Attempted coup d' etat underway in Venezuela.

[MisterBeale]

Either way, I don't think it matters much.

The point is, the U.S. needs to stay out of Venezuelan affairs.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Given the vote was almost evenly split 50/50,
The best way to represent all the people of Venezuela would be to share the representation proportionally:
let all parties represent their interests and platforms through the leadership of their choice,
then form a coalition with the top two leaders to accommodate all parties equally so all people are included.

Either you didn't notice that all candidates you cited were from left wing socialist parties (with the possible exception of New Vision) or you are a lying propagandist.
Which is it, shill?

I read that Tulsi Gabbard and other Democrats have broken from their official party stance,
so instead of aligning with Trump, they are asking to recognize the democratically elected leadership.

Was Maduro elected democratically and fairly? It doesn't look that way.

 

[emilynghiem]

Venezuela has a population of over 31 million.

How many fled recently?

As many as possibly could go. But that's not supposed to matter according to the dictator's quislings.

He isn't a dictator. He was elected. Maybe if they were allowed to trade and were not under a siege, they could feed their people.

His election was illegitimate. Stop sucking Maduro's dick so hard.

Dear MisterBeale Eric Arthur Blair
If we are not going to interject any political bias from outside
into this country's democratic process, then we should be neutral on both counts.

View attachment 260857
Given the vote was almost evenly split 50/50,
The best way to represent all the people of Venezuela would be to share the representation proportionally:
let all parties represent their interests and platforms through the leadership of their choice,
then form a coalition with the top two leaders to accommodate all parties equally so all people are included.

I read that Tulsi Gabbard and other Democrats have broken from their official party stance,
so instead of aligning with Trump, they are asking to recognize the democratically elected leadership.

Why not allow both to choose the leader that represents their beliefs, similar to having
both Protestant and Catholic churches lead their own people at the same time without conflict or domination of one over the other?

We could learn how to manage both major parties in our own country facing similar strife.

If the US is pushing a third party candidate to lead the government, why not make that a neutral facilitator
who brings in the other leaders and parties to form policies together.

People will quit fighting when they know they can be heard, included and represented by their own party and candidates of choice
without having to fight. So if people are still fighting, that means we haven't set this up properly (as churches no longer go to
war but have equal freedom to elect and manage their own administrations for their own followers. why not with parties?)

You have the wrong election.

. . . and Wiki uses Reuters, so that doesn't get us anywhere. Reuters pushes the Anglo-American Empire.

Thank you MisterBeale
I corrected this oversight by adding the 2018 election poll results at the top
so this can still be compared with the 2013 election polls that show the Democratic Unity party sharing about half the votes.

This shows that the party that normally represents half the nation
refused to participate and that's why their numbers weren't counted.

The reason for boycotting the election is the most revealing, so thank you for bringing this to my attention indirectly.

The opposing parties used this election to protest the skewed set up where it was not following democratic process.

I agree with you that no country including the US should inject our own opinion of how to fix this for other countries.
However, given that the other parties ARE calling for international support for oversight to help expose and correct it,
we do owe it to our fellow human beings who are calling to defend due process and equal civil and human rights.

We should support a democratic redress of grievances since they have called for help on a world stage.

I believe a side benefit of offering assistance would that it will also help America find more civil and neutral,
less biased ways, of protesting unequal representation in our country and political process as well.

If we can help facilitate a NEUTRAL platform and environment for all the parties in Venezuela to unite
in representing diversity of beliefs creed and interests among them, even conflicting factions of their own populations without discriminating against any of these groups to dominate over others, then we can learn how to master the same for the US that
has increasingly diverse and vocal factions all wanting representation and protection of our interests as well.

We all need to learn from this how to manage diversity of political beliefs democratically through govt,
as the churches have done managing different religious beliefs through independent administrations and programs.

From looking at the current backgrounds of the candidates running for President,
my guess is that Trump and Cortez should work together to arrange ways to accommodate them equally,
Gabbard could work with Ron Paul and Ralph Nader bringing together Libertarians and Progressives
including Sanders on cooperative approaches to economic and health care reforms,
while leaders such as Clinton and Beto could head up their own townships along the border
to prove their leadership skills in managing campus towns to accommodate workers and families
caught up in the border crisis. Clinton and Beto seem to have the personality types where they have to lead and be in charge.

Trump and Cortez are like huge mouthpieces for others to follow,
but depend on the good ideas and solutions of others to cheerlead behind,
and don't really lead these directly as Clinton and Beto can draw followers to work for them and build under their administration.

