Venezuela 23 February the day they did not pass

Marxist Theory · 2019-02-23

Core Argument

The central thesis is that 23 February 2019 — the day designated by US imperialism and its Venezuelan proxies for a forced "humanitarian aid" incursion — was a strategic defeat for the coup attempt against the Maduro government. The article argues that the operation was never about genuine humanitarian concern but was a carefully staged political and military provocation designed to fracture the Venezuelan armed forces, delegitimise the elected government, and provide a pretext for direct US intervention. The failure of the aid convoy to breach the border, the absence of a significant military defection, and the modest turnout for the opposition's events all demonstrated that the imperialist plan had miscalculated the balance of forces. The key claim is that the day represented a victory for the anti-imperialist camp, not because the Venezuelan state is socialist, but because it demonstrated the resilience of the Bolivarian process in the face of a coordinated assault.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis is rooted in the classical Marxist understanding of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism — not merely as a foreign policy preference but as a structural necessity for capital accumulation. The article draws on Lenin's theory of imperialism, particularly the notion that the export of capital and the struggle for spheres of influence drive great-power rivalry and intervention in the Global South. It also deploys Trotsky's theory of combined and uneven development implicitly, by situating Venezuela as a peripheral state whose internal class contradictions are overdetermined by its subordination to US imperialism.

The article's treatment of the "humanitarian aid" operation as a pretext for regime change echoes the Marxist critique of "humanitarian intervention" developed by thinkers like Noam Chomsky and, more systematically, by the tradition of anti-imperialist Marxism represented by the Fourth International. The piece also reflects the Leninist position on the state and revolution: it treats the Venezuelan armed forces not as a neutral institution but as a contested terrain where class loyalties and nationalist sentiment can, under certain conditions, outweigh imperialist pressure.

Crucially, the article does not idealise the Maduro government. It acknowledges disillusionment among Chavista base supporters while arguing that the immediate task is to resist imperialist aggression — a position consistent with the united front tactic and the rejection of "critical support" that slides into abstentionism.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article captures a specific moment in the post-2014 conjuncture of US-Latin American relations. By February 2019, the Trump administration had escalated its campaign against Venezuela through a combination of economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and support for the self-proclaimed "interim president" Juan Guaidó. The 23 February operation was the most dramatic attempt to force a regime change since the 2002 coup against Hugo Chávez.

The article provides granular detail about the forces assembled: the presence of Chilean President Sebastián Piñera (a Pinochet admirer), OAS Secretary-General Luis Almagro, convicted Iran-Contra figure Elliott Abrams, and Cuban-American hardliner Marco Rubio. This coalition represented not just US imperialism but the broader right-wing turn in Latin America — the so-called "Lima Group" — which had already seen coups or rightward shifts in Brazil, Argentina, and Bolivia.

Economically, the conjuncture was defined by the collapse of oil prices after 2014, which had devastated Venezuela's rentier economy and created the conditions for hyperinflation and social crisis that the opposition sought to exploit. The article implicitly recognises that this economic crisis was not a natural disaster but the product of Venezuela's structural dependence on oil exports — a classic case of the resource curse within the world system.

Geopolitically, the article situates the Venezuela crisis within the broader confrontation between US imperialism and the emerging multipolar order, with Russia and China providing diplomatic and economic backing to Caracas. The failure of 23 February was therefore not just a tactical setback for Washington but a signal that the post-Cold War unipolar moment was fraying.

Where the Argument Continues

The article leaves several threads open. First, it does not develop a systematic analysis of the internal class dynamics of the Venezuelan state — the relationship between the Maduro government, the state bourgeoisie, the military, and the organised working class. This is taken up in other In Defence of Marxism articles, particularly those analysing the "bureaucratic degeneration" of the Bolivarian process and the need for workers' democracy.

Second, the article does not address the longer-term strategic question: what should revolutionaries do when the choice is between a flawed, reformist government and an openly imperialist-backed opposition? This debate is continued in the broader Marxist tradition, particularly in Trotsky's writings on the "united front" and the "lesser evil" tactic, and in the Fourth International's analysis of "Bonapartist" regimes in the semi-colonial world.

Third, the article does not explore the economic dimensions of the crisis — the role of sanctions, the collapse of production, and the question of whether the Venezuelan economy can be restructured away from oil dependence. These themes are developed in subsequent IDOM articles on the "economic war" and the need for a planned economy.

The argument also continues in the Hands Off Venezuela campaign, which the article references, and in the broader work of the Revolutionary Communist International on Latin America, including analysis of the 2019 Bolivian coup and the 2022 election of Gustavo Petro in Colombia.

Connections

The article should be read alongside:

• Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism — for the theoretical framework on the export of capital and the struggle for spheres of influence.
• Trotsky, The Permanent Revolution — for the analysis of how bourgeois-democratic tasks in the periphery are bound up with socialist revolution and anti-imperialist struggle.
• Vijay Prashad, The Poorer Nations — for the contemporary context of US intervention in Latin America and the role of the "Lima Group".
• In Defence of Marxism articles on Venezuela (2017-2020) — particularly those analysing the 2017 Constituent Assembly, the 2018 presidential election, and the 2020 parliamentary elections.
• Against the Stream episodes on Latin America — for the ongoing discussion of the Venezuelan situation and the broader regional conjuncture.

The article also connects to the Marxist literature on "humanitarian intervention", including the work of Noam Chomsky and the late Ellen Meiksins Wood, who argued that such interventions are a form of "empire of capital" that uses moral rhetoric to mask imperialist aims.

Key Quotes

1. "This was the day that had been billed by the US and its local puppets as D-Day, when 'humanitarian aid' was supposed to enter the country against the will of the evil Maduro, something which, as even the BBC correspondent admitted, had little to do with aid and everything to do with defying the authority of President Maduro."

2. "The truth is that the key element in this coup attempt, a fracture in the Armed Forces, has not materialised, and Guaidó (despite his delusions of grandeur), is not a president, but rather an opposition deputy (as even CNN and the BBC call him these days)."

3. "In the end, the three national guards happened to consist of one who worked in the kitchen and two others with admin positions. Hardly a full-blown military coup, then."

4. "Frustrated at their lack of progress and inability to break through police lines, opposition supporters set fire to one of the aid lorries. It seems aid was not so precious after all!"

5. "This was a sizeable demonstration, proving how the threat of imperialism is provoking a counter-reaction in which, even many who are disillusioned with or critical of Maduro, are closing ranks against US aggression."

6. "Today imperialism did not achieve its aims, and that's a victory for our side."