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

Another American backed coup happening in Venezuela

Options
12357…24

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,892 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    sophiexyz wrote: »
    Complain about non existing foreign interference in US elections, yet push hard for regime change in Syria and Venezuela, its scary that some people believe CNN report the news.

    Non existent interference? You don't believe any of the evidence that Russia tried to influence the election? The huge mountain of evidence that's getting bigger every week?

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #123
    sophiexyz
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 38 ✭sophiexyz


    Brian? wrote: »
    Non existent interference? You don't believe any of the evidence that Russia tried to influence the election? The huge mountain of evidence that's getting bigger every week?

    No evidence what so ever has been shown, care to show us some here?


  • Options
    #124
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 13,954 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    First of all, the 'Socialist' governments who people laude were not really Socialist, they were Social Democracies. Think Centre-left, like the Irish Labour party, compared to the likes of PBP, Sinn Fein or Solidarity who are actual socialists.

    Then, of course, one ignores that Social-Democracy the world over is in crisis because populist voices have taken over what it means to be a social democrat and have come up with their own utopian fantasies on how wonderful the world would be if only they followed, their own real socialist model! They seel a false nostalgic narrative that by going back to the past, everything will be great.

    Ruth Coppinger et all advocated the nationalisation of Dell. No one in Labour would have because they see that as a futile waste of taxpayers money where the state should not get involved in running tech companies. This is a key difference.

    So, the point stands, there have really been no real successful socialist based economies or societies as it always ends in failure. The debate really is how much of a leash you give capitalism, say UK vs France models, or say Sweden vs Hong Kong? The core of all these societies are private property, free trade and free enterprise. The only variables to speak off is the tax burden on work and capital, and how much regulation there is of labour and business.

    One can have that debate for eternity on what is the right balance. What is not up for debate though is that socialism in the form of Cuba, North Korea, China pre-1989 or the Soviet Union is an actual economic model to follow that will work out in the long term.


  • Options
    #125
    sophiexyz
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 38 ✭sophiexyz


    markodaly wrote: »
    First of all, the 'Socialist' governments who people laude were not really Socialist, they were Social Democracies.

    Then, of course, one ignores that Social-Democracy the world over is in crisis because populist voices have taken over what it means to be a social democrat and have come up with their own utopian fantasies on how wonderful the world would be if only they followed, their own real socialist model!
    So, the point stands, there have really been no real successful socialist based economies or societies as it always ends in failure. .
    Sure we all know Stalin was one maybe two purges away from creating a workers paradise.


  • Options
    #126
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 13,954 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    https://www.thejournal.ie/maduro-venezuela-president-4461080-Jan2019/

    The heat is rising in the kitchen. But sure its always America's fault....

    People should remember Sinn Fein's position on this dictator next time an election is due.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    sophiexyz
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 38 ✭sophiexyz


    markodaly wrote: »

    The heat is rising in the kitchen. But sure its always America's fault....

    People should remember Sinn Fein's position on this dictator next time an election is due.

    So you are OK with the UK refusing to hand back Venezuelas Gold?


  • Options
    #128
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,282 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    A few poster here have done the traditional socialist goalpost shift , if bad things happened then it wasnt real socialism , i mean claiming stalin wasnt , come on.

    Yet people are determined that the US is ‘real capitalism.

    Can anyone give me any example of where a socialist state succeeded ?


  • Options
    #129
    Jeff2
    Registered Users Posts: 6,992 ✭✭✭Jeff2


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    A few poster here have done the traditional socialist goalpost shift , if bad things happened then it wasnt real socialism , i mean claiming stalin wasnt , come on.

    Yet people are determined that the US is ‘real capitalism.

    Can anyone give me any example of where a socialist state succeeded ?

    Irish government had to sell bonds and it took a while to get the right interest rates.
    Venezuela bonds that were sold were bought up years ago and the government could have defaulted.
    IMO they should have


  • Options
    #130
    Midlife
    Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭Midlife


    People need to get off the Socialist/Capatalist bandwagon. Venezuela is authoritarian that's the problem. Populism too I guess.

    Democracy is what's needed. Have free, fair elections and let the people decide the economic direction of the country.

    If anything, what this shows is that Central and South America need to get past this idea of the 'national strongman' as a head of state. North America too but they have a lot more checks and balances.


  • Options
    #131
    Midlife
    Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭Midlife


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    A few poster here have done the traditional socialist goalpost shift , if bad things happened then it wasnt real socialism , i mean claiming stalin wasnt , come on.

    Yet people are determined that the US is ‘real capitalism.

    Can anyone give me any example of where a socialist state succeeded ?

    Do you mean pure socialism where the state owns the farms and factories like Cuba and the former USSR, or do you mean countries with a high level of social equality, taxation and welfare like Denmark?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,892 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Midlife wrote: »
    People need to get off the Socialist/Capatalist bandwagon. Venezuela is authoritarian that's the problem. Populism too I guess.

