He is an authoritarien and the country went to shit.
Venezuela is not a nice place to live in.
Maduro is a corrupt dictator, trump aswell and the current opposition to maduro most likely will just be an authoritarian and fascist pupped goverment that will act in the USAs interest. So yeah multible things can be true at once, just because a nation is opposed to the american empire does not mean that it is automaticallly good.
Its quite sad to see that some terminally online leftist just automaticly replace siding with the imperialist systems that there born into( USA, EU Australia etc.) And just replace that with other imperial powers like russia and china.
Like why?? How about not bootlicking authoritarians?
Tell us what a non-authoritarian leader of Venezuela would look like to you and how they would resist the constant pressure and hostile actions of the US government, because it seems to me that leftist leaders are always denounced as authoritarian by North American and European based NGOs and governments.
The only way to avoid being labelled as authoritarian is to be friendly to the imperial core countries, i.e. being capitalist.
The question is whether government/people should get $60/barrel revenue before expenses, maybe $40/barrel after expenses, or $10/barrel but pump 5-10x as much, bribed to be loyal to US. Long term, obviously no corruption and high revenue/profit per barrel has its advantages. It’s not as though Exxon/Chevron can’t get access to Venezuela oil with fair deals, it’s that pretending corrupt puppets are the legitimate leaders provides extortion oil costs.
When you understand the hoops the US government is willing to jump through to get cheap foreign oil, you should understand that similar policies are used to deprive Americans of their fair share of resource revenue.
The USSR, PRC, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. all were massive expansions on democracy and working class control. Capitalists, landlords, fascists, monarchists, etc were (usually) violently oppressed, while the working classes were uplifted and society was democratized. From the point of view of the capitalists, they found themselves living in a violent dictatorship, for the working classes they found themselves finally escaping violent dictatorship.
The Russian RSFR, the Paris Commune, The Bavarian soviet Republic, The Rhine Soviet Republic, The Hungarian Socialist Republic, socialist Cuba, socialist Vietnam, socialist Laos…
Turns out you don’t knwo what you’re talking about! All of them were immediately invaded, their opposition showered in material support and sanctioned to hell and back.
Those being anarchists, not socialists. There have been shitloads of anarchist communes working perfectly, until some external force fucks them up or reclaims the land or whatever.
Not even going to reply to your strawman. I said that it’s weak mentality to say “ends justify the means and sacrifice justice and freedom for the sake of fighting a foreign oppressor” - maybe that’s easier to understand? Weak people, weak minds, skill issue.
Lol you said nothing of the sort and now you’re running away shouting random reddit bullshit for cover (what strawman? That doesnt even make sense) because you’re acutely aware but too proud to admit that your dumb Marvel-brained bullshit has no basis in reality. Who’s freedom? Who’s justice? You haven’t put five seconds of thought into this and you’re talking to people who have considered it for years or decades. You’re adorable.
So, which part is the just and free part that you mention, outside of the theory? As in, in detail, practical examples of those freedoms and justice, please. Besides the theoritscl “to each according to their needs, from each according to their possibilities” (sorry if misstranslated), what practical examples have been just and free throughout time.
The USSR, PRC, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. all were massive expansions on democracy and working class control. They were finally free and just for the working classes, and society became more about trying to satisfy everyone’s needs than endless private profits, with public ownership as the principle aspect of their economies.
Well, most of those I could at some point agree on just, but definitely not free. And the USSR in particular i would not say just either. Holodomor and all that.
They were absolutely free, compared to the horrible brutality of prior systems and the vast expansions in democratization and social welfare.
As for the USSR, the 1930s famine was tragic, but was the last major famine outside of war time. After collectivization of agriculture, yields were greater and more stable, and the bourgeois kulak system was practically abolished. Adverse weather conditions, crop disease, and kulaks violently resisting collectivization were the causes of the famine, and replacing that system with a more effective one ended famine.
Or you can be smart and just and have your cake and eat it too. See dozens of countries that prosper without sacrificing their freedoms and justice. You guys are just doomer losers simping for dictators because your minds are too small to imagine a real victory.
Venezuela has had US antagonistic covert ops operating in country since at least 2007. That’s almost 2 decades of needing to find the US spies and their allies to prevent sabotage, coups, false flags, etc.
That’s just the military aspect. They’ve also been under worsening sanctions for almost as long, which has been driven by the US strategy to starve the masses so that they revolt. This processes causes increased desperation among the people, which increases crime rates.
All of these things require the use of authority and as they get worse require more invasive and obvious uses of authority. It’s hard enough to find spies, it’s even harder to find spies and neutaize them without ripping the US off as to how you’re finding them, going even further and finding spies without ever being wrong is nigh impossible.
What are your real-world examples—bourgeois “democracies”? If it’s so easy, why hasn’t it happened?
The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
The pure socialists had a vision of a new society that would create and be created by new people, a society so transformed in its fundaments as to leave little opportunity for wrongful acts, corruption, and criminal abuses of state power. There would be no bureaucracy or self-interested coteries, no ruthless conflicts or hurtful decisions. When the reality proves different and more difficult, some on the Left proceed to condemn the real thing and announce that they “feel betrayed” by this or that revolution.
The pure socialists see socialism as an ideal that was tarnished by communist venality, duplicity, and power cravings. The pure socialists oppose the Soviet model but offer little evidence to demonstrate that other paths could have been taken, that other models of socialism — not created from one’s imagination but developed through actual historical experience — could have taken hold and worked better. Was an open, pluralistic, democratic socialism actually possible at this historic juncture? The historical evidence would suggest it was not.
