Quick Wealth Network

21st Century Socialism Is 18th Century Capitalism. Michael Rowan. Special for El Universal www.eluniversal.com

Because of the world price of oil - an essential cog in the global wealth creation machine - Chavez has received a $35 billion windfall profit in the last year, which added to the $15 billion from a year earlier he has used to destabilize Bolivia and other country targets on his list. As long as the price of oil is very high, he will apply 18th century savage capitalism under the rubric of 21st century state socialism. Karl Marx accurately criticized the failure of capitalism for creating private monopolies and magnates along with a mass of proletariat - property-less - workers. If Marx was alive today, what would he see in Venezuela? The magnate Chavez owns a personal, private monopoly of greater wealth and power than anything that existed in the 18th century, while a majority of Venezuelans are poor, property-less and under-employed. Adam Smith might laugh at Chavez as an aberration, but Karl Marx would be enraged by what Chavez is doing in the name of socialism. Any comment?

Public Comments

1. What Chavez is doing is Norwegianism not real Socialism. He has never claimed to be doing Socialism in the traditional sense. He is guided by Simon Bolivar and seeks to unite his region against the evils we in the North perpetrate against them. This is a long time coming, the US particularly, has abused Latin America for many years. The people has awakened. VIVA CHAVEZ! p.s. Adam Smith, who no neo-cons have ever even read, was very much againt the idea of a corporate welfare state like we live in today. He was against the unbridalled free flow of capital also. His idea of free markets depended on stationary capital not a global market, infiltrated by protecting government welfare (to corporations) and the undercutting of the market by capital flight like what we do today.
2. Wow, a beautiful girl with a real head on her shoulders. Sorry, I don't see that many. Socialism as per Karl Marx is an ideal that would be very hard, if not impossible to create; given it's man's tendency to live as an ape does ie there's alpha males and then there's everyone else trying to do their best. Chavez is just another person in the machine of things, and I'm sure Karl wouldn't be proud of the track record left in his name...just as I'm sure Christ wouldn't be happy about all those whom killed in his name. Ultimately the battle is to figure a system that's practical and moral. It's a difficult process, given the subjective views of man, and the fact 'power' will always exist in human relations. So essentially I believe that the best system limits power, atleast to the level where it might become dangerous...and I think that's still a debate on the table. For that matter, I believe it will always evolve, and it's a legitamate concern of the general welfare of society. Personally, I lean-libertarian, as I find the individual as inseparable from the unit (or collective) and thus the defines the start of rights. Though I wouldn't neglect Karl's views, nor general feelings within the left hemisphere, as there are many occurence and circumstances where the individual shouldn't be held above the collective e.g war or enviromental concerns. We must stride not to assume the best of one idealogy, but look specifically at each circumstance and derive a logical debate to ascertain what is the best method to move forward. In this way, we leave room for corrections, and facts. The science of politics is something yet to evolve, although within time I believe it will grace this world.