorial to victims of the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939).

That’s very thoughtful.

Except that, it is a memorial to the fallen, as witness the very name of the site: Valle de los Caídos (Valley of the Fallen). Anyone who has visited and studied up on it a bit, fully understands that. Unless, of course, the Socialists plan to define “victims” differently. An altogether predictable expectation.

If you read the article about the site, you could be forgiven if you did not know that:

It was built without state monies.
It was built with mostly free labor, but also prison labor; the prisoners were paid the same rate as the free.
Some prisoners, after completing their sentence or buying their freedom, voluntarily continued to work at the site.
Political events are prohibited but it is freely available for religious and cultural research.
There is a monastery on the site.
There is no separation between Nationalists and Republicans in the cemetery; the men are buried as brothers.
Many bodies were transferred from hastily dug mass graves which made it impossible to properly identify them.

The key to the monument is reconciliation, hence, the site is dominated by a large Christian cross: the means of reconciliation between God and man and between men themselves.

Now, I have dear childhood friends who, to this day, are very passionate about General Franco, whether pro or con.

I remember having visited the Valle de Los Caídos in 1987 and then visiting a Spanish childhood acquaintance and her family some time later. During the course of our conversation I mentioned my visit to the valley and, let us say, she was not pleased that I had gone. What struck me most was her rapid-fire declaration of “facts” about the site and about the war that simply were not true, however strongly she believed them to be. Seeing it would not have been productive to engage in an argument, I let it pass, mumbling something about agreeing that the war was a terrible event. Thankfully, the rest of the afternoon’s atmosphere had a chance to improve!

I also recall running into some pro-Franco folks who were vigorous defenders of Franco and whose passion led them to label anyone opposed to him as a Communist. Which would have come as a shock to my childhood friend.

However, it is true that, in 1944, General Franco warned the West about the dangers of Communism and offered to mediate between Axis and Allied Nations as a check against the occupation of Eastern Europe and Germany by the Soviet Union’s Red Army. He believed that if nothing were done, such a take over was inevitable because of the vacuum which would ensue given the Allied demand for unconditional surrender.

Franco was spurned and ridiculed and the news was leaked so as to add insult to injury. A mere 3 years later, in 1947, Winston Churchill delivered his famous “Iron Curtain” speech which, in effect, affirmed Franco’s warning, only in this case it was after the fact. Churchill was hailed as a great statesman. Maybe he was; but Franco foresaw this years earlier, when it might have been prevented, yet was never credited for it.

Referring to this incident, the Christian Science Monitor of November 10, 1961, provocatively reported, “Generalísimo Francisco Franco recently castigated the tendency abroad to identify authoritarian Spain with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy ‘without taking into account our own characteristics. In the same way,’ he said, ‘we could tar as Communist the countries of the West which allied themselves with the Soviets in the last conflict and contributed greatly to their power.'”

It was clear during my visit that unreconciled partisanship did not allow folks to reasonably discuss the roots of the terrible conflict, the atrocities, and its aftermath. And to mention, let alone seek to discuss, the Republicans’ anti-Christian hatred was a non-starter, unless you were prepared to do so behind some strong body armor.

(The intense hatred against Christianity in that war has been described as “the greatest clerical bloodletting Europe has ever seen,” with mass tortures and murders and graves emptied and corpses mocked and mutilated. This was also seen in the French Revolution, likewise characterized by mass clerical tortures and killings and hundreds of burned and desecrated churches and monasteries. The “left” in both conflicts was characterized by the same anti-Christian animus. Some might object by noting that the opposition was only against the Roman Catholic Church, not Christianity. After spending time seeing countless photos and reading hours of narratives, I have to disagree. We might develop this in another post.)

Socialist policies may sound good in the abstract; however, their incompatibility with man’s sinful nature has always been their Achilles heel and, hence, has led to totalitarianism, as, witness: Venezuela, for instance. Socialism requires compulsion; it is incompatible with liberty. It requires perennial enemies, be it the church in the wars of France and Spain or be it the United States in the case of Venezuela. It requires ongoing vengeance, even reaching into graveyards if necessary.