Decentralized parochial autonomy is the graveyard of insurgency — which may be one reason why there has never been a successful anarcho-syndicalist revolution. Ideally, it would be a fine thing to have only local, self-directed, worker participation, with minimal bureaucracy, police, and military. This probably would be the development of socialism, were socialism ever allowed to develop unhindered by counterrevolutionary subversion and attack.
One might recall how, in 1918-20, fourteen capitalist nations, including the United States, invaded Soviet Russia in a bloody but unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the revolutionary Bolshevik government.
It’s so funny to see, when the alternative to Maduro is the Venezuelan equivalent of Yeltsin, someone hellbent on stripping their own country for parts and portraying that as “freedom”
Chavez in his first few months/year of being in office would be a good example of a non-authoritarian in that role.
My problem with Maduro and many of those in the post early days of Chavez taking over is that far too many seem to have a tremendous amount of money that they cannot explain how they came across legally. Executives at PVDSA, the state run petroleum company, seem to be extremely vulnerable to this corruption.
You can make the case that dictatorships/authoritarian structures are needed to protect a socialist revolution, which Im not sure I entirely agree with, without supporting the theft of state resources by people in the government.
Wasn’t a US-backed military coup against Chavez attempted in the early period? It was defeated by the people and soldiers who were loyal to Chavez, but that might’ve had an rffect
This is a vicious cycle of falling back to dictatorship to avoid imperialism, or some of it.
A) The country opens up and holds free elections, leading to an American puppet winning and the country turning into a vassal state at best, a glorified colony at worst.
B) The country turns into a dictatorship to limit foreign influence and fight back against imperialism, becoming a similarly terrible place to live, but at least without giving anything to the empire. Also note that as time passes, it’s quite likely that the dictatorship will forget why it was even created, i.e. it will no longer be about rejecting imperialism.
There are often the only two realistic scenarios for countries targetted by the American Empire. Both are bad and I’m not sure I feel like analyzing which one is slightly less bad for the average person.
Venezuela is a developing country, that is developing despite the US Empire’s best efforts. It is regularly improving, which is why the working classes support Maduro.
Russia isn’t imperialist, it has no colonies nor neocolonies, and a tiny amount of global financial capital. China isn’t imperialist either, it’s a socialist country wituout any financial domination of the state or economy. There’s no mechanisms pushing for imperialism within China, and this manifests in regular south-south trade leading to development of global south countries when trading with China, unlike the unequal exchange of trade with the west where the west charges monopoly prices for tech and places compradors in power to prevent industrial development.
Multiple things are true, correct. This isn’t the grand own you think it is, though. You’re passively parroting imperialist narratives.
Most of us have been at that stage, especially if we grew up in the west. I certainly was, no doubt about that. I try to do my best to correct that former behavior now that I know better. Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing” remains critical reading.
And we thought we were so enlightened. This is the last layer of the imperial core propaganda onion: that the “other side” is no better, which leads to apathy and disengagement.
Venezuelan communes and participatory democracy is flourishing. In addition, massive social programs have been implemented, focusing on housing, food security, and poverty eradication
I think this really needs to be stressed. Venezuela is a country building Socialism. Maduro and the PSUV is in power because of a genuinely incredible mass movement of communes, neighborhood committees, and other organs of grassroots democracy. This is qualitatively different from say, any of the Gulf oil monarchies
Absolutely. Venezuela is genuinely what self-described demsocs want, the Empire just doesn’t care and will kill you regardless of how procedural and by international law your socialism is.
The general Marxist take is that when Yanukovych was offered an IMF loan that required austerity policies and privatization of safety nets, and a Russian loan that did not come with the same restrictions, he went with the Russian loan and was couped for it, including a western-supported Banderite false-flag shooting. Following the western-supported coup, the areas in the Donbass region seceded, as they supported Yanukovych, are culturally and ethnically Russian, and were unhappy with the Banderites taking over the government under the cover of “democracy.” Said Banderites were also legally suppressing the Russian language in the Donbass region.
What ensued was a decade of fighting, 2 failed Minsk agreements that Kiev broke and admitted to never wanting to follow, and massive risk of NATO on Russia’s doorstep. The Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics requested Russian assistance, and Russia complied, sparking the next stage of the war.
Russia purely wants the Donbass region and NATO neutrality. They want the Donbass region not out of the kindness of their hearts, nor for plunder or further expansion, but because it’s a land bridge straight to Russia, the same route the Nazis took in World War II. NATO was building up because the West uses their millitary to threaten countries into opening up their economies to foreign plunder (like what’s happening right now in Venezuela), a tradition employed since NATO was founded, destroyed Yugoslavia and Libya, etc.
This is the common Marxist take, shared largely by PSL’s statement and FRSO’s statement. Essentially, the war is tragic, should end as quickly as possible, and was provoked by the west.
Nato is not a risk to russia, and never has been. Nato is a defensive alliance. The only way they’re a risk is if russia plans to attack them first. Anyone suggesting that nato provoked it is on something
NATO is the millitary alliance of the world’s imperialist powers. This group of countries uses this alliance to prevent the global south from going against it and liberating themselved from foreign plunder via overwhelming financial domination. The way imperialism tends to work in the modern day is countries like the US, France, Germany, UK, etc expropriate vast wealth from countries in the global south, similar to how capitalists steal value created by the working class.
NATO is as “defensive” as the Iron Dome in Israel. These countries export genocide and terrorism on the third world, expropriate huge sums of wealth, and then “defend” against anyone that pushes back against that.
George Washington Univ., 2017: NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev HeardDeclassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
You’re talking about simple conquest. By that definition any offensive side in a war is imperialist, which is nonsensical as that means nearly every war in human history involved at least one “imperialist” power.
