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.
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.
miss phant
in reply to Salamence • • •