Or they've drunk the Kool-aid. Ok, Orwell would have said it better, about the self-deception required to love the party or whatever, but you know what I mean.
Venezualan election 2024
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Pretty much.
I think the thing that's utterly dispiriting about much of this is that we don't actually make a better world by replacing shitty capitalism that throws millions under the bus for profit and ideology with shitty socialism that throws millions under the bus for redistribution and ideology.
The base I believe in is that society is about the individuals in it - that we try to maximise them to have the resources, social circumstances, support and opportunities to be free and flourish under their own direction. It is plain that socialism has been capable of failing to deliver and even wreaking havoc on its own people, just as capitalism has. Trying to excuse socialists or enemies of Western capitalists who make things worse for people just because they oppose Western capitalism is not making a better world, it's just a different colour of shit.
Socialists need to demonstrate that socialism can make a better world. The cost of supporting ones that are a different colour of shit is that not only does it fail to improve lives, it also brings socialism into disrepute. Chavez could lay claim to demonstrating that socialism can deliver because Venezuala and its people seemed to do well under his presidency. Maduro appears at very high risk of annihilating that legacy, never mind the harm to Venezualans.
Agreed. It's very easy to say "this is bad, it should be replaced", but there needs to be something better to replace it with. Which is easy for instances of bad things, but not so much for complex systems.
I recall you blowing off any comparisons between Maduro and other South American leaders as we're supposed to ignore proportions when we call elections illegitimate. Where's that vaunted consistency?
You introduced this latest comparison. Now you're complaining because I... engaged with what you said? This really is just arguing for the sake of it now, isn't it?
Others introduced comparisons that you didn't want to make and you blew them off, quite directly. You made the argument that Maduro should be judged on his merits with no comparison because comparing to his alternatives makes him look a whole lot better.
But when comparisons make Britain look better, we no longer judge on merits, we start comparing. That is the inconsistency you show.
You introduced the comparison with Britain. So to be absolutely clear: you are now complaining that I responded to what you said.
((Also note that despite other countries being worse than Britain, i maintained that Britain's barriers were unacceptable, and the comparison (which you introduced) didn't change that. So... exactly the same approach I encouraged you to take with Venezuela)).
Last edited:
My complaint is that you're inconsistent in what you respond to, exactly as was put against you by other posters, and flying directly in the face of your claim that you're consistent.
But I note you aren't calling for the ouster of British politicians over this.
Inconsistent in... what I respond to on the forum? Oh Bast, who the fuck cares? Everybody cuts some stuff they don't care to respond to. That's the most inconsequential non-complaint.
I meant I was being consistent in the standard I was applying within the topic. I honestly thought that was obvious. But if one person asks me a silly question and I ignore it, then someone else asks me another silly question and I indulge it, I honestly couldn't give a shit about that meaningless inconsistency, and nor should you.
And nor am I calling for the ouster of Venezuelan politicians over this, as I've specifically stated three times now.
But you aren't. That's the point here. You're taking a stand of absolute morality when it comes to Venezuela, but relative morality when it comes to Britain. I can't help it if you can't read what I'm writing.
You keep changing what you're writing. A second ago you said the issue was in "what I respond to".
But anyway. The comparison with other countries doesn't affect my stance on Britain's voting barriers at all. Whether their barriers to voting are unacceptable-- that's completely unchanged by any other countries doing things worse. I've explicitly said that multiple times now, ever since you introduced that pointless comparison. If anyone is just failing to read what's been written here, it's you.
No I've been very consistent, you don't apply your morality evenly. People wanted to point out what sort of alternatives there are to Maduro, and you blew that off because it's not a comparison worth making. But the moment we talk about Britain, we have to take their faults in relative terms.
I'm perfectly capable of reading, and note your deflection, waffling, and dodging.
For the fourth time: we don't have to take their faults in relative terms. I literally never said that. It's still unacceptable in Britain. The comparison-- which you introduced-- didn't change that.
How many times do I have to reiterate this? Or are you just going to keep insisting I said shit I never did, regardless?
Okay then. The lead figure of the opposition to Maduro is Machado, a woman who called for the violent overthrow of Venezuela by foreign powers. She was barred for running for hopefully obvious reasons, but the opposition camp was still built around her and her surrogate. When we talk about corruption in Latin America, contemporaries to this are Pinochet, Batista, Noriega, and more recently Anez. It's the kind of vultures who circle these kinds of people calling Maduro corrupt. These are the two alternatives, Maduro or the Pinochet pals. How about we compare and contrast?
Why? Why are you so incredibly insistent on making this into a competition, where any but the worst are let off the hook?
Because it's a very salient comparison when talking about the politics of Venezuela and the backsliding of democratic norms.
I also knew you wouldn't do it from the start. You immediately turn things into a competition when a government you like is involved, but run away from comparisons when it's about Latin American politics.
What's the salience, exactly-- Can you explain why Machado being awful means that Maduro should be free from criticism? Does this strange approach extend to elsewhere-- like Trump being awful means Biden should be free from criticism? The Tories being awful means Starmer should be free from criticism?
Hmm, except I didn't turn things into a competition at any point. I said over and over again that other places being better or worse doesn't absolve a government. I said that consistently for every case that you and others have thrown in: Britain, Venezuela, Ukraine.
Who said free from criticism? It's just important to know that the alternative to Maduro is adjacent to or literally will be a military junta. And the vast majority of criticisms against Maduro actively praise the hypothetical junta government. Most of the stuff you posted was in defense of the Pinochet pals (as in the sources, not you specifically), and you had to exclude most of the criticisms against him and made your point about him far more minor.
You literally did when I brought up Britain. You jumped straight into it unprompted.
Stop here for a second and think about this. You're framing this as though the sole two options are: 1) Maduro, pursuing exactly the same approach as he currently is; or 2) Replacement with Machado. Nothing else-- merely changing policy isn't an alternative you're willing to address. It's either as-is, or full replacement.
Because I've not suggested ousting Maduro. I don't think he should be ousted. I want him to change his approach. But every time, you equate a change of approach with ousting him, as if his power absolutely requires these actions. It doesn't.
So please, approach the alternative scenarios that are actually under discussion here. That's 1) Maduro, pursuing exactly the same approach as he currently is; or 2) Still Maduro, but he publishes the tallies and unbans moderate parties and removes costly voting barriers. Essentially, my favoured scenario is that he returns to the approach Chavez took.
I very clearly stated that Britain's barriers were unacceptable, a fact which was unaffected by Venezuela. Venezuela's situation had exactly zero impact on whether Britain was OK or not.
Last edited:
The first change has to be lifting the sanctions against him because otherwise he's going to have a (rightly reckoned) siege mentality and the continued destruction of the economy no matter what choices he makes. Sadly that's out of his control.
And then immediately launched into apologetics comparing to Venezuela, like I knew you would.