I remember when download managers were invaluable. Leaving a download running overnight on trailer park internet, only to find in the morning that it had failed. Soul-crushing.
Fem personer har åtalats vid Luleå tingsrätt för grov ekonomisk brottslighet. Bland åtalspunkterna återfinns grov trolöshet mot huvudman, grova penningtvättsbrott, grovt tagande och givande av muta, medhjälp till grovt tagande av muta samt grova bokföringsbrott. blog.zaramis.se/2026/02/01/ata…
Project Genie evades all that and handles these building blocks itself, but remember that it doesn't actually build games, per se. When you ask it to make a clone of Super Mario 64, it will dupe it rather impressively, but all you get is basic movement with a free camera that can look around the map. There are no objectives, and the AI often forgets what it has already generated when filling in gaps.
Honest to shit the rate at which writing written as warning is turning into writing-as-instruction manual is really starting to fuck with my head right here:
I literally read this short story in… I think it was Asimov’s? Could’ve been Analog but I think it was Asimov’s. Circa 1992 or something. Don’t remember much of anything about it other than they were training an AI by shredding and destroying library after library and it was a huge deal.
That was it, though. That was the entire plot.
Kinda wish these fuckers would, idk, watch The Black Hole and ride a giant spaceship into an event horizon right about now, don’t you?
"an entire year of people being ILLEGALLY deported or disappeared" true, state violence against anyone is only okay when it's done legally, with due process and for the good of the national people's
Like I've said before, expecting empathy was just silly, these people and their ancestors have been empire-building forever and, if they express any moral values, don't think of them as anything but decorative disinfo cause what they really believe in is "might makes right"... There's always one here and there, the thinking dissidents with moral frameworks like miss Greta, Francesca Albanese and John Brown but not a plurality. Selfish fear? Now that we can trust, lol.
So if I'm the wrong skin color and have past relatives who didn't do anything that made a change, I can't participate in doing something now? If we could find a movement that had all the morality of the progressives while having the right's trait to let anyone join who agrees with the cause, we might have something that works. It seems to be a leftist thing to gatekeep anyone who tries to help.
I never get the "we were doing it first" toxicity. Why should it matter why the newcomers were ignorant if they want to join the cause? Why create new enemies just to protect your "pure" reasons? That kind of separationism is exactly what keeps the ones you should focus on in power, and they want it that way. A divided resistance will fail.
Because the majority of “leftists” are exclusively online and their entire lives revolve around internet points derived from having the best and purest ideologies
The PATRIOT Act was a fucking power grab, and obviously was in place in case a crisis came into play. No way something that couldn't be read in that short a time before approval was written that fast.
Its the cop-in-your-brain, which is of course all of the propaganda of the fascists. This is exactly what they want, and their choice rhetoric has worked its way into the leftist spaces to an extent
It really was muddled through while Iraq was being drummed up, too. I remember working a protest in 2003 and there being this talk about DHS implementing fascism. At the time I felt the impending war was more important topic, not quite realizing how interconnected it all was.
Maybe I'm just mostly in lefty circles, but who the fuck wasn't mad until Renee Goode and Alex Pretti? I've been seeing constant rage against ice for a couple of years now atleast.
No, you're right, plenty were mad before too. There seems to be a new push lately on trying to make this a race issue to divide the left. I've seen a major uptick in this framing lately.
The Sao Paulo Forum condemned the new measure imposed by the US administration against Cuba on Friday, January 30, calling it “absurd coercion.”
[...]
The measure responds to an executive order signed by the US president declaring a national emergency and establishing tariffs on goods from countries that sell or supply oil to Cuba.
This action represents an intensification of the blockade, which has lasted for more than six decades, and is part of Washington’s maximum pressure policy against the island, justified under false pretenses of US national security interests and foreign policy.
Faced with this scenario, the Sao Paulo Forum called on defenders of the sovereignty of nations to act immediately in defense of Cuba.
The Sao Paulo Forum condemned the new measure imposed by the US administration against Cuba on Friday, January 30, calling it “absurd coercion.”
[...]
The measure responds to an executive order signed by the US president declaring a national emergency and establishing tariffs on goods from countries that sell or supply oil to Cuba.
