The only point where Mr. Ciccariello is mildly right, is about the colectivos, that those guys have their own agenda. The rest, is far-left wing biased talk…
Sorry, but Mr. Ciccariello views about what happening are cartoonish at best, starting with how does he depict the protesters…
For people who passionately oppose the Venezuelan government, whatever depiction of the process that identifies positive democratic output in the last 15 years will be “cartoonish” and “far-left wing”. If someone dismisses The Nation’s editorial choice as “far left wing” “biased” views, that’s a clue to identifiy his political standing. In this case, it may also help in understanding the tone behind jgratero’s tiresome replies in the discussions on Venezuela …
This maybe an eyeopener for some - a compilation of today`s main headlines in kiosks in Venezuela, the place where “there’s censorship of the protests” and “no press freedom” …
Main national headlines: El Nacional “15 dead, 7 shot in the head”; El Universal “Capriles (opp leader): The protest is in the streets, I didn’t call for it”; La Voz “New day of protests in Caracas”; 2001 “Some go about happy, others crying”; Ultimas Noticias “Dialogue faces setbacks”
Two public daily newspapers: Correo del Orinoco: “President confirms detention of mercenary”; Ciudad CCS (Caracas only) “Mercenary detained had plans for bombing”
Some regional newspapers: “Venezuela at a standstill”; “National Guard detains 16”; “Mutiny in Maracaibo”; “Barricades in 16 counties”; “Clashes yesterday”, “Protests at dawn”, “GPP ratifies support of Maduro / Protests don’t stop”…
Chavista weekly headline: “80% percent against destabilization”
If after reading the above you think you should question the information on the issue that you receive from your usual news media, then you are a step towards understanding that your opinion about Venezuela should not be based solely on the views of people who assure you that the protests are being silenced - the likes of Maruja Tarre, Mujica, and insidious activist commentator jgratero. If they lie in such a fashion about press freedom, how much trust can you put on their side of the story on other hot issues of the day?
I’m actually and specifically dismissing Ciccariello. The guy is absolutely biased, and the way he sees Venezuelan society, and specifically the Venezuelan opposition, that he sees in a cartoonish, incomplete and unrealistic way.
The case is only simple if you have the same cartoonish way of seeing the world as Mr. Ciccarello. And I actually, have offered an alternative view from the left, that you conveniently ignore:
I think that is a pretty compelling view, from the Left, that I invite you to read, as you have invited us to read Mr. Ciccariello’s tale.
As for my political views: From the mild Leftist I was at the beginning of Chávez tenure, all that remains is a person who doesn’t believe in the Left, for its hypocrisy, and convenient silent in the face of the abuses we have faced, and that we continue to face, and who doesn’t believe in the Right, because it has the same vices, and then some. I don’t believe in the ones that “take sides” just to be complicit uncritically of that side, because to me, as repugnant as the persons who praise and excuse Pinochet for the “economic miracle” of Chile, are the persons who make excuses for Castro, Chávez or Maduro.
As for me, I’m still the son of a math teacher, a person who came out of barrio Lídice with my mother in the 1970’s. Whether you believe I’m a “fascist” (boy, that insult is getting old) or whatever the frag your deluded mind tell you to think, I don’t give a damn. You don’t know beyond the words I’ve poured here.
I believe I told at some point that the media blackout hasn’t been enforced so successfully in the press. Perhaps, that why we have these reports, still:
And that’s why I provided the view from Rafael Uzcátegui, that you conveniently ignore:
Or this, from Chile, that call into question the uncritical support of Maduro:
Or what this guy have to say:
Errors in interpretation from my fellow socialists
There are a few ways socialists can react to the current mess in Venezuela in a way that doesn’t favour the regime:
- Take a firm stance on commitment to democracy, and accept that Chavez’s party has failed to do what it needed to merit continued support. This is hard; much of the time people are more committed to their other values than to democracy itself. I actually don’t take such a strong commitment to national democracy.
