you’re confusing exploitation with prosperity. Yes, under capitalism, Venezuela looked rich, but for whom?
https://x.com/nxt888/status/1979991512495833108
James, you’re confusing exploitation with prosperity.
Yes, under capitalism, Venezuela looked rich, but for whom?
A handful of elites tied to U.S. oil firms and banks controlled the wealth while millions lived in slums around the wells that made them nothing.
That wasn’t prosperity.
That was colonial arithmetic: privatize the profits, socialize the poverty.
When Chávez took power, he didn’t inherit a paradise. He inherited a plantation.
And the moment he redirected oil revenue toward housing, education, and healthcare, the same interests that once profited from Venezuela’s "success" called it a "failure."
If socialism ruined Venezuela, why did Washington need 900 sanctions, asset seizures, and an oil embargo to finish the job?
Why freeze over $20 billion in assets if the system was collapsing on its own?
The truth is simple.
Venezuela’s fall wasn’t economic mismanagement, it was economic punishment.
A message to every nation that dares to put its people before its creditors.
So when you say it "failed under socialism," remember this:
It didn’t fail because it was socialist. It was punished because it stopped being colonial.
posted by Satish Sharma at
01:41
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home