Skip to content

Chavistas march against imperialism what is the next step in Trumps coup

Marxist Theory · 2019-02-02

Core Argument

The article argues that the US-led coup against the Maduro government in Venezuela is not a spontaneous popular uprising but a carefully orchestrated imperialist operation, planned under the Obama administration and accelerated under Trump once hawkish figures replaced moderates in the national security apparatus. The central claim is that the coup's next phase—the use of "humanitarian aid" as a provocation at the Colombian border—is designed to manufacture a military confrontation that can justify direct intervention. The author insists that the balance of forces within Venezuela, as demonstrated by the competing marches of 2 February 2019, shows the chavista base remains larger and more committed, meaning the coup's momentum comes from external pressure—sanctions, diplomatic recognition, and paramilitary provocation—not from internal collapse.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis is grounded in the Leninist theory of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, treating the Venezuelan crisis not as a discrete national event but as a flashpoint in the US drive to reassert hemispheric dominance over the "triad of tyranny" (Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua). The article draws on the Marxist understanding of the state as an instrument of class rule, showing how the Venezuelan military's loyalty is tied to its control of state-owned enterprises—a materialist explanation for why amnesty offers from the opposition have limited traction. The piece also deploys the concept of bonapartism implicitly: Maduro's government is presented as caught between the imperialist offensive and its own popular base, unable to mount a revolutionary strategy and instead resorting to appeals for negotiations and symbolic campaigns ("open letters to Trump") that are "hopelessly weak as a strategy." This situates the analysis within the Trotskyist tradition's critique of centrist and reformist leaderships that fail to break with the logic of capital when faced with imperialist aggression.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article is written at a specific inflection point: February 2019, just days after Juan Guaidó's self-proclamation as interim president on 23 January, and immediately following the 2 February marches. The conjuncture is defined by several concrete factors:

  • Sanctions escalation: Trump had already tightened sanctions on PDVSA, targeting Venezuela's oil revenues—the country's "chief and virtually only export"—to strangle the economy and force a political crisis.
  • Regional realignment: The election of right-wing governments in Argentina (Macri), Colombia (Duque), and Brazil (Bolsonaro) provided a regional cover for US intervention, allowing Washington to present the coup as a multilateral effort.
  • European complicity: The article highlights the role of social-democratic leaders like Spain's Pedro Sánchez and Canada's Justin Trudeau in providing "liberal" cover for nakedly imperialist aims, a point the Financial Times made explicitly in an editorial the author quotes.
  • Paramilitary infrastructure: The border town of Cucuta, Colombia, is identified as the "capital city of paramilitarism," with deep links to the Colombian state, landowners, and smuggling networks—making it the ideal staging ground for a "humanitarian aid" provocation designed to trigger an armed clash.

The article's warning proved prescient: the "humanitarian aid" standoff at the border did indeed escalate in the following weeks, with clashes on 23 February 2019 that left several dead and provided the pretext for further US sanctions and diplomatic pressure.

Where the Argument Continues

The article leaves several threads open that are developed elsewhere in the IDOM corpus:

  • The role of the Venezuelan military: The author notes that high-ranking defections have been isolated and that the officer corps' loyalty is tied to its control of state companies, but does not fully explore the internal contradictions within the armed forces. This is taken up in later IDOM articles analysing the military's shifting position as sanctions bite.
  • The strategy of the chavista base: The article notes the militias and community councils as the "hardcore of support" but does not elaborate on what a revolutionary strategy for the Venezuelan working class would look like in this conjuncture. This is addressed in other IDOM pieces arguing for workers' self-defence committees and a break from the bureaucratic Bonapartist state.
  • The European dimension: The split within the EU—with Greece and Italy refusing to sign the joint statement—is noted but not explored. Later articles and Against the Current episodes examine the internal contradictions within European imperialism and the role of the Greek and Italian left in opposing the coup.
  • The "humanitarian aid" provocation: The article predicts the border confrontation but was written before it occurred. Subsequent IDOM coverage analyses the 23 February events and their aftermath.

Connections

This article should be read alongside:

  • IDOM's earlier coverage of the 2017 Venezuelan crisis, which analyses the opposition's insurrectionary attempts and the role of the guarimbas (barricade protests).
  • The Hands Off Venezuela campaign materials, which provide ongoing reporting on the solidarity movement and the situation on the ground.
  • Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed, for the theoretical framework on Bonapartist regimes that arise from deferred or betrayed revolutions—a category the Venezuelan process increasingly fits.
  • Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, for the structural analysis of why US capital cannot tolerate an independent Venezuela.
  • The Against the Current episode on the 2019 Venezuelan coup attempt, which develops the argument about the military's material interests and the limits of Maduro's strategy.

Key Quotes

  1. "Even though the ongoing imperialist coup in Venezuela has not yet succeeded, the impression one gets is that there is an inexorable march forward in its implementation, which is pushed mainly from forces abroad rather than from within Venezuela itself."

  2. "For this gang of wolves, the issue is not even about Venezuela itself but about what Bolton described as the 'triad of tyranny': Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua."

  3. "The Trump regime has a plan: 'regime change' in Venezuela, and is slowly but surely implementing it. That's all that matters to them. Popular support or lack thereof in Venezuela does not really determine their course of action, though it might alter small details of the plan."

  4. "Those at the opposition demos are mainly people from the middle-class and upper-class areas in the big cities. Their whole approach to political struggle now is to rely on foreign intervention to tip the balance of power their way, having been repeatedly defeated in insurrectionary attempts over the last five years."

  5. "The issue of 'humanitarian aid' is being used as a convenient excuse for intervention: the real situation exaggerated and lies are being told deliberately, in the same way we were told about 'weapons of mass destruction' in relation to Iraq, and about 'imminent genocide in Tripoli' ahead of the bombing of Libya."

  6. "While a campaign like this can be a useful tool to mobilise people, it is hopelessly weak as a strategy to stop the ongoing coup."