Another American backed coup happening in Venezuela

James Brown

hmmm wrote: »

We can add Venezuela to that ever-growing list of socialist countries who have resorted to shooting their own starving people.

Do any socialists on here ever stop for a minute and ask themselves why there has never been a successful socialist state? Before they head out with their yellow jackets to demand the overthrow of capitalism etc?

Ireland does reasonably well except for when it becomes too reliant on private business to solve social problems created in no small part by private business.
Any successful capitalist society needs an element of socialism and vice versa.
By the way, what part of socialism condones shooting starving people? Is it the same part of capitalism that condones shooting people for private profits?
It's convenient to view things in such a simplistic way and helps to point to such examples when cutting minimum wage or benefits to the poor I suppose, but it's not really truthful.

James Brown

Palmach wrote: »

The only socialist governments were in the old Eastern bloc and yes they all ran their countries into the ground.

Stalin was a socialist? Bertie claimed he was too.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I see Venezuelans begging on the streets every day. Millions have voted with their feet against Maduro. It's incredible that people in Ireland are still defending him.

loyatemu

Stephen Collins article in the IT, largely having a pop at Sinn Féin's support for Maduro, I thought this factoid was interesting:

back in the early 1990s the United Nations development index, which measures the standard of living for all the countries of the world, ranked Ireland in 23rd place and Venezuela in 43rd. The latest UN index puts Ireland in fourth place and Venezuela in 78th.

Palmach

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Stalin was a socialist? Bertie claimed he was too.

Yes Stalin was.

James Brown

Palmach wrote: »

Yes Stalin was.

I disagree. Maybe in his youth. Do you think China is socialist too?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Palmach wrote: »

The only socialist governments were in the old Eastern bloc and yes they all ran their countries into the ground.

They were fairly successful in fact. The USSR was a super power. And the second largest economy in the world.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I disagree. Maybe in his youth. Do you think China is socialist too?

Clearly.

The definitions here are off. My take.

Social democracy - capitalist with large welfare states and (most often) free health care. Housing often state provided or subsidised.

Socialist. The state owns the commanding heights of the economy - banks, large industry, utilities etc.

Communist. The state runs everything including shops and even farms. Housing is generally state owned as well.

China be in the middle.

James Brown

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Clearly.

The definitions here are off. My take.

Social democracy - capitalist with large welfare states and (most often) free health care. Housing often state provided or subsidised.

Socialist. The state owns the commanding heights of the economy - banks, large industry, utilities etc.

Communist. The state runs everything including shops and even farms. Housing is generally state owned as well.

China be in the middle.

Yep. I'd suggest China is run by a cartel.
You can't have a democracy without elements of socialism. It's tiresome to read 'look at [insert - generally a dictatorship]' from the same folk complaining about minimum wage and welfare rates like they are equatable.

blanch152

loyatemu wrote: »

Stephen Collins article in the IT, largely having a pop at Sinn Féin's support for Maduro, I thought this factoid was interesting:

Don't worry, there will be somebody along any minute to declare that Leo will single-handedly reverse this statistic in a matter of months.

The countries that have successfully reduced poverty all have capitalism as their economic system. Like Ireland, the most successful have a social conscience as well, hence our over-developed social welfare net that allows a lifetime of benefits with a forever house. No country based on socialism was ever that successful. The best you would have got is a grimy apartment in a soulless block in a dismal suburb with a manual job.

Homeless? Send them to a gulag. We spend over €100m a year on homeless charities.
Unemployed? Send them to a work camp. We provide unlimited benefits.
Children? Get a licence if you want more than one. We have the most generous child benefit in the world (apart from some Middle-Eastern oil countries) and you can have as many as you like.

Surely Sinn Fein should be cheering Leo's inauguration.

Franz Von Peppercorn

blanch152 wrote: »

Don't worry, there will be somebody along any minute to declare that Leo will single-handedly reverse this statistic in a matter of months.

The countries that have successfully reduced poverty all have capitalism as their economic system. Like Ireland, the most successful have a social conscience as well, hence our over-developed social welfare net that allows a lifetime of benefits with a forever house. No country based on socialism was ever that successful. The best you would have got is a grimy apartment in a soulless block in a dismal suburb with a manual job.

You keep saying that but the USSR was a super power. China is clearly still socialist if not communist.

blanch152

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You keep saying that but the USSR was a super power. China is clearly still socialist if not communist.

