Some say it is not worth a debate with those who elaborate on the issue of imperialism under the carpet for leftists. Unfortunately, it is too common to ignore. This is my recent article on the topic, related to Venezuela. In it, I think the demonization of the Nicholas Maduro administration undermines solidarity against the devastating sanctions imposed by Washington on Venezuela. From a left perspective, criticism of the Maduro government is very needed, but the articles of Satanized Maduro are counterproductive.
Steve Ellner
From a left-wing perspective, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is absolutely necessary, some from those who support his government to varying degrees. Emiliano
Teran Mantovani and Gabriel
Hetland – Recent criticism of my work on Maduro – I agree with the importance of this critical analysis. Despite this common denominator, there are fundamental differences between us My persistence About Maduro’s mistakes and beyond the simple binary that is uncritical support for Maduro and demonization, it needs to be considered as the background.
These issues have far-reaching implications. Failure to objectively reflect errors, beyond binary problems and differences in perception, translates into underestimation of the severity of U.S. sanctions and the positive aspects of denying the Maduro administration. In my opinion, these positions and shortcomings seriously undermine the work of international solidarity and anti-imperialism.
War debate in Venezuela
Teran began a long passage in his article, saying, “I want to make clear my position…these sanctions are totally condemned,” as he acknowledged, a position shared by leading members of the right-wing opposition in Venezuela. However, his statement is obscured on one of the key points raised in my article. Say “I’m against sanctions” and then continue to attack government policies as if they were two separate topics. In fact, my article details why the Venezuelan war needs to be placed at the center of any serious analysis of President Maduro.
In the article, I think that Washington’s “Venezuelan War” is far beyond sanctions because it covers a wide variety of regime change and unstable actions. Teran, however, like Hetland, limits his reference to Washington’s conspiracy to sanctions.
Worse, Tran actually downplays the seriousness of sanctions he claims “do not explain the root cause of the national crisis.” The sanctions only have “the negative impact that follows” – followed by serious mistakes Maduro and Chávez made before him.
One example of Teran underestimating the impact of sanctions is his statement: “Ellner referred to the sanctions imposed by the Obama administration in 2015, but these measures are limited to U.S. freezing assets and bank accounts…” Teran, like the Venezuelan opposition, portrays Obama’s execution order as harmless, same, same measure. Almost nothing. In my article, I noticed that Obama’s order declared a “abnormal and extraordinary threat” to U.S. national security “signs an escalating hostility in Washington.”
Along these lines, I quoted an article from Hetland, published a few years later, pointing out: “The United States imposes the funds needed to force Venezuela to death by force Venezuela to starve Venezuela.” It’s not difficult to understand why U.S. companies operate factories in Venezuela in response to their country’s president, saying Venezuela is a threat to U.S. national security. As I wrote In the previous post: “Obama’s executive order sent a signal to the private sector. After the order was implemented, various large companies, including Ford and Kimberly Clark, closed their factories and exited Venezuela.” It was followed by General Motors, Goodyear and Kellogg, and Japanese company Bridgestone.
Indeed, even before Trump took office as president in 2017, Venezuela imposed a de facto financial embargo, as opposition spokesman and economist Francisco Rodríguez pointed out, when he said “finance The market is not open to Venezuela. ”
Teran’s minimization of the war’s impact on Venezuela strengthens the opposition’s narrative, which mocks Maduro’s assertion that Washington’s actions have caused Venezuela’s terrible economic situation. Moses Naímone of the architects of Venezuela’s neoliberal policy in the 1990s wrote: “Blame the CIA…or like Maduro and his allies, the dark international power has become the feed for imitators who drown YouTube.” Similarly, Teran wrote: “Followers and supporters of the Maduro government always seem to prefer to look for external scapegoats.” In my article, I list specific examples that fully demonstrate Maduro’s allegations about the generously funded “dark international power.”
In his efforts to abandon the relevance of the Venezuelan war, Tran suggested that Maduro’s interpretation of the implementation of neoliberal policies was similar to those proposed by those who tried to genocide against the Palstein people on October 7, according to the aggression of American imperialism. But it seems obvious to anyone on the left that it is somewhat distant to reach equivalence between American imperialism and the October 7 attacks, and it would be even more outrageous to put Maduro’s economic policy in the same category as Netanyahu’s genocide.