This action represents an intensification of the blockade, which has lasted for more than six decades, and is part of Washington’s maximum pressure policy against the island, justified under false pretenses of US national security interests and foreign policy.
Faced with this scenario, the Sao Paulo Forum called on defenders of the sovereignty of nations to act immediately in defense of Cuba.
The Sao Paulo Forum condemned the new measure imposed by the US administration against Cuba on Friday, January 30, calling it “absurd coercion.”
[...]
The measure responds to an executive order signed by the US president declaring a national emergency and establishing tariffs on goods from countries that sell or supply oil to Cuba.
This action represents an intensification of the blockade, which has lasted for more than six decades, and is part of Washington’s maximum pressure policy against the island, justified under false pretenses of US national security interests and foreign policy.
Faced with this scenario, the Sao Paulo Forum called on defenders of the sovereignty of nations to act immediately in defense of Cuba.
Sao Paulo Forum Calls for Defense of Cuba Against Trump’s Coercion
Snip:
The Sao Paulo Forum condemned the new measure imposed by the US administration against Cuba on Friday, January 30, calling it “absurd coercion.”
[...]
The measure responds to an executive order signed by the US president declaring a national emergency and establishing tariffs on goods from countries that sell or supply oil to Cuba.
This action represents an intensification of the blockade, which has lasted for more than six decades, and is part of Washington’s maximum pressure policy against the island, justified under false pretenses of US national security interests and foreign policy.
Faced with this scenario, the Sao Paulo Forum called on defenders of the sovereignty of nations to act immediately in defense of Cuba.
Iran will defend its people decisively if it is pushed to war, reiterated Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Thursday, January 29, after American President Donald Trump’s repeated ultimatums and threats of military strikes in the country.
“If the American side is truly seeking negotiations and genuine diplomacy it must abandon provocative and escalatory measures and demonstrate in practice its commitment to the path of dialogue,” Pezeshkian told his Pakistani counterparts, Shehbaz Sherif and Qatari Sheikh Hamad Bin Thani, during separate phone conversations.
After softening his initial threats of military strikes over the Iranian crackdown of nationwide protests earlier, Trump renewed his threats against Iran this week despite widespread opposition to any such move expressed by the leaders from the Middle East region over the fears of wider regional consequences.
In a social media post
... show more
Iran will defend its people decisively if it is pushed to war, reiterated Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Thursday, January 29, after American President Donald Trump’s repeated ultimatums and threats of military strikes in the country.
“If the American side is truly seeking negotiations and genuine diplomacy it must abandon provocative and escalatory measures and demonstrate in practice its commitment to the path of dialogue,” Pezeshkian told his Pakistani counterparts, Shehbaz Sherif and Qatari Sheikh Hamad Bin Thani, during separate phone conversations.
After softening his initial threats of military strikes over the Iranian crackdown of nationwide protests earlier, Trump renewed his threats against Iran this week despite widespread opposition to any such move expressed by the leaders from the Middle East region over the fears of wider regional consequences.
In a social media post on Wednesday, Trump asked Iran to submit to his demand and make a deal on “no nuclear weapons”, immediately claiming “time is running out”. He threatened that if Iran fails to comply with the demands the strikes this time would be “far worse” than the strikes in June.
Iran responded to the threats made by Trump warning that its responses to aggression inside the country would not be limited and all American assets in the region, including the warships and Israel, would be targeted.
No talks under threats of war
During a press conference on Thursday, Trump repeated his threats while also expressing his willingness to talk.
“We have a lot of very big, very powerful ships sailing to the region right now. Hopefully, we don’t have to use it,” Reuters reported Trump telling the press on Thursday.
Iran has maintained, for years now, that it has no intention to have nuclear weapons and its nuclear program is for peaceful civilian purposes only. It has also expressed its openness for dialogue on the issue, however, refusing to talk under threats of war.
Pezeshkian reiterated on Thursday that his country believes in “dignified diplomacy based on international laws, mutual respect, avoidance of threats and coercion and pursuit of win-win outcomes.”
Changes of a successful diplomacy between Iran and the US have also gone down since the inclusion of fresh demands. Apart from asking Iran to denounce any nuclear ambitions the Trump administration also wants it to agree to restrictions on its ballistic missiles programs and end all support to its regional allies identified as “proxies”.
