This report, written by Cde. Cristophe Simpson of the Jamaica Left Alliance for National Democracy and Socialism (LANDS), details his experiences during his Summer 2019 visit to Venezuela, as a guest of the 25th São Paulo Forum, hosted by the International People’s Assembly. Simpson’s first-hand account of the Bolivarian Revolution is rich with valuable insights, particularly regarding the Venezuelan masses and their relationship to the Bolivarian Revolution. Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution has successfully resisted Yankee imperialism for 23 years (and counting) and is a beacon of revolutionary optimism. Simpson’s report is long (some 65 pages), so we plan to publish it in the Red Clarion as a five-part series.
The full report (all five parts) can be found here.
The Opposition
General Reflections
Political polarisation doesn’t seem to be as serious among poorer Venezuelans as one would imagine. Jamaica has a history of political polarisation where streets or entire communities would be controlled by gangs that were affiliated with either of the 2 major political parties, and someone could be shot for just wearing the colour of one political party in the other party’s street. There was open warfare between militants of both parties in the streets, leading up to the 1980 election in Jamaica, and political violence was still seen as normal during my childhood.
The theatrics of political polarisation really seem to be from the political class and concentrated in Caracas. I met opposition supporters in Petare and Carora who have been friendly to me, despite knowing my alignment why I was there. I’ve stayed in touch with them.
The Myth of Popular Support for Juan Guaido
There is no doubt that you’ll see slogans and politicians’ names spray-painted on walls at different parts of the country; 2 opposition candidates from the 2018 presidential election had their names and faces spray-painted on walls in Lara, and both government and opposition politicians have their names spray-painted on walls in Caracas and Mérida. One name that I didn’t see, anywhere, was Juan Guaidó; this isn’t to say that his name is absolutely nowhere, because I won’t deny the possibility, but I personally didn’t see it anywhere. I think there is a higher chance that you will find the name of Henrique Capriles than that of Juan Guaidó.
Remember, Juan Guaidó was never a candidate in any presidential election before declaring himself president. This campaign to paint him as some popular alternative to Maduro is engineered by foreign media. He has never needed to run any real campaign for the presidency, and his claim to presidency was never tested by the ballot. His party refused to participate in the presidential election in 2018 and attempted to defame the politicians from other opposition parties who had decided to run against Maduro.
I’ve witnessed, for myself, that many people support the government. I also know that there are also many people who dislike the government like in any typical country, but I can’t honestly say that there are many people who support Juan Guaidó. He is not some democratic saint, or the leader of some popular movement that is being repressed; he is simply an opportunist who is seeking political power with the backing of the US.
Leopoldo Lopez
Leopoldo López is a much more influential figure in the opposition than Juan Guaidó; he is the leader of the party that Guaidó is in. Still, he is seen as “a divisive figure within the opposition” and “is often described as arrogant, vindictive, and power-hungry” by his own peers. He was jailed for his involvement in the violent riots in 2014 and has not been held accountable for decisions he made which resulted in deadly political clashes in 2002.
Some paint him as a popular figure of resistance to the government, but he is on the far-right fringes of the opposition, and there weren’t mass demonstrations in support of him when he was on trial. Actually, “the fact that he played some role in the contentious events of 2002 is widely known in his home country and has likely colored how many Venezuelans view his role” in the riots by the Guarimbas in 2014. The riots received wide media coverage, but the opinions of the many people who didn’t support them were ignored.
Direct Support from the US
At this point, it is not secret that the Venezuelan opposition has direct support from the US. They have sent over 90 million USD to the opposition this year, and they have openly endorsed some specific dangerous incidents like Juan Guaidó’s self-proclamation as president, the February 23 border incident, and the April 30 coup attempt. They have also been calling Venezuelan military officers to offer bribes and do other things to pressure them to turn against the government.
They were quick to vouch their support for Guaidó’s bid to oust Maduro. They also supported a coup attempt in 2002 and had allegedly met with the terrorists who attempted to assassinate the president in 2018.
