It is a mistake for the US to try to overthrow the democratic government in Venezuela.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carlosgonzalez/venezuela-international-left_b_4844724.html

Venezuela and the Hypocrisy of the International Left (see: glynch)

As students and the middle class protest for almost two weeks in the streets of Venezuela, the international left remain silent. Why is this wide swath of Venezuelan society protesting? Because of meddling from the United States in preparation of a fascist coup, says Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Certainly lines borrowed from the Cuban/Soviet handbook.

Venezuelans are protesting because of 56 percent inflation, one of the highest in the world. Venezuelans are protesting because they have one of the highest murder rates in the world, 25,000 violent deaths last year, one person killed every twenty minutes. The murder rate in Caracas is 122 per 100,000, numbers not seen in war zones. They are in the streets because they don't have basic necessities such as bread, meat, toilet paper, electricity... the list is long.

Take former London Mayor Ken Livingston, a long time supporter of the Bolivarian Revolution. Would he violently repress London residents if they were out in the streets protesting a murder rate higher than Baghdad's such as Caracas'? I don't think so, he would be forced to resign.

Or Sean Penn and Oliver Stone, also admirers of the "pretty revolution" as Chávez used to call it. What would they do if President Obama shut down newspapers, TV stations, and jailed those that opposed his views, just as President Maduro has done? I think they would call on people in the United States to take to the streets and protest just as Venezuelans have done.

The Venezuelan government has closed television stations critical of the government. It is denying opposition newspapers foreign currency in order to purchase printing paper, some have closed and others can only publish slimmed down dailies. Colombian news station NTN24 was taken off the air by the government for their extensive coverage of the protests, and four CNN reporters in Venezuela had their credentials revoked. Are these the actions of a legitimate democracy?

Supporters of the Venezuelan government argue that President Maduro was democratically elected. Yes, technically he was. But were those fair elections? As those that follow Venezuela closely know, the PSUV -- the government ruling party -- uses tax payer's money to fund their campaigns, where as the opposition has to rely on legal fundraising to a huge disadvantage.

Let's not forget the "Tascón List" effect. In the 2004 recall referendum, Luis Tascón, a member of Chávez's ruling party, published a list online of all those that voted to recall Chávez. Those that worked government jobs were summarily fired and lost their livelihood for exercising a democratic right, so much for a secret vote. To this day, and before each election, government workers are advised to vote for the ruling party or otherwise face losing their jobs.

Human Rights Watched has denounced, "the accumulation of power in the executive branch and the erosion of human rights guarantees have enabled the government to intimidate, censor, and prosecute its critics." As James Bloodworth points out in his brilliant article in The Independent, "In Britain there is an ongoing debate over the use of water cannons which the home secretary wants the police to have the power to deploy during unrest. The British left is in principle opposed to water cannons, as any civilised person should be. However I have just watched a video of Venezuelan protesters being water-cannoned and I have heard not a word of condemnation from the people who will be writing angry letters to the New Statesman if the same weapon is deployed on British streets. Why the double standard?" Mr. Livingston, can you please explain?

Those on the international left that applaud the reduction of poverty in Venezuela, fail to see that more advances have been made in other Latin American countries without the huge oil wealth that Venezuela possesses, and without eroding democratic principles. True social justice cannot exist outside a fully functioning democracy.

It's time for those us on the left to stop defending the undefendable, to denounce the repressive actions of a government shooting at it's own citizens for demanding a true democracy and a better life. Socialism without democracy is simply a dictatorship.

President Maduro keeps calling the students and the middle class that are protesting on the streets fascists, perhaps he should look in the mirror.

Webster Dictionary:

fas•cism noun \'fa-shi-zem also 'fa-,si-\

: a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator
controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to
disagree with the government.

: very harsh control or authority.

 

Well first, let me say that I try to maintain a healthy amount of skepticism. I do like the Economist a lot, but on a daily basis, I also read the BBC, WaPo, NYT, LAT, and the Chron (for the Rockets!). When something happens internationally, I scour the web for domestic sources, to get an "on the ground" perspective (as much as possible).

