wat0n wrote:It does, because you are removing a major factor in the equation. As you said, the US moved against countries that turned even slightly to the left precisely because the Americans were paranoid about the Soviets - the foreign policy version of McCarthyism.
The Soviets may have been a major factor of US foreign policy in Latin America during the Cold War. But US opposition and manipulation of leftist politics in Latin America transcends the Cold War. They have covertly and overtly waged war against leftism in Latin America both before and after the Cold War. That's what I was getting at before. You trying to frame this as only happening when the Soviets were a threat is just not historically true. It was always more about protecting their interests in the region, which were backed by the right-wing. So any leftist reform was a threat to them, not necessarily a Soviet influence.
want0n wrote:Chávez originally campaigned on a moderate left-wing platform in 1998.
No he didn't... Chavez originally campaigned on a strong leftist socialist platform, known as the Fifth Republic Movement. Even the Venezuelan communist and socialist parties allied with him in an official political union for supporting his election.
He definitely didn't run on a moderate left-wing platform. That's for sure...
wat0n wrote:I would say Zelaya actually showed a lot of spine when he tried to go back to Honduras some weeks after the coup, he could have simply gone and asked Obama to get him back into power in exchange for behaving well if he had wanted to.
Obama had no control over that. Even when Zelaya visited Washington later on, Obama didn't meet with him. Obama's original comments were all hot air and part of a propaganda campaign.
want0n wrote:Do you have any sources on this degree of control of the base by the Americans?
http://www.workers.org/2011/world/penta ... uras_0324/While technically considered a Honduran military base, the U.S. controls base security and all airfield functions at Soto Cano, such as air traffic control, weather forecasting and logistics.
So please don't tell me anymore about how you believe the Americans might not have known about Zelaya's kidnapper's plane refueling there.
want0n wrote:I'm talking about the first one in which he or his former deputy FM made the claims regarding the refueling at an American base. Post it in Spanish if you want.
The original AP link
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/ ... 5-22-26-36 is down, but here's another article about it.
http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/103619.htmlwant0n wrote:How would anyone attempt to reach a peaceful solution without keeping any lines of communication open in Honduras?
So you're saying that the rest of Latin America cutting off bilateral relations with the interim dictatorship was against a peaceful solution. Of course communication was still open. But cutting off bilateral relations with the illegitimate dictatorship was vital, and all countries did so, aside from the US.
want0n wrote:Why do you assume that the protests in Argentina (for example) are about ousting Cristina de Kirchner? The population broadly supported them when the economy was growing.
I don't assume. That was what they wanted, the 2012 opposition protests were anti-Kirchner through and through. If they had the chance to, they would have ousted her.
want0n wrote:My point is that Goldman Sachs is not a relevant player there. The controllers of Clarín are, however, particularly the woman - she's also the editor of the Clarín newspaper.
Did you not read the article I linked to earlier about Goldman Sachs, Clarin, and Argentina. You say Goldman Sachs isn't a relevant player there, but the controllers of Clarin are. Goldman Sachs controls Clarin, buddy (it's the largest, and only major shareholder of Clarin). The editor of Clarin is the irrelevant player. How on earth do you think that she matters, she's easily replaceable.
want0n wrote:He mentions the suspension of some trade benefits.
Yeah, that was a small point surrounded by many more important points. Not sure what your point of contention is with that though. Basically the US cut off Andean Trade Preference Act, which cost Bolivia 30,000 jobs and more than 70 million bucks priced out of the US market. The reason they cut off the ATPA was because Bolivia didn't cooperate in cutting it's coca production. Bolivia had virtually the same amount of Coca production from 2005-2008, while Colombia saw a 27% increase and they weren't cut off from the ATPA. So what's with the double standard here, besides taking a shot at Boliva because of their leftist reforms under Morales.
want0n wrote:He's claiming the autonomists were trying to get the military to topple Morales. That's like saying that Argentinian protestors are trying to get the military to topple Cristina or that the protestors in Cochabamba were aiming to get the military to depose the government.
You love twisting articles around for your own liking don't you. This is what, the fifth time in this discussion? The author wasn't "claiming" that autonomists were trying to get the military to topple Morales. That's exactly what they were trying to do.
The major of Santa Cruz, Percy Fernandez, had already called on the military to overthrow Morales’ "useless government" just before the August referendum.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/11/18/ ... n-bolivia/want0n wrote:Labeling protesters as coupists is definitely anti-democratic.
If a protest movement wants the democratically elected president out, then
yes they can be rightly labelled as coupists. No it's not anti-democratic to call a spade a spade. What's anti-democratic, are the coupists, who want the president out, without proper democratic elections.
want0n wrote:You can always say protesters are trying to topple the government, it won't make it true however.
As I said before, not all protests are attempted coups. I already explained that to you. When you brought up the water wars in Bolivia (as your example of an attempted coup that you thought I wouldn't label as one because I support them) I reminded you that their stated goals were not to overthrow the government but for water rights reforms. To end the privatization of water that was hiking up the price of it. That's not an attempted coup, and those protesters shouldn't be labelled as such.
want0n wrote:And no, I don't support "the right" - certainly not the coupist right. Yet I don't support coupist leftists either.
You say you don't support the right, yet your comments could lead people to think otherwise.
want0n wrote:Even a superficial attempt to legitimize the coup would involve, at least, providing legal justifications for it according to Honduras' Constitution. Some Republicans did that, actually, but the American government did not.
Knowing the United States long history in overthrowing governments across Latin America, and now living in the digital era, do you really think that they'd be so stupid as to put together a legal justification for the coup. That would be way too over the top in terms of public support. They were trying to keep it low key via the state department. They have to do things a bit more discreet now a days.
want0n wrote:Did Zelaya fly to Washington before or after he tried to return to Honduras?
Long after. Even after Washington was calling his return reckless and Zelaya was getting increasingly discouraged by Washington's stance, he still had hope. This is why I believe he would have sold out to make his way back into power and go back to being a tepid liberal subservient to Washington.
want0n wrote:Like you knew about Zelaya's interviews claiming he had Obama's support prior to the coup?
Not sure what you're talking about there. Wasn't I the one that proved to you that quote was pre-coup. You were the one trying to pass it off as the day of, and you said yourself that you stood corrected. So how was that showing a lack of knowledge on my part?
want0n wrote:The far-left in Latin America simply blames the US for all their failures, which is why they act as if the current problems with inflation in Venezuela, for instance, were not the product of the mismanagement of the government's economic policy.
The current problems of inflation in Venezuela were caused by government response to economic warfare waged by the opposition alligned private sector. They're the root of the problem. Blaming the government is just scratching the surface and not looking at the root causes.
want0n wrote:America represents 44% of Venezuela's oil exports.
So what? American oil imports from Venezuela have hit a 28 year record low. America has been moving away from Venezuela oil since the late '90s, and especially after the shale boom. In response, Venezuela hasn't as much diversified it's sales, but instead concentrated it on China. China will increasingly take the position of America in the future to come. China already has been giving Venezuela massive loans for their oil.
“We are sending more oil to China because it was dangerous for us to depend on the political decisions of the U.S.” Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez
Venezuela Oil Sales to U.S. at 1985-Low Shows China CostVenezuelan oil sales to the U.S. are approaching 28-year lows as the country turns to China amid a shale boom that’s flooding U.S. refineries.
State-run Petroleos de Venezuela SA, which oversees the world’s largest oil reserves, is sending hundreds of thousands of barrels a day to China to pay back government loans. At the same time, refiners along the U.S. Gulf Coast are sourcing more domestic supply as a surge in drilling shale rock sends output to the highest in a quarter-century.
want0n wrote:No, in fact inflation in Venezuela currently stands at levels similar to those during the '90s, before Chávez got to power. And in both cases it is driven by an excessive growth in money supply, just like it happens everywhere in which there is permanently high inflation and future inflation expectations.
