"It is not enough to dismiss the problem by saying, “Well, US imperialism has been working as hard as it can to undermine the Bolivarian Revolution.” Of course this is true. But it misses the point."
I profoundly disagree! It is exactly the point! The empire has done its best to sabotage a productive and healthy Venezuelan economy, including stealing some 30 tons of its gold reserves! They stole the entire CITGO company and transferred much of its resources to the fake "president" the traitor Guaido, they have created economic sabotage, as they did with Allende's Chile, with such tragic results, and as they did with Nicaragua circa 1990 when the Sandanistas lost power temporarily due to similar hardship on the people. Venezuela since Chavez to present has built some 5 million homes for people,despite the onerous sanctions ,and it is a testament to their population that a majority saw through the ploy and still support the Bolivarian path. Viva Venezuela, staying out of the empire's black hole. Jon
Yep. The USA cannot allow the "threat of a good example" in "our" hemisphere. To wit: no socialist government will be allowed to survive healthily let alone thrive, especially one with vast natural resources (oil) like Venezuela.
Also thanks for bringing up the THEFT of Venezuela's gold, most if not all of which was in the City of London. They just straight up stole it. And we're supposed to presume that the revolution failed because "only" 51% of the people left in Venezuela voted for Maduro, with mere lip service paid by John to the brutal, evil, COMPREHENSIVE and ILLEGAL sanctions regime? I'm disappointed in this article; way more than any other he's written.
No disrespect but you're missing a crucial component of this election. Years of brutal economic sanctions, sabotage, coup attempts, and destabilization efforts directed by the USA and right-wing Venezuelan ex-pats who live comfortably in Miami and Madrid. To the question about why Maduro could *only* get 51% of the vote max, you also have to consider the following:
"The vote for continuing the Bolivarian Revolution represents a mandate for national sovereignty. Venezuelans went to the polls knowing that a vote for the incumbent meant no relief from US unilateral coercive measures. These so-called “sanctions” have been part of Washington’s failed regime-change campaign explicitly designed to asphyxiate the Venezuelan economy and turn the people against their government." - Roger D. Harris, US Peace Council and the 39-year-old human rights organization Task Force on the Americas
So the Venezuelans, the 51% who voted for Maduro, did so **ANYWAY** knowing that they were going to be subject to continued sanctions and sabotage. And that's not even considering the desperation of the people who voted for one of the smaller "opposition" parties or didn't vote at all. It's simply not possible to say that the Bolivaran Revolution has failed without doing a deep dive among the actual people there on the ground and querying them about what motivated their vote.
However, if the Bolivarian Revolution had succeeded fully then the basic needs of all the people would be met with a maximum of both freedom and fairness in the economy and the culture. Then the people would be strongly behind Maduro. Sanctions should not be a big problem if the people are able to access their own internal land and resources to provision for their basic needs. I suspect there is a need for full land reform internally, it is not sufficient to simply nationalize oil and depend on oil rents.
You clearly have no idea what it's like to live in a country under Uncle Scam's boot. Not only are there the brutal, draconian sanctions, but the US conspired with Saudi Arabia to flatline/depress oil prices around the 2014-2015 time period, which also quite conveniently aligned with the Venezuelan economy tanking. There are several sources for that, but here's one. Keep in mind this is a *mainstream* pro-US source: https://time.com/3648604/saudi-us-dropping-oil-prices/
Have you ever heard the phrase: "The threat of a good example" or read about The Monroe Doctrine? The US has from day one of the Bolivaran Revolution done everything short of an open military invasion to sabotage the socialist government of Venezuela. Everything.
If you want to understand the food and agriculture system in Venezuela, here's a VERY long article that is extremely comprehensive and interesting.
I recently heard the President of El Salvador talk about how they have freed their country from the globalists elite rule powers.. And sanctions have not been a problem for Russia it has driven them towards ever more self reliance and internal production.
Russia has only been under sanctions for about 7 years. Since the fake Russiagate scandal of 2016. Russia is a massive country in another hemisphere with huge resources and trade ties outside of the US's ability to sabotage, or at least with the ability to circumvent them.
