The Left is angry Bernie hired the descendent of Stalinist famine victims

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://twitter.com/DavidKlion/status/1099682134921568256

Ugh how much do I hate these people.

[JA]

Lol wut?

One of the only legitimate reasons for the left to be angry at Bernie is his awful response to American "humanitarian aid" to Venezuela.

[Indy Texas]

Lol wut?

One of the only legitimate reasons for the left to be angry at Bernie is his awful response to American "humanitarian aid" to Venezuela.

You won't be satisfied until everyone who opposes Nicolas Maduro has either starved to death or fled the country, will you?

[JA]

Lol wut?

One of the only legitimate reasons for the left to be angry at Bernie is his awful response to American "humanitarian aid" to Venezuela.

You won't be satisfied until everyone who opposes Nicolas Maduro has either starved to death or fled the country, will you?

You won't be satisfied until America turns Venezuela into another Iraq, Libya, Syria, or Ukraine, will you?

[Comrade Funk]

Lol wut?

One of the only legitimate reasons for the left to be angry at Bernie is his awful response to American "humanitarian aid" to Venezuela.

You won't be satisfied until everyone who opposes Nicolas Maduro has either starved to death or fled the country, will you?

You won't be satisfied until America turns Venezuela into another Iraq, Libya, Syria, or Ukraine, will you?

Ah yes because everyone who opposes Maduro is a neocon. Change Bernie's tweet and replace Venezuela with Palestine and Maduro with Netanyahu and the apologists would be kissing Bernie's ass again.

[JA]

Lol wut?

One of the only legitimate reasons for the left to be angry at Bernie is his awful response to American "humanitarian aid" to Venezuela.

You won't be satisfied until everyone who opposes Nicolas Maduro has either starved to death or fled the country, will you?

You won't be satisfied until America turns Venezuela into another Iraq, Libya, Syria, or Ukraine, will you?

Ah yes because everyone who opposes Maduro is a neocon.

Where in my post did I say that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I still wouldn't trust America to conduct that, even if it was likely a more justifiable humanitarian engagement.

[Crumpets]

Lol wut?

One of the only legitimate reasons for the left to be angry at Bernie is his awful response to American "humanitarian aid" to Venezuela.

You won't be satisfied until everyone who opposes Nicolas Maduro has either starved to death or fled the country, will you?

You won't be satisfied until America turns Venezuela into another Iraq, Libya, Syria, or Ukraine, will you?

Ah yes because everyone who opposes Maduro is a neocon.

Where in my post did I say that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I still wouldn't trust America to conduct that, even if it was likely a more justifiable humanitarian engagement.

Would you support US intervention in Venezuela if it was to support the Maduro government?

[Karpatsky]

Lol wut?

One of the only legitimate reasons for the left to be angry at Bernie is his awful response to American "humanitarian aid" to Venezuela.

You won't be satisfied until everyone who opposes Nicolas Maduro has either starved to death or fled the country, will you?

You won't be satisfied until America turns Venezuela into another Iraq, Libya, Syria, or Ukraine, will you?

The violence which exists in Eastern Ukraine is entirely the result of Russian aggression and is largely contained. The country as a whole is experiencing the greatest period of reform it has in its history. Venezuela would be incredibly fortunate to end up so well.

[7,052,770]

Lol wut?

One of the only legitimate reasons for the left to be angry at Bernie is his awful response to American "humanitarian aid" to Venezuela.

This thread is about illegitimate reasons that people on the left are angry at Bernie.

[JA]

Lol wut?

One of the only legitimate reasons for the left to be angry at Bernie is his awful response to American "humanitarian aid" to Venezuela.

You won't be satisfied until everyone who opposes Nicolas Maduro has either starved to death or fled the country, will you?

You won't be satisfied until America turns Venezuela into another Iraq, Libya, Syria, or Ukraine, will you?

Ah yes because everyone who opposes Maduro is a neocon.

Where in my post did I say that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I still wouldn't trust America to conduct that, even if it was likely a more justifiable humanitarian engagement.

Would you support US intervention in Venezuela if it was to support the Maduro government?

