This is a load of horseshit or worse. When treachery is called 'pragmatic' you need to give your head a wobble.
The betrayal by the Chavistas has emboldened the Right. Wake up. I won't sign this 'comradely' as is my wont. Gary On Thu, Oct 1, 2026 at 5:21 PM Fred Fuentes via groups.io <fred.fuentes= [email protected]> wrote: > 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 PSUV's project has not just failed but that the PSUV no longer represents 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 (#43571): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/43571 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]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