Gabbard seems more of a neutral facilitator type who can organize a system
by which all other parties and voices feel safe to participate and represent themselves.

The other candidates don't seem to have that, but tend to take a hard stance and reject and push others away who disagree.

If even these few leaders I list above, come together and bring their followers into a coalition effort,
the solutions they would come up with would create jobs for all the leadership styles represented,
and allow people of all parties to participate and replicate this coalition model regardless of creeds and beliefs by party.

Together they could pull it off. But fighting against each other as with Venezuela it tears the country apart.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

My apologies for the rudneness of post #462, Emily Nghiem. My edit function has gone haywire.and I didn't mean to address you in such a way.

 

[emilynghiem]

Given the vote was almost evenly split 50/50,
The best way to represent all the people of Venezuela would be to share the representation proportionally:
let all parties represent their interests and platforms through the leadership of their choice,
then form a coalition with the top two leaders to accommodate all parties equally so all people are included.

Either you didn't notice that all candidates you cited were from left wing socialist parties (with the possible exception of New Vision) or you are a lying propagandist.
Which is it, shill?

I read that Tulsi Gabbard and other Democrats have broken from their official party stance,
so instead of aligning with Trump, they are asking to recognize the democratically elected leadership.

Was Maduro elected democratically and fairly? It doesn't look that way.

Thank you Eric Arthur Blair for your additional correction.
Yes I went back and added the recent election results from 2018
that actually state the reasons certain parties did not show up in the polls.
So this confirms what you are saying that this election wasn't set up
to follow democratic due process.

However I do agree with MisterBeale and Tulsi Gabbard and others protesting
the WAY the US is intervening in trying to control the process or outcome by external bias and force.

The CORRECT way to help Venezuela to resolve this crisis would be to open up
the process for ALL the parties to have equal and safe representation. Anyone
who cannot participate civilly would be separated and worked with on the side until they can contribute safely
without coercion to dominate or exclude others. The country does need an intervention
but it should be done civilly not jumping in with military backing to fight physically for one side over others.

From my experience with conflict resolution in deadlock situations,
if you pick the right leaders and neutral parties, they DIFFUSE the fear and fight for power.

You don't escalate this by picking people or approaches that make people panic and fight more.

I would compare it to the negotiators who come in and talk REASON with the hostile militants
instead of enticing them to blow everyone up rather than compromise.

I don't think it's too late for diplomatic intervention and solutions.

I would agree with Trump and GOP once it escalates too far, and people are using deadly force,
then of course, military defense is required to even go into that situation to untangle the mess.

Trump should know that ego is involved. You can't attack someone's ego and expect them
to agree to work with you. Trump doesn't even respond to that, and nobody I know does.
That's where he went too far with North Korea, you don't insult the person you want to work with!

You address the problem, not attack the people or their leadership.
You include all the people in solving their own problems, and honor their commitment to this end.

If it's beyond the point of diplomatic inclusion as progressive advocates of peace and justice like me prefer,
then of course I understand that equal force is necessary to stop a bully using military force.

However, the MOTIVATION should be made clear first, to seek to unify and include,
not dismiss and exclude the leadership that still represents a strong portion of the population.

You don't want to make a war worse, you want to make it clear the support is for all people not just the "other side."

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I have no doubt the CIA and other clandestine agencies are behind the coup taking place in Venezuela. ...

Meh. I heard it was the planters peanut guy.

 

[MisterBeale]

As many as possibly could go. But that's not supposed to matter according to the dictator's quislings.

He isn't a dictator. He was elected. Maybe if they were allowed to trade and were not under a siege, they could feed their people.

His election was illegitimate. Stop sucking Maduro's dick so hard.

Dear MisterBeale Eric Arthur Blair
If we are not going to interject any political bias from outside
into this country's democratic process, then we should be neutral on both counts.

View attachment 260857
Given the vote was almost evenly split 50/50,
The best way to represent all the people of Venezuela would be to share the representation proportionally:
let all parties represent their interests and platforms through the leadership of their choice,
then form a coalition with the top two leaders to accommodate all parties equally so all people are included.

I read that Tulsi Gabbard and other Democrats have broken from their official party stance,
so instead of aligning with Trump, they are asking to recognize the democratically elected leadership.

Why not allow both to choose the leader that represents their beliefs, similar to having
both Protestant and Catholic churches lead their own people at the same time without conflict or domination of one over the other?

We could learn how to manage both major parties in our own country facing similar strife.

