The inability to tell what's actually going on in Venezuela has been incredibly frustrating. It's easy enough to condemn the united states's intervention, especially when it's being coordinated by...
The inability to tell what's actually going on in Venezuela has been incredibly frustrating. It's easy enough to condemn the united states's intervention, especially when it's being coordinated by a known war criminal like Abrahms, but beyond that I have no idea what the situation truly is. Meanwhile tensions continue to rise, people keep yelling at each other online, and the truth becomes even more obscured. And ultimately it's the Venezuelans that suffer. I really hope this doesn't turn into an even bigger humanitarian disaster and the Venezuelan people are able to come out of it with a sane, popularly supported government, but it looks more and more likely that things are going to get a whole lot worse in the coming days.
This is a comment I wrote about Venezuela a while back on Reddit. Hopefully it provides some clarity. For those claiming that the US purposely brought Venezuela's economy to the brink, before...
This is a comment I wrote about Venezuela a while back on Reddit. Hopefully it provides some clarity.
For those claiming that the US purposely brought Venezuela's economy to the brink, before biding their time until conditions were ripe for a coup, all US sanctions on Venezuela prior to 2017 were on individuals only, meaning assets of Venezuelan officials were seized, their travel was restricted, etc.
Only in 2017, a full 3 years after the crisis had started, and 2 years after Maduro usurped power from the National Assembly, did we impose our first sanctions on Venezuela's actual economy. Even then, all we did was prevent them from accessing bond/credit markets, aka stopped them from getting loans in the US. Russia and China were more than happy to provide the loans, while by and large, Venezuelan trade continued mostly unrestricted with the US.
So no, the US is not responsible for the crisis; rather, the idiotic policies of price controls, reliance on oil as almost the only source of income, and printing money in an attempt to counter the issues caused by the previous two policies, are actually responsible for the crisis (Edit #2: I forgot to mention nationalizations driving out foreign investment and discouraging domestic business creation, as well as endemic corruption and mismanagement of state-owned enterprises). Entirely of Chavez and Maduro's making.
Edit #3: For anyone wondering about Venezuela's transition to dictatorship and Guaidó's assumption of the Presidency, I'll also provide an explanation as to why Guaidó's claim to the Presidency is legitimate and Maduro's isn't.
After the parliamentary elections in 2015, which the opposition swept, Maduro had the Supreme Tribunal (which he had the outgoing Assembly stack with his supporters) remove the Assembly's powers, transferring them to himself/the court. He then proceeded to jail many of his opponents prior to the 2018 presidential election, resulting in the opposition boycotting the vote, giving Maduro an overwhelming victory. Since Maduro was illegitimate due to the improperly-conducted elections, the National Assembly declared the Presidency vacant, and under the constitution, the President of the National Assembly becomes Interim President. Guaidó is not some random guy the US dragged off the streets. He was elected to his position by the democratically elected representatives of the people of Venezuela, and is constitutionally entitled to his position, which is interim President until elections are held in 30 days. He has been recognized as President by almost all of Latin America and Europe, not just the US. Regardless of past American actions in Latin America (of which there were many terrible ones), this is not US imperialism as of yet.
Edit #4: The gigantic caveat to all of this, of course, is that it very easily could turn into that. Elliot Abrams has just been appointed special envoy to Venezuela, and he is notorious for his involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal. So who knows where that might lead. Hopefully the Trump admin. doesn't try anything stupid, like Contra 2.0 or a full on invasion. It remains to be seen I guess.
My friend I think you would benefit from reading Chomsky. US media coverage is rarely critical of US foreign policy. So, your sources won’t offer the full context of the situation but rather offer...
My friend I think you would benefit from reading Chomsky.
US media coverage is rarely critical of US foreign policy. So, your sources won’t offer the full context of the situation but rather offer only the US perspective.
History shows us the US playbook when it comes to democratic leftist governments. Which is to spend millions undermining the legitimate government. That leads the government to grow desperate and cling to power by desperate means.
Yes Venezuela is in desperate straights but the US actions since Chavez have only contributed to making things worse. We’ve seen how this plays out (read up on Chile, El Salvador as examples).
I'm under no illusion that mainstream western media sources are unbiased in their reporting - one only needs to look at their coverage of the Syrian conflict to know that. But I do think that most...
I'm under no illusion that mainstream western media sources are unbiased in their reporting - one only needs to look at their coverage of the Syrian conflict to know that. But I do think that most of what I've cited consists of verifiable facts. It is fact that most of Venezuela's economy was dependent on oil, or that the opposition won the 2015 parliamentary elections in a landslide, so on and so forth. I'm also under no impression that US actions are altruistic. One only needs to look at John Bolton's words on how "beneficial" it would be for the Venezuelans if their oil was privatised to know that. In my above comment, I am only describing the economic and legal justifications as I see them for Guadó's attempted assumption of power in the country, and why I see them as justified along those lines.
That's a jump. Boycotted election does not equal illegitimate election. The opposition specifically asked the UN to not send election observers, why would they do that if they thought the election...
He then proceeded to jail many of his opponents prior to the 2018 presidential election, resulting in the opposition boycotting the vote, giving Maduro an overwhelming victory. Since Maduro was illegitimate due to the improperly-conducted elections
I should think much of the motivation for the boycotts was due to this. Edit: Indeed, their stated justifications are mentioned in the linked article. My emphasis on what I see as their strongest...
I should think much of the motivation for the boycotts was due to this.
Edit: Indeed, their stated justifications are mentioned in the linked article. My emphasis on what I see as their strongest claim as referenced in the Wiki article I linked.
The main opposition coalition is boycotting the election on the grounds that the elections council has historically favored the ruling Socialist Party, and because the best-known candidates have been jailed or barred from holding office.
So why aren't we considering Brazil's election illegitimate? The right-wing government jailed a well known opponent (Lula) which led to a fascist getting elected. That's arguably a bigger problem...
So why aren't we considering Brazil's election illegitimate? The right-wing government jailed a well known opponent (Lula) which led to a fascist getting elected.
That's arguably a bigger problem internationally because more people are directly affected, plus the Amazon rainforest is in danger as a result of the election.
I'd figure that was because Lula was jailed on corruption charges, his party as a whole wasn't banned, and while he was charged by the right-wing government (that hated Bolsonaro just as much as...
I'd figure that was because Lula was jailed on corruption charges, his party as a whole wasn't banned, and while he was charged by the right-wing government (that hated Bolsonaro just as much as everyone else), his conviction was upheld by judges that he and his successor had appointed. In Venezuela, however, the justification given was as follows (emphasis mine)
The majority of popular leaders of the MUD and other members of the opposition could not apply for the elections because of administrative and legal procedures and were disqualified from participating in the presidential elections by the government.
This has been a huge issue for me. I want to get down to just the facts. But there's a huge misinformation campaign going on. Lots of things going on. No idea who is reporting facts and who is...
This has been a huge issue for me. I want to get down to just the facts. But there's a huge misinformation campaign going on. Lots of things going on. No idea who is reporting facts and who is just repeating whatever they heard last year.
people claiming to be Venezuelans but also claim to live in San Francisco since the 80s in their tweet history.
People behind the iran/contras/Iraq are onboard
full CIA history of proping up dictators in Latin America
Everything that's not free market extremism is unquestionably socialism, but you're dumb for using Europe as an example of good social democracies despite the right just defining them and Obama as socialist.
People who defended north Korean dictators defending Maduro
You can't claim that Venezuela proves socialism doesn't work. Why? because US sanctions and espionage tampered with the evidence. The chain of custody has a bad faith actor with a conflict of interest. It's broken. If this were a science experiment, you would say the results are inconclusive do to observed interferences in the experiment. You literally totally could have proven socialism doesn't work if you didn't interfere.
Who knows what Russian troll farms are up to.
Do Venezuelans who aren't their equivalent of 1%ers and upperclass (e.g. not the people who benefit most from not being socialist) actually have reliable access to the internet and access to English education to complain about Maduro online?
Are the Empire Files legitimate journalists who are publicly funded or are they state run propaganda mills?
is Maduro actually that bad? How accurate are the reportings of how bad he is?
Did Maduro not diversify the economy away from oil because he's an idiot or because socialism or did he not diversify away because of the material conditions that armchair economists don't have to consider when speculating?
Is Venezuela proof that socialism is failing or is Venezuela proof that socialism is resilient agaisnt external factors like US sabotage, specifically in regards to whether or not the common person starves?
How do we know that the average Venezuelan lost ten pounds? Do they have socialized healthcare to measure this?
Did the UN determine that the elections were some of the most transparent and non-rigged elections? Why are people claiming the opposite?
"They eat rats in Venezuela" turns out a) rats are actually food, b.) actually refers to a mammal/rodent called capybara that is much larger and cuter than the standard image a typical US person will think of from hearing the term "rat".
The only consensus I can build is that we shouldn't invade, because it's probably not for the right reasons. Everything else, well, it's clear that 99% of voices are lying or repeating probable lies or repeating inane non-facts. And it drowns out the discussion. For some people, that's mission accomplished for sure.
