Hacker News Reader

Comment by JoeAltmaier | Hacker News Reader

Isn't it sulfur-laden oil, of no interest in the market unless there's a demand shortage? And in the current market, there's slumped demand, so they can't give it away.

Also, renovation of the Venezuelan infrastructure was paid for but not accomplished (graft/corruption). So they're in a hole for efficient production?

Finally, food production: they divided up farms and gave small holdings to the workers, who unfortunately had not the education, equipment nor capital to run them. So food supplies tanked, resulting in foreign exchange being used principally to import food.

All this added up to, a total fail of the regime to pay for their socialist experiment? Never mind games with imaginary points (currency valuation). The country can't feed itself nor make its own food nor trade its resources for food. They're in a big hole.

View on HN

Yes, their oil has to be refined a lot more than other types [1]:

> Venezuela produces extra-heavy crude oil in the Orincoco Oil Belt area and heavily relies on imports of lighter liquids (diluents) to blend with this crude oil to make it marketable. Financial difficulties recently have occasionally prevented the state-owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PdVSA), from importing the necessary volumes of diluent to sustain production and exports.

[1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35312

Their socialist experiment was unsustainable from the start, to be fair. They effectively killed their internal economy by capping the price of staple goods, driving business to failure and closure in the process.

That is just because they used the wrong version of Socialism.

They just need to switch to a working version and they should be good.

like denmark, germany, etc?

Denmark and Germany are not socialist.

Denmark is actually, literally, in the Merriam-Webster definition of Social Democracy / Democratic Socialism. [1] Your one-word denials are unhelpful and uninteresting. Cite some sources and make a case.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20democrac...

You are confusing democratic socialism with social democracy. This is a common mistake, but you should understand the difference.

So should literally every single person every commenting on US politics ever, because pretty much no person in recent history who has ever come close to holding any federal elected office in the US has ever advocated for actual socialism, even the people who self-identify as socialists like Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

If you use the real definition of socialism, you might as well say "the US should not adopt Nazism" as "the US should not adopt socialism" because both are equally likely to actually be adopted (i.e. not very likely at all). No mainstream politician in the US is suggesting that the state should take over ownership of most private businesses.

These are actually considered equivalent in modern political discourse, hit that Merriam-Webster link in the parent.

> These are actually considered equivalent in modern political discourse

Not true. Especially not in Europe.

> hit that Merriam-Webster link in the parent

Unfortunately, Merriam-Webster has it wrong in this case. Social democracy is not a synonym for democratic socialism. The two are very different ideologies with very different goals. As stated in the Wikipedia article for social democracy (with accompanying references):

"Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy... Social democracy became associated with Keynesian economics, state interventionism and the welfare state, while abandoning the prior goal of replacing the capitalist system (factor markets, private property and wage labor) with a qualitatively different socialist economic system... By the post-World War II period, most social democrats in Europe had abandoned their ideological connection to Marxism and shifted their emphasis toward social policy reform in place of transition from capitalism to socialism." [emphasis added]

Contrast this with the article for democratic socialism:

"Democratic socialism is further distinguished from social democracy on the basis that democratic socialists are committed to systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism, whereas social democracy is supportive of reforms to capitalism... As socialists, democratic socialists believe that the systemic issues of capitalism can only be solved by replacing the capitalist system with a socialist system—i.e. by replacing private ownership with social ownership of the means of production."

In summary, social democracy grew out of a movement that advocated transitioning from capitalism to socialism, but ultimately rejected such a transition in favor of working within a capitalist economy. Democratic socialism, on the other hand, advocates for the abolition of capitalism and private property. It does not reflect the present policies of Denmark and Germany, given that neither intends to abolish private property and transition to a socialist economy.

Social democracy is not socialism. Social democracy is always expressed within a capitalist and liberal framework, while socialism negates capitalism altogether.

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

Canada too. It's not pure socialism, it's democratic socialism and it works great.

Canada is not democratic socialist.

Don't just say no, cite some sources and have a conversation.

Two of our four major parties (the NDP and the Parti Québécois) officially adheres to a Democratic Socialist policy [1]. Sure they've not had a turn at governing though they've been the official opposition, and the NDP is currently in charge of the Alberta government. They're not some fringe party. Their platform overlaps heavily with the ruling Federal Liberals - and they're both considered "centre-left" parties.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democratic_Party

The NDP constitution refers to democratic socialism only in the following sentence: New Democrats seek a future that brings together the best of the insights and objectives of Canadians who, within the social democratic and democratic socialist traditions, have worked through farmer, labour.... This doesn't mean they adhere to democratic socialism. In fact, only a minority faction of the NDP is committed to democratic socialism, namely the NDP Socialist Caucus. I couldn't find a source for PQ adhering to democratic socialism, but would welcome any references. The Liberal Party and its provincial counterparts are definitely not democratic socialist.

