Venezuela - Updated Chronicles in Socialist Success Stories!

[Loren Pechtel]

Unter sure seems to. He seems to be quite willing to cheerlead the creeping totalitarianism in Venezuela. The stifling of opposition voices. The confiscation of property. The locking up of opponents. The violent crack downs on protests. Etc, etc.

In other news, Madutro is ordering supermarkets to install finger print scanners to track what everyone purchases. Ah, the smell of freedom.

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2015/V...shortages/id-1a3481b0c9a44aa48e5d351ef000750b

So Maduro is going to jail somebody for buying sweet potatoes? There may be other reasons for this that are completely legitimate. I am a member of 24Hr. Fitness gym. They use fingerprints for admission to the gym...no ID cards necessary once you are signed up. Not such a bad idea! You are looking at Venezuela from a country that has undergone a lot more modernization than Venezuela. I don't think there is any reason to be afraid of biometrics for ID at the supermarket. This is especially true in a country with far less of these than we have in America. In a society that is attempting to establish socialism long term, such things as tracking the eating habits of the population would be expected. The biometrics could simply be a way to look at individual diets and have nothing evil about it.

But why identify a shopper in the first place?

The only place I've ever been required to prove my identity to purchase a common product is internet cafes in China. That's clearly a freedom issue--they don't want anonymous web access to post inflammatory stuff.

(Note that this is a different issue than paying with credit--a case where you obviously need some evidence of your identity for them to bill you.)

 

[Axulus]

A key part of Venezuela's troubles is a steadfast stubbornness, an inability to acknowledge mistakes and take corrective action, no matter the level of evidence that is brought to bear on their false beliefs. Admitting mistakes is seen as a weakness to the Chavistas, it means that their God is fallible. The parallels to religious fundamentalists are uncanny. If He could be wrong about one thing, what else might He be wrong about?

The entire house of cards is threatened. Rather than acknowledge that the house was built with a shoddy foundation, the Chavistas are going to dig in their heels and drag everyone else down with them as the house inevitably collapses. The folly of man knows no bounds.

Well before Mr. Chávez’s death on March 5, 2013, it became clear that many of his policies needed to be revised or even discarded to set the nation’s economy on the right track, Mr. Álvarez said.

But wary of breaking from his mentor’s course, Mr. Maduro, who repeats Mr. Chávez’s name like a mantra and calls himself the son of Chávez, has doubled down on the same policies, which economists say have contributed to a storm of economic problems, including recession, soaring inflation and chronic shortages of basic goods.

“Maduro has a tragic destiny,” said Alberto Barrera, a newspaper columnist and novelist. He argued that Mr. Maduro has to blame the United States and other enemies for the country’s problems because to do otherwise would recognize that Mr. Chávez’s legacy is flawed.

“Maduro knows that he has to confront a very big crisis, but to accept and recognize the crisis is to recognize that Chávez and the revolution failed,” Mr. Barrera added.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/w...ts-maybe-to-his-detriment-and-venezuelas.html

 

[untermensche]

If only these people so interested in Venezuela had watched the US this closely as bankers destroyed the economy and millions lost their life's savings.

If only they were as interested in the shrinking opportunity in the US this much.

This seems to be nothing but a distraction from the serious and deep flaws in the US system.

 

[dismal]

If only these people so interested in Venezuela had watched the US this closely as bankers destroyed the economy and millions lost their life's savings.

If only they were as interested in the shrinking opportunity in the US this much.

This seems to be nothing but a distraction from the serious and deep flaws in the US system.

I'm told it's possible to have a discussion about the pros and cons of Venezuela's policies without even talking about the US system.

 

[untermensche]

If only these people so interested in Venezuela had watched the US this closely as bankers destroyed the economy and millions lost their life's savings.

If only they were as interested in the shrinking opportunity in the US this much.

This seems to be nothing but a distraction from the serious and deep flaws in the US system.

I'm told it's possible to have a discussion about the pros and cons of Venezuela's policies without even talking about the US system.

Yes, and part of that discussion is the double standard applied to places like Venezuela.

The US can crash and a trillion can vanish in an instant.

But this is nothing, the US system is better than any system where commodity shortages exist from time to time.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The US President just declared sanctions on Venezuela by means of Executive Order. I'm not posting it here because I'm doing it from my cellphone at this time.

Try: whitehouse dot gov.

