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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
From all the Venezuela experts I know, it's incorrect to think of the previous regime as Maduro commanding the loyalty of various power-holders as if he was some Arab dictator. He was an increasingly ineffectual figurehead "in charge" while the real power-holders, mostly in the military, made decisions - the man was a bus driver, not a colonel. These military power-holders don't need to become a puppet of the US to get what they want, just to stop being an enemy of the US. There are many things that could go wrong still but, assuming nobody on either side chimps too hard, realistically the political stuff on the VZ side is a smaller issue than the bond restructuring on the US side.
What exactly has VZ done to be called an enemy of the US? The nationalization of their oil industry (in 1973)? Having a socialist dictator in the Americas? Or are you referring to Trump's claims that Maduro is using fentanyl as a 'weapon of mass destruction' in the US?
Also, it seems to me that Trump's understanding of agreements is that there is always one party which gets fucked over by them, and therefore he only agrees to deals which fuck over the other party. I seriously doubt that he is going back to the 50-50 sharing of profits from before the nationalization.
And while I have no doubt that the military leaders in charge are corrupt as fuck and will do whatever benefits them personally, in my experience militaries also generally foster thoughts of nationalism and independence. If VZ bends over backwards the moment Trump sends in a few helicopters, their citizens might start to ask questions about the purpose of having a military.
Well, as far as "enemy of the US" goes, much of it (e.g. subsidizing Cuba) is standard small-potatoes third-worldoid stuff, but what really grinds Washington's gears (under Biden as well as Trump) is VZ cozying up to China. Maybe they were worried about their military relationship with Russia too, except that we've now seen exactly how effective S-300s are in Bolivarian hands. The Southern Caribbean is seen as a critical security interest for the US and they want China out of there yesterday, see also the Panama stuff.
None of this kremlinology is all that relevant to the actual state of the VZ oil industry. As you say, it was nationalized back in the 70s, and basically chugged along until Maduro. Under Chavez, the locals decided that a) they should give a bunch of their oil away for free for political purposes and b) lol who cares about maintenance bro just steal the money for new parts, then Chavez got lucky in dying before the consequences really hit Maduro. It's more Eskom than Mohammad Mosaddegh. So what you have now to make a deal over is a basically defunct industry with $150bn in sovereign debt to deal with before Western experts can get the oil pumping again.
It's a military kleptocracy, bro, if their citizens were allowed to ask questions Maduro would already be in Nicaragua.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As it is the case for many weak monarchs, Maduro may have been the compromise between rivalrous factions who - although ambitious in their own right - don't have the will or the prowess to step into Chavez's shoes. The bumbling fool could play president on TV while the real power brokers run the country.
But what happens when your puppet ruler is kidnapped by a foreign hegemon?
Fictions are durable. If you've been pretending for years he's actually in charge, then people believe that. You can't go 'we're the actual rulers' overnight. And suppose you actually do that. Trump could send Maduro back! Then what happens?
So as long as America has Maduro in hand, Venezuela cannot appoint his replacement without great internal effort. There'd have to be an election. I have no doubt that his vice president is a Kamala and was picked because she would never even sniff power. Any deep state figure wanting to control the Chavista party will do so without a scrap of democratic legitimacy.
Even if Epstein's guard shows up and Maduro accidentally suicides, Venezuela by its own Constitution has to hold an election. Apparently the VP has gotten the nod from the Supreme Court to rule for 90 days, which is probably acceptable to all parties who matter (i.e. the US), but after that they're going to have to do something. Probably they're working hard on how to rig an election more subtly than Maduro.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link