Imperialism is system of establishing and maintaining hegemony over large areas for the benefit of an elite (capital in modern times, patricians in ancient times, etc) within a metropole (probably too simple of a definition but it works). The Romans were an empire not just because they had an emperor and not because they conquered lands, but because they controlled lands from Spain to Syria and wealth flowed from those lands into Rome.
It was an inter-imperialist war except on the eastern front, where it was a war to destroy communism. The capitalist Allies and the USSR were an alliance of convenience, which is why the West made the USSR its enemy the moment the war ended.
The Marxist definition of imperialism is more specific than just “big country invade small country”.
In, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism Lenin lays out five aspects of what makes Imperialism:
the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;
the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy;
the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;
the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and
the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.
The question of “Is Russia Imperialist” isn’t a moral one, it’s a technical one. So if Russia were do to something that we all agree is morally reprehensible, that’s a separate concern from whether Russia is imperialist.
The technicality revolves around whether Russia has developed an oligarchy of Financial Capital, such that its invasion of Ukraine or other flexes of its influence, perpetuates the export of Russian finance capital around the world.
As it stands now, I don’t think that’s currently the case, but with Marxism being a dialectal philosophy, I do wonder if this war will accelerate that merging of Bank and industrial capital that Lenin discusses. It’s a Bourgeois states, and there’s financial capital in there somewhere that absolutely has an interest in forming a Russian imperialism.
So when people say “Russia isn’t Imperialist”, this is what’s being referred to. You can take it or leave it, but it’s worth getting into the weeds a bit, so we aren’t all talking passed each other
Marxist does not get to exclusively define what imperialism is. A more standard definition is far more reasonable to use. However, your comment is very informative to me, I’m glad you took the time to write this out
Marxist does not get to exclusively define what imperialism is
Marxism isn’t the only analytical lens out there, no. But the people you’re arguing with are working with that definition, which is why I took the time to clarify. Thank you for appreciating my effort post though lol
“A more standard definition” than the one that’s been in use for over a hundred years and accurately describes the dynamic in question? The definition liberals use is both new and entirely vibes-based. It is useless for anything but bringing geopolitical conversations to a screeching halt with murky equivocations. The Marxist definition exists to clarify, while the liberal definition exists to obscure. It’s the “socialism is when the government does stuff” of international relations.
The Marxist definition is strictly different, not a clarification. The Marxist one posits only capitalism can be imperialist, something I would say is strictly incorrect
Yes he’s certainly an authoritarian. Authoritarian doesn’t automatically mean bad…there’s such a thing as the concept of a benevolent dictator.
What evidence do you have that “the country went to shit” or “Venezuela is not a nice place to live in” or that he’s a “corrupt dictator”?
This original post, presumably, attempts to scratch slightly beneath the surface of what we hear on the news and suggest that your above statements only apply to a certain “deserving” class.
I don’t actually know a lot about Venezuela, and I’m asking these questions in earnest. I started to ask questions a lot earlier, but certainly looking into Maria Machado (this years Nobel Peace Prize winner) made some alarm bells go off. Could it be that the narrative is controlled by Machado and her neoliberal/right wing ilk, and she actually represents a large minority class of people that was purged/displaced in Venezuela?
Where do we get the idea that Maduro is an authoritarian dictator? We get it from what our governments say, our corporate media say, and our NGOs (which are funded by our governments & corporations) say. These are the very same governments & corporations that want to vassalize Venezuela and pillage its resources. They are—all day, every day—working to manufacture our consent, or if not consent then at least acquiescence.
We also get it from Maduro and the rest of the Chavanistas: his party rules by supreme power and decree. The way his party allocates power as a matter of internal affairs, may be another story.
Please, let’s not talk in absolutes. This notion that any and all narratives that you deem negative are part of a grand conspiracy just isn’t true.
I implied in my original reply that I believe Maduro may be benevolent, along the lines of Castro. I don’t really have a problem with dictators…the problem with dictators is they’re usually fascists. That isn’t the case in Venezuela.
Again, how do you know this, and why are you so certain that this is a fair characterization? Have you read or listened to Maduro’s speeches or read Chavismo literature? Did you ask working class Venezuelans they consider these “decrees” to be extra-legal are or whether they are popular among them? Or did it come from Five Eyes sources, their telling of events?
the problem with dictators is they’re usually fascists.
In the modern era, dictators dictate with the consent of the bourgeoisie. And yes, that is fascism. In stark contrast, the Maduro government is a thorn in the side of both the indigenous bourgeoisie and the foreign imperialist bourgeoisie.
Yes I have listened to his speeches and read his lefislation…that’s why I’m saying what I’m saying.
You’re citisizing things I didn’t say…I know Maduro is popular there. I don’t know how else to say it: I believe he has the best interests of the working class in mind.
There’s a concept true. Just not an example. Technically it’s possible for sub atomic particles in deep space to randomly coaless as a Ruben sandwich. But you’re far more likely to see the evaporation of a super massive black hole.
Power corrupts. And sometimes there really is no point to arguing which shitty person is slightly less shitty than the other shitty person. The only true answer is not play, and that there shouldn’t be such positions of power. Anything else is calvinball.
You’ll notice that there are no real arguments that he isn’t a authoritarian/dictator. Just justification that certain people identify with him, so it’s okay. Or that because one cringe group of privileged people criticize him. All criticism against him is from similar cringe groups of people. The meme in a nutshell. A non sequitur.
Maduro absolutely is an authoritarian. As is Trump. I don’t agree with either one of them. But Trump absolutely means to fuck all the way off when it comes to continuing to meddle in South America. Argentina and Venezuela have enough problems of their own. They don’t need ours.
