[Demosthenes]

Everyone in the media is a propagandist to a certain extent.

Indeed.

Most of the left-wing establishment is just as much of a lap dog to the corporate-military-industrial-complex, as the right is.

I don't want to take away from the larger case being made but I'd like to semantically pick a bone with you here simply for clarification's sake, and knowing you'll probably understand why its important for me to do so. That is to clarify that there is not real and true left wing establishment in the United States. We have the center right Democrats and the further right, sometimes partially reactionary, Republicans.

The true left in the United States fizzled out, was murdered off, was agent provocateured into shame, etc by the end of WWII. We have not seen a real and lasting leftist movement in the states since. Its a fine bone to pick with the level of work you put into your post but its important to recognize that far left elements exist far beyond anything the Democratic party could dream of that never condones the war mongering, neocolonialism, past adventurism, and so forth. The numbers may be small, but they exist, and they/we are completely different than any democrat could ever hope to be.

Beyond that I can't possibly add or better say anything you've laid out so far.

[Smertios]

Okay, this is a very interesting topic, but, as a lot of info was put onto the table, I'll just address some key points, while adding another very important one in the end.

First, let me answer the fundamental questions related to this issue directly:

1. Is the Venezuelan opposition financed by the US government?
   
   Yes, it is. It's kind of silly to deny that. This is the kind of thing that has happened for centuries in the century. And it is not just the US. Every major power has done that at some point in this region. It's good foreign policy from their point of view. The US depends on Venezuelan oil. It's not in their best interest to have a hostile government in charge. That being said, this kind of thing usually doesn't happen unless there is a hostile environment. Most countries disagree with each other to some extent, but they all keep it civil. Chavez never did that. He broke pretty much every protocol in international relations. He called Bush (who, despite the fact that I and most in this forum disagreed with most of his policies, was as much of an elected president as Chavez) a "donkey" and even the "devil". He even went on to say that Obama was a "shame to black people" when he criticized Venezuela's ties to Ahmadinejad's Iran. He even said the US, as a whole were the "greatest terrorists in history" (source). So it is perfectly understandable that the US government supported the Venezuelan opposition. And I'm talking about the "US government" in the broad American terminology. That includes both the executive and the legislative. The Venezuelan government has not only criticized but attacked the US government during different administrations, with different, opposing parties. It's perfectly acceptable to say that Chavez and Maduro didn't oppose only the US government (using the European/Latin American terminology now, where that means only the executive and the party in charge). They opposed government and opposition alike. That wasn't an ideological issue. It was an international conflict. The Venezuelan government practically declared itself an enemy of all US institutions at once. So it is obvious it is in the US's best interest to finance the opposition. This leads me to the more complete answer to the question above: Yes, it is fairly obvious that the Venezuelan opposition is financed by the US, but that is justified. It doesn't matter whether or not we believe that justification is valid, it is important to understand that the US government does have a reason to do it.
   
   
2. Does it matter that the Venezuelan opposition is financed by the US?
   
   It depends. I'll offer a generic answer to this question. It doesn't matter which party it is that is being financed, there are limits. If all that the US government is doing is sending them money, so they can use it to fund their electoral campaign and let the people be in charge of the actual choice, I don't see how that's a problem. Both government and opposition are funded with money from several sources. And honestly, in a healthy two-party democracy, both parties have equivalent amounts of funding. That happens naturally. If one party does a better job at fundraising than the other, the first party will be elected (just see what happened in this year's Indian elections, for example). In the next electoral cycle, the second party will have learned their lesson, and will do a better job. In the long term, both parties will have similar funds to work with. As long as the money coming to the parties is legal — which, unfortunately isn't always the case in Latin America, with many politicians funded by druglords, but that clearly isn't the cse with US government money —, it shouldn't really matter who gave them the money. However, if the funding means empowering rebels with weapons and/or the means to buy weapons to stage a coup (as it has happened in th epast), it is obviously not okay. And it should be clear what the difference between the two cenarios here is. The first one doesn't involve disrupting the constitutional order in the country. The second one does. I wrote a generic answer here solely because we can't know what the US government will do in the future. But as far as the present is concerned, it is pretty obvious that the US isn't trying to finance a coup (I'll address the 2002 coup attempt later on). So, does it matter that they are financing the opposition? The long answer is: As long as they keep the financing to simply funcing electoral campaign, no, it doesn't.
   
   
3. Is the Venezuelan government financed by external sources as well?
   
   Yes, it obviously is. Of course, that money doesn't come from the US. But it is pretty naïve to assume that the Venezuelan government are the shy good guys, being bullied by the bad guys financed by the evil overlord. This is politics. There are no good guys and bad guys. There are different parties and agents, with different interests. They are all involved. They all want their interests addressed in a very specific way. Those parties and agents can be internal or external. Some are lobbying groups. Some have money. Some are intellectuals. It's like that in every country, no matter how stable or unstable it is. If the country is politically stable (and it should be fairly obvious that Venezuela isn't, given the recent events), all these agents, parties and funds involved will be used/involved following constitucional rules. As long as that happens, there shouldn't be a problem. And it is a lost cause trying to prevent some agents to being involved. That happens naturally. They have their own interests, and that's what politics is, after all: a game of interests. So, it should be obvious that both Chavez and Maduro are funded by governments and organizations that benefit from them staying in power. China and Russia are obvious examples, but they are far from being the ony ones. I know this might sound a bit off-topic, but there is a very important point here: if we somehow manage to do the impossible task of removing the US from the equation (which is impossible, as I said, because the US are one of the agents involved, and they have their own interests regarding this matter), and keep the opposition orphan of the external support they previously had (which is a simplification, as that support doesn't come solely from the US), what happens with the power balance in the country? I mean, the government would still be funded by their own external agents/parties/friends/allies. Like I said previously, these things tend to converge to equilibrium in the long term, as both sides will seek to have better funding. If we prevent one side from doing so, the power balance changes drmatically to one side. It's better for Venezuela, as a whole, if that doesn't happen.
   
   
4. And finally, the last important question, is the US the only external factor involved?
   
   Of course not. Pretending the US are the big evil empire that rules over the region is pretty naïve. There was a time when even Brazil financed and installed opposition parties in Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. That was pretty much the only region in Brazil with an open border in the 19th century (the Amazon and the Pantanal were hard to cross, so threats from places like Colombia were non-existing). It was in Brazil's interest to keep the Platine region stable (that region was very important, commercially), so Brazil got involved. That kind of thing has happened extensively throughout history both with great powers and smaller regional powers, as I have just shown. Like I said, it is silly to deny that countries like China and Russia are not involved in Latin American politics. The same goes for the EU. And even havez's Venezuela did that. They financed the FARC in Colombia (it was in their interest to do that) and the ALBA was definitely not something that came from Chavez's good heart towards the Latin American peoples. Like I said before, cutting only one side of the story will just shift the power balance in the country, and that will obviously leak into the whole region. And cutting all external influences in Venezuela is not only impossible, but also not in the Venezuelan people's best interest. If, for example, the US fund the opposition entirely, and Russia does the same for the government (this is obviously a fictitious example), and both parties use the money to finance their electoral campaign, making great points so people can choose in fair elections, they have only benefitted from it. The only issue, as I said before, is if any external party tries to plot a coup and disrupt the constitutional order of the country. But that is a different matter altogether, and it lies beyond the scope of this thread.

