For months on and off, you’ve posted about Venezuela with low context and low effort and ignored every nuance people have tried to present to you about the situation. You even seemed to think it was funny that a thread of yours saying “Venezuela needs a revolution right now” got downvoted badly.
Now you post a clearly meant to be provocative callout thread that adds absolutely nothing to the discussion that hasn’t been said before and features an image of Delcy Rodriguez and Trump in a smiling picture together. As if this is itself evidence of Venezuelan leadership being compromised. So I gave you the reply that your rhetoric and level of effort deserved.
This thread borders on trolling and you don’t deserve the attention. But since you don’t listen to correction and don’t argue with more than a couple of sentences before leaving and moving on to make yet another thread on the same topic, if I’m going to give it attention, this is what it deserves. We don’t have to all be in agreement on everything here, but put some fucking effort in if you’re going to take a position that disagrees with detailed marxist analyses from multiple people, instead of trying to pick fights like this is a bar brawl.
I chose to not get involved in this thread, as I’ve said my view before. That being that in my opinion, Venezuela really doesn’t have the means to military resist the US, and if the leaders of the Bolivariam revolution believe this is the best strategy, I’ll hold my tongue.
I find it hard to believe that the Chavistas and the communes would be quite if they believe the revolution has been subverted. Though, frankly, I prefer to take the analysis of Latam Marxists, who seem to be divided, rather then single mindedly denounce Venezuela as if the counter revolution is fact.
Yet, it seems, the op has a bone to pick with my stance, as well as others who hold it, and if so that’s fine. I simply would rather not potentially contribute to regime change rhetoric as a westerner.
I simply would rather not potentially contribute to regime change rhetoric as a westerner.
That’s an important core of it to me. The people of Venezuela will struggle with it and do their best from the position that they’re in. Our task is to support them, not to romanticize power struggle and get caught up in rhetoric that suggests dramatic, sacrificial conflict is the only way for them to make it through this. Whether the evidence leans more in the direction of “Venezuelan leadership is compromised” or “Venezuela is held hostage”, is less important than whether international communists are supporting Venezuela in its liberation, such as in its commune projects and in its general sovereignty. The 1st one is obsession over “correctness of worldview” which has its value, especially for the people who actually live there, but ultimately can be a big nothing if it only amounts to one feeling like they are more correct than others. The 2nd means that regardless of what is happening with the 1st, they are getting help from international comrades.
Even in basic rhetoric, international comrades can support them insofar as emphasizing their sovereignty, the need for the empire to leave them alone, as opposed to positioning it specifically as “the people and government vs. the empire” or “the people vs. the government and empire.”
As it is, it may well be that it is simply more complicated than “compromised or hostage” and that trying to reduce it to a binary is itself a mistake. Binaries are convenient but don’t tell us the precise class dynamics of a town, a province, a region. They don’t tell us where things are doing really well and where they are lagging far behind. They feed into good vs. evil narratives and forget how complicated it is to transition a society from one mode of production and power to another, much less try to do this under the shadow of a brutal, global empire. The “compromised” narrative would imply the issue is mainly the response to the empire itself, rather than the strangling material conditions attached to being under its shadow. And though it’s possible more militant, more scientific, more seasoned (I don’t know, I’m just coming up with markers for competence) leadership would navigate this better, we can’t assume that’s necessarily the issue just because the outcomes aren’t ideal. The revolution is the whole organized struggle in the context of material constraints, not only the most prominent names and their willpower.
Honestly, leftists around LATAM are pretty divided. Most of the people around here say the revolution has been betrayed, however some say it was a tactical retreat.
There is a Chavista professor from Venezuela (Luis Bonilla-Molina) that says that since Maduro there has been a re-alignment of PSUV from the working class social base to a more middle class and petty bourgeois strata. This plan to normalize relations with the US is being cooked since the Maduro period and what we see with Delcy is an acceleration of the process.
However, some Marxists/leftists with transit within the Maduro/Delcy government still defend the tactical retreat angle, like Breno Altman and Diego Ruzzarin himself. The thing is, Venezuela wants access to their dollar reserves and want investment in new oil fields and refineries. Even if US is getting privileged access to Venezuelan oil right now, they will only be able to take advantage of Venezuelan oil in the future. Since the crisis in the US is escalating, Venezuela could take advantage of this relief in sanctions and investments later on.
