Another American backed coup happening in Venezuela

Manic Moran · 24-01-2019 2:32am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

China, officially the People's Republic of China (PRC), is a country in East Asia and the world's most populous country, with a population of around 1.404 billion.[13] Covering approximately 9,600,000 square kilometers (3,700,000 sq mi), it is the third- or fourth-largest country by total area.[k][19] Governed by the Communist Party of China, the state exercises jurisdiction over 22 provinces, five autonomous regions, four direct-controlled municipalities (Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, and Chongqing), and the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau.

Is this false info:rolleyes:

And the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy. It says so in the name.

The average poverty-line hick in Arkansas or in urban Detroit is still in a better position than a large portion of Venezuelans. It's a relative bar.

Either way, I'm not seeing that this is a US-supported coup, it's the US making an announcement that it approves of the opposition leader. Press releases don't exactly count as tangible support.

Eric Cartman · 24-01-2019 3:42am

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

Was Ghadaffis Libya a Socialist state? Thats the only successful one I can think of.

A petro fuelledtyrannical theocracy

Danzy · 24-01-2019 4:06am

Kristopherus wrote: »

Would you care to enlighten us what political system operates in China?

It is best described as corporate fascist state, akin to Mussolini's Italy but more aggressively capitalist in many ways.

At the level of many citizens it is hyper capitalist.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 24-01-2019 10:03am

Manic Moran wrote: »

And the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy. It says so in the name.

The average poverty-line hick in Arkansas or in urban Detroit is still in a better position than a large portion of Venezuelans. It's a relative bar.

Either way, I'm not seeing that this is a US-supported coup, it's the US making an announcement that it approves of the opposition leader. Press releases don't exactly count as tangible support.

it recognises him as the leader of Venezuela. In fact it’s refusing to remove its diplomats because the “real leader” hasn’t authorised the expulsion.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 24-01-2019 10:05am

Danzy wrote: »

It is best described as corporate fascist state, akin to Mussolini's Italy but more aggressively capitalist in many ways.

At the level of many citizens it is hyper capitalist.

The term fascist is generally overused. Personally I think the only fascist regimes that ever existed called themselves Fascist, everything else is basically abuse.

blanch152 · 24-01-2019 11:57am

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Yep if left alone and let them deal with it on their own. I guarantee if America did not sanction them in 2013, they be fine right now.

You are believing a self-serving myth created by the Venezuelan government.

The Chavez government has created the mess, and made worse by what followed. All that oil money wasted.

James Brown · 24-01-2019 3:01pm

The only thing Trump doesn't like about Venezuela is it doesn't have a US friendly dictator.
Pence/Trump are playing with lives here. There are always peaceful options. Siding with the opposition and refusing to remove US staff while making remarks about the US army being closer to there than other places they already are is going to get innocents killed. He's a dangerous tinpot would-be dictator in his own right.

Brussels Sprout · 24-01-2019 3:10pm

There's been some really bad takes given regarding the situation in Venezuela.

Right-Wing American take (over the past few years)
Democrats are trying to increase taxes, increase "entitlements" and socialise medicine. See how that worked out for Venezuela...

Left-Wing (today)
Here we go. Another US-led coup in Latin America. They're just after Venezuela's oil wealth. Maduro is the democratically elected president who's only crime was to try to help the poor. This is an outrage...

The reality is that both of these are wide of the mark. I've been following the situation in Venezuela since the coup attempt against Hugo Chavez back in 2002. Discussion of the Chavez years are beyond the scope of a single post. Needless to say that he did a lot of good redistributing oil wealth in a fairer manner but also the seeds were sewn that weakened domestic businesses and led to an over-reliance on exports purchased with oil money. Also he got extremely lucky with high oil prices to pay for his social programs.

Upon his death in 2013 Nicolas Maduro was suddenly thrust into power. An ex-bus driver, his main qualification for leadership appeared to be his blind loyalty to Chavez. Firstly he was highly unlucky. When he came to power oil was > $100 a barrel. Within 3 years it had plunged to <$40. This led to a collapse in the income of the state. How Maduro dealt with this crisis was a sequence of events where he kept doubling down on bad decisions:

