Venezuela: Jorge Ramos & Univision crew freed after Maduro detained for 3 hours inside presidential palace

[Mister44]

@anon15383236

patronizing… lectures

I don’t know what “voice” you use when reading my replies, but my intentions are never as antagonistic as your replies seem to take them as. (At least not in recent memory.) I don’t know how to remedy that.

It’s a fair point if you feel I am downplaying the US’s role. But I think my point that most of the current turmoil within the nation is self caused is accurate. I am acknowledging the US is harming the situation, but that is not where I would put the main blame for what is currently happening. Even during the times when Chavez’s policies were reducing poverty, there were a lot of problems. For example: the general strike in 2002, which lead to 40% of the work force of the nationalized oil company PDSVA being fired, the 2004 recall referendum, the 2007 TV protests, etc.

@anon15383236

Au contraire:

You’re absolutely right that at one point Chavez’s policies took oil money and used it to combat social inequality. (FWIW, this was acknowledged in some of the sources given.) He also used the oil industry as a vehicle to drive employment. He also used it for his personal wealth and the wealth of the elites around him.

Where the problem lies is that he was all in on the oil, and ignored or out right hindered growth in other areas. When the price of oil dropped, suddenly everything relying on that money came to a halt. There was no other major industry that could help take up the slack or possibly transition too. That is when it all fell apart.

So the article’s point is that “people only notice when you screw up” is fair. Things were going well for awhile. Everyone wants to gawk at a train wreck and rarely does anyone point out that the train was doing just lovely before the derailing. (Only even during that time, there were bumps, as pointed out above.)

But if the US media is guilty of not acknowledging some of the good Chavez was doing, this article seems to completely ignore WHY those programs ultimately failed. And those actual gains were erased mainly by these bad policies, not US media not giving them enough credit. And to be fair, many of those polices WERE good. They just could not be sustained when the income they relied upon dried up.

Lastly, this comment was a reply to my statement about “Chavez, Maduro, and the cronies who helped fleece the nation before fleeing with suitcases full of cash.” Now forgive me if I misinterpret your comment, but it seems to suggest that some how certain social programs helping inequality meant that my statement wasn’t true. But absolutely it is. Venezuela has been full of corruption and scandal and money being shifted around to literal crooks. And now in this crisis people are losing weight with what they call “the Maduro diet” (with a plump Maduro is snacking on food during speeches) while many of the rich are fleeing to places like Madrid or Florida.

---

And as a side not, not a directly reply, it is also a fair point that a lot of the media attacks failing Maduro and Chavez frame it as a failing of socialism. But I don’t see it as that, as their social programs alone weren’t an issue. It was the suppression of other industries, the very short sighted way their programs were paid for, and the horrible corruption and greed by those in power. I mean in contrast, Norway has a nationalized oil industry they use to fun social programs and they don’t have the same problems.

[anon85905360]

@anotherone

You have chosen to define socialism as the “democratization of the economy.” which is a false narrative.

It is an objective fact that liberal democracy is a democracy only under the caveat of private property, and that the vast majority of decisions that govern the lives of people in countries like the USA are not determined under even the pretension of democracy, but under the dictatorial rule of the capitalist class, i.e. people who own shit, i.e. the bosses, shareholders and board members. The rule of the people ends where private property begins, and the most successful propaganda to defend this fact has always been to equate the individual’s belongings like their house, garden, or private workshop, with the ownership and total control over an enterprise of dozens, hundreds, or thousands of workers and the fruits of their labor. The only way to achieve meaningful democracy, in which people have a fair say about what happens with their lives, is to expand democracy from the puny sphere of scarcity and austerity that it has been restricted to, and extend it into the area where our society is actually built and formed, into the economy.

@anotherone

Only in some rare socialist systems is the economy democratized.

True, that is hard to argue with. That’s why I keep on babbling about democracy. Most “socialist” states so far have been absolutely shit in that regard. It’s not enough to hand over control to an unchecked bureaucratic body. But you know there have been attempts at a more democratic socialism, in Chile, in Czechoslovakia… unfortunately, anything that is not of a rigid, authoritarian, even militaristic type, has so far been unable hold itself against the perpetual state of war that is incited against it as soon as it springs up. Maduro may like to dress up as the Great Leader, and might have a hand in fixing an election, but what would make him an order of magnitude worse than Trump is not obvious to me. Yet, he is already threatened with invasion, and nothing more had to happen than a 35-year old halfwit calling the US state department and crying about “socialism”.

@anotherone

In most systems there is a blended economy such has what we have in the U.S.A. and many other nations. The people make up the government and the people decide how public funds are spend aka democratic socialism. Along side that socialist governmental spending there is is capitalism and the free market, barter, trade, and every other form of exchange of goods and services you might imagine.

