Another American backed coup happening in Venezuela

Eric Cartman

20Cent wrote: »

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

Yes it does. Your post made the assertations that under a left wing government , south american countries would have a decent standard of living , good medical care etc.... and implying it would be a better standard of living than the US, which is just not true and there isnt the slightest shred of actual evidence to support that as possible. You then asserted that its always the US crushing left wing regimes down there, they let chavez and maduro continue till now and only intervened when the whole world knew the people were eating rats to live.

20Cent

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Yes it does. Your post made the assertations that under a left wing government , south american countries would have a decent standard of living , good medical care etc.... and implying it would be a better standard of living than the US, which is just not true and there isnt the slightest shred of actual evidence to support that as possible. You then asserted that its always the US crushing left wing regimes down there, they let chavez and maduro continue till now and only intervened when the whole world knew the people were eating rats to live.

Eric when did US sanctions against Venezuela begin? Do you know? Were they approved by the UN?

oscarBravo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Yes it does. Your post made the assertations that under a left wing government , south american countries would have a decent standard of living , good medical care etc.... and implying it would be a better standard of living than the US, which is just not true and there isnt the slightest shred of actual evidence to support that as possible.

Under left wing governments, many European countries have had and still have a decent standard of living, good medical care etc. Why shouldn't South American countries have the same thing?

Eric Cartman

oscarBravo wrote: »

Under left wing governments, many European countries have had and still have a decent standard of living, good medical care etc. Why shouldn't South American countries have the same thing?

Under 'right wing governments' the UK laid the groundwork for free primary and secondary education and the NHS. Leaving healthcare and schools out of it as often they are not left/right issues outside of the US.

A state which has suffered so dearly under the hands of authoritarian socialism would benefit most from centre right policies which promote FDI, business building and a desire to get communities to work. a position in which a welfare state was introduced or oppressive taxation was introduced before building itself as a business brand for foreign investment will just result in collapse again.

20Cent

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Under 'right wing governments' the UK laid the groundwork for free primary and secondary education and the NHS. Leaving healthcare and schools out of it as often they are not left/right issues outside of the US.

A state which has suffered so dearly under the hands of authoritarian socialism would benefit most from centre right policies which promote FDI, business building and a desire to get communities to work. a position in which a welfare state was introduced or oppressive taxation was introduced before building itself as a business brand for foreign investment will just result in collapse again.

Some Nordic countries are more socialist than Venezuela and do fine. They arent hit with economic sanctions though.
How can anyone want the guy who won the elections replaced by someone who lost it and claim to be democratic.

markodaly

Midlife wrote: »

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

This is leftist deflection 101 tbh.

It's not socialism, its authoritarianism.

Expect of course the economic policies pursued by a Socialist government like Chavez or Maduro is Socialism 101. It's never the economic policies itself that are at fault is it?

China is authoritarian, even Singapore to some extent, yet its people are not eating rats.

Chile had an authoritarian government, which brutalized its people under Pinochet however, at least they had some economic sense and something positive came out of that terrible regime in the long run.

Its why I suppose Socialist dictators are the worst of the lot. You have to live under an authoritarian regime AND you and your country end up a poor backwater. The double whammy.

20Cent

markodaly wrote: »

This is leftist deflection 101 tbh.

It's not socialism, its authoritarianism.

Expect of course the economic policies pursued by a Socialist government like Chavez or Maduro is Socialism 101. It's never the economic policies itself that are at fault is it?

China is authoritarian, even Singapore to some extent, yet its people are not eating rats.

Chile had an authoritarian government, which brutalized its people under Pinochet however, at least they had some economic sense and something positive came out of that terrible regime in the long run.

Its why I suppose Socialist dictators are the worst of the lot. You have to live under an authoritarian regime AND you and your country end up a poor backwater. The double whammy.

Most of the socialist governments that were overthrown and attacked were democraticaly elected and not authoritarian.

Franz Von Peppercorn

markodaly wrote: »

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.

Wtf is Sinn Fein coming into everything? Ruth Dudley Edwards has cornered that market so it’s a bit crowded.

As for the EU, it does what it’s told, when it comes to the US.

Eric Cartman

20Cent wrote: »

Most of the socialist governments that were overthrown and attacked were democraticaly elected and not authoritarian.

them being authoritarian has nothing to do with how they were elected. you can have authoritarian leaders in a democracy.

Franz Von Peppercorn

markodaly wrote: »

This is leftist deflection 101 tbh.

It's not socialism, its authoritarianism.

Expect of course the economic policies pursued by a Socialist government like Chavez or Maduro is Socialism 101. It's never the economic policies itself that are at fault is it?

I asked you earlier why the US imposed sanctions if they didn’t think they would work. Of course it was largely the sanctions that killed the economy.

China is authoritarian, even Singapore to some extent, yet its people are not eating rats.

China is a socialist country with large swathes of its industry and all its banks owned by the State. The state owns outright, or in the form of majority shares in State Owned Enterprises the majority of the capital in the country.

If any western leftist demanded that kind of system they would be laughed out of it. In fact China probably isn’t any less socialist than Venezuela it’s just not that easy to bully. It’s far more socialist than Corbyn’s vision for the U.K.

Chile had an authoritarian government, which brutalized its people under Pinochet however, at least they had some economic sense and something positive came out of that terrible regime in the long run.

Chile is a mediocre mid level state economically.

Its why I suppose Socialist dictators are the worst of the lot. You have to live under an authoritarian regime AND you and your country end up a poor backwater. The double whammy.

This is a bogus history, like a lot of your history. The USSR was at one stage a super power.

In a previous post you said that the US became rich because of trade. It actually became rich behind a wall of tarrifs in the 19C.

The free market view of history despends on all kinds of distortions.

markodaly

Midlife wrote: »

And that's how polarised debate has become.

Maybe there was a third option?

Yes, yes there is.

As already mentioned embrace a more free market, open trade based economy with strong institutions. They should try and attract foreign investment and capital, with an eye on education development and infrastructure.
The playbook to build wealth is all there, but for whatever reason Socialism ala Cuba and Venezuela never seem to be the issue.

Unfortunately, many Latin American countries are stuck in the past when it comes to their development.

Franz Von Peppercorn

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, yes there is.

As already mentioned embrace a more free market, open trade based economy with strong institutions. They should try and attract foreign investment and capital, with an eye on education development and infrastructure.
The playbook to build wealth is all there, but for whatever reason Socialism ala Cuba and Venezuela never seem to be the issue.

Unfortunately, many Latin American countries are stuck in the past when it comes to their development.

That playbook has obliterated the middle class in the US but apparently it’s the way forward.

markodaly

20Cent wrote: »

Some Nordic countries are more socialist than Venezuela and do fine.

Ha, really? Which ones. LOL

20Cent

markodaly wrote: »

Ha, really? Which ones. LOL

Norway for one.

markodaly

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

That playbook has obliterated the middle class in the US but apparently it’s the way forward.

No. The US is a developed economy that has gone through many economic revolutions over the past 250 years. Many South American economies haven't even had an industrial revolution. Comparing apples and elephants there.

The playbook I mention has been used by the likes of Japan, South Korea, Singapore and of course us, Ireland. Tell me, are they crap places to live compared to rat eating Venezuela?

But pray tell, how should South American countries develop?

markodaly

20Cent wrote: »

Norway for one.

Ha, Noway MORE Socialist than Venzualla?

What metric are you using? Your imagination?

In the real world the Heritage Foundation Rank Norway 26th in economic freedom, compared to 178 for Venezuela.

Norway ranks about the same as Israel and Germany
While Venezuela ranks between illustrious Cuba and North Korea.

https://www.heritage.org/index/country/venezuela
https://www.heritage.org/index/country/norway

Everything from the tax burden, property rights and trade freedom, Norway ranks as less 'Socialist' than Venezuela. In fact, not one of the 12 subcategories does Norway rank lower than Venezuela.


In other words you are completely and utterly wrong about your claim.

markodaly

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Wtf is Sinn Fein coming into everything? Ruth Dudley Edwards has cornered that market so it’s a bit crowded.

You find nothing wrong with the fact that a) SF advocates the same economic policies of Maduro and b) revere him so much that they send two official party delegates to its inauguration?

Nothing at all to see here folks. LOL

These are the same people who criticised Enda Kenny meeting Trump at the White House during St. Patricks day.

As for the EU, it does what it’s told, when it comes to the US.

Yes, because Trump and the EU are best of friends over the past few years.

It is amazing the cognitive dissonance people display when it comes to this issue.

markodaly

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I asked you earlier why the US imposed sanctions if they didn’t think they would work. Of course it was largely the sanctions that killed the economy.

As already mentioned, the US is one country. They were free to trade with other countries. Also Sanctions came in under the Obama presidency a few years ago.

China is a socialist country with large swathes of its industry and all its banks owned by the State. The state owns outright, or in the form of majority shares in State Owned Enterprises the majority of the capital in the country.

China also knows how to play the globalisation game. Their economy is very open is some aspects but yes, many large Chinese corporations are also state-owned.
Today Chinese communism or socialism is neither fully socialist or capitalist. Its a strange hybrid of both.

China tried the whole rigid Marx/Socialism 101 thing for 35 years. It was an utter disaster that killed tens of millions of people. But they changed tact in the late 80's and pushed through lots of economic reforms to entice foreign investment to grow and develop the economy.

Needless to say, those reforms worked well.

If any western leftist demanded that kind of system they would be laughed out of it. In fact China probably isn’t any less socialist than Venezuela it’s just not that easy to bully. It’s far more socialist than Corbyn’s vision for the U.K.

Well that system is first and foremost authoritarian and the Chinese Communist party rules the roost.

Secondly, this is China's industrial revolution so to compare this to say the UK who industrialized 150 years ago is just stupid. China is already trying to move to a more services-based economy which does not work well under a heavily planned system. The jury is out on wether they can do that.

Finally, western lefties have advocated that kind of system. From Greece to Ireland. Why did Ruth Coppinger advocate Dell to be nationalised. Even the Chinese know that nationalising tech industries is a bad bad move. Corbyn wants to renationalise a whole host of industries and turn the UK back to a 1950's version of itself economically. That is one of the reasons he wants a Brexit.

Chile is a mediocre mid level state economically.

I do not know what this sentence even means. Regardless, using independent metrics such as the GNI or HDI, Chile is the best performing South American country. They must be something right.

This is a bogus history, like a lot of your history. The USSR was at one stage a super power.

At one stage, for about 5 minutes, but it was all a lie.

The USSR was a rust bucket that was never seriously able to compete with the US and the Western Liberal order. The USSR post-WWII was an empire the subdued and controlled 115 million non-Russians by the force of the gun. It was so powerful that it had to keep its citizens from not trying to escape by building a wall and shooting dead anyone that dared cross it. It was so powerful that it could not feed its citizens either.



As I said, the USSR was another impoverished backwater.

In a previous post you said that the US became rich because of trade. It actually became rich behind a wall of tarrifs in the 19C.

It because rich because it enabled the growth of a middle class for reasons I mentioned earlier.

Somebody famously observed that in every boom, a consensus quickly develops around the notion that "This time it's different."
And so it is with every US coup in Latin America: the latest one is always different to all previous ones, is always justified.

I wish the good people who gullibly fall for this Yankee "good cop" horse manure each time would cop on, and that the neo-con libertarians cynically peddling this selfless US "white man's burden" justification could be put in historical context for what they are.

Anybody seriously interested in US foreign policy in the region could start by reading Walter La Feber of Cornell's famous book, Inevitable Revolutions.

A felicitous insight into US foreign policy in Venezuela in 2019 can be read in the following quintessentially colonial/paternalistic extract from a US Department of State unclassified document from 30 June 1950:

Department of State Policy Statement
top secret
[Washington,] June 30, 1950.
Venezuela

a. objectives

US objectives in Latin America are the security of the United States and of this Hemisphere.... Within this general framework our specific objectives in Venezuela are: to assure an adequate supply of petroleum, especially in time of war, and to encourage the development of Venezuela’s rich iron ore deposits to supplement US reserves; to foster the economic stability and development of Venezuela ... and the continuance of a system of free enterprise....

[Page 1025]
b. policies

Maintenance of Supply of Strategic Resources. All US policies toward Venezuela are affected in greater or less degree by the objective of assuring an adequate supply of petroleum for the US, especially in time of war. Furthermore the means of attaining our other objectives are conditioned by the overwhelming importance of petroleum in the economy.... While the dictatorship of Juan Vicente Gómez (1908–35) ... had legislation enacted which made it possible for foreign companies to develop Venezuela’s vast petroleum resources to such an extent that income from activities of the oil companies currently supply Venezuela with 95% of its foreign exchange and 72% of its total government revenue.... When Gómez died and Venezuela took its first faltering steps in the direction of increased popular participation in the affairs of state, the close relationship between the dictator and the oil companies became a political liability to the companies. Both the companies and their foreign employees have been the objects of envy, distrust and dislike by the Venezuelans. This is partly due to the higher standard of living enjoyed by the foreign managerial personnel and to their practice of living in isolated US-type villages. It was also due partly to the conflict of different mentalities: the “hurry-up” psychology of the Yankee boss in conflict with the “mañana” complex of the poorly-trained, inefficient Venezuelan. The upper-class Venezuelans have a far more basic reason for their latent antipathy to Americans. They deeply resent the fact that Venezuela’s greatest natural resource is [Page 1026]exclusively controlled by aliens. They realize all too clearly that the economic life of their country is completely dependent on the operations of foreign companies, which theoretically could bring all government and most business activity to a standstill simply by suspending operations for a few months.

As a result there have been many Venezuelans who have advocated the nationalization of the petroleum industry, and there are few politicians in Venezuela who would dare assert publicly that they oppose nationalization. Responsible leaders have, however, usually admitted that Venezuela could not successfully manage the complex oil business in view of the lack of trained technicians in virtually every branch of operations from exploration to marketing, and they have therefore been content to confine their aspirations to the indefinite future...

markodaly

Not sure how 70-year-old document proves anything to be honest about today. This was a time when Stalin was still alive and in power.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Norway runs off selling oil to foreign countries to fund its social programs
Sweden similar for timber and mining
Those countries are "social democracies" which is basically enough socialism to call themselves socialist and enough mercantilism and capitalism to get the money in the door to pay for it.

So, can we take it that when Stalin sold all that grain in the 1930s to western countries in return for the necessary cash and machinery to modernise Soviet industry, his country was a "social democracy"?

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

Not sure how 70-year-old document proves anything to be honest about today. This was a time when Stalin was still alive and in power.

Seriously? The same three letters behind US involvement in Iraq? Or do you really think the US in 2019 is trying to overthrow another Venezuelan government - lest anybody forget the US overthrow of Venezuela's democratically elected leader Hugo Chávez in April 2002 - because it believes in, eh, freedom?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF_5xZIstPw

Eric Cartman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So, can we take it that when Stalin sold all that grain in the 1930s to western countries in return for the necessary cash and machinery to modernise Soviet industry, his country was a "social democracy"?

No, stalin was an alcoholic authoritarian communist who killed millions of people and through a series of massaging the facts is somehow not regarded as worse than hitler. The man had his soldiers liberate the prisoners of concentration camps in nazi controlled countries and put them straight on trains to siberian gulags. Yesterday was world holocaust memorial day and there was a man on RTE talking about how bad the holocaust was , he had been kept in a siberian gulag as a child.

You are aware that you are comparing a modern democratic state in which the only oppressive thing is how high the taxation is with one of the top 5 most oppressive leaders implementing the most oppressive system of economic and social rule in modern history. There is no way you can make that comparisson in any sense of seriousness.

s7ryf3925pivug

No country has been Communist in the history of the world. The countries that have aspired to it have failed terribly. A communist society is a post scarcity society where there is no state and no class.

Technological advancement is at the foundation of it. Its occurrence could even be an organic byproduct of sufficient improvements in productivity. In line with this theme, the Culture novels by Iain M Banks are set in a futuristic genuine Communist society. The easiest way of getting an idea of what a genuine Communist society would be is to read one of them.

All aspirational Communist countries have failed miserably. A common issue is that trying to smash class frameworks generally messes up technological progress. The most blatant example of that was the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia where they committed a purge of the intelligentsia. Bad progress technologically is combined with inefficent management. Micromanagement of production by the state in the Soviet Union resulted in weird situations where there would be huge overproduction of the certain items and a lack of others. For example everyone might be provided with size 9 mens boots, but nobody mught be able to get size 12s. A market system is far superior in terms of efficiency.

Stalin was a brutal dictator and it was during his rule that the Soviet Union actually moved anywhere near the direction of Communism. He did modernise their production, and modernisation is the foundation of Communism. He successfully employed violence to stabilise hia regime and focused on state development. Later regimes were less violent and consistenly focused on strengthening the regime at the expense of the state. For example, they were very concerned about appearances of success and progress so the populace would support the government, and not successful in actually improving productivity etc.

Given Communism could not exist without a foundation of technological advancement, the countries that are closest to developing it are the ones that are the most technologically advanced. At the moment these are capitalist countries.

Franz Von Peppercorn

markodaly wrote: »

No. The US is a developed economy that has gone through many economic revolutions over the past 250 years. Many South American economies haven't even had an industrial revolution. Comparing apples and elephants there.

The playbook I mention has been used by the likes of Japan, South Korea, Singapore and of course us, Ireland. Tell me, are they crap places to live compared to rat eating Venezuela?

But pray tell, how should South American countries develop?

Japan, and Korea like the US in the 19C didn’t in fact trade openly. Japan had very high tariffs post war. Korea also. Both countries had fairly robust government directed economies. In fact Korea followed the USSR model of 5 year plans albeit in a more free market, yet highly government influenced economy. Left to “organic growth and small government and good institutions” there’s no telling what would have happened but Korea would probably have remained a backwater. Japan’s policy was to restrict imports, until it got richer. The US, fairly protectionist itself, had to take japan to the GATT a number of times from the 1980’s on.

Neither of these countries followed the free market text book. Nor did the social democracies of Western Europe ( not described as socialist unless they fail). And China is apparently a capitalist country despite having 40-50% of its GDP in government and local owned industries.

The US meanwhile was a much freer market in the 19C but grew behind a wall of tarrifs. Textbook theory would suggest that therefore the US economy would not gain the industrial strength of other economies because the lack of competition would hinder its economic and scientific growth. In fact it became the world’s most formidable economy behind that wall. It’s in the last few years that it’s lost it’s factories and will never get them back. That’s a problem with globalisation.

So much then for free trade and small governments.

Who knows what would have worked in Venezuela if the US didn’t decide to sanction oil exports. Norway’s government is 51% of GDP but like China isn’t socialist because it’s working.

markodaly

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

It’s in the last few years that it’s lost it’s factories and will never get them back. That’s a problem with globalisation.

Perhaps from an American worker point of view, but from a Chinese point of view poverty has been pretty much eradicated. It seems you have a fetish for tariffs and trade wars. Are you a Trump supporter?

Who knows what would have worked in Venezuela

Well, perhaps they could have followed Chile's model rather than Cuba's but yea, who knows. :rolleyes:

Norway’s government is 51% of GDP but like China isn’t socialist because it’s working.

Its not Socialist because that is a stupid single metric to measure how Socialist a countries economy is.

USA government generated GDP is 41.2%, Venezuela is 40%, Ireland's is 48% and the UK is 49%, while China is 24%.

Who knew, that Tory UK is more Socialist than both Ireland, China and Venezuela.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_percentage_of_GDP

On a serious note, its easy to try and win a debate, if one changes the terms of what words actually mean. I think the 12 metrics used by the Heritage Foundation is a somewhat good baseline to have this debate, rather then random figures pulled from the sky.

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

Perhaps from an American worker point of view, but from a Chinese point of view poverty has been pretty much eradicated. It seems you have a fetish for tariffs and trade wars. Are you a Trump supporter?




Well, perhaps they could have followed Chile's model rather than Cuba's but yea, who knows. :rolleyes:



Its not Socialist because that is a stupid single metric to measure how Socialist a countries economy is.

USA government generated GDP is 41.2%, Venezuela is 40%, Ireland's is 48% and the UK is 49%, while China is 24%.

Who knew, that Tory UK is more Socialist than both Ireland, China and Venezuela.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_percentage_of_GDP

On a serious note, its easy to try and win a debate, if one changes the terms of what words actually mean. I think the 12 metrics used by the Heritage Foundation is a somewhat good baseline to have this debate, rather then random figures pulled from the sky.

The metrics chosen by the heritage foundation are chosen specifically to suit their ideological bias. Which is fair enough, they’re not trying to hide that bias at least.

Is this what you’re basing your opinion on that there haven’t been any socialist governments in Europe?

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

As much as I enjoy a good old fashioned debate as to what is or is not true socialism, I think we need to refocus this thread onto the precise current events i.e. the specific involvement or otherwise of the US in Venezuela and the legitimacy or otherwise of their elections and presidential declarations.

Good loser

That Sinn Fein lent their support to Maduro by sending two high profile reps to his inauguration was a monumental error of judgement. And despicable behaviour. While they lecture us on standards and principles. Hypocrisy of the highest order.

Have they any idea of what havoc he has rained on his country (to date) and what more such he will do until he's removed?

People starving!
3m fled the country!
No medicines!
Supreme court ransacked!
Parliament discarded after opposition won the election!
1,000,000% inflation
Daughter of Chavez the richest person in the country
The ruling elite corrupt from top to bottom
Oil industry run into the ground