The Promise of Life Support After Regime Change
Let me first establish that I don’t think regime change in Venezuela will be successful, and I am not speculating on the possibility of regime change and what may happen after. This section is strictly to speak of the opposition’s expectations, which exist whether we like them or not, and why they are dangerous and detached from reality.
The opposition is recklessly collaborating with the US on strategies that are aimed at wrecking the economy of Venezuela and making daily life miserable. This benefits them as they have fat pockets while the rest of the country is battling an economic crisis. There is a scarcity of US dollars caused by the sanctions which prevent Venezuela from exporting oil or interacting with much of the global financial system which is dominated by the US, so US dollars have become ridiculously expensive in Venezuela; the opposition having direct funds from the US government allows them to have power and influence that they would not have under normal circumstances.
The opposition expects that they can take power in Venezuela with the promise of rebuilding the country from the crisis, but the effects of the sanctions will be long-lasting, especially if Venezuela is reintegrated into the global economic system. They expect that they will take power and then they will get a lot of aid and favourable treatment from the US.
It is understandable that they expect aid and help from the US, but they are delusional if they think that it will solve the crises that Venezuela is facing. Help from the US is rarely humanitarian; they don’t care about funding social services that won’t make money. If anything, the US’ main interest would be getting returns on the investments that they have made, and they would count their regime change efforts as such. If they’re spending tens of millions of dollars to fund a change in government, they expect to be able to get something back.
Let us assume that the opposition knows that any investment the US makes in the future will be something that is economic, in terms of investing in developing or maintaining an industry; will even that be a reasonable expectation? Yes, it is reasonable that they will try but it’s not reasonable that it will work. This isn’t the first time that the US has been betting on or hoping for regime change in a country; they also salivated for Michael Manley to lose leadership of Jamaica to a politician who was US-friendly, Edward Seaga. The US went out of its way to help Seaga during his leadership in Jamaica, but that still failed and the economy was left in ruins.
The Unintended Effects of the Blockade
The Economic Effects of the Blockade
Both liberals and conservatives in the US support US imperialism, but they have different methods; the conservatives have more aggressive and overt approaches like we saw with the Bush administration in 2001-2009 and like we see now with the Trump administration, while the liberals who once supported these approaches are admitting that they don’t work to further the US’ agenda in these countries. While overt aggression is extremely damaging and does end up serving a part of the US’ agenda, they are somewhat correct in that overt aggression will not work to bring regime change in Cuba or Venezuela.
Listen carefully to the rhetoric of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and you’ll notice that they still vilify the Cuban government and speak about it condescendingly even when attempting to be peaceful. From an article in the Guardian in July 2015, it is evident that Clinton still wanted regime change in Cuba:
- She said that “no region in the world is better positioned to emerge as a new force for global peace and progress” and that “That progress had been promised to Cuba for 50 years.”
- She went on to complain that the aggressive strategy that has been used in the past have not been effective in accomplishing that; she says that it’s unwise to wait “for a failed policy to bear fruit.”
- Supporting the goals of the policy but not the approach, she recommends to “replace it with a smarter approach that empowers the Cuban private sector, Cuban civil society and the Cuban-American community to spur progress and keep pressure on the regime” to get “Cuba to reform its economy and political system more quickly.”
- The end goal is still regime change, but a softer method, because she still sees the Cuban government as adversaries and admits that the intention of a more friendly policy is still to be antagonistic to the Cuban government; “Engagement is not a gift to the Castros, it is a threat to the Castros. An American embassy in Havana isn’t a concession, it’s a beacon.”
Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State for 4 years in the earlier part of the Obama’s presidency. In the later years of his presidency, Obama had pursued very aggressive policies against Venezuela, despite attempting to soften up on Cuba. Donald Trump has reversed Obama’s policy of reproach towards Cuba, choosing to be aggressive instead, but he has continued Obama’s anti-Venezuela policies and has been brutal to both countries.