While I can’t find anything technically wrong with this distinction, the homeopathic dose of “socialism” the USA allow themselves is laughable. More than half of public funds goes right to the military, and your public infrastructure and health care are the laughing stock of the western world, and even that is constantly chipped away by the democratic agents of the capital, desperate to expand the private sphere at the cost of the public sphere to keep their profits up. And that is not even talking about the economy at large.

This division of the political and the economical sphere, this ideology that it is allegedly irreconcilable with “freedom” that the people should have a say in what the hell General Motors, AT&T, Foxconn or Apple are producing, what they are not producing, and how they are producing it (at what human and environmental cost); or who on earth is paying FOX News to hammer what kind of ideas into people’s head, is so ingrained into people’s heads that I often find it hard to believe.

[renealex]

Here a bit of context to the Chavez improved the lives of many Venezuelans crowd.

Today is the 30th anniversary of the popular revolt that signal (in Chavez mind and mythology) that his Coup and revolution will be received with good eyes by the poor and the disenfranchise in Venezuela.

Note that the improvement that Chavez provoke (yes, it was an actual thing BUT) was just a mirage a banal a costly PR stunt for electoral gain not conceived to be sustainable or in the benefit of the nation But to obtain a quick and predictable reaction from the masses spellbound drunk in a cult of personality.

He took office in 1999, ten years later 20 years ago.

The gas price was 2.75 Bs a liter (~25 cents a gallon) and now is “???” because you pay what you want or can… there is no coin or bill with a low enough denomination to pay for it AND the general scarcity of cash makes it even harder, it was announced that there will be a new rate and a new system electronic system with 2 prices, one for the people that hold the high tech Chinese parallel ID “Carnet de la Patria” (Motherland ID) a glorified ration book that the regime uses to intimidate and extort the poor to get social benefits that legally don’t require more than the regular ID and another rate (a higher one) for the rest. But that was a months ago… so far there is no system, no new price, no plans, and almost no gas, in some places there are 2 or 3 day’s waiting lines for gas. 30 years ago PDVSA was the 5th biggest Oil Corporation in the World.

[orenwolf]

Ok, enough with dictionary wars. Surely we can discuss discuss ideas and concepts without having to digress into an offtopic semantic derail.

May I humbly suggest using the planks or policies to define the boundaries of which you speak, rather than spending a half-dozen posts reenacting this scene?

[reactionabe]

@Flapjack

Every country listed there has a capitalist economy and not a socialist economy. Every single one of their socialist programs is 100% funded by capitalism.

@Orenwolf brought up dictionary wars, and I agree that appeals to definition have little utility, but in reading through the thread I keep coming back to the fact that people miss what most socialist models ask for and why, so without regurgitating a definition like it’s the last word, but instead to highlight the benefits of the system, here goes:

Worker ownership of the means of production is seen as ideal because the means of production are never distributed fairly or equitably. in part because private ownership leads to perpetuation of inequities.

You might say that’s fine, because life isn’t fair, and is not supposed to be. If you truly believe that latter bit, we fundamentally would have nothing to discuss and you can go on about your day because we don’t have common ground. You can take issue with the principles, in which case we have a disagreement about facts, but if we disagree on values, then this discussion is a waste of time.

If you do believe that life should be fair, even if you believe it can’t be 100% fair, then we’re at least on the same team.

But the idea is very much not that labor is owned in common. Instead ML models such as Soviet Russia saw the state as the proxy by which workers took ownership of the means of production. Stalinism showed that counter-revolutionary activities and the crushing power of the state could be harnessed for selfish ends.

Demmocratic socialism, as advocated for by Bernie Sanders and more established labor parties is really just Republicanism with Socialist tendencies. “Republicanism” in this case having nothing to do with the GOP, but representative democracy. The state takes on limited ownership of means of production towards certain ends. This is a fight that was already lost, by the way. This is our current system, necessitated in part by the World and Cold Wars. The US federal government owns many of the means of production. The concession that tends to get made in the American model is that the government pays private entities wherever possible, but between the states and the federal government, we’re still talking about a lot that is owned by the people in common through the government. Water treatment, nuclear fuel, and everyone’s favorite thing to argue about:roads, tend to be owned in whole or in part by governments.

Agree with the principles or not, I think I very fairly characterized what socialist will tell you that socialism is, in a way that still allows you to disagree with it.