    Democracy is what's needed. Have free, fair elections and let the people decide the economic direction of the country.

    If anything, what this shows is that Central and South America need to get past this idea of the 'national strongman' as a head of state. North America too but they have a lot more checks and balances.

    Exactly, it's not about economic theory. It's about forms of leadership.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #133
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,044 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    na1 wrote: »
    What about Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet?

    Did you see any protests/sanctions from USA or UK about mass tortures and murder of own people?
    Pinochet was a right wing dictator who overthrew a left wing government.

    The Pinochet regime lasted less than 20 years.

    I know he was an evil dictator but in the long term he saved Chile from being another socialist basket case.

    Salvador Allende wanted to turn Chile into another Cuba.

    There were already shortages by the time of the coupe.

    Chile is a thriving country now.


  • Options
    #134
    Midlife
    Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭Midlife


    Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »
    I know he was an evil dictator but...

    And that's how polarised debate has become.

    Maybe there was a third option?


  • Options
    #135
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,892 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »
    Pinochet was a right wing dictator who overthrew a left wing government.

    The Pinochet regime lasted less than 20 years.

    I know he was an evil dictator but in the long term he saved Chile from being another socialist basket case.

    Salvador Allende wanted to turn Chile into another Cuba.

    There were already shortages by the time of the coupe.

    Chile is a thriving country now.

    You think the Pinochet regime was a good thing because it prevented Chile becoming a socialist country? Even though Allende was democratically elected and could have been removed democratically if his reforms went poorly?

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #136
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,044 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Brian? wrote: »
    You think the Pinochet regime was a good thing because it prevented Chile becoming a socialist country? Even though Allende was democratically elected and could have been removed democratically if his reforms went poorly?

    Pinochet happened and he did what he did, that's just history

    Suggesting that Allende could have been removed democratically is not as simple as you make it out to be.

    Look at the situation in Venezuela, Maduro was elected "democratically"

    You've already said on this thread about Venezuela
    A new free and fair election, with UN monitors. The winner is the winner.

    As if it's that simple.

    My opinion was the Chile was on it's way to being a left wing autocratic country and Pinochet stopped that and Chile is better for it today.


  • Options
    #137
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,044 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Midlife wrote: »
    And that's how polarised debate has become.

    Maybe there was a third option?

    Well in reality it's not as simple as good v bad.

    Is Chile a better country now that it would have been under Allende, I certainly think so.

    Will Venezuela work out better without a left leaning populist government, I also think so.


  • Options
    #138
    Midlife
    Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭Midlife


    Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »
    Well in reality it's not as simple as good v bad.

    Is Chile a better country now that it would have been under Allende, I certainly think so.

    Will Venezuela work out better without a left leaning populist government, I also think so.

    You're being purely utilitarian though and acting as if it were a binary choice.

    'Bad' vrs 'not quite as bad' is a poor way to measure things, particularly when you're talking about a lot of people dying.


  • Options
    #139
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,044 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Midlife wrote: »
    You're being purely utilitarian though and acting as if it were a binary choice.

    'Bad' vrs 'not quite as bad' is a poor way to measure things, particularly when you're talking about a lot of people dying.


    But that's the reality of the world unfortunately.
    Bad v not quite as bad.


  • Options
    #140
    Midlife
    Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭Midlife


    Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »
    [/b]

    But that's the reality of the world unfortunately.
    Bad v not quite as bad.

    So as long as something is worse than the worst alternative, it's fine?

    Ethically, that doesn't hold up at all.

    Say you're a doctor and you know five people are about to die because they need organs they can't get.

    A healthy person walks into your clinic so you kill them, harvest their organs and are +4 on the life count.

    Bad but not quite as bad. How is that different from your viewing Pinochet as a positive?

    Utilitarianism stops working when you're talking about thousands of people dying and tens of thousands being tortured.


  • Options
    #141
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Socialism gone wrong, a tiny minority controlling all the weath and power, is capitalism gone right.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »
    Chile is a thriving country now.

    As someone who spends a few weeks in Chile every couple of years: Chile is a thriving country precisely because it has sensibly rejected the moronic binary choice between being a socialist basket case or an authoritarian dictatorship that this thread seems determined to force on Venezuela.

    Chile tends to cycle loosely between centre-left and centre-right forms of social democracy. The lesson, for anyone who's not too busy haring down the "at least Pinochet wasn't a socialist" type of logical cul-de-sac, is that extreme forms of government usually leave vast swathes of a population miserable while benefiting a few, while social democracy at least tries to bring the ordinary people along with it.


  • Options
    #143
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,282 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Brian? wrote: »
    You think the Pinochet regime was a good thing because it prevented Chile becoming a socialist country? Even though Allende was democratically elected and could have been removed democratically if his reforms went poorly?