So, most looking from outside are seeing a full betrayal while some people with transit in Delcy’s government talks about retreat. It’s very hard to deal with incomplete information, but IMHO, I’m more aligned with the betrayal POV. I have never seen countries ceding to US imperialism (other than China and Vietnam, which did actual socialist revolutions) and flipping the tables afterwards.
There is a Chavista professor from Venezuela (Luis Bonilla-Molina) that says that since Maduro there has been a re-alignment of PSUV from the working class social base to a more middle class and petty bourgeois strata. This plan to normalize relations with the US is being cooked since the Maduro period and what we see with Delcy is an acceleration of the process.
This to me makes sense and goes beyond some dumb great man theory betrayal narrative. If you seriously consider the implications of a Rodriguez betrayal, Maduro doesn’t look good at all and even implicates him in the betrayal as well.
Rodriguez’s cabinet, which is just Maduro’s cabinet, goes along with the betrayal without a single protest resignation, which means Maduro either is a traitor as well, couldn’t find anyone else within the PSUV who wasn’t also a sellout, or is just really, really stupid. If he couldn’t find anyone else within the PSUV who wasn’t also a sellout, the change in social base would be a good explanation, which would once again implicate Maduro since the shift happened under his tenure. Even the armed communes not rising up to overthrow Rodriguez over her alleged betrayal also implicates Maduro. Either Maduro was incredibly, incredibly stupid and just gave the communes a bunch of shitty Mauser bolt-action rifles or he simply lied about arming the communes because he doesn’t want the communes to have the means of defending themselves from the Venezuelan military.
In a weird way, the insistence of pinning the betrayal on Rodriguez without implicating Maduro is just cope of not wanting to face that their previous support of Maduro as a principled and competent socialist was a mistake. They don’t want to write the apology card to the PCV who were sounding the horn that Maduro betrayed Chavismo and even boycotted the results because they thought Maduro stuffed ballots.
Personally, I’m 70% that this is Venezuela being forced into unequal treaties and 30% that the rot started with Maduro or possibly even Chavez himself.
For months on and off, you’ve posted about Venezuela with low context and low effort and ignored every nuance people have tried to present to you about the situation. You even seemed to think it was funny that a thread of yours saying “Venezuela needs a revolution right now” got downvoted badly.
Now you post a clearly meant to be provocative callout thread that adds absolutely nothing to the discussion that hasn’t been said before and features an image of Delcy Rodriguez and Trump in a smiling picture together. As if this is itself evidence of Venezuelan leadership being compromised. So I gave you the reply that your rhetoric and level of effort deserved.
This thread borders on trolling and you don’t deserve the attention. But since you don’t listen to correction and don’t argue with more than a couple of sentences before leaving and moving on to make yet another thread on the same topic, if I’m going to give it attention, this is what it deserves. We don’t have to all be in agreement on everything here, but put some fucking effort in if you’re going to take a position that disagrees with detailed marxist analyses from multiple people, instead of trying to pick fights like this is a bar brawl.
I chose to not get involved in this thread, as I’ve said my view before. That being that in my opinion, Venezuela really doesn’t have the means to military resist the US, and if the leaders of the Bolivariam revolution believe this is the best strategy, I’ll hold my tongue.
I find it hard to believe that the Chavistas and the communes would be quite if they believe the revolution has been subverted. Though, frankly, I prefer to take the analysis of Latam Marxists, who seem to be divided, rather then single mindedly denounce Venezuela as if the counter revolution is fact.
Yet, it seems, the op has a bone to pick with my stance, as well as others who hold it, and if so that’s fine. I simply would rather not potentially contribute to regime change rhetoric as a westerner.