Absolutely not. If you think otherwise, then you're obviously deeply misunderstanding my position on the matter.

I'll summarize it quickly to avoid any more confusion: it doesn't matter how one feels about Maduro. Whether you support or oppose him, there's no justification for direct or indirect influence and/or intervention in Venezuela for the purpose of affecting their domestic politics. If Maduro is to be removed, then it should be through democratic means or a popular uprising that is free of external meddling. Basically, let the Venezuelan people manage Venezuelan affairs. America has no business there, cannot be trusted to be truly committed to simple humanitarianism, and we have a track record of appalling imperialism that results in mass chaos and destruction. I don't wish that on the Venezuelan people and, regardless of what anyone says, that will be the result of American meddling (direct or indirect).

[Karpatsky]

Lol wut?

One of the only legitimate reasons for the left to be angry at Bernie is his awful response to American "humanitarian aid" to Venezuela.

You won't be satisfied until everyone who opposes Nicolas Maduro has either starved to death or fled the country, will you?

You won't be satisfied until America turns Venezuela into another Iraq, Libya, Syria, or Ukraine, will you?

Ah yes because everyone who opposes Maduro is a neocon.

Where in my post did I say that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I still wouldn't trust America to conduct that, even if it was likely a more justifiable humanitarian engagement.

Would you support US intervention in Venezuela if it was to support the Maduro government?

Absolutely not. If you think otherwise, then you're obviously deeply misunderstanding my position on the matter.

I'll summarize it quickly to avoid any more confusion: it doesn't matter how one feels about Maduro. Whether you support or oppose him, there's no justification for direct or indirect influence and/or intervention in Venezuela for the purpose of affecting their domestic politics. If Maduro is to be removed, then it should be through democratic means or a popular uprising that is free of external meddling. Basically, let the Venezuelan people manage Venezuelan affairs. America has no business there, cannot be trusted to be truly committed to simple humanitarianism, and we have a track record of appalling imperialism that results in mass chaos and destruction. I don't wish that on the Venezuelan people and, regardless of what anyone says, that will be the result of American meddling (direct or indirect).

That's interesting - it's a quite different view than what one normally sees from the anti-interventionist left. Serious question - I don't see how you can reconcile this sort of position with calling yourself a socialist? It ultimately equates morality with the status quo domestic existing power structure, and gives a tiny, autocratic and unrepresentative elite the legitimacy as acting on behalf of 'the Venezuelan people'. Do you really believe that purely grassroots, completely independent domestic popular uprisings are possible enough in societies as repressive as Venezuela to be an acceptable way of imposing popular accountability onto autocrats?

[JA]

Lol wut?

One of the only legitimate reasons for the left to be angry at Bernie is his awful response to American "humanitarian aid" to Venezuela.

You won't be satisfied until everyone who opposes Nicolas Maduro has either starved to death or fled the country, will you?

You won't be satisfied until America turns Venezuela into another Iraq, Libya, Syria, or Ukraine, will you?

Ah yes because everyone who opposes Maduro is a neocon.

Where in my post did I say that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I still wouldn't trust America to conduct that, even if it was likely a more justifiable humanitarian engagement.

Would you support US intervention in Venezuela if it was to support the Maduro government?

Absolutely not. If you think otherwise, then you're obviously deeply misunderstanding my position on the matter.

I'll summarize it quickly to avoid any more confusion: it doesn't matter how one feels about Maduro. Whether you support or oppose him, there's no justification for direct or indirect influence and/or intervention in Venezuela for the purpose of affecting their domestic politics. If Maduro is to be removed, then it should be through democratic means or a popular uprising that is free of external meddling. Basically, let the Venezuelan people manage Venezuelan affairs. America has no business there, cannot be trusted to be truly committed to simple humanitarianism, and we have a track record of appalling imperialism that results in mass chaos and destruction. I don't wish that on the Venezuelan people and, regardless of what anyone says, that will be the result of American meddling (direct or indirect).

