[em3rgent0rdr]

Chomsky is a great critic of social issues like imperialism, manufactured consent, and state capitalism. However he has been proved devastatingly wrong about Venezuela and as of today won't admit the problems with state socialism. I hope his new students realize this.

[balance_factor]

I'm not sure what you mean by how "he has been proved devastatingly wrong about Venezuela". When Chavez was first elected, Chomsky noted how the oil wealth of Venezuela was finally being shared beyond a small coterie of wealthy European descendants, and was now accessible to the poor and working class Venezuelans of various races. Then six years ago, Chomsky said in an open letter that the Venezuelan government was beginning to take measures that were an "assault on democracy" ( https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/03/noam-chomsky-h... ).

I don't know how Chomsky "has been proved devastatingly wrong about Venezuela". Do you think these two reactions he had to events in Venezuela were incorrect?

Insofar as human rights, Chomsky saw respect for them beginning to dip six years ago, and reacted accordingly. I should note that eight years ago, Honduras had its first left-leaning president in living memory ousted by a coup from US-trained, US-funded military officers, after which, the US stood alone being supportive of the coup against virtually all other Latin American nations. Actually Wikileaks cables show the US knew what was going on and how they supported this. Elections were scheduled for 2013 and dozens of candidates and supporters were killed. The murder rate of Honduras has exploded, as has immigration from it. You never hear it in the US news though, unless unaccompanied Honduran chidlren appear at the border, and then you never hear why, just arguments between the Trumpites and anti-Trumpites about what to do with them.

Insofar as Venezuela's economy, it has been similar to other economies heavily dependent on energy. Including the energy-dependent areas of the US economy that voted heavily for Trump. It is why Venezuelan minister Juan Pablo Perez Alfonzo helped found OPEC in 1960. Venezuela had decades of an up and down economy along with the price of oil before Chavez came along.

[epx]

Aren't you reading about the recent developments of president Maduro?

[javra]

How did Chomsky respond to these developments? Did he downplay them or encourage Maduro's authoritarian reaction to the protest?

[AlexCoventry]

Is there some crucial factor in Venezuela's woes which clearly arises from socialism? It seems likely that the US will soon become the latest demonstration that corruption can damage a country with any form of government. Chomsky identifies that as the problem in Venezuela, which I find plausible.

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/5/chomsky_leftist_latin_...

[em3rgent0rdr]

-Redistribution and price controls, which have brought production, and therefore consumption, to a halt.

-Preventing markets and prices from working and substituting with centralized economic planning.

https://fee.org/articles/you-cant-deny-that-venezuela-is-a-s...

[ue_]

Interestingly enough, redistribution isn't a Socialist policy; if the workers (proletariat) control and own the social means of production, i.e not a state which is clearly not under control of the workers (i.e not a dictatorship of the proletariat) then redistribition would not be necessary unless agreed to on a voluntary basis by the community.

Instead, we see there is still wage labour. Thrre is still money, which as Engels reminds us contains the law of value in embryo, there is still private property, both state owned and private (as we saw in the USSR and Cuba and more obviously in China).

The very fact we are discussing prices shows the proof is in the pudding - there is no Socialism, there is a government attempting to control a capitalist (fitting all of Marx's conditions for a capitalist mode of production as outlined in Capital) economy, the fact that the free market has been limited, or that the state owns private property rather than McDonald's or Microsoft is frankly irrelevant.

[em3rgent0rdr]

Sounds like you are talking about a pure idealized version of socialism. However, I referred to Venezuela as an example of state socialism. Let me quote the wiki article so we both know we are talking about the same thing:

"State socialism is a classification for any socialist political and economic perspective advocating state ownership of the means of production either as a temporary measure in the transition from capitalism to socialism, or as characteristic of socialism itself..."

and: "State socialism was traditionally advocated as a means for achieving public ownership of the means of production through nationalization of industry. This was intended to be a transitional phase in the process of building a socialist economy. The goals of nationalization were to dispossess large capitalists and consolidate industry so that profit would go toward public finance rather than private fortune. Nationalization would be the first step in a long-term process of socializing production..."

So there still may be private capital, prices, money, and other things like redistribution in a state socialist country. Even if they eventually want to transition to pure socialism.

[Frogolocalypse]

Sounds like you're not talking about socialism at all.

[ue_]

>"State socialism is a classification for any socialist political and economic perspective advocating state ownership of the means of production either as a temporary measure in the transition from capitalism to socialism, or as characteristic of socialism itself..."

I agree that this can exist and has the potential to exist, and the usage of the state temporarily to secure the power of the proletariat (their dictatorship) was something espoused by Marx and Engels. The issue is that it requires the proletariat as a whole to be in control of this state; at the moment, the state is run not by workers but by people who are acting as bourgeois on a global scale - buying and selling in a capitalist economy, trading commodities. They employ wage labour. As such, Venezuela does not operate a state Socialist system.

There is some confusion around the meaning of Socialism; in Marx's day, the word 'Socialism' and 'Communism' were synonymous, though Marx distinguished between lower and higher stages of Communism. The idea that Socialism is a form of state in the first place I am willing to concede, though this is largely a Leninist invention.

>So there still may be private capital, prices, money, and other things like redistribution in a state socialist country.

I don't know if I agree; the key component of a Socialist economy is outlined by what doesn't exist in the capitalist economy, namely in particular the absence of the law of value, which prescribes that commodities have both exchange and use value; if production is predominantly focused such that use values, but not exchange value is being produced (i.e we have products rather than the specific form of product, commodity) then it can be said that the workers own the means of production, that they are not paid wages in order to exchange products. Socialism is the breaking of Marx's chain of exchange (M-C-M').

The nationalisation of industry is conducted in the transition of power from the bourgeois state to the proletarian state (which necessarily incorporates proletarian democracy); however as soon as this transfer of power is complete, the state should start dismantling, withering away is Engels put it.

And we do not see this happening in Venezuela. The state continues to trade on a global scale (oil etc.), employing wage labour (showing that the state is not in the control of the workers) and is thus not Socialist. If you can find any major Socialist theorist who is in support of wage labour within a Socialist economy, I'd be surprised.

[geezerjay]

> Is there some crucial factor in Venezuela's woes which clearly arises from socialism?

Ah, the never-ending cycle of socialist revolution, followed by establishing socialism, and finally followed by a string of desperate attempts to pin the effects of socialism because no true socialists would ever do any wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[boomboomsubban]

Or the realization that capitalist Venezuela had a worse version of this same crisis. Why are the socialist policies to blame this time?

[geezerjay]

> Or the realization that capitalist Venezuela had a worse version of this same crisis.

Don't go lecture me about how bad "capitalist Venezuela" was. I have family members living in Venezuela, and not only did they saw their property and livelihood seized by Maduro's thugs, one family member also died due to restrictions imposed on access to basic medical care by your pet socialist utopia.

[boomboomsubban]

I'm sorry for your loss.

Maybe worse is overstepping, things under the capitalist government were often fairly rotten as well. Blaming it all on socialism needs more proof than I've seen provided

[jose_zap]

Worse in what way?

[boomboomsubban]

Poverty rate, wealth inequality, corruption, violent unrest. Admittedly, 2015 is the last year data seems available for, and pre-Chavez years get very little coverage online. Either way, you can't just point at the problems and say socialism is to blame.

[jose_zap]

Clearly, you haven't lived in Venezuela. The current crisis cannot be compared to anything in the last 60 years.

I was born in the middle of a crisis, but never lacked anything important. Nowadays I can say with certainty that my family is poorer than when I was a kid.

Chavez left a country with a deeply broken economy before he died.

[AlexCoventry]

> no true socialists would ever do any wrong.

That's irrelevant to my question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[eighthnate]

> However he has been proved devastatingly wrong about Venezuela and as of today won't admit the problems with state socialism. I hope his new students realize this.

Doesn't the problems with state socialism result from being attack by state capitalism which tend to be much stronger nations?

The US and europe attacking venezuela and blaming their failures on state socialism is like blaming democracy for ukraine's loss of crimea. When larger nations bully smaller nations, smaller nations suffer.

We can never truly ascertain the merits of socialism, capitalism or any other ism really because it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

The chinese and their state socialism has been the most successful nation the past 40 years after the US decided to play nice with them.

[tincholio]

The situation in Venezuela is not the result of US and European attacks, much as their state propaganda would have you believe. It's the result of 19 years of high corruption, and since the death of Chavez, even worse leadership (Maduro is a moron, plain and simple). They, much like the Kirchner governments in Argentina, and the Mujica government in Uruguay, squandered resources to buy good will, spending money they didn't have (and stealing what money they did have).

[defen]

> Doesn't the problems with state socialism result from being attack by state capitalism which tend to be much stronger nations?

Venezuela has nearly 300 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, so I think it makes sense to ask why they have done so much worse than other countries. It can't just be due to US meddling.

[cgmg]

"The US and europe attacking venezuela..."

Speaking as a Venezuelan, what the bloody hell are you talking about?

"...and blaming their failures on state socialism..."

Venezuela's failures are the failure of state socialism. Price controls, capital controls, expropriations, redistribution policies, central planning, disregard for property rights, and other insane economic policies tanked the country. High oil prices were the only thing hiding the structural damage these policies were creating for years.

[ant6n]

China is not a socialist country.

[eighthnate]

They are more socialist than capitalist. Besides, there is no pure socialist or capitalist society on earth.

Using that logic, the US isn't a capitalist nation and venezuela isn't a socialist nation. And the guy's assertion that venezuela is suffereing because of state socialism is pointless.

China and venezuela are both socialist countries. You can't just decide to accept one because it fits into your worldview and reject the other because it doesn't.

[etplayer]

>Besides, there is no pure socialist or capitalist society on earth.

Yes there is. All nations on earth adhere to the capitalist mode of production, entailing the following: primacy of wage labour, capital accumulation by the owners of the means of production, majority capitalist control over the means of production, the existence of private property and the fact that commodities (which have use and exchange value) are produced rather than simple good (which have only use value).

This is what Marxists mean when they talk about the difference between capitalism and Socialism.

>China and venezuela are both socialist countries.

Why? What precisely makes them socialist, and by whose definition? North Korea calls itself "democratic".

[ant6n]

> They are more socialist than capitalist.

No they're not. Production isn't controlled by the public. China doesn't even classic social-democratic policies like free health care, free higher education or a strong welfare system. It's much more a cut-throat proto-capitalist state, which happens to also also a not a democracy.

China is an autocracy, which is a form of government associated with the east block that used to call itself socialist and communist. Socialism is an economic system that China doesn't have.

[huac]

"the US isn't a capitalist nation" - ok buddy

[valuearb]

In 2017, 36% of the US GDP is government spending, including federal, state and local governments. Of the remainder, most is highly regulated giving government specific controls over how companies can speak, hire, employ, operate, manufacture, and how their ownership is determined and profits distributed.

At what level of government control over the economy do you draw the line between socialism and capitalism? It can't be 100%, that's called communism. If you draw it at 50% for socialism, a very good argument exists that we are there right now, just establish that the government controls anywhere near 20% of the decisions private businesses make.

[etplayer]

>At what level of government control over the economy do you draw the line between socialism and capitalism?

No level, where do you get this idea that Socialism and capitalism exist on a scale between government control over the economy and no control over the economy? I can't imagine what would arouse such an opinion. Marx never said "Socialism is when the government does stuff, and the more stuff it does, the more Socialist it is". That's complete rubbish.

>It can't be 100%, that's called communism.

No, it's not. Communism, like other anarhcist ideologies, has no "government control", and this is painfully obvious by reading Marx's discussion on the self-regulating sphere of activity.

And this is of course ignoring the fact that in Marx's time, Socialism and Communism had the same meaning. Their distinction is almost entirely a Leninist one.

Here's the thing: Socialism isn't about government control over a capitalist economy, and it's not about acting like a capitalist but on a global scale. That's called state capitalism.

[lucisferre]

That wasn't what he said.

[Synaesthesia]

The point is not so much that these countries are socialist, I agree they’re not, although they have some aspects of socialism. The point is they’re not integrated into the western system. That’s the big distinction or cause of schism.

[jack9]

I'm not sure how that statement can be taken seriously. Puppet leaders of industry, are extensions of the party. The ability to act independently isn't much different than the leeway given to a US executive agency head.

Socialism isn't ever absolute...as if the Nordic Model isn't "socialist" either.