The whole thing would make a great study into the function of media in geopolitics in the internet age, I don't know if such a thing will ever be possible though.
The whole thing would make a great study into the function of media in geopolitics in the internet age, I don't know if such a thing will ever be possible though.
Lots of expats who came to the US ages ago still identify as Venezuelan. Yes, unfortuantely. Yes, also unfortunately. This is indeed a stupid view. Yes, people will often defend any regime that...
Lots of expats who came to the US ages ago still identify as Venezuelan.
Yes, unfortuantely.
Yes, also unfortunately.
This is indeed a stupid view.
Yes, people will often defend any regime that claims to be socialist, even if it isn't. See the reaction to the student protests in Nicaragua last year, where socialists (self-proclaimed) were supporting Daniel Ortega, who has privatized everything and gained an iron grip on the state through an alliance with business leaders, simply because he was the leader of the Sandanistas in the '80s.
Please see my reply to pleure's comment above yours as to why sanctions are not responsible for the crisis. As for espionage, I'm not sure what you're referring too. Granted, Venezuela isn't really socialism anyway.
Probably busy polarizing people as always.
According to the Inclusive Internet Index, 34% of Venezuelan households have internet access. According to this, English is taught to all students.
Abby Martin, the woman behind the project, is a correspondent on RT, as well as teleSUR, the Venezuelan state-funded broadcaster. Make of that what you will.
He's pretty terrible (please see the aforementioned comment), although a lot of what went wrong was out of his control. The oil prices were gonna crash regardless, and Chavez is just lucky he died before they did.
Again, this isn't really Maduro's fault, but more Chavez's. People like to make fun of Maduro by saying he was a bus driver, but I don't think the greatest economists in the world could have saved an economy that dependent on oil. And I suppose Chavez figured that investing in the populous would have greater payoffs, but he let it get to the point where almost 50% of the economy was oil, which obviously isn't sustainable. So maybe at the beginning it seemed sound, but by the early 2010s it should have been obvious it was a house of cards.
Venezuela is not proof of anything relating to socialism because it is not socialism. It is proof that stupid protracted economic policy can lead to disaster.
The source for the 19 pound weight loss figure was a national poll.
Jimmy Carter, (and the UN maybe, I dunno), said Venezuela's elections were some of the best up to the year 2012. In 2015, the opposition won a landslide in these free elections, which is when the political repression began in earnest. See my aforementioned comment for more info.
Yeah, this and the eating zoo-animals thing were probably sensationalist.
Then please view American “aid” with the same level of skepticism. Eg. US food aid to Haiti devasted the local agriculture industry making the country dependent on buying aid from the US afterwards.
Then please view American “aid” with the same level of skepticism.
Eg. US food aid to Haiti devasted the local agriculture industry making the country dependent on buying aid from the US afterwards.
That's exactly what I mean, although I was thinking mainly about the weapons that are usually included with said "aid". You raise a good point about its affect on local agriculture.
That's exactly what I mean, although I was thinking mainly about the weapons that are usually included with said "aid". You raise a good point about its affect on local agriculture.
The inability to tell what's actually going on in Venezuela has been incredibly frustrating. It's easy enough to condemn the united states's intervention, especially when it's being coordinated by a known war criminal like Abrahms, but beyond that I have no idea what the situation truly is. Meanwhile tensions continue to rise, people keep yelling at each other online, and the truth becomes even more obscured. And ultimately it's the Venezuelans that suffer. I really hope this doesn't turn into an even bigger humanitarian disaster and the Venezuelan people are able to come out of it with a sane, popularly supported government, but it looks more and more likely that things are going to get a whole lot worse in the coming days.
This is a comment I wrote about Venezuela a while back on Reddit. Hopefully it provides some clarity.
For those claiming that the US purposely brought Venezuela's economy to the brink, before biding their time until conditions were ripe for a coup, all US sanctions on Venezuela prior to 2017 were on individuals only, meaning assets of Venezuelan officials were seized, their travel was restricted, etc.
Only in 2017, a full 3 years after the crisis had started, and 2 years after Maduro usurped power from the National Assembly, did we impose our first sanctions on Venezuela's actual economy. Even then, all we did was prevent them from accessing bond/credit markets, aka stopped them from getting loans in the US. Russia and China were more than happy to provide the loans, while by and large, Venezuelan trade continued mostly unrestricted with the US.
So no, the US is not responsible for the crisis; rather, the idiotic policies of price controls, reliance on oil as almost the only source of income, and printing money in an attempt to counter the issues caused by the previous two policies, are actually responsible for the crisis (Edit #2: I forgot to mention nationalizations driving out foreign investment and discouraging domestic business creation, as well as endemic corruption and mismanagement of state-owned enterprises). Entirely of Chavez and Maduro's making.