If the US is pushing a third party candidate to lead the government, why not make that a neutral facilitator
who brings in the other leaders and parties to form policies together.

People will quit fighting when they know they can be heard, included and represented by their own party and candidates of choice
without having to fight. So if people are still fighting, that means we haven't set this up properly (as churches no longer go to
war but have equal freedom to elect and manage their own administrations for their own followers. why not with parties?)

You have the wrong election.

. . . and Wiki uses Reuters, so that doesn't get us anywhere. Reuters pushes the Anglo-American Empire.

Thank you MisterBeale
I corrected this oversight by adding the 2018 election poll results at the top
so this can still be compared with the 2013 election polls that show the Democratic Unity party sharing about half the votes.

This shows that the party that normally represents half the nation
refused to participate and that's why their numbers weren't counted.

The reason for boycotting the election is the most revealing, so thank you for bringing this to my attention indirectly.

The opposing parties used this election to protest the skewed set up where it was not following democratic process.

I agree with you that no country including the US should inject our own opinion of how to fix this for other countries.
However, given that the other parties ARE calling for international support for oversight to help expose and correct it,
we do owe it to our fellow human beings who are calling to defend due process and equal civil and human rights.

We should support a democratic redress of grievances since they have called for help on a world stage.

I believe a side benefit of offering assistance would that it will also help America find more civil and neutral,
less biased ways, of protesting unequal representation in our country and political process as well.

If we can help facilitate a NEUTRAL platform and environment for all the parties in Venezuela to unite
in representing diversity of beliefs creed and interests among them, even conflicting factions of their own populations without discriminating against any of these groups to dominate over others, then we can learn how to master the same for the US that
has increasingly diverse and vocal factions all wanting representation and protection of our interests as well.

We all need to learn from this how to manage diversity of political beliefs democratically through govt,
as the churches have done managing different religious beliefs through independent administrations and programs.

From looking at the current backgrounds of the candidates running for President,
my guess is that Trump and Cortez should work together to arrange ways to accommodate them equally,
Gabbard could work with Ron Paul and Ralph Nader bringing together Libertarians and Progressives
including Sanders on cooperative approaches to economic and health care reforms,
while leaders such as Clinton and Beto could head up their own townships along the border
to prove their leadership skills in managing campus towns to accommodate workers and families
caught up in the border crisis. Clinton and Beto seem to have the personality types where they have to lead and be in charge.

Trump and Cortez are like huge mouthpieces for others to follow,
but depend on the good ideas and solutions of others to cheerlead behind,
and don't really lead these directly as Clinton and Beto can draw followers to work for them and build under their administration.

Gabbard seems more of a neutral facilitator type who can organize a system
by which all other parties and voices feel safe to participate and represent themselves.

The other candidates don't seem to have that, but tend to take a hard stance and reject and push others away who disagree.

If even these few leaders I list above, come together and bring their followers into a coalition effort,
the solutions they would come up with would create jobs for all the leadership styles represented,
and allow people of all parties to participate and replicate this coalition model regardless of creeds and beliefs by party.

Together they could pull it off. But fighting against each other as with Venezuela it tears the country apart.

I completely agree. We should help promote free and fair elections if the current regime wants to appear to have them. I am not sure that is the case.

In this, I would agree with Eric. OTH, going so far as to declare Maduro a "brutal dictator" because he will not allow a pawn of the corportatists or the CIA to take over?

As we saw in all of the previous posts by Eric, he supports this guy Guaido as president? Someone whom none of the Venezuelan people voted for as president. He didn't get any votes as president, and the U.S. certainly should not be throwing support behind him as president, that is even MORE antidemocratic than supporting the current president. It would be like declaring Ted Cruz President because the Democrats didn't think the election was fair. Ted Cruz would NOT be an adequate representation for all of America just because an election is in question. That is NOT an acceptable solution.

If one really wants to understand what is going on in Venezuela and why the current regime is so suspicious of the global corporatists, one needs to understand how outside forces had previously attempted to subvert the will of the sovereign people of Venezuela, even going so far as kidnapping Chavez, and having multiple attempts on his life.

Chavez for years allowed a free press owned by global corporations which did great harm to the masses, and they fought his programs, they treated him much the way the current national media treats Trump.

Now, it is my belief that Maduro feels all that progress is threatened so he takes what in reality amounts to undemocratic moves to "protect the revolution." Nothing could be further from the reality. He is an awful politician and an awful leader. However, this is none of our business, and it certainly does not justify sanctions, because we do not condone the choice of the Venezuelan people.