With a loss of income from selling oil he started printing new currency to try and continue government spending
This, of course, led to massive inflation and the collapse in the value of the local currency (the bolivar)
Since domestic production had been decimated in the Chavez years most products were imported.
Maduro created laws preventing businesses from increasing prices on staples such as rice, medicines and toilet paper
this would mean that businesses would lose money by selling these items so they either went out of business or stopped selling price-controlled items
This led to massive queues at any shops that were still selling staples. This also led to rationing of these items
ignoring the real value vs the US$ of the bolivar Maduro created an official exchange rate (seemingly out of thin air). Access to dollars at this rate was only available to political cronies. The blackmarket value that most people had to go by was orders of magnitude higher.
As well as inflation unemployment and crime skyrocketed. People took to the streets in many protests which were put down by the police
A mass exodus of people has occurred - >3 millions have left the country, swamping Columbia and other neighbours.
The average person in Venezuela is so undernourished that they have lost large amounts of weight – dubbed “The Maduro diet”
In parallel with the economic ruin that he was inflicting upon the country Maduro was also eroding democracy at the same time.
He stuffed the supreme court with loyalists and arrested opposition leaders
When the opposition won power in national assembly elections in 2015, Maduro's party stripped power from the body before they left (a trick since used by the Republican party in some states in the USA)
He also used the supreme court to remove power from the assembly in 2017
He created a new constituent assembly stuffed with loyalists in order to write a new constitution (the previous one had only been written in 2009)
All of this allowed him to win an election in 2018 that most of the opposition boycotted

Basically the only thing Maduro is competent at is clinging on to power. If he had gone out to try and ruin the country he couldn’t’ have done much worse than what he has actually accomplished over the past 6 years.

What has occurred in Venezuela cannot be used to bash democratic socialism since it’s basically nothing but a dictatorship at this stage. At the same time the fracking boom in the USA has meant that they are now self-sufficient in hydrocarbons and have little use for the particular crude oil that the Venezuelans produce (a particularly dense form that is difficult to refine). The fact that most of Venezuela’s neighbours have weighed in on the side of the opposition also goes against the theory that this is some sort of CIA coup. The only countries in the region who are backing Maduro or communist Cuba and Bolivia and Mexico who both have populist left-wing leaders.

The best outcome for the people of Venezuela is that the army choose to back the opposition and free and air elections can be held so that someone competent can come in and clean up the mess that has been made of the country (be they left or right leaning so long as they understand the basics of economics).

TeaBagMania · 24-01-2019 3:20pm

Chavez hated and blamed the US for his own failures and the people of Venezuela cheered and backed him as a leader.
Now they're looking to the US for support? feck em, let em starve

The oil out of Venezuela is very poor quality, it'll be the last oil anyone buys

Franz Von Peppercorn · 24-01-2019 3:40pm

blanch152 wrote: »

You are believing a self-serving myth created by the Venezuelan government.

The Chavez government has created the mess, and made worse by what followed. All that oil money wasted.

Be a bit odd to apply sanctions with no effect.

blanch152 · 24-01-2019 10:08pm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Be a bit odd to apply sanctions with no effect.

Is America that only country in the world?

Surely the North Koreans and Chinese were still trading with them?

Many of those complaining about American sanctions on Venezuela are the same ones calling for sanctions on the Occupied Territories.

Ultimate Seduction · 24-01-2019 10:26pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

A petro fuelledtyrannical theocracy

Or.. A socialist state that worked for the majority of its people? The superpowers of the world didn't like it but was it a good quality of life for Libyans? Anything I've read says it was.

Ultimate Seduction · 24-01-2019 10:29pm

And please don't confuse or accuse me of loony liberalism. I always agree with you in regards to social housing, social welfare, immigration, travelers ect.

blanch152 · 24-01-2019 10:37pm

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

Or.. A socialist state that worked for the majority of its people? The superpowers of the world didn't like it but was it a good quality of life for Libyans? Anything I've read says it was.

Margaret Thatcher said that "the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples’ money". Applying that principle to Libya and Venezuela is that the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of oil money.

The only thing that made socialism last longer in those two countries was the oil money. Ironically, the Middle Eastern despots in places like Saudi and the UAE have made a better fist of long-term economic stability (though not all have done so).

Ultimate Seduction · 24-01-2019 10:46pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Margaret Thatcher said that "the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples’ money". Applying that principle to Libya and Venezuela is that the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of oil money.

The only thing that made socialism last longer in those two countries was the oil money. Ironically, the Middle Eastern despots in places like Saudi and the UAE have made a better fist of long-term economic stability (though not all have done so).