It's starting to sound more like you need to get yourself up to speed on long-term geopolitics and world history and less as though anyone is going to be able to explain away the vast differences between Russia and Venezuela when it comes to US sanctions.
Perhaps a better place to start if you're looking for comparisons - an already vapid way of doing this kind of thinking - is Cuba. Except Cuba has no oil. Maybe even Iran. Simply due to the large geographic distance from the US, and even there "we" and the British have been able to virtually strangle them on various fronts. Economically, militarily, and politically. Does El Salvador have oil or lithium? I highly doubt it. Again, maybe you need to do a lot more reading on geopolitical history.
But let's keep the comparisons going. Would the US government or the elite economic interests that control it care if Costa Rica started mouthing off? Nope. Since - like El Salvador - at the end of the day, they aren't really worth much.
I ask that you realize peoples views are formed by diverse information and it does not make one person right and the other stupidly ignorant as you imply I am about geopolitics. My book The Earth Belongs to Everyone received the Radical Middle Book Award and regarding my knowledge of geopolitics I suggest you read the last article titled Economics of War and Peace and you will note I am well-informed. I can say that you are ignorant of my knowledge, so let us learn from each other rather than castigate. Free pdf of my book is here in Resources section: www.theIU.org
But Alanna, it CANNOT succeed when sabotaged so heavily by the machinations of the empire. I concur with . . .Huffy. It can make progress, but it is like trying to run when shackled at the feet. Walk yes, but not run.
Even the longer brutal US sanctions on Iran have not weakened the Iranian government's support from the public.
Regarding sanctions on Iran, oil rich just like Venezuela, one reports says: "By imposing sanctions, the U.S. sought to crush Iran's economy and make life so difficult for ordinary Iranians that they would rise up and either change the regime's behavior or overthrow it altogether. However, this strategy relied on the assumption that Iranians would blame their misery on their own government and not those imposing the sanctions. Rather than blaming their government, Iranians have experienced a classic rally-'round-the-flag effect with sanctions inadvertently solidifying support for the regime. By creating animus against the U.S., sanctions have turned Iran's hurting middle class into either de facto or de jure supporters of Iran's leaders." [source https://reason.com/2024/05/02/sanctions-are-for-losers/ ]
As the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation reports regarding U.S. sanctions on Iran:
"However, sanctions have had important unintended consequences, including empowering the existing regime, while weakening more moderate, pro-Western Iranians who could be allies of the United States in the future. Paradoxically, economic woes have allowed the government to take greater control over the economy, and to use patronage, favors, and other methods to shield regime allies from the pain of sanctions. On the other hand, those hit hardest by the sanctions seem to be precisely those who otherwise would support a more moderate government in Iran, and who look favorably on the U.S. Reducing the economic and political power that such groups wield is not in the U.S.’ long-term interests as it looks to eventually pursue a normalized relationship with Iran." [source:https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/REPORT_-_Are_Sanctions_On_Iran_Working_-_June_3.pdf ]
Jon, what is your reasoning here? Are you saying that because the US is working to make life miserable for Venezuelans this makes it HARDER for the Bolivarian Revolution to persuade Venezuelans that U.S. imperialism is their enemy that they should vote against?
Of course not (with regard to you final question). My understanding is that in spite of increased hardship due to sanctions, MOST Venezuelans recognize that the worse option is to align with pro-US imperial elements, and vote accordingly. With regard to Iran, my sense is that a great many would prefer an far more laid back government and social norms, as they briefly had with Mossedegh in the fifties, but that when the option is to support the government they have or the intrusion of US influence, they support the former. Having other empire-resistance allies in the geographic neighborhood also plays a role with both Iran and Venezuela--not going it all alone, as Cuba did for so long.
Jon - How are they doing it in El Salvador? Also,, you know I work for fundamental tax shift to commons rent. If we built a bigger movement for this inside the belly of the beast we would be doing something that could really help VZ and elsewhere do the same. But people still are not figuring out what to do to take the shackles off the feet of our own people in the US! Do you agree that WE are the big problem, we the people of the US, NOT UNITED.
El Salvador has NOTHING in terms of resources, which are the current de facto reason for US intervention and sanctions. In the 70s and 80s when El Salvador *was* one of the focal points, it was due to the global "war on communism" - it was a country that represented a real "threat" in terms of moving to state socialism/communism in Latin America. There was also the United Fruit and Chiquita stuff going on in prior decades. So in the past El Salvador et. al were in fact of importance to the economic interests that own the US government. This was way before oil was discovered in Venezuela or lithium in other SA countries.
The US and elite economic powers' approach to El Salvador (or Nicaragua or Guatemala....etc.) will NEVER be the same as towards Bolivia (lithium) or Venezuela (oil) as it is to what now constitute meaningless countries in terms of resource extraction and are only inconvenient roadblocks or speedbumps to continued US Monroe Doctrine control of Central/South America. Even Mexico is a totally different animal given the context of MASSIVE trade and the huge shared border. El Salvador is barely remotely useful as a comparison point when we're talking about Venezuela.
The Bolivarian Revolution in VZ would have been stronger and enable more country-wide self- reliance in producing basic goods and services had they implemented the big tax shift off of wages and procution and onto the commons rent (aka land value tax) which would have created land reform and been appealing to small business owners. VZ has the resources internally to produce goods and services that are necessary. Recall how Cuba did it.
No, I don't blame "us," but those of us who are politically conscious need to keep advocating for rational solutions. As I have said before, I think your solution is a small one in the face of a big problem--worth pursuing as an interim measure. But without control in the hands of working people, the default is always the the dominant paradigm, i.e. imperial control.THAT is the big nut to crack.
Jon - then if you think the big tax shift solution is a small one I would hope you could do more study of the issue, maybe read my book? Because when labor/workers have affordable access to land they can self-employ and/or form cooperatives and get out from the control of big capital. This is not theory this is simply how it works. This is a huge potential for non-violent revolution but only if people like you take the time to understand the land problem and what to do about it. We are talking about the foundation of the Person/Planet relationship for god's sake, what can be bigger or more fundamental!!!
Remember Alanna, I DID read your book, and don't oppose your answers, but the central question is always WHO HOLDS State Power--and that involves the military, police, and all the alphabet agencies, along with imperial aggression abroad. Municipal ordinances, no matter how benevolent locally, do not change that.
Here's a question for you. To start with let me define a "fundamental conflict" as one in which neither side will let the other have what it wants unless forced to by violence or the credible threat of violence. Thus whether or not to have slavery was a fundamental conflict in the United States in 1860; it could only be resolved by violence despite the fact that there was a democratic-republican system of government at the time.
In contrast, whether or not to have this or that tariff, for example, might be a non-fundamental conflict: one in which both sides could reach a satisfactory (to each side) compromise agreement without any resort to violence.
So my question is this. Regarding the conflict between a) what you advocate (the land tax, etc.) and b) what the billionaire plutocracy wants, is this a fundamental or non-fundamental onflict?
Jon- If the US is the problem why are the people in our "peace and justice networks" not clear about what we should actually do about it in sufficient detail to build momentum for change.
"the basic needs of all the people would be met with a maximum of both freedom and fairness in the economy and the culture." Consider the 5.1 million new homes and over 90% food sovereignty as a great start on this road. Your comments underplay the enormous burden being imposed by the sanctions. I am no expert, but Gloria is, so ask her.
John - good question! I have forwarded this on to my international network requesting their insights and will let you know.
Thank you!
"It is not enough to dismiss the problem by saying, “Well, US imperialism has been working as hard as it can to undermine the Bolivarian Revolution.” Of course this is true. But it misses the point."
I profoundly disagree! It is exactly the point! The empire has done its best to sabotage a productive and healthy Venezuelan economy, including stealing some 30 tons of its gold reserves! They stole the entire CITGO company and transferred much of its resources to the fake "president" the traitor Guaido, they have created economic sabotage, as they did with Allende's Chile, with such tragic results, and as they did with Nicaragua circa 1990 when the Sandanistas lost power temporarily due to similar hardship on the people. Venezuela since Chavez to present has built some 5 million homes for people,despite the onerous sanctions ,and it is a testament to their population that a majority saw through the ploy and still support the Bolivarian path. Viva Venezuela, staying out of the empire's black hole. Jon
Yep. The USA cannot allow the "threat of a good example" in "our" hemisphere. To wit: no socialist government will be allowed to survive healthily let alone thrive, especially one with vast natural resources (oil) like Venezuela.
https://chomsky.info/unclesam01/
Also thanks for bringing up the THEFT of Venezuela's gold, most if not all of which was in the City of London. They just straight up stole it. And we're supposed to presume that the revolution failed because "only" 51% of the people left in Venezuela voted for Maduro, with mere lip service paid by John to the brutal, evil, COMPREHENSIVE and ILLEGAL sanctions regime? I'm disappointed in this article; way more than any other he's written.
No disrespect but you're missing a crucial component of this election. Years of brutal economic sanctions, sabotage, coup attempts, and destabilization efforts directed by the USA and right-wing Venezuelan ex-pats who live comfortably in Miami and Madrid. To the question about why Maduro could *only* get 51% of the vote max, you also have to consider the following:
"The vote for continuing the Bolivarian Revolution represents a mandate for national sovereignty. Venezuelans went to the polls knowing that a vote for the incumbent meant no relief from US unilateral coercive measures. These so-called “sanctions” have been part of Washington’s failed regime-change campaign explicitly designed to asphyxiate the Venezuelan economy and turn the people against their government." - Roger D. Harris, US Peace Council and the 39-year-old human rights organization Task Force on the Americas
So the Venezuelans, the 51% who voted for Maduro, did so **ANYWAY** knowing that they were going to be subject to continued sanctions and sabotage. And that's not even considering the desperation of the people who voted for one of the smaller "opposition" parties or didn't vote at all. It's simply not possible to say that the Bolivaran Revolution has failed without doing a deep dive among the actual people there on the ground and querying them about what motivated their vote.
This guy is pretty good. https://geopoliticaleconomy.substack.com/p/us-government-edison-poll-venezuela-fraud
As is Alan MacLeod: https://www.mintpressnews.com/venezuela-while-us-politicians-call-fraud-american-election-observers-endorse-results/288010/ One takeaway here is that there was a MASSIVE PR (propaganda) campaign waged by outside actors using both the "opposition" and their own channels. This surely influenced the number of people who showed up to vote and who they voted for out of desperation.
Yes, and please see my comment above.
However, if the Bolivarian Revolution had succeeded fully then the basic needs of all the people would be met with a maximum of both freedom and fairness in the economy and the culture. Then the people would be strongly behind Maduro. Sanctions should not be a big problem if the people are able to access their own internal land and resources to provision for their basic needs. I suspect there is a need for full land reform internally, it is not sufficient to simply nationalize oil and depend on oil rents.
OMG. Sanctions should not be a big problem? On the conservative side, in a one year period, pre-COVID, a US think tank study attributed 40 THOUSAND deaths to the sanctions alone. https://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/venezuela-sanctions-2019-04.pdf
You clearly have no idea what it's like to live in a country under Uncle Scam's boot. Not only are there the brutal, draconian sanctions, but the US conspired with Saudi Arabia to flatline/depress oil prices around the 2014-2015 time period, which also quite conveniently aligned with the Venezuelan economy tanking. There are several sources for that, but here's one. Keep in mind this is a *mainstream* pro-US source: https://time.com/3648604/saudi-us-dropping-oil-prices/
Have you ever heard the phrase: "The threat of a good example" or read about The Monroe Doctrine? The US has from day one of the Bolivaran Revolution done everything short of an open military invasion to sabotage the socialist government of Venezuela. Everything.
If you want to understand the food and agriculture system in Venezuela, here's a VERY long article that is extremely comprehensive and interesting.
https://monthlyreview.org/2018/06/01/the-politics-of-food-in-venezuela/
I recently heard the President of El Salvador talk about how they have freed their country from the globalists elite rule powers.. And sanctions have not been a problem for Russia it has driven them towards ever more self reliance and internal production.
Russia has only been under sanctions for about 7 years. Since the fake Russiagate scandal of 2016. Russia is a massive country in another hemisphere with huge resources and trade ties outside of the US's ability to sabotage, or at least with the ability to circumvent them.
It's starting to sound more like you need to get yourself up to speed on long-term geopolitics and world history and less as though anyone is going to be able to explain away the vast differences between Russia and Venezuela when it comes to US sanctions.
Perhaps a better place to start if you're looking for comparisons - an already vapid way of doing this kind of thinking - is Cuba. Except Cuba has no oil. Maybe even Iran. Simply due to the large geographic distance from the US, and even there "we" and the British have been able to virtually strangle them on various fronts. Economically, militarily, and politically. Does El Salvador have oil or lithium? I highly doubt it. Again, maybe you need to do a lot more reading on geopolitical history.
But let's keep the comparisons going. Would the US government or the elite economic interests that control it care if Costa Rica started mouthing off? Nope. Since - like El Salvador - at the end of the day, they aren't really worth much.
I tried to "like" but it didn't take. Bingo!
I ask that you realize peoples views are formed by diverse information and it does not make one person right and the other stupidly ignorant as you imply I am about geopolitics. My book The Earth Belongs to Everyone received the Radical Middle Book Award and regarding my knowledge of geopolitics I suggest you read the last article titled Economics of War and Peace and you will note I am well-informed. I can say that you are ignorant of my knowledge, so let us learn from each other rather than castigate. Free pdf of my book is here in Resources section: www.theIU.org
Who are the funders of the Prout Research Institute of Venezuela?
dunno it was many years ago that i was involved but usually PROUT activities are funded by donations from various sources and not well funded at all!
But Alanna, it CANNOT succeed when sabotaged so heavily by the machinations of the empire. I concur with . . .Huffy. It can make progress, but it is like trying to run when shackled at the feet. Walk yes, but not run.
Jon,
Even the longer brutal US sanctions on Iran have not weakened the Iranian government's support from the public.
Regarding sanctions on Iran, oil rich just like Venezuela, one reports says: "By imposing sanctions, the U.S. sought to crush Iran's economy and make life so difficult for ordinary Iranians that they would rise up and either change the regime's behavior or overthrow it altogether. However, this strategy relied on the assumption that Iranians would blame their misery on their own government and not those imposing the sanctions. Rather than blaming their government, Iranians have experienced a classic rally-'round-the-flag effect with sanctions inadvertently solidifying support for the regime. By creating animus against the U.S., sanctions have turned Iran's hurting middle class into either de facto or de jure supporters of Iran's leaders." [source https://reason.com/2024/05/02/sanctions-are-for-losers/ ]
As the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation reports regarding U.S. sanctions on Iran:
"However, sanctions have had important unintended consequences, including empowering the existing regime, while weakening more moderate, pro-Western Iranians who could be allies of the United States in the future. Paradoxically, economic woes have allowed the government to take greater control over the economy, and to use patronage, favors, and other methods to shield regime allies from the pain of sanctions. On the other hand, those hit hardest by the sanctions seem to be precisely those who otherwise would support a more moderate government in Iran, and who look favorably on the U.S. Reducing the economic and political power that such groups wield is not in the U.S.’ long-term interests as it looks to eventually pursue a normalized relationship with Iran." [source:https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/REPORT_-_Are_Sanctions_On_Iran_Working_-_June_3.pdf ]
Jon, what is your reasoning here? Are you saying that because the US is working to make life miserable for Venezuelans this makes it HARDER for the Bolivarian Revolution to persuade Venezuelans that U.S. imperialism is their enemy that they should vote against?
Of course not (with regard to you final question). My understanding is that in spite of increased hardship due to sanctions, MOST Venezuelans recognize that the worse option is to align with pro-US imperial elements, and vote accordingly. With regard to Iran, my sense is that a great many would prefer an far more laid back government and social norms, as they briefly had with Mossedegh in the fifties, but that when the option is to support the government they have or the intrusion of US influence, they support the former. Having other empire-resistance allies in the geographic neighborhood also plays a role with both Iran and Venezuela--not going it all alone, as Cuba did for so long.
Jon - How are they doing it in El Salvador? Also,, you know I work for fundamental tax shift to commons rent. If we built a bigger movement for this inside the belly of the beast we would be doing something that could really help VZ and elsewhere do the same. But people still are not figuring out what to do to take the shackles off the feet of our own people in the US! Do you agree that WE are the big problem, we the people of the US, NOT UNITED.
Alanna,
El Salvador has NOTHING in terms of resources, which are the current de facto reason for US intervention and sanctions. In the 70s and 80s when El Salvador *was* one of the focal points, it was due to the global "war on communism" - it was a country that represented a real "threat" in terms of moving to state socialism/communism in Latin America. There was also the United Fruit and Chiquita stuff going on in prior decades. So in the past El Salvador et. al were in fact of importance to the economic interests that own the US government. This was way before oil was discovered in Venezuela or lithium in other SA countries.
The US and elite economic powers' approach to El Salvador (or Nicaragua or Guatemala....etc.) will NEVER be the same as towards Bolivia (lithium) or Venezuela (oil) as it is to what now constitute meaningless countries in terms of resource extraction and are only inconvenient roadblocks or speedbumps to continued US Monroe Doctrine control of Central/South America. Even Mexico is a totally different animal given the context of MASSIVE trade and the huge shared border. El Salvador is barely remotely useful as a comparison point when we're talking about Venezuela.
The Bolivarian Revolution in VZ would have been stronger and enable more country-wide self- reliance in producing basic goods and services had they implemented the big tax shift off of wages and procution and onto the commons rent (aka land value tax) which would have created land reform and been appealing to small business owners. VZ has the resources internally to produce goods and services that are necessary. Recall how Cuba did it.
No, I don't blame "us," but those of us who are politically conscious need to keep advocating for rational solutions. As I have said before, I think your solution is a small one in the face of a big problem--worth pursuing as an interim measure. But without control in the hands of working people, the default is always the the dominant paradigm, i.e. imperial control.THAT is the big nut to crack.
Jon - then if you think the big tax shift solution is a small one I would hope you could do more study of the issue, maybe read my book? Because when labor/workers have affordable access to land they can self-employ and/or form cooperatives and get out from the control of big capital. This is not theory this is simply how it works. This is a huge potential for non-violent revolution but only if people like you take the time to understand the land problem and what to do about it. We are talking about the foundation of the Person/Planet relationship for god's sake, what can be bigger or more fundamental!!!
Remember Alanna, I DID read your book, and don't oppose your answers, but the central question is always WHO HOLDS State Power--and that involves the military, police, and all the alphabet agencies, along with imperial aggression abroad. Municipal ordinances, no matter how benevolent locally, do not change that.
I just bought your book on Amazon Alanna.
Here's a question for you. To start with let me define a "fundamental conflict" as one in which neither side will let the other have what it wants unless forced to by violence or the credible threat of violence. Thus whether or not to have slavery was a fundamental conflict in the United States in 1860; it could only be resolved by violence despite the fact that there was a democratic-republican system of government at the time.
In contrast, whether or not to have this or that tariff, for example, might be a non-fundamental conflict: one in which both sides could reach a satisfactory (to each side) compromise agreement without any resort to violence.
So my question is this. Regarding the conflict between a) what you advocate (the land tax, etc.) and b) what the billionaire plutocracy wants, is this a fundamental or non-fundamental onflict?
Jon- If the US is the problem why are the people in our "peace and justice networks" not clear about what we should actually do about it in sufficient detail to build momentum for change.
"the basic needs of all the people would be met with a maximum of both freedom and fairness in the economy and the culture." Consider the 5.1 million new homes and over 90% food sovereignty as a great start on this road. Your comments underplay the enormous burden being imposed by the sanctions. I am no expert, but Gloria is, so ask her.