If the Chavistas would agree to our conditions for free and fair elections along with other international observers, with the Russians and Chinese, and if these conditions were laid out in writing, with poll watchers of all nations, with the promise of normalization of trade and having assets unfrozen as a carrot to abide by this compromise, I think a solution could be reached.

But here is the problem Emily. The folks that the MSM, the CFR propagandists, that have always told the story that Eric and others are believing in this thread want to tell us wouldn't want that. So I don't think the U.S. would have any interest in such a solution.

WHY? Because they know who the Venezuelan people will vote for. They might have lost faith in Maduro in particular, but they HAVE NOT lost faith in Cavesista politics. And for Americans like Eric, letting the Venezuelans have the sovereign ability to choose their own destiny, even if it means socialism, is intolerable as long as they are sitting on, what he believes, is our oil.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Thank you Eric Arthur Blair for your additional correction.
Yes I went back and added the recent election results from 2018
that actually state the reasons certain parties did not show up in the polls.
So this confirms what you are saying that this election wasn't set up
to follow democratic due process.

Yes. The idea that dictator Maduro won a fair and square election is nonsense and the people peddling that idea are disingenuous at best.

However I do agree with MisterBeale and Tulsi Gabbard and others protesting
the WAY the US is intervening in trying to control the process or outcome by external bias and force.

Here I do not agree. The U.S. has agreed with the rest of the developed world (save for China and Russia) that Maduro must step down and stop abusing the people of Venezuela.
Trump has sent tons of humanitarian aid which, as far as I can tell, has not gotten to the people, thanks to Maduro once more.

Sanctions and political pressure are proper means by which we compel dictators to leave and if not for Russia, Maduro would be gone by now. The suffering in Venezuela is great and I'm wondering when the UN might feel like they should step in though I can't help but ask does the leadership there have the guts to stand up to a socialist head of state? I doubt it.

 

[caddo kid]

this coup has to be the LONGEST COUP IN HISTORY

I guess the Venezuelan people are on the fence ..............

Just as long as Trump, Pompeo, and Bolton keep their snotty noses outta Venezuela's business they should be just fine.

Maybe when they get this all figured out Trump could fly down there and toss the Venezuelans some paper towels.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

As we saw in all of the previous posts by Eric, he supports this guy Guaido as president? Someone whom none of the Venezuelan people voted for as president. He didn't get any votes as president, and the U.S. certainly should not be throwing support behind him as president, that is even MORE antidemocratic than supporting the current president. It would be like declaring Ted Cruz President because the Democrats didn't think the election was fair. Ted Cruz would NOT be an adequate representation for all of America just because an election is in question. That is NOT an acceptable solution.

I support Guidado as an interim president because of the chaos in Venezuela and because so many citizens of the nation have fled the country ( likely because they are opposed to Maduro).
He is in Colombia right now, news reports say, and he has the trust and support of the EU and the US, Canada, Australia, etc.
I agree elections once Venezuela is restored to sanity would be the proper course, whenever that might be.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thank you Eric Arthur Blair for your additional correction.
Yes I went back and added the recent election results from 2018
that actually state the reasons certain parties did not show up in the polls.
So this confirms what you are saying that this election wasn't set up
to follow democratic due process.

Yes. The idea that dictator Maduro won a fair and square election is nonsense and the people peddling that idea are disingenuous at best.

However I do agree with MisterBeale and Tulsi Gabbard and others protesting
the WAY the US is intervening in trying to control the process or outcome by external bias and force.

Here I do not agree. The U.S. has agreed with the rest of the developed world (save for China and Russia) that Maduro must step down and stop abusing the people of Venezuela.
Trump has sent tons of humanitarian aid which, as far as I can tell, has not gotten to the people, thanks to Maduro once more.

Sanctions and political pressure are proper means by which we compel dictators to leave and if not for Russia, Maduro would be gone by now. The suffering in Venezuela is great and I'm wondering when the UN might feel like they should step in though I can't help but ask does the leadership there have the guts to stand up to a socialist head of state? I doubt it.

From what I learned about the Iraqi Sanctions, this approach
still hurts the people used as collective collateral damage for political pressure.
(The Iraqi Sanctions were so devastating, the losses of life were worse than the war.
5000 infants and children were reported dying per month from Sanctions, though this
number was underreported because infants were harder to verify and count. Source for
this was the Iraqi Notebook, Houston Peace News, that compiled reports from other sources)

To prevent from having to resort to such extreme measures that harm the very people intended to defend, what countries need to do when their population grows this diverse in political groupings is form coalitions similar to the Congress having reps from STATES but have reps from PARTIES. The same way we don't need states fighting each other, we don't need parties causing civil wars. So why not have a union of sovereign parties governing their own members the way we recognize sovereign states under a unified national govt at the same time?