What makes Maduro an dictator? He’s popularly supported, was democratically elected, and is setting up participatory systems in the economy. I can agree that he’s “authoritarian” against capitalists and fascists, but that’s absolutely a good use of authority.
Secondly, there’s no evidence to the notion that “power corrupts,” just correlation. In systems like capitalism, corrupt leaders are pushed upwards because that’s profitable, it wasn’t the power that corrupted them but a system that selects for corruption.
Tell the cryptofash on MeanwhileOnGrad that they’re a hoot, btw.
Authoritarian is when you don’t capitulate to the imperial core’s will, and the less you capitulate the more authoritarian you are. If you’re genuinely democratic then you need a color revolution for sure, because the demos doesn’t want to be vassalized by imperialists.
I mean, we try to be patient but there’s a limit. You regurgitate imperial core hegemonic “common sense,” believing that you don’t need to back any of it up with evidence because it is knownit is knownit is known, while we bring bookshelves of evidence & arguments for our positions, which you won’t engage with.
I was absolutely good-faith. I don’t agree with describing Maduro as a dictator, and I gave my reasoning. Are you referring to the bit at the end, where GrammarPolice made a couple of posts on MWoG that you commented on? I think it’s fair to call that out.
Bad faith is when you put an ounce of critical thinking towards the thought-terminating cliches that a bunch of rich pedophiles use to demonize anyone who resists their compulsive desire to own the world and everyone in it.
A meaningless platitude; as baseless as saying that lightning never strikes the same place twice. Liberals just think it’s true because they’ve created a system where people who were already corrupt gain power.
The only true answer is not play,
Yeah man, people should just “not play” real life. Fuck me, Western liberals really are the most privileged fuckers: all just a game to them.
You’ll notice that there are no real arguments that he isn’t a authoritarian/dictator.
???.
Other than the arguments people are making that he was democratically elected. Those are objectively arguments, regardless of your feelings on them.
Maduro absolutely is an authoritarian
Name one country that is oppositional to the West that you don’t “consider” authoritarian.
Nope. This is the problem I expected and received in spades. Saying that people are corrupt or easily corruptible. Is not saying equally corrupt. Pointing out that two individuals have behaved in authoritarian ways. Is not saying they’re equally authoritarian. Hell, I even called out Trump at the end. Mentioning leaving Maduro alone. Basically defending Maduro against him. But it was never what was actually said. It was what people needed to be said in their minds to defend people they identify with. All very entertaining. Like trying to have any sort of meaningful discussion with liberals.
It isn’t groundbreaking to say that people can be corrupt to different degrees. What you failed to do is provide any meaningful explanation for why you believe Maduro to be corrupt, authoritarian, a dictator, etc. We gave ample evidence pointing to his popular support, the robust system of democracy in Venezuela, the rising commune movement and participatory economy, etc, while you called us bad-faith.
To me, it looks like you think yourself above having to back up your claims and as outside of the conversation looking in, rather than actually communicating with us. This is compounded by your commenting both here and on the MWoG threads, a known cryptofash gathering spot. Is this behavior of yours “good faith” in your eyes?
“Calling out Trump” is clearly a rhetorical tactic to distract from your incorrect assessment of Maduro. It should be noted that you’re aligned with Trump when you say that, and it should give you pause.
You don’t seem to remember your own comment. You used the most extreme straw man, adorned with sarcasm, to asses Maduro…there was no reality in your reply.
Meh, the fact that you think you’re talking to liberals is pretty amusing. Why defend an argument when you can attack the messenger, right?
The country went to shit before Chavez died as a result of many backing away from trade as a result of US demands as well as a slew of bad policy choices that turned them from a food exporting nation to one that imported food which collapsed the economy. Chavez and Maduro instituted price controls which have harmed the agricultural economy significantly which further harmed things.
That being said while their results were bad their intentions were good which is not going to be true of whatever puppet government the USA would install.
The results are usually bad when you don’t kowtow to the imperial core, but they’re also likely to be even worse for the majority of people if you do. That’s why monopoly capitalism has to be fought, if we ever want better outcomes to even be possible.
The fact is price controls are terrible policy and have never worked because we cannot predict the future needs of the market. Unless we magically get vastly better AI that runs the entire economy it is unlikely price controls will ever work so when Chavez instituted them it lead to a collapse of the agriculture sector leading to hunger issues.
Some of the economic problems were self created because many leftists have zero formal economic backgrounds and thus have trouble separating reasons for factual historical failures of specific leftist policies, like price controls or rent control being extremely problematic historically speaking, vs what is merely capitalist propaganda eg “capitalism is the only system that works” which isn’t true historically speaking.
Some of the economic problems were self created because many leftists have zero formal economic backgrounds
That may well be, but at the same time, most economists in the world have a garbage education in neoclassical economics and carry neoliberal brain worms.
He is an authoritarien and the country went to shit.
Venezuela is not a nice place to live in.
Maduro is a corrupt dictator, trump aswell and the current opposition to maduro most likely will just be an authoritarian and fascist pupped goverment that will act in the USAs interest. So yeah multible things can be true at once, just because a nation is opposed to the american empire does not mean that it is automaticallly good.
Its quite sad to see that some terminally online leftist just automaticly replace siding with the imperialist systems that there born into( USA, EU Australia etc.) And just replace that with other imperial powers like russia and china.
Like why?? How about not bootlicking authoritarians?
Tell us what a non-authoritarian leader of Venezuela would look like to you and how they would resist the constant pressure and hostile actions of the US government, because it seems to me that leftist leaders are always denounced as authoritarian by North American and European based NGOs and governments.
The only way to avoid being labelled as authoritarian is to be friendly to the imperial core countries, i.e. being capitalist.
