Battle4Liberty

We can learn a lot about the cycle of socialism by watching Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

To be clear, Chavez is not a well-intentioned, misguided socialist. He seeks the power, world attention, and hemispheric domination we associate with tyrannical forms of government. Chavez assumed the presidency in 1998 on a platform of radical change designed to aid the poor and disenfranchised. Once elected, he began to “take back what belonged to the people” by nationalizing the oil, steel, and other industries. Revenues from oil—the lifeblood of the economy—financed many of his projects. As long as oil prices were high, things seemed to be going well.

Socialism always stifles the incentive to produce and innovate. Unlike private oil companies, Chavez failed to reinvest sufficient funds back into the business. Declining oil revenues began to take a toll on the country. Facing mounting criticism and economic hardship, Chavez attacked the press, closing down many of his television opponents in 2006. Today, TV stations are required to air his frequent speeches or risk prosecution.

Earlier this year, Chavez announced a currency devaluation to encourage Venezuelans to purchase more products manufactured at home, assuming local industries can actually meet the demand. The government also announced rotating blackouts to manage a power shortage. Meanwhile, frustrated Venezuelans have been told that they must sacrifice for the collective and think long term.

Venezuela is a textbook case of the socialism cycle. A leader is elected by appealing to the masses on the basis of class warfare. Some nationalization and wealth redistribution occurs after the political victory, but the engine of production sputters due to excessive government intervention and a lack of incentives. The newly elected leaders blame this problem on the capitalists for being greedy and not acting in the interest of society as a whole. Opposition mounts, and we begin to see restrictions on freedom of speech to keep it in check. Capitalism is denounced as completely degenerate, so more nationalization and government control follows. The standard of living declines and the masses are told that capitalists and foreigners (Americans) are the cause of all social and economic ills. The socialist utopia simply can’t work until all vestiges of greed are eliminated. Total failure is becoming more and more apparent, but the masses are told to stay the course.

Could the U.S. follow such as cycle? The tradition of liberty is probably strong enough to keep our country from going as far, but we already see the same pattern here. Obama was elected on a platform of hope and change based on class warfare. Once elected, he immediately addressed the “healthcare crisis” by demanding that businesses make sacrifices for the good of the country. Those that did were spared—temporarily—from further punishment—while that that did not were publically flogged as the villains. Although Obama has hinted at media control and a return to the “fairness doctrine,” such an effort has not yet materialized. Even after his massive stimulus spending, the economy remains in the tank. Obama is on the ropes and the public is waking up, yet he reminds us that our current problems are really Bush’s fault and challenges us to stay the course.

What does the future hold? History warns us that transitions from socialism to capitalism aren’t always peaceful. For Venezuela, let’s hope that the people get their country back soon without bloodshed. As for the U.S., Scott Brown’s election may stave off the left’s healthcare package for the time being, but more work needs to be done. Brown is not a real conservative, but he’s certainly better than Massachusetts has sent to the Senate in a long time. Cautious optimism is in order, but let’s not get too excited. A lot can happen between now and November.