site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   24759 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 29, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The United States of America is now at war with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Dozens of Venezuelan military targets have been bombed in the last few minutes, including a major army base just outside the capital. American Chinooks have been seen flying across the Caracas skyline.

This could be the most important geopolitical happening since the Ukraine War. We do it yet know if this will be a limited run of bombing like the Kosovo strikes, or a full on Iraq style invasion and regime change. If it is the latter, it will be an important test of America’s military might, and failure could very well be America’s Suez moment. I have speculated here several times that I thought the US would have difficulty conducting a thunder run of a non-peer or near-peer adversary in its current state, and it looks as though my theory may be put to the test. On a geopolitical and moral level though, I have little sympathy for Venezuela, for the same reason I have little sympathy for Ukraine. If you repeatedly antagonize your neighboring superpower, you get what you get.

This will also no doubt further fracture the Republican base in a major way, as interventionist neocons clash with America-First isolationists.

This is also adds to an intensifying pattern of conflict in multiple theaters that could lead to global war. It also increases the likelihood of a Chinese attack on Taiwan as American asserts are entangled in multiple theaters.

I will post more information as I hear it.

source?

A true gentleman scholar post “inb4 source” and is vindicated in the light of history.

Edit:

There are now multiple airstrikes occurring within Caracas. The United States FAA has issued a NOTAM warning that civilian aircraft should avoid overflying the entire territory of Venezuela.

Reuters is now reporting that there are US ground troops active within the capital of Venezuela.

I am baffled by my ignorance, but

Why?

What has led to this?

Marco Rubio is hawk against Venezuela and Cuba. I think he convinced Trump to do it. He is Trump's Secretary of State and National Security Advisor. He finally got what he desires.

There's a decade plus of Rubio saying we need something like this. Article from last month: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/12/us/politics/rubio-cuba-venezuela.html

Edit: Looking at Trump's photos during the raid: it is Trump and Rubio sitting together at Mar a Lago watching a screen.

It's the monroe doctrine. Basically the US is the hegemon in the western hemisphere, and Cuba is the sole allowed exception. Venezuela had this coming a long time.

How is Cuba an allowed exception? Cuba is still embargoed, despite being no worse than Vietnam.

Because the US has explicitly committed to not invading it despite hosting Russian military bases.

I could find only that since Cuban Crisis USSR/Russia had only sigint base on Cuba, not military.

Yet it is still subject to an incredibly harsh embargo. Long after similar "communist" regimes and direct Russian allies that killed relatives of mine have become major trading partners. That doesn't really fit with "allowed."

That’s because of Cuban exiles in Miami-Dade County. Florida was a critical swing state in American electoral politics and Miami-Dade county was critical for winning Florida. Any party that normalized relations with Cuba would have lost the White House for the next 25 years.

That doesn't really point to Cuba being "allowed" to exist peacefully in opposition to the United States.

The reason Cuba has been "allowed" to exist for so long is not out of some reasoned exception to the Monroe Doctrine, it is simply because the Castro regime has historically been competent and popular enough that overthrowing it has not been practical.

In Venezuela, Chavez poked the United States more than Maduro ever did, but he was a competent strongman and so he lived to die of cancer in power.

I think it’s a few things.

•The first likely window for an invasion was the Cold War. Kennedy’s handshake deal not to invade Cuba meant that Cuba wasn’t going to be invaded for the last 30 years of the Cold War. Even if Washington doesn’t value honor, nobody wanted to pick at that scab after the nuclear near miss in ‘62, and several other fronts of the Cold War were more important anyway.

•The next likely window for an invasion would have been in the 90s, after the USSR fell. But no one had any appetite for major military action in the 90s, and Cuba wasn’t engaging in any particularly theatrical genocides that would have moved the US to action.

•The third likely window for an invasion would have been during the post-9/11 paranoia spiral. But Cheney’s priority list was Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and North Korea, and the Iraq boondoggle meant that he never even managed to finish the top five, much less cleaning up the D-listers.

•After that there was a pretty big phobia of wading into regime change, and Cuba just kind of kept lumbering on due to inertia.

More comments

Because since at least 1991 the US has been technically and geopolitically capable of invading Cuba and overthrowing the communists there without provoking a global crisis and hasn’t done so.

Anyone who tells you they understand what's going on is probably an idiot. It seems likely to me that it all makes the most sense if you have classified intelligence at your fingertips. But what I have noticed is that over the past decade or so China has been influencing a lot of current events in a plausibly deniable way.

China pushes on Iran and Russia to stir up regional trouble. Iran pushes on Hamas and Hezbollah to create Oct 7th. Venezuelan oil goes to Cuba and China to be refined (because they mismanaged their oil industry enough that they no longer have the ability to refine it locally.) Russia and Cuba have soldiers stationed in Venezuela. Russia supplied Venezuela with the Buk-M2E air defense system that the US completely stomped on last night.

These countries are all tangled with each other. You can't really have a foreign policy for one without taking the others into account. And a good proportion of the US political class is terrified of China. China has been building up a fleet and industrial capacity that can utterly dominate the US Navy. And no country goes through the enormous expense of building up a fleet without intending to use it.

It's not a coincidence that China sent an envoy to Venezuela yesterday, where they reportedly spoke with Maduro for 3 hours.

It's also not a coincidence that China has fleets of ships around South America, ostensibly to deplete the fish around the coast (which is bad enough.) But consider how many drones can fit in a shipping container. Consider how the Ukraine pulled off one of their more successful attacks against Russia. It doesn't take a lot for China to turn their annoying and environmentally damaging fishing fleet into a drone kill fleet, right at America's south.

If you want to understand what is going on, you need to start seeing the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Iranian water riots, China firing missiles and practicing live fire drills while surrounding Taiwan, and the US capture of Maduro as all different angles of the same problem.

One reason why I think the US pulled on this thread of the knot is because we have a True Democratically Elected leader of Venezuela safely tucked away, who can potentially take the reigns. That's the harder part to pull off and what will probably determine if this was actually a successful operation.

It's also not a coincidence that China has fleets of ships around South America, ostensibly to deplete the fish around the coast (which is bad enough.) But consider how many drones can fit in a shipping container.

They're fishing boats off the coast of Peru. Ukraine's drone containers were smuggled onto russian territory, a few hundred meters from the planes.

And no country goes through the enormous expense of building up a fleet without intending to use it.

Except the US, who, I assume, does it out of benevolence?

Well, no. The US obviously uses our fleet to maintain its hegemony. Most of the time our fleet keeps shipping safe and reliable. But more than that, we maintain our military dominance to prevent another World War. A tactic which has been successful for 80 years, we shall see if that can continue.

China building a rival fleet is obviously threatening to the US. I do not comment on the relative morality of it. They have as much of a right to it as the US. Though there is something to be said about China not showing as much of an interest in keeping shipping lanes safe.

You said building a fleet is proof of intention to use it. That's like saying anyone carrying a gun is premeditating murder. You interpret everything china does as aggressive against you, when it's far easier to see it as defensive in nature. The US is scary.

I agree with you that the US is scary. Building a fleet is an intention to use it. The US built a fleet and intends to use it, as shown by them using it all the time. I don't see the contradiction here.

No, I don't think they use it all the time. The size of the US fleet is massive overkill for what it's used for. It's like Britain's old policy of having a bigger fleet than the next two powers combined. It wasn't because they needed the ships for some coups in zanzibar or wherever.

There is, I note, a consistent history of Britain very much using that fleet for several hundred years.

In the comment above this you said, "The US is scary." Now you are saying the US doesn't use it's Navy. This seems like a contradiction.

The US doesn't have to shoot things in order for the Navy to be used. The Navy is used by projecting power. Every time a country wants to do something that may have geopolitical implications, they have to think, "But what about the Americans?"

The Americans don't want to have to deal with China the same way the rest of the wold has to deal with us. On some level it's sheer pragmatic selfishness, on another we believe our Christian/Liberal morals are superior to all others and so if there must be a Hegemon, it is best if it's us. But either way there's no contradiction here.

If you want to understand what is going on, you need to start seeing the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Iranian water riots, China firing missiles and practicing live fire drills while surrounding Taiwan, and the US capture of Maduro as all different angles of the same problem.

One of the other things this entire adventure has demonstrated is that the US can suddenly and rapidly flow forces to a previously abandoned airstrip and rapidly project power to that location.

In every "Eagle v. Dragon" wargame, China pummels the heck out of US airbases in Guam and Japan with ballistic missiles, destroying large portions of US air power on the ground. If the US can, at short notice, transform any of the dozens or hundreds of little airports in the AO into operating bases and start reconstituting old World War-vintage airstrips to platforms for tactical aircraft, the target set for Chinese ballistic missiles expands dramatically.

And of course this is not a surprising US capability. But it's one thing to know we can do it in theory and another thing to see the US actually execute on it so briskly. A successful snap air assault against a prepared enemy is icing on the cake.

It's a little confusing. There are a bunch of plausible influencing motivations.

Trump is well known to have an ego problem. It seems like war hawks have been able to sucker him into various actions by promising him easy wins that will cement his legacy.