This is something George Orwell, an otherwise brilliant man, failed to recognize given his sincere anti-Stalinism coupled with his equally sincere and persistent adoration of Socialism. It was the Socialists who were hunting him down in Spain when he escaped by the skin of his teeth. Unsurprisingly, he chalked it all up to Stalinists. His experiences in Spain and in the Soviet Union gave us both Animal Farm and 1984, books worthy of reading, along with Huxley’s Brave New World. Unsurprisingly, Huxley also supported the Loyalists, although, unlike Orwell, he did so long distance.

About fifteen years ago, the BBC produced a surprisingly objective 6-part series on the Spanish Civil War. The link is below and I would encourage all with even a passing interest in that awful event to parcel out the time to watch it. The attitudes, arguments, passions, and hatreds you see reflected in the documentary are very “20th-century-like” and they are with us today.

As witness, the Memphis city council’s unanimous vote to exhume the bodies of Nathaniel Bedford Forrest and his wife, Mary Ann. They plan to remove them from a public park. They also voted to remove the statue of the General, which deed was done illegally, under cover of night. Litigation is currently ongoing but the spirit of the exhumation forces is similar to that which animates the Socialists in Spain. “It is no longer politically correct to glorify someone who was a slave trader, someone who was a racist on public property,” said City Council member Myron Lowery.

Mr. H. K. Edgerton, a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, strongly opposes the exhumation as well as the removal of the statue. He and his organization strenuously object to the misinformation promoted about General Forrest.

Mr. Edgerton is an African American. You would be forgiven if you did not know that.

You would also be forgiven if you did not know that:

General Forrest did not start the Ku Klux Klan. In 1871, Congress itself exonerated the General of having anything to do with the Klan. He called on it to disband. He challenged one of the “liars” to a duel to defend his name.

Union General W. T. Sherman admitted that General Forrest had done nothing wrong in the “massacre” at Fort Pillow. Here again, the abolitionist-dominated Congress absolved him from any wrong-doing. General Forrest demanded, in writing, that the Union General at the time clear his name.

General Forrest had one of his slaves, Napoleon Winbush, serve as Chaplain for his troops. The Union Army would never have allowed such a thing. Chaplain Winbush’s grandson is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

General Forrest enlisted 45 of his own slaves to fight with him, and freed them 18 months before the war was over because he was afraid he would be killed in battle and wanted to make sure they were free. Of the 45, 44 of them stayed with him.

But there is even more to his life.

General Forrest began attending church with his wife at the Court Avenue Presbyterian Church in Memphis. The minister was Reverend George Stainback. Late in 1875, Forrest heard Stainback preach from Matthew 7 and after the service, “Forrest suddenly leaned against the wall and his eyes filled with tears. ‘Sir, your sermon has removed the last prop from under me….I am the fool that built on sand; I am a poor and miserable sinner.'”

Shortly before his death in October, 1877, he told his lawyer, General John T. Morgan, a U. S. Senator:

“General, I am broken in health and in spirit, and have not long to live. My life has been a battle from the start. It was a fight to achieve a livelihood for those dependent upon me in my younger days, and an independence for myself when I grew up to manhood, as well as in the terrible turmoil of the Civil War. I have seen too much of violence, and I want to close my days at peace with all the world, as I am now at peace with my Maker.”

Fast forward 142 years and, instead of peace, we are faced with a powerful propensity to destroy or mutilate, a ghoulish yen that reaches for even the long-buried dead, who are grotesquely slandered.

Nevertheless, as with Forrest, the story of Franco is far richer and more complex than the cartoonish characters foisted upon us.

The fervor for exhumation, the clamor for punishing folks who have died decades, centuries, and millennia ago, and who cannot defend their name against attacks today, does not lead us to reconciliation and understanding.

It leads us to new wars.

In closing this post, it is instructive to quote Abraham Lincoln who, in 1864, presciently said, “Human nature will not change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak and as strong, as silly and as wise, as bad and as good. Let us therefore study the incidents in this as philosophy to learn wisdom from, and none of them as wrongs to be avenged.”

https://nypost.com/2019/09/24/spanish-court-says-government-can-exhume-francisco-francos-remains/
New York Post article on the exhumation of Franco

http://www.valledeloscaidos.es/monumento
Above link is for those who might be interested in reading more about the Valle de los Caídos site. In Spanish.

Valle de los Caídos (Valley of the Fallen)

Famous photograph of felled Loyalist militia, taken by Robert Capa.

