[Solastalgia]

While you're on the subject of the completely corrupt US new media, let's talk about the part of the US coup where the media completely misrepresented who the pro-Chavez forces were shooting at. *looks up info again*

However, the implications of the media behaviour during the coup are profound, and extending far beyond the coup itself. Through a shockingly unified policy of misinformation, active participation in the planning and execution of the coup, and self-imposed censorship, and the active cover up of mass murder (the sniper shootings), the private media was complicit in the murder of civilians and was actively working to overthrow democratic institutions. By any reasonable analyses, this should be understood as an infringement on the rights of the Venezuelan people.

I have seen the movie that talks about this in great detail.

That was a good read, thanks for sharing, Demos. Blogs can be great sources of info, as there are many independant investigative journalists that run (or ran) their own blog. Glenn Greenwald started out his journalistic career by blogging. If there's citations with the blog, then that's even better, and the one you provided had around 50.

I imagine the movie you're referring to is John Pilger's "The War on Democracy", in which he tackles not just Venezuela, but the rest of Latin America. Here's the part about how the Venezuela pro-opposition mainstream media misrepresented the pro-Chavez forces on the bridge (who were actually defending themselves against the snipers).

Here's that exact part:

(warning this is a bit graphic at first)

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

While you're on the subject of the completely corrupt US new media, let's talk about the part of the US coup where the media completely misrepresented who the pro-Chavez forces were shooting at. *looks up info again*

This is from a blog, so it is not professional, but the point is whether the facts are correct or not not whether we have to argue whether or not this person is paid by Maduro.

Yes, here it is: (I highly recommend anyone on the fence to read the entire article)

I have seen the movie that talks about this in great detail. This is like propaganda 101 for any budding Himmler (Godwin +1). Is it any wonder Social_Critic does not want to discuss how 2002 is relevant to 2014?

"Chavez ordered the private television stations to go off the air, arguing that they were irresponsibly broadcasting inaccurate and misleading information in an attempt to bring down the government."

I find it interesting that this sometimes parallels the quality and focus of media here at home in the States. It seems clear to me that the media in Venezuela who deliberately lied and misled while reporting already had an established agenda, but haven't we seen this pattern repeated over the years? We saw it with Iraq, we saw it with Libya when the media went on a frenzy of orgiastic triumph at the prospect of a shattered, leaderless Libya, and we saw it most prominently in Syria. As soon as the US-backed opposition crumbles or loses so much momentum that there's no chance they can win the war on their own and the US cannot get involved directly, as they did in Venezuela and Syria, the media then immediately goes quiet and switches to "other, more important things".

I don't want to sound like I am endorsing a conspiratorial view to American media or media around the world, but in some cases there is an obvious, clear, biased agenda at play.

So again, I don't think anyone here identifies themselves as a Chavismo, but I think a lot of us can recognize in cases like these that Chavez was absolutely correct in being immediately suspicious of the "independent media" that were strangely enough putting out a rehearsed script in favor of an obvious pro-Western coup.

That was a good read, thanks for sharing, Demos.

I concur with Solastalgia, that was a good article. Embarrassingly, I have yet to watch The Revolution Will Not be Televised, but thank you for posting a link to the video Demos may be talking about; I'll have to watch it soon some time.

[Social_Critic]

You know, it´s kind of funny to see the way you hash, re hash, re hash hash, turn over, stare, and otherwise put your focus on events from 12 years ago when discussing Venezuelan politics in 2014. Let me give you a refresher so you can return to reality

1. Chavez is dead.

2. Chavez was nominally replaced by Nicolas Maduro. Maduro lacks Chavez´personality, charisma, support, and cash flow. The cash flow is the key because Chavez left a mess behind, and Maduro has made a worse mess after taking over in December 2012.

3. Inflation is around 60 %. Salary increases can´t keep up with inflation.

4. Crime continues be a scourge, it is getting worse in many areas, and today Caracas is the deadliest capital city in the world.

5. Government price controls have led to shortages. This includes food, medicines, and spare parts.

6. There are frequent electric power cuts and rationing.

7. Caracas is having water rationing.

8. The regime is seen by most Venezuelans as incompetent, venal, and corrupt. Maduro´s support is waning, and not even Chavista ranks will mobilize in his support.

9. The economic crisis is getting worse. There´s increasing unemployment, and even the government statistical office reports there´s increasing poverty.

10. Disatisfaction is intense, this leads to protests which have been going on for over 100 days. Dozens have been killed, hundreds have been wounded, the government security forces used so much tear gas they had to order emergency resupply from Belarus.

I can provide you a few more points so you can try to discuss what´s going on in 2014. And if you want to discuss events in 2002 then maybe you should create a thread with a suitable title, something poignant such as "2002: when CHavez was alive and we had hopes for the revolution".

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

You know, it´s kind of funny to see the way you hash, re hash, re hash hash, turn over, stare, and otherwise put your focus on events from 12 years ago when discussing Venezuelan politics in 2014. Let me give you a refresher so you can return to reality

S_C you have been called out on your continued demand that people stop discussing recent Venezuelan history not just by myself but by others:

Is it any wonder Social_Critic does not want to discuss how 2002 is relevant to 2014?

Machado and Lopez receive funding from the US government. Both were involved in the 2002 coup. Now they are involved again, in 2014, to overthrow an elected government. Back in 2002 the coup they supported tried to overthrow the elected government, install a dictator named Carmona, who then promptly tried to throw out Venezuela's constitution. As others have noted, the protests are largely contained to middle and upper-class Venezuelan neighborhoods and areas, almost as if this isn't really a grassroots "revolution" at all, but ones spurred on by destabilization organizations funded by the US State Department; the State Department has already openly acknowledged the following:

it is clear that NED, Department of Defense (DOD), and other U.S. assistance programs provided training, institution building, and other support to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved in the brief ouster of the Chávez government

We also know that the State Department has been funding destabilization organizations ever since. If it's such a huge issue for you that we keep pointing out these facts dating back to 2002, why do you continually talk about Chavez who died in the past?

What I don't understand is how you actually sincerely wonder why we're all skeptical about this being a supposed grassroots "democratic" revolution when it's obviously not grassroots, doesn't represent the working class of Venezuela, and is opposed to democracy in Venezuela by not even bothering to win elections, but violently oust elected officials?

[Demosthenes]

What I don't understand is how you actually sincerely wonder why we're all skeptical about this being a supposed grassroots "democratic" revolution when it's obviously not grassroots, doesn't represent the working class of Venezuela, and is opposed to democracy in Venezuela by not even bothering to win elections, but violently oust elected officials?

Its funny because the very interests in the US that are supporting all this are the very same domestically who (through one hand or another) also supported/support the tea party, while also calling it a grass roots movement. (One funded by The Koch Brothers, sure... but yeah... grassroots.)

Also Social_Critic has ZERO evidence for anything in that clear OPINION piece he just typed.

Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing.

I'll say again, During this whole conversation links from all types of sources both inside the US and outside it have been used to establish without a doubt that the US is funding Venezuelan opposition. I think Social_Critic would even argue this with the US state department, one of such links that have been provided. Point being, for all his OPINIONS, he has not provided one credible link of any kind (Even a completely biased on financed by anti-Maduro sources) that denies US funding of the opposition.

LITERALLY NO ONE is saying this, even those ostensibly on his "side" except Social_Critic.

It makes no sense whatsoever, and I only continue to hammer this home due to his history on this forum.

[Social_Critic]

Machado and Lopez receive funding from the US government. Both were involved in the 2002 coup.

Prove Lopez receives funding from the US government or that he was involved in the 2002 coup. I suggest you try to avoid government propaganda sites. I already explained they have agents such as Eva Golinger et al, they lie.

The main driver for the protests and the general state of chaos in Venezuela is the Maduro regime. They have done a terrible job running the nation´s economy and the reports that come out are really grim. I just read the government owes pharmaceutical companies $4 billion USD for medicines they imported but which haven´t been paid for.

