Venezuela and the Chavez Legacy

I’ve seen some videos (from Hong Kong news) of some NG officers meeting with the opposition in an undisclosed locations.

The two unarmed soldiers are being escorted off. I presume that this is Colombian soil.

Raziel is right: some people across really have a sort of rose tinteded glasses respect the fact that the left can and used to be authoritarian.

laculus point is something I discuss in university with someone of the nacional asamblecy and someone from caritas, a catolic organization who help people and said that eve if they dont want to, the help is ALREADY a political move because it undermines maduro legitimacy to venezuela by proving he is to corrupt and incompetent to lead the country, him stoping the aid was going to happen ether way.

and yes, venezuela IS a left wing dictatorship, this remenber to be said over and over and over because for us venezuela is annoying as people from US hear pro trump arguments, venezuela didnt gut social service, they fall because they dont have money because controling of the funds or were nacionalize and the employes replace by stoogies, or by goverment constand demands of centralization, and the idea of cuba having social serviced is bollock, they also have electricty blackouts and their famous cuban medicine have a lot of myth going on there.

In reallity the argument since to bold down to "is few dominate, is not socialism because that cant happen with socialism" which is a perfect escape hatch to said the left can do not wrong, there is a sense that the only real socialism is the one who work because if it fails is because they deviate from it.

Is not true and it will never be true.

Is there anywhere one can read up on the history of US sanctions towards Chavez and Maduro's regime? It's a talking point I'm seeing a lot of lately, but it seems difficult to find a reasonably unbiased source of information about them.

If they're blaming the sanctions for Venezuela's problems, they're full of it.

Hence why I would like to be more informed on the subject. The only sanctions I heard about before this crisis were the ones imposed on specific officials of Maduro's government, there's no Cuba-like embargo as far as I know. But I'd like to know for a fact.

The sanctions of the US have focused on freezing the bank accounts the socialists have in the US itself and taking over their properties. Here is a list of them:

https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tfs/spi/venezuela/

I think the US has indeed increased It's economic pressure, but meh the Venezuelan government has many ways to go around them. The crisis of the country goes way back too, so It's not like those sanctions are relevant... I remember even when Chavez was still alive, it was difficult finding things like milk and sugar.

It's the same thing with people trying to white wash Allende, those people are just too ideologically radicalized, you will never be able to pull them out of their bias with truth alone.

Yeah, cracks were already forming even in Chavez's time. This didn't start with Maduro though he definitely made it a lot worse.

Except that in the case of Venezuela it fucking is true.

The most basic concept of Socialism is the idea that the workers should be in control of the means of production with all other Socialist policies being either intended to further that goal or complementary to it.

Any government that doesn't at least try to achieve that (and the Chavistas have not) objectively cannot be called socialist.

So Russian Communism? Yup, that was socialist, because at least they tried to affect control of the means of production by the workers through the intermediary of government made up of councils elected by the workers. They didn't succeed and eventually devolved into a decidedly unsocialist oligarchy. They're the biggest example of how socialist doesn't automatically mean 'good', but for a while, at least, they did try.

But Chavism? Chavism never attempted to do that. Chavez just nationalised a whole bunch of industries social democrats, socialists and other left wing governments often nationalise into non-profits for the public good... And the oil industry... And ran those for a profit in order to finance left wing populist social programmes.

Chavism is definitely left wing (and authoritarian). It's not socialist.

And yes, that distinction matters.

(Yeah, yeah, but they call themselves socialists. So did the nazis. North Korea and a whole bunch of African dictatorships call themselves Democratic and Republics when they are neither. Half the authoritarian far right parties in Europe call themselves the something something freedom party... And American social democrats and socialists call themselves liberals when they really shouldn't.)

Edited by Robrecht on Feb 24th 2019 at 4:29:59 PM

You know you’re arguing with an actual Venezuelan right ?

I know that the core values of socialism don't magically transmute just because I'm talking to a Venezuelan.

And just to address this once and for all: I also know that with how tightly the Maduro government controls the flow of information, I get my information about the stuff that happens in Venezuela from exactly the same place that the Venezuelans in this thread get reliable information about what's happening outside their own neighbourhoods/cities: The Internet.

I mean, it's a little rich when I see socialists championing nationalization and government-mandated wealth redistribution as major tenets of their platform, only to bust out the worker-owned businesses clause as the dictionary definition of true socialism and what they truly cared about once it's gone to shit as a case of No True Scotsman. They didn't seem to value that so much nor advocate strongly for it beforehand. Only after the fact when it's a convenient escape clause.

Edited by AlleyOop on Feb 24th 2019 at 11:06:26 AM

Noam Chomsky famously went to bat for Chavez and Venezuela back when things looked rosy, walked back on it somewhat went things went to shit, and is now back to blaming the USA for everything.

Venezuela was socialist enough for leftists like him when it looked good. It's only now that it's becoming a failed state that they are getting all nitpicky. At least when they aren't claiming capitalist sabotage or pretending there is no problem in Venezuela.

Edited by M84 on Feb 25th 2019 at 12:07:53 AM

Bogotá reports that more than a 100 NG soldiers defected.

At this point I'm just hoping to hell that we don't get another Syria on our hands...

How so?

I don't really see the issue here. Those are part of the methods of the currently prevalent school of (democratic) socialism, rather than the goal that all schools of socialism share.

