Once again proving that you don't even possess a flimsy grasp on the effects of American foreign policy or the history of American imperialism in Latin America (let alone elsewhere in the world).
Chavez and Maduro destroyed Venezuela
Only a child or a fool could believe something so simplistic. Have you honestly no grasp of geopolitics, history, sociology, anthropology, or anything of the sort? That sort of narrow thought process is equivalent to believing Venezuela exists within a vacuum; that there is no history prior to Chavez that shaped the country up to and past the point of Chavez's election; and that Chavez and Maduro wielded power and enacted policies without any external factors (be they from rival political groups, powerful opponents within the economic system, and foreign influences that sought to affect Venezuela for particular geopolitical goals). That is not to suggest their policies had no impact on Venezuela; they obviously did. But, their policies were only one part of the story and were shaped largely by their reaction to particular circumstances not of their own creation.
Venezuala pre Chavez was far far more prosperous than it is today and was actually a Democracy. Yes their were some problems but maybe you guys should stop blaming America for all of socialism's failures
If I took a shot every time some right-winger brought up Venezuela in conjunction with Socialism, I'd be dead by now. You guys are beating a dead horse. And it really boils down to the fact that you can't grasp that these issues are far more complex than "socialism is evil."
Why did Venezuela turn to Chavez? Why was he such a popular leader? Why did America attempt to assassinate him? What are the consequences of sanctions and embargoes, such as America imposed on Venezuela? What happens when political leadership is thoroughly opposed by a powerful economic elite opposition determined to see its destruction? What structural problems existed in Venezuela that contributed to the failures of the Bolivarian Revolution? To what extent did Chavez and Maduro enact socialist economic policies? What were the limitations of their "socialist" program and how did that affect their socioeconomic situation?
Just saying "socialism" in a louder tone to each of the above questions isn't an actual evaluation of the situation or response to a series of complex questions about a highly complex situation. Venezuela never came close to any semblance of a socialist economic program anyway, considering the extent to which the Chavez and Maduro regimes completely failed to democratize the economy and transfer ownership of the means of production to workers (at "best," they nationalized particular sectors of the economy and left a significant share of it in the hands of corrupt bureaucrats and elites with vested interests in seeing the regime crumble). The most significant accusation one can make against Chavez/Maduro isn't that they were successful Socialists who presided over a failed socialist program, but rather incompetent authoritarians (particularly Maduro) who had no realistic program (or even intention) of achieving economic democracy. They were then consumed by the inevitable rebellion by those with whom they compromised and left in positions of power, along with external pressures from global oil markets and American economic pressure.