And there are other grim items, for example

In just one year, 1,795,884 Venezuelans plunged into poverty
According to the National Statistics Institute, 32.1% of the population lives below the poverty line

http://www.eluniversal.com/economia/140 ... to-poverty

Meanwhile I would like to use this opportunity to remind all volunteers who wish to participate in the mega protest taking place today. Students, workers, farmers and all members of civil society are invited to participate in the great protest to remind Maduro he has a pain the neck called the Venezuelan people.

[Demosthenes]

All those faces look very white. Where are the mestizos, the Indians, and the Africans?

[Social_Critic]

All those faces look very white. Where are the mestizos, the Indians, and the Africans?

I take it you think white folk have no right to protest? However, since you are so concerned over skin and hair colour

Geraldine, killed in Valencia by a shot gun blast to the face


Poor people protesting lack of food


Basil, the first victim shot in Caracas
Warning: graphic image

Spoiler: show

[Bulaba edit: do NOT post images of dead bodies or overly graphic images again without spoiler tags and a warning of graphic content]

Capriles, the opposition leader, with his followers


Meanwhile here´s the top Maduro elite, including his cabinet, with his main rival DIosdado Cabello (second photograph), and with senior military (third photograph).

[velvet]

It was a clear expression of the growing frustration and anger among Chávez supporters. The previous year, 2012, had seen inflation rates hovering around 50 percent (officially), and the level has risen inexorably throughout the last year. Today, the basic basket of goods costs 30 percent more than the minimum wage--and that's only if the goods can be found on the increasingly empty shelves of shops and supermarkets.

The shortages are explained partly by speculation on the part of capitalists--just as happened in Chile in 1972--and partly by the rising cost of imports, which make up a growing proportion of what is consumed in Venezuela. And that means not luxuries, but food, basic technology, even gas.

All of this is an expression of an economic crisis vigorously denied by the government, but obvious to everyone else. Inflation is caused by the declining value of the bolivar, Venezuela's currency, itself the result of economic paralysis. The truth is that production of anything other than oil has ground to a virtual halt. The car industry employs 80,000 workers, yet since the beginning of 2014, it has produced 200 vehicles--what would normally be produced in half a day.

Whilst I realise it's an awkward question, I'm still yet to see proposals as made by any member of the left, here or otherwise, as to deal with the ensuing economic crisis in Venezuela. It is real, and it is pushing people back into the poverty that Chavez worked so hard to get them out of, yet I've heard no proposals being made anywhere. I'm of course going to extend this question to Social_Critic: whilst I'm fully expecting some horribly regressive measures, I don't see why that should exclude him from any discussion regarding this.

Prove Lopez receives funding from the US government or that he was involved in the 2002 coup. I suggest you try to avoid government propaganda sites. I already explained they have agents such as Eva Golinger et al, they lie.

I made sure to leave in the irrelevant items so you can be sure it's a right-wing source without needing to enter the site:

As the demonstrations gathered steam this winter, Capriles did the unthinkable and shook Maduro’s hand, a gesture that cost him support and helped propel López back into the spotlight, which he now shares with Machado. López and Machado, 46, backed a failed 2002 coup attempt against Chávez, and both have since suffered violent assault. López’s aunt was shot at an otherwise peaceful rally, and his bodyguard was shot to death. Machado has been the target of repeated assaults by thugs reputedly linked to the Chávez regime.

I'd also love to here some reasoning behind Lopez involving himself in the citizens arrest of the interior minister during the coup. That seems like very partaking-in-a-coup-like behaviour to me. As for the American government backing the coup, we've been through this before:

WASHINGTON, April 24 — In the past year, the United States channeled hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to American and Venezuelan groups opposed to President Hugo Chávez, including the labor group whose protests led to the Venezuelan president's brief ouster this month.

The funds were provided by the National Endowment for Democracy, a nonprofit agency created and financed by Congress. As conditions deteriorated in Venezuela and Mr. Chávez clashed with various business, labor and media groups, the endowment stepped up its assistance, quadrupling its budget for Venezuela to more than $877,000.