I assume you mean Iraq War #2. As I recall, there was very little dissent in the media, by members of Congress, etc. We were up in arms (literally) about 9/11, and Pres. Bush was popular.

I guess I'm saying that I agree we should be skeptical, and not blindly believe what we read. I find your rip on the Economist (as nothing more than a big-oil rag, I think you implied) to be over the top, but I will note that that magazine also supported Iraq War #2 (it has since retracted, and said that it was misinformation would led to that position).

 

Oh, are we supposed to send troops in there? It seems like the people took care of themselves in the Ukraine and hopefully the same happens in Venezuela. Amazing what happens when we don't meddle.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ream-has-turned-into-a-nightmare-9138930.html

The left has a blind spot on Venezuela. When will it acknowledge that Chavez's socialist dream has turned into a nightmare?
Students are protesting against crime and government repression



There was a time when the so-called Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela appeared to hold great promise. I remember watching The Revolution Will Not Be Televised back in 2003 and being mesmerised by what I saw: here was a government spending the country’s oil wealth on social programmes for the poor and giving the rich a kicking in one of the most unequal societies in the Western Hemisphere.
The attempted military coup against president Hugo Chavez in 2002 seemed to make things clearer still. Chavez had threatened the profits of American oil companies; and as anyone familiar with Latin American politics will attest, those who do such things are rarely left in power for long.

Looking back, I have no trouble remembering which side I was on.

More than a decade on, however, the picture is far less encouraging. The status quo is now an ostensibly socialist one, and repression is being meted out by those with clinging to increasingly flimsy claim to represent 'el pueblo'.

In recent weeks students have taken to the streets in the capital Caracas to protest at the rising cost of living, rampant crime and government repression. And there is a great deal to be angry about if you are Venezuelan. Inflation has rocketed to more than 55 per cent, there are widespread blackouts and the staples of life are increasingly scarce. This, despite the fact that Venezuela is the most oil-rich country in the world. Crime is so rife in the big cities that many vulnerable Venezuelans are reluctant even to venture outside anymore. The murder rate in Caracas is 122 per 100,000 residents - higher even than Baghdad (as a Cuban friend of mine quipped last year, at least proper dictators like Fidel Castro keep the streets safe).

The response by the authorities to the protests has merely highlighted once again the government's unwillingness to tolerate dissent. Leopoldo Lopez, a former mayor and one of the protest organisers, has had an arrest warrant issued against him and videos have emerged of students being pistol whipped and kicked by armed policeman. As if taking its cue straight from the Soviet playbook, the government has blamed a “fascist upsuge” for the violence and “saboteurs” for the disintegration of the economy.

It may be true, as supporters of the Venezuelan government are fond of pointing out, that both Hugo Chavez and his successor Nicholas Maduro have been ‘democratically elected'. If one takes the view that democracy is defined simply as what happens on polling day, then the Venezuelan electoral system is arguably, as former US President Jimmy Carter described it, “the best in the world”. But as any honest person will tell you, democracy is as much about what happens in between elections as what occurs on polling day; and you don’t need to be shoved into a voting booth at the barrel of a gun to be living under tyranny.

In its 2012 report, Amnesty International said that “Human rights defenders [in Venezuela] were threatened and politically motivated charges continued to be used against government critics”. According to Human Rights Watch, “the accumulation of power in the executive branch and the erosion of human rights guarantees have enabled the government to intimidate, censor, and prosecute its critics”. In Britain there is an ongoing debate over the use of water cannons which the home secretary wants the police to have the power to deploy during unrest. The British left is in principle opposed to water cannons, as any civilised person should be. However I have just watched a video of Venezuelan protesters being water-cannoned and I have heard not a word of condemnation from the people who will be writing angry letters to the New Statesman if the same weapon is deployed on British streets. Why the double standard?

Unfortunately, supporters of the Chavez/Maduro government appear to be marooned in 2002, when a right-wing coup temporarily overthrew the then president Hugo Chavez. They are still of the belief that the media in Venezuela is overwhelmingly right wing and that the government is surrounded by hostile forces seeking to undermine the socialist revolution. In reality, it is the Venezuela state which is now the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity. In 2013 the last remaining independent television station in Venezuela was sold to an ally of the president and the government now has foreign news broadcasters and Twitter in its sights, pulling a Colombian news channel NTN24 off the air last week because it was providing too much coverage of the student protests. Maduro, who doesn’t appear to be particularly bright, has absurdly asked authorities to investigate the disappearance of 6,000 of his 1.4 million Twitter followers, branding it a “massive attack” by the “international right wing”.