That’s an important core of it to me. The people of Venezuela will struggle with it and do their best from the position that they’re in. Our task is to support them, not to romanticize power struggle and get caught up in rhetoric that suggests dramatic, sacrificial conflict is the only way for them to make it through this. Whether the evidence leans more in the direction of “Venezuelan leadership is compromised” or “Venezuela is held hostage”, is less important than whether international communists are supporting Venezuela in its liberation, such as in its commune projects and in its general sovereignty. The 1st one is obsession over “correctness of worldview” which has its value, especially for the people who actually live there, but ultimately can be a big nothing if it only amounts to one feeling like they are more correct than others. The 2nd means that regardless of what is happening with the 1st, they are getting help from international comrades.
Even in basic rhetoric, international comrades can support them insofar as emphasizing their sovereignty, the need for the empire to leave them alone, as opposed to positioning it specifically as “the people and government vs. the empire” or “the people vs. the government and empire.”
As it is, it may well be that it is simply more complicated than “compromised or hostage” and that trying to reduce it to a binary is itself a mistake. Binaries are convenient but don’t tell us the precise class dynamics of a town, a province, a region. They don’t tell us where things are doing really well and where they are lagging far behind. They feed into good vs. evil narratives and forget how complicated it is to transition a society from one mode of production and power to another, much less try to do this under the shadow of a brutal, global empire. The “compromised” narrative would imply the issue is mainly the response to the empire itself, rather than the strangling material conditions attached to being under its shadow. And though it’s possible more militant, more scientific, more seasoned (I don’t know, I’m just coming up with markers for competence) leadership would navigate this better, we can’t assume that’s necessarily the issue just because the outcomes aren’t ideal. The revolution is the whole organized struggle in the context of material constraints, not only the most prominent names and their willpower.
Honestly, leftists around LATAM are pretty divided. Most of the people around here say the revolution has been betrayed, however some say it was a tactical retreat.
There is a Chavista professor from Venezuela (Luis Bonilla-Molina) that says that since Maduro there has been a re-alignment of PSUV from the working class social base to a more middle class and petty bourgeois strata. This plan to normalize relations with the US is being cooked since the Maduro period and what we see with Delcy is an acceleration of the process.
However, some Marxists/leftists with transit within the Maduro/Delcy government still defend the tactical retreat angle, like Breno Altman and Diego Ruzzarin himself. The thing is, Venezuela wants access to their dollar reserves and want investment in new oil fields and refineries. Even if US is getting privileged access to Venezuelan oil right now, they will only be able to take advantage of Venezuelan oil in the future. Since the crisis in the US is escalating, Venezuela could take advantage of this relief in sanctions and investments later on.
So, most looking from outside are seeing a full betrayal while some people with transit in Delcy’s government talks about retreat. It’s very hard to deal with incomplete information, but IMHO, I’m more aligned with the betrayal POV. I have never seen countries ceding to US imperialism (other than China and Vietnam, which did actual socialist revolutions) and flipping the tables afterwards.
This to me makes sense and goes beyond some dumb great man theory betrayal narrative. If you seriously consider the implications of a Rodriguez betrayal, Maduro doesn’t look good at all and even implicates him in the betrayal as well.
Rodriguez’s cabinet, which is just Maduro’s cabinet, goes along with the betrayal without a single protest resignation, which means Maduro either is a traitor as well, couldn’t find anyone else within the PSUV who wasn’t also a sellout, or is just really, really stupid. If he couldn’t find anyone else within the PSUV who wasn’t also a sellout, the change in social base would be a good explanation, which would once again implicate Maduro since the shift happened under his tenure. Even the armed communes not rising up to overthrow Rodriguez over her alleged betrayal also implicates Maduro. Either Maduro was incredibly, incredibly stupid and just gave the communes a bunch of shitty Mauser bolt-action rifles or he simply lied about arming the communes because he doesn’t want the communes to have the means of defending themselves from the Venezuelan military.
In a weird way, the insistence of pinning the betrayal on Rodriguez without implicating Maduro is just cope of not wanting to face that their previous support of Maduro as a principled and competent socialist was a mistake. They don’t want to write the apology card to the PCV who were sounding the horn that Maduro betrayed Chavismo and even boycotted the results because they thought Maduro stuffed ballots.
Personally, I’m 70% that this is Venezuela being forced into unequal treaties and 30% that the rot started with Maduro or possibly even Chavez himself.
Thank you for saying this. This user really grinds my gears.