Yeah, while I haven't seen anyone here directly say it, if Venezuelan socialism is "over" they just don't know it yet, then there's no point of any of us trying to help them in whatever way we can. And if it is an evil villain compradore causing it, we don't even need to feel bad about not doing anything, we can just be mad at the evil villain for being evil and enjoy some of that delicious lib righteous anger. I think we've spoken about this before. I don't think anyone on Hexbear is deliberately trying to convince people to abandon any support for Venezuela, but as any of us should know interacting with libs, it doesn't matter how you feel internally about a situation, it's your words and actions about it, the things you actually express to the world that will affect things.

Personally, I'm starting to think that this Delcy stuff started as a psy-op. Convincing people to abandon a socialist country because their leader being an evil traitor to the cause is textbook CIA pushing people into the compatible left. Not that I think anyone on here is a fed, just that they got the ball rolling on this and it has infiltrated a lot of leftist spaces. In every online leftist space I've seen (and many spaces IRL) the main "discussion" about Venezuela has been whether Delcy this one person, is a traitor responsible for destroying Chavismo or not. Not talking about how we can support Venezuela in these tough times, or try to lessen the US pressure against them, or what aid we can provide them or how we can educate non-socialists about the situation. A ideal situation for the feds, getting people to waste time focusing on something irrelevant and idealistic instead of actually focusing on trying to build international solidarity with the people of Venezuela.

And thank you for always pushing back, I've grown too tired of it and since Hexbear isn't an actual org, I don't really see a need to waste my time getting into slapfights. I can deal with libs or someone IRL, but I find it too disheartening to see people on here refusing to change their ways when they're called out for misrepresenting things, deliberately or not.

[–] Jabril@hexbear.net 15 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I've seen a lot of comments saying Venezuelan socialism is over here, starting in Feb or March. It has been so annoying and honestly heartbreaking knowing that material reality for Venezuelans if they are abandoned. A majority of white people on the internet saying Chavismo is dead because they didn't sacrifice enough civilians is hard to see here every other week for almost a year.

Maybe they aren't being deliberate but if not, their addiction to trying to be right is tragic. Trying to be the first one to predict what happens so you can pat yourself on the back and get upvotes is a pathetic and miserable existence, especially when it is trying to call what will ultimately be the death of innocent people.

When Assad got kicked out, there were people here cheering being right about calling it and essentially supporting ISIS in that moment. They were ridiculing Assad like it was a video game, while ignoring the reality of what was about to happen to the people who were now completely vulnerable to endless atrocities. To not see this and just be cheering online is really inhuman, and someone without a heart can ever be a sincere communist.

[–] Damarcusart@hexbear.net 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, I think the heartbreak is why so many people fall into this way of thinking, it's easier to point at the movie screen and tell the characters "Don't trust her, she's obviously evil!" and then you don't have to feel bad when bad things happen because "You warned them about the scheming Vizier and they didn't listen." It creates a level of detachment and "hollywoodifies" the situation, where they can imagine "what they would do" in that situation, and imagine themselves as a cool movie badass standing up to the bad guys instead of letting them get away with things.

I can see why you were calling them liberals earlier, some of the comments you've gotten could have the username blocked out and they'd be indistinguishable from what libs on Piefed say about Hexbear. I still would push back on calling them liberals a bit, poor analysis leads people to liberalism, rather than people being liberals (like it is an actual trait of theirs) since any of us can behave like a liberal when the circumstances allow it, one of the most important parts of combating liberalism is fighting your inner liberal after all. The most sure fire way to commit acts of liberalism is to think you could never do such a thing yourself because you unironically see yourself as the One True Communist. Which is probably why there is a lot of overlap between liberals and Ultras, come to think of it.

[–] Jabril@hexbear.net 11 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

well tbf I'm not typically just saying "liberal liberal liberal" or really being insulting in any direct way. the super majority of my comments are just explaining things, some of these people have even complained in the past about me writing "walls of texts" lol. its usually just in these meta conversations with users like you that I'll try and rationalize what I am experiencing with these folks, including calling them liberals but I mean that in the literal sense. most people who identify as leftists in the west are still liberals, they live in a frame of reference rooted in idealism and metaphysical thinking. they have reached a contradiction where they haven't really thoroughly interrogated that enough to overcome it but that is at odds with their own desire to be perceived as progressive. and they show it over and over again with their own words. after spending real time trying to analyze the situation and actually show why I believe what I do just to be met with the energy they have been bringing to me for almost a year, I can't help but accept that they are really not marxists, they haven't tried to be marxists, they haven't studied marxism, and they definitely won't be reading anything that forces them to have to reflect. it is liberalism, and plenty of self identified leftists will remain actually liberals as long as they can because it benefits them. for those of us who are compelled to fight because we actually are about this shit, we can't afford such a luxury

[–] Damarcusart@hexbear.net 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I didn't mean to imply you're just calling people liberals as an insult, I would just say they're people committing acts of liberalism vs being an actual liberal which is basically just semantics really. We've all seen the libs who will happily go "Umm acktually tankie, I'm a socialist and I hate the US too" as if simply saying a thing magically makes it true, so someone committing an act of liberalism is still supporting liberalism in that moment, even if they wouldn't identify as a liberal. Which I don't think we disagree on, I should've just phrased it better.

