|
Elias_Maluco posted:Well that's a surprise It's comforting that the leader of the coup, despite being such a monster apparently, is also such a dumbass.
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 05:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Well that's a surprise I feel like he may be a LITTLE out-of-step with most people living in Venezuela... 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 07:56
|
|
|
I don't know if I'd be able to handle this guy begging to be a US puppet state openly and the US is now too dumb to get the hint.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 08:04
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Well that's a surprise i don't know how anyone can claim to be against imperialism or against war and still support guaido
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 09:24
|
|
|
Getting the idea that if the opposition picked Guaidó as a bland non-offending face for the opposition in January (not rich, mestizo appearance, middle-class upbringing), they *might* be regretting it pretty loving hard right now. I recall seeing some mention he jumped the gun on the original "interim president" plan, then now he apparently got tricked into announcing the actual coup attempt, aaaaaand now he's actually asking for US military aid. I bet he *believed* everything the US told him about support, just like he apparently believed the Defense Minister pledging support for the coup. This will take care nicely of the National Assembly's ability to oppose him at all.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 11:13
|
|
|
I thought it was the result of MUD, splitting and PJ (Lopez’s party) essentially dominating it and therefore largely dominating ( but not uniting the opposition) the Assembly. Guaido is Lopez’s protégée. It is also why big parts of the opposition that aren’t MUD are seem largely out of step with Guaido, and I doubt the latest announcement will help. Btw, there are plenty to critique Chavez and his economic policies for but you really have to boil down what is happening and when it happened. Chomsky always really seemed a light-weight when political economy starts to enter the picture.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 12:59
|
|
|
A friend just forwarded me this note written by the "Liga de Trabajadores por el Socialismo" (League of Workers for Socialism), which is a Venezuelan group. I'm sharing it here because I hope that the position that the note puts forward will help people in this thread think critically about their blind support for Maduro.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
Chuck Boone posted:A friend just forwarded me this note written by the "Liga de Trabajadores por el Socialismo" (League of Workers for Socialism), which is a Venezuelan group. I'm sharing it here because I hope that the position that the note puts forward will help people in this thread think critically about their blind support for Maduro. I think this position is shared by most people here who oppose U.S. intervention and Guaido's coup. There aren't many actual Maduro fans here.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
Chuck Boone posted:A friend just forwarded me this note written by the "Liga de Trabajadores por el Socialismo" (League of Workers for Socialism), which is a Venezuelan group. I'm sharing it here because I hope that the position that the note puts forward will help people in this thread think critically about their blind support for Maduro. Do you agree with this? quote:Since January 23, imperialism has used appeals, maneuvers and threats to try to split the Armed Forces in order to overthrow Maduro. After their attempts failed and their coup offensive entered a stalemate, they concentrated on economic aggression and asphyxiation, which has worsened the hardships of the people. The plans for a coup remained latent, and were reactivated with this Tuesday’s attempt.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 18:57
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Do you agree with this? Yes, to a large extent. I think the statement is downplaying the real, palpable desire for change that the overwhelming majority of Venezuelans have and eclipsing it with "imperialism did this!!!" which is pretty much this whole thread. I do agree 100% that "a government emerging from a military coup, under the control of the U.S., would mean nothing good for the masses!". But, I think the statement lacks an important level of nuance. For example, it's highly debatable that what we saw on April 30 was a military coup, or that an opposition government will definitely be "under the control" of the U.S, which is what the statement implies. Friendly to the U.S., certainly, but "under the control" of the U.S. is something else entirely. Say what you will about Guaido, but the point of this movement is to allow Venezuelans to vote in free, fair and transparent elections. Whether or not Guaido runs in those elections, or if he wins, is another issue. But to even get to the point where we can vote, we need Maduro to let go of power, which again, is what this whole thing is about. I agree that privatization, pro-business governments tend to be extremely bad and I never vote for them in elections here. I do not want a future Venezuela to be subordinate "to the dictates of the IMF and imperialist capital", or for it to be some neoliberal playground. If I could snap my fingers, this is what would happen: 1) Guaido wouldn't run in a free and fair post-Maduro election (his role would be limited to interim president), 2) there would be an actual leftist (non-PSUV) option on the ballot, and 3) this actual leftist option would win. Majorian posted:I think this position is shared by most people here who oppose U.S. intervention and Guaido's coup. There aren't many actual Maduro fans here. That there are any Maduro fans here is absurd. "I don't support foreign intervention in Venezuela and I also don't support Maduro" should roll off people's tongues. No one should be doing anything like defending what the government is doing, and yet we see it every day.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
