La Crisis Venezolana: The Crisis in Venezuela

[Orostan]

Soo… Try again?

Maduro is a shitty leader and any change would be good change, prove me wrong.

All of Latin American Cold War history is a good starting point for a refutation.

[Proctopeo]

Maduro is a shitty leader and any change would be good change, prove me wrong.

All of Latin American Cold War history is a good starting point for a refutation.

It really isn't.

[Novus America]

Power, sure. But in terms of law, where in the constitution authorises the transfer of the functions of the national assembly to any other governing body?

For an emergency. If the National Assembly is doing everything it can to destroy the country Maduro was authorized to suspend it and install a new body.

Besides it is not like oil prices are the only issue. Other petroleum states (Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc.) got hit by the oil price fall. But are still doing far better than Venezuela.

Besides Venezuela oil production was falling and Venezuela was running a massive deficit and facing shortages and high inflation BEFORE the oil crash.

Had oil remained higher it would have not saved Venezuela, just slowed its collapse a little.
Revenues would still have fallen as oil production and quality fell.

Excess supply of fake currency, currency and price controls still would have caused shortages.

Venezuelan oil production began falling right around when the oil price began falling. Inflation began rising just around when the oil price started falling as well. The US sanctions on the country made the problem worse. Price controls in Venezuela only ‘cause’ shortages because capitalists want to be able to charge poor people more for food but can’t, so they sell on the black market and cause an artificial shortage if they can. Only products that are heavily cartelized in Venezuela are in shortage or products produced overseas. There is a reason that toilet paper might be in shortage but baby wipes are not.

But I think we both agree that Venezuela should have diversified its economy.

Are you talking about them pumping out more oil, causing the price of oil to decline? Are you saying it's their fault that Chavez and Maduro caused the Venezuelan economy to be so catastrophically exposed to the price of a single commodity?

It’s the PSUV’s fault they haven’t switched to a planned economy and industrialized Venezuela. It is the USA and Saudi Arabia’s fault this crisis is so bad.

Umm the National Assembly is not required to rubber stamp his decisions.
By your logic Trump should disband the House of Representatives...

And actually Venezuelan oil production is been in decline since 1998 (the peak).
It was declining even while prices were high.
Only very limited sanctions were applied and only recently. They are not the main factor.

Again the US is still the largest buyer of Venezuelan oil.

And if price controls make it impossible to sell something without a loss, people stop selling it.
Obviously. People are not going to sell a product if they cannot make money.
And command economies have shortages too you know.

Price controls are a bad idea in most cases.

But yeah, we both can agree the Chavistas fucked Venezuela by making it over reliant on a cyclical commodity.

[Orostan]

All of Latin American Cold War history is a good starting point for a refutation.

It really isn't.

Do you like Latin American US-supported dictatorships? You are a ‘libertarian’, so I suppose you do.

For an emergency. If the National Assembly is doing everything it can to destroy the country Maduro was authorized to suspend it and install a new body.


Venezuelan oil production began falling right around when the oil price began falling. Inflation began rising just around when the oil price started falling as well. The US sanctions on the country made the problem worse. Price controls in Venezuela only ‘cause’ shortages because capitalists want to be able to charge poor people more for food but can’t, so they sell on the black market and cause an artificial shortage if they can. Only products that are heavily cartelized in Venezuela are in shortage or products produced overseas. There is a reason that toilet paper might be in shortage but baby wipes are not.

But I think we both agree that Venezuela should have diversified its economy.



It’s the PSUV’s fault they haven’t switched to a planned economy and industrialized Venezuela. It is the USA and Saudi Arabia’s fault this crisis is so bad.

Umm the National Assembly is not required to rubber stamp his decisions.
By your logic Trump should disband the House of Representatives...

And actually Venezuelan oil production is been in decline since 1998 (the peak).
It was declining even while prices were high.
Only very limited sanctions were applied and only recently. They are not the main factor.

Again the US is still the largest buyer of Venezuelan oil.

And if price controls make it impossible to sell something without a loss, people stop selling it.
Obviously. People are not going to sell a product if they cannot make money.
And command economies have shortages too you know.

Price controls are a bad idea in most cases.

But yeah, we both can agree the Chavistas fucked Venezuela by making it over reliant on a cyclical commodity.