Second, even if the NDP and PQ adhered to democratic socialism, that would not mean Canada is democratic socialist. The fact that the Conservative Party adheres to conservatism, for example, does not mean Canada is conservative.

Third, Canada is not democratic socialist because democratic socialism is incompatible with capitalism. Democratic socialists are committed to the systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism, including the elimination of private property. There is simply no realistic chance of Canada transitioning to a socialist economy and eliminating private property in the foreseeable future. This doesn't mean it couldn't happen eventually, just that it is not feasible under Canada's current political climate, government institutions, and legal framework.

PS: Did you mean to refer to Bloc Québécois (the federal party) rather than Parti Québécois (the provincial party)?

For anyone who downvotes throw in a comment so a discussion can be had! Seriously though, I don't think many foreigners realize the extent of Government ownership of essentials of Canadian life. We call them Crown Corporations and there's a list as long as my arm at [1]. They're largely well managed and successful businesses - some of them are even buying and operating US businesses (as with Ontario Power Generation's recent acquisition of New Jersey's Eagle Creek Renewable Energy [2]). Not to mention health care.

Previously Canada has had and spun off: Nationalized petroleum company (PetroCanada), package delivery company (Purolator), freight rail network (CN), airline (Air Canada) and aircraft manufacturer (Canadair).

I feel the reason many people don't associate Canada with 'real' socialism is that I feel socialism in Canada is a pragmatic and not idealistic decision in many cases. It's a massive country and as a result it's not economical to provide many essential services. These services are pragmatically socialized, and once they become profitable to operate as businesses are spun off as was done with the aforementioned.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_corporations_of_Canada

[2] https://www.thestar.com/business/2018/08/09/ontario-power-ge...

State ownership of some essential utilities and public services are a feature of social democracy, not democratic socialism. It should also be noted that the examples you mentioned were privatized decades ago (except Purolator, which remains owned by Canada Post).

Do the workers own the means of production, at least in terms of government propaganda? No? Then it's not socialism.

In modern political discourse, democratic socialism and social democracy are considered interchangeable, and that's what I stated in the parent comment applies to Canada and it seems that's a pretty good model and consensus description.

(Using the definition "a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices")

No. It's a social democracy. Social democracy is not socialism. Social democracy is always expressed within a capitalist and liberal framework, while socialism negates capitalism altogether. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Here's the thing, while I think your argument has merit, I think it's not the topic that we're discussing here. I seriously doubt anyone is promoting the elimination of private property these days within the West or Europe. To play the pedantic game here may not be relevant, when even the dictionary has equated the two - rightly or wrongly. I know neither Sanders nor Occasio-Cortez, nor the Canadian NDP advocate the elimination of private property, and in Europe these people are just referred to as Socialists and lumped together.

> In modern political discourse, democratic socialism and social democracy are considered interchangeable

Not at all, case in point: We are having a political discourse and people don't consider it interchangeable.

The workers didn't own the means of production in Venezuela either.

Most industry in Venezuela is privately or publicly owned.

That's why I said "at least in terms of propaganda". Anything that's owned by the state is considered to be owned by (all) the people.

Venezuela also is not by definition a socialist country, it just has a socialist party whose goal is socialism. There still is a relatively strong opposition.

Its so good that 10x canadians go to live in the us than americans go to canada, even though america has 10x the population.

That's because it's difficult for poor populations to escape the US...

Not really, though. About 2X as many Americans live in Canada as Canadians living in America, accounting for a much larger share of the Canadian population than v.v.

According to the Canada 2006 Census, 316,350 Canadians reported American as being their ethnicity, at least partially. There are also between 900,000 and 2 million Americans living in Canada, either as full-time or part-time residents. [1]

According to U.S. Census estimates the number of Canadian residents was around 640,000 in 2000. [2]

According to Stats Canada, the trend has reversed over time as the absolute number of Canadians living in the US peaked in 1930 at 1.3MM, which would be about 12% of the Canadian population at the time, down to a current 1.8% [3] On the other hand, Americans in Canada acount for 0.66%. At most it's a 3X discrepancy, not 10X, and it's largely due to the draw of the US economy. What would be more interesting to me, IMO, would be how many return home.

By all means, have at them windmills though, at least you've got a good view from on top that high horse ;)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Canadians

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Americans

[3] https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-008-x/2010002/article...

The Danish PM itself said their government is not socialist: https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-...

No: https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-...

I think socialism in any degree fails if there is also anything more than trace levels of corruption in public management and the political system.

The socialism in Venezuela is also of the crazy-left type, not even remotely as in Denmark or Germany.

All government falls over in the face of corruption - and agreed on everything.

If anything, Denmark and Germany (not talking about DDR) have been social market economies at one point but that's a long way to go to socialism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com