Once Again Everything but Socialism is to Blame for Socialism's Failures

Socialism is never to blame for the results of socialism--it's always something else.

Have you kept up on the tragic, unnecessary, and deteriorating situation for the poor people of Venezuela? There’s a lot going on here at home, I know, and also around the world. It’s hard when there are so many things screaming in your face to remember the quiet, ongoing suffering of the people of Venezuela.

With their presidential election coming up on May 20, John Oliver decided to bring it to his audience’s attention this week. He talked about the weight people have lost due to starvation because of food shortages (now dubbed “The Maduro Diet” after their president, Nicolas Maduro). He covered their insane rate of inflation (the IMF predicts 13,000% this year(!) if such a number even makes sense to you) after the economy slowed and the government printed a massive amount of currency (glad we haven’t been doing that…). He pointed out Maduro’s sweeping consolidation of power when the president, essentially, brought in a new legislative body filled with his lackeys which are re-writing their constitution as we speak and will unveil it—after the election.

While Oliver was portraying the dire circumstances in the once wealthy nation, he was extremely quick to point out that socialism is NOT, NOT, NOT to blame. NOT.

As usual, whenever we see the fruit of socialism leftists who are in favor of it, without fail, blame something else. The wrong people were in charge. There was corruption. Mismanagement. (Oliver opted for all three.) But it’s never—not ever—the fault of socialist policies which leaves such misery in its wake. It’s merely a coincidence that every time socialism is implemented, the result is government corruption and wide-scale suffering (and often death) of the population.

Following the Russian revolution, Stalin had the farmers killed (too wealthy, you know). Clearly, he didn’t think through the fact that when you exterminate the those who know how to grow the food, you probably won’t have as much. Predictably, famine followed. Former Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, didn’t murder half the people in the oil company (PDVSA), but he did fire and replace them with political appointees, thus, expropriating the company (that’s definitely not socialistic). And now the nation with the largest oil reserves in the world is going hungry.

Isn’t it interesting that, the more fully socialism is implemented, the more force must be used to maintain those in power following the resulting anger and resistance from the citizenry? The president of Columbia, for example, claims that the new Venezuelan constitution (which, again, won’t be revealed until after the election) will be very similar to a Cuban-style dictatorship. It seems that people crave socialism—until they experience it.

But it’s not socialism when the government expropriates companies, according to Oliver. It’s not socialism when the government takes revenue from said expropriated companies and gives all sorts of “free” stuff to its citizens (until the money runs out). And, for sure, it’s not the fruit of socialism to see widespread economic collapse following the implementation of these not-socialist policies.

For people on the Left, their commitment to the idea of free stuff paid for by someone else is simply too tantalizing to give up when confronted with facts. Actually, I can’t solely blame those on the Left—don’t most of us want free stuff paid for by someone else? It’s simply that some of us are willing to face the reality of math and human nature and some aren’t.

Socialism will always fail because it is in direct opposition to human nature. Economics, when you boil it down, has everything to do with human nature. Good economic policy flows with it and bad economic policy contravenes it.

So, yes, John Oliver, socialism is to blame (or, rather, those who implemented socialist policies). The more fully socialism is implemented, the more you can expect these results.

In Venezuela, the people are starving. In Venezuela, some are taking their children to orphanages in hopes of food. In nations surrounding Venezuela, they are facing refugee crises from Venezuelans fleeing in hopes of food and work.

Thanks, socialism.

(Photo credit: YouTube)


Nice strawman attack, Heidi Munson ... "the Left" in the U.S. tends to admire the likes of Denmark and Sweden. See e.g. Why don't you compare the state of those economies, their national health care systems or the cost of university tuition against the U.S.?


The "true believer" and the legions of fellow travelers are slaves to a myopic and delusional IDEOLOGY. As a Collective they deny Reality and have created an Alternative Reality that acts liken echo chamber 24/7 reinforcing itself. They have become entrapped with a giant paper bag and can see no further then the inside of that bag. Their mission is to destroy "us".


@Dan -- People use the term "socialism" to describe Obamacare all of the time. Since it's a system that actually enshrines private insurance companies (as well as private providers), I think it's fair to say that it can be a pretty vague term.

In this article, the author switches channels to "the Left", meaning, presumably, Democrats in the US. I think she means to say that Nancy Pelosi is a "socialist".

If Nancy Pelosi is a "socialist", then Holland is a socialist country.