DC people operate on presidents with an isolate and control access strategy. The more anti-intervention elements in the administration don't have the pull or reputation to counter the hawks.

Rubio also wants a big win to base a 2028* run on.

More specifically, China has been aggressively building it's influence in Latin America for the past 20 years. They've been key figures in keeping Maduro's government running with loans.

Trump came in with the goal of rolling that back, with things like reasserting control over the Panama canal as key parts of it.

Ousting Maduro and having the new government renege on the China loans as illegitimate would be a big loss for China.

Closer to home, Maduro had a lot of help from NGOs when he was flooding the US with his undesirables. They presumably guaranteed that there would be no consequences for Maduro. Now they will be seen as radioactive by other Latin American governments.

Domestically it solves a bunch of the court cases about Venezuelan TPS and deportations.

Rubio also wants a big win to base a 2024 run on.

Either he's two years too late or maybe you mean 2028? Aside from that, do you think Rubio can come back from his failed 2016 run to be a contender in 2028?

More specifically, China has been aggressively building it's influence in Latin America for the past 20 years. They've been key figures in keeping Maduro's government running with loans.

Ah, that explains the reference in this video!

Really? You're that surprised? Or is this some sort of Socratic starting the dialog by just asking questions thing.

The USA has been hostile, demonizing (in a propaganda sense), and desperate for hostile state action against Venezuela for like nearly 2 decades now. The USA still has an imperial mindset where they consider South and Central America to be "theirs" in a sphere of influence. And they hate that Chavez was too socialist (by their perception), and failed to either jump or fall over dead when the USA commanded otherwise. The fact the rabbit keeps getting away with it alone seems to have created and Elmer Fudd like target obsession. One might also speculate the Venezuelan success might be a contagion that furthers socialist (really "social democracy") popularity in the Americas and a successful model of defiance of the USA imperial authority. One of the first things Chavez did was create a very close alliance and collaboration with Cuba, a persona non grata by the CIA/USA's standards, for example.

Again, sphere of influence matters. I've seen no indication Venezuela is more socialist than Scandinavia (which is in fact socialist - or at least used to be. But so embarrassingly successful that there has been a fairly successful history rewrite and brainwashing campaign, post 2005 or so, by neoliberal "experts" to convince people it is akshually like super capitalist) but Sweden is not in America's sphere of influence, so it doesn't get as mad and obsessed about regime change. China is definitely out of America's sphere of influence, so the USA's opinion about the fact Xi calls himself a literal Communist, or the fact he is a flagrant dictator that subverted the oligarchy that was going means jack shit. The latter aspect of Xi isn't actually important but Venezuela propaganda always pretends the USA actually cares about democracy so it should be noted to just get a measuring check on what Big Brother says versus what The Party actually does in revealed preferences. Anyway, with Venezuela, it's different, because the USA thinks it has an entitlement to tell them what government they're allowed to have.

Ultimately though: Trump is erratic, and probably mentally feeble from age if not insane. And he's surrounded by weirdo fascists. He just does things. He is flagging in the approval rates disastrously. He has not improved economic standards of living and he's not going to. There is a lot of indication that the party will be severely chastened in the midterms. He might even end up in jail by the end of his presidency, instead of subverting democracy by pulling a Maduro, like he clearly seems to want. At the same time, we still don't know about Trump's full involvement with a hostile foreign state spy (Mossad) that was involved in controlling/blackmailing American elites and politicians, by "raping kids" and general sexual coercive prostitution. He's admirably tried to flood the zone to get the goldfish public to forget his troublesome involvement with that, not think about the implications of it, but it's still not over. He needs a distraction.

So we get a Falklands War situation.

Finally, for the fascists surrounding Trump, the response might be a win win, based on calculated risk and win. A total successful foreign interventionist coup might distract the public with more zone shit. It might impress his base that are otherwise realizing they're miserable with vicarious jingoism "we are strong" vibes. And if "the left" responds with protests, then that just further validates his base which runs on "do whatever the enemy doesn't like" and general hatred/loathing as a political ideology.

Haven't you noticed how badly Trump and his fascist admin wants to provoke domestic chaos/violence, if not ideally "terrorism?" Remember when he was clearly trying to provoke an internal American shooting war by sending armed military to "blue states" with deliberate antagonism and a "go on and try something" mentality? How he would lie about Portland being in total chaos that needed strong statist militarized goons, responding to him, instead of local authorities? Unfortunately neither the locals of the likes of California protesting his brutal ICE policies nor the, let's face it likely low IQ, armed goons themselves took the bait. But this time... maybe? Provoking internal chaos and tribal factionalism could be Trump's ace in the hole to subvert democracy and cancel elections he's going to lose, if not run for a third term. Gotta "save the Republic." He and those around him are increasingly looking cooked otherwise.

