Venezuelan Farmers Struck by Hurricane Hugo
Hugo Chavez, that is. It's not the kind of agriculture story that leads to 10,000 word alt-weekly cover stories with titles like "Harvest of Shame." And it's a story so old in its principles and implications it's a shame indeed that people still have to write it. Still, when it comes to socialism, Venezuelan bossman Hugo Chavez is a slow learner.
These should be the best of times for dairy farmer Luis Espinoza. The Venezuelan economy is booming, thanks to a flood of oil dollars, and consumer demand for food items including milk and cheese is unprecedented. Overall consumption by Venezuelans is up 10% this year, and vendors of cars, clothing, computers and many other goods are raking it in.
But things couldn't be much worse for….hundreds of ranchers and farmers…..here in the northeastern state of Monagas. Espinoza's herd is dwindling, his milk output is shrinking and his future is more tenuous by the day.
He is a casualty of President Hugo Chavez's Socialism for the 21st Century….Chavez's policies are squeezing out private farms in favor of worker-owned cooperatives that enjoy massive government subsidies and for which profits are of secondary importance.
Espinoza's problem is he cannot produce milk at the low price -- 50 cents a liter -- that the Chavez government has set for it. Nor can most private ranchers. Milk is one of 29 basic food items on which Chavez has slapped price controls. Others include cooking oil, flour, canned tuna, eggs, beef and poultry. Espinoza and other producers complain that the artificially low prices are leading them to ruin.
The story notes, as Mises noted nearly 90 years ago, that socialism's ill effects on society and culture go beyond the economic.
The lifelong rancher says he is under more than just economic pressure. In Venezuela's increasingly polarized society, he says, for-profit farmers are made to feel like villains.
"The worst is the psychological impact of the uncertainty and the political confrontations," said Espinoza, 54, as he walked among a cluster of cows from his 600-head herd, down from 900 seven years ago. "There are hatreds and passions and family conflicts that didn't exist before."
Michael Moynihan on Chavez and his enablers. David Weigel on why Latin American leftism isn't a mortal threat to the U.S.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hillary Clinton in jack boots.
Coming soon: the Zimbabwe of the Americas.
Since this thread is about Hugo Chavez, I predict that something dumb will happen in here.
What Jennifer said. I was going to mention Pol Pot but that would be ridiculous. Wouldn't it.
Since this thread is about Hugo Chavez, I predict that something dumb will happen in here. I predict that joe will have something to do with it.
I'm waiting for the study that shows that Chavez's policies really increase dairy farmers' income.
The Venezuelan economy is booming
Huh, go figure.
How long before Chaves starts ordering property owners to be strung-up? Or is Lennin the wrong International Socialist for this model?
Dan T, so maybe you think Chavez's policies are behind the high global price of oil?
I thought that was Bush's doing! 🙂
"The Venezuelan economy is booming"
It is, in nominal terms...
If you look at inflation, that's a whole different story.
Hey! Wasn't there some economic law or sumfin about inflation and price controls?
Coming soon: the Zimbabwe of the Americas.
No, if it comes to that we will probably interfere (I am not advocating this, just pointing it out), because South America is within our "sphere of influence" and provide us with a shitload of oil.
Since this thread is about Hugo Chavez, I predict that something dumb will happen in here.
Good call. How long did it take for Pol Pot and the lynching of property owners to come up?
The farmer is obviously suffering from the sunk cost fallacy.
I would suggest he sell his herd to a meat processor. Take that lump sum payment and put his farm up for sale and move away. Or sell the herd the herd to a co-op on the cheap and start farming something that isn't under price controls, like tobacco or beefalos or yak's milk.
Or sell the herd the herd to a co-op on the cheap and start farming something that isn't under price controls yet, like tobacco or beefalos or yak's milk.
There, fixed that fo ya 🙂
Kulaks maybe? China, Russia, Zimbabwei or any number of African nations the result is always the same; forced collectivization of agriculture causes mass starvation. Socialists never learn or perhaps never care. There is one advantage to collectivization; sine the government now owns the food, they can then determine who gets it and use it as a force to starve its political enemies to death. That is what happened in Stalinist Russia and in Maoist China and is starting to happen in Zimbabwei. Give a couple of years and Venezuala will follow.
I'm waiting for the study that shows that Chavez's policies really increase dairy farmers' income.
I expect that Chesa Boudin will write some fatuous article with the words "social justice" featured in every paragraph. And I guarantee it won't say anything about "income", except maybe in the context of "corporate profits". (Like I needed any more reason to be embarrassed by my choice of college.)
Hillary Clinton in jack boots.
