Caracas, January 30, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly has approved a sweeping reform of the country’s 2001 Hydrocarbon Law that rolls back the state’s role in the energy sector in favor of private capital.
Legislators unanimously endorsed the bill at its second discussion on Thursday, with only opposition deputy Henrique Capriles abstaining. The legislative overhaul follows years of US sanctions against the Venezuelan oil industry and a naval blockade imposed in December.
National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez hailed the vote a “historic day” and claimed the new bill will lead oil production to “skyrocket.”
“The reform will make the oil sector much more competitive for national and foreign corporations to extract crude,” he told reporters. “We are implementing mechanisms th
... show more
Caracas, January 30, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly has approved a sweeping reform of the country’s 2001 Hydrocarbon Law that rolls back the state’s role in the energy sector in favor of private capital.
Legislators unanimously endorsed the bill at its second discussion on Thursday, with only opposition deputy Henrique Capriles abstaining. The legislative overhaul follows years of US sanctions against the Venezuelan oil industry and a naval blockade imposed in December.
National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez hailed the vote a “historic day” and claimed the new bill will lead oil production to “skyrocket.”
“The reform will make the oil sector much more competitive for national and foreign corporations to extract crude,” he told reporters. “We are implementing mechanisms that have proven very successful.”
Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez signed and enacted the law after the parliamentary session, claiming that the industry will be guided by “the best international practices” and undertake a “historic leap forward.”
Former President Hugo Chávez revamped the country’s oil legislation in 2001 and introduced further reforms in 2006 and 2007 to assert the Venezuelan state’s primacy over the industry. Policies included a mandatory stakeholding majority for state oil company PDVSA in joint ventures, PDVSA control over operations and sales, and increased royalties and income tax to 30 and 50 percent, respectively. Increased oil revenues bankrolled the Venezuelan government’s expanded social programs in the 2000s.
The text approved during Thursday’s legislative session, following meetings between Venezuelan authorities and oil executives, went further than the draft preliminarily endorsed one week earlier.
The final version of the legislation establishes 30 percent as an upper bound for royalties, with the Venezuelan government given the discretionary power to determine the rate for each project. A 33 percent extraction tax in the present law was scrapped in favor of an “integrated hydrocarbon tax” to be set by the executive with a 15 percent limit.
Similarly, the Venezuelan government can reduce income taxes for companies involved in oil activities while also granting several other fiscal exemptions. The bill cites the “need to ensure international competitiveness” as a factor to be considered when decreasing royalty and tax demands for private corporations.
The reform additionally grants operational and sales control to minority partners and private contractors. PDVSA can furthermore lease out oilfields and projects in exchange for a fixed portion of extracted crude. The new legislation likewise allows disputes to be settled by outside arbitration instances.
Thursday’s legislative reform was immediately followed by a US Treasury general license allowing US corporations to re-engage with the Venezuelan oil sector.
General License 46 (GL46) authorizes US firms to purchase and market Venezuelan crude while demanding that contracts be subjected to US jurisdiction so potential disputes are referred to US courts. The license bars transactions with companies from Russia, Iran, North Korea, or Cuba. Concerning China, it only blocks dealings with Venezuelan joint ventures with Chinese involvement.
Economist Francisco Rodríguez pointed out that the sanctions waiver does not explicitly allow for production or investment and that companies would require an additional license before signing contracts with Venezuelan authorities.
GL46 also mandates that payments to blocked agents, including PDVSA, be made to the US Foreign Government Deposit Funds or another account defined by the US Treasury Department.
Following the January 3 military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has vowed to take control of the Venezuelan oil industry by administering crude transactions. Proceeds from initial sales have been deposited in US-run bank accounts in Qatar, with a portion rerouted to Caracas for forex injections run by private banks. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio vowed that the resources will begin to be channeled to US Treasury accounts in the near future.
In a press conference on Friday, Trump said his administration is “very happy” with the actions of Venezuelan authorities and would soon invite other countries to get involved in the Caribbean nation’s oil industry. Rubio had previously argued that Caracas “deserved credit” for the oil reform that “eradicates Chávez-era restrictions on private investments.”
Despite the White House’s calls for substantial investment, Western oil corporations have expressed reservations over major projects in the Venezuelan energy sector. Chevron, the largest US company operating in the country, stated that it is looking to fund increased production with revenues from oil sales as opposed to new capital commitments.
Since 2017, Venezuela’s oil industry has been under wide-reaching US unilateral coercive measures, including financial sanctions and an export embargo, in an effort to strangle the country’s most important revenue source. The US Treasury Department has also levied and threatened secondary sanctions against third-country companies to deter involvement in the Venezuelan petroleum sector.
Caracas, January 30, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly has approved a sweeping reform of the country’s 2001 Hydrocarbon Law that rolls back the state’s role in the energy sector in favor of private capital.
Legislators unanimously endorsed the bill at its second discussion on Thursday, with only opposition deputy Henrique Capriles abstaining. The legislative overhaul follows years of US sanctions against the Venezuelan oil industry and a naval blockade imposed in December.
National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez hailed the vote a “historic day” and claimed the new bill will lead oil production to “skyrocket.”
Caracas, January 30, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly has approved a sweeping reform of the country’s 2001 Hydrocarbon Law that rolls back the state’s role in the energy sector in favor of private capital.
Legislators unanimously endorsed the bill at its second discussion on Thursday, with only opposition deputy Henrique Capriles abstaining. The legislative overhaul follows years of US sanctions against the Venezuelan oil industry and a naval blockade imposed in December.
National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez hailed the vote a “historic day” and claimed the new bill will lead oil production to “skyrocket.”
“The reform will make the oil sector much more competitive for national and foreign corporations to extract crude,” he told reporters. “We are implementing mechanisms that have proven very successful.”
Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez signed and enacted the law after the parliamentary session, claiming that the industry will be guided by “the best international practices” and undertake a “historic leap forward.”
