Thanks for that article. That’s the kind of info I was looking for. I mean I’ve known for years that Maduro was a disaster, but hadn’t seen a blow-by-blow about the unconstitutionality of the election.
ETA: also, thanks for reminding me that I should look at human rights reports about the situation.
The reason for the rolleyes was because HD wasn’t providing any substantive information regarding the question posed in the thread, but only holding up the situation in Venezuela as an example of why his political views are valid and only worthy of consideration, while knowing full well that the situation is much more complex than what he has attempted to distill it down to. That may work in his echo chamber, but it isn’t going to fly around here.
As such, I provided the appropriate level of engagement and consideration.
The US has some experience toppling Latin American regimes, like when it toppled the regime of Allende in Chile back in '73 (Sept 11, no less). The US won’t invade unless it’s like…Grenada or Panama. The weapon of choice here is destabilization. Punish a country economically to the point where we sow chaos.
LOL! :rolleyes:
Maduro is in power because Chavez put him there, if an outgoing president appoints the village idiot as his successor who is responsible when everything goes to pot?
Since Chavez assumed power I knew it would end in disaster, he was a demagogue of the lowest caliber who systematically destroyed the capacity of the country to provide the basic necessities of live to its population.
The only way this outcome would had been by being obnubilated by the ideological hot air peddled by Chavez’s regime.
He destroyed the oil producing capacity of Venezuela’s golden goose by stuffing PDVSA with incompetent and corrupt cronies and siphoning more and more money that otherwise would had been used to maintain the oil producing infrastructure to his populist programs; threw food production in disarray by expropriating lands to hand out like candy and setting food price controls that made commercial farming impossible, and as things fell apart all he did was blame the boogieman for all the troubles.
For crying out loud, who with a sound mind, and means of production, would stick around when they bozo in chief can walk around the street saying “That shop over there, expropriate”, “that condo?, expropriate”, etc, etc…
As does Norway, so?
This is completely wrong.
The National Assembly has not been dissolved. Some of its functions have been superceded by the Constituent Assembly, which was also elected. It is controlled by the government party because the opposition refused to stand candidates. Both organisations exist in parallel.
The Constituent Assembly came into being in 2017. Guaido didn’t become head of the National Assembly until January of this year. So you shouldn’t characterise his actions as a reaction to the introduction of the CA.
The piffling amount of aid is a provocation, according to right-wing Venezuelan sources, and there is footage of the fire being started by an anti-government activist with a molotov cocktail.
Are you for real? Are people on this board allergic to google or something?
The Washington Post says he was called by Pence the night before he declared himself president. He was educated at George Washington University in America. He took part in street demonstrations funded by the American government, the leader of which was given the Milton Friedman prize by the Cato Institute. He joined a political party, the one he’s still a member of, which is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy. The Venezuelan intelligence agencies have released emails showing that in 2010 he attended an Otpor training session wherein it was planned to bring down Chavez with an explosion of street violence, and he spent a lot of time involved in street violence, including the guarimbas that killed dozens on innocents in 2014. So it was natural for him, back in December, before he was even head of the NA, to junket to Washington, then in january to meet with Pompeo to organise his self-proclamation as president.
I note, with irony, that you didn’t actually cite anything you Googled up on this yourself. There is a lot of connect the dots along with unsubstantiated assertions (some of which are from, unsurprisingly, ‘Venezuelan intelligence agencies’…a trust source if ever there was one, right up there with North Korean intelligence and anything the CCP says, with a healthy measure of Putin’s government assertions…and, hell, let’s be fair, anything Trump et al says). I did a quick Google on it and got…well, a lot of horseshit, a lot of what is obviously Venezuelan intelligence assertions and probably made up crap, a lot of Yankee Go Home, and not a lot of substance…but then I didn’t dig in and try and wade through the horseshit. If you have any substantial evidence, feel free to cite it.
The constituent assembly claimed all legislative powers for itself and the power to rewrite the consitution. Hardly, some of its functions being superceded.
This is true only if you think ‘Democratic Socialism’ is a synonym for ‘Social Democracy’.
I’m highly skeptical of that list in any case. They are saying “Democratic socialism describes a socialist economy where production and wealth are collectively owned, but the country has a democratic system of government”, and “Under Democratic socialism, the ownership of private property is limited. The government regulates the economy” but they are listing France, Germany, Italy and all of the Scandinavian countries and a bunch of others (interestingly, neither China nor North Korea are on it, yet Venezuela is, yet both are closer to a socialist economy than France or Sweden are) …and that’s simply not true. They don’t have ‘a socialist economy’ ‘where production and wealth are collectively owned’ and while it’s true the government regulates the economy…that’s kind of true for everyone. Some of those have SOME of that stuff, but not the majority in any of those countries. They are all basically capitalist economies with democracy as the political system and some socialist elements…which is pretty much what the US, Canada and most of the other western nations are at this point.
Exactly my point. ‘Social Democracies’ are generally capitalist countries with strong social safety nets. "Democratic Socialism’ is about using democratic means to seize the means of production and re-organize society through law to fit the views of the democratic socialists, along with a strong regulatory state driving economic policy as an alternative to capitalism, as opposed to the regulatory state merely limiting the excesses of capitalism.
Democratic socialism is organized around central planning of the economy, whereas social democracy allows for an emergent, capitalist economy that is taxed and regulated to some extent for social purposes.
China and Korea are not democratic.
And the others don’t use socialist economics, so you are kind of picking and choosing what part you want to go with there. Also…North Korea does claim to have democratic elections, and China does too (and they are about as democratic as Venezuela, which is on that list)…you can pick any of the (communist party or related) candidates to vote for, after all…though in some cases that means 1 candidate, but you can totally pick that one, quite democratically… 
Norway isn’t keeping the US from getting it.
Um…neither is Venezuela. We are one of their largest customers, and the US gets more oil from them than it does from Saudi or the ME, IIRC. So…what is your point, exactly?
Argue with the people who put out that list, then.
Naw, they won’t listen, where as you used the cite to demonstrate something, so it’s logical that I’d argue with you…especially since you at least are responding. 
I will, however, discontinue this line of discussion, as it seems to me to be a hijack of the thread, and there are other threads discussing socialism that are better forums for this. My apologies to the OP.
Venezuela’s problems began before the Chavista revolution, back when it was decidedly more democratic and even more capitalist. Their problem, like many of the other resource-rich nations of the world, was the assumption that they could depend on an important national resource and use it as global economic leverage while ignoring other avenues for diversifying their market. Chavez and Maduro made these problems even worse, but dumb economic policy isn’t exclusive to leftist governments who promote policies of central economic planning.
You can have capitalist economies that redistribute wealth which are very democratic and simultaneously very capitalist as well. Refer to some of the Scandinavian countries.
I would distinguish between a country that lets you make (or lose) money on your farm in a relatively open market and takes a chunk of your profits to fund its agenda, vs one that seizes your farm to run itself, have the cronies run, or give it to people who don’t know how to farm . . . because fairness. The former is common and IMO more agreeable. The latter is Venezuela and friends.