That's interesting - it's a quite different view than what one normally sees from the anti-interventionist left. Serious question - I don't see how you can reconcile this sort of position with calling yourself a socialist? It ultimately equates morality with the status quo domestic existing power structure, and gives a tiny, autocratic and unrepresentative elite the legitimacy as acting on behalf of 'the Venezuelan people'. Do you really believe that purely grassroots, completely independent domestic popular uprisings are possible enough in societies as repressive as Venezuela to be an acceptable way of imposing popular accountability onto autocrats?

You don't frequent many Marxist/Socialist internet communities, do you? Nothing I've said diverges from the most common position among them. Whether we like or dislike Maduro, that is our position.

I don't see how it does that whatsoever. I'm not against the Venezuelan people taking action within or outside of the existing institutions to express their democratic, popular will. In fact, I couldn't possibly support that more. If they believe Maduro is that awful, then, by all means, depose him. If they take to the streets, I'd support solidarity with the workers of Venezuela, just as I'd support solidarity with the working people of any society who're expressing their popular will. Yet, I wouldn't want the US, British, Canadian, Russian, Chinese, Brazilian, German, or any other country's government to involve itself in such matters. Why? Because, fundamentally, I believe all existing states are captured by their ruling class; whether it's a capitalist ruling class like in America and the UK or a bureaucratic ruling class like in North Korea. Those states don't exist as legitimate expressions of popular will, of the democratic voice of the working people that constitute the vast majority of their populations.

[Karpatsky]

You don't frequent many Marxist/Socialist internet communities, do you? Nothing I've said diverges from the most common position among them. Whether we like or dislike Maduro, that is our position.

I don't see how it does that whatsoever. I'm not against the Venezuelan people taking action within or outside of the existing institutions to express their democratic, popular will. In fact, I couldn't possibly support that more. If they believe Maduro is that awful, then, by all means, depose him. If they take to the streets, I'd support solidarity with the workers of Venezuela, just as I'd support solidarity with the working people of any society who're expressing their popular will. Yet, I wouldn't want the US, British, Canadian, Russian, Chinese, Brazilian, German, or any other country's government to involve itself in such matters. Why? Because, fundamentally, I believe all existing states are captured by their ruling class; whether it's a capitalist ruling class like in America and the UK or a bureaucratic ruling class like in North Korea. Those states don't exist as legitimate expressions of popular will, of the democratic voice of the working people that constitute the vast majority of their populations.

I must admit I don't - but the self-described socialists I know IRL tend to oppose the concept of states altogether, and see the distinction between "Venezuelan" and "non-Venezuelan" as arbitrary. I suppose you could call this another manifestation of what you call 'solidarity', though if you oppose internationalism in general what does that solidarity even imply? You say you would 'support solidarity' with people taking to the streets to oppose their government, but as an American, what does that actually mean if they are faced with violence and you are opposed to taking any concrete action to aid them?

Re: the second point, the argument is fair, but would you not say that there is a difference in the extent of 'capture'? It seems fairly clear that democratic choice is significantly more constrained in North Korea as opposed to the US or UK, and that this has an impact on individual standard of living and freedom. To call these equivalent is to sacrifice the possibility of improvement on the altar of utopia.

[JA]

You don't frequent many Marxist/Socialist internet communities, do you? Nothing I've said diverges from the most common position among them. Whether we like or dislike Maduro, that is our position.

I don't see how it does that whatsoever. I'm not against the Venezuelan people taking action within or outside of the existing institutions to express their democratic, popular will. In fact, I couldn't possibly support that more. If they believe Maduro is that awful, then, by all means, depose him. If they take to the streets, I'd support solidarity with the workers of Venezuela, just as I'd support solidarity with the working people of any society who're expressing their popular will. Yet, I wouldn't want the US, British, Canadian, Russian, Chinese, Brazilian, German, or any other country's government to involve itself in such matters. Why? Because, fundamentally, I believe all existing states are captured by their ruling class; whether it's a capitalist ruling class like in America and the UK or a bureaucratic ruling class like in North Korea. Those states don't exist as legitimate expressions of popular will, of the democratic voice of the working people that constitute the vast majority of their populations.

