Venezuela – socialist paradise on the verge of collapse
- Thread starter PedroMendez
- Start date
Trump's talking about sanctioning their oil.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/40787830
I remember a certain caf favorite said this in 2011.
I remember a certain caf favorite said this in 2011.
But who cares what one said 6 years ago.
So is this heading for civil war? And if it is, is it too much to hope the CIA stays out of it?
Chomsky or Owen Jones?I remember a certain caf favorite said this in 2011.
Feel the burn. But it's true that there are so many high profile left wing figures who acted as cheerleader for this madness; hard to find one that hasn't said something equally ridiculous. All proven to be utterly wrong.
Not sure how this is going to end. If the military doesn't switch their loyalty, the opposition has no chance to succeed. At the moment it looks like they stay loyal to the regime. The benefit from it by controlling major parts of the economy (a bit like the revolutionary guard in Iran). I thought that they'd kick out maduro at some point but I am not so sure anymore. At the moment they go down the route of kuba, which is a one-way ticket into misery.
Maybe some CIA involvement wouldn't be so bad, not that I believe that they can do much in Venezuela nowadays.
Last edited:
Socialist paradise is an oxymoron
A couple more thoughts on how this is going to continue:
1) for a civil war you need two sides with guns. Here all the guns are in the hand of armed forces, colectivos and the national guard. All support the regime. There can't be an armed insurgent
2) the opposition tried to come to a mutual negotiated agreement with the regime but the regime never accept this as a way forward.
3) despite its civil leadership, the country is a military dictatorship.
4) it is difficult to assess the stance of the military. Are they willing to drop maduro? What's known is that they are deeply connected with organised crime, drug trafficking and have major influence on all remaining industries. They can't exist in its current form without a criminal regime. Additionally all major leaders came to power with help of Chavez/maduro. Last but not least, the normal soldiers might be unhappy but it will be difficult for them to oppose the regime.
5) there is a huge amount of Cuban influence especially in the secret service. These are hardcore ideologies, that will never back down. Cuba also needs Venezuela, so they'll be very loyal to the current regime. They'll make any uprising from within the intelligence or military establishment very unlikely.
6) Argentina, Panama, Costa Rica, the EU, the usa, Mexico and Colombia all rejected the validity of the last vote. While publicly other Latin American leaders are distancing themselves, maduro has still many allies within the Latin American left. One prominent example would be Gleisi Hoffmann, the leader of the Brazilian PT, who babbled just recently about a neoliberal conspiracy and solidarity with maduro. These loons are sadly still a major force in LA in almost all countries. Parts of the LA left is busy blaming the USA for all the evil in the world. This mindset of always blaming others while embracing even the crudest conspiracy theories is a major problem in LA. Some people really need to grow the feck up, but I am getting off track.
Consequently it is not clear how much pressure the region is going to put on maduro. It is also not clear that he cares. The us sanctions are a good thing but that's not enough without a unified front from all its neighbours.
7) while the country was polarised under Chavez, maduro is almost universally hated. The living conditions are just too terrible. So the populus is staunchly against him nowadays.
8) https://elpais.com/internacional/2017/07/31/actualidad/1501487017_226209.html
Maduro is probably going to abolish immunity for MPs. The last vote for electing a constitutional assembly was the official end of democracy in the country.
I thought that the regime is weak and the military would kick them out at some point. I am starting to believe that they used the last 10 years to make the regime fairly coup resistant. The Cuban influence is cancer in this regard.
Maduro rejected any option to end this madness peacefully and at this point he seems to be too far down the rabbit hole. It is difficult to see anything but him going full authoritarian. But is that possible when the economy collapsed? I don't know. There is opposition from with his socialist party but he'll use the Constitutional assembly to force any opposition (Luis Ortega Diaz) out, so they are running out of time.
Things can always get worse. Sadly.