Edit #3: For anyone wondering about Venezuela's transition to dictatorship and Guaidó's assumption of the Presidency, I'll also provide an explanation as to why Guaidó's claim to the Presidency is legitimate and Maduro's isn't.
After the parliamentary elections in 2015, which the opposition swept, Maduro had the Supreme Tribunal (which he had the outgoing Assembly stack with his supporters) remove the Assembly's powers, transferring them to himself/the court. He then proceeded to jail many of his opponents prior to the 2018 presidential election, resulting in the opposition boycotting the vote, giving Maduro an overwhelming victory. Since Maduro was illegitimate due to the improperly-conducted elections, the National Assembly declared the Presidency vacant, and under the constitution, the President of the National Assembly becomes Interim President. Guaidó is not some random guy the US dragged off the streets. He was elected to his position by the democratically elected representatives of the people of Venezuela, and is constitutionally entitled to his position, which is interim President until elections are held in 30 days. He has been recognized as President by almost all of Latin America and Europe, not just the US. Regardless of past American actions in Latin America (of which there were many terrible ones), this is not US imperialism as of yet.
Edit #4: The gigantic caveat to all of this, of course, is that it very easily could turn into that. Elliot Abrams has just been appointed special envoy to Venezuela, and he is notorious for his involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal. So who knows where that might lead. Hopefully the Trump admin. doesn't try anything stupid, like Contra 2.0 or a full on invasion. It remains to be seen I guess.
My friend I think you would benefit from reading Chomsky.
US media coverage is rarely critical of US foreign policy. So, your sources won’t offer the full context of the situation but rather offer only the US perspective.
History shows us the US playbook when it comes to democratic leftist governments. Which is to spend millions undermining the legitimate government. That leads the government to grow desperate and cling to power by desperate means.
Yes Venezuela is in desperate straights but the US actions since Chavez have only contributed to making things worse. We’ve seen how this plays out (read up on Chile, El Salvador as examples).
I'm under no illusion that mainstream western media sources are unbiased in their reporting - one only needs to look at their coverage of the Syrian conflict to know that. But I do think that most of what I've cited consists of verifiable facts. It is fact that most of Venezuela's economy was dependent on oil, or that the opposition won the 2015 parliamentary elections in a landslide, so on and so forth. I'm also under no impression that US actions are altruistic. One only needs to look at John Bolton's words on how "beneficial" it would be for the Venezuelans if their oil was privatised to know that. In my above comment, I am only describing the economic and legal justifications as I see them for Guadó's attempted assumption of power in the country, and why I see them as justified along those lines.
That's a jump. Boycotted election does not equal illegitimate election. The opposition specifically asked the UN to not send election observers, why would they do that if they thought the election would be illegitimate?
I should think much of the motivation for the boycotts was due to this.
Edit: Indeed, their stated justifications are mentioned in the linked article. My emphasis on what I see as their strongest claim as referenced in the Wiki article I linked.
Edit: grammar.
So why aren't we considering Brazil's election illegitimate? The right-wing government jailed a well known opponent (Lula) which led to a fascist getting elected.
That's arguably a bigger problem internationally because more people are directly affected, plus the Amazon rainforest is in danger as a result of the election.
I'd figure that was because Lula was jailed on corruption charges, his party as a whole wasn't banned, and while he was charged by the right-wing government (that hated Bolsonaro just as much as everyone else), his conviction was upheld by judges that he and his successor had appointed. In Venezuela, however, the justification given was as follows (emphasis mine)
This has been a huge issue for me. I want to get down to just the facts. But there's a huge misinformation campaign going on. Lots of things going on. No idea who is reporting facts and who is just repeating whatever they heard last year.
The only consensus I can build is that we shouldn't invade, because it's probably not for the right reasons. Everything else, well, it's clear that 99% of voices are lying or repeating probable lies or repeating inane non-facts. And it drowns out the discussion. For some people, that's mission accomplished for sure.
The whole thing would make a great study into the function of media in geopolitics in the internet age, I don't know if such a thing will ever be possible though.
Hope I've helped answer some of your questions.
When Russia sends "aid" to Ukrainian border regions, we rightly call it out as bullshit. This should be no different.
Then please view American “aid” with the same level of skepticism.
Eg. US food aid to Haiti devasted the local agriculture industry making the country dependent on buying aid from the US afterwards.
That's exactly what I mean, although I was thinking mainly about the weapons that are usually included with said "aid". You raise a good point about its affect on local agriculture.