Venezuelan presidential elections between imperialist aggression and economic cr

Marxist Theory · 2026-05-13

Core Argument¶

The article argues that the 2018 Venezuelan presidential election presents a false choice between two equally bankrupt alternatives: a counterrevolutionary opposition backed by US imperialism, and a Maduro government whose reformist, capitalist-management policies have driven the country into hyperinflation, scarcity, and economic collapse. The central thesis is that neither outcome can serve the interests of the working class. The only way forward is a revolutionary socialist programme based on the expropriation of the oligarchy, democratic workers' control of the economy, and the building of a new revolutionary leadership from within the ranks of the chavista left. The article insists that Marxists must fight the counterrevolutionary opposition without offering any political confidence to the Maduro government, which is itself preparing the ground for a brutal adjustment that will destroy the remaining gains of the Bolivarian Revolution.

Theoretical Grounding¶

The analysis draws on classical Marxist concepts of the state, class struggle, and the limits of reformism under capitalism. The theoretical framework is rooted in the Marxist critique of "state capitalism" or "regulated capitalism" — the impossibility of combining nationalisation and state planning with a market economy. The article explicitly rejects the notion that what has failed in Venezuela is socialism; rather, it is the attempt to "smooth the rougher edges" of capitalism through price controls, foreign exchange restrictions, and social spending financed by oil revenue. This situates the analysis within the tradition of Trotsky's critique of Stalinism and the theory of the degenerated workers' state, though the article does not use that precise terminology. The concept of a counterrevolutionary bureaucracy — drawn from Trotsky's analysis of the Soviet Union — is deployed to explain how the Bolivarian movement has been hollowed out from within, with state subsidies transformed into instruments of political patronage and corruption rather than working-class self-organisation. The article also draws on Lenin's distinction between revolutionary and reformist tactics, particularly in its treatment of electoral participation: voting for Maduro is understood as a defensive act to block the right wing, but one that must be accompanied by independent revolutionary organisation and propaganda.

Conjunctural Relevance¶

The article was published in May 2018, at a moment of acute crisis. The price of oil had collapsed from $100 a barrel in 2013 to $35 in 2016, while Venezuelan production had fallen from 2.8 million barrels per day in 2014 to below 1.5 million by early 2018 — a collapse driven by lack of investment, corruption, and mismanagement. Imports had fallen from $32.5 billion in 2014 to $9.3 billion in 2017, creating severe shortages of food and medicine. Hyperinflation had reached extraordinary levels: a kilo of chicken that cost 4,500 bolivars in 2017 now cost over a million, while the minimum wage had increased only 1,620 percent — meaning purchasing power had collapsed by 90 percent in a single year. The article situates this economic catastrophe within the broader geopolitical context of US imperialist aggression: the Trump administration, working through the Lima Group of right-wing Latin American governments and the Organisation of American States, was tightening sanctions and openly calling for regime change. The US and EU had declared they would not recognise the election results regardless of the process. The opposition was divided between Henry Falcón, running on a platform of dollarisation and austerity, and the bulk of the old MUD coalition calling for a boycott. The article identifies the peasant movement — particularly the El Maizal Commune and the Fabricio Ojeda Commune — as the most advanced challenge to the bureaucracy, with land occupations and food production offering a practical alternative to the crisis.

Where the Argument Continues¶

The article leaves several questions open that are developed elsewhere in the IDOM corpus. The analysis of the "counterrevolutionary bureaucracy" and the degeneration of the Bolivarian Revolution is explored in greater depth in Jorge Martin's earlier and later writings on Venezuela, particularly in articles examining the role of the PSUV, the Constituent Assembly, and the internal factional struggles between Maduro and Cabello. The question of what a revolutionary programme for Venezuela would look like in practice — the expropriation of the bankers, the democratic planning of the economy, the role of the communes — is developed in IDOM articles on the El Maizal Commune and on the broader lessons of the Venezuelan experience for the international Marxist movement. The article's treatment of the ultra-left position — that Maduro and the opposition are the same — is a recurring polemical thread in IDOM, with responses to sectarian currents in the Latin American left appearing in multiple articles and Against the Stream episodes. The broader theoretical question of "oil socialism" and the limits of resource-based reformism in the Global South is taken up in IDOM's analyses of Bolivia, Ecuador, and other petro-states.

Connections¶

The article should be read alongside Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed for the theoretical framework on bureaucratic degeneration, and alongside Lenin's Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder for the treatment of electoral tactics and the fight against sectarianism. Within the IDOM corpus, it connects to Jorge Martin's other writings on Venezuela collected in Venezuela: The Revolution Unfinished and to the ongoing coverage of the Venezuelan crisis in In Defence of Marxism. The analysis of the peasant movement and the communes connects to IDOM's reporting on the El Maizal Commune and to broader Marxist debates on agrarian reform and the role of the peasantry in revolutionary strategy. The article's critique of dollarisation as a solution to the crisis connects to IDOM's analyses of Ecuador under Correa and Argentina under Macri, where similar debates played out.

Key Quotes¶

"What has failed in Venezuela is not socialism, but rather the attempt to regulate capitalism (through price and foreign exchange controls), to smooth its rougher edges and somehow make it work in the interests of the majority."
"The fall in oil prices in turn revealed the limitations of so-called 'oil socialism': the idea that one can use the oil revenue to implement massive social programs, without dealing with the question of the ownership of the means of production (which have remained largely in private hands)."
"By degrees, the Bolivarian Revolution is being hollowed out from the inside. It is being emptied of all its revolutionary content and reduced to an empty shell, a dry husk that can be blown away by a strong gust of wind."
"The first duty of the Venezuelan Marxists is to fight their main enemies: the counterrevolutionary opposition, the landlords, bankers and capitalists and their imperialist backers. We will warn of the danger that a victory of the opposition... would signify for the working class. But to fight against the opposition does not at all mean that we are under any obligation to support the Maduro government."
"To solve the crisis to the benefit of working people, a bold, revolutionary program is required: the expropriation of bankers, capitalists and land-owners so that the country's economy can be planned under democratic workers' control to satisfy the needs of the majority."
"We must point out that imperialism and the right wing can only be defeated by using revolutionary means and above all by expropriating the oligarchy, which uses its economic power to wage an open war against the democratically elected government. Instead, Maduro has promised a new round of negotiations with the opposition after the election."