Chuck Boone posted:That there are any Maduro fans here is absurd. "I don't support foreign intervention in Venezuela and I also don't support Maduro" should roll off people's tongues. No one should be doing anything like defending what the government is doing, and yet we see it every day. I don't think we see it every day. I think occasionally a bad-faith troll says something that's overboard, they usually get punished for it, and the thread moves on. There also shouldn't be anyone here who outright supports a right-wing coup backed by Trump, Bolton, and Abrams, but they do exist, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't think we see it every day. I think occasionally a bad-faith troll says something that's overboard, they usually get punished for it, and the thread moves on. I agree 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
I support the Maduro government in its efforts to ward off a coup sponsored by the United States. That the Guaido government would be “friendly to but not controlled” by the US government could be said of literally every US client state in history. Clients are almost uniformly chosen not because the US will be able to control their actions from Washington, but because they are already aligned with US interests in the region. The fact that Guaido has been recognized by the Trump administration is proof positive that he would be disastrous for Venezuela. All the more so if he came to power in a coup. Edit: I made the post better. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 19:36 on May 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 19:28
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I support the Maduro government in its efforts to ward of a coup sponsored by the United States. Plus if Guaido proved to be insufficiently aligned with U.S. interests, there can be little doubt that the U.S. would find him easily replaceable.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
People are citing and parroting state media messages uncritically for their truth.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 19:35
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:People are citing and parroting state media messages uncritically for their truth. People here are also uncritically citing and parroting the U.S. State Department's message about Venezuela. The New York Times is not a neutral media source on this issue.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:People are citing and parroting state media messages uncritically for their truth. Yeah, it would be a lot easier to believe everyone was arguing in good faith and only wanted what was best for the Venezuelan people if we didn't keep seeing people posting blatant propaganda.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:People are citing and parroting state media messages uncritically for their truth. like that Guaido guy, who said he'd welcome US military intervention in Venezuela. if only we could make out the 9-dimensional chess behind this move...
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
The New York Times is not TeleSUR, not is it equivalent to pseudojournalists shuttled around by the regime, being staged in front of “fully stocked” stores and “US-supplied weapons”. All sources of information can have bias without being equally suspect or identically bad faith. I’ve been over this before. Totalizing cynicism about media doesn’t make you a savvy consumer; it makes you a mark for people selling ideologically appealing lies.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 19:48
|
|
|
Chuck Boone posted:A friend just forwarded me this note written by the "Liga de Trabajadores por el Socialismo" (League of Workers for Socialism), which is a Venezuelan group. I'm sharing it here because I hope that the position that the note puts forward will help people in this thread think critically about their blind support for Maduro. I think almost everyone here who don't think a US baked Guaidó coup will be good for Venezuela (or Latin America in general) will agree with that
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The New York Times is not TeleSUR, not is it equivalent to pseudojournalists shuttled around by the regime, being staged in front of “fully stocked” stores and “US-supplied weapons”. Really dude? You're saying this about the paper that made and promoted that execrable Joanna Hausmann video? 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 19:53
|
|
|
I think the only true pro Maduro poster in this thread is CAPSLOCK, but everyone who dares to raise a doubt about Guaidó will immediately be called a Maduro lover "tankie" etc I think that's why this thread keeps going on circles
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
The New York Times is effectively a propaganda outlet for the US State Department and should be treated as such.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Really dude? You're saying this about the paper that made and promoted that execrable Joanna Hausmann video? I can’t watch this where I am, but you are equivocating between an op-ed and a literal state-owned regional propaganda program that has trafficked in conspiracy theories and lies for years, both directly and through cut outs. Why would you think these things are comparable? What does it say about how you are selecting and consuming information?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
Seraphic Sphere posted:uh huh like my favorite option. leave venezuela alone. What did you make of his criticism of Chavez for not amassing sufficient reserves of foreign currency? It's highly relevant to the austerity that has afflicted Venezuela since 2014.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I can’t watch this where I am, but you are equivocating between an op-ed and a literal state-owned regional propaganda program that has trafficked in conspiracy theories and lies for years, both directly and through cut outs. Why would you think these things are comparable? What does it say about how you are selecting and consuming information? You are talking about the newspaper that was instrumental in drumming up support for the bloodiest war of the aughts. Support created by publishing unexamined lies funneled through the executive branch. There is no reason to take the NYT’s reporting on enemies of the US any more seriously than Telesur. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 20:39 on May 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I can’t watch this where I am, but you are equivocating between an op-ed and a literal state-owned regional propaganda program that has trafficked in conspiracy theories and lies for years, both directly and through cut outs. I'm actually equivocating between Telesur and a newspaper that has cheerled every U.S. imperialist adventure for the past several decades, including this one in Venezuela. Hausmann's awful video is hardly the only example of the Times stanning for Guaido and U.S. intervention.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 20:27