Former President Hugo Chávez revamped the country’s oil legislation in 2001 and introduced further reforms in 2006 and 2007 to assert the Venezuelan state’s primacy over the industry. Policies included a mandatory stakeholding majority for state oil company PDVSA in joint ventures, PDVSA control over operations and sales, and increased royalties and income tax to 30 and 50 percent, respectively. Increased oil revenues bankrolled the Venezuelan government’s expanded social programs in the 2000s.
The text approved during Thursday’s legislative session, following meetings between Venezuelan authorities and oil executives, went further than the draft preliminarily endorsed one week earlier.
The final version of the legislation establishes 30 percent as an upper bound for royalties, with the Venezuelan government given the discretionary power to determine the rate for each project. A 33 percent extraction tax in the present law was scrapped in favor of an “integrated hydrocarbon tax” to be set by the executive with a 15 percent limit.
Similarly, the Venezuelan government can reduce income taxes for companies involved in oil activities while also granting several other fiscal exemptions. The bill cites the “need to ensure international competitiveness” as a factor to be considered when decreasing royalty and tax demands for private corporations.
The reform additionally grants operational and sales control to minority partners and private contractors. PDVSA can furthermore lease out oilfields and projects in exchange for a fixed portion of extracted crude. The new legislation likewise allows disputes to be settled by outside arbitration instances.
Thursday’s legislative reform was immediately followed by a US Treasury general license allowing US corporations to re-engage with the Venezuelan oil sector.
General License 46 (GL46) authorizes US firms to purchase and market Venezuelan crude while demanding that contracts be subjected to US jurisdiction so potential disputes are referred to US courts. The license bars transactions with companies from Russia, Iran, North Korea, or Cuba. Concerning China, it only blocks dealings with Venezuelan joint ventures with Chinese involvement.
Economist Francisco Rodríguez pointed out that the sanctions waiver does not explicitly allow for production or investment and that companies would require an additional license before signing contracts with Venezuelan authorities.
GL46 also mandates that payments to blocked agents, including PDVSA, be made to the US Foreign Government Deposit Funds or another account defined by the US Treasury Department.
Following the January 3 military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has vowed to take control of the Venezuelan oil industry by administering crude transactions. Proceeds from initial sales have been deposited in US-run bank accounts in Qatar, with a portion rerouted to Caracas for forex injections run by private banks. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio vowed that the resources will begin to be channeled to US Treasury accounts in the near future.
In a press conference on Friday, Trump said his administration is “very happy” with the actions of Venezuelan authorities and would soon invite other countries to get involved in the Caribbean nation’s oil industry. Rubio had previously argued that Caracas “deserved credit” for the oil reform that “eradicates Chávez-era restrictions on private investments.”
Despite the White House’s calls for substantial investment, Western oil corporations have expressed reservations over major projects in the Venezuelan energy sector. Chevron, the largest US company operating in the country, stated that it is looking to fund increased production with revenues from oil sales as opposed to new capital commitments.
Since 2017, Venezuela’s oil industry has been under wide-reaching US unilateral coercive measures, including financial sanctions and an export embargo, in an effort to strangle the country’s most important revenue source. The US Treasury Department has also levied and threatened secondary sanctions against third-country companies to deter involvement in the Venezuelan petroleum sector.
Venezuela Approves Pro-Business Oil Reform as Trump Issues New Sanctions Waiver
Caracas, January 30, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly has approved a sweeping reform of the country’s 2001 Hydrocarbon Law that rolls back the state’s role in the energy sector in favor of private capital.
Legislators unanimously endorsed the bill at its second discussion on Thursday, with only opposition deputy Henrique Capriles abstaining. The legislative overhaul follows years of US sanctions against the Venezuelan oil industry and a naval blockade imposed in December.
National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez hailed the vote a “historic day” and claimed the new bill will lead oil production to “skyrocket.”
“The reform will make the oil sector much more competitive for national and foreign corporations to extract crude,” he told reporters. “We are implementing mechanisms that have proven very successful.”
Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez signed and enacted the law after the parliamentary session, claiming that the industry will be guided by “the best international practices” and undertake a “historic leap forward.”
Former President Hugo Chávez revamped the country’s oil legislation in 2001 and introduced further reforms in 2006 and 2007 to assert the Venezuelan state’s primacy over the industry. Policies included a mandatory stakeholding majority for state oil company PDVSA in joint ventures, PDVSA control over operations and sales, and increased royalties and income tax to 30 and 50 percent, respectively. Increased oil revenues bankrolled the Venezuelan government’s expanded social programs in the 2000s.
The text approved during Thursday’s legislative session, following meetings between Venezuelan authorities and oil executives, went further than the draft preliminarily endorsed one week earlier.
The final version of the legislation establishes 30 percent as an upper bound for royalties, with the Venezuelan government given the discretionary power to determine the rate for each project. A 33 percent extraction tax in the present law was scrapped in favor of an “integrated hydrocarbon tax” to be set by the executive with a 15 percent limit.
Similarly, the Venezuelan government can reduce income taxes for companies involved in oil activities while also granting several other fiscal exemptions. The bill cites the “need to ensure international competitiveness” as a factor to be considered when decreasing royalty and tax demands for private corporations.
The reform additionally grants operational and sales control to minority partners and private contractors. PDVSA can furthermore lease out oilfields and projects in exchange for a fixed portion of extracted crude. The new legislation likewise allows disputes to be settled by outside arbitration instances.
Thursday’s legislative reform was immediately followed by a US Treasury general license allowing US corporations to re-engage with the Venezuelan oil sector.
General License 46 (GL46) authorizes US firms to purchase and market Venezuelan crude while demanding that contracts be subjected to US jurisdiction so potential disputes are referred to US courts. The license bars transactions with companies from Russia, Iran, North Korea, or Cuba. Concerning China, it only blocks dealings with Venezuelan joint ventures with Chinese involvement.
Economist Francisco Rodríguez pointed out that the sanctions waiver does not explicitly allow for production or investment and that companies would require an additional license before signing contracts with Venezuelan authorities.
GL46 also mandates that payments to blocked agents, including PDVSA, be made to the US Foreign Government Deposit Funds or another account defined by the US Treasury Department.
Following the January 3 military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has vowed to take control of the Venezuelan oil industry by administering crude transactions. Proceeds from initial sales have been deposited in US-run bank accounts in Qatar, with a portion rerouted to Caracas for forex injections run by private banks. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio vowed that the resources will begin to be channeled to US Treasury accounts in the near future.
In a press conference on Friday, Trump said his administration is “very happy” with the actions of Venezuelan authorities and would soon invite other countries to get involved in the Caribbean nation’s oil industry. Rubio had previously argued that Caracas “deserved credit” for the oil reform that “eradicates Chávez-era restrictions on private investments.”
Despite the White House’s calls for substantial investment, Western oil corporations have expressed reservations over major projects in the Venezuelan energy sector. Chevron, the largest US company operating in the country, stated that it is looking to fund increased production with revenues from oil sales as opposed to new capital commitments.
Since 2017, Venezuela’s oil industry has been under wide-reaching US unilateral coercive measures, including financial sanctions and an export embargo, in an effort to strangle the country’s most important revenue source. The US Treasury Department has also levied and threatened secondary sanctions against third-country companies to deter involvement in the Venezuelan petroleum sector.
Caracas, January 30, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly has approved a sweeping reform of the country’s 2001 Hydrocarbon Law that rolls back the state’s role in the energy sector in favor of private capital.
Legislators unanimously endorsed the bill at its second discussion on Thursday, with only opposition deputy Henrique Capriles abstaining. The legislative overhaul follows years of US sanctions against the Venezuelan oil industry and a naval blockade imposed in December.
Caracas, January 30, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly has approved a sweeping reform of the country’s 2001 Hydrocarbon Law that rolls back the state’s role in the energy sector in favor of private capital.
Legislators unanimously endorsed the bill at its second discussion on Thursday, with only opposition deputy Henrique Capriles abstaining. The legislative overhaul follows years of US sanctions against the Venezuelan oil industry and a naval blockade imposed in December.
National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez hailed the vote a “historic day” and claimed the new bill will lead oil production to “skyrocket.”
“The reform will make the oil sector much more competitive for national and foreign corporations to extract crude,” he told reporters. “We are implementing mechanisms that have proven very successful.”
Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez signed and enacted the law after the parliamentary session, claiming that the industry will be guided by “the best international practices” and undertake a “historic leap forward.”
Former President Hugo Chávez revamped the country’s oil legislation in 2001 and introduced further reforms in 2006 and 2007 to assert the Venezuelan state’s primacy over the industry. Policies included a mandatory stakeholding majority for state oil company PDVSA in joint ventures, PDVSA control over operations and sales, and increased royalties and income tax to 30 and 50 percent, respectively. Increased oil revenues bankrolled the Venezuelan government’s expanded social programs in the 2000s.
The text approved during Thursday’s legislative session, following meetings between Venezuelan authorities and oil executives, went further than the draft preliminarily endorsed one week earlier.
The final version of the legislation establishes 30 percent as an upper bound for royalties, with the Venezuelan government given the discretionary power to determine the rate for each project. A 33 percent extraction tax in the present law was scrapped in favor of an “integrated hydrocarbon tax” to be set by the executive with a 15 percent limit.
Similarly, the Venezuelan government can reduce income taxes for companies involved in oil activities while also granting several other fiscal exemptions. The bill cites the “need to ensure international competitiveness” as a factor to be considered when decreasing royalty and tax demands for private corporations.
The reform additionally grants operational and sales control to minority partners and private contractors. PDVSA can furthermore lease out oilfields and projects in exchange for a fixed portion of extracted crude. The new legislation likewise allows disputes to be settled by outside arbitration instances.
Thursday’s legislative reform was immediately followed by a US Treasury general license allowing US corporations to re-engage with the Venezuelan oil sector.
General License 46 (GL46) authorizes US firms to purchase and market Venezuelan crude while demanding that contracts be subjected to US jurisdiction so potential disputes are referred to US courts. The license bars transactions with companies from Russia, Iran, North Korea, or Cuba. Concerning China, it only blocks dealings with Venezuelan joint ventures with Chinese involvement.
Economist Francisco Rodríguez pointed out that the sanctions waiver does not explicitly allow for production or investment and that companies would require an additional license before signing contracts with Venezuelan authorities.
GL46 also mandates that payments to blocked agents, including PDVSA, be made to the US Foreign Government Deposit Funds or another account defined by the US Treasury Department.
Following the January 3 military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has vowed to take control of the Venezuelan oil industry by administering crude transactions. Proceeds from initial sales have been deposited in US-run bank accounts in Qatar, with a portion rerouted to Caracas for forex injections run by private banks. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio vowed that the resources will begin to be channeled to US Treasury accounts in the near future.
In a press conference on Friday, Trump said his administration is “very happy” with the actions of Venezuelan authorities and would soon invite other countries to get involved in the Caribbean nation’s oil industry. Rubio had previously argued that Caracas “deserved credit” for the oil reform that “eradicates Chávez-era restrictions on private investments.”
Despite the White House’s calls for substantial investment, Western oil corporations have expressed reservations over major projects in the Venezuelan energy sector. Chevron, the largest US company operating in the country, stated that it is looking to fund increased production with revenues from oil sales as opposed to new capital commitments.
Since 2017, Venezuela’s oil industry has been under wide-reaching US unilateral coercive measures, including financial sanctions and an export embargo, in an effort to strangle the country’s most important revenue source. The US Treasury Department has also levied and threatened secondary sanctions against third-country companies to deter involvement in the Venezuelan petroleum sector.
Caracas, January 30, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly has approved a sweeping reform of the country’s 2001 Hydrocarbon Law that rolls back the state’s role in the energy sector in favor of private capital.
Legislators unanimously endorsed the bill at its second discussion on Thursday, with only opposition deputy Henrique Capriles abstaining. The legislative overhaul follows years of US sanctions against the Venezuelan oil industry and a naval blockade imposed in December.
National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez hailed the vote a “historic day” and claimed the new bill will lead oil production to “skyrocket.”
“The reform will make the oil sector much more competitive for national and foreign corporations to extract crude,” he told reporters. “We are implementing mechanisms that have proven very successful.”
Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez signed and enacted the law after the parliamentary session, claiming that the industry will be guided by “the best international practices” and undertake a “historic leap forward.”
Former President Hugo Chávez revamped the country’s oil legislation in 2001 and introduced further reforms in 2006 and 2007 to assert the Venezuelan state’s primacy over the industry. Policies included a mandatory stakeholding majority for state oil company PDVSA in joint ventures, PDVSA control over operations and sales, and increased royalties and income tax to 30 and 50 percent, respectively. Increased oil revenues bankrolled the Venezuelan government’s expanded social programs in the 2000s.
The text approved during Thursday’s legislative session, following meetings between Venezuelan authorities and oil executives, went further than the draft preliminarily endorsed one week earlier.
The final version of the legislation establishes 30 percent as an upper bound for royalties, with the Venezuelan government given the discretionary power to determine the rate for each project. A 33 percent extraction tax in the present law was scrapped in favor of an “integrated hydrocarbon tax” to be set by the executive with a 15 percent limit.
Similarly, the Venezuelan government can reduce income taxes for companies involved in oil activities while also granting several other fiscal exemptions. The bill cites the “need to ensure international competitiveness” as a factor to be considered when decreasing royalty and tax demands for private corporations.
The reform additionally grants operational and sales control to minority partners and private contractors. PDVSA can furthermore lease out oilfields and projects in exchange for a fixed portion of extracted crude. The new legislation likewise allows disputes to be settled by outside arbitration instances.
Thursday’s legislative reform was immediately followed by a US Treasury general license allowing US corporations to re-engage with the Venezuelan oil sector.
General License 46 (GL46) authorizes US firms to purchase and market Venezuelan crude while demanding that contracts be subjected to US jurisdiction so potential disputes are referred to US courts. The license bars transactions with companies from Russia, Iran, North Korea, or Cuba. Concerning China, it only blocks dealings with Venezuelan joint ventures with Chinese involvement.
Economist Francisco Rodríguez pointed out that the sanctions waiver does not explicitly allow for production or investment and that companies would require an additional license before signing contracts with Venezuelan authorities.
GL46 also mandates that payments to blocked agents, including PDVSA, be made to the US Foreign Government Deposit Funds or another account defined by the US Treasury Department.
Following the January 3 military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has vowed to take control of the Venezuelan oil industry by administering crude transactions. Proceeds from initial sales have been deposited in US-run bank accounts in Qatar, with a portion rerouted to Caracas for forex injections run by private banks. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio vowed that the resources will begin to be channeled to US Treasury accounts in the near future.
In a press conference on Friday, Trump said his administration is “very happy” with the actions of Venezuelan authorities and would soon invite other countries to get involved in the Caribbean nation’s oil industry. Rubio had previously argued that Caracas “deserved credit” for the oil reform that “eradicates Chávez-era restrictions on private investments.”
Despite the White House’s calls for substantial investment, Western oil corporations have expressed reservations over major projects in the Venezuelan energy sector. Chevron, the largest US company operating in the country, stated that it is looking to fund increased production with revenues from oil sales as opposed to new capital commitments.
Since 2017, Venezuela’s oil industry has been under wide-reaching US unilateral coercive measures, including financial sanctions and an export embargo, in an effort to strangle the country’s most important revenue source. The US Treasury Department has also levied and threatened secondary sanctions against third-country companies to deter involvement in the Venezuelan petroleum sector.
Because the criminals are running the country. We have an entire political party that's okay with defending every pedophile in order to defend "their pedophiles." A party that wants a pedophile king so that they can do away with child labor laws and lower the age of consent - or just do away with consent altogether. Half of our political system wants to pretend Epstein isn't important or just never happened because what happened at Epstein's parties threatens to unravel all of their careful plans that took decades to enact. They can't lose all of that "progress" back to the good old days JUST because some guys AND girls got caught!
A) In the “(insert dictatorship-style government with extreme censorship that claims to be “socialist”) isn’t authoritarian because that word was made up by the CIA.” kind of way, or
B) In the “this meme was likely made by someone who fits option A, where they purposefully try to make authoritarian seem meaningless to defend their favorite ‘socialist’ dictatorship” kind of way, or
C) in the “People throw authoritarian around so much to the point it basically has no meaning because multiple groups purposefully shift their definition of it around so it doesn’t apply to themselves or people/governments they like.” kind of way, or
D) purposefully vague so you reap upvotes from people who agree with any of the above
Sure, Successful in converting agrarian societies into state capitalism which eventually devolves into other forms of capitalism due to its own internal contradictions.
State capitalism refers to economies like the ROK and Singapore, where the state plays a large role in the economy but private ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the bourgeoisie in control of the state. Regardless of if you agree with it or not, socialist states where public ownership is principle and the bourgeoisie subservient to the proletariat or outright abolished as a class are qualitatively different, and lumping them in with countries like the ROK adds more confusion than not.
What does it mean to "play the role" of a class? You're confusing class with management and administration. It isn't at all accurate, otherwise we'd just call capitalism "feudalism." You're looking purely at surface-level similarities while ignoring differences, and using a descriptor for modes of production with clear basis in private ownership as principle to describe public ownership.
I understand if you want to make an anarchist critique of Marxist socialism, but it would help your critique if it didn't have holes like that.
Capitalism unchecked would indeed devolve into neo-feudalism if working class reaction didn't prevent that.
I'm not confusing anything
For anarchists, the idea that socialism can be achieved via state ownership is simply ridiculous. For reasons which will become abundantly clear, anarchists argue that any such "socialist" system would simply be a form of "state capitalism." Such a regime would not fundamentally change the position of the working class, whose members would simply be wage slaves to the state bureaucracy rather than to the capitalist class. Marxism would, as Kropotkin predicted, be "the worship of the State, of authority and of State Socialism, which is in reality nothing but State capitalism."
[quoted by Ruth Kinna, "Kropotkin's theory of Mutual Aid in Historical Context", pp. 259-283, International Review of Social History, No. 40, p. 262]
Even that argument is a bit confused, no? Ruth Kinna and Kropotkin here both admit that there would not be a capitalist class. State capitalism as a descriptor works very well for, as I said, very state-driven but clearly capitalist states like the Republic of Korea, which is 3 companies in a trenchcoat but has heavy state involvement in the economy. I understand that anarchists disagree with administration, but to call it capitalism is again to call capitalism feudalism.