1) for a civil war you need two sides with guns. Here all the guns are in the hand of armed forces, colectivos and the national guard. All support the regime. There can't be an armed insurgent
2) the opposition tried to come to a mutual negotiated agreement with the regime but the regime never accept this as a way forward.
3) despite its civil leadership, the country is a military dictatorship.
4) it is difficult to assess the stance of the military. Are they willing to drop maduro? What's known is that they are deeply connected with organised crime, drug trafficking and have major influence on all remaining industries. They can't exist in its current form without a criminal regime. Additionally all major leaders came to power with help of Chavez/maduro. Last but not least, the normal soldiers might be unhappy but it will be difficult for them to oppose the regime.
5) there is a huge amount of Cuban influence especially in the secret service. These are hardcore ideologies, that will never back down. Cuba also needs Venezuela, so they'll be very loyal to the current regime. They'll make any uprising from within the intelligence or military establishment very unlikely.
6) Argentina, Panama, Costa Rica, the EU, the usa, Mexico and Colombia all rejected the validity of the last vote. While publicly other Latin American leaders are distancing themselves, maduro has still many allies within the Latin American left. One prominent example would be Gleisi Hoffmann, the leader of the Brazilian PT, who babbled just recently about a neoliberal conspiracy and solidarity with maduro. These loons are sadly still a major force in LA in almost all countries. Parts of the LA left is busy blaming the USA for all the evil in the world. This mindset of always blaming others while embracing even the crudest conspiracy theories is a major problem in LA. Some people really need to grow the feck up, but I am getting off track.
Consequently it is not clear how much pressure the region is going to put on maduro. It is also not clear that he cares. The us sanctions are a good thing but that's not enough without a unified front from all its neighbours.
7) while the country was polarised under Chavez, maduro is almost universally hated. The living conditions are just too terrible. So the populus is staunchly against him nowadays.
8) https://elpais.com/internacional/2017/07/31/actualidad/1501487017_226209.html
Maduro is probably going to abolish immunity for MPs. The last vote for electing a constitutional assembly was the official end of democracy in the country.
I thought that the regime is weak and the military would kick them out at some point. I am starting to believe that they used the last 10 years to make the regime fairly coup resistant. The Cuban influence is cancer in this regard.
Maduro rejected any option to end this madness peacefully and at this point he seems to be too far down the rabbit hole. It is difficult to see anything but him going full authoritarian. But is that possible when the economy collapsed? I don't know. There is opposition from with his socialist party but he'll use the Constitutional assembly to force any opposition (Luis Ortega Diaz) out, so they are running out of time.
Things can always get worse. Sadly.
Last edited:
Spot on. Much of Brazilian left's stance on this is appalling, and should be disqualifying (has really forever been for me).
There's also always the precedent of N Korea (Cuba less so I guess) in a way: there's no guarantee that if things get bad enough, that the people will necessarily be able to overthrow the government.
There's also always the precedent of N Korea (Cuba less so I guess) in a way: there's no guarantee that if things get bad enough, that the people will necessarily be able to overthrow the government.
I doubt that one would be able to recreate Cuba without the isolation of being on an island. Maduro would love it, but people would vote with their feet and leave. I have been to Cuba and talked to many people there. Anytime some spoilt European kids talks about how great their healthcare is, I want to brutally murder them.
Cuba/NK only works due to the specific geography that allowed isolation. It's impossible to do same in Venezuela. Obviously they can still run a brutal dictatorship, but it wont last for decades. Sadly even few years is too much. Kids suffering from malnutrition and lacking even basic education can haunt a country for decades.
It's just so upsetting that the people buy into the same ideological crap over and over again. De Kirchner is already preparing her comeback in Argentina. Lula might do it in Brasil. Bolivia is having their own mini Chavez. Paraguayans just set fire to their parliament (I can't really blame them considering their choices). So many idiots. So much wasted potential.
It's the wrong thread for it but what did you find out ?