Regional diplomacy
After Pezeshkian’s conversations with his Pakistani counterpart and Qatari Sheikh, similar phone conversations were held by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi with his counterparts in several other countries in the region and neighborhood, including Turkey and Egypt on Thursday and Friday.
The US has military bases in most of these countries. Iran has declared that in case it is attacked these bases would become legitimate targets of Iranian retaliation.
Several of these countries including Saudi Arabia and UAE have already declared they will not allow their territories to be used in any military strike against Iran.
Meanwhile, Araghchi traveled to Turkey to discuss the issue with his Turkish counterpart, Hakan Fidan, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Friday.
Most of the countries in the region, including Turkey have opposed possible US military aggression against Iran claiming that would have larger regional consequences. They have called for political resolution of differences instead.
EU sanctions
Meanwhile, close US ally European Union (EU) imposed fresh sanctions on several Iranian officials and designated its Islamic Revolutionary Guard’s Corp as a “terrorist organization” on Thursday.
The EU accused the individuals and IRGC of “serious human rights violations” and “killing thousands of protesters” during the recent nationwide protests.
Iran has called the EU’s move “spiteful, hasty and desperate” and “legally inconsistent with international law.”
Over 3,100 Iranians, including civilians and security forces, were killed during weeks-long protests which began over rising economic hardships in the country. Iran claims the protests were hijacked by foreign elements backed by Israel and the US seeking regime change in the country.
Reacting to the EU’s sanctions on Thursday, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian parliament questioned their understanding of terrorism, claiming the IRGC is “one of the strongest and most effective anti-terrorism forces in the world.”
He also claimed that “only those who stand with terrorism deny the IRGC’s record in combating Daesh” or ISIS as it is commonly known and warned that support of terrorism will bring nothing but regret to the European countries, IRNAreported.
The EU has already imposed several sanctions on Iranian entities over Iran’s alleged violations of, now expired nuclear deal, its alleged supply of weapons to Russia and its human rights violations.
Iran will defend its people decisively if it is pushed to war, reiterated Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Thursday, January 29, after American President Donald Trump’s repeated ultimatums and threats of military strikes in the country.
“If the American side is truly seeking negotiations and genuine diplomacy it must abandon provocative and escalatory measures and demonstrate in practice its commitment to the path of dialogue,” Pezeshkian told his Pakistani counterparts, Shehbaz Sherif and Qatari Sheikh Hamad Bin Thani, during separate phone conversations.
After softening his initial threats of military strikes over the Iranian crackdown of nationwide protests earlier, Trump renewed his threats against Iran this week despit
Iran will defend its people decisively if it is pushed to war, reiterated Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Thursday, January 29, after American President Donald Trump’s repeated ultimatums and threats of military strikes in the country.
“If the American side is truly seeking negotiations and genuine diplomacy it must abandon provocative and escalatory measures and demonstrate in practice its commitment to the path of dialogue,” Pezeshkian told his Pakistani counterparts, Shehbaz Sherif and Qatari Sheikh Hamad Bin Thani, during separate phone conversations.
After softening his initial threats of military strikes over the Iranian crackdown of nationwide protests earlier, Trump renewed his threats against Iran this week despite widespread opposition to any such move expressed by the leaders from the Middle East region over the fears of wider regional consequences.
In a social media post on Wednesday, Trump asked Iran to submit to his demand and make a deal on “no nuclear weapons”, immediately claiming “time is running out”. He threatened that if Iran fails to comply with the demands the strikes this time would be “far worse” than the strikes in June.
Iran responded to the threats made by Trump warning that its responses to aggression inside the country would not be limited and all American assets in the region, including the warships and Israel, would be targeted.
No talks under threats of war
During a press conference on Thursday, Trump repeated his threats while also expressing his willingness to talk.
“We have a lot of very big, very powerful ships sailing to the region right now. Hopefully, we don’t have to use it,” Reuters reported Trump telling the press on Thursday.
Iran has maintained, for years now, that it has no intention to have nuclear weapons and its nuclear program is for peaceful civilian purposes only. It has also expressed its openness for dialogue on the issue, however, refusing to talk under threats of war.