Then these parties can have facilitation and assistance with conflict resolution so these groups can address and mediate conflicts, either agreeing to resolve or to separate on issues they cannot settle otherwise. If we have such structures in place, then BEFORE conflict escalates into coercion, abuse and war, then additional help can be brought in to consult with the reps that are established already and try to salvage the diplomatic process BEFORE it escalates beyond the point of no return. This would preserve their leadership without threat, by MEDIATION which protects the rights and interests of parties in representing and forming their own solution. NOT IMPOSING by one group over others, or by outside influence or coercion.

But we'd have to set up a recognized party representation BEFORE that, not wait until it goes too far,
and then scramble to find which people or parties represent which groups. Under pressure, that
process never works but people compromise for expedience
and don't find the right leaders who could have untangled the messes.

America could also use our current party system to set up reps per District by party
to participate in conflict resolution and proposing position statements to Congress.

Why wait until elections to fight it out. Why not have a regular process for redressing
grievances and solving conflicts directly between opposing factions and parties we already know exist?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

From what I learned about the Iraqi Sanctions, this approach
still hurts the people used as collective collateral damage for political pressure.

The argument against sanctions is like the argument against God: I agree the idea of God is somewhat absurd but the alternative...a universe that just somehow happens to exist is even more absurd.

That is...sanctions are painful but leaving Maduro untouched, and with Putin's backing, may be even more painful and certainly more long lasting for the people of Venezuela.

A brief military action by a coalition led military force might be the best option if the fighting were surgically applied but
most people oppose the idea so for the people of Venezuela the choice might be dying a long painful death or perhaps a quick short one. Tragic but there are no good options when a butcher seizes power.

 

[emilynghiem]

From what I learned about the Iraqi Sanctions, this approach
still hurts the people used as collective collateral damage for political pressure.

The argument against sanctions is like the argument against God: I agree the idea of God is somewhat absurd but the alternative...a universe that just somehow happens to exist is even more absurd.

That is...sanctions are painful but leaving Maduro untouched, and with Putin's backing, may be even more painful and certainly more long lasting for the people of Venezuela.

A brief military action by a coalition led military force might be the best option if the fighting were surgically applied but
most people oppose the idea so for the people of Venezuela the choice might be dying a long painful death or perhaps a quick short one. Tragic but there are no good options when a butcher seizes power.

Dear Eric Arthur Blair
Yes and no. There are time such as in military tactics,
soldiers such as Chris Kyle end up having to shoot children used to kill more people.

We would all agree the ideal is to prevent from having to go that far in the first place.

Sure more people would die if we don't take action.
But we still should seek to prevent people from dying at all if we took action sooner
in more effective ways than having to resort to sanctions against such a corrupt
govt that it is going to kill its own people.

This is like negotiating with terrorists or kidnappers trying not to lose hostages.
We don't want to win at the expense of too many hostages dying to win that standoff.

What Betty Williams lobbied for as a Nobel Laureate from Ireland,
is to set up safe havens for moving women, children and civilians out of the way
before you resort to wars between the military personnel agreeing to engage in battles.

The equivalent with sanctions is to set up safe outlets for the populations to
receive aid, while negotiations are made with the corrupt group being targeted.
And don't mix the collective population with the bad guys any more than
police should be shooting the hostages to get to the bank robbers.

The beauty of this solution is by the time we organize that well,
we should prevent and solve the problem of corruption that hides behind people in mass.

We set up transparency that would prevent sanctions.
and this means we set up transparency that prevents abuse, corruption and war from escalating to that point in the first place.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Maduro has blocked all entry to Colombia from Venezuela effectively cutting off humanitarian aid to people who fled there
because it (the aid) could not be distributed under Maduro's dictatorship in Venezuela.
Like I said I'm afraid there are no good solutions for the people left in Venezuela. Putin has complicated everything.

Perhaps applying pressure on Russia to take in Maduro in exile but I doubt Putin will want to let go of access to the oil there.
If you have a good solution let everyone know.

 

[emilynghiem]

Maduro has blocked all entry to Colombia from Venezuela effectively cutting off humanitarian aid to people who fled there
because it (the aid) could not be distributed under Maduro's dictatorship in Venezuela.
Like I said I'm afraid there are no good solutions for the people left in Venezuela. Putin has complicated everything.