I agree with what he says about the Maduro government abuses but I do not see how that government is an extraordinary threat to the US.

Apparently, they need to declare it so in order to impose sanctions.
But it seems apparent to me that the declaration will boost the domestic credibility of Maduro's claims that the US is out to get them, and perhaps even help him get away with calling off the elections - which might or might not happen.

If that's the only way they can impose sanctions on some Venezuelan officials, then they should refrain from imposing sanctions. Well, actually, it seems extremely probable that sanctions, on their own, help boost the credibility of Maduro's excuses domestically, so the US should refrain from imposing them anyway.

 

[dismal]

The US President just declared sanctions on Venezuela by means of Executive Order. I'm not posting it here because I'm doing it from my cellphone at this time.

Try: whitehouse dot gov.

I agree with what he says about the Maduro government abuses but I do not see how that government is an extraordinary threat to the US.

Apparently, they need to declare it so in order to impose sanctions.
But it seems apparent to me that the declaration will boost the domestic credibility of Maduro's claims that the US is out to get them, and perhaps even help him get away with calling off the elections - which might or might not happen.

If that's the only way they can impose sanctions on some Venezuelan officials, then they should refrain from imposing sanctions. Well, actually, it seems extremely probable that sanctions, on their own, help boost the credibility of Maduro's excuses domestically, so the US should refrain from imposing them anyway.

Or maybe freezing all their bank accounts will cause the Venezuelan people to wonder why their noble socialist leaders all have big US bank accounts.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Maduro needs the idea the US is out to get him far more than Joe Biden needs anything he's got.

I agree Maduro needs that. And now, the US government obliges by declaring Venezuela a national security threat.
If that's the only way they can impose sanctions on some Venezuelan officials, then they should refrain from imposing sanctions. Well, actually, it seems extremely probable that sanctions help boost the credibility of Maduro's excuses domestically, so the US should refrain from imposing them anyway.

It's even hard to imagine how Joe Biden could screw up Venezuela any worse than Maduro's policies if he wanted to. A good conspiracy theorist might even argue the US sent Maduro in there to fuck up the country as much as possible.

Right, but the US can always cooperate with Maduro, helping him cling to power by - for example - declaring Venezuela a threat to US national security, and imposing sanctions on some Venezuelan officials. If Maduro manages to call off the elections and stay in power (which may or may not happen), part of the blame will lie with the US government, by imposing sanctions.

It kind of reminds me of the Cuban blockade, which rewards the Castro regime.

Or maybe freezing all their bank accounts will cause the Venezuelan people to wonder why their noble socialist leaders all have big US bank accounts.

No, that's almost certainly not going to work. They can simply deny that they had bank accounts in the first place. Why do you suspect they will believe the American government? Sure, some Venezuelans will believe them - those already opposed to Maduro -, but the fact that the US government declares Venezuela a threat to national security is enough to help Maduro come up with excuses for seizing more power. It's a bad idea.

- - - Updated - - -

It's really just a way to penalize a country not friendly to the US for engaging in totalitarian type actions. The targeting of political opposition for arrests and detaining them indefinitely is pretty reprehensible. No, the US obviously isn't consistent - it won't do similar actions if allied countries engage in reprehensible behavior (Saudi Arabia being prime example) - however, there are other geopolitical considerations at play there. When such considerations are absent, why not formally penalize abusers?

Because the formal penalization is a very probably practical reward, probably helping them extend their abuses for longer.

Why shouldn't we steer countries towards policies that bring about prosperity and greater respect for human rights, prosperity that can be used to reduce poverty, etc.? By "steer" I mean provide support and encouragement for countries to embrace them, and make statements and sanctions if they violate human rights. Yes, we absolutely should take a stand for western liberal values and encourage more countries to embrace them. It not only helps them out but it makes the world a safer place.

But that's not what "steer" means.
If by making statements and sanctions if they violate human rights, you increase the probability that oppressive regimes become more oppressive and/or last for longer (e.g., Cuban embargo; declaring Venezuela a national security threat and penalizing some officials), you're not steering them towards the policies in question.

Maduro's government is so weak economically that it might fall anyway, but I reckon its chances of enduring just got a boost by means of both the declaration that it's a national security threat, and the sanctions. Maybe Maduro will call off the elections. Maybe not. But its chances of doing so and getting away with it - or of just concentrating so much power on the Presidency that legislative elections become much less important - just got better.

