True… thankfully the glorious US bombed those undemocratic dictator fishing ships and invaded their country to righteously kidnap their undemocratically un-elected president and his heinous wife while killing people.
Now it gets to be a true democracy! Where their country starts going through liberalization and worsening social nets as their future is sold off to private sectors. Truly no longer a dictatorship.
I know. What’s your point? I’m not claiming US is a utopia, or have done no harm, I’m not even doing any claim about US. My claim is Venezuela is a dictatorship, and I think arguing “It is not, because US bad” is not a valid refutation to my claim.
Have any proof for that claim? Or honestly even a proper analysis of the Venezuelan system and in what ways you believe it doesn’t serve the people/the people aren’t in control?
Usa rigs almost every election in the world. Collect some evidence about this too, or you’re just an imperialist propagandist (and kidnapper-bootlicker).
Oh okay so you were just ignoring how the outside world is the context for this conversation.
So you’re just a fundamentally dishonest and unserious person. And you’re actively defending the side the murders in the hundreds while attacking the side getting murdered.
Venezuela is more democratic than western countries. Why is it that westerners demonize revolutionaries for not following the political process, and demonize electoralists for following the political process anyways? Because both are threats to capital.
…maybe because many westerners are worried about losing their democracy? I mean, when democracies Fall, they usually don’t make room for better democracies, historically speaking.
Westerners in general don’t have democracy, capitalists have democracy in the west. That’s why the implementation of socialism is necessary, bringing democracy to the working classes and kicking out the capitalists.
Just because the majority of the people in a country disagree with you doesn’t mean it’s not a democracy. In many western countries there are (still) free and fair elections. This is verifiable. But democracy lives off of active participation, and there are people (read: fascists) who see democracy as a threat and do everything they can to sow FUD in order to reduce election participation.
Elections are not indicative of democracy. The fact that capital is what determines which parties are viable, what candidates are allowed to run, and controls the entire economy means that elections in capitalism are more of a pressure valve than an actual way to get your voice across. Capitalism is incompatible with working class democracy.
How the hell are elections not indicative of democracy? I mean, just because you have elections doesn’t mean you have a proper democracy (e.g. if there is only one party available), but how those elections are run says a lot. They’re the core of any democracy. Democracy is, by definition, the people being ruled by the people. So you need some form of governance that is accountable to the people.
And capital is far from the only thing that determines if parties are viable. Yes, it plays too much of a role (especially in the US, but there are many western countries that aren’t the US), but let’s not pretend it’s some mysterious being that decides everything. That ignores so many important factors.
Capitalism is not some mysterious being, its a phenomenon and it is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. If the workplace was democratized then you would not have capitalism.
Elections aren’t democracy, as you said democracy is rule by the majority. Pluralism, the ability to choose between parties, isn’t actually democracy either. A single party system can be more democratic if it’s a consultative democracy and reflects the will of the majority, like how it works in China (though China obviously has many, many elections). That also doesn’t mean pluralism is inherently antidemocratic, countries like the DPRK have multiple political parties with seats (even if the majority are held by the WPK), just that the will of the majority be upheld.
In capitalism, a tiny class of people controls the most essential means of production and distribution for society. The state represents their interests, and any parties that exist must represent them, or instead have strong grassroots support and work against the state (such as the Bolsheviks). Choosing between any number of capitalist parties doesn’t mean workers are going to be represented. No western country represents the will of the majority.
A single party system can be more democratic if it’s a consultative democracy and reflects the will of the majority, like how it works in China
Oh really? How do you hold the people in power accountable, then, if they’re part of the only party that is allowed to exist (which that party itself decided, what a coincidence!)?
In capitalism, a tiny class of people controls the most essential means of production and distribution for society.
False, that is the result of capitalism when it goes unchecked, not the definition. And different countries have different levels of checks on capitalism.
The state represents their interests, and any parties that exist must represent them
Yeah, no, that’s not the case. Otherwise explain to me how many western countries have leftist parties and even marxist-leninist parties. It’s just not the will of the majority. Which leads me back to the point: your (or even my) satisfaction with the results don’t measure how democratic a country is, despite the FUD spread by authoritarians and wannabe authoritarians to destabilize democracies by encouraging people to not participate.
lol if you think Venezuela is not a dictatorship.
What does this post have to do with Venezuela
First panel of the meme is about Venezuela.
Lol you still believe what the Epstein Burger Reich tells you about other countries, that’s fucking embarassing
True… thankfully the glorious US bombed those undemocratic dictator fishing ships and invaded their country to righteously kidnap their undemocratically un-elected president and his heinous wife while killing people.
