[pavlov]

Anyone who has a medical condition in Venezuela probably dislikes this "reordering of economic forces" too. There are nearly no pharmaceuticals. Operating rooms can't function. One in three patients in hospitals end up dead according to the government's own statistics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Venezuela#2010s

This isn't what socialism is supposed to look like.

As for the rich: the old rich certainly are poorer, and the old middle class seems to be sinking below poverty line by international metrics... But don't forget that there is a new class of rich people in Venezuela, as the leading party's inner circle has accumulated wealth. Even North Korea has its rich people despite its extreme Stalinist interpretation of socialism.

[coliveira]

Most people in Venezuela never had access to pharmaceuticals. And, while any difficulties in health care are deplorable, lack of medical resources is the norm on third world countries. So it is difficult to assess how much of this was due to the regime policies or to the bad shape of the economy. The problem in doing this assessment is that all coverage of Venezuela is ideologically tainted. Any perceived problem in Venezuela is taken as the direct result of socialist policies, when in fact the country was poor longer before Chavez came to power. But for example, few newspapers will talk about the fact that the GDP of Venezuela has almost tripled since socialists came to power.

[pavlov]

Venezuela's closest ideological match Cuba does a much better job of providing healthcare for its citizens, and Cuba doesn't have any oil wealth. Wouldn't that indicate that the problem is with Venezuela's regime specifically?

The GDP has tripled, yet the average citizen's health and purchasing power are worse in the same time period. Where is the money? What kind of socialism are they building when even poor stagnating Cuba manages to look like a positive example?