[Drlee]

Really folks. Posting pictures of blood and guts is the last refuge of a lost argument. Argue with your mind. People who have seen the real horror of war know that you have not. And you don't want to.

[Social_Critic]

I see you changed the thread title to accommodate the focus on 2002.

So, since this is now about Venezuelan politics, I would like to discuss Chávez´macabre obsession with Bolivar, and Marx´s intense dislike for the Libertador.

As you probably heard, Chávez was convinced he was going to conquer South America and turn it into a communist union of chavista nations (I suspect this idea was seeded by Fidel Castro, who also had such a conqueror mania in his youth, and wanted to use Chavez as the buffoon who would eventually hand over power over Venezuela and its oil to the Cuban oligarchy which had emerged from Castro´s failed communist experiment).

But Chávez wasnt the first South American president to use Bolivar for his own political purposes. In 1842 Páez exhumed Bolivar´s bones and had them brought to Caracas. Later, a creep called Guzmán, a corrupt and inefficient dictator took poor Bolivar´s bones out of the grave, installed them in a National Pantheon, and went on to have ceremonies boasting about his connection to Bolivar.

When Chávez gained power the first thing he did was have the country´s name changed to "Bolivarian Republic" and then had Bolivar´s bones pulled out of their resting place, thus repeating the "Bolivarian necrophilia" tradition started by Páez.

When we look over the two men´s beliefs and actions, it seems Bolívar respected justice and the rule of law. Chavez was a first and foremost a megalomaniac who felt he would unite Latin America under his iron fist. Evidently the man shared Fidel Castro´s and communist´s general disdain for democracy* or its trappings.

Thus, because Bolivar did believe in democracy but was also somewhat of an elitist, Marx hated Bolivar. Marx called Bolivar “that dastardly, most miserable and meanest of blackguards.”

What Marx never realized was that in the far future almost all communist regimes would end having leaders who degenerated into dictators whose principal aim would be to sustain themselves in power forever, and surround themselves with corrupt "communist" cadres who would eventually endorse a shift towards capitalism (as for example we see in China today). Thus what Marx hated (because he was a naive theoretician who never picked up a rifle or got the chance to rule a nation) was human nature itself, which when given absolute power does get corrupted absolutely.

*Communist disdain for democracy is well documented. I´ll quote from Hal Draper: "CONTEMPORARY POLITICS is FAMILIAR with the moot issue of the justification for authoritarian dictatorships in developing countries, where the economic and political backwardness of the people and society is taken to prove the undesirability of democratic institutions for popular control from below....(the autocracy) may adopt a sobriquet like “Communism” or “African Socialism,” etc. with appropriate references to a hyphenated or unhyphenated Marxism".

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1968/winter/bolivar.htm

I also found an interesting bit regarding communists´ inherent dislike for democracy when I listened to the Silva debrief tape, in which he complained to Palacios that Chávez had made a mistake maintaining the appearance of a democracy with their electoral system, rather than following Fidel Castro´s advice and getting rid of democracy altogether.

[Rugoz]

RO evidence for anything in that clear OPINION piece he just typed.

Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing.

I can find sources for most of it.

I'll say again, During this whole conversation links from all types of sources both inside the US and outside it have been used to establish without a doubt that the US is funding Venezuelan opposition.

And its still a lazy argument. You can probably find western NGOs, aid agencies etc. promoting democracy in any country in the world that has a deficit in that regard (not saying their official goals always coincide with what they do) and that of course benefits the opposition. In fact every time the commies' or the fascists' favourite dictator cracks down on the opposition, limits free speech etc., its done in the name of defending the nation against foreign agitators.

So instead of just saying that the US is meddling in Venezuela, which is just stating the obvious as Smertios pointed out, it would be interesting to know to what extent. I.e. how big is the financing, the influence, what are the intentions etc.

