Remember when the Left was so pro socialist for Venezuela? How democracy elects tyrants.

Votto

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
63,520
Reaction score
69,243
Points
3,605

When Mr. Chavez took power, the people of Venezuela were not outraged or pessimistic; his victory was celebrated by millions. As earth-shattering as his election seemed, the conditions that laid the groundwork for it were gradual and subtle, beginning with the nationalization of the petroleum industry in the 1970s and culminating with Mr. Chavez’s eventual annihilation of the Venezuelan people’s most fundamental liberties from 1999 to 2013.


Now, in the face of such harrowing abuses across Venezuela today, from onerous bread lines to rampant police brutality to astronomical hyperinflation, we cannot afford to let politicians like Mr. Sanders — figures with such duplicitous sympathies to ruthless tyrants like Chavez and Mr. Maduro — infiltrate public policy here in the United State.

And with people like Bernie Sanders as cheerleader for them the entire way. Chavez and company repackaged Marxism as a "Third Way", saying they would do it right this time, unlike the former USSR and North Korea.

When will people wake the hell up?

Anyone?

Once your freedoms are gone, they are gone.

And no, I have no hope for the people of Venezuela in getting the freedoms and wealth back that they once had.

Elections have consequences.
 
Simply put, there is no way to embrace Marxism without embracing centralized state control.

This centralized power then can only lead to ruin due to man's flawed nature regarding ultimate power.

Chavez could not overcome putting on the ring of power, and no one else can either.

1722515188395.webp
 
Simply put, there is no way to embrace Marxism without embracing centralized state control.

This centralized power then can only lead to ruin due to man's flawed nature regarding ultimate power.

Chavez could not overcome putting on the ring of power, and no one else can either.

View attachment 988079
Chavez was democratically elected.

So after 20 years of sanctions, we've bullied the people of Venezuela to put in a government we approve of.

I don't think that's anything to be proud of.
 
Chavez was democratically elected.

So after 20 years of sanctions, we've bullied the people of Venezuela to put in a government we approve of.

I don't think that's anything to be proud of.
The US bullied Venezuela into becoming a despotic state?

Are you saying that Marxists are dependent on support from Capitalist countries?

Do tell. How many are needed to prevent other Marxist regimes from winding up like Venezuela or Cuba or North Korea, etc.?
 
The US bullied Venezuela into becoming a despotic state?

Are you saying that Marxists are dependent on support from Capitalist countries?

Do tell. How many are needed to prevent other Marxist regimes from winding up like Venezuela or Cuba or North Korea, etc.?
Are you fucking retarded?

I keep asking myself that every time I read your posts.

If you look at NK or Cuba, you see countries where the west has used the economic imbalances created by imperialism to isolate and punish them. We could have democracy in those countries a lot quicker by saying, "whatever dude" and normalizing relations with them.

But we don't. Too much money to be made with the status quo.
 
No widespread voter fraud in Venezuela. If you say so, you are racist.
 
Are you fucking retarded?

I keep asking myself that every time I read your posts.

If you look at NK or Cuba, you see countries where the west has used the economic imbalances created by imperialism to isolate and punish them. We could have democracy in those countries a lot quicker by saying, "whatever dude" and normalizing relations with them.

But we don't. Too much money to be made with the status quo.
I'm not following your solution here

Is it to eradicate all wealth in Capitalist countries?

Does poverty make society and government righteous?

Or is it for Marxists to take up Capitalism like we see with China?
 
No widespread voter fraud in Venezuela. If you say so, you are racist.
I think the Left is accepting the notion that there is voter fraud now in Venezuela.

But people like Joe now blame Capitalism

It reminds me of people who blame all their problems on one person, usually a parent or someone they were once married too.
 
I'm not following your solution here

Is it to eradicate all wealth in Capitalist countries?

Does poverty make society and government righteous?

Or is it for Marxists to take up Capitalism like we see with China?
Well, if you can't follow an argument, that's due to your own learning disability.

Poverty exists in the third world because the first world looted it for 100s of years.
 
Well, if you can't follow an argument, that's due to your own learning disability.

Poverty exists in the third world because the first world looted it for 100s of years.
I see, so Marxists states are always poor because Capitalist ones loot them.