Pezeshkian reiterated on Thursday that his country believes in “dignified diplomacy based on international laws, mutual respect, avoidance of threats and coercion and pursuit of win-win outcomes.”
Changes of a successful diplomacy between Iran and the US have also gone down since the inclusion of fresh demands. Apart from asking Iran to denounce any nuclear ambitions the Trump administration also wants it to agree to restrictions on its ballistic missiles programs and end all support to its regional allies identified as “proxies”.
Regional diplomacy
After Pezeshkian’s conversations with his Pakistani counterpart and Qatari Sheikh, similar phone conversations were held by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi with his counterparts in several other countries in the region and neighborhood, including Turkey and Egypt on Thursday and Friday.
The US has military bases in most of these countries. Iran has declared that in case it is attacked these bases would become legitimate targets of Iranian retaliation.
Several of these countries including Saudi Arabia and UAE have already declared they will not allow their territories to be used in any military strike against Iran.
Meanwhile, Araghchi traveled to Turkey to discuss the issue with his Turkish counterpart, Hakan Fidan, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Friday.
Most of the countries in the region, including Turkey have opposed possible US military aggression against Iran claiming that would have larger regional consequences. They have called for political resolution of differences instead.
EU sanctions
Meanwhile, close US ally European Union (EU) imposed fresh sanctions on several Iranian officials and designated its Islamic Revolutionary Guard’s Corp as a “terrorist organization” on Thursday.
The EU accused the individuals and IRGC of “serious human rights violations” and “killing thousands of protesters” during the recent nationwide protests.
Iran has called the EU’s move “spiteful, hasty and desperate” and “legally inconsistent with international law.”
Over 3,100 Iranians, including civilians and security forces, were killed during weeks-long protests which began over rising economic hardships in the country. Iran claims the protests were hijacked by foreign elements backed by Israel and the US seeking regime change in the country.
Reacting to the EU’s sanctions on Thursday, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian parliament questioned their understanding of terrorism, claiming the IRGC is “one of the strongest and most effective anti-terrorism forces in the world.”
He also claimed that “only those who stand with terrorism deny the IRGC’s record in combating Daesh” or ISIS as it is commonly known and warned that support of terrorism will bring nothing but regret to the European countries, IRNAreported.
The EU has already imposed several sanctions on Iranian entities over Iran’s alleged violations of, now expired nuclear deal, its alleged supply of weapons to Russia and its human rights violations.
Iran says if attacked militarily, its response will not be “limited”
Iran will defend its people decisively if it is pushed to war, reiterated Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Thursday, January 29, after American President Donald Trump’s repeated ultimatums and threats of military strikes in the country.
“If the American side is truly seeking negotiations and genuine diplomacy it must abandon provocative and escalatory measures and demonstrate in practice its commitment to the path of dialogue,” Pezeshkian told his Pakistani counterparts, Shehbaz Sherif and Qatari Sheikh Hamad Bin Thani, during separate phone conversations.
After softening his initial threats of military strikes over the Iranian crackdown of nationwide protests earlier, Trump renewed his threats against Iran this week despite widespread opposition to any such move expressed by the leaders from the Middle East region over the fears of wider regional consequences.
In a social media post on Wednesday, Trump asked Iran to submit to his demand and make a deal on “no nuclear weapons”, immediately claiming “time is running out”. He threatened that if Iran fails to comply with the demands the strikes this time would be “far worse” than the strikes in June.
Iran responded to the threats made by Trump warning that its responses to aggression inside the country would not be limited and all American assets in the region, including the warships and Israel, would be targeted.
No talks under threats of war
During a press conference on Thursday, Trump repeated his threats while also expressing his willingness to talk.
“We have a lot of very big, very powerful ships sailing to the region right now. Hopefully, we don’t have to use it,” Reuters reported Trump telling the press on Thursday.
Iran has maintained, for years now, that it has no intention to have nuclear weapons and its nuclear program is for peaceful civilian purposes only. It has also expressed its openness for dialogue on the issue, however, refusing to talk under threats of war.