Anyone who is genuinely concerned about the poor (rather than simply interested in sloganeering on their behalf) is obliged to recognise just how bad the situation in Venezuela is becoming as a result of the policies pursued by the government. Venezuela has one of the world’s “highest inflation rates, worst misalignment of the exchange rate, fastest-growing debts and one of the most precipitous drops in productive capacity”, as the former Venezuelan minister Moisés Naím put it.

As for poverty reduction, despite the plaudits lavished on the country by its Western cheerleaders, many of Venezuela’s neighbours have made a better fist of dragging their poorest citizens out of the gutter than the so-called ‘Bolivarian Revolution’. Between 2007 and 2011 there was a reduction in extreme poverty in Venezuela by some 38 per cent. Impressive no doubt. But the percentage of people who escaped extreme poverty in Brazil during the same period was 44 per cent, in Peru 41 per cent and in Uruguay 63 per cent. None of these countries possess anything like Venezuela’s vast oil wealth, yet all managed to lift their poorest citizens out of penury without the human rights abuses which have characterised the governments of Chavez and Maduro. Boring social democracy may be less romantic, but it has been far more successful at tackling poverty than the Chavez/Maduro model.

For those of us who do not have to put up with shortages, blackouts or arbitrary arrest, perhaps the worst part of the continued support offered to Maduro by many leftists is the ammunition it serves on a platter to the right. When it comes to the pinch, socialists will always sacrifice liberty for the ostensible promise of greater equality, these right wingers will say. While so many 'progressives' are happy to turn a blind eye to the abuses of the Venezuelan government, it is hard to disagree with them.

 

I quoted two left-wing publications denouncing what is going on in Venezuela. I am 100 % sure that glynch and some others will still keep denying the obvious facts. It's scary to see how some people support things they would normally be outraged about, just because of political affiliation. People like that aren't any better than the ones they think they can morally look down upon. glynch is a dangerous fanatic, who, if in power, would probably do the same things the Venezuelan government is doing. This assumption is supported by his posts here, in which he keeps defending their indefensible actions, just because he is a left-wing fanatic.

Fortunately, there are people like Deckard, who, although politically leaning to the left, are not blind and look at the facts.

 

I gave this post a little more thought. First, yes, let's agree to disagree, and we can discuss like adults.

As sincere as possible, and with zero offense intended, how would you propose that someone debate/discuss an issue with you? If you claim that all sources with an opposing viewpoint (in this case, that Venezuela's government is anti-democratic, devastating their economy, etc.) are pawns of the rich/business/whomever, and since none of us has a firsthand perspective, doesn't discussion have to end there? Even if someone here was on the ground in Venezuela and shares the view that Maduro is terrible, would you dismiss this person's view as one of many, that this person is a pawn, etc.? Ask yourself honestly.

Would the only recourse for someone discussing an issue with you, be to find a left-leaning, "liberal" source that denounces Chavez and Maduro? Is that the ONLY way you might give the issue some serious thought?

 

Ideological blinders.

 

Now, there's a term that would describe this sub-forum perfectly...

 

Pathetic left-wing economics for all to see, folks.

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>I've left Venezuela after receiving thousands of death threats. My friends are now being targeted as well.</p>&mdash; Tim Pool (@Timcast) <a href="https://twitter.com/Timcast/statuses/437397928651784192">February 23, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>I've been receiving veiled threats and accusations for a few days now. My friend had his social media hacked, is receiving death threats.</p>&mdash; Tim Pool (@Timcast) <a href="https://twitter.com/Timcast/statuses/437398953014083584">February 23, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I'm sure there's a perfectly good explanation for this treatment of foreign journalists. Maybe Vice is like some magazine that is totally invested in the Venezuelan Elites taking control of the country.

 

I am a bit worried about glynch's mental health.