In any case, the opposition in Venezuela is obviously real and has wide popular support. Lets not forget Maduro was elected with only 50.6% of the votes (in all likelihood he would not have won in a fair election) and the negative consequences of Chavez' policies are finally showing.

[Demosthenes]

I can find sources for most of it.

Do it.

And its still a lazy argument.

Not when someone is repeatedly denying all of it all the time its not. Maybe you missed that.

You can probably find western NGOs, aid agencies etc. promoting democracy in any country in the world that has a deficit in that regard (not saying their official goals always coincide with what they do) and that of course benefits the opposition. In fact every time the commies' or the fascists' favourite dictator cracks down on the opposition, limits free speech etc., its done in the name of defending the nation against foreign agitators.

Except its the capitalists doing it as they always do, while blaming the communists and whoever else for doing the same thing. Except, like Social_Critic they will deny doing it forever.

So instead of just saying that the US is meddling in Venezuela, which is just stating the obvious as Smertios pointed out, it would be interesting to know to what extent. I.e. how big is the financing, the influence, what are the intentions etc.

$5 million a year buys a lot of influence. Maybe not what it would take in a colonial power, but it buys a lot in a colony.

In any case, the opposition in Venezuela is obviously real and has wide popular support.

Actually, if you'd read the thread, I'd say there is a pretty credible argument being made that it very obviously ISN'T. That its simply a collection of creoles and peninsulares whining about sour grapes.

(in all likelihood he would not have won in a fair election)

Can you source any of these opinions or not?

and the negative consequences of Chavez' policies are finally showing.

In what way specifically? Just those evil policies that the west always talks about or are you naming specifics and pointing to them? or what?

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

what are the intentions etc.

Regime change. This is probably obvious in light of the US's long history of regime change and support for right-wing movements throughout Latin America.

In any case, the opposition in Venezuela is obviously real and has wide popular support.

The right-wing opposition in Venezuela does not enjoy popular support from the majority of Venezuelans nor the working class/poor. As stated numerous times, the protests are occurring in middle to upper class neighborhoods and affluent urban areas. Maduro still enjoys popular support from the working class.

Lets not forget Maduro was elected with only 50.6% of the votes (in all likelihood he would not have won in a fair election) and the negative consequences of Chavez' policies are finally showing.

Maduro won a clear majority, though narrow, fairly, in a free election. Subsequent investigations into accusations of voting irregularities by the guy who lost, Capriles, analyzed over 50% of the votes and showed nothing indicating fraud. The opposition can't win fair elections so they throw tantrums, complain about not getting a majority of votes, and advocate the violent overthrow of an elected government.

But hey, ~ 51% of the vote for Maduro? It must be proof Maduro is just trying to make the election appear legitimate!

[QatzelOk]

And its still a lazy argument.

I can't think of anything lazier than a bunch of old gravy-train beneficiaries lying about the accomplishments of the populist government that cut off their gravy train in order to feed and educate millions of previously neglected human beings.

It's both amoral and stupid - a rare feat.

I feel dirty even re-entering this thread. Why should someone with a brain be forced to waste valuable synapses fighting against amoral idiots (and amoral idiocy, and moral idiocy) when he/she could be using this brain to be creative instead?

Does concentrated wealth always create amoral idiots? Because if so, I can see another pressing reason for income equality.

[mum]

Anyway all that doesn't really matter. Who cares if the US is funding the opposition somewhat ? The country would be better under a regime that supports as much economic freedom as possible, even if it is installed by the US. Once the people realise as some of them already do that at least a semblance of economic freedom is the only way to crawl out of poverty and start making a life for oneself the country might turn its back on socialism and the horrible poverty that results.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Chavez's attempts at socialist reforms are responsible for a significant reduction of poverty and a general improvement of living conditions for all Venezuelans. Even before Chavez became president, Venezuela had a long history going back to at least the 1960s of generous social spending aimed at bettering education and reducing poverty. Policies of austerity, elimination of social spending, and adoption of free trade policies that would see Venezuela's natural resources transferred to foreign hands did none of this. The government has gone to great lengths to provide housing for hundreds of thousands of the homeless and the poor, great strides have been made for women's rights and their empowerment, and so on. The capitalists did none of these things: turning the clock back on civilization, and regressing in all these fields will not help the people of Venezuela except the wealthy. If the free market provides solutions for poverty and lifts people out of poverty, why did capitalists and the rich in Venezuela not compete with the government to provide these things for the people?

