La Crisis Venezolana: The Crisis in Venezuela

[Proctopeo]

Ah, I see a new sort of apologist has entered the ring: the "communist governments never did anything bad! and if they did, the damn right-wing governments were still infinity times worse! and if they weren't, it's fake news! and if it's not, it's not our fault! and if it was, it's not a big deal anyway!" type.

Just don't engage, they go away eventually.

[Nyasira]

Most definitely!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 4_1953.PNG - Gulag mortality rate. The 1930s was an era of famine and Yezhovshchina, immediately followed by the war, which explains the rise in Gulag mortality. However, after that, the mortality dramatically fell within just a few years to merely 2 or less %.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internmen ... _Americans - I don't normally use Wikipedia as a source, but the interment of Japanese Americans is pretty well known.
http://www.ushistory.org/us/51e.asp - This gives a good illustration as to the conditions of these camps and the paranoid xenophobia that led to them. Pretty sad conditions considering how the USA was still a developed country then without an invasion force eating up its land.

http://www.fox13news.com/news/immigrati ... ity-061818 - Migrant children in cages in the US. I tried to find a right-wing source so that any accusations of bias wouldn't be thrown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Sovi ... referendum - Again, Wikipedia, but the percentage is well documented; this is also pretty well known information.
https://www.rferl.org/a/blood-on-the-st ... 23445.html - Anti-communist news outlet states that most protestors were communists and nationalists. Images of people with Red Flags.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russ ... nal_crisis - Article shows that anti-Yeltsin opposition forces consisted of communists and Soviets.

https://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/bill ... id/747327/ - Bill Clinton's role in advising Yeltsin's presidential campaign.
http://content.time.com/time/world/arti ... 65,00.html - 'Russia's transition to capitalism had impoverished millions of people. The economic reforms known as "shock therapy" had caused hyperinflation [...]'
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nald-trump - More information about rigged 1996 election.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/sund ... t-too.html - $10 billion IMT fund to Russia during 1996 election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Russ ... te_note-64 - Map of 1996 election results.

http://voxeu.org/sites/default/files/im ... onfig1.png - Russian GDP per head falling after fall of USSR and still recovering by 2005.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom ... 0009-5.pdf - CIA admits Soviet diet being slightly more nutritious. Document is from 1983. https://external-preview.redd.it/nzJGBS ... 064db6fe9a shows that during Gorbachev and Yeltsin years where free market policies were introduced, this fell dramatically.

=
1. According to Wikipedia as well, the working conditions in the Gulags were horrible as well. Let's not mention the 1M+ deaths as well.

2. I disagree with the treatment of Japanese-Americans, but the Japanese were not angels. (See: China)

3. Fair enough. At least in my opinion, borders should be regulated so only legal migrants get through, but I disagree with the behavior of America on this issue. Children should not be locked away in cages, yes. I agree. However, the risk of children crossing the border alone is very high.

4. Alright. To my defense, the question mentioned equality between the different ethnic groups in the USSR, as well as respect of Human Rights (That were non-existent prior to that.)

5. So? Yeltsin won the elections, or am I wring?

6. Does it state in the article that the US used corruption to make Yeltsin the leader of Russia? From what I could read, no. Clinton only became his political consutlant.

7. Changing such different economic systems in such a short amount of time is usually not the brightest idea. There's a reason for the "shock" aspect.

8. The Guardian. No, just no.

9. Yeltsin won those elections, and your accusations of meddling are baseless. Meddling =/= advising.

10. That's from friggin 2005. 2005. The Russian economy was devastated because of the fall of the USSR, mainly because falling into anarchy isn't the best of things.

11. Nutritious? Yes, because Russia just didn't simoly have the commodities that Americans had. They just ate what they could. Americans had a wider choice for what they could eat, hence why sugar is on the American diet in your link.

12. See 7

I may have ignored some points by accident, it's 3 am where I live. Just tell me and i'll address them.

1. I'm happy to discuss more about the gulags by looking in depth and Wikipedia's sources on those.

2. Okay? That has nothing to do with my point that the US/West has carried out worse treatment of people than the allegedly evil USSR and its mythical concentration camps.

3. I'm glad you agree with me on this point.

4. What is your response referring to?

5. He 'won', look at the links I posted regarding election fraud and US involvement.

6. That is meddling in the elections. '"When I worked for Clinton, Clinton called me and said, 'I want to get Yeltsin elected as president of Russia against Gennady Zyuganov, who was the communist who was running against him. Putin was Zyuganov's major backer. '

7. A shock aspect that is still affecting Russia, Ukraine etc. today? A shock aspect that people didn't even vote for?

8. Sigh, I had a feeling you'd use this lazy cop-out. Disregarding the fact that The Guardian isn't even pro-socialist, you would see that the article actually links to other websites. If you're going to dismiss it, show where this article is unreliable.

