Do you think they're going to use that time to slip out the election data that they were supposed to provide for transparency now they've had time to fabricate it?
Venezualan election 2024
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
One's values shouldn't have anything to do with their belief on the facts of the matter.
But how can you make that point with a straight face?
Well, first we have the 2002 coup attempt against Chavez and the broader historical and regional context. More recently, we have Operation Gideon which I'm surprised you seem to have forgotten, given it was Trump's own little Bay of Pigs moment. Other than that, have you just never noticed the $200-odd million bucks appropriated by Congress during the Biden years alone for "democracy assistance"?
If money's going to the NED, it's going to the CIA as NED is a CIA front. The NED was founded specifically in response to blowback from Operation Condor to offload overt support for "anti-Communism" through a supposed non-partisan NGO ultimately under CIA oversight. It's an organization parallel in Latin America to WHINSEC, formerly known as the School of the Americas, and the OAS. "Democracy assistance" is a euphemism for overt and covert operations ultimately under CIA and State Department direction.
When you account for appropriations since Guaido lost in 2015 that's about a half billion, and going back to the Bush years that's over a billion easily. Those are the appropriations on-record, specifically earmarked for it.
Of all points in the thread, this is easily the least disputable yet here you are, trying to dispute it.
You ain't helping your point, here. I mean really, really not helping.
Right, but all of this relates to either past elections, or just broadly to the finances of orgs generally involved in this stuff around the world. There's nothing here specific to the election we're discussing.
We can assume based on past behaviour that they're likely to be interfering somehow. But that hardly seems like a compelling reason to ignore the political repression we know is happening at the hands of the gov.
Are there civil liberties for the fascists? Are they gonna be allowed their newspapers, and their radio programs, are they gonna be able to keep all their farms?
'We' know? Or you've read?
It might not have reached you; I'm not sure how much traction it had on Twitter.
Ah yes, the infamously authoritarian and dictatorial...detaining people suspected of attempted electoral fraud, conspiring to stage a foreign-backed coup, and domestic terror. And...gasp...revoking passports of people deemed flight risks due to, you know, attempted electoral fraud, conspiring to stage a foreign-backed coup, and domestic terror.
This is another Maria Corina Machado situation all over again...over again. Lest we forget the opposition's de facto leader fled the country in 2014, accepted a diplomatic position on behalf of fucking Panama of all countries, so that she could go before the OAS and plead for a US-led "coalition of the willing" to invade Venezuela, forcibly remove Maduro from power, and install her in his stead. Twelve years after her involvement in the 2002 attempted coup against Chavez. You wanna call her having her passport revoked, and being placed under house arrest, "repression"? The shit she pulled to get here from there is usually considered "high treason", and is generally punished here in the civilized world with execution.
Guaido didn't get the "job" done either, and neither will Gonzalez. Mostly because they're cut from the same far-right-populist cloth as Milei and Bolsonaro, not that you hear about that on Western media because Western media's job is to frame them as faces, not heels. It's funny watching you inadvertently praise the virtues of Latin-American Trumpists, simply because the individual they're running against doesn't dance to Washington's tune.
God forbid we start comparing notes between what's currently ongoing in Venezuela, to American response to January 6th, or the background to what's currently happening in Ukraine.
And, this link:
is very much specifically related to this election, given that $200 million I cited was for this Venezuelan election cycle. That USAID/NED funding went specifically to the opposition coalition led by Machado.
I was referring more to the banning of opposition political parties (including socialist ones), extrajudicial killings, criminalisation of protest and independent reporting, voter suppression tactics, etc. You know, the stuff that leads us to rightfully condemn the erosion of democracy when they happen in the US, but get conveniently overlooked or ignored when a favoured authoritarian indulges.
If they were ever going to have the intellectual honesty to tackle that they already would have done. These attacks on the USA are just being employed as deflection to avoid having to address the enormous problems with Maduro's actions.
Well, yeah. When they're violent (predominantly far-right) extremist parties funded by foreign governments which routinely engage in domestic terror and acts of high treason, the government in question is absolutely within their rights to ban them. We're not having a conversation about whether neo-Nazi parties across Europe, the Israeli Kach party and its successors, are getting banned and whether that's ethical or conducive to the function of liberal democracy.
I mean, shit. At this point Ukraine has banned more political parties for alleged pro-Russian sentiment and separatism than those that still exist (and that includes parties that are outright neo-Nazi). Greece banned Golden Dawn. The fucking UK banned Sinn Fein for, what, the better part of two decades? You ain't out here saying word one about any of that, across any thread over the entirety of the Escapist. And even if you had at some point and I missed it, it'd probably be in support of those bans with the lone exception of Sinn Fein as there's no way you'd be able to support that and still maintain any sense of credibility.
