Tell us what a non-authoritarian leader of Venezuela would look like to you and how they would resist the constant pressure and hostile actions of the US government, because it seems to me that leftist leaders are always denounced as authoritarian by North American and European based NGOs and governments.
The only way to avoid being labelled as authoritarian is to be friendly to the imperial core countries, i.e. being capitalist.
It’s so funny to see, when the alternative to Maduro is the Venezuelan equivalent of Yeltsin, someone hellbent on stripping their own country for parts and portraying that as “freedom”
The question is whether government/people should get $60/barrel revenue before expenses, maybe $40/barrel after expenses, or $10/barrel but pump 5-10x as much, bribed to be loyal to US. Long term, obviously no corruption and high revenue/profit per barrel has its advantages. It’s not as though Exxon/Chevron can’t get access to Venezuela oil with fair deals, it’s that pretending corrupt puppets are the legitimate leaders provides extortion oil costs.
When you understand the hoops the US government is willing to jump through to get cheap foreign oil, you should understand that similar policies are used to deprive Americans of their fair share of resource revenue.
The Russian RSFR, the Paris Commune, The Bavarian soviet Republic, The Rhine Soviet Republic, The Hungarian Socialist Republic, socialist Cuba, socialist Vietnam, socialist Laos…
Turns out you don’t knwo what you’re talking about! All of them were immediately invaded, their opposition showered in material support and sanctioned to hell and back.
The USSR, PRC, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. all were massive expansions on democracy and working class control. Capitalists, landlords, fascists, monarchists, etc were (usually) violently oppressed, while the working classes were uplifted and society was democratized. From the point of view of the capitalists, they found themselves living in a violent dictatorship, for the working classes they found themselves finally escaping violent dictatorship.
Not even going to reply to your strawman. I said that it’s weak mentality to say “ends justify the means and sacrifice justice and freedom for the sake of fighting a foreign oppressor” - maybe that’s easier to understand? Weak people, weak minds, skill issue.
Lol you said nothing of the sort and now you’re running away shouting random reddit bullshit for cover (what strawman? That doesnt even make sense) because you’re acutely aware but too proud to admit that your dumb Marvel-brained bullshit has no basis in reality. Who’s freedom? Who’s justice? You haven’t put five seconds of thought into this and you’re talking to people who have considered it for years or decades. You’re adorable.
So, which part is the just and free part that you mention, outside of the theory? As in, in detail, practical examples of those freedoms and justice, please. Besides the theoritscl “to each according to their needs, from each according to their possibilities” (sorry if misstranslated), what practical examples have been just and free throughout time.
The USSR, PRC, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. all were massive expansions on democracy and working class control. They were finally free and just for the working classes, and society became more about trying to satisfy everyone’s needs than endless private profits, with public ownership as the principle aspect of their economies.
Or you can be smart and just and have your cake and eat it too. See dozens of countries that prosper without sacrificing their freedoms and justice. You guys are just doomer losers simping for dictators because your minds are too small to imagine a real victory.
What are your real-world examples—bourgeois “democracies”? If it’s so easy, why hasn’t it happened?
The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
The pure socialists had a vision of a new society that would create and be created by new people, a society so transformed in its fundaments as to leave little opportunity for wrongful acts, corruption, and criminal abuses of state power. There would be no bureaucracy or self-interested coteries, no ruthless conflicts or hurtful decisions. When the reality proves different and more difficult, some on the Left proceed to condemn the real thing and announce that they “feel betrayed” by this or that revolution.
The pure socialists see socialism as an ideal that was tarnished by communist venality, duplicity, and power cravings. The pure socialists oppose the Soviet model but offer little evidence to demonstrate that other paths could have been taken, that other models of socialism — not created from one’s imagination but developed through actual historical experience — could have taken hold and worked better. Was an open, pluralistic, democratic socialism actually possible at this historic juncture? The historical evidence would suggest it was not.
Decentralized parochial autonomy is the graveyard of insurgency — which may be one reason why there has never been a successful anarcho-syndicalist revolution. Ideally, it would be a fine thing to have only local, self-directed, worker participation, with minimal bureaucracy, police, and military. This probably would be the development of socialism, were socialism ever allowed to develop unhindered by counterrevolutionary subversion and attack.
One might recall how, in 1918-20, fourteen capitalist nations, including the United States, invaded Soviet Russia in a bloody but unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the revolutionary Bolshevik government.
Chavez in his first few months/year of being in office would be a good example of a non-authoritarian in that role.
My problem with Maduro and many of those in the post early days of Chavez taking over is that far too many seem to have a tremendous amount of money that they cannot explain how they came across legally. Executives at PVDSA, the state run petroleum company, seem to be extremely vulnerable to this corruption.