Now that we are done with these four very important questions, let me address some of the things that came up in the thread. First, the 2002 coup attempt. It's failry obvious it had US-backing. I don't think even the US denies that. But honetly, I fail to see how that plays a role in the matter at hand. Like I said, this is the kind of external influence that I would deem "hurtful" to Venezuela as a whole, simply because it would disrupt the constitutional order. That's the worst thing that can happen to a country., and one of the reasons why a strong constitution is an important factor in political stability.

That being said, it is important to keep in mind that this isn't Europe that we are talking about. It is Latin America. Coups are pretty much how things were done in Hispanic countries throughout their entire independent history. Those came from the right and left alike. And the coup leaders would always brand their coups as "revolutions". They'd always change the constitution, making sure their side had the power balanced shifted towards them. Always. Without exception. The presidential system (badly copied from the US) created an enviroment with lots of concentration of power in the executive. This enviroment was perfect for the proliferation of caudillos, who ruled the country as they wished (and enriching themselves in the process). If you think of Game of Thrones a bit, that was pretty much how politics was done in Latin America in the past two centuries. Coups, civil wars, assassinations. The only difference is that we are not talking about thrones, just presidential sashes being fought over. Perhaps we could call that a "Game of Sashes" instead, who knows?

Heck, even Chavez himself [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Venezuelan_coup_d%27état_attempts]tried a coup in 1992[/url], simply because he didn't agree with the elected government's neoliberal policies. It's impossible to talk about the 2002 coup attempt without going back to 1992. Both were pretty much the same: rebels trying to depose elected governments simply because they didn't agree with their policies. And honestly, both attempts were disgraceful. It's great neither worked, but it is not surprising to me that they took place. That's how things are solved in this particular region of the world. It's how things have been done for years. And it is unlikely that is going to change anytime soon.

Now, I want to quote a few things:

The right wing opposition in Venezuela is not interested in democracy, nor in preserving the sovereignty of Venezuela's society or natural resources.

That's 100% true. But honestly, neither is the left-wing. And I'll even go further and say that that is not the case just in Venezuela. It's a recurring problem in many Latin American countries. The mere fact that Pinochet and Castro have existed proves that point. Both left and right are capable of bringing dictatorships. Chavez himself made sure not only to impose his own constitution upon the country (a typical caudillo action), but also to change that constitution as he pleased. That allowed him to extend the presidential term, eliminate term limits and centralize most powers in the executive. The opposition parties' boycott to the 2005 elections proved more hurtful than not to Venezuela. Chavez managed to get a supermajority in the congress, and have his will imposed without opposition (a good example of why supermajorities are a bad thing). Then, he used his personal charisma to make sure his own party stayed in power, with him winning one election after another. His successor, of course, doesn't have as much charisma, and is struggling to keep his party in power. The long presidential term and the centralization of powers in the executive kind of give him too much power to impose his views, though. And without Chavez's charisma, it is obvious things were not gonna work as well. So it is fairly obvious to me that, as far as Latin America goes, neither the left or the right are really interested in democracy. They just want to stay in power, and will use any means necessary (coups, civil wars, new constitutions, referendums, populism, etc).

They can hide behind all this rhetoric of competitive democracy building, but in reality, it's simply supporting their idea of democracy in Venezuela (the right-wing opposition in power).

Again, if all they end up doing is financing electoral campaigns (which is what has happened in at least the two previous elections), how is that bad? As long as the choice is up to the Venezuelan people, who funds the electoral campaigns shouldn't matter, should it? I'd say that the fact that the US stopped trying to directly finance coups, as it happened in 2002, and started financing electoral campaigns (as it was the case in 2012 and 2013) is a positive thing. There is a reason why the share of votes to the winning parties dropped to closer to 50% in those elections, when compared to 2008 and 2000.

Now, whether or not the current protests have something to do with that, or if they are to blame solely on Maduro is a completely different matter. I'd be more than happy to address it in another time.

Keeping in mind, again, that anything like this happening to the United States would be considering highly, highly illegal and perhaps even treasonous. I can imagine that if any Democrat dared to take money from any foreign source (or God forbid a third , fourth, or tenth party did it) The further center right party would absolutely flip merde'.

That's another issue. And while that is important (I have discussed solely the Venezuelan side of the transaction so far), I don't have much knowledge about it to be part of that discussion. So I have to ask some questions: why exactly is it illegal? What laws does funding foreign parties break?

Thank you for those kind words, Demos. You know, Chavez was really a Latin American hero on par with Simon Bolivar (who he admired and named his own 21st century revolution after - which spread across Latin America), despite what Social Critic and the Venezuelan Right say.

I couldn't disagree more. Chavez was closer to Peron and Vargas than to Bolivar or San Martin. All of those were caudillos, but Chavez was a populist. He used his charisma to change the rules, not brute force, like Bolívar would. He managed to use his charisma to impose his own constitution, then he used his charisma again to change it as he pleased, making sure he would stay in power eternally. Of course, that's something that both the left and right have done extensively in Latin America.

[Demosthenes]

Edit- This is a very long post meant to address many of the issues Smertios brought up. Sorry, tried not to do a wall of text at least. Thank you Smertios for the thoughtful, well written reply. I also apologize for double posting.

Okay, this is a very interesting topic,

I would personally call it one of the most interesting reads on PoFo in some time, but I may just possibly be one of those with a bias that friend Solastalgia was talking about.

Chavez never did that. He broke pretty much every protocol in international relations. He called Bush (who, despite the fact that I and most in this forum disagreed with most of his policies, was as much of an elected president as Chavez) a "donkey" and even the "devil". He even went on to say that Obama was a "shame to black people" when he criticized Venezuela's ties to Ahmadinejad's Iran. He even said the US, as a whole were the "greatest terrorists in history" (source).

Here is where I have to disagree with you, and as a leftist I'm sure I speak for many that hold similar views to my own. Bush and his cronies, and the Democrats and their oil cronies demand fealty from their subjects in Latin America. Oil colonies (Yes, I know you reject this depiction, but I maintain that it is true de facto) are expected to line up and do business the North American way or face the consequences. Chavez rejected that model as flawed from the time he first attempted the failed 1992 coup. (As you rightly point out, and as UNLIKE social critic, I won't deny). No Latin American leader, even a presumed opposition leader to general US hegemony, EVER talked to a president, let alone two of them like that since Castro.

To place the blame for the conflict at Chavez's feet for being prickly is to woefully underestimate the situation fairly badly. Now, I appreciate your honesty in taking responsibility for events related to your opinion, but here I fear you are guilty of ignoring the past as most right wingers do. (I say this not to deride you, but for comparison's sake, and in knowing that you tend to be simply center-right, and not full blown right).

The History matters and the crushing poverty caused by the economic model Venezuela was forced into by the US and west were and are largely responsible for the great poverty in the nation. I really don't see how this can be denied.

At that point the logical argument then becomes: Was Chavez's response to the US appropriate, to which I will say with a resounding cheer: Hell Yes! and you will disagree, content with the basic over all order, seeing the problems of the system as fixable within itself.

That is the difference between the far left and center right. I no longer cling to what I call the illusion that the western economic model can be "fixed" for the people, while a center right individual thinks otherwise.

So it is obvious it is in the US's best interest to finance the opposition.