As for neo-feudalism, it's similarly confused as a concept. Capitalism is not feudalism, and socialism (call it "Marxist Socialism" or "state socialism" or even "fake socialism" if you want) is not capitalism. Marxist socialism does not at all behave as capitalism does, has its own form of class struggle (though not what you're describing here), and has its own contradictions that propel it forward (and not "inevitably" back to capitalism).
It seems most like you're trying to use capitalism as a moral cudgel than a meaningful descriptor, which is why your critique would be sharper if you didn
... show more
Even that argument is a bit confused, no? Ruth Kinna and Kropotkin here both admit that there would not be a capitalist class. State capitalism as a descriptor works very well for, as I said, very state-driven but clearly capitalist states like the Republic of Korea, which is 3 companies in a trenchcoat but has heavy state involvement in the economy. I understand that anarchists disagree with administration, but to call it capitalism is again to call capitalism feudalism.
As for neo-feudalism, it's similarly confused as a concept. Capitalism is not feudalism, and socialism (call it "Marxist Socialism" or "state socialism" or even "fake socialism" if you want) is not capitalism. Marxist socialism does not at all behave as capitalism does, has its own form of class struggle (though not what you're describing here), and has its own contradictions that propel it forward (and not "inevitably" back to capitalism).
It seems most like you're trying to use capitalism as a moral cudgel than a meaningful descriptor, which is why your critique would be sharper if you didn't resort to such phrasemongering.
No it's not really confused. I think you're just repeating yourself.
Marxist socialism does not at all behave as capitalism does
It behaves very much like Capitalism. Wage slavery for the working class. Luxury for the bourgeoisie (I.e. Chinese Billionnaires) and the state which enables them. When the Bourgeoisie doesn't nominally exist, it's because the state administrators simply act as the bourgeoisie by extracting the wealth and acting like parasites, like every manager in any capitalist company ever who claims they deserve their hundreds of multiples of the wealth of the working class because they are managing.
At its best a "State Socialism" acts like any other Capitalist Social Democracy. At its worst, it's practically indistinguishable from nominally "benevolent" feudalism (i.e. red fascism)
While I disagree with db0, db0's stances aren't uncommon among anarchists, so if i can try to raise the level of discussion I do think that would be beneficial. OP's post does have merit, in that all lasting revolutions have had to build up state power, including the Zapatistas. The Spanish anarchists were even beginning to develop more state-like structures towards the end as a necessary protection, and I believe they would have continued that trend had they been able to.
However, many users seem to be focusing overly on the meme format, ie the astronaut shooting the other one, when the focus of the meme is on unveiling a long-understood truth to a new audience. This focus on the form of the message, rather than the message itself, isn't particularly constructive.
Because it is still very much a false accusation used to justify the invasion and eventual genocide of Ukrainians? "Oh but there are neo Nazis in the Azov batallion". So? There are tons of ethno nationalists in the Kremlin & duma, who'd gladly do a bit of genocide - as a treat - so they can consolidate more land and power. Hows about them bananas?
Let's look at the evidence the past 30 years regarding russiafication, the para military groups in Africa and the promotion of oligarchy, the overthrowal of foreign governments the installing of puppet states - as well as the deep state corruption in Russia.
But also, let's look at the recent indoctrination of children into military school being taught that Ukrainians are mongrel mutts, Africans being used as suicide bombers, junkies and alcoholics sent to the front lines because of the "tried and true" meat assault tactic, Russian soldiers coming in on horseback and donkeys, the oligarchs of Russia being disappeared the last year to fund the war is especially prescient - while claiming the defeat of Ukraine is imminent.
... show more
Because it is still very much a false accusation used to justify the invasion and eventual genocide of Ukrainians? "Oh but there are neo Nazis in the Azov batallion". So? There are tons of ethno nationalists in the Kremlin & duma, who'd gladly do a bit of genocide - as a treat - so they can consolidate more land and power. Hows about them bananas?
Let's look at the evidence the past 30 years regarding russiafication, the para military groups in Africa and the promotion of oligarchy, the overthrowal of foreign governments the installing of puppet states - as well as the deep state corruption in Russia.
But also, let's look at the recent indoctrination of children into military school being taught that Ukrainians are mongrel mutts, Africans being used as suicide bombers, junkies and alcoholics sent to the front lines because of the "tried and true" meat assault tactic, Russian soldiers coming in on horseback and donkeys, the oligarchs of Russia being disappeared the last year to fund the war is especially prescient - while claiming the defeat of Ukraine is imminent.
In short: there is so much lies and bullshit coming from the Kremlin & the duma, as well as a metric ton of evidence proving how degenerate and incompetent they really are, to the point that seing the ol' "azovs are Nazis" propaganda point is like a conspiracy to generate free energy from the amount of eye rolling it will generate.
If it was such an issue, why not point out ICE or the IDF? Heck, why not deal with the ethno nationalists in Russia? Oh right, they're the ones in power.
Believing any of their propaganda is tantamount to intellectual suicide.
Tankies finding one problematic aspect in any movement they oppose and blowing it all out of proportion to justify repression. Also see Kronstadt rebellion, Hungarian revolution etc.
However any problematic aspect in camps they support is just an "unfortunate mistake" nevertheless worth "critical support" to oppose Western imperialism.
We have streets and buildinga named after a known fascist dictator in Greece who privately complained that Hitler didn't ask him to join the axis. This proves nothing except that time and war fog glorifies figures that don't always deserve it. This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. Purposefully disregard all nuance to paint a narrative.
streets re-named after a fascist mass murderer, yes. so if the germans suddenly started renaming streets after adolf hitler, you'd dismiss that too. nothing to see here.
Bandera was also a national liberation actor. One person who understands nuance could usually understand that national liberation actors tend to be lionized and their misdeeds trivialized. It happens constantly. Campists don't have a problem with mass murderers like Bandera, or Assad, or, Putin, they only have a problem when they're not in their camp.