I’m not usually a fan of distinguishing between liberals and conservatives, because there is not much difference between them in juxtaposition to Socialists; Socialists and Communists are squarely on the Left, while liberals range from centrist to centre-right, and conservatives are simply right-wing. Their economic policies are pretty much the same; Obama is a neoliberal, much like the former president Ronald Reagan who we call a conservative. “Fiscal conservatism” is a big part of liberal economics; the terms have been muddled because both ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ mean many different things in different contexts and different areas of policy.
Where I draw distinctions in this section, I use the term liberal is to refer specifically to neoliberals, and I use the term conservative is to refer specifically to neoconservatives. Neoliberal ideology is mostly concerned with economics, and concepts like free trade, whereas neoconservatism on the other hand is mostly concerned with foreign policy and is associated with the US’ most aggressive warmongering policies; they are not mutually exclusive, but they have different areas of priority.
Their stances on Cuba are an example of 2 approaches to the same goal; liberals believe that trade relations will influence Cuban society to reshape itself in the US’ favour, while conservatives prefer an aggressive approach that attempts to bring the Cuban people to their knees.
The approach towards China is another example, where Obama was pushing the TPP as a way to cement the US’ foothold in the Pacific through a free trade agreement, but Trump and his much more Nationalistic tendencies oppose free trade, so they scrapped those plans. This has left much ground for China to push for an alternative trade agreement which increases its influence on some of the countries that would have joined the TTP with the US, and the Trump administration’s response to China’s growing influence includes a trade war and significantly increased military activity in the Pacific rather than promoting free trade and letting the economic dynamics play out in the US’ favour to increase its influence in these countries.
All of this is said to establish that Donald Trump’s policies depart from neoliberalism, and liberal economists like Jeffrey Sachs have condemned the blockade against Venezuela; other economists have criticised other policies like tariffs on foreign goods because they are not in line with free trade. The blockade is not in line with neoliberalism because neoliberalism is about free trade, the removal of all barriers from trade; the US has never practised this perfectly but there will still be things we can say are more/less neoliberal than others or not neoliberal at all. This is not to discount the destructive nature of either Donald Trump’s policies or neoliberal policies, as both are destructive, and the US uses its power to impose its own interests in any case.
We can look at what neoliberalism has done to Haiti if we want just one example of how it ruins economies while benefitting the US. The US imposed neoliberal policies on Haiti, forcing them to cut their tariffs on rice because it was a ‘barrier to trade’ according to neoliberal ideology.
Tariffs are taxes on imported foreign goods to protect local goods from competition. Haiti had tariffs on rice; imported rice was taxed so it would be more expensive than local rice, so it was more likely for average Haitians to buy Haitian rice than American rice. “A significant portion of the economic, social and political predicament in Haiti can be traced to the decline of its agriculture sector. Up to about 30 years ago, Haiti was self-sufficient in the production of rice” but things changed.
As the competition drove Haitian farmers out of business, Haiti now produces much less rice and depends heavily on imports. As of 2010, it was said that “Haiti depends on the outside world for nearly all of its sustenance” including “80 percent of all rice eaten.”
Of course, “for Haitians, near-total dependence on imported food has been a disaster” as it has “put the country at the mercy of international prices”.
Neoliberalism has eroded Haiti’s food security. “Haiti imported only 19 percent of its food and produced enough rice to export, thanks in part to protective tariffs” in the past, but now Haiti imports most of its food and was the US’ “third largest buyer of rice, importing almost 300,000 metric tons per year” 68 by 2010.
To neoliberal economists, however, “food security” should not be a real concern. For example, one can look at statements made by a popular economist in Jamaica named Damien King, who mocks the concept of food security. This is a conversation that took place on Twitter on the 8th of September 2018.
To neoliberal economists, however, “food security” should not be a real concern. For example, one can look at statements made by a popular economist in Jamaica named Damien King, who mocks the concept of food security. This is a conversation that took place on Twitter69 on the 8th of September 2018.
Neoliberal ideology envisions a world free of conflict, a world free of political economy where politics and power imbalances don’t coerce, and a world where disasters or things like war and sanctions won’t interrupt trade. If there is a problem, they blame it on a barrier to trade. In their theories, you’ll more quickly see arguments that barriers to trade lead to conflict and that removing barriers to trade prevents conflict than you’ll see them talking about how conflict can negatively affect countries that are dependent on trade.
Neoliberals actually seem to even promote dependence on trade, and not by accident; they believe that each country should specialise in what it is most efficient in producing, and trade to attain whatever else they want or need. This is a cute ideal, but it is unrealistic. One conclusion that they draw from this is that if Country A produces food less efficiently than Country B, it should import food from Country B instead of trying to produce its own since producing its own will be more expensive for the consumers than importing.
The problem with dependence on trade is already known all too well by people who live in countries in the Caribbean or other places that have small economies or that import a lot of their important goods like food.
The market value of something that we specialise in may be high at first but may plummet at some point for reasons beyond that country’s control, which would reduce its buying power. Jamaica invested heavily in bauxite production in the 1980s, and it hit us hard when bauxite prices declined; more recently, Venezuela’s economy started to face some difficulties when the price of oil dropped by about 50% in 2014.
A conflict or natural disaster far away from Jamaica can still affect global prices of fuel, food, and other commodities, leading to these things becoming more expensive to produce or transport from wherever they were being imported. The blockade imposed by the US against Venezuela has led to fuel shortages in Cuba, because the US is outright preventing ships from transporting oil from Venezuela to Cuba72. This is a barrier to trade in the most serious sense, so I am not accusing neoliberals of supporting the blockade; however, the point is that the barrier to trade is one that wasn’t imposed by Cuba or Venezuela, but Cuba is nevertheless affected by it.
Likewise, one retort that neoliberals would bring up if you try to discuss Haiti is that American rice is subsidised and that they don’t support subsidies. It is true; the US government subsidises its agriculture and that helps its agricultural exports to undercut the prices of agricultural goods in other countries like Haiti. It’s not only the abolition of tariffs by the Haitian government that accounts for the price difference between Haitian and American rice, but the farmers in the US outright receive money from the US government. We acknowledge this and we acknowledge that neoliberals criticise subsidies, considering that free trade agreements usually argue against both subsidies and tariffs. However, the Haitian government and people are not responsible for the US’ policy of subsidising American farmers, and the economists’ criticism of the US’ policies won’t protect Haiti’s economy from the US’ tariffs, magically spawn food on Haitians’ tables, or solve its economic problems. The reality of the world we live in is that countries, especially smaller and less powerful ones, are vulnerable to things beyond their control. Food security is a real concern for us, and no country knows it better than one that is under a full blockade from the US; this is where we get to discussing Venezuela.
Before the financial sanctions and the blockade, Venezuela was exporting a lot of oil to the US and other countries; this allowed them to earn large amounts of foreign currency so that they could afford to import food and commodities. It was easier to import food than to produce its own for the most part; as a result, the urban areas consumed a lot of imported food. This wasn’t really a problem because they could afford to keep doing it. With the blockade now imposed on Venezuela, things have changed significantly; the new scarcity of foreign currency combined with the longstanding demand for foreign products has led to serious hyperinflation beyond what can be blamed on the government’s monetary policies.
1 USD was as much as 3,300 Bs.S in February. and some economists blamed the existence of currency controls and preferential trading for the problems with Venezuela’s currency; retailers were given preference for the sale of foreign currency so there was scarcity and they could sell foreign currency on the black market for higher prices than the official rate. In line with neoliberal recommendations, the government actually lifted controls on its currency which led to hyperinflation at an unprecedented rate. 1 USD was around 10,000 Bs.S when I arrived in late July, and around 17,000 Bs.S by the time I left in late August. The decision to lift the currency controls has been very unpopular among the people. Again, the current crisis of hyperinflation is the result of demand for imports combined with a lack of foreign currency to be able to buy those imports; the sanctions and blockade have severely damaged Venezuela’s ability to export, and therefore its ability to earn foreign exchange.
In the minds of idealist economists, food security is not a real concern; in reality, it is a serious issue for Haitians, Venezuelans, and people in other Global South countries. Now, Venezuelans are trying to be self-reliant in food production because their reality requires them to.
The hyperinflation and the increasing difficulty of daily life in Venezuela are intended effects of the blockade, but Venezuela’s steps to becoming self-reliant are unintended effects. With the prices of goods soaring from lack of imports, there is an opportunity for Venezuelan nationals to produce to meet the gap in demand left by lack of imports.
The blockade insulates Venezuela’s economy from the global Capitalist economy, having the exact opposite effect that free trade had on Haiti. Compared to Cuba, Venezuela has much more land and resources, as well as its own fuel, so it is more able to have a robust self-reliant economy. The neoconservatives took a big gamble, as they tried to pressure Venezuela until it would crumble, but it has not crumbled; instead, the global Capitalists are killing Capitalism in Venezuela. Import substitution is accelerating, and more young people are joining communes; I met a Comrade who was from the capital, Caracas, but moved all the way to the rural parts of Lara to join a commune there. Communes are being built even in urban areas like Caracas and Petare, but they are not physically contiguous communes; people are still organising themselves into communal councils and other social structures to manage socio-economic matters.
With global capital destroying its own ability to influence Venezuela’s internal affairs and dynamics, the Bolivarian Revolution has a chance to accelerate itself to achieve Socialism. I discussed this with a Cuban Comrade, and we both believe that some of the things I saw would be what a Communist society looks like. When I was in the communes, I could almost forget entirely about the hyperinflation. These people are organising their economies in real material terms rather than maintaining the economics of speculation.
I would ask myself, and a very few Comrades would ask me, what Communism would look like; before my trip to Venezuela, I did not know. I always thought that my generation would try to build Socialism and that Communism would be for 2-3 generations later. After what I saw when I visited Venezuela, Communism feels less like a distant ideal. I still believe that Communism is something for 2-3 generations after mine even if mine or the one after it accomplish the construction of Socialism, and I don’t think that Venezuela will somehow achieve a stateless and classless society right now or soon, but it can accelerate on its path to Socialism, and it is a beacon of hope that resistance to Capitalism and imperialism are possible.
This is not to say that I am in favour of the blockade, or to downplay its brutal effects on the lives of the Venezuelan people. It is a crime against humanity, and it must be condemned. However, we have seen that we cannot control the actions of our enemies; we see that decades of the entire world condemning the US’ blockade on Cuba has not brought about an end of that blockade, but the Cuban people still resist it. Cuba and Venezuela do not need the USA; if they must learn to survive without the USA, they will. Of course, the US knows this, which is why they design their sanctions to also sabotage relations between their targets and other countries; they try to force other countries, including their own unwilling allies, to drop economic ties with countries they dislike, i.e. Cuba, Iran, the DPRK, and others.
The main problem with the sanctions is that the US also punishes third parties for trading with the countries that they place sanctions on, so they try to stop other countries from trading with them by weaponizing the power of their currency. As the US’ currency loses its role in world trade and as the US’ actions undermine their own credibility, more countries will start to trade in other currencies and there may even be calls for relocation of multilateral bodies like the UN. The US will strain itself until it has no muscles to flex.
Political Effects of the Blockade
Another unintended effect of the blockade is that more Venezuelans realise that US intervention doesn’t benefit them. Whereas the causes of Venezuela’s problems were more obscure to some persons before, most Venezuelans – including supporters of the opposition – can now directly link their daily suffering to the US sanctions that have been imposed on the country.