The Republican forces and supporters, also known as Loyalists, desecrated many churches and monasteries and tortured and killed many thousands of clerics and nuns. They went on to desecrate graveyards and to mock the dead. Their anti-Christianity was well known and feared. The yen to desecrate is with us today.

The Spanish Civil War attracted men and women from many western countries, including England (above, on the Loyalist side) and Ireland. United States citizens also came, most famously, The Lincoln Brigade, also on the Loyalist side.

General Nathan Bedford Forrest, circa 1865.

General Forrest statue in Memphis. It was removed by the city council at night, in defiance of state law.

Brigadier General Nathan Bedford Forrest III and his wife, Frances. He was a great-grandson of the Confederate General and the first general to be killed in action in WWII. He is mentioned here simply to note that he, fully reconciled, fought for the “Union” less than a century after his great grandfather had fought for secession.

Countless United States Civil War veterans’ reunions were celebrated for many years after the terrible war. Above photos were taken in the early 20th century.

Above two photos are of Henry Albert Woolson, Union Army. Top photo was taken during the war; second was taken in the 1950’s. He, the last Civil War veteran, passed away in 1956.

H.K. Edgerton is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Many African Americans fought on the Confederate side. Mr. Edgerton strongly opposes the exhumation of General Forrest and his wife and also opposed the removal of the statue.

Nelson W. Winbush, grandson of Napoleon Winbush, who was appointed by General Forrest as chaplain for his troops. Mr. Winbush, born in 1929, is also a proud member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and a courageous opponent of the destruction of Confederate monuments and flags.

Above scene from She Wore A Yellow Ribbon reflects a time (movie was made in 1949) when we could honor both sides of a very bloody conflict. At about the 1:30 minute mark Ben Johnson and John Wayne approach “Trooper Smith”, who calls for Captain Tyree (Johnson), of the Confederate Army. Tyree remains silent, not wishing to disrespect Captain Brittles (Wayne). But Brittles commands Tyree to answer the dying Trooper. The music in the background is Dixie.

Above is the final 4 minutes of She Wore a Yellow Ribbon. At about the 58 second mark, Captain Brittles (Wayne) reads that he’s received a coveted appointment. In the minute that follows, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and Lee are all mentioned. With honor. That’s what reconciliation does. The fact that such scenes would be unthinkable in a Hollywood film today is not comforting.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4w-2j6Q0Qj4iJ7GmEoQGWMUBeE5h1GVq

Above link is to the 6-Part BBC documentary on the Spanish Civil War. It is well done and reasonably objective.

Envy

June 7, 2019June 7, 2019 Richard Barnes

“He was the greatest Argentine since San Martín. But two things can never be forgiven him. He created class hatred in a country that had never had it, and he ruined agriculture by siphoning off labor into the towns.” — Inside South America, p. 184

“Los débiles invocan la justicia: déseles la justicia: déseles la fuerza, y serán tan injustos como sus opresores.” [The weak invoke justice. Give them justice; give them force, and they will be as unjust as their oppressors.] — Andrés Bello, Estudios de Crítica Histórica

The former quote was spoken by an Argentine when asked for his opinion about Juan Perón. The quote is most perceptive and applies not only to Perón but to a majority of western 20th and 21st century politicians. Like the more successful ones, Perón was — to Peronistas — charismatic, with big teeth and a wide, easy smile. His method was to preach unity while inciting class hatred. In this regard, class includes wealth, race, religion, sex, fill-in-the-blank. The method also requires perpetuating a permanent sense of guilt for events that may have taken place long before the current generation was a twinkle in its parents’ eyes. Guilt weakens a people and also destroys their love for their country. It makes a people more easily manipulated by politicians. The unscrupulous know this. It would behoove the rest of us to know it too.

Have you noticed that this “method”, the inciting of class envy (although it is rarely, if ever, reported as envy), is intensely promoted by Socialist and Communist politicians? Those ideologies cannot survive without an incentive to “get even” or to create discord among a people. That alone ought to warn us to be wary of non-Socialist politicians who labor along the same path.

In the case of Venezuela, as alluded in prior posts, the country’s problems did not begin with Chavez. That gives him too much credit. The issues predated him by generations by men and women who prepared the way for him.