And for a national liberation actor, Bandera is receiving comparatively little praise, especially from the current government.
This line of reasoning is therefore purposefully simplistic to paint a narrative, while of course ignoring the rampart fascism in the Russian aggressor who would of course impose a much worse form of fascism over Ukraine
We have streets and buildinga named after a known fascist dictator in Greece [...] This proves nothing except that time and war fog glorifies figures that don't always deserve it.
It proves there is a sizeable contingent in Greece that idolizes fascists and has enough institutional power to express that idolatry, and that there is not enough pushback in the rest of the culture to oppose that openly fascist expression. All of which is deeply worrisome and none of which negates the fact that there is likewise rampant Neo-naziism in Ukraine and that it has tremendous institutional and military power.
Just a tiny, insignificant problematic aspect like widespread support for fascism. No biggie. Btw, why are all our governments turning towards fascism? Where could this be coming from?
Moreover, present day Russia is a creation by the West itself. It was your governments that wanted the USSR to collapse, your goverments that elevated individuals like Putin post-collapse. Now you get a brutal, capitalist, Anti-LGBT hellpit, that the people of the West somehow pretend just materialized out of nothing, and wasn't a result of their own negligence, their own unwillingness to prevent mass suffering in Eastern Europe and Asia after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
You are constantly in conflict with your own self-made monsters.
Just a tiny, insignificant problematic aspect like widespread support for fascism
"widespread"
Moreover, present day Russia is a creation by the West itself. It was your governments that wanted the USSR to collapse, your goverments that elevated individuals like Putin post-collapse. Now you get a brutal, capitalist, Anti-LGBT hellpit, that the people of the West somehow pretend just materialized out of nothing, and wasn't a result of their own negligence, their own unwillingness to prevent mass suffering in Eastern Europe and Asia after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Sounds to me USSR revolution wasn't that "successful" afer all
Sounds to me USSR revolution wasn't that "successful" afer all
Reducing the USSR to a "failure" because it collapsed is ahistorical idealism and the height of liberal nonsense. We should judge a formation by the contradictions it resolved, not by whether it achieved eternity. Tsarist Russia was a feudal wreck where peasants starved and most couldn't read. Within decades, the Soviet project doubled life expectancy, wiped out illiteracy, and industrialized a continent-sized country, dragging millions out of poverty.
Women gained full legal equality in 1918: abortion rights, divorce, workplace access, while Western women were still fighting for the vote. Socialized childcare and mass employment pulled women into public life on a scale capitalism wouldn't match for generations.
And let's not forget who actually broke fascism: the Red Army fought four-fifths of the Wehrmacht, lost 27 million people, and took Berlin while the West sat on the sidelines and even continued to trade with the nazi beast for years into the war (see the history of ford f
... show more
Sounds to me USSR revolution wasn't that "successful" afer all
Reducing the USSR to a "failure" because it collapsed is ahistorical idealism and the height of liberal nonsense. We should judge a formation by the contradictions it resolved, not by whether it achieved eternity. Tsarist Russia was a feudal wreck where peasants starved and most couldn't read. Within decades, the Soviet project doubled life expectancy, wiped out illiteracy, and industrialized a continent-sized country, dragging millions out of poverty.
Women gained full legal equality in 1918: abortion rights, divorce, workplace access, while Western women were still fighting for the vote. Socialized childcare and mass employment pulled women into public life on a scale capitalism wouldn't match for generations.
And let's not forget who actually broke fascism: the Red Army fought four-fifths of the Wehrmacht, lost 27 million people, and took Berlin while the West sat on the sidelines and even continued to trade with the nazi beast for years into the war (see the history of ford factories and IBM).
Collapse doesn't retroactively erase what was built. "Anarchists" like you who dismiss seventy years of concrete progress because the state eventually fractured aren't radical they're reactionary. Material gains for millions don't vanish because the system that produced them later unraveled.
The aftermath of the collapse proved the stakes that people like you refuse to grapple with. The 1990s were catastrophic. Life expectancy cratered, millions plunged into homelessness and destitution, women and children were trafficked by the tens of thousands, and the entire country was looted by oligarchs with IMF blessing. The chaos bred Yeltsin's drunken comprador regime, which paved the way for Putin's rise as his right-hand man a direct product of the Soviet collapse. When you cheer the unraveling of a workers' state even a deeply flawed one, you're not celebrating freedom. You're celebrating the road that led straight to oligarchs, fascists, and some of the worst reaction imaginable. But you don't really care about anyone but yourself.
Reducing the USSR to a "failure" because it collapsed is ahistorical idealism and the height of liberal nonsense
'Tis what MLs perpetually do for every Anarchist revolution.
Collapse doesn't retroactively erase what was built. "Anarchists" like you who dismiss seventy years of concrete progress because the state eventually fractured aren't radical they're reactionary. It achieved the same great improvements for living standards all other such capitalist revolutions did throughout history. Material gains for millions don't vanish because the system that produced them later unraveled.
I'm not erasing anything. I consider the USSR revolution a great success for capitalism, as it turned an agrarian society into an industrialized capitalist nation. It also imporoved the people's living standard like any society becoming industrialized through capitalism. It's the only thing all such ML revolutions every achieved and the only thing they can achieve.
It's an abject failure at achieving communism (and anarchist argue, even socialism) though.
Daily writing promptWrite about your first computer.View all responses Here’s the thing about my first computer. It didn’t coddle me. It didn’t autocomplete my thoughts or ask how I was feeling today. It sat there like a beige brick with delusions of gran
Daily writing prompt Write about your first computer. View all responses
Here’s the thing about my first computer. It didn’t coddle me. It didn’t autocomplete my thoughts or ask how I was feeling today. It sat there like a beige brick with delusions of grandeur and dared me to figure it out.
It was a Commodore 64. Used. Already scarred. Already suspicious of me. Perfect.