Edit: Oh, and I forgot, it really is about oil. It's always at least partly about oil. People hate that it's so black and white. It really is a major factor.

  • -16

Again, sphere of influence matters. I've seen no indication Venezuela is more socialist than Scandinavia (which is in fact socialist - or at least used to be. But so embarrassingly successful that there has been a fairly successful history rewrite and brainwashing campaign, post 2005 or so, by neoliberal "experts" to convince people it is akshually like super capitalist) but Sweden is not in America's sphere of influence, so it doesn't get as mad and obsessed about regime change.

Having actually lived and worked in Sweden, if it's "socialist", I'm not sure how for example Germany would not count. Sure, there are some elements that are fairly socialist - the medical system is nationalised, similar and similarly dysfunctional to the British (that den of pinkos!) NHS; most blatantly perhaps the housing rental market is subject to price controls and a national queueing system for "first-hand" (direct from owner) rentals with exceptions I didn't understand well. On the other hand, my total income tax at something like 30% of raw income was closer to the US than to Germany with its >40%, and unlike DE and most other European countries unemployment insurance is devolved and strictly optional (you have to proactively choose to join an "A-kassa" and pay monthly dues). Petty entrepreneurship, like setting up an LLC, in Sweden is much easier and cheaper, and even as far as medicine is concerned I am not sure Germany's system with pluralistic but mandatory medical insurance with legally mandated almost-indistinguishable services beyond what brand of Javascript rubble you have to navigate on their websites is actually that much more "free-market" than the NHS-like system.

Okay, I'll bite. Give me your definition of "Fascist".

There is no set definition of Fascist. It's never been rigorously defined (that I know of) by its self described proponents. And yes, it's overused as a snarl/witch accusation. But I think Umberto Eco's Ur Fascism is a good start. Nevertheless I think it's occasionally worth saying, and sometimes points at a real thing. It's a word for a very real phenomenon that happened in the 1920-1950s among certain world leaders. Mussolini just might have been a fascist.

So one definition I'm using here is a fascist is not a standard conservative. Literally Hitler is not von Hindenburg or Helmut Kohl. George Bush II, as much as I hate him, is (probably) not a fascist. Same for most basic bitch Republicans. Trump? I'm not so sure now. Stephen Miller or Steve Bannon? Probably. Peter Thiel, I don't know but I heard yes. Curtis Yarvin? Yes.

Outside of the somewhat vague checklist from Eco, I'd say some of features of fascism are an intense proclivity and desire for fratricide as well as mass massacre of the outgroup. This which fantasizing about mass industrial killing tons of Americans is cosigned by JD Vance. I'm def one of the ones that will end up in neo-Auschwitz for being one of the ill defined "cultural Marxists" by the way, excuse me if I don't have tons of patience for this cute routine (wHaT is FAsCism huh?!) like I should be too stupid to know who my enemies are. Jack Posobiec is one of those actual fascists not just conservatives. Love of plainclothes, secret, and or facially covered police and sham judiciaries are a seeming best hits for the fascist. Andor was a good art depiction of fictional fascism, as a real and distinct thing and if you can't see any parallels by certain real people and their yearnings, well that's on you. You know, the types that are at best nonplussed about sending people to black site torture prisons on spurious charges because they are identified as outgroup, who cares about their suffering, and surely the fact they've been targeted at all means they deserve something, and more.

Fascists are also weird. I don't know how else to say it, they really are and you know it when you see it. Does this look normal to you?. Absorbing scifi and mystics into your supposedly serious political ideology is weird. Himmler, Evola, Mussolini, these are weird or unique dudes, who share a psych profile in one way or another. Thiel, Trump, Moldbug, weird people. Speaking of that last one that wants to mass mulch people that are not him into biodiesel from the all powerful comfort of his blogging and coding chair, doesn't he also want a all powerful corporate neo-"feudalism?"

“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” — Benito Mussolini

Maybe that's a little fascist.

But per my original post, fascism is also notably bold, and innovative, in a way. Annexing the sudetenland, the March on Rome, wanting all slavs to be a future slave race for your 1,000 empire, neo-paganism in a very Christian society, industrial death camps for you international race war. They're doing things - out there things. Normal high functioning sociopaths of basic conservatism leaders don't do these kind of things, because they're not normal, even if they wouldn't feel bad about it. Fascists change their society and tradition. So on the question of "why would Trump do this?" "Why would anyone just kidnap a head of state like a common robber, and seemingly not care about the consequence or even comprehend it's not normal?" Well.....