Pezeshkian reiterated on Thursday that his country believes in “dignified diplomacy based on international laws, mutual respect, avoidance of threats and coercion and pursuit of win-win outcomes.”
Changes of a successful diplomacy between Iran and the US have also gone down since the inclusion of fresh demands. Apart from asking Iran to denounce any nuclear ambitions the Trump administration also wants it to agree to restrictions on its ballistic missiles programs and end all support to its regional allies identified as “proxies”.
Regional diplomacy
After Pezeshkian’s conversations with his Pakistani counterpart and Qatari Sheikh, similar phone conversations were held by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi with his counterparts in several other countries in the region and neighborhood, including Turkey and Egypt on Thursday and Friday.
The US has military bases in most of these countries. Iran has declared that in case it is attacked these bases would become legitimate targets of Iranian retaliation.
Several of these countries including Saudi Arabia and UAE have already declared they will not allow their territories to be used in any military strike against Iran.
Meanwhile, Araghchi traveled to Turkey to discuss the issue with his Turkish counterpart, Hakan Fidan, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Friday.
Most of the countries in the region, including Turkey have opposed possible US military aggression against Iran claiming that would have larger regional consequences. They have called for political resolution of differences instead.
EU sanctions
Meanwhile, close US ally European Union (EU) imposed fresh sanctions on several Iranian officials and designated its Islamic Revolutionary Guard’s Corp as a “terrorist organization” on Thursday.
The EU accused the individuals and IRGC of “serious human rights violations” and “killing thousands of protesters” during the recent nationwide protests.
Iran has called the EU’s move “spiteful, hasty and desperate” and “legally inconsistent with international law.”
Over 3,100 Iranians, including civilians and security forces, were killed during weeks-long protests which began over rising economic hardships in the country. Iran claims the protests were hijacked by foreign elements backed by Israel and the US seeking regime change in the country.
Reacting to the EU’s sanctions on Thursday, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian parliament questioned their understanding of terrorism, claiming the IRGC is “one of the strongest and most effective anti-terrorism forces in the world.”
He also claimed that “only those who stand with terrorism deny the IRGC’s record in combating Daesh” or ISIS as it is commonly known and warned that support of terrorism will bring nothing but regret to the European countries, IRNAreported.
The EU has already imposed several sanctions on Iranian entities over Iran’s alleged violations of, now expired nuclear deal, its alleged supply of weapons to Russia and its human rights violations.
Iran will defend its people decisively if it is pushed to war, reiterated Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Thursday, January 29, after American President Donald Trump’s repeated ultimatums and threats of military strikes in the country.
“If the American side is truly seeking negotiations and genuine diplomacy it must abandon provocative and escalatory measures and demonstrate in practice its commitment to the path of dialogue,” Pezeshkian told his Pakistani counterparts, Shehbaz Sherif and Qatari Sheikh Hamad Bin Thani, during separate phone conversations.
Iran will defend its people decisively if it is pushed to war, reiterated Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Thursday, January 29, after American President Donald Trump’s repeated ultimatums and threats of military strikes in the country.
“If the American side is truly seeking negotiations and genuine diplomacy it must abandon provocative and escalatory measures and demonstrate in practice its commitment to the path of dialogue,” Pezeshkian told his Pakistani counterparts, Shehbaz Sherif and Qatari Sheikh Hamad Bin Thani, during separate phone conversations.
After softening his initial threats of military strikes over the Iranian crackdown of nationwide protests earlier, Trump renewed his threats against Iran this week despite widespread opposition to any such move expressed by the leaders from the Middle East region over the fears of wider regional consequences.
In a social media post on Wednesday, Trump asked Iran to submit to his demand and make a deal on “no nuclear weapons”, immediately claiming “time is running out”. He threatened that if Iran fails to comply with the demands the strikes this time would be “far worse” than the strikes in June.
Iran responded to the threats made by Trump warning that its responses to aggression inside the country would not be limited and all American assets in the region, including the warships and Israel, would be targeted.
No talks under threats of war
During a press conference on Thursday, Trump repeated his threats while also expressing his willingness to talk.
“We have a lot of very big, very powerful ships sailing to the region right now. Hopefully, we don’t have to use it,” Reuters reported Trump telling the press on Thursday.