I guarantee you that if UKIP, for example, turned out to have been funded by Russia the entire time and turned to January 6th-styled political violence, you'd be in support of banning it, too. I'd be willing to wager given what UKIP is right now, you wouldn't be shedding tears were it banned even without hypotheticals. Would that be repression or rightful prohibition of an organization hostile to a legitimate government's interest?
Why should Venezuela be any different simply because Maduro isn't a good little tinpot dictator?
See earlier statement. You've spent eight years harping nonstop about Russian interference in foreign politics, for the exact same reasons Venezuela resists US-backed interference in its domestic politics (and for far longer). Why is this one instance any different from any other domestic or regional conflict on the planet?
Are we talking about Maduro or the opposition, here? All involved parties are guilty of that shit. It just happens to be the case one side here has a decades-long history of supporting authoritarian narco-states with far worse human rights records than anything Chavez or Maduro ever has done or would do, up to and including financial, logistic, and materiel support for death squads.
Do you really want to start comparing Maduro to the likes of the Somozas, Fulgencio Batista, Carlos Castillo Armas, Manuel Noriega, or Augusto Pinochet? That will not work out well for you, and you damn well know it.
That would be a point with even a semblance of cogency, if this were actually about democracy in the first place.
Ah, so pure whataboutism, combined with the usual (wrong and irrelevant) personal accusation. So it goes.
From my point of view, he's not; I'd like him to be held to the same standard as authoritarians across the globe, so i'll levy the same criticisms for him as i do for the others. So what's your excuse? Why are these bans and purges so egregious when they happen elsewhere, but perfectly fine when Maduro wields the baton?
Uhrm, that would be why I never made that comparison. "Well they're not as bad as Pinochet" is not exactly a principled defence of extrajudicial killings, is it? If that's all you have, then the moral inconsistency and bankruptcy speaks for itself.
Of course, we know your position on that matter: voting isn't fair here in the west, so therefore any and all abuses-- from the mundane to the ultraviolent-- can be equivocated away when someone you happen to like is involved.
Last edited:
And your usual ignoring points which you can't answer, because you know damn well Venezuelan opposition parties are violent extremists funded by foreign governments, and you can't morally or ethically justify supporting them whilst condemning violent extremist parties funded by (the same) foreign governments elsewhere in the world.
He already is being held to the same standard as authoritarians across the globe. That is to say, it's A-okay to be a human rights-violating authoritarian dictator so long as they're amicable to Western economic interest. Or as FDR (apocryphally) put it in regards to Anastasio Somoza, "he may be a son of a *****, but he's our son of a *****".
Sorry, but no. I asked you first, this is a "no u" free zone until you explain how and why Maduro is any different, first.
Otherwise, yeah, I'll exhibit utmost skepticism when instances like Ukraine's banning entire parties on even allegation of Russophilia pop up, while allowing the likes of Svoboda to not just maintain operation, but exhibit influence far outstripping their level of popular support or number of elected officials. What about you?
Given the likes of Pinochet is the alternative to Maduro, as has proven to be the case in Latin America over the past seven decades, it's absolutely fair game to suggest perhaps we start comparing body counts. Especially as these Venezuelan opposition leaders routinely and inevitably turn out to be far-right populists each and every time.
Something you still have yet to note.
We all know my opinion on the matter: specifically, that US empire is fundamentally immoral, and its history of backing authoritarian dictators who ultimately suppress democracy is by no means justifiable. Otherwise, I am and always have been quite clear on my perspective as a political realist. I'm just honest enough to point out when and where the US acts not in the best interests of those abroad, but rather its own in service to US empire. Which is what the US does in Latin America without fail, and has done each and every time for the past seventy years.
But I understand the distinction between what is, and what ought to be. And I own and back up my biases with evidence, unlike you.
Last edited:
In general I think certain sections of the left are a bit to quick to romanticize immoral actors just because the west doesn't like them. Whether its the Houthi pirates ''doing what Luffy would have done'', or poor wittle Russia being ''forced'' to genocide its neighbors and somehow being an alternative to the current capitalist world order despite being a state exclusively ruled by robber barons.
What strikes me is what strange bedflowers they are. They might all not like the US, and be disliked by them in turn, but robber barons, Theocratic pirates and socialist dictators have nothing in common with each other, and even less in common with the leftists that romanticize them. Supporting each and every actor the US doesn't like seems to require a mild dose of schizophrenia.