9. Again, you ignore the voter fraud statement, and the fact that massive donations/campaign assistance from another country is, in fact, meddling.

10. 2005. 14 years after the fall of the USSR and it hadn't recovered. You know why it started to recover? Because Putin renationalised some key industries and put an end to the disastrous free market schemes by Yeltsin — though Russia is still undergoing a degree of inflation!

11. It doesn't matter that the American diet had more access to luxuries/sugar whatever. The fact is, the USSR citizens' caloric intake dramatically fell with the introduction of market liberalisation and free market reforms. It doesn't matter that some people could eat bananas and sugar when many others were starving on the streets.

12. See 7.

National Socialism is an offshoot of Fascism; they are not the same thing.

Ignoring the fact that it is indeed a form of fascism and not just a mere offshoot, Italy had concentration camps.

"Muh whatabout the U.S"

https://www.history.com/topics/russia/gulag

This is worse than anything America currently has.

It's their last attempt at defending themselves against any negative accusation of their ideology at this point

You say in spite of the sources I've given. These are both extremely poor arguments. The US is the most relevant example for most users on here and has been a political, economic and military superpower. Why am I not allowed to compare to them without silly and insubstantial arguments? You have all the left of censorship, but I pointed out a clear example of a right-wing nation using censorship in spite of the 'ostensible' freedom enshirined in its values. Don't deflect just because you can't argue back.

https://www.history.com/topics/russia/gulag - Don't think that just because it's 'history.com' it is immune to criticism and scrutiny.

'The Gulag was a system of forced labor camps' - In other words, prisons. They weren't concentration camps and even this article admits that.
' established during Joseph Stalin’s ' - Wait, what? These were not established by Joseph Stalin! Gulags already existed under the Tsar! They were called Katorga. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katorga
'Conditions at the Gulag were brutal: Prisoners could be required to work up to 14 hours a day, often in extreme weather. Many died of starvation, disease or exhaustion—others were simply executed.' - I'm seeing a lot of 'many' without sources embedded into the text.
'The Gulag was first established in 1919,' - The article now says it was established in 1919... Before Joseph Stalin's tenure.

The sources at the end are pitiful. It cites 'gulaghistory' 3 times — ' A Project of the National Park Service and the National Resource Center for Russian, East European and Central Asian Studies, Harvard University.' Not credible.
'Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation' - Extremely biased and unreliable source. They rely on propaganda and they claim that communists killed more than 100 million people; this claim is false and is based on the erroneous and well-debunked '100 million' statistic. The book is riddled with errors and even counts the casualties of war, even though the Nazis declared war on the USSR, as part of communism's kill count.
https://www.ranker.com/list/stomach-chu ... /daveesons - A sensationalised article that links to Victims of Communism and Gulaghistory. You couldn't get less reliable than that.

This website even refers to Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, written by a known anti-Semite whose wife even criticised the book. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c3U7If ... BVgQ0/view

Whataboutism is not a defense, it is an admission of guilt. You already lost the argument just by using it.

Whataboutism is the conservative's favourite 'gotcha'; however, this doesn't apply here, as the example of the US is relevant. You pointed out a left-wing country engages in censorship, and I pointed out one that engages in right-wing censorship. This wasn't intended as a direct response to your accusation — then that would be some degree of 'Whataboutism' — it is intended to add to the discussion as you seem to have forgotten to add that right-wingers also engage in censorship. Really, your accusation is just a cop-out in order to avoid dealing with legitimate points made.

And I don't give a crap about 'winning' or 'losing' an argument. That's all you view this as? How puerile. I view this as a discussion. I'm not going to convert any of you to hardline communists just like none of you are going to convert me to a conservative. But I can give you all something to think about, and perhaps you should use this opportunity to plant a seed of thought in my head rather than viewing this as some kind of game.

Also, you ignored my response about strawmen and fake news just to jump on the Whataboutism train. A good example of strawmen is the quoted response underneath this one.

I never directly responded to the left's handling of censorship but if you want to discuss that without accusing me of every single fallacy you have learnt from a Libertarian YouTube video, I'd be happy to do so.

Ah, I see a new sort of apologist has entered the ring: the "communist governments never did anything bad! and if they did, the damn right-wing governments were still infinity times worse! and if they weren't, it's fake news! and if it's not, it's not our fault! and if it was, it's not a big deal anyway!" type.

Just don't engage, they go away eventually.

Perfect example of strawman right here. Nowhere did I ever say 'communist governments never did anything bad' — I have my criticisms of the USSR, for example — and I didn't say 'right-wing governments were still infinity times worse'.

Also we're not going away.

Strange how you say 'not to engage'... Doesn't sound like a 'free marketplace of ideas' to me...

[Proctopeo]

Ah, I see a new sort of apologist has entered the ring: the "communist governments never did anything bad! and if they did, the damn right-wing governments were still infinity times worse! and if they weren't, it's fake news! and if it's not, it's not our fault! and if it was, it's not a big deal anyway!" type.

Just don't engage, they go away eventually.

Perfect example of strawman right here. Nowhere did I ever say 'communist governments never did anything bad' — I have my criticisms of the USSR, for example — and I didn't say 'right-wing governments were still infinity times worse'.

Also we're not going away.

Strange how you say 'not to engage'... Doesn't sound like a 'free marketplace of ideas' to me...

Even if it's not a completely accurate assessment of your views, it's still the same brand and gives the same results in the end.
Also, freedom of expression doesn't mean others have to humor you by listening, just that you are allowed to say what you wish. Of course, I know you're just using that as a cudgel and don't honestly believe in any sort of freedom of speech.

So, what led you to enjoy corruption, starvation, and hyperinflation, from an ideological perspective, anyway?

[Nerovia]

Update on the currency situation. Basically put it, the country is running out of gold.

https://beincrypto.com/venezuela-gold-s ... tro-fades/

[Inkopolitia]

=
1. According to Wikipedia as well, the working conditions in the Gulags were horrible as well. Let's not mention the 1M+ deaths as well.

2. I disagree with the treatment of Japanese-Americans, but the Japanese were not angels. (See: China)

3. Fair enough. At least in my opinion, borders should be regulated so only legal migrants get through, but I disagree with the behavior of America on this issue. Children should not be locked away in cages, yes. I agree. However, the risk of children crossing the border alone is very high.

4. Alright. To my defense, the question mentioned equality between the different ethnic groups in the USSR, as well as respect of Human Rights (That were non-existent prior to that.)

5. So? Yeltsin won the elections, or am I wring?

6. Does it state in the article that the US used corruption to make Yeltsin the leader of Russia? From what I could read, no. Clinton only became his political consutlant.

7. Changing such different economic systems in such a short amount of time is usually not the brightest idea. There's a reason for the "shock" aspect.

8. The Guardian. No, just no.

9. Yeltsin won those elections, and your accusations of meddling are baseless. Meddling =/= advising.

10. That's from friggin 2005. 2005. The Russian economy was devastated because of the fall of the USSR, mainly because falling into anarchy isn't the best of things.

11. Nutritious? Yes, because Russia just didn't simoly have the commodities that Americans had. They just ate what they could. Americans had a wider choice for what they could eat, hence why sugar is on the American diet in your link.

12. See 7

I may have ignored some points by accident, it's 3 am where I live. Just tell me and i'll address them.

1. I'm happy to discuss more about the gulags by looking in depth and Wikipedia's sources on those.

2. Okay? That has nothing to do with my point that the US/West has carried out worse treatment of people than the allegedly evil USSR and its mythical concentration camps.

3. I'm glad you agree with me on this point.

4. What is your response referring to?

5. He 'won', look at the links I posted regarding election fraud and US involvement.

6. That is meddling in the elections. '"When I worked for Clinton, Clinton called me and said, 'I want to get Yeltsin elected as president of Russia against Gennady Zyuganov, who was the communist who was running against him. Putin was Zyuganov's major backer. '

7. A shock aspect that is still affecting Russia, Ukraine etc. today? A shock aspect that people didn't even vote for?

8. Sigh, I had a feeling you'd use this lazy cop-out. Disregarding the fact that The Guardian isn't even pro-socialist, you would see that the article actually links to other websites. If you're going to dismiss it, show where this article is unreliable.

9. Again, you ignore the voter fraud statement, and the fact that massive donations/campaign assistance from another country is, in fact, meddling.

10. 2005. 14 years after the fall of the USSR and it hadn't recovered. You know why it started to recover? Because Putin renationalised some key industries and put an end to the disastrous free market schemes by Yeltsin — though Russia is still undergoing a degree of inflation!

11. It doesn't matter that the American diet had more access to luxuries/sugar whatever. The fact is, the USSR citizens' caloric intake dramatically fell with the introduction of market liberalisation and free market reforms. It doesn't matter that some people could eat bananas and sugar when many others were starving on the streets.

12. See 7.

National Socialism is an offshoot of Fascism; they are not the same thing.

Ignoring the fact that it is indeed a form of fascism and not just a mere offshoot, Italy had concentration camps.

"Muh whatabout the U.S"

https://www.history.com/topics/russia/gulag

This is worse than anything America currently has.

It's their last attempt at defending themselves against any negative accusation of their ideology at this point

You say in spite of the sources I've given. These are both extremely poor arguments. The US is the most relevant example for most users on here and has been a political, economic and military superpower. Why am I not allowed to compare to them without silly and insubstantial arguments? You have all the left of censorship, but I pointed out a clear example of a right-wing nation using censorship in spite of the 'ostensible' freedom enshirined in its values. Don't deflect just because you can't argue back.

https://www.history.com/topics/russia/gulag - Don't think that just because it's 'history.com' it is immune to criticism and scrutiny.

'The Gulag was a system of forced labor camps' - In other words, prisons. They weren't concentration camps and even this article admits that.
' established during Joseph Stalin’s ' - Wait, what? These were not established by Joseph Stalin! Gulags already existed under the Tsar! They were called Katorga. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katorga
'Conditions at the Gulag were brutal: Prisoners could be required to work up to 14 hours a day, often in extreme weather. Many died of starvation, disease or exhaustion—others were simply executed.' - I'm seeing a lot of 'many' without sources embedded into the text.
'The Gulag was first established in 1919,' - The article now says it was established in 1919... Before Joseph Stalin's tenure.

The sources at the end are pitiful. It cites 'gulaghistory' 3 times — ' A Project of the National Park Service and the National Resource Center for Russian, East European and Central Asian Studies, Harvard University.' Not credible.
'Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation' - Extremely biased and unreliable source. They rely on propaganda and they claim that communists killed more than 100 million people; this claim is false and is based on the erroneous and well-debunked '100 million' statistic. The book is riddled with errors and even counts the casualties of war, even though the Nazis declared war on the USSR, as part of communism's kill count.
https://www.ranker.com/list/stomach-chu ... /daveesons - A sensationalised article that links to Victims of Communism and Gulaghistory. You couldn't get less reliable than that.

This website even refers to Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, written by a known anti-Semite whose wife even criticised the book. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c3U7If ... BVgQ0/view

Whataboutism is not a defense, it is an admission of guilt. You already lost the argument just by using it.

Whataboutism is the conservative's favourite 'gotcha'; however, this doesn't apply here, as the example of the US is relevant. You pointed out a left-wing country engages in censorship, and I pointed out one that engages in right-wing censorship. This wasn't intended as a direct response to your accusation — then that would be some degree of 'Whataboutism' — it is intended to add to the discussion as you seem to have forgotten to add that right-wingers also engage in censorship. Really, your accusation is just a cop-out in order to avoid dealing with legitimate points made.

And I don't give a crap about 'winning' or 'losing' an argument. That's all you view this as? How puerile. I view this as a discussion. I'm not going to convert any of you to hardline communists just like none of you are going to convert me to a conservative. But I can give you all something to think about, and perhaps you should use this opportunity to plant a seed of thought in my head rather than viewing this as some kind of game.

Also, you ignored my response about strawmen and fake news just to jump on the Whataboutism train. A good example of strawmen is the quoted response underneath this one.

I never directly responded to the left's handling of censorship but if you want to discuss that without accusing me of every single fallacy you have learnt from a Libertarian YouTube video, I'd be happy to do so.

Ah, I see a new sort of apologist has entered the ring: the "communist governments never did anything bad! and if they did, the damn right-wing governments were still infinity times worse! and if they weren't, it's fake news! and if it's not, it's not our fault! and if it was, it's not a big deal anyway!" type.

Just don't engage, they go away eventually.

Perfect example of strawman right here. Nowhere did I ever say 'communist governments never did anything bad' — I have my criticisms of the USSR, for example — and I didn't say 'right-wing governments were still infinity times worse'.

Also we're not going away.

Strange how you say 'not to engage'... Doesn't sound like a 'free marketplace of ideas' to me...

1. I gave you the Wikipedia link citing the consdtions in the Gulags, lol. It's not up to me to search it for you.

2. I beg to differ. A period of imprisoning citizens of another nation who you were at war with is arguably less evil than entire camps to throw dissenters to. The USSR was a dictatorial hellhole. This is a known fact.

3. -

4. The poll in question about wanting to continue the USSR

5. Yeltsin was an independent candidate, and went against a Communist one in the elections. This means that the people wanted a change. If the Russians wanted the continuity of Communism in Russia, why did Yeltsin win?

6. Saying "I like this guy. I want him to win." =/= "Let's give this guy millions of dollars so he wins."

7. A shock aspect that happened in the first place because Communism as an ideology is unsustainable if you keep yourself on your shell, and the Soviets did keep themselves in their shells

8. You have used the same lazy cop-out on other people, though...

9. meddling
/ˈmed(ə)liNG/
noun
noun: meddling; plural noun: meddlings
intrusive or unwarranted interference.
"bureaucratic meddling"
As far as I know, the USnever directly interfered in the elections, just told Yetslin what to do, and aas your source said, become Yetslin's political advisor.

10. No, he didn't. Putin is economically liberal. He supported small businesses and cut down on corporate tax, among other things.(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesti ... y_policies)

11. Again, sudden changes in economic policies bring nothing good.

12. See 11 and 7

[Nyasira]

Perfect example of strawman right here. Nowhere did I ever say 'communist governments never did anything bad' — I have my criticisms of the USSR, for example — and I didn't say 'right-wing governments were still infinity times worse'.

Also we're not going away.

Strange how you say 'not to engage'... Doesn't sound like a 'free marketplace of ideas' to me...

Even if it's not a completely accurate assessment of your views, it's still the same brand and gives the same results in the end.
Also, freedom of expression doesn't mean others have to humor you by listening, just that you are allowed to say what you wish. Of course, I know you're just using that as a cudgel and don't honestly believe in any sort of freedom of speech.

So, what led you to enjoy corruption, starvation, and hyperinflation, from an ideological perspective, anyway?

Not really. And I know freedom of expression doesn't mean that, but your kind always harps on about debate. I don't really care personally if you don't engage me, because this is just a forum. It's not like the socialist movement loses anything when a group of conservatives don't engage.

You're clearly here in bad faith, accusing me of not believing in freedom of speech and enjoying corruption, starvation and hyperinflation. Do you not have the capability to have a discussion without these immature and quite frankly useless smears?

1. I'm happy to discuss more about the gulags by looking in depth and Wikipedia's sources on those.

2. Okay? That has nothing to do with my point that the US/West has carried out worse treatment of people than the allegedly evil USSR and its mythical concentration camps.

3. I'm glad you agree with me on this point.

4. What is your response referring to?

5. He 'won', look at the links I posted regarding election fraud and US involvement.

6. That is meddling in the elections. '"When I worked for Clinton, Clinton called me and said, 'I want to get Yeltsin elected as president of Russia against Gennady Zyuganov, who was the communist who was running against him. Putin was Zyuganov's major backer. '

7. A shock aspect that is still affecting Russia, Ukraine etc. today? A shock aspect that people didn't even vote for?

8. Sigh, I had a feeling you'd use this lazy cop-out. Disregarding the fact that The Guardian isn't even pro-socialist, you would see that the article actually links to other websites. If you're going to dismiss it, show where this article is unreliable.

9. Again, you ignore the voter fraud statement, and the fact that massive donations/campaign assistance from another country is, in fact, meddling.

10. 2005. 14 years after the fall of the USSR and it hadn't recovered. You know why it started to recover? Because Putin renationalised some key industries and put an end to the disastrous free market schemes by Yeltsin — though Russia is still undergoing a degree of inflation!

11. It doesn't matter that the American diet had more access to luxuries/sugar whatever. The fact is, the USSR citizens' caloric intake dramatically fell with the introduction of market liberalisation and free market reforms. It doesn't matter that some people could eat bananas and sugar when many others were starving on the streets.

12. See 7.



Ignoring the fact that it is indeed a form of fascism and not just a mere offshoot, Italy had concentration camps.





You say in spite of the sources I've given. These are both extremely poor arguments. The US is the most relevant example for most users on here and has been a political, economic and military superpower. Why am I not allowed to compare to them without silly and insubstantial arguments? You have all the left of censorship, but I pointed out a clear example of a right-wing nation using censorship in spite of the 'ostensible' freedom enshirined in its values. Don't deflect just because you can't argue back.

https://www.history.com/topics/russia/gulag - Don't think that just because it's 'history.com' it is immune to criticism and scrutiny.

'The Gulag was a system of forced labor camps' - In other words, prisons. They weren't concentration camps and even this article admits that.
' established during Joseph Stalin’s ' - Wait, what? These were not established by Joseph Stalin! Gulags already existed under the Tsar! They were called Katorga. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katorga
'Conditions at the Gulag were brutal: Prisoners could be required to work up to 14 hours a day, often in extreme weather. Many died of starvation, disease or exhaustion—others were simply executed.' - I'm seeing a lot of 'many' without sources embedded into the text.
'The Gulag was first established in 1919,' - The article now says it was established in 1919... Before Joseph Stalin's tenure.

The sources at the end are pitiful. It cites 'gulaghistory' 3 times — ' A Project of the National Park Service and the National Resource Center for Russian, East European and Central Asian Studies, Harvard University.' Not credible.
'Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation' - Extremely biased and unreliable source. They rely on propaganda and they claim that communists killed more than 100 million people; this claim is false and is based on the erroneous and well-debunked '100 million' statistic. The book is riddled with errors and even counts the casualties of war, even though the Nazis declared war on the USSR, as part of communism's kill count.
https://www.ranker.com/list/stomach-chu ... /daveesons - A sensationalised article that links to Victims of Communism and Gulaghistory. You couldn't get less reliable than that.

This website even refers to Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, written by a known anti-Semite whose wife even criticised the book. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c3U7If ... BVgQ0/view



Whataboutism is the conservative's favourite 'gotcha'; however, this doesn't apply here, as the example of the US is relevant. You pointed out a left-wing country engages in censorship, and I pointed out one that engages in right-wing censorship. This wasn't intended as a direct response to your accusation — then that would be some degree of 'Whataboutism' — it is intended to add to the discussion as you seem to have forgotten to add that right-wingers also engage in censorship. Really, your accusation is just a cop-out in order to avoid dealing with legitimate points made.

And I don't give a crap about 'winning' or 'losing' an argument. That's all you view this as? How puerile. I view this as a discussion. I'm not going to convert any of you to hardline communists just like none of you are going to convert me to a conservative. But I can give you all something to think about, and perhaps you should use this opportunity to plant a seed of thought in my head rather than viewing this as some kind of game.

Also, you ignored my response about strawmen and fake news just to jump on the Whataboutism train. A good example of strawmen is the quoted response underneath this one.

I never directly responded to the left's handling of censorship but if you want to discuss that without accusing me of every single fallacy you have learnt from a Libertarian YouTube video, I'd be happy to do so.



Perfect example of strawman right here. Nowhere did I ever say 'communist governments never did anything bad' — I have my criticisms of the USSR, for example — and I didn't say 'right-wing governments were still infinity times worse'.

Also we're not going away.

Strange how you say 'not to engage'... Doesn't sound like a 'free marketplace of ideas' to me...

1. I gave you the Wikipedia link citing the consdtions in the Gulags, lol. It's not up to me to search it for you.

2. I beg to differ. A period of imprisoning citizens of another nation who you were at war with is arguably less evil than entire camps to throw dissenters to. The USSR was a dictatorial hellhole. This is a known fact.

3. -

4. The poll in question about wanting to continue the USSR

5. Yeltsin was an independent candidate, and went against a Communist one in the elections. This means that the people wanted a change. If the Russians wanted the continuity of Communism in Russia, why did Yeltsin win?

6. Saying "I like this guy. I want him to win." =/= "Let's give this guy millions of dollars so he wins."

7. A shock aspect that happened in the first place because Communism as an ideology is unsustainable if you keep yourself on your shell, and the Soviets did keep themselves in their shells

8. You have used the same lazy cop-out on other people, though...

9. meddling
/ˈmed(ə)liNG/
noun
noun: meddling; plural noun: meddlings
intrusive or unwarranted interference.
"bureaucratic meddling"
As far as I know, the USnever directly interfered in the elections, just told Yetslin what to do, and aas your source said, become Yetslin's political advisor.

10. No, he didn't. Putin is economically liberal. He supported small businesses and cut down on corporate tax, among other things.(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesti ... y_policies)

11. Again, sudden changes in economic policies bring nothing good.

12. See 11 and 7

1. I have already provided information as to why the conditions in the gulags were poor. Conditions during the famine and the war. Wikipedia even states that the post-war mortality decreased. I also didn't ask you to 'search' anything for me. I said I am happy to discuss it more in depth if I were to look at the sources more in-depth. (Also, forgot to add, I love how you joined the other user in accusing me about Whataboutism when you deflected on to the Japanese in China.)

2. They weren't citizens of another nation, they were Japanese Americans. Also this internment continued until after the war was over until 1946.

4. We can go on and on about 'human rights in the USSR' blah blah blah, but my point was the referendum results were ignored — the voices of Soviet citizens were essentially censored.

5. I am arguing that the Soviet populace wanted to bring back the Soviet Union which includes nationalists. That doesn't mean they all wanted communism. The point was that they were screwed over by a right-wing candidate whose intention was to destroy the USSR.
5b. Also, 1996 elections were rigged, as I've said.

6. My source literally stated that Bill Clinton was responsible for the 10 billion dollar donation from the IMF. https://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/23/worl ... llion.html This supports this claim.

7. And why is Communism unsustainable? Why is it that 'more than half' of Russians in this survey who regret the Soviet Union's demise say that 'they regret losing the Communist union’s “single economic system.”'?

8. Example?

9. And influenced the campaigns and financed them.

10. 1998: 'However, the stake of the Russian Government in Gazprom has since been increased to 50% with Vladimir Putin's plan to increase the stake to a controlling position. ' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... viet_Union
https://piie.com/publications/pb/pb15-18.pdf 'The government also nationalized the shares of his oil company Yukos, citing tax evasion.'
'First, state ownership in sectors like fi nance, energy, transportation, and the media have increased—reversing a previous trend towards more private property (Åslund 2014).'
' The Russian government has increased its role as an owner in several sectors of the economy in the 2000’s' from https://www.efmaefm.org/0EFMAMEETINGS/E ... lpaper.pdf

Also I am aware is economically liberal. He's not as free market as Yeltsin was though. More recently: https://www.cnbc.com/2015/02/03/putin-o ... xpert.html 'Russia is on a path to greater nationalization of private business.'

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/puti ... gsvbxkzvzq 'Russia’s President Vladimir Putin today gave his personal backing to the move that has effectively re-nationalised one-tenth of all his country’s crude oil production.' This is from 2004.

11. Yeah, let's just wait another 20 years for Russia to still be getting back to where it was in 1989. Also, if you look at the graphs I showed, some of this started happening under Gorbachev. This was during his perestroika which wasn't intended to end the command economy, but introduced some market reforms. This isn't a 'sudden' change in the economic system. This was gradual! It further spiralled out of control when Yeltsin damaged Russia which continues today.

[Inkopolitia]

Even if it's not a completely accurate assessment of your views, it's still the same brand and gives the same results in the end.
Also, freedom of expression doesn't mean others have to humor you by listening, just that you are allowed to say what you wish. Of course, I know you're just using that as a cudgel and don't honestly believe in any sort of freedom of speech.

So, what led you to enjoy corruption, starvation, and hyperinflation, from an ideological perspective, anyway?

Not really. And I know freedom of expression doesn't mean that, but your kind always harps on about debate.

Weew what a way to generalize, sir

[Inkopolitia]

Either way Nyasira, this is getting off track. You can continue your poknts vis TG and i'll respond. But can we please get back on the topic of Venezuela? You know, this thread's original subject?

[LiberNovusAmericae]

-snip-

Why don't you use the quote button so I can actually see that you are quoting me? Also, like you even agree with a free market of ideas; you'd suppress us if you had the chance.

[Nyasira]

Not really. And I know freedom of expression doesn't mean that, but your kind always harps on about debate.

Weew what a way to generalize, sir

I'm just doing what he's doing. He doesn't want a proper conversation, then I'm not going to give him one.

-snip-

Why don't you use the quote button so I can actually see that you are quoting me? Also, like you even agree with a free market of ideas; you'd suppress us if you had the chance.

What? I am quoting you. And isn't this just a form of Whataboutism that you accused me of earlier?

Either way Nyasira, this is getting off track. You can continue your poknts vis TG and i'll respond. But can we please get back on the topic of Venezuela? You know, this thread's original subject?

I'm happy to do that. If someone responds to me here though, i'm going to respond here.

[Aclion]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flhItcqfHuE

TL;DW Police breached the Venezuelan embassy in DC to remove a group called CODEPINK who'd been occupying for the past month in protest of the US's recognition of the Venezuelan government.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flhItcqfHuE

TL;DW Police breached the Venezuelan embassy in DC to remove a group called CODEPINK who'd been occupying for the past month in protest of the US's recognition of the Venezuelan government.

Good, we should treat them as foreign agents.

In the video, one of the protesters was wearing an Antifa logo. Seems like they have found their dear leader in Maduro.

[Phoenicaea]

^ as venezuela rests in the bottom of the well, genocide lords prepare an other slaughter, as in Syria. impunity will make this broader, country after country.

[Page]

TL;DW Police breached the Venezuelan embassy in DC to remove a group called CODEPINK who'd been occupying for the past month in protest of the US's recognition of the Venezuelan government.

Here is an accurate summary of the situation.: Pro-Gaudio groups have been illegally seizing Venezuelan diplomatic missions in the US by force. Codepink came to embassy in DC to defend it from being seized. Pro-Gaudio groups laid siege to the embassy and tried to stop food being delivered into the embassy, which American police turned a blind eye to, and now peaceful Codepink protesters have been forced out. Or in other words, Codepink was just trying to uphold international law while American law enforcement was complicit in an illegal embassy seizure.

By the way, Codepink and other activists were invited by the government of Venezuela. They were not trespassing, they were not doing anything wrong.

This is a long video, but for those who have time, you can hear from a reporter who was inside the embassy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUq7ZWTzNxM


For those who have forgotten, seizing embassies by force is generally frowned upon. It certainly was when Iranian revolutionaries seized the US embassy, but apparently America isn't above such behavior.

[Novus America]

TL;DW Police breached the Venezuelan embassy in DC to remove a group called CODEPINK who'd been occupying for the past month in protest of the US's recognition of the Venezuelan government.

Here is an accurate summary of the situation.: Pro-Gaudio groups have been illegally seizing Venezuelan diplomatic missions in the US by force. Codepink came to embassy in DC to defend it from being seized. Pro-Gaudio groups laid siege to the embassy and tried to stop food being delivered into the embassy, which American police turned a blind eye to, and now peaceful Codepink protesters have been forced out. Or in other words, Codepink was just trying to uphold international law while American law enforcement was complicit in an illegal embassy seizure.

By the way, Codepink and other activists were invited by the government of Venezuela. They were not trespassing, they were not doing anything wrong.

This is a long video, but for those who have time, you can hear from a reporter who was inside the embassy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUq7ZWTzNxM


For those who have forgotten, seizing embassies by force is generally frowned upon. It certainly was when Iranian revolutionaries seized the US embassy, but apparently America isn't above such behavior.

The US does not recognize Maduro’s drug dealing criminals as the Venezuelan government.
Because the Maduro government is not the legitimate government, the embassy is not theirs.
So the Code Pink tankies were trespassing.

[The Rich Port]

It's really sad that a legitimate government isn't recognized because Trump is such an embarrassing failure.

Then again, Code Pink protests every single military intervention, so this isn't exactly unforeseen of them.

Still, the Guaido regime is in shit luck if America is their only current ally.

[Robosia]

Here is an accurate summary of the situation.: Pro-Gaudio groups have been illegally seizing Venezuelan diplomatic missions in the US by force. Codepink came to embassy in DC to defend it from being seized. Pro-Gaudio groups laid siege to the embassy and tried to stop food being delivered into the embassy, which American police turned a blind eye to, and now peaceful Codepink protesters have been forced out. Or in other words, Codepink was just trying to uphold international law while American law enforcement was complicit in an illegal embassy seizure.

By the way, Codepink and other activists were invited by the government of Venezuela. They were not trespassing, they were not doing anything wrong.

This is a long video, but for those who have time, you can hear from a reporter who was inside the embassy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUq7ZWTzNxM


For those who have forgotten, seizing embassies by force is generally frowned upon. It certainly was when Iranian revolutionaries seized the US embassy, but apparently America isn't above such behavior.

The US does not recognize Maduro’s drug dealing criminals as the Venezuelan government.
Because the Maduro government is not the legitimate government, the embassy is not theirs.
So the Code Pink tankies were trespassing.

I also might add that while most of the pro-Guiado protesters were actual Venezuelan immigrants, Code Pink is almost entirely composed of middle-class white Americans. Which do you think has more business in the Venezuelan embassy?

Also, Maduro ordered the embassy closed in January, while Guaidó wants it open and has appointed a new ambassador. Maduro has no claims to the embassy.

[US-SSR]

The US does not recognize Maduro’s drug dealing criminals as the Venezuelan government.
Because the Maduro government is not the legitimate government, the embassy is not theirs.
So the Code Pink tankies were trespassing.

I also might add that while most of the pro-Guiado protesters were actual Venezuelan immigrants, Code Pink is almost entirely composed of middle-class white Americans. Which do you think has more business in the Venezuelan embassy?

Also, Maduro ordered the embassy closed in January, while Guaidó wants it open and has appointed a new ambassador. Maduro has no claims to the embassy.

Also also, the US Government is well within its sovereign rights to recognize whatever government of Venezuela it chooses to recognize and convey that nation's diplomatic premises to representatives of that government. If the Maduro regime has a beef with that they can take it to a US federal court, which would most likely rule it doesn't have standing.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

It's really sad that a legitimate government isn't recognized because Trump is such an embarrassing failure.

Then again, Code Pink protests every single military intervention, so this isn't exactly unforeseen of them.

Still, the Guaido regime is in shit luck if America is their only current ally.

Just because the government is leftist does not make it legitimate.

[Nova Cyberia]

I'm glad the US-backed coup is failing. Maduro is the rightful President of Venezuela. ¡Viva Maduro!

Maduro's a degenerate thug who's spent his entire presidency plundering his own country. He deserves to be removed.

[Phoenicaea]

^ infantile praises of a famine and slaughtering regime, on the internet, is yet another proof to bear in mind, that what has to be done is always what is just, not what is shouted.

either are lords to shout or they let their ignorant clients do it.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Can we just get an actually competent leader in Venezuela? Because Maduro is fucking up big time, and Guaido is positioning to be another "US Backed Puppet Regime".

Also
>Venezuela is Socialism!1!1!
>70% Private Sector

[Novus America]

Can we just get an actually competent leader in Venezuela? Because Maduro is fucking up big time, and Guaido is positioning to be another "US Backed Puppet Regime".

Also
>Venezuela is Socialism!1!1!
>70% Private Sector

That 70% number was from ten years ago.
It probably is much different now.
Though because Venezuela no longer publishes credible economic statistics it is hard to get exact numbers.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Can we just get an actually competent leader in Venezuela? Because Maduro is fucking up big time, and Guaido is positioning to be another "US Backed Puppet Regime".

Also
>Venezuela is Socialism!1!1!
>70% Private Sector

Better a so called US Backed puppet than a Cuba backed puppet, the Cubazuela province of Cuba.

https://www.demdigest.org/cubazuela-foc ... as-misery/

[Nyasira]

I'm glad the US-backed coup is failing. Maduro is the rightful President of Venezuela. ¡Viva Maduro!

Maduro's a degenerate thug who's spent his entire presidency plundering his own country. He deserves to be removed.

The last time I checked Maduro isn't the one blocking shipments of insulin to Venezuela. Maduro isn't the one throwing food out and killing livestock to make it look like the grocery stores are empty. Maduro isn't the one whose supporters are setting black people on fire. Maduro isn't the one who declared himself president without an election. Maduro isn't the one causing sanctions that have stopped yet another child from receiving a transplant and is now dead.

^ infantile praises of a famine and slaughtering regime, on the internet, is yet another proof to bear in mind, that what has to be done is always what is just, not what is shouted.

I hope you're not referring to me as I haven't done any of those things.