Critique, Solidarity and Movement Building: A Reply to Lucas Koerner
by Gabriel Hetland
Lucas Koerner’s recent piece for Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, “How Western Left Media Helped Legitimate US Regime Change in Venezuela” (1/22/20), is a leading exemplar of a genre of leftist thought which might be termed “shotgun leftism,” due to its self-professed “uncompromising” commitment to revolutionary movements and states, and harsh “shoot-‘em-up” stance towards anyone deemed to lack such a commitment. This stance is evident in this and other pieces, in which Koerner takes aim at leftist publications such as NACLA and Jacobin, and a growing list of writers, including myself. This style of leftism contains a mix of admirable, questionable and highly untenable features.
The admirable features are a commitment to grassroots movements and to establishing a participatory and egalitarian socialist society, and a relentless critique of imperialism.
More questionably, shotgun leftists offer “unequivocal” support to governments identified as leftist, revolutionary and/or anti-imperialist, e.g., Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia under Evo Morales, and Nicaragua, and in some versions of the genre, any state opposed by the United States. What is questionable is not supporting left/revolutionary states, but doing so unequivocally. This can and often does lead to willingness to turn a blind eye to these states’ objectionable, even appalling actions, including widespread extra-judicial killings, and suppression of political liberties that leftists around the world have fought and died for.
What is untenable is shotgun leftists’ willingness to repeatedly, grossly and at times seemingly deliberately misrepresent, and even fabricate, others’ words. This is problematic, to say the least, in three ways. First, it makes it difficult to trust the veracity of what is said. Second, it inhibits building an effective anti-imperialist movement. And third, it blocks possibilities for open and honest debate.
Koerner argues that leftist writers who criticize Nicolás Maduro legitimate the US project of regime change in Venezuela. This, he says, is the case, irrespective of whether these writers “nominally oppos[e] Washington’s Venezuela policy and its corporate media gendarmerie.” The crux of his argument is this:
While invariably couched in the language of “left” analysis, this coverage weakens domestic opposition to the US and other Western states’ murderous onslaught on the Venezuelan people.
Koerner’s aim of strengthening opposition to US regime change is admirable. And there is nothing wrong with asking if left criticism of Maduro weakens opposition to US policy. Unfortunately, Koerner’s piece is riddled with distortions. To show this, I examine Koerner’s critiques of my writing on Venezuela, which he has done in three lengthy pieces since 2017.
Consider Koerner’s discussion of my argument (in a February 2018 NACLA/Jacobin piece) that the principle of non-intervention, which I view as inviolable under normal circumstances, can potentially be set aside if a genocide or humanitarian catastrophe is occurring and it can be reasonably determined that foreign action is likely to be more beneficial than harmful. Koerner writes that I “declin[e] to say” that such intervention is justified in Venezuela.* This passive construction suggests I may be open to intervention in Venezuela but merely “decline to say” if this is so. This grossly misrepresents my explicit rejection of the idea that the US has any right to intervene in Venezuela. I write:
It is also crucial to remember that powerful states, particularly the US, often use arguments about “humanitarian intervention” to push imperial projects that have no likelihood (and often no real intention) of addressing social needs. This is clearly the case with Venezuela. US attempts to bring about regime change are not a justifiable exercise in humanitarian interventionism. In fact, past and present US actions are a major…reason for the humanitarian crisis Venezuela is facing. A party to a tragedy cannot be trusted with resolving that tragedy.
Later, Koerner addresses my March 2019 Nation article on Venezuela’s devastating blackouts. Koerner writes, “The article contained wild factual inaccuracies, including the claim that Caracas residents were collecting water from the extremely polluted Guaire River.” The “wild factual inaccuracy” is Koerner’s, as I make no such claim. The article includes a photo and caption (chosen by The Nation) reading, “People collect water from a leaking pipeline along the Guaire River during rolling blackouts,” and a text reference to “images of desperate Caracas residents collecting water from leaking pipelines.” There is, of course, an immense difference between water in a pipeline and a polluted river, though if I wrote about this today I would note that water residents got from pipes was clean water from the Avila mountain and not sewage water, as the opposition falsely said.
Koerner’s habit of making false statements continues in his discussion of a May 2019 article I wrote for Jacobin. Following a bizarrely worded and inaccurate contention that, “The university professor backpedalled on some of his previous claims,” Koerner pens another fabrication, “Hetland appeared to be entirely unaware that the opposition attempted a coup d’etat scarcely three weeks before.” It seems Koerner is “entirely unaware” the article references and condemns “[Juan] Guaidó’s desperate and comically ineffective April 30 coup attempt” and “appalling recent opposition violence.”
