socialist dictator.

it's a bizarre abuse of language - a contradiction in terms, in fact. for, if you are a socialist, you cannot be a dictator, and if you are a dictator you cannot be a socialist. so, which is it? is he a socialist or is he a dictator?

in fact, maduro is neither a socialist, nor is he a dictator. maduro is an elected representative of the people, in a system with a broken opposition that doesn't appear to be interested in democracy. and, venezuela is a capitalist economy - albeit with a few social programs.

there's more socialism in denmark or mexico, or even in quebec, than there is in venezuela.

but trump needs a straw man to tear down, and the corporatists in the democratic party seem keen to let him have it.

but, let us not forget the truth that, elected as he may be in the context of a system as broken as the venezuelan's is, maduro is also completely incompetent. the man is a high school drop out. socialism does not mean idiocracy; a re-evaluation of the division of labour doesn't imply the elevation of ignorance. chavez was stupid to elevate him to power, but perhaps the point was that he was seen as too impotent to threaten him.

and, i, for one, am not any more on side with any kind of fawning support of maduro than i am with an invasion to overthrow him. my position here is non-intervention out of principle, not out of solidarity. my solidarity is with the peasants, who will be fucked over by whatever happens.

and, i actually agree that he should probably step down - due to the clarity of his own incompetence. but, that's not my choice.