Ultimately however, socialism is a broad enough concept that it is ultimately flexible enough to fit into many different state and non-state models. Because socialism can be limited to several sectors, some measure of it is present in most states. It has proven to be compatible with Western democracy, Islamic theocracies, Stalinist police states, Anarchist collectives and communes, and run-of-the-mill failed states. When I say compatible, all I mean is that socialist aspects do not inherently and by themselves threaten actual system of governance.

To recap, socialism is NOT typically defined by socialists to mean:

• The abolition of personal property (No one wants to take your toothbrush.)
• The common ownership of labor (If they want it bad enough, they can make it themselves, or find someone willing, because they too have access to the means of production.)
• Specific monetary policies like the abolition of fiat currency. (Some people think specific things are necessary, some don’t, these sorts of things are not central to socialism)
• Specific approaches to social orders. (Socialists have not consistently had the same views on things like homosexuality, free love, or gender roles through history. Socialists tend to be more socially liberal (but see again, theocratic approaches) There’s nothing inherent in most conceptions that explicitly addresses these things.)

I’ve tried to be broad in my characterization here, though I’m sure someone can and will point out something I missed, but socialism is concerned with limiting the differences between you and who you employ, you and who you’re employed by, and giving everyone greater access to the means of production–with the ultimate goal of making life more fair.

[anon15383236]

@Mister44

I mean in contrast, Norway has a nationalized oil industry they use to fun social programs and they don’t have the same problems.

Right? I mean, imagine the U.S. spending any time at all trying to get its hands on Norway’s oil, sabatoging its people’s efforts at self-determination, this way and this way and that? Meanwhile fucking up the rest of their national neighborhood too? I mean, it just wouldn’t go over very well, would it?

[Wanderfound]

@cre8love4all

I would welcome being corrected, but it is my understanding that up until VERY recently, “US sanctions against Venezuela” were almost entirely against specific government officials and crimiinal organizations to allow the freezing of assets looted from the Venezuelan people or to combat international drug trafficing which multiple Venezuelan officials are involved in. Only in the last month have sanctions that target the Venezuelan economy been imposed. Please anyone correct me if I am wrong.

Not so much “wrong” as “incomplete”.

https://www.thenation.com/article/venezuela-sanctions-emergency/

The sanctions imposed by the Obama administration in March 2015 (which also declared a “national emergency”) also had a very serious impact. This is well-known in financial institutions, but generally not reported in the major media, which treat these sanctions as they are advertised by the US government, as “sanctions against individuals.” But when the individuals are high-level government officials, for example the finance minister, the sanctions cause enormous problems, as these officials are cut off from necessary transactions in most of the world financial system.

Financial institutions increasingly turned away from Venezuela after March 2015, as they saw the risks of lending to a government that the United States was increasingly determined to topple―and, as the economy worsened, looked more likely to succeed in doing so. The Venezuelan private sector was cut off from vital access to credit, which contributed to the unprecedented, indeed almost unbelievable, 80 percent drop in imports over the past six years, which has devastated this import-dependent economy.

[Flapjack]

Where did I see this before…

[Flapjack]

Are you implying that in world history there has been more evidence that central control of the economy and the means of production has yielded more prosperity to the masses than capitalis distributed systems? In both my personal experience having lived under both systems and having the ability to read history I have found the vast majority of evidence to not support that assertion. Capitalist economic systems have vastly improved the lived of humans. This is not to say its perfect or that there is no poverty and suffering, just that central control does not seem to be the answer if empirical evidence is to be trusted in all things and not just global warming as it should.

[anon15383236]

Why so black and white, either/or?

[anon73430903]

Arguing with the mods never ends well, regardless of political beliefs.

[tinoesroho]

You call it prosperity, but what do you call a system that incentivizes wholesale destruction of the world, creates massive waste, and is only “sustainable” by exploiting people in poor/colonized countries to make stuff at the cost of health to sell to deeply indebted unretirable folks in “rich” countries who are stuck living a meagre ramen-and-eggs existence?

Or: prosperity for whom?

Just eight people hold more than 50% of the world’s wealth - just a mere eight people have enormous amount of power over the lives of billions, who endlessly toil in misery.

The long and short of it is this - fuck the rich, fuck the empire. Devolution and repartations now.

[Melizmatic]

@tinoesroho

prosperity for whom?

For the future millionaire such a person is surely destined to become one day soon, of course.

[anon15383236]

[Melizmatic]

Real talk;

[DukeTrout]

I know the mods don’t want us to get into definitional squabbles. Since you’re holding to the most extreme possible definition of socialism, let’s make a deal: you go out and make sure no conservatives screech “Socialism!” every time someone proposes [higher minimum wage/universal healthcare/equal pay for women/progressive tax rates/regulation of industry/etc] and I’ll accept your definition.

Get back to me when you’re done.

[anon15383236]