You've somehow managed to spend a whole post attacking me for being pro-EU, even though I didn't vote in the referendum and in general am very sceptical of it as an institution.

Let's get back to the thread topic. Maduro is, evidently, leading the country towards dictatorship. He has postponed three elections in the past few years and has threatened to use the army had he not won the latest one. That's sh*t politics, and from what I've read and heard, many of the drivers of Chavismo have turned away from him and gone back to grassroots community projects.

But another interesting poll I read showed the approval ratings of South American governments. Maduro is on 20%, which is incredibly low, but still higher than the governments of Mexico, Brazil and Columbia. Again, why is it that this thread is so empty of knowledge about these countries?

Because while they are irrelevant, Venezuela is supposedly more significant because it is symbolic of Socialism's failure, and thus people starving and dying on the streets in Caracas is evidence against Corbyn in this country. I'm sorry, but this argument is f*cking nonsense.

Venezuela's economy is driven by a 97% reliance on oil. It has thousand year old indigenous communities. It suffered under centuries of colonial rule, and until Chavez, the majority of the country lived in poverty. To compare it to Britain, and the form of Socialism which Corbyn is suggesting, is simplistic red-scare crap.

Despite it all, I will defend the social policies of Chavez. He raised literacy levels, gave people access to healthcare, subsidised food and improved the rights of women and the LGBT community. Socialism in action.

I would argue against the idea he destroyed private enterprise...he nationalised oil but most other sectors he left untouched if you qctually look at it.

But how can you argue it was worse when he died than when he came in? More dependent on oil was a bad thing, but almost every human index factor improved. He took millions out of poverty and gave them education, healthcare and welfare.

Venezuela has become an all-out political football for Western powers. This poor country has one major asset, its oil, which represents 95 per cent of its export economy. Venezuelan oil was always in the hands of large American and British multi-national companies who creamed of the profits. The people remained wretchedly poor while oil companies enriched themselves. The poverty gained little sympathy from our media as long as the rich could exploit Venezuela’s only natural asset.

With the coming to power of the Socialist President, Hugo Chavez, in 1999, things began to change. He used the record-high oil revenues and nationalised key industries, including oil to expand and create access to food, housing, healthcare, and education to raise the poor from the abject misery they had to endure while watching their wealth syphoned away by the oil companies.

Chavez was charismatic and loved by the poor of Venezuela, but hated by the privileged class, which led to a group of high-ranking anti-Chávez military officers launching a coup against Chávez, who was arrested in April 2002. The coup was supported by the United States, the so-called middle-class and the oil companies. It failed miserably after only 3 days and the coup leaders escaped to America. People had taken to the streets in support of Chavez and he was re-installed as President. It was the West’s first attempt to overthrow the democratically elected Socialist government in Caracas.

In 2006, there was a presidential election with a 74 per cent turnout. Chavez was re-elected with a vote of 63 per cent. Regardless of this American and Western propaganda consistently portrayed him as a dictator, just as they do now with President Nicolas Maduro.

Maduro was elected after the untimely death of Chavez from cancer. Almost at once the new President faced a major crisis when in November 2014 the global oil price collapsed. The right-wing saw their chance and, as the country suffered, they implemented their plan to overthrow Maduro. America has implemented economic sanctions on this poor country with the clear intention to destroy its economy while it is stricken with the collapse of the oil price.

The Western media is portraying Maduro has a dictator even though democratically elected. Western powers see a chance for another coup, this time an economic one, so they can again take ownership of the country’s massive oil wealth. If they succeed, any concern for the poor of Venezuela will quickly evaporate. Maduro is no dictator, he is the democratically elected President. The attacks on him contrast sharply with the sycophantic treatment by the West of Saudi Arabia, its completely undemocratic regime, religious extremism and inhuman executions for trivial offences. Publicly beheading any women accused of adultery is common place, sometimes in front of a football crowd.

In recent days we have seen the Labour Party right-wing, egged on by the equally right-wing media, trying to put Jeremy Corbyn in the dock over Venezuela. Corbyn is being honest and principled, refusing to condemn Maduro while condemning the violence on the streets. He has pointed to the gains made by the poor under the regimes of Chavez and Maduro. The real purpose for trying to drag Corbyn into this arena is to get him to condemn a Socialist regime.

What Corbyn knows is this:

If he condemns Maduro the next question is:

Doesn’t this mean that left-wing policies can never succeed? Is it not a failure of Socialism?

Capitalism has failed the people of Venezuela and most of the countries in South America. If Venezuela falls the next targets for sure will be Evo Morales, Socialist President of Bolivia and Rafael Correa, Socialist President of Ecuador. Thus far, Corbyn has continued to stand firm and he must continue to do so as the media attacks, and those from within his own Party, intensify.

From Facebook

I would argue against the idea he destroyed private enterprise...he nationalised oil but most other sectors he left untouched if you qctually look at it.

But how can you argue it was worse when he died than when he came in? More dependent on oil was a bad thing, but almost every human index factor improved. He took millions out of poverty and gave them education, healthcare and welfare.

Really, how come they are scavenging on rubbish dumps for food then?

I'll leave this here and let people make their minds up...

[Link]