this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2025
137 points (80.4% liked)
Memes
53340 readers
785 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
He is an authoritarien and the country went to shit.
Venezuela is not a nice place to live in.
Maduro is a corrupt dictator, trump aswell and the current opposition to maduro most likely will just be an authoritarian and fascist pupped goverment that will act in the USAs interest. So yeah multible things can be true at once, just because a nation is opposed to the american empire does not mean that it is automaticallly good.
Its quite sad to see that some terminally online leftist just automaticly replace siding with the imperialist systems that there born into( USA, EU Australia etc.) And just replace that with other imperial powers like russia and china.
Like why?? How about not bootlicking authoritarians?
Tell us what a non-authoritarian leader of Venezuela would look like to you and how they would resist the constant pressure and hostile actions of the US government, because it seems to me that leftist leaders are always denounced as authoritarian by North American and European based NGOs and governments.
The only way to avoid being labelled as authoritarian is to be friendly to the imperial core countries, i.e. being capitalist.
It's so funny to see, when the alternative to Maduro is the Venezuelan equivalent of Yeltsin, someone hellbent on stripping their own country for parts and portraying that as "freedom"
👆If you don’t suppress the inevitable imperial-supported bourgeois counterinsurgencies, your socialist project will go the way of Allende’s Chile.
What a loser-ass mentality. It's absolutely possible to remain just and free while being secure. Skill issue.
❤️Through the power of love ❤️
What are your real-world examples—bourgeois “democracies”? If it’s so easy, why hasn’t it happened?
Just and free while being secure: "authoritarian"
Unjust and unfree while being insecure and overrun by bears: Libertarian
The question is whether government/people should get $60/barrel revenue before expenses, maybe $40/barrel after expenses, or $10/barrel but pump 5-10x as much, bribed to be loyal to US. Long term, obviously no corruption and high revenue/profit per barrel has its advantages. It's not as though Exxon/Chevron can't get access to Venezuela oil with fair deals, it's that pretending corrupt puppets are the legitimate leaders provides extortion oil costs.
When you understand the hoops the US government is willing to jump through to get cheap foreign oil, you should understand that similar policies are used to deprive Americans of their fair share of resource revenue.
That's not what we’re doing; that’s what intellectually incurious imperial core labor aristocrats think we’re doing.
We need to talk about “authoritarianism”
Under Maduro, Venezuelan communes and participatory democracy is flourishing. In addition, massive social programs have been implemented, focusing on housing, food security, and poverty eradication. I'm not sure on what basis you distrust him so much, Venezuela is building socialism under Maduro from the bottom-up, and Maduro is doing his part from the top.
Venezuela is a developing country, that is developing despite the US Empire's best efforts. It is regularly improving, which is why the working classes support Maduro.
Russia isn't imperialist, it has no colonies nor neocolonies, and a tiny amount of global financial capital. China isn't imperialist either, it's a socialist country wituout any financial domination of the state or economy. There's no mechanisms pushing for imperialism within China, and this manifests in regular south-south trade leading to development of global south countries when trading with China, unlike the unequal exchange of trade with the west where the west charges monopoly prices for tech and places compradors in power to prevent industrial development.
Multiple things are true, correct. This isn't the grand own you think it is, though. You're passively parroting imperialist narratives.
Man i remember when I was a "damn, the US and it's enemies are both evil" guy. I thought i was done thinking about the world
Most of us have been at that stage, especially if we grew up in the west. I certainly was, no doubt about that. I try to do my best to correct that former behavior now that I know better. Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of "Brainwashing" remains critical reading.
And we thought we were so enlightened. This is the last layer of the imperial core propaganda onion: that the “other side” is no better, which leads to apathy and disengagement.
Why do you think they're invading Ukraine. Sparkles and rainbows?
The general Marxist take is that when Yanukovych was offered an IMF loan that required austerity policies and privatization of safety nets, and a Russian loan that did not come with the same restrictions, he went with the Russian loan and was couped for it, including a western-supported Banderite false-flag shooting. Following the western-supported coup, the areas in the Donbass region seceded, as they supported Yanukovych, are culturally and ethnically Russian, and were unhappy with the Banderites taking over the government under the cover of "democracy." Said Banderites were also legally suppressing the Russian language in the Donbass region.