I must admit I don't - but the self-described socialists I know IRL tend to oppose the concept of states altogether, and see the distinction between "Venezuelan" and "non-Venezuelan" as arbitrary. I suppose you could call this another manifestation of what you call 'solidarity', though if you oppose internationalism in general what does that solidarity even imply? You say you would 'support solidarity' with people taking to the streets to oppose their government, but as an American, what does that actually mean if they are faced with violence and you are opposed to taking any concrete action to aid them?

Re: the second point, the argument is fair, but would you not say that there is a difference in the extent of 'capture'? It seems fairly clear that democratic choice is significantly more constrained in North Korea as opposed to the US or UK, and that this has an impact on individual standard of living and freedom. To call these equivalent is to sacrifice the possibility of improvement on the altar of utopia.

Of course, there are certainly degrees to the extent of a state’s capture and its democratic capabilities. America is simply more capable of moments of democratic expression than a place like China or Saudi Arabia. That’s undeniable. And, I can’t entirely rule out the possibility of America engaging in selfless humanitarian projects. However, the reason I take such issue with it now is that none of the recent US governments can remotely lay claim to being oriented towards the workers’ interests. It cannot claim to be democratic in that sense, since it is and has been captured by an elite minority. For example, how on earth could someone possibly believe Trump, Bolton, and Abrams are acting in the interests of the Venezuelan people? What of this administration would possibly lead someone to believe that, aside from intense naivety or stupidity?

And, while it’s true that Socialists ultimately seek to eliminate the concept of nationhood, that doesn’t mean that in our current context that there isn’t a distinction between Venezuelan and non-Venezuelan. Workers of the world, from every country and background, should stand in solidarity that crosses borders and largely treats them as irrelevant. What that means in practical terms is the application of pressure to local governmental bodies and through organized efforts at support or protest. A perfect example is the international BDS movement aimed at Israel in solidarity with Palestinians. The goal isn’t to harm Israeli workers, since they’re welcomed just like everyone else, but it’s meant to express solidarity and affect international change across borders without relying upon our governments (although we do seek to influence and pressure our governments the best we can).

I think the misunderstanding here is that we don’t see the liberal democratic state as “ours.” It doesn’t serve our interests, nor does it represent us. It is, inherently, a capitalist political project that represents and expresses the capitalist class’s interests. There are concessions it has and does make, particularly when intensely pressured, but, overall, it isn’t a tool of the workers to use to express workers interests in international affairs. Hypothetically, such moments could occur, but they’re rare and the result of mass movements, not ordinary developments. We simply have a very different interpretation of and approach to the state than what is even found among Social Democrats like Bernie Sanders.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The reason I refuse to take any of this "anti-imperialism" stuff seriously is because the same people touting it were the same people spouting excuses and defenses for Russia's seizure of Crimea, which is pretty blatant imperialism.

That event was basically what made me decide that everyone to the left of Bernie Sanders should just f[inks] off and go to hell.

Also the fact that people like Max Blumenthal and Michael Tracey are the f[inks]ing worse. Even if I agreed with them I'd still find them insufferable because they make their points in the most smug, arrogant and annoying as hell ways and are total turnoffs.

[JA]

The reason I refuse to take any of this "anti-imperialism" stuff seriously is because the same people touting it were the same people spouting excuses and defenses for Russia's seizure of Crimea, which is pretty blatant imperialism.

That event was basically what made me decide that everyone to the left of Bernie Sanders should just f[inks] off and go to hell.

Ukraine/Crimea is a complex situation. Russia’s annexation of it wasn’t justifiable and largely violated international norms; it was merely an expression of Russian imperialism (which is just as real, albeit far less globally influential, as American imperialism). The imperialism of any state is unacceptable and should be condemned. Those on the left who made excuses for Russia are just reflexively anti-American imperialism, not actually anti-imperialist.

[AtorBoltox]

I don't think anyone else pays as much attention to these people as BRTD

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Implying a bunch of tankies equals "the left".

[Karpatsky]

Of course, there are certainly degrees to the extent of a state’s capture and its democratic capabilities. America is simply more capable of moments of democratic expression than a place like China or Saudi Arabia. That’s undeniable. And, I can’t entirely rule out the possibility of America engaging in selfless humanitarian projects. However, the reason I take such issue with it now is that none of the recent US governments can remotely lay claim to being oriented towards the workers’ interests. It cannot claim to be democratic in that sense, since it is and has been captured by an elite minority. For example, how on earth could someone possibly believe Trump, Bolton, and Abrams are acting in the interests of the Venezuelan people? What of this administration would possibly lead someone to believe that, aside from intense naivety or stupidity?