To be fair I can accept the idea that Maduro has a point banning parties that have undue contacts with a country that ones to overthrow him. But on the same hand the people who make this excuse typically criticize Zelensky for banning parties that want to bow down to a country that's actively waging a war of extermination on Ukraine.
What strikes me is what strange bedflowers they are. They might all not like the US, and be disliked by them in turn, but robber barons, Theocratic pirates and socialist dictators have nothing in common with each other, and even less in common with the leftists that romanticize them. Supporting each and every actor the US doesn't like seems to require a mild dose of schizophrenia.
To be fair I can accept the idea that Maduro has a point banning parties that have undue contacts with a country that ones to overthrow him. But on the same hand the people who make this excuse typically criticize Zelensky for banning parties that want to bow down to a country that's actively waging a war of extermination on Ukraine.
Uh-huh, and you're ignoring that plenty of banned parties weren't right-wing extremists at all, and included a bunch of other socialists. This is all bluster and bollocks, of the same kind as those who'll insist every single party banned in Ukraine are Kremlin stooges.
Not by you, he ain't.
I've answered: he isn't, hence why I'm treating him the same. Now, since you're holding a different standard altogether, I'd kind of like to know why.
Oh! I didn't realise all that extrajudicial murder was necessary, that there's no other option! That's all right, then.
The thing is, pretty much everyone here is well aware of all this fundamental immorality and imperialist meddling. The difference is that you'll deploy this as a smokescreen to excuse any other bad actors you like, whereas principled people tend to hold that the actions themselves are immoral and imperialist, regardless of the colours the perpetrators wear.
I have indeed read it. From independent, credible, corroborated sources. How do you come by most of your info on Venezuela, out of interest? Your long career of volunteer work in the country?
Yes, there are in fact left-wing parties banned in Venezuela...who also happen to be violent extremists who enjoy US patronage. This does not change the fact they are violent extremist parties supported by foreign countries, which in this case continues to be the US. By the way, even though they claim socialism they still adhere to international neoliberalism and politics of empire, they just support a stronger social welfare system than outright right-wing extremists. Which makes them...jack shit, really.
Because the US intelligence community is perhaps the stupidest on the planet and has yet to understand the meaning and full implication of the word "blowback", and at this point is just throwing shit at the wall to see what if anything will stick against Maduro and Chavismo.
You're still trying to divert attention from the fact you're inadvertently supporting Latin American trumpism, by the way. You're just trying to distract from it by pointing out the minority of vague illiberal non-entities in Venezuelan politics.
Okay, name one which isn't. I'm sure you'll try to cite one among the panoply of communist parties, but ultimately those are ideological descendants of the CPSU, and therefore banned for alleged russophilia due to that ideological connection anyways.
I'm the only one who is, boyo, and I'm doing it by the only metric that actually matters to this discussion.
Oh, the hell you are.
At this point you're just trying to deliberately misread my comments to distract from the point. So come on, put your money where your mouth is. What about Maduro makes him any more or less objectionable than any of the US-backed dictators, most of which rose to power to US-backed coups, I cited? Let's start seeing the scoreboard!
Well, if everyone's aware of it, some people in here are deliberately covering for it. Wonder who that might be, and if they have established track records for far-right and neo-fascist apologia (but only so long as it serves Western hegemonic interest) in other threads...
Oh indeed, principled actors like you who unfortunately suffer blue-yellow color blindness.
Last edited:
You read something from someone you consider credible (and others who echo this person or better yet cite them in circular fashion) and then claim to know something. You then make further conclusions based on not liking the person or group under discussion, such as when you drew conclusions about Hamas based on a constellation of hoaxes and vague gesturing by legacy media-- particularly persuasive to you with respect to Hamas's 'systematic use of rape as a weapon of war' was Hamas's track record of not doing that at all but irrelevantly doing other things you didn't like. Such episteme.
You assume, based on fuck-all except the statements of the one wielding the banhammer. Extremism and violence wasn't even the stated basis for most excluded parties.
Ah, the intellectual equivalent of insisting that anyone who criticises Biden or Harris is "inadvertently supporting Trump". Taking a line directly from the Dem playbook is a nice touch.
I mean, you've already started shifting the goalposts within the framing of the question, to exclude and excuse the banning of non-violent and non-right-wing parties on other grounds. So what's the point? Those posts will surely magically shift around whatever I say.
Not sure why you're so desperate to turn this into a bizarre competition. Here I was thinking a government should just be criticised on its own merits.
Wait, what am I saying? Of course I know the reason; it'll allow you to talk at great length about anything that isn't this election in Venezuela!
Nope, just pointing out where it isn't relevant. If you want to find someone with a track record of far-right and neo-fascist apologia, look in the mirror.
Last edited: