Venezuela Is A Mess Because Of Socialism, Not ‘Brutal Capitalism’

Riots and protests have erupted in Venezuela over disputed presidential election results. But The New York Times blames “brutal capitalism” as the root cause of the socialist regime’s economic woes and political chaos.

Venezuela dictator Nicolás Maduro declared that he won last Sunday’s presidential election and would begin his third six-year term. Maduro’s claim was immediately challenged by opposition candidate Edmundo Gonzalez and his supporters. On Monday, the opposition disclosed it has evidence to show that opposition candidate González received 6.3 million votes and Maduro got only 2.8 million. According to The Wall Street Journal, “The U.S., European Union, and Latin American nations have pressured the Venezuelan government to address widespread accusations of fraud after polls showed Maduro would suffer a defeat of more than 25 percentage points.”

The Venezuelan people reacted to Maduro’s victory declaration with protests and riots. The Daily Mail reported, “Thousands of enraged protesters flooded the streets of the capital and several other cities, chanting ‘Freedom, freedom!’ and ‘This government is going to fall!’ as they set fire to tires and rubbish and organized barricades to block police vehicles. … Around the country, at least two statues of Hugo Chavez, the late socialist icon who led the country for more than a decade and handpicked Maduro as his successor, were knocked down by protesters.”

The New York Times, commenting on the disputed election, blames Venezuela’s social unrest and economic problems on capitalism: “If the election decision holds and Mr. Maduro remains in power, he will carry Chavismo, the country’s socialist-inspired movement, into its third decade in Venezuela. Founded by former president Hugo Chavez, Mr. Maduro’s mentor, the movement promised to lift millions out of poverty. For a time, it did. But in recent years, the socialist model has given way to brutal capitalism, with a small state-connected minority controlling much of the nation’s wealth.”

The Venezuelan people ought to teach leftist journalists at The New York Times some lessons in history and Economics 101. Thanks to free market capitalism, Venezuela was the wealthiest country in Latin America, and Venezuelans enjoyed a great deal of economic and political freedom until the late 1950s. Since then, the country had the “bad luck” of electing a string of terrible and corrupt leaders who were determined to make the country a socialist paradise. One of the most notorious ones was Hugo Chavez.

Chavez’s socialist movement, Chavismo, led to a drastic increase in state control of Venezuela’s economy. This was achieved by nationalizing thousands of private companies, a move that had a significant negative effect on the economy. To appease the population, he used income from nationalized oil companies to offer people free education and health care.

Besides handing out free stuff, Chavez also used price controls to keep many things cheap for ordinary Venezuelans. Life was good for Venezuelans — for a while. But Chavez seemed not to have understood Econ 101: When you keep a product’s price artificially low or even give it away, consumer demand will go up, waste will increase, and producers, talent, investors, and their capital will go elsewhere for a better return. Eventually, there will be no product left to consume.

Socialism Leads to Shortages

After Chavez passed away in 2013, his handpicked successor, Maduro, became Venezuela’s president. Maduro doubled down on Chavez’s socialist policies but didn’t have Chavez’s luck. The price of oil plunged to a record low and dealt a deadly blow to Venezuela’s economy. Unable to pay for subsidies and welfare programs, Maduro kept printing more money, which led to hyperinflation and the collapse of the country’s currency.

Under Maduro’s rule, Venezuela has suffered a widespread shortage of almost everything: food, medicine, detergent, and toilet paper. It has to import many essential items, including oil (despite having the world’s largest oil reserve). The people of Venezuela face the daily struggle of water rationing and electricity blackouts. Despite free health care, infant mortality and maternal mortality rates spiked.

At least 75 percent of the population lost weight in 2016, averaging 19 pounds. Rather than abandoning his socialist policies, Maduro, who doesn’t appear to have lost any weight despite the prolonged food shortage in his country, told his starving people to eat rabbits. The only families Chavez and Maduro have lifted out of poverty have been their own. Their children were caught flaunting their enormous wealth in the West despite their socialist father’s rhetoric of “being rich is bad.” The concentration of wealth and the socialist hypocrisy are only too familiar to anyone who has ever lived in a socialist regime.

Suppressing Opposition

Besides economic oppression, Maduro has also deployed violence to suppress opposition. Right after Maduro declared victory in his reelection bid in 2018, Venezuela’s opposition-controlled National Assembly refused to recognize Maduro’s legitimacy. They alleged Maduro’s agents used food ration cards to “buy” votes from state workers “with the implicit threat that both job and card are at risk if they vote against the government,” The Financial Times reported. And “the country’s highest-profile opposition leaders are barred from running, in exile, or under arrest.” The international community, including the U.S., Canada, the European Union, and the Lima Group, an alliance of 14 Latin American countries and Canada, all refused to recognize Maduro as the legitimate leader of Venezuela due to election fraud.

Yet Maduro stayed in power, and the country’s economic crisis worsened. After the country’s inflation rate reached 2.6 million percent in January 2019, Maduro’s regime was forced to scale back money printing and stop enforcing the price controls to give the economy some breathing room and avoid a total collapse. Still, nearly 8 million desperate Venezuelans have left their country during Maduro’s 11-year rule, making it the largest migration crisis in Latin America’s history.

Given the backdrop of economic distress and political suppression, it’s no wonder that many Venezuelans are incensed by Maduro’s claim of victory. The prospect of enduring another six years under the shadow of his socialist revolution is a grim one that few are willing to accept. 

The New York Times has a long history of being a useful idiot for socialism and communism. Millions of Venezuelans who have had enough of socialism — which has been marked by famine, widespread shortage of everything, and the lack of individual freedom — will gladly live in America’s “brutal capitalism” for change. Will any journalists from The New York Times who clearly resent “brutal capitalism” trade places with some of these Venezuelans?