Iran has maintained, for years now, that it has no intention to have nuclear weapons and its nuclear program is for peaceful civilian purposes only. It has also expressed its openness for dialogue on the issue, however, refusing to talk under threats of war.
Pezeshkian reiterated on Thursday that his country believes in “dignified diplomacy based on international laws, mutual respect, avoidance of threats and coercion and pursuit of win-win outcomes.”
Changes of a successful diplomacy between Iran and the US have also gone down since the inclusion of fresh demands. Apart from asking Iran to denounce any nuclear ambitions the Trump administration also wants it to agree to restrictions on its ballistic missiles programs and end all support to its regional allies identified as “proxies”.
Regional diplomacy
After Pezeshkian’s conversations with his Pakistani counterpart and Qatari Sheikh, similar phone conversations were held by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi with his counterparts in several other countries in the region and neighborhood, including Turkey and Egypt on Thursday and Friday.
The US has military bases in most of these countries. Iran has declared that in case it is attacked these bases would become legitimate targets of Iranian retaliation.
Several of these countries including Saudi Arabia and UAE have already declared they will not allow their territories to be used in any military strike against Iran.
Meanwhile, Araghchi traveled to Turkey to discuss the issue with his Turkish counterpart, Hakan Fidan, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Friday.
Most of the countries in the region, including Turkey have opposed possible US military aggression against Iran claiming that would have larger regional consequences. They have called for political resolution of differences instead.
EU sanctions
Meanwhile, close US ally European Union (EU) imposed fresh sanctions on several Iranian officials and designated its Islamic Revolutionary Guard’s Corp as a “terrorist organization” on Thursday.
The EU accused the individuals and IRGC of “serious human rights violations” and “killing thousands of protesters” during the recent nationwide protests.
Iran has called the EU’s move “spiteful, hasty and desperate” and “legally inconsistent with international law.”
Over 3,100 Iranians, including civilians and security forces, were killed during weeks-long protests which began over rising economic hardships in the country. Iran claims the protests were hijacked by foreign elements backed by Israel and the US seeking regime change in the country.
Reacting to the EU’s sanctions on Thursday, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian parliament questioned their understanding of terrorism, claiming the IRGC is “one of the strongest and most effective anti-terrorism forces in the world.”
He also claimed that “only those who stand with terrorism deny the IRGC’s record in combating Daesh” or ISIS as it is commonly known and warned that support of terrorism will bring nothing but regret to the European countries, IRNAreported.
The EU has already imposed several sanctions on Iranian entities over Iran’s alleged violations of, now expired nuclear deal, its alleged supply of weapons to Russia and its human rights violations.
Iran will defend its people decisively if it is pushed to war, reiterated Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Thursday, January 29, after American President Donald Trump’s repeated ultimatums and threats of military strikes in the country.
“If the American side is truly seeking negotiations and genuine diplomacy it must abandon provocative and escalatory measures and demonstrate in practice its commitment to the path of dialogue,” Pezeshkian told his Pakistani counterparts, Shehbaz Sherif and Qatari Sheikh Hamad Bin Thani, during separate phone conversations.
After softening his initial threats of military strikes over the Iranian crackdown of nationwide protests earlier, Trump renewed his threats against Iran this week despite widespread opposition to any such move expressed by the leaders from the Middle East region over the fears of wider regional consequences.
In a social media post on Wednesday, Trump asked Iran to submit to his demand and make a deal on “no nuclear weapons”, immediately claiming “time is running out”. He threatened that if Iran fails to comply with the demands the strikes this time would be “far worse” than the strikes in June.
Iran responded to the threats made by Trump warning that its responses to aggression inside the country would not be limited and all American assets in the region, including the warships and Israel, would be targeted.
No talks under threats of war
During a press conference on Thursday, Trump repeated his threats while also expressing his willingness to talk.
“We have a lot of very big, very powerful ships sailing to the region right now. Hopefully, we don’t have to use it,” Reuters reported Trump telling the press on Thursday.
Iran has maintained, for years now, that it has no intention to have nuclear weapons and its nuclear program is for peaceful civilian purposes only. It has also expressed its openness for dialogue on the issue, however, refusing to talk under threats of war.