China is an oligarchy, as is modern-day Russia. At best, China is a benevolent dictatorship, but they are not socialist.

One of our resident socialists, I think in this thread, said USSR was only a socialist state for about a decade after its foundation. For the rest of its time it was a cruel totalitarian regime, and I don't think any real socialist is claiming it anytime soon.

Franz Von Peppercorn

blanch152 wrote: »

China is an oligarchy, as is modern-day Russia. At best, China is a benevolent dictatorship, but they are not socialist.

An oligarchy isn’t really an economic system in itself, if China is even that. The US is an oligarchy. The Chinese economic policy clearly deviates extremely from free market ideology. In fact if you examine economic history probably of states became rich without following classical economic orthodoxy - including the US which was behind a protectionist wall for most of the 19C. It’s still protectionist. Europe from 1940-1975 was Keynesian and had high tax rates on the rich. I’m talking 99%.

One of our resident socialists, I think in this thread, said USSR was only a socialist state for about a decade after its foundation. For the rest of its time it was a cruel totalitarian regime, and I don't think any real socialist is claiming it anytime soon.

Sounds a definition of utopian socialism that you would dismiss otherwise. Brian? is a libertarian socialist so he would dismiss statist socialism. I don’t know how libertarian socialism works either by the way.

I wouldn’t like to live in a communist country, empirically though the USSR did pretty well. Also by the end it was more authoritarian than totalitarian.

I’m just trying to dismiss the capitalism is the only system that any way works. It only makes sense as an argument if you call any system that has some free market economy, no matter how small, capitalist and ignore the USSR and satellites who while weren’t as rich as the west, did ok.

Jeff2

Some years ago vulture funds bought up billions of Dollars of Venezuela bonds at a low price.
They then took a court case to make Venezuela pay full price on time rather than come to some arrangement for lower price or longer plan.

IMO some greedy rich people cause a lot of problems in the world.

na1

Eric Cartman wrote: »

this may be the first time in a long time that US intervention would actually help the people on the ground and get them out from a legacy of tyranny.

This is like stealing money from the family, and once the family starts starving offer them food in exchange for oil family jewelry

na1

hmmm wrote: »

We can add Venezuela to that ever-growing list of socialist countries who have resorted to shooting their own starving people.

What about Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet?

Did you see any protests/sanctions from USA or UK about mass tortures and murder of own people?

na1

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Venezuela has been in an economic crush this whole decade, it's not some result of something Trump did.

Remove US owned multinationals and IMF subsidies from Ireland, and you'll get Northern Venezuela in this country.

na1

markodaly wrote: »

Ah come here, a day will come when people won't be able to blame America for all the ills of a nation.

.

Pentagon proposed Pretexts for Cuba invasion 1962
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//news/20010430/index.html

. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in
chronilogical order):

(1) Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.

(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence"
to stage attack on the base.

(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) sabateurs inside the
base.

(4) Start riots near the entrance to the base (friendly
Cubans).

(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.

(6) Burn aircraft on airbase (sabatage).

(7) Lob morter shells from outside of base into base.
Some damage to installations.

(8) Capture assault teams approaching from the sea
of vicinity of Guantanamo City.

(9) Capture militia group which storms the base.

(10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires -- napthalene.

(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals
for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10)).

b. United States would respond by executing offensive
operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying
artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base.

c. Commence large scale United States military operations.

3. A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in
several forms:

a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and
blame Cuba.

b. We could blow up a drone (unmannded) vessel anywhere
in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident
in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result
of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presense
of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of
the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship
was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago
would add credibility especially to those people that might
have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could
follow with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US
fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existant
crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful
wave of national indignation.

s7ryf3925pivug

The USSR was not Communist. It was ruled by the Communist Party which was supposed to guide the country to becoming a Communist utopia.

sophiexyz

Complain about non existing foreign interference in US elections, yet push hard for regime change in Syria and Venezuela, its scary that some people believe CNN report the news.

Brian?

sophiexyz wrote: »

Complain about non existing foreign interference in US elections, yet push hard for regime change in Syria and Venezuela, its scary that some people believe CNN report the news.

Non existent interference? You don't believe any of the evidence that Russia tried to influence the election? The huge mountain of evidence that's getting bigger every week?

sophiexyz

Brian? wrote: »

Non existent interference? You don't believe any of the evidence that Russia tried to influence the election? The huge mountain of evidence that's getting bigger every week?