We don't disagree that inflation is high there. That wasn't my point that you responded to with the comments on inflation. My point was about what caused that inflation. Everything I've studied about the current economic crisis in Venezuela points towards the opposition alligned private sector waging economic warfare against the country to prime it for regime change. The reason inflation is so high is because of the goods hoarding and black market sales to avoid government price controls. It's not the government of Venezuela that's causing the inflation, but rather the financial elite. Sure you can say that the government's response is what increases inflation, but what caused that government response. You have to identify the root of the problem here...
want0n wrote:China is not nearly as formidable as the Soviets were.
Sure in the sense that there isn't an inflated red-scare currently happening with China, the way there was during the Cold War with the Soviets. But China's influence in Latin America right now economically, definitely trumps what the Soviets had. Soviet influence in Latin America at the time was mainly confined to Cuba. China is everywhere, and rapidly expanding.
want0n wrote:The US is trying to move away from the Middle East, but the Arab Revolutions have forced it to keep its focus there.
I don't think the US is really trying to move away from the Middle East as they say. At least publicly and overtly they may be (but hardly, see: Afghanistan), but covertly they will continue to interfere in sovereign states throughout the middle east, at least through their Saudi friends.
want0n wrote:They can deal with their backyard by propping up their allies so they'll contain Venezuela et. al.
Contain Venezuela?
Venezuela isn't trying to expand itself anywhere really. It's got way too many problems domestically. US foreign policy for Latin America is not about containing Venezuela. It's about containing China, just like it's policy towards Africa. The US will continue to try and subvert Chinese expansion throughout both continents. That's for damn sure. At the same time the US has waned off oil imports from both continents. Imports from Venezuela are at a 28 year record low, and they've just pulled 90% of their African oil imports. They believe they'll be fine domestically with fracking and importing tar sands from Canada. It's now about containing China and subverting their economic expansion throughout Latin America and Africa.
want0n wrote:Indeed, we'll remember how countries that did not follow it but simply remained in the center-left side of the political spectrum grew the most, with controlled inflation.
A lot of those center-left countries are considered part of the Latin New Left revolution over the last decade. They definitely followed the Bolivarian Revolution when it came to their opposition to neoliberalism, and social welfare programs, etc. You really cannot disconnect them all from each other. They definitely all were following that same leftist current. I think the problem is that many disconnect Chavez from the bunch because they think he turned Venezuela communist, which is not the case. Sure, he wasn't center-left, but he definitely wasn't able to turn Venezuela communist. He was really just a socialist reformist in a historically hard capitalist country, that like others throughout Latin America, were under harsh right-wing neoliberal capitalist dictatorships. Nobody can just go from that to communism right away, there's a lot of reform over long periods of time just to get a percentage of the economy in control.
wat0n wrote:You don't know about the Vuskovic Plan, do you? Particularly that it gave zero importance to monetary policy and followed a completely accomodative stance.
I
do know about the Vuskovic Plan. It wasn't as bad as you're making it out to be. At the beginning the Vuskovic Plan performed well, there were substantial increases in industrial growth and GDP, while a significant decrease in unemployment and inflation. Allende also raised workers wages a few times during this initial period of prosperity. Then in 1972 the shit hit the fan as the price of copper nose dived as Nixon and Kissinger started to wage their economic warfare against Allende. So to blame the economic downfall in '72 on the Vuskovic Plan is misleading. It was really all about the copper, which Chile was extremely vulnerable to on the international market which the americans could manipulate and wage economic warfare.
want0n wrote:Saying the Allende administration was responsible for inflation is not the same as supporting the coup. Other countries have gone through the same and solved the problem democratically, even in Latin America - especially after the '70s.