And, while it’s true that Socialists ultimately seek to eliminate the concept of nationhood, that doesn’t mean that in our current context that there isn’t a distinction between Venezuelan and non-Venezuelan. Workers of the world, from every country and background, should stand in solidarity that crosses borders and largely treats them as irrelevant. What that means in practical terms is the application of pressure to local governmental bodies and through organized efforts at support or protest. A perfect example is the international BDS movement aimed at Israel in solidarity with Palestinians. The goal isn’t to harm Israeli workers, since they’re welcomed just like everyone else, but it’s meant to express solidarity and affect international change across borders without relying upon our governments (although we do seek to influence and pressure our governments the best we can).

I think the misunderstanding here is that we don’t see the liberal democratic state as “ours.” It doesn’t serve our interests, nor does it represent us. It is, inherently, a capitalist political project that represents and expresses the capitalist class’s interests. There are concessions it has and does make, particularly when intensely pressured, but, overall, it isn’t a tool of the workers to use to express workers interests in international affairs. Hypothetically, such moments could occur, but they’re rare and the result of mass movements, not ordinary developments. We simply have a very different interpretation of and approach to the state than what is even found among Social Democrats like Bernie Sanders.

I don't trust the Trump administration as far as I can throw them, but what is fundamentally wrong with the humanitarian aid that it is attempting to send into the country now, which to my understanding is what Sanders is supporting? You put it in scare quotes, but it is an actual humanitarian project, and is welcomed by the closest thing Venezuela has to a 'popular movement' at the moment.

Re: not seeing the state as a tool, respectfully, this is learned helplessness. If you will concede that some sorts of governments are 'more' amenable to individual rights and interests than others, then in the modern age, in the absence of influential governments and movements which you do consider pure enough to be 'yours', the liberal international order, as flawed as it  may be, is the single most significant force for advancing individual interests in the world, even if you argue that this is only a 'side effect' of advancing capitalists' interests. In your other post you appear to 'both sides' Russian and American imperialism, but in Eastern Europe, which is my area of specialty, the effects of what many on the left call 'Western imperialism' of the last 25 or so years have been the greatest contributors to political and economic reform those countries have every seen. Something like BDS is comparatively inconsequential, and, by the way, does hurt ordinary individuals much more than the international tools only wielded by states.

An example of this is tariffs, which you advocated for as a way to encourage fair trade internationally in another thread. What I would ask you then is how 'good' does a government have to be to have your go-ahead to take positive action on the world stage? No government is perfect, but imperfect governments can significantly improve people's lives.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Wait, Bernie hired Klion? The David Klion who stated that anyone who works for a news outlet he dislikes is a fascist and shouldn't be allowed to live in peace?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Wait, Bernie hired Klion? The David Klion who stated that anyone who works for a news outlet he dislikes is a fascist and shouldn't be allowed to live in peace?

If it's him, he sounds like BRTD's dream guy.

[Karpatsky]

Wait, Bernie hired Klion? The David Klion who stated that anyone who works for a news outlet he dislikes is a fascist and shouldn't be allowed to live in peace?

Sanders hired Matt Duss, about whom David Klion did a profile.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Wait, Bernie hired Klion? The David Klion who stated that anyone who works for a news outlet he dislikes is a fascist and shouldn't be allowed to live in peace?

Sanders hired Matt Duss, about whom David Klion did a profile.

Thanks. That's much less egregious. Klion is not a serious person and should not be let near any wheels of power. Duss, I have lots of disagreements with but he seems a reasonable hire for a Bernie campaign.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Implying a bunch of tankies equals "the left".

Yeah, characterizing unspecified internet tankies as "the Left", with a capital L, is the sort of rhetoric I expect from Ben Shapiro or Steven Crowder, not an ALL LIBERAL ALL THE TIME forum icon.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

The Atlas fake news begins...