Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
Support independent student journalism. Support independent student journalism. Support independent student journalism.
The Dartmouth
July 3, 2025 | Latest Issue
The Dartmouth

Moyse: Mr. Di Martino, Be More Honest

Daniel Di Martino’s presentation about Venezuela’s collapse should have avoided painting state socialism as the source of all the country’s problems.

Recently, I attended a Political Economy Project lecture by Daniel Di Martino, titled “The High Prices of Free Things: How Socialism Destroyed Venezuela.” The central thesis of the talk was basic: that state socialism, and this model of governance alone, is to blame for the poor social and economic conditions in Venezuela. I believe this assertion is fundamentally wrong. The speaker’s attempted use of the failed state of Venezuela to fearmonger against progressive movements in the United States was in bad faith and factually dishonest.

To be clear, the purpose of this column is not to defend the government of Venezuela in any way, nor is it to defend the concept of a planned or command economy. I believe that the ideas underlying this system are fundamentally flawed, and that a regulated or hybrid free market democracy is indispensable to a prosperous society. However, I condemn Di Martino’s definition of “socialism,” which he uses in a radically inaccurate and anti-intellectual way to group legitimate progressive movements with failed authoritarian states across the world.

Di Martino first defined socialism as when the government controls the means of production. This, I believe, is a fair definition of traditional state socialism. However, later in the talk, Di Martino described Social Security as “socialism,” and then labeled Tucker Carlson as subscribing to a form of “socialism light” because of his support of protectionist tariffs. Although it is technically accurate that both social security and protective tariffs are policies that may be supported by democratic socialists in the United States, Di Martino made no distinction between the authoritarian socialism that he blamed for the total collapse of Venezuela and the form of democratic socialism many on the progressive left subscribe to. Indeed, 73% of Americans report that they value Social Security for themselves and their families. 

This grouping of popular democratic socialist policies with the collapse of the Venezuelan economy is subtle, but intellectually dishonest. In this lack of distinction, Di Martino gives himself a broad license to criticize any form of social service or intervention in the economy, and suggest that these policies will lead to the same negative outcomes that vastly different policies did in Venezuela. Di Martino is currently a Ph.D. candidate in economics at Columbia University –– surely he knows the difference between state and democratic socialism, and their outcomes in society, right? He must be aware that we have had democratic socialist policies like social security for decades in the United States, and our economy hasn’t collapsed in the way that Venezuela’s has. 

I’m not intending to insult his intelligence. I’m sure that he is aware of this, but, for ideological reasons, chooses to be undisciplined in his categorizations to group progressive movements together.

Mr Di Martino is also incorrect in his assertion that state socialism was the sole reason Venezuela’s government collapsed. Although I don’t have as extensive a background in economic policy as he does, the macroeconomic patterns that led to Venezuela’s collapse are easy to observe and clearly went beyond state socialism. Several analysts agree that the hyperinflation of Venezuela’s currency was caused by the government printing money to pay off its own debts, a highly inflationary and frankly stupid economic policy. However, this policy is not inherently socialist –– it could be adopted by any country with a central, fiat currency and debt. 

Furthermore, Di Martino discounted a massive factor in the collapse of Venezuela’s economy: the collapse of oil demand in 2014. When the price of oil fell from $100 to $40 a barrel, Venezuela’s very poorly diversified economy suffered greatly, the government could no longer finance large scale spending. Third, sanctions: Di Martino criticized democratic politicians who claimed that U.S. sanctions against Venezuela had contributed to its collapse, despite the fact that President Donald Trump’s 2019 sanctions against the country immediately caused oil production to drop from 1,500 barrels of oil a day to only 337. Surely this significant drop in oil production, the country’s primary export, also contributed to a further collapse of its economy. All of this doesn’t even mention the wide scale corruption across Venezuela. 

Yes, it’s true that state socialist policy and bloated government spending contributed to Venezuela’s collapse, but it is certainly not the whole story. 

In my opinion, it’s clear that Di Martino knows the misconceptions that he’s spreading. He’s clearly very intelligent –– his presentation was both compelling and easy to understand without extra information. However, with some extra information, his thesis falls flat. I hope that in the future he is more honest with his thoughts on the collapse of Venezuela, based on his extensive knowledge of economics.

Opinion articles represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.

The opinions expressed are his own and do not reflect the views of the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, or any part of the U.S. government.


Eli Moyse

Eli Moyse ’27 is an opinion editor and columnist for The Dartmouth. He is from Connecticut, and studies government and creative writing. 

On campus, Eli is an active member of the Dartmouth Political Union and Dartmouth Army ROTC. He attends Dartmouth on an ROTC scholarship, and upon graduation, he will commission as a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Army. He has been an active writer and political organizer from a young age, working on over 15 political campaigns varying from local to presidential races, and publishing both fiction and nonfiction on various platforms.

First and foremost, Eli loves to write, and he intends to make some form of it his full time career after his time in the Army.

Trending