Key support issues
Turning to the second area of debate between Teran and myself, a serious analysis of Maduro needs to avoid praise or condemnation of his government. Failure to grasp how progressive governments are forced to cope with the complexity of the situation imposed by the world’s most powerful countries in the same hemisphere leads to simple conclusions that often match the conclusions of political rights. However, Tran accuses me of being unilateral. He claims my “lack of nuance” and I do not “avoid simple binary”. In doing so, he ignored the criticism of Maduro that I made and conducted a more detailed analysis in other publications, as described in this article.
The one-sided accusation of me reflects other insults MaduroTraining scientist,” or Maintaining “a Manichaean Outlook” – a quote from Teran to me. Both terms are reminiscent of McCarthyism because it is the entire left-wing attack of crypto community or peer travelers.
Failure to recognize the effectiveness of the critical support position for Maduro, Tran shows that he is in the polarization of Venezuelan politics, which takes the level out of the picture. For example, Tran (like Hetland) unfairly accused me of justifying the repression by omission, adding that after the July 28, 2024 presidential election, the “international left” eventually “legalized… cruel repression.” He ignored the mention that in my article, I suggest that the large evidence of right-wing and foreign participation in the violent protests on July 28 does not rule out that the Venezuelan state may use excessive force, as the two are not “mutually exclusive.”
Which one is left?
Teran asked his article: “There is no key support from Maduro, why “the international left…dedicates their energy, resources, support and advocacy to strengthen the left opposition [in Venezuela] Could one day challenge political power? “However, if Tran refers to what political scientists call “faithful opposition,” the question is somewhat ambiguous, a recognition of the challenges Maduro faces and without hesitation in supporting him in denunciating imperialist aggression and avoiding comparing him to the far right-most man represented by María Corina Machado.
But most of the Venezuelans staying in opposition camps almost do not fit this description. Just like Teran and Hetland, it demonized Maduro. Many leftists’ actions reached into the hands of the political right. If Maduro is knocked down, Machado on the far right leads – she says she wants to see Maduro and his family in prison – will undoubtedly be dominated by Washington’s blessing. If this happens, the most likely situation would be a cruel repression, historically from Indonesia in 1967 to Indonesia in 1973 to Chile.
For example, while its glorious history dates back to its founding in 1931, the Communist Party (PCV) is disturbing that he recognized Enrique Márquez’s presidential candidate for the election last year. Marquez, an outstanding leader of one of the major political parties, conducted protracted street protests against Maduro in 2014 and 2017, promoting stability and regime change with all his heart. support
Juan Guízo’s right-wing parallel government after 2019.
International Solidarity
Two key implications of the debate on Maduro’s demonization are particularly important to the solidarity movement. First, insulting Maduro will discourage solidarity work. My experience has come to this conclusion based on my experience, and since 2018, many negotiations have been sponsored by solidarity groups in U.S. and Canadian cities. The solidarity activist made it clear to me that a rather favorable view of the Maduro government – despite specific criticism, there is a power of motivation. In contrast, those who despise the government are unlikely to work with the same level of enthusiasm be opposed to
Interventionism against us. In this regard, the Solidarity Movement is different from the anti-war movement, which tend to focus less on the domestic politics of southern countries and more on military spending and the death of American soldiers, except for the damage caused by US armed intervention.
Secondly, the analysis of government errors and erosion of democratic norms leads to basic conclusions. To what extent the war against Venezuela is directly related to deepening democracy, inspiring social movements and expanding the possibility of government action, thus increasing the possibility of overcoming mistakes. After all, history tells us that war and democracy are inherently incompatible. In an insult to the Maduro government, Hertlan and Terran overlook this simple fact.
This article was previously published in Link: Socialist Update Magazine
Steve Ellner He is his retired professor at the Oriental University in Venezuela, where he has lived for more than 40 years. He is currently the Assistant Executive Editor of Latin American Perspectives. His latest book is a collection of co-editors Social movements and progressive governments in Latin America: creative tension between resistance and integration.