What you call obvious I would call dangerous. Further, what we're really talking about is Venezuela's own self-determination. Their right to do with their oil resources as they see fit. As opposed to the colonial model where their resources are bound for the west for a small percentage of the over all profits to rest in one or two hands within Venezuela.

I mean, Venezuela and Chavez simply, effectively said "no". To Washington's dealing. For this they are branded as being hostile to the US. This kind of diplomacy is not tenable for the long term and WILL cause problems down the road. People don't forget hostilities easily, and with the way Washington has treated Latin America I can't blame them at all. Its dishonest and if anyone did business with us that way, we would declare war.

it is important to understand that the US government does have a reason to do it.

Using a very twisted (The US government's, not yours) selfish logic, yes this is true.

Is the Venezuelan government financed by external sources as well?

Are you talking about Cuba? Either way I'd be interested in which parties you are specifically talking about. If you have a link that discusses sources, I'd be most interested in that, although if you provide enough background info, I can look into it myself. I'm genuinely curious about this claim.

Of course not. Pretending the US are the big evil empire that rules over the region is pretty naïve.

Here I will disagree with you. There is no pretension whatsoever. We have established a link that pretty clearly shows the multitude of highly unnecessary US interventions in the region. Further, the US has been shown to have created all manner of havoc and mayhem for a couple centuries now, from the filibusterers to modern death squads. All of this adventurism in the name of US big business interests (You'll note that because I am a US citizen I am equally responsible for what has been done in my name down there even though I would never have allowed any of it had I been in a position of power, and further note that I receive ZERO personal benefit from any of these alleged "national interests" except what? Cheap gas that isn't cheap anymore? -- As if cheap gas is a justification anyway--) is a heinous disregard for human life by people who largely campaign regularly on how "Christian" they are. And while I don't want to derail anything from the topic at hand, gaping inconsistencies like that are hard to miss.

Further, I also want to dispel this myth of the "big evil" empire thinking. There are no absolutes anywhere. Foreign relations are no different than domestic except that they affect different people. What an "empire" will do to foreign nations, it will also do domestically if it can make parts of its own population an "other". Solastalgia, if I read his personal history correctly, can tell us about the horrors of US domestic empire.

So I have multiple interests at play here that have nothing whatsoever to do with calling the US an evil empire. Such naive thinking doesn't do any true leftist movement any good whatsoever. As a materialist, my only concern is in viewing the material side of history and viewing events from that lens. Materialism, by its nature does not pass moral judgements.

Truth be told, if I have a decent enough grasp on Latin American history, the real culprit behind Latin American instability seems to reside with the original European overlords in Spain and Portugal, who never ran the colonies in a such a way that independence could happen smoothly. The Conquistadors ruled with an iron fist for about 300 years until Napoleon upset the apple cart. That has nothing to do with the US.

It was in Brazil's interest to keep the Platine region stable (that region was very important, commercially), so Brazil got involved.

Each case of interventionism should be judged on its own merit or lack thereof. What the US has done is nothing like what you're talking about unless you concede that Brazil destabilized foreign nations to enrich a few members of its... bourgeois, or perhaps use colloquial terms, its creoles and peninsulares. I'm not challenging you on that, and I'm not going to in this thread, I'm just expressing the point that you can't compare the two and form any objective overarching view that interventionism is "good" or "bad".

And cutting all external influences in Venezuela is not only impossible, but also not in the Venezuelan people's best interest.

Its not that anyone is claiming that or has voiced a thought that this is an ideal, its the actual form said interventionism takes. If I trade you tobacco to win you over its a far cry from sending in a death squad to kill peasants who are fed up with being slaves. You can't simply generalize about external influences and make a meaningful statement about what's happening in Venezuela and further about what has happened in Latin America as a whole.

But honetly, I fail to see how that plays a role in the matter at hand. Like I said, this is the kind of external influence that I would deem "hurtful" to Venezuela as a whole, simply because it would disrupt the constitutional order. That's the worst thing that can happen to a country., and one of the reasons why a strong constitution is an important factor in political stability.

Its relevant because Bush and the US denied it at first until they were exposed by some of the very authors that Social_Critic calls hopelessly biased, which in turn forced them to be honest about what they were up too. Its further relevant because it established a history (That everyone but Social_Critic accepts) or a pattern of action that is useful in sniffing out other actions elsewhere that will also be denied until/unless someone exposes it.

That they couldn't be honest about their actions in the first place should be a major red flag to begin with. These financiers know very well that the majority of the American people won't put up with the kind of abuses they have heaped in Latin America if they are simply told what the plans are, so they sneak around doing things in secret all the time so they can play dumb or obfuscate their motives or both. As a citizen, speaking only for my own self-interest, I don't fucking like that. If you aren't doing anything wrong there is no reason whatsoever to lie about it.

That being said, it is important to keep in mind that this isn't Europe that we are talking about. It is Latin America. Coups are pretty much how things were done in Hispanic countries throughout their entire independent history

+

Actually in a fundamental sense, culturally speaking, it IS Europe in all ways. If you'd care to be semantic you could say it's Europe's child much the same way Britain likes to view the US as its child. So claiming that European conventions don't apply, to me, is kind of a cop out. Now, again, because I appreciate your honesty I want to make clear that I'm not trying to asshole debate you. I just don't how else to word my opposition to that line of thought.

Those came from the right and left alike. And the coup leaders would always brand their coups as "revolutions". They'd always change the constitution, making sure their side had the power balanced shifted towards them. Always. Without exception. The presidential system (badly copied from the US) created an environment with lots of concentration of power in the executive. This environment was perfect for the proliferation of caudillos, who ruled the country as they wished (and enriching themselves in the process). If you think of Game of Thrones a bit, that was pretty much how politics was done in Latin America in the past two centuries. Coups, civil wars, assassinations. The only difference is that we are not talking about thrones, just presidential sashes being fought over. Perhaps we could call that a "Game of Sashes" instead, who knows?

Although I am an unabashed leftist at this point in my life there is no sense in stubbornly apologizing when other leftists have heaped abuse or contributed to over all instability so I won't. I don't know to which specific coup you are referring and won't guess except to stand by my point. Your point about the Game of Sashes is surprisingly astute. But you do realize this fictional series is all based on European succession and such, correct? Meaning art imitating life imitating art... Still, From what I know, this is an apt statement.

This enviroment was perfect for the proliferation of caudillos,

While true for sure, the majority of the caudillos originate on the right, along with their associated personalismo. It is an important distinction to make.

Heck, even Chavez himself [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Venezuelan_coup_d%27état_attempts]tried a coup in 1992[/url], simply because he didn't agree with the elected government's neoliberal policies

Again, color me leftist on this one, but I would call what he did something similar to what the early US did in seceding from Britain. 50% plus poverty in a nation with the oil wealth of Venezuela is a little more justification for revolution than others brought by caudillos. If he had kept the oil wealth for himself I would completely agree with you, but we all know it went to the people by now and brought up the...urban lower classes... at the least. (Even if it does appear the rural classes suffered).

rebels trying to depose elected governments simply because they didn't agree with their policies.

I disagree again. Its simply not fair or right in my book to simply offer a blanket statement that all coups are always "bad". It depends on a multitude of factors. If the democratic system itself is so flawed that major sections of the population are left without voice, power, or a reasonable level of self-determination than its hard to argue when representatives of that population attempt to seize power any way they can. At that point the only "moral" issue left is determine if the coup leaders are who they say they are. If they are not, it is another debate entirely.