It has nothing to do with their leadership looting the country.

Is that what you are saying?
 
Chavez was democratically elected.

So after 20 years of sanctions, we've bullied the people of Venezuela to put in a government we approve of.

I don't think that's anything to be proud of.
A Prog and his Democracy. To build wealth, it may take time. Patience is difficult and men with all of the answers show up. Most 2nd and 3rd world nations that use a lot of socialism have a lot of corruption. Corruption exists as it is. Growth is slowed as the trickle down is limited.
 
I think the Left is accepting the notion that there is voter fraud now in Venezuela.

But people like Joe now blame Capitalism

It reminds me of people who blame all their problems on one person, usually a parent or someone they were once married too.

Anyone who looks at Venezuela and wants to mimic that country is fucked in the head.

However, that is every dumb fuck lefty.
 

When Mr. Chavez took power, the people of Venezuela were not outraged or pessimistic; his victory was celebrated by millions. As earth-shattering as his election seemed, the conditions that laid the groundwork for it were gradual and subtle, beginning with the nationalization of the petroleum industry in the 1970s and culminating with Mr. Chavez’s eventual annihilation of the Venezuelan people’s most fundamental liberties from 1999 to 2013.


Now, in the face of such harrowing abuses across Venezuela today, from onerous bread lines to rampant police brutality to astronomical hyperinflation, we cannot afford to let politicians like Mr. Sanders — figures with such duplicitous sympathies to ruthless tyrants like Chavez and Mr. Maduro — infiltrate public policy here in the United State.

And with people like Bernie Sanders as cheerleader for them the entire way. Chavez and company repackaged Marxism as a "Third Way", saying they would do it right this time, unlike the former USSR and North Korea.

When will people wake the hell up?

Anyone?

Once your freedoms are gone, they are gone.

And no, I have no hope for the people of Venezuela in getting the freedoms and wealth back that they once had.

Elections have consequences.
You don't know anything about Venezuela. Crony capitalism killed the middle class. Hugo Chavez was a desperate effort to save Venezuela. Trump kicked them when they were down.
 
Are you fucking retarded?

I keep asking myself that every time I read your posts.

If you look at NK or Cuba, you see countries where the west has used the economic imbalances created by imperialism to isolate and punish them. We could have democracy in those countries a lot quicker by saying, "whatever dude" and normalizing relations with them.

But we don't. Too much money to be made with the status quo.

If you look at NK or Cuba, you see countries where the west has used the economic imbalances created by imperialism

Communism leads to worse economies? Don't tell Bernie or AOC.
 
You don't know anything about Venezuela. Crony capitalism killed the middle class. Hugo Chavez was a desperate effort to save Venezuela. Trump kicked them when they were down.

Crony capitalism killed the middle class.

And crony communism danced on the corpse fixed everything, eh comrade?
 
No, dummy, countries turn to Marxism AFTER imperial countries loot them.

Which is why this happened.

View attachment 988133
Venezuela has the riches of oil.

So tell us, what was the difference between them and Libia who also had such oil reserves? For you see, Libya, under Gaddafi, had the highest standard of living in Africa as Gaddafi used their oil to maintain that lifestyle for his people

That is, before your guy Obama went in and murdered him after Europe begged him to do so. Europe giving Obama a Nobel Peace Prize I reckon was reason enough to do their bidding.

Why did Capitalism not loot Libya like Venezuela?
 

This article was first published on October 19, 2014.

This week marks the three-year anniversary of the Western-backed assassination of Libya’s former president, Muammar Gaddafi, and the fall of one of Africa’s greatest nations.

In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; however, by the time he was assassinated, Gaddafi had turned Libya into Africa’s wealthiest nation. Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy on the continent. Less people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands.

After NATO’s intervention in 2011, Libya is now a failed state and its economy is in shambles. As the government’s control slips through their fingers and into to the militia fighters’ hands, oil production has all but stopped.

The militias variously local, tribal, regional, Islamist or criminal, that have plagued Libya since NATO’s intervention, have recently lined up into two warring factions. Libya now has two governments, both with their own Prime Minister, parliament and army.

On one side, in the West of the country, Islamist-allied militias took over control of the capital Tripoli and other cities and set up their own government, chasing away a parliament that was elected over the summer.

