Miloslav Djilas’ lesson returns in Venezuela

Amidst the whirlwind over LeBron James and what has sadly become the usual nonsense in Washington, a lesson in the painful reality of socialism or communism (not to be confused with Europe’s social democracies – which have their own problems) has arisen in Venezuela (Washington Post):

As in all major government takeovers of private companies in Venezuela, President Hugo Chávez declared that seizing beer-and-food giant Polar’s facilities here would mark another victory for the poor in the country’s march toward socialism.

. . .

Except this time, the president’s plans went badly awry, exposing mounting national opposition to a policy under which oil companies, supermarkets and factories have been taken over by the state, only to founder under the control of government functionaries (emphasis added).

Now, it will come as no surprise to the folks in the rightosphere that socialized or nationalized firms don’t do so well once politicians are put in charge, but there is a deeper lesson here that first popped up in what was once Yugoslavia, of all places.

In 1950, Yugoslavia was under the rule of Communist Josip Broz Tito.  Unlike Stalin, Tito’s anti-Nazi credentials were unvarnished, and unlike everyone else in Eastern Europe, he had ensured the post-Nazi regime was home grown with deep local roots.  In fact, Tito’s loyalty to his country led to a falling out with Stalin and his expulsion from the Communist bloc.

So it came as quite the surprise when Miloslav Djilas – Vice President of Yugoslavia – wrote The New Class, a damning account of how the “vanguard of the proletariat” had become a corrupt and self-absorbed elite.  Djilas noted that once the Communists controlled all property within their reach, they themselves become the propertied class, and in short order, any concern for using their newfound power to help the less fortunate devolves into a greedy clique that values power – and the wealth that comes with that power – above all else.  In effect, Djilas extended Marxist theory beyond the revolutionaries’ victory – and turned it on the Marxists.  That Djilas was fired, disavowed, and forced into exile showed that even in Western-friendly Yugoslavia, a Communist regime could handle neither the truth nor anyone from within who tried to show it to them.

Djilas’ lesson resurfaced dramatically in this paragraph describing Chavez’s attempt to seize part of Polar Industries.

Not only did Polar fight back by taking its case to the Supreme Court, but its employees have risen up, too, rallying in opposition to Chávez’s edict and holding all-night vigils to prevent a takeover . . . employees said they oppose the government intervention because they think workers have fared badly at nationalized companies, where they have faced reduced wages and been unable to bargain collectively (emphasis added).

So in Venezuela, the triumph of the workers comes with lower wages and a ban on unions.  I doubt that’s what most leftists have in mind when they envision a socialist paradise.

Yet Venezuela is not the first example of this, only the most recent.  The Chinese Communist Party established a government-run union to represent the workers - and banned all others.  The CCP is now the largest strikebreaker in the world.  Even in the United States during World War II, Communist-controlled unions emasculated their workers so badly (all to ensure more material for the Soviet military) that business actually preferred them to non-Communist labor (see Richard Gid Powers: Not Without Honor – The History of American Anticommunism).

In short, the “triumph of the workers” doesn’t prevent exploitation of the very same workers; it ensures exploitation of the workers.  Venezuela is merely the latest example of Djilas’ painfully acquired wisdom.

Cross-posted to BD