But honestly, neither is the left-wing.

I'm sorry but now you are relying on many of the dubious private media sources and foreign media sources who have been shown to be blatantly opposed to both Chavez and now Maduro. I'm not sure you can really claim this effectively. I'm not saying its entirely without merit, but I don't think you can look at both forces and call what they are doing two sides of the same coin.

The mere fact that Pinochet and Castro have existed proves that point.

The problem is the same media and by extension their corporate boards who run the media that inform all of us about events not just in the US but in the world are the very same people (ultimately) who are in charge in the US and the West. There are only about six sources of news left. If all of them are pro-US/West, anti-Castro, anti-Chavez, anti-anything anti-western business, can I really expect a fair and relatively unbiased assessment? To me, putting Castro (reviled by said media) with Pinochet (revered by said media until fully exposed) together is kind of offensive. Clearly Castro has some actions to atone for but to my way of thinking, nothing like Pinochet. Perhaps that is my bias, and any reader can take that for what its worth if he chooses, but I have to make the point that a Pinochet supporter would make the opposite claim I'm making and would try to tell you they aren't biased.

Again, if all they end up doing is financing electoral campaigns (which is what has happened in at least the two previous elections), how is that bad? As long as the choice is up to the Venezuelan people, who funds the electoral campaigns shouldn't matter, should it?

It matters greatly because foreign sources aren't doing this for their good health. They are doing this for their own self-interests which usually clash with the self-interests of varying percentages of the local populations. Is it fair for the US or the West or Brazil to finance an opposition that will, if given power, spirit away natural resources to said foreign power at sweetheart rates that go directly to those who cooperate in the beginning with this foreign electoral interference? No. It isn't fair or right on any level. Its not right in the US and its not right in Latin America either.

That's another issue. And while that is important (I have discussed solely the Venezuelan side of the transaction so far), I don't have much knowledge about it to be part of that discussion. So I have to ask some questions: why exactly is it illegal? What laws does funding foreign parties break?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/supreme-court-retains-ban-on-foreign-campaign-donations/

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

I also apologize for double posting.

Double posting? I see no double posts here, comrade!

Okay, this is a very interesting topic, but, as a lot of info was put onto the table, I'll just address some key points, while adding another very important one in the end.

Thank you for posting here. This subforum has needed all the fresh perspectives it can get: while I clearly disagree with you on a number of issues, I respect your desire and attempt at honest debate/discourse. In some of my responses to your post, especially the bulletin list, I will be shortening my quotations of what you said to get at the heart of what I want to respond to, so I hope it doesn't seem like I'm butchering your message on those points. I would like to provide something of a disclaimer in saying that while I identify as a socialist with communist tendencies, I do not ascribe to any particular ideology but instead I sympathize with a lot of socialist thinkers and portions of their ideology. This means that unlike better and well-versed socialists/communists on PoFo than myself like Potemkin or TIG or Demosthenes who could probably provide completely consistent narratives to deal with most of these situations, I'm still not completely sure what exactly I want, although it should be clear (I hope!) that I have consistent leanings, opinions, and perspectives. You've written a lot so I'm going to respond to the points I feel get at the heart of this discussion.

The US depends on Venezuelan oil. It's not in their best interest to have a hostile government in charge. That being said, this kind of thing usually doesn't happen unless there is a hostile environment. .... So it is perfectly understandable that the US government supported the Venezuelan opposition. .... It doesn't matter whether or not we believe that justification is valid, it is important to understand that the US government does have a reason to do it.

I agree with you that this sort of thing doesn't usually happen unless the government in charge isn't aligned with Washington's interests (of course, I haven't researched the entire history of Latin America but it seems like that's the general trend to me as well). I also agree with you that this is the way America has been doing business in Latin America throughout the past century.

The unstated argument in this thread, by myself and a couple others, is that this isn't how the US should interact with its Latin American neighbors. In the same way you argue that the US is simply reacting to Venezuela's current elected government, others could argue that Venezuela is simply reacting to a long history of US neocolonialism in Latin America. I admit that I am biased against neoliberalism taking hold in Venezuela and against US companies exploiting Venezuela. My position is one against neoliberalism, against "free trade", against privatization of a nation's resources and various types of infrastructure. From Venezuela's nationalization of foreign-owned telecommunications back in 2007 to its nationalization of US-owned oil rigs as recent as 2010 (the company controlling the oil rigs stopped production over a financial dispute). These things belong to Venezuela, and a foreign nation shouldn't be allowed to interfere by proxy and essentially cut off a portion of its economy. I do understand why this would concern a lot of people, and while I agree with you that it would alarm the US government and give an incentive to US businessmen to influence the politicians to take action, all of this stems from an unhealthy relationship between the US and Latin America.

As an American, in the same way I do not support our meddling in the internal affairs of nations in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, there's no need for us to continue to attempt to overthrow democratic governments in Latin America and to approach Latin America in an unequal, heavy-handed fashion. I hope you understand my position and why I don't feel sympathy for right-wing movements that would bring back neoliberalism to Venezuela.

Most countries disagree with each other to some extent, but they all keep it civil. Chavez never did that. He broke pretty much every protocol in international relations. He called Bush (who, despite the fact that I and most in this forum disagreed with most of his policies, was as much of an elected president as Chavez) a "donkey" and even the "devil". He even went on to say that Obama was a "shame to black people" when he criticized Venezuela's ties to Ahmadinejad's Iran. He even said the US, as a whole were the "greatest terrorists in history" (source).

I happen to agree with you on some of Chavez's behavior, but isn't this a somewhat hypocritical analysis? Politicians, cabinet-level officials, and elected presidents sometimes trade barbs. Bush declared several nations to be part of an "Axis of Evil" and to promote terrorism. US administration officials have made jokes about Kim Jong Un, and so on. It's been like this ever since there's been a concept of politics. I'm not a Chavismo, and I do remember when Chavez used his time addressing the UN to call Bush a "devil" (I believe it was at the UN, but I may be incorrect).

Regardless of my ideological feelings, I don't see what was wrong with Chavez accusing the US of terrorism. The US has been accusing many nations of terrorism, while being involved in countless coups, assassinations, invasions, wars, indiscriminate bombings, and even what could be argued as crimes against humanity against US citizens: notably the Tuskegee Experiment, radiation experiments conducted on pregnant women (without their consent) and infants, and of course the CIA's MKULTRA experiments. In light of these terrible things the US government has done to its own citizens, and the way it has interfered with elected governments and nations around the world, I hardly see how Chavez's behavior was even remotely unique considering the US accuses other nations of terrorism on a regular basis.

And finally, the last important question, is the US the only external factor involved?

Of course not. Pretending the US are the big evil empire that rules over the region is pretty naïve.

The US is indeed not the only factor involved. The US is the only nation with the power projection to continually meddle in Latin American affairs and government for over a century. Latin American neoliberalism additionally seems to favor the US (although not exclusively). So, when I speak of these things, I do focus on the US's role, but I don't think my focus is unfair.

Now that we are done with these four very important questions, let me address some of the things that came up in the thread. First, the 2002 coup attempt. It's failry obvious it had US-backing. I don't think even the US denies that. But honetly, I fail to see how that plays a role in the matter at hand. Like I said, this is the kind of external influence that I would deem "hurtful" to Venezuela as a whole, simply because it would disrupt the constitutional order. That's the worst thing that can happen to a country., and one of the reasons why a strong constitution is an important factor in political stability.