No evidence what so ever has been shown, care to show us some here?

markodaly

First of all, the 'Socialist' governments who people laude were not really Socialist, they were Social Democracies. Think Centre-left, like the Irish Labour party, compared to the likes of PBP, Sinn Fein or Solidarity who are actual socialists.

Then, of course, one ignores that Social-Democracy the world over is in crisis because populist voices have taken over what it means to be a social democrat and have come up with their own utopian fantasies on how wonderful the world would be if only they followed, their own real socialist model! They seel a false nostalgic narrative that by going back to the past, everything will be great.

Ruth Coppinger et all advocated the nationalisation of Dell. No one in Labour would have because they see that as a futile waste of taxpayers money where the state should not get involved in running tech companies. This is a key difference.

So, the point stands, there have really been no real successful socialist based economies or societies as it always ends in failure. The debate really is how much of a leash you give capitalism, say UK vs France models, or say Sweden vs Hong Kong? The core of all these societies are private property, free trade and free enterprise. The only variables to speak off is the tax burden on work and capital, and how much regulation there is of labour and business.

One can have that debate for eternity on what is the right balance. What is not up for debate though is that socialism in the form of Cuba, North Korea, China pre-1989 or the Soviet Union is an actual economic model to follow that will work out in the long term.

sophiexyz

markodaly wrote: »

First of all, the 'Socialist' governments who people laude were not really Socialist, they were Social Democracies.

Then, of course, one ignores that Social-Democracy the world over is in crisis because populist voices have taken over what it means to be a social democrat and have come up with their own utopian fantasies on how wonderful the world would be if only they followed, their own real socialist model!
So, the point stands, there have really been no real successful socialist based economies or societies as it always ends in failure. .

Sure we all know Stalin was one maybe two purges away from creating a workers paradise.

markodaly

https://www.thejournal.ie/maduro-venezuela-president-4461080-Jan2019/

The heat is rising in the kitchen. But sure its always America's fault....

People should remember Sinn Fein's position on this dictator next time an election is due.

sophiexyz

markodaly wrote: »

The heat is rising in the kitchen. But sure its always America's fault....

People should remember Sinn Fein's position on this dictator next time an election is due.

So you are OK with the UK refusing to hand back Venezuelas Gold?

Eric Cartman

A few poster here have done the traditional socialist goalpost shift , if bad things happened then it wasnt real socialism , i mean claiming stalin wasnt , come on.

Yet people are determined that the US is ‘real capitalism.

Can anyone give me any example of where a socialist state succeeded ?

Jeff2

Eric Cartman wrote: »

A few poster here have done the traditional socialist goalpost shift , if bad things happened then it wasnt real socialism , i mean claiming stalin wasnt , come on.

Yet people are determined that the US is ‘real capitalism.

Can anyone give me any example of where a socialist state succeeded ?

Irish government had to sell bonds and it took a while to get the right interest rates.
Venezuela bonds that were sold were bought up years ago and the government could have defaulted.
IMO they should have

Midlife

People need to get off the Socialist/Capatalist bandwagon. Venezuela is authoritarian that's the problem. Populism too I guess.

Democracy is what's needed. Have free, fair elections and let the people decide the economic direction of the country.

If anything, what this shows is that Central and South America need to get past this idea of the 'national strongman' as a head of state. North America too but they have a lot more checks and balances.

Midlife

Eric Cartman wrote: »

A few poster here have done the traditional socialist goalpost shift , if bad things happened then it wasnt real socialism , i mean claiming stalin wasnt , come on.

Yet people are determined that the US is ‘real capitalism.

Can anyone give me any example of where a socialist state succeeded ?

Do you mean pure socialism where the state owns the farms and factories like Cuba and the former USSR, or do you mean countries with a high level of social equality, taxation and welfare like Denmark?

Brian?

Midlife wrote: »

People need to get off the Socialist/Capatalist bandwagon. Venezuela is authoritarian that's the problem. Populism too I guess.

Democracy is what's needed. Have free, fair elections and let the people decide the economic direction of the country.

If anything, what this shows is that Central and South America need to get past this idea of the 'national strongman' as a head of state. North America too but they have a lot more checks and balances.

Exactly, it's not about economic theory. It's about forms of leadership.

Fr Tod Umptious

na1 wrote: »

What about Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet?