Now it gets to be a true democracy! Where their country starts going through liberalization and worsening social nets as their future is sold off to private sectors. Truly no longer a dictatorship.
2 bads don’t make 1 good.
The US has done a whole lot more than 1 fucking bad
I know. What’s your point? I’m not claiming US is a utopia, or have done no harm, I’m not even doing any claim about US. My claim is Venezuela is a dictatorship, and I think arguing “It is not, because US bad” is not a valid refutation to my claim.
My point is you’re a fucking moron, obviously
Have any proof for that claim? Or honestly even a proper analysis of the Venezuelan system and in what ways you believe it doesn’t serve the people/the people aren’t in control?
Maduro is so incompetent he blundered and allowed mathematical evidence of the past elections being rigged. Here’s an extensive analysis of that by Terrence Tao: https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2024/08/02/what-are-the-odds-ii-the-venezuelan-presidential-election/
Usa rigs almost every election in the world. Collect some evidence about this too, or you’re just an imperialist propagandist (and kidnapper-bootlicker).
My claim is about Venezuela, not US.
The two bads you’re lumping together are mass murder and “a disreputable source didn’t like how you ran that election”
Actual harm versus theoretical harm at some point in the future to a non material concept
You’re deranged
And that’s not even getting into the fact that the non-harm you elevate was used as justification to commit the mass murders you diminish.
Psycho.
I was pointing out the logical fallace in claiming Venezuela is not a dictotarship just because US is a horrible country.
Oh okay so you were just ignoring how the outside world is the context for this conversation.
So you’re just a fundamentally dishonest and unserious person. And you’re actively defending the side the murders in the hundreds while attacking the side getting murdered.
Venezuela is more democratic than western countries. Why is it that westerners demonize revolutionaries for not following the political process, and demonize electoralists for following the political process anyways? Because both are threats to capital.
…maybe because many westerners are worried about losing their democracy? I mean, when democracies Fall, they usually don’t make room for better democracies, historically speaking.
Westerners in general don’t have democracy, capitalists have democracy in the west. That’s why the implementation of socialism is necessary, bringing democracy to the working classes and kicking out the capitalists.
Just because the majority of the people in a country disagree with you doesn’t mean it’s not a democracy. In many western countries there are (still) free and fair elections. This is verifiable. But democracy lives off of active participation, and there are people (read: fascists) who see democracy as a threat and do everything they can to sow FUD in order to reduce election participation.
That’s literally exactly what that means you fucking moron
Elections are not indicative of democracy. The fact that capital is what determines which parties are viable, what candidates are allowed to run, and controls the entire economy means that elections in capitalism are more of a pressure valve than an actual way to get your voice across. Capitalism is incompatible with working class democracy.
How the hell are elections not indicative of democracy? I mean, just because you have elections doesn’t mean you have a proper democracy (e.g. if there is only one party available), but how those elections are run says a lot. They’re the core of any democracy. Democracy is, by definition, the people being ruled by the people. So you need some form of governance that is accountable to the people.
And capital is far from the only thing that determines if parties are viable. Yes, it plays too much of a role (especially in the US, but there are many western countries that aren’t the US), but let’s not pretend it’s some mysterious being that decides everything. That ignores so many important factors.
Capitalism is not some mysterious being, its a phenomenon and it is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. If the workplace was democratized then you would not have capitalism.
Elections aren’t democracy, as you said democracy is rule by the majority. Pluralism, the ability to choose between parties, isn’t actually democracy either. A single party system can be more democratic if it’s a consultative democracy and reflects the will of the majority, like how it works in China (though China obviously has many, many elections). That also doesn’t mean pluralism is inherently antidemocratic, countries like the DPRK have multiple political parties with seats (even if the majority are held by the WPK), just that the will of the majority be upheld.
In capitalism, a tiny class of people controls the most essential means of production and distribution for society. The state represents their interests, and any parties that exist must represent them, or instead have strong grassroots support and work against the state (such as the Bolsheviks). Choosing between any number of capitalist parties doesn’t mean workers are going to be represented. No western country represents the will of the majority.
Oh really? How do you hold the people in power accountable, then, if they’re part of the only party that is allowed to exist (which that party itself decided, what a coincidence!)?
False, that is the result of capitalism when it goes unchecked, not the definition. And different countries have different levels of checks on capitalism.
Yeah, no, that’s not the case. Otherwise explain to me how many western countries have leftist parties and even marxist-leninist parties. It’s just not the will of the majority. Which leads me back to the point: your (or even my) satisfaction with the results don’t measure how democratic a country is, despite the FUD spread by authoritarians and wannabe authoritarians to destabilize democracies by encouraging people to not participate.