The fact that among the most prominent and influential leaders of Venezuela's opposition movement today were involved in an antidemocratic coup barely 10 years ago, and that the State Department and other US government agencies have been funding anti-government organizations (not all of them are organizations that can be argued to be destabilization groups) before and since, seems to make it clear that the US is involved. Even if it's limited to training individuals, providing support, and providing funding, I see no reason to even be remotely skeptical about US involvement given our long history in the region. Why should 2014 be any different?

Heck, even Chavez himself [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Venezuelan_coup_d%27état_attempts]tried a coup in 1992[/url], simply because he didn't agree with the elected government's neoliberal policies. It's impossible to talk about the 2002 coup attempt without going back to 1992. Both were pretty much the same: rebels trying to depose elected governments simply because they didn't agree with their policies. And honestly, both attempts were disgraceful. It's great neither worked, but it is not surprising to me that they took place. That's how things are solved in this particular region of the world. It's how things have been done for years. And it is unlikely that is going to change anytime soon.

This brings up a good point. Chavez did indeed attempt a coup in 1992. This actually has made me think of my position on the matter, or at least, how I can explain my position, but simply put, as a socialist, and someone sympathetic to communist movements and progressive socialist parties, eventually I would like to see a system of liberal democracy and capitalism swept away, either through reform or through revolution. What I can tell you is that I consistently oppose any right-wing neoliberal movements attempting to overthrow a democratically-elected left wing government.

I apologize if this makes me seem like a hypocrite on the issue of democracy, but I do not believe liberal democracies are democracies in any sense of the word.

If you think of Game of Thrones a bit

Never seen/read it!

Thank you again for your well-written post. Even though I disagree with a lot of it, I understand your perspective and where you're coming from.

[wat0n]

Is the Venezuelan opposition financed by the US government?

Yes, it is. It's kind of silly to deny that. This is the kind of thing that has happened for centuries in the century. And it is not just the US. Every major power has done that at some point in this region. It's good foreign policy from their point of view. The US depends on Venezuelan oil. It's not in their best interest to have a hostile government in charge. That being said, this kind of thing usually doesn't happen unless there is a hostile environment. Most countries disagree with each other to some extent, but they all keep it civil. Chavez never did that. He broke pretty much every protocol in international relations. He called Bush (who, despite the fact that I and most in this forum disagreed with most of his policies, was as much of an elected president as Chavez) a "donkey" and even the "devil". He even went on to say that Obama was a "shame to black people" when he criticized Venezuela's ties to Ahmadinejad's Iran. He even said the US, as a whole were the "greatest terrorists in history" (source). So it is perfectly understandable that the US government supported the Venezuelan opposition. And I'm talking about the "US government" in the broad American terminology. That includes both the executive and the legislative. The Venezuelan government has not only criticized but attacked the US government during different administrations, with different, opposing parties. It's perfectly acceptable to say that Chavez and Maduro didn't oppose only the US government (using the European/Latin American terminology now, where that means only the executive and the party in charge). They opposed government and opposition alike. That wasn't an ideological issue. It was an international conflict. The Venezuelan government practically declared itself an enemy of all US institutions at once. So it is obvious it is in the US's best interest to finance the opposition. This leads me to the more complete answer to the question above: Yes, it is fairly obvious that the Venezuelan opposition is financed by the US, but that is justified. It doesn't matter whether or not we believe that justification is valid, it is important to understand that the US government does have a reason to do it.

Indeed, and Venezuela also finances left-wing opposition elsewhere (especially in Latin America). Should they be crushed by the military every time they demonstrate?

Does it matter that the Venezuelan opposition is financed by the US?

It depends. I'll offer a generic answer to this question. It doesn't matter which party it is that is being financed, there are limits. If all that the US government is doing is sending them money, so they can use it to fund their electoral campaign and let the people be in charge of the actual choice, I don't see how that's a problem. Both government and opposition are funded with money from several sources. And honestly, in a healthy two-party democracy, both parties have equivalent amounts of funding. That happens naturally. If one party does a better job at fundraising than the other, the first party will be elected (just see what happened in this year's Indian elections, for example). In the next electoral cycle, the second party will have learned their lesson, and will do a better job. In the long term, both parties will have similar funds to work with. As long as the money coming to the parties is legal — which, unfortunately isn't always the case in Latin America, with many politicians funded by druglords, but that clearly isn't the cse with US government money —, it shouldn't really matter who gave them the money. However, if the funding means empowering rebels with weapons and/or the means to buy weapons to stage a coup (as it has happened in th epast), it is obviously not okay. And it should be clear what the difference between the two cenarios here is. The first one doesn't involve disrupting the constitutional order in the country. The second one does. I wrote a generic answer here solely because we can't know what the US government will do in the future. But as far as the present is concerned, it is pretty obvious that the US isn't trying to finance a coup (I'll address the 2002 coup attempt later on). So, does it matter that they are financing the opposition? The long answer is: As long as they keep the financing to simply funcing electoral campaign, no, it doesn't.

I disagree. Not only this viewpoint of campaign finance is kind of naïve (not all parties will get funding in the same way some guy who sells apples will get revenue - some parties will get systematic support, and that needs not to be equal across them), but it also matters what does the opposition do with the money it gets, and what do the Americans allow them to do. I doubt the current administration is too keen on provoking a coup, though, and it won't succeed because Chávez was smart and made sure to purge the military of anti-Chavista elements long ago. If their regime falls, I think it will be due to an internal matter (i.e. widespread opposition, not polarization like now).

Is the Venezuelan government financed by external sources as well?

Yes, it obviously is. Of course, that money doesn't come from the US. But it is pretty naïve to assume that the Venezuelan government are the shy good guys, being bullied by the bad guys financed by the evil overlord. This is politics. There are no good guys and bad guys. There are different parties and agents, with different interests. They are all involved. They all want their interests addressed in a very specific way. Those parties and agents can be internal or external. Some are lobbying groups. Some have money. Some are intellectuals. It's like that in every country, no matter how stable or unstable it is. If the country is politically stable (and it should be fairly obvious that Venezuela isn't, given the recent events), all these agents, parties and funds involved will be used/involved following constitucional rules. As long as that happens, there shouldn't be a problem. And it is a lost cause trying to prevent some agents to being involved. That happens naturally. They have their own interests, and that's what politics is, after all: a game of interests. So, it should be obvious that both Chavez and Maduro are funded by governments and organizations that benefit from them staying in power. China and Russia are obvious examples, but they are far from being the ony ones. I know this might sound a bit off-topic, but there is a very important point here: if we somehow manage to do the impossible task of removing the US from the equation (which is impossible, as I said, because the US are one of the agents involved, and they have their own interests regarding this matter), and keep the opposition orphan of the external support they previously had (which is a simplification, as that support doesn't come solely from the US), what happens with the power balance in the country? I mean, the government would still be funded by their own external agents/parties/friends/allies. Like I said previously, these things tend to converge to equilibrium in the long term, as both sides will seek to have better funding. If we prevent one side from doing so, the power balance changes drmatically to one side. It's better for Venezuela, as a whole, if that doesn't happen.

True, I agree with this. Everyone plays that game.