Clinton, unlike Chavez, actually has some rudimentary understanding of economics, as do the majority of center-left (or center-right) politicians. The principle that free markets are more efficient generators of wealth than any other system is widely accepted, and I think any serious economist would agree, no matter how partisan (Paul Krugman, etc.). Put simply, without a capitalist system there simply would not be money for the social engineering plans of the Democrats, and they're very aware of this. There's a lot of demagoguery ("richest 1%", etc.) and some appalling interventionist policies (anything to do with agriculture), and a great deal of uncalled-for tinkering (e.g. corporate welfare; the Republicans are usually just as bad), but no one to the right of Kucinich or Bernie Sanders wants to fundamentally upset our economy by forcing us into a collectivist system. Aside from the level of coercion, there's a huge gulf separating the relatively mild redistributionist policies endorsed by Hillary and the outright socialism of Chavez.
Socialists never learn or perhaps never care
Socialists never learn; communists never care. But the real "problem" from our perspective is Venezuela's oil revenue, without which the Bolivarian Revolution would probably already be a bad memory.
China, Russia, and Zimbabwe weren't multi-party democracies with internationally-certified elections through which the public could turn the leaders who implemented those foolish policies out of office.
Socialists never learn
Sure they do. Look at the British Labour Party. They used to be an avowedly-Marxist, syndicalist organization. They only removed the language about "the eventual elimination of private property" from their platform in the 1990s, but they learned quite some time before that.
Losing elections will do that.
Are you seriously claiming Venezuela is?
"China, Russia, and Zimbabwe weren't multi-party democracies with internationally-certified elections through which the public could turn the leaders who implemented those foolish policies out of office."
This was funny...
I guess Chavez didn't change the constitution, pack the courts, destroy opposition tv stations and threaten to nationalise all independent schools if they don't teach what he wants...
China, Russia, and Zimbabwe weren't multi-party democracies with internationally-certified elections
Um, Zimbabwe used to be. Mugabe put an end to that pretty effectively. I'm sure Chavez is equally capable.
Are there other parties in Venezuela? Yep.
Are the allowed to run and openly campaign? Yep.
Are the independent media outlets? Yep.
Are they allowed to run stories critical of the government and supportive of the opposition? Yep.
Do they often do so? Yep.
Did the opposition win over 40% of the vote in the last election they ran in? Yep.
Have the elections held since Chavez won office been certified as fair and open by international observers? Yep.
That Chavez is overly authoritarian does not mean that democracy has ceased to exist in Venezuela.
Nat,
I'm worried about what Chavez might do, too, but we certainly aren't there yet. Much of what he's done is troubling, but both the culture and mechanisms of democracy remain in place and strong in Venezuela.
Anyway, if this story is accurate and the policies are, or will, do widespread economic harm, we'll know soon enough whether democracy is still viable in Venezuela. Those "masses" who've been backing Chavez are not devoted readers of Marx entralled with his treatment of dialectical materialism, but poor folks with mesa cochina politics. If their lot doesn't improve, they'll become disillusioned. If it worsens, they'll turn on the Bolivarian Revolution and its proponents.
And then Chavez will have to either lose an election, or renounce the democratic process.
but both the culture and mechanisms of democracy remain in place and strong in Venezuela.
Didn't Hugo just make himself caudillo until 2027 or so?
joe,
He has already renounced the democratic process, when he was temporarily granted absolute power (or whatever he called it) last year. The fact that it expired doesnt change the fact that he did it at all.
Are the independent media outlets? Yep.
Are they allowed to run stories critical of the government and supportive of the opposition? Yep.
Didn't he shut down a whole frickin' TV station after it ran newscasts that were critical of the Clinton, er, Chavez regime?
Episiarch, robc,
He was granted law-making power for a time by the parliament, in conformance with the Constitution, then ceded it as directed by law. He and his party concentrated a great deal of power in the executive branch - far more than anyone should be comfortable with - but AFAIK, the election schedule is still the election schedule.
sage,
The government refused to renew a TV station's license after it backed an armed coup against the government, not "run stories critical of the government."
Now, given Hugo's own rather sordid history in that area, it certainly would have been best for him to demonstrate a bit more tolerance. But, regardless, there are still TV stations, radio, and print outlets that are openly critical of him and his policies.
Freedom House numbers for key years in Venezuela:
(first # is politcal rights, 2nd is civil liberties, 1 is best, 7 is worst)
1991 (year before Chavez's attempted coup): 1,3
1998 (year Chavez was elected): 2,3
2006 (most recent): 4,4
robc,
The granting of "emergency" powers to the chief executive is a problem common to many half-assed democracies in the developing world, but it hasn't proven to be the end of democratic governance most of the time.
No one is questioning that things have gotten worse under Chavez, robc.
What do you conclude from those numbers about democracy in Venezuela? That it's average?
joe,
An average politcal rights score based on the total world standards isnt a democracy. Actually, you are right on one thing, when you break the subcategory scores down for political rights it goes like this (bigger is better)
Electoral Process: 10 out of 12
Political Pluralism & Participation: 8/16
Functioning of Government: 5/12
Yes, Venezuala still scores very well on the electoral forms of democracy. The outer shell looks pretty, the process is still in place (for now). It is after the elections take place that it all goes to hell. I just dont trust that when he actually loses an election he will step down or that he will enable the process of losing to take place. Considering he has a history of coups, why should I give him the benefit of the doubt?
joe,
The granting of "emergency" powers to the chief executive is a problem common to many half-assed democracies in the developing world
I will call all of them out as non-democratic thugs too.
The people of Venezuela are screwed. "Social Justice", notwithstanding.
robc,
We shouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt.
We should give Venesuelans the benefit of the doubt.
While Freedom House doesn't measure it, it isn't just the "electoral process" that is strong in Venezuela, but the democratic culture.
I will call all of them out as non-democratic thugs too.
So will I. I am talking about democracy in Venezuela, not Chavez. I think we have an undemocratic thug in power in this country - nonetheless, democracy remains strong here.
joe,
I can say a lot of bad things about Bush, but Im pretty darn sure he will step down on Jan 20, 2009. And if he doesnt, he will be dead within 24 hours.
I cant say the same with any confidence for either step about Chavez/Venezuela.
I'm interested to see what will happen when/if Chavez' popularity goes down. Will he rig elections and disappear his enemies, like an old-timey caudillo? He certainly seems too arrogant and authoritarian to step down gracefully after losing an election.
Dammit, beat to the punch.
joe,
Actually, if Venezuela had a strong democratic culture, they wouldnt accept the corruption and etc. that allows the function of gov. subcat to be a 5. Or the PPP to be an 8. What kind of democratic culture only scores an 8/16 for participation?
As a fun aside, the US only gets a 10 in Process too. But, we score a 16 and 11 in the other two.
I wouldn't expect grace under any circumstances, Warty.
I don't think anyone can predict what will happen with any confidence.
If Chavez had been granted emergency powers and used them to impose a radical "shock therapy" on an existing system of common ownership, I suspect we would see equally confident assertions of what would happen in such a situation from the same cast of characters, though their positions would reverse.
robc,
There's been quite a bit of economic growith owing to high oil prices, which makes people in any country more willing to put up with procedural problems. Incumbents in good economic times get re-elected.
Actually, if Venezuela had a strong democratic culture, they wouldnt accept the corruption and etc. that allows the function of gov. subcat to be a 5.
Ever read anything about the machine politics in American cities circa 1900?
Just for fun comparisons, some other countries near Venezuela:
Brazil 11 14 7
Cuba 0 0 1
Colombia 9 8 7
Costa Rica 12 15 11
Guyana 10 12 7
joe,
Ever read anything about the machine politics in American cities circa 1900?
Chicago doesnt have a strong democratic culture either.
Forget about global warming, we've got to get off fossil fuels just to stop propping up this clown with oil revenues.
Chicago doesnt have a strong democratic culture either.
But Chicago does have a strong Democratic culture.
That Chavez is overly authoritarian does not mean that democracy has ceased to exist in Venezuela.
This is where I turn to my handy FreedomHouse spreadsheet. Venezuela is currently at 4/4 and "Partly Free". This happens to be the same score as Malaysia, a country I am more familiar with--and a country with zero freedom of the press, heavy censorship, and political power restricted to a favored elite. "Democracy" that ain't.
(Incidentally, I got a laugh out of that television host/tool on 60 Minutes last night who was claiming that Russia is a "democracy"... Russia is now 6/5 and "Not Free".)
Oh well, someone beat me to it. Curse work and its constant interruptions!
Chicago doesnt have a strong democratic culture either.
I had no idea you were using special, alternative definitions of words. If I had, I wouldn't have bothered to argue with you.
OK: the democratic culture in Chicago and that is Venezuela are in the same ballpark.
Lurker Kurt, thanks for highlighting the subtext.
joe,
OK: the democratic culture in Chicago and that is Venezuela are in the same ballpark.
I think your humor meter is broken. Assuming you even have one.
On a serious note, the Chicago/Venezuela comparison proves me point.
The US has serious voting issues:
Questions about whether our machines count right.