I was 13, which is exactly the right age to be given something powerful with no instructions and just enough danger to ruin your sleep schedule. This thing booted up to a blinking cursor. No icons. No friendly mascot. Just a prompt that basically said “prove you’re not stupi
... show more
Daily writing prompt Write about your first computer. View all responses
Here’s the thing about my first computer. It didn’t coddle me. It didn’t autocomplete my thoughts or ask how I was feeling today. It sat there like a beige brick with delusions of grandeur and dared me to figure it out.
It was a Commodore 64. Used. Already scarred. Already suspicious of me. Perfect.
I was 13, which is exactly the right age to be given something powerful with no instructions and just enough danger to ruin your sleep schedule. This thing booted up to a blinking cursor. No icons. No friendly mascot. Just a prompt that basically said “prove you’re not stupid.” Most days, I barely managed.
Before there was the internet, before people argued with strangers for sport, I ran a BBS on it. One phone line. One modem screaming like it was being tortured. If someone picked up the house phone, everything died. Entire digital civilizations erased by Aunt Linda calling to chat.
Running a BBS meant learning patience, troubleshooting by rage, and understanding that technology does not care about your plans. You learned by breaking things. You learned by staying up too late reading messages from people you’d never meet, typing back like it mattered. It did.
That machine taught me more than school ever did. It taught me curiosity. It taught me how systems work. It taught me that if you want something, you better build it yourself. No app store. No updates. Just manuals, trial, error, and a lot of swearing.
Kids today tap glass and call it skill. We had to earn our fun. We had to know why things worked. Or didn’t. That old C64 wasn’t just a computer. It was a gateway drug to obsession, independence, and the kind of problem-solving you can’t download.
If you know, you know. If you don’t, start with Commodore and dig into BBS. That’s where the real internet started.
Ordained Pastafarian minister. Spy vs. Spy fiend. Tech-tinkering, people-dodging geocacher with punk roots and hard-earned dev chops. Runs Mad Cow Social Labs.
I make my own writing prompts because WordPress and Jetpack keep recycling the same tired questions. I pull mine from real life, irritation, and whatever won’t shut up in my head. If it’s boring, it’s dead. The results end up here:
Brave is essentially just Chrome with an adblocker, a bunch of bloatware, and a bunch of controversies.
Brave took BAT donations in YouTuber's names without their consent, with them keeping the money if the YouTubers didn't claim it. davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2…
Brave's search engine crawler hides itself from websites by pretending to be Googlebot, and Meta (Facebook) buys API access from them to train their AI. stackdiary.com/brave-selling-c…
The business model of Brave rewards as a whole is to block all other ad networks to replace them with their own, which is unfair as only YouTubers and websites that have joined can make money from most Brave users.
If Brave actually cared, they would create an acceptable ads style featur
... show more
Brave is essentially just Chrome with an adblocker, a bunch of bloatware, and a bunch of controversies.
Brave took BAT donations in YouTuber's names without their consent, with them keeping the money if the YouTubers didn't claim it. davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2…
Brave's search engine crawler hides itself from websites by pretending to be Googlebot, and Meta (Facebook) buys API access from them to train their AI. stackdiary.com/brave-selling-c…
The business model of Brave rewards as a whole is to block all other ad networks to replace them with their own, which is unfair as only YouTubers and websites that have joined can make money from most Brave users.
If Brave actually cared, they would create an acceptable ads style feature which was free for everyone and allowed simple contextual banners while blocking ads which track you, take up most of the page, or have NSFW content.
Their approach is monopolistic as they have full control and can strangle YouTubers and websites by dropping pay at any time.
And Brenden Eich has said on Twitter that he plans to release "Brave Origin", which is a paid version of Brave without the bloatware. That name is ironic as he is admitting that his browser is commercialised and bloated, which is similar to when gorhill gave uBlock way to Chris Aljoudi who commercialised it, which led him to create uBlock Origin.
If you use Brave, ditch it and look at using Librewolf or Helium instead, which both include no ads nor tracking and don't have Brave News, Rewards, Wallet, Talk etc bloatware.
I'm fairly certain that I was not the only person in the world who thought to himself, "Did they just yoink the entire Internet and bundle it together into a
Do people realize that if Firefox dies (in the many ways that could be interpreted), all of these downstream forks will also die right?
Like, the work to in essence remove unwanted parts of a code base is admirable but its an utterly miniscule fraction of the work that goes into maintaining a modern browser, keeping up with standards, sending people to be voices at conventions, etc.
The beauty of open source projects is that if they are abandoned, other people can pick them back up. Sure it may be difficult, but if it wasn't FOSS it wouldn't even be possible.
Thats the beauty to silly idealists who pretend they can't understand that hundreds of employees getting paid full time wont materialize out of thin air to keep a massive project like a web browser alive in the absence of that structure.
"Asking for representation is a purity test and you should feel bad for thinking of it. Your vote is simultaneously not worth consideration but also if you (the person entirely unrepresented by the electoral system) dont vote for people who don't represent you at all, worse people will be elected and its entirely 100% your fault! No we will not change the voting system to allow more then two parties to exist without a spoiler effect. Yes we will howl every election about the spoiler effect we refuse to fix, even in deep blue states. Fuck you. Fuck you forever. I hate you and i hope you and your people die. Now vote for who I want and smile really big and pretend this is a democracy!"
Did I miss any talking points blue conservatives? See yall during the midterms should they happen.
The things he's complaining about all seem like good features for a group with voluntary membership. Its only when membership is compulsory that those kinds of things become bad.
It's one thing to have reactionary, bigotry and imperial propaganda removed and have a reason provided and it's another to poorly implement a social credit score into your frontend and never have a clue in the first place. Why don't they just go back to reddit where you have that already instead of reinventing the wheel?
So then why redo the features that a centralized, closed-sources and for profit shit hole has? Sounds pretty authoritarian to me to do that and not trust a community mod team
Also this seems relevant to undersrand those fed libs:
PieFed was created explicitly because the people that made it were uncomfortable working with communist devs. They actively develop a competing platform that smells like it was cooked up by feds to silence dissenting voices. People like you that keep pushing this line defending the extremely egregious actions of the PieFed devs makes you very suspect.