[*]And finally, the last important question, is the US the only external factor involved?

Of course not. Pretending the US are the big evil empire that rules over the region is pretty naïve. There was a time when even Brazil financed and installed opposition parties in Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay. That was pretty much the only region in Brazil with an open border in the 19th century (the Amazon and the Pantanal were hard to cross, so threats from places like Colombia were non-existing). It was in Brazil's interest to keep the Platine region stable (that region was very important, commercially), so Brazil got involved. That kind of thing has happened extensively throughout history both with great powers and smaller regional powers, as I have just shown. Like I said, it is silly to deny that countries like China and Russia are not involved in Latin American politics. The same goes for the EU. And even havez's Venezuela did that. They financed the FARC in Colombia (it was in their interest to do that) and the ALBA was definitely not something that came from Chavez's good heart towards the Latin American peoples. Like I said before, cutting only one side of the story will just shift the power balance in the country, and that will obviously leak into the whole region. And cutting all external influences in Venezuela is not only impossible, but also not in the Venezuelan people's best interest. If, for example, the US fund the opposition entirely, and Russia does the same for the government (this is obviously a fictitious example), and both parties use the money to finance their electoral campaign, making great points so people can choose in fair elections, they have only benefitted from it. The only issue, as I said before, is if any external party tries to plot a coup and disrupt the constitutional order of the country. But that is a different matter altogether, and it lies beyond the scope of this thread.

Indeed, Chile also did the same back in the day.

Also, for all the hate the US has gotten in this thread, Venezuela also tried to abuse US foreign policy commitments once upon a time and the US essentially dick-slapped its President as a result.

Now that we are done with these four very important questions, let me address some of the things that came up in the thread. First, the 2002 coup attempt. It's failry obvious it had US-backing. I don't think even the US denies that. But honetly, I fail to see how that plays a role in the matter at hand. Like I said, this is the kind of external influence that I would deem "hurtful" to Venezuela as a whole, simply because it would disrupt the constitutional order. That's the worst thing that can happen to a country., and one of the reasons why a strong constitution is an important factor in political stability.

That being said, it is important to keep in mind that this isn't Europe that we are talking about. It is Latin America. Coups are pretty much how things were done in Hispanic countries throughout their entire independent history. Those came from the right and left alike. And the coup leaders would always brand their coups as "revolutions". They'd always change the constitution, making sure their side had the power balanced shifted towards them. Always. Without exception. The presidential system (badly copied from the US) created an enviroment with lots of concentration of power in the executive. This enviroment was perfect for the proliferation of caudillos, who ruled the country as they wished (and enriching themselves in the process). If you think of Game of Thrones a bit, that was pretty much how politics was done in Latin America in the past two centuries. Coups, civil wars, assassinations. The only difference is that we are not talking about thrones, just presidential sashes being fought over. Perhaps we could call that a "Game of Sashes" instead, who knows?

Heck, even Chavez himself [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Venezuelan_coup_d%27état_attempts]tried a coup in 1992[/url], simply because he didn't agree with the elected government's neoliberal policies. It's impossible to talk about the 2002 coup attempt without going back to 1992. Both were pretty much the same: rebels trying to depose elected governments simply because they didn't agree with their policies. And honestly, both attempts were disgraceful. It's great neither worked, but it is not surprising to me that they took place. That's how things are solved in this particular region of the world. It's how things have been done for years. And it is unlikely that is going to change anytime soon.

True, unfortunately

I couldn't disagree more. Chavez was closer to Peron and Vargas than to Bolivar or San Martin. All of those were caudillos, but Chavez was a populist. He used his charisma to change the rules, not brute force, like Bolívar would. He managed to use his charisma to impose his own constitution, then he used his charisma again to change it as he pleased, making sure he would stay in power eternally. Of course, that's something that both the left and right have done extensively in Latin America.

Absolutely, and now that Chávez is gone, what will happen to the regime he crafted up?

[Social_Critic]

Absolutely, and now that Chávez is gone, what will happen to the regime he crafted up?

Chavez died a long time ago. His regime has already crashed and burned. What Maduro runs is a parody. Now we have to wait as the Venezuelan economy keeps nose diving and human rights abuses continue to proliferate.

Maduro's regime has been behaving as if all of the top rank were cretins. This mental paralysis is caused by serious internal divisions. These are enhanced by divisions in Cuba between Fidel's communist camp, and Raul's capitalist advocates.

But last night I heard from quality sources that Fidel has cancer. Now the question is how long it takes to eat his throat, and whether it spreads. Once the dinosaur dies the Raul led capitalists will win, and I bet the communists will be purged. This is going to be a very interesting revolution.

[Smertios]

Yes, I realized it was a gigantic post, but I wanted to cover everything. I'll try to be briefer in this one.

Let me just start by clarifying that I don't believe in any way that US interventionism in Latin America is good for the region. I'd say that you are correct in saying that, historically, that has been more harmful than not for Latin American peoples. I can't justify that list of interventions you posted. And I simply don't want to, as I mostly agree with it. However, I think it's hard to deny that something about that list of interventions has changed. The frequency of direct interventions has dropped dramatically. In most of the 20th century, military and political interventions were pretty frequent. In the first half of that list, you can see events happening every few years. In the end of the list, you see events happening almost 10 years from one another. Granted, that frequency is far from ideal (which would be zero), but things did get better. Most of the region is politically stable now. We have two economic powers in the region (Brazil and Mexico). And countries like Chile and Uruguay are closer to European living standards every year. Even the peace talks in Colombia are a sign that stability is coming to the region. And that means that direct US interventions will become less prominent.

I would personally call it one of the most interesting reads on PoFo in some time, but I may just possibly be one of those with a bias that friend Solastalgia was talking about.

I'd say that Latin American politics is probably more interesting than American or Western European politics simply because ideology still matters in that region. The common claim that we live in a post-ideological world isn't valid for every world region. Latin America is a region that was deeply affected by the Cold War. Before that, the region was a mess, like I discussed, with coups, caudillos, civil wars, populism etc. But the cold War brought a new factor into play: ideology. Now, caudillos are not opposed to each other for personal reasons only. Whether they are on the left or the right matters (countries like Chile, Brazil and Uruguay are the few exceptions). That makes all debates much more interesting.

Here is where I have to disagree with you, and as a leftist I'm sure I speak for many that hold similar views to my own. Bush and his cronies, and the Democrats and their oil cronies demand fealty from their subjects in Latin America. (...)

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm far from supporting Bush either. I'd say that he broke pretty much every protocol as well. Heck, Bush went to Brazil and asked if "we had blacks too" in an official visit. But there is a very important difference between Bush and Chavez: as bad as Bush was, he didn't impose his own constitution and then changed it a thousand times to make sure he would remain in power. He acepted the rules that already existed and then left office after he finished his 8 years in office, never to return. But granted, he could only do that because the American institutions are strong, unlike their Venezuelan counterparts. He would probably have done the same as Chavez, if he was elected the leader of Venezuela.

The History matters and the crushing poverty caused by the economic model Venezuela was forced into by the US and west were and are largely responsible for the great poverty in the nation. I really don't see how this can be denied.

I really can't see how this can be claimed, to begin with. While I agree that the US and Europe (as you know, I reject calling them the west, especially when talking about Latin America, which is just as western as the US) exerted a huge influence on Venezuela, their own elites are to blame. Every country will always try to influence others when it is in their interest. Whether you accept or not, it is your decision. If Venezuelan institutions had been strong from the start, they would have survived the pressure.