Did you see any protests/sanctions from USA or UK about mass tortures and murder of own people?

Pinochet was a right wing dictator who overthrew a left wing government.

The Pinochet regime lasted less than 20 years.

I know he was an evil dictator but in the long term he saved Chile from being another socialist basket case.

Salvador Allende wanted to turn Chile into another Cuba.

There were already shortages by the time of the coupe.

Chile is a thriving country now.

Midlife

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I know he was an evil dictator but...

And that's how polarised debate has become.

Maybe there was a third option?

Brian?

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Pinochet was a right wing dictator who overthrew a left wing government.

The Pinochet regime lasted less than 20 years.

I know he was an evil dictator but in the long term he saved Chile from being another socialist basket case.

Salvador Allende wanted to turn Chile into another Cuba.

There were already shortages by the time of the coupe.

Chile is a thriving country now.

You think the Pinochet regime was a good thing because it prevented Chile becoming a socialist country? Even though Allende was democratically elected and could have been removed democratically if his reforms went poorly?

Fr Tod Umptious

Brian? wrote: »

You think the Pinochet regime was a good thing because it prevented Chile becoming a socialist country? Even though Allende was democratically elected and could have been removed democratically if his reforms went poorly?

Pinochet happened and he did what he did, that's just history

Suggesting that Allende could have been removed democratically is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Look at the situation in Venezuela, Maduro was elected "democratically"

You've already said on this thread about Venezuela

A new free and fair election, with UN monitors. The winner is the winner.

As if it's that simple.

My opinion was the Chile was on it's way to being a left wing autocratic country and Pinochet stopped that and Chile is better for it today.

Fr Tod Umptious

Midlife wrote: »

And that's how polarised debate has become.

Maybe there was a third option?

Well in reality it's not as simple as good v bad.

Is Chile a better country now that it would have been under Allende, I certainly think so.

Will Venezuela work out better without a left leaning populist government, I also think so.

Midlife

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Well in reality it's not as simple as good v bad.

Is Chile a better country now that it would have been under Allende, I certainly think so.

Will Venezuela work out better without a left leaning populist government, I also think so.

You're being purely utilitarian though and acting as if it were a binary choice.

'Bad' vrs 'not quite as bad' is a poor way to measure things, particularly when you're talking about a lot of people dying.

Fr Tod Umptious

Midlife wrote: »

You're being purely utilitarian though and acting as if it were a binary choice.

'Bad' vrs 'not quite as bad' is a poor way to measure things, particularly when you're talking about a lot of people dying.

But that's the reality of the world unfortunately.
Bad v not quite as bad.

Midlife

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[/b]

But that's the reality of the world unfortunately.
Bad v not quite as bad.

So as long as something is worse than the worst alternative, it's fine?

Ethically, that doesn't hold up at all.

Say you're a doctor and you know five people are about to die because they need organs they can't get.

A healthy person walks into your clinic so you kill them, harvest their organs and are +4 on the life count.

Bad but not quite as bad. How is that different from your viewing Pinochet as a positive?

Utilitarianism stops working when you're talking about thousands of people dying and tens of thousands being tortured.

20Cent

Socialism gone wrong, a tiny minority controlling all the weath and power, is capitalism gone right.

oscarBravo

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Chile is a thriving country now.

As someone who spends a few weeks in Chile every couple of years: Chile is a thriving country precisely because it has sensibly rejected the moronic binary choice between being a socialist basket case or an authoritarian dictatorship that this thread seems determined to force on Venezuela.

Chile tends to cycle loosely between centre-left and centre-right forms of social democracy. The lesson, for anyone who's not too busy haring down the "at least Pinochet wasn't a socialist" type of logical cul-de-sac, is that extreme forms of government usually leave vast swathes of a population miserable while benefiting a few, while social democracy at least tries to bring the ordinary people along with it.

Eric Cartman

Brian? wrote: »

You think the Pinochet regime was a good thing because it prevented Chile becoming a socialist country? Even though Allende was democratically elected and could have been removed democratically if his reforms went poorly?

Considering the instability of south america as a region , Pinochet was probably one of the least destructive and provided the most opportunity for people to succeed. Does it make him a good guy - no, does it make him not a dictator - no, but if you line up chavez, maduro, castro, etc.... and tell me to choose one as my leader, im picking pinochet every day of the week.

oscarBravo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

...if you line up chavez, maduro, castro, etc.... and tell me to choose one as my leader, im picking pinochet every day of the week.

oscarBravo wrote: »

...the moronic binary choice between being a socialist basket case or an authoritarian dictatorship that this thread seems determined to force on Venezuela.