What ensued was a decade of fighting, 2 failed Minsk agreements that Kiev broke and admitted to never wanting to follow, and massive risk of NATO on Russia's doorstep. The Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics requested Russian assistance, and Russia complied, sparking the next stage of the war.
Russia purely wants the Donbass region and NATO neutrality. They want the Donbass region not out of the kindness of their hearts, nor for plunder or further expansion, but because it's a land bridge straight to Russia, the same route the Nazis took in World War II. NATO was building up because the West uses their millitary to threaten countries into opening up their economies to foreign plunder (like what's happening right now in Venezuela), a tradition employed since NATO was founded, destroyed Yugoslavia and Libya, etc.
This is the common Marxist take, shared largely by PSL's statement and FRSO's statement. Essentially, the war is tragic, should end as quickly as possible, and was provoked by the west.
Nato is not a risk to russia, and never has been. Nato is a defensive alliance. The only way they're a risk is if russia plans to attack them first. Anyone suggesting that nato provoked it is on something
Yeah man ask Libya and Yugoslavia how defended they feel
Nato is a defensive alliance just like cops are there to help you
NATO is the millitary alliance of the world's imperialist powers. This group of countries uses this alliance to prevent the global south from going against it and liberating themselved from foreign plunder via overwhelming financial domination. The way imperialism tends to work in the modern day is countries like the US, France, Germany, UK, etc expropriate vast wealth from countries in the global south, similar to how capitalists steal value created by the working class.
NATO is as "defensive" as the Iron Dome in Israel. These countries export genocide and terrorism on the third world, expropriate huge sums of wealth, and then "defend" against anyone that pushes back against that.
NATO expansion:
NATO in general:
Invading / starting a war is not the same thing as imperialism.
Invading for territory gain is absolutely synonymous with imperialistic tendencies
The Marxist definition of imperialism is more specific than just "big country invade small country".
In, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism Lenin lays out five aspects of what makes Imperialism:
The question of "Is Russia Imperialist" isn't a moral one, it's a technical one. So if Russia were do to something that we all agree is morally reprehensible, that's a separate concern from whether Russia is imperialist.
The technicality revolves around whether Russia has developed an oligarchy of Financial Capital, such that its invasion of Ukraine or other flexes of its influence, perpetuates the export of Russian finance capital around the world.
As it stands now, I don't think that's currently the case, but with Marxism being a dialectal philosophy, I do wonder if this war will accelerate that merging of Bank and industrial capital that Lenin discusses. It's a Bourgeois states, and there's financial capital in there somewhere that absolutely has an interest in forming a Russian imperialism.
So when people say "Russia isn't Imperialist", this is what's being referred to. You can take it or leave it, but it's worth getting into the weeds a bit, so we aren't all talking passed each other
A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not necessarily a square.
Ok but the person above just denied that a square was a rectangle
Look at those goalposts fly
No goalposts have moved dude
It literally is? They are expanding power over a foreign nation via military means. That's basically the definition of imperialism.
You’re talking about simple conquest. By that definition any offensive side in a war is imperialist, which is nonsensical as that means nearly every war in human history involved at least one “imperialist” power.
Imperialism is system of establishing and maintaining hegemony over large areas for the benefit of an elite (capital in modern times, patricians in ancient times, etc) within a metropole (probably too simple of a definition but it works). The Romans were an empire not just because they had an emperor and not because they conquered lands, but because they controlled lands from Spain to Syria and wealth flowed from those lands into Rome.
The Soviet Union expanded their power over Germany via military means. WW2 was simply an inter-imperialist war.
It was an inter-imperialist war except on the eastern front, where it was a war to destroy communism. The capitalist Allies and the USSR were an alliance of convenience, which is why the West made the USSR its enemy the moment the war ended.
Edie is being sarcastic, btw.
The imperialist D-Day landings
Yes he’s certainly an authoritarian. Authoritarian doesn’t automatically mean bad…there’s such a thing as the concept of a benevolent dictator.
What evidence do you have that “the country went to shit” or “Venezuela is not a nice place to live in” or that he’s a “corrupt dictator”?
This original post, presumably, attempts to scratch slightly beneath the surface of what we hear on the news and suggest that your above statements only apply to a certain “deserving” class.
