Hugo Chavez and Populism
As Machiavelli discussed in detail, the aristocracy of a country will continue to take a larger share of the wealth until at some point the people will push back. If the aristocracy is unlucky, as they were in Russia in 1917, they will lose everything. If the aristocracy is lucky, as they have been so far in Venezuela under Chavez, there will be a compression of wealth as there was in the United States in the 1930's but they will retain most of their property.
Chavez has been called a Communist and a revolutionary but he appears to have been a populist reformer, improving literacy and health care, and redistributing land and wealth. Press reports suggest that he is terminally ill. A smooth transition to a successor appears to be in jeopardy. If the aristocracy of Venezuela are wise, they will allow Chavez's reforms to continue. Eventually, and again we are back to Machiavelli, the populist movement Chavez founded will become corrupt and discredited, and the aristocracy will probably regain their wealth.
It's easy to hate Machiavelli - he understood human nature too well. He understood the grasping nature of the aristocracy and tendency of those in power to become corrupt and oppressive. He teaches us that government should have the mechanisms for reform built in because the need for reform is inevitable.