It seems to me that some people in the American government seriously underestimate the degree of distrust towards the US in much Latin America, and the degree to which many people will rally in support of their government at the faintest hint of a hostile action, or of "interference" in the internal affairs.

Just imagine if the West was too weak and had the same attitudes towards communism (declined to steer countries away from it and/or out of it). The world would be a worse place today with more human misery and suffering.

That depends on the case. If there had been no Cuban embargo, would Cuba still be communist?
One can't be sure. But at least, the Cuban government would not have been able to persuade so many that most of its economic problems were the fault of the US. Maybe they would still be communist in name and politically authoritarian, but at least there would be more economic freedom. Or maybe the regime would have collapsed. Who knows?
In any case, the embargo was - and is - a bad idea (well, maybe a good idea for some politicians who wanted or want votes in Florida, but I mean with respect to the regime), rewarding the regime in practice by means of formally punishing it.

It's really just a way to penalize a country not friendly to the US for engaging in totalitarian type actions. The targeting of political opposition for arrests and detaining them indefinitely is pretty reprehensible. No, the US obviously isn't consistent - it won't do similar actions if allied countries engage in reprehensible behavior (Saudi Arabia being prime example) - however, there are other geopolitical considerations at play there. When such considerations are absent, why not formally penalize abusers?

Because the formal penalization is a very probably practical reward, probably helping them extend their abuses for longer.

Why shouldn't we steer countries towards policies that bring about prosperity and greater respect for human rights, prosperity that can be used to reduce poverty, etc.? By "steer" I mean provide support and encouragement for countries to embrace them, and make statements and sanctions if they violate human rights. Yes, we absolutely should take a stand for western liberal values and encourage more countries to embrace them. It not only helps them out but it makes the world a safer place.

But that's not what "steer" means.
If by making statements and sanctions if they violate human rights, you increase the probability that oppressive regimes become more oppressive and/or last for longer (e.g., Cuban embargo; declaring Venezuela a national security threat and penalizing some officials), you're not steering them towards the policies in question.

Maduro's government is so weak economically that it might fall anyway, but I reckon its chances of enduring just got a boost by means of both the declaration that it's a national security threat, and the sanctions. Maybe Maduro will call off the elections. Maybe not. But its chances of doing so and getting away with it - or of just concentrating so much power on the Presidency that legislative elections become much less important - just got better.

It seems to me that some people in the American government seriously underestimate the degree of distrust towards the US in much Latin America, and the degree to which many people will rally in support of their government at the faintest hint of a hostile action, or of "interference" in the internal affairs.

Just imagine if the West was too weak and had the same attitudes towards communism (declined to steer countries away from it and/or out of it). The world would be a worse place today with more human misery and suffering.

That depends on the case. If there had been no Cuban embargo, would Cuba still be communist?
One can't be sure. But at least, the Cuban government would not have been able to persuade so many that most of its economic problems were the fault of the US. Maybe they would still be communist in name and politically authoritarian, but at least there would be more economic freedom. Or maybe the regime would have collapsed. Who knows?
In any case, the embargo was - and is - a bad idea (well, maybe a good idea for some politicians who wanted or want votes in Florida, but I mean with respect to the regime), rewarding the regime in practice by means of formally punishing it.

 

[Axulus]

Apparently, they need to declare it so in order to impose sanctions.
But it seems apparent to me that the declaration will boost the domestic credibility of Maduro's claims that the US is out to get them, and perhaps even help him get away with calling off the elections - which might or might not happen.

If that's the only way they can impose sanctions on some Venezuelan officials, then they should refrain from imposing sanctions. Well, actually, it seems extremely probable that sanctions, on their own, help boost the credibility of Maduro's excuses domestically, so the US should refrain from imposing them anyway.

Or maybe freezing all their bank accounts will cause the Venezuelan people to wonder why their noble socialist leaders all have big US bank accounts.

Here's a good article that explores the wealth of those who were close to Chavez:

Venezuela Sees Chavez Friends Rich After His Death Amid Poverty

Aug. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Retired Venezuelan Army Captain William Biancucci paces around his sparsely furnished Caracas office, clutching a red, bound copy of Hugo Chavez’s socialist constitution. He’s discussing his plans to buy a private jet to ease travel to and from his cattle ranch in Brazil’s Amazon rain forest. From a sprawling stretch of pastureland, he packs cows by the thousands on ships headed to Venezuela.