I don’t actually know a lot about Venezuela, and I’m asking these questions in earnest. I started to ask questions a lot earlier, but certainly looking into Maria Machado (this years Nobel Peace Prize winner) made some alarm bells go off. Could it be that the narrative is controlled by Machado and her neoliberal/right wing ilk, and she actually represents a large minority class of people that was purged/displaced in Venezuela?
I’m still investigating.
Where do we get the idea that Maduro is an authoritarian dictator? We get it from what our governments say, our corporate media say, and our NGOs (which are funded by our governments & corporations) say. These are the very same governments & corporations that want to vassalize Venezuela and pillage its resources. They are—all day, every day—working to manufacture our consent, or if not consent then at least acquiescence.
We also get it from Maduro and the rest of the Chavanistas: his party rules by supreme power and decree. The way his party allocates power as a matter of internal affairs, may be another story.
Please, let’s not talk in absolutes. This notion that any and all narratives that you deem negative are part of a grand conspiracy just isn’t true.
I implied in my original reply that I believe Maduro may be benevolent, along the lines of Castro. I don’t really have a problem with dictators…the problem with dictators is they’re usually fascists. That isn’t the case in Venezuela.
Again, how do you know this, and why are you so certain that this is a fair characterization? Have you read or listened to Maduro’s speeches or read Chavismo literature? Did you ask working class Venezuelans they consider these “decrees” to be extra-legal are or whether they are popular among them? Or did it come from Five Eyes sources, their telling of events?
In the modern era, dictators dictate with the consent of the bourgeoisie. And yes, that is fascism. In stark contrast, the Maduro government is a thorn in the side of both the indigenous bourgeoisie and the foreign imperialist bourgeoisie.
Yes I have listened to his speeches and read his lefislation…that’s why I’m saying what I’m saying.
You’re citisizing things I didn’t say…I know Maduro is popular there. I don’t know how else to say it: I believe he has the best interests of the working class in mind.
There's a concept true. Just not an example. Technically it's possible for sub atomic particles in deep space to randomly coaless as a Ruben sandwich. But you're far more likely to see the evaporation of a super massive black hole.
Power corrupts. And sometimes there really is no point to arguing which shitty person is slightly less shitty than the other shitty person. The only true answer is not play, and that there shouldn't be such positions of power. Anything else is calvinball.
You'll notice that there are no real arguments that he isn't a authoritarian/dictator. Just justification that certain people identify with him, so it's okay. Or that because one cringe group of privileged people criticize him. All criticism against him is from similar cringe groups of people. The meme in a nutshell. A non sequitur.
Maduro absolutely is an authoritarian. As is Trump. I don't agree with either one of them. But Trump absolutely means to fuck all the way off when it comes to continuing to meddle in South America. Argentina and Venezuela have enough problems of their own. They don't need ours.
What makes Maduro an dictator? He's popularly supported, was democratically elected, and is setting up participatory systems in the economy. I can agree that he's "authoritarian" against capitalists and fascists, but that's absolutely a good use of authority.
Secondly, there's no evidence to the notion that "power corrupts," just correlation. In systems like capitalism, corrupt leaders are pushed upwards because that's profitable, it wasn't the power that corrupted them but a system that selects for corruption.
Tell the cryptofash on MeanwhileOnGrad that they're a hoot, btw.
Authoritarian is when you don’t capitulate to the imperial core’s will, and the less you capitulate the more authoritarian you are. If you’re genuinely democratic then you need a color revolution for sure, because the demos doesn’t want to be vassalized by imperialists.
Bad faith responses from both of you. Bravo!
Bad faith is when you put an ounce of critical thinking towards the thought-terminating cliches that a bunch of rich pedophiles use to demonize anyone who resists their compulsive desire to own the world and everyone in it.
I don't think you deserve anything else, tbh
I mean, we try to be patient but there’s a limit. You regurgitate imperial core hegemonic “common sense,” believing that you don’t need to back any of it up with evidence because ~it\ is\ known~it is known^it\ is\ known^, while we bring bookshelves of evidence & arguments for our positions, which you won’t engage with.
I was absolutely good-faith. I don't agree with describing Maduro as a dictator, and I gave my reasoning. Are you referring to the bit at the end, where GrammarPolice made a couple of posts on MWoG that you commented on? I think it's fair to call that out.
so many threads come with a call to action too, makes it impossible to take these losers seriously when they complain about brigading
Yep, it's kinda funny when they get upset at getting called out for it too.