Of course, it's just that the way you worded it (blaming it on all on Allende) made it seem like you believe he brought the coup on himself (and therefore tacitly support it). This is the farthest from the truth. That was clearly orchestrated from the north. I'm not sure why you aren't admitting to this historical reality. It's been written about extensively.
want0n wrote:Exactly, and Marxism as the ideology the Soviets rested on. I'll grant you though that some leftists, Allende included, were too ideological even to fully take advantage of the USSR though (Allende supported a Chilean road to socialism, and democracy. The Soviets, just like orthodox Marxists, Maoists and the like, thought the idea was hopeless and didn't invest much in supporting him)
As you admit yourself, there were Latin leaders that embraced Marxism without embracing the Soviets. So I don't think it's fair to say that these countries had as much of a Soviet ideological influence as a Marxist influence. Marxism has influenced many politicians around the world, but to say that they were influenced by Soviet ideology is not accurate.
wat0n wrote:Marxism weakened, politically and ideologically, precisely because the USSR failed - they simply had no big, successful guy to point out to as a goal to reach. Just like in the rest of the world as I suppose you know.
Marxism may have weakened as a political current after the failure of the USSR, but it certainly isn't weak ideologically. In fact, we've seen a resurgence in Marxism in the past years since the global economic crisis. Especially in countries being raddled by austerity and what not. Yes, Marxism is a live and well. I'm not a Marxist, myself, but I believe it clearly is going strong still. I recommend reading:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/j ... of-marxismAlso, I don't think it matters that Marxism doesn't have a shining example of a country that did it right. What shining example of a country could we say the same for capitalism? Surely not the United States, as where has capitalism lead us to today (and the rest of the world)? No, I think what matters is that many countries have implemented quasi-Marxist policies (whether they want to admit they are or not) that have bettered the livelihood of their people.
wat0n wrote:Venezuela is currently polarized, I don't find it surprising you can find plenty of people siding with Maduro.
The problem is that the Chavistas are mostly working class and the poor. The rest of the country get's fed a healthy diet of Venezuelan mainstream media which is heavily anti-Chavista and anti-Maduro. That's one of the big issues in Venezuela as I see it. That the privately held media that accounts for a majority of the countries media, as well as the the most popular programming is extremely anti-Chavista bias. So I believe that's why we've seen such a strong support for the opposition there over the years from the middle-upper classes.
wat0n wrote:There are also price controls used to stop inflation, along with the scarcity and black markets that go along with them.
Exactly, this is part of the economic warfare. The opposition aligned financial powers in Venezuela have been trying to bypass the government's price controls for years now, and have hoarded goods causing artificial scarcity, and started selling more to the black market which causes inflation on the real market.
wat0n wrote:In these, it's similar to Chile a few months before the coup as the country was polarized and there was scarcity as well.
Yes, and similar to Chile in that economic warfare was waged against Allende as a means of ousting him. I still don't understand why you believe that Allende was responsible for Chile's economic problems at the time. It's a matter of public record that Nixon and Kissinger waged economic warfare against Allende. The tapes have leaked, the documents came out. There's no denying that the 1973 coup was preceded by a strategy of making "the economy scream" as Nixon said.
wat0n wrote:Scarcity is not as bad either
A lot of it is artificial scarcity. Basic goods hoarding from opposition aligned businesses. The government has done many raids and seized tons and tons of hoarded goods. It's quite obvious that there is economic warfare being wage by the right-wing private sector, to bolster their cause of ousting Maduro by blaming their doings all on him.
wat0n wrote:and the military seems to side with the government as a result of the post-2002 coup attempt purges.
There are still factors of Venezuela's security forces that aren't trusted. The post-2002 coup purges may have helped, but there will always be people bought off and what not. Maduro has already fired many from the National Guard and other security force factions. Mainly for abuses of power and them beating civilians, but also I believe for conspiracy with the opposition. So I don't think we can say that the Venezuelan military is entirely aligned with the government. We must remember that the financial elite aligned with the opposition will always have enough money to lobby for some control of the military. I'd bet there's a few factions that are anti-Maduro in there, that just haven't made themselves known yet.
wat0n wrote:They'll be toast if global oil prices fall or Obama moved to boycott Venezuelan oil (don't worry, the latter will not happen), however.
Listen, the US has been moving away from Venezuelan oil since Chavez came to power. Their record low imports today is part of the problem with Venezuela's economic crisis. So it already is in a way, a factor here.