I think it is important to differentiate between someone who is liberal because the status quo benefits them and someone who is supporting liberalism because it's just how they were trained to think, because like you say, most western leftists are very liberal, we're trained to think magically and to prioritise idealism over materialism, "feelings over facts" expert-shapiro and this can appear in any of us if we're not careful, like your other conversation with queermunist, Ultras end up ultimately supporting liberal ideas and even the liberal status quo despite feeling like they are as far from liberal as it is possible to get.

I think this differentiation is important because people are prideful, we don't want to admit that we're wrong about things, especially someone currently in the grip of liberal thought processes. To the point that people will double or triple down on being obviously wrong because they just don't want to admit they were wrong. Separating the person from the liberalism can help protect their ego, which makes them more amenable to change, dismissing them as a liberal won't change their mind or get them to consider anything you say and will just have them shout insults at you endlessly. Which to be fair, makes a great point for why people shouldn't agree with them in an argument, since all they have are insults and smug ego stroking and you have your "walls of text" trying to explain the situation and its complexity.

It's a case by case basis thing of course, as you know full well, sometimes people just aren't willing to consider another position.

To bring it back to the topic at hand, the two positions on Venezuela as I understand them are not equal. This is obviously biased in my favour, but I am still trying to consider their position and the idea of "what would things look like if this were true." even if I do scoff at the idea a fair bit.

Our position posits that Venezuela is being threatened by the US and rather than have their country bombed into rubble, they've elected to make concessions to the US that will hurt Venezuela, but will enable them to survive and minimize their suffering. This may end up eroding Chavismo and ultimately destroying it and the Venezuelan socialist experiment, but the government of the country has determined that some sacrifices are better than potentially losing millions of lives in a devastating war.

Their position posits that Venezuela's acting President is a comprador to the US who may or may not have helped orchestrate Maduro's kidnapping in order to gather more power for herself, whether or not she did, she is now the leader of the country and acting in direct opposition to the Venezuelan people, with the goal of destroying Chavismo and the Venezuelan socialist experiment. How such a comprador managed to get so high up in a communist party is just left up to our imaginations, she's a cunning villain and hid her power level until now when she has gone full mask off. The Venezuelan people are powerless and unable to do anything to stop her, as is the rest of her party. Alternatively, the rest of the party is in on it, which means Maduro was the only thing holding Venezuela together, like how when a medieval kingdom has a good king but then his usurper is a bad king and everything falls apart. Or we could use The Lion King as an example of how this stuff happens. This does not explain how the masses of people in Venezuela tolerate these changes, or why the right wing American compradors in Venezuela are still complaining and demanding the US overthrow the government, though to be fair, they do like to complain about everything.

The alternative version of their position is that Delcy is being threatened by the US and is scared for her life, and is not a sinister scheming Vizier, but a weak coward, destroying her country on behalf of the US because she's too cowardly to stand up to them, this has the same problems as the previous one though, with the people tolerating this and the rest of her cabinet doing nothing, but it at least acknowledges the US's participation in all this.

So who knows what's really true? Reality is subjective and anything could be possible, we could both be completely wrong and this is a scheme by the Martians to take over Earth or something.

[–] Jabril@hexbear.net 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

yeah we do agree on that, but after a certain amount of time of dealing with liberals and acts of liberalism as a dedicated marxist, you do start to notice that people who are consistently doing acts of liberalism are rather committed to the bit and not serious in their practice. again, this is most people's norm, but most people aren't LARPing as communists while doing liberal shit over and over again.

I think you've summed it up nicely.

in regard to talking to libs about being libs, yeah I would agree that what you are talking about is important in an organizing context, and I would say that is the position from where I begin my interactions with everyone here. after someone shows their whole ass and then refuses to contend with anyone pushing back, they are revealing themselves to be wreckers and deserve nothing. in an organizing context, we would just cut that person off from the work because they are a risk, but on the internet I feel justified in explaining why these people suck, if not only for the viewers at home

[–] Damarcusart@hexbear.net 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

in an organizing context, we would just cut that person off from the work because they are a risk, but on the internet I feel justified in explaining why these people suck, if not only for the viewers at home

That's a good point, I guess I view Hexbear more a shitposting place, to just relax and not worry too (oh shit, am I the problem?) so I don't really want to spend my time here pointing out the same tired arguments and misrepresentation over and over again. I'll tap out pretty quickly, since I don't really want to spend what I would view as leisure time arguing with someone who is being disingenuous.

[–] Jabril@hexbear.net 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I respect that and don't expect anyone to adopt my masochistic tendencies

[–] Damarcusart@hexbear.net 5 points 4 days ago

I quite like the discussion of these ideas and people, and the analysis of why they are saying what they are saying though. I think it's important, the closest Hexbear can get to a "self-criticism" sort of discussion. Helps me focus and understand my own views and reconsider them if necessary.