I rest my case.

I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that not only have you never been to Chile or Venezuela, you've never spoken to a Chilean or a Venezuelan. But hey: keep pontificating about how great Pinochet was, because you don't understand shades of grey.

Eric Cartman

oscarBravo wrote: »

I rest my case.

I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that not only have you never been to Chile or Venezuela, you've never spoken to a Chilean or a Venezuelan. But hey: keep pontificating about how great Pinochet was, because you don't understand shades of grey.

At no point have I ever done this, there was nothing even remotely like that said. Im not sure if its a problem you have in comprehension or its an intentional thing, but every single one of my posts you have replied to in the recent past, you completely blow it out of proportion and throw a far right 'what would 4chan say' shade on it, then respond to that version of it that you have concocted, not the reality of what was said. I did not praise pinochet in any post there and I would like you to acknowledge that so I know that you can actually comprehend what is being said here.


I was merely commenting on the history of south american politics. Obviously a democratically elected centre right candidate would be my ideal and probably the most suitable for the south american nations. But as to whether or not it would present enough change quickly enough for the people to not overthrow them would be the question.

Midlife

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Considering the instability of south america as a region , Pinochet was probably one of the least destructive and provided the most opportunity for people to succeed. Does it make him a good guy - no, does it make him not a dictator - no, but if you line up chavez, maduro, castro, etc.... and tell me to choose one as my leader, im picking pinochet every day of the week.

Jesus ****ing christ lads.

'My sides authoritarian dictators are better than your sides authoritarian dictators.'

What the **** has the world come to? Can you not just accept that they were/are all sh1t without trying to score points for who the **** ever is your team.

Brian?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Considering the instability of south america as a region , Pinochet was probably one of the least destructive and provided the most opportunity for people to succeed. Does it make him a good guy - no, does it make him not a dictator - no, but if you line up chavez, maduro, castro, etc.... and tell me to choose one as my leader, im picking pinochet every day of the week.

Good for you.

But that isn't the choice, now is it?

Manic Moran

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

They were fairly successful in fact. The USSR was a super power. And the second largest economy in the world.

That seems a silly argument.

It's like saying that because The De Havilland Comet was the best airliner in the world for a few years, it was a success. The fact that there was a fundamental failure in the design which caused the thing to fall out of the sky after a few years is completely irrelevant...

Anything can look good on the outside, until the weak structure beneath comes to the fore. California is a case in point. 2% spending on infrastructure. In the 1960s, it was 20%. What do you suppose is happening to California's water supply and roads? And what will happen to the California economy when the Oroville dam does collapse, or the State runs out of water again? A booming economy is not necessarily a sound economy.

20Cent

Any left wing government in South America has to be crushed by the US at all costs. Can't have US citizens seeing a (supposedly) "lesser" country where people have access to healthcare, education and a decent standard of living because they'd then want those things.
They are always attacked with sanctions, embargoes, sabotage, propaganda and terrorism. Right wing dictators are preferred than elected socialist governments. This stuff about caring for the citizens is demonstrably nonsense.

Eric Cartman

20Cent wrote: »

Any left wing government in South America has to be crushed by the US at all costs. Can't have US citizens seeing a (supposedly) "lesser" country where people have access to healthcare, education and a decent standard of living because they'd then want those things.
They are always attacked with sanctions, embargoes, sabotage, propaganda and terrorism. Right wing dictators are preferred than elected socialist governments. This stuff about caring for the citizens is demonstrably nonsense.

Living under the illusion that its US interference / sanctions collapsing these left wing regimes is just conspiracy theory level stuff. Often the sanctions don't occur until the people are already starving or a cash strapped nation agrees to allow an enemy of the US to have a military installation there.

Just get over this idea that its failing because of the US and its about hiding a 'better life' from their citizens.

20Cent

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Living under the illusion that its US interference / sanctions collapsing these left wing regimes is just conspiracy theory level stuff. Often the sanctions don't occur until the people are already starving or a cash strapped nation agrees to allow an enemy of the US to have a military installation there.

Just get over this idea that its failing because of the US and its about hiding a 'better life' from their citizens.

Your reply has zero to do with the points made. Remarkable.