So they made money by exporting goods (oil) and gave a fair share of it back to its citizens through free healthcare, education an housing? This is a bad thing? Or is it just bad because they don't need to borrow all their money and pay interest on it?

I don't think you can compare venuzela with ghadafis lybia to be honest. I brought it up as an answer to someone saying there wasn't ever a successful socialist state.

Varik · 24-01-2019 10:59pm

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

So they made money by exporting goods (oil) and gave a fair share of it back to its citizens through free healthcare, education an housing? This is a bad thing? Or is it just bad because they don't need to borrow all their money and pay interest on it?

Because it ends.

Look at Saudi, they're not socialist but built on oil money and now investing for the day it ends.

blanch152 · 24-01-2019 11:01pm

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

So they made money by exporting goods (oil) and gave a fair share of it back to its citizens through free healthcare, education an housing? This is a bad thing? Or is it just bad because they don't need to borrow all their money and pay interest on it?

I don't think you can compare venuzela with ghadafis lybia to be honest. I brought it up as an answer to someone saying there wasn't ever a successful socialist state.

What I am saying is that a socialist state doesn't last without someone else's money or wasting all a state's natural resources. When they begin to run out, the government turns on its own people. It just isn't sustainable.

That applies to every single example from Russia in the 1920s to North Korea to Cuba to Venezuela to Eastern Europe to China. Every single one of those was lauded initially as a socialist state. Then the money ran out, and it was the rulers who were blamed, but it was a system problem. So yes, Venezuela appeared to be a socialist paradise for a while, but then the oil money ran out, and there was nobody to pay the bills.

hmmm · 24-01-2019 11:05pm

The problem is simply overspending. Maduro based a budget on 100 dollar oil, and the price has collapsed. Now he is stuck with "socialist" spending (i.e. handouts to his pals), and the income isn't there to support this.

Of course he went with the simple answer every economic idiot goes with, which was to print money. I remember our own left was wondering why the ECB didn't do this themselves ("we have had enough austerity policies"). Well take a look at Venezuala, where inflation suddenly massively rises as paper money increasingly becomes worthless.

Brian? · 25-01-2019 6:15am

Eric Cartman wrote: »

What, this problem started well before 2013 for venezuela. It's never been a prosperous country for the ordinary people. Successive governments implementing socialist policies have made it infinitely worse before america even gave a toss.

When do you think the problems started in Venezuela?

I can assure you that there was never a time that the US didn’t care about any country in South America. They propped up strong man dictators in most south/Central American countries for most of the last century.

You must have an extremely blinkered view of history if you think the problems in Venezuela began with Socialism. The election of Chavez was a reaction to how badly Venezuala was run. The oil wealth was syphoned off to foreign oil companies(mostly US companies) and the rich ruling classes.

Brian? · 25-01-2019 6:26am

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I don't know why people are saying that if American didn't do this or that they all would be fine.

Last time I checked Venezuela was in Latin America and history has shown that Latin America is one of the most politically unstable regions in the world

A lot of the states there have been independent from Spain or Portugal or France for the bones of 200 years but they have never been stable for any long periods of time since

What is with the former Spanish/French/Portuguese colonies and their inability to hold down stable government compared to the former British colonies of USA and Canada that have thrived since independence

The current strife in Venezuela is just another in a litany of strifes.

You realise that a large part of the reason South America is so unstable was the policies of the US during the Cold War? They wouldn’t allow any left leaning government to survive. Blockaded Cuba, supported Pinochet removing Allende in Chile, funded the Contras against the democratically elected Sandinistas, supported the military Junata in Argentina, supported military dictatorships in El Salvador and Panama etc etc.

There is also the ethnic divide. Venezuala is a perfect example. For most of its history Venezuala’s ruling/wealthy class was of European descent, the vast majority of poor in the country are of Indian/mixed heritage.

markodaly · 25-01-2019 7:23am

Brian? wrote: »

You realise that a large part of the reason South America is so unstable was the policies of the US during the Cold War? They wouldn’t allow any left leaning government to survive. Blockaded Cuba, supported Pinochet removing Allende in Chile, funded the Contras against the democratically elected Sandinistas, supported the military Junata in Argentina, supported military dictatorships in El Salvador and Panama etc etc.

There is also the ethnic divide. Venezuala is a perfect example. For most of its history Venezuala’s ruling/wealthy class was of European descent, the vast majority of poor in the country are of Indian/mixed heritage.

Ah come here, a day will come when people won't be able to blame America for all the ills of a nation.