There are many more examples of Koerner’s inability or unwillingness to accurately represent what others say, even those he purports to agree with. For instance, Koerner cites opposition economist Francisco Rodriguez’s estimate that Venezuela’s economy contracted 25% in 2019, but falsely implies that Rodriguez attributes this entirely to US sanctions. Taken together, these examples demonstrate more than carelessness. They show a willingness to distort others’ words, at times through outright fabrication.
Yet it would be disingenuous to imply everything Koerner says is false. He is correct that many leftists have denounced Maduro’s authoritarianism and human rights abuses. (I cannot, however, find any evidence to support Koerner’s claim of leftists “casting the Maduro government…as guilty of much worse human rights violations than the US and its allies.” I have repeatedly noted that whatever its flaws, the Maduro government’s abuses are far less than US-backed regimes in Saudi Arabia, Honduras and elsewhere.)
Unfortunately, the way Koerner addresses the issue of authoritarianism is unproductive. Instead of engaging in good-faith discussion of the merits of the authoritarianism charge, and the concept itself, Koerner resorts to name-calling and more misrepresentation. In Koerner’s eyes, anyone labeling Maduro (and it seems, any leader) authoritarian is an “Orientalist.” In a 2017 piece (criticizing a 2017 article of mine in NACLA), Koerner argues that the concept of authoritarianism resurrects the “civilization versus barbarism” divide, and says those who use the term are “fetishizing liberal democracy.” This latter charge is particularly unfounded, since my article includes these lines:
Yet, the left cannot turn a blind eye to the [Venezuelan] government’s slide into authoritarianism, nor its inept policies. This is not out of an unwarranted blind faith in liberal, representative democracy, but because authoritarian rule is incompatible with the beautiful-albeit-contradictory-and-flawed project of building “participatory and protagonistic democracy,” which Chavismo helped advance.
To be sure, authoritarianism and related terms are frequently used to discredit leftist ideas and movements. Indeed, conservatives have labeled participatory budgeting “totalitarian”! Still, it hardly follows that the concept of authoritarianism is inherently Orientalist or even conservative. In insisting the term be abandoned, Koerner ignores leftists, like Rosa Luxembourg and Nicos Poulantzas, who criticize Soviet-style state socialism for its repressive, autocratic character. Koerner also ignores the history of leftist anti-authoritarian movements in Latin America and elsewhere. As with other heavily contested ideas—such as democracy and freedom—the answer to those who misuse the concept is not to abandon it, but struggle to ensure it serves emancipatory ends. This requires honest debate, which Koerner’s method of exposition is an obstacle to.
One could argue that even if Koerner’s specific claims are dubious, his core argument—left critique of Maduro weakens domestic opposition to US policy—is valid. Is it? In answering this question, we must distinguish two things Koerner seems to conflate: supporting Maduro and opposing US policy. Koerner is undoubtedly correct that left criticism of Maduro likely weakens left support for him. Yet it hardly follows that it inevitably weakens domestic opposition to US Venezuela policy. Indeed, Koerner cites a litany of articles by leftists who criticize Maduro and US policy, showing there is no inherent contradiction between these positions.
Whether Koerner likes it or not, there seems to be a growing number of people wary or outright critical of Maduro and also firmly opposed to US policy in Venezuela. Instead of arguing that one can “truly” oppose US policy only if one “uncompromisingly” supports Maduro, Koerner should support efforts to construct the broadest possible movement against US policy. This means uniting everyone opposed to US policy, regardless of their support for or opposition to Maduro. Needless to say, calling those who criticize Maduro not “real revolutionaries” lacking “integrity” does not seem a good strategy for building the mass movement needed to do this.
One might cite the example of the February 2003 global mobilization against the US war on Iraq, called “the largest protest in human history.” As anyone involved knows, protesters were united in their opposition to a US war, not in support of Saddam Hussein. It’s hard to imagine that millions would have turned out to support Hussein, who I should note is incomparably worse than Maduro.
The final issue is the question of whether—irrespective of strategic considerations—leftists should critique purportedly revolutionary states. The left’s enemies will, of course, always try to utilize such critique, even of the “friendly” variety, against the left. One must be aware of this, but it is not a reason to avoid engaging in constructive critique and analysis. The stakes of building a better world—one that is deeply democratic, egalitarian, ecologically sustainable, anti-racist, feminist, decolonial and more—are too great.
