Here’s Ken Livingstone being corrected on his claim that it’s all due to the sanctions, but I wonder if the presenter has it right?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Venezuela – socialist paradise on the verge of collapse
- Thread starter PedroMendez
- Start date
it's a feedback loop, oil production is expensive, money keeps running low because there hasn't been much long term investment in much else and the profits go to social programs etc. until they hit a massive wall where they don't have enough money to get enough oil to keep the country going
it doesn't take much in the way of sanctions to screw a country like that, you just have to time it, i.e when the cost of a barrel of oil is at very low (as it has been in recent years)
no but lets not pretend that's why america wants in
Well, yeah, of course not, but I don't see why that negates from the fact that Maduro is a corrupt dictator who needs to go, or from the fact that the Venezuelan economic collapse isn't solely America's fault.
In return for Maduro stepping down?
that seems like a fine offer he might even take it since most of them are on his buddies, they won't take it if it means the US installs a puppet in their place though
I dont know why you think outside forces get to demand regime change.
Ken is such a sorry figure these days.
it doesn't but the "feck yeah USA let's liberate these feckers" that's coming out of high society right now isn't a good alternative to a corrupt dictator
The US sanctions have nothing to do with the economic situation of the country and you should happily discount anyone who makes this argument. For all the rhetoric, both countries never stopped trading and the trade-flows only declined because 1) Venezuela was falling apart 2) there was a natural shift of many (latin american) countries towards china. The irony is that the US had the economic power to do serious damage to the economy and Chavismo but neither Bush nor Obama used this leverage. Its also ironic, that the cash that keeps the regime alive comes from trade with the US. Venezuela's debt towards China and Russia is so high, that those countries don't actually pay for their oil anymore but get it for extending existing loans. Its worth adding that the new round of sanctions seem to be far more severe and they might have substantial impact on the cash-flow of the regime. Or whatever its left of it. Overall the presenter is spot on.
Surely if Trump had used the Supreme Court to essentially nullify the House so he could implement his own policies unchallenged you'd agree with other countries arguing for his removal as President?
No
So you would be fine with an effective dictatorship wherein the President enriches himself at the expense of starving citizens who suffer because of the corruption and incompetence of his regime?
Does Venezuela have anything similar to Norway's oil fund?
thats America right now though
No the country's broke
I don't much care for Trump, but I don't see any evidence of US citizens starving while the president cashes in (or no more than under any previous administration).
Venezuela is a basket case, end of story. There is no similarity between the plight of Venezuela and the state of the US right now.
it was a facetious comparison since a lot of the arguments for invading foreign countries, i.e officials enriching themselves, are just shit the invaders do too but:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_States
I haven't gone through the whole article, but I accept that food poverty exists in the US (as it does in the UK, Germany, France, or just about any other sizeable country you could think of). To counter, I would ask why millions of people are trying to get out of Venezuala, whilst at the same time millions are trying to get into the US (does hunger taste better in the US?).
I'm no fan of western imperialism, be it military or economic, but I imagine most people in Venezuela would accept any solution to their present predicament. Maduro just has to go, and I don't care how that comes about.
You're doing the same thing as the fella above, assuming there are only two options. Just because I don't want Russia or China or Gabon trying to enact regime change in the US doesn't mean I'm "fine with it". The obvious point is that there are other options and those should be explored internally or through diplomatic bodies. The other point is that the US has had your scenario happen plenty of times before. The US has had countless stolen election. I think you would find it hard to argue that even in 2018 the Georgia governor's election was legitimate.
Recent examples of the US toppling dictators who enriched themselves at the expense of others are a lot worse than current day Venezuela. I don't see how actual warfare, being bombed and murdered while foreign capitalists share the oil fields is going to feed anyone.
Imagine letting your people starve to accumulate a fund.
Imagine thinking the solution to hunger is bombs rather than sending food
I'm not advocating warfare (or certainly not as a first resort). I just want the people of Venezuela to be able to exercise a choice over their president and the nature of their government. If they could exercise such a choice, and perhaps they already have, Maduro would be history. If he uses the military to cling on to power, then I have no qualms about the methods used to remove him whatever they may be.
Regarding the oil fields, Venezuela should be one of the richest nations in South America, perhaps even globally. It certainly should not be virtually bankrupt with huge numbers of its people heading for the exits. The current administration has shown itself to be severely incompetent at best, and criminally corrupt at worst. It has to go.
they do have elections, Maduro's party for all it's fascist tendencies didn't dispute the 2015 parliamentary elections which they lost
what we're talking about here is the current US led attempt, spearheaded by John Bolton, to topple the regime and install a US puppet not a hypothetical scenario where Maduro spontaneously disappears
Are you suggesting the current negativity surrounding Venezuela is simply US sponsored hype to justify an intervention? If so, I just don't buy it, and I'd cite the millions leaving the country as evidence.
There's no way I believe the US is whiter than white, and they have plenty of previous, but Venezuela is not an example (Trump has many faults, but a taste for foreign adventures isn't one of them).
"Maduro's party for all its fascist tendencies" - enough said.
no i'm suggesting the last several decades of the US spreading democracy have almost always been bad for locals and made lives worse for the people they claimed to be helping
John Bolton specifically has a bad record and if you find yourself promoting the same regime change you're fecking up
also not wanting the us to invade a country doesn't mean you like every single thing about the person they're about to kill
No, they just... created another legislature formed only of party supporters and stripped power from the elected one!Credit where it's due it's creative fascism
On the point I've highlighted, we are in agreement. There is an unjustified arrogance about the west (and maybe the US in particular) which persuades us that we can instuct other populations on how best to manage their affairs. To be sure, as often than not it would have been better if we'd left well alone.