Pezeshkian reiterated on Thursday that his country believes in “dignified diplomacy based on international laws, mutual respect, avoidance of threats and coercion and pursuit of win-win outcomes.”
Changes of a successful diplomacy between Iran and the US have also gone down since the inclusion of fresh demands. Apart from asking Iran to denounce any nuclear ambitions the Trump administration also wants it to agree to restrictions on its ballistic missiles programs and end all support to its regional allies identified as “proxies”.
Regional diplomacy
After Pezeshkian’s conversations with his Pakistani counterpart and Qatari Sheikh, similar phone conversations were held by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi with his counterparts in several other countries in the region and neighborhood, including Turkey and Egypt on Thursday and Friday.
The US has military bases in most of these countries. Iran has declared that in case it is attacked these bases would become legitimate targets of Iranian retaliation.
Several of these countries including Saudi Arabia and UAE have already declared they will not allow their territories to be used in any military strike against Iran.
Meanwhile, Araghchi traveled to Turkey to discuss the issue with his Turkish counterpart, Hakan Fidan, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Friday.
Most of the countries in the region, including Turkey have opposed possible US military aggression against Iran claiming that would have larger regional consequences. They have called for political resolution of differences instead.
EU sanctions
Meanwhile, close US ally European Union (EU) imposed fresh sanctions on several Iranian officials and designated its Islamic Revolutionary Guard’s Corp as a “terrorist organization” on Thursday.
The EU accused the individuals and IRGC of “serious human rights violations” and “killing thousands of protesters” during the recent nationwide protests.
Iran has called the EU’s move “spiteful, hasty and desperate” and “legally inconsistent with international law.”
Over 3,100 Iranians, including civilians and security forces, were killed during weeks-long protests which began over rising economic hardships in the country. Iran claims the protests were hijacked by foreign elements backed by Israel and the US seeking regime change in the country.
Reacting to the EU’s sanctions on Thursday, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian parliament questioned their understanding of terrorism, claiming the IRGC is “one of the strongest and most effective anti-terrorism forces in the world.”
He also claimed that “only those who stand with terrorism deny the IRGC’s record in combating Daesh” or ISIS as it is commonly known and warned that support of terrorism will bring nothing but regret to the European countries, IRNAreported.
The EU has already imposed several sanctions on Iranian entities over Iran’s alleged violations of, now expired nuclear deal, its alleged supply of weapons to Russia and its human rights violations.
How does this affect those nuclear deals where the price has been guaranteed for many years? We have a couple in UK. One of which isn’t even open yet. The price per KWh was set before it was built.
It would be deliciously ironic if solar ended up subsidising mothballed nuclear plants.
Well yes, so the taxpayer will subsidise everyone’s electric bill to pay the extortionate rate that was agreed upon.
The way China is going it could soon be so cheap that people will only pay a standing charge, and the electricity could actually be free. Like they promised with nuclear in the 60s.
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.
Sucks that they have to do this but whatever it takes to avoid US attacks. Unfortunately there's no magical defense system that can stop the US from destroying their infrastructure and killing people.
I wonder if Chinese companies will also be brought in, or if the US has told them no.
It's just so evil that this is basically the US saying "No, you are not allowed to develop your own resource extraction."
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.
potoooooooo ✅️
Unknown parent • • •1.) I found tons of great music through Tony Hawk's Pro Skater
2.) I'm a poser and assumed it was a RATM shirt. Was Rage a publication?
like this
Dessalines likes this.
potoooooooo ✅️
Unknown parent • • •potoooooooo ✅️
Unknown parent • • •potoooooooo ✅️
Unknown parent • • •doleo
in reply to potoooooooo ✅️ • • •like this
Dessalines likes this.
postnataldrip
Unknown parent • • •tetris11
in reply to potoooooooo ✅️ • • •orca
Unknown parent • • •moshtradamus666
in reply to potoooooooo ✅️ • • •like this
Dessalines likes this.
not_that_guy05
in reply to moshtradamus666 • • •hesh
in reply to potoooooooo ✅️ • • •like this
Dessalines likes this.
bruhbeans
in reply to potoooooooo ✅️ • • •Dessalines
in reply to potoooooooo ✅️ • • •