Okay, you did give your definition. Thank you, that's useful.

It's still a little broad: "one definition I'm using here is a fascist is not a standard conservative". What's a standard conservative, by this measure? There's a lot of disagreement on here about 'is that just a liberal, what is a conservative' and so on. But you do at least have a starting point there, so again, you did well there.

This which fantasizing about mass industrial killing tons of Americans is cosigned by JD Vance

The link says he did a cover blurb, but unlike the rest of the article doesn't provide any link to it. Dude, do you not know how the publishing industry generates cover blurbs? They can take a generally negative, critical review of anything and extract two words from it, then slap those (with a copious garnishing of ellipses) on the back as a positive recommendation. Let me see if I can find said blurb and see what it says.

By the bye, I see that book is also described as "NEW YORK TIMES, USA TODAY, and PUBLISHERS WEEKLY NATIONAL BESTSELLER". Wow, the NYT is a fascist publication now? 😁

Okay, here's the Vance blurb:

"In the past, communists marched in the streets waving red flags. Today, they march through HR, college campuses, and courtrooms to wage lawfare against good, honest people. In Unhumans, Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec reveal their plans and show us what to do to fight back." --J. D. Vance, Senator (R-OH)

I'm def one of the ones that will end up in neo-Auschwitz for being one of the ill defined "cultural Marxists" by the way, excuse me if I don't have tons of patience for this cute routine (wHaT is FAsCism huh?!) like I should be too stupid to know who my enemies are.

Honey sweetie boy, I am one of the ones who take badly to that cutesy-poo inconsistent capitalisation trick. If I didn't write it that way, don't attribute it to me. I like your belief in your incipient martyrdom, who says you are going to be important enough to even be noticed by the big bad wolves?

"Oh no they're weird". Well I am shocked to hear a nice, normal, wholesome, down-home family values Mom and Apple Pie cultural Marxist tell me that! Weird, you say? Guess that means I am indeed a fascist, because I am weird too.

Funny you should instance vril, I suppose that makes the entire nation of Britain fascists, seeing as how they drink Bo-Vril 🤣

Yeah Sweden with their…check notes…20.6% corporate tax rate.

Granted individual income taxes are higher (ie they basically are similar to highest rate in the U.S. if you live in a high tax state)

What do corporate taxes have to do with the definition of communism/socialism?

Can it only be considered communism or socialism if corporate tax rates are above x%?

Collective ownership of property is incompatible with allowing people to retain most of their capital. Granted, if you have restrictions that make it near impossible to choose what to do with their capital, then it could still be commie.

If you let private corporations accumulate capital without forced redistribution it's not communism or socialism, yes, obviously.

Really? You're that surprised? Or is this some sort of Socratic starting the dialog by just asking questions thing.

Count me as one of the surprised wanting an ELI5 answer, because this seemed to go from "sinking alleged drug boats" to "we're overthrowing the president" pretty damn fast.

I should run a bingo card on the number of times "fascist" was used here, I'd win bigly!

He might even end up in jail by the end of his presidency

Ah, the old sweet song! I should add that to the bingo card as well, it's been prognosticated by lefty posters on here going back years by now.

Sweden is most assuredly not like Venezuela and has been undergoing a steady economic liberalization for decades. That it has single-payer healthcare and a high tax rate is not a refutation of the former. They are in no way “as socialist as Venezuela”.

England: 69 million people, 55 billionaires

France: 66 million people, 52 billionaires

Sweden: 10 million people, 45 billionaires

For the latter, those aren’t oligarchs and cronies. They mostly come from retail (H&M) and tech (Spotify), etc. Please show me the Venezuelan equivalents.

Under Chavez/Maduro, Venezuela nationalized the steel industry (SIDOR), agriculture, banking (including Banco de Venezuela), gold mining, telecommunications, electricity, fertilizer production (e.g., Fertinitro), cement, and transportation. There were agricultural land reforms and redistribution of that land. And more recently food and agribusiness supply chains, supermarkets, construction, and petrochemicals were moved under state control.

Please show me an equivalent wave of nationalizations that occurred in Sweden.

An obvious but clumsy parallel would be perhaps Norway’s Oljefondet and its oil and gas industry. But not being run by a pair of tinpot socialists, they’ve never done anything as retarded as pegging their currency to the price of crude or firing all the petrochemical engineers not sufficiently loyal to the governing party.

Please show me an equivalent wave of nationalizations that occurred in Sweden.