However, in the case of Venezuela, there is a a problem which perhaps the US (and ideally the nations of South America) can play a role in resolving. Maduro's government has to go, and I don't care whether his replacement as President is Guaido or someone else who is feasible. If Guaido is tainted with the perception that he is a US puppet, then by all means let the people of Venezuela choose an alternative if they so wish.
Last edited:
They have approx 150 tons of gold reserves, which was just depleted by 20 tons which was shipped out on a Russian plane bound for?? to get the govmnt some much needed cash.
I'm struggling to think of a viable option which involves Maduro staying in power. It's fairly evident that he's extremely unpopular in Venezuela and that his corrupt government is primarily responsible for current conditions. It's also fairly obvious that he doesn't seem to be interested in relinquishing power. Any response should, of course, be measured, and I'd probably agree with any assertion that his removal from power wouldn't exactly solve all of Venezuela's problems. And I'd largely agree that for all the flaws of Chavez and Maduro they rose to power for very specific reasons and that there were probably some initial improvements seen within the country upon them taking power. Similarly I don't think the US give a shit about Venezuela and Trump and co would happily see it fall to an equally despotic regime if they could make some money from it.
But at the same time I have no qualms with efforts to remove Maduro from power provided such moves are measured and don't bring harm to people in Venezuela. And I find it baffling that people seem more intent on framing this as US imperialism as opposed to what's largely been a response from within Venezuela against a deeply unpopular and corrupt leader who's largely responsible for his people starving, all under the guise of supposedly implementing socialism. The US have an awful history in Latin American and I can understand reluctance in regards to what'll happen next but I find it bizarre that some don't seem to really give a feck about Maduro's own human rights abuses and failings and are instead determined to focus on the US response.
There's a difference between naively promoting regime change under some belief that the US are anything other than self-interested actors here and agreeing with the notion that Maduro's led a deeply corrupt regime that's seen the economy collapse and has people starving as a result. This isn't something that's been orchestrated solely by the US - the reasons for the current situation are primarily down to those within the country who have grown disillusioned with a government that initially worked for them but has since overseen a drastic economic downturn. Pointing to previous US actions in Latin America doesn't mean Maduro is somehow the better option for Venezuela, or that there shouldn't be a move for change in the country to try and improve things. Saying "it can only get worse" to excuse a regime where people are currently starving strikes me as a remarkably conservative viewpoint to hold. Even if moderation is needed and any optimism as to Maduro's potential replacement needs to be tempered.
It's not just previous US actions. It's previous US actions by the same people who backed and provided support for the 1982 coup in Guatemala. It's the exact same people who sold weapons to Iran so they could invest in South American cocaine and anti-communist factions in civil wars. The same fecking people. It's not even a vague critique of American imperialism anymore because you can literally point to the things these actual people did. And it didn't lead to peace and prosperity, it led to massacres, genocide and decades of worsening conditions. Elliott Abrams should be rotting in a jail right now but he's the special envoy to Venezuela. What the feck.
We're not saying "it could get worse" we're saying these motherfeckers have tried again and again and again, and millions of people are dead because of it so they don't get another chance.
Last edited:
Because we've seen this play out before. And it doesn't end well.
But that doesn't detract from the fact that people have literally been starving in Venezuela due to the current regime. And that for them the actions of US officials is fairly irrelevant insofar as getting rid of the current government is concerned. While I don't know enough about the opposition in Venezuela to comment fully, and while I doubt we'd see all widespread corruption disappear, the opposition seem to be vaguely social democrats - we're not talking about a dual choice between the far-left and fascism, as has often been the case when the US have brazenly intervened.
Again I don't think there's anything incorrect or wrong about calling out the US for their blatant imperialism over the years or for pointing out that they're doing this entirely for their own self-interest. But at the same time I don't see that should somehow be used as an excuse for the continuation of Maduro's reign, or for any opposition to his potential removal. A lot of the motivation behind this is coming from within Venezuela. They're naturally going to accept help from the US if it's offered because why wouldn't they? Even if Maduro's prospective replacement dislikes Trump or Elliott Abrams (no idea if he does), he'll also be aware that he's not exactly in a position to turn down US support.
And to say "things could get worse" is a deeply conservative response when plenty of people are literally starving at the moment and need wholesale change if they want their prospects to improve in the long-term. A lot of Venezuelans seem perfectly willing at the moment to take certain risks if it leads to an increased quality of life for them.
ok so send them food it's really that easy and the people of Venezuela don't have to add civil war to their hunger
So what should the response be to help people in Venezuela who are starving in the face of a dictatorial regime that refuses to relinquish power in spite of its failings? Aid will help in the short-term but is the equivalent of excusing poverty with vague notions of charity - it won't do anything to actually improve their long-term prospects.
Saying "it doesn't end well" is again a fairly lazy way to essentially equate various different conflicts and coups together instead of examining this one individually. Yes, the US are cnuts. We know this. That doesn't change the situation currently or somehow put Maduro in the right.
that's not the part we're against, though we are, it's the literal wars and genocides that come with US intervention that top the list
The response should be to end sanctions, send food and butt the feck out.