Biancucci, 55, who grew up poor, says he won contracts to supply Venezuela with livestock thanks to friendships with military officers now in the government. His voice rises with emotion as he says he’s been a devotee of Chavez since military college, when the late leader was his history professor.

In 1992, Biancucci joined 140 other officers in staging a coup attempt led by Chavez. Although the coup failed, Chavez was elected president six years later -- and Biancucci’s business thrived. Socialism, Biancucci says, is the solution to poverty, Bloomberg Markets magazine will report in its September issue.

Chavez’s socialism, he says, has made him personally rich.

“I’m a socialist, but I love having cash in my hands,” he says, shaking a fist holding an imaginary wad of money. “Socialism is wealth.”
Biancucci is one of a coterie of Venezuelans close to Chavez who acquired wealth during his 14 years in power and under his successor, former bus driver and union leader Nicolas Maduro. The companies of these businessmen have received billions of dollars from the government since Chavez took office in 1999, for food distribution, banking and other activities, according to government records.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...vez-friends-rich-after-his-death-amid-poverty

 

[Axulus]

Angra Mainyu,

You make some good points. I'd say that there is a careful balance that needs to be had and can be had. I oppose trade embargoes and heavy-handed sanctions. I'm fine with locking out corrupt and abusive leaders from moving around their ill-gotten gains in the international finance system. They should be given a hard time for their reprehensible actions and should be denied entry into our country. Beyond that, such as more generalized sanctions, I'm not sure. I'm generally more skeptical of them unless used to deter direct aggressive actions (such as what Russia is doing in Ukraine, or to deter Iran from acquiring nukes).

 

[dismal]

I just don't think it matters very much. Maduro was out there ranting about Joe Biden before these sanctions as it was. If Venezuelans are gullible/stupid enough to believe Joe Biden is more responsible for their problems than Maduro the addition of the sanctions and freezing of the US bank accounts of their leaders is nothing.

 

[Axulus]

I just don't think it matters very much. Maduro was out there ranting about Joe Biden before these sanctions as it was. If Venezuelans are gullible/stupid enough to believe Joe Biden is more responsible for their problems than Maduro the addition of the sanctions and freezing of the US bank accounts of their leaders is nothing.

They were also the ones trying to kick us to the curb, by demanding reductions in our embassy staff and constantly making outlandish claims. They shouldn't expect us to just turn the other cheek. The banking accounts being frozen for these corrupt (mostly former military) leaders is the least they deserve.

 

[ksen]

I just don't think it matters very much. Maduro was out there ranting about Joe Biden before these sanctions as it was. If Venezuelans are gullible/stupid enough to believe Joe Biden is more responsible for their problems than Maduro the addition of the sanctions and freezing of the US bank accounts of their leaders is nothing.

Maybe it matters a little bit. Let's look at two communist countries that have been treated quite differently: China and Cuba.

We relaxed restrictions with China and opened up trade with them. Now they are a much more open society than they were and reforms are ongoing.

With Cuba we kept embargoes in place along with heavy restrictions on trade and tourism. Cuba is still pretty much like it was 50 years ago.

So if you want to influence a country to open up and reform it seems to me liberalizing relationships with them is the way to go . . . unless of course, as axulus points out, that country is a legitimate and direct threat to us.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Axulus,

A problem is that not allowing some Venezuelan officials in the US or freezing some of their accounts may make life harder for some of them, but helps their leader - Maduro - at a domestic level. He's going to say that there are no such accounts; that the officials are being framed by the propaganda of the US government, etc.

A bigger problem is the declaration that Venezuela is a "an unusual and extraordinary threat" to the national security of the US. Even if that declaration was a means of passing the sanctions, that's not how it's going to play in the context of Maduro's claims that the US wants to promote a coup and/or is planning to bomb and/or invade Venezuela. As silly as that sounds, that will - already does - associate Venezuela with countries where the US is using or used military force, in the eyes of many Venezuenals, and many other people in Latin America.

It's already happening. For example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...09ce28-c6e5-11e4-bea5-b893e7ac3fb3_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...f3af6a-c7ff-11e4-bea5-b893e7ac3fb3_story.html

Maduro was probably going to get the extra powers anyway, but now he has an excuse that is much more politically effective.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I just don't think it matters very much. Maduro was out there ranting about Joe Biden before these sanctions as it was. If Venezuelans are gullible/stupid enough to believe Joe Biden is more responsible for their problems than Maduro the addition of the sanctions and freezing of the US bank accounts of their leaders is nothing.