Via FB I sometimes see a post or two by brazilian leftists and their discussions. Its just surreal that they talk about:
(a) "We can't support the right-wing opposition"... because opposing your socialist dictator it could only be a right wing authoritarian, never a centrist democrat. Classic whataboutism so that they never abandon their claimed moral high-ground.
(b) About the US interests in this and what they're allegedly driving. I mean... have they seen what's going in the White House? You think there's a Latam policy with any serious urgency or clout behind it?
It also gets said about the events going on in Brazil in the past 3 years. Just reminds me of why I had to leave. This delusion that the US even care enough about Latam these days, and protectionist Brazil in particular, to articulate Cold War level plans to interfere.
If I'm not mistaken the opposition is not most of the Venezuela people and there is among the opposition an extreme violent racist right wing sec - the protesters have thrown grenades, put razor sharp wires across roads(Which would result in decapitation for any unluckily motorcyclist) and have also set fire to people(One man was set on fire because he had dark skin - therefor he must be a Chavist).
The C.I.A are actively looking to get involved(If they haven't already) - https://www.democracynow.org/2017/8/1/as_us_sanctions_maduro_and_hints
Not really here to defend the Venezuela government but its not as clear cut as some are making out.
Last edited:
The youngish people from university knew surprisingly well what's going on but made their peace with the situation, because they couldn't do anything about it. They werent really free to do what they want (education is tightly controlled and managed) and if you get higher education for a better job, the regime wants a certain amount of loyalty. Otherwise you suffer. They couldn't just leave legally either. It was quite sad. They also said that talking to us can become a problem for them, but I don't know how true some of their stories were. The bottom line, that the police/intelligence service look out for any voiced opposition, was convincing. First you just get a slap on your wrist and if you don't stop you get problems. Some of them were clearly part of the "better offs". Not sure how they were able to get to this position. Some of them were imo holding back when it came to details about their personal story.
Still they were really great guys. Genuinely friendly and open which I wouldn't necessarily expect when interacting with tourists. Oh and they are obviously extremely poor despite living in Havana. Some of their homes were in appalling condition. One night we were at a house party at the malecon (famous Street on the sea in Havanna). The house was just a ruin. Probably not fixed in decades.
It was difficult to get older people to talk to you without them treating you as tourist. So I can't really say what they think.
Really interesting, cheers for that.
My point on (a) is that this is a justification for some socialist/left parties in Brazil and elsewhere to still express support for the Maduro government. Obviously at the same time their support or not is largely irrelevant to the situation in Venezuela. But that's why it's been a sort of "test" in my mind since I've had any political conscience as a teenager.
Because there's really no costs or benefits depending on how you express your position about events in most other countries when you're an opposition party in your own, you should get to express your true/ideal political position. In expressing their support to his govt through not only the successive maneuvers to extend Chavez' and his stays in power, and the recent violence, these parties are expressing to me that it represents their political ideals too.
As for (b), by definition the CIA has people at the embassy in every country on the globe, and people at HQ and State Dept that work the relevant 'desk' for any region, relevant or irrelevant. It doesn't take a PhD to surmise that they've long been dissatisfied with the situation, and probably have and will continue to take actions that they might perceive as low-cost to try and influence the situation.
But the budget allocated is minimal ($5m annual), and my point about urgency and clout is simply that if there are very few statements by either the President or SecState (and let the last admin be the benchmark, not this steaming mess), is seldom the agenda of cabinet meetings or congressional hearings (compared to the Middle East, Eastern Europe or East Asia), are we supposed to believe that the CIA is conducting determined operations to overthrow the Venezuelan government?
Pompeo already admitted CIA involvement.
Is the same as admitting to being the conductor of the whole thing?Mike Pompeo said:
This is the usual dual reality where the US are both too incompetent to secure any kind of stability in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they've spent trillions, but yet play omnipresent puppet master everywhere else (at the cost of just a few million quid a year)
How many congressional hearings were there during the Cuban and Chilean coups? There was one initially for Cuba, though not much was made of that part of the US written amendment to the newly formed Cuban constitution which gave the US the right to overthrow the Cuban government by force whenever it deemed fit.