Perhaps applying pressure on Russia to take in Maduro in exile but I doubt Putin will want to let go of access to the oil there.
If you have a good solution let everyone know.

If the government connections are cut off,
that's where I would look for where there are spiritual
connections. I would have to know which people "on the inside" have connections and influence with Maduro.

With Saddam Hussein, his top general was a God fearing Christian man that Hussein respected. What is the equivalent in this situation?

In conflicts as much as there is triangulation, and someone like Putin benefiting from worsening the conflict; there is also some position or person of influence who if given more support can have the opposite effect and diffuse the pressure.

Like I said before, we should not wait until conflicts escalate to this degree, because then there's too much pressure and it's harder to find those connections. This ideally should be done in advance. In communities I saw destroyed by bigger bullies there were ALWAYS local leaders with enough community support that if they had gotten proper support, none of the destruction would happen. Where are those connections WITHIN the community, that's where the solution lies. Among the very people on the inside who have been fighting these battles on the ground and have survived for a reason. Where are they and how do we support them?

 

[longknife]

I read where China is flying in medical supplies. No word on how they're going to be disseminated or to whom.

 

[emilynghiem]

I read where China is flying in medical supplies. No word on how they're going to be disseminated or to whom.

Well longknife and Eric Arthur Blair
if Sanctions are the only way to get the politics out of it, and only the
NONPROFIT charities such as Chinese medical support or groups
like "Doctors without Borders" or Intl Red Cross can get in,
that may be the closest to what I was saying about bypassing
govt relations that got blocked.

I said spiritual connections, but "humanitarian" connections
would be the equivalent here, the NONPOLITICAL nongovernmental outreach
that is truly universal for the sake of basic needs and NOTHING to do with taking political sides.

THAT's the type of "connections" I am talking about working.

And in the end, those are the "connections" that should be developed
from the beginning to be the most stable and NOT tied in politically with who's in govt,
and thus more sustainable in the long run.

The COOPERATIVE approach to building social programs and economic base.
My previous msgs are about focusing there IN ADVANCE to ensure stable
growth and development, and not waiting until conflicts escalate to find out
those connections aren't in place. By their very nature, those kind of sustainable
programs would prevent the political and military messes. So the solution is self-defining and self-fulfilling.

What we as Americans can learn from this is, again, that social programs are more
stable, universal, and sustainable when they are INDEPENDENT of politically run govt.

The access to health care and basic needs should NEVER be given up to "govt controls"
because then people lose their leverage at the "mercy of govt", and govt power can be used against them, instead of people holding their own power OVER govt to keep govt in check.

When people organize resources through their own nonprofit connections, then at any time a group changes, people can immediate ask help from a different group. You retain free choice,
unlike going through national govt which can take years to pass reforms or vote in new admin through the election process. The nationalized level should be reserved for set functions that don't involve personal beliefs and individualized decisions such as health care and social programs requiring localized service and one-on-one relations to answer DIRECTLY to the people instead of going through govt as a bureaucratic middleman.

We'll see if the Chinese aid gets through, or if other nonprofits can be nonpolitical enough to gain access.

It could be the Venezuelan Govt only allows the Chinese Govt to help if they have the same philosophy. Thus, if Socialists want to form their own international network where they only trust each other's members and leaders, this would be similar to the Catholic church having an international network to get resources from one region to another through their organizations.

If so, that should be up to the people to CHOOSE to be members of such a religious organizational network, or in this case a Political Religion if it's all Socialist Workers
who want to unite and run their programs this way. The same way Catholics have a choice, or Muslims can choose their organizations and leaders to run them, the Socialists should respect freedom of choice as well for their members instead of forcing their regime on unwilling participants.

Democratic Socialism could still work, but given this risk of corruption abuse and oppression, I would even more strongly recommend Constitutional checks and balances to be enforced by educating and empowering all the workers and members to share equal stake and responsibility in government. Especially if you are going to continue taking this risk of embedding the SOCIAL programs and health care into govt, it is absolutely KEY to ensure that people have as direct check and representation as possible. So it's even MORE critical to have Constitutional authority in place to check govt if you are going to implement Socialism!!

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

A nice trick if you can pull it off.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The purpose of the coup is to put the oligarchs back in power. This is never a good thing.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Despite Threats & No Electricity, Anti-Coup Activists Remain inside Venezuelan Embassy in D.C.