- Take a positive stance on commitment to pluralism and openness, and note that Chavez’s party has failed to accept pluralism and has by these metrics radically abused its power. I find this convincing.
- Take a positive stance on technocracy and note that Chavez’s party has cannibalised Venezuela’s future for short-term (and now past) populist gain. I also take this stance
One doesn’t need to explicitly support the capitalist opposition to oppose the current regime; rather, I suggest a procedural stand against it with a call for new socialist leadership that’s well-behaved, pluralist, and long-thinking. Provisionally, joining the groups trying to unseat Maduro is something I recommend; the current form of socialism practiced by that movement is damaging to socialism by being crazy and shortsighted.
I condemn those socialist groups that are supporting the Maduro regime out of solidarity; the point of solidarity on the small scale may be to aid fellow socialists who are good-willed, but when taken to a large scale, the point must be finding and broadening paths that lead nations to adopt forms of socialism that are actually worth living in. When we see a socialist regime arresting its opposition, closing independent news media, cutting off internet, and otherwise burning its regime, we should not support it; we are obliged to oppose it even if it appears to be fighting for some version of a reshaping of social classes. That war’s just not worth it at that price. We need to offer an alternative; a socialism where it is safe for people to disagree with it, just as we can feel safe (in modern times) espousing socialism in the West. Our metric must not be anything that calls itself socialism at any cost, but rather the right socialism at the right cost.
-Pat Gunn.
Google Workspace Updates: New community features for Google Chat and an update on Currents
Or, the complex discussion within the Peruvian left about the situation in Venezuela:
XD
I opine in this forum because a) I can, and in this corner of the net there seems to be that little thing called freedom of speech and b) I’m a Venezuelan, and this is a subject about Venezuela, that happens to be my country.
What’s your reason?
Thanks for finally confirming that you two are crappin’ all of us. Most all of the pieces I’ve posted have been critical of both special interests behind the protest narratives as well as entrenched government elites. You two HAVE NOT offered the same. So yeah. B.S. You also continue to call everybody that disagrees with the narrative’s you two are offering up “leftist extremists”. Keep trying to sell that junk, people ain’t buyin’.
By the way, if I move to Venezuela will I become an expert at whining and posting out of context videos from youtube?
What is SAD is that Boing Boing has given you both a forum. All thanks to a broken bullshit detector it seems.
Sure, whatever your mind tells you buddy.
Specially the one from Ciccariello-Maher. That piece was so objective.
Really? What about this, that I’ve continually posted, and yet you choose to ignore?
So yeah, whatever.
If you are talking about Ciccariello-Maher, yeah, I will keep calling him extremist and dishonest. Because that’s what he is.
If you are talking about you, and people like you that A) Resort to Strawman/False dilemma to engage with others, and b) Ignore what others post as sources (like you have done so many times with my article from Rafael Uzcátegui, I’ve lost count of how many that I’ve posted it with no reply whatsoever) and then say “you have nothing to back you up” and C) Make Ad-hominem attacks so frequently and viciously that the “discussion” loose any meaning, yes, I will keep denouncing your BS.
I believe Sir Winston Churchill said this once:
A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.
So, sure, people like you have already made their minds, and won’t change it even in the face of hard evidence. Why would I even been remotely interested in “trying” to engage in a real discussion with you? Do you think this is a discussion? No, this me, defending myself from your personal attacks. Because, quite obviously, this is personal to you.
For me the subject is personal, because is my country. For you the subject is personal, because you hate my guts. The difference is quite significant.
I don’t know, do you think think you will endure a day here? I seriously doubt it.
And first you have to get the air ticket, and last time I checked, they were expensive and unavailable.
By the way, don’t forget to change your currency at the official rate. I will gladly do you the favor, if you ever come here.
Which I doubt.
Did Churchill say that after this:
“I do not admit… that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia… by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race… has come in and taken its place.”
Churchill to Palestine Royal Commission, 1937 "
Look at the good neoliberal who loves a racist pig like Churchill.