The Contra hearings took place after the Contra scandal rather than during, if I recall correctly.
Though this really isn't a topic with any direct relevance to the US or the CIA. The economy of Venezuela was disastrously mismanaged. There's nothing much more to add. It's not a CIA scheme or a US plot, it's just a failing of governance. Though the need for some to equate this as somehow rendering socialism invalid is both petty and absurd.
I only said involvement. But any potential deeper involvement would probably fall under the budget for covert action which was 2.6 billion with undisclosed allocation a few years ago.
ay. The us is always getting blamed for all the shortcomings regardless of what they do or don't do. Either way, they are somehow behind everything that goes wrong.
As you say, nowadays the us is hardly giving a feck about most countries in LA. They have nothing to do with the current situation in Venezuela.
There is also another point that is deliberately getting ignored by people on the left. Cronyism, corruption, authoritarian leadership and even dictatorship are nothing new to the region. Yet non of these ills can actually explain the economic situation in Venezuela. Countries frequently go down this route and simply bumble on. So how come a former middle income country ends up with a situation that we usually only know from countries that suffered from natural catastrophies (e.g droughts, famine) or war? Venezuela was hardly ever well governed but people were still not starving. Even way poorer countries in Africa are doing way better.
The answer of the LA left will probably be "it's all the US fault", but that's obviously nonsense. The current crisis is the direct consequence of economic centralism: Nationalisation of industries and companies, errosion of property rights, price controls, subsidies, central planning, protectionism, printing money, expropriation and all the other shenanigans that go along with this. These things are part of the classic socialist playbook of how to run the economy of a country. These are not misunderstandings. The good old "that's not really what socialism looks like" excuses are completely dishonest. Quite recently (even till 2013/14) people on the left were raving how great Venezuela is. "Socialism of the 21.century is finally ending poverty and inequality". We had to listen to this crap for 15 years and anyone with 2 eyes knew how this would end. Even 4-5 years ago bernie, corbyn, melenchon and their ilk have been telling us that we should look to Venezuela because that's how one should build a fairer society. Yet now they pretend that this is not really socialism afterall. Bloody ideologues, who never take ownership and always move the goalpost.
Economic centralism will fail 100 out of 100 times. It will create poverty 100 out of 100 times. Consequently people will get fed up with it. Public support only last when the results are good. At this point socialists have to give up on their dreams or become authoritarian to protect their revolution. The political escalation is primarily a consequence of the deterioration of the economic reality.
That's the lesson the continent has to learn. Otherwise it will always end in tears.
Oh and I already wait for all the people who confuse social-democracy and socialism. "But Scandinavia is doing great." Ladi-fecking-da. Sweden is not a socialist country.
Last edited:
Do you really believe that? The US had meddled in the affairs of LA for well over a century, treating elected governments like pawns, killing leaders, overthrowing regimes and occasionally invading if all else fails. Not just to try and keep governments similar to them in power, but often just to protect the profits of American corporations.
Sure the LA countries have been badly managed, but a large part of their instability and unpredictability can be directly linked to prior (if not current) American interference. You seriously think that the US has 'nothing to do' with what's happening in one of the world's largest oil producers which just happens to be a close neighbour? Sure, ok then..
My Peruvian girlfriend says Venezuelan immigrants are pouring into Peru because of the upheaval in their own country.
They're not wanted but they're accepted as they've nowhere else to go.
They're not wanted but they're accepted as they've nowhere else to go.
The US runs interference or whatever you want to call it in Latin America to protect its own interests. Which includes all of the above (coups, assassinations, economic warfare, etc), but, in this case, it really is a colossal feck up on behalf of the Venezuelan ruling class. They can't claim US boogeyman on this one.