On the other side, in the East of the Country, the “legitimate” government dominated by anti-Islamist politicians, exiled 1,200 kilometers away in Tobruk, no longer governs anything.

The fall of Gaddafi’s administration has created all of the country’s worst-case scenarios: Western embassies have all left, the South of the country has become a haven for terrorists, and the Northern coast a center of migrant trafficking. Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia have all closed their borders with Libya. This all occurs amidst a backdrop of widespread rape, assassinations and torture that complete the picture of a state that is failed to the bone.

America is clearly fed up with the two inept governments in Libya and is now backing a third force: long-time CIA asset, General Khalifa Hifter, who aims to set himself up as Libya’s new dictator. Hifter, who broke with Gaddafi in the 1980s and lived for years in Langley, Virginia, close to the CIA’s headquarters, where he was trained by the CIA, has taken part in numerous American regime change efforts, including the aborted attempt to overthrow Gaddafi in 1996.

In 1991 the New York Times reported that Hifter may have been one of “600 Libyan soldiers trained by American intelligence officials in sabotage and other guerrilla skills…to fit in neatly into the Reagan Administration’s eagerness to topple Colonel Qaddafi”.

Hifter’s forces are currently vying with the Al Qaeda group Ansar al-Sharia for control of Libya’s second largest city, Benghazi. Ansar al-Sharia was armed by America during the NATO campaign against Colonel Gaddafi. In yet another example of the U.S. backing terrorists backfiring, Ansar al-Sharia has recently been blamed by America for the brutal assassination of U.S. Ambassador Stevens.

Hifter is currently receiving logistical and air support from the U.S. because his faction envision a mostly secular Libya open to Western financiers, speculators, and capital.

Perhaps, Gaddafi’s greatest crime, in the eyes of NATO, was his desire to put the interests of local labour above foreign capital and his quest for a strong and truly United States of Africa. In fact, in August 2011, President Obama confiscated $30 billion from Libya’s Central Bank, which Gaddafi had earmarked for the establishment of the African IMF and African Central Bank.
In 2011, the West’s objective was clearly not to help the Libyan people, who already had the highest standard of living in Africa, but to oust Gaddafi, install a puppet regime, and gain control of Libya’s natural resources.
For over 40 years, Gaddafi promoted economic democracy and used the nationalized oil wealth to sustain progressive social welfare programs for all Libyans. Under Gaddafi’s rule, Libyans enjoyed not only free health-care and free education, but also free electricity and interest-free loans. Now thanks to NATO’s intervention the health-care sector is on the verge of collapse as thousands of Filipino health workers flee the country, institutions of higher education across the East of the country are shut down, and black outs are a common occurrence in once thriving Tripoli.
One group that has suffered immensely from NATO’s bombing campaign is the nation’s women. Unlike many other Arab nations, women in Gaddafi’s Libya had the right to education, hold jobs, divorce, hold property and have an income. The United Nations Human Rights Council praised Gaddafi for his promotion of women’s rights.
When the colonel seized power in 1969, few women went to university. Today, more than half of Libya’s university students are women. One of the first laws Gaddafi passed in 1970 was an equal pay for equal work law.
Nowadays, the new “democratic” Libyan regime is clamping down on women’s rights. The new ruling tribes are tied to traditions that are strongly patriarchal. Also, the chaotic nature of post-intervention Libyan politics has allowed free reign to extremist Islamic forces that see gender equality as a Western perversion.
Three years ago, NATO declared that the mission in Libya had been “one of the most successful in NATO history.” Truth is, Western interventions have produced nothing but colossal failures in Libya, Iraq, and Syria. Lest we forget, prior to western military involvement in these three nations, they were the most modern and secular states in the Middle East and North Africa with the highest regional women’s rights and standards of living.
A decade of failed military expeditions in the Middle East has left the American people in trillions of dollars of debt. However, one group has benefited immensely from the costly and deadly wars: America’s Military-Industrial-Complex.
Building new military bases means billions of dollars for America’s military elite. As Will Blum has pointed out, following the bombing of Iraq, the United States built new bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Saudi Arabia.
 
If Chavez had done the same for Venezuela as Gaddafi had done for Libya, would the UN and another democrat puppet like Obama have murdered him as well?
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom