These are just collections of some of my comments this morning as someone who’s put a lot of time and effort into learning about Venezuela over the past 5 years. My bookshelf is full of books about it, and I wrote my university dissertation on imperialism in Latin America. No, I’m not an expert, but I certainly know more than your average person. These takes are field tested against liberals and conservatives alike, and they usually just shut up about it and change the topic.
ON MADURO’S ‘AUTHORITARIAN REGIME’
Tricky one - authoritarian? Technically true.
But what country wouldn’t enter a state of law and order if you had an invasion force on your coastline for 20 years? When multiple coups have been attempted supported by a foreign government? A foreign government that currently funds political yet ‘non governmental organisations’ for the opposition party in your country to the tune of millions of dollars when the average monthly wage in the country is $200? When that opposition party has repeated supported coups and foreign influence? When a country has repossessed billions of dollars of gold, and explicitly states it wants to strangle your economy until the country chokes? When there’s a 200 year old precedent of U.S invasion in the region? When the U.S is following the classic playbook for invasion?
You either roll over and have your country sold to the highest bidders, or you put the walls up. Look at any country in wartime. This is the only way to conceptualise this. Latin America has been at war with the U.S since the 1800’s (The Monroe Doctrine - 1823). EDIT: in the press conference, Trump just called it the ‘Donroe Doctrine’. FML.
So here’s my task for you all: Ask an American how they’d feel if China had done even half of those things in America. How would the U.S react?
ON VENEZUELAN REFUGEES FLEEING THE REGIME
Can’t stand this line being parroted about how ‘8 million refugees fled the Maduro regime’ because its a tyrannical government, when the reality is that they fled a country whose economy was being strangled by the USA to the point of collapse. The USA openly admits they were essentially holding the Venezuelan people hostage by destroying the economy - presenting two options: live in poverty or overthrow Maduro.
Here’s John Bolton talking about it: “The effect of the sanctions is continuing and cumulative. It’s sort of like in Star Wars when Darth Vader constricts somebody’s throat, that’s what we are doing to the regime economically.” Yes, seriously, he compared America to Darth Vader.
If this ends in a new right wing Venezuelan comprador government, there will be an ‘economic miracle’, and the west will report that Venezuela has been saved. The reality is that the sanctions would be taken off the economy, and a large extraction of wealth would take place within the oil sector, thus inflating GDP. In the short term, the people of Venezuela will see an increase in quality of life - a quality of life they never would have lost in the first place were it not for U.S encirclement. I’m sure a lot of Venezeulans won’t fight the change in government because it means a (perhaps temporary) reprieve from poverty, and peoples material circumstances are, as we all know, the bottom line.
ON NARCO TRAFFICKING CHARGES:
So Maduro’s got a 50 million dollar bounty on his head and is deposed, when the USA has a long history of endorsing drug trafficking for their own purposes. Let’s not forget that the USA supported and did business with Manuel Noriega (a prolific trafficker) throughout the Iran CONTRA affair until he stopped serving US interests (so they then couped him). And Trump just pardoned the conservative ex president of Honduras Orlando Hernandez, despite the fact that:
“US prosecutors argued that he was a central figure in a more than 18-year-long drug-trafficking scheme that funnelled over 400 tonnes of cocaine into the US - equivalent to roughly 4.5 billion individual doses”, and “US federal prosecutors accused him of accepting a $1m bribe from notorious drug lord Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán for his first presidential campaign in exchange for protecting narcotics routes through Honduras.” Prosecutors also detailed how “Hernández abused office by shielding drug traffickers armed with machine guns and grenade launchers. In exchange, he received millions of dollars to fuel his political campaigns.”
**There are of course more arguments than this, but yeah, these are the big three in my opinion. **
I would add something about ‘rigged elections’, but I don’t have time right now as it’s quite complex. The bottom line is that there cannot be calls for democracy when USAID and other US State Department fronts have had major influence in Venezuelan and Latin American society for decades. It’s the old capitalist myth of free speech - where said free speech is controlled by the ruling class.
I get the usual unspecified “brutal dictator” accusation. I can’t ever seem to get actual examples of the brutality
deleted by creator
I’m sorry but “authoritarian - technically true”? Besides the fact that there is nothing more “authoritarian” than the American executive using military force unilaterally to kidnap a sovereign country’s president and wife, in what way is Venezuela’s government authoritarian? Are we really accepting/taking for granted that Venezuela is a military dictatorship when those accusations come directly from the US State Department, and its funded opposition groups in the country? These same opposition groups that have been backed by the US for decades, and are responsible for trying to violently overthrow the government several times?!
We’re just taking their word on that one now?
IDK but the last I read was that their electoral system was had some of the best verifiability and integrity in the world according to even US-aligned watchdogs… so, if we’re ceding the authoritarian bit, why aren’t we asking the State department to bomb Mexico and remove Lula from power for reforming their judiciary and enforcing legal judgements against their former presidents, respectively? We’ve heard both spectrum of US power accuse both of these as examples of authoritarianism too.
As an aside, too, I’m seeing a lot of people online drawing comparisons with Venezuela and Iraq, Maduro and Saddam. In some ways, yes, US behavior in these cases can be compared as it’s all around based on lies and completely unjustifiable, in others: we would do well to remind people that Maduro and Saddam cannot be compared. Saddam being an actual murderous and genocidal gangster, etc. Oh, and the fact that Saddam was the US’s guy for DECADES while he committed those crimes, with weapons WE gave him.
I’ve seen some people saying that "well in the end, we toppled Saddam and now Iraq is finally getting their free elections so, maybe in 30 years and a million-and-a-half dead later, Venezuelans will have the same? I hope this is not the narrative that prevails in the west, but it fits our useless, uneducated political moment for sure.
We have to remind people also that Trump literally said it’s about seizing their resources- and the drug trafficking accusations is just entirely fabricated.
Authoritarian is a difficult word to talk around because all it really describes is the act of governing, so you can never really deny that a state is authoritarian. It’s just a word with a negative vibe, like “regime”.
i like the
phrasing of these as thought-terminating cliches. and unsurprisingly, one of their other examples of such a thought-terminating cliche is “hand-picked successor” as exemplified by amerikkkan coverage about nicolas maduro. this was an ep from several years ago.I think it’s “hand-picked” usually, if you want the exact phrasing for making it easier for libs to recognize and or look up the use of that term.
i think you’re right
all it really describes is the act of governing
Ah you’ve had the same frustrating conversations I’ve had with European post-leftists.
They live in the type of place where each worker negotiations their own personal relationship with the state.
It’s likely arguing back on social media will just get you banned. I’ve been banned on reddit several times already for debunking CIA propaganda.
Also Russia is called authoritarian but their elections had 3rd parties from around the world overseeing it. The US just makes shit up all the time.
This is true.
I just wanted to address what I thought was ceding the authoritarian bit to the pro-interventionists in OP’s paragraphs above.
there is nothing more “authoritarian” than the American executive using military force unilaterally to kidnap a sovereign country’s president and wife, in what way is Venezuela’s government authoritarian?
Yeah but you forget authoritarianism is only bad if you’re on the bottom part of this chart:
Well, that’s also true. I suppose I’d call it authoritarianism in response to US authoritarianism. The last reports of a robust electoral system were quite a while ago now. 2017 was independently verified and was the Guaido bullshit, 2021 was COVID, results were tight, but it was pretty well verified. 2025 however, it was a bit of a crapshoot, and numerous independent checkers were not allowed access, nor was normal protocol followed. Maduro has been getting more and more unpopular - even if it is largely the U.S’s fault - and even usual bastions of left wing support have not been as supportive of him in the past year. I think there was meddling in the 2025 election, but I think it was a last ditch effort gaainst extreme U.S influence, and done under the noble cause of staying independent. I think it was a valid national security move, and as with many states at war, authoritarian decisions often have to be made. And as another commenter pointed out, that’s the problem with authoritarian as a term - it pretty much just means the government doing stuff.
The big drama over authoritarianism in 2025 was that exit polls didn’t match the results, that some observers weren’t invited even though it was agreed beforehand, and that there was a supposed cyberattack which delayed the results. In the meantime, the opposition did their own surveys and of course found that Maduro lost by a landslide - which is probably not the truth either, so it was then up to Maduro to do a number of checks on the results and to find proof of the cyberattack. There are three electoral process validity checks that are usually done after the election - one of which would have proved the existence of the cyberattack, which this time were not done. If Maduro believed he won, he would’ve pursued those validity checks.
There was also the fact that Maria Cochado was banned from running due to her involvement in treasonous acts - which lots of people complained about - but my take there is that she’s been a long time agitator and did support treason, so I don’t care or find it surprising she was banned. She even signed the Carmona decree in 2002 dissolving Chavez’s constituion during the coup against him, but she claims she thought it was just the building sign in sheet (lol). The fact that they ran her in the first place was basically a political stunt SO THAT she would get banned just before the election, making a big political spectacle. The same thing happened in the Guaido era when they considered running Leopoldo Lopez - who was a treasonous shit heel.
As for Lula, well, Lula didn’t initially recognise Maduro’s election win either, even if he did eventually and condemns the strikes now. Lula allows all sorts of independent observers, whereas Maduro was pretty cagey about it last time. The same went for Evo Morales - who was reinstated after being couped because of his strong ground support and MAS’s ability to legitmately and openly win elections.
Time will tell as to Maduro’s ground support. If the people support him we would see a repeat of 2002 with Chavez, but unfortunately I don’t think that will be the case.
Totally agree on Saddam though - that was also frustrating me.
deleted by creator
i’m not convinced on the drug trafficking allegations, but even if it’s true, what a lame ass reason to go to war. if people are turning to drugs en masse maybe it’s because life in your country is shitty and you should do something to improve that, especially considering the US has the wealth to improve society somewhat
Oh, yes, I forgot to mention that it’s way overblown. Of course there’s always going to be some drug trafficking in an area where coca plants can grow, but there’s far more across the border in Colombia - magnitudes more - and Colombia was historically a US client state. Only very recently did the left get close to power.
Supposedly it’s increased in the last few years in Venezuela but even then it’s only increased because there’s no money to be made elsewhere, as every other major revenue source is sanctioned. The whole predicament has been manufactured by the USA.
Ya Colombia and Perú have always been the drug trafficking states so. These Venezuela accusations came out of nowhere.
It’s particularly goofy taking into account we made Afghanistan our personally poppy/opium cultivators and a million other ways the cia/usa has utilized and profited off illicit drugs
Drug trafficking allegations are from the cynical US imperialism playbook for Latin America. They are the evergreen excuse for attacking any group they want to dominate or remove, they do not require any real or substantial basis. Every left wing group or popular leader gets branded a Narco at the earliest opportunity, including by domestic US-sycophantic liberals. It is an easy accusation to make because the left tends to embed with the poor, rural, and indigenous, and every racist and classist trope abroad and domestically feeds into the idea that all those groups are narco-adjascent.
Keep in mind that some groups are related to narcos, but even that is not some kind of scarlet letter, but the propaganda treats it that way. Oh, a country dominated by imperialism and forced into having a state that allows gangs also produces and exports drugs? Who is surprised by this? The US installs gangsters in these countries and uses them to support regime change! Would it actually, morally, be wrong to take a piece of those profits to fight for your people? No, but the propaganda machine will label you as justifiably murderable, genocidable, and cite this as an excuse.
Salute
The drug trafficking is especially ironic when you consider trump pardoning the hondouras president for that reason
reality isn’t real. “it is easier to fool a person than to convince them they’ve been fooled.” of course it’s all lies, but when the AP and CNN and Fox are all repeating the same lies in lockstep with the perfidious NYT and the Washington Post, good luck convincing an amerikkkan with a parasocial attachment to the concept of amerikkkan freedom to see that.
death to america
If the Venezuelan president can be prosecuted in court while serving as president, then the US president should be prosecuted in US court while serving as president. If the US President can’t be prosecuted while President, then foreign leaders can’t be prosecuted by US courts.
The rules get made up and contradicted all the time. Liberals convince themselves that they are real, and tell everyone the same, but then contradict themselves, often without even noticing.
They can just call him a drug trafficker and declare his elected position illegitimate so he’s not a president. The reality is immaterial to them, only how well it comports with their biases and allegiances to power.
Sadly true, although in person if you can shut them down thoroughly at least they’ll shut up while you’re around. It’s a bit like forcing someone to wear a mask when they’re ill at work or something. Sure, they’ll probably just go home and take it off and give it to their kids and wife, but in the workplace, you might’ve just stopped the spread.
Yes and also, nobody is perfect and even long-term comrades can get confused or stray into liberal error. Plus nobody’s born a well read Marxist, so everybody has to learn stuff at some point. So for those reasons alone, lists like these help a lot. In fact, earlier today I was hoping someone would start one. Thank you
Maybe a point addressing the propaganda about the oil “belonging to the US” (or to US firms) could be added. I’ve already encountered confusion about this IRL.
This article is correct for people who already belong to the cult, but that’s not everyone. I remain convinced that a large majority of people is swayable with facts and reasoning.
My take is consistent with the developing position I’ve been digging into for the past decade or so:
Good revolutionary praxis means not making everything fundamentally contingent on one person: if you develop a capacity, spread it amongst your comrades instead of concentrating it. That way, you cannot be cut off or threatened or blackmailed. If an organization is truly revolutionary, they will have structures and culture in place that ensure all efforts happen under the agency of a popular movement, rather than under the agency of any Great Man.
Be like water, my PSUV cousins. Close ranks like the tide around an obstacle, and may you prove how foolish Donald Trump is amd outlast his MAGA movement by a hundred years.
That happened last time there was an attempted mini coup in 2020, and happened bigtime in the coup of 2002 when Chavez was restored to power, but this time I think it won’t - not because of bad organizational structure or anything, but because Maduro is simply not as popular as he once was.
Either way, we get to see what the movement is made of. If everything keeps functioning without Maduro, it’s a huge repudiation of the American decapitation approach.
If the political structure is robust, as parent describes, then it will actually become stronger after these events. It will rally the masses, defend sovereignty, and find new leaders in short order.
If, instead, there is confusion and turmoil, then it was not actually well-organized internally, but was supported by bourgeois structures (its state, capital, etc) and is prone to collapse.
It is very difficult to know from afar which of these is true, or which pole is closer to reality. PSUV is popular, but is it organized and are its members educated and ready to fight? It looked like that in the past. Is it true now? They’ve alienated many comrades, which at least means the connections and structures they need have been whittled away at, by themselves, for bourgeois reasons.
I do hope they are organized and ready.
Assuming that any of the pro US regime change morons would even listen to one sentence of these. This is why I stopped arguing with these people a long time ago. They’re nothing but Propaganda slop eaters that haven’t learned a thing from Iraq despite most of us living through it.
True online, but I think in person you can at least do someone the psychic damage of being made to look like a moron who hasn’t actually done any research. And that could sow a seed in people around you.
Say what you like but I think that in person, a lot of people are in some way reachable.
I remember back when I was about 17, a school teacher challenged me about Jeremy Corbyn, and how the the chief rabbi said he was an antisemite. I said yeah, “duh, the chief rabbi is a Zionist - Corbyn supporting Palestine doesn’t mean he’s anti semitic. Take it from me - a Jew.” In that moment I saw a look on his face like I’d just broken a spell and he’d come out of hypnosis - truly. I know it sounds like a ThatHappened story, but after that he changed his tune. Sometimes if you really zing someone, you can shake their belief a little. The guy’s probably reverted now, but whatever, when I was around he didn’t spread his bullshit anymore.
Only argue when you have an audience. Otherwise, don’t bother.
Just what I was looking for, gracias comrade o7
I recommend placing focus on organized political education. Join an org and hold education sessions. Play movies and invite the community, be prepared to hold discussions. That when you would really need talking points. And then you get to organize some of the people in attendance, pipelining them. Just like in individual discussions, you will want to prepare for gusanos, so ideally have someone that liberals will defer to if they’re trying to shut their brains off through tokenizing logic. That logic is racist, so literally just having one Latino member answering questions will head them off (this kind of planning is, unfortunately, necessary for educating liberals).
deleted by creator
At this point leaving the US feels like a moral imperative
