Hugo Chavez pushes "collective property"

On his regular Sunday television show "Hello, President" Hugo Chavez announced he is pushing forward with his plan to seize rural lands he considers "idle." According to AP, he told Venezuelans that

... the government was "advancing quickly" with a concept of "social, or collective, property" to be included in forthcoming constitutional reforms.

"It's property that belongs to everyone and it's going to benefit everyone," said Chavez, who vowed to undermine capitalism's continued influence in Venezuela.

Chavez did not elaborate, but stressed that collective property must benefit workers equally.

"It cannot be production to generate profits for one person or a small group of people that become rich exploiting peons who end up becoming slaves, living in poverty and misery their entire lives," he said.
As Prairie Pundit comments,
One of the lessons of the 20th century is that collectivization is a massive failure that leads to less productivity and more waste. It is ironic that in a matter of days after China takes steps to guarantee private property right in their booming economy, Chavez goes in the opposite direction with his failing economy. If he had no oil, he would be as bad off as Mugabe.
But of course, Chavez will press ahead, for the same reason Mao, Mugabe and Castro did: it is all about revenge on the part of the poor majority against the wealthy. The overall welfare and prosperity will be sacrificed in the name of improving the lives of the majority, even though the long term results will be the spreading of poverty. For the next period, the oil wealth of Venezuela (the product of the capitalist success of China and India, mong others) will mask the poisonous wealth-destroying nature of Chavez's destruction of the degree of capitalism Venezuela has enjoyed.

The situation in Venezuela takes on a tragic inevitability. Chavez's moves against the property of the wealthy will win him approval, and embolden him further. As Otto von Bismarck appreciated in the 19th Century, economic development which does not elevate the majority is inherently unstable.

Hat tip: Larwyn
On his regular Sunday television show "Hello, President" Hugo Chavez announced he is pushing forward with his plan to seize rural lands he considers "idle." According to AP, he told Venezuelans that

... the government was "advancing quickly" with a concept of "social, or collective, property" to be included in forthcoming constitutional reforms.

"It's property that belongs to everyone and it's going to benefit everyone," said Chavez, who vowed to undermine capitalism's continued influence in Venezuela.

Chavez did not elaborate, but stressed that collective property must benefit workers equally.

"It cannot be production to generate profits for one person or a small group of people that become rich exploiting peons who end up becoming slaves, living in poverty and misery their entire lives," he said.
As Prairie Pundit comments,
One of the lessons of the 20th century is that collectivization is a massive failure that leads to less productivity and more waste. It is ironic that in a matter of days after China takes steps to guarantee private property right in their booming economy, Chavez goes in the opposite direction with his failing economy. If he had no oil, he would be as bad off as Mugabe.
But of course, Chavez will press ahead, for the same reason Mao, Mugabe and Castro did: it is all about revenge on the part of the poor majority against the wealthy. The overall welfare and prosperity will be sacrificed in the name of improving the lives of the majority, even though the long term results will be the spreading of poverty. For the next period, the oil wealth of Venezuela (the product of the capitalist success of China and India, mong others) will mask the poisonous wealth-destroying nature of Chavez's destruction of the degree of capitalism Venezuela has enjoyed.

The situation in Venezuela takes on a tragic inevitability. Chavez's moves against the property of the wealthy will win him approval, and embolden him further. As Otto von Bismarck appreciated in the 19th Century, economic development which does not elevate the majority is inherently unstable.

Hat tip: Larwyn