The National Assembly is required to not try and sabotage the president. Venezuelan oil production remained pretty much stagnant from 2002 up until 2014, when oil prices began falling. Sanctions right now have made it very hard for Venezuela to use its oil money to buy things like medicine. The US may still be the largest buyer of Venezuelan oil, but the US has been applying other sanctions and more recently sanctioned Venezuelan oil.

The problem with price controls is that capitalists always look for the highest price, and consumers for the lowest. Price controls exacerbate this contradiction. A big cartel is always going to be able to make a lot more money selling for more than for less, so they do. Regardless of if they can afford selling for less or if selling for more is illegal. Social Democrscy is only viable if the socdems almost hold a gun to the head of major capitalists or just nationalize them outright.

[The Archregimancy]

Maduro is a shitty leader and any change would be good change, prove me wrong.

All of Latin American Cold War history is a good starting point for a refutation.

Actually, I think an example from Venezuelan history would be more apropos there.

Very few people outside of Venezuela know about the Federal War of 1859-1863, but in terms of its demographic impact, it's likely the second-most damaging war in post-colonial South American history, after only the War of the Triple Alliance/Paraguayan War of 1864-1870 (fully acknowledging that death tolls for relevant conflicts are imprecise). Tarver and Frederick's 2005 The History of Venezuela (pp.63-68) estimates an overall Federal War death toll of c.150-200,000 (including deaths from disease and famine), or roughly 10% of the population.

Many Venezuelans will be aware of that historical precedent, which is one reason why - for better or for worse - they may not be inclined to take the position that 'any change would be good change', regardless of how much they may (with good reason) detest Maduro.

[Novus America]

It really isn't.

Do you like Latin American US-supported dictatorships? You are a ‘libertarian’, so I suppose you do.

Umm the National Assembly is not required to rubber stamp his decisions.
By your logic Trump should disband the House of Representatives...

And actually Venezuelan oil production is been in decline since 1998 (the peak).
It was declining even while prices were high.
Only very limited sanctions were applied and only recently. They are not the main factor.

Again the US is still the largest buyer of Venezuelan oil.

And if price controls make it impossible to sell something without a loss, people stop selling it.
Obviously. People are not going to sell a product if they cannot make money.
And command economies have shortages too you know.

Price controls are a bad idea in most cases.

But yeah, we both can agree the Chavistas fucked Venezuela by making it over reliant on a cyclical commodity.

The National Assembly is required to not try and sabotage the president. Venezuelan oil production remained pretty much stagnant from 2002 up until 2014, when oil prices began falling. Sanctions right now have made it very hard for Venezuela to use its oil money to buy things like medicine. The US may still be the largest buyer of Venezuelan oil, but the US has been applying other sanctions and more recently sanctioned Venezuelan oil.

The problem with price controls is that capitalists always look for the highest price, and consumers for the lowest. Price controls exacerbate this contradiction. A big cartel is always going to be able to make a lot more money selling for more than for less, so they do. Regardless of if they can afford selling for less or if selling for more is illegal. Social Democrscy is only viable if the socdems almost hold a gun to the head of major capitalists or just nationalize them outright.

Again by your logic Trump should replace the House of Representatives. That is not how democracy works. You cannot replace the legislature just because it opposes the president.

You are wrong, the sustained oil production fall began in 2007.
VERY Limited sanctions happened only in 2015.
8 years later!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... ustry/amp/

The following killed the Venezuelan oil industry.
1). Under investment. Oil is actually capital intensive. The Beverley Hillbillies is NOT a good primer on how the oil industry actually works.
2) Politicization of PDVSA. Firing skilled managers and engineers and replace them with political cronies is bad for business.
3) Corruption.
4) Price and currency controls made the importantion of important parts, materials and equipment difficult.
5) Arbitrary seizures of property scared off foreign investment.
It was bad policy by Chavez, not sanctions nor even the oil price collapse.
Again this began in 2007.

Umm the most successful Social Democracies do not use price controls nor nationalize most of the economy.

The Nordics do neither.
Norway is the most successful SocDem petrostate.

The vast majority of the economy is privately owned and prices are market based there.

[The Archregimancy]

And so long as he's backed by the armed forces and PDVSA (which increasingly overlap), he's likely to remain in power.

The military yes, but you're going to have to enlighten me on how a mismanaged petroleum company is going to keep him in power given oil production is dropping and the foreign exchange is out of whack.

It's fairly simple. While PDVSA is clearly under serious strain, what revenue remains is being funnelled into propping up the government's core support; which increasingly means the military.

In that sense, Maduro's Venezuela increasingly resembles Mobutu's Zaire (now, of course, the DRC) in the 1990s. The vitally important copper and diamond industries were handed over to cronies in order to guarantee their continued support for Mobutu's kleptocracy. Investment in those industries collapsed, and production likewise cratered (acknowledging that political instability was also a factor in the latter). Copper production by Gécamines (the nearest Congolese equivalent to PDVSA) collapsed from 500,000 tonnes of copper a year in the early 80s to under 30,000 tonnes a year by the time Mobutu was forced into exile; yet the company was still producing c.85% of Zaire's export earnings despite that collapse. Up until the First Congo War, none of that mattered; the authoritarian leader managed to keep his core support onside by allowing them to functionally loot the state's most valuable resource in order to line their own pockets.

It's a short-term strategy, of course. As happened with Mobutu, in the medium to long term, it's likely a breaking point will be reached since there are an ever-diminishing pool of resources to share with a pool of cronies that itself has to shrink as there's less loot to go around. But it's also worth noting that the breaking point for Mobutu was an indirect consequence of the Rwandan Genocide, and Rwanda's decision to back Kabila's previously moribund insurgency; as miserable as the situation was in mid-90s Zaire, the final collapse came about via external factors.


Just for reference, I've worked in Venezuela this past decade, and also travelled extensively through Zaire in 1989.

[The New California Republic]

All of Latin American Cold War history is a good starting point for a refutation.

Actually, I think an example from Venezuelan history would be more apropos there.

Very few people outside of Venezuela know about the Federal War of 1859-1863, but in terms of its demographic impact, it's likely the second-most damaging war in post-colonial South American history, after only the War of the Triple Alliance/Paraguayan War of 1864-1870 (fully acknowledging that death tolls for relevant conflicts are imprecise). Tarver and Frederick's 2005 The History of Venezuela (pp.63-68) estimates an overall Federal War death toll of c.150-200,000 (including deaths from disease and famine), or roughly 10% of the population.

Many Venezuelans will be aware of that historical precedent, which is one reason why - for better or for worse - they may not be inclined to take the position that 'any change would be good change', regardless of how much they may (with good reason) detest Maduro.

I am hoping that the HQ of SEBIN and the El Helicoide will be stormed by protesters at some point, à la the Stasi HQ and its regional branches across the GDR. But for that to happen I think that the Venezuelan people will require a lot more pushing to reach that point. I'd be surprised if the shredders at SEBIN weren't busy destroying evidence even as we speak, as they can likely tell that the tide is starting to turn somewhat.

The tactics of SEBIN are a bit odd. They favour brute force methods of repression, which is surprising considering that they have received training from the Cuban Dirección de Inteligencia, who in turn received some training from the Stasi as well as the KGB. I would have thought that SEBIN's tactics would have been similar to the Zersetzung of the Stasi, but instead they seem to be going down the KGB route.

[The Archregimancy]

And again, Venezuela's topography is no worse than Afghanistan's

I have some experience with both regions, and I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. Venezuela's is certainly more varied; difficulty may be subjective.

That said, I agree that deposing Maduro would likely be the easy bit. As we both acknowledge, it's the aftermath that would be difficult. Taking major urban centres such as Maracaibo (oil production), Barcelona/Puerto La Cruz (oil refining), and Caracas would be fairly straightforward as these things go; controlling much of the country beyond those urban centres would be trickier.

And anyone who's taken the Caracas-La Guaira highway from the coast to Caracas knows just how easy it would be to cut off Caracas from its main port and airport. The current government has struggled at times to keep the natural-disaster-plagued vital artery open in peacetime.

[Proctopeo]

It really isn't.

Do you like Latin American US-supported dictatorships? You are a ‘libertarian’, so I suppose you do.

wew

Umm the National Assembly is not required to rubber stamp his decisions.
By your logic Trump should disband the House of Representatives...

And actually Venezuelan oil production is been in decline since 1998 (the peak).
It was declining even while prices were high.
Only very limited sanctions were applied and only recently. They are not the main factor.

Again the US is still the largest buyer of Venezuelan oil.

And if price controls make it impossible to sell something without a loss, people stop selling it.
Obviously. People are not going to sell a product if they cannot make money.
And command economies have shortages too you know.

Price controls are a bad idea in most cases.

But yeah, we both can agree the Chavistas fucked Venezuela by making it over reliant on a cyclical commodity.

The National Assembly is required to not try and sabotage the president.

...where, exactly, did they "try and sabotage the president", and how does it justify the creation of a parallel, non-constitutional, legislature full of party stooges?

[Bahktar]

Do you like Latin American US-supported dictatorships? You are a ‘libertarian’, so I suppose you do.

I think there are some noticeable differences from the Latin American CIA-backed coup d' etat dictatorships during the Cold War and Guaido, an elected representative, ascending to the position of President using justification from the constitution following a period of economic crisis, mass unrest and protest against the rule of the PSUV, which is alleged to be both massively corrupt and is said to participate in electoral fraud on a large scale.

The National Assembly is required to not try and sabotage the president. Venezuelan oil production remained pretty much stagnant from 2002 up until 2014, when oil prices began falling. Sanctions right now have made it very hard for Venezuela to use its oil money to buy things like medicine. The US may still be the largest buyer of Venezuelan oil, but the US has been applying other sanctions and more recently sanctioned Venezuelan oil.

The problem with price controls is that capitalists always look for the highest price, and consumers for the lowest. Price controls exacerbate this contradiction. A big cartel is always going to be able to make a lot more money selling for more than for less, so they do. Regardless of if they can afford selling for less or if selling for more is illegal. Social Democrscy is only viable if the socdems almost hold a gun to the head of major capitalists or just nationalize them outright.

The House of Representatives is required not to try and sabotage the President of the United States and thus it's powers should be massively reduced and given to a rubber-stamp institution .

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Maduro is a shitty leader and any change would be good change, prove me wrong.

All of Latin American Cold War history is a good starting point for a refutation.

"b-but the U.S."

[Kubra]

Power, sure. But in terms of law, where in the constitution authorises the transfer of the functions of the national assembly to any other governing body?

For an emergency. If the National Assembly is doing everything it can to destroy the country Maduro was authorized to suspend it and install a new body.

Besides it is not like oil prices are the only issue. Other petroleum states (Saudi Arabia, Russia, etc.) got hit by the oil price fall. But are still doing far better than Venezuela.

Besides Venezuela oil production was falling and Venezuela was running a massive deficit and facing shortages and high inflation BEFORE the oil crash.

Had oil remained higher it would have not saved Venezuela, just slowed its collapse a little.
Revenues would still have fallen as oil production and quality fell.

Excess supply of fake currency, currency and price controls still would have caused shortages.

Venezuelan oil production began falling right around when the oil price began falling. Inflation began rising just around when the oil price started falling as well. The US sanctions on the country made the problem worse. Price controls in Venezuela only ‘cause’ shortages because capitalists want to be able to charge poor people more for food but can’t, so they sell on the black market and cause an artificial shortage if they can. Only products that are heavily cartelized in Venezuela are in shortage or products produced overseas. There is a reason that toilet paper might be in shortage but baby wipes are not.

But I think we both agree that Venezuela should have diversified its economy.

Are you talking about them pumping out more oil, causing the price of oil to decline? Are you saying it's their fault that Chavez and Maduro caused the Venezuelan economy to be so catastrophically exposed to the price of a single commodity?

It’s the PSUV’s fault they haven’t switched to a planned economy and industrialized Venezuela. It is the USA and Saudi Arabia’s fault this crisis is so bad.

A state of emergency requires the approval of the national assembly and the supreme court.
Furthermore, no legislative powers are defined for a constituent assembly beyond drafting a new constitution.

[Minoa]

But I think we both agree that Venezuela should have diversified its economy.

Strongly this, but I feel that the suppression of human rights in recent years made the whole thing worse.

I only learned today about the US saying that the world must “pick a side” (many will know I have tried to avoid the news, with little success). Because such a phrase is widely associated with conspiracy theorists, I am therefore switching to calling for a negotiated transition and fresh elections.

However, I am still very disappointed in Maduro for screwing things up, and as such I feel that Guaido (from a party who is a member of Socialist International) will inevitably win, only because of Maduro’s screw-ups.

The USA should be less ambiguous in their response, given that the ghosts of the 2003 invasion of Iraq (honourable at first, but a dreadful farce later) still haunt international politics, and now that my mind is extremely brittle.

[Sneudal]

Soo… Try again?

Maduro is a shitty leader and any change would be good change, prove me wrong.

Prove you wrong? Eeasy.
Carlos Prío Socarrás was a shitty leader and any change would be good change. Worked out great didn't it?

There are many more examples, and each one is another reason not to blindly follow a dude who declared himself president.

Oh don't get me wrong, i'm all in favor of removing Maduro, yet i'm not so much in favor of replacing him with some quasi-dictator.



Soo… Try again?



Sure you are, but no, not all are.

We all are biased, by default. We see things through the flawed lens of our identity and experiences. We cannot possibly perceive things free of bias. So it is important we acknowledge rather than deny our biases. Our brains do not work like that.

So what are you proposing to to to get rid of Maduro then? What is your alternative?

We are indeed biased by default, but that does not mean you're not capable of viewing a subject in an objective, unbiased way.

As stated before, conventional pressure.

[Bahktar]

Prove you wrong? Eeasy.
Carlos Prío Socarrás was a shitty leader and any change would be good change. Worked out great didn't it?

There are many more examples, and each one is another reason not to blindly follow a dude who declared himself president.

I think there's a difference between taking power in a military coup while being an un-elected and picked army officer and taking power while being the representative of the body which is widely considered the only democratic institution Venezuela has left, the National Assembly and using the constitution to justify your actions, which are justifiable, considering the massive amounts of unrest in Venezuela.

[Novus America]

Maduro is a shitty leader and any change would be good change, prove me wrong.

Prove you wrong? Eeasy.
Carlos Prío Socarrás was a shitty leader and any change would be good change. Worked out great didn't it?

There are many more examples, and each one is another reason not to blindly follow a dude who declared himself president.

We all are biased, by default. We see things through the flawed lens of our identity and experiences. We cannot possibly perceive things free of bias. So it is important we acknowledge rather than deny our biases. Our brains do not work like that.

So what are you proposing to to to get rid of Maduro then? What is your alternative?

We are indeed biased by default, but that does not mean you're not capable of viewing a subject in an objective, unbiased way.

As stated before, conventional pressure.

What exactly does “conventional pressure” consist of?
And why believe it would actually work?

And you have no actual way to ensure you are viewing a subject truly objectively.
We are prisoner of our own minds.

We can try to be objective without claiming we are.
Because if you believe you are being truly objective you are likely wrong.

[Costa Fierro]

>huuuuurr what is social democracy

Calling Venezuela a social democracy is an insult to both social democracies and Venezuelans, because it never functioned as such. Venezuela functioned much like the rest of the countries that composed the "Pink Tide" as left-wing populists. Chavez was a populist. He launched two attempted coups in order to bring about social change. When he became President, his greatest base of support was within the poorest of Venezuela, both urban and rural. His social policies, while mostly oriented to achieve better development of these unprivileged communities within Venezuela, were essentially a bribe for the poorest voters; vote for me and we'll continue with our programs. There was no attempt at social justice and there was no attempt at creating these within the framework of a capitalist society because the operating ideology of the PSUV is a localised interpretation of socialism.

Calling Venezuela a social democracy is ignorant and a matter of convenience for you, because you don't want it to be associated with socialism and held up as yet another failure of the ideology.

Chavez and Maduro did a lot for Venezuelan workers before Saudi Arabia and the US made everything go to shit.

Venezuela's economic issues predate Chavez and the PSUV. Chavez attempted to address some of these issues, but these policies largely failed. Venezuela was already going down the crapper prior to Chavez's death. Maduro's lack of willingness to address the issues himself and the continued economic mismanagement are very much the reason for why Venezuela is in the hole it is in.

That isn't to say I like the PSUV, I think they're a bunch of socdems who can't decide what they want.

They're not social democrats. They're socialists. End of.

[The of Japan]

>huuuuurr what is social democracy

Calling Venezuela a social democracy is an insult to both social democracies and Venezuelans, because it never functioned as such. Venezuela functioned much like the rest of the countries that composed the "Pink Tide" as left-wing populists. Chavez was a populist. He launched two attempted coups in order to bring about social change. When he became President, his greatest base of support was within the poorest of Venezuela, both urban and rural. His social policies, while mostly oriented to achieve better development of these unprivileged communities within Venezuela, were essentially a bribe for the poorest voters; vote for me and we'll continue with our programs. There was no attempt at social justice and there was no attempt at creating these within the framework of a capitalist society because the operating ideology of the PSUV is a localised interpretation of socialism.

Calling Venezuela a social democracy is ignorant and a matter of convenience for you, because you don't want it to be associated with socialism and held up as yet another failure of the ideology.

Chavez and Maduro did a lot for Venezuelan workers before Saudi Arabia and the US made everything go to shit.

Venezuela's economic issues predate Chavez and the PSUV. Chavez attempted to address some of these issues, but these policies largely failed. Venezuela was already going down the crapper prior to Chavez's death. Maduro's lack of willingness to address the issues himself and the continued economic mismanagement are very much the reason for why Venezuela is in the hole it is in.

That isn't to say I like the PSUV, I think they're a bunch of socdems who can't decide what they want.

They're not social democrats. They're socialists. End of.

Exactly.

[US-SSR]

>huuuuurr what is social democracy

Calling Venezuela a social democracy is an insult to both social democracies and Venezuelans, because it never functioned as such. Venezuela functioned much like the rest of the countries that composed the "Pink Tide" as left-wing populists. Chavez was a populist. He launched two attempted coups in order to bring about social change. When he became President, his greatest base of support was within the poorest of Venezuela, both urban and rural. His social policies, while mostly oriented to achieve better development of these unprivileged communities within Venezuela, were essentially a bribe for the poorest voters; vote for me and we'll continue with our programs. There was no attempt at social justice and there was no attempt at creating these within the framework of a capitalist society because the operating ideology of the PSUV is a localised interpretation of socialism.

Calling Venezuela a social democracy is ignorant and a matter of convenience for you, because you don't want it to be associated with socialism and held up as yet another failure of the ideology.

Chavez and Maduro did a lot for Venezuelan workers before Saudi Arabia and the US made everything go to shit.

Venezuela's economic issues predate Chavez and the PSUV. Chavez attempted to address some of these issues, but these policies largely failed. Venezuela was already going down the crapper prior to Chavez's death. Maduro's lack of willingness to address the issues himself and the continued economic mismanagement are very much the reason for why Venezuela is in the hole it is in.

That isn't to say I like the PSUV, I think they're a bunch of socdems who can't decide what they want.

They're not social democrats. They're socialists. End of.

Gee, guess I missed the part where Venezuelan workers controlled the means of production. THAT is socialism. What Venezuela is is a kleptocracy, same as Nicaragua and many, many other Latin American regimes past and present. Maduro is about as much of a socialist as the Koch Brothers.

I'm a bit surprised no one is talking about US National Security Advisor John Bolton exposing a notepad at today's WH press conference with a memo about sending 5000 troops to Colombia. What that would do besides waste the money used to send them there and expose them to attacks from insurgents, narcos and/or common criminals I confess I can't say; nor can I imagine the Venezuelan military would be cowed by such an empty threat, assuming it was meant as one. The Pentagon denies talking with Bolton about deploying any troops at all anywhere btw.

[Sneudal]

Prove you wrong? Eeasy.
Carlos Prío Socarrás was a shitty leader and any change would be good change. Worked out great didn't it?

There are many more examples, and each one is another reason not to blindly follow a dude who declared himself president.

I think there's a difference between taking power in a military coup while being an un-elected and picked army officer and taking power while being the representative of the body which is widely considered the only democratic institution Venezuela has left, the National Assembly and using the constitution to justify your actions, which are justifiable, considering the massive amounts of unrest in Venezuela.

1) Widely? Hardly.

2) No, it isn't. The constitution is pretty clear on that. Again, this was already discussed some pages ago.

Prove you wrong? Eeasy.
Carlos Prío Socarrás was a shitty leader and any change would be good change. Worked out great didn't it?

There are many more examples, and each one is another reason not to blindly follow a dude who declared himself president.



We are indeed biased by default, but that does not mean you're not capable of viewing a subject in an objective, unbiased way.

As stated before, conventional pressure.

What exactly does “conventional pressure” consist of?
And why believe it would actually work?

And you have no actual way to ensure you are viewing a subject truly objectively.
We are prisoner of our own minds.

We can try to be objective without claiming we are.
Because if you believe you are being truly objective you are likely wrong.

Government aimed sanctions and diplomatic pressure.
Why i believe it works? It forces them to the negotiation table sooner or later, and that's where it can get resolved. Supporting a quasi-dictator and violating Venezuela's sovereignty will only cause more instability, something we should not pursue.

And yes, we do. Facts are not an opinion, your mind is completely seperate from them. Based around those facts you can work to a solution, which in this particular case would have to serve Venezuela's interests and nothing else.

[Novus America]

I think there's a difference between taking power in a military coup while being an un-elected and picked army officer and taking power while being the representative of the body which is widely considered the only democratic institution Venezuela has left, the National Assembly and using the constitution to justify your actions, which are justifiable, considering the massive amounts of unrest in Venezuela.

1) Widely? Hardly.

2) No, it isn't. The constitution is pretty clear on that. Again, this was already discussed some pages ago.

What exactly does “conventional pressure” consist of?
And why believe it would actually work?

And you have no actual way to ensure you are viewing a subject truly objectively.
We are prisoner of our own minds.

We can try to be objective without claiming we are.
Because if you believe you are being truly objective you are likely wrong.

Government aimed sanctions and diplomatic pressure.
Why i believe it works? It forces them to the negotiation table sooner or later, and that's where it can get resolved. Supporting a quasi-dictator and violating Venezuela's sovereignty will only cause more instability, something we should not pursue.

And yes, we do. Facts are not an opinion, your mind is completely seperate from them. Based around those facts you can work to a solution, which in this particular case would have to serve Venezuela's interests and nothing else.

Facts are not opinions but not every thing is objective facts.
And sanctions and diplomatic pressure are what we are doing.
Guaido is a way of making the sanctions and pressure work better.

[Sneudal]

1) Widely? Hardly.

2) No, it isn't. The constitution is pretty clear on that. Again, this was already discussed some pages ago.



Government aimed sanctions and diplomatic pressure.
Why i believe it works? It forces them to the negotiation table sooner or later, and that's where it can get resolved. Supporting a quasi-dictator and violating Venezuela's sovereignty will only cause more instability, something we should not pursue.

And yes, we do. Facts are not an opinion, your mind is completely seperate from them. Based around those facts you can work to a solution, which in this particular case would have to serve Venezuela's interests and nothing else.

Facts are not opinions but not every thing is objective facts.
And sanctions and diplomatic pressure are what we are doing.
Guaido is a way of making the sanctions and pressure work better.

More like the opposite.

[The Rich Port]

I'm totally for the new president.

Now, is Trump actually going to help the new interim government or is he just posturing to gain brownie points with his base? Because, you know, actually helping people overthrow oppressive governments would be fitted into that budget he loves to cut from so much.

[Costa Fierro]

Gee, guess I missed the part where Venezuelan workers controlled the means of production.

They didn't. But that didn't stop the government itself calling Venezuela, and the Bolivarian Revolution, socialist.

THAT is socialism. What Venezuela is is a kleptocracy, same as Nicaragua and many, many other Latin American regimes past and present. Maduro is about as much of a socialist as the Koch Brothers.

Obviously, but I was more getting at the notion that Venezuela isn't socialist because it is a failure, something which self professed socialists often say.

I'm a bit surprised no one is talking about US National Security Advisor John Bolton exposing a notepad at today's WH press conference with a memo about sending 5000 troops to Colombia. What that would do besides waste the money used to send them there and expose them to attacks from insurgents, narcos and/or common criminals I confess I can't say; nor can I imagine the Venezuelan military would be cowed by such an empty threat, assuming it was meant as one. The Pentagon denies talking with Bolton about deploying any troops at all anywhere btw.

Any American soldiers wouldn't be subject to attacks from insurgents because FARC and most other paramilitaries are disarming, in addition they're no more exposed than those who were helping the government fight FARC in the first place. But yes, it does appear to be an empty threat, although others have said that they would be there to support an invasion by Venezuela's neighbours.