👆If you don’t suppress the inevitable imperial-supported bourgeois counterinsurgencies, your socialist project will go the way of Allende’s Chile.
The question is whether government/people should get $60/barrel revenue before expenses, maybe $40/barrel after expenses, or $10/barrel but pump 5-10x as much, bribed to be loyal to US. Long term, obviously no corruption and high revenue/profit per barrel has its advantages. It’s not as though Exxon/Chevron can’t get access to Venezuela oil with fair deals, it’s that pretending corrupt puppets are the legitimate leaders provides extortion oil costs.
When you understand the hoops the US government is willing to jump through to get cheap foreign oil, you should understand that similar policies are used to deprive Americans of their fair share of resource revenue.
What a loser-ass mentality. It’s absolutely possible to remain just and free while being secure. Skill issue.
Point me to one single socialist revolution that wasn’t immediately attacked by capital. Just one. You can’t.
Name one single socialist revolution that didn’t start as a violent dictatorship. You can’t.
The USSR, PRC, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. all were massive expansions on democracy and working class control. Capitalists, landlords, fascists, monarchists, etc were (usually) violently oppressed, while the working classes were uplifted and society was democratized. From the point of view of the capitalists, they found themselves living in a violent dictatorship, for the working classes they found themselves finally escaping violent dictatorship.
The Russian RSFR, the Paris Commune, The Bavarian soviet Republic, The Rhine Soviet Republic, The Hungarian Socialist Republic, socialist Cuba, socialist Vietnam, socialist Laos…
Turns out you don’t knwo what you’re talking about! All of them were immediately invaded, their opposition showered in material support and sanctioned to hell and back.
Lol stay stupid patriot
What do you mean patriot?
exarcheia, and the Paris commune
Those being anarchists, not socialists. There have been shitloads of anarchist communes working perfectly, until some external force fucks them up or reclaims the land or whatever.
I asked specifically for socialist ones.
And you were given a dozen that you ignored
anarchism is socialist. it’s often called libertarian socialist.
Not even going to reply to your strawman. I said that it’s weak mentality to say “ends justify the means and sacrifice justice and freedom for the sake of fighting a foreign oppressor” - maybe that’s easier to understand? Weak people, weak minds, skill issue.
Lol you said nothing of the sort and now you’re running away shouting random reddit bullshit for cover (what strawman? That doesnt even make sense) because you’re acutely aware but too proud to admit that your dumb Marvel-brained bullshit has no basis in reality. Who’s freedom? Who’s justice? You haven’t put five seconds of thought into this and you’re talking to people who have considered it for years or decades. You’re adorable.
Maybe read it again?
Name one single socialist revolution that hasn’t been immediately attacked by capital. You can’t.
The .world beside the username never gets old!
Just and free while being secure: “authoritarian”
Unjust and unfree while being insecure and overrun by bears: Libertarian
So, which part is the just and free part that you mention, outside of the theory? As in, in detail, practical examples of those freedoms and justice, please. Besides the theoritscl “to each according to their needs, from each according to their possibilities” (sorry if misstranslated), what practical examples have been just and free throughout time.
The USSR, PRC, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. all were massive expansions on democracy and working class control. They were finally free and just for the working classes, and society became more about trying to satisfy everyone’s needs than endless private profits, with public ownership as the principle aspect of their economies.
Well, most of those I could at some point agree on just, but definitely not free. And the USSR in particular i would not say just either. Holodomor and all that.
They were absolutely free, compared to the horrible brutality of prior systems and the vast expansions in democratization and social welfare.
As for the USSR, the 1930s famine was tragic, but was the last major famine outside of war time. After collectivization of agriculture, yields were greater and more stable, and the bourgeois kulak system was practically abolished. Adverse weather conditions, crop disease, and kulaks violently resisting collectivization were the causes of the famine, and replacing that system with a more effective one ended famine.
If you take control of a region that is famous for periodic famines, and then only one more famine occurs ever, you have in fact ended the famines.
Or you can be smart and just and have your cake and eat it too. See dozens of countries that prosper without sacrificing their freedoms and justice. You guys are just doomer losers simping for dictators because your minds are too small to imagine a real victory.
So name one
They’d probably have named imperial core “socialist” nordic states.
Do you always believe everything your enemies tell you? Are you allergic to critical thinking?
Venezuela has had US antagonistic covert ops operating in country since at least 2007. That’s almost 2 decades of needing to find the US spies and their allies to prevent sabotage, coups, false flags, etc.
That’s just the military aspect. They’ve also been under worsening sanctions for almost as long, which has been driven by the US strategy to starve the masses so that they revolt. This processes causes increased desperation among the people, which increases crime rates.
All of these things require the use of authority and as they get worse require more invasive and obvious uses of authority. It’s hard enough to find spies, it’s even harder to find spies and neutaize them without ripping the US off as to how you’re finding them, going even further and finding spies without ever being wrong is nigh impossible.
Skill issue, says the person who isn’t even trying to do it themselves
❤️Through the power of love ❤️
What are your real-world examples—bourgeois “democracies”? If it’s so easy, why hasn’t it happened?
It’s so funny to see, when the alternative to Maduro is the Venezuelan equivalent of Yeltsin, someone hellbent on stripping their own country for parts and portraying that as “freedom”
Chavez in his first few months/year of being in office would be a good example of a non-authoritarian in that role.
My problem with Maduro and many of those in the post early days of Chavez taking over is that far too many seem to have a tremendous amount of money that they cannot explain how they came across legally. Executives at PVDSA, the state run petroleum company, seem to be extremely vulnerable to this corruption.
You can make the case that dictatorships/authoritarian structures are needed to protect a socialist revolution, which Im not sure I entirely agree with, without supporting the theft of state resources by people in the government.
