Ah yes, the 'risks' of property ownership, which is why housing is a hoarded asset in capitalist countries. You'd think if it was so 'risky' you wouldn't see capitalists buy up entire swaths of housing stock, but what do I know?
He used to, and it was literally some of the most high quality content I have ever seen. This has been a huge downgrade for him and I stopped listening a long time ago because they would just riff forever before getting to the actual meat of the episode.
The problem is that poor chefs looking to make money get really good at cooking cheap cuts of meat, which then increases the price because more people are buying it, so it is no longer cheap. Same thing happened with lobster.
I am also constantly fascinated at the genuine lack of curiosity these bourgeois fucks have about their customer base. You know you can, like, talk to them? Find out where they live and how they get there and how they heard about your store. Stuff that every other successful business in the world does constantly. But you are a small business owner, people will give you that kind of shit for free because that shit is often the original para-social relationship.
I didn't see that in the article, but idk that website was pretty glitchy for me. I'll take your word for it.
Why would they lie about it? Um, to save face because they didn't actually know what to do when the government didn't suddenly collapse, like others were saying? Again, it isn't like they came out with a strong front after it happened. The action was decisive but the media shit afterwards was some of the most inept weak ass shit I have seen since Bush. Maybe that is the point though, idk.
It is pragmatic if you don't want your family to be murdered as well. Point taken though.
I wouldn't hold the PSUV to the standards of Cuba. And Cuba isn't doing too hot right now either, it could easily be the next domino to fall here if Iran goes the way they want it to, regardless of party strength.
Stripping away reliance on oil revenue may force the administration into more radical positions. However for the most part I agree that it weakens them. Ultimately, what I am hoping happens (idk if it will or not) is that the coletivos begin to separate themselves away from the repeated, demonstrable, weakness of the PSUV and form themselves into a real vanguard party. The bones are there for it if they can shed the rotting flesh of demsoc politics. If this time can be used as wisely as Stalin used the Molotov-Ribbentov Pact, it isn't a total loss. It remains to be seen though.
That said, I am used to losing, we have been losing my entire life. So I am also keenly aware of the possibility that this was all for naught and in two years we will be hearing about how the brave moderates took back their government through principled protests, that definitely didn't leave tens of thousands dead in the streets. It's all unfortunately spectacle to me.
Yeah no shit it came out on the 6th, Maduro was abducted on the 3rd. And before that on the 4th they said that the U.S. was going to run Venezuela.
It's seems like they didn't really have an exact plan in place for afterward, which makes sense since according to other reporting there are two competing factions with the Trump admin, the old school neo-cons and the paleo-conservative MAGA people, who are completely at odds with each other when it comes to this foreign policy stuff. This admin is not a monolith. The right hand and the left hand are not talking to each other, and if anything are trying to obstruct each other.
That article doesn't say "in recent weeks" this report was given, you said that. The other article you posted explicitly says.
"Following the lightning military operation to overthrow the Venezuelan president, the United States has left power in the Latin American country in the hands of Rodríguez, based on reports from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), according to reports published by The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. U.S. spies advised the White House that it was more advantageous to keep those loyal to the Chavista regime in power because they control the military and police forces."
It doesn't say when the reports were issued, if this was the plan all along, or whatever else. If anything, it reads like they advised them after the operation, but again, the timeline is not at all clear here.
Based on the lack of clear communication after the capture, I think they likely settled on a plan around the 4th or 5th, and then leaked it to the press.
Idk though, I could be completely wrong here, but I'll be fucked if I actually believe what is published in the NYT or WSJ.
It is absolutely a complete compromise of their material position. However, given their structure, this was already untenable in the long term. Unless you wish for them to literally retreat to the mountains and begin a guerrilla campaign in 2025, this is the pragmatic option. The current Venezuelan government and military does not want to become Yemen, and I don't blame them for that.
Would you rather someone else be in charge of Venezuela? Would you rather Machado be in charge, or a Juan Guido? Someone who will fully empower the gusanos to come back and kill Chavistas in the streets? That is what would happen, which we know because they have done it at every anti-Maduro rally before the police and military come in to put a stop to the violence.
I'm not saying that this is the correct decision, I am saying that it is a pragmatic, understandable, decision by the leadership given their position.
This isn't 'flat out obedience to the Empire'. Flat out obedience would be Machado level privatization, as has been funded and advocated for by CIA up to this point. And that still could happen, but I haven't seen it yet. All I have seen is the same deal that Maduro wanted, just without Maduro.
You have to learn to read between the lines here. They wrote the report AFTER they took out Maduro and the government didn't suddenly collapse. I'm sure the report before this had Machado as the natural candidate. You can't follow the recommendations of something that has already happened. You really think that the CIA gives a shit if Venezuela 'falls into civil war or military uprisings', because that is their reasoning here.
Venezuelan oil was already for all intents and purposes privatized though, with Chevron being the only legal distributor according to the sanctions..They didn't need to abduct Maduro, he has publicly been willing to work out something resembling this new deal for over a year now. And the U.S. had made motions towards accepting this deal, but balked at Maduro and the PSUV being in charge.
They wanted, and still want, a collapse of the government and a change in the ruling party. However, barring an actual invasion (which they do not seem willing to commit to) it doesn't appear as though that will happen.
It's not a clean win for the U.S. It's a mixed victory. They continue to get to expand on the oil revenue they were already getting from Chevron, the guy they didn't like is gone, but the government still stays, though humiliated. If this humiliation leads to an opposition party coming into power, then it will be a complete victory. Which at this point wouldn't surprise me if that does happen, but it hasn't happened yet.
The question is why did they do all this stuff in order to cement a deal that had already been on the table?
It's not much different than what was occuring before, as again, Chevron has already been operating in spite of the sanctions. Unless they are going to invest in a bunch of surveillance infrastructure around there, and then actually follow up with military force if it is broken, Venezuela can probably still sell oil on the side.
Definitely not a good development if the sanctions aren't lifted though, then it is just something for nothing.
This is not going to help the popularity of PSUV in Venezuela though. It will be seen as capitulation.
We don't even need to make comparisons, is the thing. We can just look at their methods and laws, and plainly see that they are creating concentration camps, and using military actions that overwhelmingly target civilians.
The contemporary mass graves speak for themselves. Historical comparison at this point can only invite people to see where the differences are, holding them to account for what their actions are right now should be enough.
Ah yes, the 'risks' of property ownership, which is why housing is a hoarded asset in capitalist countries. You'd think if it was so 'risky' you wouldn't see capitalists buy up entire swaths of housing stock, but what do I know?