    Considering the instability of south america as a region , Pinochet was probably one of the least destructive and provided the most opportunity for people to succeed. Does it make him a good guy - no, does it make him not a dictator - no, but if you line up chavez, maduro, castro, etc.... and tell me to choose one as my leader, im picking pinochet every day of the week.


  • Options
    #144
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    ...if you line up chavez, maduro, castro, etc.... and tell me to choose one as my leader, im picking pinochet every day of the week.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    ...the moronic binary choice between being a socialist basket case or an authoritarian dictatorship that this thread seems determined to force on Venezuela.

    I rest my case.

    I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that not only have you never been to Chile or Venezuela, you've never spoken to a Chilean or a Venezuelan. But hey: keep pontificating about how great Pinochet was, because you don't understand shades of grey.


  • Options
    #145
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,282 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I rest my case.

    I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that not only have you never been to Chile or Venezuela, you've never spoken to a Chilean or a Venezuelan. But hey: keep pontificating about how great Pinochet was, because you don't understand shades of grey.

    At no point have I ever done this, there was nothing even remotely like that said. Im not sure if its a problem you have in comprehension or its an intentional thing, but every single one of my posts you have replied to in the recent past, you completely blow it out of proportion and throw a far right 'what would 4chan say' shade on it, then respond to that version of it that you have concocted, not the reality of what was said. I did not praise pinochet in any post there and I would like you to acknowledge that so I know that you can actually comprehend what is being said here.


    I was merely commenting on the history of south american politics. Obviously a democratically elected centre right candidate would be my ideal and probably the most suitable for the south american nations. But as to whether or not it would present enough change quickly enough for the people to not overthrow them would be the question.


  • Options
    #146
    Midlife
    Registered Users Posts: 900 ✭✭✭Midlife


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    Considering the instability of south america as a region , Pinochet was probably one of the least destructive and provided the most opportunity for people to succeed. Does it make him a good guy - no, does it make him not a dictator - no, but if you line up chavez, maduro, castro, etc.... and tell me to choose one as my leader, im picking pinochet every day of the week.

    Jesus ****ing christ lads.

    'My sides authoritarian dictators are better than your sides authoritarian dictators.'

    What the **** has the world come to? Can you not just accept that they were/are all sh1t without trying to score points for who the **** ever is your team.


  • Options
    #147
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,892 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    Considering the instability of south america as a region , Pinochet was probably one of the least destructive and provided the most opportunity for people to succeed. Does it make him a good guy - no, does it make him not a dictator - no, but if you line up chavez, maduro, castro, etc.... and tell me to choose one as my leader, im picking pinochet every day of the week.

    Good for you.

    But that isn't the choice, now is it?

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #148
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,245 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    They were fairly successful in fact. The USSR was a super power. And the second largest economy in the world.

    That seems a silly argument.

    It's like saying that because The De Havilland Comet was the best airliner in the world for a few years, it was a success. The fact that there was a fundamental failure in the design which caused the thing to fall out of the sky after a few years is completely irrelevant...

    Anything can look good on the outside, until the weak structure beneath comes to the fore. California is a case in point. 2% spending on infrastructure. In the 1960s, it was 20%. What do you suppose is happening to California's water supply and roads? And what will happen to the California economy when the Oroville dam does collapse, or the State runs out of water again? A booming economy is not necessarily a sound economy.


  • Options
    #149
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Any left wing government in South America has to be crushed by the US at all costs. Can't have US citizens seeing a (supposedly) "lesser" country where people have access to healthcare, education and a decent standard of living because they'd then want those things.
    They are always attacked with sanctions, embargoes, sabotage, propaganda and terrorism. Right wing dictators are preferred than elected socialist governments. This stuff about caring for the citizens is demonstrably nonsense.


  • Options
    #150
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,282 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    20Cent wrote: »
    Any left wing government in South America has to be crushed by the US at all costs. Can't have US citizens seeing a (supposedly) "lesser" country where people have access to healthcare, education and a decent standard of living because they'd then want those things.
    They are always attacked with sanctions, embargoes, sabotage, propaganda and terrorism. Right wing dictators are preferred than elected socialist governments. This stuff about caring for the citizens is demonstrably nonsense.

    Living under the illusion that its US interference / sanctions collapsing these left wing regimes is just conspiracy theory level stuff. Often the sanctions don't occur until the people are already starving or a cash strapped nation agrees to allow an enemy of the US to have a military installation there.

    Just get over this idea that its failing because of the US and its about hiding a 'better life' from their citizens.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    Living under the illusion that its US interference / sanctions collapsing these left wing regimes is just conspiracy theory level stuff. Often the sanctions don't occur until the people are already starving or a cash strapped nation agrees to allow an enemy of the US to have a military installation there.

    Just get over this idea that its failing because of the US and its about hiding a 'better life' from their citizens.

    Your reply has zero to do with the points made. Remarkable.


Advertisement