Odd Supreme Court decisions re: Florida.
3rd party ballot access
Fraud issues: the fact that Chicago and the phrase "Vote early, vote often" are connected.
Financing issues.
Basically, the US is just about the minimum standard that Im willing to call a democratic culture. We accept some pretty crappy standards. The fact that Venezuela ISNT in the same ballpark as Chicago is yet another sign that they dont have a democracy.
BTW, Im calling to call for six-sigma voting again. No reason that it shouldnt be applied to voting procedures.
I can say a lot of bad things about Bush, but Im pretty darn sure he will step down on Jan 20, 2009. And if he doesnt, he will be dead within 24 hours.
I was pretty darn sure of a lot of things about Bush six years ago, robc. At this point, very little would surprise me.
crimethink,
Do you at least agree with me on the dead within 24 hours bit?
At this point, the supporters he has are supporting the team not the man.
robc,
Whoops. I totally didn't get that you were joking.
As thoreau wrote, people say some remarkably stupid things on Chavez threads.
You're joke didn't look any more off than any number of serious statements I've seen people make on this subject.
You're joke didn't look any more off than any number of serious statements I've seen people make on this subject.
I thought about putting a smiley, but I decided years ago its a lot more fun to only put smileys on jokes that no one could ever get confused by. If there is the chance of confusion, dont put it, to out the humorless. You can chew your leg off it you want out.
Of course, the reason the Chicago joke is funny is that there was a small element of truth to it. Chicago political corruption is nothing like Venezuelan corruption but it is still there and apparently accepted by the voters.
Just like Vote Early, Vote Often is funny becuase there is (or was) some element of truth to it.
It's pretty clear to me that the Chavez regime is going to end badly. The next dip in oil prices (and they do fluctuate wildly over time) will bring disaster.
What can I say? I see people making serious comparisons between Democrats and Josef Stalin every day on this site.
Venezuelan economy is booming, thanks to a flood of oil dollars, and consumer demand for food items including milk and cheese is unprecedented.
Two things.
1. Evil, capitalist Hugo Chaves should have a windfall tax on his oil profits.
2. We should all be eating locally to reduce our food miles.
serious comparisons between Democrats and Josef Stalin
Stalin had nice hair. Just like Nancy Pelosi.
thoreau: Since this thread is about Hugo Chavez, I predict that something dumb will happen in here.
Audrey B.: I predict that joe will have something to do with it.
joe: China, Russia, and Zimbabwe weren't multi-party democracies with internationally-certified elections through which the public could turn the leaders who implemented those foolish policies out of office.
thoreau and Audrey B. are vindicated. Does anyone here besides joe really think that Chavez will leave voluntarily leave office because of an election (or anything else)? The only things that will cause Chavez to give up power are a coup, a revolution, or an assassination.
thoreau and Audrey B. are vindicated. Does anyone here besides joe really think that Chavez will leave voluntarily leave office because of an election (or anything else)? The only things that will cause Chavez to give up power are a coup, a revolution, or an assassination.
Maybe James Earl Carter III might convince Chavez to go just like he did with another Commie buddy of his last century.
Oh yea, that is just crazy talk 🙂
think that Chavez will leave voluntarily leave office because of an election (or anything else)?
No. As if it needed to be said. But there it is.
robc,
I've been thinking about something you wrote earlier:
Actually, if Venezuela had a strong democratic culture, they wouldnt accept the corruption and etc. that allows the function of gov. subcat to be a 5.
Or at least, they wouldn't accept it 1) for long, and/or 2) absent some compelling political dynamic {rally round the flag in case of war, for example}.
There's "voluntarily" and there's voluntarily.
As I wrote already, it seems a pretty safe bet that wouldn't demonstrate a great deal of grace upon defeat. But there is a great deal of room between calling out the army to dissolve parliament and the quadrennial January 20 in Washington DC.
Recent polls show that most Venezuelans do not support Chavez's "New Bolivarian Socialist Constitution" and most do not trust the CNE (National Electoral Council). Isnt it suspicious that the former President of CNE is noe the Vice-President of Venezuela?
"...NOW the Vice-President of Venezuela?"
Goverment employees were forced to vote for Chavez at the threat of losing their jobs. Many rural voting centers were "taken over" by Chavistas who threatened anyone not sympathetic to Chavez, thereby closing the voting centers early. Roads were closed by Chavistas so that people couldnt get out and vote.
Does any of this sound like "fair and open" elections?
Venezuelans ARE disillusioned and discouraged. We dont believe the playing field is fair. We no longer believe we are living in a democratic country because we no longer have/trust the resources needed for a democratic change.