Even someone who hates Maduro and continues to vilify him had to admit that the regime change strategies being used by the US government and Venezuelan opposition are harming Venezuelans and destroying their lives. Here are excerpts from an article he wrote:
“Over the past two years, Washington has imposed increasingly punitive economic sanctions on Venezuela. These sanctions have restricted the government’s access to external financing, limited its ability to sell assets and, most recently, barred it from trading oil with the United States.”
“The sanctions were designed to choke off revenues to the regime of Nicolás Maduro. Its architects claimed they would not generate suffering for Venezuelans. The reasoning was that Mr. Maduro would quickly back down, or the military would force him out before the sanctions could begin to have an effect. That was wrong.”
“The risks of famine — and what needs to be done to stop it — are lost in the conversation among Washington policymakers and the Venezuelan opposition.”
“Tell the opposition’s intellectual elites that sanctions are exacerbating the country’s crisis and you are likely to be met with silence or be told that this is false, that the country’s economic crisis began long before.”
“There is a stark contrast between their claims and the views of regular Venezuelans. A recent survey by the local pollster Datincorp found that 68 percent of Venezuelans believe sanctions have negatively affected their quality of life.”
Note that the unintended effect here is that the people directly blame the sanctions for their suffering and that anti-American sentiment is more easily brewing in the country; the brutal effects of the sanctions, in terms of it creating food shortages and making life harder for Venezuelan people, is not an unintended effect. They have attempted to strangle Cuba in the same way.
In 1960, officials in the US State Department assessed the political situation in Cuba when Fidel Castro was at the head of the revolutionary government, and they had to admit that “The majority of Cubans support Castro”, and concluded that “The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship.”
They recommended a policy “that every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.”
They then identified that the main thing to use as an economic weapon against Cuba “would be flexible authority in the sugar legislation” because sugar was Cuba’s main export, just like US sanctions now target Venezuela’s main export, oil.
The US is essentially saying that the internal political situation of a country is not in their favour, so they are willing to create misery for people so that they will either blame their own government for misery or they’ll try to change their government just to please the US because they fear starvation.
The US is playing a sick game with itself, but no-one is winning. The West was misled to believe that Venezuela was a ticking time bomb that just needed a little more pressure; their expectation was that this pressure would lead to an explosion that would work in their favour, as their agenda is destabilisation and regime change. However, sometimes pressure turns graphite into diamond, as we have already seen in Cuba; the Bolivarian Revolution is simply becoming more hardened.
The Venezuelan Left now has an opportunity to rediscover itself under new conditions, and to reach out to those who are becoming increasingly aware of the sadistic nature of US foreign policy. Hopefully power can be consolidated in a similar enough fashion to what we see in Cuba, but with Venezuela’s own national characteristics. Life in Venezuela is not easy; it is neither a communal paradise nor a grey dystopia, but the people are getting by. I am confident in the people’s ability – through their parties, unions, collectives, communes, and movements – to resist the heavy hand of US imperialism.
US State Department officials even warned against militant opposition towards Cuba from the outside, knowing it would not work, saying that it would only strengthen the Left in Cuba82. It has been difficult to penetrate Cuban society and to create internal opposition in Cuba, which is why they resorted to economic warfare.
Venezuela is a much larger country with much more people, land borders with other large countries including US allies, and an organised domestic political opposition that existed before and still exists during the revolutionary process in Venezuela. This is why the US has openly sponsored political violence in Venezuela83, and has sent over 90 million USD84 to Juan Guaid, the opposition’s self-proclaimed president.
Many people don’t want violence85, and the opposition’s violent tactics are turning people off, even those who are critical of the government; nevertheless, violence is the only way that the adventurists in the opposition have managed to seek the attention that they desperately crave. If they can’t win by creating a popular alternative to the government, they’ll just create chaos while the US wages economic warfare to make the lives of the people miserable. Left alone without US influence, the government won’t collapse.