To state the obvious: Efforts to construct a better world, in Cuba, the Soviet Union, Chile, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia and elsewhere have encountered serious internal and external obstacles. The only way to figure out how to do better is to analyze these, and other, experiences with a relentlessly critical eye. This necessitates paying close and constant attention to imperialist efforts to crush leftist experiments. But it also demands close and constant attention to the internal failings of emancipatory movements and states. (One should also highlight the successes of these movements and states, as I regularly do.)
In addition to organization and mobilization, critique and honest debate are the left’s greatest tools. It would be foolhardy in the extreme to seek to change the world without using these tools for the messy, difficult task of trying to understand it as well.
* This was an error introduced in editing; the current version of the article includes a correction. —FAIR. (back)
Western Gangster States Are Not More Democratic than Venezuela
by Lucas Koerner
Gabriel Hetland has written a welcome reply to my article on Western progressive coverage of Venezuela. As he notes, transparent and honest debate on the role of solidarity is urgently necessary, and it is lamentable that progressive publications like Jacobin have by and large opted to suppress it.
However, Hetland’s riposte is premised on a fundamental misrepresentation of my position. He suggests that “shotgun leftists” like myself “offer ‘unequivocal’ support to governments identified as leftist, revolutionary and/or anti-imperialist,” which he says,
lead[s] to [a] willingness to turn a blind eye to these states’ objectionable, even appalling actions, including widespread extra-judicial killings and suppression of political liberties that leftists around the world have fought and died for.
Here Hetland conflates “unequivocal” with “uncritical,” accusing me of apologia for indefensible state actions. In fact, Venezuelanalysis.com (where I am an editor and contributor) has consistently published a wide range of critical, grassroots perspectives on the Maduro government, including police violence (e.g., 11/27/19, 7/12/19, 3/1/18, 8/27/15) and liberalizing economic policy (e.g., 10/10/19, 9/6/19, 4/26/19, 10/19/18), as well as the confrontations with the state by campesinxs (e.g., 8/31/19, 7/24/19, 11/8/18), communards (e.g., 1/24/20, 4/24/19, 12/7/17), feminists (e.g., 1/23/20, 9/20/18, 10/3/17), trade unionists (e.g., 11/1/19, 11/15/18, 9/10/18), ecologists (e.g., 8/19/19, 10/10/18, 6/5/16) and indigenous peoples (e.g., 11/29/18, 5/17/16, 1/21/15). Only by ignoring this expansive coverage—which regularly platforms radical critiques of the dominant rightist tendencies within the Bolivarian Process (e.g., 1/31/20, 11/30/19, 8/4/19)—can my colleagues and I be (mis)construed as “uncritical.”
As I have previously argued, Hetland’s critique of the Maduro government is, by contrast, almost entirely procedural. Topping his laundry list of grievances are complaints that right-wing coup leaders were prevented from running in 2018 presidential elections and that regional elections were postponed until 2017, among other top-down government measures against the US-sponsored opposition. His criticism of state coercion against leftists and popular movements—altogether absent from his 2017 piece—appears as an afterthought in 2019, when he does cite the case of El Maizal Commune leader Angel Prado, whose mayoral victory was effectively abrogated by authorities. Nevertheless, Hetland’s primary concern is to show that Maduro was “not democratically elected,” and ergo that he heads an “authoritarian” regime. The unspoken premise is that the Maduro administration and other global South governments are less democratic than their Northern imperial inquisitors—in particular, the US and its allies, such as the UK and Canada.
Hetland attempts to buttress his liberal conception of authoritarianism by mentioning Nicos Poulantzas, apparently unaware that the French Marxist thinker developed a sharply contrasting theory of “authoritarian statism,” which is not a particular pathology of liberal democracy, but a “new form of state” in the imperialist core that “hinges upon those transformations in social classes, political struggles and the relationship of forces which mark the present phase at both the world and national levels” (State, Power, Socialism, pp. 203–04).
Hetland makes no similar effort in his interventions to sketch an alternative notion of “authoritarianism” applicable to Venezuelan state practices that relates them to (inter)national class struggle and imperial state forms in the global North. Consequently, lacking theoretical substance, his liberal-left critique is easily swept up by the hegemonic imperial discourse, which, as he acknowledges, has long branded Venezuela, even under Chávez, as “authoritarian,” and continues to do so in order to justify deadly sanctions.
The sociologist never levels the “authoritarian” charge against his own government, despite the United States’ murderous lawlessness at home and abroad—mass deportations, illegal wars, serial police killings, imprisonment of Julian Assange and other whistleblowers, etc.—all in the absence of any credible external threat. Instead, he insists on comparing Venezuela to Saudi Arabia, Honduras and Saddamn Hussein’s Iraq, with the qualifier that “the Maduro government’s abuses are far less.” The implication, nonetheless, is that Venezuela is closer to those dictatorial regimes than the Western imperial states that sponsor(ed) them.
Contra Hetland, it is precisely this reification of the “democratic” West that forms the core of Orientalism as a system for producing the “despotic” East in order to ontologically disqualify and dominate it. In refusing to subject his own imperial state to the same standards as he does Venezuela, he perpetuates the American exceptionalist mythology that justifies the sadistic US depredations he claims to oppose.
The proof of Orientalism lies in Northern public intellectuals’ well-worn habit of revoking the democratic credentials of elected Southern governments coincidentally when they are under heightened imperial assault. On November 13, three days after Bolivian President Evo Morales was ousted in a coup d’etat, Hetland wrote an op-ed (Guardian, 11/13/19) uncritically repeating the Organization of American States’ baseless allegations of fraud in the October 20 presidential election. In a crucial omission, he declined to mention that the Center for Economic and Policy Research (11/8/19) had published a devastating rebuttal to the OAS’s fraud claim a week before. He also failed to inform readers of the OAS’s nefarious track record in pro-Washington electoral meddling, presenting the US-dominated organization as an objective arbiter.
Several days later, he suggested that the Áñez regime has a “mandate… only to schedule new elections” (Washington Post, 11/19/19), implicitly doubling down on the OAS’s fraud claim, given that coup governments by definition have no mandate to any “extent.” In lieu of voicing solidarity with Morales and demanding his immediate reinstatement, Hetland and other progressive commentators turned their fire on the first indigenous president (FAIR.org, 12/10/19). Compared to the predatory gangster states of the West and their regional clients, Morales’ record is utterly pristine, and his unqualified defense should have been a no-brainer. Hetland’s vacillation on Bolivia seriously undermines the credibility of his critiques of Venezuela.
Hetland accuses me of making support for the Maduro government and its policies the litmus tear for opposition to US regime change. This is absurd, given I quote Angel Prado criticizing “pacts made with reformist sectors,” and vowing to defeat the rightist factions now dominant within the state. My argument is simply that Western leftists must stop repeating US propaganda casting the Maduro administration as less legitimate than their own rapacious governments.
Doug Latimer
It would be helpful to have a disinterested analysis of just who said what, and in what context. Otherwise this serves little purpose, don’t you think?
TomC
I was thinking the same, but it does serve the purpose of demonstrating that FAIR.org is dedicated to transparency and, of course, correcting the record on matters like this.
mARCO
The Author of this piece despite her claims to the contrary , is a regular contributor to the genre correctly known as “humanitarian imperialism ” She publishes “regime change” apologia in the Washington Post, the Nation and others of the usual outlets for that kind of PR.
she write :
“Koerner addresses my March 2019 Nation article on Venezuela’s devastating blackouts. Koerner writes, “The article contained wild factual inaccuracies, including the claim that Caracas residents were collecting water from the extremely polluted Guaire River.” The “wild factual inaccuracy” is Koerner’s, as I make no such claim. The article includes a photo and caption (chosen by The Nation) reading, “People collect water from a leaking pipeline along the Guaire River during rolling blackouts,” and a text reference to “images of desperate Caracas residents collecting water from leaking pipelines.” There is, of course, an immense difference between water in a pipeline and a polluted river,”
The above is typical of the absurd rationalization that is common among the propagandists of “humanitarian intervention”. .
please note that Mr Koerner is only one of many who have attempted to call attention to MS. Hetlands penchant for propaganda
Joe Emersberger
Hetland writes of Lucas Koerner
“He is correct that many leftists have denounced Maduro’s authoritarianism and human rights abuses. (I cannot, however, find any evidence to support Koerner’s claim of leftists “casting the Maduro government…as guilty of much worse human rights violations than the US and its allies.” I have repeatedly noted that whatever its flaws, the Maduro government’s abuses are far less than US-backed regimes in Saudi Arabia, Honduras and elsewhere.)”
Note how Hetland instinctively omits the US and its rich allies (like Canada and the UK) from the comparison to Maduro’s government.
So Hetland produces in this very passage (yet again) the “evidence” of “Koerner’s claim” that is supposedly missing.
The premise that Maduro’s government has less democratic legitimacy than Trump’s, Trudeau’s or Boris Johnson’s (or Macron’s) is usually unstated by “left” writers like Hetland and Jeffrey Webber (for example in this piece https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/state-bureaucracy-rentier-capital-maduro-venezuela-crisis )
Hence the comparisons to Saudi Arabia or Iraq under Hussein.
The use of the word “regime” (see Webber’s piece) to describe Maduro’s government is another subtle way to reinforce that premise.
But if you aren’t rejecting that false premise, then your opposition to US sanctions and military threats is pretty worthless.
Carlos
You would believe that Maduro is just as legitimate as Trump, Johnson or Macron if you thought that the electoral process in Venezuela is trustworthy, free, fair and unverifiable.
There is no independent entity that can verify electoral results since Smartmatic quit the country, in 2017, when they detected government manipulation of the election. The country’s electoral council is controlled by Maduro’s party. The courts intended to arbitrate electoral and constitutional disputes are packed by activist judges belonging to Maduro’s party. The black-listing of known opposition parties and candidates. The fact that opposition candidates cannot hold a debate or speeches through official channels while Maduro and his party host daily TV shows to advertise for themselves and the party. The intimidation of voters at polling stations by the party’s colectivos. The fact that Maduro, even though he is unpopular when compared to Chavez (even within his own party), somehow seems to get as many votes as Chavez. The fact that government employees receive bonuses and benefits through the “Carnet De La Patria”, which is a partisan ID (different from the normal National ID that everyone gets at birth), and are “encouraged” to use it when voting. The fact people must use their partisan ID to purchase price-controlled items, receive social services and retirement money–which as stated earlier also needs to be shown at polling stations. The fact that government companies have “political officials” which take attendance of people at party rallies, and employees fear dismissal for not attending.
Maduro’s party (PSUV) has made sure to gain full control over the electoral process in Venezuela through various means: coercion, black-listing, and vote rigging. In your opinion, is all of this a sign of a healthy democracy and a “legitimate” leader?
Why should members of the opposition trust the electoral results published by the government after the 2017 Smartmatic scandal? (Hint: They don’t, that’s why the National Assembly refused to recognize Maduro’s 2018 results, refused to swear him in, and declared a power vacuum.)
Babygottbach
I don’t need to think the Venezuelan elections were perfect to think they are more legitimate than US elections. If you follow recent electoral history in the US and then compare it to Venezuelan elections, the difference is staggerring. Just the recent Iowa democratic primaries are enough to make US elections worse than Bolivia’s or Venezuela’s. If Iowa were a South American country, the US would have invaded.
Gary Fitzgerald
Fundamentally, the world is divided into 2 camps – the pro-capitalist and the anti-capitalist. Within the pro-capitalist camp, there are 2 broad factions – the neoliberal neocons and the neoliberal reformists. The neo-liberal neocons are those that believe capitalism is great and, left to itself, is the solution to all economic problems. The neoliberal reformist (commonly known as Keynesians) acknowledge the problems with capitalism and support reforms to correct these problems but still believe in the fundamental goodness of capitalism. Both are ardent supporters of capitalism. The anti-capitalist (commonly known as Marxists) reject capitalism.
Since the reformist consider themselves to the left of the neo-liberal neocons, they often refer to themselves as leftist. They are not. At best, they are moderate capitalist. Actual leftist oppose capitalism in all its forms.
When Ms. Hetland refers to “Soviet style socialism”, she reveals herself as a reformist capitalist. How, you ask?
From a Marxist perspective, capitalism is an economic system based on the model of an absolute monarchy. A handful of people make all the important decisions about what to produce, where to produce, how to produce and what to do with the profits and the majority of people who make up the enterprise have no say in these decisions and have to live with the consequences of those decisions.
Based on this, anti-capitalist reject the idea that there are any socialist countries. China, North Korea, Cuba and the former Soviet Union and eastern block countries replaced the private decision makers with public bureaucrats. This change created a new category of capitalism – state capitalism.
Actual socialism abolishes this control by a handful of either private individuals or public bureaucrats and replaces it with control by the workers based on a one person, one vote. In such a system, there is no possibility of “state socialism.” This means that Sweden, Denmark, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc. are not socialist countries, they are a mixture of state and private capitalism.
Anti-capitalist understand this capitalist dichotomy. Capitalist either don’t understand this dichotomy or intentionally ignore it. (Presumably, they are afraid that if workers come to realize that being exploited by public bureaucrats is no different than being exploited by private individuals, then they might reject both models and embrace actual socialism.)
Ms. Hetland’s use of the phrase “Soviet style socialism” indicates her lack of understanding of socialism. This lack of understanding puts her squarely in the pro-capitalist camp. The fact that she is on the left side of the pro-capitalist camp doesn’t make her a leftist. But, by allowing her to self identify as a leftist, it requires the actual left to seriously address her criticisms as if she was actually concerned with issues the left takes seriously. We don’t take Rush Limbaugh’s criticisms seriously and we shouldn’t take hers either.
Chuck Kaufman
Gabe Hetland propounds the mouldy oldie argument of liberals to delegitimize the anti-imperialist Left. Gabrial’s fellow liberals claim we have uncritical support for governments targeted for regime change by the Empire when what we actually have if a consistent and principled opposition to US imperialism and our government’s interference in the affairs of other countries on behalf of US corporate and military interests. Lucas Koerner outlines why this is a dangerous and often unprincipled position when commentators like Hetland do not recognize the centrality of US imperialism in the story of Venezuela or Nicaragua, for example. Hetland’s ahistorical analysis is what leads to US so-called leftists initially applauding actions such as the violent coup in Bolivia against Evo Morales, leaving them astonishingly on the same side as Bolivian Christo-fascists and the Trump Administration. Those of us on the anti-imperialist Left do not fall into those traps. We maintain faith in the ability of the people of other countries to solve their own problems and chart their own path. We see our responsibility to be to stop our government from interfering in that process and we reject the idea that we are somehow exceptionally qualified to critique other country’s processes.
Carlos
Technically, the coup against Evo was not violent. The repression of the counter-coup efforts was violent, matching the level of violence carried out by Evo’s masistas. The favorite chant of the masistas was “ahora si, guerra civil” which means “finally, civil war”.
Leftist that decry the coup against Evo are also ignoring the legitimate concerns (drug traffic, abuse of power, unconstitutionality, and a few other charges) that the Bolivian opposition voiced repeatedly throughout the years leading up to the coup.
Babygottbach
Bolivia’s military, the people with all the guns, told Morales to step down. Imagine this scenario in a more domestic setting. Suppose I, armed with a firearm, come up to you, who are unarmed, and ask for your money. Even if no explicit threat was made nor any physical violence done, the fact that I have made that request to you while such a power imbalance exists carries the implication of a threat, which is enough to classify as violence. No blood may have been spilled, but violence was done.
The coup would also include the immediate attempts to oppose the coup, so it’s splitting hairs on your part to try to separate the coup and its immediate reactions after and during its execution. A few chants on the part of Morales supporters embracing war, after the coup leaders had declared it through their violence against the govenment, the President, and the laws, is much less than the level of violence committed by the coup, who have killed far more of those opposing the coup.
Thom Prentice
Do you have proof of your faith based charges against Evo?
And does not threatening Evo‘s life To force him to resign and then place barriers to his travel by air to Mexico constitute violence?
You are a liar.
John Wheat Gibson, Sr.
Name calling, not news and analysis, is the purview of the US media. Labels like “authoritarian,” “left,” and “progressive” substitute Pavlovian stimulus for factual reporting.
Carlos
The same could be said about “fascist”, “ultra-right”, “far-right”, “racist”, and a few other labels that pepper left and “progressive” media about opposition parties to the likes of Maduro, Chavez, Castro, Correa, Morales…
Lashaunda Ragazzo
This blog about Left Media and Venezuela: An Exchange
has helped me a lot, is very well written. I used this fat burner product: https://s96.me/fit and I reached the ideal weight.
Kiss you All!
Louis N. Proyect
Koerner’s rebuttal would have far more credibility if FAIR did not have such a sorry record defending Bashar al-Assad.
Thom Prentice
Venezuelan, Bolivian, NicRAgusn, Argentines elections don’t have to be perfect! Iowa anyone? The 2026 theft of Iowa and Nevada by Hillary anyone? Gerrymandering and voter id suppression anyone?
Those four nation are exemplars of how democracy should work.
NOT the US, a capitalist, fascist, imperialist state using the film flam glam of the dressings if apparent democracy to cover up war crimes and crimes against humAnity … like Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Libya …..