As I understand it, Venezuela is in this predicament because their president instituted extravagant, far-reaching social programs, all of which were funded by revenues from state-sponsored exports, chiefly oil. So, without attempting to write a lengthy essay here, that setup fell victim to a double whammy of 1) mismanagement of those resources and 2) continuing the social programs. Basically when the bottom fell out of the oil market, their revenue dried up, but the expensive social programs continued. It didn't take long before there was no money for basic services.

Self-professed libertarians and free-market anarchocapitalists use Venezuela as a prime example of social democracy as a failing strategy for governance. I don't find that appropriate because any rational person can see that there should have been a direct and immediate response to scale each program's reach to its per-period fiscal support. However, I do think Venezuela could be used as a case example that however the pathway, you don't want buffoons in charge of your country's most important things. In other words, I don't think that a greedy, short-sighted buffoon in private industry is any better than a greedy, short-sighted buffoon in government.