The nationalizations happened long ago, and as noted started to privatize in the 90s. These are not the same timelines, so you won't see the same. Sweden used to be more socialized, Venezuela used to be more marketized and started changing more dramatically under Chavez (and the USA freaked out). But the point is they are both mixed economies at this point and not profoundly different. Do you have objective evidence to the contrary? Randomly listing cherry picked set a state owned enterprises (oooh scary) is not a substantive comparison.

Under Chavez/Maduro, Venezuela nationalized

I'm just going to list Chinese SOEs because that's easier for me, and I don't think you're willing to call modern China a socialist success story. Though I'll say right now you're right that there would appear to be more state owned enterprises in Venezuela than Sweden.

  • (SIDOR)/Baowu
  • banking (including Banco de Venezuela) / Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC)
  • gold mining / China Minmetals Corporation
  • telecommunications / China Mobile
  • electricity / State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC)
  • fertilizer / China National Chemical Corporation (ChemChina)
  • cement / China State Construction Engineering Corporation (CSCEC)
  • transportation / China Railway And so on.

Here is a gish gallop wiki link of Swedish state enterprises.

I tried asking an AI (Grok) to compare the private versus state aspects of comparative nations on the whole. Because I neither have the skillset nor the will to dig through hard stats myself, especially just for this post. Here's what it spit out, if you're curious:

Image summation if bottom text is annoying

Sweden
Indicator State/Public Share Private Share Notes
Government expenditure as % of GDP 49% N/A This represents total government outlays (including transfers, welfare, pensions, etc.), showing the state's role in redistribution. It does not reflect direct production.
Government final consumption as % of GDP 26% 74% This measures the public sector's direct contribution to GDP production (e.g., public services like education and healthcare). The private sector (including households and businesses) accounts for the rest.
Public sector employment as % of total workforce 29% 71% Includes employment in general government and state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Sweden has one of the highest public employment rates in the OECD.
SOE turnover as % of GDP 8% N/A SOEs (e.g., Vattenfall in energy, LKAB in mining) have a combined turnover of SEK 531 billion, representing a small but strategic state ownership in key sectors. Their direct value added to GDP is estimated at 2-3%. SOEs employ 137,000 people (2.6% of total workforce).

Overall estimate: The state (including public services and SOEs) accounts for roughly 25-30% of the economy in terms of production and employment, while the private sector dominates the remaining 70-75%.

Venezuela
Indicator State/Public Share Private Share Notes
Government expenditure as % of GDP 18% N/A Total government outlays (including transfers and subsidies); lower than many economies due to fiscal constraints and underreporting.
Government final consumption as % of GDP 12% (estimated) 88% Direct public sector contribution to GDP (e.g., services like education and defense); adjusted estimates amid economic volatility. Private sector dominates the remainder.
Public sector employment as % of total workforce 24% 76% Includes general government and SOEs; informal employment is high (44%), blurring lines.
SOE turnover/contribution as % of GDP 15-20% N/A Dominated by PDVSA (state oil company), which accounts for 95% of exports and an estimated 15-20% of GDP. Other SOEs in mining and energy add 5%.

Overall estimate: The state (including public services and SOEs) directly accounts for roughly 25-35% of the economy in terms of production and employment, with the private sector handling 65-75%—though much private activity operates under heavy state regulation and informal conditions. Key sectors like oil are almost entirely state-owned.

China
Indicator State/Public Share Private Share Notes
Government expenditure as % of GDP 33% N/A Total government outlays (including transfers, subsidies, and investments); moderate compared to welfare-heavy economies.
Government final consumption as % of GDP 17% 83% Direct public sector contribution to GDP (e.g., services like education and defense). Total final consumption is 56% of GDP, with households at 40%.
Public sector employment as % of total workforce 25-28% 72-75% Includes general government and SOEs; private sector supports 80-87% of urban employment.
SOE turnover/contribution as % of GDP 25-40% N/A SOEs generate significant value in strategic sectors; more recent analyses suggest 23-30% value added, though revenue figures can overstate due to costs.

Overall estimate: The state (including public services and SOEs) accounts for roughly 30-40% of the economy in terms of production and value added, while the private sector dominates 60-70%—though private firms often face state influence via regulations, subsidies, and partnerships.

State control =/= socialism either though

That just sounds like autocracy

Do Venezuelan workers own the means of production? No, they do not

I guess it is true that real socialism has never been tried. (At least by any nation state.)

No country with a Bentley dealership can be socialist.

One might also speculate the Venezuelan success might be a contagion that furthers socialist (really "social democracy") popularity in the Americas and a successful model of defiance of the USA imperial authority.

I don't particularly disagree with you on the foreign policy angle, but if you consider Venezuela a success, how does a failure look like in your mind?

