Russian troops land in Venzuela

[fredtoast]

(03-25-2019, 05:03 PM)Dill Wrote: You got the Russia thing all wrong.  This is how you should be looking at it.

And it seems that Russian troops just invaded Venezuela.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-25-2019, 05:42 PM)hollodero Wrote: I still kind of object this description, as it is only one of many different definitions. This one is merely the historical one - but most western socialists to not define themselves that way or align with this goal.

I consider myself living in a socialist state and this state has not failed. Certainly not Venezuelan-style. We do kinda suck at soccer, but that's not due to socialism, as the US proves.

You can consider all you want, but you live in a capitalist nation with social programs.  I use the definition that actually describes the word, not the one that most easily fits what I want to be true.  

[hollodero]

(03-25-2019, 06:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You can consider all you want, but you live in a capitalist nation with social programs.  I use the definition that actually describes the word, not the one that most easily fits what I want to be true.  

Well, there's still a clear distinction between a socialist and a conservative/nationalist/populist/... and the word expresses as much. It doesn't express nationalization of all means of production, even though that was Marx' initial point. The meaning shifted throughout the centuries to a point where it doesn't make much actual sense to throw Venezuela at a modern day western socialist (who sometimes rather are called "social democrats") or use it as an example why their ideas are meant to fail. A guy like Sanders (or like western socialists in Europe) doesn't model his ideas along Venezuelan lines.

[Dill]

(03-25-2019, 05:42 PM)hollodero Wrote: I still kind of object this description, as it is only one of many different definitions. This one is merely the historical one - but most western socialists to not define themselves that way or align with this goal.

I consider myself living in a socialist state and this state has not failed. Certainly not Venezuelan-style. We do kinda suck at soccer, but that's not due to socialism, as the US proves.

Er, let's not underrate historical definitions.  If only my fellow Americans would pay more attention to such when throwing the term "socialist" at anything they don't like, the world would be a better place.

You are correct that socialism is subject to many different definitions, but what unites them all is that their proponents recognize the problem inherent in private ownership of means of production in a free-market economy under minimal state control, and address that problem consciously, explicitly, as inherent to capitalism.  This is, in my view, what separates them from leftish liberals.  Diverse, non-Marxist countries that define themselves constitutionally as socialist states--e.g.,Portugal, India, Nicaragua--fit this definition even when they expand the role of private ownership far beyond that allowed in the Marxist-leninist variety of one party socialist state. But I don't think Austria fits this category. Nor does any liberal parliamentary state, even when a socialist party is in power (Think of France in the '80s or Spain and Greece now--still not "socialist states".)

My two cents--I think what you have in Austria is a liberal parliamentary state sitting atop a mixed economy.   (And now run by two conservative parties bent on rolling back state services.) Social democracy played a decisive role in constructing your state, and so it is a state in which, owing to the struggle FOR socialism by real socialists and social democrats, the quality of life is far better than it would otherwise have been.  Like most Central and West-European states, it greatly benefits from socialist movements (as the US would) without itself being a socialist state as most any political scientist would define one.

Looks like I am between you and SSF, tending towards a stricter definition of socialism but rejecting Venezuela and like states as universal exemplars of socialism, historical or otherwise.

[Bengalzona]

The question of "should we be involved" is one thing. The question of "are we going to be involved" is another:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-pompeo-idUSKCN1R61PL?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5c9957c59ebbef0001f24844&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1sxvqI1TxYbVBlT5GAWOzh_yDU75conn_KuyamEOxhHd1tRSjxSwNa4aw

Quote:U.S. calls Russia deployment of planes to Venezuela 'reckless escalation'

Quote:WASHINGTON/CARACAS (Reuters) - The United States on Monday accused Russia of “reckless escalation” of the situation in Venezuela by deploying military planes and personnel to the crisis-stricken South American nation that Washington has hit with crippling sanctions.

The Russian planes and military personnel arrived outside the Venezuelan capital Caracas on Saturday, according to local media reports, two months after the Trump administration disavowed President Nicolas Maduro.

Washington has recognized opposition leader Juan Guaido as the country’s legitimate president and demands that Maduro leave power, which Russia has described as a U.S.-backed coup against the socialist government.

“The United States condemns Russia’s deployment of military aircraft and personnel to Caracas, which is another contradiction of both Nicolas Maduro’s and Russia’s calls for non-intervention in Venezuela and is a reckless escalation of the situation,” a State Department spokesman said on condition of anonymity.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in a phone call on Monday that Washington would “not stand idly by” as Russia backed Maduro, who has overseen a dramatic collapse of a once-bustling economy. However, Pompeo did not say what the United States would do in response to Russian troops.

U.S. President Donald Trump said in 2017 that the “military option” was on the table when it comes to Venezuela, but administration officials have since downplayed talk of armed intervention.

The Organization of American States, a Washington-based diplomatic group for hemispheric affairs, in a statement called the presence of Russian military equipment and personnel “a harmful act to Venezuelan sovereignty.”

Bloomberg News, citing an unnamed Venezuelan information ministry official, reported that the officials had come to perform maintenance on Russian military equipment that Venezuela had purchased through bilateral accords.

The information ministry did not respond to requests for comment on the presence of the planes or the Bloomberg report.

“Such cynicism on the part of a country like the United States,” wrote Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza on Twitter. “(With) a growing military budget of more than $700 billion, it seeks to interfere with the technical military cooperation programs between Russia and Venezuela.”

Russia has warned the United States and neighbors against a military intervention in Venezuela.

The Trump administration has imposed crippling sanctions on Venezuela’s crucial oil industry. On Friday it sanctioned its development bank, Bandes, in efforts to choke off financial flows to Maduro’s government and called on Venezuelan military leaders to abandon him.

Maduro has denounced the sanctions as U.S. intervention and maintains diplomatic backing from Russia, China and Cuba.

Reporting by Lesley Wroughton in Washington and Brian Ellsworth in Caracas; Additional reporting by Luc Cohen in Caracas; Editing by Susan Thomas, Tom Brown and Lisa Shumaker
Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

[hollodero]

(03-25-2019, 07:06 PM)Dill Wrote: Er, let's not underrate historical definitions.  If only my fellow Americans would pay more attention to such when throwing the term "socialist" at anything they don't like, the world would be a better place.

I seriously doubt that.

(03-25-2019, 07:06 PM)Dill Wrote: You are correct that socialism is subject to many different definitions

Yeah and that sure is the problem, everyone uses it as they please and everyone has a more or less fair reason to do so. Wikipedia has no clear definition, which is more or less the non-professional's bible, so how could anyone really know? I'd just argue to use it broadly like obviously western socialists themselves define it. And that has nothing to do with Venezuela and what's going on there.
And also historic, we sure see socialism (sure amongst other things) as those that freed the working class, gave them worthy pay, less work hours, affordable housing and all those things. It's more about that and less about Marx' ideas, that rather led to communism. And to an extent, that's what modern western social democrats (but who uses that term) still stand for, for a somewhat balanced society where the sick are taken care of and a reasonable amount of work allows for a decent living for everyone etc. In that sense, there's quite a lot of socialism in US laws too and I find that hard to deny.

(03-25-2019, 07:06 PM)Dill Wrote: My two cents--I think what you have in Austria is a liberal parliamentary state sitting atop a mixed economy.   (And now run by two conservative parties bent on rolling back state services.) Social democracy played a decisive role in constructing your state, and so it is a state in which, owing to the struggle FOR socialism by real socialists and social democrats, the quality of life is far better than it would otherwise have been.  Like most Central and West-European states, it greatly benefits from socialist movements (as the US would) without itself being a socialist state as most any political scientist would define one.  

In a broad (and wildly sufficient) picture, more or less that (Nazis make everything more complicated). I do get the argument against calling these things "benefitting" though. "Quality of life" is hard to grasp and there might be additional factors to define success or failure.
As a very simple example, we do have almost no real military. I for one wouldn't blame socialism for that, but it's one of many fair points to make to call us and our more socialist model less successful.

[Bengalzona]

(03-25-2019, 09:09 PM)hollodero Wrote: "Quality of life" is hard to grasp and there might be additional factors to define success or failure.

I've noticed there is a lot more nuance to that phrase "quality of life" in Europe than in the U.S. and the rest of the world. In most of the world, 'quality of life' equates to "Did you survive today?". In the U.S., it is "How much money did you make today?"

[Dill]

(03-25-2019, 09:09 PM)hollodero Wrote: As a very simple example, we do have almost no real military. I for one wouldn't blame socialism for that, but it's one of many fair points to make to call us and our more socialist model less successful.

Blame the quadruple occupation in '45 and your injunction to "neutrality" in 1955.

Thanks to that, you are surrounded by protecting NATO countries (and their Big U.S. Brother) and don't need to spend on a real military.

And don't doubt your quality of life.  Ask some of those refugees you've taken in how they measure it.
And don't doubt (well, I know you don't) that socialism played a big role in that.
 

[*bfine32*]

I say we send the Rhode Island National Guard to go down there a kick Venezuela's ass and if Russia acts up we send the New Hampshire National Guard to deal with them.

[Dill]

(03-25-2019, 09:20 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I've noticed there is a lot more nuance to that phrase "quality of life" in Europe than in the U.S. and the rest of the world. In most of the world, 'quality of life' equates to "Did you survive today?". In the U.S., it is "How much money did you make today?"

Yeah, Europe (even Eastern and Southern Europe), Japan and the U.S. have it pretty good.
I'd say quality of life was pretty high in Qatar too.

Economics is part of it, but also security, freedom of speech and association, and various levels of "sociality."  Where there is security, people can be pretty happy with less than 10,000 a year. 

[hollodero]

(03-25-2019, 09:30 PM)Dill Wrote: And don't doubt your quality of life.  Ask some of those refugees you've taken in how they measure it.
And don't doubt (well, I know you don't) that socialism played a big role in that. 

Oh I don't doubt it. I just stated I can understand how one might see success differently. Like, OK you have a good time, but how can you deal with emergencies or threats? How much individual freedom did you have to give up for that? Etc... To describe us as success model based on life quality is debatable. But we do have high life quality, no question. And I do prefer our model that I'd call highly influenced by socialist ideas while in no way resembling Venezuela.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-25-2019, 09:34 PM)Dill Wrote: Yeah, Europe (even Eastern and Southern Europe), Japan and the U.S. have it pretty good.
I'd say quality of life was pretty high in Qatar too.

Economics is part of it, but also security, freedom of speech and association, and various levels of "sociality."  Where there is security, people can be pretty happy with less than 10,000 a year. 

Unless you were an immigrant that composed of 90% of their labor force, trapped under the kafala system where you literally couldn't leave the country without your employer's permission while you worked in the 110+ degree sun and hoped they decided to pay you anything, living in crowded rooms together with large amounts of other immigrant laborers. Oh, and about 500 of you die a year from heart attacks, sun stroke, and unsafe work conditions.

But as a citizen, sure, I imagine it's fairly nice since none of the hard work isn't done by you.  

(There was a whole lot of coverage on this matter a few years back when Qatar totally-didn't-bribe their way into winning the FIFA 2022 bid, and the workers building the stadiums were dying at a rate of about 1 a day. Brought a lot of global outcry.)

[Bengalzona]

(03-25-2019, 09:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I say we send the Rhode Island National Guard to go down there a kick Venezuela's ass and if Russia acts up we send the New Hampshire National Guard to deal with them.

I noticed they only sent 100 troops, not quite a company. I also saw pictures of the 'military planes' they flew in on. They were basically airliners with Russian flags on them. Not quite military transports.

Yeah, probably a nice job for the RI guard. Or we could send a 16-man seal team and capture them all alive.

[Dill]

(03-25-2019, 09:50 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Unless you were an immigrant that composed of 90% of their labor force, trapped under the kafala system where you literally couldn't leave the country without your employer's permission while you worked in the 110+ degree sun and hoped they decided to pay you anything, living in crowded rooms together with large amounts of other immigrant laborers. Oh, and about 500 of you die a year from heart attacks, sun stroke, and unsafe work conditions.

But as a citizen, sure, I imagine it's fairly nice since none of the hard work isn't done by you.  

(There was a whole lot of coverage on this matter a few years back when Qatar totally-didn't-bribe their way into winning the FIFA 2022 bid, and the workers building the stadiums were dying at a rate of about 1 a day. Brought a lot of global outcry.)

Well, actually, I once was an immigrant trapped under their Kafala system there. I still found the quality of life rather decent. In many ways higher than my life in the US when it comes to fine dining and access to consumer goods. I didn't have to work in the sun, but I played in it a lot, driving atvs all over the desert (in winter). I've posted before of the white privilege given white British and Americans in the Gulf (but not black or brown).

But I do thank you for your reminder of how Gulf luxury rides on the backs of an immigrant labor force.  I have been in those rooms crowded with laborers (and observed closely other ascending gradations in living quarters of foreign residents). When I was there, laws were changed to forbid working outdoors in the summer between 11-2. The rate of heatstroke admissions at the central Doha hospital dropped from an average of 60 to 30 a day.  I also saw lots of spiffy new housing going up for workers--outside the city so Qataris and rich foreigners do not have to encounter them on the streets. 

The class distinctions created by capitalism are much starker in places where unions are forbidden. And no "Dreamers" there--deportation is quick and easy for raped housemaids and other troublesome workers. At the same time, no getting out till you paid landlords and traffic tickets. Qatar is rather like the UK in 1800, as the industrial revolution was surging before social legislation could catch up to it. On the positive side, international oversight of the UN and NGOs have done much improve the situations of workers and address human rights violations. E.g., robots have replaced boys as jockeys for the superbowl of camel races there. Qatar is certainly the most progressive of the Gulf states--perhaps one of the reasons it has run afoul of Saudi Arabia. But winning that World Cup bid has, I believe, set back many of the recent advances in labor laws.

While we are on the subject, though, we should remember that these kinds of class distinctions between employers and employed aren't simply intranational, they are also international, which makes them harder to see. Millions of workers around the world labor in difficult conditions, out of our sight (like those workers banned to worker cities outside Doha) so that we 1st-worlders can have our stuff.

[Bengalzona]