For a direct comparison, see Cuba. Not exactly a bastion of economic prosperity, but, they've managed to stave off food shortages and the likes for decades. They manage their economy better. This Venezuelan turmoil hurts Cuba a lot though, as Venezuela gave Cuba billions in oil aid. Half of that went to meet the energy needs of the country, the other half was sold on the world market and transformed into hard currency. That aid has stopped as of now, or severely decreased.
Setting aside for a moment the fact the US vilified and isolated Chavez basically from day one, you can't just look at a single regime and say 'no our fault' if you heavily contributed to the overall situation in the first place. Why do the poor in South America have to back quite extreme leaders to get their basic rights protected? Answer that and you'll see why the US is culpable.
Well, historically speaking, the US played very real war games in South and Latin America during and prior to the Cold War. The world market is a run on a capitalist system. Socialism is a worthy cause, but I think history has shown that it only ever works when a trade off is made. The public sector simply can't control all private interests and remain viable in today's world. A balance has to be struck. In rebellion to the US, a lot of countries discussed here went all out in terms of either neoliberal market practices (with the support of the US), or the other way, and followed the Soviet model. One of these models still exists whilst the other is extinct and/or floundering. Socialism with a long-term view to communism is dead. Capitalism with a socialist conscience, however, is thriving in many countries.
You also have to remember that 90% of the reason relations between Cuba and the US were normalized (aside from Cuban recognition that it was needed), was due to pressure placed on the United States by Latin American countries. The US became politically isolated on its own continent. So they made the requisite overture to Cuba to ameliorate the situation. If the US were behind all the economic ills of Venezuela, all of that good will would evaporate overnight. I don't even think other socialist LA countries believe the US is to blame in this situation (aside from a historical viewpoint).
Last edited:
I don't disagree with your main point, but the US were still playing those games just a couple of decades ago at the latest. That kind of interference causes generational changes. You could just as easy ask why more of Latin America isn't already closer to the kind of democratic socialism that most of the west moved towards long ago. Simply because its hardcore capitalist superpower neighbour prefered to have regional dictators in place that they could control, rather than allow even basic socialism to intrude. They cared more about profits than human rights, and will be paying the price for that (along with the people of LA) for a very long time.
Well....some of the stuff that was written is so wrong, that it is not even worth addressing it. Its like a parody of a deluded radical, but I doubt that it is a joke.
Here is a very polemic short review of modern Venezuelan history, that explains how marxist thought is connected to the "Bolivian revolution". It is not worth the hustle to understand it, if you don't speak spanish. I just post it because sometimes its worth countering bullshit with other bullshit.
Here is a great essay from Anibal Romero, who is a good source for info about Venezuelan politics. I might translate some key passages in the coming days. Google translate would give you the gist as well.
Here is a longer essay from him in english that explains how Venezuela ended up with Chavez without the extreme bias of the first author (Eugenio Guerrero). I know that 19 pages might be scary long for many, but it is really good and informative. The essay was written originally around 2000. I think the translation into english is from 2002; not sure if he updated the text. It is a sign of quality is, that most of his analysis proved to be spot on. It also foreshadows why the military-reform in ~2004 and the alignment with Cuba was vital, but I might touch on this subject later.
Here are more quotes. Hopefully some interested people are willing to read the essay, so they don't have to buy into complete nonsense and anti-american drivel.
Here is a very polemic short review of modern Venezuelan history, that explains how marxist thought is connected to the "Bolivian revolution". It is not worth the hustle to understand it, if you don't speak spanish. I just post it because sometimes its worth countering bullshit with other bullshit.
Here is a great essay from Anibal Romero, who is a good source for info about Venezuelan politics. I might translate some key passages in the coming days. Google translate would give you the gist as well.
Here is a longer essay from him in english that explains how Venezuela ended up with Chavez without the extreme bias of the first author (Eugenio Guerrero). I know that 19 pages might be scary long for many, but it is really good and informative. The essay was written originally around 2000. I think the translation into english is from 2002; not sure if he updated the text. It is a sign of quality is, that most of his analysis proved to be spot on. It also foreshadows why the military-reform in ~2004 and the alignment with Cuba was vital, but I might touch on this subject later.
I like this quote it because he refers to Norberto Ceresole, who had a strong ideological influence on Chavez. He is a truly wicked and despicaple person. An opportunistic neo-facist and anti-semite. Understanding the mind of Norberto Ceresole is half way to understand the toxic reemerging bullshit in Latin american politics. Call it (Neo)caudillismo, Peron-ism, Chavismo or what not. Anyway, non of his ideas are actually novel, but few people have the guts to justify this form of government. These truly awful ideas haunt the region for over 200 years and are sadly deeply embedded/rooted in the culture. Every time one thinks, that finally people are ready to move on, this shit comes back in another form.
Here are more quotes. Hopefully some interested people are willing to read the essay, so they don't have to buy into complete nonsense and anti-american drivel.
Last edited:
or those who confuse whatever its happening in Venezuela with socialism...
What are the primary differences between the two ?
don't be so shy and follow your dear leader. He knows what he is talking about.
"An inspiration to all of us, fighting back against austerity and neoliberal economics in Europe showed us there is a different, and better way of doing things. It’s called socialism, it’s called social justice, and it is something Venezuela has made a big step towards.”
You can call it whatever you want, but it's not socialism. Just like the communist China wasn't communist and the National Socialists in Germany weren't socialists.
They just took over a universal concept to fool people and make them believe into the dream.
It's the actions and facts what's important to take into account, not the words.
Its okay to call Sweden a social democracy, because its obvious, the social aspect of life is very important to them. They take care of their people, no matter who is in charge, they all have the same opportunities, etc. Chances you born in Sweden and grow up to be a successful happy human being are much higher than in Venezuela or the US.
They just took over a universal concept to fool people and make them believe into the dream.
It's the actions and facts what's important to take into account, not the words.
Its okay to call Sweden a social democracy, because its obvious, the social aspect of life is very important to them. They take care of their people, no matter who is in charge, they all have the same opportunities, etc. Chances you born in Sweden and grow up to be a successful happy human being are much higher than in Venezuela or the US.
Are there any actual examples of socialism or communism in action according to you?
There are parts of Venezuela that are socialists - the Venezuelan Communes but since Chavez death the process has been very slow.
I've heard good things about this books(Haven't read it myself as I've still got a ton of books to finish)
https://www.versobooks.com/books/2337-building-the-commune
I think your being very unfair on Chavez and more importantly the people of Venezuela.
Last edited:
No.
The closest to a functional socialism is the nordic model, which is a hybrid system.
Countries like NZ and Australia i consider to be quite socialists too, because they care about the happiness of their people. No one is born destined to be poor or second class citizen in those countries.
It's not me calling it socialism. I only call people socialist who are actually self-identifying as socialist. I respect self chosen identities. Chavez called himself a socialist. Maduro does as well. Other socialists all over Europe were calling him one until he started to publicly murder his citizens.
Maybe you should actually read some of the work of socialist thinkers. You pretend that I misrepresent them, but I don't. The irony is that I understand far better than you what socialism means, because I read their work.
Classic socialism (there are different forms) is centered around abolishing property rights, collective control of industries and economic centralism. That's terrible. If you are so defensive about labels, you could also just say that economic centralism sucks balls.
True, but i wont judge intentions. Results speak for themselves. Maybe they had good intentions in the beginning, but it's not working (no matter the reason, even if its because economic warfare by the economic right or US).
Venezuela is a rich country, their citizens don't deserve to be suffering like they are now.
They are many roads leading to Rome, but they decided to go through the shortest but most dangerous road. Time to take a breather and take a better road.
100%.
But what about a partial economic centralism?
(at least water, power, education and health should be under full or partial state control)
We are in the year 2017, its a totally different world from the one your socialist thinkers lived on.
Instead, what about using common sense and just try to imitate those countries and societies where things are working good?
feck concepts that are there only to confuse people. Only facts matter.
Last edited:
That's a pretty important reservation.