Quelle surprise…
That fact has nothing to do with answering that question.
You’re doing your cause no favors by advancing fallacious arguments, like that one, here.
Friend, review your own contributions here before you turn that table and point those fingers. Carry on.
It’s quite clear at this point that jgratero isn’t arguing in good faith, since he dismisses any journalist or academic cited as a “fringe leftist” and not worth consideration, insists that nuanced accounts of the complex situation in Venezuela are simplistic and “cartoonish”, and complains of invective used against him that we’ve not actually used.
Yeah, that user strikes me as someone here to discredit the side he claims to be on. I didn’t even figure out which side that is. I was too distracted by the terribly insulting logic.
Sure dear, whatever your mind tells you. The “neoliberal” that is for universal healthcare, free education, and same sex marriage and is against death penalty send you his deepest regards.
Here, I leave you a little gift, specially for you:
“Friend”, review the “contributions” of users such Ereiamjh, that just tried to make my agree with every single idea uttered by Winston Churchill just by virtue of using a single quote of him.
I believe it does. Ciccariello-Maher reporting from the comfort of his office in Philadelphia makes his tale as trustable as a CNN guy reporting of my country from Colombia, or Ecuador . Or Atlanta.
On the other hand, the person I’ve already cited, Rafael Uzcátegui, is here, watching the events as they unfold.
Who says I have “a side”? That I told I was on the Left at the beginning of Chávez tenure doesn’t mean I am there now. That I disagree with your supposed “critical vision of Chávez” or Maduro (a vision that says nothing of the abuses or the repression that is happening as we speak) doesn’t mean I’m “on the right”. False dilemma.
False. I dismiss Ciccariello, so far, because he is a fringe. I didn’t dismiss the analysis from Verónica Bayetti Flores:
I even shared it on both my Facebook and Google + feeds…
False. I said Ciccariello was simplistic and cartoonish. I didn’t say anything like that about Verónica Bayetti Flores, because I actually like what she wrote.
And I even proposed another nuanced account of the facts, for those who so strongly disagree with Guido, one that is apparently the big elephant in the room, because none of you want to talk about it or even comment about it:
I took the time to read both Mr. Ciccariello’s account (as nonsensical as it is) and Ms. Verónica Bayetti Flores (which I liked very much). So who’s actually the closed minded regarding suggestions in that area?
Well, you need to read again the gems that Ereiamjh has dedicated to me. It’s love at first sight.
AHAHAHAH.
What viewpoint have I even espoused on this topic? I find a lot of reason to dislike your slippery style. I have no idea what you stand for, as I can’t manage to get all the way through one of your posts because of all the the verbal self-immolations and strawmen laying about the place.
As I said, whatever side you claim to be on, I really think you’re on the other one.
None. I was talking in a general broad sense. Perhaps you should use the full quote:
You know, “your” as in “you” (i.e. “you people”), as in the personal pronoun, second person, plural.
I stand against dictatorships and authoritarianism. I stand for free and universal healthcare, same sex marriage, and I’m against the death penalty. Does that suffice to you?
As I said, I have no side. “Having sides” is the excuse everyone have to be “loyal” to a “cause”, to not criticize it “because if we do, we are playing the game of corporate media” or “because all media is in the hands of the Jews and communists”.
“Having sides” is claiming for the necessity of “having enemies”. That’s I love so much this clip from John Cleese:
It is sad as some people invest a lot of time just making sure the Venezuelan govt is never put in a bad position. How they accuse me and others of lying, while again people are being repressed and murdered. News are being silenced, websites are being closed, whole regions are being shut down from the Internet. All those are facts.
Disagree with my opinions whatever you want, but those are confirmed facts. From the Guardian to Al Jazeera, those facts have been confirmed. And you are supporting a government that does all that to its citizens, and not only supporting, but endlessly changing the subject while people are dying in the street. No government has the right to do that and your defense of such actions are a shame for the progressive movement.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
