
Under military rule, Venezuela oil workers quit in a stampede - kimsk112
https://www.msn.com/en-us/finance/markets/under-military-rule-venezuela-oil-workers-quit-in-a-stampede/ar-AAvYyRS?ffid=gz
======
partycoder
CGP Grey explains how dictators work:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs)

When the collaboration of the citizens is not required to generate wealth,
dictators emerge. For Venezuela, it's oil.

We are also seeing how technology is generating enough wealth and power to
allow tech companies to compete against society. Today, it's tracking people
for advertising purposes, tomorrow it could be a mass surveillance at the
scale of what is emerging in China.

~~~
philwelch
This is also part of why there are only two oil-rich liberal democracies, and
a contributing factor to the resource curse:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse)

(Norway and Canada.)

~~~
lobster_johnson
Also USA, Brazil, Mexico, the UK, Colombia, Ecuador... there are more, but it
depends on what you mean by "oil-rich". Ecuador, for example, produces less
oil than Norway, but its oil production is a higher percentage of their GDP.

~~~
philwelch
I define "oil-rich" in such a way that oil revenue is the dominant part of the
economy. This would exclude the US and UK, for instance. (In fact, not even
Canada might qualify by this metric.)

Of course, this is almost tautological, since any liberal democracy worth its
salt ends up with an economy that does a lot more than simple resource
extraction.

I would have to research the other Western Hemisphere examples you mention,
though with the levels of corruption and often outright civil war in many of
them, I would question whether they qualify as "liberal democracies" (or
perhaps I should add the qualifier, "stable").

------
Aloha
I've been waiting for a revolution there for a long time.

I dont know when or if it will come.

~~~
firekvz
what do you mean by revolution? there has been 2 already.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2014_Venezuela...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2014_Venezuelan_protests)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2017_Venezuela...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2017_Venezuelan_protests)

Theres nothing much we can do, guns vs stones.

People realized is easier to leave the country than figthing this.

~~~
viggity
and this is why I am grateful we have the 2nd Amendment. Sure, you can't match
a tank head to head, but the past 50 years of insurgencies show that you don't
need to go head to head to still come out on top.

~~~
distances
Can you mention some insurrection where armed protestants won over a well-
equipped state? Even in Syria the serious opposition was due to outside heavy
armament supplies and looting of army materiel. For me this reasoning for the
2nd amendment comes out only as a power fantasy which, if it was to actually
play out, would simply leave the country worse off (versus unviolent
opposition that may need outside support to succeed over a longer term).

Finally, even in the unlikely case that a revolution was successful, it would
be unlikely to promote liberty but rather just install another autocratic
ruling class [1].

[1]
[http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1043463970090030...](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/104346397009003004)

~~~
mieseratte
Vietnam? Afghanistan isn't over, but it isn't exactly a bastion of stability.

Syria is a highly-complex environment, but it more closely resembles a
traditional "take-and-hold territory" war. ISIS needed territory to fulfill
their caliphate, for instance.

Should another insurrection occur in the US, I would assume it would resemble
an insurgency rather than a proper war. You're not going to see a company of
modern-day Johnny Reb's parade through your town. You're going to see
bombings, assassinations, and destruction of critical infrastructure by what
one could reasonably call a terrorist... or freedom fighter.

The 2A making it such that small arms and ammunition are distributed so
thoroughly makes it hard for a tyrant to take hold and thrive. If you live
amongst the jackboots, then you can hit them when they're vulnerable.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Vietnam?

The Viet Minh had substantial outside support in its successful campaigns (the
allies against Japan in WWII, and then the PRC against France in the First
Indochina War), the Viet Cong were crushed even with substantial outside
support, and the NVA weren't anti-government insurgents, so unless you mean
something in Vietnam _other than_ the conflict of the 1940s through 1970s, I
don't think it counts.

~~~
mieseratte
> the Viet Cong were crushed even with substantial outside support

I'm as pro-US as they come, but The Tet Offensive, of which the Viet Cong
played a crucial role, was crucial in breaking the will of the American
populace to support the war leading to its end. I'd call that a pretty
successful insurgent group.

Would they have won as quickly, or as soon as they did without the NVA? Who
knows, maybe they would have broken the will or maybe it would have been the
United States' Afghanistan.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I'm as pro-US as they come,

Being pro-US has nothing to do with it; as you might note in my other
comments, I've made a similar argument against the _US_ revolution being an
example of an insurgent group being independently successful against a well-
equipped national force.

> but The Tet Offensive, of which the Viet Cong played a crucial role, was
> crucial in breaking the will of the American populace to support the war
> leading to its end. I'd call that a pretty successful insurgent group.

They had massive outside support the whole time, even before Tet, and the VC
was essentially gone after the Tet Offensive. Sure, it was important in
breaking US will to continue the war, but without the NVA taking up the main
battle after Tet, there would have been no war to continue.

Yes, for an insurgent group, the VC was relatively successful; that
underscores that insurgent groups almost invariably succeed, if at all, with
either massive defection from the military of the regime they are fighting or
massive outside support, or both.

~~~
mieseratte
> Being pro-US has nothing to do with it;

I'm noting that as to avoid the assertion that I'm somehow being revisionist
to make a favorable point as is en vogue.

> They had massive outside support the whole time, even before Tet

Being ignorant of the details, what level of support did they receive?
Training? Small arms? Heavy ordnance?

> Yes, for an insurgent group, the VC was relatively successful; that
> underscores that insurgent groups almost invariably succeed, if at all, with
> either massive defection from the military of the regime they are fighting
> or massive outside support, or both.

Ultimately and per my original point, this is all an apples-oranges-comparison
taken past the point of relevance. The common thread to both is the question,
can you bleed an army to the point of withdrawl / end of conflict in your
favor? The answer is yes, but the question then becomes can we and what would
be required?

You assert this is only possible with external assistance, but to my original
point the widespread proliferation of arms, ammunition, and military training
the United States would position an insurgent force to not require external
supply or training. The exception to this may be the category of "destructive
devices."

------
anonymous5133
Wonder if this will hurt production?

