Social_Critic wrote:However, did you notice your posts tend to be attacks on this personage known as Social Critic
No, not really actually. That's just something you can say so you can play the victim and try to win sympathy. At some point I have to criticize you directly because of the volume of your spam and your wild claims about your past. Had you never brought your "alleged past" into any discussion I would agree that pointing to that-- particularly when you use it as validation for your arguments-- would be an ad hom. Because that isn't case, and you use this... claim as validation so very often (with your only proof being "trust me") I have no choice but to attack said claims as invalid.
You bring it on yourself. Whereas... out of the blue, you ignore any counterclaim to your propaganda, can't address any of it, and instead go on about some stupid liberal stereotype about leftists being young.
Hardly academic.
Social_Critic wrote:Did it sink in that poverty increased in Venezuela in 2013?
And this fact alone does what exactly? Please answer this question to its fullest if you want to be taken seriously. What exactly does a raw stat prove? Does it prove how the government works? Does it show-- in coherent detail-- HOW the government of Madura and/or Chavez actually did this? Is is a slight trend in an overall economic recovery? Further, who are these people that are now impoverished? I mean... as Redcarpet has noted several times, the people of Venezuela were dirt poor shit farmers before Chavez and Maduro due to the ravages of their local bourgeois--- YOU, in other words--- working in collaboration with western capital to enrich themselves at the expense of the nation's resourses and labor, so its hard to see how people already dirt poor are getting poorer.
What this really means is that the bourgeois is losing money. Too bad. Fuck them. They-- AND YOU, apparently (If I can believe anything you say whatsoever) brought this on yourselves.
I shouldn't have to pretend with a learned genius like yourself that western capital and it's tendrils (and specifically Big Brother to the North) haven't controlled Latin America since the Conquistadors, but here we are pretending all the things you say happened in a vacuum of self sufficiency for both Venezuela and the Latin American countries.
You want to be taken seriously? Get honest and show that you really understand perspective or stop whining.
Unless... you don't really know your own history after all... despite being a Spanish speaker. Btw- since when does speaking the language make you some historian again? By this logic, I am right all the time any time anyone makes a counterclaim to anything I say regarding American, British, and to a lesser extent German history... since I speak and write English like a true and utter genius.
Sounds fucking stupid doesn't it?
So, stop claiming it.
Social_Critic wrote:The economic failures lead to a lot of discontent.
Many of these "economic failures" are tied to the fact that the largest "Democracy" in the world is directly opposed to the current government. Particularly when said "Democracy" has already tried to assassinate one leader, and actively subverts it otherwise. And let's face it, the US has been caught doing this, so don't play your "deny" game.
Social_Critic wrote:This leads to protests, protests lead the government to become much more repressive. Today Venezuela´s democracy is essentially dead. They keep a semblance of democracy, they vote, and some opposition politicians are allowed to "win" to keep the pretense. But at the national level what they have is an evolving dictatorship.
I can make the same claim, and be just as accurate about any western "Democracy". It's meaningless drivel.
Social_Critic wrote:This is why last week they announced new rules to censor the cable, and told CNN´s correspondent in Caracas he couldn´t have a permit to do his work.
Wait, you're bringing up the media? Ahhh... how about how in the US/West a grand total of six companies control 98%(some) of the media? The eventual owners of said media move in and out of office regularly.
Where is the freedom of the press, and Democracy here? Seems its been de-regulated out of existence. One day people will study your willful blindness to this quite troublesome development and will make it a case study in the aloofness of the petit bourgeois, who allowed "Democracy" to die by ignoring the obvious.
Social_Critic wrote:They are gradually moving towards a full scale dictatorship while keeping the pretense of having a democracy. Now discuss the subject if you wish.
So is the US and the west. Do you have a point here? Wait, lemme guess... its somehow magically different... even though it's not.
mum wrote:Are you guys making the assertion that poverty is NOT increasing in Venezuela ?
I'm making the assertion that impoverishing the bourgeois is a good thing relative to a true proletarian state. In fact, in come circles, some would say that
only impoverishing them is actually quite humane.
redcarpet wrote:Even if it is, privatisations and de-regulations would only increase it. Which is what Social Critic proposes. ROFL!
I think what you mean to say is that, these actions might increase the average wealth in the nation on paper, but in reality would do so simply by enriching the same old bourgeois all over again at the expense of the peasants who somehow always find themselves in perpetual poverty in Latin America. Particularly when right wing regimes take over. If so, I agree completely.
Bulaba Jones wrote:First you say Maduro is a communist. Now you say he's a fascist and you say he's the same as Hitler.
Godwin's Law.
mum wrote:So wide scale nationalization and regulation is causing an increase in poverty,
Neither of you have shown this to be the case. Only the lone, floating factoid that poverty is increasing... and I'm not actually sure I've seen a link for this directly or not.
Social_Critic wrote:My proposal would shift Venezuela back to a rational economic regime
Translation: Back to full cooperation with Western capital which will maintain the "Rich get richer, poor get poorer" paradigm that has governed Latin America since the 1600s.
Social_Critic wrote:These right wing regimes have been performing much better.