Are you trying to suggest that nationalization and wealth redistribution are bad? Because, you know, it's ok if that's your view, but if you're expecting me to go 'Oh my god! Wealth redistribution and nationalization! Everyone agrees those things are objectively evil and therefore no true socialist would ever do them!' you're going to be disappointed.

(Personally I think nationalization should be restricted to goods and services vital to societal welfare, like healthcare, utilities and education, but I'm all for government mandated wealth redistribution, particularly through fair marginal taxation and quality of life assistance subsidies.)

Venezuela under Chavez was never socialist. It was left wing enough for leftists like Chomsky back when it looked good, but even then in 2009 when Chomsky was reported to have spoken in support of Venezuela, he immediately demanded the Guardian amend their reporting to what he (claimed he) actually said, namely that Venezuela had taken steps towards potentially becoming something great, but that Chavez' attempts to centralize power also made Chomsky very cautious about its future.

Edited by Robrecht on Feb 24th 2019 at 6:06:48 PM

Not even close. Stop sealioning me. You admitted that these are excellent goals for many socialists, and nowhere in that post did I suggest that I disagreed with that, because it's an objective fact.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the kinds of socialists who act as if nationalization and wealth distribution are the most important goals of a good socialist platform, and continue to defend politicians who've shown themselves to be of questionable moral caliber on the basis of these policies up to the point that they've irreversibly fallen from grace. Then, their way of jettisoning them and washing their hands of any complicity in the chaos that ensued is to cite their failure to enact policies that they were hardly speaking about in the first place. If that was so fundamental to socialism then why have they been spending all this time championing politicians as socialists who aren't even that socialist?

It's like hypothetically championing Obama on the basis of his women's advocacy then, celebrating his feminist credentials against opponents, then when he failed to handle the crisis in Syria effectively, blaming him for not being the inclusive candidate they thought they had anyway, because he failed to address certain questions regarding Native Americans' rights properly and on the basis of not caring about all groups. It's technically true, but it looks like a weak defense in context.

That kind of mental gymnastics is irresponsible and not worth mounting a defense for. Now, socialists who don't engage in this kind of disingenuity I have far more respect for, but they are sadly more rare than I'd like. My problem here tends to be less with socialism itself and more with socialists.

Edited by AlleyOop on Feb 24th 2019 at 1:48:58 PM

I think this might describe me as well.

Y'all, if we can't discuss Socialism without dissolving into (the Internet equivalent of) a shouting match, maybe we should find a different way or place to discuss it?

We've already had a thread go down in flames over this precise topic, and this one keeps getting derailed over it as a consequence. And I will note, its not the Venezuelan Tropers doing the derailing.

Robrecht: We know you disagree with the application of the 'Socialist' label for Venezuela. While I don't fully agree, I do know where you are coming from. However, bringing it up over and over again, especially to a thread of posters who have every right to be upset, is an exercise in futility and not a good look. You've made your point. The posters here disagree. Please drop it, as continuing to bring it up is only going mto make everyone even more upset.

Alley: It is possible that people have mixed feelings about something, yet highlight the best or the worst aspects based on what is politically convenient at the time. Especially in Leftist circles, where you don't exactly have a whole lot of groups in power to choose from. Perhaps condemnable, but not necessarily incomprehensible.

Also, friendly reminder to everyone that there is no one form of Socialism, and pretending there is to make a point in either direction is disingenuous. Again: Jeremy Corbyn is not Hugo Chavez is not Noam Chomsky is not Bahsar al-Assad.

Edited by AzurePaladin on Feb 25th 2019 at 4:14:32 AM

Chavez and Maduro instituted and ran a crony-led kleptocratic dictatorship under the fig leaf of nationalisation and redistribution. It went about as well as anybody could expect.

And it's collapsing.

End of.

Let's focus on how it's collapsing, please. But, more importantly: how to prevent yet another round of cronyism from wearing an ideology while trying to hide what it is from rising from the ashes. Doesn't matter where in the flipping horseshoe the disaster is from if its busy killing people while imploding.

You know... The definition of socialism isn't a matter of opinion, so no, we do not 'disagree'.

But you know what? Fine. I won't define socialism again.

Instead I'll just keep a really sharp eye on all the 'ipse dixit' statements getting made about 'leftists' and 'socialist'.

I'm sorry, but there has been different concepts about it that have been used in history. That's why I usually try to understand what it means to each person.

The national socialists, (or the nazis), had their own definition of socialism, which was a very different thing from what was happening in Russia.

I mean, that wasn't even a different definition the Nazis used. They simply gave themselves that name as a honeypot for racist socialists who they then proceeded to murder or drive off during the Night of the Long Knives. Kind of like how they made some vague early pretensions towards tolerance of gay people (which ended exactly the same way).

Edited by Iaculus on Feb 25th 2019 at 1:29:43 PM

Hitler literally went "When I say socialism, I don't actually mean socialism", so bringing him up in the context of different interpretations of socialism is just plain wrong.

Actual examples would be all the different strains of communism or anarcho-syndicalism.

Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Feb 25th 2019 at 2:33:32 PM

&

Yep, that's why I found it important to make the distinction between Communist Russia/The Soviet Union, a legitimately socialist (if eventually devolved) failed state, and Venezuela, a non-socialist state (that is nevertheless legitimately a left populist state in the process of failing) misappropriating the socialist label.

Edited by Robrecht on Feb 25th 2019 at 3:11:49 PM