PieFed is literally the opposite of decentralized by including baked in blockage of the original developers of the platform they are building off of. You are actively using the work of communists to do anti-communist fed shit. You should be ashamed of yourself.
you know what else is nonprofit and "decentralized"? OSINT and the fucking NEDa and USAID which are CIA cutouts.
No on PieFed you only have your comments shadow hidden by a user blocking you for making them uncomfortable for calling out their liberalism/racism/fascism.
You don't have a fucking leg to stand on here you piece of shit.
Marxism is scientific truth and fears no criticism. If it did, and if it could be overthrown by criticism, it would be worthless. In fact, aren’t the idealists criticizing Marxism every day and in every way? And those who harbour bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas and do not wish to change — aren’t they also criticizing Marxism in every way? Marxists should not be afraid of criticism from any quarter. Quite the contrary, they need to temper and develop themselves and win new positions in the teeth of criticism and in the storm and stress of struggle. Fighting against wrong ideas is like being vaccinated — a man develops greater immunity from disease as a result of vaccination. − Mao
The comment is about PieFed, whose developer is the kind of person who posts on thought policing communities like Meanwhile On Grad, globally tracks your score and restricts your account. It also has some features to drop messages that seem like a good idea but will certainly be used by a coordinated liberal order to silence leftists.
Donald Trump’s latest executive order allows the U.S. to impose additional tariffs on countries that ship oil to Cuba, deepening the economic siege on the island.
The result isn’t abstract policy. It’s collective punishment: blackouts, long gas lines, delayed medical care and families struggling to get through the day.
We’re in Havana asking Cubans about the new measures and about what life looks like when fuel, electricity and transportation begin to disappear.
Cuba has already been suffering increasing fuel shortages since the U.S. blocked all oil going to the island from Venezuela. In recent weeks, power outages in Havana have increased.
Donald Trump’s latest executive order allows the U.S. to impose additional tariffs on countries that ship oil to Cuba, deepening the economic siege on the island. The result isn’t abstract policy. ...
Donald Trump’s latest executive order allows the U.S. to impose additional tariffs on countries that ship oil to Cuba, deepening the economic siege on the island.
The result isn’t abstract policy. It’s collective punishment: blackouts, long gas lines, delayed medical care and families struggling to get through the day.
We’re in Havana asking Cubans about the new measures and about what life looks like when fuel, electricity and transportation begin to disappear.
Cuba has already been suffering increasing fuel shortages since the U.S. blocked all oil going to the island from Venezuela. In recent weeks, power outages in Havana have increased.
Donald Trump’s latest executive order allows the U.S. to impose additional tariffs on countries that ship oil to Cuba, deepening the economic siege on the island.
The result isn’t abstract policy. It’s collective punishment: blackouts, long gas lines, delayed medical care and families struggling to get through the day.
We’re in Havana asking Cubans about the new measures and about what life looks like when fuel, electricity and transportation begin to disappear.
Cuba has already been suffering increasing fuel shortages since the U.S. blocked all oil going to the island from Venezuela. In recent weeks, power outages in Havana have increased.
Video - How Do Cubans Feel About Trump’s Oil Blockade?
Donald Trump’s latest executive order allows the U.S. to impose additional tariffs on countries that ship oil to Cuba, deepening the economic siege on the island.
The result isn’t abstract policy. It’s collective punishment: blackouts, long gas lines, delayed medical care and families struggling to get through the day.
We’re in Havana asking Cubans about the new measures and about what life looks like when fuel, electricity and transportation begin to disappear.
Cuba has already been suffering increasing fuel shortages since the U.S. blocked all oil going to the island from Venezuela. In recent weeks, power outages in Havana have increased.
Donald Trump’s latest executive order allows the U.S. to impose additional tariffs on countries that ship oil to Cuba, deepening the economic siege on the island. The result isn’t abstract policy. ...
Of course most of the events I'm interested in are broadcast at ridiculous times of day, which makes sense given the time difference. Does anyone know where a guy might find recordings, or at least a livestream? FMHY has lots of TV links, I'm sure I'll be able to find some stuff there, but I'm hopeful that somebody more intelligent than I am is also interested and has a better plan than I do.
Sidenote: what events are y'all looking forward to? I'm excited about Ski Mountaineering, and I think there's a Freeride Ski event as well!
You can get yourself a one-month iptv sub, and put ott on your android tv device, probably put you out 10 to 15 bucks. Most will have a dedicated olympics set of channels that rebroadcast events during USA prime time hours. Also maybe pick up a Peacock sub for a month and enjoy the show.
Yea, a subscription might be the easiest way. I would love a way to capture the video to my drive, is that the ott route? I don't have an android tv box and have heard of it. IPTV is definitely a good suggestion that I hadn't considered, do you have any recommendations?
Walmart has a $20 Onn android box. Ott is the iptv app. Those cheap boxes only have a couple gigs of storage so recording is not really an option. As far as providers, I've used layer seven a few times with decent results. A couple web searches will turn up some good reviews of iptv providers.
There's a great Android TV app called Tivimate. You can record shows to a hard drive attached to the Android box.
If you're in the USA (or maybe Canada?), the Walmart Onn 4K is a very good device for the price ($30). The Nvidia Shield Pro ($200) is more premium. I have two of them.
The best IPTV services are secretive and require an invite from an existing user. The one I use hasn't accepted new customers for a few years, so unfortunately I can't refer you.
Audiences can watch on CBC and the free CBC Gem streaming service. Once launched, CBC’s website, cbc.ca/milanocortina2026, will offer full event schedules, results, highlights, athlete profiles daily updates and more.
For those in other countries, check who is broadcasting locally and you might be able to access it for free through official channels
IntroductionThe negative externalities of conventional meat production are driving a search for sustainable alternative proteins. Cultivated meat (CM) is one...
kamenlady
in reply to Salamence • • •... the president ... pedophile ... girls FTW ... thank you good sir ... i've heard there's a party ...
Why aren't all these criminals in jail?
Fecundpossum
in reply to kamenlady • • •Didntdoit71
in reply to kamenlady • • •orca
in reply to Salamence • • •ComRed [none/use name]
in reply to Salamence • • •Skullgrid
in reply to Salamence • • •Diva (she/her)
in reply to Skullgrid • • •