To me the position of "treason" put forward by others (and which Steve rejects) is the one that makes the least sense - it is impossible to imagine that the only thing stopping the entire Venezuelan leadership from "selling out" was Maduro remaining in power. Such positions are more driven by emotions and the unwillingness to accept that reality is driven by social forces, not individuals. In this sense, the Maduro = good/Delcy = bad crew are little different to the Chavez = good/Maduro = bad crew, even if they would obviously strongly disagree with this assertion and have different assessments of the past decade or so. The treason argument also ultimately ignores the strong continuities that exist between pre and post January 3 Venezuela, albeit under different conditions.
But defence of what is only increasingly indefensive is also not a great position either, and that is the position this article takes. Any talk about the impacts of imperialist intervention has to include acknowledgement of the possibility that such interventions can achieve its aims in various ways. Some view the fact that the PSUV remains in power as "proof" imperialist intervention has failed. This confuses form with content and ignores the possibility that interventions (whether seeking this or not) can also have the effect of transforming previous foes into vital allies. If we accept this possibility, then we have to ask ourselves when such a change/transformation has occurred. Looking at Venezuela today, the role the PSUV plays as neocolonial administrator,and the destruction of the Bolivarian revolution's base, it is self-evident that US intervention has been successful. Some will disagree, but then the question remains: at what point can we say the PSUV's project has not just failed but that the PSUV no longer represents what it once did? Is it simply the case that as long as it holds onto power, then not only is the PSUV succeeding but continues to warrant our political support, critical or otherwise? (To avoid confusion, I explicitly say "political support" here, because that is what Steve advocates towards what he deems a leftist government. I am not taking about not defending/"supporting" Venezuela against US imperialism, which would be the correct position even if the PSUV was as bad as the Taliban in Afghanistan) So far, the fact that the Maduro/Rodríguez governments opted to align with the capitalists against workers, rejected the majority's will by carrying out electoral fraud and destroyed the social fabric that was the base of the Bolivarian revolution has not been enough for supporters to say the PSUV has crossed the line. So, what is the actual line that needs to be crossed before withdrawing political support? Secondly, I don't buy the lesser evil line "but if they relinquish power we will have Pinochet" that is used to ignore or override any such red lines. First, because in economic policy terms, those implemented by the Maduro/Rodriguez government largely mean the opposition's economic plan has or is already being implemented. Second, because a coup and repression has already occurred (even if others want to deny or excuse this). And third, there is no evidence to suggest the counterfactual presented is true as a) the security forces required to carry out such repression have demonstrated their strong allegiances to Chavismo and b) where right-wing forces have come to power in a similar scenario (Anez via a coup in Bolivia) they were unable to carry out repression on such a scale and were ultimately forced out of power within the year by mass mobilisation. The sad reality is that the PSUV's "power at all cost" strategy has ensured a scenario like Bolivia (or Brazil where Lula returned to power after four years of Bolsonaro) is close to impossible. Instead, its cost in the long run may be even worse than the counterfactual, as it has almost certainly morally destroyed any possibility for a left project in Venezuela for decades to come. Are there other options? Well, to begin to answer that we have to accept that better options were previously ignored, for example, not undermining the communes and crushing the revolution's base to maintain power, or negotiation a political transition after losing the 2024 elections. The latter is, in reality, the option being taken now, just under much worse conditions. In that sense, yes there was a better option. But the government preferred to continue digging its own grave even deeper than acknowledge reality. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#43570): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/43570 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/121208788/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