Venezuela was one of the most prosperous South American countries. Refer to the earlier post, Chile vs. Venezuela, for a 2-minute précis on this. She enjoyed great economic freedom, and this, under military dictatorships. I was born under one of those, the Pérez Jimenez regime. I remember in childhood rubbing shoulders with friends from all social and economic strata of society. I do not recall folks fomenting class warfare or envy.

Later in life I came to realize that under the dictatorship, we did not enjoy a free press nor did we have universal suffrage. However, we did enjoy high levels of freedom, including freedom of mobility, freedom of commerce, freedom in society, and, certainly, freedom in our homes. We had nowhere near the restrictions the peoples of Eastern Europe or Mao’s China, both atheistic regimes, were struggling under.

In the first half of the 20th century Venezuela became an economic powerhouse. As the petroleum, and later the iron ore, industries surged, Venezuela ensured it remained in private hands. The dictators understood that the state did not have the expertise to manage such vast, far flung operations; they left them in the hands of the international companies but did charge royalties and obtained other concessions in return. This arrangement ensured increasing prosperity for her people as well as great advances in local technology and culture. This was a period of phenomenal progress in research and discovery. To cite just one example, the diamond knife (or scalpel) was invented in the 1950’s by Venezuelan Humberto Fernández-Morán Villalobos (1924-1999). This “significantly advanced the development of electromagnetic lenses for electron microscopy based on superconductor technology and many other scientific contributions.”

As for state spending, it was mostly focused on the country’s roads, airports, schools, and universities. The Caracas skyline and the country’s expressways became the envy of South America. State-owned companies were few.

Nevertheless, the state began to encroach in the early 50’s, expropriating the telephone and other companies. This was very limited, but the seeds of intervention were sown and when Venezuela became a democracy, the whirlwind began to be reaped. Rómulo Betancourt, Venezuela’s first democratically elected president, one who is revered in Venezuela, was first a Communist who then forsook Communism and became a Socialist, although he spurned that label. Folks do not like to recall that he founded the Communist Party in Costa Rica when in exile there and had a hand in founding the Communist Party in Colombia as well.

We should not be surprised that he immediately proposed, and the legislature approved, price and rent controls, something previously unheard of in Venezuela; a solution seeking for a problem. He worked to create a new constitution which was not friendly to private property.

It’s easy to forget all of that because we had so much more economic and other freedoms back then than what is the case today. But it is necessary to remember that the process began generations ago. Hugo Chavez merely took it to the next level. Speaking philosophically, he was epistemologically consistent, unafraid to take his faith to its logical conclusion.

And his successor, Nicolás Maduro (or his regime’s philosophy) will remain in power so long as his “opponents” refuse to honestly declare their own complicity in what has happened to that stricken land. And an ugly manifestation of that power is the murdering of youth who are resisting what is happening to their homes and country.

A new regime will not arise so long as the opposition refuses to denounce its own love affair with Socialism and its accompanying appeal to envy.

During my last visit to Venezuela, in 2005, I conversed with a taxi driver who expressed satisfaction that the Chavez government had expropriated property that belonged to the Roman Catholic Church. The taxi driver was a protestant and was pleased with Chavez’ denunciation of that Church. I asked him whether Protestants did not care for the Ten Commandments. “Of course we do!” he replied.

“Well, I am also a Protestant. However, theft is wrong, regardless whether the state steals from atheists, or Protestants, or even Roman Catholics. Don’t you agree?”

He, of course, saw the point. But the fact I had to point it out to him, was ominous. Chavez, with a wide smile and ingratiating style, was superb in fomenting envy and class hatred, even among the religious.

The country of my birth needs to re-discover its Christian roots and look beyond politics to the Creator and Redeemer God, to whom all allegiance belongs. She must, once again, see that salvation is not in the State or, heaven forbid(!), in politicians, who, like little Caesars, revel in usurping what belongs to God.

Meanwhile, we are left with the unhappy fact that Venezuelans struggle every single day. “The collapse of Venezuela has been the worst recorded for any nation in nearly 50 years, outside of war.”

Andrés Bello (see blog post “Simón Bolivar III — Influences”), was prescient when he wrote the above quoted citation, circa 1830, decades before the publication of Das Kapital and eighteen years before that of The Communist Manifesto. He understood the human heart and its wickedness and he knew that the politics of envy would never satisfy but rather foment anger and discontent. No ideology will fix man’s heart, which is the source of all human misery.

My heart yearns for and is pained for the land of my birth.