Finally, for the fascists surrounding Trump, the response might be a win win, based on calculated risk and win. A total successful foreign interventionist coup might distract the public with more zone shit. It might impress his base that are otherwise realizing they're miserable with vicarious jingoism "we are strong" vibes.

Weird, as a Trump-adjacent """fascist""", I'm pretty sure I want them to leave Venezuala and Iran alone.

I don't particularly disagree with you on the foreign policy angle, but if you consider Venezuela a success, how does a failure look like in your mind?

I don't consider it a success. I think it's been pretty successfully contained, so shout out to USA foreign policy in competence, be it good or evil. But I think it could have been successful as a contagion in the earlier days of Chavez, which lead to a target obsession.

Weird, as a Trump-adjacent """fascist""", I'm pretty sure I want them to leave Venezuala and Iran alone.

Well maybe you're unique then. Good for you, at the risk of being cringe, independent thinking is too rare. But really I mean the leaders of the Trump admin, like Stephen Miller, are fascists. I don't think the common fan base of Trump is all "fascist" (which isn't a word that has a strong definition, so what would that mean for the common man?), though some could probably be called that. I do think they are jingoistic even if they pretend to be anti-war, and they will be impressed military muscle flexing.

  • -10

"fascist" (which isn't a word that has a strong definition)

Gotcha, so all it means is "I/we don't like this guy/these guys" for the modern audience, right?

For a word that doesn't have a strong definition, you were throwing it around pretty freely as though we should all know what a fascist is and does and why that's bad. Almost like you were assuming "the common man" had an idea that fascist is a bad thing to be?

Really? You're that surprised? Or is this some sort of Socratic starting the dialog by just asking questions thing.

No, I'm just genuinely in the dark and asking for explanations by people who know the relevant history. Not even surprised, it's just a big happening and I realize I don't know half a thing about it.

With the caveats that explanation is not endorsement...

Maduro is the successor to Hugo Chavez, who deliberately turned Venezuela into an ideologically anti-American state as a matter of principle. The Chavista Venezuela under the PSUV is the caricature of the instinctual anti-American: if Americans dislike it, it must be good, and if its in conflict with the Americans, all the better. This applies to all geopolitical frictions or conflicts.

Maduro, who was a busdriver before then and who has no prospects or powerbase outside of it, is basically committed to the cause. Whether he is a true believer is irrelevant- without the PSUV he has nothing.

The PSUV, under both Chavez and Maduro, basically transitioned Venezuela from a democracy to a one-party state before democratic backsliding was cool. This included thing like taking over opposition media, banning opposition politicians, and so on. This is bad for democracy, yes, but also pre-cluded a democratic transition of power towards anyone less anti-American.

The PSUV is also hilariously incompetent and corrupt. Corrupt in the sense of 'seize businesses and redistribute to party members', and incompetent in the sense of 'mandate that stores sell products at a loss, and then accuse them of conspiring to have empty shelves.' This has resulted in the general economic collapse of Venezuela, first by destroying most of the non-oil economy, but also by ruining the oil-producing capabilities.

The PSUV also has a more than slight connection with paramilitaries and drug cartels, which is more proximal. Venezuela is a major drug shipment center for the Columbia FARC, but also has long embraced the used of gang-proxies to attack domestic political opponents during protests, and the PSUV views a gang-insurgency strategy as its deterrent to American intervention. This, uh, has consequences, which is why the capital of caracas had murder and kidnapping rates surpassing Iraq War Baghdad.

The economic incompetence and political repression have made Venezuela into something between a failed state and a narco-state spurred a massivive migration exodus. While the vast majority of Venezuelans went to regional countries, they did become one of the largest groups crossing the US southwest border, making the sustained PSUV rule a consistent driver of regional migration. Relatedly, Venezuela through the regional anti-Americanism is one of the closer partners to Nicaragua, whose similarly authoritarian Ortega regime absolutely facilitates northward migration as a way to pressure/annoy the US.

The general quasi-failed-state status has led to three more recent geopolitical tensions with the US.

One, Maduro has basically tried to align with every American geopolitical adversary possible not just diplomatically, or economically in sanctions evasion, but in seeking military aid including stand-off weapons. Fair enough, if you want, but...

Two, about two years ago Maduro attempted a rally-the-flag movement to annex the (oil-rich, American-invested) western third of Guyana. It fizzled, but the American government framing parallel is/was Iraq seeking Kuwait's oil fields to solve monetary issues. Weapon investments thus become an expansionist enabler.

Three, in 2024 Madura rather ineptly stole the Venezuela presidential election, despite all the government efforts to rig it. And by ineptly, I mean the opposition parties got the voter tallies from enough stations to not only persuasively show that Maduro lied about the results, but lost. This is why the Venezuelan opposition has been supporting/calling for US intervention.