You can make the case that dictatorships/authoritarian structures are needed to protect a socialist revolution, which Im not sure I entirely agree with, without supporting the theft of state resources by people in the government.
Wasn’t a US-backed military coup against Chavez attempted in the early period? It was defeated by the people and soldiers who were loyal to Chavez, but that might’ve had an rffect
This is a vicious cycle of falling back to dictatorship to avoid imperialism, or some of it.
A) The country opens up and holds free elections, leading to an American puppet winning and the country turning into a vassal state at best, a glorified colony at worst.
B) The country turns into a dictatorship to limit foreign influence and fight back against imperialism, becoming a similarly terrible place to live, but at least without giving anything to the empire. Also note that as time passes, it’s quite likely that the dictatorship will forget why it was even created, i.e. it will no longer be about rejecting imperialism.
There are often the only two realistic scenarios for countries targetted by the American Empire. Both are bad and I’m not sure I feel like analyzing which one is slightly less bad for the average person.
Tell us what a non-authoritarian leader of Venezuela would look like
Presumably they would look not-authoritarian, a description that doesn’t fit Maduro at all.
It could well be that, in the face of US policy regarding Venezuela, only an Authoritarian could hold onto the country. That still doesn’t make Maduro not an Authoritarian.
it seems to me that leftist leaders are always denounced as authoritarian by North American and European based NGOs and governments.
That’s a fair observation but, again, that doesn’t mean they are wrong when they say it about Maduro. Maduro is referred to as dictator by Human Rights Watch, the Organization of American States, and other human rights organizations, including some inside Venezuela.
Maduro is a dictator. It’s largely the fault of the US that Venezuela has a dictator. If the US succeeds in ousting Maduro, it will almost certainly replace him with an even worse Dictator. All of that can be true with no contradictions.
You gave no examples of Maduro “being an authoritarian,” and then cited more western NGOs. Of course the empire trying to manufacture consent to coup Venezuela would do that, they did it to Allende too. Repeating “Maduro is a dictator” like a mantra isn’t a substitute for explaining how and why that’s true, and citing western NGOs is just parroting what the empire wants you to.
Genuine question since I am not knowledgable about this: could you expand on how HRW is Zionist? Wikipedia notes that HRW has been criticised for being overly biased against Israel, and I read through a rather awful article on Sapir (which appears to be quite unapologetically Zionist) which indeed makes this claim. Is there evidence to the contrary?
Tell us what a non-authoritarian leader of Venezuela would look like to you and how they would resist the constant pressure and hostile actions of the US government, because it seems to me that leftist leaders are always denounced as authoritarian by North American and European based NGOs and governments.
The only way to avoid being labelled as authoritarian is to be friendly to the imperial core countries, i.e. being capitalist.
It’s so funny to see, when the alternative to Maduro is the Venezuelan equivalent of Yeltsin, someone hellbent on stripping their own country for parts and portraying that as “freedom”
👆If you don’t suppress the inevitable imperial-supported bourgeois counterinsurgencies, your socialist project will go the way of Allende’s Chile.
The question is whether government/people should get $60/barrel revenue before expenses, maybe $40/barrel after expenses, or $10/barrel but pump 5-10x as much, bribed to be loyal to US. Long term, obviously no corruption and high revenue/profit per barrel has its advantages. It’s not as though Exxon/Chevron can’t get access to Venezuela oil with fair deals, it’s that pretending corrupt puppets are the legitimate leaders provides extortion oil costs.
When you understand the hoops the US government is willing to jump through to get cheap foreign oil, you should understand that similar policies are used to deprive Americans of their fair share of resource revenue.
What a loser-ass mentality. It’s absolutely possible to remain just and free while being secure. Skill issue.
Skill issue, says the person who isn’t even trying to do it themselves
Point me to one single socialist revolution that wasn’t immediately attacked by capital. Just one. You can’t.
Name one single socialist revolution that didn’t start as a violent dictatorship. You can’t.
The Russian RSFR, the Paris Commune, The Bavarian soviet Republic, The Rhine Soviet Republic, The Hungarian Socialist Republic, socialist Cuba, socialist Vietnam, socialist Laos…
Turns out you don’t knwo what you’re talking about! All of them were immediately invaded, their opposition showered in material support and sanctioned to hell and back.
Lol stay stupid patriot
The USSR, PRC, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. all were massive expansions on democracy and working class control. Capitalists, landlords, fascists, monarchists, etc were (usually) violently oppressed, while the working classes were uplifted and society was democratized. From the point of view of the capitalists, they found themselves living in a violent dictatorship, for the working classes they found themselves finally escaping violent dictatorship.
exarcheia, and the Paris commune
Not even going to reply to your strawman. I said that it’s weak mentality to say “ends justify the means and sacrifice justice and freedom for the sake of fighting a foreign oppressor” - maybe that’s easier to understand? Weak people, weak minds, skill issue.
The .world beside the username never gets old!
Lol you said nothing of the sort and now you’re running away shouting random reddit bullshit for cover (what strawman? That doesnt even make sense) because you’re acutely aware but too proud to admit that your dumb Marvel-brained bullshit has no basis in reality. Who’s freedom? Who’s justice? You haven’t put five seconds of thought into this and you’re talking to people who have considered it for years or decades. You’re adorable.
Maybe read it again?
Name one single socialist revolution that hasn’t been immediately attacked by capital. You can’t.
Just and free while being secure: “authoritarian”
Unjust and unfree while being insecure and overrun by bears: Libertarian
So, which part is the just and free part that you mention, outside of the theory? As in, in detail, practical examples of those freedoms and justice, please. Besides the theoritscl “to each according to their needs, from each according to their possibilities” (sorry if misstranslated), what practical examples have been just and free throughout time.
The USSR, PRC, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. all were massive expansions on democracy and working class control. They were finally free and just for the working classes, and society became more about trying to satisfy everyone’s needs than endless private profits, with public ownership as the principle aspect of their economies.
Or you can be smart and just and have your cake and eat it too. See dozens of countries that prosper without sacrificing their freedoms and justice. You guys are just doomer losers simping for dictators because your minds are too small to imagine a real victory.
Do you always believe everything your enemies tell you? Are you allergic to critical thinking?
So name one
They’d probably have named imperial core “socialist” nordic states.
❤️Through the power of love ❤️
What are your real-world examples—bourgeois “democracies”? If it’s so easy, why hasn’t it happened?
Chavez in his first few months/year of being in office would be a good example of a non-authoritarian in that role.
My problem with Maduro and many of those in the post early days of Chavez taking over is that far too many seem to have a tremendous amount of money that they cannot explain how they came across legally. Executives at PVDSA, the state run petroleum company, seem to be extremely vulnerable to this corruption.
You can make the case that dictatorships/authoritarian structures are needed to protect a socialist revolution, which Im not sure I entirely agree with, without supporting the theft of state resources by people in the government.
Wasn’t a US-backed military coup against Chavez attempted in the early period? It was defeated by the people and soldiers who were loyal to Chavez, but that might’ve had an rffect
This is a vicious cycle of falling back to dictatorship to avoid imperialism, or some of it.
A) The country opens up and holds free elections, leading to an American puppet winning and the country turning into a vassal state at best, a glorified colony at worst.
B) The country turns into a dictatorship to limit foreign influence and fight back against imperialism, becoming a similarly terrible place to live, but at least without giving anything to the empire. Also note that as time passes, it’s quite likely that the dictatorship will forget why it was even created, i.e. it will no longer be about rejecting imperialism.
There are often the only two realistic scenarios for countries targetted by the American Empire. Both are bad and I’m not sure I feel like analyzing which one is slightly less bad for the average person.
Presumably they would look not-authoritarian, a description that doesn’t fit Maduro at all.
It could well be that, in the face of US policy regarding Venezuela, only an Authoritarian could hold onto the country. That still doesn’t make Maduro not an Authoritarian.
That’s a fair observation but, again, that doesn’t mean they are wrong when they say it about Maduro. Maduro is referred to as dictator by Human Rights Watch, the Organization of American States, and other human rights organizations, including some inside Venezuela.
Maduro is a dictator. It’s largely the fault of the US that Venezuela has a dictator. If the US succeeds in ousting Maduro, it will almost certainly replace him with an even worse Dictator. All of that can be true with no contradictions.
You gave no examples of Maduro “being an authoritarian,” and then cited more western NGOs. Of course the empire trying to manufacture consent to coup Venezuela would do that, they did it to Allende too. Repeating “Maduro is a dictator” like a mantra isn’t a substitute for explaining how and why that’s true, and citing western NGOs is just parroting what the empire wants you to.
And what does that even look like? Something like Allende, I’m guessing.
The liberal Zionist western propaganda outlet?
Human Rights Watch is “zionist” now? Lmao
Genuine question since I am not knowledgable about this: could you expand on how HRW is Zionist? Wikipedia notes that HRW has been criticised for being overly biased against Israel, and I read through a rather awful article on Sapir (which appears to be quite unapologetically Zionist) which indeed makes this claim. Is there evidence to the contrary?
And also cited OAS lmao!