|
|
|
Squalid posted:What did you make of his criticism of Chavez for not amassing sufficient reserves of foreign currency? It's highly relevant to the austerity that has afflicted Venezuela since 2014. It is both relevant, but also tied with the amount of Imports that Venezuela was heavily subsiding. Also, it is arguable that those reserves would have only bought more time but a crisis would have still resulted.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
Chuck Boone posted:Yes, to a large extent. I think the statement is downplaying the real, palpable desire for change that the overwhelming majority of Venezuelans have and eclipsing it with "imperialism did this!!!" which is pretty much this whole thread. Is it really though? Obviously this is an imperfect metric but I just looked at a list of top posters in this thread and they seem to overwhelmingly be posters who are very critical of the government? Just based on very quickly clicking through some post histories there is maybe one poster in the top 10 of this thread who might fit that description and he has been probated many times and is currently on a month long probation because of something he said in this thread. I'm not seeing evidence for a thread that is being overwhelmed by pro-Maduro posters or peopel who uncritically blame every problem in Venezuela on imperialism. quote:I do agree 100% that "a government emerging from a military coup, under the control of the U.S., would mean nothing good for the masses!". But, I think the statement lacks an important level of nuance. For example, it's highly debatable that what we saw on April 30 was a military coup, or that an opposition government will definitely be "under the control" of the U.S, which is what the statement implies. Friendly to the U.S., certainly, but "under the control" of the U.S. is something else entirely. Say what you will about Guaido, but the point of this movement is to allow Venezuelans to vote in free, fair and transparent elections. Whether or not Guaido runs in those elections, or if he wins, is another issue. But to even get to the point where we can vote, we need Maduro to let go of power, which again, is what this whole thing is about. So far as I can tell this is actually the main dispute people have. I would point out that plenty of regular posters here don't seem to share the level of nuance you describe here and would actually argue that it's literally impossible for Venezuela to be worse off than it is now. I also suspect a lot of what gets treated as "pro-Maduro" sentiments is actually just a calculation that no change of government predicated on the support of Trump and Bolsonaro can possibly result in anything except the outcome that you admit would be extremely bad. You can agree or disagree with that position, but you should be able to engage it on its own merits.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 20:56
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Is it really though? Obviously this is an imperfect metric but I just looked at a list of top posters in this thread and they seem to overwhelmingly be posters who are very critical of the government?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 20:57
|
|
|
So, “no, there is no difference”. Staged lies the same as “stanning”.No difference, so cite the one you like. And therein lies the problem. You’re evaluating sources first and foremost for ideological alignment and not for their construction sourcing or messages. Chuck Boone and other venegoons have provided plenty of criticism of Guidao, and plenty of direct information on the ground, without citing state media. Hell, there’s a list of sources in the OP. Why, then, do we have to rebut “intentional burnings” and “CLAP works” and “aid full of guns” and “the crisis is because of sanctions” and “there is no crisis” and “Maduro called for elections” and “right-wing” and “unconstitutional” and “secret Nazi opposition “ and “smuggled guns” and so many more, over, and over, and over? Why have several venegoons stopped posting? Chuck Boone posted:That there are any Maduro fans here is absurd. "I don't support foreign intervention in Venezuela and I also don't support Maduro" should roll off people's tongues. No one should be doing anything like defending what the government is doing, and yet we see it every day. Emphasis mine. The government media, the propaganda, the lies, is what the government is doing. It is one of the biggest parts of their strategy of control. Why support them?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:This isn't really a good metric because this thread has been alive and kicking for almost half a decade and it's really been over the past two or three months that it exploded due to Washington stepping up their "game". Yeah I get that the thread has a regular crew of posters but that like any mega thread its activity spikes whenever there's a burst of relevant news stories. Nevertheless, I've been lurking in this thread the past few weeks and the idea that its overwhelmingly full of blindly loyal Maduro supporters doesn't exactly match reality.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Yeah I get that the thread has a regular crew of posters but that like any mega thread its activity spikes whenever there's a burst of relevant news stories. Nevertheless, I've been lurking in this thread the past few weeks and the idea that its overwhelmingly full of blindly loyal Maduro supporters doesn't exactly match reality. In their defense, there was a time when it was, at least when the initial non-Venezuelans outpour came out. Nearly every non-Venezuelan poster was a PSUV sympathizer, and blamed the entire nation's ills on US intervention. EDIT - They have all seemed to left for the CSPAM thread last time I checked. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 21:06 on May 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:So, “no, there is no difference”. Staged lies the same as “stanning”.No difference, so cite the one you like. Or perhaps, and bear with me, because this is a crazy thought - but maybe don’t trust either?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It is both relevant, but also tied with the amount of Imports that Venezuela was heavily subsiding. Also, it is arguable that those reserves would have only bought more time but a crisis would have still resulted. When an economy is dependent on the export of a commodity like oil which is often subject to dramatic price fluctuations, the ability to buy time after a crash is really important. It's also obvious, and if you look at the policy of other resource exporters like Bolivia its obvious they were much better prepared for price downturns than Venezuela.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
Squalid posted:When an economy is dependent on the export of a commodity like oil which is often subject to dramatic price fluctuations, the ability to buy time after a crash is really important. It's also obvious, and if you look at the policy of other resource exporters like Bolivia its obvious they were much better prepared for price downturns than Venezuela. It is, and also, Venezuela wasn’t the only country caught flat footed, Azerbaijan was also plowing through their reserves until they devalued. They were actively calling on the IMF at one point. Nevertheless you didn’t have the same crisis in Azerbaijan but certainly there was one. Also the comparison with Bolivia is awkward because it isn’t a oil centric economy, not all commodities are the same. It is better to stick to oil here. I would still say the PSUV acted recklessly but st the same time, I believe much of their populist policy was aimed at garnering political strength in the aftermath of the 2002 coup. Personally, I think a concentration on import subsidies was going to quickly lead to issues. That said; they probably would have ran through their reeves pretty quickly as well. Granted it is also evident that since mid 2017 and the steeping of crisis was to a large extent effected by the US. They were probably put into effect because oil crisis we’re seeing substantial recovery during that period: Ardennes fucked around with this message at 21:53 on May 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Or perhaps, and bear with me, because this is a crazy thought - but maybe don’t trust either? Because the NYT is a source of legitimate original journalism with specific identifiable biases and teleSUR et al is a state propaganda outlet that exists entirely to lie to, mislead and control its targets. Again, totalizing reductive cynicism doesn’t make you a savvy consumer of media, it makes you a mark.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 21:57
|
|
|
Not diversifying the economy was arguably PSUV's biggest issue.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It is, and also, Venezuela wasn’t the only country caught flat footed, Azerbaijan was also plowing through their reserves until they devalued. They were actively calling on the IMF at one point. Nevertheless you didn’t have the same crisis in Azerbaijan but certainly there was one. Also the comparison with Bolivia is awkward because it isn’t a oil centric economy, not all commodities are the same. It is better to stick to oil here. Venezuela's problems are far from unique, its just that in Venezuela we see these issues exaggerated to the most extreme degree. It almost sounds like you are using "garnering political strength" as an excuse for bad policy. It is not. I agree with you about other terrible policies like the import subsidies and there are lots of other bad examples. I thought it was funny when Seraphic Sphere mentioned Venezuela's coal mining as a counter example to criticisms of Chavez for not diversifying the economy. Venezuela's coal production has decreased by about 95% since 2004, from almost 6 million tonnes of oil equivalent to 0.3 (not sure if this is yearly total?). I couldn't figure out why but that is an industry that has effectively died under Chavez and Maduro. I'm pretty convinced sanctions have had an effect although it can be hard to distinguish the 2017 sanctions influence from other domestic issues. In particular the National Assenbly was openly declaring to lenders that they would not honor loans given to the Maduro government, which presumably would have had a chilling effect on lenders. Sanctions from this year have of course been much more impactful.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Not diversifying the economy was arguably PSUV's biggest issue. Honestly, it is pretty difficult to transition from a near complete dependency on oil in particular. Venezuela is not alone in this regard. I do think they also made the issue harder for themselves. Squalid posted:Venezuela's problems are far from unique, its just that in Venezuela we see these issues exaggerated to the most extreme degree. It almost sounds like you are using "garnering political strength" as an excuse for bad policy. It is not. Doesn’t that open up the entire issue of populism itself, those subsidies did flow to the population, arguably inefficiently. I am not necessarily saying it is good policy but there is a history behind it and a reasoning and a lot of seems to be centered on tie between the politics of the country and crude prices going back to the 1970s. Coal in particular has taken a giant hit in pricing, it very well might have just been completely unviable at least with the other issues going on. Hmmm the timing seems to be pretty spot on and I still haven’t seen a good explanation otherwise. Also, creditors know the National Assembly at that point had limited power. One big issue is that PDVSA was heavily relying on credit especially when prices were still soft. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:57 on May 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 22:36
|
|