Finally, Venezuela has been a pet issue of Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State, who is also Trump's national security advisor, the first man to hold both roles since Kissinger. Rubio had influence on the recent National US Security Strategy, which was generally discussed in Europe terms but had greater implications towards the Western hemisphere, where Venezuela could be inferred in the priority list.

The PSUV, under both Chavez and Maduro, basically transitioned Venezuela from a democracy to a one-party state before democratic backsliding was cool. This included thing like taking over opposition media, banning opposition politicians, and so on. This is bad for democracy, yes, but also pre-cluded a democratic transition of power towards anyone less anti-American.

Remember the days when Chavez was deemed cool and much-admired for what he was doing in Venezuela? I guess anti-democracy is okay as long as it's our guy (or someone we would like to adopt as our guy) doing it!

An anti-American communist being admired by NPR is a day ending in a Y. It doesn't really mean anything.

True, that is a "rain is wet" story. But there were a lot of online admirers, I seem to recall, who were praising him for things like shipping oil to other countries at steep discounts and even as a publicity stunt to the USA. The usual suspects, of course, felt that the oil was behind US opposition from the start:

Maria Corina Machado, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2025, started a group called Sumaté (“Join Up”), which placed a recall referendum on the ballot. About 70% of the registered voters came to the polls in 2004, and a large majority (59%) voted to retain Chávez as the president.

But neither Machado nor her US backers (including the oil companies) rested easy. From 2001 till today, they have tried to overthrow the Bolivarian process – to effectively return the US-owned oil companies to power. The question of Venezuela, then, is not so much about “democracy” (an overused word, which is being stripped of meaning) but about the international class struggle between the right of the Venezuelan people to freely control their oil and gas and that of the US-owned oil companies to dominate Venezuelan natural resources.

I think oil as a resource is important to all kinds of interests, but it's not the only reason for the problems with Venezuela, and the government there seems to have managed the trick of taking an abundant resource, running it into the ground, making the economy and all the social programmes dependent on revenue from it, and blowing up that revenue by making the oil too difficult to extract and process.

It really might be better for Venezuela for the greedy US corporations to come back and run the oil business, even if they do cream off most of the profits. An idea I never thought I would voice!

and the government there seems to have managed the trick of taking an abundant resource, running it into the ground, making the economy and all the social programmes dependent on revenue from it, and blowing up that revenue by making the oil too difficult to extract and process.

Yeah, that's Communism for you. The joke used to be that if the Communists took over Saudi Arabia, nothing would happen at first but there'd be an oil shortage in 5 years. Venezuela managed to make that not a joke.

(The original version is that if the Federal Government took over the Sahara, there'd be a sand shortage in 5 years. Fortunately the Feds aren't that ambitious)

It really might be better for Venezuela for the greedy US corporations to come back and run the oil business, even if they do cream off most of the profits. An idea I never thought I would voice!

I expect this is the plan. The US companies may take more than is "fair" in some ideal sense, and certainly more than various international watchdog groups will say is fair, but what remains to the Venezuelans will be more than it is now. Assuming things follow the good path... there's still plenty of room for total screwups.

Not OP but has someone who had the same questions I appreciate the explanation. I've seen some people say that Maduro has links to Hezbollah's drug-smuggling enterprise - do you know if this is also true?

Maduro is the successor to Hugo Chavez, who deliberately turned Venezuela into an ideologically anti-American state as a matter of principle.

I wonder why their ideology is anti American. It must be something in the water....

This reasoning is circular. The US warmongers causing countries to dislike them. Then they can justify even more war by saying the countries dislike the US. Being in constant conflikt will cause the other side to dislike you.

The economic incompetence and political repression have made Venezuela into something between a failed state and a narco-state spurred a massivive migration exodus.

Sanctions have had the explicit goal of wrecking Venezuela. Once again neo-con policies lead to mass migration and drug trafficking. The endless warmonger is the root cause of mass immigration. The country with the most Algerians in Europe is the one that colonized Algeria. The country with the most Pakistanis in Europe is the one that colonized Pakistan. The US invadaded central American states and now is turning into Guatamala and Venezuela.

There is no instance of these wars reducing migration and drug smuggling.

To be fair to Americans, has been a long time in the making. Maduro is illegitimate under any reasonable standard, has expressed clear intention to annex sovereign territory, and is incapable of governing. It's a justified war, in casual terms. Doesn't mean it's worth it, except likely for Venezuelans.

I guess worth it depends. If it was literally 12 hours of hostility with limited entanglements thereafter…hard to kvetch too much

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats