Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Venzuela votes today

  • 28-07-2024 01:56PM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,155 ✭✭✭amandstu


    From the Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/28/venezuela-election-sunday-maduro-urrutia "Venezuela votes in election that could end 25 years of socialist rule"

    First time I have heard the Venezuelan regime described as "socialist".

    Is that a correct description?

    I would be happy to describe myself as "socialist". How can that regime be called "socialist" if they don't have free and fair elections?



«134

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,950 ✭✭✭Hande hoche!


    Maduro and his predecessor were leaders of a Venezuelan Socialist party. Have seen their regime described as such in the past.

    Regimes can be charitably described as deceptive in their language. The number of countries that have "Democratic" in their official names that are anything but..

    Hopefully have a change in the political leadership in Venezuela. Would probably be beneficial to the country and the region. Wouldn't hold my breath all the same.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,155 ✭✭✭amandstu


    It is the Guardian describing them as "Socialist".I don't care what they call themselves, but for the Guardian to describe them as Socialist gives Socialism a very bad (execrable) name and ,to my mind wholly inaccurate.

    Do any of the political parties in Ireland ,UK or Europe (or anywhere) who call themselves Socialist support that regime?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,950 ✭✭✭Hande hoche!


    I think the support has pretty much dried up. The Corbyn era Labour Party had some members that were somewhat warm. Think the apex was under the Chavez when the likes of actors and mainstream parties lauding his accomplishments. Part of the later period support was more about opposing the American hegemony than supporting the Venezuelan government.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,155 ✭✭✭amandstu


    I see.It seems to me nobody says Kennedy's legacy is tarnished because of the Bay of Pigs.Was he in the loop?

    I read N. Mailer's very long book about the whole thing years ago but I don't remember if it went all the way up to the White House(in his version)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,993 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Socialism always ends the same way, dictatorship. Some don't want to live in equal poverty with the masses.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,155 ✭✭✭amandstu


    The UK Labour Party and the French Socialistes brought in a dictatorship?

    Socialism without free and fair election is imo a misnoma .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,950 ✭✭✭Hande hoche!


    In fairness to Kennedy, that was largely an inherited scheme from the Eisenhower administration. He made the decision to not supply direct US military air support. To some that was to result in the failure of the operation, others argue that it helped the reduce the bloodshed. Vietnam and his level involvement would be a more contentious issue.

    As regards Socialism, it brings up the economic and political aspects. On the political side, some may feel that free and fair elections are a necessary attribute (possibly yourself?). If one is looking at the economics side, quite a few authoritarian and despotic regimes would operate a Socialist system.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,382 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    Since when do socialist regimes have free and fair elections?

    Glazers Out!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,155 ✭✭✭amandstu


    If they don't they are not Socialist. Was France not Socialist under Mitterand? The UK under the Labour Party.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,155 ✭✭✭amandstu


    An entirely necessary attribute.Any exceptions are indefensible (except in conditions of war ,obviously)

    Democracy trumps ideology.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,382 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    The USSR was socialist. China is socialist. Cambodia was socialist.

    That's the end of the socialist spectrum Venezuela exists on, not the left wing party in a democratic country model you're outlining.

    Labour being in government in the United Kingdom now doesn't mean it's become a socialist society, it's just socialist flavoured capitalism without any commitment to the harsh realities of actual socialism.

    Post edited by nullzero on

    Glazers Out!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 593 ✭✭✭engineerws


    The USSR was a failed attempt at communism. Socialism is popular in Europe and includes the idea of national healthcare and social welfare.

    Venezuela and Cuba have both suffered terribly under USA sanctions.

    Since 2005, the United States has imposed targeted sanctions on Venezuelan individuals and entities that have engaged in criminal, antidemocratic, or corrupt actions.

    USA has been supporting the Saudi dictatorship and trying to crush Venezuela but nobody here seems to be aware of that?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,155 ✭✭✭amandstu


    USSR was communist last time I looked as is China Both fascist dicatorships who may have used the description "Socialist" for propaganda purposes.

    UK Labour party and PS in France are nowhere on those fuckers' spectrum.

    Venezuelan regime may call itself "socialist" for all I care.They are no better than Russia/China.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,382 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    The United States have a lot to answer for in Venezuela without a doubt, but Chavez knew what he was getting into with the United States before the PSUV took control of the country, the Cuban situation was a case study half a century in the making, the US was committed to eliminating socialism globally since the end of WW2, so yes their sanctions were and are draconian but they weren't a surpise to anyone in the Bolivarian Revolution movement.

    As for Saudi Arabia, that entire state as it exists now is an invention of the US and it's oil economy. The whole thing stinks to high heaven and always has done. The US has a lot to answer for on a lot of fronts but socialism didn't become toxic because of US sanctions alone. US sanctions didn't send 20 million Russians to Gulags to die or make the Khmer Rogue murder people by the hundreds of thousands, socialism got there all by itself.

    Glazers Out!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,382 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    The term USSR stands for Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.

    I'm not trying to be unkind here, but your understanding of the political ideology you claim to subscribe to doesn't seem particularly robust.

    Glazers Out!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,155 ✭✭✭amandstu


    As i said USSR is considered a communist state .Words can mean whatever you want them to mean.

    Same with China -Communist.

    European Socialism is not Communist unlesss you believe the **** that comes from Trump's mouth.

    I have lived through the Cold War.I think I know who those fuckers are.

    They weren't socialists.

    Post edited by amandstu on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,382 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    They were socialists.

    You're choosing to say that words can mean whatever YOU want them to mean.

    Communism is the end result of Socialism according to all the socialists I've ever spoken to. Communism was never achieved because socialism failed they'll tell you.

    If you lived through the cold war I'd have to assume it wasn't at the forefront of your attention.

    I'm not trying to be condescending or rude here but you've got a lot of things back to front on this topic unfortunately.

    Two posts ago you said China was a Fascist state, now you're saying it's Communist. Communism and Fascism are at the opposite ends of the political spectrum, even of they do result in bad outcomes (see the notion of horseshoe theory for more on that one), they're not the same thing.

    Glazers Out!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 593 ✭✭✭engineerws




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,155 ✭✭✭amandstu


    No problem describing communists as fascists when they share the same attitudes to human rights.

    I woild not call Gorbachev (communism with a human face) a fascist as his aims were benign and daring.

    There was a revolution in Portugal in 74 .The Socialists of M Soares took power and Communists were shown the exit very quickly.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution

    Socialism did not lead to communism.It repelled it.

    Maybe you talk to too many political types.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,382 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    °°°°°


    There's far too many people looking to exonerate socialism of having been involved in anything negative at any point in history.

    Socialism is an extremist ideology just like Fascism. I have no time for either of them because they are meat grinders for human beings and belong to the past. But by all means convince yourself it's a benevolent movement that is kind and loving and not at all as effective a platform for psychopaths to indulge their blood thirst as fascism was.

    When facts are ignored because they're inconvenient to someone's beliefs you can never have a reasonable discussion so let's agree to disagree and forego the formalities of an argument that will lead nowhere.

    Lets hope the people of Venezuela get a break and can build some sort of lives for themselves, they need to get a handle on all the kidnappings ASAP and move away from failed state status.

    Glazers Out!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,128 ✭✭✭Emblematic


    Surprised that someone has not heard the word socialist in the context of the Venuzuela regime.

    They are routinely called socialist by the likes of the BBC, Irish Times, UK Independent etc.

    BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-48121148

    Their socialist PSUV party has, over the past two decades, gained control of key institutions, including much of the judiciary, the electoral council and the Supreme Court.

    Irish Times: https://www.irishtimes.com/world/americas/2023/03/17/deep-fake-news-videos-ramp-up-misinformation-in-venezuela/

    The report, which was widely circulated in media supportive of President Nicolás Maduro’s socialist government, suggested claims about widespread impoverishment in oil-rich Venezuela had been “exaggerated”.

    UK Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/world/venezuela-election-maduro-controversy-gonzalez-b2587183.html

    Venezuela is voting in the country’s hotly-anticipated election today (28 July), which could see the end of 25 years of socialist rule.

    Wikipedia describes the ideology of the ruling party as:

    Probably hundreds of other sources.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,155 ✭✭✭amandstu


    Well I have not been keeping up then.Strikes me that this regime has described itself as Socialist and as such has debased the value of the term.

    I am sickened that any regime that calls itself socialist can abuse the electoral process to the extent of preventing free elections.

    I would not call it socialist -more antisocialist.

    I would hardly call it a political movement of any decent description -other than a naked dictatorship.(a petro -dictatorship perhaps)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,128 ✭✭✭Emblematic


    Depends on your definition of socialism I suppose but certainly the idea that the Venezuelan regime is socialist is not a fringe one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,155 ✭✭✭amandstu


    It is a regime and does not represent the country.

    I reserve the description of a socialist party to one that represents its members and ,in time may represent the country as a whole.

    .

    Not to a regime that only represents its own narrow interests putting 2 fingers up to the country as a whole.

    I remember when Venezuela was highly thought of in S America before Chavez dug his claws into the country.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,128 ✭✭✭Emblematic


    Might you be thinking more of social democracy than socialism?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,155 ✭✭✭amandstu


    .

    I think we are getting into the weeds.Let us just hope the people of Venezuela can get this monkey off its back tonight.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,520 ✭✭✭downthemiddle


    Looking less like socialism and more like a dictatorship in Venezuela.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz5rj2mzgevo



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,287 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    I'd say 'its complicated'.

    After Chavez things got a little dodgy, hell South America is dodgy out anyway. Crime corruption civil war poverty. US sanctions and the ever present US hegemony dogma, biggest oil reserves on the planet, crime & corruption, political culture in South America does not compare to Europe. All of this means bad players galore. I wouldnt trust either side to act in good faith never mind tell the truth on anything. As nearly always whoever the US want to succeed are painted as the 'good guys' for some reason despite endless evidence to the contrary especially in South America.

    To be fair. If despite worlds biggest oil reserves and other riches the country is till piss poor wouldnt blame the people for possibly voting foreign friendly actors in. If no money trickles down anyway they might as well go for foreign capitalist exploitation at least maybe some jobs and infrastructure come their way that way.

    Whether thats what happens who knows too many shenanigans and too many dodgy forces tearing at the place to know for sure what to believe or not.

    Having said all that I dont really know whats up there going past a couple of essays and the usual news reports. Just what it sounds like.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,712 ✭✭✭plodder


    They use an electronic voting system in Venezuela. Maduro has called the results based on an electronic tally that in itself can't be trusted. He could have pulled the figures out of his proverbial backside. They are also witholding access to many of the paper receipts which could be used to verify the results. Even then, the trouble with these systems is while in theory you should be able to verify by auditing only a random sample of paper receipts, but if Maduro's cronies get to select which ones to audit, then fraud could be occurring elsewhere.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,377 ✭✭✭silliussoddius




Advertisement