posted on December 21, 2018 12:59 AM by
u/Analemma_
23
u/DELETED17 pointsat 1545369611.000000
People governed by authoritarian governments deserve public services
like education, infrastructure and healthcare as much as anyone else. We
shouldn’t blame progressive intellectual’s for consulting with nominally
left wing authoritarian governments like Cuba, China, or Venezuela, just
as we shouldn’t blame them for consulting with Saudi Arabia and
others.
Even by the standards of liberal democracy (an incorrect standard but I'll let it slide for now) why would you consider Venezuela "authoritarian"? The PSUV keeps winning elections.
Venezuela [restricts emigration](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-08/need-to-flee-venezuela-pay-huge-bribe-or-stand-in-line-forever), and speech. Its government jails and tortures dissidents. etc.
Regardless, we should applaud anyone who consults with the Venezuelan government with the aim of improving public services, because they’re experiencing a humanitarian crisis.
All countries restrict emigration. I agree that working with the popularly elected Venezuelan government and evading imperialist US sanctions designed to hurt the working class is a good thing.
Most countries do not meaningfully restrict emigration. Most countries restrict immigration.
Emigration restrictions are a hallmark of authoritarian governments like North Korea, historic East Germany etc.
Nope, I'm sticking with it. If you are not allowed to enter the southern hemisphere, you are not allowed to leave the northern hemisphere. They are the same. If you are not allowed to enter the 1st world, you are not allowed to leave the 2nd through 3rd worlds. See also the ancient math joke:
> How does a topologist catch a tiger? They go inside and close the door!
Lots of countries accept a small number of immigrants. Compared to the number of people who would like to leave their countries, it is a drop in the bucket. To a first approximation, third-worlders are tied to the land like serfs.
I mean, if it's actually true that one can just get on a plane and go to some other country, how do you explain the existence of refugee camps?
The lives of refugees are tragic. Their lives would be made even more tragic if they were prevented by their own governments from escaping the circumstances from which they are seeking refuge.
You can make a good argument that immigration restrictions are immoral, but that’s no defense of Venezuela which restricts both immigration and emigration. Their emigration restrictions are more notable because they are more unique.
> that’s no defense of Venezuela which restricts both immigration and emigration.
Totally agreed. But
1) I'm just primarily concerned with moral failures that are not generally considered notable. Those are the ones where there is great room for improvement.
2) The ethics behind this distinction are rank. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but *most* people who make this distinction are reasoning as follows: The immigration restrictions are about morally worthless foreigners, whereas emigration restrictions are about morally considerable natives.
People in refugee camps are typically not allowed to work in the host country or to leave the camp. Yes, it is technically a case of crossing a border, but no one would agree to it if normal immigration were actually permitted.
>Most countries do not meaningfully restrict emigration.
I see, it's only meaningful when the "authoritarian" countries do it. Such as ::*checks notes*:: the democratically elected government of Venezuela.
Haha, you're the one that made that a category of an "authoritarian" government. Not I. Explain how Venezuelas democratically elected government is "authoritarian". To be honest I find the anti-left attitudes of first-worlders far more authoritarian.
How about this for authoritarian? The US imprisons more people than any other country and has military bases all over the world.
You didn't answer the OP question though. Are you sure you're not confusing emigration and immigration? The former means leaving your country, and the latter means entering. Most countries restrict entrance but very few refuse to allow people to leave. If emigration is illegal then the whole country is a prison.
Also "democratic" is a funny word to use when most electoral watchdog organizations consider them unfair. Next you'll be saying that Putin's Russia is a bastion of democratic ideals. Horseshoe theory is a load of horse shit but people like you are why it exists.
USA helped install Putin's predecessor Yeltsin and helped him cheat in the '96 election. USA backed an anti-democratic coup in Venezuela 2002 *against* the PSUV. The two situations are not comparable.
Fish hook theory is a load of horse shit but people like you are why it exists.
>USA helped install Putin's predecessor Yeltsin and helped him cheat in the '96 election. USA backed an anti-democratic coup in Venezuela 2002 against the PSUV. The two situations are not comparable.
The most evidence of US interference in the 2002 coup was allegations from Chavez, who would of course never have an agenda or desire to rally support with a visible enemy (like Erdogan and his survived coup).
But bringing up the coup is a non-sequitur. Even assuming that Venezuela was a perfect democracy in 2002 and that the US acted against it (which isn't that unlikely to me), and even if the US is solely responsible for the situation in Russia (which is more due to a longtime lack of inclusive institutions), that isn't directly related to whether the current state of Venezuela is democratic and legitimate. The problems cited are more recent, so whataboutism doesn't support your case.
I guess it's easy to have a black-and-white view of the world when you think (((capital))) is the root of all evil.
People governed by authoritarian governments deserve public services like education, infrastructure and healthcare as much as anyone else. We shouldn’t blame progressive intellectual’s for consulting with nominally left wing authoritarian governments like Cuba, China, or Venezuela, just as we shouldn’t blame them for consulting with Saudi Arabia and others.
The last 73 years, to be precise.