That is the difference between the far left and center right. I no longer cling to what I call the illusion that the western economic model can be "fixed" for the people, while a center right individual thinks otherwise.

I think most people in the center (this goes to the center-left as well) believe that there isn't much to be changed in the current model. Things like universal suffrage, the right to own and sell land, the right to provate property, civil marriages, the right of divorce etc were all important advances. Now, the center is worried about things like gay rights, gender equality (which is still far from being perfect) and social justice.

In Europe and North America (and also in some Latin American countries), the center-left and the center-right are converging to the same point. I always found it funny when Decky would say that Britons had to choose between Red Tories and Blue Tories, but in a way, it makes perfect sense. The ideological distance between the main parties in established democracies is getting shorter and shorter. Unfortunately, that's not the case in Venezuela.

So, in a way, I wouldn't say I'm center-right. I'm as much to the right as I am to the left. Far rightists will accuse me of being a communist, whereas far leftists will accuse me of being a fascist. That's how I can be sure that I'm a perfect centrist liberal.

What you call obvious I would call dangerous. Further, what we're really talking about is Venezuela's own self-determination. Their right to do with their oil resources as they see fit. As opposed to the colonial model where their resources are bound for the west for a small percentage of the over all profits to rest in one or two hands within Venezuela.

Pretty much. I'd disagree that it is dangerous. It's not dangerous to anyone. But you are 100% right that it is their decision. And even Chavez understood that it was in their best interest to continue selling their oil to the US.

As for the colonial model, there is a recurring joke in Brazil that fits this situation perfectly. Back in 1789, some Brazilians started [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconfidência_Mineira]a movement to become independent from Portugal[/url], because the Portuguese Crown would collect 20% of all gold produced there, in tax. Nowadays, Brazilians have to pay 40% of all they own. We declared our independence to be explored by our own elites twice as hard. xD

Are you talking about Cuba? Either way I'd be interested in which parties you are specifically talking about. If you have a link that discusses sources, I'd be most interested in that, although if you provide enough background info, I can look into it myself. I'm genuinely curious about this claim.

Cuba is a tiny irrelevant dictatorship. I'm talking about bigger fish, like Russia installing military bases in Venezuela and offering them a $1 billion loan to buy Russian weapons —[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. And there is China too, though their influence is more economical than military: [6]

Here I will disagree with you. There is no pretension whatsoever. We have established a link that pretty clearly shows the multitude of highly unnecessary US interventions in the region. (...)

Further, I also want to dispel this myth of the "big evil" empire thinking. There are no absolutes anywhere. Foreign relations are no different than domestic except that they affect different people. What an "empire" will do to foreign nations, it will also do domestically if it can make parts of its own population an "other". Solastalgia, if I read his personal history correctly, can tell us about the horrors of US domestic empire.

I apologizing for reducing the quote, but I didn't want to make it too large. I hope people reading this will go back to your post to read the actual content, in case they are interested.

Anyway, I believe you misunderstood me there. Like I said, it's undeniable that the US has been exerting a huge amount of influence in Latin America since the late 19th century. That's undeniable. What I meant is that it is naïve to claim that the US are a big evil empire (like I said, they are doing what pretty much every great power does, albeit not as successfully) that owns the region. Russian and Chinese influence are growing in the region, and Europe has always played a role as well.

Truth be told, if I have a decent enough grasp on Latin American history, the real culprit behind Latin American instability seems to reside with the original European overlords in Spain and Portugal, who never ran the colonies in a such a way that independence could happen smoothly. The Conquistadors ruled with an iron fist for about 300 years until Napoleon upset the apple cart. That has nothing to do with the US.

I'll have to ask you to make a 5-minute research on the history of Brazil. I know most people put the Portuguese and Spanish together like that, as if their colonial styles were identical, but they were completely different.

Brazil had the smoother independence process in the Americas, beforethe 20th century. It was pretty much a political process. Some battles were fought in the Northeast, but those were simply between pro-independence and pro-colonial militias left in the country. Those battles lasted less than 1 year, and Portugal recognized Brazil as an independent kingdom the next year. That's nowhere near the 12 years of war between Venezuela and Spain or the 8 years of teh American Revolutionary War.

But well, maybe you are right about that, considering Brazil eventually grew to become somewhat of a regional power in Latin America.

Each case of interventionism should be judged on its own merit or lack thereof. What the US has done is nothing like what you're talking about unless you concede that Brazil destabilized foreign nations to enrich a few members of its... bourgeois, or perhaps use colloquial terms, its creoles and peninsulares. I'm not challenging you on that, and I'm not going to in this thread, I'm just expressing the point that you can't compare the two and form any objective overarching view that interventionism is "good" or "bad".

But the thing is, that was pretty much what happened. I don't want to go off-topic here, but I really think the situation is comparable. The Brazilian involvement in the Uruguayan War, for example, came mostly because the Colorados were hurting the Brazilian commerce in the River Plate, and attacking Brazilian farms north of the border. In the end, it was all about the elites (it always is).

Its not that anyone is claiming that or has voiced a thought that this is an ideal, its the actual form said interventionism takes. If I trade you tobacco to win you over its a far cry from sending in a death squad to kill peasants who are fed up with being slaves. You can't simply generalize about external influences and make a meaningful statement about what's happening in Venezuela and further about what has happened in Latin America as a whole.

You are right, and I am not. Like I said, it really depends on the scope of the financing. Financing a coup, a civil war or political executions is obviously not okay. And while I agree that the US has done that in the past (and quite frequently), my point is that, since the turn of the century, that has changed dramatically. So, if the US is simply financing the Venezelan opposition's electoral campaign, rather them arming them for a civil war, that's totally okay, in my view. Especially because there is someone else financing the other side as well.

Its relevant because Bush and the US denied it at first until they were exposed by some of the very authors that Social_Critic calls hopelessly biased, which in turn forced them to be honest about what they were up too. Its further relevant because it established a history (That everyone but Social_Critic accepts) or a pattern of action that is useful in sniffing out other actions elsewhere that will also be denied until/unless someone exposes it.

You misunderstood my point again. From a historical point of view, it is definitely relevant. But that was 12 years ago. As far as the current political situation in Venezuela goes, it is just as relevant as the 1992 coup attempt. It is something that is not what the US are doing right now. And it is unlikely they will try something like that again, considering the fiasco of their support for the Honduran coup (though whether that was a coup or not is a matter for a different debate).

Actually in a fundamental sense, culturally speaking, it IS Europe in all ways. If you'd care to be semantic you could say it's Europe's child much the same way Britain likes to view the US as its child. So claiming that European conventions don't apply, to me, is kind of a cop out. Now, again, because I appreciate your honesty I want to make clear that I'm not trying to asshole debate you. I just don't how else to word my opposition to that line of thought.

I couldn't agree more. I don't know if you remember, but I expressed my views that Latin America is as western as the US in several threads ([7] [8] [9]). But I mean politically. olitically, Latin America is kind of a hybrid between Europe and the US. They don't have the parliamentary tradition of Europe, and all use the presidential system, with a separate and strong executive. However, the political set up, with opposing ideological parties etc, is more akin to Europe (a few decades ago, more precisely). And while the 20th century, with the two world wars, the crisis and several coups was a mess in Europe, overall, the region is much more stable, politically. Unlike Latin America, things are not solved by coups, civil wars and changes of constitution in Europe or North America.