[epx]

He made some stupid comments about privatization in Brazil in the 1990s. He never lived here, he did not know the absolute mess that Brazil was before the tenure of president FHC. He seems to think that state bureaucracy, inefficiency, inflation, public spending and privileges of public servants are problems so minor that can be ignored.

Chomsky is intelligent and points real problems in USA and capitalism, but he is not infinitely intelligent and should not put the weight of his name in things that he does not have any first-hand experience, because it is damaging. Already some hard-left local people cite Chomsky and call it a day, along with the young lefties that think that Brazil was a paradise until the 1980s.

[thomasfortes]

Brazil was a mess, but it simply makes zero sense to say that the young lefties thinks that our country was a paradise under a right wing military dictatorship, most of them agrees that our country was always riddled with corruption, bureaucracy and a ton of other problems.

On the aspect of privatization, some of that was necessary, but the main criticism is not about the privatization per se, but the way it was handled, giving strategic companies for almost nothing.

If you want to criticize the left, please don't resort to lies just because most of the HN aren't brazilians.

[epx]

you have a different opinion than mine, it does not make me a liar.

[thomasfortes]

When you say that young lefties thinks that Brazil was a paradise during a time when a right wing military dictatorship ruled the country, you are stating a fact that simply isn't true, not an opinion.

And to be honest, a lot of young right wingers are the ones that miss the dictatorship and say that the country was better in that time, in which case what you said couldn't be more distant from the reality.

[epx]

This is a nostalgic credo among youngsters that are too far into either side of political spectrum: that there was some sort of 'order' or 'grand plan' for the country until the 1980s. Obviously I don't subscribe to that credo.

Let's not forget that local left worships Getúlio Vargas, which was a right-wing dictator and a full-fledged fascist (a true fascist that fortunately was not a Nazi puppet, which made a lot of difference!). Also, the local military regime belonged firmly to the right, but borrowed some ideas from the left (strong presence of the state in economy, auto-sufficiency in manufacturing). Many times the impeached Dilma was compared to General Geisel; they even committed the same errors regarding the economy.

Anyway I am not sure if you want to debate or just calling people liars.

[thomasfortes]

> This is a nostalgic credo among youngsters that are too far into either side of political spectrum: that there was some sort of 'order' or 'grand plan' for the country until the 1980s. Obviously I don't subscribe to that credo.

Source needed, credible sources about lefties that loved our military dictatorship would be greatly appreciated.

I can agree with you on Getulio Vargas, but I disagree in everything else and would love to see you support your arguments with sources.

I call things what they are, and saying that the left has fond memories of the dictatorship in the same way that the right has is a false equivalence.

I won't say that we don't have a few lefties that admire Stalinism and left-wing dictatorships, but I find very hard to believe that the left is fond of our dictatorship, would gladly read some sources that corroborate your arguments.

[Crye]

I'm not sure what you're referencing, but Chomsky has typically not been aligned with state socialism. I think typically it's viewed as another structure which uses it's position to maintain power.

[em3rgent0rdr]

https://youtu.be/HHTe2Pn7ACg

He praises the Venezuela's state socialist policies, but manages to blame the problems on private capital.

[thomasahle]

That video has frustratingly little information. Except for the hosts rage and short quotes from a supposed conversation with Chomsky; the only actual study mentioned is discarded immediately on basis of its author having advised some movie on the topic that he's an expert on.

[em3rgent0rdr]

Just Google Chomsky Chavez or Venezuela. I've heard him give plenty of interviews where he talks about how great Chavez is. Sorry I had just provided the top search result.

[gt_]

I have heard these too and that is a misrepresentation of his statements. He does not say Chavez is great. He makes specific and nuanced arguments about value exemplified in some things Chavez did.

This probably didn't need saying, but what an obnoxious generalization to make.

[RobertoG]

So, you want to point to Chomsky opinions about Venezuela and this is the best link you can find?

[em3rgent0rdr]

No that was the first video on Google search, which I quickly looked over, and had the necessary quotes from Chomsky to validate my point.

[RobertoG]

Chomsky opinion about Venezuela is not so difficult to understand if we make a honest effort. Unfortunately a honest effort, as reflected by your link, is not very common.

Chomsky supported initially Chavez, (who, by the way, and not as your link insinuate, was democratically elected), because his government initially improved the conditions of the most humble people in the country. People that lived in misery in one of the most resources rich countries in the world, elected what was then, a new hope.