Yes, Biden's claims also helped Maduro. As you know, Maduro needs the confrontation with the US. The more the US responds - or worse, escalates by declaring Venezuela an extraordinary and unusual threat to national security -, the better for Maduro domestically, all other things equal.

 

[dismal]

I just don't think it matters very much. Maduro was out there ranting about Joe Biden before these sanctions as it was. If Venezuelans are gullible/stupid enough to believe Joe Biden is more responsible for their problems than Maduro the addition of the sanctions and freezing of the US bank accounts of their leaders is nothing.

Maybe it matters a little bit. Let's look at two communist countries that have been treated quite differently: China and Cuba.

We relaxed restrictions with China and opened up trade with them. Now they are a much more open society than they were and reforms are ongoing.

With Cuba we kept embargoes in place along with heavy restrictions on trade and tourism. Cuba is still pretty much like it was 50 years ago.

So if you want to influence a country to open up and reform it seems to me liberalizing relationships with them is the way to go . . . unless of course, as axulus points out, that country is a legitimate and direct threat to us.

We had bad relations with Cuba because Cuba wanted to have bad relations with us. Cuba can't acknowledge trade (aka Capitalism!!!!) with bougie imperialists is what it needs for its economy to work. This concept of free trade leading to prosperity and peace is found in reality, but is not found in the Marxist-Leninist literature.

And we will have bad relations with Venezuela as long as they are run by this clown who needs Joe Biden to be the devil upon which to blame all the problems he has created with his policies.

Neither of these countries mean a shit to us. At least not since the cold war ended. Having us to blame their problems on means a lot to them.

 

[ksen]

Venezuelan leaders need US opposition to help solidify their position. ISIS leaders need US opposition to solidify their positions. And the republicans are always very happy to give them what they want.

Why is that?

 

[ksen]

We had bad relations with Cuba because Cuba wanted to have bad relations with us. Cuba can't acknowledge trade (aka Capitalism!!!!) with bougie imperialists is what it needs for its economy to work. This concept of free trade leading to prosperity and peace is found in reality, but is not found in the Marxist-Leninist literature.

And yet Cuba trades with the rest of the entire world with no problem. So apparently the concept of "trade" isn't that lost on the Cuban leadership.

And we will have bad relations with Venezuela as long as they are run by this clown who needs Joe Biden to be the devil upon which to blame all the problems he has created with his policies.

Neither of these countries mean a shit to us. At least not since the cold war ended. Having us to blame their problems on means a lot to them.

Sure, but that's no reason our politicians should help them foster the notion the US is against them thus helping them unite domestic base.

 

[dismal]

I just don't think it matters very much. Maduro was out there ranting about Joe Biden before these sanctions as it was. If Venezuelans are gullible/stupid enough to believe Joe Biden is more responsible for their problems than Maduro the addition of the sanctions and freezing of the US bank accounts of their leaders is nothing.

Yes, Biden's claims also helped Maduro. As you know, Maduro needs the confrontation with the US. The more the US responds - or worse, escalates by declaring Venezuela an extraordinary and unusual threat to national security -, the better for Maduro domestically, all other things equal.

This is not a confrontation. And Maduro has no particular need of a *real* confrontation, he's happy to make them up.

Obama deserves credit for not playing along. Maybe Maduro and his cadre will realize there are consequences to their clownish attempt to blame the US for everything they do to screw up their own country.

 

[dismal]

And yet Cuba trades with the rest of the entire world with no problem. So apparently the concept of "trade" isn't that lost on the Cuban leadership.

And we will have bad relations with Venezuela as long as they are run by this clown who needs Joe Biden to be the devil upon which to blame all the problems he has created with his policies.

Neither of these countries mean a shit to us. At least not since the cold war ended. Having us to blame their problems on means a lot to them.

Sure, but that's no reason our politicians should help them foster the notion the US is against them thus helping them unite domestic base.

Our politicians should not allow themselves to be kicked in the balls because they are afraid Maduro is going to use it against them if they object.

They should treat Maduro like the clown he is, and hope the people in his own country are smart enough to toss the clown out. I think it's getting to the point where only the most stupid and gullible support Maduro.

Unfortunately he has all the lawyers, guns and money so it does not appear to matter much what the Venezuela people think.