"Free market" provides no freedoms for the working class, but merely strips them of even more rights. Shifting the power balance entirely to employers and those with wealth and allowing a privileged few exploit the hard work and labor of the mass majority of society is not economic freedom for the majority of people with no options but to sell their labor.

The reason it matters that the opposition in Venezuela is led by former coup leaders, that at least one of them has clear funding and political backing by Washington, is that political instability and resulting sharpened rate of inflation/unemployment in Venezuela directed against the elected government, in a country that produces much of the world's oil, and provides enormous amounts of oil to the US, should be self-evident.

[Rugoz]

Except its the capitalists doing it as they always do.

I don't have a problem with "capitalists" promoting democracy in other countries, as long as that is what they do.

$5 million a year buys a lot of influence.

You must be kidding...

Actually, if you'd read the thread, I'd say there is a pretty credible argument being made that it very obviously ISN'T. That its simply a collection of creoles and peninsulares whining about sour grapes.

Not sure what you are trying to tell me here. Obviously the opposition is backed by at least half of the country, as we have seen in the last election and in polls today, Chavez and his followers have always been highly polarizing. Of course those who protest are only a small part of the population, but that can be said about any protest movement. And yes, I guess its mostly middle class and students, but again, that can be expected since they have the brains/resources to do so.

Can you source any of these opinions or not?

Information about irregularities and inequities in the electoral process can for example be found in the document below. Most worrysome was probably the use of government resources for electoral advantage. Remember there was no international observer mission present, something Venezuela did not allow (for reasons you can imagine). Interestingly back in 2006 the CNE was inviting full international observer missions from the EU, Carter Center, Organization of American States.

http://www.cartercenter.org/resources/p ... t-2013.pdf

Given how close the vote was, it is not unreasonable to assume that Capriles would have won if the process would have been fair. Nevertheless, democracies are often flawed so I would not call Maduro a dictator or his rule illegitimate. I do not believe however that the Chavistas are committed to democracy. If the last election was not rigged, I expect the next one (5 years from now) to be. Maybe I'm wrong about that, we'll see.

In what way specifically? Just those evil policies that the west always talks about or are you naming specifics and pointing to them? or what?

The Venezuelan economy has not been doing well since Chavez came to power in 1998. Per capita income stands at around 11k compared to around 10k in 1998. That's an increase of 10%, which is a rather bad performance, especially for a developing country and considering the massive increase of oil prices. More than ever, the Venezuelan economy is totally dependent on oil income (exports, government revenue). Those 2 graphs sum it up rather nicely.





As a bonus that nice rant I just came across
http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/america ... -venezuela

Right now inflation stands at 60%, a result of Chavez' deficit spending aimed at temporarily boosting the economy before the elections. There are shortages of food, medicine and crime is rampant, especially in Caracas.

The only positive thing you can say about Chavez' economic policies (apart from reducing inequality somewhat): The policies of his predecessors were arguably just as disastrous.

[KlassWar]

All those faces look very white. Where are the mestizos, the Indians, and the Africans?

By and large in the Venezuelan working class, which is class-conscious and steadfastly defends the Bolivarian Revolution.

[jc_]

If this US is funding the opposition then Maduro's government is failing greatly to catch them getting those funds. It should go without saying that if an opposition group is accused of outside funding, when things like USAID have been banned from Venezuela for years now, it should be arrested and jailed and all contributors should face trial.

Unfortunately I don't see that as the case and it's more likely that the boligarchs are funding the opposition, though quietly and discreetly, because they see that their end is near and that the country is likely to turn into Somalia or something like it, if they don't get rid of the corruption and mass murder.