While true for sure, the majority of the caudillos originate on the right, along with their associated personalismo. It is an important distinction to make.

Only because the "left" is much younger than liberalism and conservatism combined. We had liberal and conservative caudillos fighting over power in the 1820s in most Latin American countries. And back then, liberalism was what was considered to be the "left". Nowadays, leftists consider liberals to be rightists, for some reason. But the point is that the modern left, following socialist and marxist ideas, only started to become organized as a political faction in the late 19th century, and only became relevant and came to power in the West in the second half of the 20th century.

Again, color me leftist on this one, but I would call what he did something similar to what the early US did in seceding from Britain. 50% plus poverty in a nation with the oil wealth of Venezuela is a little more justification for revolution than others brought by caudillos. If he had kept the oil wealth for himself I would completely agree with you, but we all know it went to the people by now and brought up the...urban lower classes... at the least. (Even if it does appear the rural classes suffered).

Let me put it this way: I don't think the end justifies the means. And the main proof of that is the fact that, after being imprisoned for that coup and subsequently pardoned, Chavez decided to come to power through elections, and was successful. I disagree with him changing the constitution (and honestly, as his constitution was so tied to his personal political style, I doubt it will last long now that he is gone), but he at least proved that, as long as the constitution allows you to be elected into office (as the previous one did), there is no need for coups.

This reminds me of something Lula said in 2009. He was criticizing the FARC for not accepting to become a legitimate political party in Colombia. I don't remember the exact quote, but he said that he opposed the Brazilian military dictatorship (something Colombia didn't have), created a legitimate party and, 20 years later, won the elections. And he also said that, if the FARC ever want to get to power, they would need to do the same. And while I'm not a big fan of Lula, I couldn't agree more with him about that. For me, it doesn't matter what someone's ideology is. If he is willing to play by the rules and be elected into office, and also to step down once his term ends (something Chavez wasn't willing to do), he is a legitimate leader.

That is pretty much what Chavez learned from his experiences in 1992 and 1998.

I disagree again. Its simply not fair or right in my book to simply offer a blanket statement that all coups are always "bad". It depends on a multitude of factors. If the democratic system itself is so flawed that major sections of the population are left without voice, power, or a reasonable level of self-determination than its hard to argue when representatives of that population attempt to seize power any way they can. At that point the only "moral" issue left is determine if the coup leaders are who they say they are. If they are not, it is another debate entirely.

True. Like I said, the main requirement for this situation is that democracy is in place and that the political institutions are strong enough. If major sections of the population are left without voice, that system is not democratic at all. That's why, for example, I'd say that what the ANC did in South Africa during the Apartheid was perfectly legitimate. They simply had no other way to come to power. And fortunately for South Africa, a major civil war and coup was avoided, but that could only be done because the white elite decided to end the regime. Had that not happened, a revolution would have been the only way for blacks to reach power in the country. This was obviously not the case in Venezuela, considering Chavez himself was elected 7 years after the coup attempt.

I'm sorry but now you are relying on many of the dubious private media sources and foreign media sources who have been shown to be blatantly opposed to both Chavez and now Maduro. I'm not sure you can really claim this effectively. I'm not saying its entirely without merit, but I don't think you can look at both forces and call what they are doing two sides of the same coin.

No, I'm relying on the facts. Chavez attempted a coup in 1992. In 1998, he was elected legitimately, then he changed the constitution one year later. In 2005, the opposition was ingenuous enough to boycott the election, so Chavez acquired a supermajority, forced all leftist parties to merge into a single one (controlled by him of course) and virtually turned Venezuela into a one party state. In 2007, he tried to pass an amendment through referendum to ban presidential term limits, concentrate power in the executive and turn Venezuela into a socialist state, officially. It was narrowly defeated. In 2009, he put the term limits alone to referemdum again, and had them abolished, making sure he would stay in power. In 2010, he once again enjoyed his supermajority to have the Congress give him the power to rule by decree (something Maduro did as well). That was teh fourth time he was granted those powers during his rule. Of course, all of that worked only because of Chavez's huge popularity. And he was smart enough to turn that popularity into populism, allowing him to stay in power for life. Maduro isn't nearly as popular as Chavez, so Venezuela is in the chaos it is now. The country has a personal constitution, but the person involved is dead, so nothing works anymore. Either way, that is far from being a democracy. Chavez changed the constitution as he pleased and giverned by decrees. That's not a democracy. A democracy is more than just being elected into office for a 6-year term.

The problem is the same media and by extension their corporate boards who run the media that inform all of us about events not just in the US but in the world are the very same people (ultimately) who are in charge in the US and the West. There are only about six sources of news left. If all of them are pro-US/West, anti-Castro, anti-Chavez, anti-anything anti-western business, can I really expect a fair and relatively unbiased assessment? To me, putting Castro (reviled by said media) with Pinochet (revered by said media until fully exposed) together is kind of offensive. Clearly Castro has some actions to atone for but to my way of thinking, nothing like Pinochet. Perhaps that is my bias, and any reader can take that for what its worth if he chooses, but I have to make the point that a Pinochet supporter would make the opposite claim I'm making and would try to tell you they aren't biased.

So, you are saying that it is okay for a dictator to get rid of all political parties, imprison and murder his opponents and trun teh country into a dictatorship, as long as there is no news source on his side?

Maybe it is offensive to the political opponents executed by the Cuban regime, who knows?

I'm sorry for being so offensive in this matter, but this is something I simply cannot condone. No excuse is good enough to justify a brutal dictatorship. And I'm saying this as someone who hates Pinochet and Castro alike. The only difference is that Pinochet's regime has ended already, so we have access to the data. We know the scope of the political executions and repression in Chile. The Cuban dictatorship continues to this day. We only have access to the numbers they release.

It matters greatly because foreign sources aren't doing this for their good health. They are doing this for their own self-interests which usually clash with the self-interests of varying percentages of the local populations. Is it fair for the US or the West or Brazil to finance an opposition that will, if given power, spirit away natural resources to said foreign power at sweetheart rates that go directly to those who cooperate in the beginning with this foreign electoral interference? No. It isn't fair or right on any level. Its not right in the US and its not right in Latin America either.

The same can be said of domestic sources, though. Electoral campaigns are like that. Actually, any financial project is like that. Nobody is going to spend money on something they have no interest in, or something that won't bring profits. As long as both the government and the opposition have similar amounts of money, they both can try to convince the electorate of their plans. It would be up to the government to convince the people that the opposition would spirit away natural resources, as you put it. If they fail to convince the people, then it will be their fault that they weren't elected.

Of course, this is a completely different situation if the government is left with no money. Like I said, both parties need similar amounts of funds. If the US finances the opposition to the point where only the opposition has money, the whole electoral process is jeopardized.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/supreme-court-retains-ban-on-foreign-campaign-donations/

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml

Oh, I believe I misunderstood you there. I thought you meant it was illegal for the US to donate money to foreign campaigns, not to receive foreign money for their domestic campaigns. While that is also interesting, we have to check the Venezuelan law on that matter. Both pre- and post-Chavez. If they say it is illegal, then there is obviously a problem with the US directly financing the opposition.