Translation: The rich are getting richer, as they should and deserve to do. Fuck the peasants.
Social_Critic wrote: If Venezuela remains under Maduro's emerging dictatorship poverty will continue increasing,
Translation: Former bourgeois (or perhaps current depending on perspective) is scared that his fellow bourgeois will also lose their wealth.
Social_Critic wrote:As mum points out current policies are causing very steep increases in poverty
This hasn't been shown.
Social_Critic wrote:This has to be undone urgently.
If the people are as ill treated as you say, then they have the power to become revolutionary and overthrow the government as they did when backing Chavez. There is absolutely NO REASON whatsoever for the US to get involved save raw, naked imperialism.
Please address this head on and directly without calling everyone young or posting some random pic.
redcarpet wrote:For less than 1% of the population, while 99% would be shafted with less services, higher unemployment and higher prices for essentials. Citing Peru & Chile only highlights my point.
Agreed.
Maas wrote:50% of the Venezuelan population lived on or under the povertyline before Chavez. Plenty of people suffered from malnutrition. Ergo, the country was really really fuck poor and the wealth distribution was just out of control. Capitalism completely failed in Venezuela, and the people had enough of it.
Amen.
Maas wrote:People who had a lot got less, people who had something now got less. People who now got less are bitching about it. And I say, fuck 'm since their wealth is less important than the absolute degrading way 50% of the country had to live.
Exactly. And this is why no one cares about Social_Critic's constant propaganda. It amounts to sour grapes. Bourgeois got gamed, and whines about it all the time. When the poor lose they just go off and die properly. No one has to listen to them whine about losing the game.
Social_Critic wrote:As I have mentioned a zillion times, Chavez got lucky because when he got elected in 1999 oil prices took off.
Bullshit. Oil is oil and has been oil since at least the end of WWI. It has always been worth something. Chavez nationalized it and allowed profits to benefit the rest of the country as opposed to a very small selection of western-capital-collaborating-bourgeois.
Social_Critic wrote:Chavez didn´t run as an anti capitalist, or as a communist in 1999. He deceived the people, because communism has never been that popular in Venezuela. Your "the people had enough of it" is bullshit.
Chavez came in on the heels of a military coup that had support of the people. End of story. Stop lying.
Social_Critic wrote:You are also failing to deal with the fact that, in spite of high oil prices, Maduro has managed to cause an economic crisis and poverty is increasing at a fast rate.
You have yet to show this is due to his domestic economic policies.
Maas wrote:The rather develloped Venezuela was on par with ethiopia.
Its atrocious for a nation with that much oil wealth to be impoverished. A plain crime on the part of the participating bourgeios and their western leeches.
Maas wrote:The right wing governments simply shunned that 50% of the country and let them to rot in their missery.
As they always do.
Maas wrote:And you fail to acknowledge the severity of that catastrophic state Venezuela was in due to unopposed and out of control capitalism. The right wing capitalists are the only ones to blame why there is such a strong reaction of the poor masses in that democratic country.
EXACTLY! He acts as if none of us can know the sorry state of both Venezuela and the entirety of Latin America! It's not as if reading history of the continent is some rare, hard to come by knowledge that only a Spanish speaker could possibly fully understand.
The very claim is beyond ludicrous, it's nonsensical.
Social_Critic wrote:I´m not the one making excuses for a government you saw in power two decades ago.
No, but you sure as hell ARE doing it for all the previous governments that ruled Venezuela for the previous 472 years prior to the Chavez administration. Which is worse?
Social_Critic wrote:I´m pointing out that in 2014 Venezuela lacks a working democracy, i
So do most so-called "Democracies". If your argument is good for one, its good for them all. So, if yours is true, all are true. So none of us have Democracy anymore. Stop whining about it already.
Social_Critic wrote:A SHITTY DICTATORSHIP DISCONNECTED FROM THE PEOPLE (DID YOU NOTICE HOW WHITE THEY ARE?)
What is this supposed to mean? So you're a racist too? On top of everything else? I would offer up some Spanish words for you right now, but I won't ad hom you. Instead I will point out the things you should know quite well. All of Latin America is of mixed race, as you well know descended from some mixture of Spanish, Indian, and African, and to a lesser extent the other European countries, most specifically British and German.
This isn't news to you or me, though you pretend none of us should know that. Further it is well known that many are racists in Latin America, as the overlords in the Americas taught everyone that "light is right", and so the lighter skinned the more privilege, the less mixture with the Indians and Africans, etc. But you DO know about that, because that's why you said this.
So, the question becomes, since you pointed it out, how "white" are all the other ruling regimes? The only "indian-looking" leader I ever saw in Latin America at all in recent times was Evo Morales. Perhaps you can do me one better and point to ONE, just ONE non-white president or dictator prior to Chavez and Maduro in Venezuela. Perhaps you might do me one further and explain to me why the only Venezuelans I've ever met IRL are also very white? Why is it that I've never personally met a darker skinned Venezuelan who has traveled to the US?
Please answer these concerns directly without dodging them or posting random pics.
Funny thing that.