Wasn’t a US-backed military coup against Chavez attempted in the early period? It was defeated by the people and soldiers who were loyal to Chavez, but that might’ve had an rffect
This is a vicious cycle of falling back to dictatorship to avoid imperialism, or some of it.
A) The country opens up and holds free elections, leading to an American puppet winning and the country turning into a vassal state at best, a glorified colony at worst.
B) The country turns into a dictatorship to limit foreign influence and fight back against imperialism, becoming a similarly terrible place to live, but at least without giving anything to the empire. Also note that as time passes, it’s quite likely that the dictatorship will forget why it was even created, i.e. it will no longer be about rejecting imperialism.
There are often the only two realistic scenarios for countries targetted by the American Empire. Both are bad and I’m not sure I feel like analyzing which one is slightly less bad for the average person.
Under Maduro, Venezuelan communes and participatory democracy is flourishing. In addition, massive social programs have been implemented, focusing on housing, food security, and poverty eradication. I’m not sure on what basis you distrust him so much, Venezuela is building socialism under Maduro from the bottom-up, and Maduro is doing his part from the top.
Venezuela is a developing country, that is developing despite the US Empire’s best efforts. It is regularly improving, which is why the working classes support Maduro.
Russia isn’t imperialist, it has no colonies nor neocolonies, and a tiny amount of global financial capital. China isn’t imperialist either, it’s a socialist country wituout any financial domination of the state or economy. There’s no mechanisms pushing for imperialism within China, and this manifests in regular south-south trade leading to development of global south countries when trading with China, unlike the unequal exchange of trade with the west where the west charges monopoly prices for tech and places compradors in power to prevent industrial development.
Multiple things are true, correct. This isn’t the grand own you think it is, though. You’re passively parroting imperialist narratives.
Man i remember when I was a “damn, the US and it’s enemies are both evil” guy. I thought i was done thinking about the world
Most of us have been at that stage, especially if we grew up in the west. I certainly was, no doubt about that. I try to do my best to correct that former behavior now that I know better. Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing” remains critical reading.
And we thought we were so enlightened. This is the last layer of the imperial core propaganda onion: that the “other side” is no better, which leads to apathy and disengagement.
I think this really needs to be stressed. Venezuela is a country building Socialism. Maduro and the PSUV is in power because of a genuinely incredible mass movement of communes, neighborhood committees, and other organs of grassroots democracy. This is qualitatively different from say, any of the Gulf oil monarchies
I highly recommend the books Building The Commune: Radical Democracy in Venezuela, and Commune or Nothing: Venezuela’s Communal Movement and Its Socialist Project, for a look at these aspects of Venezuelan politics, because it’s often papered over in discussions about the country.
Absolutely. Venezuela is genuinely what self-described demsocs want, the Empire just doesn’t care and will kill you regardless of how procedural and by international law your socialism is.
Why do you think they’re invading Ukraine. Sparkles and rainbows?
The general Marxist take is that when Yanukovych was offered an IMF loan that required austerity policies and privatization of safety nets, and a Russian loan that did not come with the same restrictions, he went with the Russian loan and was couped for it, including a western-supported Banderite false-flag shooting. Following the western-supported coup, the areas in the Donbass region seceded, as they supported Yanukovych, are culturally and ethnically Russian, and were unhappy with the Banderites taking over the government under the cover of “democracy.” Said Banderites were also legally suppressing the Russian language in the Donbass region.
What ensued was a decade of fighting, 2 failed Minsk agreements that Kiev broke and admitted to never wanting to follow, and massive risk of NATO on Russia’s doorstep. The Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics requested Russian assistance, and Russia complied, sparking the next stage of the war.
Russia purely wants the Donbass region and NATO neutrality. They want the Donbass region not out of the kindness of their hearts, nor for plunder or further expansion, but because it’s a land bridge straight to Russia, the same route the Nazis took in World War II. NATO was building up because the West uses their millitary to threaten countries into opening up their economies to foreign plunder (like what’s happening right now in Venezuela), a tradition employed since NATO was founded, destroyed Yugoslavia and Libya, etc.
This is the common Marxist take, shared largely by PSL’s statement and FRSO’s statement. Essentially, the war is tragic, should end as quickly as possible, and was provoked by the west.
Nato is not a risk to russia, and never has been. Nato is a defensive alliance. The only way they’re a risk is if russia plans to attack them first. Anyone suggesting that nato provoked it is on something
NATO is the millitary alliance of the world’s imperialist powers. This group of countries uses this alliance to prevent the global south from going against it and liberating themselved from foreign plunder via overwhelming financial domination. The way imperialism tends to work in the modern day is countries like the US, France, Germany, UK, etc expropriate vast wealth from countries in the global south, similar to how capitalists steal value created by the working class.
NATO is as “defensive” as the Iron Dome in Israel. These countries export genocide and terrorism on the third world, expropriate huge sums of wealth, and then “defend” against anyone that pushes back against that.
Yeah man ask Libya and Yugoslavia how defended they feel
Nato is a defensive alliance just like cops are there to help you
NATO expansion:
NATO in general:
Anything’s possible when you make shit up kiddo
Invading / starting a war is not the same thing as imperialism.
It literally is? They are expanding power over a foreign nation via military means. That’s basically the definition of imperialism.
You’re talking about simple conquest. By that definition any offensive side in a war is imperialist, which is nonsensical as that means nearly every war in human history involved at least one “imperialist” power.
Imperialism is system of establishing and maintaining hegemony over large areas for the benefit of an elite (capital in modern times, patricians in ancient times, etc) within a metropole (probably too simple of a definition but it works). The Romans were an empire not just because they had an emperor and not because they conquered lands, but because they controlled lands from Spain to Syria and wealth flowed from those lands into Rome.