The instability of Latin America primarily comes from the way these nations were founded. When the Spanish/Portuguese conquered the place, the main emphasis was to plunder and steal as much wealth and raw materials as possible to bring back to the Iberian Penninsula.

To contrast, when the British, Dutch and to some extent the French conquered North America, there was a much bigger emphasis on trade, especially by the Dutch and English.

These two contrasting philosophies resulted in very different developments for the population, wherein the south there was a small cliche of elites who ran and owned everything, while the vast majority of the population was poor and had no way out.

In the North, the emphasis on trade, property rights and a more classic liberal view on human rights, meant that there was a natural and organic creation of wealth, which resulted in a huge middle class and the most prosperous society known to man.

When people say, 'The American Dream' they mean the USA, not Brazil or Argentina. It is why there are still millions of Latin Americans going north to look for a better life. One should at least ask why it's not the other way around.

Rolling onto today, Venezuela should be looked on as a warning of radical populist leftists getting into power. At the Maduro inauguration, Sinn Fein sent not one but two representatives to the party. This was even after the UN declared the result as a fraud. Sinn Fein and their like on the left love a bit of populism where they decry the systems that generate real wealth in the hope that some revolution will come along and sweep them into power because their own fundamentalist ideology dictates that capitalism in all forms is an evil.

Meanwhile, Chile as of today is the most prosperous and economicly successful country in Latin America. All they did was follow a free trade model, that the EU, Japan and North America (among others) follow. It is really not that hard for a country to grow and become well developed. Its has been tried and tested dozens of times the past 60 years.

We in Ireland also followed this plan as well. Are we suggesting that Dev was correct in the 1930's when embarked on a trade war with the UK, or that the Irish economic management from the 1920's to the 1980's was a roaring success?? Cop on!

People are lying to themselves all the time about this because they still hold onto the idea of some utopia world where Marx was right all along.

Brian? · 25-01-2019 8:16am

markodaly wrote: »

Ah come here, a day will come when people won't be able to blame America for all the ills of a nation.

Did I blame US for everything? No I did not.

My point is that US foreign policy was one of the reasons the region is unstable. Which is entirely accurate.

The instability of Latin America primarily comes from the way these nations were founded. When the Spanish/Portuguese conquered the place, the main emphasis was to plunder and steal as much wealth and raw materials as possible to bring back to the Iberian Penninsula.

That is also part of the problem. Yes. But again, US interference hasn't helped.

To contrast, when the British, Dutch and to some extent the French conquered North America, there was a much bigger emphasis on trade, especially by the Dutch and English.
t

These two contrasting philosophies resulted in very different developments for the population, wherein the south there was a small cliche of elites who ran and owned everything, while the vast majority of the population was poor and had no way out.

In the North, the emphasis on trade, property rights and a more classic liberal view on human rights, meant that there was a natural and organic creation of wealth, which resulted in a huge middle class and the most prosperous society known to man.

When people say, 'The American Dream' they mean the USA, not Brazil or Argentina. It is why there are still millions of Latin Americans going north to look for a better life. One should at least ask why it's not the other way around.

Again, you're ignoring what happened in the 20th century. But you're partially right.

The problems aren't simple ones. The US isn't entirely culpable, but did their best to make things worse during the cold war.

Rolling onto today, Venezuela should be looked on as a warning of radical populist leftists getting into power. At the Maduro inauguration, Sinn Fein sent not one but two representatives to the party. This was even after the UN declared the result as a fraud. Sinn Fein and their like on the left love a bit of populism where they decry the systems that generate real wealth in the hope that some revolution will come along and sweep them into power because their own fundamentalist ideology dictates that capitalism in all forms is an evil.

Meanwhile, Chile as of today is the most prosperous and economicly successful country in Latin America. All they did was follow a free trade model, that the EU, Japan and North America (among others) follow. It is really not that hard for a country to grow and become well developed. Its has been tried and tested dozens of times the past 60 years.

We in Ireland also followed this plan as well. Are we suggesting that Dev was correct in the 1930's when embarked on a trade war with the UK, or that the Irish economic management from the 1920's to the 1980's was a roaring success?? Cop on!

People are lying to themselves all the time about this because they still hold onto the idea of some utopia world where Marx was right all along.

Venezuela is a warning to everyone not to elect populists who have no idea how to run a country. There are plenty of well functioning countries with socialist leaders. It's not an indictment of socialism, just as the Pinochet regime wasn't a damning indictment of capitalism. One is a warning about populism, both are warnings about authoritarianism.

If only the world was so simple and we could simply blame socialism or capitalism and move on.

Brian? · 25-01-2019 9:03am

Some posters: "Why is everyone blaming the US. They have nothing to do with it"

The actual US government: " We have a special responsibility to intervene in Venezuela "

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/international/426795-bolton-us-has-special-responsibility-to-back-venezuelan-opposition%3famp

Everyone happy now that the US won't ever keep out of it?

They already backed a violent coup against Chavez. Now they're happily backing a (mostly)non violent coup.

What needs to happen IMO:

The US to lift sanctions on Venezuela gold.

A new free and fair election, with UN monitors. The winner is the winner.

Pkiernan · 25-01-2019 9:14am

I've always found it truly offensive that those who call out every American action, appear to turn a blind eye to the daily human rights atrocities carried out in China, Russia, and nearly all the African and Arab states.
Not a whimper about anti-gay laws, legalised rape of multiple spouses, flagrant torture and en-masse executions.
But God forbid a serial killer is executed in Texas.

If you think about it, you could conclude that the Lefts rabid hatred of the US supercedes any notions or pretense they have that they actually care for people.

It'd be funny if it weren't so tragic.

daheff · 25-01-2019 9:16am

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Venezuelan people are eating rats and flamingos to stay alive. Socialism has failed there and the people are rising up against it.

Whatever about russia and stopping them, this may be the first time in a long time that US intervention would actually help the people on the ground and get them out from a legacy of tyranny.

Funny that the US is interested in Venezuela (oil) but not Zimbabwe (no oil).
Wonder why.....

Brian? · 25-01-2019 9:18am

Pkiernan wrote: »

I've always found it truly offensive that those who call out every American action, appear to turn a blind eye to the daily human rights atrocities carried out in China, Russia, and nearly all the African and Arab states.
Not a whimper about anti-gay laws, legalised rape of multiple spouses, flagrant torture and en-masse executions.
But God forbid a serial killer is executed in Texas.

If you think about it, you could conclude that the Lefts rabid hatred of the US supercedes any notions or pretense they have that they actually care for people.

It'd be funny if it weren't so tragic.

This thread is about Venezuela. Not Texan serial killers or the abhorrent human rights violations in China.

The US government are interfering in Venezuela AGAIN. So this what aboutery is pointless.

Start a thread about China and Russia and we can all bail in and agree.

s7ryf3925pivug · 25-01-2019 9:26am

He’ll be overcompensating that now he has something he can attack within the USA’s new sphere of influence (as designated by his master). IMO.

Eric Cartman · 25-01-2019 10:20am

daheff wrote: »

Funny that the US is interested in Venezuela (oil) but not Zimbabwe (no oil).
Wonder why.....

Zimbabwe is for the british to deal with , if anyone. They pose no risk to the US and arent on their continent, Zimbabwean people arent en masse likely to travel to the US,

Its almost verging on conspiracy that the US is in venezuela only for oil...

markodaly · 25-01-2019 12:29pm

Brian? wrote: »

Did I blame US for everything? No I did not.

My point is that US foreign policy was one of the reasons the region is unstable. Which is entirely accurate.

Well, you sure did not bring any attention or blame the primary culprits behind the mess that is current day Venezuela. Instead, you wrote the usual textbook monologue of 'blame the USA', used by would be socialists/communists and every one of that ilk.

The problems aren't simple ones. The US isn't entirely culpable, but did their best to make things worse during the cold war.

Perhaps, but what about Soviet influence and the economic theories that surrounded that regime? Do they get a free pass because they lost the cold war?

There are plenty of well functioning countries with socialist leaders. It's not an indictment of socialism, j

Really? Who are these? I suppose the tried and trust Nordic/Scandinavian countries will be used as a retort, who exist in a free market, capitalist economic system?

One is a warning about populism, both are warnings about authoritarianism.

Socialist economies like Cuba or Venezuela cannot exist without authoritarianism. You admitted this yourself even. Capitalist economics however, can. People miss this point.

markodaly · 25-01-2019 12:32pm

Brian? wrote: »

.

A new free and fair election, with UN monitors. The winner is the winner.

How? China and Russia would block anything like that put forward at the UN Security Council.

Maduro is not about to let UN monitors take away his power. He is all in at this stage.

Another American backed coup happening in Venezuela

Comments