As frequently happen, the new elite was incompetent, and get corrupted fast. Consequently, Chomsky criticized them.

Here there is video of Chomsky criticizing the Venezuela government:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHgtLp21Iw

And, for completion sake, here there is a video of the government of Venezuela criticizing Chomsky's criticism of them (in Spanish only, sorry):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urS1nx3EccI

[epx]

So Chomsky was incredibly short-sighted when he praised Chavez. I am just an average guy, but I always knew that this story would not end well.

[galacticpony2]

> As frequently happen, the new elite was incompetent, and get corrupted fast. Consequently, Chomsky criticized them.

That doesn't just happen "frequently", it has happened in 100% of socialist countries after the "revolution". The "critics" then get silenced or killed, unless they happen to (ironically) be sitting in a comfortable chair in an imperialist capitalist country such as the USA, like Chomsky.

You'd think that with this track record, a smart guy like Chomsky would begin to see that there must be something fundamentally wrong with socialist political theory. Yet, he keeps retreating into the "No True Scotsman" fallacy whenever the next socialist experiment fails.

[otalp]

Venezuela is very far from the government he prefers. In fact it's close to the exact opposite, since he's an an anarchist and vocal critic of Lenin and Stalin. He however supports the rights of Latin American countries to elect their own government over CIA backed dictators who privatise resources and funnel out a country's wealth.

The fact that social democratic countries in Latin America have overall had better development than extreme free market societies like haiti or pre-socialist Brazil is pretty widely accepted, dutch disease inflicted Venezuela notwithstanding.

[phowat]

Which social democracy is doing well here in south america? We are currently paying the price for all the post-socialist economical measures here in Brazil.It's not pretty.

[RobertoG]

As I have some Brazilian friends that disagree with you I went to the statistic data and it doesn't look so bad.

For instance,the poverty headcount:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.NAHC?locations=BR

Specially against this one, a growing population:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=BR

[njs12345]

Ecuador didn't do too badly under Correa: http://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/ecuador-2017-02.pdf

[Bud]

Chomsky is a linguistics professor. His students won't presumably have that much reason to care about whether he was right about Venezuela or not.

[em3rgent0rdr]

Still if they are young and impressionable and like his linguistics teachings, they might be lured into believing his opinions on other subjects.

[azaras]

He is a libertarian socialist therefore he doesn't like state socialism.

[em3rgent0rdr]

Nevertheless, he praises state-socialist policies.

[RobertoG]

Or, maybe, he just praise reduction of poverty. That it's something that actually happened in Venezuela when Chomsky showed his support, by the way.

From then he has criticised them frequently.

[Frogolocalypse]

An argument about socialism requires all parties to understand the actual definition of socialism. That is further than most peoples understanding of government.

[Synaesthesia]

Actually under Chavez a lot of improvements were made thanks to state socialism. Chomsky’s position in Venezuela currently is that it has a lot of problems, and he’s criticized the authoritative directions the government has taken, but he believes the US should be trying to help, and not start fires there.

[avip]

[EDITed to leave only the point I'm confident about]

  a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy

[myopicgoat]

As much as Chomsky may have been incorrect, I think it is foolish to call him "depressingly ignorant" without justifying your statement. His international recognition both in his field and in his commentaries did not appear out of nowhere.

[avip]

I think I could justify it... but it'll take some work, and is unlikely to ignite any sort of productive discussion - so I'll just edit that out.

[psyc]

This seems to be the theory of multiple intelligences + g-factor denialism + credentialism taken to an absurd extreme. I see this idea used so often in arguments, I think it ought to be a formal fallacy. I'll call it Silo Fallacy for now. The idea that Einstein was as capable of making an argument outside his lane as the person on the street is ridiculous enough, but Chomsky identifies as a "public intellectual" - that is his lane.

[avip]

I'm not very proficient with the "theories" you've mentioned. I'm more into facts. The quote is not offensive and is not about Chomsky. Personally, I find it empirically true. YMMV

[smithsmith]

How to define a nonscientific problem. There is none. All sociology problems are related to psychology that is related to biology which is related to chemistry which is related to physics which is related to math. https://xkcd.com/435/