The Soviet Union expanded their power over Germany via military means. WW2 was simply an inter-imperialist war.
You jest but this is genuinely what libs believe
It was an inter-imperialist war except on the eastern front, where it was a war to destroy communism. The capitalist Allies and the USSR were an alliance of convenience, which is why the West made the USSR its enemy the moment the war ended.
Edie is being sarcastic, btw.
The imperialist D-Day landings
Invading for territory gain is absolutely synonymous with imperialistic tendencies
A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not necessarily a square.
Ok but the person above just denied that a square was a rectangle
The Marxist definition of imperialism is more specific than just “big country invade small country”.
In, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism Lenin lays out five aspects of what makes Imperialism:
The question of “Is Russia Imperialist” isn’t a moral one, it’s a technical one. So if Russia were do to something that we all agree is morally reprehensible, that’s a separate concern from whether Russia is imperialist.
The technicality revolves around whether Russia has developed an oligarchy of Financial Capital, such that its invasion of Ukraine or other flexes of its influence, perpetuates the export of Russian finance capital around the world.
As it stands now, I don’t think that’s currently the case, but with Marxism being a dialectal philosophy, I do wonder if this war will accelerate that merging of Bank and industrial capital that Lenin discusses. It’s a Bourgeois states, and there’s financial capital in there somewhere that absolutely has an interest in forming a Russian imperialism.
So when people say “Russia isn’t Imperialist”, this is what’s being referred to. You can take it or leave it, but it’s worth getting into the weeds a bit, so we aren’t all talking passed each other
Marxist does not get to exclusively define what imperialism is. A more standard definition is far more reasonable to use. However, your comment is very informative to me, I’m glad you took the time to write this out
Marxism isn’t the only analytical lens out there, no. But the people you’re arguing with are working with that definition, which is why I took the time to clarify. Thank you for appreciating my effort post though lol
“A more standard definition” than the one that’s been in use for over a hundred years and accurately describes the dynamic in question? The definition liberals use is both new and entirely vibes-based. It is useless for anything but bringing geopolitical conversations to a screeching halt with murky equivocations. The Marxist definition exists to clarify, while the liberal definition exists to obscure. It’s the “socialism is when the government does stuff” of international relations.
The Marxist definition is strictly different, not a clarification. The Marxist one posits only capitalism can be imperialist, something I would say is strictly incorrect
Look at those goalposts fly
No goalposts have moved dude
Hmm, I wonder why? 🤔
https://www.democracynow.org/2019/4/26/headlines/report_us_sanctions_have_killed_40_000_in_venezuela_since_2017
That’s not what we’re doing; that’s what intellectually incurious imperial core labor aristocrats think we’re doing.
We need to talk about “authoritarianism”
Yes he’s certainly an authoritarian. Authoritarian doesn’t automatically mean bad…there’s such a thing as the concept of a benevolent dictator.
What evidence do you have that “the country went to shit” or “Venezuela is not a nice place to live in” or that he’s a “corrupt dictator”?
This original post, presumably, attempts to scratch slightly beneath the surface of what we hear on the news and suggest that your above statements only apply to a certain “deserving” class.
I don’t actually know a lot about Venezuela, and I’m asking these questions in earnest. I started to ask questions a lot earlier, but certainly looking into Maria Machado (this years Nobel Peace Prize winner) made some alarm bells go off. Could it be that the narrative is controlled by Machado and her neoliberal/right wing ilk, and she actually represents a large minority class of people that was purged/displaced in Venezuela?
I’m still investigating.
Where do we get the idea that Maduro is an authoritarian dictator? We get it from what our governments say, our corporate media say, and our NGOs (which are funded by our governments & corporations) say. These are the very same governments & corporations that want to vassalize Venezuela and pillage its resources. They are—all day, every day—working to manufacture our consent, or if not consent then at least acquiescence.
We also get it from Maduro and the rest of the Chavanistas: his party rules by supreme power and decree. The way his party allocates power as a matter of internal affairs, may be another story.
Please, let’s not talk in absolutes. This notion that any and all narratives that you deem negative are part of a grand conspiracy just isn’t true.
I implied in my original reply that I believe Maduro may be benevolent, along the lines of Castro. I don’t really have a problem with dictators…the problem with dictators is they’re usually fascists. That isn’t the case in Venezuela.
Again, how do you know this, and why are you so certain that this is a fair characterization? Have you read or listened to Maduro’s speeches or read Chavismo literature? Did you ask working class Venezuelans they consider these “decrees” to be extra-legal are or whether they are popular among them? Or did it come from Five Eyes sources, their telling of events?
In the modern era, dictators dictate with the consent of the bourgeoisie. And yes, that is fascism. In stark contrast, the Maduro government is a thorn in the side of both the indigenous bourgeoisie and the foreign imperialist bourgeoisie.
Yes I have listened to his speeches and read his lefislation…that’s why I’m saying what I’m saying.
You’re citisizing things I didn’t say…I know Maduro is popular there. I don’t know how else to say it: I believe he has the best interests of the working class in mind.
deleted by creator
There’s a concept true. Just not an example. Technically it’s possible for sub atomic particles in deep space to randomly coaless as a Ruben sandwich. But you’re far more likely to see the evaporation of a super massive black hole.
Power corrupts. And sometimes there really is no point to arguing which shitty person is slightly less shitty than the other shitty person. The only true answer is not play, and that there shouldn’t be such positions of power. Anything else is calvinball.
You’ll notice that there are no real arguments that he isn’t a authoritarian/dictator. Just justification that certain people identify with him, so it’s okay. Or that because one cringe group of privileged people criticize him. All criticism against him is from similar cringe groups of people. The meme in a nutshell. A non sequitur.
Maduro absolutely is an authoritarian. As is Trump. I don’t agree with either one of them. But Trump absolutely means to fuck all the way off when it comes to continuing to meddle in South America. Argentina and Venezuela have enough problems of their own. They don’t need ours.
What makes Maduro an dictator? He’s popularly supported, was democratically elected, and is setting up participatory systems in the economy. I can agree that he’s “authoritarian” against capitalists and fascists, but that’s absolutely a good use of authority.
Secondly, there’s no evidence to the notion that “power corrupts,” just correlation. In systems like capitalism, corrupt leaders are pushed upwards because that’s profitable, it wasn’t the power that corrupted them but a system that selects for corruption.
Tell the cryptofash on MeanwhileOnGrad that they’re a hoot, btw.
Authoritarian is when you don’t capitulate to the imperial core’s will, and the less you capitulate the more authoritarian you are. If you’re genuinely democratic then you need a color revolution for sure, because the demos doesn’t want to be vassalized by imperialists.
Bad faith responses from both of you. Bravo!
I mean, we try to be patient but there’s a limit. You regurgitate imperial core hegemonic “common sense,” believing that you don’t need to back any of it up with evidence because it is knownit is knownit is known, while we bring bookshelves of evidence & arguments for our positions, which you won’t engage with.
I was absolutely good-faith. I don’t agree with describing Maduro as a dictator, and I gave my reasoning. Are you referring to the bit at the end, where GrammarPolice made a couple of posts on MWoG that you commented on? I think it’s fair to call that out.
so many threads come with a call to action too, makes it impossible to take these losers seriously when they complain about brigading
Yep, it’s kinda funny when they get upset at getting called out for it too.
I don’t think you deserve anything else, tbh
As opposed to your “no response”. You’ve got nothing because you know they’re right
Bad faith is when you put an ounce of critical thinking towards the thought-terminating cliches that a bunch of rich pedophiles use to demonize anyone who resists their compulsive desire to own the world and everyone in it.
A meaningless platitude; as baseless as saying that lightning never strikes the same place twice. Liberals just think it’s true because they’ve created a system where people who were already corrupt gain power.
Yeah man, people should just “not play” real life. Fuck me, Western liberals really are the most privileged fuckers: all just a game to them.
???.
Other than the arguments people are making that he was democratically elected. Those are objectively arguments, regardless of your feelings on them.
Name one country that is oppositional to the West that you don’t “consider” authoritarian.
Your position is there has never been a benevolent leader? Power corrupts universally and equally? That’s nuts, quite frankly.
It’s absurd to suggest that Trump and Maduro are equivalent. They’re not equal in a single way, even if you believe they’re both bad.
Nope. This is the problem I expected and received in spades. Saying that people are corrupt or easily corruptible. Is not saying equally corrupt. Pointing out that two individuals have behaved in authoritarian ways. Is not saying they’re equally authoritarian. Hell, I even called out Trump at the end. Mentioning leaving Maduro alone. Basically defending Maduro against him. But it was never what was actually said. It was what people needed to be said in their minds to defend people they identify with. All very entertaining. Like trying to have any sort of meaningful discussion with liberals.
It isn’t groundbreaking to say that people can be corrupt to different degrees. What you failed to do is provide any meaningful explanation for why you believe Maduro to be corrupt, authoritarian, a dictator, etc. We gave ample evidence pointing to his popular support, the robust system of democracy in Venezuela, the rising commune movement and participatory economy, etc, while you called us bad-faith.
To me, it looks like you think yourself above having to back up your claims and as outside of the conversation looking in, rather than actually communicating with us. This is compounded by your commenting both here and on the MWoG threads, a known cryptofash gathering spot. Is this behavior of yours “good faith” in your eyes?
“Calling out Trump” is clearly a rhetorical tactic to distract from your incorrect assessment of Maduro. It should be noted that you’re aligned with Trump when you say that, and it should give you pause.
You don’t seem to remember your own comment. You used the most extreme straw man, adorned with sarcasm, to asses Maduro…there was no reality in your reply.
Meh, the fact that you think you’re talking to liberals is pretty amusing. Why defend an argument when you can attack the messenger, right?
The country went to shit before Chavez died as a result of many backing away from trade as a result of US demands as well as a slew of bad policy choices that turned them from a food exporting nation to one that imported food which collapsed the economy. Chavez and Maduro instituted price controls which have harmed the agricultural economy significantly which further harmed things.
That being said while their results were bad their intentions were good which is not going to be true of whatever puppet government the USA would install.
The results are usually bad when you don’t kowtow to the imperial core, but they’re also likely to be even worse for the majority of people if you do. That’s why monopoly capitalism has to be fought, if we ever want better outcomes to even be possible.
The fact is price controls are terrible policy and have never worked because we cannot predict the future needs of the market. Unless we magically get vastly better AI that runs the entire economy it is unlikely price controls will ever work so when Chavez instituted them it lead to a collapse of the agriculture sector leading to hunger issues.
Some of the economic problems were self created because many leftists have zero formal economic backgrounds and thus have trouble separating reasons for factual historical failures of specific leftist policies, like price controls or rent control being extremely problematic historically speaking, vs what is merely capitalist propaganda eg “capitalism is the only system that works” which isn’t true historically speaking.
That may well be, but at the same time, most economists in the world have a garbage education in neoclassical economics and carry neoliberal brain worms.
What do you think your reply means?
Do you think Conoco-Phillips was involved with Venezuela’s collapse?
I have nothing to directly point my finger at but I wouldn’tbe surprised if most major US energy companies played a role to some degree.