Even (some) Socialists Are Disowning Venezuela

Even (some) Socialists Are Disowning Venezuela

Posted on December 20, 2017 by

I wrote a lengthy column yesterday on the horrific situation in Venezuela.

As I thought about the suffering, especially among the poor, I wondered whether Bernie Sanders and Joe Stiglitz are still willing to defend that country’s barbaric government.

And I also contemplated whether there are any comments from Jeremy Corbyn, Sean Penn, Jesse Jackson, Michael Moore, and Noam Chomsky, who also carried water in the past for that despicable regime.

Would these people still defend Venezuelan statism? And if they did, what could they possibly say?

It’s not my job to give advice to Sanders, Stiglitz, et al, but they may want to borrow the strategy of the Socialist Party in the United Kingdom. Those folks are actually arguing that the real problem with Venezuela is that it’s not socialist enough.

I’m not joking.

Let’s look at some recent tweets.

To be fair, since there is still some degree of private ownership in the nation, the statism practiced in Venezuela is probably closer to fascism than pure socialism, so there was a tiny bit of merit to that tweet. The U.K.’s socialists double down on this argument by claiming that true socialism only exists when there is collective ownership of the means of production.

That’s also a reasonable point. But on that basis, then it’s silly for anyone (like Bernie Sanders) to claim that places such as Denmark and Sweden are socialist.

Let’s take a look at one final tweet from Socialist Party on the other side of the Atlantic. What makes this one special is that they actually claim that North Korea is an example of capitalism.


dgets.js” async=”” charset=”utf-8″>

This is utterly bizarre. Are they smoking crack? In North Korea, the government does own and control the means of production (factories, mines, railways, etc).

If you read the fine print on the last row, you’ll see that they define socialism to exist only in a make-believe world where there’s basically no state. Anarcho-socialism, or something like that.

If that’s how they want to redefine socialism, then I have no problem with it. If a bunch of people want to set up some sort of commune based on voluntary sharing of everything, that’s fine with me so long as they don’t try to force me to either pay for it or be part of it.

I’ll simply close by noting that the Pilgrims used that model when they first landed in America and many of them starved to death.


Dan Mitchell is co-founder of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity and Chairman of the Board. He is an expert in international tax competition and supply-side tax policy.

Find Us On Facebook

Follow Us On Twitter