I have been asked the following question by a reader: “In your opinion, are the failures of the Chavez administration an example of the inherent failure of socialism?”

Chavas came to power as a result of a general uprising against a corrupt right wing minority government that ran the country so badly that the IMF had to be called in (sounds familiar?). The resulting policy of cutting the deficit, naturally at the expense of the poor, was the final straw for the generality of the population.

Chavas in power won every election overwhelmingly (and the elections were honest, too – one of the interesting innovations Chavas introduced).  He could do something, for the dispossessed because he had a thriving oil income.

Socialism hasn’t failed in Venezuela.  What has happened is that the oil price has collapsed, hitting Venezuela harder than most. Expensive programmes have to be curtailed.  One can argue about the wisdom of subsidizing fuel and food, and I am sure there is corruption, gross incompetence and persistent inequality. I also think that some policies amounted to retribution and that Epicurean moderation would have been wise. But the Venezuelan Roman Catholics would not be “worshipping” the dead Chavas if his regime had been totally bad news. The man in the Caracas street is better off than he was under previous governments, even if the current government is now increasingly unpopular.

Socialism is in trouble if the income that sustains better schools, housing and hospitals fluctuates wildly.  Capitalist countries, run by oligarchies can borrow from other countries run by oligarchies.  Venezuela has the support of whom? Brazil and Cuba, both with their own problems.

I personally believe that Epicurus would have wanted, not equality, but a level playing field, so that everyone at least has an equal and good, education, good health and equal opportunity.  If you waste that opportunity on drugs and watching football, don’t come whining to Epicurus! Equal opportunity: this is what Chavas was trying to achieve.