Fighting for freedom

Venezuela is currently in a very dark place. It's almost two decades since a socialist party took over the government, and the combination of socialist policies (which drive away capital and foreign investment), blatant government corruption, economic warfare by external powers and a low oil prices have come together to leave most people in Venezuela forming up in long line and waiting all day in order to be able to buy (not get for free) basic goods such as milk, bread or eggs. Toilet paper is scarse and leaving the country is almost impossible since most airfare is impossible to pay with average wages equalling about $20 per month.

In the last elections exit polls placed social president Maduro as coming in second place and losing the election by a landslide, however during a re-count order by the president he won the vote.

Corruption is blatanly evident and the normal democratic channels of action are owned by the totalitarian regime. Citizens have taken to the street to peacefully march against the government, to no avail.

My question is... at what point is violent action justified? It seems to me Venezuela will not see the day of light in a long time, unless they decide on violent action, even if that means civil war.

Thoughts?

What violent action do you envisage as being required?

It's a rocky road Manu. Deciding when to act, how to act, what to expect from the act, when to stop acting. The people have exhausted the non violent methods to this approach, unless they will just spiritually continue to live in the circumstances given to them.

It's too bad for citizens, that they were forced to turn in all their firearms and firearms in general are very restricted. They're not going to have much of a means to make violent change, but it can be done. A similar situation is coming to the US and Europe, the already burdened economies due to exporting manufacturing and jobs, combined with deficits from endless and pointless wars, giving rise to an influx of refugees that in turn is causing civil war by itself, will simply result in areas that will be as uncontrollable and unpredictable as the current hot zones in the Middle East.

The solution is an all out insurgency to spread government resources thin and disrupt infrastructure at which point a movement can rise within the people that will destroy the establishment or force the corrupt to flee which is easily accomplished with few people, but will either require foreign investment or big cojones, lots of time and blood spilled. As people become more and more desperate a match will strike to ignite a fire that could potentially engulf South America, becoming similar to the Middle East situation further burdening the rest of the world.

Marching is a start but it could be augmented with a more thorough civil disobedience movement: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience , preferably non-violent.

The means are as important as the end result and violence will likely initiate a bloody civil war, which you rightly suggest is a risk.

I think when the country gets to a point where they are having so much difficulty getting food that they have to ration food at a grocery store (which is what I'm being told is going on in Venezuela, I'm not there so my information is all media based), then you've hit a point where violence against the government is warranted- regardless of an election.

Sometimes people don't know what is best for them, that's why they have leaders that help them decide. At some point, they become so reliant on what is going on, that they don't know how to seek out what is best for them at all. From what I understand of Venezuela, that is what has happened here.

But when was it needed? That's the question I don't know how to answer. I can only answer that it has gotten to the point it is warranted. But it's not good to look back at history and judge "if we had just done something at this point, things would be much different". That's for the victors to look at and recognize how to prevent it in the future. But in the middle of a crisis, it's too late and there is no time to speculate.

"History is like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever." -Mariemaia Kushrenada, Gundam Wing:Endless Waltz.

I think Venezuela is ready for the first beat.

It could be illegal to urge people to violence in some countries, so public discussion about such things might not be advisable. For example in Australia I think its a crime to ‘counsels, promotes, encourages or urges’ someone to terrorism, and there is quite a variance in definitions for that word so I urge posters to be mindful in responses.

Having said that, fighting against a larger, better equipped, trained and organized force is going to fail hard (sooner or later) unless there is some numerical advantage within the populace. So, information operations is probably a useful non-violent approach to steer that advantage in some manner to enable some nature of control. But with centralization comes vulnerability. I'd instead limit info ops to spreading the word about the truth locally, and reaching out internationally to anyone who might assist in holding the government to task. I do not know enough about Venezuela to comment on that specifically. I'd counsel against violence and instead, if no internal communities can exist to do so, rely on the international community to exert pressure - not an easy task though.

Otherwise I guess finding oneself in a situation where violence as self defence against ones government was the only option, then it would have to go underground because in that situation the government is probably proactive in looking for exactly that sort of dissent.

I think when the country gets to a point where they are having so much difficulty getting food that they have to ration food at a grocery store (which is what I'm being told is going on in Venezuela, I'm not there so my information is all media based), then you've hit a point where violence against the government is warranted- regardless of an election.

** Emphasis added by me

I used to think that it was very likely that media exagerated the circumstances people in Venezuela are going through. Certainly, these things are rarely black-and-white, and there are likely good elements and bad elements on both sides of the equation (the current government and the opposition).

However, I live in a country that neighbors Venezuela, so we've had a fair share of people coming our way, most of them lucky enough to have family here who could pay airfare and provide housing for their relatives trying to escape the current situation. Everyone from Venezuela that I've talked to shares the same story:

A "savior" (Chavez) coming to Venezuela to kick out foreigners (basically US interests) who were bleeding the country dry with their unrestricted capitalism. What followed was a boom in the economy, mostly from harsh wealth taxation and new taxes imposed on businesses, and granting more money (something similiar to US welfare) to the poor. Everyone was happy (except business men)... for a while. Eventually businesses declined and wealthy people moved all the money they could out of the country, and without the income from taxation, all the welfare going to the poor was kept up only by debt.

Businesses also started trying to take advantage of the situation, by hoarding goods in order to drive up prices (plus they made money from special deals with government opposition leaders). The government reacted by implementing price controls on goods, further driving away businesses. They also restricted the escape of US Dollars from the economy, by limiting the amount of dollars you can "buy", effectively trapping most people in Venezuela. In the black market the Venezuelan Bolivar trades for a fraction of the official price.

Money keeps being handed to the poor, and the military are kept well and happy. Those who work for the government have special IDs that allow them to shop at dedicated supermarkets which are fully stocked, while those don't have these IDs must do as everyone else and form in line hoping that they will even be able to purchase the ration they are allowed for the day.

Activists who are seeking to influence public opinion either dissapear or are jailed (the ones who can make a difference). Those who cannot make a difference because their influence is small... well, just let them march, Maduro is not going to do anything about it.

Elections are rigged, non-violent opposition is ignored, and when it gets big, is punished by prison or worse.

What violent action do you envisage as being required?

As Lightstrider said, it's a rocky road. If I had the answer of which kind of action could cause the least damage while bringing about change, then I'd be sharing it with the Venezuelan people. The truth is that as long as the Government keeps the military in their pocket, and keeps their own happy, it's tough for the rest of struggling people (who simply want to feed and clothe and educated their kids) to take action. Unlike the US, most latinamerican countries have strict laws concerning gun ownership (it is a privilege, not a right), so it's basically starving people facing well armed forces.